Acharei Mos
אחרי מות שני בני אהרן בקרבתם לפני ה' וימתו... ואל יבא בכל עת אל
הקדש... בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקדש (טז, א-ג).
After the death of the two sons of Aharon, when they drew close before Hashem and they died… and he shall not enter at any time into the Sanctuary… with this shall Aharon come to the Sanctuary…
There are a number of questions to be raised about this verse. For example, why does it need to mention that the sons of Aharon were two in number – isn’t that apparent from the plural “sons”? And, as we know, there are numerous reasons offered by the Sages* as the cause for this tragedy – why does the Torah explicitly mention only that of Nadav and Avihu’s illegal “drawing close before Hashem”? And why the redundant “and they died”?
One of the mainstays of the Jewish People is the symbiotic relationship between the Torah scholar and his material patron. As with its most familiar exemplars Yissocher and Zevulun, the latter would engage in acquiring wealth so as to finance the former’s preoccupation with Torah study, providing the nation with its critical spiritual energy. So significant is this duo, it is represented within the kabbalistic spiritual hierarchy as the two thighs of the anthropomorphized manifestation of Providence – the right one funneling המכח, Wisdom (or Torah knowledge), and the left הניב, Understanding, serving as the conduit for sustenance. One place where this pops up is the Zohar’s** take on Esav’s archangel making a desperate attempt to overcome Yaakov by dislodging his left thigh. Seeing that he could not directly weaken the Torah scholars of posterity in their dedication, the angel struck at the material support provided by the populace, undermining the Torah output that they are responsible for.
Elsewhere, the Zohar*** describes these two femoral forces as “two halves of the body.” The intent is that just as one half of the body cannot survive without the other, so do the Torah scholars and the affluent depend upon each other for their survival. Hence, Hashem designed the world with indigent scholars and ignorant well-to-dos. The former are physically maintained through the latter. Reciprocally, the latter receive a portion in the merit of the scholarship which they lack. (If this wasn’t the case, we would be left wondering why the scholarly suffer deprivation, a la the query posed to R. Akiva about the poor in general.****) For, while, admittedly, there are some scholars who are financially self-sufficient, the full flowering of Torah scholarship occurs through those who are single-mindedly devoted to it.*****
Now, Nadav and Avihu were also representative of this partnership, as they too are described in the Zohar****** as two halves of a body. Hence we find that Pinchas merited to be infused with both of their souls, as they were really one. This is why he was awarded for his great deed with “My covenant of Peace.”******* Peace is the unification of disparate elements. Nadav and Avihu’s downfall came about through a breach in their natural unity. As the Sages******** observe, the verse describes וחקיו שיא ,********* each one took his firepan – each independently – not bothering to consult with one another. By rectifying this, Pinchas achieved peace and merited their reunited souls.
We can now understand our verse. תומ ירחא , “death” is used in kabbalistic literature as a reference to the decline of one’s spiritual level. What is one cause of such decline? ינש, that which the two brothers, who ought to be united, were divided. ןרהא ינב , which affects the quality of their service of Hashem – as represented by Aharon, the servant par excellance. ותומיו 'ה ינפל םתברקבו , because the pair is divided, the student of Torah is without material support – affecting the quality of his learning – and the patron is without spiritual support. It becomes almost a given that one who commits himself to Torah study – attempting to draw close before Hashem – will suffer the spiritual decline that comes from the concomitant poverty. Furthermore, aside from its effect on one’s spirituality, poverty is inherently deathlike, as the Sages state.**********
How is this to be rectified? The verse continues, ךיחא ןרהא לא רבד , by reuniting (ה"וחא) Moshe with his brother Aharon. As the king, Moshe is associated with the aforementioned Left Flank of sustenance. This is because royalty is associated with Binah, Understanding, which, as mentioned, is the conduit for sustenance. Furthermore, royalty is inherently identified with material wealth, the prosperity of the kingdom.*********** Aharon the Kohen, on the other hand, is associated with the Right Flank of Wisdom, as it was the priests who were the mainstay of Torah scholarship.************ By unifying these two qualities, the symbiotic relationship is restored.*************
In establishing this relationship, who is primarily responsible – the scholar or the patron?
In the third chapter of Koheles************** we find a poem detailing twenty-eight ןיתע, periods of time, which encompass the human experience. They are divided into two groups of fourteen apiece, one for the better and one for the worse, as Hashem designed our world to be balanced between opportunities for both good and evil.*************** It follows that there are two types of wealthy people. One is he who takes advantage of his means to promote Torah, as discussed above. The other, as described in the Zohar,**************** is in the grip of the Dark Side, preventing him from using his wealth in a constructive fashion. As Koheles***************** describes it, וילעבל רומש רשוע יתיאר a chrometophobic who refuses to spend any of his money – as if he was ill, incapable of eating or drinking – is actually saving it to be transferred to another, more worthy individual.
If we take a closer look at this listing, we will notice that almost all of the “times” are prefaced with the prefix lamed, to (e.g., תע תדלל , a time to bear). Two of the few exceptions are the final pair, םולש תעו המחלמ תע, a time for war and a time for peace. Why so?
Perhaps it is because they are not stand-alones, rather a continuation of the previous line, אנשל תעו בהאל תע , a time to love and a time to hate. We suggest that together they serve as commentary on the two typologies of wealthy people. When there is an תע המחלמ , a disconnect between the scholar the would-be patron – the latter a tightwad – you can be certain that he is under the unfortunate spell of the Dark Side. As such, you should initiate an תע אנש , to reject him and his money, as no good can emerge from his support. But if he engenders an תע םולש , generously sharing support, you should respond with an תע בהאל , affection for him, completing the process of fusing the two into a harmonious organism, as if “two sides of one body.”
As such, the primary responsibility for initiating this relationship does not devolve upon the scholar, for if the would-be patron is cool to the matter, it is forbidden for the scholar to cultivate him. Rather it is upon the patron to court the scholar, which can be followed with reciprocal goodwill. This system fits into a general model in spiritual physics in which the lower strata must take the first step toward the higher one in order to unite with it. As Shir ha-Shirim****************** lyrically renders it, ישארל under my head, תחת ולאמש ינקבחת , ונימיו first His left hand (the inferior level, such as our “left thigh”) is , then His right hand (the superior level, such as our “right thigh”) will embrace me.
This, then, is the continuation of our passage. שדקה לא ת"ע לכב אבי לאו , not at all “times” should the scholar (alluded to as שדוק, holiness a byproduct of Wisdom*******************) associate with the wealthy, particularly during an תע המחלמ Only when בזאת יבא אהרן. The word זאת is code for the Attribute of Kingship, 20 which, as we have said, associates with the Left Flank. בזא’ת, when there is initiative taken by the Left, i.e., the wealthy, יבא אהרן, then the Right Flank, as the Kohen alludes to, can enter into the relationship.
_________________________________________________
* See Yoma 53a; Vayikra Rabbah 20:8-10.** 1:171a.*** 3:236a.**** Bava Basra 10a.***** See Tanchuma, Beshalach 20.****** 3:57b.******* Bamidbar 25:12.******** Vayikra Rabbah 20:8.********* Vayikra 10:1.********** Nedarim 64b.*********** [See, for example, Rashi’s comment to Shemos 25:24, based on Yoma 72b and Yevamos 24b, that the diadem upon the Shulchan, seat of the showbread, represents the crown of royalty.]************ See Devarim 33:10.************* An example of this practice is the respect demonstrated by Rebbi, the paragon of Torah, toward the wealthy (Eiruvin 86a).************** 2-8.*************** Ibid., 7:14.**************** 2:65a.***************** 5:12.****************** 2:6.******************* See Zohar 2:121b.