[Index of all Weekly Divrei Torah pages]
We all want to get closer to G-d. Sometimes it’s a conscious yearning and sometimes it’s a desire that’s buried deep within us without any conscious outlet. But the human spirit and the Jewish soul are essentially connected to G-d, and there’s no way of getting around that. Sometimes, the soul wants to burst out of its bounds, out of the limitations of the human body, and some people will do anything that they think it takes to ascend spiritually. That’s what we see in our weekly Torah portion (Shemini), in which two of the sons of Aharon, the high priest, bring a “strange” offering and are consumed, passing away in the process. The Torah (Lev. 10:1-2) says, Ӆand they offered before G-d a strange fire that He didn’t command them. And a fire emerged from before G-d and consumed themŔ Rashi says (on verse 2), “and a fire emerged – Rebi Eliezer says that the sons of Aharon passed away only because they produced a halachic ruling in front of Moses, their spiritual master and teacher.” In other words, according to Rashi there was nothing wrong with the actions of Nadav and Avihu (the deceased sons of Aharon) in bringing the strange offering. The problem was their accompanying conduct – they produced an independent halachic decision without consulting their own rabbis and teachers.
On the face of it, Rashi’s explanation is strange. The Torah itself, in the first verse, indicates that Nadav and Avihu brought a strange offering that they weren’t commanded. That seems to be quite obviously the reason for their death, and yet Rashi explains something else – the cause of their death was that they wrongly ruled in front of their teachers. Moreover, Rashi mentions the name of the rabbi who produced this explanation – Rebi Eliezer. He doesn’t do that in the explanation on the Torah unless he has a good reason, such as that the name adds to our understanding of the happening.
What’s bothering Rashi is the following: The words “and a fire emergedŔ appear in the Torah earlier, in a different and entirely positive context. They are used to describe the appearance and presence of the “Shechina,” or G-d’s holy presence on earth when the tabernacle was inaugurated (Lev. 9:24). There, it says that upon the offering of the proper sacrifices and upon the priestly blessing of Aharon, “a fire emergedŔ and consumed the sacrifices on the altar. Therefore, it is difficult for Rashi to explain the same words in an opposite fashion only two verses later, regarding the death of Nadav and Avihu. (In fact, some commentators say that the two verses apply to one fire that both came down on the altar and also consumed the two sons of Aharon). So, Rashi remains with the former explanation, that the words “a fire emergedŔ describe a positive circumstance (the revelation of the shechina), and the reason for the deaths of Aharon’s sons is something else – they made up their own halachic decision.
Nevertheless, a slight difficulty remains – why should making up one’s own halachic decisions be punishable by death? That seems like a very strict punishment for one who simply stepped out of line in front of his rabbis. Therefore, Rashi quotes “Rebi Eliezer” by name, indicating that it’s important for us to know who said this explanation. Rebi Eliezer was one of the great Torah scholars of his generation, and among other things he said (Berachot 27B), “One who states something that he didn’t hear from his own rabbi causes the shechina to depart from Israel.” That is, by taking the halacha into our own hands, disregarding the line of teachers and traditions that preceded us, we not only fail to reveal G-dliness in the world, but we cause it to depart. All the more-so, then, regarding one who not only says something that he didn’t hear from his rav or rabbi, but says it in front of him (as did Nadav and Avihu who acted in front of Moshe and Aharon, without consulting them). Causing the shechina to disappear was the diametric opposite of the intention of the Tabernacle, which was to bring the shechina down to earth, and that was why the punishment was so stringent.
There’s yet another difficulty with Rashi’s explanation. He claims that Nadav and Avihu decided on their own to bring the strange offering, “in front of Moshe their teacher.” At first glance, they did something even worse – they produced a halachic ruling not only in front of Moshe, but in front of their own father and dedicated teacher – Aharon, the high priest. That would seem to be much worse than producing their own ruling in front of Moshe, who was “only” their teacher, and not necessarily a dedicated teacher. The explanation, though, comes in Hilchot Pesach:
When you perform the seder together with your teacher, even if he is not a “dedicated” teacher who is especially close to you, you have to get his permission in order to lean. Leaning on your side during the seder, even though one of the details of the laws of Pesach, is not to be taken for granted. It implies a level of comfort and relaxation that is not to be assumed in front of your teacher, and you must get his permission. However, if you make the seder with your father, even if he is also your dedicated and “close” teacher, you needn’t ask him for his permission. Being that he is your father, you are permitted to assume that he gives his permission. You may lean without specifically requesting his permission. The same was true of Nadav and Avihu in front of Moses and Aharon. It may not have been necessary to request the permission of Aharon, since as their father, they were comfortable with him and assumed that his permission would be forthcoming. But, it was a big mistake to bring an offering without the permission of Moses, especially in front of him. Being that he was their teacher, even if not “dedicated,” it was important to get his permission before making their own halachic decision. That was why Rashi cites Moses in his explanation and not Aharon.
And we can learn the following: As much as we might consider ourselves to be advanced, experienced and independent on the spiritual path, it is still incumbent upon us to be in touch with and consult with a spiritual guide (“mashpia” or “rav” in Hebrew). Nadav and Avihu were spiritually accomplished and mature “ovdei Hashem” (servants of G-d) and yet they fell into the trap of over confidence in failing to consult with Moses before bringing their “strange” (independent) offering. Sometimes, we may want to adopt our own style of getting close to the one Above, utilizing prayer, meditation or ceremony that hasn’t been part of the tradition, or is a variation of it. At such times, it is necessary to consult with those who “have been there before” – those who are more experienced and accomplished. By so doing, we will avoid the pitfalls and advance our own spiritual journey to its desired goal – connection and cleaving to the One above.
Adapted from Likutei Sichot of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, vol. 12, pp. 49-56
Rabbi David Sterne, Jerusalem Connection in the Old City of Jerusalem