|
The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit
Midrash
Introduction to Parashat Hashavua Yeshivat Har Etzion
PARASHAT KI TISA
Image, Text and the Golden Calf
By Rav Michael Hattin
INTRODUCTION
Parashat Ki Tisa begins with preparations continuing apace
for the awesome task of building the Mishkan. The blueprints for the
precious vessels, the holy spaces and the priestly garments had been commanded
to Moshe in the lengthy readings of the previous two weeks, and our
Parasha opens with the mitzva of the half-shekel poll tax.
All adult males are to contribute a half-shekel of silver towards the
construction of the Mishkan, with the collected funds simultaneously
serving as the vehicle for conducting a census of the people. The
half-shekel contribution is introduced as a special measure for the
particular task at hand, and is ultimately used for the casting of the silver
sockets that support the wall planks of acacia wood (see 38:25-28). But the
Torah's intent is to also indicate a number of eternal statutes - 1) whenever a
census of the people is undertaken, a contributed object is to be used in place
of actually counting them; 2) the half-shekel Temple tax is to be
collected every year from all adult males among the people, and is to be
utilized for the purchase of communal sacrifices as well as for the maintenance
and repair of the physical plant.
The Parasha goes on to describe the bronze laver,
the anointing oil and the incense, before introducing us to the chief artisan
charged with carrying out the sacred work - Bezalel son of Uri, son of Chur, of
the tribe of Yehuda. This able craftsman is to be assisted by a compatriot with
less illustrious lineage - Aholiav son of Achisamach of the tribe of Dan - thus
implying that the Mishkan is not the exclusive preserve of certain
powerful and well-connected tribes, but rather the patrimony of all Israel.
After an emphatic reference to the need to observe the Shabbat, even as the work
of building the Mishkan unfolds, the Parasha reaches its central
and most lengthy narrative: the episode of the golden calf.
The literary effect is of course dramatic in the extreme, for
after the Mishkan narratives have been unleashed, creating a rare
momentum of anticipation and hope, the whole textual edifice proverbially comes
crashing down. Recall how the Torah broached the subject by abstractly
describing vessels and spaces, then went on to delineate the priestly garments
while speaking more concretely of investiture, and finally spelled out practical
plans for the gathering of contributions and confidently introduced the chief
artisans. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the entire endeavor was thrown into
terrible disarray by Moshe's delay in descending from the mount and the people's
disastrous reaction in fashioning a molten image.
UNDERSTANDING THE TRANSGRESSION: RASHI VS. RAMBAN
The commentaries have discussed the transgression of the golden
calf at length, and in their approach to the episode their explanations may be
broadly broken down into two schools of thought. There are those, like Rashi
(11th century, France) who make no apologies about the sins of the
people: Israel succumbed to idolatry and their intention in fashioning the
golden fetish was to replace the transcendent and invisible God with a tangible
and concrete image. When they excitedly exclaimed that "These are your gods, Oh
Israel, who brought you forth from the land of Egypt!" they committed the
misdemeanor of polytheism. As Rashi puts it, "they desired many gods"
(commentary to 32:1). And while Rashi maintains that the initial impetus for the
fashioning of the idol came from the non-Israelite elements among the people -
namely the "mixed multitude" (see Shemot 12:38) that had utilized the
opportunity afforded by the post-plague collapse of the Egyptian state to
themselves journey forth to freedom - he nevertheless maintains that Israel too
was quickly swept up by their seductions to eagerly embrace the worship of the
idol.
The Ramban (13th century, Spain), on the other hand,
following the lead of Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi (12th century, Spain) and
the Ibn Ezra (12th century, Spain), maintains that the people of
Israel were not initially interested in idolatry at all. Quite the contrary. Had
they not just experienced the revelation of God's presence and the proclamation
of His thundering Decalogue at Sinai? Is it conceivable that they could have so
easily cast off the effects of that transformative event to now embrace coarse
and vulgar idolatry? Rather, avers the Ramban, what the people sought during
those anxious hours that ushered in the final stage of Moshe's absence (for God
had called him to the summit of the mount some forty days earlier to receive His
teachings and His tablets - see Shemot 24:12-18), was a replacement for
the lawgiver himself. Fearing the worst when Moshe failed to return to them at
what they believed to be the appointed time, the people suddenly felt leaderless
and afraid. How would they traverse the inhospitable wilderness to the Promised
Land without Moshe to guide them? Though they of course realized that in fact it
was God's guidance that alone could guarantee their survival, they desired some
sort of concrete symbol to serve as the focal point for God's providence, much
as they believed that Moshe received ongoing Divine inspiration and then was
capable of leading them. As the Ramban himself so trenchantly remarks: "what
they desired was another Moshe!" (commentary to 32:1). In the end, their
misguided efforts spawned more ominous developments, for the less refined among
them quickly adopted the golden object as a god in its own right. It was they
who were later charged with worshipping idolatry and then punished accordingly.
Nevertheless, for the Ramban, the initial intentions of the ringleaders were not
malevolent.
Both of these approaches have their limitations. While Rashi's
explanation accords with the straightforward reading of the text, it forces us
to impose a most difficult premise. Could the people have remained so unmoved by
the Exodus and by the Revelation at Sinai, so utterly unconvinced concerning
God's absoluteness and transcendence, even in the face of encounters with the
Divine that must surely count as the most profound ever recorded in human
history? And while the Ramban mitigates these difficulties by positing that the
people did not initially succumb to idolatry at all but were only seeking a
replacement for their dear but absent leader Moshe, his interpretation raises
serious problems of its own. How could the people have thought that a lifeless,
bovine image of gold could be their "leader?" In what sense did they believe
that it would "guide" them through the wilderness to their destination? And why
didn't the anxious throng simply ask Aharon to take the place of his brother,
just as the elder prophet had been instrumental at the launch of the plagues
(7:1-7), during the Exodus (12:1-3) and at Mount Sinai (19:24)? Hadn't Moshe
himself appointed Aharon as a temporary leader in his place when he initially
ascended Mount Sinai (24:14)?
CONSIDERING THE TEXTUAL LINKAGE
Perhaps an alternate approach is in order. When we consider the
episode from a textual standpoint, there appears to be an intentional and
inverse parallel not between the calf and God, or else the calf and Moshe, but
rather between the calf and the tablets themselves! The entire episode, for
example, does not begin with the account of the people's panic, as one would
have expected, but rather with a tenuous verse, easily left out from a literary
standpoint, that detachedly discusses these tablets of stone:
When He finished speaking to him at Mount Sinai, He gave to
Moshe the two tablets of testimony, tablets of stone written by the finger of
God. The people saw that Moshe tarried in coming down from the mount, so the
people gathered against Aharon and they said to him: "arise and fashion us a god
that will go before us, for as this man Moshe we know not what has become 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." All of the people removed
the golden earrings and brought (them) to Aharon...(31:18-32:3).
The linkage is revisited when Moshe prepares to descend from
the mountain, having been informed by God concerning the people's infidelity,
and having already offered prayers on their behalf to avert His burning
wrath:
Moshe turned and descended from the mountain, bearing in his
hands the two tablets of testimony. They were tablets written on both sides,
from this side and that side they were inscribed. The tablets were the work of
the Lord, and the text was the Lord's writing, engraved upon the tablets.
Yehoshua heard the people's outcry, and he said to Moshe "there is a sound of
fighting in the camp!"...(32:15-17).
As above, the account of the people's transgression is preceded
by a superfluous reference to the tablets, and as above, the reference places
special emphasis upon the WRITING engraved upon the stone. The narrative goes on
to describe Moshe's approach, for when he saw the calf and the merrymaking, "he
became angry, and he cast the tablets down from his hand, and he smashed them at
the feet of the mountain" (32:19). Here, once again, the calf and the tablets
are textually and temporally locked in tight embrace, for it the SIGHT of the
calf that prompts their destruction. Finally, after Moshe destroys the fetish,
chastises Aharon, and punishes the perpetrators, he ascends to secure God's
forgiveness. After much pleading and prayer, Moshe succeeds in restoring God's
favor, a process that culminates in His charge to the lawgiver to "hew two other
tablets of stone, and I shall write upon the tablets the very words that were on
the first tablets that you shattered..." (34:1). In other words, the episode
ends much as it began by associating the golden calf with the tablets, for the
ultimate lifting of the transgression's calamitous effects is signified by none
other than the preparation of new tablets.
Thus far, we have established an ongoing textual and episodic
link between the golden calf and the tablets. The fashioning of the calf had
been introduced by a superfluous mention of the tablets and its worship had then
directly precipitated their destruction, while the subsequent obliteration of
the molten image prompted their eventual restoration. Additionally, when the
Torah described the tablets in these contexts, it never missed an opportunity to
emphasize the unique writing engraved upon their surface, for not only had the
letters been incised by God himself, but the words were curiously legible from
both sides of the stone.
The seeming redundancy of all of this tablet talk should be
noted, for we had already been informed long before the episode of the golden
calf that the tablets were the special work of God and contained His words to
the people. Recall that after the Revelation at Sinai that culminated in God's
proclamation of the Decalogue, the Deity bid Moshe to ascend to the mount in
order to receive "the tablets of stone, the instruction and the commands, that I
have written to guide them" (24:12). This reference is from the BEGINNING of
Moshe's forty day repair to the summit of Sinai, underscoring the fact that all
of the subsequent references to the tablets must be emphatic rather than
informationally necessary, serving to highlight something about their
distinctiveness, in particular their WRITING, that stands in glaring contrast to
their nemesis - the golden calf.
MATERIAL FORM VS. TEXT
What is the difference between a molten image of gold and
tablets of stone? Both are composed of a heavy and ponderous material, lifeless
in its own right, that is then impressed with some other significance. But while
the former communicates its meaning through the medium of concrete and tangible
imagery, by material representation of a person, animal or thing, the latter
speaks through the abstraction called text. The message of a golden calf is
immediate and obvious, for its eager worshippers need not exert any additional
effort in comprehending its corporeal form or coarse symbolism, but tablets of
text demand additional mental processing. That is to say that writing of any
sort invites higher cognitive involvement, and when the subject matter of the
text is complex or abstruse, conceptual rather than concrete, even greater
effort must be expended in order to achieve comprehension.
Standing at the mountain and receiving the Torah, the people
were stunned by God's WORDS, by His thundering COMMANDS uttered out of the thick
cloud cover and impenetrable smoke that ominously swirled at Sinai's summit.
Though their senses were inundated by an experience of the Divine that could
only be described as overwhelming, the Torah is careful to point out, in Moshe's
reminisce of the event some forty years later, that they saw NO image whatsoever
of the Deity:
You drew near and stood at the base of the mountain, and the
mountain burned with fire until the very heart of heaven, darkness, cloud and
thick fog. God spoke to you from the midst of the fire, but while you heard the
sound of words, you saw no image, only a voice. He spoke to you His covenant
that He commanded you to perform, the ten things, and He wrote them on two
tablets of stone...you shall therefore be very careful for the sake of your
souls, for you saw no representation on the day that God spoke to you at Chorev
out of the midst of the fire! (Devarim 4:11-15).
GOD'S INSCRUTABLE UNIQUENESS
What a strange God indeed, unlike any other worshipped in
ancient times or most worshipped today, that had no image and no physical form
whatsoever! At the moment of His much-anticipated revelation to humanity, He
broke with every convention known to man, for He did not appear as a body or a
thing but only was heard as a voice, communicating not through tangible images
but rather through intangible words! And while the people of Israel listened
intently, they could scarcely comprehend the significance of the matter! For
while they surely did not doubt God's existence or else His immediacy, they
struggled mightily with His incorporeality. The gods with which they were
familiar all had bodies and concrete form, molten images of every beast
imaginable, all of them readily comprehensible and easily approached. But this
God was different, for He demanded of His adherents not superficial and shallow
devotion, after the manner of idolatrous adoration, but rather involved thought
and study of His laws! He addressed His people with WORDS, He gave them a TEXT,
and He required not the blind allegiance of their hearts but the intellectual
commitment of their minds.
His service was not about empty ritual and drunken debauchery,
man's finite body and its instinctual drives, but rather about our higher
potential, the soul and the mind that could be nourished only by attentiveness
to His words, by the laws that could repair human society even as they
transformed the recalcitrant human heart. His banner was not inscribed with
icons and images, tactile forms of recumbent figures deep in contemplation or
else saviors nailed to a cross, all of them mere representations readily
comprehensible to the masses but correspondingly lacking any call to deeper
study or devotion. Could then the transcendent, the absolute and the ultimate be
described by lifeless metal or insensible wood, even as the former's glitter
could capture the eye with all of its splendor, while the latter's depiction of
grotesque torment could hold the heart of the faithful in sway? No, God's banner
was inscribed instead with language, with a text whose very abstraction stressed
the chasm between finite man and infinite God, driving home the fundamental
message that while in some contexts a picture may indeed be worth a thousand
words, in the context of the Divine it is worth none.
THE PEOPLE'S ANXIETY
To commemorate the revelation of His presence, God prepared to
present His people with tablets of stone, unadorned and unimpressive, in and of
themselves of little aesthetic or material value, but incised with WORDS THAT IF
DILLIGENTLY STUDIED AND THEN APPLIED COULD CHANGE THE WORLD. But as Moshe
tarried, the people anxiously pondered their strange destiny, for when they
stood at Sinai's feet they had (unwittingly?) agreed to champion in the world a
God-idea that was not only revolutionary but peculiar in the extreme. Were they
not themselves intimidated by a conception of the Deity that, while freeing the
body from its base preoccupations with magic, superstition, and fear of
capricious forces, would also obligate their minds to more constructive and
complex pursuits? Anticipating Moshe's return bearing the tablets of text, the
people approached Aharon and demanded in their place the fashioning of a molten
image of gold. This was an emphatic statement on their part that they preferred
a god that didn't demand so much mental and spiritual exertion, a god that could
be appeased by trivial and trite formalities even as its empty ceremonial could
numb their minds to the awesome and unsettling conception of a Creator and
Liberator that was pure spirit, yet held utter sway over the material world.
Aharon complied, and in complete contrast to the lengthy process of Moshe's
forty day immersion in the intricacies of God's will and wisdom, the golden calf
was fashioned almost instantaneously - a sure indication that the comprehension
of ITS will would be correspondingly simple and straightforward.
It is for this reason that the Torah consciously links the
mention of the tablets and their unique Divinely-inscribed text to the
fashioning and worship of the golden calf, for like matter and anti-matter, the
two cannot abide together for long. The God of the text is inscrutable while
immediate, asking us to utilize our minds and to nurture our moral will but
refusing to be limited by our material constraints. He cannot be delineated by a
form or an image and His interactions with the world can only be outlined by
non-representational words. The gods of gold, in contrast, are nothing but form,
for besides their coarse and vulgar materiality, there is no higher purpose, no
moral demands and no allusions to more profound possibilities. With the gods of
gold, what you see is what you get, and what you get is not very profound at
all. How then could the God of text tolerate the worship of the gods of
gold?
LITERARY CLUES
The narrative provides us with a number of literary devices to
highlight this binary but inverse relationship between the golden calf and the
stone tablets. Recall that when the people approach Aharon to fashion for them a
god, he attempts to delay by requesting their golden earrings. But the eager
masses unexpectedly comply immediately, and Aharon is forced to call their
bluff:
He took it (the gold) from them and he fashioned it with a
stylus (CheReT) and made it into a molten calf...(3:4).
The unusual "cheret" or stylus is a metal instrument
that is used for carving or inscribing, and its only other Biblical usage is in
the context of writing. Thus when God speaks to the 8th century BCE
prophet Yeshayahu and tells him to inform the people of impending disaster, He
says to him: "take a large scroll and write upon it with a common stylus
("cheret") 'plunder approaches speedily, pillage with haste'" (Yeshayahu
8:1). Indicating that Aharon utilizes a stylus to fashion the golden calf is not
only the text providing us with an intriguing but otherwise irrelevant detail
but also indicating the perverse inversion inherent in the process - the very
instrument that man would have used to inscribe the tablets with God's laws is
here transmogrified into an tool of corruption. Who could fail to hear the echo
of the "cheret" in the very description of the tablets' text, for "the
tablets were the work of the Lord, and the text was the Lord's writing, engraved
("ChaRooT") upon the tablets" (32:16). Though the grammatical roots are
different, "cheret" ending with a "tet" and "charoot" with
a "tav," the alliteration is unmistakable.
And conversely, when God bids Moshe to fashion the second set
of tablets from stone, He invites the lawgiver to "hew for yourself two tablets
of stone," where the verb for "hewing," the 2nd person imperative
"PeSoL" is the same root that underlies every sculpted image or
"pesel" in the Tanakh! Thus, the shallowness of the molten image
is rejected by God, to be forcefully replaced once again with a second set of
tablets. The conclusion is thus inescapable that the people's desire to have a
golden calf is neither their attempt to deny God's existence nor even to replace
Moshe, but rather the projection in material form of their desire to rewrite the
rules of their engagement with the Divine. "Do not burden our minds with
abstract text," they proclaim, "do not demand of us reflection and study! Do not
enjoin upon us to develop a profound faith, or to labor mightily in the
deliberation of life's complexities and in the resolution of its attendant moral
ambiguities! Give us instead a god of gold, a simple and readily comprehensible
explanation for everything, an ingenuous engagement with the world and a naive
and superficial relationship with You, sans all of the spiritual baggage that
profundity introduces! Rather, let 'these be your gods, oh Israel, who brought
you forth from the land of Egypt!'"
God, of course, will have none of it, neither then nor now.
While much of modern existence, popular culture, and our media-based consumer
society champions the creed of the golden calf, stressing form over substance
and fostering superficiality while decrying or denigrating spiritual depth, the
noble story of the tablets persists. The word of God engraved upon them has been
written eternally upon our hearts and inscribed upon our minds, even if the
letters may sometimes seem very small and, to some of us, almost imperceptible.
To follow the Torah is to connect with a tradition of intellectual study that is
as relevant now as on the very day that the people of Israel stood at Sinai; it
is to cleave to a heritage whose stress on learning and spiritual development is
still unusual today, even among those in search of "enlightenment." The world
gropes for transcendent meaning and for an encounter with the Divine, but
refuses to accept that spiritual and intellectual depth, profound effort of the
heart and of the mind, are necessary for their real acquisition. And although
the challenges that face the adherents of the tablets of stone may have changed
in terms of their externals, at their core they are not much different at all.
There are still only two basic choices before us, two fundamentally different
worldviews of God and of our relationship with Him and with His laws, and they
can in no wise be reconciled. Let us therefore recall God's summons to Moshe,
cast off intellectual sloth, and choose the more demanding but ultimately more
rewarding approach: 'ascend the mountain towards Me and remain there. I shall
give you the tablets of stone, the instruction and the commands, that I have
written to guide them' (24:12).
Shabbat Shalom |