The Golden Calf: The Rest of the Story
These are the accounts of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle of the Testimony, which were counted at Mohse’s command; [this was] the work of the Levites under the direction of Itamar, the son of Aharon the Kohen. (Sefer Shemot 38:21)
The “testimony” of the Mishkan
Parshat VaYakhel and Parshat Pekudei are often read on a single Shabbat. Parshat Pekudei opens with an account of the materials donated and used for the creation of the Tabernacle and for producing the garments of Aharon and his sons. The above passage introduces the parsha. In the passage the Mishkan is referred as the Tabernacle of the Testimony. What is the testimony associated with the Mishkan? Ramban – Nachmanides – provides the simplest response. He explains that the Mishkan would be created to house the Tablets of the Testimony – the Luchot. The Luchot are testimony to Revelation and the covenant between Bnai Yisrael and Hashem.[1]
Rashi disagrees with this interpretation of “Tabernacle of the Testimony”. He explains that Hashem’s Glory would reside in the Mishkan. The presence of His Glory testifies that Hashem has excused Bnai Yisrael for the sin of the Egel – the Golden Calf.[2] Rashi’s comments are very difficult to understand. Before considering the problem that they present, an introduction is necessary.
For Hashem, your L-rd, is a consuming fire. He is a zealous L-rd. (Sefer Devarim 4:24)
Hashem does not excuse sins
We are commanded to walk in the path of Hashem. Rambam – Maimonides – explains that this commandment embodies the principle of imitatio Dei. It directs us to imitate Hashem in our behaviors. We are to study Hashem’s behaviors and treat His behaviors as a guide and model for our own. However, this principle cannot be applied superficially. We must be thoughtful in its application. For example, in the above passage the Torah describes Hashem as a zealous G-d. This means that Hashem punishes those who sin against Him.[3] It does not follow that we should be unforgiving of those who wrong us. Rambam explains that we should insist that Hashem be obeyed and honored but be forgiving of those who transgress against ourselves. We should be slow to anger and quick to forgive those who harm us.[4] In short, we must be thoughtful in our imitation of Hashem and avail ourselves of the Torah’s insights into how this commandment is to be fulfilled.
A corollary of this principle is that behaviors and attitudes that are appropriate for us are not necessarily those practiced by Hashem. We should excuse others for wrongs they commit against us. Hashem does not excuse those who sin against Him. This is emphasized by the Talmud and midrash. The Talmud comments that anyone who asserts that Hashem excuses our wrong-doings will be punished severely.[5] Commenting on this text, Rashi explains that this attitude encourages sin. One who believes that wrongdoings have no consequences will be less deterred from committing such acts.
Now, the problem with Rashi’s comments on our parasha emerges. Rashi seems to be violating this principle of the Sages. The Sages declare that we should not assert that Hashem excuses sin. Rashi contends that Hashem’s presence in the Mishkan testifies that He has excused us from the sin of the Egel!
And now go, lead the people to [the place] of which I have spoken to you. Behold, My angel will go before you. But on the day I make an accounting [of sins upon them], I will bring their sin to account against them. (Sefer Shemot 32:34)
The sin of the Egel was not forgiven
The first step in understanding Rashi’s position is to more carefully evaluate the meaning of Hashem excusing the sin of the Egel. Does excusing the sin mean that Hashem forgave Bnai Yisrael? It is clear from the Torah that He did not. In the above passage, Hashem directs Moshe to resume the journey to the Land of Israel. Hashem will send His angel before the nation. He also tells Moshe that when He makes an accounting of their sins, the sin of the Egel will be considered and included in the accounting. What does this enigmatic statement mean? Rashi explains that Hashem is telling Moshe that He has accepted his prayer. The nation will be spared immediate destruction. However, the people will not escape punishment. When Hashem punishes them in the future for sins that they inevitably will commit, the punishment will include an additional degree of severity as punishment for the Egel.[6] In other words, the punishment for Egel will not be meted out immediately; it will be exacted from the people over the course of ages.
It is clear from the passage, as explained by Rashi, that the sin of the Egel was not forgiven. If it was not forgiven, then in what sense was it excused?
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)
The sin of the Egel rendered the people unfit to receive the Luchot
In order to understand Rashi’s use of this term “excused”, we must consider another comment of Rashi. The above passage describes Moshe’s shattering of the Luchot. The commentators discuss Moshe’s justification for destroying these Luchot that were created by Hashem. 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 idolater 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.[7] Rashi elsewhere explains that through breaking the Luchot, Moshe forestalled the consummation of relationship between Hashem and Bnai Yisrael.[8]
The above discussion reveals that Rashi maintains that the sin of the Egel had two consequences. The first was that the people were held accountable to Hashem for their sin and subject to severe punishment. As explained above, initially Hashem announced to Moshe that He would destroy the nation. Moshe interceded and Hashem revised the punishment. Rather than being destroyed, the nation’s punishment would be distributed through the ages. The second, consequence was that the relationship between Hashem and Bnai Yisrael was suspended. Bnai Yisrael was unfit to receive Hashem’s Torah. Without the Torah, Bnai Yisrael would not become the Chosen People; Hashem’s Glory would not reside in the midst of the nation. This consequence was not a punishment. It was an inevitable and inherent outcome of the sin. Its association with idolatry rendered the nation unsuitable to receive the Torah and to be the Am HaNivchar – the Chosen People of Hashem.
An analogy will help illustrate these two consequences. Consider a person who shoplifts. He is apprehended, tried, and convicted. His sentence requires that he make restitution to the store from which he stole and perform community service. After making restitution and performing his community service, the sincerely contrite and repentant perpetrator appeals to the store-owner for a job. The store-owner assesses whether he should give this person a position. He decides that it not appropriate to withhold the position as punishment. A fair punishment was already administered by the court. But he considers whether he trusts this person. He must decide whether the shoplifting incident was an aberrant past behavior or an indication of a deep character flaw. He thoroughly interviews the applicant, considers the issue carefully, and decides to give this person the job.
Like the shoplifter, one consequence of Bnai Yisrael’s sin was its punishment. This punishment would be administered over the course of ages. Like the shoplifter, the sin of the Egel also evinced a serious question about the character of the nation. The character issue intervened between Bnai Yisrael and Hashem. It prevented the advancement of their relationship.
Hashem did not define Bnai Yisrael’s character by its sin
Now, we can understand Rashi’s comment that the establishment of the Mishkan demonstrated that Hashem had excused the sin of the Egel. This does not mean that Hashem would not punish the nation. Instead, it means that He determined that the sin should be treated as an aberration and not as a fundamental character flaw. Through the creation of the Mishkan, Hashem’s Glory would reside within the nation. The relationship that was suspended by the sin of the Egel would be fully established. The sin was excused in the sense that it no longer arrested the advancement of the relationship between Hashem and His Am HaNivchar. In the Mishkan, this relationship achieved its full expression.
Now, let’s return to our original question. Does Hashem excuse sin as Rashi suggests? If He does how are we to understand the Talmud’s assertion that Hashem does not excuse sin? The answer is that the Talmud is speaking of the inevitability of punishment. Hashem does not overlook or excuse sin. When we sin, we must either repent and seek forgiveness or endure the punishment. We cannot expect Hashem to pardon us. Rashi is not suggesting that Hashem excused the sin of the Egel and did not punish us for it. He is explaining, the despite our sin, Hashem completed our selection as the Am HaNivchar and caused His Glory to reside in our midst.
Seeing more in others than their failings
There is an important personal message in the comments of Rashi. Moshe beseeched Hashem to not determine His relationship with us based on our trespass. He asked that Hashem not assess us exclusively based upon our terrible sin. He should regard the sin as an aberration in our behavior and not as defining our character. Hashem granted Moshe’s request and accepted us as His Am HaNivchar.
We should consider this model in our own personal relationships. We should strive to imitate Hashem. We each experience harm and hurt at the hands of others. We often define those who have acted wrongly toward us by these acts. The result is that we sever our relationship with these individuals. If we follow Hashem’s model, we will look beyond the wrong done to us and consider the overall character of the individual. This will allow us to find good even in those who have acted wrongly toward us and preserve our relationship with them.
[1] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 38:21.
[2] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 38:21.
[3] According to Rambam, this phrase and similar descriptions of Hashem’s strict punishment of transgressors are related primarily to those who engage in idolatry. See Moreh Nevuchim, volume 1, chapter 36.
[4] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Deyot 7:7.
[5] Mesechet Baba Kamma 50a.
[6] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 32:34.
[7] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 32:19.
[8] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 34:1.