After him, after his separation from them to the mountain. If you say: Why was it said: And the people of Moses took a calf, while the one who took it is the Samaritan? I say: There are two aspects to this. One is that the action is attributed to them because a man among them initiated it and found it among them, just as it is said: The sons of Tamim said such and such, and the speaker and the doer are one. And because they were willing to take it and pleased with it, it is as if they all agreed upon it. The second is that it is meant they took it as a god and worshipped it. And it is read: From their jewelry with a dammed 'h' and emphasis, the plural of jewelry, like 'thadi' and 'thadiyy', and from their jewelry, with a broken 'h', for following like 'dali'. And from their jewelry, in the singular. Jewelry is the name for what is beautified with gold and silver. If you say: Why was it said: from their jewelry, when the jewelry was not theirs, but rather borrowed in their hands? I say: The addition can be made with the slightest connection, and the fact that it was borrowed in their hands is sufficient connection since they possessed it after the destroyers just as they possessed other properties of theirs. Do you not see His saying, the Exalted and Mighty: And We brought them out from gardens and springs and treasures and a noble station? Just as We inherited it to the Children of Israel, a body with flesh and blood like other bodies. The mooing is the sound of cattle. Al-Hasan said: The Samaritan took a handful of dust from the trace of the horse of Gabriel, peace be upon him, on the day the sea was cut, and he threw it into the calf, so it became a calf that had mooing. And it was read on the authority of him, may Allah be pleased with him: 'Jawar', with a 'j' and a hamzah, from 'ja'ar' if he shouted. And 'jassadan' is in the accusative as a substitute for 'ajlan'. Did they not see when they took it as a god that it could not speak nor guide to a way, so they would not choose it over one who, if the sea were ink for his words, the sea would run out before his words would run out? And He is the one who guided creation to the paths of truth and its methodologies by what He embedded in minds from evidence and by what He revealed in His books. Then He began by saying: They took him, meaning they advanced in what they advanced upon of the wicked matter, and they were wrongdoers, placing everything in its wrong place. Thus, the taking of the calf was not a novelty for them, nor the first of their abominations. And when they fell into despair, and when their regret and sorrow for worshipping the calf intensified, for it is the nature of one whose regret and sorrow intensify to bite his hand in anguish, so his hand becomes fallen in it, for his mouth has fallen into it. And 'sukut' is attributed to 'in their hands' and it is from the realm of metaphor. And Abu al-Samiqah read: 'Saqat fi aydihim', attributing the action to the doer, meaning the biting fell into it. And Al-Zajjaj said: Its meaning is that regret fell into their hands, meaning in their hearts and souls, just as it is said: A misfortune occurred in his hand, even though it is impossible for it to be in the hand, likening what occurs in the heart and soul to what occurs in the hand and is seen by the eye. And they saw that they had gone astray and they realized their misguidance as if they saw it with their own eyes. And it is read: 'If You do not have mercy on us, our Lord, and forgive us', with a 'taa'. And 'our Lord', in the accusative as a call, and this is the speech of the repentant, as Adam and Hawwa, peace be upon them, said: And if You do not forgive us and have mercy on us.