"It came to pass on the eighth day that Moses called Aaron and his
sons and the elders of Israel
When the above
described scene reached its peak, with "fire [coming] out from before YHVH…
consuming the burnt offering…" as we just noticed, we are suddenly
transferred without as much as a breather into the next one, with its parallel
yet contradicting elements. And so we read in 10:1 about A’haron’s sons, Nadav
and Avihu taking censors and putting fire and incense on them, which YHVH had
"not commanded them." Theirs was a
fire of their own making ("zara" - foreign, strange,
of a different kind), which they brought near before YHVH,
and "so fire went out from YHVH and devoured them" (v. 2). When the
Children of Yisrael and their leaders did as they were commanded (see
9:10) and drew near to YHVH, His fire consumed the offering
and He showed them His Glory. When Nadav and Avihu brought near before
YHVH that which He did not command, it also resulted in a fire that
went out from the Him, but this fire consumed them (see 10:1-2).
The similar terms used to describe both episodes make for a sinister symmetry,
one that demonstrates that often there may be but a fine line which separates
the holy from the profane, the desirable from the detestable. An example of contrasting
terms, that serve to highlight certain situations is seen in 9:24b, where we
read that the people "shouted" - (va)yaronou -
joyfully. In contrast, after Nadav and Avihu's sad annihilation, it says that
A'haron was utterly silent, or even motionless - (va)yidom
– root of d.o.m (see 10:3b). In Psalm 94:17, the expression "dwelling in
silence" ("shachna duma”), denotes death. Psalm 115:17 says:
"The dead do not praise YHVH, nor any who go down into silence" (duma,
once again).
"By
those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I
must be glorified" (10:3) is the explanation as to why Nadav and Avihu,
because of their lofty positions, had to be totally obedient to YHVH and could
not misrepresent him as they had done. In fact, they are called here by YHVH
"k'rova'i" - those who are close (or near) to Me -
and as such, YHVH was to “be rendered holy" ("eka'desh")
by, or through them. In addition,
their actions were supposed to glorify YHVH causing others to also do so,
with "eka'ved" being the term used, meaning literally "heavy,"
and by implication "highly esteemed."
In the second part of chapter 10, Moshe
instructs A'haron and his two "remaining sons" (v. 12) to not display
any signs of mourning. On the other hand, the rest of Yisrael was given
permission to "bewail the burning which YHVH has kindled" (v.
6b, italics added). Interestingly, the “burning” here is not attached to the
particular individuals, neither to human beings in general or even to death.
The word used, which sounds so dreadfully detached, is "s'refa,"
meaning "burning” or “to burn." It appears that the
emphasis is put on the calamity itself as it was inflicted by YHVH, with the priests
being expected to identify with His approach (hence His strict orders to
them not to display signs of mourning over the death of their relatives). In
addition, they were to remain inside the tent (cf. 8:33,35, mentioned above) as
long as YHVH's anointing oil was on them, and were also prohibited from
drinking wine and intoxicating drink in the course of their service in Ohel
Mo'ed ("Tent of Meeting", 10:6-9). This latter requirement led some
commentators to surmise that YHVH's anger against Nadav and Avihu was kindled
because they may have been inebriated while ministering. The purpose for these
measures was "that you [i.e. the priests] may teach the children of Israel
At the end of the following section
(10:12-20), Moshe reproves A'haron and his remaining (“nota'rim”)
sons, El'azar and Itamar, for not having eaten the remaining (“noteret”)
offering, which was rightfully theirs (see v. 17). Instead, they burned the
goat for the sin offering ("soraf," v. 16 – identical word to
the “fire” mentioned in 10:6 above, which consumed Nadav and Avihu), making a
fire of their own and getting rid of that which they were supposed to consume. Once
again A’haron’s sons were not acting according to the prescribed instructions. Fear of failure appears to have
led these two to over react and miss YHVH’s instructions. Here we also hear
A'haron expressing himself for the first time after
the loss of his two sons, a loss he refers to as, “such things [that] have
befallen me" (v. 19), and wondering if the eating that was required "…had
been good - (ha)yitav - in the eyes of YHVH. And Moses heard and
it was good - (va)yitav - in his eyes" (vs. 19-20 literal
translation). The echoing of A'haron's "good" in Moshe’s response
seems to indicate that harmony had been restored.
Our Parasha clearly brings out the role of
the priests in the Israelite society, and their view of their office. S.R. Hirsch elaborates on this
issue: "The Hebrew priest is part of the nation, and his position is not
an isolated one before God, but one that he occupies only within and through
the nation….” Regarding the sacrifices and their function relative to the Almighty
and to the worshipper, he says: “The closeness of and approach to God… may only
be found through obedience to and acceptance of God's will… The offering means to place the offerer at
God's service, i.e., he wants to fulfill God's wishes through his offering. All
offerings are therefore forms of Divine demands which the offerer, through his
offering, accepts as the guidelines for his future conduct."[2]
In line with the theme of separating the
clean from the unclean, the rest of the Parasha (chapter 11) is devoted to the
type of animal, fish and fowl permitted for consumption, as well as to those
that were forbidden. It is interesting that verses 4-7 constitute a list of
four animals, all of which have one of the two traits required, but are devoid
of the other. However, the first trait mentioned in all four cases happens to
be the one that fulfills the requirement, whereas the specification of the
missing one is second. The lesson to be learned here is simple: even though things may seem 'right' or 'proper'
at first sight, they should be investigated further, lest deception sets in
(e.g. notice the order of adjectives in the title of the Tree of Knowledge of Good
and Evil). The above tragic scene, with Nadav and Avihu, A’haron’s sons,
who may have had ‘good’ intentions, illustrates this point even more
poignantly. YHVH’s holiness and His charge upon His people to be “set apart as
He is” cannot to be measured by human standards of ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ and
requires unquestionable obedience.
"You shall not make yourselves abominable with any creeping thing
that creeps; nor shall you make yourselves unclean with them, lest you be
defiled by them, for I am YHVH your Elohim. You shall therefore consecrate yourselves,
and you shall be holy, for I am holy. Neither shall you defile yourselves with
any creeping thing that creeps on the earth, for I am YHVH who brings you up
out of the land
of Egypt Egypt
Aligning themselves with their Elohim and His ways is what makes the
Israelite Nation a "holy nation." Partaking of that which is
abominable in His sight, or even coming into contact with it renders those who
choose to do so just as abominable - "sheh’ketz": “You shall not make yourselves (lit. “your soul”)
abominable – teshak’tzu” - with any creeping thing that creeps” (v. 43). The "abomination (of desolation)"
in Daniel 11:31 and 12:11 employs the same word, with a certain modification
(“shikutz”). Interestingly, the
partaking of the unclean meat, fish, and fowl has no legal consequence. One may
ask, therefore, if the result of being “abominable” and “defiled” before YHVH
isn’t, in and of it self, the (unspecified) penalty (although according to Isaiah
66:17 the offender is not unpunished).
Our Parasha ends with a clear reminder of its theme: “to distinguish, [or
separate], the unclean from the clean…" (11:47).
Notes
