Parshas Acharei
1. In the verse with which the sidra begins — "אחרי מות שני בני אהרן בקרבתם לפני ה׳ וימותו" ("After the death of the two sons of Aharon, when they drew near before G‑d, and they died") — something is not understood: what does the word "וימותו" ("and they died") add here, after the verse has already said "After the death of the two sons of Aharon"?
Among the things for which the two sons of Aharon were punished, the Midrash counts the following: "נכנסו לפני ולפנים" ("They entered the innermost chamber")1 — they went into the Holy of Holies; "מחוסרי בגדים" ("lacking garments") — they did not wear all the required priestly garments when performing the service1; "לא היו להם בנים" ("they had no children") — they had no children2; "לא הי׳ להם נשים" ("they had no wives") — they were not married2. Surely all these details are mentioned in the verse, at least by way of a hint. We therefore need to understand: where are they hinted at in the verse?
We also need to understand: how could it be that Nadav and Avihu should be capable of committing a sin? Our Sages say3 that Moshe Rabbeinu said to Aharon: "Aharon, my brother, I knew that the Mishkan would be sanctified through those who are beloved and close to the Almighty; now I see that they (Nadav and Avihu) are greater than me and than you." — So how could it have been that they should commit a sin?
2. Chassidus explains4 (and so too the Or HaChaim HaKadosh) that the sin of the two sons of Aharon was not a sin in the plain sense, G‑d forbid. Their sin consisted in this: they allowed their very great attachment (deveikus) to the Almighty to bring them to the point that they actually expired in klos hanefesh (the soul's expiry out of yearning). This is the meaning of "בקרבתם לפני ה׳ (to the point that) וימותו" ("When they drew near before G‑d — [to the point that] they died"). And this is counted as a sin because, although a Jew must want and strive that his service reach the level of hispashtus hagashmiyus5 (divesting oneself entirely of physicality), at the same time it is demanded of him that when he is at the point of klos hanefesh, of "ratzo" (running forth), he should call forth within himself the "shov" (return) — to return to carrying out the service of a soul in a body, in this world, as our Sages say6: "על כרחך אתה חי" ("Against your will you live"), and to carry out the Supreme Intent of "דירה בתחתונים" ("a dwelling in the lower realms")7 — not to leave the world, but to make the world itself into a dwelling for the Almighty. And since with Nadav and Avihu there was a "ratzo" without a subsequent "shov," it is counted as a sin.
That is why the verse repeats once again — "and they died": this is an explanation of why "the death of the two sons of Aharon" came about. In this consisted their sin: that "when they drew near before G‑d" — (it was a case of) "and they died." Their closeness to the Almighty was in a manner of "and they died," ratzo without shov*.
On this basis we will also understand how the details of the sin of the sons of Aharon enumerated in the Midrash are hinted at in the verse. The point of all of them is — "ratzo" without "shov." "They entered the innermost chamber" — they were drawn and went ever higher and higher, up to the innermost chamber, without thinking about returning below. "Lacking garments" — "garments" alludes to the garments of the mitzvos** (which, after all, are clothed in physical things); they did not occupy themselves with fulfilling the mitzvos as they are clothed in physical things in order to refine the world; they only wanted to leave the world and cleave to the ultimate spirituality. "They had no children" and "they had no wives" — they did not occupy themselves with the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying, of drawing souls down into bodies; their service was in the opposite direction — out of the body8.
3. Rashi says that the command "ואל יבא בכל עת אל הקודש וגו׳, בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקודש" ("He shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary… With this shall Aharon come into the Sanctuary") — which comes right after "After the death of the two sons of Aharon…" — comes to negate and to warn that the manner of service of the two sons of Aharon should not occur. We must therefore understand (according to the explanation above): where in this command is the negation of the service of ratzo without shov hinted at?
To understand this, we must first preface: how is it at all possible to hold at "shov" while being at so lofty a level of "ratzo"? The service of ratzo (like every service) must surely be with truth. When one is engaged in the service of ratzo, it is demanded of him that his love for the Almighty be "בכל מאדך" ("with all your might") (for "מאד" means "very," without limit) — that he go out of all his limitations. For as long as he has something to hold on to, and he is still bound with the limitation of "vessels" (intellect and the like), this is not "with all your might." And when he finds himself in a ratzo without any limitations whatsoever, how can he safeguard himself so that he does not expire in klos hanefesh, but on the contrary, that a shov should come about in him?
It is known in this regard that this safeguard must come right at the beginning of the ratzo. If his closeness to G‑dliness in the movement of ratzo comes not because he seeks his own good — because he knows that "קרבת אלקים לי טוב" ("G‑d's nearness is good for me"), for it is good to be close to the Almighty — but rather the ratzo comes to him in order to carry out the Supreme Will, the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, "ואהבת גו׳ בכל מאדך" ("You shall love… with all your might"), then, since he seeks to carry out not his own will but the Supreme Will, and he knows that the Supreme Intent in creating the world is that it should endure — "לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה" ("He did not create it for emptiness; He formed it to be inhabited")9 — consequently the ratzo is set up in him from the outset in such a way that after the ratzo he will hold at the movement of shov.
According to this we will also understand what the Gemara10 relates: "ארבעה נכנסו לפרדס כו׳ בן עזאי הציץ ומת כו׳ בן זומא הציץ כו׳ ר׳ עקיבא נכנס בשלום ויצא בשלום" ("Four entered the Pardes… Ben Azzai gazed and died… Ben Zoma gazed… Rabbi Akiva entered in peace and left in peace"). Seemingly, the difference between Rabbi Akiva and the others was only in leaving the Pardes, in that Rabbi Akiva "left in peace"; in entering the Pardes there was no difference at all — so why does the Gemara emphasize that Rabbi Akiva "entered in peace"?
Rather, the explanation is: the "gazed and died" of Ben Azzai was a matter of ratzo entirely without shov11. His entry into the "Pardes"12 was a ratzo toward the Almighty with klos hanefesh, without any shov at all (and similarly Ben Zoma)13. And the reason he lacked the shov is that from the outset, at the entering, he did not "enter in peace." But Rabbi Akiva "left in peace" because he "entered in peace"14: his entry was in order to carry out the Supreme Will, to make "שלום בפמליא של מעלה ובפמליא של מטה" ("peace in the heavenly household and in the earthly household") (to join above with below, and to bind the world with G‑dliness). And since he "entered in peace" — therefore he "left in peace."
And this is what we are warned: "He shall not come at all times into the Sanctuary… With this shall he come… and he shall atone for himself and for his household," in which is hinted the negation of the service of ratzo without shov:
Through the "not," through "ואל" ("and not")15 — self-nullification, not wanting one's own closeness to the Almighty, but no more than carrying out the Supreme Will — through this, "he shall come into the Sanctuary." This is also the meaning of "בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקודש" ("With this shall Aharon come into the Sanctuary"). "זאת" ("this") is, according to the explanation of the Zohar, awe and self-nullification16, and "דא תרעא לאעלאה" ("this is the gate through which to enter")17. If there is the preface of "this" — awe and self-nullification — then even when "Aharon comes into the Sanctuary" (ratzo) and he enters "the innermost chamber," it will not hinder him from "and he shall atone… and for his household — 'his household' is his wife"18, from the shov into worldly matters (and on the contrary, if "his household is his wife" is lacking, the entry into the innermost chamber cannot take place at all), because the purpose of the "ratzo" is that it should come down into "shov." And so it was also upon leaving the innermost chamber: immediately upon going out of the Holy of Holies, that same Kohen Gadol would offer a prayer for the "livelihood" of "עמך בית ישראל" ("Your people, the House of Israel")19 — livelihood in worldly matters — in physical terms.
4. All the narratives of the Torah (a word related to "הוראה," "instruction")20 are a directive not only for select individuals, but for all Jews.
Seemingly, the lesson of the narrative about Nadav and Avihu applies only to select individuals, to those who stand at the level of ratzo with actual klos hanefesh, who need to be warned not to remain in the ratzo without a shov. What is the lesson from it for the majority of the Jewish people, and even for Jews who find themselves at the lowest extreme, who are lower than the majority?
Every Jew has times when he is in a state of spiritual arousal. This is especially so at times when there is a time of favor Above, such as Shabbos and Yom Tov, and even more so in the days of "בהמצאו ובהיותו קרוב" ("when He is to be found… when He is near") — the Ten Days of Repentance in general21, and Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur in particular, and above all on Yom Kippur, the holy day22, when he stands above his weekday affairs, divested of the worldly matters with which he is bound day by day.
So when the Jew — a soul in a body, and at the same time above the world — is in a movement of "ratzo," he must know that the "ratzo" must be bound up with a "shov": the entry into the Sanctuary must not be separated from the leaving of the Sanctuary. The movement of the greatest arousal on the holy day must not remain detached and divested from the world; rather, there must be the firm resolution to bring the arousal down and bind it with his day-to-day life. "Entered in peace" — at the time of entering the Sanctuary there must be the intent to make peace and to bind the world with G‑dliness; and this brings about that afterward, "בצאתו מן הקודש" ("when he goes out of the Sanctuary"), the leaving will be "in peace": going back out into the world, he makes peace and binds G‑dliness with the world, so that all worldly matters are done by him "לשם שמים" ("for the sake of Heaven"), until he reaches the state of "בכל דרכיך דעהו" ("In all your ways, know Him")23.
5. The lesson of binding the entry into the Sanctuary with the leaving of the Sanctuary concerns not only the service involving physical matters (on going out of the Sanctuary); rather, a Jew's physical matters themselves are also bound up with the entry into the innermost chamber. For all of a Jew's affairs, including the physical blessings of "children, life and ample sustenance," he receives "directly" from the Almighty, as it is written24: "אם בחקותי תלכו ואת מצותי תשמרו גו׳ ונתתי גשמיכם בעתם וגו׳" ("If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments… I will give your rains in their season…"). A Jew can receive "your rains in their season…" only through fulfilling Torah and mitzvos.
(The reckoning of "שלום יהי׳ לי כי בשרירות לבי אלך" ("I shall have peace, though I follow the stubbornness of my heart") — that he will have his physical bounty while following the looseness of his heart, not receiving it from holiness — this reckoning can hold only temporarily, for ultimately the life-force of a Jew must have a direct connection with G‑dliness)25.
This too is hinted in the connection of "entering the innermost chamber" with "when he goes out of the Sanctuary": specifically, only because of and through the Kohen Gadol having been in the innermost chamber did he, upon leaving, pray for and obtain livelihood in physical terms. What is more: the drawing down of livelihood then comes in abundance, without limits, since it comes from "the innermost chamber."
6. As mentioned, at the entry of the Kohen Gadol into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur, "his household — this is his wife" was essential.
The allusion in this:
That the entry into the Sanctuary be as it should be — which then brings about the "leaving in peace," the very purpose of the entry — depends on the Jewish women. Even when the husband finds himself in "the innermost chamber," then too they are "together," in a manner suited to his level26, and afterward:
The privilege and the duty of the Jewish women and daughters is to influence their husbands and children, so that with them the entry into the Sanctuary is bound up with the leaving of the Sanctuary.
Jewish women need not worry that if the husband will pray an hour or more longer, if he will study more with…
[Continues on the next page.]
Notes
1) Toras Kohanim, beginning of Parshas Acharei. Vayikra Rabbah 20:8. Bamidbar Rabbah 2:23. Tanchuma, Acharei 6.
2) Vayikra Rabbah, there, 9. Tanchuma, there.
3) Rashi on Vayikra 10:3; it is taken from Toras Kohanim, Shemini. Zevachim 115b.
4) At length in the maamar beginning "Acharei Mos" of 5649 (and that of 5722).
5) See the Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, beginning of sec. 98; Hilchos Talmud Torah 4:5.
6) Avos, end of ch. 4. See also Tanya, end of ch. 3 [as printed in the source].
7) Tanchuma, Naso 16. See also there, Bechukosai 2 [OCR unclear]; Bereishis Rabbah, end of ch. 3; Bamidbar Rabbah 13:6; Tanya ch. 36.
*) In connection with what is explained in the sicha regarding the sin of the two sons of Aharon — that their service was ratzo without shov, which is not in accord with the intent that the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to have a dwelling specifically in the lower realms — an excerpt is reproduced here from the sicha of Shabbos Mevarchim Iyar 5722, which explains a saying of the Alter Rebbe on this subject: My father-in-law, the Rebbe [the Previous Rebbe], related: When the Alter Rebbe came back from his journey in which he accompanied R. Mendele Horodoker to Eretz Yisrael, he noticed that the "students of the chadarim"(*) were conducting themselves in a wild manner; they were living in seclusion from the world. The Alter Rebbe told them: "You students of the chadarim must know that the service is — in the world. 'נהמא אפום חרבא ליכול' ('Bread is to be eaten by the mouth of the sword') (Zohar III 188b) — to accomplish in the world." This had an effect on those several chassidim, and they changed their way. Some time later, the Alter Rebbe told them: "'Bread is to be eaten by the mouth of the sword,'" and he interpreted that the "ליכול" ("to eat") refers to the "חרבא" ("the sword") — to eat up the sword. End of the Rebbe's words. The explanation of this: at first the world is opposed to holiness, yet one must nevertheless deal with it, in the manner of iskafya (subduing), refining the sparks found in the world (the general service of refinement is called by the name "eating") — in the manner of war — "by the mouth of the sword." And through this one afterward brings about is'hapcha (transformation), which is not in the manner of war: the sword is already eaten up, and the service is in the manner of peace. And this is a preparation and a vessel for the future Redemption through Moshiach Tzidkeinu, whose name is "Peace" (Perek HaShalom, end of Derech Eretz Zuta), when there will be peace among all creatures — "וגר זאב עם כבש" ("The wolf shall dwell with the lamb"), "ואריה כבקר יאכל תבן" ("and the lion shall eat straw like the ox").
(*) At the founding of Chabad Chassidus, the Alter Rebbe gathered young men of outstanding ability, exceptional scholars, among them several renowned prodigies, and divided them into groups according to their level, each group being taught the teachings of Chassidus; each group was called a "cheder": Cheder 1, Cheder 2, Cheder 3. The condition for admission to Cheder 1 was being well-versed in the Talmud, Midrash, Ikkarim, Kuzari and Shelah, with understanding [OCR unclear] in the Zohar (see Kuntres Toras HaChassidus, p. 21; Sefer HaSichos, Summer 5708, p. 26).
**) See Tanya ch. 4; Iggeres HaKodesh, sec. 29.
8) Accordingly, the beginning of Parshas Acharei Mos is also connected with Yom Kippur (even though the first verses do not speak of the Yom Kippur offerings), for on Yom Kippur the Jewish people resemble angels, etc., and therefore they then need the warning that the service of ratzo should not be without shov (from the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Acharei 5722).
9) Yeshayahu 45:18.
10) Chagigah 14b [and there (15b) the reading is "went up in peace and came down in peace." But the wording given here is found in the Yerushalmi (Chagigah 2:1) and in Ein Yaakov].
11) For his entire service was "ratzo," and therefore he said (Yevamos 63b), "What shall I do…," and did not engage in the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying, similar to the two sons of Aharon. And just as with the two sons of Aharon, so too regarding Ben Azzai there are two opinions: that he had no children, or that he did not even marry (Sotah 4b). See also Tosafos s.v. "Barteih" (Kesubos 63a); Rambam, Hilchos Ishus 15:2.
12) But not his conduct until then of "What shall I do…," for he engaged in Torah (a drawing down from Above to below, and "he expounds well"), and therefore "there is no sin in the hand" of one who does so (see the Alter Rebbe's Hilchos Talmud Torah, beginning of ch. 3, in Kuntres Acharon). Rather, in the conduct of his own self-refinement this was conduct of ratzo, not conduct of sustaining the world (see there in Kuntres Acharon).
13) See also Bereishis Rabbah 2:4.
14) This does not contradict what Rabbi Akiva said (Berachos 61b), "When will it come to my hand (actual self-sacrifice), that I may fulfill it?" For the sin of Nadav and Avihu was "when they drew near" — they brought themselves near (unlike the three elders who died at the Idra (Zohar III 144a), which is not considered a sin, because the "kiss" drew near to them, not they to it (Or HaChaim on Vayikra 16:1; and so too in the maamar beginning "Acharei" of 5670)). Rabbi Akiva was pained and asked that the matter of self-sacrifice be brought to him from Above, as is precisely implied by his wording, "come to my hand." — And there is a yet greater quality than this: the self-sacrifice of Avraham Avinu (the maamar beginning "HaChodesh HaZeh," 5700, at its end). For Rabbi Akiva was pained over when his service would reach the elevation of self-sacrifice (except that if the self-sacrifice runs counter to the Supreme Intent of a dwelling in the lower realms, he "entered in peace" and gave up the elevation of his own service for the sake of that intent), whereas Avraham Avinu gave no thought at all to himself; all he sought was to make His G‑dliness known in the world (from the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Acharei 5722).
15) See "Hayom Yom," p. 40; in the addition to the maamar beginning "Acharei" of 5649 (Sefer HaMaamarim 5644–5657, p. 563).
16) Zohar III 108a.
17) Zohar I 8a, top.
18) Beginning of Yoma.
19) There, 53b (according to the version that the Alter Rebbe cites in the Order of the Avodah in his Siddur).
20) Zohar III 53b.
21) Rosh HaShanah 18a.
22) See above, note 8.
23) See above, Parshas Terumah.
24) Vayikra 26:3–4.
25) Kuntres U'Maayan, maamar 10. And even the "temporarily" is only because previously one drew down from the level of the inner dimension of the Supreme Will (see there, maamar 7, sec. 4; maamar 1, ch. 2).
26) [The text of this note does not appear on this page of the source; it continues on the next page.]
Key Lesson
True closeness to G‑d must begin with the intent to fulfill His will, not with a desire for one's own spiritual pleasure; then every "ratzo" naturally returns as "shov." The uplifting moments of Shabbos, Yom Tov and Yom Kippur must be carried back into daily life, making peace between the world and G‑dliness, and Jewish women have a special privilege in helping their families bind the holy moments to everyday living.