My drash this Shabbat at Temple Beth-El Mekor Chaim in Cranford, NJ ...
Shabbat
shalom.
It was so
nice, last week, looking at the Purim story.
The Jews are
saved from destruction. Grief and mourning are turned into happiness and
celebration.
And now ….
here we are, just one week later in Parashat Shmini, looking at happiness and
celebration turn into grief and mourning.
Nadav and
Avihu, the oldest and second sons of Aaron, killed for what seems to be
a minor transgression.
וַיִּקְחוּ בְנֵי-אַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אִישׁ מַחְתָּתוֹ,
וַיִּתְּנוּ בָהֵן אֵשׁ, וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלֶיהָ, קְטֹרֶת; וַיַּקְרִיבוּ לִפְנֵי
יְהוָה, אֵשׁ זָרָה--אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה, אֹתָם
And Nadav
and Avihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his firepan, and put fire
therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before God, which
He had not commanded them.
. וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה, וַתֹּאכַל אוֹתָם; וַיָּמֻתוּ,
לִפְנֵי יְהוָה
And there
came forth fire from before God, and devoured them, and they died before God.
We don’t
even really know why they die.
The only real
clue we get in the parasha is the command given to Aaron immediately afterwards.
Moses tells
Aaron not to enter the Temple intoxicated.
So maybe Nadav
and Avihu died because they approached God in the wrong state of mind?
The Talmud
says that they were punished for innovation and because they ignored the
authority of Moses.
There’s a
good explanation by the Ba’al HaTurim, who says that אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה
(they were not commanded) actually means אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה - לֹא
(they were commanded not to). In other words, that they deliberately
ignored what they were told not to do.
The deaths
of Nadav and Avihu always fascinated me.
It always
seemed to me that there was some kind of double standard here.
It’s as if
God is holding them up to a different rule than everyone else is expected to
follow.
Even if they
were guilty of being drunk, or of hubris - were they killed because they didn’t
follow the rules?
Because they
decided to innovate rather than follow the community?
We don’t usually
punish people for these kind of things.
But we do
apparently punish leaders for these kind of things.
And what you
see here is a clear and precise punishment for leaders because of the
positions that they held and their failure to uphold them.
We’re accustomed
to this double standard in Jewish life.
Precisely because
we’re Jews, we say that we have a greater obligation, a greater commitment.
We’re not chosen because we’re better; we’re chosen because we have a special
relationship with God.
It’s not an
easy standard - because it’s frequently misunderstood.
It means
that we have an obligation to repair, to serve and to behave better.
It’s not a
license to exploit, or serve ourselves, or get rich at the expense of others.
It’s a license to see how the world works and to partner with others where we
can, to make things better.
It is the
essence of our work at the Joint.
Sixty eight
years ago, this month, Winston Churchill stood in Fulton, Missouri and gave his
famous “Iron Curtain” speech. “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the
Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent,” he
said.
It’s the
classic text about the beginning of the Cold War; maybe one of the most
important speeches of the twentieth century. Every student of politics has to
read and study it. And if you get the chance to read it, you’ll see why the
imagery and language resonate even today.
But the
Fulton speech also introduced into common language a phrase that Churchill had
started to adopt: the “special relationship.”
The “special
relationship” was the exceptionally close political, diplomatic, cultural,
economic, military and historical relations between the United Kingdom and the
United States.
It was a
unique bond that defined everything between the two sides and guided their
leaders.
I was no
fan, as a child growing up in England, of Margaret Thatcher.
But her
dedication to that relationship guided how she saw her role as a leader.
When
Thatcher met with (Soviet leader) Mikhail Gorbachev for the first time, he
tried to drive a wedge between her and the US.
But “I am an
ally of the United States,” she said. “We believe the same things, we believe
passionately in the same battle of ideas, we will defend them to the hilt. Never,”
she said to Gorbachev, “try to separate me from them.”
Thatcher’s legacy and achievements may be topics of legitimate debate.
But there’s
no question about her leadership abilities and her commitment to this belief: that
the special relationship was based on shared ideals and values that were worth
defending by its leaders.
And more
importantly, that the relationship was bigger than the two sides alone.
It “stood” for something. It meant something.
And it was
the job of the leaders to uphold that relationship and its values.
Special
relationships are special because they are held to a different, higher
standard.
Leaders
uphold them because they symbolize a commitment, not an excuse.
They
represent an ideal to strive toward, not a territory to conquer.
They
represent an expectation of service, not a demand for privilege.
Churchill
and Roosevelt, like those who came after them, built their achievements through
decades of trust and dedication. Through service. Through a commitment to greater
ideals. What was the point of their Special Relationship? Churchill said in his
Fulton speech that the ideal of the British-American understanding was to uphold
the idea of Peace and the United Nations.
There are
other Special Relationships that we read about every day. In the news, in
business, in our daily dealings. Relationships based on power, on greed, or
personal gain.
At their
core is the very essence of what struck down Nadav and Avihu. Nadav and Avihu
had been appointed to serve the People. Their role was to serve a greater good
with the public flame but they ignored that ideal. They betrayed the public
trust. They failed the test of leadership.
These double
standards are important because they are at the heart of what we learn in this
week’s Parasha.
Just because
you strive for values and ideals in your work doesn’t mean that your stance is
morally superior. It means that you need to work harder.
Leadership
doesn’t convey more privileges, more rights. It requires more duties, and
more humility.
We need to
hold our leaders – and ourselves – to a different kind of double standard:
upholding the benefit of our people, and working for higher ideals.
All these
are, at their core, lessons in leadership.
And these
lessons are just as critical to us today – - perhaps even more so - than during the time of Nadav and Avihu.
They are just as focused on issues of life and death, and leadership, and
responsibility.
Standing at
Fulton, Churchill saw what Nadav and Avihu did not see. He even used the
concept of the Temple to explain his vision:
“We must
make sure that [the common goal of global responsibility]… is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a
sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that
it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can someday
be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel.
Before we
cast away the solid assurances of national armaments for self-preservation we
must be certain that our temple is built, not upon shifting sands or quagmires,
but upon a rock.
Anyone can
see with his eyes open that our path will be difficult and also long, but if we
persevere together … I cannot doubt that we shall achieve our common purpose in
the end.”
Shabbat
shalom
If you want to receive this blog on a regular basis by email, sign up in the top-right box where it says "follow" ...
