Parashat Shmini 5784 / פָּרָשַׁת שְּׁמִינִי 6 April 2024 / 27 Adar II 5784 Torah Portion: Leviticus 9:1-11:47 Haftarah for Ashkenazim*: Ezekiel 45:16-46:18

Midrash Tehillim, also referred to as Midrash Shocher Tov, is a midrash on the Book of Psalms. Composed: Narbonne (c.1050 – c.1450 CE)

Everything is rejoicing. The righteous rejoice, as it says, "The righteous rejoice in the Lord." And the wicked rejoice as well. Pharaoh rejoiced when Moses and Aaron came, and he began to say, "The Lord is righteous, and I and my people are wicked." But the wicked do not rejoice before Him until He brings punishment upon them. But the righteous do rejoice in the Lord, as it says, "The righteous rejoice in the Lord." Here it is written "in the Lord," not "to the Lord." While they were seeing, they immediately sang, as it says (Shemot 15:1), "Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the Lord." And similarly, it says (Vayikra 9:23-24), "Moses and Aaron then went into the Tent of Meeting. When they came out, they blessed the people, and the glory of the Lord appeared to all the people. Fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fat portions on the altar. And when all the people saw it, they shouted for joy and fell facedown." And likewise, it says (Divrei Hayamim 2:7:3), "When all the Israelites saw the fire coming down and the glory of the Lord above the temple, they knelt on the pavement with their faces to the ground, and they worshiped and gave thanks to the Lord, saying, 'He is good; his love endures forever.'"

Commentary on the Torah by Rabbi Ovadiah ben Jacob Sforno, a 16th-century Italian rabbi and physician.

This is why they offered it in the sanctuary, i.e. 'לפני ה, on the golden altar. The Torah had stipulated that no foreign incense [nor other unauthorised offerings. Ed.] was to be offered on that altar (Exodus 30,9). Even assuming that the golden altar would qualify for additional incense offerings when a specific command to do so would be issued, the sons of Aaron sinned by doing this now and not having consulted with their mentors. This is why the Torah stresses …

Daat Zekenim is a Torah commentary compiled by later generations of scholars from the writings of the Franco-German school in the 12th-13th century (Ba’alei Tosafot).

בקרובי אקדש, “I will become sanctified by means of the people who had been close to Me.” The very death of these people is an event which sanctifies Me. How so? If the Israelites will internalise how strict I have been with these highly placed individuals, they will know how careful they have to be not to deviate from My commandments.

Written by Rabbi Hayyim ben Moshe ibn Attar (1696-1743), Or HaChaim is a classical commentary on the Chumash. Rabbi Hayyim was a Moroccan Kabbalist and Talmudist which is reflected in his commentary.

Our sages in Torat Kohanim on our verse describe Aaron as in despair accusing both himself and his sons as having sinned and having been punished for it. When Moses heard this, he entered Aaron's tent and tried to put his mind at ease by telling him that G'd had told him when he was on Mount Sinai that in the future He, G'd, would sanctify the Tabernacle by means of persons of great stature. At the time, Moses said, he had thought that G'd referred either to himself or to Aaron. Now, in view of what had just occurred, it had become clear to him that both Nadav and Avihu were of greater stature than either he or Aaron seeing G'd had selected those two to sanctify His Tabernacle.

Midrash Tanchuma is a midrash on the five books of the Torah, structured as sermons on the opening verses of each paragraph in the Torah. Composed: Talmudic Babylon/Italy/Israel (c.500 – c.800 CE)

(1) (Lev. 16:1:) “After the death of Aaron's two sons.” It was taught in a baraita in the name of R. Eliezer:37In y‘Eruv. 6:1 (31c); yGit. 1:2 (39c); ‘Eruv. 63b. Nadab and Abihu died only because they had taught halakhah in the presence of their master, Moses.38Lev. R. 20:7; PRK 26(27):6/7; yShevi. 6:1 (36c); yGit. 1:2 (43c). There is a story about a disciple that taught halakhah before his master. So his colleague said to his wife, Mamma Shalom, “This man will not live out the year.” And indeed he did not live out the year. His disciples said to him, “O our master, are you a prophet?” He said to them (in the words of Amos 7:14), “’I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet.’ Rather this was handed down to me from my masters, ‘Whoever teaches halakhah in the presence of his master is under sentence of death.’” …

In four places [Scripture] mentions the death of Aaron's sons,41In Lev. 10:2-3; 16:1; Numb. 3:4; 26:61. and it also mentions their transgression. And why all this?42PRK 26(27):8; Lev. R. 20:8; Numb. R. 2:24. To inform you that they had only this sin on their hands. R. Eleazar of Modim said, “Go out and see how grievous the death of Aaron's sons was for the Holy One, blessed be He; for in every place that [Scripture] mentions their death, it mentions their transgression. And why all this? So as not to give those who come into the world a pretext for saying, ‘Disgraceful acts were secretly done by them, because of which they died.’” Bar Qappara said in the name of R. Jeremiah bar Eleazar, “Aaron's sons died because of four things: For the drawing near, for the sacrificing, for alien fire, and for not taking advice from each other.43Numb. R. 2:23. For drawing near, in that they entered the innermost sanctuary. For the sacrificing, in that they offered a sacrifice, which they had not been commanded [to offer]. For alien fire, in that they had brought fire from a cookhouse (instead of from off the altar). And for not taking advice from each other.” R. Mani of Sha'av and R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “Aaron's sons died because of four things, and [a sentence of] death is recorded in connection with all of them.44PRK 26 (27):9; Lev. R. 20:9. Because they entered without washing hands and feet, and it says (in Exod. 30:20), ‘When they come unto the tent of meeting, they shall wash with water lest they die.’ Because they entered while lacking [the proper priestly] clothes, and it says (in Exod. 28:43), ‘And they shall be upon Aaron and his sons in their coming to the tent of meeting….’” And what did they lack? R. Levi said, “They were lacking a robe, and [a sentence of] death is recorded in connection with [that lack], where it is stated (in Exod. 28:35), ‘And it (the robe with golden bells and pomegranates) shall be upon Aaron for officiating, so that the sound of it shall be heard, [when he comes into the sanctuary]… [lest he die].’” “And because they had no children, and [a sentence of] death is recorded in connection with [that lack], where it is stated (in Numb. 3:4), ‘But Nadab and Abihu died…; and they had no children.’ Because they entered and had drunk wine, and it says (in Lev. 10:9), ‘Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor… lest you die.’” Abba Hanin says, “Because they had no wives, and it is recorded (in Lev. 16:6), ‘and he shall make atonement for himself and for his household.’” R. Levi said, “They had a lot of arrogance and were saying, ‘Which woman is worthy of us?’45Lev. R. 20:10; below, Lev. 6:13. A lot of women were remaining unmarried and waiting for them. But they were saying, ‘Our father’s brother is king, our father is high priest, our mother's brother is prince, [and] we are deputy high priests. Which woman is worthy of us?’” R. Menahama [said] in the name of R. Joshua bar Hanina, “[It is] about them [that] it says (in Ps. 78:63), ‘Fire devoured their young men, and their maidens had no nuptial song.’ Why had fire devoured their young men? Because of their maidens, who had no nuptial song.” And moreover, [their arrogance may be inferred] from this (i.e., from Exod. 24:1), “Then He said unto Moses, ‘Go up unto the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu.’” This teaches that Moses and Aaron walked first, while Nadab and Abihu came after them; but still they were saying, “When will these two old men die, and we shall assume authority over the community in their place?”46See below, Lev. 6:13. R. Judan said in the name of R. Ayyevu, “They said it to each other with their mouths, they said it in front of [Moshe and Aharon].” R. Pinhas said, “They pondered it in their hearts.” R. Berekhyah said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them (in Prov. 27:1), ‘Do not boast of tomorrow, since you do not know what will be born today’; a lot of colts have died, and their skins have been made into coverings for their mothers’ backs.” And in addition [their transgression may be inferred] from this (i.e., from Exod. 24:11), “But He (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He,) still did not raise His hand against the nobles of the Children of Israel.” From here [it follows] that they deserved to have a hand raised [against them]. R. Hosha'ya said, “Did cellaria47The word is Latin. (i.e., provisions) go up with them to Sinai, since it says (ibid., cont.), ‘they beheld God, [and they ate and drank]?’ It is simply that they feasted their eyes on the Divine Presence. [Hence they were] like someone who beholds his colleague in the midst of eating and drinking.” R. Johanan said, “[There was] actual eating [and drinking], since it is written (in Prov. 16:15), ‘In the light of the king's face there is life; His favor is like a rain cloud in spring.’” R. Tanhuma said, “[Exod. 24:11] teaches that they became bold in their hearts and stood on their feet, [while] they feasted their eyes on the Divine Presence.” R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “Moses did not feast his eyes on the Divine Presence, as stated (in Exod. 3:6), ‘Moses hid his face….’ In reward for (Exodus 3:6, cont.) ‘and he feared,’ he merited (Exod. 34:30), ‘and they feared to approach him’; in reward for (Exodus 3:6, cont.) ‘from gazing,’ he merited (Numbers 12:8) ‘and he gazed [at] the picture of the Lord’; in reward for ‘Moses hid his face,’ he merited (Exod. 34:30), ‘and behold, his skin of his face shone.‘ But Nadav and Avihu feasted their eyes on the Divine Presence, but did not benefit from the Divine Presence.” And in addition, [the boldness of Aaron's sons may be inferred] from this (i.e., from Numb. 3:4), “But Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord […].” R. Johanan, said, “Was it before the Lord that they died? [The verse] simply teaches that it is grievous for the Omnipresent when children of righteous people pass away during their [parents'] lifetime.” R. Nahman asked in front of R. Pinhas bar Hama beRabbi Simon, “Here (Numb. 3:40), ‘before the Lord’ [occurs] two times. But later (I Chronicles 24:2), ‘in the presence of their father’ [occurs only] one time.” It is simply that it teaches that it was twice as grievous for the Holy One, blessed be He, as for their father. (Numb. 4:3:) “In the Sinai Desert.” R. Meir said, “Did they die in the Sinai Desert? It is simply that from Mount Sinai they received their sentence of death.48Their death actually took place at the Tent of Meeting. [The situation is comparable] to a king who was marrying off his daughter, when there was found something obscene in his bridal agent.49Gk.: syskenos (“comrade”). The king said, ‘If I kill him now, I shall impede my daughter's joy. Tomorrow my joy is coming, and I will kill him. It is better [to kill him] during my own joyous celebration, and not during my daughter's joyous celebration.’ Similarly the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘If I kill Nadab and Abihu now, I shall impede the joyous celebration of the Torah. Tomorrow My own joyous celebration is coming. It is better [to kill them] during My own joyous celebration, and not during the joyous celebration of the Torah.’ This is what is written (in Cant. 3:11), ‘on his wedding day,’ i.e., the day of the giving of Torah; ‘in the day of his joyful heart,’ i.e., in the tent of meeting.”

Commentary on the Tanakh written by Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi). Rashi lived in Troyes, France (1040-1105).

זאת החיה THIS IS THE ANIMAL — This! the expression זאת teaches us that Moses held each animal and showed it to Israel, saying, “This ye may eat, and this ye may not eat” (Chullin 42a). Similarly Scripture states of fish (v. 9) 'את זה תאכלו וגו‎‎ THIS YE MAY EAT etc. — also of the swarming creatures of the waters he held some of every species and showed them to them (to the Israelites). So, too, in the case of birds: (v. 13) “And these are they which ye shall have in abomination amongst the fowls”, and similarly as regards the swarming reptiles (v. 29): “And these are unclean to you” (Sifra, Shemini, Section 2 2; cf. Menachot 29a).

Written by Rabbi Isaiah HaLevi Horovitz, Shenei Luchot HaBerit (Shelah) is a 17th-century encyclopedic compilation of ethics, mysticism, and law that profoundly influenced the development of chasidut. It was originally compiled as an ethical will, and was first published posthumously by the author's son. Composed: Ottoman Palestine (c.1611 – c.1631 CE)

This is alluded to in 11,2: זאת החיה אשר תאכלו … אך זה לא תאכלו. Our sages say that Moses had difficulty understanding this paragraph and that G–d showed him what the various categories of animals looked like (Chulin 42). In Vayikra Rabbah 13,4 we are told that G–d showed Moses a head of fire, explaining that if the protective skin around the brain was pierced such an animal was unfit to eat regardless of the size of the hole. It is difficult to understand what Moses' problem was. We could have understood his problem if the chapter would have listed free-roaming animals which Moses had never seen. After all, Moses was not a hunter. However, the Talmud meant that Moses had difficulty understanding the reason for this legislation. He wanted to know why certain categories of animals were permitted, whereas others were prohibited. G–d showed Moses the positive spiritual impact which consuming certain animals would have on the people eating them, and the negative spiritual impact of certain other animals. He showed Moses the respective influence of those animals in the higher regions. Thereupon Moses understood why some categories of animals are termed "pure," whereas others are termed "impure." This is the mystical dimension of Deut. 14,23: ואכלת לפני ה' אלוקיך, "You shall eat in front of the Lord your G–d;" this is a reference to the "Table", i.e. a reference to the sacred element of the act of eating. Psalms 104,1: "Bless the Lord, O my soul," as well as Exodus 24,11: "They ate and drank and had a vision of G–d," are reminders of the impact consumption of food has on our spiritual faculties. This means that even when the Israelites consume food which has not first been specifically sanctified as a sacrifice, such meals are considered as if an act of spiritual significance had been performed. When Gentiles eat, on the other hand, this is a totally profane activity.

Kiddushin (“Betrothal”) is the last tractate in Seder Nashim (“Order of Women,” which addresses family law). Its four chapters primarily discuss laws relating to betrothal. Also addressed are laws of acquisition, sending representatives to perform legal actions, lineage, and the prohibition of seclusion between a man and a woman not married to each other. Composed: Talmudic Israel (c.190 – c.230 CE)

We found that Abraham our forefather fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given, as it is stated: “Because that Abraham listened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Genesis 26:5), which indicates that Abraham observed all the mitzvot of his own accord and was rewarded in his old age as a result.

The Shulchan Arukh (“Set Table”) is the most widely accepted code of Jewish law ever written. Compiled in the 16th century by Rabbi Yosef Karo, it is a condensed and simplified version of the Beit Yosef, a commentary that Karo wrote on the Tur. Karo’s rulings are in accordance with Sephardic traditions; the text of the Shulchan Arukh also includes the glosses of Rabbi Moshe Isserles, which cite Ashkenazic traditions. Yoreh De’ah (“He Will Give Instruction,” a reference to Isaiah 28:9) is the second and most varied of four sections, discussing a range of topics not covered in the other sections. These include ritual slaughter, kashrut, conversion, mourning, niddah, tzedakah, usury, and laws applicable in Israel. Composed: Safed (1563 CE)

It is written in the Torah: "you will not cook a kid in the milk of its mother" three times (Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21); once for the prohibition of cooking, once for the prohibition of eating, and once for the prohibition of receiving benefit [from the cooked meat and milk products]. The prohibition of eating is presented in the language of cooking, to say that there is no prohibition from the Torah [in regard to meat and milk] unless it is in a manner of cooking, but rabbinically it [the mixture of meat and milk] is forbidden in every way. All meat and milk [mixtures] that are not forbidden from the Torah are permitted to benefit from.

One who eats meat, even of a wild animal or fowl, does not eat cheese afterwards until he waits six hours. Even if he waits that period, if he has meat between his teeth he has to remove it. One who chews food for a child has to wait. If afterwards he finds meat between his teeth and removes it, he has to wipe his mouth out before eating cheese (Ran chapter 25). There are those that say that he doesn't have to wait six hours, but rather immediately if he finishes the meal and says the concluding blessing, it is permissible after wiping and rinsing his mouth (Tosafot Hullin 105a - "At the next meal", Mordechai chapter 25, Haga'ot Ashri, Haga'ot Maimoniot chapter 9 of forbidden foods, and Ravya). The simple custom in our countries is to wait after eating meat one hour and to eat cheese afterwards, but you have to say the concluding blessing after the meat (HaAruch, Haga'ot Shaarei Dura) because then it's like a new meal and permissible to eat according to the lenient view. But with no blessing, waiting alone does not good. It doesn't matter if you waited before the blessing or afterwards (his own reasoning, from the Mahari, as opposed to the Issur v'Heter). If he finds meat between his teeth after the hour, he has to pull it out (his own reasoning, from the Ran above). And there are those that say not to say the concluding blessing in order to eat cheese (Aruch in the name of Maharach) but we're not careful about this. And some are careful to wait six hours after eating meat before eating cheese, and it's proper to do so.

Chullin (lit: “Ordinary,” referring to animal and birds consumed in non-consecrated contexts) is the third tractate in Seder Kodashim (“Order of Holy Things"). Its twelve chapters discuss laws related to non-sacred consumption of meat, such as ritual slaughter of non-consecrated animals and birds, kosher and non-kosher living beings, the obligation to cover the blood of slaughtered animals, and the prohibitions of mixing meat and dairy products and of slaughtering an animal and its offspring on the same day. The tractate’s last chapter discusses the obligation to send away a mother bird when taking her young or eggs (shiluach hakein). Composed: Talmudic Babylon (c.450 – c.550 CE)

MISHNA: One who places the meat of birds with cheese on the table upon which he eats does not thereby violate a Torah prohibition. GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Since the mishna mentions only that placing meat of birds and milk on one table does not violate a Torah prohibition, one may consequently infer that if one eats them together he does violate a Torah prohibition. If so, learn from the mishna that meat of birds in milk is prohibited by Torah law, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who maintains that it applies by rabbinic law. The Gemara responds: Say that the mishna should be understood as follows: One who places bird meat with cheese on the table will not thereby come to violate a Torah prohibition, since eating the two together is a rabbinic prohibition, as Rabbi Akiva maintains. MISHNA: It is prohibited to cook the meat of a kosher animal in the milk of any kosher animal, not merely the milk of its mother, and deriving benefit from that mixture is prohibited. It is permitted to cook the meat of a kosher animal in the milk of a non-kosher animal, or the meat of a non-kosher animal in the milk of a kosher animal, and deriving benefit from that mixture is permitted. Rabbi Akiva says: Cooking the meat of an undomesticated animal or bird in milk is not prohibited by Torah law, as it is stated: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk” (Exodus 23:19, 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21) three times. The repetition of the word “kid” three times excludes an undomesticated animal, a bird, and a non-kosher animal. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says that it is stated: “You shall not eat of any animal carcass” (Deuteronomy 14:21), and in the same verse it is stated: “You shall not cook a kid in its mother’s milk.” This indicates that meat of an animal that is subject to be prohibited due to the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered carcass is prohibited for one to cook in milk. Consequently, with regard to meat of birds, which is subject to be prohibited due to the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered carcass, one might have thought that it would be prohibited to cook it in milk. Therefore, the verse states: “In its mother’s milk,” excluding a bird, which has no mother’s milk. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Elazar said: The verse states: “And Judah sent the kid of the goats” (Genesis 38:20).

Commentary written by Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir, Rashbam (France, c.1080 - c.1160). Rashbam, a grandson of Rashi, was part of the Tosafist school. Whereas Rashi famously claimed that his commentary would present the pshat (contextual meaning) of the text, when in reality it relies heavily on midrash; Rashbam’s commentary actually stays very loyal to the pshat. Composed: Middle-Age France (c.1120 – c.1160 CE)

It is something distasteful, revolting, something akin to gluttony, to consume the mother’s milk together with the young animal that this milk was intended to nourish. We find a parallel in the legislation not to slaughter mother animal and her young on the same day, as well as the prohibition not to take the young chicks while the mother bird is present. (Leviticus 22,25 and Deuteronomy 22,6-7) The Torah teaches you these matters as a matter of elementary culture, i.e. respecting life. Seeing that on the festivals many animals are consumed, the Torah included this legislation in the paragraph dealing with other aspects of these festivals. If the consuming of these animals is prohibited under such circumstances, how much more so are mixture of milk and meat prohibited as discussed in Chulin 113.

A commentary on the Torah written by Rabbi Bachya ben Asher (1255–1340) in Spain. Rabbeinu Bachya’s commentary incorporates the literal meaning along with allegorical, midrashic, and kabbalistic interpretations. Composed: Middle-Age Spain (c.1290 – c.1310 CE)

According to the plain meaning of our text the reason for this whole commandment is that the practice of boiling the kid in the milk of its mother is apt to deaden feelings of compassion in the human heart. It coarsens one’s entire personality. After all, milk is a derivative of (the animal’s) blood. Consumption of blood coarsens a person’s personality, causing a person to develop feelings of cruelty. One of the reasons consumption of blood is prohibited to Jews by the Torah is the fact that contrary to other parts of the animal, blood does not become assimilated by the body of the person eating it in the same manner as do other parts of the animal’s tissue. In other words, the negative influence of blood remains in the body without being sublimated. Even though in the meantime this blood was been converted into milk and when by itself does not transport the negative elements of blood to people drinking the milk, the moment it is mixed again with flesh and boiled together it reverts to its original negative character-coarsening properties. Doctors believe that the same is true when fish is mixed with cheese and boiled together. [This would account for the prohibition in Yoreh Deah item 87]. Not only would consuming a dish prepared by such ingredients in such a manner produce coarseness of character but it would also produce some form of leprosy. …

The fact is that the entire legislation belongs to the category of חקים, the statutes for which no logical reason can be found, just as we cannot fathom a reason for the legislation of the red cow.

The Guide for the Perplexed, written by Maimonides (Rambam), contains the author’s philosophical views. It is written in the form of a letter to his student, Rabbi Joseph ben Judah of Ceuta. Composed: Fustat (1190 CE)

Meat boiled in milk is undoubtedly gross food, and makes overfull; but I think that most probably it is also prohibited because it is somehow connected with idolatry, forming perhaps part of the service, or being used on some festival of the heathen. I find a support for this view in the circumstance that the Law mentions the prohibition twice after the commandment given concerning the festivals “Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God” (Exod. 23:17, and 34:73), as if to say, “When you come before me on your festivals, do not seethe your food in the manner as the heathen used to do.” This I consider as the best reason for the prohibition: but as far as I have seen the books on Sabean rites, nothing is mentioned of this custom.

(8) Meat boiled in milk is undoubtedly gross food, and makes overfull; but I think that most probably it is also prohibited because it is somehow connected with idolatry, forming perhaps part of the service, or being used on some festival of the heathen. I find a support for this view in the circumstance that the Law mentions the prohibition twice after the commandment given concerning the festivals “Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God” (Exod. 23:17, and 34:73), as if to say, “When you come before me on your festivals, do not seethe your food in the manner as the heathen used to do.” This I consider as the best reason for the prohibition: but as far as I have seen the books on Sabean rites, nothing is mentioned of this custom.

[In reference to the question of whether or not Adam ate meat—JS] The Gemara answers: There the reference is to meat that descended from heaven, which was created by a miracle and was not the meat of animals at all. The Gemara asks: Is there such a thing as meat that descends from heaven? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is like this incident: As Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta was walking along the way, he encountered those lions that were roaring at him, intending to eat him. He said: “The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their food from God” (Psalms 104:21), and they deserve to receive food. Two thighs of an animal descended from heaven for him. The lions ate one of these thighs, and they left the other one. He took it and entered the study hall, and inquired about it: Is this thigh a kosher item or a non-kosher item? The Sages said to him: Certainly it is kosher, as a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven. In connection to that story, it is related that Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Abbahu: If the likeness of a donkey had descended for him, what would the halakha have been? Would it have been permitted? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Foolish bird [yarud nala]. The Sages already said to him that a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven; therefore, it must be kosher.