Parashat Ki Tisa – Shabbat Parah
The Golden Calf, the Mob, and the Sacred Balance: A Warning Across the Millennia
I. A Wall That Belongs to All of Us
Let me begin with a memory.
It is the spring of 1994. I am a young man making my first journey to Israel, and the plane lands at Ben Gurion Airport in the early hours of the morning. Before I do anything else — before I check into a hotel, before I eat, before I call home — I get into a cab and go to Jerusalem. And my first stop, the very first place my feet carry me, is the Western Wall.
I remember standing before it in the early light, pressing my fingertips into the ancient limestone. I remember folding small slips of paper — prayers for my family, for my friends, for my own uncertain future — and pressing them into the crevices between the stones. I remember the feeling that washed over me: that I was standing at the center of something immense, something that connected me not just to a place but to a people, to a covenant, to a story that stretched back thousands of years. That morning at the Kotel, something opened in me. A calling. A sense that my life’s work would be bound up with the Jewish people and the Jewish future.
I could not have imagined, standing there in 1994, that thirty years later Jews would be arrested for praying at that very wall if they gather in an egalitarian minyan.
And yet: on February 25, 2026, the Knesset passed the first reading of a bill — sponsored by far-right Noam MK Avi Maoz — that would give the Chief Rabbinate sole authority over all prayer at the Western Wall, including the southern egalitarian plaza known as Ezrat Yisrael. Any Jew who leads or participates in worship contrary to the Rabbinate’s rulings — mixed-gender prayer, women reading Torah, egalitarian minyan — could be charged under Israel’s Protection of Holy Places Law and face up to seven years in prison. The bill passed 56-47. As MK Gilad Kariv put it: the law ‘turns anyone who does not comply with the Chief Rabbinate into a criminal who should be thrown in jail.’
This flies in the face of our deepest values and interpretations of halakha. We are not asking any community to accept solely our version of the halakha (Jewish law) concerning prayer. But we must explain that our p’sak, our halakhic conclusions, have allowed us to understand that within the covenantal agreement between us and God we are permitted to pray with a minyan mixed of men and women. And we, as part of Am Yisrael, should have a right to do so at the Kotel.
This new state law did not arise in a vacuum. For years, Haredi groups at the Kotel have harassed and physically confronted worshippers at the southern egalitarian section, shouting at them, throwing chairs, and calling them idol worshippers. The 2016 Kotel Compromise — a hard-won agreement by a previous Netanyahu government to establish and fund a dignified pluralistic prayer space — was almost immediately shelved. The egalitarian plaza has been starved of funding and, since 2018, partially closed. And now the Knesset has moved to legislate the suppression of pluralistic Jewish prayer at Judaism’s holiest accessible site.
The Haredim pressing for this legislation are not asking the state to build them a golden calf. But I cannot help but see in this moment something of the same spiritual distortion that the golden calf story warns us about: the making of an idol — not of gold, but of a narrow interpretation of Jewish law, an insistence that one community’s religious expression is the only legitimate expression of Judaism, and a willingness to use the coercive power of the state to enforce that claim against fellow Jews.
This is the moment I want to bring to Parashat Ki Tissa. Because the Torah, in the story of the golden calf, has something urgent to say — not just about idolatry, but about mobs, about groupthink, about what happens when a community loses its covenantal discipline and turns its collective power against its own people.
II. The Covenant They Agreed To — Three Times
Before Moses ascended Sinai to receive the Torah, the people of Israel made a remarkable series of commitments. They did not receive the covenant passively. They agreed to it — and they agreed to it three times.
The first two times, at the foot of the mountain, they declared:
כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר יְהוָה נַעֲשֶׂה “All that the LORD has spoken, we will do.” (Exodus 19:8; 24:3)
But the third time — at the solemn ratification of the covenant in Exodus 24:7, after Moses read aloud the entire Book of the Covenant — the people elevated their commitment with a phrase that has echoed through Jewish history:
כֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע”All that the LORD has spoken, we will do — and we will hear/obey.” (Exodus 24:7)
That final word — וְנִשְׁמָע — comes from the root שׁ.מ.ע, which gives us שְׁמִיעָה — hearing — but also, critically, the concept of internalized discipline, of learning to obey not from compulsion but from covenant. To say נִשְׁמָע is not merely to promise to listen. It is to promise to be formed — to submit to a process, to a pedagogy, to an ongoing covenantal curriculum that would teach us how to live as God’s nation.
Judaism was never meant to be static. The addition of וְנִשְׁמָע to נַעֲשֶׂה carries within it the seed of dynamic interpretation: we will do, yes — but we will also continue to hear, to learn, to develop new understanding. The Talmud, the Midrash, the responsa literature, the great chain of halakhic development across millennia — all of it is implicit in that single word. The Gemara uses the phrase תא שמע – come and learn! The covenant is alive. The law grows. The people are called not to freeze in one moment of history, but to carry the covenant forward, generation after generation.
This is the Jewish constitution. And it was the people themselves — not just the leaders — who ratified it.
III. Moses Goes Up — And the People Cannot Wait
And then Moses goes up. He ascends Sinai to receive the very legal and spiritual instructions that would make the covenant livable — the Ten Commandments, the detailed instructions for the Mishkan, the blueprint for how Israel would dwell with God in their midst, the laws of holidays and tzedakah and tort and criminal law. He goes up for forty days. Forty days to build the architecture of Jewish civilization.
And the people cannot bear the wait. They know better.
What follows in Exodus 32 is one of the most psychologically acute passages in all of Torah — a scene of mob behavior that any student of political theory or human nature will recognize immediately:
וַיַּרְא הָעָם כִּי בֹשֵׁשׁ מֹשֶׁה לָרֶדֶת מִן הָהָרוַיִּקָּהֵל הָעָם עַל אַהֲרֹןוַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו קוּם עֲשֵׂה לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּכִּי זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִםלֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה הָיָה לוֹ
“When the people saw that Moses was late in coming down from the mountain, the people assembled against Aaron and said to him: Rise up! Make us a god who will go before us — for this man Moses, who brought us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” (Exodus 32:1)
Notice the verbs. The people וַיִּקָּהֵל — they assembled, they coalesced — עַל אַהֲרֹן — against Aaron. Not with Aaron. Against him. This is not a town hall. This is a mob.
And Moses? He is dismissed with contempt: זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ — “this man Moses.” Not our leader. Not our teacher. Not our prophet. Just this man. The process he embodied — the slow, rigorous, time-consuming work of covenant-building and law-receiving — is brushed aside with a shrug: לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה הָיָה לוֹ — we don’t know what happened to him. We don’t care. We want something we can see. We want results now.
Aaron — the designated leader in Moses’ absence, the one charged with holding the space — capitulates. He collects the gold, shapes the calf, and speaks the words that seal the catastrophe: אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל — “These are your gods, O Israel.” (32:4) He mistakes the mob’s urgency for the community’s will. He mistakes the crowd’s fear for legitimate authority. He chooses peace with the people over faithfulness to the covenant. He accedes to the old way of doing religious business.
When Moses returns and confronts him, the question he asks cuts to the heart of leadership failure: מֶה עָשָׂה לְךָ הָעָם הַזֶּה — “What did this people do to you?” (32:21) Even Moses recognizes that the mob exerted a force. But Aaron failed to resist it. Could he have? Were they too strong and violent?
IV. The Midrash Speaks: When “the People” Becomes a Warning
The Rabbis of the Midrash noticed a disturbing pattern in the Torah’s own language. In Bamidbar Rabbah 20:23, they offer a striking hermeneutic observation:
כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הָעָם, לְשׁוֹן גְּנַאי הוּאוְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְשׁוֹן שֶׁבַח הוּא
Every place in the Torah that uses the word הָעָם — “the people” — it is an expression of disgrace. But every place that uses the word יִשְׂרָאֵל — “Israel” — it is an expression of praise.”The people were complainers” (Numbers 11:1); “the people spoke against God and Moses” (Numbers 21:5); “the people wept that night” (Numbers 14:1); “How long will this people scorn Me?” (Numbers 14:11); “Moses saw the people, that it was unruly” (Exodus 32:25); “the people assembled against Aaron” (Exodus 32:1).(Bamidbar Rabbah 20:23)
הָעָם — the amorphous, undifferentiated mass — is consistently a term of opprobrium in our sacred texts. יִשְׂרָאֵל — the named, the people who wrestle with God and Godly law — is always the term of praise. The difference is not ethnic. It is covenantal. It is about whether the group is acting as a disciplined community bound by shared obligations, or whether it has devolved into a reactive crowd driven by fear and appetite and selfishness.
When Moses descends and sees the chaos, the Torah says: וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא — “Moses saw the people, that it was paruah — unruly, exposed, without discipline.” (Exodus 32:25) The word פָּרוּעַ suggests nakedness, chaos, the total absence of the נִשְׁמָע they had promised. The discipline embedded in their covenant had evaporated. The constitutional commitment had been forgotten in the heat of collective panic.
V. The Paradox of “We the People”
Torah is not anti-democratic. The covenantal structure of Sinai is profoundly participatory: the people consent, the people ratify, the people say נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע. But Torah also knows — with a clarity that predates modern political theory — that “the people” must be formed before their collective voice becomes wisdom rather than noise or chaos.
This insight reverberates through Western political thought. Edmund Burke, writing in the aftermath of the French Revolution — watching as the ideals of popular sovereignty curdled into mob violence and the Terror — argued that true liberty cannot be separated from order, tradition, and what he called “noble institutions” — the accumulated wisdom of civilization embodied in laws, customs, and covenantal structures. He warned that when abstract principles of popular will are severed from the inherited moral and legal framework of a people, the result is not liberation but chaos. The crowd that tears down the altar, Burke understood, does not build a better one. It builds a golden calf.
James Madison, architect of the American constitutional system, held a complementary insight. In Federalist No. 10, he argued that the greatest danger to republican government is the formation of factions — groups so animated by a particular passion or interest that they override the common good. His solution was not to suppress the voice of the people but to structure it: through representation, deliberation, separation of powers, and the protection of minority rights from majority coercion. “Pure democracy,” Madison wrote, “can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.” It is precisely because we believe in the people that we must protect the process.
Government by the people, in the best Madisonian sense, means government for the people, carried out by elected representatives who are accountable to the people but not controlled moment-to-moment by the fluctuating passions of the crowd. The mob that assembled against Aaron did not arise because the people were evil. It arose because the people were afraid — afraid of the silence, afraid of the void, afraid that the one who had led them was gone and the process he embodied was over. Their fear was understandable. Their response was catastrophic.
VI. The Sacred Balance: Leaders and The People in Jewish Tradition
From the Talmud
The Talmud in Tractate Berakhot (55a) teaches that a communal leader may not be appointed without consulting the community:
אֵין מַעֲמִידִין פַּרְנָס עַל הַצִּבּוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִמְלְכִין בַּצִּבּוּר
“One does not appoint a leader over a community unless the community is consulted.” (Berakhot 55a)
Leadership derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed — a principle the Rabbis encoded into Jewish law long before Locke or Jefferson formulated it. For the Rabbis of the Talmud God must be consulted as well, but this fell to leaders and the community to agree on what they thought and felt God demanded of them. This is consent to and by a process, to a structure, not a license for crowds to seize control at will. The appointment requires consultations and deliberations; it does allow for ratification by mobs.
From the Midrash
Shemot Rabbah 27:9 offers a striking teaching about the relationship between Moses and the Israelites:
כָּל גָּדוֹל שֶׁנִּתְמַנָּה עַל הַצִּבּוּר, הַצִּבּוּר צְרִיכִין לוֹ וְהוּא צָרִיךְ לָהֶם
“Every great person appointed over a community — the community needs that leader, and the leader needs the community.” (Shemot Rabbah 27:9)
The relationship is mutual and indispensable. Neither the people without leadership nor leadership without the people can fulfill the covenant. Moses needed the forty days. The people needed to trust Moses for those forty days. When the trust broke, the covenant fractured.
From Tanakh
The book of Proverbs offers us two complementary pillars of governance:
בְּאֵין תַּחְבֻּלוֹת יִפָּל עָם וּתְשׁוּעָה בְּרֹב יוֹעֵץ
“Where there is no wise counsel, a people falls — but in the abundance of advisors there is safety.” (Proverbs 11:14)
צַדִּיק מֵבִין דִּין דַּלִּים רָשָׁע לֹא יָבִין דָּעַת
“A righteous person understands the cause of the poor; a wicked person does not understand knowledge.” (Proverbs 29:7)
Leadership that is wise consults broadly, listens to the people, and remains rooted in justice. But the people must be advised, not inflamed. The covenant works when leaders and people each fulfill their part of the sacred balance.
VII. The Idol Being Built Today
Return now to our moment — to the Knesset vote of February 25, 2026, to the mobs at the Kotel, to the bill that would make egalitarian prayer punishable by seven years in prison.
What is the golden calf being constructed here? It is the idol of a single, frozen interpretation of Jewish law — the insistence that one community’s understanding of how God should be worshipped is the only legitimate understanding, and the willingness to use coercive state power to enforce that claim against fellow Jews. It is the spiritual arrogance of saying: we know exactly what the covenant demands, and those who disagree are not just wrong — they are criminals.
But the covenant was never static. The Torah itself encodes dynamism in that third declaration — נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע — we will do and we will continue to hear, to grow, to learn out, to discern God’s will for us, to develop. The Talmud is five hundred years of Jews arguing. The responsa literature spans twelve centuries of legal evolution. The Masorti, Reform, and Conservative movements are the inheritors of that same tradition of covenantal dynamism — not its enemies. Pluralistic Jewish prayer at the Kotel is not desecration. It is נִשְׁמָע made visible.
The Haredi mob at the Kotel — shouting at women in tallitot, calling egalitarian worshippers idol worshippers, hurling chairs — is reenacting the scene at the foot of Sinai. Not because they are building a golden calf, but because they have made an idol of their own certainty. They have replaced the living covenant — dynamic, debated, ever-unfolding — with a fixed image: אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל — this, and only this, is how Israel must worship.
And the Knesset members who voted 56-47 to advance that bill are playing the role of Aaron. They heard the mob. They capitulated. They chose coalition peace over covenantal integrity.
VIII. What the Covenant Demands of Us Now
The story of the golden calf does not end in catastrophe. Moses comes down the mountain with the tablets. He breaks them in grief and rage. He grinds the calf to powder. He intercedes with God on behalf of the people — his famous prayer: וְעַתָּה אִם תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם וְאִם אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ — “And now, if You would only forgive their sin — and if not, erase me from the book You have written.” (Exodus 32:32)
Moses does not abandon the people who failed. He advocates for them. He returns to the mountain. He receives new tablets. And the covenant continues.
This is what the covenant demands of us now. Not to abandon Israel. Not to abandon the Kotel or the Jewish future to those who would narrow it. But to advocate — loudly, consistently, with the same passion Moses brought to his intercession — for a Judaism that honors the full breadth of its people’s commitment to the covenant.
The Wall belongs to all of us. The covenant belongs to all of us. The נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע — spoken by our ancestors at the foot of Sinai — was not spoken only by those who would later become Haredi. All of Israel spoke it. And that promise — to do and to continue hearing, growing, interpreting, learning, deciding Jewish law and accepting it as binding (for us) — is the living constitution that no Knesset bill can repeal.
The Kotel should not be a wall of exclusion but a sacred place of meeting our destinies. Whether we live in Israel or we are part of the Jewish diaspora, our entire nation shares the Western Wall as a “roots address,” a poetic north star which offers spiritual uplift, sustenance. May we come to know the Kotel and its plazas as places of grand celebration and ceremonies where we affirm our allegiance and responsibilities to our God, our Nation, and the Covenant of Israel.
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Bolton
….And a YISHAR KOACH to our congregant and friend, Saskia Siderow, for launching a new and important blog:
The Aging Almanac is an evidence-based guide to navigating later life, so we can age with agency, dignity and intention. Blending reporting, expert insight, and practical tools, it explores how we can work longer, plan smarter, care for ourselves and others, and make informed decisions about health, money, housing and caregiving. The Aging Almanac is written for readers at any age and any stage of life—but primarily those already embracing older age, as well as those caring for aging parents or planning ahead for their own future. Created by healthcare analyst and journalist Saskia Siderow, MPH, The Aging Almanac is a free public service project hosted on the Substack platform.
Saskia has a background in healthcare policy, serious illness and public health communications, and years of personal experience as a caregiver for relatives living with serious illness and disability. Saskia previously spent a decade in financial journalism, including as Financial Services Correspondent at the Financial Times, an experience that continues to shape the rigor and independence of her editorial work. Saskia holds a Masters in Public Health from Columbia University and serves in advisory roles related to palliative care and geriatrics at the Mount Sinai Health System.
The Aging Almanac launched earlier this month and comes out weekly. You can read the first issues here https://agingalmanac.substack.com/