This week we find Moses in the midst of difficult negotiations with God regarding the consequences of the sin of the Golden Calf. Prior to these negotiations there was a conversation between God and Moses where God offered to give up on the People of Israel and to replace them with Moses' family – “...and I will make you a great nation” (Exodus 32:10). The negotiations continued as follows:
Then Moses returned to the Lord, and said, "Alas, this people has committed a great sin, and they have made a god of gold for themselves. But now, if You will, forgive their sin--and if not, please blot me out from Your book which You have written!" The Lord said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book. But go now, lead the people where I told you, behold, My angel shall go before you; nevertheless in the day when I punish, I will punish them for their sin" (Exodus 32, 14-31).
In these verses, Moses turns to God and offers Him an ultimatum – either forgive the Israelites for the sin of the Golden Calf and offer atonement to them, or else “blot me out from Your book which You have written.” God rejects these conditions entirely, responding “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book...and in the day when I punish, I will punish them for their sin.” What is happening in this dialogue? What is the process described here? Analysis of negotiations belongs to an area of study called “conflict resolution, mediation and conciliation.” In this field, there are three schools of thought, each of which would view these negotiations differently.
One school of thought views negotiations as a kind of struggle. The two sides find themselves on opposite sides of the fence. Each side strives to pay as little as possible and to take advantage of the other to the best of his ability. At the end of the day, both sides lose, because each of them is forced to pay a certain price.
Several of the biblical commentators accepted this view. Rashbam, for example, explains that Moses understood that God wanted to destroy the Israelites, so he offered Him two possibilities – don’t destroy them, but if you do destroy them then I insist that I be included in that destruction. Moses puts God in a position where it will be impossible for Him to fulfill His will. He cannot destroy the Israelites and replace them with Moses. He can either choose to be left bereft of all, or leave things as they are. Moses does not leave God with any choice, since He will not be able to accomplish what He wants. According to this explanation, God’s response is a defensive one, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book.” God rejects Moses’ ploy and insists that He will not abandon His position in the slightest.
Another school of thought regards negotiations as a cooperative effort. Most often the two sides share a common interest. One is interested in selling; the other wants to buy. Both must identify the basic principles that neither side will be willing to concede. Once those principles have been identified it will be possible to reach common ground so that both sides will come out satisfied. Ramban goes in this direction. He explains that Moses understood that God wanted to punish the people for the grievous sin that they committed. Moshe identifies very strongly with God's position that a price must be paid for this sin, as Moshe states at the beginning of their dialogue: “Alas, this people has committed a great sin.” For this reason, Ramban explains, Moses offers an alternative to the punishment suggested by God. He, Moses, should be punished instead of the people. A sacrifice must be offered to atone for the sin, and Moses is willing to be that sacrifice, saying “Please blot me out from Your book of life, and I will suffer their punishment” (Ramban, ibid). According to this approach, God is not responding defensively. Recognizing their mutual interests of punishing the people for the severe sin that they had committed, God offers an alternative suggestion. He will not destroy the people entirely, rather only the sinners will be punished. In that way, both negotiators will come away successful. God will punish, the people will not be destroyed, and Moses will remain alive. Ibn Ezra expresses this idea in his commentary: “I will destroy only those who sinned, but not the entire nation” (ibn Ezra, v. 33). By placing the proposal on the table, common needs come into focus, leading to agreement.
Another commentary whose approach fits in with this school of thought is that of the Hadar Zekeinim. Moses tells God that if He cannot forgive the people how could He forgive Moses for smashing the Tablets of the Law? According to this approach, Moses relies on the common value of justice – that the law must be upheld without favoritism. Moses explains to God that if He cannot agree to forgive the people, He will have no choice but to also punish Moses in a severe manner and blot him out from His book. Since the common interest of both God and Moshe is justice and protection of Moshe, there must be a solution that will solve both of these issues.
A third school of thought assumes that in all negotiations there are “subterranean currents” – biases and desires that are ostensibly unrelated to the subject at hand. An illustration of this approach is found in the well-known O. Henry story – The Gift of the Magi – about a poor couple whose only valuables were the husband's gold watch, and the wife beautiful hair. For their anniversary, the man sold the gold watch and bought his wife an expensive comb, while his wife sold her beautiful hair and bought her husband a chain for his watch. In retrospect, it turned out that each one had bought a gift for the other that was no longer needed.
There are two possible reactions to this story. One would be to feel sorry for the unfortunate couple, to express bitter frustration at the fact that now each of them is missing what was important to them, and in return has received something that no longer has value. However, one can see that there is also great happiness in this story. Only in this way could each one of the spouses express the magnitude of their love for the other. That was what they both gained from this experience. It turns out that sometimes beyond the purchase itself there are secondary gains. Sometimes identifying the deep-seated feelings of the heart can serve as the resolution.
In our story too, there is another matter at stake that is not discussed. Lurking behind the negotiations about whether the Israelites should be destroyed or not and the question of whether the decree against them can or cannot be nullified, stands Moses’ fear, as described by Rashbam:
“’…and if not, please blot me out from Your book which You have written.’ I do not want my name to appear in this book, for I had promised them in Your Name that You would bring them to the promised land…”
The suggestion made by Moses to remove his name, reveals a simple fact – that the terrible punishment to be meted out on the people will embarrass him terribly. How could he hold up his head and look himself in the mirror if it turned out that all of the wonderous miracles performed in Egypt came to a bad end with tragic death and collective punishment just a few months later? “For I had promised them in Your Name…” The problem is not limited to Moses’ good name; now the reliability of God Himself will be questioned. It is true that justice must be done, but it will come at the expense of the ultimate aim – revealing God's Name in the world.
In response to this argument, God states that the sin will not be forgiven, but that the punishment will be postponed so that only “in the day when I punish, I will punish them for their sin.” The people of Israel will not be punished immediately. In that way, Moses will be saved from his embarrassment and God will be saved from the desecration of His name:
I will do as I said in your honor, but the sin will not be forgiven. Nevertheless, the punishment for the sin will be postponed to “the day when I punish, I will punish them for their sin.” They will be punished after they enter the land. This hints to the exile of the Jewish people from their land, or, perhaps, to the teaching of the sages (TB Sanhedrin 102a) that no disaster befalls the Jewish people that does not have an element of the sin of the Golden Calf (Ramban, ibid; see also the Keli Yakar).
The interpretation is consistent with the repeated use of the word ve-ata – "now", which appears throughout the dialogue and places the concept of immediacy on the negotiating table. Postponing results and achievements can sometimes be the solution to both parties' pain.
The Ba’al Shem Tov also offers an explanation whose focus is on the feelings of the heart rather than on the physical actions taking place. He suggests that Moses understands that in his capacity as the Tzaddik – the righteous leader – he is not a private individual, rather he is responsible for the entire generation and its challenges. Moses offers himself up as a sacrifice because of his sense of responsibility and guilt, for he believes that the sin of the people reflects on him and on his leadership. God responds by saying “go and lead the people.” You are the leader, but they are the ones who sinned. God is not willing to pay the price of failed leadership. This third approach offers us insight, not only regarding the important partnership between the Israelite nation and God – as expressed in “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine” – but also in their shared partnership of fate.
Negotiations take place not only in the political realm, they also play a role in the religious world, in the world of prayer and worship. We are obligated to reflect on our prayers to God. Are we taking a forceful act when bending our hands toward heaven? Are we involved in a conscious act of appeasement? Or, perhaps, we are in the process of uncovering the good in us that is what God desires.