SHEMINI, LEVITICUS 9:1–11:47
In Parshat Shemini, Aaron’s two oldest sons, Nadav and Abihu, die at the hand of heaven when they bring “strange fire” before HaShem (Leviticus 10:1-2).
THE KILLING OF NADAV AND ABIHU
WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE?
The Sages and commentators offer many reasons for their death. For example: their behavior was inappropriate because they were drunk or they did not seek permission from Moses or that they were in the Holy of Holies, and only the Kohen Gadol was authorized to enter the Holy of Holies.
I think however that the responsibility for their death lies in part with their father or perhaps with their uncle Moses, himself. It all begins in the previous year, eight months before, in the month of Tammuz with the Sin of the Golden Calf: Moses is away on
Then early the next day, a festival day, the people bring Olah and Shlamim offerings to an altar that Aaron has erected. The Olah is the standard voluntary offering where the entire animal, except for its skin goes up to HaShem. It is a form of a gift, a thank you and by doing so, the offeror comes closer to HaShem. The Shlamim is also voluntary, and also has a thank you connotation, but in this instance it is shared between HaShem, the priesthood and the offeror. In both of these offerings there is a prescribed ritual which Aaron’s sons are required to carry out which means that although Aaron may have made the golden calf, his sons assisted the populace in giving thanks to it.
HaShem becomes incensed; he vows to annihilate the entire population except for Moses, but Moses pleads on behalf of the people and calms HaShem down. However, in the aftermath, the Sons of Levi by name, and not Aaron and his sons by name, slay three thousand of the evil-doers. Additionally as a punishment, HaShem brings a plague against the Israelites. But in no instance does it appear that Aaron and his sons are held accountable, at least not at this juncture.
Fast forward one year later to the 1st of Nissan, the Mishkan has been completed and ready to be activated as a resting place for HaShem. Aaron and his sons, including Nadav and Abihu the eldest of them, have been personally trained by Moses as to how to carry out their duties. Nadav and Abihu are consumed by a heavenly fire. And the question is…Who is responsible for their deaths?
WERE THE BROTHERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN DEATHS?
The Sages and commentators place the responsibility on the two brothers themselves. Support for this position can be found in the narrative of the death of Uzziah (2Samuel 6:3-7). At King David’s direction, Uzziah was helping to transport the
WAS AARON HELD ACCOUNTABLE?
Notwithstanding that the Torah does not explicitly hold Aaron, Nadav and Abihu or any of Aaron’s children responsible for the sin of the golden calf; a case may be made for doing so. Again, returning by example to King David in 2 Samuel 12:13-18: David sinned with Batsheva. HaShem through the prophet Nathan called him to account. David admitted his guilt; HaShem did not kill him, but the son born to David died seven days after having been born. It could be that Aaron paid a similar price.
LESSON LEARNED
I think one of the lessons here is that leadership is an awful responsibility, one not to be taken lightly, not only for purposes of potential culpability, but because of possible dire consequences from inadvertent or deliberate errors in judgment.
I’ll leave it you as to who should take responsibility for the death of Nadav and Abihu. I myself like happy endings. It could be as some say: their physical bodies were not up to being in such close proximity to the Divine Presence, and their spiritual souls just exited their physical bodies, only to be united with HaShem.
I realize that calling this account “THE KILLING OF NADAV AND ABIHU” and not “THE DEATH OF NADAV AND ABIHU” I am making a statement that their death was a deliberate act and not an accidental occurrence.
------------------------------------------------------------
At 10:8-9 -
The prohibition against drinking wine is directed at the priests officiating in the Sanctuary. However this prohibition is true and good for any person who is required to discern and distinguish between things. A Judge is such a person. A Judge is also forbidden to give a ruling or render a verdict when intoxicated.
“…And the prohibition of coming to the Temple in drunkenness is practiced at the time of the (Temple) by males and females. And the prevention of giving a ruling is in every place and at all times by males and so by a sage woman that is fitting to give a ruling.”
Does this mean that it is O.K. for a qualified woman such as Deborah to interpret the Law and give Halachic rulings?
Oy Vey… What are things coming to?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
“And the hare, because it brings up its cud, but does not have a cloven hoof; it is unclean for you”
No comments:
Post a Comment