you can't play innocent if your behavior proves otherwise; limud haTorah trumps ahavas haTorah

In 9:7-21 in our parsha Moshe recounts the cheit ha'eigel and the smashing of the luchus. From pasuk 25 until the end of the perek Moshe recounts his prayer to Hashem for forgiveness for the eigel. Sandwiched in the middle, Moshe switches gears and starts talking about other sins that happened in the midbar:

בְעֵרָה וּבְמַסָּה וּבְקִבְרֹת הַתַּאֲוָה מַקְצִפִים הֱיִיתֶם אֶת ה׳

וּבִשְׁלֹחַ ה׳ אֶתְכֶם מִקָּדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ לֵאמֹר עֲלוּ וּרְשׁוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָכֶם וַתַּמְרוּ אֶת פִּי ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם וְלֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם לוֹ וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם בְּקֹלוֹ.

Why didn't Moshe finish speaking about cheit ha'eigel before getting sidetracked, seemingly, by these other topics?

The Abarbanel and Akeidas Yitzchak answer that Bn"Y might have argued that they deserve a pass for cheit ha'eigel. They might argue that had Aharon not made the golden calf, they would have had no part in it. Moshe therefore immediately sticks in a rebuttal. Look at all the other wrongdoings that took place in the midbar. The list goes on and on! You can't play innocent when time after time you prove that מַקְצִפִים הֱיִיתֶם אֶת ה׳.

The Beis haLevi has a chiddush din that if there a choleh requires someone to be mechalel shabbos for his sake, e.g. someone needs a doctor to treat them, it is better to have a shomer Shabbos do it than to have a doctor who would otherwise be mechalel Shabbos do so. It sounds counterintuitive. The person who would otherwise be mechalel Shabbos anyway doesn't lose anything, and the shomer Shabbos doctor gets to keep Shabbos, so what's the problem? Says the Beis haLevi, the doctor who is mechalel Shabbos anyway cannot invoke pikuach nefesh as a ptur for his actions. Hashem knows that it's not the pikuach nefesh which is his excuse to break Shabbos. On any given Shabbos he might drive to the mall, turn on his TV or phone, cook a nice meal, etc. vTherefore, even if there is pikuach nefesh, he is chayav for doing melacha because he's proven that he would have done the melacha anyway. It's only the frum doctor who would otherwise keep Shabbos but is forced to not do so in order to save a life who can claim pikuach nefesh as a valid ptur.

This is the same sevara in our parsha. Had Bn"Y demonstrated that they were otherwise on the straight and narrow, they might conceivably have put the blame on Aharon for the cheit ha'eigel. But when all their other behaviors show that they were not interested in doing the right thing anyway, then the excuse doesn't hold water. They would have gotten involved in the eigel with or without Aharon's contribution to the problem.

Perhaps one can add בּדרך צחות that we know that Chazal (Kiddushin 57 and other places) darshen the extra word אֶת as a ribuy that comes to include talmidei chachamim, i.e. ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״ – לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים. We can read that same ribuy into our pesukim. Moshe told Bn"Y: You want to claim that you only sinned because of the great awe, respect, and attachment you had for Aharon and therefore followed him down the wrong path? Sorry, that doesn't fly. מַקְצִפִים הֱיִיתֶם אֶת ה׳ and here too we can darshen "אֶת" - לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים". You were ַתַּמְרוּ אֶת פִּי ה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם, and here too, "אֶת" - לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים. On other occassions in the midbar you ignored Aharon, you ignored Moshe, you rebelled against the authority of talmidei chachamim. You can't claim to be a loyal, obedient follower of Aharon when it comes to cheit ha'eigel and use that as an excuse when all your other actions prove otherwise. (see also Agra d'Kallah)

The source for the mitzvah of cleaving to talmidei chachamim actually comes from pesukim later in our parsha (11:22-23)

כִּי אִם שָׁמֹר תִּשְׁמְרוּן אֶת כׇּל הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם לַעֲשֹׂתָהּ לְאַהֲבָה אֶתה׳ אֱלֹקיכֶם לָלֶכֶת בְּכׇל דְּרָכָיו וּלְדׇבְקָה בוֹ.

וְהוֹרִישׁ ה׳ אֶת כׇּל הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה מִלִּפְנֵיכֶם וִירִשְׁתֶּם גּוֹיִם גְּדֹלִים וַעֲצֻמִים מִכֶּם

Rashi quotes from Chazal: ולדבקה בו – אי איפשר, והלא אש אוכלה הוא? אלא: הדבק בחכמים ובתלמידים, ומעלה עליך כאילו נדבקת בו.

Interestingly, on the pasuk earlier in our parsha (10:20) אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ תִּירָא אֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹד וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ, the very pasuk where Chazal darshen ״אֶת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״ – לְרַבּוֹת תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, Rashi is silent and offers no comment on the phrase וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק. Why there does Rashi not jump in and say אי איפשר, והלא אש אוכלה הוא? and explain the phrase as speaking about talmidei chachamim, especially since there it would fit perfectly with the ribuy in the first half of the pasuk!?

HaKsav v'haKabbalah (please see the parenthetical note** at the end of this piece!) explains that it's not the explanation of the word דׇבְקָה which is bothering Rashi. We find that word many other places, e.g. אתם הדבקים בה׳ אלוקיכם, and we understand that it means having a close emotional or spiritual connection. The difficulty here arises from the context:

אמנם קשיא להו קרא דקאמר כי אם שמור תשמרון את כל המצוה הזאת וגו׳ לאהבה את ה״א ללכת בכל דרכיו ולדבקה בו, דמשמע שכולם חייבים להדבק במקום ב״ה דבקות הנפש, ולפי שזאת היא מעלת הנביאים וכדומה מאנשי מעלה שזוכים לה בחמלת ה׳ עליהם בתתו רוחו בקרבם, והאיך תלה ירושת הארץ בתנאי שיהיו דבקים בו כל ישראל

How can our taking possession of Eretz Yisrael be contingent upon our having dveikus, this high level of spiritual attachment, when such an achievement is clearly attainable only by the spiritual elite? Therefore, Chazal reinterpreted the mitzvah here to refer to divuk to talmidei chachamim (see Taz in Divrei David who offers a different answer).

In R' Dov Landau's chiddushim on the parsha he quotes, in the context of this mitzvah, the story in Avos about R' Yosi ben Kisma:

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן קִסְמָא, פַּעַם אַחַת הָיִיתִי מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וּפָגַע בִּי אָדָם אֶחָד, וְנָתַן לִי שָׁלוֹם, וְהֶחֱזַרְתִּי לוֹ שָׁלוֹם. אָמַר לִי, רַבִּי, מֵאֵיזֶה מָקוֹם אַתָּה. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, מֵעִיר גְּדוֹלָה שֶׁל חֲכָמִים וְשֶׁל סוֹפְרִים אָנִי. אָמַר לִי, רַבִּי, רְצוֹנְךָ שֶׁתָּדוּר עִמָּנוּ בִמְקוֹמֵנוּ, וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ אֶלֶף אֲלָפִים דִּינְרֵי זָהָב וַאֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת

אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, בְּנִי, אִם אַתָּה נוֹתֵן לִי כָל כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב וַאֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם, אֵינִי דָר אֶלָּא בִמְקוֹם תּוֹרָה

In Kallah Rabasi ch 8 there is the following comment on that Mishna:

א״ר יוסי בן קסמא פעם אחת. אמאי לא אהדר ליה סימני עם הארץ חזא ביה. והא אפילו לעובד כוכבים בשוק מותר אלא דהוה פליג הלכתא ועיין בה ולא אמרין לבתר דפרקינהו וידע בה דישראל הוה. וסבר עכשיו מהדרנא

Our girsa in Avos is וְנָתַן לִי שָׁלוֹם וְהֶחֱזַרְתִּי לוֹ שָׁלוֹם, but it seems from Kallah Rabasi that R' Yosei ben Kisma in fact did not greet or respond to the person who he met. That makes the ahavas haTorah of that individual even more remarkable. Most people would feel offended if their Rabbi passed them in the street and did not offer a greeting. This man offered R' Yosi ben Kisma a fortune to move to his city even though R' Yosi ben Kisma didn't so much as offer him a hello! That's "U'bo tidbak." However, it begs the question: If this man was representative of his hometown, why would R' Yosi ben Kisma not want to move to such a place where there is so much love for talmidei chachamim? I am sure many Rabbis would love to have congregants like that! R' Landau answers that ahavas haTorah cannot serve as a substitute for limud haTorah. Living among people who are mechabeid talmidei chachamim, who may love talmidei chachamim, is not the same as living among people who themselves are talmidei chachamim.

(**Parenthetical note on the haKsav vhaKabbalah: He writes that it is impossible to understand dveikus literally ואפי׳ תעלה על דעתך להמשך אחר פשוטי המקראות בשאר המקומות (וכדברי הראב״ד בה׳ תשובה), א״א לך לחשוב כן בענין הדבקות. The Raavad he refers to is the famous one in ch 3 of hil teshuvah:

האומר שיש שם רבון אחד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה. א"א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות:

Clearly Kv"K seems to take Raavad at face value, that a literal reading is at least theoretically possible. This is in contast to the pshat quoted in the name of R' Chaim that Raavad only meant that such a person cannot be labelled an apikores because they are shogeg, not to validate literal reading.)