Nehar Deah

Ki Tissa

Aharon and the Sin of the Golden Calf in the Commentaries of Rashi

Only a short period of time passes, between the time at which the children of Israel receive the Ten Commandments at the revelation at Mount Sinai (Shemot Chapters 19-20), and from the time when they heard that “I am the Lord your God who took you out of the Land of Egypt, from the house of bondage” (20:2) and therefore “do not make for yourselves and graven image or likeness which is in the heavens above and on the earth below and in the waters below the earth” (20:4), until the time that they made themselves a “molten calf” (32:4) “and they say: 'This is your god, O Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt” (ibid). This is what happened at the sin of the Golden Calf, as a result of which Hashem wished to destroy the entire nation, but his rage was assuaged by the pleas of Moshe (32:7-14). This is a terrible sin with extreme consequences: the killing of “about three thousand men” by the Levites who remained faithful to Hashem (32:28) and also a plague, with which Hashem struck the nation (ibid, chapter 35).

The sin of the Golden Calf continues to hang over the heads of the children of Israel for many days. The book of Devarim also tells of it (9:11-29), and it is also mentioned in additional places, for example in the book of Psalms (106:19 – “they made a calf at Chorev and bowed down to a molten image”) and in the summary of the history of the children of Israel by Nechemiah (9:17-18 – “but You are a forgiving God, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and plentiful in loving-kindness, and did not forsake them, even when they had made themselves a molten calf…”).

The sin of the Golden Calf was not only the sin of the children of Israel, as their leader at that hour was Moshe’s brother, Aharon the priest. According to the narrative in the Torah, Moshe remained at the top of Mount Sinai for forty days and forty nights (24:18) and when the nation saw that Moshe failed to descend from the mountain on time (32:1) they had Aharon make the Golden Calf. Aharon was therefore a full partner in this terrible sin, and Moshe apparently severely chastised him for this (32:21-25).

Many post-biblical sources have dealt with the story of the sin of the Golden Calf, each in its own unique way. The first century historian, Yosef ben Matityahu, for example, ignores this story completely (in his book “Antiquities of the Jews”), probably because he did not know how to present to his non-Jewish readers such wicked behavior on the part of the nation of Israel and its leader. In a similar way, in some of the Aramaic translations, the story of the Golden Calf is “read, but not translated”: those who sat in the synagogue did not hear all the verses in Aramaic translation, and those who were not fluent in Hebrew did not experience the full severity of the biblical story. Chazal also deal extensively with the story of the Golden Calf, and following them also medieval commentators and many philosophers, such as Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, author of the “Sefer Hakuzari” (“Book of the Khazars”), or the twentieth century philosopher, Martin Buber (in his book “Moshe” [5706]), and many, many more.

In continuation we will discuss how the famous biblical and Talmudic commentator, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki, known more commonly by the name Rashi (France, 11th century), interprets the story of the Golden Calf. A central characteristic of his commentaries – which are based on the commentaries of Chazal – is the desire to minimize the culpability of the nation and to minimize, as far as possible, the sin of Aharon. It seems obvious that Rashi did this in order to protect the honor of the priestly caste and of the nation.

Rashi achieves this aim by including additional character in the story – first and foremost, Satan, demonic and accusing in times of danger and attempting to cause man to sin at every opportunity. In the beginning “Satan came and confused the world, and displayed an image of darkness, gloom, and confusion, to imply, ‘Moses must certainly have died, that is why confusion has come to the world’” (32:1), and afterwards even showed the people “a sort of image of Moses … that they were carrying him in the space of the firmament of the heavens” (ibid). Thus the nation was persuaded that Moshe had in fact died and would not return, and in this way the seeds were sown for the sin of the Golden Calf. Satan’s willing partners in this were those of the “mixed multitude which came up from Egypt” as it was “them who mobbed Aharon and they made it [the calf] and afterwards turned Israel astray after it” (verse 4), and the proof of this is in what they say to the nation “these are your gods, Israel” and not “these are our gods”. In addition: because Aharon threw the gold into the fire, “the sorcerers of the mixed multitude who came up with them from Egypt, came and made it with sorcery”.

After the severity of the sin has been passed off onto Satan and the mixed multitude and their sorcerers, Rashi declares that Aharon did everything he could in order to avoid the deed. Firstly Rashi points out the fact that Aharon asks the nation “remove your gold rings which are in the ears of your wives, sons and daughters and bring them to me” (verse 2), while the Torah continues and tells that “The entire people unburdened themselves of the golden rings that were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron” (verse 3). From here Rashi learns that “Aaron said to himself, ‘The women and the children are protective of their jewelry, perhaps the matter will be delayed, and in the meantime Moshe will come’, and they [=the nation] did not wait and they took off the jewelry”. Rashi continues and explains – by quoting Midrash Vayikra Rabbah – that the fact that Aharon built the altar before the calf, using his own strength and on his own, was also done to gain time (Aharon says “If they build the altar, this one would bring a pebble, and that one a rock, and their work would be found to be done at once. However, since I am building it, I shall drag out my work; Moses will come in the meantime” [verse 5]). This is also the reason that Aharon says “a festival to Hashem tomorrow” (ibid) – “and not today, in case Moshe will come before they would worship it”, and Rashi declares that this is the “simple interpretation” of the text.

More than this: the words “and he built an altar before him” are interpreted by Rashi, again as a result of the Midrash, as “he understood from the [person] sacrificed [=killed] before him” (based on the similarities between the Hebrew words for “build” and “understand” and the fact that “altar” and “sacrifice” are based on the same word), that he should do what the nation wished. Who was the person killed? According to the Midrash (and Rashi), it was Chur, Aharon’s “sister’s son”. Chur is mentioned by the Torah in the story of Moshe’s ascending Mount Sinai: “And he [Moshe] said to the elders, ‘Wait here for us until we return to you; and, behold, Aaron and Chur are with you; if anyone have any matter to judge, should approach them” (24:13), meaning that both Aharon and Chur where nominated as replacements for Moshe until his return. Since Chur is not mentioned again in the story of the Golden Calf, the Midrash determines that he was killed in the full view of Aharon, and he realized, from seeing this, what he needed to do in order to save himself. When we are dealing with saving oneself from a definite death, with the belief that Moshe would return any moment and prevent the sin, Aharon’s behavior can be viewed in a much less negative light.

Most of these traditions Rashi finds from throughout the literature of chazal, and he gathered them together in order to present a very different picture of the sin. By including other significant partners in the sin, Satan and the sorcerers of the mixed multitude, and by explaining Aharon’s hidden motives, who tried as far as he could to delay carrying out the evil deed, the biblical story is painted in a different light. Due to the fact that since Rashi’s time – and especially since the invention of the printing press – his commentaries have been a constant companion to the biblical text and have molded the traditional approach to the deed in general and especially to Aharon’s conduct. The Midrash has replaced the face-value interpretation of the text and this is, to a large extent, due to Rashi’s commentaries.

Professor Avigdor Shen’an
Department of Hebrew Literature

Medieval Literature – Sefer Hakuzari (The Book of the Khazars)

Sefer Hakuzari was written by Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, one of the greatest Hebrew poets and one of the most important thinkers of the Middle Ages (born in Spain before the year 1075, died on his way to the land of Israel in the year 1141). Rabbi Yehuda Halevi built the framework of his book on the traditional story of the conversion to Judaism of Yosef, king of the Khazars. According to this story, the king embarks on a mission to find the correct way to serve God, after an angel appears to him twice in a dream and tells him that “your intentions are desirable to the Creator, but your deeds are not”. During his quest, the king approaches a Philosopher – who believes that the intellect stands above faith and revelation – as well as a Moslem, a Christian and finally a Jew. While the king rejects the views of the Philosopher, based on the basic ideas espoused, his conversations with the Christian and Moslem bring him to accept the basic principles of their faiths, but he turns to Jew as he understands that the basis of both Christianity and Islam lie in the history of the Jewish nation. After setting out the case brought by the Jewish sage, known as “the Friend”, we are told of the conversion to Judaism of the king and many of his subjects. From here onwards the book is dedicated to the dialogue between the king and the Friend, where the king asks various questions that arose while he read the books of the Torah and the prophets.

This part of the book deals mainly with the issue of Israel being the chosen people and emphasizes the divine revelation to the children of Israel on Mount Sinai and it’s transmission as a tradition, as the main proof of God’s existence and the obligation to obey his commandments. In this section many claims are brought that could be used against the Karaites, who did not accept the validity of the Oral Tradition, the literature of the Mishna and the Talmuds, and there is even direct reference to them in the book, which lead researchers to surmise that the book was originally written as part of the dispute with the Karaites.

At one stage the Friend has difficulty answering one of the Khazar king’s questions. With reference to Jerusalem and the prayers directed at it, the king asks: “If this is so, are you not in contravention of the commandment which obligates you, according to your Torah, if you do not go up to this place…” And to this the Friend answers: “You have indeed found of my point of shame, Khazar king! For while this sin, because of which did not come to pass the intention which was intended [=promised] for the ‘Second Temple’. Because the divine presence which was supposed to descend upon them, as in the First [Temple], were they all to have answered the call and returned to the land of Israel with a willing spirit, but only a few of them answered…” And of the prayers for a return to Zion he says, that they do indeed suffer from a lack of correct intention: “But rather as the speech of a parrot or the twittering of a starling, as without the correct intention of the heart we say these things and others – you have noted rightly, ruler of the Khazars.”

Rabbi Yehuda Halevi himself fulfilled what the Friend saw as required conduct, and at the end of his days he set out for the land of Israel. As far as is known, he died in Egypt or almost at the border of the land of Israel, but popular tradition holds that he reached Jerusalem, and while singing his well known song “Zion, why do you know ask after the wellbeing of you captives”, he was killed by a gentile soldier.

Custom and Law – “Read, but not Translated”

In the edition of “Nahardeah” of the weekly parasha of “Beshallach” we dealt with the custom of translating the Torah into Aramaic while it is read in synagogue, verse after verse. Theoretically we should expect that the entire Torah, with all its verses and stories, would be translated into Aramaic during the Torah readings, but it seems that this is not so. Chazal indicate certain verses in the Torah (and also verses from the prophets – as part of the haphtarah [additional readings]) which should not be translated when read publicly, and even some verses from the prophets which should not be read publically under any conditions. The Tosefta in Tractate Megilla (3 [4], 31) defines this as such: “there are those which are read and translated, those which are read and not translated and those which are not read and not translated” and in a few places in the literature of chazal there are lists which state explicitly which sections of the Bible are included in each of these categories. From these lists, it is apparent that chazal took an interest in translation to Aramaic, and supervised the manner in which it was presented publicly. All the items on the lists, in each of the three categories, have a clear common denominator: sections which chazal feared might have some problematic aspect. Therefore, for example, the story of the Creation (Bereishit, chapter 1), which is a chapter which is likely to arouse mystical speculations, or the story of Lot and his daughters (Bereishit 19:30-38); the actions of Reuven with Bilha, his father’s concubine (Bereishit 35:24) and the story of Yehuda and Tamar (Bereishit 38) – three stories which present sins of a sexual nature by the fathers of the nation; and so forth. The problematic natures of these stories lead the sages to ponder to what degree it is worthwhile and fitting to translate them for the wider public. In most cases it was eventually decided to both read and translate them, in a few cases it was decided to read them without translation and only in a very small minority of cases it was decided not to read them at all (obviously also without translation). The sages thought, apparently, that the public was not fit to hear every detail of the stories in the Torah. Whoever did not understand Hebrew, would maybe not realize what was being hidden from him, and whoever understood Hebrew would know that these and other stories are of a sensitive nature.

With respect to the story of the Golden Calf, it is written in the Tosefta (ibid): “The first calf incident is read and translated … the second calf incident is read but not translated”. The term “first calf incident” refers to the actual story of the sin and the breaking of the tablets by Moshe (Shemot 33:1-20). The “second calf incident” includes the heated discussion between Moshe and Aharon with respect to Aharon’s role in the sin, and also the punishment that Hashem wrought on the nation as a result of the deed (ibid 32:21-35). All the sources agree as to the identity of the “second calf incident”, but we find among them vast differences in terms if what part of the incident not to translate. The opinions range between one verse only (verse 35: “And Hashem struck the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made”) and five verses (21-25) in which Moshe rebukes Aharon, and Aharon tries to explain the matter by blaming the nation (“because they are set on evil” [verse 22]).

It must be noted that the distinction between the “first calf incident”, which is read and translated, and the “second calf incident”, which is read without translation, has not been examined fully, as in both cases the full disgrace of the sin of the nation of Israel is displayed and both of them even describe Aharon as the person who took a central role in the sin. Despite this, because in the “second calf incident” there are more direct and virulent things said against Aharon, it can be assumed that refraining from translation comes to preserve the honor of the high priest, father of the dynasty of high priests of Israel.