Skip to main content

Seeking Opportunities to Teach - Parashat Bemidbar - May 26, 2017

This week’s parasha, Bemidbar, recalls the death of two of Aharon’s sons, Nadav and Avihu. The Torah says, “and Nadav and Avihu died before Hashem because they brought foreign fire before Hashem in the Sinai desert; and they had no children.”

The context of the incident of Nadav and Avihu is more fully treated in Sefer VaYikra. Moshe communicates Hashem’s command to Aharon and b’nei yisrael to bring ingredients for four different offerings – a chatat, an olah, a shelamim and a mincha – all for the culmination of the inauguration of the mishkan. All of the respective parties brought the proper ingredients to the mishkan in conformity with Hashem’s command. Moshe then gave Hashem’s next command of what to do with these ingredients – the result of which will be G-d’s glory appearing to the nation. Aharon and b’nei yisrael brought their respective offerings in exact conformity with Hashem’s command.

Aharon lifted his hands to the nation and blessed them and then descended from performing these sacrifices. Moshe entered and exited the Tent of Meeting together with Aharon and then blessed the nation – subsequently, G-d’s glory appeared to the nation. Fire descended from before Hashem and consumed all of the sacrifices. The nation praised Hashem and fell on their faces. Immediately following this accounting is the incident of Nadav and Avihu – two of Aharon’s sons who were destroyed while offering a foreign fire that had not been commanded to them.

The Torah twice emphasizes in the first event of the necessity of acting with strict conformity only to that which Hashem commanded. The Torah uses the same language to explain that the cause of Nadav and Avihu’s death was their failure to conform only to what Hashem commanded.

Hashem never commanded Aharon to bless the nation. Instead, Aharon seems to take it upon himself to bless the nation. Why did Aharon not meet the same demise as his sons for his seeming failure to conform only to what he was commanded?

In his Mishneh Torah, the Rambam cites the halacha that the Kohen is not permitted to look at the nation during birkat kohanim lest he lose his focus. Furthermore, the nation should not look at the kohanim lest they lose their focus. The importance of the kohanim not losing their focus is readily understandable, but what does the nation have to focus on?

Sefer HaChinuch explains that birkat kohanim is an opportunity to focus on true ideas about Hashem and the importance of turning our actions towards Him. He explains further that the kohanim do not bless the nation in the sense that they have the power to bless. Only, vesamu et shemi al bnei yisrael, vaani avarechem – and place My name on the People of Israel and I will bless them. Because the kohanim represent the lifestyle of constant service of Hashem, they are conferred with the responsibility of enunciating true ideas about G-d’s Providence. When they hear these ideas coming out of the mouths of these individuals, the nation will be aroused to focus on these ideas and in so doing raise themselves to a level where they deserve Hashem’s blessing. In other words, everyone must concentrate on the ideas contained in these words in order to approach Hashem and benefit from His blessing.

Aharon was authorized to bless the people because Hashem charged the kohanim lesharet u’levarech – to serve and to bless. The blessing of the people by the kohanim concretizes the messages of the service that they do – to teach to the world the ideas of Hashem. An additional service – such as that of Nadav and Avihu – was not authorized. Aharon’s blessing was acceptable to Hashem; the service of Nadav and Avihu was not.

This message applies to each and every one of us. We are a nation of priests. Hashem defines what constitutes a mitzvah – a commanded act. We do not have the right to invent our own service. Hashem does give us the charge, however, to teach and to publicize the ideas of the commandments and the ideas about Hashem. Like the kohanim, we must be on guard constantly for opportunities to teach Torah to others.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Unity Through Shared Purpose - Parashat Tetzaveh 5780, March 6, 2020

This coming week, we will celebrate the holiday of Purim. We know that Megilat Esther is the record of the miraculous saving of the Jewish People that occurred in Shushan and in the surrounding areas of King Achashverosh’s reign. One of the culminating themes in the  megila  is the unity within the Jewish People that was forged as a result of this miracle. This unity expressed itself in a number of ways. One of the expressions was the re-acceptance of the Torah that occurred in that generation –  kiyemu ve’kibelu . This re-acceptance included a unified acceptance of the mitzvah of Purim that was legislated by the Anshei Kinesset HaGedola – the Men of Great Assembly. Another expression of this unity is the emphasis on forging brotherhood within the Jewish People – we read the  megila  in big groups, we give money to the poor and we give food gifts to our fellow Jews. Clearly, unity is a fundamental theme of Purim. Given this focus on unity, there is a striking difference between P

Promoting Justice through Litigant Participation - Parashat Mishpatim 5776 - February 5, 2016

Parashat Mishpatim continues the Torah’s presentation, which began in last week’s parasha , of the mitzvot that were revealed to b'nei yisrael at Mount Sinai. One of the topics that is shared between the two parashiyot is the primacy of creating a judicial system with integrity. The Torah admonishes us not to testify as a group with evil people. The Torah admonishes judges to not show favoritism to a poor person. The Torah forbids judges to accept bribes. In last week’s parasha, the Torah records Yitro’s suggestion of the four qualities that a judge should have: accomplished, G-d-fearing, committed to truth and money-despising. Basing himself on the Mechilta, Rashi elaborates on the quality of commitment to truth. Rashi explains that these are trust-worthy people, and that, because it is reasonable to rely on them generally, people will listen to the judgments that they render. The first part of Rashi’s comment is easily understood – a judge must be trust-worthy. Trust-wor