פרשת כי-תשא תשי"ב - שבירת הלוחות

And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing; and Moses’anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and broke them beneath the mount.

...He started feeling bad that he broken the tablets, G-d told him: Do not feel bad about the first tablets, for they only contained the ten commandments, however in the second tablets i will give you, that they will have Halcaha Midrash and Agadah, this is what is said: (Job 11): i will tell you hidden wisdom for it shall be double comforting

Motivation of idol worshippers, and lessons learned from the episode of the golden calf. "And when the people saw that Moses delayed" etc. The Talmud in Avodah Zarah 4, states in the name of Rabbi Joshua son of Levi, "Jews made the golden calf in order to give hope to repentant sinners, as per Deut. 5,26, "O that their heart would remain like this within them, to revere Me and observe My commandments forever." This too is the meaning of the saying of Rabbi Yochanan, who said that neither Israel nor David were really capable of such a deed, since it says "O that their heart... etc." David was not capable of that deed (Bat Sheva) because it says in Psalms 109,22, "my heart is dead within me." If this is so, why did they commit these respective sins? In order that if an individual were to sin in the future, one could point out to him David, who had repented successfully. In the event the community would become guilty of a sin, one could point to the episode of the golden calf and the successful repentance of the entire Jewish people. One would say to such a community "repent you likewise!" Although there are occasions when the Torah exempts certain individuals from certain observances because of regard for the dignity of such individuals, such exemptions have to meet certain criteria. Based on Deut. 22,4, "you may hide yourself from them, "the Talmud Berachot 19, derives the ruling that old people or notables may ignore the commandment to catch stray animals and return them to their owners, so that their dignity should not suffer in the process. Nevertheless, demeaning oneself is in order when (a) the gain to be achieved thereby outweighs the loss of dignity involved, or (b) when the result desired is certain to be realised. To illustrate the principles: When a revered old man is seen carrying a beam on his shoulder in order to erect a fence, the loss of dignity would outweigh the benefits to be secured by carrying out the task personally. When however, said beam was meant to shore up the wall of a house in danger of collapse, the loss of dignity would certainly be minor compared to the benefit of saving the house from collapsing. Prompt personal attention then outweighs all other considerations. This is the meaning of Proverbs 1,29, "better he that is lightly esteemed and is his own servant, than he that stands on his dignity and is short of bread." When the above mentioned criteria to forego one's dignity do not apply, such as when the Jewish people traded their dignity and worshipped at the golden calf, one can only ask with Jeremiah (2, 11) "how can a nation trade a G-d for something which is not even a deity?" How then are we to explain this act of the Jewish people? If we follow Rashi who says that the Almighty gave Satan control of the Jewish people at that time, then the punishment of the people as a whole, as well as the slaying of three thousand who had actually danced around the golden calf, seems unwarranted. If that were the meaning of the aggadah quoted at the outset, they should have been rewarded rather than punished. Besides, how can the power of repentance be demonstrated by the commission of an act that was not even sinful? If, on the other hand, the sin had been an outgrowth of an act of free will, who gave the Jews the right to make examples of themselves in order to demonstrate the power of repentance? Even assuming that the gates of repentance would remain open in such an event, did they not risk the possibility of eternal damnation versus the certainty of retaining their sanctity by remaining loyal to G-d throughout? Even if eventual forgiveness were to be certain, is it not better to remain untainted by sin? Could not the lesson of repentance and subsequent forgiveness be learned by means of some sin that had not been self-induced? Moreover, is it not a fact that a sin committed by someone who had formerly occupied a high moral platform and had thereby established a degree of intimacy with the lawgiver, will be dealt with far more harshly than if the sin had been committed by someone of average stature? If proof were needed for the last hypothesis, compare the punishment meted out to Adam in Paradise who had enjoyed an intimate relationship with G-d, and that of Jerobam ben Nevot who had erected the golden calves on the way to Jerusalem in order to prevent the people from making their pilgrimages to the holy temple, and had meant for these golden calves to act as substitutes. In the latter case, G-d’s retaliation was hundreds of year in coming, whereas Adam had been expelled from gan eden etc. immediately! Rabbi Yochanan's statement on the other hand, poses the problem that if the people did commit the sin, they had obviously been capable of such acts. How could a people who had experienced the revelation at Mount Sinai only forty days earlier, commit such an act of foolishness? Was this the famous dor dey-ah, the generation of insight? Man's relationship to the universe may be based on three different approaches. A) He realises that all that he observes in nature is subordinate to a higher source, and therefore he worships the source; B) He is so impressed with his own accomplishments that he feels worthy of adulation, such as Sancheriv and Nebuchadnezzar for instance. In that case he worships himself; C) He is so aware of his own frailty, in which case he worships anything that he imagines could be of help to him. The type described last, is so full of inferiority complexes that he feels that even animals are superior to man. He believes that the latter can intercede with G-d on man's behalf. He constructs images of animals, using materials that endure. Since these materials outlive their creator, he feels that these images symbolise a degree of permanence he himself lacks. The reason that animals rank higher in that concept is, that since their needs are fewer and less sophisticated, they are easier to fulfill. This is the reason the Egyptians worshipped sheep, i.e. they wished themselves a livelihood as easily attainable as that of sheep. In a pasture land such as Egypt, such symbolism had additional meaning. The Jewish people sensed that Moses was no longer among them, and they searched for a symbol of Divine protection that would outrank that of their one time masters and enemies, the Egyptians. As a result they had the king of the animals (the ox, according to Chagigah 17) constructed of the most precious material, (gold) by the most holy of men, (Aaron) hoping to ensure thereby greater help from the powers above than that which the Egyptians were able to call on. They might have chosen the lion instead of the ox, except it was horoscopically opposed to the lamb, the symbol of the Jewish people. Since our temple has twice been destroyed under the zodiac sign of the lion, ( month of Av) such reasoning can be understood if not condoned. The ox, on the other hand, was opposite the zodiac sign of the scorpion, one of the animals to which Pharaoh had been compared. In this manner, they believed that the ox symbolised the strength of the G-d of Moses. Errors such as these, prompted Isaiah in chapter forty four, to present a detailed denouement of all the inadequacies inherent in the materials the idols are constructed of. In order to comprehend what happened when Moses failed to return at the time expected, we must remember what the Torah tells us about the basic nature of man. We are told in Genesis 8,21, "for the impulse of man's heart is evil from its infancy." Even after man has absorbed the Divine teachings intellectually, his basic nature has not changed thereby. It is not in man's nature to become permanently free from sin so that we would have to view sin as a departure from his nature, and he would therefore forfeit his claim to a future in the hereafter. Sainthood is not demanded of man. What is demanded however, is that any relapse into sin be repaired through true repentance, in order for him to regain his stature as it was prior to his sin. This is the meaning of Exodus 34,6, "The Eternal, the Eternal is a merciful and gracious G-d." This means that G-d is saying "I am the Lord after you have sinned, just as I have been the Lord before you had sinned." The implication is that the likelihood of sin is about equal to the likelihood of saintly purity. Or, in the words of the Psalmist, (Psalms 130,3) "if You would keep remembering sins, O Lord, who could possibly stand up before You?" (Rosh Hashanah 17) The purpose of forgiveness after repentance is described as "so that You may be revered" (Psalms 130,4) It is the person who does not repent who truly merits punishment. If our sages viewed the institution of repentance as chronologically preceding the creation of man, this underlines the concept that sin is an integral part of the world we live in. (Pessachim 54) The episode of the golden calf then provided Israel with a chance to do what G-d had said, (Deut. 5,26) "would that their heart would revere Me." Had it been possible to create the nature of man so that he could be totally good, Israel could not have made the golden calf, for no other nation even approached the ideal of humanity as closely as Israel did at that time. Even G-d had expressed the wish that they should be able to maintain that level of piety in order to reap the fruits of such conduct. Israel's action in making the golden calf was proof that it was unrealistic to expect such high levels of piety and belief in G-d to be maintained at all times. Rabbi Yochanan told us then that Israel was certainly not at a low enough level at that time to have indulged in that sin, nor was David so enslaved to sensuality that the affair with Bat Sheva would be expected of him; rather, in spite of their respective high levels of morality, the nature of man made such sins possible. This teaches us the lesson of repentance as a corollary. David represents a lesson for the individual sinner, whereas Israel provides the example that even collective guilt can be forgiven. The Midrash then only supplied the answer to the question of why a golden calf had to be the idol chosen. The basic answer about why the sin took place at all, lies in the fact that it is in the nature of man to regress spiritually from time to time. Isaiah 43,26, tells us that the discussion of our sins rather than an attempt at whitewash, will bring righteousness in its wake. The Talmud Megillah 25, discusses a series of events with which the Torah deals, and which may be read in public both in Hebrew and in the vernacular. This may be done, though in the process some of our most famous heroes such as Abraham, Yehudah etc. may appear discredited in the ears of the listener. The decisive consideration in all these instances where superficial perusal may reflect discredit on a deserving person is, whether the moral lesson to be learned from the story outweighs the side effect it may produce. The story of the golden calf, discussed in the Torah on two occasions in considerable detail, teaches so much about the ways of G-d, that the fact that it makes Aaron appear as an accomplice is a calculated risk the Torah had to take. Normally, our sages prohibit readings in the vernacular, when they believe that the uneducated masses would form negative impressions about people in the story who are really free from blame. In our situation, the first half of the golden calf episode is permitted to be read also in the vernacular, because the lessons about the power of repentance and forgiveness are derived from that story. However chapter 32,21, is not to be read in the vernacular, since it deals with Aaron's specific involvement, and would give the uneducated listener the impression that Aaron's error was far greater than it actually was. Conversely, this would lead the masses to conclude that the people's involvement in that sin was far less serious than had been the case. Some problems in the text. 1) Exodus 32, 11, tells of Moses being late in returning from Mount Sinai. The time frame involved, according to our tradition, was a mere six hours. Yet we are told that Aaron was besieged by the people, that these people brought him their personal jewelry, having failed to persuade their wives to part with their jewelry. The crucible for melting down the gold seemed to be at hand, Aaron produced a golden calf. How could such a revolutionary change occur so suddenly within such a short space of time? Were there no people prepared to credit Moses with being a day late? 2) If the people were indeed convinced that Moses would not return, why did they not offer the now vacant leadership position to their beloved Aaron? Why did they demand "a G-d who will walk in front of us?" 3) Why did Aaron choose a golden calf as the symbol to be constructed? No materials or specific animal had been requested, after all? 4) Why did not G-d tell Moses that Aaron had made that calf? 5) Why did G-d say "leave Me alone, so that I can get angry"? The words "leave Me alone so that I can destroy them" would seem to have been more appropriate! 6) Moses’s question "why are You angry?" seems difficult to understand Could there have been anything that would have given G-d greater reason to be angry? 7) Why did Moses not get angry till he reached the camp? Had he not believed what G-d had told him? 8) Why did Moses burn the calf? Who burns metal objects? 9) The dialogue between Moses and Aaron is very strange. Aaron seems to deny responsibility, whereas Moses seems to have suggested to him an excuse by asking "what have the people done to you?" It seems as if the people were punished whereas Aaron went scot free? 10) When Moses confessed the guilt of the Jewish people, he avoided mentioning the fact that it was a calf that had been worshipped. Does not a proper confession require the spelling out of all the details of one's misdemeanour? 11) Since we had already read about the people having removed their jewelry, (verse 4) why did G-d instruct Moses to have the people remove their jewelry? (verse 5) "And when the people saw that Moses delayed"" Ever since the estrangement of man from his Creator after his expulsion from Eden until the advent of Abraham, philosophers seem to have denied the involvement of the Creator in the individual fate of man. Some based their reasoning on their belief in the eternity of matter and the immutability of natural laws; others believed that the Creator had simply withdrawn from His handiwork as soon as he had completed it. Some of these beliefs which were deeply ingrained in the people's consciousness, were slow to die even amongst the Jewish people. All the miracles which had occurred and had been witnessed by the Jewish people had not been enough to eradicate all the traces of their former attitudes. There were then two groups of people in the desert. Each group looked for confirmation of their respective beliefs in the events that had occurred during and after the Exodus. Group A were the believers, who saw corroboration of their beliefs in the events they had witnessed. Group B were the diehards of the old school, who had at best learned to adopt an ambivalent attitude to all the miracles they had witnessed. This group was still inclined to ascribe all those events to witchcraft. They remained ever ready to expose even genuine miracles as works of deception perpetrated by the master magician Moses. It is in this context that we must understand the repeated references Moses made to the Jewish people at the burning bush, when he said to G-d that the Jewish people would not believe in him or his mission. Moses expected the same reaction from his own people that he had expected from Pharaoh. This is why he said "when they ask me for Your name, what shall I say?" (Exodus 3, 13) The miracle had been needed to demonstrate the existence of such a G-d. Whenever things went well, the people believed in G-d, Moses and his mission. Whenever difficulties arose, they saw in this proof that there was no free G-d, no Personal Providence, only superior showmanship by Moses, presently revealed as inadequate. Proof of all this lies in the fact that whenever they refer to the Exodus from Egypt, they ascribe it to Moses the man, not to G-d. (compare Exodus 14, 12; 16,3; Numbers 16, 12) Their admiration of Moses was based on Moses being an outstanding man rather than Moses as an instrument of G-d. (1) As soon as Moses was out of sight, not having announced when he would return, (possibly he had not known when he would return) the people wanted to see if they themselves could do what Moses had been doing all the time. Therefore, they had lots of time at their disposal to urge Aaron. The fortieth day was in fact only the last of many days that Aaron had been under pressure. (2) These people believed that the configuration of the ox might hold the secret of Moses’s power. Therefore they traded their own horoscope (that of the lamb) for that of the ox. This is the meaning of Psalms 106,20 "they themselves chose this trade, exchange." It was not Aaron's doing. No doubt, during those forty days the pressure on Aaron had been increasing steadily, the murder of Chur being part of that pressure. Had the Torah reported all this in detail, the impression that Aaron co-operated reluctantly would have been created, and the golden calf would have been viewed as the triumph of the belief in witchcraft over those who believed in G-d and His leadership. Now, that the text seems to suggest Aaron's enthusiastic co-operation, the whole episode can be seen as the creation of a symbol representing the ultimate that human art was capable of. (3+4) In this way, once the impotence of that symbol would become evident to one and all, the illusion that man could fashion a deity would be debunked once and for all. This was Aaron's reasoning when he decided to co-operate. He had no way of knowing that as soon as the calf would emerge, some Jewish lowbrows would commence dancing around it and proclaiming it as their new deity. When that happened, Aaron quickly built an altar for G-d, and tried to allow reason to prevail by postponing the celebration until the morrow, and by dedicating the altar to the Lord. He hoped all the time, of course, that in the interval remaining, G-d would tell Moses to return to the people in order to forestall tragic consequences. Even so, only three thousand people were enthusiastic enough to actually worship this idol before it had demonstrated powers equal or superior to those demonstrated by Moses. (This is why the rest of the nation was not punished by death) We see from all this, that far from precipitating or even participating in the sin, Aaron had used his best efforts to teach the people a lesson of faith in the Lord. This is why, at a later stage, G-d was able to say to Moses "You shall cause your brother Aaron to come close to Me, to be My priest" (Exodus 28, 1) (5) G-d indicated to Moses that if the latter were to pray, He would not then become angry, since the action of a fool acting out of foolishness does not warrant his master's anger. Nonetheless, even fools must repent and confess their errors. Psalms 25,8, and Hoseah 14,2 are some of the sources in scripture for the need to expiate. Sieverity of a sin is measured by three criteria. 1) The manner in which the Torah describes a sin, is a good indication of the view the Torah holds concerning such sin. Expressions such as "abomination, immorality" are used for acts which are especially serious. 2) Any kind of misdemeanour when committed by a person of high rank, becomes more serious, since the sinner's stature should have precluded such conduct on his part. 3) When the disobedience is directed against a supreme lawgiver, it is more serious than disobedience against a man made law. (10) Moses, admits in his confession, that "this nation" had come closer to G-d than any of its predecessors, and should therefore have known better. When he refers to "this great sin," he confesses that due to the people's elevated stature their sin had assumed an added degree of severity. He confesses the heinous nature of the sin when viewed objectively, when he refers to "the golden deity" that this nation had made. While confessing all this, Moses manages to inject powerful arguments about the extenuating circumstances surrounding this crime. Shemot Rabbah 28, clothes Moses’s arguments in the following words: (6) Moses to G-d "Your children have made an assistant for You, and You are angry? Did You not Yourself make the sun shine, and the latter bestows some of its light on the moon? (making it an assistant) Did You not make rain, which in turn promotes the growth of plants etc?" To this G-d replied: "You too are in error, since the golden calf is not capable of doing anything." To this, Moses replied: "in that case why do You get angry over a mere nothing?" Philosophically speaking, Moses presents the golden calf as incapable of offering competition to G-d, and therefore not deserving His concern. Concerning the second criterion for measuring the severity of a sin which we have mentioned, Moses refers to "this people." He refers to their having come out of Egypt. He implies that it is unreasonable to expect high standards of faith from a nation that had just left a country in which it had absorbed a totally wrong way of looking at the world for several hundred years. The Midrash describes it in this way. A father put his son in charge of a perfumery situated in a red light district. Naturally, both the location of the store and the type of customers he dealt with, combined with the son's personal character weakness to corrupt him. When the father finds out and is enraged and threatens to kill his son, the father's friend has to intervene. This friend berates the father, saying: "you have lost him because you have failed to teach him a trade that would bring him into contact with the upper classes of society. Not only that, but you have made him reside amongst harlots. How can you be surprised at the outcome?" Finally, since it was G-d’s declared purpose to use the Jewish people to aggrandize His name, and to make Egypt aware of this, (Exodus 9, 16) what would the Egyptians say when they hear that You have wiped out this nation?" We read in Joshua 7, 10 that G-d told Joshua that Israel's defeat at Ai was due to the nation having sinned, having transgressed the injunction not to appropriate any of the loot of Jericho etc. Actually, only one man, Achan ben Karmi, had committed those acts. (7) When G-d told Moses that the Jewish people had made themselves a cast calf, worshipped it etc, Moses may have thought that this could have been the act of a single individual, and that G-d had referred to the collective responsibility every Jew bears for the actions of another Jew. It had not occurred to Moses that the nation as a whole had been involved in this act. The Midrash teaches that this is the source for the lesson never to condemn anyone until one had seen with one's own eyes. Even when the information originates with the Almighty Himself, this is not enough to condemn without personally investigating the facts. (8) Moses presumably burned the platform that must have been erected for the golden calf, not the calf itself. Chapter 32,20, may be understood in this vein: When Moses had observed the goings on in the camp, had smashed the tablets etc., he took the calf they had made, burned the trappings and ground the golden calf into dust, scattering the dust on the surface of the water, making the people drink from it. This would be in line with Deut. 9,21, "and the sin you had constructed together with the calf, I took and burned it, and I ground it into thin dust." Note that the Torah in our chapter had not stated "he took the calf and burned it," but rather "he took the calf they had made and burned in fire." (9) When asking Aaron "what did the people do to you that you have brought such a great sin upon them?" (Exodus 32,21) What Moses meant was: "what terrible pressures have you been subjected to, that you could even have had a part in this affair?" Aaron's reply was simply "you know the people's conduct when they are evil." The reason Aaron's part in this whole affair is so brief, is not a cover up, on the contrary, since his intention to steer them away from sin had misfired, he could not be given any credit for his intervention. Moses saw that the people's behaviour was totally unrestrained. This was due in part to Aaron's intervention however well meaning it might have been. As a result, non Jews and even some Jews might argue that if even Moses’s own brother had had a share in the sin, how could one blame the people at large for such a sin! It is in this context that we must understand Moses’s apparent accusation against Aaron. So, Moses positioned himself at the gate, and called for volunteers to deal with those who had danced around the calf. If Aaron's own tribe volunteered and killed three thousand of their fellow Jews and no one protested, this could only have been because they knew that Aaron's intentions had been pure, and that his involvement in the unhappy outcome had been due to circumstances he had not foreseen. Shemot Rabbah 42, answers the question from where Moses took the authority to kill Jews found worshipping the calf, by referring us to G-d’s own example on the occasion of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Tower of Bable respectively. In either case, G-d had proceeded to mete out punishment after He had investigated the facts. Similarly, Moses, G-d’s trusted servant, was expected to carry out this task as G-d’s messenger. When the Levites had completed their task, Moses addressed the nation exhorting them to remain loyal to G-d, and thus turn away His wrath. He pointed to the example of their fellow Jews the Levites, who had demonstrated such loyalty by disregarding family ties when the law required that their closest relatives be executed. He explained that all that is needed to qualify for G-d’s blessing, is loyalty. (Exodus 32,29) On the morrow, after the three thousand had died, Moses said to the people that they too had sinned gravely by having demanded proof of G-d’s existence and power. Also, they should have prevented the three thousand from dancing around the calf. Therefore, it was now necessary for Moses to ascend the mountain and plead for forgiveness. Moses uses both understatement and exaggeration in his plea, in order to present a credible defense. By describing the sin as the construction of a golden deity, he exaggerated its importance. By pointing out that it had been removed, and that the guilty had been punished, and that none of those witnessing the punishment had protested the death of the guilty, he prayed that surely the time had come to forgive the remainder of the nation for this episode. G-d’s reply "whosoever has sinned against Me, I will wipe out from My book," is not a direct response to Moses’s request. Moses had spoken about the book "You have written," meaning the Torah, whereas G-d referred to the book of life, a book which G-d retains for His own exclusive use. The people were to be punished by acts of G-d only, since no human witnesses were at hand to testify to their culpable participation in the construction of the golden calf. However, G-d reserved the right to exact such punishment whenever an occasion would arise in the future to punish them for other misdeeds. For the present therefore, G-d says to Moses "lead this people to the place I have said to you." We read in verse 35, "G-d smote the people because they had made the calf that Aaron had made." The repetition of the words "they had made...Aaron had made," indicates that the intentions of the people and the intentions of Aaron had been quite different from one another. Aaron's part in it had been merely incidental, the real culprit having been the people. Nonetheless, Aaron reproaches himself after two of his sons have died, saying "all these things have happened to me," when in fact we had not read of anything else happening to him. 11) Since the progress of the Jewish people from now on was to be under the guidance of an angel, (Exodus 33, 1-3) the people thought that the Divine Presence would no longer be among them. They mourned this news by failing to wear their jewelry. Since they had not actually removed their jewelry from themselves, there was reason for Moses to command them to "remove" it. Apparently, some of the people had put on their jewelry. Why did some people wear their jewelry, whereas others did not? If we follow the tradition that the "jewelry" were the phylacteries of the head, the latter could be viewed as a protective device while worn. When in mourning, wearing such phylacteries is forbidden. The Jews who did not wear their phylacteries considered themselves in mourning, having heard G-d’s decree. Others considered themselves in the category of "outcasts," and as such Jewish halachah requires the continued wearing of phylacteries. The difference between the two groups stemmed from which part of G-d’s stricture they considered as paramount. (33,5) If they considered the reference to them as "a stiffnecked people" as paramount, they would be in mourning. If they considered the words "I will not go up with you" as paramount, they would view themselves as outcasts. When G-d used the words "children of Israel," a term of endearment at one and the same time, this was proof to those who continued to wear their phylacteries that it was the danger to their souls that was the greater source of worry. G-d having rescinded His descision to abandon the Jewish people, they were told not to grieve more than their brethren who had mourned their physical fate and had therefore divested themselves of their phylacteries. The commandment to the last group to remove their phylactries also, is a commandment to downgrade the state of their despair to a level in which they only mourned the physical consequences arising out of the episode of the golden calf. When Moses realised that the people were in a state of banishment, he had to remove his tent from their midst, or he would have forfeited further communication from the shechinah, since the latter would not communicate with him as long as he was amidst the banished. G-d’s instruction to Moses to return to the camp, (obliquely referred to by mentioning that his most trusted disciple Joshua had not departed from the tent) teaches us about the reciprocal relationship between Moses and (lehavdil) G-d. It was the former's task to assuage the latter when He was angry; on the other hand G-d would reciprocate when Moses was angry.

ושני לוחות העדות בידו. He thought that as soon as he would return to the people they would become penitents; in the event that they would not, he planned to smash the Tablets in front of their eyes so that they would return in penitence after this shock.

וירא את העגל ואת המחולות ויחר אף משה, Moses’ anger was aroused over the fact that people rejoiced over the damage to themselves they had caused. We find something parallel in Jeremiah 11,15 כי רעתכי אז תעלזי, ”for you exult in performing your evil deeds.” At this point Moses despaired of the people doing teshuvah before being punished. They were no longer fit to receive the Tablets

And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing; and Moses’anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and broke them beneath the mount.

וישלך מידו AND HE CAST [THE TABLETS] OUT OF HIS HAND — He said: “What is the law regarding the Paschal lamb which is only one of the commandments? The Torah states: (Exodus 12:43) “No stranger shall eat thereof”! (cf. Rashi on that verse: a stranger means one who has enstranged himself by his doings from his Father in heaven — an apostate). “But the whole Torah is here (written on the tablets) and all the Israelites are apostates, can I possibly give it (the Torah) to them?!” (Shabbat 87a).

וישלך מידו, when Moses saw the golden calf, he became physically too weak to continue to carry the weight of the Tablets and he threw them as far as possible away from himself so that they would not drop on his feet. This is the way all persons who throw away a burden they carry and which has become too heavy for them, do this. This is the way Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer explains this verse (chapter 45). This is also the plain meaning of the verse.

Moshe did not hesitate to shatter the Tablets, for he was so angered when he saw this evil deed, he could not control himself.