Leviticus · Chapter 10

And the sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, each took his fire-pan, and put fire in them and placed incense upon it, and they brought before Hashem an alien fire, which He had not commanded them.

"Each man his fire-pan" — each man took his fire-pan. In my view, this incident occurred on that same eighth day, and the proof is the verse: "Behold, today they offered their sin-offering" (v. 19). "And they placed fire in them" — not from the fire that had gone forth [from before Hashem], and this is the meaning of "strange fire." The meaning of "which He had not commanded them" is that they acted of their own accord and not by divine command — to burn incense, and moreover with strange fire.

ויקחו שני בני אהרן איש מחתתו, they thought that just as after the daily communal offering which was accompanied by the manifestation of G’d’s Presence as we know from Exodus 29,42 עולת תמיד לדורותיכם פתח אהל מועד לפני ה' אשר איועד לכם שמה, “the regular communal burnt offerings for your generations in the presence of the Lord, where I will manifest Myself there,” there would come the incense, so it would also be in order on this occasion to present a new incense offering honouring the manifestation of the Lord to the whole people and in honour of the heavenly fire having descended. This is why they offered it in the sanctuary, i.e. 'לפני ה, on the golden altar. The Torah had stipulated that no foreign incense [nor other unauthorised offerings. Ed.] was to be offered on that altar (Exodus 30,9). Even assuming that the golden altar would qualify for additional incense offerings when a specific command to do so would be issued, the sons of Aaron sinned by doing this now and not having consulted with their mentors. This is why the Torah stresses אשר לא צוה אותם, “which He had not commanded them (to do).”

It seems to teach that the place of their error was for two reasons. The first was that in becoming priests, they erred in their service, and this ( is implied in the text) beginning by saying they were 'sons of Aaron'; the two of them (thought) they were great in deeds and should be weighted like Moses and Aaron [Torat Kohanim Achrei Mot 53]. And as the Zohar teaches, they were on a high spiritual level in the realm of deeds, hence they were called ('sons of Aaron') Nadav and Abihu, and this trait is not so for Elazar and Itamar (the Torah does not refer to them as 'sons of Aaron'); they too are 'sons of Aaron', but are not at the spiritual level themselves that Nadav and Abihu were. So too we find this explanation where (the Torah) says וישימו עליה קטורת, they placed incense on it (the censer). The Torah does not write that they placed the incense "on them," as it had described the act of placing fire on the censer in the plural, i.e. ויתנו בהן lumping the censers together. The reason the Torah distinguishes in its description is to emphasise that the crucial part of their error was the fire which did not originate on the altar. זדה, אשר לא צוה אותם, strange fire, which He had not commanded them. The words "which He had not commanded them" define the nature of the strangeness of the fire. It is possible that if these two sons of Aaron had taken the fire for their incense from the altar G'd would not have minded so much; it is also possible that G'd would have minded for a different reason; at any rate, the sin consisted in their doing something on their own initiative which G'd had not commanded them.

.וישימו עליה קטורת, “they placed incense on it.” They offered their own incense instead of the communal incense.. This is what is meant by the line: ויקריבו לפני ה' אש זרה, “they tendered before the Lord alien fire.” Incense without fire is an impossibility. Any incense offering that is than that of the community is called: “alien.” אשר לא צוה אותם, “which He had not commanded them (to offer)”. The meaning, as opposed to the translation, is: “that He had commanded them not to offer.” Proof of this is to be found in Exodus 30,9: לא תעלו עליו קטורת זרה, “do not offer alien incense upon it.!” An example of a similar construction is found in Jeremiah 7,31: לשרוף את בניהם ואת בנותיהם באש אשר לא צויתי, “to burn their sons and daughters, which I did not command.”

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 Raavad of what happened . 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.’” 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). 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. 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.

“And they offered before the Lord strange fire, which He had not commanded them.” Regarding the nature of this sin, there are many opinions in the Yalkut (Shemini 554). It concludes in the name of Rabbi Mani that they entered intoxicated with wine, and because they entered without washing their hands and feet, and some say they were lacking garments, specifically the robe, and some say it was because they had no children, and some say because they did not marry wives, and some say because they ruled on matters of law in the presence of Moses their teacher, and some say because they were walking and saying, “When will these two old men die, and you and I will lead the congregation with authority,” and some say that the sin of the golden calf that Aaron made caused their punishment, and they expounded on this the verse he shall pay two to his fellow (Exodus 22:9). And all these opinions, even though they have some support from other verses, nevertheless this verse contradicts all those opinions, as it is said, And they offered before the Lord strange fire, which He had not commanded them, which implies that they had no other sin except this one. Therefore, the obligation of explanation falls upon me to advocate for all these opinions, and to say that all of them found support from this verse because they found it difficult [to understand]: Isn’t it already stated And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire, etc. (Leviticus 1:7) that there is a commandment to bring [fire] from ordinary [sources], so how can it say which He had not commanded them? And one cannot say, as Abarbanel says, that they should have taken the fire for the incense from the altar of burnt offering, because that commandment was [given] after the death of Aaron’s sons, and there it states And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from before the Lord, etc. (Leviticus 16:12). Therefore, it is appropriate to interpret this strange fire as referring to strangeness and alluding to other matters that are hinted at in the [phrase] strange fire. The view that they entered intoxicated with wine holds that strange fire refers to wine that burns within a person like fire, as it is written Woe unto them that rise up late at night, when wine inflames them (Isaiah 5:11), which is literally a burning from the fire that the wine kindled within them. And although the commandment Do not drink wine or strong drink had not yet been given to them, nevertheless, following the principle of Offer it now to your governor (Malachi 1:8), they should have reasoned that one should not enter the King’s gate while drunk. Strong evidence for this view comes from what is written And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He laid not His hand (Exodus 24:11). This implies that they deserved to have His hand laid upon them for having eaten, drunk, and feasted their eyes on the Divine Presence with the coarseness of heart that comes from food and drink. And our Sages said that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not want to disturb the joy of the Torah, so He waited for this day. But this is difficult to understand: why this day rather than another? Furthermore, this day too is called the day of His heart’s gladness, as our Sages interpreted: the day of His wedding refers to the giving of the Torah, and the day of His heart’s gladness refers to the dedication of the Temple. So He should have waited even longer. But rather, on this day they repeated their folly and offered strange fire before the Lord that burned within them from the wine, and through excessive drinking they came before the Lord improperly. Therefore, the Lord did not want to wait any longer, lest the matter appear permissible in their eyes, for “one who commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes permitted to him.” Thus, after the death of Aaron’s two sons, Aaron was commanded, With this shall Aaron enter into the holy place (Leviticus 16:3) — on the Day of Atonement, a day when a person afflicts his soul, for then he comes before his Creator in humility, not with coarseness of heart, for wine is a traitor; the arrogant man shall not abide (Habakkuk 2:5). And according to the one who says they did not marry women, the fire of desire was burning within them, for anyone who is not married is full of sinful thoughts from a strange fire. And with boiling [passion] they sinned, with boiling [punishment] they were judged (Sanhedrin 108b). And similarly we find in the Gemara “Fire in the house of Amram, etc.” (Kiddushin 81a), regarding the desire for women that burns within him like fire in flax. And according to the opinion that they were missing a robe, it is known that the robe atones for evil speech (Arakhin 16a), and these [sons of Aaron] spoke evil about Moses and Aaron, saying, “When will these two old men die?” etc. They meant by this that they were not fit to be leaders except due to their old age, not because of their merit. Anyone who speaks evil speech brings forth a strange fire, “coals are kindled by it,” as it is written Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death (Proverbs 26:18). These are sparks of fire, for His arrow goes forth like lightning, and therefore his judgment is with fire, as it is written What shall be given to you, and what shall be done more to you, O deceitful tongue? Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of broom (Psalms 120:3-4). Therefore, they too were judged with fire. And if they had worn the robe, it would have atoned for them for their evil speech. This comparison to fire also includes the attribute of arrogance, for every arrogant person wants to rise upward, like the nature of fire which rises upward, and therefore his judgment is with fire, as explained above in Parashat Tzav on our Sages’ teaching on It is the burnt offering on its altar flame — anyone who is prideful is judged with fire (Vayikra Rabbah 7:6). And the sons of Aaron were arrogant in this offering, which is the “strange fire.” This concept encompasses many opinions: the opinion that they were intoxicated with wine, meaning out of arrogance; the opinion that they did not marry women because of their extreme arrogance, thinking that no one on earth was their equal; the opinion that they did not consult with each other because of their great arrogance; the opinion that they ruled on a matter of law in front of Moses their teacher, for due to their arrogance they did not seek permission from Moses; and the opinion that [they said], “I and you will lead with authority,” etc. And the one who says they had no children, it appears that he also holds like the view of the Midrash which says that they were punished for the sin of the Golden Calf. And since with idolatry the rule is that the Holy One, blessed be He, visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and upon the children’s children (Exodus 34:7), and out of respect for Aaron, the Holy One, blessed be He, extended His patience and collected His due from the grandchildren. But since they had no children, the sin was collected from them directly. And perhaps at the time of offering the strange fire, they were contemplating the fire of the Golden Calf, because Aaron had cast the gold there and this calf emerged, and they thought that through the strange fire that miracle had occurred. Similarly, they contemplated when placing this fire that a miracle would be performed for them through it. And God knew their thoughts, that they were offering strange fire before Him, therefore He judged them with fire, just as it is said regarding the Golden Calf, and he burned it with fire (Exodus 32:20). The opinion that says they did not wash their hands and feet holds that this is what is meant by strange fire: Because they did not sanctify their hands and feet from the basin, they were profane in a holy place, and therefore the fire is called strange fire. For strangeness is the opposite of holiness, as it is written And no stranger shall eat of the holy thing (Leviticus 22:10). That is why it says each man his censer, as if the censer was his own, without any aspect of holiness. All this was because they did not sanctify their hands and feet. And because they sinned with water, they were therefore judged with fire, which prevails in a place where water is not available to extinguish it.

ויקחו בני אהרן נדב ואביהוא, before the fire had emanated from the Holy of Holies they each took his own pan planning to offer incense on the golden altar, seeing that this offering precedes (timewise) the disposal of not totally burned leftovers from the previous day’s sacrificial meat. They placed “alien” fire on these pans, something which had not been commanded by Moses to be done on this day. Even though on ordinary days the rule of “the sons of Aaron will place in these pans fire on the altar” (Leviticus 1,7) was in effect, this rule did not apply to the day of inauguration, and Moses had not wanted any man made fire to be introduced into the Tabernacle. This was because he expected heavenly fire to manifest itself so that the addition of man made fire would have completely ruined the impact of the miracle. On this day the name of G’d would be glorified by all the people becoming aware of Divine approval of their offerings, by G’d accepting same by means of heavenly fire We find a parallel to this in Kings I 18,25 when the prophet Elijah on Mount Carmel ordered the priests not to put any fire on the altar.

וישימו עליה קטורת, “and they placed incense thereon;” they placed the incense of the fire. We never find that incense was placed directly on the censer. אש זרה אשר לא צוה אות, “strange fire which He had not commanded them (to use).” The Torah implies that they had already been warned not to use such fire as is written in Exodus 30,9: [Actually, in that verse, the prohibition is not to offer strange fire, but not to use a strange mixture of incense. Ed.] The reason the Torah uses the unusual formulation “which he had not commanded them,” instead of ”which He had forbidden them,” is that on occasion, in exceptional circumstances, G–d does permit something which is ordinarily prohibited. The Torah underlines that this was not such an occasion. An example of such an exception would be what Elijah did on Mount Carmel in his confrontation with the 400 hundred priests of the Baal. (Kings I 18). He used a private altar something which was strictly forbidden since the Temple had been erected. We also find a verse in Jeremiah 7,31, where the prophet uses this expression as having been used by G–d. In that example the prophet chides the people for sacrificing their children to G–d saying that this had never occurred for G–d to have them do. (Compare Talmud, tractate Taanit, folio 4 on that subject)

And fire went out from before Hashem and consumed them, and they died before Hashem.

ותצא אש AND THERE WENT OUT FIRE — Rabbi Eleizer said: the sons of Aaron died only because they gave decisions on religious matters in the presence of their teacher, Moses (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 32; Eruvin 63a). Rabbi Ishmael said: they died because they entered the Sanctuary intoxicated by wine. You may know that this is so, because after their death he admonished those who survived that they should not enter when intoxicated by wine (vv. 8—9). A parable! It may be compared to a king who had a bosom friend, etc., as is to be found in Leviticus Rabbah 12:1, 4 (cf. Biur).

AND THERE CAME FORTH FIRE ‘MILIPHNEI’ (FROM BEFORE) THE ETERNAL. The meaning of “miliphnei the Eternal” is like: “from before the pnei (presence of) the Eternal.” The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand, for I have already explained this. The nature of the sin of Nadab and Abihu you may know from that which it says, and they offered ‘strange fire’ before the Eternal, and it does not say “and they offered before the Eternal ‘incense’ which He had not commanded them.” Thus they put incense upon the fire, similarly to that which Scripture says, they shall put incense ‘b’apecha’ (before Thee), and they directed their thoughts only to this, and thus it was not a fire-offering of a sweet savor. This is the sense of the expression, and they laid ‘aleha’ (upon her) incense. and it does not say “and they laid upon them [i.e., the censers] incense,” as is said with reference to the company of Korah, and put fire therein, and put incense upon them, and again it is said there, and put incense upon them. But here it says upon her, to allude [to the fact] that they put the incense only on “the fire,” [and therefore it says], And there came forth fire from before the Eternal, and devoured them. It is possible that the verse which He said, Ye shall offer no strange incense thereon, alludes to this, meaning that he should not cause it [the fire] to be strange. It is in connection with this that Scripture states, when they [Nadab and Abihu] drew near before the Eternal, and died, which means “when they offered l’phanav they died.”

"And they died before Hashem" — for they thought they were doing something pleasing before Him.

וימותו לפני השם. They died in the presence of the Lord. The words: "in the presence of the Lord" may be intended to inspire fear and reverence for the Tabernacle in the people who witnessed that even people who entered in order to offer the offering dearest to G'd, incense, had died as a result of doing something unauthorised. There is also an allusion here that their death was due to something they had done previously and which involved the presence of G'd. I refer to Exodus 24,10 where these two sons were reported as having beheld G'd (compare Vayikra Rabbah 20,10 and G'd was reported there as not punishing the "nobles of Israel" at that time). These "nobles" were Nadav and Avihu.

ותצא אש, “Fire came forth;” the Torah first reports the fact that fire originated in heaven, before going into details, i.e. that this fire was triggered by actions taken by the two sons of Aaron mentioned here. The fire mentioned here is the fire mentioned in verse 24 of the previous chapter. The “details” commence with verse 1 in our chapter, i.e. “the two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu each took his own censer and placed man made fire and incense on them, fire that G-d had forbidden to be put on these censers.” It was the custom of that heavenly fire to travel first to the Holy of Holies and from there to the golden altar in the Sanctuary and there to consume the incense offered. In this instance, the heavenly fire discovered Nadav and Avihu in front of the Golden Altar in the Sanctuary offering the incense with their own fire. Therefore the heavenly fire consumed them before continuing to the copper altar in front of the Sanctuary and consumed to the copper altar in front of the Sanctuary and consumed there the Elevation offering. ותצא אש; according to Rashi, quoting Rabbi Eliezer, the reason why the sons of Aaron were killed was that they had arrogated to themselves the right to render halachic rulings while their mentor Moses was alive and well, to do this himself. What prompted them to do this? They reasoned that although the fire to burn up the incense was provided by heaven it was still a mitzvah to add manmade fire, seeing that the Torah has written in Leviticus 1,7, “the sons of Aaron are to put fire on the altar.” ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן אש על המזבח. They failed to confirm with their teacher Moses that they had correctly interpreted this verse. This is why the Torah wrote: “which He had not commanded them.” We have a clear statement in the Talmud, tractate Taanit folio 22, that the King Yoshiahu, [the most observant King the Kingdom of Yehudah ever ruled, was punished and killed by enemy troops for having failed to check with the prophet Jeremiah if to go to war against the Egyptians, who only wanted right of passage. Ed.] There is another opinion according to whom the sin of Nadav and Avihu was not the fact that they brought alien fire into the Sanctuary, but that they had done it on that day. As far as the verse we quoted from Leviticus 1,7, is concerned, the instructions of that verse were to become effective only after the first day on which the Tabernacle operated under the leadership of the High Priest, Aaron. They were also misled as heavenly fire on previous days when Moses performed the service in the Tabernacle had occurred earlier in the day. The reason why G-d had delayed was that He wished to be honoured by a large turnout of the people who would witness that event. This would then be the meaning of the words in verse 1: “that He had not commanded them.” G-d had waited, not as on the occasion of the revelation on Mount Sinai when in spite of having previously announced that He would manifest His glory on the Mountain, He had done so but the people had not bothered to rise early. (Compare Exodus19,11, 16, 17-18) Nadav and Avihu meant to avoid G-d’s honour not being sufficiently appreciated by the people. We find something parallel in Kings I 18,25, where the prophet Elijah tells the priests of the Baal not to set fire to their offerings. ותאכל אותם וימותו, “it consumed them so that they died (on the spot)”. The punishment fitted the crime. They were killed by heavenly fire as they had diminished the glory of the Lord which is described as being comparable to אש אוכלת “consuming fire.” (Exodus 24,17) Both Nadav and Avihu had been warned on that occasion not to look upon the G-d of Israel, as we know from verse 10 in the above quoted chapter, where the Torah added or hinted that on that joyful occasion G-d did not want to kill the happy mood of the people by punishing those who had transgressed the warning not feast their eyes on what they thought was the true image of G-d. They were warned again in Numbers 11,1 when badmouthing G-d and being killed by heavenly fire. וימותו לפני ה, “They died in the presence of the Lord. [This is an unusual expression. Are we not all, at any given moment, “in the Presence” of the Lord?] Rabbi Eliezer says this expression teaches that they did not die until having left the sacred precincts and being in the antechamber where Levites were permitted. We have proof of this from verse 4 where the cousins of these brothers, by the names of Mishael and Eltzafan were charge with removing their bodies from there for burial. But why did the Torah say that they dies before the Lord (i.e. inside the Tabernacle)? Perhaps they did die there but later an angel pushed the bodies outside to where the Levites were permitted. Rabbi Akiva on the other hand said that they did die inside the Tabernacle. Since they were still wearing their garments which had not been burned by the heavenly fire, their cousins hooked their spears into the outer garments and dragged them until they were outside the sacred parts of the Tabernacle.

ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל אותם וימותו לפני ה, “Fire came forth from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died in the presence of the Lord.” Seeing that they had sinned by abusing fire, they were punished by fire. The kind of death described here by the words “in the presence of the Lord” means that their body and soul underwent a “surgical” separation, the fire entering their bodies through their nostrils separating soul from body. We must be careful not to understand the verse as saying that their souls were burned, i.e. that they lost their claim to the hereafter. If that were so the words בקרובי אקדש, “by those very close to Me I become sanctified,” which Moses told Aaron in G’d’s name, would not make any sense. Why should the souls of people G’d describes as close to Him be destroyed, burned? In reference to verse 3 our sages (Tanchuma Shemini 1) quote Moses as saying to his brother Aaron: “I knew all along that the Sanctuary would be sanctified (that someone prominent would die), but I thought it would be either I or you. Now I know that Nadav and Avihu are greater than either you or I, as G’d has chosen them to sanctify His name.” No doubt such statements are not made concerning people who have lost their claim to the hereafter. There cannot be any doubt that their very death was the atonement for their sin, that they were elevated to the celestial regions immediately and that this is the reason the story of their death is repeated in connection with the atonement rites described in Acharey Mot (Leviticus chapter 16). In the Jerusalem Talmud Yuma 1,1 the question is raised why the death of Nadav and Avihu is mentioned in connection with Yom Kippur, seeing their deaths occurred on the first of Nissan? The answer given is that the (premature) death of the righteous acts as atonement for the people left alive. Just as it is wrong to understand the “burning” of these sons of Aaron literally as far as their souls are concerned, so it is wrong to understand the word as referring to the burning of their bodies or even their clothing. After all, the Torah writes (verse 5) that “they carried them (out of the Sanctuary) in their tunics.” Each of these sons of Aaron had his individual tunic as we know from Exodus 28,40. The text refers to their death as “burning,” as we know from verse 6 where the Children of Israel as a whole are commanded to weep “for the conflagration which had befallen, which the Lord had ignited.” It would appear that this wording is the source for our sages (Sanhedrin 52) stating that one of the four death penalties, called שרפה, burning, is to consist of the victim having molten lead poured down his throat. As a result of this procedure the victim’s windpipe and gullet would be burned and his soul would leave his body. There is no law in the Torah which decrees that someone’s body be burned. The only example of anyone dying by what is described as “burning,” are the sons of Aaron and their bodies clearly were not burned. The army of Sancheriv which perished on a Passover night (185,000 of them) also died in the same manner as did Nadav and Avihu as we have been told in Sanhedrin 94. The prophet Isaiah 9,4 had predicted this when he said: כי כל סאון סואן ברעש ושמלה מגוללת בדמים והיתה לשרפה מאכולת אש, the meaning of this verse is that whereas in all other wars and battles victory and defeat are earmarked by deafening noise and the soldiers uniforms are tainted with blood, in the case of Sancheriv the soldiers of his army will suffer burning, being devoured, not like soldiers in other battles. Kings II 19,35 reports that on that night (anniversary of the Exodus) “an angel of the Lord went out and struck down 185,000 of the Assyrian camp and the following morning they were all dead corpses.” The plague which struck the Assyrian army was the result of the combined prayers of King Chizkiyahu and the prophet Isaiah as reported in Chronicles II, 32,20-21: “Then King Chizkiyahu and the prophet Isaiah, son of Amotz, prayed about this, and cried out to heaven. The Lord sent an angel who annihilated every mighty warrior, commander, and officer in the army of the King of Assyria, and he returned in disgrace to his land. He entered the house of his god, and there some of his own offspring struck him down with the sword.” Seeing that the deaths of the sons of Aaron consisted of their souls being “burned,” on the inside, their bodies and clothing remained intact. This is why the prophet Isaiah 10,16 in describing heavenly fire when predicting the downfall of Assyria uses the word יקוד several times in describing that fire, i.e. it is not fire in the physical sense as we understand it, but it is like the fire that killed Nadav and Avihu, leaving no outward trace. The words תחת כבודו in that verse mean that the כבוד of a person, i.e. his clothing which lends him a measure of dignity will be untouched as the “fire” operates beneath the clothing and the body, even. The Talmud (Sanhedrin quotes Rabbi Yochanan as referring to his clothing by the description כבודי, “my honour, my dignity.” Concerning the phenomenon we have just described Isaiah said in verse 18 of the chapter quoted וכבוד יערו וכרמלו, “it will burn its great army which looks like a forest wiping it out body and soul, so that it will remain like something that has been eaten by worms.” The simile of the worm was used by the prophet to describe something destroyed from the inside though until the last moment none of that destructive process had been visible on the outside. The woodworm leaves the bark of the tree untouched providing no warning of what goes on inside the trunk. The word סס occurs also in connection with the moth devouring woolen garments. The word was borrowed in this verse of Isaiah to describe a silent process unnoticed by outsiders. This entire army of the Assyrians was composed of descendants of Japhet, second son of Noach who had enjoyed the protective merit that their clothing was saved as their ancestor had been a party to his brother Shem when he covered the nude body of his father by walking into the tent backwards (Genesis 9,23). His brother Shem, who initiated that move and whose descendants we are, merited the commandment of wearing ציצית on our garments (compare Tanchuma Noach 13). The word אותם at the end of our verse which is spelled with the letter ו in this instance, is an allusion to the “sixth fire of the Shechinah.” We are told in Yuma 21 that there are a total of six different categories of heavenly fire. They are: “a fire which eats” but does not “drink;’ fire which “drinks” but does not “eat;” fire which both “eats and drinks; fire which consumes both dry and wet material;” fire which supplants another category of fire; fire which consumes another category of fire. The fire which “eats but does not drink,” is the fire of which the Torah says that it descended on the altar and consumed the meat of the offerings. Fire which “drinks” but does not eat is fever, which dries out a person at the same time killing his appetite. Fire which eats and drinks was the fire that consumed both Elijah’s sacrifice and the water in the moat he had made around it. The fire which consumed both wet and dry matters was that on the woodpile of the altar which was not extinguished by rain. Fire which supplanted competing fire is the fire of the angel Gavriel which descended into the kiln where Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah had been thrown by Nebuchadnezzar. The latter had stoked the kiln for seven consecutive days (Daniel 3). The angel used “fire” to cool man-made fire. Fire which consumes fire is the fire of the Shechinah. The Midrash tells of G’d burning angels who had opposed Him when He wanted to create man. The letter ו in the word אותם, may also allude to the six sins which our sages claim that Nadav and Avihu were guilty of and which combined to cause their deaths.

ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל אותם, this is a reference to the fire mentioned in 9,24 The construction is similar to the one in Exodus 19,8 which we explained at the time, as well as the verse in Judges 17,3-4 where the fact that Michah returned the money to his mother is also mentioned twice in successive verses. In neither of these verses does the author refer to an additional event. Here too, the two verses refer to the same fire. At the time the heavenly fire emanated in order to consume the sacrificial meat on the altar in the courtyard of the Tabernacle, it consumed the two sons of Aaron on its way. This fire had meant to consume only the incense, but seeing that the sons of Aaron had been in its way it consumed them also and they died as a result. This is the meaning of 'וימותו לפני ה, “they died in the section of the Tabernacle described as ‘in the presence of the Lord.’” As soon as the news reached Aaron he wanted to interrupt performing the service in order to mourn his sons;

'ותצא אש מלפני ה, “and fire came forth from before the Lord, etc.” this was because they had not acted appropriately. Even though it is in order to use man made fire, as we have read specifically in Leviticus 1,7: ונתנו בני אהרן אש על המזבח, “the sons of Aaron are to put fire on the altar, this was in addition to the heavenly fire which had come down a single time. Before G–d had demonstrated acceptance of the Israelites’ offerings in the Temple precincts, they were not allowed to use man made fire, as it would have belittled the miracle G–d provided. People would have argued that their offerings had been consumed by man made fire. This is why G–d struck these two sons of Aaron with fire emanating in heaven. Our author has difficulty with this interpretation, as the Torah had written in Leviticus 9,24: ותצא אש מלפני ה' ותאכל על המזבח, “fire came forth from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and its fat parts.” How could the sons of Aaron therefore have belittled G–d’s fire by what they did? This is why the sages in the Talmud tractate Yuma folio 53, state that the sons of Aaron did not die because of this, but because they had dared to usurp the authority of Moses and Aaron by making halachic decisions without first having consulted with these leaders. 'וימותו לפני ה, “as a result they died before the Lord.” We find a dispute recorded in the Torat Kohanim concerning the meaning of this phrase. According to Rabbi Eliezer, they died outside the Tabernacle in an area that the Levites were permitted to enter; he bases himself on the wording in verse five, in which the Torah describes how their bodies were removed from the spot where they died. The Torah describes the sons of Elitzafan, an uncle of Aaron as performing this task, with the words: ויקרבו וישאם בכתנתם אל מחוץ למחנה, ”they approached and lifted them up by their tunics and carried them out of the camp as they had been instructed to do by Moses.” If that is so, why did the Torah write that they died “before the Lord,” i.e. on sacred ground, not accessible to the Levites? This is why Rabbi Akiva disagreed and said that they had actually died inside sacred ground, and that the sons of Elitzafan had to use a long iron spear in order to pull placing that spear in their mouths and dragging their bodies to less sacred ground before they could lift them up, as they were only Levites and not priests. This presents us with a different problem, as in that event the Tabernacle itself would have become ritually impure as it formed a tent over the bodies of Nadav and Avihu, and it would have required purification rites which would last seven days. The Torah does not, however, report that the service in the Tabernacle had been interrupted for that length of time. Our author concludes that the subject needs further study. [Since the ash of the red heifer for cleansing oneself from impurity caused through contact with a dead body was not yet available, this editor does not see where the problem is.]

And Moses said to Aaron: This is what Hashem spoke, saying — Through those who are near Me I will be sanctified, and before all the people I will be honored. And Aaron was silent.

'וגו 'הוא אשר דבר ה THIS IS WHAT THE LORD SPOKE, etc. — Where had He spoken this? In the statement (Exodus 29:43), “And there I will be met by the children of Israel and it (the Tabernacle) shall be sanctified by My glory (בכבודי).” Read not here בִכְבוֹדִי, “by My Glory” but בִּמְכֻבָּדַי, “through My honoured ones” (Zevachim 115b). Moses here said to Aaron: “My brother, Aaron! I knew that this House was to be sanctified by those who are beloved of the Omnipresent God and I thought it would be either through me or through thee; now I see that these (thy sons who have died) are greater than me and than thee!” (Leviticus Rabbah 12 2). וידם אהרן AND AARON WAS SILENT — He received a reward for his silence. And what was the reward he received? That the subsequent Divine address was made to him alone and not to Moses also — for to him alone was spoken the section (vv. 9—11) dealing with those who are intoxicated by wine (see v. 8) (Zevachim 115b; Leviticus Rabbah 12 2). בקרבי IN THEM THAT COME NEAR UNTO ME — i. e. in My chosen ones. ועל פני כל העם אכבד AND BEFORE ALL THE PEOPLE I WILL BE HONOURED — When the Holy One, blessed be He, executes judgment upon the righteous He becomes feared, and exalted and praised. If this be so in the case of these (when He judges the righteous) how much more is it so in the case of the wicked (i. e. when He punishes the wicked)! And in a similar sense it says (Psalms 68:36) “Thou art feared, O god, ממקדשיך”. Read not here מִמִּקְדָשֶׁיךָ, “from out of Thy sanctuaries”, but מִמִּקֻדָּשֶׁיךָ“because of Thy sanctified ones” (Zevachim 115b).

THIS IS THAT THE ETERNAL SPOKE, SAYING: ‘THROUGH THEM THAT ARE NIGH UNTO ME I WILL BE SANCTIFIED.’ “Where had He spoken this? In the verse, and [the Tent] shall be sanctified ‘bichvodi’ (by My Glory). Do not read the word as bichvodi (by My Glory) but bimechubodai (through My honored ones). Moses said to Aaron: ‘My brother Aaron, I knew that this Sanctuary was to be hallowed by those who are beloved of the Holy One, blessed be He, and I thought that it would be either through me or through you. Now I see that your sons were holier than I and you.’” Thus the language of Rashi, based on the interpretation of our Rabbis. But if so, the verse, and [the Tent] shall be sanctified ‘bichvodi’ means “that it will become holy in the eyes of all the people through my honored ones, and they will know that I dwell therein.”Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra also wrote: “This is that the Eternal spoke, saying, means: G-d had already told me that He would show His sanctity through those that were near to Him. This is similar in meaning to the verse, You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities. And when I will show them this holiness of Mine, then I will become glorified before all the people and they will fear Me.” But if this is so, then this is a statement not written [in the text], that G-d informed Moses of His ways and that such is the nature of His attribute!In my opinion there is no need for all this. For by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the expression “G-d spoke” refers to His decrees, His thought, and the manner of His ways, and the term “speaking” is used with reference to all these [in humans]. Thus: I spoke with my own heart, means “I reflected on this thought.” And this is ‘hadavar’ that Joshua did circumcise, means “this is ‘the cause’ why Joshua did so.” ‘Al d’var’ (because of) the money. Similarly, And let her be thy master’s son’s wife, as the Eternal hath spoken, means “as He hath decreed.” Likewise: In his days did Hiel the Beth-elite built Jericho; with his firstborn he laid the foundation thereof, and with his youngest son Segub he set up the gates thereof; according to the word of the Eternal, which He spoke by the hand of Joshua the son of Nun. Thus Moses said here: “This incident is that which G-d decreed, ‘saying to His heart': Through them that are nigh unto Me I will be sanctified so that they should not break forth into My sanctity; and before all the people I will be glorified, so that they treat My dwelling-place with respect.” VAYIDOM AHARON’ (AND AARON WAS SILENT). This means that he had cried aloud, but then he became silent. Or perhaps the meaning thereof is as in the verse, let not the apple of thine eye ‘tidom’ (cease).

"This is what Hashem spoke" — Hashem had already told me that He would display His holiness among those near to Him, in the sense of "Only you have I known" (Amos 3:2). And when I display My holiness through them, I shall be honored, and before all the people I shall be glorified, and they will stand in awe of Me.

וידום אהרן, seeing he consoled himself after having been told that the death of his sons represented a sanctification of the name of the Lord.

הוא אשר דבר השם, this is what G'd has said: etc. The word הוא needs further analysis. Another word which seems peculiar is the word לאמור. This word gives the impression that Moses had already been commanded to communicate this idea that G'd is most exacting with those near and dear to Him. If Moses had been instructed to communicate this concept, why had he not done so before? Perhaps this error of Moses was similar to the one we described in connection with Moses' failure to communicate to the people all the details about the manna on the Sabbath, as mentioned in Exodus 16,23 where we also find the expression הוא אשר דבר השם. We had supplied sufficient reasons why Moses at the time did not communicate the laws about the Sabbath to the Israelites in advance, basing ourselves on the absence of the word לאמור in that context. In this instance then, why had Moses not told Aaron of this concept sooner? Our sages in Torat Kohanim on our verse describe Aaron as in despair accusing both himself and his sons as having sinned and having been punished for it. When Moses heard this, he entered Aaron's tent and tried to put his mind at ease by telling him that G'd had told him when he was on Mount Sinai that in the future He, G'd, would sanctify the Tabernacle by means of persons of great stature. At the time, Moses said, he had thought that G'd referred either to himself or to Aaron. Now, in view of what had just occurred, it had become clear to him that both Nadav and Avihu were of greater stature than either he or Aaron seeing G'd had selected those two to sanctify His Tabernacle. Thus far Torat Kohanim. Another approach may be this: while it is true that Moses had been told about this concept at Sinai, he had not understood in which context this lesson would assume practical significance. Only now, when Nadav and Avihu had died under peculiar circumstances did he, Moses, realise what G'd had meant to tell him at that time when He said to him: בקרובי אקדש, "I will be sanctified by means of those who are close to Me." Moses told Aaron: "the only reason your sons had to die was to glorify the name of the Lord." This is how he suddenly understood the words in Exodus 29,43: ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבודי, "there I will meet with the children of Israel and there My glory shall be sanctified." As soon as Aaron heard that the two sons of his who had died were ידועי השם, based on Exodus 29,43, he remained silent and did not utter a lament. According to the first approach the word הוא has to be understood thus: Seeing Aaron was saddened by his interpretation of the reason his sons had died, Moses corrected him by saying הוא "this is the reason your sons died," i.e. because they were too close to G'd not because they had become estranged from G'd. Accordingly, the word הוא refers to the cause. According to the second approach to our verse we have to understand the word הוא as a reference to the comment G'd had made to Moses without specifying His meaning. ...

הוא אשר דבר ה׳ לאמור: בקרובי אקדש, “this is what the Lord said: “I will be sanctified through those who are near Me.” Where had the Lord said this? In Exodus 19,22: ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבודי, “this is where I will make Myself known to the Children of Israel, and where My glory will be sanctified.” (Exodus 29,43) An alternate interpretation: where is the verse proving this? (Exodus 19,2) וגם הכהנים הנגשים אל ה׳ יתקדשו פן יפרוץ בהם ה׳, “and also the priests who came close to the Lord have to sanctify themselves” [by not doing what they think is best, but by what G-d had thought best. Ed.], “so that the Lord will not break out against them.” This verse is addressed specifically to the High Priests whom G-d warns that they especially have to be on guard not to infringe on the rules laid down for them even in the slightest. Any deviation on their part would have to result in G-d becoming “sanctified” through His immediate, and for the priest in question fatal, punishment, as otherwise it would be seen as a desecration of the Lord’s name. Concerning the High Priest, the Torah had therefore written: in Leviticus 21,10: “and he must not let his hair grow loose, nor rend his clothes, and not leave the Temple in order to follow the bier of his father on the way to burial, etc.” (verse 12 there) The point that Moses is making to his brother in our verse is that the higher one’s rank, the more strictly G-d applies the rules laid down for their conduct. A High Priest, exactly by not leaving G-d’s Temple in order to attend his father or mother’s funeral, demonstrates that G-d’s honour comes first, and he cannot take time out for his personal concerns. There is no better way to demonstrate this than the example mentioned in the Torah. It is true that the subject has not been dealt with sequentially, but this is the way of the Torah [We must remember that the Author of the Torah, maybe because “Time” is subservient to Him and not vice versa, as it is to His creatures, deliberately demonstrated this by not revealing what He has to say to us in chronological order. Ed.] ועל פני כל העם אכבד, “and I will be honoured in the presence of the whole nation.” They will all be witness that even though as Aaron’s sons had died he will push away the mourning ritual in order to serve me. וידום אהרן, “Aaron responded by accepting this silently.”This response is repeated by the prophet Ezekiel quoting G-d saying to him after the death of his wife (Ezekiel 24,17: האנק דום אבל מתים לא תעשה, “moan softly, do not observe the ritual of mourning for the dead.” (Rash’bam)

הוא אשר דבר ה' לאמור בקרובי אקדש, “this is what the Lord had said, saying: ‘I will be sanctified by those nearest Me.’” Where had G’d ever made such a statement that Moses could now refer to it? The first time was in Exodus 19,22 at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai, where G’d had warned the Priests not to look too much at supernatural phenomena. The Torah had written: “even the Priests who approach Hashem should sanctify themselves lest Hashem will burst forth against them.” [The expression יתקדשו used in this verse always implies imposing restrictions upon oneself. Ed.] This was a warning that the Priests are at greater risk than ordinary Israelites because they are in a preferred position, being closer to Hashem. The expression יפרוץ בהם, “He might burst forth against them,” describes precisely what happened to Nadav and Avihu who were killed immediately they committed this sin. The words used in Exodus 19,22 are that the Priests are coming close to Hashem, i.e. 'הנגשים אל ה, whereas in Leviticus 16,2 the word used by the Torah is בקרבתם לפני ה, “when they approached the presence of the Lord.” Proof that both expressions are more or less identical is found in Jeremiah 30,21 where the prophet uses both expressions in one breath, saying: והקרבתיו ונגש אלי, “I will bring him near that he may approach Me.” The second time G’d indicated that He would be sanctified by those closest to Him was in Exodus 29,43 (compare Rashi) where the Torah writes (quoting G’d) ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבודי, “and there I will meet with the Israelites, and it shall be sanctified by My glory.” The word ונקדש in that verse is an allusion to what would happen, i.e. a revelation of G’d’s Shechinah to the sons of Aaron. The word לכבודי is a further reference to what Moses told Aaron his brother that G’d had said ועל פני כל העם אכבד, “and I shall be glorified in the presence of the whole nation,” at the end of our verse. The expression בקרובי, “through those close to Me,” in the plural, hints at a variety of matters which could trigger such a sanctification of the Lord’s name. However, seeing that the Torah does not have vowels, it is possible to read this word as a singular i.e. be-kirbi, seeing the word has been spelled without the letter ו which is common to the spelling of the word karov, קרוב. The word would then be a reference to an angel (attribute) attached, within Hashem. We would then have an even more literal allusion in the words quoted from Exodus 29,43 ונקדש בכבודי, meaning ונקדש בקרבי,”I will be sanctified by means of this attribute (angel) within Me.” Similar constructions are found in Hoseah 11,9 בקרבך קדוש, “the Holy One in your midst.” Another similar expression is found in Deuteronomy 31,17 where the people suffering a lot of disasters blame the fact that אין אלו-הי בקרבי, “that it demonstrates that my G’d is not near me” (not “within” me). In that case also, Israel, instead of addressing itself to the essence of G’d, i.e. Hashem, addressed itself to a lesser attribute of G‘d, i.e. the attribute of Justice.” Failure to address one’s prayers or offerings to Hashem, the tetragram, results in retribution by the very attribute of Justice to which one addresses oneself. (Compare what we wrote on verse 1 under the heading “a kabbalistic approach”). וידום אהרן, “Aaron remained silent.” Silence is one of the ways in which mourning is expressed; the various ways in which mourning is to be expressed have been spelled out by Ezekiel 24,16-17: “O mortal man, I am about to take away the delight of your eyes from you through pestilence; but you shall not lament or weep or let your tears flow. Moan, softly; observe no mourning for the dead. Put on your turban and put your sandals on your feet; do not cover your upper lip, and do not eat the bread of the comforters.” During the next few verses the death of Ezekiel’s wife is reported. From verse 21-22 G’d continues His instructions to the prophet saying: “Tell the house of Israel: ‘thus said the Lord, G’d: I am going to desecrate My Sanctuary, your pride and glory, the delight of your eyes and the desire of your heart; .....and you shall do as I have done. You shall not cover your upper lips or eat the bread of comforters, and your turbans shall remain on your head and your sandals on your feet. And Ezekiel shall be become a portent for you.’” Ezekiel had been prophesying the forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the exile of the population to the lands of their enemies so that they would not have time to observe the normal rites of mourning. The prohibition of things a mourner must not do mentioned in that chapter comprises five items: 1) washing oneself, 2) anointing one’s skin with oil or other lotions; 3) sexual intercourse, 4) attending to one’s business, 5) study of Torah. Anyone of the aforementioned activities comes under the heading of שמחה, an activity which causes joy. Seeing that joy is the opposite of mourning, it stands to reason that these items are forbidden to people observing mourning. Attending to business and the study of Torah are lumped together in a single verse when David said in Psalms 119,162: שש אנכי על אמרתך כמוצא שלל רב, “I rejoice over Your words as one who has found a great spoil.” This proves that both pursuits are described as resulting in joy. Isaiah 9,2 also makes it plain that joy, גילה, is associated with the acquisition of spoils.

This is what the Lord spoke saying, “Through those who are near to Me I will be sanctified.” Rashi explains: And where did God speak [this]? And it shall be sanctified through My glory (Exodus 29:43). Do not read through My glory [bichvodi] but “through My honored ones” [bimchubadai]. However, this interpretation is unnecessary because it says here, and before all the people I will be honored. Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: “And it shall be sanctified” — meaning the House [Temple] will be sanctified through that which is My glory, through which I will be honored before all the people. And this only happens through those who are close to the Holy One, blessed be He, because whoever draws nearer to God — from him all those of lesser rank will learn a fortiori [all the more so] reasoning, saying: “If fire has caught the green [wood], what will become of the dry, worthless thorns?” And then everyone will take moral instruction, and this is the glory of the Holy One, blessed be He, before all the people. And this is what Rashi explains, Moses said to Aaron, “Aaron my brother, I knew that the house would be sanctified through those who are intimate with God, and I thought it would be either through me or through you. Now I see that they [Nadab and Abihu] are greater than both of us.” And how do we know that they are greater? It is certainly that the explanation of the matter is that the Holy One, blessed be He, holds two extremes: The first extreme is that the Holy One, blessed be He, is more exacting with the righteous than with others; the second extreme is that He punishes them even for a small error. All this is so that others of lesser stature might learn from them the aforementioned kal vachomer [a fortiori reasoning]. This would not have been possible to learn if He had punished some average person or if He had punished for some great sin. And the verse says, And before all the people I will be glorified, meaning that everyone will be careful with My honor from then on, for they will all take this moral lesson through kal vachomer. If they [Nadab and Abihu] had not been greater even than me [Moses], then this moral lesson would not have reached everyone, because those greater than them would say, “This evil will not reach us,” and this moral lesson would only be taken by those lesser than them. Even those equal to them in stature would not be affected because each one would mistakenly say, “I am greater than my fellow.” Only from one whom all acknowledge to be greater than everyone else will a moral lesson be taken by all. This is the concept of the sanctification of God’s Name, for from then on His holy ones will fear the Lord. And this is what was meant by through those close to Me I will be sanctified — through one who is closer to Me than others, through him I will be sanctified, because through him before all the people I will be glorified — the moral lesson will reach everyone. And this is [the understanding of] what is said When they drew near [korvatam] before the Lord and died (Leviticus 16:1). Because they were closer [kerovim] to the Lord than others, therefore they died. And this is the reason for “And it consumed at the edge of the camp.” Our Sages interpreted this (Yalkut Shimoni 432) as referring to the leaders of the camp. And as our Sages said (Bava Kamma 60a), “Punishment comes to the world only because of the wicked, but it always begins with the righteous, etc.” The explanation of this matter is that punishment begins with the righteous so that the wicked will learn a moral lesson. And this is what is meant by And your brothers, the entire house of Israel, shall weep, etc. They will fear and worry for themselves that what happened to these individuals should not happen to them, when they see that God does not show favoritism to anyone. And this is a precious interpretation.

הוא אשר דבר ה' לאמור, “of this did G’d speak, saying:” Rashi claims that G’d referred to Exodus 29,43 ונועדתי שמה לבני ישראל ונקדש בכבודי, “I shall set My meeting there with the Children of Israel, and I will be sanctified with My glory.” Some commentators hold that G’d referred to Exodus 19,22 וגם הכהנים הנגשים אל ה' יתקדשו, “even the priests who approach Hashem shall sanctify themselves lest He burst forth against them.” Nachmanides writes there is no need to search for relevant verses, for G’d can issue decrees at any time in any place, such as when the angel speaking through the mouth of Bethuel announced (Genesis 24,51) “let her become the wife of your master’s son.” [This is strange as Nachmanides does not offer this comment in his commentary on that verse. Presumably, the fact that a man such as Bethuel quoted G’d as having said this, showed that he was being manipulated by G’d. Ed,. The expression כאשר דבר ה' in the mouth of Bethuel means “as G’d has decreed.” Here too Moses means to tell Aaron that what happened was nothing else but a decree of Hashem. He softens the blow by saying that G’d, by killing the sons of Aaron at this stage, had tried to prevent them who are so near to Him by dint of being priests, i.e. בקרובי, from becoming guilty of an unforgivable trespass, i.e. their ruining His sanctity. ועל פני כל העם אכבד, “so that I will be honoured in full view of all the people.” In order that the people will treat My Residence with the proper reverence in future. וידום אהרן, “Aaron remained silent.” Nachmaides writes that Aaron wept aloud, after which he remained silent. We find the same meaning of the word וידום in Lamentations 2,18 אל תדום בת עיניך, “give your eyes no rest (from weeping)!”

this is when Moses said to Aaron: “do not mourn nor weep, and do not desist from carrying on with your priestly duties; I am telling you what I am saying in the name of G’d Who has said: בקרובי אקדש, I want to be sanctified by the High Priests, the ones who are “near” to Me and who perform the service for Me. I do not want that they should desecrate My name and My holy service by letting their private concerns take precedence.” Moses added that G’d had specifically given him instructions concerning such events as had just happened by saying (Leviticus 21,10-12) “the priest who is exalted above his fellows, on whose head the anointment has been poured and who has been ordained to wear the vestments, shall not bare his head nor rend his vestments. He shall not go in where there is a dead body; he shall not defile himself even for his father or mother. He shall not go outside the sanctuary and profane the sanctuary of his G’d, for upon him is the distinction of the anointing oil of his G’d, Mine the Lord’s.” It follows that by not leaving the holy precincts at this time Aaron did in fact sanctify the name of the Lord. This is the meaning of בקרובי אקדש, “I will be sanctified by those close to Me.” The fact that the legislation we just quoted appears only in chapter 21 is no argument as the Torah is not bound to record its message to the Jewish people in chronological sequence. At any rate, Moses told Aaron not to abandon the service in the Tabernacle while in circumstances which imposed mourning on other priests, even. ועל פני כל העם אכבד, this is the “honour” accorded to G’d’s Presence that even when one sees one’s sons dying one ignores one’s personal grief and continues with the service to one’s Creator. וידום אהרן, he desisted from his mourning, did not weep and did not perform rites of the mourning. We find a replay of this incident with variations in the Book of Ezekiel 24-16-17 [although Ezekiel a priest lived in Babylonia and had never had a chance to actively practice the priesthood, not to mention the chance of being a High Priest, Ed.]. We read there as follows: “o mortal, I am about to take away the delight of your eyes from you through pestilence; but you shall not lament or weep or let your tears flow. הענק דום מתים, Moan softly; observe no mourning for the dead. Put on your turban and put on your sandals on your feet; do not cover your upper lip, and do not eat the bread of comforters.” In our verse too, the meaning of וידום אהרן is that he abstained from voicing his anguish, his sorrow. There is, of course, an allegorical interpretation quoted in Zevachim 115 according to which Moses comforted Aaron in respect of G’d’s statement “it shall be sanctified by My Presence,” ונקדש בכבודי, (Exodus 29,43) Moses consoled Aaron by reading the word not as bichvodee, but as bichvuday, “by those whom I have honoured.” Moses continued that up until the recent bereavement he had thought that either he or Aaron would have to die in such a scenario. Now he had found out that Nadav and Avihu were the ones whom G’d had referred to as being so close to Him.

בקרובי אקדש, “I will become sanctified by means of the people who had been close to Me.” The very death of these people is an event which sanctifies Me. How so? If the Israelites will internalise how strict I have been with these highly placed individuals, they will know how careful they have to be not to deviate from My commandments.

And Moses called to Mishael and to Elzaphan, sons of Uzziel the brother of Aaron's father, and said to them: Draw near, carry your kinsmen from before the face of the sanctuary to outside the camp.

דד אהרן THE UNCLE OF AARON — Uzziel was Amram’s brother, as it is said (Exodus 6:18) “And the sons of Kehath were [Amram …. and Uzziel]”. שאו את אחיכם וגו׳ CARRY YOUR BRETHREN etc. — as a man who says to his fellow: Remove the corpse from before the bride in order not to disturb the joy.

AND MOSES CALLED MISHAEL AND ELZAPHAN, THE SONS OF UZZIEL THE UNCLE OF AARON, AND SAID UNTO THEM: DRAW NEAR, CARRY YOUR BRETHREN FROM BEFORE THE SANCTUARY OUT OF THE CAMP. I have found written in the Torath Kohanim in the section of the consecration: “Rabbi Eliezer says: the sons of Aaron died outside [the Sanctuary], in a place where the Levites [Mishael and Elzaphan] were permitted to enter, as it is said, So they drew near, and carried them in their tunics. If so, why then does it say, and they died before the Eternal? It was an angel who smote them [Nadab and Abihu] and thrust them out of the Sanctuary [and they did not die until they were outside it]. Rabbi Akiba says: they died inside the Sanctuary, as it is said, and they died before the Eternal. If so, why does it say, So they drew near, and carried them in their tunics [since Levites are not permitted to enter the Sanctuary]? They put iron hooks on them, and dragged them and brought them out of the Sanctuary.” Thus far is the text of the Beraitha, and the meaning thereof is as follows: Even though priests are also forbidden to enter the Sanctuary except at the time of Service, this prohibition applies only if they enter it needlessly. But one may enter the Sanctuary in order to remove an uncleanness, or to make Temple repairs. For thus we were taught in the Torath Kohanim: “I might think one is not permitted to enter the Sanctuary to make the beaten plates [for a covering of the golden altar, or for the Holy of Holies]; Scripture therefore says, ‘Only’ he shall not go in unto the Veil [the word ‘only’ denoting an exception to the general law]; such is their command: priests may go in there [at any time to make the above repairs]. If there are no priests present, Levites may enter. If there are no [ritually] pure ones [priests or Levites], impure ones may go in. If there are no unblemished ones, blemished ones may enter there.” Now on that day [when Nadab and Abihu died] there were no priests present [who could remove them from the Sanctuary where they had died], since [Aaron and his two remaining sons] were expressly commanded that they should not defile themselves for them. But since it was possible to do it through dragging them out with iron hooks, [Mishael and Elzaphan] were not permitted to enter there. [Such is the opinion of Rabbi Akiba.] But Rabbi Eliezer, who is of the opinion [that an angel thrust Nadab and Abihu out of the Sanctuary, and they died outside, thinks] that since Scripture states of Mishael and Elzaphan, so they drew near, it was outside the Sanctuary [that they died], and therefore he does not say [as does Rabbi Akiba] that they dragged them outside in their tunics. The meaning of the expression in their tunics is that Nadab and Abihu were then dressed in the priestly garments. Moses thus commanded that they carry them out of the camp, and there they should strip them of their priestly garments, and clothe them in burial shrouds, and bury them, as was their cus...

"Carry your kinsmen from before the sacred area" — Some say the incense had been [burned] before the altar of burnt-offering, where the Levites may enter; others say it was at the incense altar, and Moses brought them out from the Tent of Meeting. "The sacred area" — this refers to the courtyard, as opposed to the camp, as I have explained.

ויאמר אליהם קרבו, “he said to them (Aaron’s great nephews) come forward;” he had to reassure them that they did not have to fear any interference by G-d. (Pessikta zutrata).

בני עזיאל דוד אהרן, “the sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Aaron.” Rashi explains that Uzziel had been a brother of Amram as it is written (Exodus 6,18) “and the sons of Kehat were: “Amram, Yitzhar, Chevron, and Uzziel.” Seeing that this is spelled out in the written Torah, what did Rashi contribute with his commentary? Rashi concentrates on the words “an uncle of Aaron” in our verse. Seeing that we were aware of this genealogy we also knew that Uzziel was an uncle of Aaron. Why then did the Torah provide this well-known information? The reason the Torah added these words was to teach us that the uncle and nephew were alike not only in their hereditary genes but in their acquired characteristics, their מדות טובות. Just as Aaron was known as a lover of peace and harmony, so his uncle before him had been known for these qualities.

ויקרא משה אל מישאל ואל אלצפן, “Moses called upon Mishael and Eltzafan, etc.“ Torat Kohanim derives from here that priests are forbidden to defile themselves ritually on dead bodies, seeing that neither Ittamar nor Eleazar, the brothers of the deceased, were allowed to perform burial rites on them. This statement raises questions seeing that the Torah specifically permitted priests who are brothers of the deceased to defile themselves, compare Leviticus In view of this, why were Eleazar and Ittamar not permitted to defile themselves here? We need to answer this by saying that even an ordinary priest, on the day when he has been consecrated, is treated as if he were a High Priest who is not allowed to defile himself for the sake of next of kin, except if a deceased has no one else who can attend to his interment, and this tragic death occurred on the very day that Eleazar and Ittamar had been anointed as priests. In light of this, we can now also understand why the Torah (verse 6) here commands both Aaron, Elezar, and Ittamar must not leave the hair of their head unshorn nor rend their garments as a sign of mourning even though elsewhere we do not know of such a restriction applying to ordinary priests. Nachmanides writes that what took place on that occasion was dictated by extraordinary circumstances. There is no question that the High Priest is enjoined not to leave the hair of his head unshorn and not to rend his clothing as a sign of mourning, as he is not allowed to leave the precincts of the Temple during a period when he is supposed to perform his duties in the Temple, in order to attend the funeral of his next of kin. By doing so, he would desecrate the sanctity of the Temple. The reason is that his appointment, i.e. appointment to his position as High Priest, is a round the clock position seven days a week, and this is demonstrated by the Torah demanding that even when in a state of aninut, the period between the death of a near relative and the burial of that relative, a period when performance of the מצוות, commandments is temporarily suspended, he must not abandon his post in the Temple. Ordinary priests, by contrast, are not allowed to perform their duties in the Temple when in such a state of pre-burial mourning for their relatives, the state we call aninut. Seeing that their duties in the Temple are temporarily suspended, they are obligated to attend to the needs of the relative about to be buried. This, obviously, requires that they defile themselves ritually in the process of attending to the needs of the deceased. In this special situation the Torah instructed more distant relatives, uncles, to perform these rites for Nadav and Avihu, This is the meaning of verse 6:ואחיכם כל בית ישראל יבכו את השרפה, “your brethren the whole house of Israel are to weep for the conflagration which Hashem has ignited.” Moses warned Eleazar and Ittamar concerning their ritual status on this exceptional occasion. The dominating consideration on this day was to maximise the joy over G’d’s Shechinah finally having become manifest again among the camp, for the first time since the sin of the golden calf. The sons of Aaron therefore were forbidden to take a leave of absence from their duties in the Tabernacle on pain of death. It is possible that Moses received a direct command from G’d for this special occasion, and did not improvise, even though the Torah did not see fit to record this in our text, which, after all, contains only material the relevance of which transcends time and space. He may also have learned what to do from the more general statement in Leviticus 8,35: ושמרתם את משמרת ה' ולא תמותו, “you shall observe the ordinances of the Lord so that you will not die.” It was clear to Moses that what are referred to there as משמרת ה' also applied to this eighth day of the inaugural offerings. Clearly, it had not been a secret for G’d that the day would come during these eight days when two sons of Aaron would be in the state of aninut, for their two older brothers. In spite of having anticipated this, G’d had formulated at this time already a statute according to which these sons of Aaron were not to leave the holy precincts, even temporarily, were not to observe the rites appropriate for brothers who are in such a state of aninut. They were not to observe any rite that reflected to the outside that they were in a state of mourning. At this particular time, on this special date, they were subject to the same rules as was the High Priest himself. It is even possible that during all the years when Eleazar and Ittamar performed their duties as priests, before they became physically too weak to do so, they conducted themselves exactly as if they had both been Hugh Priests, a good reason being the fact that they had both been anointed with the special oil, just as had their father, but not like their sons who were priests from birth and did not need anointing. קרבו, “approach!” Torat Kohanim quotes two contradictory opinions, one of which holds that the sons of Aaron died without the boundaries of the holy precincts, whereas the other opinion claims that they died within those boundaries and their bodies had to be dragged out by rope or something similar, in order not to violate the stern prohibition for a non priest to cross that boundary. The first opinion is based on the word קרבו in our verse that suggests that there was no ritual impediment to Eltzafan and Mishael taking hold of these bodies. The other opinion bases itself on the Torah describing the death of these two sons of Aaron as having occurred לפני ה', “in the presence of the Shechinah,” an expression referring to holy precincts. According to this latter opinion, the bodies were either dragged by rope, or by a long wooden lance, at any rate both expressions in the Torah are not irreconcilable. When it comes to the need to avoid ritual contamination through a dead body, there are no different rules for Levites, such as Eltzafan and Mishael, and for ordinary Israelites. Both are charged with removing ritual impurity from the holy precincts especially when no priest is available inside. According to the view that these two brothers died within the holy precincts, their bodies conferred ritual impurity on the entire Tabernacle and its contents, and in the absence of priests, anyone could have removed these bodies. However, seeing that it could be done without more ritual impurity being incurred by anyone, this is the preferable method. If anyone had had to incur ritual impurity on that account, he would have required seven days of purification rites with sprinkling of water containing the ash of the red heifer both on the third and on the seventh day during these seven days. The Tabernacle would have had to undergo a similar purification rite involving immersion in a ritual bath, mikveh, seeing that linen shrouds, sheets etc., are all subject to ritual contamination with the dead. Seeing that we do not hear about service in the Tabernacle having been interrupted at that time, nor that the Tabernacle was taken apart as a result of the death of the two sons of Aaron, we may assume that the deaths did not occur within the holy precincts. On the other hand, seeing that the rule for the Tabernacle was על פי ה' יחנו ועל פי ה' יסעו, that the people were to both encamp and start moving only at the express command of G’d, this implies that no other occurrence would demand the folding and dismantling of the Tabernacle, i.e. that it was immune to the laws of ritual purity and impurity.

ויקרא משה אל מישאל ואל אלצפן, Torat Kohanim claims that it is clear from here that the brothers of the deceased, being priests, were not allowed to bury him, i.e. to ritually defile themselves on account of the tragedy. This statement is most puzzling, as this is nothing new, and we know from Leviticus 21,1 that priests must not defile themselves. Seeing that both Elazar and Ittamar were not High Priests, why would they be forbidden to bury their brothers seeing that they belonged to the seven closest relatives on whose account they are permitted to defile themselves in such a situation? We must therefore assume that what the author of Torat Kohanim had in mind was that on days when ordinary priests have been appointed to perform service in the Temple, they are considered on the same level of sanctity as a High Priest, and on such days they must not defile themselves even in order to bury one of the seven closest relatives. This is also the opinion of the author of b’chor shor, in his commentary on verse 6, i.e. ראשיכם אל תפרעו, “let not your hair on your head grow loose.” The reason why this rule was revealed on that day was that on that day the brothers of Nadav and Avihu had been appointed to perform duties in the Tabernacle, so that they had become subject to the restrictions applying to their father the High Priest. On ordinary days, ordinary priests do not have to observe the restriction of not letting their hair grow loose. [At the time in question there had been only five priests, Aaron and his four sons. Ed.] Our author feels that the words: כי שמן משחת קודש עליהם, “for the holy anointing oil is upon you,” in the verse following, reinforces the commentary by the author of b’chor shor.

And they drew near and carried them in their tunics to outside the camp, as Moses had spoken.

בכתנתם IN THEIR GARMENTS — in those of the dead (not in their own garments). This tells us that their garments had not been destroyed by fire, but their souls alone (neither their clothing nor bodies showed signs of burning; they had been struck by fire inwardly): there entered into their nostrils something like two threads of fire which burnt them to death (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 34; Sanhedrin 52a).

בכתנותם אל מחוץ למחנה, they did not bother to remove their holy vestments from them seeing that these had already become ritually impure.

בכתנותם, “in their tunics;” not the tunics of the pallbearers since only priests, not Levites, wore those tunics.

And they came nigh, and carried them with hooks of iron in their garments, and buried them without the camp, as Mosheh had directed.

And Moses said to Aaron and to Eleazar and to Ithamar, his sons: Do not let your heads go disheveled, and do not tear your garments, lest you die, and upon the entire congregation there shall be wrath. But your kinsmen, all the house of Israel, shall weep over the burning that Hashem has kindled.

ראשיכם] אל תפרעו] means, let not your hair grow long (cf. Numbers 6:5) (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 40). From this (from the fact that Scripture forbade these particular mourners to let their hair grow long) it follows that an אבל (one mourning the death of a near relative) is forbidden to cut his hair. Moses's words therefore signified: Ordinarily an אבל may not cut his hair but ye, disturb ye not the joy of the Omnipresent God by displaying signs of mourning (Moed Katan 14b). ולא תמתו LEST YE DIE — Consequently if ye do this ye shall die (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 41). ואחיכם כי בית ישראל BUT (LET] YOUR BRETHREN, THE WHOLE OF ISRAEL [WEEP] — From this it follows that for the miseries of the learned the duty devolves upon everyone (the entire community) to mourn (cf. Moed Katan 28b.)

LET NOT THE HAIR OF YOUR HEADS GO LOOSE. “[This means]: do not grow your hair long. From this [the fact that Scripture forbade these particular mourners to let their hair grow long], we learn that a mourner is forbidden to cut his hair. [Moses thus said to them: Normally a mourner may not cut his hair], but you must not disturb the joy of G-d. THAT YE DIE NOT. But if you do this you shall die.” Thus far the language of Rashi. Now that which Rashi says, “From this we learn that a mourner is forbidden to cut his hair,” is merely a Scriptural support for a Rabbinic enactment. Moreover, according to this explanation one cannot then interpret: “But if you do this [i.e., you let your hair grow long] you shall die.” Rather it was optional in the case of Aaron’s sons, Scripture stating: “You are not obliged to let your hair grow long and rend your garments, as are other mourners; that ye die not, meaning that you will not be liable to death if you do so [i.e., neither let your hair grow nor rend your garments], but other mourners are liable [to death] if they fail to observe it.” Thus also have the Rabbis said in the Gemara of Mashkin: “A mourner who did not let his hair grow long, and did not rent his garments, is liable [to punishment of death], as it is said, Let not the hair of your heads go loose, neither rend your clothes, that ye die not; but other mourners who do not let their hair grow long, or rend their garments, are liable [to that punishment].” But this text is similar to other Rabbinic laws for which the Talmud merely found a Scriptural support, for letting one’s hair grow long and rending one’s garments when in mourning are only matters of Rabbinic ordinance. Or perhaps the mourning of the first day [after the death and burial] is a law given to Moses at Sinai, being derived from that of aninuth [the state of mourning before the burial of a relative] according to the opinion of the Gaonim. But the real meaning of the verse is an admonition to Aaron’s sons, and listen to the meaning thereof. Our Rabbis have already said that a High Priest may bring an offering whilst he is still an onen but may not eat it. If any of his next of kin die, he is not allowed to let his hair grow or rend his garments or defile himself for them, as it is said, he shall not let the hair of his head go loose, nor rend his clothes; neither shall he enter [a tent containing] a dead body. Now since he is permitted to bring offerings whilst he is an onen, Scripture therefore said about him, Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, nor profane the Sanctuary of his G-d. This means that He warned him against going out of the Sanctuary and leaving the Service, for this would be a profanation of G-d’s Name. Now this warning against leaving the Sanctuary at the time of the Service applies to all priests, except that in the case of the High Priest He taught that he may bring offerings whilst he is still an onen [whereas an ordinary priest must interrupt his Service and an...

"Do not uncover your heads" — some say this means letting the hair grow long. "Do not rend" — means tear; and the correct interpretation is that it corresponds to "his garments shall be rent and his head shall be uncovered" (Lev. 13:45). Many say ["פרוע" means] "covered," others say "uncovered," but the truth is in the words of tradition. "Lest you die" — the word וְלֹא draws its meaning forward, as in "I have not learned wisdom" (Prov. 30:3); similarly here: and the whole congregation shall not be struck with wrath, for you will make atonement on their behalf. As for the meaning of "and your kinsmen, all the house of Israel" — you will find it alluded to in the portion beginning "Behold, I set before you" (Deut. 11:26).

ראשיכם אל תפרעו, even though these dead belonged to the category of near relatives for whom even priests observe mourning rites, in this instance the law was applied in its entire severity seeing that these priests had been anointed with the holy oil of anointing. The Torah had spelled this out, writing כי שמם משחת ה' עליכם, “for you (pl) have been anointed with G’d’s holy oil.” (verse 7). כל בית ישראל יבכו, for two outstanding righteous people had been removed from them. They would therefore not be denied the eulogies due to the deceased (Sanhedrin 46)

ראשיכם אל תפרעו; "do not let the hair of your head grow wild." The Torah warns that if the people at large were to do the same as the priests, i.e. trim their hair while in mourning for a close relative, G'd would become angry. There are differences in the manner ordinary Israelites mourn their dead and in the manner in which priests charged with serving the Lord do this. Whereas the priests are not allowed to let their hair grow wild, they are obligated to rend their garments when hearing of the death of a close relative. Perhaps, in this instance, the rules applied were those we apply when the president of the Supreme Court dies; at such a time all of Israel are commanded to rend their garments as a sign of mourning (Moed Katan 22). In view of the opinion that Nadav and Avihu were of greater stature than even Moses and Aaron, it was certainly appropriate for the whole nation to mourn their deaths. ואחיכם כל בית ישראל יבכו, "and your brethren the whole house of Israel will weep, etc." This is a מצוה, a desirable act; failure to do so will not arouse G'd's anger. The Torah is particular to write אשר שרף השם. This may best be understood in accordance with a statement in Shabbat 105 that anyone who weeps and mourns another person' death has his own sins forgiven and will not have cause to weep [for a tragedy in his immediate family. Ed.]. This thought is alluded to in the words אשר שרף, "He had burned." If the Israelites were to weep for the death of Nadav and Avihu now, there would be no future burning to be wept for. The words ולא תמותו ועל כל העדה יקצוף "so that you will not die and G'd will be angry at the whole congregation" mean, that when the righteous die G'd's anger is unleashed against the whole of Israel. The reason is that the righteous by their very existence had kept G'd's anger against Israel in check while they were alive. The death of priests is especially apt to result in G'd's anger becoming manifest as it was the task of the priest to assuage G'd's anger by means of the Temple service he performed while alive.

ראשיכם אל תפרעו, “let not the hair of your head grow loose;” seeing that your are ‘valets’ of the Lord, it is not seemly that you should display your mourning in that way and that you weep; your brothers, however may observe normal rites of mourning. ובגדיכם לא תפרומו, “and do not rend your garments;” even though you are not priests, but on this occasion you are similar to a High Priest in this respect. Concerning the High Priest the Torah had written in Leviticus 21,10: את ראשו לא יפרע ובגדיו לא יפרום, “he must not let his hair grow loose on his head, he must not rend his garments (in mourning).” We know from Leviticus 13,45, that someone whom the priest has confirmed as having been stricken with the dread skin disease tzoraat, must rend his clothes and let his hair grow loose (as an external sign that he is suffering from this disease.) ועל כל העדה יקצוף, “and He will display His anger at the whole community if you observe mourning.” This commandment was applicable only on that day when these pallbearers removed the bodies of Nadav and Avihu from the sacred precincts where they had been struck down by heavenly fire. We find a similar construction in Psalms 9,19: “the hope of the humble beggars will not always be disappointed.”An alternate commentary: “if you were to observe mourning now, G-d will demonstrate His anger by not accepting the sacrifices you offer Him this day.”

ועל כל העדה יקצוף, “and He will be angry at the entire community.” It is not reasonable to understand these words to mean that G’d will punish the entire Jewish people for a sin committed by the Priests or an individual Priest. G’d does not punish one nation for the sins of another, and the Priests are considered as a separate nation in this respect. Even if the Israelites were to do the very thing that the Priests are forbidden to do, i.e. leave their heads unshorn or their clothing rent, this would not be accounted a sin for them at all as the whole legislation applies only to the Priests. However, G’d’s anger and wrath would apply to the Israelites if, when they are commanded to observe mourning and to weep for the death of the sons of Aaron, they fail to do so. (Compare Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon). The word יקצוף does not mean “He will be angry,” but “there will be קצף,” i.e. there will be a manifestation of that anger. We find a similar construction in Samuel II 2,32: ויאור להם בחברון, “day broke upon them in Chevron” (after marching all night). The word ויאור in that verse does not mean “He made it light for them.” We find that “the Children of Israel mourned the death of Aaron for thirty days, the entire nation,” (Numbers 20,29). When Moses died (Deut. 34,8) we also find that “the Children of Israel mourned for him for thirty days in the wilderness of Moav.” Here too, mourning for the deaths of Nadav and Avihu was mandatory and this directive is couched in the words “and your brethren the entire House of Israel shall bewail the conflagration.” We know from Exodus 24,1 that Nadav and Avihu were members of the elite of the people, unsurpassed by any of the elders except Moses and Aaron. This is why G’d mentioned them by name before the elders -who obviously were senior to them in age- before mentioning the elders (without naming the latter). In fact, the mourning rites for these two sons of Aaron exceeded the mourning for Aaron and Moses as Moses himself had described them as their brethren (Rabbeinu Saadyah gaon). [Moses and Aaron were mourned as leaders, not as close family members such as brothers. Ed.].

ועל כל העדה יקצוף, “and He would display His anger against the entire community.” This was because the priests acted as delegates of the community, and when such delegates do not discharge their duties properly the anger against them is also transferred at least partially against the ones who delegated them. Some commentators understand the reference to the “entire community,” as a reference to the offerings that were brought on behalf of the whole community. The Torah would be saying that “if you the priests make any changes from the directives you have received and you eat from these sacrifices this will provoke the Lord’s anger. The sacrifices will prove unwelcome in the eyes of Hashem, and you as the originators of these offerings will be suffering the consequences.” ואחיכם כל בית ישראל, “and your brethren the entire house of Israel, will weep.” This verse teaches that the death of a Torah scholar is to be treated by the entire people as if they had been bereaved of a relative.

'ראשיכם אל תפרעו וגו, this is what Moses said to Eleazar and Ittamar, the surviving brothers of Nadav and Avihu. He told them that although they were priests and as such they were normally required to bare their heads in mourning and to rend their garments when in mourning for near relatives, on this day they had to observe the rites applicable to the High Priest for future generations, as they too had been anointed with the holy anointing oil, and the Torah gave this anointment as the reason why the High Priest could not observe rites of mourning. [remember that in the future ordinary priests would not be anointed but they acquired their status as priest through heredity from their respective fathers. Ed.]

ועל כל העדה יקצוף, “so that He will not become angry at the whole congregation;” the Lord will be angry if you display rites of mourning, as it would then appear as if your offerings which you had presented to the Lord had not been received by Him with goodwill. In the event that you would respond that if we did not mourn our brothers, the impression would be created that they had forfeited their status of being priests by what they had done, seeing that no one had mourned them, Moses commanded all the ordinary Israelites to weep and mourn for the two sons of Aaron who had been burned to death by G–d.

And from the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall not go out, lest you die, for the anointing oil of greatness of Hashem is upon you. And they did according to the word of Moses.

לא תצאו, “do not leave, etc,” the priests (Aaron and his remaining two sons) must not leave the sacred precincts of the Temple seeing that they had been anointed with anointing oil to do service in the Tabernacle by Divine decree. This is what we learned from Torat Kohanim, who cites that Moses spoke separately on the subject to Mishael and Eltzafan, whereas when he spoke now to Aaron and his surviving sons, he did not address Mischael and Eltzafan, Levites, but not priests. The reason was that it could be derived that any priests must not contaminate themselves spiritually by contact with dead bodies, otherwise why could not they have been the pallbearers of their brothers? Our author questions this statement found in the Sifra, by asking rhetorically, why this verse had be used to teach us this fact, when there are many other verses which spell this out directly. Furthermore, Elazar and Ittamar were only ordinary priests not High Priests, The Talmud in tractate Zevachim, folio 100, states specifically that ordinary priests may defile themselves in order to bury a brother or unmarried sister. We must therefore understand Torat Kohanim as stating that from our verse we can derive that it is not only permitted for an ordinary priest to bury his nearest relatives, (7) but that it is a duty that he participate personally in such a funeral. Elazar and Ittamar were in a class by themselves as they had had to be anointed, just like their father, in order to become priests. Future priests would be priests from birth because their fathers were priests, and they would not need anointing.

FOR ADONAI'S ANOINTING [OIL] IS UPON YOU. You are anointed anew along with your father, and this rationale is written with respect to the High Priest (Lev. 21:10-12): "He shall not bare his head, etc. He shall not go outside the sanctuary and profane the sanctuary of his God, for upon him" will be "the distinction of the anointing oil of his God; I am Adonai."

And Hashem spoke with Aaron, saying:

"And Hashem spoke to Aaron" — for he was a prophet. Some say this came through Moses, in the manner of "Speak to Ahaz" (Isa. 7:10). He warned him that he and his sons should take heed, lest they die as his elder sons had died.

וידבר אל אהרן, “he spoke to Aaron etc,” this paragraph was revealed on the day that the Tabernacle had been erected, seeing that from that day onward they had been forbidden to become drunk, seeing that this prohibition had been linked to entering the Tabernacle since Exodus 30,20, as stated by Rashi in the Talmud, tractate Gittin folio 60. The reason is that the prohibition was not restricted to the priest’s performing sacrificial service in the Temple but to his entering the Temple precincts.

Wine and strong drink you shall not drink, you and your sons with you, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, lest you die — an eternal statute for your generations.

ושכר יין [DO NOT DRINK] WINE NOR STRONG DRINK — do not drink wine in a manner that brings out its intoxicating force (i. e. do not drink a “log” of wine) (Sifra, Shemini, Section 1 1; Keritot 13b). בבאכם אל אהל מועד WHEN YE GO INTO THE APPOINTED TENT — I have in these words only a law that forbids this when ye go into the Sanctuary; whence can it be derived that it applies also whenever they approached the outer altar? But there is mention here of entering into the appointed tent and there is mention, in connection with the sanctification (the washing) of the hands and feet, of entering into the appointed tent (Exodus 30:20). What is the law there? It (the Torah) made the law regarding approaching to the altar exactly similar to that regarding entering the appointed tent (“when they go into the appointed tent they shall wash with water … or when they come near to the altar”)! Here, also, it makes approaching the altar exactly similar to entering the appointed tent (Sifra, Shemini, Section 1 5).

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. 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 was...

"And strong drink" — that which is made from wheat, honey, or dates. For wine impairs the judgment of those who drink it and causes things to become confused in the mind. Therefore: "and to distinguish" — for you are the high priest and you must distinguish between the sacred place and the profane, the latter being an expression of חִלּוּל (desecration). It is likewise possible [that the distinction intended is] between a holy day and a weekday.

יין ושכר וגו, wine and other alcoholic drink, etc.” according to Rashi, the addition of the word ושכר in this verse is meant to refer to a quantity that will cause drunkenness by the person consuming the wine. (based on Torat Kohanim) This has also been confirmed in the Talmud, tractate K’ritut, folio 13, where Rabbi Eliezer understands the verse to mean: “do not drink wine in quantities liable to result in your becoming drunk, or in a manner which will lead to drunkenness.” If, for instance, the priest drinking wine had first added water to it in order to weaken its capacity to intoxicate, he would not be guilty of violating this commandment. אל תשת, “do not drink!” Even though in according to Jewish custom other mourners are given wine to drink, as is written in Proverbs 31,6: תנו שכר לאובד ויין למרי נפש, “give liquor to those who are about to perish, and wine to those who are embittered,” you and your sons must not drink it is as you are not used to it as you do not observe the customs of mourners. Furthermore, you are prohibited from imbibing on pain of death from entering the holy precincts of the Temple. It is simply not befitting that a drunk person should perform sacrificial service.

יין ושכר אל תשת, “do not drink wine or intoxicating liquids!” Sifra Shemini 1,2 writes that if the Torah had not added the word שכר I would have understood the prohibition as applying only to the drinking of wine, not to the consumption of other liquids causing drunkenness. If the word שכר includes all intoxicating liquids, why did the Torah have to single out “wine?” Drunkenness due to consumption of wine is punishable by death; intoxication with other liquids, while forbidden, is not punishable by death at the hands of heaven. אתה ובניך אתך בבואכם, “you and your sons with you, when you enter, etc.” The reason the Torah mentions the word “when you enter,” is that it refers to the times when the Priests in question are on duty. The Priests were divided into 24 groups each group performing the service in the Temple for one week at a time in rotation. The prohibition not to drink wine or intoxicating drink applied only during the week that this particular Priest could be called upon to perform service in the Temple. The reason the Torah added the wordאתך , “with you,” is to say “the ones like you,” i.e. the ones fit for priestly duties. Had the Torah not added this word but had written only אתה ובניך, “you and your sons,” the meaning would have been that all of Aaron’s sons or for that matter all of any sons of Priests regardless of whether he suffered from a physical blemish which made him ineligible to perform Temple Service, would still not be allowed to drink intoxicating drinks. If a Priest had married a woman of a category forbidden to him he would have been disqualified from performing service in the Temple. During the time he remained married to such a woman no restriction would apply to him concerning the consumption of wine and liquor. We find a clear indication of this in Leviticus 21,1 where the Torah introduces the legislation of whom a priest may marry and whom not. Instead of writing אמור אל בני אהרן, “speak to the sons of Aaron,” the Torah writes: אמור אל הכהנים בני אהרן, “say to the Priests who are the sons of Aaron.” The difference is that only people who fit the description כהנים are subject to the legislation applicable to Priests. He who has forfeited the privileges associated with being described as כהן, is not subject to some of the restrictions imposed on the Priests. When the Torah adds in our verse חקת עולם לדורותיכם, “an eternal statute for your generations,” this does not mean that this legislation is in force at a time when no priest can fulfill his priestly function due to the absence of a Temple. It means that during the various periods when the Tabernacle moved from one location to another, such as Gilgal, Nov, Shiloh, Givon, this legislation would remain in force and would continue in force once the permanent Temple would be built. Seeing that the Torah adds the words ולהבדיל בין הקדש ובין החול, בין הטהור ובין הטמא, ולהורות את בני ישראל וגו', “and to distinguish between the sacred and the profane and between the pure and the impure; and to teach the Children of Israel, etc.” (verses 10-11) the letter ו before להורות is an indication that those who have to make such decisions have to apply to themselves similar restrictions to the Priests who serve in the Temple. It is incumbent upon the people who have to make these various rulings mentioned here, i.e. the judges to abstain from alcoholic drink before performing their duties; this is also alluded to in the extra letter ו at the beginning of verse 11 in the word ולהורות “and to give instruction, to make rulings.” It is well known that drinking wine induces three phenomena, sleep, grossness of the spirit and a confused mind. If one falls victim to even a single one of these phenomena one cannot perform one’s duty as a judge or expert in Torah rulings. Our Parshah actually contains allusions to all three of these phenomena. The fact that drinking wine induces sleep is such a well known phenomenon that it does not need to be proven by examples; the alcohol in the wine rises to the brain in the form of moist and warm vapor. This in turn induces sleep; hence the words “when you enter the Tent of Meeting” are also a warning not to go to sleep inside the holy precincts, especially within the Sanctuary. This is why Yaakov was so upset when he awoke after his dream with the ladder, exclaiming: “how dreadful! This must be the gateway to heaven and I was unaware of it” (Genesis 28,16). Yaakov clearly implied that had he been aware of the sanctity of the site, he would never have gone to sleep in that place. He would not even have lain down there. This is also the meaning of Samuel I 3,3 ונר אלו-הים טרם יכבה ושמואל שוכב בהיכל ה'. The meaning of this line is: “Samuel lay down to sleep before the light went out in the Sanctuary.“ [The author means that this verse most certainly does not mean that Samuel lay down to sleep in the Sanctuary before the lamp went out.] If proof were needed for our interpretation it is found in the separating tone-sign etnachta under the word שוכב. It is also not appropriate to sit down in the Sanctuary. The Priest is to perform all procedures standing up. We know this from Deuteronomy 18,7:ושרת בשם ה' אלוהיו ככל אחיו הלוים העומדים שם לפני ה'; “he is to minister in the name of Hashem, his G’d, like all his brethren the Levites who stand there in the presence of the Lord.” The word לעמוד לשרת in verse 5 of that same chapter in Deuteronomy further underlines the fact that the Priests had to be standing when performing service in the Temple. The fact that drinking wine results in grossness of spirit is due to the heating up of the powers residing in the heart which results in grossness. This is alluded to when the Torah refers to the need to distinguish between the sacred and the profane. When one is in a state of spiritual grossness one does not consider that some things are holy whereas others are not but treats all of them as being on a comparable spiritual level, making no distinctions. The fact that drinking wine may result in one’s mind becoming confused is because the vapors or fumes generated by the wine rise to the brain. They create a barrier between the area where the independent intelligence is located and the area activating other bodily functions. The comparable example would be clouds in the sky forming a barrier between the light of the sun and our terrestrial world. Just as the surface of the earth is darkened by the failure of the rays of the sun to break through the clouds, so the power of the intelligence is prevented from making itself felt when blocked by the vapor or fumes created by the wine one has drunk. When the Torah speaks about the Priests having the task to instruct the Children of Israel in the statutes, etc., these words were added because such instructions presuppose that the instructor is of sound mind at the time he lectures. Drinking wine might interfere with that. Solomon roundly condemned the intake of too much wine as he wrote in Proverbs 23,31: “do not look at wine because it is red.” Our sages explain Solomon’s warning there to mean that too much wine results in one’s inhibitions becoming loosened, one’s libido becoming aroused (compare Vayikra Rabbah 12,1 [The reading of the words כי יתאדם would be emended to כי יתאוה דם, it arouses the libido in one’s blood. Ed.]. The balance of the verse we quoted from Proverbs concludes with Solomon saying כי יתן בכוס עינו יתהלך במישרים, “when he (only) looks at the cup he will walk upright,” are understood as follows: the word עינו is similar in meaning to the word עין in עין הבדולח, “like the colour of crystal” (compare Numbers 12,7 where the Torah describes the appearance of the manna). The word for cup, כוס, in that verse is spelled כיס, “pocket,” instead of in the usual way. Solomon may hint that he who is seduced by the attractive looking cup of wine will experience financial loss because of the folly which the wine-intake will lead to. The matter is not unlike the seduction of Chavah by the serpent who also relied on the exterior eye appeal of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It induced overpowering curiosity in Chavah to taste that fruit. The Torah had described the tree as “good to eat, a desire-arousing phenomenon for the eyes, and lovely as a source of enlightenment” (Genesis 3,6). As a result, It brought death in its wake. Similarly, wine, though alluring at first both in appearance and taste eventually causes the death of those who indulge. Our sages (Tanchuma Shemini 5) state that “just as the earth was cursed on account of the serpent, seeing that the Torah writes; (Genesis 3,17) “the earth is cursed because of you,” so a third of the earth was cursed on account of wine as the Torah writes: “Noach awoke from his sleep” (Genesis 9,24), followed by “cursed be Canaan,” [Noach’s first grandson from his third son (Genesis 9,25)].

Wine and strong drink do not drink, etc. [God] placed this commandment here because wine was only created to comfort mourners (Eruvin 65), and Aaron might think that in his mourning he would at least be permitted to drink wine. Therefore, He warned him here that even in his mourning it is forbidden for him to drink it to the point of intoxication. Rashi explained regarding Aaron was silent that he received reward for his silence, in that this speech was designated to him alone. It is alluded here that anyone who cannot speak before the king is called drunk, therefore the speech was designated to him to instruct him not to be so drunk that he cannot speak before the king, but rather to be composed in his mind at all times so that he can respond. That is why it says And the Lord spoke to Aaron, saying: with the word saying, [God] sealed the entire matter for him, to tell you that he should always be ready to speak and respond to the King, blessed be He. And this entire commandment came to him by virtue of Aaron was silent. Another explanation: Here is an allusion to what our Sages of blessed memory said (Eruvin 65a), “Wine enters, secret comes out.” Therefore, the Divine speech was specifically addressed to him [Aaron], like a king who reveals some secret to his servant and does not want others to know about it. He hinted to him that a person cannot enter into God’s secret counsel except on this condition: that he does not drink wine, for when wine enters, the secret comes out. Therefore, the Divine speech was addressed specifically to him, as if revealing to him alone some secret, and warning him not to drink wine so that he would not reveal the secret. Another explanation: Since silence can be interpreted in different ways — whether one is quiet while suffering and inwardly protesting against God’s judgments, or whether one is quiet and happy in one’s heart like the way of the righteous who rejoice in their afflictions — therefore God spoke directly to him [Aaron] to reveal the purity of his thoughts. For the Holy One, blessed be He, only causes His Divine Presence to rest upon someone who is in a state of joy. This divine communication, meaning that the Divine Presence rested upon him through the joy in his heart, made it known to all that he rejoiced in his afflictions like the way of the righteous. Another explanation: Regarding this silence, it is an indication that he [Aaron] is not affected by all the physical events, and certainly he is entirely intellectual like one of the heavenly hosts, because from the aspect of intellect, a person is not affected by them. Therefore, it is appropriate for direct communication [from God] to be designated for him without any intermediary, because he too has become spiritual like Moses due to this silence. Another explanation is that the warning against drinking hints at silence, because every drunkard increases his words, as it is written Who has babbling? … Those who linger over wine (Proverbs 23:29-30), and it is written New wine opens us the young women (Zechariah 9:17). Therefore, by virtue of Aaron was silent (Leviticus 10:3), this commandment was specifically addressed to him, because through it he would not engage in excessive idle or harmful speech, for lashon hara [evil speech] kills three people (Devarim Rabbah 5:10). Therefore it says lest you die, besides the fact that drunkenness naturally leads to death. As it is written There is a way that appears to be right to a man, but in the end it leads to death (Proverbs 14:12). The final letters of yesh derech yashar [there is a way that appears right] spell “shekhar” [intoxicating drink], because through intoxication everything appears straight in one’s eyes, as our Sages said (Yoma 75a): “Anyone who fixes his eyes on his cup, all forbidden relationships seem permissible to him,” as it says it goes down smoothly (Proverbs 23:31). And this is what is meant by in the end it leads to death, because the end of yesh derech yashar contains the letters of “shekhar” [intoxicating drink], and it is “ways of death,” because it causes death both as a punishment and as a natural consequence. And He alluded in this section when it is forbidden to drink it, saying when you come to the Tent of Meeting, indicating that a drunkard is forbidden to enter the palace of the King, blessed be He, to pray before Him. And when is it permissible to drink it? When one sanctifies the holy Sabbath day at its entrance and its exit, as our Sages of blessed memory taught (Pesachim 106) from the verse Remember the Sabbath day — remember it over wine, etc. This is what is meant by to distinguish between the holy and the profane at the entrance and exit [of Sabbath]. And even so, one should not drink it to the point of drunkenness, where all the forbidden sexual relations would become acceptable to him, but rather drink in a manner that allows him to distinguish between the impure and the pure, and in a way that enables him to teach the children of Israel all the statutes without erring in his instruction.

יין ושכר, ”wine and strong alcoholic drink,” according to Rashi the Torah speaks of wine when drunk in a manner which will induce intoxication. [The word שכר referring to the effect of the wine. Ed.] Maimonides feels that the prohibition recorded here applies as such only to wine, and we know this from the Nazirite whom the Torah only forbade wine and grape and derivatives. According to Maimonides, other alcoholic drink is forbidden to the priest who enters the holy precincts. Being drunk on wine is punishable by premature death at the hand of heaven, whereas drunkenness incurred through other intoxicant carries the 39 lashes penalty. (Maimonides Sefer Hamitzvot, negative commandment #73 בבאכם אל אהל מועד, “when you enter the Tent of Meeting.” Torat Kohanim writes that the death penalty applies only if the drunkenness occurs while the priest in question is performing his duties at the time. The meaning of the word שכר is perceived as its face value, i.e. “alcoholic, potentially intoxicating drink.”

יין ושכר אל תשת, “do not drink wine or other intoxicating drinks;” this commandment applies when on that day the priest is called upon to perform service in the Temple. Seeing that the High Priest is called upon to do so daily or at least to be ready to do so daily, it is addressed here to him in the singular mode. It is a cautionary commandment, to protect him against becoming inebriated. We know that normally there are many occasions when the consumption of wine is not prohibited, but is part and parcel of our rituals, and the priests are included in this also. We know already from Noah’s experience how overindulgence in alcoholic drink can cause man to lose his dignity not only temporarily but permanently. Solomon, in Proverbs 23,29-31 dwells on the manifold evils that can beset anyone who drinks to excess, so much so that the red colour of wine is used by him as a symbol of blood, i.e. bloodshed, that can be the result of drunkenness. Solomon continues with: כי יתן בכוס עינו יתהלך במישרים, “only he who will look at the cup will walk upright.” This sounds somewhat peculiar at first glance until we notice that the word כוס for “cup” is misspelled as if it were referring to כיס, ”pocket.” What Solomon means is that drinking too much may result in the drunk becoming a thief, desirous of obtaining by illegal means what is in someone else’s pocket. This is why he continues with: אחריתו כנחש נחש וכצפעני יפרש, “in the end it bites like a snake and stings like a viper.” He who aims at illegal gain will wind up walking upright, as he will have lost what was rightfully his and therefore can walk upright having nothing to carry that would force him to stoop under its weight. Some commentators understand the comparison Solomon makes with the snake as referring to the original serpent, and they explain Adam’s having drunk too much wine when celebrating his nuptials as the cause of his eating from the tree of knowledge as the result of his having been drunk. They suggest that the word כנחש be read as בנחש, that Adam transgressed the Lord’s commandment as he too had been seduced by the snake by means of drinking too much wine. Eventually he had become cursed through the serpent. (Proverbs 23,32.) This is what the Torah meant when it wrote in Genesis 3,15: ואתה תשופנו עקב, “and you shall bruise its heel.” Seeing that wine had become the means through which man had been led into sin, when we use wine at joyous occasions, we do so after taking permission to do so from the people present by saying: סברי, to which those present respond with the word לחיים, “may this occasion of drinking wine be an auspicious one, leading to constructive life.” There is an interesting story in the Talmud, tractate Shabbat, folio 66 about Rabbi Akiva having made a festive meal for his son, at which he pronounced the words: חמרא וחיי לפום רבנן ולפופ תלמידהון, “wine for the good life of the scholars and their disciples!” When Solomon says in Proverbs 23,33: ועיניך יראו זרות, “and your eyes will see strange things,” he means that when under the influence of wine you will imagine that things which are forbidden are in reality permitted. This leads you to commit adultery, and to abuse the power of speech by speaking in a manner unworthy of a sane human being. Not only this, but ultimately it can lead you to commit idolatry. He bases himself on Exodus 32,6: וישב העם לאכול ושתו ויקומו לצחק, “the people sat down to eat; they drank, and they got up in order to make merry.” Our author quotes a similar verse from Psalms 81,10, the psalmist saying: לא יהיה בך אל זר ולא תשתחוה לאל נכר, “you shall have no foreign god and you shall not bow down to an alien god.” In both instances the reference is to the golden calf to which the Jewish people bowed and around which many of them danced. When Solomon in Proverbs speaks of ולבך ידבר הפוכות, “your heart will speak perversities,” he refers to four such perversities; a) idolatry, 2) forbidden sexual unions, 3) shedding innocent blood, and 4) slander. In verse 20 of the same chapter in Proverbs where we read: אל תהי בסבאי-יין בזוללי בשר למו, “do not belong to the category of people who guzzle wine, or to those who glut themselves with meat!,” he hints at the ben sorrer umoreh, the wayward son whose end is execution based on the testimony of his own parents. (Deuteronomy 22,18-21) This lad’s corruption had begun because he drank to excess. On the subject of drinking wine, we have another comment in the Talmud, tractate Eyruvin folio 65, by Rabbi Chiya son of Ashi, according to which anyone who can drink wine and whose faculties are not negatively affected by this, is on a mental/spiritual level equivalent to the seventy elders who helped Moses look after the Israelites in the desert. He bases himself on the numerical value of the word יין, wine, which is 70. The word סוד, secret, also has a numerical value of 70. Overindulgence in wine, loosens one’s tongue and makes a person unable to keep a secret. One of the outstanding features of the seventy elders was their ability to remain discreet and not reveal what was supposed to be kept secret. Our sages coined the phrase therefore that “when wine enters a person’s body his secrets become revealed.” [One ‘seventy’ is replaced by another ‘seventy.’ Ed.] Rabbi Chaninah, on the same folio, states that anyone who while under the influence of wine is more open to view his companions agreeably, proves that he possesses some characteristic displayed by his Creator. He bases himself on Genesis 8,21, וירח את ריח הניחוח, where the Lord is portrayed as becoming receptive to the fragrance of Noach’s offering. [The Talmud had previously shown that ריח, customarily translated as smell, is also used as a term describing imbibing. In the quote cited, G–d undertakes never to bring on a deluge again as a reaction to that fragrant odour. Ed. When examining why wine was created, seeing that it is potentially destructive in its effect, the Talmud states that Solomon has provided the answer in Proverbs 31,6, where he advises תנו שכר לאובד ויין למרי נפש, “give liquor to one who is about to perish and wine to someone who is embittered, (in mourning for a relative). [Our author continues about the subject of wine and its advantages and disadvantages. I have omitted the balance of this paragraph. Ed.] An alternate interpretation of the introductory words of our verse: the priest is advised not to indulge in intoxicating drink (even when not called for duty in the Temple, and even when in mourning;)

And to distinguish between the holy and the common, and between the unclean and the clean;

ולהבדיל AND TO DISTINGUISH [BETWEEN THE HOLY AND THE UNHOLY] — i. e., Observe this law in order that ye may be able to distinguish between a holy (valid) sacrificial act and one which has become profane (invalid). Thus you may learn that if one performed a sacrificial rite in a state of intoxication his ministry was invalid (Sifra, Shemini, Section 1 8; Zevachim 17b).

"And between the impure and the pure" — with regard to animals, water-creatures, and birds. This is why, following this passage, the portion of "these are the creatures" (Lev. 11) was written, and after it the impurity of the woman who gives birth, then the leprosy of a person, a garment, and a house, and one who has a seminal emission, a zav, a zavah, a niddah — and this is the meaning of "between the impure and the pure."

ולהבדיל..ולהורות. We know from Hoseah 4,11 that “wine and new wine destroy the minds of My people.” Issuing decrees, verdicts or religious rulings while intoxicated is therefore not tolerable. Solomon, in Proverbs 31,4-5 is similarly critical of such a practice writing: “wine is not for kings, O Lemuel; not for kings to drink, nor any strong drink for princes, lest they drink and forget what has been ordained.”

ולהבדיל בין הקדש ובין החול, “and in order to separate between what is holy and what is secular.” This is a line referring to people that have been sanctified. Compare Leviticus chapter 27. ובין הטמא ובין הטהור, “and between the ritually impure and the ritually pure.” This is a reference to things ritually impure and things ritually pure.

ולהבדיל ולהורות, as our sages said that a judge or teacher in state of intoxication must not issue any halachic rulings. (Eyruvin 64).

and to teach the children of Israel all the statutes that Hashem spoke to them by the hand of Moses.

ולהורת AND TO TEACH [THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL] — This informs us that an intoxicated person is forbidden to pronounce religious decisions. One might think that if he does so he is liable to the death penalty! It, however, says: “[Do not drink wine] thou (Aaron), nor thy sons with thee … lest ye die” — priests when they minister in a state of intoxication are punishable by death, but the Sages when they thus render decisions are not punishable by death (Sifra, Shemini, Section 1 6).

"And to teach the children of Israel" — [refers to] the remaining commandments, as it likewise says: "according to all that the priests teach you" (Deut. 24:8).

ולהורות, and to instruct (others) in the laws, את כל החוקים, these are the interpretations, אשר דבר ה, ”which the Lord has revealed by word of mouth.” these are the laws ביד משה, the written Torah, and Whence do we know about the Targum? answer: from the word להורות, “i.e. to explain the meaning of the text.”

And Moses spoke with Aaron and with Eleazar and with Ithamar, his sons who remained: Take the meal offering that remains from the offerings of Hashem and eat it unleavened beside the altar, for it is most holy.

הנותרים WHO WERE LEFT from death. This teaches us that upon them, also, death had been pronounced in punishment for the sin of the golden calf. This is what is meant by the words (Deuteronomy 9:20) “And with Aaron the Lord was very angry to destroy him”, for the expression “destruction” means the extirpation of offspring, as it is said (Amos 2:9) “And I destroyed its fruit above”. Moses’ prayer, however, made half the sentence of none effect, (so that only two of Aaron’s four sons died) as it is said (Deuteronomy 9:20) “And I prayed also on behalf of Aaron at that time” (cf. Rashi on that passage). קחו את המנחה TAKE THE MEAL OFFERING, although ye are אוננים and the holy things are forbidden to an אונן (Zevachim 101a). את המנחה THE MEAL-OFFERING — This was the meal-offering prescribed for the eighth day of the installation ceremony and the meal-offering of Nachshon (Numbers 7:13; cf. Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 3). ואכלהו מצות AND EAT IT AS UNLEAVENED CAKES — Why is this stated at all, since this regulation regarding the meal-offering has been previously laid down (cf. Leviticus 6:9)? Since, however, this (the meal-offering prescribed for the installation ceremony) was a communal meal-offering (cf. Leviticus 9:3—4) and an occasional meal-offering and nothing similar to it had been commanded for future generations and it was therefore possible that the regulations relating to meal-offerings in general did not apply, it was necessary expressly to set forth in respect of it the law already laid down for other meal-offerings (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 4).

"Take the meal-offering" — after the part burned for the Most High has been offered up, it is not proper for the remainder to be eaten except by consecrated persons. Now begin to eat the portion that Hashem has assigned you, that you shall always take from the fire-offerings of Hashem — and this means: every meal-offering from which a portion has been burned before Him.

אצל המזבח, “next to the altar,” and not within the Sanctuary nor on the altar. How do I know that the Torah also includes the most holy offerings? The Torah wrote: קדש קדשים היא, “it is most holy.” קדש קדשים היא, thus far I only know that this expression refers to the proximity of the altar, how do I know that it includes the offices adjoining the Temple walls? (The Torah discusses the permanent Temple in the future). The answer is found in the words: ואכלתם אותה במקום קדוש, “you are to eat it on consecrated grounds.”(Verse 13)

וידבר משה אל אהרן ואל אלעזר ואל איתמר בניו הנותרים, “Moses spoke to Aaron, to Eleazar and Itamar his surviving sons;” Seeing that we already had a similar line in verse 6 of our chapter, why did the Torah not report what Moses said on this occasion immediately following verse 6? The reason that the Torah interposed the legislation about not entering the Sanctuary while in a state of intoxication was to teach that it is good form to offer one’s condolences to the bereaved. Aaron was a mourner; the Torah therefore displays its manner of comforting him in his bereavement, by speaking to him exclusively about rites to be observed by mourners. He was not to drink wine while in mourning. This is why in verse 29 only Aaron is addressed. The idea that G’d personally observes such good form has already been demonstrated in Genesis 18, where G’d appeared to Avraham in order to fulfill the custom of visiting the sick, seeing Avraham was recuperating from his circumcision at the time. Our sages, who have taught us to emulate characteristics observed in the way G’d acts (Sifri end of Eykev), derive the law that one is to visit the sick and comfort the bereaved from these verses. If G’d Himself went to the trouble to observe these customs, we must emulate Him and not consider it below our dignity. The same applies to the commandment to bury the dead. G’d had buried Moses, (Deut. 34,6). If G’d Himself takes the trouble to bury a mortal, how much more must mortals bury their peers! Such considerations prompted Solomon to write in Kohelet 7:2: “it is better to go to the house of a mourner than to go to the house where a feast is in progress.” According to Midrash Kohelet, what Solomon meant is that it is preferable to be in the company of people who are concerned both with the living and the dead than to keep the company of people who are only concerned with the living. [By visiting the mourners one pays his respects both to the departed and to those surviving him. Ed.] G’d conveyed the thought that we are to learn from Him, Who had temporarily interrupted sharing the joy of His children on the occasion of the inauguration of the Tabernacle and had comforted Aaron instead, displaying His sorrow that Nadav and Avihu had had to die. Our sages (Sotah 14) find yet another source proving that G’d comforts the mourners, quoting Genesis 25,11 “It was after the death of Avraham that G’d blessed his son Yitzchak.” According to the understanding of the Talmud the “blessing” described there was the comfort expressed to the bereaved over their loss, in that instance over Yitzchak having lost his father. ואכלוה מצות אצל המזבח, “and eat it unleavened near the Altar.” the Torah also writes ואכלתם אותה במקום קדוש, “you are to eat it in a sacred place.” These words mean that the meal-offering of which the Torah speaks may be eaten anywhere in the courtyard of the Tabernacle/Temple. In order that we should not interpret the words “near the Altar” too literally, the Torah added the words: “in a sacred place.” The entire courtyard of the Tabernacle is sacred. In that event, what do the words “near the Altar” contribute? The Torah wishes to tell us that the closer to the actual Altar the Priest stands when eating his share of the meal-offering the better (Zevachim 61).

And you shall eat it in a holy place, for it is your portion and the portion of your sons from the offerings of Hashem, for so I have been commanded.

וחק בניך AND THY SONS’ PORTION — Daughters are not mentioned as is the case in v. 14 because daughters have no portion in these holy things (meal-offerings; cf. Leviticus 6:10— 11) (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 7). כי כן צויתי FOR SO AM I COMMANDED — that they must eat it even when they have the status of אוננים (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 8; Zevachim 101a).

אותה והיא, “both of these words are restrictive by definition, they come to exclude the thanksgiving offering and its attending loaves of bread or wafers, and the ram to be offered by the Nazirite at the conclusion of his term and the loaves accompanying that offering, as well as the ram of the consecration rites of the priests, (a one time offering).

And the breast of the wave offering and the thigh of the separation offering you shall eat in a clean place — you and your sons and your daughters with you — for they are your portion and the portion of your sons that have been given from the peace-offerings of the children of Israel.

ואת חזה התנופה AND THE WAVE BREAST of the communal) peace-offerings, תאכלו במקום טהור YE SHALL EAT IN A CLEAN PLACE —But had they eaten those that preceded this (the sin-offering and the meal-offering) in an unclean place? But he said this because the preceding ones being holy in the highest degree the eating of them had necessarily to take place in a holy spot (in the court of the Tabernacle), but these,however, were not required to be eaten “within the hangings” (i. e. in the court which was enclosed by hangings), but they were, however, required to be eaten in the camp of Israel (and not beyond the confines of that camp), that being a clean place in so far as lepers were precluded from entering it. From this we infer that sacrifices holy in a lower degree, being similar to the peace-offerings mentioned here, may be eaten anywhere within the city of Jerusalem, this area corresponding to “the camp of Israel” in the wilderness (see Rashi on 4:12; Zevachim 55a). אתה ובניך ובנתיך THOU AND THY SONS AND THY DAUGHTERS — You and your sons have a claim to a portion, but your daughters have no claim to a portion; if, however, you give them part of these sacrifices as a gift they are permitted to eat of the breast and the shoulder. Or perhaps this is not the meaning, but if means that the daughters have also a claim to a portion? It, however, states immediately afterwards: “for as thy due and thy sons’ due are they given” there is a due to sons but there is no due to daughters (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 10).

"In a pure place" — even though it is outside the courtyard. The breast and the thigh you may eat — males and females alike — for so it is written: "every pure person in your household may eat it," and likewise one acquired for silver, one born in the house, and a widow who has returned. And as you now eat the thigh and the breast, it shall be your perpetual portion — to take it from all the peace-offerings.

ואת חזה התנופה, “and the breast of waving,” this refers to the waving of the basket.” Compare 8,2. ואת שוק, “and the thigh” mentioned in our verse; התרומה, the קרבן תודה described as תרומה in Leviticus 7,1314. תאכלו במקום טהור, “you are to eat in a spiritually pure place.” Rashi asks the rhetorical question if the Torah meant to tell us that the offerings mentioned earlier were eaten in ritually contaminated places? Surely not! He therefore understands our verse as referring to the parts of the minchah offering (except half a fistful) which was not burned up on the altar. These “remains” could be eaten anywhere inside the camp, also outside the consecrated area around the Tabernacle, as the soil of the camp was ritually pure, any person afflicted with tzoraat having been banished from it. מזבחי שלמי בני ישראל, “out of the sacrifices of the peace offerings of the Children of Israel.” This line is meant to include those offered already on the day this law was introduced, as mentioned in chapter 9.4. (See Sifra on that verse.)

תאכלו במקום טהור אתה ובניך ובנותיך אתך, “you shall eat it in a ritually pure place, you, your sons, and your daughters with you.” The reason the Torah did not write that these parts of the offerings have to be consumed in a “sacred” place is that women are also entitled to eat them and they were not allowed to enter the courtyard of the Tabernacle, (compare Kidushin 52). [The Talmud there speaks of the עזרה adjacent to the Temple, an area similar in its degree of sanctity to the courtyard of the Tabernacle. Ed.]

The thigh of the separation offering and the breast of the wave offering, together with the offerings of the fats, they shall bring to wave as a waving before Hashem, and it shall be for you and for your sons with you as an eternal statute, as Hashem has commanded.

על אשי החלבים WITH THE FIRE OFFERINGS OF THE FAT — From this we may learn that the fat-portions were beneath the others at the time of waving (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 1 11). And as for the exposition of the texts in such a manner that they shall not contradict each other I have already explained the three of them in the section צו את אהרן (Leviticus 7:30; see Rashi thereon).

THE THIGH OF HEAVING AND THE BREAST OF WAVING. “This expression is similar to the verse, [the breast of the wave-offering, and the thigh of the heave-offering], which is waved, and which is heaved up. ‘Waving’ is an expression for moving to and fro [in a horizontal direction]. ‘Heaving’ is an expression for moving up and down. But why Scripture divided them, mentioning ‘heaving’ in connection with the thigh and ‘waving’ in connection with the breast, I do not know, for both of them [required] waving and heaving.” Thus far is the language of Rashi. It appears to me that the reason for it is that during the [seven days of] consecration, the thigh was a heave-offering to G-d, being burned together with the bread and the fats, and that which is set aside from a peace-offering [to be burnt on the altar] is called “a heave-offering,” just as it is said, And of it he shall offer one out of each offering for a heave-offering unto the Eternal, and [it follows] all the more so that these parts [of the ram of consecration] offered on the altar, were all “a heave-offering unto the Eternal.” [Hence the expression “the thigh of heaving.”] It was not called by the term “waving,” for that movement [to and fro in a horizontal direction] was done to the thigh together with the fats and the bread so as to burn them unto the Eternal. The breast, however, was waved by itself, and was only different from the rest of the meat [which was to be eaten by the priests] in that it was waved, and it was through this waving alone that it became sanctified and that Moses acquired it as his portion. Now since the right of Aaron and his sons to the breast and thigh [of peace-offerings] in future generations was [derived] from the day of their consecration as priests, when they acquired the thigh through its being a heave-offering to G-d and the breast through its being waved, whilst the rest of the meat belonged to the owners, therefore the thigh was forever called [the thigh of] “heaving,” and the breast that of “waving,” as was done to them on the day of [the priests] acquiring their rights to them. AL ISHEI HACHALAVIM’ (UPON THE FIRE-OFFERINGS OF THE FAT). “This is like: ‘upon the fat of the fire-offerings.’ From here we learn that at the time of waving the fat-portions were beneath.” This is the language of Rashi. But there is no need for it [i.e., to invert the verse, and to derive this law from the verse here]. For the word ishei (“fire-offerings of”) is an adjectival-noun qualifying the word chalavim (fats), just as He said, ‘ishei Hashem’ (the fire-offerings of the Eternal) and His inheritance they [the priests] shall eat. The explanation of this verse is that it constitutes a reason for that which He said [in the preceding verse], for they [the offerings] are given as thy due, and thy sons’ due, out of the offerings of the peace-offerings of the children of Israel. [With reference to this] He now said, The thigh of heaving and the breast of waving shall they — that is...

יביאו להניף...והיה לך ולבניך, you will not be able to claim these until after the waving has been performed. In other words, this is not a “kick back” from G’d’s “Table.”

שוק התרומה וחזה התנופה, “the thigh of the heaving, and the breast of the weaving.” Rashi already questions why the Torah describes the “raising” of the thigh with the verb רום, whereas for the raising of the breast the verb הניף is chosen. Whereas the first refers to an up and down motion, and the second refers to a sideways motion, the reason for these different motions for different parts of the animal is not clear. Nachmanides writes that it seems to him that during the inaugural offerings the thigh represented a תרומה, “heaving” to Hashem, which was burned up together with the loaves and the fat parts. The parts of the peace-offerings which qualified for this treatment were known as תרומה, “heaving,” as we know from 7,14 והקריב ממנו אחד מכל קרבן תרומה לה', “from it he shall offer one from each as an offering (heave offering) for Hashem.” If that was so in the case of the peace-offerings, of which only a small part is given to the priest, (as a symbolic gift to Hashem) the bulk of the meat being consumed by the owner of the animal, how much more so would the thigh of this inaugural offering qualify, -seeing that all of which (except the parts mentioned which were consumed by the priest) was intended for Hashem directly, i.e. it was consumed by the altar,- for such a procedure, and it would qualify for such a description. Although the breast and thigh were also subjected to this heaving in a vertical motion, the Torah did not mention this specifically (in addition) and preferred the description שוק התרומה, and חזה התנופה, as this was the first occasion on which this procedure with this offering occurred. The occasion was notable because on that day the priests were inducted. על אישי החלבים יביאו להניף תנופה לפני ה', “they shall present on the fat parts as a wave offering before Hashem.” Nachmanides explains that this verse is not the verse in which this command has been issued, but in this verse the above statement is recorded only as the reason why it was possible for the donor-Israelite to consume the remainder of the meat of these peace offerings. The reason was that prior to this the priest, as the representative of Hashem, had received his designated share. The words (verse 13) כי חקך וחק בניך הוא מאישי ה', “for it is your portion and the portion of your sons from the fire-offerings of Hashem,” set the tone for the entire subject of the peace offerings, שלמים. Once the portions to be eaten by the priests had been sanctified by this symbolic procedure of heaving and waving, the way was clear for the donors to eat the share allocated to them by the Torah.

And Moses earnestly inquired after the goat of the sin offering, and behold, it had been burned; and he was angry at Eleazar and at Ithamar, the sons of Aaron who remained, saying:

שעיר החטאת THE GOAT OF THE SIN OFFERING — This was the goat of the additonal offerings of the New Moon. Three goats for sin-offerings had been sacrificed that day: a goat of the kids prescribed for the installation ceremony (see Leviticus 9:3), and the goat brought by Nachshon as a free-will offering, and the goat for the New Moon. Of all these, this last alone had been burnt, and the Sages of Israel differ in their opinions regarding the matter. Some say that it was on account of some uncleanness (unclean thing) which had touched it that it was burnt, whilst others say that it had been burnt on account of the state of mourning in which Aaron’s sons were, for it was a holy sacrifice ordained for all generations and was not of an exceptional character whilst in the case of the occasional holy sacrifices (the two other goats) they relied on Moses’ statement when he said in respect to the occasional meal-offering (v. 12), “and eat it as unleavened cakes”, although you are Onanim, and they took this to apply also to those goats which were also of an occasional character (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 8-10; Zevachim 101a). דרש דרש [MOSES] DILIGENTLY ENQUIRED ABOUT — The repetition of the word implies that he made two enquiries: why has this (the goat for the New Moon) been burnt and why have these other goats been eaten? — Thus it is stated in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 2). על אלעזר ועל איתמר [HE WAS ANGRY] WITH ELEAZAR AND ITHAMAR — Out of the respect due to Aaron he turned towards his sons and showed himself angry with them instead of with Aaron (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 3). לאמר SAYING (i. e. that they should say or speak) — He said to them, “Give me replies to my questions” (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2).

AND MOSES DILIGENTLY INQUIRED FOR THE GOAT OF THE SIN-OFFERING, AND BEHOLD, IT WAS BURNT. “This was the he-goat of the Additional Offerings of the New Moon. Three he-goats for sin-offerings were offered up that day: [the people’s sin-offering brought especially on that day, as it is said], Take ye a he-goat for a sin-offering, and the he-goat brought by Nachshon [in honor of the dedication of the altar], and the he-goat for the New Moon. Of all these, it was only the he-goat for the New Moon that was burnt [although ordinarily it would have been eaten by the priests]. The Sages of Israel differed regarding the reason why it was burnt. Some say that it was burnt on account of some impure object that touched it, and some say it was burnt on account of the mourning [of Aaron’s sons].” All this is the language of Rashi. It is in accordance with the opinion of those who say that it was burnt on account of some impure object that touched it, that the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote on the verse, “and if I had eaten of the sin-offering ‘today’ — by ‘day’ it was forbidden to eat thereof, but in the case of an onen on the night [following the death and burial] it is permitted [to eat the offering], since the [Scriptural] law of the onen applies only to the day of burial.” Accordingly, if it was burnt on account of mourning, they should have [left it to be] eaten at night! We must perforce say that those Rabbis [who say that it was burnt on account of mourning] are of the opinion that the [Scriptural] law of an onen [forbidding him to eat an offering] applies even on the night following the burial! [Therefore Aaron’s defense of his sons’ action in burning the sin-offering was correct, since they could not have eaten of it even at night. But Rashi, who is of the opinion that an onen may eat the offering at night, must hold that the reason why they burnt it, was on account of some impure object which touched the offering, as a result of which it could never be eaten, and hence Aaron’s defense of them was completely correct.]

"Was burned" — this verb is in the passive binyan, the form in which the agent's name is not stated, as are וּמֹרַק ("scoured") and שֻׁטַּף ("rinsed").

ואת שעיר החטאת, the very he-goat which will be a permanent fixture, i.e. the one to be offered on the new moon, as long as there would be a Temple.

דרוש דרש משה; Moses kept asking for, etc. Personally, I think that Moses had not yet decided to permit consumption of the meat of that sin-offering. Proof of this is the fact that he had not told the priests exactly what to do as he had done in the case of the meal-offering concerning which he had said (verse 12) "take what is left over of the meal-offering and eat it!" If it had been clear to Moses that the priests (i.e. the bereaved family of Nadav and Avihu) were to eat the meat in their present emotional state of being אוננים he himself would have told them to do so. Should you argue that Moses had assumed as a matter of fact that by telling Aaron and his remaining sons to eat the left-over parts of the meal-offering, that they would do the same with the sin-offering, then why did he enquire about the meat of the sin-offering? Why would it even have occurred to him that maybe Aaron and his sons had not eaten that meat? Therefore we must assume that Moses had left the matter of the meat of the sin-offering in abeyance, seeing he himself was not certain as to the correct procedure to be followed. It had been clear to Moses that the law applicable to the meal-offering which was a one-time affair and concerning which he had received clear instructions from G'd (verse 12) was similar to that of the male-goat offered by Nachshon (the first of the offerings by the princes which occurred on that day) which was also a one-time offering. He was not at all sure whether he could make an inference from the laws applicable to those offerings to the sin-offerings offered on the New Moon seeing that was a regular offering to be presented every New Moon for all future generations. We may therefore understand the words דרוש דרש that Moses was still busy researching the applicable הלכה. The repetition of the words is a hint that it could have either of two הלכות, rulings. The reason Moses was angry was not because Aaron and his sons had done wrong but because they had taken it upon themselves to decide the issue without asking him. It did not matter that at that time Moses would not yet have known what to answer them if they enquired. Even though Moses eventually (verse 18) told Aaron and his sons to eat that meat in accordance with his previous instructions, this only meant that Moses told them to apply the same ruling as G'd had told him to apply to the eating of the meal-offering. Torat Kohanim understands the repetition of the words דרוש דרש to mean that Moses enquired 1) why this meat should be burned, 2) why it should be eaten. This seems a far-fetched way of understanding the verse. What would have been the point in enquiring why the meat should be burned seeing it had been burned already instead of having been eaten? One needs to find a suitable answer to this comment of the Torat Kohanim.

ואת שעיר החטאת, “and concerning the male goat sin offering;” according to the plain meaning of this verse, the animal referred is that first mentioned in chapter 9,3, where Moses had commanded the people of Israel to take such an animal as a sin offering. Both in that verse and here (verse 17) the people for whom atonement was sought were called by almost identical names, i.e. עם or .עדה שעיר החטאת, “the male goat serving as sin offering.” According to Rashi the reference is to the mandatory sin offering on New Moon, and this day was the first day of Nissan of the second year. On this day three such animals were offered as sin offerings. The one mentioned by Rashi, the one that was part of the consecration rites, and the one offered as the first of twelve identical offerings by each of the princes of the tribes, Nachshon. Of all these three sin offerings only the one meant as the New Moon’s sin offering was burned (not offered and its parts eaten as prescribed) There are different opinions as to the reason for this. Some scholars hold that the priests had become ritually defiled by having touched the corpses of Nadav and Avihu. If you were to argue that even without their having become ritually defiled they could not have offered that offering in the proper manner as they had been ritually impure by having been in contact with at least one corpse since they had been born;they had not undergone purification rites for this, there not having been a red heifer yet without which such purification rites could not have been performed until at the earliest on the following day; we would have to answer that they had become ritually purified by dint of their having been anointed with the holy oil of anointing, (Leviticus 8,2) as well as by the blood which had been sprinkled on the altar. (Compare Talmud, tractate Yuma folio 4.) The Tabernacle had been erected on the first of the month, and the red heifer was slaughtered and burned on the second of the month. The Talmud explained there that on that occasion the water took the place of blood just as when the Jewish people had to purify themselves at the revelation of Mount Sinai when there had not yet been a red heifer.

ואת שעיר החטאת, our sages interpret this animal as being the one offered on the new moon for all future generations. (Zevachim 9) The male goat offered by Nachshon and that on behalf of the congregation had to be eaten by the priests. [The death of Nadav and Avihu had occurred on the first day of Nissan of the second year. Ed.]

ואת שעיר החטאת דרש, “and he (Moses) demanded an accounting about what had been done with the he-goat that was a sin offering;” When commenting on Leviticus 9,11, Rashi points out that we never find that a sin-offering slaughtered on the copper altar was burned up except the one discussed in that verse, and the bullock serving as sin offering during the consecration rites for the High Priest. In both those instances there had to be a special commandment from Hashem to do so. [Normally parts of these sin offerings were consumed by the priests. Ed.] This is in contrast to sin offerings offered on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary, no parts of which were ever eaten. This raises the problem with Rashi’s commentary on Numbers 8,8, where the bullock serving as sin offering when the Levites were appointed in lieu of the firstborns is discussed. [The text describes that offering as a sin offering, whereas Rashi calls it עולה, burnt offering, i.e. none of it is to be eaten. This offering was slaughtered on the copper altar on the courtyard of the Tabernacle. The function of this animal is first not described at all, whereas the Torah then proceeds to describe a second bullock to be offered on that occasion as a sin-offering. The reader will understand Rashi’s difficulty when he looks up the verse in question. Ed.] We must therefore assume that what Rashi had meant to say is that we do not find more than these two sin offerings which had been slaughtered on the copper altar as having been burned up including their skins outside sacred grounds. Our author finds additional problems involving the definitions of some offerings, none of which he was able to offer a solution to.

Why did you not eat the sin offering in the holy place? For it is most holy, and He gave it to you to obtain pardon for the sins of the congregation, to make atonement for them before Hashem.

מדוע לא אכלתם את החטאת במקום הקדש WHEREFORE HAVE YE NOT EATEN THE SIN OFFERING IN THE HOLY PLACE? — But had they eaten it outside the holy place? Had they not burnt it? What then did he mean when he said “in the holy place”? But he said to them in effect: Had it perhaps gone forth (been taken forth) outside the hangings of the court and so become invalid? כי קדש קדשים הוא FOR IT IS HOLY IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE, and such sacrifices become invalid through being taken outside the hangings? If this was so you have done right in burning it! But they replied to him, “No, it has not been taken forth!” He thereupon said to them, “Since it remained in the holy place (במקום הקדש), wherefore have ye not eaten it (מדוע לא אכלתם)?!” (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 4; cf. Zevachim 101a.) 'ואתה נתן לכם לשאת וגו AND HE HATH GIVEN IT TO YOU TO BEAR [THE INIQUITY] etc., — for only if the priests eat it are the owners of the sin-offering (the entire Congregation in the case of the goat for the New Moon) atoned for (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 4). לשאת את עון העדה TO BEAR THE INIQUITY OF THE CONGREGATION — From this we learn that it must have been the goat for the New Moon about which he made the enquiries, for it was this that made atonement for iniquity involved in causing uncleanness to the Sanctuary and holy food (cf. Shevuot 2a), whilst the sin-offering for the eighth day of the installation ceremony and the sin-offering of Nachshan did not come (were not intended) for the purpose of atonement (Zevachim 101b).

"In a holy place" — at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, for so it is written. And it [the sin-offering] was given to you by Hashem, because when you eat the sin-offering, Hashem will bear the iniquity of the congregation; or alternatively, the meaning is: you will bear the sin-offering, that is, through you their iniquity will be atoned — hence "to atone."

ואותה נתן לכם לשאת את עוון העדה, even though it had been given to you, personally, this did not mean that you are free to burn it. It was only given to you to eat, thereby לשאת את עוון העדה, to assume the burden of the guilt (sin) of the congregation.

לכפר עליכם, “to obtain atonement for you.” This refers to the he goat of the new Moon. We have read in connection with the New Moon at the month of Tishrey: ושעיר עזים אחד לחטאת לכפר עליכם, and one male goat as a sin offering to atone on your behalf. (Numbers 29,5)

ואותה נתן לכם לשאת את עון העדה לכפר עליכם, “seeing that He gave it to you to bear the guilt of the community, and to obtain atonement for them!” The wording here proves that the sacrificial animal of which Moses spoke was the male goat offered as sin offering on the day of the New Moon. (Compare Numbers 28,15) The function of that offering was to obtain atonement for trespasses committed involving entering or being in the holy precincts while in a state of ritual impurity, or trespasses involving consumption of parts of such offerings which had become ritually impure for some reason after their being slaughtered. Although the expression לכפר, which means “to initiate an atonement process,” is mentioned here in conjunction with the daily communal sin offering,” it occurs also with the sin offering on that occasion (Leviticus 9,7), (וכפר בעדך ובעד העם) and it also occurs in connection with the he-goat offered in order to mark this day, seeing that the atonement spoken of in the he-goat offering of the New Moon is something that repeats itself month after month throughout the ages, our sages preferred to draw upon that verse for their interpretation. Alternately, the additional words לכפר לפני ה', “to initiate atonement before the Lord,” suggest that the subject must be sins committed in connection with the holy precincts. [After all, any atonement is automatically one in which our ability to stand and face of Hashem again is involved. Ed.]

לשאת את עוון העדה. Sins accruing through entering holy precincts in a state of ritual impurity or eating sacred meat in a state of ritual impurity. All this is explained in detail in (Shevuot 9).

Behold, its blood was not brought into the inner sanctuary — you should certainly have eaten it in the holy area, as I was commanded.

'הן לא הובא וגו BEHOLD [THE BLOOD OF IT] WAS NOT BROUGHT [IN WITHIN THE HOLY PLACE] — for if it had been brought,then indeed was it your duty to burn it, as it is said (Leviticus 6:23) “Any sin-offering whereof any of the blood is brought [into the appointed tent, … shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt in the fire]” (Zevachim 101a; Pesachim 82a); אכל תאכלו אתה YE SHOULD INDEED HAVE EATEN IT although you were Onanim, כאשר צויתי AS I COMMANDED you in the case of the meal-offering (vv. 12, 13).

"Behold, its blood was not brought into the inner sanctuary" — [this is the sin-offering] that makes atonement for all the commandments, whether [the offering is] for the priest or for the congregation. If one asks: the bull brought as a sin-offering is burned, and its blood was not brought inside the holy place — before the curtain and the golden altar — know that the bull sin-offering is for the sin-offering on the [outer] altar, and the goat sin-offering is for the people, while the flesh of the sin-offering belongs to the priest. "You should indeed have eaten" — it was right and proper that you should have eaten it.

הן לא הובא את דמה אל הקדש פנימה, into the sanctuary; all sin offers whose blood is destined for the golden altar or dividing curtain must be burned as has been made clear in Leviticus 6,23. None of it must be eaten by the priests. However, the sin offering under discussion is one whose blood was sprinkled on the copper altar in the courtyard of the Tabernacle.

And Aaron spoke with Moses: Behold, this very day they brought their sin offering and their burnt offering before Hashem, and such troubles as these have befallen me — yet had I eaten the sin offering today, would it have been acceptable before Hashem?

וידבר אהרן AND AARON SAID — The term “saying” used here denotes a harsh utterance, as it is said (Numbers 21:5) “And the people spake (וידבר) against Moses, etc.” — Is it likely that when Moses expressed his indignation with Eleazar and with Ithamar, Aaron should reply to him in such harsh language? You must consequently know (conclude) that it was only by way of respect that these remained silent. They thought, “It would not be right that our father (Aaron) should be sitting here (be present) and that we should speak in his presence, nor would it be right that a disciple should retort on his teacher (Moses)”. You might think, however, that Eleazar did not possess the ability to reply, and that on this account he was silent. This was not so for it is stated (Numbers 31:21) “And Eleazar the priest spake to the men of the army, etc.” — and so you see that when he wished to do so he did speak in the presence of Moses and in the presence of the princes (cf. Numbers v. 13). This I found in the ספרי של פנים שני (known under the name of מדרש פנים or ספרי זוטא) (see Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 785:40). הן היום הקריבו BEHOLD, THIS DAY THEY HAVE OFFERED — What did he mean by this? It does not appear to be a reply to Moses rebuke! But Moses had said to them: “Perhaps you have sprinkled its blood whilst you were Onanim and have on that account burnt it, since it thereby became defiled!? — for the rule is that if an Onan does any sacrifical rite he thereby defiles the sacrifice. Aaron therefore said to him: “Did they then offer the sacrifice — they wo are ordinary priests? It was “I” that offered — I who am the High Priest and who may therefore offer when an Onan (Zevachim 101a). ותקראנה אתי כאלה AND IF THINGS LIKE THESE HAD BEFALLEN ME — even if those who died were not my sons but other blood relatives for whom I am bound to mourn as an Onan, even as I am bound to mourn for these — for instance all those mentioned in the section regarding the priests (ch. 21) for whom the priest may of set purpose render himself unclean (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 9). ואכלתי חטאת then IF I HAD EATEN THE SIN-OFFERING, 'הייטב וגו, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN PLEASING etc. היום THIS DAY (i. e. by day) — but in the case of the mourning of an Onan on the night following the death, the eating of an offering is permitted, for the laws regarding an Onan really (i. e. מן התורה) apply only to the day of burial which is also the day of death (cf. Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 11; Zevachim 100b). 'הייטב בעיני ה WOULD IT HAVE BEEN PLEASING IN THE EYES OF THE LORD? — If you have heard (been commanded; cf. v. 13) in the case of occasional holy offerings to which category the meal offering offered on the day of installation and that of Nachshon belonged that these may be eaten by Onanim (cf. vv. 12 and 13) you have no right to take a lenient view and to permit this also in the case of sacrifices that are obligatory on all generations, as this goat of the New Moon is! (Zevachim 101a).

AND AARON SPOKE UNTO MOSES: BEHOLD, THIS DAY HAVE THEY OFFERED. “What did Aaron mean to say by this? But [the explanation is]: Moses had said to them: ‘Perhaps you sprinkled the blood of [the sin-offering of the New Moon] whilst you were onenim, and an onen who performs the Service invalidates [the offering, and therefore you burnt it]?’ To this Aaron replied [that Moses should not be angry with his sons]: ‘Did they bring the offerings [on that day] — they who are ordinary priests? It was I that offered — and I, as High Priest, am permitted to offer when an onen.’” This is Rashi’s language. So too is it found in the Gemara [of Tractate Zebachim], in the Chapter Tebul Yom: [Moses said to Aaron’s sons]: “But perhaps you offered it [while you were onenim] and thus you invalidated it.”But I wonder! For all the offerings were brought before they became mourners, as it is written, and he Aaron] came down from offering the sin-offering, and the burnt-offering, and the peace-offerings, and afterwards they entered the Tent of Meeting and prayed, following which there came forth the fire [that consumed] the offerings and only then did Nadab and Abihu offer up this incense! [So how could Moses have thought that Elazar and Ithamar had performed the Service while they were mourners because of the death of their brothers, since their death occurred only after the performing of the Service!] Perhaps Moses had not seen their acts, and was therefore afraid that they may have found the blood of this sin-offering [of the New Moon] which had not yet been sprinkled [upon the altar], and that they sprinkled it. So Aaron told Moses: “The sprinkling was to be done by me, and when it was [in fact] sprinkled, it was done by my hand and thus the offering did not become invalidated by mourning [since the High Priest may bring offerings even when an onen].” But the whole discussion [between Moses and Aaron] was theoretical, for nothing at all was done while they were in a state of mourning [since all the offerings had in fact been brought before the death of Nadab and Abihu].

Some grammarians have said that the interrogative heh does not take a dagesh after it with any of the seven letters [בגד כפ"ת], except when a mobile sheva follows — in which case the heh has a patah, because two shevas cannot combine. And because they found the yod of הֵיטַב dageshized, they said this heh is the definite article, like the heh in "the one who returned with Naomi" (Ruth 1:22) and in "those found here in the city" and "the raving one" (Ezek. 7:15), these hehs serving in place of אֲשֶׁר — so that the meaning of הֵיטַב would be "the good [thing]." They further said that וְאָכַלְתִּי is a past-tense verb; were it future it would be accented on the ultima, as in "and I will speak to the prophets" (Hos. 12:11) and "and I will speak with you" (Ex. 25:22). The meaning then is: my sons who were burned today had offered their sin-offering and their burnt-offering — for the calf and the ram were on behalf of Aaron and his sons — "and such things have befallen me" — meaning calamities or anxieties over the death of the sons. For this reason I could not eat any of the sin-offering; rather I ate of it only what would be fitting in Hashem's eyes, that is, what would discharge my obligation. According to the view of the translators that the heh of הֵיטַב is interrogative, it is an unusual word; but even under the interpretation I have mentioned it is unusual, for nowhere in all of Scripture do we find the definite-article heh with a future-tense verb. And the phrase וְאָכַלְתִּי חַטָּאת is as though he said: "had I eaten the sin-offering" — and indeed we do find future-tense words accented on the penult, such as "lest I become poor and steal" (Prov. 30:9). The meaning is: I was a mourner (onen), and a mourner may not eat the sin-offering, in keeping with "I have not eaten of it in my mourning" (Deut. 26:14).

הן היום הקריבו, a construction similar to Jeremiah 3,1 הן ישלח איש את אשתו, “if a man divorces his wife, etc.” Or, Chagai 2,12 הן ישא איש בשר קודש, “if a man is carrying sacrificial flesh…and his garment touches bread, will the latter become holy?” Aaron’s reasoning goes as follows: “if the subject matter had merely been that these sons of mine had offered mandatory sin offerings, and burnt offerings which were of a voluntary category, even though they would not constitute mandatory public offerings in the future, and we had consumed the meat of these sacrifices today being in the state of aninut pre-mourning, that we are in, would this have been pleasing to the Lord?” Is it not an ironclad rule that the eating of sacrificial meat deliberately while in such a “hybrid” ritual state will not advance the atonement sought for? In Deuteronomy 26,14 we learn that it is forbidden to consume such sacrificial meat of offerings of the second degree of sanctity, קדשים קלים. Aaron argues that notwithstanding the fact that he was ordered to consume the remains of the minchah offering which was only a one time offering, such a rule did not apply to sacrifices which are part of the regular Temple service.

וידבר אהרון אל משה. Aaron spoke (harshly) to Moses. Torat Kohanim reminds us that the word דבר invariably signals harsh talk. Why was Aaron justified in adopting this tone of voice when speaking to Moses? Moses had not even addressed him, much less criticised him! Perhaps Aaron had felt slighted by Moses' angry reproof in verse 16-17 to his sons why they had not eaten the meat of the sin-offering. Moses' accusation did not sound unlike a curse. Aaron felt that at a time when he was still in shock from the death of his two older sons and Satan had a relatively free hand that such an accusation would endanger the lives of his surviving sons. Aaron's outburst may therefore be interpreted as the complaint of a father whose feelings of mercy towards his children have been aroused. הן היום, "behold, this very day, etc." Our sages in Zevachim 101 understand this expression as follows: "did Eleazar and Ittamar offer the sin-offerings this day, a day when they are prohibited of performing the service seeing their brothers have not yet been interred and this is why you acuse them of have burned the meat? It was I who have offered the sacrifice and in my capacity as High Priest I am entitled to perform this sacrifice even while in mourning for my sons who have not yet been interred!" The implication is "why did you accuse my sons of something they have not been guilty of at all?" The plain meaning of the verse is this: הן היום הקריבו, Nadav and Avihu offered their burnt-offerings and their sin-offerings in the presence of the Lord this very day. Aaron reminded Moses that he was an אונן, a mourner who had not yet commenced the mourning rites as his sons had not yet been buried ואכלתי חטאת היום, He went on: "If I had eaten the regular sin-offering this day?" i.e. the sin-offering which is offered on every New Moon. This was Aaron's way of hinting that there is a difference between eating of the meal-offering which was a one-time offering and eating of the sin-offering which was part of a cycle of regular public offerings. He questioned: "would it have been pleasing in the eyes of the Lord if I had eaten this offering?" Perhaps we can prove from here under what circumstances a disciple is permitted to give a halachic ruling in the presence of his teacher instead of referring the problem to the teacher first. I have seen a comment by the רא"ש on Eyruvin 63 that in the situation quoted of Ravina examining the knife of a ritual slaughterer in a location some distance removed from his teacher Rav Ashi, that in such a situation the teacher may be presumed not to feel that his dignity has been offended. [The subject matter discussed in the Talmud there is the permissibility of students giving halachic rulings in the area presided over by their teacher. The standard opinion is that even a relatively simple query such as if one may use a fully formed egg found inside a hen after one has slaughtered it together with milk, the query must be submitted to the local Rab...

הן היום הקריבו, “behold they have offered their sin offerings and burnt offerings this day,” Rashi explains this line as follows: “what kind of answer does Aaron give to Moses here? Moses had asked him why they had not eaten from the offerings? If they had not first offered them, how could they have eaten from the remains? Besides, all the offerings of that day had been performed by Aaron, not by his sons, as the Torah has already stated! What Moses must have meant and have said referring to the sons of Aaron was: “did you perhaps perform the sprinkling of the blood, etc, seeing that a priest in mourning would have disqualified and desecrated that offering?” To this implication Aaron answered: “did they perform the ritual? Seeing that they are only ordinary priests, how could they have arrogated to themselves the right to substitute for me? I have performed all the rites? Seeing that I am not legally a mourner as my sons have not yet been buried, I have performed all these rites seeing they must be performed during certain hours of this day. This is also why they have been eaten.” ותקראנה אותי כאלה, “seeing that I have been struck by such a tragic loss,” that two of my sons who were priests have died suddenly; they were supposed to help me eat the relevant parts of the sacrifice so that none would have become leftovers that had to be burned. I, in my state of premourning, was not allowed to eat these parts, while the Levites if in such a state of premourning are allowed to sing the songs which it is their duty to sing.” (Sifra on this verse) ואכלתי חטאת היום, “I have eaten the parts of the sin offering this day that I was halachically permitted to eat together with my two remaining sons.” הייטב בעיני ה, “would it have been pleasing in the eyes of the Lord that these parts would have become “leftovers, ”and thus would have to be burned outside the holy precincts, seeing that only three of us are left?” הייטב בעיני ה, “the letter ה at the beginning of the word הייטב has the vowel patach, whereas it actually should have a chataf patach [seeing that it introduces a question. See Ibn Ezra)

Behold today they offered their sin offering, etc. Moses reprimanded Eleazar and Ithamar for why they did not eat the sin offering, and Aaron excused himself saying, And should I have eaten the sin offering today? It seems to me, according to the words of Abarbanel, that this goat that was burned was the goat of the sin offering mentioned above, which was a temporary sacred offering. Therefore, Aaron did not want to eat from it because he thought: When does the principle apply that the priests eat and the owners receive atonement? When the priests have no part in that transgression. However, regarding this goat which was an atonement for the sin of the golden calf, where they sacrificed their offerings to goat-demons as explained above in the verse Take for yourself a calf, and Aaron had caused this sin, it is as if he had a part in it. Therefore, it was not proper for Aaron to eat from it in order to bring atonement to the owners, because it was as if he himself was one of the owners. And since Aaron’s sons saw that their father did not want to eat from it, they also did not eat from it and burned it instead. This is the explanation of the matter, that Moses was angry at Eleazar and Ithamar who remained after the death of Nadab and Abihu who were burned for offering strange fire. Moses thought that these two also offered strange fire because since the rule of the sin offering is to be eaten, and they burned it, surely this fire with which they burned it was strange fire. Therefore, he was angry with them and said, “You should have remembered what happened to your brothers, and why did you leave it? You should have eaten it because it was given to you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, as the priests eat and the owners are atoned for.” And Aaron spoke to Moses, “Behold, today they have offered, etc.” He wanted to prove with evidence that this sin offering was for the sin of the Golden Calf, because otherwise how could it be that on this day, when they offered their sin offering and the burnt offering of the congregation to atone for them, such things would happen to me that on the same day two of my sons would die? For if they had already deserved to be punished and the Holy One, blessed be He, waited for them so as not to disturb the joy of the Torah, He should have also waited on this day, the day of joy for the Holy One, blessed be He, in the dedication of the altar. Rather, it is certain that God wanted to completely erase the sin of the Golden Calf from Israel and from Aaron on this one day, because Aaron would pay two to his Fellow, and Israel would be atoned for with the sin offering and burnt offering. This is proof that the sin offering came for the sin of the Golden Calf. And if so, if I had eaten from this sin offering today, would it be good in the eyes of the Lord? For I am also one of the owners, and since I did not eat, my sons also did not want to eat it out of respect for me. And this explanation was good in the eyes of Moses.

הן היום הקריבו את חטאתם, “was it they that offered their sin offering on this day?” Both the Talmud’s references to this verse, as well as those of Rashi, allow us to read this as a question, i.e. Moses expressing amazement to his brother Aaron that his sons, while in a state of aninut, had seen fit to perform their priestly duties in the Tabernacle. Nachmanides claims that no aninut was involved, as all the duties that Eleazar and Ittamar had performed had been completed before they became bereaved of their elder brothers. In other words, the question of performing priestly duties while in a state of aninut did not even arise. He derives this from the verse in which Aaron is described as descending from the altar after having performed all his duties for that forenoon. (Compare 9,22) Aaron and his sons then entered the Tabernacle, and offered a prayer, and only subsequently did heavenly fire descend on the offerings presented and consumed them. After that had occurred Nadav and Avihu offered incense, using man made fire. Only then did heavenly fire descend and killed the two older sons of Aaron, Nachmanides answers the problem by saying that possibly Moses had not seen what the sons of Aaron had done, and he assumed that they might have found some blood from the he-goat which had not yet been sprinkled, and they had proceeded to sprinkle that blood. My sainted father of blessed memory the R’osh, said that what Nachmanides poses as a problem is no problem at all. The verse (9,22) describing Aaron descending and subsequently blessing the people referred only to his having completed the specific offerings of that particular day of the inaugural offerings; it did not say that Aaron had already offered the male goat as a sin-offering on account of the day being the New Moon. This offering, being a mussaph offering, was not yet due to have been offered, and was therefore not included in the report of Aaron having concluded his duties, in other words, the reason it had not been mentioned at all was that it had not been offered as yet.

הן היום הקריבו את חטאתם ואת עולתם, the reference is to the burnt offering and sin offering of Aaron and his sons concerning which the instructions had been issued in 9,2. Aaron’s sons had assisted him in the transfer of the blood from the place where the slaughtering took place to the altar. This too, has been mentioned in 9,9. This is why Aaron remonstrated with Moses. asking why he was angry at his sons seeing that both he and his sons had offered the mandatory offerings of their consecration rites. Seeing that while engaged in such a holy pursuit fate had dealt him such a blow, how could he be expected to eat, i.e. enjoy, other sacred meats of a permanent character, not part of his inaugural rites. His enjoyment of this day had already been spoiled! The thought is echoed in Gittin 36 עלובה כלה שזינתה בקרב החופה, “a bride who committed adultery while still next to her wedding canopy has indeed been humbled.” (2) SUCH THINGS HAVE BEFALLEN ME. And how can I eat a sin offering of the highest sanctity today when our joy has been ruined and sullied? This is analogous to the shame of a bride who whored under the huppah.

And Moses heard, and it was pleasing in his eyes.

וייטב בעיניו AND IT WAS PLEASING IN HIS EYES — He admitted his error and was not ashamed to do so, by saying (instead of admitting it) “I have not heard a statement (from God regarding this)", but rather he said, “I have heard, but I forgot it” (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2 12; Zevachim 101b).

וייטב בעיניו, Moses enjoyed the reasoning Aaron presented explaining why he had acted as he did and he accepted his interpretation of the law. He complimented both him and his sons.

וישמע משה וייב בעיניו. Moses heard this and it was pleasing in his eyes. Why had Moses either forgotten or been unaware of such a simple halachah as that one has to distinguish between the degrees of sanctity of one-time offerings and that of regular offerings? If Moses was aware of an argument why such a differentiation should not be made, why did he accept Aaron's reasoning instead of trying to convince him that his own argument was correct? Moses had no right to command Aaron to either eat or burn sacrificial meat unless he was convinced that the halachah demanded this. His anger against Aaron and his sons was not caused by his conviction that they had committed an halachic error, but merely because he did not think they had adequate reason to burn up that meat. Alternatively, as suggested by Zevachim 101, he may have thought that all three of them had become ritually impure preventing them from consuming the meat of the sin-offering. According to the Talmud, Moses had enquired if something had gone wrong during the sprinkling of the blood or whether for some reason the animal had left the precincts of the Tabernacle. All of these events would have been due to some degree of negligence on the part of the priests and would have given Moses reason to be angry. Once Aaron had countered by citing the logic which had prompted him to make the decision to burn the meat Moses was put at ease. He realised that Aaron had not burned the meat until he had correctly judged the circumstances which demanded such action. If Aaron had not had logic going for his decision, it would indeed have been difficult to decide whose considerations were weightier; as it was, Moses was entitled to accept the קל וחומר Aaron had learned. When the Torah said וייטב בעיניו, this means that Moses approved of the meat having been burned. It is also possible that the words refer to Moses now approving of Aaron having made the decision without consulting him. Another approach would focus on the first words in the verse, i.e. "Moses heard." This may mean that Moses had heard from G'd about the difference between the degree of sanctity of one-time offerings and those of regular offerings. As a result he approved of what Aaron had done, i.e. וייטב בעיניו. You may counter by saying that if Moses had heard the הלכה from G'd why had he been angry at Aaron? Perhaps he was angry because he himself had not yet told Aaron about this and he thought that Aaron had done what he did without adequate reason. It is also possible that Moses who was able to receive prophetic revelations at any time (as we know from Numbers 9,8: "stand still and I will hear what G'd will command") now received word from G'd as to the correct procedure; as a result he was pleased to have G'd confirm that Aaron had acted correctly. Torat Kohanim on our verse writes as follows: "Rav Yehudah said that as long as Rabbi Chananiah son of Yehudah was alive he used to explain that anger is a terrible affliction as it cau...