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.

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.

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

'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;

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.

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.

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

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.

'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.]

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."

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

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.]

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).

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.

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.”

(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.