It is forbidden to render a halachic decision before one's teacher. This is discussed in Eruvin 62b-63a, and it is brought down as halacha by the Rif. A brayta also says that the sons of Aharon - that is, Nadav and Avihu - died because they rendered a halachic decision in the presence of their teacher Moshe. The brayta:
They learnt {in a brayta}: Rabbi Eliezer says: The sons of Aharon died only because they rendered a legal decision in the presence of Moshe their master. What was the exposition they made? From Vayikra 1:7:Let us first consider the midrash in a most straightforward manner. The pasuk in pashat Vayikra, which states that וְנָתְנוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, אֵשׁ--עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, could be taken in one of two ways. We could either say that there is a requirement that fire be there, in order to consume the sacrifice. Alternatively, we could say that the bringing of fire is itself part of the order of service. The distinction between the two is if fire is already there. The sons of Aharon understood from this verse that there was a separate command for the sons of Aharon to bring fire, even if fire is already there - even if there is already Divine Fire already there. And they rendered this decision themselves without asking Moshe.so even though fire comes down from heaven, it is incumbent to bring from ordinary fire.
ז וְנָתְנוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, אֵשׁ--עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; וְעָרְכוּ עֵצִים, עַל-הָאֵשׁ. 7 And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay wood in order upon the fire.
Before proceeding to the next verse, I would point out that the midrash is taking the phrase וְנָתְנוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן hyperliterally, to mean not just descendants of Aharon but rather to refer to the actual sons of Aharon - that is, Nadav and Avihu.
We now turn to parshat Shemini. We read that a Divine Fire came down from Heaven. In Vayikra 9:24:
pesukim, in Vayikra 10:1-2, which detail their actions and punishment: (Note that a connection between 9:24 and 10:1 is not necessary and to make such a connection may well be a midrashic device of semichut = juxtoposition.)
pasuk calls them "the sons of Aaron" perhaps to make a connection to the pasuk/command in parshat Vayikra. What did they do? Even though a Divine Fire was already present, as we saw in the previous pasuk, וַיִּתְּנוּ בָהֵן אֵשׁ - just as the pasuk in parshat Vayikra commanded. Further, וַיַּקְרִיבוּ לִפְנֵי ה, "they offered before Hashem," even though Hashem's fire was already present. What did they offer? אֵשׁ זָרָה. Not "foreign fire," but ordinary fire, that is, aside from the Divine Fire which we know was already present.
But they were correct in their decision! Why were they punished? The pasuk concludes: אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה, אֹתָם. Examine the JPS translation of the pasuk: "which He had not commanded them." Note that they capitalize the "H" in "He." Thus, it was a non-Divine Fire which Hashem had not commanded them. The midrash translates the pasuk with a lower-case "h." It was not Hashem who had not commanded them, but Moshe who had not commanded them.
And that was their sin: אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה, אֹתָם.
So much for the straightforward understanding of the midrash. See how involved it is, and how many different pesukim contribute towards the final midrash. People should appreciate midrash!
But that is not what I missed. I missed the deeper message. Let us turn to the homiletic layer of the midrash, and focus on the actual halacha that Nadav and Avihu deduced.
They claimed that even though a Divine Fire is present, there is still an obligation for a fire from a hedyot, a non-Divine fire, to be brought. See the irony yet?
Torah is compared to fire. To give the prime example, consider parshat VeZot HaBeracha, in Devarim 33:2:
halacha on his own. In this, they were wrong.
Thus, the specifics of the law that they rendered is emblematic of the problem of their very rendering of the law. And that is why the midrash is sublime.
No comments:
Post a Comment