Devir Kahan cites Rashi, who interpreted the commandment to avoid illicit sexual relations and sinful thoughts. He asks, why does Rashi rely solely on texts related to the kohanim, and why this interpretation here when the Torah prohibits illicit sexual relations in so many other parts? The answer lies in an analysis of the “fences around the Torah”.
Professor Scheindlin comments on Chapter 19 of Leviticus, which comes with a temporary reprieve from the endless ritual instructions, and begins with the statement “Be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy.” He is concerned with the difference between the commandment to “be holy”, rather than “to be moral”. Furthermore, the Torah commands us to beware of the holy, as with Nadav and Avihu.
Rabbi Sacks observes that it is natural to feel aggrieved when someone has hurt us. How are we to fulfill the common “Do not hate your brother in your heart?” The Torah instructs us to interact; to speak, challenge, or remonstrate. The ultimate goal is to use the power of speech to sustain and mend relationships.
Rabbi Lavery-Yizraeli writes that tzara’at is not a medical condition, even though it seems like it is. Only the Kohen diagnoses, and a Kohen cannot diagnose for himself. In fact, without a qualified Kohen, the tzara’at cannot exist, because it requires the Kohen’s declaration. Slander is actually considered to be the cause of it, rather than another type of exposure.
Rabbi Mintz writes that, despite post-biblical and contemporary thought, judgments of impurity that are affiliated with “uncleanness”, or “sinfulness” related to the chata’at are not in accordance with the text. In fact, tuma’a is not connected to demonic forces, nor dirt or infection, but simple nature; tangible realities of the human condition juxtaposed with the Divine.
Rabbi Sacks addresses the challenge of ritual impurity by citing Rambam. Rambam writes that a person cannot be flesh and blood, without also being subject to external influences. As Rabbi Sacks continues, Judaism eschews both hedonism and asceticism; by sanctifying the physical, the human life becomes a vehicle for the Divine Presence.
Rabbi Finley avoids any assessment of guilt in the narrative of Nadav and Avihu. As he reiterates, the Torah does not actually indicate why they performed this act, nor what they were thinking at the time. He observes that no one can be ready for when a seemingly minor infraction results in a disaster. The danger is in the slightest moment of inattention, that can have unforeseen consequences.
Matthew Berkowitz cites Samson Raphael Hirsch, who wrote that Nadav and Avihu acted only an individual members of the nation, without consulting either Aaron or Moses. In this regard they were selfish. He also cites Richard Elliot Friedman, who wrote that the standard for leaders is tougher than for others, and Aaron’s pain is a reminder of that.
Rabbi Sacks considers the striking tragedy of Aaron’s sons, Nadav and Avihu. He writes about the nature of holiness: a point of time and space in which the Presence of God is encountered by tzimtzum—self-renunciation—on the part of humankind. God’s Presence can only be experienced as absolute through the total renunciation of human will and initiative.
Park Avenue Synagogue Our Favorite Passover Tunes