ר"ע תיתד תונויצל ינויערה גוחה ,םולשו זוע

Said Rabbi Abba bar Aha: It is impossible to determine the nature of this people; they are asked to contribute for the calf and they do so, they are asked to contribute to the Mishkan and they comply. (Yerushalmi, Shekalim 1:1)

The symbol with which everyone expresses personal commitment to giving and doing is the Machatsit Hashekel -- the half-shekel. The individual's contribution – even though it be as complete as possible – can, objectively speaking, never be complete. An individual's action is never more than a small part of something; for his action to be whole, there must be equal devotion on the part of his brother. The individual is not expected to complete anything: "You are not obliged to complete the work." But he is expected to contribute his share towards the whole, through the half-shekel [The shekel is the equivalent of 20 gera, and the individual offering is 10 gera]; his contribution is, in itself, subjectively complete and rounded-off. His contribution is the most perfect thing which he is able to do, and he must weigh on the scales of his conscience. His action is only partial, infinitesimal in comparison with the whole which must be done, but his duty is to not conserve any effort, talent or wealth in advancing attainment of the whole and of the general well-being. Even though "You are not required to complete the work – you are not free to desist therefrom." His half-shekel will be 10 gera of the Holy-Shrine shekel.

(From Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch's commentary on Shemot 30:13)

Aharon's behavior when faced with the Children of Israel demanding "a god who will lead us" and his acquiescence in molding the calf, greatly disturbed our Sages and commentators. We will deal here with questions relating to Aharon's intent, his punishment or rewards, and the example he sets for us.

In the Talmud Bavli, we read:

The Talmud refers to another midrash, which has the Children of Israel asking Hur to fashion the calf before turning to Aharon:

Hur, Aharon's nephew, who was appointed to lead the people together with him, refused to cooperate in the making of the calf, and was killed by them. The contrast between the behavior of the two deepens the problem; how can it be that Aharon refused to die in sanctification of God's Name, after Hur had already done so? If "Let him be killed, but not transgress" was justified in Hur's case – at least so thought Hur -- should not Aharon have refused to listen to the people and make the calf?

It should be remembered that Aharon was appointed High pries after the calf incident. This appointment would seem to be justified only if we assume that there was good reason for Aharon to make "a molten calf" – one of the severest of transgressions in the Torah.

Rabbi Elazar's opinion is that killing Aharon would constitute a sin so severe as to have no expiation; a terrible punishment would be given the people. Aharon's intent in forming the calf was to save the Jewish people from calamity. Aharon concluded that he did not have the power to prevent the nation from sinning; he chose to cooperate in order to minimize the calamity and punishment to be meted out to the Children of Israel. This intention is also evident in the following midrash:

Rav Zvi Hirsch Hayyot explains the above Gemorrah, in the light of the Rambam:

According to Rav Zvi Hirsch Hayyot, Aharon's intention was not only to avert calamity; it was to replace a severe transgression which involves an extremely painful repentance – murder – with a different transgression, also severe, but less so – idolatry – which involves a more attainable repentance.

It is clear, then, that Aharon cooperated with the Children of Israel in the Sin of the Calf, for their benefit and welfare. But can one participate in so serious a sin as the Golden Calm without injury, even if intentions were good? Therefore it is written "And God was furious with Aharon", (Devarim 9). Regarding this, Rabbi Nechemia said in the name of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak; Not everyone who is near, is near; and not everyone who is distant is distant. There may be one who is chosen, is rejected, and then again accepted; some may be chose and rejected, and not brought back. Aharon was chosen: -- "and I chose them from among all the tribes of Israel to be My priests" (I Samuel 2:28) -- was rejected -- "And God was angry at Aharon" --

and it is written, "And bring unto you Aharon your brother." [Aharon's appointment to the High Priesthood, after the sin of the calf]. (Bemidbar Rabba (Vilana) Parasha 3:2 "Who comes close").

We see that Aharon acted out of acceptable motives, and therefore he was awarded the position of the High Priest. It now remains for us to consider whether Aharon's behavior can serve as a paradigm for all generations. The question is related to the controversy between Rashi and the Tosafot on the Gemorrah cited at the beginning of this article.

At the beginning of Rabbi Tanchum bar Hanilai's dictum, it is written: "This passage reto the making of the calf." Rashi understands that the passage referred to is: "The grasping man reviles and scorns the Lord" (Psalms 10:3); according to this understanding , Aharon made an unacceptable compromise by making the calf. [Trans. note: The Hebrew b'z'a', usually translated as 'profit' (with a negative connotation), is translated in the Talmud as 'compromise'].

Tosafot, on the other hand, understands that Rabbi Tanchum is referring to a different passage: "Proper rulings were in his mouth, and nothing perverse was on his lips; He served Me with complete loyalty and held the many back from iniquity." (Malachi 2:6).

According to this understanding, by cooperating with the sinning people, by making the calf as the lesser of two evils, "In peace and straightforwardness he walked with me" -- Aharon acted in an exemplary manner, without blemish.

There are two ways of coping with religious revolt; Hur's way and Aharon's way. Two ways of serving God, both legitimate. Two paths, each deserving of respect and praise.

Hillel commanded us: "Be of Aharon's disciples, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving people and bringing them closer to Torah." (Tractate of Avot I, 12)

To comment: yaakovbing@hotmail.co.il

Heartiest best wishes to our member

On the occasion of her marriage to

May you be privileged to build and enjoy

a perfect home, as peace and tranquillity reign

Heartfelt congratulations to our member

A founder of Oz-VeShalom and Netivot Shalom,

and long-time member of the movement's executive

On his being chosen to receive the

Israel Prize for Jewish Philosophy, 5761

We wish you many more years of

fruitful union of study and action

The Talmud (Bavli, Kiddushim 31a) relates an interesting story about an idolater who was exceptionally observant of the mitzva of honoring parents:

The red heifer was born to the herd of the idolater who was prepared to forgo much wealth rather than wake his father. His dedication to the mitzvah of honoring parents became the ideal for all of us.

Our Sages considered the ephod, the hoshen, and the red heifer to be symbols of atonement. The ephod atones for idolatry, the hoshen (for which the Sages sought stones) atones for unjust rulings, and the red heifer atones for the sin of the golden calf ("Let the mother come and clean up the offal of her child") Midrashic tradition discerns a connection between the calf and the heifer which comes to atone for it. A lot can be written about this story. It is possible that the this story demonstrates, among other things, the connection between the ability of parents (or adult leaders) to accept responsibility of their children's actions and the willingness of children to respect their parents. This is in keeping with the overall theme of the unit in the Gemarah, - Mizvoth of parents regarding children and mitzvoth of children regarding parents.

It may be possible, however, to discern another allusion to the concept of indirect responsibility in the difference between "a red cow wholly/sound . . . that has not yet yielded to a yoke" and "the neck-broken calf in the wadi . . . which has never pulled a yoke." (Egla Arufa)

Both the cow (the mother) and the neck-broken calf are part of atonement rituals. They represent the acceptance of responsibility by accountable and mature leadership for acts performed by their public.

In addition, as is well known, the red cow effects purification for defilement caused by contact with a corpse. It is this defilement which prevents us from entering the Temple Mount. (We are well-acquainted with the controversy between our generation's poskim regarding the boundaries of the prohibition, a controversy which is not totally untainted by their personal attitudes towards issues of Torah, State, and the process of Geulah).

Political processes have made our tie to the Temple Mount subject to public debate. Some rabbis from the religious Zionist camp feel the need to renew a Halakhic ruling regarding the obligation to ascend to certain areas of the Temple Mount in order to underscore our connection to the site of the Temple. The latest issue of "Hodesh BeHiddusho" (a monthly publication edited by some rabbis who are members of Meimad), featured an enlightening discussion about the relationship of sovereignty to sanctity. Gershon Gorenberg, a Jerusalem newspaperman, recently published a book dealing with the apocalyptic significance which Christians, Moslem and Jews assign to the Temple Mount (The End of Days, The Free Press.) The debate, in all its aspects, is undoubtedly very important. Yet the absence of a physical red heifer and the symbolic observance of the mitzvah by the reading of "Parashat Para" -- in the category of "Study and receive the reward" – should teach us that also the "death defilement" which prevents our ascension to the Mount, is not just a technical Halakhic obstacle. Perhaps the religious and spiritual leadership should display maturity and responsibility by educating the public to a viewpoint which sees in the Temple and the Temple Mount true opportunities of contemplation and study of holiness within life - "Let them build me a sanctuary and I will dwell among them – not "in it", but "among them". They must not be drawn into precipitous and hasty acts which are intended to 'hasten the end'. Holiness is bound up with restraint and self-control – even at the revelation at Mount Sinai we were forewarned "Be on your watch against going up the mountain or against touching its border!"

Home	The Movement Objectives and Principles You can Help!	What's New Activities and Current Events	Articles and Position Papers Peace Judaism and Israel

Weekly Parsha (Hebrew) Weekly Parsha (English)	Search Our Site	Links To Peace Movements

Contact Us
OZ veSHALOM - NETIVOT SHALOM
P.O. Box 4433, Jerusalem, 91043 Israel
Tel: 02-5664218, for Shabbat Shalom only call 053-920206
ozveshalomns@gmail.com
© Copyright 1997-2003 by Oz Veshalom. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.