There are some people asked me, what is the peshat in the second paragraph on page 52 in Likutei Sichos חלק י״ב? So I would like to explain it. First I'll explain the המשך of the sicha. Rashi brings two peshatim why נדב ואביהוא died. One is הורו הלכה בפני משה רבם, by bringing the ketoret, they made they made an halacha. And Rabbi Yishmael says because of שתויי יין נכנסו למקדש, and the ראיה is that after they died, that's when the Aibershter warned them that you 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 חסרון of the first peshat? Because when it says in the פסוק that when they brought the קטורת, ותצא אש מלפני השם, which is the same לשון as it says when the — this גילוי השכינה that came down before, is משמע that it brought also down a גילוי השכינה. But if it was such a terrible thing, that made an הלכה בפני רבו 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 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, וממילא it's not such a terrible thing, so that's why it could bring down the גילוי השכינה. And Rashi brings that ראיה that you see that afterwards, that's when they were commanded to do it. וממילא בשעת they did it, they weren't אסור yet, וממילא it could bring down the שכינה. But a

question comes up, how could you say they did something that wasn't wrong, when the Torah says clearly, as an הקדמה 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 להעונש, that as an הקדמה to the punishment, which which was ותצא אש מלפני השם, it says אשר לא צוה אותם, that he didn't command them to do it, so is a סימן that they did something that they were not allowed to do. So the the Rebbe answers it by being מדייק. And not it doesn't say these words, but that's the תוכן. 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, means others were ya commanded to do it, it wasn't given to them, but was given to somebody else. Who's that somebody else? That somebody else is Aharon HaKohen, he was commanded to bring קטורת, 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 lichorah, if it came to Aharon, they should have a good reason why they could also do it. כי כיוון שפשוט שנדב ואביהוא בניו הגדולים של אהרן, since it's clear that Nadav va'Avihu, who were the older children of אהרן, נתחנכו ונמשכו ביחד עמו, they got their chinuch and they got the משיחה together with אהרן, בוודאי 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 va'Avihu 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 שבאיזו 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. Ela mai, there was something else wrong. Must be there was something wrong, which is שתויי יין, they went in שתויי יין, a different chesaron. A chesaron, so it's not a chesaron that they did something against what they were commanded, so that chesaron, mitzad the קטורת, wouldn't be so bad, because it it commanded to Aharon, and they are similar to Aharon, they also could do it. Must be there's something else that made this being bad, that they were not in that real madreigah, at that moment they weren't in the madreigah 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 takeh so bad that this made that what they did, even though be'etzem they should could have done it, but this made a chesaron in doing, why is there a chesaron 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 bayit, they should have understood not to do. 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 down the Shechinah. And the fact that they brought the קטורת is not such a geferlekhe thing because לא ציווה אותם, ציווה את אהרן, ממילא אחרים, ממילא 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 קטורת was whatever they did, what had a great thing, but they, mitzad 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.