The devastating effect when a leader hesitates (Parshat Ki Tisa)

ֲוַיַּ֣רְא הָעָ֔ם כִּֽי בשֵׁ֥שׁ משֶׁ֖ה לָרֶ֣דֶת מִן־הָהָ֑ר וַיִּקָּהֵ֨ל הָעָ֜ם עַל־אַֽהֲרֹ֗ן וַיֹּֽאמְר֤וּ אֵלָיו֙ ק֣וּם  עֲשֵׂה־לָ֣נוּ אֱלֹהִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֤ר יֵֽלְכוּ֙ לְפָנֵ֔ינוּ כִּי־זֶ֣ה  משֶׁ֣ה הָאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר הֶֽעֱלָ֨נוּ֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם לֹ֥א יָדַ֖עְנוּ מֶה־הָ֥יָה לֽוֹ|(Shemot/Exodus 32:1)

The people saw that Moshe had delayed in coming down from the mountain. (Chabad, Mahon Mamre and others)

And the people saw that Moshe was ashamed to come down from the mountain. (Sefaria translation)

The verse that introduces the episode of the Golden Calf uses the cryptic word  בשֵׁ֥שׁ which appears only this once in the entire Torah.

Nearly every Jewish and Christian translation of  ­בשֵׁ֥שׁ uses “delayed” which is patently incorrect. There is no cognate use anywhere of this root as meaning deferral of any kind. A rare exception is the translation by Sefaria which says ­בשֵׁ֥שׁ means ‘ashamed’.  While this would certainly make more sense from a philological standpoint, one can’t help but wonder why Moshe might be “ashamed” to come down from the mountain.

As well, the question begs itself, how would the Israelites know that Moshe is ‘ashamed’, or for that matter that he is merely ‘delayed’. It’s not as if he sent an email or SMS informing of his tardiness.

We can understand if the Bnei Israel might conclude that Moshe was gone for good.  But anything short of that – certainly ‘delayed’ and even more certainly ‘ashamed’– seems implausible as an excuse for a Golden Calf.

Before proceeding, it should be pointed out that the use of ‘delayed’ for ­בשֵׁ֥שׁ  is taken directly from Targum Onkelos:

וַחֲזָא עַמָּא אֲרֵי אוֹחַר משֶׁה
And the People saw that Moshe was delayed

But here, as is often the case with Onkelos, he is not so much translating as explaining the word’s implication. Which is why Onkelos is so important as a clarifier rather than as a mere translator into Aramaic. Clearly,  Onkelos knew  the word ­בשֵׁ֥שׁ is from the same root as בושה which is ‘embarrassment’. Hence he is providing us with the RESULT of Moshe’s state of  ­בשֵׁ֥שׁ which was indeed ‘delaying’, as opposed to the literal meaning of the term which is somehow a derivative of shame/embarrassment.

Which then brings us back to the question; What exactly was Moshe ashamed or embarrassed about?  Being invited up the mountain to meet virtually face-to-face with God is hardly cause for shame or embarrassment. If anything, the opposite would be the case.

More importantly why would the Israelites even think that Moshe was in any way ashamed or embarrassed – and therefore delayed.

And most significantly, were the Bnei Israel turning against Moshe because of the effect of said shame, or were they using the effect, i.e., delay, as a pretext to reject him BECAUSE of his characteristic shame/embarrassment. In other words, was there some character flaw in Moshe, i.e. shame/embarrassment, that rendered them mistrustful of his leadership and desiring of a replacement.

I would like to suggest that the word  ­בשֵׁ֥שׁ means neither ‘delayed’ nor  ‘ashamed’. Rather, it means ‘hesitant’;  the hesitance of someone who is by nature shy. And it is often, if not always, a characteristic of shy people to behave hesitantly because of their shame/embarrassment.

The Bnei Israel tapped into the inherent shyness of Moshe’s humility and found it lacking. They felt they couldn’t trust a leader who lacked leadership qualities such as an authoritative nature, decisiveness, and crisp and commanding language. Moshe fell short on all of these.

By now we already know that Moshe had a speech impediment. He told God flat out that the Israelites won’t listen to him on account of his speech defect:

הֵ֤ן בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֹא־שָֽׁמְע֣וּ אֵלַ֔י וְאֵיךְ֙ יִשְׁמָעֵ֣נִי פַרְעֹ֔ה וַֽאֲנִ֖י עֲרַ֥ל שְׂפָתָֽיִם
The Israelites would not listen to me; how then should Pharaoh heed me, me—who gets tongue-tied
(Shemot/Exodus 6:12)

One rarely, if ever, comes across a leader who suffers from a speech impediment. Indeed, such a defect often results in a shy and hesitant personality. And it is a fact of life that people reflexively, and perhaps, unjustifiably, consider such men unsuitable for leadership. But that’s  human nature.

Knowing this, we can appreciate ­בשֵׁ֥שׁ meaning a “shy hesitation” that would THEREFORE result in a delay which would provide the excuse for rejecting Moshe.

Only now can we fully understand and appreciate why, when descending from Sinai for the second time, Moshe’s countenance was radiating so intensely that he needed to wear a veil:

וַיַּ֨רְא אַהֲרֹ֜ן וְכל־בְּנֵ֤י יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ אֶת־מֹשֶׁ֔ה וְהִנֵּ֥ה קָרַ֖ן ע֣וֹר פָּנָ֑יו וַיִּֽירְא֖וּ מִגֶּ֥שֶׁת אֵלָֽיו׃
Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moshe and behold! the skin of his face had become radiant, and they were afraid to come near him|
(Shemot/Exodus 34:30)

Clearly, even after his first descent from the mountain, the Israelites had no fear of Moshe. They continued to disrespect him on account of his speech defect and personality.  God rectifies this the second time around by rendering Moshe’s face blindingly radiant.  Only now were the Israelites – and even his brother Aharon  – fearful of approaching him.

Is there any lesson here?  Yes, that ideally we should be more willing to go past superficialities such as shyness and speech impediments when choosing our leaders. But this is, unfortunately, an unrealistic expectation. Only God is capable of making such a choice. It’s unlikely humans will ever choose a shy, tongue-tied individual for leadership of any kind. Not unless they have a face so radiant, it blinds us.