Acharei Mot - Learning the Right Lessons

Parsha and its Implementation - Acharei Mot - Rabbi Eliezer Shenvald - 5779

Our Parasha begins with the priest's service in the Temple on Yom Kippur. It begins with the mention of a specific time: "after the death of the two sons of Aharon", apparently implying that the command derives from "learning a lesson" from the disaster of the death of the two sons of Aharon at the dedication of the Mishkan on the eighth day …"and they offered before Hashem alien fire..." (Vayikra 10:1). The sages dealt extensively with the question: What was the sin of the sons of Aaron, for the Torah obscured the "facts": "an alien fire". The facts are very important in the process of drawing lessons. The first step in the process is a clear and accurate clarification of the facts. Only then can one define with precision what went wrong, and from where is the lesson for the future, to be derived. From the opening of our Parasha we can learn that the sin and the defect was the sons of Aaron's request to "be much closer" to the sacred, without proper order, which led to their deaths. And therefore, the lesson and correction required for the future is the "work order" at the entrance to the holy.

Some have asked why the Torah does not bring the lesson learned closer to the event. In Parashat Shemini. The Torah also forbids the entry into the sanctuary if drunk – "Drink no wine or other intoxicant, you or your sons, when you enter the Tent of Meeting" (Vayikra 10: 8). There are those who conclude that this too, is "learning a lesson" but in the opposite way: "Rabbi Ishmael said: they died because they entered the Sanctuary intoxicated by wine. You may know that this is so, because after their death he admonished those who survived that they should not enter when intoxicated by wine" (Rashi Vayikra 10: 2). In other words, from the learning of the lesson and the correction, one can understand the facts, the sin and the defect.

Some have also asked about the connection between the "order of work" and entering the Holy of Holies and Yom Kippur. After all, it is only at the end of the Parasha that the commandment to perform the Yom Kippur service is given. (Rabbi Avraham Danzig, end of Sefer Hochmat Adam).

And there is another question: Yom Kippur is a day of atonement for Israel. And the "work order" is also the order of atonement for Israel.

"וְכִפֶּ֤ר בַּעֲדוֹ֙ וּבְעַ֣ד בֵּית֔וֹ וּבְעַ֖ד כָּל־קְהַ֥ל יִשְׂרָאֵֽל"

"When he has made expiation for himself and his household, and for the whole congregation of Israel"

(Vayikra 16:17). Hence it has its own value. And not only as a lesson from Aharon's two sons' death.

Rabbi Avraham Danzig brings the Masora of the HaGaon MeVilna, which says that in this Parasha there are two dimensions. Aaron had the option of entering any time he wanted the Holy of Holies and therefore was required to have the "order of work", as a lesson from the death of his two sons, even not on Yom Kippur. But for generations, entry was permitted only on Yom Kippur (ibid.(

In the recent period, after the election storm has passed, are there many who wish to draw the lesson from the results and the entire campaign of the religious Zionist parties? There are those who claim that this is a change in trend. A no-confidence vote for a sectoral Zionist-religious party. And the end of the era of the need for a sectoral party. Do the facts support this? Or has the trend not changed, and the split of the sectoral voters between three parties has depleted all three? There is no dispute that following the election results and the decline in the party's electoral strength, its ability to influence the State of Israel's agenda will diminish.

Learning lessons in a correct manner is very important, and it must be done with reverence. Because, as in our Parasha, it has fateful implications for the future. A wrong understanding of the lesson could thwart the future. The key to drawing the right conclusions is a precise analysis of the facts.

There are two types of 'lesson learners'. There are those who come with the real intention to learn the lessons. Without prejudice, out of reverence and a sense of responsibility. In contrast to those who come with an agenda in the first place, and they try to 'organize' the facts, and analyze the reasons to bolster their agenda.

So, what are the facts that cannot be disputed? In the last three elections, there was no change in the number of voters for parties from the national religious public - 12 seats. In 2013 - 12 seats for the united party of the Bayit HaYehudi. In the elections in 2015, 8 split into the Bayit HaYehudi and close to 4 to Yahad, which did not pass the electoral threshold. And now 5 - for the United right-wing parties, close to 4 for the Yamin Hachadash, and close to 4 for Zehut.

There is no precise information on how many of the non-religious voters voted for the last two. The rest of the mandates of religious Zionism, which were divided by various parties, mostly in the Likud, not for ideological reasons of anti-sectoralism, but out of fear that a left-wing party would come to power.

So, what is the lesson to be learned from this? Is there a dramatic change here? Probably not. The only based lesson is that when the differences between factions within the religious Zionist movement do not transcend, and there are parallel parties running, evryone loses strength!

So why do some believe that there is a change in the trend of anti-sectoralism?

And why were they so quick to publicize their "learned lessons" before all the exact figures were out?

Maybe they had an agenda in the first place, and that's what they wanted to happen?