Shmini: Arrogance and Bachelorhood

by Rav Moshe Tzuriel ZT"L, yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.

The Torah tells us (Vayikra 10,1-2) that Aharon's sons Nadav and Avihu "offered before G-d a strange fire that He did not command them."  Though this seems straightforward, still and all, our Sages found several other reasons for their deaths. For instance, Medrash Rabba (20,1) states, "Many women were waiting to get married, but Nadav and Avihu, in their arrogance, said, 'Our father's brother [Moshe] is a king, our mother's brother [Nachshon ben Aminadav] is the prince of the Tribe of Judah, our father is the High Priest, and we ourselves are deputy priests. What woman could possibly be suitable for us?'"

They were tainted, as often happens with those who come from distinguished lineage, with the sin of haughtiness, and thus did not even consider the offers of marriage suggested to them.

The Talmud is even more up-front about their "attitude" problem: "Nadav and Avihu were walking behind Moshe and Aharon, and one said to the other, 'When will these two old men die already, and you and I will lead the generation?' G-d then said to them, 'We will soon see who buries whom.'" (Tr. Sanhedrin 52a)

This terrible trait of arrogance was a part of them ever since the day the Torah was given at Sinai, as the above Medrash continues: "Already at Mt. Sinai their death sentence was handed down, for it is written (Sh'mot 24,11) that they "saw G-d and ate and drank"  - with no sense of humility, as if they were dining with a friend of theirs." They were not at all like Moshe Rabbeinu, about whom it is written at the Burning Bush, "Moshe hid his face for he was afraid to look upon G-d" (Sh'mot 3,6).

The Gemara (Eruvin 63a) also tells us that they died because they issued a Halakhic ruling in front of Moshe without consulting with him. That is, when they decided to offer the fire in the Holy Tabernacle, they did not ask Moshe beforehand, as they should have. This, too, shows their trait of arrogance.

But it was even worse than that – for they did not even consult with one another! The Torah tells us that each of them "took his own pan and placed in it fire," emphasizing that each one acted on his own. They had no humility even one towards the other, and certainly did not cooperate with each other. This was very unlike how Moshe and Aharon behaved, as we read in Rashi to Sh'mot 12,3: "They showed honor one to another, and each one asked the other, 'Teach me' – and [when they spoke to Israel], the words would emanate from between both of them, as if they were both speaking."

The Sages also added this "fault" to the list: They were punished because they had no children. What is the source for this? Bamidbar 3,4 recounts this sin and then adds: "They had no children."  This addition seems to be irrelevant, and therefore the Sages derived that it was precisely the reason for their punishment! For the Talmud teaches (Pesachim 113b) that among those who are distanced from G-d are those who were not married and those who have no offspring [for lack of effort]. This indicates that one who tarries in marrying is also at fault and distanced from G-d – for all this stems from arrogance.

When we see that the Sages state various reasons for a particular phenomenon, we do not assume that we simply do not know the real reason; rather, each opinion is showing us another aspects of the same explanation. In the case of Nadav and Avihu, we are happy to note that they were not guilty of many different sins, but only of various aspects of the sin of arrogance. Because they were privileged in various manners, Nadav and Avihu displayed arrogance in different ways.

We can say that this itself was the "strange fire" that they offered before G-d – for it is incumbent upon one who approaches the highest levels of holiness to feel humility.

Showing Humility

A few verses later, we read that Moshe instructed Aharon's remaining sons, Elazar and Itamar, to offer up the Rosh Chodesh sacrifice. However, because they were in mourning for their brothers, they burnt it on the Altar and did not eat from it. Moshe thought they had carelessly disqualified it, and when he tried to clarify this matter, Aharon explained that they were in mourning and therefore could not eat from it. Why did Elazar and Itamar not respond to Moshe? Because of their humility: They wished to show deference to their father Aharon, and also to not directly negate Moshe's words. Moshe then humbly admitted that he had forgotten this law.

Let us relate our message to the unmarried young men of today [2007]. Sadly, Interior Ministry statistics of 2003 show that among males aged 20-29, more than three-quarters are single, and among women – 60% are unmarried. [ed. note: More recent data show lower, but still worrisome, numbers.] It is well-known that the situation is better among the religiously observant community than in the general population. But even among the religious, there are still very many single men and women, even in the 27–30 age range. Why is this so?

Part of this is easily explainable, since by the time one finishes both military service and completes professional training, a young man is already approaching the age of 24–26. But this certainly does not explain away why many of those who delay are influenced by the aforementioned arrogance. There is no question that too many are overly selective, constantly waiting for what appears to be a better match - “more attractive,” or “more religious,” or someone with better financial means.

These unfortunate young men do not realize that as time passes, the “better” offers become less common, because they get taken by others...

It could be that the hesitation of these young men stems either from a sense of inferiority that they fear will be discovered by their dates. It could also be the opposite: They sincerely think that they deserve better. But they fail to recognize that just as the women suggested to them have flaws and imperfections, so too do these very men themselves have the same (both in terms of physical appearance and character traits) – and these only increase over time, rendering themselves at least as undesirable as they perceive the women to be!

In addition, the necessary flexibility required for a person to be patient and accommodating with their “partner” gradually decreases over time. As people grow older, their demands increase, which makes it harder to conclude a match.

Just as physical beauty is found primarily at a relatively young age, so too the ability to accept opposing views is more common among the young, who are more pliant and accepting. Similarly, the more one becomes established in society or in business, the less open s/he is to cooperating with someone who is different from them. This creates a kind of trap for all those waiting to hear a "better" offer.

Young men of our time must learn from the sin of Nadav and Avihu: not to fall into the trap of arrogance!

Shmini: The Eighth Day and the Illusion of Certainty

based on a Dvar Torah by Rav Yisrael Meir Lau, former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel.

This week we read Parashat Shmini, which opens with the words, “And it was on the eighth day.”

The obvious question is: the eighth day of what?

It is the eighth day of the inauguration of the Mishkan, the sacred Tabernacle. On Rosh Chodesh Nisan, nearly one full year after Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, the Mishkan was finally dedicated, fulfilling the Divine command:

“And they shall make for Me a sanctuary, and I shall dwell among them” (Shemot 25:8).

This was one of the most exalted and joyous moments in the wilderness. Moshe Rabbeinu consecrated Aharon and his sons before the elders of Israel, formally appointing them to their holy task as servants in the House of Hashem.

And yet, at the very height of this majestic celebration, tragedy struck.

Aharon’s two eldest sons, Nadav and Avihu, died suddenly after bringing what the Torah calls “an alien fire before Hashem” (Vayikra 10:1). Rather than waiting for the heavenly fire that would descend as a public revelation of God’s Presence, they acted on their own initiative. In doing so, they diminished what should have been a supreme sanctification of Hashem’s Name.

Their deaths, in full view of the nation, remain among the most sobering moments in the Torah.

Chazal offer several explanations for their sin. Some suggest they were punished because they never married. Others say they entered the sacred service lacking the proper priestly garments.

But perhaps the most piercing explanation appears in Sanhedrin 52a.

The Gemara describes Moshe and Aharon walking together, with Nadav and Avihu following behind. Nadav turns to Avihu and says:

“When will these two elders die, so that you and I may lead the generation?”

It is a startling and deeply unsettling statement. Yet it reflects a timeless human temptation: the impatience of youth, the desire for influence, and the quiet assumption that the future is ours simply because we are next in line.

The Gemara continues that the Holy One, Blessed be He, responded:

“We shall see who buries whom.”

How powerful—and how humbling.

Human beings so often build their futures on assumptions that feel certain. We imagine timelines, inheritances, promotions, leadership roles, and carefully laid plans. But life rarely unfolds according to our expectations.

As the folk proverb teaches:

“I have seen many camels come to market carrying the hides of younger camels.”

Age alone guarantees nothing. Youth does not ensure tomorrow, and seniority does not necessarily signal the end.

As Shlomo HaMelech teaches:

“Many are the thoughts in a person’s heart, but the counsel of Hashem—it is that which endures” (Mishlei 19:21).

The lesson of Nadav and Avihu is not merely about punishment. It is about humility before Divine timing. Leadership, destiny, and even life itself are never ours by right. They are gifts entrusted by Hashem in His perfect wisdom.

Sometimes the young rush toward greatness only to discover that history moves at Heaven’s pace, not theirs. And sometimes those assumed to be fading remain standing far longer than anyone imagined.

May we learn from Parashat Shmini to walk with humility, patience, and trust in Hashem’s plan.

Tzav: Even Law-Breakers Deserve Some Respect

by Rav Hillel Fendel.

Technical laws, when they are given by G-d's holy Torah, can teach us much about even our inter-personal relations.

This week's Torah portion of Tzav (Leviticus, Chapters 6-8), discusses many details of the Holy Temple service. For instance, the sin-offering sacrifice (ḥatat) is to be slaughtered in the northern part of the Temple's main Priestly section, north of the large Altar. The Torah does not tell us this detail in a straightforward manner; we rather have to figure it out ourselves. How so?

The Torah states, "In the place that the burnt-offering [olah] is slaughtered, there the ḥatat shall be slaughtered" (Vayikra 6,18). And where is this place, the Talmud asks (Z'vahim 48a)? It is in the north, as written, "He shall slaughter [the olah] north of the Altar." (Though the context is referring to the Priest, the owner of the sacrifice may also slaughter; see Z'vahim 31b.)

This simple but technical law regarding the location of the hatat offering teaches us a very important ethical lesson: If there would have been a specific place set aside only for sin-offerings, then the sinners who bring them would be quite embarrassed; everyone who sees them in that place would realize that they have sinned. In order to prevent this, the sinners and those who bring other sacrifices are all assigned to the same place. So explains the Jerusalem Talmud (Yevamot 8,3).

How does the Talmud know that this is the reason for slaughtering the ḥatat there? Perhaps there is something special about the "northern" part of the Altar? The answer is that though this is certainly true, it seems obvious that the Torah could have simply stated straight out, "Slaughter it in the north!" But it didn't; it rather linked the ḥatat with the place of the olah, indicating to our Sages that the place of the ḥatat is not connected specifically to the north, but rather just that it should be together with other sacrifices – in order to avoid embarrassment.

There are several other Torah laws as well that teach us that the dignity even of sinners must be maintained. For instance, it is well-known that our primary prayer, the Amidah (Shmoneh Esreh), must be recited quietly. Why is this? Because it includes the blessing S'laḥ lanu, "Forgive us for we have sinned," in which the worshiper can add his own words of repentance for specific sins. In order that others not hear his words of confession, the entire Amidah is recited silently.

Even a thief in the midst of carrying out his crime is sometimes given extra consideration! The Torah tells us (Sh'mot 21,37): "If a man steals an ox or sheep and sells it or slaughters it, he is liable to pay five [times the value] of the ox, or four times the sheep." Why the difference between an ox and a sheep? Rashi cites the famous explanation of the Talmudic sage R. Yochanan: Because the thief must carry the sheep on his shoulders, he is "compensated" for the blow to his dignity by having to pay less than one who steals an ox, which can walk on its own. Both are gravely punished, of course, but the Torah makes this "token" difference in order to teach us how careful we must be when dealing with a human being – even a sinner.

Another fascinating example:

The Torah tells us (D'varim 20) that during wartime, everyone must participate in the battles – except for certain exceptions. These include one who built a new house and did not yet dedicate it; one who betrothed a woman and did not yet marry her – and one who is afraid. R. Yosi HaGlili explains in the Talmud that this refers not necessarily to one who is physically afraid, but rather fears that his sins will cause him to lose Divine protection. And the reason all of these exceptions are grouped together is so that no one will know who is turning back from the war because of his sins and who for the other reasons. Again we see that the sinner must be accorded the same "protection from shame" that everyone else is.

It should also be noted that when, unfortunately, a death sentence must be carried out, a woman convict is treated extra modestly – for even when she is about to be executed, her dignity is still an important priority.

Let us bring a final example, unconnected to sinners, but one that emphasizes how careful we must be not to shame another – even inadvertently! If Reuven owes money to Shimon, but he does not have the money to pay him back, Shimon must be careful not to have Reuven even see him on the street! That is, when Shimon sees Reuven happening to walk in his direction, Shimon must cross over to the other side, so that Reuven not be embarrassed before him. So precious are the Torah's ways and commandments!

As we began: "In the place where the olah is slaughtered, there – and not in its own reserved section – shall the hatat be slaughtered."

Vayikra: Five Reasons for Torah Sacrifices

by Rav Hillel Mertzbach, Rabbi of the Yad Binyamin Central Synagogue, yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.

This week's Torah portion - Vayikra, chapters 1-5 in Leviticus - deals with several different types of sacrifices. The great sages of Israel had differing opinions about the purpose of the sacrifices. Let us examine several of their approaches to this question.

The Rambam: Correcting Idolatrous Thinking

Maimonides writes in his Guide for the Perplexed (Part 3, Chapter 46) that the sacrificial mitzvot are meant to correct idolatrous beliefs: "… The Egyptians and the Chaldeans, among whom the Israelites had lived from ancient times, worshipped cattle and sheep … and the people of India to this day do not slaughter cattle at all. G-d therefore commanded us to slaughter these three species in honor of His great Name, to publicize that the very things the [pagans] considered the ultimate [sanctity] are what are [slaughtered and] brought as offerings to the Creator, and precisely through them our sins are atoned. In this way, false beliefs - a disease of the soul - are healed, for every illness can be cured only by its opposite.”

The Ramban therefore brings two other explanations for the mitzvot of sacrificial service. The first is that when a person wishes to serve G-d, he must truly feel that he himself should have been offered up as a sacrifice, and that the burnt organs of the animals should actually have been his – in order that he realize that his sins to G-d, bodily and spiritually, deprive him of his right to life and deserve actual death.

Nachmanides (the Ramban) strongly objected to the Rambam's approach, and wrote against it vociferously in his commentary to this week's portion (Vayikra 1,9). Calling the Rambam's words on this matter "foolishness," the Ramban presented several difficulties with it:

1.      The Torah calls the sacrifices, "a fire-offering of a sweet flavor to G-d" and the like. Can it possibly be that the purpose of such a precious concept would be only to teach pagans the folly of their ways?

2.      The solution of offering up their gods in fire won't help persuade them that paganism is mistaken; they will just assume that the sacrifices are being offered in honor of their gods' zodiac signs.

3.      More than 1,000 years before the Torah was given, well before the pagans, Abel and Noah brought sacrifices to G-d. As such, the Torah's sacrifices can't simply be a response to pagan practice, because they predate it.

4.      If the Rambam is correct, why will we have to bring sacrifices in future times?

Nachmanides' Two Approaches

However, this explanation has come under criticism. For one thing, not all sacrifices in the Torah are totally burnt, meaning that they don't stand for a person "sacrificing" himself. In addition, other sacrifices are not for atonement at all, but rather for thanksgiving, etc. Thirdly, many sacrifices are on behalf of the entire nation; where does "sacrificing oneself" fit in there?

The Ramban's second explanation centers around self-nullification before the Divine will. In his words: “In truth, there is a hidden secret in the sacrifices… G-d is as if saying: 'I do not want sacrifices for their own sake, but just so that My will be done.'"

The Maharal of Prague (Tiferet Yisrael, Chapter Six) basically agrees: "The Sages teach that we must not say that G-d gave us mitzvot for the benefit of the recipient, namely the person fulfilling them; they are rather decrees from G-d, Who imposes decrees on His people [without explanation], like a king who issues a decree upon his subjects.”

Rav Sh. R. Hirsch and Rav A. I. Kook

In his work, "The Mitzvot as Symbols," the renowned 19^th-century Torah leader Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch explained that the sacrifices, like other mitzvot, are meant to express a symbolic idea. The sin-offering expresses the symbolism of our desire to ask the Creator for forgiveness for our sins; the thanksgiving sacrifice expresses, symbolically, our desire to give thanks, etc.

Rav Kook (1865-1935, the first modern-day Chief Rabbi in the Land of Israel) strongly opposed Rav Hirsch in this matter. He wrote in his Orot HaMitzvot as follows: "Delving into the depths of knowledge, we see that the mitzvot are not symbolic, merely for the purpose of noting something of the imagination; they are rather matters that actually form and effect the universal human existence."

In Conclusion

We have cited five reasons for the mitzvot of Temple sacrifices, each of which has a layer of truth. We have seen that the reason could be to separate us from idolaters, or to have us feel as if we ourselves are being sacrificed; it could be that it is a Divine decree, or something that helps us symbolically to express a truth; or it could be that they are for the purpose of a spiritual rectification in our souls.

What all these approaches share is that sacrifices, korbanot, are based on hitkarvut (the same k.r.v. root), meaning to "come close." The word kravaim, too, which refers to the inner organs of the sacrifice that are offered on the altar, also shares this root. Furthermore, one must feel that he is in a krav, a battle, to give his life in order to come close to G-d, and to ensure that his deeds emanate from his "insides," from his innermost being and true self.

We pray that we may merit to come close to G-d with all our hearts, and that He bring us close to Him with great love.

HaChodesh: A Special Month and its First Day

by Rav Hillel Fendel.

This Shabbat we will read not only the last two portions of the Book of Sh'mot – Vayak'hel and Pekudei – but also an additional passage in honor of the special month of Nissan, which begins next week. In fact, the name of this passage is HaChodesh, meaning "The Month."

Why and wherefore do we read HaChodesh? And is it connected with the curious fact that the Torah, which is not a history book, focus sharply in on the first day (Rosh Chodesh) of Nissan in two consecutive years?

The Book of Sh'mot begins, tells a long story of Israelites and their Exodus from Egypt, ending with the construction and completion of the Tabernacle (Mishkan), Israel's portable Holy Temple. Both of these two events center around Rosh Chodesh Nissan.

Chapter 12 in Sh'mot tells us that, shortly before the Plague of the Firstborns, G-d commanded Moshe and Aharon to tell Israel how to commemorate the coming days. On the first day of Nissan in the year 2448, the Israelites were instructed, first of all, how to relate to Rosh Chodesh Nissan: "This [new moon] shall be the head of the month for you, the first month of the year for you" (Sh'mot 12,1). The second of these two commands tells us to ensure that Nissan retains a prominent place in the Jewish calendar.

As Rav Eliyahu Ki-Tov writes in Sefer HaTodaah (Book of our Heritage), the verse states "the first month for you" – lakhem, in Hebrew -  spelled with the same letters as the word melekh, meaning "king."

The first command in this verse, however, is more specific. It instructs us regarding the laws of determining Rosh Chodesh, and also to set a permanent annual calendar. This command might seem trivial, but in fact it is a central tenet in Judaism in more than one way. For one thing, without knowing what day of the week or month it is, we would not be able to observe many of the Torah's commandment, such as the Sabbath and holidays.

No Jews in the Land of Israel? Impossible!
In addition, Maimonides (in his Book of Mitzvot, positive mitzvah #153) writes that the mitzvah of determining the months and festivals is fulfilled exclusively by the Great Court in the Land of Israel, or by virtue of its calculations. The Rambam continues: "Let us assume, for example, that there would be no Jews in the Land – Heaven forbid that G-d would do this, because He promised that he would never totally erase the signs or vestiges of the Jewish nation… - we would not be able to calculate the calendar…"

This tells us two very basic principles of Judaism. One is that the so-critical calculations regarding the beginning of the months and year are not made by individuals, but only on a national basis, by the Court in Jerusalem. Until the Court is reinstated, the calendar that we use is based directly on its original calculations.

The second point is that the lack of Jews in the Holy Land is something that can simply never happen, because it would mean, Heaven forbid, the end of the Jewish Nation – which is impossible as long as the sun, moon and stars exist (see Yirmiyahu 31,34-35); without a Jewish presence in the Land, there is no Judaism!

Back to the first Rosh Chodesh Nissan: G-d further commanded us on that day how to start preparing for the first Passover celebration, including when to take a Paschal lamb, and not to eat leaven but only matzot for the week of the holiday.

The Ten Firsts

Exactly a year later, on the second Rosh Chodesh Nissan, the Torah tells us exactly what happened on that very special day – and it was quite a list! The first thing that happened, as we read in this week's Torah reading in Sh'mot 40,2 and 17), is that the Mishkan was finally erected – after a few months of construction and a few more months of waiting for the month of Nissan to start!

In addition, the Gemara tells us that no fewer than ten "firsts" happened that day. Given that the sanctification period for the sons of Aharon as priests had just ended, it was the first-ever day that the Cohanim, and not the first-borns, served as Priests; it was the first day that the regular daily Temple service was held; it was the first time that the Priestly Blessing was recited; and more.

Why, Then?
When we speak of the special HaChodesh reading, then, we have to figure out why the first one was chosen, referring to the Rosh Chodesh just before the Exodus – and not the second one, which was a festive day having to do with the Grand Opening of the Mishkan!

According to Rashi, the answer is clear: He says (Tr. Megillah 29a) that the HaChodesh passage is connected to the upcoming holiday of Passover, in that many laws of the holiday are included there. It is therefore logical to read from the Rosh Chodesh passage that deals with Passover.

However, the Jerusalem Talmud (JT) has a different take. Based on a question it asks, we can see that the JT feels that the main thing about HaChodesh is that the Mishkan was erected on that day. Let us explain.

The JT asks why it is that during this period when four special passages are read over the course of a few weeks, the passage of the Red Heifer comes before HaChodesh? It ought to be the opposite, the JT states, because the Red Heifer was prepared for purifying the Israelites on the second day of Nissan – which comes after the construction of the Mishkan on the first day! This tells us that HaChodesh is meant to commemorate the Mishkan – so why, then, is the passage that we read taken from Sh'mot 12 and not from Sh'mot 40 or Vayikra 9, which tell the story of the first days of the Mishkan?

Firstly, let us answer the JT's question: The passage of the Red Heifer precedes that of The Month because it "involves the purification of all of Israel" – reason enough to give it precedence.

Let us now try to answer the question on the JT: It could be that the Sages did not want to choose to read about that second Rosh Chodesh, when the Mishkan was dedicated, because of the terrible tragedy that occurred in the midst of the festivities: the deaths of two of Aharon's sons, Nadav and Avihu, for having offered up a "strange fire." [See Vayikra 10 to learn about this tragic episode.]

Other Possibilities
It could also be that the passage in Sh'mot 12 was chosen because of the critical importance of the mitzvah of having a set calendar, as we explained above. Or it could be because of its relevance to the time of year – Passover; it is as an essential reminder that the month of Nissan is approaching and we must prepare to ascend to Jerusalem in purity.

In any event, even though we read the Passover section for HaChodesh, it is good to have in mind as well that this upcoming day of Rosh Chodesh Nissan marks the anniversary of the Mishkan's presence in Israel – and therefore the beginning of G-d's "dwelling in our midst" (Sh'mot 25,8).