אחרי מות

The Cloud in the Kodesh HaKodashim

The parashah commences with the general prohibition to enter the Kodesh HaKodashim before detailing the exceptional circumstances under which the high priest may enter:

וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אַחֲרֵי מוֹת שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן בְּקָרְבָתָם לִפְנֵי־ה' וַיָּמֻתוּ׃ וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה דַּבֵּר אֶל־אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וְאַל־יָבֹא בְכָל־עֵת אֶל־הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִבֵּית לַפָּרֹכֶת אֶל־פְּנֵי הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל־הָאָרֹן וְלֹא יָמוּת כִּי בֶּעָנָן אֵרָאֶה עַל־הַכַּפֹּרֶת׃ בְּזֹאת יָבֹא אַהֲרֹן אֶל־הַקֹּדֶשׁ... (ויקרא טז:א-ג)

The bolded words have intrigued commentators and scholars over the generations resulting in two very different schools of interpretation. Some have understood the phrase as providing the reason for the prohibition and the basis for the danger. According to this interpretation, ki translates as because, and the cloud refers to God's presence. The overall meaning is that the priest may not enter the inner sanctum because the divine presence is constantly manifest in the cloud above the Kaporet.

Others have understood the phrase as introducing the strict conditions under which the priest may enter and encounter the divine presence. According to this approach, ki is translated as 'only' and the cloud refers to the incense cloud. The thrust of the verse is that the divine presence residing in the Kodesh HaKodashim may only be encountered by the priest in the when it is clouded by the incense.  

Rashi succinctly refers to both interpretations:

כי בענן אראה. כִּי תָמִיד אֲנִי נִרְאֶה שָׁם עִם עַמּוּד עֲנָנִי, וּלְפִי שֶׁגִּלּוּי שְׁכִינָתִי שָׁם, יִזָּהֵר שֶׁלֹּא יַרְגִּיל לָבֹא, זֶהוּ פְשׁוּטוֹ; וּמִדְרָשׁוֹ: לֹא יָבֹא כִּי אִם בַּעֲנַן הַקְּטֹרֶת בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים (יומא נ"ג):

Interestingly, Rashi refers to the first approach as the peshat. This interpretation is also preferred by Rashbam, Bechor Shor and Seforno. It is also adopted by every English translation I consulted, Jewish and non-Jewish.

On the other hand, Ibn Ezra and Ramban both prefer the second approach which interprets the cloud as referring to the incense cloud. As we will now see, there are several advantages to this interpretation.

First and foremost, as the Ramban already points out, the incense interpretation is strongly supported by a later verse which specifically refers to the incense cloud as preventing the death of the priest:

וְנָתַן אֶת־הַקְּטֹרֶת עַל־הָאֵשׁ לִפְנֵי ה' וְכִסָּה עֲנַן הַקְּטֹרֶת אֶת־הַכַּפֹּרֶת אֲשֶׁר עַל־הָעֵדוּת וְלֹא יָמוּת׃

The straightforward reading of this verse is that the incense protects the priest from death by creating a smokescreen to prevent a direct exposure to the Divine presence.[1] Since this is the meaning of the cloud in the later verse, it would seem reasonable to attribute the same meaning to the cloud mentioned in the earlier verse.

Relevant to this discussion is the fascinating debate recorded in the Talmud between the Saducees and Pharisees regarding our verse:

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן וְנָתַן אֶת הַקְּטוֹרֶת עַל הָאֵשׁ לִפְנֵי ה׳ שֶׁלֹּא יְתַקֵּן מִבַּחוּץ וְיַכְנִיס לְהוֹצִיא מִלִּבָּן שֶׁל צַדּוּקִין שֶׁאוֹמְרִים יְתַקֵּן מִבַּחוּץ וְיַכְנִיס מַאי דְּרוּשׁ כִּי בֶּעָנָן אֵרָאֶה עַל הַכַּפּוֹרֶת מְלַמֵּד שֶׁיְּתַקֵּן מִבַּחוּץ וְיַכְנִיס אָמְרוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר וְנָתַן אֶת הַקְּטוֹרֶת עַל הָאֵשׁ לִפְנֵי ה׳ אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כִּי בֶּעָנָן אֵרָאֶה עַל הַכַּפּוֹרֶת מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנּוֹתֵן בָּהּ מַעֲלֵה עָשָׁן (בבלי יומא נג.)

We will return to this debate shortly, however, for our immediate purposes it is simply worth noting that both the Saducees and Pharisees interpreted the cloud in our verse as referring to the incense cloud.

This is also the view of the Sifra:

"ולא ימות" – הרי זה עונש. "כי בענן אראה על הכפורת" – הרי זו אזהרה.[2]

The incense cloud explanation, however, is not without problems of its own. Without any context to suggest otherwise, the word cloud appearing on its own, reads more naturally as a reference to God's cloud rather than an artificial incense cloud. This is especially true as the idea of an 'incense cloud' has not yet been introduced.[3]

Another apparent difficulty is the lack of congruity with the introductory verse. Nadav and Avihu were punished for offering incense in the wrong way, however this is interpreted. It therefore seems odd to use this episode to as the backdrop to a specific requirement to burn incense as this was precisely the source of Nadav and Avihu's error.[4] 

A third approach

The question of the interpretation of this verse is important for understanding the function of the incense in general. As mentioned, according to the second approach, the main purpose of the incense is seemingly to generate a smokescreen to shield the priest from direct exposure to the divine presence. This was certainly the view of the Sadducees that derived from the verse that one must place the incense on the coals prior to entering the Kodesh Kodashim. Since this is the place where God's presence is revealed, the cloud must already be formed prior to entry.

The view of the Pharisees, on the other hand, seems more difficult to understand. They too read the verse as referring to the incense cloud, yet they permit him to enter prior to the cloud's formation. If the point of the verse is that casual entry (i.e. without the incens) may lead to death, then it follows that the only possible way to enter is with the incense cloud already formed as the Sadducees claimed.

To answer this, we may suggest a third approach (which may be seen as a modification of the second approach) whereby the end of the verse is stating that the incense cloud enables the revelation of the divine presence. Rather than concealing, the incense cloud reveals God's glory. The paradox of the cloud as obscuring yet revealing God's presence is familiar to us from the revelation at Sinai:

וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי בָּא אֵלֶיךָ בְּעַב הֶעָנָן בַּעֲבוּר יִשְׁמַע הָעָם בְּדַבְּרִי עִמָּךְ וְגַם־בְּךָ יַאֲמִינוּ לְעוֹלָם (ויקרא יט:ט)

According to the above suggestion, the threat of death is not due to the raw encounter with God's presence but due to the desecration of holiness caused by its absence, which makes the person responsible deserving of death. If, when and how such death takes place – by heavenly fire like Nadav and Avihu or by execution - is left open to interpretation and perhaps deliberately ambiguous. The primary purpose of the verse is to provide the reason it is wrong to enter by whim rather than explain the direct cause of his death. Entering without the incense demonstrates a lack of awe and, as a direct consequence, defiles the sanctity of the place. The inevitable result, or the other side of the coin, is that there is no manifestation of God's presence.  

The translation is now precise: 'for only in the cloud will I appear upon the Kaporet'. Absent the incense cloud, God's presence cannot manifest.  

This approach may be supported by the parallel between the Yom Kippur service described in our passage and the special service of the eighth day of the inauguration.[5] In both cases a special chatat and olah are each brought by the Kohen Gadol and (on behalf of) the people. Regarding both occasions the identical phrase is used – וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו. Since we see that the eighth day service was introduced with a declaration of intent to cause God's glory to appear - וְיֵרָא אֲלֵיכֶם כְּבוֹד ה' (ויקרא ט:ו) - it should not be surprising that the Yom Kippur service commences in similar fashion. In both cases, the goal set in the beginning is revelation of the divine presence. 

This may also help resolve a famous question posed in relation to the instruction of the building of the Mishkan. When the furnishings are first listed, there is no mention of, or allusion to, the incense altar. Not only that, but the main sacrificial altar is referred to with the definite article as though it were the only altar. It is only after the detailed instruction of the inauguration ceremony that the instruction for the incense altar first appears. In contrast, in the subsequent seven listings of the major furnishings, the incense altar is consistently mentioned – as one might expect – prior to the outer altar.

A number of answers have been proposed and a detailed analysis is outside the scope of this discussion. Nevertheless, based on what we have discussed above, one might suggest that the incense service is qualitatively different from the other forms of service as it represents the end goal of the Mishkan which is divine revelation:

וְעָשׂוּ לִי מִקְדָּשׁ וְשָׁכַנְתִּי בְּתוֹכָם׃ (שמות כה:ח)

In other words, the incense service relates to the response to the main service. To allude to this distinct role, the details of the incense altar are presented to us only after the instruction regarding the ceremony to inaugurate the Mishkan as the dwelling place of God's presence.[6]

It should be emphasised that according to the above model, the holiness of the Kodesh HaKodashim need not be seen as an ever-present metaphysical and innate quality, but a reflection of man's attitude towards it. To the extent that it is properly treated as the holiest place on earth then that is precisely the character and definition which it obtains. I do not mean to relegate holiness to a purely subjective perception with no inherent character[7]; the important point, however, is that the infusion of holiness into the Kodesh HaKodashim (or any holy place for that matter) bears direct correlation to man's conduct towards it.[8]

Despite all, the above suggestion does not fully resolve the ambiguity in the verse. One is still left with the impression that the verse deliberately wrong foots the reader since every previous usage of the word anan is in reference to a cloud formed by God. There is no prior mention of an 'incense' cloud, notwithstanding that the regular incense service was already detailed earlier (see Shemot 30:7-10). On the other hand, there is a prior episode in which someone is prevented from entering the Mishkan on account of the cloud suffusing it:

וַיְכַס הֶעָנָן אֶת־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וּכְבוֹד ה' מָלֵא אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּן׃ וְלֹא־יָכֹל מֹשֶׁה לָבוֹא אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד כִּי־שָׁכַן עָלָיו הֶעָנָן וּכְבוֹד ה' מָלֵא אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּן׃  (שמות מ:לה-לו)

A linear reading of the text would thus have one believe that, consistent with previous occasions, the cloud reference in this verse refers to God's presence which creates a barrier to entry. It is only in hindsight when one reaches verse 13 that it becomes apparent that the cloud is in fact the incense cloud, a creation of man. It seems plausible that this a device to demonstrate the mutuality of the two clouds. The one-off revelation at Mt. Sinai will be perpetuated within a wholly manmade construction where even the manifestation of God's glory is initiated or even represented through human action. Thus, the incense cloud does indeed correspond to the cloud of Mt. Sinai, but the contrast is instructive as to the nature and purpose of the entire Mishkan enterprise. God's revelation from this point on will be a joint effort between God and man.

Link to the deaths of Nadav and Avihu

We can now better understand why this instruction is prefaced with the death of Nadav and Avihu. As mentioned before, it is surprising that the prohibition to enter the Kodesh HaKodashim without the incense should be introduced with reference to the episode of Nadav and Avihu who died because they burnt the incense (albeit when not commanded). Whilst both are problematic in their own right, they seem unrelated and opposite in nature. However, once we understand that the function of the incense is to represent God's cloud it is understandable that unauthorised burning of the incense is tantamount to unauthorised entry to the Kodesh HaKodashim. The common denominator is that both represent an attempt to assume control over the approach to God. This is indeed the focus of the sin of Nadav and Avihu in the introductory verse:

וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אַחֲרֵי מוֹת שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן בְּקָרְבָתָם לִפְנֵי־ה' וַיָּמֻתוּ׃ (ויקרא טז:א)

It is worth noting that the only previous mention of Nadav and Avihu was also in the context of approaching God:

וַיַּעַל מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת אֱלֹקי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר׃ (שמות כד:ט-י)

In that case, Nadav and Avihu obtained special status and proximity to God which was not shared by the rest of the people. It is reasonable to assume that they were attempting to replicate that same spiritual high experienced on the mountain. The problem with their idea is that the nature and circumstances of the revelation of God's presence must firmly remain the determination by God. The extreme power handed to man in the form of the incense - enabling him to initiate a divine encounter - must be governed by strict regulation which retains the sense of subjugation of man to God and not the reverse. 

The Ketoret of Korach

The model in which the incense first causes death but then protects from death, repeats itself in the story of Korach. When the 250 followers are challenged by Moshe to burn incense alongside Aharon, the nature of the deaths unmistakably resemble the deaths of Nadav and Avihu:

וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי ה’ וַתֹּאכַל אוֹתָם וַיָּמֻתוּ לִפְנֵי ה’ (ויקרא י:ב)

וְאֵשׁ יָצְאָה מֵאֵת ה’ וַתֹּאכַל אֵת הַחֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתַיִם אִישׁ מַקְרִיבֵי הַקְּטֹרֶת (במדבר טז:לה)[9]

Yet, in the aftermath, when a deadly plague breaks out it is precisely the incense offered by Aaron which stops the plague in its track.

The message of these two tragic episodes is similar. When following the prescribed protocol then the proper respect is displayed, and God is thereby sanctified. This necessarily entails an element of exclusivity including a designated place, an appointed time, and a select group to carry out the service. This may be compared to the detailed choreographing one would expect to see undertaken in honour of a king or queen. Beyond the spectacle, there is a majestic quality in the precision and control of the ceremony which conveys submission of the individual toward the sovereign. Such a ceremony is certainly not the place for individuality and improvisation. Applied to the case of the incense, were each person to consider himself capable of engineering the revelation of the Divine presence via their personal incense pan, it is easy to see how this could quickly degenerate into self-worship and idolatry.

Given the concerns around a slippery descent into idolatry, it is unsurprising that the incense is the most restricted and circumscribed of all services. It may only ever be performed by the Kohen Gadol, it takes a very specific form, and may not be reproduced for any other purpose under the threat of karet:

לֹא־תַעֲלוּ עָלָיו קְטֹרֶת זָרָה וְעֹלָה וּמִנְחָה וְנֵסֶךְ לֹא תִסְּכוּ עָלָיו׃ (שמות ל:ט)

וְהַקְּטֹרֶת אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה בְּמַתְכֻּנְתָּהּ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם קֹדֶשׁ תִּהְיֶה לְךָ לַה'׃ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה כָמוֹהָ לְהָרִיחַ בָּהּ וְנִכְרַת מֵעַמָּיו׃ (שמות ל:לז-לח)[10]

The incense challenge set out by Moshe was thus a fitting response to their claims. If indeed there was no special status for the priests as 'the whole nation is holy' as claimed by Korach, then they should all be equally capable of offering the incense to enable a manifestation of God's presence (being the primary function of the priesthood). However, the fallacy of this outlook is devastatingly exposed. Once it becomes a free-for-all then the sense of awe is inevitably lost, and the holiness desecrated. Faced with such a scenario, in order to counter the desecration, God makes his presence felt though a unilateral display of power. This was the case with the rebellion of Korach and with the tragic episode of Nadav and Avihu.[11] It is also suggested, if not explicitly threatened, in our verse.      

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Interestingly, Rashi – quoting the Sifra - explains this later verse in halachic terms. The meaning of the verse, according to Rashi, is that the priest is liable to the death penalty if performs the service in the wrong way.

ולא ימות. הָא אִם לֹא עֲשָֹאָהּ כְּתִקְנָהּ חַיָּב מִיתָה:

[2] The Ta'amim show a pause (זקף קטן) after the word ענן. This seems to support the incense cloud approach.

[3] It is also worth noting that in Biblical Hebrew, 'appear' and 'seen' are the same word. The distinction between the two is that the former generally (but not always) represents an objective change in state whilst the latter is relative to the position of the observer. Since the words are indistinguishable in Hebrew, if the intended meaning is 'seen' (i.e. the incense/smokescreen explanation) then a direct reference to the observer who is the subject of the seeing would be expected. Compare the following verses:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יִקָּווּ הַמַּיִם מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמַיִם אֶל־מָקוֹם אֶחָד וְתֵרָאֶה הַיַּבָּשָׁה וַיְהִי־כֵן׃ (בראשית א:ט)

וַיִּקְרָא אַבְרָהָם שֵׁם־הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא יְהוָה יִרְאֶה אֲשֶׁר יֵאָמֵר הַיּוֹם בְּהַר יְהוָה יֵרָאֶה׃ (בראשית כב:יד)

מַצּוֹת יֵאָכֵל אֵת שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים וְלֹא־יֵרָאֶה לְךָ חָמֵץ וְלֹא־יֵרָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאֹר בְּכָל־גְּבֻלֶךָ׃ (שמות יג:ז)

שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה יֵרָאֶה כָּל־זְכוּרְךָ אֶל־פְּנֵי הָאָדֹן יְהוָה׃ (שמות כג:יז)

In the first two examples, the appearance is objective and therefore the verb takes no direct object. In the second two examples, it is a relative term and therefore the object of the seeing is specifically referenced.

In our verse, the lack of direct reference to the priest would suggest the reference is to an objective revelation ('appear' and not 'be seen'). The counterargument, however, is that the last part of the verse is set out as a general statement that God's presence may only ever be seen together with the incense cloud. Therefore, as it is written in general terms, it does not specifically refer to the Kohen Gadol/Aharon, the subject of the preceding verses. 

[4]I initially thought the use of the future tense – אראה – supports the incense cloud approach. If the cloud represents God's continuous presence in the Mishkan, the present tense – נראה - would have been more appropriate. I subsequently saw that the Maharal (Gur Aryeh) suggest this is in fact the reason Chazal deviated from the peshat which Rashi offers. However, on reflection this seems to be a weak point as it is usual for the future tense to be used for the ongoing present tense (as the Maharal himself acknowledges). In fact, scholars have pointed out that Biblical Hebrew doesn't really have past/present/future tenses, only perfect and imperfect.

[5] I have referred to our passage as presenting the Yom Kippur service in accordance with the view of Rashi, however it is far from clear that this special service was restricted to Yom Kippur. The Midrash, for example, presents an alternative view:

אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה לֹא כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאַתָּה סָבוּר, לֹא עֵת לְשָׁעָה, וְלֹא עֵת לְיוֹם, וְלֹא עֵת לְשָׁנָה, וְלֹא עֵת לִשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה, וְלֹא עֵת לְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה, וְלֹא עֵת לְעוֹלָם, אֶלָּא בְּכָל שָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה לִכָּנֵס יִכָּנֵס, רַק שֶׁיִּכָּנֵס בַּסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה (ויקרא רבה כא:ז)

[6] Nahum Sarna makes a similar suggestion (Sarna 1991, p.193). He also seems to interpret the verse in Vayikrah 16:3 in accordance with the third approach.

[7] Typically the argument goes that holiness either represents an innate, hypostasized state, or it is the result of a normative designation and nothing more - the 'mystical' and 'rationalist' views as some would refer to them. Nevertheless, it is possible to adopt a ‘middle’ position where the basis of holiness is a consequence of a rational-historical process, but subsequently endowed with metaphysical properties (however understood) to concretise the selection. 

[8] Incidentally, the widely held assumption that a rope was tied round the Kohen Gadol when he entered the Kodesh Kodashim is not mentioned in any Talmudic, Midrashic or even contemporaneous sources (e.g. Josephus).

[9] The אש זרה also finds its way into the story of Korach:

אֱמֹר אֶל־אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן־אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וְיָרֵם אֶת־הַמַּחְתֹּת מִבֵּין הַשְּׂרֵפָה וְאֶת־הָאֵשׁ זְרֵה־הָלְאָה כִּי קָדֵשׁוּ׃ (במדבר יז:ב)

[10] The link between קטורת זרה and the אש זרה of Nadav and Avihu is consistent with the idea that the root of their sin lay in the unsanctioned burning of the incense.

[11] With respect to Nadav and Avihu it is written –

בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ וְעַל־פְּנֵי כָל־הָעָם אֶכָּבֵד (ויקרא י:ג)

As the various commentators point out it is unclear what earlier directive Moshe is referring to, if any. Nevertheless, the main point is well expressed by the Netziv:

וזה מאמר משה בקרובי אקדש. בבני אדם הקרובים אליו יתקדש בעיני ישראל שיכירו בזה עוצם קדושתו ורוב ההכרח להזהר בחילול קדושתו ח״ו