The Verse:
And fire went forth from before Hashem and consumed them, and they died before Hashem. (Vayikra 10:2)
Rashi:
And fire went forth -- Rabbi Eliezer says: Aharon’s sons died only because they rendered halachic decisions in the presence of Moshe, their teacher. Rabbi Yishmael says: they had entered the sanctuary after having drunk wine. The proof is that after their death, the Torah admonished the survivors that they may not enter the sanctuary after having drunk wine. This is analogous to a king who had a faithful attendant (literally: a member of his household) etc. as recounted in Vayikra Rabbah.
Questions:
The Torah itself states the reason for the death of the sons of Aharon -- “they offered a foreign fire which they have not been commanded” -- why does Rashi offer additional interpretations which are not stated in the straightforward reading of the verse?
Why does Rashi put the first interpretation before the second, (which implies that it is superior to the second)?
Why does Rashi quote the words of the verse “and fire went forth”? Seemingly Rashi's commentary explains the words “and they died”!?
Explanation:
There is a question that arises when reading the verse: The expression “and fire went forth” is written a few verses earlier to express the revelation of the Divine Presence. How is it then possible that the Torah would employ the same expression to describe something that is entirely negative? Rashi therefore explains that the fact that they drew near to Hashem is also an expression of the dwelling of the Divine presence, yet they died because they rendered a halachic decision on the presence of their teacher. (This is consistent with the words “which they were not commanded,” which implies that the idea itself is correct; the problem is just that they were not commanded). It is however difficult to accept that they would receive a punishment so severe for only a seemingly minor offense. Rashi therefore cites the author of this teaching. For Rabbi Eliezer also taught that “anyone who says something that he has not heard from his teacher causes the Divine Presence to depart from Israel.”
This however raises the question: If they caused “the Divine Presence to depart from Israel,” why does the Torah use the words “and fire went forth,” (which is associated with the dwelling of the Divine Presence)? Rashi therefore presents a second interpretation: “They had entered the sanctuary after having drunk wine.” (The meaning of the words “which they were not commanded” is that at that moment, the sons of Aharon were not on the appropriate level because they drank wine). At that point they were not yet commanded not to drink wine, therefore the offering of the incense and the dwelling of the Divine presence was complete.
To explain why the sons of Aharon were punished despite not being commanded not to drink wine, Rashi quotes the Midrash: “This is analogous to a king who had a faithful attendant (literally: a member of his household) etc.” Rashi’s intention is to make the point that since he “was a member of the household” of the king, he was expected to know that his behaviour, (standing at the entrances of taverns), was inappropriate for him.
Rashi cites the author of this teaching, Rabbi Yishmael, who was a kohen because “a Kohen supports his fellow Kohanim, And Rabbi Yishmael prefers an interpretation which minimizes the sin of the sons of Aharon. (Although there is a difficulty in the second interpretation: why would they receive a severe punishment despite not being commanded against drinking wine).
Halacha in Rashi:
Rashi emphasizes that they “rendered a Halachic decision in the presence of Moshe their teacher”. Seemingly the fact that they did so in the presence of Aharon their father is an even more severe sin, because it is also a transgression of the commandment to honor one’s father. The answer is that the Halacha is that a student may not recline in the presence of his teacher (at the Pesach Seder) unless the teacher forgives the violation and forgoes his honor. A child, however, may recline at the Seder in the presence of his father who is also his teacher, because we assume that the father will forgo his honor. In the story of the sins of Aharon too, we can assume that Aharon forgave the violation of his honor.
The Wine of Torah
Despite their qualities, the sons of Aharon were punished because they did not have bitul (nullification) to Moshe their teacher. One must possess understanding of Torah (“drunk wine”), yet in the Beis Hamikdash one must be in a state of bitul and not in a state of “drunken wine”. Through being in a state of bitul while in the beis hamikdash we receive the ability to be in a state of bitul also while engaging in Torah study, which involves understanding. Although bitul and understanding are polar opposites, nevertheless because we are a “member of the household” of Hashem, we have the ability to connect opposite extremes.
