Weekly Parsha

Parshas Shmini: The Torah Tightrope

Parshas Shmini:  The Torah Tightrope
by Mordechai Dolinsky

Something obvious in this Parsha that needs explanation is the connection between the two outstanding subjects—the dramatic, untimely petirah of Nadav and Avihu—and the list of creatures that are forbidden to be eaten.

There are two attributes that are required for animals to be permissible.  Firstly there is the split hoof which has to be completely separated into a double hoof and as Rashi explains this is to exclude animals whose hooves are split only at the tip as the camel.  The second attribute is that the animal has to bring up its cud and as Rashi here explains it brings up and regurgitates the food from its innards and returns it to its mouth to crush it and grind it finely.  The conventional of these prerequisites are in the realm of “chukim”;  pure “gizairas hakasuv”– without any open logical significance.  It seems very probable to me that because these are signs of ‘kashrus’ they are representative and symbolic of positive character traits.  To find significance in “maaleh gaira”, bringing up its cud, is not so difficult.  A major part of the motivation to eat is the appetizing appearance of the food.  Once the morsel is chewed it already dramatically loses all its attraction.  The Gemara in Bava Kamma refers to it at this level as “glalim”—excretion– and I must say it is quite repulsive.  But what could be said of its looks when it has already been in the stomach and in the early stages of the digestive process?  The mere thought of eating it then is absolutely revolting.  The act of actually consuming it, which is in reality the “maaleh gaira”, is truly symbolic of eating on the highest level of pure intent, since there is absolutely no motivation of any appetizing attraction whatsoever.  So here we have it—“maaleh gaira” represents “prishus”—the practice of restraint, abstaining from indulgence.

The split hoof, however, is very difficult to find a symbolism or significance for, and I would like to share the following possible explanation.  The point of the split hoof is as if the animal isn’t only standing on four feet but the feet are considered double.  Each foot that is split is considered as two.  What could be the significance of “more” feet?  The Gemara tells us that Malachim (angels) have,

and stand, only on one foot.  This is the explanation why when we daven “Shmone Esrai” we stand with our feet together, as if they are one.  So here we have a “breakthrough”, some insight as to the significance of the number of feet.  Less feet means holiness, aloofness, non-earthly.  More feet means more contact with reality, down to earth, exactly as the expression goes—he has his feet on the ground.  The Malach has one foot, the human two, the animals four, and the kosher ones double.  The significance being the wonderful trait of “maaleh gaira”, the practice of restraint, abstaining from overindulgence which is the trait of ‘prishus’ must go together with ‘mafreses parsa’—down to earth realism.  There is an awesome danger on the path of ‘prishus’ that can lead one to, as the expression goes—“off the deep end”.  This can be seen very well from the contrast between the so-called holy men of the various nations of the world and the ‘kedoshim’ of Klal Yisroel.  The former, deprive themselves of necessities and inflict themselves with torture; what kind of ugly, repulsive human specimens they often appear to be.  The holy men of Klal Yisroel, ‘lehavdil elef havdalos’, shine with beauty and the simchas hachayim they radiate and represent.  This is the concept in the discussion the Mesilas Yesharim has in chapter 13, the delicate balance.  It is the will of Hashem that we enjoy His creation.  The critical rule, “Isn’t it enough that which the Torah forbids that you have to add your own?” concept, in contrast to the “all who engage in fasting are considered kedoshim” idea.

According the this explanation of the concept of ‘mafrisai parsa’ we can understand why the “chazir” is singled out and put in a separate category in the Chumash, and he is indeed the only one who has the split hoof.  According to our suggested concept it means that he has an overemphasis of this trait which leads to a mentality of materialism, and an exclusion and aversion of spiritualism, very appropriate for the ‘chazir’.  The Chazal tell us that all four unclean animals mentioned in the Chumash are symbolic of the four periods of galus, and that our present period is that of the ‘chazir’.  We can see how this is such an accurate picture of our generation.

With this explanation and understanding of the “maaleh gaira”—“mafrisai parsa” balance we can explain the connection to the Nadav and Avihu tragedy.  Their sin was a sort of overemphasis of spiritual enthusiasm without ‘their feet on the ground’ and proper considerations.  HaShem should bless us all with the proper attitude, perspective and balance.