“And G-d spoke to Moshe after the death of Aharon’s two sons, when they approached G-d and they died” (Vayikra 16:1). The death of Aharon’s sons is mentioned twice in this verse, even though the same information could have been relayed by referencing it only once (“and G-d spoke to Moshe after Aharon’s two sons died when they approached G-d”). Why is their death referred to twice in the same verse if one would have sufficed?
Netziv points out that when someone is guilty of a sin that is punishable by death, their death is usually not immediate, thereby giving the sinner time to repent. In this case, however, Aharon’s sons died right away, because their sin was done in the inner sanctum of the Mishkan, “before G-d.” The second reference to their death is part of one clause, telling us that “they died on the spot (rather than after some time had passed) since their sin was done when they approached G-d.” Nevertheless, why was this point made here, before the Yom Kippur service is described, rather than in the narrative about Nadav and Avihu’s death?
The obvious connection is that the next verse (16:2) includes a warning for Aharon (and, by extension, every Kohain Gadol after him) not to enter the inner sanctum of the Mishkan (or Temple) at will; only on the prescribed days (Yom Kippur), after doing the necessary Temple service (bringing the Yom Kippur offerings, including the incense offering). The punishment for not following these instructions is death, and G-d reminded Moshe that since this transgression would occur “before G-d,” in the inner sanctum, it would be enacted immediately, as had occurred with Aharon’s sons. A closer look at Rashi (on 16:2) may add another dimension to this connection.
When Moshe is told to warn Aharon “not to enter the holy, inside the curtain, in front of the ark’s covering (referring to the Kodesh HaKadashim, the Mishkan’s inner sanctum) whenever he wants so that he should not die,” an explanatory clause is given; “for in a cloud I will appear upon the [ark’s] covering.” Rashi explains this clause to be saying “for I constantly appear there with the pillar of My cloud; and since My presence manifests itself there, he should be careful not to become accustomed to coming [inside].” Although Rashi includes G-d’s “cloud pillar” because the verse mentions G-d’s cloud, the way Rashi explains it makes its inclusion seem unnecessary. The point is that G-d’s presence dwells within the inner sanctum, so Aharon can’t just come in anytime he wants; that G-d’s divine presence is accompanied by, or covered by, G-d’s cloud, should be irrelevant. Additionally, the verse doesn’t mention the “cloud pillar,” only the “cloud;” why does Rashi add the “pillar” aspect?
Although numerous commentators on Rashi say that the divine presence was always in the Mishkan (between the K’ruvim that were on the cover of the ark in the inner sanctum), I am not convinced this was so. For one thing, when our sages, of blessed memory, used an analogy to describe why G-d commanded us to build a Mishkan for Him (Sh’mos Rabbah 33:1), they compared His giving us the Torah to a king’s only daughter marrying another king (or prince). The king knew he couldn’t make his new son-in-law live with him, so asked that living space be built for him in his son-in-law’s country, thereby enabling the king to visit his daughter anytime he wanted to. The king obviously wouldn’t permanently move out of his own country to reside in his son-in-law’s country; he only wanted to be able to drop by whenever he wanted without having to first make reservations. If this is analogous to G-d asking us to build a Mishkan for Him, it would similarly be so that His divine presence could join us whenever it was appropriate, not that He would abandon His heavenly abode and live with us permanently. Additionally, the “cloud pillar” was where G-d resided when His presence was made noticeable (see Sh’mos 13:21), and what descended when G-d wanted to speak to Moshe (see Sh’mos 33:9-11). If G-d’s divine presence always resided in the Mishkan, His “cloud pillar” wouldn’t need to “descend” or suddenly “appear;” it would already be there. Yet, there are several instances where G-d’s “cloud pillar” either “appeared” or “descended” before G-d spoke (see Bamidbar 12:5 and D’varim 31:15; see also Bamidbar 11:25, 17:7 and 20:6). The very notion that G-d had to specify that He would speak to Moshe “from between the K’ruvim that are on the Kapores” (Sh’mos 25:22) implies that G-d wasn’t always there, or it would be obvious where G-d’s “voice” would emanate from (see Bamidbar 7:89; see also 30:6, where the implication is that G-d will meet Moshe there, not that He was already there). The verses (Sh’mos 40:34-38) are rather explicit that G-d’s divine presence rested on/over the Mishkan in its entirety; it would seem that the “cloud pillar” descending from “G-d’s cloud” to reside in the inner sanctum was not a constant. This is implicit in Rashi’s wording as well; he doesn’t say “since My presence constantly manifests itself there,” but “for I constantly appear there with the pillar of My cloud,” indicating that what was “constant” was not G-d’s divine presence being in the inner sanctum, but that whenever His presence was there, it was within His “cloud pillar.”
If G-d’s divine presence wasn’t always manifest in the inner sanctum, and whenever it was, it was within His “cloud pillar,” there would be an easy way to tell if G-d’s presence had descended into the inner sanctum–seeing His “cloud pillar!” In essence, G-d’s “cloud pillar” was like a giant “do not disturb” sign; G-d was in there, and unless He called for you or it was time for the Yom Kippur service, you better stay out! And if there was an easy way to know whether or not G-d was in the Mishkan’s inner sanctum, one might think that when it was empty, there would be no problem going in. When G-d told Moshe to tell Aharon that he can’t just enter the inner sanctum anytime he wants to, He didn’t mean “only when I’m there,” but anytime, even if G-d wasn’t there. Since G-d’s divine presence does descend there, and it might do so after Aharon had checked that His “cloud pillar” wasn’t there, he has to stay out even if there had been no “cloud pillar” before he started to enter. In other words, to avoid the dangerous possibility that G-d would enter the Mishkan’s inner sanctum at the same moment that Aharon did, entrance was forbidden even if there was no “cloud pillar.”
“And a fire went out from before G-d and consumed.” What did it consume? The first time these words appear in the Torah (Vayikra 9:24), it consumed the offerings that were on the altar. The second time these same exact words appear (10:2, two verses later), it consumed Nadav and Avihu. Rashbam says there weren’t two different fires; it was one heavenly fire that descended into the inner sanctum of the Mishkan and then exited through the Mishkan’s doorway to the courtyard, where it consumed the offerings on the altar. Unfortunately, Nadav and Avihu were inside the Mishkan at the time, and were consumed by the fire as it went from inside the Mishkan to the courtyard. Their unauthorized entrance, done before G-d’s divine presence had descended onto/into the Mishkan, led to their deaths because they were inside when G-d entered. The fact that G-d had not been there when they started to go in did not matter.
“And G-d spoke to Moshe after the death of Aharon’s two sons, when they approached G-d and they died.” The first mention of their deaths is a chronological reference; this conversation occurred after they had died. The second reference describes why they died, as they “they approached G-d,” even though G-d wasn’t in the Mishkan when they “approached.” There was a precedent to entering a then-empty inner sanctum to find that G-d entered afterwards, with disastrous consequences. After reminding Moshe about the circumstances under which Nadav and Avihu had died, G-d told him to tell Aharon that he shouldn’t enter the inner sanctum whenever he wants either, even if there was no “cloud pillar,” as there was no guarantee that G-d wouldn’t descend after he had already entered.
