Questions & Commentary on Parashat Shemini
1. What is the nature of Nadav and Avihu's offering? Why
was it not accepted?
Rabbi Jonathan
Kaplan
Our parasha begins
with a chronicle of the events which happened after the tabernacle was
consecrated and Aaron and his sons are ordained as priests: Aaron officiating
over a series of offerings (9:8-21), Moses and Aaron's blessing the people, and
the kevod of God appearing in the Tent of Meeting (9:23). The next chapter begins with a note of tragedy as
Aaron's sons and designated successors, Nadav and Avihu, bring an offering of ketoret
- incense which is met with God's all-consuming fire and their deaths.
Certainly, Nadav and Avihu were not incorrect in understanding that incense is
an appropriate offering to bring before God. Moses, himself, had done so when
the tabernacle was being erected (Exodus 40:28). Yet, the offering of these two
seemingly pious, consecrated priests was not accepted.
In Leviticus 10:1, Nadav
and Avihu's offering is described as 'esh zara 'asher lo' tzivva 'otam
"an alien fire which God had not commanded them." The fire refers to the
incense offering itself; it is zara "alien, foreign." In simplest terms
it does not belong in the sanctuary. Baruch Levine (Leviticus, 59)
suggests that the usage here is related to the prohibition against offering ketoret
zara "alien incense offering" in Exodus 30:9. There the prohibition is
against offering anything beyond the daily incense offering (Exodus 30:7-8).
Levine suggests that "entering the Tent for an improper purpose, they met with
death." Their offering was well-intentioned but done improperly, an offering
not prescribed by God.
Why would Nadav and Avihu
make such a cardinal mistake? They had been trained along with their father in
the appropriate sacrificial actions throughout the seven day period of
ordination. Why make an offering which was not prescribed and in fact
proscribed in Exodus 30?
One suggestion is perhaps
offered by the text of Leviticus itself. Immediately following the immolation
of Nadav and Avihu and the removal of their bodies from the sanctuary, God
enjoins Aaron and his sons against drinking when they perform their sacred
duties in the Tent of Meeting (10:8ff). Perhaps, Nadav and Avihu partook of
some wine in celebration of the consecration of the tabernacle and their
ordination. This wine led to make foolish judgments about what and when to
offer before God.
Vayyiqra Rabba
20, the collection of homiletical midrashim on Leviticus, suggests that in
bringing the offering, Nadav and Avihu had failed to consult one another. Thus
they both offered a sacrifice which they had not been commanded and failed to
be of one accord in how they would bring their offering.
Sifra, the
collection of halakhic midrashim on Leviticus, suggests the foolhardy act of
the two young priests proceeded from unrestrained exuberance. "They too in
their joy, as soon as they saw the new fire, stood forth to heap love unto
their love" (Parashat Shemini Mekhilta Demiluim 32). They were zealous
to offer their worship before God. But in zeal they over-stepped the bounds of
acceptable worship. They brought an offering before God out of their own
volition rather than at the God's direction. As our text says, "God had not
commanded them." Yet, they brought the offering anyway.
Nadav and Avihu's
offering jars us as we read this text. As we have waded through the detailed
sacrificial requirements of the first few chapters of Leviticus, we began to
experience a sense of excitement as Aaron and his sons were consecrated as
priests. Here we are confronted with a tragic rupture in the narrative. Two
priests who zealously sought to bring offerings of their joy before God are
consumed in God's fire. The Torah suggests it was not a prescribed offering, commanded
by God. Though it is difficult to pin down Nadav and Avihu's motivation, the
comments of the darshanim teach us that offerings, though brought out of
love and devotion to God, should only be brought in the way in which God truly
calls us to offer them. Intimacy with God can only be attained through a
disciplined approach to God, not through our own exuberance. Exuberance is good
but it must be tempered by discipline lest we ourselves offer our own ‘esh
zara.
2. What is the spiritual value and meaning found in
keeping kosher? Why were the laws of kashrut placed in the context of the
inauguration of the Mishkan
(Tabernacle) in this week's parasha?
Rabbi Jason Sobel
Jewish scholars and sages
have offered a variety of explanations as to the purpose and spiritual
significance of the Jewish dietary laws known as kashrut. In general,
these varied explanations can be summarized as historical, medical, or
ethical/moral.
The proponents of the
historical theory have primarily been anthropologists and historians. They
argue that the ancient Israelites adopted the pagan practices of their
neighbors in regard to "clean" and "unclean" animals. Other ancient religions
such as Zorastrianism (a religion of Ancient Persia) believed that their
"clean" and "unclean" animals represented "good" and "evil." This view however
is based in a type of dualism rooted in the belief that there are two equal and
opposing forces in the world that are constantly in conflict with one another,
a viewpoint that does not correlate with the biblical data.
A second popular theory
is that the laws of kashrut were given for medical reasons. Their
purpose is to promote the physical well-being of the children of Israel.
God meant to ensure the mental and physical health of the Jewish people so that
they would have the necessary vitality to study and serve the Lord. This view
was held by the great Jewish scholar and physician Maimonides (the Rambam;
1135-1204). Although this view seems logical, some arguments against this view
are: 1) many non-Jews eat things like pork and shell fish and are as healthy or
have better health than Jews who keep kosher; 2) if the physical well-being of
the Jewish people was the primary reason for kashrut, why are poisonous
herbs and other harmful foods not included in the list of prohibited foods?; 3)
the result of eating animals that are not kosher is spiritual contamination (tuma)
and not physical disorders according to the Torah.
The most common view
accepted by the majority of classical Jewish commentators is the moral or
ethical theory of kashrut. The following are example of this position found as
found in the Talmud and Rashi:
The school of R.
Ishmael taught: Sin dulls the heart of man, as it
is said, "Neither shall you make yourselves unclean with them, that you should
be defiled thereby" (Leviticus 11:43).
Read not wenitmethem [that you should
be defiled], but unetamothem [that
you should become dull-hearted]. Our Rabbis taught: ‘Neither shall you make
yourselves unclean that you should be defiled thereby.' If a man defiles
himself a little, he becomes much defiled: [if he defiles himself] below, he
becomes defiled from above [i.e. heaven]; if he defiles himself in this world,
he becomes defiled in the world to come.
b. Yoma 39a
Since the Israelites cleave to the Omnipresent and are therefore
worthy of being alive, accordingly, God separated them from uncleanness and
decreed commandments upon them . . . For the other nations, however, God
prohibited nothing. This is comparable to a physician who went to visit a
patient [who was incurable, and allowed him to eat anything he wished, whereas
when he went to his patient who was to recover, the physician imposed
restrictions on his diet that would ensure that the recoverable patient would
live. So too, the nations and Israel...],
etc. as is found in Midrash Tanchuma.
Rashi on Leviticus 11:2
The primary underlying
principal here is that certain foods have the ability to harm and pollute the
soul, thereby dulling a Jewish person's moral and ethical sensitivity. Though I
do agree that eating non-kosher meat does have ethical, moral, and spiritual
ramifications for a Jewish person, I do not, however, believe that any animal
is intrinsically impure and capable of defiling the soul in and of itself. If
this were the case, it would mean that a non-Jewish, non-kosher-keeping
follower of Messiah could never achieve as high a spiritual level as a Torah
observant Messianic Jew. Both New Covenant teaching/halacha as found in
Acts 15 and my personal experience refute this position.
How then does keeping the
laws of kashrut sanctify a Jewish person and eating treif
(non-kosher meat) make someone spiritually impure (tameh)? In order to
understand this, we must understand the context in which these dietary laws
appear. The laws of kashrut are first mentioned in this week's Torah
portion, in the context of the inauguration of the mishkan and in the
midst of the laws containing to priestly service. But why should these laws
that apply to all Israel
appear in this context?
We need to remember is
that the Mishkan is meant to be a partial return to Eden.
Architectural aspects of its design point to the fact that the Mishkan
was meant to be mini Gan Eden. Examples include the menora that
was reminiscent of the Tree of Life and cherubim on the curtain that
guarded the way into God's Presence. Furthermore, everything that made a person
ritually impure and thus prohibited them from entering, worshiping, and serving
in the Mishkan were all in some way connected to the Fall and subsequent
curse. Anything associated with death such as touching a dead body,
menstruation which is connected to the loss of a potential life, and certain
skin diseases and deformities all made a person ritually impure. Since all
these things are connected to the Fall, they are not allowed into the Mishkan.
But how is eating
non-kosher meat connected to the Fall?
The sin of Adam and Eve involved eating. In other words, their eating of
the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a quest for wisdom apart from
God. Stephen Bailey beautifully elaborates
on this point when he writes,
The knowledge of good and evil is the knowledge of moral
judgment-what is "good" and what is "bad." The first, fundamental principal of
the relationship between God (the Creator) and the Human (His creation) is that
God alone is the source of moral judgment of good and evil . . . For the human
being to "be as God, knowing good and evil" means that the human usurps from
God the source what is considered "good" and what is considered "evil."
Kashrut, Tzit Tzit,
and Tefillin, 42-43
Based on these insights,
the reason why the laws of kashrut have the power to make us holy or
defile us is that they offer us the opportunity to trust and obey, and thereby
correct the mistake humankind made in the garden. Every time a Jew chooses to
abstain from what God says is unfit to eat, they demonstrate that they have
learned from the mistake made in Eden
and further the process of their personal spiritual refinement and that of the
Jewish people and the entire World. After all the Torah is called a Tree of
Life and all who cling to it and the one who embodies it fully, Messiah Yeshua,
find the life of Paradise.
Joshua Brumbach
Matthew 19:16-30 - All We Who Are Wealthy . . ."
In this week's portion
from the Besora, we encounter the familiar story of the rich young man
who asks Yeshua about what more he must he do in order to obtain eternal life.
Truth be told, I always found this story puzzling. Originally I was under the
impression, as is commonly taught, that this passage was speaking against being
wealthy, and having many possessions. Although this interpretation could be
plausible, over time I have come to see something different.
I have found a nuance of
something much deeper and related to our relationships with others rather than
an abrogation of being wealthy. I came to this conclusion by asking the not so
seemingly apparent question, "If the wealthy young man was already observing
the mitzvot, why did Yeshua tell him that the only way to obtain eternal
life was to sell all of his possessions?" For nothing in the Scriptures seems
to allude to wealth and possessions as being equal to not being able to obtain
eternal life.
Yeshua's original
response to the young man was simply, "If you want to obtain eternal life,
observe the mitzvot (19:17b)." He than continued by citing five of the
Ten Commandments, and the commandment to "Love your neighbor as yourself
(Leviticus 19:18; cf. Mark 12:31)." The young man stated that he had done
those mitzvot, and wanted to know what more he needed to do.
I believe Yeshua's
response was posited to question the young man's assuredness. The reason is
because all the mitzvot cited by Yeshua all have to do with one's
relationship toward others, and putting others' needs before your own. When
Yeshua asked the young man if he was truly doing so, the young man too quickly
responded.
Being wealthy
automatically puts you in a difficult position. It forces you to put your needs
before others. With wealth comes great responsibilities, and often those responsibilities
cloud our judgment to see our priorities clearly.
Each one of us may not be financially wealthy,
but we each have gifts and talents that cloud our judgment as well. We feel
that we are doing everything for God already, and when we ask what more God
wants from us, we are often shocked by the divine response. We all feel that
there are things we cannot possibly give up because they are our tools which we
use to serve God. But what God really wants is our entire
neshama, our entire selves. We may be worship leaders, teachers,
speakers, and artisans. And what God
wants to know is if we would still be willing to give those gifts and talents
up for Him? Talents and gifts we try to protect. We are all "wealthy." Would
we, me and you, truly be willing to give it all up in order to follow God? I
pray that we would. For by being obedient in doing so, Yeshua assured us, "We
will find our rewards in heaven (19:21)."
Learning 
