Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT SHEMINI

By Rav David Silverberg

            We read in Parashat Shemini of Moshe's criticism of Aharon and his sons, the newly-consecrated kohanim, for failing to partake of the meat from the sacrifices that had been offered on the first day following the seven-day miluim (consecration) ceremony.  Aharon replies, "See, this day they brought their sin-offering and burnt-offering before the Lord, and these things happened to me; had I partaken of the sin-offering today, would it have been pleasing in the eyes of the Lord?" (10:19).  Meaning, the tragic events of that day, where Aharon's two older sons, Nadav and Avihu, died (see 10:2), conferred upon Aharon and his two remaining sons the status of an onen, a person on the day of a relative's death and burial, who is forbidden to partake of sacrificial meat.

            The manner in which Aharon formulated his response is noteworthy.  Rather that explaining to Moshe that Halakha forbids his consumption of sacrificial meat that day, he says, "Had I partaken of the sin-offering today, would it have been pleasing in the eyes of the Lord?"  He appears to emphasize not the relevant prohibition itself, but rather the fact that such an act would not have been "pleasing in the eyes of the Lord."  This formulation perhaps serves to stress the point that an otherwise sacred act, of eating sacrifices, in this particular instance would not be "pleasing," would constitute a religious offense, rather than a meaningful religious service.  In Halakha the status and significance of a given action hinges to a large extent on context.  An act performed by one person under certain circumstances may be deemed a meaningful mitzva act, whereas that same action performed by somebody else or under different circumstances would be considered religiously meaningless or even sacrilege.  Possibly, this is Aharon's intent when he exclaims, "…would it have been pleasing in the eyes of the Lord?"  The consumption of sacrifices generally constitutes an obligation and fulfills an important mitzva; in this context, however, God would frown upon this action that under normal circumstances would be deemed a sacred act.

            This message can easily be applied to the death of Nadav and Avihu itself.  The Torah describes their sin as offering a "strange fire that He had not commanded" (10:1).  Under certain circumstances, bringing incense in the Temple is a sacred avoda (ritual service); in fact, on Yom Kippur, this rite comprises a central part of the atonement service.  But in other contexts, it is looked upon as a grave transgression.

            Interestingly, the Rambam (beginning of Hilkhot Avel) cites this verse – "had I partaken of the sin-offering today, would it have been pleasing in the eyes of the Lord?" – as the Biblical origin of the mitzva of aveilut (mourning).  That a kohen must refrain from sacrificial meat on the day of a relative's death establishes a general precedent requiring one to observe a period of mourning upon the loss of a family member.  (According to the Rambam, only the first day of mourning constitutes a Torah obligation, whereas the duration of aveilut was ordained by the Rabbis.)  It would appear that aveilut, too, presents us with a dramatic example of this message – the importance of context in determining the halakhic value and status of a given act.  The laws of aveilut demand a mode of conduct that Judaism normally strongly discourages, namely, that he remain at home and refrain from all work and even from Torah study.  Under normal circumstances, the Torah demands that a person exert himself in developing the world – through productive work – and in developing his connection to God – through the study of Torah.  And yet, on the day of mourning, Halakha says about these two activities, the most basic of a Jew's responsibilities, "Would it be pleasing in the eyes of the Lord?"  In this context, cultivating the earth and engaging in Torah study would be sinful, rather than "pleasing in the eyes of the Lord."

            Not every "religious act" is necessarily "religious."  What determines its value is not only its intrinsic nature, but also the nature of the given individual and the circumstances in which it is performed.

******

            Yesterday, we discussed the brief exchange between Moshe and Aharon recorded in Parashat Shemini (10:16-20) concerning the meat of a sin-offering that Aharon and his sons were to have eaten as part of the day's sacrificial rituals.  Moshe angrily chides his brother and nephews for neglecting to eat the meat, the consumption of which constituted an integral part of the atonement which the sacrifice was intended to achieve.  But Aharon explains that the tragic death of his two older sons earlier that day rendered him and the surviving brothers onenim, relatives of a deceased person on the day of death, who are forbidden from partaking of sacrifices.  Moshe accepts Aharon's response and appears to retract his criticism.

            Avot Da-Rabbi Natan (nuscha 1, chapter 37) points to Aharon's conduct during this exchange as an example of the laudable attribute known as eino nikhnas le-tokh divrei chaveiro – "he does not disrupt his fellow's words."  Aharon patiently waited for Moshe to finish speaking before explaining to his brother why he and his sons chose not to partake of the sacrificial meat.  Surely, he had the answer from the beginning and could have interjected as soon as Moshe began criticizing.  Yet, Aharon remained silent and allowed Moshe to complete what he had to say before offering a response.  Avot De-Rabbi Natan and Masekhet Avot (5:7) list this quality as one of the seven attributes that are characteristic of a chakham, intelligent person, and that are lacking in a golem (unrefined individual).

            Avot De-Rabbi Natan cites another instance of this quality, as well, namely, God's patience as Avraham pleaded on behalf of the city of Sedom, as recorded in Sefer Bereishit (chapter 18).  Avraham begged the Almighty to spare the city should He find there a number of worthy residents; Avraham initially secured God's promise to spare the city in the merit of fifty deserving men, and gradually lowered this number down to just ten.  Avot De-Rabbi Natan comments that God of course knew from the outset that Sedom did not have enough pious residents to spare the city.  Nevertheless, He indulgently allowed Avraham to complete his plea on the city's behalf, rather than interrupt him.

            The Sifrei in Sefer Bamidbar derives this quality from a different source – God's remarks to Aharon and Miriam after they spoke disparagingly of Moshe.  God introduces his criticism by declaring, "Shim'u na devarai" – "Please hear My words."  The Sifrei explains that Aharon and Miriam sought to defend their disparaging comments about Moshe, and God therefore bid them to remain silent until He finished what He had to say.  From here the Sifrei derives the principle that one should ensure not to interrupt his fellow as he is speaking.

            It is noteworthy that all these examples of eino nikhnas le-tokh divrei chaveiro involve situations of criticism.  In all these cases, the patient listener not only respectfully and patiently waits for his turn to speak, but also hears what people generally do not wish to hear – criticism of their behavior or decisions.  This is particularly evident in the first and third instances, where Moshe berates Aharon and his sons for neglecting to eat the sacrificial meat, and where God chastises Aharon and Miriam for their disrespectful attitude towards Moshe.  But even in the second case, of Avraham's plea on behalf of Sedom, the verses in Bereishit clearly indicate that Avraham here offers not merely a prayer on behalf of the iniquitous city, but also a challenge against God's justice, as it were.  Upon hearing criticism, a person's instinctive reaction is to interrupt the speaker before he proceeds any further, and defend himself.  This is particularly true in situations such as in Parashat Shemini, where Aharon and his sons were indeed justified in abstaining from the sacrificial meat, and Moshe's criticism turned out to be entirely out of place.  Even under such circumstances, Chazal instruct that a wise man should humbly, patiently and respectfully listen to the criticism, and only then respond.