I SAW THAT YOU HAD SINNED

AGAINST THE LORD YOUR GOD: YOU MADE YOURSELVES A MOLTEN CALF; YOU HAD BEEN

QUICK TO STRAY FROM THE PATH THAT THE LORD HAD ENJOINED UPON YOU.

(Devarim 9:16)

The question is worth considering why Aaron, who was given a

completely free hand in the choice of the form, should have just chosen that of

a calf… But we have already had the opportunity on several occasions to

remark – and when we consider the offerings it becomes practically a certainty

– that cattle, (cattle, ox, bull) being serving assistants in carrying

out the work of human beings, represent, in sacrificial symbolism, the using of

one's powers and strength to work in the service of a higher being. So what

Aaron was about, was, on the one hand to satisfy the demands of the people who

were asking not for another god but for another "Moses", and on the

other hand by doing this to keep the error within the bounds of semi-defection;

and for this purpose no more suitable form could be found than that of cattle,

which represented no directing force but a serving one. And in choosing a calf

and not an ox, Aaron expressed even this form in its weakest aspect.

(Rabbi S.R.

Hirsch on Shemot 32:4, Levi translation)

Commandments and Priorities

Ariel Rathouse

Comparison of the story of the

golden calf as it appears in parashat Eikev to the earlier version in parashat

Ki Tisa reveals one basic

difference between the two versions: The Eikev

version is more vague and enigmatic than that of Ki Tisa.

Ki Tisa

offers a solid psychological explanation of the Israelites' surprising and

almost absurd act – their falling to idolatry so soon after having witnessed

God's revelation:

When the people saw that Moses

was so long in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron

and said to him, "Come, make us a god who shall go before us, for that man

Moses, who brought us out of the land of Egypt – we do not know what has

happened to him. (Shemot 32:1)

The nation felt abandoned and was

struck with fear. That is why it turned to the calf as a visible, present

leader that could replace the leader who had disappeared to some unknown place.

The psychological explanation reappears in Aaron's apology to Moses (32:23). In the midrash, the Israelite fears are given a plastic

form. It is said that Satan trapped them with a clever trick: he showed them

the "image of Moses' funeral bier" to make them believe that their

great fear had been realized, that Moses had died (see Midrash Tanhumah, Ki Tisa 19).

Parashat Eikev,

in contrast, offers no explanation for the sin of the calf. God tells Moses that

he must quickly descend from the mountain because his people had been

corrupted (Devarim 9:12),

but nothing in the verses describing the event (9:11-21) says anything about its causes.

The deed simply took place, and it remains unexplained and mysterious. It is

precisely this later version of the story which allows great latitude for

exegetical creativity, since when Scripture remains unclear it is only natural

that a greater opening is made for the midrashic

imagination.

The darshanim

did, in fact, offer unusual and creative readings of the calf-story. Consider,

for example, the following statements by some leading Tannaim

and Amoraim:

And R. Yehoshua

ben Levi said: The Israelites made the calf only in

order to offer a precedent for penitents, as it is said, May they always be

etc. (Devarim 5:26).

And R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimon bar Yohai: David was above such an act and Israel was above

such an act… so why did they perform them? To tell you that if an individual sins,

he is to be told "Go to the individual" [i.e., David who sinned and

repented] and if a community sins, they are to be told "Go to the community"

According to Rashi's

comments on this passage, the Amora R. Yehoshua ben Levi meant to say

that following the reception of the Torah, the Israelites had a strong faith

(as the verse May they always be of such mind, etc. testifies), but God decreed

that they would sin

("it was a royal decree"). Despite its seeming paradoxical, it was

not Satan who incited and mislead the Israelites, as

the Tanhumah would have it, but rather God Himself! God

forced the sin upon His nation in order to teach people that it is possible to

repent even from a sin as grievous as idolatry (and see the MaHaRaSha's

comments, in which he attempts to harmonize the idea of a "royal decree"

with the famous principle, "Everything is in the hands of heaven except

for the fear of heaven"). So it is with R. Shimon bar Yohai's

statement as well, except that he adds the example of David's sin with Batsheva to the example of the golden calf. He suggests two

different models of repentance, one for the individual and the other for the

group. In neither case did sin result from weakness to temptation; rather, God

wanted the people involved to sin in order that their repentance serve as an

example for later generations.

What

calf?

It is of course possible to

relate to the statements of R. Yehoshua ben Levi and R. Shimon bar Yohai

in various ways, but it seems to me that they both point to one important idea:

their complex, supple and un-fixed approach towards the system of commandments,

especially the more serious commandments. Both idolatry and adultery are such

terrible sins that one must die rather than commit them, yet these sages are

prepared to say that God caused His children to transgress them for the sake of

a higher principle, i.e., repentance. An insistence upon the need to confer the

way of life to man here stands up against the deep rejection of terrible deeds

that desecrate God's name, for repentance is first and foremost the choice of

life rather than death, as the prophet said, Is it My desire that a wicked

from his ways and live (Ezekiel 18:23).

This idea, according to which

the commandments are a way of life that is context-dependent, in which emphases

and orders of preference can change according to circumstances, needs, and

intentions, is woven like a golden thread through the aggadic

and halakhic literature. Of course, the most famous

example is that of doubtful danger to life, which sets aside the laws of the

Shabbat. Many other enlightening examples are readily available; R. Meir explained that we are not to be troubled by the

erasing of God's Name, written in holiness, when preparing the bitter waters to

be drunk by the Sotah, since this is done in

order to "bring peace between husband and wife" (Bamidbar Rabbah 9:19). The Sages decreed that "One

should greet his fellow using the Divine name" in order to instill faith

in the hearts of the people, despite the fear of mentioning God's name in vain.

They based their decree upon the verse from Tehillim (119:126): It is time to act for the

Lord, His Torah has been transgressed [alternate reading – Transgress

His Torah!] (Mishnah Berakhot 9:5). Despite that the reading of

the Megillah is only a rabbinical commandment, it was

established that "the Kohanim who are performing

the [Temple] rites, and the Levites at their platforms and the Israelites at

their stations all stop their worship and go to hear the Megillah

(Megillah 3a).

On the other hand, the reading of the Megillah is

itself put aside in order to deal with an unattended corpse, since "The

honor of [human] creatures is great – so much so that it supersedes

prohibitions of the Torah" – al the more so, it supersedes positive

rabbinic commandments (3b).

Resh Lakish's dictum may be

used to summarize the message of these examples: "Sometimes the foundation

of Torah is in its annulment" (Menahot

99a-b).

There is no doubt that one of

the important corollaries of this dynamic outlook is the rejection of a

fetishistic or pagan attitude toward the commandments. Only God is absolute. Human

actions – including the performance of commandments – are only of relative

value, because they are, as stated above, context-dependent. There is no

magical power to the deeds in themselves, no power

that can justify or sanctify them even when they are performed in the wrong

circumstances.

R. Menahem

Mendel of Kotzk alludes to something similar in his explanation

of the verse Take care lest you forget the covenant of the Lord your God… and

the Lord your God has commanded you

(Devarim 4:23).

Rashi offers a plain interpretation of the words which

the Lord your God has commanded you, saying that they refer to "that

which you have been commanded not to do." However, R. Menahem

Mendel explains them in an entirely different way:

Explanation: A statue and a

depiction are mere pictures of the thing but not its real essence. The Torah

warns us to keep from turning that which the Lord your

God has commanded you into a statue or depiction. This tells us

that if man's act of worship lacks the proper intention it becomes a great

abomination in God's eyes, just like a statue or depiction of actual idolatry. He

ends his statement with has commanded you in order to reject depictions

of that which He has commanded, (Emet

V'Emunah, Jeruslem

5632, pg. 16).

According to this profound

interpretation, the words which the Lord your God has commanded you

allude to the commandments in general, and the meaning of the verse is that it

is prohibited to make of the commandments a statue and depiction. The Rebbe from Kotzk knew well that

there is a danger of our turning the commandments into myths, into distorted

imaginary pictures that are not "the real essence." He knew that

there is an even greater danger – that we will observe the commandments in the

spirit of "actual idolatry." He warns against these dangers, warns us

not to develop an idolatrous attitude towards the commandments, not to think of

them as magical acts whose very observance is of absolute, preordained value

without any connection to circumstances and intentions, to significances and

outcomes.

From this stand point there

exists a strong connection between R. Menachem Mendel's

statement and the passage from Avodah Zarah that views the sin of the calf as opening a door for

repentance (despite their differing attitudes towards the severity of

idolatry). Both represent the way of Torah as a spiritual dialectic in which

things do not bear single, particular significances, a dialectic in which the

relation of primary to subordinate changes occasionally. No man can depend upon

the mechanical observance of commandments, hoping that he has remained on the

path of righteousness. To travel on the path of righteousness one must see

beyond external appearances.

Even after someone has chosen

the commandments, they do not relieve him of his duty to choose: he must

constantly take note of his own religious acts in order to guarantee that

simplistic or routine views of orders of

priorities do not block his way to God.

An epilogue for

our day

I should add a timely epilogue to what has been said above. Many

good Jews are willing to sacrifice Israeli democracy for the sake of the idea

of the complete Land of Israel. Those among them who are called "weeds"

do not balk at committing various horrible acts for its sake, from the stoning

of a Palestinian youth to the shooting of Druze citizens on a bus and the

murder of the prime minister. Of course, I am not authorized to determine

whether this idea should be classified as an important commandment, a myth, or

genuine idolatry. However, it certainly seems possible to me to pine for the

days when religious Zionism, on whose knees we grew up, was capable of looking

at reality in a deeper manner and also knew how to offer orders of priorities

and values that were complex and which were not limited, as they are today, to

the worship of land and power.

Dr. Ariel Rathouse

is a literary scholar and translator

More about Miriam,

firstborns, and choseness:

In his response to my comments, Dr. Amos Bardea

mentions that "the plague of the firstborn only involved males and not

females, and the replacement of the firstborn with Levites only involved males."

Different additional halakhic traditions are

presented by Rabbi Elyakim Elinson

in his book, Bein ha'Isha

le'Yotzrah (pg. 132-3) and Dr. Yael

Levin in her article, "Al Makor Hiyuvan shel Nashim

be'Ta'anit Bekhorot"

(Kolekh, issue 92, Rosh Hodesh

Nissan 5765, pp. 3-4).

Pesikta De'Rav Kahana brings a midrash

stating that Pharaoh's daughter Batya was his

firstborn, and Moses' prayer for her saved her from death. That is to say that

only she was saved and, by implication, the other firstborn Egyptian females

died. Basing themselves on this midrash,

some medieval Ashkenazic halakhic

authorities ruled that women are required to observe the fast of the firstborn

on the day before Passover (Responsa of the MaHaRIL, 14 and Sefer Ha'Agudah on Pesahim 91). The Aharonim

offer two explanations why women do not customarily observe the fast: 1)

Because the Torah does not in any way extend the sanctity of the firstborn to

women (Biur HaGRA on Shulhan

Arukh Orah Hayyim 470:1)

and 2) in Egypt, Israelite women did not engage in idolatry – quite to the

contrary, it was due to their merit that Israel was redeemed. The men, for

their part, had engaged in idolatry and really deserved to die on the Passover

night (Ma'aseh Rokeah on Bekhorot 108, 78-9). Also, Rabbi Dr. Aryeh Strikovsky (in his article "Ve'Shinantam…

li'venotekha", in Dov

Rappel, editor Hapeninah, 1989, pp. 235-6 – a

paragraph dropped from shorter reprinted versions of the article) quotes

authorities who allow firstborn females to absolve themselves of the fast by

participating in a siyyum-feast.

Leah Shakdiel,

Yeruham

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom,

please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew

  edition distributed in Israel $700

• English

  edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor

of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be

made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear

in the English email.

In Israel, checks made out

to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B.

4433, Jerusalem 91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for

local donations.

US and British tax exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588,

Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford

Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL

FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations

should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison

Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions should be

marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat

Shalom project.

About us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom is a movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel.

It is committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice,

concepts which have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom shares a deep attachment to the land of Israel and it no less views

peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the

religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It

maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just

society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an

imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom's programs include both educational and

protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences and weekend

programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as joint

seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities focus on

issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and responses to issues

of particular religious relevance.

5,000 copies of a 4 page peace

oriented commentary on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz

VeShalom/Netivot Shalom and they are distributed to

over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom's educational forums draw people of different

backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to deepen their Jewish

knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint on the subjects of

peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot

Shalom fills an ideological vacuum in Israel's society. Committed both to

Jewish tradition and observance, and to the furthering of peace and

coexistence, the movement is in a unique position to engage in dialogue with

the secular left and the religious right, with Israeli Arabs and with

Palestinians.