INTRODUCTION TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA

Parashat Shemini

Don't Drink and Daven

By Rabbi Yaakov Beasley

It was a day of celebration, recognition of work well done.  Since the sin of the Golden Calf, Hashem's Presence had been distant, in self-exile from the camp.  Now, the people sense that the moment of reconciliation is at hand.  As they watched, fire came forth “from before Hashem,” consuming in an instant all the sacrificial items that had been burning on the altar naturally.   Clearly, Hashem had forgiven his people.  As the people rejoiced, Aharon’s two elder sons Nadav and Avihu took their fire-pans, placed fire (glowing coals) on them, placed incense on the fire, and brought a new offering before Hashem. The Torah describes what happened next:

1 And Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aharon, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before Hashem, which He had not commanded them. 2 And there came forth fire from before Hashem, and devoured them, and they died before Hashem. 3 Then Moshe said unto Aharon: 'This is it that Hashem spoke, saying: Through them that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be glorified.' And Aharon held his peace. 4 And Moshe called Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Uzziel the uncle of Aharon, 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 Moshe had said. 6 And Moshe said unto Aharon, and unto Eleazar and unto Ithamar, his sons: 'Let not the hair of your heads go loose, neither rend your clothes, that you 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 Hashem hath kindled. 7 And you shall not go out from the door of the tent of meeting, lest you die; for the anointing oil of Hashem is upon you.' And they did according to the word of Moshe.

8 And Hashem spoke unto Aharon, saying: 9 'Drink no wine nor strong drink, you, nor thy sons with thee, when you go into the tent of meeting, that you die not; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. 10 And that you may distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean; 11 and that you may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which Hashem hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moshe.'  (VaYikra 10)

This was classic "midda k'neged midda" (measure for measure retribution) – Nadav and Avihu performed a deviant act with fire in the holy place, and therefore they were consumed by fire in the holy place. The words that two verses earlier referred to the consuming fire as bringing tremendous joy now described the fire that killed Nadav and Avihu. One moment, the fire symbolized Hashem's loving Presence – now, it was the vehicle of retribution.

What, however, was their wrongdoing?  As a quick glance at the Torah text reveals, it is not clear what the precise nature of their transgression was.  We will bring a quick summary of the possibilities, and then concentrate on one suggestion found in Rashi.  Some consider the most straightforward explanation to be that “strange fire” means “strange worship”.  Nadav and Avihu died because that brought a non-prescribed offering, as the immediately following words “that He had not commanded them” make clear.  If this was a case of arbitrary service in the Mishkan – then its danger cannot be ignored, even when stemming from legitimate spiritual ecstasy.  As Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch states:

The offering itself appears in every way illegal. The censers as well as the fire and the incense were all against the law. All the utensils must belong to the congregation and be holy. By giving his offering over into a national vessel of the Sanctuary, the bringer, together with his offering, enters within the framework of the national sanctuary of the Torah, and thereby gives himself up to all its demands, to the exclusion of any decisions made according to his own ideas. But the censers of Nadav and Avihu were each HIS OWN; they approached God, not with the vessels of the Sanctuary, but with their own, without self-renunciation. They put a fire in the censer, more precisely an alien fire, from their own hearths, as Rabbi Akiva explains - not fire from the altar. And, finally, the incense itself. Incense was the one sacrificial substance which was not permitted to be brought as a voluntary donation by the community nor the individual. The bringing of incense was to remain restricted exclusively to that which was prescribed for the community daily and for the high priest on Yom Kippur.

By establishing themselves as the arbitrators of how to approach Hashem, and ignoring His explicit directives, the sons of Aharon made themselves culpable.

Others, including the Rashbam and the Chizkuni, interpret their sin in light of how we described the scene of the consecration above.  The appearance of the Divine fire carried tremendous import for the people.  It signified their being forgiven by Hashem and their returning to His good graces.  By using their own source of fire, the effect of nadav and Avihu’s offering was to diminish the import of the Divine fire.  In Rashbam’s words:

 Even before the heavenly fire had descended they [Nadav and Avihu] had already taken their censers to burn incense on the altar of gold since the incense offered in the morning precedes the offering of animal sacrifices (see Shemot 30:7); and they put in [the censers] an alien fire which Moshe had not commanded on THIS DAY. Though on other days it is written "And the sons of Aharon the priest shall put fire upon the altar" (1:7), on this day Moshe did not desire that they bring a man-made fire, since they were anticipating the descent of a heavenly fire; therefore the bringing of a different fire was not desired in order that God's name should be sanctified and that all would know that the fire came from the heavens.

Another opinion suggests that their sin lay in where they made the offering.  Although the text does not state Nadav and Avihu entered the Holy of Holies explicitly, the manner in which their death is cited in a later passage appears to support this interpretation. When the law prohibits even the high priest to enter beyond the curtain “at any time,” lest he die (VaYikra 16:1-2), their death literally lurks in the background.

Numerous additional opinions abound in the Midrashic literature[i].  The Sifra attributes the sin as what they detect to be Nadav and Avihu’s ambition.  By acting presumptuously, without seeking guidance from their elders, Nadav and Avihu demonstrate subconsciously that they seek to ascend to the uppermost leadership positions in the nation, and replace Moshe and Aharon.  Rabbi Akiva interprets “strange fire” to mean that the coals they used were not from the sacrificial altar. Another opinion is that they performed their service without being properly clothed.

Rashi cites two opinions from the Midrash. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with their service - except that it was commanded to Moshe and not as yet specifically taught to them. Despite his accessibility, they chose to act upon a law without receiving authorization from their mentor. This approach understands “that He had not commanded them” (VaYikra 10:1) in its simplest sense.  Rabbi Yishmael, however, argues that Nadav and Avihu were intoxicated when they performed their service. This opinion is based on the fact that G-d’s instructions to Aharon cautioning the priests not to partake of wine or strong drink before they enter the Ohel Mo`ed immediately follow the description of their demise (VaYikra 10:8-11). Indeed, the interposition of the cautionary law regarding becoming intoxicated and imbibing liquor before serving clearly creates the impression that the tragedy was associated with drunkenness.  These are the words of the Midrash (in some versions, including Rashi’s, "As Rabbi Yishmael taught," replaces “As Rabbi Shimon taught “).:

As Rabbi Shimon taught:* The sons of Aharon died only because they entered the Tent of Meeting intoxicated from wine. Rabbi Phinehas says, in the name of Rabbi Levi: This is comparable to a king who had a faithful attendant. When he found him standing at the entrance to [wine] shops, he silently severed his head, and appointed another attendant in his stead. We would not know why he killed the first, if it were not for what he commanded the second: "Do not enter the doorway of [wine] shops"; we therefore know why he killed the first one. Thus: "And fire came forth from Hashem and consumed them; thus they died before Hashem" (VaYikra 10:2). We would not know why they died, if it were not for His commanding Aharon, saying: "Drink no wine or other intoxicant" (verse 9). We therefore know from this that they died only on account of the wine.  (VaYikra Rabba 12)

Despite the simplicity of the interpretation, several of the supercommentaries on Rashi raise the following objection: Why were Nadav and Avihu punished by death for having entered intoxicated with wine?  After all, the prohibition against this was issued only after their death!?   To this, we can explain that “they offered before Hashem alien fire, which He had not enjoined them" as the transgression – however, this occurred as a result of their being intoxicated. Consequently, Chazal do not explain the reason for the punishment, but the cause of the error committed by the sons of Aharon, as a result of which they offered alien fire.

Several commentators see a different purpose in teaching the law of not entering the Mishkan and serving while intoxicated here.  The Abrabanel states as follows:

And behold, He commanded after this, "Drink no wine or other intoxicant," because the heart of Aharon and his sons was as the heart of a woman, grieving for the burning of his sons, but because of the injunction by Moses, they could not weep and eulogize properly. In consequence they might possibly drink wine in order to forget their sorrows, as it says, "Give strong drink to the hapless and wine to the embittered. Let them drink and forget their poverty" (Prov. 31:6-7); because of this, the Divine pronouncement was issued to Aharon and his sons: "Drink no wine or other intoxicant." This contains two reasons preventing their drinking it: the first, by his saying, "when you enter the Tent of Meeting," with the meaning of "because," as "There Israel served as a wife" (Hos. 12:13); "It was a wicked thing for you to do" (Gen. 44:5); "Will You destroy for want of five" (Gen. 18:28), and many similar examples. That is to say: it is not proper for you to drink wine or other intoxicant because you must enter the Tent of Meeting, to perform the services in the San. For if you were to be intoxicated, you would sin in your service there and die, and this matter is an eternal law for all your generations....

The second reason why it is not proper for you to drink wine or other intoxicant is because you instruct the people in the Torah, and by your word will the distinction be drawn between the sacred and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean. And also regarding all the other precepts, you will instruct the Israelites in all the laws, and as it is said: "For the lips of a kohen guard knowledge" (Mal. 2:7).

The Abrabanel suggests that the prohibition against wine was not to describe the sin of Nadav and Avihu, but was a warning for the remaining Kohanim not to drown their sorrows away, as it were, and attempt to serve.  This approach is also found in the Netziv:

As regards the onan (a mourner before the burial of the dead relative), who is unfit for the [Sanctuary] service because he is enveloped in suffering and cannot be in a state of the love of Hashem and adherence [to Him], which comes only from the joy of performing the commandment. The High Priest, however, because of his greatness, is capable of overcoming his sorrow and standing before Hashem in joy, which was the attribute of Aharon. This [overcoming one's grief], however, is difficult work, and I would think to say that he should drink wine or other intoxicant, as it is said: "Give strong drink to the hapless and wine to the embittered. Let them drink and forget their poverty" (Prov. 31:6-7). The Holy One, blessed be He, accordingly enjoined Aharon and his sons at that time that they should not follow this advice when they come to the Tent of Meeting to attain the love [of Hashem].

The Abrabanel’s second point deals with the continuing verses after the prohibition against serving intoxicated, and suggests that the prohibition is not limited to serving in the Mishkan only, but rather to all aspects of the Kohen’s responsibilities.  Let us examine this section closely:

8 And Hashem spoke unto Aharon, saying: 9 'Drink no wine nor strong drink, you, nor thy sons with thee, when you go into the tent of meeting, that you die not; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations. 10 And that you must distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean; 11 and that you may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which Hashem hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moshe.'

That the prohibition encompassed all the functions of the Kohen was the understanding of Rabbi Samuel David Luzzato:

Kohanim are forbidden to drink [intoxicating beverages] in relation to the three actions special to them, which are of three types: the act of service in the Sanctuary, which is "when you enter the Tent of Meeting" (VaYikra 10:9); instruction in matters of the sacred and the profane, and the unclean and the clean, that is to say, to decide the law when a doubt will arouse regarding the kohanim; and the third, "And you must teach the Israelites all the laws."

Rashi, however, understands the relationship between verses 9 and 10 differently:

"For you must distinguish" - so that you will distinguish between a sacred [sacrificial act] and one that has been profaned. You thereby learn that if a person performed the Divine srvice [while intoxicated], his service is invalid. (commentary to 10:10)

The Netziv also had a different understanding of the relationship between the three verses:

"Ule-havdil ben ha-kodesh u-ven ha-hol [and between the unclean and the clean]": The Holy One, blessed be He, continued by giving another counsel to gladden the heart and to divert the mind from sorrow, namely, by the wine of Torah that rejoices the heart, as it is written: "The precepts of Hashem are just, rejoicing the heart" (Ps. 19:9). The clarification of doubts and the laws exceedingly rejoices the heart, as the well-known dictum of the wise one, that there is no joy like that of resolving doubts.

"Ule-horot et Bnei Yisrael [And you must teach the Israelites]": He further added a counsel for gladdening the heart, which is to teach attentive students ... and Aharon was commanded to engage in this, which would cause the rejoicing of the spirit which leads to the forgetting of all sorrow and anguish.

What underlies their differing interpretations?  According to Luzzatto, the clauses beginning:
(a) "when you enter the Tent of Meeting", (b) "For you must distinguish between the sacred and the profane", and (c) "And you must teach the Israelites" are time-dependent secondary clauses to the main clause “Do not drink wine”. According to his interpretation, it is as if it were written: "Do not drink wine [verse 9, main clause] when you enter the Tent of Meeting, when they are deliberating regarding questions of sacred and profane, unclean and clean, and when they are issuing instruction to the people."  The Netziv, however, understands the clauses beginning "For you must distinguish" and "And you must teach" as main clauses.  They are connected to the previous verse, verse 9, as a contrast to the injunction against drinking wine. Wine may not be drunk, for it will lead to joy during mourning. On the other hand, "distinguishing" (i.e., Torah study) and teaching are appropriate happier venues that will lead to the mourner to lesson his sorrow.  Finally, according to Rashi: verses 10-11 are purpose-related clauses dependent upon verse 9, which is the main clause. "Drink no wine or other intoxicant" - so that you will distinguish, and so that you will teach.

However, whatever the relationship between the verses, we note the common thread among the commentators that differentiates between authentic emotion, which is desirable before Hashem, and artificially enhanced feelings through the use of external stimulants on the other.  Wine can provide temporary relief and or excitement, but only connection to Torah and good acts lead to genuine happiness and acceptable service.