Shabbos Parashas Shemini -5778

Shabbos Parashas Shemini -5778

Rabbi Hal Miller

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

and placed incense upon it, and they brought before God an alien fire that He had

not commanded them. [Vayikra 10:1]

We just read about Aharon doing virtually exactly the same thing that his sons did

in our verse. Aharon received reward, but his sons received death. What was the

difference?

The answer lies in a combination with an earlier verse in our parsha, "This is the

thing that God commanded" [9:6]. Exactly what is the 'thing' that 'this' refers to?

Commentators are all over the place on what it was that Nadav and Avihu did to

earn the death penalty. Answers are posed regard the possibility that they had drunk

wine prior to their service, that they may have made a halachic decision in front of

their teachers, Moshe and Aharon, and numerous other possibilities. But our verse

gives us the answer directly. Why did these commentators need to add other options?

Talelei Oros suggests that the other options show the enthusiasm with which these

brothers approached their Divine service. If they had drunk wine, it was not to become

intoxicated, but to enhance their joy in service, as we know that wine is supposed to

bring joy. If they issued a halachic decision, it was in their anxiousness to help their

father and uncle, as well as the individual who asked the question. All the various

options, if looked at from the standpoint that Aharon's sons were considered some of

the most righteous of their generation, show the same thing: enthusiasm for serving

God in the best possible manner. But we say in other contexts that we should

always try to beautify a mitzvah. Is that not what these two were trying to do?

Nachshoni notes that the Torah gives us mitzvos to live by, not to die by. Had Nadav

and Avihu done precisely as commanded, they would have lived. Regarding "this is

the thing", he says "this, no more and no less", or as Sfas Emes puts it, "this and

only this." The comparison is to the Golden Calf, where the people, in their

mistaken enthusiasm, substituted one non-directed form of service for the form that

had been commanded. Nadav and Avihu actually repeated the incident of the Calf.

Our verse answers the question, how much is too much, when dealing with the

observance of mitzvos. Adding to a mitzvah is not a mitzvah. There is a fine line

between beautifying and adding, but that line is there. The Torah is teaching that

the purpose of doing mitzvos is to honor God, not to honor ourselves.