Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

No Bull

This week’s parasha, telling of the strange and inexplicable deaths of Aaron’s sons, is an excellent primer on truth, lies, bunk, and the crucial differences among them

Print Email
(iStockphoto.com)

A smart rabbi once told me that every serious reading of the Torah had to begin with a long meditation on the fact that the answers we most deeply desire are the ones we can never have. Reading the book, the story of our people’s tumultuous relationship with our creator, we ache for illumination. But God, by definition, is unknowable; we are awed by his actions because we realize they lie far beyond the narrow horizons of our cognition.

Few are the biblical stories that present a greater challenge to our modern sense of justice than the one depicted in this week’s parasha. It begins on a cheerful note—animals are sacrificed, God is in a forgiving mood, the people sing praises. Then, however, something goes terribly wrong: “And Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu,” the parasha continues, “each took his pan, put fire in them, and placed incense upon it, and they brought before the Lord foreign fire, which He had not commanded them. And fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.”

What, we may be forgiven for asking, is a foreign fire, and why is it punishable by death? These are particularly vexing questions given that the two young men in question are the heirs apparent to the priesthood’s most exalted position. As we can expect, the rabbis have been pondering this problem for millennia, providing a myriad of explanations ranging from accusing Nadab and Abihu of drunkenness to stipulating that their death was punishment for their refusal to succumb to the will of their mighty uncle, Moses.

I would like to offer my own explanation, decidedly less scholarly but deeply relevant to our times. And I would like to call on a far less scriptural bit of writing in my defense, Harry Frankfurt’s 2005 treatise On Bullshit.

The assertion at the heart of this surprising literary hit—the best-seller list is hardly a natural place for a Princeton emeritus professor of philosophy to find his work—is that there is a significant difference between bullshit and lies. A liar, Frankfurt writes, must first know the truth and then choose to misrepresent it; a bullshitter, on the other hand, has no regard for the truth and speaks for no other reason than to promote personal interests.

As we watch so many of the institutions we had once considered sacred felled by mendacity, as we squint at the parade of pilloried politicians and shamed journalists and disgraced academics, we may feel compelled to blame our sorry state on the increasingly loosened boundaries of the truth. But our crisis is deeper than that: What we have on our hands is not an epidemic of lying but a general migration away from any notion of truth altogether. We simply don’t care what’s true and what isn’t; we speak without being bothered by the veracity of our words and act without concern for the consequences of our actions. We are, in short, knee-deep in bullshit.

And so were Nadab and Abihu. The first of the Israelites to enter the confines of the holy Sanctuary, they understandably did what many other men would have done under the same circumstances—they played around, experimented, tried to get comfortable with a job that required strict adherence to protocol and long periods spent in seclusion. They might have knocked back a few flagons of wine or poured some incense into the fire, but they did so not because they were deliberately resisting the Lord’s orders but because, like us all, they were human.

At the very end of his short book, Frankfurt delivers an illuminating thought. “There is nothing in theory,” he writes, “and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial—notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit.”

The young priests would probably relate. They tried to be sincere—nowhere in the text is it suggested that they are malicious, rebellious, or disdainful of their post—but sincerity is an absolute of which men are never truly capable. To be sincere, we must first know what we’re being sincere about; in other words, we must know ourselves, thoroughly and absolutely and without doubt. As anyone who had ever paid a princely sum for 50 minutes on a therapist’s couch could surely attest, such pure and perfect self-awareness is far removed from the reach of human beings.

What we are left with, then, is bullshit. Which, as Frankfurt playfully points out, is not to say that bullshit is careless or insubstantial. There’s a reason we call masters of the form “bullshit artists” and adore them in real life and in art. Our mock protestations aside, we put up with so much bullshit because we realize that bullshit is perilously close to the human condition itself: Unable to know anything for certain, and anxious about preserving our interests, we make it up as we go along. It was the rotten luck of Nadab and Abihu to end up on the wrathful side of a divine boss who wouldn’t tolerate any of that human folly.

Where, then, does that leave us? In his book, Frankfurt recounts a story about Ludwig Wittgenstein and his friend. The friend was convalescing in the hospital after a small operation, and the philosopher paid a visit. Asked how she felt, the friend replied that she felt much like a dog who’d been run over. Wittgenstein fumed. “You don’t know what a dog that has been run over feels like,” he said. The grand man of the philosophy of language was appalled to see his friend utter a sentence that so blatantly ignored the truth—the actual sensation experienced by an unlucky, wounded animal—and conjured the image of the injured dog solely for the sake of arousing sympathy. As we learn from this week’s parasha, this, more or less, is God’s position in striking down the two hapless youths. What the Almighty may tell us in these seemingly senseless slayings, perhaps, is that if we believe in him, we believe in an absolute, and that even if we fail to follow his rules, we still haven’t the right to make up rules of our own. We can sin and transgress and lie, because in so doing we understand what it is that we sin against or lie about; but we can never, ever bullshit.

Print Email

“anxious about preserving our interests, we make it up as we go along.”

This, I believe, is what has happened to Judaism at it’s extreme forms. On the right, the hareidi are led by rebbes who create halacha via customs in order to consolidate and perpetuate their power base. On the left, individuals and small groups fashion Judaism to be whatever works them.

I think the best we can do is try get along with each other and apologize every Yom kippur.

Don’t forget this was the first time the ritual of approaching the altar and sacrificing wasboth explained and performed…all of Israel must have been holding its breath to see if it worked both for the priests and for the b’nai Israel…
so it’s not too fora-fetched to think that neither the sacrificers nor God knew exactly was was going to happen if something went wrong.

I agree with the previous 2 comments. The quote from Frankfurt on the inaccessibility of our true self nicely ornaments this drash. I think this article skips too glancingly over the raw difficulty: Aaron lost two sons. The slim book on BS was ultimately disappointing, in a similar fashion, since both Frankfurt (& Leibovitz here) chose a route of glib facility in the face of harsh realities.

I feel that their offering was so much appreciated that they were immediately place in the presence of Hashem.

Yale Gancherov says:

Seems to me they didn’t exactly know what they were doing, and accidentally burnt themselves up — an “act of G-d”…….

JCarpenter says:

Another illustration of the sins of the father extending to the generations: Aaron’s bullshit produced the golden calf; are his sons doing any better?

David says:

Lev 10:1 ¶ And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.

Maybe we ought to just look at Scripture to see what really went wrong. Very simply, He commanded them not. All the rest is BS.

God Bless

David

Pamela Scharaga says:

Maybe the strange fire was simply the incense offered up to Pagan Gods . Perhaps they thought if it was good enough fro Pagan gods it would be correct for Hashem . This may have been a line drawn in the sand , no adoption of pagan rituals is O.K.. even if the intention was good . Over and over again we have shown that we are hard headed and we slip backwards .

I was greatly offended by this recent article.

Intending no disrespect toward your contribution to the subject, my distress is that your essay seemed so distressingly unjust.

Politics is the arena where lying is reaching near-pandemic levels. But this situation is not about everyone, everywhere, even those who care about politics (and religion).

Since I generally enjoy your commentaries, I was greatly disappointed.

For starters I took your treatise to be a grossly superficial examination of the subject of lying.

Perhaps, however, I might just be privileged.

Living not terribly far from the Washington, D.C. area, I work and live amongst almost limitless numbers of transparent, accountable social and political activists and whistle blowers.

Admittedly, those of us who are so inclined have now moved far enough away from that D.C. rat race to have the luxury of speaking our truths without having the backlash surrounding us at a K Street pub or a rising up in our backyards.

When I think of present challenges to our society about truth telling, my mind (and my heart) quickly turn to the words of Abraham Joshua Heschel in his beautifully written book, “A Passion For Truth”.

In this book, Heschel, the scholar, aptly describes — and – I believe comes to reconcile our essential human challenges with honesty; the tensions we all constantly face about our truthfulness versus our compassion.

I wish you would take a broader look at the subject of honesty – and — read Heschel’s perspectives on deceitfulness – and – humanness — if you haven’t already.

That would satisfy tame this mother lion’s roar quite nicely, I believe.

Anastasia
http://anastasiastoryteller.blogspot.com/2011/03/passion-for-truth.html

It seems to me that Liel`s explanation overcomplicates the situation.

The boys choose to add their own ritual to their duties- by burning incense.

God punished them for it.

The point being- only God can modify his commands.

dror ben ami says:

Mr. Libovitz misses the whole point of the story and doesn’t even attempt to answer his own question: “What is strange fire?”

By coincidence, I wrote an article this week entitled “Why are Spiritual Leaders Liars ?” and one of the subjects I dealt with was: Modern day rabbis teaching the commentaries of the Rashi, which they know cannot be true. In effect I was saying: “The Rashi lies and the rabbis swear it’s the truth”.

What Mr. Libovitz doesn’t seem to grasp is that the story of Aaron’s two sons is not true. It didn’t really happen and is simply a metaphor. As soon as you insist that it is a true story, then the lies begin. So, what we see here is Mr. Libovitz himself lying when he tries to suggest some “rational” explanation for the behavior of the 2 priests. “They were drinking wine”, “they were experimenting” etc. etc.

These are lies Mr. Libovitz. Let’s say the story was true: Where is it written they were drinking wine? Where is it written they were experimenting? By giving “rational” explanations, you are implying this is a true story and the events which are described actually happened. It is not….

“Fire” is related to “motive” and fire is used to cook food and to burn incense. In short then: fire takes things from the level of earth and raises them up to the level of God. Hence, Joseph arrived in Egypt with a spice caravan and, in Hebrew, Pontiphar was a cook. As you correctly noted in your other articles, the Torah speaks of “purity”, not “cleanliness” (which is a mis-translation). Thus “a strange fire” refers to “an impure medium used to reach God”. Since priests are intermediaries between the Children of Israel and God, by introducing “an impure fire” the sons of Aaron have seriously damaged the line of communication between the Israelites and God. Thus God send his own fire to “burn away the impurities of their actions”. Since the story involves “incense”, probably their “crime” had something to do with “inspirational teachings not from God”.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

No Bull

This week’s parasha, telling of the strange and inexplicable deaths of Aaron’s sons, is an excellent primer on truth, lies, bunk, and the crucial differences among them

More on Tablet:

Is the Book of Esther—a Story Told In Human Terms, Not Miracles—a Holy Book?

By Adam Kirsch — Talmudic rabbis, like us, can only study the course of history for the elusive signs of God’s intentions