In Ki Tisa, as we
near the end of the Book of Sh’mot
(Exodus) the narrative picks up where it left off in Chapter 20, with the
giving of the Ten Proclamations (I know they’re usually called Commandments,
but they’re not all commandments, technically speaking). After a multi-chapter detour through the
construction of portable sanctuary and the outfitting of the kohanim (priests), the story-telling
resumes in Chapter 32, with the infamous narrative of the Golden calf.
Sometimes we get distracted when the Torah is talking about
stuff, instead of people, and in our desire to make sense of the details, and
the reasons for the details, we forget, if only temporarily, that the Torah is
really about relationships, and that often the details are meant to help us
clarify or repair or establish relationships.
Since the publication of Rabbi Ron Wolfson’s book, Relational Judaism last year, it has been the subject of scores of
Jewish organizations’ staff meetings and leadership retreats, but I think Torah
has always been about relationships.
When the wilderness sanctuary is described, or the priestly garments or
the sacrifices are described in detail, the Torah is really talking about our
relationship with God, how that communication will take place, and where, who
will facilitate it and how those facilitators will appear to us. It’s always
been about relationships.
When we look at the incident of the Golden Calf, I think it
also fascinating to analyze it through the lens of relationship. It is a complicated drama, with lots of
actors and lots of preexisting relationships:
God and the People, the People and Moses, Moses and God, Moses and Aaron
and the People and Aaron. Each of these relationships affects and is affected
by the drama of the narrative.
The People have been out of Egypt for only a few months; they
are insecure, they are unused to freedom, they are afraid and they need a lot
of handholding. Up to this point, they
have looked to Moses to provide those things, even though Moses himself is a
bit insecure and needs some handholding, and that role has been played by God,
with moral support from Aaron, but that dynamic has mostly played out in the
background and the people seem to be unaware (or unimpressed) by God’s role in
their care and feeding.
Now Moses has been absent for over 6 weeks, and God, occupied with
tutoring Moses, seems to the people to also be unavailable. The people go to Aaron, Moses’ substitute, to
get some sense of security, in the form of the Golden calf, which they intend
to have as God’s [representation] substitute.
In violation of one of the proclamations the people had heard from God
only several weeks earlier, they offered sacrifices to the God-substitute and
bowed down before it.
God (who, at least in the literary
narrative also appears to be a bit insecure) tells Moses, “They have been quick
to turn aside from the way that I enjoined upon them. They have made themselves a molten calf and
bowed low to it and sacrificed to it. . . . Now, let me be, that my anger may
blaze forth against them and that I may destroy then, and make of you a great
nation (Sh’mot (Exodus) 32:8, 10).”
God trusts the relationship between him and Moses. God is not pleased with his relationship with
the People or how they relate to him (this is an ongoing concern, which, for
the most part is unresolved in the Tanach
(Hebrew Bible), though it admittedly cycles between a loving and angry
relationship).
Then Moses takes a turn to play both
conciliator and press agent; he intervenes between God and the people, reminds
God of his relationship with the patriarchs and says something to the effect of
“How will it look to the Egyptians that you did all these things to rescue the
Children of Israel from Egypt only to kill them all in the wilderness
(32:11-13)”? God relents. Moments later, in verse 19 Moses sees the goings-on
and gets so angry himself “that he hurled the tablets from his hands and
shattered them at the foot of the mountain.
He burns the idol, grinds the remains into a powder and makes the people
drink.
Then Moses turns to Aaron, whose
response to the questioning of the angry Moses is both flippant and knowing of
what Moses has suffered with them, “You know that this people is bent on evil
(v. 22)”. You weren’t here and I did
what they told me to do. I took their
gold and threw it into the fire and out came this calf (v.24).
Following this, chapter 33 contains
an intimate encounter between God and Moses, following which, in Chapter 34,
Moses is instructed to carve two new tablets (God had carved the first), and
God, as if s/he had not Godself gotten angry with the People says to Moses that
this was necessary because Moses [in his anger] had shattered the first set
(34:1). It amazes me that God adds this
detail; he was ready to destroy the people, before Moses intervenes; now he is
saying a second set of tablet is necessary because Moses couldn’t hold his
temper. The God/Moses relationship is
complex indeed. The portion ends with a
reiteration of the basics of Passover observance and includes the injunction
about boiling a kid in its mother’s milk.
The people settle in; their
relationships with Moses and God continue to be contentious. Moses continues to struggle as a leader, and
God is often disappointed by the lack of faith the people exhibit.
1. The
people were afraid in Moses’ absence; have you ever done something you regret
when the person you normally ask for advice isn’t available?
2. Do
you think Moses used a good strategy to save the people from God’s anger? Could you role play that conversation
differently?
Steve Kerbel, Director of Education of Congregation B’nai
Tzedek, is Chair Emeritus of the Education Directors’ Council of Greater Washington and a national
vice president of the Jewish Educators Assembly.
