Parshat Ki Tisa records the cataclysmic transgression, the cheit ha-eigel, that altered Klal Yisrael's trajectory, changed the character of the luchot, and, according to Chazal, continues to reverberate to this day. And yet, the precise status of this violation remains obscure and enigmatic. The immediately proximate experiences of Klal Yisrael - yeziat Mitzrayim, keriat Yam Suf, mattan Torah, and other miraculous manifestations that unequivocally established Divine omnipotence and reinforced Hashem's sovereignty - seem to preclude a crude violation of idolatry. The begrudging involvement of Aharon ha-Kohen in eigel activity certainly further distance this calamitous offense from actual avodah zarah. Yet, the pesukim and Chazal unequivocally identify the eigel with this cardinal infraction. Aharon's own justification - explanation underscores this motif (Shemot 32:22-23), "vayomru li aseh lanu elohim asher yeilchu lefaneinu"! At the same time, the comments that precede this assertion - "vayomer Aharon al yichar af adoni. Atah yadata et ha-am ki be-ra hu", and that follow it - "ki zeh Moshe ha-ish asher helanu mei'eretz Mitzrayim lo yadanu meh hayah lo" - suggest a more complex posture.
The issue is crystalized in some of the commentaries of the passuk (Shemot 32:21) that formulates Moshe's query/critique of Aharon's participation, "vayomer Moshe el Aharon: meh asah lecha ha-am ha-zeh ki heivita alav chata'ah gedolah." Rashi interprets that Moshe projected that Aharon must have been tortured before he succumbed - "kamah yisurim savalta she-yisrucha ad shelo tavi aleichem cheit zeh." Ramban, however, questions whether even extreme pressure would sufficient justify Aharon's compliance, as avodah zara is one of the cardinal transgressions that require martyrdom (Sanhedrin 74b). Maharal (Gur Aryeh op cit) explains Rashi's view by invoking Ramban's own famous perspective (32:5) that the eigel was not actually avodah zara, but an egregious effort to replace the missing -delayed Moshe Rabbeinu with a concrete symbol.
While this view accounts for the evidence and considerations cited previously that militate against the conclusion that the eigel was, in fact, avodah zara, also explaining why, according to Rashi, Aharon had no requirement of martyrdom, it leaves us puzzled with respect to the enormity of the crime as well as with regard to the equally compelling indications associating the eigel with avodah zara Moreover, Ramban, who advocates for the position that the eigel fell considerably short of actual avodah zara, invokes the requirement of martyrdom in this very context, despite his view!
Evidently, while technically not an act of avodah zara (according to Ramban, at least), the projection of a material symbol to substitute for Moshe Rabbeinu's leadership constituted a massive betrayal of Hashem's Divinity, sovereignty, and his special mission for Klal Yisrael. While theologically short of avodah zara (see, also Ohr Hachayim , Yitro - aseret ha-dibrot), it did nevertheless entail an act of rebellion that is a crucial component of avodah zara itself. There is a great deal of evidence that suggests that the rebellious-betrayal motif in avodah zara, alongside the extreme severity of the infraction (maaseh aveirah) itself, constitutes an essential aspect of its singular status as an aveirah. [See, for example, the language of the gemara Chullin 5a pertaining to the notion of mumar le-kol ha-Torah kulah, and Mechilta on Bamidbar 15:22 regarding the special korban offered for avodah zara violation. See Ramban's incisive analysis of the Torah's presentation of that korban and of the fact that the Torah does not explicate avodah zara in that context!! I hope to elaborate this issue elsewhere.] According to Ramban, perhaps this betrayal component alone mandates martyrdom, even in the absence of theological avodah zara!
While Klal Yisrael's impulse was inherently offensive and indefensible, it was particularly egregious precisely in the context of what had recently transpired. Having experienced Divine Providence (hashgachah) so frequently and so profoundly, their panic engendered by a perception of the delay of Moshe's return was shocking, indeed. The fact that "va'ya'aminu ba-Hashem u-be-Moshe avdo" could so quickly and easily be converted into "aseh lanu elohim asher yeilchu lefaneinu ki zeh Moshe ha-ish asher helanu meieretz Mitzrayim lo yadanu meh hayah lo", even as it acknowledged that Moshe was only "ha-ish", was particularly disturbing.
The contrast to events in Megillat Esther that we just read is particularly striking. Even in dire times, standing against the might of an empire, faced with a decree of genocide, and certainly with very little basis for confidence and optimism, Mordechai and Esther exhibited unshakeable faith and trust in Divine providence. Mordecai's refusal to compromise even the perception of avodah zara (see Tosafot Sanhedrin 61b etc.) and his steadfast, principled posture of "lo yichreh ve-lo yishtachaveh" were unequivocal. They form the background of his absolute conviction regarding hashgachat Hashem and the continuity of Klal Yisrael, notwithstanding the prevailing reality: "revach ve-Chazalah yaamod la-yehudim mi-makom acher...u-mi yodea im la-eit kazot higaat le-malchut". After some initial prodding, Esther responds with equal resolve and faith: "leich kenos ha-Yehudim". Each and both of them assiduously insure that the optimism and faith of the Purim experience - "shekol kovecha lo yeivoshu ve-lo yikalmu la-nezach kol ha-chosim bach" (see, also Rambam's brief petichah after the minyan ha-katzar) - will remain a permanent legacy of Klal Yisrael. [See, particularly the use of the term "lekayeim" that is repeatedly emphasized in the end of the Megillah- 9:21,27,29,31-33]. In this sense, too, Purim was a second kabalat ha-Torah, a time of kiymu ve-kiblu that highlighted and reinforced (kiymu mah she-kiblu kevar) the special bond with Avinu she-bashamayim that drives and defines our destiny.
As the world struggles with an unprecedented health crisis, it is important that we, as a community and as individuals, respond with vigilance and responsibility. It is critical that we promote and implement the protocols that health experts mandate to safeguard lives and protect vulnerable populations. It is axiomatic that ve-nishmartem et nafshoteichem demands full compliance and cooperation. But as a Torah community, it is equally vital to stress the need to maximize our avodat Hashem during this eit tzarah within healthy guidelines, and to maintain a spirit of optimism and faith in hashgachat Hashem. The promotion and intensification of bitachon and emunah (together with hishtadlut) that was egregiously abandoned and betrayed in the episode of the eigel, but that magnificently characterized the commitments and policies of Mordecai and Esther, remains Klal Yisrael's greatest legacy.