Tag Archives: Hur

One, Two, or Three Calebs? In Search of the Primordial Torah

‘The Spies With The Grapes Of The Promised Land’ by Nicolas Poussin (1664)

This week’s parasha, Shlach, is famous for the incident of the spies. The Israelites send a representative from each of the Twelve Tribes to scout the Holy Land. Of the twelve spies, ten return with negative reports, faithlessly arguing that the nation will be unable to settle the Holy Land. Only two spies, Joshua from the tribe of Ephraim and Caleb (or Kalev) from the tribe of Judah, present positive reports. This is one reason why, in the future, it will be the tribes of Judah and Ephraim in particular that dominate the land of Israel, each becoming synonymous with its own kingdom—Judah in the south and Ephraim in the north. While the identity of Joshua is relatively clear, the identity of Caleb is quite murky.

The Torah actually speaks of two Calebs. The first is introduced in this week’s parasha: “For the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Yefuneh.” (Numbers 13:6) The second, Caleb the son of Hetzron, appears later in I Chronicles 2:18. The genealogy of the latter Caleb is made explicitly clear: he is a son of Hetzron, the son of Peretz, the son of Judah (through Tamar). The genealogy of the first Caleb, though, is not clear at all. For one, we do not see anyone named Yefuneh from the tribe of Judah. (We do see a person named Yefuneh in I Chronicles 7:38, among a list of descendants of Asher.)

Later, in Numbers 32:12, Caleb is called “Caleb ben Yefuneh HaKenizi [the Kenizzite].” This is how he is referred to several more times in the Tanakh. At first glance, the title is problematic, since the Kenizzites were one of the peoples living in Canaan (or Edom) before Abraham arrived, as we read in Genesis 15:18-21. Caleb is not a Kenizzite in this sense, but rather a descendent of a person named Kenaz. Indeed, we read of Kenaz from the tribe of Judah in I Chronicles 4:13. How Kenaz is descended from Judah is not exactly evident. Kenaz had two sons: Othniel and Seraiah. Yet, we read in the book of Judges (1:13) that Othniel is a brother of Caleb! Two verses later in Chronicles, the text suddenly speaks of “Caleb ben Yefuneh”. Rashi is troubled by this, too, and cites the Talmud (Temurah 16a):

But was Caleb the son of Kenaz? Was he not the son of Yefuneh? The meaning of the word Yefuneh is that he turned [panah] from the counsel of the spies. Still, was [Caleb] the son of Kenaz? Was he not the son of Hetzron, as it says: And Caleb the son of Hetzron begat Azubah? (I Chronicles 2:18) Said Raba: [Caleb] was a stepson of Kenaz. [This can also be proved, since it says: Caleb the son of Yefuneh the Kenezzite, but does not say the son of Kenaz.] A Tanna taught: Othniel is the same as Yabetz. He was called “Othniel” because God answered him [‘ana El], and “Yabetz” because he counselled [ya’atz] and fostered Torah in Israel.

‘Othniel’ by James Tissot. Othniel was the first Judge of Israel following Joshua.

So, either Caleb was really the son of a person named Yefuneh, but was adopted and raised by Kenaz (hence his title of Kenizzite), or there was no such person as Yefuneh at all (since we see no mention of such a Judahite) and this title was given to him because he “turned away” from the other spies. In that case, Caleb would be the biological son of Kenaz. Perhaps we can identify him with Seraiah, which would fit neatly with the statement that Othniel and Caleb are brothers.

The final possibility presented by the Talmud is that Caleb is the same as that other Caleb, ben Hetzron, of I Chronicles 2:18. There, we read that Caleb married a woman named Azuvah, and when she died, took a new wife called Efrat. Caleb’s son with Efrat was Hur, whose son was Uri, whose son was the famous Betzalel, craftsman of the Mishkan.

Where it takes an interesting turn is that our Sages say (see for example Shemot Rabbah 1:17 and Sotah 12a) that Azuvah and Efrat are one and the same person. In fact, “Azuvah” and “Efrat” were two nicknames for Miriam, the sister of Moses! She was initially called Azuvah (“abandoned”) since no one wanted to marry her, perhaps because she wasn’t physically attractive. Caleb decided to marry her not for her exterior beauty, but for her holiness and her great family. As soon as he married her, she miraculously became exceedingly beautiful. Thus, people ceased to call her Azuvah, and instead called her Efrat (“beautiful”).

One or Two Calebs?

Can Caleb ben Yefuneh really be the same person as Caleb ben Hetzron? Did Moses appoint his brother-in-law as one of the spies? The possibility is intriguing. Yet, taking this approach results in multiple issues. The first is chronology.

Caleb ben Hetzron was the fifth generation from Jacob (Jacob-Judah-Peretz-Hetzron-Caleb), like Moses and Miriam (Jacob-Levi-Kohath-Amram-Miriam/Moses). It is therefore very apt that he would be Miriam’s husband. That would make him at least 80 years old at the time of the Exodus (just as Moses was 80 and Miriam was 86). Keep in mind that Betzalel is a great-grandson of Caleb ben Hetzron. At the time of the Exodus then, this Caleb would have had to be old enough to sire three more adult generations after him.

‘Caleb before Joshua’

As we saw above, the spy Caleb lived far longer into the future, well into the period of Judges. If he was Caleb ben Hetzron, it would make his lifespan impossibly long (at least for that time period). Caleb ben Yefunah, on the other hand, is listed in Chronicles among much later descendants of Judah, which would make him a young man when sent as a spy. Joshua 14:7 confirms this, with Caleb stating that he was forty years old when Moses sent him to spy out the land. This would easily allow him to live throughout the forty years in the Wilderness and the many years of conquest that followed into the period of Judges.

Maintaining that these were two different Calebs also solves the difficulty of the two different genealogies in Chronicles. In I Chronicles 2, Caleb ben Hetzron fathers Yesher, Shovav, Ardon, and Hur. In I Chronicles 4, Caleb ben Yefuneh fathers Iru, Elah, and Na’am. These are clearly two separate people. And so, of the various Talmudic opinions presented, the correct one must be that the spy Caleb was really the son (or stepson) of Kenaz. It may be best to identify Caleb with Seraiah, one of the two sons of Kenaz. It is possible that just as Yabetz was called Othniel because “God answered him”, Caleb was called Seraiah because he was seen as a righteous emissary or “prince of God” (שר-יה, sar-Yah).

Despite all this, Rashi, following Sanhedrin 69a, still wants to maintain that there is only one Caleb. The result is an absolutely bizarre, legally problematic, morally disturbing—and biologically impossible—explanation that Caleb had his first child when he was eight years old, and each generation on had their first child before eight years! (See his commentary on I Chronicles 2:20.) The reason Rashi resorts to this conclusion is because of a troubling verse suggesting that, in fact, there is a third Caleb.

A Third Caleb?

In I Chronicles, we read how Hetzron later took another concubine, and had more children with her. The firstborn was named Jerahmeel, and then we are told that “…the sons of Caleb, the brother of Jerahmeel, were Mesha, his firstborn, and the father of Zif…” (I Chronicles 2:42) Here we apparently have another Caleb altogether, with a different set of progeny. It is very possible that Hetzron had two children named Caleb. This may be what I Chronicles 2:24 means when it mysteriously mentions Kalev Efrata, ie. it is referring to that Caleb whose wife was Efrat, and not the Caleb whose concubines were Eifa and Maacah (I Chronicles 2:45, 48).

The big problem is that we then read how this third Caleb, apparently, was the father of Hur and Achsah (v. 49-50). That means he was the Caleb ben Hetzron who fathered Hur, as well as the Caleb ben Yefuneh whose daughter was Achsah and whose brother was Othniel! (Judges 1:12-13) It makes no sense! It is probably because of these troubling verses that Rashi and Sanhedrin 69a want to insist there is just one Caleb after all.

Of course, the simplest (but most unpalatable) conclusion is that these couple of verses in Chronicles are just plain wrong. Perhaps some kind of scribal error crept in over the millennia. A scribe who didn’t know how to reconcile the three Calebs tried to unify them, and in so doing opened up a whole new set of issues. Although today we are generally quick to defend all Scripture as being immaculate, with a perfect transmission from generation to generation ever since Sinai, our Sages of old were not so adamant about the text’s exact accuracy.

One example is the case of Chapter 21 of the Book of Joshua. In some versions, there are two extra verses that don’t appear in other versions. The Radak (Rabbi David Kimchi, 1160-1235) writes in his commentary on Joshua 21:7 about these two verses that “I have not seen these two verses included in any ancient and authentic manuscript, rather they have been added to a small number of texts.” A lesser example is Isaiah 27:3 where our current text has pen yifkod, while Rashi comments that his text has pen efkod. Rashi’s disciple, the Mahari Kara (Rabbi Yosef Kara, 1065-1135), notes in his commentary that Sephardis and Ashkenazis have different versions of the word, and “only God knows which is the proper version.”

Even the Chumash isn’t safe. Today, the Yemenite Torah has nine one-letter differences compared to the Ashkenazi Torah. The research of J.S. Penkower shows that the Yemenite Torah is essentially the exact same one used by the Rambam, and the only one considered by him to be the authoritative text. (For a detailed analysis, see Marc B. Shapiro’s The Limits of Orthodox Theology, ch. 7.) Meanwhile, Rav Amnon Bazak of Yeshivat Har Etzion notes that there are some 100 minor variants today between the different Torah texts across the Jewish world. In his essay “Fundamental Issues in the Study of Tanakh, he also cites J.S. Penkower, who found some 65 differences between Rashi’s Torah text and today’s Torah text. For example, Exodus 20:5 in Rashi’s text has the word notzer in place of the current oseh, and Rashi’s Exodus 24:17 has kol Israel in place of the current bnei Israel.

These issues go way back in time. The Midrash (Tanchuma on Beshalach 16) admits that even the Knesset HaGedolah, the “Great Assembly” of the 5th and 4th centuries BCE, had to make modifications to the Torah. Another Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 6:5) provides an example, saying how the ancient scribes added a verse to Genesis (18:22) so that people wouldn’t confuse the angels that visited Abraham with God Himself. A third Midrash (Beresheet Rabbati, 209-212) speaks of a variant “Severus scroll” that “came out of Jerusalem in captivity and went to Rome and was stored in the synagogue of Severus”. The Talmud (Yerushalmi, Ta’anit 4:2), too, provides an account of how three slightly different Torahs were once found in the Temple, so the Sages produced a new text by comparing the previous three and seeing where they agree with each other. The Radak explains in his introduction to the Nevi’im that

…during the First Exile, the texts were lost, the scholars were dispersed, and the Torah sages died. The men of the Great Assembly who restored the Torah to its former state found differences in the texts and followed the reading of those which they believed to be in the majority…

Chatam Sofer

All of this has practical, halachic ramifications. For example, the Sha’agat Aryeh (Rabbi Aryeh Leib Gunzberg, 1695-1785) states in his work of that name (siman 36) that there is no longer a mitzvah to write a Torah scroll, since we are unsure of the exact text. The Chatam Sofer (Rabbi Moshe Schreiber, 1762-1839) adds that this is why we do not say a blessing before writing a new Torah scroll (see his She’elot v’Teshuvot on Orach Chaim, siman 52 and 54) while the Rama (Rabbi Moshe Isserles, 1530-1572) holds for this reason that we do not need to take out another Torah scroll if we suddenly discover that the one we are publicly reading from is defective (see his comments on Orach Chaim 143:4).

It is important to stress, of course, that the variations are slight. We are not talking about major differences spanning whole passages. The vast majority of the variances are only in singular letters which do not even change the meaning of the word or verse. Occasionally, there is a substitution of a word (again, not necessarily changing the meaning of the verse), and in only a few places there is an extra or missing verse or two. The overall integrity of the text is undoubtedly preserved. One should not at all lose faith in the Torah’s authenticity, or its message.

Having said that, all of the deeper mystical sources speak of a “primordial Torah”, a perfect Torah, or the original Torah of Creation whose return we await. The Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni, Isaiah 429) states that Mashiach will bring a “new Torah” and (Kohelet Rabbah 11:12) that our current Torah will be “vain” compared to the new one. The Zohar attests to the same, and Rabbi Isaac of Radavil (1750-1835) comments in his Ohr Yitzchak (on Pekudei):

Regarding that which is stated in the Zohar Hadash that in the future God will give us a new Torah in the days of the redeemer, may he come speedily and in our days, it is not the Torah which is currently in our possession, and also not the Torah which was given on Mt. Sinai. Not this shall God give us, but a new Torah which was in existence two thousand years before the creation of the world. The Torah which God will give us in the future is hidden in the Torah currently in our possession…

A classic example of the Torah written in “black fire on white fire”: Within the “black fire” letter Pei, we see an inner “white fire” letter Beit.

Deeply encrypted within our current Torah is that original Torah. And so, one who digs deep enough will discover a perfect Torah within today’s seemingly imperfect one—as the Mishnah says: “Turn it over and turn it over, for everything is within it.” This may be tied to the classic idea that the Torah is “black fire on white fire”. Gershom Scholem (Kabbalah, pg. 174) cites a number of mystical texts which say that the Torah of White Fire is the authentic, primordial Torah, while the Torah of Black Fire is only its outward expression, or perhaps a “commentary” on the White Fire. Here we read how the primordial Torah was beheld by Adam in the Garden of Eden, but because of his sin, the Torah was jumbled—its letters rearranged, more prohibitions added, and mystical secrets removed. Mashiach will restore the world to a state of Eden, and with that reveal the original Torah of Creation, the Torah of White Fire.

May we merit to see it soon.

Unmasking the Golden Calf: Who, Why, and How?

'Worship of the Golden Calf' by Filippino Lippi (1457-1504). Accurately depicting an animated calf, as opposed to a simple golden idol.

‘Worship of the Golden Calf’ by Filippino Lippi (1457-1504), accurately depicting an animated calf, as opposed to a simple golden idol.

This week’s parasha is Ki Tisa, which is most famous for its description of the Golden Calf incident. Following the mass revelation at Mt. Sinai, Moses ascended the mountain for forty days and forty nights during which time he communed with God. The Torah tells us that Moses neither ate nor drank throughout this period, and was solely immersed in divinity. The forty days ended with Moses receiving the Two Tablets, with the text of the Ten Commandments engraved upon them. As Moses descends to deliver the Tablets – essentially a contract between God and the Israelites – the people are mired in revelry around a disgraceful idol. Moses shatters the Tablets immediately (others say they were suddenly too heavy for him to hold, and fell out of his hands).

The first question that most people ask is: How was this incident even possible? How does a people who had just forty days earlier witnessed an incredible Godly revelation first-hand now worship a grotesque idol? How does a people who directly heard God’s word go on to break his command prohibiting idol worship less than six weeks later? What were they thinking? Moreover, how is it that Aaron, the very brother of Moses, and the one destined to be the High Priest, was the one who created the Golden Calf?

Why the Calf?

Since Moses’ arrival in Egypt, the Israelites experienced nothing but spiritual ascent. First, they witnessed Moses’ wonder-working directly before them. Then, they lived through ten miraculous plagues, each progressively more astounding. Following these, they were liberated from their slavery, and experienced an even greater salvation and miracle at the Sea. The nation then reached Mt. Sinai and spent several days purifying themselves before being witnesses to the greatest divine revelation in the history of humanity. And right after this, Moses left them to wait. For forty days, they were without their leader, without guidance, without any further spiritual ascent. The people were hungry for more.

Moses had told them that he would be away for forty days. The people eagerly counted each minute and hour until his return. After forty days, Moses was nowhere to be seen. They had, in fact, miscalculated – and only by six hours or so. The nation was becoming restless and fearful. Had Moses perished atop the mountain?

At this point, two individuals saw an opportunity.

Yunus and Yumbrus

The Torah tells us that when the Israelites came out of Egypt, an erev rav, or a “mixed multitude”, came out with them (Exodus 12:38). These were, for the most part, non-Israelites who were convinced by what they had witnessed in Egypt, and decided to join the Jewish people. However, this group of people found it much harder to shed their past idolatrous ways.

Various Jewish texts describe that among the leaders of the erev rav were two brothers named Yunus and Yumbrus. They happened to be the children of the wicked prophet Bilaam (or Balaam). Although Bilaam is not introduced in the Torah until the later Book of Numbers, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 106a) holds that Bilaam was originally an advisor to the Pharaoh in Egypt. As a matter of fact, it was he who came up with the idea of drowning the Israelite children in the Nile! And his own sons were among the mixed multitude that joined the Israelites.

When Moses’ return from Sinai appeared delayed, the two brothers jumped on the opportunity to take control. They told the people that surely Moses must have been dead by now. The Talmud (Shabbat 89a) tells us that Satan started to play on their fears, and showed them a vision of Moses’ corpse ascending to Heaven.

The people then approached Aaron and told him: “Make us gods that will go before us, because this Moses – the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt – we do not know what has become of him.” (Exodus 32:1) The people were looking for nothing more than a replacement for Moses.

Looking for Elohim

The above verse can actually be read in a couple of ways. In English, it is commonly translated as above, with the people asking for Aaron to make them gods. However, the Hebrew states that they told Aaron to make them “Elohim”. Elohim is, of course, one of Hashem’s names, but is also used in the Torah to refer to mighty men, judges, and foreign gods, too. We even saw earlier on that God told Moses to team up with Aaron, and for Moses to be an Elohim for Aaron! (Exodus 4:16) Moses himself was described as an “Elohim”! Therefore, what the people were seeking was not necessarily a foreign idol to worship, but rather a holy and mighty man of Moses’ stature, who was described as an “Elohim”.

And so, the people’s concerns and wishes were actually quite legitimate. Unfortunately, Yunus and Yumbrus played on these concerns, and manipulated the people to their advantage. When Hur, one of the Israelite elders, rose to calm the people and prevent them from making a big mistake, Yunus and Yumbrus made him out to be a traitor and had him killed.

'Victory o Lord!' by John Everett Millais (1871) depicting Aaron and Hur assisting Moses at the Battle of Rephidim against the attacking Amalekites

‘Victory o Lord!’ by John Everett Millais (1871) depicting Aaron and Hur assisting Moses at the Battle of Rephidim against the attacking Amalekites

Hur himself is only mentioned directly once in the Torah, in Exodus 17:12, during the battle between the Israelites and Amalekites. It was Hur and Aaron who stood on either side of Moses and supported him throughout the battle. The Torah later says that his grandson Betzalel was the chief craftsman of the Tabernacle. Jewish tradition suggests Hur was the son of Miriam (and therefore Moses’ and Aaron’s nephew), while other sources (such as Josephus) suggest he was actually Miriam’s husband. Either way, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 7a) tells us he was killed for protesting at the Golden Calf incident.

Seeing that the people were becoming enraged and uncontrollable, Aaron agreed to make some kind of new Elohim for the people. The Talmud says that Aaron wanted to prevent even more bloodshed. He reasoned that idolatry is a lesser sin compared to murder. The former could be absolved through repentance, but the people would never be forgiven for spilling the blood of their fellows. Rashi further comments (on 32:5) that Aaron wanted to take the sin upon himself, and so he volunteered to construct some sort of idol to quell the people’s unrest.

Aaron tried to delay as long as possible, hoping that Moses would arrive shortly. He told the people to bring their wives’ and children’s jewelry. Rashi says that Aaron phrased it this way (as opposed to telling them to bring their own jewelry) because he hoped the women and children would not want to part with their precious jewelry. Nonetheless, the men did not waste time going to their women and children, and brought their own precious metals. (Jewish tradition maintains that the righteous women of Israel did not participate in the sin of the Golden Calf.)

Aaron collected it all, and simply threw it in the flames. But Yunus and Yumbrus, described by Rashi as “the sorcerers of the mixed multitude”, recited incantations that transformed the molten gold into an animated calf! The Golden Calf actually emerged from the flames on its own, and was moving around as if it were an actual deity. This is why Aaron later tells Moses (v. 24) that he simply “threw the gold into the fire, and out came this calf!”

(The Arizal goes into much detail about what Yunus and Yumbrus were trying to accomplish by creating a calf in particular. Without getting into the details, they were essentially attempting to elevate the soul of their wicked grandfather, Beor. It seems these two brothers were also trying to usurp the leadership role of the brothers Moses and Aaron.)

Not surprisingly, many of the people were duped by the magic of Yunus and Yumbrus. Aaron tried to delay them further, proclaiming that the festival will be held the next day (v. 5). Unfortunately, it wasn’t enough, and the people descended into revelry and immoral behaviour.

Meanwhile, God’s meeting with Moses was coming to an end. Unfortunately, it concluded with God telling Moses that the people had fallen once more into sin. God offered Moses a new deal: abandon the sinful Israelites, and start a new nation from Moses and his descendants. But Moses, the great leader that he was, refused to abandon his people. He argued and pleaded with God until God relented.

Ultimately, it took Moses two more stints of forty days and forty nights on Mt. Sinai to draw God’s complete forgiveness. Moses descended from Mt. Sinai for the last time on Yom Kippur, now bearing a new set of Tablets. And henceforth, Yom Kippur had become the eternal Day of Atonement.

The Soul Journey of Nadav and Avihu

This week, for all those outside of Israel, we read the parasha of Shemini. Due to the fact that the eighth day of Passover fell on Shabbat, and the eighth day is only observed in the diaspora, those in Israel already read Shemini last week. Peculiarly, for the next several weeks (until May 16), Jews in Israel and Jews outside of Israel will be reading different Torah portions!

The most well-known episode of parashat Shemini describes the deaths of two of Aaron’s four sons. The Torah states, “And Aaron’s sons, Nadav and Avihu, each took his pan, and lit fires in them, and placed incense upon it, and they brought before Hashem a foreign fire, which He had not commanded them. And a fire went forth from before Hashem and consumed them, and they died before Hashem.” (Leviticus 10:1-2)

The plain meaning here is that the sons did something they weren’t supposed to, bringing a “foreign fire” that God did not ask for, and their deaths were a punishment. However, the text continues with Moses relaying a message to Aaron from God, Who said: “I will be sanctified through those who are near to Me.” Rashi, quoting a midrash, explains that Nadav and Avihu were so holy that they were even greater than Moses and Aaron, and God had sanctified Himself through them! This also helps to explain why Moses commanded the entire nation to mourn the loss of Nadav and Avihu (10:6), which wouldn’t have happened had they been sinners who were punished.

What is it that made them so holy? The Arizal suggests one incredible possibility.

Gate of Reincarnations

In the Arizal’s famous treatise Sha’ar HaGilgulim (Gate of Reincarnations), as written by his primary disciple Rabbi Chaim Vital, the pair of Nadav and Avihu are mentioned no less than 89 times! The Arizal teaches that these two were part of one soul; an exceedingly important soul that finds itself in just about every generation, with an endless array of spiritual sparks and fragments (Ch. 14). The soul originated in a part of Cain, the son of Adam, and was the only part of his soul that was purified (Ch. 27). Of course, it should be mentioned that essentially all souls are said to have originated in Adam, and indeed, the Arizal states that Nadav and Avihu’s came from the highest part of Adam’s soul (Ch. 31).

Nadav and Avihu were wholly devoted to spirituality, so much so that they even refused to get married (Vayikra Rabbah 20:10, though some say they refused marriage out of arrogance, not spirituality). The Talmudic sage Shimon Ben Azzai also refused to get married, due to his love for Torah, which he couldn’t imagine leaving even for the shortest amount of time. In reality, this is not the Torah’s ideal for spirituality, and it is far from praiseworthy. Ben Azzai himself admitted it wasn’t the right thing to do, and went so far as to describe one who refuses marriage as shedding blood and diminishing Godliness (Yevamot 63b). At the end, Ben Azzai also died in a Divine way, ascending his soul to the Heavens, never to return (Chagigah 14b). In fact, the Arizal makes an explicit connection between the sons of Aaron and the soul of Ben Azzai (Ch. 36).

The Golden Calf Connection

The Arizal concludes that Nadav and Avihu ultimately died as a spiritual rectification for the worship of the Golden Calf (Ch. 38). For this reason, the Torah says the entire nation mourned their deaths, recognizing that it was primarily the fault of the whole nation. Much of the fault lies with Aaron who, despite his good intentions, actually built the Golden Calf at the people’s behest (Exodus 32:2-4). Technically, he was the one who should have perished in the flames. The Arizal points out that it was actually his life’s major test.

Aaron was the reincarnation of Haran, the brother of Abraham (Ch. 33). For this reason, their names are almost identical, differing only by the addition of an aleph: Aaron (אהרן) and Haran (הרן). The Arizal cites the famous midrash which tells the story of how Abraham, due to his faith in a singular God, was thrown into the flames by the idolater Nimrod. It was at this point that God openly revealed Himself to Abraham for the first time, miraculously saving him from the flames.

Seeing his brother’s miraculous salvation, Haran, too, jumped into the flames, finally recognizing God at that instant. However, Haran was previously an idol worshipper, and did not have the merit to be saved like Abraham. Thus, he returned as Aaron, the noble and righteous High Priest, with the main test and rectification of resisting idolatry to make up for the sins of his past life. Aaron should not have built the Golden Calf, even if it meant risking his life (as did his fellow Hur, who paid the ultimate price for it). Unfortunately, Aaron succumbed and built the idol. It was he who should have suffered the consequences.

In a great personal sacrifice, Aaron’s holy sons Nadav and Avihu took the sin upon themselves, hoping to protect their dear father, whose intentions were truly pure. In place of Aaron, they were swallowed up by the flames – just like Haran was in a past life – repairing the spiritual damage. This is why the Torah describes their offering as a “foreign fire”, one that God had not commanded. This offering was not theirs to make, but they took it upon themselves anyway. In the process, the Arizal tells us that they purified the entire nation from the stain of the Golden Calf incident (Ch. 38). And so, the Torah says God was “‘sanctified through those near” to Him – Nadav and Avihu.

And this is why Nadav and Avihu were so holy.