Please send messages to kehilasmy@yahoo.com
Cortesy of Partners-in-Torah Hashem instructs Aharon and his sons and
the Sanhedrin (the Elders) in the procedures to be followed at the dedication of
the Mishkan. Korbonos (sacrifices) are brought in honor of Hashem resting His
Presence on the Sanctuary which Bnai Yisroel have built. On this day, Aharon and
his sons begin their service as kohanim. Aharon and Moshe bless the nation, and
the Shechina appears to all Bnai Yisroel. The righteous sons of Aharon, Nadav and
Avihu, bring fire to the altar in preparation for offering the ktoress. In some
manner, they displease Hashem, and a fire takes their lives. Moshe offers
consolation. Aharon is silent. He and his two remaining sons are told not to
fulfill the customary ceremonies of mourning. Hashem teaches Aharon about the
care with which a kohen must enter the Mishkan. His mind may not be clouded, as
by wine, nor may he in such circumstances even clarify a matter of halacha. Moshe is upset when he finds that Aharon
has not eaten the chattas offering of the day. Aharon explains his reason. Moshe
accepts the answer, not being ashamed to admit that he himself had forgotten the
correct halacha. The Torah outlines what a Jew may eat and
what foods he must avoid. To be kosher, a four-legged animal requires split
hooves and must chew its cud. Marine life is kosher only if it has fins and
scales. Unkosher birds are listed. (Oral tradition gives signs of kashrus for
birds.) Four-legged creatures which fly are forbidden. Signs of permitted
locusts are given. Reptiles and many-legged land creatures are forbidden. Bnai Yisroel are told that a Jew who eats
forbidden food causes defilement in his soul. Hashem elevated us from the status
of Egypt. He expects us to elevate our lives by becoming holy, as He is. The sons of Aaron, Nadav and
Avihu, each took his fire pan. They put fire in them and placed incense upon it,
and they brought before Hashem an alien fire that he had not commanded them. A
fire came forth from before Hashem and consumed them, and they died before
Hashem. (10:1-2) The tremendous joy of the inauguration
of the Mishkan was marred by the tragic deaths of Nadav and Avihu. Although the
Medrash offers numerous opinions as to the nature of their sin, the Torah tells
us only that they erred in bringing an offering which they werent commanded to
do. What lesson is the Torah teaching us by emphasizing this as the cause of
their deaths? The Medrash relates that before giving
the Torah to the Jews, Hashem first offered it to the other nations of the
world. Each of them asked what is written in it. Hashem responded with the
mitzvah which would be most difficult for that nation to observe. Not
surprisingly, they all declined. Some commentators question why Hashem didnt
similarly test the Jews by presenting them with the mitzvah which would be most
difficult for them to observe. The Chiddushei HaRim (1799-1866)
suggests that Hashem also challenged the Jews in their weakest spot. Hashem told
Moses (Exodus 19:12) to set boundaries for the people around Mount Sinai,
warning that anybody who attempted to touch the mountain would be killed.
He explains that the core of every
Jewish soul yearns for spirituality. As it was created next to Hashems Throne
of Glory, it pines to come as close to its source as possible. The notion that a
Jew should be limited in his spiritual ascent, being told that there are
boundaries to how close to Hashem he may come, is anathema to his very essence.
Nevertheless, the Jews passed this test, recognizing that true closeness to
Hashem comes only from fulfilling His will. Approaching the mountain against His
instructions may feel holy, but would in reality be spiritually vacuous.
When the Imrei Emes (1866-1948) assumed
the position of Gerrer Rebbe, he decreed that his disciples must be careful to
recite the morning prayers at the proper time. This was a landmark enactment, as
for decades they had been accustomed to spend hours spiritually preparing
themselves for a sublime and awe-inspiring prayer experience. One of the Gerrer Chassidim came to the
new Rebbe to complain. He argued that since he began obeying the new rule, he
lacked the necessary time to properly ready himself to pray. The quality of his
prayers had declined and lacked the uplifting feeling of closeness to Hashem
that he had once enjoyed. The sagacious Rebbe responded that the
Talmud states that if honey was added to the incense mixture, its smell would
have been wonderful. If so, why does the Gemora rule that adding honey to the
incense invalidates it? Although its smell may have seemed out-of-this-world, it
would have been missing one critical ingredient: Hashems instructions to do so. Similarly, elaborate preparations for
prayers may seem to result in an improved experience, but if the experience
takes place outside of the time Hashem allotted for the prayers, the perceived
spiritual closeness doesnt find favor in Hashems eyes. Nadav and Avihu were overwhelmed by the
inauguration of the Mishkan, a place where Hashems presence was palpable. In
their excitement to come closer to Him, they forgot the most critical
prerequisite to doing so: a Divine commandment to perform this action.
We live in a generation which actively
promotes spiritual experiences. Temporary highs may seem tempting, but the
lesson of Nadav and Avihu is that there are no shortcuts to closeness to Hashem,
which comes only from fulfilling His will. And it was on the eighth day [that] Moshe
called to Aharon and to his sons and to the elders of Israel. 9:1 This verse introduced the special
service the Kohanim performed in tandem with the inauguration of the tabernacle.
It was also a symbol of their new status and their ability to obtain atonement
on behalf of the nation through their service. What bad news could their
appointment and consecration have heralded, that mandated the use of the word
VaYehi to connote tragedy? Sforno notes that the construction of the
tabernacle was not truly the ideal situation. Prior to the sin of the Golden
Calf, every Jew could have served as a repository of the Divine Presence and
there would have been no need for a central repository such as a tabernacle. It
was only once they sinned and demonstrated their unsuitability in this regard
that the tabernacle became a necessity. Marvelous as it was the joy was tempered
by the sad realization that had they patiently followed Aharons directions,
they could have enjoyed even greater closeness with Hashem. A fire came forth from before Hashem and consumed
what was on the altar; the burnt-offering and the fats. All the people saw and
they sang songs of praise, and they fell on their faces. 9:24
The joy experienced by the people was accompanied by the reality that the
intensity of the moment probably would not last forever. Over time, enthusiasm
wanes and mistakes are made. They prayed that their future mistakes not cause
the Divine Presence to desert them as it had after the sin of the Golden Calf.
This is the way of a spiritually conscious people who always plan for their
spiritual future, and recognize that indeed, past performance is no guarantee
of future success. Do not make your souls abominable by [eating] any
creeping creature that crawls, and do not contaminate yourselves with them, lest
you will become unclean because of them. For I am Hashem, your G-d; you shall
sanctify yourselves and you shall become holy, for I am Holy, and you shall not
make yourselves contaminated with any creeping creature that crawls on the
ground.11:43-44 The mandate to consume only kosher
food is clearly not based on health considerations. Rather, the Torah emphasizes
that it is based on our obligation to emulate Hashems holiness, which is
accomplished by avoiding non-kosher food which contaminate the soul. This
oft-misunderstood point is crucial, as it lays bare the claim that the basis for
the kosher laws is an interest in promoting healthy eating habits. That may, or
may not be a fringe benefit of this lifestyle, but it is certainly not the
underlying principle. Thus, any modern advances that may render non-kosher food
healthier than in previous times cannot be considered a factor in permitting
their consumption.
Excerpted from The Kleinman Edition of A Daily Dose of
Torah: Parshas Shemini The Gemara in Shabbos (155b) states:
Rav Pappa said: There is none so poor as the dog, and none so rich as the pig.
The simple meaning of this saying is that the dog, which is a more
discriminating eater, is always looking for food that it considers palatable;
whereas the pig, since it will eat anything, is never lacking food. However, as
in all the words of the Sages, there is a deeper level to this adage; according
to the Vilna Gaon, it is a strong criticism of what has become acceptable
behavior by the masses. Lashon hara (evil speech, such as slander,
gossip, or false flattery) is forbidden by the Torah under several prohibitions.
Depending on the situation (see the introduction to Sefer Chofetz Chaim), a
person can violate up to seventeen Torah prohibitions by speaking lashon hara!
However, astoundingly, many otherwise mitzvah-observant people simply do not
consider it to be prohibited at all! The Gemara in Pesachim (118a) states that
one who speaks lashon hara is fit to be thrown to the dogs. [Kli Yakar (to
Bereishis 37:2) explains that his behavior is similar to that of the dog, who
barks and howls at anyone in its vicinity.] In the above statement, Rav Pappa is
comparing the sin of lashon hara, symbolized by the dog, with the sin of eating
pork. He comments that while there is none as rich as the pig, i.e., the
prohibition against eating pork is widely and strictly observed, there is none
as poor as the dog, i.e., the prohibitions of lashon hara are poor"; they are
not observed or generally held to be severe. This, despite the fact that the
severity of the sin of lashon hara is at least as grave as that of eating pork!
The Chofetz Chaim, in his sefer Shemiras
HaLashon, brings this point home with vivid imagery. Imagine, he writes, that a
Torah-observant Jew is confronted with the fact that the food he is eating is
not kosher. Is there any doubt that he would stop eating immediately, and thank
the individual who brought this to his attention? Would anyone imagine that
someone who considers himself to be part of the mitzvah-observing community
would react with anger, and continue to eat? However, this is exactly what
happens many times when one is confronted with the fact that the content of his
conversation is forbidden. It is common for the speaker to become upset, and
explain in no uncertain terms that regarding the evil" person who is the
subject of his conversation, it is not only permitted, but a mitzvah, to speak
about him! We must condition ourselves to regard the
sin of lashon hara as the severe transgression that it actually is. The Chofetz
Chaim states that the first step in doing this is to learn the pertinent
halachos, so that one will be aware of the forbidden aspects of his speech. 1) Q: The Rambam rules (Hilchos
Deios 6:7) that a person who sees his friend transgressing or engaged in
inappropriate behavior is required to rebuke him and explain to him the error of
his ways. He adds that this must be done in a soft voice and gentle manner,
making it clear that the criticism emanates solely from a pure desire to assist
and benefit his friend. In fact, Rav Chaim Volozhiner maintains that a person
who is only able to deliver rebuke in an angry, rude manner is exempt from the
mitzvah based on the condition of the Rambam. Where is this requirement hinted
to in the Torah? A: I once saw a beautiful
hint to this concept from 10:16-17. The Torah tells us explicitly that Moses was
angry at what he perceived as an incorrect judgment on the part of Aaron and his
sons. Nevertheless, the first letter of the words of his actual criticism (????
?? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????) spell out ??? ???? full of love hinting to us
that even as he carried out what he perceived to be his Divine obligation to
protest their actions, he did so in a way which demonstrated his love for them
and his pure motivations in doing so! 2) Q: Why is the
sacrifice prescribed by the Torah (5:17-18) for somebody who is in doubt whether
he even sinned, such as a person who ate one of two pieces of meat and
subsequently found out that one of them wasnt kosher, significantly more
expensive 48 times more than that required of a person who knows with
certainty that he sinned? Wouldnt logic seem to dictate that the opposite be
more appropriate? A: The Nodah BiYehuda
posits that the age of 20 isnt calculated chronologically but is based on a
persons intelligence and development. A person with a maturity beyond his years
could then be liable to Divine punishment even before the chronological age of
20. Although Nadav and Avihu werent yet 20 years old, their development IQ
gave them a spiritual age over 20 and they were thus subject to Divine
punishment. 3) Q: Rashi quotes (10:2) the
opinion of Rav Yishmael, who maintains that Nadav and Avihu were killed for
entering the Mishkan and attempting to bring a sacrifice while drunk. How could
they be held responsible for violating a prohibition which would only be taught
after their deaths (10:9)? A:
The Mishmeres Ariel answers that we see from here that a
person is held responsible for sins which he should have known better than to
commit, even if he wasnt explicitly commanded not to do them. Although there
wasnt yet a commandment forbidding a person to offer a sacrifice while under
the influence of alcohol, the concept that a person shouldnt serve Hashem with
light-headedness and frivolity should come naturally.
Table Talk: For discussion around the Shabbos
Table
Parsha PartnerTM
parshas Shemini
Parsha At-a-Glance
By Ozer Alport
Parsha Perspectives
By Ozer Alport
talking points
Rabbi Elazar Meisels
1. The Tempered Joy
2. Always Planning for the Future
3. Kosher: A Means to Holiness
Soul Talk
Artscroll Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn, NY March 2007.
Hey, I never knew that!
Amazing Insights About the Weekly Parsha
By Ozer Alport
a) Rashi writes (Exodus 24:10) that Nadav and
Avihu should have been killed at Mount Sinai for irreverently indulging in food
and drink while gazing at a prophetic revelation of Hashem, but He spared their
lives temporarily so as not to mar the joy of the giving of the Torah. For some
reason, this consideration wasnt applied at the inauguration of the Mishkan
when Hashem killed Nadav and Avihu. What difference could there be?
b) Although Nadav and Avihu sinned by bringing an alien
fire that Hashem hadnt commanded them to bring (10:1), Hashem normally gives a
person time to do teshuva (repent). Why were they punished so severely, with
immediate death, instead of being given an opportunity to repent?
Torah Umesorah, the National Society for Hebrew Day Schools
 |
SHIDDUCHIM for RUSSIAN BAALEY TESHUVAH Worldwide in Russian | 
|
Please visit our web page http://www.kehilasmy.org
Buy books with 10% off from Artscroll and Artscroll will donate us 5% of your purchase: