Archive for month: April, 2026

Torah Portion:  Shemini

Mind-Altering Chemicals
by Rabbi Dr. Abraham Twerski (z”l)

The sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, each took his fire-pan, they put fire in them and placed incense upon it; and they brought before God an alien fire that He had not commanded them (Vayikra, 10:1).

Rashi cites the statement of R’ Yishmael in the Talmud that the transgression of Nadab and Abihu was that they drank wine before entering the Sanctuary. This statement appears remarkable. The Torah is explicit that their sin was the introduction of an alien fire, an eish zarah. How and why does R’ Yishmael give another reason, which seems to contradict the Scripture?

The answer is that R’ Yishmael is not at all contradicting the Scripture. Rather, he is offering an interpretation thereof. While eish zarah is literally “an alien flame,” it is also figuratively “an alien passion.” R’ Yishmael’s interpretation is of singular importance today.

Nadab and Abihu were extraordinarily great men, so much so that Moses said that he considered them greater than himself and Aaron (Rashi, Leviticus 1:3). If they drank wine before entering the Sanctuary, it was not because they were out partying. Rather, they knew that in the Sanctuary they would have a spiritual experience. They believed that by drinking wine they would attain a state of mind more conducive to a spiritual experience. After all, the psalmist says, “Wine makes glad the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15). By relieving a person’s tension, wine enables one to have greater joy, and joy can enhance a spiritual experience. It was for the intensification of the spiritual experience that they drank wine.

Why, then, were they so severely punished? Because one should not seek to enhance a spiritual experience by artificial means. Intense spiritual experiences should come as a result of prayer, Torah study and meditation, with contemplation on the Infinite, and not by altering the metabolism of the brain with a chemical.|

In recent times we have suffered a plague of drug use which has destroyed many lives, ruined the minds of countless youth, and still poses a threat to the very survival of our society. Several decades ago, there arose a false prophet who advocated “mind expansion” by use of potent mind-altering chemicals such as LSD, claiming that it would give people a perception of reality that they could not achieve otherwise. Many people believe that intoxicating the brain with alcohol, marijuana or other chemicals improves one’s functioning. Many minds have been destroyed as result of this misconception.

R’ Yishmael’s point is that one should not seek spiritual enhancement by altering one’s state of mind with a chemical. Nadab and Abihu’s attempt to do so was introducing “an alien fire” into the Divine service. Now, as then, chemical alteration of one’s state of mind is destructive.

I arrived at this interpretation of R’ Yishmael’s statement as a result of my clinical experience in treating people who have resorted to chemicals to alter their state of mind. I was thrilled to subsequently discover that several Torah commentaries had offered this interpretation.

Symbolism of the Kosher Signs
by Rabbi Yehonasan Gefen

In this week’s Torah portion, the Torah details the signs of kosher animals: they must have split hooves and chew their cud. If an animal lacks one of these traits, it is forbidden even if it as the other. The Torah singles out four such animals: the camel, hare, and hyrax, which chew their cud but do not have split hooves, and the pig (chazir), which has split hooves but does not chew its cud.

Rabbi Shimshon Pinkus writes that the commentaries explain that these distinctions hint at deeper spiritual lessons about the relationship between external observance and inner belief. Chewing the cud symbolizes internal spirituality and connection to God and intention in Mitzvot —while split hooves represent external Mitzvah observance. The camel, for example, which chews the cud but lacks split hooves, represents a person with deep belief but no practical observance. Such a person may feel spiritual or connected to Judaism but does not translate those feelings into action. The pig, on the other hand, has split hooves but does not chew its cud, symbolizing someone who performs Mitzvot externally but lacks sincerity and inner conviction. Both forms of behavior are considered ‘non-kosher’ because belief and action are both essential to serving God.

However, Rabbi Pinkus cites an astonishing Rabbinic source¹ that stresses a key difference between the pig and the other non-kosher animal. The hebrew name for pig is chazir coming from the root meaning ‘return’. Chazal teach that this alludes to the fact in the future the pig will return to us and be permitted to eat.² The Midrash emphasizes that only the pig will become kosher, implying that the other non-kosher animals will remain forbidden. What is the difference between the pig and the other non-kosher animals?

The answer lies in the transformative power of Mitzvah observance. The Sefer HaChinuch teaches that the heart follows the actions. A person who performs Mitzvot, even without deep intent, has the potential to develop true connection over time. By contrast, one who believes in God but does not act on that belief, has no foundation upon which to build. This is why the pig, which at least demonstrates external righteousness, has the capacity for eventual spiritual repair, whereas the camel’s flaw—belief without practice—is much harder to correct.³

This idea is fundamental to the Torah belief that that true spirituality requires action, not just belief. This is in stark contrast to some other religions that emphasize belief as the key to success, Judaism insists that faith alone is insufficient—one must act on it.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch emphasizes the problem of belief without action in his commentary on the Chumash.⁴ The Torah forbids setting up a pillar (matseivah) as a way to worship God. Instead, one should use an altar (mizbayach) for offerings. The problem arises that the Patriarchs themselves used to use pillars in their Divine service⁵, so why now does the Torah forbid it? Rashi explains that at the time the Torah was written, it was common for idol worshippers to use a pillar in their idol worship, whereas at the time of the Patriarchs, this was not a common practice.

Rabbi Hirsch offers a different explanation. He begins by elucidating the differences between a pillar and an altar. A pillar is one stone in its natural form which is a symbol of God’s control over nature. In contrast, an altar comprises of a number of stones that a human assembles into an orderly structure. This symbolizes the idea that man’s purpose is not just to see God in nature, but to subjugate man to God through man’s actions. With this introduction, Rabbi Hirsch explains that in the time of the Patriarchs, before the Torah was given, the main purpose of man was to recognize God in the world through nature, but there was no requirement to direct one’s actions to Mitzva observance because the Torah had not yet been given⁶. God loved these pillars because they achieved what was required at that time. However, after the Torah was given, it was insufficient to simply recognize God in nature without also living one’s life in the way require by the Torah. Accordingly, the altar became the optimal means with which to serve God, because it symbolized man’s active submission to God. Moreover, the pillar was now transformed from being beloved to God to being hated by Him, because only recognizing God in the world, without an accompanying commitment to live according to the Torah, is considered a sin in God’s eyes.

A person who recognizes God in nature, and even believes in Divine Providence, fulfils two of the three foundations of belief that the Sefer HaIkrim outlines, but the third is that God gave us the Torah to fulfil it. If he does not follow that third foundation, even if he believes in the other two, then he is fundamentally flawed, because man’s purpose is to take his recognition of God and Divine Providence and live his life according to God’s instructions, as outlined in the Torah.

We have seen how the lack of belief without action is even greater than action without inner conviction⁷, as one who keeps Mitzvot is more likely to come to fix his inner world, than vice versa. However, Rabbi Pinkus stresses that both modes of behavior are considered ‘non-kosher’ by the Torah. And for people who grow up doing Mitzvot, the flaw of the pig is more likely to be present than the flaw of the camel.⁸ Thus, it is essential for a person to work on his Emunah, and understanding of why he should learn Torah and observe Mitzvot, because without an active effort, it is very likely that his inner world will be inconsonant with his outer behavior.

May we all merit to have both signs of being ‘kosher’.

1. Quoted by Rabbeinu Bechaye, Vayikra, 11:4; Ritva, Kiddushin, 49b; Teshuvat HaRadbaz, Chelek 2, Simun 828.
2. This is the simple interpretation of the Midrash – see the commentaries above for various explanations of the Midrash.
3. See Tiferet Shimshon, pp.101, where he offers an answer in a similar vein but with slight differences.
4. Peirush Al Hatorah, Devarim, 16:22.
5. Bereishit, 28:18.
6. It is true that the Patriarchs observed the Torah before It was given, but this was not out of strict obligation.
7. One who does not have any Emunah and yet observes Mitzvot for some reason, would seem to not be included in the category of ‘chazir’ that will return to observance. Rather, we are focusing on someone who believes in God but does not practice Mitzvot for the right reason or with inner conviction.
8. Many Jews who grow up secular or traditionally are more likely to espouse belief in God and perhaps even the Torah, but not translate that belief into action. Of course, in truth, as the Sefer HaIkrim cited above, points out, this indicates a severe lacking in one’s Emunah as true Emunah leads to action.

Look Beyond The Past
by Nesanel Yoel Safran

From This Week’s Torah Portion

It can be good to look back on the past. We can learn a lot both from our past successes as well as our mistakes. But we also have to be careful not to let our past mistakes bog us down so much that we’re afraid to try again. The Torah this week relates that it was time for Aaron, the High Priest, to perform some of his special sacred tasks for the Jewish people in the Tabernacle. He hesitated and felt unworthy to do such holy things, because he felt responsible for the golden calf that the people had made against God’s wishes. But Moses, his brother, reassured him. He encouraged him to go beyond his past mistakes and accomplish all the great things he could in the present. We learn from this to try to be the best we can be now, no matter what might have happened in the past.

In our story, a brother and sister explore how not to let past mistakes stop them from doing good now.

Liz and her brother, David, excitedly piled into the family’s mini-van with their parents. Their mom was careful to pack enough snacks and games to make the one-hour drive to the nursing home a pleasant one.

“Great Aunt Millie is really going to be happy to see us,” chirped Liz as her dad started the engine.

Her mom looked around. “Hey, where’s Michael?” she asked noticing the boy wasn’t in the van.

Without missing a beat, little David leaned over into the driver’s seat and started to honk the horn insistently.

“Hey, cut it out!” said his dad with a smile. “You’ll wake up the entire neighborhood.” Turning to his oldest daughter, he said, “Liz, could you please go tell your brother we’re leaving now and ask him to hurry up?”

“No problem, Dad,” answered the girl cheerfully. She ran into the house and made her way to her younger brother’s room at the end of the hall. “Michael, Mi-chael,” she called out in a sing-song voice. She knocked on his door a few times. Finally hearing a muffled “Yeah?” she turned the knob and walked in.

Michael was curled up on his bed, the covers pulled over his head. “Hey Mike what’s happening?” she asked. “We’re all waiting for you in the car and you’ve decided to take a nap?”

The boy poked his head out from the blanket. He wasn’t smiling at his sister’s joke. “I’m not going,” he said simply.

“But why not?” asked Liz, surprised. “It’s going to make Aunt Millie so happy when we visit her today.”

Her brother shook his head. “Maybe she’ll be happy to see you,” he said, “But I’ll probably just get her upset.”

Noticing Liz’s confused look, Michael went on to explain. “Remember last winter when we went to visit Grandma in the hospital?”

The girl nodded.

“Well, when I kept asking her about why she was there and why she wasn’t moving her arms, and then I asked her if she was going to die — she got upset and started to cry. Mom told me after that it would be better just to try to cheer her up. So this time I’m staying home. I’m not going to blow it again and make Aunt Millie cry too.”

“Beep-beep!” blasted the car horn.

“Oh-oh, David’s at it again,” smiled Liz. “Look Michael,” she said. “I can understand why what happened last time upset you. But I also know that you’re a considerate person who doesn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. Everyone makes mistakes and sometimes says the wrong thing, but why should you let what occurred last time stop you from trying this time?”

Michael’s face brightened a bit as he sat up on his bed.

Liz continued, “You want to cheer Aunt Millie up, don’t you?”

Michael nodded. “Sure. I know she’s lonely and needs people to visit her. But after what happened with Grandma, I just don’t know if I can…”

“Okay, what happened, happened,” said Liz. “But now you can put it behind you and make a fresh start. How about telling yourself that from now on you’re going to do it the right way?”

Michael thought for a moment and said, “I guess I can do that, can’t I?”

Suddenly they were rudely interrupted by yet another horn blast. “Let’s go,” Michael said, jumping down off of the bed. “Before David wears out the van’s horn.”

They laughed. As they headed out to the waiting car, Michael turned to his sister and said, “Thanks Liz, I can certainly take some lessons from you about how to cheer a person up!”

Discussion Questions

Ages 3-5

Q. How do you think Michael felt when it was time to go visit his great aunt in the nursing home?
A. He didn’t want to go because he felt afraid that he would make her feel bad like he did with his grandma.

Q. Just because we made a mistake or did something wrong in the past, does that mean that we can’t try to do the right thing now?
A. No. We can always start fresh and do the right thing from now on.

Ages 6-9

Q. What did Liz say that convinced Michael to come along to visit their great aunt?
A. She was able to help him realize that a person always has a second chance to improve. The fact that he had made some incorrect choices in the past was no reason why he couldn’t act correctly now. Her words encouraged Michael to try again in spite of what happened in the past.

Q. Do you think that we are ever stuck having to behave a certain way, or can we always choose to change for the better?
A. Some things we can’t change. A tall person can’t become short or vice-versa. But when it comes to how we choose to behave we’re never stuck. While we might not be able to improve overnight, if we keep trying, we can eventually come to behave in ways that we really want to.

Q. Can you think of a time you decided to do something that was very difficult?

Ages 10 and Up

Q. Our spiritual tradition describes a good person not as someone who never does bad, but rather as someone who repeatedly fails and picks himself up. How do you understand this? Why do you think this is so?
A. Life is a dynamic process. Inevitably, a person who is focused on spiritual growth is going to encounter challenges and tests, sometimes he will pass these, sometimes he won’t. Yet even when it seems like he “failed,” this in itself is really only a test. God wants us to unlock the hidden ability within ourselves to pick ourselves up and continue along the path of personal growth. The dynamic process of growing toward goodness is good in itself. The boy in our story accomplished this when he overcame his fears of past failure and agreed to visit his aunt.

Q. Would you say that somebody whose natural personality or life circumstances makes it very difficult for her to do the right thing is somehow not responsible for the way she behaves? Why or why not?
A. Certainly such a person faces a greater challenge to make the proper choices. Nevertheless she, like all of us, is ultimately responsible for the choices she makes. God wants all of us to succeed and He gives us the tools to do so. If we honestly search within ourselves we can often discover the means to overcome the most challenging circumstances. God never gives up on us and He doesn’t want us to give up on ourselves either.

Q. Can you think of a time you decided to do something that was very difficult?

 

Quote of the Week