Comentário sobre Levítico 10:25

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.

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

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.

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.

.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.”

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

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.

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)

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.”

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

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.

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.⁵³Exodus 30:1. 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,⁵⁴Verse 1. 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),⁵⁵Deuteronomy 33:10. See following note. and they directed their thoughts only to this,⁵⁶In quoting the language of Ramban, Menachem of Ricanti adds the following explanatory note: “Know that the incense is offered towards the attribute of justice, as it is said, they shall put incense ‘b’apecha’ (literally: ‘before Thy anger’). It is for this reason that the burning of incense stays the plague. (Numbers 17:11-15). However, the priest who offered it had to direct his mind to the perfect Unity of G-d. And since Nadab and Abihu directed it only to the attribute of justice (see Note 58), therefore they were punished.” See further, my Hebrew commentary p. 46. and thus it was not a fire-offering of a sweet savor.⁵⁷Above, 1:9, etc. This is the sense of the expression, and they laid ‘aleha’ (upon her) incense.⁵⁸Verse 1. The word aleha (upon her) is an allusion to the attribute of justice. 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,⁵⁹Numbers 16:7. and again it is said there, and put incense upon them.⁶⁰Ibid., Verse 17. 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,⁶¹Exodus 30:9. 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,⁶²Further, 16: 1. which means “when they offered l’phanav they died.”⁶³I.e., when they offered the incense l’phanav alone [to the attribute of justice alone, as explained above] they died.

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 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.

Only because they rendered. This raises a difficulty: There is no [liability for] punishment without a warning! I will answer this difficulty in the next comment.

'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.

And they died in the presence of Adonoy. The Attribute of Justice immediately struck them down because they were before Hashem in the palace of the King, the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He.

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 did not stop there, but travelled beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary to the copper altar in front of the Sanctuary and consumed these two sons of Aaron there.

And strange fire went out from before God and consumed them This is the same fire from and fire went out from before God and consumed on the altar (Vayikra 9:24 - the preceding verse) as it is said in Sifrei Zuta, and so explains the Rambam: that the fire didn't descend specifically to kill Nadav and Avihu. It was just that they weren't careful not to enter at that moment, and when the fire descended it killed them, and it was like an accident. But regardless, they sinned, since they should have paid attention to this since on that day they shouldn't have brought fire of their own accord, even though on other days this was one of their duties to bring it, as it is said above And the sons of Aharon the Priest put fire on the altar (Vayikra 1:7). And so said the Holy Blessed One: "In My close ones I will be made holy" (Vayikra 10:3) - for those who are accustomed to come near Them need to be careful and separated, so that they do not act out of custom, as it says in Yeshayahu 29:13, "[their fear of Me is like] the commandment of men learned by rote". And this is as it says in Sanhedrin 52a, "burning the soul but the body remains [intact]". Measure for measure, for Nadav and Avihu acted seemingly according to halacha, only they didn't pay attention to what the Holy Blessed One required of them at that moment. For this reason, they were burnt within (the seat of the intellect and reason), and their bodies remained externally whole.

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

Intoxicated with wine they entered. [According to this] the explanation of “which He had not commanded them” is not the reason for their deaths. Rather, it only informs that they volunteered themselves to bring the incense, and not that He commanded them, as He had commanded Aharon (9:2): “Take, for yourself, a young calf...” And the explanation of (16:1): “[After the death of two sons of Aharon] in their coming close (בקרבתם),” is: At the time of their bringing an offering, and not that they had died because of [using] a strange fire. Rather, the main reason for their death was because they were intoxicated with wine. If it were not that Hashem wanted to be sanctified by means of Nodov and Avihu, they would not have died now, even though death had already been decreed upon them at the time they peered [See Shemos 24:11, Rashi there: “They envisioned Hashem.” They (Nodov and Avihu) gazed at Him insolently while engaged in eating and drinking]. Similarly, they would not have died on this day which was a joyous occasion for Israel, if they had not rendered a halachic decision on this day. (See more about this in the following). Gur Aryeh answers that [although death was already decreed at the time of Matan Torah] since Hashem’s anger passes, as it is written (Yishayahu 26:20): “Hide for almost a moment, until the anger passes,” and since that anger had passed, another cause was necessary to be liable for death. Re’m poses another difficulty: They were liable for death from the time of the Golden Calf, as punishment for Aharon, and Moshe’s prayer only helped for half the decree — that two [of Aharon’s four] sons would die [see Rashi 10:12]. Nachalas Yaakov answers: According to the assumption that Aharon’s sons would die solely for the sin of the Golden Calf, Elozor and Isomor should have died, for they were presumably less righteous than, and they did not have as much merit as, Nodov and Avihu. Gur Aryeh answers: We find concerning the wicked that if they continue the deeds of their forefathers, Hashem punishes them for their forefathers’ deeds, so too, concerning a completely righteous person. If his son does any sin, Hashem punishes him for the deeds of his father, and if the son does not sin at all, Hashem does not bring the sin of the righteous man upon the son. This [concept] necessitates that when the sons sin, it is added to the forefathers’ sins and then the sons are punished even for the sin of the forefathers. [Thus,] the sin of the sons together [with the sin of the forefathers] causes the punishment. See Kitzur Mizrachi where he brings additional views: Rabbi Yossi HaGelili said: For drawing close, in which they entered the innermost (Holy of Holies) they died. Rabbi Akiva said: For drawing close, in that they brought a strange fire they died. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: Because of both reasons they died. Bar Kappara said in the name of Rabbi Yirmeyah ben Eliezer: Because of four things they died: 1) For coming close, 2) for the offering that they brought without being commanded, 3) for the strange fire, a fire from the Beis HaKirayim (house of ovens), and 4) because they did not ask advice from one another.

'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.]

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, 1718) 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.

'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;

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. Not only that. They were moved while still wearing their garments which had not been burned by the heavenly fire. Apparently, their cousins hooked their spears into the outer garments and dragged them until they were outside the sacred parts of the Tabernacle.

‎‎ '‏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).

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).⁶⁴Exodus 29:43. 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 holier⁶⁵In Rashi: “greater.” 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’⁶⁴Exodus 29:43. 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.⁶⁶Amos 3:2. 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,⁶⁷Ecclesiastes 1:16. means “I reflected on this thought.” And this is ‘hadavar’ that Joshua did circumcise,⁶⁸Joshua 5:4. means “this is ‘the cause’ why Joshua did so.” ‘Al d’var’ (because of) the money.⁶⁹Genesis 43:18. Similarly, And let her be thy master’s son’s wife, as the Eternal hath spoken,⁷⁰Ibid., 24:51. 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.⁷¹I Kings 16:34. Here too, it does not mean “which G-d spoke,” since we nowhere find that He did say so, but “which He decreed.” Cf. the words of Joshua (Joshua 6:26). 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.”

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?

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.

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. בקרןבי, from becoming guilty of an unforgivable trespass, i.e. their ruining His sanctity.

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”).

That they are greater than I or you. The difficulty is raised: Perhaps the sanctification needed to be with both of them [Nodov and Avihu], for one of them would not be sufficient, and the two of them together were greater. Thus, two were needed, and they were better than Moshe alone or Aharon alone. How does Rashi know they were greater than Moshe and Aharon together? Another difficulty: How could Moshe make such a big mistake in thinking that he and Aharon were greater than them, and yet [in truth] Nodov and Avihu were greater? It would be enough if Moshe thought that they were all equal, and he erred in [only] one level? It seems [that the answer is:] It is written: “בקרובי אקדש (through those that are near me I shall be sanctified),” and בקרובי with a pasach is in the plural form. Moshe thought that they were all equal in goodness, and he said: I had known that the Temple would be sanctified with those singled out as special (במיודעיו) by the Omnipresent, and במיודעיו is in the plural form. I.e., two pairs are in the matter of “בקרובי אקדש” which is plural. If so, I thought: either me, and one of them, or you, and one of them, since we are all equal. But now that He did not want any of us, I see that they are greater than me or you (Rav Yaakov Trivash).

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 that is what God meant in saying, by My close ones I will be sanctified. And an explanation is that God said this in the portion of the high priest, in Parashat Emor, where it is written concerning the high priest: (Leviticus 21:11) "neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother;" and it is written, "[he] shall not suffer the hair of his head to grow long, nor rend his clothes;" (Leviticus 21:10). And this is, "by My close ones I will be sanctified." God is honoured by the high priests -- who are God's close ones -- that no mourning practices are found among them. And in this is "And gain glory before all the people" (Leviticus 10:3); "I will be glorified." And so for the children of Aharon, although they are ordinary priests, say then, since they are anointed first, behold they are like high priests today. And it is possible to explain, "this is what God meant in saying" as if to say, so thinks God: I will be revenged on these, since they are My close ones, and I will be sanctified and glorified in front of all the people, since they will learn from an a fortiori argument about themselves. Meaning, if God is so revenged on God's close ones when they transgress, how much more so should we fear the same. And when Aharon heard that they were the close ones of God, he was silent and was comforted. And our rabbis have explained that they taught halacha in the presence of their rabbi, or they were drunk on wine, "and that is what God meant in saying" when it said, "I will be sanctified in My honour" (Exodus 29:43).

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 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, on occasion. Ed.]

‎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).

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.

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.

He received a reward. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “and Aharon was silent”? What could he have said about the decrees of Hashem? Could he challenge Hashem? With regard to this Rashi explains: He received a reward for his silence, i.e., for this reason it is written, “and [Aharon] was silent,” because he received a reward for his silence, for this reason Scripture writes, “and [Aharon] was silent.” Rashi reverses the order and explains “and Aharon was silent” before “through those that are near Me” in order to inform why Aharon was silent. Because he heard that his sons were Heaven fearing, near to, and singled out as special by Hashem. Therefore, he was silent. So, too, it is in the Midrash Rabboh (Gur Aryeh). The reason Rashi reverses the order is to prove why Aharon received reward for his silence. This is because in the natural order of things one who consoles does not praise the departed person in the presence of his relatives. On the contrary, they say words that are not painful to the mourner, such as we find concerning the daughter of R. Shmuel bar Yehudah (Bava Metzia 38a), where they told him that if something good was destined to come from her she would not have died. But here Moshe praised the departed ones in front of Aharon, [saying] that they were closer to Hashem than them. Aharon, then, should have intensified his crying, nevertheless, he was silent. Therefore, he was worthy of good reward (Divrei Dovid).

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.

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).⁷²Lamentations 2:18. Here then the meaning would be: “and Aaron ceased to shed tears.” According to the first interpretation, he was silent, not crying out aloud, but he still shed tears. But according to the second interpretation he was calmed completely.

Through those that are near me I shall be sanctified. Hashem keeps two extremes with the righteous: One is that He is more exact with the righteous than with their contemporaries, and the second is that He punishes them even for the slightest mistake. Thereby, when the righteous are punished, all those of lesser stature will formulate a kal vechomer — if they were punished, then we, of lesser stature, how much more so! If Hashem would punish an average man or if He would punish a righteous man only for a big sin, people would not be able to learn this kal vechomer. Moshe concluded that Hashem’s message could only reach everyone if Nodov and Avihu were greater than both Moshe and Aharon, as Rashi writes. For if not, those that were greater would say that no punishment will reach them, and only those of lesser stature would take the message to heart, and even those equal to them would not be reproved, as each one will mistakenly think he is greater than his fellow. Consequently, “in the presence of the entire people I will be glorified” can only be fulfilled through someone that everyone admits is the greatest of the generation.

ועל פני כל העם אכבד, “and I will be honoured in the presence of the whole nation.” They will all be witness to how and where and why Aaron’s sons had died.

בקרבי IN THEM THAT COME NEAR UNTO ME — i. e. in My chosen ones.

וידום אהרן, he desisted from his mourning, did not weep and did not perform rites of the mourning.

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)!”

To him alone. I.e., [“To him, alone”] implies two [rewards]. Because of his silence he merited that he heard directly the Divine command which he had not been privileged until now. This is because: “[Rabbi Yehudah says:] Thirteen instances of ‘speaking’ are recorded in the Torah [directed] to Moshe and Aharon, and thirteen exclusions corresponding to them, [in order] to teach you that they were not said to Aharon but to Moshe, for him to tell Aharon” [see Rashi 1:1]. Furthermore, he merited that this section was said to him alone, and he did not share with Moshe, so that it would not seem that because of Moshe’s merit he heard the Divine command. Thus, it goes well even according to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehudah, who is cited by Rashi above at the beginning of Vayikro.

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. Moses said that now he understood הוא, i.e. "it," the "it" being what G'd had told him about being sanctified by men of stature. As to the meaning of the word לאמור, Moses now understood that when G'd had told him that He would be sanctified ונקדש בכבודי, you may understand this as לאמור, "to say," בקרובי אקדש. This takes care of the various problems in the text we have raised. There remains the difficulty why Moses had failed to communicate the concept of בקרובי אקדש sooner. We also need to understand the deeper meaning of why-according to Torat Kohanim -Moses did not practice his customary humility when saying to Aaron: "I thought G'd referred either to me or to you." We would have expected Moses to have said: "I thought G'd referred to either you or me." Why did he mention himself first?

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)

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).

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.

Exalted. See Kitzur Mizrachi as to why Rashi did not give this explanation on the phrase “בקרובי אקדש (through those that are near Me I shall be sanctified)” since he brings the proof from the verse (Tehillim 68:36): “נורא אלקים ממקדשיך (“You are awesome, O God, from Your Sanctuaries).”

We have to remember that we are dealing with an event which contained two vastly different elements. 1) The lesson that Nadav and Avihu were men of great stature. 2) The fact that they died while in the process of committing a sin. When Moses told Aaron that he had understood what G'd had meant when He spoke about being sanctified by men of great stature, men close to Him, he did not necessarily refer to the first element. If Moses had only related to G'd having spoken about people of great stature being the ones by means of whom He would be sanctified, the fact that he mentioned himself first would indeed have to be interpreted as somewhat presumptuous. However, seeing that Moses added that he had now become aware that G'd had considered Nadav and Avihu as greater than himself or even Aaron, it became clear that Moses had not meant to be presumptuous at all. Also, if the major aspect of Moses' new understanding had been who was supposed to be the victim in terms of giving up his life so that G'd would be glorified, it would hardly have been appropriate for Moses to volunteer this honour for Aaron. This is why he mentioned himself first. On the contrary, when one speaks of a possible tragedy befalling either oneself or the person with whom one discusses such an eventuality, good manners require that one mentions oneself as a possible victim first. Moses phrased the whole matter as something concerning which he had previously entertained some doubt.

There remains the difficulty that according to what Moses told Aaron only one person had to die in order to demonstrate to the people that G'd is sanctified by someone close to Him. Why did both sons die? After all, according to Moses' own words he had only been in doubt which one would be the victim. He never considered that there could be two or more victims to demonstrate the point G'd wanted to make. Besides, whence did Moses know that Nadav and Avihu were of greater stature than either Aaron or himself? Seeing that G'd had mentioned one person as dying, it is plausible that that one person was of greater stature than either Moses or Aaron. Why would I assume that both were greater? In fact it seems strange that two had to take the place of one, i.e. either Moses or Aaron? If so they were not greater than Moses or Aaron individually. One can certainly not argue that in this case Solomon's rule (Kohelet 4,9) applies that טובים השנים מן האחד, "that two are better than one?"

I believe what Torat Kohanim had in mind is that when G'd said to Moses ונקדש בכבודי that the Tabernacle would be sanctified by a person who is considered as of great stature by Me (G'd), Moses realised that one of the צדיקים, righteous persons, would die. However, he assumed that according to the plain meaning of the words that G'd referred to an outstandingly righteous person (singular). This was the reason he was not sure whether the victim would be either himself or Aaron. Now that he saw that two men had died he re-evaluated the meaning of what G'd had told him. He now realised that when G'd had spoken about ונקדש בכבודי, the meaning was not that it required a single person whose death would confer glory on G'd and the Taberncale, but that G'd had referred to something of a more comprehenive nature. This is why Moses re-phrased what G'd had told him and he said to Aaron בקרובי אקדש, "by means of those who are close to Me (plural) I will be sanctified." He added that G'd had said: ועל פני כל העם אקדש; "and I will be seen to have been glorified in front of all the nation." This meant that when G'd had previously spoken of כבודי, My Glory, the meaning was "on account of My Glory." If we accept this interpretation G'd never applied the singular as applying to the צדיקים. The word ונקדש is a collective term referring to whatever righteous will be the instrument by which G'd's Glory is sanctified. The proof that this had indeed been G'd's meaning was the fact that two people died. Moses said "this is what He had said" in order to console Aaron. The word לאמור means that Moses now understood that he had to communicate, i.e. explain G'd's meaning as being: "I will be sanctified by those who are close to Me." The principal reason for the word לאמור was to forestall any other erroneous interpretation of what G'd had in mind in Exodus 29,43.

It is also possible that Moses had already understood G'd correctly originally; he had realised that there were actually three possibilities. Either several people would die, or he himself or Aaron would die and thereby demonstrate G'd's principle of ונקדש בכבודי, i.e. the same as בקרובי אקדש. When Torat Kohanim quotes Moses as having said to Aaron that he had thought that either he or Aaron would be chosen to demonstrate the principle in question, Moses meant that originally he had entertained three doubts about who would be the people chosen for this kind of martyrdom. He had now learned which of the three possibilities was the correct one.

There still remains one difficulty. How could Moses have been certain that he had interpreted G'd's words correctly? Perhaps the combined merits of Nadav and Avihu equalled that of either Moses or Aaron and that is why both of them had to die to demonstrate the principle of בקרובי אקדש? This latter supposition is quite untenable. The whole purpose of G'd allowing those who were close to Him to become the victims of the principle בקרובי אקדש was to inspire sufficient reverence in the people not to treat the sanctity of the Tabernacle lightly. Once the people had observed that G'd had taken up residence in the Tabernacle, as it were, they would begin to take His presence for granted and not relate to it with the necessary degree of reverence. The more highly placed the individual Israelite, the more likely that he would feel so familiar with his G'd that he would become guilty of a trespass. The people most likely to make such an error were the spiritual elite of the people, among them Nadav and Avihu. As a result these people would enter the Sanctuary at will whereas the lesser individuals would keep their distance as required. The result of such considerations would be that the spiritual leaders would be less respectul towards the sanctity of the Tabernacle than their counterparts the ordinary Israelite. In order to prevent such a situation from developing, G'd had to demonstrate by what happened to Nadav and Avihu that He was especially mindful of His honour when it came to the elite in order for the common people not to ever lack in reverence for the Tabernacle. If we were to accept that Moses or Aaron individually were more outstanding than either Nadav or Avihu, G'd would have failed to demonstrate His principle seeing He had excluded both Moses and Aaron from the restriction the principle of ונקדש בכבודי was to teach the people. G'd demonstrated the principle of בקרובי אקדש by literally applying it to the people who represented the elite of the elite. The death of Nadav and Avihu demonstrated that nobody, Aaron and Moses included, could treat the Tabernacle as such familiar ground that they were allowed to enter it at will. The suggestion that only Nadav and Avihu combined represented greater stature than either Aaron or Moses is rejected by the author who explains that if you have a single diamond of ten carats, such a diamond does not become relatively inferior because someone else has two diamonds the combined weight of which is eleven carats.

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]”.

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:⁷³Torath Kohanim, beginning of Shemini 38. “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.⁷⁴Verse 5. If so, why then does it say, and they died before the Eternal?⁷⁵Verse 2. 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.⁷⁵Verse 2. If so, why does it say, So they drew near, and carried them in their tunics⁷⁴Verse 5. [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,⁵¹See Seder Vayikra Note 65. and the meaning thereof is as follows: Even though priests are also forbidden to enter the Sanctuary except at the time of Service,⁷⁶In other words, there is basically no difference between the priests and the Levites as far as the prohibition against a needless entry into the Sanctuary is concerned. If there is a need for it, such as removing an impure object from it, both are permitted [as explained further on in the text] to enter at any time. And if so, why the opinion of Rabbi Akiba that Mishael and Elzaphan put iron hooks on the bodies of Nadab and Abihu in order to remove them from the Sanctuary when they could have gone in directly and remove them? See “The Commandments,” Vol. II, pp. 66-67. 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:⁷⁷Torath Kohanim, Emor 3:11. “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 Veil⁷⁸Further, 21:23. [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.⁷⁹Verse 7. — So the question appears: Why did Mishael and Elzaphan have to resort to the use of iron hooks when they could have entered the Sanctuary? The answer is: since it was possible etc. 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,⁷⁴Verse 5. 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 tunics⁷⁴Verse 5. is that Nadab and Abihu were then dressed in the priestly garments. Moses thus commanded that they carry them out of the camp,⁷⁴Verse 5. and there they should strip them of their priestly garments, and clothe them in burial shrouds, and bury them, as was their custom with other people who died in the desert. After that they purified the sacred garments and they were used by the other priests.

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.

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.

Uziel was the brother of Amram. [Rashi mentions this so that you would not erroneously] explain that דוד is referring to the husband of his aunt, as in Parshas Acharei Mos (18:14), where we find that דודתך is referring to the wife of your uncle. Alternatively, this is so that we will not err by saying that “Aharon’s uncle” refers to Mishael and Elzafan. Therefore, Rashi explains: Uziel was the brother of Amram.

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.

Aharon’s uncle [dod]. According to the plain meaning the expression dod connotes friendship, and the verse explains why Moshe called the sons of Uziel instead of the sons of Yitzhar, for example. This was because Moshe knew that some of Aharon’s relatives were jealous of Aharon’s glory, and he was afraid they would seem to be happy at his misfortune. Therefore Moshe called the sons of Uziel because he knew Uziel loved Aharon and was close to him, and Uziel would be pained over Aharon’s pain. Uziel’s sons, as well, were very humble; we see Mishael’s great humility from the fact that his younger brother became the Nasi of Kehos and he did not protest at all, and Elzafan is written without a yud, which shows that he was humble in his own selfappraisal, as is known to those who interpret names.

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).

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.

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.

So as not to disturb. Otherwise, it should say: Come closer and carry your brothers and bury them. Why does it say, “from the presence of the Sanctuary”? Rather: “Take away ... [so as not to disturb].” Rashi is answering the question: Why did Moshe not call Elozor and Isomor? It is explicit in Scripture (21:2): “for his brother” he may become impure. To this, Rashi answers that this taking out was not for the sake of burial. Rather: “from the presence of the Sanctuary” — “As a man who says...” Therefore, Elozor and Isomor were not permitted to become impure. And this is even though in fact Elozor and Isomor did not become impure even for the sake of burial from the strength of a Divine command (v. 7): “From the entrance of the Tent of Meeting you shall not go forth” (Nachalas Yaakov).

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.

Of the dead men. As it is written, “בכתנתם (in their tunics),” and every כתונת mentioned in Torah Kohanim (Vayikro) is referring to garments of kehunah. Mishael and Elzafan, however, were Levites and not kohanim; so from where would they have tunics? Rather, it must refer to [the tunics of] the dead men.

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

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).

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.⁸⁰See in Exodus, Seder Yithro, p. 314, Note 449. 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.” Rather⁸¹Ramban’s point is thus: Instead of Rashi’s interpretation — “That ye die not. But if you [the sons of Aaron] do this [i.e., let your hair grow long] you shall die” — the real explanation is as follows: “That ye die not. You need not fear death for not letting your hair grow long,” as other mourners would be so punishable if they would not let their hair grow. 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:⁸²This tractate of the Talmud is now called Moed Katan. The text referred to is found there, 24 a. ‘Mashkin’ is the name of the first chapter of the tractate. On the term Gemara see in Exodus, Seder Bo, p. 132, Note 204. “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.⁸³See in Exodus, Seder Ki Thisa, p. 521, Note 74.
But the real meaning of the verse is an admonition to Aaron’s sons, and listen to the meaning thereof. Our Rabbis have already said⁸⁴Moed Katan 14 b. that a High Priest may bring an offering whilst he is still an onen⁸⁵An onen by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. but may not eat it. If any of his next of kin⁸⁶These are: mother, father, son, daughter, brother and sister by the same father. The Sages added: husband, wife, brother and sister by the same mother (Mishneh Torah, Shoftim, Hilchoth Avel 2:1). 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.⁸⁷Further, 21:10-11. Now since he is permitted to bring offerings whilst he is an onen,⁸⁵An onen by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when 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.⁸⁸Ibid., Verse 12. 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 onen⁸⁵An onen by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. [whereas an ordinary priest must interrupt his Service and another one completes it, and he is not permitted to leave the Sanctuary until it is completed]. Accordingly, if the High Priest [on becoming apprised of the death of a near relative], leaves the Service and goes out of the Sanctuary whilst he is an onen, he is liable [to punishment] just like any [ordinary] priest who leaves the Service and goes as he pleases.
Now Moses warned Aaron here that he should not let his hair grow long, nor rend his garments, for this [negative] commandment applies to him [as High Priest] for all times. But his sons who were ordinary priests, were not permitted to bring offerings on that day since they were onenim [mourners whose dead are still unburied], and an onen who officiates profanes the Service. They were in fact obliged to defile themselves for their brothers, and similarly they were either permitted or obliged⁸⁹“Permitted,” if the text quoted above from “the Gemara of Mashkin” (see Note 82) is merely a Scriptural support for a Rabbinic ordinance, as Ramban has it; “obliged,” if the final decision of the law is in accordance with the opinion of the Gaonim (mentioned above), that the mourning of the first day [after death and burial] is a law declared to Moses on Sinai. to let their hair grow and to rend their garments. Yet Moses warned them against doing all this as a special decision [“in order not to disturb the joy of G-d” on that occasion, as mentioned above by Rashi]. Therefore Moses charged Mishael and Elzaphan that they should defile themselves for the dead, and not the priests. He further commanded [the priests] not to let their hair grow, nor to rend their garments, just like their father, [who as High Priest was not permitted to do so], and not to cry at all. This is the meaning of the verse, but let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Eternal hath kindled,⁹⁰Verse 6. but not you. All this was in order not to disturb G-d’s joy [by their displaying signs of mourning]. He treated this strictly by making them liable to death [by the hand of Heaven] if they would disturb the joyous occasion in any way.
It is possible that Moses was commanded about this from the mouth of the Almighty, even though it is not expressly written, or that he derived it from that which he was commanded [to relay to Aaron and his sons for the seven days of consecration], and ye shall keep the charge of the Eternal, that ye die not,⁹¹Above, 8:35. [from which Moses learned] that the charge of the Eternal includes also the eighth day. Now it was revealed to and known by the Creator of the world that the sons of Aaron were destined to be onenim, and yet He commanded that they should not leave the Sanctuary; thus [we see that here exceptionally] they were not to defile themselves for the dead or to mourn at all.
Now the sons of Aaron, the priests that were anointed,⁹²Numbers 3:3. even though they were ordinary priests, yet [G-d] made the law applicable to them during the days of the consecration to be like the law of the priest anointed for war in future generations,⁹³Horayoth 12 b. since he [too] must not let his hair grow long or rend his garments or defile himself for deceased relatives, just like the High Priest, but he may not perform the rites of offerings whilst he is an onen [although the High Priest may do so]. Thus Aaron’s sons, too, did not perform the rites of the offerings on that day, as the Rabbis interpreted:⁹⁴Zebachim 101 a. “And Aaron spoke unto Moses: Behold, this day have they offered their sin-offering.⁹⁵Further, Verse 19. Did they [i.e., my sons] then bring the offering — they who are ordinary priests? It was I [Aaron] that offered — I who am the High Priest [who may offer even when being an onen].” Now during this entire incident nothing [which was to be done during] the consecration was abolished, since the offerings had already been brought, and at night they all ate of the hallowed food which they were to eat. It is possible that this law applied to Elazar and Ithamar [Aaron’s remaining sons] all their lives, namely, that their laws be like those of the priest anointed for war [as mentioned above], because they had been anointed with the oil of anointment, this being the sense of the expression, [And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting …] for the anointing oil of the Eternal is upon you.⁹⁶Verse 7.
I have already mentioned⁹⁷At the end of Seder Tzav, Verse 35. the Beraitha of the Torath Kohanim⁹⁸Torath Kohanim, Shemini Milu’im 42. which states: “And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting.⁹⁶Verse 7. I might think that [on becoming apprised of the death of a near relative, an ordinary priest may not leave the Sanctuary] whether he is ministering or not; Scripture therefore says, Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, nor profane.⁹⁹Further, 21:12. When is he not permitted to go out, so that [only by his staying there] he does not profane it? I must say that this applies only when he is ministering. Lest ye die⁹⁶Verse 7. — from the negative you infer the positive [that if they do go out in the middle of their ministering, they are liable to death by the hand of Heaven]. For the anointing oil of the Eternal is upon you.⁹⁶Verse 7. Why is this said? I might think that this tells me only that Aaron and his sons, who were anointed with the oil of anointment, are liable to death if they leave the Sanctuary whilst they are ministering. How do I know that [the prohibition applies also to] all priests at all times? Scripture therefore says, for the anointing oil of the Eternal is upon you.”¹⁰⁰See Ramban above, 8:35, at end of verse, for explanation of this final interpretation. Similarly have I also seen in the Tosephta¹⁰¹“Supplement.” After the Mishnah was completed by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi, a contemporary of his, Rabbi Chiya, compiled a collection of Tannaitic statements and traditions closely allied in form to the Mishnah. The Tosephta follows the order of the tractates of the Mishnah. of Tractate Sanhedrin: “The Sages said to Rabbi Yehudah: The verse Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary⁹⁹Further, 21:12. only applies at the time of ministration.”
Now according to this interpretation, the warning and punishment [under consideration] applied to [both] Aaron and his sons, so that if they went out from the door of the Tent of Meeting⁹⁶Verse 7. at the time of performing the Service, they would be liable [to death by the hand of Heaven]. But since it was Aaron who brought the offerings on that day, therefore [Moses] warned him [especially] that he should not leave the Service and go out. His sons, however, were onenim⁸⁵An onen by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. on that day and did not perform the Service. If so, [the question appears]: how were they included in this warning [not to leave the Service and go out of the Sanctuary, when they were in fact doing no Service to begin with]? Perhaps we may say that Moses said to all of them, and ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting at the time of the Service, lest ye die,⁹⁶Verse 7. and they knew that Aaron [as High Priest] could perform the rites of offering [although] an onen,⁸⁵An onen by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. and therefore he is included in the prohibition at once, but his sons are included in the prohibition and punishment whenever they would be fit for the Service from that day onwards. It is for this reason that He said here in an unqualified manner, and ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting,⁹⁶Verse 7. and did not explain until when this [prohibition] applied, whether until the evening or the next day, since His intent was that they should not leave the Service, and this was to be a commandment applying to all generations.
It is possible that the command to the sons of Aaron was a special decision, that they should not go out from there on that day¹⁰²Having explained above that the admonition applied to Aaron’s sons not on that eighth day, but its effect began from the following day onwards, when they would be permitted to minister in the Sanctuary, Ramban now writes that it was possibly a special decision that even on that eighth day they should not leave the Sanctuary, just like their father, who, as High Priest, was permitted to bring offerings as an onen and was therefore prohibited from leaving the Sanctuary. This was to serve as a mark of honor and indication of the joyousness of the occasion. [specifically], just as their father [could not leave], this being in honor of the joyous occasion [i.e., the culmination of the erection of the Tabernacle and inauguration of the priests], but ordinary priests throughout the generations are warned against leaving their Service on the basis of the verse which states, Neither shall he go out of the Sanctuary, nor profane,⁹⁹Further, 21:12. which means that any priest who goes out of the Sanctuary and leaves his Service profanes it thereby. Thus the verse here [And ye shall not go out from the door of the Tent of Meeting, lest ye die, for the anointing oil of the Eternal is upon you],⁹⁶Verse 7. is only necessary to derive the punishment, that whoever leaves the Service and goes out is subject to death [by the hand of Heaven], for it says, for the anointing oil of the Eternal is upon you, and that anointment is upon them for all generations, as it says, and their anointing oil shall be to them for an everlasting priesthood.¹⁰³Exodus 40:15. So also the Rabbis taught in the Beraitha of Torath Kohanim:¹⁰⁴Torath Kohanim, Shemini Milu’im 28. “From here the Rabbis have derived the principle that no mark of mourning whatever is shown for those executed by the court.¹⁰⁵“The analogy is not complete. For those executed by the court no one mourns, neither close relatives nor anyone else. Here only the close relatives were forbidden to mourn, while for others it was expressly commanded, let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning which the Eternal hath kindled” (Verse 6) (Rabad, in his commentary on Torath Kohanim). Perhaps you will say, ‘We [the brothers] will go to our homes and mourn, grieve and cry [over the death of Nadab and Abihu], behold G-d has already commanded us not to go out of the Sanctuary.’” From this text it would appear that it was a special decision to the effect that those who died through the Heavenly Court, should be treated like those executed by a [human] court for transgressions, in which case the rule is that [the relatives of the executed] come and greet the judges and the witnesses.¹⁰⁶Sanhedrin 46 a. “As if to say, ‘We have nothing against you in our hearts, for you have judged the judgment of truth’” (ibid.). Here too, they were to remain standing before G-d in the day of his espousals, and in the day of the gladness of his heart.¹⁰⁷Song of Songs 3:11. “In the day of his espousals — this is the day of Sinai [i.e., the Giving of the Torah]. And in the day of the gladness of his heart — this is the day [of the setting up] of the Tent of Meeting.”¹⁰⁸There are various versions to this interpretation. The final Mishnah in Tractate Taanith has it: “In the day of his espousals — this is the Giving of the Torah. And in the day of the gladness of his heart — this is the building of the Sanctuary” [in Jerusalem].

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).

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.

'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, “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.”

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.].

Do not let [your hair] grow. Meaning: the hair of his head. I.e., someone whose hair grows long, the hairs become divided one from the other and become disheveled (פרע). [You might ask:] Rashi explains later in Parshas Sotah (Bamidbar 5:18): “And [the kohein shall] expose (ופרע) the [hair on the] head of the woman” — “He unravels the braids of her hair...” and yet here he explains that פרע means growing [the hair long]! The answer is: The unraveling of her hair braids is the ‘growth’ of her hair in terms of appearance, because until now it was braided and it seemed she had no hair, but with the unraveling of her hair it seems as if her hair grew.

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.

Your brothers, the entire House of Yisroel shall weep. This weeping was during the time of the funeral and burial, and there was nothing exceptional about this weeping, for even women will weep for the loss of one of the great ones of Yisroel. The expression ‘shall weep,’ however, still needs to be understood. How is it possible to command them to weep? Weeping depends solely on one’s emotional state. It seems, therefore, that Moshe is telling them how to weep. Since the verse says, “יבכו את השרפה” [weep over the conflagration] and not “על השרפה” it means to say with the conflagration. This teaches that someone who was in pain and needed to pray and cry out to Hashem for some other matter, he should weep at the time the lofty departed one was in front of him, because that is an auspicious time to uplift his cry and plea, due to the honor he accomplishes in this way for the departed one.

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.

ולא תמתו LEST YE DIE — Consequently if ye do this ye shall die (Sifra, Shemini, Mechilta d'Miluim 2 41).

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)

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.

From here [we learn] that a mourner. Re’m writes: In Moed Katan (14b) Rashi explains that the fact the verse needs to permit the sons of Aharon implies that others are prohibited [to take a haircut], because Rashi holds the view that the verse, “Do not let [your hair] grow long” comes to permit Aharon’s sons [to take a haircut], and for that reason they inferred: This implies that every other mourner is prohibited. For if the verse comes to caution them — that they are not permitted to let their hair grow long, how could they infer from here that others are prohibited to take a haircut and are obligated to let their hair grow? In truth, the only inference that could be made is since Aharon’s sons are prohibited from letting their hair grow, this implies that other mourners are permitted to let their hair grow. However, this poses a difficulty: If the verse comes to permit Aharon’s sons [to take a haircut], but they are not obligated to let their hair grow, why does Scripture write, “So that you will not die” afterwards? This implies that if they let their hair grow they will die, as Rashi himself explains: Therefore, if you do so, you will die. If so, Rashi’s words seem to be contradictory. This matter needs analysis. See there where Re’m dwells at length on this matter. Perhaps [we can say:] Rashi sensed this difficulty and therefore explained in his commentary on Chumash: “From here [we learn] that a mourner is forbidden [to take] a haircut...”

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.

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.)

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.)

Therefore, if... Re’m explains: Rashi explains this here, although it is obvious you can infer the positive statement from the negative statement, and so we infer throughout the entire Torah. [Here, however, it is] to teach that the verse’s intention is the affirmative statement that is inferred from it, and not the prohibition itself. This is because even in the rest of the optional matters that do not have the death penalty it is applicable to say with regard to them that if he will not do them he will not die. In this way we can explain “and you will not die” of (v. 9), “[do not drink] wine or any other intoxicant.” Rashi relies on his explanation here and does not explain similarly over there. It is from the superfluous phrases “you shall not die” that Rashi derives this, [because it did not need to be said] since Aharon’s sons were permitted to take a haircut, perforce they will not die. It seems that Rashi infers that this verse implies that other mourners are forbidden [to cut their hair], for if everyone else was permitted, and the verse only comes to caution that Aharon’s sons should not let their hair grow, if so, it would be difficult: Why does the verse need to caution them, since everyone else is permitted, why would you think that they would let their hair grow? Why should they be stringent and disturb the Omnipresent’s celebration? Furthermore: Why does it need to say, “and you will not die” — “therefore, if you do so, you will die”? Why do I need so much — a warning after a warning? It is understandable if all other mourners are prohibited [to cut their hair], for this reason we need a warning after a warning, so that you will not say that although Aharon’s sons were permitted to cut their hair, nevertheless, they could be stringent with themselves and go beyond the letter of the law since other mourners are prohibited [from taking a haircut]. For this reason Scripture needs to caution them, and write, “and you will not die” — “therefore, if you do so, you will die.” With this it seems to me that all Re’m’s difficulties are resolved.

ועל כל העדה יקצוף, “and He will display His anger at the whole community if you observe mourning.” Thiscommandment 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.”

Must [be mourned] by all. I.e., everyone is obligated to mourn if a Torah scholar is in pain, as the example here, in which Aharon was in pain. We should not say, however, perhaps this implies that if a Torah scholar died he must be mourned by all, as it is written: “And the entire House of Israel shall weep...” For if so, Scripture should have written, “and their brothers,” i.e., the brothers of the dead ones, which refer to all of Israel, “shall weep over the conflagration.” However, since it is written: “And your brothers,” it implies the brothers of Aharon, Elozor, and Isomor — the ones to whom Moshe was speaking.

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."

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.

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.

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).

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,¹⁰⁹He shall abstain from wine and ‘sheichar’ (strong drink) (Numbers 6:3). and only wine is forbidden to him].¹¹⁰The word sheichar must not therefore be understood as strong drink [as it is found in all English translations], but rather as “strong wine.” The vav in the Hebrew yayin v’sheichar (literally: “wine and strong wine”) is thus to be understood as if it said yayin k’shehu sheichar — you must not drink “wine when it is strong wine,” or “when it is intoxicating” (Mizrachi). Rambam’s opinion, however, as mentioned further on in the text, is that sheichar means “strong drink,” and the priests were warned against both — wine and strong drink, although the punishment for violation was different for each. This is correct according to my opinion. But in the opinion of Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon],¹¹¹Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Bi’ath Hamikdash 1:2. 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 interpreted¹¹²Vayikra Rabbah 12:1. 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,¹¹³Above, Verse 1. 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.¹¹³Above, Verse 1.

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

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.

In a manner which intoxicates. Meaning: If he took a break [in drinking] or he mixed it with the smallest measure of water he is exempt. [You might ask:] Rashi writes, without any qualifications, that one who enters the Tent of Meeting [while he is intoxicated] is liable the death penalty. However, Toras Kohanim it implies that only if one was intoxicated and performed Divine service is he liable death! The answer is: Since it is derived from a gezeiroh shovoh, and regarding sanctification of the hands it is written in Parshas Ki Sisa explicitly (Shemos 30:20): “Or whenever they approach the Altar for Divine service,” which is only at the time of Divine service, therefore it was unnecessary for Rashi to specify here.

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;)

'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.

‎‏ 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).

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.¹¹⁴When they go into the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal (Exodus 30:20). 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.¹¹⁵Torath Kohanim, Shemini 1:4.
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.¹¹⁴When they go into the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal (Exodus 30:20). In this form it is taught there in the Sifra:¹¹⁶Ibid. “Sifra” is another name for the Torath Kohanim. See in Seder Vayikra, Note 121. “Rabbi¹¹⁷The redactor of the Mishnah, or as he is often known, Rabbeinu Hakadosh, “our holy teacher,” or simply “Rabbi.” states: Here it says, when ye go into the Tent of Meeting, and there [in connection with the law of the priests washing their hands and feet] it says, when they go into the Tent of Meeting.¹¹⁴When they go into the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal (Exodus 30:20). Now just as there He made going out [of the Sanctuary] similar to going into it,¹¹⁸If the priest who was in the Sanctuary touched something which necessitates washing of his hands and feet, or if he had given up his intent of doing any more ministration and then decides to do it, he must wash his hands and feet a second time, even though he is no longer, strictly speaking, “entering the Sanctuary,” since he is there already (Derech Hakodesh, commentary on the Sifra by Vidal Hatzarfati). See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 51, for a different commentary on this text by Rabad. and the altar similar to the Tent of Meeting, and the penalty of death [by the hand of Heaven] is only if he performed the Service [without washing], so here also He made going out [of the Sanctuary] similar to going into it,¹¹⁹Thus if he drank the wine whilst inside the Sanctuary and performed the Service, he is liable just like when he drank the wine outside the Sanctuary and entered it in a state of intoxication (ibid.). and the altar similar to the Tent of Meeting, and the punishment is only if he performs the Service [whilst intoxicated].” That is to say, the liability [to punishment] is only if the priest performs the Service, whether he entered while drunk, or drank there [after he had come in] and then performed some Service. There [in the Sifra]¹²⁰Torath Kohanim, Shemini 1:5. the Rabbis have said: “It shall be a statute forever.¹²¹In Verse 9 before us. This includes the pouring of oil [upon the flour of a meal-offering], mixing it, waving it, bringing near [the meal-offering to the altar], removing the handful and burning it, pinching a bird’s head, and sprinkling the blood,” [so that all these acts must not be done by the priest while drunk, and if he did any of them in that state, he is liable to death by the hand of Heaven]. For since Scripture stated, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal,¹¹⁴When they go into the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn a fire-offering unto the Eternal (Exodus 30:20). [I might have excluded these acts from this law since they are not “a fire-offering”], therefore it was necessary to include them [here in the verse before us].
It further appears that this liability [to punishment] does not apply where one offers up on a bamah.¹²²Literally: “a high place.” This was an altar built prior to the establishment of a central Sanctuary, on which offerings to G-d could be brought; on such an altar even a non-priest could perform the rites of offering. Bamoth were permitted until the eighth day of consecration when the Tabernacle was erected, but from that day onwards they were prohibited until the people came into the Land of Israel, when for a period of fourteen years comprising the conquest and division of the Land, the Tabernacle was at Gilgal, and bamoth were temporarily permitted. Then a central Sanctuary was built at Shiloh, which lasted for 369 years, and during that time the bamoth were again prohibited. After the Philistines destroyed the Sanctuary at Shiloh, the bamoth were once again permitted. This period [covering also the reigns of Saul and David] lasted 57 years, and is known as that of Nob and Gibeon. Then finally the Sanctuary at Jerusalem was built, and from then on the bamoth were prohibited forever, since that is “the Eternal House,” so that even when it was destroyed, the place is still holy. — From this account it is thus clear why as stated in the Torath Kohanim [mentioned further on in the text] the central Sanctuary at Shiloh and “the Eternal House” at Jerusalem were alike as far as the prohibition to perform the Service while drunk is concerned. In both only a priest could perform the Service, while at a bamah even an Israelite was permitted to do it. That is why the Rabbis said there [in the Torath Kohanim]:¹²⁰Torath Kohanim, Shemini 1:5. “From this verse I know only that it is prohibited [to perform the Service] in the Tent of Meeting [while drunk]. Whence do I know to include the Sanctuary at Shiloh and the Eternal House at Jerusalem? Scripture therefore says, it shall be a statute for ever.” For this prohibition applies to the priests performing their Services, and it was not necessary that it be a priest who performed the Service at a bamah;¹²²Literally: “a high place.” This was an altar built prior to the establishment of a central Sanctuary, on which offerings to G-d could be brought; on such an altar even a non-priest could perform the rites of offering. Bamoth were permitted until the eighth day of consecration when the Tabernacle was erected, but from that day onwards they were prohibited until the people came into the Land of Israel, when for a period of fourteen years comprising the conquest and division of the Land, the Tabernacle was at Gilgal, and bamoth were temporarily permitted. Then a central Sanctuary was built at Shiloh, which lasted for 369 years, and during that time the bamoth were again prohibited. After the Philistines destroyed the Sanctuary at Shiloh, the bamoth were once again permitted. This period [covering also the reigns of Saul and David] lasted 57 years, and is known as that of Nob and Gibeon. Then finally the Sanctuary at Jerusalem was built, and from then on the bamoth were prohibited forever, since that is “the Eternal House,” so that even when it was destroyed, the place is still holy. — From this account it is thus clear why as stated in the Torath Kohanim [mentioned further on in the text] the central Sanctuary at Shiloh and “the Eternal House” at Jerusalem were alike as far as the prohibition to perform the Service while drunk is concerned. In both only a priest could perform the Service, while at a bamah even an Israelite was permitted to do it. [therefore the prohibition did not apply there].
Now the meaning of the expression when ye go into the Tent of Meeting, is “when you perform Service,” and He used this expression because all the Services were done there, either inside the Tent or at the altar of the burnt-offering which was at the door of the Tent of Meeting. The general principle then, is that the prohibition and punishment in these matters are only to the effect that the priest should not perform the Service while drunk with wine or with hands and feet unwashed, likewise if he lacks any of the required priestly garments; but merely for entering the Sanctuary in these conditions, there is no prohibition in the Torah. Thus that which we have been taught in the Mishnah:¹²³Keilim 1:9. “Rabbi Yosei says: In five things is the space between the Porch [of the Sanctuary] and the altar equal to the Sanctuary: that those priests may not enter there who have a blemish, or who have dishevelled hair,¹²⁴In our Mishnah: “or who have dishevelled hair, or who have drunk wine.” or who have hands and feet unwashed” and the whole Mishnah there — all these are gradations of Rabbinic enactment [and are not matters prohibited by Scriptural law]. In the opinion, however, of Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon],¹²⁵Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Bi’ath Hamikdash 1:15-16. See “The Commandments,” Vol. II pp. 68, 72-73. one who [wilfully] enters the Sanctuary [in the above-mentioned conditions] without performing the Service, [has also violated] a negative commandment, for which the punishment is not death [by the hand of Heaven but whipping].

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.”

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 when you are on duty in the holy precincts to the Temple. It is simply not befitting that a drunk person should perform sacrificial service.

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).

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

It's not that Nadav and Avihu sinned on account of drunkenness, because they hadn't been taught to drink wine when they woke up on that glorious morning, but they died on account of their having added something that the Lord had not commanded them, the Lord wanted to catalyze Aaron and his sons that they should be careful with matters of the service, that they should not switch even one small thing. And, behold, it was as if he said, "I knew that from this day forwards, you will not willfully do anything from your own minds, but now I am commanding you to be careful from accidentally going against my commands. And, therefore, you shall drink neither wine nor beer when you come into the Tent of Meeting, lest you come to change something. And not only that are you being warned with the activity of service, but also when you provide guidance to others in matters of holiness-vs.-sanctity, purity-vs.-impurity, or other matters of particular statutes of the Lord, you should be careful to not drink, lest you err in guidance or their sins to the Lord."

Between. I.e., that there should be a distinction between proper service and [one which is] improper, for the services that are done in intoxication are always improper [and then there is no distinction between proper and improper]. This is what Rashi explains: “Thus you learn that if he performed [the Temple service his service is] invalid.” This is because it is written (v. 9): “When you enter the Tent of Meeting and you will not die,” and we derive through a gezeiroh shovoh from sanctification of the hands and feet. There, it is specifically written when he performs Divine service, as I explained above. And perforce, if one performed Divine service while being intoxicated, he is liable the death penalty. If so, all the services that are performed while being intoxicated are improper, and if so, why does is it written, “to distinguish”? Rather, perforce we must say that it means, “in order that you should distinguish, etc.” Even though regarding [the next phrase], “To distinguish ... between what is impure and what is pure,” this explanation is not applicable — that we would say: If you drink there will be no difference between the pure and the impure, and they will all be impure. Could it be that an intoxicated kohein who performed the Divine service would make it impure? It is improper [but not impure]! Perforce, we must say: “To distinguish ... between what is impure...” [means:] You should know how to distinguish, and not that there should be a distinction, etc. Despite this, Rashi had to explain [the aforementioned] way regarding the Divine service. Accordingly, one time the explanation of the word ולהבדיל is: “in order that you should distinguish...” in reference to [to the first phrase in the verse that teaches about the] Divine service, and another time: “in order that you know...” in reference to impurity and purity. With this it seems we can answer the difficulty raised by Re’m: Concerning the phrase: “To distinguish ... between what is impure and what is pure,” this explanation is not applicable! Re’m answered what he answered, see there at length.

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,

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).

Perhaps he is. Meaning: And the ו of ולהבדיל and the ו of ולהורות are in addition to the first subject [prohibition of entering while intoxicated] and they too are liable the death penalty.

ולהורות, and to instruct (others) in the laws,

Kohanim in their service. [Rashi knows this] because Scripture should have written only: “you and your sons.” In effect, when it is written, “with you,” it is as if it said “your sons will be with you.” But why do I need it? It is already written, “you and your sons.” Rather, it is to teach: “Kohanim in their service...” This answers Re’m’s difficulty: From where does Rashi derive this? The verse, “you and your sons” is needed for itself, [to teach] that the sons are included in the warning as well. We cannot say that he derives it from the word “you,” and it comes to exclude, for if so, it would have to mean only “you” [Aharon, and not even his sons,] are worthy of death. Meaning: Since the verse put “and you will not die” is juxtaposed to “you and your sons,” which is a command that refers to their service, perforce: Kohanim in their service [are worthy of] death, but halachic decision making, which is a command to all of Israel is not [worthy of] death. According to the assumption that halachic decision making is worthy of death as well, it should say, “and you will not die” (v. 9) after, “[And that you may] teach” (v. 11), so that it would refer to the entire subject matter (Nachalas Yaakov).

את כל החוקים, these are the interpretations,

'אשר דבר ה, ”which the Lord has revealed by word of mouth.”

ביד משה, the written Torah, andWhence do we know about the Targum? answer: from the word להורות, “i.e. to explain the meaning of the text.”

For the sin of the Golden Calf. You might ask: Above (v. 2), Rashi brings a Tannaic disagreement: One view holds because they rendered halachic decisions in the presence of their master, and the other holds because they entered the Sanctuary intoxicated with wine. The answer is: Both factors were the cause. If there had been only the deed of the Golden Calf, why did Hashem wait until now? Alternatively, why did He kill Nodov and Avihu, and not Elozor and Isomor? Rather, it must be [that the cause of death] can be attributed to another sin as well, each Tanna according to his reasoning. But if it was only for the last reason, I would say that there is no punishment without [a prior] warning, therefore the sin of the Golden Calf was necessary as well, since it had a warning.

אצל המזבח, “next to the altar,” and not within the Sanctuary nor on the altar. How do I know that the Torah also excludes the Holy of Holies? 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)

קחו את המנחה TAKE THE MEAL OFFERING, although ye are אוננים and the holy things are forbidden to an אונן (Zevachim 101a).

And I also prayed. [The word] “also” includes the [Aharon’s] children.

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).

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 holy things are forbidden to an אונן (mourner on whom the obligation of burying the deceased still rests). Otherwise, why does it need to say this to them? It already speaks about it in Parshas Tzav (6:9): “Whatever remains from it shall be eaten by Aharon and his sons” (Re’m).

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).

Meal-offering of the eighth. The twelve princes began to bring offerings and Nachshon was the first. [You might ask:] There was also the [meal-offering of the] he-goat of Rosh Chodesh, and so there were three he-goats! [The answer is:] Nevertheless, Rashi did not want to mention the he-goat of Rosh Chodesh since Moshe did not command him to eat that meal-offering, as it is implied at the end, when Aharon told Moshe: If you heard [this law] regarding holy offerings of a [specific] time, etc. (see Rashi, end of v. 19). Moshe agreed [with the rationale of] Aharon’s words. This implies that Moshe did not explicitly say to eat it in the first place.

What does this verse teach? You might ask: Above, as well, why did Rashi not explain: “Take the meal offering” — What does this verse teach? Because it is [a communal mealoffering,] etc.? Why did he need to explain: “Even though you are אוננים and holy things are forbidden to an אונן”? Another difficulty: Nearby (v. 13), Rashi explains: “For so have I been commanded” — “That they should eat it while they are אוננים.” Perhaps “for so have I been commanded” [means] they should eat the meal-offering as matzos? The answer is: “For so I have been commanded” implies a novel law — even though the law is otherwise regarding other meal-offerings. If it refers to [the law] that they should eat the meal-offering as matzos, this is obvious, for every meal-offering is eaten as matzos. Therefore, Rashi needs to explain: They should eat it while they are אוננים. Also, this is why he needs to explain above: “Take the meal-offering” — “Even though you are אוננים...” because the verse, “For so have I been commanded” refers back to it. However, if he was to explain above [on “Take the meal-offering”]: Because it is a communal meal-offering, it would no longer be applicable to write: “For so I have been commanded,” because with one command alone, in which He commands them regarding a meal-offering that this meal-offering will be treated like any other meal-offering, it would be sufficient. Why does it say again: “For so I have been commanded”? Rather, perforce, it was because of אנינות He commanded, which is contrary to the precedent that an אונן is prohibited to eat holy sacrifices.

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).

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).

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).

ואת חזה התנופה AND THE WAVE BREAST of the communal) peace-offerings,

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.]

Of the communal peace-offerings. Re’m writes: I do not know why Rashi does not include here the breast of Nachshon’s peaceofferings that was brought on that day, as he included Nachshon’s meal offering with the communal meal-offering of the eighth day, etc. (see Rashi v. 12). [The answer is:] Regarding the meal-offering, concerning which the verse comes to permit [to be eaten although they are] אוננים, Rashi found it necessary to include Nachshon’s meal-offering, so that you would not say that the verse only means to permit a communal meal-offering about which it revealed the law explicitly; Nachshon’s meal-offering, however, which was not revealed in the verse, was not permitted and is prohibited to be eaten by אוננים. [Therefore, Rashi lets us know otherwise in v. 12]. However, concerning the breast of the wave-offering, about which we have not been taught any novel law that is not included in other peace-offerings, why would Rashi need to include Nachshon’s peace-offerings, for what difference would there be between Nachshon’s peace offerings and these peace-offerings? (Gur Aryeh).

ואת חזה התנופה, “and the breast of waving,” this refers to the waving of the basket.” Compare 8,2.

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).

Within the camp of Israel. Meaning: Even though those impure from contact with the dead and the other types of impure persons are found there. Rashi’s proof is from the fact Scripture did not write: “In a sacred place,” perforce it means a place that is partially pure. And since it says above regarding the meal-offering (v. 13): “You shall eat it in a sacred place,” [this implies:] It, and not another. [Thus, the place of eating the breast] is removed from the place of the Shechinoh and established to be in the camp of the Levites. Furthermore, since it is written afterwards: “In a pure place,” this implies a further leniency, and it may be eaten in the Israelite’s camp, for it is obvious that they may not eat it in an impure place.

ואת שוק, “and the thigh” mentioned in our verse;

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).

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.)

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.¹²⁶Exodus 29:27. ‘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.¹²⁷This whole text of Rashi quoted by Ramban is missing in all standard versions of Rashi. It is found, however, in the Reggio edition of 1475, “Rashi’s Commentary to the Pentateuch.” This book incidentally was the first Hebrew book to appear in print. A facsimilie thereof has lately appeared in Jerusalem.
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,¹²⁸Exodus 29:22-25. 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,¹²⁹Above, 7:14. 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.¹³⁰It is so clearly stated in Exodus 29:26: And thou [Moses] shalt take the breast of Aaron’s ram of consecration, and wave it for a wave-offering before the Eternal; and it shall be thy 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.

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 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).

AL ISHEI HACHALAVIM’ (UPON THE FIRE-OFFERINGS OF THE FAT). “This is like: ‘upon the fat of the fire-offerings.’¹³¹Since the fats are burnt with fire they are called “the fats of the fire,” not “the fire of the fats.” This comment is found in Rashi’s text as quoted by Mizrachi and other commentators. It is not in our printed texts of Rashi. 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.¹³²Deuteronomy 18:1. — Ramban’s intent is as follows: Rashi had inverted the expression in the verse before us because since the fats are burned with fire, they are called “the fats of the fire,” and not “the fire-offerings of the fats” as the verse literally has it. But Ramban quotes the above-mentioned verse from Deuteronomy to show that the word ishei does not have its precise meaning of “the fires of,” since the priests do not eat that which has actually been on the fire upon the altar. The word ishei must therefore be taken as an adjectival-noun for all offerings, since most of them are put upon the fire. Consequently the fats are not called ishei because of the fire, and the expression in the verse need not be inverted. — Ramban now proceeds to comment on the second point that Rashi made, namely that from the verse here we learn that the fat-portions were at the bottom at the time of waving. 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.¹³³Verse 14. [With reference to this] He now said, The thigh of heaving and the breast of waving shall they — that is, the children of Israel, mentioned [in the previous verse] — bring upon the fire-offerings of the fat, to wave it for a wave-offering before the Eternal, that they [i.e., the thigh and the breast] be hallowed before Him, and they shall be thine and thy sons’ with thee, as a due forever. For this is not the place of the command concerning the waving,¹³⁴It is above, 7:30. See Ramban ibid. but incidentally¹³⁵Rashi therefore should not have written, “From here we learn etc.,” as it is not from here that we learn it, since the law of waving is mentioned elsewhere; here it is mentioned only incidentally. we learn that at the time of waving the fats were beneath the others.

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.

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).

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.¹³⁶Numbers 28:15. — The eighth day on which all the events described here, took place was the first of Nisan, 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,¹³⁷Above, 9:3. and the he-goat brought by Nachshon [in honor of the dedication of the altar],¹³⁸Numbers 7:16. and the he-goat for the New Moon.¹³⁶Numbers 28:15. — The eighth day on which all the events described here, took place was the first of Nisan, 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 those¹³⁹Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon (Zebachim 101 a). 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’¹⁴⁰Verse 19. These are Aaron’s words to Moses in defense of his sons having burnt the sin-offering, saying, and if I had eaten the sin-offering today, would it have been pleasing in the sight of the Eternal? Now it is on the word “today” that Rashi comments: “by day etc.” — by ‘day’ it was forbidden to eat thereof, but in the case of an onen⁸⁵An onen by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is 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.]

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, 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.]

Additional sacrifices for Rosh Chodesh. This is the goat of additional offerings of Rosh Chodesh that is offered as a communal sinoffering, as it is written (v. 17): “And He gave it to you, to bear the iniquity of the congregation.” Which goat bears the sin of the congregation? This is the goat of Rosh Chodesh.

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.

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, whereMoses had commanded the people of Israel to take such an animal as a sin offering. Both in that verse and here the people for whom atonement was sought were called by almost identical names, i.e. עם or .עדה

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).

Why was. The following is Re’m’s text: “Why was this one burnt and why were these not eaten?” I.e., they did not eat it [the goat of the additional sacrifices for Rosh Chodesh] during the day because of אנינות but rather left it to be eaten towards evening, when the time of אנינות would be finished, according to the view of Rabbi Yuda and Rabbi Shimon (Zevachim 101a) who said that the prohibition of אנינות is permitted at night. It was burnt and not eaten because it was touched by something impure [and so it could not be rectified, thus, it was immediately burnt]. But, according to Rabbi Nechemiah [ibid.] the reason was because it was of the sacrifices [ordained] for the generations [which were not permitted to אוננים] and אוננים are prohibited to eat from offerings both during the day and the night by Torah law. Thus, they burnt it immediately (Re’m). However, if we have the text: “And why were these eaten?” it is then entirely one inquiry: Why was this one [the goat of the additional sacrifices for Rosh Chodesh] burnt and this one [the he-goat of the installation or the goat offered by Nachshon] eaten? Either both of them should have been burnt or both of them eaten! This, however, is one inquiry, [yet Rashi writes there were two inquires], therefore, we should use the text: “And why were these not eaten?” Gur Aryeh uses the text: “Why were these eaten?” He explains, however, that there are two inquires: “Why was this one burnt? If it was because of אנינות — is it not true that אנינות is permitted to you! According to your response that you were not allowed to eat them because of אנינות, why, then, did you eat the other sin-offerings?” This is considered two inquires — the first is according to the truth and the second is according to their response.

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.

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).

He turned. Otherwise, why was he angry at them? Aharon was included in the anger as well, and he was required to respond (v. 19): “and then such [tragedy] befell me!” This is how it appears in Toras Kohanim — that he was angry with Aharon as well.

לאמר SAYING (i. e. that they should say or speak) — He said to them, “Give me replies to my questions” (Sifra, Shemini, Chapter 2).

Answer. Rashi was forced to explain this way, because wherever it says “לאמר” in the Torah [it means] to tell others. Alternatively, “וידבר” is a general rule, and “לאמר” is a detail (כלל ופרט). Here, however, these explanations are not applicable, and therefore Rashi has to explain: “Answer my questions!”

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?

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.

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).

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.]

Did [they then eat it] outside? Meaning: You would assume the question “why” refers to the phrase “in the sacred place,” as if Moshe asked: Why did you not eat it in the sacred place?” For this reason, Rashi is answering the question: Did they then eat it outside the sacred place? Rashi answers: The word “why” refers to “did you not eat it,” and the meaning of “in the sacred place” is: Since it was in the sacred place, and did not go out [from its permitted boundaries] to become invalid. However, it would be impossible to make this statement if Moshe did not ask them first whether it went out [from its boundaries] and they answered him that it did not. Therefore, Rashi inserts: “Perhaps it went out ‘beyond the curtains’ and became invalid?” The statement, “for it is holy of holies” is the reason for the statement, “Perhaps it went out beyond the curtains...” (Re’m).

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)

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.)

Did not [come] for atonement. You might ask: In the beginning of the parshah it is written (9:7): “and atone on your behalf,” which refers to the sin-offering of the eighth day. Perforce, these also came for [the purpose of] atonement. The answer is: When it is written “and atone on your behalf” it does not really mean atonement, but rather it is only an expression of cleansing and preparation. Similarly, we find regarding the person with tzora’as, where it is written (14:19): “and atone (וכפר) for the person undergoing purification from his impurity.” What was his sin for which he needs atonement? Rather, it must be that there as well it is an expression of becoming fit.

'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).

'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);

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.

You should have. It does not mean they should eat it now, as the expression implies, since it was already burnt.

אכל תאכלו אתה YE SHOULD INDEED HAVE EATEN IT although you were Onanim,

Regarding the meal-offering. This is because it [the goat of Rosh Chodesh] is holy of holies and should be eaten in the sacred place like it [the meal-offering]. However, we should not say that “as I have commanded you” refers to the breast that is the wave-offering and the thigh that is the separated portion, regarding which Moshe instructed them to eat as well (v. 14). This is because they are sacrifices of lesser sanctity, and they are eaten in a pure place, thus, we cannot derive [laws pertaining to] sacrifices that are holy of holies [which must be eaten in the sacred place] from those of lesser sanctity. It appears to me that the answer is: [Moshe could not be referring to the breast and the thigh] because Hashem did not command explicitly regarding eating the breast and the thigh, but rather only regarding the meal-offering, as Scripture states (v. 12): “Take the meal-offering ... and eat it [as] matzos.” Moshe, however, added them by his own reasoning by comparing the eating of the breast and thigh to the eating of the meal-offering (Nachalas Yaakov).

כאשר צויתי AS I COMMANDED you in the case of the meal-offering (vv. 12, 13).

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).

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,⁸⁵An onen by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. 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.’”¹⁴¹The reason, Aaron continued, why the sin-offering was burnt, is because there is a difference between occasional [such as the people’s sin-offering brought on that particular day, and the sin-offering of Nachshon, prince of the tribe of Judah — see Numbers 7:16] and offerings that are obligatory for all generations [such as the sin-offering of the New Moon]. “If you [Moses] have been commanded that the occasional offerings be eaten by the priests even while they are onenim, you cannot apply this leniency in the case of offerings that are obligatory for all generations.” As Verse 20 states, Moses was well-pleased with this answer, and as explained by Rashi, he was not ashamed to admit his error. This is Rashi’s language. So too is it found in the Gemara [of Tractate Zebachim], in the Chapter Tebul Yom:¹⁴²Literally: “One who [having incurred some impurity] immersed himself [in an immersion-pool] on that day,” but must wait for sunset to be perfectly pure. — In passing it may be noted that in the time of Ramban all texts of the Talmud were in manuscript form, and page numbers were unknown. A reference to any particular place in the Talmud had to be made on the basis of the name of the chapter. Hence Ramban’s expression here: “and so it is in the Gemara, in the Chapter Tebul Yom.” [Moses said to Aaron’s sons]: “But perhaps you offered it [while you were onenim]⁸⁵An onen by law of the Torah is a mourner on the day of death of his relative whether before or after burial on that day. [On the night following he is an onen by law of the Rabbis. If burial has not taken place on the day of death he continues to be an onen by law of the Rabbis. When burial finally takes place he is an onen by law of the Rabbis even after burial, but at night he is no longer considered an onen at all.] An onen is to be distinguished from an avel who is a mourner for a period of seven or thirty days. The laws of mourning as affecting the Divine Service in the Tabernacle and its holy offerings relate to the priest when he is an onen. 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,¹⁴³Above, 9:22. and afterwards they entered the Tent of Meeting¹⁴⁴Ibid., Verse 23. and prayed, following which there came forth the fire [that consumed] the offerings¹⁴⁵Ibid., Verse 24. and only then did Nadab and Abihu offer up this incense!¹⁴⁶Verse 1 in this chapter. [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!]¹⁴⁷The Tur answers Ramban’s question by pointing out that the verse in 9:23 speaks only of the particular offerings that were brought especially on that day, but mentions nothing of the sin-offering of the New Moon, obligatory for all generations. That offering had not yet been brought, and Moses therefore properly questioned them on it. 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].”¹⁴⁸And as to the reason why the offering was burnt, see above, Note 141. 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].

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 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.”

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.

The term “speaking” is an expression of harshness. Meaning: [This is true] where it is not written afterwards לאמר, as I explained in Parshas Va’eira (6:2). Alternatively, when the speech comes in a private conversation, such as (Bamidbar 21:5): “The people spoke (וידבר) against Hashem and against Moshe, ‘Why have you brought us up...’” in which it should say ויאמר since it is a private conversation. Here, too, it should say ויאמר אהרן וגו', since it is a private conversation (Re’m). And this is what I wrote in Parshas Va’eira.

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.”

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 arid who may therefore offer when an Onan (Zevachim 101a).

(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.

Rather. Meaning: Why does it need to say: “Behold, today they brought...”? It would have been sufficient to say: “Such [tragedy] befell me, if I had eaten...” Rather, this is what it means to say: Moshe said to them [Elozor and Isomor]: Perhaps you sprinkled its blood as אוננים after the death of your brothers, and an אונן who performs the service profanes it? Therefore, you did not eat it. Moshe did not see their actions because he was heavily involved with the Shechinoh on that day And he was afraid they found the blood of this he-goat that had not yet been sprinkled and they sprinkled it. Aharon answered him: “And did they, who are ordinary kohanim, bring [it], so that you would think it is invalid? I brought [it], for it is incumbent upon me, as it is written (9:7): “Approach the altar,” and a kohein godol may bring [a sacrifice while being] an אונן. Accordingly, the ן of הן היום is in place of a ם, [meaning: Did they bring today?], as in (Rus 1:13): “הלהן תשברנה (Would you wait for them?).” Re’m explained this at length, but I was brief. Re’m writes: “[You might ask:] Bringing a sacrifice is more lenient than eating it, for a kohein godol may bring a sacrifice while he is an אונן but he may not eat from it, and here they were permitted even to eat from it while they were אוננים, so much more so they [would be permitted to] bring the sacrifice. [The answer is:] Nevertheless, Moshe said to them: “Perhaps you erred and thought...” This raises a difficulty, though, for according to Re’m’s words — that the bringing of the sacrifice is more lenient and it is permitted [to an אונן] — if so, why did Aharon reply: “And did they bring it...” which implies that it would be invalid if they indeed brought it, from the perspective of bringing it. [On the contrary,] Aharon should have answered better: “Would it be invalid today? It is permitted! Rather, the reason it was burnt was because such [tragedy] befell me, and there was no one to eat it, since there is a difference in the law between the sacrifices earmarked for a [specific] time and the sacrifices prescribed for generations.” Therefore, it appears to me that it should be interpreted according to its plain meaning: An אונן who performs Divine service actually profanes it, and Aharon ruled as the law is for [future] generations. The kal vachomer, indeed, can be refuted, because the leniency for eating the sacrifices of an אונן is different here, in that it was only so the sacrifices would not become נותר (left-over), for there were no other kohanim in the world, only these, and they were אוננים. This is not so regarding the bringing of the sacrifice, however, since the kohein godol was permitted to bring it. Thus, it remained prohibited [for an ordinary kohein to bring it]. It would be impossible, however, for the kohein godol to eat the entire amount, and ultimately it would become נותר. This is the reason for the law of [future] generations as well: A kohein godol may bring sacrifices while he is an אונן since there are many Divine services that only he is allowed to perform. However, [regarding to eating from the sacrifices] all kohanim are allowed to eat from the sacrifices, therefore, the kohein godol may not eat. [The point is that] it is not because the prohibition of eating the sacrifice is more stringent than the prohibition of bringing it, and therefore there is no kal vachomer (Nachalas Yaakov). Gur Aryeh explains that Divine service is more stringent than eating [sacrifices], because we find that a kohein with a blemish may eat sacrifices, but he is invalid to perform Divine service. If so, we cannot use the [following] kal vachomer: Eating [sacrifices] is more stringent because it is prohibited to a kohein godol when he is an אונן, yet it was permitted to the sons of Aharon while they were אוננים, then the Divine service, which is more lenient, in that it is permitted to the kohein godol when he is an אונן, is it not logical that it should be permitted to the sons of Aharon who are אוננים! [This kal vachomer can be refuted] because we can object: Eating has a leniency that it is permitted to a kohein with a blemish [whereas such a kohein is invalid to perform Divine service].

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?"

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).

And if I had eaten. Meaning: [Rashi adds if because the expression] ואכלתי implies he had already eaten it, but this was not so, for it had been burnt (Kitzur Mizrachi).

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?"

ואכלתי חטאת then IF I HAD EATEN THE SIN-OFFERING, 'הייטב וגו‎, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN PLEASING etc.

Permitted, for [the laws applying to] an אונן [relate] only... You might ask: This answer is only according to the view that it was burnt because it had touched something impure; for if it was because of אנינות (the state of being an אונן), so much more so it would pose a difficulty: Why did they burn it, they should have waited until the night [to eat it], as Ramban writes. If so, what difference does it make that he answered him that it was prohibited due to the אנינות of the day, but not at night, considering that it was burnt because it touched something impure. What kind of answer was this? We can give a forced answer: Moshe was not asking that perhaps it touched something impure, because according to his reasoning they should have eaten it right away. If so, they certainly could have prevented it from touching impurity in the short amount of time from sprinkling the blood until eating. Probably, they would have eaten it right away, as those with alacrity perform mitzvos as soon as possible. Thus, Aharon answered: “Today” — i.e., there is a prohibition for אנינות in the day, and they were forced to leave it [i.e., not to eat it] until the evening. This made created the possibility for it to have been touched by impurity and therefore it was burnt.

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 Rabbi. Ed.] At any rate, it seems that Aaron had taken it upon himself to give a ruling and thereby offended the honour of Moses his teacher. Perhaps we can answer this by saying that Aaron's decision was not really what we call a halachic ruling. Aaron had simply used logic. We know from Deut. 26,14 that the farmer had to declare that he had not eaten of the second tithes or the like while in a state of אנינות, pre-mourning. Seeing that the level of sanctity of such tithes was on a far lower level than that of the sin-offering, Aaron simply reasoned that he would most certainly be forbidden to partake of the meat of that offering (compare Rashi on Yuma 5 and Zevachim 101). He himself had been taught the law about the tithes by Moses. All he had done therefore was apply what Moses had taught him to a different situation. He had therefore thought that Moses himself had instructed him to burn the meat seeing there was no one authorised to eat it. This is much less than the example given in the Talmud about the egg found within the chicken we mentioned earlier. It is worthwile to study what Tossaphot have to say on that subject in Eyruvin 62.

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.

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).

I, in my state of premourning, was not allowed to eat these parts, just as the Levites if in such a state of premourning would not have been allowed to sing the songs which it is their duty to sing.” (Sifra on this verse)

'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).

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)

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.

He admitted and was not ashamed... [Rather Moshe said: I heard and I forgot (Zevachim 101a)]. This raises a difficulty: Where does the verse hint that he admitted by saying: “I heard [and I forgot],” perhaps he admitted by saying: “I never heard”? The answer is: The phrase, “Moshe heard” is superfluous, for it is obvious he heard, as he spoke with Aharon. Rather, this is what it means: Since Moshe had already heard previously, Aharon’s words were good in his eyes afterwards, for he had forgotten what he had heard (Divrei Dovid). Rashi’s words raise a difficulty, however, because it should not say “וישמע,” but rather: “...ומשה שמע’,” which is in the past tense. Then, it would mean that because he had already heard it was therefore good in his eyes. Another difficulty: Rashi should have made his comment on the s.v. וישמע and not on “It was good in his eyes.” Therefore, it appears that the verse’s language is surely reversed, and the word “וישמע” is superfluous as well. It should say only: “And it was good in Moshe’s eyes.” Although the word וישמע hints at hearing, as implied by Targum Yonasan (see there), nevertheless, we should derive from the fact that it should say: “He heard and it was good in Moshe’s eyes.” However, [according to the way it is] now, “it was good in his eyes” does not refer to Moshe alone, but rather comes to hint that we should also explain: “It was good in his eyes,” i.e., in Aharon’s eyes. [This follows the saying]: Hashem spoke once and we heard twice. Thus, since וישמע comes to teach regarding ‘hearing,’ it must be that Moshe admitted he had heard and forgot, and therefore, “it was good in his eyes,” i.e., also in Aharon’s eyes, for he was happy that his understanding [of the matter] was in agreement with the Omnipresent’s point of view (Rav Yaakov Trivash). Some raise the difficulty: It implies here that it is a greater shame if he would say “I forgot” than if he said “I never heard,” and yet in Shabbos (119b-120a): “Rabbi Katina said: Even at the time of Yerusholayim’s shame there were still honest men there, as it is written (Yeshayahu 3:7): ‘[I will not be a ruler,] while in my house there is neither bread nor clothing,’ which refers to Torah, and they would not say: I learned and I forgot.” [Thus, they were honest because they would admit to being completely unlearned although they could have said: I learned and forgot]. This poses a difficulty: Perhaps [they were not honest at all but] they just did not want to say “I learned and I forgot” because it is a great shame. [Otherwise, they might have lied]. However, there is no difficulty at all. There, it is referring to the entirety of Torah — that he does not know anything about it — in such a case it is a great disgrace if he says he never learned any Torah. It would be better for him to say: I did what is incumbent upon me and I learned, but I forgot for some reason. However, this is not so here where it refers to one matter. It would have been more comfortable for Moshe to say I learned much Torah, but one matter I have not learned yet. Furthermore, we can say: How could Moshe say: “I never heard”? If so, from where would Aharon know? For if Moshe never heard, [from where would Aharon know? Rather,] the praise of Moshe’s admission was in this: Regarding anything that has two types of rationale, one to permit and one to forbid, people will often rationalize one way and then later retract from their original line of reasoning, because the second line of reasoning seems more logical. Thus, there is no shame in retracting. Therefore, if Moshe would have said: I never heard, but my reasoning was originally to permit, but Aharon posed a difficulty on it. And since there was an opposite reasoning [not to permit], it would not be shameful for Moshe [to retract from his original position]. However, now that he [originally] heard it was forbidden, and he forgot and ruled to permit from the strength of his reasoning, and then he remembered that he heard explicitly to forbid, this clarifies now that his reasoning was wrong. In this, there is great shame. If so, the Gemara in Shabbos (ibid.) presents no difficulty, for there it is not applicable to say they relied on rationale that would result in shame (Divrei Dovid).

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 caused Moses to err. Seeing that Rabbi Chananiah is dead already, I feel I must respond to what he said. Anger did not cause Moses to err but his error caused Moses to become angry." Why did Rav Yehudah say that "Rabbi Chananiah said as long as he was alive etc.?" Why did he interpret events differently from Rav Yehudah whose opinion seems psychologically more sound and seems better supported by the text? We must also analyse why Rav Yehudah waited until after Rabbi Chananiah's death before he took issue with his explanation. It seems that both Rav Yehudah and Rabbi Chananiah ben Yehudah intended to be complimentary to Moses by their statements. The fact is that what happened can be explained by two different approaches. 1) Forgetting what G'd had said to Moses; it does not reflect credit on someone of Moses' stature if we were to accuse him of having forgotten some instruction G'd had taught him. 2) Moses became angry at the surviving sons of Aaron and spoke harshly with them as reported in our verse. In fact he was also angry at Aaron but he expressed this by speaking to Aaron's sons; he did not criticise Aaron to his face. Rabbi Chananiah chose to attribute Moses' having forgotten a הלכה as due to his anger, an inadvertent sin, as he did not want to accuse Moses of simply having forgotten something G'd had told him. We find a similar approach in Sifri Mattot 31,21 where Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah quoted three occasions when Moses was reported as becoming angry and we find in each case that he committed an error. Numbers 31,14 describes Moses as angry at Eleazar the High Priest. The anger is not reported as caused by an error on his part. We therefore have to find a different reason to explain Moses becoming angry at the sons of Aaron. The reason had to be the failure of the sons of Aaron and Aaron himself to request a ruling from Moses before deciding to burn the meat. Moses' anger caused him to rule incorrectly and to tell them to eat the meat. Moses was convinced at the time that he had ruled correctly and that the sacrificial meat was fit for consumption by priests in their condition. (The author adds: "Rabbi Chananiah's reasoning is not compatible with the explanation I gave earlier that Moses simply told Aaron that he had good reason to rule differently from him and was in doubt about the issue").

Rav Yehudah did not want to contradict Rabbi Chananiah outright and to reject his explanation as wrong. All he wanted to do was to come to the defence of Moses by pointing out that error need not necessarily be the result of anger. He did so because one can argue that anger is more of a negative virtue than forgetting something one has been told by G'd. It may therefore be preferable to explain what happened in terms of Moses simply having forgotten a relevant הלכה. When he realised he had forgotten the הלכה, Moses became angry once he had the feeling that Aaron and his sons had not acted in accordance with G'd's will. His anger had nothing whatsoever to do with his own honour or dignity. Rav Yehudah did not feel that this explanation was the only possible one; rather he felt that it was no less likely than that offfered by Rabbi Chananiah. After all, one could explain Moses' anger without implicating him in something unbecoming and one could explain his forgetting without Moses' image suffering much in our eyes as a result. This is why Rav Yehudah did not voice his dissent until after Rabbi Chananiah had died. Rabbi Chananiah had not shared Rav Yehudah's view that one could allow for both considerations but insisted that Moses' error could only be explained in terms of his having first become angry. The text of the Sifri states: הרני כמשיב על דבריו meaning that Rav Yehudah appeared to dissent. [Our text of the Sifri does not have the letter כ mentioned by the author. Ed.] This version of the text is compatible with the view we have expressed. One may also understand Rav Yehudah as having most definitely held the view that Moses only became angry because he had erred and presumed that Aaron and his sons had sinned by burning the meat. One may err by simply not concentrating on a problem, i.e. by הסח הדעת, being absent-minded. This is something quite inadvertent. One cannot, however, become angry and be absent-minded at the same time. Anger, by definition, implies that one has one's mind on the subject of one's anger. Whereas a sin associated with anger is one that is considered מזיד, the result of an action one is aware of, the same is not the case when the sin is the result of one's having forgotten something. Furthermore, if we say that Moses erred, i.e. forgot something, the result of his forgetting did not result in a sin occurring at all. If we perceive Moses as having been irritated by the actions of Aaron and his sons his anger was caused by this and this anger was an outright sin. Rav Yehudah chose to portray Moses' anger as having been caused by an error not by his irritation. In this way he helped us maintain a better image of Moses. If he said that he disagreed with Rabbi Chananiah after the latter's death, this did not mean that he had not voiced his disagreement during his lifetime, but that even after Rabbi Chananiah's death he still felt that he had to go on record as disagreeing with Rabbi Chananiah. Alternatively, Rav Yehudah may have not voiced his dissent until after Rabbi Chananiah died because he was afraid that Rabbi Chananiah would offer proof that he was right, something he could no longer do after he had died.