The story of Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aharon, is clear in its general points.
Nadav and Avihu entered the mishkan when it was forbidden. They brought a foreign fire (10: 1). They were punished: "a fire came forth…and consumed them" (10: 2).
Still, it is not clear why this transgression was punished by death by fire. We know that the sons of Aharon had participated in some way in the building of the golden calf. We also observe that when Aharon's sons sinned with the people they were forgiven, but, when they later sinned as individuals, they were immediately punished.
This last point may offer something of an explanation. When the nation is judged collectively certain aspects of Divine mercy apply that do not enter into the judgement of an individual. Moshe was able to defend the people and save them from destruction after the sin of the golden calf, but, despite his formidable petitions, he could not achieve a forgiven destiny for himself: one that would allow him to enter the land of Canaan. Comparing and rating transgressions suffers, as a project, for having no clear standards or method. We have noticed that a difference between collective and individual sin might help explain the punishment of Nadav and Avihu; however, we have not yet found a connection between the specific character of their transgressions and their punishment.
Rashi finds an allusion to the sin of the golden calf in a verse that comes after the death of Nadav and Avihu: "Moshe spoke to Aharon and to Elazar and Itamar, his remaining [notarim] sons" (10: 12).
Rashi takes this to mean "remaining after the penalty of death was meted out." On this view, all four of Aharon's sons should have been killed for their participation in the sin of the golden calf. Moshe intervention saves them. Rashi points to another verse, "Hashem was enraged to destroy him" (Devarim 9:20), and explains that the "destruction" refers to Aharon's children.
Moshe's prayer nullified, in part, the decree against Aharon's children. The verse indicates this: "…I prayed for Aharon at that time."
Rashi's explanation accepts that all four sons should have been killed for their involvement in the sin of the golden calf; Moshe received total forgiveness for two of them (Psikta Rabbati 48). Nadav and Avihu were not forgiven, but they were not killed immediately. They would die while bringing their foreign fire before G-d.
The word notarim indicates that the remaining or surviving sons of Aharon also deserved to be punished but that Moshe was able to save them.
However, the word notarim teaches us something more about the relationships between the sons who were killed and the sons who were saved.
In Sefer Breshiet, the Torah used the same word in a different context: "…Yaakov tended the flocks that were notarot [remaining]" (30: 36).
Rashi explains that these were the less important flocks: notarot, the leftovers. These individuals were inferior: the weak, the sick and the barren. They were the ones that Lavan gave to Yaakov.
If we apply Rashi's insight to our verse we might say that the sons who were killed were superior to the sons who were saved. True, Nadav and Avihu had transgressed again, beyond their participation in the building of the golden calf. They were not willing to accept the limits of sanctity that the Torah established. They thought that they were able to go beyond those limits and bring a foreign fire in the most sacred of locations. For this, they died.
The incident suggests that even superior personalities, those with a receptive and and energetic spirituality, have to accept the limits set by the Torah on human spiritual activity. Nadav and Avihu were killed when they did not accept Torah limits.
They were punished because of their participation in the golden calf, but in the manner and timing of their death there was an additional motif.
They were not the notarim-they were the extraordinary sons of Aharon
Gut shabbos, Chaim Brovender
Missed a parasha? Visit the parasha archives...
Return to Yeshivat Hamivtar - Orot Lev
