English translation — שמיני א

A.

In his commentary on the verse¹

"And fire came out from before the L-rd and consumed them etc." - Rashi copies the words: "And fire came out" - and explains: "Rabbi Eliezer says: The sons of Aaron did not die except because they ruled a halachic ruling in the presence of Moses their teacher.

Rabbi Yishmael says: Intoxicated with wine they entered the Sanctuary,

Know²,

that after their death He warned the survivors that they should not enter the Sanctuary intoxicated with wine,

a parable to a king who had a steward etc. as it is brought in Vayikra Rabbah"³.

And one must understand:

A)

The cause of the death of the sons of Aaron is <b>explicitly</b> stated — in the plain sense of the verse in the text

(in the verse before this)

: "And they brought before the Lord a strange fire which He had not commanded them.

(And therefore)

And fire went out etc. and they died etc." — and there is no need for commentary at all,

B)

Nevertheless, Rashi explains it,

but not according to the plain sense of the verse,

rather an explanation that has no connection at all,

seemingly,

to the meaning of the verses⁴?

3)

Since Rashi comes to explain the reason why "the sons of Aaron died",

he should have quoted in his commentary the word "and they died",

on which it stands — and not "and a fire went out"?

4)

Known is the rule,

that when Rashi brings two explanations on one matter,

this is because each one of them does not suffice to resolve the verse according to its plain meaning in all the details,

for there is a difficulty

(or difficulties)

in one that is not in the other

(except that the explanation that he brings first is the closer to the plain meaning of Scripture).

And explanation is needed: what are the difficulties in the aforementioned explanation and in what way is the first explanation superior to the second?

5)

As said several times - when Rashi in his commentary brings something in the name of its speaker

(contrary to his way in the vast majority of his commentaries)

this is for additional reasoning in his commentary - and one must understand in our case,

what does this teach us that <b>R. Elazar</b> and <b>R. Yose</b> are the ones who each explained his aforementioned commentary⁷?

6)

Rashi,

as is known,

is extremely precise - and explanation is needed - in his copying from the words of the midrash "A parable to a king who had a steward etc. as it is in Vayikra Rabbah" - 34:42,

if his intention is only to indicate to which midrash he is referring,

and for the student to look into the body of the midrash,

he should have abbreviated and said

(at most)

etc. as it is in Vayikra Rabbah": And if his intention is to also inform the content of the parable - then the beginning of the parable that he brought is insufficient.

And therefore it must be said,

that Rashi's addition in his transcription "

: "A parable to a king⁸

(A parable of a king)

who had a house-dweller",

this is an essential detail in the explanation of his commentary.

And one must understand: what is not understood except through the detail of the parable "

(of a king)

who had a house-dweller".

2.

And the explanation of all this:

Since Rashi's commentary is on the words "And fire came forth",

it is understood that &lt;b&gt;in them &lt;/b&gt;is the difficulty that compelled him to explain that "the sons of Aaron did not die except through etc.":

The manner of the death of the sons of Aaron in general - is understood,

that this is "measure for measure" - the punishment of "And fire came forth etc." corresponding to the sin of offering "strange fire"&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;

But it is difficult: how can it be said &lt;b&gt;in the plain meaning of Scripture &lt;/b&gt;that the verse "And fire came forth" here describes the most severe punishment,

while two verses earlier the scripture described &lt;b&gt;with the same &lt;/b&gt;exact language - &lt;b&gt;"And fire came forth" &lt;/b&gt;- the greatest reward,

the indwelling of the Divine Presence which is evident through that "the fire came forth from before the Lord"&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;.

: “That all the seven days of the consecration ..

the Divine Presence did not dwell in it

(in the Tabernacle)

and Israel were ashamed ..

He said to them

(Moses)..

Aaron my brother is worthy..

that through his sacrifices and his service the Divine Presence will dwell among you etc.” - “And fire came forth etc.”,

And then “all the people saw and shouted and fell on their faces”],

And this is what compelled Rashi to explain that also “And fire came forth” said regarding the death of Aaron’s sons is a matter of

(a kind of)

the indwelling of the Divine Presence,

a revelation of holiness: just as through the service of Aaron came the revelation of “And fire came forth etc. upon the altar”,

so too through the service of the incense offering of Aaron’s sons came the revelation of “And fire came forth” — except that there was a deficiency

(according to their worth and level)

in the manner of their conduct in this service,

therefore: “And it consumed them and they died etc.”,

but the service in itself,

was a holy service.

And this is what Rashi wrote: "The sons of Aaron did not die

(through the service)

but rather because they ruled a halachic ruling

(this one, of the offering of the fire)

in the presence of Moses their teacher."

And this does not contradict what is stated "strange fire which He had not commanded them,"

for on the contrary,

from this language it implies that their offering was a strange fire

(only because)

"He had not commanded <b>them</b>"

(the sons of Aaron)

— rather they commanded this to themselves¹²

but the essence of the matter was not the opposite of the command.

And nevertheless it is called "<b>strange fire</b>" <b>in the manner of</b> what is stated¹³

strange incense — strangeness <b>to Him</b>.

But it is <b>somewhat</b> difficult to say that for this a punishment so severe would come — and Rashi hints at the answer in his saying that the author of the commentary is Rabbi Eliezer:

Exalted and wondrous praises were said about Rabbi Eliezer describing the greatness of his power and wisdom in Torah¹⁴

- And nevertheless Rabbi Eliezer said¹⁵

: "One who says a matter that he did not hear from his teacher causes the Divine Presence to depart from Israel,"

From this it is understood a fortiori and all the more so the severity of the matter of

(Not only "one who says a matter that he did not hear from his teacher" but)

That he says it in the presence of his teacher.

And based on this it is understood why the sons of Aaron were punished with such a severe punishment.

3.

However, this explanation is not yet entirely settled,

For it is difficult from the other side: Since in the offering of the incense they ruled on a law in the presence of their teacher,

And caused the Divine Presence <b>to depart</b> as above,

How is it possible that through this "a fire came forth"

<b>The indwelling</b> of the Divine Presence as above?

And because of this difficulty Rashi brings a second explanation: "Those who had drunk wine entered the Sanctuary,"

according to which it speaks of a warning that they had not yet been commanded about it,

and if so, the offering of the incense was complete,

without transgression of the command of G-d — and it is understood that through this offering "a fire came forth" —

(Akin to)

(a kind of)

the indwelling of the Divine Presence,

as above.

And this is that Rashi continues in his explanation and says: "Know that after their death He warned the survivors that they should not enter the Sanctuary having drunk wine": his intention in this

immediately after the death of Aaron's sons,

the verse interrupted with the warning of "wine and intoxicating drink etc." — implying that the cause of their punishment has something of the warning — but also]

to explain the advantage of this explanation

(over the first explanation),

and as above,

that according to Rabbi Yishmael Aaron's sons did not transgress the command of G-d in their offering,

because they had not yet been commanded about this,

and only "after their death He warned the survivors etc."

And it will not be difficult from what is said in the introduction to the punishment "which He did not command them",

because "them" emphasizes — unlike others.

And since it is simple that Nadav and Avihu, the great sons of Aharon, were educated and anointed together with him, certainly they are the closest in level to him, as is said¹⁶

: Ascend to Hashem, you

(Moshe)

and Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel — it must be said that at that time there was a deficiency in their level — that they were intoxicated with wine.

However, according to this explanation,

behold it is difficult: why were they punished

(and especially with such a severe punishment)

behold they were not commanded about this?

And Rashi answers: "A parable of a king who had a steward etc. as it is in Vayikra Rabbah".

And this is the language of the Midrash there: "A parable of a king who had a trusted house steward*&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

He found him standing at the entrance of shops,

And he struck off his head in silence,

And appointed another house steward in his place,

And we do not know why he killed the first one,

But from what he commands the second and says do not enter the entrance of shops we know that because of that he killed the first one."

From the words of the Midrash it is understood that although the first one was not commanded about this,

Nevertheless, because he was &lt;b&gt;"a house steward" &lt;/b&gt;of the king, he should have understood &lt;b&gt;by himself&lt;/b&gt;,

Even without an explicit warning,

That this thing is contrary to the will of the king.

And to this Rashi alludes here in his quoting the beginning of the words of the Midrash — "A parable: to a king who had a <b>household member</b>,"

for by this the difficulty is resolved: why were the sons of Aaron punished for a matter that they were not commanded about,

as above — because they were "household members" of the Holy One, blessed be He

(and as it is written, "<b>Among those close to Me</b> I will be sanctified"¹⁷)

and by themselves they know the conduct of His household even when they were not explicitly commanded about this.

However, with all this it is still not entirely settled to say that the sons of Aaron would be punished with a severe death for a matter that they were not commanded about — and therefore Rashi adds that Rabbi <b>Yishmael</b> is the one who explained thus.

For behold, Chazal said about Rabbi Yishmael¹⁸

: "Kohen

(for R' Yishmael was a Kohen

(Gadol)¹⁹

assists the Kohanim"

(Rashi: "He always helps them and makes it easier for them"),

And he follows his method in our case: Rashi prefers "assists the Kohanim" and "makes it easier" regarding the sin of the sons of Aharon the Kohanim,

even if this is somewhat forced in the interpretation of the verses,

rather than interpreting the verses in a manner

(that is more settled,

but)

that magnifies their sin,

namely to say that they transgressed the command of the Holy One, blessed be He — and ruled halachah in the presence of their master.

4.

However,

after all the above,

one must raise a difficulty on this interpretation

(of R' Yishmael)

a)

The verse says <b>"And they brought </b>etc. strange fire <b>"</b> implying that in the offering itself there was the "strangeness",

the sin,

and not only on the part of the offerers,

that <b>they </b>were intoxicated with wine when they offered²⁰

b)

Since the sin was not in the offering through the fire,

why

(and consequently — what is the practical difference that the verse says "for")

were they punished by "and fire went forth" ²¹.

And therefore Rashi is not satisfied with this explanation,

And on the contrary,

From the explanation according to the <b>second</b> interpretation,

To say that the first explanation — although it too is not entirely settled — is closer to the plain meaning of the verses

(Because of the aforementioned difficulties),

And therefore it is the first and primary one.

5.

From the matters of halachah in this Rashi:

Rashi is precise and says

(and so it is in the Gemara²²)

: "who ruled a halachic ruling in front of <b>Moshe</b> their teacher",

and seemingly what difference does it make that the halachic ruling was in front of <b>Moshe</b>,

and it would have been sufficient to say: "who ruled a halachic ruling in front of their teacher"?

And even more difficult: seemingly there was in this a more severe sin than ruling a halachic ruling in front of <b>Moshe</b> their teacher — that they ruled a halachic ruling in front of <b>Aharon</b> who was their teacher*²²

and also their father²³

that they thereby harmed his honor²⁴.

And especially since the matter of the incense offering belonged to Aharon,

and as Rashi explains before this on the verse²⁵

: "And Moshe and Aharon came etc.": "Moshe entered with Aharon to teach him about the matter of the incense offering".

And it is found that this that they offered incense themselves,

behold this is a matter of harming the service of Aharon on that day,

harming an explicit command in the simple meaning of Scripture

(and in the Oral Law)

Honor your father — and based on this it is difficult not only the superfluous language of the word "Moshe"

(as above — what difference does it make),

but rather that by this it negates a more severe matter of harming the honor of Aharon.

And the explanation of this:

We find in the laws of reclining²⁶,

that a student who eats before his teacher,

even if he is not his prominent teacher,

he is not permitted to recline before him because of the fear and honor of the teacher unless the teacher gave him permission to recline before him,

but there is no obligation on the teacher to give him permission and to forgo his honor.

However, a son who eats with his father, even if his father is his prominent teacher,

needs to recline because presumably a father forgives his honor for his son.

And this is that even in a manner that honoring his father

(who is his teacher)

is more severe than honoring his teacher,

the law is that presumably the father forgives his son, unlike a teacher and his student.

And accordingly, also in the matter of the sons of Aaron&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;,

although the essence of the commandment and obligation of honoring their teacher and their father

(Aaron)

is greater than the obligation of honoring their teacher

(Moses),

nevertheless, the law dictates,

that the son

(and the student)

who rules a halachic decision in front of his father

(and his teacher)

is not as severe as a student who rules a halachic decision in front of his teacher,

but not so a teacher for his student.

Based on this, the precision of Rashi is understood

(according to the law)

: "in front of &lt;b&gt;Moses &lt;/b&gt;their teacher",

but not so regarding what was in front of Aaron they were not punished for this,

since presumably the father forgives his son&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;,

since presumably the father forgives his son.

And based on this, one may sweeten what Rashi quotes also the words "

(they did not die)

<b>sons of Aharon</b>",

for ostensibly it is explicit in the verse <b>here</b>,

Rather, his intention is to emphasize that since we are dealing with "<b>sons of</b> Aharon",

it is understood that "<b>they did not</b> die etc. <b>except</b> because they ruled a halachic ruling in the presence of <b>Moses</b> their teacher",

and not in the presence of Aharon their teacher,

for a father presumably forgives his son,

as mentioned above.

6.

"The essence of Torah" and the instruction for each one in Rashi before us:

Despite the fact that the level of Nadav and Avihu was most elevated,

and to such an extent that Moshe said to Aharon: "They are greater than me and you,"

and the Holy One, blessed be He, called them "My close ones - My chosen ones"²⁹,

nevertheless they were punished with a most severe punishment because of the lack of the proper "self-nullification" to their teacher - that they ruled a halachic ruling in his presence.

And Rabbi Eliezer — despite his great power in Torah as mentioned above — is the one who says that "one who says something he did not hear from his teacher causes the Divine Presence to depart from Israel,"

that nullification to his teacher is a matter that pertains to the revelation of the Divine Presence to all of Israel.

And from this,

that a person from Israel should not say: I am a learned one and I am a Torah scholar,

and how can I be nullified to a teacher and wait for him to instruct me the halacha in Torah,

and likewise in the ways of the world³⁰,

and the path in which I shall go in the service of G-d,

and behold, it is in my power to instruct myself!

- For who is greater than Nadav and Avihu,

And nevertheless this was <b>all </b>their sin,

"<b>Not </b>did the sons of Aaron die <b>except </b>because they ruled a halachic ruling in the presence of Moses their teacher,"

And to such an extent - that this pertains not only to them³¹,

Rather it causes the opposite of the matter of the revelation of the Shechinah among Israel.

On the other hand: they demand from each and every one that his Torah study be specifically with understanding and comprehension in his own intellect - and until his entire being is permeated with the understanding of the Torah.

- And this is what Rashi continues and says "Rabbi Yishmael says, intoxicated with wine they entered &lt;b&gt;the Sanctuary&lt;/b&gt;": wine is the aspect of binah&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

- understanding and comprehension,

and "&lt;b&gt;intoxicated &lt;/b&gt;with wine" means filled and permeated with understanding and comprehension,

and the sin is - that they entered &lt;b&gt;the Sanctuary &lt;/b&gt;in this form: the deficiency of "intoxicated with wine" is only at the time of entry &lt;b&gt;into the Sanctuary &lt;/b&gt;- but a person's service of his Creator when not in the Sanctuary,

then on the contrary,

it must be with understanding and comprehension:

The Sanctuary is the matter of prayer&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;,

for then a person stands before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He,

and he who gestures before the king etc.&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

- that it must be with utter self-nullification "like a servant before his master"&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;,

but his labor and toil in Torah must be in the manner of "intoxicated with wine," that his entire existence is filled and permeated with the intellect of Torah.

- And as we find regarding R. Yehuda bar R. Ilai&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;

that a noblewoman said to him that his face resembled the face of a drunkard, and R. Yehuda said to her that this is because his Torah study is readily in his hand — that is, that which in physicality appeared as a drunkard, this is because the physicality was according to his spirituality, and in spirituality he was a "drunkard" — saturated in the understanding of the Torah —

And behold, that which during the time of prayer

(in the Temple),

a person nullifies himself from his existence entirely as above — this gives strength and causes that also his service afterward in the study of Torah with his intellect,

will be with the proper nullification&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

even though it is also with understanding and comprehension as required&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;.

However, the question is asked: how is it possible the connection of two opposites in the learning of Torah: the feeling of his intellect and his understanding of the learner,

and nullification of his existence etc.?

-The answer is given in the continuation of Rashi below: "A parable of a king who had a &lt;b&gt;household member &lt;/b&gt;etc." - since the discussion is about Bnei Yisrael who are "household member" of the King of kings, the Holy One Blessed be He,

so He gives them the power to connect the two opposites&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

that they can learn with understanding and comprehension and together with this be in the appropriate nullification etc.: until that through this they will effect the connection

(the matter of opposites)

of world and Divinity,

the world conducts itself according to the ruling of the learner and his conclusion in his learning and as our Rabbis of blessed memory said on the verse "To God who completes on my behalf"&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

and brings near through this the fulfillment of the prophecy "And the glory of Hashem will be revealed and all &lt;b&gt;flesh &lt;/b&gt;together will see that the mouth of Hashem spoke"&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;,

in the coming of Mashiach our righteous one.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Shemini,

Erev Rosh Chodesh Iyar 5726)