ויקרא פרק י, ב וַתֵּצֵּא אֵּש מִׁלִׁפְנֵּי ה' וַתֹאכַל אוֹתָם וַיָמֻתוּ לִׁפְנֵּי ה' :
עירובין דף סג/א ר"א אומר לא מתו בני אהרן עד שהורו הלכה בפני משה רבן מאי דרוש ונתנו בני אהרן הכהן אש על המזבח אמרו אע"פ שהאש יורדת מן השמים מצוה להביא מן ההדיוט
Maharsha asks that in truth, the law is that one must bring the fire from an earthly source (and not from heaven). If so what new law did they teach? The answer is that it is forbidden in front of one’s Rebbe to even state a true tradition (see story of Shmuel and Eli and Yoreh Deah 242:8)
However, one could ask a question on the verse itself. What were the sons accused of bringing a “foreign” fire, since per the law they did bring from an earthly source?
Therefore, Rabbi Epstein says this law to bring from an earthly source applies only to the outer Altar. However, the Mitzvah for the inner Altar (the sons were bringing fire for the Ketores) is to bring from the fire on the outer Altar (and not any other source). And this was the error of the sons that they thought that the law for the inner Altar was just like the law for the outer Altar. And thus, the verse calls the fire that the sons brought, a “foreign” fire that was not commanded. But the sons were not punished for the bringing of a “foreign” fire, since they did this action b’shogeg. They were only punished for teaching a law in front of their Rebbe.
Moshe’s Command to the Cohanim
ויקרא פרק י , יא וּלְהוֹרֹת אֶׁת-בְנֵּי יִׁשְ רָאֵּל אֵּת כָל -הַחֻקִׁים אֲשֶׁר דִׁ בֶׁר ה' אֲלֵּיהֶׁם בְיַד-משֶׁה
כריתות דף יג/ב ולהורות זו הוראה, את כל החוקים אלו מדרשות , אשר דבר ה' זו הלכה, ביד משה זה תלמוד
After commanding the Cohanim not to drink wine, HaShem tells them positive functions involving their roles (להורות)to lead and teach the Jewish people.
- החוקים An item that is engraved by means of the general principles, without reason; these are the matters found in Medrash.
- דבר ה' HaShem during the times of Galus is found in the 4 amos of halacha.
- ביד משה these are items provided orally to Moshe and the Jews found allusions in the written words. The words “in the hand of Moshe” implies that it is not to be found in Heaven. These matters are for people that live in this world to decide any matter that is in doubt as to the law.
ויקרא פרק יא, ז וְאֶׁת-הַחֲזִׁיר כִׁי-מַפְרִׁ יס פַרְ סָה הוּא וְשֹסַע שֶׁסַע פַרְ סָה וְהוּא גֵּרָה לֹא-יִׁגָר טָמֵּא הוּא לָכֶׁם :
Ohr HaChaim relates that in the future pigs will become kosher; not that Torah law will change, but the nature of pigs will change that they will begin to chew their cud.
Rabbi Epstein expresses complete wonder about this concept since he does not find any source for this claim. We do not find any source that the nature of animals will change, let alone why this animal would change uniquely from all other animals. And what he heard regarding the חזיר, that the animal would change in the future, is in reality an allusion to the nation of Esau making peace with Am Yisrael.
ויקרא פרק ט , כב וַיִׁשָא אַהֲרֹן אֶׁת-(יָדָו) [יָדָיו] אֶׁל-הָעָם וַיְבָרֲכֵּם
The verse about Aharon blessing the people is written ידו (singular-hand), but is read ידיו (plural-hands). This could be the source for the custom of the Cohanim to join their two hands together to appear as if they are one hand.
ויקרא פרק י, א וַיִׁקְחוּ בְנֵּי-אַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִׁיהוּא אִׁיש מַחְתָתוֹ וַיִׁתְנוּ בָהֵּן אֵּש וַיָשִׁימוּ עָלֶׁיהָ קְ טֹרֶׁת וַיַקְרִׁ יבוּ לִׁפְנֵּי ה 'אֵּש זָרָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִׁוָּה אֹתָם :
The Gemara (Eiruvin 63a) states that the sons of Aharon only died because they taught a law in front of their teacher (Moshe). At first glance this appears to be a punishment since they slighted the honor of Moshe.
This is difficult since we see in the case of Chuldah that she prophesized about the future. And the Gemara (Megillah 14b) asked how did she do this in the area of the established prophet Yirmiyahu and was not punished? The Gemara answered that Chuldah was a relative of Yirmiyahu and thus, he was not bothered and, thus Chuldah was not punished.
Therefore, in our case Moshe also should not be bothered since the two sons of Aharon were also his nephews, and Moshe would have surely pardoned his honor. So why were they punished?
We must say, however, teaching a law in front of one’s Rebbe has the additional problem of appearing like a denier of the transmission of the faith, which is not subject to m’chilah.
ויקרא פרק י, ג וַיֹאמֶׁר משֶׁה אֶׁל-אַהֲרֹן הוּא אֲשֶׁר-דִׁ בֶׁר ה' לֵּאמֹר בִׁקְרֹבַי אֶׁקָדֵּש וְעַל-פְנֵּי כָל-הָעָם אֶׁכָבֵּד וַיִׁדֹם אַהֲרֹן :
The Gemara (Z’vachim 115b) states about the silence of Aharon, that he received reward. The Gemara brings a proof from Koheles (3:7) “a time to be quiet and a time to speak”. This verse implies that at times one is quiet and is rewarded, and at other times one speaks and is rewarded. The Gemara does not explain what these times are and says פעמים, which indicates multiple times or a frequent set of circumstances (and not just the one time that Aharon was silent).
Perhaps, the “reward for silence” could be applied to the times when one visits with a mourner, and nothing needs to be said, that the comfort derives from the shared silence. Thus, in the first three days of mourning when visiting, the visitor should be silent until the mourner speaks.
Whereas, the time of “reward for speaking” involves the time at a wedding simchah. At a wedding, one should speak words of praise regarding the couple in order to endear them to each other and those surrounding them. And regarding these words, one receives reward (one that makes happy newlyweds receives the reward of meriting Torah).
