Why Were Nadav and Avihu Killed/2

Why Were Nadav and Avihu Killed?

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Punished for Sin

Nadav and Avihu were killed as part of a Divine punishment for a sin.

Breached Boundaries

Nadav and Avihu overreached beyond what was permitted to them in approaching God.

Sources:Sifra Vayikra10:1About the Sifra Vayikra, opinions in Vayikra Rabbah20:8-10About Vayikra Rabbah, Pesikta DeRav Kahana26:4-9About Pesikta DeRav Kahana, TanchumaBehaalotekha 16About the Tanchuma, Targum Pseudo-JonathanShemot 24:10-11About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, RashiShemot 24:10About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, AbarbanelVayikra 10:1About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel,¹

Coming too close – These sources all agree that Nadav and Avihu came too close to Hashem, but differ regarding the specific problematic action:

• Entered Holy of Holies – One opinion in the Sifra, Bar Kappara in Vayikra Rabbah, and Abarbanel all fault Nadav and Avihu for bringing their offering into the Inner Sanctum which was forbidden to all but the high priest on the Day of Atonement.  As this is where Hashem's presence is most strongly felt, unauthorized entry was not only prohibited but dangerous.
• Saw God – One opinion in Vayikra Rabbah, Tanchuma, Targum Pseudo-Jonathon and Rashi assert, instead, that Nadav and Avihu were punished not for their actions on the eighth day, but for having seen God at Mount Sinai,² as described in Shemot 24.³  One might similarly explain that the problem was seeing God on the eighth day itself; as God's presence had descended on the Tabernacle it is possible that the brothers encountered it upon entry into the Sanctuary.⁴

לִפְנֵי י"י – Those who maintain that the brothers entered the Inner Sanctum point to this phrase as proof.  "לִפְנֵי י"י" refers to the Holy of Holies, where Hashem's presence dwells.⁵  It is also possible that it refers even to the Outer Sanctuary, but due to Hashem's presence there, this too was forbidden.

"בְּקׇרְבָתָם לִפְנֵי י"י" – The description of the sin in Vayikra 16 as "when they came close to Hashem" might support this approach as it emphasizes this aspect.

"אֵשׁ זָרָה" – This phrase is difficult for this position since these sources posit that the problem was not in the offering itself. 

• Those who suggest that the sin occurred on the eighth day might suggest that since the brothers were unauthorized to enter the Inner Sanctum/Tabernacle, any offering they brought there would be considered "foreign".⁶ 
• Those who say that they were punished for seeing Hashem at Sinai might suggest instead that Nadav and Avihu did sin by bringing a foreign fire, yet this sin was not serious enough to warrant a punishment of death had it not been for their earlier actions.

"אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה אֹתָם" – This position might read this phrase as referring back to the term "וַיַּקְרִיבוּ לִפְנֵי י"י" rather than the term "אֵשׁ זָרָה".  It was the coming close to Hashem that was not commanded.

"הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י"י לֵאמֹר בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ" – This position could explain this phrase to mean that Hashem had said "through those who come close, I will be consecrated". ChizkuniVayikra 10:1-3About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach asserts that the source of this statement is Hashem's words at Sinai, "וְגַם הַכֹּהֲנִים הַנִּגָּשִׁים אֶל י"י יִתְקַדָּשׁוּ".‎⁷‎

Severity of the punishment – If the brothers actually saw Hashem's presence, their death is easily explained. This is the consequence of getting too close; as Hashem says, "לֹא יִרְאַנִי הָאָדָם וָחָי".‎⁸  However, even just entering sacred space is a serious breach and deserves punishment, regardless of a person's motives.

Biblical parallels – Several stories in Tanakh show similar punishments for breach of boundaries:

• Revelation at Sinai – In Shemot 19, Hashem repeatedly warns the nation not to get too close to the mountain, telling them "כׇּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהָר מוֹת יוּמָת".
• Uzza and the ark – In Shemuel II 6, Uzza touched the Ark to ensure that it did not fall.  Despite his good intentions, his breaching of boundaries resulted in death.⁹

The Yom HaKippurim Service – The verses that describe the service of the Day of Atonement clearly connect it to the deaths of Nadav and Avihu.  Hoil MosheVayikra 10About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi asserts that the entire service was necessary to cleanse the Inner Sanctum from the impurity caused by the deaths of Nadav and Avihu.  Alternatively, the directives might be coming to prevent a repeat of the sin, teaching Aharon the proper protocol to safely enter the Inner Sanctuary.

Problematic Procedure

Nadav and Avihu violated proper protocol when bringing the incense offering.

Sources:Various opinions in Sifra Vayikra10:1About the Sifra Vayikra, Talmud BavliEiruvin 63aYoma 53aAbout the Bavli, Vayikra Rabbah12:520:8-10About Vayikra Rabbah, Pesikta DeRav Kahana, Targum Pseudo-JonathanVayikra 10:1Vayikra 10:9About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, R. Saadia GaonVayikra 10:1About R. Saadia Gaon, Lekach TovVayikra 10:1About R. Toviah b. Eliezer, Ibn EzraVayikra 10:1-3About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorVayikra 10:1-3About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, ChizkuniVayikra 10:1-3About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach, R. BachyaVayikra 10:1About R. Bachya b. Asher, RalbagVayikra 10:1-3About R. Levi b. Gershom, AbarbanelVayikra 10:1About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, SefornoVayikra 10:1Vayikra 24:3About R. Ovadyah Seforno, BiurVayikraAbout the Biur (Netivot HaShalom), ShadalVayikra 10:1-3About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, R. S"R HirschVayikra 10:1-3About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, R. D"Z Hoffmann, Hoil Moshe

What protocol was transgressed? The brothers either brought an unauthorized offering or a foreign fire.¹⁰ The sources disagree regarding what was wrong with each:

• Unauthorized Offering – Commentators explain this in one of two ways:
• Extra incense – Many of these sources¹¹ explains that the brothers voluntarily brought their own individual incense offering.¹² Since Shemot 30:9 states:  "לֹא תַעֲלוּ עָלָיו קְטֹרֶת זָרָה", any extra incense offering was considered problematic.¹³
• Took Aharon's job – Abarbanel, instead, explains that the brothers were unauthorized to bring the offering, because on the eighth day Aharon alone was supposed to do all aspects of the service,¹⁴ similar to rituals of the Day of Atonement which are done by the high priest alone.¹⁵  Seforno goes further to suggest that throughout the period of Wanderings in the Wilderness only the high priest was allowed to bring incense (or perform any other services in the sanctuary) due to Hashem's constant presence on the Tabernacle.
• Wrong fire –  According to R. Yosef Bekhor Shor,¹⁶ although a priest is normally allowed to bring fire of his own ("מן ההדיוט"),‎¹⁷‎‎ on this day, Hashem had wanted the sacrifices to be consumed only via His fire¹⁸ so as to glorify His name.¹⁹  Alternatively the fire for the incense offering must always be brought from the Altar (as per Vayikra 16:12),²⁰ but Nadav and Avihu brought it from a regular oven.²¹  

"אֵשׁ זָרָה" – This phrase can be explained literally to refer to a foreign fire, or it can be understood as the equivalent of the phrase "קְטֹרֶת זָרָה", an unauthorized incense offering.  The Biur explains that the term "אֵשׁ" is really just a variation of the term "אִשֶּׁה לַי"י'‏", another name for sacrifices.²²

"אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה אֹתָם" – These commentators explain this verse in one of two ways:

• Not commanded – According to the Biur and R. Hirsch, the phrase explains why an "אֵשׁ זָרָה", even if not explicitly prohibited, is problematic. The fact that the fire or incense offering was not commanded is sufficient reason for it to be viewed as wrong. R. Hirsch emphasizes how there is no such thing as subjectivity in sacrificial service; a person cannot act on their own individual desires, but only on the commands of Hashem.²³
• Prohibited – R"Y Bekhor Shor and Chizkuni instead read the verse to mean "which Hashem commanded not [to bring]",²⁴ pointing to the prohibition in Shemot 30:9 against bringing a "foreign incense offering".  The brothers were violating an explicit command, and therefore punished.

"לִפְנֵי י"י" – Most of these sources²⁵ would likely explain that "לִפְנֵי י"י" refers to the Outer Sanctum where the brothers brought the incense on the altar.²⁶

What motivated the brothers? The commentators offer a variety of possible motivations for the brothers, some positive, some less so:

• Positive Motives – According to the Biur, R. Hirsch and R. D"Z Hoffmann the Nadav and Avihu brought an extra sacrifice out of a desire for closeness to Hashem.²⁷ 
• Good intentions – An opinion in the Sifra²⁸ states that when the brothers saw that Aharon had finished his service but Hashem's presence had not descended, they worried and decided to bring fire of their own to help it along.²⁹  Though their intentions were positive, their actions suggested a lack of faith and led to a lessening of God's glory.³⁰
• Mistaken – Seforno suggests that Nadav and Avihu assumed that just like an incense is burned after the Daily Offering due to its bringing of Hashem's presence, so too after Hashem's fire descended and His glory was revealed, an incense offering was called for.³¹  According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, too, the brothers actions were based on a misunderstanding.  They simply did not realize that Hashem did not want them to bring of their own fire on this day.³²
• Arrogance – Shadal, in contrast, attributes the brothers' actions to excessive haughtiness and a desire to be honored like their father.³³ Since they had not been given any individual service to perform they took upon themselves one of the most precious rituals.

"בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ "

• The brothers – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor,  the Biur, R. Hirsch and R. D"Z Hoffman, the term "קְרֹבַי" refers to Nadav and Avihu, who, despite their error, were still considered close to Hashem.³⁴  Hashem was sanctified through them since the nation realized that if such holy individuals could be punished, they certainly needed to be careful in observance to evade punishment.
• Aharon – Those who read the brothers less positively might explain, as does RashbamVayikra 10:1-3About R. Shemuel b. Meir, that the term refers not to Nadav and Avihu, but to Aharon, who was to sanctify Hashem's name by continuing with Hashem's service and not mourning.³⁵

Severity of Punishment

• Serious Sin –Those who view the sin as relating to an unauthorized incense might suggest that this was a serious sin, especially since a "קְטֹרֶת זָרָה" is explicitly prohibited. In the story of Korach, too, unauthorized incense offerings result in death. 
• High Expectations – The Biur, R. Hirsch, and the Hoil Moshe, nonetheless, assert that the brothers were only punished so severely due to their high stature; Hashem is always more exacting with His loved ones.³⁶
• Lesson to others –  Those who assert that the sin was bringing a foreign fire that was simply "not commanded" have a harder time explaining the punishment.  R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ralbag maintains that it needed to be severe to teach the nation the importance of being exacting in observing the laws of sacrifices.³⁷ Seeing how Hashem punished even those who were close to him, taught laymen how much more they needed to fear God.

Context – prohibition to drink wine – According to this approach, this prohibition follows the story as another warning of the need to be exacting and careful (and thus unimpaired by drink) when serving in the Mikdash.

Vicarious Punishment

Aharon's sons died, not for their own crimes, but as a punishment to Aharon for his participation in the Sin of the Golden Calf.

Sources:perhaps Vayikra Rabbah7:1About Vayikra Rabbah and RashiDevarim 9:20About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki³⁸

Sins of the father – This approach maintains that sometimes Hashem punishes children for their parent's sins. Thus, even though it was Aharon who sinned, it was his children who were killed. For a full discussion of the issue and how to explain the phenomenon, see Are Children Punished for Parents' Sins?

Why now? Or HaChayyim It is possible that before Aharon could fully serve in the Mishkan, his previous sins needed to be atoned and punished.

הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר י"י לֵאמֹר בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ – Rashi claims that Hashem said this when He first relayed the commands regarding the consecration of the Tabernacle in Shemot 29,³⁹ saying: "וְנֹעַדְתִּי שָׁמָּה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִקְדַּשׁ בִּכְבֹדִי".‎⁴⁰  Though at that point the brothers had not yet done anything at all blameworthy, their deaths could already be decreed, since they were a punishment for the earlier act of Aharon.  As they themselves were innocent the brothers are called "קְרֹבַי".

Severity of the punishment – Since Aharon's actions led others to worship the Calf, a harsh punishment would seem warranted.  For a discussion of Aharon's actions and the nature of the Sin of the Golden Calf, see Sin of the Golden Calf

"וַיַּקְרִיבוּ לִפְנֵי י"י אֵשׁ זָרָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה אֹתָם" – This approach must explain why the verses suggest that Nadav and Avihu themselves erred, if they did nothing wrong.  It might explain that the brothers did mistakenly bring a foreign fire, but since this was not prohibited (simply not commanded) it would not have been considered a capital crime were it not that Hashem wanted to punish their father.

"לִפְנֵי י"י" – This approach would probably understand this to refer to the Outer Sanctum, where the brothers were permitted to enter.

"וַיִּדֹּם אַהֲרֹן" – This approach might explain that Aharon was silent, recognizing that the decree was his fault.

Work Accident

Nadav and Avihu's actions alone would not have warranted their death, but their being in the wrong place at the wrong time caused them to be consumed by Hashem's fire.

Sources:RashbamVayikra 9:23-24Vayikra 10:1-3About R. Shemuel b. Meir,⁴¹ R"T Granot⁴²

Order of the verses – Rashbam posits that the story of Nadav and Avihu really occurred before Hashem's fire consumed Aharon's offerings as described in Vayikra 9:24.  It is on this backdrop that he explains the rest of the story.

The incense offering – According to Rashbam, Nadav and Avihu were not bringing an unauthorized incense, but the regular offering brought every morning.

"אֵשׁ זָרָה" – The brothers' only mistake was in bringing "foreign fire" rather than waiting for Godly fire to consume the incense.  Rashbam explains that although a priest is normally allowed to bring fire of his own ("אש מן ההדיוט"),‎ during the Mishkan's consecration, Hashem had wanted to glorify His name by having all sacrifices be consumed via Hashem's fire.  R. Granot suggests, instead, that the brothers were impatient for Hashem's revelation and tried to "hurry the end".

"אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה אֹתָם" – Rashbam explains that although normally the brothers' actions would have been permitted, on this day, Hashem did not command them to do so.  As such, Nadav and Avihu had no way of knowing that their actions were not desired.

"וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי י"י" – Rashbam identifies this fire with that described in Vayikra 9:24^.43 The fire that consumed Aharon's offerings on Mizbach Ha'Olah was the same fire that killed the brothers.⁴⁴  This fire emanated from "before God", from the Inner Sanctum, where Hashem's presence dwells.  As such, the godly fire did not come vertically down from the heavens, but traveled horizontally from the Holy of Holes to the Outer Sanctum (where it met the brothers) to the Copper Altar.

Severity of the punishment – According to this approach, the fire that killed Nadav and Avihu was not intended to punish them but simply to consume Aharon's sacrifices.  They, unfortunately, happened to be in the way and suffered the natural consequences.  In R. Granot's words, "their death was not a punishment but a tragic accident."

Why not bring the fire later? This approach must contend with the question of why Hashem allowed such an accident, rather than waiting to bring the fire when no one was in the way.  It could answer that since the brothers had sinned, albeit erroneously, they were not worthy of a miracle to save them. Alternatively, since the entire nation was outside waiting for Hashem's glory to appear there would be a huge desecration of His name if there were a delay.

"בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ" – According to this approach it is understandable that the brothers are referred to as "close to Hashem" since they died without major sin.⁴⁵

Biblical parallels – Other catastrophes in Tanakh have similarly been viewed as natural consequences rather than punishments. For example, see Mystery at the Malon for Abarbanel's reading of Moshe's near death being the result of lack of preparation for prophecy.  Netziv similarly explains the death of the "Maapilim" in Bemidbar 14 not as a punishment, but the natural result of war.

Sanctified to God

Nadav and Avihu's deaths were not a punishment but rather a sanctifying of their souls to Hashem.

Sources:PhiloOn Dreams 2:67On Flight and Finding, 59About Philo, perhaps HaKetav VeHaKabbalah

"בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ" – This approach rests on the understanding that this phrase refers to Nadav and Avihu who are described as "close to Hashem".  If they are referred to as such in death, it is not possible that their actions were seen as sinful in the eyes of Hashem.  Moreover, if their death served to sanctify Hashem, it must not have been a punishment but some sort of elevation.

"וַיַּקְרִיבוּ... אֵשׁ זָרָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה אֹתָם"

• Philo reads this fire metaphorically to refer to the passion of Nadav and Avihu's love for God which they offered up to Him with their whole being.  It is referred to as a "foreign" fire because it was "foreign to earthly existence since it belonged to the realm of God".
• More simply, the verse could mean that Nadav and Avihu offered a non-obligatory sacrifice.  It was called foreign because it had not been commanded.  According to this reading, the phrase "אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוָּה אֹתָם" comes to explain the term "אֵשׁ זָרָה". It does not have a negative connotation, but rather comes to highlight the brothers' desire to give even more to Hashem than He obligated.

"לִפְנֵי י"י" – This position might explain the threefold repetition of the phrase "לִפְנֵי י"י" as coming to emphasize the brothers' desire to come close to Hashem and be before Him.

What motivated the brothers? HaKetav VeHaKabbalah quotes the Sifra that "כיון שראו אש חדשה... עמדו להוסיף אהבה על אהבה".  Upon seeing Hashem's presence and fire descend they felt a need to reciprocate and offer something up to Him in return.

Death is not always punishment – Philo compares the brothers' death to a "whole burnt offering" which rises heavenwards.  According to him, in the brother's desire for closeness, death would not have been viewed as a punishment but as a sanctification of their being to God.

Biblical parallels – This approach might compare Nadav and Avihu to Chanokh, whom Hashem "took" because he "walked with God".  [See Bereshit 5:24: "וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים וְאֵינֶנּוּ כִּי לָקַח אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים"].  In neither case should death be viewed negatively.  Rather, due to their extreme righteousness, sometimes loved ones are taken to be with Hashem earlier.

"וַתֹּאכַל אוֹתָם" – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah points out that since the verse states that Nadav and Avihu died, the phrase "and it consumed them" must come to teach something beyond the fact of their death.⁴⁶ He suggests that the choice of verb connotes an acceptance of something with joy, and refers to the fact that Hashem accepted the brothers' souls with joy.

¹ Abarbanel points to several sins, one of which was entering the Holy of Holies.

² Both Rashi and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan attribute more than one sin to Nadav and Avihu and might assume that they were punished for multiple actions.

³ Rashi explains that Hashem waited to kill them because He did not want to turn the happiness of the day of receiving the Torah into a tragedy.  It is not clear, however, why He would instead choose to kill them on the day of the Consecration of the Mishkan, a similarly happy occasion.

⁴ See Shemot 40:35, that when Hashem's glory filled the Tabernacle, even Moshe himself could not enter.

⁵ See Shemot 16:33-34 where the term "לִפְנֵי י"י" appears to be equated with "לִפְנֵי הָעֵדֻת", referring to the ark, and thus must refer to the Inner Sanctum.

⁶

⁷ In context the warning applies only to revelation and refers to proper preparations for those who were  to approach Hashem, lest they be punished.

⁸ See Shemot 33:20.

⁹ This chapter was likely chosen as the haftarah for Parashat Shemini due to the similarities between the stories. In both cases there is a celebration for a consecration of the Tabernacle/Ark in which an undefined sin relating to improper worship is punished by death. It is interesting to note that the name of Uzza's father is Avinadav, a combination of the names Nadav and Avihu.

¹⁰ Vayikra Rabbah lists other possible wrongdoings as well including not wearing the proper clothing, failing to wash before service, or entering the Mishkan while intoxicated.  There is no explicit mention of any of these though the fact that the prohibition to drink wine immediately follows the story might be brought as support that the crime involved drinking.  The Midrash is probably motivated by the fact that each of these transgressions is punishable by death, making  it clear why the brothers were killed. See Shemot 28:43, Shemot 30:21 and Vayikra 10:9. 

¹¹ See Chizkuni, Biur, Shadal, R. S"R Hirsch, R. D"Z Hoffmann, and Hoil Moshe.

¹² In other words, the offering described in the verses was not the regular morning incense offering, but a separate offering of their own.  Cf. Rashbam who disagrees and views it as the daily offering.

¹³ It should be noted, however, that not all agree that this verse refers to an unauthorized offering.  See Onkelos and Ibn Ezra  who assert that it refers to a offering which is made of the wrong spices.

¹⁴ He also raises the possibility that Moshe alone was supposed to serve as high priest that day and bring the incense. Either way, it was not Nadav and Avihu's task.

¹⁵ See also R. Shpiegelman, "פרשת שמיני - חטאם של בני אהרן", who suggests that Nadav and Avihu mistakenly viewed themselves as high priests since they too were anointed, and thus thought that they were allowed to participate in the service of the eighth day.

¹⁶ Cf. Rashbam below.

¹⁷ See the BavliYoma 21bAbout the Bavli which learns from Vayikra 1:7, "וְנָתְנוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֵשׁ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ", that the priests themselves are normally commanded to bring the fire, even though there is already fire on the altar from Hashem.

¹⁸ R. Yosef Bekhor Shor asserts that the story of Nadav and Avihu is not recorded in its chronological place and that they really brought their incense before the fire mentioned in Vayikra 9:24 came down to consume Aharon's offerings.  As such, it was very possible that the nation would conclude that it was their fire, and not Hashem's, that consumed the other offerings, thereby lessening God's glory. [Even if one disagrees, and maintains the chronology of the verses, one might still say that on this first day Hashem wanted all offerings to be consumed by His miraculous fire.]

¹⁹ The Lekach Tov disagrees with Rashbam, asserting that even on this day it would have been allowed to bring fire from a "הדיוט", but the brothers should not have deduced this from themselves and should have instead asked Moshe. It was the fact that they did not ask permission first which was really problematic. This is presumably what R. Eliezer in the Bavli means as well when he faults Nadav and Avihu "שהורו הלכה בפני משה רבן" (for teaching law before their master, Moshe). However, it is possible that R. Eliezer blames the brothers not only for deciding the law on their own, but because they did

²⁰ See the Raavad (as quoted by the RitvaYoma 53aAbout R. Yom Tov b. Ashbel) who suggests that the brothers erroneously assumed that what was true regarding the Outer Altar (where a priest is supposed to bring of his own fire) was also true of the Altar of Incense.

²¹ Ralbag also raises the possibility that the brothers might have even taken fire from the Outside Altar, but from the wrong place on it.

²² Cf. Chizkuni who claims that it is referred to as fire since all such offerings must be accompanied by fire. R. D"Z Hoffmann adds that it was not called a "קטורת זרה" since it was not brought on the incense altar.

²³ See the Netziv similalrly, "ואמרה תורה דאע"ג דאהבת ה' יקרה היא בעיני ה' אבל לא בזה הדרך אשר לא צוה ". It is probable that both are reacting to the Reform movement, hinting that worship of God is not about getting close to Hashem in whatever way speaks to each individual but about following God's commands.

²⁴ As support for rearranging the words of the verse in such a manner, R"Y Bekhor Shor points to Yimiyahu 7:31, where the similar phrase "אֲשֶׁר לֹא צִוִּיתִי", also means "אשר צויתי לא" (that I prohibited) and not simply "that I did not command."

²⁵ Abarbanel, the Biur, R. D"Z Hoffmann and Hoil Moshe do think that they brought it on the inner altar, with Abarbanel pointing to this as a second sin. The Biur, however, points out that the prohibition against entering was not commanded until after the brothers' death in Vayikra 16:12.  As such, they were not culpable for unauthorized entry, but only for unauthorized offerings.

²⁶ Ibn Ezra uniquely understands the phrase "וַיָּמֻתוּ לִפְנֵי י"י" to refer not to a geographical location, but a spiritual one. The brothers acted and died "before God", thinking that they were doing something pleasing to Him.

²⁷ R. Hirsch nonetheless criticizes the brothers for forgetting their role as priests, whose job is to serve the nation and be their representatives before Hashem.  In such a role there is no room for individual self-expression.

²⁸ R. Bachya explains similarly, that they feared that Hashem's fire on the Altar was not sufficient to consume everything and decided to contribute their own fire.

²⁹ This can be compared to Moshe's sin in hitting the rock. Moshe, fearing that no water was to come from speech alone, decided to hit the rock to bring forth water.  See Moshe's Misstep and Mei Merivah.  See also R"T Granot below.

³⁰ Those who view the brothers as intoxicated might also assume that nonetheless their motives were positive, thinking that it was best to serve Hashem when uninhibited or that drink would raise them to higher levels of zeal.  This, however, is not how Hashem wants to be worshiped.

³¹ R"Y Grossman, in his article, "פרשת שמיני - היום השמיני וחטא נדב ואביהו" moves in a similar direction suggesting that Nadav and Avihu worried that the nation was not worthy of having direct contact with Hashem.  Thus, as soon as He revealed Himself through the fire, they quickly brought an incense offering to mask the revelation. [So, too, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest must bring a cloud of incense, "כִּי בֶּעָנָן אֵרָאֶה עַל הַכַּפֹּרֶת."]

³² Since on other days this would have been allowed, and Hashem had never told them otherwise, it would have been easy to err.  This , however, makes it difficult to understand the punishment.  The Bavli and Lekach Tov therefore explain that the brothers were really punished for making their own assumptions and not verifying with Moshe.

³³ See also the opinion in the Sifra which states, "מה תלמוד לומר בני אהרן? שלא חלקו כבוד לאהרן" and Bavli Sanhedrin which presents Nadav and Avihu as waiting for their father and Moshe to die so they could lead the nation.
Cf. Hoil Moshe who suggests that the brothers were actually trying to give their father honor. Seeing that Hashem's glory descended only after Moshe came to the Tabernacle to pray, they thought that others would think that their father was unworthy to brings God's presence.  As such, they thought to bring an incense to prove that their immediate family, too, was desired by God.

³⁴ Shadal, who views the brothers more negatively, might explain instead that Hashem referred to the brothers as "קְרֹבַי" only because their position as priests had elevated them closer to Hashem. This, though, made their fall all the greater. In punishing them Hashem sanctified himself, showing all that no one is immune to punishment.

³⁵ Rashbam points to Vayikra 21:10-12 and the laws of priestly mourning as the source for when this was said. The verse there states, "וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל אֵת מִקְדַּשׁ", teaching that if the priest does continue his service despite the death of a loved one, he will sanctify Hashem.

³⁶ The Biur compares their punishment to that of Moshe and Aharon by the rock, whose sin merited disproportionately severe consequences. He notes that there too the verse states "וַיִּקָּדֵשׁ בָּם".‎

³⁷ See R. Hirsch similarly regarding the necessity of teaching the nation of the dangers of subjective worship; if even people of the stature of Nadav and Avihu are punished for such actions all the more so regular people.

³⁸ Neither of these sources say explicitly that Nadav and Avihu were killed solely for Aharon's sin, but both explain that their death was a punishment to Aharon for the Calf.  See also Hoil Moshe who asserts that Aharon's sin indirectly caused that of his sons, and that Aharon felt that he had caused their deaths.

³⁹ Rashi consistently looks for a textual basis anywhere the text alludes back to speech that was not recorded previously. For other examples, see his comments on Bereshit 32:13, Shemot 14:12, Bemidbar 11:12, Devarim 6:19 and many others. For further discussion see Invoking Hashem's Name Without Explicit Divine Sanction.

⁴⁰ Rashi is following Bavli Zevachim 115b, which says the verse should be read as if written "במכובדיי".

⁴¹ Rashbam is not explicit, but this is the general direction of his comments.

⁴² See his article, "פרשת שמיני - גילוי כבוד ה' על המזבח ומות נדב ואביהוא" where he expands on Rashbam's commentary to the story.

⁴³ To support his claim, Rashbam points to other examples where two verses describe an action which originally appear to be distinct but in reality refer to one and the same event.  See the repeated mention of Moshe relaying the nation's words to Hashem in Shemot 19:8-10 and Micha's interactions with his mother in Shofetim 17:1-3.

⁴⁴ See also Josephus, Antiquities 3:8:6-7, who also identifies the fire.

⁴⁵ Rashbam himself does not actually think the verse refers to the brothers but to Aharon who sanctified Hashem's name when he continued with Hashem's service rather than mourning.

⁴⁶ He points out that n the story of Korach's rebellion, when the 250 people are consumed by fire the verse only uses one verb, consumed, leaving out "and they died".  The doubling in our story, therefore, might be significant.