Enthusiasm

 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…”

           Rabbi Jonathan Sacks z’l, explores an unusual area for a Jewish exegete of Torah: the history of the English word “enthusiasm” (Covenant and Conversation, 4/13/23).  He notes that today we regard enthusiasm as something positive, but this has not always been the case.  He unearths 17^th century English to reveal that enthusiasm once referred to someone possessed by a spirit or demon, or referred to extreme and revolutionary Protestant sects (especially Puritans). It was a synonym for religious extremism, zealotry and fanaticism. He cites the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), who suggested that there are two ways in which religion can go wrong: through superstition and through enthusiasm. These are quite different phenomena.

Superstition is driven by ignorance and fear. The enthusiast in this original context believes that rules and regulations are for ordinary people, not for them. We, they contend, are inspired by God, and know better. That, said Hume, can be very dangerous indeed.

Sacks says this is the ultimate conclusion to be drawn from the death of Nadav and Avihu. While there are indeed different traditions about the reasons for their sudden death, Sacks suggests that the history of the word “enthusiasm” helps us to understand the episode. They were “enthusiasts” in the sense in which the word was used in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, full of religious passion, believing that God was inspiring them to do deeds in defiance of law and convention. They were very holy but they were also potentially very dangerous.

Our tradition is filled with rules and regulations (chukot and mishpatim) designed precisely to curb unwarranted “enthusiasm.” As we see in the world today, “enthusiasm” without the constraint of law and rules can quickly lead to extremism, fanaticism and ultimately to authoritarianism. .

            The modern definition of “enthusiasm” is thus positive, but it is at our peril that we forget its earlier meaning. 

Withholding testimony and keeping silent

 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. Many traditional commentators note that the Book is found in the center of the first Five Books and intuit from its positioning the “centrality” of its teachings to Jewish tradition. 

            The introduction to this Book in Etz Hayim reminds us that the “central concern” of the ancient Israelites was “how they were to express their loyalty” to Adonai. The answer from Vayikra: they were “to be holy, for I Adonai Your God, am holy.”  They expressed their loyalty to God and their commitment to be holy through a system of sacrifices, while for 2,000 years that loyalty and commitment have been through prayer, study, and acts of righteousness.

 

Lev.5:1 “And should a person offend when he has heard a voice in adjuration, he being a witness, or has seen or known, if he does not tell, he shall bear his punishment.”

Through commentary, we learn that this text teaches that if one is a witness to wrong-doing, and has been told not to withhold testimony about it, that a failure to provide the testimony incurs guilt, and the individual is to be punished.

In recent weeks, we have seen officials of the current U.S. administration appear before Congressional committees to explain a variety of instances in which they not only witnessed improprieties, but in fact participated in them. For example, the recent revelations about the use of unofficial messaging systems and Gmail containing items of national security has been shrugged off as “nothing important, a glitch.” In 2016, the phrase “lock her up” may well have resulted in the close loss of the presidential election by Hillary Clinton. Do you remember why this phrase was chanted?  It was because of her alleged breach of security by her use of unofficial emails! The hypocrisy is palpable.

Getting back to the verse in question this week. A failure to withhold testimony incurs guilt. The obverse is also true: keeping silent in the face of transgressions is similarly prohibited. When we are daily faced daily with barrages of “executive orders” that are on their face either illegal or unconstitutional, it is easy to look away. We must not.