Literary Devices – Shemot 32

The Tanakh Lab demonstrates that this word appears a full 19 times in the chapter.  Nechama Leibowitz notes that Tanakh uses it artfully to subtly reveal Hashem and Moshe's feelings as Hashem accuses the nation and Moshe defends them.

• Your/Moshe's People – In describing the sin of the people, Hashem refers to them as "עַמְּךָ” (your/Moshe’s people) in verse 7, and “הָעָם הַזֶּה” (this nation) in verse 9, as if to express the distance between them and Him. 
• Your/Hashem’s People – When Moshe prays for the people, he echoes Hashem's language back to Him, twice referring to them as “עַמְּךָ” (Your/Hashem’s people) in verses 11 and 12, reminding God of the historical bond between Him and Israel, and stressing that the nation is in fact His people (not Moshe's). 
• HIs/Hashem's People – When Hashem accedes to Moshe’s prayer in verse 14 and forgives the nation, the people are referred to as “עַמּוֹ” (His/Hashem’s people). Hashem has heard Moshe, and once again views the people as His.
• This People – Interestingly, when Moshe descends and sees the people actively worshiping the calf, he reverts to Hashem's language, pejoratively referring to the nation as "הָעָם הַזֶּה" (verse 21).¹

• Articles and Sources –
• For further discussion of the above, see N. Leibowitz, Iyyunim Chadashim BeSefer Shemot (Jerusalem, 1970): 401-408.
• Compare R. Meir Spiegelman's article, God's People, or Moshe's, who also traces the way God and Moshe play with the term. According to him, God blames Moshe for the mixed multitudes who left Egypt and incited the nation to idolatry, calling them Moshe's nation, while Moshe tells God to ignore this small group and recognize that the vast majority of the nation is indeed God's. In contrast to the analysis above, R. Speigelman suggests that after the sin Hashem did indeed distance the people, only reclaiming them during the monarchic period.²

• See the Tanakh Lab that variations of the phrase "אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם" appear five times in the chapter (verses 1,4,7,6 and 23).  The term appears again in 33:1 and the similar "אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם" appears in verse 11, marking a seven-fold repetition of the theme (Cassuto). This perhaps highlights the outrageous nature of the sin given the context of the recent Exodus. It also highlights the Israelites’ confusion about who was responsible for the Exodus -- Moshe, Hashem, or the calf and whatever it represents. 

The scene of the making of the calf and its worship is mentioned three times in the unit, by the narrator, as Hashem reveals to Moshe what is going on, and when Aharon tells Moshe what happened.

• When comparing how Aharon recounts the tale to Moshe with the narrator's original, it appears that Aharon seeks to lighten the culpability of both the people and himself.  He omits the fact that the people gathered against him (“ויקהל העם על-אהרן”) and that they commanded him to rise (“קום”), both turns of phrase that imply aggression. He similarly omits the people's reference to the calf as a god and does not mention their active worship of it. Finally, he also reports a shortened version of his own deeds, making it sound as if the calf was fashioned without his active involvement, perhaps out of shame.
• In Hashem's account to Moshe, in contrast, He appears to try to maximize the people's sin.  Thus, He focuses specifically on the very facts that Aharon omitted – the people's active worship of the calf as a god. He makes no mention of the fear that led to the sin, likely so as not to mitigate the severity of the deed. He does, though, minimize Aharon's action, not mentioning his role at all.

• Several commentators try to explain the changes made by Aharon in his recounting of the tale. See Sforno Shemot 32:24, Keli Yekar Shemot 32:4, and R. Hirsch on Shemot 32:22 who present Aharon positively. Cf. Hoil Moshe Shemot 32:24 and R"E Mizrachi Shemot 32:24 who suggest that, out of fear, Aharon lied to cover up his role.

• Moshe – Throughout most of the chapter, Moshe is referred to by his proper name.
• "This person Moshe" – In verses 1 and 23, Moshe is uniquely referred to by the nation as "this person Moshe".³ RambanShemot 32:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman suggests that this epithet proves that the people did not consider Moshe a god, and did not intend for the calf to be a god either. AbarbanelShemot 32:1About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, by contrast, understands the epithet to reflect the people’s recognition that Moshe was vulnerable due to being a human being, and their desire to replace him with a being that was divine and immortal. Cf. Da'at Mikra that this epithet (particularly the word “this”) conveys a tone of disrespect and disdain.

The chapter refers to the Israelites in three ways, by the proper name Israel (2 times), the similar "Children of Israel" (once), and by the noun "people" (19 times).

• Israel – When calling on each other to recognize the calf as the god who took them from Egypt (verses 4,8), the people somewhat unexpectedly refer to their audience as "Israel", as if "Israel" is distinct from the speaker. This might in part motivate Rashi to claim that it was the mixed multitudes from Egypt who initiated the idolatrous endeavor, calling on "Israel" to join them.
• Children of Israel – The nation is referred to in this manner only once in the chapter, when given the ashes of the calf to drink in verse 20.
• People ("עם") – This term is the prevalent one in the chapter, appearing 19 times. See the discussion above regarding how its various forms highlight the way both Hashem and Moshe view the people as they sin, and either distance themselves from the people or choose to bond with them.

• "רעה" – Professor Cassuto notes that there is a seven-fold play on the sounds "ב/פרע" throughout the chapter, all related to or recalling the root "רע".‎⁴ See: בְּרָעָה (verse 12),⁵ הָרָעָה (verse 12, 14), בְּרֵעֹה (verse 17), בְרָע (verse 22), פָרֻעַ (verse 25), and פְרָעֹה (verse 25). The repeated sound implicitly reveals the text's evaluation of the nation.
• "פְרָעֹ֣ה" / "פַרְעֹה" – Rabbanit Dena Rock⁶ notes that the word “פְרָעֹ֣ה” (let loose) might allude to the name Paroh. She suggests that the worship of the calf betrays the people's unwillingness to commit to a relationship with Hashem and His laws. They prefer to live a life without rules, in which chaos reigns, and they can "let go". They desire a return to the life represented by Paroh, which had no Divine demands.

• For further discussion of the play on words "פְרָעֹ֣ה" and "פרעה" see Rabbanit Dena Rock's article, article וביום פקדי - Chet Ha-Egel Revisited.
• See also Repetition of Sounds, by Professor Yonatan Grossman, for a more general discussion of aural triggers and how repetition of sounds might contribute to the meaning of a text.⁷

R. David Fohrman suggests that the last 15 chapters of Sefer Shemot are structured as a chiasm, with the sin of the golden calf of this chapter lying at the chiasm's center.  The overall structure follows:

A) Hashem's presence on Mt. Sinai

B) Instructions to build the Tabernacle

C) Command of Shabbat

D) Sin of the Calf

C') Command of Shabbat

B') Fulfillment of command to build the Tabernacle

A') Hashem's presence in the Tabernacle

• In his short video, A Giant Chiasm in Sefer Shemot, R. David Fohrman lays out the above structure, noting several linguistic similarities as well. He notes that the chiasm concludes with Hashem’s presence filling the Tabernacle even more intensely than it was revealed at Sinai. This demonstrates the full renewal of the relationship between the Jewish people and Hashem in the wake of the sin of the calf.
• For further discussion and many examples of the phenomenon of chiastic structures in Tanakh, see Prof. Yonatan Grossman's Chiastic and Concentric Structures. For discussion of this and other literary structures in Tanakh, with many examples, see Structural Devices.