Hebräische Bibel
Hebräische Bibel

Kommentar zu Wajikra 10:1

וַיִּקְח֣וּ בְנֵֽי־אַ֠הֲרֹן נָדָ֨ב וַאֲבִיה֜וּא אִ֣ישׁ מַחְתָּת֗וֹ וַיִּתְּנ֤וּ בָהֵן֙ אֵ֔שׁ וַיָּשִׂ֥ימוּ עָלֶ֖יהָ קְטֹ֑רֶת וַיַּקְרִ֜בוּ לִפְנֵ֤י יְהוָה֙ אֵ֣שׁ זָרָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹ֦א צִוָּ֖ה אֹתָֽם׃

Die Söhne Aarons: Nadab und Abihu, nahmen ein jeder seine Rauchpfanne und taten Feuer hinein und legten Räucherwerk darauf, und brachten vor den Herrn unheiliges Feuer, solches, das er ihnen nicht geboten.

Sforno on Leviticus

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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Or HaChaim on Leviticus

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
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Rashbam on Leviticus

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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Rabbeinu Bahya

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Daat Zkenim on Leviticus

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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Haamek Davar on Leviticus

Aharon’s sons Nodov and Avihu. It does not say, “Nodov and Avihu, Aharon’s sons,” and from this Chazal derived in Toras Kohanim that they did not show appropriate respect for Aharon, and they behaved as if they were not his sons.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Chizkuni

.וישימו עליה קטורת, “they placed incense on it.” They had taken this from the table. 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 not presented in the name of a community is called: “alien.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sforno on Leviticus

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
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Or HaChaim on Leviticus

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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Daat Zkenim on Leviticus

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)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Chizkuni

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 tobe 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.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Sforno on Leviticus

אשר לא צוה אותם, “which He had not commanded them (to do).”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Or HaChaim on Leviticus

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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Abarbanel on Torah

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Ganzes KapitelNächster Vers