Shmini: The midpoint of the Torah

The midpoint of the Torah ( measured as letters) occurs in this weeks parsha.  It is in verse 11:42, the word is ־גָּח֜וֹן, gichhon, belly. The verse prohibits anything that crawls on its belly.  Rashi identifies it as the serpent.  But we recall the word from its original context, the curse of the serpent that  tempted Chava into tasting the forbidden fruit. 

עַל־גְּחֹנְךָ֣ תֵלֵ֔ךְ On your belly shall you crawl

Here, in Shmini, in the context of the animals that are suitable for eating  and those that are forbidden, we are reminded of the violation of the prohibition of eating from the tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden.

The section  that immediately precedes the list of kosher and non kosher animals also deals with eating. It describes the exchange between Aaron and Moshe surrounding Moshe's  observation that the remaining priests: Elazar and Ithamar and Aaron, failed to properly complete the sacrificial rite of the New Moon because they had refrained from the prescribed eating of the designated portions.   Aaron's answer:

וַתִּקְרֶ֥אנָה אֹתִ֖י כָּאֵ֑לֶּה וְאָכַ֤לְתִּי חַטָּאת֙ הַיּ֔וֹם הַיִּיטַ֖ב בְּעֵינֵ֥י
 and such things have befallen me! Had I eaten sin offering today, would the LORD have approved?

is emotionally moving.   The "thing" that had "befallen" was the death of two of his sons, Nadav and Avihu.

And Moshe approves:

וַיִּשְׁמַ֣ע מֹשֶׁ֔ה וַיִּיטַ֖ב בְּעֵינָֽיו׃ (פ)

And when Moses heard this, he approved.

The commentators do not leave this as an emotional argument. They do not ascribe this approved  deviation from the instructions  to a recognition that Gd understands that a family that has just lost sons and brothers might lose their appetite; they understand it as a clarification of the law concerning the actions of a priest who is bereaved  of a close relative.  Aaron corrects Moshe's assumption that the show must go on; he reminds Moshe that the law states that such a bereaved priest may not consume the sacred meat under these  circumstances.

Initially, I felt that the parshanim, the medieval commentators who cast the interaction into an argument in the Beith Hamedrash ( Yeshiva) were denigrating the emotional aspects.  They were discarding an appealing picture of the relationship between Gd and humans, in which Gd is considerate of feelings,   for a dry, legalistic approach.  But I have come to see that the legalism formalizes Gd's sensitivity to the human reaction to tragedy and globalizes it.  Our emotions do not serve us well in relating to powerful entities, including the most powerful. The law serves better.

This sacrificial eating had no relationship to apetitite.  It was a part of a service of expiation.  And the atonement that devolved from it was not limited to the priests. It was for the nation as a whole.  This eating was a public service.  It was a partial undoing of the primordial transgression by eating, the one that cast  the serpent  unto its belly.

The disaster of Nadav and Avihu had much in common with the Eden story.  A contemporary retelling of the story would have them die of an overdose.  They knew that the incense was powerful, and they wanted to try it. Like Eve and Adam before them, the priestly brothers were adventurous and they could not resist the temptation of trying something so good... it kills.

The text leaves some ambiguity about the nature of their transgression and at least 10 reasons are given ( by the Kli Yakar).  When the text reminds us of the event, two parshioth later ( Achrei Mot), it says that the priest may not enter the inner sanctum at will.  It is only for the purpose of national  atonement, at the designated time, that this  incense service may be performed. 

Eating from the Aitz Hadath endowed  humans with opinion and speculation.  Gd said that there is remedy, but it is protected by the cherub with the rotating sword, the approach is overwhelmingly dangerous and it is beyond human understanding. The laws of the Torah offer the only viable approach