And he shall put lots on the two goats,

one for the Lord

and one for azazel

(Vayikra 16:8)

And Aharon

put lots on the two goats – one goat he

placed on his right hand, the other on his left. He then put both hands in the

urn, took one lot in each hand and placed it upon the corresponding goat. One

of the lots was inscribed " for the Lord"

and other " for Azazal"

. Azazel – (Yoma

67, Torat Cohanim) is

a strong and mighty mountain; a precipitious cliff,

as is written "wilderness" . Jagged.

(Rashi, ibid., Soncino

translation)

…Simply

understood, the word "Azazel"

is a composite of "Az

El" ["Az"

means " strength" ; "azal"

means (in Aramaic) "gone away"]; he who is of

mighty spirit – who went away, without a future; he thought he was powerful –

and thereby he had to leave and pass away. The reference is to sensuality,

which had been elevated to level of principle; but God denied him all future in

the destiny of Man and humanity. A barayta in

Tractate Yoma (67b) relates

the word to "Azaz El"

or "Azael"

[The Lord is Mighty], and this interpretation leads us to

the same concept. He is the mighty, a suitable term for the nature of the gods

and their mission. For the gods are the forces of nature external to man. The

Creator gave them a single direction- "They did not turn when they

moved" (Ezekiel 1:17)- they must not deviate from this

direction – therefore they cannot deviate from it. They perform the will of

their creator – by the very fact of their compliance with their nature; for

their nature is the only direction they have been granted. This is the portion

and the mission of the world of the freedom-less elements and of the organic

world. The destiny of Man, however, is sharper and nobler; only if he fulfills

this noble mission is he deserving of the name Man.

For the Jewish God, free and omnipotent, is supreme above any law of the gods.

He created them and imposed his laws upon them, and they are subject to these

laws. Their power lies in their not changing their assignment of fulfilling the

desire of their Creator.

(Rabbi

Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, 17:10)

Coming close to god

Leah Kalibnoff

In memory of my beloved father,Mosheh ben

Avraham and Pessia Leah,

Five years after his passing

Two

sets of verses, one in Vayikra and the second in Bemidbar, relate two stories that seem to be contradictory.

One is about remoteness, the other about closeness.

The

first set:

And

the sons of Aharon, Nadav

and Avihu, took each of them his fire-pan and put

fire in it and placed incense upon it and brought forward alien fire before the

Lord, which He had not charged them (Vayikra 10:1).

And Nadav and Avihu died before the

Lord when they brought forward unfit fire before the Lord in the Wilderness of

Sinai… (Bemidbar

3:4).

 And also:

And Nadav and Avihu died when they

brought forward unfit fire before the Lord (ibid., 26:61).

The

opening passage of our parasha, Vayikra, Chapter 16, Verse 1, however, reads:

And

the Lord spoke to Moshe after the death of Aharon's

two sons when they came came near before the Lord and

died.

The

verses in Vayikra 10 and in Bemidbar

tell of death following 'bringing close, but the object brought forward is

alien fire; the opening passage of our parasha,

Parashat Acharei Mot, tells

of death striking as Aharon's sons came near the

Lord. It would seem that the two stories could not be further from each other;

the bringing of "alien fire" before

the Lord is a story of the greatest possible distance from the Lord. We know,

however, that both stories are one and the same. Yet more, further on in

Chapter 10 of Vayikra itself, Moshe says to Aharon: "Through those close to Me shall I be hallowed" . The Holy One himself says

that Nadav and Avihu, the

sons of Aharon who were devoured by the fire of the

Lord, were those close to Him. Alien fire resulting from

closeness. Remoteness and closeness.

What is

closeness to God? What truth does it embody? And what is alien fire – might it

be the lie accompanying the coming close to God?

It is

doubtful whether one can think of questions greater, more profound, more threatening than these. It is also doubtful whether it

is at all possible to give these questions a clear-cut, definite answer; truth

be said, even a partial answer is no simple matter. And it is important to

remember that by the very asking of the question we begin to tread on dangerous

territory, because the question itself is part of the search process. It may

even be that asking the question 'what is closeness to God' is in itself the

closest Man can approach God in this world.

We

have before us the parasha and the story of

the sons of Aharon, told in two versions, poles

apart. But perhaps the difference between the two sources is Scripture's way of

telling us that the quest for proximity to God, the search for the path to it

is to be found in an area beyond the concrete world in which there are answers

of 'yes' and 'no', of good and bad, a world in which there is not always one

clear and sharp answer, a world which is, in essence, incomplete and blurry,

fragmentary, in which Man may think that he is coming closer to God – and

perhaps, in certain respects, actually does come close – but at the same time

he blends into his service alien fire…

The NeTZiV deals with this in his commentary on these verses in

his "Haamek Davar":

"They entered because of the fire of the fervor of love of God, but the

Torah said that even though love of God is dear in the eyes of God, this is not

the way which He commanded." In

other words, they entered because of love of God, really sought to come close

out of love, but despite this their act did not conform to His will, and

therefore the fire which was offered was alien fire. The two can coexist.

The MaLBiM interprets the alien fire as an expression of the

position in which Nadav and Avihu

served: " Because of love of honor, seeing that

they followed Moshe and Aharon."

Nadav

and Avihu wanted to be first. We cannot, however, as

we read the words of the MaLBiM, ignore the Biblical

text that tells us that Nadav and Avihu

were close to God, and that they died as they came close to Him.

Searching the point of contact between the text and the MaLBiM's

interpretation, we can observe and conclude that the quest for honor was not a

desire for primacy in material wealth, for example, but it was a desire for the

honor of spiritual leadership that flowed from closeness to the word of the

Lord. Yet this offering constituted alien fire.

The

commentary of Rabbi Shimson Raphael Hirsch seems to

synthesize the two above commentaries: He writes that the sons of Aharon acted haughtily, but adds that the intention was

desirable, for they are later – even after their sin – called " those who are close to Me" . Hirsch explains

that their sin was in 'adding love to love" .

They acted out of love for God, but did not totally humble themselves; when all

of Israel

were privileged to witness revelation of God's

closeness, they felt a need for a special offering of their own.

It is

easy to go astray in the search for the true fire. It is easy to err and act

when hidden in the yearning for closeness to God, lies personal desire, that

place where Man sees only himself and does not really meet the word of God. But

is there a way for a human being not to mix in some of his personal desire in

his quest for the proximity of God? If Nadav and Avihu, living in an era of overt prophecy, could so

stumble, how much easier is it to falter in times when there are no prophets

and the search for proximity to God falls upon each and every one of us … to

walk the long road, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing.

But from the incident in the parasha, we learn

that searching for the love of God necessitates meeting with the word of

God, that great risk awaits one whose actions are motivated by a burning drive

for holiness, one who does not wait for clarification of what is really God's

command.

Nadav

and Avihu lit fire that God did not command. They

brought in their own rather than wait for God's fire to descend. And perhaps it

will not descend? Instead of allowing for the possibility of a meeting with

God's presence, running the risk that perhaps this meeting will not materialize

they did not wait and, in the enthusiasm of desire, they brought in their own

fire. Alien fire.

But

the principle element of love lies in listening, in clearing space which

will facilitate a meeting. But they brought of their own, something they were

not asked to do, impatiently, without listening. The desire to glorify, to act

stringently, sometimes to forcefully imbue prayer with enthusiasm, to continue

and demand revelation of God's word even as it hesitates to arrive, to act with

force. In his passion for encounter, Man sees himself instead of meeting God,

and when he injects himself – as explained by MaLBiM

and Hirsch – a desire to be the first, the unique, to establish contact with

the Almighty, may develop.

Perhaps

we can find here a line, howbeit primary and hesitant, which can sketch a

signpost for us distinguishing between true closeness to God, and

over-involvement of self, even though one's heart pulsates with a real spirit

of love for God, even if one be truly close. Ego is ego, it always demands

"first place" or

perhaps even "the one and only". And when one strives to be "the

first" or "the only" it

may be in place to examine whether he has not injected himself

disproportionately, whether he has not forcefully added of himself to become

"the one and only" – whether he has included alien fire.

 But where there is waiting and patience for a

true meeting with God's word, there is no importance whatever to such

"exclusivity", to the question of who's

first and who's second, and it is possible to admit that the Creator speaks to

others just as He speaks to him (18). And who is like unto Moshe our teacher,

to whom God spoke face to face, who said: "Would that all

the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would place His spirit

upon them". (Bemidbar 11:29).

"Gifts to the Poor" – Human Reformation and Social

Justice

For the Lord, may He be blessed,

wanted His chosen people to be adorned with every good and precious moral

virtue, and that they be endowed with blessed souls and magnanimous spirits. I

have already written that the soul is affected by actions so that it may be

good and that the Lord's blessing be upon it. There is no doubt that when one

abandons a portion of his fruits in the field so that the needy might enjoy

them, his soul will enjoy satisfaction and a correct and blessed spirit, and

that the Lord, may He be blessed, will satisfy him with His beneficence and his

soul shall rest in goodness.

(Sefer HaHinukh,

Positive Commandment 213)

You shall leave them for the poor and

the stranger – It is evident that these laws

are not made for the direct purpose of the actual maintenance of the poor. Even

the poor man himself has to leave his gleanings, the forgotten sheaf,

and the edge of the field from his own field to other poor people! It is

clear that, at once at the harvest, at the moment when a person takes home that

which Nature and his own hard-work has yielded to him, and puts the proud and

far-reaching words "my own" in

his mouth, these laws are to remind every member of the Nation, and to demand

an act of recognition from him, of the fact that this "my own"

includes for everybody the duty of caring for others who are

needy…that in God's holy state the

care for the poor and the stranger without property is not a matter

which is left to the greater or lesser soft-hearted feelings of sympathy…

but is raised to a God-given right to the poor, and a God-ordained duty to the

owners of property from God.

 (Rabbi

S.R. Hirsch on Vayikra 19:10, Isaac Levy translation)

When a stranger

resides in your land, you shall not wrong him.

(Vayikra 19:33)

The true moral

test occurs in your land

We

learned – Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol

says: Why does the Torah warn us thirty six times – some say: forty-six time –

regarding [mistreatment of] the stranger? Lest you drive him back to evil ways.

Why is it written, You shall not wrong a

stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt

(Shemot 23:20)? They learned – Rabbi Natan says: Do not point out your own shortcoming [i.e.,

having been a stranger yourself] in others.

(Bava Metziya 59b)

A stranger

resides in your land: If he was a stranger in a

foreign country where you too are a stranger, it would only be natural to love

him, for it is the custom of strangers [i.e. aliens] to love each other (Pesahim 113), and you

sympathize with his troubles in order to avoid them yourself. But if he lives

in your land, in any case do not wrong him.

(Ha-Emek Davar Vayikra

19:33)

And love your

neighbor as yourself

And

love your neighbor as yourself – Rabbi Akiva says: This is the great principle of the Torah.

Ben

Azzai says: This is the record of Adam's line