How did Aharon make the sin of the golden calf more culpable?
(6,2) Command Aharon and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt offering: that is the bunt offering which burns on the altar all night until morning, and the fire of the altar shall burn with it.
The Midrash here comments on the posuk in Mishlei (10,12) “Hatred arouses strife, but love covers all transgressions” - the hatred that Aharon made between Yisrael and their Father in heaven (in the making the golden calf), aroused against them many judgements. Said R. Assi: This teaches that Aharon took their offering ( which they offered to the calf), and damaged it in front of them, and said to them: See! It is worthless! And this is what Moshe said to Aharon (Shemos 32,21): “What did this people do to you, that you brought upon them a great sin?” - it was better for them to be judged as sinning unintentionally (by letting them think that by what they were doing they were somehow serving G-d), and not judged as sinning intentionally, (by showing them that it was worthless).
The Yefas Toar asked on this Midrash, that this rule that it is better to let them sin unintentionally only applies to something which is not explicitly forbidden in the Torah. But here it is explicitly forbidden, as it says “you shall have no other gods”, and in such a case we do not say that it is better to let them sin unintentionally, but rather one should inform them of the gravity of their sin!
It seems to me that we can answer this question according to what I explained in parshas Pekudei, in the name of the Rashba. He asked why Yisrael were punished for the sin of the golden calf, because surely they could have argued that they been forced to accept the Torah, and therefore they should not be held liable if they transgress it. He answered that idol worship was one of the seven Noachide laws that had already been forbidden for all the offspring of Noach. Therefore, their chief sin was not because of their more recent command “you shall have no other gods”, since for this they could claim coercion, but because it was one of the seven Noachide laws.
But it does not say explicitly in the Torah that the offspring of Noach were commanded not to serve idols, but rather the gemara in Sanhedrin learns from the posuk “and G-d (El-him) said to Adam…” - that the word ‘El-him’ teaches about idol worship, as it says, “you shall have no other gods (El-him)”. So we see that the Rabbis learned this law because of a parallel expression, but it is not an explicit law in the Torah. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply the rule that it is better for them to act unintentionally, rather than inform them and thus cause them to act intentionally, as Moshe said to Aharon.
How did Hashem test Aharon to see if he was fitting to be the Kohen Godol?
(6,2) Command Aharon and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt offering…
It seems to me that the reason why the Torah starts specifically with the law of the burnt offering, is in order to allude to what is written in the Midrash, that from the beginning of sefer Vayikra until now, all the work in the Mishkan was attributed to the sons of Aharon, but Aharon himself was never mentioned. Concerning this, Moshe Rabbeinu asked Hashem: The cistern is hated, but its water is beloved? You gave honour to the wood because of its products, and did not permit olive wood and vines to be burnt on the altar because they produce olive oil and wine, but You gave no honour to Aharon because of his sons?
We can answer Moshe’s complaint from the Midrash in parshas Beha’alosecha, which comments on the posuk “take the Levites” that Hashem does not raise up a person to greatness until He first tests them. Here too, Hashem wanted to test Aharon to see if he was fitting to be the Kohen Godol by giving his sons prominenc in parshas Vayikra. If Aharon would complain about this it would show that he is arrogant and cares about his honour, and so he is not fitting. But if he keeps quiet and does not complain, it would be clear that he has the attribute of humility, and thus fitting to be the Kohen Godol.
Therefore, since Aharon passed the test, Hashem started now to excuse Himself to Aharon, and to tell him the reason why He had not mentioned his name until now, saying: “This is the law of the Olah” (which literally means ‘that which goes up) - this is the law of one who rises to greatness. He must first be tested, and therefore I did not mention your name until now in order to test you.
What is the part of a mitzvah for which one primarily receives reward?
(6,2) Command Aharon and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt offering: it is that which goes up on the hearth on the altar all the night until the morning, and the fire of the altar shall burn in it.
Rashi explained that the expression ‘command’ always denotes urging (to promptly and meticulously fulfil a particular commandment), for the present and for future generations.
We can explain the reason why the Torah used this expression specifically with regard to the burnt offering and not the sin offering or other offerings, with the teaching of Chazal that we do not force those who are obligated to bring sin or guilt offerings to bring them by taking from them a security. Only those who are obligated to bring a burnt offering are forced. Because since the sin and guilt offerings come to atone, we assume that they want that atonement, and so they will bring it by themselves without coercion. But since the burnt offerings are not for atonement, we therefore force them.
Therefore, for the same reason, the sin offering does not require urging, because the Torah assumes that a person will motivate himself to bring his atonement. But since the burnt offering is not for atonement, they do require urging. It is even possible that from this very reasoning Chazal learned that we take a security for burnt offerings but not for sin offerings, since the Torah only urged with burnt offerings.
With this we can also explain that with the words ‘this is the law of the burnt offering’, the Torah is coming to tell us that the importance of a mitzvah is primarily the alacrity in its performance. Because the actual mitzvah itself is considered to have been done by Hashem. As Chazal taught on the posuk in Iyov (41,3) “who preceded me and I will pay; everything under the heavens is mine” - does a person affix a mezuzah before I give him a house? Therefore, the main reward that one receives for doing a mitzvah is only if he does it with alacrity and enthusiasm, with fear and love, because this then shows the importance of the mitzvah to him, and to this aspect of the mitzvah the above posuk in Iyov does not apply. But if one does not do the mitzvah with enthusiasm, and instead it is a burden to him, about such a person the posuk in Yechezkel (20,25) says “I, too, gave them statutes that were not good, and judgements through which they should not live”.
Similarly, Chazal taught in the gemara in Sotah that two people were eating the Pesach sacrifice. One ate it for the sake of the mitzvah, and about him it says in Hoshea (14,10), “For the ways of Hashem are straight, and the righteous walk in them”. The other ate it to overstuff himself, and about him it says, “but the transgressors stumble in them”. From this it is clear that the main thing is the importance that a person places in the mitzvah - his intention to do it because Hashem commanded it, his doing it with love and alacrity, and wiyhout feeling that it is a burden to him. But one who does the opposite of this, “the transgressors stumble in them”, and he is punished for this.
This is what the posuk is saying: “Command Aharon and his sons, saying. This” - this urging to do the mitzvah with alacrity, which is denoted by the expression ‘command’, this “is the law of the burnt offering”. This is the main thing of the burnt offering, that it is done with keenness and promptness. But if he does not do so, but instead he is sluggish and thus “it is that which goes up on the hearth on the altar all the night”- his laziness causes it to be burning on the altar all night long, about him it says “I, too, gave them statutes that were not good, and judgements through which they should not live”. As Chazal teach: if a person does not merit it, then the Torah becomes for him like a death potion. Therefore, his judgement is that “the fire of the altar”, which was fitting to burn the offering, “shall burn him”, the one who offered it, since the mitzvah has become for him like a death potion by not performing it as it is supposed to be performed, with alacrity.
