Our parasha tells the tragic story of the golden calf. The episode begins with an honest mistake: וירא הכם כי בשש משה לרדת מן ההר (“And the people [‘am] saw that Moshe was late coming down from the mountain....”; XXXII, 1). As Rashi explains it, when Moshe ascended the mountain, he announced that he would return at the end of forty days. The ‘am were left with the erroneous impression that the day of his ascent was included in the forty.
What difference did one day make? Remember that Moshe had not taken forty days’ worth of rations with him. Almost from the moment Moshe had returned to Egypt from Midyan, the ‘am had been thrust into a bewildering, even frightening world in which supernatural events alter-nated with the more familiar, “natural” ones. In this strange, new world, what Moshe had said would happen, had happened. On this basis, the ‘am had suspending disbelief, accepting that a man just might survive forty days without food and water on a hilltop. Nonetheless, the emotional strain must have been appalling.
As what they believed to be the fortieth day drew to a close with no sign of Moshe, something snapped in them: ויקהלו העם על אהרן ויאמרו אליי קום עשה לנו אלהים אשר ילכו לפנינו כי זה משה האיש אשר העלנו מארץ מצרעם לא ידענו מה הי' לו (“And the ‘am gathered about Aharon and said to him, 'Get up, make us gods which will go before us, for this Moshe, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we don’t know what has become of him'”; ibid.).
The sentence reveals a vast gulf between the perceptions of the ‘am and reality: A mere forty days before, they had all heard: אנכי ד' אלקיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית כבדים (“I am Ha-Shem your G-d; I brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves”; XX, 2). Yet here we have “Moshe, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt”! They were not asking Aharon to assume the mantle of leadership in Moshe’s absence; rather, they were seeking replacement of the man whom they had deified, “gods” to mediate with the incomprehensible forces around them.
Faced with such an unreasoningly panic-stricken crowd, Aharon tried to play for time, instructing them to bring him their wives’ and children’s golden jewelry. If anything, he underestimated the depth of their hysteria and the speed with whim they would work. In no time, he was presented with a pile of gold rings and urged to get on with it.
What was Aharon to do? Before we judge him too harshly, remember that Moshe was bringing the Torah with him. The concept of ייהרג ואל יעבור, that one should allow himself to be killed before violating some cardinal tenet of the Torah, had not yet been articulated. So he fought for time; surely Moshe would arrive; surely the ‘am would come to their senses.
The form of the golden calf emerged from the melting pot, ויאמרו אלה אלהיך ישראל אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים (“And they said, These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt”; v. v. 4). Here at last we learn the identity of this ‘am; as Rashi deduces, לא נאמר "אלה אלהינו", מכאן שערב רב שעלו ממצרים הם שנקהלו על אהרן והם שעשאוהו ואחר כך הטעו את ישראל אחריו (“‘These are our gods’ was not said; from here, [we learn] that it was the ‘erev rav, the ‘mixed multitude’ who had come up from Egypt, who had congregated around Aharon, who had made [the calf], and who afterward caused Israel to err after it”).
Aharon had only cast the gold into the pot and was working it with a tool to keep its state uniform. However, says Rashi, כיון שהשליכו לאור בכור באו מכשפי כרב רב שעלו עמהם ממצרים ועשאוהו בכשפים (“Once he had cast it into the fire in the furnace, the sorcerers of the ‘erev rav who had come up from Egypt with them, and made [the calf] with spells”).
Aharon made one final, last ditch effort to reach them: ויקרא אהרן ויאמר חג לד' מחר (“And Aharon called out and said, ‘A holiday for Ha-Shem [will be] tomorrow”; v. 5), ולא היום, says Rashi, שמא יבא משה קודם שיעבדוהו (“And not today; perhaps Moshe would come before they worshipped it”).
But it was too late; the panic spread and metastasized.
B.
The evident fact, then, that the term ‘am is being used in our parasha to refer to two different and disparate groups of people, to the ‘erev rav, on the one hand, and to the simplest members of Israel, most susceptible and vulnerable to external influences, on the other, serves to clarify an otherwise bewildering alternation of terms.
For instance, when G-d informs Moshe of what has happened at the foot of the mountain, He speaks of עמך אשר העלית מארץ מצרים (“your ‘am whom you brought up from the land of Egypt”; v. 9), and Rashi notes: "העם" לא נאמר אלא "עמך" ערבס רב שקבלת מעצמך וגיירתם ולא נמלכת בי ואמרת טוב שידבקו גרים בשכינה הם שחתו והשחיתו (“ ‘The ‘am is not said, but ‘your ‘am, the ‘erev rav whom you accepted by yourself and converted, and did not consult Me, and said, It is good that converts should cling to the Divine Presence; they have been corrupted and caused corruption”). Therefore, סרו מהר מן הדרך אשר צויתים, “they, ‘am Yisra’él have swiftly departed from the way which I have commanded them”; v. 10). It was the corrupting influence of the mass-converted ‘erev rav, who in their unreasoning panic at Moshe’s apparent failure to show up had reverted to their idolatrous instincts, who had caused the damage.
It must be made clear that Moshe’s error in judgment concerning the ‘erev rav does not betoken that gérim, converts, are unwelcome in Israel. G-d forbid, the opposite is true, as the story of Yithro amply illustrates; but the fact is that there were so many of them, and the bnei Yisra’él themselves so recently redeemed from bondage to Egypt, spiritual as well as physical, and not yet subject to the discipline of Torah, which made the difference.
It was the lack of that anchoring discipline, since the Torah had not yet arrived with Moshe from the top of the mountain, which made possible the spread of the panic, and the spiritual rot, from the ‘erev rav.
C.
When G-d orders Moshe down from the mountain, He says, ועתה הניחה לי ויחר אפי בהם ואכלם ואעשה אתך לגוי גדול (“And now, leave Me and My wrath will rage against them, and I shall obliterate them and make you into a great nation”; v. 10). The Divine intent was to pass summary judgment on all those who had so swiftly “departed from the way which I had commanded them.”
So Moshe pleads for Israel: למה ד' יחרה אפך בעמך אשר הותאת מארץ ממצרים בכח גדול וביד חזקה: למה יאמרו מצרים לאמר ברעה היציאם להרג אתם בהרים ולכלתם מעל פני האדמה וגו' זכר לאברהם ליצחק ולישראל עבדיך וגו' (“Why, Ha-Shem, should Your wrath rage against Your ‘am, which You brought up from the land of Egypt with great power and a strong hand. Why should Egypt say, Malevolently did He bring them out, to kill [la-harog] them in the mountains and to obliterate them from the face of the earth.... Remember Avraham, Yitzchaq and Yisra’el Your servants....”; v. 14). Note: G-d’s wrath should not rage against His ‘am, just because Moshe may have misjudged the ‘erev rav.
Rashi follows the midrash in explaining Moshe’s invocation of the Patriarchs: אם לשריפה הם זכור לאברהם שמסר עצמו להשרף עליך באור כסדים, אם להריגה זכור ליצחק שפשט צוארו לעקידה, אם לגלות זכור ליעקב שגלה לחרן וגו' (“If [Israel are liable for sentence of] burning [sreifa], remember Avraham who gave himself over to be burnt because of You at Ur Kasdim; if [they are liable] for death by the sword [hariga], remember Yitzchaq, who bared his neck at the ‘aqeida; if [they are liable] for exile, remember Ya‘aqov, who was exiled to Charan....”).
In support of Rashi’s remarks, we note that sreifa and hariga (more commonly hereg) are two of the four death sentences authorized in the Torah (עיי' סנהדרין כ"א: במשנה), and that exile can also result from judicial action, e.g. in a case of negligent manslaughter, and that the ‘aqeida, when Yitzchaq was nearly slaughtered by a sword, took place on a mountain-top; hence Moshe’s subtle reference to hereg “in the mountains.” The Talmud advises us that klaya, “obliteration”, is best done through burning (עיי' פסחים כ"א:). The trial of Avraham at Nimrod’s hands, when he was cast into a kiln at Ur Kasdim, is recorded in Talmudic sources (עיי למשל עירובין ע"ג.), and in a comment on Genesis XI, 28, Rashi notes that Ur Kasdim was located in a biq‘a, a low-lying alluvial plain; hence the reference to “obliteration from the face of the earth.” Exile, of course, is a counterpoint to the Divine promises made to the Patriarchs that the Holy Land would belong to their heirs.
D.
The Maharal mi-Prag, in the Gur Aryeh, also takes note of this, and asks why Moshe did not mention the other two death sentences, sqila (“stoning”) and cheneq (“strangulation”). He answers that sreifa and hereg are the most likely sentences to originate in the Béyth Din shel Ma‘la, citing in evidence the deaths of Nadav and Avihu by heavenly fire (Leviticus X, 2); the deaths by Divine fire of the unwarranted complainers in the desert (Numbers XI, 1); and the destruction of Sdom and ‘Amora by fire and brimstone (Genesis XIX, 24). As for the rest: וכן הרג הוא גם כן מן השמים להביא עליהם מלחמות להיותם נאספים בחרב וכל הגלות (“And similarly, hereg is from heaven, causing wars to bring them together with swords, and similarly exile....”).
Moshe’s allusions to technical issues in the Torah, and specifically those most likely to result from a judgment in the Béyth Din shel Ma‘la, suggests that his plea was not only, or even prim-arily, a petition for clemency; it was. rather, a plea that G-d allow His Torah to function in this world as He intended it should, that now that it had been granted to Israel through their first Av Béyth Din, Moshe, that he be allowed to get on with it and administer it in this world. It was, as the Torah famously assures us, no longer in heaven (cf. Deuteronomy XXX, 12). This, after all, had been the Divine intent from the very beginning, when He made Creation conditional on Israel’s acceptance of the Torah (עיי' עבודה זרה ג: בין השאר).
וינחם ד' על הרעה אשר דבר לעשות לעמו (“And Ha-Shem was comforted [the literal meaning of the main verb] concerning the evil which He said He would do to His ‘am”; v. 14). G-d accepted Moshe’s argument, and recused Himself, to let Moshe handle the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment