Why did Moshe need to call Aharon and his sons?
(9,1) And it was on the eighth day that Moshe called to Aharon, and to his sons, and to the elders of Yisrael.
Chazal taught in the Midrash that whenever the Torah says “and it was” it implies that some trouble occurred at that time. Here also the posuk says “And it was on the eight day”, because on that day the two sons of Aharon died.
This explains why Moshe needed here to call Aharon and his sons rather than come by themselves to ask about Hashem’s instructions. Similarly, Moshe said to Aharon in posuk 7 “approach the altar”, which implies that he did not wish to approach of his own accord. Rashi explained there in the name of the Midrash that it was because Aharon was ashamed, but we can explain simply that he was reluctant to approach to do his service because his heart foretold that a bad thing was going to happen to him on that day. As it says in Mishlei (14,10) “The heart knows the bitterness of one’s soul”, which means that even though a person does not see (what is going to happen), his mazal sees, (what we refer to as the sixth sense).
Therefore, although Aharon and his sons and also the elders usually came by themselves before Moshe to learn from him Torah, since on this particular day a mishap was destined to happen through the performance of these mitzvos which would cause a loss to all of Yisrael, as it says later on “and all the house of Yisrael cried for the burning”, therefore they did not go by themselves and needed to be called.
This is what the posuk is saying: “And it was on the eighth day” - because trouble and distress was destined to happen on that day, therefore “Moshe called to Aharon, and to his sons, and to the elders of Yisrael”, but in previous days they did not need to be called because they came by themselves.
Why, in this parsha, were Aharon and his sons not referred to by their title ‘Kohanim’?
(9,1) And it was on the eighth day that Moshe called to Aharon, and to his sons, and to the elders of Yisrael.
Another explanation is that the Torah is coming to explain why it does not use the expression ‘the Kohanim’ with regard to Aharon and his sons in the whole of this parsha. Now, the fact that we see that they are referred to as simply Aharon and his sons when the Torah is not discussing their priestly service is not remarkable. But when the Torah mentions them in connection with their priestly service, it always describes them as 'the Kohanim'. For example, in parshas Vayikra it says (1,8) “and the sons of Aharon the Kohanim shall arrange”, and Rashi explained there that the term comes to teach that they must do the service dressed in their priestly garments. Here too, since the Torah is discussing their service, it should have called them ‘the Kohanim’.
But behold, it is written in Koheles (8,8) “there is no ruling on the day of death”, and Chazal explain that for this reason the posukim do not refer to Dovid as ‘King Dovid’ when discussing his death, because on the day of death one is not a ruler. And since Chazal said on the posuk in Bamidbar (18,8) “Behold, I have given to you all the holy things of the children of Yisrael for distinction” - for greatness, like the kings eat, it is evident that the priesthood is considered like kingship, and so also here “there is no ruling on the day of death”.
Therefore, since on this day the two sons of Aharon died - and in fact, all of his sons were liable to be killed, as is says explicitly in the Midrash on this parsha - this was for them a day of death, and so they were not referred to as Kohanim. So when the Torah came to talk about the matter, it commenced by saying “And it was on the eighth day”, hinting that it would be a day on which there was to be trouble, and therefore it was not fitting to refer to them as Kohanim in this parsha, because there is no ruling on the day of death.
Why was a calf a suitable sin offering for Aharon?
(9,2) And he said to Aharon: Take for yourself a bull calf as a sin offering, and a ram as a burnt offering, unblemished, and bring them before Hashem.
Rashi explained that the words "take for yourself a calf" was to inform Aharon that Hashem was granting him atonement with this calf for the incident of the golden calf which he had made. Now, we cannot say that Rashi is coming to tell us the reason why Hashem specifically chose a calf for his sin offering, because how then would he explain all the other differences in the offerings, whether those of Aharon or those of the congregation - why such-and-such an animal is brought for a sin offering, this one for a burnt offering, and this one for a peace offering? We must say that we cannot give reasons for Hashem’s decrees. If so, why did Rashi write here that "take for yourself a calf" was to inform Aharon that he was being granted atonement with this calf?
We can explain Rashi by first understanding what Chazal said in the gemara in Yoma 3b on our posuk, “take for yourself” - one opinion holds that this means that Aharon should pay for the offering, and another opinion holds that it comes from the public coffers. And what does the posuk "for yourself" mean according to this latter opinion? The gemara answers that the Torah is implying that Hashem is saying to Aharon: It is yours that I desire, and I do not desire that of the public. What does this gemara mean?
The Midrash on parshas Beshalach teaches on the posuk (15,1) “Then sang Moshe” - with the word ‘then’ I sinned before you, as it says (5,23) “and from then, when I came to Pharaoh”, and so with the word ‘then’ I will praise you, as it says, “then sang Moshe”. Tzaddikim, in the manner in which they sin, they rectify their sin. But what is the benefit of rectifying with the same language as that of the sin?
It seems to me that if a person actually does a real sin, then it is impossible to rectify his sin with that with which he sinned, because the rule is that ‘an accuser cannot become a defender’. For this reason it is forbidden for the Kohen Godol to enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur wearing golden vestments, because an accuser (gold, used for the sin of the golden calf) cannot become a defender. If so, how could Moshe Rabbeinu rectify his sin using the language with which he had sinned, and how could Aharon achieve atonement with the calf that he brought?
But the fact is that there are sins that if an ordinary person would do them are not actually sins at all, but if a Tzaddik would do them, then because of his great level they would be considered sins. As Chazal taught on the posuk in Tehillim (50,3), “and around Him it storms furiously” - that Hashem is very exacting with Tzaddikim. Therefore, for a sin such as this the rule that the accuser cannot become a defender does not apply, because it is not really a sin. And even if we would consider it to be a sin because of the level of the Tzaddik, how could there be any accuser? To make it an accuser, we would to have to mention the great righteousness of the Tzaddik which made this a sin. If so, his accuser would itself be his defender!
Therefore, the Midrash says that Tzaddikim, specifically, rectify their sin in the manner in which they sinned, because the 'superiority' of their sin allows it to be thus rectified. Especially since it is an honour for Hashem when Tzaddikim bring an atonement even for the smallest of sins. And this also shows that it is not an actual sin, because if it was, it would not help to rectify it in this way.
This is what our posuk is saying: “Take for yourself a bull calf” - yours I desire to atone with a calf, but I do not desire theirs, because for them it is not sufficient the atonement of a calf. Quite the contrary, for them the calf would be detrimental, because an accuser cannot become a defender.
