Cytowanie Komentarza do Wyjścia 32:1

The Maggid begins by telling the story (of the Exodus) with the disgrace that our forefathers experienced, as the sages stated: “One begins with the Jewish people’s disgrace and concludes with their glory.”⁹⁰Mishnah Pesachim 10:4 We shall explain this. It would have been better if we began with the disgrace of Israel; why do we begin with the disgrace of the forefathers, and even more so, the disgrace of Terach (who worshipped idols). Didn’t he repent before his death?⁹¹According to the sages, Terach, father of Abraham, was not only an idolator most of his life but also ran an idol boutique. However in his latter years he came to understand the error of his ways and became a believer in God. It doesn’t seem right to mention his wickedness.
However, one might argue that since Terach committed many sins before the end of his life but died having performed repentance, it is a mitzvah to mention his disgrace. Telling his story lightens his guilt and brings atonement. This is what the sages stated: “The first report of the incident of the Golden Calf, (Ex. 32:1–20), is read and translated, but the second reported, (Aaron’s report to Moses of what had taken place Ex. 32:21–24) is read but not translated.” ⁹²BT Megillah 25a Even though we recall the sin of the Golden Calf, by doing so we bring atonement to the sinner. We do not worry about the sinners of Israel since they are received in atonement.
Similarly, we are taught, “Three kings and four commoners in the Bible have no share in the World-to-Come.”⁹³Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:2 “The three kings are: Jeroboam, son of Nebat, Ahab, both kings of Israel, and Manasseh, king of Judea. Rabbi Yehuda says: Manasseh has a share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And he prayed to Him, and He received his entreaty, and heard his supplication and brought him back to Jerusalem unto his kingdom” (II Ch. 33:13). The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: He regretted his actions, and his repentance was effective to the extent that God restored him to his kingdom, but did not restore his portion in life in the World-to-Come. The four commoners are: Balaam, son of Beor; Doeg the Edomite; Ahithophel; and Gehazi.” One should not think that Menasheh did not receive a portion in the world to come! I would like to have the merit that Menasheh, King of Judah, had, since during the final days of his life were spent in complete repentance. Rather this is included in the Mishnah since it served as atonement. When we recall his actions, his words speak from the grave. So, too, when one's actions are recalled in disgrace, the dead hear it and are distressed and they ask for atonement for their sins.⁹⁴See Kiddushin 31b - “How does he honor him in his death? If he says a matter he heard from his father’s mouth, he should not say: So said Father. Rather, he should say: So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting soul. And this halakha applies within twelve months of his death. From this time onward he says: May his memory be for a blessing, for the life of the World-to-Come.” And Yevamot 97a. Similarly, we learn, “When Rabbi Ashi concluded his lecture by saying, ‘Tomorrow we will begin our lecture with our colleague, Menasheh,” Menashe appeared to him in a dream and said, ‘How can you call me “colleague”’ ⁹⁵Sanhedrin 102b Manasseh said to him angrily: You called me your colleague and the colleagues of your father? How dare you characterize yourself as our equal? This suggests that Rabbi Ashi did not merit to call even Menashe, his colleague. So, too, here, we recall the sins of Terach so that it would be an atonement for him.
And if the sages stated that we should not speak (poorly) about the dead, it means when we are speaking about those who did not cause others to sin. If, however, they not only sinned but caused others to sin as well, it is permissible to speak disparagingly about them with this intention, even if they repented. Or the sages meant that we should not mention the wicked in the world in which they are found because we don’t punish them for the sins they committed if they have repented.
(V’hanakhon) It is also correct to say that this statement brought here to teach, “One appoints a leader over the community only if he has a box full of creeping animals hanging behind him,” Why is that? It is so that if he exhibits a haughty attitude toward the community, one can say to him: Turn and look behind you.”⁹⁶BT Yoma 22b, i.e., he has something inappropriate in his ancestry that preceded him. The story of the Exodus reminds us to remain humble…
God chose Israel from among all the nations so they would follow His path and do so in the future when the redeemer comes, as is stated, “And nations shall walk by your light…” (Is. 60:3) and it is also written, ““Come, let us go up to the Mount of Adonai, to the House of the God of Jacob; that He may instruct us in His ways, and that we may walk in His paths.” (Is. 2:3) This was also God’s will when the Israelites left Egypt. That is why God commanded them to set up several large stones on the other side of the Jordan and to write the Torah clearly on them in seventy languages. (Deut. 27:8 See Rashi) This was so the nations would see that the ordinances and teachings of Torah are true. Then they will say, “Israel’s teachings (Torah) is truly the teachings (Torah) of God and then they will come to Israel so that they can learn the ways of God and they will come to fear them in the way that students should show reverence to their teacher. But since there was concern that Israel might become arrogant when they saw their superiority, and that God brought them close in a way that He did not do so with the other nations, therefore they were instructed to first say, “At first our ancestors worshipped idols…” That is, “Look behind you and see where you have come from…”
It is also possible to explain, “At first our ancestors worshipped idols…” as follows: when Israel left Egypt they were raised above the other nations. Israel’s ascent was their inheritance even though they were feeble. In order to keep them from becoming haughty, they were told to look back (at the past) from whence they came; at Terach, the father of Abraham. God will desire us because we humble ourselves.
The correct understanding of this passage is to begin by explaining that the descent to Egypt was meant to purify them of the idolatry assciated with Adam, the first human being and not about purifying the other transgressions and sins in the Garden of Eden. They were all included in the sin of idolatry. As the sages state, “Anyone who worships idolatry denies the Torah.⁹⁷Midrash Lekach Tov Deuteronomy 11:28 However, the passage continues, “And now He has brought us close…” because when we went out of Egypt, God brought us to the service of the divine.
(Akh) It has been said that when the Israelites left Egypt, the Omnipresent (HaMakom) brought them closer and closer to God’s service so that they cleaved to the Holy One, as is explained later, in the passage, Al achat kama v’kama, “How much do we owe thanks to God…”⁹⁸The passage after dayyenu. Sin caused them to lose their ability to cleave to God, when they said to Moses, ““You speak to us and we will obey; but let not God speak to us, lest we die,”⁹⁹The last half of this verse does not appear in the commentary but is necessary to understand its implication. (Ex. 20:16) causing the evil inclination returned to its place,¹⁰⁰The people experience Devekut, pure cleaving to God, at Mount Sinai. But when they turned to Moses and told him to act as an intermediary, they destroyed the moment of Devekut, cleaving, and this allowed the evil inclination to re enter their lives. so that only they “come near” (keiruv).¹⁰¹But not cleave to God. In order to sense what was lost, and improve their actions so that we would return the crown to its former glory through cleaving to God, we say, “And now the Omnipresent has drawn us near.” This was meant to exclude the time when we could cleave to God, as is stated, “while you, who held fast (hadevekim) to Adonai your God, are all alive today.” (Deut. 4:4) Even though this was stated after the evil inclination had returned, even so the Israelites had the ability to improve so that they would eventually cleave to God again. This was taught to them when they were commanded regarding the making of the flags.¹⁰²Midrash Bemidbar Rabbah 2:3 It is known that it is an allusion to the four camps of the Divine Presence. At first one might think that when sin occurred, Israel lost its ability to cleave to God and all that remained was the ability to come close. Therefore we say, "And now we come close…” Therefore Moses prayed and said, “Oh, let him give me kisses of His mouth,-For your love is more delightful than wine.” (Song 1:2)

A Midrashic approach to the verses ויקהל משה: The commandment for Moses to assemble all the people at this point was to compensate for the time Aaron had assembled all the people at the time of the golden calf. This new assembly was to atone for the previous assembly which had such tragic results. Similarly, the words Moses spoke at this time were intended to diffuse the impression Aaron’s words had left behind when he addressed the people at that ill-fated assembly (32,1). The wording אלה הדברים, “these are the words,” were meant to counteract the words אלה אלוהיך ישראל, “these are your gods O Israel,” spoken at the time when Aaron assembled the people. The gold donated for the construction of the Tabernacle was to atone for the gold donated for making the golden calf.

A Midrashic approach (based on Tanchuma Acharey 8): The emphasis of the text on the death of “two sons of Aaron dying” [without naming them, Ed.] suggests that actually all four of his sons were guilty of death dating back to Aaron’s share in the sin of the golden calf. Moses prayed on their behalf resulting in two of Aaron’s sons being spared. All of this is based on Moses recalling in Deut. 9,19: “G’d was also angry enough at Aaron ready to wipe him out.” The word השמדה which is the one used by Moses at that time invariably involves the death of someone’s children. Example: Amos 2,9 ואשמיד פריו ממעל ושרשיו מתחת, “I will wipe out his fruit from above and his roots from below.” Seeing that Moses prayed, G’d responded to half of his prayer saying to him: “did I not write in My Torah (Exodus 22,8) ‘concerning every liability, whether an ox a donkey, a sheep, or a garment-regarding any lost item about which he said: ‘this is it!” To the court shall come both their claims. Whomever the court finds guilty shall pay double to his fellow.’” Someone who incurred guilt on account of an ox deserves to be punished. The prophet Ezekiel 23,20 already said that the Israelites exchanged their honour (G’d) for an ox. Anyone incurring guilt “on account of a donkey,” refers to the Egyptians whose flesh has been described by Ezekiel as the flesh of donkeys in that same verse; the ones referred to were the converts whom Moses allowed to convert at the time and who were the initiators in the golden calf being made. When the verse in Exodus continues with “guilt incurred on account of a lamb,” the reference is to the Jewish people who have been referred to as a lamb in Jeremiah 50,17 when the prophet speaks of “Israel the scattered sheep.” This too is a reference to the mixed multitude of converts who had initiated the process resulting in the golden calf and had dragged the Israelites into following their lead and becoming guilty of that sin. Regarding the reference to the garment in the verse in Exodus 22,8 this is a simile for the leaders of the people, the ones wearing the priestly garments. These garments have been referred to as describing their important wearers in Isaiah 3,6 “in whose father’s house there is clothing, come be a chief over us.” The words “concerning every lost object” in the verse in Exodus are a simile for people who have lost their way, and therefore are looking for a leader. The absence or failure of Moses to return when expected triggered the whole episode of the people wanting a replacement for him. The words “of which he says: ‘this is it,’” is a veiled reference to the Israelites saying about the golden calf: ‘this is your G’d O Israel who has taken you out of Egypt.’” The words “concerning which he says “this is he;” this is also a veiled reference to the instigators saying of the absent Moses “for this man Moses, etc.” (Exodus 32,1). The words “to a judge (court) shall come both their claims,” refers to Moses whom G’d had appointed as a judge for Pharaoh (Exodus 7,1). The people were to lay their problems in front of Moses and he would arbitrate them. The words: “whomever the court will find guilty”, refer to Aaron whom Moses had accused (declared guilty) saying to him: what did the people do to you that you brought this guilt upon them?” (Exodus 32,21).The words: “they shall pay twice to his fellow” is a reference to the two sons of Aaron who paid the price for his involvement in the affair of the golden calf. This is why the Torah wrote: ”the two sons of Aaron who died.”
Tanchuma Acharey 1 exploits our verse to explain what Kohelet 9,2 referred to when Solomon wrote: “For the same fate is in store for all; for the righteous, and for the wicked; for the good and pure, and for the impure; for him who sacrifices, and for him who does not sacrifice; for him who is pleasing, and for him who is displeasing; and for him who swears, and for him who shuns oaths.” In that verse Solomon reviews his findings after he had looked at the history of man, had examined the relative fates of the righteous and the wicked. and had found that the righteous and the wicked share similar experiences “under the sun;” this is what Solomon referred to as “the evil which takes place under the sun” (Kohelet 9,3). The righteous of whom Kohelet speaks was Avraham of whom G’d had said in Genesis 18,19 “for I know him well, so that he will command his offspring to observe the path of the Lord to practice charity and justice,” etc. The “wicked” of whom Solomon spoke in Kohelet was Nimrod who instigated a rebellion against G’d throughout the world. Both of them died. This is whom Solomon had in mind when he said that the righteous and the wicked share the same fate. When Solomon added “and to the good,” he meant Moses; the Torah had reported of Moses that his mother “saw that he was good,” as soon as he was born (compare Exodus 2,2). When Solomon spoke about the “pure” in that verse in Kohelet he referred to David of whom it is written in Samuel I 16,12: “so they sent and brought him. He was ruddy-cheeked, bright eyed and handsome.” When speaking about the “impure” in Kohelet, Solomon referred to King Nevuchadnezzar. David laid the foundations of the Holy Temple and ruled for 40 years, whereas Nevuchadnezzar destroyed that Temple and also ruled for 40 years. The repetition of the words “the same fate is common to them all,” refers to the people who offer sacrifices to the Lord, i.e. Solomon, of whom we are told in Kings I 8,63 that he offered 22.000 cattle offerings at the consecration of the Holy Temple, whereas his successor Jerobam did not offer any sacrifices in that Temple. Not only that, Jerobam prevented the Israelites from making their pilgrimages to Jerusalem and the Temple. Solomon had continued in Kohelet that the “good” one i.e. Moses, experienced the same fate as the “sinner.” The good one he referred to was Moses whereas the sinner referred to the spies who had slandered the land of Israel. Both died and did not get to inherit that land. When Solomon added in Kohelet 9,3 that the one who renders an oath is equal to the one who does not, he meant Tzidkiyahu King of Yehudah whom Nevuchadnezzar blinded, (Chronicles II 36,13) as a result of his having dishonoured his oath of allegiance to him, whereas Samson who had not sworn an oath of allegiance to Israel’s enemies was also blinded (by the Philistines Judges 15,12).
An alternative way of explaining Kohelet 9,3: The words that the “good and the sinners” experience the same fate refers to the sons of Aaron being the good, whereas Korach and his rebellious colleagues are referred to as the sinners. The former were burned by heavenly fire (Numbers 16,38), whereas the sons of Aaron were burned by similar fire as reported in Leviticus 10,2.
Concerning such similarities in the fates of the good and the wicked, Tanchuma Acharey 8 understands Elihu saying in Job 37,1: “because of this too, my heart quakes, and leaps from its place.” He wondered how it could be that a dry stick of wood which was deposited in the Sanctuary began to blossom and to bear fruit, (compare Numbers 17,22-23) whereas the sons of Aaron who entered there alive and offered a gift to G’d were burned instead and had to be removed from there as corpses? Rabbi Acha commented that Kohelet 2,2 which has Solomon saying: “I said of laughter ‘it is mad, and of joy what does it accomplish?’ that Solomon referred to the attribute of Justice.”
He himself had violated the three restrictions which the Torah imposes on the lifestyle of a Jewish king; 1) not to have too many wives, 2) not to have too many horses, and 3) not to amass too much gold and silver (Deut. 17,16). Solomon had 700 wives of full wifely status and three hundred concubines (Kings I 11,3); he had 40.000 stables for his horses (Kings I 5,6) and such an amount of silver and gold that they did not bother to keep count of the silver (Kings I 10,27). When Solomon downplayed the value of joy, G’d said to him: ‘in that case what do you need this crown for?’ He suggested that he descend from his throne briefly. In the interval someone resembling the king ascended the throne and claimed to be Solomon. No amount of protest by Solomon helped, he was treated as if insane, beaten as a pretender to the throne, fed inferior food, etc., and became a refugee in his own kingdom. When all this befell him he was moved to exclaim (Kohelet 22,10) “this is my share after all my labors!”
Another explanation of the words in Kohelet 2,2 “I said of laughter it is madness:” This was the laughter by the attribute of Justice when it heard that Elisheva, wife of Aaron, prided herself on the morning of the first of Nissan of that year that she had merited four separate joyful occasions on that day; she had seen her husband appointed High Priest; her brother Nachshon had been elevated to the position of tribal head; her two oldest sons had been appointed as deputy High Priests; As soon as these two sons entered the Sanctuary they were burned to death. Solomon referred to the brief duration of Elisheva’s joy on that occasion and on the futility of enjoying such moments.
The Midrash relates Job 39,27-30 to that event. We read there of G’d saying to Job: “does the eagle soar at your command, building high its nest, dwelling in the rock, lodging upon the fastness of a jutting rock? From there he spies out his food, from afar his eyes see it. His young gulp blood; where the slain are there is he.” In those verses G’d said to Job in effect; “if you were able to command the eagle where and when to build his nest, then you would also be greater than Aaron at whose bidding I allowed My Shechinah to rest on top of the Holy Ark.” The various further similes such as “the fastness jutting out of a rock,” refer to the second Temple. The rock is a reference to the אבן שתיה which was the substitute in the second Temple for the Holy Ark, the kapporet and the cherubim of the first Temple and the Tabernacle. The reason that slab of stone was called אבן שתיה, “the stone of drinking,” was that the entire earth’s food supply is channeled by G’d through the site of where this stone is located. When the High Priest on the Day of Atonement prayed for the economic welfare of the Jewish people, he said: ”may it be Your will O Lord that the coming year will be one of dew and adequate rainfall, a year of plenty, a year of grace before You, a year of blessing, a year of successful business dealings, a year in which the Jewish people should not have to depend on one another for handouts nor for handouts from Gentile nations. May it be a year when the people should not try and impose their will on each other by force. Their eyes should be focused on distant targets,” i.e. they should know what would be at the end of the year.
How would this blessing and the fact that it was granted be evident? If the smoke from the altar’s offerings rose in a southerly direction this would forecast prosperity for the people living in the south of the country. Similarly, if that smoke rose in a westerly direction it would signify prosperity for the Israelites living close to the sea. If it rose straight up, it would indicate that the whole country (or the whole world) would enjoy prosperity during that year. The נשר in that verse in Job is a simile for G’d who is described elsewhere as like an eagle having transported the Children of Israel out of Egypt for the first 120 kilometers on “eagle’s wings.” All of the complimentary comments in those verses in Job apply to Aaron. In spite of this great stature of Aaron, “his young gulp blood,” i.e. his sons died and yet he kept silent, did not question or complain as did Job when disaster struck him. The very presence of the Shechinah did not prevent the disaster. Thus far the Tanchuma.