Parasha: Acharei Mot · Aliyah: First (Chesed)

וידבר ה׳ אל משה אחרי מות, G'd spoke to Moses after the death, etc. Why doesn't the Torah spell out what G'd told Moses on this occasion? Secondly, why did the Torah have to add that this communication occurred after the death of two of Aaron's sons? What bearing does this have on the content of G'd's message? Thirdly, why did the Torah have to add the words: בקרבתם לפני ה׳ וימותו, "when they came close to the presence of G'd and died?" If the Torah wanted to tell us the reason these sons died, we have been told this already in Leviticus 10,1, when the Torah wrote: ויקריבו לפני ה׳ אש זרה? The Torah was far more specific about the death of these sons in that context than it is here. We could not determine what the sin of these sons of Aaron had been by relying merely on what the Torah has written here. What is so terrible about wanting to come close to the presence of G'd? Fourthly, the word וימותו, they died, is quite superfluous seeing the verse commenced with the mention of their deaths? Fifthly, why did the Torah use the additional letter ו in the word וימותו?

It appears that the Torah tries to tell us that G'd warned Moses not to think that seeing that he personally was closer to the Kingdom of Heaven and at home in G'd's palace, that he could enter the Sanctuary at will. Even though G'd addressed this command to Aaron, Moses was not to think that he was not included in this restriction because the Torah itself testified in Numbers 12, 7-8 that Moses' prophecy was superior to that of Aaron. G'd had to speak to Moses to warn him not to misunderstand the prohibition He was about to issue to Aaron concerning entry into the Sanctuary, i.e. the Holy of Holies. G'd said וידבר ה׳ אל משה, i.e. the directive was addressed exclusively to Moses. He spoke to him shortly after the death of the sons of Aaron who had attempted to come too close as a result of which they died. The Torah meant that although they were the sons of Aaron, i.e. highly placed personages so much so that the Torah testified that their death was due to their closeness to G'd, (compare comment of Vayikra Rabbah 12,2 on Leviticus 10,3 "I will be sanctified through those close to Me.") G'd did not have pity on them in spite of their closeness to Him. The principal lesson to be derived from all this is that he who occupies a privileged position is not entitled to take liberties with G'd who has granted this privilege in the first place.

Another aspect of the word בקרבתם may be that these people were closer to G'd than anyone. Had Moses been closer to G'd than Nadav and Avihu, G'd should have demonstrated the lesson of בקרובי אקדש by punishing Moses for some minor infraction he was guilty of. If G'd chose Nadav and Avihu instead to demonstrate this principle, they must have been the people closest to G'd at that time. Perhaps G'd explained all this to Moses on this occasion so that afterwards Moses said to Aaron in Leviticus 10,3: הוא אשר דבר ה׳ לאמור בקרובי אקדש, "this is what G'd has said to say: I will be sanctified by those who are close to Me." We would then have to assume that the content of G'd's communication in verse 1 of our chapter was said to Moses immediately after the death of Nadav and Avihu. The fact that their deaths had been reported earlier does not matter as we have a principle that the Torah is not bound to report events in chronological order.

Torat Kohanim writes one could have thought that when G'd addressed His warning to "your brother Aaron," Moses felt that he was not included in that prohibition and could enter the Holy of Holies at will. They conclude that the word אחיך was meant to include only Aaron's other sons so that Moses himself would have remained free to enter at will. Accordingly, I would not have known if Moses was included in the prohibition or not unless G'd told Him so specifically. The author of Korban Aharon writes that it is clear that only someone who had received permission to enter at certain specified times had to be told not to enter at other times. He who had never been permitted to perform a duty inside the Holy of Holies did not need to be told that he could not enter at will. According to what I have written the entire warning is contained only in verse 1. I do not think that the reasoning of Korban Aharon is correct. The author of Torat Kohanim meant that our verse did not mean to exempt Moses from the warning issued to Aaron at all and that we remain without a verse either permitting or prohibiting Moses from entering the Holy of Holies. The author chose to use the extraneous word אחיך to also include Aaron's remaining sons in the prohibition instead of using it to exempt Moses from the warning.

All of this is in line with the opinion that the word אחרי is a signal that something occurred close to what was reported earlier, whereas the word אחר indicates that it occurred some considerable time later than what has been reported last (compare Bereshit Rabbah 44,5). There is also an opposite view that the word אחרי introduces something that occurred much later chronologically than what had been reported immediately before, whereas the word אחר refers to what had happened immediately before the paragraph commencing with the words אחר הדברים. According to the latter view we have to explain our verse in the following manner. The death of Aaron's sons was due to their having entered the Sanctuary on their way to the Holy of Holies without permission. While it is true that in פרשת שמיני the reason for their deaths given by the Torah is the "strange fire" they introduced into the Sanctuary (10,1), our verse teaches that they would have been guilty of death for merely entering the Holy of Holies even if they had not brought strange fire into the Sanctuary. The Torah stressed the word וימותו, "they died," so that we should not think that Nadav and Avihu succeeded to carry out their intention to enter the Holy of Holies. They died before they could carry out their intention. The Torah is at pains to let us know this in the event a person would be willing to enter the Holy of Holies even at the cost of his life. We are warned here that the effort would be futile as G'd would not allow such a person to realise his intention. The Torah does not warn us about this because it presumes a criminal intent by someone who insists on entering the Holy of Holies. On the contrary, the assumption is that such an attempt would be prompted by the religious fervor of the individual, an overpowering desire to come close to the source of the שכינה on earth which makes such a person ignore the danger to which he exposes himself.

All of the above is based on the approach of Rabbi Yossi who claimed that it was the unauthorized entry which caused the death of Nadav and Avihu. It also conforms to the view of Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra according to which they committed two deathly sins, i.e. the offering of unauthorised incense, and entering the Sanctuary without authority. According to the view of Rabbi Akiva who holds that they died only because they offered incense, you have to explain our verse differently if you assume that the word אחרי refers to something which had occurred some time previously. In order to understand this we must first ask ourselves why G'd did not mention the legislation involving the Day of Atonement until this day instead of revealing this information on the day He commanded the details about all the other sacrificial offerings in the first two portions of the Book of Leviticus. We could have expected Moses to tell Aaron not to enter the Holy of Holies unbidden in Leviticus 9,7 where he also told him to approach the altar and offer his sin-offering, etc. This would have been the logical place to add that Aaron should not enter the Sanctuary unless bidden to do so. The fact is that one could have derived that prohibition from the positive permission to approach the altar (in the courtyard of the Tabernacle). All Moses had to tell Aaron at that point was: "offer your sin-offering," and I would have known that it was to be offered on that altar." If he added the words קרב אל מזבח, Aaron could have figured out that he was allowed only to mount the copper altar at will, not the golden altar in the Sanctuary. Our sages in Torat Kohanim explain all sorts of things in connection with that verse. According to our own approach Moses only told Aaron that he could use only the outer altar. The question is why he did not add that entering the Holy of Holies would result in his death?

Our sages (Vayikra Rabbah 7,1) remark that the two sons of Aaron died on account of the sin of the golden calf, based on Deut. 9,20: "G'd was also very angry at Aaron to have destroyed him;" if it had not been for Moses' prayer all four sons of Aaron would have died prematurely. The original cause of the death of Nadav and Avihu was the involvement of their father in the sin of the golden calf, and their deaths served as atonement, much as a sacrifice on the altar serves as atonement for the owner of his sin-offering. Do not argue that we have quoted different sages as attributing the deaths of these sons to either their unauthorised offering of incense, or their entering the Holy of Holies without authorisation or the Torah's speaking of their unauthorised use of man-made fire. The answer to all these arguments is that had it not been for the involvement of their father in the sin of the golden calf, G'd would have found a way to guard the feet of His pious so that they would not become guilty of such an inadvertent sin as bringing incense, etc. The statement in Zevachim 115 that these sons died as martyrs for the glory of the name of the Lord is also not at variance with what the Midrash said in Vayikra Rabbah 7,1. Had it not been for the sin of their father, G'd would have had to glorify His name by means of the death of another one of His beloved people. We have it on good authority (Psalms 116,17) that "the death of His pious ones is a very precious event for the Lord;" the reasons for this may be difficult for anyone other than G'd Himself to fathom. Nonetheless, it is our tradition that sometimes G'd desires the deaths of such pious people. In such instances, the pious person in question whose departure from earth G'd desires, must have committed at least some minor infraction so that his death can be justified legally. I have elaborated elsewhere on this theme. It is worth looking at Avot de Rabbi Natan chapter 38 in which the martyrs who died at the hands of the Emperor Hadrian were unhappy that their violent deaths could be interpreted as due to their having violated basic laws of the Torah. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel found a justification for his violent death when his colleague suggested he could have been guilty of the minor infraction of having had a poor man wait too long before he gave him food to eat, or that he was guilty of enjoying the honour of discoursing on Torah before an audience of 600,000 people. It is difficult to accept that a person should be guilty of a violent death for such a minor indulgence. If this were the norm G'd applies to His Torah scholars there would hardly be anyone left alive! You must understand these happenings in light of the fact that G'd already waited for an excuse to gather in the souls of these people to the Celestial Regions. Simltaneously, the very death of such martyrs insures that G'd can delay the retribution which the other people of the martyrs' generation had become guilty of. When we keep this consideration in mind we will better understand that the death of the sons of Aaron was a blessing for the survivors. As far as the public was concerned the sin of the golden calf had been forgiven as demonstrated by the establishment of the Tabernacle and the presence of the שכינה in the Holy of Holies. Aaron's sin-offering on the eighth day of the consecration rites had been the final public step in that rehabilitation. The decree according to which Aaron's sons had to die had therefore been cancelled already. However, the impression this sin had made in the celestial regions had not been erased. It was the residue of that impression which resulted in G'd not guarding the feet of these sons from inadvertently committing a deadly sin as described by the Torah and the various sages.

When we take a long look at all the factors we have just outlined, it is clear that Aaron had not yet been qualified to enter the inner sanctum of the King of Kings had it not been for the death of his two sons serving as atonement for his share in the sin of the golden calf. It was only then that the record of his involvement was erased in the celestial spheres. We can now understand our verse properly. וידבר ה׳ ….בזאת יבא אהרון אל הקדש, "G'd said..only after Aaron has been equipped with this (i.e. the atonement attained through the death of his two sons) Aaron is able to enter the Holy of Holies." The Torah stresses that the two people who died did so in their capacity as בני אהרון, sons of Aaron. This is an allusion to the guilt of their father which had been fully atoned for by their deaths. This also accounts for the fact that G'd did not command Aaron concerning not entering the Sanctuary at will until now. As long as Aaron was not qualified to enter the Sanctuary even when he was to perform a specific task there, there was no point in prohibiting him from entering when he did not have a specific function to perform there. Once the Torah had informed us that the death of the sons of Aaron was linked to the guilt of their father, the Torah also had to inform us that this was not the only reason they died. There were other reasons which were quite unconnected to anything their father had done or had failed to do. Their father's part in their death was limited to G'd having withdrawn His protective supervision from them so that they should not become guilty of inadvertently committing deadly sins. The word בקרבתם לפני השם may be understood as the second cause of their death. Had they not been the sons of Aaron who was still guilty of some involvement in the sin of the golden calf at that time, the fact that they were about to enter the Holy of Holies might not have resulted in their deaths. In view of the fact that even both factors combined would not represent sufficient reason for these people to be guilty of death, G'd added that their closeness to G'd was what made these two priests ideal to serve as a means of glorifying the name of G'd, i.e. בקרובי אקדש. In recognition of the fact that even the two causes mentioned were not sufficient to account for the deaths of Nadav and Avihu at that time, the Torah adds the latter ו at the beginning of the word וימותו, to hint that there was a need for someone to die in order to demonstrate the sacred nature of the Tabernacle and G'd's presence associated with it. G'd felt that He had to demonstrate that anyone who approached this sacred place without specific authority would die. This is why the paragraph dealing with the warning not to enter the Sanctuary at will was legislated here.

Accordingly, we have three factors which combined to cause the death of Nadav and Avihu at that time. 1) The sin of the golden calf, i.e. Aaron's share in it. 2) offering of the incense; 3) the need to demonstrate the sanctity of the Tabernacle through the death of someone who entered it without authority. G'd alluded to all three of these factors when He wrote: אחרי מות שני בני אהרון, i.e. on account of Aaron's sin, בקרבתם, because they approached too closely to the center of holiness; וימותו, because someone had to die to demonstrate לבל יבא...אל הקודש, that neither ordinary people nor the High Priest himself could enter there unbidden. The Torah had to list all three reasons here. 1) Had it not been for the sin of the golden calf these righteous sons of Aaron would certainly have enjoyed sufficient protection from G'd not to allow them to become guilty of such a trespass. 2) The sin of venturing too close to G'd also had to be mentioned as they would never have died on account of their father's sin unless they had been guilty of a sin themselves. 3) The nature of the sanctity of the Tabernacle also had to be recorded here since, if it had not been for this consideration, G'd would not have allowed the joy prevailing over the evidence that His presence had returned to the Jewish people to be disturbed by such a tragic occurrence. He would have waited to let these sons of Aaron die at some later date. It was because G'd wanted to sanctify the Tabernacle on that day that the sons of Aaron died on that day. The need to sanctify the Tabernacle on that day would not have been sufficient reason by itself to let them die then.

In view of all the foregoing we can understand what prompted Moses to tell Aaron that he found out through what happened to Nadav and Avihu that they were men of greater stature than either Aaron or himself (see Torat Kohanim our quote on page 1035). Moses simply found out that had it not been for the sin of Aaron their father, G'd could not have found anything these sons had been guilty of to allow them to die. The same could not have been said of either Moses or Aaron.

If you follow our approach to the whole subject, it is possible to understand Proverbs 22,20: "indeed I wrote down for you threefold learnings and knowledge." There were three causes which combined to result in the deaths of Nadav and Avihu; two of them can be categorised as מועצות, learning, the third one as דעת, knowledge. These are the three aspects which caused the deaths of Nadav and Avihu. It teaches that G'd had not completely forgiven Aaron despite his threefold efforts, i.e. his prayers, his good deeds and his sacrificial offerings. The word מועצות is also an allusion to the failure of G'd to watch over the feet of the righteous so that they should not stumble into sin. This second aspect of מועצות is even more sophisticated than the former one. G'd deliberately failed to forgive Aaron completely so that He would have an excuse to allow Nadav and Aavihu to die.

Another reason why the Torah wrote אחרי מות is connected with the prohibition for Aaron to enter the Holy of Holies dressed in his golden garments (Rosh Hashanah 26) as the accuser (reminder of the gold of the golden calf) could not function as counsel for defense at the same time. The Torah was concerned that we might reason that the prohibition to wear his golden garments was applicable only as long as the last vestiges of Aaron's sin had not yet been erased in the celestial regions. I might have thought that as soon as his sons died and had thereby achieved atonement for their father's remaining vestiges of sin, Aaron would be allowed into the Holy of Holies even while wearing his golden garments. The Torah had to tell us that even after the deaths of his two sons Aaron could still not wear his golden garments in the Holy of Holies. All he was to wear when entering that part of the Sanctuary was כתנת בד קדש ילבש, "a holy linen tunic, etc." While it is true that our sages in Erchin 16 mention that the golden garments performed a function in the atonement process, the gold could not atone sufficiently for the sins to become completely "snow white." Please read what I have written in my commentary on Shabbat 30 what Solomon had in mind when he said "remember the kindness of David Your servant" (Chronicles II 6,42). [I have not seen the author's comment, but I presume that although David had tried to obtain forgiveness by all the means at his disposal, it was not until the prayer of his son Solomon that G'd erased the last vestiges of his sin. The Talmud is on record that the gates of the Sanctuary had refused to open for Solomon until he completed this prayer. Ed.]

When the Torah mentions the cause of death as בקרבתם לפני השם, this is meant to free Moses from the suspicion that his own prayer on behalf of Aaron at the time of the golden calf episode had been unsuccessful. The Torah had mentioned Moses's prayer on behalf of Aaron in Deut. 9.20. Moses himself may have been under the allusion that his prayer had not elicited the desired response. G'd told him therefore that these sons did not die because of Aaron's sin alone, i.e. Aaron's guilt had been reduced to a level where he would not be punished by the death of his sons. Moses' prayer had been effective enough to reduce Aaron's guilt and save his sons. Once we accept this approach we need not say that Moses' prayer was effective only 50% and that instead of all four of Aaron's sons having to die only two of them died (compare Vayikra Rabbah 10,5). None of them had to die were it not for the fact that two of them had become guilty of a sin of their own. What the Midrash meant was that since eventually two of Aaron's sons died at the hands of G'd this was proof that Moses' prayer was only partially effective. We measure the effectiveness of a prayer by its ultimate outcome, not by the short-term reprieve it may afford a sinner.

וימותו, they died; Perhaps G'd had informed Moses that these two sons of Aaron had committed the sin of approaching too closely or offering incense using man-made fire while they had already been guilty of death due to a sin committed by their father when G'd had become angry at Aaron. Had it not been for this, G'd might have stretched His patience so that they would not have died immediately for the sin committed now. If they had escaped death until that moment it had only been due to the prayer of Moses on behalf of Aaron at the time.

Another approach to the word וימותו focuses on the nature of these sons' deaths rather than on the fact of their deaths. The Torah writes: בקרבתם לפני השם, to describe that due to their love for G'd these people came too near the celestial source of light which has a deadly effect on man. This is the mystical dimension of what is commonly known as "death by Divine kiss," the kind of death experienced by both Aaron and Moses eventually. The deaths of Nadav and Avihu were similar to the death of all other completely righteous men. The only difference was that in the case of the deaths of people such as Moses and Aaron G'd's "kiss of death" approaches them, whereas in this case Nadav and Avihu approached "the kiss of death."

This is the meaning of the extra letter ו in בקרבתם לפני ה׳ ו־ימותו. The Torah alludes to the fact that though these righteous people felt that they were approaching an area which would result in this "kiss of death" they did not flinch and kept getting closer. They attained a state of religious intoxication. The desire of their souls to fuse with the divine was so overpowering that they no longer made decisions in which their powers of conscious perception were involved. If we were to evaluate part of the emotional process these people underwent, perhaps the following may help. There are times when certain people feel such an overpowering hatred for someone that they will abandon all restraining influences in the desire to exercise their revenge even while they are subconsciously aware that they are forfeiting their very lives by the act of revenge. This may be the mystical dimension of what appears as licentious behaviour by prophets in Samuel I 19. There is a mystifying verse in Samuel I 19,24 which tells of Saul's pursuit of David and the religious experiences first experienced by the messengers despatched to capture David who at that time was in the proximity of the prophet Samuel and other prophets. All the messengers are reported as being overcome by an aura of religious experiences of these prophets. Eventually, the same happened to Saul himself. He is described as having divested himself of his clothing and remained naked [symbol of the desire to abandon the restrictions imposed on man by his body, Ed.] for a whole day in the presence of the prophet Samuel. Perhaps that verse affords us an inkling of the result of overpowering emotions of hatred. When we think of the other extreme of man's emotional range, his love for his source, i.e. his Creator, and the overpowering desire to be united with that source, we may have an inkling of what possessed Nadav and Avihu at the time. Basically speaking, we are dealing with the natural abhorrence each soul has for the need to be imprisoned inside a mere body. It is always the soul's desire to escape this body. Nadav and Avihu's souls experienced such an urge in an unusual manner. [At this point the author describes how a person may arrive at progressively purer insights due to his mind's ability to triumph over the impeding element of self, ego. Eventually, such a person will view "life" itself in an entirely new light such as hinted at by Moses in Deut. 30 19 when he exhorts the Jewish people to "choose life." The letter ב at the beginning of the word ב־חיים, is understood to refer to a life devoid of what he calls הרגש הכללי, emotions felt by all normal human beings. The author blesses the Lord for having granted selected individuals the ability to rise to such spiritual heights. Ed.]

There is yet another approach to our problem based on Torat Kohanim which quotes a Baraitha in Yuma 53."Rabbi Eliezer says: ולא ימות עונש, כי בענן אראה אזהרה; יכול קודם מיתת בני אהרון, תלמוד לומר אחרי מות; יכול שניהם אחר מיתת בני אהרון, תלמוד לומר אראה. הא כיצד אזהרה קודם, מיתה אחר כך. "The words: 'so that he shall not die," are the penalty for entering; 'for I will be visible through the cloud is the warning;' I might have thought that this warning was issued prior to the deaths of the sons of Aaron; hence the Torah writes: 'after the death.' How did it all work? The warning was issued before, the death followed afterwards." The Talmud there enquires what we are to learn from Rabbi Eliezer's statement. Rava says that the expression אראה is a future tense, and that the Torah speaks of something that had not yet occurred, i.e. the cloud had not yet enveloped the Tabernacle (Leviticus 9,23). Accordingly, the sons of Aaron who are reported to have offered incense did so after the cloud had already appeared on that very day (Leviticus 10,1) and they were killed before a penalty had been decreed for this by the Torah. Keeping this in mind, we have to explain our verse here as follows: אחרי מות, after the death, etc.; G'd does not want you to think that the fact that the Torah records the prohibition to enter the Holy of Holies at will except when the High Priest was equipped with the cloud of incense was a belated warning, and that the sons of Aaron died for not heeding it. It says in 10,1 that "the sons of Aaron each took a censer with incense and placed fire on it, etc." The fact is the sons of Aaron had not been warned not to enter the Holy of Holies. This leaves us with the question why they had to die. The Torah therefore had to inform us that these deaths were not just a legal matter, a penalty which anyone else who had done the same thing would also have been subject to. The reason that the sons of Aaron died when attempting to enter the Holy of Holies was because בקרבם לפני ה׳, they attempted to draw too near to G'd. Seeing that they considered themselves as fit to be so close to G'd, G'd applied a more stringent yardstick when judging their behaviour. This is why a minor misdemeanour was treated as if it were a major sin. The Torah alluded to this with the additional letter ו in the word וימותו, i.e. there was an additional factor which contributed to their deaths.

We find the following comment in Torat Kohanim concerning the words: "speak to Aaron, etc;" we do not know what G'd had said to Moses in the previous verse (verse 1). Rabbi Eleazer ben Azaryah used to say that this could be explained by a parable. A physician comes to a patient and tells him not to eat cold food and not to lie on wet moss. Later on another physician enters the room of that patient and tells him not to eat cold food or to lie down on wet moss else he would die just as so-and-so has died. The comment of the second physicain made a more powerful impression on the patient than the instruction of the first physician. We must understand why these instructions were issued in this order. Besides, why does Torat Kohanim not simply commence the comment with the words: "Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah said, etc.?"

It appears that Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah did not address the problem of the warning itself but the problem of why the warning coupled with the threat of death for ignoring it was so much delayed that G'd issued it to Aaron only in our portion instead of in chapter 9, and why he compared it to the parable with the physician. Normally, a physician who wants to impress his patient mentions that failure to adhere to his instructions has already cost patients' lives. The physician of the Jewish people, i.e. G'd, did just this when He issued His instructions to Aaron in this instance. Until the sons of Aaron died G'd had not been in a position to accompany His warning with an example of the consequences of not heeding it. Torat Kohanim therefore quoted Rabbi Eleazar who also answered the question why the same warning had to be issued a second time. We have a rule in the Talmud that there are occasions when a scholar who explains a problem does so by means of an answer without his having spelled out the question first. In our case the unspoken question was what G'd had told Moses in verse 1. We now understand that in the first verse G'd told Moses why these sons of Aaron had died though their quest had been to draw near to Him. Now G'd told Moses to warn Aaron that the same could happen to him even if he did not bring strange fire or incense at a time he was not authorised to enter the Holy of Holies. He should remember what happened to his two sons.

I have seen a further statement at the end of the Baraitha containing Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah's statement that the last of the warnings had achieved the greatest effect. This is why the Torah said: "speak to your brother Aaron that he shall not enter, etc. If he would enter he would die." Mention is made there of Exodus 4,14 where G'd had told Moses that his brother Aaron would be very happy about his appointment. Here G'd also told Moses to say to "your brother Aaron" as if we did not know that Aaron was Moses' brother. Moses was supposed to frighten Aaron so that he should not share the fate of his sons. The whole reason that Moses was to warn him was that seeing he was his brother, plus the fact that Moses was not forbidden to enter this would be difficult for Aaron to accept. The problem with all this is that Torat Kohanim had already used the word אחיך as including Aaron's other sons in the prohibition as I have mentioned earlier.

I believe the intent behind that statement is clear from its position in the chapter. It is peculiar that G'd told Moses to warn Aaron not to die as had his sons before he had even told him of the prohibition to enter the Holy of Holies at will (verse 2). We would have expected such a warning to follow on the heels of the prohibition not to enter the Tabernacle at will. The fact that Moses isssued the warning earlier indicates that the basis of the warning was nothing but brotherly concern for Aaron. This is why Torat Kohanim made reference to Exodus 4,14 where the brotherly relations between Moses and Aaron have been stressed. At that time G'd had indicated to Moses that Aaron would become the High Priest and Moses had not minded (Zevachim 102). At the same time Aaron had rejoiced when he saw that his younger brother had been chosen to be leader of the people. When G'd suggested that Moses tell Aaron about the danger of entering the Holy of Holies, He meant for Moses to demonstrate his concern for Aaron's well being.

We may interpret the additional letter ו in the words ואל יבא as a warning that Aaron should take care that what happened to his sons would not happen to him. The words ולא ימות then are a continuation of that warning.

I have seen in the commentary of Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi that according to the interpretation of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah there were three kinds of warnings [according to a variant reading in Torat Kohanim. Ed.] The Rabbi is at pains to reconcile the various verses according to the viewpoint of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah. According to my own point of view, all Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah was concerned with was what G'd had said to Moses in verse 1 where the Torah did not elaborate on the content of G'd's communication to Moses. He arrived at the conclusion that in that communication G'd advised Moses to tell Aaron that if he would violate His instructions he would die just as his sons had died. Moses was troubled by the fact that G'd had not merely told him to warn Aaron not to enter on pain of death but had added that he would die "just as his sons had died." This is why Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah related the parable illustrating the point. Rabbi Eleazar related the story as involving three physicians, not just one or two. Each physician added an additional element of urgency to the warning expressed by the previous physician. According to Rabbi Eleazar, G'd was the physician who was the most persuasive in His warning when He said the patient should take care not to die as had so-and-so before him. According to the explanation offered by Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, G'd did not compare to either of the three physicians mentioned by Rabbi Eleazar. According to him the first and second physicians did not draw a comparison with another patient, whereas the third physician did mention death already during his first warning, something which is not applicable to G'd who had not warned Aaron in that manner until the third warning. [I do not bother to add the additional criticism levelled by our author against the interpretation offered by Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi. Ed.]

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. The Torah employs the "soft" language usually associated with the word אמור, although the subject matter is a dire warning according to Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah. The very warning was a demonstration of G'd's loving concern for Aaron, just as the physician who warned the patient of the consequences of not following his advice did so out of concern for the life of his patient.

Alternatively, G'd demonstrated how much He valued Moses by showing that even when His message concerned primarily Aaron He did not address Aaron with that message but Moses. We may understand the very words ויאמר ה׳ אל משה in a way similar to Deut. 26,18: וה׳ האמירך היום, "and G'd achieved by speaking to you this day, etc." Bamidbar Rabbah 14,21 comments on this that even where we find the Torah reporting that G'd "spoke to Moses and Aaron," the meaning is that Moses was to tell Aaron what G'd had said to him. Our verse then is proof of that statement seeing that G'd addressed Moses even when the commandment He wanted to communicate was addressed exclusively to Aaron.

ואל יבא, and that he must not enter, etc. In addition to the reason we offered previously for the unusual letter ו at the beginning of a message, we may say that inasmuch as Moses had told Aaron on the very first day of his anointment as High Priest to go ahead and offer his sin-offering on the outer altar (Leviticus 9,7) the meaning was that it was only the altar situated in the courtyard which Aaron had unrestricted access to. Our sages derive this from the principle called לאו הבא מכלל עשה, that the wording of a positive commandment contains within it a negative commandment which was not spelled out by the Torah specifically. The letter ו in the word ואל provides the clue to that negative commandment.

בכל עת, at all times. The implication is that there are times when Aaron would be permitted to enter the Holy of Holies. Details of this are mentioned later beginning with the words בזאת יבא אהרון אל הקודש. Once every year Aaron was to enter the Holy of Holies. The reason the Torah had to introduce this information by the negative commandment that Aaron was not to enter the Holy of Holies before mentioning the exception, was to tell him that if he refrained from entering the Holy of Holies during the rest of the year he would merit entering the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. If, however, he were to enter the Holy of Holies during any other period he would forfeit the opportunity of entering it on the Day of Atonement at a time when permission had been granted. The Torah chose the expression בכל עת, so as to prohibit entering the Holy of Holies even on the Day of Atonement except in order to perform certain regulated activities, i.e. to burn incense and to splash blood of two sacrifices onto the dividing curtain. When we keep this in mind we derive another meaning from the letter ו at the beginning of the words ואל יבא. The letter relates to an additional warning. Aaron was not only not to enter the Holy of Holies except on the Day of Atonement, but even on that day he was to enter it only for the purpose designated in our chapter. In Torat Kohanim they derive the prohibition of entering the Holy of Holies on the other days from the words אל הקודש. The reason is that the Torah could have written merely the words מבית לפרוכת and I would have known what was meant. The additional words אל הקודש therefore became available for exegesis. Do not concern yourself with the letter ו at the beginning of the word ואל. It is not unusual for the Torah to write such a letter in such a context. We have proved this at length on other occasions.

כי בענן אראה על הכפורת, "for I will appear in a cloud above the ark-cover." Seeing the Torah had reported G'd's cloud of glory as becoming visible to the entire people in Leviticus 9,23, the Torah had to tell us that there was an even greater proof of G'd's presence in the form of a light of a celestial source above the ark-cover.

בזאת יבא אהרון, "Aaron is to enter with the following:" The reason the Torah repeats Aaron's name though it could have written merely: "with this he is to enter, etc.," is that what has been written in verse 2 applied only to Aaron. From this verse on the Torah deals with commandments applicable not only to the High Priest personally; seeing that Aaron's duties in the Sanctuary were performed on behalf of the entire people, and the clothing he wore while performing this service was as a representative of the people as a whole, G'd commanded His people to perform these rites using Aaron as their representative so as to obtain forgiveness once a year. Torat Kohanim emphasises that the linen tunic Aaron wore was paid for by the Temple treasury. The Torah hinted at this by mentioning Aaron by name as the people's representative.

כתנת בד קודש ילבש, "He shall put on the holy linen tunic, etc." The reason the Torah used the word קרש, holy, in connection with the linen tunic and was not content to include it in the subsequently mentioned בגדי קודש, sacred garments, may be that the Torah was afraid that we would reason that G'd had only ordered three garments to be paid for from the treasury of the Temple seeing they are not garments an ordinary person has to wear anyway. Inasmuch as every person has to wear a tunic, it could have been reasoned that Aaron had to pay out of his own funds for that tunic. The Torah therefore added the word קדש, sacred, to teach that this tunic too was paid for by funds from the Temple treasury. The Torah added the words בגדי קודש הם, so that we should not think that only the tunic was to be paid for by the Temple treasury. The Torah wanted to make plain that the same rule applied to all four garments.

Furthermore, the Torah may have intended to inform us that the material the tunic was made from was paid for by the Temple treasury. The same applied to the other three garments mentioned here. The Torah wanted to make this plain already when mentioning the first garment. The meaning of the words בגדי קודש הם, may be that the cost of constructing the garments, not only their materials, should be defrayed by the Temple treasury.

The Torah may also have intended to convey that these garments are of holy character by writing the words בגדי קודש הם, One should not think that it is demeaning that the very servant of G'd who had been equipped with eight garments described in Exodus 28,2-5 as לכבוד ולתפארת, "for glory and splendour," should now wear only inferior garments when performing the service inside the Holy of Holies. Only the four garments listed here are suitable for the mission the High Priest was to fulfil inside the Holy of Holies. One of the reasons is that אין קטגור נעשה סנגור, that the accuser cannot also function as the counsel of defence, as we pointed out repeatedly. The presence of gold on the garments of the High Priest would have reminded the attribute of Justice of the episode of the golden calf.

Alternatively, the reason such garments would not have been in place inside the Holy of Holies is based on Proverbs 25,6: "Do not be boastful in front of a king;" it is bad manners to harp on one's own importance in the presence of G'd Almighty. The words בגדי קודש הם are the Torah's reassurance to us that just these four garments are the sacred vestments suitable for the service about to be described in our chapter. Our sages see in the expression קודש ילבש a reference to where the tunic is to be worn, i.e. inside the Holy of Holies, the place where the Holy Presence of G'd resides. The apparent repetition בגדי קודש הם mean that all of these garments are to be the property of the Temple treasury. (Torat Kohanim).

ולקח את שני השעירים, "He will take the two male goats, etc." This entire procedure needs much explaining. Why would G'd command procedures such as these? If it is one of the commandments for which the Torah has not provided a rationale, why has it not been described as a חוק, something the Torah normally does in situations where our intellect is too limited to understand G'd's motivations? The problem is made worse in light of the comment of our sages (Zohar volume 3, page 101) that the Azazel is a euphemism for Satan. If we accept this, the entire procedure smacks of a pagan rite, G'd forbid? This impression is reinforced by the statement in Yuma that the two goats are to be indistinguishable from one another in appearance!

In order to understand this whole subject we must first refer to a statement made by our sages in Avot 4,11 where we are told by Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov that if one performs a single מצוה one acquires an advocate on one's behalf; the reverse is true if one commits a sin. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov's words are explained by the Zohar volume 2, page 76 and elsewhere as well as by the Ari Zal. A sin is perceived as creating a spiritually negative force in our world. It is this spiritually negative force which is considered the actual sin perpetrated by the individual in question. We have explained Jeremiah 2,19 and Isaiah 64,6 as conveying this idea. When G'd forgave David in Samuel II 12,14, telling him he would not die, the message was also that the evil power David had created through his deed would be destroyed as a result of his repentance. This is why the prophet Nathan could say that "G'd has also removed your sin and you will not die." The sin man committed created the lethal force which has the power to kill the sinner. Once the sin has been removed, the force that potentially could have killed the sinner has been neutralised, is unable to kill. In other words, it is not G'd who kills but the forces created by the sinner are what cause death. Seeing that G'd much prefers our welfare to our death, He commanded that whosoever committed a sinful act unintentionally should offer a sin-offering; the owner should place his weight on the animal which is to serve as this offering, an act which drains him of the negative influences he has absorbed due to his evil deeds and transfers them to the sacrificial animal instead. G'd has informed us that this act of man when performed in the precincts of the Holy Temple is imbued with the unifying power of the אלוקי הרוחות לכל בשר, G'd's attribute as the spirit of all flesh. This is the mystical dimension of the need to perform סמיכה prior to the offering of sin-offerings. Every activity performed by man as part of the sin-offering procedure, i.e. the slaughtering, and the burning up of the animal's parts designated for this, he performs as a continuation of the act of placing his own physical weight on the animal first. The evil force his sin had created is neutralised, is completely uprooted. You have been aware already that the sin-offering is applicable only in respect of sins committed inadvertently because such a sin does not add to the already extant power of the pollutant which is residual in man since Adam ate from the tree of knowledge. If man committed a sin knowingly and willingly, something which increases this pollutant within him, he cannot erase this by means of a sin-offering. This is what is meant by Solomon in Proverbs 21,27: "the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination." G'd abhors someone who abuses the institution of the sacrificial altar to offer his abomination on it. There is nothing as abhorrent to G'd as the misuse of the altar in an attempt to expiate for intentional sins.

After these introductory lines we may be able to understand the procedure prescribed in our paragraph, especially when we add the following comment quoted in Torat Kohanim. on verse 16. "He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel and their transgressions, etc." The verse speaks of the sin of defiling the Temple and its sacrifices which are being atoned for by the male goat whose blood is sprinkled inside the Sanctuary onto the dividing curtain. All other sins listed in the Torah, both the relatively minor ones as well as the most severe ones, both intentionally committed ones as well as those committed unintentionally, even those for which judicial execution of the sinner is mandatory, etc., will be atoned for by the scapegoat." Thus far Torat Kohanim. The wording in the Talmud is as follows: "The scapegoat carries on it all the sins of the Jewish people, the intentional sins, (both serious ones and relatively minor ones), as well as unintentionally committed trespasses." The atonement for sins committed by the priests is also attained by means of the scapegoat as we know from Menachot 92 and Shavuot 13. The exact quote from the Talmud there reads as follows: "Rabbi Yehudah says that the priests also attain their atonement by means of the scapegoat." After G'd has informed us of all this you have sufficient reason to understand the purpose of the two male goats. Between them they carry away the accumulated pollutants which have polluted the souls of the Israelites during the preceding year. G'd is willing to accept as a sacrifice the animal whose function it is to atone for the defiling of the Temple precincts and the various animals therein which became contaminated before being offered on the altar. He does not abhor that sacrifice. G'd is not willing to accept the animal which carries the burden of all the other sins of the Israelites and He consigns that animal to death in a place far removed from the sacred precincts of the Holy Temple. He commanded Aaron to place his weight on that scapegoat prior to dispatching it to its death, seeing that Aaron acts as the plenipotentiary of the Jewish people. He could do so seeing we have the principle that a man's messenger can take the place of the one who has authorised him to be his messenger. When the Torah writes: "he shall place them on the head of the live scapegoat, the verse makes it plain that Aaron transfers all the pollutants which have contaminated the souls of the Jewish people to the scapegoat by means of placing his weight on that animal's head. The Torah simply informed us that the scapegoat is G'd's appointee for carrying the sins of the Israelites away to a barren land.

We will understand the procedure better by means of a parable. A king examined the garments of his son and found that some of them were clean whereas others were stained. If the garment had a single stain, the king rubs it clean and returns the garment to his son. If he comes across garments which are greatly soiled, he hands these garments to one of his servants instructing him to launder it. The servant does not mind getting his hands dirty while washing the garment. G'd acts in a similar manner with the Jewish people, His children. When one of them presents an offering asking Him to remove a minor stain, i.e. the result of inadvertently committed sins or a stain caused by defiling a Holy Place, G'd does not despise such an offering. However, all the pollutants the Israelites accumulated on their souls due to all the other sins are something G'd considers as most despicable. This is why He instructed one of His most junior servants- the scapegoat- to consign these dirty clothes to a barren spot on earth. This servant is considered expendable by G'd. The death of the scapecoat without slaughter is considered as an undesirable assignment for this servant. Nonetheless, the fact that the servant accomplishes by this mission something similar to what is accomplished by the slaughter of its colleague, namely the cleansing of the Israelites from sin, his mission is a worthy one. This is alluded to in our verse by the requirement that both male goats need to be almost indistinguishable in outward appearance and they have to be presented in the courtyard of the Temple before the lot is cast to determine which one of them is to perform which function. The reason G'd did not command to simply take any male goat from the market to serve as the scapegoat is, that it is impossible for one such animal to absorb all the sins of the Jewish people on its head until it has been imbued with additional strength by having been presented in the holy precincts in the presence of G'd. Once this occurred it was not clear to an observer which of the two goats had been chosen for the task of carrying away the sins of the Jewish people. This is why the Torah arranged for Aaron to draw lots. Only G'd Himself could determine which of His servants (goats) would perform which task. If we consider that according to the kabbalists numerous animals became bodies which housed the souls of former sinners whose souls were given an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves through another re-incarnation on earth, the chances are that the goat which had been chosen by lot to be the scapegoat was such an animal. There are also mystical dimensions to the procedure of the lottery itself as mentioned in the Zohar volume three page 101.

יעמד חי, shall be set alive, etc. These words need analysis. Yuma 40 and Torat Kohanim offer many explanations. According to our own approach the meaning is simply that Aaron was not to confess the sins of Israel on that animal immediately after the lot had been drawn, but was to leave it "alive" for a while. We have explained on several occasions that sinners are called "dead" even while they are physically still alive. An animal which carries the burden of the sins of the nation would therefore certainly be considered "dead" from the moment it assumed that burden. Consequently, the Torah had to mention that this procedure was not to take place immediately and that in the meantime the scape-goat remained "alive." Our interpretation is confirmed by the Torah as correct as you can see from verse 21. Only then does Aaron place his hands (weight) on the head of the שעיר החי, the "living goat," and confesses the sins of the people and transfers them to the head of that animal. At that point the Torah no longer adds the adjective "the live one," when speaking of the scapegoat. Seeing the animal is considered dead from that point on we can understand why the messenger who took the scapegoat to the place from where it was thrown off the rock had to immerse himself in a ritual bath. He had become ritually defiled by contact with an animal considered dead according to halachah though it had been walking all the time that the איש עתי accompanied it (verse 22).