The Torah, in its brilliant succinctness, teaches us volumes of lessons on leadership, conflict resolution, reasoning, and humility in the span of four short verses - specifically VaYikra 10:16-20.
This is the first time we see a real dispute regarding Torah law. Specifically, regarding (one of, per the commentaries) the sin-offering(s), were they to be eaten by the kohanim performing their duties? If there were clear commandments to eat some of the offerings but not others, should it be assumed that all of the offerings should be eaten, or should that be done only when specifically ordered? And if there were differences between one type of the offering (here, out of the three sin-offerings, two were only offered once - the offering of Nachshon and the offering related to the inauguration of the mishkan, and one was offered every rosh chodesh - first of the month, the latter of which would continue to be offered every first of the month moving forward), should all three be eaten, or should only those being offered once be eaten? Finally, if offerings should not be eaten in certain states, such as in a state of mourning, did that condition outweigh or not outweigh the fact that these offerings were being made one time only on this holiest of occasions?
As the Torah quite clearly implies, Moshe was quite angry that one sin-offering, the rosh chodesh offering (per the commentators), was not eaten. Aharon calmly explains why, it was not eaten Moshe realizes his mistake, and he apologizes. The Torah doesn't speak of the incident ever again.
There are dozens of lessons, as I mentioned above, to be learned from this, all of them practical and admirable. But one aspect that I have not seen discussed is Moshe's advocacy on behalf of the people - how would Am Yisrael achieve atonement if the kohanim did not complete the teshuvah loop and eat the animals being offered in place of the people's wrongdoing? If the kohanim could not complete this most basic and critical of tasks, could they be trusted at all to bring objective and complete redemption on behalf of their nation on any other occasion?
Moshe is criticized by some commentators for irresponsibly approaching the issue with anger. And this characterization of his approach is true. But this is also the same man who literally argued with G-d to save the people, and who was ready to sacrifice his own life to spare theirs. It of course makes total sense that he would become so enraged about Aharon and his sons seemingly jeopardizing the fate of the nation, and doing so without "checking" with Moshe first. In other words, Moshe's approach - "zealous advocacy" as we say in the practice of law - while at the same time displaying immediate and complete humility when faced with his own error - does not seem to be wrong in this context. This response, however, must be contrasted with the anger Moshe improperly displayed when he hit the rock later - a decision which, as we all know, cost him his ticket into Eretz Yisrael.
May we all have the discernment and wisdom to know when to display "righteous anger" and holy zealotry - and when it is justified and when it is not.
Comments
Post a Comment