[Index of all Weekly Divrei Torah pages]
The beginning of our parsha (Aharei Mot) reiterates a theme that first appeared a couple of weeks ago in parshat Shmini – the death of Aharon’s sons Nadav and Avihu as they offered a strange incense fire during the inauguration of the mishkan (“tabernacle”). They offered the incense, even though it wasn’t commanded at the time, because they had an intense desire to experience the very high level of G-dliness that was supposed to come down in response. However, since this level of spirituality wasn’t commanded to descend on this occasion, instead, Nadav and Avihu’s souls parted from their bodies in order to ascend to the desired level. Now, our parsha begins with a warning to their father, Aharon, “And G-d spoke to Moshe after the deaths of the two sons of Aharon as they brought offerings to G-d and passed away. And G-d said to Moshe, ‘Speak to Aharon your brother, that he should not approach the sanctuary at just any time …so the he will not dieŔ (Lev. 16:1-2). Rashi explains, “What is the meaning here? R’ Elazar ben Azariah gave a parable; Once a sick person visited the doctor, who told him, ‘Do not eat cold foods and do not lie in cold places.’ Another doctor told him, ‘Do not eat cold foods and do not lie in cold places so that you will not die like so-and-so died.’ The second doctor was more effective than the first, and this is why the parsha begins, ‘After the death of the two sons of Aharon.”
That is, when you not only warn a person but include a concrete example of what happened to somebody who did not follow the warning, the outcome is a much more effective. Still, Rashi at first glance could have achieved the same thing by describing only one doctor. He could have simply commented that when a doctor adds the words, “So you don’t die as so-and-so died,” his warning is much more effective. Why did Rashi find it necessary to cite the parable of two doctors?
In addition, there are other questions to be asked here;
1) Why does Rashi need to comment at all? It is patently obvious that a warning that includes specific example will be more powerful than a warning without the example. Why does Rashi go out of his way to say anything?
2) Since Rashi decided to comment, he could have achieved the same thing by making an example of a healthy person, rather than a sick person. In fact, a warning consisting of a healthy person who passed away when not following doctor’s orders carries a more powerful message than a sick person who failed to follow orders. Additionally, when we provide an illustration or parable, we generally want it to be as similar as possible to the object being described. And here, Aharon was on the surface a well and healthy human being, so why does Rashi use the parable of a ‘sick person?’
3) Unfortunately, there are many things that can lead to death. Why does R’ Elazar ben Azariah (and Rashi) cite ‘cold foods’ and ‘lying in a cold spot?’
4) Why does Rashi find it necessary to mention the name of the person who gave the parable – R’ Elazar ben Azariah?
We’ll be able to answer the above questions by first examining the general context on which Rashi commented. What is notable about the verses (in the beginning of the parsha) is that they mention the punishment for not following the command in the verse. Many commands in the Torah do not mention the punishment that is associated with failure to fulfill them. And even those commands which do mention the punishment do not emphasize that, as ours does, that if the command is not fulfilled, then “such and such will happen.” What is special about the command to Aharon not to enter the holy of holies at all times that it must be backed up with such a warning? It must be that if the command was issued without any warning and without any emphasis to “pay attention” to “what happened to so-and-so,” then Aharon may not have followed the command. It must be that the parable of the second doctor was necessary because without the added emphasis, Aharon was in danger of entering the holy of holies. Only by emphasizing that if he did so, he would follow in the steps of his sons, “who died,” was it guaranteed that Aharon would not enter the sanctuary. And this is why Rashi gives the example of a sick person, as opposed to a well person. It is the sick person who may not listen to the advice of his doctor, unless it is backed up with an appropriate warning. A well person, who only wishes to prevent himself from falling ill, will listen to the doctor’s advice. But, one who is sick, because of his sickness may be somewhat irrational and therefore tempted to disobey doctor’s orders.
Therefore, Rashi not only gave a parable of a sick person, but described two doctors to tell us that the sick person needs to hear more firm advice than the well person.
One who is sick (we should be spared from such things) suffers from much heat. His temperature rises, and as he fights off his disease, he may be consumed with such heat that he feels compelled to take special steps to fend off the heat and cool himself down. In reality, the heat is the body’s way of fighting off the disease, which is why the doctor will tell the person not to cool himself off. But, at the same time, the heat is uncomfortable and it may cause the person to take steps that are against his own best interest. Therefore, the doctor in the parable told the patient not to “eat cold things and not to lie in a cold place.” Both are things that the patient with fever might be tempted to do. But, both are detrimental to his health. Therefore, it is necessary for the doctor to tell him that if he takes these steps that are against his own interests, then “it will happen to him what happened to so-and-so.”
In our case in the beginning of the parsha, Aharon had a great desire for anything G-dly; in fact, he was “lovesick” over spirituality and G-dliness. This was especially true since he was always in front of the holy of holies, always serving G-d with full awareness of Whom he was serving. This must have created within him a tremendous thirst and desire to enter into the holy of holies. And this is why it was necessary to warn him not to do so, lest happen to him “what happened to his sons.” A simple warning to stay away would not have been sufficient. It was necessary, as in the parable of the second doctor, to warn Aharon not to enter lest he die like his sons.
Still, it remains to be understood why the doctor in the parable lists two different instructions: One, not to eat cold foods and two, not to lie in a cold place. Possibly, the two instructions correspond to the two verses in the beginning of the parsha, each of which command a different detail. The first verse (Lev. 16:2) says, “Aharon should not approach the sanctuary at all timesŔ That is, even when approaching the sanctuary under the right conditions – with a cow and a sheep – Aharon could not come at all times, but only on Yom Kippur. This verse corresponds to the warning in the parable not to “eat cold things.” Just as the cow and sheep are offerings that are meant to be consumed, so the cold dishes are something that we eat, that we consume and digest. Cold foods are mentioned first in the parable for two reasons; they have a more profound and immediate effect on the patient, cooling him off quickly, and they also present a more clear and present danger to the patient than does lying in a cold place.
But, the second verrse (16:3) tells us that even on Yom Kippur when it was permitted for Aharon to enter the holy of holies – even then he could only enter when accompanied by the proper sacrifices. This corresponds to the second instruction mentioned in the parable – in which the doctor warns the sick person not to lie in a cold place. The holy of holies is a place, an environment. It does not enter into the person, but surrounds and provides atmosphere. In that sense, the warning not to enter the holy of holies is comparable to the instruction not to lie in a cold place. Just as the Holy of holies is an environment, so is the cold room that the sick person seeks to lie in. It might feel good, but it is not beneficial to remain there for an extended period of time.
It remains for us to explain why Rashi mentioned the name of the rabbi – R’ Elazar ben Azaria – who gave the parable. Rashi does not always mention the name, but only when so doing adds to our understanding of the text. The reason that Rashi mentioned R’ Elazar ben Azaria was in order to explain how we know that Aharon had tremendous desire and thirst to enter the holy of holies. Although it is logical to assume that if his sons experienced such thirst and yearning, the father did as well, still this is not to be assumed automatically. Therefore, Rashi mentioned that the parable comes from R’ Elazar ben Azariah, who experienced the following event in his lifetime:
The sages (Berachot 27B) decided that the head of the academy, R’ Gamliel, needed to be replaced. He was too strict about who was permitted to enter the academy. He required the students to have a very high level of integrity, in which there was no difference between how they acted on the outside and how they thought and worked upon themselves internally. The rabbis sought to allow more students into the academy, even if their integrity was not quite so great, and they turned to R’ Elazar ben Azariah. R’ Elazar was sitting with his wife when the offer arrived, and he discussed it with her. When he told her that he had been requested to become the new head of the academy, she replied that “he had no grey hair,” meaning that he did not have the wisdom that comes with years. That is, he may have the ability and learning, but the other rabbis with more advanced years (he was only eighteen years old) may not respect him if he didn’t have the requisite amount of experience and years. The Talmud says that immediately a miracle occurred and there appeared “eighteen rows of grey hair” on R’ Elazar’s head.
Now, we may ask, what happened here? Did not those who sought to appoint R’ Elazar also know that he lacked experience? And what changed inside of him when the eighteen rows of grey hair appeared? Either he possessed the necessary traits for the job and grey hair should not have been necessary, or if he was lacking the necessary pre-requisites, then what good did the sudden of appearance of grey hairs help him? Furthermore, since one of the previous requirements for entry into the academy was complete integrity, the same must have been demanded of the head of the academy. It was not logical for him to appear as one who was wise in years, with grey hair, when in reality he was lacking the wisdom that comes with experience. So, what was the meaning of the grey hairs that suddenly appeared on his head?
It must have been that in any case, with or without the grey hairs, R’ Elazar possessed not only the Torah knowledge but also the wisdom that comes with years. And the grey hairs came only to inform his wife and the rest of the world that even if he was only eighteen years old, he possessed the necessary wisdom and life-experience to become the head of the academy. The only question was, how is it that at the young age of eighteen, R’ Elazar already possessed such wisdom? It was not so astounding that R’ Elazar possessed the technical knowledge and mastery of detail of the Talmud – that he was a genius was one of those things that happened from time to time. But, that he possessed the judgment and wisdom that is usually found only in much older men was a true novelty. The answer was that it came down to him through his yichus, or “family line.” As a direct descendent from Ezra (after ten generations), R’ Elazar ben Azariah inherited not only the predilection and potential for great chochma and Torah wisdom, but even, to a certain extent, the wisdom itself. So, he possessed not only the Torah knowledge, but also the wisdom of age, in how to apply and teach the knowledge.
And this is the reason that Rashi mentioned his name in his commentary. Just as it was evident that R’ Elazar, even at the tender age of eighteen, possessed the wisdom of men far older than himself, so it was evident that the sons of Aharon had the same “love-sickness” for G-dliness that Aharon himself possessed. The trait was handed down from generation to generation, not only as potential, but as real love for G-d, so if we saw it manifest itself in Aharon’s sons, it must have been present in Aharon as well.
There is a lesson here for everyone, even though we are talking about the highest personalities and priests in Jewish history. And that is, all Jews are both commanded to yearn for holiness and yet, to resist “entering the Holy of holies” at all times. Even though these seem like two opposite dynamics, every Jew must play out the tension between them. On the one hand, we are trained and educated to yearn for the highest spiritual and G-dly experience. On the other hand, we are taught that our main job is to work and live in the physical world and attempt to transform it. How do the two demands upon us co-exist? The answer, is; by listening to Moshe. It is the leader of the generation, the Moshe of every generation, who teaches us the proper balance that will allow us to fulfill our spiritual yearning, while at the same time achieve what we need in the physical world. Just as it was Moshe who brought Aharon into the Tabernacle to inaugurate it and bring down G-d’s presence, so it was Moshe who conveyed G-d’s commandment not to enter the holy of holies at all times. So, it is the “Moshe Rabeinu” of each generation who teaches the Jews how to actualize their spirituality while at the same time live in and transform this world that we live in.
From Likutei Sichot of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, ztz’l, vol. 7, pp. 117-127
Rabbi David Sterne, Jerusalem Connection in the old city of Jerusalem