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.
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.
- 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.
- (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.
- 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?
- 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.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment