For a printable PDF click here: Shemini – A Foreign Fire
The tension in any religious experience between rules, boundaries and framework, versus the need for personal expression and spontaneity is a difficult balance to achieve. Sefer Vayikra expresses this tension most significantly in the narrative we encounter in this week’s Parsha. Sefer Vayikra is primarily a book about laws, rules, boundaries and frameworks for religious worship. It relays to us the importance of submission to a Divine authority, comprehending the value of boundaries and the consequences of breaking them. The continued emphasis in Vayikra between holy and profane, bidden and forbidden, pure and impure provides the basis to any Divine worship in the Mishkan.
This theme can be detected in the realm of prayer too. In a Gemara that discusses the institution of tefilla we also detect this core dichotomy.
R. Yose son of R. Chanina said: The tefillot were instituted by the Avot (Patriarchs). R. Yehoshua b. Levi says: The tefillot were instituted to replace the daily sacrifices…
It has been taught in accordance with R. Yose b. Chanina: Avraham instituted the morning prayer, as it says, ‘And Abraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood’ (Bereishit 19:27) and ‘standing’ refers to prayer… Yitzchak instituted the afternoon prayer, as it says, ‘And Yitzchak went out to meditate in the field at eventide’ (Bereishit 24:63) and ‘meditation’ means only prayer… Yaakov instituted the evening prayer, as it says, ‘And he happened [va-yifga] upon the place’ (Bereishit 24:11), and ‘pegi’a’ means only prayer, as it says, ‘Therefore pray not thou for this people neither lift up prayer nor cry for them, neither make intercession to [tifga’] Me.’… It has also taught in accordance with R. Yehoshua b. Levi: Why did they say that the morning prayer could be said till midday? Because the regular morning sacrifice could be brought up to midday… and why did they say that the afternoon Tefilla can be said up to the evening? Because the regular afternoon offering can be brought up to the evening… and why did they say that for the evening prayer there is no limit? Because the limbs and the fat which were not consumed [on the altar] by the evening could be brought for the whole of the night…..…Who, according to R. Yose b. Chanina, instituted the Tefillat Mussaf? He must hold therefore that the Patriarchs instituted the prayers and the rabbis found a basis for them in the offerings…”[1]
The argument here is based on two opposing perspectives of worship. Those that believe prayer reflects a spontaneous expression of closeness to God, as seen through the paradigm of our Forefathers, and those that view prayer as an institutionalised rigid obligation, as seen through the replacement of Sacrificial worship with prayer.
This tension is also expressed in how modern thinkers perceive prayer and hence Avodat Hashem. Whilst A.J. Heschel views in prayer a moment of spontaneous and expressive gratitude to God, a time for being ‘radically amazed’ by the world around us, Yeshayhu Leibowitz sees in prayer no value other than simply the fulfilment of our obligation to pray three times a day, as he observes:
Fixed obligatory prayer includes two elements. It is not a prayer that a person wishes to pray, but one that he is required to pray. Not a prayer that he originates, but a prayer that one demands of him. Two, it is a fixed prayer. It does not change in conformity with the conditions, circumstances and situations, objective or subjective, in which the person who prays finds himself. There is one same Amidah prayer for the bridegroom entering the Hupa and for the widower returning from the funeral of his beloved wife. On the very same sequence of psalms and songs for the happy person and the melancholy one, the very same sequence of supplications for whoever feels the need and whoever feels no such need’.[2]
Contrast the latter to Heschel’s description of prayer below and one can understand the divergence between their positions.
Prayer is more than a cry for the mercy of God. It is more than a spiritual improvisation. Prayer is a condensation of the soul. It is the whole soul in one moment, the quintessence of all our acts, the climax of all our thoughts. For prayer to live in man, man has to live in prayer. In a sense prayer is part of a greater issue. It depends upon the total moral and spiritual situation of man, it depends upon a mind within which God is at home.[3]
These two positions mirror the Rabbis’ discussion in the Gemara.
This week’s Parsha also reflects a deep tension between these two views. The book of Vayikra has very little by way of narrative. The first narrative we encounter is this week, when the two sons of Aaron bring a sacrifice and are immediately consumed by a Divine fire. The story is obscure; It beckons interpretation. Yet in order to understand the narrative it is imperative to study the context. Following on from the sin of the Golden calf, God removes His presence from among the people as symbolised by the Ohel Moed –Tent of Meeting – being placed outside the camp. Having been commanded by God to build the Tabernacle, the people have been tirelessly working to create a space for God to return. Parshat Shemini, is the moment God is going to return to the people. In a dedication ceremony that lasted for eight days, the princes of each tribe bring sacrificial gifts whilst the people anticipate the return of o the Divine presence into the camp. If one looks at the moments preceding Nadav and Aviyhu’s sacrifice we begin to understand the context in which they acted.
כג וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן, אֶל-אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, וַיֵּצְאוּ, וַיְבָרְכוּ אֶת-הָעָם; וַיֵּרָא כְבוֹד-ה, אֶל-כָּל-הָעָם. כד
וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ, מִלִּפְנֵי ה, וַתֹּאכַל עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, אֶת-הָעֹלָה וְאֶת-הַחֲלָבִים; וַיַּרְא כָּל-הָעָם וַיָּרֹנּוּ, וַיִּפְּלוּ עַל-פְּנֵיהֶם.
וא וַיִּקְחוּ בְנֵי-אַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ, וַיִּתְּנוּ בָהֵן אֵשׁ, וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלֶיהָ, קְטֹרֶת; וַיַּקְרִיבוּ לִפְנֵי ה, אֵשׁ זָרָה–אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה, אֹתָם. ב וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי ה, וַתֹּאכַל אוֹתָם; וַיָּמֻתוּ, לִפְנֵי ה. ג וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, הוּא אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר ה לֵאמֹר בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ, וְעַל-פְּנֵי כָל-הָעָם, אֶכָּבֵד; וַיִּדֹּם, אַהֲרֹן. ד וַיִּקְרָא מֹשֶׁה, אֶל-מִישָׁאֵל וְאֶל אֶלְצָפָן, בְּנֵי עֻזִּיאֵל, דֹּד אַהֲרֹן; וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם, קִרְבוּ שְׂאוּ אֶת-אֲחֵיכֶם מֵאֵת פְּנֵי-הַקֹּדֶשׁ, אֶל-מִחוּץ, לַמַּחֲנֶה. ה וַיִּקְרְבוּ, וַיִּשָּׂאֻם בְּכֻתֳּנֹתָם, אֶל-מִחוּץ, לַמַּחֲנֶה–כַּאֲשֶׁר, דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה. ו וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן וּלְאֶלְעָזָר וּלְאִיתָמָר בָּנָיו רָאשֵׁיכֶם אַל-תִּפְרָעוּ וּבִגְדֵיכֶם לֹא-תִפְרֹמוּ, וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ, וְעַל כָּל-הָעֵדָה, יִקְצֹף; וַאֲחֵיכֶם, כָּל-בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל–יִבְכּוּ אֶת-הַשְּׂרֵפָה, אֲשֶׁר שָׂרַף ה. ז וּמִפֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא תֵצְאוּ, פֶּן-תָּמֻתוּ–כִּי-שֶׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת יְהוָה, עֲלֵיכֶם; וַיַּעֲשׂוּ, כִּדְבַר מֹשֶׁה. {פ}
ח וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה, אֶל-אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר. ט יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל-תֵּשְׁתְּ אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ, בְּבֹאֲכֶם אֶל-אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד–וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ: חֻקַּת עוֹלָם, לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם. י וּלְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הַקֹּדֶשׁ וּבֵין הַחֹל, וּבֵין הַטָּמֵא, וּבֵין הַטָּהוֹר. יא וּלְהוֹרֹת, אֶת-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל–אֵת, כָּל-הַחֻקִּים, אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה אֲלֵקים, בְּיַד-מֹשֶׁה.
23 And Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting, and came out, and blessed the people; and the glory of the LORD appeared unto all the people. 24 And there came forth fire from before the LORD, and consumed upon the altar the burnt-offering and the fat; and when all the people saw it, they shouted, and fell on their faces.
Chapter 10: 1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. 2 And there came forth fire from before the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. 3 Then Moses said unto Aaron: ‘This is it that the LORD spoke, saying: Through them that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.’ And Aaron held his peace. 4 And Moses called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aaron, and said unto them: ‘Draw near, carry your brethren from before the sanctuary out of the camp.’ 5 So they drew near, and carried them in their tunics out of the camp, as Moses had said. 6 And Moses said unto Aaron, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons: ‘Let not the hair of your heads go loose, neither rend your clothes, that ye die not, and that He be not wroth with all the congregation; but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the LORD hath kindled. 7 And ye shall not go out from the door of the tent of meeting, lest ye die; for the anointing oil of the LORD is upon you.’ And they did according to the word of Moses.
8 And the LORD spoke unto Aaron, saying: 9 ‘Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. 10 And that ye may put difference between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean; 11 and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the LORD hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses.’[4]
What we see is that the very moment God is to once again reveal himself to the people, Nadav and Aviyhu decide to bring a sacrifice that results in their fatality. Although the text itself is silent as to the reason for the death, God tells Moshe to relay to Aaron that their death was in order that God be ‘sanctified before the people’. Furthermore the only hint we have as to what they may have done wrong in the peshat is the sentence ‘ they bought a foreign fire which was not commanded’. The Torah seems to be suggesting that there was something in the way in which that they bought the sacrifice that required it be stopped immediately. If we reflect for a moment on the context of the event things begin to make sense. The people have built the Tabernacle primarily as a way of rectifying the sin of the Golden Calf. God has repeatedly emphasised that the rectification for the Golden calf must come through a strict adherence to the word and command of God. [5] The Golden calf and Mishkan have much in common. Both are made through donations of the people. Both are made from gold and feature a ‘form’ of either human or an animal and both are means by which to worship God. The main difference between the two is that one is commanded and the other is not. One was made from the unbridled desires and passion of the people , the other from a strict, circumscribed command from God. The message of the Mishkan is that to worship a Divine being, to come close to a transcendent power, one must work within the boundaries and frameworks that He dictates. The ‘fire’ of our passion and desire must be curbed when we enter His realm. As highlighted in the text above (verse 10) immediately following on from the deaths of the two men, God repeats the need for a clear demarcation between different realms and elements; Pure and impure, holy and profane, once again hinting to us that the sin of the two sons lay in their inability to observe the boundaries between God and Man.
To appreciate this further we need to look at the narrative of the Golden calf. There is a surprising dissonance between the two accounts the Torah presents of the episode; The Torah’s perspective and that of Aaron’s.
The Torah describes the events as follows:
ב וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם, אַהֲרֹן, פָּרְקוּ נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב, אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵי נְשֵׁיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם וּבְנֹתֵיכֶם; וְהָבִיאוּ, אֵלָי. ג
וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ, כָּל-הָעָם, אֶת-נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב, אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם; וַיָּבִיאוּ, אֶל-אַהֲרֹן. ד וַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם, וַיָּצַר אֹתוֹ בַּחֶרֶט, וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ, עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה; וַיֹּאמְרוּ–אֵלֶּה אֱלֹקיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. ה וַיַּרְא אַהֲרֹן, וַיִּבֶן מִזְבֵּחַ לְפָנָיו; וַיִּקְרָא אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמַר, חַג לַיהוָה מָחָר ו וַיַּשְׁכִּימוּ, מִמָּחֳרָת, וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלֹת, וַיַּגִּשׁוּ שְׁלָמִים; וַיֵּשֶׁב הָעָם לֶאֱכֹל וְשָׁתוֹ, וַיָּקֻמוּ לְצַחֵק.
2 And Aaron said unto them: ‘Break off the golden rings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.’ 3 And all the people broke off the golden rings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. 4 And he received it at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made it a molten calf; and they said: ‘This is thy god, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.’ 5 And when Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said: ‘To-morrow shall be a feast to the LORD.’ 6 And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt-offerings, and brought peace-offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to make merry. [6]
When questioned about his actions by God, Aaron relays the story in the following way.
כב וַיֹּאמֶר אַהֲרֹן, אַל-יִחַר אַף אֲדֹנִי; אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֶת-הָעָם, כִּי בְרָע הוּא. כג וַיֹּאמְרוּ לִי–עֲשֵׂה-לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים, אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ: כִּי-זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם–לֹא יָדַעְנוּ, מֶה-הָיָה לוֹ. כד וָאֹמַר לָהֶם לְמִי זָהָב, הִתְפָּרָקוּ וַיִּתְּנוּ-לִי; וָאַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בָאֵשׁ, וַיֵּצֵא הָעֵגֶל הַזֶּה. כה וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת-הָעָם, כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא: כִּי-פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן, לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם.
22 And Aaron said: ‘Let not the anger of my lord wax hot; thou knowest the people, that they are set on evil. 23 So they said unto me: Make us a god, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we know not what is become of him. 24 And I said unto them: Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off; so they gave it me; and I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.’ 25 And when Moses saw that the people were broken loose–for Aaron had let them loose for a derision among their enemies.[7]
The key difference between these two accounts lies in the description of how the Calf was created. In the Torah account Aaron slowly and deliberately carved the Calf out of the melted down gold. In Aaron’s account, in an almost miraculous manner, the calf seems to emerge from the ‘fire’. I believe that what Aaron is conveying to Moshe and God, is that it was the ‘fire’ – passion of the people, that caused this calamity to occur. Like fire, passion uncontrolled, without borders and boundaries can be catastrophic. Like fire, passion and spontaneity has its place, and within the right conditions and frameworks can bring about immensely positive results. However the key is to learn how to control, tame and channel the fire of our passion.[8]
Rashi’s famous commentary on the event now becomes clearer. Basing himself on the Midrash he notes that the reason why Nadav and Avihu were consumed by God was because they were supposedly intoxicated:
And fire went forth: Rabbi Eliezer says: Aaron’s sons died only because they rendered halachic decisions in the presence of Moses, their teacher. Rabbi Ishmael says: [They died because] they had entered the sanctuary after having drunk wine. The proof is that after their death, [Scripture] admonished the survivors that they may not enter the sanctuary after having drunk wine. ….(as recounted in Vayikra Rabbah 12:1).And fire went forth: Rabbi Eliezer says: Aaron’s sons died only because they rendered halachic decisions in the presence of Moses, their teacher. Rabbi Ishmael says: [They died because] they had entered the sanctuary after having drunk wine. The proof is that after their death, [Scripture] admonished the survivors that they may not enter the sanctuary after having drunk wine. This is analogous to a king who had a faithful attendant. [When he found him standing at tavern entrances, he severed his head in silence and appointed another attendant in his place. We would not know why he put the first to death, but for his enjoining the second thus, “You must not enter the doorway of taverns,” from which we know that for such a reason he had put the first one to death. Thus [it is said], “And fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” But we would not know why they [Nadab and Abihu] died, but for His commanding Aaron, “Do not drink wine that will lead to intoxication.” We know from this that they died precisely on account of the wine. For this reason Scripture showed love to Aaron by directing the divine utterance to him alone, thus, “Do not drink wine that will lead to intoxication,”] as recounted in Vayikra Rabbah (12:1).And fire went forth: Rabbi Eliezer says: Aaron’s sons died only because they rendered halachic decisions in the presence of Moses, their teacher. Rabbi Ishmael says: [They died because] they had entered the sanctuary after having drunk wine. The proof is that after their death, [Scripture] admonished the survivors that they may not enter the sanctuary after having drunk wine. This is analogous to a king who had a faithful attendant. [When he found him standing at tavern entrances, he severed his head in silence and appointed another attendant in his place. We would not know why he put the first to death, but for his enjoining the second thus, “You must not enter the doorway of taverns,” from which we know that for such a reason he had put the first one to death. Thus [it is said], “And fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.” But we would not know why they [Nadab and Abihu] died, but for His commanding Aaron, “Do not drink wine that will lead to intoxication.” We know from this that they died precisely on account of the wine. For this reason Scripture showed love to Aaron by directing the divine utterance to him alone, thus, “Do not drink wine that will lead to intoxication,”] as recounted in Vayikra Rabbah (12:1).
The Midrash[9] bases its commentary on the fact that immediately following the story of Nadav and Avihu we have the Moshe commanding the people that they may not enter the sanctuary intoxicated. It seems to me that the juxtaposing of that law with the narrative of Aaron’s two sons goes back to the comparison between the Golden Calf and the Mishkan. When one drinks too much the boundaries between right and wrong, pure and impure, permitted and forbidden become blurred. Distinguishing between the two becomes hard. The difference between spontaneous worship and the need for strict adherence to the law becomes difficult to discern. It becomes almost impossible to distinguish between the fire of their passion and the fire of their sacrifice, as it was in the incident of the Golden Calf.
The message of God to His people during the dedication of the Mishkan is plain and unambiguous. Now is the time for concise and delineated Avodat Hashem. To approach the Divine, to have a relationship with a transcendent Being, requires a strict and structured framework. Spontaneous worship has a place, but it is not in the Mishkan, for there everything must be done according to the will of God. When Nadav and Avihu, two of the greatest personalities amongst the people of Israel, come with a spontaneous ‘foreign fire’ – foreign passion, and bring a sacrifice that was ‘not commanded’, God has no choice but to kill them. In full view of the entire nation, and at the very moment God’s presence was about to reappear, Nadav and Avihu decide to act in a spontaneous and abrupt manner, in a very real sense taking the place of God. The message of the Mishkan, that God has been trying to impart t the people over many months, is about to be destroyed in one swift move. For this reason He must immediately consume them, in order to show the people that such action is unacceptable. His words to Aaron convey this message poignantly ‘Through those that are close to me I have been sanctified’. Meaning they were men who were close in every sense to God, but like their father Aaron, they misread a situation, their passionate desire to be close to God, without adhering to the boundaries, resulted in God having to destroy them. The situation is tragic and painful, but as God shows -necessary- to impart a message of supreme importance to that and future generations.
Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, writing at the time of the enlightenment, when traditional Judaism was under threat from the Reform movement, offers a timely reminder of what happens when boundaries are broken:
אשר לא צוה אותם that God had not commanded them. Even if the various phases of the offering had not themselves been wrong, as we have seen that they were, the fact that it was not a ‘bidden’ one, would have sufficed to make it a ‘forbidden’ one. No place is allowed in the whole service of the offerings of the sanctuary of the Torah for subjectively doing just what you think is right. Even the קרבנות נדבה, the free will offerings, have to be kept meticulously within the limits of the forms and kinds prescribed for them. For קרבת אלקים, the proximity of and getting near to God, which is the purpose of every offering, is only to be found by the way of obedience by compliance with God’s will and subordination to it. This is one of the points in which Judaism and paganism go in diametrically opposite directions.[10]
Parshat Shemini teaches us that worship of a transcendent all powerful deity is impossible without setting certain boundaries in place. As reflected in the discussion in the Gemara, approaches to Avodat Hashem are complex and multifaceted. As in any relationship, and most especially one with a Divine Being, there is a need for strict boundaries and frameworks, and equally there is a time for passionate and spontaneous activity within those boundaries. But the two must not be confused, and as Aaron and his sons learn the hard way, an uncontrolled fire/passion can lead to dangerous and tragic consequences.
Thus prayer, which today is a fundamental mode of avodat Hashem, has both elements inherent within it. By combining both Leibowitz’s insistence on a strict and rigid approach to tefilla, and Heschel’s expressive, emotive and passionately subjective view of prayer, we can begin to appreciate both the dangers and the beauty in our relationship with God. The human need for proximity and subjectiveness, and the Divine requirements of boundaries and obligations, as expressed in the seemingly paradoxical phrase – אבינו מלכינו our Father and our King.
May we as a nation and individuals, be able to find a balance between the two elements of Avodat Hashem that finds favour in His eyes, and in ours.
[1] Brachot 26b
[2] Yeshayahu Leibowitz: Yahadut p385
[3]A.J. Heschel: The Insecurity of Freedom p254
[4] Vayikra chapter 9 and 10
[5] See Parshat Pekudei, where the words ‘as God commanded Moshe’, feature after each paragraph.
[6] Shemot 32
[7] Ibid.
[8] It is no surprise in Parshat Achrei Mot immediately following on from a reminder of their story, the Torah outlines all the forbidden sexual relations. Where passion is taken beyond its boundaries, the act becomes forbidden, since it abuses the authenticity of its essence.
[9] Note also that in the same midrash another reason is given, that Nadav and Aviyhu taught Halacha in front of their teacher Moshe. It all goes back to the same theme of an unawareness of bounderies and position.
[10] Rabbi S.R. Hirsch. Commentary on the Torah. Vayikra