.וישימו עליה קטורת, “they placed incense on it.” They offered their own incense instead of the communal incense.. 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 than that of the community is called: “alien.”

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 to be 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.”

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 discovered Nadav and Avihu in front of the Golden Altar in the Sanctuary offering the incense with their own fire. Therefore the heavenly fire consumed them before continuing to the copper altar in front of the Sanctuary and consumed to the copper altar in front of the Sanctuary and consumed there the Elevation offering.

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, 17-18) 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.

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. But why did the Torah say that they dies before the Lord (i.e. inside the Tabernacle)? Perhaps they did die there but later an angel pushed the bodies outside to where the Levites were permitted. Rabbi Akiva on the other hand said that they did die inside the Tabernacle. Since they were still wearing their garments which had not been burned by the heavenly fire, their cousins hooked their spears into the outer garments and dragged them until they were outside the sacred parts of the Tabernacle.

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 this is the way of the Torah [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. Ed.]

ועל פני כל העם אכבד, “and I will be honoured in the presence of the whole nation.” They will all be witness that even though as Aaron’s sons had died he will push away the mourning ritual in order to serve me.

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)

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).

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

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.

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.)

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

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.

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.

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 from entering the holy precincts of the Temple. It is simply not befitting that a drunk person should perform sacrificial service.

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,

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

את כל החוקים, these are the interpretations,

אשר דבר ה, ”which the Lord has revealed by word of mouth.” these are the laws

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

אצל המזבח, “next to the altar,” and not within the Sanctuary nor on the altar. How do I know that the Torah also includes the most holy offerings? 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)

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).

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

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

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.)

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, where Moses had commanded the people of Israel to take such an animal as a sin offering. Both in that verse and here (verse 17) the people for whom atonement was sought were called by almost identical names, i.e. עם or .עדה

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.

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)

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.”

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.

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

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)