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: it is the burnt offering which burns on the altar all night until the morning, and the fire of the altar shall burn thereby.”
The Midrash here commented on the posuk in Mishlei 10:12 “Hatred arouses strife, but love covers all transgressions” that the hatred which Aharon caused 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 a hammer and damaged it in front of them, and said to them: You see! It is worthless! This is what Moshe meant when he said to Aharon in Shemos 32:21 “What did this people do to you that you brought upon them a great sin?” - it would have been better to have let them be judged for sinning unintentionally (by letting them think that by what they were doing they were somehow serving G-d), rather than for sinning intentionally, (by showing them that the idol was worthless).
The Yefas Toar asked on this Midrash that the rule that it is better to let someone sin unintentionally only applies to something which is not explicitly forbidden in the Torah. But idol worship was explicitly forbidden to them at Har Sinai, 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!
But 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 - 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, and so it had already been forbidden to all the descendants of Noach. Therefore, their culpability was not because of the more recent command “you shall have no other gods”, since for this they could claim coercion, but because of the seven Noachide laws.
But the gemora in Sanhedrin learns that it is forbidden for the descendants of Noach to worship idols from a comparison of the word ‘Elo-him’ (G-d) in the posuk in Bereishis 2:16 “and Elo-him commanded Adam” and the posuk in Shemos 2:3 “you shall have no other gods (Elo-him)”. So we see that the Rabbis learned this law from a comparison of expressions, but it is not explicitly stated in the Torah. Therefore, the rule that it is better for someone to act unintentionally rather than inform them and thus cause them to act intentionally is applicable, and thus Moshe was correct in saying this to Aharon.
How did Hashem test Aharon to see if he was fitting to be the Kohen Gadol?
(6,2) “Command Aharon and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt offering: it is the burnt offering which burns on the altar all night until the morning, and the fire of the altar shall burn thereby.”
It seems to me that the reason why the parsha started with the law of the burnt offering is in order to allude to the teaching of the Midrash, that from the beginning of sefer Vayikra until now Aharon’s name was not mentioned in connection with the work of the Mishkan. Because of this Moshe asked Hashem: The cistern is hated, but its water is beloved? You gave honour to the tree because of what it produces - You did not allow olive wood and vines to be burnt on the altar because they produce olive oil and wine, but You give no honour to Aharon because of his sons?
But Moshe’s complaint can be answered from the teaching of the Midrash in parshas Beha’alosecha on the posuk “take the Levites”, that Hashem does not elevate a person to greatness until He first tests him. Here too, Hashem wanted to test Aharon to see if he was fitting to be the Kohen Gadol by giving his sons prominence in parshas Vayikra. If Aharon would complain about this it would show that he is arrogant and cares about his honour, and so he would not be 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 Gadol.
And since Aharon passed the test Hashem now explained to Aharon the reason why He had not mentioned his name until now, by saying: “This is the law of the Olah (of 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.
For which aspect of a mitzvah does one primarily receive reward?
(6,2) “Command Aharon and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt offering: it is the burnt offering which burns on the altar all night until the morning, and the fire of the altar shall burn thereby (תוקד בו).”
Rashi explained that the expression צו (command) always denotes an urging (to promptly and meticulously fulfil a particular commandment) to the present generation and to the future generations.
And the reason why the Torah used this expression specifically with regard to the burnt offering and not the sin offering or other offerings, can be explained according to the teaching of Chazal that we take an item as a security from those who are obligated to bring a burnt offering in order to force them to bring their offering, but not from those who are obligated to bring sin offerings or guilt offerings. The reason for this difference is because sin offerings and guilt offerings are brought in order to atone for a sin, and so we presume that they will bring it by themselves without coercion. But since the burnt offerings are not for atonement, we need to coerce 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 the Torah here is coming to teach us that the most important thing about a mitzvah is the way in which it is performed. 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 for doing it with alacrity and enthusiasm, with fear and love, because then he shows how important the mitzvah is to him, and to this aspect of the mitzvah the 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 gemora in Nazir 23a a parable about two people who were eating the Pesach sacrifice. One ate it for the sake of the mitzvah, and concerning him it says in Hoshea 14:10 “For the ways of Hashem are straight, and the righteous walk in them”. The other ate it after he was already completely full, and concerning 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 without 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 צו, this “is the law of the burnt offering” - this is the main aspect of the burnt offering. But if he does not do so, but instead he is lazy and thus “it is the burnt offering which burns on the altar all night until the morning ”- 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 poison. Therefore, his punishment is that “the fire of the altar”, which was fitting to burn the offering, “shall burn him” (תוקד בו), the one who offered it, since the mitzvah has become for him like a poison by not performing it as it is supposed to be performed, with alacrity.