Acharei/Kedoshim 5769

“And Hashem spoke to Moshe after the death of the two sons of Aharon at their offering/drawing close in front of Hashem and they died.” Shemos 16:1

“And Hashem said to Moshe, speak to Aharon your brother; “And don’t come at all times into the snatuary behind the Paroches to the face of the Kapores (cover) that is on the Aron and (he won’t) die, for in a cloud I shall appear on the Kapores.” Shemos 16:2

If the posuk tells us that Hashem spoke to Moshe after the death of his two sons, why does the same posuk tell us that they died as a result of their offering? We would have expected the verse to miss out the ending of “And they died”.

Therefore it must be that the two expressions of the death of Aharon’s sons must perform different functions in the verse and tell us different things.

The Gemoro in Yoma, (53:a), discusses the opening verses of our parsha, “R’ Elazar says, “he will not die” – (this tells us the) punishment, (for abrogating this commandment), “For in a cloud I shall appear – (this tells us the) prohibition” “One could think that this was said before the death of the sons of Aharon, thus the Torah says, “After the death of the two sons of Aharon”, etc.
“Rava says, “For in a cloud I shall appear”, and He had not yet appeared! What was the reason that they were punished? As we have learnt, R’ Elazar says, the sons of Aharon did not die for any reason other than that they ruled on the din in front of their teacher” (The din being that even though a fire descended from the heavens to consume the offering, a regular fire was still required to be kindled).

The Gemoro in Brochos tells us, “All who rule on a halocho in front of their rebbi/teacher is liable for death”, however this doesn’t normally carry an immediate heavenly death sentence!

In HoEmek Dovor, the Netziv explains that, the first two verses are two separate points. Nadav and Avihu sinned by ruling in front of Moshe, and were killed immediately since Hashem’s aspect of strict justice, (midas hadin), had been aroused by their entrance into the Sanctuary, (the beis in “b’hakravtem” – in their offering/drawing close is not functioning as “when” here but is rather indicating that they were geographically in front of Hashem as it were). As the Ntziv writes, “Their sin was at the moment that they drew close before Hashem in the palace of the King of all Kings, the Holy One Blessed Be He”.

Afterwards Hashem told Moshe this parsha, preceding it with this first verse to teach that any kohen who is not meticulous in performing the Yom Kippur service in the sanctuary in accordance with the halocho – “his blood is on his head”. He’d better watch out because midas hadin is about! In the King’s palace, a higher standard of behavior is expected at all times!

Why does midas hadin make a difference?
The Satmar Rov in Divrei Yoel, (Parshas Pinchas), quotes the Divrei Chaim of Tzanz who explains that there is a disagreement amongst the commentators as to when the Egyptian exile began. There are those who say that it began from the birth of Yitzchok and therefore was finished at the point of the Exodus. There are others who say that it began only from the actual enslavement itself and thus had not finished at the point of the Exodus, thus requiring it to be completed at a later point. When Hashem is acting in accordance with midas harachamim – the attribute of mercy, then He “rules” according to the lenient opinion that the exile ended with the Exodus, however, when Yisroel sin, He rules in accordance with the strict opinions that the exile still requires completion. The woes that befall us as a result are a continuation of the Egyptian exile.
The Satmar Rov uses this principle to go on to explain why a plague broke out amongst the people as a result of Zimri’s taking a Moabite woman and challenging Moshe in front of the whole nation as to whether she was permitted to him.
There are different opinions in the Gemoro as to what extent one is required to chastise their fellow when they sin. The stricter opinion says until they physically assault you, the lenient says until they curse you. The sin of Zimri caused Hashem to act towards us in accordance with midas hadin and thus follow the strict opinion which says that Klal Yisroel should have prevented this sin from taking place even at the threat of physical violence from the tribe of Shimon in defense of their prince. Now since they had not fulfilled their obligation, they were punished with a plague.
In both of these cases midas hadin resulted in the application of a stricter ruling where a leniet ruling would otherwise have been expected.

In the case of Bnei Aharon, their being in the “Kings Palace” put them into a situation of midas hadin – geographically triggered midas hadin as opposed to sin triggered. There is a difference here from the cases in Divrei Yoel; no stricter ruling was applied in the face a more lenient one, however the principle of stringency is relevant here. Presumably one isn’t actually executed for ruling in front of ones rebbe, rather the crime is of sufficient magnitude to be deserving of death. In any case there was no warning, testimony of witnesses or judgment by a Sanhedrin, (all essential for capital cases). Midas hadin meant that a sin that would normally go unpunished by man was punished immediately and spectacularly by Hashem. They were deserving of death but the sentence could not be implemented, Hashem stepped in to carry out the judgment despite these issues, the technical factors preventing execution were bypassed thanks to midas hadin.

We know that tzadikim are punished for seemingly minor indiscretions that a regular person would go unpunished for, their greater holiness could perhaps put them into a “King’s Palace” type situation, as they are close to Hashem at all times. (ie. I am suggesting that these are three manifestations of the same idea).


Practically speaking: when monkey business is going on, or when one is involved in matters concerning holiness, extra care is required due to midas hadin.




(Note: the midos/attributes of Hashem are complicated; this essay is not an explanation of these concepts but a study into their application as seen in the revealed Torah of the commentators).