From: Netvort@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 2:48 AM
To: JoshHoff@aol.com
Subject: Netvort: parshas Shemini, 5765




                                                     
                                                     Learning Alone
                        
                        By Rabbi Joshua (solitarily known as The Hoffer) Hoffman


In this week's parsha, we learn of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, who were sons of Aharon, the high priest. The Torah tells us that they were put to death through divine means because they offered a strange fire during the process of the inauguration of the mishkan. We have discussed, in the past, the various reasons given in Talmudic and midrashic sources for their death. I would like to focus, now, on the reaction of their father to this tragic occurrence. Moshe, explaining their deaths to his brother Aharon, told him, "Of this did God speak, saying, 'I will be sanctified through those who are close to Me, and I will be honored before the entire people.' " The verse ends by telling us, "and Aharon fell silent." (Vayikra 10:3). According to the midrash, cited by Rashi, Moshe was telling Aharon that he knew that the mishkan would become sanctified through someone close to God, but he had thought it would be one of them, Aharon or himself. Now, however, he realized that Nadav and Avihu were greater than they were, and, therefore, God chose them. Upon hearing this, Aharon fell silent, and, as Rashi goes on to say, he received reward for this silence, in that God issued through him, alone, the law that one cannot enter the sanctuary after having partaken of wine or other intoxicating drinks.


The Mishneh in Avos (3:3), tells us that even if one person sits alone and occupies himself with Torah, God fixes a reward for him, and it brings as a proof text the verse in Eicha (3:28), "He may then sit alone and be quiet." The Rambam, in his commentary to that Mishneh, notes that the explanation of the word " veyidom," - and be quiet,' as referring to Torah study, is similar to the meaning of that word in parshas Shemini, where we are told. 'vayidom Aharon.' - 'and Aharon fell silent,' which Onkeles renders as 'vashavach aharon,' or, 'and Aharon praised.' This comment of the Rambam is quite striking. Besides the fact that the text of Onkeles he uses is a variant of the one that occurs in most of our editions - although it does appear in the Yemenite version (see Rabbi Menachem Kasher's Torah Shleimah to this verse in Shemini) - it is difficult to see how the notion of learning has any relevance to this verse, even with his version of Onkeles. Rabbi Aharon Yeshaya Rotter, in his commentary Sha'arei Ahron, explains, based on the medieval commentator Tzror HaMor, that Aharon needed to praise God and accept His judgment in order to bring himself into the proper mood of simcha, or joy, that was necessary in order for him to engage in the learning that would take place subsequently, when God told him the laws regarding drinking before entering the mishkan. Rabbeinu Meyuchas ben Eliyahu, in his commentary, explains that 'vayidom Aharon' means that Aharon accepted God's judgment with joy, and Rabbi Michel Katz, z"l, in his notes to Rabbeinu Meyuchas, cites the same  version of Onkeles as that mentioned by the Rambam, but from the Midrash HaGadol, as an analogue to Rabbeinu Meyuchas' explanation (parenthetically, it should be pointed out that some scholars have noted that the Midrash HaGadol actually cites much of its material directly from the Rambam !). Following these commentators, then, Aharon's silence is interpreted as a joyful acceptance of God's judgment of his sons, which brought him into the proper mood to receive the teaching that God then delivered to him.


The Rambam himself, however, does not seem to explain Onkeles' translation in the same way that the commentators we have cited do, because he cites it as concurring with the use of 'vayidom' by the mishneh as a proof text for the the efficacy of learning done by a single person. According to the Rambam, then, Onkeles is telling us that Aharon's very silence, interpreted as an act of praising God, constituted an exercise in learning. How is this so? Rabbi Mordechai Elon, in a shiur he delivered in Yerusholayim at the Yeshurun synagogue a number of years ago (available on tape) explained that Aharon viewed his son's deaths in the wider context of God's providence over the world, and understood it as part of His overall plan for the Jewish people. In this context, it can be seen as an act of Torah learning. Although Rabbi Elon himself elaborates on this theme and takes it in a certain direction, I would like to use his basic approach to develop another way of understanding the significance of Aharon's silence being viewed as an act of learning.


We have mentioned in the past the concept that the construction of the mishkan constituted the spiritual completion of the universe. The author of the Halachos Gedolos refers to the book of Shemos as 'chumash sheni,' or 'the second book,' and the Netziv explains this to mean that the book of Bereishis describes the physical creation of the universe, while the book of Shemos, which describes the giving of the Torah to the Jewish people, is the spiritual side of the creation. This spiritual side of creation reached its final completion with the construction of the mishkan, where the experience of Sinai was to be continued, and that completion is actually recorded in this week's parsha, with its description of the process of inauguration (see last year's Netvort to parshas Shemini, available at Torahheights.com, for more on this). In regard to the physical creation of the universe, the Torah tells us that, at the end of the sixth day of creation," God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good" (Bereishis 1:31). The midrash comments that the word 'meod' - very - refers to death, and God was, in effect, saying that death also has a place in creation. The fact that man knows that he will die, say the rabbis, leads him to act more responsibly than he would if he thought he is immortal.


At the end of parshas Mishpotim the Torah tells us that God sent forth His hand to the nobles of the b'nei Yisroel, who "had a vision of God, and they ate and drank" (Shemos 24:11). Rashi there cites a midrash which explains that the nobles referred to included Nadav and Avihu, and that they should have died at Mt. Sinai, for trying to come too close to God, and not observing the necessary boundaries. As, Rashi explains there, they exhibited too much familiarity with the divine by engaging in eating and drinking during their prophetic vision, and did not have the requisite level of solemnity appropriate for such an occasion. Therefore, they really deserved to die at that time. However, their deaths were postponed until the time of the inauguration of the mishkan. Why did their deaths occur then? The midrash tells us that the sin of bringing a strange fire was also grounded in a desire to come closer to God than was appropriate. In this way, the sin they committed was, to a degree, analogous to the one they committed at Mt. Sinai. Still, why did God wait until the second instance to put them to death ? Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl writes that the death of these great men during the inauguration process brought home to the people the extreme need for caution in approaching the mishkan, in its holiness, and thus constituted a sanctification of God's name. The halacha tells us, on a wider scale, that, in certain limited circumstances, we are bidden to give up our lives in order to sanctify God's name. This is because everything that God created was created was created for His honor, as the prophet Yeshaya (43:7) says, in God's name, " everyone who is called by My name and whom I have created for my glory, whom I have fashioned, even perfected." Therefore, we must be prepared to give our lives for that purpose, as well. The greatest proof of this notion, says Rav Nebenzahl, is that Moshe thought that he, himself, would have to die at the inauguration of the mishkan in order to sanctify God's name. Based on these comments of Rabbi Nebenzahl, we can say, further, that the reason for Nadav and Avihu dying at the inauguration rather than at Mt. Sinai was to convey the message that just as in regard to the physical creation of the universe, death has a purpose, so, too in connection with the spiritual creation of the universe, death has a purpose. I believe that this was, at least in part, what Aharon learned after Moshe explained the meaning of his sons' deaths to him, and he silently reflected on that message, as explained by the Rambam in his commentary to Avos. Seen in this context, the untimely death of a human being, such as that which just occurred in Florida, can serve as a learning experience, as well. This incident, and the long struggle to save that person's life which preceded its tragic denouement, should awaken us to the deeper meaning and sanctity of life, in general, and, in this way, the life that was lost will take on more meaning than it could have had, had it been spared.



Please address all correspondence to the author (Rabbi Hoffman) with the following address - JoshHoff @ AOL.com.

To subscribe to Netvort, send a message with subject line subscribe, to Netvort@aol.com. To unsubscribe, send message with subject line unsubscribe, to the same address.