Thomas II

THE STRANGE FIRE
Yosef Kalinsky
http://www.seliyahu.org.il/parasha/p.../epar59027.rtf

"The passage in this week's parshah dealing with the death Aharon's sons Nadav and Avihu is particularly short and ambiguous. The Torah simply records that they "brought what was not commanded." What was their grave sin which invoked a fire from Hashem to descend and instantly consume them? The commentaries grapple with this question and reach seemingly opposite approaches. Some understand that in actuality no sin was committed, or if any, nothing so serious as to be punishable by death. Others view the sin of Nadav and Avihu as a capital sin which warranted the wrath of Hashem. The Sifra (10:24) describes their action as being done from the joy of seeing Hashem's fire on the mizbeach - amdu lehosif ahava al ahava. The Sifra is more commending than condemning of the act of Nadav and Avihu. They did not transgress an explicit prohibition in the Torah but exceeded bounds of morality and modesty and were punished by death, due to their elevated position. They wished to express their own personal joy in the sanctification of the Mishkan and, out of joyous zeal, brought additional incense. They wished to cling to Hashem in an informal and personal way without conforming to preordained rules and regulations. Nadav and Avihu acted out of a nedivus lev an overflowing of emotions due to the joyous scene outside of the Mishkan and wanted to express their own gratitude towards Hashem. Apparently, there is no room in Judaism for "religious ecstasy" when it conflicts with the letter of the law.

The Ksav Sofer offers an original way of reading the psukim. He starts by showing references in the psukim to the first two accounts of the sin of Aharon's sin offered by Rashi and the Midrash, ruling halacha in front of one's rebbe and intoxication, can be found in the psukim, but can't find a hint of the other reasons given by the Midrash, not marring or saying "when will these two elders die?," in the psukim. The reason Nadav and Avihu did not marry, explains the Ksav Sofer, was not due to self- importance or haughtiness, rather from love of Hashem and his people. Nadav and Avihu knew that they were the destined future leaders of Bnei Yisrael (in Shemot 24:9 at Matan Torah, Hashem separates Moshe, Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy elders) and viewed Moshe, their rebbe, as a model. They noticed how Moshe had become totally involved attending to the needs of the community and could not concentrate on raising his children, who would not become worthy of becoming the nation's next leaders. Nadav and Avihu decided that a leader can best serve his nation if he is freed from the worries and struggles of his family. This is the meaning of the statement "when will the two elders die." They did not want or anticipate Moshe and Aharon's deaths, rather they understood what it takes to be the next leaders. Their sin is similar to that of Chizkiyahu Hamelech (Berachos 10a) who looked too far in the future and worried about consequences without taking Yad Hashem into account. Man is responsible to follow the commandments of G-d regardless of how he perceives the future; that is for Hashem to deal with. This is hinted at in the psukim in the fact that they sinned out of aish shel ahavas Hashem ul'amo, but this was a "strange fire not commanded for them to bring". Hashem did not command them to lead in this fashion or in any way different than Moshe and they were expected to marry and have children.

The Ksav Sofer offers another way of grasping the sin of Nadav and Avihu, based on the two reasons given by Rashi. Dictating halacha in front of Moshe and performing the Avodah intoxicated led to the eventual sin of bringing the strange fire, otherwise how is it possible to comprehend how Nadav and Avihu, such tzadikim, could have erred. The order of events is : they drank wine which leads to haughtiness and light-headedness, which caused them to dictate halacha in front of Moshe, and their eventual bringing of strange fire. In the same vein, the Michtav MeEliyahu (chelek 2), Pirush Sh"dal (Shmuel David Letzatto), and R' Kasher in Torah Shleimah (parshas Mishpatim perek 24, footnote #5) state that the sin of Nadav and Avihu is found in their midah of haughtiness. R' Dessler enumerates fifteen sins and sees the root of all of them imbedded in their lack of anavah. He quotes the Ramban's comment Samchu al ze bebitachon atzmi vedavar ze ainenu mattim bedakai dakus el midas anava." This is supported by the examples, "strange fire" - they should have feared to offer something not commanded of them, to worship while "intoxicated" - even though they were yet prohibited to enter drunk, they should have realized the effects of wine and the lack of seriousness it causes before entering, "without proper dress-code" - the belt is supposed to inspire Yiras Shomayim in the Kohen Gadol before entering the Kodesh HaKodashim, "without washing hands" - they did not see the purpose of purifying themselves before entering the Mishkan, "without children" - the Gemorah Sanhedrin states that someone without children lacks rachmanus and therefore is invalid to judge cases dealing with death penalty- a lack of mercy is an opening for haughtiness. Obviously there are many lessons to glean from the episode involving Nadav and Avihu. We must understand that Hashem decides the limitations on our performance of avodas Hashem, and that one must be careful in deciding different and new ways of serving Hashem. Also, as R' Dessler categorizes their sin as a flaw in haughtiness one should approach avodas Hashem as a servant excited to please his master, without external motivations and goals."

So what we see here is the "sin of arrogance". Maybe they saw themselves as the next Moses and Aaron, so they were in a way drunk with zealousness, besides wine.
Then they got careless, and here is when it connects with the story of Uzzah. There is some sort of contact with the Ark...and all hell brakes loose.
Maybe we should take a closer look at this Ark...

semiopen

http://books.google.com/books?id=39n...bible#PPA51,M1

I've cited this guy Marc Zvi Breitler already. On page 73 he discusses Leviticus 16 and elegantly and aptly pronounces the Nadab Abihu story enigmatic. He also suggests that 16:5 was moved to its location by a later redactor from 16:2. If this is true, the opinions that the sons were intoxicated is based on the later redaction. Dr. Breitler claims that the passage in general is discussing purfication ritual.

This is a link to a guy who puts Nadab and Abihu on a higher level than Moses and Aaron.

http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2006/p..._bamidbar.html

The intoxication issue isn't mentioned. This analysis is based on the Yalkut Shimoni, which seems to be a very cool book that has not been translated into English.

Regarding the ark, I intend to study this in more depth, but it apparently contained both sets of tablets from Mt Sinai. There were two gold cherubs on the doors which some claim allowed someone standing in between them to prophesize. It is supposed to also have contained a torah that Moses wrote before he died (he is supposed to have written 13 on the last day of his life). Seeing that Deurteronomy is not known until the days of King Josiah, I'm not sure.

The holy of holies is where the ark was kept in the temple, and there are stories of the high priest going in there on Yom Kippur with a rope tied around his ankle in case he was killed by God and had to be pulled out.

This appears to be a later fable however. The ark was lost or hidden during the destruction of the first temple, I am not clear whether it actually existed or not. If I had to guess I'd say no. The cherubs are borderline idolatrous. Interesting stuff though.

Thomas II

Really, not existed at all? Pure mythology then?

storytime

Interesting. But what could have been the strange fire?

Would "strange" indicate a foreign element imposed into the ritual? Maybe part of a custom from another people, outsiders, non Israelites?

And why wasn't Aaron not put to death by God for making the golden calf for Israelites to worship?

The Christian article gives an interpretation that teaches a lesson about not sympathizing with sin. (But this OT story has nothing to do with non Israelites) A very sad and grevious story about what God will do to priests[rabbi's] of Israel for tolerating sin. Aaron's circumstance as an anointed priest, (mouth of God), put him to silence in not expressing his grief for his sons. "By no manifestation of grief must he seem to sympathize with sin. The congregation must not be led to murmur against God". Sons were casualties, God was not.

"The divine rebuke is upon the false sympathy for the sinner which endeavors to excuse his sin. It is the effect of sin to deaden the moral perceptions, so that the wrongdoer does not realize the enormity of transgression, and without the convincing power of the Holy Spirit he remains in partial blindness to his sin."

Sheshbazzar

Or was it all simply a clever fable composed to instill greater fear of YHWH? even by members of the priesthood, by an implied threat that unless they were very, very careful, YHWH like some kind of pre-historic boogeyman/demon would certainly "get them"?
Given the Scriptural usages of, and the ancient meanings of -elohim- and el-shaddi, vis the shaddim, I believe this to be the most logical explanation.

Thomas II

As far as I know the "strange fire" was not a fire from a sacred origin.

semiopen

I made a post touching on this with Jeroboam.

There are two stories in the 5 books of Moses. In Exodus 32, Aaron is not blamed despite his apparent lie...

My brother suggests that this is literal and a reference to Joseph's bones (whose symbol was an Ox - ironically similar to Baal) but I don't completely follow this.

The same incident in Deuteronomy is more negative to Aaron...

The standard explanation for this is that this reflects political infighting about selecting the priestly line during the kingdom period when much of the bible was written.

Religious sources give this a song and dance, why not go with an explanation that makes sense?

The Jeroboam parallel is even accepted by some educated Orthodox Jews. This line:

This appears in both Exodus 32:3 and Kings 12:28, except Eleh (here is) in Exodus is Hena (behold) in Kings. There is a little technical issue with elokhekha, this means your Gods but I'm not clear on why it might not be your God. It's almost always translated as your Gods though which is a peculiarity in the Exodus Golden Calf story because there is only one of them.

That might be possible but I doubt it. Dr Brettler points out this story is located in a section dealing with purification ritual. He points out K P R is a word for purification which suggests Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). This (Yom Kippur) may also a late addition to the bible, the festival of Sukkot (a week or so later) seems to have originally been much more important.

Regarding the ark, I'm uncertain about it. There was a temple in Jerusalem, whether there was a guy named Solomon who built it seems pretty unlikely. There was also quite probably an ark in the temple, it is difficult to imagine this to be the same ark that was built in the wilderness and/or the actual existence of the stone tablets.

storytime

All things considered, might Aaron be portrayed as the scapegoat? I'm throwing this in because I haven't a clue as to anything else.

Sheshbazzar

and
"Shaddi" שַׁדַּי singular, "shaddim" שֵּׁדִים plural,
"Almighty" singular, "mighty ones" plural,
"Demon" singular, "demons"plural
It appears that YHWH was The Demon numero uno, One bad mean dude, to be terrified of, something that is also suggested in many other Scriptural texts.

And further along this line, I found the name; ( שְׁדֵיאֽוּר="Shedeur" to be quite interesting in that Strong's defines its meaning as "darter of light",
and Gesenius's Lexicon, as "casting forth of FIRE"
only a coincidence?

I encourage others to investigate the range of words in Strong's between H7699 and H7712

Thomas II

You mean payback for the calves?