Sin of the Golden Calf

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

In attempting to understand the Sin of the Golden Calf, exegetes find themselves in a quandary.  On one hand, the sin must have been egregious enough to merit the nation's near-destruction, yet on the other hand it is difficult to fathom how they, and especially Aharon, could blunder so greatly so soon after the Revelation at Mt. Sinai. Commentators find different balances between these competing issues, leading to varying understandings of the people's sin and their degree of guilt.

R. Saadia Gaon prefers to read the nation as having actually betrayed Hashem.  He presents them as viewing the Calf as a god and ascribes to them the sin of belief in idolatry, while trying to defend only Aharon's role.  The Kuzari, in contrast, attempts to minimize both Aharon's and the people's sins, portraying them as having positive, albeit misguided, intentions.  The nation desired a tangible object which could represent Hashem and to whom they could direct their worship.  They erred only in not recognizing that all graven images are prohibited, even of Hashem Himself.  

R"Y Bekhor Shor goes the furthest in his defense of the nation, divorcing the people's actions from any form of idolatry or disloyalty to Hashem.  He has the people ask to replace only the missing Moshe, not Hashem.  Finally, it is also possible that different portions of the nation viewed the Calf in different ways, and that the above approaches are not mutually exclusive.

Alternative Deity

The nation viewed the Calf as a god and worshiped it either together with or instead of Hashem.  In doing so, they transgressed the commandment, "You shall have no other gods before Me".

Sources:PhiloThe Special Laws, III XXII:125About Philo, Talmud BavliSanhedrin 63aAvodah Zarah 53bAbout the Bavli, TanchumaKi Tisa 19Shemini 4About the Tanchuma, Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)Shemot 32:3-6About Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan), Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer45About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, R. Saadia GaonCommentary Shemot 32:1-6About R. Saadia Gaon, RashiShemot 32:1-6About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Lekach TovBereshit 32:1About R. Toviah b. Eliezer, R. Avraham b. HaRambamShemot 32:4-9Shemot 32:22About R. Avraham Maimonides

"עֲשֵׂה לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים" – These sources understand the word "אֱלֹהִים" to mean deity.  However, they disagree whether, in making the Calf, the nation was totally forsaking Hashem in favor of a new god,¹ or if they were planning on worshiping the Calf together with Hashem (שיתוף).‎²

Impact of Moshe's delay

• Lost access to the Divine – R. Avraham b. HaRambam claims that the Israelites believed that only someone as perfect as Moshe could access Hashem, and that without him, they did not have the power to do so.  As such, when they assumed that Moshe was not coming back,³ they decided to return to the idolatry they had known in Egypt.⁴
• Lost a perceived deity – Alternatively, this position could posit that the nation had actually perceived Moshe Himself as a god, thinking that all the miracles he performed stemmed from his own powers.  Thus, when they believed that he was not returning, they created a new god to take his place.

Why a calf? Philo and R. Avraham b. HaRambam assert that the choice was intentional, as a bull held special significance for the Israelites from their stay in Egypt:⁵

• Egyptian god – Philo maintains that the people chose a bull to imitate the Egyptian God, Typhos, with whom they would have been familiar.⁶
• Astrological sign – R. Avraham b. HaRambam cites his father who posits instead that the people might have asked for a calf, thinking that it was under the influence of that astrological sign that they left Egypt.  Thus, they refer to it as, "אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם".

"חַג לַי"י מָחָר" – This position must explain why Hashem's proper name is used here, if the people were looking to the Calf as an alternative deity:

• People's shorthand – This approach could understand this phrase to mean that "tomorrow there will be a feast for [the god who is replacing] Hashem".
• Aharon's perspective – Rashi, however, asserts that, in contrast to the nation, Aharon had no idolatrous thoughts, and was really speaking about Hashem Himself when he said "חַג לַי"י מָחָר".  He was certain that by the morrow, Moshe would arrive and the people would return to serving Hashem.

Offering sacrifices and "צחוק" – The fact that the people prostrate themselves⁷ and offer sacrifices before the Calf supports the idea that they were worshiping it as a god.  Rashi maintains that the "צחוק" refers to sexual relations,⁸ which may also have been part of the idolatrous rite.

"וַיָּמִירוּ אֶת כְּבוֹדָם בְּתַבְנִית שׁוֹר" – According to this approach, the "honor of the people" referred to in this verse is Hashem.  The psalmist, too, reads the sin as one of foreign worship, claiming that, in creating the Calf, the nation replaced Hashem with the likeness of an ox.

Breaking of the Luchot – According to Rashi, after Moshe saw how the people had betrayed Hashem he considered them unworthy of receiving the Torah.  This position might also suggest, like Ibn EzraShemot Short Commentary 32:19About R. Avraham ibn Ezra below, that the Tablets were like a marriage document; when the people proved to be unfaithful, it was torn up.⁹

Drinking of the Calf's ashes – Rashi, following R. Yose in Bavli Avodah ZarahAvodah Zarah 43b-44aAbout Bavli Avodah Zarah, asserts that this was comparable to the test of a suspected adulteress (סוטה).  Moshe used the water to test and punish those who had been unfaithful to Hashem.¹⁰  One might also posit that, in destroying the Calf and having the people actually consume its ashes, Moshe highlighted how powerless and unworthy of worship it was.¹¹

Role of Aharon – These sources agree that Aharon did not worship the Calf, but defend his active role in different ways:

• Test the people – R. Saadia compares Aharon to Yehu,¹² who similarly pretended to promote idolatry, but only in order to discover and eliminate those who were guilty of Baal worship. Even though Yehu allowed the people to bring their sacrifices before punishing them (presumably to ascertain true guilt), he was nonetheless praised for his actions.  So, too, Aharon acquiesced to the nation's request only to determine who was guilty of idolatry.¹³
• Delay tactics – Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer and Rashi instead maintain that throughout Aharon tried to delay the people, hoping that Moshe would arrive before they sinned.  Thus, he asked specifically the women for their jewelry, assuming they would not give them up so easily¹⁴ and pushed off the feast until the next day. This defense, however, encounters difficulty in explaining why Aharon did not simply refuse to make the Calf, given the capital nature of the crime.¹⁵  Moreover, it is not at all clear how afterwards he, not only avoids all punishment,¹⁶ but also merits the priesthood.¹⁷

Severe sin so soon after revelation – These sources offer several defenses of the nation:

• Influence of mixed multitudes (ערב רב) – Tanchuma, Rashi, and R. Avraham b. HaRambam (in the name of his grandfather) attempt to defend the people by suggesting that the idolatry was not really their initiative, but that of the mixed multitudes who had joined the nation upon leaving Egypt.  Tanchuma claims that it was their sorcery which produced the Calf and animated it leading the people to believe in it.¹⁸  As support, Rashi points to the fact that the people say "אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל", speaking from the perspective of outsiders and non-members of Israel.¹⁹
• Influence of Satan – Tanchuma, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer and Rashi also suggest that the Satan further negatively influenced the nation, either by deceiving the people into believing that Moshe had died or actively helping fashion the Calf.
• Slow to change – Alternatively, it is possible that the people had never really forsaken the idolatrous beliefs they held in Egypt.²⁰ One-off miracles, even on the scale of Hashem's revelation, were not enough to permanently change their mindset.  To instill long lasting belief the people needed continuous education and enduring miracles.²¹  Thus, as soon as Moshe left, without a teacher to guide them, the people naturally slid back into their old ways.

Severity of the punishment – According to this approach, Hashem's initial desire to wipe out the nation is understandable, as the sin was heinous.  In fact, both Rashi and R. Avraham b. HaRambam assert that, even after Moshe's prayers, many people were punished by death. Though only 3,000 were killed by the Levites, many more died at Hashem's hand through a plague.

Polemical motivations – R. Saadia's full-throated defense of Aharon's actions may be partially motivated by an attempt to counter Muslim claims that passages in the Torah which portray sins of prophets are forged insertions.²²

Image of Hashem

The people viewed the Calf as a concrete object through which they could worship Hashem, akin to the role later played by the Mishkan and Ark.  They did not worship foreign gods, but rather transgressed the prohibition of "You shall not make a graven image", which includes any representation of Hashem Himself.

Sources:R. Yehuda HaLeviKuzari 1:97About R. Yehuda HaLevi, Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 20:19Shemot Long Commentary 32:27Shemot Short Commentary 32:19Shemot Long Commentary 32:20About R. Avraham ibn Ezra,²³ RadakMelakhim I 12:28About R. David Kimchi, CassutoShemot 32:1Shemot 32:4About Prof. Umberto Cassuto

Impact of Moshe's delay

• R. Yehuda HaLevi asserts that when Moshe ascended the mountain, he was supposed to return with the Tablets and Ark which would serve as a tangible object to which the nation could direct their service of Hashem.²⁴  However, when forty days passed, the people feared that Moshe would never return,²⁵ and decided to instead create their own physical symbol of Hashem.
• Cassuto explains similarly, but he suggests that the nation looked to create a throne for Hashem's providence, similar to the role played by the Keruvim (cherubs) in the Mishkan.²⁶ 

Why a calf?

• Image of Hashem seen at Sinai – Lekach TovShemot 32:4About R. Toviah b. Eliezer posits that the people chose a calf since that was the image of Hashem that they had seen at Sinai.²⁷  R"A Bazak²⁸ supports this idea by connecting the nation's view of the "מַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר" with Yechezkel's prophecy of  "מַרְאֵה אֶבֶן סַפִּיר".‎²⁹  There, Yechezkel describes the four headed creature in his vision as having "the legs of a calf" ("וְכַף רַגְלֵיהֶם כְּכַף רֶגֶל עֵגֶל"), suggesting that at Sinai, too, the people saw a calf.
• Hashem's choice of "throne" – R"A Bazak points to the parallel verses in Yechezkel 1:10 and 10:14 to attempt to prove that a "שור" is the same form known elsewhere as  "כרובים".‎³⁰  If so, in making a throne for Hashem, the people chose the same image that Hashem Himself had designated for his "throne" in the Mishkan.³¹ 
• Convention of the time – Throughout the Ancient Near East, deities were often depicted as standing on pedestals of beasts, usually a bull or lion.³² Aharon might have simply imitated the standard artistic convention, with the important difference of not adding any image of Hashem Himself atop the pedestal.

Sinning so soon after revelation – According to this approach, Hashem's revelation at Mt. Sinai might itself have contributed to the sin.  The experience left the nation with a desire for continued connection. Having heard Hashem's voice, they had a need for a more tangible expression of His presence.

Aharon's role – This approach presents Aharon as acting in the name of Hashem throughout, making the Calf with the sole intention of using it to serve Hashem. R. Kasher³³ portrays him as making an understandable mistake; since Keruvim were allowed in the Mishkan, Aharon thought that they or their equivalent should be allowed outside as well.  R. Kasher³⁴ even suggests that the prohibition of "לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן אִתִּי אֱלֹהֵי כֶסֶף" found at the end of Shemot 20 is written out of place and was given only in the aftermath of the Golden Calf and as a corrective to Aharon's error.³⁵

"עֲשֵׂה לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים" – These sources understand the word "אֱ-לֹהִים" to refer to Hashem.  The people were not requesting that Aharon create a new deity, but only a vehicle through which they could access Hashem.

"אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם" – The people refer to the Calf as having taken them out of Egypt because they understood the Calf to be the symbol of Hashem who did, in fact, do so.³⁶

"חַג לַי"י מָחָר" – As Aharon and the people never intended to worship anyone but Hashem, Aharon naturally announced that there would be a feast for Hashem tomorrow.

Offering sacrifices – Ibn Ezra explains that the sacrifices were intended not for the Calf, but for Hashem.³⁷

Severity of punishment – If the people were acting for Hashem and not intending any disloyalty to Him, it is not clear why Hashem would have desired to annihilate the nation.  As a result, these sources all suggest that despite their positive intentions, the people did end up worshiping the Calf itself.  It was this minority which led to Hashem's anger.³⁸

"וַיָּמִירוּ אֶת כְּבוֹדָם בְּתַבְנִית שׁוֹר" – This approach would suggest that this verse is referring to those members of the nation who forgot that the Calf was supposed to represent Hashem and instead viewed it as a deity in its own right.

Breaking of the Luchot

• A lesson to the nation – This approach might claim that Moshe realized that before bringing another concrete symbol of Hashem's presence to the people, he needed to make sure they recognized that the Tablets were just a symbol, and not worthy of worship in of themselves.  Destroying the luchot was thus a lesson to the people, dispelling any notion that they had any innate power.³⁹
• Nullifying the covenant – Since the nation transgressed one of the conditions of the covenant, "לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה לְךָ פֶסֶל וְכׇל תְּמוּנָה", they voided the covenant as a whole.⁴⁰

Drinking of the Calf's ashes – Ibn Ezra, like Rashi above, asserts that this was similar to the test of the suspected adulteress (סוטה).  Since it would have been impossible for the Levites to distinguish which of the worshipers acted for idolatry and which for Hashem, the water tested and marked the former.

Biblical parallels – Cassuto compares this sin to the calves set up by Yerovam,⁴¹ which he claims were also originally meant only to represent Hashem's presence. The Efod established by Gidon⁴² was similarly intended only to remind the people that Hashem was their true King.  In both cases, however, as time passed, the people mistook the representation of Hashem for an alternative god and began to worship it.⁴³

Difference between the Keruvim/Aron and the Calf – The Kuzari suggests that the only difference between the two is that one was commanded by Hashem, and thus legitimate, while the other was not, and thus prohibited.  One might add that Hashem did not fear lest the people come to worship the Ark/Cherubs since they were generally hidden from the public eye.  Cassuto (in contrast to R. Bazak above) further asserts that the Keruvim were intentionally made as fantastical rather than realistic creatures to safeguard against the people worshiping them as deities.

Purpose of the Mishkan – This approach might suggest that the sin confirmed the need for a Mishkan as a physical symbol of Hashem's presence, but also the necessity for it to be structured in a way that would distance the people from coming to mistake it for Hashem or an alternative god.⁴⁴

Guide for the Wilderness

Bereft of Moshe's leadership and his connection to the Divine, the people searched for an alternative to guide them in the wilderness.  Their sin was more closely related to sorcery than to idolatry.

Sources:Ibn EzraShemot Long Commentary 32:1Shemot Long Commentary 32:27Shemot Short Commentary 32:1Shemot Short Commentary 32:4Shemot Short Commentary 32:19Shemot Long Commentary 32:20About R. Avraham ibn Ezra,⁴⁵ Rashbam,Shemot 32:1-4About R. Shemuel b. Meir R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 32:1-8Shemot 32:20Shemot 32:25-26Shemot 33:7Shemot 34:30About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambanShemot 32:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman, RalbagShemot Beur HaParashah 31:18Shemot Beur HaParashah 32:1About R. Levi b. Gershom, AbarbanelShemot 32:1-7About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, R. Eliezer AshkenaziMa'asei Hashem Ma'asei Torah 11Ma'asei Hashem Ma'asei Torah 12About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi (Ma'asei Hashem), ShadalShemot 32:4Shemot 32:8-9Shemot 32:27About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto

Impact of Moshe's delay – According to these sources, the connection between Moshe's delay and the desire to make a replacement is obvious.  Moshe's prolonged absence⁴⁶ led the people to conclude that he was never returning, prompting them to look for a substitute to lead them.⁴⁷

Perceptions of Moshe – These sources suggest a variety of possibilities regarding the people's perceptions of Moshe.  Each could have potentially played a role in their actions:

• Moshe the prophet – Ramban assumes that the people viewed Moshe as a  prophet with special access to Hashem, giving him the ability to perform miracles and knowledge of their future path.  Without such access, the nation felt lost, leading them to look for an alternative "איש א-להים".
• Moshe the magician – Abarbanel posits that throughout their travels, the Israelites constantly doubted Hashem, and even attributed the Exodus to Moshe and Aharon rather than Him.  They assumed that Moshe on his own had special powers to work miracles.  Thus, with his absence, they asked Aharon, whom they thought knew Moshe's secrets, to create a different being which might summon similar powers.
• Moshe the fraud – R"E Ashkenazi, in contrast, asserts that the people did not doubt Hashem but rather Moshe.  Aware of the prophecy that they were supposed to be in Egypt for 400 years, they worried that the early Exodus⁴⁸ was proof that Moshe was not sent by Hashem but rather that he was acting on his own.  As such, they took his disappearance as proof that he must not have been Hashem's messenger, and might have even been happy to replace him.

"עֲשֵׂה לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ" – Though all these sources agree that the people were looking for something to guide and literally "go before them" in the wilderness, they differ regarding the nature of the guide requested, the meaning of the word "אֱלֹהִים", and why the people would have thought that a metallic sculpture could lead them at all:

• Human replacement – R. Yosef Bekhor Shor posits that the nation requested a human alternative to Moshe, and that "אֱלֹהִים" here carries its secular connotation of judge or leader.⁴⁹  It was Aharon who decided to create an object instead of appointing a person.⁵⁰
• Object of magical powers – Rashbam, Ralbag, and Abarbanel maintain that the Children of Israel requested a talisman which could foretell the future through sorcery or magic, and the word "אֱלֹהִים" refers to something with supernatural abilities.⁵¹
• Replacement for the Aron – R. Eliezer Ashkenazi posits that Moshe had promised to bring the people an ark whose job would be to guide and go before them, like a banner, until they reached settled lands.⁵²  It was this "national flag" that they wished to replace.⁵³  According to him, "אֱ-לֹהִים" might be short for "ארון א-להים", or could simply mean a guide.

Why a calf rather than a person?

• Aharon's initiative – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, it was Aharon's idea to create an inanimate leader rather than appoint a human one.⁵⁴ He feared that the people would be quick to switch their allegiance to a different human, leading to fighting when Moshe returned.  However, if he made a golden form without any powers, they would abandon it as soon as Moshe returned and re-embrace Moshe.
• Nation's initiative – Abarbanel, in contrast, maintains that the people specifically asked for an inanimate object that could invoke heavenly powers, rather than a human, since humans are mortal and might disappear (as demonstrated by Moshe).  He suggests that they might have chosen a bull as that was the astrological sign following that of the ram which was held sacred by Egypt, and they believed that through it Moshe had defeated Egypt.

"אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם"

• Abarbanel asserts that the people did not believe that the Calf they had just made actually took them out of Egypt but rather that a form similar to it might have been the source of Moshe's powers that enabled him to successfully lead the people.  Ibn Ezra suggests more simply that the people meant that this new leader was replacing the leader who had taken them out of Egypt.
• R. Ashkenazi, in contrast, assumes that already with its creation, some people strayed after the Calf and actually believed that it was the power who took them out of Egypt.  This stemmed from their belief that the God of Avraham who had decreed that they would be in Egypt for 400 years could not have been the One who ordained the Exodus.

"חַג לַי"י מָחָר" – R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that Aharon was announcing that on the next day they would celebrate the inauguration of their new leader and that they would have a feast to thank Hashem for it.

Offering sacrifices, feasting, and "צחוק"

• For Hashem –  R"Y Bekhor Shor maintains that the sacrifices were for Hashem's honor, a natural part of any inaugural ceremony.  He compares it to the celebration of Shaul's coronation, which was similarly accompanied by sacrifices and happiness (the "צחוק" of our verse).
• For idolatry – Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, Abarbanel, and R"E Ashkenazi, in contrast, all assert that part of the nation erred and began to worship the Calf as a deity, bowing and sacrificing to it.

"וַיָּמִירוּ אֶת כְּבוֹדָם בְּתַבְנִית שׁוֹר" – R"Y Bekhor Shor understands that the "honor" of the nation mentioned is Moshe, not Hashem.  Thus, the psalm can work with this approach and be understood as saying that the people replaced their leader, Moshe, with a bull. Alternatively, the verse is referring to the part of the nation that actively worshiped the Calf.

Breaking of the Luchot

• Intentional – Shadal posits that Moshe might have wanted to shock the nation back to their senses, while Ralbag suggests that this was a nullification of the covenant since the people had turned the Calf into a deity.
• Unintentional – Rashbam, in contrast, asserts that upon seeing the Calf, Moshe's strength left him and he dropped the Tablets.  E. Touitou⁵⁵ suggests that Rashbam's difficult read of the verse⁵⁶ might have polemical motivations.  Christianity believed that the due to the sin, the Sinai Covenant was nullified and subsequent commandments were given to punish the nation for their betrayal of Hashem.  As such, Rashbam goes out of his way to show that the sin was not a rejection of Hashem and that it did not involve breaking the Covenant.

Drinking of the Calf's ashes

• Incidental – R"Y Bekhor Shor posits that Moshe did not actively give the nation of the ashes to drink.  He simply sprinkled the Calf's remains in the water to dispose of them, but since this was the nation's water source while in Sinai, they ended up drinking it.
• Intentional lesson – The other commentators who assume that some of the nation actively worshiped the Calf, assert that this action was aimed at them. Ramban and Ralbag maintain that Moshe wanted to demonstrate the Calf's futility, that a god which can be drunk is not worthy of worship.⁵⁷

Defense of the nation – These sources manage  to absolve the nation of almost all guilt as the people's request for a calf was not a betrayal of Hashem at all and only a transgression in the realm of magical practices.  Even though a portion of the nation strayed and actively worshiped it, this was merely a small minority.

Aharon's role – All of these sources defend Aharon by pointing out that he was not creating the Calf to replace Hashem in any way, and never intended it to be worshiped.  Nonetheless, they have differing views of the degree of his culpability:

• According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Aharon never even intended to infuse the Calf with any magical abilities and throughout was simply trying to placate the people by providing a powerless leader whom they would abandon as soon as Moshe returned.  As such he does not sin at all.  This makes his appointment as priest very understandable.  However, Hashem's anger at him appear unwarranted.⁵⁸
• The other commentators portray Aharon as trying to procrastinate,⁵⁹ both so that the people  would recognize that a man-made object cannot be a deity and in the hope that Moshe would return before anyone acted.  Despite his intentions, however, the people did stray, making Aharon himself also culpable.

Severity of punishment – Since the nation did not reject Hashem, these sources need to explain Hashem's desire to wipe them out:

• Zealous for Moshe's honor – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor, Hashem's actions were aimed at avenging Moshe's honor, not His own.⁶⁰  This might explain why Moshe's prayers in this episode were so readily accepted.
• Angry at idolaters – The other commentators assert that Hashem was angry at the minority who strayed after the Calf and viewed it as a god.

Polemical motivations – Throughout his comments to the chapter, R"Y Bekhor Shor speaks of the "heretics" who mock Israel for failing and sinning with the Calf, alluding to Christian claims that this sin led to a breaking of Hashem's Covenant with Israel and necessitated the system of commandments as a corrective. It is likely that his reading of the story, which presents the people as not even asking for a physical image at all and hence absolves them of sinning against Hashem, is motivated by a desire to refute these claims.⁶¹

Combination

As the nation was not a homogeneous group, it is possible that while some people viewed the Calf as an alternative god, others believed that it was simply a tangible representation of Hashem and yet others looked to it to guide them in their travels.

¹ See Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer who claims that they "forgot Hashem".

² R. Yochanan in Bavli Sanhedrin points to the plural form of the statement, "אֵלֶּה אֱ-לֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם" to prove that the people still believed in Hashem, but had just added another god to their pantheon.  R. Shimon b. Yochai, in contrast, says the plural form does not lessen the sin's severity but rather intensifies it, as it implies that the nation desired multiple gods even beyond the Calf.  See Rashi who explains similarly, but picks up on the plural form of the verb "יֵלְכוּ" in the phrase "עֲשֵׂה לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ".  R"Y Kara disagrees and demonstrates that the plural is merely a standard form used with the word "אֱלֹהִים".

³ Cf. Rashi who asserts that the Satan had brought chaos and darkness to the world, leading the people to conclude that Moshe had died.

⁴ R. Avraham b. HaRambam suggests that Hashem calls the nation an "עַם קְשֵׁה עֹרֶף" because they had turned back towards the idolatry of Egypt.

⁵ According to Rashi, Aharon had no intention of making a calf specifically but the mixed multitudes which had joined from Egypt ("ערב רב") used their magic to fashion this form.

⁶ See, similarly, the Hoil Moshe who connects the choice to Apis, the bull-deity of Egypt.

⁷ Though this is not mentioned in the Torah's narration of the event, when Hashem tells Moshe what the people have done, he includes their bowing.

⁸ He compares it to the same term found in Bereshit 39:17, where its context suggests that it refers to sexual play.

⁹ One could similarly say that the Tablets were representative of the covenant between the nation and Hashem; once the people transgressed its conditions, the covenant was nullified.

¹⁰ According to Rashi, drinking the water was not just a test, but actually caused the deaths of those who had worshiped the Calf.  While the Levites punished according to judicial law – killing those who acted in front of witnesses and with warning, the water killed the people who might have slipped through the judicial process because there were no witnesses to their deed.

¹¹ See Ramban below..

¹² See Melakhim II 10:18-28, and see below regarding the possible polemical motivations.

¹³ R. Saadia questions why Hashem gets angry at Aharon when Yehu's actions were praised?  He answers that Aharon is rebuked only for pushing off the sacrifice and waiting for Moshe when he should have immediately tested and punished the people.

¹⁴ Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer even asserts that the tactic should have succeeded since the women refused to hand over their jewelry, telling their husbands that the endeavor was futile.  The husbands, however, did not listen and instead gave of their own jewelry.

¹⁵ R. Hirsch 32:2 criticizes Aharon for not being willing to risk his life.  On the controversy regarding the halakhic status of someone who violates one of the three cardinal sins under duress rather than laying down his life, see Rambam in Iggeret HaShemad and his dispute with his anonymous opponent.

¹⁶ In fact, opponents of this approach point to Aharon's role and lack of punishment, as proof that the sin could not have been one of belief in other gods.

¹⁷ See Selection of the Priests and Levites for different understandings of when Aharon was appointed priest, before or after the sin.

¹⁸ Cf. Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer which has the Satan play this role.  The Midrash points to the verse in Tehillim 106 which describes the Calf as "תַבְנִית שׁוֹר אֹכֵל עֵשֶׂב" to show that they enabled it to eat.

¹⁹ As further support, Rashi also points to Hashem's choice of language when speaking to Moshe about the nation: "כִּי שִׁחֵת עַמְּךָ".  He explains that Hashem was chastising Moshe for having accepted the "ערב רב" into the nation; it was only "Moshe's nation" that sinned, not Hashem's.  R. Avraham b. HaRambam similarly claims that Hashem pointed to the "אספסוף" as being in Moshe's charge.

²⁰ For more about the people's beliefs while in Egypt, see Religious Identity in Egypt.

²¹ See N. Leibowitz, עיונים חדשים בספר שמות (Jerusalem, 5730): 399-400, who develops this idea.  See also R. Bachya regarding the request to leave Egypt on a three day journey who claims that originally Hashem had planed on gradually moving the nation into belief of Hashem, knowing that they were not ready.  For elaboration, see A Three Day Journey,

²² Cf. the discussion of R. Saadia's position on Avraham's actions in Endangering Sarai in Egypt.  In particular, see note 37 on the Approaches page there.

²³ This is how Ibn Ezra explains the story in his explanation of Shemot 20:19. In his comments on Shemot 32, however, he takes the approach below, that the nation was looking for a guide to replace Moshe.  He also mention there that a portion of the nation erred and viewed the Calf as a deity which they began to worship.  As such, in his various comments, Ibn Ezra incorporates elements of all three approaches discussed here.

²⁴ Since the people were used to people who worshiped their gods via idols, they, too, felt a need for some concrete representation of God's presence, and greatly anticipated Moshe's descent.  For elaboration, see Purpose of the Mishkan.

²⁵ R. Yehuda HaLevi points out that the people might have thought that Moshe was supposed to return within a day or two. Seeing that Moshe had not taken any food with him and that weeks had passed, they naturally concluded the worst.

²⁶ Just as the Keruvim were where Hashem's presence descended, the Calf would serve as a pedestal for His glory.

²⁷ Shemot 24 states: "וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת אֱ-לֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר", which Lekach Tov assumes refers to the legs of angels which resemble the feet of calves.

²⁸ See his article, "The Ideological Basis of the Sin of the Golden Calf."

²⁹ See Yechezkel 1.

³⁰ Yechezkel 1:10 lists the four faces of the beast of Yechezkel's vision as being man, lion, ox, and eagle. The parallel verse in 10:14 lists, cherub, lion, man, and eagle, suggesting that the ox and cherub must be synonymous. Cf. Cassuto below who, in contrast, distinguishes between the form of the cherubs and that of the Calf, claiming that the former were fantastical creatures. It was for this very reason that they were allowed in the Mishkan, as they could not be mistaken for a real animal which could eventually come to be worshiped in place of Hashem.

³¹ The entire vision in Yechezkel also suggests that the Keruvim were meant to be Hashem's "chariot", carrying His presence.  See also R. Kasher, תורה שלמה, Volume 21 (Jerusalem, 5725): 206-208, who further develops this general idea.

³² See N. Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1996): 217-219, and the sources cited there.

³³ See discussion in תורה שלמה, Volume 21 (Jerusalem, 5725): 206-208.

³⁴ See the NetzivShemot 32:2About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin who precedes him in this defense.

³⁵ Cf. Ibn Ezra who asserts that this was the command that Aharon and the people transgressed in creating the Calf.

³⁶ Cassuto also raises the possibility that despite the original intentions, at some point, many of the people mistook the calf for an actual god. It was these people who cried, "אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם".  Their plural language suggests that although they did not forget Hashem, they thought that the Calf, too, deserved to be worshiped in its own right.

³⁷ He adds that, nonetheless, some of the people erred and viewed the Calf itself as a deity and began to sacrifice to it. See Cassuto as well.

³⁸ The Kuzari points out that this number only amounted to the 3,000 people killed by the Levites (only a one-half of one percent of the nation).  [He apparently understands that the plague mentioned at the end of Chapter 32 refers back to the actions of the Levites, and that there were no other casualties.]  Moreover, Hashem did not abandon the nation; the manna continued to fall and the cloud to protect them.

³⁹ Cf. the nation's beliefs regarding the magical power of the Ark in Shemuel I 4:3-5, and the lesson which Hashem attempted to teach them via the subsequent events.

⁴⁰ See Ibn Ezra and Cassuto.  Ibn Ezra also posits that Moshe might have smashed the Luchot in his zealous anger over the sin, or as a sign that the nuptials between Israel and Hashem were canceled.  This fits with the position that part of of the nation actively committed idolatry

⁴¹ See Melakhim I 12:28-30.

⁴² See Shofetim 8:23-27.

⁴³ Also the bronze serpent created by Moshe eventually became a stumbling block, with the people sacrificing to it throughout the monarchic period.  See Bemidbar 21:4-9 and Melakhim II 18:4.

⁴⁴ For elaboration, see Purpose of the Mishkan.

⁴⁵ This is how Ibn Ezra explains the story in his comments to Shemot 32.  In explaining Shemot 20:19, however, he takes the approach above, that the people viewed the Calf as an object via which they could worship Hashem.

⁴⁶ Ibn Ezra and others in his wake point out that the people did not know how long Moshe was supposed to stay on the mountain.  In the midst of the wilderness, his long absence would have easily been cause for anxiety and led to the natural conclusion that he might have died.

⁴⁷ These sources point out that this approach best explains why the reason given by the nation for their request is "כִּי זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ... לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה הָיָה לוֹ".  There is a direct link between the missing Moshe and the requested replacement.

⁴⁸ For different approaches regarding the length of the sojourn in Egypt, see Duration of the Egyptian Exile.

⁴⁹ R"Y Bekhor Shor points to the word's usage in Shemot 7:1 and Shemot 22:8.

⁵⁰ See below for Aharon's reasoning.

⁵¹ Ibn Ezra is enigmatic but also appears to view the Calf as a form which could be imbued with heavenly power and thus be able to guide the people.

⁵² See Bemidbar 10:33: "וַאֲרוֹן בְּרִית י"י נֹסֵעַ לִפְנֵיהֶם דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים לָתוּר לָהֶם מְנוּחָה".

⁵³ It seems that according to R"E Ashkenazi the nation did not actually expect the object to become a thinking being who could make decisions and tell them where to go.  Rather they were creating a national symbol which would stand at the head of the nation during their travels.

⁵⁴ He does not explain why he chose the form of a calf rather than any other.

⁵⁵ See "הפשטות המתחדשים בכל יום", (Jerusalem, 2003): 172-173.

⁵⁶ The verse says that Moshe "cast" or "threw" down the Tablets which is a proactive, not unintentional, act.  Moreover, in the retelling in Devarim 9:17, Moshe says, "and I grasped the Tablets and threw them" ("וָאֶתְפֹּשׂ בִּשְׁנֵי הַלֻּחֹת וָאַשְׁלִכֵם"), a description that further implies intent.  Finally, in describing the breaking of the Tablets it is the pi'el (intensive) form of the verb which is used ("וָאֲשַׁבְּרֵם לְעֵינֵיכֶם"), suggesting that Moshe did not simply drop the Tablets, but that he intentionally smashed them.

⁵⁷ See how R"Y Bekhor Shor uses this very argument to respond to Christians who mock the Jews for the episode of the Golden Calf.  He claims that when they partake of the Eucharist they, too, should keep in mind that a god who can be eaten/drunk, is not a real god.

⁵⁸ See Devarim 9 where Moshe states that Hashem wanted to kill Aharon for his actions: "וּבְאַהֲרֹן הִתְאַנַּף י"י מְאֹד לְהַשְׁמִידוֹ".

⁵⁹ See Ralbag who points out that Aharon asked the women for their jewelry assuming they would not willing give of it, that he chiseled the image rather than using a mold, and finally that he made it by himself.  All of this was intended to make the work take as long as possible.

⁶⁰ R"Y Bekhor Shor explains the beams of light on Moshe's face as stemming from a similar goal. These were intended to show the nation that Moshe was filled with Hashem's glory, and that there could be no substitute for him, except by Hashem's command.  R"Y Bekhor Shor further suggests that the people's rebellion led to Moshe's decision to move his tent outside of the camp (Shemot 33:7).

⁶¹ Note how R"Y Behor Shor does not suffice with presenting the Children of Israel in a positive light, but also actively mocks their accusers.  Thus, for example, he asks how they can vilify Israel for one Calf when daily they make idols and worship false gods.