The Golden Calf

 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-shemot/parashat-ki-tisa/golden-calf-1

             In contrast to Rashi and the Rasag, the majority of the commentators do not interpret the sin of the golden calf as pure idolatry. When the people requested an idol, they were not so foolish as to think that a man-made idol made from their own jewelry was actually the God who took them out of Egypt.

             What, then, was their intention? Both the Ibn Ezra and his son in law, Rabbi Yehuda Halevi (Spain, before 1075-1141) in his philosophical work, the Kuzari (a polemical work directed against Aristotelian philosophy, Christianity, and Islam), explain that the worshipers did not believe the calf to be an actual god but rather they saw in the calf a physical manifestation, a symbolic representation of the one God. The calf was not a rebellion against God, a worshipping of an alternative power, but was rather an alternative, more corporeal and palpable form of worship:

 

            The Ramban (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, Spain, 1194-1274) agrees with the Ibn Ezra that the sin of the golden calf was not idolatry in the pure sense of the term. However he rejects Ibn Ezra's interpretation that the calf was a corporeal manifestation of God. Instead the Ramban suggests that the golden calf was meant to be a replacement for Moses.

            Both the Bechor Shor (Rabbi Yoseph Ben Yitzchak Bechor Shor, France, 12 century) and the Chizkuni (Rabbi Chizkiya ben Manoach, France, mid-thirteenth century) agree with the Ramban that the function of the golden calf was to replace Moses as the leader of Israel. They interpret the word 'elohim' in the people's request, "make us a god" (32:1) not as a god but rather a judge and leader. They also offer an explanation for why Aaron agreed to make an idol, an act which involved great risk and danger of pure idolatry. Why not designate himself or some other influential figure as a replacement for Moses? The Chizkuni and the Bechor Shor (see 32:2) suggest that Aaron feared the possibility of a conflict, a power struggle, which would erupt upon Moses' return. He feared that the replacement for Moses would not step down when Moses would return and this would lead to a division of the people into rival camps, each supporting a different leader. He himself was unwilling to serve as leader so as not to betray Moses. He therefore decided to create a harmless figurehead which could be disposed of with little opposition when Moses would return. Otherwise, Aaron feared the people would designate a king to lead them instead of Moses (see Chizkuni 32:22). 

            To summarize, the commentators disagree as to the nature of the request by the people for an idol. They can be divided into two main groups: those, such as Rashi and the Rasag, who regard the golden calf as a form of pure idolatry, and those, such as the Ibn Ezra, Kuzari, Ramban, Chizkuni, Bechor Shor and Shadal, who reject this idea. In the first group, Rashi is of the opinion that Aaron was coerced into making the idol while Rasag maintains that it was a plot to differentiate between the idolaters and those of true faith. In the latter group of commentators, the Ibn Ezra and the Kuzari posit that the calf was a corporeal manifestation of God while the Ramban, Chizkuni, and the Bechor Shor regard it as a replacement for Moses.