Comentários de Citação sobre Êxodo 32:24

And the Lord took account of Sarah, etc. [until] and Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian (Genesis 21:1-9): Since it stated above (Genesis 20:18) that, "The Lord surely sealed every womb in the house of Avimelekh for the matter of Sarah, the wife of Avraham," it juxtaposed it to, "And the Lord took account of Sarah" - meaning to say that the Lord sealed up her enemies, but took account of her, that she should give birth when she was barren. And [the Sages,] may their memory be blessed, said that one who prays for the sake of his fellow is first answered himself. And so it was that since Avraham prayed for Avimelekh, the Lord took account of Sarah his wife. And the expression, taking account (pekidah) is truthfully, visiting and paying attention, as in "I have surely taken account of (pekod pakadati) you and that which is being done to you in Egypt" (Exodus 3:16). For it is since they thought that He, may He be blessed, was not paying attention to them that He said this. And this is like, "and Shimshon took account of his wife with goat clothing" (Judges 15:1); "Lord, in distress did they take account of You." Until on account of this did [people] call those counted, pekudim, and those counting them, pokedim. And the explanation of this verse is that the angel of God had said in God's name, "I will surely return to you next year" (Genesis 18:10). And the content of this returning and this coming is the benefit that He will give him a son from Sarah. For the action indicates the presence of the actor; and since the action was here, the Actor was [also] here. And that is why it is stated (Joshua 6:27), "And the Lord was with Yehoshua"; "And the Lord was with Yosef" (Genesis 39:2) - in that His goodness and His attention was with him. And that is the meaning of, "And the Lord took account of Sarah" - that He payed attention to her matter and that which He had forecast for her. But since there is a taking account for the good and a taking account for the bad - as He stated (Exodus 32:24), "but on the day of My taking account, I will take account" - it was necessary to explain here that the taking account of Sarah was when "the Lord did to her like He had spoken," when He gave her the son that He had forecast to her. And He did not mention that He took account of Avraham for [the following reason]: Because the retention and the pregnancy is with the woman; also because the thing was stranger and more difficult from the perspective of Sarah than it was from the perspective of Avraham. And it is [also] possible to explain, "And the Lord took account of Sarah as He had said," by giving her seed, "and the Lord did to Sarah as He had spoken" - that He gave her a male child, and not a daughter. And his name was called Yitzchak, because that is what He said to her. However, from the perspective of Avraham, it said, "And Sarah conceived and bore Avraham a son in his old age" - meaning to say that she gave birth to the son mentioned from him even with all of his age. And that is the reason for its stating, "in his old age." As it did not say it to denote the time at which she gave birth, but rather to say that also this kindness and this taking account - from the perspective of his being elderly - was done for him. And it is also possible that this is to say that Yitzchak would be the child of his old age, and that is a child that helps his father and serves him; so he would need him for his old age. And with this explanation, it is indicated that its stating, "At the set-time of which God had spoken" - that this is the mention of the time at which he was born; not that which it says, "in his old age." And two questions are solved with this, the first and the second.

“And he said to them, ‘Remove the gold earrings that are in the ears of your wives.’” For he [Aaron] said, perhaps among them there will be misers or women who are particular about their jewelry and will prevent their husbands from giving, but they deceived Aaron and all the people removed the gold earrings that were in their own ears [of the men] and said that they had taken them from the women. And he [Aaron] formed it with an engraving tool and threw it into the fire to melt it, as Aaron said to Moses, And I cast it into the fire, and this calf emerged. And without a doubt he told him the truth, and Aaron told them that after melting it, he would make a form for them, and his intention was that to produce a finished item, the goldsmith would need to work on it for at least a day or two, and he thought that during this time Moses would return. But the mixed multitude used sorcery to make this calf emerge by itself, and Aaron did not make it. And as for what is written, and he made it into a molten calf, since he was involved in melting the gold, the verse regards him as if he had made it. And the proof is that it says, And he took the calf which they had made, and not which he had made.

In this connection we must explain why G'd commanded Aaron to take a bull-calf as a sin-offering altogther. Is not a sin-offering intended as atonement and there is therefore no more powerful advocate for the defence than such an offering? Apparently G'd judged matters very fairly. On the one hand, Aaron's involvement in the construction of the golden calf was peripheral; he had neither made its shape, nor believed in it when it emerged from the crucible, and, as he explained to Moses: "the calf emerged by itself" (Exodus 32,24), i.e. as a result of an action by the sorcerers Yeynuss and Yombrus amongst the mixed multitude as reported by Tanchuma 19 on Parshat Ki Tissa. It follows therefore that there were steps in the procedure which resulted in the golden calf materialising which Aaron did take knowingly. He told the people to bring the gold; he accepted it from them; he etched the gold with an etching tool. All of these details he performed in full awareness of what he was doing. Even though the reason he did these things was fear of the Israelites killing him just as they had killed his nephew Chur, and even though all he did was stall for time until Moses would return, he did something improper. This is why G'd told him to bring a sin-offering to atone for a sin which he had been instrumental in making possible. Concerning the gold which was the crucial element in that sin, G'd told Aaron not to appear before Him in the Holy of Holies dressed in gold seeing the accuser could not become an advocate for the defence. The same consideration did not apply to the Israelites as they had been involved in that sin knowingly and a bull-calf could not therefore be used as a sin-offering on their behalf. G'd therefore commanded the Israelites to prepare a he-goat as their sin-offering.

The incident of the first calf” — refers to the entire episode of the Golden Calf up until the verse ‘and I threw it into the fire’ (Exodus 32:24). What follows, when Aaron recounts the story again, is called ‘the incident of the second calf’, as in the verse ‘and this calf came out’ (Exodus 32:24). This verse should not be translated [into Aramaic in public], lest the common people be misled and think that the calf literally emerged by itself [miraculously]. But the [Hebrew] verse itself need not be avoided, since they do not understand it deeply anyway.