There are many different opinions as to why the two elder sons of Aharon died during the ceremony dedicating the Mishkan. An interesting Medrash Tanchuma here in Parshas Achrei Mos enumerates four things they did wrong: The “kreivah” (coming close); the “hakravah” (bringing an unsolicited offering); the “esh zarah” (foreign fire); and “lo natlu eizta zeh m’zeh” (not consulting with one another as to whether or not they should be doing what they did).
In elaborating upon this fourth point, the Medrash quotes the pasuk in Parshas Shemini that “each man took his own firepan” (Vayikra 10:1). This implies that unbeknownst to each other and independently, they decided on their own to bring this unsolicited korban. While each came up with this idea individually, neither thought it wise to consult with his brother regarding the wisdom of bringing such an incense offering at this time.
Rav Dovid Soloveitchik zt”l asks on this Medrash: And if they would have consulted with each other, would it have made any difference? Apparently, they would have each corroborated their brother’s plan, saying, “That’s a great idea. I had the same idea!” In other words, it would not have made the slightest difference whether they consulted with one another or not before going ahead and offering this unsolicited incense offering.
However, the Medrash implies that if they would have consulted with one another first, they would not have made such a mistake. Rav Dovid Soloveitchik says that this teaches us a fact about human frailty: I could be doing something wrong, and I may even know that I am doing something wrong, but I don’t see it in myself. But when YOU do something wrong and I see YOU doing that something wrong, I will recognize the error. Therefore, if you ask me whether you should do it or not, I will tell you in no uncertain terms, “Of course, you should NOT do it. It is an aveira!”
This is actually a play on words of a Mishnah in Maseches Negaim (2:5): “A person is allowed to view (for determining tzaraas status) any and all blemishes, except his own...” A person can rule halachically on the status of anyone else’s negah, but not on the person’s own negah. Aside from the legal halachic interpretation of this statement (regarding the laws of tzaraas), the Mishnah has a homiletic connotation as well: People see the faults of everyone else, but not their own faults.
Had Nadav asked Avihu, “Hey, brother, I am thinking about bringing this ketores zarah before Hashem. What do you think about that idea?” Avihu would have responded on the spot “What are you – crazy???” The fact that Avihu was standing there with his own fire pan ready to do the same thing would not matter. He was not able to see the fallacy of his own actions, but he could readily detect that same fallacy in others.
That is what the Medrash means: Had they consulted with each other, it could very well have been that their ill-fated action would have been derailed. I can see your faults. I cannot see my own faults. (R’ Frand)
