Parshat Chukat

Elazar's New Clothes

In this week's parsha God tells both Moshe and Aharon that they "will not bring this assembly to the Land which I have given them" (Bemidbar 20:12).

Soon afterwards, Aharon dies on Mount Hor. However, immediately beforehand, God tells Moshe to "Strip Aaron of his garments and dress Elazar his son with them" (ibid 26).

There are other similar examples in the Bible of someone dressing another in his clothes.

When David volunteered to fight Goliath he was not a soldier and had no armor. Therefore King "Saul dressed David with his garments, and he placed a copper helmet on his head, and he dressed him with a coat of mail (I Shmuel 17:38). David however, was unaccustomed to the heaviness of the armor and so removed it as he thought it would hinder him in battle.

Another example is that Eliyahu (Elijah) the prophet. God had told him that his service was over and that he was to appoint Elisha to replace him. "He found Elisha, the son of Shafat, as he was plowing…and Elijah went over to him and threw his mantle over him" (I Melachim 19:19).

In all these cases, a second person is wearing the clothes of another. The meaning is clear. The person wearing the new clothes is inheriting the previous owner's role. In the case of David and Saul, we see that David was not yet ready to take over, but nevertheless, by Saul giving David his clothes was perhaps an unconscious symbolic act that David would eventually succeed him.

This issue was highly important in the ancient world. In today's world we all know what our leaders look like. With photographs, newspapers television and the electronic media, we can recognize them even when they are not in their officiating robes. Indeed, perhaps for this reason officiating robes are becoming less important.

However, in the ancient world, most people did not now what their leader or officials looked like. Therefore, the leaders and their representatives needed symbols that would affirm their authority in the eyes of the people

On the whole, the symbol that gave the person the authority was their robes. When an Israelite saw David in Saul's armor, he would have recognized him as the king as he would have recognized the official robes not the person wearing them.

Therefore, clothes in the ancient world were an important symbol of authority. Hence, when Moshe dresses Elazar in Aharon's clothes, all Israel would now recognize him as the High Priest and the inheritor of Aharon.

Last year's Sedra Short on Parshat Chukat, entitled: "The Deadly Serpents" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2008/07/parshat-chukat-deadly-serpents-while.html

Another Sedra Short on Parshat Chukat, entitled: "How Red was the Red Heifer?" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2007/06/parshat-chukkat-how-red-was-red-heifer.html

A further Sedra Short on Parshat Chukat, entitled: "The Red Heifer and Sefer Bemidbar" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2006/06/parshat-chukat-red-heifer-and-sefer.html

Parshat Shmini

Aharon's Two Other Sons

The day was meant to be Ahraon's finest hour; the day that the Mishkan would be consecrated and "the glory of the Lord would appear" (VaYikra 9:6). It would also show that Aharon was truly the one chosen by God to be His High Priest and that that he had been forgiven for the role he played in the apostasy of the Golden Calf.

These events occur, but Aharon pays a tragic price when two of his sons, Nadav and Avihu place an unauthorized fire on the fire pans and "died before the Lord" (ibid 10:2).

Moshe wants Aharon and his two remaining sons, Eleazar and Itamar, to carry on with day's ritual as if nothing had happened: "Moshe said to Aharon and to Eleazar and to Itamar, his sons, "Do not leave your heads unshorn, and do not rend your garments…" Take the meal offering that is left over from the Lord's fire offerings, and eat it as unleavened loaves beside the altar… (ibid 6 & 12-15).

Eleazar and Itamar, however, find it impossible to complete the ritual as Moshe had proscribed: "Moses thoroughly investigated concerning the sin offering he goat, and behold, it had been burnt! So he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's surviving sons, saying, Why did you not eat the sin offering in the holy place? …so you should have surely eaten it within holy [precincts], as I commanded (ibid 16-18)."

Up until now, even at the death of his two sons, Aharon had been silent. However, when his surviving two sons are reproached by Moshe for not completing the ritual, i.e. eating the sin offerings, he finally speaks up:

"But today, did they offer up their sin offering and their burnt offering before the Lord? But [if tragic events] like these had befallen me, and if I had eaten a sin offering today, would it have pleased the Lord?" (ibid 19).

Essentially, Aharon rationalizes their actions saying that they are grief stricken and so God would not be pleased with them continuing with the normal fashion and so they burned the sin offerings instead of eating them, as the eating of the sin offering would have been a joyous act.

How does Moshe react to this defense? Let us first look at he Hebrew and then examine two different translations: וַיִּשְׁמַע מֹשֶׁה וַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינָיו

Translation 1: Moshe listened and it was good in his eyes.

This is the standard translation, that Moshe accepted Aharon's response. However, this is strange for surely Moshe understood this argument beforehand and that is why he stressed to them the importance that despite their grief, they must continue with the ritual.

Therefore, we can give a different translation.

Translation 2: Moshe listened [and responded] "It would have been good in His eyes".

Aharon asks under these circumstances whether it would have been good in God's eyes to continue as normal. Moshe responds that indeed, it would have been.

Which interpretation is correct? We can never know. However, it is only when we study the text in its Hebrew original that we can fully appreciate the different dimensions that it has to offer.

Last year's Sedra Short on Parshat Shemini, entitled: "Aharon's Shame" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2008/03/parshat-shmini-aharons-shame-its-eighth.html

Another Sedra Short on Parshat Shemini, entitled: "Aharon's Four Sons" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2007/04/parshat-shemini-aharons-four-sons.html

Another Sedra Short on Parshat Shemini, entitled: "How They Died" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2006/04/parshat-shemini-how-they-died-parshat.html

Parshat TeTsaveh

Moshe's Absence

This parsha is famed for being the only parsha from Parshat Shemot onwards, that does not contain Moshe's name.

Nevertheless, Moshe remains the central character. At the beginning of the parsha God says to him: "And you shall command the children of Israel, and they shall take to you pure olive oil…" (Shemot 27:20). The parsha then continues in this light with God commanding Moshe the different things he needs to do in order to prepare Aharon for the priesthood.

If this is the case, that Moshe is an important character in the parsha, the absence of his name is even more conspicuous.

There are three ways that the commentaries deal with this question. The most "popular" explanation is the one espoused by Rashi. Moshe was punished. This opinion is based on the idea that the command to build the Mishkan was given after Israel had sinned with the Golden Calf. In the aftermath of the sin, God tells Moshe that He intends to destroy Israel and rebuild it through Moshe.

Moshe responds that this is unacceptable. He says: "If You forgive their sin. But if not, erase me now from Your book, which You have written" (ibid 32:32). God listens to Moshe and does not destroy Israel, and despite the fact that Moshe does the right thing, it was still inappropriate for Moshe to speak to God in this manner. Therefore, God does remove Moshe's name, not from the whole Torah, but from one parsha – our parsha.

While this explanation has a beautiful idea, i.e. Moshe's preparedness to sacrifice everything for Israel, it does not explain why this week's pasha was chosen. Therefore, we will attempt a second explanation.

This parsha is all about Aharon, Moshe's brother. Up until now, Aharon has always played second fiddle to Moshe. Indeed, earlier we saw "I have made you a lord over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker" (ibid 7:1) – that Aharon was subservient to Moshe.

Suddenly, Aharon is being promoted ahead of Moshe. God does not want Moshe to feel jealous of Aharon, so He continuously stresses that "you must command him". God is pointing out that Aharon's priesthood is not coming from the people but from Moshe's authority. The people will accept Aharon's election, because Moshe is the one who is ordering it. This implies that Aharon remains subservient to Moshe.

This is an interesting explanation, however, we are later told "Now this man Moses was exceedingly humble, more so than any person on the face of the earth" (Bemidbar 12:3). This explanation implies a lack of humility within Moshe.

Therefore, we can offer another similar explanation.

Rather than being jealous of Aharon, Moshe was proud of him. He did not want to take away from Aharon's special day. The Torah describes Moshe's humility and caution, by removing his name from this parsha, allowing Aharon to take center stage.

Last year's Sedra Short on Parshat Tetsaveh, entitled: "The Ephod " appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2008/02/parshat-tetsaveh-ephod-they-shall-make.html

Another Sedra Short on Parshat Tetsaveh, entitled: "The Mizbeach HaKetoret – Part 2" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2007/03/parshat-tetsaveh-mizbeach-haketoret.html

A further Sedra Short on Parshat Tetsaveh entitled: "The Mizbeach HaKetoret " appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2006/03/parshat-tetsaveh-mizbeach-haketoret.html

Parsht VaEra

Moshe's Reluctance to Lead

In this week's parsha, Moshe tries to get out of the mission that God gave him.

E already saw that at the Burning Bush, Moshe gave God a number of reasons why he could not go to Egypt to deliver His Message. His excuses included:

• Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh...?" (Shemot 3:11)
• "They say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" (ibid 13)
• "Behold they will not believe me" (4:1)
• "I beseech You, O Lord. I am not a man of words, neither from yesterday nor from the day before yesterday" (ibid 10)
  

God did not get angry with Moshe over these questions, but instead, answered each and every point. However, when Moshe again tried to get out of the mission, God finally got angry with him:

"He (Moshe) said, "I beseech You, O Lord, send now [Your message] with whom You would send." And the Lord's wrath was kindled against Moshe, and He said, "Is there not Aharon your brother…And he will speak for you to the people, and it will be that he will be your speaker, and you will be his leader" (ibid 13-16).

God had no problem with Moshe questioning Him. On the contrary, he expects us to question Him and to not accept His orders blindly. Therefore, He does not get angry with Moshe in the beginning.

However, when Moshe stopped the questions and simply said that he did not want to do it, God got angry. We have the right to question, but we do not have the right to shirk our responsibilities.

Moshe is therefore, punished. By trying to do get out of the mission, God reduced Moshe's role and promoted Aharaon in his place. Aharon would now speak to the people on His behalf.

Last week's parsha ends with Pharaoh worsening Israel's conditions of slavery. Moshe felt that it was God's fault and said so to him, again questioning his role.

"O Lord! Why have You harmed this people? Why have You sent me? Since I have come to Pharaoh to speak in Your name, he has harmed this people, and You have not saved Your people" (5:22-23).

Again, God does not get angry, for Moshe's claim is legitimate. He simply tells him, at the beginning of this week's parsha, that He will soon redeem Israel. He then tells Moshe to go again to Pharaoh and ask him to free Israel. Moshe responds:

"Behold, the children of Israel did not hearken to me. How then will Pharaoh hearken to me, seeing that I am of closed lips? (ibid 6:12)."

It's unclear if Moshe is making excuses again. We had just been told that Israel would not listen to Moshe "because of [their] shortness of breath and because of [their] hard labor (ibid 6:9).

Moshe might be saying that he thinks that the reason they did not listen to him is simply because he's not a good speaker and therefore, God should send someone else.

The passuk does not say whether God was angry or not with him, but what is clear is that God demotes him again. God tells him: "See! I have made you a lord over Pharaoh, and Aaron, your brother, will be your speaker. You shall speak all that I command you, and Aaron, your brother, shall speak to Pharaoh" (ibid 7:1-2).

Aharon will now be the one to speak to Pharaoh.

The Torah is trying to teach us that we do have a right to question as long as our questions are a search for the truth, rather than an excuse to refuse God's law.

Last year's Sedra Short on Parshat VaEra, entitled: "Hashem and the Avot" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2008/01/parshat-vaera-hashem-and-avot-this.html.

Another Sedra Short on Parshat VaEra, entitled: ""Discovering God" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2007/01/parshat-vaera-discovering-god-when.html.

A further Sedra Short on Parshat VaEra, entitled: "Knowing God" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/parshat-vaera-knowing-god-before.html.

Parshat Shemini

Aharon's Four Sons

Aharon had two sets of sons: The older two, Nadav and Avihu; and the younger two, Elazar and Itamar.

Both sets do something wrong in this week's parsha. In the first instance, Nadav and Avihu die and Aharon is silent, in the second, Aharon rersponds to Moshe's rebuke, ans the sons go unpunished.

Let us examine the two cases.

In the first case Nadav and Avihu take coals and incense which: "which He had not commanded them. Fire went out from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord" (VaYikra 10: 1-2). Moshe confronts Aharon with a somewhat cryptic statement "and Aharon was silent" (ibid 3).

In the second instance, Moshe had previously warned the priests not make the same mistake as Nadav and Avihu. They were to to be very careful in the service of God, "to distinguish between holy and profane and between unclean and clean" (ibid 10). They were to stick rigidly to the letter of the law so that they would not die, when working in the Mishkan, a very dangerous place. Moshe told them that the "whole house of Israel would mourn" their loss, but that they were not to mourn and to continue with the worship (ibid 6).

Moshe is therefore furious (notice the use of the root קצפ to describe Moshe's anger) when he "investigated concerning the sin offering he goat", i.e. the sin offering of the people, that "it had been burnt" as opposed to being eaten (ibid 16).

Moshe is concerned that as a result of not doing Israel's sins offering properly, the people had not attained atonement for previous sins. With the spirit of God now resting on the Mishkan and residing amongst the people, there was a real danger that the anger of the Lord would burn (notice again the root קצפ in passuk 6) and literally, burn the people as he had burnt Nadav and Avihu.

In this instance however, Aharon is not silent, defending them from Moshe's anger. Aharon explains that he (and his sons) had previously sacrificed his own personal sin offering (the calf – see ibid 9:2 and 8-11) and tragic "events such as these happened to me. Is it then fitting in the eyes of the Lord for me to eat the sin offering today?!" (ibid 10:19).

It is not easy to understand Aharon's defence, but examining it will perhaps help us explain why the first set of sons did wrong and were punished and in the second case the other set did wrong and were not punished?

Suffice it to say that Elazar and Itamar's concern seems to be that of the people, unlike Nadav and Avihu who seem to operated totally on their own initiative. Elazar and Itamar and Aharon seem to be concerned that their sin offering was not accepted, for how then could have Nadav and Avihu died. Their deaths occurred despite the fact that they had just offered their own personal sin offering. How was it therefore possible for them to eat the sin offering of the people and be the vehicle for Israel's forgiveness, when it seems that their own sin offering went unanswered? Surely it was therefore, better for them to burn the whole sin offering. Let God partake of the people sin's offering, for they, Elazar and Itamar, were unworthy.

Last years' Sedra Short on Parshat Shemini, entitled: "How They Died" appears at http://parshablog.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.html