Do not drink wine that will lead to intoxication, neither you nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, so that you shall not die. [This is] an eternal statute for your generations.

(Vayikra 10:9)

 

Do not drink wine that will lead to intoxication, etc. This commandment was mentioned here because wine was created solely to comfort mourners (Eruvin 65a), and Aaron thought that he would at least be allowed to drink wine while mourning. That is why he was instructed here that he was prohibited from drinking wine to intoxication even while he mourned. Rashi explained the verse, and Aaron kept silent, that as reward for this silence God told this to him personally and to him alone, hinting that anyone who [has drunk so much wine that he] cannot speak before a king is called intoxicated; that is why God related this to him personally to tell him not to be so intoxicated that he cannot speak before the King, but rather he should always be sufficiently sober that he can respond [to the King]. That is the point of the verse, And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying [laymor], ending the whole matter with laymor, to tell him that he must always be ready to laymor [speak] and answer the King may He be blessed. He merited receiving all of this command thanks to Aaron kept silent.

(Kli Yakar ad loc)

 

...this is not talking about complete intoxication, but rather about a reasonable suspicion of blurred thinking. That is why one who drinks wine is prohibited from serving in the Temple or teaching the Temple laws or Practical halakhah. These are not matters for mental excitement and imagination; clear thinking, a sharp mind, and sobriety are required for the performance of God's commandments. The Temple's symbolism does not address the imagination but rather the clear-thinking mind. Only a mind that can grasp things clearly, derive correct conclusions, and fit every detail into its proper place in the general framework - only such a mind can direct our steps towards the realization of God's commandments in our deeds. Aaron's sons died because they followed their hearts' excitement; this teaches all future priests and all teachers of halakhah in Israel: See yourselves only as servants of the Temple and as teachers and follower of Torah...one who teaches halakhah in Israel must be a talmid hakham - a "wise student" throughout his life.

 (Rabbi S.R. Hirsch, ad loc)

 

What Kind of Religious Innovation is Desirable?

Aviad Stolman

Our parasha describes the chilling deaths of Aaron's sons Nadav and Avihu at a festive time, on the eighth day of the Tabernacle's opening celebrations. The verses employed are curt, perhaps even poetic. They do not supply much information regarding the event and its causes. Aaron's sons were severely punished for what would seem to be a minor deviation from ritual protocol. This prompts a question: what was the nature of the sin for which they were burned to death? This questioned fired the imaginations of commentators and darshanim who proposed a whole assortment of answers to it. So it goes: when Scripture spares its words, the darshanim and commentators write at length, producing mountains of possible readings, both plain and midrashic.

Some scholars sought indications of the sin's nature in the passage itself, or at least in those adjacent to it. Accordingly, R. Yishmael raised the possibility that Aaron's sons were drunk with wine when they entered the Tabernacle. Others accused them of crimes which the Torah suggests would be punished with death, such as entering the Tabernacle with unwashed hands and feet, or performing the service while improperly dressed. Some go so far as to hypothesize that their sin consisted of the sons not having children of their own or that they had not married. Some pinned sins of another sort on them - that they had taught halakhah in their teacher Moses' presence. Others claim that they would say: "When will these two old men die so that I and you can rule over the community?" Some say that when Aaron participated in the sin of the Golden Calf, his sons' fates were sealed. And so the explanations go on and on.

Despite all these, there seems to be no reason to go beyond the written verse in our search for a rationale: the sons offered a strange fire to God and were duly punished. This view is also supported by the other passages (Bamidbar 3:4; 27:61) that treat the sin of Nadav and Avihu. The sin, then, consists of offering a strange fire - an action that simply contradicted a commandment. Rabbi S.R. Hirsch offers an explanation along these lines, relating it to his personal view of the Reform movement of his time:

There is nothing, there is no detail in the entire matter of the sacrifices, that the worshiper has discretion to deal with by the light of his own subjective taste... the nearness to God which the worshipper wishes to achieve through sacrifice can only be gained by hearkening to God's voice, by doing His will and accepting the yoke of His kingdom...The meaning of the Jew's sacrifice is that he sacrifices himself together with the offering, offering himself up to serve in God's presence and devoting his will to the will of his Creator. Therefore, all the sacrifices are no more than formulations of the Divine demands which the sacrificer takes upon himself by offering his sacrifice... Accordingly, offerings which a person makes up by his own lights destroy the truth. Sacrifice is meant to remove the worshiper from the realm of human control, while sacrifices invented by human beings re-enthrone arbitrary subjectivity which can only be deposed by obedience to the Holy One, blessed be He... not by new and fashionable methods of worship, but through the realization of his Creator's will...

Rabbi S. R. Hirsch's comments are reminiscent of the approaches taken by two 20^th century Orthodox thinkers: Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik, both of whom emphasized the heteronomic aspect of fulfilling the commandments. They felt that individual ritual inventiveness not only lacks religious significance - they considered it to be absolutely unacceptable. Service of God means precise and disciplined obedience to the commands of Halakhah, free of any changes or innovations springing from some particular religious world view.

This theological tendency - based upon a careful reading of Scripture - objects to any religious innovation that does not derive from strict obedience to halakhah. However, when reading further in the parasha we discover that the story of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu offers only a partial view of this issue. Following the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, Moses instructs Aaron, Elazar, and Itamar as to how they should deal with the various sacrifices. Meanwhile, Moses discovers that the goat of the sin-offering has been burnt, upon which he complains to Elazar and Itamar: Why did you not eat the sin offering in the holy place? For it is holy of holies, and He has given it to you to gain forgiveness for the sin of the community, to effect their atonement before the Lord! This shows us that Aaron's remaining sons, Elazar and Itamar - and perhaps Aaron himself - did not act in accordance with the divine command and instead decided on their own that the sin-offering should be burned rather than eaten. Even after their brothers' terrifying deaths, which apparently occurred because of a failure to follow commands precisely, they allowed themselves to deviate from God's word and act as they saw fit. What was their defense? But today, did they offer up their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord? But [if tragic events] like these had befallen me, and if I had eaten a sin offering today, would it have pleased the Lord? Surprisingly, Moses accepted Aaron's explanation: Moses heard [this], and it pleased him.

We find that Aaron, and even Moses himself, did not fear religious innovation when it is motivated by concern for what "pleases the Lord." Here we see that subjective halakhic considerations are not completely objectionable, so long as they spring from pure motives. Sometimes they can even be desirable. A similar argument was forwarded when Yeshayahu Leibowitz explained his support for changes in the halakhic treatment of women. In contrast to his rejection of changes made in the spirit of Reform, Leibowitz supported changes concerning women, arguing that such changes aim at protecting and preserving the halakhah in today's historical reality.

The above interpretations of two incidents reported in this week's parasha hints at the constant tension between traditional and innovation, between halakhic decisions based upon objective halakhic sources and decisions based upon the subjective understanding of halakhah and reality. In recent years people who study the philosophy of halakhah have discussed these tensions often; however, they may also be discussed in terms of the incidents reported in our parasha.

How did Nadav and Avihu's actions differ from those of Elazar and Itamar? Moses' answer implies that Elazar and Itamar consulted with their father before deciding that it would be preferable to burn the goat of the sin-offering instead of eating it. This suggests that Nadav and Avihu rushed to offer a strange fire, not taking time to ask their father about it. Their deed was not rooted in deep thought; rather, it sprang from powerful emotions and holy enthusiasm. Elazar and Itamar, in contrast, mulled over what to do with the sin-offering and asked their father's advice in the matter. After careful consideration they concluded that it was better to burn the offering than to eat it. If this understanding is correct, the two deeds differ from each other in that the one was emotional and the other rational.

The halakhic system - like any well-ordered system of law - lends those responsible for making decisions sophisticated tools for integrating their decisions into the system. This system serves as a check against actions that may suit natural emotions but which are opposed to the spirit of the law. Every page of Talmud expresses the traditional demand that halakhic decisions must be tied to convincing arguments and that the halakhah gains its force from coherent rationales. Halakhic discussions lend halakhah its objectivity. There is a place and a need for subjective considerations, but they must pass through the refining flame of halakhic argument.

From here we can continue to a third item in our parasha, which will also link up with the discussion so far. I am referring to the twice-repeated injunction: And you shall be holy - for I am holy. Man is called upon to be holy because God Himself is holy: human beings are told to imitate God. In his Mishneh Torah (Deot 1), RaMBaM explains that imitation of God's actions means acting in a psychologically balanced fashion. RaMBaM translated the Aristotelian insight of the "golden mean" into halakhic terms: "We are commanded to walk in these middle paths; they are the goodly and straight paths." And what is the source for this commandment? "For it says and walk in His ways. The interpretation of this commandment was understood thus: He is called gracious, so be you also gracious: He is called merciful, so be you also merciful; He is called holy, so be you also holy."

This passage of the RaMBaM is difficult; what is the connection between imitation of God's virtues of graciousness and mercy and the notion of the "golden mean"? The Guide of the Perplexed (1:54) offers an answer to this problem. There RaMBaM explains that God's actions do not spring from emotions and psychological tendencies, for, "He is above all defect! The same is the case with all divine acts: though resembling those acts which emanate from our passions and psychical dispositions, they are not due to anything superadded to His essence." Therefore, RaMBaM claims:

The governor of a country, if he is a prophet, should conform to these attributes. Acts [of punishment] must be performed by him moderately and in accordance with justice, not merely as an outlet of his passion. He must not let loose his anger, nor allow his passion to overcome him: for all passions are bad, and they must be guarded against as far as it lies in man's power. At times and towards some persons he must be merciful and gracious, not only from motives of mercy and compassion, but according to their merits: at other times and towards other persons he must evince anger, revenge, and wrath in proportion to their guilt, but not from motives of passion... for the chief aim of man should be to make himself, as far as possible, similar to God: that is to say, to make his acts similar to the acts of God, or as our Sages expressed it in explaining the verse, You shall be holy (Vayikra 21: 2): "He is gracious, so be you also gracious: He is merciful, so be you also merciful" (based on Friedländer translation).

That is to say: imitation of God does not necessarily always mean being gracious and merciful, since God is sometimes vengeful and angry. One must imitate God's balanced style of action, which is founded upon thought rather than emotion: "Therefore the first Sages commanded that one should always control his dispositions, measuring and directing them in the middle path in order that he be perfect" (Hilkhot Deot). The notion that people must act in accordance with rational criteria rather than out emotion finds a different mode of expression in the second chapter of the Guide of the Perplexed, where Adam's sin in the Garden of Eden is discusses. This is not the place to go into it. In any case, these ideas certainly are among the foundation blocks of RaMBaM's religious world-view.

According to the interpretation offered above, the sin of Nadav and Avihu resulted from hasty and thoughtless action. Innovation was not their sin; rather they sinned in allowing themselves to be dragged into religious enthusiasm by emotionalism and psychological tendencies. Worthy religious innovation can only arise from the purifying flames of halakhic thought and analysis; after that it will certainly find favor in the Lord's eyes.

The author tarries in the Texan exile.

 

Shoah, Remembrance, and Independence: Timely Musings

These are the days of Sfirat HaOmer, between Passover and Shavuot. Talmudic tradition mentions them as days of hardship in which we observe some mourning customs in memory of R. Akiva's students who died in a plague due to their disrespectful treatment of each other. Later tradition added to that tragedy the commemoration of the "holy congregations which gave up their lives for the sanctification of the Name" - that is why during this period the memorial prayer Av HaRahamim is also recited on Shabbatot immediately preceding Rosh Hodesh. A great part of European Jewry was also destroyed in this season of the year during the Holocaust.

Biblical tradition views these days as a time for spiritual ascent, for the joy and hope marked by the commandment to count the omer. These days of counting are also the days between Passover - which marks our escape from slavery to freedom - and Shavuot - when we received our Torah. The counting represents the yearning for completion of physical liberation with spiritual liberation ("No one is a free-man save he who occupies himself with Torah.")

There is here, then, a dialectical tension between the early and original stratum of this period and the memory of later harsh events that we memorialize in its course.

I think we encounter a similar tension during the week which includes Holocaust Memorial Day, the Memorial Day for fallen soldiers, and Israel Independence Day which immediately follows.

This mixture of sorrow and joy is strikingly typical of Jewish history, and it finds expression in many customs: the eating of an egg during the Seder in commemoration of the Temple's destruction, the breaking of a glass by the groom at a wedding and the expression I bring up Jerusalem at the beginning of my joy. All of these customs faithfully express a necessarily relative perspective on life. As RaBMaM said in connection with the commandment of dwelling in a sukka: "That we might always recall the bad days during the good days."

The principle of viewing things in a sophisticated and balanced fashion is a pillar of Jewish tradition; there is no other way to deal sanely with the ups and downs of our lives - private, communal, and national. We cannot submit absolutely to perceptions from the present while neglecting the past and the possible changes that the future may bring.

This message is true and important each and every year, but I feel it is especially relevant to our present difficult year.

The horrible Holocaust of our parent's and grandparent's generation was a turning point and a moment of crisis both in the life of the Jewish People and in the life of all humanity. The very need felt by various Holocaust deniers to dismiss and blur facts testifies to the difficulty of dealing with this monstrous legacy.

Many Jews who were uprooted from their homes, who lost parents, spouses, siblings, and children, and who came up against the loss of the divine and human image in such a cruel manner, lost their faith in a beneficent God and asked themselves deep and difficult questions.

At the public level, we encounter two opposing responses:

On the one hand, some Jews became disappointed with human morality and with the nations of the world. They tend to justify everything done in the name of the Jewish People, having been taught by the Holocaust that we must be strong and that we cannot rely on anyone but ourselves.

On the other hand, some of us reacted to the Holocaust by developing a deep empathy with every case of human suffering. When such people say, "Never again!" they mean to say that the Holocaust has taught us never to let any human being afflict his fellow, and that no nation may harm another.

Perhaps the difficult and complex juxtaposition of the memorial days for the Holocaust and for fallen soldiers with Israel independence Day requires us to strike a balance between our deep identification with the Jewish lot and the difficult challenge of creating a just and ethical society which treats every human being created in the divine image with respect, and then you shall be called the city of justice, the loyal town.

Pinchas Leiser, Editor

 

 

 

 

 

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel $700
• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

In Israel, checks payable to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

Please note that the NIF is no longer accepting donations under $100

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations should be sent to

P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions to either the NIF or PEF should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project. For Donations to NIF, please mention that Oz veShalom is registered as no. 5708.

 

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an imperative.

5,000 copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.