Exodus: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13a 13b 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30a 30b 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38a 38b 39 40
13:1 VA YEDABER YHVH EL MOSHEH LEMOR
וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר
KJ (King James translaton): And the LORD spake
unto Moses, saying,
13:2 KADESH LI CHOL BECHOR PETER KOL RECHEM BI VENEY YISRA-EL BA ADAM U VA BEHEMAH LI HU
קַדֶּשׁ לִי כָל בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר כָּל רֶחֶם בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה לִי הוּא
KJ: Sanctify unto me all
the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and
of beast: it is mine.
BI VENEY: Or BIV'NEY?
KADESH LI: The coincidence of this is too bizarre, unless we can accept that this and the "death of the first-born of Mitsrayim" are in fact the same incident, or facets of the same incident, or of the same liturgy. We have just seen the entire first-born of Mitsrayim wiped out in a single night, and the Ivrim saved through the elaborate ritual of the Red Cross, which in itself is a way of the deity saying that "whatsoever opens the womb...both of man and of beast, it is mine", regardless of whether it is Beney Yisra-El or otherwise. And now, here is YHVH, who apparently spared them, demanding his rights to the first-born of Yisra-El after all. But alive - that is the key difference; as I pointed out in the previous chapter, the tenth plague is also the Akeda: the divine decision to bring to an end the physical sacrifice of the first-born.
This ordering of the text thus allows a historical continuum that works for the ideological intent of the Redactor, but confuses the historical continuum of the original - as the final verses of the last chapter already did. Probably we should see them, and this, as a fuller elaboration of what was given earlier of chapter 12.
KADESH is a word that will be much used from now on, and we need to understand its precise meaning, which is not "holy", as in "super-special" and "sacred" and somehow, intrinsically, superior, but "separate", whether a physical separation, or a spiritual one, and very often with an additional burden of responsibility added - see my notes on this at Exodus 8:18 and 9:15. So the Kohanim and Leviyim will be kadesh, because they have a special role in the religious life, and are prohibited from many of its mundane aspects. So the Beney Yisra-El as a people are kadesh, because they have been selected by YHVH to be his people, and for this they get a set of laws far more demanding that the No'achic. And within the Beney Yisra-El, whether Levi, Kohen or plain Yisra-El, the first-born have a caste status that makes them separate, redeemed by the Pidyon ha Ben from the ancient ritual sacrifice, but with new responsibilities as well, within the clan and the tribe - it is they who, from now on, will be its secular leaders, and carry the responsibilities of public office, including military command. Esav getting back his birthright, and quite possibly not all that keen to have it!
13:3 VA YOMER MOSHEH EL HA AM ZACHOR ET HA YOM HA ZEH ASHER YETSATEM MI MITSRAYIM MI BEYT AVADIM KI BE CHOZEK YAD HOTSIY YHVH ET'CHEM MI ZEH VE LO YE'ACHEL CHAMETS
BN: And Mosheh said to the people: Remember this day, on which you came out from Mitsrayim, out of the house of bondage; for by the power of his hand YHVH brought you from this place; and you ate no leavened bread...
VA YOMER: At what point is Mosheh supposed to be telling them this? At the same time that he organises the selection and separation of the lambs for the festival, which is to say before the festival? He cannot have been saying it at the festival, because everyone was confined to their own household for the celebratory meal. Nor can he have been saying it during the exodus, because they were in hasty flight, and not in the business of stopping for priestly lectures. So, again, this has to be a later text, added as an elaboration for the benefit of a much later audience.
וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל הָעָם זָכוֹר אֶת הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר יְצָאתֶם מִמִּצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים כִּי בְּחֹזֶק יָד הוֹצִיא יְהוָה אֶתְכֶם מִזֶּה וְלֹא יֵאָכֵל חָמֵץ
KJ: And Moses said unto
the people, Remember this day, in which ye came out from Egypt, out of the
house of bondage; for by strength of hand the LORD brought you out from this place: there shall
no leavened bread be eaten.
VA YOMER: At what point is Mosheh supposed to be telling them this? At the same time that he organises the selection and separation of the lambs for the festival, which is to say before the festival? He cannot have been saying it at the festival, because everyone was confined to their own household for the celebratory meal. Nor can he have been saying it during the exodus, because they were in hasty flight, and not in the business of stopping for priestly lectures. So, again, this has to be a later text, added as an elaboration for the benefit of a much later audience.
HA YOM HA ZEH: Which certainly sounds like Mosheh is speaking to them on the actual day of departure; though we all know from our own national celebrations that "this day" is annual - "this day" on which the war ended, the constitution was approved etc.
BE CHOZEK YAD echoes the hardening of Pharaoh's heart previously; the same word is used. This is significant, because it equates Pharaoh with the god, as we have demonstrated it should; but, the other way round, it also equates the nature of the god with Pharaoh, which parallels the re-Creation tales of both Sedom and the Flood, but not the image of compassion and mercy and justice which is shortly to be manifested in the commandments. Or should we change the wording later on to read: "for YHVH your god is a hard-hearted god"?
VE LO YE'ACHEL CHAMETS: LO with the future tense is normally negative, not prohibitive; that would be AL. However, this is the form used in the Ten Commandments, albeit in the present tense there, so this verse can in fact be read either way. Given the context, I am favouring my version.
BN: "Today you are leaving, in the month of Aviv...
YOTSIM: But this is definitely present tense, the day of departure.
BN: "And it shall be, when YHVH bring you to the land of the Kena'ani, and the Chiti, and the Emori, and the Chivi, and the Yevusi, which he swore to your ancestors to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, that you shall continue this worship in this month...
Again we have the problem of the multiple meanings of AVODAH; no question here that it means "worship"; but if it does (and if it therefore did in verse 3, which is much more significant), then perhaps it did previously too, and we need to read deeper into the status of the Habiru in Mitsrayim to understand why they were separate (kadesh), why they were chosen for the pilgrimage, why they become AM KADOSH. Perhaps it has nothing whatsoever to do with Ya'akov, Yoseph or any of that story; perhaps it was a caste within Mitsrayim, remnants of the Hyksos who worshipped separate deities, or conquerors of the Hyksos, or even predecesseors of the Hyksos now revived (as the pre-Judaic Tammuz and Adonis worshippers revived in Yehudah when the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, and the demise of proto-Judaism left a vacuum which was otherwise filled by Talmudic Judaism); or simply a priestly caste within Mitsrayim.
VE LO YE'ACHEL CHAMETS: LO with the future tense is normally negative, not prohibitive; that would be AL. However, this is the form used in the Ten Commandments, albeit in the present tense there, so this verse can in fact be read either way. Given the context, I am favouring my version.
13:4 HA YOM ATEM YOTSIM BE CHODESH HA AVIV
הַיּוֹם אַתֶּם יֹצְאִים בְּחֹדֶשׁ הָאָבִיב
KJ: This day came ye out
in the month Abib.
YOTSIM: But this is definitely present tense, the day of departure.
AVIV: And this is just as definitely Aviv, not Nisan. Orthodoxy has an interpretation which is completely correct in its etymology, but still incomplete in its explanation - click here. AVIV was indeed its name then; NISAN became its name after the Babylonian exile, when their names for the months were adopted - again placing our text at the time of Ezra and Nechem-Yah.
The word AVIV means "spring" in Yehudit, but it was also the name of the main area where the exiled captives lived - Tel Aviv, pronounced Tel Abib in Chaldean, though it doesn't actually mean "spring" in that language (see the link); nevertheless, this is the reason for the name of the modern city, and probably the reason for this verse: Ezra the Scribe continuously finding ways to connect the Babylonian exile with the Egyptian slavery, using the Mosaic retroactively to establish the laws and customs of his day. NISAN was probably NITZAN (נצן) originally, meaning "flowers". See also my note to Exodus 12:18.
13:5 VE HAYAH CHI YEVI'ACHA YHVH EL ERETS HA KENA'ANI VE HA CHITI VE HA EMORI VE HA CHIVI VE HA YEVUSI ASHER NISHBA LA AVOTEYCHA LATET LACH ERETS ZAVAT CHALAV U DEVASH VE AVADETA ET HA AVODAH HA ZOT BA CHODESH HA ZEH
The word AVIV means "spring" in Yehudit, but it was also the name of the main area where the exiled captives lived - Tel Aviv, pronounced Tel Abib in Chaldean, though it doesn't actually mean "spring" in that language (see the link); nevertheless, this is the reason for the name of the modern city, and probably the reason for this verse: Ezra the Scribe continuously finding ways to connect the Babylonian exile with the Egyptian slavery, using the Mosaic retroactively to establish the laws and customs of his day. NISAN was probably NITZAN (נצן) originally, meaning "flowers". See also my note to Exodus 12:18.
13:5 VE HAYAH CHI YEVI'ACHA YHVH EL ERETS HA KENA'ANI VE HA CHITI VE HA EMORI VE HA CHIVI VE HA YEVUSI ASHER NISHBA LA AVOTEYCHA LATET LACH ERETS ZAVAT CHALAV U DEVASH VE AVADETA ET HA AVODAH HA ZOT BA CHODESH HA ZEH
וְהָיָה כִי יְבִיאֲךָ יְהוָה אֶל אֶרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי וְהַחִתִּי וְהָאֱמֹרִי וְהַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לַאֲבֹתֶיךָ לָתֶת לָךְ אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ וְעָבַדְתָּ אֶת הָעֲבֹדָה הַזֹּאת בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה
KJ: And it shall be when
the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites,
and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto thy
fathers to give thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt keep
this service in this month.
And again the conflicting plans: are they going out for a 3-day religious ceremony, or migration to a new land?
The reference to all the peoples who are in the land of Kena'an cannot be overlooked; two years later, when the spies bring back this information, the people will apparently be shocked and surprised; yet from this text they clearly already knew it.
13:6 SHIV'AT YAMIM TOCHAL MATSOT U VA YOM HA SHEVIY'IY CHAG LA YHVH
BN: "For seven days you will eat unleavened bread, and the seventh day shall be a feast to YHVH...
Exactly as we were informed several chapters ago, and then witnessed in the previous chapter, before they left Mitsrayim.
13:6 SHIV'AT YAMIM TOCHAL MATSOT U VA YOM HA SHEVIY'IY CHAG LA YHVH
שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תֹּאכַל מַצֹּת וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי חַג לַיהוָה
KJ: Seven days thou shalt
eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day shall
be a feast to the LORD.
Exactly as we were informed several chapters ago, and then witnessed in the previous chapter, before they left Mitsrayim.
13:7 MATSOT YE'ACHEL ET SHIV'AT HA YAMIM VE LO YERA'EH LECHA CHAMETS VE LO YERA'EH LECHA SE'OR BE CHOL GEVULECHA
מַצּוֹת יֵאָכֵל אֵת שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ חָמֵץ וְלֹא יֵרָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאֹר בְּכָל גְּבֻלֶךָ
KJ: Unleavened bread shall
be eaten seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee,
neither shall there be leaven seen with thee in all thy quarters.
Meaningless instruction to a people setting out on a pilgrimage, even if it is only the 3-day round trip, or to those fleeing a pursuing army into the desert.
13:8 VE HIGADETA LE VINCHA BA YOM HA HU LEMOR BA AVUR ZEH ASAH YHVH LI BE TSE'TI MI MITSRAYIM
וְהִגַּדְתָּ לְבִנְךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר בַּעֲבוּר זֶה עָשָׂה יְהוָה לִי בְּצֵאתִי מִמִּצְרָיִם
KJ: And thou shalt shew
thy son in that day, saying, This is done because
of that which the LORD
did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt.
The inception of the Haggadic methodology for celebrating Passover - and the earliest date for the Haggadah, according to the scholars, is around 520 BCE - click here for the full history.
ZEH ASA YHVH LI: The LI is the key here; this notion of "I" has become central to the continuation of the ceremony until today, and is central to the methodology of keeping the Holocaust alive in memory: the personalisation of History.
13:9 VA HAYAH LECHA LE OT AL YADECHA U LE ZICHARON BEYN EYNEYCHA LEMA'AN TIHEYEH TORAT YHVH BE PHIYCHA KI BE YAD CHAZAKAH HOTSI'ACHA YHVH MI MITSRAYIM
וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל יָדְךָ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת יְהוָה בְּפִיךָ כִּי בְּיָד חֲזָקָה הוֹצִאֲךָ יְהוָה מִמִּצְרָיִם
KJ: And it shall be for a
sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the
LORD'S law may be in thy mouth: for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought
thee out of Egypt.
AL YADECHA...BEY EYNEYCHA: Is Mosheh telling them to lay tefillin – now, before the ordinance has been given? And if so, is this not the equivalent of Merivah: pre-empting the god and assuming a status beyond his status? And if he is not telling them to lay tefillin, how are we supposed to understand this? In what manner shall it be a sign on the hand and between the eyes? Later the words will recur in the Shema (the first paragraph, taken from Deuteronomy 6:4-9; the phrase here is from 6:8), with the notion of binding the Law in such manner; it was from this that the tefillin emerged somewhat later, probably in Greek times, as the way we still do it now. But what was it then?
Again the use of the word TORAH, which has not been given yet, and so would be completely meaningless to these people (unless there were already a Torah in existence! and they are going to the holy mountain, not to receive it for the first time, but to repeat the annual renewal ceremony; given that the Code of Hammurabi was already in existence, and known to the Redactor if not to the Habiru, this is not implausible).
13:10 VE SHAMARTA ET HA CHUKAH HA ZOT LE MO'ADAH MI YAMIM YAMIMAH
וְשָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת הַחֻקָּה הַזֹּאת לְמוֹעֲדָהּ מִיָּמִים יָמִימָה
KJ: Thou shalt therefore
keep this ordinance in his season from year to year.
MO'ADAH: The language of the creation of the constellations is still with us; OTOT before, and now MO'ADAH.
YAMIM YAMIMAH: A matter of idiom; where English does this in the singular, Yehudit does it in the plural: "years to years" literally.
pey break
13:11 VE HAYAH KI YEVI'ACHA YHVH EL ERETS HA KENA'ANI KA ASHER NISHBA LECHA VE LA AVOTEYCHA U NETANAH LACH
וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִאֲךָ יְהוָה אֶל אֶרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי כַּאֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לְךָ וְלַאֲבֹתֶיךָ וּנְתָנָהּ לָךְ
KJ: And it shall be when
the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, as he sware unto
thee and to thy fathers, and shall give it thee,
13:12 VE HA'AVARTAH CHOL PETER RECHEM LA YHVH VE CHOL PETER SHEGER BEHEMAH ASHER YIHEYEH LECHA HA ZECHARIM LA YHVH
וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ כָל פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם לַיהוָה וְכָל פֶּטֶר שֶׁגֶר בְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה לְךָ הַזְּכָרִים לַיהוָה
KJ: That thou shalt set
apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that
cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall
be the LORD'S.
PETER SHEGER: SHAGAR goes with PETER as a verb - to "cast forth", "to eject", "to spit out" - almost as if they were synonyms. But in Deuteronomy 7:14 SHEGAR ALAPHEYCHA are definitely a noun, not a verb, and the same verse has the BETEN, which is really "the belly" not "the womb"; womb is RECHEM, which I didn't explain in my previous comment, because it's much morepertinent here. Deuteronomy 28:4 virtually repeats 7:14, but there is sufficient difference there for us to make the following distinction: Rechem as womb, Beten as uterus, Sheger as foetus. That may go further than we like to think the ancients understood, but it certainly works in the texts.
Was it not the case that the first-born had previously been so dedicated (Exodus 11:5 et al), and that Mosheh/YHVH are simply changing the form here, death replaced by special status and responsibility? There is evidence throughout the known world of that time that sacrifice of the first-born was commonplace; including evidence in the preceding text. And half the stories in Genesis (Kayin, Yitschak, Esav, Zerach, even Le'ah) were about the symbolic sacrifice of the first-born; what we are seeing is simply the formal establishment of the practice as a law, and in this new form.
13:13 VE CHOL PETER CHAMOR TIPHDEH VE SEH VE IM LO TIPHDEH VA ARAPHTO VE CHOL BECHOR ADAM BE VANEYCHA TIPHDEH
וְכָל פֶּטֶר חֲמֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה וְאִם לֹא תִפְדֶּה וַעֲרַפְתּוֹ וְכֹל בְּכוֹר אָדָם בְּבָנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה
KJ: And every firstling of
an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb; and if thou wilt not redeem it, then thou
shalt break his neck: and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt
thou redeem.
TIPHDEH: Where is this different then from common practice? The concept of redemption - PIDYON HA BEN in the case of humans. Is this the first formal reference to Pidyon ha Ben (I have been referencing it in my notes, but here - TIPHDEH - uses the actual word)? The inference is that we have witnessed the massacre of the first-born at both ends of the tale, and it is now proscribed. Did the Akeda not already achieve that?
Except that the CHAMOR (donkey or ass as you prefer) is made an exception. Why would you redeem an ass with a lamb, or else break its neck? Why not just redeem it like every other creature, through the symbolic Pidyon? Is it because the value of an ass is lower, or perhaps higher? Or maybe, just maybe, it is because the ass had a very different theological symbolism than a lamb, and this god does not want ass-sacrifices (see my notes to Sha'ul and Chamor) any more than he wants bacon for breakfast (see my notes to Exodus 8:22). In Egypt the ass was Set, the killer of Osher, the vegetation god - disguised as a boar when he did it, but his totem animal was the ass or donkey. Khnum, the ultimate father of all the gods (Ouranos in the Greek), was depicted as a lamb: the symbolism is self-evident. But remember also what the Prophets will tell us later on (and at the time that this was being written), that YHVH does not actually want the sacrifices, he just wants the obedience?
Except that the CHAMOR (donkey or ass as you prefer) is made an exception. Why would you redeem an ass with a lamb, or else break its neck? Why not just redeem it like every other creature, through the symbolic Pidyon? Is it because the value of an ass is lower, or perhaps higher? Or maybe, just maybe, it is because the ass had a very different theological symbolism than a lamb, and this god does not want ass-sacrifices (see my notes to Sha'ul and Chamor) any more than he wants bacon for breakfast (see my notes to Exodus 8:22). In Egypt the ass was Set, the killer of Osher, the vegetation god - disguised as a boar when he did it, but his totem animal was the ass or donkey. Khnum, the ultimate father of all the gods (Ouranos in the Greek), was depicted as a lamb: the symbolism is self-evident. But remember also what the Prophets will tell us later on (and at the time that this was being written), that YHVH does not actually want the sacrifices, he just wants the obedience?
TIPHDEH: Redeem, in the sense that pawnbrokers use the word, rather more than the Christian Messianic notion. You have something of value that you leave with a pawnbroker until you can afford to take it back. In the same way a person you love has been kidnapped, and you pay the ransom to recover him or her. Cf Numbers 18:15 for a virtual repetition of this verse, and then 18:16 for the financial side; also Deuteronomy 7:8 and 13:6, Psalm 34:23.
SEH: 1 Samuel 7:9 and Isaiah 65:25 both use TELEH (טלה) or TALEH for a lamb, where this, like 1 Samuel 14:34, Genesis 22:7 and 30:32, use SEH It is not obvious what the difference is, unless it be a matter of dialect variation, in the same way that we had CHAMOR in an earlier verse, and it could be an ass in English, or it could be a donkey, depending on which word you favour - click here. The only distinction I can suggest comes from the standard translation of 1 Samuel 7:9, which presents the TELEH as a suckling-lamb; the TALAH in the Isaiah may well be, but it is not certain.
SEH: 1 Samuel 7:9 and Isaiah 65:25 both use TELEH (טלה) or TALEH for a lamb, where this, like 1 Samuel 14:34, Genesis 22:7 and 30:32, use SEH It is not obvious what the difference is, unless it be a matter of dialect variation, in the same way that we had CHAMOR in an earlier verse, and it could be an ass in English, or it could be a donkey, depending on which word you favour - click here. The only distinction I can suggest comes from the standard translation of 1 Samuel 7:9, which presents the TELEH as a suckling-lamb; the TALAH in the Isaiah may well be, but it is not certain.
ARAPHTO: This is simply too barbaric for me to want to investigate any deeper.
All the instructions given in these latter verses will be repeated at Exodus 34:18-20.
BN: "And it shall be, when your son asks you in time to come, saying: 'What is this?', that you shall say to him: By the power of his hand YHVH brought us out of Mitsrayim, from the house of bondage...
A virtual repetition of verse 3.
But this, this is what it has all been about: establishing YHVH as the supreme deity, not just any god, not even the god of Av-Raham or Yitschak or Ya'akov, but very specifically this god, the one who brought the people out of Mitsrayim; and reinforcing that in the chapters that will follow, with the giving of the Law. But not to the people of Mosheh's time; as verse 11 made clear. This is for the future, to establish a national identity through a national history, once there is also a national land (and later, presumably, a national language too, the fourth key component of national identity: we should not forget that Yehudit has not been invented as a language yet; Mosheh and his people are either speaking Egyptian or Hurrian). This is how ideologies are superimposed upon ideologies: retain everything you cannot expunge, but fix the precise terms, retroactively if necessary, and then insist upon them. It defines Passover as the pre-eminent festival, ideologically speaking, of Ezraic proto-Judaism, and of Rabbinic Judaism ever since.
BN: "And it came to pass, when Pharaoh was reluctant to let us go, that YHVH slew all the firstborn in the land of Mitsrayim, both the first-born of Man, and the first-born of beast; therefore I sacrifice to YHVH all that opens the womb, being male; but all the first-born of my sons I redeem...
Which transforms the Pesach into an aetiological myth explaining the abandonment of first-born sacrifice in favour of redemption, and thereby achieves its most important and necessary aim, which is the metamorphorsis of an Egyptian into a Beney Yisra-Eli festival (there is an exact equivalent that can be traced in the metamorphosis of the "pagan" spring fertility festivals of Europe and the Middle East, the feasts of Astarte and Ishtar, into Christian Easter; see my novel "The Persian Fire" for elements of this).
All the instructions given in these latter verses will be repeated at Exodus 34:18-20.
13:14 VE HAYAH KI YISH'ALCHA VINCHA MACHAR LEMOR MAH ZOT VA AMARTAH ELAV BE CHOZEK YAD HOTSIY'ANU YHVH MI MITSRAYIM MI BEYT AVADIM
וְהָיָה כִּי יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ מָחָר לֵאמֹר מַה זֹּאת וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו בְּחֹזֶק יָד הוֹצִיאָנוּ יְהוָה מִמִּצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים
KJ: And it shall be when
thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this?
that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the LORD brought us out from
Egypt, from the house of bondage:
A virtual repetition of verse 3.
But this, this is what it has all been about: establishing YHVH as the supreme deity, not just any god, not even the god of Av-Raham or Yitschak or Ya'akov, but very specifically this god, the one who brought the people out of Mitsrayim; and reinforcing that in the chapters that will follow, with the giving of the Law. But not to the people of Mosheh's time; as verse 11 made clear. This is for the future, to establish a national identity through a national history, once there is also a national land (and later, presumably, a national language too, the fourth key component of national identity: we should not forget that Yehudit has not been invented as a language yet; Mosheh and his people are either speaking Egyptian or Hurrian). This is how ideologies are superimposed upon ideologies: retain everything you cannot expunge, but fix the precise terms, retroactively if necessary, and then insist upon them. It defines Passover as the pre-eminent festival, ideologically speaking, of Ezraic proto-Judaism, and of Rabbinic Judaism ever since.
13:15 VE HAYAH KI HIKSHAH PHAR'OH LESHALCHENU VA YAHAROG YHVH KOL BECHOR BE ERETS MITSRAYIM MI BECHOR ADAM VE AD BECHOR BEHEMAH AL KEN ANI ZOVE'ACH L'YHVH KOL PETER RECHEM HA ZECHARIM VE CHOL BECHOR BANAI EPHDEH
וַיְהִי כִּי הִקְשָׁה פַרְעֹה לְשַׁלְּחֵנוּ וַיַּהֲרֹג יְהוָה כָּל בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבְּכֹר אָדָם וְעַד בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה עַל כֵּן אֲנִי זֹבֵחַ לַיהוָה כָּל פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם הַזְּכָרִים וְכָל בְּכוֹר בָּנַי אֶפְדֶּה
KJ: And it came to pass,
when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in
the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast:
therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but
all the firstborn of my children I redeem.
But there is no need to confirm the abandonment of a custom that never existed in the first place; so we can also confirm through this the original Pesach, the limping-festival, the ritual immolation of the sacred-king, the spring rites of Set and Osher, and all the other primaeval elements of this tale.
BN: "And it shall serve as a sign for you upon your hand, and as a reminder to you between your eyes, for by the power of his hand YHVH has brought you out of Mitsrayim...
Identical to verse 9 save only that the middle phrase - and surely the key phrase - has been left out: "and so that the law of YHVH may be in your mouth"
samech break
Exodus: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13a 13b 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30a 30b 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38a 38b 39 40
13:16 VE HAYAH LE'OT AL YADCHA U LE TOTAPHOT BEYN EYNEYCHA KI BE CHOZEK YAD HOTSIY'ANU YHVH MI MITSRAYIM
וְהָיָה לְאוֹת עַל יָדְכָה וּלְטוֹטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ כִּי בְּחֹזֶק יָד הוֹצִיאָנוּ יְהוָה מִמִּצְרָיִם
KJ: And it shall be for a
token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of
hand the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt.
Identical to verse 9 save only that the middle phrase - and surely the key phrase - has been left out: "and so that the law of YHVH may be in your mouth"
And therefore the same question as before: with or without tefillin? The impression is that it is meant metaphorically, and that the "frontlet between your eyes" is in fact your brain, where memories are stored, though what the "sign upon your hand" would then describe is less easy to deduce. - perhaps by looking at your own hand, you remember the YAD CHAZAKAH of the deity. And if not your own hand, perhaps the Hamsa you are wearing around your neck on a gold or silver chain.
samech break
Exodus: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13a 13b 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30a 30b 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38a 38b 39 40
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment