Tzav Answers

פרשת ויקרא




ויקרא פרק א



(ג) אם עלה קרבנו מן הבקר זכר תמים יקריבנו אל פתח אהל מועד יקריב אתו לרצנו לפני יקוק:



ויקרא פרק ב



(א) ונפש כי תקריב קרבן מנחה ליקוק סלת יהיה קרבנו ויצק עליה שמן ונתן עליה לבנה:



ויקרא פרק ג



(א) ואם זבח שלמים קרבנו אם מן הבקר הוא מקריב אם זכר אם נקבה תמים יקריבנו לפני יקוק:



ויקרא פרק ד



(ג) אם הכהן המשיח יחטא לאשמת העם והקריב על חטאתו אשר חטא פר בן בקר תמים ליקוק לחטאת:



ויקרא פרק ה



(ו) והביא את אשמו ליקוק על חטאתו אשר חטא נקבה מן הצאן כשבה או שעירת עזים לחטאת וכפר עליו הכהן מחטאתו:



--> עלה, מנחה, שלמים, חטאת, אשם



פרשת צו



ויקרא פרק ו



(ב) צו את אהרן ואת בניו לאמר זאת תורת העלה הוא העלה על מוקדה על המזבח כל הלילה עד הבקר ואש המזבח תוקד בו:



שם



(ז) וזאת תורת המנחה הקרב אתה בני אהרן לפני יקוק אל פני המזבח:



שם



(יח) דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר זאת תורת החטאת במקום אשר תשחט העלה תשחט החטאת לפני יקוק קדש קדשים הוא:



ויקרא פרק ז



(א) וזאת תורת האשם קדש קדשים הוא:



שם



(יא) וזאת תורת זבח השלמים אשר יקריב ליקוק:



--> עלה, מנחה, חטאת, אשם, שלמים.



Abrabanel in his commentary accepts the explanation given by RaMBaN for the change in order re Shelamim. This is the reason why Nechama quotes RaMBaN after the question posed by Abrabanel.



A distinction is made between Kodshai Kodashim1 and Kodshai Kalim.2 3 Consequently, since Parashat VaYikra is directed at the people in general, the distinction that is emphasized is between those sacrifices which are optional, i.e., Olah, Mincha and Shlamim, and those that are obligatory4 as a consequence of inadvertent or deliberate sin, i.e., Chatat and Asham. Such an arrangement reflects where the individual has choices and where he has none. With respect to the order in Parashat Tzav, since these verses are directed at the Kohanim, they have to be aware of the various ways in which the sacrifices must be offered and then subsequently handled. Therefore, they are best served by dividing between those of greater holiness-Kodshai Kodashim-and lesse holiness—Kodshai Kallim.





Beit.



The principle that we do not want to publicly humiliate a sinner is reflected in R. Yosi HaGalili’s interpretation (Sota 8:5) of Devarim 20:8, quoted by RaShI, regarding why a “fearful” person is allowed to leave the battlefield with respect to an optional (as opposed to Milchemet Mitzva) war. R. Yosi HaGalili posited that even the other reasons that allowed someone to disengage, i.e., he became engaged but has not been able as yet to perform Nesu’in, he built a house but has not dedicated it, he planted a vineyard but as yet has not enjoyed its produce, were created specifically so that when a person would leave, the onlookers could not automatically conclude that he had a guilty conscience, but rather he was leaving to participate in a happy occasion.5





Gimel.



Abrabanel (ד' כב.) explains that by referring to Chatat and Asham as Kodesh Kodashim, in contrast to Shlamim which are designated as Kodshai Kalim, the Tora is demonstrating its high regard for the Ba’al Teshuva. A Penitent is forced to bring a sacrifice as part of his atonement, and his readiness to repent and do what he has to to resurrect his life is viewed as more admirable than the act of someone who has no guilty conscience, and when he wishes to come close to HaShem, voluntarily offers a Shlamim. This becomes a concretization of the rule (Berachot 34b) that Penitents reach levels that the completely righteous are unable to occupy.





Daled.



If the phrase “Kodesh Kodashim” had a “Heh” in front of the second word, i.e., “Kodesh HaKodashim”, then it could be understood to be a form of Semichut, i.e., the (most) holy of (compared to other) holies, just as “Eved HaAvadim” (Beraishit 9:25) could be interpreted as the (greatest) slave of (compared to other) slaves. But in the absence of the “Heh” in these two phrases, Ibn Ezra interprets the phrase as “one holy” of many “holies” , parallel to “one slave” of many “slaves.”





Heh.



1. According to Ibn Ezra, the verb M-R-K is in a form that parallels B-Sh-L as well as Sh-T-F, even though a Cholam is used rather than a Kubutz since the Reish does not have a Dagesh.



Beiur claims that M-R-K, rather than a verb, is actually a noun referring to the mixture of water and the residue within the Klee from the offering that had been prepared within it. When something is polished, the intent is to remove the small deposits that are interfering with the shine. The same is true for the preparations that women may use to clarify their skin. Consequently the material that remains in the Klee from the Korban is comparable to these small deposits.





2. a. The textual difficulty is that there is an extra word “Lo” that is unnecessary since it had already been stated that the Korban is given “LaKohen HaMakriv Otah”.





b. RaShI assumes that the word has to be accounted for via some sort of Chidush, i.e., in this case, even though the sacrifice can be given to Kohanim beyond the one who offered it up, it nevertheless must remain within the Kohein who offered it up’s family unit. Ibn Ezra seems to be satisfied to say that it is simply an additional clarifier which has no practical significance, a type of “Dibra Tora B’Lashom Benai Adam.”



It would seem that the example from VaYikra is different from the two from Shmot. In the latter, the original reference is made via a pronoun, which is then clarified by an explicit noun. In VaYikra, the original designation is a noun, so it would seem to be superfluous to follow that up with a pronoun.

Parshat Tzav

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/839.html

Parshat Vayikra Answers

VaYikra 5725
Alef.
 Chapter 4, v. 2, where “כי” is used, is describing the category in general. “When” someone does something that qualifies for a sin offering…The word reflects the inevitability of someone, anyone eventually doing something that leads to the bringing of a sin offering. The verses following describe specific categories of individuals and the procedures connected to the sin offering vary depending upon the identity of the sinner. Therefore “אם”, “if” becomes a more appropriate introductory word. The reason why the case of the “נשיא" (prince) is introduced by the word "אשר" is explained in the Gilayon for VaYikra 5714.¹ In section Gimel of that Gilayon, the view of R. Yochanan in Horiyot 10b, upon which RaShI bases his comment, is presented, with “אשר” leading to the word “אשרי” (happy) with the connotation that the generation whose political leader is prepared to admit and regret a mistake is indeed fortunate. MaLBIM suggests that the specific connotation of “אשר” is that in addition to the situation being conditional, it is one that we are desirous of occurring, i.e., in this case, that the political leader possesses a moral consciousness and religious sensibility. The resulting difference between the Rabbinic approach and that of MaLBIM becomes one where the former is describing the emotional feeling that results from having the right kind of leader, whereas the latter is concerned with the difference between a “neutral” conditional situation and one that is “desireable.”
Beit.
The question that arises for both RaMBaN and R. SR Hirsch is the connotation of the word “נפש” with respect to the inadvertent sin. RaMBaN emphasizes that regardless of why a person sins, even when it is inadvertent, an imperfection is left upon the soul, something that hopefully is expatiated by the sacrifice intended to achieve atonement. R. SR Hirsch understands “נפש” as calling attention to a lack of diligence upon the individual. Had he been as careful as the religious life calls upon him to be, then inadvertent sin, let alone deliberate sin, could never occur. The sacrifice atones for this lack of care that led to the sin.

Gimel.
1) The difficulty in the verse is that while at the outset it is stated that we are talking about an inadvertent sin on the part of the Priest, we go on to mention “אשמת העם”, the sin of the people.

2)  RaShBaM assumes that since one of the roles of the Priest is to teach the people the precepts of the Tora, that his inadvertent sin entailed teaching them incorrectly. ShaDaL takes a more metaphysical approach by suggesting that the people are held responsible for the sins of their leaders, much like in certain instances, children are held accountable for the sins of their fathers. It is apparently assumed that a community ends up with leaders that are a reflection of themselves, in the spirit of (Devarim 16:18):

 יח) שפטים ושטרים תתן לך בכל שעריך אשר יקוק אלקיך נתן לך לשבטיך ושפטו את העם משפט צדק:

)Judges and enforcement officials give to yourselves…( Consequently, the sins of the leaders are also considered the sins of the followers.  

3)    In Avimelech’s response to God, he implies that while he is the only one who has sinned by taking Sara who it turns out is Avraham’s wife, his entire nation is at risk as the result of his sin. As opposed to assuming that Avimelech is speaking idiosyncratically or in an exaggerated fashion, ShaDaL understands that he is declaring an objective truth.  

Daled.

1)    While instructing someone to do the wrong thing might be a violation of (VaYikra 19:14) “…before a ‘blind’² person do not place a stumbling block…”, this is not the type of sin that results in having to bring a sin offering.³ From the perspective of the people, the rule “Ein Shliach LeDevar Aveira” (there is no surrogacy with respect to sinful behavior, i.e., a sinner cannot excuse himself by saying that someone else told him to do so. One is expected to assume responsibility for his own mistakes.

2)    If 4:3 would have simply stated “והקריב על חטאתו פר בן בקר” then there would be no basis for the Sifra’s comment. However the addition of “ חטאאשר” places emphasis on the act of the Kohen, as opposed to the act of the people who might have followed his instruction.

Heh.

1)   In the other instances of Korban Chatat, a Kohen who is not among the sinners offers the sacrifice—v. 16, 25, 30, 34. Yet in the instance of the sin of the “Anointed Kohen”, i.e., the Kohen Gadol, the text says that he himself offers up the sacrifice.

2)    Meshech Chachma notes that with regard to the “Anointed Kohen” the phrases “וכפר עליו” or “וכפר בעדו” that appear by the other cases—v. 20, 26, 31—do not appear, suggesting that the entire matter is kept “close to the vest.” 

Vav.

Perhaps RaMBaM learns that once the “Anointed Kohen” is involved directly in any part of the Avoda associated with the Chatat process, then he becomes the antecedent of any further mention of Kohen in that particular section. Therefore if “כהן המשיח” appears in v. 5, then subsequent references in v. 6, 7, 10 must be to the same individual. However, in the case of the “Nasi” or the “Nefesh Achat” since “Anointed Kohen” is never explicitly mentioned, then a different type of Kohen could be referred to in v. 25-6, and 30-1, 34-5. Of course that opens up the possibility that in the case where the entire people have sinned, v. 13 ff., that the “Anointed Kohen” also does the entire Avoda since v. 17 and 20 could relate back to v. 16.
Zayin.
R. David Zvi Hoffman in his commentary on VaYikra supports the Rabbinic interpretation reflected in RaShI, i.e., Eida, Adat Yisrael= Sanhedrin with the following proofs, among others:

במדבר פרק י

(ג) ותקעו בהן ונועדו אליך כל העדה אל פתח אהל מועד:

Since the entire people could not fit into the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, representatives of the people, i.e., the Sanhedrin, must be whom we are speaking about.  

במדבר פרק כז

(כא) ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמד ושאל לו במשפט האורים לפני יקוק על פיו יצאו ועל פיו יבאו הוא וכל בני ישראל אתו וכל העדה:

Since “the entire Jewish people”  have already been mentioned, the reference to “the entire congregation” must be to a representative body, i.e., the Sanhedrin.

במדבר פרק כה

(ו) והנה איש מבני ישראל בא ויקרב אל אחיו את המדינית לעיני משה ולעיני כל עדת בני ישראל והמה בכים פתח אהל מועד:

Since a significant portion of the people had become involved in the sin of Pe’or (BaMidbar 25:1-5), it would be impossible to say that the entire congregation were witnesses to what Zimri and Kozbi were doing. Consequently it makes more sense to say that the text is referring to the Sanhedrin.

Chet.

ויקרא פרק ד

(יג) ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו ונעלם דבר מעיני הקהל ועשו אחת מכל מצות יקוק אשר לא תעשינה ואשמו:

The contrast between the earlier verb “ישגו” (they erred)  with respect to “עדת ישראל” and “ועשו” (and they did) in terms of the “קהל" suggests that the Sanhedrin are considered to have sinned short of actually doing anything in terms of concrete actionsà they merely publicized a decision even if they themselves did not act upon it, and are already considered in need of offering a sin offering.

Tet.
1)

 ויקרא פרק א

(א) ויקרא אל משה

     וידבר יקוק אליו מאהל מועד לאמר:

The problem that the commentators are dealing with is the fact that in the initial phrase of the verse, we are  told neither Who is Doing the Calling  nor from where the calling is coming. These two facts are contained in the verse’s concluding phrase, an order that is atypical for Biblical verses.

2)    R. Heidenheim suggests that since the true content of a message is associated with the verb “דבר”, with “קרא” serving only as an invitation to the subsequent content of the Revelation. Moshe required such an invitation whenever the Cloud of the Divine Presence Filled the Tent of Meeting, indicating that no one was to enter unless called. Therefore the first part of the verse describes only the invitation to Moshe to receive Revelation, while the second part establishes the principle that all such Revelations, this one as well as those that followed, whereby content was conveyed to Moshe by God, issued from the Tent of Meeting.

Parshat Vayikra

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/176.html

parshat vayakhel pekudei Answers

VaYakhel-Pekudei 5716

Alef.

When the Tora describes the quality of the artisans as possessing “wisdom” that HaShem has placed in their hearts and allows them to produce “acts of thoughtfulness”, 

שמות פרק לו

ב) ויקרא משה אל בצלאל ואל אהליאב ואל כל איש חכם לב אשר נתן יקוק חכמה בלבו כל אשר נשאו לבו לקרבה אל המלאכה לעשת אתה:

ח) ויעשו כל חכם לב בעשי המלאכה את המשכן עשר יריעת שש משזר ותכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני כרבים מעשה חשב עשה אתם:

lest one think that this refers exclusively to their artisanship and craftsmanship, R. Hirsch suggests that their thoughtfulness includes the ability to have spiritual Kavanot with which to invest the articles that they are fabricating. Since these articles are symbols of various spiritual ideas (see the Gilyanot for Teruma and Tetzave in which some of the approaches of the Abrabanel are discussed regarding these objects), symbols are only as meaningful as the intent with which they are invested. It would be pointless for onlookers to recognize symbolism when the fabricators were not thinking of similar themes during the process of manufacture. The analogy that R. Hirsch references is the creation of a Sefer Tora whereby the Kashrut of the Sefer is a function of the Kavana of the scribe, particularly when it comes to the Names of God. The Tora can be beautifully written, but if intent on the part of the scribe is lacking, let alone if it is a negative Kavana as in the case of a heretic, then the Sefer is devoid of holiness and cannot be used to fulfill any Mitzvot.

(R. Hirsch’s approach raises the question of the validity of the various interpretations of the Keilim of the Mishkan. If the manufacturers were thinking one particular thought, and it was not the same as some of the suggestions for the symbolic meanings of the Keilim, will they then be invalidated? A Sefer Tora would appear to have to adhere to a more objective standard, i.e., the overall belief system of the scribe as well as his understanding of the words that he is writing, particularly when it comes to the Names of God. But the Keilim of the Mishkan do not appear to readily reflect a similar standard. צריך עיון.) 

Beit.

1. The paradox is that if someone already possesses understanding/wisdom, then what does it mean when God “Gives” them wisdom/understanding?

The passage in Berachot 55a is readily understandable with respect to the fact that wisdom/understanding is not “all or nothing” but rather however much one knows, he can always know more; however much one can analyze, his analytic ability can be enhanced; even if a person has the potential for wisdom, that potential can be expanded and actualized. The more subtle meaning would imply להבדיל a la the oracle of Delphi that informed Socrates that he was the wisest of men, with the latter eventually coming to the realization that his superior wisdom manifested itself in his awareness of the limits of his wisdom (see Plato’s Apology), it is the truly wise who are the most open to learning new things because, on the one hand, they are well-aware of their limitations, and on the other, they are always curious to expand their knowledge and skill base.

2. It is possible that the earlier passage does not go into as much detail regarding the qualities with which God had Endowed these individuals as the later passage:

שמות פרק כח

(ג) ואתה תדבר אל כל חכמי לב אשר מלאתיו רוח חכמה ועשו את בגדי אהרן לקדשו לכהנו לי: 

שמות פרק לא

(ב) ראה קראתי בשם בצלאל בן אורי בן חור למטה יהודה:

(ג) ואמלא אתו רוח אלקים בחכמה ובתבונה ובדעת ובכל מלאכה:

ד) (לחשב מחשבת לעשות בזהב ובכסף ובנחשת:

(ה) ובחרשת אבן למלאת ובחרשת עץ לעשות בכל מלאכה:

(ו) ואני הנה נתתי אתו את אהליאב בן אחיסמך למטה דן ובלב כל חכם לב נתתי חכמה ועשו את כל אשר צויתך:

And even though it could be contended that the detail of what God Inspired within the individual applies exclusively to Betzalel as opposed to all those who assisted him, it could be equally contended that what applied to Betzalel applied to the others, at least to some degree.  

Gimel.

Based upon MaLBIM’s distinction between “הרגיש בלבו תשוקה” (one feels within his heart a yearning/longing) and “והרגיש שיוכל לקרב” (one feels that he has the ability to draw close/come forward), then “נשיאת הלב” corresponds to being drawn to the task, while “נדיבת הלב” parallels a sense of self-confidence that the individual is capable of carrying out the task. Only a combination of these two qualities would allow for someone to identify himself as a candidate for fabricating the elements of the Mishkan, particularly in light of MaLBIM’s comment that given the Jews’ activities in Egypt as manual labors involved in construction, they had no track record or experience with regard to working with wood, precious metals, dyes, fabrics or leather. However if there was interest, self-confidence and Divine Inspiration, it became possible for these inexperienced individuals to carry out their complex tasks.  

Daled.

1. Underlined words/phrases:

a. אוהל מועד שהוא של משה—a place was needed where all of the material contributed for the construction of the Mishkan could be securely stored. Prior to the construction of the Mishkan, when Moshe came down from Sinai with the second Tablets, a separate tent was set aside for his needs, and it was within this tent that the material was collected and stored. See Shemot 33:7.

   b. העם—the members of the Jewish people who were donating their possessions for the sake of the construction of the Tabernacle.

    c. בנדבתם—the donations were made willingly rather than under duress or as a result of an obligation.

d. האומנים בנאמנותם—the craftsmen, despite working with so much valuable material, were honest and did not enrich themselves from what they were working with.

    e. הנגיד עליהם—a reference to Moshe who rather than allowing the people to continue to contribute needlessly, announced when no more donations were needed.

2. Words and phrases that are underlined suggest sterling qualities among the Jewish people:

שמות פרק לה

(כא) ויבאו כל איש אשר נשאו לבו וכל אשר נדבה רוחו אתו הביאו את תרומת יקוק למלאכת אהל מועד ולכל עבדתו ולבגדי הקדש:

(כב) ויבאו האנשים על הנשים כל נדיב לב הביאו חח ונזם וטבעת וכומז כל כלי זהב וכל איש אשר הניף תנופת זהב ליקוק:..

(כה) וכל אשה חכמת לב בידיה טוו ויביאו מטוה את התכלת ואת הארגמן את תולעת השני ואת השש:

(כו) וכל הנשים אשר נשא לבן אתנה בחכמה טוו את העזים:...

(כט) כל איש ואשה אשר נדב לבם אתם להביא לכל המלאכה אשר צוה יקוק לעשות ביד משה הביאו בני ישראל נדבה ליקוק: פ 

שמות פרק לו

(א) ועשה בצלאל ואהליאב וכל איש חכם לב אשר נתן יקוק חכמה ותבונה בהמה לדעת לעשת את כל מלאכת עבדת הקדש לכל אשר צוה יקוק:

(ב) ויקרא משה אל בצלאל ואל אהליאב ואל כל איש חכם לב אשר נתן יקוק חכמה בלבו כל אשר נשאו לבו לקרבה אל המלאכה לעשת אתה:

(ג) ויקחו מלפני משה את כל התרומה אשר הביאו בני ישראל למלאכת עבדת הקדש לעשת אתה והם הביאו אליו עוד נדבה בבקר בבקר:…

(ח) ויעשו כל חכם לב בעשי המלאכה את המשכן עשר יריעת שש משזר ותכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני כרבים מעשה חשב עשה אתם:

In the Alon HaDeracha, Nechama places emphasis upon the repeated use of the verb “LeHavi”. It seems to me that if one does not know the intention behind the “bringing”, it is difficult to consider giving alone praiseworthy. While it is certainly more admirable to contribute than not to contribute, the intent behind the contribution is also of significance.

parshat vayakhel pekudei

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/672.html

Parshat Ki Tisah Answers

Ki Tisa 5716
Alef.
Perhaps a distinction has to be made between forgiveness that will deflect immediate punishment (what occurred before Moshe descended the mountain), as opposed to the type of forgiveness that will result in no punishment at all (what Moshe pleads for during the intermediate 40 days that begin the very next morning).
We see that sometimes punishment is delayed, as in the case of the Elders who saw God at the end of Mishpatim (Shemot 24:11) and who according to Rabbinic tradition subsequently met their ends ostensibly for other reasons. The deaths of Nadav and Avihu, among the “Atzilei Benai Yisrael” who saw God while eating and drinking were therefore already condemned prior to their bringing strange fire during the dedication of the Mishkan—see Rabbeinu Bechaye on VaYikra 16:1 d.h. Acharei Mot Shnai Benai Aharon BeKarvatam Lifnai HaShem VeYamutu, as well as Meshech Chachma on VaYikra 10:3. (Of course, according to the view that the deaths of Aharon’s sons was at least in part a punishment of Aharon as a result of his involvement in the construction of the Golden Calf, then while the punishment of the entire people may have been cancelled, that does not mean that segments of the people did not suffer for their parts in the sin. We see that the tribe of Levi executed those who overtly worshipped the calf [Shemot 32:28], while mere sympathizers in thought alone died because of a combination of having to drink water mixed with the ground up statue [Ibid., 20) and a plague [Ibid. 35]. Consequently the forgiveness allowed the Jewish people to continue; however a portion of the people was destroyed as a result of the sin.) BaMidbar Rabba 15:24 mentions a view that the people who died during the plague that resulted from their lusting after food (BaMidbar 11:4) were the rest of the “Atzilei Yisrael” who while seeing God, had eaten and drunk, indicating a lusting after food and drink that eventually proves their downfall. Although the people mentioned in Shemot 24 as being spared God’s “Hand” live through that experience, it appears that the next time they do something wrong, their claim to forgiveness and “another chance” no longer is in effect.
With respect to Moshe’s not being allowed to enter Israel, Sanhedrin 111a on Shemot 6:1 where Moshe implies that God has Treated the Jews improperly, presents the idea that the decision was made well before he strikes the rock in BaMidbar 20:11.
A Rabbinic example of the concept of delayed punishment is what is said about the guilty Sota who enabled her family to engage in Talmud Tora in Sota 20b-21a. Even if she does not die immediately upon drinking the waters during the ritual performed in the Beit HaMikdash described in BaMidbar 5: 22, 24, 27, eventually her iniquity will catch up to her and she will be punished.
Beit.
Sephorno is perturbed by the redundant combination of the verb “Chatatem” (you have sinned) and the adjectivally modified noun “Chata’a Gedola” (a great sin.) Doesn’t it stand to reason that if someone has sinned, they have transgressed a sin?
He suggests that Moshe’s using this expression was meant to influence the people in realizing how great was their transgression. The greater the sin, the more embarrassed the people should feel, the greater the impetus to repent ought to be. Since Moshe intends to return to HaShem and ask for His Forgiveness to the point where the Jewish people will be allowed to continue, as opposed to starting over using Moshe as the base (much as what happened with Noach), he needs to be able to count on the people repenting in order to justify such a request.
Gimel.

1. What is difficult for RaShI in the verse is what is being added when emphasis is placed upon the material from which the idol was fabricated, i.e., gold.
2. (See Alon HaDeracha, RaShI on Beraishit 1:3 for a statement by RaShI regarding his approach to Midrashim, at least according to Nechama—there are those who take issue with her assumption about this point in RaShI.) In Devarim 1:1, a list of places is mentioned. While it could be maintained that these places are all associated with transgressions that the Jews committed during their sojourn in the desert, in keeping with the assumption that Moshe is rebuking the people throughout Devarim, nevertheless from a literal point of view, that is not necessarily the case. On the other hand, the verse in Shemot 32:31 clearly relates to the sin of the Golden Calf and therefore RaShI is contending by means of his transfer of R. Yanai’s opinion that greater understanding of the word “Zahav” can be gained through this Rabbinic perspective.
3. If the Jewish people were stating the contents of Shemot 32:31, the comparison to the act of confession could be made. But this is Moshe essentially summarizing and accusing the people of what they have done. Consequently we have no sense that the people are engaging in a repentant process at this point. Would they themselves been ready to articulate what had happened in the manner that Moshe does in this verse?
4. In the Sugya in Berachot 32b wherein R. Yanai’s view appears, mention is also made of the following verse: Hoshea 2:10—And she (a reference to a wife who is promiscuous and engages in prostitution) does not know that I gave her the grain and the grape juice and the wine and silver I gave her in abundance and gold, they made for Ba’al.

 

Parshat Ki Tisah

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/671.html