Commentary for Exodus 32:38

כי בשש משה [AND WHEN THE PEOPLE SAW] THAT MOSES DELAYED LONG — Understand (בשש as the Targum does, as an expression denoting “lateness”.. Similar are: (Judges 5:28) “[Why is] his chariot so long (בשש) [in coming]?”; (Judges 3:25) “And they waited until it was late (עד בוש)”. For when Moses ascended the mountain he said to them (to the Israelites): at the end of a period of forty days (i. e. on the fortieth day) I shall return during the first six hours of the day (before noon). They thought that the day on which he ascended the mountain (the seventh of Sivan) was to be included in this number (thus — Sivan having 30 days — he was expected back before noon on the sixteenth of Tammuz). In fact, however, he had said to them “after forty days” meaning complete days — forty days, each day together with its night that precedes it — (as is the customary Jewish reckoning; cf. Genesis 1:5: ויהי ערב ויהי בקר). Now, as regards the day of this ascent, its night was not part of it that it can be reckoned as a complete day, for he ascended on the seventh of Sivan early in the morning (cf. Rashi on Exodus 19:3); it follows therefore that the fortieth day really fell on the seventeenth of Tammuz and not as the people had believed on the sixteenth. On the sixteenth of Tammuz Satan came and threw the world into confusion, giving it the appearance of darkness, gloom and disorder that people should say: “Surely Moses is dead, and that is why confusion has come into the world!” He said to them, “Yes, Moses is dead, for six hours (noon) has already come (בשש = ‎בא שש) and he has not returned etc.” — as is related in Treatise Shabbat 89a (cf. Rashi and Tosafot there and Tosafot on Bava Kamma 82a ד"ה כדי). One cannot, however, say that they erred only on account of it being a cloudy day, their mistake consisting in not being able to distinguish between forenoon and afternoon, and that thus they were correct in their supposition that he was to return on the sixteenth of Tammuz; for this assumes that he really returned on the day when they made the calf, but that they were under the impression that noon was past — for, as a matter of fact, Moses did not come down until the following day (the day after they had made the calf), for it is said (v. 6) “And they rose up early in the morrow, and brought up burnt offerings”— and only after wards the Lord said to Moses (v. 7) “Go, go down; for thy people … have corrupted themselves”.

MAKE US A GOD WHO ‘YEILCHU’ (SHALL GO — in the plural) BEFORE US. “They wished to have many gods. FOR THIS MOSES, THE MAN THAT BROUGHT US UP OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT, and used to show us the way we were to go, WE KNOW NOT WHAT IT BECOME OF HIM. Now we need many gods which shall go before us.” This is Rashi’s language.
But his language does not fit [the verse, since Scripture indicates only that they wanted a leader in place of Moses, but not gods]. Rather, this verse is the key to understand the incident of the golden calf, and the thought of those who made it. For it is known that the Israelites did not think that Moses was a god, and that he did for them the signs and wonders through his own power. So what sense is there in their saying, “since Moses is gone from us, we will make ourselves gods?” Moreover, they clearly said, make us, ‘elohim’ who shall go before us — and not a deity who should give them life in this world or in the World to Come. Instead, they wanted another Moses, saying: “Moses, the man who showed us the way from Egypt until now,²⁵⁶Numbers 14:19. being in charge of the journeyings at the commandment of the Eternal by the hand of Moses,²⁵⁷Ibid., 9:23. he is now lost to us; let us make ourselves another Moses who will show us the way at the commandment of the Eternal by his hand.” This is the reason for their mentioning, Moses, the man that brought us up, rather than saying “the G-d who brought them up,” for they needed a man of G-d.²⁵⁸Deuteronomy 33:1. You can also understand this matter from Aaron’s answer to Moses our Teacher, when he asked him, What did this people do unto thee, that thou hast brought a great sin upon them,²⁵⁹Further, Verse 21. to which Aaron replied, And they said unto me: Make us a god etc. And I said unto them: Whosoever hath any gold, let him break it off; so they gave it to me; and I cast it into the fire.²⁶⁰Ibid., Verses 23-24. Now Aaron was apologizing to Moses and saying to him, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot,²⁶¹Ibid., Verse 22. and yet here he was speaking as if adding rebellion unto his sin,²⁶²Job 34:37. saying that they asked of him an idol and he made it for them with his hands! So why should Moses’ anger not burn against him! What greater sin than this is there?
But the matter is as I have stated, that they did not want the calf to be for them in place of a god who killeth and maketh alive,²⁶³I Samuel 2:6. whom they would take upon themselves to serve as a deity; instead, they wanted to have someone in place of Moses to show them the way. And this was the apology of Aaron. He argued that “they merely told me that I should make them elohim who would go before them in your place, my lord, because they did not know what had happened to you and whether you would return or not. Therefore they needed someone who would show them the way as long as you were not with them, and if perchance you would return they would leave him and follow you as before.” And so indeed it happened, for as soon as the people saw Moses, they immediately left the calf and rejected it, and they allowed him to burn it and scatter its powder upon the water,²⁶⁴Further, Verse 20. and no one quarrelled with him at all. Similarly you will note that he did not rebuke the people nor say anything to them, and yet when he came into the camp and he saw the calf and the dancing,²⁶⁵Verse 19. they immediately fled from before him; and he took the calf and burnt it [and scattered its powder upon the water] and made them drink of it, and yet they did not protest at all. But if the calf were to them in place of a god, it is surely not normal that a person should let his king and god be burnt in fire. Lo, if one burn their abominations before their eyes, would they not stone him?²⁶⁶See above, 8:22. Now it was Aaron who brought forth this shape, for they did not tell him what he should make, whether a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat,²⁶⁷Leviticus 22:27. or other forms. It is this which is the intention of the saying of the Sages who said,²⁶⁸Sanhedrin 63a. “The verse teaches us that they wished to have many gods,” For they did not know what to choose and which one would be best for them.
Now Aaron’s intention was as follows. Because Israel was in a wilderness, a desolate wasteland, and destruction and everlasting desolation come from the north, as it is written, Out of the north the evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land,²⁶⁹Jeremiah 1:14. the reference being not merely to the king of Babylon, as can be seen clearly from Scripture,²⁷⁰Ibid., Verse 15: For, lo, I will call all the families of the kingdoms of the north etc. but rather [the intent of the verse is to state] that the attribute of justice comes to the world from the left,²⁷¹As one faces the east, his left hand is to the north. to requite upon all the inhabitants of the land according to their evil; and since in the account of the Divine Chariot it is said, and the four of them had the face of an ox on the left side²⁷²Ezekiel 1:10. — therefore Aaron thought that the destroyer [the ox, which was to the left, i.e. the north] points to the place of destruction where its great power is centered, and when worshipping G-d through there the spirit will be poured from on high,²⁷³Isaiah 32:15. just as it was put upon Moses. It is for this reason that Aaron said, Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Eternal,²⁷⁴Verse 5. meaning that the services and the sacrifices would be to the Proper Name of G-d in order to obtain His favor upon the power [symbolized by] this image,²⁷⁵I.e., “the ox” which is on the left side of the Divine Chariot, and denotes the attribute of justice. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 507. for, it being before them, they would direct their thoughts towards the purport thereof [and thus would be able to mitigate the destructive forces of the wilderness].
It is our Rabbis who have taught us this interpretation, and it is they who have revealed the secret thereof. Thus they have said:²⁷⁶Ramban is quoting here a composite of Midrashim in Shemoth Rabbah — 3:2, 42:5, 43:8. “‘Ra’oh ra’ithi’ (I have surely seen) the affliction of My people.²⁷⁷Exodus 3:7. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses: ‘Moses, you see them in one appearance, and I see them in two appearances.²⁷⁸Hence the double expression: Ra’oh ra’ithi, translated “I have surely seen.” You see them coming to Sinai and accepting My Torah, and I see them contemplating Me and how I came forth in My ‘travelling coach’ to give them the Torah, as it is said, The chariots of G-d are myriads, even thousands upon thousands,²⁷⁹Psalms 68:18. This whole psalm is interpreted in Midrash Tehilim with reference to the Revelation on Sinai. and they will unhitch one of My tatromulin,²⁸⁰This is a Greek word [as Ramban will explain further on] which denotes “four mules.” Here it is used in reference to the four chayoth (living creatures) in the Divine Chariot as described by Ezekiel (Chapter 1), which, as stated in Psalms quoted above, were also seen at the Revelation on Sinai. The sense here is thus that “they will unhitch one of the four chayoth (creatures) in My Chariot, and worship it.” of which it is written, and the face of an ox on the left side,²⁷²Ezekiel 1:10. and bring Me to anger with it.” Tatromulin means “four mules,” for tetra in Greek means “four,” just as the Rabbis have said,²⁸¹Nazir 8b. [“If a person vowed, ‘I will be a Nazir] tetragon,’ he becomes [a Nazir for a period of] four times;” mulin means “mules,” just as in the expression, “The mula’oth (mules) of Rabbi’s house²⁸²Shabbath 52a. [used to go out with their bits on the Sabbath].” The word tatromulin is thus used as a symbol of the four chayoth (living creatures) who carried the Divine Chariot.²⁸³Ezekiel 1:5. And in Vayikra Rabbah [10:3] [we find the Midrash stating] that Aaron said, “Since I am building the altar, I will build it to the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said, and Aaron made a proclamation, and said, ‘Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Eternal.’²⁷⁴Verse 5. It is not written here, ‘Tomorrow shall be a feast to the calf,’ but to the Eternal.”
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that elohim in this case [Arise, make us ‘elohim’] means that Aaron should make them “something visible and corporeal on which the glory would rest. And if you will pay attention to the first journey,²⁸⁴Above, 14:19. And the angel of G-d, who went before the camp of Israel etc. (Bachya). you will understand this.” But this does not appear to me to be correct, since the calf was not made according to the manner of those proficient in the art of the constellations, so that the glory or some spiritual influence should dwell upon it; rather, the figure was made so that when the people would worship it they would direct their thoughts to the purport thereof [as explained above]. Now I have already explained²⁸⁵Above, 13:21. the secret of the first journey, and far it be from Aaron that he should want to be likened to him. Instead, his desire was merely to take of [the tatromulin, as explained above] so that their journeys [in the wilderness] should be on the side of that attribute. The student learned [in the mysteries of the Cabala] will understand.

וירא העם כי בשש משה, The people saw that Moses delayed, etc. The words: "the people 'saw,' refer to their mental eye, of course. Alternatively, we may accept a statement in Shabbat 89 that Satan came and showed them the image of darkness and the picture of Moses lying on a bier, dead. This is why the Torah used the expression וירא העם i.e. that there were circumstances which justified the people thinking Moses had indeed died. Their thinking was reinforced by the arrival of the sixth hour, ב־שש, the hour at which Moses had told them he would return. Had Moses not told them that he would return at noon i.e. "at six hours," no one would have heeded the picture drawn by Satan the swindler.

אשר ילכו לפנינו, similar to teraphim which were made by means of witchcraft, their purpose being that they should tell their believers how to act in order to obtain their needs.

קום עשה לנו אלוהים, ”rise up and make for us gods, etc.” Nachmanides writes that there is no question that the Israelites did not demand or expect Aaron to make idolatrous images for them, as the people most certainly believed in a living G’d Who had taken them out of Egypt, and Who had performed all the miracles for them which the Torah has recorded. It is clear that the Israelites did not for a moment believe that Moses had performed all these miracles on his own. This is why, when referring to Moses, they described him as someone who had led them, “walked in front of us, etc.” Seeing that apparently Moses would not return from the Mountain, they asked for a substitute who, with the guidance of G’d, would henceforth be their guide through the desert still to be traversed before they would come to the land of Canaan. They did not refer to a power which would enable man to live in the here and now as well as in the world of the future. They were fully aware that all the journeys thus far had been על פי ה' ביד משה, ”at the command of Hashem transmitted by Moses.” All they expected of the substitute was that ילכו לפנינו “walk in front of us.” When they referred to Moses having העלנו מארץ מצרים, “raised us up from the land of Egypt,” this is not to be confused with אשר הוצאתנו מארץ מצרים, “who has taken us out of Egypt,” i.e. “who redeemed us from bondage.” It is quite clear from what Aaron answered Moses who had accused him of making a golden image for them, that he had never for a moment understood the people as reverting to idolatry. Otherwise, instead of repeating what the people had said to him as proof of his innocence he would have had to either misquote them or to confess his guilt. Aaron’s reply to Moses’ accusation is most certainly not an apology! On the contrary, if he had been guilty, he would have added more guilt upon himself by his very words. (verses 22-24) If Moses were to return unexpectedly, the people were most certainly prepared to accept his continued leadership, as they proved when no one opposed either Moses’ burning of the golden calf, or the measures he introduced to punish the few people who actually did dance around the calf and revered it as a deity. If the people, i.e. the multitude, had really believed that this calf possessed any divine powers, they most certainly would have protested Moses destroying their deity. It is true that it was Aaron who had produced this calf, not because the people had demanded this particular image, or any other image for that matter. This is what the sages had in mind when they interpreted the people’s wishes as their wanting multiple images, as they had no idea of what to choose. Aaron’s intention was that seeing the people were at Mount Chorev, in a desolate desert, and waste and destruction have traditionally been perceived as originating in the north, (compare Jeremiah 1,14) and Jeremiah did not only refer to the King of Babylonia who threatened the kingdom of Yehudah from the north, something that is clear to all those who read that chapter, Aaron assumed that the spiritually negative forces are strongest in the north, and that is why they are perceived as attacking from the north. He meant to counter this by specifically addressing the G’d of Israel in a festivity aimed in a northerly direction to counter such forces and to harness the spiritually positive forces, as a counterweight, especially seeing that the people would celebrate a festivity in honour of Hashem. He had hoped, by means of the offerings, to transfer the power associated in people’s minds with the astrological symbol ox to the Master of all oxen, i.e. Hashem, and to set in motion celestial forces against this type of idolatry.

Six hours have already come. . . I.e., the word בשש connotes באו שש (six have come).

Kap. 32. V. 1. Während in der Höhe die Gesetzoffenbarung durch Anordnung des Gesetzesheiligtums und Übergabe des Gesetzeszeugnisses zu demjenigen Abschluss gebracht wurde, durch welchen das Gesetz nunmehr als die Seele der Nation in ihrer Mitte Stätte gewinnen sollte, um von dort aus die Nation im ganzen und einzelnen mit dem Geiste ihres Gott heiligen Berufes zu durchdringen, und mit dessen Verwirklichung die in der Verheißung, ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם, zugesicherte Gottesgegenwart im Volke zu gewinnen — begab sich auf der Erde ein Vorgang, der das, was bei der Vorbereitung zum Empfang des Gesetzes לך אל העם וקדשתם וגו׳, והגבלת את העם וגו׳, גם הכהנים וגו׳ יתקדשו (Kap. 19, 10 u. 12, 22), mit dem ernstesten Ernst symbolisch zum Bewusstsein gebracht war, wir meinen den Abstand der zeitlichen Wirklichkeit des Volkes von der idealen Höhe des Gesetzes, das es empfangen sollte, mit all den fundamentalen Konsequenzen, die sich an dieses Faktum knüpfen und die wir oben (zu 19, 10 f.) angedeutet, in dem noch ernsteren Ernst der konkreten, historischen Wirklichkeit für alle Zeiten dokumentiert. Das Volk, das eine vierzigtägige Abwesenheit seines Mosche nicht verwinden konnte, das unter den noch flammenden Blitzen, welche ihm das: לא תעשה לך פסל mit fundamentaler Schärfe entgegengeleuchtet, sich das "goldene Kalb" machen konnte, das Volk befand sich noch in solchem Abstand von den Wahrheiten und Anforderungen dieses Gesetzes, dass dieses unmöglich als "zeitgemäßes" Produkt, gleich allen anderen Gesetzen und Religionen, aus seinem Schoße, aus dem Schoße der Zeit hervorgegangen sein konnte. Gleichzeitig erscheint in eben diesem Vorgange das Gesetz, wie absolut nach seinem göttlichen Ursprunge, so auch absolut in seiner unabweisbar ihre Verwirklichung erzielenden Bestimmung, sich Stätte und Geltung auf Erden zu erobern. In dem Momente seines ersten Einzuges und seiner ersten Stättegewinnung auf Erden, durch die Unwürdigkeit des zu seiner ersten Aufnahme bereitgestellten Volkes, in die Alternative gesetzt, sich oder die ganze damalige Zeitgenossenschaft des ihm bestimmten Volkes preiszugeben, steht die Entscheidung keinen Augenblick an, die ganze damalige Generation preiszugeben und für die Aufnahme dieses Gesetzes eine neue Volksgeneration zu schaffen, und — zu warten! Das: אכלם ואעשה אותך לגוי גדול, das zum Empfang des Gesetzes bereitgestellte Volk zu vernichten, Mosche aber und seinem Gesetze eine andere Zukunft zu sichern, spricht von vornherein die von Gott verbriefte und getragene, völlig absolute. Bestimmung dieses Gesetzes aus. Nie und nimmer hat dieses Gesetz sich irgend einer Zeit zu akkomodieren, sondern jede Zeit hat nur so viel Berechtigung auf Gegenwart und Zukunft, als sie sich diesem Gesetze gemäß gestaltet. Das Gesetz ist das absolute Höheziel für die jüdische Nation, deren damalige Generation noch in unendlicher Ferne von diesem Ziele stand. Und wenn gleichwohl dieses Gesetz mit seinen unveränderten idealen Anforderungen dennoch in die damalige Gegenwart dieses Volkes einzog, so kann es offenbar nicht die Bestimmung haben, sich von dieser Nation immer "zeitgemäß", d. h. "ihr gemäß" umwandeln zu lassen, sondern: die Nation, seine Träger so lange Wandlungen durchmachen zu lassen, bis sie sich zur geistigen und sittlichen Höhe dieses Gesetzes emporgearbeitet. Kurz, mit diesem Ereignis erhielt dieses Gesetz, das als Herrscher in das Volk einziehen sollte, sofort mit seinem Einzuge als nächste Aufgabe: seine göttliche Kraft erst in Erziehung dieses Volkes für diese Huldigung zu bewähren und sein Heiligtum in erster Linie als eine Stätte der כפרה, das ist ja eben, als eine Stätte nie ermüdender Erziehung für reinere, bessere Zukunft weihen zu lassen. —

עשה לנו אלוהים, “make a new Judge for us!” The people saying this to Aaron did not intend for that symbol to be an idol, but to be a supreme judge in lieu of Moses, who they thought had died on the Mountain. This is quite clear from how they justified their request when they said: כי לא כי זה האיש משה אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים לא ידענו מה היה לו, “for we do not know what has happened to the man Moses, who has brought us out of Egypt.” As far as the verse in Psalms 106,20 is concerned, i.e. וימירו את כבודם בתבנית שור אכל עשב, “they exchanged their glory for the image of a bull that feeds on grass,” that verse refers to Moses as their glory, not to G–d. They had deified Moses as he had performed so many miracles for them. When some of them prostrated themselves before that image (Exodus 32,8) this also referred to the golden calf as a substitute for Moses, not for G–d. It is not to be understood as idol worship, [although onlookers might have thought so. Ed.]

אשר ילכו לפנינו [MAKE US GODS] WHICH SHALL GO BEFORE US — They wished to have many gods (the words אלהים is to be taken as plural since the verb ילכו is plural; cf. Sanhedrin 63a).

That will lead us. They did not deny God’s existence; they merely wanted a visible image in addition. That is why Aharon did not consider it necessary to risk his life by opposing them. For since the mixed multitude had the status of B’nei Noach rather than of Jews it was not forbidden for them to associate other powers with God.

And taught us the way. . . Rashi is answering the question: First it is written עשה לנו אלהים אשר ילכו לפנינו . Accordingly, it should then say כי זה משה האיש שהלך . This way it would convey: “Moshe, the man who once went before us, has now died. Therefore, make us gods who will go before us.” Why is it written אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים ? Therefore Rashi explains that אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים is not to be understood literally; rather it means that Moshe taught us the way to go.

ויקהל העם על אהרון. The people gathered around Aaron. The expression על אהרון needs further analysis. If it had been the people's intention merely to speak to Aaron, the Torah should have written: ויקהל העם ויאמרו אל אהרון, "the people gathered and spoke to Aaron." Perhaps the meaning here is that the people gathered in order to kill Aaron, that they said to him: "get up and make for us a deity or we will kill you." Our sages in Sanhedrin 7 have stated that the people had already killed Chur, and this would reinforce our assumption that the people gathered against Aaron. The reason that the text does not refer explicitly to the killing of Chur is so that this murder should not remain as a permanent memory for all future generations. G'd is protective of the good reputation of the Jewish people, and the only reason He recorded the details of the sin of the golden calf is so that if a community would commit a collective sin in the future they would be encouraged to repent using the fact that G'd forgave the Jewish people the sin of the golden calf as proof that their repentance too would be accepted by Him (compare Avodah Zarah 5). Perhaps the Torah did indeed allude to the killing of Chur in Exodus 24,14 where Chur together with Aaron is reported as having been left in charge of the Jewish people when Moses ascended the Mountain. The fact that Chur's name is not mentioned at this point begs the question of "what has happened to him?" Clearly he had been murdered. This matter is alluded to more forcefully in Jeremiah 2,34: גם בכנפיך נמצאו דם נפשות, אביונים נקיים, "also on your garments is found the life-blood of the innocent poor, etc." as pointed out in Vayikra Rabbah 10,3. According to that Midrash, the people killed Chur because he was unwilling to make an idol for them. The people may have interpreted Chur's unwillingness to comply with their request to make a substitute for Moses as proof that he himself had aspirations to take the place of Moses, i.e. to be the people's intermediary between them and G'd. It is quite possible that Jeremiah 2,35 supports the view that the people who killed Chur considered him guilty of the sin of wanting to take the place of Moses, something that made him guilty of a capital offence in their view. They actually considered a human being as an intermediary between them and G'd as a geater threat to monotheism than the appointment of a symbol such as a golden calf which lacked any faculties and any will of its own.

Bevor das Gesetzesheiligtum zu errichten war, sollten erst Volk und Priester ihrer .כפרה-Bedürftigkeit inne werden

ויקהל העם, “the people assembled;” whenever the expression ויקהל appears and is followed by the word: על, it means: “against,” i.e. it is the Torah’s way of condemning such an assembly. On the other hand, if the word following the word ויקהל, either in the singular or the plural mode is followed by the word אל, this signifies a positive development. Compare Kings I 8,2 where the people assembled around King Solomon to watch the Holy Ark being transported to the newly erected Temple. ויאמרו אליו קום עשה לנו אלוהים, “they said to him (Aaron) arise and make a visual image of G-d!” According to the plain meaning of the text there can be no question that Aaron had no intention to allow the people to revert to idolatry, G-d forbid, or somehow to replace Hashem or His prophet. Moses, while on earth, had frequently been referred to as elohim, either when compared to the creature issuing commands in the name of Hashem to Pharaoh, or as communicating G-d’s law to the people. If Aaron had intended to become the replacement of his brother Moses, Moses would have had to execute him as a false prophet! Not only that, but how could that “false” prophet subsequently have been appointed as the foremost instrument of securing Israel’s atonement?! Moreover, how could he have become the first priest and all his male offspring became the priests of the whole people? Not only that; we do not even find that at מי מריבה, the waters of strife, where Moses is punished for having struck the rock and denied entry to the Holy Land as a result, that the Torah had a single word of criticism of Aaron, although he too did not enter the Holy Land? There is not a single sage that ever suggested that G-d would appoint as a prophet someone who would eventually revert to idolatry. There can therefore be no question that what the people demanded of Aaron was not a return to idolatry. The problem had been that Moses had not announced by what date he would return from the Mountain. The reason that he did not do so was simply that he himself had not known when he would return. G-d had told him that He would give him the Tablets, but had not said when. When the people noticed that Moses took an inordinately long time, far longer than a normal person can go without food or drink, they worried that he might have died, in fact they were convinced that he had. They therefore requested from Aaron that he make for them a replacement whose function would be similar to what had been Moses’ function vis a vis Pharaoh, i.e. elohim. The Torah even spelled out what the assembled people had in mind, i.e. כי זה משה האיש אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים לא ידענו מה היה לו, “for this man Moses, who took us out of Egypt, we do not know what has happened to him.” In other words: they wanted to replace the Moses the man, not the deity, or semideity. When David in Psalms 106,20 is quoted as having referred to that episode with the words: וימירו את כבודם בתבנית שור אוכל עשב, “they traded their glory for the image of a bull that feeds on grass,” the people had referred to Moses, not to G-d. G-d had performed so many miracles which had been orchestrated by Moses, that they had been quite prepared to prostrate themselves before such a leader. An alternate interpretation: the people asked for a creature that Hashem would use to imbue with His glory, [similar to how He spoke from between the cherubs on the lid of the Holy Ark, the cherubs and their faces of innocent children not being so much different from the golden calf, the principal difference being that no one ever got to see them. Ed.]

כי זה משה האיש FOR AS FOR THIS MOSES — This Moses implies that Satan showed them something that looked like Moses being carried on a bier in the air high above in the skies (cf. Shabbat 89a).

אשר ילכו לפנינו, "who shall walk before us, etc." The word לפנינו was chosen very carefully. They reasoned as follows: Seeing that G'd Himself who has taken us out of Egypt is invisible and dwells in the Celestial Regions, they were afraid that if they would encounter some evil force in the desert without some visible symbol which reassured them that G'd did indeed watch over them they might lose faith. They wished to construct some symbol of a celestial force which would remind them of G'd in Heaven. The people who initiated the golden calf did not deny for a single moment either the primacy of G'd or the fact that He had made heaven and earth. They merely wanted a go-between them and G'd [similar to when all the people had asked Moses to be their go-between during the revelation at Mount Sinai. Ed.] They may well have thought that the prohibition in the second commandment to having an intermediary between man and G'd was valid only while there was a Moses who was the ideal go-between. This is why they emphasised כי זה האיש משה, "for this man Moses, etc." Possibly, they became victims of a serious sin when they described Moses as the Power which had taken them out of Egypt, i.e. אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים. They meant to say that even when they came out of Egypt G'd had employed a go-between and that this proved that there was nothing inherently wrong in having a go-between themselves and G'd. The fact that they referred to the go-between as אלהים, a deity, may be understood in the same sense as when G'd had told Moses in Exodus 7,1: "here I have made you אלהים (i.e. in G'd's stead) for Pharaoh. Obviously, the people committed a grave error as I have explained on Exodus 20,4.

Wir wagen zu sagen: "sollten". Denn die Bedeutsamkeit dieses ganzen Ereignisses ist, nach den im Obigen angedeuteten allgemeinen und noch weiter sich unserer Betrachtung darstellenden besonderen Momenten, für den objektiven Charakter des Gesetzes, für die Bedeutung des Heiligtums desselben, für die Beziehungen des Volkes zu beiden von solcher Größe, dass wir wohl glauben annehmen zu dürfen, es habe diese ganze vierzigtägige Entfernung Mosche' eine Prüfung für das Volk sein sollen, damit daraus auf dem Wege historischer Erfahrung vor dem faktischen Einzuge des Gesetzes und seines Heiligtums diejenige Erkenntnis reife, deren Bewusstsein die erfolgreiche Arbeit beider an uns so wesentlich bedingt.

אשר ילכו לפנינו, “who shall go before us;” in using the plural mode they mistakenly made Aaron a partner of G-d, assuming that he was as experienced in performing miracles as had been Moses, and remembering that Aaron had actually orchestrated a number of the miracles involving the ten plagues.

אשר העלנו מארץ מצרים [THAT MAN] THAT BROUGHT US UP OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT, and who used to show us the way we had to go; now that he is dead we need gods which shall go before us.

בשש .וירא העם כי בשש משה Piel von בוש, ursprünglich: sich in einer Erwartung getäuscht finden (siehe zu Bereschit 2, 25), daher: ויחילו עד בוש sie warteten so lange, bis sie sich in ihrer Erwartung getäuscht sahen, d. h. sie warteten so lange, bis sie zu dem Bewusstsein kamen, die Erfüllung ihrer Erwartung aufgeben zu müssen (Richter 3, 25). בושש daher: die Erwartungen eines andern in dem Grade nicht erfüllen, dass dieser die Erwartung aufgibt. Mosche blieb so lange aus, dass sie an seiner Wiederkehr verzweifelten. — הִקָהל על־ ,ויקהלו על אהרן: in Massenversammlung über jemanden kommen, jemanden durch eine Massenversammlung überwältigen. Es kommt noch zweimal vor, Bamidbar 16, 3 und 20, 2, das erste über Mosche, das zweite über Mosche und Aaron, und beidemal leisten Mosche und Aaron nicht einmal durch eine Gegenrede Widerstand. Dort, beim Aufstand Korachs, wirft Mosche sofort sich auf sein Angesicht nieder und tritt erst nach erhaltener Gotteseingebung entgegen. Das zweitemal retten sich Mosche und Aaron zum Eingang des Stiftszeltes vor der Masse. es bezeichnet dies somit jedenfalls eine Vergewaltigung, und weist darauf auch der Schlusssatz des Berichtes über diesen Vorgang hin, V. 35: על אשר עשו את העגל אשר עשה אהרן, wo offenbar das Volk als der Urheber des von Aaron Vollbrachten, somit das Volk als der Befehlende und Aaron als der gezwungen Gehorchende erscheint. Wir finden nämlich ganz dieselbe Ausdrucksweise Bereschit 39, 22:ואת כל אשר עשים שם הוא היה עושה. Indem es dort zuvor heißt: der Fürst des Gefängnisses übergab alle Gefangenen Josefs Händen, und dann hinzugefügt wird: und alles, was sie dort taten, tat er, so ist damit offenbar gesagt, dass alles unter Josefs Befehl geschah, alle hatten seine Anordnungen zu befolgen, er war die Intelligenz und der Wille und alle andern die ausführenden Werkzeuge, somit war ihre Tat seine Tat. (Danach ist auch unser Kommentar zur Stelle zu berichtigen.) So war auch hier Aarons Tun des Volkes Tat.

כי זה משה האיש, “for Moses, this man, etc.;” from the manner in which they referred to Moses with the pronoun “this,” although “HE” was not present, we can form an idea of the urgency haste and confused thinking that dominated the people’s mind at that time. We find the word זה used in inappropriate situations on numerous occasions, such as in Kohelet, 7,27, where the author refers to something intangible when he says: ראה זה מצאתי, “see this is what I found, etc.”32, 2. פרקו נזמי זהב, “take off the golden rings, etc.” it is clear from the fact that Aaron asked the men to take the jewelry of their wives, that his intentions were perfectly pure. He thought that if he were to suggest anyone of the leaders of the people to take the place of Moses, such a person would not be willing to give up his promotion on the following day when Moses would return and this would result in dissension and possible civil war amongst the people. On the other hand, if he were not to appear to comply with the people’s wishes by doing nothing, they would choose someone, which would lead to immediate dissension among the people. If he were to suggest that he himself would take over Moses’ position, Moses would find this difficult to accept on his return. He therefore decided to play for time, so that no action would be taken pending Moses’ return on the next day, which is what he expected. The problem would therefore resolve itself without any revolutionary changes having been taken. By suggesting that these people bring him the jewelry of their wives, he thought he would gain enough time, as suggested by Rashi. (Rashi suggested that he was sure the women would not be willing to part with their jewelry for such a purpose as making an inanimate object a replacement for Moses.)

עשה לנו אלהים אשר ילכו לפנינו כי זה משה האיש וגו׳: der Zweck אשר ילכו לפנינו, und die Motivierung: כי זה משה האיש, lassen deutlich erkennen, dass es sich hier nicht um eine Abgötterei im gewöhnlichen Sinne, d. h. nicht um einen Abfall von Gott handle. Nicht an die Stelle Gottes, an Mosche Stelle sollte das von Aaron zu Machende treten. Sie hielten Mosche für verunglückt, gestorben, und verlangten daher einen nicht mehr verlierbaren "Mosche" aus Aarons Händen. Allein, dass sie überhaupt ihre Zuversicht in ihre Zukunft an das Dasein eines Mosche knüpften, und der Wahn, daß der Mensch sich einen "Mosche" machen könne, machen dürfe, zu machen habe, das sind eben Vorstellungen, die im diametralen Gegensatz zu der fundamentalen jüdischen Wahrheit von Gott und den gegenseitigen Beziehungen Gottes und der Menschen stehen, und die ihnen bereits unmittelbar nach der Offenbarung am Sinai in der bedeutsamen Ansprache: אתם ראיתם וגו׳ לא תעשון אתי וגו׳! (Kap. 20, 19) warnend klar gemacht worden waren (siehe daselbst).

מזבח אדמה תעשה לי — לא תעשון אתי, diese beiden sich ergänzenden Sätze dieser warnend aufklärenden Ansprache bilden den Scheideweg der göttlich jüdischen und der heidnisch nichtjüdischen Anschauung der Beziehungen des Menschen zu Gott. Dass der Mensch sich Götter machen könne, d. h. dass er sich ein Bild, ein Gut, eine Macht, eine Institution, einen Menschen, als sein Höchstes also hinstellen könne, dass dieses Objekt seiner subjektiven Vergötterung dann auch von der allerhöchsten weltgebietenden Gottheit mit Göttlichkeit bekleidet und ein Träger seines Geschickes werde — wie im physischen Kraftgebiete der unmagnetische Stahlstab nur in die rechte magnetische Richtung bleibend gehängt zu werden braucht, um magnetisch, um ein Magnet zu werden —; und dass der Mensch sich Götter zu machen habe, d. h. dass er, zur Sicherung seiner Zukunft, solche Objekte seiner Wahl und Mache, als Darstellung seines Höchsten, in Beziehung zu der von ihm geahnten allerhöchsten weltgebietenden Gottheit zu stellen, eben damit diesem Allerhöchsten seine Huldigung zu erweisen, dessen Huld zu gewinnen und seinen Abhängigkeitsbeziehungen zu diesem Allerhöchsten zu genügen habe; dass es überhaupt die Schicksalsbeziehungen, die passiven Seiten der Menschenbeziehungen es vornehmlich seien, in denen der Mensch seine Abhängigkeit von Gott, oder von dem, was ihm Gott ist, zu begreifen und direkt zu betätigen habe —: das ist ein Wahn, der von je die höchsten Anliegen der nichtjüdischen Welt beherrschte und den rohen und den geistigen Fetischismus erzeugte.

Dass der Mensch sich keine Götter machen könne, keine Götter zu machen brauche, keine Götter machen dürfe, dass er nicht durch eine Verkörperung des Göttlichen die Gottheit sich näher, sondern durch Durchgeistigung und Durchsittigung seines ganzen Wesens und durch Unterordnung aller seiner Lebensthätigkeiten unter das Diktat Gottes sich in allen seinen Beziehungen Gott nahe zu bringen habe; dass er überhaupt nicht auf Gott, sondern auf sich einzuwirken habe, um in die Gottesnähe zu gelangen und des göttlichen Schutzes und der göttlichen Führung sicher zu sein; dass überall nicht die Gestaltung seines Geschickes, sondern die Gestaltung seiner Tat ihm am Herzen zu liegen habe, und der Einklang seines Wandels mit dem göttlichen Willen das einzige sei, durch welches ihm auch ein Einfluss auf sein Geschick möglich werde; vor allem aber, dass Gott keinerlei physischer Natur sei, auf welche man durch irgend welches subjektive Vorgehen einen bannenden Einfluss üben und sie unserem subjektiven Wollen untertänig machen könne, sondern dass Er, ב׳׳ה, die absoluteste, frei wollende und allmächtig frei gebietende Persönlichkeit sei, die ihren Willen als das absolute Maß der Dinge und als die absolute Norm für den freien Willen des Menschen dahingestellt hat, welchem der Mensch mit freier Energie seine ganze Subjektivität freudig dahingeben muss, wenn er von dem göttlichen Walten sieg- und segensreich getragen werden will; dass dieser freie Gehorsam überall und immer für das Heil des Menschen und der Menschen ausreiche, und durch nichts, nichts zwischen Himmel und Erde ersetzt werden könne: das ist die jüdische Wahrheit, an der aller Wahn heidnischer Subjektivität in jeglicher Gestalt zu Grunde geht.

Jeder Subjektivismus ist Heidentum und Götzentum, ist der Wahn, nach eigenem subjektiven Belieben einen bannenden Einfluss auf die Gestaltungen der Zukunft, das ist ja eben, auf den Willen der Gottheit üben zu können, ist Gleichstellung, ja Entgegenstellung des Ichs dem göttlichen Willen. Das hat schon das alte Wort Samuels an Saul ausgesprochen: "— — — siehe, gehorchen ist mehr als gutes Opfer, aufmerken mehr als Fett von Widdern; denn Zaubereisünde ist Ungehorsam, Eigenmacht und Orakelwerk jedes eigenwillige Vorgehen!" (Sam. I. 15, 23.)

In dem Wahn dieses heidnischen Subjektivismus waren die befangen, die zu Aaron sprachen: Auf, mache uns Götter, die vor uns hergehen sollen, denn dieser Mann Mosche, der uns aus Mizrajim geführt, wir wissen nicht, was aus ihm geworden!

Sie sahen in Mosche nicht das in freier Initiative von Gott aus frei gewählte und frei gesandte Werkzeug seines Willens, sondern ein von sich aus, die gewöhnliche Menschennatur überragend, göttlich gewordenes Menschenwesen, dessen Einfluss den Willen der Gottheit bestimme und dessen Dasein den Schutz der Gottheit sichere. Es war ihnen nicht Gott, der durch Mosche sie aus Mizrajim geführt, sondern es war Mosche, der Gott zur Vollbringung dieses Erlösungswerkes bestimmte. Nicht in dem durch Mosche ihnen gewordenen göttlichen Gesetze, in den ihnen durch Mosche gewordenen göttlichen "Lebensordnungen", Mischpatim, die ihnen blieben, selbst wenn das zeitliche Organ derselben dahingegangen, erblickten sie das unverlierbare Band mit Gott und das unverlierbare Unterpfand des göttlichen Schutzes, sowie der unmittelbar von jedem zu findenden Gottesnähe: sondern das gottnahe Wesen des Mannes Mosche war ihnen das bedingende Band ihrer Verbindung mit Gott, und sein Dasein die Bürgschaft des göttlichen Schutzes. Wie sie daher in dem Verhältnis Mosche zu Gott die Initiative in Mosche und nicht in Gott anschauten, so glaubten sie auch nach dessen vermeintlichem Dahingang durch ein von ihnen ausgehendes Werk eine die Gottheit bindende Initiative üben zu können, und darum auch üben zu müssen. Das freie jüdische Bewusstsein, das den Menschen unvermittelt und unmittelbar in Beziehung zu Gott, und als ausschließlich einzige Bedingung die Gott gehorchende Tat begreift, war in ihnen noch nicht zur vollen Klarheit aufgegangen, oder durch die Angst einer fortan führerlosen Wanderung in der Wüste getrübt.

אשר ילכו לפנינו, schwerlich kann das im buchstäblichen Sinne genommen werden. Es lag ihnen ja nirgends eine Erfahrung vor, dass ein Götterbild ein Wegweiser sein könne. Vielmehr lässt sich dies Verlangen kaum anders dem Verständnis näher bringen, als dass das Vorhandensein eines solchen Götterwerkes an ihrer Spitze ihnen die weitere Führung durch Gott sichern solle.

באזני נשיכם [BREAK OFF THE GOLDEN PENDANTS], WHICH ARE IN THE EARS OF YOUR WIVES — Aaron said to himself: women and children have a love for their ornaments; perhaps the matter will be delayed because they will hesitate to give their ornaments, and in the meantime Moses may arrive. They (the men), however, did not wait until the women and children made up their minds but they took the ornaments off themselves (cf. v. 3: they took off the pendants which were in their ears; there is no reference to the pendants belonging to the women) (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 21).

PULL OFF THE GOLDEN RINGS. He selected gold and not silver, because gold indicates the attribute of justice, its appearance being as the appearance of fire,²⁸⁶Ezekiel 1:27. just as the Rabbis have said,²⁸⁷Yoma 45a. The Biblical expression (gold of parvaim) is found in II Chronicles 3:6. “gold of parvayim, gold which is like the blood of bullocks.” It is for this reason that the House where the sacrifices were brought was made wholly of gold, as also the altar of incense²⁸⁸Above, 30:3. and the cherubim,²⁸⁹Ibid., 25:18. and the Rabbis have interpreted [the verses to mean]²⁹⁰Mechilta ibid., 20:23. that “if they made them of silver [and not of gold] they are like gods of silver and gods of gold.” Even the form for the calf they made of gold rather than of silver.

ויאמר, "He said, etc." This means that what Aaron said was not what he meant in his heart.

פרקו נזמי הזהב, “remove the rings of gold, etc.” Aaron selected gold and no other material,l seeing that the appearance of gold is reminiscent of the Attribute of Justice, something symbolized by fire. This is also the reason why all the furnishings in the Sanctuary were constructed of gold, as well as the altar for incense in the inner Sanctum. The likeness of the calf being made of gold, therefore resembled fire more than silver would have done.

VV. 2 — 4. Dass Aaron nach den Worten des Textes V. 1 und 35 unter dem Drucke einer überwältigenden Volksmacht handelte, haben wir schon oben V. 1 bemerkt. Dass er gleichwohl nicht recht, ja, in hohem Grade nicht recht gehandelt habe, ist Dewarim 9, 20 ausgesprochen. Er hätte mit Daransetzung seines Lebens Gegenrede und Widerstand leisten sollen. Allein, und so hat man immer sein Verfahren begriffen, er mochte um des Volkes selbst willen nachzugeben für klug, und darum auch für recht gehalten haben. Über seine Leiche hin würde das Volk — so konnte er meinen, vermisst man doch Chur, der ihm (Kap. 24, 14) zur Seite gegeben war, und von dem man daher glaubt, er habe bereits seinen Widerstand mit dem Leben gebüßt gehabt — über seine Leiche hin würde das Volk nur noch zügelloser sich seinem Wahn hingegeben haben, und so durfte er glauben, das Unternehmen in seiner Hand zu halten, durch zögernde Ausführung Mosche Wiederkunft abwarten, jedenfalls aber die Verirrung in engste Grenzen halten zu können. Darauf weist auch diese ganze Erzählung hin. Er fordert das Geschmeide ihrer Frauen und Kinder, die sich dessen, wie er erwartete, nicht so leicht und rasch berauben lassen würden. Daher auch der Ausdruck: פרק, das sonst immer ein mit Anstrengung zu bewirkendes Trennen bedeutet. Daher auch V. 4: ויצר אותו בחרט וגו׳, statt es in eine Form zu gießen, welche Prozedur die rascheste gewesen wäre, meißelte er das zu einer Masse zusammengeschmolzene Gold — (ואשליכהו באש, V. 24) — und brachte so langsam die Form hervor, die durch Guss rasch zu erlangen gewesen wäre. חֶרֶת , verwandt mit חרת, heißt ja entschieden: Schreibgriffel, חֶרֶט אנוש (Jesaias 8, 1), somit für diesen Zweck das schwächste, am langsamsten arbeitende Instrument.

!פקרקו, “break off!” Aaron gave this instruction with noble intent; he had reasoned that if he suggested that they should appoint either Calev or Nachshon as Moses’ successor, and the people would proceed to crown either one of the two men, as soon as Moses would return they would demote the new King and there would likely be a civil war. If he were to refuse outright to take any action, they would most likely choose their own new leader, this would certainly lead to great strife among the people. If he himself would offer himself as Moses’ substitute, this would not find favour in the eyes of Moses, who, he was sure, would return. He therefore temporised, playing for time, hoping that before any permanent damage could be done Moses would have returned. He was certain in his own mind that the Israelite women would refuse to part with their personal jewelry for the scheme he appeared to have suggested.

פרקו נזמי זהב, “take off the golden rings, etc.” it is clear from the fact that Aaron asked the men to take the jewelry of their wives, that his intentions were perfectly pure. He thought that if he were to suggest anyone of the leaders of the people to take the place of Moses, such a person would not be willing to give up his promotion on the following day when Moses would return and this would result in dissension and possible civil war amongst the people. On the other hand, if he were not to appear to comply with the people’s wishes by doing nothing, they would choose someone, which would lead to immediate dissension among the people. If he were to suggest that he himself would take over Moses’ position, Moses would find this difficult to accept on his return. He therefore decided to play for time, so that no action would be taken pending Moses’ return on the next day, which is what he expected. The problem would therefore resolve itself without any revolutionary changes having been taken. By suggesting that these people bring him the jewelry of their wives, he thought he would gain enough time, as suggested by Rashi. (Rashi suggested that he was sure the women would not be willing to part with their jewelry for such a purpose as making an inanimate object a replacement for Moses.)

פרקו is an imperative plural derived from פרק which is used for the singular, just as בָּרְכוּ is derived from בָּרֵךְ‎ (פרקו and ברכו are both masculine imperative Piel).

פרקו!, "remove!" Aaron referred to the males, i.e. it was an imperative.

Der Überlegung wert dürfte die Frage sein, warum Aaron, da ihm die Wahl der Form frei geblieben, eben die Gestalt eines Kalbes gebildet habe. Man hat darin den Apis der Ägypter erblicken wollen. Man hat aber übersehen, dass der Apis der Ägypter kein Götterbild, sondern ein wirklich lebendiger Stier, und zwar nur ein Stier von bestimmter Beschaffenheit und Fellzeichnung war. Wie sollte auch Aaron gerade eine solche Gestalt gewählt haben, welcher in der bisherigen Heimat des Volkes die höchste abgöttische Verehrung gezollt worden wäre! Dass Aaron eben diese Form wählte, bürgt vielmehr dafür, dass hier an einen Apis, oder eine Apisähnlichkeit nicht zu denken sei. Wir haben jedoch bereits wiederholt zu bemerken die Gelegenheit gehabt, und es stellt sich dies bei Betrachtung der Opfer bis zur Evidenz heraus, dass die Rindergattung, בקר ,שור ,פר, als der dienende Gehilfe bei der Menschenarbeit, in der jüdischen Opfersymbolik die im Dienste eines Höheren zu betätigende Kraft repräsentiert. Es lag somit, um einerseits der Idee des Volkes zu genügen, das ja keinen anderen Gott, sondern einen anderen "Mosche" verlangte, und andererseits eben damit die Verirrung innerhalb der Grenzen dieses halben Abfalles zu erhalten, keine geeignetere Form so nahe als aus der Rindergattung, die ja keine gebietende, sondern dienende Kraft repräsentiert. Und indem Aaron aus dieser Gattung das Kalb und nicht den Stier wählte, gab er dieser, doch nur in Unterordnung wirkenden Kraft, den in ihrer Art möglichst schwachen Ausdruck.

נזמי הזהב, golden rings; no other gold.

ויאמרו אלה וגו׳ אשר העלוך וגו׳. Es ist dieser Ausspruch wohl zu erwägen, um sich in die Anschauung hineinzudenken, aus welcher er hervorgegangen. Nichts offenbart so, wie dies schon רמב׳׳ן zur Stelle bemerkt, die geistige Seite des hier zu Tage tretenden heidnischen Wahns, als dieser Ausspruch אשר העלוך im Präteritum. אשר ילכו לפנינו (V. 1) lässt noch die Annahme eines krassen Fetischismus zu. Allein die vollendetste Sinnlosigkeit setzte der Glaube voraus, dass das eben aus Aarons Händen hervorgehende Kalb die vor dessen Existenz vorangegangene Erlösung vollbracht habe. Notwendig geht dieser Ausspruch über die konkrete Wirklichkeit dieser eben produzierten Tiergestalt hinaus und schaut in ihr auf eine höhere, auch vor deren Existenz vorhanden gewesene, oder vorhanden geglaubte Macht hin, deren Symbol, oder deren Weiterträger die eben jetzt geschaffene Tiergestalt sein soll. Erwägen wir, dass sie von dem Verlangen ausgegangen waren, einen anderen "Mosche" zu erhalten, so werden sie zunächst die eben entstandene Tiergestalt in demselben Verhältnis zur Gottheit fortan angeschaut haben, in welchem ihnen Mosche Verhältnis erschienen war. Dass ihnen dieses nicht das eines frei von Gott ausgesandten, sondern das eines die Wirksamkeit Gottes für sie bedingenden und beeinflussenden Wesens gewesen sein müsse, haben wir bereits gefunden. Es war ihnen dies somit ein wiedererstandener Mosche, ein wiedererstandener "Mittler" und indem sie ihn in unmittelbarer Gemeinschaft mit Gott in der Pluralität zusammenfassten: "da hast du, Israel, die Gottheiten wieder, die dich aus Mizrajim heraufgeführt!" offenbarten sie eben damit die Wahnesvorstellung von der die Wirksamkeit Gottes selber bedingenden Göttlichkeit dieses "Mittlers"; waren sie, wie die Weisen es ausdrücken, משתף שם שמים ודבר אחר (siehe zu Kap. 22, 19) und würden vollkommen in dasselbe Verbrechen verfallen gewesen sein, wenn sie etwa dem wirklichen, lebendigen Mosche mit dem Zurufe gehuldigt hätten: אלה אלהיך ישראל אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים.

אשר באזני נשיכם, "which are in the ears of your wives." They were only to bring the golden earrings actually being worn by their wives at the time, not any rings lying in a box, etc. They were not even to put on these rings in order for their husbands to remove them. Aaron spoke of both "your wives, your sons and your daughters;" Aaron did not want the men to leave their family members while the latter were wearing any golden jewelry at all. He intended to delay the menfolk bringing him all that gold as he expected the wearers to put up resistance. When Aaron said: והביאו, "and bring it," he meant that they should bring him the gold personally, not by means of messengers. He added: אלי, "to me," i.e. not to anyone else. Aaron's reasoning in all this was to prevent a collection of these gold rings which could be accomplished more rapidly than if everybody had to personally bring all the gold rings of his family members to Aaron personally. The people complied with all that Aaron had told them except that they did not bring the earrings of their wives as the latter refused to part with them. The men brought Aaron their own earrings instead as they did not want to hold up the construction of the golden calf (Tanchuma).

ויתפרקו AND [ALL THE PEOPLE] BRAKE OFF — פרק is a term denoting “unloading a burden”. Being a transitive verb one would expect ויפרקו instead of the reflexive form ויפרקו but when they took them (the pendants) off their ears they themselves became unloaded from their pendants and therefore ויתפרקו “they unloaded themselves”, is the appropriate word to use; décharger in old French, English discharge.

The meaning of unloading a burden. . . Thus Rashi later explains that את נזמי means מן נזמי . This is because the ת [of ויתפרקו ] makes it a reflexive verb [denoting “they unloaded themselves”]. But had it said ויפרקו , [a transitive verb,] Rashi would not need to explain את נזמי as מן נזמי . In addition, I found [an alternative explanation:] they had a small ring in their ears, on which their jewelry hung. [Accordingly, the verse means: “They unloaded the jewelry from the small golden rings.”]

את נזמי is the same as מנזמי, (they unloaded themselves from their pendants), (את having the same meaning as מן), similar to (Exodus 9:29) “As soon as I am gone out את העיר”, which means מן העיר, from the city.

ויצר אתו בחרט — One can translate this in two ways. The one is: to take ויצר in the sense of “tying up” (Hiphil of צרר) and בחרט in the sense of “a garment”, similar to (Isaiah 3:22) “and the mantles and the scarfs (והחריטים)”; ‎(2 Kings 5:23) “and bound (ויצר) two talents of silver in two cloths (חריטים)”. The other way is: to take ויצר in the sense of “forming figures” (Hiphil of צור) and חרם as denoting goldsmiths’ tool with which they engrave and cut figures into gold, like a writer’s stylus that incises letters on boards and tablets, as we find it in, (Isaiah 8:1) ‘‘[Take a great roll] and write on it with a man’s pen (חרט)”. This (the second explanation) is what Onkelos means when he renders the passage by וצר יתיה בזיפא and he formed it with a “זיפא”, a term which is connected with the word זיוף “forgery”. It is a tool with which letters and modelled figures are engraved in gold — a kind of work which they term niel in old French (cf. Rashi and our Note on Exodus 25:33), and by means of which seals are forged (מזיפין)‎.

AND THEY SAID, THESE ARE THY GODS, O ISRAEL, WHICH BROUGHT THEE UP OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT. This verse also will teach you [that they had no intention of worshipping it as an idol], for there is no fool in the world who would think that this gold which was in their ears²⁹¹Verse 3. is that which brought them up out of the land of Egypt. Rather, they said that the power of that figure brought them up out of there. Thus you will find that in no place does it say of the calf, “which brought us ‘out’ of Egypt,” for they acknowledged Him Who said, I am the Eternal thy G-d, who brought thee ‘out’ of the land of Egypt,²⁹²Above, 20:2. and that it was by His Great Name that He delivered them from there. Instead, they said in many places who brought thee ‘up,’ for they took it to be in place of the great hand²⁹³Ibid., 14:31. — that dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep; that made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over.²⁹⁴Isaiah 51:10. It is with this intention that Scripture says, Thus they exchanged their Glory for the likeness of an ox that eateth grass,²⁹⁵Psalms 106:20. and there it is said, They forgot G-d Who had delivered them, Who had done great things in Egypt; wondrous works in the land of Ham, terrible things by the Red Sea.²⁹⁶Ibid., Verses 21-22. They forgot His word which He commanded them. Thus they transgressed the prohibition, Thou shalt have no other gods before Me,²⁹⁷Above, 20:3. as I have hinted there, and you will understand this.

אלה אלוהיך ישראל, these will serve henceforth as your elohim, for you to address in your prayers for all your needs; you will serve them in order to obtain your needs.

ויעשהו עגל, "he made it into a calf." The calf is described as the work of Aaron not because he meant to make it but because he was the instrument which caused the calf to emerge. We hear about this clearly in verse 24 where Aaron describes what happened with the words: "this calf emerged (from the crucible)." It is also possible that the making of the calf was attributed to Aaron because he accepted the gold from the contributors in his hands without first depositing it on the ground which would have deprived it of the magical quality which resulted in it emerging in the shape of a calf (Zohar volume 2 page 192).

אלה אלוהיך ישראל אשר העלוך, “these are your leaders o Israel that have led you out of Egypt.” These words of the onlookers are further proof that the golden calf was not intended to serve as a deity, as there could not have been any person foolish enough to credit the gold from their earrings with having orchestrated the Exodus from Egypt. What the people meant was that the mystical power represented by gold in the present shape was the major factor which had enabled Moses to lead the people out of Egypt. Never, in connection with the golden calf, did any part of the people ever say the words אשר הוציאוך ממצרים, “who have initiated your departure from Egypt,” a formulation which would have credited the golden calf with divine powers. They only credited the power inherent in this gold as facilitating the auxiliary aspects of the Exodus, such as drying out the bed of the sea through which the Israelites walked when crossing the Sea of Reeds.

He had come out of the foundations. . . Explanation: when the Israelites were in Egypt, building Pisom and Ramseis, and they failed to complete the amount of work they were told to do, the Egyptians came and took their children, put them into the wall being built, and placed stones around them and on them — thereby completing the amount of work. Moshe said to Hashem: “Master of the World! Why should the children be punished by such a death?” Hashem answered: “These children will not end up good. They will go in evil ways when they mature. Better they die while they are worthy.” Moshe went and removed a child who was crushed (nimach) in a row being built. He was called Michah.

ויצר אותו בחרט. Aaron took the gold from someone else, tied it all together in a cloth where he squeezed it together until they made a mould such as used to shape wax or soft clay. The makers of the mould recessed the shape of a calf in the bottom of the mould. Afterwards, the gold was thrown into this mould. Once it had melted in the crucible into which the mould was placed, the gold had assumed the shape of a calf when retrieved from the crucible after it had cooled. (verse 24) A similar procedure is described in Kings II 5,23 [this interpretation of that verse by our author is most unusual. Ed.]

ויצר אותו, “he fashioned it with a graving tool.” He kept experimenting with different shapes, hoping all the time that Moses would come back. Everything he did was motivated by an attempt to preserve the glory of the Lord. This is clearly hinted at in the remarks of the last of the prophets, Malachi, who in Malachi 2,7 refers to Aaron in the following words: כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דעת ותורה יבקשו מפיהו כי מלאך ה' צבא-ות הוא, “for the lips of the priest guard knowledge, and men seek rulings from his mouth, for he is a Messenger of the Lord of Hosts.” It is also written there in verse 6: ורבים השיב מעון, “and he prevented many from becoming guilty of trespasses." [At the beginning of that chapter the prophet had referred to the person he was describing as the model Levite, clearly none other than Aaron who was appointed High priest seven months after the episode described in our portion. Ed.] If the Israelites had killed Aaron there would have been no possible way for them to become rehabilitated as they would have been guilty of what is described in Lamentations 2,20: אם יהרג במקדש כהן ונביא, ”alas priest and prophet are slain in the Sanctuary of the Lord.”

ויצר אותו, “he shaped it,” the expression יצר, used by the Torah here to describe what Aaron did with the golden jewelry he had received, is based on the word: צרר, “to make a bundle of something, to treat it indiscriminately, or to compress it.” The author uses Proverbs 7,20 and Kings II 5,23 as parallels and bases himself on the commentary of Rash’bam.

עגל מסכה A MOLTEN CALF — As soon as he (Aaron) had thrown it (the gold) into the fire in a melting pot the magicians amongst the mixed multitude who had come up with them from Egypt came and made it (the golden calf) by their magic art. There are some who say that Micah the idolator mentioned in Judges ch. 17, was there, who had been drawn forth from the foundations of a building in Egypt where he was nearly crushed. He had in his possession a “supernatural name” (שם) and a plate upon which Moses had written: “Come up, ox, come up, ox!” in order to raise the coffin of Joseph who is compared to an ox (cf. Deuteronomy 33:17) out of the Nile, and he cast it (the plate) into the melting pot and the calf (the young ox) came out (ויצא העגל הזה) (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 19).

אלה אלוהיך ישראל אשר העלוך, were the Israelites all idiots that they would accept such a statement? Had they not all experienced the miracles performed by the G’d of Israel only less than 3 months ago?The declaration is to be understood as based on the premise subscribed to by most idolaters that while it is true that there is a G’d in heaven Who had created the universe, the teraphim were held to possess divine powers, exercising same just as did the prophets who performed miracles. The former were agents of spiritually negative forces, known in our parlance as רוח הטומאה, the prophets performed their miracles by invoking the spiritually positive forces, G’d in heaven. The people who had made the golden calf, or who had seen it emerge from the mould, proclaimed that the same force which had produced the golden calf had also been instrumental in freeing the Jewish people from the enslavement by the Egyptians. They implied that such teraphim may sometimes be the embodiment of holy spirit, other times of Satan’s spirit. They insisted that seeing that the calf had materialised at the time when the Jewish people were in need of a replacement for Moses, this was proof that it was a replacement for Moses, and if they would now carry the golden calf in front of them, or have it walk in front of them, this would be equivalent having the holy spirit walking ahead of them. [I fleshed out the author’s words. Ed.] We know that Lavan (Genesis 31,30) accused Yaakov of having stolen his “gods” which was the description he gave to his “teraphim.” He himself had admitted that Yaakov’s G’d had enriched him, and yet for himself he paid heed to these teraphim. If G’d allowed the spiritually negative forces to appear as possessing divine powers, He did so in order to test the loyalty of the Jewish people who had been warned not to have any truck with witchcraft or those who practiced this art. Moses spells all this out in Deuteronomy 13,4. The prohibition against אוב, ידעוני, and a variety of different demonic and other sorcery performing spirits has been repeated in the Torah several times. Loyalty of the people to their G’d can be proven only when alternative sources of what one desires are offered or appear as being offered.

And he threw it into the melting pot and out came the Calf. Since “Arise ox” was written on it, the Calf arose, for it was a [young] ox.

ויאמרו אלה אלוהיך ישראל אשר העלוך מארץ מצרים, They said: "these are your gods Israel which brought you up from the land of Egypt." At first glance the foolishness of this statement is so colossal that one cannot perceive of anyone taking it seriously. How can our sages who characterised this generation of Israelites as the דור דעה, "the generation endowed with superior knowledge," reconcile such a characterisation with the statement in front of us? Even if we accept a comment in Tanchuma according to which the calf was perceived as able to speak through some magic formula employed by the sorcerers amongst the mixed multitude, how could anyone fall for such a blatant lie as "these are the gods which have brought you up out of Egypt?"

ויעשהו, “he made it into the shape of a calf.” He did not select a different creature, seeing that the mixed multitude that had joined the Jewish bandwagon at the Exodus had been the first to gang up on him, demanding a replacement for Moses. They had heard Moses sing after the splitting of the sea: זה אלי ואנוהו, “this is My G-d and I will enshrine Him!” They had only seen the feet of the angels surrounding G-d’s throne, feet which looked like the feet of a calf. They had mistakenly assumed that what they had seen were the footprints of G-d which had the appearance of calves’ feet. This is also why the psalmist in Psalms 77,20 writes: “Your way was through the sea, Your path through the mighty waters; Your tracks could be seen.” They had mistaken the footprints of the angels for the footprints of G-d Himself.

מסכה MOLTEN is a term connected with מתכת, molten metal (ס and ת being interchanged in these words). Another explanation is: there were used in it (for making the golden calf) 125 talents of gold, corresponding to the numerical value of מסכה, which is 125 (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 19).

And afterwards misled. . . Therefore it says: “These, Yisrael, are your gods who brought you up.” I.e., the riffraff said this to the Israelites.

We are therefore forced to conclude that the makers (initiators) of this golden calf did not mean for the Israelites to worship and prostrate themselves to anyone but the one who had truly taken them out of Egypt; the statement reported here only prepared the ground for making a deity out of the calf. The initiators indicated that they worshiped an all-embracing G'd and that the calf was merely part of that greater "whole." It was the part which would "walk in front of them," i.e. be the visible reminder of the Power which had delivered them from bondage. They did not consider making an inert golden calf into such a symbol as anything strange at all. On the contrary, inasmuch as even the "ideal" intermediary Moses had proved to be transient, mortal (according to their perception at the time), they decided to use the most precious and enduring symbol in the future, i.e. the golden calf. According to their reasoning every human being is composed of both matter and spirit, the spirit returning to its Maker at some time or other. In order not to risk losing such a go-between once more, they thought that the golden calf was a superior intermediary between them and their G'd. They actually believed that by means of the enduring nature of gold they could attract G'd's Presence on a permanent and enduring basis. The last thing they had on their minds was to uproot the first of the Ten Commandments in which the G'd in Heaven proclaimed Himself as their G'd and Redeemer. When they spoke about אלה, "These," they made sure that they did not exclude G'd in Heaven. Possibly, they used the expression העלוך "they brought you up," to hint that there was a Power on earth which equals the Power in the Heavens, G'd forbid; by making such a statement they insulted G'd in many different ways and this is why G'd reacted so violently. Please examine my comment on verse eight: "they have departed quickly from the path I have commanded them, etc."

ויאמרו אלה אלוהיך ישראל, they said: “these are your gods o Israel;” is it conceivable that these fellow travelers were so foolish as to credit a newly cast golden calf as having orchestrated the Exodus which had occurred 3 months before that calf had been cast in gold? The sorcerers among the mixed multitude were able to create the illusion that some deity is speaking from their mouth. They now created the illusion that this calf had addressed them from its mouth, and that it was far superior to any Egyptian deity as it was made of pure gold, so that what came forth from such a mouth must be sacred. The fact that they did not say: “these are our gods who have taken us out of Egypt, is evidence that the Israelites had never become guilty of worshipping the calf with words such as these. Nonetheless, the whole people at this point were being tested by G-d as to their sincere belief in a G-d Who is and remains unseen and devoid of tangible dimensions. In the Book of Deuteronomy, 40 years later, Moses still warns the people of such tests by G-d when he refers to prophets who try to legitimize themselves by working miracles and predicting matters which will come true though no one else had even dreamt of such things. (Deut. 13,26)

אלה אלהיך THESE ARE THY GODS, [O ISRAEL] — It does not state that they said “these are our gods, [O Israel]”; hence we may learn that it was the mixed multitude which came up from Egypt that gathered themselves together against Aaron, and it was they who made it and afterwards led Israel astray after it (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 19).

I am convinced that not all of the Jewish people committed this error and that is why they did not all die. Among those who did not agree with the philosphy espoused by the enthusiastic followers of the golden calf some protested whereas some were powerless to counter the new philosophy. From the fact that the leaders of the new cult addressed the people saying: "these are your gods," instead of saying: "these are our gods," it is clear that they were in a minority. They also did not say "who have brought us out of Egypt," but they said "who have brought you up from Egypt;" all of this proves that the people who said this were a small minority at that time. Some of the people accepted this line of reasoning, others did not. Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 42,6 state that the whole episode of the golden calf was initiated by members of the mixed multitude, and that the Israelites did not agree with them at all. Had they agreed with the mixed multitude they would all have been guilty of the death penalty as G'd holds one responsible even for idolatrous thoughts not merely for idolatrous actions. The Israelites' sin consisted in their failure to protest what was going on and that is why the people were punished en masse except for a few whose hearts were tested by G'd and the Levites who had remained opposed and whom G'd charged with the task of executing Jews who actively worshiped the golden calf. Once the calf had been made, at least some of the natural-born Israelites erred and believed it possessed some divine powers, and that is why the Torah reported in verse 28 that about "three thousand of the people 'fell' on that day." Seeing that in verse 27 the Levites had been instructed not to spare family members when executing these idol worshipers, we must accept that natural-born Jews were amongst those who worshiped the calf and who were executed, seeing they did not desist in spite of warnings and witnesses.

אלה אלוהיך ישראל, “these are your gods O Israel” Our sages in Sanhedrin 63 derive from this that these Israelites strove to have many deities. They derive this from the word אלה “these,” instead of זה, “this,” if they had referred only to the golden calf. We do indeed find the latter expression in Nechemyah 9,18: זה אלוהיך אשר העלוך ממצרים, “this is your god who took you out of Egypt.”

וירא אהרן AND WHEN AARON SAW that there was the breath of life in it — as it is said with reference to the golden calf, (Psalms 106:20) “[They changed their glory] into a similitude of an ox that ate grass” — and he realized that Satan’s work had succeeded and that he had no argument (lit., mouth) to put them (the people) entirely off.

AND AARON SAW. The meaning of this verse is that Aaron saw them set on evil, intent upon making the calf, and he arose and built an altar and proclaimed, Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Eternal,²⁷⁴Verse 5. so that they should bring offerings to the Proper Name of G-d upon the altar which he built to His Name, and that they should not build altars to the shameful thing,²⁹⁸Jeremiah 11:13. and that their intent in the offerings should be [to none] save unto the Eternal only.²⁹⁹Above, 22:19.
It is possible that Aaron said, Tomorrow [shall be a feast], in order to delay them, thinking that perhaps Moses would come in the meantime and they would abandon the calf. But they rose up early in the morning and offered burnt-offerings, and brought peace-offerings.³⁰⁰Verse 6. Now Scripture does not say “and they offered burnt-offerings to it, and brought peace-offerings to it.” The reason for that is that there were some people amongst them who intended them to be for the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as Aaron had said, but some of them became corrupted and sacrificed them to the calf. It is with reference to this latter group that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, they have worshipped it, and have sacrificed unto it,³⁰¹Verse 8. for it is they who were the sinners. And even if it was perhaps Aaron who performed the sacrifical rites, Scripture used an indefinite expression — saying, they offered burnt-offerings and brought peace-offerings³⁰⁰Verse 6. — in order to suggest that Aaron’s intention was directed towards the Name of the Eternal, whilst they set their mind towards the calf which they had made, and thus the owners [of the sacrifices] invalidated them.

חג לה' מחר. So that you will not mix the joy of serving the Lord with any other kind of joy.

וירא אהרון, And Aaron saw, etc. He "saw" something amazing; although he had only thrown gold into the fire, a calf emerged.

וירא אהרן, “now Aaron realized, etc.” The Torah did not complete the sentence about what it was that Aaron “saw,” i.e. that the people were bent on crediting the golden calf with much more than he had thought at first. In order to head off a major spiritual and subsequently physical disaster, Aaron now proclaimed the following day as a festival in honour of Hashem, and he proceeded to build an altar to accommodate the offerings to Hashem which he intended to sacrifice at that feast. By doing this he felt he would forestall people building altars on which they would offer sacrifices to this golden image of a calf. By temporizing he felt and hoped that Moses would return from the Mountain before a calamity would occur. However, seeing the people on whose behalf he was going to offer these sacrifices intended them for the golden calf, they would have turned them into פיגול unacceptable sacrifices. At any rate, the people preempted Aaron early on the following morning.

וירא אהרן, “Aaron saw.” The reason the Torah does not specify what he saw is that he saw many things. One of the things he saw was that Chur, the son of Miriam had already been murdered (for trying to stop the people from worshipping the calf).
ויבן מזבח לפניו, “he built an altar in front of it.” He realised that someone had already been slaughtered before this calf (Chur). Perhaps Aaron was afraid that if he too were to allow himself to become a martyr, all of the Israelites would become guilty of death. We have a verse in Lamentations 2,2 אם יהרוג במקדש ה’ כהן ונביא, “if a priest and (or) prophet were to be killed in the Sanctuary,” which suggests that this is the ultimate crime. He preferred to personally shoulder the guilt than have all the people become guilty.
Another consideration which might have accounted for Aaron’s conduct is that during the time it would take to build the altar, each Israelite bringing a stone, this would be accomplished very quickly. By undertaking to do the building himself he was stalling for time hoping that Moses would show up before too much spiritual damage had been done (compare Rashi). Still another reason prompting Aaron to act as he did was the fact that legally speaking the building of the altar was not something forbidden on pain of death requiring one to become a martyr rather than to respond to pressure. The prohibition to build such an altar per se is only in the order of the average negative commandment, possibly carrying a penalty of 39 lashes if performed with negative intent. The operative verse in the Torah is only “do not make for yourself a hewn image;” Aaron certainly did not make it for himself nor with intent to sacrifice to an idol.

As it is said, “in the form of an ox eating grass”. . . This refers to the Calf.

V. 5. וירא: Er sah, wie sie bereits die schmale Brücke von dem Wahne eines göttlichen Mittlers zu dem Wahne eines wirklichen Gottes überschritten und wollte diesem einen Damm durch positive Huldigung Gottes, des einen Einzigen, entgegensetzen, zugleich aber durch die Bestimmung des Festes für den anderen Tag Zeit gewinnen. — לפניו vor sich, nicht vor das Kalb. Die Wiederholung des Namens "Aaron" drückt aus, dass er dies im Gegensatz zu der Äußerung des Volkes und in der ganzen Energie seiner Persönlichkeit ausgerufen.

וירא אהרן, “when Aaron saw, (realised), etc.” the people had misinterpreted the apparent ability of this golden calf to speak; he was afraid that they might kill him (for having made an idol) and he built an altar for the Lord on which offerings would be offered on the morrow, by which time he thought Moses would surely have returned. According to our author, we find that the prophet Samuel when pressured to anoint a king for the people resorted to a similar stratagem in Samuel I 11,14, when he suggested that he would meet their request on the following day. [This comparison is invalid, as the prophet Samuel had consulted with G–d about how to deal with the people’s demand. Ed.]

וירא אהרן, “Aaron saw;” Aaron now realised the error the people had made and became afraid that as soon as they would realise that this golden calf could never be of any help to them, so that they would insist on appointing one of their midst as Moses’ successor; this spelled potential disaster. Therefore he proceeded to build an altar, ostensibly before that calf, in order to make the people believe that he was taking steps to worship the golden calf.

ויבן מזבח HE BUILDED AN ALTAR to put them off.

He thereby saw that the Satan’s act succeeded. . . Satan caused disorder in the world at the sixth hour, and his deeds succeeded, for he achieved his aim.

ויבן מזבח לפניו, he erected an altar in front of it, etc. It is noteworthy that the Torah did not write: ויבן לפניו מזבח. Had the Torah used the sequence of words we just mentioned this would have indicated that Aaron built the altar in the golden calf's honour. As it is the proximity of the golden calf to the altar Aaron built was purely incidental. Aaron's intention was totally Heaven-oriented. According to the Zohar volume 2 page 193, Aaron erected the altar in order to hold on to it so that the people should not be able to drag him away from there and execute him. The Torah legislated that [normally, when the crime of the accused had not been murder, Ed] the altar serves as a refuge for someone who is guilty of legal execution. While the guilty person holds on to it the messengers of the court cannot violate the sanctity of the altar in order to carry out the court's verdict.

חג לה' מחר, “there will be a feast for Hashem tomorrow!” He meant that on the following day they would celebrate the new leader that G-d had given them. In the meantime, he stalled the people with words.

ויקרא חג לה׳ מחר AND CALLED OUT … TO-MORROW IS A FESTIVAL TO THE LORD — to-morrow, not to-day, for he hoped that Moses might return before they would worship it (the calf). This is the plain meaning of the verse. The Midrashic explanation of it in Leviticus Rabbah 10:3 (— it supplies an object to the verb וירא —) is: Aaron saw many things; he saw Hur, his sister’s son, who had reprimanded them, and whom they had killed. This is the meaning of ויבן מזבח, viz., וַיָבֶן, he realized (taking the word as from the root בון, to understand, to realize) מִזָּבוּחַ לפניו from him who lay slaughtered before him (מזבח is vowelled to be read as מִזָּבוּחַ) what would happen to him if he offered resistance. A further explanation of וירא אהרן in the Midrash is: He saw what the situation was and said: It is better that the offence should attach itself to me than to them. And yet a further Midrashic explanation of וירא is: He looked into the matter and said: If they build this altar themselves, one will bring a clod and another a stone and the result will be that their work will be accomplished all at once; through myself building it and being dilatory in my work, in the meantime Moses may come.

Chur reprimanded them, they killed him. . . Explanation: Chur reprimanded them for making the Calf, and they killed him. Thus Aharon was afraid to reprimand them, lest they kill him. You might ask: Rashi explained above, “‘He built an altar’ — so as to stall them.” Rashi comments on this, “That is its plain meaning.” [Yet the midrash says, “Through my building it and procrastinating in my work, in the meantime Moshe will come.”] If so, is the midrash not saying the same as the plain meaning? The answer is: [At first] Rashi is answering the question: Why did Aharon build a new altar? There was one already built, as it is written at the end of parshas Mishpatim. Thus Rashi explains, “So as to stall them. . . that is its plain meaning.” Whereas the midrash’s interpretation answers the question: Why did Aharon build the altar, and not someone else?

חג לה׳ מחר, "To-morrow shall be a feast for the Lord." Aaron's intention was simply to stall the people and to gain time until Moses would return and control the situation. By using the Ineffable Name, Aaron had made it plain that he meant for the feast to be in honour of the One and Only G'd. He did not expect the Israelites to disagree as we pointed out already that no one had dared to deny the primacy of the G'd who had introduced Himself at the revelation at Mount Sinai as "I am the Lord Who has has taken you out of Egypt." All the people wanted was to take "part" of that G'd and look at it as a symbol of the invisible Lord in Heaven.

חג לה׳ A FESTIVAL TO THE LORD — not to the golden calf. In his heart it (the feast) was for Heaven (the Lord). He felt confident that Moses would return by the morrow and that they would worship the Omnipresent (Leviticus Rabbah 10:3).

וישכימו AND THEY ROSE UP EARLY [IN THE MORNING] — Satan made them zealous in order that they might sin, for later on in the forenoon Moses actually came down from the mountain.

AND THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND TO DRINK. This means that they all sat down together to eat and drink inordinately, as they would do at feasts and on festivals, and afterwards they rose up to make merry with their idols and indulge in revelry. Scripture tells us this on account of what Moses [later] said, the noise of them that sing do I hear,³⁰²Verse 18. for Moses found them acting riotously in front of him and his heart was lifted up in the ways of the Eternal,³⁰³II Chronicles 17:6. to take it from before them and to burn it in their presence [and scatter its powder upon the water] and make them drink of it.
Now Scripture first completed the account of everything they had done with the calf, and afterwards told of what the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, Go, get thee down.³⁰⁴Verse 7. This communication, however, was given to Moses early that morning, when they worshipped the calf and sacrificed to it. When Moses came down from the mountain they had sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to make merry,³⁰⁰Verse 6. and he found them in revelry. This also is proof to what I have explained [that at first their intent was not to worship idols], since it was not said to Moses, Go, get thee down, for thy people have dealt corruptly³⁰⁴Verse 7. on the day that Aaron made the [golden] calf and the altar, [for had they been made for the purpose of idolatry, Moses] would have come down immediately. Instead, it was only when the people sacrificed to it and worshipped it that He told Moses to go down.

וישכימו ממחרת, They rose up early on the morrow, etc. It is difficult to understand why G'd did not tell Moses to descend from the Mountain as soon as the golden calf emerged from the crucible instead of waiting until the following morning after the people began to worship it by offering sacrifices in its honour. If G'd had told Moses to descend as soon as the calf emerged the people would not have had a chance commit the sin of offering sacrifices to a man-made idol. We cannot assume that the Torah did not report this in chronological order and that G'd did indeed tell Moses to descend at once but that Moses delayed his descent in order to try and diminish G'd's anger at His people. The report of the Torah spoke first about the people offering sacrificing to the calf before it mentions G'd as having become angry and telling Moses to descend. [Verse seven only supplies the reason for what is written in verses eight and nine. It does not represent the order in which things happened. Ed.] While we are aware of the statement by Rabbi Joshua ben Levi in Avodah Zarah 4 that "the children of Israel were not on a low enough spiritual level at the time to make the golden calf, and that the only reason this was allowed to occur was to teach future generations of Jews the power of repentance," this statement would not have lost any of its validity if G'd had interfered before it came to the point when the people actually offered sacrifices to that calf. G'd could have told Moses to descend as soon as some of the people had said: "these are your gods, O Israel, who have brought you up from Egypt." All this occurred on the day before they offered the sacrifices. The people's passive attitude to the idolatrous provocation by the mixed multitude had already made them sufficiently culpable. In fact we can be certain that there were only a few dissidents amongst the natural-born Israelites for if they had indeed been the majority their passive acceptance of such a provocation to sin is totally beyond imagination! If a majority who were physically able to prevent this sin had stood by idly, they would have become guilty as accessories. Why did G'd have to wait until after offerings had been made to the golden calf?

ויעלו עולות ויגישו שלמים, “they burned up burnt offerings, and they presented peace-offerings. It is noteworthy that the Torah does not mention in whose honour these offerings were presented, i.e. we would have expected the Torah to write ויעלו לו עולות, “they burned up burnt offerings in its honour.” The absence of the word לו, shows that some people did indeed offer their sacrifices to Hashem, whereas others meant to honour the golden calf when presenting their offerings. The offering of any sacrifice, which even though technically corresponding to halachah in all its visible details, would become פיגול, totally rejected, and the owner guilty of death at the hands of heaven, merely because it had not been addressed to Hashem.

V.6. Aus V. 8 ist ersichtlich, dass Aarons Absicht vereitelt, und die Opfer dem Kalbe gebracht wurden. Indem mit וישב das Volk als ein neues Subjekt eingeführt wird, so sieht man, dass an den Opfern nicht das Volk im ganzen sich beteiligte. Es waren die Wort- und Anführer, die bis zu diesem Extreme gingen, allein das Volk nahm an den Opfermahlen und ihren Folgen Teil. Charakteristisch heißen die Folgen:.צֵחֵק Inצחק liegt immer eine Verneinung des von צהוק betroffenen Gegenstandes (siehe zu Bereschit 17, 17), eine Überhebung über ein Schweres, Großes, Hohes, Edles. Das dem einen Einzigen und seinem Gesetze, in Folge seines Gesetzes, gebrachte Opfer lässt den Opfernden im Opfer sich selber Gott und dem Diktate seines heiligen und heiligenden Sittengesetzes unterordnen und hingeben. Es involviert die Huldigung des über dem Menschen stehenden, den Menschen zu sich empor ladenden Hohen, Großen, Edlen. Das heidnische, einem selbstgemachten Gotte dargebrachte Opfer, wie es aus der Tiefe des Subjektivismus entsprungen, weckt auch das Individuum zur kühnsten Subjektivität. Es hat ja nicht die Selbstaufopferung im Opfer gelobt. Es hat einen vermeintlichen Machthaber seiner Zukunft mit dem Opfer in den Dienst seines subjektiven Beliebens gebannt, hat mit dem Opfer dessen Zürnen, dessen Gleichgültigkeit überwunden, hat nicht seinem subjektiven Belieben, sondern seinem Gotte mit dem Opfer Fesseln angelegt, und wir begreifen, wie — ganz abgesehen von der entsittlichenden Idealisierung der sinnlichen Natur, die den Göttern des Heidentums und deren Opfern zu Grunde liegt — völlige Umkehrung des jüdischen Opferbegriffs, Ausschweifung und Zügellosigkeit, das ist ja Entfesselung des Individuums, unmittelbar im Gefolge heidnischer Opfer auftreten können. Auch צחֵק ist hier eine Entfesselung der Sinnlichkeit und zwar, wie das Wort lehrt, nicht eine Ausschweifung aus Leidenschaft, sondern ein sinnliches Ausschweifen, um die Nichtigkeit der sittlichen Fesseln zu demonstrieren, eine Ironisierung des Sittengesetzes durch Kanonisierung der Sinnlichkeit.

וישכימו ממחרת, “They arose prematurely early on the following day;” the date was the seventeenth of Tammuz.

לצחק TO PLAY — There is implied in this term besides idolatry also sexual immorality, — as we find the word used in, (Genesis 39:17) “to mock (לצחק) me” where unchastity is meant as is evident from the context — and blood-shed, as it is said, (II Samuel 2:14) “Let the young men arise and play (וישחקו) before me; [and they caught every one his fellow by the head and thrust his sword in his fellows side]”— here, too, Hur was assassinated (Midrash Tanchuma 3:9:20).

וישב העם לאכול ושתו, ”the people sat down in order to eat and drink, etc..” They all sat down to eat in order to still their hunger, and to drink in order to become inebriated as they were in the habit of doing on festivals. The reason that the Torah bothered to record these details is to show that although Moses, upon his return from the Mountain, found the people in such a state of mind that they danced around the image of the golden calf, he summoned the spiritual fortitude that enabled him even in such circumstances to act as a true servant of Hashem to seize this very calf in front of their eyes and to utterly destroy it by burning it. The Torah now completes recording the entire episode involving the golden calf, before resuming with recording what had transpired between G’d and Moses after G’d had informed him of what was going on down below, and Moses had descended hurriedly to rejoin his people. Chronologically speaking, we must presume that the conversation between G’d and Moses on the Mountain took place early in the morning, when he was told by G’d that the people had become corrupt and had even made for themselves a cast image in the shape of a golden calf, an image before which they had prostrated themselves. By the time Moses reached the camp the people had already sat down to eat and drink. G’d had waited with telling him to descend until after some people had already actively worshipped the calf as a deity.

We may have to look for the answer to our question in Exodus 24, 12-18 when G'd had invited Moses to come up on the Mountain and to remain there (for 40 days) until G'd would give him the Torah, the commandments which He had written down in order for Moses to teach to the people. After the 40 days Moses was to give the people the Tablets (compare Shabbat 89 on this sequence). The word בשש which alluded to the time of Moses' return made it difficult for G'd to have Moses return earlier. I will explain the expression רד which the Torah uses in verse seven when we deal with that verse. Even though G'd was aware of what was going to occur already from the demands made by the people on Aaron, He would not go back on His instruction to Moses to remain on the Mountain for forty days and nights.

So machte das jüdische Volk in demselben Augenblicke, in welchem das göttliche Sittengesetz als einziges Band und Unterpfand seiner Verbindung mit Gott in seine Mitte einziehen und ein Heiligtum auf Erden gewinnen sollte, an sich selber für sich und alle Zukunft die Erfahrung, dass die geringste Abweichung von der ausschließlichen Huldigung Gottes, des einen Einzigen, dass heidnischer Kult in jeglicher Gestalt, unabweisbar Verleugnung seines Sittengesetzes im Gefolge habe. Und es machte der designierte erste Hohepriester des jüdischen Volkes für sich und für alle Zeit in dem Momente seiner bevorstehenden Berufung die Erfahrung, dass der jüdische Priester nicht "klug" sein dürfe, dass die Gotteswahrheit nicht die seine sei, mit der und für die er konzedierend handeln, von welcher er einen Teil preisgeben dürfe, um das Übrige zu retten. Das Zeugnis Gottes ist auf Granit geschrieben. Man kann ihm huldigen, man kann es verleugnen, aber der Priester kann kein Titelchen daran ändern.

ויעלו עולות, “they offered burnt offerings.” These burnt offerings were offered quite innocently in honour of Hashem. [We find something similar in Samuel I 11,15, on the occasion of the first Jewish King, King Shaul being crowned at Gilgal, though at that time the offerings were meat offerings most of which could be eaten by the people present at the celebration. Ed.]

You may well ask that seeing G'd is omniscient, why did He not consider future events at the time He invited Moses for forty days? I have already referred to this problem in my commentary on Genesis 6,5. As far as the situation facing us here is concerned we do not even need to trouble ourselves to find an answer as the Torah has already provided it. There are some reasons which only G'd knows about, but He has revealed to us the significance of the number forty regarding the days it takes for the development of a human embryo. Whereas the entire universe was created in six days, it required forty days to "create" the Tablets. We may be better able to understand this by recalling a lesson taught by Rabbi Yochanan to Rabbi Chiya bar Abba quoted in Shemot Rabbah 47,5. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Chiya walked from Tiberias to Tzippori. Rabbi Yochanan saw a certain vineyard and told Rabbi Chiya that the vineyard used to be his, but that he had sold it for a certain sum of money. Upon hearing this Rabbi Chiya started to cry and said to Rabbi Yochanan: "have you not left yourself anything to provide for your old age?" Rabbi Yochanan replied: "Do you consider the fact that I sold something which it took six days to create and traded it for something that it took G'd forty days to create as 'nothing?' G'd created the entire universe in six days and yet it took Him forty days before He could give the Torah to Moses? Moses ate neither bread nor drank water but he was able to subsist on the waters of Torah, etc."

Another reason that G'd could not tell Moses to descend before the Israelites had already offered sacrifices to the golden calf is connected to the four levels of Torah exegesis, commonly known as Pardess, an acronym for Peshat, Remez, Drush, and Sod. These four methods of exegesis actually reflect four different functions of "light" in the universe. It is the function of the פשט to illuminate the עולם העשיה, the lowest world, the physical universe as we know it. The function of the רמז is to provide insights into the world known in Kabbalah as the עולם היצירה. The function of the דרוש is to provide illumination of the world known as עולם הבריאה. Finally, it is the function of the exegesis known as סוד, to help us gain some enlightenment about the world known as עולם האצילות, a world in which tangible phenomena are totally non- existent. We have explained on several occasions that every one of these "worlds" contains ten levels known as ספירות, emanations. G'd is perceived as having "created" one such level of Torah per day and to have taught it to Moses. Thus you have the number forty as the number of days which were required in order for Moses to gain a full understanding of the Torah. Had Moses descended from the Mountain even a single day earlier, he (and we) would have been deprived of some of the insights the Torah provides. Expressed differently, the Torah would then have remained defective. At any rate, the ways of G'd are sometimes inscrutable but always fair and just. When you will read what we have written on the following verse you will see that we have pursued a different approach there.

וידבר AND [THE LORD] SAID — This term דבר when not followed by a word of the root אמר implies censorious speech, as (Genesis 42:7) “And he spake (וידבר) roughly (קשות) unto them”.

FOR THY PEOPLE HAVE DEALT CORRUPTLY. G-d said to Moses that they have committed two evils.³⁰⁵Jeremiah 2:13. One is that thy people have dealt corruptly. The meaning of the term hashchathah (corruption) is destruction of a structure, similar to that which is said, every man with his weapon of ‘mashchetho’ (destruction) in his hand;³⁰⁶Ezekiel 9:1. behold, I am against thee, ‘hamashchith’ (O destroying) mountain³⁰⁷Jeremiah 51:25. — Babylon — which destroyed every wall and tower [of the fortified cities]. And the meaning of “the destruction” here is that which our Rabbis have called³⁰⁸Chagigah 14b. See Vol. I, p. 155. — The “mutilating of the shoots” consists of separating any of the Ten Emanations and worshipping it independently (see Ha’emunah Vehabitachon, Chapter 3, in my Kithvei Haramban, Vol. II, p. 362). “mutilating the shoots,” [of faith, by seeking to undermine the principle of the Unity]. Secondly, they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed unto it.³⁰¹Verse 8. Now as regards the first transgression it was known only to G-d, for it is He Who knoweth the secrets of the heart,³⁰⁹Psalms 44:22. but the second one, [the open disregard of the Law] was by the sinners amongst them, as I have explained, [in bringing sacrifices to the golden calf; and that was a matter known to all]. Now most of the people shared in the sin of the incident of the calf, for so it is written, And all the people pulled off the golden pendants.²⁹¹Verse 3. And were it not for this [participation of theirs in the incident], the anger [of G-d] would not have been directed against them to destroy them all. For even though the numbers of those who were killed for this sin³¹⁰Verse 28: there fell of the people that day about three thousand. and those smitten by G-d³¹¹Verse 35. were few [in comparison to the total number of the people, this was because] most of them shared in the sin only in their evil thought [and not in action], as I have explained.

לך רד כי שחת עמך, "go and descend for your people have become corrupt, etc." G'd repeated Himself, saying both "go," and "descend!" He first told Moses that the time had come for him to leave the Mountain; He added that his departure would be in the nature of a "descent" from the lofty spiritual heights he had so recently attained. If G'd had only said to Moses: "Descend," we would have understood this as nothing out of the ordinary, seeing he had been on the Mountain and there was no way to go but down, just as when the Torah described Moses' previous descent from the Mountain in Exodus 19,14. G'd wanted Moses to understand that his "descent" had a metaphysical dimension. Perhaps G'd used this method to inform Moses that his entire spiritual progress had been due to the nature of the people of whom he was in charge. Now that the people of Israel had sinned, Moses, their leader, could no longer attain the level of prophetic insights he had achieved formerly. It is also possible that what G'd meant was that inasmuch as the Jewish people were Moses' "helper" and that helper had now become deficient, he, Moses could no longer maintain himself on the lofty plateau he had reached. This is what is implied by the words רד כי שחת עמך, "do not remain on this level seeing you attained it only with the help of your people."

כי שחת עמך אשר העלית, “for your people, the ones you brought up from Egypt, etc.” Seeing that after the crossing of the Sea of Reeds, the Torah described Moses as making the people take a turn toward the desert, [apparently without consulting G’d, Ed.] G’d now describes the calamity as having befallen “Moses’” people, as distinct from their being “G’d’s people,” seeing he had led them into the desert on his own authority. as distinct from their having remained “G’d’s” people. (compare Exodus 15,22) Alternatively, G’d took a leaf out of the people’s book, seeing they had described Moses as the man who had brought them out of Egypt. (verse 1) In Deuteronomy 9,12 Moses quotes G’d as having said to him: שחת עמך אשר הוצאת ממצרים, סרו מהר ,” your people, the ones you took out of Egypt have become corrupt and departed quickly from the path I commanded them.” Moses rejected this accusation, replying that G’d had taken the people out of Egypt. Compare Deut. He did not even agree that he had played any substantive part in the Exodus. [The Israelites had been expelled by Pharaoh, did not leave at Moses’ bidding. Ed.]

A term of harshness. . . However, וידבר ה' אל משה לאמר is not a term of harshness, because וידבר is followed with לאמר . Thus, וידבר is the general [act of speaking], and לאמר specifies [what is spoken]. But here לאמר does not follow afterward. And it is written וידבר instead of ויאמר . Perforce it is a term of harshness. (Re”m)

V. 7. שחת .כי שחת in sittlicher Beziehung kommt immer im Hiphil vor, השחית כל בשר את דרכו (Bereschit 6,12), והשחיתו מאבתם (Richter 2, 19). שחת im Piel heißt immer ein konkretes Verderben. Wir haben bereits (zu Bereschit 6, 11) bemerkt, wie שחת eigentlich: einem im gedeihlichen Fortgange Begriffenen eine Grube graben heiße. So auch hier: Geh' hinab, dein Hierverweilen hat seinen Zweck verloren dein Volk hat das begonnene Verhältnis vernichtet, die Ausführung unmöglich gemacht.

כי שחת עמך, “for your people have acted corruptly;” they are your people regardless if you chose them to be, just as you took them out of Egypt regardless if that had been done willingly or not. They acted corruptly by exchanging their leader without consulting you (or Me) Seeing that I had given you them as their leader, they were not at liberty to disown you. In addition to this, they violated My commandment of לא תעשה לך פסל, “do not make for yourself a graven image.” (Exodus 20,4) You are not allowed to do so, even if the image is to symbolise your G–d in heaven.

אשר העלית, “whom you (Moses, not G-d) have brought out of Egypt.” The vowel pattern of this word is slightly different from the vowel pattern of the same word in 33,1, so that the reading is slightly different too. The author does not offer a reason for the difference;[perhaps he means to suggest that the העם referred to in 33,1 are the true Israelites for whom the Exodus was a moral ethical elevation, whereas the העם that Moses had taken out of Egypt without consulting G-d had become a spiritual burden, instead. Ed.]

לך רד GO, GO DOWN from your high position; I have given you distinction only for their sake! (Berakhot 32a). At that moment Moses was excommunicated by a decree of the heavenly court (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 22).

THAT THOU [i.e., Moses] BROUGHTEST UP OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT. This is to be understood in the light of the verse, And Moses led Israel onward from the Red Sea.³¹²Above, 15:22. Or it may be that G-d wanted to tell it to Moses in the same way as the people had said it — for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt.³¹³Verse 1. Similarly, in the Book of Deuteronomy, He said, thy people that thou hast brought forth out of Egypt,³¹⁴Deuteronomy 9:12. meaning that through you [Moses] they have gone out of Egypt, as they say. But in his prayer Moses said, that Thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand,³¹⁵Verse 11 here. meaning that You alone are the One Who took them out of Egypt, for Yours is the might and the power; for it was with great power that Thy right hand, O Eternal is glorious in power,³¹⁶Above, 15:6. and with a mighty hand Thy right hand, O Eternal dasheth in pieces the enemy.³¹⁶Above, 15:6. Similarly it is said, by Thy great power and by Thy outstretched arm,³¹⁷Deuteronomy 9:29. as I have hinted at³¹⁶Above, 15:6. in connection with the secret of the attribute of the Arm.

The difficulty with this approach is that G'd should have told Moses this as soon as the calf had emerged and the people had said: "these are your gods Israel, etc." Moses should have lost some of his spiritual stature the moment the people had become guilty of idol worship. We must assume that there was a good reason for G'd to delay informing Moses about the sin his people had committed. The Talmud Sanhedrin 43 raises the question why G'd did not inform Joshua of Achan's theft of valuables from the city of Jericho before the defeat of the Israelites at the hands of the people of Ai which prompted Joshua to ask G'd why they had suffered such a humiliating defeat (Joshua 7,6). The Talmud answers that G'd did not want to become known as an "informer," a "snitcher." If that argument were applicable here, G'd should not have told Moses about the people's sin until the latter had found out by himself a few hours later. After all, Moses' time on the Mountain was just about completed. Actually, the situation of Achan and the sin of the golden calf cannot be compared. Achan's sin was unknown except to a few people who kept it as their secret. The Jewish people's dancing around the golden calf and offering sacrifices to it was already public knowledge and Moses would have found out about it within hours even if G'd had not told him. Nonetheless, seeing G'd is the epitome of piety why did He tell Moses before the latter commenced his descent?

עמך אשר העלית ist aus dem Sinne des verirrten Volkes gesprochen, und spricht eben den Kern der Verirrung aus, der ja eben darin bestand, dass sie sich nicht rein als Gottes Volk, sondern auch als Mosches Volk, und Mosche als notwendigen und bedingenden Vermittler der Erlösung begriffen.

שחת עמך THY PEOPLE HAVE CORRUPTED THEMSELVES — It does not say the people have corrupted but “thy” people — the mixed multitude whom you received of your own accord and accepted as proselytes without consulting Me. You thought it a good thing that proselytes should be attached to the Shechina — now they have corrupted themselves and have corrupted others (Exodus Rabbah 42:6).

G'd's reasoning must therefore have been the very reverse of that applied by an informer. The informer delights in implicating people in sin, whereas G'd delights in justifying Himself if per chance He is forced to pronounce sentence over the sinners. Seeing G'd had told Moses to descend from his lofty spiritual niveau, He had to tell him the reason for this, and once having told him that the people had become corrupted, G'd had to add particulars about the form this corruption had taken. G'd listed three sins: 1) "they made a golden calf for themselves;" 2) "they prostrated themselves before it and they offered sacrifices to it;" 3) they proclaimed: "these are your gods O Israel, who have brought you out of Egypt." Israel had therefore sinned in (1) thought, (2) in speech and (3) in deed. G'd first told Moses about Israel having sinned in thought when He said: "they have made for themselves, etc." This was a sin in thought as long as they had not hailed the calf or sacrificed to it. The critical word is להם, "for themselves." Please compare what I have written on Exodus 20,3 on the meaning of the second of the Ten Commandments: לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים. Concerning the Israelites' sin in deed, G'd told Moses that the people had "offered sacrifices to it." There is no greater act of idol worship than the offering of sacrifices to an idol. Concerning the Israelites having sinned in speech, G'd cited their having said: "these are your gods O Israel, etc." In view of all this Moses suffered a threefold weakening of his spiritual powers. Moses suffered a weakening of both נפש, רוח, and נשמה, and as a result he could not remain in the domain he had previously attained. This proves that unless the people had committed all three parts of this sin, Moses could have maintained his lofty posture. Had this not been so G'd would have already had to command him to descend after the Israelites had committed the first or second stage of that sin. G'd would then have had to reveal to Moses the reason He had asked him to descend at an earlier stage of these developments. At any rate, our question of why G'd did not tell Moses to descend sooner is answered satisfactorily.

סרו מהר, they have strayed very quickly, etc. I have not even been able to complete the gift of the Torah I had wanted to give to you. A reference to “the Torah and the Mitzvah” in Exodus 24,12.

סרו מהר מן הדרך, "they have quickly departed from the path, etc." The meaning of these words is clear in view of the statement in Chulin 4 that if someone acknowledges even passively that there is some substance to idolatry he is considered as having denied the entire Torah. This is why G'd said: "which I have commanded them," i.e. "all that I have commanded them."

V. 8. Auf מסכה steht אתנה, der Satz עשו להם וגו׳ ist somit von dem Folgenden getrennt und bildet mit dem Vorhergehenden einen einheitlichen Gedanken. Sie sind schon damit aus dem durch לא תעשון אתי vorgeschriebenen Wege gewichen, dass sie sich ein עגל מסכה gemacht, selbst indem sie darin nur einen anderen Mosche sich schaffen zu können vermeinten. Sie sind aber noch weiter gegangen, haben durch השתחויה und זביחה ihm göttliche Verehrung gezollt und damit bekundet, in welchem Grade der Verwerflichkeit sie ihren Ausspruch: אלה אלהיך וגו׳ verstanden.

סרו מהר, “they deviated quickly, etc.” they already elected a new leader for themselves instead of you whom I had appointed to be their leader. Not only that, but they also made a molten calf for themselves, contravening My command not to make themselves any cast images. My commandment included the prohibition to make such a cast image even if it was intended to symbolize Me. Although they had no idolatrous intention with what they did, they contravened My commandment.

It is also possible that the wording reflects- as I have written previously- that the Israelites retained their full faith in G'd and only saw in the golden calf one of His many manifestations. In view of all this G'd had to make clear that He had not ever commanded something of this nature, i.e. Israel was not allowed to employ intermediaries in their worship of Him and that what happened represented a complete departure from the way G'd had instructed them to relate to Him. This explains why G'd did not speak of Israel in terms of their having rebelled against Him or having denied Him. He was well aware that the Israelites had retained their belief in Him.

עשו להם עגל מסכה, "they made a molten calf for them(selves)." The words עשו להם mean that "others made for them." They had only handed over the gold whereas the calf appeared to have emerged of its own power. G'd informed Moses that the calf did not emerge by itself as we could have concluded from Aaron's words in verse 24, but that an action preceded its emergence as we have learned from Tanchuma that Yanus and Yambrus (legendary Egyptian sorcerers) made the calf.

ויאמרו אלה אלהיך ישראל, they said: "these are your gods O Israel." Why did G'd tell Moses about the Israelites sinning by speech, i.e. by acknowledging the deity of the calf with their lips, only after He had already told Moses that they had worshiped it by offering sacrifices to it? The order should have been the reverse! According to Shemot Rabbah 42,6 that it was the mixed multitude who made tha calf and that the Israelites had no share in this, the verse has to be interpreted as describing different stages of the sin committed by the Israelites, not by the mixed multitude. As to the first stage of what the Israelites themselves were guilty of G'd said: "the mixed multitude made the golden calf for themselves, but the Israelites did not protest. Next, the mixed multitude prostrated themselves before the calf and offered sacrifices to it, and the Israelites again did not protest. Failure to protest this time was already a sin of a much graver dimension than not having protested the mere making of the calf. When the mixed multitude declared (addressing Israel this time) "these are your gods O Israel," and the Israelites even now did not protest, this was the culmination of their sins.

According to the plain meaning of the verse there is a different reason. G'd did not tell Moses earlier about the Israelites having said: "these are your gods, etc," although sin by speech is not generally as severe as sin by deed because in this case the sin committed by their lips was exceptionally severe. It was reinforced by the words: "who have brought you out of Egypt." Crediting the inert calf with what G'd had done for Israel made the sin absolutely intolerable. The perversion of history for all future generations implied in this utterance made it worse than sacrificing to the calf and prostrating oneself in front of it.

Furthermore, inasmuch as the words were addressed by the mixed multitude to the Israelites and not by the Israelites themselves, they were relatively harmless as long as the Israelites did not respond to the invitation to worship the calf which was contained within these words. It had become clear only after the Israelites participated in the sacrifices to the calf that their active participation must have started already at an earlier stage, namely when they were invited to pay obeisance to the calf as their redeemer. G'd therefore told Moses that participation of the Israelites in the worshiping of the calf was the result of their agreeing with the people who had said: "these are your gods O Israel, etc."

קשה ערף STIFF-NECKED — They turn their stiffened necks towards those who reprove them (i e. they turn their back upon them) and refuse to listen.

והנה עם קשה עורף הוא. Their neck is like a tendon made of iron so that they will not turn in any direction to listen to advice and admonition from any source. Seeing that this is their situation, there is no hope that they will become penitents.

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. The reason this is reported as a separate address by G'd to Moses (seing there had been no interruption since G'd commenced to speak in verse 7) is that the first address was only an explanation of why Moses had to descend from his lofty spiritual niveau. Now G'd speaks to Moses concerning the repercussions Israel's conduct will have on their own standing. Had the Torah not inserted the words ויאמר ה׳ at this point, we would have thought that the previous sentence "they have quickly departed, etc." was meant as an introduction to why the people would be punished.

V. 9. Wo so ohne Zwischenrede das ויאמר wiederholt wird, da war zuvor eine Antwort erwartet und erst nachdem diese nicht erfolgte, und weil sie nicht erfolgte, fährt die Rede fort. Vergl. Bereschit 16, 8 — 11. — Auch hier gibt eine Pause der zu erwartenden Antwort, oder der sofortigen Vollziehung des geheißenen Hinabgehens Raum. Mosche' Bestürzung versagte wohl das eine wie das andere, und die Gottesrede bringt ihn durch nähere Darlegung der nun — ohne sein Dazwischentreten — bevorstehenden Zukunft zu dem Bewusstsein, dass der Moment sein Handeln und welches Handeln er erheische. Während oben daher V. 7 die Gottesrede mit וידבר, dem Ausdruck des absoluten Ausspruchs, eingeleitet ist, fährt die Rede mit ויאמר, dem Ausdruck des ins Herz und ins Bewusstsein Hineinredens fort. — קשה ערף setzt voraus, dass einer Anforderung durch Festhalten an einer bisher gewohnten Richtung zuwider gehandelt worden sei. In diesem härtesten Ausdruck liegt zugleich das Milderungsmotiv angedeutet, dass die Verirrung des Volkes nicht sowohl ein neues überraschendes Ausschreiten gewesen, sondern in einem noch nicht völlig überwundenen Standpunkt bisheriger Gewöhnungen wurzele. Die Anschauung, aus welcher die Forderung עשה לנו אלהים וגו׳ hervorgegangen, war bei einer Volksmenge, deren Wiege in Ägypten gestanden, keine überraschende, und an diesen Umstand selbst knüpft Mosches Vorstellung im folgenden an.

הניחה לי LET ME ALONE — So far we have not heard that Moses had prayed on their behalf and yet He says “let Me alone!” which implies a refusal to his entreaty! But by saying this He opened the door to him (offered him a suggestion) intimating to him that if he prayed for them He would not destroy them (Shemot Rabbah 42:9; cf. also Berakhot 32a).

NOW THEREFORE LET ME ALONE, THAT MY WRATH MAY WAX HOT AGAINST THEM. The meaning of this cannot be “let Me alone and I will become angry,” for if His anger had not been aroused yet, why should it wax hot as soon as Moses leaves Him alone? But in line with the plain meaning of Scripture the meaning thereof is: “leave Me, and I will consume them in My burning anger,” similar in thought to the expression, let Me alone, and I will destroy them.³¹⁸Ibid., Verse 14.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic lore of the Cabala], the verse means: “My mercy will subside, and My attribute of justice will wax hot against them and I will consume them with it, for with Me [i.e. when the attribute of mercy is before Me], it³¹⁹I.e., the attribute of justice has then no power. — So it is clearly explained in Abusaula’s commentary on the mystic passages in Ramban. See Vol. I, Preface, xii, Note 21. has no power over them.” This is the meaning of the expression, And Moses besought the face of the Eternal his G-d,³²⁰Verse 11. The word pnei (“face of”) alludes to the attribute of justice (Bachya). being similar in usage to the expression, the face of the Lord Eternal G-d, the G-d of Israel.³²¹Further, 34:23. And so Moses mentioned [in his prayer] in the Book of Deuteronomy, O G-d Eternal³²²Deuteronomy 9:26. — first the name of G-d with Aleph Dalet,³²³Ado-noy which alludes to the attribute of justice. followed by the name of Yod Hei.³²⁴The Tetragrammaton which alludes to the attribute of mercy. It is possible that the word vay’chal (and he besought) is of the root t’chilah (beginning).³²⁵“Since Moses prayed that the attribute of justice be withheld from the people, Scripture therefore uses the word vay’chal [of the root t’chilah, meaning “beginning” or “first”], because [in the order of the attributes as they are arranged from lowest to highest, the one of justice] is nearest to us” (Ricanti). See also Bachya, in my edition, Vol. II, p. 332. Understand it and you will know.

ועתה הניחה לי, "And now, let Me be, etc." The reason G'd said: "and now," was because He had already tried to put Moses in a good mood by offering to make an entire new Jewish nation with Moses as its founding patriarch when He said to him: "and I shall make you a great nation." This promise was designed to silence Moses into not protesting G'd's intention to destroy the present Jewish people. Moses thought to himself that G'd's promise was hardly any reassurance seeing that what happened to Abraham's descendants was liable to happen to his own descendants with similarly terrible results. This is why G'd said to Moses that he should leave Him be only "for now;" G'd implied that if Moses would leave Him alone now He would promise Moses that history would not repeat itself with any of Moses' descendants if he were to become the founding father of a new Jewish nation. There could be either one of two reasons why history would not repeat itself. 1) Moses' descendants would be more virtuous than the present generation of Jews and they would not succumb to the kind of provocation by Satan that the present Jewish people had succumbed to. 2) Even assuming that the "new" Jewish people would succumb to a situation similar to that facing the present one, G'd would not again ask Moses or their leader at that time not to intercede on their behalf. There would always be a chance to nullify any decree of G'd to destroy the new Jewish people.

ועתה הניחה לי, “and now, desist from Me, etc.” Nachmanides writes that it makes no sense to understand the words ועתה הניחה לי, as meaning that Moses should not try to interfere with G’d’s anger, seeing that He had not yet displayed any sign of such anger, as G’d Himself is about to say. Moreover, how could G’d become angry after Moses had already appeased Him? The plain meaning of the words in question must be understood as a prelude to what G’d adds immediately after referring to His anger when He announces that He will wipe out the Jewish people instantly and would replace them with a new Jewish nation based on Moses as their founding father. Alternately, G’d told Moses not to appeal to His attribute of Mercy in order that He could give free rein to His attribute of Justice, as a result of which the people would be annihilated.

V. 10.הניחה לי : sollte dies: lass mich, hindere mich nicht, ausdrücken, so würde es: הניחה אותי heißen. הניח ל־ heißt aber: jemanden etwas überlassen, daher allerdings auch: jemandem etwas gestatten. Hier fehlt das Objekt, und ist dies Objekt somit entweder das Volk, oder dieses ganze Verhältnis. Der צווי ist hier nicht kategorisch, sondern hypothetisch wie: הוכח לחכם ויאהבך (Prov. 9. 8). תן לחכם ויחכם וגו׳ (daselbst 9) u.a.m.

הניחה לי, “Let Me be;” Hashem used this mild form of rebuke, out of respect for Moses. He meant that the fact that the people had chosen an unfit replacement instead of Moses, this alone was enough to punish them severely.

A moral-ethical approach to the words הניחה לי would be that it was G'd's way of hinting that if Moses were to allow G'd a brief moment of anger, i.e. ועתה הניחה לי, there was a chance that his subsequent intercession would prove successful. As soon as the present moment had passed Moses was invited, so to speak, to intercede on behalf of "his" people. This brief moment had passed while G'd uttered the word ועתה. This is why Moses immediately began to intercede with prayer.

Also: überlässest du es mir, d. h. trittst du hier nicht vermittelnd ein, bleibt das Volk sich selbst überlassen, tritt aus dem Volke und in dem Volke kein Element hervor, das ihm bessernd über den Abfall hinüberhelfe, so bleibt nichts übrig, als dass es vernichtet werde. Meine Absicht und meine durch Israel zu verwirklichende Verheißung geht aber nicht verloren; denn du bist noch übrig, und dich mache ich zum zweiten Abraham und lasse das ihm verheißene "große Volk" von dir, ja auch Abrahams Enkel, aufs neue entstammen.

According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 21,6 who say that the word ועתה in Genesis 3,22 as well as elsewhere always contains an allusion to the need to do תשובה, repentance, G'd hinted to Moses that it was up to him to do תשובה. Seeing that the entire debacle was due to Moses' having told the people he would return at the end of forty days he had misled them. He had failed to inform the people that he referred to a return on the forty-first day.

Alternatively, Moses needed to do תשובה for having accepted the mixed multitude as proselytes at the time without having first consulted G'd. This is why G'd referred to the perpetrators of the golden calf as Moses' people, i.e. שחת עמך. When G'd said: ועתה, He meant that the time had come for Moses to become a penitent seeing he had a considerable share in the circumstances which made the golden calf episode possible. Not only this, the episode was to teach the Jewish people not to accept proselytes at the time when the Messiah would come (Yevamot 24). At that time it would be reserved for Moses to accept the proselytes and thus to make up for the time he had accepted them without authority from G'd.

הניחה לי ויחר אפי, "leave Me alone so I can become angry, etc." Why did G'd have to ask Moses to "leave Him alone?" Had Moses done anything to prevent G'd from venting His anger? On the contrary! Moses had not even commenced to pray on behalf of the Israelites until later! Besides, the future tense "so that I may vent My anger" suggests that up until that moment G'd had not even become angry as yet and that He was looking for a pretext to become angry! Since when is it one of G'd's characteristics to want to become angry? We know that it is G'd's virtue to squash His anger whenever possible! We have it on the authority of Rabbi Yishmael the High Priest that G'd was pleased with his prayer asking Him to suppress His anger! (Berachot 7). Perhaps this was precisely Moses' argument when he remonstrated with G'd saying: למה יחרה אפך, "why do you want to become angry?" Moses uses the future tense in this question, suggesting that up until that point G'd had not shown signs of being angry. At any rate we are faced here with a difficulty in understanding the ways of our Lord!

The whole matter may become clearer when we recall that the source of anger is an insult felt by one's heart. The degree of insult one experiences is in direct relation to the prominence and high position of the one who is guilty of the insult and the nature of the insult itself. There are two possible remedies which help one overcome the feeling of having been insulted. 1) One may take revenge on the person or persons who have insulted him. 2) One may respond to words of conciliation which puts the insult into its proper perspective.

Inasmuch as the guilty party in this case was Israel, the insult could not have been greater seeing that Israel was G'd's chosen people. G'd Himself had indicated this by saying: "they have departed quickly from the path, etc." i.e. while Israel was still My most recently wed bride it has already abandoned Me, its groom, by whoring around. Initially, G'd felt so strongly about this that He did not think that any of the conventional ways of putting the insult into perspective would be effective and He had to take punitive action to get the feeling out of His system, so to speak. According to our sages in Shemot Rabbah 2,1 it is one of G'd's virtues that He cannot tolerate seeing His righteous people, His "friends," suffer pain. Accordingly, how could G'd inflict the pain of destroying His people on Moses? Had He not waited with the onset of the deluge so that Methuselah, a righteous man and others like him should not witness it (compare Bereshit Rabbah 32,7)? Moreover, according to the Zohar volume 1 page 206 the use of the term נשמה in Genesis 7,22 indicates that all the few good people, those possessed not only of a נפש, but even of a נשמה (a superior kind of soul), had died prior to the onset of the deluge. We also find in Isaiah 57,2 that the righteous person dies on account of the evil (which is to come). The prophet means that G'd spares the righteous the need to witness the disaster. Surely G'd was perfectly aware of how Moses would grieve over the destruction of his people! How could He even contemplate this type of revenge (retribution) for the insult He had suffered at the hands of the Jewish people? Had there ever been someone closer to G'd than Moses that he should have to witness such a disaster? When G'd considered all this and concluded that it would be better for Him to suffer the insult than to allow Moses to suffer the anguish of seeing his people destroyed, He begged Moses to allow Him to at least become angry for a moment. He asked Moses not to be upset at what He asked of him. If Moses agreed, this would give G'd an opportunity to first become angry and then regain His composure. He suggested that He would make out of Moses (his offspring in the future) לגוי גדול; He did not say He would make Moses himself into גוי גדול. This meant that though Moses was not at that moment a "great nation," He, G'd, would see to it that Moses' soul would possess the additional qualities needed to ensure that his descendants would be greater than the present Jewish people. The word אעשה also implied that G'd had to undertake a new process in order for future children of Moses to have the potential implied here.

G'd also wanted to ward off Moses's argument (not yet voiced) "where is Your promise to the patriarch Abraham, i.e. the גוי גדול, the great nation that You promised he would become?" He used the expression לגוי גדול to paraphrase His promise to Abraham in Genesis 12,2 suggesting that this very promise would be fulfilled via the descendants of Moses.

Moses' answer indicated that he could not allow G'd to do as He had suggested and that he could not conquer his own anguish even for a moment at what G'd planned to let him witness. Moses expressed all this succinctly in the words ויחל משה in verse 11. The Talmud Berachot 32 gives a variety of explanations of the word ויחל, the common denominator of all these explanations being that it is an expression of profound anguish. [The word ויחל is variously connected to חלה to be sick, as connected to חלל, to desecrate, i.e. to violate one's promise; another meaning is the aramaic אחילו, fever or trembling. There are still other interpretations. Ed.] In response to G'd saying: ויחר אפי, "so that My anger will be hot against them," an argument used by G'd to explain that He had no alternative if He wanted to get over the insult heaped upon Him, Moses countered: למה יחרה אפך, "why should You become angry instead of looking for a different method of assuaging Your hurt feelings?" By referring to the Jewish people as בעמך, "against Your people," Moses suggested that killing the Jewish people would "boomerang," that G'd would hurt Himself more than He would hurt the Israelites. After all, You have taken them out of Egypt and thereby made a great name for Yourself amongst mankind. Are You going to let all this go to waste? Why would You give the Egyptians such satisfaction? Moreover, why do You not remember Your promises to the Patriarchs? When You think about the Patriarchs surely You have reason to be well pleased? Moses succeeded in his plea as we know from the line וינחם ה׳ על הרעה, "G'd reconsidered the evil, etc."

למה ה‘ יחרה אפך WHEREFORE, O LORD, DOTH THY WRATH GLOW [AGAINST THY PEOPLE] — Does anyone become jealous of another, except a wise man of a wise man or a hero of a hero?! (Avodah Zarah 55a)

ETERNAL, WHY DOTH THY WRATH WAX HOT AGAINST THY PEOPLE? Now when Moses prayed about this great sin, it would have been fitting that he do so by way of confession and supplication, similar to what he said later on, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin,³²⁶Further, Verse 31. and just as Ezra prayed and confessed³²⁷Ezra 10:1. because of the faithlessness of them of the captivity,³²⁸Ibid., 9:4. and there is no reason why he should say, why doth the Eternal etc.? Our Rabbis, prompted by this [difficulty], have in various homiletic ways³²⁹See Shemoth Rabbah 43:7-10. tried to mention several reasons for Moses’ minimizing the sin before Him.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic lore of the Cabala], Moses is saying: “Why do You give permission to the attribute of justice to hold sway over Your people, for You have taken them out of the land of Egypt for the sake of Your Name with the attribute of mercy ruling over them, and with the attribute of justice upon their enemies.”
Now this prayer — Why doth the Eternal… Wherefore should the Egyptians speak³³⁰Verses 11-12. — appears really to be the very same prayer he mentioned in the Book of Deuteronomy, And I prayed unto G-d and I said: O Eternal G-d, destroy not Thy people,³³¹Deuteronomy 9:26. for the purport of the prayer is alike in both cases, the difference being only that here Scripture mentioned the prayer before it told us that he came down from the mountain, and there Moses mentioned it after it tells us that he came down from the mountain. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra’s opinion is that Moses did not pray for Israel as long as the idol was among them;³³²Hence the prayer recorded in Verses 11-13 was really not recited by Moses until after his descent from the mount and his cleansing the camp of the idolatrous worship, mentioned in Verses 15-29. — Ramban will differ with this interpretation of Ibn Ezra. but only when G-d told him, Let me alone, that I may destroy them,³¹⁸Ibid., Verse 14. and he realized that the fate [of the people] was dependent upon him, did he go down the mountain and destroy the calf, and then he returned to pray for forty days, there being no strict chronological order in the narrative of the Torah. But I do not agree with this opinion. For the prayer he recited upon his return to the mountain [after he had cleansed the camp of the idol] is the one which he mentions, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin.³²⁶Further, Verse 31. And if it is all one prayer³³³I.e., if the prayer mentioned in Verses 11-13, and the one in Verses 31-32, were both said at the same time, as Ibn Ezra would have it, namely during the forty days after he returned to the mountain, then why etc. which Moses said during the forty days after he returned to the mountain, why does Scripture divide it, mentioning here [in Verses 11-13] part of it, and after he had come down, mentioning the other part [in Verses 31-32]? Rather, these are two separate prayers. Therefore it appears that when G-d told him Let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them,³³⁴Verse 10 here. Moses immediately besought the face of the Eternal and did not delay at all, for he was afraid lest the wrath go out from G-d and the plague would begin³³⁵See Numbers 17:11. and consume them in a moment,³³⁶Ibid., Verse 10. therefore at once he said, Eternal, why doth Thy wrath wax hot against Thy people? Similarly I found it in Eileh Shemoth Rabbah:³³⁷Shemoth Rabbah 42:1. “Said Moses: ‘If I leave Israel [to their fate] and go down the mountain, they will never have a restoration again. Instead I will not move from here until I seek mercy for them.’ Immediately Moses began pleading on their behalf etc.” Thus he prayed for them and G-d repented of the evil which He said³³⁸Verse 14. to kill them and destroy them. That does not mean that He was [completely] reconciled with them, but at least He said, “I have repented, I will not destroy them.” And now that Moses had time, he went down the mountain and burnt the calf, and punished its worshippers, and afterwards he said to the people, I will go up unto the Eternal, perhaps I shall make atonement for your sin,³³⁹Verse 30. so that He should entirely forgive you. However, in the Book of Deuteronomy Moses narrated the account in another order, stating that after G-d had told him, Let Me alone, that I may destroy them,³⁴⁰Deuteronomy 9:14. he said, So I turned and came down.³⁴¹Ibid., Verse 15. The reason [for this change in the account of the narrative] is that Moses was listing to them there all their transgressions, and the pains he took for them. Thus he told them of the golden calf they had made in Horeb,³⁴²Ibid., Verse 8. on account of which he had to break the Tablets of the Law and to pray for them forty days and forty nights, and also for Aaron,³⁴³Ibid., Verse 20. and how he was put to the trouble of burning the calf. Then he continued to tell what they had done at Taberah, and at Massah, and at Kibroth-hattaavah,³⁴⁴Ibid., Verse 22. And when the Eternal sent them from Kadesh-barnea;³⁴⁵Ibid., Verse 23. and after he finished, Ye have been rebellious against the Eternal from the day that I knew you,³⁴⁶Ibid., Verse 24. he went back to the matter of his prayers which he had mentioned, and set down in order the two prayers, saying, So I fell down before the Eternal the forty days and forty nights that I fell down; because the Eternal had said He would destroy you³⁴⁷Ibid., Verse 25. — until I prayed, destroy not Thy people.³⁴⁸Ibid., Verse 26. It was not necessary for him to mention the second prayer³⁴⁹I.e., the prayer mentioned here in Verses 31-32: Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, etc. because he had already said there that he prayed for them forty days, and even here it does not mention [all the prayers he recited], for who can write down the many supplications and entreaties that he prayed for them during the forty days. And if you will understand what I have explained, then you will really comprehend that there were [here] two prayers, for at first he besought the face of the Eternal his G-d, and at the end [i.e., after he came down the mountain and burnt the golden calf etc. and then returned to the mountain], he fell down before the Eternal for forty days,³⁴⁷Ibid., Verse 25. as it is explained in the section, and Moses returned unto the Eternal.³⁵⁰Verse 31 here.
Now in the Book of Deuteronomy he mentioned, Moreover the Eternal was very angry with Aaron… and I prayed for Aaron also at the same time.³⁵¹Deuteronomy 9:20. This he did not mention here at all for the sake of Aaron’s honor, for Moses did not want to mention in Aaron’s lifetime that he had been dependent upon his prayer, in order that he should not feel ashamed.³⁵²Of the grief he had caused (Abusaula). But there [in the Book of Deuteronomy] after Aaron’s death, he informed us of the truth. This is the correct order in these Scriptural sections.

למה ה' יחרה אפך בעמך, Moses, does not accept that all the people have become “his” people as implied by G’d having said to him שחת עמך “your people have become corrupted.” Surely, he reasons, not all the people have sinned. Why should G’d be angry at those who did not sin, the ones who are still “G’d’s people?”

למה ה׳ יחרה אפך, "To what purpose, O G'd, will Your anger burn?" If we go back for a moment to the statement in Shemot Rabbah 42 that only the mixed multitude were involved in the making and worshiping of the golden calf, we had to conclude that G'd's anger was directed at the Israelites for not having protested what the mixed multitude were doing. In that case, Moses' question "Why be mad at Your people?" simply meant that G'd's anger should have been restricted to the mixed multitude. This suggests that Moses had made peace with the idea that G'd would destroy the mixed multitude. Perhaps we can find support for this even in Moses' words: "whom You have taken out of Egypt?" Seeing that G'd had not taken the mixed multitude out of Egypt but they had come of their own volition, G'd's image would not be tarnished if this mixed multitude were to perish! According to the Midrash then we may assume that all the members of the mixed multitude died at that time seeing that even their patron did not speak up on their behalf. Inasmuch as the mixed multitude were seducers, Moses would have been totally out of order if he had asked for mercy on their behalf especially seeing that he himself was being punished for having accepted them as converts to begin with.

בעמך אשר הוצאת. Note that G’d says: עמך, “your people,” instead of עמי, “My people.” He says אשר הוצאת “whom you have taken out from Egypt,” i.e. not “the one whom I have taken out of Egypt.”

למה ה' יחרה אפך בעמך, “to what purpose, o Hashem, should Your anger flare against Your people?” Nachmanides writes that in light of this great sin by the Israelites, it would seem to have been appropriate for Moses to plead Israel’s case by commencing with a confession, as in the formula “אנא חטא העם הזה וגו', “indeed this people have committed a grievous sin, etc.” [as he did when he ascended the Mountain again in verse 31. Ed.] Our sages have distinguished themselves in citing reasons why what appeared at first glance as a terrible sin, was in fact much less serious than it appears at first glance. The proper way to understand Moses’ words at this juncture is: ”why would You give permission to the Attribute of Justice to assume control of the fate of Your people when You had led the people out under the banner of the Attribute of Mercy, while at the same time reserving Your Attribute of Justice for dealing with their enemies?” Some commentators explain Moses’ question as being simply: “why not direct Your anger at the instigators of this sin, the mixed multitude, who had joined the Jewish people at the time of the Exodus?” This prayer, in which Moses describes that by doing away with the Jewish people Hashem would ultimately diminish His own image, which He had built up while performing the miracles in Egypt, is repeated in Deuteronomy. The only difference is that here Moses is described as offering this plea before descending from the Mountain, whereas in Deuteronomy it is described by Moses as having taken place after he had descended from the Mountain. (Deut. 9,26) Ibn Ezra feels that Moses refrained from pleading on behalf of the people as long as the symbol of their sin was still among them. He could not hope to have his prayer answered until after every vestige of the golden calf had been destroyed. Seeing that G’d had said to him that he should desist from pleading, and he realized that the matter depended upon him, he hastened to come up with some cogent reason why G’d’s anger, if it were to result in the people’s destruction, would be counterproductive from G’d’s own vantage point. [Ibn Ezra does not view our verse as a prayer on behalf of Israel, but on behalf of G’d’s image among mankind. Ed.] Personally, I do not agree. (Nachmanides speaking). Nachmanides argues that if indeed Moses had not prayed while on the Mountain for the first time, and all his entreaties (according to some scholars 40 days’ worth of them) were a single prayer, why would the Torah have divided them into what is reported here and what Moses added in Deuteronomy? I believe therefore, that we are dealing with two distinct prayers. When G’d told Moses to desist so that He could proceed with what He had in mind, Moses prayed immediately, instead of desisting. He formulated the prayer quoted in our verse. He was far too worried that if he were to wait it would prove too late, as G’d’s anger would have been translated into disaster for the Jewish people. His prayer proved effective, at least sufficiently to suspend execution of G’d’s plan at this stage. It did not mean that G’d had been mollified, how could He have been, when no remedial action both in word and deed had yet been taken? Seeing that G’d had granted Moses a stay of execution, he descended and immediately proceeded to destroy the golden calf, to sprinkle the penitent people with water containing the ashes of that cast image, and authorized the execution of the active participants who had danced around the calf proclaiming it to be a deity. Having done all this, he felt that he could ascend the Mountain again and plead for forgiveness, not only a delay of the punishment for what the people had become guilty of. On that occasion, the confession of the people’s guilt did not ring hollow, as he was able to point to the remedial action he had taken and the people having demonstrated sincere penitence. As to the reason why Moses related the sequence differently, 40 years after the event, when he said that as soon as G’d told him to desist so that He could destroy the people he descended the Mountain, (Deut. 9,14-15) this was because Moses was in the process of reminding the people [who were still alive, i.e. below the age of 60, Ed.] of a whole litany of sins committed by their fathers. In order not to interrupt the continuity of his recital, Moses did not mention what he had said to G’d in our verse at that time. He preferred to tell of what precisely had happened at hat time as well as Aaron’s role in all this. [remember that the great majority of the people whom Moses addressed at that time had not even been alive when all this happened. Ed.] After he had concluded by reminding the people that they had a long history of being rebellious against G’d, (Deut. 9,24) he came back to his prayer on behalf of the people and reminded them that he had spent an entire 40 days on the Mountain pleading the cause of his people. He wanted his audience to know that their existence at this time was not a natural event, but that G’d had initially meant to kill all their fathers, so that most of them would never have been born even, if not for his insistent prayers over a period of so many days when he did not even enjoy food and drink. He did not have to list all the details of his prayers as a list of 40 days of continuous prayer would have resulted in the Torah being an interminably long book, and the people reading it would have gone to sleep from boredom. When Moses mentioned that he had also prayed on behalf of Aaron at that time, he made clear that Aaron had been in need of his prayer at that time. He did not mention this in our verse, as it would have been embarrassing to have done so while Aaron was still alive. In Deuteronomy, a speech by Moses several months after Aaron had already died, he could mention this without fear of embarrassing him.

ויחל משה את פני ה’ אלו-היו, “Moses pleaded before Hashem, his G’d.” Moses pleaded with the attribute of Justice; the word פני when used in connection with G’d always refers to the attribute of Justice. To mention just a few examples: (Leviticus 20,5) ושמתי אני את פני באיש ההוא, “I shall set My face against that man;” or (Psalms 34,17) פני ה’ בעושי רע, “the face of G’d is set against evildoers. I have already dealt with this word in my commentary on Exodus 20,1.
We are familiar with the meaning of the word ויחל from Malachi 1,9 חלו נא פני א-ל, “please implore the favor of G’d.” Alternately, the word may be derived from תחלה, “beginning, at first.” It would mean that Moses began something that would continue through to its end. He would implore the attribute בינה until he would reach the attribute דעה, which is above it. The description by Moses of G’d as אלו-היו is something that does not occur anywhere else in the whole Torah. It would normally indicate that Moses related to “his” G’d as no one else ever did or could and G’d acknowledged this during his life time. Nowhere else do we find that the Torah described G’d as specifically Moses’ G’d, such as we find frequently in connection with the patriarchs. G’d is often described as “the G’d of Avraham,” or as “the G’d of Yitzchak,” or as “the G’d of Yaakov.” Even in connection with David we find that Isaiah 38,5 quotes G’d telling Chizkiyah: “thus said the Lord, the G’d of your ‘father’ David, etc.” However, in Moses’ case this is the only time G’d associated His name with Moses and even then only by means of a pronoun, almost like an afterthought. I believe that the Torah’s intention was to give us a hint of G’d’s partial withdrawal from the Jewish people and even from Moses due to this grievous sin. This is confirmed by G’d describing the people to Moses as עמך, “your people.” He hinted that as of then they were not “His” people. How could they be, seeing they had been unfaithful to Him?

Can there be a thought of jealousy, unless it is. . . Rashi is answering the question: Was it not right for Hashem to be angry with them for having made the Calf? Perforce, Moshe meant: “Can there be a thought of jealousy. . .” But above, on אנכי ה' אלהיך (20:2), Rashi explains [our verse differently]: “Why is it in the singular form: אלהיך ? This was meant to give an opening for Moshe. . . This is what is meant when he said: “Hashem! Why should Your wrath blaze against Your people?’ [Meaning:] ‘It was not to them that You issued the command: You shall have no other gods, but only to me.’” Both [of Rashi’s explanations] are correct.

Against Your people. God had said, “Your people have become corrupt,” referring to the mixed multitude whom Moshe took out of Egypt on his own authority. Moshe replied, “If only my people have sinned, why are You angry at Your people? And if it is because they did not protest, recall that it was only recently that You brought them from the land of Egypt.” In Egypt even the B’nei Yisrael had fallen into idol worship. How, then, could they be expected to become zealous opponents of it in such a short time?

V. 11 חלה .ויחל משה heißt krank sein, חַלֶה: somit krank machen, davon glaubte man den Ausdruck חלה פנים als: den Zorn schwächen, somit: besänftigen, erklären zu können. Allein חלה פנים kommt entschieden in Sätzen vor, wo an Zorn nicht zu denken ist. So פניך יחלו עשירי עם (Ps. 45, 13) רבים יחלו פני נדיב (Prov. 19, 6), וחלו פניך רבים (Job. 11, 19). In allen diesen Stellen bezeichnet es offenbar nicht die Besänftigung eines Zürnenden, sondern das Bestreben, die Gunst und das Wohlwollen eines Höhern zu gewinnen. Es muss somit diesem Ausdruck eine andere Anschauung zu Grunde liegen. Wir haben bereits (Bereschit 22, 2 u. 48, 1) nachgewiesen, wie חלה mit ח-Laut die dem mit ע-Laut in עלה enthaltenen Begriffe entgegengesetzte hemmende Bedeutung habe. עלה heißt in zweiter Bedeutung: die aufsteigende Entwicklung, woher עלה: Blatt. חלה heißt: die gehemmte Entwicklung, Krankheit, und תעלה die wiederhergestellte Entwicklung: Genesung. Ist nun חלה Gegensatz von עלה in dessen zweiter Bedeutung, so kann auch חלה Gegensatz von עלה in dessen erster Bedeutung, des Aufsteigens, des sich nach oben Bewegens, sein, und ebenfalls in seiner ersten Bedeutung: die in ihrer Richtung nach oben unterbrochene und zur Richtung abwärts gebrachte Bewegung sein. חַלֵה wäre demnach: das Bestreben, etwas Aufwärtsgerichtetes zur Richtung abwärts zu bewegen, und חלה פנים hieße buchstäblich: ein Gesicht, das sonst seiner Natur, seiner Stellung etc. oder dem gegenwärtigen Verhältnisse gemäß, nur aufwärts schauen würde, zum Herabsehen auf einen Niederen zu bewegen, das ist aber nichts anderes, als: sich um die wohlwollende Herablassung eines Höhern, oder um die verzeihende, sich wieder zuwendende Herablassung eines Zürnenden bemühen. Wir haben die übliche Übersetzung: Flehen, beibehalten, da sie diesem Begriffe nahe kommt. Besser und richtiger wäre es: Da suchte Mosche das sich herablassende Wohlwollen Gottes, seines Gottes, zu gewinnen, und steht das im tiefen Zusammenhange mit der Kap. 33. 12 u. 13 enthaltenen Bitte.

ויחל משה, “Moses began to pacify;” according to some commentators the prayer alluded to here is the one spelled out in greater in Deuteronomy 9,25, where Moses adds that he threw himself on the ground in prayer for forty days, etc.; this actually happened after he had already descended from the Mountain, smashed the Tablets, made gold dust out of the golden calf, had the Levites execute the ones who actively worshipped the calf and danced around it, and had purified the people by making them drink water containing ash of the golden calf. These commentators consider it unbelievable that Moses had the nerve to ask for forgiveness of the people before the latter had done their part in making penance for their grievous error. Those were the forty days during which G-d had told Moses that He would not be the One leading them up to the Promised Land. (verses 3133). When hearing this, Moses had responded with reminding G-d of His promise, commencing with Deuteronomy 33,12. According to our author, Moses did not ascend the Mountain during these 40 days, for how could he have done so without first having obtained permission to do so? At the end of those intermediate 40 days, when G-d had indicated that he had reconciled Himself to the people, He said to him: “carve yourself a second set of Tablets, etc.” and had asked him to ascend the Mountain again. (Exodus 34,1) When Moses ascended again (34,4) he remained on the Mountain and did not descend until the tenth day of Tishrey.

למה ה’ יחרה אפך בעמך, “Why, Hashem, should Your anger flare up against Your people, etc.” In Deut. 9,26 Moses elaborates in greater detail about this prayer he offered up pleading with G’d not to destroy the Jewish people. Our sages Shemot Rabbah 43,10, ask why Moses mentioned the Exodus at this time? They answer that Moses asked G’d to consider the background of the Jewish people, where they had been and under what circumstances He had taken them out of a land infested with all kinds of idolatry such as the land of Egypt. After all, it was probably not the first time Israelites had made a cast calf, though they could not make it out of gold because they were too poor.

According to the plain meaning of the verse i.e. that the Israelites themselves made the golden calf and worshiped it, Moses' argument applied to the part of the people who did not have a direct share in that sin. After all, the Torah reports that all those who had actively participated died. There were three such groups. 1) The Israelites who did not desist from worshiping the golden calf in spite of witnesses and proper warnings of the consequences were executed by the Levites. 2) The people whose sin had been witnessed but who had not been warned died at the hands of G'd, 3) those who had been warned but whose deed had not been witnessed. They too died at the hands of G'd. When G'd said to Moses that He wanted to destroy the people, He referred to those who were not included in either of the three groups we just mentioned. Moses' outcry: "Why will Your anger burn against Your people, etc.," was on behalf of the people who did not belong to any of the three groups who had been active participants in the sin. His argument was simply that the sin of omission of not protesting the involvement of the others surely did not warrant extinction! Should they cease to be called "Your people" though they had not rebelled against You?

אלקיו: der zu ihm in besondere Beziehung getreten und ihn zum Boten seines Willens berufen. Aus diesem Berufe heraus und aus dem diesem Berufe zu Grunde liegenden Zwecke ist alles folgende gesprochen.

למה ה׳ יחרה אפך בעמך, “What for, o Lord, are You becoming angry, etc.?” Moses’ reasoning was that it did not seem reasonable after all the time and effort G-d had invested in bringing this people to the spiritual level they had achieved at the time of the revelation, that all this should be wiped out in one moment, as if it were completely irretrievable? He added, that the Egyptians would have the last laugh after all, when they would hear of the annihilation of G-d’s people. He also asked what would become of G-d’s oath to the patriarchs.

אשר הוצאת "whom You have taken out of Egypt! He used this argument to refute G'd's suggestion to make out of his descendants a great nation. Moses meant that any nation descended from him will not have the experience of the Exodus. If a nation which had this experience nonetheless succumbed to the temptation of the golden calf, surely a nation which lacked that experience cannot be expected to resist such a temptation! You will find that at the beginning of the Decalogue G'd emphasised the experience of the Exodus as the basis of the Israelites accepting Him as their G'd (Exodus 20,2). This shows clearly how pivotal that experience was for the faith in G'd displayed by the Jewish people, and their willingness to obey His commands. This theme occurs again and again throughout the Torah in connection with G'd's commandments. One gains the impression that the Torah keeps reminding us that the justification of G'd demanding fulfilment of His commandments is due almost entirely to the experience of the Exodus. Please refer to what I have written on that verse. When Moses mentioned G'd as having taken the Israelites out of Egypt בכח גדול, "by expending a great deal of energy," he implied that G'd could not afford to let all of this energy go to waste by destroying the Jewish people.

מִלְרַע :לָמָה und רפה das folgende V. 12 מלעיל :למה und דגוש. Wir vermuten einen Unterschied in der Bedeutung. Im ersten Falle liegt der Nachdruck auf מה dem unbekannten, zu suchenden Objekte, und ל־ steht in der gewöhnlichen Bedeutung: zu, es heißt somit: zu was, d. h. zu welchem Zwecke? Es mag Grund dafür vorhanden sein, allein der damit zu erreichende Zweck ist unerfassbar. Im zweiten Falle liegt der Nachdruck auf ל־, auf der Beziehung überhaupt, dem Fragenden scheint das die Frage Veranlassende völlig außer Beziehung, somit durch nichts motiviert zu sein. Es ist die Frage nach dem Grunde: warum? Motiviert war ja das Zürnen offenbar, sie waren gewarnt: זכח לאלהים יחרם בלתי לד׳ לברו (Kap. 22, 19) und: לא תעשה לך פסל וגו׳ לא תשתחוה וגו׳ כי אנכי ד׳ אלקיך וגו׳ (Kap. 20, 4 u. 5), und überhaupt, die Begründung göttlichen Zürnens in Frage stellen, wäre Blasphemie. Aber den damit zu erreichenden Zweck möchte Mosche sich zum Bewusstsein gebracht wissen, und hebt den Gegensatz dieses Verfahrens zu der, wie wir gleich sehen werden, durch die Erwählung dieses Volkes von vornherein vorauszusetzenden Absicht hervor. V. 12 (siehe daselbst) ist der Erfolg ganz klar, allein es wird nach dem Grunde der Zulassung einer eine ursprüngliche Absicht diametral vereitelnden Folge gefragt. Ebenso oben Kap. 5, 22: למָה הרעתה לעם הזה למה זה שלחתני, zu welchem Zweck hast du diesem Volke, das du ja erlösen willst, dieses neue Leid gebracht, dieses Leid ist ja für deine Erlösungsabsicht zwecklos, und da sich durch diesen Erfolg sofort meine völlige Unbrauchbarkeit zu deiner Sendung herausgestellt, aus welchem Grunde hast du gerade mich, der ich mich von vornherein zu einer solchen Sendung unfähig gefühlt, mit solcher Sendung beauftragt? Ebenso Bamidbar 11, 11: למה הרעת לעבדך ולָמה לא מצתי חן בעיניך לשום וגו׳: Zu welchem Zwecke hast du mir diese leidvolle Bürde auferlegt, da ja durch die immer wiederkehrende Versündigung des Volkes die Erfolglosigkeit meines Wirkens, meine von vornherein gefühlte Unfähigkeit, somit die Zwecklosigkeit meiner Sendung konstatiert ist, und aus welchem Grunde hast du mir die erbetene Gunst versagt, mich mit einer meine Kräfte so sehr übersteigenden Aufgabe zu verschonen. Es bedürfte noch der Vergleichung aller sonstigen Stellen, um die Bedeutung festzustellen.

Seeing that G'd had refused to associate His name with the people and had referred to them as Moses' people, i.e. שחת עמך, how could Moses dare say to G'd "why would You become angry at Your people?" We must therefore understand that when Moses referred to the Exodus by saying אשר הוצאת, that at that time He had still called them His people, i.e. אשר.

בעמך אשר הוצאת וגו׳: das Volk, das du aus der irrigen Anschauung des Volkes heraus, mein Volk nennst, und von dem du nur mir sterblichem Menschen gegenüber menschlich gesagt hast, du habest jetzt gesehen, dass es hartnäckig sei, ist ja dein Volk, du hast es ja — nicht ich, der Kurzsichtige, sondern du, Allwissender, — hast es aus der Masse der Völker zu deinem Volke hervorgegriffen, ja ganz eigentlich zu der Bestimmung, dein Volk zu werden, geschichtlich entstehen lassen. Es war dir mit allen seinen Charakterfehlern, auch mit seinem hervorstechendsten, der Hartnäckigkeit, bekannt, als du es mit so großer Offenbarung deiner Wunderkraft und mit Anwendung deiner die mächtigste Menschenmacht bewältigenden Stärke aus Mizrajim hinausführtest. Nicht nach dem natürlichen Lauf der Dinge geschah es, Natur und Geschichte sprachen gegen seine Existenz. Du hast beide mit Kraft und Stärke überwunden, um gerade dieses Volk trotz seiner Hartnäckigkeit als dein Volk dahin zu stellen. Unmöglich hast du erwartet, es werde sofort in unverbrüchlicher Treue sich deinen Geboten gehorsam zeigen. Unmöglich war es deine Absicht, es sofort nach bewiesener Ungefügigkeit zu vernichten. Du hättest sonst zur Offenbarung deiner Kraft und Stärke gegen Natur- und Geschichtsgewalten einen gefügigeren Menschenstamm erwählt. Indem du gerade den hartnäckigsten zu deinen Zwecken erwähltest, hast du sicherlich einen anderen Weg als die sofortige Vernichtung auf den ersten Ungehorsam beabsichtigt, war vielleicht ebenso die, bei der sittlichen Freiheit des Menschen noch wunderbarere und erst im Laufe der Zeit zu erreichende Bewältigung der Hartnäckigkeit des hartnäckigsten Menschenstammes mit Absicht gerade seiner Erwählung, wie seine existenzlose Ohnmacht, der überwältigenden Gewalt seiner Herren gegenüber, gerade seine Erwählung zur Offenbarung deiner Natur- und Menschengewalt überwältigenden Kraft und Stärke bestimmte. — Zu welchem Zwecke willst du daher, deiner ursprünglichen Absicht gewiss entgegen, deinen in sich gewiss begründeten Zorn "dein Volk, das du mit einer so großen Kraft und einer so starken Gewalt aus Mizrajim geführt", nun sofort vernichten lassen? Es kann das nicht deine Absicht sein.

והנחם AND REPENT — form another resolution, viz., to do them good,

למה יאמרו הגוים, "Why should the nations be able to say, etc.?" Moses suggested that it would be a public desecration of G'd's name to wipe out the Jewish people whom G'd had referred to in Exodus 4,22 as "My first-born son Israel" less than six months previously? It would appear in retrospect that G'd had orchestrated the Exodus only in order to kill this people in the desert? Once all the nations which served idols realised that serving the one and only G'd led to disaster they would be confirmed in preferring the various deities which they were in the habit of worshiping. They would conclude that the fact that the G'd of the Israelites had not killed them (the Gentiles) for worshiping idols proved that it was an extremely dangerous thing to convert to Judaism and to acknowledge the G'd in Heaven.

למה יאמרו?, Moses asks that the people be spared for the sake of G’d’s great name if not for their own sake. Why should His name become desecrated?

Formulate another plan. . . I.e., act for them, and change from a thought of evil to a thought of good. [Rashi knows it means this] because the term ניחום always denotes [changing to] another thought.

V. 12. למה יאמרו מצרים. Es war ja ferner nicht bloß die Erziehung dieses Volks zu deinem Volke, es war ja die Aufklärung und Erleuchtung der anderen Völker wesentlich mit Bestimmungsgrund dieser ganzen Wundererlösung, es sollten ja nach deinen Worten Pharao und Mizrajim lernen: כי אני ד׳ ,כי לד׳ הארץ ,כי אני ד׳ בקרב הארץ, dass ein persönlicher, frei waltender, in Gerechtigkeit und Liebe mit seiner Allmacht gebietender Gott Herr und Walter inmitten der Erde sei, der selbst in dem verachtetsten, misshandeltsten Sklaven sein Kind, ja sein erstgeborenes Kind erblickt, und an dessen gewaltigsten Tyrannen die Botschaft sendet: gib frei deine Sklaven, dass sie mir, als mein Kind, als mein Volk mir dienen. — Aus welchem Grunde solltest du nun durch Vernichtung deiner Erlösten die beabsichtigte Wirkung dieser Erlösung in ihr gerades Gegenteil verkehren wollen? Es würden ja die Ägypter statt belehrt, nur in ihrem die Waltung eines gerechten und barmherzigen Gottes verleugnenden, Gewalt und Tyrannei heiligenden Wahn bestärkt werden, sie würden in dem schmählichen Untergang ihrer bisherigen Sklaven nur eine beschönigende Bestätigung ihres eigenen Verfahrens gegen einen Menschenstamm erblicken, der "keines besseren Geschickes wert" gewesen, würden in deren Auszug nicht das frei machende Werk eines in Gerechtigkeit und Liebe allmächtig wirkenden Gottes, sondern das tückische Werk eines in den Untergang verlockenden Geschickes erblicken — aus welchem Grunde solltest du diese so gegensätzliche Vereitelung deines ursprünglichen Zweckes jetzt wollen?

על הרעה INSTEAD OF THE EVIL You have thought to bring upon them.

The reason Moses added the word לאמור was that the Gentiles might not phrase this in these exact words; nonetheless it was clear that they would draw inferences of that nature when they heard what had befallen the Jewish people in the desert. Alternatively, Moses may have added the word לאמור to show that he knew that this would merely be talk and would not describe the truth; still it was an argument the Gentiles were going to use which it would be difficult to disprove. This misrepresentation of the truth would not be confined to Egypt but would be echoed -לאמור- by all the other nations on earth. There could not be a greater desecration of G'd's name.

Wir haben uns in Erläuterung dieser Verse von der Vermutung leiten lassen, dass zwischen לָֽמָה und לָמָֽה ein begrifflicher Unterschied vorwalte. רד׳׳ק im שער המלים macht die Tonstelle- und Dagesch- An- oder Abwesenheit von dem Anfangslaut des folgenden Wortes abhängig. Vor א׳ה׳ע wäre es מלרע und רפה. Allein die vielen dort zitierten Ausnahmen dürften die Regel selbst noch zweifelhaft erscheinen lassen.

רעה ,ברעה wie להעביר את רעת המן (Esther 8, 3) das beabsichtigte Böse.

והנחם: siehe zu Bamidbar 6, 6.

זכור לאברהם (lit., remember for Abraham) — If they have transgressed the Ten Commandments, their father Abraham was tried by ten trials and has not yet received his reward for them. Give it to him now — remember for him this merit — and let the ten trials he successfully withstood countervail the infringement of the Ten Commandments (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 24; Shemot Rabbah 44:4).

וכל הארץ הזאת אשר אמרתי אתן לזרעכם ונחלו, a reference to the fourth generation of the Emorite mentioned by G’d at the covenant between the pieces. (Genesis 15,16) Moses realises that this promise will not be fulfilled to his children except now.

זכור לאברהם, "Remember Abraham, etc." Here Moses did not refer to G'd's oath to Abraham to make him into a great nation, etc., a comment G'd had already replied to earlier. Moses referred to the sadness which would engulf people when they would hear about what happened. Moses also argued the merit of the Patriarchs based on G'd's promise in the Ten Commandments (20,6) that He considered such merits for thousands of generations to those who "loved Him and observed His commandments." Moses added the words "Your servants, and "You have sworn," in order to give still greater meaning to what G'd had stated in the Ten Commandments.

Their father Avraham. . . [Rashi knows that Avraham “has not yet received his reward”] because otherwise, why does it say, “Remember Avraham”? He already received his reward for his righteousness, and Hashem is no longer obligated on Avraham’s account to help his children.

V. 13. Diese Erinnerung an die Erzväter und an die ihnen gegebene eidliche Zusicherung dürfte wohl nicht in dem Sinne zu verstehen sein, als ob diese Zusicherung der beabsichtigten Vernichtung des Volkes entgegenstehe. Denn durch die zugleich angedeutete Neubildung eines großen Volkes aus Mosche Nachkommenschaft würde ja gleichwohl diese Zusicherung sich erfüllen. Mosche Nachkommen sind doch auch Abrahams, Isaaks und Jakobs Nachkommen. Vielmehr scheint diese Erinnerung in tieferem Zusammenhange mit Mosche ganzer bisherigen Betrachtung und der darauf gegründeten Bitte zu stehen und folgt daher als Schlussunterstützung dieser Bitte nach. Zuerst wird durch Nennung Abrahams, Isaaks und Jakobs an den edlen Keim erinnert, aus dem dennoch dieses ganze jetzt "hartnäckige" Volk entsprossen, der doch von so urkräftigem, sittlichem Adel gewesen sein muss, dass dem Abraham ein gleich edler Isaak und dem Isaak ein gleich edler Jakob gefolgt, und der daher gewiss in dem ihm entsprossenen Volke nicht ganz verloren sein kann, somit sicher im Laufe der Zeit sich durcharbeiten und ihrem Ursprunge ähnliche Menschen erzeugen wird. Ferner wird durch Erinnerung an den Eid hervorgehoben, dass doch die Gewissheit eben dieser unverlierbaren Würdigkeit, oder doch der unverlierbaren Fähigkeit würdig zu werden, bei dem Eide vorgeschwebt haben müsse, sonst würde eben nicht eidlich haben zugesichert werden können, dass die Nachkommen ein ewiges Anrecht auf das Land haben sollen. Wie, wenn sie nun alle entarteten, und nicht einmal ein Mosche sich unter ihnen fände? Dieser Eid selbst setzt voraus, dass Abrahams Nachkommen in ihrer Gesamtheit nie so entarten können, dass sie nicht durch eine erziehende Gottesführung zum Bessern gebracht zu werden vermöchten, und eben an diese, bei der ganzen Erwählung Israels borauszusetzende Erziehung zum Besseren, an diese notwendigerweise mögliche Zukunft appelliert Mosche, um die augenblickliche Vernichtung abzuwenden.

לאברהם ליצחק ולישראל REMEMBER FOR ABRAHAM, FOR ISAAC, AND FOR ISRAEL — If they are to be punished with death by burning, remember for Abraham his merit that he gave himself over to be burnt for Your sake (for the sanctification of the Divine Name) in Ur (in the fire) of the Chaldees; if with death by the sword, remember for Isaac the merit that he stretched forth his neck to the knife on the occasion of the “Binding”. If by exile, remember for Jacob the merit that he went into exile to Haran (leaving the paternal roof in order to fulfil his father’s command). If, however, they cannot be saved by their ancestors merit what is the good of You saying to me, “and I will make of thee a great nation”? — if a chair with three legs (the merits of the three patriarchs) cannot stand before You in the moment of Your wrath, how much the less a chair with only one leg (the merits of myself alone) (Berakhot 32a).

Remember Avraham who offered himself. . . [Rashi knows all this] because otherwise, why are all three mentioned? Mentioning just Avraham alone is sufficient. (Re”m) Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “Remember Avraham, Yitzchok and Yisrael, Your servants, to whom You swore”? [Ostensibly,] Hashem is being asked to remember what He swore, and what He swore is written in connection with Avraham, as it is written: “‘By My Self I have sworn,’ says God.” So the order of the verse should be reversed: “Remember what you swore to Your servants Avraham. . .” Thus Rashi explains: “Remember for Avraham the ten tests. . .” I.e., Hashem is being asked to remember Avraham’s righteousness, not what He swore. Then Rashi answers the question: According to this, what is there to be remembered for Yitzchok and Yaakov? Thus he explains: “If by burning. . .” We need not ask: Why does Rashi mention the ten tests for Avraham? Perhaps [the verse is referring] only to the test of burning. The answer is: Since Avraham has both merits, and neither is more excludable than the other, [therefore both can be included as the verse’s intent].

וכל הארץ הזאת, "and this whole land, etc." There are many ways of interpreting these words. Some say that they are part of Moses' words who quotes what G'd had said to the Patriarchs. It is equally possible that they are words spoken by G'd. The meaning of אמרתי would then have to be understood in a sense similar to Isaiah 3,10: "declare that the צדיק is good!" Here G'd would be proclaiming the superiority of the land of Israel by saying: "I declare that I have elevated the patriarchs by swearing to give such a superior land to their descendants, etc." We can find a parallel to this in Deut. 11,11-12, where the land of Israel is described in terms of being a superior land.

Wir haben daher, da uns der Nachdruck auf לעלם zu liegen scheint, den Akzenten gemäß, das אשר אמרתי אתן לזרעכם zusammen attributiv zu הארץ הזאת gefasst, so dass das ונחלו לעלם die einzige Aussage des Satzes bildet.

אשר נשבעת להם בך TO WHOM THOU SWAREST BY THINE OWN SELF — Thou didst not swear to them by a thing which is perishable — neither by the heavens nor by the earth, nor by the mountains, nor by the hills — but by Thy very Self, Who endurest forever and Whose oath endures for ever. For it is stated that God said to Abraham, (Genesis 22:16, 17) “By Myself have I sworn saith the Lord … [I will greatly multiply thy seed]”; to Isaac it was said, (Genesis 26:3, 4) “and I will perform the oath which I sware by Myself unto Abraham thy father … [and I will multiply thy seed]”; and to Jacob it was said, (Genesis 35:11) “I am God Almighty, be fruitful and multiply”; thus to him also God swore by Himself — by God Almighty (Shemot Rabbah 44:23).

Certainly a chair with one leg. Some ask: What is the logic of this argument? Moshe also has the forefathers’ merit, for he is their descendant, as seen from (Bamidbar 14:12): “I shall make you into a greater nation,” where Rashi explains, “It is not written, ‘I shall make your descendants into a greater nation,’ because you are descended from the forefathers.” They offer an answer: Had the people not sinned with the Calf they would have entered the Land, as Hashem promised Avraham (Bereishis 12:7): “To your descendants I will give this land.” But now that He will destroy them, we see that the sin prevented the promise to Avraham from being fulfilled. If so, how do we know the promise to Moshe will be fulfilled, that his children will be a great nation? Perhaps his children too will sin, and this promise also will not be fulfilled. And if we argue that Moshe’s merit will persevere in any case, even if his children will sin, this claim is against logic: If the merit of three forefathers did not shield them from sin and bring them to the land, certainly the merit of Moshe alone will not.

ונחלו לעולם, “and it shall be their heritage forever.” What Moses meant was that the patriarchs would transmit that heritage forever. Even if the Israelites would be exiled from their land, no other nation would receive it as their heritage. This is the meaning of the words אחוזת עולם, “an eternal possession,” which G’d promised to Avraham in Genesis 17.8. Another meaning included in the words ונחלו לעולם is that the reference is to another, eternal world. When we think about that meaning of the word לעולם in Moses’ plea we would have an assurance in this verse, (or by Moses quoting G’d back to Himself) of G’d’s promise that the Israelites would exist forever, in this world as well as in the hereafter.

וינחם ה׳ על הרעה, "G'd reconsidered the evil He had said He would do, etc." The meaning of the verse is that there were two reasons why G'd reconsidered. 1) The decree was evil objectively speaking. 2) It would have resulted in evil for His people.

"And God had mercy" - from performing the total annihilation. But from that point there was a decree to destroy that generation, and the children would enter the Land of Israel, like there was the decree of the spies. And regarding this decree Moshe prayed for forty more days, as explained later with the help of Heaven.

V. 14. וינחם ד׳. Siehe zu Bereschit 6, 6. Offenbar hatte die ganze Weiterrede (VV. 9 u. 10) nur den Zweck, Mosche die ganze Entscheidungsschwere der Situation zum Bewusstsein zu bringen, die möglichen Motive des ferneren Gottesratschlusses, sowie seine eigene, aus der Situation erwachsende Aufgabe selbst finden zu lassen. Und dieser Zweck war erreicht. Indem Mosche in dem Appell an die zu gewinnende bessere Zukunft die Rettung aus der Untergang drohenden Gegenwart erblickt, hatte die Herbeiführung dieser besseren Zukunft in ihm selbst einen Träger, die Gottessache im irdischen Kreise selbst einen Vertreter gefunden, und damit war die sonst unvermeidliche Vernichtung des Volkes abgewendet. Alle die Erwägungen Mosche hatten die eine Tendenz, sich zur völligen Klarheit zu bringen, dass Gott für eine solche Lage einen anderen Weg als sofortige Vernichtung von vornherein müsse vorausgesetzt haben, den zu betreten eben den Inhalt seiner Bitte bildet. Er hatte aber damit seines Teils stillschweigend die Vertretung der im Volke verratenen Gottessache auf sich genommen, wie wir dies aus dem Verfolge sehen, und liegt es ganz in Mosche bescheidenem Charakter, dies mit aller Energie zu tun, aber nicht im vorhinein großredend anzukündigen. Auch von Pinchas spricht später (Bamidbar 25, 11) Gott: השיב את חמתי מעל בני ישראל בקנאו את קנאתי בתוכם ולא כליתי את בני ישראל בקנאתי. Findet die verratene Gottessache auf Erden im Kreise der Menschen keinen Vertreter, so schreitet das Gottesverhängnis rächend, d. h. die Sache rettend ein. Ein Pinchas im Volke rettet mit der Sache zugleich das Volk. So auch hier Mosche. Durch das in Mosche hervorgetretene Bewusstsein Dessen, was hier zur Rettung der Gottessache im Volke zu geschehen habe, konnte Gott veranlasst werden, den sonst beschlossenen Untergang des Volkes nicht eintreten zu lassen.

We may understand this statement also as emphasising the דבר aspect, i.e. what G'd had merely said He would do. If He had sworn to do this, He would not have been able to reconsider an oath.

A further dimension of this statement is that G'd only reconsidered the evil He had said to do, i.e. to wipe out the Jewish people; there were other evil parts which He had not reconsidered, parts involving the sin of the golden calf.

Furthermore, G'd may only have reconsidered the evil he had said He would do to the people not directly involved in worshiping the calf, those who still were considered His people; those who had worshiped the calf be it with or without witnesses but who believed in it in their hearts would be subject to G'd's original decision and G'd punished them by death. Moses examined some of the people by making them drink of the waters containing the gold dust of the calf, others were executed by the Levites.

משני עבריהם ON BOTH THEIR SIDES could the letters be read, and this constituted a miraculous piece of work (Shabbat 104a).

ושני לוחות העדות בידו. He thought that as soon as he would return to the people they would become penitents; in the event that they would not, he planned to smash the Tablets in front of their eyes so that they would return in penitence after this shock.

ויפן וירד משה מן ההר, "Moses turned around and descended from the Mountain." What is the significance of the Torah reporting Moses as "turning around," i.e. turning His back on G'd's presence? Is this not something which reflects a lack of respect? Perhaps the fact that the Torah added the superfluous words "from the Mountain" were added to prevent the misconception that Moses "turned his back on G'd", as it were. He only turned his back on the Mountain. If that were the meaning of the words "from the Mountain," the Torah should have written "Moses turned away from the Mountain" instead of writing "Moses turned and descended from the Mountain." Furthermore, why did the Torah have to mention Moses as "turning around" altogether?

A work of miracles. Explanation: [The letters were readable but ran in opposite directions on each side. The word נבוב ,] for instance, was read as בובנ . And so with all the words. The miracle was that the writing was carved through both sides, including the ם and ס — and with them, the middle part was not connected at any point, yet it did not fall. But the Bereishis Rabbah explains that the writing was readable in the same direction on both sides, and this was indeed miraculous.

ויפן וירד משה מן ההר. We learn from this word ויפן, he turned around, that Moses descended while facing the cloud just as he had done when ascending the mountain. In other words, just as he had ascended facing the cloud, he now descended keeping his face toward the cloud, walking backwards. The High Priest, on the Day of Atonement, emulated this when withdrawing from the Holy of Holies by walking backwards after having offered the incense before the lid of the Holy Ark, the kapporet, as well as some of the blood of the two offerings on behalf of the people as well as sprinkling some on the dividing curtain. We have a similar verse in Chronicles II 1,13 describing Solomon’s approach to the altar that was standing in Givon at that time. Even though one could say that the words ויבא שלמה לבמה אשר בגבעון ירושליםmean: “Solomon returned from the altar in Givon to Jerusalem,” [seeing Givon at that time was certainly not part of Jerusalem Ed.] the correct interpretation is that he withdrew in the same way as he had approached. The point of all this was to conform to the principle of שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד, “I am keeping Hashem in front of Me at all times.” (Psalms 16,8) One does not turn one’s back on G’d. The Mishnah, Yuma 52 states: “in the manner he had entered he also exited.” This is also the way Leviticus 16,24 describes this, writing: “he exited and completed the ritual of his own burnt offering as well as that of the people.” These words have been interpreted by our sages to mean that the word לבמה “to the altar,” must also be read as מבמה.”from the altar,” when he was headed back to Jerusalem (Yuma 53). There is a precedent for this in Numbers 31,21, where the words הבאים למלחמה, must also mean הבאים מן המלחמה, “the ones who were returning from the war.” How do we know that indeed the Shechinah was on the mountain at the time Moses descended? In Deuteronomy 9,15 where Moses refers to his descent from the mountain, he adds the words: “and the mountain was burning in fire while the two tablets of the covenant were on my hands.” We learn from all of this that the student, when taking leave of his teacher, walks backwards until the face of his teacher is no longer directly visible to him. (Yuma 53) This is also the reason why, at the end of the principal prayer the amidah, we step three steps backwards, as if to take leave of the G’d Whom we had faced and addressed before. (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim section 123).

VV. 15 u. 16. Nach dem in den vorangehenden Versen Entwickelten ging Mosche mit der selbst erkannten, von Gott geheiligten, ja hervorgerufenen Aufgabe hinab, gegen den an der Gottessache verübten Verrat so einzuschreiten, dass dadurch die Zukunft des Volkes gerettet werde. Er ging hinab, dem Gottesgesetze noch eine Stätte in der Mitte des Volkes zu erkämpfen, daher: שני לחת העדת בידו. Er ging, Pinchas gleich, als מקנא לד׳ hinab, und was er im Folgenden tat, geschah nicht in Folge speziellen Auftrages Gottes, sondern war seine eigene Tat, im Sinne Gottes geübt.

לחת “Tablets;” you will note that the word for Tablets has been spelled defectively, i.e. in the singular mode. This is to suggest that both Tablets are of equal importance. They also symbolise heaven and earth, which each are an integral part of our universe. This “equality” is also to be found in every man and woman who have entered into a union through marriage. Five of the Ten Commandments are engraved on one Tablet and five on the other. The number five symbolises the five Books of Moses, and the number ten symbolises the ten utterances with which the Torah described G–d as having created our universe. In the Talmud, tractate Eyruvin, folio 54, Rabbi Elazar is quoted as saying that the reason why these Tablets are described as “Tablets made of stone,” [when in fact the first set of Tablets was made from a raw material not known to us, a celestial raw material, Ed.] is to teach us that if a human being is as consistent in his actions as is stone, he will not forget what he has studied, and it will reside within him as constant and unaffected by external influences as stone. If not, he will not be able to have total recall of what he has studied. Rabbi Elazar adds that (seeing the Torah scroll is not written with vowels) the word charut, “engraved” can also be read as cheyrut, “freedom,” i.e. observing what is written on the these Tablets makes us truly free, (from temptation to do evil). Rabbi Elazar adds that if the first set of Tablets had not been shattered by Moses, the Torah would not ever have been forgotten by the members of the Jewish people. Rav Acha there adds that if we had always observed the Torah we would have also been physically free; no nation ever would have defeated us in war. As a reminder, even when reading the word as written, i.e. charut, we should think of it as having been vocalised cheyrut.

'ויפן וירד משה וגו, “Moses turned around and descended, etc.;” all this occurred in order, on the 17th day of Tammuz up until verse 29: לתת עליכם היום ברכה, “to bestow a blessing upon you this day.”

Perhaps the expression "he turned around" signified Moses' reduced spiritual niveau which made it impossible for him to confront the angels. He therefore moved sideways on the Mountain, much like someone who tries to hide.

כתבים משני עבריהם וגו׳: was hier hinsichtlich der Schrift der Tafeln berichtet wird, lässt sich nicht mit Sicherheit feststellen. Jedenfalls scheint uns durch die beiden Sätze: כתבים משני עבריהם und: מזה ומזה הם כתבים ein Zwiefaches gesagt zu sein: einmal, dass die Schrift die beiden Seiten des Steines völlig durchdrang, nicht nur bis in eine gewisse Tiefe eingegraben war, und zweitens, dass man sie dennoch von beiden Seiten in rechter Form und Folge lesen konnte, und nicht z. B. נבוב auf der Kehrseite: und die Worte in verkehrter rückläufiger Folge erschienen. Die Schrift ging durch und dennoch konnte man sie von beiden Seiten lesen. Sollte nur gesagt sein, dass die Tafeln auf beiden Seiten beschrieben waren, so hätte der eine der beiden Sätze völlig genügt, und der andere wäre völlig überflüssig. Wir glauben daher auch, dass רב חסדא's Satz (Schabbat 104 a): כתב שבלוחות נקרא מבפנים ונקרא מבחוץ כגוב נבוב בובנ רהב בהר סרו ורס nur die Erklärung des einen Satzes: כתובים משני עבריהם geben, und veranschaulichen will, dass die Schrift den ganzen Stein durchdrang, und so sich der andere Satz רב הסדא's motiviert, dass מם וסמך שבלחות בנס היו עומדין dass nämlich der innere Körper eines ם und eines ס in der durchgehenden Tafelschrift nur durch ein Wunder gehalten gewesen sein kann, er hätte naturgemäß hinausfallen müssen. Nicht aber, dass nun wirklich die Tafeln auf der Kehrseite uns in sogenannter Spiegelschrift erschienen wären. Dem wird nämlich durch den weiteren Satz begegnet: מזה ומזה הם כתובים, sie stellten sich auf beiden Seiten in gehöriger Schriftform und Schriftfolge dem Leser dar. Wir vermuten, dass deshalb auch רב חסדא Worte als veranschaulichendes Beispiel wählt, die nicht in den Zehngeboten vorkommen; denn in der Tat erschien אנכי auch als אנכי auf beiden Seiten. נבוב בובנ sagt nur, was durch כתובים משני עבריהם ohne den ferneren Beisatz מזה ומזה הם כתובים gesagt wäre.

ושני לוחות העדות בידו, “with the two Tablets of testimony in his hand.” Even though Moses already planned to smash these Tablets, he carried them all the way down from the Mountain so that G-d should not have to look at His handiwork having been smashed by Moses seeing that its inscription commenced with: “I am the Lord your G-d Who has taken you out of Egypt, followed by the commandment not to have alien deities, etc.” This would have been too upsetting a reminder of the people’s disloyalty.

We may also understand the word as similar to what we learned in Devarim Rabbah 1, where the Midrash contrasts Moses' mode of speaking directly to the Israelites, i.e. "you have sinned," with his speaking to G'd in the third person "למה יחרה?" The meaning of ויפן, he turned around, then may refer to Moses' change in attitude as he prepared to face his people.

Es wird uns ferner berichtet, dass nicht nur die Schrift, sondern auch die Tafeln an sich ein unmittelbares Schöpferwerk Gottes waren. Sollten sie doch עדות, Zeugnis von dem unmittelbar göttlichen Ursprung des Gesetzes sein.

משני עבריהם, “the letters were hollowed out from one side to the other, thus making the Tablets easier to smash.” (This is why this detail is added at this particular point.)

לוחות העדות, "the Tablets containing the testimony." The word ה־עדות, indicating a unique kind of testimony may be an allusion to the way G'd Himself had inscribed the Tablets so that the writing could be read from either side, something impossible if they had been inscribed by human hands. Such writing would appear as if it had been written backwards had it been inscribed on one side by a human scribe. The letter ה before the word עדות may also hint at the miraculous way the final letters ס and ם appeared with their respective centers suspended in the air miraculously (Megillah 3). Perhaps these two letters were "proof" i.e. "testimony" that the Tablets had indeed been inscribed by G'd Himself.

Endlich wird uns diese Beschaffenheit der Schrift in den Worten zusammengefasst: חרות על הלחת. Die Wurzel חרת kommt nicht weiter vor. Man dürfte zunächst sie in Lautverwandtschaft mit חרט begreifen, das zwar nicht als Verbum, wohl aber als Substantiv חֶרֶט ein Instrument zur Schriftgravierung bedeutet. Wenn man nun auch für חרת die Bedeutung: eingraben annimmt, so dürfte doch schwerlich damit einfache, gewöhnliche Schriftgravierung bezeichnet sein. Nachdem bereits durch: כתובים משני עבריהם מזה ומזה הם כתובים berichtet worden, dass die Schrift den ganzen Stein durchdrang, kann חרות, und noch dazu חרות על הלחות, nicht: eingraviert auf die Tafeln bedeuten, das ja nur ein Eingraben an der Oberfläche bezeichnen würde. Vielmehr scheint חרת zu חרט wie מות zu מוט sich zu verhalten und eben die völlige Durchbohrung des Steines auszudrücken. Es würde dann חרות על הלחות eben die besondere, wunderbare Weise der Schrift aussprechen: sie war חרות, durchbohrt, und doch: על הלחות, und doch stellte sie sich auf jeder Seite als von dieser Seite auf die Tafel eingegraben dar. Es konnte sie der Leser von jeder Seite lesen. — Nicht unmöglich jedoch wäre es, dass חרות von חור mit ת servile wie זלות ,פדות abzuleiten sei. חור heißt nämlich: weiß, frei und offen, wovon Öffnung und Loch. Grundbedeutung scheint: "ungehindert" zu sein. Daher: frei, offen, und: der auf seinem Wege ungehemmte, d. h. nicht gebrochene Lichtstrahl: weiß. Offenbar liegt auch die Lautverwandtschaft mit אור und עור zu Grunde. חרות könnte somit auch: Offenheit im Sinne der völligen Durchbohrung des Steines, oder geradezu: Freiheit bedeuten, und würde im letzteren Sinne חרות על הלחות: in Freiheit über die Tafeln, d. h. die Tafeln frei beherrschend, bedeuten, und damit eben das מם וסמך שבלחות בנס היו עומדין ausgedrückt sein. Nicht die Tafeln trugen die Schrift, sondern die Schrift trug und hielt die Tafeln. Es wäre dann das אל תקרי חרת אלא חרות des Satzes (Aboth 71, 2), dass die תורה "frei" mache, buchstäbliche Wahrheit und durch den Anblick der Tafelschrift selbst vergegenwärtigt. Wie die Schrift des göttlichen Zeugnisses nicht nur unabhängig von der Materie, sondern die ihr dienende Materie selbst über die physischen Gesetze der Stoffe frei zu sich emporhält: also werden auch die Menschen, die den Geist dieser Schrift in sich aufnehmen und sich zu Trägern dieses Geistes machen, von diesem Geiste selbst über die blinde Notwendigkeit der dem Stoffe anklebenden Gebundenheit emporgehoben, getragen, gehalten, d. i.: frei.

Vergegenwärtigen wir uns überhaupt die Eigentümlichkeiten, die uns von der Beschaffenheit der Tafeln und ihrer Schrift gerade an dieser Stelle und nicht etwa oben (Kap. 31, 18) mitgeteilt werden, so dürften sie in enger Beziehung zu dem ganzen Ernst des Augenblicks und seiner Bedeutung stehen.

Eine nur auf einer Seite beschriebene Gesetzestafel bringt den, der, davon ablesend, dem Volke ein Gesetz promulgieren soll, in eine Stellung entschiedener Überordnung zu der aufhorchenden Menge. Nur Er hat das Gesetz vor sich, und die Menge muss hinnehmen, was er ihnen vorliest. Er ist der entschieden notwendige Mittler zwischen dem Volke und dem Gesetz. Steht aber dasselbe Gesetz, und zwar wie hier in derselben göttlichen Unmittelbarkeit, auf beiden Seiten, schreibt sich gleichsam das Gesetz in jedem Augenblicke auf beide Seiten, dem Mosche wie dem Volke zugewandt, nieder, so tritt das Gesetz unmittelbar an das Volk und an jeden aus dem Volke hinan, so schwindet Mosche völlig aus dieser Vermittlung, tritt völlig in den Kreis des Volkes ein, das Volk liest ebenso Mosche das Gesetz vor, wie Mosche dem Volke; und wenn auch "dieser Mann Mosche" schwände, das Volk bedarf des Mosche nicht, das Gesetz stellt sich in jedem Augenblicke einem jeden unmittelbar von Gott dar.

Von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus dürften sich auch die Schekalim VI, 1 niedergelegten Ansichten begreifen lassen, nach welchen auf jede der beiden Tafeln alle zehn Gebote, ja zweimal zehn: auf beide Seiten, oder gar viermal zehn: auf die beiden Kehrseiten und die beiden Seitenflächen geschrieben gewesen wären. Es wäre dann einmal das Gesetz sofort in zwei Exemplaren und jede Tafel allseitig beschrieben, und damit eben die allseitigste Verbreitung im Volke und die Beseitigung irgend einer ausschließlichen und ausschließenden Stellung eines Mosche zum Gesetze von vornherein durch das Gesetzeszeugnis selbst bezeugt.

מעשה אלהים המה [THE TABLETS WERE] THE WORK OF GOD — This means what it literally implies: God Himself (Hebrew: in His glory) made them. Another explanation (taking מעשה in the sense of “occupation”) is: Just as a man says to his fellow, “All that Mr. So-and-so occupies himself with is only with such-and-such a work”, so is the delight of the Holy One, blessed be He, confined to the Torah alone (cf. Proverbs 8:31 the whole of which chapter is taken as a description of God’s relation to the Torah) (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 16).

AND THE TABLETS WERE THE WORK OF G-D. It would have been proper for Scripture to mention everything connected with the work of the Tablets of the Law in the verse, And He gave unto Moses [… the two Tablets of the Testimony],³⁵³Above, 31:18. as He said [there], written with the finger of G-d.³⁵³Above, 31:18. It is, however, mentioned here in order to tell of their high distinction [that they were the work of G-d], thus stating that despite all this Moses did not hesitate to break them, because he was angered upon seeing that evil sight and he could not restrain himself from breaking them. Or the matter may be as our Rabbis have mentioned,³⁵⁴Shemoth Rabbah 46:1. that the writing vanished from the Tablets as he approached the border [of the camp] where the calf was, the place of defilement and transgression.

מעשה אלוקים המה, Moses did not carve out these Tablets as opposed to the second set of Tablets which G’d told him to carve out himself (34,1.)

והלוחות מעשה אלוקים המה, “the Tablets had been made by G’d.” Nachmanides writes that it would have been more appropriate to describe the details of these Tablets in 31,18 where we first hear about them, and where we have been told that they had been written with a “finger” of G’d. The reason that this was written at this juncture was to impress upon us that in spite of the Tablets being G’d’s personal handiwork, Moses did not let this stop him from smashing them as he was so upset when he saw what was going on in the camp. An alternate reason for why Moses smashed the Tablets, a thought expressed by our sages, is that when Moses realized that the letters on the Tablets had already flown away, so that the sanctity of the Tablets had departed, he took this as a signal to also smash the body which had hosted the letters while the people were a holy people. He would not demean the work of G’d to be brought within the boundaries of a camp which had become totally defiled.

והלחות מעשה אלו-הים המה, “and the tablets were G’d’s handiwork.” The reference is not to G’d’s “manually” having made the Tablets, but that they came into existence at a verbal directive of G’d just as the world came into existence by verbal directives of G’d, i.e. בדבר ה’ שמים נעשו, “by the word of the Lord the heavens were made” (Psalms 33,6). A similar expression is used in Genesis 2,4: ביום עשות ה’ אלו-הים ארץ ושמים, “on the day the Lord G’d made earth and heaven.”

והלוחות מעשה אלוקים המה, “the raw material that the Tablets consisted of was of Divine manufacture.” This is pointed out here in order to impress the reader of the magnitude of losing such a gift made by G-d’s own hands.

חרות — The expressions חרת (which occurs only here in Scriptures) and חרט have the same meaning, both of them signifying engraving; entailler in old French

חרות, just like חרוט or חרוש, engraved.

ברעה means WHEN THEY WERE SHOUTING for they were shouting for joy and making merry.

וישמע יהושע, "Joshua heard, etc." The expression ברעה needs clarification. What precisely was the "sound" that Joshua heard which he interpreted as the sound of war? In order to understand Moses' response to Joshua one has to have prophetic insight.

V. 17. Aus Kap. 24, V8. 13 u. 14 ist ersichtlich, dass Mosche und Josua sich vom Volke entfernt hatten, und ihrer beider Zurückkunft Aaron und die Ältesten warten sollten, aus V. 15 ff. aber, dass Mosche allein zum Gipfel des Berges hinanging. Daraus ergibt sich, dass Josua fern vom Volke und von Mosche auf dem Berge geblieben war, weshalb nun hier beim Hinabsteigen Mosche zuerst Josua traf. — רוע ,בְרֵע֗ה, ursprünglich: brechen und davon רע: das sittlich Gebrochene, Schlechte, wird auch zum Ausdruck der nur in wiederholten Absätzen das Ohr, sowie das Gemüt treffenden, und dadurch erregenden, erschütternden Stimme, daher תרועה: der laute Lärm und die innere Erschütterung und הריע: eine solche Erschütterung durch solchen Lärm erregen. רֵעַ aber, Substantiv: Lärm. So למה תריעי רֵעַ (Micha 4, 9). Es steht aber hier רֵעה statt רעו, um das Volk in der sittlichen Schwäche seiner Ausgelassenheit zu zeichnen.

All of this may be understood in light of a statement in the Talmud Yerushalmi Taanit 4,5 that the righteous are able to distinguish certain sounds as implying either something positive or something negative. This power of aural perception is something G'd has granted to outstanding individuals. When Joshua heard the sound which indicated something negative happening, ברעה, he interpreted it as the sound of fighting amongst the people. Alternatively, Joshua did not refer to a civil war when he mentioned that he identified the sound as the sound of battle; rather he referred to the struggle between the evil urge and the urge to be good which he perceived as being waged inside the Israelites at that time. Moses answered him that this was not how he perceived what he heard. When Moses said that he did not hear קול ענות גבורה, he meant that he did not perceive the good urge being victorious over the evil urge; when he added that he did not hear the קול ענות חלושה either, he meant that the reason was not merely an inherent weakness amongst the Israelites; what he heard was קול ענות, a sound of affliction, i.e. that he heard the breaking of the staff of glory which used to be theirs and which had now been broken. The meaning of this is that as opposed to violating one or another of the commandments, something that is apt to occur in the life of every Jew from time to time and which weakens a person spiritually, this time they had uprooted all the commandments by becoming guilty of idolatry. This is because according to Chulin 5 the sin of idolatry is equal to violating the entire Torah.

V. 18.קול ענות גבורה und חלושה: eine Stimme, die Sieg oder Fall verkündet, die durch Siegen oder Erliegen hervorgerufen ist. חלץ ,חלש heißt: etwas Festgehaltenes aus seinem Halt ziehen. קול ענות, eine Stimme der Demütigung, Schwächung, eine Stimme, die uns kraftlos macht. Nicht das, was eine solche Stimme hervorruft, sondern diese Stimme selbst und was sich in ihr ausspricht, dasselbe, was im ה des רעה angedeutet war, die sittliche Ausgelassenheit schlägt uns nieder. Es könnte auch ענות , Schwächung und Schändung in geschlechtlicher Beziehung heißen, wie: נשים בציון ענו (Klagel. 5, 11). Ist es doch eine alte Überlieferung, dass die Frauen sich nicht an diesem Abfall beteiligt hatten. Es würde damit dann gesagt sein, dass sie mit Zwang in diese Götzenbacchanalien hineingerissen wurden und ihren Widerstand zu büßen hatten.

Perhaps the word אנכי which follows the word ענות here is an allusion to the שכינה; it is reminiscent of Deut. 32,18 צור ילדך תשי, that the commission of a sin such a idolatry "weakens" the שכינה. The word שומע refers back to Joshua who had said that he heard the sound of battle within the camp. Moses told Joshua that what he heard was the mystical dimension of the breaking apart of the שכינה, so to speak. Solomon alludes to something like this in Proverbs 10,1 ובן כסיל תוגת אמו, "a foolish son is his mother's sorrow." Having written this, I have found the following statement in the Zohar second volume page 195: "What is the meaning of the word 'ברעה'? It refers to a voice (sound) from the סיטרא אחרא, the "negative part of the emanations." [This is based on the spelling of ברע with the letter ה at the end. Joshua is perceived as like the "moon" compared to Moses, the latter being like the "sun" in our aggadic literature. The "negative emanations" are similarly perceived by kabbalists as being like the "moon" when compared to the positive emanations which are like the "sun." These negative emanations are perceived as having "stolen" the light of the moon which was equal in strength to that of the sun prior to its having had to diminish itself. Joshua was therefore especially attuned to these negative emanations. This is why he "beheld" this "voice." Moses had not heard this voice as he was attuned primarily to the positive emanations, the ones perceived as akin to the "sun." Ed.] Joshua reported to Moses on what he heard immediately.

אין קול ענות גבורה IT IS NOT THE VOICE OF THE CRY OF MASTERY —This sound does not seem to be the sound of the utterance of victors who cry, “Victory!” nor is it the sound of the defeated who cry, “Alas — let me flee!”.

THE NOISE OF THEM THAT SING DO I HEAR.³⁵⁵In the Tur it is correctly marked as a new paragraph. In all Hebrew editions of Ramban, however, it is connected with the above. As the subject is clearly independent of the preceding matter, I have followed here the order of the Tur for the sake of clarity. The meaning of this is not that Moses knew the matter to be so, for in that case he would have said, “It is the noise of them that sing” [instead of saying, “do I hear”]. Rather, its meaning is that since Moses was the father of wisdom,³⁵⁶Sifre Devarim 1. See also in Vol. I, pp. 9-10. and recognized the musical character of all sounds, he said that it was a noise of singing which was being heard by him. The Rabbis have likewise said in an Agadah³⁵⁷Koheleth Rabbah 9:11. that Moses told Joshua, “Is it possible that one who is destined to be the leader of Israel cannot distinguish between the different kinds of sounds?” Now Moses in his great humility did not tell Joshua the cause of the noise, as he did not want to speak of the disgrace of Israel, and so instead he told him that it was a noise of merriment.

חלושה, victory; we find this word in the battle against Amalek in Exodus 17,13 ויחלוש יהושוע, “Joshua defeated, etc.”

קול ענות אנכי שומע, “I can only hear a sound of distress.” Nachmanides writes that what Moses said was not based on factual evidence, -after all he had not yet seen what was going on with his eyes, and we do not judge on the basis of what our ears hear.- In fact, technically speaking, Moses was out of order in telling Joshua his conclusions which incriminated his people on the basis of not even having seen the evidence. We must therefore interpret what Moses is quoted as saying to mean that he voiced the opinion that what he heard sounded like revelry. In the Midrash Moses’ words are understood as a rebuke to Joshua, his mentor saying to him that someone who will one day become the ruler of this people cannot afford to make judgments based only on what he thought he had heard. (Midrash Rabbah Kohelet 9)

קול ענות means, the sound of blasphemy and cursing (Shemot Rabbah 41:1) which distress (עַנֵּה to vex, to grieve) the soul of him who hears them — even when they are only related to him.

וישלך מידו AND HE CAST [THE TABLETS] OUT OF HIS HAND — He said: “What is the law regarding the Paschal lamb which is only one of the commandments? The Torah states: (Exodus 12:43) “No stranger shall eat thereof”! (cf. Rashi on that verse: a stranger means one who has enstranged himself by his doings from his Father in heaven — an apostate). “But the whole Torah is here (written on the tablets) and all the Israelites are apostates, can I possibly give it (the Torah) to them?!” (Shabbat 87a).

וירא את העגל ואת המחולות ויחר אף משה, Moses’ anger was aroused over the fact that people rejoiced over the damage to themselves they had caused. We find something parallel in Jeremiah 11,15 כי רעתכי אז תעלזי, ”for you exult in performing your evil deeds.” At this point Moses despaired of the people doing teshuvah before being punished. They were no longer fit to receive the Tablets

ויהי כאשר קרב אל המחנה, It was, when he came close to the camp, etc. Our sages have already told us in Megillah 10 that whenever the word ויהי introduces a paragraph this is an allusion to a painful experience. In this instance Shemot Rabbah 46,1 describes that Moses noted the letters on the Tablets "flying away." This caused us all the subsequent grief our forefathers and we ourselves have experienced ever since, including the experience of death itself. Had the original Tablets survived, every sorrow and calamity would have disappeared from the earth, and the world would have experienced freedom from the angel of death (compare section 41 in that Midrash.) The word ויהי also refers to the anguish experienced by Moses personally when he saw with his own eyes what was taking place. The word also alludes to the feelings of shame experienced by the Israelites who felt like a thief who is caught in the act of stealing when they saw Moses approaching. The word even alludes to the קליפה, the spiritually negative radiations which now bombarded the camp of the Israelites and which presaged death and destruction. These negative emanations had been called forth by the words: "these are your gods O Israel, etc."

וישלך מידו, when Moses saw the golden calf, he became physically too weak to continue to carry the weight of the Tablets and he threw them as far as possible away from himself so that they would not drop on his feet. This is the way all persons who throw away a burden they carry and which has become too heavy for them, do this. This is the way Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer explains this verse (chapter 45). This is also the plain meaning of the verse.

וישלך מידו את הלוחות, “he threw down the Tablets from his hand.” The Torah does not use the verb ויפל, which would have meant that the Tablets fell directly in front of his feet, but it uses a verb indicating that Moses flung the Tablets as far away from him as he was able to.

The foot of the mountain. Rashi is answering the question: Does “Beneath the mountain” not imply that the mountain had an interior cavity? Thus he explains, “At the foot of the mountain.

As he approached the camp. Moshe initially thought they only made the calf as a substitute for him—because he failed to return when expected—and he was certain they would repent the moment they saw him. That is why he did not break the Tablets immediately. But then when they continued their revelry despite his arrival, he realized that their intention was to rebel against God.

V. 19. So lange heidnischer Wahn in jeglicher Gestalt nur in Verirrung des Geistes wurzelt und auf das Gebiet des Verstandes beschränkt bleibt, so lange ist zu hoffen, dass die Verirrung der Belehrung, der Wahn der Wahrheit weiche, und die Rückkehr zum Bessern sich leicht gestalte. Wenn aber der heidnische Wahn aus dem Gebiete der logischen Verirrung in die praktische Vergiftung der Sitten übergetreten, und die Entfesselung sinnlicher Ausschweifung ihre offene Heiligung am Altare des Irrtums gewonnen, dann klammert sich die Sinnlichkeit an die Wurzel, die ihr so willkommene Nahrung bietet, und so leicht das bloß verirrte Volk zu belehren ist, so schwer ist das sittenverderbte zu bessern und so schwer dann auch zu belehren. So lange Mosche nur von dem Kalbe und dessen Vergötterung wusste, so lange hoffte er noch, dem Gesetze eine reine Stätte im Volke bereiten zu können, und er nahm das Zeugnis des Gesetzes mit hinab. Als er aber das Kalb sah und Tänze um das Kalb, da gewahrte er, wie die heidnische Verirrung bereits ihre gewöhnliche Frucht, die Entfesselung der Sinnlichkeit gezeitigt hatte, da sah er, dass erst wieder ein Volk für dieses Gesetz herzustellen war, ohne Schwanken, mit beiden vereinten Händen — יָדו die Pluralität in der Einheit — warf er die Tafeln in Trümmer und sprach damit mit Enschiedenheit die Unwürdigkeit, die Unfähigkeit des gegenwärtigen Volkes für dieses Gesetz aus. תחת ההר ist: unten am Berge, als er die entsittlichende Wirkung der Vergötterung des Kalbes gesehen hatte.

ומחולות , “and the dancing;” we know this word as meaning: “dancing,” from Psalms 150,4: הללוהו בתוף ומחול, “praise Him with the drum and dance.”

תחת ההר BENEATH THE MOUNTAIN — i. e. at the foot of the mountain.

וישבר אותם, “he shattered them. According to the plain meaning of the text, the reason why Moses made a point of smashing the Tablets was that these Tablets which had inscribed on them that Israelites must not make a cast image of anything in heaven or on earth, would, if allowed to remain intact- serve as testimony against the people who had so grossly violated what was written upon these Tablets.

כאשר קרב אל המחנה, as he approached the camp. Perhaps the Torah wished to tell us that Moses espied the calf even before he actually entered the camp. This had to be so in order for the sacred Tablets not to have to share the same domain with the epitome of impurity, the golden calf. When the Torah writes: "and it was as he approached the camp he saw the calf and the dances (or the musical instruments used during dances)," our attention is drawn to the immediacy of Moses seeing the calf and the activities surrounding it.

וישלך מידיו, “he hurled from his hands;” Moses’ physical strength left him when he saw with his own eyes the golden calf, and he was no longer able to hold on to the Tablets, and threw them a short distance from where he stood, just far enough so that they would not hurt his feet by falling on them.

וירא את העגל ומחלות, he saw the calf and the musical instruments, etc. Perhaps the Torah describes that with the approach of Moses the spirit of impurity took fright and flew away so that the calf became inert and lost its ability to utter the words "these are your gods, etc." Even the spirit of impurity which had fashioned the calf unassisted by any artisan or goldsmith departed out of fear of Moses. The words עגל ומחלות side by side conjure up an image of the calf becoming as inert as the מחלות, the musical instruments, once the spirit which had misled the Jewish people into believing that the calf possessed powers of its own had departed from it.

וישבר אותם תחת ההר, “he shattered them at the foot of the Mountain.” He did so because the letter ט of the Hebrew alphabet did not appear on them even once. The reward for honouring father and mother, i.e. למען ייטב לך, “in order that you may fare well,” appears only on the second set of Tablets (Deuteronomy 5,16). By smashing the first set of Tablets Moses accomplished that the reward for keeping the commandment of honouring one’s parent was engraved on the second set of the Tablets.

Alternatively, the Torah uses the wording וירא את העגל instead of וירא העגל, to draw our attention to the fact that Moses did not only behold the calf but also the spirit of impurity it contained, i.e. את. The righteous have the ability to recognise evil; a person of the stature of Moses was certainly able to recognise evil when he faced it. According to our rabbis in Tikkunim 142, Moses asked the calf who had made it to which the calf responded that it had been made by the mixed multitude. Seeing that inert things cannot speak, the meaning of that statement is that Moses realised that the calf contained the spirit of impurity. When the Torah describes Moses as seeing the dances, the word את in front of the word מחלות is absent. This lends credence to the statement that Moses perceived the spirit of impurity as being within the calf.

It is also possible that the Torah wished to inform us that at the time Moses approached the camp he did not encounter a single person as they were all too ashamed to face him. All Moses was able to see therefore were the calf and the musical instruments used to accompany the dances.

ויחר אף משה וישלך מידיו את הלוחות, Moses became very angry and he threw the Tablets from his hands, etc. We need to understand why Moses took it upon himself to smash the Tablets ignoring the immeasurable damage this would cause to the Jewish people. Clearly he would not have destroyed something unless he was convinced that by the destruction of whatever it was he would perform something infinitely more useful than that which he destroyed. We are told in Avot de Rabbi Natan chapter 2 that Moses did not shatter the Tablets until told to do so by G'd. This view is confirmed by Rabbi Meir who cites Deut. 10,5 as support for this view. He derives this from Moses saying "they remained therein as G'd had commanded me." If so, we must understand why G'd withheld the good contained in the Tablets from His people. [the question is appropriate in view of the Torah having told us that G'd decided not to carry out His plan to destroy the people. Ed.]

We must remember that at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai any residual pollutant of the original serpent had been expunged from the people as we know from Shabbat 146. This is the reason G'd prepared for them legislation engraved i.e. charut on the Tablets. The word חרות which we read in the Torah with the vowel kametz under the first letter may also be read with the vowel tzeyreh instead; as a result of this change it means "freedom." The alternate spelling is an allusion to the freedom from the angel of death which the Jewish people had attained as a result of their ready acceptance of G'd's Torah. Mortality, after all, had only been due to the pollutants with which the original serpent had injected Eve through her eating of the tree of knowledge. The golden calf episode reversed this process and the Israelites became infected with something like the original pollutant once more, though not to the same degree as previously. As a result of their idolatry they became mortal once more and a set of laws designed for immortal people was no longer appropriate for them. This is why those Tablets had to be smashed. All of this is based on the opinions that Moses had not acted of his own accord when he smashed the Tablets.

ויזר AND STREWED IT — The verb זרה denotes scattering about, similar to, (Job 18:15) “Brimstone shall be scattered (יזרה) upon his habitation”; (Proverbs 1:17) “Surely in vain the net is strewn (מזורה) [in the sight of any bird]” where this expression is used because people usually bestrew it (the net) with grain and pulse.

AND HE STREWED IT UPON THE WATER, AND MADE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL DRINK IT. After grinding the golden calf to a fine powder, he scattered it on the surface of the stream which came down from the mountain, and made the people drink of those waters. It is possible that gold burnt in fire does not melt, but instead when placed therein is charred and can be ground to powder, as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra mentioned.³⁵⁸“There is a certain substance which, if put with gold into the fire, will cause the gold to become charred to dust and never return to its former properties” (Ibn Ezra). This powder was light upon the face of the waters,³⁵⁹Job 24:18. and therefore it floated, and he made them drink of it. Or it may be that he scattered it upon the stream in small quantities, and then drew the water and made them drink it before the gold powder sank in the stream. Or perhaps it was a miraculous event. Thus he wanted to disgrace their deeds by grinding their god to powder and bringing it into their bellies to issue as excrement, something like it is said, Thou shalt put them [i.e., the graven images] far away as one unclean; thou shalt say unto it: ‘get thee hence.’³⁶⁰Isaiah 30:22. In the opinion of our Rabbis³⁶¹Abodah Zarah 44a. he also intended to put them to the test in the same way that faithless wives were tried,³⁶²Numbers 5:16-22. [so that those guilty of having worshipped the golden calf] would have their bellies swell and their thighs fall away.³⁶³Ibid., Verse 27. This is the truth.

ויקח את העגל אשר עשו, He took the calf which they had made, etc. The words "which they had made" appear quite superfluous; perhaps the Torah had to mention this according to the view that the golden calf looked like a calf from the front and like a donkey when viewed from the rear as we find in the Zohar volume 2 page 192. If the Torah had written only "he took the calf," I could have understood this as a reference only to the front section of the calf and that Moses burned only that section of the image. By adding the words: "which they had made," the Torah makes it clear that Moses burned the entire inert creature.

ויזר, same as ויפזר, “he scattered.” The construction from the root פזר is parallel to vayiken, from the root kanah, (compare Genesis 33,19) Compare also the root זרה which would be vayizer as here. We find the word in this sense in Numbers 17,2 ואת האש זרה הלאה, “and throw the fire (flame) away.”

וישרוף באש, “he burned it by fire.” Gold is normally worked only when it has been made red hot, when it is cast in a mould. Therefore, just as the calf came into existence by means of fire, it had to be destroyed by means of fire. Ibn Ezra writes that there are elements (or additives) which when mixed with gold, not only have the same effect as melting it, but make it incapable of being reconstituted. Moses used such a solution.

He intended to test them as are women suspected of adultery. . . The reason being that he who strays after idolatry is like a married woman who strays from her husband by having relations with an adulterer, as is stated in the Midrash on Shir Hashirim 4:5 that Rashi cites. That is why Moshe tested them in the same manner as women who are suspected of adultery are tested.

V. 20. Seine erste Handlung war, den Gott des Wahns in seiner vollendeten Nichtigkeit dem Volke zum leibhaften Bewusstsein zu bringen. Er zerstörte das Götterkalb nicht nur, sondern es musste jeder im Volke mit seiner eigenen leiblichen Persönlichkeit die gänzliche spurlose Vernichtung seines Gottes vollenden helfen. Das Volk musste seinen Gott austrinken. Das, worin sie die Sicherung ihrer leiblichen Zukunft gesetzt hatten, musste in ihrer Leiblichkeit das rasche Ende seines kurzen Daseins finden. Das, worin ihre leiblich sinnliche Reinheit bereits ihr Grab zu finden begann, musste in ihrer sinnlichen Leiblichkeit sein Grab finden. Mit solcher Prägnanz lehrt und erzieht ein Mosche. Dass aber keine Hand sich regte, ihren Gott aus den Händen des Mannes Mosche zu retten, und kein Mund sich weigerte, den Staub seines Gottes zu trinken, das war ein erstes Zeichen der Umkehr und das war zugleich ein Beweis, wie es einem energievolleren Auftreten vielleicht gelungen wäre, von vornherein das Volk in seiner Verirrung aufzuhalten.

וישק את בני ישראל, “he made the Children of Israel drink;” on this verse Rashi observes that basically we are subject to death for certain sins by one of three types of death, a) as in the case where a woman has been suspected of infidelity by her husband, when there are no eyewitnesses to the supposed infidelity. In such cases death is brought about by Divine interference, the woman who had lied by protesting her innocence having to drink the “bitter” water, as a result of which she will die a painful death. [Compare Numbers 5,27) b) a capital offence was committed by a person who had been duly warned of the consequence of his deed by two legally qualified witnesses. The death penalty will be carried out by the guilty party being killed by the sword. Compare Deuteronomy 13,17, as explained by the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 111. c) there are witnesses to the sin having been committed, but the sinner had not been warned immediately prior to committing the sin by qualified witnesses. In that case he will die by a plague at the instigation of G–d. If Rashi were correct in comparing the death of the people worshipping the golden calf were executed by the sword as the people in Deuteronomy 13,17, why was their property not destroyed as is the case there? We would have to answer that they were punished as if they had been gentiles, where destruction of the sinner’s property is not decreed. (Compare Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin folio 56)

וישרוף באש, “he burned it by fire.” There are materials, which when added to gold, immediately, also burn the gold, i.e. blacken it. Such gold never regains its original colour.

וישק את בני ישראל AND HE GAVE THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL TO DRINK OF IT — He intended to put them to the test as faithless wives were tried (cf. Numbers 5:12—31) (Avodah Zarah 44a). Three different death-penalties were inflicted there: It there were witnesses to the act of idolatry and a legal warning had preceded the deed the offender was put to death by the sword (cf. vv. 27, 28) as was the regulation regarding the inhabitants of an apostate city (Deuteronomy 13:13—18) when there were many (as was the case here; a single idolator, however, was subject to the death by stoning; cf. Deuteronomy 17:2—5). If there were witnesses but there had been no caution, they were destroyed by the plague, as it is said, (v. 35) “And the Lord plagued the people”. In cases where there were neither witnesses nor warning they were punished by dropsy — for the water which Moses gave them to drink put them to the test and if they were guilty their bellies swelled (cf. Yoma 66b).

וישק את בני ישראל, he examined their truthfulness by making them drink this mixture, just as a Sotah suspected of infidelity has to drink water [mixed with ground dust].

As an idolatrous city when there are many involved. . . I.e., the death of the city dwellers is by the sword, as opposed to an individual idolater whose death is by stoning.

Perhaps the lesson in these words is similar to the message of the prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah, 2,19: "your wickedness itself has become your affliction;" i.e. the sin itself becomes the bane of the person who perpetrated it. By embracing evil, the sin itself destroys those who love it and who hate sanctity. When the Torah speaks of אשר עשו, it refers to the consequences of the act of making the calf. וישק את בני ישראל, he made the Israelites drink of it. This was designed to open the eyes of the blind and to teach them to hate evil and to love sanctity which implies a love for the good for goodness' own sake.

על פני המים, Dewarim 9, 21: אל הנחל הירד מן ההר, also auf einen vom Berg herabströmenden Bach.

וישק את בני ישראל, “he made the Children of Israel drink (from this mixture)”. According to the plain meaning of the text, Moses did not intend to make the people drink, but to scatter the gold so that it would cease to exist. When the people drank from the water that the gold had been scattered into, an onlooker would gain the impression that he had seen someone drinking gold. Proof that this is the correct interpretation is found in Deuteronomy 9,21: ואכות אותו טחון, “I broke it to bits and ground it until it was fine as dust;” at that point Moses does not mention a word about making the Israelites drink it.

Furthermore, the Torah may have wanted to inform us about the nature of the evil the two sorcerers had perpetrated. The first evil was that they formed the golden calf, the second that the calf invited the people to worship it when it said: "these are your gods O Israel, etc." The Torah tells us that Moses "took" i.e. seized both these aspects of wickedness the sorcerers had created. The expression לקח as a description of sanctity gaining control over spiritually negative forces, קליפה, is used by the Talmud in Yuma 69 where the members of the Great Assembly are described as seizing the spirit which seduces men into worshiping idols and other sins, and their trying to eliminate it. Moses did something similar here when he "seized" the spirit of impurity within the golden calf, and burned it. The words וישרוף באש, "he burned it in fire," are far more appropriate when applied to the spirit within the calf than to the calf itself seeing that one cannot "burn" gold. Perhaps this is the mystical dimension of Isaiah 11,4 where the prophet describes the Messiah as "killing the wicked with the breath of his lips."

מה עשה לך העם הזה WHAT DID THIS PEOPLE UNTO THEE How many pains must you have endured — it must be that they inflicted suffering on you, before you brought this sin upon them!

WHAT DID THIS PEOPLE UNTO THEE, THAT THOU HAST BROUGHT SO GREAT A SIN UPON THEM? “How many pains did you endure, and how much suffering did they inflict on you, before you brought this sin upon them?” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to me to be correct. For this transgression [of idolatry] is of the kind for which one must sacrifice one’s life and submit to death rather than transgress it [and from Rashi’s words it would appear that if Aaron had suffered much it was permissible for him to make it]. Perhaps Moses told him so in order to magnify his guilt.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that this is like the verse, What have I done? what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life?³⁶⁴I Samuel 20:1. Moses is thus saying: “What hatred did you have for this people, that you have [almost] brought about their destruction and annihilation?” Moses told him this because Aaron had served them in the function of one who reproves³⁶⁵This is a reference to what the Rabbis have said that Aaron served as prophet while Israel was yet in Egypt. See commentaries to I Samuel 2:27. and atones for them, and he should have had compassion and mercy on them [and should have made them desist from their course of conduct]; thus the meaning is: “You conducted yourself towards them as an enemy who desires to see their calamity, when they had neither sinned nor transgressed against you.” Now the proper order would have been for Moses to blame him firstly for the sin which he himself had done, and then to charge him for the sin which he brought upon the people, saying: “how did you do this great sin against G-d, causing also many people to trespass, and bringing a great sin upon them?” Moses, however, in his humility showed respect towards his elder brother, and only mentioned to him the stumbling of the people. It is possible that Moses’ heart was steadfast, trusting³⁶⁶Psalms 112:7. in the righteousness of his brother [and he assumed] that his intention was not a bad one, [and therefore he did not reprove him for his own conduct]; but for the people’s guilt he did blame him, for he should have reproved them, and thus they stumbled because of him, — and Aaron replied that they deceived him with their words.

הבאת עליו חטאה גדולה, a reference to the display of merriment in serving the golden calf. Moses criticised Aaron for having proclaimed the feast which led to this rejoicing over the golden calf instead of instead of being a feast for G’d. On account of this he was forced to entreat G’d for an additional measure of mercy for His people. This is also what he meant when addressing the people saying: אתם חטאתם חטאה גדולה “you have committed an exceedingly great sin,” (verse 30) Also, when appealing to G’d, he commences by saying that the people had been guilty of an exceedingly serious sin (verse 31). This theme returns once more when G’d speaks of עון-פשע-וחטאה, sins of three different levels of seriousness in Exodus 34,7. In 34,9 Moses begs for forgiveness for two of these categories of sin, עון and חטא, not daring to ask for forgiveness for פשע, deliberate taunting of G’ by one’s sin. Moses. who had shown understanding for the fact that Aaron had been under great pressure in acceding to the making of the golden calf, cannot understand why he lent his hand to heaping additional sin on the people by having declared a public holiday. He had not been under pressure to do that and should have known that the people would understand this as an invitation to celebrate the new leader, replacing Moses.

מה עשה לך העם הזה? "What did this people do to you?" Moses recognised that the making of a cast idol for others is not one of the commandments for which one has to sacrifice one's life rather than to do so under duress. Compare Maimonides' treatise on the laws of idolatry chapter three in which he rules that a person who commits such a sin is punishable only by 39 lashes. If a person performs such a deed under duress he is not punishable at all. If he had not been forced to do what he did under threat of death he is punishable by 39 lashes even if he had not been warned of the consequences of his deed by witnesses acceptable in Jewish law (Makkot 6). Moses therefore wanted to know the circumstances which caused Aaron to make the calf.

מה עשה לך העם הזה? ”what have these people done to you?” Rashi understands this question as meaning: “how many tortures have these people inflicted upon you that you became instrumental in making this calf?” Nachmanides has difficulty in accepting this interpre-tation, as Moses implied that Aaron’s action was excusable, whereas when it comes to idolatry we have an ironclad rule that one must be prepared to sacrifice one’s life rather than lend a hand in such a nefarious scheme. He therefore prefers to understand Moses’ question to Aaron as: “how much did you hate this people that you were willing to become the instrument which would lead to their destruction?” He said this as it had been Aaron’s task to be their remonstrator, castigator, not their assistant and abettor when they were bent on committing a sin. Nachmanides adds that actually, Moses should first have accused Aaron of his sin, before mentioning the people’s sin. Only then should he have mentioned that Aaron had been guilty in causing them to commit this sin. He refrained from accusing Aaron to his face of causing the people to sin, out of respect for him. Alternatively, the reason why Moses did not reprimand Aaron was simply that he was one hundred per cent convinced that Aaron could not have harboured any thought that deserved criticizing from an halachic point of view, but that Moses’ words referred exclusively to the sin committed by the people, and that Aaron should have remonstrated with them. Aaron replied simply that the people had deliberately misled him.

How much pain did you endure. . . This is a rhetorical question: How much pain they must have caused you, that you were coerced into making them the Calf! Moshe said this to emphasize the point, that [in truth] they did not cause you any pain.

V. 21. Der Nichtigkeitsbeweis des Vergötterten durch dessen konkrete Vernichtung war das erste und dringendste. Es war damit der Weg zur wieder zu gewinnenden Besinnung angebahnt. Nun erst wendet Mosche sich zu Aaron. Der Mangel alles Widerstandes bei seinem Verfahren mit dem Götterkalbe hatte gezeigt, was Energie vermag, und um so eindringender war nunmehr die Frage an Aaron: Welche Gewalt hat denn das Volk gegen dich gebraucht, daß du es in seiner Verirrung gewähren lassen musstest? הבאת kann nicht heißen: du hast über es die Sünde gebracht, das setzte eine positive Tätigkeit Aarons bei Verübung des Verbrechens voraus, und davon wusste ja Mosche noch gar nichts. Der הפעיל kann hier nur in der Bedeutung des Geschehenlassens stehen, wie: ולא תותירו ממנו (Kap. 12,10). ולא תורד שיבתו וגו׳ (Kön. I. 2, 6).

Aaron replied: אתה ידעת את העם הזה כי בדע הוא, "you know from observing the people that they are bent on doing something corrupt." He added that as far as Moses' assumption that he, Aaron, had made the calf with his own hands was concerned, this was not so. All he had done was to throw the gold into the crucible. The calf emerged totally unassisted. This follows the description in the Tanchuma which we quoted earlier according to which the Egyptian sorcerers Yanus and Yambrus made the calf. Aaron explained that if not for this factor which was beyond his control, there would not have been a sin at all as he had made neither a form nor an image.

Another meaning of Moses asking: "what have the people done to you?" could be this: "Did they put you under sufficient pressure so that you could legally have agreed to comply?" Moses asked whether Aaron had correctly contrasted the enormity, חטאה גדולה, of the sin involved before deciding that he did not have to make a martyr of himself by agreeing to do whatever he did. Aaron replied by outlining the circumstances of what had transpired.

כי ברע הוא [THOU KNOWEST THE PEOPLE] THAT THEY ARE SET ON EVIL — They always go on the wrong way and with temptations, before the Omnipresent.

THOU KNOWEST THE PEOPLE, THAT THEY ARE SET ON EVIL. Aaron is saying: “They proceeded along the path of evil. They told me to make them a guide in the place of my lord until he returns to me, for perhaps he will return, and then they gave me the gold and I cast it into the fire³⁶⁷Verse 24. and behold there came out this calf for them, for they had an evil intention as to the gold, [and wanted] to worship it and sacrifice to it.” But because Aaron did not want to speak at length about their corruption, he spoke briefly and said, and there came out this calf,³⁶⁷Verse 24. meaning, “there came out for them this evil matter that my lord sees.”

כי ברע הוא. They were already so deeply involved in the sin, having been used to the idolatry they had been addicted to in the hundreds of years in Egypt.

אתה ידעת את העם כי ברע הוא, “you know what the people are like once they are bent on an evil path.” Aaron did not want to dwell at length on how the situation had deteriorated, and the people’s having planned this, but he shouldered part of the blame saying that he had misled them by throwing the gold they had brought into the crucible, as an unexpected result of which this calf emerged. The people had made him believe that they wanted a temporary substitute for Moses until Moses would return. It had neither occurred to him that this calf would emerge from the crucible, nor that they would worship this calf by prostrating themselves in front of it

They are always going. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written it say כי רע הוא , [instead of ברע ], if it refers to the Bnei Yisrael? He explains that ברע refers to the evil way. And Rashi adds the words “they are going” because “going” is the term that is associated with “way.” And Rashi adds the word “always,” because otherwise Aharon seems to be speaking of this [specific] way on which they intend evil. But this cannot be, because if Moshe had known of this [as the verse says, “You know,”] he should have taken preventative measures at the onset, before they did evil. Therefore Rashi adds “always,” to convey that in all their deeds they are always on an evil way.

VV. 22-—24. Wie groß erscheint Aaron in dieser Antwort! Er sagt nichts zu seiner Verteidigung, verschweigt selbst die zur Milderung seiner Schuld geeigneten Umstände, die wir bereits kennen. Nichts von ihrer überwältigenden Massenerscheinung, ויקהל העם על־ — nichts von seinem Versuche, die Eitelkeit der Frauen als Verzögerungsmittel zu gebrauchen, nichts von seiner mühsam die Vollendung hinausschiebenden Ziselierarbeit, — nichts von allem dem. Mit keinem seine Schuld mildernden Grunde will er die Schuld des Volkes vergrößern. Er nimmt fast die ganze Schuld auf sich, klagt sich der energielosesten Schwäche an: "Du kennst das Volk, wenn es im Bösen ist", das ist seine ganze Verteidigung, du weißt, wie entschieden und heftig es auftritt, wenn es in der Gewalt einer Leidenschaft befangen ist. Darum habe ich gar keinen Widerstand versucht, habe sofort ihrem Verlangen mich gefügt ( — man vergleiche das: ויקהל העם על אהרן ויאמרו אליו קום עשה לנו וגו׳ des wirklichen Vorgangs mit Aarons mildem Bericht: ויאמרו לי עשה לנו וגו׳! —) habe ihr Gold ins Feuer geworfen ( — um es zu schmelzen, von seiner weiteren langwierigen Arbeit sagt er nichts — ) und auf diese Weise, durch meine nachgiebige Schwäche, ויצא העגל הזה, ist dies Kalb entstanden.

כי ברע הוא, “when it is bent on evil.” If he had not done what he did in response to their demand, they would have appointed a new leader with even worse consequences.

כי ברע הוא, “that they are bent on evil;” they have evil intentions; if I had not had made the calf for them they would have crowned a king for themselves and the final result would have been bitter for them. (Baaley Tossaphot)

ואמר להם AND I SAID UNTO THEM one single thing, — simply, “Who has any gold?” — but they hastened and broke it off from themselves and gave it to me.

?ואומר להן למי זהב, I was assuming or hoping that there would not be any raw gold handy to be used to make into any kind of jewelry.

ויצא העגל הזה. It emerged as a finished product. Compare Proverbs 25,4 ויצא לצורף כלי, “the silversmith produces a vessel.” Or, Isaiah 54,16 ומוציא כלי למעשהו.

One thing. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, the whole sin would be Aharon’s. I.e., Aharon did not say, “Remove them,” but just said, “Who has gold?” and they hurriedly removed [their gold ornaments].

ויצא העגל הזה, “and this calf emerged (from the crucible)” Apparently, when Aaron used his graving tool the gold was inside some sort of mould, and it emerged all at once (not as molten gold.) According to some opinions, Aaron had thrown in a golden sheet that had been used to transport Joseph’s coffin, Joseph had been referred to by Yaakov in his final blessings as an ox so that somehow this sheet responded to the call; “arise ox!” (Tanchuma section 19 on our portion)

ויצא העגל הזה, “this calf emerged;” it came out complete. We find a similar wording in Proverbs 25,4: ויצא לצורף כסף, “and it emerged for the silversmith as a silver vessel.” Aaron threw into the crucible assorted pieces of golden jewelry, and what emerged from the crucible was a fully formed golden calf.

ואשלכהו באש AND I CAST IT INTO THE FIRE, and I did not know that this (i. e. this living) calf would come out, ויצא — BUT IT DID COME OUT.

התפרקו ויתנו לי, but against my expectations they removed golden jewelry and donated it for this purpose.

I did not know that this calf would come out. . . I.e., this calf came out without my forming it with an engraver’s tool. ]Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why did Aharon say, “And this calf emerged”? If he threw it in the fire and shaped it into a calf with an engraving tool, obviously this calf would come out. Re”m writes: Scripture testifies that Aharon said, “Remove the rings of your wives” (v. 2), and that “he formed it with an engraving tool” (v. 4). If so, how could Aharon say, “I said one thing to them”? And how could he say, “I threw it into the fire,” intimating that it emerged by itself, when in fact he took the gold and “formed it with an engraving tool and made it into a molten calf” (ibid)? It seems [the answer is:] He said a lie because he feared Moshe. But this is difficult [to say], for how could Aharon, Hashem’s holy one, say a lie? See Nachalas Yaakov.

ואשליכהו באש, I tried to delay matters, throwing the gold into the fire, as is, without making any of the customary preparations performed by goldsmiths, activities which preheat the gold so it can cast properly to be fashioned into the desired shapes.

ויצא העגל הזה. This happened spontaneously, without my having done anything once I had thrown the gold into the crucible. The people did not wait until I had performed any action on my own. When we read in verse four ויעשהו עגל מסכה, the Torah did not refer to Aaron having made the cast calf, but it referred to whoever it was who interfered and shaped the gold. We have a similar construction in Leviticus 3,8 וסמך את ידו, “he will place his hand firmly,” where the subject is not Aaron but whoever owns the animal that is about to be slaughtered as a sacrifice. The same applies to the word ושחט in that same context. It is not a specific person, but the priest who performs the duty in the Temple on that particular day. When we read in verse 35 אשר עשו את העגל אשר עשה אהרן, the meaning of this line is “the people made the calf in which Aaron had participated to some extent.” They had shaped it, whereas Aaron had only taken raw gold and thrown it into the fire. [When reading our author’s commentary it becomes clear why the Talmud in Kidushin 49 forbade translating these parts of the Torah into Aramaic during public readings, as the people who need the translation due to their failure to understand the original Hebrew would be apt to misunderstand Aaron’s part in this disaster. Ed.]

פרע means UNCOVERED — its (the people’s) shame and disgrace were revealed; the word has the same meaning as in (Numbers 5:18) “[and the priest shall uncover (ופרע) the woman’s head”.

AND MOSES SAW THAT THE PEOPLE WERE ‘PHARUA’ (BROKEN LOOSE). The meaning of this is that although Aaron defended himself and said that he was not at fault with them, yet Moses knew in his heart that the people were broken loose — For they are a nation void of counsel, and there is no understanding in them.³⁶⁸Deuteronomy 32:28. It is similar to the expression, ‘vatiphr’u’ (and ye have set at nought) all my counsel,³⁶⁹Proverbs 1:25. and similar also to the verse, for ‘hiphria’ (he had cast away restraint) in Judah, and acted treacherously against the Eternal.³⁷⁰II Chronicles 28:19. [Thus the verse is stating that Moses saw] that Aaron had let the people loose, and left them without any counsel and instruction, so that they became like sheep scattered upon the mountains³⁷¹See I Kings 22:17. without counsellor and guide. Scripture stated this [especially] because they had thought that the calf would be their guide, but in fact they appeared as if they had no counsel, not knowing the way wherein they must walk, and the deeds they must do,³⁷²Above, 18:20. for some of them intended it for the good, according to their way of thinking, and others intended it for real evil [i.e., outright idolatry], and thus each one went his own way.

כי פרוע הוא, they are totally corrupt, committing their sins in public without shame. The public deeds reveal their deep-seated corruption.

כי פרוע הוא, for it was out of control, etc. The Torah means that the people had forfeited the protective cover of the שכינה which had hovered over them since the revelation at Mount Sinai.

כי פרוע הוא, had ceased to observe the commandments. We encounter this expression in this sense in Proverbs 1,25 ותפרעו כל עצתי, “You have spurned all My advice.” It appears again in Proverbs 4,15 in a similar sense.

וירא משה, “Moses saw, etc.” Rashi says that even though Aaron had made excuses for the people, Moses, in his heart, did not accept this.” [I have not been able to find this remark by Rashi in our editions of Rashi’s commentary. I believe this is an error, and should be attributed to Nachmanides. Ed.]

V. 25. Aus diesem Berichte erkannte Mosche, dass die Stimme der Wahrheit und der Pflicht vollkommen aus dem Volke gewichen, es: פרוע (ja verwandt mit פרח ,פרא, ברח usw.) fessellos, der Kontrolle der Gesetzlichkeit und des Gewissens vollkommen bar geworden war; dass es aber zu dieser Zügellosigkeit nur gekommen, weil Aaron diese Stimme der Wahrheit und der Pflicht nicht mit männlicher Energie in ihrer Mitte zur Geltung gebracht, die Wahrheit und die Pflicht, die das kontrollierende Band ihres Wollens und Tuns sein sollten, ihnen gegenüber gar nicht vertreten, vielmehr das Volk völlig sich selbst überlassen hatte. Dieses "Sich-selbst" des Volkes wird aber hier wieder in seiner sittlichen Schwäche: פרעה, nicht: פרעו gezeichnet. Während nämlich auf der Seite des Gesetzes jede Vertretung fehlte, war auf der anderen Seite ein mächtiger Faktor tätig, der das sich selbst überlassene Volk widerstandslos zu sich hinüberzog, und das waren: קמים .קמיהם sind nämlich überall: die sich gegen eine Macht auflehnen und zu deren Vernichtung sich erheben. So gegen Davids Königswahl (Ps. 18, 40 und 49), gegen Israels Machtgröße (Dewarim 28, 7), gegen Jirmijas Propheteneinfluss (Klagel. 3, 62), gegen Gott (Schmot 15, 7; Ps. 74. 23; Jirmija 51, 1, wo Babel "das Herz, d. i. der Mittelpunkt der Gottesempörer" לב קמי genannt wird). Nun war ja Israel schwerlich zur Zeit eine zu fürchtende Macht, deren Feinde קמים zu nennen gewesen wären. Wir glauben daher, unter קמיהם so viel als: קמים אשר בתוכם, d. i. die in ihrer Mitte sich befindenden Empörer gegen Gott und sein Gesetz, verstehen zu dürfen. Es gab eine Minorität unter ihnen, vielleicht der ganze Tross des mit aus Ägypten gezogenen ערב רב, des אספסוף אשר בקרבו (Bamidbar 11, 4), die nur schwer das Joch des Gesetzes trugen, die in jeder Anforderung des Gesetzes einen Eingriff in ihre persönliche Freiheit erblickten, denen die heidnische Ungebundenheit lieber und die immer קמים, immer sich gegen Gott und sein Gesetz empörten und immer bereit waren, gegen Gott und sein Gesetz aufzustehen. So lange der Geist des Gesetzes seine Vertreter hatte und der Geist der Gesetzlichkeit die Majorität des Volkes an das Gesetz band, wagten diese nicht hervorzutreten, war wenigstens ihr Einfluss durch die von den Gesetzesvertretern im Volke genährte Huldigung des Gesetzes paralysiert. Allein wenn der Mosche fehlt, Aaron mehr als schweigt, und das sich selbst überlassene Volk durch die Umstände in einem von Gott und seinem Gesetze fernab führenden Wahn befangen ist, da haben diese קמים, diese Feinde der göttlichen Gesetzesmacht, leichtes Spiel, das haltlose Volk in seiner sittlichen Schwäche zu sich herüberzuziehen, und unter diesen קמים ließ Aaron das Volk לשמצה werden. שמצה wird gewöhnlich als Schmach, Hohn begriffen. Die Wurzel שמץ kommt hier und nur noch zweimal in Job vor: ומה שמץ דבר נשמע בו ,(4,12) ותקח אזני שמץ מנהו (14 ,26(. In beiden Stellen liegt aber kein Gedanke ferner, als der einer Schmähung oder Höhnung. Offenbar drückt שמץ in beiden Stellen die nur leise Spur eines wirklichen Daseins aus. Im ersten Satze will Elifas eine Offenbarung schildern, die ihm im nächtlichen Gesichte geworden: mir, sagt er, stahl ein Wort sich zu, mein Ohr hat davon eine Spur festgehalten. Der zweite Satz schließt eine prächtige Schilderung der Größe Gottes in der Natur mit den Worten: Siehe, das sind doch nur ein Teil seiner Wege, und welch ein Geringes von der Wirklichkeit ist damit zum Verständnis gebracht, den Donner seiner Allmacht, wer wagt den zu begreifen! Selbst im Munde der Weisen, die das Wort häufig im Zusammenhang mit פסול gebrauchen: שמץ פסול, liegt doch der Begriff Makel nicht im שמץ, sondern in שמץ .פסול bezeichnet ja vielmehr, dass das Dasein des Makels nicht gewiss, sondern dazu nur eine Vermutung da ist, und diese Abschwächung des Daseins liegt in שמץ. So selbst Aboda sara 30 b:המרא משום שמצא שיכרא משום שמצא דשמצא, wo שמצא דשמצא im Sinne des gewöhnlichen גזרה לגזרה steht. In חמרא selbst liegt nur eine Vermutung von יין נסך , und in שכרא nur die Vermutung, dass es zu המרא führen könnte. Der Zusammenhang weist somit überall der Wurzel שמץ die Bedeutung eines Mittelzustandes zwischen Sein und Nichtsein, somit den Begriff schwankender Unselbständigkeit zu. Sehen wir uns nach der Lautverwandtschaft um, so haben wir chaldäisch שמש: als Mittel zu etwas dienen, daher השתמש, sich einer Sache bedienen, und hebräisch שמש: der große lichtanzündende Gottesküster im großen Weltendom: die Sonne. Was שמש naturgemäß und zwanglos ausdrückt, das würde שמץ, dem ץ-Laut gemäß, gewalttätig und erzwungen bedeuten und sittlich: willenlos dem Willen anderer verfallen sein, physisch: die völlige Unselbständigkeit des Seins bezeichnen, und weist somit die Lautverwandtschaft ganz auf denselben Begriff hin, den der Zusammenhang lehrt. Wir glauben daher nicht irre zu gehen, indem wir in die völlige Unselbständigkeit, Willenlosigkeit, das völlige Preisgegebensein שמצה בקמיהם an die Einflüsse der steten Gesetzesfeinde in ihrer Mitte erblicken. Die Majorität war zur moralischen Minorität geworden.

לשמצה, ”as an object of derision;” every idolater will ridicule the Israelites for having made for themselves such a golden calf. When they do, we have to remind them that they do something similar every day, so how can they have the audacity to fault us for what happened one single time? Let us illustrate the scenario by a simple parable. A King had a beautiful wife; all his servant maids kept provoking her by saying that the day would come when he would divorce her and take one of them as a wife instead. When the queen asked them what prompted them to make such a statement, they said to her that they had observed the king when he came from the market he noticed that the queen’s hand had some speck of dirt clinging to her hand, something that he could not stand. The queen replied that the servant maids were very foolish if they think that on account of a speck of dust that I can wipe off with a flick of my finger he would divorce me and exchange me for someone who is covered with mud sticking to their skin all the time.

כי פרוע הוא, “that the people were completely out of control;” they had completely abandoned their Creator’s commandments. The root פרע here is used in a similar sense as when Pharaoh accused Moses and Aaron as making the people completely unruly by promising them a holiday from hard labour for three days. ?למה תפריעו את העם ממעשיו (Exodus 5,4)

לשמצה בקמיהם means, that this thing would become an ignominy for them in the mouth of all who will rise against them.

L’SHIMTZAH B’KAMEIHEM’ (FOR A DERISION AMONG THEIR ENEMIES). This means that even those who had no evil design [in the affair of the golden calf] will be slandered throughout the generations by the evil report of their enemies, who will say that the whole people were bereft of counsel and instruction; some [of the nations] will say it for a purely evil purpose, and others will merely say it in the lips of the talkers, and the evil report of the people.³⁷³Ezekiel 36:3. Moses said this with reference to Aaron, meaning that he sinned towards all [i.e., even towards those who did not really intend to sin in the matter of the golden calf]. This is in accordance with the opinion of Onkelos who translated l’shimtzah b’kameihem — “to give them a bad name in their generations.” However, since Onkelos rendered it “in their generations,”³⁷⁴In other words, Onkelos’ translation of l’shimtzah as meaning “for an evil report” is in agreement with the above interpretation. However, that which Onkelos said “in their generations” shows that his intent is that even throughout the generations in Israel this affair will become a source of evil, as is explained further on. it would seem that his intention was to explain that the calf which they made will become a cause of evil talk throughout the generations of Israel, for they will say: “It was not in vain that our fathers made the calf and worshipped it, for they knew that it was this which brought them up out of the land of Egypt, and they found worshipping it to be to their benefit, so we will do likewise, it being better for us to serve it;” as indeed happened in the case of Jeroboam who said, Ye have gone up long enough to Jerusalem; behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.³⁷⁵I Kings 12:28. Moses thus saw how the incident of the calf would remain a cause for sin throughout the generations.

כי פרעה אהרן, Aaron had brought to light the fact that there are no righteous people among them. Had there been any righteous people among them, surely they would have come to the assistance of Aaron so that Aaron would not have been forced to have a share in this golden calf at all.

לשמצה, to become a source of ridicule and derision to their enemies. Compare Job 4,12 ותקח אזני שמץ מנהו, “my ear caught a derogatory meaning in it.” A reference to some word of derision.

כי פרוע הוא, “that the inner motivations of the people had become revealed,” i.e. that they were innately wicked, they were a nation that had completely lost its spiritual directions, pursuing a totally destructive path. (similar to Deut. 32,28 גוי אובד עצות ואין בהם תבונה)

כי פרעה אהרון, "for Aaron had let them loose." Perhaps the Torah means that having heard Aaron's answer Moses was now certain that the fault was entirely the people's seeing that Aaron's part in the debacle had been quite incidental. The real fault lay with the people who had contributed their gold, and the sorcery which had subsequently been performed with that gold. The literal meaning of these words then would be that by his explanation Aaron had let loose an accusation at the people.

Now shimtzah according to Onkelos means “evil report,” it being a common term in the language of our Rabbis, such as “a shemetz (a blemish of) descent.”³⁷⁶Pesachim 3b. Perhaps according to their³⁷⁷Onkelos’ and that of the Rabbis, as mentioned above. opinion, that which Scripture states, and mine ear received a ‘shemetz’ thereof,³⁷⁸Job 4:12. also means that his [i.e., Eliphaz the Temanite’s] ear received knowledge of man’s blemish and imperfection, saying, Behold, He putteth no trust in His servants, and His angels He chargeth with folly; how much less them that dwell in houses of clay, whose foundation is in dust.³⁷⁹Ibid., Verses 18-19. Similarly, and what ‘shemetz davar’ is heard of Him³⁸⁰Ibid., 26:14. means that of all His ways there is nothing deserving of reproach or censure, but only praise and adoration.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture shemetz means “little.” Thus [and mine ear received a ‘shemetz’ thereof³⁷⁸Job 4:12. means] that his ear received but a whisper thereof. And what ‘shemetz davar’ is heard of Him³⁸⁰Ibid., 26:14. means that whatever is heard and said about G-d’s strength and His powers, is but a minute amount in relation to the greatness of His deeds. Similarly, l’shimtzah b’kameihem means that Aaron had uncovered the people, thus enabling their enemies to diminish them, for this great sin would lessen them in the eyes of their enemies, or reduce their merits when coming to battle with the enemy, something like that which is said, and I shall diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations,³⁸¹Ezekiel 29:15. or as it is said, O Eternal, correct me, but in measure; not in Thine anger, lest Thou diminish me.³⁸²Jeremiah 10:24.

לשמצה בקמיהם.Giving them a bad name among their enemies. Israel’s enemies would say about them that they had breached their covenant with their Lord, and that there was not a single one among them who was a good person, and that they did not even heed the instructions of their prophets. Even though only a small minority had ganged up on Aaron, the entire people’s reputation would now be dragged through the mud.

כי פרעה אהרן, “for Aaron had exposed them.” Aaron was responsible for depriving the people of their normal intelligence and moral scruples. Moses said this as he realised that the people had become so confused that they imagined that this golden calf could serve them as a guide on their journeys through the desert. Anyone confused to such an extent must be considered as having completely lost his senses. As a result, some of the people, though misguided, entertained worthy thoughts, whereas others, entertained completely idolatrous thoughts.

לשמצה בקמיהם for a derision among their enemies. Any small measure of an abomination is called שמץ. Our sages in Sanhedrin 102 state that ever since the episode of the golden calf any punishment the Israelites face for any sin committed since, contains some small part of the punishment which had not been administered at the time they committed that sin. It may also mean that whenever the nations display hostility against the Jews one of their arguments of our unworthiness includes a reminder of the sin of the golden calf this nation had become guilty of.

לשמצה בקמיהם, “as a disgrace among those who would rise up against them.” Even the portion of the people whose intentions were perfectly innocent will become the pretext for others to point at the disgraceful conduct of the Jewish people for all future generations. [as their intentions were not clear, seeing they had not voiced opposition to those who were bent on idolatry. Ed.] The historians would conclude that all the Jews had been of one mind at that time. The accusations labeled against all the people on that account would give Satan a valuable tool to use against the Jews. According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, the word שמצה, derived from שמץ, something minute, means that as a result of this episode, the Jewish people had forfeited their image of being a unique and spiritually superior people, and they would henceforth be considered in the eyes of the nations as of very small stature. (compare for the meaning of שמץ Job 4,12 ותקח אזני שמץ, “my ear caught a whisper” something barely audible) of it. Or, in the sense of Israel losing its accumulated merits in the Book of G’d, [ספר זכויות as in the אבינו מלכנו prayer. Ed.] our positive balance in that book would shrink to zero. This would be most harmful whenever we would face enemies in battle.

מי לה' אלי means, WHOEVER IS FOR THE LORD let him come TO ME.

AND MOSES STOOD IN THE GATE OF THE CAMP. This is connected with what is said in the preceding verse, thus stating that when Moses saw that the people would be a source of derision and disgrace amongst their enemies, and would thereby profane the Name of G-d, he stood in the gate of the camp and called out loudly, Whoso is on the Eternal’s side, let him come unto me; and they killed publicly all those who worshipped the calf, so that the matter be heard about amongst their enemies, and G-d’s Name would thus be sanctified, in place of the profanation that they had caused.

Whoever is for Ad-noy [come] to me. Moshe could not have been referring to everyone who did not worship the calf, for that would have included the majority of the people. Rather, he was calling upon those whose intentions were pure and who would give all they owned for God’s honor.

ויעמוד משה בשער המחנה, “Moses stood at the entrance gate to the camp.” Seeing that Moses had seen that the people’s conduct had resulted in their disgracing themselves, and being guilty of a public desecration of the name of the Lord, Moses took up position at the gateway to the camp and called out in a loud voice that all those loyal to Hashem should come forward and publicly execute all those guilty of acts of idolatry, in order that this would become common knowledge and no one would be able to use the fact that idolatry had been tolerated among the Israelites as a weapon against their reputation of being G’d’s nation. The public execution was an act of sanctification of the Lord’s name that would even the score.

“Come to me.” Meaning: he who is for Hashem, i.e., he who fears Him, should come to me. The word “come” is missing [from the verse, but implied. Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise it would be saying: he who is for Hashem and fears Him is [already] close to Me. Why would it then say, “All the sons of Leivi gathered to him”?

V. 26. Das nächste, was Not tat, war somit, dem Gesetze wieder aus der Mitte des Volkes heraus Achtung und Vertreter zu schaffen, den קמים, der gesetzesfeindlichen Minorität, eine gesetzestreue, ja für die Herrschaft des Gesetzes eintretende und einstehende Minorität gegenüber zu stellen, und das wurden die Leviten.

!מי לה' אלי, “anyone who is on G–d’s side to me!” Moses called on all the Israelites who had not become involved with the golden calf in any way to join him. He was immediately joined by all the members of the tribe of Levi. The entire male population of the tribe, none of whom had been counted, joined him. No other tribe, of those that had been numbered, was loyal in its entirety. This is reflected in Deuteronomy 33,9 (Moses’ blessings of the people) where the Torah writes concerning the tribe of Levi: האומר לאביו ולאמו לא ראיתיו ואת אחיו לא הכיר ואת בניו לא ידע---כי (כולם) שמרו אמרתך, “who can say of his father and his mother: “I have not seen him,” (take part in the sin of the golden calf) nor did he see his brother (do so) nor did his son have any knowledge (of that sin) for they all were loyal to Your word.” Moses was not able to compliment any other tribe similarly. It appears that one reason for this great loyalty was the fact that Moses was their tribe’s leader, and they did not wish to trade him for a leader from a different tribe. Maimonides, in his treatise on idolatry chapter 1, near the end, states that Avraham had already handed the Torah in oral form to his son Yitzchok, who transmitted it to Yaakov, who in turn transmitted it to his son Levi. The latter’s sons already founded a Torah study academy, so that knowledge of the Torah’s laws never was interrupted even during the many years of bondage in Egypt. It appears that the attitude to the golden calf by the different sections of the people was divided into three different groups; one group accepted the golden calf by promising to follow it to wherever it would lead the people, אשר ילכו לפנינו; they only wished for the golden calf to be leader on their journeys. The second group accepted the golden calf as a symbol of idolatry; this group made up the three thousand Israelites who were killed by the Levites. The third group was the entire tribe of Levi which completely rejected the golden calf in all its aspects, remaining completely loyal to Hashem.

ויאספו אליו כל בני לוי, “all the members of the tribe of Levi rallied around him.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the relatives of Moses, members of his tribe would not allow someone from another tribe to usurp Moses’ authority.

כל בני לוי ALL THE SONS OF LEVI — All the sons — from this we may gather that all the tribe of Levi remained worthy men (consequently “slay every man his brother” in the next verse can refer only to one who was his brother from the same mother, as explained by Rashi there) (Yoma 66b).

כה אמר הי וגו׳ THUS SAITH THE LORD etc. — Where did he say so? In the command, (Exodus 22:19) “He that sacrificeth unto any god shall utterly be destroyed”. Thus is it stated in the Mechilta.

THUS SAITH THE ETERNAL, THE G-D OF ISRAEL. The reason for this expression³⁸³‘Elokei’ (the G-d of) Israel — the Divine Name which denotes the attribute of justice. is that since the worshippers of the calf had intended to sacrifice to the G-d of Israel, therefore the attribute of justice extracted punishment from them, because they “mutilated the shoots” [of faith],³⁸⁴See Note 308 above. and besides, for the judgment is G-d’s.³⁸⁵Deuteronomy 1:17. It is for this reason that he [Moses], said of the Levites, for the G-d of Israel hath separated you from the congregation of Israel,³⁸⁶Numbers 16:9. for the Service is to the G-d of Israel, and to His Name they were separated by virtue of this meritorious deed.

עברו ושובו משער לשער; in order to secure atonement for those members of the people who had not actively participated in the sin but were guilty of not having protested the sin. By not now protesting the execution of the guilty ones either they proved deserving of being forgiven.

איש את אחיו…ואיש את קרובו. "every man his brother …or his relative." We need to explore why the Torah had to add the words "and each man his relative," seeing the Torah had already authorised the Levites to kill even brothers who are the closest relatives. We have to remember that there are different categories of "brothers" whose outlook on life and whose lifestyles may be drastically different from one another although they are the sons of the same parents. On the other hand, there are people who are not at all related to each other by blood-ties and yet share the same outlook on life and the same lifestyle. All of this is due to the origin of the respective souls of these people rather than to the origin of their bodies. There are souls whose roots are very close to each other and who become separated from one another by being assigned to bodies which are far apart from one another. The reverse is true also. This is why Moses' instructions to the Levites had to include both such possibilities.

איש את אחיו, if he found him worshipping the golden calf.

כה אמר ה' שימו איש חרבו על ירכו, “thus has the Lord G’d of Israel said: “every man put his sword on his thigh, etc.” Nachmanides writes that what occurred here is not related to Exodus 22,19 זובח לאלוהים יחרם בלתי לה' לבדו, “anyone who offers sacrifices to elohim, (other gods) other than to Hashem will be destroyed.” Here only the people whom G’d had told Moses about, were to be executed, the others were not guilty of a capital offence. The Levites were aware of who had offered sacrifices to the golden calf, and, seeing that it was physically impossible to bring all these people to trial and they had not been warned, the procedure is not recorded here in writing in detail. Time was of the essence, if a greater calamity was to be avoided. By doing what they did, the Levites helped Moses to turn the temporary stay of execution G’d had promised Moses before he descended into a permanent stay of execution. (compare 32,14) We find that almost 40 years later, when the people at Shittim became sexually and ritually involved with the Moabite women (Numbers 25,4-9) similar emergency measures were employed.

כה אמר ה’ אלו-הי ישראל, “thus has said the Lord G’d of Israel, etc.” We do not find that G’d’s instruction by word to Moses of this matter is recorded in the Torah other than that Moses quotes G’d. Nonetheless, he did receive such instructions. Moses refers to the Lord as אלו-הי ישראל in order to teach us that even the makers of the golden calf intended to offer their sacrifices to the “G’d of Israel,” (not to the golden calf). Still, the attribute of Justice decided to punish these people as true heretics as the Torah has taught us (Deut. 1,17) that המשפט לאלוהים הוא, the “judgment,” i.e. the evaluation of our deeds is something that G’d has reserved for Himself. This is the way Nachmanides explains these words. We find something analogous in Numbers 16,9 where Moses tells the Levites that אלו-הי ישראל, “this attribute of Justice has separated, (distinguished) the Levites from the remainder of the community of Israel.” This was another example of G’d exercising His right to evaluate the deeds of men. In that instance it meant that the performance of service to אלו-הי ישראל in and around the Tabernacle would be reserved for the tribe of Levi. Seeing that it had been the members of this tribe who had sanctified the Lord’s name in public, they were rewarded by sanctifying the Lord’s name on a regular basis. The moral lesson is that that the appropriate way to atone for desecration of the Lord’s name publicly is to sanctify it publicly.

“His brother” — having a common mother, and he is an Israelite. Rashi is answering the question: If the entire Tribe of Leivi was righteous, [as Rashi stated above], why does it say that each man [of Leivi] should kill his brother? He answers: “His brother — having a common mother,” for [such a brother] is not a Levite but an Israelite.

From gate to gate. Each tribe had its own court at the entrance to its encampment to judge its own members. Moshe dispatched the Levites to see that the sentences of these courts were carried out. [Even] his brother. The members of each family were responsible for carrying out the sentences against their brethren because they would be the first to suffer if they were not punished, in keeping with the verse, “I shall set My wrath against that man and his family” (Vayikra 20:5).

V. 27. כה אמר ד׳ וגו׳: sie waren gewarnt: זובח לאלהים יחרם (Kap. 22, 19), es war über alle der Untergang verhängt, den sie durch direkte und indirekte Beteiligung verschuldet (V. 10) und es hatte Gott selbst Mosche Einschreiten zur Rettung des Ganzen geweckt und gebilligt (10.— 19 siehe daselbst).

כה אמר, “thus has said the Lord, etc.;” where is G-d recorded as having said this? In Exodus 22,19: זובח לאלוהים יחרם, “whoever sacrifices to a god shall be proscribed.”

אחיו HIS BROTHER from the same mother, but from a different father, and who was therefore an ordinary Israelite and not a Levite (Yoma 66b).

PUT YE EVERY MAN HIS SWORD UPON HIS THIGH. Since there were many worshippers of the calf, and they could not have all been brought to the court, therefore Moses commanded all the sons of Levi to put on their swords, in a similar way to that which our Rabbis have said,³⁸⁷Sanhedrin 45b. that if you cannot administer to the guilty the specific kind of death mentioned for his case, you may execute him by any means that you can. Now this procedure was a decision only for an emergency, in order to sanctify G-d’s Name, since those who worshipped [the calf] had not been forewarned [of the death penalty], for who had warned them beforehand? The sons of Levi, however, recognized those whom they killed as the worshippers of the calf. And in the opinion of the Sage who says³⁸⁸Yoma 66b. The Gemara there brings this opinion in the name of one of two Amoraim, Rav and Levi. Hence Ramban writes anonymously: “in the opinion of the Sage who says…” that if there were witnesses [to the act of idolatry] and forewarning of the penalty, the offender’s death was by hand of man, as Rashi wrote,³⁸⁹Verse 20 here. then we shall interpret the meaning of the verse to be that Moses commanded the sons of Levi to put on their swords and take hold of the offenders by force and bring them to court before Moses or before the Sanhedrin. Those who were found to have worshipped the calf in the presence of witnesses and with forewarning, were then put to death by stoning, as is the punishment of those who worship idols, or perhaps their death was by the sword, as is the punishment of a whole city gone astray.³⁹⁰Deuteronomy 13:13-16. Thus all the sons of Levi remained loyal to G-d, and it was they who had warned the people not to worship the calf or sacrifice to it, seeing that Aaron had only commanded to hold a feast to the Eternal alone, as I have explained.³⁹¹Above, Verse 5.
The correct interpretation³⁹²Ramban now goes back to his original thesis, that this whole procedure was a decision under emergency. is in accordance with the opinion of the Sage who says:³⁸⁸Yoma 66b. The Gemara there brings this opinion in the name of one of two Amoraim, Rav and Levi. Hence Ramban writes anonymously: “in the opinion of the Sage who says…” “Those who slaughtered or burnt the sacrificial portions [to the calf] were punished by the sword;³⁹³Even though such an offense makes the offender liable to stoning according to Torah-law, but since the law of the four kinds of death had not been declared yet, the offenders were treated under the law of “the sons of Noah” to whom its form of punishment is applicable (Rashi Yoma 66 b). those who embraced and kissed it, were punished with death [by the hand of Heaven]; those who merely rejoiced in their heart, were afflicted with dropsy,” as is stated in Tractate Yoma.³⁸⁸Yoma 66b. The Gemara there brings this opinion in the name of one of two Amoraim, Rav and Levi. Hence Ramban writes anonymously: “in the opinion of the Sage who says…” Thus it was all a decision under circumstances of emergency, because embracing or kissing an idol does not make one liable to death [by the hand of Heaven] in all future generations.

שימו איש חרבו על ירכו, (see above) Nachmanides writes that there were so many people who worshipped the calf that it was impossible to bring all of them to a tribunal, and moreover, there had not been anyone who had warned these people in accordance with normal judicial requirements. This is why G’d had told Moses to use emergency measures. Our sages, go further and state that the method of execution was also changed, as normally stoning would be the order of the day for convicted idolaters, and all who had witnessed such a deed had to participate in the execution. [This comment does not agree with the Talmud in Yuma, although according to Maimonides hilchot avodah zarah 3,1 it seems clear that stoning is the penalty when proper warning has been administered. Ed.] According to the scholars who hold that warnings had been issued to the people whom the Levites executed on this occasion by qualified witnesses, we must interpret Moses’ instructions to the Levites as having included this proviso. Those who could not be convicted on that basis, instead of being stoned, were executed by the sword. The correct interpretation is according to the scholar who holds that slaughtering animals to idols or burning incense is punishable by death through the sword, whereas other forms of worship such as kissing the idols is punishable by the kind of death preferred by the victim. This is so because the latter type of practicing idolatry has not been punished by death by the Jewish courts throughout the ages. [it was left to the heavenly tribunal to take care of the sinner. Ed.]

AND SLAY EVERY MAN HIS BROTHER. This means that they were not to spare nor conceal³⁹⁴See Deuteronomy 13:9. brother, friend, or relative. And the meaning of the expression, Thus saith the Eternal, the G-d of Israel: [Put ye every man his sword…] is not [as Rashi has it, a command] based upon the verse, He that sacrificeth unto the gods shall be utterly destroyed,³⁹⁵Above, 22:19. since these worshippers of the calf were not strictly liable to death [as has been explained above], but it was a command said to Moses by the Almighty which was not written in the Torah; for when the Glorious Name³⁹⁶Deuteronomy 28:58. repented of the evil,³⁹⁷Verse 14. He commanded Moses, “Since you do not want Me to destroy them, you should slay its worshippers by the sword,” similar to that which is said, Take all of the chiefs of the people, and hang them up unto the Eternal in face of the sun, that the fierce anger of the Eternal may turn away from Israel.³⁹⁸Numbers 25:4. This commandment is thus similar to the one in connection with the manna, where it is said, This is the thing which the Eternal hath commanded: Let an omerful of it be kept etc.³⁹⁹Above, 16:32. There too the original command given to Moses is not written in the Torah. I have already mentioned⁴⁰⁰Ibid., 10:2, and 11:1. similar instances.

בני לוי, the members of the tribe of Levi, etc. The Torah did not say that all the Levites displayed this loyalty by rallying to Moses' call. We need to understand why this part of the verse had to be written at all and the Torah was not content with reporting the Levites' response to Moses' call in verse 26 when all of them are reported as rallying around their leader. Perhaps the Torah wanted to stress that no one except the Levites acted as executioners at the behest of Moses. Verse 26 in which all the Levites are reported as rallying around Moses would not have made it plain that Moses had charged only the Levites with the task of being executioners. That verse only told us that all the Levites responded to Moses' original call. We could have thought that some Israelites responded in addition to all of the Levites. The Torah had to make clear that only Levites actually carried out Moses' instructions. The emphasis in "the Levites did what Moses said" is not so much on the Levites who did not do so but on the absence of any of the members of other tribes being prepared to kill idolators.

כשלשת אלפי איש, “approximately three thousand men.” According to the plain meaning of the text, these three thousand men intended that their conduct should be viewed as idolatrous. This is why they had to be executed, just as the inhabitants of the idolatrous town in Deuteronomy chapter 14 have to be executed and their belongings have to be burned. (Based on Daat Baaley Tossaphot)

כדבר משה, in accordance with the word of Moses. The Torah emphasises that Moses' word alone sufficed to prompt those Levites to take such drastic action against the active idolators. It could also mean that they did so without delay as soon as Moses had finished giving them their instructions.

מלאו ידכם CONSECRATE YOURSELVES — You who are killing them (your own relatives) will by this very act install yourselves as priests of the Omnipresent God,

'מלאו ידכם היום לה, acquire for yourselves some degree of perfection today! Today you will become worthy to perform service in G’d’s Temple in the future!

מלאו ידכם היום, "consecrate yourselves this day, etc." It is not clear what the word "consecrate" is supposed to mean in this context. If it referred to the matter of killing one's relatives, this had already occurred. It should have been reported prior to the Levites carrying out Moses' orders.

מלאו ידכם היום, “dedicate yourselves this day!” as if the line had been written in the past tense, as if the word כי had preceded the word מלאו, expressing approval of their loyalty. Rallying to the call of Moses and carrying out his instructions was equivalent to offering a sacrifice to G’d.

By this act you will install yourselves. . . Explanation: Originally, the firstborn were priests to Hashem. But then they sinned with the Calf and sacrificed an offering to idolatry. Therefore you are to kill them, and you should become priests to Hashem in their stead. Rashi says, “You will install yourselves,” because מילוי יד means installation to a position that one will hold from then on, as Rashi explained in parshas Terumah.

Consecrate yourselves. Moshe informed them that on account of this they would be consecrated to serve in place of the first-born, who failed to rally to him as the Levites did.

V. 29. Nachdem sie die Gesetz rettende Tat vollbracht hatten, sprach Mosche zu ihnen: "Bleibet, was ihr heute begonnen!" Setzet euch selber ein zu "Eiferern" und Vertretern des göttlichen Gesetzes. Keiner besonderen Bestellung, keiner besonderen Berufung bedürft ihr dazu. Wo das Gesetz im Volke gehöhnt wird, da ist jeder zum Vertreter und Retter des Gesetzes berufen, die Pflicht und die Verantwortlichkeit, die auf jedem ruht, stellt ihm den Bestallungsbrief aus, und je weniger Amt und Bestallung sein Tun zu amtlichem Tun stempelt, um so bedeutsamer und wirksamer ist seine rettende Tat, um so tiefer sagt sie jedem, welcher Geist in allen lebendig sein sollte. — כי איש בבנו ובאחיו. Es kann aber nur der für das Gesetz gegen die Gesamtheit auftreten, der das Gesetz gegen seine nächsten Angehörigen vertritt. Nur das, was er seinem Kinde und Verwandten nicht hingehen lässt, kann er gegen andere vertreten. Das: כי איש וגו׳ ist Parenthese: dadurch, dass ihr die eigenen nicht schont, habt ihr das öffentliche Auftreten nicht zu scheuen. Das ולתת וגו׳ ist Fortsetzung des מלאו וגו׳: Nicht die Berufung habt ihr von Gott zu erwarten, wohl aber den Segen, den Beistand und die heilbringenden Folgen des Einstehens für Gott, das ihr von innen heraus übet.

ולתת עליכם היום ברכה, “so that he may bestow a blessing on you this day.” From this day on the blessings that Moses bestowed on the Levites as described in Deuteronomy 33,8 additionally, although Yaakov had failed to bless them on his deathbed became effective, just as Moses blessed Reuven, although Yaakov had failed to bless him. He received a blessing from Moses although he did not receive it from his father Yaakov, as in the meantime his descendants had volunteered to be the vanguard of the army of the Israelites when they conquered the land of Canaan and they did not return to their families for 14 years until all the tribes had received their ancestral lands.

מלאו ידכם היום, “dedicate yourselves today, etc.;” Moses tells these people that they had already proved their absolute loyalty to Hashem, as they had not hesitated to kill members of their own family if those had been amongst the three thousand men mentioned in the last verse. This is also how our author understands Targum Onkelos on our verse. The point is not to understand Moses as using the expression: מלאו ידכם, as being in the future tense.

כי איש FOR EVERY MAN among you will consecrate himself בבנו ובאחיו BY HIS SON AND HIS BROTHER (by their death at his hand).

כי איש בבנו ובאחיו, for each one of you have already become sanctified to G’d through having circumcised his own son for G’d, something you did in the desert. (according to Sifrey Behaalotcha,15, the tribe of Levi were the only ones who observed this commandment while the people were in the desert). [how many Levites could have been circumcised during the 89 days since the Passover and the return of Moses from Mount Sinai? Ed.] Therefore, מלאו ידכם prove this sense of loyalty again by becoming blessed through assuming this difficult task of carrying out His instructions now. ובאחיו, and today you have again demonstrated your loyalty of spilling the blood of even your own brothers. Moses gave recognition to this collective act of loyalty to G’d in preference to loyalty to their fellow Jew in Deuteronomy 33,9-11 when he said about this tribe:כי שמרו אמרתך ובריתך ינצורו,.... ברך ה' חילו ופעל ידיו תרצה, “for they have observed Your word and Your covenant they preserved. Bless, Hashem, his resources and favour the works of his hand.”

איש בבנו ובאחיו, you have extended your hands towards heaven, i.e. in support of the interests of G’d.

“For each man” amongst you will be installed [as a result of what each did] to his son. . . In connection with the actual killing, it mentions only an Israelite brother, relative and friend, [but not a son]. Nevertheless, here it says, “His son,” in order to emphasize the point. It conveys that each man would have killed even his own son to sanctify Hashem’s Name.

I believe we can explain this verse as being in its proper place. The Torah felt that inasmuch as these Levites had carried out executions with their own hands, something that certainly is not characteristic of righteous people, their image had to be restored. We have learned in Makkot 7 that any court which carries out a death sentence once in seven years (according to some even once in seventy years) is labelled as "a murderous court." In this instance the Levites killed about 3,000 people in a single day. There was a fear that their souls could have been tarnished by the experience seeing that though what they had done was perfectly legal it might leave a residue of mercilessness or a streak of cruelty in their character. In order to reassure both them and the people, Moses the man of G'd, told them to "consecrate their hands." This was not a commandment but a reassurance that by the very act of carrying out the task allocated to them they had consecrated themselves to the service of the Lord. Not only did their action not hint at a character deficiency in them, but, on the contrary, it reflected that they were spiritually very enlightened. The proof was that they did not protest having to sacrifice their own sons or close relatives which put them in a category similar to that of Abraham at the time he was willing to offer up Isaac. G'd testified that Abraham had reached the pinnacle of perfection after he had demonstrated that he had not withheld Isaac (Genesis 22,12). G'd had given Abraham a double blessing at that time (Genesis 22,17). Moses assured the Levites that they too were recipients of a similar blessing by G'd as a reward for what they had done, i.e. ולתת עליכם היום ברכה.

ולתת עליכם היום ברכה, “and thereby bring G-d’s blessing upon yourselves this day.” This verse is the reason why, in his parting address to the Jewish people in Deuteronomy 33,811, Moses singles out the tribe of Levi for a blessing although Yaakov, prior to his death had not done so. The reason that the tribe of Reuven received a blessing from Moses at that time, although that tribe too had not received a blessing from Yaakov, was that they had volunteered to be the vanguard of the army in the forthcoming battle with the Canaanites, having vowed not to rejoin their families on the east bank of the Jordan until all the other tribes had settled on their allotted territory. The tribe of Shimon, however, had neither received a blessing from Yaakov nor from Moses, due to their prince having cohabited provocatively with a Midianite princess, and because of the original Shimon’s part in the killing of all the males of the town of Sh’chem. An alternate explanation: “and to bestow a blessing on you this day!|” Moses says here what he referred to in Deuteronomy 10,8 when he said: בעת ההיא הבדיל ה׳ את שבטעד היום הזה הלוי לשאת את ארון ברית ה׳, “at that time Hashemseparated the tribe of Levi to become the bearers of the HolyArk......until this day.” The new task of the Levites becameoperational after the Tabernacle had been built and the Holy Ark had been transferred to there. From amongst the Levites, Aaron and his sons and their descendants were selected as replacing the duties which prior to the golden calf episode had been performed by the firstborn, who were the priests in each family where the firstborn was a son. They too became disqualified by having participated at the time at least passively in the dancing around the golden calf. According to tradition, they had even offered sacrifices on the altar Aaron had built. Part of Korach’s complaint was also that he should be qualified to offer sacrifices as he too was firstborn. (Our author has more to say about this in his commentary on Numbers 16,2.)

Moses was very precise in describing this blessing as עליכם, which implied something additional, instead of saying לכם. He told the Levites that not only was G'd's blessing not required to restore a character defect which had been revealed when they acted as mass executioners, but there had not been a character defect in the first place, and He now added a further positive dimension to their respective characters by granting them this blessing. We may view the whole episode as similar to an orchard in which the trees have to be pruned in order to assure that the remaining branches develop more successfully. The house of Israel has frequently been compared to a vineyard (Psalms, 80,9 et al). When Moses spoke of the blessing that G'd would bestow עליכם, "upon you," the meaning of עליכם is "thanks to you," thanks to what you have done, the entire Jewish people will experience such a blessing. It was not the Levites who had been deficient but the people. By removing the superfluous members of the Jewish people, the Levites had assured the successful development of the remaining branches of the trees in that orchard. When we had previously quoted the Talmud which characterised a court that carried out death-sentences as "murderous," the circumstances described in the Talmud do not match what happened here at all, for two reasons. 1) The Levites (read court) executed their beloved ones. This demonstrated that their love for G'd was greater than their love for their errant family members. 2) Failure to carry out these sentences would have condemned the whole nation to destruction at the hands of G'd. The executioners therefore were the life savers of the people, not "murderous." G'd's anger abated only as a result of their action.

אכפרה בעד חטאתכם [PERADVENTURE] I SHALL MAKE AN EXPIATION FOR YOUR SIN — i. e. I shall put an effacing and a wiping off and a covering in front of your sin, to serve as a barrier between you and your sin.

אתם חטאתם חטאה גדולה, “realise the extent of your sin, for if you ponder this you will surely become penitents!” We find a parallel syntax in Psalms 51,5 כי פשעי אני אדע, “for I have come to realise the rebellious nature of my conduct.” [David feels that by being aware of the truly terrible nature of his transgressions he may qualify for help in rehabilitating himself. The specific nature of David’s transgression was the desecration of G’d’s name in arranging for the death of Bat Sheva’s husband so that he could marry Bat Sheva. While the Talmud had declared that he did not commit a technical sin when sleeping with Bat Sheva, his moral sin was something quite different. Ed.] In Jeremiah 3,13 we also encounter a syntax reflecting the approach taken here by the Torah. The prophet wrote אך דעי עונך, “if you were only to understand the meaning of your iniquity!” He does not add “repent!” but takes it for granted that awareness of the implications of the wrong one has done will automatically result in penitence.

Wiping away and a covering in front of your sins”. . . Explanation: Rashi holds that every instance of בעד in Scripture means “in front of.” But here, this meaning does not fit [if אכפרה ] means “atonement.” Therefore he explains that here, אכפרה does not mean “atonement”, but “wiping away” and a “covering.” Accordingly, “in front of” is fitting.

V. 30. Durch die Hinrichtung der Schuldigsten — (es waren, nach Joma 66 b die das Verbrechen בעדים והתראה, vor Zeugen nach förmlicher Warnung verübt, oder diejenigen, die זבה וקטר, die mindestens wirklich dem Götterkalb Opfer dargebracht, sich nicht bloß durch sonstige Huldigung beteiligt hatten) — war die Autorität des Gesetzes wieder aufgerichtet, und damit der Fortbestand des Volkes als Volk gerettet. Allein es galt Mosche, nunmehr auch seinen Fortbestand oder vielmehr seine Wiedereinsetzung als Gottes Volk, d. i. als Träger seines Gesetzes und als Denkmal seines Waltens zu erringen. Er sprach daher zum Volke: Obgleich gestern die Schuldigsten gerichtet worden, so lasten doch noch die Folgen eurer großen Versündigung auf euch, und ihr habt alle an dieser Versündigung Anteil, alle, die sie mit größerer oder geringerer Beteiligung verübt, die sie gebilligt oder auch nur schweigend und untätig geduldet. אולי אכפרה בעד הטאתכם. Wir haben schon wiederholt auf den Begriff der כפרה als der Schutzgewährung vor den Folgen der Sünde und ebenso darauf hingewiesen, dass das Objekt sowohl die Person, als die Sünde sein kann (siehe zu Bereschit 6, 14). כפר, ja eigentlich: decken, deckt die Person gegen die Wirkung der Sünde, oder die Sünde, dass sie auf die Person nicht wirke. Ebenso wie es nun mit בעד in Beziehung auf die Person konstruiert wird: וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו (Wajikra 16, 6) so ist es hier mit בעד in Bezug auf die Sünde konstruiert. בעד ist aber der ganz spezielle Ausdruck für das Verhältnis des Schützens, Schließens: ויסגר ד׳ בעדו (Bereschit 7,16) שכת בעדו (Job 1, 10), und fließt bei כפר unmittelbar aus dessen eigentlicher Bedeutung: Decken, Schützen. סגר שׂוך כפר בעד־ heißt buchstäblich: Sperre, Zaun, Decke, setzen in den Raum, der zu etwas führt. Der Optativ אכפרה mit אולי heißt wohl: vielleicht erreiche ich כפרה, wie ich es wünsche.

ויהי ממחרת, “it was on the following day, etc.” on the 18th day of Tammuz;

You have committed a great sin (cheit). A cheit is an inadvertent sin. Moshe rebuked them no further concerning their idolatry and rebellion because three thousand of them had already been executed and many more died after drinking the water mixed with the dust of the calf. Instead he chastised them only for the unintended offense of desecrating the name of Heaven.

Now I will go up to Ad-noy. Moshe knew that the Shechinah was still present on the mountaintop because it was still burning with fire. Therefore he realized that that would be the best place to pray since the Tent of Meeting had not yet been established (see v. 33:7).

אלהי זהב GODS OF GOLD — Moses emphasized the word “gold” as some excuse for their sin: It is You who have caused them to do this, for You gave them gold in abundance and everything they wished; what else were they likely to do if not to sin? A parable: this may be compared to a king who provides his son with food and drink, attires him with beautiful garments and hangs a money-bag round his neck and then deliberately places him at the door of a house of ill-fame! What else is the son likely to do if not to sin!? (Berakhot 32a)

חטא העם הזה, "This nation has committed a very grave sin, etc." It is possible that with these words Moses alluded to something we have learned in Sotah 3, that no one commits a sin unless his brain had first malfunctioned, i.e. that he was out of his mind. This represents a defect in his spiritual life-force, his נפש. By saying חטא, Moses meant that the people's spiritual makeup had lacked an essential ingredient. This was the reason that they made a molten image for themselves. This is one of the arguments man will use after death when he faces His Maker and has to account for his sins in this life. He will claim that when he committed a sin he was not of sound mind. Although he will be punished, seeing he himself was the cause of being of unsound mind, his punishment will not be as severe as if he had been of perfectly sound mind at the time he comitted the sin.

“You are the One Who caused this to happen to them. . . Rashi is answering the question: Why did Moshe say, “A god of gold,” and not simply, “A god”? Perforce, he meant: “You are the One who caused this to happen to them.”

וישב משה אל ה׳, “Moses returned to the Presence of G-d;”

Another thought Moses may have had in mind when he formulated these words is connected to the tradition (Kidushin 40) that when man is punished for idolatry he is punished for his idolatrous thoughts alone. When Moses spoke of the people having committed a grave sin without specifying the nature of that sin, he referred to the idolatrous thoughts the people had entertained. As far as their sin in deed was concerned, Moses spelled this out by adding: "they have made golden deities for themselves."

If You will bear their sin and if not. Whether or not You agree to bear their sin, blot out my merits from my account and add them to theirs so that they will merit complete forgiveness (Seforno). If You will bear their sin and if not. Blot me out in any event: If You agree to bear their sin, take me as atonement for them. And if You do not agree to bear their sin, how can I endure the sight of their destruction?

ועתה אם תשא חטאתם YET NOW, IF THOU WILT FORGIVE THEIR SIN — well and good: then I do not suggest to You, “Blot me out [of Thy book], ואם אין מחני BUT IF NOT, BLOT ME OUT.” This is an elliptical sentence, the words “Well and good” being omitted; of such there are many in Scripture.

YET NOW, IF THOU WILT FORGIVE THEIR SIN. Rashi comments: “If You forgive their sins — well and good, and I do not say to you ‘Blot me out.’ But if not, blot me out. This is thus an abbreviated verse. There are many cases similar to it. Out of Thy book — this means out of the whole Torah; so that people should not say about me that I was not worthy [successful] to seek mercy for them.” But if so, what was the answer that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to Moses — Whosoever hath sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book⁴⁰¹Verse 33. — since there was no one else to be blotted out of His book [i.e. the Torah, since they are not mentioned therein to begin with]? Perhaps [Rashi] will interpret it thus: “I shall only blot out [from My Torah] those who have sinned against Me, and you have not sinned against Me.” But this is not correct.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the expression out of Thy book which Thou hast written is like, The judgment was set, and the books were opened,⁴⁰²Daniel 7:10. “the books” in Ibn Ezra’s opinion being the dispositions of the heavenly bodies upon which the fate of the lower creatures depends. And G-d answered, Whosoever had sinned against Me, him will I blot out from My book,⁴⁰¹Verse 33. which means: “I will not blot you out, but I will blot out from among the people those sinners who have sinned against Me in their thoughts, and were not killed by the sons of Levi.” It is with reference to this that it is said, And the Eternal smote the people.⁴⁰³Verse 35. — This interpretation [of Ibn Ezra] does not appear to me to be correct, for besides those killed by the sword of the sons of Levi and those who died in the plague, most of the people had sinned against Him, as I have written.⁴⁰⁴Above, Verse 7.
In my opinion [the interpretation of the verse is as follows]: Moses said, “Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin in Thine mercies [— well and good]; but if not, blot me out in their place from the book of life, and I will share their punishment,” it being similar to what Scripture says, But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.⁴⁰⁵Isaiah 53:5. And the Holy One, blessed be He, answered Moses: “I will erase from My book [of life] whosoever sinned, but not you, for you have not sinned.”

אם תשא חטאתם ואם אין מחני נא מספרך, regardless if You, G’d, will forgive their sins or will not forgive them, wipe out any merits I have accumulated in Your Book and transfer them to the credit balance of this people.

ועתה אם תשא חטאתם "And now, if You are prepared to forgive their sin, etc." We have to understand this wording as corresponding to a statement in Bereshit Rabbah 21,6 according to which the word עתה is always used as related to repentance. Moses argued that seeing the Israelites had already repented, they qualified for forgiveness.

מחני נא מספרך, the Book of Life which You have written. Compare Isaiah 4,3 כל הכתוב לחיים בירושלים, “everyone who has been inscribed for life in Jerusalem, etc.” Moses asked to be killed by G’d.

אם תשא את חטאתם ואם אין מחני נא מספרך, “if You will forgive their sin…., and if not please blot me out from Your Book.” According to Rashi, Moses wanted to have his name removed from the whole Torah. Nachmanides finds this difficult, as in his opinion G’d’s reply that He would remove the sinners’ names from His Book and not those of the ones free from sin, would not be comprehensible. Who else was there whose name could be erased, seeing that we have not heard about the names of any of the sinners? He therefore concludes that Moses’ request must be understood thus: “If You will forgive them in Your Mercy, o.k, if not, I prefer that you wipe me out from among the living i.e. the Book of Life, and let the people continue living in my place. G’d’s reply that He will punish the guilty and not the innocent instead of the guilty, makes perfect sense then. He had no reason to erase Moses from the Book of the Living.

From the entire Torah. . . Although [all] the Torah had not yet been given, Moshe already wrote from Bereishis until the giving of the Torah, as previously explained (24:4). Alternatively, [Moshe was referring to] the Torah he was destined to write.

V. 32. ועתה אם חשא חטאתם, es fehlt der Nachsatz, der aber schon im: ועתה angedeutet sein dürfte. ועתה richtet doch die Erwägung auf die nunmehr zu erwartende Zeit. Diese nunmehr zu erwartende Zeit, alles, was nun ferner kommen könnte, die ganze Zukunft in ihrer ganzen Allgemeinheit kann sich Mosche nur denken, ist für Mosche nur da, wenn Gott Verzeihung dem Volke gewährt. Ohne diese Verzeihung gibt es für ihn keine Zukunft mehr, ist sein Dasein und seine Sendung zu Ende, gibt es für ihn kein עתה weiter. Daher denn auch der Gegensatz: ואם אין מחני נא מספרך אשר כתבת. Es kann sich nicht wohl dies ספרך auf das ספר der תורה beziehen, selbst wenn man das Präteritum auf den bereits als ספר הברית (Kap. 24, 7) geschriebenen Teil beziehen wollte. Es fände doch damit derselbe Ausdruck im folgenden Verse מי אשר חטא לי אמחנו מספרי seine Erklärung nicht. Denn deren Namen findet doch im ganzen Bereiche der תורה ohnehin keine spezielle Erwähnung. Vergleichen wir die Stellen Ps. 139, 16: גלמי ראו עיניך ועל ספרך כלם יכתבו ימים יצרו ולא (ק׳ ולו) אחד בהם : "mein ungeformtes Wesen schauten deine Augen schon, und in dein Buch werden alle die zur Bildung bestimmten Tage verzeichnet, selbst wenn noch keiner von ihnen wirkliches Dasein hat", oder nach dem קרי, wo dann sich das לו auf גלמי bezieht: "mein ungeformtes Wesen schauten deine Augen schon, und als in dein Buch sie alle, die zur Bildung bestimmten Tage verzeichnet wurden, war auch ihm einer von ihnen bestimmt." Ps. 69. 29: ימחו מספר החיים ועם צדיקים אל יכתבו, "mögen sie aus dem Buche der Lebendigen gelöscht und mit Gerechten nicht niedergeschrieben werden." Oder die damit verwandten Stellen Ps. 56, 9: נדי ספרתה אתה שימה דמעתי בנאדך הלא בספרתך, "mein Wanken hast du gebucht, gönne auch meiner Träne einen Platz in deinem Schlauche, steht sie nicht auch in deiner Buchung?" Maleachi 3, 16:אז נרברו ירי ד׳ איש אל רעהו ויקשב ד׳ וישמע ויכתב ספר זכרון לפניו ליראי ד׳ ולחשבי שמו וגו׳ "da besprachen sich Gottesfürchtige einer mit dem andern und es horchte Gott hin und hörte, und es schrieb sich ein Buch des Gedächtnisses vor Ihm für Gottesfürchtige und Denker seines Namens. Und die bleiben mein, sprach Gott, für den Tag, da ich einen Kern bilde, und ich sorge schonend für sie, wie ein Mann, der für seinen Sohn, der ihm dient, schonend sorgt". Nach diesen sprachlichen Erscheinungen glauben wir sagen zu dürfen: wenn alles, was ist, von Gottes "Wort" sein Dasein hat, und alles, was wird, auf Gottes "Wort" geschieht, so können alle diese Schöpfungen und Waltungen zusammen als der Inhalt eines Gottes-"Buches" begriffen werden. Es kann der ganze Weltenplan, den Gott durch die Weltgeschichte realisiert, als das "Buch" bezeichnet werden, das Gott im vorhinein geschrieben hat und dessen Inhalt er durch seine Waltungen im Laufe der Zeit verwirklicht. In dieses "Buch" sind dann alle die Männer verzeichnet, deren Gott sich als Werkzeug zur Ausführung seines Planes bedient, in diesem Buche findet aber auch jeder seine Stelle, der mit dem beschränkten Maß seines Daseins und seiner Kraft in dem beschränkten Kreis seines Einzellebens treu dem Dienste seines Gottes, das ist ja eben der Realisierung seines Willens, lebt. In diesem Buche ist jede reine Träne und jede reine Tat, ja, wie Maleachi lehrt, jeder reine Gedanke unverloren. In diesem Buche hat Dasein und Wirken eines Mosche sicherlich nicht die letzte Stelle. "Lösche mich aus dem Buche, das du geschrieben" heißt danach nichts anderes, als: tilge mich aus der Zahl der dir bedeutsamen Existenzen, enthebe mich meiner Zukunft, die du mir in deinem Weltenplane zugedacht.

מחני נא, “please erase me, etc.” according to Rashi, when Moses used the expression מספרך, “from Your book,” he asked to have his name erased from the whole Torah. According to Rash’bam, he only referred to the Book of Life in which people are inscribed on Rosh Hashanah if they will live out the year commencing on that day. (He bases himself on Isaiah 4,3, as well as on what Moses is recorded as having said in Numbers 11,15) This also appears to be the understanding of the Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah, folio 16. There the word: מספרך, “from Your Book,” is understood to refer to people who on that day have not yet qualified for a year of life until their merits exceed their demerits before the Day of Atonement, whereas the words: אשר כתבת, “which You have written,” is understood to refer to the righteous who have already been inscribed for another year of life. An alternate interpretation: Moses reminds G–d that His reputation rests on the fact that He does not have favorites. If He will refuse to forgive the people their sin, how could He forgive Moses’ sin since he had smashed His Tablets? G–d explains to him that the comparison is not valid as the people who had committed the sin of the golden calf were the cause that made him smash the Tablets. He would punish those who had, without provocation, committed the sin, not Moses. Nonetheless, we find that Moses’ name did not appear in the portion of Tetzaveh, the first time ever since he had been born. The reason is that the Rabbis have a rule that if a Torah scholar utters an oath, even a conditional oath, such as Yaakov decreeing death for the thief found with Lavan’s teraphim, which had been stolen by his daughter Rachel, though not found in her possession, as was the condition of the oath, such an oath cannot be without consequences. Rachel’s death before Yaakov crossing into the Holy Land is therefore attributed to this oath. Here too, Moses’ oath could not remain without any consequences for him. G–d therefore omitted mention of his name in that portion of the Torah.

מחני נא מספרך, “please erase my name from Your book;” this is not a reference to the Torah which had not yet been committed to writing. Moses refers to the “Book of life” in which every human being is inscribed on Rosh Hashanah if he was found deserving on the basis of his past record. This is based on the Talmud in tractate Rosh Hashanah folio 16, where the “book” is referred to as “the book of life,” in which the righteous are inscribed.

מספרך OF THY BOOK — of the entire book of the Torah; that people should not say about me that I was not worthy enough to pray effectively for them.

אם תשא חטאתם "if You forgive their sin, etc." Why did Moses leave the second half of the sentence unfinished? Perhaps we must understand Moses as saying: "and now," seeing that the Israelites have already done תשובה, i.e. they have done their part, it is up to You G'd to do Your part. Moses did not know if G'd would accept repentance seeing the sin was so grave. This is why he did not complete the verse, waiting for G'd to complete the other half of the sentence.

ואם אין מתני נא מספרן אשר כתבת "and if not, please erase me from the book You have written." A broker is entitled to a commission for all the deals he is instrumental in concluding between two parties. Inasmuch as Moses had "brokered" many deals between G'd and Israel of which the Israelites' acceptance of G'd's Torah was not the least, he was certain that his part in all this had been duly recorded in G'd's Book of records. He argued that if G'd were not to forgive the people He would have to erase all the merits Moses had acquired thus far and which had been recorded in that Book. His own merits, after all, had only been achieved through his association with the Jewish people. G'd answered him that his reasoning was faulty; He would erase only the previously recorded merits of the sinner from His Book. The merits which had been acquired through someone's association with someone else would certainly not be negatively affected through sins committed subsequently by that third party.

Moses' argument can also be understood in light of the Zohar volume 3, page 273 that all the souls of the generation of Israelites travelling through the desert were "branches" of Moses' soul. If G'd were not to forgive the sins of the Israelites, the effect on Moses' own soul would be devastating. This is why he urged G'd to "wipe me out from Your Book." G'd answered him that only the branches of his soul would be damaged by the sins their bodies committed, not the "trunk (i.e. root) of their souls."

Another meaning of Moses' words may be that he told G'd that he himself had been guilty of many errors such as recorded in Exodus 5,22 when he had accused G'd of dealing harshly with the Jewish people. Apparently, G'd had forgiven him his errors else He would have to erase him too from His Book as his sin too was unforgivable. G'd answered Moses that it was the nature of the sin of the Israelites,- "they sinned against Me," -which made it impossible to accept repentance without decreeing punishment. Idolatry is a sin against G'd's Essence. It cannot go unpunished even when the guilty have been truly penitent.

The entire dialogue between Moses and G'd concerned only the timing of the forgiveness. Moses wanted G'd to display forgiveness at once so that the generation of Israelites who had committed this sin could still remain inscribed in the Book of the Righteous. As far as G'd eventually forgiving the Jewish people was concerned, he had no doubts about that. It would certainly occur not later than the Day of Atonement. Moses chose his words very carefully when he spoke about מספרך אשר כתבת, "from the Book which You have written." G'd in the Heavens has three Books. One contains the names of the righteous, another contains the names of the wicked people on earth; the third contains names of people who are considered "borderline" cases. The three Books are open in front of G'd on New Year's Day. G'd personally inscribes the names of the "righteous," the deserving people in the first Book. This is why Moses referred to that Book as "Your Book." He had to add the words "which you have inscribed," as the suffix "your" Book would not make clear whether G'd ever reviews anything written in that Book. After all, seeing the whole universe belongs to G'd, each Book in Heaven would certainly also be described as "Your Book."

Rosh Hashanah 16 explains the words מספרך as referring to the Book in which the righteous are listed; the words אשר כתבת refer to the Book in which the borderline cases are recorded; according to the Talmud (Kidushin 40) one must always view oneself as being a borderline case, as if the next act one performs could tilt the scales of the world either towards "guilty" or towards "innocent." Berachot 61 tenders similar advice. In view of the foregoing, Moses considered himself as a בינוני, "a borderline case" just like every other Jew. If G'd were not to forgive the Jewish people, which would result in a diminution of his own merits, Moses himself would automatically lose his place in the Book of the בינונים and would become part of the Book in which the names of the wicked appear.

Still another way of understanding this verse is that Moses argued that his own standing would become that of a righteous person if G'd were to find the Israelites as righteous, seeing most of his own merits derived from them. If G'd were to fail to forgive the Israelites, Moses would himself carry the burden of the sins of the Israelites as any merits he had acquired due to his efforts on their behalf would be considered as null and void or even worse. He would have been better off if he had never accepted the task of leading the Jewish people.

Another aspect of Moses' argument is that it is part of his response to G'd's offer to make a new Jewish nation out of him after G'd had destroyed the present generation of Jews. Moses simply told G'd that if He were not willing to forgive the Jewish people now, he for his part would prefer to be wiped out of G'd's Book rather than become the founder of what would in effect be a substitute Jewish nation. The underlying thought here is that a) a threat by G'd not accompanied by an oath remains reversible, whereas an oath announcing retribution is irreversible. b) By the same token a promise by G'd that He will do something perceived as good, as desirable, is irreversible even if it was a conditional promise (compare Makkot 11). Accordingly, when G'd had promised to make a new nation out of Moses, this had been recorded in G'd's "Book," a book known as the Sefer Hayashar. Moses' prayer then was that G'd should cancel the entry which contained the promise to make a new nation out of his offspring. G'd told Moses that He would indeed not abrogate the promise to the Patriarachs concerning the future of their offspring while at the same time He would not retract the promise He had made to Moses. We find that He fulfilled His promise to make a nation out of Moses in Chronicles I 23, 14-18 which concludes with the statement: "the descendants of Rechaviah kept multiplying." Berachot 7 claims this means that there were more than 600,000 of Moses' descendants.

מי אשר חטא לי אמחנו מספרי, the idea that I will wipe out the merits of those who have not sinned against Me in order that through your loss of these credits they may qualify for My forgiveness is a non starter. This would be a brand new system of justice. The system of reward and retribution I have practiced is based on the fact that the sinner would have to pay for his sin, while receiving reward for his good deeds. I do not recognise a system whereby sins can be offset against previously accumulated merits, or vice versa. If I do not recognise such trade-offs of the sins and good deeds of the same individual against one another, I most certainly will not allow the transfer of other people’s merits to wipe out the debit balance of a third party. As a result of these considerations, your proposal is not acceptable.

מי אשר חטא לי אמחנו מספרי, “I erase those that have sinned against me from My book;” This is the way I operate. However, I forego My right to erase your name from this book.”

אל אשר דברתי לך OF WHICH I HAVE SPOKEN UNTO THEE — Here we have an instance of לך connected with the verb דבר being used in place of אליך (i. e. where לך actually means speaking to, not as its usual meaning it, speaking “concerning” someone or “in the interest of” someone as often pointed out by Rashi; cf. e. g., Rashi’s comment on Genesis 28:15). Similar is, (1 Kings 2:19) “to speak unto him (לדבר לו) for Adonijah” (cf. Rashi on that verse).

AND NOW GO, LEAD THE PEOPLE. [G-d is saying here:] “Since I have repented from destroying them, lead them unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee — to the place of the Amorite, the Canaanite, etc.” However, He did not want to mention this expressly, for this was said in a manner of anger, as if to say: “What I have said to you, I shall do in your honor, but I will not forgive them their sin, for in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them — I will visit it upon them even after they come to the Land.” This was an allusion to the time of the exile, or to what our Rabbis have said⁴⁰⁶Shemoth Rabbah 43:3. that “No punishment [ever comes upon Israel] in which there is not a small part for the sin of the golden calf.”

אל אשר דברתי לך, when I said to you “I will take you out from the afflictions in Egypt (Exodus 3,17) to a good land etc.”,(verse 8 same chapter).

נחה, to the land of Israel.

ועתה לך נחה את העם, “and now, go and lead the people!” G’d meant that now that He had reconsidered His initial plan and had desisted from destroying the people, it was up to Moses to continue to lead them.

Here is an instance where לך is used connected with the verb דבור in the place of אליך . . . Explanation: לי , לך and להם , when following דבור , usually mean “about me,” “about you” and “about them,” [rather than “to me,” “to you” and “to them”]. This was explained in Bereishis 24:7. Nevertheless, לך here means “to you.” [Rashi knows this] because nowhere does it say that God spoke to someone else “about” Moshe. And so with [ לדבר לו ] written about Adoniyahu (Melachim I 2:19). There too it means “to him,” not “about him.”

V. 34. Dieses ועתה steht dem ועתה Mosche gegenüber. Du kennst nur eine Zukunft, wenn die Verirrung des Volkes als völlig nicht geschehen "aufgehoben" würde. Du hast eine Zukunft anzutreten auf Grund der noch nicht gesühnten Verirrung, eine Zukunft, die erst auf dem Wege prüfungsvoller Verhängnisse zur Erhebung des Volks über seine Verirrung, somit zur Sühne führen soll. Eine völlige Verzeihung, d. h. eine nichtgeschehen machende Aufhebung (נשא) der Sünde, würde den beabsichtigten Eintritt der durch das Gesetz und sein Heiligtum bedingten unmittelbaren, sich in der freien, der physischen Weltordnung überhebenden Führung bekundenden Gegenwart Gottes, würde die Verwirklichung des: ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם, die Verwirklichung des: ושכנתי בתוך בני ישראל והייתי להם לאלקי׳ וידעו כי אני ד׳ אלקיהם אשר הוצאתי אתם מארץ מצרים לשכני בתוכם (Kap. 29, 45 u. 46) bedeuten. Diese unmittelbare Gottesnähe setzt eine reinere Stufe des Volkssinnes und des Volkslebens voraus, die für jetzt das Volk eingebüßt. Für jetzt ist dem Volke seine Weiterexistenz und die Gewinnung nationaler Selbständigkeit auf dem ihm verheißenen eigenen Boden gewährt. Führe sie dorthin, הנה מלאכי ילך לפניך. Welche Art der Gottesführung damit zugesichert worden, erkennen wir aus Abrahams Worten an Elieser Bereschit 24, 7: ד׳ אלדי השמים וגו׳ הוא ישלח מלאכו לפניך וגו׳. Es ist die unsichtbar fürsorgende Gotteswaltung, die die Verhältnisse für die Erreichung der Menschenzwecke günstig gestaltet, in welcher die die Zwecke des Menschen fördernden Umstände Gottes "Boten" sind. Es ist die Stufe der Gottesführungen, welcher sich die Väter erfreuten, in deren Lebenserfahrungen die Waltungen, die der Name 'ה ausdrückt, nicht sichtbar hervorgetreten, ושמי ד׳ לא נודעתי להם (siehe Kap. 6, 3). Es war dies aber nicht diejenige Führung, die mit dem Eintritt Israels als Gottesvolk aus Mizrajim zur Offenbarung Gottes und des durch Gott emporgehobenen Menschendaseins beginnen sollte (siehe daselbst). וביום פקדי; der Gegensatz, die unmittelbare Leitung, ist hier durch: פקד ausgedrückt, das ja auch das Stichwort für die mit der Erlösung aus Mizrajim begonnene Waltung bildet: פקד יפקד א׳ אתכם, und das im Leben der Väter nur einmal bei der der unfruchtbaren neunzigjährigen Sarah verliehenen Mutterfähigkeit vorkommt, וד׳ פקד את שרה. Hier heißt es: wenn ich, und so oft ich für jetzt einmal wieder unmittelbar ihre Zukunft gestaltend einschreite, kann ich nur das über sie verhängen, was zunächst ihre Erhebung aus der Verirrung fördert. Für jetzt kann meine unmittelbare Liebesnähe nur züchtigend sich offenbaren. So gleich im folgenden Vers.

ועתה לך נחה את העם , “and now, go and lead the people!” G-d is telling Moses to resume his vocation as the leader of his people.

הנה מלאכי BEHOLD, MINE ANGEL [SHALL GO BEFORE THEE] — My messenger, not Myself.

וביום פקדי, in the event that they will commit further sins, (such as the sin of the spies)

וביום פקדי, at intervals, when I feel so disposed, not all of them at once.

אל אשר דברתי לך, ”to where I have told you.” G’d did not want to be more specific, as He was still angry and He wanted Moses to know that the people’s continued existence was not due to His having forgiven them, but to the high regard in which He held their leader, i.e. Moses. Whenever He would have an occasion to visit some punishment on the people for a different sin, He would add some extra punishment in partial discharge of what they had become guilty of during this unhappy episode. This would continue even after they would come to the Holy Land. This is a veiled hint that they would at some time be exiled from that land. This is why our sages have taught us that there is no historical disaster which befalls the Jewish people that does not include part of the punishment for the unexpurgated guilt of the sin of the golden calf. (Shemot Rabbah 43,3)

But not I. Rashi is answering the question: Hashem’s intention is to punish them. But is it not good for them that “My angel will go before you”? It should say only: “Go, lead the people to [the place] which I have spoken to you. However on the day when I take account. . .” Therefore Rashi explains, “But not I.” In other words, this was bad for them, for the Shechinah itself was previously with them, [and now they will have only the angel].

הנה מלאכי ילך לפניך, “My angel will walk ahead of you;” G-d refers to what he had told Moses already in Exodus 23,20: 'הנה אנכי שולח מלאך וגו, “here I am going to send an angel, etc.”

וביום פקדי וגו׳ AND IN THE DAY WHEN I VISIT [I WILL VISIT THEIR SIN UPON THEM] — At present I listen to you and will refrain from consuming them all at once — but ever and ever throughout the ages, when I am visiting them for their sins I shall visit them at the same time for a little of this sin in addition to their other sins for which I am then punishing them. Indeed no punishment ever comes upon Israel in which there is not part payment for the sin of the golden calf (cf. Sanhedrin 102a).

ופקדתי עליהם חטאתם, this sin, and I will not continue to waive their punishment for this sin. We find a similar statement in Kings I 1,52 ואם רעה תמצא בו ומת, “if he commits any further evil he will die.” (Adoniah, Solomon’s older brother and former rival for the succession) We find that G’d comes back to this threat in Numbers 14,11 complaining “how long will this people spurn Me, etc.” Seeing that they repeated their rebellious behaviour one could only expect that they would persist in their foolish ways. Our sages used this to coin the phrase that “when a person has sinned, gotten away with it, and sinned again, and again gotten away with it, he thinks that what he did is not even sinful” (so that he has no incentive to repent what he has come to believe is permissible conduct) (Yuma 86)

וביום פקדי ופקדתי, “but when the day comes that I make an accounting, I will make an accounting;” G-d promises Moses that as long as the Israelites will not accumulate more sins He will not take any further action in respect of the sin of the golden calf. However if that day comes, He will add additional punishment for punishment so far withheld.

ויגף ה' את העם AND THE LORD PLAGUED THE PEOPLE — This was death inflicted by the heavenly Judge on those to whose offence there had been witnesses but no legal caution (cf. Rashi on v. 20).

AND THE ETERNAL SMOTE THE PEOPLE. Scripture does not state how many died in this plague, as it stated the number of those that fell by the hand of the sons of Levi,⁴⁰⁷Above, Verse 28: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men. and as it mentioned in the case of the plague about the matter of Korah,⁴⁰⁸Numbers 17:14: Now they that died by the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred. and in connection with the Baal of Peor,⁴⁰⁹Ibid., 25:9: And those that died by the plague were twenty and four thousand. the reason perhaps being that those here did not all die in one plague, but they were smitten and died prematurely, something like it said, but the Eternal shall smite him, or his day shall come to die.⁴¹⁰I Samuel 26:10. Perhaps Scripture did not bother to number them, for similarly it did not number those that died in the plague at Taberah,⁴¹¹Numbers 11:3. and at Kibroth-hattaavah, where it says, and the Eternal smote the people with a very great plague.⁴¹²Ibid., 33. Those that fell, however, through the sons of Levi He counted in their honor, thus saying that they slew many of the people but yet they did not fear them, for they trusted in the Eternal.

על אשר עשו את העגל אשר עשה אהרן, by Aaron’s agreeing, not protesting, he helped a potential sin become an actual sin, so that the person’s sin who fashioned the gold into the shape of a calf is attributable to Aaron. Aaron’s contribution in deed was his throwing the gold into the fire. He himself describes the “this calf emerged,” as a direct consequence of his throwing the gold into the fire (verse 24).

אשר עשה אהרן which Aaron had made. What was the Torah's purpose in making this statement at this point? Perhaps G'd wanted us to know that the Israelites were punished for causing Aaron to become the innocent maker of the golden calf. G'd deals severely with anyone who causes a great and holy man such as Aaron to become involved in the performance of a sin.

ויגוף ה' את העם , “Hashem smote the people.” In this instance the Torah did not reveal how many of the people were smitten with this fatal plague, as distinct from the people who had been executed by the Levites or the plague that killed the people participating in Korach’s uprising, or the people who died as a result of the encounter with the Moabite women at Shittim. Perhaps the reason why here we have not been told numbers is that these people did not die all simultaneously, so that the cause of their deaths would be obvious, but the “plague” that struck them meant that they died prematurely. Alternatively, the Torah did not bother to inform us of their number, just as it has not informed us of the number of people who died at Taveyrah (Numbers 11,1) or at Kivrot Hataavah (Numbers 11,35) The principal reason why the number of people executed by the Levites are mentioned, is to give credit to the Levites who carried out G’d’s instructions in spite of the large number of people involved. They trusted in G’d’s protection and were not afraid of their victims resisting and possibly killing them.

על אשר עשו את העגל, there are many different forms of idolatrous cults. Some consist of the idol having the likeness of a human being, or at least the face of a human being. Other cults worship a symbol representing the appearance of a cherub, angel-like figure. Still others worship a force symbolised by the image of certain domestic beasts, free-roaming animals, or birds. This is what we read in Kings II 17,30-31. “The Babylonians made Sukoth-benoth, the men of Cuth made Nirgal, and the men of Chamass made Ashima, and the Avvites made Nivchaz and Tartak. The Sepharvides burned their children to Adramelech and Anamelech, the gods of the Sepharvaim.” All of these names are names of different deities. The expression Sukoth-benoth refers to a hen and her chicks; the name Nirgal refers to the rooster. The name Ashima describes a cat, whereas the name Nivchaz describes a dog. The name Tartak refers to a donkey, whereas Adramelech refers to an ape, and Adamelech refers to a peacock. I am pretty certain that the many cast idols represent stars or groups of stars in the celestial regions. This would correspond to Amos 5,26 “Sikkuth and Kiyun your astral deity, the images you have made for yourselves.” The words Sikkuth and Kiyyun are both names of stars and are what Jeremiah 44,19 refers to when he said: “and when we make offerings to the queen of Heaven and pour libations for her.” The people mentioned here referred to the stars as the “queen of Heaven.” The expression “kiyvun tzalmeychem´ in Amos 5,26 refers to Zachal, otherwise know as Shabtai, Saturn. The word kochav eloheychem in the same verse refers to one of the seven fixed stars (planets), i.e. the sun.

V. 35. נגף: der tötende Stoß, verwandt mit נקב, der Stich, ist Ausdruck für מגפה, das plötzliche Sterben. Es ist die höhere Potenz von נגע, eigentlich ja Berühren, der Ausdruck für von Gott gesandte Plagen. — אשר עשו וגו׳, siehe zu V. 1. Es starben nach Joma 66 b diejenigen, deren Beteiligung offenkundig, aber entweder durch mangelnde Warnung, oder durch beschränkte Qualität des Verbrechens, עדים בלא התראה, oder גפף ונישק, für die durch die Leviten zu vollziehende menschliche Gerichtsbarkeit nicht reif gewesen. Da deren Beteiligung offenkundig war, so zeigte deren plötzliches, sich als Gottesfinger ankündigendes Sterben die richtend den Volkskörper heilende Liebesnähe Gottes.

BECAUSE THEY MADE THE CALF. This means that they were not amongst those who worshipped it or sacrificed to it,⁴¹³Above, Verse 8. but they were the men who “made” it, that is to say, they were the ones who gathered around Aaron and brought him the gold. Now since Scripture states that they were punished for making the calf, not for worshipping it, and in reality they did not make it, it explains further, which Aaron made, meaning that Aaron made it at their command.
But Onkelos translated [the expression, because they ‘made’ the calf], “because they ‘worshipped’ the calf which Aaron made.” By this Onkelos intended to explain that the ones who died in the plague were those who embraced and kissed it, and were pleased with the calf. Now [although the same term asah (“did”) is mentioned in both cases, because they ‘made’ the calf, which Aaron ‘made’], Onkelos did not feel obliged to translate both alike [but instead he translated: “because they ‘worshipped’ the calf, which Aaron ‘made’ “]. A similar case [of Onkelos’ rendition] is the verse, and whatsoever they ‘did’ there, he was the ‘doer’ of it,⁴¹⁴Genesis 39:22. which he translated: “and whatsoever they did there ‘was done’ by his command.”⁴¹⁵Thus Onkelos translated the same form of the verb once in the active tense and once in the passive.
This plague occurred after Moses had punished the worshippers and prayed for Israel, saying, and if not, blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book.⁴¹⁶Verse 32. For because Moses had shown his readiness to give his life for them, the Holy One, blessed be He, had mercy upon them, and told him to bring them up to the Land, and that He would send an angel before them;⁴¹⁷Further, 33:2. but since He wanted to take away from them part of the great sin, in order that they should be worthy [to go up to the Land], He sent upon them this plague. Or it may be that He had decreed this plague upon them [before Moses’ prayer] and the plague had already begun, and after that He said again to Moses, Go up hence, thou and the people,⁴¹⁸Ibid., Verse 1. meaning, that the plague will not blot out their sin from before Me so that I should again dwell in their midst. He mentioned though, unto the land of which I swore unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob,⁴¹⁸Ibid., Verse 1. and further said, and I will drive out the Canaanite, etc.;⁴¹⁷Further, 33:2. for on account of the plague which He brought or decreed upon them, part of their sin was blotted out, and He was partially appeased to them, in remembering the merit of the patriarchs, and [promising] that He would fulfill to them the oath He had taken to bring them unto a good land, a land flowing with milk and honey.⁴¹⁹Above, 3:8. Thus He hinted to Moses that the earth [i.e., the land of Canaan] would not become corrupt⁴²⁰See Genesis 6:11. nor would it be defiled under the inhabitants thereof⁴²¹Isaiah 24:5. on account of their sin, and that He would drive out all the six nations whose land they were originally promised.⁴²²Above, 3:8. And He also said by way of pacification, for I will not go up in the midst of thee,⁴²³Further, 33:3. this being to your benefit, lest I consume thee in the way,⁴²³Further, 33:3. because of your stiff-neckedness.
Thus there were here two punishments for Israel: firstly, that He would not cause His Divine Glory to dwell amongst them, and secondly, that He would send an angel before Moses until the nations would be driven out; but He did not promise them after they would inherit the Land even an angel to help them, for this is why He mentioned in the way [lest I consume thee ‘in the way’]. It is with reference to all this that Scripture says, And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned; and no man put on him his ornaments⁴²⁴Ibid., Verse 4. — just as mourners. But G-d is merciful, abounding in compassion, and when He saw that they mourned, He said again by way of mercy, Say unto the children of Israel etc.,⁴²⁵Ibid., Verse 5. for up till now He had used the terms, thy people,⁴²⁶Above, 32:7. and the people,⁴¹⁸Ibid., Verse 1. but now He mentioned them by their beloved name, and He commanded Moses to tell them that it was to their benefit that He would not go up in their midst, in order that He should not consume them in one moment. However, they have done well in repenting and mourning for their sin. So should they always do, and I will know what to do unto them.⁴²⁵Ibid., Verse 5. That is to say, I will visit their sin in accordance with My knowledge of their mourning and repenting their sin, since it is I Who tries the heart and searches the kidneys.⁴²⁷See Jeremiah 17:10.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], the expression, that I may know what to do unto thee⁴²⁵Ibid., Verse 5. means that He will do unto them in the knowledge of mercy, similar to what is said, and if not, I will know,⁴²⁸Genesis 18:21. as I have already explained.⁴²⁹Ibid., Verse 20. Vol. I, p. 245.

אשר עשו את העגל, “who had made the golden calf.” This is mentioned to tell us that the people who were struck by the plague were not the ones who had actively prostrated themselves and worshipped the golden calf. Their sin consisted of ganging up on Aaron and demanding that he make for them a substitute for Moses. Seeing that the Torah first said that they were punished for making the golden calf, something not quite accurate, as Aaron had taken the gold and thrown it into the crucible, the Torah now had to add: אשר עשה אהרן, that actually it had been Aaron who had “made” the calf.

Alternatively, the Torah wanted to ward off any accusation anyone had levelled against Aaron who was only technically the maker of the golden calf, and to place the blame where it belonged. The fact that G'd smote the people for a calf which Aaron had made, is evidence that G'd considered the people as having made the calf.

אשר עשה אהרן, “which Aaron had made.” The reason the Torah had attributed the making of the calf to the people whom G’d subsequently struck with the plague, was that Aaron had acted only as their שליח, as their proxy. Had they not demanded it of him by adopting a threatening posture, he would never have dreamt of undertaking such a project. This plague only commenced after the Levites, at the command of Moses, had executed the people who had actively worshipped the calf. After that Moses had prayed to G’d on behalf of the people, and had received instructions to lead the people toward their goal, the Holy land. At that point G’d had said that He would send along one of His angels. In order to justify His doing so, He had to reduce the level of unexpurgated sin still amongst the people. Striking the instigators of the whole episode with the plague accomplished that purpose. Now G’d was able to say to Moses to proceed. [verse 34 was only preparatory, and did not contain the command to proceed forthwith. Ed.]

And that is that He commanded us to confess the transgressions and sins that we have done before God and to say them together with [our] repentance. And that is confession. And its intent is that one say, "Please, Lord, I have sinned, I have transgressed, I have rebelled and I have done such and such." And he should prolong the statement and request forgiveness about this matter according to the polish of his speech. And you should know that even the sins for which one is liable for the types of sacrifices that are mentioned - that He said that one offer them and it atones for him - do not suffice with the sacrifice when it is without confession. And that is His saying, "Speak to the children of Israel [saying], a man or woman who commits from any of the sins of man [...]. And they shall confess the sins that they did" (Numbers 5:6-7). And the language of the Mekhilta is, "Since it is stated (Leviticus 5:5), 'and he shall confess that which he has sinned upon it' - it is to be upon the sin-offering when it is in existence, not after it has been slaughtered. It is only understood that an individual confesses for entering the Temple [impure]" - for this verse appears in Parashat Vayikra about one who renders the Temple and its sanctified objects impure, and that which is mentioned with it, as we explained; and so the Mekhilta there raises the possibility that we would only learn the obligation for confession from Scripture about one who renders the Temple impure. "From where are you to include all the other commandments? [Hence] we learn to say, 'Speak to the children of Israel [...]. And they shall confess.' And from where [do we know] even [sins that bring punishments of] excision and death penalties of the court? It states, 'the sins,' to include negative commandments; 'that they did,' to include positive commandments." And there it says, "'From any of the sins of man' - for theft, for robbery, for evil speech; 'to commit a trespass' - to include one who swears falsely and a blasphemer; 'and be guilty' - to include all those guilty of death penalties. It might be even those who are killed according to the testimony of colluding ones. I only said, 'and that man be guilty.'" That means to say that he is not obligated to confess when he knows that he has not sinned, but rather what was testified against him was false. Behold it has been made clear to you that we are obligated to confess for all types of transgressions, big and small - and even [for] positive commandments. But because this command - that is, "And they shall confess" - appeared with an obligation for a sacrifice, it could have entered our mind that confession is not a commandment by itself, but is rather from those things that are an extension of the sacrifice. [Hence] they needed to clarify this in the Mekhilta with this language - "It might be that when they bring their sacrifices, they confess; when they do not bring their sacrifices, they do not confess. [Hence] we learn to say, 'Speak to the children of Israel [...]. And they shall confess.' But still, the understanding of confession is only in the Land [of Israel]. From where [do we know], also in the diaspora? [Hence] we learn to say, 'their iniquities [...] and the iniquities of their fathers' (Leviticus 26:40)." And likewise did Daniel say, "To You, Lord, is justice, etc." (Daniel 9:7). Behold that which we have mentioned has been made clear to you - that confession is a separate obligation; and that it is an obligation for the sinner for every sin that he did. Whether in the Land or outside of the Land; whether he brought a sacrifice or did not bring a sacrifice - he is obligated to confess, as it is stated, "And they shall confess for their iniquities." And the language of the [Sifra] is, "'And he shall confess' - that is confession of words." And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Tractate Yoma. (See Parashat Nasso; Mishneh Torah, Repentance 1).