Midrash su Levitico 16:6

1) (Vayikra 16:15) ("And he shall slaughter the he-goat of the sin-offering which is the people's, and he shall bring its blood inside the curtain; and he shall do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and he shall sprinkle it upon the ark cover and before the ark cover."): "And he shall slaughter the he-goat of the sin-offering which is the people's": His fellow Cohanim are not to receive atonement through it. And through what is this atonement effected? Through the bullock of their brothers. I might think that their atonement is not effected through that of their brothers, it being written (Vayikra 16:6) ("the bullock) which is his" (Aaron's), which implies that they do not have atonement through it. But (Vayikra 16:33) "And for the Cohanim and for the entire people of the congregation he shall make atonement" indicates that they do have atonement. Through what, then, is this atonement effected? It is better that they have atonement through the bullock of their brother Cohanim — For we find that part of the criterion ("which is his" [i.e., Aaron's] Vayikra 16:6) was separated (from the literal "his"), finding as we do that (both) he and his family receive atonement through it — than that they receive atonement through the bullock of the congregation, where we find no such separation from the criterion. And, if you will, it may be derived thus (Vayikra 16:6) "And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering which is his, and he shall make atonement for himself and for his household," and they (the Cohanim) are (part of) the household of Aaron, as it is written (Tehillim 235:19): "House of Aaron (i.e., the Cohanim) — Bless the L–rd!"

2) "and one ram for a burnt-offering": Rebbi said: The "one ram" mentioned here is the same as that mentioned in Bamidbar (Bamidbar 29:9). R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: They are two rams, one mentioned here, and one in Bamidbar. (Vayikra 16:6) "And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering which is his.": He shall not bring it from community (funds). I might think that he does not bring it from the community because it does not atone for the community, but that he may bring it from his fellow Cohanim, whom it does atone for. It is, therefore, written again "which is his" (Vayikra 16:11). I might think he should not bring it ab initio, but if he did, it is valid. It is, therefore, written again (Vayikra 16:11) "which is his." (Vayikra 16:6) "and he shall make atonement for himself and for his household. This is verbal atonement. But perhaps (it is speaking of) atonement through (the sprinkling of) the blood. (This cannot be, for) it "atonement" is written here, and it is written in respect to the (sent-away) he-goat. Just as the "atonement" there is verbal confession, so the "atonement" of the bullock is verbal.

(Lev. 16:1:) “After the death of Aaron's two sons.” It was taught in a baraita in the name of R. Eliezer:³⁷In y‘Eruv. 6:1 (31c); yGit. 1:2 (39c); ‘Eruv. 63b. Nadab and Abihu died only because they had taught halakhah in the presence of their master, Moses.³⁸Lev. R. 20:7; PRK 26(27):6/7; yShevi. 6:1 (36c); yGit. 1:2 (43c). There is a story about a disciple that taught halakhah before his master. So his colleague said to his wife, Mamma Shalom, “This man will not live out the year.” And indeed he did not live out the year. His disciples said to him, “O our master, are you a prophet?” He said to them (in the words of Amos 7:14), “’I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet.’ Rather this was handed down to me from my masters, ‘Whoever teaches halakhah in the presence of his master is under sentence of death.’” According to a baraita a disciple is forbidden to teach halakhah in the presence of his master until he is twelve mil³⁹Lat.: mille, i.e., a “thousand” paces. away from him, [a distance] corresponding to the [extent of] the camp of Israel.⁴⁰Lev. R. 20:7. This is what is written (in Numb. 33:49), “They encamped by the Jordan from Beth-Jeshimoth as far as Abel-Shittim.” R. Nahum bar Jeremiah was in [Hefer]. They would ask him, and he would teach. They said to him, “Rabbi, have we not learned thus: A student is forbidden to teach halakhah in the presence of his master until he is twelve mil away from him, [a distance] corresponding to the camp of Israel? And your master, R. Mani, dwells in Sepphoris.” He said to them, “Surely if I had known [of his presence], I would not have taught.” From that time on he did not teach [there]. In four places [Scripture] mentions the death of Aaron's sons,⁴¹In Lev. 10:2-3; 16:1; Numb. 3:4; 26:61. and it also mentions their transgression. And why all this?⁴²PRK 26(27):8; Lev. R. 20:8; Numb. R. 2:24. To inform you that they had only this sin on their hands. R. Eleazar of Modim said, “Go out and see how grievous the death of Aaron's sons was for the Holy One, blessed be He; for in every place that [Scripture] mentions their death, it mentions their transgression. And why all this? So as not to give those who come into the world a pretext for saying, ‘Disgraceful acts were secretly done by them, because of which they died.’” Bar Qappara said in the name of R. Jeremiah bar Eleazar, “Aaron's sons died because of four things: For the drawing near, for the sacrificing, for alien fire, and for not taking advice from each other.⁴³Numb. R. 2:23. For drawing near, in that they entered the innermost sanctuary. For the sacrificing, in that they offered a sacrifice, which they had not been commanded [to offer]. For alien fire, in that they had brought fire from a cookhouse (instead of from off the altar). And for not taking advice from each other.” R. Mani of Sha'av and R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “Aaron's sons died because of four things, and [a sentence of] death is recorded in connection with all of them.⁴⁴PRK 26 (27):9; Lev. R. 20:9. Because they entered without washing hands and feet, and it says (in Exod. 30:20), ‘When they come unto the tent of meeting, they shall wash with water lest they die.’ Because they entered while lacking [the proper priestly] clothes, and it says (in Exod. 28:43), ‘And they shall be upon Aaron and his sons in their coming to the tent of meeting….’” And what did they lack? R. Levi said, “They were lacking a robe, and [a sentence of] death is recorded in connection with [that lack], where it is stated (in Exod. 28:35), ‘And it (the robe with golden bells and pomegranates) shall be upon Aaron for officiating, so that the sound of it shall be heard, [when he comes into the sanctuary]… [lest he die].’” “And because they had no children, and [a sentence of] death is recorded in connection with [that lack], where it is stated (in Numb. 3:4), ‘But Nadab and Abihu died…; and they had no children.’ Because they entered and had drunk wine, and it says (in Lev. 10:9), ‘Drink no wine or intoxicating liquor… lest you die.’” Abba Hanin says, “Because they had no wives, and it is recorded (in Lev. 16:6), ‘and he shall make atonement for himself and for his household.’” R. Levi said, “They had a lot of arrogance and were saying, ‘Which woman is worthy of us?’⁴⁵Lev. R. 20:10; below, Lev. 6:13. A lot of women were remaining unmarried and waiting for them. But they were saying, ‘Our father’s brother is king, our father is high priest, our mother's brother is prince, [and] we are deputy high priests. Which woman is worthy of us?’” R. Menahama [said] in the name of R. Joshua bar Hanina, “[It is] about them [that] it says (in Ps. 78:63), ‘Fire devoured their young men, and their maidens had no nuptial song.’ Why had fire devoured their young men? Because of their maidens, who had no nuptial song.” And moreover, [their arrogance may be inferred] from this (i.e., from Exod. 24:1), “Then He said unto Moses, ‘Go up unto the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu.’” This teaches that Moses and Aaron walked first, while Nadab and Abihu came after them; but still they were saying, “When will these two old men die, and we shall assume authority over the community in their place?”⁴⁶See below, Lev. 6:13. R. Judan said in the name of R. Ayyevu, “They said it to each other with their mouths, they said it in front of [Moshe and Aharon].” R. Pinhas said, “They pondered it in their hearts.” R. Berekhyah said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them (in Prov. 27:1), ‘Do not boast of tomorrow, since you do not know what will be born today’; a lot of colts have died, and their skins have been made into coverings for their mothers’ backs.” And in addition [their transgression may be inferred] from this (i.e., from Exod. 24:11), “But He (i.e., the Holy One, blessed be He,) still did not raise His hand against the nobles of the Children of Israel.” From here [it follows] that they deserved to have a hand raised [against them]. R. Hosha'ya said, “Did cellaria⁴⁷The word is Latin. (i.e., provisions) go up with them to Sinai, since it says (ibid., cont.), ‘they beheld God, [and they ate and drank]?’ It is simply that they feasted their eyes on the Divine Presence. [Hence they were] like someone who beholds his colleague in the midst of eating and drinking.” R. Johanan said, “[There was] actual eating [and drinking], since it is written (in Prov. 16:15), ‘In the light of the king's face there is life; His favor is like a rain cloud in spring.’” R. Tanhuma said, “[Exod. 24:11] teaches that they became bold in their hearts and stood on their feet, [while] they feasted their eyes on the Divine Presence.” R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “Moses did not feast his eyes on the Divine Presence, as stated (in Exod. 3:6), ‘Moses hid his face….’ In reward for (Exodus 3:6, cont.) ‘and he feared,’ he merited (Exod. 34:30), ‘and they feared to approach him’; in reward for (Exodus 3:6, cont.) ‘from gazing,’ he merited (Numbers 12:8) ‘and he gazed [at] the picture of the Lord’; in reward for ‘Moses hid his face,’ he merited (Exod. 34:30), ‘and behold, his skin of his face shone.‘ But Nadav and Avihu feasted their eyes on the Divine Presence, but did not benefit from the Divine Presence.” And in addition, [the boldness of Aaron's sons may be inferred] from this (i.e., from Numb. 3:4), “But Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord […].” R. Johanan, said, “Was it before the Lord that they died? [The verse] simply teaches that it is grievous for the Omnipresent when children of righteous people pass away during their [parents'] lifetime.” R. Nahman asked in front of R. Pinhas bar Hama beRabbi Simon, “Here (Numb. 3:40), ‘before the Lord’ [occurs] two times. But later (I Chronicles 24:2), ‘in the presence of their father’ [occurs only] one time.” It is simply that it teaches that it was twice as grievous for the Holy One, blessed be He, as for their father. (Numb. 4:3:) “In the Sinai Desert.” R. Meir said, “Did they die in the Sinai Desert? It is simply that from Mount Sinai they received their sentence of death.⁴⁸Their death actually took place at the Tent of Meeting. [The situation is comparable] to a king who was marrying off his daughter, when there was found something obscene in his bridal agent.⁴⁹Gk.: syskenos (“comrade”). The king said, ‘If I kill him now, I shall impede my daughter's joy. Tomorrow my joy is coming, and I will kill him. It is better [to kill him] during my own joyous celebration, and not during my daughter's joyous celebration.’ Similarly the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘If I kill Nadab and Abihu now, I shall impede the joyous celebration of the Torah. Tomorrow My own joyous celebration is coming. It is better [to kill them] during My own joyous celebration, and not during the joyous celebration of the Torah.’ This is what is written (in Cant. 3:11), ‘on his wedding day,’ i.e., the day of the giving of Torah; ‘in the day of his joyful heart,’ i.e., in the tent of meeting.”