Kohen - First Aliya - 16 p'sukim - 9:1-16
[S> 9:1 (31)] On the 8th day, Aharon was commanded to offer the first set of sacrifices (not counting the korbanot that were brought during the previous preparatory week). Specifically, "personal" korbanot - an EIGEL (calf) as a CHATAT and an AYIL (ram) as an OLAH.

Then the People offer a goat as a CHATAT and a calf and a lamb as OLOT. Then a bull and ram as SH'LAMIM.

Ponder this... It is “obvious” that the CHATAT of a calf is an atonement for the Sin of the Golden Calf and/or an indication that G-d has forgiven the people for the Golden Calf.

In one context the Golden Calf was called "the calf that Aharon made". Therefore, the calf on the Eighth Day is his CHATAT. The calf of the people is an OLAH, rather than a CHATAT. OLAH is brought for thoughts of certain sins; CHATAT is for acts. Those of Bnei Yisrael who DID whatever we will call it, the EIGEL, were killed. The rest of us were "guilty" of indecision, fence- sitting, confusion - "sins" of thought. Our calf was an Olah.

Aharon's OLAH was a ram, reminding us of Akeidat Yitzchak. No sin associ- ated with that. (Olah is not always about sin.) Our CHATAT was a goat, reminding us of our former collective sin of the selling of Yosef and deception of Yaakov with the help of goat’s blood.

SDT The Kohen Gadol removes his gold garments before entering the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, because the "accuser does not become the defender". Why then would we not make the same argument against Aharon's offering of a calf as a Korban? Rashi indicates that the super-sensitivity involved here applies inside the Mikdash, but not outside (at the Altar).

Here's a general answer to this question and others. Horns from the bovine family of animals are not acceptable as a Shofar. On the other hand, look at these korbanot. And the fact that the Para Aduma is considered an atonement for the Golden Calf.

The K.G. didn't enter "inward" with gold, but what greeted him inside was an ARON plated with gold, gold rings, gold-covered poles, a solid gold lid, and K'RUVIM of gold.

Bottom line: G-d is the Boss. If He commands us to use gold, we use it. If He says no, we don't. Calf, cow, yes, no. Fine with us. Yes AND no, just as G-d commands. Apply your own logic and do what you decide is best - WRONG. Not up to us. Halacha tells us what is appropriate.

SDT Many commentaries say that the Eighth Day was Rosh Chodesh Nissan. This means that the seven preparatory days began in Adar. There is, however, another possibility: The inauguration of the Mishkan began on Rosh Chodesh and the Eighth Day was the 8th of Nissan. What supports this idea is the opinion that the people who approached Moshe about their being TAMEI for the first Pesach (a year out of Mitzrayim). There is a tradition that they were Misha'el and Eltzafon who tended to the bodies of Nadav and Avihu. This could work out only if the Eighth Day was the 8th of Nissan.

Levi - Second Aliya - 7 p'sukim - 9:17-23
The Torah continues the details of the opening set of sacrifices, the accompanying Mincha, the Sh'lamim, what parts go on the Mizbei'ach. This short Aliya concludes with Aharon raising his hand(s) to the people and blessing them.

The Torah spelled YADAV, his hands, without the second YUD, making the word resemble YADO, his hand. From here comes the tradition of the kohanim holding their two hands together as one during Birchat Kohanim.

SDT Baal HaTurim says that the three parts (3 p'sukim) of Birchat Kohanim correspond to the three kinds of korbanot that Aharon brought on this first day of official functioning of the Mishkan.

May G-d bless you and protect you... from sin (CHATAT), the second pasuk uses words that tie in with OLAH, and the SHALOM of the final pasuk corresponds to SH'LAMIM.

Shlishi - Third Aliya - 12 p'sukim - 9:24-10:11
A Divine Fire descended and consumed all that was on the Mizbei'ach. The people reacted to this miracle with prayers of praise to G-d and reverence for Him.

Then Nadav and Avihu, two sons of Aharon (who had been assisting Aharon), took censers with fire and offered incense before G-d. The fire was their own, not that of the Mizbei’ach. A Divine Fire struck them dead, con- suming them from within, leaving them outwardly unmarked.

Moshe's words of consolation to Aharon are met with Aharon's silence.

Moshe calls two cousins, Misha'el and Eltzafan, sons of Uziel, to remove the bodies. (That Aharon would not be allowed to become TAMEI to his sons is known from the rules of Kohein Gadol. But neither were Elazar and Itamar allowed to tend to the bodies. Although they were not kohein gadol, they had been anointed to the k'huna which gave them the status of Kohein Gadol. Hence, the cousins, who were Leviyim had to be called.)

(Almost in reaction to the terrible tragedy,) the Torah next sets down several rules (mitzvot) for kohanim, to save them from endangering their lives.

Kohanim may not enter the Mikdash with long hair (a monthly trim was required) [149,L163 10:6], nor with torn garments [150,L164 10:6]. They may not leave the Mikdash while performing their sacred work [151, L165 10:7].

[p> 10:8 (4)] Furthermore, kohanim may not enter the Mikdash while under the influence of wine [152,L73 10:8]. Violations of any of the above would be a show of disrespect to G-d. [Some commentators infer from this last prohibition that Nadav and Avihu had drunk wine before they entered the Mishkan. Others offer different reasons for their deaths.]

MITZVA WATCH
With Mitzva #152, we have an example (there are others) of a mitzva that has a specific context and application from the Torah, but the scope of the mitzva is much wider. The Written Word forbids a Kohen from doing sacred service while having recently drunk wine. Sefer HaChinuch gives a second definition for mitzva, based on the Oral Law. Namely, a halachic authority may not render a decision (psak) while under the influence of alcohol. (It seems that this prohibition does not apply to divrei Torah and the like - only to halachic decisions.) This prohibition is NOT a case of Rabbinic extension of the scope of Torah Law; it is part of the Oral Law on the D’Oraita level.
It is interesting to note that the Sefer HaChinuch, whose final paragraph of each Mitzva presents its applicability – who, when, and where, says that this mitzva (152) applies to men and women in the time of the Beit HaMikdash, that is for the first part of the mitzva. As to the second application of the mitzva, this, says the Chinuch, applies in all times and all places, to men AND women who are qualified to render halachic decisions. Think of the ramifications of that statement for our times.

SDT Two of the other "traditions" as to what Nadav and Avihu did wrong are that they decided a point of halacha on their own, in the presence of their "rebbi" (Moshe Rabeinu), and that they did not consult with anyone in this halachic matter. It behooves us to learn a serious, sobering lesson (among others) from all of the possible flaws in the actions of Nadav and Avihu. One must be careful when it comes to deciding the correct halacha for oneself and his family. Consulting a Rav is an excellent "habit” to get into.

R'vi'i - Fourth Aliya - 4 p'sukim - 10:12-15
[P> 10:12 (9)] Moshe next commands Aharon, Elazar, and Itamar to eat the Minachot and parts of the various offerings of the day. (Some was to be eaten only by them, in the area of the Mishkan; other parts could be taken “home” and shared with their families.) This was an unusual command, since generally, kohanim who have suffered a close loss would not eat of the sacred foods on the day of the burial. Nonetheless, Moshe tells them that he was thus commanded to tell them.

Chamishi - Fifth Aliya - 5 p'sukim - 10:16-20
When Moshe realizes that the CHATA’OT (sin offerings) were burned, he gets angry with Elazar and Itamar (and Aharon, says Rashi, but to avoid a brother-brother confrontation and shaming Aharon, Moshe addresses his nephews) for not eating of the korbanot, as they were instructed to do.

Aharon defends his sons' behavior by explaining that the loss of their brothers would make a "business as usual" attitude unacceptable in G-d's eyes. Moshe accepts Aharon's words.

Our Sages teach us to learn from Moshe Rabeinu. Just as he was not embarrassed to admit that he did not know (or did not remember) learning a point, so should we readily admit it when we do not know something.
It is hard not to notice that this episode with Moshe and Aharon & sons is only 9 p’sukim long, yet it spans two Aliyot. Perhaps the pause in the middle is to give us time for things to sink in and relate to the emotions that are involved.

Shishi - Sixth Aliya - 32 p'sukim - 11:1-32
[P> 11:1 (28)] Two and a half sedras devoted to sacred meat (i.e. korbanot), and now we have the presentation of the animals we may and may not eat. There is a positive mitzva to check the signs of kashrut of a mammal to determine its kashrut status [153, A149 11:2]. It is forbidden to eat of animals that lack one of the signs of kashrut (split hoof and cud chewing), and of course, those that lack both] [154,L172 11:4]. The Torah names three animals that chew their cud but do not have split hooves - the camel, shafan, arnevet, and one that has a split hoof but is not a ruminent - the pig. We may not eat their meat, and handling their carcasses renders one TAMEI, ritually unclean.

Notice that Shafan and Arnevet are not translated. Rabbit and hare are from modern Hebrew and are probably not what the Torah was referring to. Coney and rock badger are popular translations, but we're not sure. Rabbi Moshe Tendler thinks that they might be the alpaca and llama (which are both ruminants). Hyrax and Jerboa are other candidates.

Some scholars explain that we can consider rabbit and hare-like mammals to be cud-chewers because they regurgitate or eliminate their partially digested food and eat it again later on. Digestion is completed this second time around. This resembles the process of chewing the cud and can conceivably be considered as such.

Likewise, one is required to examine fish for scales and fins [155,A152 11:9]. It is forbidden to eat non-kosher fish [156, L172 11:11].

MITZVA WATCH
Think about this: If the Torah only prohibited fish without scales (for example) and not commanded us to examine the fish to see if it's kosher, we would examine fish for scales to determine if they are kosher anyway. Why, then, is examining fish for its kosher signs a mitzva among the 248 positive members of the 613? The question, and the answer as well, is that there are some mitzvot that it was "unnecessary" for G-d to command us; we would do them anyway. However, "G-d wanted to benefit Yisrael, therefore He heaps upon us Torah and Mitzvot". This is the mishna of Rabbi Chananya b. Akashya at the end of Makot, the one borrowed for the end of each chapter of Pirkei Avot.

There are other ways to look at this issue.
The positive mitzvot and prohibitions of kashrut interact as in the following example: A person goes into a restaurant for dinner and has a delicious meal. On his way out, he meets someone who asks him if the restaurant is kosher. He embarrassingly admits that he assumed it was but didn't check for a certificate of kashrut when he went in. He looks around and discovers to his relief that in fact the restaurant has a reliable hashgacha.

He would be in no violation of the prohibitions, but he would be in non-fulfillment of the (spirit of the) positive mitzva to check for signs of kashrut.
With birds, the Torah lists 20 kinds of birds (not species, families, genus, etc. - kinds) that are not kosher [157,L174 11:13]. All the rest of the birds are kosher. So how do know if a particular bird is in one of the forbidden families or not? Usually, the answer is TRADITION. We eat chicken etc. because we have an unbroken tradition that it is kosher.

Finally, the Torah specifies four types (8 families) of locust that we may eat. Checking their identities is a mitzva [158,A151 11:21]. All other insects are not permitted to us. We have lost the ability of identifying kosher locust, so we don't eat any of them. [Some Yemenites claim they have the necessary traditions to identify the kosher varieties. As to whether they eat locust or not, ask your nearest local Yemenite.]

[S> 11:29 (10)] Next the Torah deals with the ritual impurity of creeping things [159, A97 11:21].

Sh'vi'i - Seventh Aliya - 15 p'sukim - 11:33-47
Minding the laws of "purity" of food and drink is a mitzva [160,A98 11:34]. (It is one of the details of these laws that "requires" us to wash for karpas at the Seder table, and in general before wet food, all year round.)
[S> 11:39 (9)] Once again, the Torah presents the rules of the carcass of animals and the resulting ritual impurity from contact of various types [161,A96 11:39]. The Torah reiterates the prohibition of eating "creepy things" [162,L176 11:41], as well as worms and insects that infest fruits and vegetables [163,L178 11:41], seafood and other life-forms that inhabit the water [164,L179 11:43], and maggots that develop in rotting food material [165,L177 11:44].
All of the above is meant to elevate the Jew's soul to the sanctity that G-d wanted us to attain. For us, there is a direct link between body and soul, the spiritual and the mundane. The laws of kashrut bring the point home.
Baal HaTurim points out that the last pasuk in the sedra begins and ends with a LAMED, which total 60, reminding us of the significance of 60 in nullification in several areas of forbidden foods.
The last 3 p'sukim are reread for the Maftir.

Haftara - 40 p'sukim - Shmuel Bet 6:1-7:17
The Haftara contains the story of Uza who touched the Aron to prevent it from slipping (as he perceived it) and was struck dead as a result.

Basically, we can say that Uza's "sin" was “excessive familiarity with the sacred Aron”. This same behavioral flaw was responsible for the demise of Nadav and Avihu in the parsha, hence the choice of this portion for the Haftara.

Rabbi Julian G. Jacobs in his A Haftara Companion makes a very astute observation. He note that Uza's father is Avinadav, a name that immediately reminds us of Nadav and Avihu.

King David, on the other hand, dances with joy before the Aron on its return to Yerushalayim. His wife Michal criticizes him for his "inappropriate" behavior, but she is wrong in this case. It is not easy to find the right way of expressing one's religious fervor without over- stepping one's bounds and also without underdoing things.

The Haftara also tells of the original plan for David to build the Mikdash, and then the prophetic message of Natan, that David will not, but his son Shlomo will. The House of David has a different meaning, the Davidic line.

[The Parshat Shmini Homepage]
[The TORAH tidbits Homepage] [How to use TORAH tidbits]
[About The OU/NCSY Israel Center] [About TORAH tidbits]
[www.ou.org]