ויקרא י:8-11 - וידבר ה' אל־אהרן לאמר. יין ושכר אל־תשת אתה ובניך אתך בבאכם אל־אהל מועד ולא תמתו חקת עולם לדרתיכם. ולהבדיל בין הקדש ובין החל ובין הטמא ובין הטהור. ולהורת את־בני ישראל את כל־החקים אשר דבר ה' אליהם ביד־משה.
Vayikra (Leviticus) 10:1,2 records that Nadav and Avihu died in the ceremony of the eighth day. Afterwards, Moshe gave various instructions to Aharon, Nadav and Avihu’s father, Elazar and Itamar, Nadav and Avihu’s surviving brothers, and Mishael and Eltzafan, cousins of Nadav and Avihu, 10:3-7. Afterwards, 10:8,9 records that G–d told Aharon not to drink wine when they would enter the ohel moed, which I think refers to both the courtyard of the mishkan and the mishkan, see our discussion on 1:1, “The terms mikdash, mishkan and ohel moed in the book of Vayikra.”
Afterwards 10:10,11 explain why Aharon and his sons cannot drink wine since they need to be able to separate from what is considered kadosh or not, what is considered tamei or tahor, and they need to teach the people the laws. Presumably the idea is that when a person drinks, then this clouds their judgement. Note the Torah did not say not to get drunk, but simply not to drink. (This law while technically not applicable to contemporary Jewish practices, still raises questions how a person can marry, mekadesh the Shabbat, and say havdalah when drinking wine?)
These four verses, 10:8-11, mark the first time in the Torah that G-d spoke only to Aharon concerning laws. (The only other prior time that G-d spoke only to Aharon was in Shemot 4:27, when G-d told Aharon to meet Moshe.) Why at this time after his sons just died, did Aharon have to know that he and his two living sons could not drink wine in the ohel moed? Was Aharon, a grieving father, really able to focus on what G-d was telling him?
In addition, after this conversation between G-d and Aharon, Moshe gave further instructions to Aharon, Elazar and Itamar, 10:12-18. Why did G-d speak to Aharon in the midst of Moshe’s instructions to his family?
Various answers have been suggested to suggest why the verses 10:8-11 are recorded in the midst of the tragedy of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu.
Rashi (on 10:2) quotes R. Yishmael that Nadav and Avihu violated this law of not drinking wine, which might have caused them to sin (see Ramban on 10:9), and this is why the law was recorded immediately after they died. This could be, but it is very unlikely. Firstly, one wonders how much wine the people had in the desert? Secondly, 8:35,36 records how in the previous seven days, Nadav and Avihu had undergone a seven-day initiation process where they had to be in or near the ohel moed, which suggests that they would not have access to wine during this process.
A second approach is that the Bekhor Shor (on 10:9) and Hoffmann (1953, on 10:8) write that it was then the practice of mourners to drink wine, and hence the law was needed to tell Aharon that even though he was devastated by the loss of his sons, he should not drink wine. This could have been the practice of mourners, but again, did the people have wine in the desert? Also, still why were the instructions about not drinking wine in the middle of Moshe’s instructions to the survivors? The instructions could not have waited until after all of Moshe’s instructions at the end of chapter 10?
Ramban (on 10:9) suggests a conceptual connection between the law of not drinking wine and Nadav and Avihu’s sin. Nadav and Avihu sinned because they thought erroneously, for whatever reason, how to worship G-d, and so too wine is prohibited since it leads one to think speciously. One could add to this idea that 10:8 records that drinking wine can lead to a lack of separation between kodesh and the profane, and this is similar to Nadav and Avihu’s sin that their fire, which was co-existent with G-d’s fire, reduced the separation between G-d and mankind, see our discussion on 10:1,2, "Nadav and Avihu." Again, this could be true, but why in the day of the great tragedy of the deaths of Nadav and Avihu did G-d have to tell Aharon about not drinking wine? The instructions could not have waited for another day?
A different idea is that these verses are an example where the Torah, acting like a narrator, inserts information into the narrative that initially seems out of place, but that this information can give a greater understanding of the ensuing narrative. I believe these narrative inserts occur at least 14 times in the Torah. Some examples are Bereshit 2:25; 3:1; 11:30; 18:11, 25:27,28, 27:1, 29:16,17, 31:19; 39:6; 48:10; Shemot 9:31,32; Bemidbar 12:3 and 13:20, and Devarim 3:29. In this case, the Torah wants to add information to the very important ensuing argument between Moshe and Aharon concerning whether the hatta’t sacrifice should have been eaten or burnt, and the argument was related to the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. The prelude to this argument is recorded in 10:12-15 and the argument itself is recorded in 10:16-20. For a discussion of the significance of this argument, see our discussion on 10:16-20, “Moshe and Aharon’s argument after the death of Aharon’s sons: An argument for the sake of heaven.”
How do G-d’s instructions to Aharon not to drink wine enhance one’s understanding of the argument between Moshe and Aharon? It does this in two ways.
One, a person reading this story might wonder who was Aharon to argue with Moshe, even if Aharon was Moshe’s older brother? Moshe had been on Mount Sinai forty days with G-d, two or three times, and had come as close to G-d as any human being, Shemot 34:5,6. The answer from 10:8-11 is that G-d also spoke directly and only to Aharon about laws.
Two, while Moshe agreed with Aharon in the end, maybe Moshe’s first argument was correct that the sacrifice should have been eaten. Maybe Moshe only agreed to Aharon since the sacrifice was already burnt and could not have been eaten anymore. Thus, 10:8-11 inform us that Aharon was empowered to separate from kadosh and chol, which means that Aharon could decide if the sacrifice was truly kadosh or not. Accordingly, the insert of the laws of 10:8-11 are to tell us that Aharon’s argument that the sacrifice should have been burnt was truly the correct approach.
This suggestion that 10:8-11 is a narrative insert to explain the argument recorded in 10:16-20 means that this conversation between G-d and Aharon about not drinking wine did not have to occur on the day when Aharon’s sons died, but could have been some time afterwards. Yet, when the Torah was written, the insert was recorded in the aftermath of their deaths to help the reader understand the argument between Moshe and Aharon that did happen on day when Nadav and Avihu died.
Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.
No comments:
Post a Comment