Leviticus 9:1-11:47 | 2 Samuel 6:1-7:17 | Matthew 19:16-30

This week's edition of The Set Table contains:

Questions and Commentary on Shabbat Shemini
Chayyei Yeshua - A Devotional Commentary on the Besora Reading
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 that 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 them to make foolish judgments about what and when to offer before God. 

Vayyiqra Rabba 20, acollection 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, a 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. 

2. What is the spiritual value and meaning found in keeping kosher? 

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 examples of this position 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 venitmettem [that you should be defiled], but unetamotem [that you should become dull-hearted].

    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.

    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/halakha as found in Acts 15 and my personal experience refute this position.

Matthew 19:16-30 - All we who are Wealthy . . .

Joshua Brumbach

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 that 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).

NEXT WEEK'S READINGS - PARASHAT TAZRIA

Leviticus 12:1-15:33
Numbers 28:9-15
Isaiah 66:1-24
Matthew 20:17-28