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
THE SONG OF MOSHEH AT YAM SUPH
15:1 AZ YASHIR MOSHEH U VENEY YISRA-EL ET HA SHIYRAH HA ZOT LA YHVH VA YOMRU LEMOR ASHIYRAH LA YHVH KI GA'OH GA'AH SUS VE ROCHVO RAMAH VA YAM
אָז יָשִׁיר מֹשֶׁה וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת לַיהוָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ {ר} לֵאמֹר {ס} אָשִׁירָה לַיהוָה כִּי גָאֹה גָּאָה {ס} סוּס {ר} וְרֹכְבוֹ רָמָה בַיָּם {ס
KJ (King James translation): Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.
BN (BibleNet prose translation): Then Mosheh and the Beney Yisra-El sang this hymn to YHVH, and these are the words:
I will sing to YHVH, for he is splendid and majestic;
the horse
and his rider has he thrown into the sea.
I will sing to YHVH, for he is splendid and majestic;
the horse
and his rider has he thrown into the sea.
Because this is a song in the Yehudit text, I have retained the traditional bracketed letters, which are not the usual pey and samech breaks - and indeed, the scholars are not entirely sure what they are, precisely, and it is entirely possible that they were bar-markings for the musical accompaniment, and not line-divisions at all.
When was the song written? By whom and for what occasion? It would be nice to think that the Beney Yisra-El spontaneously burst into this piece of glorious poetry, but it is too crafted, too technically complex and precise, for that to be feasible. So did it already exist, as part of the Egyptian Passover liturgy that they took with them on their pilgrimage, a Creation or other myth even older than the "history" being narrated? Or was it created at some point later, to be used liturgically for the ceremony which Passover became under the Ezraic transformation? We have no archeological evidence to assist in answering this question, though the reader may form his/her own opinion from the detail of the language.
GA'OH GA'AH: We have to be precise in translating poetry, because poetry is the most precise use of language that humans have yet invented; and this is a song-poem in a scroll whose prose language, as we have already seen repeatedly, is itself incredibly precise. So "exalted" cannot be used, because "exalted" belongs to the Kaddish, "yitgadal" its opening word, and here we have something very different. In the previous chapter YHVH said that he would obtain much "honour" and "glory" from overthrowing the Mitsrim, and mythologically we understood that this was the honour and glory of the sun, when it climbs to the zenith of the sky and obliterates from visibility the other stars and planets, reigning supreme in the cosmos. So "splendour" and "majesty" are my choices, the "splendour" because it captures the Zohar, which is the radiant light of the sun at the high-point of the Yevarechecha; majesty because that is how one addresses an almighty king.
15:2 AZI VE ZIMRAT YAH VA YEHI LI LIYSHU'AH ZEH ELI VE ANVEH'HU ELOHEY AVI VA AROMEMENHU
עָזִּי וְזִמְרָת יָהּ וַיְהִי לִי {ר} לִישׁוּעָה {ס} זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ {ס} אֱלֹהֵי {ר} אָבִי וַאֲרֹמְמֶנְהוּ {ס
KJ: The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father's God, and I will exalt him.
BN: Yah is my strength and song, and she has become my salvation; this is my god, and I will sing praises to her; one of the gods of my forefathers, and I will exalt them.
Yah is my strength and song, and she has become
my salvation;
this is my god, and I will sing praises to her;
one of the gods
of my forefathers,
and I will raise them on high.
YAH: You who have only ever read the Bible in translation, or heard the "Hebrew" in synagogue without following the text with your eyes and paying serious attention, have no idea of this, and have just been taken completely by surprise - though I have been hinting at it, even pointing it out explicitly, for some while. So let us be clear: the opening phrase (and beyond as well perhaps, I will not make assumptions; we will appraise the text verse by verse, phrase by phrase)... the opening phrase is addressed, not to YHVH, the male sun-god, but to his consort Yah, the female moon-goddess, both of them sky-deities of course, but, as in Genesis 1, "one to rule by day and one to rule by night".
And yes, I am fully aware that the verbs and pronouns in the verse are all masculine; this is because Yah was rejected from around Hasmonean times, YHVH now supreme in the pantheon as well as the skies, the autocratic Omnideity who had removed by coup all other members of the pantheon. So we can date this version of the text to not earlier than the 4th century BCE; but the editor has left in the name, and not yet made the further change, in which Yah would become Yahu.
And yes, I am fully aware that the verbs and pronouns in the verse are all masculine; this is because Yah was rejected from around Hasmonean times, YHVH now supreme in the pantheon as well as the skies, the autocratic Omnideity who had removed by coup all other members of the pantheon. So we can date this version of the text to not earlier than the 4th century BCE; but the editor has left in the name, and not yet made the further change, in which Yah would become Yahu.
Later we will hear parts of this sung again by Mir-Yam (Miriam) and the women, and the commentary will repeat a number of the points being made here. Suffice it to say that it is highly unlikely that this was ever a song of Mosheh, but equally likely that it was at some point a song of Mir-Yam before it was attributed to Mosheh by the patriarchal Ezraites who, as above, either expurgated the female deity altogether, or simply reduced her to the Shechinah, that Holy Spirit which has been retained (though also masculinised) in Christianity; in so doing, Mosheh was given the full version, and we will see whether or not the text to follow has been modified to accommodate that expropriation.
All of which is to say that this "Song of the Sea" was equally a priestly and a priestessly contribution to the liturgy. Mir-Yam ("bitter waters") is of course a variant of Mor-Yam, an aquatic (Aphrodite) version of Mor-Yah, who in Egypt was Eshet (Isis), in Babylon Ishtar, among the early Beney Yisra-El Sarai, and then Sarah; but very specifically here the goddess of the bitter waters, or "Bitter Lakes" as they are named on maps. In the Creation "separation" of night and day that we witnessed in the previous chapter, we should read YAH as the night and YHVH as the day, just as we should read HA MAYIM as YHVH's element but HA YAM as Mir-Yam's physical manifestation (see my notes on Lehiyot and Lechiyot at the link to Yah); but unfortunately the Redactor has excised Mir-Yam from the text, making it difficult to do so.
YAH: This the first formal appearance of this name in the Bible (she appears, appended to innumerable people-names, and is apparent inside the expurgations and modifications of many pieces of text). Was YAH always a female deity, absorbed into the cult of the Beney Yisra-El by masculinisation; or was there a point at which YAH was actually conceived as a male god? I ask only because those orthodox Jews who wish to deny the goddess use this speculative hypothesis as one of their arguments against her. The latter is of course entirely plausible (the existence of Heaven, the afterlife, and Intelligent Design, are likewise entirely plausible), as we know that many ancient cults regarded the sun as female and the moon as male, rather than the other way around - the debate over Lavan (ha Lavan, ha Lavanah) also reflects this. It is unlikely in this case.
Note that I have again removed "exalt" from the translation. The root here is RAMAM, which yields the ROMEMU hymn in Psalm 99:5-9.
The verse does not end Hallelu-Yah, presumably because that line was among those expurgated in the patriarchal transformation. But Hallelu-Yah will remain the dominant mode of praise throughout the Psalms.
15:3 YHVH ISH MILCHAMAH YHVH SHEMO
יְהוָה אִישׁ מִלְחָמָה יְהוָה {ר} שְׁמוֹ {ס
KJ: The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
BN: YHVH is a man of war. YHVH is his name.
YHVH is a man of war. YHVH is
his name.
YHVH: Making a clear distinction between Yah in the last verse and YHVH in this one. Yah ruled the night, and it is YHVH's rising to the sky which has obliterated her alongside the stars and planets. So, now, it becomes a hymn to YHVH - or perhaps not YHVH originally. The sun-god, until the Redactor removed him, Hebraised him as well. Probably Ra in the original, if it was Egyptian originally.
Thus, as Yoseph was the Risen Lord in his youthful role (Osher/Osiris), so Mosheh is both the "son" (successor) of the Risen Lord and the Risen Lord in his fullness (Horus); the trinity is completed by YAH (originally Isis), which is why both deities are given a verse of praise, but also very different attributes.
15:4 MARKEVOT PAR'OH VE CHEYLO YARAH VA YAM U MIVCHAR SHALISHAV TUB'U VE YAM SUPH
מַרְכְּבֹת פַּרְעֹה וְחֵילוֹ יָרָה בַיָּם {ס} וּמִבְחַר {ר} שָׁלִשָׁיו טֻבְּעוּ בְיַם סוּף {ס
KJ: Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red Sea.
BN: He has thrown Pharaoh's chariots and his army into the sea, and drowned his chosen thirties in Yam Suph, the Sea of Reeds.
He has thrown Pharaoh's chariots and his army into the sea,
and drowned
his chosen thirties in Yam Suph, the Sea of Reeds.
SHALISHAV: SHELOSHIM, but now with a pronoun suffix, "his thirties"; we saw these as SHALISHIM, alongside the CHAMUSHIM at Exodus 14:7, the division of Pharaoh's armies into battallions of thirties and fifties. I am not clear how King James gets the word to mean "captains", unless as a generic synonym for "troops", but it did the same at 14:7 (Brown-Driver-Briggs have a hypothesis - click here).
15:5 TEHOMOT YECHAS'YUMU YARDU VI METSOLOT KEMO AVEN
תְּהֹמֹת יְכַסְיֻמוּ יָרְדוּ בִמְצוֹלֹת כְּמוֹ {ר} אָבֶן {ס
KJ: The depths have covered them: they sank into the bottom as a stone.
BN: Tiamat has covered them; they went down into the depths like a stone.
Tiamat has covered them; they went down into the depths like...
a stone.
TEHOMOT: which both does and does not mean "deeps"; the repetition of this key word from Genesis 1 informs us yet again that we are unquestionably still in the Creation story and can begin to recognise that Pharaoh and his chariots are an anthropomorphisation of the host of Heaven, the stars in the watery firmament moving in their cycles across the sky, "drowned" in the day-time just as the stars are (we know they are there, but we cannot see them for the intensity of sunlight which "covers" them).
But you need to go back to my notes at Genesis 1 for the full background to TEHOM; and for those who questioned back then the connection of TEHOM with TIAMAT/TAHAMAT, here, right here, is the incontrovertible proof. Now, too, we can begin to see why Mosheh carries a rod/sceptre that is actually a Caduceus Pole, and which can transform itself by magic into a snake; why his military banner will be the serpent Nechushtan. This entire history is a humanisation of a Creation myth; but which and whose? Up until the departure from Mitsrayim it was self-evidently Passover/Pesach, and of course it still is; but each day also requires its hymns to the rebirth of the sun and the renewal of Creation, so we have the two now combined, each with its own specifics and particularities, but also different in many facets from each other.
KEMO AVEN: Many a Leonard Cohen lyric down the years inspired by, owing even more than that, to the Jewish liturgy. Is this perhaps the source of that beautiful ending to the Jesus verse in Suzanne.
15:6 YEMIYNCHA YHVH NE'DARI BA KO'ACH YEMIYNCHA YHVH TIR'ATS OYEV
יְמִינְךָ יְהוָה נֶאְדָּרִי בַּכֹּחַ {ס} יְמִינְךָ {ר} יְהוָה תִּרְעַץ אוֹיֵב {ס
KJ: Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.
BN: Your right hand, YHVH, glorious in power. Your right hand, YHVH, dashes the enemy in pieces.
Your right hand, YHVH, glorious in power.
Your right hand,
YHVH, dashes the enemy in pieces.
Just as the Beney Yisra-El a few verses ago proclaimed their "belief" in YHVH, so do Catholics in their "Apostle's Creed":
"I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, and born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead."
And this is what we are reading here, in one of its earliest forms. How might it have been written?:
"I believe in Ra, the Father Almighty, maker of the Heavens and the Earth. And in Osher [Yoseph/Mosheh], his only [beloved/David] Son, our Lord [ADONAI, 'My Lord', is the normal Jewish pronunciation of YHVH], who was conceived by Ma'at [the Holy Spirit, the RU'ACH ELOHIM], and born of the Virgin Mir-Yam [Maria/Mary/Mor-Yah], suffered under Pharaoh, was sacrificed, died and was buried. He descended into the Tu'at [Underworld; in Judaism She'ol rather than Hell]. On the third day [of darkness, the space between the old and the new moon] he rose again from the dead, now renamed Hor [Yisra-El]. He ascended into the Heavens and sits at the right hand [Bin-Yamin] of the father. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead."
As we have seen, the youngest brother of Yoseph was named Bin-Yamin, which means "the son of the right hand", yet another epithet for Osher-Osiris, as it will be for Jesus later.
So we have a verse of praise for Mother-YAH, followed by one for Father-YHVH, and this third, for the Beloved Son (Yedid-Yah, David's full name, and the birth-name of Shelomoh/Solomon), by whichever of his many names we prefer. "The Lord" would be the simplest, but the Redactor took away that possibility by making the Father "The Lord". The most common name in Kena'an was Adon, which in Greek, via the Phoenician, became Adonis, and which post-Biblical Hebrew has adapted as Adonai.
15:7 U VE ROV GE'ONCHA TAHAROS KAMEYCHA TESHALACH CHARONCHA YOCHLEMO KA KASH
וּבְרֹב גְּאוֹנְךָ תַּהֲרֹס {ר} קָמֶיךָ {ס} תְּשַׁלַּח חֲרֹנְךָ יֹאכְלֵמוֹ כַּקַּשׁ {ס
KJ: And in the greatness of thine excellency thou hast overthrown them that rose up against thee: thou sentest forth thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble.
BN: And in your great splendour you overthrow whatever rises up before you. You send out your rays; it consumes them like stubble.
And in your great splendour you overthrow
whatever rises up before you.
You send out your rays; it consumes them like stubble.
Phrasing that is again reminiscent of the language of the Psalms.
GE'ONCHA: Ge'on gives us yet another synonym, to go with GA'OH GA'AH in verse 1, for "splendour" and "majesty", reflecting the illuminating power of the sun. In the Babylonian Jewish world later on, a Ga'on would be the term used for what in today's New York would be a CHACHAM, or in mediaeval Europe an IL'UI - a boy-wonder of the intellectual world.
CHARONCHA: CHARAH was not the swear-word that it is today: heat, or anything that is burning. So, here, this is the sun putting out its rays, and anything it touches may well get burnt to stubble.
TACHAROS: ruin, devastate, destroy, when used in the context of Nature, "overthrow", when used in the context of politics.
YOCHLEMO KA KASH: The choice of image is surely not chance or coincidence; the stubble is what remains, after the corn has been harvested, and crushed to provide leavened bread; the stubble is then burned to remove the tares and fertilise the spoil for next year's planting. That is in the autumn, Set's time. In the spring the process is reversed; as we witnessed in the preparations for Passover, it is the chamets, the last of last year's corn, which is burned.
And thus we can see, by exploring the text through the Yehudit, that this verse is not a foreshadowing of the Korach mutiny of Numbers 16, nor exultation at the massacre of the Mitsrim, but a description of the paradoxical power of the sun, which brings light and vitamin D and every aspect of creation, but also skin cancer, deserts and fires.
15:8 U VE RU'ACH APEYCHA NE'ERMU MAYIM NITSVU CHEMO NED NOZLIM KAPH'U TEHOMOT BE LEV YAM
וּבְרוּחַ {ר} אַפֶּיךָ נֶעֶרְמוּ מַיִם {ס} נִצְּבוּ כְמוֹ נֵד {ר} נֹזְלִים {ס} קָפְאוּ תְהֹמֹת בְּלֶב יָם {ס
KJ: And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.
BN: So, with a blast of your nostrils, the waters were piled up; the floods stood upright as a heap; the deeps were congealed in the heart of the sea.
So, with a blast
of your nostrils, the waters were piled up;
upright as a heap
stood the flood-waters;
Tiamat withdrew into the heart of the sea.
of your nostrils, the waters were piled up;
upright as a heap
stood the flood-waters;
Tiamat withdrew into the heart of the sea.
This requires a better translation that evinces the symbolisms. RU'ACH APHEYCHA we have seen before; this is not the bull-god breathing fire of wrath, appeasable by the incense of sacrifice; but the storm-god, his cheeks puffed out as he sends the hurricanes and tornados. MAYIM and YAM come together in this verse as well, so all three gods of the Trinity are present, amalgamated by the Redactor into the single One. NE'ERMU MAYIM refers specifically to the waters pouring back over the Mitsrim, but by allusion is again the waters of Creation dividing between the two sides of the RAKIYA first, and then water and dry land. TEHOMOT is allegorically represented by the Mitsri horses and chariots, but actually it is the defeat of the primordial serpent that is being described here, and the verb "congealed" is dead right, even if, which is possible, the choice of it was accidental in the King James translation; but that is precisely what would happen to the sea monster, once spliced by Yam the sea-god in the act of Creation; though actually the root means "to withdraw", which is how I have translated it.
15:9 AMAR OYEV ERDOPH ASIG ACHALEK SHALAL TIMLA'EMO NAPHSHI ARIK CHARBI TORIYSHEMU YADI
אָמַר {ר} אוֹיֵב אֶרְדֹּף אַשִּׂיג {ס} אֲחַלֵּק שָׁלָל תִּמְלָאֵמוֹ {ר} נַפְשִׁי {ס} אָרִיק חַרְבִּי תּוֹרִישֵׁמוֹ יָדִי {ס
KJ: The enemy said, I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; my lust shall be satisfied upon them; I will draw my sword, my hand shall destroy them.
BN: Thus spoke the enemy: "I will pursue, I will overtake,
I will divide the spoil. I will satisfy through them my spirit.
I will draw my sword and destroy them with my hand."
I will divide the spoil. I will satisfy through them my spirit.
I will draw my sword and destroy them with my hand."
Thus spoke
the enemy: I will pursue, I will overtake,
I will divide the spoil; I will satisfy through them
my spirit
I will draw my sword and destroy them with my hand
the enemy: I will pursue, I will overtake,
I will divide the spoil; I will satisfy through them
my spirit
I will draw my sword and destroy them with my hand
If the above is to be taken as a historical narrative, then we have to question some of this verse. What spoil, for example? Did Pharaoh want back the jewellery and raiment which the Mitsrim willingly gave? But that would be Pharaoh regaining the spoil, not YHVH. There is no other spoil, unless human beings. Is Pharaoh really pursuing the Habiru so that he can rape all the women or take them back for his harem? It simply does not fit. But... the historical narrative is here to provide human allegory for the cosmic myth, and also to provide a model so that the divine realm can be mirrored in the human. And so, equally, like the sun-paradox above, and entirely deliberately, it has to be made to fit - by the theologians anyway. For we who prefer the Creational reading, the spoils are obvious: defeat Set, the god of the regenerative Winter, now, in the spring, and you can look forward to a splendid summer, and a rich harvest in the autumn.
15:10 NASHAPHTA VE RUCHACHA KISAMO YAM TSALELU KA OPHERET BE MAYIM ADIYRIM
נָשַׁפְתָּ {ר} בְרוּחֲךָ כִּסָּמוֹ יָם {ס} צָלְלוּ כַּעוֹפֶרֶת בְּמַיִם {ר} אַדִּירִים {ס
KJ: Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them: they sank as lead in the mighty waters.
BN: Yout twilight
and your wind covered them beneath the sea;
they sank like lead into the
mighty waters.
and your wind covered them beneath the sea;
they sank like lead into the
mighty waters.
NASHAPHTA VE RUCHACHA: In a polytheistic world, it takes more than just one deity to bring about Creation; the parallels are self-evident if you go back to Genesis 1.
NASHAPHTA is ambiguous, however. Isaiah 40:24 is the only other place in the Tanach where it is thought to mean "blow", and where that thinking makes sense. Elsewhere the NESHEPH is the twilight - cf Job 24:15, 2 Kings 7:5 and 7, Jeremiah 13:16 et al. There is no indication in any of these references whether the twilight is in the evening or the morning, but in this song it is clearly the morning, that exact point, like midnight of the final day of the year in the plagues version, at which Delilah and Shimshon, so to speak, embrace for the last time, before she retreats to her day-bed, and he sets off for his next Herculean labour.
KISAMU: The same that gave us YECHAS'YUMU at verse 5.
NASHAPHTA is ambiguous, however. Isaiah 40:24 is the only other place in the Tanach where it is thought to mean "blow", and where that thinking makes sense. Elsewhere the NESHEPH is the twilight - cf Job 24:15, 2 Kings 7:5 and 7, Jeremiah 13:16 et al. There is no indication in any of these references whether the twilight is in the evening or the morning, but in this song it is clearly the morning, that exact point, like midnight of the final day of the year in the plagues version, at which Delilah and Shimshon, so to speak, embrace for the last time, before she retreats to her day-bed, and he sets off for his next Herculean labour.
KISAMU: The same that gave us YECHAS'YUMU at verse 5.
TSALELU...ADIYRIM: Difficult to present this in precise parallel, because Yehudot puts the adjective after the verb, but English puts it before, and here the adjective is on a separate line:
they sank like lead into the waters
mighty
they sank like lead into the waters
mighty
would be more precise.
15:11 MI KAMOCHA BA ELIM YHVH MI KAMOCHA NE'DAR BA KODESH NORA TEHILOT OSEH PHEL'E
מִי כָמֹכָה בָּאֵלִם יְהוָה {ס} מִי {ר} כָּמֹכָה נֶאְדָּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ {ס} נוֹרָא תְהִלֹּת עֹשֵׂה {ר} פֶלֶא {ס
KJ: Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?
BN: Who is like you, YHVH, among the gods? Who is like you, glorious in your separateness, inspiring us to praise you for your amazing deeds?
Who is like you, YHVH, among the gods?
Who
is like you, glorious in your separateness,
inspiring us to praise you for your amazing deeds?
One of the great favourites of the modern liturgy, people love to sing it, but no one seems to listen to the words; and it isn't helped by willful mistranslation. "Who is like you among the gods" is a categorical statement that YHVH is not the only god, but only one of many; what mattered in early monotheism was never uniqueness, but might, and primacy. As Wotan and Zeus and Thor and Jupiter ruled their pantheon, so YHVH his. The same will be true when the commandments are given: "you shall have no gods before me" infers "you can have as many after me as you like, but me first".
KE ELIM: the original concept of EL, when Elohim, and also al-Lah, was quite simply the multiple kinetic impulses, dynamic forces, creational and destructional elements, the powers in short, that are the universe. See verse 27 below. I would have liked to translate this as "the powers that constitute the Universe", but alas it wouldn't have fitted on the line.
KODESH: As noted previously, KODESH primarily means "separate"; the concept of being "holy because separate" is secondary. As we are hymning the daily creation and re-creation of the universe, we have to assume the primal form of the word is intended.
And once again the paradoxes, ignored in most translations - or simply the translators are unaware. As Job will complain, the deities are brutal, unfair, bullying, senders of death through war and disease, tolerators of tyranny - but still the deities, and also the bringers of all the joys and splendours. And this, this paradox, which contains Good and Evil rather than separating them, this is the true definition of monotheism, regardless of the number of the gods. The Ugliness is just as Truthful as the Beauty, and we need to know it, whatever Keats pretends.
15:12 NATIYTA YEMIYNCHA TIVLA'EMO ARETS
נָטִיתָ יְמִינְךָ תִּבְלָעֵמוֹ אָרֶץ
KJ: Thou stretchedst out thy right hand, the earth swallowed them.
BN: You stretched out your right hand; the earth will swallow them.
You stretched out your right hand; the earth will swallow them.
You stretched out your right hand; the earth will swallow them.
Once again the right hand; throughout the "historical" narrative, Mosheh acts as YHVH's right hand; indeed, it is precisely with this hand that Mosheh acts. Confirmation of the Osiric nature of Mosheh, and that this was always an Egyptian rite before it became Habiru.
Again this simply does not accord with the supposed "historical" narrative; there it was the sea, not the earth, which swallowed them. Remember that in the pre-Christian world the "serpents of the Underworld" were simply "the worms of the undersoil", enlarged into monsters and dragons to give them cosmic significance. Being swallowed into the Underworld, as the sun is every night, as the earth is every winter, as the moon is at the end of every month, is to enter the placefrom which "resurrection" is made possible: biodegrade into organic matter, and then provide the compost for the next cycle of growth.
And which tense: past or future? The first verb is in the past, the second uses the future. If you wish to convey the eternality and endless repetition of this re-Creation, you need both.
15:13 NACHIYTA VE CHASDECHA AM ZU GA'ALTA NEHALTA BE AZCHA EL NEVEH KADSHECHA
נָחִיתָ {ר} בְחַסְדְּךָ עַם זוּ גָּאָלְתָּ {ס} נֵהַלְתָּ בְעָזְּךָ אֶל נְוֵה {ר} קָדְשֶׁךָ {ס
KJ: Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed: thou hast guided them in thy strength unto thy holy habitation.
BN: You in your compassion led this people who you have redeemed; you guided them in your strength to your holy habitation.
You led
in your compassion this people who you redeemed;
you guided them in your strength
to your holy habitation.
AM ZU: rather than AM ZEH; so much of the language of this piece is "high poetic"; but from what date?
GA'ALTA: For the concept of the Go'el, click here.
NEVEH KADSHECHA: Which "holy habitation"? If Mosheh is really singing the song here, and now, in the Sinai desert, beside the Red Sea, then it cannot mean the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im - and what other "holy habitation" is there, as the Mishkan has not been created yet either? Of course, if they were not "historically" singing it here and now, then it could be either. If it is here and now, then the holy place must be where they stopped last night, before crossing, which confirms the commentary on Piy Ha Chiyrot and Ba'al Tsephon (see notes to Exodus 14:1). Yet it is odd that the word used here should be NEVEH, rather than BAYIT, which is the normal choice, and not only because it makes an aural pun with Nevo (נבו), Mosheh's final habitation on Mount Nebo, but also because a NEVEH isn't really a "habitation" at all, but a pasture for the flocks, or a place where humans sit down for a while and rest - much more a park bench than a "habitation". This commentary will be endorsed by the statement in verse 17, where the Mikdash can only mean the Temple - and thereby confirms also that this hymn cannot have been written (in the form that we have it here) earlier than the 10th century, three hundred years after the latest possible date for Mosheh.
As with verse 10, the adjective following the noun makes translation problematic: the second part of this should really read:
you guided them in your strength to habitation
As with verse 10, the adjective following the noun makes translation problematic: the second part of this should really read:
you guided them in your strength to habitation
your holy
which really doesn't work very well in English!
15:14 SHAM'U AMIM YIRGAZUN CHIL ACHAZ YOSHVEY PELASHET
15:14 SHAM'U AMIM YIRGAZUN CHIL ACHAZ YOSHVEY PELASHET
שָׁמְעוּ עַמִּים יִרְגָּזוּן {ס} חִיל {ר} אָחַז יֹשְׁבֵי פְּלָשֶׁת {ס
KJ: The people shall hear, and be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina.
BN: The trembling nations heard; terror seized the inhabitants of Pelashet.
The trembling nations heard and trembled;
terror
seized the inhabitants of Pelashet.
YIRGAZUN: There is no conjunction here; this is a gerund, not a verb
CHIL ACHAZ: I am not sure where KJ gets "sorrow" from. CHIL is "power" and "strength", and yields the word for both "army" and an individual "soldier", which is CHAYAL. From this, rather more abstractly, the concept of "strength of character", so that Ruth 3:11 has ESHET CHAYIL as "a virtuous woman", and 1 Kings 1:52 has BEN CHAYIL as "an honest man". The word is being used here exactly as we use the word "terror" today - the power of the IRA bombers or the Hamas rocket-firers to instil "terror" in the threatened people. But surely it would not be the case if Mosheh and his people had done as they were told in Exodus 13:17, and gone by way of the Red Sea rather than along the coast through Pelashet... but wait a moment, they have done that, we are at the Red Sea, hundreds of miles from Pelashet... no, you are right, not in the Ach-Mousa version we aren't; he went along the Mediterranean coast, driving Pharaoh and the Hyksos before him, then north along the Gaza Strip into Kena'an; no wonder the Pelishtim (not that there were any Pelishtim at that time, but whoever was living in whatever they called that region) were scared stiff.
15:15 AZ NIVHALU ALUPHEY EDOM EYLEY MO-AV YOCHAZEMO RA'AD NAMOGU KOL YOSHVEY KENA'AN
אָז נִבְהֲלוּ אַלּוּפֵי {ר} אֱדוֹם {ס} אֵילֵי מוֹאָב יֹאחֲזֵמוֹ רָעַד {ס} נָמֹגוּ {ר} כֹּל יֹשְׁבֵי כְנָעַן {ס
KJ: Then the dukes of Edom shall be amazed; the mighty men of Moab, trembling shall take hold upon them; all the inhabitants of Canaan shall melt away.
BN: Then the clan-chiefs of Edom were terrified; the mighty men of Mo-Av, were seized with trembling; all the inhabitants of Kena'an melted away.
Then were dismayed the clan-chiefs
of Edom;
the rulers of Mo-Av were seized with trembling;
melted away
all the inhabitants of Kena'an.
On this occasion I have laid out the verse literally, rather than reorganising and explaining.
Edom and Mo-Av lie to the south-east and east of the Dead Sea and the river Yarden (Jordan), north of Midyan, and it is somewhat odd that they get mentioned, but not Midyan, given that Mosheh is supposedly crossing the Red Sea in precisely the direction of Midyan, and he has family there so is highly likely to have been heading that way. Edom and Mo-Av would be concerned by a major military manoeuvre further north, coming through the Wilderness of Shur or along the coast. But, confirming the later date of this piece, we will see, at the other end of the forty-year journey, that they were right to be scared - but by then the Beney Yisra-El will be two generations of preparation further on, and a military escapade into Kena'an was indeed planned; today they are a rag-tag-and-bobtail of ex-slave pilgrims, driving their own sheep and cattle, not other people's civilians.
RA'AD: Is actually the verb used in Yehudit for earthquakes and volcanic eruptions (Psalm 104:32). Pure coincidence, I have no doubt (I mean that sincerely - I do not for a minute imagine that the writers of this hymn had the remotest notion that the pillar of fire was a volcano or the opening of the earth that took Pharaoh's chariots now, and Korach's rebels later, were volcano-linked earthquakes).
of Edom;
the rulers of Mo-Av were seized with trembling;
melted away
all the inhabitants of Kena'an.
On this occasion I have laid out the verse literally, rather than reorganising and explaining.
Edom and Mo-Av lie to the south-east and east of the Dead Sea and the river Yarden (Jordan), north of Midyan, and it is somewhat odd that they get mentioned, but not Midyan, given that Mosheh is supposedly crossing the Red Sea in precisely the direction of Midyan, and he has family there so is highly likely to have been heading that way. Edom and Mo-Av would be concerned by a major military manoeuvre further north, coming through the Wilderness of Shur or along the coast. But, confirming the later date of this piece, we will see, at the other end of the forty-year journey, that they were right to be scared - but by then the Beney Yisra-El will be two generations of preparation further on, and a military escapade into Kena'an was indeed planned; today they are a rag-tag-and-bobtail of ex-slave pilgrims, driving their own sheep and cattle, not other people's civilians.
RA'AD: Is actually the verb used in Yehudit for earthquakes and volcanic eruptions (Psalm 104:32). Pure coincidence, I have no doubt (I mean that sincerely - I do not for a minute imagine that the writers of this hymn had the remotest notion that the pillar of fire was a volcano or the opening of the earth that took Pharaoh's chariots now, and Korach's rebels later, were volcano-linked earthquakes).
15:16 TIPOL ALEYHEM EYMATAH VA PHACHAD BIGDOL ZERO'ACHA YIDMU KA AVEN AD YA'AVOR AMCHA YHVH AD YA'AVOR AM ZU KANIYTA
תִּפֹּל עֲלֵיהֶם אֵימָתָה {ר} וָפַחַד {ס} בִּגְדֹל זְרוֹעֲךָ יִדְּמוּ כָּאָבֶן {ס} עַד {ר} יַעֲבֹר עַמְּךָ יְהוָה {ס} עַד יַעֲבֹר עַם זוּ {ר} קָנִיתָ {ס
KJ: Fear and dread shall fall upon them; by the greatness of thine arm they shall be as still as a stone; till thy people pass over, O LORD, till the people pass over, which thou hast purchased.
BN: Terror will fall upon them, and dread; through the power of your arm they will become as still as a stone; until your people pass over, YHVH, until this people passes over whom you have obtained.
Terror will fall upon them,
and dread;
through the power of your arm they will become as still as a stone;
until
your people pass over, YHVH,
until this people passes over
whom you have acquired.
and dread;
through the power of your arm they will become as still as a stone;
until
your people pass over, YHVH,
until this people passes over
whom you have acquired.
TIPOL: KJ and others have translated several of the previous verses in the future tense, but actually the change from past to future only happens now; and it is by no means obvious why!
EYMATAH VA PHACHAD: YIRGAZUN and CHIL in verse 14, NIVHALU and RA'AD in verse 15, EYMATAH and PHACHAD now. The invention of the Thesaurus, circa 1300 BCE!
EYMATAH VA PHACHAD: YIRGAZUN and CHIL in verse 14, NIVHALU and RA'AD in verse 15, EYMATAH and PHACHAD now. The invention of the Thesaurus, circa 1300 BCE!
ZERO'ACHA YIDMU: What is the difference between ZERO'ACHA and YAD? The former appears to be the forearm, the boxer's muscle, where the YAD is the hand. But is ZERO'ACHA to be understood as "arm" at all. Psalm 97:11 speaks of OR ZERU'A, the latter word taken from the same root, and speaking of "the light that shines for the righteous", which seems to me much more likely in this hymn to the sun-god. I am also concerned that BIGDOL ZERO'ACHA would be more grammatically correct as BE GODEL ZERO'ACHA if the King James translation is correct, whereas the text as it stands works for "in your great light". (See my similar observation at Exodus 6:6)
EVEN: The same stone that sank to the bottom of the sea in verse 5? Surely not!
EVEN: The same stone that sank to the bottom of the sea in verse 5? Surely not!
KANIYTA: As with Chavah's statement when she names her first-born Kayin (Cain) in Genesis 4:1, the verb means "to obtain", though whether money is involved, as in the King James version, is questionable.
15:17 TEVI'EMO VE TITA'EMO BE HAR NACHALAT'CHA MACHON LE SHIVTECHA PA'ALTA YHVH MIKDASH ADONAI KONENU YADEYCHA
תְּבִאֵמוֹ וְתִטָּעֵמוֹ בְּהַר נַחֲלָתְךָ {ס} מָכוֹן {ר} לְשִׁבְתְּךָ פָּעַלְתָּ יְהוָה {ס} מִקְּדָשׁ אֲדֹנָי כּוֹנְנוּ {ר} יָדֶיךָ {ס
KJ: Thou shalt bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance, in the place, O LORD, which thou hast made for thee to dwell in, in the Sanctuary, O Lord, which thy hands have established.
BN: You will bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of your inheritance, the place, YHVH, which you have made for yourself to dwell in, the sanctuary, my Lord, established by your own hands.
You will bring them in, and plant them in the mountain of your inheritance,
the place,
which you have made for yourself to dwell in, YHVH,
the sanctuary, my Lord, established
by your own hands.
the place,
which you have made for yourself to dwell in, YHVH,
the sanctuary, my Lord, established
by your own hands.
BE HAR NACHALATCHA: Nothing in Torah determines Yeru-Shala'im as the location for YHVH's Mishkan to find its permanent home; that was done by historical circumstance later on. It is quite clear that a holy mountain is being described here, and it may very well be Yeru-Shala'im that the author intended, and the congregation understood - but only if this was written at the time of King Shelomoh, or later.
MACHON: And the choice of MACHON does seem to infer the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im, because MAKOM is the common word for "place", but MACHON is used, very specifically, at 1 Kings 8:13, 39, 43, though Psalm 33:1, and the very much later 2 Chronicles 6:33, have both moved that dwelling-place into the Heavens.
15:18 YHVH YIMLOCH LE'OLAM VA'ED
יְהוָה יִמְלֹךְ לְעֹלָם וָעֶד
KJ: The LORD shall reign for ever and ever.
BN: YHVH shall reign for ever and ever.
YHVH shall reign for ever and ever.
Elsewhere in the liturgy (the Yehi Chavod prayer in the morning service to be precise - see "A Myrtle Among Reeds" page 137 - but also, repeated thrice indeed, on Yom Kippur - see "Day of Atonement" page 19) this verse is given in a fuller phrasing as "YHVH MELECH, YHVH MALACH, YHVH YIMLOCH LE'OLAM VA'ED", all of which appears to identify the deity with MOLOCH, as did the cremation ceremonies described above; and not surprisingly, as Moloch was the principal deity of Shalem before David conquered the city, and overthrow it, bulding his and YHVH's palaces right where the Tsi'un, the sacrificial crematorium in the shape of a bull-monster had previously stood. Indeed, it may even be worth considering the possibility that this hymn originally belonged to Moloch before it was transformed into a Mosaic Psalm.
15:19 KI VA SUS PAR'OH BE RICHBO U VE PHARASHAV BA YAM VA YASHEV YHVH AL'EHEM ET MEY HA YAM U VENEY YISRA-EL HALCHU VA YABASHAH BETOCH HA YAM
כִּי {ר} בָא סוּס פַּרְעֹה בְּרִכְבּוֹ וּבְפָרָשָׁיו בַּיָּם {ס} וַיָּשֶׁב יְהוָה עֲלֵהֶם {ר} אֶת מֵי הַיָּם {ס} וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הָלְכוּ בַיַּבָּשָׁה בְּתוֹךְ הַיָּם {ר} {ש
KJ: For the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea, and the LORD brought again the waters of the sea upon them; but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea.
BN: For on horseback, with Pharaoh in his chariot, did his cavalry ride into the sea, and YHVH turned back upon them the waters of the sea; and the Beney Yisra-El walked on dry land in the midst of the sea.
For
on horseback, with Pharaoh in his chariot,
did his cavalry ride into the sea,
and YHVH turned back upon them
the waters of the sea;
and the Beney Yisra-El walked on dry land in the midst of the sea.
This too becomes another of the paradoxes - I have noted previously that many early Midrashim focused on this: the greatness of YHVH in saving those few survivors of the plane crash; the inexplicable random cruelty of YHVH, likewise responsible for the deaths of all the other passengers. Or were they so good he was taking them early into Paradise, and the many dead were the sinners, left to complete their sentences on Earth? Paradoxes. Thank God I am not a theologian! Thank all the gods that I am an atheist!
The traditional text has a Sheen break, though most Jewish translations read this as a Pey break (here, for example), probably because they have no more idea than I do what a Sheen break was for (probably a part of the musical score, like the Reysh break).
15:20 VA TIKACH MIR-YAM HA NEVIY'AH ACHOT AHARON ET HA TOPH BE YADAH VA TETSE'NA CHOL HA NASHIM ACHAREYHA BE TUPIM U VIMCHOLOT.
וַתִּקַּח מִרְיָם הַנְּבִיאָה אֲחוֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת הַתֹּף בְּיָדָהּ וַתֵּצֶאןָ כָל הַנָּשִׁים אַחֲרֶיהָ בְּתֻפִּים וּבִמְחֹלֹת
KJ: And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
BN (traditional translation): And Mir-Yam the prophetess, the sister of Aharon, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with drums and harps.
HA NEVIYAH: since when was Mir-Yam (Miriam) a Prophetess? This is the first we have heard of her since she followed baby Mosheh in his basket and persuaded Pharaoh's daughter that she could find a wet-nurse. Mosheh and Aharon became Prophets in the meanwhile, and now, it transpires, so did she. In fact, the Prophetess role, like those of Mosheh and Aharon, is still primitive shaman, mingling elements of priesthood with prophetcy. As demonstrated previously, Mir-Yam is either the goddess herself (Aharon as Hor, Mosheh as Osher/Osiris, Mir-Yam as Eshet/Isis), or at the very least her High Priestess - other episodes later will confirm this; especially the whiteness of her "leprosy".
ACHOT AHARON: Nor am I convinced that this means "the sister of Aharon". Firstly because - was she not also the sister of Mosheh, and that behoves mentioning too? Elsewhere in the texts, when we are introduced to the choir and orchestra and dancers of the Temple, the male section will be referred to as BENEY, the same word that is used for "sons", and also for members of clans, tribes, nations, even craft-guilds. Plus, most importantly here, this is ACHOT, which is plural: I am going to suggest that "Sisters of Aharon" goes alongside "Sisters of Mercy" or "Sisters of St Ursula" in the Christian world, and tells us that these were sacred singers, trained for liturgy, and that it was they, not Mosheh, who sang this song to the Mother-Goddess, by her name among the Bitter Waters, Mir-Yam.
TUPIM: One of the standard orchestral instruments (click here) known to have accompanied the Psalms, especially the Hallel Psalms for pilgrimage to the Temple at the three major festivals, the same festivals that we are witnessing in these tales: Passover, Shavu'ot and Sukot. The TOPH was rather more tom-tom drum than tambourine.
U VIMCHOLOT: Alongside the Toph in the catalogue of Biblical instruments was the MACHALOT, which was a type of harp - for a full explanation of this latter, click here. But the text here gives UVIMCHOLOT, U meaning "and", VI providing the preposition "with", and then what could be the noun MACHOLOT or the verb MECHOLOT, the latter being "dancing" - at least, according to the standard translations of Exodus 32:19, Judges 11:34 and 21:21 et al. The problem here is twofold. First, we are discombobulated by the grammatical requirement to place a sheva under the Mem (מ), regardless of what the pronunciation might suggest: BE MECHOLOT and/or BE MACHALOT both become VIMCHOLOT. Secondly, the nature of the performance, in which the women do indeed dance, while shaking and tapping their tambourines, or beating their drums, or plucking their hand-held harps in the manner of a modern accoustic guitarist, some perhaps more static at the end of the line.
MOSHEH's version appears to have been unaccompanied, and we have to assume that he isn't just entertaining the crowds at the campfire, but leading liturgy, and that services of worship of this kind would have been the norm along the road of pilgrimage. Even though the text only gives Mir-Yam a brief reprise, we also have to assume that she, with her choir and orchestra and ballet company, did indeed perform the entire song. And if so, then we can probably solve the twofold problem by reckoning that the word here is indeed MACHOLOT, but that it was an instrument to accompany dancing, and therefore dancing would have been implicit, indeed may well have predominated; but the word refers to the instrument, not the choreography.
BN (preferred translation): Then Mir-Yam the Prophetess gathered up the Sisters of Aharon, each with a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went along with her to beat their drums and pluck their harps.
U VIMCHOLOT: Alongside the Toph in the catalogue of Biblical instruments was the MACHALOT, which was a type of harp - for a full explanation of this latter, click here. But the text here gives UVIMCHOLOT, U meaning "and", VI providing the preposition "with", and then what could be the noun MACHOLOT or the verb MECHOLOT, the latter being "dancing" - at least, according to the standard translations of Exodus 32:19, Judges 11:34 and 21:21 et al. The problem here is twofold. First, we are discombobulated by the grammatical requirement to place a sheva under the Mem (מ), regardless of what the pronunciation might suggest: BE MECHOLOT and/or BE MACHALOT both become VIMCHOLOT. Secondly, the nature of the performance, in which the women do indeed dance, while shaking and tapping their tambourines, or beating their drums, or plucking their hand-held harps in the manner of a modern accoustic guitarist, some perhaps more static at the end of the line.
MOSHEH's version appears to have been unaccompanied, and we have to assume that he isn't just entertaining the crowds at the campfire, but leading liturgy, and that services of worship of this kind would have been the norm along the road of pilgrimage. Even though the text only gives Mir-Yam a brief reprise, we also have to assume that she, with her choir and orchestra and ballet company, did indeed perform the entire song. And if so, then we can probably solve the twofold problem by reckoning that the word here is indeed MACHOLOT, but that it was an instrument to accompany dancing, and therefore dancing would have been implicit, indeed may well have predominated; but the word refers to the instrument, not the choreography.
BN (preferred translation): Then Mir-Yam the Prophetess gathered up the Sisters of Aharon, each with a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went along with her to beat their drums and pluck their harps.
15:21 VA TA'AN LAHEM MIRYAM SHIYRU LA YHVH KI GA'OH GA'AH SUS VE ROCHVO RAMAH VA YAM
וַתַּעַן לָהֶם מִרְיָם שִׁירוּ לַיהוָה כִּי גָאֹה גָּאָה סוּס וְרֹכְבוֹ רָמָה בַיָּם
KJ: And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.
BN: And Mir-Yam sang to them: "Sing to YHVH, for he is highly exalted: the horse and his rider has he thrown into the sea."
TA'AN: Why is this translated as "Mir-Yam sang to them" when surely it says "Mir-Yam answered them"? It seems to infer a missing verse, or possibly more. The answer lies in the root ANAH, which means "to lift up the voice", and can therefore just as easily be answering as singing - and in this case is probably both, because liturgical singing is very often responsive. Probably Mosheh sang this, acapella, as primary liturgy, and then the Sisters of Aharon came out, with their artistic director Mir-Yam, and gave the full performance of the song, responding to the acapella liturgy with full instrumental and dance accompaniment.
Mosheh's version began: "ASHIYRAH LA YHVH KI GA'OH GA'AH. SUS VE ROCHVO RAMAH VA YAM", the difference being in the first word: "I will sing" from Mosheh, an invitation to the women to sing in Mir-Yam's. As to the rest of the song, it is not given because it doesn't need to be; the words are identical.
Mosheh's version began: "ASHIYRAH LA YHVH KI GA'OH GA'AH. SUS VE ROCHVO RAMAH VA YAM", the difference being in the first word: "I will sing" from Mosheh, an invitation to the women to sing in Mir-Yam's. As to the rest of the song, it is not given because it doesn't need to be; the words are identical.
samech break
15:22 VA YASA MOSHEH ET YISRA-EL MI YAM SUPH VE YETS'U EL MIDBAR SHUR VA YELCHU SHELOSHET YAMIM BA MIDBAR VE LO MATSU MAYIM
וַיַּסַּע מֹשֶׁה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיַּם סוּף וַיֵּצְאוּ אֶל מִדְבַּר שׁוּר וַיֵּלְכוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים בַּמִּדְבָּר וְלֹא מָצְאוּ מָיִם
KJ: So Moses brought Israel from the Red sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water.
BN: So Mosheh led Yisra-El onward from the Sea of Reeds, and they went out into the desert of Shur; and they went three days in the desert, and found no water.
YAM SUPH: The map at verse 15 shows that we are still in northern Goshen, near the Mediterranean, and nowhere near the Red Sea. If they had crossed the Red Sea, they would be entering the Wilderness of Sin, not Shur. Sin, which is the most southern part of the desert, is the source of the name Sinai.
Normally, as explained previously, "three days" has mythological inferences, but on this occasion it can be taken literally; three days in that desert would be more than sufficient to create a water shortage, even if the numbers were not as large as will be given.
15:23 VA YAVO'U MARATAH VE LO YACHLU LISHTOT MAYIM MI MARAH KI MARIM HEM AL KEN KAR'A SHEMAH MARAH
וַיָּבֹאוּ מָרָתָה וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לִשְׁתֹּת מַיִם מִמָּרָה כִּי מָרִים הֵם עַל כֵּן קָרָא שְׁמָהּ מָרָה
KJ: And when they came to Marah, they could not drink of the waters of Marah, for they were bitter: therefore the name of it was called Marah.
BN: And when they reached Marah, they could not drink the waters of Marah, for they were bitter. That is why the place is named Marah.
MARAH: logic says this would be the Great Bitter Lake, as it has long been known (though it wasn't quite so large until they built the Suez Canal!). To get here from Sukot (see the map at verse 15) they would have travelled due east; having gone north-east to begin with, this has required a journey south, and yes, it takes about three days, on foot. Al-Buhayrah al-Murra al-Kubra in the Egyptian, it is fed by the waters of the Mediterranean, and is very salty; indeed the whole plain around it is salt. Nowhere near the Red Sea though!
Several "bitterness" references occur in this text. The bitter herbs, which are simply green vegetables dipped in salt water, at the Passover meal; the symbolic egg, which was also dipped in salt water (though today the Rabbis say this is to remember the suffering in Egypt); Mir-Yam's own name, which means "the bitter sea". What seems clear is that the Prophetess Mir-Yam (Mar-Yam?) was not a sister of Mosheh or Aharon, except in the sense of a fellow shrine-priestess of the goddess who was held responsible for the two Bitter Lakes, and presumed to rule over them, and the eating of the bitter herbs was an act of propitiation in advance of crossing her salty marshes, which did not need a formal miracle, but was considered sufficiently difficult that you needed to ask permission of the goddess first. En route to the holy mountain for the completion of the Passover celebrations, the pilgrims are shrine-hopping; after Piy Ha Chiyrot and Ba'al Tsephon, the next stop is Mar-Yam's shrine, and it is there that they sing a Psalm in worship of her. We can now deduce from the words of that Psalm what the "historical" narrative of the parting of the Red Sea really was: an aetiological description of the creation of the Bitter Lakes, with the chariots and horsemen a rather clichéed metaphor for the waves breaking at high tide. At the same time, some oracle is contained within the text, because that is what Prophetesses deliver when asked to predict the future; and we are told that Mir-Yam answered with this song. What question? "We are heading off towards Kena'an and we travel unarmed. What are our chances?" And the answer? See the poem above and work it out for yourself!
MARIM: How does this write down adjacent to the name Mir-Yam in Yehudit?Without pointing, both would be מרים.
15:24 VA YILONU HA AM AL MOSHEH LEMOR MAH NISHTEH
וַיִּלֹּנוּ הָעָם עַל מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר מַה נִּשְׁתֶּה
KJ: And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink?
BN: And the people murmured against Mosheh, saying: "What shall we drink?"
YILONU: The root is LUN, which means "to spend the night"; how do we get from this to "moaning", "grumbling" or even "protesting"? Not a clue, but it will occur again and again throughout the tale: 16:2 and 7, 17:3, 23:18... no, wait, 23:18 does mean "to spend the night", and 34:25 uses it that way too, and Leviticus 19:13... but then it's "grumbling" again at Numbers 14:2 and 27. I could list many more, of both. And no question they come from the same root. Gesenius has a very detailed exposition which is worth exploring; his conclusion seems to be that the meaning is "night", but that it becomes "grumble" in the Niphal - you can find it for yourself here. I tend to a more cultural hypothesis, thinking of words like "boycott", which start with a person who became famous for doing something, and got turned into a verb; in one of my historical novels I have a man gloucestered - his eyes torn out. I wonder if there wasn't once a man named LUN, or Ben Lun, who became famous for grumbling.
AL MOSHEH: I am also far from convinced that they complained "against" Mosheh; I think, rather, that they took their complaint "to him", because he is their spokesperson to the ruling deity. Mosheh then acts as "messenger", in the next verse.
AL MOSHEH: I am also far from convinced that they complained "against" Mosheh; I think, rather, that they took their complaint "to him", because he is their spokesperson to the ruling deity. Mosheh then acts as "messenger", in the next verse.
15:25 VA YITS'AK EL YHVH VA YOR'EHU YHVH ETS VA YASHLECH EL HA MAYIM VA YIMTEKU HA MAYIM SHAM SAM LO CHOK U MISHPAT VE SHAM NISAHU
וַיִּצְעַק אֶל יְהוָה וַיּוֹרֵהוּ יְהוָה עֵץ וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ אֶל הַמַּיִם וַיִּמְתְּקוּ הַמָּיִם שָׁם שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט וְשָׁם נִסָּהוּ
KJ: And he cried unto the LORD; and the LORD shewed him a tree, which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet: there he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them,
BN: And he called to YHVH, and YHVH showed him a tree, and he threw it into the water, and the water became sweet. And he established from this a statute and an ordinance, and he implemented them.
VA YITSAK: Generally translated as "cried out to", but I have rendered it as "called to"; most likely both are wrong, and this really should be "he prayed to", but the understanding of the Redactor was that prayer, at least in the form that he and we knew it, had not yet come into being.
From a historical point of view, Mosheh would have had no priestly authority at one of Mir-Yam's shrines. It is she - the priestess/prophetess - who would have offered up the prayer, she who would have had the knowledge of the region and could point them to sweet water, she who was authorised to carry out the water-ceremony, she who would have explained what isn't really a "statute" or an "ordinance", as we shall see in the next verse, but simply a prayer to sustain the Beney Yisra-El against sickness, and a set of instructions relating to hygiene. Because what sickness? You try taking a million and a half people on foot across the desert, without digging latrines, and tell me what disease is the most likely: cholera, typhoid, mere diarrhoea... and if they used the lake itself as a latrine, then what would they drink?
It might be of interest to note in this regard that the very first blessing in the Jewish siddur (not including the saying of the Shema, which a Jew is supposed to do as the very first words that issue from his lips), after putting on the tsitsit but before laying tefillin), goes like this:
Baruch atah Adonai eloheynu melech ha-olam asher yatsar et ha-adam be-chachma u-vara vo nekavim nekavim chalulim chalulim. Galu’i ve-yadu’a liphney chiseh chevodecha she-im yipateyach echad me-hem o-yisater echad me-hem, i-ephshar lehitkayam ve-la’amod lephaneycha. Baruch atah Adonai rophe chol bassar u-maphli la’asot.
Which translates into English as:
Blessed are you, O Lord Our God, King of the Universe, who fashioned Man in his wisdom and created in him many openings and orifices. It is obvious and known before Your Throne of Glory that if but one of them were to be ruptured or blocked up, then it would be impossible to survive and stand before You. Blessed are You, O Lord, who heals all flesh and does such wondrous deeds.
A prayer for going to the toilet. Not the blessing instituted by Mosheh at Marah, which is below, but something of the same order, and just as necessary, anyway.
15:26 VA YOMER IM SHAMO'A TISHMA LE KOL YHVH ELOHEYCHA VE HA YASHAR BE EYNAV TA'ASEH VE HA'AZANTA LE MITSVOTAV VE SHAMARTA KOL CHUKAV KOL HA MACHALAH ASHER SAMTI VE MITSRAYIM LO ASIM ALEYCHA KI ANI YHVH ROPH'ECHA
וַיֹּאמֶר אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע לְקוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו תַּעֲשֶׂה וְהַאֲזַנְתָּ לְמִצְוֹתָיו וְשָׁמַרְתָּ כָּל חֻקָּיו כָּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה רֹפְאֶךָ
KJ: And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee.
BN: And he said: "If you will hearken diligently to the voice of YHVH your god, and do what is right in his eyes, and will pay heed to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon you which I have put upon the Mitsrim; for I am YHVH who heals you."
So clearly it wasn't just the natural salinity that had made these waters bitter! You don't need a response about disease if you have prayed for clean drinking-water, unless...
SHAMO'A TISHMA: And note the prefiguration that we get so often in these texts: the use here of the word SHEMA, not once but twice, and specifically in reference to the laws and commandments. The Shema itself is just a chapter or two away, but you have been sleeping through the Torah reading have been prompted to wake up.
But of course none of the laws and commandments have been given yet - or have they? If Sinai is truly the "giving" of the commandments, then this is meaningless, because neither Mosheh nor the people will know what she is referring to. If they already exist, and the pilgrimage is to a covenant renewal ceremony, then Mir-Yam's oracle serves as a reminder to the pilgrims of the purpose of their journey: go to Sinai, re-enunciate the laws that you already know, renew your covenant and re-affirm it; and your gods will look after you.
15:27 VA YAVO'U EYLIMAH VE SHAM SHETEYM ESREH EYNOT MAYIM VE SHIV'IM TEMARIM VA YACHANU SHAM AL HA MAYIM
וַיָּבֹאוּ אֵילִמָה וְשָׁם שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה עֵינֹת מַיִם וְשִׁבְעִים תְּמָרִים וַיַּחֲנוּ שָׁם עַל הַמָּיִם
KJ: And they came to Elim, where were twelve wells of water, and threescore and ten palm trees: and they encamped there by the waters.
BN: And they came to Eylim, where were twelve springs of water, and seventy palm-trees; and they made camp there by the waters.
EYLIM: or ELIM, as per most translations, which drop the Yud; another shrine-stop for the pilgrims, and not to YHVH either: but to "the gods" - see my note to verse 11; and this is why EYLIM is probably an error for ELIM. The numbers 12 and 70 were entirely predictable - though the Egyptian original probably had 72 (cf Exodus 24:1 and the notes on the Septuagint for the 70, but the Decan, which was key to Egyptian numerology, was 72; see my translation of the Am-Tuat). Did the tribe of Yehudah hold any special ceremonies, separate from the rest of the people, in honour of their ancestral goddess Tamar, who was worshipped at the second of these shrines?
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment