A bit of elaboration on my post below which goes through all references to Seirim in Tanach. Let me explain what I was trying to accomplish, and what it has to do with all the animal pictures.
The pasuk in Vayikra refers to a bad practice some ancient Israelites had of sacrificing to Seirim, which seem to be satyrs or demons.
But what is the Jewish perspective on demons? Do they exist?
It seems to me we can divide the question into 3 parts:
1) What did some ancient Israelites believe?
2) What is the perspective in Torah, Neviim, Ketuvim?
3) What is the perspective of Chazal?
In general, the Jewish perspective is that other gods do not exist, only Hashem. However, just because something is idolatry does not guarantee that Jewish thought denies the existence of said entity.
Consider the case where someone worships a sheep, or a dog. No one would deny the dog, or sheep, exists, but we may deny that the dog or sheep is divine.
Similarly, we might say that demons or satyrs exist even if they are not divine.
1) The few mistaken ancient Israelites who worshipped Seirim obviously felt that the Seirim had some power, such that they brought sacrifices to them. Thus they certainly believed in the existence of Seirim.
2) The Torah gives the law to prevent people from bringing sacrifices to Seirim. That does not mean that the Torah acknowledges their existence - just that some people thought they existed and worshipped them.
The verse in Melachim Bet, even if it refers to Seirim, did not show a belief of the Navi in the existence of Seirim.
The verses in Yeshayahu might refer to Seirim, meaning demons/satyrs. These are things that dance in desolate places, and the context in one verse has one Lilith calling to another, and Lilith is taken to be a type of demon. This might mean that the Navi believes in the existence of these demons, if he can talk about them doing things. On the other hand, he might be using them metaphorically, in trying to paint a picture of desolation, and satyrs frequent desolate places, and so this does not mean the Navi beleives in demons even if Seirim means demons.
The point of all the pictures was that the context in Yeshayahu is the description of a desolate place with a bunch of wild animals which frequent such places. Thus I provided pics of each type of animal.
Seirim literally means goats, and the satyr meaning is an extension of that primary meaning. So there is no cause to assume it means demons, given the context of all the other wild animals there. In which case the Navi does not show that Biblical Judaism believed in demons.
In terms of the context Lilith in one verse, Lilith comes from the same root as Layla, night, which is appropriate to describe a demon. But we do not know that the Lilith calling to the other Lilith is a demon. Just as we have problems identifying many Biblical creatures, this might also be some actual animal, which is nocturnal, and is thus called Lilith, from night.
3) In terms of Chazal's perspective, they assume in many places that demons (Shedim) exist, and in the Midrash Rabba for Acharei Mot cite on of the psukim in Yeshaya to explain that Seirim are demons. This means that they think demons exist which have various magical powers, but not that one should worship them nor that they are divine in some way.
Rishonim and Acharonim have different perspectives about the existence of demons, but I do not want to get into that here.
Friday, April 30, 2004
Thursday, April 29, 2004
A powerful article in today's Wall Street Journal by Peggy Noonan
Every now and then you witness a small moment that is actually a big moment. Maybe it alerts you to something surprising that's going on, or maybe it illustrates what you already know but in a new way, one that can't be dodged or avoided.
...
But I must tell you of the small moment that was actually a big moment. (There's a possible spoiler coming up, so if you don't know the story and mean to see the play, stop here.) An important moment in the plot is when a character announces she is pregnant, and considering having an abortion. In fact, she tells her mother-in-law, she's already put $5 down with the local abortionist. It is a dramatic moment. And you know as you watch it that when this play came out in 1960 it was received by the audience as a painful moment--a cry of pain from a woman who's tired of hoping that life will turn out well.
But this is the thing: Our audience didn't know that. They didn't understand it was tragic. They heard the young woman say she was about to end the life of her child, and they applauded. Some of them cheered. It was stunning. The reaction seemed to startle the actors on stage, and shake their concentration. I was startled. I turned to my friend. "We have just witnessed a terrible cultural moment," I said. "Don't I know it," he responded.
Early maturation?
Sometimes midrashim, and Chazal, suggest that certain events happen in a Biblical character's lifetime earlier than makes sense to modern sensibilities. For example, Rivka talking with Eliezer and drawing water from the well for the camels at the age of 3, and people marrying at what we would consider a very early age.
That is why I found this Reuters article on Neanderthals interesting. Though I do not necessarily accept the time frame of Neanderthals existing 30,000 years ago, this shows that Neanderthals matured at an earlier age. Money quote:
That is why I found this Reuters article on Neanderthals interesting. Though I do not necessarily accept the time frame of Neanderthals existing 30,000 years ago, this shows that Neanderthals matured at an earlier age. Money quote:
Although Neanderthals disappeared from Europe about 30,000 years ago, scientists at the French research institute CRNS in Paris have uncovered new details about them by studying teeth fossils.
The findings, reported in the science journal Nature, suggest Neanderthals reached adulthood by the age of 15 -- about three years before early modern humans -- probably ate a high calorie diet and were a distinct species from modern humans.
"Neanderthals, despite having a large brain, were characterized by a short period of development," said Fernando Ramirez Rozzi.
"This difference in growth between Neanderthals and modern humans is, I think, very strong proof of two different species," he added.
Acharei Mot #3: Seirim
Here is, as promised, the survey of Seirim throughout Tanach. I obtained the list of locations from this web site, but I take exception to at least one of the psaukim classified as speaking about Seirim.
The first the one in Vayikra 17:6:
Satyrs is JPS's translation, where a satyr was a Pan, a demi-god which had half human and half-goat form. Chazal in midrash Rabbi say it means demons.
The next pasuk to consider is the list of altars that King Yoshiyahu destroyed in his reformation. In Malachim Bet, 23:8:
The web site above listed this verse, and so is suggesting that הַשְּׁעָרִים should be read HaSeirim rather that HaShearim. The Shin/Sin difference is recorded by a dot on the left (sin) or right (shin) side, but this dot is not written in a Sefer of Navi, just as nikud is not. However, the verse only talks of the altar being on the left side, not the dot ;). Further, there would be a missing yud. Further, we have the weight of tradition on the side of the verse as it currently stands. Finally, while in the context of an altar is is somewhat tempting, the local semantic context of the verse, namely that it was located in Shaar Yehoshua and in the Shaar of the city gives much more credence to the reading Shearim.
The next verse is in Divrei HaYamim Bet, 11:15:
The context is that there is a newly divided kingdom. Rechovom still controls Yehuda and Yerovam controlled the kingdom of Israel. All the priests and levites went to serve in the Bet HaMikdash in the kingdom of Yehuda, because king Yerovam had cast them off. Instead he appointed his own priests.
According to this translation, וְלַשְּׂעִירִים means the satyrs, or for Chazal they would then be demons. So, he made Bamot, altars for the satyrs, and he made Bamot for the golden Calves which he had made.
If so, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה, that he made, should only go on the calves and not on the seirim, since he did not make demons/satyrs, but did make golden calves. The trup (cantillation) obliges, giving an etnachta after seirim, thus making "the calves which he made" a section to itself. Rashi also chimes in, saying that the reason the levites abandoned him was because he appointed priests to serve demons/satyrs.
I have a few problems:
1) Why the vav in וְלַשְּׂעִירִים? It should be "He made Bamot for the Seirim, and for the calves he had made." What is with this extra "and?" It seems to set it off from the rest.
2) Where else do we see he made Bamot for the demons/satyrs besides this verse? This came as a big surprise to me. We know he made golden calves, but no mention of Seirim is made in Melachim Aleph 12
3) Seirim literally means goats, which are sacrificial animals. The juxtaposition of that next to וְלָעֲגָלִים increases the likelihood of it referring to animals rather than demons.
4) Without the trup my first inclination was to pause after Bamot, because of the vav in וְלַשְּׂעִירִים. But then אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה should be distributive, and he could not make demons/satyrs, as I mentioned above.
Perhaps the etnachta should be on the word Bamot; וְלַשְּׂעִירִים means "and the goats," not the demons/satyrs. וְלָעֲגָלִים does not mean the golden calves, but actual calves. אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה need not mean which he physically made, but can mean (and I think it is used in this context elsewhere) "that he sacrificed."
Thus, Jeroboam appointed priests for his altars, and to bring the goats and calves which he sacrificed.
This is unlikely given the verse in Malachim Aleph 12:32:
So לְזַבֵּחַ לָעֲגָלִים אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה here informs us that the phrase means the calves he formed. However, we also see אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה applying to the Bamot, which imples that the אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה in the verse in Divrei Hayamim may also be distributive, and should apply to the Bamot, the Seirim, and the Agalim. Perhaps he made some kind of golden goats as well?
{Update: Perhaps וְלַשְּׂעִירִים is meant to be metaphorical. After all, Jeroboam here is moving away from the centralized worship in the Bet HaMikdash specified in Vayikra, and is giving an alternate form of worship. This may be a Biblical allusion to Vayikra, saying that his making of calves and making the people worship outside the Bet HaMikdash was like worshipping the Seirim, which were associated with the prohibition of Bamot in Vayikra.}
For now, let us assume the conventional explanation supported by Rashi and the trup.
The next occurance is in Yeshayahu 13:21, but let us cite the surrounding verses for context:
Sure satyrs or demons would hang out in a desolate place, but wouldn't a wild goat do this at well?
Consider the context: (pictures based on the JPS translation - I am not going to go anto all the possible identifications here)
The Wildcat shall lie there
and their houses shall be full of Ferrets
and Ostriches shall dwell there...
And Seirim (wild goats) shall dance there.
And Jackals shall howl in their castles...
And Wild Dogs in their pleasant castles...
The context is that of wild animals, not of demons, or so at least it seems to me.
Finally we have Yeshayahu 34:14, but again I am unconvinced by the context. The only thing that recommends it is Lilit, which might be a Night monster, but perhaps has another connotation - some nocturnal creature which we do not directly know about, which served as a source for the mythical Lilith. Again the full context, again about desolation:
Many of the animals were covered above by the previous verse, so we can establish a similar context. The remaining ones:
But the pelican
and the Bittern shall possess it...
and the Owl
and the Raven shall dwell within...
There shall the arrowsnake make her nest...
there shall the kites be gathered...
Thus, the context again seems overwhelmingly to be animals which live in desolate places. While demons is possible, I am not convinced.
The first the one in Vayikra 17:6:
וְלֹא-יִזְבְּחוּ עוֹד, אֶת-זִבְחֵיהֶם, לַשְּׂעִירִם, אֲשֶׁר הֵם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם: חֻקַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה-זֹּאת לָהֶם, לְדֹרֹתָם.
"And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs, after whom they go astray. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations."
Satyrs is JPS's translation, where a satyr was a Pan, a demi-god which had half human and half-goat form. Chazal in midrash Rabbi say it means demons.
The next pasuk to consider is the list of altars that King Yoshiyahu destroyed in his reformation. In Malachim Bet, 23:8:
וַיָּבֵא אֶת-כָּל-הַכֹּהֲנִים, מֵעָרֵי יְהוּדָה, וַיְטַמֵּא אֶת-הַבָּמוֹת אֲשֶׁר קִטְּרוּ-שָׁמָּה הַכֹּהֲנִים, מִגֶּבַע עַד-בְּאֵר שָׁבַע; וְנָתַץ אֶת-בָּמוֹת הַשְּׁעָרִים, אֲשֶׁר-פֶּתַח שַׁעַר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שַׂר-הָעִיר, אֲשֶׁר-עַל-שְׂמֹאול אִישׁ, בְּשַׁעַר הָעִיר.
"And he brought all the priests out of the cities of Judah, and defiled the high places where the priests had made offerings, from Geba to Beer-sheba; and he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city, which were on a man's left hand as he entered the gate of the city."
The web site above listed this verse, and so is suggesting that הַשְּׁעָרִים should be read HaSeirim rather that HaShearim. The Shin/Sin difference is recorded by a dot on the left (sin) or right (shin) side, but this dot is not written in a Sefer of Navi, just as nikud is not. However, the verse only talks of the altar being on the left side, not the dot ;). Further, there would be a missing yud. Further, we have the weight of tradition on the side of the verse as it currently stands. Finally, while in the context of an altar is is somewhat tempting, the local semantic context of the verse, namely that it was located in Shaar Yehoshua and in the Shaar of the city gives much more credence to the reading Shearim.
The next verse is in Divrei HaYamim Bet, 11:15:
וַיַּעֲמֶד-לוֹ כֹּהֲנִים, לַבָּמוֹת וְלַשְּׂעִירִים, וְלָעֲגָלִים, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה.
"and he appointed him priests for the high places, and for the satyrs, and for the calves which he had made."
The context is that there is a newly divided kingdom. Rechovom still controls Yehuda and Yerovam controlled the kingdom of Israel. All the priests and levites went to serve in the Bet HaMikdash in the kingdom of Yehuda, because king Yerovam had cast them off. Instead he appointed his own priests.
According to this translation, וְלַשְּׂעִירִים means the satyrs, or for Chazal they would then be demons. So, he made Bamot, altars for the satyrs, and he made Bamot for the golden Calves which he had made.
If so, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה, that he made, should only go on the calves and not on the seirim, since he did not make demons/satyrs, but did make golden calves. The trup (cantillation) obliges, giving an etnachta after seirim, thus making "the calves which he made" a section to itself. Rashi also chimes in, saying that the reason the levites abandoned him was because he appointed priests to serve demons/satyrs.
I have a few problems:
1) Why the vav in וְלַשְּׂעִירִים? It should be "He made Bamot for the Seirim, and for the calves he had made." What is with this extra "and?" It seems to set it off from the rest.
2) Where else do we see he made Bamot for the demons/satyrs besides this verse? This came as a big surprise to me. We know he made golden calves, but no mention of Seirim is made in Melachim Aleph 12
3) Seirim literally means goats, which are sacrificial animals. The juxtaposition of that next to וְלָעֲגָלִים increases the likelihood of it referring to animals rather than demons.
4) Without the trup my first inclination was to pause after Bamot, because of the vav in וְלַשְּׂעִירִים. But then אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה should be distributive, and he could not make demons/satyrs, as I mentioned above.
Perhaps the etnachta should be on the word Bamot; וְלַשְּׂעִירִים means "and the goats," not the demons/satyrs. וְלָעֲגָלִים does not mean the golden calves, but actual calves. אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה need not mean which he physically made, but can mean (and I think it is used in this context elsewhere) "that he sacrificed."
Thus, Jeroboam appointed priests for his altars, and to bring the goats and calves which he sacrificed.
This is unlikely given the verse in Malachim Aleph 12:32:
וַיַּעַשׂ יָרָבְעָם חָג בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁמִינִי בַחֲמִשָּׁה-עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ כֶּחָג אֲשֶׁר בִּיהוּדָה, וַיַּעַל עַל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ--כֵּן עָשָׂה בְּבֵית-אֵל, לְזַבֵּחַ לָעֲגָלִים אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה; וְהֶעֱמִיד בְּבֵית אֵל, אֶת-כֹּהֲנֵי הַבָּמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה.
And Jeroboam ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day of the month, like unto the feast that is in Judah, and he went up unto the altar; so did he in Beth-el, to sacrifice unto the calves that he had made; and he placed in Beth-el the priests of the high places that he had made.
So לְזַבֵּחַ לָעֲגָלִים אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה here informs us that the phrase means the calves he formed. However, we also see אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה applying to the Bamot, which imples that the אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה in the verse in Divrei Hayamim may also be distributive, and should apply to the Bamot, the Seirim, and the Agalim. Perhaps he made some kind of golden goats as well?
{Update: Perhaps וְלַשְּׂעִירִים is meant to be metaphorical. After all, Jeroboam here is moving away from the centralized worship in the Bet HaMikdash specified in Vayikra, and is giving an alternate form of worship. This may be a Biblical allusion to Vayikra, saying that his making of calves and making the people worship outside the Bet HaMikdash was like worshipping the Seirim, which were associated with the prohibition of Bamot in Vayikra.}
For now, let us assume the conventional explanation supported by Rashi and the trup.
The next occurance is in Yeshayahu 13:21, but let us cite the surrounding verses for context:
וְהָיְתָה בָבֶל צְבִי מַמְלָכוֹת, תִּפְאֶרֶת גְּאוֹן כַּשְׂדִּים, כְּמַהְפֵּכַת אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-סְדֹם וְאֶת-עֲמֹרָה.
לֹא-תֵשֵׁב לָנֶצַח, וְלֹא תִשְׁכֹּן עַד-דּוֹר וָדוֹר; וְלֹא-יַהֵל שָׁם עֲרָבִי, וְרֹעִים לֹא-יַרְבִּצוּ שָׁם.
וְרָבְצוּ-שָׁם צִיִּים, וּמָלְאוּ בָתֵּיהֶם אֹחִים; וְשָׁכְנוּ שָׁם בְּנוֹת יַעֲנָה, וּשְׂעִירִים יְרַקְּדוּ-שָׁם.
וְעָנָה אִיִּים בְּאַלְמְנוֹתָיו, וְתַנִּים בְּהֵיכְלֵי עֹנֶג; וְקָרוֹב לָבוֹא עִתָּהּ, וְיָמֶיהָ לֹא יִמָּשֵׁכוּ.
"And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldeans' pride, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation; neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.
But wild-cats shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of ferrets; and ostriches shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
And jackals shall howl in their castles, and wild-dogs in the pleasant palaces; and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged."
Sure satyrs or demons would hang out in a desolate place, but wouldn't a wild goat do this at well?
Consider the context: (pictures based on the JPS translation - I am not going to go anto all the possible identifications here)
The Wildcat shall lie there
and their houses shall be full of Ferrets
and Ostriches shall dwell there...
And Seirim (wild goats) shall dance there.
And Jackals shall howl in their castles...
And Wild Dogs in their pleasant castles...
The context is that of wild animals, not of demons, or so at least it seems to me.
Finally we have Yeshayahu 34:14, but again I am unconvinced by the context. The only thing that recommends it is Lilit, which might be a Night monster, but perhaps has another connotation - some nocturnal creature which we do not directly know about, which served as a source for the mythical Lilith. Again the full context, again about desolation:
וִירֵשׁוּהָ קָאַת וְקִפּוֹד, וְיַנְשׁוֹף וְעֹרֵב יִשְׁכְּנוּ-בָהּ; וְנָטָה עָלֶיהָ קַו-תֹהוּ, וְאַבְנֵי-בֹהוּ.
חֹרֶיהָ וְאֵין-שָׁם, מְלוּכָה יִקְרָאוּ; וְכָל-שָׂרֶיהָ, יִהְיוּ אָפֶס.
וְעָלְתָה אַרְמְנֹתֶיהָ סִירִים, קִמּוֹשׂ וָחוֹחַ בְּמִבְצָרֶיהָ; וְהָיְתָה נְוֵה תַנִּים, חָצִיר לִבְנוֹת יַעֲנָה.
וּפָגְשׁוּ צִיִּים אֶת-אִיִּים, וְשָׂעִיר עַל-רֵעֵהוּ יִקְרָא; אַךְ-שָׁם הִרְגִּיעָה לִּילִית, וּמָצְאָה לָהּ מָנוֹחַ.
שָׁמָּה קִנְּנָה קִפּוֹז וַתְּמַלֵּט, וּבָקְעָה וְדָגְרָה בְצִלָּהּ; אַךְ-שָׁם נִקְבְּצוּ דַיּוֹת, אִשָּׁה רְעוּתָהּ.
"But the pelican and the bittern shall possess it, and the owl and the raven shall dwell therein; and He shall stretch over it the line of confusion, and the plummet of emptiness.
As for her nobles, none shall be there to be called to the kingdom; and all her princes shall be nothing.
And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and thistles in the fortresses thereof; and it shall be a habitation of wild-dogs, an enclosure for ostriches.
And the wild-cats shall meet with the jackals, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; yea, the night-monster shall repose there, and shall find her a place of rest.
There shall the arrowsnake make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and brood under her shadow; yea, there shall the kites be gathered, every one with her mate."
Many of the animals were covered above by the previous verse, so we can establish a similar context. The remaining ones:
But the pelican
and the Bittern shall possess it...
and the Owl
and the Raven shall dwell within...
There shall the arrowsnake make her nest...
there shall the kites be gathered...
Thus, the context again seems overwhelmingly to be animals which live in desolate places. While demons is possible, I am not convinced.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Acharei Mot #2: I don't believe this, but it is an interesting idea...
In Vayikra we read of the issur Bamot, the prohibition to bring sacrifices outside of the Mishkan or Mikdash. It is possible the prohibition also includes the requirement that all species that are appropriate for peace-offerings (shelamim) must be brought as such (and not just slaughtered and eaten); and further that this must be done in the Mishkan/Mikdash and not at a private altar (Bamah), but I digress...perhaps more on this topic later.
I want to focus on one verse in particular: Vayikra 17:6
I wonder if an exception could be made on the Sabbath - that is, Satyr-day. ;)
שְׂעִירִם is a strange type of idolatry. The midrash Rabba demonstrates how they picked it up in Egypt, and shows that שְׂעִירִם = demons, שדים, by comparing various psukim to one another. The JPS translation above translates it satyrs, which in mythology was a demi-god which was half-human and half goat. Appropriate since a שעיר is a goat.
Elsewhere in Tanach (Yeshayahu 13:21) שעירים are said to dance in ruins. This may mean demons (that is how all take it) but wild goats could do the same thing. Chazal use this pasuk to show it means demons, but the context of other animals in the verse suggests to me otherwise.
וְרָבְצוּ-שָׁם צִיִּים, וּמָלְאוּ בָתֵּיהֶם אֹחִים; וְשָׁכְנוּ שָׁם בְּנוֹת יַעֲנָה, וּשְׂעִירִים יְרַקְּדוּ-שָׁם.
"But wild-cats shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of ferrets; and ostriches shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."
But sacrificing outside the Mishkan could be construed as a sacrifice to the Seirim.
It is interesting that earlier in parshat Shemini, Moshe was angry that Elazar and Itamar did not eat the chatas of the benei yisrael. Rather, the *goat* was burned outside. (Update: Of course this is silly, since Aharon also burnt his personal chatas calf in the bet hasraifa, and the sacrificial parts of both animals were brought to Hashem. Also we have enough info about Moshe's problem and Aharon's response that a sacrifice to Seirim was not the issue.)
Further, in this parsha (perek 16) we read of the Yom Kippur service, which involved, besides sacrificing a goat to Hashem, sending a *goat* outside the Mishkan to Azazel: עֲזָאזֵל
This can be read as עז meaning goat + אל meaning god.
Update: Perhaps in a later post, a survey of שעירים as it occurs in Tanach.
I want to focus on one verse in particular: Vayikra 17:6
וְלֹא-יִזְבְּחוּ עוֹד, אֶת-זִבְחֵיהֶם, לַשְּׂעִירִם, אֲשֶׁר הֵם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם: חֻקַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה-זֹּאת לָהֶם, לְדֹרֹתָם.
"And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs, after whom they go astray. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations."
I wonder if an exception could be made on the Sabbath - that is, Satyr-day. ;)
שְׂעִירִם is a strange type of idolatry. The midrash Rabba demonstrates how they picked it up in Egypt, and shows that שְׂעִירִם = demons, שדים, by comparing various psukim to one another. The JPS translation above translates it satyrs, which in mythology was a demi-god which was half-human and half goat. Appropriate since a שעיר is a goat.
Elsewhere in Tanach (Yeshayahu 13:21) שעירים are said to dance in ruins. This may mean demons (that is how all take it) but wild goats could do the same thing. Chazal use this pasuk to show it means demons, but the context of other animals in the verse suggests to me otherwise.
וְרָבְצוּ-שָׁם צִיִּים, וּמָלְאוּ בָתֵּיהֶם אֹחִים; וְשָׁכְנוּ שָׁם בְּנוֹת יַעֲנָה, וּשְׂעִירִים יְרַקְּדוּ-שָׁם.
"But wild-cats shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of ferrets; and ostriches shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."
But sacrificing outside the Mishkan could be construed as a sacrifice to the Seirim.
It is interesting that earlier in parshat Shemini, Moshe was angry that Elazar and Itamar did not eat the chatas of the benei yisrael. Rather, the *goat* was burned outside. (Update: Of course this is silly, since Aharon also burnt his personal chatas calf in the bet hasraifa, and the sacrificial parts of both animals were brought to Hashem. Also we have enough info about Moshe's problem and Aharon's response that a sacrifice to Seirim was not the issue.)
Further, in this parsha (perek 16) we read of the Yom Kippur service, which involved, besides sacrificing a goat to Hashem, sending a *goat* outside the Mishkan to Azazel: עֲזָאזֵל
This can be read as עז meaning goat + אל meaning god.
Update: Perhaps in a later post, a survey of שעירים as it occurs in Tanach.
Acharei Mot #1:
Earlier, in parashat Shemini, I suggested that the cause of Nadav and Avihu's death was the same as that of Korach's rebellious Edah. Both went into the kodesh with incense in their pans, and both were killed by a Divine fire from before Hashem. Indeed, I interpreted Moshe's consolation to Aharon as explaining the cause for their death - בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ, "Through them that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified", that is, only through Aharon was the day's service to be done. Thus, Hashem chose Aharon to serve him from amongst Korach's Edah and from two of his sons.
However, the opening Midrash of parashat Acharei Mot basically rejects my suggestion. Rabbi Shimon cites the verse from Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) 9:2
It is quotes like this that make you understand why Chazal wanted to be gonez Sefer Kohelet! It seems to deny fair judgement before God, since the same thing happens you whether you do good or bad. Unless he refers to life in this world, with punishment/reward in the world to come. Yet he seems to deny this in pasuk 5, when he writes:
I am not going to digress into a discussion of life after death and reward and punishment. The matter I focus on here is the drasha R Shimon makes of the first pasuk.
R Shimon parses each phrase and shows how each refers to a set of tzadikim and reshaim, who had the same end. The idea is that you cannot determine whether a person is righteous or not on the basis of their end, since often a tzadik and rasha have the same.
(Note for each of these identifications of people with appelations, the midrash cites prooftexts.)
לַצַּדִּיק = Noach
וְלָרָשָׁע = Pharoah Necho
Noach was injured by a lion in the ark, and made lame. Pharoah Necho (who killed King Yoshiyahu) took King Shlomo's mechanical throne, which had a security system built in. For Shlomo, the mechanical animals on the throne helped him ascend in honor, while for Pharoah Necho who did not know how to operate it, a lion on the throne made him lame.
Thus the tzadik and the rasha had the same thing happen to them.
לַטּוֹב = Moshe
וְלַטָּהוֹר = Aharon
וְלַטָּמֵא = the 10 evil spies
All three did not enter the Land of Israel
וְלַזֹּבֵחַ = Yoshiyahu
וְלַאֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנּוּ זֹבֵחַ = Achav
Yoshiyahu is described in Divrei Hayamim 2 as slaughtering animals for the populace. Achav is described as doing away with sacrifices.
Both died via arrows.
כַּטּוֹב = King David
כַּחֹטֶא = Nevuchadnezar
King David helped built the Temple and ruled for 40 years, and Nevuchadnezzar destroyed the Temple and ruled for 40 years.
הַנִּשְׁבָּע = King Tzidkiyahu
כַּאֲשֶׁר שְׁבוּעָה יָרֵא = Shimshon
Here this is interesting because presumably the one who swears is doing something bad, and so bad and good are reversed in order.
Tzidkayhu swore to Nevuchadnezar and broke his oath, and Shimshon put himself into others hands once they swore to him (Shoftim 15:12) so he beleived that they would not break their oaths.
Both died with their eyes poked out.
Alternatively, מִקְרֶה אֶחָד, the same happening, refers to Nadav and Avihu vs. Korach's Edah.
לַצַּדִּיק = Nadav and Avihu
וְלָרָשָׁע = Korach's Edah
Korach's Edah went to bring near incense for Machloket (dispute) and Nadav and Avihu went not in dispute. Both were burnt.
Conclusion: This seems to directly imply that Nadav and Avihu did not commit the same sin as Korach's Edah.
However, the opening Midrash of parashat Acharei Mot basically rejects my suggestion. Rabbi Shimon cites the verse from Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) 9:2
הַכֹּל כַּאֲשֶׁר לַכֹּל, מִקְרֶה אֶחָד לַצַּדִּיק וְלָרָשָׁע לַטּוֹב וְלַטָּהוֹר וְלַטָּמֵא, וְלַזֹּבֵחַ, וְלַאֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנּוּ זֹבֵחַ: כַּטּוֹב, כַּחֹטֶא--הַנִּשְׁבָּע, כַּאֲשֶׁר שְׁבוּעָה יָרֵא.
All things come alike to all; there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth and to him that sacrificeth not; as is the good, so is the sinner, and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath.
It is quotes like this that make you understand why Chazal wanted to be gonez Sefer Kohelet! It seems to deny fair judgement before God, since the same thing happens you whether you do good or bad. Unless he refers to life in this world, with punishment/reward in the world to come. Yet he seems to deny this in pasuk 5, when he writes:
כִּי הַחַיִּים יוֹדְעִים, שֶׁיָּמֻתוּ; וְהַמֵּתִים אֵינָם יוֹדְעִים מְאוּמָה, וְאֵין-עוֹד לָהֶם שָׂכָר--כִּי נִשְׁכַּח, זִכְרָם.
For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
I am not going to digress into a discussion of life after death and reward and punishment. The matter I focus on here is the drasha R Shimon makes of the first pasuk.
R Shimon parses each phrase and shows how each refers to a set of tzadikim and reshaim, who had the same end. The idea is that you cannot determine whether a person is righteous or not on the basis of their end, since often a tzadik and rasha have the same.
(Note for each of these identifications of people with appelations, the midrash cites prooftexts.)
לַצַּדִּיק = Noach
וְלָרָשָׁע = Pharoah Necho
Noach was injured by a lion in the ark, and made lame. Pharoah Necho (who killed King Yoshiyahu) took King Shlomo's mechanical throne, which had a security system built in. For Shlomo, the mechanical animals on the throne helped him ascend in honor, while for Pharoah Necho who did not know how to operate it, a lion on the throne made him lame.
Thus the tzadik and the rasha had the same thing happen to them.
לַטּוֹב = Moshe
וְלַטָּהוֹר = Aharon
וְלַטָּמֵא = the 10 evil spies
All three did not enter the Land of Israel
וְלַזֹּבֵחַ = Yoshiyahu
וְלַאֲשֶׁר אֵינֶנּוּ זֹבֵחַ = Achav
Yoshiyahu is described in Divrei Hayamim 2 as slaughtering animals for the populace. Achav is described as doing away with sacrifices.
Both died via arrows.
כַּטּוֹב = King David
כַּחֹטֶא = Nevuchadnezar
King David helped built the Temple and ruled for 40 years, and Nevuchadnezzar destroyed the Temple and ruled for 40 years.
הַנִּשְׁבָּע = King Tzidkiyahu
כַּאֲשֶׁר שְׁבוּעָה יָרֵא = Shimshon
Here this is interesting because presumably the one who swears is doing something bad, and so bad and good are reversed in order.
Tzidkayhu swore to Nevuchadnezar and broke his oath, and Shimshon put himself into others hands once they swore to him (Shoftim 15:12) so he beleived that they would not break their oaths.
Both died with their eyes poked out.
Alternatively, מִקְרֶה אֶחָד, the same happening, refers to Nadav and Avihu vs. Korach's Edah.
לַצַּדִּיק = Nadav and Avihu
וְלָרָשָׁע = Korach's Edah
Korach's Edah went to bring near incense for Machloket (dispute) and Nadav and Avihu went not in dispute. Both were burnt.
Conclusion: This seems to directly imply that Nadav and Avihu did not commit the same sin as Korach's Edah.
Tip: How to get dafkawriter text into Word/Internet Explorer
A classmate sent me notes for classes I missed in Revel today. It was all messed up, in extended ASCII characters. It looked like this:
I fixed this by cutting and pasting the text into notepad and saving as an HTML file, and putting <html> tags around the text, and also putting the following meta tag at the top of the HTML page:
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type"
CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=iso-8859-8-i">
This successfully transforms the above text into:
כדי להבין את סוגייתינו, ד"ר שטיינפלד הציע שלא מפורש בדברי שמואל עצמם שמדבר על בישול עכו"ם, אלא נאמר שהתיר את הבשר. א"כ, ייתכן ששמואל רק התכוון לכשרות הבשר, ואמר שאם בא גוי והפך את בשר, אין חוששים שעירב בו איסור. וכך גם
I got the idea after finding this page on MSDN about character sets in HTML.
This should also work hopefully for Accent Express, which I want to pot to Word.
ëãé ìäáéï àú ñåâééúéðå, ã"ø ùèééðôìã äöéò ùìà îôåøù áãáøé ùîåàì òöîí
ùîãáø òì áéùåì òëå"í, àìà ðàîø ùäúéø àú äáùø. à"ë, ééúëï ùùîåàì ø÷
äúëååï
ìëùøåú äáùø, åàîø ùàí áà âåé åäôê àú áùø, àéï çåùùéí ùòéøá áå àéñåø.
åëê âí
I fixed this by cutting and pasting the text into notepad and saving as an HTML file, and putting <html> tags around the text, and also putting the following meta tag at the top of the HTML page:
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type"
CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=iso-8859-8-i">
This successfully transforms the above text into:
כדי להבין את סוגייתינו, ד"ר שטיינפלד הציע שלא מפורש בדברי שמואל עצמם שמדבר על בישול עכו"ם, אלא נאמר שהתיר את הבשר. א"כ, ייתכן ששמואל רק התכוון לכשרות הבשר, ואמר שאם בא גוי והפך את בשר, אין חוששים שעירב בו איסור. וכך גם
I got the idea after finding this page on MSDN about character sets in HTML.
This should also work hopefully for Accent Express, which I want to pot to Word.
Off-Parsha:
Eliyahu sent me this interesting thing from Shadal (Shmuel David Luzzato) via IM, which he saw here:
"Ribqah said to Yishaq 'qasti behayyai, (I loathe my life)
because of those Hittite women.'" (Gen. 27:46)
In the masoretic text the letter "q" (qof) is written smaller
than usual. Shadal (Luzzatto) gives an interesting explanation of
this phenomenon which also resolves several other difficult
verses. He says that the ancient scribal practice was to leave
out one letter when the same letter begins the next word. (He
speculates that perhaps instead of this letter a certain sign was
used to indicate that one letter stands for two.) In our case the
letter "q" ends the word Yishaq and begins the word "qasti." Over
time the practice was dropped and the extra letter was added, but
because the space was narrow the letter was made smaller.
Similarly in Leviticus 1:1 "Vayiqra` `el Moshe, the ` (alef) of
vayiqra` is small because `el begins with the same letter. The
practice of leaving out the doubled letter explains some of the
qere and ketib and some other problematic words. 2 Sam. 5:2; Jer.
39:16 "hamebi `et;" 2 Kings 13:6; Jer. 32:35 "hehti `et;" Jer.
23:14 "lebilti shabu" should be read "yashubu;" "lebilti ba`u"
should be read lebilti yabo`u in Jer. 27:18. Other words include:
Yabo--yabo`u Is. 45:24 and Ez. 20:38. beyad--beyado 1 Sam. 19:9.
There are more examples of this phenomenon, according to Shadal.
Of course, there are many other examples where this phenomenon
occurs without any vestige of its ever having been written with
one letter taking the place of two, yet Shadal would claim that
the original practice was completely updated in those places.
Monday, April 26, 2004
I've got gmail!
and can now also be reached by substututing gmail.com in place of yahoo.com in the address up in the corner.
Arabic Zionist Apparel
This T-Shirt image is Arabic for "There is No God But Hashem, and Moshe is His Messenger"
:)
Via LGF.
Interesting and apropos this week's parsha (Acharei Mot) - From the Wall Street Journal: "These United States
Will same-sex marriage lead to incest and polygamy? Let's hope so!"
Will same-sex marriage lead to incest and polygamy? Let's hope so!"
Friday, April 23, 2004
Why is parshat Metzora called that?
After all, the word in the begining of the pasha upon which the name is based has the definite article attached to it:
זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע, בְּיוֹם טָהֳרָתוֹ: וְהוּבָא, אֶל-הַכֹּהֵן.
We should call it parshat HaMetzora!
People make a similar objection to parshat BaMidbar being called BaMidbar, rather than BeMidbar, since the pasuk has a shva rather than a patach under the bet:
וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי, בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד: בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית, לְצֵאתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם--לֵאמֹר.
though in the latter example, I actually understand why it could be BaMidbar, as most pronounce it (even though I used the other form for the sefer two posts below). That is, בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי is a construct form, and the bet gets a shva because we do not use the definite article when in the construct form with a proper noun (Sinai), since the proper noun carries its own definiteness. However, when we cite the name of the sefer we are not using construct form so we make the shva a patach to denote the definiteness.
I do not know why the ה is eliminated from parshat Metzora though.
(perhaps more about elision of ה later)...
זֹאת תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת הַמְּצֹרָע, בְּיוֹם טָהֳרָתוֹ: וְהוּבָא, אֶל-הַכֹּהֵן.
We should call it parshat HaMetzora!
People make a similar objection to parshat BaMidbar being called BaMidbar, rather than BeMidbar, since the pasuk has a shva rather than a patach under the bet:
וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי, בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד: בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי בַּשָּׁנָה הַשֵּׁנִית, לְצֵאתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם--לֵאמֹר.
though in the latter example, I actually understand why it could be BaMidbar, as most pronounce it (even though I used the other form for the sefer two posts below). That is, בְּמִדְבַּר סִינַי is a construct form, and the bet gets a shva because we do not use the definite article when in the construct form with a proper noun (Sinai), since the proper noun carries its own definiteness. However, when we cite the name of the sefer we are not using construct form so we make the shva a patach to denote the definiteness.
I do not know why the ה is eliminated from parshat Metzora though.
(perhaps more about elision of ה later)...
Tazria
Parshat Tazria begins with the statement:
דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר, אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ, וְיָלְדָה זָכָר--וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא.
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If a woman be delivered, and bear a man-child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her sickness shall she be unclean."
Hyper-Literally, אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ can mean "when a woman gives forth seed." The following is based loosely on a statement of Chazal.
We can make the following drasha:
When a woman gives forth seed first, before the man, then וְיָלְדָה זָכָר, she will give birth to a boy.
That is, if she ovulates first, the likelihood is increased that she will give birth to a boy.
Consider the info from the following web site:
http://www.bloodays.com/bloodays_online_help/sex_plan.html
This method is based on simple physiological facts:
"Male" spermatozoon more mobile, but less stable
"Famale" - less mobile, but more sturdy
Spermatozoon can survive in the uterus up to 4 days
Conception can happend during ovum pass down the
fallopian tube (i.e. during 3-4 days after ovulation)
so we made supposition based on previes facts:
If coitus happend before ovulation, then "female"
spermatozoon stand a better chance to live up to
fertilization
if coitus happend after ovulation, then "male"
spermatozoon stand a better chance to came to the egg first
and also here, based on Dr. Shettle's sex selection theory.
However, Wilcox published an article in 1995 based on a study that found no correlation between time of conception and the sex of the baby.
Still, see this opinion peice by James from 2000:
"There are five non-human mammalian species for which it has been reported that the time of insemination within the cycle is directly associated with the sex of the resulting offspring, i.e. white-tailed deer, Barbary macaque, golden hamster and Norway rat (for references, see James, 1996) and mouse (Tarín et al., 1999).
With regard to human beings, I conclude from previous data that there is a regression of sex ratio on cycle day of insemination such that boys are conceived earlier than girls (James, 1971). More recently, Guerrero (1974) and Harlap (1979) elaborated on this, offering evidence that the regression is U-shaped (rather than monotonic declining), and a meta-analysis concurred (Gray, 1991)."
If so, it makes a nice drasha. (Chazal I believe take tazria to mean something other than ovulation in their drasha.)
Also, while we are at it, let us see those 5 animals:
Barbary Macaque (Macaca sylvanus)
Golden hamster - MESOCRICETUS AURATUS
Norway rat - Rattus norvegicus
Mouse:
White Tailed Deer:
דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, לֵאמֹר, אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ, וְיָלְדָה זָכָר--וְטָמְאָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, כִּימֵי נִדַּת דְּוֹתָהּ תִּטְמָא.
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: If a woman be delivered, and bear a man-child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her sickness shall she be unclean."
Hyper-Literally, אִשָּׁה כִּי תַזְרִיעַ can mean "when a woman gives forth seed." The following is based loosely on a statement of Chazal.
We can make the following drasha:
When a woman gives forth seed first, before the man, then וְיָלְדָה זָכָר, she will give birth to a boy.
That is, if she ovulates first, the likelihood is increased that she will give birth to a boy.
Consider the info from the following web site:
http://www.bloodays.com/bloodays_online_help/sex_plan.html
This method is based on simple physiological facts:
"Male" spermatozoon more mobile, but less stable
"Famale" - less mobile, but more sturdy
Spermatozoon can survive in the uterus up to 4 days
Conception can happend during ovum pass down the
fallopian tube (i.e. during 3-4 days after ovulation)
so we made supposition based on previes facts:
If coitus happend before ovulation, then "female"
spermatozoon stand a better chance to live up to
fertilization
if coitus happend after ovulation, then "male"
spermatozoon stand a better chance to came to the egg first
and also here, based on Dr. Shettle's sex selection theory.
However, Wilcox published an article in 1995 based on a study that found no correlation between time of conception and the sex of the baby.
Still, see this opinion peice by James from 2000:
"There are five non-human mammalian species for which it has been reported that the time of insemination within the cycle is directly associated with the sex of the resulting offspring, i.e. white-tailed deer, Barbary macaque, golden hamster and Norway rat (for references, see James, 1996) and mouse (Tarín et al., 1999).
With regard to human beings, I conclude from previous data that there is a regression of sex ratio on cycle day of insemination such that boys are conceived earlier than girls (James, 1971). More recently, Guerrero (1974) and Harlap (1979) elaborated on this, offering evidence that the regression is U-shaped (rather than monotonic declining), and a meta-analysis concurred (Gray, 1991)."
If so, it makes a nice drasha. (Chazal I believe take tazria to mean something other than ovulation in their drasha.)
Also, while we are at it, let us see those 5 animals:
Barbary Macaque (Macaca sylvanus)
Golden hamster - MESOCRICETUS AURATUS
Norway rat - Rattus norvegicus
Mouse:
White Tailed Deer:
Parshat Shemini #4: Nadav and Avihu: What did they do wrong? Also, Elazar and Itamar
Parshat Shemini #4: Nadav and Avihu: What did they do wrong?
In the post below I presented my "conspiracy theory" - that Nadav and Avihu did nothing wrong and their death was just a work accident.
Now I present what I consider a more likely scenario, on the basis of context of Elazar and Itamar, and in comparison to a parallel occurence in the Torah.
The specific parallel was the congregation of Korach, in Bemidbar 16.
In Bemidbar 16, Korach challenges Aaron for the high priesthood.
Note the use of קְדֹשִׁים.
Moshe reacts by falling on his face (pasuk 4: וַיִּפֹּל עַל-פָּנָיו) and then responds to Korach (pasuk 5-7):
They do so, and finally, in the last pasuk of the perek (35), they are killed by divine fire.
Perhaps Nadav and Avihu's sin was that on this particular day, the first day, when the Mishkan was being inaugurated and consecrated, only Aharon was supposed to perform the service. They brought incense when they were not supposed to, and they were not the selected people to do so, just like the congregation of Korach. This is just as during the Yom Kippur service, when only the Kohen Gadol was supposed to do basically all of the services of the day.
A summary of the events:
Looking at Vayikra perek 9. Moshe tells Aharon to bring a bunch of sin offerings for himself, his family, and for the people (pasuk 7: וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, קְרַב אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת-חַטָּאתְךָ וְאֶת-עֹלָתֶךָ, וְכַפֵּר בַּעַדְךָ, וּבְעַד הָעָם; וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת-קָרְבַּן הָעָם, וְכַפֵּר בַּעֲדָם, כַּאֲשֶׁר, צִוָּה ה).
Aharon does basically all the service. He slaughters the calf (pasuk 8), his sons just bring him the blood but he, Aharon, then sprinkles and pours the blood (9) and offers up on altar the portions of the calf that should be offered (10).
The hide and flesh of Aharon's sin-offering, which should normally be kept by the priest and eaten, respectively, are burnt outside the camp (pasuk 11). {This might help explain the story with Elazar and Itamar later.}
Then Aharon slaughters the Olah offering, which is an offering burn in its entirety on the altar. His sons bring his the blood which he sprinkled (12) and his sons bring him peice by peice, and Aharon offers all the portions
on the altar (13-14). Then he does the same for the people's sin offering and Olah (15-16). Then he brings the Mincha offering (17).
Then he brings the two peace offerings, of which parts are typically eaten; his sons bring him the blood and he throws it on the altar (18) and they (inclusive of his sons) bring the portions which should be brought onto the altar (19-20).
The parts of the peace offering which are to be eaten by the kohanim Aharon waves as a wave-offering before Hashem(21) - presumably he or his sons should eat this.
Then Aharon blesses the people after offering all these sacrifices (22), Moshe and Aharon leave the tent of Meeting and they both bless the people (23). Finally, a divine fire comes down and consumes the Olah and the fats from the other offerings which are on the altar; the people see this and are much impressed; they should (or sing) and fall on their faces (ouch!).
Then Nadav and Avihu take censers, and put fire in it, and incense on it, and bring the foreign fire, which Hashem did not command (10:1). Lets see the Hebrew and translation:
וַיִּקְחוּ בְנֵי-אַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ, וַיִּתְּנוּ בָהֵן אֵשׁ, וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלֶיהָ, קְטֹרֶת; וַיַּקְרִיבוּ לִפְנֵי ה, אֵשׁ זָרָה--אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה, אֹתָם.
וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי ה, וַתֹּאכַל אוֹתָם; וַיָּמֻתוּ, לִפְנֵי ה.
וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, הוּא אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר ה לֵאמֹר בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ, וְעַל-פְּנֵי כָל-הָעָם, אֶכָּבֵד; וַיִּדֹּם, אַהֲרֹן.
"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.
And there came forth fire from before the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
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."
So we see that basically all of the day's services were to be performed by Aharon.
Both Korach's congregation and Nadav and Avihu took this incense when they were not supposed to, and especially on this day of inauguration it looks like they are trying out for the position of high priest themselves, just as Korach's congregation did.
Further, in both cases a Divine fire comes from before Hashem and consumes them. Finally, Moshe says to Aharon that Hashem said: בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ, "Through them that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified", which cab be read similarly to Moshe's statement to Korach: וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר-בּוֹ, יַקְרִיב אֵלָיו and וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-יִבְחַר ה, הוּא הַקָּדוֹש. There was a process of selection and Aaron was chosen.
What happens next? Aften the death of Nadav and Avihu and their being brought out of the camp, Moshe tells Aharon, Elazar and Itamar what to do.
He tells them to eat the Mincha-offering remnants (what was not brought on the altar) in a holy place (12-13) and to eat the portions of the peace offerings that are for the priest to eat (14-15).
However, Moshe decidedly does NOT tell them what to do with two of the remaining offerings - the parts of the sin-offering of the people, and that of Aharon's offering where a sin offering usually has portions that are eaten. Earlier, in last perek, in pasuk 11 (scroll up too see) we saw that Aharon's sin offering was not in this case it was burnt outside the camp. Further it seems he did the same for the people's sin offering, as pasuk 15 states וַיִּקַּח אֶת-שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת, אֲשֶׁר לָעָם, וַיִּשְׁחָטֵהוּ וַיְחַטְּאֵהוּ, כָּרִאשׁוֹן. )
It seems that these prakim are not relating the narrative in a strict chronological manner. That is, this instruction on what to do was presumably given in the course of the day described in the previous chapter. Moshe gives no instructions about the people's sin-offering, and they burn it outside the camp rather than consuming it. Further, when was the death of Nadav and Avihu? This is also in the course of the day, and at such a time that when Moshe instructed Elazar and Itamar about the eating of the Mincha and peace-offerings they could be called "the remaining sons (pasuk 12)."
So, the previous perek gives the general order of the day, and then follows it with various expansions and details - I would say the divine fire consuming the offerings on the altar, Nadav and Avihu's incense and deaths, and Moshe's commands.
How could Moshe get angry at Elazar and Itamar? He did not tell them to eat of the people's sin-offering. Yet, in 10:16-20:
Why is Moshe not angry at Aharon for not consuming his own sin-offering and is only concerned with that of the people? Further, What does Moshe mean that they should have eaten it in the sanctuary as he commanded? Nowhere in the parsha does Moshe talk about this. He talks about other korbanot but not the people's sin-offering. Further, it would seem that they did in fact eat the Mincha and peace-offering.
Aharon's answer is also an enigma. Is he saying they did not bring or eat the korbanot? Is he saying he did not because of being an onen? It seems he is saying he did not eat the Chatas, which he did not (it was burnt, in pasuk 11). Also, what if he speaking of their Olah and Chatas not being brought? The Olah was brought, and Moshe did not complain about it. Further, we see in the past perek that the sin offering of the people was indeed brought! In pasuk 15:
וַיַּקְרֵב, אֵת קָרְבַּן הָעָם; וַיִּקַּח אֶת-שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת, אֲשֶׁר לָעָם, וַיִּשְׁחָטֵהוּ וַיְחַטְּאֵהוּ, כָּרִאשׁוֹן.
"And the people's offering was presented; and he took the goat of the sin-offering which was for the people, and slew it, and offered it for sin, as the first."
I am somewhat confused about all this. I was originally going to parse pasuk 10:19, Aharon's answer, as saying that his sons did not do some action because it was Aharon's day, and since they were not the Kohen Gadol they did not do it. That is:
וַיְדַבֵּר אַהֲרֹן אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, הֵן הַיּוֹם הִקְרִיבוּ אֶת-חַטָּאתָם וְאֶת-עֹלָתָם לִפְנֵי ה, וַתִּקְרֶאנָה אֹתִי, כָּאֵלֶּה; וְאָכַלְתִּי חַטָּאת הַיּוֹם, הַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵי ה.
הַיִּיטַב has a full patach under the heh, rather than chataf patach we should expect were it a question. Thus:
Aharon said to Moshe, had they today sacrifices their Olah and sin offering before Hashem, then perhaps it would have happened to me as these (Nadav and Avihu) {that is, Elazar and Itamar might have also been killed}. Rather I ate the chatas today, which was {rather than would it have been} pleasing in the eyes of Hashem.
Thus, they learned the lesson.
However, this does not fit with what seems to have gone on, since Aharon in fact did not eat his sin offering.
{Note that Zevachim 101a has a 4-way machloket about what Moshe thought, and what Aharon did. I am going to offer a different explanation.}
I think what is happening was as follows. Moshe inquires after the sin offering of the people. He sees it is burntoutside the camp. He assumed incorrectly that if the remains were burning outside the camp, something had happened after slaughter that perhaps invalidated it, or they did not feel like bringing it. In terms of the people's sin-offering, this was a big deal, since Moshe wanted to make certain the people were atoned for.
Moshe did not inquire after Aharon's calf sin-offering, because if Aharon did not get atonement, it was perhaps his own business. But if the sin-offering was not brought for the people, they shirked their duty. So, both were burned outside the camp.
Aharon responded that Moshe was mistaken in thinking that because he saw the people's sin offering burning outside the camp, that the people's sin offering was not brought.
וַיְדַבֵּר אַהֲרֹן אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, הֵן הַיּוֹם הִקְרִיבוּ אֶת-חַטָּאתָם וְאֶת-עֹלָתָם לִפְנֵי ה, וַתִּקְרֶאנָה אֹתִי, כָּאֵלֶּה; וְאָכַלְתִּי חַטָּאת הַיּוֹם, הַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵי ה
Aharon said to Moshe: Today, we did indeed offer the people's sin offering and Olah offering before Hashem (as indeed we see in 9:15-16). Then, happened to me such and such (that is, Nadav and Avihu's death). Had I (or they) eaten the chatas today, would it be good in Hashem's sight?
That is, either Hashem would not like the callousness of eating meat when Aharon's son's had died, or because of Aninut, or because Aharon would not eat it with a full heart. And so Moshe saw that the sin-offering for the people had indeed been brought, and it was good in his eyes what had been done.
I'm not sure whether consumption of the korban chatas is meakev, or if the throwing of the blood suffices. In one case the people would have atonement, and in the other they would not...
In the post below I presented my "conspiracy theory" - that Nadav and Avihu did nothing wrong and their death was just a work accident.
Now I present what I consider a more likely scenario, on the basis of context of Elazar and Itamar, and in comparison to a parallel occurence in the Torah.
The specific parallel was the congregation of Korach, in Bemidbar 16.
In Bemidbar 16, Korach challenges Aaron for the high priesthood.
Pasuk 1:
וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, בֶּן-יִצְהָר בֶּן-קְהָת בֶּן-לֵוִי; וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב, וְאוֹן בֶּן-פֶּלֶת--בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן.
Pasuk 3:
וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ עַל-מֹשֶׁה וְעַל-אַהֲרֹן, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֲלֵהֶם רַב-לָכֶם--כִּי כָל-הָעֵדָה כֻּלָּם קְדֹשִׁים, וּבְתוֹכָם ה; וּמַדּוּעַ תִּתְנַשְּׂאוּ, עַל-קְהַל ה.
Note the use of קְדֹשִׁים.
Moshe reacts by falling on his face (pasuk 4: וַיִּפֹּל עַל-פָּנָיו) and then responds to Korach (pasuk 5-7):
וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל-קֹרַח וְאֶל-כָּל-עֲדָתוֹ, לֵאמֹר, בֹּקֶר וְיֹדַע ה אֶת-אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ וְאֶת-הַקָּדוֹשׁ, וְהִקְרִיב אֵלָיו; וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר-בּוֹ, יַקְרִיב אֵלָיו
זֹאת, עֲשׂוּ: קְחוּ-לָכֶם מַחְתּוֹת, קֹרַח וְכָל-עֲדָתוֹ.
וּתְנוּ בָהֵן אֵשׁ וְשִׂימוּ עֲלֵיהֶן קְטֹרֶת לִפְנֵי ה, מָחָר, וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-יִבְחַר ה, הוּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ; רַב-לָכֶם, בְּנֵי לֵוִי.
"And he spoke unto Korah and unto all his company, saying: 'In the morning the LORD will show who are His, and who is holy, and will cause him to come near unto Him; even him whom He may choose will He cause to come near unto Him.
This do: take you censors, Korah, and all his company;
and put fire therein, and put incense upon them before the LORD to-morrow; and it shall be that the man whom the LORD doth choose, he shall be holy; ye take too much upon you, ye sons of Levi.'"
They do so, and finally, in the last pasuk of the perek (35), they are killed by divine fire.
וְאֵשׁ יָצְאָה, מֵאֵת יְהוָה; וַתֹּאכַל, אֵת הַחֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם אִישׁ, מַקְרִיבֵי, הַקְּטֹרֶת
"And fire came forth from the LORD, and devoured the two hundred and fifty men that offered the incense."
Perhaps Nadav and Avihu's sin was that on this particular day, the first day, when the Mishkan was being inaugurated and consecrated, only Aharon was supposed to perform the service. They brought incense when they were not supposed to, and they were not the selected people to do so, just like the congregation of Korach. This is just as during the Yom Kippur service, when only the Kohen Gadol was supposed to do basically all of the services of the day.
A summary of the events:
Looking at Vayikra perek 9. Moshe tells Aharon to bring a bunch of sin offerings for himself, his family, and for the people (pasuk 7: וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, קְרַב אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת-חַטָּאתְךָ וְאֶת-עֹלָתֶךָ, וְכַפֵּר בַּעַדְךָ, וּבְעַד הָעָם; וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת-קָרְבַּן הָעָם, וְכַפֵּר בַּעֲדָם, כַּאֲשֶׁר, צִוָּה ה).
Aharon does basically all the service. He slaughters the calf (pasuk 8), his sons just bring him the blood but he, Aharon, then sprinkles and pours the blood (9) and offers up on altar the portions of the calf that should be offered (10).
The hide and flesh of Aharon's sin-offering, which should normally be kept by the priest and eaten, respectively, are burnt outside the camp (pasuk 11). {This might help explain the story with Elazar and Itamar later.}
Then Aharon slaughters the Olah offering, which is an offering burn in its entirety on the altar. His sons bring his the blood which he sprinkled (12) and his sons bring him peice by peice, and Aharon offers all the portions
on the altar (13-14). Then he does the same for the people's sin offering and Olah (15-16). Then he brings the Mincha offering (17).
Then he brings the two peace offerings, of which parts are typically eaten; his sons bring him the blood and he throws it on the altar (18) and they (inclusive of his sons) bring the portions which should be brought onto the altar (19-20).
The parts of the peace offering which are to be eaten by the kohanim Aharon waves as a wave-offering before Hashem(21) - presumably he or his sons should eat this.
Then Aharon blesses the people after offering all these sacrifices (22), Moshe and Aharon leave the tent of Meeting and they both bless the people (23). Finally, a divine fire comes down and consumes the Olah and the fats from the other offerings which are on the altar; the people see this and are much impressed; they should (or sing) and fall on their faces (ouch!).
Then Nadav and Avihu take censers, and put fire in it, and incense on it, and bring the foreign fire, which Hashem did not command (10:1). Lets see the Hebrew and translation:
וַיִּקְחוּ בְנֵי-אַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ, וַיִּתְּנוּ בָהֵן אֵשׁ, וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלֶיהָ, קְטֹרֶת; וַיַּקְרִיבוּ לִפְנֵי ה, אֵשׁ זָרָה--אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה, אֹתָם.
וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי ה, וַתֹּאכַל אוֹתָם; וַיָּמֻתוּ, לִפְנֵי ה.
וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, הוּא אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר ה לֵאמֹר בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ, וְעַל-פְּנֵי כָל-הָעָם, אֶכָּבֵד; וַיִּדֹּם, אַהֲרֹן.
"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.
And there came forth fire from before the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
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."
So we see that basically all of the day's services were to be performed by Aharon.
Both Korach's congregation and Nadav and Avihu took this incense when they were not supposed to, and especially on this day of inauguration it looks like they are trying out for the position of high priest themselves, just as Korach's congregation did.
Further, in both cases a Divine fire comes from before Hashem and consumes them. Finally, Moshe says to Aharon that Hashem said: בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ, "Through them that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified", which cab be read similarly to Moshe's statement to Korach: וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר-בּוֹ, יַקְרִיב אֵלָיו and וְהָיָה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-יִבְחַר ה, הוּא הַקָּדוֹש. There was a process of selection and Aaron was chosen.
What happens next? Aften the death of Nadav and Avihu and their being brought out of the camp, Moshe tells Aharon, Elazar and Itamar what to do.
He tells them to eat the Mincha-offering remnants (what was not brought on the altar) in a holy place (12-13) and to eat the portions of the peace offerings that are for the priest to eat (14-15).
However, Moshe decidedly does NOT tell them what to do with two of the remaining offerings - the parts of the sin-offering of the people, and that of Aharon's offering where a sin offering usually has portions that are eaten. Earlier, in last perek, in pasuk 11 (scroll up too see) we saw that Aharon's sin offering was not in this case it was burnt outside the camp. Further it seems he did the same for the people's sin offering, as pasuk 15 states וַיִּקַּח אֶת-שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת, אֲשֶׁר לָעָם, וַיִּשְׁחָטֵהוּ וַיְחַטְּאֵהוּ, כָּרִאשׁוֹן. )
It seems that these prakim are not relating the narrative in a strict chronological manner. That is, this instruction on what to do was presumably given in the course of the day described in the previous chapter. Moshe gives no instructions about the people's sin-offering, and they burn it outside the camp rather than consuming it. Further, when was the death of Nadav and Avihu? This is also in the course of the day, and at such a time that when Moshe instructed Elazar and Itamar about the eating of the Mincha and peace-offerings they could be called "the remaining sons (pasuk 12)."
So, the previous perek gives the general order of the day, and then follows it with various expansions and details - I would say the divine fire consuming the offerings on the altar, Nadav and Avihu's incense and deaths, and Moshe's commands.
How could Moshe get angry at Elazar and Itamar? He did not tell them to eat of the people's sin-offering. Yet, in 10:16-20:
וְאֵת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת, דָּרֹשׁ דָּרַשׁ מֹשֶׁה--וְהִנֵּה שֹׂרָף; וַיִּקְצֹף עַל-אֶלְעָזָר וְעַל-אִיתָמָר, בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן, הַנּוֹתָרִם, לֵאמֹר.
מַדּוּעַ, לֹא-אֲכַלְתֶּם אֶת-הַחַטָּאת בִּמְקוֹם הַקֹּדֶשׁ--כִּי קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים, הִוא; וְאֹתָהּ נָתַן לָכֶם, לָשֵׂאת אֶת-עֲוֹן הָעֵדָה, לְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיהֶם, לִפְנֵי ה.
הֵן לֹא-הוּבָא אֶת-דָּמָהּ, אֶל-הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה; אָכוֹל תֹּאכְלוּ אֹתָהּ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוֵּיתִי.
וַיְדַבֵּר אַהֲרֹן אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, הֵן הַיּוֹם הִקְרִיבוּ אֶת-חַטָּאתָם וְאֶת-עֹלָתָם לִפְנֵי יְהוָה, וַתִּקְרֶאנָה אֹתִי, כָּאֵלֶּה; וְאָכַלְתִּי חַטָּאת הַיּוֹם, הַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵי ה.
וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה, וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינָיו.
"And Moses diligently inquired for the goat of the sin-offering, and, behold, it was burnt; and he was angry with Eleazar and with Ithamar, the sons of Aaron that were left, saying:
'Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin-offering in the place of the sanctuary, seeing it is most holy, and He hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the LORD?
Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within; ye should certainly have eaten it in the sanctuary, as I commanded.'
And Aaron spoke unto Moses: 'Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering and their burnt-offering before the LORD, and there have befallen me such things as these; and if I had eaten the sin-offering to-day, would it have been well-pleasing in the sight of the LORD?
And when Moses heard that, it was well-pleasing in his sight."
Why is Moshe not angry at Aharon for not consuming his own sin-offering and is only concerned with that of the people? Further, What does Moshe mean that they should have eaten it in the sanctuary as he commanded? Nowhere in the parsha does Moshe talk about this. He talks about other korbanot but not the people's sin-offering. Further, it would seem that they did in fact eat the Mincha and peace-offering.
Aharon's answer is also an enigma. Is he saying they did not bring or eat the korbanot? Is he saying he did not because of being an onen? It seems he is saying he did not eat the Chatas, which he did not (it was burnt, in pasuk 11). Also, what if he speaking of their Olah and Chatas not being brought? The Olah was brought, and Moshe did not complain about it. Further, we see in the past perek that the sin offering of the people was indeed brought! In pasuk 15:
וַיַּקְרֵב, אֵת קָרְבַּן הָעָם; וַיִּקַּח אֶת-שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת, אֲשֶׁר לָעָם, וַיִּשְׁחָטֵהוּ וַיְחַטְּאֵהוּ, כָּרִאשׁוֹן.
"And the people's offering was presented; and he took the goat of the sin-offering which was for the people, and slew it, and offered it for sin, as the first."
I am somewhat confused about all this. I was originally going to parse pasuk 10:19, Aharon's answer, as saying that his sons did not do some action because it was Aharon's day, and since they were not the Kohen Gadol they did not do it. That is:
וַיְדַבֵּר אַהֲרֹן אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, הֵן הַיּוֹם הִקְרִיבוּ אֶת-חַטָּאתָם וְאֶת-עֹלָתָם לִפְנֵי ה, וַתִּקְרֶאנָה אֹתִי, כָּאֵלֶּה; וְאָכַלְתִּי חַטָּאת הַיּוֹם, הַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵי ה.
הַיִּיטַב has a full patach under the heh, rather than chataf patach we should expect were it a question. Thus:
Aharon said to Moshe, had they today sacrifices their Olah and sin offering before Hashem, then perhaps it would have happened to me as these (Nadav and Avihu) {that is, Elazar and Itamar might have also been killed}. Rather I ate the chatas today, which was {rather than would it have been} pleasing in the eyes of Hashem.
Thus, they learned the lesson.
However, this does not fit with what seems to have gone on, since Aharon in fact did not eat his sin offering.
{Note that Zevachim 101a has a 4-way machloket about what Moshe thought, and what Aharon did. I am going to offer a different explanation.}
I think what is happening was as follows. Moshe inquires after the sin offering of the people. He sees it is burntoutside the camp. He assumed incorrectly that if the remains were burning outside the camp, something had happened after slaughter that perhaps invalidated it, or they did not feel like bringing it. In terms of the people's sin-offering, this was a big deal, since Moshe wanted to make certain the people were atoned for.
Moshe did not inquire after Aharon's calf sin-offering, because if Aharon did not get atonement, it was perhaps his own business. But if the sin-offering was not brought for the people, they shirked their duty. So, both were burned outside the camp.
Aharon responded that Moshe was mistaken in thinking that because he saw the people's sin offering burning outside the camp, that the people's sin offering was not brought.
וַיְדַבֵּר אַהֲרֹן אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, הֵן הַיּוֹם הִקְרִיבוּ אֶת-חַטָּאתָם וְאֶת-עֹלָתָם לִפְנֵי ה, וַתִּקְרֶאנָה אֹתִי, כָּאֵלֶּה; וְאָכַלְתִּי חַטָּאת הַיּוֹם, הַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵי ה
Aharon said to Moshe: Today, we did indeed offer the people's sin offering and Olah offering before Hashem (as indeed we see in 9:15-16). Then, happened to me such and such (that is, Nadav and Avihu's death). Had I (or they) eaten the chatas today, would it be good in Hashem's sight?
That is, either Hashem would not like the callousness of eating meat when Aharon's son's had died, or because of Aninut, or because Aharon would not eat it with a full heart. And so Moshe saw that the sin-offering for the people had indeed been brought, and it was good in his eyes what had been done.
I'm not sure whether consumption of the korban chatas is meakev, or if the throwing of the blood suffices. In one case the people would have atonement, and in the other they would not...
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Argh! Hebrew messed up.
going to try to fix it in all recent posts.
and i know i've not posted yet on tazria-metzorah. hope to do so soon.
and i know i've not posted yet on tazria-metzorah. hope to do so soon.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
