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 of such mind, to revere Me... forever, 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" [i.e., Israel, which sinned and repented]. (Avodah Zarah 4b-5a)

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 may be learned from this unusual interpretation of the affair of the golden 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 person shall die? - says the Lord God. It is rather that he shall turn back 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 you make a statue or depiction of anything regarding which 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.