Parashas Shemini 5774

    “And they (Nadav and Avihu) brought a foreign fire before G-d” (Vayikra 10:1). “And a fire went out from before G-d and consumed them, and they died before G-d (10:2). Most (e.g. Toras Kohanim 3:1:22, see Rabbeinu Bachye) are of the opinion that Nadav and Avihu brought this “strange fire” into the inner sanctum (the Kodesh HaKadashim, where the Ark was). Raavad suggests that the basis for saying they went into the inner sanctum (as opposed to bringing the incense on the golden altar in the outer sanctum, where incense is usually brought) is that they went “before G-d,” a term also used to describe the place G-d’s fire came from, i.e. the inner sanctum (see Toras Kohanim 3:1:34). Since both are described as “before G-d,” they must both be the same place. Raavad then asks how the fire could be described as “going out” (meaning going out from the inner sanctum) if Nadav and Avihu were inside that same sanctum. To answer this, he suggests that they weren’t consumed by the fire until after they had exited from the inner sanctum. (Perhaps G-d waited to punish them in order to avoid having to have their bodies removed from the inner sanctum.) Rav Yitzchok Sorotzkin, sh’lita, (Rinas Yitzchok I) asks how Raavad could say that they weren’t consumed until after they left the inner sanctum if they also died “before G-d,” which Raavad says refers to the inner sanctum. (Rav Sorotzkin leaves this question unanswered.)

Defining “Before G-d”

    Before discussing any of the ancillary issues related to this question, a discussion regarding what the term “before G-d” refers to is warranted. G-d had commanded that a jar of manna (the daily bread that fell from heaven in the desert) be stored “before G-d” (Sh’mos 16:32-33), and it was put “before the “testimony,” i.e. the Ark that was in the inner sanctum (16:34, see Rashi). Similarly, the staffs collected from the Tribal Chiefs after Korach’s rebellion were put “before G-d” (Bamidbar 17:22), which was “before the testimony” (see 17:19 and 17:24) in the inner sanctum. However, the overwhelming majority of the time that a place is described as being “before G-d” it cannot mean “in the inner sanctum.” Numerous times it is used in conjunction with one of the vessels in the outer sanctum (the “Kodesh,” or “Ohel Mo’ed”), such as where the Menorah (Sh’mos 27:21 and 40:25, Vayikra 24:3-4), Shulchan (Sh’mos 40:23 and Vayikra 24:6/8) and Mizbayach HaK’tores (Sh’mos 30:8, Vayikra 4:7, 4:18 and 16:18) were. It is also used to describe the place where Aharon wears his Priestly garments (Sh’mos 28:12, 28:29-30, 28:35 and 28:38), garments that he cannot wear in the inner sanctum. The context of most instances of the words “before G-d” indicates that it refers to the courtyard area, which corresponds to the “Azara” in the Temple (see Rashi on Vayikra 1:5), including several instances (e.g. Sh’mos 29:11 and 29:42, Vayikra 1:3, 4:4, 14:11, 14:23, 15:14 and 16:7) where it explicitly says that “before G-d” is “by the door of the Tent of Meeting,” i.e. in the courtyard. There are even some instances (e.g. D’varim 14:23/26) where “before G-d” refers to an area beyond the confines of the Temple (but inside the city), thereby preventing the term from being limited to the Temple grounds (D’varim 27:7 uses it to refer to the altar built on Mt. Eival). It would therefore be difficult to say that using the term “before G-d” must mean that Nadav and Avihu sinned inside the inner sanctum, or that they died there. Nor could it automatically be assumed that all three things (where Nadav and Avihu sinned, where the fire came from, and where they died) occurred in the same place just because the same term (“before G-d”) is used for all of them (unless using them in such close proximity mandates that they refer to the same place).

Where Were Nadav and Avihu?

    Most assume that Nadav and Avihu brought their “foreign fire” into the inner sanctum based on their deaths being mentioned as an introduction to the procedure necessary before Aharon is allowed to go there (see Rashi on Vayikra 16:2). If that was where they were when they sinned, it would be difficult to say that the fire that consumed them originated outside the inner sanctum and then “went out” by going “in.” (Nor could it be considered “going out” if both the fire and its targets were in the same area outside the inner sanctum, a semantic issue similar to the one raised by Raavad.) Since G-d’s presence is most highly concentrated (as it were) within the inner sanctum, this is the divine fire’s most likely point of origin. Raavad, on the other hand, attributes the assumption that Nadav and Avihu sinned in the same place that the fire “went out” from to the same term being used for both. However, it is inconceivable that Raavad didn’t know that the term “before G-d” is used to describe other parts of the Temple complex, and, as Rav Sorotzkin pointed out, by suggesting that Nadav and Avihu were consumed after they left the inner sanctum despite that spot also being referred to as “before G-d,” Raavad must also agree that the same term being used multiple times in the same narrative (and in the same verse) does not mean that it has to refer to the same exact location. Perhaps Raavad suggested that using the same term meant it was the same location because of the way it was used, not because it was the same term. Did the fire came “from Before G-d” (with a capital “B” because it is a proper name for a specific location) or “from before G-d” (with a lower case “b” because it is a description of an area near the divine presence)? Being that the words “before G-d” can refer to a number of different locations, it must be a lower case “b” (or at least usually is). When coupled with the word “from” (by having the letter “mem” as a prefix), though, the implication is that something is moving “from” a known, identified, area, in this case “from” the area previously identified as “before G-d.” Therefore, even though the term “before G-d” later in the same verse (see also Bamidbar 3:4) can mean outside the inner sanctum, the term “from before G-d” implies “from the area that was previously identified as being before G-d.” And since the area the divine fire originated from was the inner sanctum, the previously mentioned “before G-d” must have been referring to the inner sanctum as well.

A Different Approach

    This suggestion was made to try to explain Raavad’s approach, which was meant to answer the question he posed regarding the fire being described as “going out” despite its intended targets, Nadav and Avihu, being “in” the same location as the fire. However, there is another way to address this issue without forcing Nadav and Avihu to leave the inner sanctum before they are consumed by that fire.

Which Fire Came First?

    The expression “and a fire went out from before G-d” appears twice in our narrative, once to describe the fire that consumed the offerings that were on the altar (Vayikra 9:24) and once to describe the fire that consumed Nadav and Avihu (10:2). When Toras Kohanim tells us that Nadav and Avihu went into the inner sanctum, it explains what their motivation was: “Since the sons of Aharon saw that all the offerings had been brought, and all the deeds (that had been commanded) had been done, and [yet] the divine presence had not descended for Israel, Nadav said to Avihu, ‘does anyone cook a dish without fire?’ Immediately they took a foreign fire and entered into the inner sanctum.” They weren’t reacting to the already-sent divine fire, but trying to bring it about. Why, then, is the fire that consumed the offerings described before the fire that Nadav and Avihu brought into the inner sanctum?

One Fire, Two Consumptions

    It would seem that the two identical verses of “and a fire went out from before G-d” are not describing two different fires that “went out” at two different times. Rather, as Rashbam suggests (although not to answer the issues being discussed here), there was but one “fire that went out from before G-d.” It originated in the inner sanctum and consumed Nadav and Avihu on its way out to consume the offerings on the altar. [It should be noted that Rashbam is one of the few commentators of the opinion that Nadav and Avihu were not in the inner sanctum; he says the fire consumed them while they were in the outer sanctum as it traveled from the inner sanctum to the courtyard. I am applying this to the opinion that they were in the inner sanctum, with the fire originating between the “K‘ruvim” and consuming them on its way out while they were in the inner sanctum between the Ark and the Curtain that divides the inner sanctum from the outer sanctum.] Since it was the very same fire that consumed Nadav and Avihu and (then) the offerings, first the Torah finishes the narrative it had begun regarding the offerings (which ended with the divine fire coming out of the sanctuary and consuming them) before starting on the concurrent narrative of the very same fire consuming Nadav and Avihu. And since the fire did “go out” of the inner sanctum (and out of the outer sanctum as well) in order to consume the offerings, there is no issue with it being described as “going out” when it’s repeated in the Nadav and Avihu narrative, even though Nadav and Avihu never left the inner sanctum.