Dear Friends,
Read this D’var Torah, but read “Ukraine diplomacy.”
Did Aaron really have to succumb to the people’s wishes and fabricate the golden calf, when the people revolted while Moses disappeared on the mountain? Or, should he have resisted? And if so, to what end? Is there another understanding of his acquiescence?
How do we square Aaron’s actions in this week’s Torah portion? The people revolted after Moses left to sojourn with God atop the mountain. They rose against Aaron and prevailed upon him to make a figure to lead them in the desert. The Torah reads, “Vayikahel ha’am AL Aharon, The people gathered AGAINST Aaron.” Of concern is the preposition, AL, AGAINST. The Torah does not indicate that the people gathered and spoke to Aaron or took counsel with Aaron. Rather, it is a contentious engagement. They gathered AGAINST Aaron.
One commentary suggests that the people gathered to kill Aaron - they would kill him if he did not comply with their demands. [M Sanhedrin 7] If such, did Aaron have the option of denying their mutinous and unholy desires, and bear the consequence of rejection, that is, death? That was a possibility, but it would have ruined the story, rendered Aaron a sacred martyr, and denied us this valuable discussion about ethical choices.
What would Aaron’s martyrdom have gained? The people likely would have degenerated into a Lord of the Flies regression, even lower than they already had plunged. As well, Moses either also would have been killed, or would have been run–off and failed in his mission, or would have been obliged to destroy the people and recommence with a new people.
Aaron was between a rock and a hard place. He was forced to choose between survival of himself, his brother and the few righteous Jews remaining, or self-righteous martyrdom with no one left to remember his saintly act.
There is another lesson in Aaron’s concession. It is the value of pragmatism, of solving a problem, even with a distasteful short-term allowance, that the longer-term purpose and probity be maintained. Aaron needed to buy time, mollify the masses, and live to lead another day. That is what he did.
Ethics are not absolute. Even Torah ethics. Even geopolitical ethics. That’s what makes them meaningful.
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Douglas Kohn
Read this D’var Torah, but read “Ukraine diplomacy.”
Did Aaron really have to succumb to the people’s wishes and fabricate the golden calf, when the people revolted while Moses disappeared on the mountain? Or, should he have resisted? And if so, to what end? Is there another understanding of his acquiescence?
How do we square Aaron’s actions in this week’s Torah portion? The people revolted after Moses left to sojourn with God atop the mountain. They rose against Aaron and prevailed upon him to make a figure to lead them in the desert. The Torah reads, “Vayikahel ha’am AL Aharon, The people gathered AGAINST Aaron.” Of concern is the preposition, AL, AGAINST. The Torah does not indicate that the people gathered and spoke to Aaron or took counsel with Aaron. Rather, it is a contentious engagement. They gathered AGAINST Aaron.
One commentary suggests that the people gathered to kill Aaron - they would kill him if he did not comply with their demands. [M Sanhedrin 7] If such, did Aaron have the option of denying their mutinous and unholy desires, and bear the consequence of rejection, that is, death? That was a possibility, but it would have ruined the story, rendered Aaron a sacred martyr, and denied us this valuable discussion about ethical choices.
What would Aaron’s martyrdom have gained? The people likely would have degenerated into a Lord of the Flies regression, even lower than they already had plunged. As well, Moses either also would have been killed, or would have been run–off and failed in his mission, or would have been obliged to destroy the people and recommence with a new people.
Aaron was between a rock and a hard place. He was forced to choose between survival of himself, his brother and the few righteous Jews remaining, or self-righteous martyrdom with no one left to remember his saintly act.
There is another lesson in Aaron’s concession. It is the value of pragmatism, of solving a problem, even with a distasteful short-term allowance, that the longer-term purpose and probity be maintained. Aaron needed to buy time, mollify the masses, and live to lead another day. That is what he did.
Ethics are not absolute. Even Torah ethics. Even geopolitical ethics. That’s what makes them meaningful.
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Douglas Kohn