Summarized by Nadav Schultz. Translated by David Strauss
There are several characters in the Torah who appear for only a brief moment and then disappear from the scene, without even a hint being offered as to what became of them. In such cases, we have no choice but to turn to the Midrashim of Chazal, who try to complete the missing picture.
The Killing of Chur
One of these figures appears at the end of our parasha. I refer to the mysterious figure of Chur, about whom the Torah says the following:
And Moshe rose up, and Yehoshua his minister; and Moshe went up into the mount of God. And to the elders he said: Tarry here for us, until we come back to you; and, behold, Aharon and Chur are with you; whoever has a cause, let him come near to them. (Shemot 24:13-14)
When Moshe ascends the mountain of God, he entrusts the people of Israel to the hands of two men – Aharon and Chur. This is not the first time that this pair is mentioned. At the end of Parashat Beshalach, the Torah describes the war against Amalek. The Torah describes a delegation of the leaders of the people ascending to the hill overlooking the battlefield:
So Yehoshua did as Moshe had said to him, and fought with Amalek; and Moshe, Aharon, and Chur went up to the top of the hill… But Moshe's hands were heavy; and they took a stone, and put it under him, and he sat thereon; and Aharon and Chur held up his hands, the one on the one side, and the other on the other side; and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. (Shemot 17:10, 12)
Here, too, Aharon and Chur are described as part of the nation's leadership; they ascend to the top of the hill in order to support Moshe, and it is reasonable to assume that Chur, Aharon, and Moshe formed the triumvirate that led the people. It is clear that the three were not equals, but there is no doubt that Chur was one of the nation's outstanding leaders – at the very least, the third in the hierarchy of leadership.
Therefore, the disappearance of Chur from the picture later in the book of Shemot is even more difficult. If he were a marginal figure, needed for the hour and then disappearing, that would be understandable. But seeing that he is a central figure in the leadership of the people, the Torah's resounding silence regarding Chur is puzzling.
The Midrash attempts to complete the picture, linking Chur's disappearance to the sin of the golden calf. The Midrash itself deals with Aharon's conduct in the sin of the golden Calf, for which it offers the following explanation:
As it is written (Shemot 32:5): "And when Aharon saw it, he built an altar before it." What did he actually see? Rabbi Binyamin ben Yefet said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: He saw Chur lying slain before him. (Sanhedrin 7a)
According to the Midrash, when the people sinned with the golden calf, this did not pass without any opposition at all. Chur stood up to the frenzied mob, demanding that they give up their plan. This stand invites a comparison to Kalev the son of Yefuneh – both of them came out in protest against the evil of the people. But it also highlights the gap between them – Kalev merited to enter the Land and receive a portion there, while Chur was killed.
What created the gap between them? It seems that the gap lies in the fact that Kalev was contending against a despairing nation. A despairing nation does not kill when opposition rises against it, but only burrows deeper into its despair. However, Chur was contending against an incited nation. When a nation is incited, it is more dangerous, and in some cases will kill anyone who gets in its way.
The Rise of Nadav and Avihu
However, in order to understand the story of Chur according to the Midrash, it may be necessary to compare him to another pair – Nadav and Avihu. This pair is also mentioned at the end of our parasha:
And to Moshe He said: Come up to the Lord, you, and Aharon, Nadav, and Avihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship you afar off. (Shemot 24:1)
Here, too, we are dealing with the senior leaders of the people of Israel, but this time Chur is not included among them. There seems to be a fundamental difference between the path of Nadav and Avihu and that of Chur. What exactly was their dispute, and what did each side believe? To this end, we must turn to the question of the location of the section dealing with civil law, the core of Parashat Mishpatim.
The section is situated between the descriptions of the two assemblies at Mount Sinai, the giving of the Torah in chapter 20 and the covenant of the basins and the revelation in chapter 24. There is a dispute regarding the relationship between the two events – whether it is the same event or two different events. But in any case, a pressing question arises: Why was it necessary to interrupt between the two assemblies, and why with the section dealing with civil law? Ostensibly, the Torah should have juxtaposed the two assemblies, and only then brought the section dealing with civil law!
Rashi, following the Midrash, explains the beginning of our parasha as follows:
"And these are [ve-eileh] the judgments" – Wherever the term "these are" [eileh] is used, it cuts off the preceding section from that which it introduces; but wherever the term "and these are" [ve-eileh] is used, it adds something to the former subject. So also here: Just as the former commandments [= the Ten Commandments] were given at Sinai, so too these were given at Sinai. (Rashi, Shemot 21:1)
The Midrash understands that Parashat Mishpatim is presented immediately after the revelation at Mount Sinai in order to teach us that the entire portion was given to Moshe at Mount Sinai. However, this does not explain why, after the section dealing with civil law, we read of another event at Mount Sinai.
It would seem, therefore, that we must fill in what is not stated explicitly in the Midrash, but which is strongly implied. The first assembly at Mount Sinai described by the Torah is a spectacular and unique event. In this respect, the event represents the great ideals to which the nation as a whole, and each individual within it, should aspire. But the Torah is not satisfied with the great ideals, and a moment after that sublime encounter it moves on to the section dealing with civil law. Through the latter, the Torah teaches that it is not only a body of great ideals. The meaning of the Torah is also found in the minutiae – the many laws that surround the Jew at every moment. Only after the people of Israel had labored with the Oral Law associated with Parashat Mishpatim could they merit the second assembly – the one described at the end of the parasha.
It would seem, however, that Nadav and Avihu understood things differently. The parasha describes their ascent to the top of the mountain:
And they saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand; and they beheld God, and did eat and drink. (Shemot 24:10-11)
Rashi and the Ramban disagree about this vision. Rashi maintains that because of this attempt to catch a glimpse of God, the sons of Aharon made themselves liable to death. However, the Ramban maintains that their conduct was fitting and proper. In any case, there is no doubt that we are dealing with a dangerous situation – a situation in which, while beholding God, Nadav and Avihu are eating and drinking.
It would seem that according to their understanding, the essence of the religious experience is found in the ecstatic feeling – in the momentary experience and the great ideals it seeks to represent. This spirit found expression at the time of the death of Nadav and Avihu. In the Midrash,[1] opinions differ regarding the sin committed by Aharon's sons. Among the suggestions are the following explanations: they entered the Temple drunk or with disheveled hair, they taught Halakha in the presence of their teacher, or the explicit sin mentioned in the verse of offering a "strange incense." What all of these sins have in common is that they involve a loss of "brakes": One who drinks wine loses his sense of shame; one who lets his hair grow long does not try to fight the nature that leads to the growth of his hair; one who teaches Halakha in the presence of his teacher is unable to accept the restrictive sway of authority; one who burns "strange incense" is unable to confine himself to the boundaries commanded by God.
Here Chur presents himself as an antithesis to the approach adopted by the sons of Aharon. Chur is a "man of minutiae," a man of Halakha, the one about whom Moshe says:
And to the elders he said: Tarry here for us, until we come back to you; and, behold, Aharon and Chur are with you; whoever has a cause, let him come near to them. (Shemot 24:14)
Chur was appointed to solve the people's problems and to settle their disputes, it would seem, by virtue of his mastery of the details of Halakha. He can transmit God's laws to the people who need decisions on such matters.
But in the end, both approaches fail: Nadav and Avihu die during the dedication of the Mishkan, and Chur is killed by the mob during the sin of the golden calf. We have explained the problematic nature of the approach of Aharon's son; what is the flaw in the approach of Chur? Where did Chur sin in being a man of Halakha, a man of the details?
Aharon – The Balance Between the Extremes
Chur's service of God was based entirely on the norms of Halakha. Within this framework he left no room for the expression of emotions. A person who does not allow himself to feel emotions within the framework of his worship of God will eventually collapse. Sometimes this will lead to a total abandonment of God, and sometimes it will turn the person into a broken vessel. In any case, it is impossible to live a full and healthy life of serving God without a significant emotional experience.
Between the two problematic extremes described – that of Chur, and that of Nadav and Avihu – stands Aharon the priest. Aharon lives in both worlds: he is a master of the minutiae of the daily halakhic world, and thus he can remain at the foot of the mountain and answer any question posed to him. This, however, does not detract from his ability to experience exalted experiences of the reality of God, and together with his sons he too ascends the mountain to hear the word of God up close.
In the end, Aharon represents the ideal combination: a servant of God who is able to live the life of Halakha in the minutest details of his life. However, this does not turn him into a halakhic "robot" who mindlessly fulfills his halakhic obligations. In parallel to his halakhic observance, Aharon experiences a colorful and deep world of emotions in his service of God – a world that allows him to join Moshe, and, together with him, ascend the mountain of God.
[This sicha was delivered by Harav Mosheh Lichtenstein on Shabbat Parashat Mishpatim 5779.]
(Edited by Yair Lichtman)
[1] Vayikra Rabba, Parashat Shemini, parasha 20.
No comments:
Post a Comment