[Par-reg] Shmini - Questions for self study

[Menachem Leibtag]

*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

                   PARSHAT SHMINI

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

CHET NADAV & AVIHU  (and a little 'methodology')
1.  The most 'popular' topic in this week's Parsha is the sin
of Nadav and Avihu.  If you are indeed discussing this at the
'shabbos table', ask anyone who is listening (or at least
yourself): to the best of your recollection - what did Nadav
and Avihu do wrong?
  [Most likely you will hear several different answers.  If
  so, before you continue, try to explain why everyone has
  heard so many different answers.]

2.  Now, ask yourself a different question.  In your opinion,
to what degree was their 'sin' intentional, i.e:
(a)  Were they totally aware that they were about to do
  something wrong, but intentionally did it anyhow?
       [what we call 'meizid'.]
(b)  Did they unintentionally do something wrong, but could
  (and should) have been more careful?
  [what we call 'shogeg'.]
(c)  Did they have good intentions (i.e. they intended to do
something that they thought was good - sort of like Aharon's
original intentions at 'chet ha-egel'), but unfortunately it
was something that they did not realize was forbidden?
    [what we call a 'tragedy'.]
    
  Return now to the various answers (i.e. what their sin was)
that you may have raised in question #1.  Categorize those
answers according to these three possibilities.

3.  Return now to these three possibilities:
     Considering Nadav & Avinu's punishment, which possibility
seems to be the most logical one?
     Can you suggest a reason why their punishment may have
been so severe, even if their sin was not intentional?
     [Relate to both when and where their sin takes place.]

4.  Review 8:1-5 and 9:1-6.  As you study and compare these
two sets of psukim, note how Nadav & Avihu's sin takes place
at a 'public gathering' - called to celebrate the dedication
of the Mishkan.  Considering this 'setting', i.e. that their
sin takes place before the entire nation, can you suggest a
reason for the severity of their punishment - even had their
intentions been good!
     In your answer, relate to the phrase "asher lo tzivah
otam" (10:1) in contrast to the phrase "ka'asher tziva Hashem
et Moshe" that is repeated so often in the Torah's description
of the assembly of the Mishkan in Parshat Pekudei (see Shmot
40:16,19,21,23,25,27,29,32) noting how those events took place
on the same day as the events in chapter 9, i.e. the day of
the dedication of the Mishkan.  Note as well Vayikra
8:5,9,13,17,21,29,36 and 9:6!

5.  Next, before we discuss the various opinions of the
commentators (and in order to appreciate the various
opinions), review 9:23 thru10:20, paying attention to how the
Torah tells the story Nadav & Avihu's sin and its aftermath.
Based on these psukim alone, attempt to determine on your own
what Nadav and Avihu's did that angered God.
     How do we know for sure that they sinned?
  In your answer, relate to 10:3, as well as to the 'inserted'
'parshia' from 10:8-11.
     Do the psukim tell us precisely what it was that they did
wrong?  Do they at least 'hint' to what was done incorrectly?

6.  Next, see Vayikra 16:2 and Bamidbar 3:4 & 26:21.  Do these
psukim add any information that we were not aware of in
Parshat Shmini?  How can they shed light on any of your
answers to the above questions?
     Now, let's study the various interpretations raised by
the classic commentators:

7.  See Rashi on 10:2, noting how he quotes the two opinions
found in Eiruvin 63a [i.e. disrespect to their elders, or
entering the mishkan in a state of drunkenness].  What is the
'textual basis' for each of these two opinions?
     In your opinion, are these two opinions based on thematic
considerations supported by a textual 'nuance', or visa versa?
  How would Rashi answer our question in relation to their
intentions (see question #2 above)?
  See also Chizkuni on 10:1-3, noting how he also relates to
  the two opinions of Chazal (quoted by Rashi), and how he
  uses them to provide a very interesting explanation of these
  psukim.

8.  Next, see Ibn Ezra, noting how he explains explicitly that
Nadav and Avihu had good intentions.  Nonetheless, they were
punished.  Does he explain why?  [Again, relate to question #2
above.]  Relate this to Ibn Ezra's explanation of Aharon's
behavior at "chet ha-egel" and the phrase "asher lo tziva
Hashem" in 10:1.
     Can you explain why Ibn Ezra does not quote Rashi (i.e.
either opinion of Chazal)?

9.  Next, see Ramban on 10:1.  Note how his interpretation is
based primarily on his textual analysis of 10:1 itself (and
the obvious parallel to the laws of the mizbach ktoret in
Shmot 30:9).  Note as well how Ramban focuses on the 'fire'
aspect, in both 10:1 and 10:2, and less soon the 'ktoret'
itself.
     How would Ramban answer question #2 above (re: their
intentions)?  Can you explain why?
     In your opinion, why do you think that Ramban does not
quote Rashi (either to agree or disagree with the two opinions
in Chazal - or even Ibn Ezra) before he offers his own
interpretation?  [What can we infer from this in regard to
Ramban's methodology when he studied Chumash?]
     Now, see Ramban on 10:3, noting how he quotes Chazal on a
different issue, and Ibn Ezra; and explains why he disagrees.
  [See footnotes on Ramban 10:1 in either Torat Chaim or
  Chavell editions, noting how they explain that Ramban is
  alluding to concepts in 'kabbala' in this interpretation.]

10.  See Seforno on 10:1, noting how he bases in
interpretation on the juxtaposition in Sefer Shmot between the
laws of the daily olah offering (see Shmot 29:38-42) and the
laws of the mizbach ha-ktoret (see Shmot 30:1-10).
  Note as well how Seforno claims that not only did Nadav and
Avihu have good intentions, they even based their actions on
their own understanding of this juxtaposition of psukim!
     First of all, relate this to question #2 above!
     In what manner is Seforno's interpretation similar to
Ramban's, and in what manner is his interpretation different?
  [Recall our TSC shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh, in relation to
  the location of the laws of mizbach ha-ktoret (in Shmot 30:1-
  9) after the completion of the 'Shchina' unit (chapters 25
  thru 29), and hence the ketoret serves as protection from
  the "shechina".  Relate the conclusions of that shiur to
  Seforno's interpretation!]
  
     Finally, note how Seforno concludes his interpretation,
claiming that this action is precisely what Chazal refer to
(i.e. R. Eliezer's opinion) that 'they taught a law without
consulting Moshe' (quoted by Rashi on 10:2).
  However, the Gemara in Eiruvin appears to provide a
different explanation (re: to 'even though fire comes from
heaven, it is a mitzva to bring our own fire as well').  In
your opinion, would Seforno agree with that interpretation as
well, or is he offering a different explanation for R.
Eliezer's opinion?

11.  In regard to these various opinions, can you explain why
the various commentators search for additional or different
reasons for Nadav and Avihu's sin, even though there are
already two answers provided by Chazal?
  [Note how some of the parshanim attempt to connect their own
  explanation to that of Chazal's (e.g. Chizkuni and Seforno)
  in an attempt to add insight to what Chazal said; while
  others will offer a completely different interpretation, as
  long as it based on a thorough analysis of the psukim (Ibn
  Ezra and Ramban).  As you study these commentators, keep
  this in mind; see if this pattern continues!]

12.  For 'afikomen', see Rashbam on 10:1.  Note how he
provides a very clear and concise explanation for what Nadav
and Avihu did wrong (even though they may have had good
intentions).  Note as well how and why he explains that 10:1
should be understood as 'past perfect' (i.e. 10:1 took place
before 9:24), as the fire in 9:24 and 10:2 is the same!
     Then, see Rashbam on 10:2-3 where he explains this in
greater detail, and note how he beautifully explains 10:3,
even though this pasuk (at first glance) appears to be rather
cryptic.
     Note how Rashbam bases his interpretation on the laws of
Vayikra 21:10-12 (assuming that Aharon was already aware of
those laws -as they were given at an earlier time).  What
major assumption does Rashbam make in regard to these psukim
(that is not written)?  What does he gain by making this
assumption?
     Would you agree that Rashbam's interpretation is the
simple 'pshat' of these difficult psukim?  Explain why yes, or
why not!

THE OHEL MO'ED / OLD & NEW
1.  Recall from Parshat Ki Tisa that in the aftermath of chet
ha-egel, Moshe moved his tent to 'outside the camp' [read
Shmot 33:7, noting its context in 33:1-12].  In that pasuk,
how does the Torah refer to Moshe's tent?  Can you explain why
the Torah chose this specific name - "ohel moed" - to describe
his tent?
     To the best of your recollection, does Moshe's tent ever
return to 'inside' the camp? If so, when?  [Relate to Shmot
25:8.]

2. How does this name 'ohel mo'ed' (n 33:7) relate to the fact
that later on the mishkan is also referred to as an ohel
mo'ed?
     Note the translation of Unkelos for the word "ohel mo'ed"
in Shmot 33:7 and then in Shmot 40:1,34,35, etc. Is it the
same or different? Can you explain why?
     What is the 'shoresh' [root] of the Hebrew word 'mo'ed'?
Relate to the Hebrew word 'va'ad' or 'va'ada' (a committee -
in modern Hebrew).  Relate also to Shmot 25:22 and 29:42-43!

3.  If the word "moed" implies 'metting', 'who would be
meeting whom' in the "ohel moed"?
  Why is the word "mo'ed" also used to describe a 'yom-tov',
as in Vayikra 23:1-4 and Shmot 23:17?  In that context, does
it relate to a 'meeting' of any sort?  If so, who is meeting
whom?
     Based on this discussion, how would you explain the word
'mo'adim' in the phrase "ve-hayu le-otot u-lemo'adim..." in
Breishit 1:14?  In that pasuk, does "moed" imply 'meetings' or
'holidays'?

KASHRUT OR KEDUSHA?
4.  How would you title the laws that are recorded at the end
of Parshat Shmini (i.e. in chapter 11)?
     Relate to the summary psukim in 11:43-47.  If these laws
are more than just 'kashrut', then explain what the more
general title should be, and why this section does includes
certain laws pertaining to what we refer to as kashrut.
     In your answer, relate to what happens if someone eats an
animal that is not 'kosher'.
     Compare these psukim to Devarim 14:3-21.  Do those psukim
deal only with kashrut or is there a more general topic as
well?  How are these psukim different than those in Vayikra?
Relate your answer to the difference between the primary
themes of Vayikra and Devarim.
========

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1.  Review 9:1-6, noting how these psukim introduce the
special ceremony that is to take place on yom ha-shmini - the
day of the mishkan's dedication.  Based on these psukim, what
is supposed to be the 'highlight' of this ceremony?  [Relate
to 9:5-6 & 9:22-24.]
  These psukim also describe a set of korbanot (see 9:1-4).
How do these korbanot relate to that 'highlight'?
     In what manner is this planned ceremony similar to the
events that took place at Har Sinai?  Relate to Shmot 24:1-17,
especially to 24:5-6 and 24:15-16.  How and why is this
parallel significant?  [As usual, relate your answer to the
first Ramban on Parshat Teruma (Shmot 25:1)].
     In what manner to these korbanot relate to the events of
"chet ha-egel"?

2.  Review 9:1-4 once again, and make a chart of all of the
special korbanot that were to be offered on yom ha-shmini.
     Organize your chart according to:
     a)  the korbanot of Aharon vs. korbanot of the people,
 &   b)  korbanot olah, chatat, and shlamim.

     Then, using that chart as a base, compare these korbanot
to the korbanot that were offered:
     a)  during the 7 day milu'im ceremony (see Vayikra 8:1-
36)
     b)  at 'brit na'aseh ve-nishma' at Har Sinai (Shmot 24:4-
6)
     c)  yearly on Yom Kippur based on Vayikra 16:1-5.
     d)  yearly on Shavuot with the 'shtei ha-lechem' (23:17-
19).
While doing so, relate to:
     who must bring each korban (Aharon or the people);
     what categories of korbanot are offered;
What specific and (species of) animal is offered for the
korban. Note that an 'egel' is a baby 'par'; & a 'keves' is a
baby 'ayil'.

3.  Using this table, and relating to 9:4-6 & 9:23-24, attempt
to explain the parallel between the korbanot of yom ha-shmini
and their purpose, the korbanot on Yom Kippur and their
purpose, and the events that took place at Ma'amad Har Sinai?
     Relate to Shmot 24:9-11, 24:15-17, and 40:34-38.
     In what manner does this day (i.e. yom ha-shmini)
coincide with the day of 'hakamat ha-mishkan' described in
Shmot 40:1-2,38?
     In your opinion, which of the korbanot offered on yom ha-
shimini relate directly to the events of Ma'amad Har Sinai,
and which korbanot relate to the events at chet ha-egel.
     Which of these aspects do we find in the korbanot offered
on Yom Kippur, and which of these aspects do we find in the
special korbanot offered on Shavuot (in Vayikra 23:17-21)?

4.  What event at Ma'amad Har Sinai is parallel to Vayikra
9:23?
     What event (and/or warning) at Har Sinai is parallel to
Vayikra 10:1-2?  [Relate to Shmot 19:20-24.]
     Based on that parallel, why are Nadav & Avihu punished?
          [See Chizkuni on Vayikra 10:3!]
     Based on the shiur on Parshat Tetzaveh, why do you think
that Nadav & Avihu thought that it was necessary to offer
ktoret?
          [See Seforno on Vayikra 10:1.]
     In what manner is their sin similar to Aharon's sin at
chet ha-egel?  In your answer, relate to the last phrase in
Vayikra 10:1.
========

PART III - PARSHANUT
1.  As you may recall, Parshat Shmini opens by telling us that
Aharon must offer an "egel" for a korban chatat on yom ha-
shmini, as it was the first day that he officiated in the
mishkan (see 9:1-2).  In your opinion, why must Aharon offer
specifically an egel for his chatat on this day?
     Relate to the fact that during each of the seven days of
milu'im that preceded yom ha-shmini, Aharon offered a par for
a chatat.  [btw, an egel (calf) is a baby par (bull).]

     Now see Rashi on 9:2.  How does he answer this question?
     You may have understood that Rashi explains that Aharon
brings an egel as he needs forgiveness ['kapara'] for his sin
at chet ha-egel.  [It's only an assumption, but 95% of the
time that I have asked this question in class, that is the
answer that everyone gives.]

     Now, read this Rashi once again, this time carefully.
Explain why Rashi begins his commentary with the phrase:
"lehodi'a..." [to make it publicly known...].  Attempt to
arrive at a more precise understanding of how Rashi relates
this egel to chet ha-egel.  Can you explain why?  In your
answer, relate to Rashi's explanation for why Aharon had to
bring a par for his chatat during each of the seven days of
the milu'im.
     Then, see Rashi on Shmot 29:1-2, where he explains why
Aharon must offer a par on each day of the seven day milu'im.
Note how this explanation is different than his explanation
for the egel on yom ha-shmini.  Can you explain why?

     Next, see Chizkuni.  Is his peirush the same as Rashi's
or different?  [See also Ibn Ezra.]  How do they both relate
to the difference between the 'par la-chatat' during the 7 day
milu'im, and the 'egel la-chatat' on yom ha-shmini?  How does
Rashi relate to this?
     Then, see Ramban on this topic / in his peirush to 9:2
towards the end - "ve-hinei ha-korbanot ha-eilu...", and note
how and why he argues with Rashi.  How does he explain why
Aharon must bring a par during the seven day milu'im?
     Can you explain the reason for these respective opinions
of Rashi & Ramban?  Be sure to relate to their controversy
concerning when chet ha-egel took place, i.e. before the
commandment to build the mishkan (Rashi) or afterwards
(Ramban).  [Finally, see Tanchuma on Vayikra 9:2.]

2.  As you review the opening psukim of the Parsha (9:1-6),
note how God informs Moshe that 'kvod Hashem' would appear -
once Aharon & Bnei Yisrael would offer a certain set of
korbanot.  [Note especially 9:4 & 9:6, in their context.]
     Then, quickly review 9:6-24, noting how these
commandments are fulfilled.  Based on the conclusion of this
chapter, did kvod Hashem indeed return immediately upon the
completion of these sacrifices, or did something else happen
in between?  Can you explain why?  In your answer, relate to
9:23!
     Then, see Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and Chizkuni on 9:23,
and enjoy!

3.  On what day of the month (of Nissan) did yom ha-shmini
take place?  Consider the following sources:
     Shmot chapter 40, especially 40:2,17,34-35.
     Vayikra 1:1-2; 7:37->8:4; 8:33->9:5
     Bamidbar 7:1-11,88-89.
    [Note, that since yom ha-shmini was preceded by the seven
    day 'milu'im' ceremony, then it depends if the seven day
    milu'im began with the erection of the mishkan by Moshe on
    the first of Nissan as described in Shmot 40:1-2,17 or 7
    days earlier on the 23rd of Adar. ]
     This is a very complicated sugya, and the source for a
major controversy among the commentators.  Be sure to see:
     Rashi on Vayikra 9:1 and Vayikra 8:2
     Ibn Ezra (aroch) & Ramban on Shmot 40:1!
     Ramban on Vayikra 8:2 !

                              be-hatzlacha,
                              menachem