## Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus Chapter 10

###### Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:1:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Leviticus/r/10:1:1)

**וישימו עליה קטרת.**פי' על האש כי בשום מקום לא מצינו הקטרה על המחתה:

**Daat Zekenim translated by Rb. Eliyahu Munk:**
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.


###### Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:1:2
[Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Leviticus/r/10:1:2)

**אש זרה אשר לא צוה אותם.**כלו' כבר הזהיר עליהם שלא לעשות כדכתיב ולא תעלו אש זרה וגם לא צוה אותם שלא התירה עתה להם לפי שעה כי לפעמים הקב"ה אוסר דבר ומתירו לפי שעה לגדל שמו בגוים כמו שמצינו באליהו בהר הכרמל שהקריב בבמה על פי הדבור בשעת איסור הבמות. וכן נוכל לפרש לשרוף את בניה' באש אשר לא צויתי וגו':

**Daat Zekenim translated by Rb. Eliyahu Munk:**
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)


###### Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:2:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Leviticus/r/10:2:1)

**ותצא.**לפי שלא עשו כהוגן דאע"ג דמצוה להביא אש מן ההדיוט כדכתי' ונתנו בני אהרן אש וגו' היינו לאחר שירדה מן השמים פעם אחת אבל קודם לכן לא היה להביא מן ההדיוט שממעטי' בכבוד שמים שיאמרו באש של הדיוט נאכל הקרבן ולפי' כשהביאו אותה פגעה בהן האש היורדת מן השמים. וק"ל שהרי קודם לכן כתיב ותצא אש מלפני ה' מיהו אז"ל במסכת יומא שמתו מפני שהורו הורא' בפני משה רבן שדרשו ונתנו בני אהרן אש אע"פ שהאש יורדת מן השמים מצוה להביא מן ההדיוט:

**Daat Zekenim translated by Rb. Eliyahu Munk:**
'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.


###### Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:2:2
[Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Leviticus/r/10:2:2)

**וימותו לפני ה'.**פלוגתא איכא בתורת כהני' רא"א שמתו בחוץ במקום שהלוים מותרים ליכנס שנא' ויקרבו וישאום בכתנות' וא"כ מאי לפני ה' שנגפן המלאך והוציאן לחוץ רע"א לא מתו אלא בפנים שנא' לפני ה' ומאי ויקרבו וישאום בכתנות' מלמד שנתנו חכה של ברזל לתוך פיהם וגררום והוציאום לחוץ. ותימה לדברי ר' עקיבא א"כ נטמא המשכן דאיקרי אוהל מטומאת מת וצריך הזאה שלישי ושביעי ולא מצינו שפסקו מעבודתם כלל וכן כתוב בפירוש ומפתח אהל מועד לא תצאו דבשלמא לר"א א"ל שדחפן המלאך לחוץ קודם יציאת נשמה אלא לר' עקיבא קשיא וצ"ע:

**Daat Zekenim translated by Rb. Eliyahu Munk:**
'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.]


###### Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:3:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Leviticus/r/10:3:1)

**בקרובי אקדש.**על ידי מיתת קרובין הללו אתקדש ואתגדל לעיני כל העם שישאו ק"ו בעצמם מאלו וישמרו עצמן מלעשות כן וייראו ממני:

**Daat Zekenim translated by Rb. Eliyahu Munk:**
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.


###### Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:4:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Leviticus/r/10:4:1)

**ויקרא משה אל מישאל.**אתמר בת"כ מכאן שאין הכהנים מטמאין למתים שהרי אלעזר ואיתמר לא נטמאו לה' ותימה שהרי במקום אחר מצינו בפי' שהכהנים מוזהרין על טומאת מת דכתיב לנפש לא יטמא בעמיו. ועוד אלעזר ואיתמר כהנים הדיוטי' היו ולמה לא נטמאו לאחיהם וי"ל דהא דקאמר מכאן שהכהני' אין מטמאין למתים היינו כהני' הדיוטים ביום משחתם שאין מטמאין לקרובים שיש להם דין כהני' גדולי'. וכן פי' הרב בכור שור גבי ראשיכם אל תפרעו דאע"ג דכהנים הדיוטי' לא הוזהרו על פריעה ופרימה דמטמאין הן לקרוביהן ביום משחתם הרי הן ככהנים גדולים. ונ"ל דהיינו האי דקאמר בסיפיה דקרא כי שמן משחת קדש עליהם:

**Daat Zekenim translated by Rb. Eliyahu Munk:**
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.


###### Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:6:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Leviticus/r/10:6:1)

**ועל כל העדה יקצוף.**הקב"ה יקצוף אם תתאבלו לפי שיהא נראה שלא נתקבלו לרצון הקרבנות שהקרבתם בעד העם. וא"ת אם כן אחינו יהיו מחוללין שאין איש חס על מיתתן לכך נא' כל בית ישראל וגו':

**Daat Zekenim translated by Rb. Eliyahu Munk:**
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.


###### Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:9:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Leviticus/r/10:9:1)

**יין ושכר אל תשת.**לפי שע"י שתיות יותר מדאי בושות וחרפות באות עליו. וגם הקב"ה צווח למי אוי למי אבוי וגו' למאחרים על היין. ועוד כתיב אל תרא יין כי יתאדם פי' אל תחמוד יין כי אחריתו דם. ועוד כתיב כי יתן בכוס עינו בכיס כתיב כלומר השכור נותן עינו בכוס והמוכרו נותן עיניו בכיס יתהלך במישרים כלו' לסוף ימכור כל אשר לו ויהיה הולך בביתו במישור כי לא יהיה בו דבר שיכשל בו אחריתו כנחש ישך שכשם שנתקללה האדמה בשביל הנחש כך נתקלל שלישי דהיינו חם על ידי יין ששתה נח. וי"א אחריתו כנחש ישך קרי ביה בנחש שעל ידי יין ששתה אדם הראשון בברכת נישואין שלו כדפרי' לעיל נשתכר ועבר על צוויי של מקום ולבסוף נתקלל בנשיכת נחש שנאמר ואתה תשופנו עקב ולפי שנקנסה מיתה על האדם בשביל אותו יין נהגו העולם כשהמברך בצבור אומר סברי מרנן והם עונין לחיים וכן מצינו בשלהי במה אשה. מעשה ברבי עקיבא שעשה משתה לבנו ועל כל כוס וכוס אמר חמרא וחיי לפום רבנן ולפום תלמידיהון. ועיניך יראו זרות שע"י היין האדם מתיר עצמו לעבירה ולאשה זרה ולנבול פה. ולא עוד אלא שעובד ע"ז שנאמ' לא יהיה בך אל זר דכתיב וישב העם לאכול ושתה ויקומו לצחק לעבוד העגל. ולבך ידבר תהפוכות שגורם לארבעה דברים ע"ז וגלוי עריות ושפיכות דמים ולשון הרע ועוד אמר שלמה אל תהי בסובאי יין וגו' כבן סורר ומורה שנהרג על היין. ועוד אמרו ז"ל בעירובין פרק הדר אמר ר' חייא בר אשי אמר רב כל שדעתו מיושבת עליו ביינו יש בו מדעת שבעים זקנים שכן יין נתן בשבעים. ואמר רבי חנינא כל המתפתה ביינו פי' שאע"פ ששותה הוא מתרצה לעולם יש בו מדעת קונו שנאמר וירח ה' את ריח הניחוח וגו' וריח כשתיה. ועוד אמרו רז"ל יין נתן בשבעים וסוד נתן בשבעים נכנס יין יצא סוד. וגם עשרת השבטים גלו ע"י יין שנאמר השותים במזרקי יין וגו' וכתיב בתריה לכן עתה יגלו בראש גולים וכן אתה מוצא ביונדב בן רכב שצוה את בניו אל תשתו יין כששמע ירמיה מתנבא על חרבן כדי שיתאבלו על ירושלים ושלא יבנו בתים אלא ישבו באהלי' והכתוב משבחן כדכתיב הוקם דברי יונדב בן רכב אמר הקב"ה הואיל וכך היין גורם דין הוא שאצוה כהני שלא ישתו יין בבואם לשמש לפני. ועוד כשאדם מרבה לשתות יין יוצא מדעתו וכתיב כי שפת כהן ישמרו דעת. ועוד אז"ל שכור אל יורה שנא' יין ושכר אל תשת וסמיך ליה ולהורות את בני ישראל וכן איתמר בעירובין פ' הדר. מעשה ברבן גמליאל שהיה מהלך בדרך וגו' ואמר רבי אלעאי בשלשה דברים אדם ניכר בכוסו בכיסו ובכעסו. ועוד יין נקרא בלשון ארמי חמר לומר שנכנס ברמ"ח איברים ד"א יין ושכר אל תשת לא נהיה כשאר אבלים שנותנין להם יין כדאמרינן בעירובין אמר רב חנן לא נברא יין אלא לנחם אבלי' ולשלם שכר לרשעי' שנא' תנו שכר לאובד ויין למרי נפש:

**Daat Zekenim translated by Rb. Eliyahu Munk:**
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;)


###### Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:16:1
[Da'at Zekenim on Leviticus 10:16:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Da%27at%20Zekenim%20on%20Leviticus/r/10:16:1)

**ואת שעיר.**פירש"י דלא מצינו חטאת חיצונה נשרפת אלא זו ופר חטאת דמלואים ועל פי הדבור היה אבל חטאות הפנימיות מצינו הרבה פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים. וקשה מפר החטאת דפרש' בהעלותך דלוים ושם פירש"י שאותו חטאת אינו נאכל אע"ג דחטאת החיצון היה. וי"ל דרש"י ר"ל דלא מצינו חטאת חיצונה נשרף עור ובשר מחוץ למחנה אלא אותם שנים ואלו היאך לא נשרף העור ולא מחוץ למחנה מדמדמינן ליה לפר העולה אלא כל הבשר נשרפת לגבי המזבח כליל כמו פר העולה ואין קרוי שריפה אלא הקרבה. וי"א מפני הטומאה נשרפה. ותימה דכיון דשעיר של ר"ח היה הי' לו לקרב בטומאה דכל קרבנו' צבור קרבין בטומא' דכתיב במועדו ודרשינן אף בטומאה וצ"ע:

**Daat Zekenim translated by Rb. Eliyahu Munk:**
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.