Your Place

Although the description of Mattan Torah itself is found in Parshas Yisro, the Pessukim at the end of this week’d Sedra describe a pivotal moment in our history which took place prior to Kabalas Hatorah, on the fifth day of Sivan. It was on that day that we uttered the words that forever defined our existence as Yidden: “Na’aseh V’Nishma”. These words, which the Malachei Hashares noted were taken from their vernacular, are an indication of our commitment to the Dvar Hashem and its place in our lives. At that moment we declared that our every step was to be defined not by our own preferences, but those of the Torah itself. Although one would assume that the events of that morning matched the lofty spirit of the moment, as we learn the Pessukim, some surprising details come to light.

The Pessukim go into great detail describing the events of the morning, which included various interactions between Hashem and Moshe as well as Moshe and Klal Yisroel, and the bringing of Korbanos. Moshe spoke to the nation, explaining the Halachos of Har Sinai and Kabalas HaTorah, and reading the contents of the Torah to that point—from Sefer Beraishis until Mattan Torah—after which the words “Na’aseh V’Nishma” were actually said.

The Torah then tells us that Moshe, along with Aron HaKohen, Nadav and Avihu, and the Zekenim approached to mountain. This group then had what seems like a remarkable revelation: “Vayiru Es Elokei Yisroel”, they saw Hashem himself, Kabiyachol. Though we cannot fathom what exactly this means, how one can see the Sechina, the Torah does describe what they saw, though the terms are well beyond our comprehension. This series of Pessukim ends with a statement: “V’El Atzilei Bnei Yisroel Lo Shalach Es Yado Vayechazu Es Haelokim VaYochlu VaYishtu.”

Taken on their own, these Pessukim are almost impossible to understand. Of course there are conceptual difficulties—we cannot contemplate a physical visage of the Kudsha Brich Hu—but there are some simple textual points that must be addressed as well. For example, who were the Atzilei Bnei Yisroel mentioned in the final Passuk, and why does the Torah seem to repeat itself, telling us twice that they had some sort of revelation?

For all their detail, these Pessukim are not so readily understandable, and so we turn to Chzal and the Meforshim to explain them. In doing so, however, we find an approach that is perhaps surprising.

Rashi, based on a Medrash that appears both in Vayikra Rabba and in the Tanchuma, explains that Nadav, Avihu and the Zekenim all acted inappropriately: they saw something they should not have, as they were not on the level of Giluy Shechina that they achieved. In fact, they did so with a sense of Gasus Ruach, while they ate and drank, as the Passuk says “Vayechazu Es Haelokim VaYochlu VaYishtu.” Based on this understanding of the events, Chazal explain that the term Atzilei refers to these great people who erred.

In fact, so grievous was their mistake, that they were Chayav Misa, but “V’El Atzilei Bnei Yisroel Lo Shalach Es Yado,” Hashem did not strike these Atzilim. Rashi explains that the Nosen HaTorah did not wish to sully the mood of the hour, the Simchas Hatorah, and so he did not exact punishement on these individuals just yet. Rather, each received their comeuppance at a later time: the Bnei Aharon when they perished in the Ohel Moed, as we learn in Parshas Shimini, and the Zekenim at the time of the Misonenim mentioned in Parshas Behaloscha.

Needless to say, the Mehalech of Rashi is not the Pashut Pshat in the Pessukim. For that we can look to the Ramban who takes a much more positive view of the situation. For example, when the Torah tells us “V’El Atzilei Bnei Yisroel Lo Shalach Es Yado”, Rashi understands that they should indeed have been subject to punishment. The Ramban, however, explains that the Torah is telling us that the leaders of Klal Yisroel were successful in heeding all the Halachos of Har Sinai itself, and they did not venture into territory forbidden to them, and so they were not subject to the Shlichas Yad of Hakdosh Baruch Hu. Similarly, while Rashi understands that the words “VaYochlu VaYishtu” refer to the gall these individuals had to be eating and drinking while experiencing such a Nevuah, the Ramban assumes that this refers to the Simchas Yom Tov that would have been a Chiyuv at the time of Kabalas HaTorah.

Having seen that there is a simple way to understand the Pessukim, it is important to note that Rashi chose a Mehalech of Drush. Interestingly, however, he does hint to the fact that there is another approach. At the end of his comment on the words “Vayechzu Elokim” wherein he explains the Ikur mistake of these individuals—that they acted with Gasus Ruach—Rashi adds the words “V’Olkelos Lo Tirgum Ken.” Indeed Onkelos explains that they were not actually eating or drinking, but that they so enjoyed the fact that their Korban was accepted that it was as if they were eating and drinking.

We must wonder what Rashi chose to point this out at all, however. The approach that he takes is based on the Divrei Chazal in the Medrashim, why does he point out that Onkelos explains these specific words differently? Even the way Rashi does so is notable—he does not mention the approach of Onkelos, just that it exists. Now, the difference between the Pshat of Onkelos and that of Rashi is not exactly nuanced, anyone who learns both will clearly see that “Olkelos Lo Tirgum Ken” so why does Rashi allude to it in such a way?

There are also some general questions which must be answered with respect to approach of the Medrashim as well. First, what was the Aviera of these individuals? The Miforsehi Rashi, such as the Mizrachi and the Sifsei Chachamim, write that they were “Nichnas Lifnim Mimichitzasam”, that they went past their boundary, that is, that they saw something they should not have. Now, clearly no one can see the Shechina unless it is shown to him—how were these individuals seemingly able to do so? If such a vision was Lifnim Mimichitzasam, beyond their level, how were they able to see it? There also seems to be an aspect of Gasus Ruach, that is that they exhibited haughtiness, either by actually eating and drinking while this occurred, or by acting in a way that indicated a level of comfort akin to eating and drinking. Which of these was their Ikur Aveirah, the one for which Chazal tell us they were Chayav Misa?

We must also understand why, if they were in fact Chayav Misa, they did not receive their punishment at once. As we mentioned, Chazal tell us that Hashem did not want to mar the Simcha of the day, but Nadav and Avihu were ultimately killed on the day of the Chanukas Hamishkan, certainly a day of great Simcha. It is clear in the Pessukim in Parshas Shemini that it was the nature of their actions that brought about immediate repercussion—why was that not the case here? Further, Rashi used the term “Himtin”, waited, as opposed to a Lashon that would indicate a delay. In fact, the Medrash does not use this word, it just says “L’Achar Zman Bah Lahem” that it came to them after time. Why did Hashem delay their punishment, and what does Rashi teach us with the term “Himtin”?

In addition, though the individuals involved in this incident received their punishments at two separate times—the Bnei Aharon were punished at the time of the Chanukas Hamishkan and the Zekenim in the incident known as the “Misoninim” mentioned in Parshas Behalosecha—in both cases a separate Aveira was committed. Was their punishment at those times for the Aviera done at Har Sinai or for the Aveira of those later incidents?

Perhaps if we can answer to this final question, however, we will be able to understand these Pessukim, along with the Divrei Chazal, in the proper way. To do so, let us examine just what happened in those later episodes, beginning with the one that is less familiar—the Misoninim.

The Pessukim in Behaloscha are quite brief: the Torah tells us “Vayehi Ha’Am KiMisoninim Rah B’Aznei Hashem”, the people complained bitterly, and Hashem heard them and became angry, “Vativaer Bam Esh Hashem VaTochal B’Kitzei Hamachaneh”, a godly fire raged and consumed those “at the edge of the camp.” It is not clear what their complaints were, later Pessukim discuss other complaints that were lodged at various time, but clearly they raised the ire of Hakadosh Baruch Hu and cause destruction. It is also not clear in the Pessukim exactly where and when this episode occurred.

The Meshech Chachma offers an explanation of both these points. He suggests that the episode of the Misloninim appears a bit out of order in the Pessukim, and actually took place in Nissan of the second year after the Yidden left Mitzrayim, before they traveled away from Midbar Sinai to Paran. Based on this timeline, he concludes that they were complaining about a Tzivuy given to Moshe Rabbeinu at that time: “Kach Es HaLeviim Mitoch Bnei Yisroel.” It was at this time that Moshe was told to separate the Leviim and be Metaher them, so that they may serve as the Meshorsei Hashem.

It was then that the leaders of Klal Yisroel at the time, the Bechorim and Zekeinim began to protest. The R’ Meir Simcha explains that they did not realize just how destructive the Chet HaEgel was to their relationship with Hashem, and so they protested the appointment of the Leviim as the ones to serve in the Mishkan. This was the group of Misoninim, the ones who are referred to as being “B’Kitzei Hamachaneh”, because they were of the upper echelon of Klal Yisroel, as Chazal explain.

By way of support for this idea, R’ Meir Simcha points out that the punishment they received, “Vativaer Bam Esh Hashem VaTochal” is very similar to that of the Adas Korach, the two-hundred and fifty men who protested the Kehuna being given to Aron. It seems, then, that this was the punishment given to those who, not realizing there place within Klal Yisroel, disputed the share given to others.

It is easy to draw the same comparison to Nadav and Avihu as well. Though there are many Pshatim what exactly their Aveira was on that Yom HaShimini, one of the most prevalent is that they were Moreh Halacha Bifnei Rabbam, they challenged the authority of Moshe Rabbeinu to be the final word in determining the Ratzon Hashem. They too went beyond their station, and they two were consumed by an Aish Milifnei Hashem, a heavenly fire.

Perhaps, then, we can understand the approach taken by Rashi based on the various Medrashim.

Nadav, Avihu and the Zekenim indeed saw a vision that was beyond them, they went Lifnim Mimichitzasam, but that itself was not an Aveira, but a test: how would they react? They exhibited a sense of elation, but it was unclear: was this an indication of inappropriate comfort with that which they were experiencing, or a sense of joy that they were Zoche to this Madreigah. Onkelos takes the latter approach, that they were rejoicing that their Avodah had brought them to this level.

Rashi, again based on the Medrashim, explains that their attitudes were more rooted in Gasus Ruach—the lack of Koved Rosh they displayed was an indication that they did not realize they were seeing something beyond their means—but they were not punished at the time. Rather, Hashem waited, to see how they would develop. Would they improve, or would they continue on this path? When they later faltered, each with the same issue—not knowing where they did or didn’t belong, what was within their parameters and what was Lifnim Mimichitzasam—they were punished for their original Aveirah, as well as their continued lack of self-awareness.

Being self-aware, knowing where we are “holding”, what is within our means and what is outside our purview, is an integral part not only of growth, but also of avoiding the pitfalls of Gasus Ruach. With an eye towards our own Mechitzos we can ensure that we too are Zoche to reach heights that we could never imagine.