APRIL 4 • 2024 | 45
RATIONALE FOR
THEIR PUNISHMENT
Putting together clues in
the biblical text, some
speculated that they were
guilty of entering the Holy of
Holies; that they had given
a ruling of their own accord
without consulting Moses or
Aaron; that they had become
intoxicated; that they were
not properly robed; that they
had not purified themselves
with water from the laver;
that they were so self-
important that they had not
married, thinking no woman
was good enough for them;
or that they were impatient
for Moses and Aaron to die
so they could become the
leaders of Israel.
Some speculated that the
sin for which they were
punished did not happen
on that day at all. It had
occurred months earlier at
Mount Sinai. The text says
that Nadav and Avihu, along
with 70 elders, ascended
the mountain and “saw the
God of Israel” (Ex. 24:10).
God “did not raise his hand
against the leaders of the
Israelites; they saw God, and
they ate and drank” (Ex.
24:11). The implication
is that they deserved
punishment then for not
averting their eyes, or for
eating and drinking at so
sacred an encounter. But
God delayed the punishment
so as not to cause grief on
the day He made a covenant
with the people.
These are all midrashic
interpretations: true, valid
and important but not the
plain sense of the verse.
The text is clear. On each of
the three occasions where
their death is mentioned,
the Torah says merely that
they offered “unauthorized
fire.” The sin was that they
did something that had not
been commanded. They did
so, surely, for the highest
motives. Moses said to Aaron
immediately after they died
that this is what God had
meant when he said, “Among
those who are near me I will
be sanctified” (Lev. 10:3). A
Midrash says that Moses was
comforting his brother by
saying, “They were closer to
God than you or me.”
The history of the word
“enthusiasm,” though, helps
us understand the episode.
Nadav and Avihu were
“enthusiasts,” not in the
contemporary sense but in
the sense in which the word
was used in the 17th and
18th centuries. Enthusiasts
were people who, full of
religious passion, believed
that God was inspiring them
to do deeds in defiance of
law and convention. They
were very holy, but they
were also potentially very
dangerous.
David Hume, in particular,
saw that enthusiasm in
this sense is diametrically
opposed to the mindset of
priesthood. In his words, “all
enthusiasts have been free
from the yoke of ecclesiastics
and have expressed great
independence of devotion;
with a contempt of forms,
ceremonies and traditions.”
Priests understand the
power, and thus the potential
danger, of the sacred. That
is why holy places, times
and rituals must be guarded
with rules, the way a nuclear
power station must be
protected by the most careful
insulation. Think of the
accidents that have occurred
when this has failed:
Chernobyl, for example,
or Fukushima in Japan in
2011. The results can be
devastating and lasting.
To bring unauthorized
fire to the Tabernacle might
seem a small offense, but
a single unauthorized act
in the realm of the holy
causes a breach in the laws
around the sacred that can
grow in time to a gaping
hole. Enthusiasm, harmless
though it might be in some
of its manifestations, can
quickly become extremism,
fanaticism and religiously
motivated violence. That is
what happened in Europe
during the wars of religion in
the 16th and 17th centuries,
and it is happening in some
religions today.
As David Hume observed:
“Human reason and even
morality are rejected [by
enthusiasts] as fallacious
guides, and the fanatic
madman delivers himself
over blindly” to what
he believes to be Divine
inspiration, but what may
in fact be overheated self-
importance or frenzied rage.
We now understand in
detail that the human brain
contains two different
systems, what Daniel
Kahneman calls “thinking
fast and slow.” The fast brain,
the limbic system, gives rise
to emotions, particularly in
response to fear. The slow
brain, the prefrontal cortex,
is rational, deliberative
and capable of thinking
through the long-term
consequences of alternative
courses of action. It is no
accident that we have both
systems. Without instinctive
responses triggered by
danger we would not survive.
But without the slower,
deliberative brain we would
find ourselves time and again
engaging in destructive and
self-destructive behavior.
Individual happiness and
the survival of civilization
depend on striking a delicate
balance between the two.
Precisely because it gives
rise to such intense passions,
the religious life needs the
constraints of law and ritual,
the entire intricate minuet of
worship, so the fire of faith is
contained, giving light and a
glimpse of the glory of God.
Otherwise, it can eventually
become a raging inferno,
spreading destruction and
claiming lives.
After many centuries in
the West, we have tamed
enthusiasm to the point
where we can think of it as
a positive force. We should
never forget, however, that it
was not always so.
That is why Judaism
contains so many laws and
so much attention to detail
— and the closer we come to
God, the more we need.
The late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks
was chief rabbi of the United Hebrew
Congregations of the Commonwealth,
1991-2013. His teachings can be found
at rabbisacks.org.
QUESTIONS
TO PONDER
Have you ever seen
enthusiasm taken too far?
How do the laws of Judaism
contain and regulate religious
enthusiasm?
Is there room in Judaism,
beyond Halachah, for religious
enthusiasm?