tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post6061776465534157094..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Does the midrash whitewash Aharon's role in the cheit ha-Eigel, or does it accentuate the fine nuances of the text?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-19618003131681538452010-03-08T12:39:46.059-05:002010-03-08T12:39:46.059-05:00oops! yes, i did conflate them, though the point s...oops! yes, i did conflate them, though the point stands; and the midrash does seem to be making much of that word.<br /><br />i don't know that I was taking DovBear too literally. perhaps. stated more neutrally, it would have indeed been a post i might have made, about the midrash changing grey to black and grey to white, depending on context.<br /><br />in terms of aharon never being punished, i think i recall certain rishonim (ibn ezra, maybe?) using this as evidence. <br /><br />why wasn't he punished, even if it was merely a lack of leadership? beats me. shaul was removed from his position for similarly giving way, but then, aharon never really permanently had a leadership position. we do have devarim 9, that says that it was a result of Moshe's praying. as to the midrash, that nadav and avihu was punishment for this, well, you can make of it what you will.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-73470505798204945572010-03-08T12:25:36.645-05:002010-03-08T12:25:36.645-05:00R' Waxman.
You seem to conflate the terms vaya...R' Waxman.<br />You seem to conflate the terms vayakhel and vayikahel, but I believe the distinction actually supports your point - vayakhel meaning an orderly, well-organized coalition, and vayikahel (especially vayikahel 'al' as opposed to 'el') meaning a disorderly, violent mob. R' Avraham Walfish has a piece on this on the VBM.<br /><br />[Using the term vayakhel by Korach is, I believe, intended to be blood-curdling. Korach's men (as opposed to Datan and Aviram's followers) were not common folk whose passions were inflamed by a demagogue; this was an organized group of communal leaders who had long contemplated their position.]<br /><br />In fairness to DovBear, however, I think you may be taking his post a little too literally. I think it's a fair point that thge medrashim and meforashim go out of their way to transfer Aharon from someone who responded to the people's request for leadership by building a golden calf (of his own violition, no one forced him to do that - the people just forced him to do something) to someone who was under extraordinary duress, literally fearing for his life, building the calf rather than face the same fate as Chur.<br /><br />That being said, perhaps the strongest proof for the medrashic position comes not from ambiguity in the text, but from the simple fact that while thousands of Jews died for this sin, Aharon is not punished at all! Some justification must be found for this incongruity, and duress seems to fit the bill.<br /><br />All this leads to my question to you - why is Aharon never punished? Even facing the wrath of the people, it seems clear from Moshe's reaction here and in Eikev that Aharon did wrong - so even if he doesn't deserve death for his sin, why is there no punishment at all mentioned? Is he simply a beneficiary of some kind of divine grace? (That doesn't sound like a very Jewish concept, but how else to explain how Aharon eludes punishment here and in the incident of Moshe's "isha kushite" where Miriam and Aharon apparently commit the exact same act, but only Miriam is punished?)<br /><br />Thanks,<br />HillelHillelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-81609252246761763322010-03-07T13:48:18.548-05:002010-03-07T13:48:18.548-05:00i agree, that the reaction interpretation does see...i agree, that the reaction interpretation does seem to be the obvious peshat.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-52682869638618326932010-03-07T10:48:13.608-05:002010-03-07T10:48:13.608-05:00It seems to me that pashut pshat in no way infers ...It seems to me that pashut pshat in no way infers that Aharon did this out of his own volition. That is actually absurd and ridiculous. Clearly it was a reaction to the nation. They approached him and then he tried to make the best of a bad situation. <br /><br />Personally, I think that Aharon was trying to focus the nation towards serving G-D, but he was over ambitious. He bit off a little more than he could chew and hence he ended up just aiding the sinners instead of steering them back towards G-D.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.com