In response to the sin of the Golden calf Moses pleads with God for Israel’s sake no less than three separate times. The first of these (Exodus 32:11-13) has often received the most attention because it is so dramatic. God’s intention is to wipe out Israel, and Moses’ intercession puts a stop to this. But the people have only been granted a stay of execution, and have not received God’s forgiveness. In Moses’ second intercession (32:31ff) – “If you punish them, you must also punish me” – his entreaty is rebuffed by God. In the final instance (Exodus 33:12ff.), Moses displays his exceptional ability to argue with God, and succeeds in changing God’s mind about the people.
The trauma of the golden calf is so great that God’s entire relationship with the people is placed in doubt. Moses seeks to attain two things here: God’s forgiveness of the people, as well as God’s willingness to be present for the people during the trek through the desert. In both matters, God has hedged his initial renunciation, stating that he will decide the matter of their guilt only at a later point, and that he will send an angelic emissary to accompany the people. This last point is an affront to Moses as well as to the people, for it challenges Moses’ exceptional status as God’s exclusive interlocutor.
The text continues in Exodus 33:12 with Moses asking who will lead the people, speaking as if he hadn’t heard God’s earlier statement about the angel. He couples this with a comment about how much God cares for him, Moses, on a personal level: “You said ‘I have singled you out by name, and you have found favor in my eyes’.” While this is surely the case, it is surprising to find modest Moses speaking about himself in these terms. At the close of this first speech, in verse 13, he adds a seeming non sequitur: “Look, this nation is your people.” What does this fact have to do with God’s affection for Moses, and what does that affection have to do with God’s forgiveness?
In verse 14, God seems to capitulate to Moses’ request, saying “I will go in the lead and make rest for you”. But something is not quite right, for Moses objects in verse 15 “Unless you go in the lead, don’t make us leave this place.” The pronouns are of great significance here, for it turns out that God’s capitulation was only partial. The agreement to lead referred only to Moses in the singular - hanihoti lakh - whereas Moses holds out for the welfare of the people as a whole - ‘al ta’aleinu mizzeh. The continuation of his speech in verse 16 makes frequent mention of Moses and the people together, making it clear that they are inseparable.
Moses’ strategy becomes even clearer when God agrees with Moses’ demand by referring again to his affection for Moses. Moses has used God’s regard for him in order to force God’s hand into agreeing to lead the people as a whole. In his artful way, he has made it clear that if God wants him, He must also accept the people as His own. This is daring diplomacy, revealing a remarkable degree of fidelity to the people. Moses is the kind of leader who, in spite of God’s tempting offer to make a great nation of him alone, refuses to divorce himself from the people. His personal welfare, his ambitions, the favor he has found in God’s eyes, all are directed towards a single purpose: the welfare of the people and the repairing of their relationship with God.
When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, the people gathered against Aaron and said to him, “Come, make us a god who shall go before us, for that man Moses, who brought us from the land of Egypt — we do not know what has happened to him.” Aaron said to them, “Take off the gold rings that are on the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” And all the people took off the gold rings that were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. This he took from them and cast in a mold, and made it into a molten calf. And they exclaimed, “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!” (Exodus 32:1-4).
1. Doesn’t the people’s request make sense?
2. Their leader is gone, and the people turn to Aaron. They could have chosen to ignore Moses’ brother, yet they turned to him. Why?
3. Would it not have been better to entirely replace the leadership that had failed them?
4. The Israelites say: “Come, make us a god (elohim),” and later “This is your god (elohekha), O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!” The term “elohim” caries a variety of meanings in the Bible. Maimonides explains: “every Hebrew speaker knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries” (Guide for the Perplexed, I:2). What meaning should we give to the word “elohim” in the people’s request of Aaron?
5. Why does Aaron ask: “Take off the gold rings that are on the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me”?
- Rashi explains: “Aaron thought: the women and children are fond of their jewelry, and this may delay the matter, and in the meantime Moses will arrive. But they did not wait, and took off their jewelry.”
- Is this a convincing explanation?
- Why does Rashi feel a need to defend Aaron?
- Does Aaron’s request reflect distress? Does Aaron share the people’s fear?
- Why does Aaron command the people to “take off” their jewelry? Couldn’t he have sufficed with a gentler request? Did he need to command them because the women and children did not share the men’s view?
- Why gold earrings?
- Why “only” the earrings of the women and children? Didn’t the men have earrings? Is it possible that there is a connection between the “earrings” in their ears and the rule regarding slaves:
But if the slave declares, “I love my master, and my wife and children: I do not wish to go free,” his master shall take him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall then remain his slave for life”
- Are earrings a sign of slavery? Does removing them represent liberation of the women and children from the control of the their “masters”? Is this why Aaron commands them to “take off” the signs of their slavery? Did he think that the men would object? Were the original earrings of slavery “replaced” with gold earrings when Israel left Egypt? Did the “gold rings” symbolize victory?
