In this week’s parshah, Aaron’s sons, Nadav and Avihu offer God an “alien fire” that God did not command them to offer to Him. Proceeding their offering, they are consumed by a fire from God, and they die.
I have heard/read this story many times, and each time I read it, I never know how to interpret it. Traditionally, there are many different readings of the story. Some say that Nadav and Avihu were drunk at the time, and it is inappropriate to sacrifice to God while drunk. Later in this Parshah it is stated that there is a prohibition against being intoxicated when entering the ohel moed.
Other interpreters believe that Nadav and Avihu sinned by having too much ambition. The 19th century commentator, Shimshon Rafael Hirsch claimed that Nadav and Avihu sinned in not consulting their elders, or the tradition, and making themselves the authority figures in the situation. Other commentaries say, similarly, that Nadav and Avihu wanted to become the highest leaders of the nation and so they took worship into their own hands to show that they were ready to replace the current leaders, Moshe and Aaron.
There are a few traditional interpretations that read this story in a more positive light. One reading is that Nadav and Avihu were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. This reading proves itself by showing that in the previous perek there is a story of God sending down fire in front of all the people to consume the various offerings, and connects that part of the story with the Nadav and Avihu story, stating that Nadav and Avihu were standing at the site where God’s fire came down, and they just happened to get in the way, they didn’t do anything to cause them to be punished.
Another positive reading, brought by both the Rashba and the Midrash in Sifra, say that Nadav and Avihu saw how much God loved Bnei Yisrael, and that God had showed his love for the people by consuming their offerings, so if they wanted to reciprocate and show God how much they loved Him back. Their problem was that Moshe had not yet commanded them to bring God anything, which is seen as the problem by many interpreters, but their intention was good, they were just over-zealous in their love for God.
I personally would like to view Nadav and Avihu as good guys and not horrible rebelling sinners, but if I want to see them as good, God-lovers, it makes it hard for me to then see God killing them as a good act. Shouldn’t they be rewarded for their love of God, and for taking worship into their own hands to show God how much they love him? I have heard many people say that the point of the story is to show that we cannot take worship, or anything for that matter, into our own hands. We have to know our human limitations and stick to tradition obediently, waiting to be commanded before we act.
I like creativity, I think we should embrace it, but I think that this one story has an anti-creative message. The message here is, I think, that we need to watch ourselves with our innovations, and draw a line on our own personal creativity. This is a value. Boundaries are not necessarily bad, the thing that I think we need to remember is that this story is one story among the many stories the Torah has to offer. There are Torah stories that embrace creativity and innovation. Avraham argues with God, Tzelafchad’s daughters demanded property rights, and Yitro gave Moshe a new way to govern and judge the people. One of the great things about Torah is that it has “shivim panim,” 70 faces, meaning many different interpretations and ideas all within the one Torah.
Comment (1)
i’m drawn to the bat ayin bombers by this. they thought that what they were doing, in trying to blow up that muslim elementary school, was to serve god. ie., they were overzealous in their love of god. and so the strange fire which consumes them is that of the israeli security forces who put them behind bars, rather than reward their actions. an interesting place to take this could be — this should be a lesson about not being overzealous but rather moderate and patient in our relationship with god. that if we race to bring a temple — by blowing up al aqsa, for example — we’re inviting strange fire to consume us. rather, god delivers in his time, not in our impatience.