THE SOUND OF SILENCE

Parashas Shemini

Vayomer Moshe el Aharon, hu asher dibair Hashem ... vayidom Aharon ... and Moshe said to Aharon, this is what Hashem had said ... and Aharon was silent (Vayikra 10:3)

The day must have been glorious and full of promise. At least part of the sin of the golden calf was about to be expiated, the Tabernacle had been constructed and the means put into position for man to achieve atonement for his sins. Man had demonstrated that his efforts could bring the Shechinah to the temporal world [see our comments to Pikudei]. It was a moment of incredible fulfillment, an instant in time when Heaven and earth were in perfect harmony.

And precisely then, tragedy strikes. Nadav and Avihu are killed by a fire emanating from Heaven and entering their nostrils. Something that they have done, some sin of omission or commission has brought death to Aharon’s oldest sons, his fellow kohanim/servants of Hashem. The Torah is cryptic in describing their sin ... vayakrivu lifnei hashem eish zarah asher lo tziva osom ... they brought a strange fire before G-d that He had not commanded them (ibid. :1). Chazal offer a variety of explanations as to the character of this aish zara - foreign fire. Some maintain that the brothers entered the kodesh hakedoshim - the innner sanctum - with their own incense. Others maintain that their sin was somewhat less grievous, a question of timing. They did not actually go into the inner sanctum but brought incense on the altar in the kodesh even though they had not been instructed to do so. They knew that there was a commandment to do so daily and set out to fulfill it. However, they failed to wait for Moshe to command them to do so, not realizing that he was waiting for the Heavenly fire to appear on the altar before proceeding with the rest of the service.

Another opinion maintains they were guilty of reaching a halachic decision without consulting Moshe. In their opinion, it was permissible to use a fire whose source was not from the altar. Irrespective of whether or not this was correct; they should have consulted with Moshe before acting. Another school of thought teaches that the sons entered the Tabernacle while inebriated, or that they set out to perform the Divine service even though they were celibate. These latter opinions would seem to be of the opinion that aish zara - the foreign fire - should not be interpreted literally, but rather as a euphemism for misguided zeal - i.e., in the case of wine they were culpabale for using an external means to demonstrate their spirituality or in the case of serving while unmarried they were guilty of equating permanent abstinence with holiness.

The common denominator for all these opinions is that Nadav and Avihu were worthy of death because they went beyond the parameters of what G-d had commanded at a point in history when no deviation could be sanctioned. As pure as their intentions might have been, they violated the first rule of the Divine service: It must be performed precisely in the manner that G-d commands. Man is tempted, as we have mentioned in the past, to add his own flavors and spices to the menu of avodas Hashem, motivated by a sincere desire to make it more meaningful and relevant. But while his conscious intent might be laudable, subconsciously he is declaring that only he - man - can determine the proper way of creating the bond between G-d and man.

G-d is therefore exacting in his requirements, especially when it comes to the tzaddikim with whom he is m’dakdek k’chut ha-s’arah - stringent even as concerns a hair’s breadth [of deviation from His commands]. The tzaddik must act as a role model and if he permits himself even minor changes, it follows that the common man will make major changes. This was the essence of Moshe’s response to Aharon’s anguished attempt to understand what had transpired.


B’krovei ekodesh v’al pnai kol ha-am e’kovaid ... I will be sanctified by those who are near to Me and through this, the entire nation will respect Me (ibid. :4). Moshe reassures Aharon that Nadav and Avihu must have been holier than either of them, for they had been chosen as the vehicles through which this Divine lesson would be taught. Their death, for a sin that would seem to be minor, would serve as an everlasting warning to be extraordinarily careful.

And Aharon’s reaction: silence! Rashi explains that Aharon was rewarded for his silence, but the silence nevertheless seems to be astounding. It does not state that Aharon accepted Moshe’s explanation of the events, it does not tell us that Aharon was consoled by his brother’s words. All it says is that he was silent. Whatever doubts he might have had, whatever pain he might have felt, whatever questions he still wanted to ask were put away in the drawer, never to be removed.

It is now almost a month since eight young tzaddikim were murdered in the library of Yeshivas Merkaz HaRav in Yerushalayim. Through our sins, we lack Chazal to explain what G-d’s plan was in taking them, how their deaths serve to teach us what we need to change, what we need to improve. All that we have is the silence of Aharon, the stoic strength to accept the Divine decrees that we cannot understand.

EXPANDED AND IMPROVED

Parashas Tzav

Va’ya’as Aharon u’vnav es kol hadevarim asher tzivah Hashem b’yad Moshe ... and Aharon and his sons did all of the things that Hashem commanded through Moshe (Vayikra 9:36)

The laws regarding each of the thirteen different types of korbanos were exceedingly complex; where they were to be offered, how they were to be sacrificed, what else was brought with them [incense, libations et. al.]. Nevertheless, Aharon and his sons were able to fulfill the requirements with precision and as Rashi comments, this is their praise; they did not deviate at all from any of the instructions that Moshe gave. The Maharal [Gur Aryeh to Rashi], noting that the commandments were given by Moshe rather than directly by G-d, points out that lesser people might have resented Moshe’s insistence on precision. Aharon and his sons, however, accepted that Moshe was the messenger of G-d and they consequently were no less reluctant to heed his commands than they would have been willing to fulfill the commands had they been issued directly by G-d. In this sense, their actions are a lesson that we should all learn; not to resent authority, but to accept it [when it is validly applied and does indeed represent the will of G-d].

Throughout sefer Vayikra, we finds this idea being expressed; Aharon’s ability not to deviate or change the instructions of Moshe. Aharon’s ability to subjugate his own feelings and understanding of a situation is a remarkable lesson in self-discipline and in true anavah - humility. As we have noted elsewhere, Netziv comments that it is part of human nature to try to make our own imprint, to even take G-d’s commands and try to improve upon them. This is the root of the sin of the nazir, who for very valid reasons [his fear that he lacks self-control] takes upon himself obligations [refraining from drinking wine and coming into contact with a corpse] that the Torah does not demand. He is termed a choteh - a sinner - for his actions and must offer a sacrifice.

There is an old story taught about a writer who decided to translate Shakespeare into Yiddish. Asked for the title of his work, he replied: “Shakespeare fargressert und farbessert” [Shakespeare, expanded and improved]. If it is natural for us to try to improve upon the classics of literature, is it not natural for us to try to improve upon the ways of G-d? Are we not all experts in the will of G-d - perhaps even greater experts than G-d himself?

We find a similar attitude regarding some of the events surrounding Purim. Mordechai, the leader of Shushan Jewry, exhorts his fellow Jews to distance themselves from the celebrations arranged by Achashverosh, but his remonstrations fall on deaf ears. His fellow Jews feel that they are more astute observers of Persian politics and ignore the pleas of Mordechai. He is afterall, only a member of the Sanhedrin. What does he know or understand about real politics? It is only da’as Torah, they argue, nothing they need take seriously.

POWER CORRUPTS

Parashas Vayikra

Daber el b'nei Yisrael laimor, nefesh ki sechetah b'shgagah ... speak to the children of Israel saying, if a person sins inadvertently (Vayikra 4:2)

Most of the commentaries focus on the purpose of korbanos, choosing sides, as it were, in the well known disagreement between Rambam [as brought in the second section of Moreh Nevuchim] and Ramban. The latter takes the Rambam to task in unusually hard criticism, referring to Rambam's contention that the korbanot were a reaction to the nation's desire to continue their idol worship as divrei ha'vai - meaningless words. According to Ramban, the purpose of the animal sacrifice is to provide man with the chance to reflect upon his sins and become even more closely bound to Hashem. Through this kirvas Elokim he is ultimately protected from further sin, by realizing that it is he who should be paying with his life. The substitution of the animal in his place and the public nature of the sacrificial process provide man with the impetus and wherewithall to be more careful in the future.

Much of this week's parashah focuses on the korban chat'os - the sin offering. The Torah delineates various types and each has its own set of rules as well as common rules that govern each one. There is the offering brought by a kohen who has inadvertently transgressed the Torah through an incorrect ruling regarding any part of the Divine service (see 4:1-12). Because of his high station, and his position as a halachic decisor, the kohen is obligated to bring a special korban which differs from that which he would have to bring were his sin only related to his personal conduct.

This chat'as differs from the sin offering brought on behalf of the entire nation which had sinned because of an erroneous decision by the Sanhedrin (ibid. 4:13-21) and they both differ from the sin offering brought by the king - the political leader of the people (see 4:22-26). Here, the reference is to a king who commits a sin unrelated to his office; i.e., he sinned in the same manner as any other individual. Unlike the kohen whose individual korban is only brought when his sin concerns his public office, the king has a separate chat'as for both private and public sins. Rav Hirsch points out, because of his position of supreme authority, his sacrifice differs and he brings a male goat rather than a female sheep. Finally, there is the cha'tas brought by an individual who transgresses inadvertently (ibid. :27-35).

Sforno notes that in the pesukim preceding the korbanos of the kohen, the Sanhedrin and the individual, the Torah uses a conditional introductory phrase; e.g., nefesh ki sechetah - if a person sins (ibid. :2) or v'im kol adas Yisrael yishgu - if all of Israel shall act mistakenly (ibid. 13) or v'im nefesh achas techetah - if an individual should sin (ibid. :27). On the other hand, in introducing the parashah of the nasi who sins, the Torah states (ibid. :22), asher nasi yechetah - when the ruler sins - which seems to suggest a sense of inevitability. He notes that such is the character of office; the power that the ruler is given will lead him to sin for it corrupts him and makes him believe that what is forbidden to other is permitted to him. And if power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely.

He is therefore given a personal korban for his atonement, for it is insufficient for him to simply be contrite on the personal level. Rather, he brings a completely separate korban to remind him not to allow power to go this head. How prescient that this week's parashah should deal with such a topical issue, a ruler [or governor of a great State] guilty of the very kind of moral turpitude that he so strongly condemned in others. One wonders what kind of kapparah is necessary.

RECIPE FOR SWEETNESS
Parashas Pekudei

Vayar Moshe es kol ha-melachah, v’hinei asu osah ka’asher tziva Hashem ken asu, vayivoraich osom Moshe ... and Moshe saw all of the work and behold they had done it in the manner that G-d had commanded, and Moshe blessed them (Shemos 39:43)

Rashi, quoting the Midrash, explains that Moshe’s first prayed that it should be G-d’s will that His Shechinah rest upon them. He then added the verse, later incorporated into Tehillim (90:17): v’yehi noam Hashem Elokeinu aleinu, u’ma’aseh yodeinu konenah aleinu, um’aaseh yadseinu koneneihu ... and may the pleasantness of Hashem our Lord be upon us, and just as the work of our hands has brought it upon us, [so too] may the work of our hands [in the future continue] to bring it upon us. Rav Dovid Mann, shlita, rosh yeshiva of Kfar Chassidim, once explained the concept of noam Hashem - the pleasantness of Hashem - to which Moshe refers.

Malbim points out, in his introduction to sefer Vayikra, that there are no synonyms in lashon hakodesh. The precision of the Hebrew language is such that each word conveys a different idea. Noam - which we have translated as pleasantness but which has a connotation of sweetness and tranquility as well - is not a synonym for good. Something can be good without being sweet; e,g., a medication might well be good for me even though it is foul tasting and has side effects. Similarly, a surgical procedure might be beneficial and necessary - i.e., good - yet I would never characterize it as being pleasant. In English, on the other hand, we can describe something as being pleasant even though it is not good for us. Lashon hakodesh however, does not provide for this possibility. If something, relating to G-d, is described as being noam - pleasant - then it is both sweet and good. Noam Hashem is thus an elusive and rare quality. Intellectually, I can accept that kol d’avid l’tav avid - all that He does is for the good. Nonetheless, it is often difficult to discern how G-d’s actions, albeit good, can also be deemed pleasant. Given this problem, one can understand why Dovid ha-Melech prayed (Tehillim 27) that he be given the opportunity lachazos b’noam Hashem - to glimpse the pleasantness of G-d - even though he expected (ibid.) l’iros b’tuv Hashem - to see the goodness of G-d.

In a number of places, Rashi comments that the phrase ken asu in the passuk above teaches us that the work was performed exactly as commanded by G-d; i.e., every Divine instruction was precisely fulfilled and nothing was added or subtracted by either Aharon or Betzalel or whoever else was fulfilling Moshe’s instructions. Last week, we noted that man often has a tendency to try to do more than he is commanded in an attempt to achieve a spiritual bond with G-d. Later, we will see that many of the commentators see this as the root of the sin of Nadav and Avihu, Aharon’s sons who died during the consecration of the Mishkan because they had brought a fire which G-d had not commanded.

Reading the pasuk from this week’s parashah, one would assume that the reason why Moshe blessed the people that they be able to see noam Hashem was v’hinei asu osah ka’asher tziva Hashem ken asu, - because they built the Mishkan precisely according to the directions received and made no changes or additions of their own. How is fealty to Hashem linked to experiencing noam Hashem - the pleasantness of G-d? Again, intellectually I can accept that all that G-d does is not only ultimately good, but is good in itself. This does not, however, make the Divine way pleasant or sweet. As a case in point, take the fast of Yom Kippur. Clearly it is good for me, for it brings me forgiveness. It might even be physically positive. Nevertheless, the Torah refers to fasting, as well as to the other prohibitions of Yom Kippur as being inuyim - afflictions - which I accept upon myself and does not see them as being representative of noam Hashem.

Perhaps the key to understanding this is to go back to Moshe’s blessing. He first told the nation that it was his prayer that G-d rest the Shechinah upon Israel; i.e., that the Divine presence be palpable and tangible. He then added that this resting of the Shechinah should be the result of their actions; i.e., something that they could bring forth and that was not necessarily beyond their grasp. What greater blessing could there be than to realize that man has the ability, as it were, to bring G-d’s presence to this world, how empowering a thought. All of man’s suffering, all of his pain, all of his turmoil, is it not but a manifestation of the confusion caused by the Divine being hidden? When man sees G-d’s Hand as clearly as he sees his own, then he will also experience the pleasantness of His ways. And this all is dependent upon one thing, following G-d’s law precisely instead of confusing it with our own misinterpretations.

Moshe saw this when they completed the Mishkan. The Shechinah took up residence and the world existed in perfect harmony and balance. We have it within our powers - ma’aseh yadeynu - to recreate that moment.