Ki Tissa- The Golden Calf and Aharon's Fall

Let’s be blunt: Aharon made the Egel. It is he who Bnei Yisrael turns to after Moshe “delays”, he who advises them to gather gold rings, and he who physically fashions the Golden Calf. Aharon even concludes his role by announcing a feast for God the next day.

Nonetheless, there are discussions in Midrash and Mefarshim explaining Aharon’s positive motivations – and indeed, one can find clues to that effect in the text itself. But on the other hand, one aspect of the story eludes easy explanation, while at the same time pointing to Aharon’s guilt in the Egel story.

For however noble or ignoble his intentions, the description of events he delivers to Moshe does not correspond with the account Chumash actually presents. The Torah describes how . . .

וַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם, וַיָּצַר אֹתוֹ בַּחֶרֶט, וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה

And he took [the gold] from their hands, and he fashioned it with a graving tool, and made it a molten calf (32:4)

Aharon's report perfectly parallels this pasuk, but with each phrase restated to clear himself of active involvement:

וַיִּתְּנוּ-לִי; וָאַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בָאֵשׁ, וַיֵּצֵא הָעֵגֶל הַזֶּה.

And they gave it to me, and I tossed into the fire, and out came this calf (32:24)

Chumash's narrator paints Aharon an active party: taking, fashioning with tools, making the calf. Aharon, however, prefers a thoroughly passive model: they gave, he merely tossed, out came this calf.

While it is certainly uncomfortable to point out flaws in beloved Biblical characters, Chumash offers several other signs that Aharon indeed sinned. Moshe begins and ends his conversation with Aharon with tones of blame: “What did the people do to you, that you brought upon them a great sin!” (32:21) is followed by the damning conclusion, “for Aharon let them loose for a derision among their enemies.” (32:25) Indeed, the last verse of the perek says it all: “and God struck the people, on their making the calf - which Aharon had made.” (32:35)

The question thus becomes, how did Aharon react to this? How did our Biblical hero respond to mistakes? Parshat Shmini describes a special sin offering, an “eigel ben bakar” (a calf, Vayikra 9:2), brought by Aharon during the Mishkan’s dedication. It is the only mention in Tanakh of a calf brought as Korban Hatat and it is plausible that Aharon is addressing this very point – he is recognizing and doing Teshuva for his role in Egel haZahav. Before assuming his position as Cohen Gadol, he repents and admits his previous misstep.

But one perek later, a more tragic example emerges. Aharon's two sons, Nadav and Avihu bring a foreign flame into the Mishkan, and in response . . .

וַתֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה.

And a flame went out before God and devoured them (Vayikra 10:2)

The unique phraseology is eerily similar to Aharon’s questionable conversation with Moshe:

וָאַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בָאֵשׁ, וַיֵּצֵא הָעֵגֶל הַזֶּה

And I cast it into the flames, and out came this calf (32:23)

This textual link may point to yet another moment of the healing process: Aharon creates a god from flames, his beloved creations are destroyed in Godly flame. (This is not to claim that Aharon's sons suffer the sins of their father, but that their deserved death occurs in a highly symbolic manner - one which Aharon likely did not overlook.) This tragic moment, the low point of Aharon's life, is also his most crowning act of Tshuva.

For a key aspect of Aharon's previous misdeeds was his failure to admit any guilt. He responded with excuses, expending a full three pasukim to attack Bnei Yisrael while distancing himself from his own crimes. Bearing this initial reaction in mind adds to the power and depth of Aharon's response to his sons' death:

וַיִּדֹּם אַהֲרֹן

And Aharon was silent (10:3)

Viewed through this light, Aharon's quiet is not (only) the pious acceptance of God's will, but the humble recognition of his faults, his guilts, and the arduous path that is transformation from sinner to Cohen Gadol.

QuickNotes for the Shabbos Table

-Aharon is heavily involved in producing the Egel HaZahav. While there is room to say that his actions were justified, many textual clues point otherwise.
-His account of the story stands in conflict with the Torah's; Moshe twice condemns him; the perek concludes with the word - "the calf, which Aharon made."
-Aharon recognized his fault and sincerely sought Tshuva. The sin-offering of a calf may represent one important sacrifice he makes.
-The loss of two sons to flames may represent another. His silent, noble reaction stands as testimony to Aharon's spiritual transformation.

Yitro: A Gentle Gentile

The Yitro story follows the war with Amalek and proceeds Matan Torah, two Biblical sections of paramount resonance and fame. This peculiar placement begs the question: “מה ענין יתרו אצל הר סיני!” (What's one thing got to do with the other!)

Questions of structure and order always deserve analysis, but Yitro’s case is highlighted by a millennia-long debate. For a list of important but tangential reasons, some claim that the entire story actually happened after Matan Torah. (See Mekhilta, Ramban, and Ibn Ezra on 18:1.) Our question thus rings louder: if Yitro’s story transpired after Har Sinai, what thematic message does the Torah express by presenting it beforehand!

A careful look at the Yitro text reveals a series of fascinating literary links, which together suggest why the Torah communicates Yitro’s story exactly where it does.

Four distinctive phrases appear in both the Amalek and Yitro narratives, highlighting the dramatic contrast between the two adjacent figures.

1. Both Amalek and Yitro are introduced as “coming” from afar to engage the Israelite camp. While Amalek comes “to wage war,” (17:8) Yitro approaches – escorting Moshe’s wife and children - because “he heard all that God had done.” (18:1,5)
2. Both sections contain a mila munakh, or tone-setting key word. For Amalek “lachem,” to fight, appears four times, while for Yitro the same can be said for “tzil,” to save.
3. Both portions use the term "yad” (hand) in relation to God’s enemies. Amalek’s assault is described as “a hand upon the throne of the Lord” (17:16), while Yitro praises God as “the Lord who saved you from the hand of Egypt and the hand of Pharoah.” (18:10)
4. Both narratives can be split into two, with the term “makhar” (tomorrow) marking the latter phase. Amalek attacks, while the next day, the Jews go on the counterattack. (17:9) Yitro first greets Moshe and praises God for His many miracles, while the next day (18:13) he advises Moshe on how to run an efficient Jewish judiciary.

These examples showcase the dramatic difference between hostile, irreverent Amalek and amiable, helpful, devout Yitro.

But apart from distancing Yitro from Amalek, the text seems bent on linking him to Moshe himself. In several highly symbolic parallels, Yitro is raised to a strikingly Mosaic position:

1. Following Amalek’s attack, Moshe instructs his understudy Yehoshua to “choose for us men” to participate in the counterattack (17:9). After acknowledging Yitro’s sound advice, Moshe follows his father-in-law’s instructions and “chooses out able bodied men” for governmental positions (18:25).
2. Yehoshua obediently “did as Moshe said to him,” (17:10) while the Torah makes a point of stressing how Moshe “did all that [Yitro] said to him.” (18:25)
3. The relatively rare term kaveid, or heavy, appears in both stories. In the war with Amalek, victory is contigent on Moshe keeping his hands raised to the heavens. However, as he tired, his hands grew heavy, (17:12) and Aharon and Khur were forced to support him. Yitro warns Moshe that the burden of personally judging every Jewish court case is equally unbearable, whether or not Moshe feels the figurative burn. In the face of collapse, Yitro’s solution serves to lift Moshe out of an otherwise disastrous system.
4. After the miraculous defeat of Amalek, Moshe erects a sacrificial altar of gratitude (17:15). Similarly, in a moment of religious clarity and celebration, Yitro offers his own set of sacrifices (18:12).

These four connections produce a Yitro cast in the image of Moshe. In fact, combined with the contrasts between Yitro and Amalek, they represent a potential answer to our original question.

The war with Amalek and Matan Torah embody two of Chumash’s most Judeo-centric narratives. The Divine Election that culminated with Har Sinai crowned the Jewish people with a unique role, special laws, and distinctive relationship with God. At the same time, the Amalek story symbolizes (to this day!) all evil and baseness perceived in “the nations of the world.” Between these extreme accounts of Gentile aggression and Jewish election, enters Yitro. Lest we fall into the trap of narrow Jewish self-absorption or myopic xenophobia, the Torah presents the image of a cult priest that is nothing like Amalek and, at times, eerily resembles Moshe himself. Lest we mistake our role as “a kingdom of priests and a sanctified nation” (19:6) for mere ethnic selectivity, the Torah unveils the image of the pious, upstanding, spiritually complete Other, daring us to envision and recreate a world that is entirely Yitro.

Nothing New Under the Sun

Except for our latest contributor, Judah the Prince.

Two versions of the same Biblical story making you think P, J, E, or D? Have no fear: let the Prince explain how multiple versions are just part of a vibrant and dynamic Torah.

Beshalach: A Kinder, Gentler Amalek?

Parshat Beshalach concludes with Amalek's infamous attack on the Jewish people. While most today associate the story with the Biblical injunction to wipe out Amalek, neither that command nor the details of Amalek's cruelty actually appear in our Parsha. Instead, both occur in a supplemental account located in Parshat Ki-Teitzei. In fact, numerous distinctions exist between the two narratives:

1. Beshalach provides military detail of the victory over Amalek. It explains that Yehoshua fought in the plain while Moshe sat on a mountain summit — the victory was contingent upon Moshe holding his hands upwards. These details do not appear in Ki-Teitzei.

2. In Beshalach, God declares that He will wipe out Amalek. The raid is criticized as "a hand upon the throne of the Lord." (17:16) This stands in contrast to Ki-Teitzei, which commands the Israelites themselves to remember the attack and insists that, once they inherit the land of Israel, they must wipe out Amalek.

3. Beshalach artlessly presents the Amalek onslaught as, "Then Amalek came and fought with Israel in Rephidim."(17:1) A more sinister picture is painted in Ki-Teitzei: "How [Amalek] met you by the way, and attacked the back of the camp, all that were enfeebled in your rear flank, when you were faint and weary; and [Amalek] did not fear G-d" (25:18).

The two sources complement each other, each providing separate but essential details in order to emphasize a particular perspective on the overall event. When faced with two takes on the same story, it is the reader's job to pinpoint each particular point of view and explain why it is infused within each particular narrative.

From the outset, we can identify two different transgressions committed by Amalek: on the one hand, they attacked God's chosen nation, the people whom God had just miraculously redeemed from Egyptian slavery; on the other hand, Amalek's cowardly assault, directed at the camp's infirm rear, was a moral and military crime against the nation itself.

Notice that Beshalach harps on the details of the battle while Ki-Teitzei focuses on the despicable tactics employed. From the lens of Beshalach, Amalek sinned by merely challenging God's chosen people. In contrast, Ki-Teitzi's description points to the war crime committed against the Jewish nation.

The conclusions of each narrative fit the divergent perspectives each provides. Beshalach ends with God vowing to wipe out Amalek, explaining that their attack was a sin upon His throne. Ki-Teitzi has G-d commanding the Jewish nation themselves to seek and destroy an Amalek that wronged them.

This leads us to ask why each perspective of sin appears where it does and in doing so, to analyze each narrative within its respective context. For example, Beshalach's version must be analyzed against the backdrop of a greater Exodus narrative. In Shirat Hayam, the nation triumphantly sings:

Then were the chiefs of Edom afraid; the mighty men of Moab seized with trembling; all the inhabitants of Canaan are melted away. Terror and dread fell upon them; by the greatness of God’s arm they are as still as a stone…(15:15-16)

As the verses attest, the beleaguered nation's redemption from Egypt had international ramifications. God destroyed the dominant super-power of the era and the miracles that ensued were prominent enough to instill fear in the distant lands of Moav. In the eyes of the region, the Israelite God reigned supreme. And yet, the same dread that befell the Canaanites (15:15) did not deter the Amalekites. Being that the preceding narratives emphasized God's dominance and omnipotence, it is only appropriate that the subsequent Beshalach section paints Amalek's deplorable actions as diametrically opposed to that depiction. Likewise, while Sefer Devarim preps the Jewish people for entering their homeland – how to build a model Jewish country with a model national mission – it is only appropriate for the Torah to emphasize that the budding Jewish nation has a responsibility to erase from its world the evil and immoral forever symbolized by Amalek.

QuickNotes for the Shabbos Table
-- Some of the most familiar aspects of the Amalek story are absent from its account in Parshat Beshalach.

-- In fact, there are three major differences: only Beshalach contains details of the battle, only Ki-Titzei describes Amalek's cruelty, and the famous command to erase Amalek only appears in the latter, while in Beshalach, God takes up that responsibility.
-- Two accounts offer two perspectives. A major theme in Shemot is God's control of the world and public selection of His people. Amalek's attack is portrayed through that lens, where it represents a "hand on the throne" of God's omnipotence. A major theme in Devarim is preparing Bnei Yisrael for the transition to political nationhood and, as such, Ki Teitzei emphasizes the national responsibilities incumbent upon Amalek's victims.

Methodology: One Story, Two Versions?

It is important to recognize how the Dvar Torah for Parshat Beshalach was constructed.
Often, particularly in Sefer Devarim, the Torah will "retell" a story that appears previously in Chumash. The most salient example of this might be the sin of the Meraglim (spies) which appears first in Shlach and then is retold in V'Etchanon. Anytime the reader is confronted with such a phenomenon, he must do the following:

1. Examine both narratives carefully. Be sure to note how they are similar, and, more importantly, how they are different.

2. Accumulate and collect the evidence. Try to add up each narrative's respective evidence and deduce a separate message from each. In our example, we concluded from Beshalach's evidence one particular crime committed by Amalek, and from Ki-Teitzi we concluded another.

3. After distilling the essential perspective or outlook of each account, you need to address why each narrative "selected" its own respective outlook. In terms of this Dvar Torah, we addressed why one crime was particularly fitting for Beshalach and another for Ki-Teitzei. Often, contextualizing each narrative provides a "bigger picture" as to why its emphasis is appropriate.

These steps form a piece of a method pioneered by the late Rabbi Mordechai Breuer, a world expert in Tanach, winner of the Israel Prize for original Torah research, and father of the famed "Keter Yerushalayim" edition of the Bible. He developed the Shitat haBekhinot, or Perspectives Method, which uncovers sophisticated, multifaceted perspectives in what may otherwise appear to be varying or contradictory Biblical passages.