Rashi on Nadav & Avihu (Vayikra 10:2-6): A Dense Allusion of Midrashic Sources

(13) And the sun stood still And the moon halted, While a nation wreaked judgment on its foes —as is written in the Book of Jashar. Thus the sun halted in midheaven, and did not press on to set, for a whole day;

(13) Assuredly, At such a time the prudent man keeps silent, For it is an evil time.

(13) that [my] whole being might sing hymns to You endlessly; O LORD my God, I will praise You forever.

(28) Let him sit alone and be patient, When He has laid it upon him.

Rava said: With regard to one who issues a halakhic ruling in his teacher’s location without the intention of preventing someone from violating a prohibition, the following distinction applies: In the teacher’s actual presence, the disciple is prohibited to issue such a ruling, and if he does so, he is liable to receive the death penalty at the hand of Heaven. However, when he is not in his actual presence, the disciple is still prohibited to issue the ruling, but he is not liable to receive the death penalty. The Gemara asks: Is the disciple not liable to receive the death penalty if he issues his ruling not in the teacher’s presence? But wasn’t it taught otherwise in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: The sons of Aaron died only because they issued a halakhic ruling before Moses, their teacher? What did they expound in support of their conclusion that they must bring fire inside as opposed to waiting for fire to come down from the heavens? It is stated in the Torah: “And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire on the altar, and lay the wood in order on the fire” (Leviticus 1:7), which led them to say: Although fire descends from Heaven, it is nonetheless a mitzva to bring ordinary fire. Although they derived this from the verses, they were punished for ruling in the presence of their teacher.

R. Eliezer says: They were liable only for having taught a halakhah in the presence of their master, and all who teach a halakhah in the presence of their master are liable for death.

(42) a regular burnt offering throughout the generations, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting before the LORD. For there I will meet with you, and there I will speak with you, (43) and there I will meet with the Israelites, and it shall be sanctified by My Presence. (44) I will sanctify the Tent of Meeting and the altar, and I will consecrate Aaron and his sons to serve Me as priests.

(36) You are awesome, O God, in Your holy places; it is the God of Israel who gives might and power to the people. Blessed is God.

(18) The sons of Kohath: Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel; and the span of Kohath’s life was 133 years.

Rabbi Elazar says that there is a different source for this method of burning: It is derived from a verbal analogy between the burning that is described in this context and the burning that is described with regard to the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron (see Leviticus 10:6). Just as there, Nadav and Avihu were killed by the burning of the soul, but the body remained intact, so too here, the execution is carried out by the burning of the soul, but the body remains intact. The Gemara asks: From where does the one who derives that burning means this kind of death from the assembly of Korah derive that their bodies were not burned? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is written: “And the firepans of these men who have sinned with their souls” (Numbers 17:3), which indicates that only their souls were burned, but their bodies were intact. The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, who does not derive that burning means this kind of death from here, interpret the deaths of the assembly of Korah? The Gemara answers: That burning was actual burning of their bodies. And what is the meaning of the term: “With their souls”? It means that they were deemed liable to be killed by burning due to matters of sustaining their souls, i.e., they sinned because Korah helped them fulfill their bodily desires, and consequently they followed him. This latter explanation is in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “With the flattering mockeries of spitefulness [maog] they gnash at me with their teeth” (Psalms 35:16)? It means that because of the flattery of those people who flattered Korah over matters of eating, i.e., because of the food and drink that he would give them, the minister of Gehenna gnashed his teeth over them, as they eventually sinned and fell into his hands. The word maog is interpreted homiletically here as alluding to uga, cake. The Gemara asks: And from where does the one who derives that burning means this kind of death from the sons of Aaron derive that their bodies were not burned? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is written: “And fire came out from before the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord” (Leviticus 10:2). The term “and they died” indicates that it was similar to a natural death, in which the body remains intact. The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, who does not derive that burning means this kind of death from here, interpret the death of the sons of Aaron? The Gemara answers: That burning was actual burning. And in that case, what is the meaning of that which is written: “And they died”? It means that the fire started from within them, and therefore it was similar to a natural death, which occurs within the person. As it is taught in a baraita: Abba Yosei ben Dostai says: Two threads of fire came out of the Holy of Holies and split into four, and two entered the nostrils of this one, and the other two entered the nostrils of that one, and the threads of fire burned them. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And devoured them [vatokhal otam]”? The usage of the expanded term “vatokhal otam,” instead of the terser vatokhlem, indicates a limitation, i.e., only they were consumed, to the exclusion of their bodies. The Gemara answers: The verse means that the fire devoured “them,” but not their clothes. The Gemara asks: And let us derive the correct method of execution by burning from the halakha of the bull offerings that are burned. Just as there, the reference is to actual burning, so too here, perhaps there should be actual burning. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that one should derive the halakha with regard to capital punishment from the death of a person, i.e., either from the assembly of Korah or the sons of Aaron, as they share common elements: They deal with a person, a sinner, and a soul that is taken through burning, i.e., the person dies as a result of the burning. Furthermore, the halakha of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul], is not relevant in either case, whereas it is relevant to bull offerings that are burned. The Gemara asks: On the contrary, one should derive the halakha with regard to capital punishment from the bull offerings that are burned, as both enable the fulfillment of a mitzva, whereas the deaths of the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron were not mitzvot. Furthermore, both of these are fixed halakhot for all future generations, whereas the deaths of the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron were onetime incidents. The Gemara answers: Those elements that are shared by capital punishment and the deaths of the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron are more numerous than the elements that are shared by capital punishment and the bulls that are burned. Therefore, the halakha is derived from the assembly of Korah and the sons of Aaron. The Gemara asks: With regard to the one who derives this halakha from the assembly of Korah, what is the reason he does not derive it from the sons of Aaron? Because in his opinion that was actual burning. But if this is the case, let us derive from the death of the sons of Aaron that execution by burning should be performed with actual burning; why does he derive from the assembly of Korah that hot lead should be used? Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The verse states: “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), which teaches that even with regard to a condemned prisoner one should select a good, i.e., a compassionate, death for him. The method of burning described in the mishna is certainly faster and less painful than the burning of the entire body. The Gemara asks: And since there is the halakha of Rav Naḥman, why do I need the verbal analogy? Even without this proof execution by burning would have been performed with hot lead, as it is a less painful form of death. The Gemara answers: Were it not for the verbal analogy, I would say that a death that includes the burning of the soul, but the body itself remains intact, is not burning at all, and that it does not fulfill the mitzva of execution by burning. And if it is necessary to alleviate the condemned one’s pain due to the halakha of “And you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), let the court increase for him the bundles of branches, so that he will burn quicker. Therefore, the verbal analogy teaches us that even internal burning is regarded as burning, and once this has been established it is taken into consideration that he must be executed in the least painful way. Apropos the deaths of Nadav and Avihu, an aggadic midrash on this subject is quoted: And it had already happened that Moses and Aaron were walking on their way, and Nadav and Avihu were walking behind them, and the entire Jewish people were walking behind them. Nadav said to Avihu: When will it happen that these two old men will die and you and I will lead the generation, as we are their heirs? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: We shall see who buries whom.

(34) 34)(10:2): "And a fire came out from before the L rd": We are hereby taught that a fire came forth from the holy of holies and burned their souls. Abba Yossi b. Dostai says: Two strands of fire came forth from the holy of holies and parted into four, and entered, two into the nostrils of one, and two, into the nostrils of the other, and burned them, but not their garments, it being written (Ibid.) "and it consumed them," but not their garments. And it is written (Ibid. 5) "And they carried them in their tunics": In the tunics of the carried (their garments not having been burned) or the tunics of the carriers? It is, therefore, written (Shemoth 28:40): "And for the sons of Aaron (here, the carried,) shall you make tunics," (and not for the sons of the Levites; here, the carriers).

(5) Throughout the term of his vow as nazirite, no razor shall touch his head; it shall remain consecrated until the completion of his term as nazirite of the LORD, the hair of his head being left to grow untrimmed.

(40) 40)(Vayikra 10:6): "Your heads al tifrau (lit., 'do not uncover')": I might take this to mean that you should not remove your hat, but we derive (otherwise), viz.: It is written here periah ("tifrau"), and elsewhere, (in respect to a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5), "periah." Just as "periah" there refers to letting the hair grow long; here, too, it refers to letting the hair grow long, (so that the translation above becomes "Your hair do not grow long" (in mourning).

The source for the halakha that it is prohibited for a mourner to receive a haircut is derived from the fact that the Merciful One states to the sons of Aaron: “Let not the hair of your heads go loose” (Leviticus 10:6). It was prohibited for them to let their hair grow long during their period of mourning over the death of their brothers, Nadav and Avihu. By inference, it is teaching that for everyone else, i.e., non-priests, it is prohibited to cut their hair during the period of mourning.

Rabbi Tarfon answered and said: With regard to the death of Aaron’s sons it says: “But let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning that the Lord has kindled” (Leviticus 10:6). Are these matters not inferred a fortiori: If, with regard to Nadav and Avihu, who had performed only one mitzva that is explicitly mentioned in the Bible, as it is written: “And the sons of Aaron brought the blood to him” (Leviticus 9:9), this was nevertheless stated about them, then with regard to the sons of Rabbi Yishmael, who were well known for their performance of many mitzvot, all the more so should the entire Jewish people bewail their death.