Inner Fire

Shmini

 Lev. 9:1-11:47

Précis:  On the final day of the week-long ordination ceremony, Moses instructs Aaron and his sons on the proper rituals. Aaron makes his offering. Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu offer “strange fire” before God. They are slain. Moses tells Aaron that he must not engage in normal mourning rituals. The Priests are prohibited from drinking alcohol while they are engaged in their sacred duties.  Next, God tells Moses and Aaron to instruct the people about the animals they are permitted to eat (part of the laws of kashrut). A general warning to guard against defilement and to be concerned about ritual purity is given.

Lev. 10:1-2 “And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer, and put fire in them, and laid incense on them, and offered strange fire before Adonai, which He had not commanded them. And there came forth fire from before Adonai, and devoured them…”

            The sudden, unexpected deaths of Aaron’s son’s is jarring. The Sages offer a plethora of reasons why their deaths happen. Some suggest that they were drunk, others that they were not wearing appropriate clothing, or had failed to properly bathe, that they lacked authorization to enter the holy place, or that they were expanding on the laws which Moses, their teacher, had provided. Some suggest that they were stuck down for the sin of not being married! Michelle Wasserman, writing in MyJewishLearning.com (3/29/16) suggests that we take note that the “fire” which slays them has (according to Midrash) left their bodies unmarked. In other words, the “inner fire” (their passion) which caused them to bring “strange fire” (unauthorized) resulted in the internal destruction of their bodies, extinguishing their special passion.

            Fire is an almost universal metaphor for passion. The internal passion which causes them to offer “strange fire” is alienating, because it diverges from the rituals which are performed on behalf of the entire people. Viewed in this light, offering “strange fire” was a selfish act, an attempt to cultivate a private passion for God instead of acting on behalf of the entire community.

            The Priests, being closest to God, must act in a way which brings God’s presence to the community. Nadav and Abihu failed as role models. Or as stated by Rabbi Andy Shapiro Katz (Torah Sparks, 3/30/19), “Nadav and Abihu got carried away and forgot that a priest not only brings sacrifices, but also teaches the people, and helps them distinguish between the sacred and profane. Filled with passion for God, Nadav and Abihu had forgotten about their responsibility to the living.” Our people still need leaders to serve as positive examples of behavior.

Admit and Atone

Vayikra

Lev. 1:1 - 5:26

Précis: The title of the Third Book of the Torah, Vayikra (“And He called”) is usually translated as “Leviticus” in English, from its Septuagint (Greek) name, which in turn is based on the fact that much of the Book concerns ritual sacrifices performed under the auspices of the Levites and its emphasis on holiness.  

            As noted in the introduction to this Book in the Plaut Commentary, much of this “holiness” is expressed in terms of rituals which ceased to exist with the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. The word generally used in English for the ritual offerings in the Temple is “sacrifice,” but there is a deeper meaning to be found in the Hebrew word, korban, from a root meaning “to draw closer.” The system of “sacrifices” (“korbanot”) was designed to allow the Israelites to “draw closer” to the Ineffable.

            As the synagogue became the center of Jewish religious life, prayers were inserted seeking the restoration of sacrifices at the Temple. These remain in traditional liturgy today, as a daily reminder of our ancient ritual life and its core intent of drawing closer to God.

Lev. 4:22 “When a chieftain incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of Adonai his God ought not to be done, and he realizes his guilt…he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish.”

            This verse is unusual for many reasons, but perhaps the most salient  factor is the use of the word “when” instead of the usual construction of such verses, which begin with “if.” In other situations, the text states, “If an individual sins.” Why does the text assume that a ruler (or leader) will sin?

            The Italian commentator the Sforno explains that powerful people are more likely to be observed sinning, and therefore must be more careful about their conduct. Another interpretation is that a leader is more likely to sin because of the obvious temptations that leadership can offer. One suggestion (in Etz Hayim) is that the leader must make so many decisions, that it is almost impossible to avoid harming the innocent. The Talmud tells us to consider ourselves fortunate when a leader atones for sin (BT Hor. 10b), for if the people see the ruler atoning for sin, they would be more likely to atone themselves.

            That brings us to today, when our leaders rarely, if ever, admit error, let alone atone for it. Our divisive politics seem to prevent our acknowledgement of the teachings of millennia of Jewish thought, both in the United States and in Israel.  Would that it could be otherwise.