This is in the merit of my Grandmother, Esther bat Mazal. May she have a speedy and complete recovery.
Parshas Shemini
Question:
“Fire came forth from before God and consumed the burnt offering and the choice parts on the altar. When the people saw this, they raised their voices in praise and threw themselves on their faces” (Leviticus 9:24).
Where else do we see similar religious reactions? What is the connection between these events?
Last week I messed up by not looking at a Jewish calendar (Shabbas during Passover has its own reading) and wrote on Parshas Shemini a week early. I am writing another devar Torah on the parshah.
Our parshah contains the death of Aaron’s oldest sons, Nadab and Abihu:
“Aaron's sons, Nadab and Avihu, each took his fire pan, placed fire on it, and then incense on it. They offered before God strange fire, which [God] had not commanded them [to offer]. Fire came forth from before God, and it consumed them, so that they died before God” (Leviticus 10:1-2).
Their sin would clearly appear to be that they offered “strange fire” but what made their fire “strange” and what motivated them to bring it?
Nechama Leibowitz (Studies on Leviticus, volume 1, page 123) quotes the Sifra which answers the second question:
“Overwhelmed by joy on perceiving the new fire [after the Tabernacle’s first official use] they sought to redouble their love, whereupon they ‘took each one his [firepan]’”
Thus, our Sages teach us that Nadab and Abihu were motivated by love of G-d. But if this is the case, what was their sin!? Why was their fire strange?
Nechama cites the Biur (page 124), a commentary written by Moses Mendelssohn in collaboration with other scholars which says that their fire was strange because “[God] had not commanded them [to offer it]” (Leviticus 10:1)!
This is a very scary proposition indeed. The very fact that the service had not been commanded invalidated it and deemed it foreign!
Our great teacher, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, discusses how this flows out of the very nature of the Tabernacle and Temple service. He says “The Jewish offering means to place the offerer at God’s service, i.e., he wants to fulfill God’s wishes through his offering. All offerings are therefore forms of Divine demands which the offerer through his offering accepts as the guidelines for his future conduct. Self-devised sacrifices would destroy the truth which i[t] meant to achieve[,] man’s submission to [God] by [way of] the very sacrifice [being brought], and would mean the glorification of arbitrary subjectivity and [making] it [arbitrary subjectivity] the [prime goal of life] which should [instead] be dedicated wholly and exclusively to obedience to God” (cited by Nechama, page 125). (I have previously discussed the translations in Nechama’s studies.)
Thus, he concludes “There is no room for any subjective discretion in any part if the sacrificial service in the Sanctuary. Precise limits and forms are prescribed which must be adhered to. The closeness of and approach to God, which we seek with every offering, may only be found through obedience to and acceptance of God’s will…”
This same interpretation is also advanced by Nechama Leibowitz’s brother, Professor Yeshayu Leibowitz (although with a slightly different connotation) and he says that the worship of G-d has the potential to be twisted into idolatry. (Accepting the Yoke of Heaven, by Yeshayahu Leibowitz, page 105)
This would also most likely be a manifestation of Adam 1 infiltrating the Adam 2 community discussed by Rav Soloveitchik near the end of The Lonely Man of Faith.
[This should not be taken to mean that there is no room for volunteerism at all, half of Rav Soloveitchik’s book Halakhic Man is devoted to Halakhic Man’s creativity! There can often be a fine line between what is allowed and encouraged and what is utterly forbidden. I do not know of a way to draw a philosophically clear line and the matter requires much further thought. However, we can be certain that when halacha is being violated, deep down inside, one is not acting with the proper motivation. Accidental violations become even harder to categorize. This all requires further thought.]
I already discussed in Parshas Re’eh how we are to channel our feelings through the halacha and let them guide and give expression to our thoughts and emotions.
Nechama Leibowitz herself expressed this opposition to subjective religiosity in opposition to Jewish feminism. The following is an excerpt from Tales of Nechama, by Leah Abramowitz:
“Rachel Kosofsky recalls an argument she once had with Nechama. Nechama had seen a picture of a woman praying and wearing a tallit. It offended her. Rachel tried to defend the woman and the movement behind her. Nechama was adamant, ‘They don’t wear the tallit for spiritual uplifting,’ she declared. ‘They just want to make a feminist statement.’ Rachel mentioned that for some women wearing a tallit improved their davening (praying). ‘You go to shul to daven, not to get a spiritual uplifting,’ Nechama retorted. ‘If you want to get high you take drugs.’ She thought the whole tumult was just a by-product of American feminism, creeping into Israeli society.”
“Rachel pointed out that one of the biggest poskim (halachic authorities) in Jerusalem did not unambiguously reject the custom of women wearing tallitot. This didn’t impress Nechama. She saw it as a first step on the slippery slope to religious deterioration. ‘Women have enough mitzvot, they don’t have to wear a tallit to fulfill their commandments,’ she continued. The issue so engaged her thoughts that she called Rachel up later that night to continue the argument. ‘My brother goes to synagogue every morning at 5:00 a.m. He doesn’t do it to get high, or to improve his kavanah (concentration). He goes simply to fulfill a commandment to pray. I don’t have to go to shul at 5:00 a.m. I can visit sick people in the hospital or do other mitzvot’” (page 72).
[I copied correctly. The name was Rachel Kosofsky, not (Morah) Rachel Kosowsky, who was a student of Nechama.]
It is worth noting that my Rosh Yeshiva, R. Pesach Wolicki told me that his father, R. Yosef Wolicki (who was a very close student of Nechama) had told him, that Nechama knew the Talmud but you would never know. He said the reason was not because she feared people criticizing her but rather because of her tremendous humility. It seems to be to be apparent that she did not view intensive Talmud study for women, or at least for individual women, to be part of feminism, which she was vehemently opposed to. Regardless, we would all do well to learn from her and not show off what we know.
My primary goal was not to write a polemic against feminism but rather to give a real practical example of a religious principle that the death of Aaron’s sons is coming to teach us.
Have a good Shabbas,
Mordechai
-------
Feminism within Orthodoxy is a very difficult topic which although I personally have strong feelings, not being female, I feel that it is not my place to voice my opinions. One the one hand we have http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5760winter/dancing%20on%20the%20edge.pdf but we also have http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5760winter/orthodox%20feminism.pdf.
Parshas Shemini
Question:
“Fire came forth from before God and consumed the burnt offering and the choice parts on the altar. When the people saw this, they raised their voices in praise and threw themselves on their faces” (Leviticus 9:24).
Where else do we see similar religious reactions? What is the connection between these events?
Last week I messed up by not looking at a Jewish calendar (Shabbas during Passover has its own reading) and wrote on Parshas Shemini a week early. I am writing another devar Torah on the parshah.
Our parshah contains the death of Aaron’s oldest sons, Nadab and Abihu:
“Aaron's sons, Nadab and Avihu, each took his fire pan, placed fire on it, and then incense on it. They offered before God strange fire, which [God] had not commanded them [to offer]. Fire came forth from before God, and it consumed them, so that they died before God” (Leviticus 10:1-2).
Their sin would clearly appear to be that they offered “strange fire” but what made their fire “strange” and what motivated them to bring it?
Nechama Leibowitz (Studies on Leviticus, volume 1, page 123) quotes the Sifra which answers the second question:
“Overwhelmed by joy on perceiving the new fire [after the Tabernacle’s first official use] they sought to redouble their love, whereupon they ‘took each one his [firepan]’”
Thus, our Sages teach us that Nadab and Abihu were motivated by love of G-d. But if this is the case, what was their sin!? Why was their fire strange?
Nechama cites the Biur (page 124), a commentary written by Moses Mendelssohn in collaboration with other scholars which says that their fire was strange because “[God] had not commanded them [to offer it]” (Leviticus 10:1)!
This is a very scary proposition indeed. The very fact that the service had not been commanded invalidated it and deemed it foreign!
Our great teacher, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, discusses how this flows out of the very nature of the Tabernacle and Temple service. He says “The Jewish offering means to place the offerer at God’s service, i.e., he wants to fulfill God’s wishes through his offering. All offerings are therefore forms of Divine demands which the offerer through his offering accepts as the guidelines for his future conduct. Self-devised sacrifices would destroy the truth which i[t] meant to achieve[,] man’s submission to [God] by [way of] the very sacrifice [being brought], and would mean the glorification of arbitrary subjectivity and [making] it [arbitrary subjectivity] the [prime goal of life] which should [instead] be dedicated wholly and exclusively to obedience to God” (cited by Nechama, page 125). (I have previously discussed the translations in Nechama’s studies.)
Thus, he concludes “There is no room for any subjective discretion in any part if the sacrificial service in the Sanctuary. Precise limits and forms are prescribed which must be adhered to. The closeness of and approach to God, which we seek with every offering, may only be found through obedience to and acceptance of God’s will…”
This same interpretation is also advanced by Nechama Leibowitz’s brother, Professor Yeshayu Leibowitz (although with a slightly different connotation) and he says that the worship of G-d has the potential to be twisted into idolatry. (Accepting the Yoke of Heaven, by Yeshayahu Leibowitz, page 105)
This would also most likely be a manifestation of Adam 1 infiltrating the Adam 2 community discussed by Rav Soloveitchik near the end of The Lonely Man of Faith.
[This should not be taken to mean that there is no room for volunteerism at all, half of Rav Soloveitchik’s book Halakhic Man is devoted to Halakhic Man’s creativity! There can often be a fine line between what is allowed and encouraged and what is utterly forbidden. I do not know of a way to draw a philosophically clear line and the matter requires much further thought. However, we can be certain that when halacha is being violated, deep down inside, one is not acting with the proper motivation. Accidental violations become even harder to categorize. This all requires further thought.]
I already discussed in Parshas Re’eh how we are to channel our feelings through the halacha and let them guide and give expression to our thoughts and emotions.
Nechama Leibowitz herself expressed this opposition to subjective religiosity in opposition to Jewish feminism. The following is an excerpt from Tales of Nechama, by Leah Abramowitz:
“Rachel Kosofsky recalls an argument she once had with Nechama. Nechama had seen a picture of a woman praying and wearing a tallit. It offended her. Rachel tried to defend the woman and the movement behind her. Nechama was adamant, ‘They don’t wear the tallit for spiritual uplifting,’ she declared. ‘They just want to make a feminist statement.’ Rachel mentioned that for some women wearing a tallit improved their davening (praying). ‘You go to shul to daven, not to get a spiritual uplifting,’ Nechama retorted. ‘If you want to get high you take drugs.’ She thought the whole tumult was just a by-product of American feminism, creeping into Israeli society.”
“Rachel pointed out that one of the biggest poskim (halachic authorities) in Jerusalem did not unambiguously reject the custom of women wearing tallitot. This didn’t impress Nechama. She saw it as a first step on the slippery slope to religious deterioration. ‘Women have enough mitzvot, they don’t have to wear a tallit to fulfill their commandments,’ she continued. The issue so engaged her thoughts that she called Rachel up later that night to continue the argument. ‘My brother goes to synagogue every morning at 5:00 a.m. He doesn’t do it to get high, or to improve his kavanah (concentration). He goes simply to fulfill a commandment to pray. I don’t have to go to shul at 5:00 a.m. I can visit sick people in the hospital or do other mitzvot’” (page 72).
[I copied correctly. The name was Rachel Kosofsky, not (Morah) Rachel Kosowsky, who was a student of Nechama.]
It is worth noting that my Rosh Yeshiva, R. Pesach Wolicki told me that his father, R. Yosef Wolicki (who was a very close student of Nechama) had told him, that Nechama knew the Talmud but you would never know. He said the reason was not because she feared people criticizing her but rather because of her tremendous humility. It seems to be to be apparent that she did not view intensive Talmud study for women, or at least for individual women, to be part of feminism, which she was vehemently opposed to. Regardless, we would all do well to learn from her and not show off what we know.
My primary goal was not to write a polemic against feminism but rather to give a real practical example of a religious principle that the death of Aaron’s sons is coming to teach us.
Have a good Shabbas,
Mordechai
-------
Feminism within Orthodoxy is a very difficult topic which although I personally have strong feelings, not being female, I feel that it is not my place to voice my opinions. One the one hand we have http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5760winter/dancing%20on%20the%20edge.pdf but we also have http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5760winter/orthodox%20feminism.pdf.
posted by Mordechai18 at 1:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home