Tetzaveh

Shemot 27:20-30:10

Bearing the Burden of Sin and Responsibility

Michael Rosenberg, 5764

I thank my roommate and friend Michael Kay, who eagerly stayed up with me until 2 am debating the ideas in this devar torah. Friends like that, you have to keep around.

Closely read Chapter 28, which describes the clothes made for Aharon and the priests. Although it may seem difficult to get through because of all the repetition, try to pay attention to any verbs used. Are there any that are repeated many times?

In the course of describing the clothing designed for Aharon to wear in his role as high priest, the Torah four times refers to Aharon as "bearing" or carrying (Hebrew root נ.ש.א.) something. In 28:12, discussing the efod (no one seems to know for sure what kind of garment this is), the Torah says that Aharon will bear the names of the Israelites on his shoulders-"וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת שְׁמוֹתָם...עַל שְׁתֵּי כְתֵפָיו"; in 28:29, regarding the chestplate, we are told that he will bear their names on his heart as well-"וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחֹשֶׁן הַמִּשְׁפָּט עַל לִבּוֹ". These first two instances are fairly easy to understand; the names of the tribes are literally placed on Aharon's garments such that he is "bearing" them on his physical body.

Things get a bit weirder in 28:30, where Aharon is said to bear the "mishpat"--the judgment, of Benei Yisrael-"וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת מִשְׁפַּט בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל לִבּוֹ"; what does it mean to carry their mishpat? And it is especially difficult to make sense of verse 28:38, where Aharon is described as bearing the "avon" (sin, or punishment for sin) of the sacrifices brought by Benei Yisrael-"וְנָשָׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת עֲוֹן הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר יַקְדִּישׁוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל". What is it that Aharon is carrying in these verses?

Another question that we have to think about: Why does the Torah use the language of .נ.ש.א-to carry, or bear-four times in this one chapter? Verbs that are repeated tend to be important, and this particular verb has certain connotations that might be instructive. One of the most common uses of this verb in the Torah is in relation to sin; people who were in shul on Ta'anit Esther this week heard perhaps the most famous example of this use of the verb. In Shemot 34:7, one of the traits attributed to God is being "נֹשֵׂא עָוֹן"-often translated as forgiving sin, but literally meaning "bearing sin." Another famous verse takes us back to Genesis; after killing his brother, Kain cries out "גָּדוֹל עֲוֹנִי מִנְּשֹׂא". For now, I'll translate that verse as "My sin is too great to bear," but we'll come back to this below. If you take a look at a concordance, you will find many more examples of this verb being connected to the committing as well as the forgiving of sin. So by using this verb נ.ש.א. four times in our chapter, the Torah appears to be suggesting a subtle connection between the clothing that Aharon wears as the high priest and the notion of sin.

This connection is made explicit in an amoraic statement in the Talmud (Zevahim 88b, also found at Arakhin 16a):

By portraying Aharon as bearing these things on his body, the Torah is suggesting something about the redemptive possibilities of the priestly garments. While it might be interesting to speculate about how these clothes, of all things, might have this power of atonement, I want to focus on a different question. What does it mean to think of forgiveness as being related to the verb .נ.ש.א? What is it that Aharon is bearing? And why must he bear it? And how does that relate to forgiveness or sin?

My thinking about this is strongly influenced by a lecture I heard two years ago. Professor Gary Anderson, who teaches Bible at Harvard, pointed out that while in the Bible sin is conceived of as a burden to be carried, in rabbinic literature, sin is understood of as a debt to be paid back. Think back to learning mishnah and gemara this summer: How would you say "guilty" in rabbinic texts? The most common word would be "חַיָּב" (hayyav) which comes from the word "חוב" (hov)-a debt. This change is interesting, but does it mean anything? I think that it does. The language that we use to express ideas, even if we aren't aware of it, both reflects what we believe as well as influences what we come to think. So if the Bible thinks of sin as a burden, but the Mishnah speaks of it as a debt, then that may represent differing views of what it means to sin.

Think about this: If I owe you money, and then pay it back, the debt is wiped away. It no longer exists, and the world is set right, exactly as it was before my debt came into being. Thus, the rabbinic metaphor for sin as debt allows for a total removal of sin. I have to pay the sin back, but I have the ability to do that.

The Biblical metaphor suggests a different way of viewing sin. If I have a burden on my shoulders, I cannot make it disappear. Matter that exists always exists--that's a law of physics. All I can do is pass it off, but someone or something will have to bear it in my place. Thus, God is described as forgiving by the language of "bearing sin"--God's forgiveness is conceived of as God taking the weight off of our shoulders and placing it on God's own. If we return to the verse about Kain, the same image can be seen; above, I translated the verse as "My sin is too great to bear." However, Rashi understands the verse differently. He sees it as a question: "Is my sin too great for You to bear?" Can't God take on Kain's sin? Regardless of how we understand it, the assumption is the same. Once a sin has been committed, a burden has been created, and someone--be it the sinner or God--has to bear it.

If this idea sounds Christian to you, that probably makes sense. The idea of some figure taking over the burden of our sin for us is one of the most fundamental ideas in Christianity. (It should be pointed out, though, that there are plenty of places in the New Testament where sin is understood differently, including places where the metaphor of debt is used). It's also probably a dangerous idea; to think of God--or an intermediary such as Aharon who bears the priestly clothing in our chapter--as forgiving through taking on burdens or suffering encourages an attitude that suffering is a good thing. This kind of thinking has often led abused and hurt individuals to stay in their problematic situations, because they see their suffering as noble or pious. But the fact that this idea is present in Christianity, and the fact that it may have had negative consequences, does not mean we can disown the idea in our own tradition. The notion of sin as a burden to be carried, and to be forgiven by taking on that burden, is certainly present in the Hebrew Bible. I would like to suggest, however, an additional nuance present in the Bible's presentation of this metaphor.

Let's return to the four instances of .נ.ש.א in our chapter. The first two times, Aharon is bearing the names of the tribes on his shoulders and on his heart; we are also told that these names are to be a "זִכָּרֹן", a reminder to God. Rashi says that they remind God of the righteousness of tribes, a suggestion that makes a great deal of sense. So when Aharon goes to serve God and seek atonement for the sins if Benei Yisrael, he carries the weight of the past, but this weight is a positive thing. The second two occurrences of Aharon bearing, verses 30 and 38, are the more obscure ones, where he bears, respectively, judgment and sin. So the passage suggests two kinds of burden--the burden of righteousness, and the burden of sin. The former helps receive forgiveness for the latter, but it is nonetheless a weight to be carried. In a sense, then, it is not sin that is the burden--it is responsibility. When we do good, or when we sin, we take on a new kind of responsibility. It is this responsibility that we feel as a weight on us. Thus, the "burden" is not necessarily a bad thing. It is simply something that we have to take on. Aharon, in taking on the role of intermediary between the people and God and the responsibility that comes with that role, necessarily bears both the good and the bad.

(Note the unintentional pun in that last sentence: "taking on"-our language is still infused with this notion of physical weight).