Return To TorahWeb.org Homepage
The miluim period, the culmination of which is chronicled in the beginning of parshat Shemini, ushered in a new era of avodat Hashem. The Ramban compares the eighth day offerings to the minchat chinuch initiation of a kohen hedyot. The Torat Kohanim observes that it was a day of coronations, initiating ten different firsts. The Ramban further notes that the content and configuration of both Aharon and Klal Yisroel's korbonot invoke the pivotal avodat Yom Hakipurim. [The Talmud in the first perek of Yoma and elsewhere accents numerous parallels between the miluim and Yom Kippur.]
Clearly the completion of this process constituted an important transition which engendered significant spiritual opportunities and challenges. Moreover, the unprecedented korbonot generated a new reality that needed to be addressed. It is intriguing to chart the different reactions and responses to this evolving reality, as it is paradigmatic of the parallel dynamic that prevails in times of transition.
The Torah's initial report highlights the humility, caution and reserve, even reticence that one would anticipate upon embarking on a new spiritual odyssey. Aharon ha-Kohen needed continuously to be encouraged to undertake these special avodot. "Vayomer Moshe el Aharon kerav el ha-mizbeach ve-aseh..." (Vayikra 9:7) follows the earlier prompting of "kach lecha ...ve-hakrev" (9:2). Rashi, citing the midrash, explains that Aharon hesitated because he felt unworthy, even flawed until Moshe sufficiently impressed upon him that this leadership role was his true destiny ("ki lekach nivcharta"). Ramban further elaborates this motif. This dialectic of humility and destiny takes place despite and because of the stakes of hashraat ha-Shechinah (9: 4, 6, 23). This sense of ambivalence was evidently still unresolved until Moshe accompanied Aharon one last time (9:23- see Rashi second view) into the Ohel Moed to unequivocally establish his hegemony in the keter of kehunah. Aharon's initial posture then, underscores that spiritual initiative requires explicit Divine guidance and the sanction of Moshe Rabbeinu, the authoritative leader of the nation.
Aharon's caution and reticence sharply contrasts with the jarring tragedy of his son's, Nadav and Avihu. Undoubtedly inspired by the palpable spiritual climate of hashraat ha-Shechinah successfully attained by virtue of Aharon and Moshe's rigorous attention to Divine fiat, these son's of Aharon became sufficiently emboldened to initiate their own unguided subjective quest for spirituality, which ended in tragedy. The fact that the same ketoret which demanded Moshe's special guidance (Rashi 9:23) in the miluim was the vehicle for Nadav and Avihu's spiritual innovation is surely noteworthy. Moreover, the language that reports the tragic fate of benei Aharon- "va-teizei eish mi-lifnei Hashem va-tochal otam" (10:2) invokes the memory of the successful korban offering of the miluim ("va-teze eish mi-lifnei Hashem va-tochal ha-mizbeach" 9:24).
It is significant that the precise identity of benei Aharon's infraction is shrouded in mystery. The Torah speaks of "ketoret zarah", but Chazal understood that this irrevocable loss for all of Klal Yisroel was linked to other egregious breaches of halachic etiquette and authority, as well. The Torah conveys that benei Aharon's severe punishment occurred notwithstanding the absolute sincerity of their quest (see Ibn Ezra on "lifnei Hashem") and their undeniable spiritual stature ("ki be-kerovai ekadeish"). Numerous mefarshim posit that the term "asher lo tzivah otam" best defines and encapsulates the core flaw. The common denominator of the wide range of misconduct identified by Chazal and the mefarshim points to the pervasive attitude of religious subjectivity. Moreover, ignoring the authority of Moshe Rabbeinu (moreh halachah shelo bifnei rabo - Torat kohanim, Rashi 10:2) in such a sensitive context, was not merely a breach of etiquette or even discipline but reflected a fundamental flaw in their spiritual-halachic personae. It is unsurprising that the extremely strict protocols of avodat Yom Kippur - "be-zot yavo Aharon el ha-Kodesh" - refer to this great tragedy - "achrei mot shenei benei Aharon."
Unquestionably, the wide ranging implications of Nadav and Avihu's misguided effort at individualistic spirituality form the basis for Moshe Rabbeinu's uncharacteristic pique, even anger ("vayiktzof" - 10:16) reflected in the tenor and articulation of his accusation against the "remaining" benei Aharon (10:12, 16) whom he believed to have ruled improperly regarding the complex laws of avodat onen in these singular circumstances. Moshe's hypersensitivity to proper halachic conduct, and to the proper hierarchy of halachic authority had understandable roots given the fact that the reticence, reserve and hyper-modesty of Aharon had given way to the self-confident certainty, even spiritual recklessness of his two deceased sons. His otherwise superfluous comment "kasher tziviti" appended to the substantive critique of their ruling conveys his deeper concern for proper halachic protocol and methodology. [See also Rashi's citation of Torat Kohanim which observes that Moshe did not direct his ire at Aharon, but at his children. This focus reflects Moshe's own concern for the proper halachic etiquette he suspects his "remaining" nephews lack, as well as his absolute confidence(based on a long track record and again reinforced by his miluim orientation) that Aharon was completely immune to this particular flaw, irrespective of any halachic error he may have made.]
In Aharon's pointed (vayedaber - lashon az) response to Moshe, the Torah records yet a third perspective. Chazal construed Aharon's very intervention in this dispute as a symbol of the critical difference between the two groups of benei Aharon. The Torat Kohanim explains (Rashi 10:9) that Elazar and Itamar deferred to their father out of respect for his honor (and, undoubtedly, authority), but also to avoid directly refuting Moshe Rabbeinu! This decision underscored their sensitivity to halachic hierarchy and conveyed a tenor of humility that distinguished them from their deceased brothers and established them as the true heirs of the humble and halachically reserved Aharon.
However, Aharon's forceful halachic argument is extremely consequential. While unfounded initiative and improper authority is emphatically to be rejected, the application of halachic principles to new circumstances is a vital part of the halachic system. Vigorous halachic conviction, properly channeled and articulated is a sine qua non for a dynamic halachic culture. Aharon was able to effectively demonstrate that far from being a subjective initiative and innovation, the decision regarding avodah be-aninut was a more precise and rigorous application of existing halachic principles. Possibly for the very same reason that Aharon categorically rejected undirected innovation and even displayed reserve in his involvement with the unprecedented avodah of the miluim, he emerged as an articulate advocate for the dynamism of halachic life.
A profound truth emerges from this exchange and episode. Aharon, Elazar and Itamar rather than flouting Moshe's authority and preeminence were merely creatively but responsibly and accurately applying his teachings, furthering the process and scope of the halachic enterprise. The Torah's report, particularly powerful for its succinctness, that Moshe not only accepted the argument but was pleased- "vayishma Moshe vayitav be-einav" (10:20, also presumably intended to be linked with the previous verse -"ha-yiytav be-einei Hashem") - validates not only this ruling, but its methodological underpinnings and broader implications, as well. While the gemara (Zevachim 101a, cited by Rashi - "hodah velo bosh lomar lo shamaati") emphasizes Moshe's willingness to accept a convincing halachic argument of which he was previously unaware, the Seforno adds that Moshe was particularly delighted at the creative capacity of Aharon and his son's to rule in uncharted halachic territory based on sound logic [compare Hashem's response in the famous case of tanur shel achnai (Bava Metzia 58b) - "nitzchuni banai nitzchuni banai". See also the exchange between Bezalel and Moshe (Berachot 55b.) The view that this entire discussion may have been only academic (Ramban), does not make it any less significant as a window into ideal halachic debate and authority. Indeed, the fact that the Torah would record this academic exchange further highlights the importance of these themes.]
Aharon's perspective on the avodat onen issue actually complements his posture of caution and reserve in the miluim. [In fact, according to at least one view of the Ramban (9:2-3), this insider perspective is implicit in the completion of the miluim process itself. Ramban explains that it may have been Aharon's logical extrapolation of the equation between the miluim sacrifice and the Yom Kippur protocol that impelled him to conclude that this korban should be burnt, notwithstanding its status as an outside korban!] It is the ethos of a halachic insider whose training and mode of thinking has been shaped by his dedication to the system and its mentors. The thoughtful, responsible, and respectful creative involvement of such individuals always constitutes an important contribution to the halachic process. The participation by qualified halachists and the careful methodological application of halachic principles to new circumstances, is not only permitted, it is indispensable to the continuing dynamism of halachic life. Moshe's quick turnaround from pique to joy attests to the importance of these issues that have been and remain endemic to Jewish life and the halachic process.
The gemara (Temura 16a) records that Klal Yisroel and even its halachic leadership were initially paralyzed when Moshe died. The status of no less than 3,000 halachot were compromised in this period of grief and transition. It is likely that this was not the result of some mass amnesia, but a consequence of the understandable heavy reliance upon Moshe Rabbeinu's inimitable stature and vast authority. However, the gemara also records that halachic life was ultimately able to recover, continue and flourish, confronting new challenges. This recovery was achieved not by means of prophecy or other spiritual interventions, but by proper halachic methodology -"hichziro Atniel ben Kenaz mitoch pilpulo." Already in the time of the miluim, precisely in the aftermath of both the miluim model of careful, scrupulous attention to tzivui Hashem, as well as the tragic overreaching of Nadav and Avihu, Moshe Rabbeinu validated the perspective of qualified insiders that was ultimately the basis for halachic continuity and the preservation of both the mesorah and the capacity to confront new challenge. Vayishma Moshe vayitav be-einav.