(ב) בְּיוֹם־הַחֹ֥דֶשׁ הָרִאשׁ֖וֹן בְּאֶחָ֣ד לַחֹ֑דֶשׁ תָּקִ֕ים אֶת־מִשְׁכַּ֖ן אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃
(2) On the first day of the first month you shall set up the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting.
וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי״, וְתַנְיָא: אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם הָיְתָה שִׂמְחָה לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כְּיוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ בּוֹ שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וַיְהִי בְּיוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״וַיְהִי (בֹקֶר) יוֹם אֶחָד״!
After citing several verses where vayhi portends grief, the Gemara mentions a number of verses that seem to indicate otherwise. But isn’t it written: “And it came to pass [vayhi] on the eighth day” (Leviticus 9:1), which was the day of the dedication of the Tabernacle? And it is taught in a baraita with regard to that day: On that day there was joy before the Holy One, Blessed be He, similar to the joy that existed on the day on which the heavens and earth were created. The Gemara cites a verbal analogy in support of this statement. It is written here, with regard to the dedication of the Tabernacle: “And it came to pass [vayhi] on the eighth day,” and it is written there, in the Creation story: “And it was [vayhi] evening, and it was morning, one day” (Genesis 1:5). This indicates that there was joy on the eighth day, when the Tabernacle was dedicated, similar to the joy that existed on the day the world was created. Apparently, the term vayhi is not necessarily a portent of grief.
(א) וַיִּקְח֣וּ בְנֵֽי־אַ֠הֲרֹ֠ן נָדָ֨ב וַאֲבִיה֜וּא אִ֣ישׁ מַחְתָּת֗וֹ וַיִּתְּנ֤וּ בָהֵן֙ אֵ֔שׁ וַיָּשִׂ֥ימוּ עָלֶ֖יהָ קְטֹ֑רֶת וַיַּקְרִ֜יבוּ לִפְנֵ֤י ה' אֵ֣שׁ זָרָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹ֦א צִוָּ֖ה אֹתָֽם׃
(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 ה' alien fire, which had not been enjoined upon them.
(ג) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֗ן הוּא֩ אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֨ר ה' ׀ לֵאמֹר֙ בִּקְרֹבַ֣י אֶקָּדֵ֔שׁ וְעַל־פְּנֵ֥י כׇל־הָעָ֖ם אֶכָּבֵ֑ד וַיִּדֹּ֖ם אַהֲרֹֽן׃
(3) Then Moses said to Aaron, “This is what ה' meant by saying:
Through those near to Me I show Myself holy,
And gain glory before all the people.”
And Aaron was silent.
Through those near to Me I show Myself holy,
And gain glory before all the people.”
And Aaron was silent.
Two approaches to leadership
(ז) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֗ן קְרַ֤ב אֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֙חַ֙ וַעֲשֵׂ֞ה אֶת־חַטָּֽאתְךָ֙ וְאֶת־עֹ֣לָתֶ֔ךָ וְכַפֵּ֥ר בַּֽעַדְךָ֖ וּבְעַ֣ד הָעָ֑ם וַעֲשֵׂ֞ה אֶת־קׇרְבַּ֤ן הָעָם֙ וְכַפֵּ֣ר בַּֽעֲדָ֔ם כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוָּ֥ה ה'׃
(7) Then Moses said to Aaron: “Come forward to the altar and sacrifice your sin offering and your burnt offering, making expiation for yourself and for the people; and sacrifice the people’s offering and make expiation for them, as ה' has commanded.”
(א) קרב אל המזבח. שֶׁהָיָה אַהֲרֹן בּוֹשׁ וְיָרֵא לָגֶשֶׁת, אָמַר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה, לָמָּה אַתָּה בוֹשׁ? לְכָךְ נִבְחַרְתָּ (ספרא): (ב) את חטאתך. עֵגֶל בֶּן בָּקָר: (ג) ואת עלתך. הָאָיִל: (ד) קרבן העם. שְׂעִיר עִזִּים וְעֵגֶל וְכֶבֶשׂ; כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "עֵגֶל" בֶּן שָׁנָה הוּא וּמִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד (שם):
(1) קרב אל המזבח [AND MOSES SAID TO AARON] GO TO THE ALTAR, for Aaron was diffident and feared to go there. Moses therefore said to him “Wherefore art thou diffident? For this purpose hast thou been selected!” (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 8). (2) את חטאתך THY SIN OFFERING — the young calf (v. 2). (3) ואת עלתך AND THY BURNT OFFERING — the ram (v. 2). (4) קרבן העם THE OFFERING OF THE PEOPLE — the kid of the goats and the calf and the lamb (v. 3). Wherever the term עגל, “calf” is mentioned without further definition it denotes one in its first year, and it is from this passage that you may derive this rule (cf. Sifra on 4:2; Rosh Hashanah 10a).
(א) וטעם קרב אל המזבח ויקרב אהרן אל המזבח וישחט על דעתי בדרך הפשט יאמר קרב אל צפון המזבח ועשה שם החטאת והעולה כי הם שחיטתן בצפון ואמר משה כן בדרך קצרה שכבר ידע אהרן זה אבל בת"כ (שמיני מלואים ח) נתעוררו רבותינו בזה ומשלו משל למה הדבר דומה למלך בשר ודם שנשא אשה והיתה מתביישת מלפניו נכנסה אצלה אחותה אמרה לה אחותי למה נכנסת לדבר זה לא שתשמשי את המלך הגיסי דעתך ובואי שמשי את המלך כך אמר לו משה לאהרן אהרן אחי למה נבחרת להיות כהן גדול לא שתשרת לפני המקום הגס דעתך ובוא ועבוד עבודתך ויש אומרים היה אהרן רואה את המזבח כתבנית שור והיה מתירא ממנו נכנס משה אצלו אמר לו אהרן אחי לא תירא ממה שאתה מתירא הגס דעתך ובא קרב אליו לכך אמר קרב אל המזבח ויקרב אל המזבח בזריזות וטעם דבר זה כי בעבור שהיה אהרן קדוש ה' ואין בנפשו חטא זולתי מעשה העגל היה החטא ההוא קבוע לו במחשבתו כענין שנאמר (תהלים נא ה) וחטאתי נגדי תמיד והיה נדמה לו כאילו צורת העגל שם מעכב בכפרותיו ולכך אמר לו הגס דעתך שלא יהיה שפל רוח כל כך שכבר רצה אלקים את מעשיו....
(1) DRAW NEAR UNTO THE ALTAR. 8. AND AARON DREW NEAR UNTO THE ALTAR AND SLEW THE CALF. It seems to me in accordance with the plain meaning of Scripture that Moses said to Aaron: “Draw near to the north side of the altar and offer there the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, for they are to be slaughtered on the north side of the altar.” Moses, however, said it briefly since Aaron already knew [that these offerings were to be slaughtered on the north side of the altar].
Our Rabbis in the Torath Kohanim were, however, prompted by [the use of] these expressions to draw a parable [and to say]: “To what can this be compared? To a human king who married a woman, who in her shyness [did not dare to enter] before him. Her sister then approached her, saying, ‘My sister, why did you enter this matter? Was it not in order that you serve the king? Embolden yourself and go in to serve the king!’ Similarly did Moses say to Aaron: ‘My brother! Why were you chosen to be the High Priest? Was it not so that you minister before G-d? Embolden yourself and come and do your priestly activities.’ Some Rabbis say that Aaron saw the [horned] altar in the form of the bull [which — as stated in Psalms 106: 20 — Israel had worshipped], and he was frightened by it. Then Moses came near and said to him, ‘My brother, Aaron, do not be afraid of that which you fear. Embolden yourself and come near it.’ This is why he said, draw near unto the altar, and [Aaron] drew near unto the altar — with zeal.” The reason for this [apparition which Aaron saw in the altar] was that since Aaron was the holy one of the Eternal, having no sin on his soul except for the incident of the golden calf, therefore that sin was firmly fixed in his mind, something like that which is said, and my sin is ever before me. It thus appeared to him as if the form of the calf was there [in the altar] preventing his [attaining] atonement [through the offerings he was to bring]. That is why Moses said to him, “Embolden yourself so that you should not be of such humble spirit,” for G-d has already accepted his works. Other scholars explain that it was Satan who showed him this apparition, just as they have said there in the Torath Kohanim: “My brother Aaron, although G-d has agreed to grant atonement for your sin, you must nonetheless close the mouth of Satan [through your offerings], lest he accuse you when you enter the Sanctuary etc.” And the expression, and make atonement for thyself, and for the people means as follows: “draw near unto the altar to bring all the offerings, and offer first thy sin-offering, and thy burnt-offering, and make atonement for thyself first with thy offerings, and for the people afterwards, through bringing their offering and atoning for them by means thereof.” Thus Moses taught Aaron that the guiltless should come and effect atonement for those who are guilty.
Our Rabbis in the Torath Kohanim were, however, prompted by [the use of] these expressions to draw a parable [and to say]: “To what can this be compared? To a human king who married a woman, who in her shyness [did not dare to enter] before him. Her sister then approached her, saying, ‘My sister, why did you enter this matter? Was it not in order that you serve the king? Embolden yourself and go in to serve the king!’ Similarly did Moses say to Aaron: ‘My brother! Why were you chosen to be the High Priest? Was it not so that you minister before G-d? Embolden yourself and come and do your priestly activities.’ Some Rabbis say that Aaron saw the [horned] altar in the form of the bull [which — as stated in Psalms 106: 20 — Israel had worshipped], and he was frightened by it. Then Moses came near and said to him, ‘My brother, Aaron, do not be afraid of that which you fear. Embolden yourself and come near it.’ This is why he said, draw near unto the altar, and [Aaron] drew near unto the altar — with zeal.” The reason for this [apparition which Aaron saw in the altar] was that since Aaron was the holy one of the Eternal, having no sin on his soul except for the incident of the golden calf, therefore that sin was firmly fixed in his mind, something like that which is said, and my sin is ever before me. It thus appeared to him as if the form of the calf was there [in the altar] preventing his [attaining] atonement [through the offerings he was to bring]. That is why Moses said to him, “Embolden yourself so that you should not be of such humble spirit,” for G-d has already accepted his works. Other scholars explain that it was Satan who showed him this apparition, just as they have said there in the Torath Kohanim: “My brother Aaron, although G-d has agreed to grant atonement for your sin, you must nonetheless close the mouth of Satan [through your offerings], lest he accuse you when you enter the Sanctuary etc.” And the expression, and make atonement for thyself, and for the people means as follows: “draw near unto the altar to bring all the offerings, and offer first thy sin-offering, and thy burnt-offering, and make atonement for thyself first with thy offerings, and for the people afterwards, through bringing their offering and atoning for them by means thereof.” Thus Moses taught Aaron that the guiltless should come and effect atonement for those who are guilty.
רובנו ככולנו מכירים דוגמאות לאנשים המצטיינים בתפקידם כמספר 2, אך נבעתים מהמחשבה שיצטרכו להנהיג בעצמם.
Why is Aharon ashamed?
1) Trepidation at approaching the divine presence
2) Reminder of his sin re the Golden Calf
These according to Ramban
3) Was second in command until now, many want to assist but terrified of leading on their own
Whatever the explanation - Moshe had to give him confidence to take the reins
2nd Approach
1) Trepidation at approaching the divine presence
2) Reminder of his sin re the Golden Calf
These according to Ramban
3) Was second in command until now, many want to assist but terrified of leading on their own
Whatever the explanation - Moshe had to give him confidence to take the reins
2nd Approach
(א) יין ושכר אל תשת יין דרך שכרותו לשון רש"י (רש"י על ויקרא י׳:ט׳) ופירושו שאם הפסיק בו או שנתן לתוכו מעט מים פטור ודעתו של הרב שלא הוזהרו אלא על היין לא על שאר המשכרים ונלמוד שכר מן הנזיר (נזיר ד) וכן הדבר לפי דעתי אבל על דעת הרב ר' משה (בס' המצות ל"ת ע"ג ובהל' ביאת המקדש פ"א ה"ב) על שאר המשכרים באזהרה ושכר כפשוטו והטעם בצואה הזאת עתה שלא יתעה הכהן בשכרות היין ויבא לידי מחשבה שאינה כהוגן וימות בה כאשר עשו בניו ויתכן כי מה שדרשו (ויק"ר יב א) שהיו נדב ואביהוא שתויי יין לומר כי מפני יינם טעו באש זרה לא שיהיה העונש מפני היין כי עדיין לא הוזהרו ממנו אבל עונשם שטעו באש ה' כאשר רמזתי (רמב"ן על ויקרא י׳:ב׳):
(1) DRINK NO WINE NOR STRONG DRINK. “[Do not drink] wine to such an extent that it has an intoxicating effect.” This is Rashi’s language. The meaning thereof is that if he paused during the drinking [of a fourth of a log of wine], or if he mixed a little water into it, he is free from punishment. The opinion of the Rabbi [Rashi] is thus that the priests were only prohibited from drinking wine, but not from other intoxicating drinks, the meaning of the term sheichar (strong drink) mentioned here being derived from the law of the Nazirite [where a similar expression appears, and only wine is forbidden to him]. This is correct according to my opinion. But in the opinion of Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon], however, other intoxicating drinks are prohibited [through a negative commandment, without being punishable by death, and the Service performed after drinking them is not invalidated, whereas for drinking wine the punishment is death by the hand of Heaven, and the Service is invalidated]; thus sheichar is to be understood in its plain sense [i.e., strong drink]. The reason why this commandment was given at that time, was in order that the priest should not go astray through the intoxicating effect of wine, and thus come to entertain some improper thought which might cause his death, as happened to [Aaron’s] sons. It is possible that when the Rabbis interpreted that Nadab and Abihu died because they entered the Sanctuary whilst intoxicated by wine, they meant to say that it was because of the wine they had drunk that they erred in the matter of the strange fire, but not that their punishment actually was because they had drunk the wine, since they had not yet been warned against it. Rather, their punishment was because they erred with respect to the fire of G-d, as I have alluded to. (2) WHEN YE GO INTO THE TENT OF MEETING. “From this verse I know only [that they are forbidden to drink wine and strong drink] when they go into the Sanctuary. Whence do I know that this applies also whenever they approach the altar? Entering the Tent of Meeting is mentioned here, and entering the Tent is also mentioned in connection with the washing of hands and feet. Now just as there the Torah made approaching the altar similar to entering the Tent of Meeting, so here too it made approaching the altar like entering the Tent of Meeting.” This is Rashi’s language, and that of the Torath Kohanim.
It would appear from this analogy that a priest [drunk with wine] is not liable to death for approaching the altar or for entering the Sanctuary, unless he performed there some [Divine] Service, just as in the case of washing the hands and feet, where the admonition is only against performing the Service [without washing], as it says, or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal. In this form it is taught there in the Sifra: “Rabbi states: Here it says, when ye go into the Tent of Meeting, and there [in connection with the law of the priests washing their hands and feet] it says, when they go into the Tent of Meeting. Now just as there He made going out [of the Sanctuary] similar to going into it, and the altar similar to the Tent of Meeting, and the penalty of death [by the hand of Heaven] is only if he performed the Service [without washing], so here also He made going out [of the Sanctuary] similar to going into it, and the altar similar to the Tent of Meeting, and the punishment is only if he performs the Service [whilst intoxicated].” That is to say, the liability [to punishment] is only if the priest performs the Service, whether he entered while drunk, or drank there [after he had come in] and then performed some Service. There [in the Sifra] the Rabbis have said: “It shall be a statute forever. This includes the pouring of oil [upon the flour of a meal-offering], mixing it, waving it, bringing near [the meal-offering to the altar], removing the handful and burning it, pinching a bird’s head, and sprinkling the blood,” [so that all these acts must not be done by the priest while drunk, and if he did any of them in that state, he is liable to death by the hand of Heaven]. For since Scripture stated, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal, [I might have excluded these acts from this law since they are not “a fire-offering”], therefore it was necessary to include them [here in the verse before us].
It further appears that this liability [to punishment] does not apply where one offers up on a bamah. That is why the Rabbis said there [in the Torath Kohanim]: “From this verse I know only that it is prohibited [to perform the Service] in the Tent of Meeting [while drunk]. Whence do I know to include the Sanctuary at Shiloh and the Eternal House at Jerusalem? Scripture therefore says, it shall be a statute for ever.” For this prohibition applies to the priests performing their Services, and it was not necessary that it be a priest who performed the Service at a bamah; [therefore the prohibition did not apply there].
Now the meaning of the expression when ye go into the Tent of Meeting, is “when you perform Service,” and He used this expression because all the Services were done there, either inside the Tent or at the altar of the burnt-offering which was at the door of the Tent of Meeting. The general principle then, is that the prohibition and punishment in these matters are only to the effect that the priest should not perform the Service while drunk with wine or with hands and feet unwashed, likewise if he lacks any of the required priestly garments; but merely for entering the Sanctuary in these conditions, there is no prohibition in the Torah. Thus that which we have been taught in the Mishnah: “Rabbi Yosei says: In five things is the space between the Porch [of the Sanctuary] and the altar equal to the Sanctuary: that those priests may not enter there who have a blemish, or who have dishevelled hair, or who have hands and feet unwashed” and the whole Mishnah there — all these are gradations of Rabbinic enactment [and are not matters prohibited by Scriptural law]. In the opinion, however, of Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon], one who [wilfully] enters the Sanctuary [in the above-mentioned conditions] without performing the Service, [has also violated] a negative commandment, for which the punishment is not death [by the hand of Heaven but whipping].
It would appear from this analogy that a priest [drunk with wine] is not liable to death for approaching the altar or for entering the Sanctuary, unless he performed there some [Divine] Service, just as in the case of washing the hands and feet, where the admonition is only against performing the Service [without washing], as it says, or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal. In this form it is taught there in the Sifra: “Rabbi states: Here it says, when ye go into the Tent of Meeting, and there [in connection with the law of the priests washing their hands and feet] it says, when they go into the Tent of Meeting. Now just as there He made going out [of the Sanctuary] similar to going into it, and the altar similar to the Tent of Meeting, and the penalty of death [by the hand of Heaven] is only if he performed the Service [without washing], so here also He made going out [of the Sanctuary] similar to going into it, and the altar similar to the Tent of Meeting, and the punishment is only if he performs the Service [whilst intoxicated].” That is to say, the liability [to punishment] is only if the priest performs the Service, whether he entered while drunk, or drank there [after he had come in] and then performed some Service. There [in the Sifra] the Rabbis have said: “It shall be a statute forever. This includes the pouring of oil [upon the flour of a meal-offering], mixing it, waving it, bringing near [the meal-offering to the altar], removing the handful and burning it, pinching a bird’s head, and sprinkling the blood,” [so that all these acts must not be done by the priest while drunk, and if he did any of them in that state, he is liable to death by the hand of Heaven]. For since Scripture stated, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal, [I might have excluded these acts from this law since they are not “a fire-offering”], therefore it was necessary to include them [here in the verse before us].
It further appears that this liability [to punishment] does not apply where one offers up on a bamah. That is why the Rabbis said there [in the Torath Kohanim]: “From this verse I know only that it is prohibited [to perform the Service] in the Tent of Meeting [while drunk]. Whence do I know to include the Sanctuary at Shiloh and the Eternal House at Jerusalem? Scripture therefore says, it shall be a statute for ever.” For this prohibition applies to the priests performing their Services, and it was not necessary that it be a priest who performed the Service at a bamah; [therefore the prohibition did not apply there].
Now the meaning of the expression when ye go into the Tent of Meeting, is “when you perform Service,” and He used this expression because all the Services were done there, either inside the Tent or at the altar of the burnt-offering which was at the door of the Tent of Meeting. The general principle then, is that the prohibition and punishment in these matters are only to the effect that the priest should not perform the Service while drunk with wine or with hands and feet unwashed, likewise if he lacks any of the required priestly garments; but merely for entering the Sanctuary in these conditions, there is no prohibition in the Torah. Thus that which we have been taught in the Mishnah: “Rabbi Yosei says: In five things is the space between the Porch [of the Sanctuary] and the altar equal to the Sanctuary: that those priests may not enter there who have a blemish, or who have dishevelled hair, or who have hands and feet unwashed” and the whole Mishnah there — all these are gradations of Rabbinic enactment [and are not matters prohibited by Scriptural law]. In the opinion, however, of Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon], one who [wilfully] enters the Sanctuary [in the above-mentioned conditions] without performing the Service, [has also violated] a negative commandment, for which the punishment is not death [by the hand of Heaven but whipping].
(י) רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר שְׁחָצִים הָיוּ, הַרְבֵּה נָשִׁים הָיוּ יוֹשְׁבוֹת עֲגוּנוֹת מַמְתִּינוֹת לָהֶם, מָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים, אֲחִי אָבִינוּ מֶלֶךְ, אֲחִי אִמֵּנוּ נָשִׂיא, אָבִינוּ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְאָנוּ שְׁנֵי סְגָנֵי כְּהֻנָּה, אֵי זוֹ אִשָּׁה הוֹגֶנֶת לָנוּ. רַבִּי מְנַחְמָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר (תהלים עח, סג): בַּחוּרָיו אָכְלָה אֵשׁ, לָמָּה בַּחוּרָיו אָכְלָה אֵשׁ, מִשּׁוּם (תהלים עח, סג): בְּתוּלֹתָיו לֹא הוּלָּלוּ. וְעוֹד מִן הֲדָא (שמות כד, א): וְאֶל משֶׁה אָמַר עֲלֵה אֶל ה', מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן הוֹלְכִין תְּחִלָּה וְנָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא מְהַלְּכִין אַחֲרֵיהֶן וְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵיהֶן, וְאוֹמְרִים מָתַי שְׁנֵי זְקֵנִים הַלָּלוּ מֵתִים וְאָנוּ נוֹהֲגִין שְׂרָרָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר. רַבִּי יוּדָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אַיְבוּ אָמַר בְּפִיהֶם אָמְרוּ זֶה לָזֶה. רַבִּי פִּנְחָס אָמַר בְּלִבָּם הִרְהֲרוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא (משלי כז, א): אַל תִּתְהַלֵּל בְּיוֹם מָחָר, הַרְבֵּה סְיָחִין מֵתוּ וְנַעֲשׂוּ עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן שְׁטוּחִין עַל גַּבֵּי אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן.
אָמַר רָבָא: בְּפָנָיו — אָסוּר, וְחַיָּיב מִיתָה. שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו — אָסוּר, וְאֵין חַיָּיב מִיתָה. וְשֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו לָא? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא מֵתוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַד שֶׁהוֹרוּ הֲלָכָה בִּפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה רַבָּן. מַאי דְּרוּשׁ: ״וְנָתְנוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֵשׁ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, אָמְרוּ: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָאֵשׁ יוֹרֶדֶת מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, מִצְוָה לְהָבִיא מִן הַהֶדְיוֹט. וְתַלְמִיד אֶחָד הָיָה לוֹ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, שֶׁהוֹרָה הֲלָכָה בְּפָנָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְאִימָּא שָׁלוֹם אִשְׁתּוֹ: תָּמֵיהַּ אֲנִי אִם יוֹצִיא זֶה שְׁנָתוֹ. וְלֹא הוֹצִיא שְׁנָתוֹ.
Rava said: With regard to one who issues a halakhic ruling in his teacher’s location without the intention of preventing someone from violating a prohibition, the following distinction applies: In the teacher’s actual presence, the disciple is prohibited to issue such a ruling, and if he does so, he is liable to receive the death penalty at the hand of Heaven. However, when he is not in his actual presence, the disciple is still prohibited to issue the ruling, but he is not liable to receive the death penalty. The Gemara asks: Is the disciple not liable to receive the death penalty if he issues his ruling not in the teacher’s presence? But wasn’t it taught otherwise in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: The sons of Aaron died only because they issued a halakhic ruling before Moses, their teacher? What did they expound in support of their conclusion that they must bring fire inside as opposed to waiting for fire to come down from the heavens? It is stated in the Torah: “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay the wood in order on the fire” (Leviticus 1:7), which led them to say: Although fire descends from Heaven, it is nonetheless a mitzva to bring ordinary fire. Although they derived this from the verses, they were punished for ruling in the presence of their teacher. It was further related that Rabbi Eliezer had a certain disciple who issued a halakhic ruling in his presence. Rabbi Eliezer said to his wife, Imma Shalom: I will be surprised if this one completes his year, i.e., if he lives until the end of the year. And so it was, he did not complete his year.
If Moses can act spontaneously why can't we? Too eager to lead. Caught up in the enthusiasm. They forgot the difference between a priest and prophet.
נדב ואביהוא לא הבינו אל-נכון שיש שני סוגים מובחנים של מנהיגות. מה שהולם סוג אחד עלול להיות לגמרי בלתי הולם בסוג השני. שופט איננו מדינאי. מלך איננו ראש ממשלה. מנהיג דתי איננו סלבריטאי המבקש לו פופולריות. כאשר מנהיג מבלבל בין התחומים, הכישלון הוא שלו – אך הנזק נעשה גם לתפקיד עצמו.
The contrast between Aharon and his two sons really sticks out.
לפנינו שני אתגרים העומדים בפני מנהיגים בכל דור ודור.
הראשון הוא ההירתעות להנהיג. למה דווקא אני? למה ללכלך את הידיים? בשביל מה לי האחריות וכל הכרוך בה – רמות הדחק הגבוהות, הכמות העצומה של העבודה, הביקורת הבלתי פוסקת שמנהיגים סופגים תמיד? ובכלל, האם אין אנשים אחרים מוכשרים ומתאימים ממני?
"להרגיש את הפחד ובכל זאת לעשות"
הראשון הוא ההירתעות להנהיג. למה דווקא אני? למה ללכלך את הידיים? בשביל מה לי האחריות וכל הכרוך בה – רמות הדחק הגבוהות, הכמות העצומה של העבודה, הביקורת הבלתי פוסקת שמנהיגים סופגים תמיד? ובכלל, האם אין אנשים אחרים מוכשרים ומתאימים ממני?
"להרגיש את הפחד ובכל זאת לעשות"
האתגר השני, הנגדי, הוא זה שמסמנים נדב ואביהוא. יש אנשים שרואים את עצמם כמי שצריכים להיות המנהיגים. הם משוכנעים שהם יכולים לעשות את זה טוב יותר מכולם. זכורה הערתו המפורסמת של הנשיא הראשון חיים ויצמן, שהוא עומד בראש מדינה ובה מיליון נשיאים.
האנושות מלאה בנהגים פוטנציאליים היושבים במושב האחורי ויודעים הכול טוב יותר מהאוחז בהגה. אם רק תיתנו להם את ההגה לידיים... למעשה, אם תיתנו להם את ההגה לידיים הם יחוללו נזק רב. הם לא ישבו מעולם בכיסא הנהג. אין להם מושג איך נראה העולם מכיסא הנהג: כמה רבים הם השיקולים שיש להביא בחשבון, על כמה קולות התנגדות צריך להתגבר, וכמה קשה להתמודד עם לחץ המאורעות ובו בזמן לא להסיר את המבט מהאידיאלים והמטרות ארוכי הטווח.
מנהיגים נלהבים מדי, או בטוחים בעצמם יתר על המידה, עלולים להזיק.
האנושות מלאה בנהגים פוטנציאליים היושבים במושב האחורי ויודעים הכול טוב יותר מהאוחז בהגה. אם רק תיתנו להם את ההגה לידיים... למעשה, אם תיתנו להם את ההגה לידיים הם יחוללו נזק רב. הם לא ישבו מעולם בכיסא הנהג. אין להם מושג איך נראה העולם מכיסא הנהג: כמה רבים הם השיקולים שיש להביא בחשבון, על כמה קולות התנגדות צריך להתגבר, וכמה קשה להתמודד עם לחץ המאורעות ובו בזמן לא להסיר את המבט מהאידיאלים והמטרות ארוכי הטווח.
מנהיגים נלהבים מדי, או בטוחים בעצמם יתר על המידה, עלולים להזיק.
Nadav and Avihu were no doubt great leaders, the issue was that they knew it.
אם רצוננו לעשות גדולות ונצורות, אנו חייבים להיות מודעים לשני הפיתויים הללו. האחד הוא הפחד מפני הגדוּלה: מי אני? השני הוא השכנוע העצמי בגדוּלה: מי הם? אפשר לעשות דברים גדולים אם (א) ה"מה" חשוב לנו יותר מה"מי", (ב) אנו נכונים להקדיש למשימה את מרב מאמצינו בלי לחשוב עצמנו עליונים מזולתנו, ו-(ג) אנו יודעים להתייעץ – ואת זאת לא ידעו נדב ואביהוא לעשות.