(1) The LORD spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron who died when they drew too close to the presence of the LORD.
(ג) [ג] "ויאמר ה' אל משה דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא בכל עת" – ואין אנו יודעים מה נאמר לו בדיבור הראשון! היה ר' אלעזר בן עזריה משלו משל למה הדבר דומה, לחולה שנכנס אצל רופא. אומר לו "על תשתה צונן ואל תשכב בטחב". בא אחר ואומר לו "אל תשתה צונן ואל תשכב בטחב שלא תמות". בא אחר ואומר לו "אל תשתה צונן ואל תשכב בטחב שלא תמות כדרך שמת פלוני", וזה זרזו יותר מכולם. לכך נאמר "ויאמר ה' אל משה דבר אל אהרן אחיך ואל יבא בכל עת".
(3) 3) (16:2) ("And the L rd said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, and let him not come at all times to the holy place within the curtain before the ark-cover which is on the ark, that he not die. For in the cloud I shall appear upon the ark cover.") "And the L rd said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, and let him not come at all times": __ But we do not know what was said to him the first time (i.e., after 16:1 "And the L rd spoke to Moses, etc.")! R. Elazar b. Azaryah was wont to say: To what may this be compared? To a patient who visited a doctor and was told by him: "Do not drink cold and do not lie in wet," after which a different doctor said to him: "Do not drink cold and do not lie in wet, so that you do not die as so and so died." The latter directive is the most effective. This is the thrust of "after the death of the two sons of Aaron… And the L rd said to Moses: 'Speak to Aaron your brother and let him not come at all times,'"
(1) Now Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu each took his fire pan, put fire in it, and laid incense on it; and they offered before the LORD alien fire, which He had not enjoined upon them. (2) And fire came forth from the LORD and consumed them; thus they died at the instance of the LORD.
(4) But Nadab and Abihu died by the will of the LORD, when they offered alien fire before the LORD in the wilderness of Sinai; and they left no sons. So it was Eleazar and Ithamar who served as priests in the lifetime of their father Aaron.
(א) ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן אש על המזבח...(ב) וכתב הגאון רבינו סעדיה, בזה טעו נדב ואביהוא שחשבו כי מלת ונתנו פירוש שישימו אש מן החוץ על המזבח, ואינו כן, אבל מלת ונתנו הוא כלשון ובערו, שכן מצינו לשון נתינה שפירושו הבערה, והביא ראיה ממה שאמר חזקיה (ישעיה לז) ונתון את אלהיהם באש. ואמר כי מכאן יש להוכיח כמה צריך אדם להזהר בדקדוק המלות בלשון תורתנו, שאפילו נדב ואביהוא שאין בכל ישראל למעלה מהם אחר משה, טעו במשמעות לשון ונתנו, וטעותם היתה סבה להם שהביאו אש זרה מן החוץ ונענשו בחיוב מיתה, כי אמרו שכשאמר משה מפי הגבורה ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן אש, פירושו שישימו על המזבח אש מן החוץ ולא חשו בזה שישאלו למשה והגיע להם העונש הזה...
...Rav Saadyah Gaon writes concerning this matter that Nadav and Avihu erred when they thought that our verse means that man-made fire was to be placed on the altar “from the outside.” The word ונתנו in our verse is equivalent to ובערו, “they shall burn.” The word ונתנו is used in that sense in Isaiah 37,19: ונתון את אלוהיהם באש, “they have committed their gods to the flames.” Rav Saadyah uses this example of the error committed by Nadav and Avihu to stress how careful one has to be when trying to derive halachic rulings from the written text of the Torah. If people of the stature of Nadav and Avihu could make such a fatal error in understanding the text of the Torah, how much more likely is it that scholars of lesser distinction can make such errors! Had they troubled themselves to confirm with their teachers Moses or Aaron that their interpretation was correct they would not have brought death upon themselves...
So, it is there as a warning, which makes sense. But is the warning to us or to Aaron?
Self-Will, Devotion and Strange Fire…
“And Nadav and Avihu died before the LORD, when they offered strange fire before the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children; and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest’s office in the presence of Aaron their father.” (Bamidbar/Numbers 3:4)
“And Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which He had not commanded them. And there came forth fire from before the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.”(Vayikra/Leviticus 10:1-2)
This is a really interesting text. Two of Aharon’s son’s are killed when they go to do service in the Mishkan(Tent of Meeting) – but for what are they killed? The text in Bamidbar is not very forthcoming with an explanation, so we have to look at the parallel text in Vayikra for an answer – they offered fire before the L-RD about which they had not been commanded – it not being commanded by G-d, but coming from their own intense devotion, their own desire, rather than the inspiration of G-d, made it foreign to the House of G-d.
Some Sages suggest that they were drunk, and brought the incense offering as a result of being intoxicated – this is indicated through the fact that in Vayikra 10:9 “‘Drink no wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tent of meeting, that ye die not; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations.” Torah doesn’t prohibit something unless there is a reason, a practical example of behaviour that is unwanted or inappropriate.
Other Sages suggest that Nadav and Avihu were so intensely devoted to serving the Eternal One that they misused the privilege in an attempt to draw even closer to G-d than even their Father, Aharon, and that they were killed for that attempt, for wanting more of G-d than the rest of the Priest and the People. This would be indicated by the words “which He had not commanded them.”
The nature of a command is that it is spoken from G-d to us – i.e it is G-d who approaches us through His Mitzvot. Nadav and Avihu turned that order on it’s head and decided to approach G-d, basically without being invited and therefore without being properly prepared. They went individually, not in concert with each other, nor in concert with the other Priests, which in a sense made them vulnerable.
Rav Kook suggests that they failed to see the dynamic between the Sacred and the Mundane, the Spiritual and the Physical, that they lacked the understanding that if you “go up the mountain” you have to “come down the mountain”.
“The noble sons of the High Priest, Nadav and Avihu, drew their inspiration from the wellspring of Bina. They sought the spiritual pleasantness that characterizes this elevated realm, the limited grandeur that is accessible to our world. Due to their profound awareness of personal greatness, however, they mistakenly saw in the holy realm of Bina the ultimate source of reality. They placed all of their goals in this spiritual world.”
They forgot that they were serving the People before G-d as well as G-d before the People, and wanted to remain within the Spiritual/Sacred Realm, keeping the Insight and Beauty of Torah and G-d to themselves. Basically, they went for themselves, and not for G-d or for the people. The Strange Fire were their own strong but misguided desire to learn about the Mystery of G-d without sharing the knowledge with the rest of us as leaders and teachers.
Drawing near to G-d is all good – and we are supposed to, we are commanded to walk with G-d and to offer up our supplications and our gratitude – we are supposed to have a relationship with G-d, but we are not supposed to stay “on the mountain” – we need to tend to the Mundane, we need to pay attention to the people around us, because ultimately, they the one’s we serve.