Parshas Acharei
1. At the beginning of the parsha, Rashi addresses the verse "וידבר ה' אל משה אחרי מות שני בני אהרן וגו'" ("And G‑d spoke to Moshe after the death of Aharon's two sons, etc.") and asks: "מה תלמוד לומר" ("What does this teach us?")1 — why does the verse need to relate that the speech took place "after the death of Aharon's two sons"2; what difference does it make to know when the speech came?3 And he answers: "Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah would illustrate it with a parable of a sick person whom a doctor came to visit. He told him: Do not eat cold food and do not lie in a damp place. Another came and told him: Do not eat cold food and do not lie in a damp place, so that you do not die the way so-and-so died. This one urged him more than the first. Therefore it says 'after the death of Aharon's two sons.'" That is, the words "after the death of Aharon's two sons" are (not merely a narration of when the speech took place, but also) a part4 of the speech itself5: G‑d told Moshe that in his words to Aharon, "ואל יבא וגו'" ("that he shall not come, etc."), he should remind him of the death of his sons (as Rashi explains on the second verse: "And G‑d said to Moshe: Speak to Aharon your brother, that he shall not come — so that he not die the way his sons died") — just like the second doctor, who by adding "so that you do not die the way so-and-so died" urges the sick person more than the first doctor, who only says "Do not eat, etc."
We need to understand: Why does Rashi need to give a parable of two doctors (that the first said only "Do not eat, etc." and the second added "so that you do not die the way so-and-so died")? He could simply have said that when a doctor adds "so that you do not die the way so-and-so died," he thereby urges the sick person more than when he tells him the command alone?
2. Commentators say6 that with the question "What does this teach us?" Rashi means to ask [not (only)7 why the verse relates that the speech was said "after the death of Aharon's two sons," but (also)7] why the verse "And G‑d spoke to Moshe, etc." is written here at all: after the verse relates the time of the speech, it says once again "And G‑d said to Moshe"? To this Rashi answers, "a parable of a sick person, etc.": the two speeches — "And G‑d spoke to Moshe" and "And G‑d said to Moshe" — were two separate commands, like the two doctors. "And G‑d said to Moshe… that he shall not come, etc." is like the first doctor, who only warned "Do not eat cold food and do not lie in a damp place"; and "And G‑d spoke to Moshe after the death of Aharon's two sons, etc." is like the second doctor, who added "so that you do not die the way so-and-so died" — and it was said after "And G‑d said."
This explanation, however, is very difficult:
a) According to the above, the question "What does this teach us?" is (not only why the verse needs to be written, but also) that the verse has no meaning: it says "And G‑d spoke to Moshe," and it does not say what He spoke to him. But from Rashi's wording "What does this teach us?" [especially since the Toras Kohanim says "and we do not know what was said to him in the first speech," and Rashi departs from the wording of the Toras Kohanim8 and writes "What does this teach us?"9], it is proven10 that what troubles him is only the superfluousness of the verse — but the meaning of the verse is clear to him11.
For according to the plain meaning, the repetition of "And He said" is [not a second saying, but] because, since after "And G‑d spoke to Moshe" the verse interrupts with "after the death of Aharon's two sons, etc.," it repeats once more "And G‑d said to Moshe"12; it is, however, "the very same speech mentioned above"12.
b) The explanation that first came "And G‑d said… that he shall not come, etc." and afterwards "And He spoke… after the death, etc." (which is written before "And He said") is far from the plain meaning; consequently, it is difficult to say that Rashi (who explains the plain meaning of Scripture) would learn it this way — without stating it explicitly13.
c) According to the above explanation, it emerges that "And He said, etc." is like the first doctor, who commanded "Do not eat cold food, etc." without qualification. But Rashi explains on the verse "And He said, etc.": "so that he not die the way his sons died"14.
3. In addition to the question why Rashi brings a parable of two doctors (since, as stated above, according to the plain meaning there was only one speech, and "And He said" is "the very same speech mentioned above"), the following is also not understood:
a) The very idea that adding "so that you do not die the way so-and-so died" gives more urgency is something simply understood, and seemingly no parable is needed for it. So what novelty are (Ibn Ezra and) Rashi teaching here with "a parable of a sick person, etc."?
b) If one does want to bring a parable, the parable need not specifically be of a sick person: a healthy person too, when he is told not to do a certain thing (which, G‑d forbid, endangers a person), and he is told in addition "so that you do not die the way so-and-so died," will guard himself much more strongly than if he were told the command without the addition*. Why does Rashi need to emphasize "a parable of a sick person"?
The question is even stronger: When one gives a parable for a certain matter, even if the parable is needed to explain only one detail of the analogue (since the other details are understood on their own — even without the parable), one tries to give a parable in which the other details also match the analogue (all the more so a parable of Torah, in which all the details match the analogue). It is thus understood that when (Ibn Ezra and) Rashi give a parable of a command to a sick person (one who was ill beforehand — unlike the parable mentioned above of a command to a healthy person, where the whole concern "that he not die" exists only if he does not obey the command), they mean thereby to hint that in the analogue too it is so: that Aharon had an illness and a deficiency, so to speak, even before he was commanded "ואל יבא בכל עת אל הקדש וגו'" ("he shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary, etc.").
This is entirely not understood: what kind of deficiency and illness did Aharon have?
c) There are many things that can, G‑d forbid, cause harm and bring death, heaven forbid. Why do (Ibn Ezra and) Rashi choose "Do not eat cold food and do not lie in a damp place"?
d) What is the reason that Rashi, specifically here, also brings the name of the author of the statement?
4. The explanation of all the above will be understood by first raising a question on the matter as a whole:
With many commands in the Torah, only the command itself is written, and no punishment at all is mentioned for not fulfilling the command. Even with the commands where the punishment is written, "the way so-and-so died" is not mentioned.
Even regarding the command "יין ושכר אל תשת" ("Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink")15, which was also said after the death of Aharon's two sons, and whose death came about because "they entered the Sanctuary intoxicated with wine"16 — it says only "so that you do not die"; it does not say "the way Nadav and Avihu died."
The question thus arises: Why does the command "he shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary" require special urging — that Aharon be told "so that he not die the way his sons died" — more than all the other commands? Especially more than "Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink," which comes earlier?
It is this question that Rashi answers with "a parable of a sick person, etc.": From the parable it is understood that had Aharon been told the command "he shall not come at all times, etc." without adding "so that he not die the way his sons died," there would have been room for him not to obey the command — like a sick person for whom the command of the first doctor, "Do not eat cold food and do not lie in a damp place," is not enough by itself, and he needs the addition "so that you do not die the way so-and-so died" (as will be explained in section 5).
That is why Rashi brings a parable of two doctors — because through the parable of the first doctor, Rashi means to bring out that the command of the first doctor is indeed insufficient for the sick person.
5. A sick person, heaven forbid, has a great deal of heat, far more than usual (a high temperature). And the heat in him is so great that he is nourished by the heat. Therefore a sick person who cannot eat, to the point that "כל אוכל תתעב נפשם" ("their soul abhors all food")17, can live from the fact that "זנתיה אישתא" ("the fever sustains him")18 — the heat feeds him.
This intense heat brings him to have a great desire to quench the heat — by eating cold things or by being in a cold place. And his desire is so great that even when a doctor tells him "Do not eat cold food and do not lie in a damp place," it is reasonable that he will not obey him (although in all other instructions he does obey the doctor — after all, he wants to get well). Only when the doctor frightens him, "so that you do not die the way so-and-so died," does fear lead him to obey the doctor's command — despite his great thirst for eating cold food and lying in a damp place.
And the same applies to Aharon: Aharon had a great desire and thirst for G‑d — he was "חולת אהבה" ("sick with love")19 (especially after he had stayed at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting continuously, day and night, for seven days20), and consequently he was drawn to enter the Holy of Holies. Because of his great thirst for G‑dliness, it was reasonable that without the addition "so that he not die the way his sons died," he would not have been able to bring himself to refrain from going into the Holy of Holies — despite the command "he shall not come, etc." Therefore it was necessary to add "after the death of Aharon's two sons."
6. Why does Rashi give two examples — "Do not eat cold food" and "Do not lie in a damp place"?
In the command "he shall not come into the Sanctuary" there are two details: a) "he shall not come at all times" — that even by offering "a young bull as a sin-offering, etc.," he may not enter the Sanctuary at all times (except on Yom Kippur)21; b) "בזאת יבא וגו'" ("With this he shall come, etc.") — that even on Yom Kippur he cannot enter the Sanctuary except "with a young bull as a sin-offering, etc.," as explained in the parsha22.
And corresponding to these two commands, the parable has the two examples "Do not eat cold food" and "Do not lie in a damp place":
Eating cold food has a much greater effect on the sick person than lying in a damp place, because by eating cold food he takes the cold into himself, internally (and the cold food becomes blood and flesh like his own flesh). Whereas with lying in a damp place, the cold is outside of him.
And the greater effect of eating cold food compared with lying in a damp place applies in both respects: both in the temporary relief, since eating cold food quenches his heat more than lying in a damp place; and in the danger that comes, heaven forbid, as a result.
Therefore, the first warning the doctor gives him is "Do not eat cold food," and only afterwards does he tell him "Do not lie in a damp place," because (a) eating cold food is more dangerous, and (b) the sick person's desire for it is greater.
These two matters are a parable for the two commands "he shall not come at all times" and "with this he shall come": The command not to enter the Holy of Holies "at all times" (even) to offer sacrifices is like eating cold food, for sacrifices are compared to, and are called, "bread"23 and "eating"24. And the command "with this he shall come" — that he may not enter the Holy of Holies without sacrifices (even on Yom Kippur) — is like lying in a damp place, for entering the Holy of Holies (without performing any service there) essentially means being present in a particular place, a holy place, like lying in a damp place, whose essence is only being present in a cold place, but not taking the cold inward25.
7. After all the above, one question still remains: Where do we find that Aharon had such a great thirst, to the point that without the addition "so that he not die the way his sons died" it was reasonable that he would transgress G‑d's command? With Nadav and Avihu we do indeed find it — but not with Aharon!
Now, this is indeed not a strong question. For from the very fact that it was necessary to add for him "so that you do not die the way, etc.," it is proven that he had a great thirst. Moreover: since Nadav and Avihu, whose closeness came about through "הקרב אליך את אהרן אחיך ואת בניו אתו" ("Bring near to you Aharon your brother (and afterwards) his sons with him")26, had an exceedingly great thirst for G‑dliness, it stands to reason that Aharon had it even more27.
Nevertheless, it is not entirely simple28. Therefore Rashi says "Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah would illustrate it with a parable, etc." — by saying that the "parable of a sick person" was given by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, he hints at the answer to the above question, as will be explained below.
8. About Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, the Gemara relates29 that while he was still very young — eighteen years old (or sixteen years old30) — he was appointed "head of the academy" because of all the qualities he possessed: he was wise, wealthy, and of distinguished lineage (the tenth generation from Ezra).
When they wanted to appoint him, he consulted with his wife. She dissuaded him, saying "לית לך חיורתא" ("You have no white hair"). A miracle happened, and "eighteen rows of white hair grew for him."
The question arises: With the claim "You have no white hair," she meant that he was still very young and therefore not fit to be head of the yeshivah —
— the advantage of one advanced in years, which white hair indicates (especially in connection with a head of a yeshivah31), is, as it is written32, "ורוב שנים ידיעו חכמה" ("and many years teach wisdom")33. And the wisdom that comes through "many years" cannot be obtained in any other way. For even one with the most exceptional talents and the greatest diligence nevertheless lacks the abundance of wisdom that comes through many years (for "הרבה קבלתי מרבותי הרבה קבלתי מחברי ומתלמידי יותר מכולם" ("I received much from my teachers, much from my colleagues, and from my students more than from all of them")34 — and when one is young, all these cannot yet be present) —
— so how did it help that "eighteen rows of white hair grew for him" and he looked like an elder?
The question is even greater: The Gemara35 relates the order that prevailed then (before Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah was appointed): "כל תלמיד שאין תוכו כברו לא יכנס לבית המדרש" ("Any student whose inside is not like his outside shall not enter the study hall"). Now, if with the students they were particular that their inside be like their outside, then all the more so, regarding the head of the academy, it would not help that he looks like an elder when in truth he is very young.
And another great wonder: All those who wanted to appoint him — why did it not bother them that "you have no white hair"? And why did it not bother Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah — before his wife told it to him?
One must say that the fact that "a miracle happened for him and eighteen rows of white hair grew for him" (also) showed everyone that inside — inwardly — he possessed the advantage of an elder.
And this is the meaning of "she said to him: You have no white hair, etc. A miracle happened for him, etc.": His wife argued to him that he lacked the advantage of wisdom that comes through many years; and "a miracle happened for him" showed everyone — what those appointing him had known beforehand — that he also possessed the advantage of wisdom, even though he was still very young.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah also knew it (from the honor shown him and from his row36 in the study hall, and the like). But when his wife told him "you have no, etc.," it is understood that (because of his humility) a doubt arose in him, etc.
The question then is: How indeed did he have the wisdom that comes specifically through "many years"? One must say that his wisdom was connected with his lineage, that he was "tenth to Ezra": the wisdom of his forebears [who were elders, and in whom "many years teach wisdom" was fulfilled] came to him too37 — by inheritance.
Put in a slightly different way: Since he merited wisdom as a son — whether because the nature of the son resembles the nature of the father38, or because of the merit of the father's righteousness39 — he had an extraordinary power of wisdom, and with effort over a short time the "teaching of wisdom" came to him more40 than it comes to others over the course of "many years"41.
9. And this is what Rashi emphasizes — that the "parable of a sick person," which brings out that Aharon had the quality of being "sick with love," was said by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah:
Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah saw from his own life how lineage helps (not only with qualities of the soul and body, such as talents and strength, but also) even with actual wisdom, although this is something that comes through one's own toil, as our Sages say42: "לא יגעתי ומצאתי אל תאמין" ("[If one says] 'I did not toil, yet I found' — do not believe him"), and the Torah "אינה ירושה לך" ("is not an inheritance for you")43.
And from this he concluded that so too regarding the love of G‑d: although a person must toil for it himself44, nevertheless the inheritance from the forefathers — the family from which he descends — also has a great effect.
Therefore, he held that the great thirst for G‑d of Nadav and Avihu (which was so great that they expired from it in kelos hanefesh, the soul's expiry — "בקרבתם לפני ה' וימותו" ("when they drew near before G‑d and died")45) was connected with the fact that they were — as the verse emphasizes here — "the sons of Aharon"; and since this is so, it is understood that Aharon too — their father — had such a thirst, and perhaps an even greater one.
10. Like all the narratives of the Torah (a word derived from hora'ah, "instruction"46), the narrative "And G‑d spoke to Moshe after the death of Aharon's two sons, etc."47 is also an eternal lesson for every Jew, at all times and in all places: Although a Jew is required to be in the world and to carry out the intent of "נתאווה48 הקב"ה להיות לו ית'49 דירה בתחתונים" ("The Holy One, blessed be He, desired to have a dwelling place in the lower realms"), it must always be for him in the manner of "ועל כרחך אתה חי" ("and against your will you live")50: his thirst and desire must be to leave weekday life and to go into the Holy of Holies; and his holding himself back from actually doing so must be only because of the command (and descent) that one must make a dwelling for Him, may He be blessed, in the lower realms51.
11. But the question then arises: A Jew must be "תוכו כברו" ("his inside like his outside"), and when he performs a certain service, he must do it with inwardness. It is therefore understood that the service of "he shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary," too, he must perform not merely to discharge his obligation, but truly wanting, in the innermost part of his soul, to carry out the intent of making a dwelling for Him, may He be blessed, in the lower realms.
Now, if a Jew were required to bring about in himself that the thirst to enter the Sanctuary should not exist in him, there would be no question: a Jew is nullified to G‑d, and if G‑d tells him "he shall not come," he does not want to go.
But when he is told that he should indeed have the thirst (and the thirst must be truly genuine in him52), and nevertheless "he shall not come" (and his fulfillment of the command "he shall not come" must also be with inwardness), how can he bring about in himself that both wills — to go into the Sanctuary and not to go into the Sanctuary — be genuine in him?
To this the verse says: "And G‑d spoke to Moshe… Speak to Aharon your brother, etc." In order for a Jew (and every Jew has the command "הוי מתלמידיו של אהרן" ("Be among the disciples of Aharon")53) to have both of the above movements (ratzo and shuv, "running" and "returning"), and both with inwardness, he must listen to the speech of Moshe:
When he stands within his own sense of self, it is indeed impossible for him to want — genuinely — two opposites. But when54 he gives himself over to Moshe Rabbeinu, and to the extension of Moshe that is present in every generation55, he then has no will of his own at all, and his entire will is the Supreme Will.
Consequently, since G‑d wants him to have both movements (and for G‑d two opposite movements are no contradiction, for He is the One Who bears opposites), it is thereby accomplished in the Jew too that the will for both movements is in the innermost part of his soul, and that the fact that the two movements are opposites does not confuse him at all — since his entire will is only the Supreme Will.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Acharei, 5725)
Notes
1) According to the Rosh, the version in Rashi is "we do not know what was said to him in the first speech," and so it is in the Toras Kohanim here. But in all the printings of Rashi (including the first printing) it is as in the text. So too in the Gra and the Levush here.
2) As for Rashi also quoting the words "And G‑d spoke to Moshe" (according to the version of most printings and the Levush — unlike the version of the first printing and the Gra), see below, note 10.
3) In the Gra here*: "One cannot answer that it needed to write when the speech was said to him, for if so it should only have written 'after the death of Aharon's two sons,' and it would not have needed to write 'when they drew near before G‑d and died.'" But (a) from the fact that Rashi does not explicitly quote the words "when they drew near before G‑d and died" (and only hints at them with "etc."), and (b) from the fact that he concludes his explanation with "therefore it says 'after the death of Aharon's two sons'" and nothing more — it is proven that his question "What does this teach?" is that there was no need to write when the speech was said to him. So too the Maskil LeDavid explains here. (He does explain that the doubling "And He spoke… And He said" also troubled Rashi — but from the plain wording of Rashi it is implied that the question is only why the verse informs us of the time of the command, as below, section 2.)
*) In his initial supposition. (In his conclusion he rejects this explanation, because it troubled him why Rashi needed to bring a parable of two doctors. But see below, section 2, and the end of section 4.)
4) See Kli Yakar here.
5) This explains why Rashi concludes "therefore it says 'after the death of Aharon's two sons'" — which seems superfluous — for his intent is that "after the death of Aharon's two sons" is part of the speech.
6) Gur Aryeh here.
7) The Gur Aryeh implies (and the Sifsei Chachamim writes explicitly) that Rashi's question is only on the words "And G‑d spoke to Moshe." (Accordingly, one must say that Rashi's also quoting the words "after the death of Aharon's two sons, etc." pertains to the answer.) But the Maskil LeDavid explains that Rashi's question concerns two matters: why the doubling "He spoke" and "He said," and what difference it makes to inform us of the time of the command. So too, from Rashi's conclusion "therefore it says 'after the death of Aharon's two sons'" it is implied that his question "What does this teach?" is (also) on these words.
8) See above, note 1.
9) As the Gur Aryeh itself writes, that from the plain wording "What does this teach?" it is implied that what troubled him was only "that it need not have written 'after the death'" (and only from the parable of two doctors does he prove that what troubled him was why the verse established a separate speech for it).
10) Rashi quotes the words "And G‑d spoke to Moshe" because according to the initial supposition (before we know why the time of the command is stated), these words too are superfluous.
11) As explained by the Rosh and the Sforno here.
12) Similar to Rashi's comment above — Va'eira 6:29-30.
13) Although "there is no early and late in the Torah" — [in addition to the fact that even in the halachic approach this rule applies only "with two separate matters"** (Pesachim 6b), and so it is proven from Rashi* on Chayei Sarah 24:23 (and see the Re'em there), ibid. 46, and elsewhere [OCR unclear]], when the passages are out of order, Rashi explains that "there is no early and late in the Torah." Since he did not explain so here, it is proven that according to his explanation, the verses here are in order.
*) In the Gilyon HaShas there: "See Rashi on Chumash, Bereishis 6:3; 18:3; Shemos 4:20." Seemingly, his intent is that even this is proven — that according to Rashi's commentary on the Torah, this rule applies also "within one matter." But it is difficult to say, in learning Scripture according to its plain meaning — which is the way of Rashi's commentary on the Torah — that (even within one matter) there is no early and late (especially since even in the halachic approach there is chronological order within one matter, and the opposite is the case). Therefore one must say that this is no proof (and see the following gloss), because the verse "And Noach was… and Noach begot…" (Bereishis 5:32) comes in continuation of the order of the generations from Adam until the sons of Noach. After it recounts and enumerates all these generations, it begins to tell (and in another chapter) a new matter — the matter of the Flood: "And it was when man began… and they took wives for themselves… My spirit shall not contend…". If so, these are two separate matters. In Parshas Vayera (18:2-3), the verse placing "and he ran to meet them" before "and he said…" according to the second explanation in Rashi (although they are within one matter) is because when Avraham saw three men he was immediately aroused to run toward them, but before that he needed to tell the Holy One, blessed be He, to wait for him. Therefore this does not belong to the matter of "no early and late." This explains why Rashi does not write this (short) phrase, but rather: a) "and this is the way of Scripture to speak"; b) he needs a proof for it from elsewhere; c) he elaborates, and at great length, "as I explained regarding 'My spirit shall not contend, etc.'" (And although regarding "My spirit shall not contend" he writes "there is no early and late in the Torah" — the very fact that in Parshas Vayera he does not quote this phrase, and decides the explanation of "My spirit shall not contend" differently from what is necessitated on the spot, proves that his explanation (of the time "My spirit shall not contend" was said) is one and the same, as in Parshas Vayera, but the reasoning differs between the end of Bereishis and the beginning of Vayera, and each is necessitated in its own place. This is not the place to elaborate.) Furthermore, in Parshas Vayera (and this is the main point), "and he said" must necessarily refer also to "Let a little water be taken" (since no separate saying is stated for it); if so, the words "My L‑rd… Your servant" are like a short parenthetical statement, said only incidentally. Similarly in Parshas Shemos there (although seemingly that is more extreme than the above — since it is within one verse), which is why Rashi is precise in his wording, "early and late are not precise in Scripture" (and not as above — "in the Torah"). Whereas in our case, there is no room to say that the speech "after the death, etc.," which comes as an addition to the saying "Speak… that he shall not come, etc." (especially since the speech "after the death, etc." on its own has no meaning at all, and its whole content is the addition of a reason and urging to the command "that he shall not come"), would be written before "And He said, etc."
**) In Pesachim there, the meaning of "with two separate matters" is two passages, as Rashi explains there. But according to the plain meaning, even with verses arranged in one passage, if they are two different matters, there is no early and late.
14) As the Levush asks here. His answer — that "Vayomer" is in the past tense, meaning that the command "that he shall not come, etc." had already been said to him at first (before the death of Aharon's two sons), and now (after the death of Aharon's two sons) He added "that he shall not die, etc." — requires great study: a) "Vayomer" everywhere denotes saying a new matter, not "that He had already said." And as for what he proves from "Vayomer" in Parshas Vayera (18:3) and in Parshas Chayei Sarah (24:23) — on the contrary, in Rashi there it says explicitly the opposite. b) According to his explanation of "And He said… that he shall not come," that He had already told him to tell Aharon not to come, one must explain (as he himself writes) "as if the verse had said 'that he shall not come' twice" — which is forced according to the plain meaning. Especially since in Rashi this is not mentioned at all, not even by hint.
*) So too it is implied in our parsha (18:28): "And the land shall not vomit you out… as it vomited out…". And in Rashi: "A parable of a king's son, etc." — where the subject is a healthy king's son.
15) Shemini 10:9.
16) Rashi ibid., verse 2.
17) Tehillim 107:18. Metzudas David there.
18) See Yevamos 71b.
19) The wording of the verse — Shir HaShirim 2:5.
20) Tzav 8:35.
21) 16:2 (and see Rashi ibid., verse 3).
22) 16:3 ff.
23) Vayikra 3:11 (and in Rashi); ibid., 16; and elsewhere.
24) Tzav 6:3. Shemini 9:24.
25) Note that with Aharon's two sons too we find examples of these two matters: "they gazed and peered" (and they then became liable to death, but He waited for them until the day of the inauguration of the Mishkan — Rashi, Mishpatim 24:10) — like lying in a damp place, since through gazing, the thing seen does not enter the inner being of the person (see the maamar beginning "Ki Chelek," 5709, ch. 26, and elsewhere); "and they placed incense upon it and offered [a strange fire]" (Shemini 10:1)* — an offering — like eating cold food. Accordingly, Rashi's words "so that he not die the way his sons died" are even better understood.
*) In Rashi (ibid., verse 2), the death of Aharon's sons was because they ruled on a halachah, etc., or because they entered intoxicated with wine. But from the plain meaning of the verses there, "and they put fire in them and placed incense upon it… and a fire went forth… and they died…," it is implied that their death was due to offering the incense (and Rashi's intent there, "they died only because they ruled, etc.… intoxicated with wine, etc.," is explained at length in Likkutei Sichos vol. 12, p. 50 ff.). See Rashi on Korach (16:6): "that is the incense… in which Nadav and Avihu were burned"; (17:13): "Why with incense?… through it Nadav and Avihu died."
26) Tetzaveh 28:1.
27) See Eduyos 2:9 and the Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah there (and so it is also according to the plain sense of the matter — see Likkutei Sichos vol. 9, p. 6, note 32).
28) Especially since Rashi has already explained that Moshe said (in his humility?) that Nadav and Avihu were greater than he and Aharon (Shemini 10:3).
29) Berachos 27b ff.
30) Yerushalmi Berachos 4:1 (several other versions are cited in Amudei Yerushalayim there). In the version of R. Shlomo Sirilio — as in the version of our Talmud.
31) Unlike ordinary elders, of whom it is said that "many vicissitudes have passed over them" (Kiddushin 33a, end).
32) Iyov 32:7.
33) Since we are speaking of wisdom acquired "through many years," this explains why he became "like a man of seventy," even though "at sixty, old age" (Avos, end of ch. 5; see Tosafos Yom Tov there), and some have the version "at fifty, old age" (Me'orei Or, 7:34).
34) Taanis 7a — with a slight change of wording.
35) Berachos 28a.
36) See Menachos 29b; Chullin 136b.
37) Note the Siddur of the Arizal (in the Haggadah), that he said "like a man of seventy," "because at that time the years he lacked from his first incarnation were completed."
38) Eduyos 2:9, and Bartenura there.
39) See Tosafos Yom Tov there, according to the view of the Sages in the Tosefta, ch. 1, 10.
40) Note what the Alter Rebbe writes, that it is possible for "one's mind and heart to become a thousand times purer" (Torah Or, at the beginning; and see the glosses of the Tzemach Tzedek there (Or HaTorah vol. 6, p. 1026b), that "a thousand" is not meant as an exaggeration).
41) This explains the story (Sefer HaSichos 5705, p. 31 ff.; and note Tosafos s.v. "Mar Yanuka," Bava Basra 7b, beginning) of how the Rebbe Maharash answered his brother, the Maharin [to his question, "From where do you have expertise in Nigleh — you are still a very young man?"]: "You are older with your years, and I am older with Father's years." For seemingly: since expertise comes through much study over many years, how does "I am older with Father's years" help? — Because, having been born in the old age of the Tzemach Tzedek, he received by inheritance also the great wisdom that the Tzemach Tzedek had at that time.
42) Megillah 6b.
43) Avos 2:2 [perhaps 2:12].
44) See Kuntres HaAvodah ch. 3 (p. 18): "It requires service and toil… but one is not born with love in his nature, from birth."
45) See Or HaTorah here (maamar beginning א"י עז"ה) — cited and explained in the maamar beginning "Kasuv b'Or HaTorah" (of the Alter Rebbe), printed in the sefer Es'halech Lezozna, p. 33 ff.; the maamar Acharei Mos 5649 (ch. 2 — Sefer HaMaamarim 5649, p. 255 ff.) and 5722; and elsewhere.
46) Zohar III, 53b.
47) Likkutei Sichos vol. 3 (p. 991 ff.) explains that the lesson from this is that there must be the service of "shuv" (returning). Accordingly, the lesson for everyone (who is not among the select few) applies mainly to times of spiritual arousal; see there. This is not so according to what is explained here.
48) Tanchuma, Naso 15. See also Bamidbar Rabbah 13:6; Tanya, beginning of ch. 36. And see at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 6, p. 18 ff.
49) See Likkutei Sichos ibid., note 42.
50) Avos, end of ch. 4. See Tanya, end of ch. 3 [perhaps ch. 33]. And at length — Likkutei Sichos vol. 4, p. 1217 ff.
51) It should be investigated whether this is also why the parsha is called (see also Mishnah Yoma, beginning of ch. 7) by the name "Acharei Mos" ("After the death"), which hints that the service of "he shall not come… into the Sanctuary" (the level of shuv) must be "after the death" — after the preceding ratzo. Note also that in most years this parsha is read during the days of the Counting of the Omer (see Shelah, section Torah SheBiksav, beginning of Vayeshev), and the theme of the Counting is desire and thirst (Ran, end of Pesachim, citing a Midrash Aggadah). Note also the two categories among the students of Rabbi Akiva (Yevamos 62b): the first 24,000 students, who died during the days of the Counting — like the death of Aharon's two sons (ratzo)*; and his five students who remained alive (after the death of the first 24,000**), from whom the Oral Torah was established (see Sanhedrin 86a: an anonymous Mishnah follows R. Meir, etc.***) — tikkun, shuv.
*) This explains why the Gemara there compares the first 24,000 students to "בבוקר זרע את זרעך" ("In the morning sow your seed") (Koheles 11:6), and the last five students to "ולערב אל תנח ידך" ("and in the evening do not withhold your hand"), which implies that there was an advantage in the first students too (since the reason for the command "do not withhold your hand" is only "for you do not know which will prosper…". Especially since the command "and in the evening…" is only rabbinic (Rambam, Hilchos Ishus 15:16; Beis Shmuel to Even HaEzer 1:7)). For seemingly: since "they all died… because they did not treat each other with respect," how could they have had an advantage over his last students? — Because their not treating each other with respect was (not, G‑d forbid, out of ego, but) in the manner of "being burned by the canopy of one's fellow" (Bava Basra 75a), or in the manner that one who stands in actual kelos hanefesh in serving G‑d with love (or with fear, etc.) has no room at all for another way of serving G‑d. In the well-known phrase regarding Tohu: "and he reigned… and he died" (and only afterwards is it possible) "and he reigned" (of a different level) [OCR unclear] a lofty level in service, their service being in the mode of ratzo, like the level of Tohu. That is why they had an advantage over his last students (like the advantage of Nadav and Avihu over Moshe and Aharon — Rashi, Shemini 10:3), for the lights of Tohu (ratzo) are greater than the lights of Tikkun (shuv). Nevertheless, "the world was desolate," because the lights of Tohu do not settle into the world; and in this lies the advantage of his last five students.
**) Since all matters of the Torah are eternal, this is a lesson that now too there must also be (the counterpart of) the service of the first 24,000 students. But this service must be in order that there come from it afterwards the service of the last five students — "he entered in peace (and thereby) left in peace" (see the maamar Acharei 5649, p. 28 (Sefer HaMaamarim ibid., p. 260), and Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, p. 990, and sources cited there), as was the case with Rabbi Akiva, their teacher.
***) In Sanhedrin there, R. Nechemyah is also mentioned, who is not mentioned in Yevamos there. But in Bereishis Rabbah (61:3) and Koheles Rabbah (on the verse), four of his last students are mentioned, and among them — R. Nechemyah too.
52) Although the ratzo must be "in order that the shuv can come afterwards" (Acharei 5649, p. 28 (Sefer HaMaamarim ibid., p. 260)), nevertheless, during the ratzo it must be "as though he were taking leave, etc." Note also Sefer HaSichos 5700, p. 40 ff., that every service — even when it is a preparation for another matter — must be genuine.
53) Avos 1:12.
54) Compare Sifri (Devarim 6:5): "For there is no love in place of fear, and fear in place of love, except in the love of the Holy One, blessed be He, in one's heart."
55) Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 69. See also Bereishis Rabbah 56:7: "And there is no generation in which there is not one like Moshe."
Key Lesson
A Jew's thirst for G‑dliness — the yearning to leave weekday life and enter the "Holy of Holies" — must be genuine and intense, and he holds back from it only because G‑d desires a dwelling place in the lower realms. By surrendering his own will to Moshe Rabbeinu and the Moshe of each generation, both the "running" toward G‑d and the "returning" to the world become truly inward, without contradiction.