On the day of the inauguration of the Mishkan, the entire people gather together. Aharon, the high priest, prepares the offerings and places them upon the altar. A heavenly fire descends from the heavens and consumes the offerings, sanctifying God’s name.

ויקרא ט:כד–י:א

(כד) וַתֵּ֤צֵא אֵשׁ֙ מִלִּפְנֵ֣י יְהֹוָ֔ה וַתֹּ֙אכַל֙ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ אֶת־הָעֹלָ֖ה וְאֶת־הַחֲלָבִ֑ים וַיַּ֤רְא כׇּל־הָעָם֙ וַיָּרֹ֔נּוּ וַֽיִּפְּל֖וּ עַל־פְּנֵיהֶֽם׃ (א) וַיִּקְח֣וּ בְנֵֽי־אַ֠הֲרֹ֠ן נָדָ֨ב וַאֲבִיה֜וּא אִ֣ישׁ מַחְתָּת֗וֹ וַיִּתְּנ֤וּ בָהֵן֙ אֵ֔שׁ וַיָּשִׂ֥ימוּ עָלֶ֖יהָ קְטֹ֑רֶת וַיַּקְרִ֜יבוּ לִפְנֵ֤י יְהֹוָה֙ אֵ֣שׁ זָרָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹ֦א צִוָּ֖ה אֹתָֽם׃

Vayikra 9:24-10:1

(24) And fire went forth from before the Lord and consumed the burnt offering and the fats upon the altar, and all the people saw, sang praises, and fell upon their faces. (1) And Aaron's sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his pan, put fire in them, and placed incense upon it, and they brought before the Lord foreign fire, which He had not commanded them.

Following this miraculous occurrence, two of Aharon’s sons each take fire pans and place incense upon them. They place what is described as a “strange fire” on the pans, and approach the altar. As they approach, a fire descends from heaven and they both die. What was the nature of the their error? Why did it deserve such a severe and public response?

טור הפירוש הקצר ויקרא י

(א) אשר – לא צוה. אין לומר לא צוה להביא אש זרה וגם לא צוה שלא להביאו אלא פירוש אשר צווי של לא. צוה אותם. וכן לכל צבא השמים אשר לא צויתי.

Tur - Commentary on Vayikra 10:1

It is not saying they were not commanded to bring a strange fire (that would be superfluous), nor it saying that they were not commanded not to bring (perhaps this means they were not issued a prohibition), rather the explanation is that they were lacking any commandment toward them. Similarly it says “to all the hosts of heaven to which they were not commanded to serve” (Devarim 17:3)

The Tur focuses on the words “of which they were not commanded.” He explains that their sin was not that disobeyed a specific commandment. Rather, that their action was not based on a commandment at all. They acted based on their own volition. What is so wrong about that?

There a recurrent theme in the messages of the prophets. They have expressed a degree of skepticism, even criticism, toward the Jewish people’s sacrifices and offerings in the temple. We find a poignant example in the Book of Shmuel. King Shaul is commanded to wipe out the nation of Amalek. He is instructed by Shmuel the prophet to destroy everything and spare nothing. At the time of the battle however, Shaul spares the best of the sheep and the King of Amalek. In defense, Shaul explains that his intention was to bring those animals that they had spared to Hashem as an offering. Shmuel responds sharply:

שמואל א טו:כב

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר שְׁמוּאֵ֗ל הַחֵ֤פֶץ לַֽיהֹוָה֙ בְּעֹל֣וֹת וּזְבָחִ֔ים כִּשְׁמֹ֖עַ בְּק֣וֹל יְהֹוָ֑ה הִנֵּ֤ה שְׁמֹ֙עַ֙ מִזֶּ֣בַח ט֔וֹב לְהַקְשִׁ֖יב מֵחֵ֥לֶב אֵילִֽים׃

Samuel 1 15:22

22 And Samuel said, "Has the Lord (as much) desire in burnt offerings and peace-offerings, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than a peace-offering; to hearken (is better) than the fat of rams.

Rav Hirsch further elaborates. Sacrifices are a means, designed and given to us by God, to achieve a certain ends. This ends, in the words of Rav Hirsch, is “the fulfillment of God’s will in God-fearing obedience” (Commentary on Haftorat Zachor). In this instance, King Shaul ignored and actually undermined the overarching objective offering by focusing myopically on them as a means. He disobeyed the Divine directive using the offerings as an excuse. As a result, Shaul lost his Kingship and Kingdom. Throughout history the Jewish people have used their “religious” activities to obscure their incorrect or immoral behavior.

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch - Commentary on Sefer Vayikra 10:1

Now, as regards this disastrous offering of Nadav and Avihu, the Torah stresses, above all else, that it was one which God had not commanded them to make. Even if the details of the offering had not been forbidden (as we have seen they indeed were), the mere fact that this offering had not been commanded by God would have been sufficient to make it forbidden.

In the service of the offerings, there is no place for subjective arbitrariness. Even the free-will offerings, must comply with prescribed forms. One who brings an offering seeks closeness to God, but this can be attained only through obedience to God and acceptance of the yoke of His commandments. This is precisely the point that separates Judaism from paganism. The pagan, through his offering, seeks to make his deity subservient to his will, while the Jew, through his offering, places himself in the service of God and accepts upon himself the yoke of His commandments. Hence, all offerings in Judaism are formulas of Divine imperatives; and the offerer, through his offering, undertakes to adopt the Divine imperative as his guiding light. Offerings of one's own devising would be a subversion of that very truth which the offering is intended to represent. Such offerings would glorify personal caprice instead of obedience to God and acceptance of the yoke of His commandments.

Now we understand the death of Aharon's sons. Their death at the time of the first dedication of the Sanctuary is a warning to all future Kohanim. It bars all arbitrariness, all personal caprice, from the precincts of the Sanctuary, whose whole purpose is to be a Sanctuary for the Torah! In Judaism the priest's function is not to introduce innovations in the Service, but to carry out God's command.

When Nadav and Avihu chose to bring their own offering “which they were not commanded”, they were undermining the original and primary purpose of bringing offerings in the sanctuary. On the day of the Mishkan’s inauguration, in front of the entire people, this distortion required correction. Nadav and Avihu died publicly, sending a message. As Rav Hirsch explains, the underlying premise of bringing a formal offering is a recognition of God’s will and an awareness that this Ultimate Reality has bearing on our lives. The definition of an act of Divine service requires an acceptance of the Divine will, and an acceptance of the Divine parameters for its performance.

References

Hirsch, R. S. R. (2008). Hirsch Chumash: Sefer Vayikra. Jerusalem - New York: Feldheim Publishers.

Hirsch S. R. Levy I. & Hirsch M. (2005/1966). Hirsch commentary on the Torah (2nd ed. completely rev.). Judaica Press.

Rosenberg, A. (1980). A new English translation of the Hebrew Bible text and Rashi, with a commentary digest. New York: Judaica Press. Retrieved from: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bentorah.substack.com