בס"ד
Parshiyot Acharei Mot-Kedoshim - 5780
“Good”
Jews and “Bad” Jews
As we wait for
the opportunity to return safely to our shul, I would like to share with you
some rules I hope to promulgate once we return. They are based on the rules set
forth by local barons in the year 1755 in the Bavarian community of Sugenheim[1],
on the occasion of the consecration of their new synagogue building. The idea
was to make sure the local Jews behaved decorously in synagogue.
- Synagogue
will be held on Mondays and Thursdays. Failure
to attend on those days, in which the Torah was read, resulted in a fine of one kreuzer.
- One may not
engage in idle talk in the synagogue.
The punishment for doing so was
a fine of a quarter pound of wax to be donated to the Jewish treasury
(used for candles in the synagogue).
- There was to
be no verbal fighting in the synagogue. The penalty for this behavior was a
whopping 20 kreuzer, half of
which would go to local authorities.
As you can see,
shul life was heavily regulated, which is especially remarkable considering
that the Jewish community of Sugenheim at the time numbered only 12
households.
Regardless of the
size of the community, rules of conduct in a mikdash me’at were predicated on the rules we find in our parshah.
Our Parshah prefaces the detailed instructions governing the Avodat Yom HaKippurim, the sacred
service of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur, by telling us when these laws were
commanded.
וַיְדַבֵּ֤ר ה֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה
אַחֲרֵ֣י
מ֔וֹת
שְׁנֵ֖י
בְּנֵ֣י
אַהֲרֹ֑ן
בְּקָרְבָתָ֥ם לִפְנֵי־ה וַיָּמֻֽתוּ׃
The LORD spoke to Moses after the
death of the two sons of Aaron who died when
they drew too close to the presence of the LORD.
The impression the Torah gives is
that the laws of proper conduct for Kohanim are somehow a response to the
deaths of Nadav and Avidu. However, the Torah is also vague about the nature of
their sin, only offering the generic descriptor that “they came too close to
God (בְּקָרְבָתָ֥ם),
[As we discussed two weeks ago,] our sages struggle to identify the exact sin
they committed. One opinion suggests they were intoxicated; another that they
were not wearing the proper priestly vestments, and still another suggests that
they ruled on a halachic matter out of turn, in the presence of Moshe and
Aharon, their superiors.Each of these sins are somehow alluded to in the
opening section of our Parshah, and our sages draw the conclusion that one of
them must have been the problem. It seems strange that, absent a clear
directive in the Torah, our sages fixated
upon identifying the crime of Nadav and Ahivu and insisted on calling them to
account. This is particularly perplexing when we consider the general attitude
Chazal evince in identifying sinners.
In the Daf Yomi of Thursday and
Friday (Shabbat 55-56), we find a discussion dealing with the alleged sins of
righteous individuals throughout Tanach. Reuven is seemingly implicated in a
borderline incestuous relationship with his father’s maidservant בלהה;
The wayward sons of עלי seem to have abused their position of
power to engage in forbidden relationships with married women, and Dovid’s
well-known relationship with Batsheva which are well known. Unlike the story of Nadav va’Avihu, there
exists real evidence of misconduct in these cases. Indeed, the verses
describing them are abundantly clear that they committed the most egregious
acts:
In connection with Reuven, the verse
tells us וישכב
את
בלהה
פילגש
אביו
- Reuven slept with Bilhah, his father’s concubine. The sons of עלי
הכהן
are described as בני בליעל-
as wicked people, and David is asked pointedly:
מדוע
בזית
את
דבר
ה׳ לעשות
הרע,
why have you disgraced the word of God to
do that which is evil?
And yet, in the face of such damning
evidence, Chazal make a remarkable assertion:
כל האומר
ראובן
חטא
אינו
אלא
טועה-
anyone who says Reuven sinned is nothing more than mistaken! And they repeat
this in connection with the sons of Eli and with David. Yes, Even though the
simple understanding of the text would imply their guilt, Chazal engage in a PR
campaign to salvage the image of our ancestors - fake news, alternative
truths....
I can understand the temptation to
protect the legacy of biblical figures, to paint them in a positive light - but
why the inconsistency? Why are we so
eager to speculate negatively about the sins of Aaron’s two sons when the Torah
provides little information and is so reticent to state the obvious by these
other figures?
Rav Chaim ben
Attar, in his commentary Ohr HaChaim,
explains that there is a difference between technical, legal sinning and moral sinning. David, Reuven and the
sons of Eli did not technically sin,
so accusing him of committing adultery represents a factual error. Similarly,
David did not technically seduce a
married woman. But even if their actions don’t constitute sin in its strictest
legal definition, they are still moral failings. Rav Avraham Rivlin, the
mashgiach of Yeshivat Kerem B’Yavneh, uses this passage to explain that while
these are not actual sins, a shul should never honor someone who commits these
offenses with “Maftir Yonah” on Yom Kippur.
I’d like to
suggest another possible, related interpretation. The expression - כל
האומר
isn't saying that they didn't sin. Instead, it is saying that we shouldn't say
that they sinned. The Talmud is not
pronouncing moral judgement upon David and others, in either direction. Indeed,
they are not even the subject of this quote. Rather, it is commenting about those
who choose to discuss these sins
with such confidence and bravado.
Why then would
the midrash endeavor to pin a particular sin on Nadav Va’avihu, and mitigate
the sins of the others? Why does the midrash list at least eight (!) theories
as to what Nadav Va’avihu did? There is
only one explanation for such broad and wild speculation: it wasn’t about the actual crime.
Something happened that had to be changed- whether it was intoxication,
a lack of preparation or entitled behavior.
In order to prevent a repeat of these offenses, we need to be familiar
with the constellation of inappropriate behaviors that led to them. It is
acceptable, and even encouraged, to identify the sins of others when it leads
to our own self improvement, but not
acceptable when the sole purpose is to prop ourselves up by drawing a contrast.
There is nothing to be gained by dwelling on the apparently salacious nature of
the sins of David, Eli and others. The sordid details are clickbait, spurring
gossip but rarely introspection. Chazal were concerned that those who feel the
urge to proclaim David’s sin are not really doing so with the goal of moral
advancement. Those who dwell on these sorts of actions derive vicarious
pleasure by holding themselves up as better than a biblical icon, so as to say
“You see! I told you that he wasn't
really so great.”
Unequivocally, we
know that conducting large funerals today is dangerous, and a chillul Hashem. When we read stories
about people who participate in them- or even when we see people who aren’t
properly socially distancing- the way we
react says much more about us than the offense itself. Do we respond by
“othering,” as if the offenders are some foreign and repulsive entity?We have
an erroneous belief that in two types of Jews: “Good Jews” and “Bad Jews.” “I
may not daven three times a day, but at least I’m not like those people.”
Or do we look for ways to grow and prevent further harm, to ourselves and
others? How do we communicate public safety as an important value, in a way
that is constructive? This is the distinction between the sins of Nadav and
Avihu, and the sins of the others. In observing everything that happens around
us, the response of a Jew cannot be “What should I say,” but rather, “How can I
grow?”
Comments
Post a Comment