.gif)
Shmini(Leviticus 9-11)
Shmini 5768
The parsha begins with a description of the day of the dedication of the newly built Mishkan. The celebration was marred by the sudden and tragic death of two sons of Aaron. We read:
Leviticus 10:1-2
"And Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censor and put fire in them and they put incense thereon and offered before Hashem strange fire which He did not command them. And a fire went out from before Hashem and devoured them and they died before Hashem."
RASHI
A fire went out - Rashi: Rabbi Eliezer says: The sons of Aaron died only because they rendered halachic decisions in the presence of their teacher, Moses. Rabbi Yishmael says: [They died because] they entered the Sanctuary while intoxicated with wine. You can know that this is so because after their death [God] warned the survivors not to enter the Sanctuary while intoxicated by wine (see this chapter, verses 8-11). This may be compared to a [parable of a] king who had a faithful member of his household etc. as it is brought in Leviticus Rabbah.
Rashi gives us two possible reasons for the sudden death of Nadav and Avihu. What questions would you ask on this comment?
Your Questions:
QUESTIONING RASHI
One Question: Rashi supplies us with reasons for the death of Aaron's sons, but the Torah itself says "and they brought before Hashem a strange fire which He commanded them not." This would seem to be the reason for their deaths. Why does Rashi see the need to suggest other reasons?
You may remember other instances in the Torah where Rashi offers reasons for events when the Torah itself had already given its reason. See the cases of Yitro's coming (Exodus 18:1) and the naming of Reuven (Bereisheet 29:32). In each case, Rashi's need to comment alerts us to closely search the words of the Torah to discover subtleties which are the reason for Rashi's comment. Can you find the reason for Rashi's comment here? What's bothering Rashi?
Your Answer:
WHAT'S BOTHERING RASHI?
An Answer: The Torah verse is awkward. If you read it carefully you will see that it is hard to make sense of. The verse says: "And the sons of Aaron took ... and they offered before Hashem a strange fire which He had not commanded them." What do these latter words mean?
Do they mean:
- Hashem had not commanded them to bring this offering? If so, this would hardly seem to be reason for punishing them. Or:
- Hashem had not commanded them not to bring the offering? Then certainly this is no reason for punishing them!
With this in mind, how does Rashi's comment deal with this difficulty in the verse?
Your Answer:
UNDERSTANDING RASHI
An Answer: Both of the two options above leave us wondering why Aaron's sons were punished. Rashi's comment comes to answer that question. Rashi gives us two possible explanations, drawn from the Sages' interpretations.
QUESTIONING THE MIDRASH
On what basis do you think that Rav Eliezer concluded that their sin was deciding the halacha without consulting Moses?
Hint: Look carefully at the verse.
Your Answer:
UNDERSTANDING THE MIDRASH
An Answer: The Torah says "Hashem had not commanded them to bring." The extra word "them" implies that Hashem had commanded someone else to bring this fire, but not them. The fact that they did bring the fire, nevertheless, shows that they decided on their own to bring it. This, in effect, is to decide a halachic matter without consulting the leading authority of the generation (of all generations, for that matter!), Moses, their teacher.
See above 1:7 (Parshat Vayikra) where it says that sons of Aaron are to put fire on the altar. There Rashi notes "Even though fire would come down from heaven, it was nevertheless a mitzvah for 'profane' fire to be brought [by the priests]." So it seems that Nadav and Avihu weren't doing anything wrong. However, since Moses had not ordered them to be the ones to bring this fire, they had acted out of turn.
The reason for Rav Yishmael's interpretation is clear. Rashi himself says that the fact that immediately after this tragedy, God commanded Aaron not to enter the Sanctuary intoxicated by wine. This leads one to conclude that intoxication was the reason for Nadav and Avihu's death, as the parable points out.
QUESTIONING RAV YISHMAEL
But you should have a question on this interpretation of Rav Yishmael. Your Question:
A Question: If God only forbade entering the Sanctuary in a state of intoxication after the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, why were they punished? At the time they brought the strange fire there was as yet no prohibition [sic!].
Your Answer:
UNDERSTANDING RAV YISHMAEL
An Answer: Common sense and common decency would dictate - even without a divine edict - that one should not enter such a holy site while under the influence of wine. They should have understood this themselves. They are no less responsible for their irresponsible behavior just because they were not told of this prohibition explicitly. But, once God saw that they could ignore this elementary act of decency, He found it necessary to make the law abundantly clear. So afterwards He made a formal declaration to Aaron of the laws of decorum when serving in the Sanctuary.
THE LESSON
When Rashi cites a midrash which seems to duplicate what the Torah itself had said, there's cause for reflection and deeper analysis.
Shabbat Shalom,
Avigdor Bonchek
(1) Pepper, April 18, 2006
Newbie Answer
Not being able to read the Hebrew, and being new to Judaism, this may be completely off base. But, I would like to know if I am off base, please.
Your Answer:
To me, it would seem that the first part of the issue was that 'they took' which seems to imply that it was without 'permission' and in that sense 'stealing' - stealing someone else's turn, stealing someone else's job, stealing someone else's gift, stealing someone else's glory or offering or opportunity to participate;
Because it was 'not' their fire (continuing in the above thought), which is what made it 'strange' fire .... and it was not their position? which made it strange as well. And, G-d does not allow 'strange' within His Worship. It would be like bringing an idol to temple or a Christian Cross to Shabbat.
And, the warning not to enter the temple 'intoxicated' may mean that they were 'intoxicated' with the desire to be' the only servants' instead of the 'example of how to serve'; and so desired to serve G-d that they became selfish and this 'over zealous' behavior then became the same as being drunk ... drunk with selfish purpose because they could not wait? They chose to defile the sanctuary with their own purpose instead of sanctifying it by sharing it and setting the example. Because they were of the line of priests, this would have been an extremely dire offense, wouldn't it?