Netvort Ki Sisa 5773:  Out of the Question

By Rabbi Joshua (irreversibly known as The Hoffer) Hoffman

            When Moshe does not return to the camp at the time that the people mistakenly thought he would, the people began to panic, and asked Aharon to make them a god that would walk before them.  Aharon told them to collect gold and bring it to him, which they did. He then formed the gold into a molten calf. As Rashi explains, he actually threw the gold into a fire and the golden calf emerged by itself. The people then said “These are your gods, Yisrael, who brought you up from Egypt.” Aharon, seeing all this, built an altar and told the people that there would be a festival for the Lord the next day. The people, however, woke early the next morning and brought sacrifices, not to the Lord, but to the eigel, and ate, drank and engaged in revelry before it (Shemos 32:1-6).

            The Midrash, cited by Rashi as well as the Talmud (Sanhedrin 7a), tell us that the words generally translated, here, as “and he built an altar before him” can also be understood to mean that he understood from the one murdered before him, meaning, from Chur, son of Kaleiv, who was murdered when he tried to stem the idolatrous path of the people, that he could not simply flat out oppose them.  Had he done so, reasoned Aharon, he would also be killed, and the people would never be able to rectify the damage done by this double-crime. Therefore, he built an altar as a delaying tactic, hoping that Moshe would return to the camp the next day.  Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, in his Ta’am VoDa’as, gives another explanation of Aharon’s tactic. He says that Aharon wanted to confront impurity, not by combating it directly, but by increasing holiness. The mistake he made, says, Rav Sternbuch, is that he overestimated his ability to eradicate the rapidly increasing deviation in that way. Perhaps we can suggest, a bit differently, that using this tactic successfully takes a long time, and the people were so caught up in their idolatry, that if it wasn’t stemmed rapidly, they would lose their entire spiritual essence and no longer be able to be saved. 

            Actually, Rav Sternbuch’s explanation is in line with a statement made by a great kohein of the last century, who saw it as a guiding principle of his life. I am referring, of course, to Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohein Kook, zt”l, who wrote, in his Arpalei Tohar, that the tzadikim, the righteous, do not complain about evil, but rather, increase light in the world.  Using this principle as his guide, he was able to influence many settlers in Eretz Yisroel to become religiously observant.  On the other hand, however, as pointed out by Rabbi Michael Nehorai in a paper he delivered on the occasion of Rav Kook’s fiftieth yahrtzeit in 1985 (subsequently published in the journal Morasha), many members of non-religious kibbutzim rejected his teachings, viewing them a being irrelevant. The approach he used took a long time to have a widespread effect and is still in the process of being fully appreciated.  In the case of Aharon and the wayward nation, time was of the essence, and the more immediate solution, implemented by Moshe upon his return, was called for. 

            There is another point, however, that needs to be addressed. Rav Shlomo Malkah, in his commentary Istakel BeOraissa, raises the question of why Aharon, in Moshe’s absence, does not simply tell the people, who felt lost without a leader, that he would undertake that leadership role?  After all, he served as their leader and prophet before Moshe returned to Egypt to lead them, so why didn’t he just tell them that he would now become their leader again?  Rabbi Malkah answers that actually, to the people, dependence on Moshe was a form of idolatry, diffusing God’s governance of the world to other powers, and in Moshe’s absence, the eigel also served that function for them. As such, Aharon understood that bringing in another leader would not solve the problem, but just prolong the idolatry. 

            I would like to suggest a different reason for Aharon not assuming Moshe’s leadership position. As we mentioned in last week’s message, Aharon truly rejoiced in his heart when Moshe returned to Egypt and told him that he would lead the people to redemption.  Although, until that point, Aharon had been the leader, he did not harbor any jealousy or resentment against Moshe for assuming that position, but, on the contrary, was truly happy for him. That being the case, the thought of being the leader never again entered his mind, and therefore, he did not presume to reassume that position in Moshe’s absence. In a similar way, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt”l, explained that Moshe’s name does not appear in Parshas Tetzaveh, even in the first verse, where we would expect it to appear, because, in that parsha, Moshe appointed Aharon as kohein gadol, a position which originally was supposed to be filled by Moshe.  Moshe accepted this reversal in a full way, to the extent that he totally obliterated his own personality when he appointed his brother. This dual example of brotherly devotion, no doubt, served as an example to the people after the debacle of the eigel and the disunity that it generated, as discussed by the Ramban in Parshas Vayakhel. Through restoring the unity of the people, they were able to accept the second tablets in a proper way.