NADAB AND ABIHU

(1) 'ותצא אש מלפני ה, this fire emanated from the Holy of Holies, traveled via the golden altar in order to burn up the incense which was always offered before the daily communal burnt offering, as described in Yuma 33. This is also where the fire encountered the sons of Aaron beside the altar Subsequently, this fire moved to the altar in the courtyard of the Tabernacle and consumed the sacrificial meat consisting of both burnt offerings and peace-offerings.

(1) ויתנו בהן אש וישימו עליה קטורת, “they put fire in them (the censers) and placed incense in them.” According to the plain meaning of the text Nadav and Avihu’s sin consisted in that they introduced alien, i.e. man-made, fire into the sacred precincts. The regulations pertaining to the incense offering required that the fire be taken from the Altar and that the incense be burned up by that fire. The Torah had spelled this out in Leviticus 16,12: ”he shall take a shovelful of fiery coals from atop the Altar that is before Hashem.” Nadav and Avihu thought that the actual fire from the Altar was required to totally consume the animal sacrifices. This was a sin as they demonstrated a lack of faith, not trusting G’d to make heavenly fire descend on the sacrifices and able to consume the sacrifices; this is why they brought additional fire to consume the incense. By bringing their own fire they made the miracle of heavenly fire descending seem less relevant, thereby causing a desecration of the name of the Lord in the eyes of all those who had observed what they did. This is why their punishment fitted their sin, as that same heavenly fire they did not trust to materialise consumed their own insides. This is the explanation of Rabbi Aderet (ראב'ד) of what happened . (2) A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Acharey Mot 6). They entered the Sanctuary while in a state of intoxication. This accounts for the fact that the Torah spells out the prohibition of priests entering the Sanctuary while drunk immediately after having reported this incident (compare 10,8-11). The Sifra Shemini Miluim 22-23 writes as follows: “G’d said to them: ‘I have honoured you more than you honoured Me. You introduced impure fire into My holy Place, whereas I will burn you with pure, heavenly fire.’” How exactly did they die? Two threads of fire came out of the Holy of Holies and entered their nostrils becoming divided into four “threads.” Two entered the nostrils of Nadav and the other two entered the nostrils of Avihu.’” (3) A kabbalistic approach: We can gain a clearer picture of the sin of these sons of Aaron when noting that the Torah wrote: וישימו עליה, instead of writing וישימו עליהם, “they placed on it” instead of: “they placed on them.” [There had been two censers, each brother having entered with his own censer. Ed.] When you compare what the Torah writes in connection with the 250 men who offered incense (Numbers 16,18) you will find that the fire and incense is described with the words “they placed it on them, (the censers, plural). When the instructions as to the correct procedure is issued in the Torah (Numbers 16,17) Moses had told these men ונתתם עליהם קטורת “place on them incense.” (No mention had been made of fire although the 250 men added their own fire) The word עליה as distinct from עליהם is an allusion to the attribute of Justice. The Torah is trying to give us an insight into the thinking of Nadav and Avihu at that time. They knew that incense was intended to counter, to stop the attribute of Justice in its tracks, as we know from Moses in Deuteronomy 33,10: “they place incense to placate Your anger.” The word קטורת itself means התקשרות רוח במדות, “establishing a spiritual affinity.” The Aramaic translation of the word ותקשור, (Genesis 38,25) “she tied” is וקטרת. The spiritual affinity established by means of the incense is meant to draw down an abundance of heavenly blessings by means of the attribute of Justice, which in turn will confer these blessings on the person burning up the incense. The sin of the person offering incense with such considerations consists in the fact that it is not permissible to direct one’s offering to any other attribute of G’d than the tetragram, i.e. Hashem. Seeing that Nadav and Avihu erred in the address to which the offered their incense, we do not find it described as אשה ריח ניחוח לה', “as a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance to the Lord,” but the very attribute of Justice to whom they addressed their offering smote them. This is the meaning of the words ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל אותם, “fire came forth from the presence of the Lord and consumed them so that they died” (verse 2). (4) Most of the commentators claim that Nadav and Avihu brought their incense into the Holy of Holies. As proof for their opinion they offer what is written in Leviticus 16,2 that even Aaron must not enter the Holy of Holies on any day other than the Day of Atonement on pain of death. The only occasion on which the High Priest is allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, equipped with incense, is the Day of Atonement. The warning of the death penalty there is linked to the death of the two sons of Aaron, suggesting that this is precisely what they had been guilty of. This is also the opinion of Rashi. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (on Leviticus 16,1) agrees. (5) However, Nachmanides (Leviticus 16,2) does not believe that Nadav and Avihu entered the Holy of Holies but that they only entered the outer Sanctuary. He finds it impossible to believe that these sons would be arrogant enough to enter holy precincts which even their father and Moses had not entered. Why should they offer their own incense in a place holier than where their father had offered his own? The Torah mentions specifically that Aaron presented his incense in the Sanctuary; (compare 9,23: “Moses and Aaron entered the Tent of Meeting).” The expression ויבא in that verse refers to the preparation and offering of the incense.

(1) 1) (Vayikra 16:1) ("And the L–rd spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron when they drew near before the L–rd and they died,") "And the L–rd spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron": What is the intent of this ("two")? Because it is written (Vayikra 10:1) "And the sons of Aaron took, Nadav and Avihu, each his coal-pan" — "the sons of Aaron" — they did not seek counsel from Aaron; "Nadav and Avihu" — they did not seek counsel from Moses; "each his coal-pan" — each by himself; they did not take counsel from each other. Whence is it derived that just as the transgression of the two was identical, so the death of the two was identical? From "after the death of the two sons of Aaron."

(2) 2) "when they drew near before the L–rd and they died": R. Yossi Haglili says: They died because of the drawing near (and entering the holy of holies without permission), and not because of the incense offering. R. Akiva says: They died because of the offering and not because of the drawing near. One verse (our verse) states "when they drew near before the L–rd and they died," and another verse states (Vayikra 11:1) "and they offered before the L–rd a strange fire." The resolution (Bamidbar 3:4) "when they drew near (with) a strange fire before the L–rd" — They died because of the drawing near and not because of the offering. R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: The offering is sufficient (for death) unto itself, and the drawing near is sufficient unto itself.

(3) 3) (Vayikra 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,'"

(4) 4) for if he does come he will die, as his sons died, viz.: "and let him not come … that he not die" — If he comes, he will die!

(5) 5) It was said in the name of R. Yishmael: Since two dicta are mentioned here, one aside the other, ( 1) "And the L–rd spoke to Moses…" 2) "And the L–rd said to Moses…", one (i.e., the second) "open" (i.e., explained); the other, (the first) "closed" (i.e., unexplained), the "open" elucidates the closed, viz.: Just as the "open" speaks of Moses' telling Aaron not to enter the sanctuary, so, the "closed" speaks of Moses' telling Aaron not to enter the sanctuary. And in what connection is this mentioned? That of (abstaining from) wine and strong drink (before entering the sanctuary), viz. (Vayikra 10:6) "And let your brethren, the entire house of Israel, mourn the burning that the L–rd has burned… (Vayikra 10:8) And the L–rd spoke to Aaron, saying … Wine or strong drink you shall not drink, etc."

(6) 6) Aaron is constrained from coming (into the sanctuary), but Moses is not. — But perhaps (the meaning is that) Aaron is constrained from coming, but not his sons. R. Eliezer said: Would that follow? If one, (Aaron), who was commanded to come (into the holy of holies on Yom Kippur), was (here) commanded not to come, then one, (an ordinary Cohein), who was not commanded to come (on Yom Kippur), how much more so is he commanded (here) not to come! — No, this is refuted by the instance of those (Cohanim) without blemish, who are commanded to come to the tent of meeting, but are commanded not to come having drunk wine and strong drink;

(7) 7) but those who are blemished, who are not commanded to come, are not commanded not to come having drunk wine — here, too, (we would say that) the commanded (to come, i.e., Aaron) is commanded (not to come at all times, but not the sons, who are not commanded to come.) It is, therefore, written ("Speak to Aaron) your brother." Let "your brother" not be stated. Why is it stated? To include the sons.

(8) 8) "and let him not come": on Yom Kippur. "at all times": to include the other days of the year. R. Eliezer said: (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If he (the high-priest), on the day that he is commanded to come (i.e., on Yom Kippur), he is commanded not to come (on the other times of that day [i.e., those times not specified for sacred service]), then, on a day that he is not commanded to come (i.e., the other days of the year), how much more so is he commanded not to come (at all times)! — No, this is refuted by the instance of Yisrael, who are commanded to come on the festivals and who are commanded not to come empty-handed,

(9) 9) but on the other days of the year, when they are not commanded to come, they are not commanded not to come empty-handed — here, too, (we would say that) on a day that he is commanded, he is commanded, (but not when he is not commanded). It is, therefore, written "at all times," to include the other days of the year.

(10) 10) "within the curtain": This is the holy of holies; "to the holy place": This is the sanctuary. I might think that for all, the punishment is death. It is, therefore, written "before the ark cover which is on the ark, that he not die." How is this to be understood? "before the ark cover" is punishable by death; (if he enters) the other parts of the sanctuary, (he is in transgression of) an exhortation.

(11) 11) "before the ark cover (kaporeth) which is on the ark": What is the intent of this? Because it is written "kaporeth," I might think that (in addition to the kaporeth) there is a covering for the ark. It is, therefore, written "which is on the ark." The kaporeth is on the ark and there is no (other) cover on the ark.

(12) 12) I might think that there is no cover on the ark, but that some other material intervenes between the kaporeth and the (tablets of the) Testimony; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 16:13) "and the cloud of incense shall cover the ark cover which is on the Testimony, and he shall not die" — nothing intervenes between the kaporeth and the Testimony.

(13) 13) "that he not die": This is the punishment. "for in a cloud I shall appear upon the ark cover": This is the exhortation. And R. Elazar said: I might think that both the punishment and the exhortation were stated before the death of the two sons of Aaron; it is, therefore, written "after the death of the two sons of Aaron." I might think that both were stated after the death of the sons of Aaron; it is, therefore, written "for in the cloud I shall appear upon the ark cover." How is this to be understood? The exhortation was stated before the death of the sons of Aaron, and the punishment was not stated until after their death.

(34) 34) (Vayikra 10:2): "And a fire came out from before the L–rd": We are hereby taught that a fire came forth from the holy of holies and burned their souls. Abba Yossi b. Dostai says: Two strands of fire came forth from the holy of holies and parted into four, and entered, two into the nostrils of one, and two, into the nostrils of the other, and burned them, but not their garments, it being written (Vayikra 10:2) "and it consumed them," but not their garments. And it is written (Vayikra 10:5) "And they carried them in their tunics": In the tunics of the carried (their garments not having been burned) or the tunics of the carriers? It is, therefore, written (Shemoth 28:40): "And for the sons of Aaron (here, the carried,) shall you make tunics," (and not for the sons of the Levites; here, the carriers).