Exodus 32:1-35

Surf The Site

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

At the beginning of Exodus 30 I noted that "the account of the wilderness journey, which broke off at the end of chapter 20, will resume in this sedra, but not until chapter 32. So it resumes now, after twelve full chapters, more than a third of the book, which broke away from the telling of the wilderness story, in order to give the full detail of the laws. And Mosheh away in the mountain-shrine for fully forty days.


32:1 VA YAR HA AM KI VOSHESH MOSHEH LAREDET MIN HA HAR VA YIKAHEL HA AM AL AHARON VA YOMRU ELAV KUM ASEH LANU ELOHIM ASHER YELCHU LEPHANEYNU KI ZEH MOSHEH HA ISH ASHER HE'ELANU ME ERETS MITSRAYIM LO YADA'NU MEH HAYAH LO

וַיַּרְא הָעָם כִּי בֹשֵׁשׁ מֹשֶׁה לָרֶדֶת מִן הָהָר וַיִּקָּהֵל הָעָם עַל אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו קוּם עֲשֵׂה לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה הָיָה לוֹ

KJ (King James translation): And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

BN (BibleNet translation): When the people saw that Mosheh was delayed in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aharon, and said to him: "Get up and make us gods who can lead us; but as for this Mosheh, this man who brought us here from the land of Mitsrayim, we have no idea what has become of him."

BOSHESH: Delayed, but the verb is more complex than that; the root, BUSH = "shame". Gesenius explains it as "it appears to be used of a thing which disappoints the hopes of others set upon it." Its only other use as "delay" is in Judges 5:28. when Siys-Ra's (Sisera's) mother wonders why her son has not returned yet. Psalms 44:8 (44:7 in some versions) and 119:31 also use it to mean "put to shame", and in the Hitpalel or reflexive form it is now used to mean "to blush". So Mosheh is not simply delayed; he has let the people down by tarrying so long. The phrase allows them a self-vindication in what they are about to do.

Again ELOHIM used to mean "gods", and there is no doubting it on this occasion, since YELCHU is plural.

If Chur is in joint charge (cf Exodus 24:14), why do they only ask Aharon?

32:2 VA YOMER AL'EHEM AHARON PARKU NIZMEY HA ZAHAV ASHER BE AZNEY NESHEYCHEM BENEYCHEM U VENOTEYCHEM VE HAVIYU ELAI

וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַהֲרֹן פָּרְקוּ נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵי נְשֵׁיכֶם בְּנֵיכֶם וּבְנֹתֵיכֶם וְהָבִיאוּ אֵלָי

KJ: And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.

BN: And Aharon said to them: "Break off the gold rings that are in your wives' ears, and those of your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me."

Note how quickly Aharon agrees their request. There is no call for them to be patient, no reminder of their commitment to the covenant, no suggestion of disobedience to their chosen leader; they ask, and he agrees. How come? Because, to Aharon, who has only just been anointed High Priest and sworn allegiance to the renewed covenant, this is not an act of rebellion but simply the prescribed next stage of the matter. He is entirely in agreement with doing this. As priest of Hor, what else should he have done, but make the Golden Calf, the icon of the young god? This was the deity he had come to worship. Mosheh's delay was a matter of bringing down the legal covenant document, for which the presence of the calf was a necessity. But the text cannot say that, because this is a redaction to meet 5th century BCE proto-Jewish needs, and not those of the time.

We have repeatedly wondered why and how the Beney Yisra-El were able to go round begging gold and silver and jewels from their neighbouring Mitsrim (Egyptians), and received gifts to such a degree it was said to be "spoilage". Slaves do not usually beg jewels from their "masters" before absconding. So they must have been willingly surrendered. And why would anyone willingly surrender valuable gems, unless they knew the purpose of collecting them, and approved it? A very different reading has been offered in these pages: that the Beney Yisra-El were not slaves at all, but a group of people in Mitsrayim who were outcasts religiously, not economically or socially, but because they insisted on worshipping the ancient Mitsri gods, and would not bow down to the new Aramaean gods brought in by the Hyksos. When they began their rebellion against the Hyksos, of which this pilgrimage and covenant renewal was an essential part, their neighbours who had bowed down gave up their jewels, because they supported the Beney Yisra-El cause privately though they dared not publicly - at least, not until the rebellion was formally launched and departure for the holy mountain under way. The object of the jewels was precisely the re-establishment of the old religion, for which various things were needed: priestly garments, ornaments for the ark, and golden representations of the gods being primary. The Golden Calf was made by Aharon precisely because this was one of the main purposes of the pilgrimage.

This is only one of several possible interpretations of the events described in the Book of Exodus.

PARKU: Why did they need to break off the rings? Because they were hammered through their ears with an awl, and not suspended like ladies' ear-rings today, on carefully pierced lobes. These were chattel-rings, not decorations. Cf Deuteronomy 15:12-17.

BENEYCHEM: Interesting to note that the young men also wear this jewelery - because they too had been marked as "purchased".

32:3 VA YITPARKU KOL HA AM ET NIZMEY HA ZAHAV ASHER BE AZNEYHEM VA YAVIY'U EL-AHARON

וַיִּתְפָּרְקוּ כָּל הָעָם אֶת נִזְמֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל אַהֲרֹן

KJ: And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.

BN: And all the people broke off the golden rings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aharon.

I imagine that they did not do this themselves, but went to the workshop of Betsal-El, and had one of his apprentices do it for them.

32:4 VA YIKACH MI YADAM VA YATSAR OTO BA CHERET VA YA'ASEHU EGEL MASECHA VA YOMRU ELEH ELOHEYCHA YISRA-EL ASHER HE'ELUCHA ME ERETS MITSRAYIM

וַיִּקַּח מִיָּדָם וַיָּצַר אֹתוֹ בַּחֶרֶט וַיַּעֲשֵׂהוּ עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם

KJ: And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

BN: And he took them from their hands, and fashioned them with a graving tool, and made from them a molten calf; and they said: "This is your god, O Yisra-El, who brought you up out of the land of Mitsrayim."

Even the "brought you out of Egypt" appellation is applied, and rightly, since Hor has always been the key god in this tale. But, and this is the sin, the problem, the reason for Mosheh's anger - at least, in the Ezraic context: VA YATSAR OTO BA CHERET is a flagrant breach of the 2nd commandment, in Exodus 20:4: "“You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the Earth beneath or in the waters below." It frankly wouldn't have mattered if Aharon had fashioned the rings into a golden snake or golden rose or a golden copy of the Mona Lisa; whereas, had he fashioned it into another Keruv, or a random pattern of shapes and colours à la Mondrian and Ben Nicholson, it would have been perfectly acceptable. It was the "graven" and the "likeness" that were the issue, the act of representation.

EGEL MASECHA: Or was it? I am entirely happy with the above, but need to offer this as well, because the root of the word demands it. MASACH leads in two directions, from two different roots. One of these we have already seen, and will again many times in the coming chapters: "to cover", for the Veil in Exodus 26:36, from the root SACH, whence a SUKAH, though oddly it is also a thorn-bush (Micah 7:4), probably in the sense of Virginia Creeper and other forms of ivy that tend to "cover" the walls and rooves of houses; and thence a covering in the sense of anything that is "hedged" or "fenced around", including the Law itself.

But there is also MASACH, which means to "merge" or "mix" or "mingle", and that is the verb used here; and it may well be that more than one mineral has been "merged" and "mixed" and "mingled" in the gathering of all this jewelery, and though that law has not yet been given to Mosheh, it would have mattered in Ezraic times - to make an icon out of a mixture of minerals would render it shatnes, and that would be just as unacceptable as its being photographic.

ELEH ELOHIM: These are the gods, yet he has made only one; can we assume that there were other idols, beside the Golden Calf, to represent the other key figures in the Egyptian pantheon?

A couple of grammatical issues confuse the text. VA YATSAR and VA YA'ASEYHU infer that Aharon does the work himself, yet in the next verse he "sees" it, as though someone else had made it - presumably Betsal-El and Ahali-Av. But the statement that "these are the gods" is made by the people, not by Aharon, which implies that they knew exactly what they were doing, and that the phrase is liturgical.

32:5 VA YAR AHARON YIVEN MIZBE'ACH LEPHANAV VA YIKRA AHARON VA YOMER CHAG LA YHVH MACHAR

וַיַּרְא אַהֲרֹן וַיִּבֶן מִזְבֵּחַ לְפָנָיו וַיִּקְרָא אַהֲרֹן וַיֹּאמַר חַג לַיהוָה מָחָר

KJ: And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD.

BN: And when Aharon saw this, he built an altar before it; and Aharon issued a proclamation, saying "To-morrow shall be a feast to YHVH."

YHVH: Huge problem with this, from any and every angle that you approach it, religious, sceptical, whatever. The text that we have here insists that he is presenting this image as though it, the Golden Calf, were YHVH, which, if it were true, would allow us to identify YHVH with Hor - or if this was a she-calf, Hat-Hor. The attempt to transform a Hor text into a YHVH text fails, inevitably.

Note again that Aharon the High Priest is entirely happy with what he is doing.

32:6 VA YASHKIMU MI MACHARAT VA YA'ALU OLOT VA YAGISHU SHELAMIM VA YESHEV HA AM LE'ECHOL VE SHATU VA YAKUMU LETSACHEK

וַיַּשְׁכִּימוּ מִמָּחֳרָת וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלֹת וַיַּגִּשׁוּ שְׁלָמִים וַיֵּשֶׁב הָעָם לֶאֱכֹל וְשָׁתוֹ וַיָּקֻמוּ לְצַחֵק

KJ: And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.

BN: And they rose up early the following morning, and offered burnt-offerings, and brought peace-offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to make merry.

A good bacchanalian feast, and why not; but the rituals are precisely the ones Mosheh will bring down the mountain: the same sacrifices.

YASHKIMU MI MACHARAT: The phrasing suggests a dawn event, and leaves me wondering if this was not that once every 28 years mystical event, utterly lacking in any scientific base yet great fun to participate in, known today as Birkat Hachamah.

pey break

32:7 VA YEDABER YHVH EL MOSHEH LECH RED KI SHICHET AM'CHA ASHER HE'ELEYTA ME ERETS MITSRAYIM

וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֶךְ רֵד כִּי שִׁחֵת עַמְּךָ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלֵיתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם

KJ: And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:

BN: Then YHVH spoke to Mosheh: "Go, go down; for your people, who you brought out of the land of Mitsrayim, they are destroyed...

HE'ELEYTA... AM'CHA: At every possible moment, this egomaniacal deity, for whom everything is "me first" and "all about me", has proclaimed how miraculously, he, no other god, just he, all alone, brought the Beney Yisra-El out of Mitsrayim, by the power of his mighty hand; but now, when they have apparently rejected him for another god (so the Redactor's version is insisting anyway), YHVH gives the credit to Mosheh in HE'ELEYTA, but also the blame in AM'CHA, and it is "you, Mosheh, you who brought them out of Mitsrayim", for which crime redemption is now to be transformed into obliteration. Ah yes, we claim the credit when things go well, but when things go badly, the first rule of successful management is: "delegate responsibility - pass the buck"! Not good for one's faith in YHVH this particular verse. Though sadly the evidence of the text thus far means that we shouldn't have been surprised either.

SHICHET: Shichet? As in Shechitah? The same root? Yes - but that root means "destroy", and has nothing to do with sin, wicked deeds, self-corruption. And the grammar here is past and passive: KI SHICHET AMCHA literally means "for your people is destroyed". Is this YHVH making leaps: "a) your people has breached one of my fundamental commandments; b) the punishment for this is death; c) regard the punishment as already carried out"; but Mosheh cannot make these leaps without more information.

For all its apallingness, this verse is fundamenal to the Jewish world-view, and the principal reason why calling it Judeo-Christianity is a Christian falsehood. Jews sing the great hymn "Adonai, Adonai, El rachum ve chanun" (we will be reading it in just a couple of chapters time), praising the "mercy and compassion" of the deity in exactly the same words that Moslems do whenever they name al-Lah. But this "good" deity is also, simultaneously, concurrently, equally, the one whom Christians prefer to separate, and place in Hell, with bad breath and a tail made of burning embers.

32:8 SARU MAHER MIN HA DERECH ASHER TSIVIYTIM ASU LAHEM EGEL MASECHA VA YISHTACHAVU LO VA YIZBECHU LO VA YOMRU ELEH ELOHEYCHA YISRA-EL ASHER HE'ELUCHA ME ERETS MISTRAYIM

סָרוּ מַהֵר מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִם עָשׂוּ לָהֶם עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לוֹ וַיִּזְבְּחוּ לוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם

KJ: They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

BN: "They have turned aside quickly from the way that I instructed them; they have made for themselves a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed to it, and said: This is your god, O Yisra-El, who brought you out of the land of Mitsrayim."

32:9 VA YOMER YHVH EL MOSHEH RA'IYTI ET HA AM HA ZEH VE HINEH AM KESHEH OREPH HU

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה רָאִיתִי אֶת הָעָם הַזֶּה וְהִנֵּה עַם קְשֵׁה עֹרֶף הוּא

KJ: And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:

BN: Then YHVH said to Mosheh: "I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people...

A wonderfully detached, almost ironic observation: "I've been keeping my eye on this lot...". But at the same time, sorry YHVH, you chose this people, you created people at all, you made them in your own image and likeness, flawed in so many ways. Stop complaining.

32:10 VE ATAH HANICHAH LI VE YICHAR API VA HEM VA ACHALEM VE E'ESEH OT'CHA LE GOY GADOL

וְעַתָּה הַנִּיחָה לִּי וְיִחַר אַפִּי בָהֶם וַאֲכַלֵּם וְאֶעֱשֶׂה אוֹתְךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל

KJ: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

BN: Now therefore leave me alone, so that my nostrils can get inflamed over them, so that I can eat them up; and I will make of you a great nation."

This simply doesn't work. "Leave me alone so that I can boil and rage and destroy them... and then I shall make a great people of them", as if you can devour something and it will still be there, let alone still there to worship you. A touch of the old "birch is good for you" syndrome? No, what we have here is the volcano-god blowing his top - literally. What is more difficult to discern is: was this tantrum an actual part of the covenant-renewal liturgy; was the making of the idol, and then its melting down, in fact a necessary stage in the progress towards worshipping a god without idols; and therefore the final phrase of a story? This seems as likely as it seems unlikely. The key is that this is not the Egyptian story; this is the Yisra-Eli story, woven out of the strands of the Egyptian story, to create a national narrative. For Hor to be rejected and YHVH accepted, the Golden Calf has to be melted down and the people made to drink their error to the literal dregs. For Mosheh to become a Yisra-Eli national figure rather than an Egyptian, likewise. In this version, though the roots are plainly visible, the Egyptian feast has been well buried under mounds of Ezraic didacticism.

32:11 VA YECHAL MOSHEH ET PENEY YHVH ELOHAV VA YOMER LAMAH YHVH YECHEREH APCHA BE AMECHA ASHER HOTSE'TA ME ERETS MITSRAYIM BE CHO'ACH GADOL U VE YAD CHAZAKAH

וַיְחַל מֹשֶׁה אֶת פְּנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו וַיֹּאמֶר לָמָה יְהוָה יֶחֱרֶה אַפְּךָ בְּעַמֶּךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּכֹחַ גָּדוֹל וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה

KJ: And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?

BN: And Mosheh pleaded with YHVH his god, and said: "YHVH, why do you let your nostrils get so inflamed over your people? You brought them out of the land of Mitsrayim, through your great strength and with the power of your hand?..

YECHAL: "Besought" is a standard translation; but what does "besought" even mean? "Beseeched" in today's idiom. "Pleaded with" even.

ASHER HOTSE'TA: Good on ya Mosheh for passing the buck straight back again (see verse 7). "Your" people, whom "you" brought out of Mitsrayim. "Your" great power and mighty hand. When YHVH is having a tantrum, this is the best way to deal with him. That darned yad chazakah again! But Mosheh knows exactly why he is angry, so why ask? Is he not angry himself, in the Yehudit version, when he finds out?

32:12 LAMAH YOMRU MITSRAYIM LEMOR BE RA'AH HOTSIY'AM LAHAROG OTAM BE HARIM U LECHALOTAM ME AL PENEY HA ADAMAH SHUV ME CHARON AP'ECHA VE HINACHEM AL HA RA'AH LE AM'ECHA

לָמָּה יֹאמְרוּ מִצְרַיִם לֵאמֹר בְּרָעָה הוֹצִיאָם לַהֲרֹג אֹתָם בֶּהָרִים וּלְכַלֹּתָם מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה שׁוּב מֵחֲרוֹן אַפֶּךָ וְהִנָּחֵם עַל הָרָעָה לְעַמֶּךָ

KJ: Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.

BN: "Why should Mitsrayim speak, saying: 'So that he could perpetrate evil against them, that's why he brought them out; to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the Earth?' Turn from your fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against your people...

Again this is not logical; why is Mosheh saying "don't be angry"? If what they have done is wrong, then it's wrong and merits both the anger and a punishment. Unless it isn't wrong. Unless the Redactor has failed to extrapolate the entire Egyptian tale in creating the Yehudit version. Or unless it's still the same atonement liturgy. Or unless this is King Canute, trying to command the waves to stop breaking.

And what evil? LE'ECHOL OTAM = "to devour them". Mosheh is still up the mountain, in the oracular cave that is used as a shrine, and in the meanwhile the volcano has started erupting again; is the devouring simply his fear of what may happen if the volcano really blows? If making and melting the Golden Calf is a part of the theatre of covenant renewal, and therefore, in part, an act of aspirant propitiation...

The problem is that the story is working at several conflicting levels simultaneously. The Yisra-Eli and the Egyptian is only one conflicting set of levels. Pilgrimage or flight to Kena'an? Volcano or metaphorical cloud and pillar of smoke and fire? Revolution or to be taken literally? My sense of the clearest way to read this is that the people have started to make the Golden Calf, as the next phase of the renewal of the covenant, when suddenly the volcano starts busting its sides again, and, in the manner of primitive people, terror strikes not just at the literal eruption, but at the fear of the coincidental timing of the eruption; and what Mosheh is actually doing is trying to placate or propitiate the volcano god.

32:13 ZECHOR LE AV-RAHAM LE YITSCHAK U LE YISRA-EL AVADEYCHA ASHER NISHBA'TA LAHEM BACH VA TEDABER AL'EHEM ARBEH ET ZAR'ACHEM KE CHOCHVEY HA SHAMAYIM VE CHOL HA ARETS HA ZOT ASHER AMARTI ETEN LE ZAR'ACHEM VE NACHALU LE OLAM

זְכֹר לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לָהֶם בָּךְ וַתְּדַבֵּר אֲלֵהֶם אַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעֲכֶם כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמָיִם וְכָל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי אֶתֵּן לְזַרְעֲכֶם וְנָחֲלוּ לְעֹלָם

KJ: Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

BN: "Remember Av-Raham, Yitschak, and Yisra-El, your servants, to whom you made an oath in your own name, and said to them: I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give to your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever."

Why LE YISRA-EL and not LE YA'AKOV?

And is this liturgy, or a servant speaking to his master in an unusually plain and straight-forward manner? The form and style of the language, especially the reference to the patriarchs, is remarkably similar to the propitiatory prayers used in the synagogue.

There is something about the idea of YHVH swearing an oath in his own name that stirs my desire to pass ironic comment; but I shall refrain.

32:14 VA YINACHEM YHVH AL HA RA'AH ASHER DIBER LA'ASOT LE AMO

וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה עַל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לַעֲשׂוֹת לְעַמּוֹ

KJ: And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

BN: And YHVH withdraw his threat to do something wicked and irreperable his people.

This is a very Sodom-and-Gomorrah like episode; YHVH loses his temper, as he is so quick to do, threatening total destruction, and it takes the human leader to talk him down from rash over-reaction. An interesting slant on Judaism.

VA YINACHEM: "comforted himself" would be more literal; "calmed down", rather than necessarily "repented".

pey break

Rae Chichilnitsky, "Moses"

32:15 VA YIPHEN VA YERED MOSHEH MIN HA HAR U SHENEY LUCHOT HA EDUT BE YADO LUCHOT KETUVIM MISHNEY EVREYHEM MI ZEH U MI ZEH HEM KETUVIM

וַיִּפֶן וַיֵּרֶד מֹשֶׁה מִן הָהָר וּשְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת בְּיָדוֹ לֻחֹת כְּתֻבִים מִשְּׁנֵי עֶבְרֵיהֶם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה הֵם כְּתֻבִים

KJ: And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.

BN: And Mosheh turned, and went down from the mountain, with the two Tablets of the Testimony in his hand; tablets that were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other they were written.

MISHNEY: An ellision of MI SHENEY.

MI SHENEY EVREYHEM: On both sides! Now who in the world ever remembers that? Every depiction for the last three thousand years has shown them with writing on one side only. Is this because there were so many that it needed both sides to make them fit; and if so, there were not 10 commandments written on them, but fully several score - actually, if it is possible to do so, it might be interesting to work out just how many have been given up till now - not seventy by any chance?

Then was the smashing of the tablets a rabbinical way of dealing with the Deuteronomic changes to the law - the original laws (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers) were smashed, Deuteronomy came on the 2nd set?

Note also that key word again: EVREYHEM. The same root that gives "Hebrew".

32:16 VE HA LUCHOT MA'ASEH ELOHIM HEMAH VE HA MICHTAV MICHTAV ELOHIM HUCHARUT AL HA LUCHOT

וְהַלֻּחֹת מַעֲשֵׂה אֱלֹהִים הֵמָּה וְהַמִּכְתָּב מִכְתַּב אֱלֹהִים הוּא חָרוּת עַל הַלֻּחֹת

KJ: And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.

BN: And the tablets were the work of Elohim, and the writing was the writing of Elohim, graven upon the tables.

The emphasis on the handwriting being Elohim's (not YHVH's; but that is a different matter; see below) is less significant to an omniliterate civilisation like ours; in those times, writing (hieroglyphs, not alphabetics) was a magic skill, and therefore attributed to god. But the emphasis is also over-emphasis; as though a theological point needs to be made; and by consequence, we are more likely to read it as fiction.

ELOHIM: Simply to note again that, as with the signature on the previous version, the tablets are attributed to Elohim, not to YHVH.

HUCHARUT: The uncommon grammatical form known as the HUPHAL, the passive-causative.

32:17 VA YISHMA YEHOSHU'A ET KOL HA AM BE RE'OH VA YOMER EL MOSHEH KOL MILCHAMAH BA MACHANEH

וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת קוֹל הָעָם בְּרֵעֹה וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל מֹשֶׁה קוֹל מִלְחָמָה בַּמַּחֲנֶה

KJ: And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp.

BN: And when Yehoshu'a heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Mosheh: "There is a sound of war in the camp."

If Mosheh was away 40 days and nights, did Yehoshu'a keep watch for him all that time; the inference here is yes. How did he eat? What did he do all that time? This is all so implausible that somebody (not me) who needs a good idea for a novel, a short story, a poem, might like to take up this theme. My own sense, as previously stated, is that this was not simply somewhere empty and dusty in the middle of the desert, but a long-established shrine, with priests and servants, with some kind of building, and then the cave, the one that Eli-Yahu (Elijah) hid in, some ancient troglodytic place like Adul-Am or Machpelah or Carm-El, with burials in its depths and primordial paintings perhaps on its walls; and somewhere in that cave, amid the holy skulls and skeletons, or maybe in the building, the place where the ancient and most holiest relic of all was kept, the hieroglyphic tablets on which the ancient gods had inscribed their covenant with Mitsrayim (in which case it is entirely feasible that Mosheh sat their sophering his own copy, and that it took him 40 days, or it took "them" 40 days, because there were probably craft-priests like Betsal-El to do some of the chiselling for him).

Or a very different hypothesis: that there was no Yehoshu'a, then or ever, except in the tribal memory of a different tribe. In theirs Mosheh is named Yehoshu'a, and everything that happens to Mosheh happened to Yehoshu'a, with the story of Mosheh's death allowing the Ezraic scribes a neat way of giving the first half of the tale to the Mosheh followers, and the second half to the Yehoshu'a followers, and everybody happy in the pseudo-history of the Yehudim. So Yehoshu'a needs to be present at key moments of the version; Mosheh, through the law, is always present by default at every key moment of the Yehoshu'a version.

MILCHAMAH: Can Yehoshu'a not tell the difference between partying and warfare? And if he thought it was warfare, might he not have taken some action, even summoning Mosheh sooner? See next verse.

32:18 VA YOMER EYN KOL ANOT GEVURAH VE EYN KOL ANOT CHALUSHAH KOL ANOT ANOCHI SHOME'A

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה וְאֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת חֲלוּשָׁה קוֹל עַנּוֹת אָנֹכִי שֹׁמֵעַ

KJ: And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.

BN (literal): And he said: "This is not the voice of people triumphing their victory, nor is it the voice of people wailing their defeat, but the noise of people singing that I can hear."

Where did the translator find the word "singing" from for this; it is not in the context, which is actually rather colloquial. A much better translation would be: "This is not shouting for a military victory, and this is not shouting for a military defeat; this is just plain shouting that I can hear."

But saying that it is not in the context is not the same as noting that it is indeed in the text. The verb LA'ANOT means "to answer", in today's Ivrit. But see my note at Exodus 15:21, and then look at 1 Samuel 21:12, or Psalm 147:7, where there is no doubt that ANAH means "sing".

32:19 VA YEHI KA ASHER KARAV EL HA MACHANEH VA YAR ET HA EGEL U MECHOLOT VA YICHAR APH MOSHEH VA YASHLECH MI YADO ET HA LUCHOT VA YESHABER OTAM TACHAT HA HAR

וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר קָרַב אֶל הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיַּרְא אֶת הָעֵגֶל וּמְחֹלֹת וַיִּחַר אַף מֹשֶׁה וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָו אֶת הַלֻּחֹת וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם תַּחַת הָהָר

KJ: And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

BN: And it came to pass, as soon as he came close to the camp, that he saw the calf and the dancing; and Mosheh's nostrils became inflamed, and he threw down the tablets that were in his hands, and they shattered somewhere in the foothills of the mountain.

This and the following verses need careful thought; can we really take the story as literal history; is it myth, ritual, or rabbinic creation? An entire theory of the Exodus rests on this.

The first impression is of Mosheh seeing this, and being so shocked that he throws down the tablets. However.

First, YHVH had already told him, so he knew what to expect: was his gesture then dramatic, so people would see and respond? If not, was it not rather fake?

Second, YHVH had already exploded with exactly this sort of anger - I have kept the poetical form in my translation, the "inflamed nostrils", precisely to point out that the same words are used for Mosheh here and YHVH there - and it was Mosheh who just placated him down from it. So, again, is it perhaps a dramatic gesture, to make the people realise their error?

And yet, no, it can't be, because he has only approached "near the camp", and he is coming down to them, so he will have seen the Calf long before they became aware of his presence, and therefore no point in a dramatic gesture that will go unnoticed.

A third possible reading then: all commentary focuses on the Calf, none on the dancing; is it possible that Mosheh's anger was directed towards the manner of worshipping the Calf, which appears to be orgiastic, and not the fact of worshipping it, in the properly liturgical manner? If so, then, from this, the lesson is taught that the god of the Beney Yisra-El should only be worshipped through prayer and sacrifice, and through the instructions applying to daily life, and not in the manner of the rites of Asherah, or their Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Etceterian equivalents? And only after that is there also the concern about making graven images and the endorsement of the Second Commandment (Exodus 20:4, Deuteronomy 5:8).

VA YESHABER: The Pi'el form, intensive: shattered, not merely broken.

32:20 VA YIKACH ET HA EGEL ASHER ASU VA YISROPH BA ESH VA YIT'CHAN AD ASHER DAK VA YIZER AL PENEY HA MAYIM VA YASHK ET BENEY YISRA-EL

וַיִּקַּח אֶת הָעֵגֶל אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ וַיִּשְׂרֹף בָּאֵשׁ וַיִּטְחַן עַד אֲשֶׁר דָּק וַיִּזֶר עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם וַיַּשְׁקְ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

KJ: And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.

BN: And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it with fire, and ground it to powder, and strewed it upon the water, and made the Beney Yisra-El drink of it.

Such an important story in the canon of Yisra-Eli mythology, and yet - such patent nonsense. It is hard to believe that, for more than two and a half thousand years that this has been circulating, no one has bothered to ask the obvious questions, each of which undermines the tale until it is diminished utterly.

First: what size was this Calf? Remember we are talking about over a million and a half people giving ornaments to make it; every depiction shows a vast creature, and not surprisingly, for the amount of gold given, and the need to represent a god magnificently. Yet how, if it was that big, could Mosheh take it single-handedly, and do what he did?

Second: the calf is made of gold, in its entirety. How do you burn gold? Pure gold is a noble metal and does not combine readily with anything. It is inert in an oxygenic atmosphere and will not burn. So either it wasn't gold, or he couldn't?

Third: But let's say he could burn it; let's say he was able, anyway, to put it on a fire, and see what happened. If he could get the fire up to 1064.18 °C (or 1947.52 °F) he could get the gold to melt. Continue heating it and it will change into a gas, and boil away like water. Now, we are in volcanic territory, and one is erupting; so let's say he did have a fire, and fresh lava ranges from 1300° to 2200° F (700° to 1200° C), which is indeed hot enough. Now let's say he had the means of taking it out of the lava when it started melting, and he waited for it to cool down, and then "strewed it upon the water", which might cool it still more but could as easily heat up the water, because at that temperature the gold is going to need a very long time to cool down. But say he does it, and he ends up with - a piece of molten gold. Now you can grind gold ore with a mortar and pestle, as follows:

Lay down your tarp on top of a concrete slab and grab your sledgehammer; place your ore on top of the tarp; hammer the bigger pieces of your gold ore on the concrete into workable sizes smaller than your fist; place a chunk of ore smaller than your fist into the mortar; put on your safety glasses and dust mask; grab the pestle and hit the chunk of ore with enough force to crush it, but not enough force to send chunks flying out of the mortar; pound and grind the ore until it has the consistency of white sugar or smaller;

Next: place your 20 mesh classifier on top of your gold pan; dump the ore powder on top of the classifier; shake the classifier with a back-and-forth motion until the powder sifts through to the gold pan; dump the bigger pieces of crushed ore left on the classifier screen back into the mortar to be crushed again; pour about an inch of water into your gold pan; swirl your pan slowly and the gold that is present will appear in a circular streak in your pan; use your snuffer bottle to collect your gold dust. (With thanks to eHow for the information). Could Mosheh have done this? Not a chance. He didn't have any ore anyway, he had a solid Golden Calf.

Four: what happens if you strew gold on the water and make people drink it? Not much; assuming it was ground to powder, as the text describes, it would simply fail to digest and pass through the system.

Five: so what was achieved by making them drink it? Absolutely nothing, except the turning of gold into urine, and the loss of a great deal of what was about to be needed to build the Mishkan.

So now let us ask an even bigger question: what was really going on? Following on from the Passover rituals, as part of the covenant renewal ritual, the Beney Yisra-El may actually have engaged in a symbolic eating of the god - it is known as theophagy and it is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "the sacramental eating of a god, typically in the form of an animal, image, or other symbol, as a part of a religious ritual, and commonly for the purpose of communion with or the receiving of power from the god. J.G. Frazer in "The Golden Bough" explains the rite in detail; suffice it to say that it was common in the ancient world, usually by eating the totem animal - and we shall see later, in the list of prohibited foods (Deuteronomy 14), that precisely this was indeed part of Egyptian ritual. In the cult of The Risen Lord however, what was eaten (alongside pork, Set's totem animal) was corn, generally in the form of bread, or matzah at the Passover. The rite is known as the Eucharist, and is still practiced in Christianity, where the wafer of communion is understood to be "the body of Christ" - in other words, Catholics still symbolically eat their god to this day.

What then if the calf were not made of gold, because surely these former slaves could not have had that much gold, despite what the tale says. Perhaps the legend of its being golden was because that was the colour of the corn, and they were celebrating Passover, which is the spring corn-festival. If it were a corn-effigy (think of the Wicker Man at the autumn harvest festival, which does the same in human form, and which is still remembered in the form of a Guy Faux or Guy Fawkes, and on a smaller scale is a simple scarecrow), then burning it, grinding it to powder, mixing it with water (to make flour) and eating it (eucharistically) would be the normal and expected ceremony - except that grinding and mixing with water would precede burning (baking). Since it was a burned cake, it automatically has the value of an offering, and since it is eaten (see the later laws) in full, it must be a sin-offering and not a burnt-offering. And in the next verse Mosheh reproaches Aharon for the sins he has committed; a statement that we can now deduce as liturgical, with Aharon as High Priest acting as Shali'ach Tsibur for the whole congregation.

And if it were not a corn effigy (and it probably wasn't, because Passover is long gone, but the parallel helps us to understand the Calf), perhaps it was literally a calf, and all they did was sacrifice it in the proper manner described just a few chapters ago, and then eat it.

This leaves only the question of the broken tablets.

32:21 VA YOMER MOSHE EL AHARON MEH ASAH LECHA HA AM HA ZEH KI HEYVEYTA ALAV CHATA'AH GEDOLAH

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל אַהֲרֹן מֶה עָשָׂה לְךָ הָעָם הַזֶּה כִּי הֵבֵאתָ עָלָיו חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה

KJ: And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them?

BN: And Moshe said to Aharon: "What did this people do to you, that you have brought a great sin upon them?"

But was it really a sin? True, they have been told not to make graven images, but we have just demonstrated that it may not even have been a graven image. Much more likely, given that every part of the ceremony thus far has reflected a primitive version of Yom Kippur, or at least its equivalent, some sort of purification ritual, the calf was being sacrificed precisely for the purpose of the purification of sin in general; which is the central subject of all the detail about Aharon's role, his clothing, etc etc in the previous chapters, and we should see this "Golden Calf" in something like the same way we will see the"Red Heifer" in Numbers 19.

And if it were really a sin, and such a grave sin at that, would Aharon not have been punished in some way too? Mosheh's sins later on will certainly be punished, as will those of Korach and others. What is really surprising is what is not in the story (Bible students, like all literary students, have to learn to read the absences from the text as much as they read what is present in the text). Aharon is responsible for this, and death is the ordained punishment for all sins against YHVH or the Mishkan or their equivalents, of which this surely counts. Two of Aharon's own sons will die for such a sin, yet Aharon is not only allowed to live on, but even to carry on as Kohen Gadol - High Priest. For the much lesser sin of striking the rock at Kadesh (Merivah) without permission, Mosheh will be denied an entry visa into Kena'an; and Aharon will be denied one too, but not for this. 

32:22 VA YOMER AHARON AL YICHAR APH ADONI ATAH YADA'TA ET HA AM KI VE RA HU

וַיֹּאמֶר אַהֲרֹן אַל יִחַר אַף אֲדֹנִי אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֶת הָעָם כִּי בְרָע הוּא

KJ: And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief.

BN: And Aharon said: "Let not the anger of my lord wax hot; you know the people, that they are set on evil..

"Polish death camps"... "I was only obeying orders"... at first glance this feels like Aharon not just disclaiming responsibility, but blaming it on the "evil" of others... but surely, elder brother talking to younger brother in a private argument would not be worded like this. Though one prayer leader responding to colleague prayer leader as liturgy might well do so.

KI VE RA HU: "They are set on evil" is anyway an ideologically-rooted mistranslation; it simply means that "they are wicked", which is precisely what Jews to this day acknowledge at the purification rites of Yom Kippur:

"Ashamnu, bagadnu, gazalnu, dibarnu dophi. He'evinu, ve-hirshanu, zadnu, chamasnu, taphalnu sheker. Ya'atsnu ra, kizavnu, latsnu, maradnu, ni'atsnu, sararnu, avinu, pashanu, tsaradnu, kishinu oreph. Ra'ashnu, shichatnu, ti'avnu, ta'inu, titanu."

We are guilty, we have betrayed, we have stolen, we have spoken slander. We have been wicked, we have caused others to sin, we have been proud, we have taken advantage of those weaker than ourselves, we have told lies. We have knowingly given bad advice, we have been deceitful, we have mocked, we have rebelled, we have angered and provoked our god, we have been stubborn, we have led others into doing wrong, we have broken laws, we have caused distress to others, we have been obstinate We have induced others to all these sins, we have corrupted others, we have performed abominations, we have gone astray; you have let us go astray".

Aharon is clear that he has done no wrong. His job is to minister as chief sacrificer and chief atoner, precisely to enable the people to atone for their sins; and they cannot receive the Laws of Hor (or of YHVH in the Jewish version) if they have not first cleansed and purged themselves of sin. This is what he has done. And remember, this whole episode was introduced with a prologue that told us it was a sin-offering.

Yet Aharon seems to understand that he too has done wrong, whether in this or in general - that he too is among those who must acknowledge his sins by repeating the confession. This too is fundamental to Yom Kippur.

32:23 VA YOMRU LI ASEH LANU ELOHIM ASHER YELCHU LEPHANEYNU KI ZEH MOSHEH HA ISH ASHER HE'ELANU ME ERETS MITSRAYIM LO YADA'NU MEH HAYAH LO

וַיֹּאמְרוּ לִי עֲשֵׂה לָנוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר יֵלְכוּ לְפָנֵינוּ כִּי זֶה מֹשֶׁה הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לֹא יָדַעְנוּ מֶה הָיָה לוֹ

KJ: For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

BN: "So they said to me: Make us a god, which shall go before us; for as for this Mosheh, the man that brought us up out of the land of Mitsrayim, we do not know what is become of him.

This interpretation of the story is actually Rabbinic, and the version that we are reading in this verse, as well as several of the surrounding verses, is CE-era editing. It accepts that some kind of Golden Calf was indeed made, even if it was only a real calf hung about with jewellery; that tablets of the law were written likewise; perhaps also broken and re-written (though it may well be that the ancient tablets kept at the shrine were in fact damaged, and Mosheh brought down the broken ones to show the people, before returning to make them their own good copy - leaving the old ones where they belonged at the shrine and taking the new with).

In order to accept this verse and its perspective on the story, we must accept that Mosheh was totally against idol-making and graven-images and representations of the deity etc. But we know from the Keruvim on the Mercy Seat (Exodus 25:18 ff), and later from his personal standard, Nechushtan, that he was not (Numbers 21:4-9) - if making the Golden Calf was a heinous sin, why was making Nechushtan not also? Let the modern Rabbis find an answer to that question (other than "YHVH told him to, so that made it alright").

32:24 VA OMAR LAHEM LE MI ZAHAV HITPARAKU VA YITNU LI VA ASHLICHEHU VA ESH VA YETSE HA EGEL HA ZEH

וָאֹמַר לָהֶם לְמִי זָהָב הִתְפָּרָקוּ וַיִּתְּנוּ לִי וָאַשְׁלִכֵהוּ בָאֵשׁ וַיֵּצֵא הָעֵגֶל הַזֶּה

KJ: And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.

BN: "And I said to them: Whoever has any gold, let them break it off; so they gave it me; and I cast it into the fire, and this this calf came out."

And if there were memories of gold being wrought in the desert, perhaps these are memories of Betsal-El and Ahali-Av smithing the Ark. As before, he could not have created a furnace hot enough to do it. Nor could Betsal-El make the furniture for the Mishkan. All this is late Ezraic or post-Ezraic anachronism.

VA-OMAR: Why not VA-AMARTI (ואמרתי), which is the more customary way of phrasing this

HITPARAKU: As noted previously, this verb is very specific; this was not gold donated by Egyptians, and it was not a wrist bracelet or a brooch; it had to be "broken off", which meant it was a servant's ear-piece, a property-designator. 

VA YETSE HA EGEL HA ZEH: "So I was playing around with these random leaves from my garden, officer, just burning them to see what would happen, and who could have expected that what came out would be marijuana?" Come off it, Aharon. You can provide a better answer than this!

32:25 VA YAR MOSHEH ET HA AM KI PHARU'A HU KI PHERA'OH AHARON LE SHIMTSAH BE KAMEYHEM

וַיַּרְא מֹשֶׁה אֶת הָעָם כִּי פָרֻעַ הוּא כִּי פְרָעֹה אַהֲרֹן לְשִׁמְצָה בְּקָמֵיהֶם

KJ: And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:)

BN (provisional translation): And when Mosheh saw that the people were broken loose - for Aharon had let them loose for a derision among their enemies...

What does all this mean? The appearance of the words PHARU'A and PHERA'O are interesting, as both, unvowelled, could be PHARAOH. But that would be in Egyptian, not Yehudit. KJ has them dancing naked, and PAR'A definitely has that meaning, from the root idea of "letting loose", which could be the clothing, or it could be the morals of the society (nakedness, or anarchy). Numbers 5:18 and Leviticus 10:6 both allow this reading, though both also infer scalp-nakedness rather than body-nakedness, and achieved by shaving. Leviticus 13:45, by contrast, requires the very opposite, the covering up of the naked lip on which signs of leprosy have been diagnosed.

SHAMATS is still more complex, and I am far from convinced that this is simply describing a state of noisy anarchy. Normally the word is understood to mean "putting an enemy to flight", though there is actually no Biblical reference that I can give you to support this. In later Talmudic Yehudit it would have meant "a very little", but that doesn't work here either. In Job 4:12 and 26:14 it is really a very small whisper and not the loud shouting that Yehoshu'a described at all.

So we have two keywords, both of which are translated with meanings that turn out to be the complete opposite of those words usage elsewhere! I think we are again hearing about the dancing (see verse 19), and recognising again that, in the traditions of Set and/or Asherah, it was likely to have been of a drink-and-drug induced and highly orgiastic nature; and probably this was what really upset the rather puritanical Mosheh.

KAMEYHEM: And then a third! Because - where on Earth do the translators get "enemies" from the verb "LAKUM", which means "to get up"?

Which leaves us with:

BN (literal translation, word-by-word). And saw Mosheh the people that they were let loose because they were let loose by Aharon to whisper as they got up.

Which clearly makes no sense at all, though it is more accurate than any other translation I have yet found - click here for a large variety of them.

32:26 VA YA'AMOD MOSHEH BE SHA'AR HA MACHANEH VA YOMER MI LA YHVH ELAI VA YE'ASPHU ELAV KOL BENEY LEVI

וַיַּעֲמֹד מֹשֶׁה בְּשַׁעַר הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיֹּאמֶר מִי לַיהוָה אֵלָי וַיֵּאָסְפוּ אֵלָיו כָּל בְּנֵי לֵוִי

KJ: Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD'S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

BN: Then Mosheh stood in the gate of the camp, and said: "Whoever is on the side of YHVH, let him come to me." And all the Beney Levi gathered together around him.

BE SHA'AR HA MACHANEH: Another interesting anachronism, the suggestion that the camp was sufficiently organised as a camp to have a gate. Gates infer fences, if not walls. This was a temporary camp for a million and a half wandering refugees; maybe the shrine had a gate, but not the camp.

32:27 VA YOMER LAHEM KOH AMAR YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL SIYMU ISH CHARBO AL YERECHO IVRU VA SHUVU MI SHA'AR LA SHA'AR BA MACHANEH VE HIRGU ISH ET ACHAV VE ISH ET RE'EHU VE ISH ET KEROVO

וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל שִׂימוּ אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ עַל יְרֵכוֹ עִבְרוּ וָשׁוּבוּ מִשַּׁעַר לָשַׁעַר בַּמַּחֲנֶה וְהִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו וְאִישׁ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת קְרֹבוֹ

KJ: And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

BN: And he said to them: "Thus says YHVH the god of Yisra-El: Let every man put his sword against his thigh, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour."

Why? Does he see this calf-worship and the anarchy of the dancing as a threat to his own authority, as some kind of a mutiny in the camp? And if the answer to that is yes, then his response (unsanctioned, or at least uninstructed by YHVH) tells us that we have a Stalin on our hands, a Pol Pot. And if they have merely sinned (broken the law), is Mosheh justified in breaking the law to punish them (thou shalt not kill)? No. Again the ambiguities here are too powerful. It is interesting to note that it is the Levites who take on the role of police force and firing squad - descendants of the same Levi who massacred with Shim'on the people of Shechem (Genesis 34). Rather like Catholics putting heretics and blasphemers to the auto-da-fé, or Moslems brandishing the sword to behead the Munafiqun, the fanatics are rewarded with the priestly duties.

And anyway why the slaughter? To what end?

Previously, when YHVH was having a tantrum, we saw and believed that Mosheh was the man to calm him down. Then we saw Mosheh have his own tantrum when he threw down the tablets. And now this. Not good role-models these Biblical leaders.

32:28 VA YA'ASU VENEY LEVI KI DEVAR MOSHEH VA YIPOL MIN HA AM BA YOM HA HU KI SHELOSHET ALPHEY ISH

וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי לֵוִי כִּדְבַר מֹשֶׁה וַיִּפֹּל מִן הָעָם בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אַלְפֵי אִישׁ

KJ: And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

BN: And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Mosheh; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

KI DEVAR: Or KIDVAR

Three thousand dead! Such an extraordinary event merits some analysis. Yet nothing in Rashi, nothing in Rambam or Ramban... glossed over, ignored. Strange! A crime against humanity by any definition, and yet ignored by all the great Bible commentators. I can't imagine why.

32:29 VA YOMER MOSHEH MIL'U YEDCHEM HA YOM LA YHVH KI ISH BIVNO U VE ACHIV VE LATET ALEYCHEM HA YOM BERACHAH

וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה מִלְאוּ יֶדְכֶם הַיּוֹם לַיהוָה כִּי אִישׁ בִּבְנוֹ וּבְאָחִיו וְלָתֵת עֲלֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם בְּרָכָה

KJ: For Moses had said, Consecrate yourselves to day to the LORD, even every man upon his son, and upon his brother; that he may bestow upon you a blessing this day.

BN: Then Mosheh said: "Consecrate yourselves to-day to YHVH, for every man has been against his son and against his brother; that he may also bestow upon you a blessing this day."

This verse needs to be read with a copy of Freud in one hand and a copy of Machiavelli in the other. What exactly is going on? Is he trying to expiate yet another sin: his own, and the people's, because of the massacre? Or is this an example of brilliant leadership transforming a terrible error into an opportunity? Either way, it is clear we are now in the realms of extreme religious fanaticism, not unlike Muhammad's phase of turning against the Jews of Yatrib (Medina), or Catholicism at pretty much any point in its history; and, perhaps more significantly, look at the books of Ezra and Nechem-Yah, the two leaders at the time that all this was being written down, and see the scale of the religious fanaticism there - it makes this entirely unsirprising.

BERACHAH: At the end of all this, a blessing! Which of the traditional blessings might he have used? It certainly isn't OSEH SHALOM BIMROMAV... Oh but I hope most devoutly and sincerely that I am right, and all this is still just liturgy, not actual history. The presence of a blessing at this point, and then the text of the next verse, gives me some grounds for confidence that I may very well be right.

32:30 VA YEHI MI MACHARAT VA YOMER MOSHEH EL HA AM ATEM CHATA'TEM CHATA'AH GEDOLAH VE ATAH E'ELEH EL YHVH ULAI ACHAPRAH BE'AD CHATA'T'CHEM

וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל הָעָם אַתֶּם חֲטָאתֶם חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה וְעַתָּה אֶעֱלֶה אֶל יְהוָה אוּלַי אֲכַפְּרָה בְּעַד חַטַּאתְכֶם

KJ: And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the LORD; peradventure I shall make an atonement for your sin.

BN: And it came to pass the following day, that Mosheh said to the people: "You have sinned a great sin; and now I will go up to YHVH. Perhaps I will be able to make atonement for your sin."

Which sin does he mean though? The Golden Calf, or the massacre? Purification rituals, either way.

This is the tactic of a parent with a child - I shall talk to your teachers, and maybe I will be able to persuade them to let you off your punishment.

But why is he taking responsibility for all this? He wasn't there at the time. It surely wasn't his fault? He was just doing what YHVH had bullied him into doing, passively complying with instruction. The people to whom he had delegated let him down. (I am not sure which supporters of which Chief Executive who refuse to resign I am quoting, but you can no doubt add the names).

32:31 VA YASHAV MOSHEH EL YHVH VA YOMER ANA CHATA HA AM HA ZEH CHATA'AH GEDOLAH VA YA'ASU LAHEM ELOHEY ZAHAV

וַיָּשָׁב מֹשֶׁה אֶל יְהוָה וַיֹּאמַר אָנָּא חָטָא הָעָם הַזֶּה חֲטָאָה גְדֹלָה וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם אֱלֹהֵי זָהָב

KJ: And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.

BN: And Mosheh returned to YHVH, and said: "Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold...

But YHVH already knows this; it was he who informed Mosheh in the first place (verses 7 and 8); once again we clearly have two texts that have not been conjoined meticulously.

Of course, his own sin wasn't a sin; it was an act of religious necessity, with YHVH's approval!

Or was all this too a part of the ceremony, part of the rite of transition from form to form of religious worship, and the "massacre" not an actual massacre but a mimetic ritual?

32:32 VE ATAH IM TISA CHATA'TAM VE IM EYN MECHENI NA MI SIPHRECHA ASHER KATAVTA

וְעַתָּה אִם תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם וְאִם אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ

KJ: Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.

BN: "Yet now, if you will forgive their sin... and if not, blot me, I beg you, out of your book which you have written."

MI SIPHRECHA ASHER KATAVTA: Does it really say that? A "Book of Life"? So now (baruch ha shem!) we can be certain; this is indeed some kind of ancient Yom Kippur festival that we are witnessing; or perhaps some more regular, even weekly or daily equivalent, a Tachanun, a Selichot, a ceremony of expiation and purgation anyway. In which the priests, as in rabbinic times and still today, serve in the ritual as surrogate/representative of all the people. This especially explains verse 29, which echoes the later duchen service: the blessing of the priests and the entry of the Hhigh Priest into the Holy of Holies.

"Blot me out of your book" becomes significant, in that Mosheh's name does not appear in the Haggadah at all, which is the book in which Jews for the last two millennia have retold the Exodus story at Passover (though the concept of a "book", as noted previously, is anyway anachronistic; see below). It is well worth reading this whole story against the Haggadah version and its rabbinic commentaries.

And if there was any remaining doubt that this entire ceremony has been an early version of Yom Kippur, here is the Book of Life itself, the one in which Rabbinic Judaism believes that god writes every year, determining the fates of men for the coming year: who will die by fire, and who by water, who by eating crushed gold and who by Levitical massacre.

Which leaves one final thought: was the Golden Calf in some manner a form of Azaz-El. Remember that the bull-Taurus was the predominant constellation long before the dawning of the age of Aries, which is why the Kayin (Cain) stories reflect the bull cult but the Ya'akov (Jacob) stories a sheep cult, and the Jesus-in-Galilee myths the fish cult, because his epoch was the dawning of the age of Pisces; and if this were so, then perhaps we need to date the Sinai rituals much, much earlier even than we have previously thought. Or simply these were rites, ceremonies and rituals from that earlier time, and the tales and the myths and the legends, even perhaps the hieroglyphed tablets, were still known, still practiced.

32:33 VA YOMER YHVH EL MOSHEH MI ASHER CHATA LI EMCHENU MI SIPHRI

וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה מִי אֲשֶׁר חָטָא לִי אֶמְחֶנּוּ מִסִּפְרִי

KJ: And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

BN: Then YHVH said to Mosheh: "Whoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book...

His book really being the Book of Life itself (a very late BCE concept! at the earliest!), and they are already blotted out. Mosheh has just had 3,000 of them killed. Unless YHVH is being ironic, and means that he intends to blot out Mosheh himself (but the next verse makes clear that this is not the case).

32:34 VE ATAH LECH NECHEH ET HA AM EL ASHER DIBARTI LACH HINEH MAL'ACHI YELECH LEPHANEYCHA U VE YOM PAKDI U PHAKADETI AL'EHEM CHATA'TAM

וְעַתָּה לֵךְ נְחֵה אֶת הָעָם אֶל אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתִּי לָךְ הִנֵּה מַלְאָכִי יֵלֵךְ לְפָנֶיךָ וּבְיוֹם פָּקְדִי וּפָקַדְתִּי עֲלֵהֶם חַטָּאתָם

KJ: Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them.

BN: "And now go, lead the people to the place of which I have spoken to you; behold, my angel shall go before you; nevertheless in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them."

By which we presume he means to Kena'an - though why the mysterious language?

MAL'ACHI: Note that it's once again an "angel" who will lead, and no longer the pillar of fire. Why? Because the volcano will be behind them. But also,presumably, because this is a post-Ezraic further editing.

YOM PAKDI: obscure; does that mean their sin is discounted in the meanwhile? (In which case it cannot have been that heinous. In which case why did Mosheh get so angry, and kill 3,000?) Or it tells us that the ceremony of this equivalent of Yom Kippur is now over. The sins have been forgiven - which, as Heinrich Heine pointed out, is god's job. But future sins will also require atonement. And now that the reason for coming to Sinai is done, time to get on the road to Kena'an.

32:35 VA YIGOPH YHVH ET HA AM AL ASHER ASU ET HA EGEL ASHER ASAH AHARON

וַיִּגֹּף יְהוָה אֶת הָעָם עַל אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֶת הָעֵגֶל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה אַהֲרֹן

KJ: And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made.

BN: And YHVH smote the people, because they made the calf, which Aharon made.

YIGOPH: See Exodus 21:35, where the meaning of YIGOPH could not be clearer, and it has nothing to do with plagues.

ASHER ASAH AHARON: One last cheap dig at Aharon! In the war between the Priests (Sadducees) and the Rabbis (Pharisees) for ownership of the text (yes, I know I should have included that in my commentaries earlier, but I thought there were sufficient multiple versions to keep your mind engaged, not to need to explain why as well) and the authority of Smichah, this is clearly a Rabbinic addition; we can presume it must have been added after the destruction of the Second Temple, or the Priests would never have allowed it.

(And if you want to see that argument in full flow, just go to the opening verse of Pirkei Avot, one of the central study-books of Pharisaic Judaism, and note the absence of the Kohanim from the genealogy of Smichah: click here. Or go to any modern definition of Smichah - try this one - and tell me if you can find one that includes them: Smichah is Rabbinic, exclusively Rabbinic. Sorry Aharon.)

We have to read this verse in conjunction with verses 1, 3, 7-10 and 21-25, all of which state very clearly that "the people" demanded this of Aharon, who merely complied; and those people, all three thousand of them, are now dead. If Aharon were truly responsible for this "sin", would he not have been amongst those three thousand, or at the very least stripped of his authority? Yet he remains the High Priest.

Having just said that he will not blot them out, we are now told that he did. Clearly, as he approaches the end of the Book of Exodus, the Redactor is becoming lazy and not checking his proofs thoroughly.

samech break; end of chapter 32

Surf The Site

Exodus: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13a 13b 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30a 30b 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38a 38b 39 40

Copyright © 2020 David Prashker

All rights reserved

The Argaman Press