Shabbos Parashas Shemini - 5774

Shabbos Parashas Shemini - 5774

Rabbi Hal Miller

A fire came out from before G-d and consumed them, and they died before G-d.

[Vayikra 10:2]

Aharon's two older sons, caught up in the moment, each decided to go beyond

the stated "minimum requirements" and bring offerings in some manner that was

not directed. There is discussion as to whether they brought an additional

offering, whether they used coals from the wrong source, whether their sin

was having made the decision to do so without consulting their father and

uncle, etc. But in the end, they did something beyond what they were told,

and paid the ultimate price. Why?

The commentators have a field day on this incident. Each one has a different

explanation. This can only point to the difficulty of the verse. Why would

someone be given capital punishment for merely trying to do a spectacular job?

Do we not repeatedly say that one should do a mitzvah hadar (in a beautiful

way)? If this is a confusing situation, what do the commentators have in

common, that we might be able to draw lessons from?

The Torah gives us the answer directly in the previous pasuk: "The sons of

Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, each took his fire pan, they put fire in them and

placed incense on it, and they brought before G-d an alien fire that He had

not commanded to them." Quite obviously, though, this answer is not so easy

to understand.

Rashi cites the Midrash: "R'Eliezer says: The sons of Aharon did not die but

for the fact that they rendered a decision in the presence of their teacher

Moshe. R'Yishmael says: intoxicated by wine they entered the Sanctuary."

Nachshoni lists some other explanations:

- they entered the Mishkan wearing the garments of the regular Kohanim

- they brought in an alien fire, from a stove rather than the Altar

- they offered a sacrifice they had not been commanded to bring

- they did not take wives because of conceit: they felt that none of the

women were of high enough standards for the sons of Aharon

- they did not have children

- they were among those [Shemos 24:11] "And they ate and drank and saw G-d"

- they awaited the death of Moshe and Aharon so they could take over leadership

- they were not friendly to each other, in that it says "each took his fire

pan", meaning independently, not discussing it with his brother

Nachshoni then continues, noting that "there are some commentators who praise

Aharon's sons and consider them as exceptional people. The sons meant what they

did for the best and did more than they were commanded."

With this wide a list, it is clear that the question has concerned many over

the years. What is the common thread? Each of the explanations seems to

point to self-centeredness. Each one is a matter of the brothers doing what

they thought best from their own standpoint, rather than doing what they were

told to do, what would make G-d pleased.

Rav Hirsch gives us direction when he says, "As sure as it is that their

intention was a praiseworthy one, that they could feel the urge for a separate

(or additional) offering of their own showed that they were not filled with

the true spirit of a Jewish priest." In other words, instead of doing what

G-d Himself asked for, they chose to do something for themselves, thinking

that G-d would be happy about it. For this they were punished with death. It

was their zealousness that went over the line, regardless of how fully they

might have been convinced that what they were doing would be acceptable.

Why zealousness? Doesn't it make sense that those who fully take on to the

greatest degree possible a position in support of the Torah would be more

deserving of reward than punishment? The answer must lie in how it makes

other people feel. How did the women of the tribes feel when they were told

they were not good enough for the leading Kohanim? How did Moshe and Aharon

feel when their students went off in their own direction without checking?

How did each brother feel when the other took action without consulting?

It's one thing to be enthusiastic, another to be problematic. It's one

thing to be a zealot yourself, another to push it upon others. Enforce the

laws for yourself. Let others follow by example.