Parsha Ki Tisa - February 15, 2014

15 Adar I / February 15

By: Marshall Schwartz

Parashat Ki Tisa 

Our parsha this week seems to be of two minds about exactly what Aharon did in creating the Golden Calf. First, in Ex. 32:1-4, we have a description of the act, in progress – if we can trust any of the common translation (spoiler alert: we can't):

The people saw that Moshe had delayed in descending the mountain, and the people gathered around Aharon and said to him, “Rise up! Make for us gods that will go before us, for  this man Moshe who brought us up from the land of Egypt – we do not know what became of  him!” Aharon said to them, “Remove the rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, sons and daughters, and bring them to me.” The entire people removed the gold rings that were in their ears, and brought them to Aharon. He took it from their hands and bound it up in a cloth, and fashioned it into a molten calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt.

The above translation is from the Artscroll Chumash, with a couple of minor alterations. Now compare this first with what occurs after Moses comes down from Mt. Sinai and smashes the first set of tablets out of anger at what he sees before him (Ex. 32:21-24):

Moshe said to Aharon, “What did this people do to you that you brought a grievous sin on it?” 22Aharon said, “Let not my master's anger flare up. You know the people is disposed  toward evil. 23They said to me, 'Make us a god that will go before us, for this man Moshe who  brought us up from the land of Egypt – we do not know what became of him.' 24So I said to  them, 'Who has gold?' They removed it and gave it to me. I threw it in the fire, and this calf emerged.”

First we are told that the egel hazhav was “bound in a cloth, and fashioned... into a molten calf.” Later in the same chapter, Aharon avers that the calf sprang out of the fire sui generis, without his participation. This discrepancy is fertile ground for commentators, and I will discuss some of their views (in particular one found in Midrash Rabbah for Shemot) later. However, this translation has some questionable interpretations – and Artscroll is hardly alone in these idiosyncracies. First, here are the translations of verses 1 and 4, this time from the Etz Hayim chumash:

When the people saw that Moshe was so long in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aharon and said to him, “Come, make us a god who shall go before us, because that man Moshe, who brought us from the land of Egypt – we do not know what has happened to him.” ...This he took from them and cast in a mold, and made it into a molten calf. And they exclaimed, “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.”

So the first question is: Did Moshe simply take a long time in descending (Etz Hayim), not purposely, or did he deliberately delay his return (Artscroll)? The Hebrew reads, “ki vosheish Moshe laredet min ha-har.” While the shoresh for boshesh, bet-vav-shin, usually means shame, when it appears in the unusual pilel binyan, it means to delay – possibly out of shame. This variant appears in Gesenius (Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon), Brown-Driver-Briggs (Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, which builds on Gesenius's work), and Klein (A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language). So we seem to have a definitive linguistic answer here: Moshe did in fact deliberately delay his descent, according to our text. And I will leave you with another question: Why?

We also have the more serious divergence in verse four: Did Aharon bind the egel in a cloth and “fashioned it into a molten calf,” or did he ”cast [it] in a mold, and made it into a molten calf”? Neither is correct, according to the original Hebrew. The Hebrew phrase, in Ex. 32:4, reads, “Vayikah mi-yadam, vayatsar oto ba-heret.” Neither a cloth nor a mold appear here. The key word, of course, is heret, het-reish-tet. Our three linguistic resources all declare that in Biblical Hebrew, this word meant “engraving tool” or “stylus”. There are, in fact, humashim which do get this translation correct: The venerable Hertz Humash gives a very straightforward version of verse 4, “And he received it at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made it a molten calf...” [Note: In modern Hebrew, heret also means repentance, regret, or remorse. While it is sometimes clear how an old word acquires a new meaning, that does not seem to be true in this instance.]

So why are these two modern translations – one representing the most commonly-used text in Orthodox synagogues, the other the most commonly-used text in Conservative synagogues, carefully avoid the literal meaning of the Hebrew text? I believe it is out of respect for Aharon, based on the belief that Aharon could never have brought himself to perform such a blasphemous act, especially less than six weeks after the theophany at Sinai. This is an ancient tradition, traceable as far back as the Mishna:

The story of Reuben is read but not explained; the episode of Tamar is read and interpreted; the first story of the Calf is read and translated, and the second account is read but not interpreted... (Mishna Megillah 4:10)

A word of explanation: In Mishnaic times, when the Torah was read in public, the ba'al koreh would stop after every verse, and a translator, or meturgeman in Aramaic, would then explain the Hebrew to the congregation. Thus, the listeners (unless they were fluent in Hebrew) were to be kept in the dark about Aaron's apparently self-serving story of throwing the gold into fire and seeing a molten calf emerge. That is why, for example, Rashi suggests that heret means scarf or kerchief. Sforno writes that Aharon's phrasing implies that other individuals actually formed the calf:

And there came out this calf. Without my [overt] act, and they did not wait for me to do as they had said [requested]; for indeed, when it says, “And make it into a molten calf”, it does not refer to Aharon but it means whosoever did make it. … [T]hey made the calf from which Aharon had done his work: the fashioning and casting the gold into the fire.

Yet another common explanation derives from Midrash, specifically Shemot Rabbah (albeit from a comment on verse 37:2):

The [sages] said: When Moshe descended from Sinai and beheld Israel engaged in that unspeakable act, he looked at Aharon, who was beating [the calf] with a hammer. The intention of Aharon was really to restrain the people until Moshe came down, but Moshe though that Aharon was a partner in their crime and he was incensed against him. Whereupon Hashem said to Moshe: “I know that Aharon's intentions were quite good. It can be compared to the prince whose mind became unbalanced, and who took a digging-tool to undermine his father's house. His tutor said to him, “Do not weary yourself; give it to me and I will undermine it.” When the king beheld this, he said: “I know thy good intention.” As I live, none shall rule over my palace save thee. Similarly, when Israel said to Aharon, “Rise up, make us a god”, he replied, “Break off the golden rings.” He further said to them, “Since I am a priest, let me make it and I will offer up sacrifices before it,” his sole idea being to restrain them until Moshe came down.

Typical of many midrashim, this ancient tale provides a hermeneutical explanation which resolves the apparent discord between two Biblical verses. Aharon was only superficially complying with the people's urgent request; in reality, according to the Midrash, he was using delaying tactics to keep them from blasphemy. Another problem (re)solved.