Moshe’s Self-Promotion
Now it came to pass when he drew closer to the camp and saw the calf and the dances, that Moshe’s anger was kindled, and he flung the tablets from his hands, shattering them at the foot of the mountain. (Sefer Shemot 32:19)
Moshe shatters the Tablets
Parshat Ki Tisa describes one of the most perplexing incidents in the Torah. Moshe shatters the Luchot – the Tablets of the Decalogue. Hashem tells Moshe that the people have created the Egel – the Golden Calf. Hashem expresses His intention to destroy the nation. Moshe intercedes and Hashem reverses His position. He will not immediately destroy the Jewish people. Moshe descends from the mountain with the Luchot in his hands. These Luchot are the wondrous work of Hashem. Moshe approaches the camp of Bnai Yisrael. He observes the Egel and the festivities in which the people are engaged. He is angered and throws forth the Luchot, shattering them. How are we to understand Moshe’s behavior? What right did he have to break the Luchot?
Moshe as a passive actor
The commentators are troubled by Moshe’s behavior and adopt three basic approaches to explain it. The simplest approach suggests that Moshe did not make a decision. He was directed or forced to break the Luchot. Many commentators explain the incident using this approach. Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra notes an opinion that Moshe was directed by Hashem to throw down the Tablets.[1] Rashbam explains that Moshe was overwhelmed at observing the behavior of the people. He lost his strength and could no longer support the weight of the Tablets. He threw the Luchot away from himself to avoid injury. In these interpretations Moshe does not make a decision. He is forced to shatter the Tablets.
Perhaps, the most intriguing application of this approach is found in the midrash and quoted widely among the commentaries. When Moshe entered the camp, the letters engraved upon the Luchot departed. Moshe was now carrying blank tablets. There are two versions of the ensuing event. According to Midrash Rabbah, Moshe broke the blank stone tablets.[2] According to Tanchuma, the blank stone tablets suddenly became unbearably heavy. Moshe could not support their weight and he dropped them.[3] According to both variants, Moshe did not did not decide to shatter the Luchot. According to Midrash Rabba’s version of the events, the tablets were no longer the Luchot when Moshe threw them to the ground. According to Tanchuma’s version, once the letters departed from the Luchot, Moshe was unable to support their weight.[4]
The common element shared by the responses adopting this approach is that Moshe did not have the right to decide to break the Luchot. He broke the Luchot, either because Hashem directed him, he was overwhelmed by the events, or the Luchot were deprived of their sacred character and Moshe shattered mere stone tablets.
Moshe applied established principles
The second approach acknowledges that Moshe made the decision to break the Luchot. He based his decision upon clear, self-evident principles. Rashi suggests that Moshe deduced from the laws of the Pesach sacrifice that the people were unfit to receive the Luchot. The Torah teaches that one who is an idolator is not fit to participate in the Pesach sacrifice. Moshe reasoned that one who is disqualified from the Pesach sacrifice is certainly not fit to receive the entire Torah.[5]
Ralbag – Gersonides – develops this answer more extensively. He explains that the Luchot represented the covenant between Hashem and Bnai Yisrael. Through entering into this covenant the Jewish people accepted the responsibility to observe the commandments. Acceptance of Hashem as the L-rd is the fundamental foundation of the Torah. Idolatry is a rejection of that foundation. With their repudiation of this most fundamental of principles, the people were rendered unfit to receive the Luchot that represented the covenant.[6]
Moshe created a new role for himself
The third approach also acknowledges that Moshe exercised his own authority in shattering the Luchot. However, he did not base his action upon established principles. This approach is found in Midrash Rabba[7] and adopted by Ramban – Nachmanides. Moshe understood the Luchot as the equivalent of a marriage contract between Hashem and Bnai Yisrael. Moshe was Hashem’s – the groom’s – agent, charged with the responsibility of delivering this contract. He reasoned that if this contract would be executed, then the idolatry of Bnai Yisrael would be analogous to adultery. He destroyed the Luchot – the marriage contract – in order to diminish the severity of the nation’s sin.[8] Ramban adds that Moshe demonstrated enormous courage. He could not be certain that he had the authority to destroy Hashem’s Luchot or that the behavior he contemplated was consistent with Hashem’s will. Moshe risked his own life for the welfare of the Jewish people.[9]
Three interpretations of Moshe’s role
These three approaches to understanding Moshe’s behavior differ in their understanding of Moshe’s role in this incident and as the leader of the nation. The first approach treats Moshe as a passive actor in the incident. Hashem did not assign to him authority to exercise a significant degree of discretion. This approach absolves Moshe from any responsibility for shattering the Luchot. He was responding to irresistible forces.
The second approach understands Moshe as an active participant in these events. He decided to shatter the Luchot based upon clear and sound principles. He was not a passive player. However, neither did he have a creative role. He was permitted only to apply established principles to the present situation. He acted as a judge applying the relevant principles to the real-time events. He came down from Sinai carrying Luchot created by Hashem. His decision to destroy this most sacred object demonstrates his wisdom, confidence, and remarkable capacity to make an objective judgment in an unimaginably difficult situation. However, he acted in a role that was familiar to him. Also, he believed that his actions were consistent with the role assigned to him by Hashem.
The final approach, championed by Ramban, ascribes a remarkable role to Moshe. At his own initiative, he acted creatively and assumed a role that had not been clearly assigned to him. He became the arbitrator of the relationship between Hashem and Bnai Yisrael. He assumed responsibility for managing this relationship. He postponed the conclusion of the covenant – the marriage – between Hashem and Bnai Yisrael in order to save his people from more severe punishment.
Moshe’s behavior required enormous courage. He did not know that he had the right to assume this role. He did not know whether his action would be accepted by Hashem as heroic or rejected as presumptuous. He knew only that his action was required in order to preserve the Jewish people.
The uniqueness of Moshe
Rambam – Maimonides – explains that Moshe was the greatest of all prophets. According to Rambam, Moshe’s superiority over other prophets was not a matter of degree. In other words, it is not correct to say he was a better, more gifted, or more accomplished prophet. His prophecy was qualitatively different from all others.[10] Ramban is asserting that Moshe was also unique in regards to his relationship with Hashem. Other prophets spoke for Hashem. They appealed to Hashem on behalf of the Jewish people. Moshe was devoted to these activities. However, he also achieved a unique relationship with Hashem in which he became a creative actor developing a role for himself that Hashem had not clearly assigned to him.
A leader must determine the extent of his authority
All three of these approaches are reasonable. The diverse perspectives that they encompass provide an insight into the one of the greatest challenges of leadership. Every leader is confronted with the question of how far to extend one’s authority. A leader must distinguish between exercising authority appropriately and acting presumptuously. A leader must balance appreciation for the boundaries of one’s authority with the creativity to imagine and shape new roles for oneself. How does a righteous, ethical leader resolve these difficult challenges?
An important response emerges from this discussion. Ramban emphasizes it. Moshe did not know whether his action would be accepted by Hashem. He believed his behavior was consistent with Hashem’s will but he was not certain. He realized that he was placing his own life at risk to save the Jewish people. In other words, Moshe did not act for his own benefit. He focused completely on Hashem’s will and the needs of Bnai Yisrael.
The exercising of authority is often challenging. It may not be clear whether a specific initiative is an appropriate use of authority or overreaches. The challenge is often made far greater because our egos or our desire for control and authority assert themselves. Alternatively, sometimes, timidity or under-confidence may cause us to refrain from acting boldly. Moshe’s model provides a framework for responding to the challenge. One must assess the situation based upon an analysis of right and wrong and with the objective of benefiting those whom one leads. This requires self-awareness and giving diligent attention to evaluating one’s true motives.[11]
[1] Rabbeinu Avraham ibn Ezra, Abbreviated Commentary on Sefer Shemot, 32:19. Ibn Ezra does not favor this explanation. However, it is adopted and developed by Netziv.
[2] Midrash Rabba, Sefer Shemot 46:1.
[3] Midrash Tanchuma, Parshat Ki Tisa, Chapter 32.
[4] Etz Yosef, commenting on Tanchuma, suggests that the letters of the Luchot did not actually disappear. They lost their sanctity. Moshe was able to support the weight of the Luchot only when they were endowed with sanctity. Once this sanctity departed, their true material weight asserted itself and Moshe was overwhelmed.
[5] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 32:19.
[6] Rabbeinu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gersonides), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 32:19.
[7] Midrash Rabba, Sefer Shemot 46:1.
[8] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 32:17.
[9] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Devarim 9:17.
[10] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishnah Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 6:6.
[11] There is an interesting story that reflects this issue. Rav Chaim Volozhin decided that before moving forward with the establishment of the Volozhin Yeshiva he must consult with and secure the blessing of his rebbe, the Gaon of Vilna. He made the trip from Volozhin to Vilna and with great enthusiasm and excitement he presented his plan and vision to his rebbe. The Gaon did not approve the project and suggested that Rav Chaim postpone the ambitious endeavor for the time-being.
Some years later, Rav Chaim again approached his teacher and systematically and calmly argued for the establishment of the yeshiva. This time, the Goan gave his immediate approval. Rav Chaim was pleased to receive his teacher’s blessing but perplexed by the change in his position. He asked the Goan to explain why he now immediately approved of the same project he had dismissed a few years earlier.
The Goan responded that he rejected the initial proposal because of the intense excitement that Rav Chaim exhibited in that presentation. Rav Chaim’s deep personal identification with the project was obvious. This gave the Goan reason to suspect that Rav Chaim might not have carefully and objectively evaluated his initiative but instead, was driven by personal motivations. In contrast, the second presentation was calm and systematic. When the Goan observed that Rav Chaim was now able to evaluate the initiative in an objective and detached manner, he felt confident in his student’s assessment of the project and gave it his blessing.