parshat Tetzaveh/Ki Tisa: Rapprochement of Brothers

In next week's parsha, parashat ki ṯiśśaʾ, we read about the sin of the golden calf. Did this happen before or after the commandments in the current parasha - teṣavveh? This is a matter of dispute, with Ramban assuming the events occurred chronologically in the same order as they are described in the Torah, and others (including Rashi) assuming that in fact the command to build the Mishkan occurred after the sin of the golden calf. This is not impossible, since for many reasons the Torah departs from describing events in strict chronological order, and will instead group events and commandments by topic, theme, etc.. As I have explored elsewhere, this is even more often true when there are bridges between sections with different content. Thus, moving back and forth between narrative section and genealogical sections (what others call J and P, but which we can adopt as differences in context without adopting the theory of multiple authorship), there is often an obvious divergence from absolute chronological order, for narrative purpose. Here, as well, there is a break in the narrative, with Moshe ascending the Mountain to receive the Tablets and staying there 40 days and 40 nights (see Shemot 24:18), with lists of commandments wholly unrelated to the Tablets, and the narrative picks up again with the people reacting to Moshe taking his time on the mountain and therefore wishing to make a golden calf (see Shemot 32:1). There may well be other textual and philosophical reasons for assuming a different order, and this divergence from chronological order may indeed be the best peshat, but this seems a topic worthy of a separate post.

If we accept that the commandment to build the Mishkan occurred after the sin of the golden calf, we can read the commandment to build the Mishkan as a sort of atonement. People donated their gold for the purpose of constructing the golden calf, and now, they are directed to donate their gold towards a worthy task. Furthermore, if the Mishkan command occurs after, then this is a message that the golden calf incident was not one that entirely severed the connection between God and His People, as some have tried to put forth. Besides the fact that we see the relationship continue (and we see that God gives a second set of Tablets), the fact that immediately after the sin God instructs them to make a dwelling place for Him and He will dwell among them shows that He wishes to maintain this close relationship. This seems to be another topic worthy of exploring in greater detail.

Now, Aharon's role, and more specifically, motivation, in the construction of the golden calf is somewhat ambiguous in the text. Even a straightforward reading of the text, he certainly does not appear to be a driving force. Rather, the people gather to him and ask him to take certain actions. A closer reading of the text might reveal even more about Aharon's motivations, and the midrash indeed attempts such a closer reading, which has Aharon taking the steps he takes for the purpose of delaying the people from sinning, perhaps until Moshe descends from Mount Sinai. Why the midrash does this is another interesting question. Some obvious possible answers: (1) because it is historically true and they have this as a tradition; (2) because it engages in apologetics; (3) because there is a general trend in Midrash to take ambiguous characters, shaded in grey, and darken them and their actions in the case of evildoers and lighten them in the case of the righteous; (4) the midrash picks up on macro-level themes and reads ambiguous text in this light; (5) the midrash engages in close reading of the text, giving maximal significance to certain statements, and reads text hyper-literally, in a way that meshes well with the macro-level themes described in (4).

Now, how we may deduce Aharon's specific role and motivation is something worthy of discussion on parshat ki ṯiśśaʾ (that is, in another post). However, the midrash (or at least one midrash) will assume that Aharon was working with lofty intentions, or at least, without criminal intent. At the same time, the midrash understands that the text is ambiguous.

A great midrash in Midrash Rabba, on the current week's parsha (parasha 28:2) exploits this ambiguity (or at least, this is the way I read it -- and I am summarizing it here - so see it inside). That is, the midrash states that while Hashem knew of Aharon's positive intent (to delay the nation until Moshe arrived), Moshe did not, and so distanced himself from his brother, bearing a complaint in his heart against Aharon. Hashem then told him: "Moshe, I know Aharon's intent, that is was for good." One can make the following allegory - the pedagogue of a prince saw the prince with a shovel trying to undermine the foundation of his father's house. The pedagogue told him - do not trouble yourself, I will do it for you. The king found him and told him, "I know your true intent (to delay until found so that the palace would not be undermined - alternatively, so that the prince (=the nation) would not be implicated). By your life! I will not appoint anyone to take care of the palace except you!" Thus Hashem told Moshe that Aharon was to be the only one in charge of all the sacrifices (to Hashem) of the Israelites, as it states (Shemot 28:1):

א וְאַתָּה הַקְרֵב אֵלֶיךָ אֶת-אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו אִתּוֹ, מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--לְכַהֲנוֹ-לִי: אַהֲרֹן--נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר, בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן.	1 And bring thou near unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that they may minister unto Me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.
ב וְעָשִׂיתָ בִגְדֵי-קֹדֶשׁ, לְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, לְכָבוֹד, וּלְתִפְאָרֶת.	2 And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother, for splendour and for beauty.

When did he tell him this? By the Mishkan.

// end summary of the midrash.

It should be obvious that this Midrash assumes the command to construct the Mishkan occurs after the sin of the golden calf. Let us see some other interesting aspects of the midrash.

1) As mentioned above, the midrash takes the ambiguity of Aharon's motivation, which is present in the text, and exploits it, such that Moshe does not know of Aharon's lofty intention.

2) On the macro, thematic level, it is clear that Hashem has not distanced himself from Aharon as a result of the sin of the golden calf. Thus, Aharon has either been forgiven, or Hashem understands Aharon's true intent. This is similar to the idea of Hashem's maintaining a relationship with the Israelites, dwelling in a dwelling place among them, even after the sin of the golden calf.

3) Hashem's commanding Moshe to appoint Aharon to such a position has the effect of informing the reader how to understand Aharon's ambiguous role. This translates into Hashem telling Moshe (who knows as much of Aharon's intent as any casual reader, and thus plays the role) that Aharon had lofty intentions.

4) Not only does Hashem thus vindicate Aharon, He appoints him to be in charge of His service, to bring sacrifices to Hashem for the Israelites. This is a statement that even in the (ambiguous) past, Aharon's intent was to serve Hashem, and so no one is trusted for this task more than he (the appointing over palace metaphor).

5) Finally, on the level of close, hyperliteral reading, the pasuk in an instruction to Moshe that there should be rapprochement with his brother. Thus

א וְאַתָּה הַקְרֵב אֵלֶיךָ אֶת-אַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ וְאֶת-בָּנָיו אִתּוֹ, מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל--לְכַהֲנוֹ-לִי: אַהֲרֹן--נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר, בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן.

1 And bring thou near unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that they may minister unto Me in the priest's office, even Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons.

We saw that on the macro-thematic level, the very fact of Aharon's appointment was taken as vindication. Here, within the command to appoint Aharon, we see that Moshe is commanded to bring his brother Aharon near. That means that until this point, Aharon was distant from Moshe, and this is taken as emotional distance. Integrating the close reading into the macro-theme, we see the midrash take this as an instruction that Aharon was not at fault, and so Moshe should draw Aharon near as a brother, once again.