The necessity to say that “Zahav” is not the name of a place that was named after the event is because gold was only a detail that emphasized the severity of the sin; it was not the actual cause of the sin.
Out of concern for the honor of the Jewish people, Moshe said “Di Zahav,” thereby alluding to an argument in their defense: the sin occurred because Hashem had given them an abundance of gold—“What could the son be expected to do?” and so forth.
On the verse, “And Di Zahav,” Rashi explains:
“He rebuked them concerning the Calf, which they made because of the abundance of gold that they possessed, as it is stated: ‘I increased silver for them, and gold they used for Baal.’”
It must be understood why Rashi does not explain that “Zahav” was the name of a place. After all, many places are named after events that occurred there.
Regarding “Tofel and Lavan,” it is understandable that they cannot be interpreted as places named after the event, and we therefore explain that the Jewish people “spoke disparagingly about the manna.” Tofel and Lavan are merely details that were not sufficiently significant within the event itself to become the names of places. But why can “Zahav” not be the name of a place?
The explanation can be understood by first considering the following point.
In Parshas Ki Sisa, Rashi gives an explanation similar to the one in our parshah. There, on the words “a god of gold,” Rashi explains:
“You are the One Who caused this for them, for You showered them with gold and everything they desired. What could they do so as not to sin?”
Why, then, does Rashi bring the proof—“as it is stated: ‘I increased silver for them…’”—here in our parshah, and not the first time he gives this explanation, in Parshas Ki Sisa?
The answer is that in Parshas Ki Sisa, Rashi’s interpretation is required by the context of the verses themselves.
Moshe first said, “Please, this people has committed a great sin… and they made for themselves a god of gold,” and only afterward asked for forgiveness: “And now, if You will forgive their sin….”
Seemingly, the statement, “This people has committed a great sin,” contradicts Moshe’s request for forgiveness. It must therefore be understood that this verse was intended to lessen the severity of the sin.
Rashi accordingly explains that Moshe meant: “You are the One Who caused this for them,” which constitutes an argument in defense of the Jewish people.
In our parshah, however, Moshe’s intention was to rebuke the Jewish people. Rashi therefore emphasizes the verse, “I increased silver for them, and gold they used for Baal.” This verse stresses that the Jewish people used the very wealth given to them by Hashem to make the Calf, which highlights the severity of the sin even more strongly.
Accordingly, we can understand why Rashi must interpret “Zahav” as something other than the name of a place.
The intention of “Zahav” is either to lessen the severity of the sin, as in Parshas Ki Sisa, or to emphasize its severity, as in our parshah. Gold, however, was not the actual cause of the sin. The cause of the sin was, “The people saw that Moshe delayed in descending from the mountain.”
Nevertheless, Rashi says that they made the Calf “because of” the abundance of gold, even though this wording lessens the severity of the sin. This is because, out of concern for the honor of the Jewish people, Moshe alluded to an argument in their defense even while rebuking them.
Similarly, it can be said that all the other rebukes alluded to in this verse also contain a hint to the honor of the Jewish people, as follows.
“In the Wilderness”
Rashi explains: “Because of what they angered Him in the wilderness.”
The fact that they were in the wilderness itself lessens their guilt. It was a place of snakes, fiery serpents, and scorpions. They therefore cannot be blamed so severely for crying out, “If only we had died….”
“In the Aravah”
Rashi explains that they sinned with Baal Peor.
This also contains an argument in their defense. They were in the plains of Moav, a place characterized by an extreme lack of moral restraint in this area, and their test was therefore exceptionally difficult.
“Opposite the Sea”
At the edge of the sea, they had no possible means of being saved according to the laws of nature. It is therefore understandable why they rebelled.
“Between Paran”
Rashi says, “through the spies,” rather than “with the sin of the spies.” This emphasizes that the spies incited and misled the Jewish people.
“And Between Tofel and Lavan”
Rashi explains that “they spoke disparagingly about the manna, which was white.”
Whiteness represents simplicity. The manna therefore did not provide them with an ordinary, tangible sense of physical pleasure, and for this reason they complained about it.
“And Chatzeiros”
Rashi explains: “In the dispute of Korach.”
The dispute was primarily Korach’s, not that of the Jewish people. Korach persuaded and enticed them to participate.
From all this it is understood that even the rebuke of exile is only for the sake of the ascent that follows it—for the purpose of adding to the honor of the Jewish people.