The Golden Calf story is recounted briefly in Deut. 9:8-21 and described in more detail in Ex. 32. The Golden Calf incident is perhaps Israel's greatest sin while in the wilderness. It is easy and therefore popular to criticize Israel in the wilderness. We often picture them as backsliders, weak and lacking faith, but my guess is that most of us, had we been there, would not have behaved any better. We must remember that Israel spent forty years in the wilderness and so from that perspective their national sins are relatively few, or at least relatively few are reported. Indeed, the prophet Hosea has high praise for Israel in the wilderness.
We must remember too that the stories of Israel's sins in the wilderness are recorded in the Torah for a purpose. In Eikev, the purpose is explicit: Moses, like a parent sending out a child to be on his own, is warning Israel not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Consequently, Moses focuses on Israel's sins so that they serve as warnings and guidance. However, no story has only one lesson. The story of Little Red Riding Hood can be told as a story about the danger of talking to strangers; it can also be told as a story about the triumph of good over evil. Either or both of these lessons can be emphasized when telling the story and whether either or both are emphasized depends upon the storyteller's purpose. And so, I would like to focus on what I think is another lesson embedded in the Golden Calf story.
In Eikev, we have a very condensed version of the Golden Calf story. Moses relates that God told him to hurry back down because the people had gone astray by making a molten image. God tells Moses to leave Him alone so that He can wipe out Israel. Moses then relates how he came down the mountain and saw how the people had made the Golden Calf and had gone astray. He tells how he smashed the tablets and spent forty days and nights fasting, trying to persuade HaShem not to destroy the people. He concludes by saying that he destroyed the Golden Calf, burning it and grinding it to dust, and tossing it into the stream that ran down from the mountain.
Moses also mentions a fact not included in Exodus, namely that God was angry with Aaron and Moses had interceded on Aaron's behalf. I like to think of this d'var Torah as my intercession on behalf of the Israelites in this instance against their many modern day critics who find it so easy to self-righteously condemn them.
Exodus 32 relates many more particulars but I will only focus on a few. In v. 8, we are told more details of God's accusation against Israel. He tells Moses that not only have the people gone astray but also that they had made a golden calf and had prostrated themselves before it, sacrificing to it and saying, "This is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt." (Interestingly, God uses the singular though the Israelites that spoke had used the plural (v. 4)). We are also told in v. 20 that Moses made the people drink the water into which he had strewn the dust of the destroyed Golden Calf. Moses then calls out for whoever is on God's side to come to him and the zealous Levites jump to Moses' side. At Moses' direction, the Levites kill 3,000 Israelites. Moses then returns to HaShem to intercede, ultimately successfully, on Israel's behalf but we are also told in v. 35 that HaShem sent a plague among the people.
Many commentators have noted that in this story as told in Exodus 32 Israel is portrayed as an unfaithful wife and HaShem as a jealous husband. The most obvious evidence for this is Moses' requirement that the people drink the water that contains the dust of the destroyed golden calf. This part of the story unmistakably resembles to the sotah ritual described in Num. 5:12-31, where, if a jealous man accuses his wife of adultery but lacks witnesses, the wife must drink bitter waters. If she is guilty, the waters will sicken her; if not, the waters will have no effect on her.
There is, however, other evidence for understanding this story as modeled on an accusation of adultery. In vv. 20, 30 and 31, Moses describes Israel's conduct as "a great sin." In the ancient Middle East, this phrase "a great sin" is a term of art for adultery. Indeed in the story of Avimelech and Avraham (Gen. 20), Avimelech accuses Avraham of bringing "a great sin" upon him (Gen. 20:9) by passing off his wife Sarah as his sister so that Avimelech takes Sarah into his household. Furthermore, in Ex. 32:8, HaShem is clearly accusing the people of worshipping another god; in other words, He is accusing them of being unfaithful to Him. Some suggest that Moses' breaking of the tablets is akin to annulling a betrothal agreement or granting a divorce. I also find striking God's remark to Moses in v. 9 to leave Him alone so that His fiery anger can blaze forth and consume the people. It is perhaps a pointed parallel to Judah's order that Tamar be burnt to death when she is accused of harlotry (Gen. 38:24).
So, the story presents God as a jealous husband who accuses His wife, Israel, of unfaithfulness by worshipping another god. Moses' language - his talk about Israel committing a great sin - and his actions - employing the quasi-sotah ritual - surely indicate that Moses understands God's accusations in these terms. But the real question is: was all Israel guilty of worshipping another god? Of gross unfaithfulness?
There are many theories as to what Israel was guilty of. Some argue that Israel did not want another god, but that they only wanted a replacement for Moses as v. 1 seems to indicate, and that they saw the Golden Calf as the visible equivalent to an angel. Some say that the calf was only meant as a pedestal upon which HaShem's presence would invisibly rest, just as HaShem's presence would rest between the cherubim in the Mishkan. Others say Israel was guilty of making an image, which they had been commanded not to do, but that the image was supposed to represent HaShem. Of course, others do argue that Israel was in fact guilty of worshipping a false god in the form of the Golden Calf.
I say, "the proof is in the pudding." The Levites kill only three thousand men. How did the Levites know whom to kill? Ibn Ezra argues that the quasi-sotah ritual employed by Moses was designed to identify the true sinners, those who had actually intended to worship another god when they bowed down before the Golden Calf and offered sacrifices. Indeed, Nahum Sarna suggests that the plague sent by God (v. 35) is the sickness that results from the people drinking the water mixed with the dust of the Golden Calf. Even if we assume that there were deaths from the plague in addition to the three thousand slain by the Levites, it is highly unlikely that the number in relative terms was very high. We are told that when Israel left Egypt there were approximately 600,000 adult males (Ex. 12:37). When the census is taken after the Golden Calf incident, we are told that there 3 were 603,550 adult males (Ex. 38:26). When the census is taken again in Numbers, there were 603,550 adult males (Num. 2:32) and an additional 22,000 Levites (Num. 3:39). Thus, even assuming that there were deaths resulting from the plague in addition to the 3,000 slain by the Levites, the total number of Israelites killed because of the sin of the Golden Calf would have been a tiny fraction of the total population.
The implication? In the Golden Calf story, what at first blush seems to be apostasy on a national scale was not. Only a relative handful actually was worshipping another god. The others who were not killed were not worshipping another god. They had sinned to be sure by making the image of the calf, but their sin was a chet, a mistake, and not an avon or a pesha, an intentional or flagrant sin.
I would like to draw a parallel to the incident involving Nadav and Avihu related in Leviticus 10. Nadav and Avihu were slain by divine fire emanating from the Mishkan when they attempted to make an offering of incense with "strange fire," something, the Torah tells us, HaShem had not commanded them to do (v.1). Later in the same chapter (vv.16-20), Moses demands of Aaron why Aaron and his sons had not eaten the meat of the purification offering as God had commanded them to do. Aaron's answer is rather cryptic; he says (v.19): "See, this day they brought their purification offering and burnt offering before HaShem, and such things have befallen me! Had I eaten the purification offering today, would HaShem have approved?" This answer satisfies Moses (v. 20).
Why were Nadav and Avihu punished but Aaron was not? In a previous d'var Torah, I argued that Nadav and Avihu's use of the strange fire is crucial to understanding their punishment. Every offering that is offered up on the inner or outer altar of the Mishkan must be burnt with the divine fire that must be kept burning on the outer altar at all times. When the sacrificial cult was inaugurated in chapter 9, divine fire blazed out from within the Mishkan and consumed the burnt offering on the outer altar (v. 24). It is this divine fire that must be kept burning perpetually on the outer altar and must be used to incinerate every offering. Thus, when divine fire is used to consume Israel's sacrifices, it manifests God's acceptance of Israel's offerings. However, when Nadav and Avihu use alien fire to make their incense offering, they are making an offering to something or someone other than HaShem. They are engaged in avodah zarah, alien religion.
In contrast to Nadav and Avihu who did something that God had not commanded them to do, Aaron by not eating the purification offering has refused to do what God had commanded him to do. Admittedly, Aaron's explanation is somewhat opaque, but the best explanation that I have heard for his refusal is that Aaron believed that the carcass of the purification offering had become so polluted due to its proximity to the Aaron's dead sons that he should not eat it. (See J. Milgrom, Leviticus (Anchor Bible) ad loc.)
The key, however, to understanding why Aaron is not punished is that, even though he refuses to do what God commanded him to do, his refusal is rooted in his desire to do what he understands to be God's will. Indeed, we are expressly told that Moses approved of Aaron's refusal to eat the meat of the purification offering (10:20).
What is striking about Nadav and Avihu on the one hand and Aaron on the other is that to the human eye the strange fire used by Nadav and Avihu is indistinguishable from divine fire. No one can simply look at fire and tell whether it originated from the outer altar. In contrast, Aaron's refusal to eat the meat of the purification offering to the human eye appears to be nothing short of flagrant disobedience. The significance is: we see only the external action but HaShem sees the heart. What may outwardly appear to be the sincerest form of piety may actually be apostasy and what may outwardly appear to be flagrant disobedience may actually be the sincerest piety.
These lessons from the Golden Calf incident and that of Nadav, Avihu and Aaron are very apt for us today. Among Jews it is fair to say that with respect to what can be called the ethical mitzvot there is a great deal of agreement and if not agreement then common ground. However when it comes to ritual mitzvot there are almost as many differences as there are Jews. When we see our fellow Jews observing the ritual mitzvot differently than we do, their kashrut or Shabbat or taharat hamishpachah observance differs from ours, we should not be quick to condemn them as bad Jews. We must remember that we see only the outward differences in how the ritual is observed; we do not see the heart that motivates the difference. When our fellow Jews differ from us over these ritual mitzvot, it may be that their difference springs from true apostasy as in the case of Nadav and Avihu and the 3,000 or so that died in the Golden Calf incident. It may be that their difference springs not from apostasy but simply a mistaken belief as to what HaShem wants, as was the case in the vast majority of the Israelites at Sinai; their sin was a chet and not an avon or a pesha. It may also be that their difference in observance, though it appears to us to be a flagrant disregard for God's mitzvot, is actually the truest form of piety. Because we see only the outside and not the heart, let us be charitable one with another.
Go home.