Leviticus 9:1-11:47 – Numbers 19:1-22 – Ezekiel 36:16-38 – Luke 13:1-17

This week's edition of The Set Table contains:

Questions and Commentary on Shemini
Chayyei Yeshua - A Devotional Commentary on the Besora Reading
In Summary
Looking Ahead

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, "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 that 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 that 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. Leviticus 8:2-4 prescribes the offerings that are necessary to have the "glory of the Lord appear." Why are these specific animals mentioned? Also, how do they testify to the ultimate offering of Yeshua the Messiah?

Nick Amic

Parashat Shemini The concept of an animal offering is foreign to moderns, however this was the preferred method of connection to God among the ancients. The medieval commentators understand animal offerings in different ways. Rambam understood the whole sacrificial system as an appeasement of God, in order to shift Israel from sacrificing to pagan deities to the one true God (Guide for the Perplexed, Part III, Ch. 32). Nachmanides adds one "make[s an animal offering in order to] realize that having sinned against God with one's body and soul, one would deserve to have one's blood spilled (Ramban to Leviticus 1:9). Nachmanides adds, "in the context of mystical truth, the sacrifices contain hidden mysteries" (ibid.).

Upon the inauguration of the Tabernacle, Aaron offers a goat, calf, and lamb for an ascent offering; and an ox and ram for peace offerings. What is the symbolism of these offerings? R. Josef Soloveitchik comments that the goat represents atonement for the tribes' participation in the sale of Joseph (whose coat was dipped in goat's blood, Genesis 37:31), while the calf atones for the "sin of the golden calf" (Exodus 31:18ff). I want to suggest that the lamb serves as a reminder of the Paschal Lamb (Exodus 12:21-23), which is a rejection of Egyptian idolatry (see Exodus 8:22). Contemporary scholar Rabbi Abba Wagensberg theorizes that the "peace offerings" are meant to thank God for the atoning of abovementioned sins. The ox is a thanksgiving for atoning for selling Joseph, since Moses refers to Joseph as an ox (Deuteronomy 33:17). Further, the ram signifies the act of teshuva (repentance) to God, symbolized by the blowing of a shofar (made of a ram's horn-see b. Rosh Hashana 97a).

How do these animal offerings reveal the "hidden mysteries" of the ultimate offering of Yeshua? Two identical goats were offered every Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:7-11, cf. b. Yoma 39a) one for a sin offering, the other to azazel (or ez ozel-literally the "goat that departs"). This is akin to the Brit Chadasha's mention of two Adam's - the first Adam that "departed", and the second Adam that served as a sin offering (Romans 5:12-19). The calf appears in the parable of the prodigal son - where a "fatted calf" was slaughtered (Luke 15:23-30 discusses the dispute of the older son - Israel - over the killing of the calf for the unworthy son - the Nations). The sheep represents "the lamb of God" (John 1:29, 36; 1 Peter 1:19 - an allusion to Isaiah 53:7). The ox reminds us how Joseph is an archetype of Yeshua (see discussion of Messiah ben Josef in b. Sukka 52b; Zohar I:25b). Joseph was sold out by his own brothers (cf. Matthew 26:14-16), unjustly convicted of a crime he didn't commit, rose to power among the gentiles, and is later revealed to his brothers who were blinded to him at first (Luke 2:30-32; Acts 28:28; also see b. Sukka 52b). The ram, of whose horn we make the shofar, is alluded to in the shofar blast announcing the return of the Messiah (1 Corinthians 15:52).

Now we come closer to understanding the mystical concept the author of Hebrews presents: Yeshua's offering is superior to that of animal offerings (9:11-15). Yeshua opened a gate into the Holiest place in spiritual connection to God (4:16) and beckons us to come in our time of need.

David Nichol

Luke 13:1-17 - Contesting for Life

In our passage, Yeshua heals a woman while in synagogue on Shabbat - while teaching, no less - and is caught up in a debate that is well-attested throughout the besorot. Looking back on this incident, we might ask ourselves whether Jewish tradition as we have received it agrees with Yeshua, or whether it agrees with this unnamed "leader of the synagogue." Is healing on the Shabbat allowed today?  Perhaps the easy answer is, if you can supernaturally heal, nobody's going to stop you!

One parallel in the tradition is found in the concept of piquach nefesh. That is, one may disobey almost any commandment, including violating the sanctity of Shabbat rest, to save a life. Life is the most important Jewish value, and trumps most other commandments.  Of course, the question becomes whether the woman in our passage was in a life-threatening situation.  Could he not have healed her Sunday?

This situation also bears comparison to the idea that we do not petition God for our needs on Shabbat.  To wit, the quintessential Jewish prayer, the Amidah, replaces its middle twelve berakhot with a single berakha on Shabbat and festivals.  As to why we do not petition on Shabbat, there are various rationales given.  Some say that praying for personal needs would remind a worshipper of their troubles and needs, and remove them from experiencing Shabbat; others that Shabbat being a foretaste of the world to come, we live as if all our needs are met. Thus, we do not ask for our needs on Shabbat.  Of course, one need only examine a siddur to realize that the prohibition against petitionary prayer on Shabbat is not consistently applied; there are found prayers that appear to petition.

Whatever the many influences on Shabbat prayer throughout the history of the siddur, one obvious exception is the Mi Sheberakh prayer for healing that comes during the Torah service. It is interesting that while many other prayers of "asking" were taken out of Shabbat liturgy, this one, for healing of sickness, remains. It is as if our tradition chose the words of Yeshua over the words of our "synagogue leader" and other overly strict decisors.

To understand why this "exception" is made, and why Yeshua decides to heal, we must look back at Yeshua's words, where he connects back to the concept of piquach nefesh described above. Specifically, he applies it to animals, comparing the healing of this woman ("bound" by her sickness, v.16) to when a farmer must untie an animal to allow it to drink water. Somehow, freeing someone from debilitating sickness is equivalent to saving a life.

NEXT WEEK'S READINGS - PARASHAT TAZRIA

Leviticus 12:1-13:59
Exodus 12:1-20
Ezekiel 45:16-46:18
Luke 14:1-24

UPCOMING YACHAD NETWORK EVENTS