Goats and Bulls?
And he said to Aharon, Take thee a young calf for a sin offering
Is it a mere coincidence that Aharon was involved in the sin of the golden calf, the egel? Or is the calf or bull required as an offering by the priests specifically because of Aharon’s involvement?
And to the children of Yisra᾽el thou shalt speak, saying, Take a kid of the goats for a sin offering
Where are kids or sheep mentioned earlier in the Torah to explain why this offering is brought for having committed a sin?
Jacob uses a pair of goats to dress up as Esau and deceive his father. Could that be understood as a sin?
Or perhaps the sin offering is a goat because the brothers killed a goat to deceive Jacob about Joseph?
Or perhaps a goat is called for as a sin offering because Yehudah promised one to Tamar in exchange?
Could it be any, all, or none of these?
Does it not seem odd that each of these examples involve someone acting to deceive, in bad faith? If so, might this explain why sin offerings are made to G-d, and not to the injured party: that perhaps not acting with honest intentions is at the core of what constitutes sin?
G-d’s Glory?
And Moshe said, This is the thing which the Lord commanded you to do: and the glory (kavod) of the Lord shall appear to you.
What is kovod, glory, in the Torah? The first time the word is mentioned, Jacob has accreted wealth and reputation:
Jacob has taken all that was our father’s, and from that which was our father’s he has built up all this kavod.
Similarly, in its second use, Joseph, the Viceroy of Egypt, wants his father to know of his status, so he commands his brothers:
And you must tell my father everything about my kavod in Egypt.
From there until the priestly garments are commanded, the word kavod refers only to the kavod of G-d. And in these examples, the word can cause fear, as with the rebuke: In the morning you shall behold the kavod of the LORD, because He has heard your grumblings against the LORD.
Or it can merely refer to great power, as:
Now the kavod of the LORD appeared in the sight of the Israelites as a consuming fire on the top of the mountain.
The meaning seems consistent enough across all these meanings: kavod is the perception of power, of grandeur. Kavod also seems to only be measured by the eye of the beholder.
So why is kavod only mentioned as a visual, and not a spoken word?
Might it be connected to the fact that kavod in the text is usually seen, and the root word for “see” shares the same root word for “fear”?
Is this because seeing does not lead to understanding, love and partnership (as does shomea, “hearing”), but instead inspires other, less elevated emotions, like envy, desire, and fear?
Might this explain why kavod Hashem is not in Sefer Devarim at all (except as a passing reference to Sinai) – because Devarim is about understanding through hearing, instead of any visual displays? That somehow kavod Hashem, driven by awe and fear instead of love and understanding, is a simpler and blunter instrument, more necessary for a people just freed from slavery, than for people who have grown and are ready to be G-d’s representatives in this world?
Sanctified in Death?
And Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aharon, took each of them his censer, and put fire in it, and put incense on it, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He commanded them not. And a fire went out from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moshe said to Aharon, This is it that which the Lord spoke, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come near me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aharon held his peace.
Could this episode be telling us that G-d does not value life in itself? That, really, G-d only values the choices that people make with their lives? After all, everything living is certain to die. So does that mean that G-d only cares about the choices we make when we are living, including, at least in some cases, the manner of our dying?
Can we come to grips with the challenge of being commanded to value life, while accepting that, in G-d’s eyes, a death can be a source of holiness as well?
And if this is the case, then are Nadav and Avihu sanctified because of the nature of their death (in fire, like a sacrifice), or because they became the example for others not to follow? If the latter, isn’t it frightening to contemplate that the value of some lives is merely as exemplars of what not to do?
After all, though their deaths may have been a sanctification, Judaism never calls for anyone to emulate Nadav and Avihu’s actions: quite the contrary. Their example is not one we follow.
Lastly: were their deaths the result of fate? Or did they die because they made certain choices? In other words, does the story of Nadav and Avihu enforce our understanding that we live in a fatalistic world of destiny, or instead in one of free will and consequences?
Hair – or Mental Focus?
After the death of Nadav and Avihu, Moshe tells Aharon, Elazar and Itamar: Rasheychem al-Tifra-oo.
For some reason this is commonly translated as “do not let your hair grow long.” But why? The word for “grow long” in the Torah earlier refers to disarray or confusion, as in:
And the king of Miżrayim said to them, Why do you, Moshe and Aharon, distract (Tifra-oo) the people from their works? get you to your burdens. (Ex. 5:4)
and
And when Moshe saw that the people were in disorder (Tifra-oo) Ex. 32:25
And wouldn’t the same translation work here: Moshe telling the priests not to allow confusion or disarray to break their mental focus?
Is there a strong argument for translating this word differently here than the way it is used earlier?
The only earlier uses of this root word are to describe Joseph’s wife! Whatever could that mean? Did Joseph marry a distraction? Or is a name in the Torah only a name, with no deeper meaning?