레위기 9:2의 주석

קח לך עגל TAKE THEE A CALF — This animal was selected as a sin offering to announce to him that the Holy One, blessed be He, granted him atonement by means of this calf for the incident of the golden calf which he had made (Midrash Tanchuma, Shmini 4)

AND HE [Moses] SAID TO AARON: TAKE THEE A BULL-CALF FOR A SIN-OFFERING. Moses, our teacher, had been commanded about these offerings, as he said at the end [of the section], This is the thing which the Eternal commanded that ye should do,¹Verse 6. although this [command for these specific offerings] is not expressly mentioned. Similarly, And Moses said: This is the thing which the Eternal hath commanded: Let an omerful of it be kept throughout your generations,²Exodus 16:32. [where the verse indicates that Moses received a Divine command although it is not specifically mentioned]. Also, I am the G-d of Beth-el,³Genesis 31:13. when Jacob related [to his wives all that G-d’s angel had told him in the dream], even though it is not mentioned in Scripture that he was so told. I have already shown to you⁴Exodus 11:1. Also ibid., 12:21. many such examples in the sections on the commandments regarding the Passover.

קח לך עגל, "take for yourself a bull-calf, etc." Yuma 4 questions the need for the words "for yourself," seeing that the Torah goes on to say that the he-goat in verse 3 was for the people; obviously then the bull-calf was for Aaron personally. The Talmud answers that the words קח לך meant that Aaron was to pay for that bull-calf out of his personal funds.

For the deed of the [Golden] Calf. You might ask: [There is a rule that] the prosecution cannot serve as the defense, as Rashi explains in Parshas Chukas (Bamidbar 19:22)! The answer is: That [rule] applies specifically regarding to the service performed inside [the Holy of Holies], such as the garments of kehunah û when the kohein godol entered the most innermost, he would not wear any garments that had gold, because “the prosecution, etc.” There was no concern about this [rule], though, regarding the service performed outside. [Alternatively:] We need not ask: Since Aharon sinned with regard to the [Golden] Calf, this raises the concern that the prosecution cannot serve as the defense, as Rashi explains in Parshas Chukas. [The answer is:] It is different there, because the Red Heifer was to atone for all of Israel. If Aharon was making the atonement [instead of Elozor his son, see Rashi (ibid.)], there would be reason to be concerned that the prosecution cannot serve as the defense, but here, where he was atoning only for himself, this rule is not applicable. Re’m writes: However, that which Rashi says: “to let know that Hashem forgave him by means of this calf for the deed of the [Golden] Calf,” I do not know how it lets us know this. If it was because the honor of Hashem appeared to them by means of these offerings, which demonstrates that Hashem atoned by means of this calf for the deed of the [Golden] Calf — then even without this calf we would also know that since the honor of Hashem appeared to them by means of Aharon’s bringing the offerings he has already achieved atonement for his sin... It appears to me that Rashi derives this from what it is written: “Take, for yourself, a young calf...” Why does it say, “for yourself”? It should only say, “Take a young calf...” as it is written regarding the people (v. 3): “Take a he-goat...” Rather, perforce, since it is written, “Take, for yourself, a young calf for a sin-offering,” it means that the taking should be ‘for you,’ i.e., for your good: “To let us know [that Hashem forgave]...” Alternatively: Rashi’s proof is from that which Aharon was commanded about this calf for a sin-offering. Normally, the sin-offering of an anointed kohein is a bullock, as it says in Parshas Vayikro (4:3). Why, then, did He command a calf for the sin-offering here? Rather, [it must be:] “To let know that Hashem forgave him by means of this calf for the deed of the [Golden] Calf which he made.” [This is from] Toras Kohanim. [The Sages made this drashah] because otherwise, why did Aharon take a calf whereas Israel [took] a he-goat? Rather, Aharon brought a calf because he sinned with a calf, and Israel [brought] a he-goat because they sinned with a he-goat — in that they dipped the tunic in blood [after selling Yosef]. You might ask: If so, this poses a difficulty with regard to the burnt-offering as well: Why was Israel’s burnt-offering a calf, and Aharon’s burnt-offering a ram? The answer is: Since Aharon sinned with an action, in that he made the Golden Calf, therefore he brought a sin-offering that is appropriate for a sinful deed. Israel, on the other hand, sinned in thought, for they erred by following after the Golden Calf, brought a calf as a burnt-offering, since a burnt-offering atones for [sinful] thought, as it is written (Yechezkel 20:32): “העולה על רוחכם” [the עולה is for what enters your mind]. This is because those who sinned [with the Golden Calf] by deed were [already] judged by Moshe with their appropriate judgment. Aharon, however, brought a burnt-offering, although he sinned with deed, because Aharon also sinned in thought, for in his mind he consented to make the Golden Calf (Gur Aryeh).

קח לך עגל, “take a calf for yourself, etc.” the Torah here tells Aaron to take a calf instead of a bullock (fully matured animal) as seeing that the status of the priesthood had been had been undermined by the golden calf in which he had been involved, it required a calf to restore its status to its former eminence.

קח לך עגל, “take for yourself a calf;” it was customary for the priest to take a bull as a sin offering as is written in Leviticus 4,3: ,'אם הכהן המשיח יחטא וגו, “if the High Priest will sin, etc.; in other words, the calf will atone for the sin of the golden calf. [According to Sifra we must understand that verse as referring specifically to this High Priest. Ed.]

Perhaps we may add that the word לך was intended as a sign for all times that Aaron had not made the golden calf with sinful intent nor had he been involved in its worship. This is why a bull-calf could serve as atonement for Aaron. The same could not be said of the people at large seeing their involvement in the sin of the golden calf had been במזיד, i.e. they had been aware of what they had been doing. Not only could a bull-calf not serve as atonement for their sin, on the contrary, it would remind G'd of their sin and be an accuser. You will find in Vayikra Rabbah 21,10 that the reason G'd did not want Aaron to enter the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement dressed in his golden garments was because he had been the one who made the golden calf and we have a principle of אין קטיגור נעשה סניגר, "something which served once as an accuser cannot reverse its role and serve as advocate for the defence." This was a consideration which did not apply to the Israelites who had sinned knowingly in the way they related to the golden calf so that a bull-calf could not serve as a sin-offering for them.

In this connection we must explain why G'd commanded Aaron to take a bull-calf as a sin-offering altogther. Is not a sin-offering intended as atonement and there is therefore no more powerful advocate for the defence than such an offering? Apparently G'd judged matters very fairly. On the one hand, Aaron's involvement in the construction of the golden calf was peripheral; he had neither made its shape, nor believed in it when it emerged from the crucible, and, as he explained to Moses: "the calf emerged by itself" (Exodus 32,24), i.e. as a result of an action by the sorcerers Yeynuss and Yombrus amongst the mixed multitude as reported by Tanchuma 19 on Parshat Ki Tissa. It follows therefore that there were steps in the procedure which resulted in the golden calf materialising which Aaron did take knowingly. He told the people to bring the gold; he accepted it from them; he etched the gold with an etching tool. All of these details he performed in full awareness of what he was doing. Even though the reason he did these things was fear of the Israelites killing him just as they had killed his nephew Chur, and even though all he did was stall for time until Moses would return, he did something improper. This is why G'd told him to bring a sin-offering to atone for a sin which he had been instrumental in making possible. Concerning the gold which was the crucial element in that sin, G'd told Aaron not to appear before Him in the Holy of Holies dressed in gold seeing the accuser could not become an advocate for the defence. The same consideration did not apply to the Israelites as they had been involved in that sin knowingly and a bull-calf could not therefore be used as a sin-offering on their behalf. G'd therefore commanded the Israelites to prepare a he-goat as their sin-offering.

We have to question how it is possible that in view of the principle (Rosh Hashana 26) that the accuser cannot serve as an advocate for the defence that the Talmud Erchin 16 tells us that the purpose of the four golden garments of the High Priest was to atone for four different categories of sin. In view of this the accuser certainly did turn advocate for the defence! We must answer therefore that one cannot compare the process of atonement which occurs as a result of offerings presented on the copper altar outside the Tabernacle with the process of atonement initiated by offerings presented on the golden altar inside the Sanctuary. The function of the golden altar inside the Sanctuary is to cleanse the people from sin absolutely so that not a trace of their former sins remain. The well-known symbol for this was the red cord hung at the cliff from where the scapegoat was thrown off, which turned white as a result of the atonement procedures performed by the High Priest inside the Sanctuary being accepted by G'd (compare Yuma 67). The golden garments worn by the High Priest when he performed duties outside the Sanctuary did not interfere with the atonement process because that atonement process did not result in a complete removal of all vestiges of guilt. In order to achieve such total atonement, the High Priest could not wear anything in the Sanctuary which would remind G'd of his ever having been associated with the sin of the golden calf. The very fact that Aaron was commanded to wear the golden garments when performimg his duties on the copper altar was proof that his involvement with the golden calf had only been peripheral. The Israelites, whose sin had been far greater, could not obtain their forgiveness through any process performed only on the copper altar outside the Sanctuary.