|
   |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
           |
|
|
|
1. QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION Questions for the 'Shabbos Table' 2. Is there any 'logical' reason why it was necessary for Moshe to spend a full forty days on Har Sinai to receive the Torah? What did Moshe Rabeinu receive at that time, that would take such a long time to receive? After you answer this question, see a beautiful Ibn Ezra on this topic in his commentary on 31:18. [If you had any doubts concerning Ibn Ezra's "frumkeit", I recommend that you study this Ibn Ezra carefully, noting also how it relates to his entire approach to the study of Chumash.] 3. After God declares His 13 Midot of Rachamim (34:6-9), He makes a promise (34:10), and then adds some commandments (34:11-26). Are these commandments new, or are they a 'repeat' of mitzvot which were given earlier in Parshat Mishpatim? [Relate especially to Shmot 23:9-33.] If so, can you explain why they are being repeated? [Hint: Which type of mitzvot from Parshat Mishpatim are not repeated?] Relate your answer to the events of chet ha'egel. 4. When studying Chumash, we often find a certain key word which is used several times throughout a 'parsha'. [In Hebrew, this is called a "mila maancha".] In Parshat Ki-tisa, we find a classic example in the Torah's use of the verb "li'rot" - to see [r.a.h.] - in the Chet ha'egel narrative. Review chapters 32->34 in this week's Parsha while paying attention to this word. 'See' for yourself if it points to a theme. As you read, pay careful attention to: 32:1, 32:5, 32:9, 32:19, 32:25, 33:10, 33:12-13!, 33:20-23, 34:10, 34:23-24!, 34:30, and 34:35. What does it mean when God 'sees'..., when man 'sees'..., and when man 'sees' (or is seen by) God? Relate also to the use of this verb (r.a.h.) at Ma'amad Har Sinai, especially 20:15, 20:19. See also 19:21, 24:10, & Devarim 5:21! Could you say that sometimes 'seeing is believing'? Explain. Keep this question in mind as prepare the study questions for this week's shiur. 5. If you had fun with that one, you can also try an easier one: the use of the word "ra'ah" [evil/ reish.ayin.hey.] in 32:12-14. Relate to 32:17, 32:22, 32:25?, 33:4. Relate to Shmot 10:10; see Rashi, Ramban, Chizkuni, Rashbam. Questions for preparation (for the weekly shiur) PART I - THE STORY OF CHET HA'EGEL 1. Recall from our study of the "ko tomar unit" (20:15-33:33), that in addition to the Dibrot, Bnei Yisrael received an additional set of mitzvot after Matan Torah. Recall as well that the final section of this unit included God's 'promise' concerning how He will help Bnei Yisrael inherit the Land (should they keep His mitzvot). Carefully review these psukim, especially 33:20-25, noting how God's promise to send a "MALACH asher shmi b'kirbo" to assist them. Be sure that you understand these psukim, and note the use of the word "l'fanecha" in this context. In your opinion, WHO do you think this MALACH is (or should be)? In your answer, relate to 33:22, i.e. that the MALACH is someone that Bnei Yisrael must 'listen to', and will relay to Bnei Yisrael whatever mitzvot God may command. Relate this as well to the meaning of "shmi b'kirbo" in 23:21. 2. Based on Shmot 3:6-9 (and 3:13-17), when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt, how long did they expect that it would take until they would arrive in Eretz Canaan? How would this help explain Bnei Yisrael's opening complaint to Aharon in 32:1? 3. Read 24:12-18 CAREFULLY. According to pshat, did Bnei Yisrael have any idea how long Moshe was going to be gone for? What do you think that they assumed. [What popular Midrash is based on 24:14?] 4. Read 24:12-18 and then jump directly to 31:18, and continue reading 32:1-7. Note how chapter 32 forms a direct continuation of the narrative that began in chapter 24. [i.e. chapters 25->32 simply contain a set of mitzvot, but no narrative.] Note the parallels between chapter 24 and 32:1-7! How does these parallels help us understand the events that take place at chet ha'egel? For example: 5. Based on the above questions, does it seem that Aharon's intention in making the "egel" was to make a symbol of God, or did he intend to make an idol to worship a different god. [Be sure that you can explain each phrase in 32:4 and 32:5.] In relation to this question, see Rav Yehuda Ha'Levi in Sefer Ha'Kuzari I.77! See also Ramban on 32:1.] 6. In the parallels between 24:3-7 with 32:5-6, did you find a parallel for "va'yakumu l'tzachek"? Can you explain why? What does this phrase imply? [See the various opinions in the commentators.] To help understand what happened (and hence what this phrase implies), read 32:17-19. What is the cause for this 'loud noise' that Yehoshua hears, and what are the "mcholot" that so angers Moshe Rabeinu when he sees the "egel"? [Relate as well to 32:25.] 7. When you read 32:7, note on what day God become angry and told Moshe to go down from Har Sinai. Was it on the same day that Aharon made the "egel" or on the NEXT day? Explain why this point can help explain what Bnei Yisrael's sin was. 8. Review 32:7-9, noting God's immediate response to chet ha'egel. Relate this to 23:21, i.e. "ki lo yisa l'fisheichem". Note as well how 32:9 includes an additional statement. In that pasuk, what does "ra'itti" [God 'saw'] imply? [Compare 32:1.] Similarly, what does "am kshe oref" imply, both literally and in its context? In your opinion, does God's conclusion that Bnei Yisrael are an "am kshe oref" stem only from the events of chet ha'egel, or does it relate to earlier events as well? [ As usual, relate to Yechezkel 20:5-10 and TSC shiur on Parshat Beshalach.] 9. In his tefilla [prayer] in 32:11-13, what approach does Moshe use to thwart the punishment? Why does he provide TWO reasons, and what are they? Note how 32:13 relates to "brit Avot". How does that "brit" relate to "brit Sinai"? Relate to the "brit" in 19:5-6, 24:7. In your opinion, can "brit Sinai" be broken? If so, when and why? Can "brit Avot" be broken? If so, when and why? Use your answer to explain WHY Moshe may have broken the LUCHOT - the symbol of "brit Sinai" (see 32:15-20), based on 23:21 and its implications. 10. From the story in 32:1-25, it appears that the entire nation had sinned; yet from 32:26-34, it appears that only about 3,000 people sinned (at least they were the only ones punished). Can you explain why? Relate to Moshe's request in 32:30-32 and the events that took place in 32:1-6. What is God's answer (to Moshe's request for pardon) in 32:33-34? If God pardons them, why does His answer appear to be negative, if He didn't pardon them, why does He instruct Moshe to now lead them to the Promised Land? 11. Read 33:1-3. Note how this relates to "brit Avot". Explain the nature of this MALACH who will now lead them? Is the same MALACH that was mentioned in 23:20-21? If not, how is this MALACH different? Read 33:4-6. What is the significance of God telling Bnei Yisrael to remove their 'jewelry' which they received at Har Chorev (33:1-7)? [How do Chazal explain this 'jewelry'?] Explain Bnei Yisrael's response to this request, and the final outcome of this 'parsha' (see 33:7-11). To where must Moshe move his tent afterward, WHY? What has happened to the SHCHINA? 12. At this point in the story (i.e. after 33:11), what would have happened had Moshe Rabeinu not intervened - would Bnei Yisrael have entered Eretz Canaan? If so, at what 'spiritual level'? With which mitzvot? Relate to 32:34; 33:1-4; 33:12-17, and to "brit Sinai" in general. 13. What is the gist of Moshe's complaint to God 33:12-23? Note Moshe's emphatic statement of "re'ay ki amcha ha'goy ha'zeh" in 33:13. Does Hashem agree? How does this relate to God's response in 33:17-23? How does this response relate to the story of the second luchot as explained in 34:1-10? [Note how 34:5-6 relates to 33:19!] How does all of this relate to the second luchot and God's 13 midot of rachamim? Have the 'ground rules' of God's relationship with Bnei Yisrael changed? Relate this to the need for the SECOND LUCHOT and a new covenant (see 34:27). PART II - Preparation for shiur on 'THE 13 MIDOT OF RACHAMIM' A. BACKGROUND 1.You have all heard of God's 13 "midot" (attributes) of mercy. 2. We are only informed of these '13 midot' in Parshat Ki-tisa, when Moshe receives the 'second luchot'. In your opinion, did God only 'acquire' these midot at this time, or had these been His 'midot' since the time of Creation. [Support your answer, if you can, with psukim.]. 3. Carefully review the "Aseret ha'Dibrot" [the Ten Commandments] (Shmot 20:1-14), noting how the first three DIBROT include certain attributes by which God will either reward or punish Am Yisrael. Find those MIDOT, write them down, and make note of where you found them (for later reference). In your opinion, are these attributes of mercy? If not, explain how else they could be categorized. 4. Review 23:20-24, noting 23:21. Does this passage relate to any of God's midot? If so, how does it relate to the midot that you found in the Dibrot? Similarly, can you find any of God's midot when He becomes angered by chet ha'egel (see Shmot 32:6-10). If so, name these midot as well, and add them to your list. 5. Based on your answers to the above questions, make a list of God's midot mentioned in Chumash BEFORE the Moshe receives the second luchot. [In other words, answer question #2 (above) again! Now, compare your list with the 13 MIDOT of mercy in 34:6-7. Do they correspond? If so, how and why? 6. Based on your answers to the above study questions, re-examine the 13 MIDOT as described in 34:6-8. Carefully compare them to the various "midot" which you found in your study of Ma'amad Har Sinai (above). How to God's MIDOT prior to the events of "chet ha'egel" compare to His MIDOT beforehand (i.e. at the time of Matan Torah)? Can you find a parallel? 7. Review once again the events of "chet ha'egel", paying careful attention to the phrase "am kshe oref" in 32:9, 33:5, and 34:9. Attempt to relate these psukim to God's attributes that have been discussed thus far. How do you explain the word "ki" in "ki am kshe oref
hu..." in 34:9, in contrast to what it means in 33:5. 8. After God declares His 13 MIDOT of mercy in 34:6-8, are there times when He may still enact His attributes of "din" [exacting judgement]? Support your answer based on 34:11-14! If so, can you explain why? PARSHANUT 2. Read Shmot 34:27. In your opinion, what specifically does "ha'devarim ha'eyla" refer to? [Can you think of more than one possibility? Be sure to relate to the previous "parshia"!] Now see Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Seforno. Can you explain why there are so many different opinions? 2. Now read 34:28, noting "va'yichtov al ha'luchot". When you read this pasuk, how did you translate "va'yichtov", i.e. did God inscribe the Commandments on these LUCHOT or did Moshe? [Or didn't you think?!] Now see all the commentators! How do they all answer the above question? [Are you surprised?] On which pasuk do they all base their pirush on? Why? 3. Now read 34:32. In your opinion (and based on the context of this pasuk) what mitzvot does "et kol asher diber Hashem ito b'har Sinai" refer to? [Be sure to give this pasuk some careful thought.] How does this pasuk relate to 35:1 and its context? As usual, see Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Seforno. Can you explain why there are so many different opinions? Finally, see Chizkuni's pirush on this pasuk! How does his explanation help you appreciate Chazal's exegetic principle of "ein mukdam u'muchar ba'Torah". In your opinion, why do you think that Chizkuni presents this explanation specifically on this pasuk? [Why does he mention the date of 20 Iyar? / When you give up, see Bamidbar 10:11.] Does it make sense that Bnei Yisrael truly believed that it was a 'golden calf' (and not God) who took them out of Egypt? Obviously not, but when they see the calf, this seems to be precisely what they say: "...this is your god O' Israel, who took you out of the Land of Egypt" (see Shmot 32:4,8)! - And this is only one example of the many enigmatic psukim that we encounter when we study the story of "chet ha'egel" [the sin of the golden calf]. In this week's shiur, we present an interpretation that attempts to explain many of these difficulties by taking into consideration many of the events that had transpired earlier in Sefer Shmot. [As would be expected, the shiur is a bit longer than usual, and hence will be sent out in two parts.] INTRODUCTION We are all familiar with the Midrash, quoted by Rashi (32:1), that Bnei Yisrael miscalculated Moshe's return by one day. According to that interpretation, Bnei Yisrael are aware that Moshe would be gone for EXACTLY forty days, and thus, their lack of patience on the last day led to this entire calamity. However, if we take a closer look at the psukim which describe Moshe's ascent to Har Sinai (back in Parshat Mishpatim 24:12-18), a very different story unfolds; one which makes Bnei Yisrael's behavior much more understandable. "And God told Moshe, come up to Me on the mountain... then Moshe ascended God's Mountain. To the elders he said: 'WAIT HERE for us, UNTIL WE RETURN to you. Behold, Aharon and Chur are with you, should there any problems, go to them..." (see 24:12-14) Note how Moshe informs the people that he is leaving 'UNTIL HE RETURNS', without specifying a date! Even though several psukim later Chumash tells us that Moshe remained on the mountain for forty days (24:18), according to "pshat", the people have no idea how long Moshe would be gone for. [And most likely, neither did Moshe or Aharon. It is important to note that Rashi's interpretation carries a very deep message re: the nature of patience and sin, but it is not necessarily the simple "pshat" of these psukim. "v'akmal"] A LOGICAL CONCLUSION Recall that this was not the first time that Moshe had ascended Har Sinai to speak to God (see 19:3,20; 24:1,2). However, in each ascent thus far, he had not been gone for more than a day or two. Therefore, Bnei Yisrael have good reason to assume that this time he would not be gone any longer. After all, how long could it possibly take to receive the "Luchot, Torah, & Mitzvah" (see 24:12): a few days, a few weeks? Days pass; weeks pass; yet Moshe does not return! Considering that the last time they saw him, he had entered a cloud covered mountain consumed in fire (see 24:17-18), the people conclude that Moshe Rabeinu is gone forever. After all, how much longer can they wait?! They must do something, but what can they do? Even though we all pay attention to the word ELOKIM in this pasuk, which implies that they are asking for a God, note that their primary request is "asher YALCHU l'faneinu" - that will walk in front of us, i.e. that will LEAD us [to the Promised Land]. To prove this, we need only conduct a quick comparison between this pasuk and God's earlier promise (in Parshat Mishpatim) that he would send a MALACH to lead them and help them conquer the Land: "Behold, I am sending a MALACH - L'FANECHA [before you] - to guard you and BRING YOU TO THE PLACE that I have made ready..." (see 23:20 / make special note the Hebrew word "L'FANECHA"!) And two psukim later, God continues this promise: "ki YA'LACH MALACHI L'FANECHA - For My angel will GO BEFORE YOU, and bring you the Land..." (23:23) [Note again - L'FANECHA, and the word YA'LACH.] Most likely, when Bnei Yisrael first heard this promise, they assumed that this MALACH was none other than Moshe himself, after all, the MALACH must be someone who commands them, represents God, and whose God's Name is in his midst (see 23:21-22, compare 19:9). But now that Moshe is presumed dead, the people now demand that Aharon make for them a replacement for this MALACH, or possibly a SYMBOL of this MALACH, in order that they can CONTINUE their journey to the Promised Land: "Come make as an ELOKIM - asher YALCHU L'FA'NEINU!" (32:1) [Again, note "yalchu" & "l'faneinu"] In fact, once again from a simple reading of the text, it appears as though Aharon actually agrees to this request: "And Aharon said to them: Take off your gold... and bring them to me... He took it from them and cast in a mold and made it into a molten calf..." (32:2-4) Therefore, the people's statement (upon seeing this Golden Calf): "this is your god O' Israel - who brought you out of the land of Egypt" (32:4), does not necessarily imply that this Golden Calf actually took them out of Egypt (after all, they had already stated in 32:1 that Moshe had taken them out of Egypt!); rather, they are stating their own perception - that this EGEL (which Aharon had just made) represents the God who had taken them out of Egypt and will hopefully now His MALACH who will lead them on their journey to Eretz Canaan. In other words, in Bnei Yisrael's eyes, the EGEL is not a REPLACEMENT for God, rather a REPRESENTATION of His Presence! [See a similar explanation by Rav Yehuda Ha'Levi in Sefer Ha'Kuzari I.77! See also Ramban on 32:1.] Based on this interpretation, Aharon's ensuing actions make perfect sense. To assure that the EGEL is properly understood as a REPRESENTATION of God, Aharon calls for a celebration: "And Aharon saw, and he built a MIZBAYACH in front of it, and Aharon called out and said: A celebration FOR GOD [note: b'shem HAVAYA] tomorrow." (32:5) Furthermore, note how Aharon's planned 'celebration' parallels an almost
identical ceremony that also took place at Har Sinai some forty days earlier. To show how,
let's compare them: Furthermore, considering that the ceremony recorded in 24:1-11 includes Moshe's reading of the "sefer ha'brit" - which we explained may have been God's promise to send a MALACH to lead them (see 23:20-23 and TSC shiur on Parshat Mishpatim), we find an additional parallel, for both ceremonies relate to Bnei Yisrael's acceptance of a MALACH that will LEAD them to the land ["asher YALCHU l'faneinu"]! Finally, note how this parallel supports our understanding of the
"egel" as a symbol, for at BOTH ceremonies a MIZBAYACH is erected in FRONT of a
SYMBOL: WHY 'DAVKA' AN 'EGEL'? Even though our interpretation thus far has shown how the EGEL can be understood as a symbol of God's Presence, we have yet to explain why specifically an EGEL is chosen as that representation. Chizkuni offers a ingenious explanation, based on yet an another parallel to Ma'amad Har Sinai. Recall that at the conclusion of the ceremony at Har Sinai (24:1-11), AHARON, Nadav, Avihu, and the seventy elders are permitted to 'see' God: "And they saw ELOKEI YISRAEL and - "tachat RAGLAV" - under His feet was like a shining sapphire..." (24:10) Obviously, God does not have 'feet'! However, this description reflects a certain spiritual level. Moshe, for example, achieved the highest level - "panim b'fanim" - face to face. In contrast, the seventy elders perceived "tachat RAGLAV" -(God's feet), reflecting a lower spiritual level. [This may relate to the people's request for a more distanced relationship, where Moshe served as their intermediary (see 20:15-18 and Devarim 5:20-26).] Although it is very difficult for us to comprehend the description of God in such physical terms, Chizkuni (on 32:4) notes that we find a very similar description of the SHCHINA in Sefer Yechezkel: "And their feet were straight, and the bottom of their FEET were similar to the feet of an EGEL..." (Yechezkel 1:7) [See also the textual parallel of "even sapir"/ compare Yechezkel 1:26 with Shmot 24:10.] [Alternately, one could suggest that an EGEL was chosen to represent the PARIM which were offered on Har Sinai during the ceremony when God informed them about the MALACH (see 24:5/ note that an "egel" is a baby "par").] Before we continue, let's summarize our main point thus far. Aharon's intentions in making this EGEL appear to reflect a desire to create a representation of the MALACH that will now lead Bnei Yisrael to Eretz Canaan. To emphasize this, he makes a ceremony parallel to the ceremony at Brit Har Sinai, when God first promised Bnei Yisrael that He would sent them a MALACH. SO if Aharon's intentions are so sincere - WHAT'S SO TERRIBLE?! Why does God become so angered? Why does He threaten to destroy the entire nation? To answer this question, we must once again return to our parallel in Parshat Mishpatim. A CONTRASTING PARALLEL Despite the many parallels noted above, we find ONE additional phrase
which is unique to the story of chet ha'egel. Note the final phrase of each narrative: Even though the simple translation of "l'tzachek" is laughing or frivolous behavior, Rashi raises the possibility that it may refer to licentiousness (or even murder/ see Rashi 32:7 and Breishit 39:17). In any case, Chazal understand this phrase to imply more than just 'dancing'. To Aharon's dismay, what began as a quiet ceremony turned into a 'wild party'. The celebration simply seems to have gotten 'out of hand'. [Soon we will explain why.] If we jump ahead for a minute to the Torah's account of Moshe's descent from Har Sinai (when he breaks the luchot), we can find support for this interpretation: First of all, note Yehoshua's initial reaction to the 'loud noise' that he hears: "And Yehoshua heard the sound of the people - B'RAYO - screaming loudly, and said to Moshe: there are sounds of WAR in the camp. But Moshe answered - these are not the sounds of triumphants, nor are they the groans of the defeated, they are simply sounds [of wildness/ frivolity] that I hear" (32:17-18). [Note Targum Unkelus of "kol anot" in 32:18 - kol d'm'CHAYCHIN, compare with Tirgum of "l'tzachek" in 32:6 of l'CHAYCHA; clearly connecting the loud noises to the loud laughing of "vaykumu l'tzachek"! Note also the word B'RAY'O - from shoresh "l'ha'riya" - to make a sound like a TRU'AH, but the spelling is R.A.AH. reflecting its negative context like the word "ra'ah" = bad or evil! Compare also with 32:22! The noise from this 'wild party' was so loud that it sounded to Yehoshua like a war was going on! Note as well what provoked Moshe to actually break the tablets: "And he saw the EGEL and the DANCING circles and became enraged" [va'yar et ha'egel u'M'CHOLOT...] (32:19) Moshe was upset no less by the 'wild dancing' than by the "egel" itself! [See commentary of Seforno on this pasuk.] With this in mind, let's return now to study the Torah's account of God's anger with "chet ha'egel", as recorded earlier in chapter 32. First of all, review once again 32:5-7, noting that God DOES NOT become angry (and tell Moshe to go down) on the day when Aharon makes the EGEL. Rather, only on the NEXT day - and only AFTER the Torah informs us that "va'yakumu l'tzachek"! Now if Bnei Yisrael's primary sin was making the EGEL, why doesn't God tell Moshe to go down on that same day. The fact that God only tells him to go down on the NEXT day, and only after "va'yakumu l'tzachek" supports our interpretation that this phrase describes the primary sin of "chet ha'egel". BACK TO OLD HABITS What led to this calamity? What was the noise and this 'wild party' all about? Even though we have only 'circumstantial evidence', one could suggest the following explanation: As we explained, the public celebration around the "egel", as initiated by Aharon (see 32:5 - "chag l'Hashem"), began with good intentions. Yet for some reason, Bnei Yisrael's behavior at this party quickly became wild and out of control. Apparently, once the drinking, dancing, and music began, Bnei Yisrael had impulsively reverted back to their old ways, regressing back to their Egyptian culture. [Even though this may not sound very logical, as most of us are aware, it is unfortunately human nature.] To understand why, we must return once again to the psukim in Sefer Yechezkel chapter 20. Recall that before the exodus, Bnei Yisrael were so immersed in Egyptian culture that God demanded that they change their ways in order to prepare for their redemption (see Yechezkel 20:5-9). Despite this plea, Bnei Yisrael did not change. Nonetheless, God took them out of Egypt in hope that the miracles of Yetziat Mitzraim, and their experiences on the way to Har Sinai would create a 'change of heart' (see TSC shiur on Parshat B'shalach). When Bnei Yisrael finally proclaimed "naaseh v'nishmah" (see 19:3-8 & 24:7) it appeared that they had indeed changed, and were now ready to become God's special nation. THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK Unfortunately, the events at "chet ha'egel" changed this perception. Bnei Yisrael's inexcusable behavior at this celebration simply proved that deep down, nothing had really changed. God became more than angered; He became utterly disappointed. Despite the numerous miracles which He had performed for Bnei Yisrael, their behavior at CHET HA'EGEL proved to Him once again that their innate character had never changed. All of God's efforts since Yetziat Mitzrayim seem to have been in vain. In summary, we have suggested that there were TWO stages in Bnei Yisrael's sin at CHET HA'EGEL. * The first - making a physical representation of God - even though this was improper, it was understandable. * The second - the frivolous behavior after the eating and drinking at the
conclusion of the ceremony - was inexcusable. We will now show how these two stages are
reflected in God's 'double statement' to Moshe (32:7-10) in the aftermath of this sin: God's first statement describes the act that began with good intentions but was nonetheless forbidden [see Shmot 20:20 -"lo ta'asun iti e-lohei kesef..." ]. Although this sin requires rebuke and forgiveness (see 32:30), it was not severe enough to warrant the destruction of the entire Nation. God's second statement is in reaction to "va-yakumu l'tzachek", i.e. their frivolous behavior. Because of this regression to Egyptian culture, God concludes that they are indeed a 'stiff- necked people' - UNABLE TO CHANGE THEIR WAYS. Therefore, God decides to destroy Bnei Yisrael, choosing Moshe to become His special nation instead. Similarly, these two stages are found in the conversation between Moshe and Aharon in the aftermath of this event: "And Moshe said to Aharon: What did this people do to you that CAUSED you to bring upon them such a terrible sin? ... Aharon answered: You know this people - "ki b'ra hu" - their ways are evil." (32:21-22) One could suggest that Aharon's conclusion is based on his previous experiences with Bnei Yisrael. It is clear, however, that Moshe understands that Aharon had no intention that this situation would get out of hand. After all, Aharon himself is not punished. In fact, he later becomes Kohen Gadol [High Priest]. Once Aharon had explained to Moshe what transpired (32:22-24) in the FIRST stage, Moshe already understood what happened in the SECOND stage: "And Moshe 'saw' the people - "ki pa'ruah hu" - that they became wild (out of control), for Aharon had caused them to become wild [to the point of] their demise, B'KAMAY'HEM - when they GOT UP [to dance/ as in "VA'YAKUMU l'tzachek"! [See 32:25/ note ta'ammei mikra.] Finally, the TWO levels of Bnei Yisrael's actual punishment also reflect these two stages. First, the three thousand 'instigators' who incited the licentious behavior (stage 2) are killed. For that rebellious group, there is no room for forgiveness (32:26-29). However, on the second day, Moshe's approaches God to beg forgiveness for the rest of the nation (32:30-32). Even though they sinned, because their actions began with good intentions (stage 1), they deserve the pardon that they ultimately receive. To fully understand the nature of this pardon, we must undertake a more in depth study of the nature of God's attributes, by comparing the story of the first LUCHOT to the story of the second LUCHOT. As this in itself is a lengthy topic, it will be discussed independently in Part II of this week's shiur[im]. 1. It is not clear why Aharon does not insist that the people be patient and wait for Moshe. Note that according to 24:14, the people are instructed to turn to Aharon AND Chur, should a problem arise. Interestingly enough, Chur is never mentioned again. Relate this to the Midrash that explains Aharon's behavior because Chur had told them to wait and was killed. 2. Note the use of the word "shi'chet" in 32:7. In Devarim 4:16 we find a similar use of this shoresh in relation to making a physical representation of God with GOOD intentions! Read Devarim 4:9-24 carefully and note its connection to the events at Chet Ha'egel. Use this parallel to explain 4:21-23. 3. See the Rambam's first halacha in Hilchot Avodah Zara. Relate his explanation of the origin of Avoda Zara to the above shiur. For more articles by Rav Menachem Leibtag, visit his web site, www.tanach.org
|
||||
|
||||||||
