Myśl Żydowska do Wyjścia 34:6

In order to comprehend what happened when Moses failed to return at the time expected, we must remember what the Torah tells us about the basic nature of man. We are told in Genesis 8,21, "for the impulse of man's heart is evil from its infancy." Even after man has absorbed the Divine teachings intellectually, his basic nature has not changed thereby. It is not in man's nature to become permanently free from sin so that we would have to view sin as a departure from his nature, and he would therefore forfeit his claim to a future in the hereafter. Sainthood is not demanded of man. What is demanded however, is that any relapse into sin be repaired through true repentance, in order for him to regain his stature as it was prior to his sin. This is the meaning of Exodus 34,6, "The Eternal, the Eternal is a merciful and gracious G-d." This means that G-d is saying "I am the Lord after you have sinned, just as I have been the Lord before you had sinned." The implication is that the likelihood of sin is about equal to the likelihood of saintly purity. Or, in the words of the Psalmist, (Psalms 130,3) "if You would keep remembering sins, O Lord, who could possibly stand up before You?" (Rosh Hashanah 17) The purpose of forgiveness after repentance is described as "so that You may be revered" (Psalms 130,4) It is the person who does not repent who truly merits punishment. If our sages viewed the institution of repentance as chronologically preceding the creation of man, this underlines the concept that sin is an integral part of the world we live in. (Pessachim 54) The episode of the golden calf then provided Israel with a chance to do what G-d had said, (Deut. 5,26) "would that their heart would revere Me." Had it been possible to create the nature of man so that he could be totally good, Israel could not have made the golden calf, for no other nation even approached the ideal of humanity as closely as Israel did at that time. Even G-d had expressed the wish that they should be able to maintain that level of piety in order to reap the fruits of such conduct. Israel's action in making the golden calf was proof that it was unrealistic to expect such high levels of piety and belief in G-d to be maintained at all times. Rabbi Yochanan told us then that Israel was certainly not at a low enough level at that time to have indulged in that sin, nor was David so enslaved to sensuality that the affair with Bat Sheva would be expected of him; rather, in spite of their respective high levels of morality, the nature of man made such sins possible. This teaches us the lesson of repentance as a corollary. David represents a lesson for the individual sinner, whereas Israel provides the example that even collective guilt can be forgiven. The Midrash then only supplied the answer to the question of why a golden calf had to be the idol chosen. The basic answer about why the sin took place at all, lies in the fact that it is in the nature of man to regress spiritually from time to time. Isaiah 43,26, tells us that the discussion of our sins rather than an attempt at whitewash, will bring righteousness in its wake. The Talmud Megillah 25, discusses a series of events with which the Torah deals, and which may be read in public both in Hebrew and in the vernacular. This may be done, though in the process some of our most famous heroes such as Abraham, Yehudah etc. may appear discredited in the ears of the listener. The decisive consideration in all these instances where superficial perusal may reflect discredit on a deserving person is, whether the moral lesson to be learned from the story outweighs the side effect it may produce. The story of the golden calf, discussed in the Torah on two occasions in considerable detail, teaches so much about the ways of G-d, that the fact that it makes Aaron appear as an accomplice is a calculated risk the Torah had to take. Normally, our sages prohibit readings in the vernacular, when they believe that the uneducated masses would form negative impressions about people in the story who are really free from blame. In our situation, the first half of the golden calf episode is permitted to be read also in the vernacular, because the lessons about the power of repentance and forgiveness are derived from that story. However chapter 32,21, is not to be read in the vernacular, since it deals with Aaron's specific involvement, and would give the uneducated listener the impression that Aaron's error was far greater than it actually was. Conversely, this would lead the masses to conclude that the people's involvement in that sin was far less serious than had been the case.

2. Said the Rabbi: All names of God, save the Tetragrammaton, are predicates and attributive descriptions, derived from the way His creatures are affected by His decrees and measures. He is called merciful, if he improves the condition of any man whom people pity for his sorry plight. They attribute to Him mercy and compassion, although this is, in our conception, surely nothing but a weakness of the soul and a quick movement of nature. This cannot be applied to God, who is a just Judge, ordaining the poverty of one individual and the wealth of another. His nature remains quite unaffected by it. He has no sympathy with one, nor anger against another. We see the same in human judges to whom questions are put. They decide according to law, making some people happy, and others miserable. He appears to us, as we observe His doings, sometimes a 'merciful and compassionate God,' (Exodus 34:6), sometimes 'a jealous and revengeful God' (Nahum 1:2), whilst He never changes from one attribute to the other. All attributes (excepting the Tetragrammaton) are divided into three classes, viz. creative, relative and negative. As regards the creative attributes, they are derived from acts emanating from Him by ways of natural medium, e.g. making poor and rich, exalting or casting down, 'merciful and compassionate,' 'jealous and revengeful,' 'strong and almighty,' and the like. As regards the relative attributes, viz. 'Blessed, praised, glorified, holy, exalted, and extolled,' they are borrowed from the reverence given to Him by mankind. However numerous these may be, they produce no plurality, as far as He is concerned, nor do they affect his Unity. As regards the negative attributes, such as 'Living, Only, First and Last,' they are given to Him in order to negative their contrasts, but not to establish them in the sense we understand them. For we cannot understand life except accompanied by sensibility and movement. God, however, is above them. We describe Him as living in order to negative the idea of the rigid and dead, since it would be an a priori conclusion that that which does not live is dead. This cannot, however, be applied to the intellect. One cannot, e.g. speak of time as being endowed with life, yet it does not follow that it is dead, since its nature has nothing to do with either life or death. In the same way one cannot call a stone ignorant, although we may say that it is not learned. Just as a stone is too low to be brought into connexion with learning or ignorance, thus the essence of God is too exalted to have anything to do with life or death, nor can the terms light or darkness be applied to it. If we were asked whether this essence is light or darkness, we should say light by way of metaphor, for fear one might conclude that that which is not light must be darkness. As a matter of fact we must say that only material bodies are subject to light and darkness, but the divine essence is no body, and can consequently only receive the attributes of light or darkness by way of simile, or in order to negative an attribute hinting at a deficiency. Life and death are, therefore, only applicable to material bodies, whilst the divine essence is as much exempt from both as it is highly extolled above them. The 'life' of which we speak in this connexion is not like ours, and this is what I wish to state, since 'we cannot think of any other kind of life but ours. It is as if one would say: We know not what it is. If we say 'living God' and 'God of life' (Psalms 106:28), it is but a relative expression placed in opposition to the gods of the Gentiles, which are 'dead gods' from which no action emanates. In the same way we take the term One, viz. to negative plurality, but not to establish unity as we understand it. For we call a thing one, when the component parts are coherent and of the same materials, e.g. one bone, one sinew, one water, one air. In a similar way time is compared to a compact body, and we speak of one day, and one year. The divine essence is exempt from complexity and divisibility, and 'one' only stands to exclude plurality. In the same way [we style Him] 'First' in order to exclude the notion of any later origin, but not to assert that He has a beginning; thus also 'Last' stands to repudiate the idea that His existence has no end, but not to fix a term for Him. All these attributes neither touch on the divine essence, nor do they lead us to assume a multiplicity. The attributes which are connected with the Tetragrammaton are those which describe His power of creating without any natural intermediaries, viz. Creator, Producer, Maker, 'To Him who alone doeth great wonders (Psalms 136:4),' which means that [He creates] by His bare intention and will, to the exclusion of any assisting cause. This is perhaps meant in the word of the Bible: 'And I appeared unto Abraham . . . as El Shaddāi' (Exodus 6:3), viz. in the way of power and dominion, as is said: 'He suffered no man to do them wrong; yea, He reproved kings for their sake' (Psalms 105:14). He did not, however, perform any miracle for the patriarchs as He did for Moses, saying: 'but my name J H W H was I not known to them' (Exodus 6:2). This means by My name J H W H, since the bēth in beēl shaddāi refers to the former. The wonders done for Moses and the Israelites left no manner of doubt in their souls that the Creator of the world also created these things which He brought into existence immediately by His will, as the plagues of Egypt, the dividing of the Red Sea, the manna, the pillar of a cloud, and the like. The reason of this was not because they were higher than the Patriarchs, but because they were a multitude, and had nourished doubt in their souls, whilst the patriarchs had fostered the utmost faith and purity of mind. If they had all their lives been pursued by misfortune, their faith in God would not have suffered. Therefore they required no signs. We also style Him wise of heart, because He is the essence of intelligence, and intelligence itself; but this is no attribute. As to 'Almighty,' this belongs to the creative attributes.

The saints and the prophets described His attributes in different ways. Moshe Rabeinu said "The Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are justice" (Deut. 32:4), and he also said: "He is G-d of gods, and L-ord of lords, the great G-d, the mighty, and the awesome" (Deut. 10:17), and also "He exacts justice for the fatherless and the widow" (Deut. 10:18). And G-d Himself described His own attributes as written: "And the L-ord passed by before him, and proclaimed: 'The L-ord, the L-ord, G-d, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, etc.'" (Ex. 34:6).