I. The calf offered by Aharon – An individual or communal offering?
And it came to pass, on the eighth day, Moshe called Aharon and his sons, and the elders of Israel; and he said to Aharon: Take for you [kakh lekha] a bull-calf for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering, without blemish, and offer them before the Lord. (Vayikra 9:2)
On the eighth day, the day of the dedication of the Mishkan, when Aharon entered to serve in the sanctuary, he was commanded to bring a calf as a sin-offering. The Torah specifies that taking the calf is "for you," and the Amoraim debate the meaning of this emphasis on "you":
For it has been taught: The expression kakh lekha ["take for you"] means mi-shelekha [from your own funds] and aseh lekha ["make for you"] means mi-shelekha [from your own funds], but ve-yikekhu eilekha ["they shall take to you]" means from community funds; these are the words of Rabbi Yoshiya.
Rabbi Yonatan said: Whether kakh lekha or ve-yikekhu eilekha – from community funds. What, then, is intimated by saying kakh lekha? As it were, I prefer your own [private funds] to theirs [community funds]. (Yoma 3b)
According to Rabbi Yoshiya, the calf offered on the day of the consecration of the Mishkan had to come from Aharon's personal funds, not from community funds like other communal sacrifices. In contrast, Rabbi Yonatan says this calf, like others, was brought from community funds, though God "wanted" an offering brought from Aharon's private funds more than one brought from community funds. On the face of it, the issue in dispute here is how to view this sin-offering – as a personal offering by Aharon, or as a communal offering by the people of Israel (with Aharon merely being the one to perform the sacrificial service)?
This question may depend on the essence of the offering – was this calf brought as part of the general process of the dedication of the Mishkan, or was it brought to validate Aharon to serve in the sanctuary as a priest? Rashi in Yoma offers an explanation according to which even Rabbi Yonatan sees this calf as essentially an individual offering; it was brought from community funds, but only due to a technicality:
If the community were able to achieve atonement by way of an individual offering, I would have preferred…. (Rashi, ad loc.)
Rashi interprets Rabbi Yonatan's words as attesting to the essence of the offering: it is one that atones for the community, but at its essence, it would have been preferable for this atonement to be achieved through the sin-offering of an individual.
II. Atonement for the sin of the golden calf
The Or Ha-Chaim adds another layer to this discussion in his commentary. At first glance, it seems that he interprets the term "lekha" differently from the Gemara:
It further seems we may say that the word "lekha" was intended as a sign for all times that Aharon had not made the golden calf with sinful intent, nor was he involved in its worship, but rather it came by way of him without his intent and without evil thoughts. (Or Ha-Chaim, Vayikra 9:2)
However, according to what we saw above regarding the essence of the offering, it can be suggested that what we have here is actually an expansion and deepening of the Gemara. We saw that fundamentally, both Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan understand the sacrifice as a mechanism for atonement that relates to Aharon; the disagreement is whether it is ultimately an individual offering or a communal offering.
Identifying this korban as an atonement specifically for the sin of the golden calf offers immediate clarification. Aharon Ha-kohen did play a significant part in the sin of the calf, as the Torah teaches us: "For Aharon had let them loose to become a laughingstock to their enemies" (Shemot 32:25), and as Moshe himself attests: "Moreover, the Lord was very angry with Aharon to have destroyed him" (Devarim 9:20). Therefore, it is only natural that Aharon's part in the atonement would be more significant as well.
If what we have said is correct, then we can expand on the above explanation of the Amoraic dispute, as follows: According to Rabbi Yoshiya, the calf was to serve as a personal atonement for Aharon, which would then allow him to serve in the priesthood. According to Rabbi Yonatan, the atonement is for the entire nation of Israel, but still, its specific purpose is atonement for the sin of the calf. Ideally, it would have been preferable for the offering to relate to Aharon alone, but since it was to provide atonement for the community, it was necessary that it be brought from community funds.
We also find these two approaches in the midrash that, to a large extent, is the basis for everything the Or Ha-Chaim says here:
"And he said to Aharon: Take for you a bull-calf." Why was he not told to bring a bullock, but a bull-calf? Rather, to say that by way of a calf the priesthood became shaky in your hands, and by way of a calf the priesthood is being established in your hands. (Tanchuma Shemini 6)
This explanation for specifically offering a calf emphasizes the need to atone for Aharon's personal sin – in contrast to another explanation in that same midrash, which emphasizes the sins of the people of Israel and the need to atone for them:
And not only that, but so the Israelites should not say they bear sins from the incident of the golden calf, therefore, God said to him that they, too, should offer a calf: "And to the children of Israel you shall speak, saying: Take a he-goat for a sin-offering, and a calf, etc." (Vayikra 9:3), so they would all know that the sin of the calf had been atoned for them. (Tanchuma, ibid.)
III. The accuser may not become the defender
Now that we understand the disagreement between Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan on a more fundamental level, we can delve a little more deeply and ask: What is the root of their dispute? Why, according to Rabbi Yoshiya, is the calf sin-offering an individual offering rather than a communal one? After all, all of Israel took part in the sin of the golden calf!
We find an answer to this question as well in the Or Ha-Chaim's comment on the superfluous "you":
Perhaps we may add that the word "lekha" was intended as a sign for all times that Aharon had not made the golden calf with sinful intent, nor was he involved in its worship, but rather it came about by his hand without his intent and without evil thoughts. This is why the bull-calf could serve effectively as atonement for Aharon – which is not the case for the people as a whole, as their involvement in the sin of the golden calf was intentional. Not only could a bull-calf not serve as atonement for their sin; on the contrary, it would remind God of their sin and be an accuser [and we have a principle that something which served previously as an accuser cannot reverse its role and serve as a defender].[1] (Or Ha-Chaim, Vayikra 9:2)
In contrast to the Israelites, whose sin with the golden calf was completely intentional, Aharon Ha-kohen sinned with the calf without any intention at all, as he testifies:
And I said to them: Whoever has any gold, let them break it off; so they gave it me; and I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf. (Shemot 32:24)
And as Rashi comments there:
And I did not know that this calf would come out, but it did come out. (Rashi, ad loc.)
This difference allows Aharon Ha-kohen to atone for himself with a calf without the defender turning into an accuser, while for the people of Israel, bringing a calf would have been a negative act, as it would have served as a reminder of their sin at a time that they were seeking atonement. Thus, we understand Rabbi Yoshiya's opinion: only Aharon could have atoned with a calf, not the people of Israel.
However, if we examine more closely the principle that an accuser cannot become a defender, it turns out that we still have a difficulty. The main passage that discusses this principle is in tractate Rosh Ha-shana, where the Mishna explains in detail which shofars are fit to be blown on Rosh Hashana:
All kinds of shofar may be used except [one made from the horn] of a cow, because it is [properly called] a keren.
Rabbi Yose said: Surely, all shofars are called keren, as is stated: "When they make a long blast with the ram's keren" (Yehoshua 6:5). (Mishna Rosh Ha-shana 3:2)
The Gemara there offers several explanations for the basis of this dispute, including that of Ulla:
Ulla said: The reason of the Rabbis is to be found in the saying of Rav Chisda, for Rav Chisda said: Why does not the High Priest enter the inner sanctuary in garments of gold to perform the service there? Because the accuser may not act as the defender. Is that so? What of the blood of the bullock? Seeing that this has been transformed [i.e., it is no longer recognizable as a bullock], the objection to it is removed. But what of the ark, with the ark-cover and the cherubim [which are made of gold]? What we say is that the sinner should not bring [items of gold into the Holy of Holies]. But what of the spoon and the censer [which are made of gold and are brought into the Holy of Holies]? What we say is that the sinner should not adorn himself [with gold]. But what of the garments of gold [which he wore] in the outer sanctuary? We speak of [service in the] inner sanctuary. The shofar also is [used] outside! Since its purpose is to awaken remembrance, it is as if it were [used] inside. (Rosh ha-Shana 26a)
The rationale of the Sages, according to Ulla, is that "the accuser may not act as the defender," a rule that Rav Chisda stated in connection with the garments of the High Priest that are worn on Yom Kippur. Unlike the rest of the year, when the High Priest performs the service in garments made with gold, on Yom Kippur, before he enters into the Holy of Holies, he changes into white garments. He does this in order to avoid awakening the memory of the sin of the golden calf through the association with gold.
Rav Chisda's words seem to raise a difficulty for the Or Ha-Chaim's explanation above, as they indicate that the concept that "the accuser may not serve as the defender" does apply even to Aharon himself. How, then, can the Or Ha-Chaim say it does not apply to Aharon because he did not commit his sin with intent? As he writes:
You will find in Vayikra Rabba (21,10) that God did not want Aharon to enter the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur dressed in his golden garments because he had made the golden calf. We must ask about this: Why did God command Aharon to take a bull-calf as a sin-offering? Is not a sin-offering intended as atonement, which is the greatest advocate for the defense in the world [and thus he is taking an accusatory item and using it as a defender]? (Or Ha-Chaim, Vayikra 9:2)
It might seem that there is room to offer an answer based on the distinction in the Gemara in Rosh Ha-shana, between "atonement inside," where the idea that an accuser may not be the defender applies, and "atonement outside," where it does not apply: Aharon's atonement here seems to be only outside, since the calf was offered outside the Holy of Holies, and thus the rule would not apply. However, this distinction (which will be discussed further below) cannot in fact be the basis for the Or Ha-Chaim's words, as with respect to the people of Israel, the idea that an accuser may not be made the defender applies even outside!
Thus, we are faced with two difficulties:
Why, with regard to the priestly garments, are we particular that the accuser not become the defender even regarding Aharon himself?
Why, with regard to the people of Israel, are we particular that the accuser not become the defender even for atonement outside the Holy of Holies?
We will continue with the words of the Or Ha-Chaim and see how he resolves these difficulties.
IV. The sin of gold and the sin of the calf
The Or Ha-Chaim first explains why the priestly garments on Yom Kippur are different from the calf that Aharon brought at the dedication of the Mishkan:
It seems that God judged the matter fairly: On the one hand, Aharon did not perform any direct action in the making of the golden calf; he neither designed it, nor prepared it, and it goes without saying that he did not believe in it or err by following it, God forbid – as he explained to Moshe: "the calf came out" (Shemot 32:24), meaning, it came out by itself, i.e., as a result of an action by the sorcerers Yeynus and Yombrus among the mixed multitude, as reported by Tanchuma (Ki Tisa 19).
It turns out that the action that Aharon performed was in relation to the gold, for he told the people to bring the gold, he accepted it from them, and he etched it with an etching tool. All of these acts he performed in full awareness of what he was doing. Even though the reason he did these things was fear of the Israelites killing him like they had killed his nephew Chur, and even though all he did was stall for time until Moshe would return, he did do something improper. This is why God told him to bring a calf, to atone for what came about by his hand without his intent – but as for the gold, regarding which he had acted with intent, God told Aharon not to appear before Him in the Holy of Holies dressed in gold, so the accuser should not become an advocate for the defense. This was not the case with the Israelites who sinned regarding the golden calf [knowingly]; they could not bring a bull-calf as atonement, thus God commanded them to prepare a he-goat [as their sin-offering instead]. (Or Ha-Chaim, Vayikra 9:2)
The Or Ha-Chaim here divides the incident of the golden calf into two different sins – gathering the gold for the calf, and forming the calf. Aharon had no role in the forming of the calf; it emerged by itself. But as for the collecting of the gold, even though Aharon was acting under duress , he was nevertheless the one who led the process. Therefore, the gold indeed served as an accuser against Aharon – but the calf did not. The people as a whole, on the other hand, were also liable for worshipping the calf, thus a calf could not serve as atonement for Israel.
V. Atonement inside and atonement outside
The second question we raised dealt with the relationship between the atonement achieved by Aharon, outside the Holy of Holies, while wearing his golden garments (regarding which there is apparently no problem of the accuser being turned into a defender), and the offering of a calf for the atonement of Israel (regarding which there is a problem of the accuser being turned into a defender, even for atonement outside). This question can be expanded: We saw above, in the passage in tractate Rosh Ha-shana, that there is a problem of the accuser becoming the defender regarding the High Priest's golden garments and regarding a shofar. But there are other sources from which a conflicting picture emerges, sources suggesting that we want atonement to be achieved precisely through something that was part of the transgression, in order for penitence to match the sin. This idea appears in the Tanchuma on our parasha (cited above) and in other sources. We saw in the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya that the goal of the calf in our parasha was to atone for Aharon, in order to validate him to serve in the priesthood. The Sifra on our parasha explains in two different ways why Aharon required this special atonement. The first explanation states:
"And he said to Aharon: Take for you a bull-calf for a sin-offering." This teaches that Moshe said to Aharon: Aharon, my brother, even though God has consented to forgive your iniquities, you must place something in Satan's mouth. Send your gift before you enter the sanctuary, lest he hate you upon your entering the sanctuary. (Sifra, Shemini 1)
According to this explanation, Aharon had to atone for his wrongdoings towards God. On the other hand, in another explanation, the atonement was necessary for Aharon himself:
Others say: Aaron perceived the (horned) altar as an ox and was frightened by it, whereupon Moshe said to him: My brother, don't be afraid – "Draw near." Therefore, it is stated: "Draw near to the altar." (Ibid.)
What is common to both explanations is the premise that atonement comes precisely from through something connected to the sin – in contrast to what we saw regarding the golden garments, where Aharon was commanded to change his garments so as not to recall the sin.
Here, the Or Ha-Chaim explains that the difference is between "atonement inside" and "atonement outside":
We have to question how it is possible to say (Rosh Ha-shana 26a) that the accuser cannot serve as an advocate for the defense, when they said (Arakhin 16a) that the four golden garments of the High Priest atone for four different categories of sin. In view of this, the accuser certainly did turn advocate for the defense! We must answer therefore that one cannot compare the process of atonement which occurs as a result of offerings presented on the copper altar outside the Mishkan with the process of atonement initiated by offerings presented on the golden altar inside the sanctuary. The function of the golden altar inside the sanctuary is to whiten sins like snow. The well-known symbol for this was the red thread that turned white once the atonement procedures performed by the High Priest inside the sanctuary were accepted by God (compare Yoma 67a) – an amazing thing, as it is necessary that not a trace of the former sins remain. Therefore, the garments achieve atonement outside even if they are of gold, but this is not the case inside. According to this distinction as well, Aharon's sin with the gold was different from Israel's sin with the calf, for Aharon achieved atonement outside with his golden garments, but Israel could not achieve atonement with a calf, because Aharon's sin with the gold was completely unintentional, which is not the case with Israel's sin, and therefore they could not achieve atonement with a calf even outside the sanctuary. Understand this. (Or Ha-Chaim, ibid.)
"Atonement inside" must be absolute. The innermost sanctum is the site of God's residence, and before Him there is only absolute truth. There, the very mention of a sin arouses the attribute of Justice and will not help to achieve atonement. "Atonement outside," on the other hand, is atonement that is connected to our world, "the world of lies." Here, the mention of sin can be utilized as a catalyst for a person to reflect upon repentance, to reconsider his actions and regret them. When a sin is committed "absolutely unintentionally," like Aharon's sin of collecting the gold, there is no problem mentioning it, since it was not performed as an act of rebellion against God. Therefore, remorse suffices to atone for it. This is not the case with intentional sin, where the element of defiance towards God prevents atonement from being achieved in this way even outside.
However, other sources seem to indicate atonement being achieved through something by way of which Israel sinned – for example, in the midrash on Parashat Emor:
What did He see that led Him to make the bull first of all the offerings? Rabbi Levi said: This is analogous to a queen in whose regard a bad rumor spread in connection with one of the prominent members of the royal court. The king investigated the matters and did not find them substantive. What did the king do? He made a banquet and seated that man at the head of those dining. Why to that extent? It was to make it known that the king had investigated the matters and did not find them substantive. Thus, the nations of the world antagonize Israel and say to them: "You made the calf." The Holy One, blessed be He, investigated their words and did not find them substantive. That is why the bull became first of all the offerings. That is what is written: "A bull, or a sheep, or a goat." (Vayikra Rabba 27:8)
Similarly, in the midrash that tries to explain the essence of a red heifer:
And why are all the sacrifices male and this one [the red heifer] female? Rabbi Aivo said: This may be likened to a slave boy who soiled the king's palace. The king said: "Let his mother come and wash the excrement." Thus, the Holy One, blessed be He said: "Let a cow come and atone for the act of the calf." (Bamidbar Rabba 19, 8)
These sources seem at first to present a difficulty for the Or Ha-Chaim, who maintains that the people of Israel are not part of the atonement for the sin of the golden calf, even when the atonement is achieved outside the Holy of Holies!
However, there is in fact no difficulty here, for the two sources do not relate to a real calf, but rather to a bullock and a cow – they allude to the sin but they are not the object itself with which Israel sinned. This is how we achieve both things together: On the one hand, the sin is not being recalled before God, because in the heavenly world of truth, we are not dealing with precisely the same object with which they had sinned. On the other hand, in our world, even things that are not precise can be similar enough to achieve the same goal: the people of Israel remember their sin and regret it.
(Translated by David Strauss)
[1] It should be noted that some did see atonement for the golden calf in the offerings brought by the people of Israel as well. See, for example, Sifra on the beginning of our parasha.
No comments:
Post a Comment