PARSHAT SHEMINI, LEVITICUS 9:1–11:47

PARSHAT SHEMINI, LEVITICUS 9:1–11:47

Devorah the first woman Judge rendering judgment

At 10:8-9 

וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר

יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל-תֵּשְׁתְּ אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ, בְּבֹאֲכֶם אֶל-אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד--וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ:  חֻקַּת עוֹלָם, לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם

“And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine that will lead to intoxication, neither you nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, so that you shall not die. [This is] an eternal statute for your generations”

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.

However get this from the 13 century Sefer HaChinuch 152:

“…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?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 11:6 we are commanded not to eat rabbits:

וְאֶת-הָאַרְנֶבֶת, כִּי-מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הִוא, וּפַרְסָה, לֹא הִפְרִיסָה; טְמֵאָה הִוא, לָכֶם

“And the hare, because it brings up its cud, but does not have a cloven hoof; it is unclean for you”

An animal that chews its cud is called a ruminant. The hare or rabbit or אַרְנֶבֶת is not a ruminant although the scientist Carl Linnaeus, who formalized modern biologic nomenclature, at one time included the hare with other ruminants.  What’s going on here? How can the Torah say that the rabbit chews its cud when science knows that it does not?

In terms of eating and digesting of its food, the hare does something close to ruminant behavior, but not exactly so. Rabbits eat a large amount of greens each morning. These are only partially digested and the remnants are excreted.  After some time the hare returns to have another go, this time on its half digested droppings…ugh.  It has the appearance of animal chewing its cud. Thus the Torah has come up with a warning not to eat hares because they do not have split hooves.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE KILLING OF NADAV AND ABIHU

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 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 Mt. Sinai, learning Torah from HaShem, and Aaron is in charge.  The Israelites become restive; Aaron calms them down; he makes a golden calf and proclaims the next day as a festival day (Exodus 32:1-6). 

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 1^st 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?

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 Uzzah found in this week's Haftarah portion (2Samuel 6:3-7).  At King David’s direction, Uzzah was helping to transport the Ark by wagon from his father AviNadav’s (interesting name) house to Jerusalem, and inadvertently grasped the Ark when it became dislodged.  Although Uzzah intended no disrespect, HaShem struck him and he died.  If this could happen to Uzzah because of an accident, then how much more so Nadav and Abihu because of their deliberate actions.  Although King David, very much like Moses, was ultimately responsible for the care of the Ark, he like Moses was not punished.  However, King David was frightened enough not to move the Ark again for another three months.

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.

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 essay “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.

----