Dvar Torah Acharei Mos – Preaching Without Practicing

Acharei Mos 1 – Preaching Without Practicing:
וידבר ה’ אל משה אחרי מות שני בני אהרן בקרבתם לפני ה’ וימתו
Hashem spoke to Moshe after the death of Aharon’s two sons, when they approached before Hashem, and they died (Vayikra 16:1).
It says in the Midrash (Tanchuma, Acharei Mos: 6) that Bar Kappara said in the name of Rabbi Yirmiyah ben Elazar: “Bishvil arba’ah devarim meisu bnei Aharon: al hakreivah, ve’al hahakravah, ve’al eish zarah, ve’al she’lo natlu eitzah zeh mi’zeh…. – Aharon’s sons died on account of four things: for drawing near, for offering, for the strange fire, and for not having taken counsel from each other.”
When Nadav and Avihu brought a strange fire in the Kodesh, they acted independently, each one preparing the pan, incense, and fire on his own. This is inferred from the Torah’s emphasis in Parashas Shemini, “And each man took his pan” (Vayikra 10:1), rather than saying, “They took pans.” So while they entered the Kodesh together and were killed simultaneously, they had no prior discussion as to the advisability of their intended course of action.
According to Rav Meshulam David HaLevi Soloveitchik, were they to have conferred with one another, each one would have been advised by his brother not to proceed with bringing a strange fire and entering the Kodesh. It seems apparent that the advice would have been heeded.
Why is this true? If each, individually, felt that bringing the fire was permitted and perhaps even a mitzvah, how would asking for the other’s opinion help? It would seem more likely that the other brother would have seconded the motion: “Great idea! I’m doing it myself.” Why does the Midrash fault them for not asking for advice, when such advice would not have been forthcoming?
Perhaps this is another instance where we see a well-known maxim and fact of life being played out. The Mishnah in Negaim (2:5) tells us, “Kol hanegaim adam ro’eh chutz mi’nigei atzmo – A person sees all faults but his own.” We can both be doing the same incorrect thing, yet I only find fault in you. My vision is imperfect pertaining to myself, and I cannot be objective. Yet when addressing the same issue in another, I can, like a laser beam, home in on the truth of the problem.
Here, too, although the would-be adviser had the same intentions as the seeker of advice, when being afforded an opportunity to focus on another, the truth could have come out. Each one would have been able to give proper advice.
I think there is another lesson to be learned from this Midrash. The literal reading seems to imply that Nadav and Avihu would have been saved only if they had each gone to take advice from the other, as it says that they were punished: “for not having taken counsel from each other.” Even though Nadav was able to be objective and tell Avihu not to proceed, he still would have done it himself. Hearing the words coming out of his mouth may not have been enough to get him to reconsider his own action. He still would have had to go to his brother and be told to stop.
If this is the case, we can learn an interesting lesson. I can tell you that doing x is wrong, all the while continuing to do it myself. But more significantly, I may be doing the very same thing that I am attempting to dissuade you from doing – and still you can be faulted for not listening to my advice. Avihu should have listened to Nadav, although Nadav himself was still intending to bring the fire. Although the ideal is “Keshot atzmecha ve’achar kach keshot acheirim – Adorn yourself and after that adorn others” (Bava Basra 60b), it does not mean that the other sinner’s advice can be discounted and ignored, even if the other brother does not practice what he is preaching.
This point can be proven from a pasuk in Rus and the explanation of the Midrash based on that pasuk: “Vayehi bi’mei shefot hashoftim – And it happened in the days when the judges judged” (Rus 1:1). The Midrash (Rus Rabbah 1:1) explains that in those days, the judges were judged by the population. And the Midrash laments, “Woe to the generation that judges its judges.” The Gemara explains that when the judge would say, “Remove a splinter from between your teeth,” the accused would say, “First remove the beam from between your eyes” (Bava Basra 15b).
The judges themselves were more corrupt than the people they were judging. The judge would accuse a man of stealing a splinter and demand that he return it, while the accused would respond that the judge himself was guilty of much more than petty theft, since he had in his possession something as large as a stolen beam.
Thus, the people discounted the reproof the judges gave because the judges were greater sinners. Although the people could claim, “Why listen to him? He doesn’t practice what he preaches,” they were still criticized for judging their judges and discounting their reproof and authority.
The truth is still the truth, whether from the mouth of a saint or a sinner. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but if the message being preached is correct, I have no right not to accept it. The Rambam, in his preface to Shemonah Perakim, says, “Shema ha’emes mi’mi she’amrah –Listen to and accept the truth from the one who says it.”
This offers us an important insight into human nature. Being able to give another person proper advice or tochachah does not guarantee that I will practice what I preach.
We can also learn an important lesson regarding our accountability. Even if the person advising us is not practicing what he preaches – or even committing worse offenses – we cannot discount his advice.
It is our job to practice what our friend preaches