1. What does esh zara, or alien fire, mean? What is the difference between esh (fire) and esh zara (alien fire)?
2. What makes this particular offering strange/alien/foreign and unacceptable, resulting in the deaths of Nadav and Avihu?
You pose a hypothesis:
Technology is morally neutral. It is how man uses it that is moral or immoral. E.g., nuclear technology can be used for good and for harm. In this case, then, fire was not the problem. It was the intent of Nadav and Avihu.
My superficial read of the tale of Nadav and Avihu tells me that God has had Moses instruct Aaron and his sons on the precise manner of the sacrifices. They have just gone through a detailed “course”, culminating in 7 days in the Tent. Emerging on the 8th day, these 2 sons of Aaron, whether because they were drunk (as some rabbis would have us believe) or overeager or just naïve, made an non-prescribed offering to God; and, God killed them for it. This read is troublesome to a secular Jew for whom tradition changes with the times. One could infer that liturgical innovation and other non-prescribed forms of worship would be considered objectionable to God.
But, a more careful read of Lev 9:24 suggests that the fire or esh is in fact more than just a creation of God; it is an emanation of God.
“And fire went out from the presence of God and consumed, upon the slaughter site, the offering-up and the fat-parts…”
Then, Nadav and Avihu, who brought esh zara, or strange/alien/foreign fire, near to God committed a greater sin than that of “liturgical innovation”. They brought “outside” (Fox’s translation) fire into God’s domain. The sacrifices taught to them by Moses were not simply arcane procedures ultimately resulting in burning meat or grain. They were offerings up to God. They were two-way in nature. And, hence, the fire that consumed the offerings were emanations from God. This fire either spontaneouly arose from God’s presence or it materialized out of the fire that the priests maintained diligently on the altar. But, as I understand, it was never brought in from outside.
Esh zara, or outside fire, could be viewed in this light as idolatry. And, if our reading of the Torah teaches us nothing else, God is not a happy God when his People wax idolatrous.
In discussion, today, I broached the subject of why Aaron's grandson, Pinhas, was not automatically included in the line of Kohanim as was his father, Eleazar? Only after he "killed" the Israelite, Zimri, and his Midianite consort, Cozbi did G-d reward him for his zealousness and appoint him a Priest. Is there some precedent, in the Torah, for a member of a family of Kohanim not to be a Kohanim? Can anyone cite a source?
...not to steal Russell's thunder here...but, maybe the guy had crushed testicles? ...
His blemished physical status would have disqualified him as a Kohen, despite his genetics, although God clearly can overturn that ruling anytime (s)he pleases.
On second thought, if Pinkhas had had crushed testicles, he may not have had the ... umm... fortitude...to act on his zealous impulses.
As far as I can determine there were 5 eternal covenants mentioned in the Torah.Noah receives the promise that humanity will not be destroyed, Abraham receives the promise of seed and soil, Moses receives the Ten Commandments, Pinchas receives the priesthood, and David receives the dynastic line. In the Parsha it states the following. "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Pinchas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by displaying his zealousness for me, so that I did not wipe out the Israelite people in my zealousness. say,therefore, I grant him my Covenant of Shalom. It shall be for him and his descendants after him a Covenant of Priesthood for all time, because he took zealous action for his G-d, thus making expiation for the Israelites".
Don, here's a proper response to your 2:41pm Q. See Rashi's explanation below.
Num 25:12. Therefore, say, "I hereby give him My covenant of peace. Num 25:13. It shall be for him and for his descendants after him [as] an eternal covenant of kehunah, because he was zealous for his God and atoned for the children of Israel."
RASHI--an eternal covenant of kehunah: Although the kehunah had already been given to Aaron’s descendants, it had been given only to Aaron and his sons who were anointed with him, and to their children whom they would beget after their anointment. Phinehas, however, who was born before that and had never been anointed, had not been included in the kehunah until now. And so, we learn in [Tractate] Zevachim [101b],“Phinehas was not made a kohen until he killed Zimri.”
Don, Rabbi Blake has tried in some of his courses to teach us to ask: "ma kashe leRashi?" It seems you and Rashi have a shared curiosity...kol hakavod!
That makes good sense to me. I am going to search out any other instances, but I suspect this may be the only time inasmuch there were no additional eternal covenants given by G-d.
As an aside we really should try and get more actual participants to "blog", but how?
David come to Mitzvah Day tomorrow and visit our Israel Committee exhibit put on in part by JNF. They are helping us present the water conservation and supplying of water particularly in the Negev. We will be situated in the library.
I'll be patient and just assume bloggers will come. I will also be posting a notice about the blog on the temple website. Keep up the great work, everyone. I'm enjoying reading your thoughts. Shavua Tov! New remarks are forthcoming - usually by Tuesday.
esh = fire
ReplyDeletezara = strange; alien, foreign
You pose 2 Qs:
1. What does esh zara, or alien fire, mean? What is the difference between esh (fire) and esh zara (alien fire)?
2. What makes this particular offering strange/alien/foreign and unacceptable, resulting in the deaths of Nadav and Avihu?
You pose a hypothesis:
Technology is morally neutral. It is how man uses it that is moral or immoral. E.g., nuclear technology can be used for good and for harm. In this case, then, fire was not the problem. It was the intent of Nadav and Avihu.
I must confess, my first reaction to this dates to 1967...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0DhVYuoMM4
"...What kind of fool are you?
Strange brew -- kill what's inside of you..."
Rav Qlapton, et.al.
By the group: "Milchig"
Album: dIsraeli Gears
OK...I know...I'm a little weird...strange, muZAR...
Now I have to get my concentration back and try to come up with a more serious drash...
My superficial read of the tale of Nadav and Avihu tells me that God has had Moses instruct Aaron and his sons on the precise manner of the sacrifices. They have just gone through a detailed “course”, culminating in 7 days in the Tent. Emerging on the 8th day, these 2 sons of Aaron, whether because they were drunk (as some rabbis would have us believe) or overeager or just naïve, made an non-prescribed offering to God; and, God killed them for it. This read is troublesome to a secular Jew for whom tradition changes with the times. One could infer that liturgical innovation and other non-prescribed forms of worship would be considered objectionable to God.
ReplyDeleteBut, a more careful read of Lev 9:24 suggests that the fire or esh is in fact more than just a creation of God; it is an emanation of God.
“And fire went out from the presence of God
and consumed, upon the slaughter site, the offering-up and the fat-parts…”
Then, Nadav and Avihu, who brought esh zara, or strange/alien/foreign fire, near to God committed a greater sin than that of “liturgical innovation”. They brought “outside” (Fox’s translation) fire into God’s domain. The sacrifices taught to them by Moses were not simply arcane procedures ultimately resulting in burning meat or grain. They were offerings up to God. They were two-way in nature. And, hence, the fire that consumed the offerings were emanations from God. This fire either spontaneouly arose from God’s presence or it materialized out of the fire that the priests maintained diligently on the altar. But, as I understand, it was never brought in from outside.
Esh zara, or outside fire, could be viewed in this light as idolatry. And, if our reading of the Torah teaches us nothing else, God is not a happy God when his People wax idolatrous.
...less melodic answers than the one above...
Correction to above...Aaron and his sons were at the entrance to the Tent for 7 days and nights, not inside the Tent.
ReplyDeleteIn discussion, today, I broached the subject of why Aaron's grandson, Pinhas, was not automatically included in the line of Kohanim as was his father, Eleazar? Only after he "killed" the Israelite, Zimri, and his Midianite consort, Cozbi did G-d reward him for his zealousness and appoint him a Priest. Is there some precedent, in the Torah, for a member of a family of Kohanim not to be a Kohanim? Can anyone cite a source?
ReplyDelete...not to steal Russell's thunder here...but, maybe the guy had crushed testicles? ...
ReplyDeleteHis blemished physical status would have disqualified him as a Kohen, despite his genetics, although God clearly can overturn that ruling anytime (s)he pleases.
On second thought, if Pinkhas had had crushed testicles, he may not have had the ... umm... fortitude...to act on his zealous impulses.
As far as I can determine there were 5 eternal covenants mentioned in the Torah.Noah receives the promise that humanity will not be destroyed, Abraham receives the promise of seed and soil, Moses receives the Ten Commandments, Pinchas receives the priesthood, and David receives the dynastic line. In the Parsha it states the following. "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Pinchas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest has turned back my wrath from the Israelites by displaying his zealousness for me, so that I did not wipe out the Israelite people in my zealousness. say,therefore, I grant him my Covenant of Shalom. It shall be for him and his descendants after him a Covenant of Priesthood for all time, because he took zealous action for his G-d, thus making expiation for the Israelites".
ReplyDeleteDavid, my source is the Parsha Pinchas itself which makes it apparent that if Pinchas was a Kohanim he was not a Priest. That is my dilemma. Why?
ReplyDeleteDon, here's a proper response to your 2:41pm Q. See Rashi's explanation below.
ReplyDeleteNum 25:12. Therefore, say, "I hereby give him My covenant of peace.
Num 25:13. It shall be for him and for his descendants after him [as] an eternal covenant of kehunah, because he was zealous for his God and atoned for the children of Israel."
RASHI--an eternal covenant of kehunah: Although the kehunah had already been given to Aaron’s descendants, it had been given only to Aaron and his sons who were anointed with him, and to their children whom they would beget after their anointment. Phinehas, however, who was born before that and had never been anointed, had not been included in the kehunah until now. And so, we learn in [Tractate] Zevachim [101b],“Phinehas was not made a kohen until he killed Zimri.”
Source: http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading_cdo/AID/45615/showrashi/true
Don, Rabbi Blake has tried in some of his courses to teach us to ask: "ma kashe leRashi?" It seems you and Rashi have a shared curiosity...kol hakavod!
ReplyDeleteThat makes good sense to me. I am going to search out any other instances, but I suspect this may be the only time inasmuch there were no additional eternal covenants given by G-d.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside we really should try and get more actual participants to "blog", but how?
David come to Mitzvah Day tomorrow and visit our Israel Committee exhibit put on in part by JNF. They are helping us present the water conservation and supplying of water particularly in the Negev. We will be situated in the library.
I guess I am baack!
I'll be patient and just assume bloggers will come. I will also be posting a notice about the blog on the temple website. Keep up the great work, everyone. I'm enjoying reading your thoughts. Shavua Tov! New remarks are forthcoming - usually by Tuesday.
ReplyDelete