וידבר ה' אל משה אחרי מות שני בני אהרן בקרבתם לפני ה' וימתו
“Hashem spoke to Moshe after the death of Aharon’s two sons, when they approached before Hashem, and they died.” (Vayikra 16:1)
It says in the Medrash (Tanchuma, Acharei Mos 6) that Bar Kappara said in the name of Rabbi Yirmiyah ben Elazar: “Bishvil arba’ah devarim meisu bnei Aharon: al hakreivah, ve’al hahakravah, ve’al eish zarah, ve’al she’lo natlu eitzah zeh mi’zeh — Aharon’s sons died on account of four things: for drawing near, for offering, for the strange fire, and for not having taken counsel from each other.”
When Nadav and Avihu brought a strange fire in the Kodesh, they acted independently, each one preparing the pan, incense, and fire on his own. This is inferred from the Torah’s emphasis in Parshas Shemini, “And each man took his pan” (Vayikra 10:1), rather than saying, “They took pans.” So, while they entered the Kodesh together and were killed simultaneously, they had no prior discussion as to the advisability of their intended course of action.
According to Rav Meshulam David HaLevi Soloveitchik, were they to have conferred with one another, each one would have been advised by his brother not to proceed with bringing a strange fire and entering the Kodesh. It seems apparent that the advice would have been heeded.
Why is this true? If each, individually, felt that bringing the fire was permitted and perhaps even a mitzvah, how would asking for the other’s opinion help? It would seem more likely that the other brother would have seconded the motion: “Great idea! I’m doing it myself.” Why does the Medrash fault them for not asking for advice, when such advice would not have been forthcoming?
Perhaps this is another instance where we see a well-known maxim and fact of life being played out. The Mishnah in Negoim (2:5) tells us, “Kol hanegaim adam ro’eh chutz mi’nigei atzmo — A person sees all faults but his own.” We can both be doing the same incorrect thing, yet I only find fault in you. My vision is imperfect pertaining to myself, and I cannot be objective. Yet when addressing the same issue in another, I can, like a laser beam, home in on the truth of the problem.
Here, too, although the would-be adviser had the same intentions as the seeker of advice, when being afforded an opportunity to focus on another, the truth could have come out. Each one would have been able to give proper advice. (R’ Avraham Bukspan)
