If the Tune Fits, Sing it
And Hashem spoke to Aharon saying: Wine and intoxicating beverages you should not drink – you and your sons with you – when you come into the Ohel Moed. And you will not die. This is an eternal law for your generations. (It is) in order to distinguish between the sacred and profane, and between the defiled and the pure. And to teach Bnai Yisrael all the laws that Hashem spoke to you through Moshe. (Sefer VaYikra 10:8-11)
Hashem’s commandment to Aharon
Parshat Shemini describes the eighth day of the consecration of the Mishkan – the Tabernacle. During the previous seven days, Moshe performed the avodah – the services. On this day, Aharon and his sons performed the avodah. The joy of the day was marred by the death of two of Aharon’s four sons. Nadav and Avihu presented an offering of incense not ordained by the Torah. A flame descended from the heavens and consumed them.
Following this tragedy, Hashem communicated a commandment to Aharon.[1] A kohen – a priest – after drinking wine or when intoxicated may not serve in the Mishkan. He also told Aharon that the same restriction applies to one who is deciding an issue of halacha. He may not render a decision if he has drunk wine or is intoxicated.[2]
One mitzvah including two prohibitions
These two prohibitions seem to be only loosely related. The first prohibition applies only to kohanim – priests – performing avodah in the Mishkan or the Bait HaMikdash. The second prohibition applies to anyone who decides a matter of halacha. This person may be a kohen or he may not. A person who is otherwise qualified may decide such issues; he need not be a kohen.
Ostensibly, these two prohibitions also address different issues. The prohibition against the kohen performing avodah after drinking wine or when drunk seems to derive from the sanctity of the activity in which the kohen is engaged. It is not appropriate for a person who has partaken of wine or is otherwise intoxicated to perform avodah before Hashem. The prohibition against deciding halacha after drinking wine or when intoxicated seems to reflect the necessity to decide such issues with care and precision.
Despite the apparent differences between who is subject to each prohibition and in the concern that each reflects, Hashem clearly linked them together when presenting them to Aharon. Rambam – Maimonides – regards this aspect of the presentation as significant. He includes both prohibitions in a single mitzvah.[3] The inclusion of divergent prohibitions in a single mitzvah is unusual. Usually, a mitzvah is specifically defined and the components of the mitzvah are unified within this definition.[4] How can the two prohibitions communicated to Aharon be unified within a single mitzvah? This question is not esoteric. Let’s investigate some of the solutions to this problem and we will discover that that have very important, practical implications.
Precious activities require precision
Sefer HaChinuch suggests that both avodah in the Mishkan and deciding halacha are “precious” activities. Such activities should only be performed when one is in a settled state of mind and capable of acting with the requisite precision.[5] Let’s consider this interpretation of the mitzvah. Sefer HaChinuch is suggesting a definition of the mitzvah that encompasses both prohibitions. He unifies the activities included in the commandment within the category of activities that are precious and suggests that the commandment establishes a standard for such activities. The difficulty with this solution is that the unifying characteristic – activities that are precious – is not clearly defined. One can imagine that many other activities would meet this criterion. Also, the “precious” nature of the avodah in the Mishkan generates many other requirements and restrictions that are not applicable to deciding halacha. Avodah is performed only by kohanim. They must be of a certain age. They cannot have certain physical blemishes. When performing avodah, they are required to wear specific vestments. None of these or many other requirements are associated with deciding halacha.
There are difficulties in Sefer HaChinuch’s position. However, he makes a very insightful and important observation. He explains that the requirement of sobriety when performing service is not engendered solely by the imperative to treat the activity with respect. He defines the nature of the requirement. It is a consequence of the need for absolute focus and precision. Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik Zt”l suggests an interpretation of the mitzvah and its prohibitions that is based upon the same insight. Let us first review his interpretation and then consider its implications.
A kohen must be fit to decide halacha
Rav Soloveitchik suggests that the two prohibitions included in the commandment are not subsumed within a single encompassing definition. How are they unified in a single commandment? He explains that they are unified through the definition of the prohibition upon the kohen. A kohen who is unfit to render a decision in halacha because of drinking wine or intoxication is unfit to perform avodah. In other words, the two prohibitions are included in a single commandment because they are very closely related. In fact, one is dependent upon the other. A kohen performing service in the Mishkan must be fit to render a halachic decision.[6] This succinct interpretation provides an explanation for the unification of these two prohibitions within a single commandment. It also answers other questions. Let us begin by considering one of these. This will reveal to us the practical aspect of Rav Soloveitchik’s interpretation of the mitzvah.
Both the prohibition against serving in the Mishkan after drinking wine or when intoxicated and the prohibition against rendering a decision in halacha are included in a single mitzvah. Rambam includes this mitzvah among those related to kohanim. Accordingly, in his discussion of the mitzvah, he first describes the prohibition regarding kohanim and then the prohibition against deciding halachic matters when intoxicated. Seemingly, Rambam could have placed this mitzvah among those dealing with the conduct of the courts and their judges. What does Rambam’s placement of the mitzvah among those dealing with kohanim reveal regarding his understanding of the mitzvah?
This placement reveals that he regards the prohibition against serving in the Mishkan after drinking or when inebriated as the primary prohibition of the mitzvah. If it is the primary prohibition, then the prohibition seems related to the sanctity of the avodah. How can the mitzvah also include a restriction related to jurisprudence?
Rav Soloveichik’s interpretation responds to this question. The requirement upon the kohen of sobriety is not merely a consequence of the sanctity of the service. How do we know this? Rav Soloveitchik is suggesting that we more carefully consider this standard. A requirement of sobriety reflects an emphasis upon the capacity of the person performing avodah to think clearly and to make distinctions. It expresses a requirement to perform avodah with precision and in accordance with the specific parameters of halacha. However, the mitzvah also includes a measure or standard of fitness. The kohen is deemed to be adequately suited to meet the expectation of precision if he is fit to render a decision in halacha. What does this reveal to us regarding the nature and meaning of the standard for the kohen? This meaning and significance are communicated by applying this same basic standard to one deciding an issue of halacha.
The nature of avodah
Let’s consider this issue further and understand the message regarding avodah that is being communicated. If this mitzvah addressed only the kohen performing avodah and not the scholar deciding an issue of halacha, we would not understand the significance and meaning of the standard. We could easily misinterpret it to merely reflect deference for avodah. Instead, the standard for the kohen is linked to and derived from the scholar. The kohen performing avodah must be fit to decide an issue of halacha. This link clearly communicates that the kohen’s standard is not merely a consequence of deference. It is a reflection upon the very nature of avodah. It must be performed with the same precision and attention to the requirements of halacha that apply to deciding an issue of halacha.
Implications: How we pray
This insight has important and practical implications. What do Sefer HaChinuch and Rav Soloveitchik tell us about the nature of service? Precision is essential. In fact, under some circumstances, avodah performed when intoxicated is not only prohibited; it is also invalid.[7] We no longer offer sacrifices in the Mishkan or Beit HaMikdash. Our prayers replace these sacrifices. These prayers are avodah to Hashem. Prayer should be an expression of one’s true thoughts and desired. However, sincerity does not replace the absolute necessity of attending to the details. Prayer require the same attention to detail and the precision associated with sacrificial service. This includes saying the prayers in their proper times. The words must be pronounced properly and the text must be properly punctuated. Our tunes should evoke from us the feelings that are appropriate for the text. They also must conform to the punctuation of the text. We may not alter or ignore the punctuation in order to accommodate a beautiful, moving melody. This attention to detail may require that we devote a few more moments to our prayers. But the extra moments devoted to praying with precision endow our prayers with the character of avodah.
[1] From the passages, it seems that this commandment was communicated directly to Aharon. However, it is possible that it was communicated to Aharon through Moshe. See Rabbeinu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer VaYikra, 10:8.
[2] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Biat HaMikdash 1:1-3.
[3] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Sefer HaMitzvot, Mitzvat Lo Taaseh 73.
[4] There are a few commandments that are exceptions. These commandments include a number of loosely related prohibitions. Violation of such a commandment, referred to as a lav she’be’chlalot, does not engender a punishment. The prohibitions against the kohen serving after drinking wine or when drunk is associated with punishments. This means that the prohibitions included in the mitzvah are somehow closely related.
[5] Rabbeinu Aharon HaLevi, Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 158.
[6] Quoted to me by Rav Yisrael Chait.
[7] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishnah Torah, Hilchot Biat HaMikdash 1:2.