There are some people that asked me: What is the peshat in the second paragraph on page 52 in Likkutei Sichos chelek י״ב? So I would like to explain it. First I'll explain the hemshech of the sichah. Rashi brings two peshatim why Nadav vaAvihu died. One is הורו הלכה בפני משה רבנו, by bringing the ketoret and they made הורו הלכה, and Rabbi Yishmael says because of שתויי יין נכנסו למקדש, and the raayah is that after they died, that's when the Eibershter warned them that they should not go in שתויי יין. So the Rebbe explains why Rashi needs two peshatim. So after he explains the first peshat he says: What is the chesaron of the first peshat? Because when it says in the pasuk that when they brought the קטורת, ותצא אש מלפני השם, which is the same lashon as it says when the גילוי השכינה that came down before, is mashma that it brought also down a גילוי השכינה. But if it was such a terrible thing that they made הורו הלכה בפני רבם like the Rebbe explains before, so how could this bring down גילוי השכינה? Therefore, Rashi comes with another peshat. And the peshat is that really it wasn't really wrong. It's talking about another thing that they did, that the real reason they did it is because they went in שתויי יין, and שתויי יין they weren't commanded yet not to do it, u'mimeila it's not such a terrible thing, so that's why it could bring down the גילוי השכינה. And Rashi brings a raayah that you see that afterwards, that's when they were commanded to do it. ממילא בשעת they did it, they weren't asur yet, mimeila it could bring down the Shechinah. But the

question comes up: How could you say they did something that wasn't wrong, when the Torah says clearly as a hakdamah to what they to ותצא אש, it says they did something אשר לא צוה השם אותם, that Hashem did not command them to do it? So we see something they did something wrong. So this is what the Rebbe answers here, and the Rebbe says like this: ולא יוקשה, you can't ask מה שנאמר בהקדמה לעונש that as a hakdamah to the punishment, which was ותצא אש מלפני השם, it says אשר לא צוה אותם, they didn't command them to do it. So is a siman they did something that they were not allowed to do? So the Rebbe answers that by being medayek. It doesn't say these words, but that's the tochen: It doesn't say that they did something that they were commanded not to do. Then it would be clearly they did something wrong. It says they were not commanded to do it. That means כי אותם מדגיש מה שאין כן לאחרים. When it says they were not commanded to do it, it means others were yet commanded to do it. It wasn't given to them, but it was given to somebody else. Who's that somebody else? That somebody else is Aharon HaKohen. He was commanded to bring ketoret, and they weren't. So what the pasuk is saying here that they did something that the commandment to do it came, but not to them. Now, if it came to somebody else, who was it, Aharon, so likhorah if it came to Aharon, they should have a good reason why they could also do it. וכיון שפשוט שנדב ואביהוא בניו הגדולים של אהרן, since it's clear that Nadav vaAvihu, who were the older children of אהרן, נתחנכו ונמשכו ביחד עמו, they got their chinuch and they got the mishichah together with אהרן, בודאי הם היו יותר קרובים במעלה אליו, so they're the closest in madregah to him, the closest possible, וכמו שנאמר like there's a clear pasuk that says that Hashem said עלה אל השם אתה, השם said to Moshe, you go up, and Aharon, and נדב ואביהוא, ושבעים מזקני ישראל. So Nadav vaAvihu are very close to Aharon. Mimela, really, this was a commandment given to Aharon, the pasuk says it wasn't told to them, was told to Aharon, but since it was told to and they're the closest to Aharon, mimela really there should have been nothing wrong with what they did, because the Eibershter did command to do it, but not to them, good. But על כרחך צריך לומר, so what is the problem here? The problem is שבאותה שעה היו גרועים במעלתם. Must be something else that they did. There was something that was commanded, as if the Torah says they were מקריב אש זרה, which was commanded to somebody else to do, and mimela maybe they should have done it also, because they're the closest to that other person. אלא מאי, there was something else wrong. Must be there was something wrong, which is שתויי יין, they went in שתויי יין, a different chisaron. A chisaron, so that's not a chisaron that they did something against what they were commanded, מצד הקטורת wouldn't be so bad, because it commanded to Aharon and they are similar to Aharon, they also could do it. Must be there is something else that made this being bad, that they were not in that real madregah at that moment, they weren't in the madregah that they should do it, they were not that close, so to speak, to Aharon. And Rashi says, what was that? שתויי יין. But then the question comes up, but sof kol sof they weren't commanded, because it came only later, so then why is it taka so bad that this made that what they did, even though be'etzem they could have done it, but this made a chisaron in doing, why is there a chisaron in doing? That's what the Rebbe continues. He starts off with the lashon as a kashya, but he continues that even though they were not commanded, but nevertheless, because they were ben bayis, they should have understood not to do it. It, even without being commanded. So you have both sides here: There was no issur in it, and that's why this is able to bring on the Shechinah. And the fact that they brought the ketoret is not such a geferleche thing because לא ציווה אותם אבל ציווה את אהרן, וממילא אחרים, וממילא they, it's not so terrible. But what they did, why they were punished, because sof kol sof, it's something they should have understood not to do. And so the Shechinah could come down because the ketoret was, whatever it did, what had a great thing, but they מצד their matzav, they shouldn't have done it. But as far as bringing down the Shechinah, this was good enough to be able to bring down the Shechinah.