This is something that I wrote last year. Reading through it, it’s a little bit jumpy as it goes in and out of many different topics, but I can tell you, if you read it carefully and to the end, it should G-d Willing all come together very nicely. The sources for everything are cited at the end.
B’H
Shemini – “How to Cut a Diamond… L’Havdil!”
Written by Chaim Peck
25 Nissan 5767 – April 13, 2007
This week’s Parsha, Shemini starts out describing the first day of Nissan of the year 2449 (1312 B.C.E.). It was the day that Aharon and his sons began to officiate as Kohanim (priests). Moshe gathered all of the Jews to the Mishkan. The Torah describes the offerings that were brought and then says that the Divine Presence (literally “Kivod Hashem”) appeared the to the entire people.
The Torah then says “A fire went forth from before Hashem and consumed upon the Altar the burnt-offering and the fats; the people saw and sang glad song and fell upon their faces.” [1] Following this verse, the Torah goes on to explain the incident in which the sons of Aharon – Nadav and Abihu – offered a “strange fire” and were consumed.
Every Parsha in the Torah is split into seven Aliyot, corresponding to the seven people who are called up to the Torah on Shabbos. Interestingly, the verse that says “the people saw and sang glad song…” is included in the Aliya that discusses the incident of Nadav and Abihu. Since that verse seems to connected to the events that had been transpiring in the previous verses, and the event of Nadav and Abihu’s “strange fire” seems to be a new topic, or at least a turn of events from our previous Aliya, we have to ask: Why did our Rabbis split the Parsha here? Couldn’t it have been split one verse later? Maybe there is a reason for why it was split there.
Before we explore this idea, we need to look into the Parsha more. A little further into the Parsha, Hashem speaks to Aharon, instructing that when he or his sons come to the Tent of meeting, to not drink wine or intoxicating beverage. The next verse says “In order to distinguish between the sacred and the profane, and between the contaminated and the pure” [2]. On this verse, the Ba’al HaTurim points out that the first word of this verse “U’lihavdil” – “And to distinguish” appears only two times in the whole Tanach! The other place that it is found is a verse in the book of Bereishis, in regard to the creation of “the two great luminaries”. It says there “and to distinguish between the light and the darkness” [3]. The Ba’al HaTurim makes a connection from these two verses to the Havdallah ceremony performed after Shabbos that “when a distinction is made between the holy and the profane, a blessing must also be recited on the light.”
The Parsha goes on to describe Moshe speaking to Aharon and his two remaining sons, Elazar and Itamar, instructing them to eat of the offerings. The Torah then says “Moshe inquired insistently about the he-goat of the sin-offering, for behold, it had been burned – and he was wrathful with Elazar and Itamar, Aharon’s remaining sons…” [4] It turned out that they ate of the offerings as instructed, except for one – the sin offering. The Talmud in Zevachim, as cited by Rashi, explains that there were three goats that were to be brought that day as a sin-offerings. Two of them were specific for that day, whereas the third was the sin-offereing for every Rosh Chodesh. Aharon and his remaining sons were in a state of mourning (after having just gone through the deaths of Aharon’s other two sons, Nadav and Abihu), and there is a law that a such a mourner is forbidden to eat from the meat of the offerings. The Talmud explains that Aharon reasoned that if he was specifically instructed to eat the meat of the day’s special offerings even though he was in mourning (which would be contrary to the usual law), he still should not deduce that the same applies to an offering that is not unique to this special occasion. The Torah states Aharon’s response to Moshe “Now that such things befell me – were I to eat this day’s sin-offering, would Hashem approve?” [5]. The Torah then tells us that “Moshe heard and he approved” [6] Moshe admitted that Aharon was correct and was not ashamed to do so (Rashi).
The Parsha then goes on describe the commandments of Kosher, explaining how to distinguish between Kosher and non-Kosher animals, fish, and birds. This is followed by a discussion of ritual impurity caused by coming in contact with the carcass of a non-kosher animal. Then the Parsha discusses how foods and utensils might contract ritual impurity if they come in contact with something that is ritually impure. There is a discussion of not consuming insects or reptiles. And then, the last two verses of the Parsha state: “This is the law regarding animals, birds, all living creatures that move in water and all creatures that creep on the ground, to distinguish between the unclean and the clean, and between the animal that may be eaten and the animal that may not be eaten” [7].
On the last verse, Rashi first explains that it refers not merely to one who has committed these laws to memory, “but that one should know, and recognize, and be expert in them”. The verse says “between the impure and the pure”, to which Rashi then asks: “Is it necessary for the Torah to state that we should know the difference between a donkey and a cow, when these differences have already been explained?” He then answers that rather, the Torah demands that you be expert in distinguishing “between that which is impure to you and that which is pure to you.” In other words – one whose purity is dependent on an act of yours. He goes on “between one which has half of its windpipe slaughtered and one which has most of it slaughtered.” If only half of the animal’s windpipe is severed in slaughtering, then the slaughter is invalid, even if it was an originally kosher animal. Rashi is explaining that this verse tells us that we must be experts in determining the fine line between a kosher slaughter and a not-kosher slaughter. Rashi expounds the last part of the verse “and between the creature that may be eaten…” in a similar manner stating that the verse does not come to tell us that we need to be able to distinguish between a deer and a wild-donkey (both of the category of Chaya, rather than Behama). This is stated explicitly, and hence the verse is telling us that the Torah demands that you be expert in distinguishing between an animal that has developed a sign of Tereifa – a defect – that is ruled to be kosher regardless, and one that has developed a sign of a Terifa that is rendered to be unfit for consumption.
One other interesting thing to note is that we reach the half-way point for words in the Torah here in this week’s Parsha. Perhaps this will be useful in our understanding of things.
So, now that we are more informed about the Parsha, we can go back to the beginning. Let us explore the first three verses of the third Aliya:
9:24 – “A fire went forth from before Hashem and consumed upon the Altar the burnt-offering and the fats; the people saw and sang glad song and fell upon their faces.”
10:1 – “The sons of Aharon, Nadab and Abihu, each too his fire pan, they put fire in them and placed incense upon it; and they brought before Hashem a strange fire regarding which He had not commanded them.”
10:2 – “A fire went forth from before Hashem and consumed them and they died before Hashem.”
Remember, the first verse above (9:24) is in reference to the events that took place in the previous Aliya, and seems to be in reference to the “Glory of Hashem” that appeared to the entire people. So, we have in each verse a reference to fire. The first one is a fire from Hashem consuming a burnt offering as commanded by Hashem. This, it seems, we can say is a good fire – an accepting fire – that G-d has accepted a burnt offering.
The next verse refers to “a strange fire which He had not commanded them.” The Ba’al HaTurim clarifies for us that this “strange fire” was strictly commanded “No!”. Accordingly, we find a verse in Shemos that says “You shall not bring upon it alien incense, or a burnt-offering or meal offering…” (Shemos 30:9) Rashi cites two reasons for their deaths. The first is that they “rendered a Halachic decision in the presence of their teacher, Moshe”. It is explained that they reasoned that although fire descended upon the Mizbe’ach from Heaven, it was still incumbent upon the Kohanim to light a fire on it. This was a correct ruling (Rashi, Yoma 53a). Still, it is referred to as “an alien fire that He had not commanded them” because even though they had arrived at the correct conclusion, they should have consulted Moshe before lighting it. Does this sound familiar the incident in which Aharon and his remaining sons burned the offering that they were commanded to eat? We should, G-d Willing, explore that in a moment. The next reason Rashi brings for the deaths of Nadav and Abihu was that they were intoxicated by wine. This is derived from the fact that just after this incident, Hashem instructs Aharon and his sons to not drink “wine or intoxicating beverage” when they come to the tent of meeting.
So, what can we say about this “strange fire”? Was is good? According to a parable written in the Book of Our Heritage [8], it was an act of great love of Hashem, that they gave their lives in His service. Then again, they were commanded to not bring such an offering. Then again, according to some of the sources, they were intoxicated. We can maybe say that this was a fire of passion for Hashem, that was perhaps misplaced.
And the third verse, the one that speaks of the fire that “came forth from before Hashem and consumed them”. Well, I think we can classify this fire as somewhat negative. It would seem that this death was a punishment for what they did. In fact, there are sources that would suggest that this death was a punishment for them because they made the mistake of feeling that they reached the pinnacle of their achievements (see [9]). We will not go into that here, but we can accept that their death was a punishment. Toras Kohanim (Milim 23) describes their death: “Two threads of fire went forth from the Holy of Holies and divided into four. Tow entered the nostrils of Nadab and two entered the nostrils of Abihiu.” Why does the Midrash need to tell us about how the fire split up? Perhaps there is something we can learn about splitting – a lesson that was intended for Nadav and Abihu in regard to what they did, and a lesson for us as well. We should have an answer to this shortly, G-d Willing. But first…
We have these three verses that each speak of a fire. The first is an accepting fire, the second is a fire of misplaced passion, and the third is a punishing fire. I think that the reason the Aliya was split up as such was to group these three verses together and point out a connection between these three fires. The connection, as it seems to me, is one of human nature, however perhaps the following example will illustrate this: Let’s say it is the day after Rosh Hashana, and a person now has seven days of preparation for the eighth day, which is Yom Kippur. During these seven days, the person does so so much in preparation for the Holy Day of Yom Kippur. Every day he practices the Yom Kippur service (without the name of Hashem, let’s say) and studies the meanings of all the prayers so that on the actual day, he will be so ready to pray with such intensity. Now, it’s Yom Kippur. In the evening, he prays the Kol Nidrei and Ma’ariv service with great intensity. The next morning he wakes up at sunrise to join an early Minyan and prays the Shacharis with so much intensity that he’s sweating. Then Mussaf. Then Mincha. And then he gets to Neila. And during the Neila he recites the Shema Yisrael with so much intensity that he can close his eyes and literally feel the closeness that he has attained with G-d and the acceptance of his prayers. And then with all of this intensity, he thinks to himself “Wow, maybe I should do one more Tefillah.” And he starts davening Neila again, and starts sweating even more with such intensity, and because he hasn’t eaten all day and possibly dehydrated, he faints. What happened?! His prayers were so pure! But, on Yom Kippur, we are commanded to pray five times – not six. The acceptance for him was during or after Neila. The misplace passion was in deciding to pray an extra time. And what we might consider to be the “punishment” was that they passed out.
But what leads to this misplaced passion? How can we be sure to avoid such a thing? How did Nadav and Abihu go wrong? Is the answer “wine”? Was it wine that impaired their ability to tell between right and wrong? As mentioned above, when Aharon is being told “Do not drink..” when coming to the Tent of Meeting, the next verse says “To distinguish between the sacred and the profane, between the impure and the pure.” This verse appears to be saying that Kohanim may not enter the Tent of Meeting while intoxicated so that they will be able to distinguish between the sacred and the profane. But this cannot be the meaning of the verse, because everything in the Tent of Meeting is sacred! So, what is this verse telling us? Rashi explains it as “So you shall distinguish between the holy service and that which has been profaned” – profaned by a Kohen who is officiating intoxicated. In other words, the intoxicated Kohen is that which is profane, regardless of his ability to distinguish things. While wine certainly does impair a person’s judgement and this would be a simple solution, it seems that we are not learning that out of here. Perhaps then we are learning something deeper about what impairs our judgement and what helps us to distinguish.
I read a quote on the back of a book, Rabbi Nachman’s Wisdom [10]: “Wisdom enables man to distinguish between the good and the evil, the holy and the unholy, the light and the darkness.” It then brings a quote “Why is the Havdallah prayer mentioned in the benediction requesting wisdom? For without wisdom, there can be no separation.” (Yerushalmi, Berachos 5:2) What this is referring to is that in the Shemona Esrei at the end of Shabbat or a Festival, there is an extra prayer inserted on discussing how G-d makes separations, including the separation of the Holy Shabbat with the six days of work. This prayer was inserted in the Shemona Esrei in the prayer for wisdom, as opposed to any of the other prayers. “For without wisdom, there can be no separation.”
Above, I mentioned that the Ba’al HaTurim draws a connection between the two uses of the word “U’lihavdil” – “And to distinguish” in the whole Tanach. He draws a connection with Havdalah saying “when a distinction is made between the holy and the profane, a blessing must also be recited on the light.” We specifically perform Havdallah with the light of a fire, from a candle. Two weeks ago, when we were possibly searching for Chametz, it is likely that we used a candle for this search. This candle is suppose to be of a single wick, and further if a candle of multiple wicks is used the search would be invalid! [11] This is in contrast to the Havdallah candle which is supposed to be of multiple wicks, so much that if we do not have a Havdallah candle, we are to put two candles together. We use the single wick candle in the search for Chametz in order to be able to see in holes and crevices. If there were to be two wicks, the flame would be too large to properly search. It seems as if the light of a single wick is what is needed to distinguish when searching for Chametz, whereas something like a Havdallah candle with multiple wicks would be overwhelming.
Yet, the Ba’al HaTurim connects the light of the Havdallah candle to distinguishing between the holy and profane. Based on this, wouldn’t it make more sense that we make Havdallah with a candle of a single wick? But Havdallah is different from the search for Chametz. In the search for Chametz, the light of the single wick is what is helping us find the Chametz, whereas at Havdallah, the light is what is being distinguished, namely from the darkness. Perhaps this is a reason why the Havdallah candle is to be made of multiple wicks – so that this idea is clear – that the Havdallah candle is not to help us distinguish, but this it’s light is being distinguished. And what are we distinguishing about the Havdallah candle?
The Artscroll siddur explains : “The Talmud (Pesachim 54a) gives the reason for the institution of this blessing [on the Havdallah flame]. Fire was created at the end of Adam’s first Sabbath on earth. Then, G-d gave Adam the instinctive understanding to rub stones together in order to bring forth a fire for light and heat.” [12] So, once again, it comes down to wisdom – Adam’s “instinctive understanding” granted to him by G-d so that he could make fire. When we make the Havdallah blessing on the fire, we are recalling the wisdom granted to Adam to make fire. When the Ba’al HaTurim says “when a distinction is made between the holy and the profane, a blessing must also be recited on the light”, it would seem that he could be saying: “When a distinction is made between the holy and the profane, acknowledge that this distinction is due to wisdom granted to you by G-d, and thereby a blessing is recited on the light.”
Let us now look into a question we had from before. We said that one of the possible reasons for the death of Nadav and Abihu was that they “rendered a Halachic decision in the presence of their teacher, Moshe”. We asked, how was this any different than what Aharon did later that day, when he burned an offering that he was supposed to eat? In both cases, their actions were seemingly justified, yet in the case of Nadav and Abihu they were punished, whereas with Aharon, Moshe admitted that he was wrong and Aharon was thereby correct. “Moshe heard and he approved”. I am going to suggest once more that the difference between the two incidents was that Aharon was ad wisdom, whereas Nadav and Abihu perhaps lacked the necessary wisdom to render a Halachic decision. This answer is fairly simple, however we can look more deeply into this
There exists a Kabalistic explanation for Nadav and Abihu’s actions. I read in an article adapted from Rav Kook’s works [13] that Nadav and Abihu erred by separating the spiritual realm of Binah (Insight) from the higher realm of Chochmah (Wisdom). We have here once again this concept that they lacked wisdom, but we are saying something slightly different – that they were disconnected from the Source of Wisdom. The article explains that they were “concentrating their efforts on their own spiritual attainments, without integrating the discipline of Torah.” Perhaps this was the difference, that Aharon rendered his Halachic decision through Chochma, whereas Nadav and Abihu rendered their Halachic decision using Binah – their insights – while disconnected from Chochma – Wisdom.
This concept can be illustrated as being the difference between a person who has a Halachic question to which he consults a Rav who has studied for many years and renders decisions purely based on Torah, versus deciding on his own what he thinks is the best option. Let’s say a person is cooking of 600 ounces of chicken soup on Friday afternoon in preparation for Shabbos. All of a sudden, approximately 10 ounces of milk falls into the chicken soup. Because of the principal of Batal BaShishim, the soup should still technically be Kosher. But what if it was actually 10.5 ounces of milk that fell in? Then maybe the person would have to throw away the whole thing. But what if it was really 10 ounces? Then it’s OK and it would be a waste to throw it away! What does a person do in such a situation?! So, if they are close with a Rabbi or Rav whom they can consult quickly before Shabbos and have an official ruling brought down from Torah, or if there is a book that is from a Torah source that can give the answer, or if the person is well versed in Halacha and is actually capable of coming to a pure decision, this might be an example of using Chochma – Wisdom. On the other hand, a person might reason on their own, “But it’s for Shabbos! It must be alright, I’m sure.” Or a person might reason “I don’t want to take any chances – I’m throwing away the soup!” Both of these reasonings are likely based on Binah that is separated from Chochma. Either one of these reasonings may be correct, but they are disconnected from the Source.
But, aren’t we sometimes faced with situations where we have to decide something on our own? What if there is no rabbi to help us figure something out and no books on the topic? Perhaps this is what Rashi is telling us at the end of the Parsha – that we have to be experts in knowing the difference between a kosher slaughter and a non-kosher slaughter, which is the difference between how the animal’s windpipe is cut. And that we need to be experts in identifying defects in an animal that render the animal to be still kosher, versus defects that render the animal unfit for consumption.
We must strive to be experts in the Halacha! In learning the Torah throughly, we should be able to distinguish between the holy and the profane in our daily lives. It is easy to distinguish between species of kosher and non-kosher animals. It takes effort to distinguish between a kosher animal and an otherwise kosher animal that has a defect or improper slaughter. The effort is the learning that leads up to the decision – not in making the decision itself. If the learning is done properly, the person is connected to Source of Wisdom and the decision should be clear. A person does not make clear decisions without wisdom.
We noted before that Nadav and Abihu were killed by two flames splitting into four and entering their nostrils. We asked why this was the reason for their deaths, and further why does the Midrash need to tell us this? Perhaps this was to teach us that Nadav and Abihu lacked this separation of holy from profane – that they needed to experience this separation of flames coming from the Holy of Holies to understand that they needed separation in their lives. Of course, as we have already explained “without wisdom, there can be no separation.” These flames however, emanating from the Holy of Holies did have separation. As if to say to them “If your insights were from the Source of Wisdom, you too would have experienced separation (and thereby would have known not to offer the strange fire)”. And is if to exhort to us to gain Wisdom from the Source – from the Torah, so that we don’t make the wrong decisions.
We find another connection with separation in that we reach the half-way point for words in the Torah here in this week’s Parsha.
And what about the first question we asked? We asked why the second and third Aliya seem to be split up in a strange way that does not follow the context. We then explained a possible answer was to group the three references to a flame. But how would our Sages know to make such a separation without wisdom of Torah? Reason would suggest to split the Aliyot by topic and thereby split one verse later. Yet, by splitting in the right place, we come out with a beautiful understanding that we might have overlooked had our Sages relied on reason to split the Aliyot.
Aside from difficult fine-line decisions between right and wrong, through Torah, G-d teaches us how to separate things in our daily lives. By giving us Shabbos and Festivals – a certain time to eat Matza, certain times to fast, certain times to say extra praises, certain times to pray each day, etc. – Hashem establishes for us a way to have separation in our lives. And, as we study more and more, we should G-d Willing attain the insight for the more difficult decisions, but also to be able see things as beautiful.
As noted on Wikipedia.com [14], “an uncut diamond does not show its prized optical properties.” In fact, there is a picture of an uncut diamond on Wikipedia and it does look quite dull. So, the diamond needs to be cut to show it’s brilliance, but to cut a diamond requires a great deal of wisdom. Once again, we see an example of wisdom leading to separation.
The word Zehirus, which means “watchfulness” also means “brilliance” (i.e. Zohar). Perhaps this is to say that through being watchful to separate ourselves from negative influences, or separate ourselves from “mundane” matters at the right times (i.e. appointed Festivals, or times for prayer, etc.), and further knowing when to engage in these mundane activities, it will G-d Willing lead to a beauty in our lives that shines like the brilliance of a diamond. Accordingly, the RaMChaL, in his work Mesilas Yesharim, parallels the trait of Watchfulness (Zehirus) with the trait of Separation. [15]
Separation in our lives means knowing when to do things in our lives and acting in a clear deliberate manner. The following is a story about Reb Moshe Feinstien, as quoted from a Chovetz Chaim Daily Companion email: “Halachah prohibits a person from walking in front of someone who is praying Shemoneh Esrei. Once, R’ Moshe was on his way to an important meeting when he noticed someone near the doorway praying Shemoneh Esrei. He stopped in his tracks and would go no further. “There is a wall blocking my path,” R’ Moshe explained. The wall, of course, was the strength of the halachah which prohibited him from walking any further.” [16]
If Nadav and Abihu had such a clear view of things, it is likely they would have been able to control their passion – even though it may have been direction to serving Hashem – such that they would have not offered the “strange fire”.
It is very important to have separation in our lives. And, “without wisdom there is no separation.” Acquiring this wisdom takes effort. I wish for all of us success in acquiring true Torah Wisdom.
Good Shabbos.
Sources:
1: Vayikra 9:24
2: Vayikra 10:10
3: Bereishis 1:18
4: Vayiikra 10:16
5: Vayikra 10:19
6: Vayikra 10:20
7: Vayikra 11:46-47
8: Book of Our Heritage, Book 2, page 484-5
9: http://www.aish.com/torahportion/betweenTheLines/Seven_Fatal_Mistakes.asp
10: Rabbi Nachman’s Wisdom
11: Book of Our Heritage Book 2, page 520
12: Artscroll Siddur – Havdallah Commentary
13: http://www.geocities.com/m_yericho/ravkook/SHMINI64.htm
14: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond#Process
15: Mesilas Yesharim
16: DCompanion email – Day 60
Other sources include:
- http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article.asp?AID=494828
- Commentary from the Artscroll Rashi and Artscroll Ba’al HaTurim
Tags: Abihu, Nadav, Parsha, Shemini, Strange Fire
Source #13 moved – it may now be found at http://ravkookTorah.org/SHMINI64.htm
I feel honored that you found this blog. Thank you for the note about the source.
- Chaim