Kommentar zu Wajikra 16:1

'וידבר ה' אל משה אחרי מות שני בני אהרן וגו‎‎ AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AFTER THE DEATH OF THE TWO SONS OF AARON etc. —What is this statement intended to tell us? (i. e. why is it at all stated when God spoke this to Moses?) Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah illustrated this by a parable: It may be compared to the case of a sick person whom the physician visited. He (the physician) said to him: “Do not eat cold things nor sleep in a damp place!" Another physician came and said to him: “Do not eat cold things, nor sleep in a damp place so that thou mayest not die as Mr. So-and-so died!" Certainly this (the latter) put him on his guard more than the former; that is why Scripture states “after the death of the two sons of Aaron" (Sifra, Acharei Mot, Section 1 3).

AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES, AFTER THE DEATH OF THE TWO SONS OF AARON. The meaning of the phrase after the death of the two sons of Aaron, is that immediately after the death of his sons He had warned Aaron against [drinking] wine or strong drink [when going into the Tent of Meeting], so that he should not die,¹Above, 10:9. and now He told Moses in addition to warn him so that he should not die when he draws near the Eternal [even in a sober condition, but at a time when he is not commanded to do so].²Ramban’s intent is thus to explain that we should not think that this section was made known to Moses immediately after the death of Aaron’s two sons, since the prohibition conveyed to Aaron against the ministering priests’ drinking wine, preceded it. The reason why Ramban finds this important to emphasize will be made clear further on. See Note 5. It is likely that these two commandments were both conveyed on the day after the death of Aaron’s sons, for on the actual day [when the deaths occurred, Aaron] was a mourner, and the holy spirit does not rest upon man in moments of sadness,³Yerushalmi Succah V, 1. And therefore G-d would not have communicated with Aaron on that day. and the communication concerning the prohibition against wine came to Aaron,⁴Above, 10:8. Thus it must have been on the day after the day of the tragedy, when he was no longer a mourner. and in that selfsame day this commandment [stated in the section before us] was also told to Moses.⁵We may now understand why Ramban emphasized that the phrase after the death of the two sons of Aaron does not mean immediately after their death, since it was preceded by G-d’s command to Aaron. For had the phrase meant “immediately following their death,” then it would have been possible that this command came to Moses on the day of the death of Aaron’s sons. But now that the Divine command to Aaron preceded it, and that could not have taken place on the day of the tragedy [for the reason explained in the text], but only on the following day, it follows that the Divine command given to Moses, as contained in this section, was also communicated to him on the day after the death of Aaron’s sons. Ramban’s stressing of this is obviously intended to take exception to what Chizkuni clearly writes in his commentary, that it was on the selfsame day that the death occurred that the command contained in this section was communicated. On this Ramban commented: “The holy spirit does not rest upon man in moments of sadness.” Scripture, however, preceded the prohibitions with which He warned Israel that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile My Tabernacle that is in the midst of them,⁶Above, 15:31. “And incidentally He explained already all the laws of impurity” (Tur). [before dealing with the commands specific to Aaron], and only afterwards He wrote the warning [applying to] the individual [i.e., this section, which was to be conveyed by Moses to Aaron, as the verse states: And the Eternal said unto Moses: ‘Speak unto Aaron thy brother etc.’].⁷Verse 2. But in my opinion the whole Torah is written in consecutive order, and in all places where He changed the order, placing an earlier event in a later position, Scripture clearly states so, such as the verses: And the Eternal spoke unto Moses in Mount Sinai⁸Further, 25:1. [later on] in this book, [the laws of which were declared to Moses in the Tent of Meeting]; And it came to pass on the day that Moses had made an end of setting up the Tabernacle,⁹Numbers 7:1. in the following book [i.e., the Book of Numbers], and similar such statements. Therefore Scripture stated here after the death, in order to inform us that this [communication] was [given to Moses] immediately after the death of the two sons of Aaron [and according to the historical sequence of events, it should have been placed in Chapter 10 above, where the account of events following their death is given].
And in the opinion of our Rabbis who said¹⁰Torath Kohanim, beginning of Acharei Moth, 3. Quoted also in Rashi. [by way of a parable, that this verse can be compared to the case of a physician who warned his patient not to eat cold things or sleep in a damp place, and another physician warned him likewise but added]: “so that you should not die as that person died;” thus “this [second physician] put him on his guard more than the first one,” [according to this comment of the Rabbis] the meaning of the verse will be, that G-d said to Moses these words: “After the death of the two sons of Aaron¹¹Thus the expression after the death is not a chronological note marking the occasion when this communication was given, but constitutes part of the Divine words, as if to say: “Now that the death of Aaron’s sons happened because they drew near etc., therefore speak to Aaron etc.” when they drew near before the Eternal, speak to him that he come not at all times into the holy place … that he die not.”

וידבר ה' אל משה אחרי מות, normally, the expression וידבר in the Holy Tongue is not used to describe specific parts of the verbal message but applies to the entire speech, characterising its nature. This is the reason why we find so many times the word לאמור, i.e. אמירה after the introduction וידבר. This is why verse 2 continues with ויאמר אליו דבר אל אהרן אחיך, He said to him: “say to your brother Aaron,” without a change of subject between the two verses. Seeing that the thrust of the message, i.e. its being connected to the immediately preceding death of the two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, had not changed, there was no need to once again identity the speaker, i.e. G’d, by adding the words ויאמר אליו, “He said to him,” as is customary in similar constructions in the Torah. However, according to a minority of our sages (Torat Kohanim 1,3) there were two separate addresses by G’d and we would then have to understand the verse as follows: one concerned the prohibition for Aaron not to enter the sanctuary any time he felt like it otherwise he would be courting death. The second time was after Aaron’s sons had died; Aaron was to enter only at G’d’s command. The warning this time was more urgent, warning that G’d’s presence in the sanctuary would be visible from the outside by means of the cloud hovering over the Tabernacle. At that point the voice of G’d addressed itself to Moses again, issuing instructions concerning the conduct of prophets and High priests in future generations. We find a reference to such matters in Samuel I 3,3-4 where Samuel is reported as lying down in the sanctuary of the Lord when G’d called to him.

וידבר ה׳ אל משה אחרי מות, G'd spoke to Moses after the death, etc. Why doesn't the Torah spell out what G'd told Moses on this occasion? Secondly, why did the Torah have to add that this communication occurred after the death of two of Aaron's sons? What bearing does this have on the content of G'd's message? Thirdly, why did the Torah have to add the words: בקרבתם לפני ה׳ וימותו, "when they came close to the presence of G'd and died?" If the Torah wanted to tell us the reason these sons died, we have been told this already in Leviticus 10,1, when the Torah wrote: ויקריבו לפני ה׳ אש זרה? The Torah was far more specific about the death of these sons in that context than it is here. We could not determine what the sin of these sons of Aaron had been by relying merely on what the Torah has written here. What is so terrible about wanting to come close to the presence of G'd? Fourthly, the word וימותו, they died, is quite superfluous seeing the verse commenced with the mention of their deaths? Fifthly, why did the Torah use the additional letter ו in the word וימותו?

אחרי מות, G’d told Moses to warn Aaron so that he would not die as had his sons because of unauthorised entry into the Temple.

אחרי מות שני בני אהרן, “After the death of two of Aaron’s sons.” The reason why the Torah again refers to this event at this juncture is that seeing the Torah had just (15,31) concluded by warning us to be extremely careful not to become guilty of death through polluting G’d’s residence while entering it in a state of ritual contamination, the Torah uses the death of Aaron’s sons as an example designed to serve as a deterrent to anyone else daring to desecrate consecrated grounds in such a fashion. Nachmanides adds that the wording אחרי מות שני בני אהרן is that immediately after that tragic death had occurred, Aaron and his sons had been warned not to enter consecrated grounds while in a state of intoxication. (Compare Leviticus 10,8-11). It is certainly reasonable to assume that these laws were revealed to Aaron and the people on the day following the death of Nadav and Avihu. They could not very well have been communicated on the very day of the death of the sons, as the legal status of אנינות, preoccupation with burial and mourning rites, prevent the remaining two sons from studying Torah on that day. Not only that, but the Holy Spirit does not communicate with people when they are in such a state of mind. The warning not to drink wine applied to Aaron personally more than to anyone else, as he performed service in the Tabernacle on a daily basis. Moses had been informed before now, of course, but the Torah wanted that the entire people be warned at once. [We must remember that though Moses had been given all these laws already on Mount Sinai, seeing that at that time the whole subject of building a Tabernacle had not yet become relevant, as there had not yet been the sin of the golden calf, there had also been no reason to reveal this to the people until now, the first or second day that the Tabernacle had become operative. Ed.] As a general rule (Nachmanides writing), whenever the Torah departs from chronological sequence in its report, it prefaces such statements with the words “G’d spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai, etc.,” to remind us that the legislation following was not an afterthought. Ed.] Our sages claim that the meaning of the words ולא תמותו in Leviticus 10,9 was an oblique reference to the reason why the two sons of his had died. Aaron should take care that the same would not happen to him. [Seeing that the author does not attribute this statement of “our sages” to a specific source, I permit myself the comment that this sounds incredibly unlikely, as surely someone of Aaron’s stature did not need to be given this kind of a warning in order to obey G’d’s instructions. Ed.]

In a damp place. טחב refers to any place that cools or dampens [a person]. The explanation of the verses is as follows. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture write, “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe” [and then repeat, “Adonoy spoke to Moshe.”] It should merely have written, “After the death [of two sons of Aharon] ... Adonoy spoke to Moshe, Speak to your brother Aharon...” Alternatively, it should have written, “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe after the death [of two sons of Aharon]... Speak to [your brother] Aharon... Why does it write [“And Adonoy spoke to Moshe,” and then repeat], “Adonoy spoke to Moshe.” Regarding this Rashi explains: “Why does the verse say [this]...” He then cites the parable of Rabbi Elazar in order to say that the verse is like this parable... And thus, “This [second speaking to him clearly] urged him on more than the first one.” The verse, too, means the same when it is written, “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe” [and repeats it]. [The first time the verse says “And Adonoy spoke to Moshe], means [that He instructed] Moshe to only tell Aharon not to come into the Holy that is inside of the curtain and not to mention [that he can incur] death similar to the death of his sons. Afterwards, the verse writes “After the death ... Adonoy said to Moshe...” meaning that the Holy One spoke again to Moshe to tell Aharon something else — he should warn him a second time to not come into the Holy, and [this time] also mention the death [of his sons] as it is written, “After the death of two sons of Aharon ... Adonoy spoke to Moshe, Speak to your brother Aharon ... so that he not die.” I.e., if you do not come into the Holy you will not die as your sons died, but if you come into the Holy as your sons did, you too will die like them. Re’m’s text of Rashi is different, see there. Aharon’s sons did not die for entering the Holy of Holies, the place where Aharon was forbidden to enter at all times. If so, what proof does the death of his sons serve to support this warning? The verse means as follows: Aharon should not enter [the Holy of Holies] at all times in order not to die as his sons died when they entered a place forbidden to them. Similarly, he should not enter a place that is forbidden to him. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

אחרי מות, “after the death;” when we read in Kohelet 9,2: כטוב כחוטא, “as is the good man so is the sinner,” this is a reference to the two sons of Aaron who died only on account of having arrogated to themselves the right to preempt their elders Moses and Aaron in issuing a religious ruling. This is the meaning of the Talmud, tractate Yuma, folio 53, where Rabbi Eliezer explained the word חוטא as referring to their having done so. What precisely was the “new” ruling that they revealed? They interpreted the line: ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן אש על המזבח, ”the sons of Aaron the priest placed fire (man made) on the altar;” (in addition to the fire that came down from the heaven). (Leviticus 1,7) Their sin was basically the same as that of Korach and his congregation, and that is why both were burned to death by heavenly fire. (Compare Tanchuma on our portion, section 1) Rabbi Acha son of Ze-ira adds (in the Tanchuma) that this is also the meaning of Job 37,1: אף לזאת יחרד לבי ויתר ממקומו, “also on account of this my heart quakes and leaps from its place;” he compares what happened to the staff of Aaron when it was placed inside the Sanctuary which sprouted almonds, whereas his sons when they entered the Sanctuary were burned to death. (Numbers 17,23) He also contrasts the fact that the Roman general Titus dared to enter the Holy of Holies, and he left it unharmed although surely he was less qualified to have entered such sacred grounds. He had entered in order to blaspheme, whereas the sons of Aaron had entered in order to offer incense to the Lord. (Tanchuma section 4 on our portion) [No wonder at the reaction of Job when he reflected on this phenomenon. Ed.] This phenomenon is also the subject of Psalms 78,63: בחורי אכלו אש ובתולותיו לא הוללו, “Fire consumed their young men and their maidens remained unwed.” The psalmist explains the reason that the sons of Aaron had to die as being that they had failed to get married. They had described themselves as so superior that no one was good enough to become their wives. They overestimated the value of having been born into such prominent families as their father and uncle. The result of their haughtiness was that they died without leaving behind any children. (Tanchuma section 6) In other words, no one remembered them.

אחרי מות, “after the death;” Rashi queries why this verse was written, as we do not hear what G-d said to Moses, and verse 2 immediately begins with G-d speaking to Moses again and telling him to tell Aaron that entrance to the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle is not permitted at any time he so chooses. What was missing in Rashi’s commentary is the parable by Rabbi Elazar ben Aroch, who said that when a physician visits a sick person he tells him not to eat certain foods, not to lie down in wet areas, etc; subsequently someone else comes into the room of the patient and tells him the same thing, but he Acharey Mot adds that if the patient does not heed this warning he is liable to die. The effect of the second person’s warning is far greater than the effect of the physician’s instructions. Rashi saw in the second verse in our portion a comparison to the second person in Rabbi Elazar ben Aroch’s parable. The Torah realised that in order to impress Aaron sufficiently with the prohibition to enter the Holy of Holies at will, he had to be warned of the consequences if he disregarded the warning. (Torat kohanim) The version there is as follows: in the second verse Moses is asked to remind Aaron that his two sons had died, because they had ignored the warning not to enter the Holy of Holies unless invited to do so.

... It is difficult... Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah should not have said, "There is a parable about two physicians." Rather, he should have said, "It is a greater warning when someone warns a sick person that he should not die like x, than if he just says not to [do x] and die."...

בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו, “when they approached the presence of Hashem and died.” Ibn Ezra comments that this verse is proof that the sons of Aaron died because they had dared to bring the incense into the Tabernacle. Nachmanides disagrees, as the Torah always mentions the sin of anyone who died an untimely death at the hands of Hashem. The Torah had already told us on a number of occasions that the cause of death was that they introduced “strange fire” which they had not been authorised to do. (Leviticus 10,1) However, this was described as בהקריבם אש זרה, “when they introduced alien fire,” whereas here the Torah wrote about בקרבתם, i.e. when they personally entered a domain which was out of bounds to them. It is therefore completely reasonable that the Torah should now warn Aaron not to enter the wrong place at the wrong time. Although he is permitted entry to the Holy of Holies, even, something no other priest is allowed to enter, he cannot do so at times of his choosing. It is quite possible that the correct interpretation of our verse is in line with what our sages said (Mechilta Beshalach ויסע ו) that the people had come to the conclusion that the incense contained poisonous herbs which had caused the death of Nadav and Avihu, the 250 men who offered incense during Korach’s rebellion, etc. The Torah, countering these wild accusations leveled against the incense offering, wanted to make the point that it had not been the incense which had killed them but their unauthorised entry, both in terms of place and time. Aaron therefore had to be especially on guard, seeing he would offer incense on a daily basis he would be more exposed to such a danger than any other individual. The Torah defines precisely when, where, and who is fit to offer this special offering (verses 12 and 13). Some scholars feel that we must take careful note of the difference in meaning of the word בקרבתם as opposed to בהקריבם, the former referring to the act of entering a forbidden domain regardless of the purpose why it was entered and regardless of what the person entering had in his hands as an offering. In order to make plain that mere entering the sacred domain by Nadav and Avihu was a mortal sin by itself, the Torah now instructs Aaron: בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקוד'ש, “only when accompanied by the following is Aaron allowed to enter these holy domains.”

It appears that the Torah tries to tell us that G'd warned Moses not to think that seeing that he personally was closer to the Kingdom of Heaven and at home in G'd's palace, that he could enter the Sanctuary at will. Even though G'd addressed this command to Aaron, Moses was not to think that he was not included in this restriction because the Torah itself testified in Numbers 12, 7-8 that Moses' prophecy was superior to that of Aaron. G'd had to speak to Moses to warn him not to misunderstand the prohibition He was about to issue to Aaron concerning entry into the Sanctuary, i.e. the Holy of Holies. G'd said וידבר ה׳ אל משה, i.e. the directive was addressed exclusively to Moses. He spoke to him shortly after the death of the sons of Aaron who had attempted to come too close as a result of which they died. The Torah meant that although they were the sons of Aaron, i.e. highly placed personages so much so that the Torah testified that their death was due to their closeness to G'd, (compare comment of Vayikra Rabbah 12,2 on Leviticus 10,3 "I will be sanctified through those close to Me.") G'd did not have pity on them in spite of their closeness to Him. The principal lesson to be derived from all this is that he who occupies a privileged position is not entitled to take liberties with G'd who has granted this privilege in the first place.

Another aspect of the word בקרבתם may be that these people were closer to G'd than anyone. Had Moses been closer to G'd than Nadav and Avihu, G'd should have demonstrated the lesson of בקרובי אקדש by punishing Moses for some minor infraction he was guilty of. If G'd chose Nadav and Avihu instead to demonstrate this principle, they must have been the people closest to G'd at that time. Perhaps G'd explained all this to Moses on this occasion so that afterwards Moses said to Aaron in Leviticus 10,3: הוא אשר דבר ה׳ לאמור בקרובי אקדש, "this is what G'd has said to say: I will be sanctified by those who are close to Me." We would then have to assume that the content of G'd's communication in verse 1 of our chapter was said to Moses immediately after the death of Nadav and Avihu. The fact that their deaths had been reported earlier does not matter as we have a principle that the Torah is not bound to report events in chronological order.

Who brought an [unauthorized] offering before Adonoy [בקרבתם לפני ה']. This can be explained as, “In their closeness to Hashem,” for they were extremely close to Hashem. This is why Hashem was exact with them and judged them even for a slight indiscretion, as it says (Tehillim 50:3): “And around Him it storms furiously.” The closer one is to the King, the more careful one has to be with the King’s honor.

Torat Kohanim writes one could have thought that when G'd addressed His warning to "your brother Aaron," Moses felt that he was not included in that prohibition and could enter the Holy of Holies at will. They conclude that the word אחיך was meant to include only Aaron's other sons so that Moses himself would have remained free to enter at will. Accordingly, I would not have known if Moses was included in the prohibition or not unless G'd told Him so specifically. The author of Korban Aharon writes that it is clear that only someone who had received permission to enter at certain specified times had to be told not to enter at other times. He who had never been permitted to perform a duty inside the Holy of Holies did not need to be told that he could not enter at will. According to what I have written the entire warning is contained only in verse 1. I do not think that the reasoning of Korban Aharon is correct. The author of Torat Kohanim meant that our verse did not mean to exempt Moses from the warning issued to Aaron at all and that we remain without a verse either permitting or prohibiting Moses from entering the Holy of Holies. The author chose to use the extraneous word אחיך to also include Aaron's remaining sons in the prohibition instead of using it to exempt Moses from the warning.

All of this is in line with the opinion that the word אחרי is a signal that something occurred close to what was reported earlier, whereas the word אחר indicates that it occurred some considerable time later than what has been reported last (compare Bereshit Rabbah 44,5). There is also an opposite view that the word אחרי introduces something that occurred much later chronologically than what had been reported immediately before, whereas the word אחר refers to what had happened immediately before the paragraph commencing with the words אחר הדברים. According to the latter view we have to explain our verse in the following manner. The death of Aaron's sons was due to their having entered the Sanctuary on their way to the Holy of Holies without permission. While it is true that in פרשת שמיני the reason for their deaths given by the Torah is the "strange fire" they introduced into the Sanctuary (10,1), our verse teaches that they would have been guilty of death for merely entering the Holy of Holies even if they had not brought strange fire into the Sanctuary. The Torah stressed the word וימותו, "they died," so that we should not think that Nadav and Avihu succeeded to carry out their intention to enter the Holy of Holies. They died before they could carry out their intention. The Torah is at pains to let us know this in the event a person would be willing to enter the Holy of Holies even at the cost of his life. We are warned here that the effort would be futile as G'd would not allow such a person to realise his intention. The Torah does not warn us about this because it presumes a criminal intent by someone who insists on entering the Holy of Holies. On the contrary, the assumption is that such an attempt would be prompted by the religious fervor of the individual, an overpowering desire to come close to the source of the שכינה on earth which makes such a person ignore the danger to which he exposes himself.

All of the above is based on the approach of Rabbi Yossi who claimed that it was the unauthorized entry which caused the death of Nadav and Avihu. It also conforms to the view of Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra according to which they committed two deathly sins, i.e. the offering of unauthorised incense, and entering the Sanctuary without authority. According to the view of Rabbi Akiva who holds that they died only because they offered incense, you have to explain our verse differently if you assume that the word אחרי refers to something which had occurred some time previously. In order to understand this we must first ask ourselves why G'd did not mention the legislation involving the Day of Atonement until this day instead of revealing this information on the day He commanded the details about all the other sacrificial offerings in the first two portions of the Book of Leviticus. We could have expected Moses to tell Aaron not to enter the Holy of Holies unbidden in Leviticus 9,7 where he also told him to approach the altar and offer his sin-offering, etc. This would have been the logical place to add that Aaron should not enter the Sanctuary unless bidden to do so. The fact is that one could have derived that prohibition from the positive permission to approach the altar (in the courtyard of the Tabernacle). All Moses had to tell Aaron at that point was: "offer your sin-offering," and I would have known that it was to be offered on that altar." If he added the words קרב אל מזבח, Aaron could have figured out that he was allowed only to mount the copper altar at will, not the golden altar in the Sanctuary. Our sages in Torat Kohanim explain all sorts of things in connection with that verse. According to our own approach Moses only told Aaron that he could use only the outer altar. The question is why he did not add that entering the Holy of Holies would result in his death?

Our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 7,1) remark that the two sons of Aaron died on account of the sin of the golden calf, based on Deut. 9,20: "G'd was also very angry at Aaron to have destroyed him;" if it had not been for Moses' prayer all four sons of Aaron would have died prematurely. The original cause of the death of Nadav and Avihu was the involvement of their father in the sin of the golden calf, and their deaths served as atonement, much as a sacrifice on the altar serves as atonement for the owner of his sin-offering. Do not argue that we have quoted different sages as attributing the deaths of these sons to either their unauthorised offering of incense, or their entering the Holy of Holies without authorisation or the Torah's speaking of their unauthorised use of man-made fire. The answer to all these arguments is that had it not been for the involvement of their father in the sin of the golden calf, G'd would have found a way to guard the feet of His pious so that they would not become guilty of such an inadvertent sin as bringing incense, etc. The statement in Zevachim 115 that these sons died as martyrs for the glory of the name of the Lord is also not at variance with what the Midrash said in Vayikra Rabbah 7,1. Had it not been for the sin of their father, G'd would have had to glorify His name by means of the death of another one of His beloved people. We have it on good authority (Psalms 116,17) that "the death of His pious ones is a very precious event for the Lord;" the reasons for this may be difficult for anyone other than G'd Himself to fathom. Nonetheless, it is our tradition that sometimes G'd desires the deaths of such pious people. In such instances, the pious person in question whose departure from earth G'd desires, must have committed at least some minor infraction so that his death can be justified legally. I have elaborated elsewhere on this theme. It is worth looking at Avot de Rabbi Natan chapter 38 in which the martyrs who died at the hands of the Emperor Hadrian were unhappy that their violent deaths could be interpreted as due to their having violated basic laws of the Torah. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel found a justification for his violent death when his colleague suggested he could have been guilty of the minor infraction of having had a poor man wait too long before he gave him food to eat, or that he was guilty of enjoying the honour of discoursing on Torah before an audience of 600,000 people. It is difficult to accept that a person should be guilty of a violent death for such a minor indulgence. If this were the norm G'd applies to His Torah scholars there would hardly be anyone left alive! You must understand these happenings in light of the fact that G'd already waited for an excuse to gather in the souls of these people to the Celestial Regions. Simltaneously, the very death of such martyrs insures that G'd can delay the retribution which the other people of the martyrs' generation had become guilty of. When we keep this consideration in mind we will better understand that the death of the sons of Aaron was a blessing for the survivors. As far as the public was concerned the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven as demonstrated by the establishment of the Tabernacle and the presence of the שכינה in the Holy of Holies. Aaron's sin-offering on the eighth day of the consecration rites had been the final public step in that rehabilitation. The decree according to which Aaron's sons had to die had therefore been cancelled already. However, the impression this sin had made in the celestial regions had not been erased. It was the residue of that impression which resulted in G'd not guarding the feet of these sons from inadvertently committing a deadly sin as described by the Torah and the various sages.

When we take a long look at all the factors we have just outlined, it is clear that Aaron had not yet been qualified to enter the inner sanctum of the King of Kings had it not been for the death of his two sons serving as atonement for his share in the sin of the golden calf. It was only then that the record of his involvement was erased in the celestial spheres. We can now understand our verse properly. וידבר ה׳ ….בזאת יבא אהרון אל הקדש, "G'd said..only after Aaron has been equipped with this (i.e. the atonement attained through the death of his two sons) Aaron is able to enter the Holy of Holies." The Torah stresses that the two people who died did so in their capacity as בני אהרון, sons of Aaron. This is an allusion to the guilt of their father which had been fully atoned for by their deaths. This also accounts for the fact that G'd did not command Aaron concerning not entering the Sanctuary at will until now. As long as Aaron was not qualified to enter the Sanctuary even when he was to perform a specific task there, there was no point in prohibiting him from entering when he did not have a specific function to perform there. Once the Torah had informed us that the death of the sons of Aaron was linked to the guilt of their father, the Torah also had to inform us that this was not the only reason they died. There were other reasons which were quite unconnected to anything their father had done or had failed to do. Their father's part in their death was limited to G'd having withdrawn His protective supervision from them so that they should not become guilty of inadvertently committing deadly sins. The word בקרבתם לפני השם may be understood as the second cause of their death. Had they not been the sons of Aaron who was still guilty of some involvement in the sin of the golden calf at that time, the fact that they were about to enter the Holy of Holies might not have resulted in their deaths. In view of the fact that even both factors combined would not represent sufficient reason for these people to be guilty of death, G'd added that their closeness to G'd was what made these two priests ideal to serve as a means of glorifying the name of G'd, i.e. בקרובי אקדש. In recognition of the fact that even the two causes mentioned were not sufficient to account for the deaths of Nadav and Avihu at that time, the Torah adds the latter ו at the beginning of the word וימותו, to hint that there was a need for someone to die in order to demonstrate the sacred nature of the Tabernacle and G'd's presence associated with it. G'd felt that He had to demonstrate that anyone who approached this sacred place without specific authority would die. This is why the paragraph dealing with the warning not to enter the Sanctuary at will was legislated here.

Accordingly, we have three factors which combined to cause the death of Nadav and Avihu at that time. 1) The sin of the golden calf, i.e. Aaron's share in it. 2) offering of the incense; 3) the need to demonstrate the sanctity of the Tabernacle through the death of someone who entered it without authority. G'd alluded to all three of these factors when He wrote: אחרי מות שני בני אהרון, i.e. on account of Aaron's sin, בקרבתם, because they approached too closely to the center of holiness; וימותו, because someone had to die to demonstrate לבל יבא...אל הקודש, that neither ordinary people nor the High Priest himself could enter there unbidden. The Torah had to list all three reasons here. 1) Had it not been for the sin of the golden calf these righteous sons of Aaron would certainly have enjoyed sufficient protection from G'd not to allow them to become guilty of such a trespass. 2) The sin of venturing too close to G'd also had to be mentioned as they would never have died on account of their father's sin unless they had been guilty of a sin themselves. 3) The nature of the sanctity of the Tabernacle also had to be recorded here since, if it had not been for this consideration, G'd would not have allowed the joy prevailing over the evidence that His presence had returned to the Jewish people to be disturbed by such a tragic occurrence. He would have waited to let these sons of Aaron die at some later date. It was because G'd wanted to sanctify the Tabernacle on that day that the sons of Aaron died on that day. The need to sanctify the Tabernacle on that day would not have been sufficient reason by itself to let them die then.

In view of all the foregoing we can understand what prompted Moses to tell Aaron that he found out through what happened to Nadav and Avihu that they were men of greater stature than either Aaron or himself (see Torat Kohanim our quote on page 1035). Moses simply found out that had it not been for the sin of Aaron their father, G'd could not have found anything these sons had been guilty of to allow them to die. The same could not have been said of either Moses or Aaron.

If you follow our approach to the whole subject, it is possible to understand Proverbs 22,20: "indeed I wrote down for you threefold learnings and knowledge." There were three causes which combined to result in the deaths of Nadav and Avihu; two of them can be categorised as מועצות, learning, the third one as דעת, knowledge. These are the three aspects which caused the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. It teaches that G'd had not completely forgiven Aaron despite his threefold efforts, i.e. his prayers, his good deeds and his sacrificial offerings. The word מועצות is also an allusion to the failure of G'd to watch over the feet of the righteous so that they should not stumble into sin. This second aspect of מועצות is even more sophisticated than the former one. G'd deliberately failed to forgive Aaron completely so that He would have an excuse to allow Nadav and Aavihu to die.

Another reason why the Torah wrote אחרי מות is connected with the prohibition for Aaron to enter the Holy of Holies dressed in his golden garments (Rosh Hashanah 26) as the accuser (reminder of the gold of the golden calf) could not function as counsel for defense at the same time. The Torah was concerned that we might reason that the prohibition to wear his golden garments was applicable only as long as the last vestiges of Aaron's sin had not yet been erased in the celestial regions. I might have thought that as soon as his sons died and had thereby achieved atonement for their father's remaining vestiges of sin, Aaron would be allowed into the Holy of Holies even while wearing his golden garments. The Torah had to tell us that even after the deaths of his two sons Aaron could still not wear his golden garments in the Holy of Holies. All he was to wear when entering that part of the Sanctuary was כתנת בד קדש ילבש, "a holy linen tunic, etc." While it is true that our sages in Erchin 16 mention that the golden garments performed a function in the atonement process, the gold could not atone sufficiently for the sins to become completely "snow white." Please read what I have written in my commentary on Shabbat 30 what Solomon had in mind when he said "remember the kindness of David Your servant" (Chronicles II 6,42). [I have not seen the author's comment, but I presume that although David had tried to obtain forgiveness by all the means at his disposal, it was not until the prayer of his son Solomon that G'd erased the last vestiges of his sin. The Talmud is on record that the gates of the Sanctuary had refused to open for Solomon until he completed this prayer. Ed.]

When the Torah mentions the cause of death as בקרבתם לפני השם, this is meant to free Moses from the suspicion that his own prayer on behalf of Aaron at the time of the golden calf episode had been unsuccessful. The Torah had mentioned Moses's prayer on behalf of Aaron in Deut. 9.20. Moses himself may have been under the allusion that his prayer had not elicited the desired response. G'd told him therefore that these sons did not die because of Aaron's sin alone, i.e. Aaron's guilt had been reduced to a level where he would not be punished by the death of his sons. Moses' prayer had been effective enough to reduce Aaron's guilt and save his sons. Once we accept this approach we need not say that Moses' prayer was effective only 50% and that instead of all four of Aaron's sons having to die only two of them died (compare Vayikra Rabbah 10,5). None of them had to die were it not for the fact that two of them had become guilty of a sin of their own. What the Midrash meant was that since eventually two of Aaron's sons died at the hands of G'd this was proof that Moses' prayer was only partially effective. We measure the effectiveness of a prayer by its ultimate outcome, not by the short-term reprieve it may afford a sinner.

וימותו, they died; Perhaps G'd had informed Moses that these two sons of Aaron had committed the sin of approaching too closely or offering incense using man-made fire while they had already been guilty of death due to a sin committed by their father when G'd had become angry at Aaron. Had it not been for this, G'd might have stretched His patience so that they would not have died immediately for the sin committed now. If they had escaped death until that moment it had only been due to the prayer of Moses on behalf of Aaron at the time.

Another approach to the word וימותו focuses on the nature of these sons' deaths rather than on the fact of their deaths. The Torah writes: בקרבתם לפני השם, to describe that due to their love for G'd these people came too near the celestial source of light which has a deadly effect on man. This is the mystical dimension of what is commonly known as "death by Divine kiss," the kind of death experienced by both Aaron and Moses eventually. The deaths of Nadav and Avihu were similar to the death of all other completely righteous men. The only difference was that in the case of the deaths of people such as Moses and Aaron G'd's "kiss of death" approaches them, whereas in this case Nadav and Avihu approached "the kiss of death."

This is the meaning of the extra letter ו in בקרבתם לפני ה׳ ו־ימותו. The Torah alludes to the fact that though these righteous people felt that they were approaching an area which would result in this "kiss of death" they did not flinch and kept getting closer. They attained a state of religious intoxication. The desire of their souls to fuse with the divine was so overpowering that they no longer made decisions in which their powers of conscious perception were involved. If we were to evaluate part of the emotional process these people underwent, perhaps the following may help. There are times when certain people feel such an overpowering hatred for someone that they will abandon all restraining influences in the desire to exercise their revenge even while they are subconsciously aware that they are forfeiting their very lives by the act of revenge. This may be the mystical dimension of what appears as licentious behaviour by prophets in Samuel I 19. There is a mystifying verse in Samuel I 19,24 which tells of Saul's pursuit of David and the religious experiences first experienced by the messengers despatched to capture David who at that time was in the proximity of the prophet Samuel and other prophets. All the messengers are reported as being overcome by an aura of religious experiences of these prophets. Eventually, the same happened to Saul himself. He is described as having divested himself of his clothing and remained naked [symbol of the desire to abandon the restrictions imposed on man by his body, Ed.] for a whole day in the presence of the prophet Samuel. Perhaps that verse affords us an inkling of the result of overpowering emotions of hatred. When we think of the other extreme of man's emotional range, his love for his source, i.e. his Creator, and the overpowering desire to be united with that source, we may have an inkling of what possessed Nadav and Avihu at the time. Basically speaking, we are dealing with the natural abhorrence each soul has for the need to be imprisoned inside a mere body. It is always the soul's desire to escape this body. Nadav and Avihu's souls experienced such an urge in an unusual manner. [At this point the author describes how a person may arrive at progressively purer insights due to his mind's ability to triumph over the impeding element of self, ego. Eventually, such a person will view "life" itself in an entirely new light such as hinted at by Moses in Deut. 30 19 when he exhorts the Jewish people to "choose life." The letter ב at the beginning of the word ב־חיים, is understood to refer to a life devoid of what he calls הרגש הכללי, emotions felt by all normal human beings. The author blesses the Lord for having granted selected individuals the ability to rise to such spiritual heights. Ed.]

There is yet another approach to our problem based on Torat Kohanim which quotes a Baraitha in Yuma 53."Rabbi Eliezer says: ולא ימות עונש, כי בענן אראה אזהרה; יכול קודם מיתת בני אהרון, תלמוד לומר אחרי מות; יכול שניהם אחר מיתת בני אהרון, תלמוד לומר אראה. הא כיצד אזהרה קודם, מיתה אחר כך. "The words: 'so that he shall not die," are the penalty for entering; 'for I will be visible through the cloud is the warning;' I might have thought that this warning was issued prior to the deaths of the sons of Aaron; hence the Torah writes: 'after the death.' How did it all work? The warning was issued before, the death followed afterwards." The Talmud there enquires what we are to learn from Rabbi Eliezer's statement. Rava says that the expression אראה is a future tense, and that the Torah speaks of something that had not yet occurred, i.e. the cloud had not yet enveloped the Tabernacle (Leviticus 9,23). Accordingly, the sons of Aaron who are reported to have offered incense did so after the cloud had already appeared on that very day (Leviticus 10,1) and they were killed before a penalty had been decreed for this by the Torah. Keeping this in mind, we have to explain our verse here as follows: אחרי מות, after the death, etc.; G'd does not want you to think that the fact that the Torah records the prohibition to enter the Holy of Holies at will except when the High Priest was equipped with the cloud of incense was a belated warning, and that the sons of Aaron died for not heeding it. It says in 10,1 that "the sons of Aaron each took a censer with incense and placed fire on it, etc." The fact is the sons of Aaron had not been warned not to enter the Holy of Holies. This leaves us with the question why they had to die. The Torah therefore had to inform us that these deaths were not just a legal matter, a penalty which anyone else who had done the same thing would also have been subject to. The reason that the sons of Aaron died when attempting to enter the Holy of Holies was because בקרבם לפני ה׳, they attempted to draw too near to G'd. Seeing that they considered themselves as fit to be so close to G'd, G'd applied a more stringent yardstick when judging their behaviour. This is why a minor misdemeanour was treated as if it were a major sin. The Torah alluded to this with the additional letter ו in the word וימותו, i.e. there was an additional factor which contributed to their deaths.

We find the following comment in Torat Kohanim concerning the words: "speak to Aaron, etc;" we do not know what G'd had said to Moses in the previous verse (verse 1). Rabbi Eleazer ben Azaryah used to say that this could be explained by a parable. A physician comes to a patient and tells him not to eat cold food and not to lie on wet moss. Later on another physician enters the room of that patient and tells him not to eat cold food or to lie down on wet moss else he would die just as so-and-so has died. The comment of the second physicain made a more powerful impression on the patient than the instruction of the first physician. We must understand why these instructions were issued in this order. Besides, why does Torat Kohanim not simply commence the comment with the words: "Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah said, etc.?"

It appears that Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah did not address the problem of the warning itself but the problem of why the warning coupled with the threat of death for ignoring it was so much delayed that G'd issued it to Aaron only in our portion instead of in chapter 9, and why he compared it to the parable with the physician. Normally, a physician who wants to impress his patient mentions that failure to adhere to his instructions has already cost patients' lives. The physician of the Jewish people, i.e. G'd, did just this when He issued His instructions to Aaron in this instance. Until the sons of Aaron died G'd had not been in a position to accompany His warning with an example of the consequences of not heeding it. Torat Kohanim therefore quoted Rabbi Eleazar who also answered the question why the same warning had to be issued a second time. We have a rule in the Talmud that there are occasions when a scholar who explains a problem does so by means of an answer without his having spelled out the question first. In our case the unspoken question was what G'd had told Moses in verse 1. We now understand that in the first verse G'd told Moses why these sons of Aaron had died though their quest had been to draw near to Him. Now G'd told Moses to warn Aaron that the same could happen to him even if he did not bring strange fire or incense at a time he was not authorised to enter the Holy of Holies. He should remember what happened to his two sons.

I have seen a further statement at the end of the Baraitha containing Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah's statement that the last of the warnings had achieved the greatest effect. This is why the Torah said: "speak to your brother Aaron that he shall not enter, etc. If he would enter he would die." Mention is made there of Exodus 4,14 where G'd had told Moses that his brother Aaron would be very happy about his appointment. Here G'd also told Moses to say to "your brother Aaron" as if we did not know that Aaron was Moses' brother. Moses was supposed to frighten Aaron so that he should not share the fate of his sons. The whole reason that Moses was to warn him was that seeing he was his brother, plus the fact that Moses was not forbidden to enter this would be difficult for Aaron to accept. The problem with all this is that Torat Kohanim had already used the word אחיך as including Aaron's other sons in the prohibition as I have mentioned earlier.

I believe the intent behind that statement is clear from its position in the chapter. It is peculiar that G'd told Moses to warn Aaron not to die as had his sons before he had even told him of the prohibition to enter the Holy of Holies at will (verse 2). We would have expected such a warning to follow on the heels of the prohibition not to enter the Tabernacle at will. The fact that Moses isssued the warning earlier indicates that the basis of the warning was nothing but brotherly concern for Aaron. This is why Torat Kohanim made reference to Exodus 4,14 where the brotherly relations between Moses and Aaron have been stressed. At that time G'd had indicated to Moses that Aaron would become the High Priest and Moses had not minded (Zevachim 102). At the same time Aaron had rejoiced when he saw that his younger brother had been chosen to be leader of the people. When G'd suggested that Moses tell Aaron about the danger of entering the Holy of Holies, He meant for Moses to demonstrate his concern for Aaron's well being.

We may interpret the additional letter ו in the words ואל יבא as a warning that Aaron should take care that what happened to his sons would not happen to him. The words ולא ימות then are a continuation of that warning.

I have seen in the commentary of Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi that according to the interpretation of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah there were three kinds of warnings [according to a variant reading in Torat Kohanim. Ed.] The Rabbi is at pains to reconcile the various verses according to the viewpoint of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah. According to my own point of view, all Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah was concerned with was what G'd had said to Moses in verse 1 where the Torah did not elaborate on the content of G'd's communication to Moses. He arrived at the conclusion that in that communication G'd advised Moses to tell Aaron that if he would violate His instructions he would die just as his sons had died. Moses was troubled by the fact that G'd had not merely told him to warn Aaron not to enter on pain of death but had added that he would die "just as his sons had died." This is why Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah related the parable illustrating the point. Rabbi Eleazar related the story as involving three physicians, not just one or two. Each physician added an additional element of urgency to the warning expressed by the previous physician. According to Rabbi Eleazar, G'd was the physician who was the most persuasive in His warning when He said the patient should take care not to die as had so-and-so before him. According to the explanation offered by Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, G'd did not compare to either of the three physicians mentioned by Rabbi Eleazar. According to him the first and second physicians did not draw a comparison with another patient, whereas the third physician did mention death already during his first warning, something which is not applicable to G'd who had not warned Aaron in that manner until the third warning. [I do not bother to add the additional criticism levelled by our author against the interpretation offered by Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi. Ed.]