Biblical Parallels Index – Shemot 32

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Overview

This index is meant to help the reader explore Biblical parallels, be they two accounts of the same event or law, stories with similar motifs and themes, or units of text which are linguistically similar and perhaps alluding one to the other. The page includes links to tools that aid in comparison, primary sources that touch upon the parallels, and summaries of and links to articles which analyze them in depth.

The Sin of the Calf in Shemot 32 and Devarim 9

The story of the sin of the golden calf is initially told in Shemot 32-34 and recounted by Moshe to the nation in Devarim 9. Moshe's retelling omits some aspects of the original while emphasizing others, suggesting that he had a specific agenda in presenting the story as he does.

Tools

Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the two stories, and see an interactive table highlighting the similarities and differences here.

Articles

See Sin of the Golden Calf in Shemot and Devarim for a comparison of the two accounts. The article notes Devarim's unique emphasis on Moshe's prayers and how Moshe places the sin in the context of many similar ones, highlighting the nation's consistent rebellious nature. Moshe emphasizes that had it not been for his prayers on their behalf, not only would they not have inherited the land, they would have been completely destroyed. Moshe's goal in his retelling is to impart the message that the people must change their ways in the future since, after they enter the land, Moshe will no long be around to intercede on their behalf.
See ?תפילת משה - לפני הירידה מההר או אחריה, by R. Amnon Bazak, who suggests that the two accounts illustrate two different aspects of the relationship between Hashem and the Jewish people, one in which the destruction of the entire nation is a real possibility, and one in which it is not. He connects these to two seemingly contradictory prophecies in Yeshayahu 50:1 and Yirmeyahu 3:8, one of which suggests that Hashem might "divorce" the people and the other which suggests that Hashem would never do so.
See Ekev: Moshe’s Interpretation of the Sin of the Golden Calf, by Prof. Yonatan Grossman, for a comparison and contrast of the two accounts of the story in Shemot and Devarim. Prof. Grossman suggests that Shemot presents the sin as one of idolatry, whereas Moshe’s interpretation in Devarim views it as a sin of corporealization of Hashem.
Listen to Comparing Chet Ha-Egel in Shemot 32 and Devarim 9, by R. Yoni Zolty, for an analysis of how the two narratives reflect different understandings of the motivation for the sin and different approaches to serving Hashem writ large. R. Zolty suggests that in general Shemot and Devarim have different orientations toward how to serve Hashem, and the telling of the sin in each book reflects its particular focus.

The Sin of the Calf and the Calves of Yeravam

Yeravam's golden calves naturally call to mind the sin of the golden calf, leading many to compare the stories.

Tools

Search – In both stories people/leaders say of the calf: " הנה / אלה "אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם." A search reveals that this phrase appears only in these two stories, strengthening the connection between them.
Concordance – The concordance¹ similarly highlights that an "עגל זהב" plays a role only in these two stories.

Articles

See יסודותיו הרעיוניים של חטא העגל, by R. Amnon Bazak, who interprets the sin of the calf in light of the prophecies of Yechezkel chapters 1 and 10. R. Bazak suggests that Aharon intended to make a representation of Hashem’s divine chariot, which was to be a throne of sorts for Hashem's presence, not an idol. Yeravam, in Melakhim I 12, is also motivated to create such a symbol. He makes two such calves, one at each end of his kingdom, to claim that Hashem's presence now dwells between these points, and not only in Jerusalem. In both cases, the plans backfired and led to communal sin.
See חטאות ירבעם: עגלי ירבעם בעקבות העגל במדבר and עגלי ירבעם, by R. Elchanan Samet, who similarly understands the calves of Yeravam and Aharon to represent God's chariot and throne. He notes this and other parallels between the stories, including Yeravam's naming of his children after the sons of Aharon, to suggest that in creating his "new" religion, Yeravam did not abandon God for idols, but attempted to go back to an earlier form of worship, to a time of "foreign fire", egalitarian priesthood, and calves.²
Listen to תיקוני ירבעם, by R. Yossi Elitzur, for an analysis of how Yeravam drew on both the religious leadership of Aharon as well as the strategic schemes of Yaakov when designing his plan to protect his kingdom through the construction of the calves and the changing of the calendar. The shiur also points to the paucity of critiques of Yeravam’s calves in Neviim Acharonim to suggest that though Yeravam's actions were mistaken and problematic, they might have still had legal standing.

The Sin of the Calf in Tehillim 106

In its overview of the history of the Wilderness period, Psalm 106:19-23 touch upon the sin of the golden calf. These verses seem to present the sin as one of idol worship, in which the nation attempts to replace Hashem with the calf. Is this the only way of reading the sin?

Tools

Use Makbilot BaMikra to find links to the various verses in Tanakh which reference the story of the sin. These include Moshe's retelling of the event in Devarim 9, Tehillim 106's recounting of the story, and Nechemyah 9:18's allusion to the sin. The various retellings might shed light on the nature of the sin and whether or not it constituted idolatry.

Articles

For an overview of interpretations on the nature of the sin that takes into account the retelling of Tehillim, see Sin of the Golden Calf. Commentators suggest that in creating the calf the nation was either worshiping an alternative deity, making an image of Hashem Himself, or looking to replace Moshe. In its analysis of the various opinions, the article explores how each approach would read the verses in Tehillim.

Sin of the Calf and the Covenant of Mishpatim

There are several parallels between the description of the worship of the golden calf and the ceremony of the covenant of Sinai described in Shemot 24.

Tools

Use the Tanakh Lab to find parallels and contrasts between the two episodes.

Articles

See Ki Tisa: Chet HaEgel and the 13 Midot of Rachamim, by R. Menachem Leibtag, who notes several parallels between the description of the building and service of the calf and the ceremony of the covenant described in Shemot 24. In both the people awake early, build an altar, offer sacrifices, eat and drink, and in both there is allusion to the idea that Hashem’s messenger will lead the Jewish people to the land. These points of comparison shed light on the motivations that led to the sin of the calf, namely a desire to create a symbol of an "angel" who would lead the people in place of the lost Moshe. One of the contrasts between the events, the fact that only by the calf do the people rise to "laugh" (understood as wanton behavior), highlights what was so egregious about the sin.

The Calf and Complaints of the Wilderness

In Sefer Shemot we read of the sin of the golden calf in the context of the nation's various complaints in the Wilderness. Though the sin is not often framed in the context of a "complaint", comparing the stories might shed light on the nation's mindset when making the calf.

Articles

In וביום פקדי - Chet Ha-Egel Revisited, Rabbanit Dena Rock explores the story of the sin of the calf against the backdrop of the complaints of the nation in the pericopes of Beshalach and Yitro. These exhibit the nation's spiritual immaturity, their inability to see God in their midst, and ultimately their lack of readiness to accept the obligations given to them at Mount Sinai. They are terrified of commitment to God, and in their building and worshiping of the calf, as well, they demonstrate their desire to return to a rule-free life.