When Hashem forgave Bnei Yisroel for the Chet Ha-Egel (Sin of the Calf), He presented mitzvos which were seemingly designed to prevent a recurrence of a transgression of this sort. Thus, the prohibitions of entering into covenants with the (idolatrous) Canaanim (Cana'anites), making idolatrous images and prostrating oneself to avodah zarah (false gods) appear in the passages of God's rapprochement with His nation and His grant of forgiveness.(24:12-17)

In a similar vein do we find mitzvos in these pesukim which reinforce the new covenant of rapprochement between Hashem and Klal Yisroel, such as the Shalosh Regalim (Three Pilgrimage Festivals) and Bikkurim (First Fruits). These mitzvos compel the Jew to approach God and actively seek a close relationship with Him, as did Moshe approach Hashem in seeking forgiveness for the Chet Ha-Egel; for in the post-Egel period, Bnei Yisroel must prove their worthiness of Hashem's Presence dwelling among them by actively pursuing a relationship with Him, unlike in the pre-Egel period, in which God provided for and resided among His people without the need for them to seek His Presence and pro-actively work toward it. (See first d'var Torah on Parshas Ki Sisa in this series.)

However, there appear two mitzvos in the list of commandments upon the reconciliation between Hashem and His nation which seem out of place. We read, "You shall not slaughter the (Pesach) sacrifice with chometz (leaven)...You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." (34:25-26) The Gemara explains that the first of these two mitzvos prohibits one from offering the Korban Pesach while possessing chometz, and that the second mitzvah (which appears three times in the Torah) prohibits eating, cooking and benefiting from meat and milk mixtures. How do these mitzvos fit into the theme under discussion? They seem to be totally unrelated.

As was explained in the d'var Torah referenced above, the lesson of the Chet Ha-Egel is to be submissive to Hashem and His mitzvos rather than being presumptive and subjective in fealty to Torah and Halacha. Bnei Yisroel presumed that Moshe had died and was not to return, so they took things into their own hands and decided to make the form of a a new leader, which quickly degenerated into idolatry. (See Medrash and Rashi on 32:1.) One can suggest that the two prohibitions noted above are part of this theme. Chometz and bosor b'cholov (meat and milk) are not philosophically objectionable like idolatry; they do not represent a rejection of God or a cardinal sin. However, the Torah created extreme stringencies and extra precautions pertaining to them, such that even possessing chometz on Erev Pesach afternoon, when one offers the Korban Pesach, and even cooking meat and milk or having any benefit from them, are Biblically prohibited. These prohibitions are counter-intuitive, as they are unexpectedly severe stringencies and safeguards for chometz and bosor b'cholov, which are not cardinal sins or forms of avodah zarah. Reflective of this seemingly irrational emphasis on chometz and bosor b'cholov are these two prohibitions placed as part of the passage of rapprochement after the Chet Ha-Egel, as the new covenant with God mandates submissive, objective adherence to His Torah, rather than presumptive and subjective observance. This theme is especially relevant in light of the additional facet of the new terms by which Hashem agreed to continue His relationship with the Jews, for the Jews were now expected to seek Hashem out and have a reciprocal relationship, including taking the initiative to approach God. (This is primarily exemplified in the construction of the Mishkan and the Luchos Sh'niyos, the Second Tablets, which Moshe himself had to carve. In these post-Egel endeavors, man must begin the work and put forth effort to bring the Shechinah.) Torah-true approach of God cannot include subjectively-defined service; only by knowing that we cannot know everything and that we appreciate and observe the Torah even when it seems counter-intuitive can our relationship with Hashem be legitimate and favorable. This is what Moshe Rabbeinu davened for, and on these terms did God consent to continue His relationship with us and seek our allegiance and closeness.