Addict Torah: Sh'mini 5784/2024

Addict Torah's Mission: To interrogate Torah deeply so as to create space, connection and safety for people with addictive patterns and behaviors that have led them to a crisis of the spirit to tell and shape their stories for the purpose of healing, growth, and a return to their whole selves.

Every Thursday at 12 Noon Pacific, 3 pm Eastern

REGISTER HERE FOR THE WEEKLY LINK (for security purposes)
(And no, we won't give anyone your email address)
https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZYldeitqTIoHtI-pkfmXu8UYUUe8EA4FY4o

Dr. Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg, The Hidden Order of Intimacy, p. 145, Kindle edition

Returning now to the fire that consumes Nadav and Avihu, we remember that the same fire consumed the sacrifices. Animal sacrifice was supposed to replace and symbolize human sacrifice. Instead, the divine fire burns both human and animal, one after the other, as though some essential symbolic process has failed.

Rav Samson Rafael Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash, Vayikra Vol I, p. 277-278

...the completion of a count of seven days [of creation] symbolizes the conclusion and completion of the condition that has prevailed until now; the eighth day marks a new beginning on a higher level - the beginning of a higher 'octave,' as it were. The same is true here. Seven days the kohanim abided at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. This brought to a close the condition in which the kohanim lived only the personal lives of individuals. On the eighth day they entered a new, loftier phase of life, consecrated to God and to His people.

RA & USCJ, Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, p. 631

There is a tradition that Aaron had to be urged to bring his purification offering, a calf, because he was embarrassed. It reminded him of his role in fashioning the Golden Calf. Moses, however, assured him: 'Your sin has been forgiven because you were ashamed.' (M'norat Ha-Ma-or). The ability to feel shame is one of the defining characteristics of a moral human being. It arises from an awareness of the gap between who we are and who we might be. Furthermore, it recognizes the authority of God and the right of other people to judge us.

Richard Elliott Friedman, Torah and Commentary, p. 1595, Kindle edition

10:1. Nadab and Abihu. These are parallel to the names Nadab and Abiyah, the sons of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 14:1; 15:25). King Jeroboam erects golden calves at sanctuaries at Dan and Beth-El. The similarity of the names of the sons of the two men who make golden calves is striking (Exodus 32; 1 Kings 12:28).

Dr. Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg, The Hidden Order of Intimacy, p. 127, Kindle edition

Fire is everywhere and everywhere it is mysterious. The revelation of God’s presence—was that expressed in the fire that consumed the sacrifices? Or, as some read, are these two distinct phenomena? Then there is the “strange fire” offered by Nadav and Avihu. In what lies its strangeness? Is this a technical problem with inappropriate fire? How does this become the crime that merits such dire punishment? And, finally, there is the fire that consumes them—is this the same fire that consumed the sacrifices? Does this fire now find a macabre second object of consumption?

Mekhilta de' Rabbi Ishmael, cited in RA & USCJ: Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, p. 633

One explanation is that they brought the instruments for making a fire into the tent, not realizing that on this special occasion God was going to send fire miraculously from heaven. Because they were too close to that fire, they were killed. Their sin, if any, was a lack of faith, trying to help God in a situation in which God did not need their help.

Or HaChaim on Leviticus 16:1

(7) Our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 7,1) remark that the two sons of Aaron died on account of the sin of the golden calf, based on Deut. 9,20: "G'd was also very angry at Aaron to have destroyed him;" if it had not been for Moses' prayer all four sons of Aaron would have died prematurely. The original cause of the death of Nadav and Avihu was the involvement of their father in the sin of the golden calf, and their deaths served as atonement, much as a sacrifice on the altar serves as atonement for the owner of his sin-offering. Do not argue that we have quoted different sages as attributing the deaths of these sons to either their unauthorised offering of incense, or their entering the Holy of Holies without authorisation or the Torah's speaking of their unauthorised use of man-made fire. The answer to all these arguments is that had it not been for the involvement of their father in the sin of the golden calf, G'd would have found a way to guard the feet of His pious so that they would not become guilty of such an inadvertent sin as bringing incense, etc....

(9)...The nature of the sanctity of the Tabernacle also had to be recorded here since, if it had not been for this consideration, G'd would not have allowed the joy prevailing over the evidence that His presence had returned to the Jewish people to be disturbed by such a tragic occurrence. He would have waited to let these sons of Aaron die at some later date. It was because G'd wanted to sanctify the Tabernacle on that day that the sons of Aaron died on that day. The need to sanctify the Tabernacle on that day would not have been sufficient reason by itself to let them die then...

Vayikra Rabbah 12:1;12:5

Another explanation: Like a basilisk. Just as a basilisk divides between death and life, so did wine cause a division between Aaron and his sons by bringing death. As Rabbi Shimon taught: The sons of Aaron died only because they entered the Tent of Meeting intoxicated with wine. Rabbi Pinchas in the name of Rabbi Levi said: This may be compared to the story of a king that had a faithful servant. When he discovered him standing at the door to a tavern, he cut off his head in silence and appointed another servant in his place. We do not know why he killed the first except from what he commanded the second: Do not enter the doorway of a tavern. From this we know the reason he killed the first. So Scriptures says: "A fire came forth from before Adonai and consumed them (Lev. 10:2)." Similarly, we would not know why they (Nadav and Avihu) died but from His command to Aaron, saying to him: "Drink no wine or strong drink (Lev. 10:9)." We know from this that they would not have died but for the wine. For this reason, Scripture showed fondness for Aaron by directing this divine utterance to Aaron himself: As Scripture says: "No wine or strong drink shall you imbibe....

Rabbi Chanina bar Papa said: The Holy Blessed One said: I had a great House and I destroyed it only on account of wine. The Sages said: Two princes were mine and they only died on account of wine. Rabbi Yishmael taught that the two sons of Aaron only died because they entered [the Tent of Meeting] drunk with wine, etc. The Holy Blessed One said: In this world, wine is a stumbling block, in the future, I will make wine a source of rejoicing. As Scripture says: "On that day, the mountains shall drip with wine, (Joel 4:18)."

Vayikra Rabbah 20:10

Rabbi Levi said: They were arrogant. There were many women that were sitting unmarried, waiting for them. What did they say? The brother of our father is a king, the brother of our mother is a prince, our father is High Priest and we are two deputy priests. No woman is worthy of us! Rabbi Manachma in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua son of Nechemiah said: "Fire consumed their young men, and their maidens remained unwed. (Ps. 78:63). Why were their young men consumed by fire? Because their maidens were not praised (in wedding songs). Such is the import of this verse: "Then He said to Moses, "Come up to the LORD, with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel, and bow low from afar. (Exod. 24:1)." We learn from this that Moses and Aaron were walking first and Nadav and Avihu came after them, and all Israel after them. They said: When will these two old men die and allow us to assume authority over the community?

Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Covenant and Conversation: Leviticus, p. 137, Kindle edition

The most fundamental mistake – the mistake of Nadav and Avihu – is to take the powers that belong to man’s encounter with the world, and apply them to man’s encounter with the Divine. Had Nadav and Avihu used their own initiative to fight evil and injustice they would have been heroes. Because they used their own initiative in the arena of the holy, they erred. They asserted their own presence in the absolute presence of God. That is a contradiction in terms. That is why they died.

Or HaChaim on Leviticus 16:1

(15)...due to their love for G'd these people came too near the celestial source of light which has a deadly effect on man. This is the mystical dimension of what is commonly known as "death by Divine kiss," the kind of death experienced by both Aaron and Moses eventually. The deaths of Nadav and Avihu were similar to the death of all other completely righteous men. The only difference was that in the case of the deaths of people such as Moses and Aaron G'd's "kiss of death" approaches them, whereas in this case Nadav and Avihu approached "the kiss of death."...

(16)...though these righteous people felt that they were approaching an area which would result in this "kiss of death" they did not flinch and kept getting closer. They attained a state of religious intoxication. The desire of their souls to fuse with the divine was so overpowering that they no longer made decisions in which their powers of conscious perception were involved...When we think of the other extreme of man's emotional range, his love for his source, i.e. his Creator, and the overpowering desire to be united with that source, we may have an inkling of what possessed Nadav and Avihu at the time.

Rabbi Mark Borovitz, Finding Recovery and Yourself in Torah, p. 178

We are told that Nadav and Avihu offered strange fire. We are not told what it was that made the fire strange. The Hebrew word used here for “strange,” zarah, can be translated as “scatter” or “fan.” Many commentators have said that these men were trying to do their own thing, and the fire got out of hand. Others say that they were disrespectful toward Aaron and Moses. Still others say that they were drunk. All of these interpretations are possible. In past years, I have understood that Nadav and Avihu were trying to get too close to God, and when they achieved this, they were burned. This, of course, is a familiar theme in addiction, getting too close, trying to achieve the ultimate high, and then overdosing and, sometimes, dying.

Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Covenant and Conversation: Leviticus, p. 141, Kindle edition

Why then was spontaneity wrong for Nadav and Avihu, yet right for Moses? The answer is that Nadav and Avihu were priests. Moses was a navi, a prophet. These are two different forms of religious leadership. They involve different tasks, different sensibilities, indeed, different approaches to time itself. The priest serves God in a way that never changes over time (except, of course, when the Temple was destroyed and its service, presided over by the priests, came to an end). The prophet serves God in a way that is constantly changing over time. When people are at ease, the prophet warns of forthcoming catastrophe. When they suffer catastrophe and are in the depths of despair, the prophet brings consolation and hope. The words said by the priest are always the same. The priestly blessing uses the same words today as it did in the days of Moses and Aaron. But the words used by a prophet are never the same. “No two prophets use the same style.”4 So for a prophet, spontaneity is of the essence. But for the priest engaged in divine service, it is completely out of place.

RA & USCJ, Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, p. 634

Aaron was silent The Torah usually does not call attention to someone's not speaking. What, then, is the unusual significance of Aaron's silence? That he accepted God's decree without protest? That his anguish was too great for him to put into words? That he was tempted to burst out in anger at the unfairness of what had happened to his family but was able to restrain himself? Perhaps the text is suggesting that there are more possibilities - and more power - in silence than in any words.

Mechilta d'Miluim 2:36

(36) (Vayikra 10:3): "And Moses said to Aaron: This is what the L–rd spoke, saying: With My near ones will I be sanctified, and before all the people will I be slaughtered. And Aaron kept his peace." This (in essence) was spoken to Moses on Sinai, and he did not know it (i.e., its intent) until what it spoke of (the deaths of Nadav and Avihu) materialized before him. And when it came to pass Moses said to Aaron: Aaron, my brother, your sons died only to sanctify the Name of the Holy One Blessed be He, as it is written (Shemoth 29:43): "And I shall be appointed there (in the tent of meeting), and it will be sanctified with My glory," (the death of Aaron's sons there, intensifying its awe in the eyes of the people). When Aaron saw how exalted were his sons in the eyes of the L–rd, he kept his peace and was rewarded for doing so, (by G d's addressing to him exclusively the following section [viz. Shemoth 10:8-11]). From here it was derived: All who accept (G d's decrees) upon themselves and remain silent — it is an auspicious sign for them. As expressed by David (Tehillim 37:7): "Be silent in the L–rd, and hope to Him." And, as expressed by Solomon (Koheleth 3:7): "a time to be silent and a time to speak." There are times for all (things). There are times when a man remains silent, and there are times when a man speaks.

Rabbi Jonathan Kraus, 'Sh'tika - What Kind of Silence?' in Block, ed., The Mussar Torah Commentary, p. 164, Kindle edition

And speaking of Eleazar and Ithamar: Might Aaron’s remaining sons not need their father to voice some feeling, some sense of loss, some acknowledgment of the terrifying, shattering, possibly unjust loss of their two older brothers? Is Aaron’s silence a sign of his pious virtue or a reflection of his limitations as a father? There is yet another way to understand Aaron’s silence. Instead of an act of incredible self-awareness, restraint, and public piety, of avoidance of the responsibility to speak out against injustice, or of a lack of fatherly feelings, Aaron’s sh’tikah might have been a practice of mindfulness and an attempt at communion with God in the face of tragedy. Perhaps Aaron needs silence and stillness because he is desperate to find some way to reconnect with his own soul, with those around him, and even with God.

Rabbi David Kasher, ParshaNut, pp. 215-216, Kindle edition

The fire that killed Aaron’s sons seemed to come from God, and to represent God’s unmerciful will. But how does one find God in that? How can you possibly see God when your children lay dead before you? How dare Moses – how dare any of us – try to find some divine justification for such a tragedy? No. Aaron would not hear it. Could not hear it. He was in his silence. Yet maybe it was there, in the silence, that he found God again. Maybe, like Elijah, God spoke to Aaron through the sound of silence – and Aaron spoke back in silence. For it is difficult to see God in all the terrible tragedies of this world. But we may discover God in our response to them. Not in the fire, but in the silence.

RA & USCJ, Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, p. 635

This prohibition resulted not from Nadab and Abihu having been drunk but from the danger that the bereaved relatives would drown their sorrows in intoxicants and not be fit to carry on their responsibilities (Hoffman).

Richard Elliott Friedman, Torah and Commentary, p. 1601, Kindle edition

10:8. YHWH spoke to Aaron. This is the first time that God speaks directly to Aaron alone since He first sent him to meet Moses (Exod 4:27), and it is right after the death of his sons!

RA & USCJ, Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary, p. 636

Moses inquired The word translated as 'inquired' (darash) is said to be the middle word of the Torah. The essence of the torah is continued inquiry and study. 'The ideal Jew is not so much a learned Jew as a learning Jew' (Emet Ve-Emunah).

Tamar Komiankowski, Nadav and Abihu and Dietary Laws: A Case of Action and Reaction, in Lesser, Ed. Torah Queeries, p. 138, Kindle edition

...it is not happenstance that the dietary laws follow the story of Nadav and Avihu. Like the swing of a pendulum, the dietary laws are the response, the text’s way of imposing further restrictions and categories in a world in which people believed that chaos and death could ensue if there were not rigid classifications.