אחרי מות שני בני אהרן, “After the death of two of Aaron’s sons.” The reason why the Torah again refers to this event at this juncture is that seeing the Torah had just (15,31) concluded by warning us to be extremely careful not to become guilty of death through polluting G’d’s residence while entering it in a state of ritual contamination, the Torah uses the death of Aaron’s sons as an example designed to serve as a deterrent to anyone else daring to desecrate consecrated grounds in such a fashion. Nachmanides adds that the wording אחרי מות שני בני אהרן is that immediately after that tragic death had occurred, Aaron and his sons had been warned not to enter consecrated grounds while in a state of intoxication. (Compare Leviticus 10,8-11). It is certainly reasonable to assume that these laws were revealed to Aaron and the people on the day following the death of Nadav and Avihu. They could not very well have been communicated on the very day of the death of the sons, as the legal status of אנינות, preoccupation with burial and mourning rites, prevent the remaining two sons from studying Torah on that day. Not only that, but the Holy Spirit does not communicate with people when they are in such a state of mind. The warning not to drink wine applied to Aaron personally more than to anyone else, as he performed service in the Tabernacle on a daily basis. Moses had been informed before now, of course, but the Torah wanted that the entire people be warned at once. [We must remember that though Moses had been given all these laws already on Mount Sinai, seeing that at that time the whole subject of building a Tabernacle had not yet become relevant, as there had not yet been the sin of the golden calf, there had also been no reason to reveal this to the people until now, the first or second day that the Tabernacle had become operative. Ed.] As a general rule (Nachmanides writing), whenever the Torah departs from chronological sequence in its report, it prefaces such statements with the words “G’d spoke to Moses at Mount Sinai, etc.,” to remind us that the legislation following was not an afterthought. Ed.] Our sages claim that the meaning of the words ולא תמותו in Leviticus 10,9 was an oblique reference to the reason why the two sons of his had died. Aaron should take care that the same would not happen to him. [Seeing that the author does not attribute this statement of “our sages” to a specific source, I permit myself the comment that this sounds incredibly unlikely, as surely someone of Aaron’s stature did not need to be given this kind of a warning in order to obey G’d’s instructions. Ed.]

בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו, “when they approached the presence of Hashem and died.” Ibn Ezra comments that this verse is proof that the sons of Aaron died because they had dared to bring the incense into the Tabernacle. Nachmanides disagrees, as the Torah always mentions the sin of anyone who died an untimely death at the hands of Hashem. The Torah had already told us on a number of occasions that the cause of death was that they introduced “strange fire” which they had not been authorised to do. (Leviticus 10,1) However, this was described as בהקריבם אש זרה, “when they introduced alien fire,” whereas here the Torah wrote about בקרבתם, i.e. when they personally entered a domain which was out of bounds to them. It is therefore completely reasonable that the Torah should now warn Aaron not to enter the wrong place at the wrong time. Although he is permitted entry to the Holy of Holies, even, something no other priest is allowed to enter, he cannot do so at times of his choosing. It is quite possible that the correct interpretation of our verse is in line with what our sages said (Mechilta Beshalach ויסע ו) that the people had come to the conclusion that the incense contained poisonous herbs which had caused the death of Nadav and Avihu, the 250 men who offered incense during Korach’s rebellion, etc. The Torah, countering these wild accusations leveled against the incense offering, wanted to make the point that it had not been the incense which had killed them but their unauthorised entry, both in terms of place and time. Aaron therefore had to be especially on guard, seeing he would offer incense on a daily basis he would be more exposed to such a danger than any other individual. The Torah defines precisely when, where, and who is fit to offer this special offering (verses 12 and 13). Some scholars feel that we must take careful note of the difference in meaning of the word בקרבתם as opposed to בהקריבם, the former referring to the act of entering a forbidden domain regardless of the purpose why it was entered and regardless of what the person entering had in his hands as an offering. In order to make plain that mere entering the sacred domain by Nadav and Avihu was a mortal sin by itself, the Torah now instructs Aaron: בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקוד'ש, “only when accompanied by the following is Aaron allowed to enter these holy domains.”

ויאמר ה' אל משה, “Hashem said to Moses,” I am greatly perturbed by this apparent repetition. We have already been told that G’d spoke to Moses, without hearing what He said to him. Our verse appears as if G’d is rephrasing the tenor of what He was about to say without having said anything as yet. We do not know if G’d had interrupted Himself by speaking on some other subject first, the details of which have been withheld from us. Is the word ויאמר merely indicative of G’d taking up the broken thread of a previous conversation? Some commentators claim that the subject of G’d’s message in verse one was the legislation about the red heifer, the ashes of which would be used to purify the people who had been involved in the burial of Nadav and Avihu who had become ritually impure through their handling the corpses. According to that version, the message contained as part of verse one was delivered still on the same day these sons died, i.e. the first of Nissan, whereas in verse two we deal with what G’d told Moses on the second day of Nissan. According to that, the remains of the red heifer were burned on the second day of Nissan, and the Torah now instructs Moses that the ashes would be used to purify people who had become ritually polluted through contact with dead bodies. In order to make this clear, the Torah refers once more to the death of the two sons of Aaron, to indicate that the ashes of the red heifer are used in purifying those who had become impure through their participation in the burial of these two people.

דבר אל אהרן אחיך, “speak to your brother Aaron.” Nachmanides writes that the reason G’d mentioned that Aaron was Moses’ brother, [something that all of us have been aware of for a long time, Ed.] was that G’d meant to emphasise that although Moses was not included in the injunction not to enter the Tabernacle at any time, Aaron was subject to such constraints.

He had already been told to enter the Holy of Holies only once a year on the Day of Atonement, as we know from Exodus 30,10 וכפר אהרן על קרנותיו אחת בשנה, “he is to secure atonement on its corners once a year by the sin offering of atonement, etc. This is what has been referred to in our verse here.

בגדי קודש הם, “they are sacred vestments.” The sages in Torat Kohanim use this verse as applying not only to this service in the Tabernacle on the Day of Atonement, but as applying to any time the High Priest performs duties in the Temple or Tabernacle. [Meaning that only the four vestments mentioned here are to be worn by him inside the Tabernacle, not the additional vestments which have been described as לכבוד ולתפארת, “for glory and splendour.” (Exodus 28,2). Ed.] Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of the text, seeing that in connection with the eight vestments the Torah had used the expression ועשית בגדי קודש, “you are to make sacred vestments,” (Exodus 28,2) the same terminology is used here. The Torah by emphasising the fact that the garments enumerated here are to be linen, בד, indicates that during service inside the Tabernacle only linen garments are to be worn. [Approaching Hashem in golden vestments when asking forgiveness would be the ultimate in bad taste. Ed.] In Vayikra Rabbah, 21,10 a comparison is drawn between the way service by the angels is perceived as taking place in the celestial counterpart to the Tabernacle on earth. In those regions the service is performed in linen vestments. The words כתונת בד קודש match what our sages used to describe as taking place in those regions. (Compare Ezekiel 9,1) Commenting on three different verbs used by the Torah for Aaron donning these vestments, ילבש, יחגור, יצנוף, when we would have thought that the word ילבש would suffice to describe all this, Torat Kohanim explains that seeing that the High Priest had to return to the Holy of Holies for the offering of the evening portion of the incense, he needed additional vessels to retrieve the spoon used for the incense, for instance, these extra words hint at these additional items the High Priest had to take with him.

וגורל אחד לעזאזל, “and one lot for the one designated as destined for Azazel.” The word עזאזל is interpreted in Torat Kohanim as “a hard place in the mountains.” The word is linked to the word עז meaning “hard, tough.” By doubling the letters the point is made that the place is especially hard, unyielding. Nachmanides proceeds to explain the somewhat strange sounding rite of the scapegoat as follows: There used to be people who worshipped other deities, i.e. they ascribed divine powers to phenomena in nature. In fact these so-called deities are agents of the Creator whom we Jews perceive as מלאכים, loosely translated as “angels,” as they perform tasks assigned to them by the Creator, by Hashem. These misguided people offered sacrifices to these powers in the mistaken belief that these powers were able to do things on their own, things that G’d had not authorised them to do, or to fail to do. The Torah, had, of course, forbidden us totally to see in these powers anything resembling divinity. However, on the occasion of Yom Kippur, the Torah commanded that one of the two male goats designated as part of the Temple service would instead of being offered on the altar be dispatched to its death not as a sacrifice. The address to which this scapegoat was dispatched was the location in which the power perceived as possessing divine powers over nature was supposed to have its home. This power is equated in our thinking with the power that unleashes destruction [always at the command of Hashem, of course. Ed.] The “president” of these powers deserves to be acknowledged for what it is, though of course not to be deified, and that is why the scapegoat described in our verse is not slaughtered as opposed to sacrifices that are. The celestial body perceived as in “control” of all negative events in our universe is the planet Mars. Its counterpart among human beings is the nation of Edom, i.e. the descendants of Esau. Esau is the nation that has inherited the sword as the symbol of its power, ever since Yitzchok blessed his son Esau. In he animal kingdom the male goat represents the counterpart of Esau/Edom amongst the human beings. Parts of the domain of the male goats are the so-called שדים, satanic forces, the demons. The whole subject of the scapegoat must not, G’d forbid, be misunderstood as a kind of offering to these demonic forces from the Jewish people. On the contrary, the procedure demonstrates that we carry out the will of our Creator. Our sages have illustrated this in the form of a parable. When an individual prepares a feast in honour of his king, the king in turn, asks the host of this feast to also give a portion to a certain servant of his. Naturally, the individual tendering the feast to the king, in complying with his king’s request has not thereby done anything for that particular servant of the king. He has merely carried out a wish by his monarch. He had tendered a meal to the king, who had decided not to eat it all himself but to let another one of his servants share in the honour bestowed on him The reason why the king decided to give a portion to that particular servant of his was that he thereby wanted to perform an act of kindness for the host of this meal by ensuring that the servant who had not been invited to that meal but to whom the king diverted a portion now, had no reason to be jealous of the host and be upset that the host had not seen fit to invite him also as guest to that feast. A clear proof of the basic analogy presented in this parable is the fact that the scapegoat, though given to the demons had not been slaughtered, its blood had not been sprinkled on the altar, as was done with the part of the feast to which the king and his other servants had been invited. This is also the underlying reason for the lots which were drawn as to which of the male goats would be served to whom, -to continue in the language of the parable.- Both the fact that according to halachah both male goats had to be as near to twins as was possible, and the fact that only the drawing of lots determined which was to be served to whom, made it plain that the guest whom the king’s admirer had not invited was not considered inferior, else an inferior portion would have been set aside for him from the outset. Onkelos translates the words גורל אחד לה' as “one of the male goats was destined for the Hoy Name of Hashem,” whereas the other one was destined for Azazel. In other words, the first one was addressed to an attribute of Hashem, not to His essence, whereas the second was addressed to the essence of Azazel, not to an attribute of his. Such considerations prompted our sages both in Torat Kohanim and in Yuma 67 to comment as follows on Leviticus 18,4 את משפטי תעשו ואת חוקותי תשמרו, “Carry out My laws and observe My statutes.” The “laws” are the ones that are so self-evident that if the Torah had not spelled them out we would have had to legislate them ourselves. The former include legislation against robbery, murder, idolatry, etc.; whereas the latter include such statutes as not to mix wool with linen in a garment, not to allow the widow of a husband who had no children to remarry unless her brother-in-law had refused to enter into a levirate marriage with her (חליצה), not to eat pig’s meat, the red heifer, etc. The latter have been described as examples of irrational laws which the nations of the world ridicule, and thereby test our faith in the Creator Who has wanted to see if we would observe these laws although we do not understand their rationale. The legislation about the scapegoat also falls into the category of laws that afford the gentiles a challenge in that they feel that basically, we do nothing else than what they do. They cannot challenge all the various offerings that we offer to Hashem and hope thereby to undermine our faith in the invisible Creator. They thought that the absence of the mention of Hashem in the procedure of the scapegoat proved that we also pay homage to demons, etc. They thought they had found another proof of the irrationality of our faith in the red heifer legislation that appears to contaminate the very person who is preoccupied with purifying others. The wording of the Torah, as alluded to by Onkelos, makes it plain that the gentiles have completely misunderstood the phenomenon of the scapegoat. The major reason why the gentiles were misled is that both the red heifer procedure and the second half of the scapegoat procedure takes place outside consecrated grounds.

...elsewhere the sinner’s or his representative the High Priest’s placing his hands with all his weight on the animal offered as the sin offering is designed to regain the goodwill of Hashem for the sinner or sinners. In this instance (compare Shabbat 119) the scapegoat reluctantly agrees to carry the sins of the Israelites and says Amen.

ובא אהרן אל אהל מועד, “Aaron shall come to the Tent of Meeting;” Rashi, quoting our sages (Yuma 32) says that the verse does not really represent the correct sequence of what happened. According to the sages the entire chapter is reported chronologically in proper sequence with the exception of this verse. Aaron did not enter the Sanctuary until after he had completed the procedures involving both the bull and the male goat offering. Afterwards he entered the Sanctuary in order to retrieve the ladle and the pan of the incense that he had left behind there earlier. Nachmanides agrees that the position of this verse in the Yom Kippur rites needs explaining. If we were to accept the verse at its face value, we would have to believe that Aaron made a special trip into the Sanctuary to do nothing else but retrieve the ladle and the censer which he had use earlier when offering the incense. For all this he would have to first change his golden vestments immerse himself in a ritual bath, etc, and don the linen vestments mandatory when entering the Sanctuary after first having stood nude in the Sanctuary. We must assume that Aaron entered the Sanctuary in order to perform service, some of the priestly functions. There was no need to mention that this service consisted of the retrieval of the ladle and the censer. The meaning of 16,13 ונתן את הקטרת על האש לפני ה' וכסה ענן הקטרת את הכפורת וגו', “he shall place the incense upon the fire before Hashem; so that the cloud of smoke of the incense will envelop the lid of the Holy Ark, etc.,” is that Aaron shall wait there until the cloud of the incense had enveloped the lid of the Holy Ark. When that had occurred, he was to leave immediately and leave behind the ladle and the censer [as they were too hot to handle at that moment. Ed.] Naturally, at some stage these two vessels had to be retrieved. This is what the Torah refers to when it writes in verse 23 “Aaron is to enter the Sanctuary, disrobe from the golden vestments and again don the linen vestments, etc.” The Torah did not mention at this stage what he had done prior to this while having worn the golden vestments, such as performing the rites of the daily tamid offering. Instead, the Torah commences describing the daily sacrifices that were offered while he was wearing the linen vestments. These rites are described sequentially. It is the custom of the Torah to relate procedures in order of their happening and to complete the report of them. In this instance, retrieval of the ladle and censer from the Holy of Holies was the last item on the agenda. Even though, as a result, there is some chronological inconsistency in the report here, the Torah rectifies this by reporting that Aaron had entered the Sanctuary again wearing the appropriate vestments in order to complete the final stage of the day’s Temple service in them.

והניחם שם, “and he shall leave them there.” He was to leave these garments at the place where he changed into his golden vestments. We are taught by this that they would not be used again even on the Day of Atonement in the following year.”

יוציא אל מחוץ למחנה, “he will take outside beyond the boundaries of the camp.” According to Ibn Ezra the subject of the word יוציא is Aaron himself. Nachmanides disagrees and understands that whoever was the person who had been designated to do this would at this stage proceed and take these animal carcasses outside the camp limits there to burn them with their skins, etc. The same interpretation is correct for the respective persons charged with ושרפו, burning these remains.

ושרפו, “they shall burn (transitively);” the verb is in the plural mode to teach us that if there are a number of priests participating in that procedure, one may bring the torch or match, another may arrange the firewood, yet another may light the flame, seeing that only the one who brings the torch or match becomes liable to ritual contamination by the procedure. Seeing that the others do not become ritually contaminated, the Torah speaks of the one starting the fire in the singular mode, i.e. השורף, in verse 28. [Priests must not become ritually contaminated unless they perform a מצוה by doing so. The one starting the fire has to be מכבס בגדיו both immerse his body and the garments he wore in a ritual bath after having completed the task. Ed.]

ויעש כאשר צוה ה' את משה, “Aaron did as G’d had commanded Moses.” He carried out all that he had been commanded to do and he remained careful for the rest of his life not to enter beyond the dividing curtain except on the Day of Atonement, on which day he performed the sacrificial service in strict compliance with what the Torah had instructed Moses.