An Outline of the Rebbe's Explanation of Rashi
Parshas Shemini
Likkutei Sichos Volume 12, Pages 49 – 56
Rashi in His Own Words
Vayikroh 10:2: And fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed them.
Rashi Heading: And fire went forth: Rabbi Eliezer says, "Aharon's sons died, only because they rendered a halachic decision in the presence of Moshe, their teacher (by offering incense on their own)." Rabbi Yishmoel says, "(They died because) they had entered the Sanctuary after drinking wine. The proof is that after their death, (the Torah) warned the survivors that they may not enter the Sanctuary after having drunk wine. This is analogous to a king with a faithful attendant, as told in Vayikroh Rabbah."
Synopsis
This week's Torah portion, Shemini, tells us of a celebration that took a tragic turn. At the end of the book of Shemos, the Jewish people spent a great deal of time and effort building the "Mishkan – Tabernacle." We then spent seven days dedicating it. Each day, Moshe would erect and dismantle the Mishkan. Finally, on the eighth day (the first day of the month of Nissan), the Mishkan was constructed for real. Hashem's presence would rest in this world, and Aharon would take his rightful place as High Priest. However, during this celebration, something went wrong. Two of Aharon's sons brought a strange fire before Hashem. The Torah tells us, "Fire went forth before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before Hashem." Rashi cites two of our Sages' opinions on the reason for their untimely death. Rabbi Eliezer says that Aharon's sons died because they rendered a halachic decision in Moshe's presence. Rabbi Yishmoel says that they died because they entered the Sanctuary after having drunk wine.
The Rebbe asks, among other questions, why Rashi needs to explain the reason for their death; the Torah explicitly says that they died because they "brought a foreign fire before Hashem, which He had not commanded them (to bring)." Furthermore, we know that Rashi always explains each verse's simple meaning; the reasons he cites from the Midrash do not seem to be the simple meaning at all!
The answer is as follows. As we have stated many times, Rashi is extremely precise with every word he writes, including the headings of each explanation. The title that he chooses for his comments is the words, "and a fire went forth – אש ותצא." In other words, the difficulty he is explaining lies in those words. G-d punishes measure for measure. Because they brought a "foreign fire," they were punished by a fire that went forth. However, two verses earlier, we saw the exact words used to describe a great reward. "A fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering..." This made it clear that G-d's presence rested upon the Mishkan. It was a revelation of G-dliness. We, therefore, know that the "fire going forth" due to the incense that Nodov and Avihu offered was also holy; it was also a sign of a revelation of G-dliness. This being the case, we need to understand why they were punished! Therefore, Rashi explains that their punishment came from something lacking in their service of Hashem. Of course, whatever the problem was, it was considered a sin only concerning their high level and stature.
Rashi's Explanation
This week's Torah portion, Shemini, tells us of a celebration that took a tragic turn. After completing the building of the "Mishkan – Tabernacle," we spent seven days dedicating it. Each day, Moshe would erect and dismantle the Mishkan. Finally, on the eighth day, the Mishkan was ready. It would begin serving as Hashem's dwelling place in this world. Aharon would take his rightful place as the High Priest. However, during the celebration, something went awry. The Torah tells us, "Aaron's sons, Nodov and Avihu, each took his pan, put fire in them, placed incense upon it, and brought a foreign fire before Hashem which He had not commanded them (to bring)." We are then told, "Fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed them, and they died before Hashem." Rashi cites two reasons for their untimely death. Rabbi Eliezer says that Aharon's sons died because they rendered a halachic decision in their teacher's presence; Rabbi Yishmoel says that they died because they entered the Sanctuary after having drunk wine. Rabbi Yishmoel cites proof for his opinion that after their death, (the Torah) warned the survivors that they may not enter the Sanctuary after having drunk wine. This is analogous to a king who had a faithful attendant, etc. Rashi cites the Midrash as his source for this. However, as we shall see later, Rashi leaves out the content of Rabbi Yishmoel's proof.
Difficulties in Understanding Rashi
The reason for the passing of Nodov and Avihu is stated explicitly in the previous verse, "They offered a strange fire which Hashem did not command them to bring." Why does Rashi need to offer any explanation whatsoever? We know that first and foremost, Rashi always explains Peshat, which is the simple meaning of the verse. However, in our case, the reasons he offers seem to have nothing to do with the simple meaning of the verses; instead, they are taken from a Midrash.
Rashi is always extremely precise with the words he chooses for the heading of each of his explanations. The words in his comments header are the words he is explaining. Since Rashi explains why they died, one would think that the heading should have been "and they died" rather than "a fire went forth." When Rashi gives two explanations, neither explains all of the details he is discussing, according to Peshat. There is a difficulty with each explanation; however, the first explanation he cites is closer to the simple explanation of the verse. We need to understand the problems with each of Rashi's explanations and why the first is more comparable to Peshat.
It is unusual for Rashi to cite a teaching in the name of the Sage who initially said it, and on those occasions, he does so because it provides additional understanding to a sharp student. We need to understand why the fact that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yishmoel said these two explanations add to our understanding.
As previously said, Rashi's language is exact. Why does he tell us, "This is analogous to a king who had a faithful attendant ... as told in Vayikroh Rabbah?" If he wanted to tell us the location of the Midrash so that we look at it ourselves, he could have just stated that "this is analogous to a king... as told in Vayikroh Rabbah." Why does he mention the faithful attendant without telling us the entire analogy? We must say that the "faithful attendant" is an essential part of Rashi's explanation. What do these few words add to our understanding?
The Explanation
We must understand Rashi's explanation from the proper perspective to understand our questions answers. We assumed that Rashi explained why Aharon's sons died, but that is untrue. As noted previously, if Rashi had explained the reason for the punishment of Nodov and Avihu, the heading of his commentary would have been the words from the verse, "and they died," rather than "a fire went forth."
Rashi's difficulty with our verse is something different. We know that G-d repays a person measure for measure. At first glance, it makes perfect sense to say that since Nodov and Avihu brought a "foreign fire," fire went out and consumed them. However, this cannot be the case. We saw the words "a fire went out" used to describe a grand reward two verses earlier! "A fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering..." This "fire going out" showed us that G-d's presence rested on the Mishkan. The people rejoiced. Therefore, Rashi understands that the "fire going forth" due to the incense that Nodov and Avihu offered was also holy; it was a sign of Hashem's presence resting among the Jews. This being the case, why were Nodov and Avihu punished? They were not penalized for bringing incense. Instead, they were punished because there was some impropriety on their part relative to their excellent level.
That is why Rashi begins his explanation by saying, "Rabbi Eliezer says, 'Aharon's sons died, only because they rendered a halachic decision in the presence of Moshe, their teacher.' In other words, Rashi is making it quite clear that they did not die as a result of bringing a strange fire. This does not contradict the fact that it says that they brought a "foreign fire which they were not commanded to bring." On the contrary, they were not commanded to bring it but took it upon themselves. According to this opinion, the only thing they did wrong was deciding what to offer and where to offer it. They should have relied upon their teacher, Moshe.
According to Peshat, it is difficult to say that such a seemingly minor infraction should warrant such a severe punishment. Rashi alludes to the answer to this question by saying that Rabbi Eliezer was the one who said it. Throughout the works of the Sages, we find incredibly high praise heaped upon Rabbi Eliezer, particularly regarding his fantastic knowledge of the Torah. Nevertheless, he said, "Whoever says words of Torah which he did not hear from his teacher causes G-d's presence to depart from Israel." From this, we can understand that it is even worse to say something that one did not hear from his teacher in front of his teacher! This explains the severity of their punishment.
However, this explanation also leaves us with a question. How can we say that the actions of Nodov and Avihu brought the Divine presence into the world when, according to Rabbi Eliezer, their efforts should have removed the Divine presence? Therefore, Rashi quotes a second reason that they entered the Sanctuary while inebriated. This was not yet prohibited, so it was not considered a sin. Consequently, it could bring G-d's presence into this world. That is why Rashi says, "After their death, (the Torah) warned the survivors that they may not enter the sanctuary after having drunk wine." Rashi points out that they did not disobey any commandments.
However, this leaves us with a different problem. If they broke no law, why would they deserve a punishment? They certainly should not deserve such a severe punishment! Rashi answers this by adding, "This is analogous to a king who had a faithful attendant ... as told in Vayikroh Rabbah." The Midrash follows these words by saying, "When he found him standing at tavern entrances, he severed his head in silence and appointed another attendant in his place. We would not know why he executed the first, but for his commanding the second one, 'You must not enter the doorway of taverns,' from which we know that for such a reason he had put the first one to death."
From the Midrash, we understand that even though the king never commanded his first servant not to frequent taverns, he should have realized this on his own. After all, he was the king's trusted servant! The same is true regarding Nodov and Avihu; even though they transgressed no commandment, as Hashem's trusted servants, they should have understood that it was improper to enter the Sanctuary intoxicated. However, a difficulty remains. Even though Aharon's eldest sons should have known better, why should that warrant the death penalty?
To answer this question, Rashi adds that this explanation came from Rabbi Yishmoel. Our Sages say that Rabbi Yishmoel is a Kohen (actually, he was a High Priest – Kohen Gadol) and helped Kohanim." Rashi's commentary in the Talmud explains that he helped Kohanim, i.e., he always tries to find leniencies for them. Therefore, according to Rabbi Yishmoel's explanation, Nodov and Avihu did not sin. He would not explain their actions in such a way that would make these two Kohanim guilty of transgressing any commandment.
However, according to Rabbi Yishmoel, how is this punishment measure for measure if they did not sin with fire? Why did a fire go forth and consume them? For this reason, Rashi quotes Rabbi Yishmoel as his second explanation.
A Deeper Lesson from Rashi
Although Nodov and Avihu were on an incredibly lofty level, they received a most severe punishment for not displaying proper subservience to their teacher. We find the same regarding Rabbi Eliezer. Although his greatness in Torah is described above, he said, "One who says a Torah teaching which he did not hear from his teacher, causes G-d's presence to depart from the world." In other words, being subservient to one's teacher concerns the Divine revelation to the entire Jewish nation!
From here, one must not say he is a great Torah scholar and does not need to depend on someone else for a halachic decision. Likewise, one can think that he does not require a guide in life choices in serving Hashem, and he can decide right or wrong for himself.
That is what Rashi is teaching us. None of us are as high as Nodov and Avihu; however, "Aharon's sons only died because they rendered a halachic decision in the presence of Moshe, their teacher." Not only did their lack of subjugation bring punishment upon themselves, but it affected the entire world.
At the same time, we must also use our faculties to learn Torah. We must grasp the Torah with our intellect to the extent that it becomes absorbed.
One might ask how it is possible to use all of one's understanding to the fullest and simultaneously subjugate our entire being to Hashem. We find the answer to this in Rashi as well. "This is analogous to a king who had a faithful attendant ..." Since we are discussing the Jewish people, G-d's "faithful attendant," He allows us to connect both opposites. We can employ our understanding to learn Torah and be subservient to Hashem simultaneously. Through this, we can bring about the connection between the world and G-dliness; the world will be conducted according to the halachic rulings of the Torah. This will hasten the promise that "the glory of the Lord will be revealed, and all flesh together shall see that the mouth of the Lord spoke.".
(Adapted from a talk given on Shabbos Parshas Shemini, Mevorchim Hachodesh Iyar 5726)
I hope you gained as much by reading this as I did by translating and adapting it.
Click here to dedicate a week, a month, or a year to the Rashi of the Week.
You can find us on the web at www.RebbeTeachesRashi.org.
You can find our blog here.
