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
33:1 VA YEDABER YHVH EL MOSHEH LECH ALEH MI ZEH ATAH VE HA AM ASHER HE'ELIYTA ME ERETS MITSRAYIM EL HA ARETS ASHER NISHBA'TI LE AV-RAHAM LE YITSCHAK U LE YA'AKOV LEMOR LE ZAR'ACHA ETNENAH
וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵךְ עֲלֵה מִזֶּה אַתָּה וְהָעָם אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלִיתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹב לֵאמֹר לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה
KJ (King James translation): And the LORD said unto Moses, Depart, and go up hence, thou and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it:
BN (BibleNet translation): Then YHVH spoke to Mosheh: "Depart, go up from this place, you and the people that you have brought up from the land of Mitsrayim, to the land about which I swore by oath to Av-Raham, to Yitschak, and to Ya'akov, saying: To your seed I will give it...
Note that he calls Yisra-El Ya'akov, where in the last chapter (v13) he called Ya'akov Yisra-El - this chapter appears to be a continuation of the last, so this is odd.
Is he sending them away because he is so angry that he can't accept their presence at his holy mountain? But if so, why the reward of Kena'an, and not the punishment of wandering for forty years, or being sent back to slavery in Mitsrayim?
And what about the three thousand dead? Are they being buried? And if so, where, in the midst of this wilderness? Are their families mourning them for a week of shiva? Nothing. As though it never happened - or only happened liturgically.
Except that it will happen, but only after the pronouncements of verses 2 and 3.
Note again the use of HE'ELITA (הֶעֱלִיתָ), which is a statement that Mosheh brought the people up from Mitsrayim (Egypt), as opposed to the normal use of HOTSEYTI (הוֹצֵאתִי), which is a statement that YHVH brought them; though actually HE'ELITA was also used in the last chapter (verses 1 and 7 for Mosheh).
33:2 VE SHALACHTI LEPHANEYCHA MAL'ACH VE GERASHTI ET HA KENA'ANI HA EMORI VE HA CHITI VE HA PERIZI HA CHIVI VE HA YEVUSI
וְשָׁלַחְתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ מַלְאָךְ וְגֵרַשְׁתִּי אֶת הַכְּנַעֲנִי הָאֱמֹרִי וְהַחִתִּי וְהַפְּרִזִּי הַחִוִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי
KJ: And I will send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite:
BN: And I will send a messenger ahead of you; and I will drive out the Kena'ani, the Emori, and the Chiti, and the Perizi, the Chivi, and the Yevusi...
MAL'ACHI: We saw that "angel" too in the last chapter; see my note at 32:34.
The grammar and syntax of the following verse, which is a logical continuation from verse 1, suggests that verse 2 may be a late addition; and an erroneous late addition at that. It is also interesting to note the psychological effect of the Vav Consecutive in a verse like this one, for it appears to render the future as the past, and so, other than the opening conjunction, this reads as though the expulsion of these other peoples has already taken place ("and I have driven out...") - and to the Ezraic readers and listeners, of course, it has.
The grammar and syntax of the following verse, which is a logical continuation from verse 1, suggests that verse 2 may be a late addition; and an erroneous late addition at that. It is also interesting to note the psychological effect of the Vav Consecutive in a verse like this one, for it appears to render the future as the past, and so, other than the opening conjunction, this reads as though the expulsion of these other peoples has already taken place ("and I have driven out...") - and to the Ezraic readers and listeners, of course, it has.
33:3 EL ERETS ZAVAT CHALAV U DEVASH KI LO E'ELEH BE KIRBECHA KI AM KESHEH OREPH ATAH PEN ACHELCHA BA DARECH
אֶל אֶרֶץ זָבַת חָלָב וּדְבָשׁ כִּי לֹא אֶעֱלֶה בְּקִרְבְּךָ כִּי עַם קְשֵׁה עֹרֶף אַתָּה פֶּן אֲכֶלְךָ בַּדָּרֶךְ
KJ: Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way.
BN: To a land flowing with milk and honey; for I will not go up among you - for you are a stiff-necked people - lest I consume you along the way."
I'm not sure how enthusiastic I would be to follow a god, and the instructions of a god, who thought so little of me, and who said he wasn't coming with me, even when I have just given up every piece of gold and silver I can find to help make the very Mishkan in which he is going to travel with us, right there in our midst. And yes, he's sending a messenger - some kind of natural signal perhaps, a lunar or solar eclipse such as will take place at Ayalon? but how will that achieve this outcome? - but as "angels" haven't been invented yet, and won't be until the exile in Babylon at the earliest, I'm not sure this is terribly reassuring either. On the other hand, YHVH is the local god of the volcano at Mount Sinai, so I guess I didn't really expect him to leave his habitation anyway; and I would probably be worried if he did, because he is indeed likely to consume me on the way, with molten lava (see my note to Exodus 32:10).
Being the god of Mount Sinai he cannot go physically up with them anyyway; this is just an excuse - or liturgy. In fact, the only thing of him they can take is something symbolic, hence the law travelling in a royal sedan chair forever after, dressed like a king, worshipped like royalty, established as an icon or idol forever after - which is why we had the "domestication" process in the chapters before the Golden Calf. The Law is now god to the Beney Yisra-El, as it will remain for the Jews. In this verse more than any other we find a clue to the origins of Abstract Ethical Monotheism, and it is precisely the god's physical absence, replaced by his metaphorical presence - his localisis - to coin a term, that is its key.
As to the zavat chalav u-devash, are these not the symbols of the moon goddess, the fertility goddess: milk of the cow (Le'ah), or the sheep (Rachel), and honey of the bee (Devorah). Fertility symbols. And precisely what the worshippers should expect, having gone through the purification process of the Golden Calf: the opposite of the threat of total destruction, the reward for absolute purgation of all sin, can only be the restoration of Eden, where Chavah (Eve) has been waiting patiently with her oracular serpent ever since Adam was expelled. And so, again, we have been witnessing liturgy, not history.
Which leaves only one unanswered question: what or who will this MAL'ACH, this "messenger" be? Or did I just answer that, in the way I phrased the last paragraph? The oracular serpent, which Mosheh has held in his hand since he left Midyan in chapter 4 (v2 ff). Nechushtan. About to be raised as Mosheh's banner.
Which leaves only one unanswered question: what or who will this MAL'ACH, this "messenger" be? Or did I just answer that, in the way I phrased the last paragraph? The oracular serpent, which Mosheh has held in his hand since he left Midyan in chapter 4 (v2 ff). Nechushtan. About to be raised as Mosheh's banner.
33:4 VA YISHMA HA AM ET HA DAVAR HA RA HA ZEH VA YIT'ABALU VE LO SHATU ISH EDYO ALAV
וַיִּשְׁמַע הָעָם אֶת הַדָּבָר הָרָע הַזֶּה וַיִּתְאַבָּלוּ וְלֹא שָׁתוּ אִישׁ עֶדְיוֹ עָלָיו
KJ: And when the people heard these evil tidings, they mourned: and no man did put on him his ornaments.
BN: And when the people heard this bad news, they mourned; and no man put on his ornaments.
HA DAVAR HA RA HA ZEH: "Evil tidings" is an enormous over-translation; "bad news" is more accurate. But even then it is still over-statement, and actually rather more good news than bad. Have they not just been told they are to leave Sinai, and go to the promised land, to enjoy the milk and honey themselves, in their own lifetime, rather than the mañana of the one-day Messiah their ancestors were promised. And a "messenger" going ahead, to make sure it all happens according to divine plan. What, next year in Jerusalem, fulfilled? How can that possibly be "bad news", let alone "evil tidings"?
So perhaps it is the disappointment in them, expressed here by YHVH, that has caused them to go into mourning. Or the fact that, despite the Mishkan, despite the Law, the god is not coming with them. But this is still not "evil tidings".
What then? If the "evil" is a reference back to the Golden Calf, we have just been told that YHVH had dealt with that and moved on, so it cannot be that.
Then perhaps the "bad news" was the three thousand dead, not slain by the police squads of 32:35, but - and the word used there was the same YIGOPH that is used for the plagues - by the erupting volcano dumping its lava-cloud upon them. "Bad news" indeed - and all disasters of Nature were regarded as the consequence of sin in those times (and actually, by most religious people, still, today, in ours). So now they put on sack-cloth, remove their jewellery, and do indeed mourn.
So perhaps it is the disappointment in them, expressed here by YHVH, that has caused them to go into mourning. Or the fact that, despite the Mishkan, despite the Law, the god is not coming with them. But this is still not "evil tidings".
What then? If the "evil" is a reference back to the Golden Calf, we have just been told that YHVH had dealt with that and moved on, so it cannot be that.
Then perhaps the "bad news" was the three thousand dead, not slain by the police squads of 32:35, but - and the word used there was the same YIGOPH that is used for the plagues - by the erupting volcano dumping its lava-cloud upon them. "Bad news" indeed - and all disasters of Nature were regarded as the consequence of sin in those times (and actually, by most religious people, still, today, in ours). So now they put on sack-cloth, remove their jewellery, and do indeed mourn.
LO SHATU ISH EDYO: not putting on ornaments is indeed an aspect of mourning, but it is also an aspect of of Yom Kippur; in addition they would have walked barefoot, in order to avoid wearing leather. Odd that this is not mentioned.
33:5 VA YOMER YHVH EL MOSHEH EMOR EL BENEY YISRA-EL ATEM AM KESHEH OREPH REGA ECHAD E'ELEH VE KIRBECHA VE CHILIYTICHA VE ATAH HORED EDYECHA ME ALEYCHA VE ED'AH MAH E'ESEH LACH
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה אֱמֹר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אַתֶּם עַם קְשֵׁה עֹרֶף רֶגַע אֶחָד אֶעֱלֶה בְקִרְבְּךָ וְכִלִּיתִיךָ וְעַתָּה הוֹרֵד עֶדְיְךָ מֵעָלֶיךָ וְאֵדְעָה מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לָּךְ
KJ: For the LORD had said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people: I will come up into the midst of thee in a moment, and consume thee: therefore now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what to do unto thee.
BN: Then YHVH said to Mosheh: "Tell the children of Yisra-El: You are a stiff-necked people; if I go up into your midst even for a moment, I will consume you; therefore now take off your ornaments, that I may know what to do to you."
KESHEH OREPH: O dear, YHVH's having another tantrum. He really must grow up and stop and doing this. (Maybe it's just another eruption of the volcano - though of course that could be the same thing; certainly the language used here makes it both). The verse makes no sense anyway, since they just declared mourning and left off their ornaments in the previous verse, so it really doesn't need him to tell them to (it needs him to tell them to, because all human action must derive from divine instruction). And besides, after making the Golden Calf and giving up sufficient to the craftsmen to make the sanctuary etc, what ornaments did they have left? This must have been one very wealthy gang of ex-slaves when they left Mitsrayim!
This would make much more sense if verse 4 came before verse 5.
And can this really just mean stiff-necked? Too much is being made of it for that. And that a god should admit to getting so out-of-control (is this the origin of ADHD? If we wrote ADHD in Chinese rod-letters or the aboriginal dream-alphabet, would it come out as YHVH?)!
E'ELEH: Interesting that YHVH would go up and not come down. Though in his capacity as the volcano-god, it will eventually be both, and the latter will do the "blotting out" of the "sinners" (last phrase of 32:34).
33:6 VA YITNATSLU VENEY YISRA-EL ET EDYAM ME HAR CHOREV
וַיִּתְנַצְּלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת עֶדְיָם מֵהַר חוֹרֵב
KJ: And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by the mount Horeb.
BN: And the Beney Yisra-El stripped themselves of their ornaments from Mount Chorev onwards.
From Chorev onwards: Chorev, or Sinai? There is a PhD thesis waiting to be written on whether these two were different mountains, or one was the mountain and the other the range, or one was in Midyan and the other somewhere else, of which there appear to be several candidates, or one was the Midyanite and the other the Habiru or Mitsri or Kena'ani name for the same place, or....
And also another, on a very different theme evinced from this same verse. Essay title: "Asceticism as an element of Hebrewism, and the relationship between the Nazir and the Yom Kippur penitent". "Onwards" here should be understood as partof the mourning rites: seven days sitting at the mountain; twenty-three more of Avelut, to mark the full month, which can be undertaken while pilgrimming on; eleven months in total for the jewellery; and then use the twelfth month to begin the return to normal life. Click here.
This seems to be the end of the section, even though nothing in the text marks it as such; but we move on apace to the Ohel Mo'ed, the Tent of Meeting. Did the Redactor have these six verses and needed to include them? They undermine much of what came immediately before, and clarify nothing. A great ritual of law-giving and repentance has taken place at Chorev, but it appears to have no context, or to be an incredibly tiny digest of the previous sixteen chapters.
One more theory. Is it feasible that they made the Golden Calf in order to symbolise the previous sin of letting a foreign god be imposed on them, now symbolically destroying it, literally sacrificing it as a sin-offering, after cleansing and purgation? This would be a logical end to the process. Now the old god is restored (or the new one instituted, whichever way we read the tale) and everything is clean and holy. Getting rid of the jewellery from this point on would then make a little more sense.
And re-affirm the theory of pilgrimage for the purpose of covenant-renewal.
And re-affirm the theory of pilgrimage for the purpose of covenant-renewal.
33:7 U MOSHEH YIKACH ET HA OHEL VE NATAH LO MI CHUTS LA MACHANEH HA RECHEK MIN HA MACHANEH VE KARA LO OHEL MO'ED VE HAYAH KOL MEVAKESH YHVH YETSE EL OHEL MO'ED ASHER MI CHUTS LA MACHANEH
וּמֹשֶׁה יִקַּח אֶת הָאֹהֶל וְנָטָה לוֹ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה הַרְחֵק מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה וְקָרָא לוֹ אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהָיָה כָּל מְבַקֵּשׁ יְהוָה יֵצֵא אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֲשֶׁר מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה
KJ: And Moses took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the congregation. And it came to pass, thatevery one which sought the LORD went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which was without the camp.
BN: Then Mosheh took the tent, and pitched it outside the camp, some way off; and he called it The Tent of Meeting. And it came to pass, that everyone who sought YHVH went out to the Tent of Meeting, which was outside the camp.
YIKACH: Some English translations (Mechon-Mamre, for instance) render this in the imperfect or continuous past, "he used to"; but that would be HU HAYAH LOKE'ACH in today's Ivrit, and is a construction we never see anywhere in the Tanach. That doesn't mean that the translator is wrong; I am simply pointing out the somewhat uniqueness of the instance.
THE TENT OF MEETING: This is reminiscent of the Druze Khalwa (or Kalwa, Kalweh, Kalwat - all dialect variations), and I would happily give a fuller explanation of the Khalwa, but it is impossible to give, because the Druze do not share publicly the details of their faith or its methodologies, and the fact that I was once privileged to attend a Khalwa does not also grant me the privilege of breaching respect for their right to privacy beyond what my Druze friend in Israel, who took me to the Khalwa many years ago, also approved as the text for my novel "A Little Oil & Root":
"In fact, we arrived precisely at that moment when the Kalweh, the weekly council of the Druze elders, was about to take place, the half-dozen local sheikhs dressed formally in their white abas and white-turbaned fezes, some with long faces and noses as heavy and crooked as Smyrna Jews, others broader and shorter, paler-skinned, handsome with solid chins made of unbreakable bone, their hair tinged almost yellow. And beside them the Uqaal, the Knowledgeable Ones, they who alone were initiated into the rites and mysteries of the cult, dressed in Turksh fez and long black aba, for the Uqaal are forbidden to wear gaudy clothes, to smoke or drink. We were sat down in those seats reserved for petitioners and other Ignorant Ones - the uninitiated - sideways on to Ayishah’s brother in his striped aba denoting the fact that he, as village elder, bore the grand title of Ajawid or Righteous One, a term hardly distinguishable from the Hasidic Tzaddik. But we learned nothing, were party to no secrets; only an elderly Uqaal was called upon to read, in stumbling actor’s Hebrew, a lengthy passage from the Hebrew Bible - the custom this among the Druze, to honour the visitor thus, meanwhile postponing real business until after his departure. And afterwards we were entertained by Ayishah’s sister-in-law Fatimah in a small, white room decorated with anchusa, fed markouk bread and lebne and the sweetest imaginable apple jam."
The Khalwa should not be be confused with Khalwat, which is an Islamic law that forbids an unmarried Moslem from being alone with someone of the opposite sex.
MI CHUTS LA MACHANEH: Why outside the camp? What they were seeking from YHVH was not an opportunity for prayer so much as justice, though of course it would likely have included some early form of liturgy. This is the earliest form of the Beit Knesset; both legislature and judiciary back then, mostly the synagogue today.
But to be absolutely clear what this verse is telling us: there was one Tent, in which the Luchot, the "Testimony", the Tablets of the Law, were kept, and into which Mosheh and Aharon would go to meet the deity, who in his domesticated form now lived there rather than on the mountain; but when Mosheh wanted to use the tent for judicial rather than liturgical purposes, when he was dealing with humans rather than the deity, he physically took the Tent to a place outside the camp, and ran his counselling or judicial sessions there. A separation of the sacred and the profane.
One last thought: at the start of the next chapter, YHVH will instruct Mosheh to prepare two tablets, so that he can give him a replacement copy of the laws that he smashed when he saw the Golden Calf, at the end of the last chapter. So, if these chapters are to be taken as historically chronological, he doesn't actually have a set of Tablets in the Ohel or anywhere else at this particular moment, though the text seems to assume that he does.
33:8 VA HAYAH KE TSE'T MOSHEH EL HA OHEL YAKUMU KOL HA AM VE NITSVU ISH PETACH AHALO VE HIBIYTU ACHAREY MOSHEH AD BO'O HA OHELAH
וְהָיָה כְּצֵאת מֹשֶׁה אֶל הָאֹהֶל יָקוּמוּ כָּל הָעָם וְנִצְּבוּ אִישׁ פֶּתַח אָהֳלוֹ וְהִבִּיטוּ אַחֲרֵי מֹשֶׁה עַד בֹּאוֹ הָאֹהֱלָה
KJ: And it came to pass, when Moses went out unto the tabernacle, that all the people rose up, and stood every man at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he was gone into the tabernacle.
BN: And it came to pass, when Mosheh went out to the Tent, that all the people rose up, and stood, every man at his tent door, and looked after Mosheh, until he was gone into the Tent.
Clearly this was a major event in their lives, which either means he didn't do it very often, or he was one of those leaders who expect the full attention of the masses whenever he appears in public. Both even. Are we also (or was he?) forgetting the complex system of delegation that his father-in-law taught him before they ever got to Sinai, with whole hierarchies of subordinates appointed to do the work of the Ohel?
33:9 VE HAYAH KE VO MOSHEH HA OHELAH YERED AMUD HE ANAN VE AMAD PETACH HA OHEL VE DIBER IM MOSHEH
וְהָיָה כְּבֹא מֹשֶׁה הָאֹהֱלָה יֵרֵד עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן וְעָמַד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וְדִבֶּר עִם מֹשֶׁה
KJ: And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the LORD talked with Moses.
BN: And it came to pass, when Mosheh entered the Tent, that the pillar of cloud descended, and stood at the door of the Tent; and [YHVH] spoke with Mosheh.
Chumash translations add YHVH in brackets after VE DIBER, but much more interesting is the fact that it is the pillar of cloud, which YHVH just told Mosheh he was withdrawing and replacing with a "messenger"; or perhaps this is all happening before they pitch camp and move on.
Did Mosheh go to the Tent to communicate with YHVH because the pillar of cloud was descending from the mountain again - OMG, another eruption, prayer-time - or did the pillar of cloud come down mystically to summon Mosheh for confabulation? A matter of faith this. Your call.
If the intention of going outside the camp is to separate the sacred from the profane, and if the deity in his domesticated form is nonetheless present anyway through the Luchot, why can this control maniac not leave the human leader to get on with things, but has to mark his primordial presence as well by descending in a volcanic cloud? Read my story "The Eighth Day", in 'The Captive Bride'.
This picture of the tent suggests a Bedouin equivalent of the oracular cave or shrine; as the mobile ark will do later. Bedouin have to carry their gods with them. Several stories are once again converging in this single exodus myth; in this part we have moved from the Chorev ceremonies to an account of the practices of the Bedou sheikhs. We should also continue to be amazed that close to one and a half million Beney Yisra-El are inhabiting these tents as they swarm as refugees across the desert; whereas a small tribe of Bedou who lived in the desert would have undertaken such a journey regularly and with relative ease. But one and a half million of them, and this verse tells us that all of them stood at their gates (gates? do tents have gates?) to watch the sheikh walk by.
33:10 VE RA'AH CHOL HA AM ET AMUD HE ANAN OMED PETACH HA OHEL VI KAM KOL HA AM VE HISHTACHAVU ISH PETACH AHALO
וְרָאָה כָל הָעָם אֶת עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן עֹמֵד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וְקָם כָּל הָעָם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ אִישׁ פֶּתַח אָהֳלוֹ
KJ: And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every man in his tent door.
BN: And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing by the door of the Tent, all the people got up ,and then prostrated themselves, every man at his tent door.
HISHTACHAVU: "worshipped" is not precise enough; it says "prostrated themselves". If the previous verse is correct, that they all watched every step of the way, and now we hear that they did so while prostrate on the ground, no wonder they were a stiff-necked people!
Or maybe the volcanic cloud was necessary, as a kind of heraldic alarum in smoke-form: the deity acknowledging the arrival of the sheikh, for the benefit of the people. Look, there goes Mosheh. Yes, and look, here comes YHVH to meet-and-greet him. Wow!
33:11 VE DIBER YHVH EL MOSHEH PANIM EL PANIM KA ASHER YEDABER ISH EL RE'EYHU VE SHAV EL HA MACHANEH U MESHARTO YEHOSHU'A BIN NUN NA'AR LO YAMISH LI TOCH HA OHEL
וְדִבֶּר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה פָּנִים אֶל פָּנִים כַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר אִישׁ אֶל רֵעֵהוּ וְשָׁב אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה וּמְשָׁרְתוֹ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן נַעַר לֹא יָמִישׁ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֹהֶל
KJ: And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.
BN: And YHVH spoke to Mosheh face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. And he would return to the camp; but his minister Yehoshu'a bin Nun, a young man, did not leave the Tent.
Sometimes he speaks EL MOSHEH and sometimes IM MOSHEH; this needs explaining. Not by me, because I cannot. But perhaps somebody else.
PANIM-EL-PANIM: this phrase conflicts with other statements describing Mosheh's "meetings" with YHVH; including the verses that are about to follow, in which YHVH makes it absolutely and unequivocally clear that "my face shall not be seen" (verse 23), but allows Mosheh to see his backside through a cleft in the rock, and elsewhere through a black cloud, but with death the consequence if you do see his face. Yet here he sees his face.
MESHARTO: this seems to give Yehoshu'a a very different role from any we have seen previously, or will again, with the exception of his spending the forty days on the mountain while Mosheh received the law. That scene and this paint Yehoshu'a as a kind of boy-equerry, something like the role that David had with King Sha'ul, the valet-in-waiting who, in David's case, polished his armour and played the lute for his headaches and presumably ran errands. And does Yehoshu'a, who continues to occupy the tent during these meetings, also see YHVH face to face, and live?
Why the mention of Yehoshu'a at this moment anyway, and the reference to his youth? Ah, the politics of Redaction (see my note to Exodus 32:17). In compiling a national biography, everyone has to be accommodated. Imagine a biographer doing The Beatles, and the friends and relatives of Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe leaning over the biographer's shoulder, saying, "Hey, those Hamburg scenes, I was there too you know". So the Aharonites get their favourite mentioned from time to time, and the Midyanites get their bits in, and Chur, and of course the followers of Yehoshu'a have to have him mentioned, even though he was probably too young to have any role at all. Notice also the total absence of the Edomites, which is almost bizarre given their pre-eminence in Genesis. Well you weren't there, so you're not getting in our text!
KJ: And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy.
Yet we have just been told (verse 11) that he saw god PANIM EL PANIM. It is as if YHVH is annoyed by Mosheh asking so much, and is taking back some of what he gave before; while Mosheh goes on asking for more.
And how does the deity saying this compare with Pharaoh saying exactly the same thing, at Exodus 10:28?
pey break; end of 2nd fragment
33:12 VA YOMER MOSHEH EL YHVH RE'EH ATAH OMER ELAI HA'AL ET HA AM HA ZEH VE ATAH LO HODA'TANI ET ASHER TISHLACH IMI VE ATAH AMARTA YEDA'TIYCHA VE SHEM VE GAM MATSA'TA CHEN BE EYNAI
וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל יְהוָה רְאֵה אַתָּה אֹמֵר אֵלַי הַעַל אֶת הָעָם הַזֶּה וְאַתָּה לֹא הוֹדַעְתַּנִי אֵת אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁלַח עִמִּי וְאַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ יְדַעְתִּיךָ בְשֵׁם וְגַם מָצָאתָ חֵן בְּעֵינָי
KJ: And Moses said unto the LORD, See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people: and thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me. Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name, and thou hast also found grace in my sight.
BN: And Mosheh said to YHVH: "You see, you tell me, bring up this people, but you haven't let me know who you will send with me. And yet you've said: I know you by name, and you have also found favour in my sight...
I find this verse extraordinary. It reads like the general on the battlefield, utterly and completely fed up with the politicians back home, or the middle-ranking executive grown tired of the schmucks in the corporate office, who keep sending demands and deadlines, but the demands keep changing, and the deadlines keep shifting... but at the same time, even more extraordinary, it is YHVH who has "found favour" in Mosheh's sight, and not the other way around (but see also the next verse).
Overall this reads very differently from the previous conversations. Does panim el panim therefore denote a distinction between vision and prayer? Mosheh as sheikh prostrated before god in the tent of meeting/prayer, racking his empty brain for inspiration? Which is to say:
He has been told to leave his nomad safety in the desert and enter Kena'an - though in fact they won't, for another 38 years! But he doesn't know that. He is scared. He calls on YHVH for help, but in a strong, a demanding, as well as a frustrated voice. Very different from our several previous Moshehs, the stammering visionary of the uncircumcised lips, the mere secretary to the dictator of the laws, the tantrum-calmer, the tantrumer.
33:13 VE ATAH IM NA MATSA'TI CHEN BE EYNEYCHA HODIY'ENI NA ET DERACHECHA VE EDA'ACHA LE'MA'AN EMTSA CHEN BE EYNEYCHA U RE'EH KI AMCHA HA GOY HA ZEH
וְעַתָּה אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ הוֹדִעֵנִי נָא אֶת דְּרָכֶךָ וְאֵדָעֲךָ לְמַעַן אֶמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה כִּי עַמְּךָ הַגּוֹי הַזֶּה
KJ: Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people.
BN: "And now, if I have found favour in your sight, please show me, now, what these 'ways' are, that I may know you, to the end that I may go on finding favour in your sight; and consider that this nation is your people."
Traditionally the OHEL MO'ED has been understood as the Tent of Meeting, with a connotation of a place for assembly, petition, justice, but not for prayer, which generally takes place before the Tent, not inside it. Yet here Mosheh is clearly praying, seeking spiritual guidance. Or is the manner in which he speaks to YHVH always prayer, and never conversation?
33:14 VA YOMAR PANAI YELECHU VA HANICHOTI LACH
וַיֹּאמַר פָּנַי יֵלֵכוּ וַהֲנִחֹתִי לָךְ
KJ: And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest.
BN: And he said: "My presence shall go with you, and I will give you rest."
PANAY: Translated here as "presence" though the word really means "face", and has been used as "face" in several of the previous verses. But "presence" does seem to be the intention here. What does this change in our reading of the rest of the story, and also of Ya'akov at Penu-El? Is this the first hint of what will become, in Rabbinic terms anyway, the Shechinah (the other explanation of Shechinah, in its Kabbalistic and modern feminist reading, can be found here)?
33:15 VA YOMER ELAV IM EYN PANEYCHA HOLCHIM AL TA'ALENU MI ZEH
וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אִם אֵין פָּנֶיךָ הֹלְכִים אַל תַּעֲלֵנוּ מִזֶּה
KJ: And he said unto him, If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence.
BN: And he said to him: "If your presence does not go with me, do not carry us up from here.
We need to find a better translation for this. Basically Mosheh is telling YHVH that he will not lead the people if YHVH is not there to be his leader; all of which is part of the creation of the Mishkan, the sedan chair in which the king is carried among his people. Except that it won't be the king, but only the royal seal, that will be carried in the Mishkan. Which is to say the Tablets of the Law, representing YHVH. Is Mosheh then saying: the Law is not sufficient; like the people, I need some sort of Golden Calf? I need the proof of your presence, something physical, not the abstract metaphysics of instructions. But why does he need it? Not for precisely the same reason as the people: they need it, so that they can believe in YHVH; Mosheh needs it so that the people can believe in Mosheh. The next verse seems to confirm this reading.
There is a spirituality about these verses which simply does not exist in the visionary passages; and a humility about Mosheh which is very different from his earlier self-diminishments and whines.
At the same time, he uses the phrase MOTSE CHEN BE EYNEYCHA so many times, he is clearly in desperate need of validatory approval (modern psychology would probably explain it as a lack of parenting in his childhood).
33:16 U VA MEH YIVADA EPHO KI MATS'ATI CHEN BE EYNEYCHA ANI VE AMECHA HA LO BE LECHTECHA IMANU VE NIPHLIYNU ANI VE AMECHA MI KOL HA AM ASHER AL PENEY HA ADAMAH
וּבַמֶּה יִוָּדַע אֵפוֹא כִּי מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ אֲנִי וְעַמֶּךָ הֲלוֹא בְּלֶכְתְּךָ עִמָּנוּ וְנִפְלִינוּ אֲנִי וְעַמְּךָ מִכָּל הָעָם אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה
KJ: For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth.
BN: "How and where will it be known that I have found favour in your sight, I and your people? Is it not in the fact of your going with us that we will be distinguished, I and your people, from all the other people who inhabit the face of the Earth?"
EPHO: Every translation I have looked at ignores this little word: it means "where", and my sense is that it anticipates a future diaspora, whether negative (exile, conquest, slavery) or positive (travel, trade, expansion): a people, a religious cult, needs a something that can say, anywhere and at any time: this is who I am. So Christians wear crucifixes and Jews wear yarmulkes and... and...national football teams have flags and anthems... and... schools have logos and uniforms.... and... identifiers, proofs of belonging: human necessities, though personally I do not understand why.
Nonetheless, two central concepts of the cult of the Beney Yisra-El are being described here; a) that YHVH is the god of a specific location, who cannot travel with his people, except symbolically: and if that is so, then how can we ever know that he is with us, and pleased or displeased with us, if he is not physically present; from which arises the theosophy of an abstract, invisible, unrepresented deity, worshipped almost as a philosophical idea, a moral absolute, through the Law, metaphysics supplanting mythologics: the "great leap forward" of the human mind - and see also the answer to the Mosaic difficulty with incipiting this in the following verse.
And then b) how important it is that they are different from any other people!
There is something almost plaintiff in Mosheh's voice here; as though only now has he realised that YHVH is not going with them on their journey to the promised land, that he is sending his children out into the world and will never be there again to hold their hand except in spirit, through his laws. It is a truly momentous occasion, and one of great poignancy. One of the central moments in a human life, and echoed here as human history.
And of course it scares Mosheh, because people are used to gods they can carry with them, teraphim they can hide like Rachel under their skirts, or put up as cairn stones in their fields, four hundred years of Egyptian sphinxes and cow-goddesses and, yes, golden calves. How will Mosheh be able to sustain the support of the people, if they cannot see the pillar of cloud and the ikon, if they have to believe in an invisible presence? The history of modern humanity begins here, though alas the evidence of the history of humanity is that men generally seek human gods to fail them, in place of the divine metaphor.
pey break; end of 3rd fragment
33:17 VA YOMER YHVH EL MOSHE GAM ET HA DAVAR HA ZEH ASHER DIBARTA E'ESEH KI MATSA'TA CHEN BE EYNAI VA EDA'ACHA BE SHEM
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה גַּם אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ אֶעֱשֶׂה כִּי מָצָאתָ חֵן בְּעֵינַי וָאֵדָעֲךָ בְּשֵׁם
KJ: And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.
BN: And YHVH said to Mosheh: "I will also do this thing that you have spoken, for you have found favour in my sight, and I know you by name."
What does he actually mean when he says "I know you by name"? That "you and I have a personal relationship"? Surely, by the terms of religious theology anyway, YHVH knows all his people by name, because he determines the fate of each and everyone, down to the smallest detail; and how can he do that, if he doesn't even know their names?
So Mosheh gets what he has been seeking, though it is not obvious what that is: divine approbation, yes ( but alas even this is a most frail thing, as he will discover when he taps the rock at Kadesh-Merivah in Numbers 20. But approbation is right now, and what he has asked for is in the future too; and this is not stated.
33:18 VA YOMER HARENI NA ET KEVODECHA
וַיֹּאמַר הַרְאֵנִי נָא אֶת כְּבֹדֶךָ
KJ: And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
BN: And he said: "Show me, I pray you, your glory."
This idea of god's glory has come up several times; is this, rather than verse 14, an early idea of Shechinah? KAVAD (כבד) properly means "heavy", though it is rarely found with that usage in the Tanach (Job 6:3 is a rare example). Job 14:21, Ezekiel 27:25, Isaiah 66:5 and other references of the same epoch give the "weight" to the respect due to a person or a god, which tells us that the word had come to mean "honour" or "respect", though that is not how it is intended here. Gesenius has a lengthy exposition of the word through the various binyanim, tantamount to an essay in philology on the theme, but my sense is that what he is actually asking for is one last blast of volcanic eruption before they leave, the glorious manifestation of the divine in physical form.
33:19 VA YOMER ANI A'AVIR KOL TUVI AL PANEYCHA VE KARA'TI VE SHEM YHVH LEPHANEYCHA VE CHANOTI ET ASHER ACHON VE RICHAMTI ET ASHER ARACHEM
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲנִי אַעֲבִיר כָּל טוּבִי עַל פָּנֶיךָ וְקָרָאתִי בְשֵׁם יְהוָה לְפָנֶיךָ וְחַנֹּתִי אֶת אֲשֶׁר אָחֹן וְרִחַמְתִּי אֶת אֲשֶׁר אֲרַחֵם
BN: And he said: "I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of YHVH before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy."
KARA'TI VE SHEM YHVH LEPHANEYCHA: YHVH "knows Mosheh by name", in verse 17, and previously in Exodus 3, Mosheh asked if he could know the god by name, and was given YIHEYEH ASHER YIHEYEH: "I am that I am" (Exodus 3:14), though he was also told, in the very next verse, that his name was YHVH, and that " this is my name for ever, and this is how I wish to be remembered by all future generations..." So YHVH knows Mosheh by name, and Mosheh ditto vice versa, but here he is not simply stating it, but "proclaiming" it - than which nothing surely can be more "glorious".
And it too is liturgical, not historical: the phrasing reads like an early version of the Yevarechecha (also known as the priestly blessing, or Birkat ha Kohanim), or even as an alternate version; as does the next verse. But it isn't really what Mosheh is asking for either; indeed, the second part is a complete put-down: don't ask for too much, I'll do what I do when I decide to do it. An extended version of YIHEYEH ASHER YIHEYEH: I am that I am. God as verb, not noun.
And it too is liturgical, not historical: the phrasing reads like an early version of the Yevarechecha (also known as the priestly blessing, or Birkat ha Kohanim), or even as an alternate version; as does the next verse. But it isn't really what Mosheh is asking for either; indeed, the second part is a complete put-down: don't ask for too much, I'll do what I do when I decide to do it. An extended version of YIHEYEH ASHER YIHEYEH: I am that I am. God as verb, not noun.
33:20 VA YOMER LO TUCHAL LIROT ET PANAI KI LO YIRANI HA ADAM VE CHAI
וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא תוּכַל לִרְאֹת אֶת פָּנָי כִּי לֹא יִרְאַנִי הָאָדָם וָחָי
KJ: And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
BN: And he said: "You cannot see my face, for humans shall not see me and live."
Yet we have just been told (verse 11) that he saw god PANIM EL PANIM. It is as if YHVH is annoyed by Mosheh asking so much, and is taking back some of what he gave before; while Mosheh goes on asking for more.
And how does the deity saying this compare with Pharaoh saying exactly the same thing, at Exodus 10:28?
33:21 VA YOMER YHVH HINEH MAKOM ITI VE NITSAVTA AL HA TSUR
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה הִנֵּה מָקוֹם אִתִּי וְנִצַּבְתָּ עַל הַצּוּר
KJ: And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
BN: Then YHVH said: "Look, there is a spot right here beside me, and you shall stand upon the rock....
Are we still at Chorev then? Or at Sinai? It depends which version this is.
33:22 VE HAYAH BA AVOR KEVODI VE SAMTIYCHA BE NIKRAT HA TSUR VA SAKOTI CHAPI ALEYCHA AD AVRI
וְהָיָה בַּעֲבֹר כְּבֹדִי וְשַׂמְתִּיךָ בְּנִקְרַת הַצּוּר וְשַׂכֹּתִי כַפִּי עָלֶיךָ עַד עָבְרִי
KJ: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
BN: And it shall come to pass, when my glory passes by, that I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and cover you with my hand until I have passed by...
This is a very strange ritual, reminiscent of ancient mystery rituals; some kind of hallucinatory practice perhaps.
Note the word AVAR comes up again and again; it might be interesting to run a check on every use of the term, to see how many of these occasions are connected to the word "Hebrew".
33:23 VA HASIROTI ET KAPI VE RA'IYTA ET ACHORAI U PHANAI LO YERA'U
וַהֲסִרֹתִי אֶת כַּפִּי וְרָאִיתָ אֶת אֲחֹרָי וּפָנַי לֹא יֵרָאוּ
KJ: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.
BN: "And I will take away my hand, and you will see my back; but my face shall not be seen."
Again this denotes a change, after seeing his face earlier. To what extent are these verses connected to the ones that follow in chapter 34? Are we dealing with two religious traditions that contradict?
No comments:
Post a Comment