Followup to the bloody earlobes

I've been looking for the midrash of the bloody earlobes, as described in this previous post. You know, that the wives refused to surrender their earrings for the evil purpose of the eigel; that the husbands then ripped the earrings off their wives' ears.

In the prior post, I showed what Rashi and the standard Midrashim had: that Aharon had this as a delaying tactic because women and children are fond of jewelry and would be reluctant, for that reason, to part with it. And that in response, so as not to delay, the men offered their own earrings from their own (male) ears. Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer adds that the reluctance of the women stemmed from righteousness (rather than love of jewelry). And a large part of the midrash stems from the difference from Aharon's command to take the jewelry of the women, boys and girls, on the one hand, and the next pasuk which describes it as earring אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם, which is the masculine. I suggested the phantom midrash got the idea from the shift from active verb to the passive וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ .

In a comment, AryehS pointed me to the Torah Shleimah, by Rav Menachem Kasher, who discusses this. I'll provide a translation here.

First he cites Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, which has the objection as religiously motivated. Then he cites the midrash Lekach Tov, which gives the standard explanation for refusal:

19] פָּרְקוּ נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵי נְשֵׁיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם וּבְנֹתֵיכֶם -- he [Aharon] said perhaps the women will wish to spare their adornments and the adornments of their sons and daughters, and the matter will not come to fruiting before Moshe arrives. But this did not help at all, because it states [next pasuk] וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ .

That is, that the gave. I would say that this might mean that the women gave. Or else that it might mean, as in Rashi, that the men gave their own.

In his gloss on [19] Rav Kasher writes:

From the language 'but this did not help at all', it is unclear whether they [the women] gave of their own accord or whether they [the women] gave against their will. And in Lekach Tov later on (35:22) [on the donations to the Mishkan]: וַיָּבֹאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים, עַל-הַנָּשִׁים, what does this come to teach us? Since it was stated [regarding the donation to the golden calf] פָּרְקוּ נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵי נְשֵׁיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם וּבְנֹתֵיכֶם וְהָבִיאוּ אֵלָי, Israel said, "By what will be atoned the sin of the removal of the golden earrings from our wives, sons and daughters, which we stripped them of their adornments to fashion golden gods. However, when Moshe gathered them to bring silver and gold for the work of the Mishkan, they brought all the adornments of their wives, sons and daughters, to take them by force." And likewise in Midrash Aggada, volume 1, Kapach 188.

And it seems that they it darshens that also by the eigel they took them by force. And that it derives it from וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ. And so is explained in דעת זקנים and הדר זקנים in parashat Vayakhel, and these are their words:

"Therefore the women merited not to perform melacha on Rosh Chodesh, for by the incident of the Eigel their adornments were taken from them against their will, as is the implication of  what is written וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ etc.. And meanwhile, in the construction of the Mishkan they rejoiced in its giving. Therefore Rosh Chodesh was given to them as a Yom Tov.

And it seems to me that this is Rosh Chodesh Nissan, on which the Mishkan was erected, and along with that Rosh Chodesh they keep all the Rosh Chodeshs of the years. End quote."

And see above note [18] and later on 23-24. And so explains Ibn Ezra as the simple meaning of the verse, that the words בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם refers to the women, etc., and these are his words:

"It was the custom of Egypt that the women had rings in their ears (that is to say, not in their nose as in Bereishit 24:47, 'And I placed a ring in her nose'). And so is written about the Midianites (Shofetim 8:24 'for they have golden rings'). For they are Ishmaelites.  אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם, namely in the ears of the sons [Josh: males], daughters and wives who were mentioned above."

And a third position appears in Rashi here, that the women as well removed from themselves..." 

So it seems that we can source the "against their will" part in Midrash Aggadah, at least one Lekach Tov, and Daas Zekeinim. I don't know about Ibn Ezra.

Bloody ears might be a graphic extrapolation based on the idea that they forced them. If one forces בזרוע, then that might imply ripping the ears. But there are other ways to compel remove jewelry than causing bloody injury...

Why the Rashbam deviates from peshat in the shattering of the luchot

Here is a 30 minute shiur by Rabbi Barry Gelman on parshat Ki Tisa, from 2011:
What I Learned From My Principal and my Basketball Star Friend: How Could Moshe Break the Luchot


He focuses in large part on Rashbam, who says that Moshe didn't break the luchot in anger. Rather he lost strength and pushed them away from himself so that they would not fall on his feet. And that seems to go against the peshat, that Moshe was angry, as it says immediately before. And also while accounting for וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו, it doesn't account for וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם.

Here is the pasuk (Shemot 32:19):

יט  וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר קָרַב אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה, וַיַּרְא אֶת-הָעֵגֶל, וּמְחֹלֹת; וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה, וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו אֶת-הַלֻּחֹת, וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם, תַּחַת הָהָר.

19 And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing; and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and broke them beneath the mount.

and here is Rashbam:

פסוק יט 
וישלך מידיו - כשראה את העגל תשש כחו ולא היה בו כח להשליכם רחוק ממנו קצת שלא יזיק את רגליו בנפלם, כדרך כל משליכי משאוי כשאין בהם כח לשאת. 
וכן ראיתי בפרקים של רבי אליעזר ועיקר פשוטו כך. 

"When he saw the eigel, his strength weakened and he only had sufficient strength to throw them a short distance from himself so that they would not hurt his feet as they fell, in the same manner of anyone who casts away a burden that they don't have strength to carry. So I have seen in Pirkei deRabbi Elizer, and the primary peshat is like that."

Now for my disagreement, and defense of the Rashbam:

We don't have to agree with Rashbam in his assessment that this is peshat, but I would argue that he is being honest here, rather than trying to defend/cover up Moshe's extreme actions. He is straightforward in his approach to peshat and even if we don't understand Rashbam at first, we should consider (a) contextual information and (b) implications of phraseology, and how words are used across Tanach. After all, he acknowledges the midrashic source but also indicates that he considers it to be the primary peshat.

A) For instance, וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה, וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו אֶת-הַלֻּחֹת seems to draw a pretty direct connection between the two.

However, #1, where do you want to put the esnachta? As written by the author of the trup, it is:

וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר קָרַב אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה, וַיַּרְא אֶת-הָעֵגֶל, וּמְחֹלֹת
etnachta
וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה, וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו אֶת-הַלֻּחֹת, וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם, תַּחַת הָהָר

However, as shown elsewhere, Rashbam does not consider trup to be dispositive, so he could perhaps move the esnachta:

וַיְהִי, כַּאֲשֶׁר קָרַב אֶל-הַמַּחֲנֶה, וַיַּרְא אֶת-הָעֵגֶל, וּמְחֹלֹת, וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה
etnachta
וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו אֶת-הַלֻּחֹת, וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם, תַּחַת הָהָר

This seems a but forced, especially since Moshe is named explicitly, as if introducing a new half-pasuk and serving as the explicit antecedent for all the pronouns which follow.

But, #2, Rasham tagged Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer as his source. So to understand how he parses the pasuk, and  וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה, maybe we should first examine the midrash and see how it understands and explains Moshe's anger, and at the same time says he was merely casting it off.

This midrash may be found in Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, perek 45.

That is that the words carried themselves and Moshe will them, and when they (!) "saw the eigel and the dancing" the writing fled from the luchos and they were too heavy upon his hands, and Moshe was unable to carry either himself or the luchos, and he cast them from his hands and they were broken at the bottom of the mountain, as is written "and his Moshe's anger waxed... and he broke them at the bottom of the mountain."

OK, that doesn't help much. Depending on which girsa, perhaps the anger is elided, or perhaps not. (See gloss, insertions.)

On the basis of this, though, maybe we can see what Rashbam is suggesting.

וַיִּחַר-אַף מֹשֶׁה is definitely there in the pasuk. But we can say that he had an emotional reaction. Speaking from personal experience, under extreme emotion, it is sometimes difficult to contain yourself. I would guess that Rashbam, rather than asserting miraculous carrying of the luchos, is simply saying that when Moshe saw the eigel and the conduct of the people, he had an emotional reaction. And this physically weakened him such that he could no longer carry the luchos, and so naturally, he was in danger of dropping them on his feet.

B) What about וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו, which is a hiphil (causative). See here for uses of it across Tanach. It could be understood as flung.

But Rashbam agrees there was a forceful push here. Maybe he is focuses on the word מִיָּדָו, that he cast it from his hands (implying just from his hands, a push of a short distance), rather than that he threw it down in anger towards the bottom of the mountain.

C) What about וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם תַּחַת הָהָר, also active and causative? This can be understood as that, as a result of casting them from his hands, thus, he ended up causing them to break at the bottom of the mountain, since they dropped there. But this is not direct and deliberate breaking, but rather the ונתשברו of Pirkei deRabbi Eleizer. He caused this event indirectly by dropping them, or pushing them from his hands.

D) Maybe he considers narrative context, that Moshe already heard that they had sinned and was still carrying down the luchos to give them. One could posit a change of mind when directly witnessing the sin and its extent, but maybe Rashbam thinks this unlikely, and would rather keep Moshe consistent in his approach, and attribute the breaking to emotional accident.

In sum, while we may disagree with Rashbam, rather than consider this a strange deviation from peshat, I would rather say that he sees certain cues textual cues, both from narrative context and from close reading of phrases in the pasuk.

Two shiurim for Adar Rishon and parshat Ki Tisa

I've been listening to some of the shiurim at YU Torah. Here are my thoughts / reactions to two of them.

1. Understanding the Chet Ha'Egel -- 5 minutes
Rabbi Herschel Schachter

Two interesting takeaways from this five minute shiur.
#1: According to Ramban, a mitzvah deOraysa to hear the chet ha'egel. Such that like Zachor, hearing Ki Tisa is deOraysa. (1:40 minute mark)
#2: Bamidbar Rabba is late. Things Rashi cites from Rav Moshe haDarshan are found in Bamidbar Rabba. (3:30 minute mark)
2.
Simcha in Adar Rishon -- 10 minutes
Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz:

4 minute mark:
Chasam Sofer: Shulchan Aruch doesn't say mishenichnas Adar marbim beSimcha because no practical ramifications. Meanwhile miShenichnas av memaatin beSimcha has practical ramifications, e.g. scheduling a wedding.
He asks that this is a bit difficult: The gemara says (Taanis 29a-b):
משנכנס אב ממעטין בשמחה כו':  אמר רב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב כשם שמשנכנס אב ממעטין בשמחה כך משנכנס אדר מרבין בשמחה אמר רב פפא הלכך בר ישראל דאית ליה דינא בהדי נכרי לישתמיט מיניה
So the gemara gives a practical ramification, to schedule a court case during that time.

I think that not every question is a strong question, just because one can ask it.

There is a difference between an *halachic* nafka mina and a practical good-advice nafka mina, operating under the assumption of astrological impact on our lives. Rav Papa was giving a good idea, not paskening that one must schedule a court case in such a way. It is incorrect to then ask, "of course there is a *halachic* ramification!"

But presenting the question and leaving it like that makes it seem like the Chasam Sofer didn't have such a great answer.

So too regarding the next answer that others proffer, that ain mazal leYisrael. He asks, but the Shulchan Aruch still says mishenichnas av memaatin besimcha, so if it is all dependent in mazal, then it should either say one or the other.

I also don't see this as a great difficulty. When saying משנכנס אב ממעטין בשמחה, whether it is taluy in mazal or not, the beis hamikdash was destroyed then, and this is the phrase in the Mishna that introduces practical Halachic ramifications which are lehalacha, whether or not there is mazal.

Namely, the Mishna says:
משנכנס אב ממעטין בשמחה שבת שחל ט' באב להיות בתוכה אסורין מלספר ומלכבס ובחמישי מותרין מפני כבוד השבת ערב תשעה באב לא יאכל אדם שני תבשילין לא יאכל בשר ולא ישתה יין רשב"ג אומר ישנה רבי יהודה מחייב בכפיית המיטה ולא הודו לו חכמים:

So it is going to drag along that iconic phrase even though the Mazal itself isn't paskened.

Alternatively, what these people are suggesting is that we hold like the Mishna but not like the extra statement of Rav. The Mishna is halachic. Rav and Rav Pappa are talking about mazal, extending the idea of the Mishna.

YUTorah on parashat Ki Tisa

Download the YUTorah Parsha Reader for Ki Tisa Audio Shiurim on Ki Tisa Rabbi Elchanan Adler: Chronology of Moshe Rabbeinu on Har Sinai Rabbi Hanan Balk: The Luchot: You Can't Have One Without the Other Rabbi Eli Belizon: Chait HaAigel - The Status of Shituf Rabbi Reuven Brand: The Luchos Rabbi Asher Brander: Shabbos - A Slice of Heaven Rabbi Chaim Brovender: Aron HaEtz Rabbi Zevulun Charlop: The Importance of Yiras Shamayim Rabbi Yitzchok Cohen: The Machatzis Hashekel Rabbi Avishai David: Shabbos: Kedusha vs. Menucha Rabbi Dovid Ebner: Giving is Receiving Rabbi Ally Ehrman: There Is Always Hope Rabbi Joel Finkelstein: Ten Commandments of Mercy Rabbi David Fohrman: Moshe's Benevolent Chutzpah Rabbi Barry Gelman: What I Learned From My Principal and my Basketball Star Friend: How Could Moshe Break the Luchot Rabbi Beinish Ginsburg: Self Esteem Rabbi Efrem Goldberg: More than Jews have Kept Shabbos, Shabbos has Kept the Jews Rabbi Yehuda Goldschmidt: Break Yourself for Torah Rabbi Ephraim Greene: Money; Playing with Fire Rabbi Yonah Gross: Perspectives on The 13 Middos harachamim Rabbi Shalom Hammer: Externals and Internals Rabbi David Hirsch: The Messages of Chur Rabbi Jesse Horn: What's the connection from the Mishkan to Shabbos? Rabbi Aharon Kahn: Did Both Pairs of Luchos Have the Same Nusach? Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky: Chet Ha'egel Rabbi Ephraim Kanarfogel: Is the Torah Written in Chronological Order? Rabbi Eliakim Koenigsberg: Living Modestly in the Facebook Generation Rabbi Akiva Koenigsberg: The requirement to wash hands and feet Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz: The Symphany of Judaism Rabbi Aaron Leibtag: The After-Party: The Sin of the Golden Calf Rabbi Eliezer Lerner: Speaking is Good for the Ketores Rabbi Hershel Reichman: Hashem's Tefillin Rabbi Zev Reichman: The sin of the golden calf Rabbi Michael Rosensweig: Hidden Things? Rabbi Hershel Schachter: Understanding the Chet Ha'Egel Rabbi Shay Schachter: Extending Ourselves for Avodas Hashem Rabbi Avi Schneider: Tug of war Rabbi Baruch Simon: Luchos Rishonos U'Shnios Mrs. Shira Smiles: Reclaiming a Relationship Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik: Egel Hazahav Rabbi Reuven Spolter: The Eigel and Our Anxiety Rabbi Elly Storch: Human Initiative: Being an Active Receptacle Rabbi Yehuda Susman: Sin of the Moment Rabbi Moshe Taragin: Stones of Freedom Rabbi Michael Taubes: Tachanun Emulating Moshe Rabbeinu Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner: Betzalel's Destiny, and Ours Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg: Our Best Shiur Ever! (Bli Ayein Harah) Rabbi Avraham Willig: The Need for Stimulation Rabbi Andi Yudin: Shabbos Kodesh Rabbi Ari Zahtz:Several Approaches to Cheit HaEgel Itamar Zolberg:Panai Lo Yerau Rabbi Eliezer Zwickler: The Story Behind the Chet Haegel Articles on Ki Tisa Rabbi Etan Moshe Berman: The Copper Laver: The Women's Vessel Rabbi Dr. J. David Bleich: The Halachic Controversy Concerning the Israeli Census Rabbi Ephraim Z. Buchwald: The Vengeful G-d–Revisited Rabbi Eytan Coren: Partners in Building the Mishkan Rabbi Shlomo Einhorn: The Double Edge Esther Frederick: Busting the Myth of Jews with Horns Rabbi Ozer Glickman: On Becoming a Rabbi Rabbi Shmuel Goldin: A Sin for the Ages Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb: Anticipating and Appreciating the Gift of Shabbos Rabbi Maury Grebenau: The Moon that Jumped Over the Cow Rabbi Mordechai Greenberg: כי תשא את ראש בני ישראל Rabbi David Horwitz: The Sin of the Golden Calf Rabbi Chaim Jachter: Our Recovery from Cheit HaEigel President Richard Joel: Empowerment Mrs. Dena Knoll: Chet HaEgel Revisited Rabbi Avigdor Nebenzahl: Lessons from the Chet Haegel Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks: How Leaders Fail Rabbi Yehuda Septimus: Stresses, Senses and Spiritual Strengths Parsha Sheets on Ki Tisa SOY-YU: Einayim L'Torah HALB: Dvarim Hayotzim Min Halev YU Torah Mitzion Beit Midrash Zichron Dov: Toronto Torah Haftara Shiurim on Ki Tisa Rabbi Avraham Gordimer : Chet Ha-Egel and Eliyahu and Achav Rabbi Avraham Rivlin: ונקטותם בפניכם על עוונותיכם Rabbi Ari Zahtz: Haftorah Eliyahu B'Har HaCarmel Rabbi Jeremy Wieder: Laining for Parshat Ki Tisa See all shiurim on YUTorah for Parshat Ki Tisa

New This Week Inspiring Jews in the 21st Century Rabbi Mordechai Burg Introduction to the 39 Melachos Rabbi Avishai David Responding to Reform on Both Sides of the Ocean Rabbi Yonah Gross Midah Kneged Midah - How does it work? Rabbi Lawrence Hajioff Maintaining Tradition Rabbi Yisroel Kaminetsky Simcha in Adar Rishon Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz The Hidden and the  Revealed in the  Destiny and the  Initiative of Esther and Mordechai Professor Smadar Rosensweig Kol Yisrael Areivim Zeh Bazeh Rabbi Michael  Rosensweig Mamlechas Kohanim  Vegoy Kadosh: Orthodox Jew  in the Modern World Rabbi Shalom Rosner The Importance of Faith Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks Torah and Nature: An Organic Fit? Rabbi Mordechai Schiffman Use of Electricity on Shabbos and Yom Tov Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky Origins of the Siddur Rabbi Ya'akov Trump Longing and Hoping  in the Month of Adar Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Weinberg Dangers of the Internet Rabbi Yehuda Werblowsky Striving to be a Baal Chesed Rabbi Andi Yudin

a

Rashi vs. the famous midrash of bloody earlobes

Growing up, I learned a midrash which became entrenched in my mind, the the exclusion of the version we see in Rashi. Aharon told the men to take gold earrings from their wives and children to fashion the golden calf:

According to the midrash, the women of Israel object to the idolatrous project and refuse to donate their jewelry to the frenzy; yet they lack the power to intervene, and their husbands have to physically rip their earrings from their earlobes.[Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 45.]

There was graphic imagery to this midrash as well, of torn earlobes. But where is this midrash to be found? (If you've seen it inside, please let me know in a comment!) I certainly remember hearing the midrash, but I see an alternate midrash in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer perek 45.

That midrash is in accordance with the other midrashic sources I've seen, that the women refused to give the earring and so the men surrendered their own earrings.

This interpretation of events, found also in Rashi, who gets it from Midrash Tanchuma, comes from a literal and close reading of the pesukim in Shemot 32.

2. Aaron said to them, "Remove the golden earrings that are on the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters and bring them [those earrings] to me."		ב. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַהֲרֹן פָּרְקוּ נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵי נְשֵׁיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם וּבְנֹתֵיכֶם וְהָבִיאוּ אֵלָי:
that are on the ears of your wives…: Aaron said to himself, “The women and children are fond of their jewelry. Perhaps the matter will be delayed, and in the meantime, Moses will arrive.” But they did not wait [for their wives and children to give them their earrings], and they took off their own [earrings]. -[from Midrash Tanchuma 21]		באזני נשיכם: אמר אהרן בלבו הנשים והילדים חסים על תכשיטיהן, שמא יתעכב הדבר, ובתוך כך יבא משה, והם לא המתינו ופרקו מעל עצמן:
Remove: Heb. פָּרְקוּ, an imperative expression, from the same root as פָּרֵק in the singular. [This is] like בָּרְכוּ, bless, [which is] from the same root as בָּרֵ.		פרקו: לשון צווי, מגזרת פרק ליחיד, כמו ברכו, מגזרת ברך:
3. And all the people stripped themselves of the golden earrings that were on their ears and brought them to Aaron.		ג. וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ כָּל הָעָם אֶת נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל אַהֲרֹן:
stripped themselves: Heb. וַיִתְפָּרְקוּ, an expression [used for] unloading a burden. When they removed them [the earrings] from their ears, they were found to be unloaded of their earrings, descharyer in Old French [decharger in modern French], to unload.		ויתפרקו: לשון פריקת משא, כשנטלום מאזניהם נמצאו הם מפורקים מנזמיהם, דישקריי"ר בלעז (לפרוק):
of the golden earrings: Heb. אֶת-נִזְמֵי, like מִנַּזְמֵי, similar to “When I leave the city (אֶת-הָעִיר) ” (Exod. 9:29), [like] מִן-הָעִיר, [lit., when I go out of the city].		את נזמי: כמו מנזמי, כמו (שמות ט כט) כצאתי את העיר, מן העיר:

Thus, there is a disparity when reading closely and extremely literally: In pasuk 2, Aharon instructs the men to take the earrings which are on the ears of נְשֵׁיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם וּבְנֹתֵיכֶם. The implication is that the men themselves did not possess jewelry to give. In pasuk 3, the nation takes the golden earrings אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם. That is the masculine plural, and since this is the same עם that carries out וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל אַהֲרֹן at the end of the pasuk, it would seem that the men also had jewelry, and that it was this different jewelry which they brought to Aharon.

According to the midrash, Aharon commanded regarding taking from women and children, as part of one delay-tactic of many to prevent the construction of the eigel. He knew that women and children love their jewelry and would be unwilling to part with it. Rather than argue with their wives (and perhaps women and children) about this, they donated the earring from their own ears. According to Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer, the women's stand was more principled, and in the face of their wives' refusal to participate, the men offered their own earrings.

As I often stress, midrash is literal while peshat is often non-literal. If I wanted to put forth an interpretation more peshat-like, I would say that one should not read so closely, and not take אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם to refer to the ears of the men. The nation collectively had earrings, amongst three groups: women and girls, who were female, and boys, who were male. Either it is the masculine because it is the collective for הָעָם, or because the group includes males in it, בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם is legitimate. So too וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ, which is masculine (and reflexive), that they stripped themselves of the jewelry, because it is collective for הָעָם.

This midrash about forcibly taking the wives' earrings seems to blend the two ideas. Namely [peshat] that indeed the earrings came from the women (and children), not from the men. But [derash] that this was proposed as a delay tactic; or they were unwilling to part with it.

Perhaps this phantom midrash is interpreting the disparity between פָּרְקוּ נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב in pasuk 2, which is an active verb, and וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ כָּל הָעָם אֶת נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב  in pasuk 3, which is reflexive or else passive. (Hispael is reflexive in Hebrew. Ispael is passive in Aramaic.)

Posts so far for parshat Ki Tisa

2014

1. Preemptive atonement for the golden calf? No, we need not say this was Divine foreknowledge and preemption. Rather, Rashi and Midrash Tanchuma are merely being consistent, that the command to built the Mishkan came after the chet haegel.

2013

1. YU Torah on Ki Sisa.

2. How late was Moshe? The Abarbanel says, contra the midrash and Rashi, that there was no expectation of 40 days on the mountain.

3. 'Obvious' interpretations of pesukim -- as a followup to the above. Even if in hindsight Abarbanel's interpretation were obvious -- A 'famous' midrash is often transformative. It colors how we look at the pesukim. It becomes unclear just what is stated by the pasuk and what is not. While we might consider some overt portion of the midrash to be midrash -- in this instance, the interpretation ofboshesh ("tarried") to be ba shesh, that the sixth hour which he had appointed had arrived -- the other perhaps less overt assumptions of the midrash, that he expected to arrive on this 40th day, approximately, we might not realize are not stated explicitly by a pasuk. After all, Shemot 24:18 mentions the 40 days without extra comment, and 40 is a nice round number. And if we are not absolute bekiim in Torah, given that different parts of the narrative are stated in different places, we might not take careful stock and realize what background assumption is pasuk and what background assumption is midrashic interpretation. And so on.

2012

1. Ki Tisa sources, 2012 edition -- further expanded and improved.

2. The kadma ve'azla on venatenu -- Plus, that it is a palindrome. The Gra connects it to a gemara in Shabbos about the wheel of fortune.

3. The psik in כִּי זֶה | מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ -- The trup symbol psik after the word זה, to allude to the seeing of Moshe in a bier, which the Satan showed them.

4. YU Torah on parashat Ki Sisa.

5. Shadal on ayin hara -- That ayin hara is not real, but that the Torah works with the belief rather than uprooting it because it is founded on actual principles of Divine Providence, and is therefore a positive belief to maintain. And also, together with Abarbanel, that the idea of kofer was notledoros.

6. Many facets of Torah -- What was the miracle of the luchos? That letters were suspended, or that they could be read in any which way?

2011

1. Ki Tisa sources -- further improved and expanded. For example, many more meforshei Rashi.
   .
2. Was Betzalel a prophet? It might depend on what girsa we have in Onkelos.
   .
3. The variant text of וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו  -- Considering how the MT differs from LXX and Sam regarding  וְאֶת כָּל כֵּלָיו
   .
4. YU Torah on Ki Tisa.
   .
5. Mor dror as musk -- A discussion of deer musk, according to medieval scientific conceptions, in medieval parshanim.
   .
6. Is the Sichfa a special variant of etnachta? Or, is it an etnachta by another name? Considering this theory, because of an instance of the sichfa in parashat Ki Tisa.
   .
7. Why should the half-shekel perplex Moshe Rabbenu? Maybe it did not. But why it might have.
   .
8. More on Mor Deror --   Considering more sources, namely the Rambam and Raavad, Rabbenu Yona and Rama, and the Tur.
   .
9. A Stiff-necked people --  Does the Torah indeed indicate, in Ki Tisa, that physically thick-necked people are stubborn?  Ibn Caspi appeals to physiognomy to say yes.
   .
10. Five times penalty for the golden calf --  An interesting explanation of a midrash, and of a pasuk in Ki Tisa, according to the Gra. Are there other ways of explaining this midrash pliah?
    .
11. Another Ibn Ezra on brain anatomy --  which seems based on contemporary, Galenic science. 

2010

1. Gra on trup, in Ki Tisa -- an additional derivation that a wealthy person should not spend liberally on charity more than 1/5th.
   a
2. Ki Tisa sources -- revamped, with more than 100 meforshim on the parsha and haftara.
   a
3. The hint from the palindrome, venatenu -- Continuing my roundup of interpretations of the Vilna Gaon on trup, on the second pasuk of Ki Sisa, the Gra interprets the kadma v'azla on the palindrome,v'nat'nu.
   aa
4. Moshe, dying for our sins? While the concept of the righteous of the generation absorbing punishment for the generation is not entirely without precedent or manifestation in Jewish theology, it features quite prominently in Christian doctrine. So it is somewhat surprising that Rambam understands an offer by Moshe Rabbenu in Ki Sisa to be just that, and that Ramban refers to Isaiah 53, the Suffering Servant, as precedent. Especially since Ramban understands that section to refer to the collective, rather than to a specific individual. The answer may well be that Ramban is not arguing for this position, but rather against it.
   .
5. Does the midrash whitewash Aharon's role in the cheit ha-Eigel, or does it accentuate the fine nuances of the text? You might guess correctly that I favor the latter interpretation. Prompted by this post at DovBear.
   .
6. Playing catch with the luchos -- prompted by the following neo-midrash Junior brought home from school:

   Moshe was bringing down the luchos, but because the Jews sinned, theluchos tried to fly back up to shamayim. To prevent this from happening, Moshe threw the luchos down towards earth with all his strength. But nobody caught them, and they shattered on the ground!

   .
7. Calev ben Yefuneh's double identity -- A Midrash Tanchuma and gemara conflates some Biblical characters, and Ibn Ezra opposes. Could a 170 year old father a child, without the pasuk telling us? If the pesukim go out of their way to make a distinction between Calevs, should we conflate them in a closed-canon approach?

2009

1. Ti Sisa sources -- by perek and aliyah, plus many meforshim on the parsha and haftarah. Great for preparing Shnayim Mikra. This week I added a new commentator, Ibn Janach.

2008

• Remove Me Na -- and why the word Na does not appear at all in sefer Vayikra. ;)
  a
• How Much Sweet Cinnamon? (from Shadal's Vikuach) -- according to the trup and Yerushalmi, or according to the Bavli. See here and here.
  a
• Is half of it 250, or is it half as much, that is 250? A continuation of the above, but with a trup chart, and in my own words.

2006

• Rapprochement of Brothers - cross-listed from parshat Tetzaveh
• Moshe is commanded to bring his brother near. Does the happen before or after the sin of the Golden Calf? If so, this might be vindication of Aharon's actions. A midrashic analysis to see if we might deduce Aharon's motivations.
• Recommended Post: Ibn Ezra on the Egel
• a peshat based defense of Aharon and the majority of Israelites.

2005

• How Much Is A Shekel?
• As of today, 24 cents. An initial approach.
• Michelangelo's Moses
• and why Moshe has horns.

2004

• Al Tikra: Seeing/Fearing
• Aharon "saw this" and built the altar. How we might read it as "feared," and a midrash that does this in a different context.
• (posted on parshat Vayikra) Extra Ink
• Moshe comes down from Har Sinai with light emanating from his forehead. One midrash says this was from the extra ink. Where did this ink come from? We might say from the small aleph in Vayikra. And a discussion of this phenomenon.

to be continued...