Commentaire sur L’Exode 32:1

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.