Aberbach - Smolar - The Golden Calf in Posbiblical Literature

8/13/2019 Aberbach - Smolar - The Golden Calf in Posbiblical Literature

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aberbach-smolar-the-golden-calf-in-posbiblical-literature 1/27

T H E G O L D E N C A L F E P I S O D E I NP O S TB I B L I CA L L I T E R A T U R E

LEIVY SMOLAR and MOSHE ABERBACHBaltimore Hebrew College, Baltimore, Md.

PREFACE

T H E confli ct b et we en t h e e a rl y C h ur c h a n d t h e S yn ag og ue c en te re d

pr imar i ly o n t h e va l id i ty of t h e Sinai t ic covenan t be tween G odan d th e anc ien t I s rae l ites. T h e Churc h c la imed in th e first p lace t h a tthe Cove nan t had been ab r oga ted a t t h e ve r y mome n t of i t s i ncept ion b y t h e t reacherous a c t of t h e Israeli tes wh o h a d re jec ted t h e proffered bond of G o d b y the i r mak i ng a n d a dor ing t h e golden calf . Secondly, —a nd a s a d i r ec t consequence of the i r per f idy — th e Jews n o longerconst i tu ted t he t ru e Israel . Th is d is t inct ion now belonged exclusivelyt o th e Chur ch . A ll t h a t con tempor ar y J ew s r e t a ined w as a bu r densome

ceremonial law, which ha d alre ady been divested of i ts covenanta lsanct ion an d was, therefore, wi tho ut a n y va l id i ty .T h e r abb ini c r eac t ion w as to under t a ke a mass ive de f ense an d

mi l i tan t counter a t tack , th e keys tone of which was t o asser t def ian t lyth e con t inued e lect ion of I s rael and i t s con t inued s ta t us a s God ' s be-loved people. I srael ' s s infulness — so f requ ent ly denounced b y th eProphe ts — w as considerab ly minimized b y th e r abbis , some of wh omdenied i t a l toge ther . Th is i s par t icu lar ly ev iden t in th e r abb in ic t r e a t -me nt of t he golden calf episode. While adm it t ing t he gravi ty of th is

of fense a nd i ts ser ious consequences, t he rabb is categor ical ly deniedth a t i t ha d in an y w ay impa i red th e lov ing re l at i onship be tween G odan d I s rae l. God h ad never r e jec ted I s rae l, which con t inued t o be Hi schosen people.

I . T H E G O LD EN C A L F E P IS OD E

a ) Source of Embarrassment

Of a ll th e s ins commit ted b y th e I s rae l i tes in th e wilderness, none proved t o b e s o embar rass ing t o l a t e r generat ions a s t h e mak ing of

h ld lf 1 Wi h h h f i S i i d



[2 ]LEIVY SMOLAR AND MOSHE ABERBACH92

more, wi th th e emergence of t h e ant i - Jewish polemics of t he ear lyChur ch, t h e whole episode of th e golden calf becam e highly discon-cer t ing. T h e par t ic ipat ion of Aa ron in th e construct ion of t h e goldencalf was a n addi t ional source of d eep concern. Th is inevi tably led t ot h e emergence of a n apologet ic l i terature, th e basic tend ency of whichwa s t o min imize th e gu i l t of I s rae l in general , an d of Aaron in par t icu lar .

b ) Pre-rabbinic Defense; Josephus and Philo

A lr eady Josephus , w ho d id n o t have t o w or r y abo u t Chr is t i an polemics, b u t w a s concerned w i t h p ag an ant i -Semit ism (which in-

e luded the a ll egat ion th a t t h e J ew s w orsh ipped an a s s i n t he T e mple ;cf . C. Ap. I I , 7 [80]; 9 [114,120]; Ta ci tu s, Hist. V, 3 f .) , deliber atelyomi t ted t he en t i r e go lden calf s to ry f r om h is account of th e I s rae l i tewander ings in t he deser t . H e prov ided ins tead a n impl ied defense ofth e I sr ae li te s w i thou t r e fe r ring t o t he i r c r ime b y s t a t i ng (Ant. 111,5,7[95-98] ) th a t the y were se ized b y grea t anx ie t y abou t Moses ' f a te ,a f ra id e i ther t h a t " h e ha d fa l len a v ic t im of wild beas t s" o r e l se ha ddied a na tu ra l dea th , an d " t hu s th ey con tinued in deepes t d i s tr ess . . . N e i the r could t h e y res t r a in the i r gr ief a n d de jec t ion . " W h e n a t l as t

Moses comes down, "h is a ppearance filled t he ca mp wi th joy , a nd h e proceeded t o disclose t h e ca re which G od h a d f o r t h e m. . . " (ibid ., 5, 8[99]). Ins t ead of breaki ng t h e tablets , Moses actual ly displayed the mt o t he r ejoi cing mu l t i t udes (ibid., [101], 6,1 [102]). I n th e whol e ac -

count , the re i s no t a s ingle word abo ut th e go lden cal f .Aaron , needless t o say , i s a l toge ther absen t f ro m th is par t of th e

nar ra t ive , as he i s a lso in th e account of t he go lden calf ep isode a sg iv en b y Phi lo (Moses I I , 161-174,271). Josep hus, wh o wa s himself a

pr ies t a n d p r oud of h is pr iest ly descen t (cf. Vita, I , i f f . ) , f r e qu e n tl yeulogizes Aa ro n (Ant. 111,8 [188-92]; IV,2 ,4 [28-33]; 3,4 [56-58]; 4,2[65-66]; 5,1 [85]), a n d wr as no d oub t anxious to avoid a n y r e fe r encewhich mig ht b e d i sparaging t o Aaron ' s r epu ta t ion . Josephus ' apolo

t op of t he throne was round behind") to ה ס כ ל לג וראש ע "and th e th rone had a ca lf ' s

head a t i t s back" (RSV: "and a t t he back of the th rone was a cal f' s head" ) . The

problem of Israel 's embarrassment, reasons Montgomery, was behind t h e reading

in t he received te xt: " th e massoret ic pointing changed th e or iginal word, doubtless

t o get r id of t he unh appy associations with t he calf , a s in the case of Aaron an d th e

peo pl e (Exod. 32), a n d of Jeroboam." I n a similar fashion, t h e parallel account inI I Chron. 9:18 replaced th e word עגל wi th כבש ( lamb), and t hen changed the pointing

t d 0 (f t t l) f M t ibid ] f l J G Ki (Phil d l hi





[4]LEIVY SMOLAR AND MOSHE ABERBACH94

cf. also Gal . 5:2 ff.; 6:12 -1 5; Ep h . 2:11 ff.; Phil. 3:2 f. ; Col. 2:11 ff.).T h e P a ul i ne a t t i t u d e to w a r d t h e S i na it ic co v e n a n t w a s c l ea r: ' O u rsuf ficiency i s f r om God, w ho h as qual if i ed us t o b e mini s ters of a new

covenant , no t i n a wr i t t en code b u t i n t h e S p ir i t ; f o r t h e wr i t t en codekil ls , b u t t h e Spir i t gives l i fe . N o w if t h e dispensat ion of de ath , carved

in l e t t e r s on s tone , came wi th suc h sp lendor th a t th e I s rae li t es couldn o t look a t Moses ' face because of i t s br ightness, fad ing a s th i s was ,wil l no t th e d i spensat ion of th e Spi r i t b e a t t ende d wi th grea te r sp len-dor ? . . . S ince we hav e such a hope, we are ver y bold, n ot l ike Moses ,who pu t a vei l ove r h i s f a ce s o t h a t t he I sr ae li te s migh t no t s ee t h eend of t he f ad ing s p lendor . B u t t he i r minds we re ha rdened ; f o r t o t h i s

day , when t he y r ead t he o ld covenan t , t h a t s ame ve il r ema insu n -l i f ted . . . " ( I I Cor . 3:5b- 8, 12-14a; cf . Exod . 34:27-35, t h e giving ofth e second tab le t s ; c f. Or igen , Homil ies on Exod us X I I ; cf . al so infra,

no te 9 ) .W h e t h e r a n d h o w m u c h t h e P a ul i ne a t t i t u d e t o w ar d t h e c o v e na n t

of th e Jew s an d to ward Jewish covenanta l prac t i ces had a l ready pre -va i led in th e Chur ch dur ing these predes truc t ion years i s no t a l to-gethe r evident . 3 Pol i ti ca l ly , however , th e Ch urch w as wel l on i t s wa yt o a c o mp l et e s e pa r at i on f r o m t h e m a i n b o d y of J u d a i s m . W h e n t h e

smal l grou p of Chris t ians lef t t h e wa r zone in Jerusalem an d crossedth e J o r dan t o find r e fuge i n Pe ll a, t he re was n o l onger an y doub t t ha tt h e C hurch had dec ided t o pu r s ue i t s own des t iny .T o t h e C hr is ti an s,moreover , t h e subsequent des t ruc tion of th e Tem ple was i r re fu tableevidence of G od 's re ject ion of t he Jews.4 I t i s dur ing th e final decadesof t he first cen tury in fac t t h a t th e the me of t he re jec tion of t he Jews b y G o d begins t o ap p ea r i n t h e growing b o d y of Chr is t i an l i t e ra ture(e. g . , th e Epis t le of Barnab as) .5 T h e C hurch now conside red on ly

3 Cf., however, B. Reicke, The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude (New York,1964), p. 23 on J am es 1:22 f. , where Reicke suggests t ha t the identification of t hegospel with law "does not involve any a t t em pt t o introduce external observances."Cf. a lso A. Meyer , " Da s Rätsel des Jacobsbriefes," Β Ζ NT 10 (Glessen, 193

0)» ΡΡ·

98 ff.; Ρ . Fe ine , J . Behm, W. G . K ümmel, Introduction to the New Testament 14 (New

Yo rk, 1966), pp . 288 ff.; Ac ts 1 5:1-35; 21:18-2 6; Ga l. 2:1 ff.4 Despite th e allegorical understanding of Je su s ' s tatemen t tha t he would destroy

the temple and then rebui ld i t in th ree days (cf. Jo hn 2:19, followed in B arn aba s6:24; 11:1, 10), it is evident th at ther e existed anothe r view which considered hiswords literally (cf. Mark 13:2; 14:58, especially 15:29; Matt. 24:1-2; 26:61; Luke

21:5-7; Acts 6:14). Cf. also M . Simon, Récherches d'histoire Jiideo-Chrétienne (Paris,1962) , pp. i l , 18; cf. , however, H . J . Schoeps, Theologie und Geschichte des Juden-

Christentums (Tübi ngen, 1949), pp . 222 ff.; cf. Cle ment , Stromata VI , 15, 148; Origen,



[5] THE GOLDEN CALF EPISODE IN POSTBIBLICAL LITERATURE 9 5

itse lf a nd i t s members t o be th e "chosen race , a roya l pr ies thood, aholy na t ion , God ' s own people" ( I Pe te r 2 :19) . F ina lly , t h e moti f be -g ins t o deve lop which l inked th e c ruc if ix ion ( the Jewish "c r im e" ) an dth e dest ruc t ion of t h e t emple ( the d iv ine punishment ) .6

T h e re lat ionship be tween Chr i s t i an i ty an d Juda i sm w as consider -ab ly worsened b y t h e pe rs ecu ti on of t h e C hr is t i ans a t t h e han ds ofB a r Koc hba ( cf. J us t i n , First Apology 31 ; Eusebiu s Eccl. Hist. IV,6,2).T h e v i r tua l ru in of Jud ae a a s a resu l t of th e suppress ion of th e Ba rKoc hba rebe ll ion in 135 served a s addi tiona l p r o o f —i f proof weres ti ll needed — th a t Go d h ad r epud i a ted t h e J ews and t h a t t h e c l aimof t h e C hurch t o hav e been chos en t o s uper s ede t he J ewi sh peop l e

h a d b e en c om pl et el y v i n di ca te d. T o J u s t i n M a r t y r , t h e J e w s w e reut te r ly re jec ted . T h e ma rk of c i rcumcis'on th us represented t oJ us t i n no t a s ign of an y covenan t be tween God an d t he JewTs , bu tonl y a s ymb ol of t hei r sepa rat i on a n d suffering, of th e desolat ion ofPa lest ine an d th e exclus ion of th e Jew s f rom Je rusa lem {Dial. 16,2).

b ) Rabbinic Defense Methods

T h e rabbin ic defense of th e cont inued s ta tu s of t he Je ws a s a

cove nan t people s imi lar ly assumed new dimensions . Fro m t h e en d oft h e first c en tu ry onward , bo t h t he Tann a im an d t h e Amora im weredeeply concerned wi th th e polemical a t tac ks of Chris t iani ty. 7 C on-nec ted a s t h ey we re w i t h C hr i st i an mi ss ionary e f fo r ts on t h e onehand , and w i th th e growing decl ine of Pa lest in ian Je wry on th e o ther ,C hr is t ian pol emic s s pur r ed t h e r abb i s on t o cons t ruc t a n equa l l y mili-

p . 19; R . A. Kra f t , "Barnabas ' Isaiah T ex t an d t h e 'Test imony Book' Hypothesis," JBL 79 (i960), pp . 336 ff. Cf. also S. Lowy, " T h e Confutat ion of Juda ism in th e

Epistle of Barnaba s," Journal of Jewish Studies, 11 (i960), pp . 1-33.6 Cf., e. g., Tertul lian, Against the Jews 8, 13; cf. also A. Marmorstein , Religions-

geschichtliche Studien, He f t I I (Pressburg , 1912), pp . i i o f f . ; H . J . Schoeps , Aus

frühchristlicher Zeit: Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Tübing en, 1950), pp .144 ff.

7 While Α. Marmorstein, "Judaism and Christ ianity in the Middle of th e Third

Century ," HUCA 10 (1935), p. 241, not e 7, mai nta ins : " t h e bur den of t he accusation

against Israel as t aught by t he Churc h from the middle of t he second century on-

wards is not ye t [viz. in the tanna itic period] discernible," B.W . Helfgo tt , The Doc

trine of Election in Tannaitic Literature (New Ycrk , 1954), p. 141, contends th at

af t er t he separat ion of th e Judaeo-Christ ians f r cm Judaism following th e Bar Kochbarising — certainly b y th e time of t h e redaction of th e Mishna h (c. 200) — "Chris-tian ity was no longer considered a particularly Jewish problem " Cf also Y Baer




t a n t defense of t h e covenan t an d t he l aw in general , an d of c en t r alJewish cove nanta l pract ices such as c i rcumcis ion in par t icu lar (cf .,

e . g . , A v o t d e R. Nathan, ch. 2 , edi t . Schechter Vers . A, 6b [12] ;Mekhi l t a on Exod. 18:3, 20 :20, ed i t . F r i edmann, 58a ; Gen. Ra bb ah

X L I Í I : 6 ; X L V I : 2, 5 ; X L V I I 7 ; L ev . Ra b b ah X XV : 6) . N o t ev en t h e personal p i e ty a n d learn ing of t h e Chri s t ians impressed t h e rabbin icupholders of th e law. Hen ce R . Eleaza r of Mo di ' in , a kins man of Ba rKochb a an d himself a n a rden t na t i ona l is t (T . J . T a ' an i t IV :8 , 68d) ,w a r ne d t h a t 4 'whoever desecrates w h a t has bee n sancti f ied (viz. th eSabb a th) , p rofanes th e fes tival s . . . , des t roys th e cov enant of ourf a the r Abrah am, o r a r rogan t l y i nt e rp re t s t h e l aw no t a ccord ing t o

t h e halacha, t hough he ha s t o h is cr ed i t knowledge of t he To ra h an dg oo d d ee ds , h a s n o s h a re i n t h e w o rl d t o c o m e " ( M . A v o t h I I I :11).8

I n t h e f a ce of w h a t a pp e ar e d t o t h e J e wt o be a Chr i s t i an rewr it ingof God ' s p l an i n h i st o ry , t he r abb i s unde r took fu r t h e r t o de fend t h eac ti ons of t h e J ews no t o n ly i n t h e p re s en t bu t i n t he pa s t a s wel l.T h e r abb i s we re aware t h a t t he C hurch w as u ti li zi ng t he epi sode ofthe cons t ruct ion and worship of the golden cal f in the wi lderness b y t h e anc ien t Israelites a s historic evidence t h a t t h e co venan t be-t w ee n G o d a n d t h e J e w s h a d b e en s e ve re d a t t h e ve ry daw n of J ewi s h

na t i ona l h i s to ry . T h e C hur ch was a l s o argu ing t h a t t he covenan t hadnever even tak en effect s ince t h e first tab le ts of t h e tes t imon y ha d been broken e ven before t h e Israeli tes h a d eve r r eceived t h e m . I t w a sth e c r ime of t he go lden calf wh ich t he C hurch F a the r s us ed t o deni -g r a t e t h e J e w s n o t o n l y f o r t h e i r s in s t h r o u gh o u t t h e i r h i s t or y b u ta l so for the i r observance of th e ce remonia l l aw, th e immense burde nof which wa s depic ted a s a d iv ine punishmen t for th e s in of t h e goldencalf (Just in, Dial. 20,3; 21,1; 22,1; Apostolic Constitutions 6,4,20;Origen, Comment, on Romans 2 :14; Lac tant ius , Divine Institutes 4,1o).9

8 Cf . a lso Sifre t o Nu m. 15:31; edit . Fr iedmann 33a: ה ל ג מ ה הז בזה: ר ה ב ד את כי

זה ב מ ה ו םי שד קה ת א ל ל ח מ ה :י ע ד ו מ ה א״ר ן אמר א כ מ .רשב תי ר ב ר פ מ ה הז פר: ה י ת ו צ מ תא ו ורה. תב םינפ

לם ו ע ה מן ו ת ו ח ד ל וא י ה ד כ ה ב ר ה תו צ מ ו ד י ב שיש אע"פ נו, י בא םה ר ב א לש ו תי ר ב ר פ מ ה ו תו ד ע ו מ ה תא.

Cf . also Avoth de-R. N atha n, ch. 26, edit . Schechter , Vers. A, 41b; T.B. Sanhédrin99a; Shevu 'oth 13a (a var ia nt at tr i buted t o Ju dah t he P atr iarch) ; cf . a lso T.Y .Sanh édrin 10:1, 27b; P o m . 14:5-6; I Cor. 7:18; Col. 2:16; Strack-Billerbeck, Kom-

mentar zum Neuen Testament I I , pp. 753 f . ; Κ . Mar t i and G. Bee r, Die Mischna

Aboth (Glessen, 1927), not es 4, 5, 6.9 On th e giving of t he second set of tablets, which the Ch urch considered t o be

of no covenantal value what ever, identifying it a t different times wit h th e inferiorceremonial law, the deuterosis, an d/ or in broader terms, th e "second law" repre-

sen ted b y th e entire corpus of rabbinic legislation cf M Simon Verus Israel (Paris



97THE GOLDEN CALF EPISODE IN POSTBIBLICAL LITERATURE[7]

I I I . T H E G O LD EN C A L F E P I S OD E : C HR IS TI AN V I E W S

a ) New Testament

T h e s p e e c h a t t r i b u t e d t o S t e p h e n a t h i s t r i a l ( A c t s 7 ) c o n t a i n s a

d e t a i l e d e xp o s i t i o n of t h e c r i m e of t h e g o l d e n ca l f a n d i t s h i s t o r i c c o n -

s e q u e n c e s . A f t e r r e v i e w i n g t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e I s ra e l i t e s d o w n t o t h e

p e r i o d o f t h e E x o d u s , S t e p h e n s p e a k s o f t h e r o l e o f M o s e s w h o h a d

b e e n s e n t a s a " r u l e r a n d d e l i v e r e r י ' ( v . 3 5 ) w h o m " o u r f a t h e r s ( v i z .

t h e I s r ae l i t e s) r e f u s e d t o o b e y י ' ( v . 3 9 ) . I n s t e a d , h e c o n t i n u e s , t h e y

t u r n e d t o A a r o n1 0

a n d d e m a n d e d t h a t h e m a k e " g o d s t o g o b e f o r e

u s ' י ( v . 4 0 ) . T h e J e w s h a d t h e n c o n s t r u c t e d a c a l f , o f f e r e d a s ac r i f i ce

t o i t , a n d r e jo ic e d i n t h e i r w o r k ( v . 4 1 ) . T h e y h a d c o m p o u n d e d t h e i r

d i s o be d i e n c e b y w o r s h i p p i n g t h e " h o s t o f t h e h e a v e n " ( v . 4 1 ) , a n d

t h e y " t o o ku p t h e t e n t o f M o l o c h " a n d s a cr i f i c ed t h e i r c h i l d r e n ( v . 4 3 ;

c f . I I K i n g s 1 7 : 1 6 - 17 ; P s . 1 0 6: 37 , w h e r e t h e s a m e p r o g r e s s i o n f r o m

c a l f t o a s t r a lt o M o l o c h w o r s h i p i s f o u n d ) .

S t e p h e n ' s d e f e n s e c o n c l u d e s w i t h a fiery d e n u n c i a t i o n : " Y o u a r e

a s t i f f - ne c k e d pe o pl e , u n c i r c u m c i s e d i n h e a r t a n d e a r s . Y o u a l w a y s

r es i s t t h e H o l y S p i r i t . A s y o u r f a t h e r s d i d , s o d o y o u ( c f . I I K i n g s

1 7 : 14 ) . W h i c h o f t h e p r o p h e t s d i d y o u r f a t h e r s n o t p e r s e c u t e ( cf .

H . Liebeschütz, "T h e Significance of J udai sm in Pe ter Abelard's Dialogues," JJS

12 (1961), pp. 1-18. On th e at tr ibution of t he rejected sta tus of t he Jews t o th e sinof th e golden calf b y t he Syriac Didascalia, cf. Simon, p. 114; Marmorstein, "Jud ais man d Christ ianity ..." op. cit. (η. 7), p. 240. Cf. alsoJ . Bergmann, J üdische Apologetik

im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Berlin, 1908), pp. 97 ff., a nd o n t h e contr ast be twee nBarnabas 14, 4 with Sifre t o Deut . 32:9, E. Mihaly, " A Rabbinic Defense of t heElection of Israel," HUCA 3 5 (1964), p p. 112, 116.

10 I t is noteworthy tha t throughout t he ma jor polemic passages in which thecondemnation of t he people for erecting th e calf is particularly acute, Aaron is notcensured (cf. Tertullian, Antidote for the Scorpion's Sting 3, where th e people ar eclearly t o blame ; cf. also Jerome, Letters LX XV II , 4 ) . Th e reason for th is absenceof condemnation was tha t , i n th e Christ ian tradit ion, Aaron ha d been cal led b y God(Heb. 5:4) ; was the legitimate priest who courageously "st ayed God' s wr at h" (Jerome,

Letters CX XV II I , 5) ; and was eclipsed only by Jesus himself , who, according t oHeb. 5:5 ff·, "a ft er t h e order of Melchizedek," was God 's chosen high priest. Onth e rabbinic at tit ude toward Melchizedek a s a prot otype of Jesus,cf. L . Ginzberg,

Legends of the Jews V, p. 226; cf. also M . Simon, "Malchis edek dans la polémiquéentre juifs e t chrétiens e t d ans la legende," Récherches d'histoire. . ., pp . 101-26.

For th e v iew tha t R . I shmael' s a t ta ck on Melch izedek (T .B. Nedar im 32b), was110t pa rt of a n anti -Christian polemic, cf. J . J . Petuchowski, " T h e ControversialFi f M l hi d k " HUCA 28 (1957) 136 O th ti J i h h t f



[8]LEIYY SMOLAR AND MOSHE ABERBACH98

M t . 23:29 ff.; Lk . 11:47-51)? An d t he y k il led those who an nounced befo rehand t h e coming of t h e Righteous One, w h o m y o u h a v e now be t r ayed a n d m u r d e r e d " (vv. 51 -52; cf. I The ss. 2:14 f .) .

T h e s in of t he golden calf w as th us the founta inhead of t he c r imescommi t t ed b y t h e J ews t h roughou t t he i r h i st o ry , cu lmina t i ng i n t h ecrucifixion of Jes us .

b ) Patristic Literature

I n con t r a s t t o t h e denunc i at i on of t h e Jews , Mos es was h igh ly praised fo r his role a s d e fender of his people, even t o t h e po in t of de -

c l in ing th e oppo r tuni ty of becoming th e founder of a ne w na t ion(I Clement L I I I , 3 ) . N o t on ly was Moses conside red t o be a n exemplaryhuman being for his wil l ing self-sacrifice (Clement of Alexandria,Stromata IV, 19; The Educator 1,7 [58], [60]: cf. J o h n Chr yso ste m,

Homily X I I I o n J o h n 1 :1 5; Homily XVII on Acts 7 :35; c f. Exod.32:32), b u t a n ac tua l pré figurat ion of Chr i s t " shadowed for th in h im-sel f" (Ter tul l ian, Against Marcion 11,26; In Time of Flight from Per-

secution 11,1 ; Clementine Recognitions 1,56-59; cf . Euseb ius, Eccles.

Hist. 1,3,4; Evang. Dem. 111,2).T h e s ight of t he cal f worship ha d convinced Moses t h a t b y the i r

ac ti on t h e J ews had l ost t he i r cl a im of t he covenan t and h e had hur ledt h e t a b l et s t o t h e g r o un d . T h e d iv i ne c o v en a n t w i t h t h e I sr ae li te swas t hu s b roken (cf . Ep hr ae m Syrus , Commentary on the Harmonious

Gospel XX ,3 5 ; L . Le lo ir , ed . an d t r ans . Commentaire de VEiangile

Concordant ou Diatessaron [= Sources Chrétiennes, no . 121, Par is,1966], p . 369) . Only th e super ior cov ena nt of Je sus remained in force(Epistle of Barnabas 4, 6- 8; 14,4; cf . Clement , The Educator 1,7 [60]).

A n o t h er p o i n t t h e C h u r c h F a t h e r s s t re ss ed w a s t h a t i n m a k i n gan d worshipping th e ca l f, the Jew s had c lea r ly shown the i r impa t iencean d ingra t i tude ( Jus tin , Dial. 19,5; 102,6; Ter tul lia n, On Patience 5.22;

Apostolic Constitutions 6,4,20). No twi th sta nd in g al l of t h e miraclesGod ha d per formed on the i r beha l f , th e I s rae li t es had cons t ruc tedth e ca l f , eager ly cont inued the i r ido l worship a f te r th i s ep isode , andcompounded the i r felonies b y forn icat ing wi th pag an women (Jus t in , Dial. 132,1 ; Ter tul l ian , Antidote for the Scorpion's Sting 3 ; c f. N u m . 2 5 ;Ps . 106:28-31) . On e would expec t t h a t having re fused God 's inv i ta -

t i on t o s ha re i n t h e covenan t , t he i dol a to r s wou ld a t l e as t have beens incere even in thei r idola t ry (Ter tul l ian, Against Marcion IV ,31;



[9] THE GOLDEN CALF EPISODE IN POSTBIBLICAL LITERATURE 9 9

wonders per formed in Eg yp t , th e c rossing of t he R ed Sea , t h e p i ll a rof fire a n d t he c loud of l ight — th ey would n o t hav e fashioned t h ecalf or cha nged th eir glory int o t h e l ikeness of a grass-eating calf

(cf . Ps . 106:20) , or depic ted th e calf a s " t h y God, O Is rael , wh o b r ou gh t t h e e o u t of E g y p t " (Origen, Against Celsus 11,74). E v e naf t e r th i s ep i sode, th e Jews had no t ceased the i r devot ion t o agolden cal f. Und er Je roboam, th ey h ad worshipped golden k ine , undergroves, a nd h ad ens laved themse lves t o Baa l (Tertu l li an , Against the

Jews 1).

Wh en t he fou r th -cen tu ry empe ro r J u l i an t h e Apos t a t e imprin t eda n a l t a r an d a b eas t on h i s co inage — symbols of t h e res tored paga n

cul t — th e Jews , i t was a ll eged , ha d re joiceda t t h e s ig h t of t h e he a t h e n bull " impr in t ed o n the i r h ea r t s , " a n d h a d " d an c ed r o u n d i t w i tht ru mp ets an d t imbre l s , for the y recognized in th i s beas t the i r anc ientgolden ca l f" (Overbrook, S . Ephraemi Syri . . . aliorumque opera

selecta, p. 8).11

I t i s si gn if ic an t t h a t i n t he C hr i st i an t r ad i ti on , t he re was no uni-ve rs a l ag reemen t t h a t t h e i dol i n t h e w ilde rnes s had been ca s t i n t h eimage of a ca lf . Ref lect ing, perhaps , t h e ancie nt pa ga n view of t heJewish de i ty , namely , t h a t a n ass ' s head ha d s tood in th e holy of hol ies

of th e t emple in Je rusa lem, the re was th e belief amo ng a t l eas t th reeof t he F a the r s t h a t i t was a c a l f ' s head which th e I s rae l it e s ha d wor-shipped (Lactant ius , Divine Institutes 4 ,10; Ter tul l ian, Against the

Jews, 1; August ine, Exposition on Ps. 62:5; 74:13). Th i s m a y we ll r e -fleet a tra ce of pa ga n anti-Se mitism which ent ere d t h e teachi ngs oft h e C h u r c h F a t h e r s .

J u s t i n f u r t h e r a d d s t o t h e i n d ic t m en t of t h e J e w s f o r t h e ir c al f-w or sh i p t h e c h ar g es t h a t t h e J e w s h a d a ls o w or sh ip pe d t h e s t a r s a n dsacr i ficed thei r chi ldren t o Moloch (Jus t in , Dial . 19,5; 132,1).

I t was , there fore, en t i re ly in keeping wi th the i r h i s tor ic be nt towardidola t ry, recur rent s tubbornness , a n d character is t ic non-bel ief — ofwhich th e worship of t h e golden calf h ad m arke d th e first an d mos ts ignif i cant example — t h a t t h e Jew s ha d a l so re fusedt o b e c o nv in ce dof t h e coming of Jesus , even thou gh h i s words were au thor i t a t ive andaccompanied b y marve l s pe r formed in t he presence of a l l t h e people(Origen, Against Celsus 11,74).

F in al ly , J u s t i n M a r t y r r e p ea t e d t h e a cc us at io ns t h a t t h e J e w s(di sr egarding t h e j u s t c ens u re t o wh ich t he y h ad been s ub j ect ed fo rtheir id olatro us worship of t h e calf ; fo r t h e sacrifice of the ir own chil-



110]LEIVY SMOLAR AND MOSHE ABERBACH100

dr en; and for the i r rejec t ion of d iv ine ly sent prophe t s ) h ad murderedthos e p rophe t s wh o had p roc l aimed t h e adven t of C hr i s t ( J ust i n , Dial. 73,6; Lactan t ius , Divine Institutes 4,11; cf . Origen, To Africanus

9) . Moreove r , J us t i n concluded , t he y ha d commi t t ed t h e s ame ac t sof pe rsecut ion and murder aga ins t Chr i s t and brazenly cont inuedt o commi t s uch act s , hat i ng , and wheneve r t h ey had t h e power , k il li ngthose wh o through Chr i s t be li eved in Go d (Jus t in , Dial. 133; Lac -t an t i us , Divine Institutes 4,12).

T h e golden calf s to ry a l so se rved a s a n example of t he sor t of deedsgood Chr i s t i ans should avoid . Ho w for t una te th e Hebrews óf o ldw o ul d h a v e b ee n, i t w a s s a id , h a d t h e y t h r o w n a w a y t h e o r n a m e n t sof t hei r wom en (Clement , The Educator 11,12 [126]). Since i t w a s ingold t h a t a ll of th e s ins of t h e people of Is rael were rooted, th e Churc hF a the r s a l s o counse led t h a t on e ough t t o ha t e t h e go ld wh ich t heyha d adored whi le th ey were forsaking Go d (Ter tul l i an, On Female

Dress 11,13,6).B y cas t ing the i r gold in to t he image of a calf a nd worshipping i t ,

th e Je ws ha d revea led the i r fooli sh ( Jus t in , Dial. 20 , end) , lus t fu l(Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV,3; Ter tul l ian, On Fasting 6 ; Against

Marcion 11,18; cf . I Cor . 10:6-7) , immoral , impat i ent , s tubb orn,

unrepentan t , unbe liev ing , murderous charac ter , an d abandoned for -ever the i r c laim t o th e covenant of God. Fur ther more , th e s in ofworshipping the golden cal f ha d b rou ght o n i t s companio n evils, whichcl imaxed in th e s laying of Chris t an d th e persecut ion of s ubsequen tgenerations of Christ ians (cf. , e . g. , Tert ul l ia n, On Patience 5) .

B u t even wi thout th e d i re consequences of th i s c r ime, th e merea c t of maki ng an d worshipping t h e golden cal f wa s suff i cient reasonfo r t h e r epud ia t i on of t he J ews b y God . B y t he i r calf wor sh ip i n t he

wilde rnes s an d du r ing t h e r e ign of J e roboam, t h e J ews ha d abandoned

Go d a nd l os t t he i r c la im t o be ing "a g r ea t e r peop l e " t h an t he C hr is -t i ans , wh o ha d now a t t a i ned t h e g race of d iv ine f avor f ro m which t h eancient Is rael i tes ha d be en excluded (Ter tul l ian, Against the Jews 1).T h e d i sobedience shown b y t h e people to ward M oses, t h e foreshadowerof Chr i s t , ha d mad e the i r ac t ion of rep udia t ing h im a l l th e more

reprehens ible , s ince i t t ran sform ed thei r worship of t h e cal f in to areje ctio n of Christ .

Such a he inous s in was u t t e r ly ine radicable , an d Augus t ine ac tua l lyallegorized t h e punis hmen t of t h e Is rael i tes int oa n e t e rna l damna t ion .

T h e head of th e cal f, he sa id , cons t i tu ted a gre a t sac rament . Mosesha d cas t t h e head in to th e fire, g round i t i n to powder , s p read th e



[ 1 1 ] THE GOLDEN CALF EPISODE IN POSTBIBLICAL LITERATURE 1 0 1

confess ing Chr i s t become th e bod y of Chr i s t , t h e worshippers oft h e devil -cal f bec ame t h e bo dy of t h e devil (Augustine , Exposition

on Ps. 62:5; 74:13; cf . also idem, Second Discourse on Ps. 34:25-26;

cf. also De u t. 32:17; Ps. 106:37; I Cor. 10:18 ff.). Th us , t h e goldencalf episode bec ame a cor nerston e of th e mediev al identif icat ion of

t h e J e w w i t h t h e devil.12

I V . T H E RABBINIC DILEMMA: ADMISSION OR DEFE NSE

Such v io lent Chr i s t i an polemics could n ot be ignored b y t he rabbis. Surpr is ing t h ou g h i t m a y seem, t h e r abb is — o r a t leas t some ofth em — conceded qui t e a few a rgum ents ra i sed b y the i r Chr i s t i anopponen t s. T h e s t r i ct covenan t a l quid pro quo r e la tionship wi t h God ,unambiguous ly expressed th roug hout t he B ib le , and ca r r i ed over in torabb in i c l i t er a tu re , l e f t n o choi ce bu t t o adm i t t h a t I s rae l had i ndeedcommi t t ed a n o ff ense of t h e u tmos t g r av i t y . I ndeed , t h e t endency t oregard the re la t ionship be tween God and I s rae l as condi t iona l onIs rael ' s fa i thfu lness t o th e S ina i ti c covenan t opera ted as th e govern ing principle n o t on ly of biblical theology i n general , b u t also of t h esc r ip tura l t r ea t men t of t he golden calf ep isode in par ti cu la r . I t i s he re

t h a t t he denunc ia t ion of I s rael ' s c r ime assumes a n unconpromis imgform;

13 an d i t i s s ignif i cant th a t , except for Aaron ' s ro le in t he a f fa i r(wh ich app ea r s t o ha ve been cons ide rab ly minimized) , no a t t e mp twhat s oeve r i s mad e i n t h e B ib le t o de fend I s rae l' s a ct i on o r t o mi t i ga t e

i ts gui l t .Th is undeniable fac t c rea ted a severe t ens ion in th e rabbin ic mind,

which , on t h e one hand , cou ld no t expunge wh a t t h e Hebrew S cr ip tu re sha d i nde li bly impre s sed ; wh il e on t h e o the r hand , i t cou ld n o t pe rmi tt h e f a ir n a m e of t h e J ew i sh p eo pl e t o b e d r ag g ed i n t h e m u d . W h a t -

ever t h e cos t in t e rm s of theological incons is tency, I s rae l ha d t o b edefended aga ins t i t s de t rac tors .

T h e r abb in i c react i on t o t h e g rave charges hur l ed b y C hr i st i ans pokesmen a t t he J ews was, a ccording ly , any th ing b u t cons i st ent .Ev en individual rabbis occas ionally express seemingly contradic t oryviews. S ide b y s ide wi t h candid admiss ions t h a t th e worship of t h e

12 Cf . C. G. Montef iore an dH . Loewe, A Rabbinic Anthology (Philadelphia, i960), p . 623 an d note 71 ; more ge ne rally, cf . J . Trachtenberg, The Devil and the Jews

(New Hav en, 1943), pp. 11-31 ; cf. also R . Loewe, "Midr ashi m and Pa tristi c Exegesisof the Bible," Studia Patristica Ι ( = Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschich te

d l h i li h Li B d 63 [V R ih ] B li 1957) 512 ff




golden calf ha d been t h e s in par excellence, f r om which I s rae l ha dnever been comple tely absolved , we mee t wi t h a v as t apologet ic an d polemic l i te ra ture which a ims a t f reeing Israel f r o m th i s h e av y bu r -den of gui lt . T h e genera l t endency of th i s l i t e ra ture i s t o removevi r tua l ly a l l b lame f ro m Is rae l , which wa s no t respons ib le for thegolden ca l f. This s in ha d been e i the r du e t o special unavoidable c ir -cums tances o r e l se i t h ad no t been t he genu ine I sr ae li te s wh o ha dins t iga ted th e making an d worship of t h e ca lf .

Al though i t ma y no t be possib le t o d i sce rn a logical pa t t e rn inth e r abb in i c a t t i t ude , i t s ba si c con tr ad ic t ions a r e pe rhaps more app a r -e n t t h a n real.14 I t m a y well b e t h a t e a c h t e n d en c y is d ir ec te d a t a

d i f fe rent t a r ge t a nd ha s a d i f fe rent purpose in v iew. T h e he inousnessof th e calf c u l t was fu l ly recognized and even expa t ia ted u pon — b u tonly fo r in te rna l consumpt ion . Wher e out s ide a t t ac ks were concerned ,i t wa s impossible t o concede th e merci less cri t icism directed agains tt h e J e w s b y C h ri s ti a n s p o ke sm en . T o d o s o w ou ld h a v e u n de r mi n edJewish na t iona l re l ig ious pr ide . Worse s t i l l , i t would have meantyie lding a vi ta l defens ive pos i t ion in t he s t ruggle for spi r i tual survival .T o re inforce Jewish resi s tance t o Chr i s t i an convers ionis t prop agan da,i t wa s essentia l t o c lea r I s rae l a t a ll cos t s of th i s ca rd inal c r ime . Whi le

there mi ght b e occas ions when r abbis an d preachers would t el l the i rd isciples or congregants th e b i t t e r t ru th abo ut t h e f a ta l s ignif icanceof th e golden cal f , t he pr edomina nt t endency was t o coun t e r C hr is t i anmiss ionary e f for t s b y minimiz ing Jewish fau l t s , ra i sing t he mora leof the Jewish masses , and s t rengthening thei r nat ional-re l igiousconsciousness.

A deta i led comparison an d analys is of these tw o tendencies con-firms t h e impression t h a t th e apologetic — someti mes eve n mili-t a n t — a t t i tu de was fa r more preva lent th an t h e occas iona l concess ions .

a ) Some Damaging Admissions

Th er e were, t o be sure , some ve ry damagi ng admiss ions. Thu s , I s rae lw a s c o mp a r ed t o " a s hame le ss b r i de wh o p l ays t h e ha r l o t w i th in he r

br idal canopy. 1 5 I n f ac t , Mos es had ma de t h e I sr ae li te s d r i nk of

14 Th e contradictory Jewish at t i t ude to t he golden calf affair is a lso noted by

Schoeps, Aus frühchristlicher Zeit , p. 164, note 2. He does not, however, offer an ysolution.1s T B S habbath 88b; Gi t t in 36b I t should be noted th a t t he au thor of th is



[13] THE GOLDEN CALF EPISODE IN POSTBIBLICAL LITERATURE 1 0 3

th e wate r in which th e powder of t he golden calf ha d bee n s t rewn(Exod. 33:20) in order t o t es t th em l ike women suspec ted of adul te ry

(T .B . Avodah Za r ah 44a ) .

T h e r e w a s e v e n a t e n d en c y a m o n g s om e r a bb i s t o r e g ar d t h egolden calf a f fa i r no t a s an i so la ted ep i sode bu t a s a n a t t em pt t o i n -t roduce i do l at ry on a l a rge scal e: " T he y l us ted fo r ma ny god s " (T .B .Avodah Za r ah 53b) .

T h e r abb i s a l so dwe l t on t he s hee r d i s gus ti ng man ne r i n wh ichth e calf c u l t ha d been conduc ted . Th us , R . Akiba , c i t ing Ps . 106:20( " T he y exchanged t he i r g lo ry fo r t h e image of a n ox t h a t e a t s g r a s s ") ,l ikened Is rael ' s worship of t h e cal f t o t h e repuls ive spectacle of a n ox

ea t ing grass (Mekhi l t a on Exod. 14:29; ed i t . F r i edmann 33a ; ed i t .Horowitz-Rabin 113; edi t . Lauterbach 1,249; cf . Midrash Tehi l l im106:6 ; ed i t . Bu ber 2 28a-b) .

Ev en R . J ud ah b a r S imon , a s t rong ly na t ional i st i c pr eacher 16 w h oonce even dec lared t h a t I s rae l wa s l ike a ch ild which could n o t bereproved for h i s misdeeds ( Cant . Ra bb ah VI I I :8, 1), never the lessconceded th a t in th e case of t he golden calf I s rae l could n ot p leadchi ld li ke i gnorance a s a mi t iga t i ng f ac to r : " D id t h ey no t know? Th eyd i d, b u t t h e y t r a m p l e d u p o n H i s c o m m a n d m e n t s w i t h t h e i r h e e ls "

(Lev. Ra bb ah X X V I I :8 ; ed i t . Margul ies 642) . Qui te a n umb er ofleading second-century Ta nn a i m agreed t h a t th e worship of t he goldencalf h ad indeed been a premedi ta ted ac t . T h e y di f fered only o n th eexten t of t h e premedi ta t ion . Th us , R . E l iezer ben Ja co b bel i eved i tt o hav e been e l even days , wh i le h i s con t empora ry R . S imeon benYohai infer red t h a t th e p lo t t ing of th e ca lf -worshippers ha d l as tedtwen ty -n ine days . Ano the r s econd-centu ry Ta nn a , R . S imeon benH a l a f t a , co ns id er ed t h a t t h e p r em e di t at i on h a d b e g u n t w o d a y s a f t e rt h e g iv ing of t h e To ra h o r , a cco rd ing t o ano the r ve r si on , on t h e ve ry

first day . R . J u da h ba r l i a i s imi la r ly t hough t t h a t t he p lo t t i ng ha ds t a r t ed one da y a f t e r t he S ina i ti c r evel a ti on. F ina l ly , R . Me i r , c i t ingPs . 78:36 (" bu t th ey flattered H i m wi th the i r mo ut h an d wi th the i rt on gu e t h e y lied t o H i m " ) , w e n t s o f a r a s t o a ss er t t h a t e ve n a t t h eec s ta t i c momen t when t h e I sr ael it es unan imous ly p rocl aimed , " W ewill d o a n d o b e y " ( Ex od . 2 4: 7) , t h e y h a d a l r e a dy i n te n d ed t o t u r n t oi do la tr y ( Ex od . R a b b a h X L I I 7 - 8 ) .

mitigate Israel 's guil t . Cf . Ephra em Syrus, "she (viz. th e Synagogue) plays th eadultress with th e calf" (Fourteenth Rhyt hm, 2 ); cf . also A. Levene, op. cit. (η. 10),



1 0 4 LEIVY SMOLAR AND MOSHE ABERBACH [14J

Such a fa l se a t t i tu dea t t h e mos t so l emn mom ent of I s rae l' s hi s to ryimpl ied , of course , t h a t I s rae l ha d f r audulent ly en te red upo n theSinai t i c covenant . Th is i s expl ic it ly s t a t ed i n an othe r midrashic pas -

s age whe re God i s depi c ted a s s ay ing t o I sr ae l, " Y ou hav e dece ivedm e a t S ina i " (Lev. Ra bb ah VI :1 ; ed i t . Margul ies 127). Moreover , b ydeifying t h e golden calf t h e Is rael i tes ha d render ed fa lse tes t i monyaga ins t God {ibid., X V I :1; ed i t . Margul ies 347). Consequent ly , therabb i s o f t en dwel t on t h e con t r a s t be tween t h e unan imous accep t anceof t he T or ah a t S ina i — when th e I s rae l it e s were " l ike l ili es an droses" — and the i r speedy descent in to t he abomina t ions of idola t ryw h e n t h e y " b e c a m e r e f us e a n d t h o r n s " ( Ex o d. R a b b a h X L I I : 7 ) .

I n t he l a t e Amora i c and pos t t a lmud ic age, even more s er iouscharges were l evel led b y t he rabbis a t t he ca lf -worshippers . Hav ingsa ted themse lves wi th t he manna, th ey ha d of fe red th i s d iv ine g i f tt o th e calf while engaging in mockery an d b lasph emy (T anh. י תשא כ

14) . Some rab bis even accused th e ca l f -worshippers of hav ing com-

mi t t ed ac t s of fornica tion an d b loodshed, even t o th e ex ten t of m ur -

der ing th e seventy e lde rs who m Mo ses had appoin ted as h i s a s s i s t an ts

(N um . 11:24 f . ) — a charge nowhere h in ted a t in th e b ib li ca l na r ra t ive( Le v. R a b b a h X : 3 ; T a n h . ibid ., 20 ; Ya lk . Je rem. , pa r . 268) .

T h e rabbis a lso cons idered t h a t such a ser ious offense deservedaddi t iona l punishmen ts over an d ab ove those l i st ed in th e sc r ip tura ls t o ry . A c co rd in g t o t h e e a r ly s e c on d- c en tu r y T a n n a R . J o s e t h eGal i lean there ha d been no lepers or vic t ims of venereal disease am on g

th e I s rae li t es pr ior t o the golden ca lf , which thu s became th e causeof t h e spr ead of t hese diseases am on g t h e children of Israel (Sifre N u m . ,נשא pa r . 1 ; e d i t. F r i e dma nn i b ; cf . al so Le v . Ra b ba h X V I : 1 ;

X V I I : 3 ; X V I I I : 4 ; e d i t . M a rgu li e s 347 , 374 f ., 408 f . ; N u m . Ra b-

b a h V I I :2, 4 ) .

A genera tion l a te r , R . S imeon ben Yoh a i went considerab ly be-

yond t he v i ew e xpres se d b y R . J os e t he G a li l ea n : "W he n I sr a el s t ood

a t M o u n t S i na i, t h e r e w a s n o n e a m o n g t h e m w i t h a n issue, o r l ep ro us ,

o r l a me , o r b l ind , o r dum b , o r de a f ; no r w e re t he re a n y foo ls o r i mbe -

c il es amo ng th em ." Al l these b lemishes, however , appeared a mon g

th em once th ey had commi t t ed th e sin of t he go lden calf (Lev . Rab -

b a h X V I I I :4; ed i t . Margul ies 408 an d para ll el s) . E l sewhere, R . S imeon

b e n Yofrai asser ted t h a t t h e Israel i tes h a d been u t t e r l y fearless before

t h e y ha d w ors h ippe d t he go lden cal״ f ; a f terwards , however , the i r

courage dese r ted th em a nd th ey became fea r- r idden (Si fre, ad. loc.),11



[15] THE GOLDEN CALF EPISODE IN POSTBIBLICAL LITERATURE 1 0 5

I n a n o t h e r c o nt ex t , R . S im e on b e n Y ol ja i m a i n t ai n s t h a t " t h ew e ap o ns w h ic h G o d g a v e t o t h e I sr ae li te s a t ( M o u n t ) H o r e b h a d t h eine ff ab le na me (of God) engraved on t h em ; b u t when t h ey s i nned

(vi z. b y i ndu lg ing i n t h e calf cu l t) i t was t ak en away f r om th e m "(C an t . R ab ba h V :7, 1). R . S imeon appea r s t o have a ss oc ia ted t hefear complex of t h e Is rael i tes wi t h thei r loss of t h e ineffable name. 1 8

A l a te Midrash add s a Jewish version of t h e Mi da s s tory . Ac-cordingly, a l l those wh o ha d kissed t h e golden calf wholehear tedlywere punished b y having the i r l ips changed in to gold (P i rke de R.

Eliezer 45).

Anoth er puni shment immedia te ly imposed on th e I s rae li t es wa s

t h e loss of the i r sacerdota l pr ivileges . Referr ing t o Exod . 19:6 —" No w, you s hal l be un to m e a k ingdom of p r i e s t s " — a n ea r l y ha lachi cMidra s h ma in t a ins t h a t t he I sr ael i te s ha d been wor thy of en joy ingt h e r i g h t t o e a t c on se cr at ed f oo d. O nc e t h e y h a d m a d e t h e g ol de ncalf , however , they forfe i ted this pr ivi lege, which was hencefor threserved exclus ively for t h e (Aaronide) pr ies ts (Mek hi l ta on Exo d.19:6; ed i t . F r ied mann 63a ; ed i t . Horowi tz -Rabin 209; ed i t . Laut e r -

b a c h 11,205).Likewise, t h e first-born, w h o h a d previously bee n en tr ust ed wi th

sacerdota l dut ies , were deprived of thei r pr ivi leged pos i t ion a n d replaced b y t h e Levi tes w h o h a d re fused t o par t i c ipa te i n t h e calf cu l t

(T .B . Yo m a 66b; Tanfo . 8 ך ת ל ע ה ב ; N u m . Ra bb a h 1 :12; 111:5;

c f. Exod . 32 :29 ; N um . 3 :45) . A t t he s a me t i me , I s ra e l l o st i t s t r u s t e e-

s h i p ove r t h e t a be rnac l e , w hi c h w a s no w g i ve n ove r t o t h e Le v i t e s ;

fo r "G od ha t e d t he m (v iz . t h e I s ra el it es ) t o b e ke e pe r s of h i s t r e a s u re "

(N u m. R a b ba h 1 :12) .

b ) Historic Consequences

A mo re ser ious consequence of t h e cal f cul t was , according t o a

mi d ra s hi c v i ew , t h a t i t w a s t he dec is ive f a c t o r i n t h e c onde mna t ion

of t h e I sr ae li te s t o t h e fo r t y ye a r s ' m i gra t ion a nd d e a t h i n t h e w il de r-

n es s ( E xo d. R a b b a h X X X : 7 ) : " F r o m t h a t t i m e t h e y w e r e d eb a rr e d

f ro m e n t e ri ng t h e La n d of I s r a e l " ( Ca n t . Ra bb a h V : 5 ) . Th i s opi ni on

is a ll t h e more remar kabl e since i t flatly contra dic ts t h e bibl ica l na r-

r a t iv e , w h i ch n o t o n l y a t t r i b u te s t h e f o r t y y e ar s ' m i g r at i on t o t h e

e vi l r ep o r t b r o u g h t b y t h e s p ie s M o se s h a d s e n t o u t t o s c ou t t h e l a nd

of Ca n a a n a nd t o t h e c ow a rdl y r e ac t ion of " t h a t w i cked c ommun i t y"




(N um . 14:26 ff.), b u t a lso expl ici t ly s ta tes , immediate ly a f t er thegolden calf epi sode, th a t Moses was comman ded t o l ead th e I s rae li t est o th e Promised L an d (Exod. 32:34; 33:1 ff.).

F inal ly , th e rabbis unanimous ly agreed th a t t he golden calf wasone of t he wors t ca lami t ies in Jewish h i s tory . Th is became so pro-n o un c ed t h a t i t w a s n o t u n us u al t o c o m p a r e a n y i ll -f at ed d a y i n t h eanna l s of t h e J ewi s h peopl e t o t he d a y on which t h e go lden calf had been m a d e (T .Y . S h a b b a t h 1, 7, 3c ; T . B . S h a b b a t h 17a). S uch e m- phas i s o n t h e disast rous charac te r of t h e golden calf episode am ou n te dt o a n impl ici t admiss ion th a t th e I s rae li t es had indeed been gui l ty ofa v i r tual ly unp ardo nable offense .

T o a ll in ten t s and purposes , th e calf cu l t was cons idered th e worsts i n eve r commi t t ed b y I sr ae l (cf . S i f re on Deu t . 1 :1 ; ed i t . F r ie dman n64b) — one t h a t ha d l e f t a pe rmanen t ma r k i n Jewi s h hi s to ry .

T o a ce r ta in ex ten t th i s ha d been implied in t he b ibl ical na r ra t ivei ts el f. " B u t on t h e d a y when I ma ke a n accoun t ing , I will b r i ng t he mt o account fo r the i r s ins" (Exod. 32:34). Rabbin ica l opinion var iedon t he du ra t i on of t h e e f fect s of t h i s s in . A t t h e ve ry l e a st i t ha d no t been forgiven, according t o on e opinion, unt i l J e rob oam h a d m a d ehis golden ca lves, which was presu mably a n even grea te r c r ime (Lam.

Rab ba h 11:1, 3) . However , b y an d la rge th e rabbis were agreedt h a t th e ev i l consequences eman a t in g f rom th e golden calf were neverexhaus te d: " N o re t r ibut ion wha tsoever comes upon th e wor ld (of t he

Je w) wh ich doe s n o t con tain a l ig ht fract i on (of t h e s in) of t h e firstc a l f " ( T . B . S a nh é d ri n 1 02 a; c f. E x o d . R a b b a h X L I I I : 2 ; L a m . R a b - b a h 1:3, 2 8 ; Eccles. R a b b a h I X : 3 , 11).

I t was t hen a commonly held op in ion t h a t t he un f o r tuna t e ef fectof t h e calf cu l t ha d l e f t a p e rma nent ma rk on th e I s rae li t es . I n theTa l mu d, an d even m ore in midrashic l i t e ra ture , th e golden calf i s re -

pea t ed ly b lamed fo r t h e misfor tunes which befell t h e Jewish peoplethroug hout the i r h i s tory . Bu t for the breaking of t he t ab le t s , whichwas th e immedia te consequence of th e calf worship , th e To ra h wouldnever hav e been forgot ten , nor would I s rae l hav e been subjuga te d t oother na t ions ( T .B . Eru vin 54a) . God ha d exa l ted I s rae l ' s adversa riesove r t hem, t h e F ou r K ingdoms had become mast e r s ove r t hem, andth ey had been deprived of t he d iv ine sp i r it which ha d guided the m —all because of th e golden calf (Gen. Ra bb ah LX XX VI :1 ; Exod. Rab - b a h X X X : 7 ; X X X I I : 1 ) . I n w h a t m a y well b e t h e neares t Jewishequiva lent t o the concept of or ig ina l s in, th e midrash s ta tes , " H a dI s rae l wa i t ed fo r Moses an d n o t pe rpe t r a t ed th a t a c t (viz. t h e mak ing




other ve rs ion , "ne i the r th e idolators nor th e Ange l of De a t h wouldh a v e h a d a n y p o we r ov e r t h e m " ( Ex o d. R a b b a h X X X I I :1).19

Thu s , even t he g rea te s t na t i ona l d i sa s te r s were l a id a t t he door

of th e golden cal f. T h e I s rae li t e pr iesthood an d th e monar chy ha d been abolished, t h e t emple d est royed, J e rusa lem condemned t o b i t t e rtears , and Is rael exi led a s a di re ct resul t of th e worship of t he goldencalf ( La m. Ra b ba h Pro em 12; 1:2, 23 ; 1:3, 28 ; 1:22, 57).

V . MODERATE RABBINIC APOLOGETICS

I n spi te of t h e f r an k acknowledgment of t h e fa ta l consequences oft he calf wor sh ip, b y an d l arge t h e r abb in ic r eac t ion was t o p l a y downth e c r ime pe rpe t r a t ed b y t he I sr ae li te s o r a t l ea s t t o min imize t he i rrespons ib i li ty. Thi s was in l ine wi th t he genera l rabbin ic a t t i tud e ,especia l ly in t i mes of crisis, t o defend Is rael agains t i t s det ractors , n oma t t e r how h igh ly p l aced t h ey migh t be . Even t h e p rophet i c denun-cia t ions of Is rael — di l igent ly ut i l ized b y th e C hur ch in i t s ant i -Jewish polemics — were for th i s ve ry reason resented b y th e rabb iswho d id no t he s i t a t e t o a t t r i bu t e d iv ine d i sp leas u re a t , a nd even pu n i shmen t for , t h e excessive crit icism of Israel b y t h e prophe t s .

Accordingly , Moses , Aaron , E l i j ah , Hosea an d I sa iah ha d a ll beensevere ly repr imanded and punished for " s lander ing" I s rae l (T .B .

P es ah im 8 7 b; T . B . Y e v a m o t h 4 9 b ; G e n . R a b b a h X C I X : 5 ; E x o d.

Rabbah 111:12; Cant . Rabbah 1 :6 , 1 ; Seder E l iahu Zuta 8) ; for" T h e Holy One , b le ss ed be H e , i s no t p l ea sed w i th h im t h a t c a lum-n i â t e s I s r ae l " (C an t . R ab ba h 1:6, 1). God had even t h rea t ened t o"c rush th e mou ths of a ll who ca lumnia te I s rae l " {ibid.).

a ) Attempts at Suppression

T o be sure , rabbin ic l i t e ra ture suppl ies severa l ins tances t es t i fy ingt o t he d eep emba r ra s s men t c aus ed b y t h e go lden ca lf . Thu s , i n Lev .22:27 — " Wh en a bul lock, or a sheep, or a goa t , i s brou ght fo r t h" — ,th e word " bu l l ock" was used r a the r t h an " ca l f " (wh ich wou ld obv i-ous ly hav e been more appropr ia te in connect ion wi t h th e b i r th of t hean imal ) , becaus e t h e To ra h h ad endeavored t o avo id a n expre ss ion

19 T.B . Sh abbath 88a, where R . Simlai related tha t the tw o crowns awarded t o

each Israel i te a t Sinai were taken a way af ter th e golden calf incident . Th e crownsconcerned were, according t o Samuel Edels, Comm enta ry t o Shab . 88a, those of




remini scent of t he golden calf (Lev. Ra bb ah X X V I I :3; ed i t . Mar -gul ie s 627; P e s. de -R . Ka ha na I X ; ed i t . B ube r 76c ; Ta nh . 11

edi t . Bu be r 45 b [90]).

I n a s imi lar ve in , R . Abbah u, wh o f requent ly engaged in po lemics

w i t h Chri s ti a ns , ma i n t a i ned t h a t t he S e ra ph im s ee n b y I s a i ah (6: 2)

ha d be e n p rovi de d w i t h t w o a dd i t ional w i ngs t o c ove r t he i r f e e t (ibid.)

because, according t o Ez ek . 1:7, t h e f ee t of t h e celestial beings re-

sembled those of calves, "s o t h a t H e (viz. God) should no t see th em

an d remember th e go lden calf ep i sode" (Tan h. 13 ו צ ; ibid.,

ed i t . Bub er 49a ; c f . a l so ibid., 11 ר ו מ א ; edi t . Bu be r 45b

R a b b a h X X V I I : 3 ; e d it . M ar g ul ie s 6 2 5 f . ; P e s. d e - R . K a h a n a I X ,

ed i t . Buber 75b) .

Ano the r indicat ion of th e disconcert ing chara cter of t h e golden

calf ep isode was th e rabbi s ' a t t r ibu t ion to Ezekie l of a p lea t o Go d t o

change th e ox in th e heavenly char io t in t o a Ch eru b (cf . Ezek . 1 :10 wi th

10:14) in order t h a t " t h e accuser ( i. e ., t h e ox-cal f) become a de fen der "

(T .B . H a g i ga h 13b ; c f. a l so Ta nh . 2 3 ר ו מ א ; e di t. B u be r 4 9

l ar ly , t h e s h o fa r u se d o n t h e N e w Y e a r w a s n o t t o b e m a d e of t h e

horn of a cow because " a n accuser cann ot become a de f ende r" (T .Y.

Rosh Ha sha na h 111:2, 58d; T . B. ibid., 2 6 a; L e v. R a b b a h X X V I I : 3 ) .

F o r t h e s a me r e as on, t h e h i gh p r i e st pe r fo rmed t h e D a y of A t one me n tservice in whi te l inen gar men ts (cf . Lev. 16:4) ra th er th a n in his cus-

to ma ry golden ra im ent (cf . Exod. 26 :2 ff., T . B. Ros h Hash an ah 26a) .

I n t he se t w o i n s ta nc e s, t h e ho rn of t h e c ow (= c a l f ) a nd ,the go lden

gar men ts of t h e high pr ies t were regarded as reminiscent of t h e golden

calf an d, therefore , t o b e avoided du r in g t h e mo st solemn services of

t h e y e a r.

Final ly , because of t h e possible effec ts of Chris t ia n prop aga nda in

t h e synagogues ,2 0 t h e r a bb i s w e re he s it a t ing a s t o w he t he r Exod . 32

s hou l d be r e a d a nd t r a ns l at e d i n t o t h e A ra ma i c verna c ul a r du r i ng t h esynagogue service . Eventua l ly , i t wa s decided t o read t he whole chap-

t e r — presu mably because i t wa s considered imposs ible t o om it asection of t h e To ra h fro m th e regular cycle of p ubl ic readings . How -ever , verses 21 ff., where A ar on is severely scolded b y Moses for havin g" l e t the m (viz. , th e people of I s rael ) r u n wi ld" an d for having "brou ghtu p o n t h e m a g r e a t s in , " w e re t o b e r e a d o n l y i n H e b re w , b u t n o tt rans la ted i n to Aramaic (M . Megil l ah IV:10; c f . a l so Tos . Megi l lah I V[I I I ] : 3 x, 36).

T h e r eas on fo r t h is , a s t he P a le s ti n i an Ta l mu d and s ome of t he



[1 9 ] THE GOLDEN CALF EPISODE IN POSTBIBLICAL LITERATURE 1 0 9

l a t e r commenta to r s poin t ed ou t , wa s " because of t h e honor du e t oAaron2 1 ; for , in view of th e derogator y effect of thes e verses onAaron ' s reputa t ion , the y were no t cons idered su i t ab le for th e unso-

phis t ica ted e a r s of t h e masses.

b ) Vindication of Aaron

T h e v indica t ion of Aar on, whose gui lt i s a l ready t o some e xten tdiminished in the bibl ica l narra t ive , became a pr imary purpose ofrabbin ic in te rpre tat ion bo th i n anc ient an d medieva l t imes.22 A s f a ras t he Je ws were concerned , Aaro n ha d long been recognized as a

nat ional-re ligious hero — th e revered ance s tor of t h e temp le pr ies t -hood. T h e ideal i za t ion of Aar on, which i s unmis takable in th e To ra ha s wel l a s in rabbin ic l i t e ra ture ,2 3 m a d e i t q u i t e i mp os si bl e t o i m p u t ean y gu i l t t o h im, s ince t h i s wou ld have r ef le ct ed no t on ly on t h e pr iesthood, b u t o n J e w r y a s a whole. A bo ve all, t h e f a c t t h a t h e w a schosen b y God t o be I s rael ' s first h igh pr iest , even a f te r he ha d ma deth e golden ca lf , inevitab ly implied th a t h i s of fense could no t h ave been s o heinous a s t h e l i teral t e x t would seem t o imply . T h e defenseof Aa ron t hu s became a theological necess i ty, an d i t was , accordingly,

ma in t a ined t h a t Aa ron cou ld no t poss ib ly have i n t ended t o pa r t i c i pa t ein a n ac t of i do l a try ( cf. , e. g ., T an n a d . E l i ahu Zu t a , 4 ) . I f , never -the less , he ha d y ielded t o popula r c lamor , i t w as only because h i s l ife

21 Cf. T.Y. Megillah I V :11, 75c, where th e explanation is offered t h a t "t he dis-grace of an individual (viz. Aaron) reci ted in public is unlike (i. e., worse th an) t h edisgrace of th e public recited in public." Similar commen ts are offered b y Alias i an dTosaphot on T.B. Megil lah 25b, an d by Maimonides and Obadiah of Bert inoro intheir commentaries t o M . Megillah IV:10. According t o T.B . Megillah 25b — fol-

lowed b y Ras hi on Megillah 25a, bot . —, t he reason for not t ranslating Exod. 32:21 ff.was th at th e ignorant masses might misunderstand the end of verse 24 — "a nd ther ecame out thi s calf" — and m ight conclude tha t the golden calf was a l iving enti ty .Thes e words, incidentally, represented anot her embarrassing featu re of th e story,and R . Simeon ben Eleazar (ca. 200 c . E.) criticized Aaron for thi s rathe r carelessaccount of th e making of th e golden calf, wh'ch could be used b y heretics for theirown purposes (T.B. Megillah 25b); cf. A. L . Williams, Adversus Judaeos (1935),

p . 45, note 2 .22 T he on ly ma jor excep tion appears t o have been t he fourth -cen turyAmora

R . Berekiah, who maintained th at Aaron was in fact punished for making the golden

calf through th e death of his sons Na da b and Abihu (Lev. Rabb ah X X :6; edit .Margulies 458). Bu t even according to thi s rath er isolated opinion, t he Almightyhad later relented.




was threatened.2 4 I n f a c t , i t w a s t h e m u r d e r of h is n e ph ew , H u r , w h ohad r e fusedt o a cc ed e t o t h e p o p u l ar d e m a n d t o b ui ld a n i do l f o r t h e m ,t h a t f or ce d A a r o n t o g i ve w a y . E v e n so, A a r o n w a s n o t s o m u c h

a f r a id fo r h i s own l if e a s fo r t he add it i ona l gu i lt t h a t would bu rdenth e people if th ey k il led h im. Thu s , he pre fe r red t o bear h imse lf t hegui l t of mak ing th e golden calf ra the r th an a l low his people t o commita n even grea te r c rime .25

Aaron ' s demand t ha t t he peop l e s u r r ende r " t he go lden r i ngs ,which a re in th e ea rs of yo ur wives , of y our sons, and of y our daug h-te rs " (Exod. 32:2) involved heav y sac ri fi ces on t he pa r t of t h e I s ra -e li te s an d wa s t hu s a de li bera te move t o ma ke t h em desi st f r om the ir p l an ( T a n h . 19 תשא כ ) . W h e n , t o hi s su rp ri se , t h e p eo p

w e a r e t o l d , t h e w o m e n ; c f . ibid.; C a n t . R a b b a h I V: 9 ; V I : 4 ; P i rk e

de R. Eliezer 45) freely offered their precious possessions, Aaron

rai se d h is e ye s t o he a ve n a nd s ai d , "Y ou , W h o a re omni sc i en t a s t o

t h e t hough t s of me n , know t h a t I a m a c t ing a ga i ns t m y will·י (Ta nh . ,

ibid.).

Wh e n t he pe op l e w e re on t he po i n t of bu il d ing a n a l t a r , A a ron

t r ie d t o g a in t i m e i n t h e h o p e t h a t M o se s d e sc e nt w a s i m m in e n t . H e

insi st ed on bui lding the a l t a r h imsel f , cl a iming t h a t th e sac red c har -

ac te r of t h e work deman ded t h a t i t be don e exc lusive ly b y h imse lf(ibid.; e d it . B u b er , E x o d . 5 7a ; E x od . R a b b a h X L I . 7 ; L e v . R a b b a h

X : 3 ) . H e t he n de li bera te l y p ro longe d t h e bu i ld i ng of t h e a l t a r t o t he

ma x i m um e x t e n t pos si bl e. Wh e n h i s w ork w a s a t l a s t c ompl et e d, he

was s ti ll hopefu l of tu rn ing th e approaching d i sas ter in t o " a fes t iva l

un t o t h e Lo rd " (Exod. 32 :5 ). H e pos t pone d i t , howe ver , t o t h e fol low-

i ng d a y , e xp ec ti ng t h a t b y t h a t t i m e M o se s w a s s u r e t o b e b a ck , s o

th a t t he p lan ned fest ivi t ie s in hon or of t h e go lden calf would be d i -

r e c te d i n s te a d t o t h e wor s hi p of G od (Le v . Ra b ba h X : 3 ; e d i t . M a r -

gul ie s 201 ; Ta n n a d . E l i a hu Zu t a 4 ) .

A a ron ha d , moreover , i n t e nde d t o de mons t r a t e t he w or th l es snes s

of t h e g o ld en c al f, a n d a f t e r i t h a d b e en m a d e , h e w a s s a id t o h a v e

t a k e n a h a m m e r a n d b a t t e r ed i t , i nt e nd i ng t o d e s t ro y i t ( E xo d . R a b -

b a h X X X V I 1 : 2 ; L e v . R a b b a h V I I :1 ). A a ron ' s wo r t h y i n ten t ions h a d

24 I t is significant t ha t Aaron 's int imidation b y t he people is also found in t he

Christian defense of Aaro n; cf. Eph rae m Sy rus , Opera Omnia I, 224a, cited in Ginz-

berg, Legends VI, p. 51, note 265; cf. supra, no te 10.

*5 Cf. T.B. Shabba th 89a; Sanhédr in 7a ; Exod . Rabba h XLI :7 ; LI :8; Lev .Rabbah X:3 ; ed i t . Margul ies 199 f . ; Num . Rabbah XV:7; Tanh . 19



[ 2 1 ] THE GOLDEN CALF EPISODE IN POSTBIBLICAL LITERATURE 1 1 1

been d u l y recognized b y t h e Almighty , W h o k n e w Aar on h a d a twors t ac ted ou t of fea r an d was in fac t innocent . Henc e — notwi th-s t and ing t he con t r ad i cto ry t e s t imony of Deu t . 9 :20 — Go d had n og r u dg e w h a ts o ev e r a g a i ns t A a r o n w h o m H e d u l y r e wa r d ed b y b e-s towing t h e sacerdota l privileges exclus ively up on h im (Exod. R ab - b a h X X X V I I :2; T a n t . 10 ה ו צ ת ) .

Ev en t he ma kin g of t h e go lden ca lf , fo r which in th e b ib li ca l ac -

cou nt Aaron i s he ld ind i sputab ly respons ib le, was no t rea l ly Aaron ' s

f a u l t , a cc o rd i ng t o t he r a bbi s . I n f a c t , A a ron ne ve r ma d e t h e go lden

c al f. A ll h e d i d w a s t o c a s t t h e g ol d g i v en t o h i m b y t h e p eo pl e i n t o

t h e fu rna ce . A c cordi ng t o a no t he r a c c oun t , he c a s t t h e p r ie s tl y

diadem, wi th th e ineffable na me a n d th e figure of a cal f por t r aye don i t , i n t o t he fu rna c e (P i rke de R. E li ez er 45 ). A t t h i s po i n t , t w o

mag ic ia ns , f rom a mong t h e "mi xe d mul t i t ud e ״ of non- Israe lite s

wh o accompanied th e ch i ldren of I s rae l f rom Eg yp t (Exod. 12:38),

s t e ppe d i n a nd m a d e t h e c alf w h i c h A a ron ha d ne ve r i n te nde d t o

produce2 6

A cc or di ng t o A b r a h a m I b n E z r a o n E x o d . 3 2 :1 , i t w a s q u i t e u n -

th inkable ה) ל י ל ח ה ל י ל ח ) t h a t A a r o n c ou ld h a v e h a d a n y t h i n g t o d o

wit h th e golden cal f. I f , nevertheless , God 4 ' wa s w r o t h w i t h A a r o n ״

(D e u t . 9 :20) , t h i s w a s due t o A a ron be i ng t he c ause , t hough qu i t eunintent ional ly , of the idola t rous image which emerged. S imi lar ly ,

he and Moses were puni shed wi th de a t h "because of t he wa te rs of

Me ri ba h" (cf . N u m . 20:12 f . , 24 ; 27:12 ff.; De ut . 32:50 f . ) , a l th ough

t he y h a d no t c ommi t t e d a n y de li bera te t r ansg res si on.

A n e ve n more e x t r e me a pol ogy fo r A a ron i s o ff er ed b y t h emedie-

va l Jewish phi losophers Saadi a Ga on (quoted d i sapprovingly b y I bn

E z r a , c o m m e n t a ry o n E x o d . 3 2:1 ) a n d J u d a h H a le v i {Kuzari I , 97 ),

w ho b o t h a s se r t t h a t A a ron ' s c o ll abo ra t ion i n bu il d ing t h e a l t a r a nd

makin g t he go lden calf w as a de l ibe ra te ac t designed t o en t r ap th e

idola tors amo ng th e I s rae li t es an d hav e the m subsequent ly des t royed .

Aaron ha d th us an t i c ipa ted a s imi lar p ious decept ion pract i ced b y

Jeh u , Ki ng of I s rae l, wh o pre tended to b e a Baa l-worsh ipper in order

t o ex te rmin a te th e ido la tors a l l t h e mo re e f fect ive ly (cf . I I Kings

10:18 ff.).

26 Cf . Pes. de R. Kahana , ed i t. Buber 78a; Exod. Rabbah XL II : 6 ; Lev . Rab-

bah X X V I I :8; edi t . Margulies 641; T anh . 11 ר ו מ א ; ed it . Buber 47b; Can t . Rabbah1-9» 3; cf. Ginzberg, Legends I I I , p . 122. I n th e Christ ian a s well a s rabbinic l i terature,th e making of t he golden calf is att rib ute d t o Egyptia n magicians who defied Moses



[22]LEIVY SMOLAR AN D MOSHE ABERBACH112

V I . M I LI T AN T D E F E N S E O F IS RA EL

Aaron ' s b l ameles snes s wa s a t t h e s am e t i me ex t ended t o I s rael a s

a who le . T h e r abb in i c de fens e of I s rae l was b y no me ans s t a t i c o runiform , no r did i t progress in a s t ra igh t l ine of deve lopment . Dep end -ing on c i rcums tances and indiv idua l a t t i tudes , the main a reas ofJ ewis h de fens e we re twofo ld . O n t h e one hand , i n r ep ly t o t h e C hr i s-t i an con t en ti on t h a t t h e J ews had been r e j ec t ed b y God because of t h ego lden cal f, t he r abb i s ma in ta ined t h a t G od had i n f a c t fo rg ivenI sr ael , t h a t H e s t il l l oved t he m, an d t ha t t h ey we re s t il l H i s chosen people. A m o r e m i l i t an t line of defense w a s t h a t Is rael h a d n o t rea l lycommit t ed such a t e r r ib le cr ime as th e b ib li ca l na r ra t ive migh t indi-ca te . Only a small minor i ty ha d in f ac t been involved in th e calfcul t — f or t h e mo st par t , only e lements of non-Israel i te or igin. More-over , i t was asse r ted th a t God Himse lf ha d caused th i s t ragedy, forwhich I s rae l wa s n ot rea l ly t o be b lamed. Al te rna t ive ly , th e r abbis con-tende d th a t th e genuine I s rae l it e s ha d been a l toge ther innocent , andt h a t th e golden calf h ad been th e work of E gyp t ia n semi-conver t swh o had p lo t t ed , b y means of mag i c an d o the r fou l me thods, t o s ub-ve r t I s rael ' s fa i th .

A n even mor e ex t reme defense of I s rae l was assumed in l a te rt imes , especial ly in t h e middle ages , when t he bibl ica l s tory wa s a l to-ge the r r e i nt e rpre t ed t o p rov ide a more adequa t e de fense fo r t h eJewish people . Thus , in d i rec t cont radic t ion of the unambiguouscha rge i n P s . 106 :20— " Th ey exchanged t he i r g lo ry fo r t h e l ikenes sof a n ox t h a t e a t s g r a s s " — s ome r abb i s ma in t a ined t h a t t h e I sr ae li te sha d neve r i n tended t o fo r sake t he i r God . Nachmanides , a mi l i t an tdefender of Jud a i sm in d i sputa t ions wi th Jewish conver t s t o Chr i s -t i an i t y, wen t s o f a r a s t o a ss e rt , i n h i s commenta ry on Exod . 32:1,

t h a t a t n o s t age had t he I sr ae li te s engaged i n t he p repa ra t i on of anidola t rous image . Al l th ey ha d want ed wa s t o find a symbolic sub-s t i t u te for Moses — no t for God — an d t h e golden calf ha d beenmere ly de signed a s a " gu id e" t o l e ad t he m on t he i r j ou rney .

a ) Satan and the Faithful Israelites

E v e n i n t h e t a l mu d i c a ge , i t w a s f r e q u e n tl y m a i nt a i ne d t h a t t h efa il u re of Mos es t o r e tu rn a t t h e expec ted t ime d id n o t weaken t h efa i t h of t h e genu ine I s rael it es . B u t a t t h a t po in t S a t a n i n t e rvenedwi th a v i ew t o en ti c ing th e peopl e t o s in . " H av i ng confounded th e



[23J THE GOLDEN CALF EPISODE IN POSTBIBLICAL LITERATURE 1 1 3

unt i l he showed the m a v i sion of Moses ' b ier . Only the n were th eyconv inced t h a t Mos es ha d d i ed a nd t ha t s ome concre te r ep res en ta t i onof t he Divine might b e required a s a subs t i tu t e l eadersh ip . S ti ll , th e

t r ue I s rae li t es re f ra ined f rom the wor k of fashioning such an image,nor we re t h ey r e sponsibl e fo r t h e murde r of Hu r . On ly t he " con-tempt ib le e lements" an d espec ial ly th e 14 mixed mul t i tude" of Egyp

t i ans were involved in th e a f fa i r.T h e ac tua l p roduct ion of t he go lden

calf was , a s has a l ready been poin ted out , t he work of tw o magic ians

f ro m am ong those non- Is rae l it e s wh o had jo ined t he I s rae l it e s in th e

Exodus f r om Egyp t . 2 7 Anoth er l ine of de fense was th a t th e ev il ange l

Samae l h ad en te red t he go lden ca l f, caus ing i t t o produce lowing

sounds , th us mislead ing I s rae l t o be li eve t h a t i t was a l iving god(Pirke de-R . El iezer 45) .

E v e n t ho se r a b bi s a n d c o mm e nt a to r s w h o d i d n o t g o s o f a r a s t o

discla im ent i re ly Is rae l ' s respons ibil i ty for th e golden cal f , mainta i ned

t h a t o n l y t h e t h r e e t h ou s an d w h o w e r e su bs eq ue nt ly p u t t o d e a t h b y

t h e Le v it e s (Exod . 32: 27 -28 ) ha d ha d a ny t h i ng t o d o w i t h t h e gol de n

cal f. Thi s was b u t a t i ny propor t ion ou t of th e t o ta l of 600,000 I s rae li t es

w h o h a d l e ft E g y p t {Kuzari 1,97).

b ) God's Knowledge and Israel's Innocence

M o r e i m p or t a n tl y , t h e r a b b i s c le ar ly m a i n t a in e d t h a t G o d h a d

forgiven I srael (T .B. Shab ba t h 88b; c f. Lev . Rab ba h 1 :3 ; ed i t . Ma r-

gul ie s 12). Th e y po i n te d ou t t h a t G od H i ms e lf , des p i te H i s a ppa re n t

anger , ha d de l ibe ra te ly provided Moses wi t h oppor tun i t i e s for de fend-

i ng I s r ae l (T .B . Be ra kho t h 32a ; D e u t . Ra bb a h 111:2), a nd ha d , f u r -

the rmore , p resc r ibed var ious methods — ma in ly b y me ans of t h esacri fi cial cu l t — t o enable I s rae l t o a to ne for th e golden ca lf . R . Jo -s hua be n Lev i i ndeed s t a t e d t h a t I s rael ha d m ad e t he go lden calfmere ly t o p rov ide a n excuse fo r t hos e who wis hed t o a ton e (T .B .' A v o d a h Z a r a h 4 b ; c f. E x o d. R a b b a h X L V I : 6 ) . I n o t h e r w o rd s, t h egolden cal f h ad rea lly been designed b y Providence t o encourage s in-ners t o repent , s ince th e forg iveness accorded t o anc ient I s rae l coulds e rve a s a p receden t t o o the r s i nne rs who mi gh t o the rwi s e abandonall hope.

S ec on dl y, t h e f a c t w a s s t re ss ed b y t h e r a b b i s t h a t G o d h a d b e en

wel l awa re of w h at Is rael wa s goingt o d o . G o d c ou ld n o t h a v e r e je ct ed




t hem, s ince H e knew be fo rehand — i . e . , even be fore H e e lect edth em — t h a t I s rael was go ing t o make t he go lden ca lf . I n f ac t , wh il eth e I s rae l it e s were bus y cons t ruc t ing th e golden ca lf , th e Almighty ,

a s i t were, unpe r tu rbed b y t he i r do ings, ha d con ti nued H i s p repa ra -t i ons t o g ive t hem th e Law. Whi l e I sr ael below was s hap ing t h e ca l f,G o d a b o v e w a s e n g ra v in g t h e t a b l e t s " t o g i ve t h e m t h e c o m m a n d -men ts of l i fe" (Ta nh. 14 ר ו מ א ) . S in ce t h e v er y a c t of m a k i

wa s p ar t of G od' s foreordained plan, th e Is rae li tes could hard ly be

he ld t o a c c oun t .

Moreover , Is rae l could no t be held l iable for cons t ruct ing th e ca lf

s in ce t h e L a w h a d n o t y e t e v e n b e en g i ve n. N o t u n ti l t h e y h a d b ee n

t a u gh t t h e e nt i r e La w i n t h e T e n t of M e e t i ng c ou ld t h e I sr ae li te s b econsidered responsible for the i r ac t ions ( Can t . R ab ba h 11:3; I I I :4).

A t S ina i, ano ther midrash s t a tes , th e I s rae li t es became l ike new-born

b a be s — th e impl ica t ion be ing t h a t th ey were b lameless , despi te an ymisdeed t he y migh t ha ve pe rpe t r a t ed i n t he i r i nnocence (C an t . R ab - b a h V I I I :2).

T h e rabbis u t il ized the a rgu ment of I s rae l ' s precovenanta l inno-cence t o con t r ad i ct d i r ec tl y t h e C hr is t ian c la im t ha t Mos es had b roken t h e t ab l e t s o u t of ange r o r o u t of a desire t o sever t h e cove-

nan t a l bond . The r abb i s con t ended t ha t Mos es had de l i be ra t e ly b roken t h e t ab le t s in o rder t o pos tpone t h e consummat ion of t h ecoven ant be tween Go d an d I s rae l. Th us , I s rae l, in th e s ta te of inno-cence which ha d exi s ted before th e g iv ing of th e Torah , could nothave w il lful ly b roken t h e covenan t , which had no t ye t come in toeffect . N o a c t of a t on em en t w a s e ven necessary o n t h e p a r t of Israel .Moses ha d speci fi ca lly broken t he t ab le t s , so t h a t I s rae l should b ea d j u d g e d a t m o s t a s i n a d ve r t en t s in ne rs r a t h e r t h a n a s d el ib er at et r ans gre ss o rs of t he Law (Exod . R abb ah XLI I I : 1 ) .

c) God's Responsibility

B el ieving a s t h ey d id t ha t t h e ep is ode i n t he w ilde rnes s ha d beense t f or th in th e d iv ine p lan , the rabbis , so fa r f ro m blaming I s rae l fora n ac t ion over which i t could no t poss ibly ha ve ha d contro l , da r inglycharged t h e A lmigh ty w i th hav in g a f fo rded I sr ael t h e oppor tun i t y t os in . T h e r abb i s r el a t ed h ow Mos es had ac tua l l y r ebuked t heAlmigh ty :

Lord of t he Universe , Yo u ignored th e en t i re wor ld an d causedYo ur ch i ldren t o be ens laved only in Eg yp t where a ll worshipped




ar e ye t you ng (cf . Hos . 11 : ι ) . Wh en I asked Yo u (cont inuedMoses ) wha t the i r ( the I s rae li t es ' ) mer i t was t h a t Yo u should

re de em t h e m s ince t he y a r e i do la to rs , Y ou r r e p l y w a s : "Y o u

can only see the m now as idola tors, b u t I can foresee th em . . .d e n y in g m e a t t h e e n d of f o r t y d a y s b y m a k i n g t h e c a l f " . . . W el l,

s ince Yo u told m e of thei r ma kin g a golden calf long beforeY o u d el iv ere d t h e m , w h y d o Y o u s ee k t o s l ay t h e m n o w t h a tt h e y h a v e m a d e i t ? ( E xo d . R a b b a h X L I I I : 7 9 ) .

T h e rabbi s a l so b lamed God for th e excess of s ilve r an d gold be -

s towed upon t he I s rae li t es which had l ed th em in to t empta t ion . I s rae l

w a s c ompa re d t o a s on p rov ide d b y h is do t i ng f a t he r w i t h e ve ry c on -

ce ivable luxury an d th en l e f t b y h im on th e th reshold of a bro the l —4 'W hat could t he son poss ib ly d o t o avoid fa ll ing in to s in? ״ (T .B .

B e r a k ho t h 3 2 b ; E x o d. R a b b a h X L I I I : 8 ; c f. a ls o T . B . S a nhédr in 102a).R . Akiba , th e grea tes t exponent of rabbin ic Juda i sm, summar ized

th e rabbin ic case in defense of I s rae l in th e wi lderness when h e mad eGo d Himse lf admi t t h a t He , n o t I sr ae l, was t o b l ame fo r t h e s i n ofth e golden ca l f, f ro m which He , as i t were , would persona lly under tak et o c leanse I s rae l ( T . Y. Y o m a V I I I : 9 , 4 5 c ; c f. T . B . Y o m a 8 6 b ; T . B .Berakh oth 32a) .

d ) Rabbinic Counterattack

P aramoun t among r abb in i c conce rns , a s we have s een , was t he p ro p aga nd a of t h e C h u r ch which main ta ined t h a t since t h e J e w s h a dma de an d wors h ipped t h e go lden ca l f, t h e A lmigh ty ha t ed t hem , s oth a t t he y had become a God-fo r saken peop l e; t h a t t he re was n o s al -va t i on fo r t hem, no r a n y hope fo r fo rg ivenes s. Hav in g been r e j ect edan d ex il ed t he y cou ld neve r expec t t o be r e sto red t o t he i r coun t ry ,

no r wou ld God eve r r e t u rn i t t o t hem.2 8

Agains t th i s a ll ega t ion , th e rabbis counte ra t t acked wi th a con-tem ptu ous c r it ic i sm of th e gent il e world , which , s t eeped as i t h ada lways been i n i do l a try , had n o r i gh t t o r ep roach I s rael fo r mak ing

28 Cf . Midr . Ps. 36:11; Pes. de R. Kaha na, edit . Buber 165a; Cant. Rab bah 1:6;

Exod . Rabbah XXXI :1 0 ; Lev . Rabbah XXVII : 8 ; Num. Rabbah XVI :23; Pes .

Rabba ti 10b, 39a; Agada t Bereshit , edit . Buber , 27; Tank- 22 תשא כ ; e di t. Bu

49a; Sifre Zuta , edi t. Koenigsberger, I ; cf . Marmorstein, "Judai sm and Christ i-

an i ty . . . " op. cit. (η. 7) , pp. 233 ff. Not e also th e rabbinic emphasis on th e factth at Israel was God 's people, even when th ey were rebellious an d worshipped idols;

cf Exod Rab ba h XXX I11 :2; Tanfo 14 O n t h e r el at io ns hi p b et we e




the golden cal f (Cant . Rabbah 1:6, 3; Pes . de R. K a ha na , e d i t .

Buber 46a) . Midrash ica l ly , th i s mi l i t an t rabbin ic a t t i t ude was ex

pressed b y R a b b i J u d a h t h e P a t r i a r c h w h o s t a t e d t h a t Moses h a d

pushed a w a y S a t a n , t h e accusing angel , a n d t a k e n his p lace w i t h a

v i ew t o de fe nd i ng I s ra e l (Exod. Ra b ba h X LI I I : 1 ) . G od ha d e xa mi ne d

t h e c h ar g e m a d e b y t h e " n a t i o n s of t h e w o r l d / י t he r a bb i s de c la r ed ,

b u t h a d f ou nd n o subs tance i n t h i s accusat ion (Tanfr. 15 ר ו

Bube r 47b [94]; Le v . R a b ba h X X V II : 8 ; e di t . M a rgu l ie s 641).

Mo s t empha t ica l ly , however, th e rabbi s founded the i r den ial of

Is rae l ' s cr ime an d of G od 's re jec t ion of Is rae l on t h e cardinal pr inciple

of f a i t h i n G od ' s l ove fo r t h e J e w i sh peopl e. T h e r a bb i s po i n t ed t o

God 's mou rni ng over Is rae l ' s exi le an d affl ict ions . T h e y categorica l lya ss er te d t h a t H e w o ul d r e st or e t h e L a n d of I sr ae l a n d r e t u r n i t t o

H i s bel oved pe opl e (T .B . Be ra k ho t h 3a ; T .B . Ta ' a n i t h 20a ; P e s . de -

R . K a ha na , e d i t . Bube r 141a; P i rke de R. El iezer 45; cf . Marmor-

s t ei n , " J uda i s m a n d Chr i s t i a n i t y . . . " , op. cit. [η. 7], p . 240) . Ev en

a n i ron wal l could no t separa te I s rael f rom the i r Fa th er in Hea ven

(T .B. Sota h 38b; Pesa l j im 85b; Pes . de R. K a ha na , e d i t . Bube r 85b) .

N o t h i n g c ould ever quenc h t h e love b etween Israel a n d t h e Al mi gh t y

(Agad at Bereshi t , edi t . Bu ber 164). God wo uld therefor e re-create

Is rae l an d as sure i t s e t e rn i ty (ibid., 22).

V I I . SUMMARY

T h e s t o r y of t h e g ol de n c alf m a d e b y A a r o n a n d w or sh ip pe d b y t h e

Is rae li t es shor t ly a f t e r th ey ha d wil ling ly rece ived th e To ra ha t M o u n t

S inai wa s a source of ac u te embar ras sment in th e t a lmudic age . W i t h

a n eye o n pag an an t i -Semit i sm, Josephus comple te ly suppressed th e

golden calf episode. T h e ear ly Chu rch ma de polemical use of t h e s in

of t h e golden cal f for which i t b lamed t h e Je ws of i t s t ime, c la iming

t h a t G od h a d fo re ver r e j ec t e d t h e m on a c c oun t of t h i s s in a nd t ha t

t h e c o v e na n t b e t we e n G o d a n d t h e J e w s w a s c o n se qu e nt ly v o i d. T h e

resu l t was th a t in rabbin ic l i t e rature , desp i t e f ra nk admiss ions de -

s igned for in te rna l use , Aaron , th e I srael i te s , an d t h e e te rn i ty of t h e

covenant be tween God and the Jewish people were v igorous ly

defended.*



Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder^)5 express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder( s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of ajournaitypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

Aberbach - Smolar - The Golden Calf in Posbiblical Literature