Psalms:
Bk 1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Bk 2: 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Bk 3: 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Bk 4: 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
Bk 5: 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119a 119b 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132
133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
Additional Psalms: 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 Samuel Chronicles
Essays: Intro - Music - Form & Language
How is this Psalm different from the teaching Psalms we have seen previously, several of which likewise gave a potted history of Yisra-El? And given the nature of the piece, which is quite clearly a Maskil, why has it not been given that title?
105:1 HODU LA YHVH KIRU BI SHEMO HODIY'U VA AMIM ALIYLOTAV
KJ (King James translation): O give thanks unto the LORD; call upon his name: make known his deeds among the people.
BN (BibleNet translation): Give thanks to YHVH, call out in his name; make known his creations among the nations.
Is this split in two as a couplet, or four as a quatrain?
105:2 SHIYRU LO ZAMRU LO SIYCHU BE CHOL NIPHLE'OTAV
KJ: Sing unto him, sing psalms unto him: talk ye of all his wondrous works.
BN: Sing to him, play to him; speak about all of his marvellous works.
Two words, pause, then two words; equal syllables first and second; and rhyming, like a pop song; longer pause; completion, with a third first-word rhyme, and the last syllable rhyming with the last syllable of the previous verse. But the natural rhythm of the first verse, based on its metre and vocabulary, was musically quite different. How to convey that in a translation? Why is it like this? (Actually, if you sing this verse, it is virtually the same mangina as the traditional rendering of Adir Hu in the Haggadah - its first verse anyway, before the extensions!)
SIYCHU: A SIYACH is a conversation, so this is less about telling the world than making it the subject of a study-group (though it may very well be both, as per my comment at verse 30).
105:3 HIT'HALELU BE SHEM KADSHO YISMACH LEV MEVAKSHEY YHVH
KJ: Glory ye in his holy name: let the heart of them rejoice that seek the LORD.
BN: Glory in his holy name; let the hearts of those who petition YHVH rejoice.
MEVAKSHEY: KJ translates this as "seek", but in the next verse it translates DIRSHU as "seek", which narrows the range of meanings unnecessarily. LEVAKESH means "to ask" in the sense of a "request" (BE VAKASHAH is the modern Ivrit for "please"). DARASH is rather more demanding, and might well forget to say "please", but it is also the root that yields MIDRASH, which is a form of study, and we might suggest that "petitioning" is a way of asking the deity to provide the answer, but MIDRASH is really a going in search of that answer oneself, education rather than teaching: or the outcome of the colloquium in the previous verse.
And I am wondering if, perhaps, that second verse isn't in fact a refrain, a response-line, that the prayer leader recites the verses, and the congregation responds, quite possibly after every single one, with that line... and on, through forty-four repetitions, which by coincidence is the same number of verses as the Avinu Malkeynu (אבינו מלכנו) of Rosh haShana and Yom Kippur, which has a very similar repeating process, and for exactly the same purpose: this is a "Hallelu-Yah and Amen" prayer after all, a community thanksgiving. We will see something very similar with another of the Hodu Psalms when we reach Hallel.
105:4 DIRSHU YHVH VE UZO BAKSHU PHANAV TAMID
KJ: Seek the LORD, and his strength: seek his face evermore.
BN: Seek YHVH and his strength; seek his face continually.
TAMID: Yes, it means "evermore", but it is also the name of one of the daily offerings in the Temple, and clearly both are intended. See the link.
105:5 ZICHRU NIPHLE'OTAV ASHER ASAH MOPHTAV U MISHPETEY PHIYV
KJ: Remember his marvellous works that he hath done; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth;
BN: Remember the marvellous creations that he has made, his wonders, and the judgements of his mouth.
MISHPETEY PHIYV: "The judgements of his mouth", in the case of YHVH, are
105:6 ZERA AV-RAHAM AVDO BENEY YA'AKOV BECHIYRAV
KJ: O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.
BN: The seed of Av-Raham his worshipper, the Beney Ya'akov, his chosen people.
105:9 ASHER KARAT ET AV-RAHAM U SHEVU'ATO LE YISCHAK
KJ: Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac;
BN: [The covenant] ... which he made with Av-Raham, and his oath to Yischak;
ASHER KARAT: The covenant is not actually mentioned, but only implied. See Genesis 12:1-3 for the first mention of it, and then here for the full list of all the covenants.
YISCHAK: Note this; hugely significant. The spelling of the name, I mean, not his being mentioned (see the link for other instances of this variation). Though his being mentioned, alongside Av-Raham as the third patriarch, is probably why verse 6 has Ya'akov rather than Yisra-El - and now see below, which appears to recognise the problem of the variant name, and then clarifies it.
105:10 VA YA'AMIYDEHA LE YA'AKOV LE CHOK LE YISRA-EL BERIT OLAM
KJ: And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:
BN: He also established it with Ya'akov as a statute, to Yisra-El as a contract in perpetuity;
CHOK... BERIT OLAM: Technical legal terms are being employed here. "What was given by God to Moses on Mt Sinai is written law - mitzvah. What was interpreted by the Rabbis and written down in the Talmud is Oral Law – chok; though there are also chokim in the Torah, which distinguishes chokim from mishpatim, gathering the two as mitzvot. The mitzvot are binding, the Rabbinic chokim are subject to constant scrutiny, revision, reinterpretation, and are only binding insofar as custom and tradition are binding". This from my exploration of the daily prayers, "A Myrtle Among Reeds" (page 63). For a full list of the Mitzvot, click here.
105:11 LEMOR LECHA ETEN ET ERETS KENA'AN CHEVEL NACHALAT'CHEM
KJ: Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance:
BN: Saying: "To you I am giving the land of Kena'an as the portion of your inheritance."
Again using legal language: this the notification to the recipient of a bequest. So much so, my familiarity with such contracts has me expecting "whereas" - would that be VE IYLU in modern Ivrit (וְאִלוּ)? "Whereas the Beney Yisra-El agree to keep the following requirements..."
105:15 AL TIG'U VIMSHIYCHAI VE LINVIY'AI AL TARE'U
KJ: Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.
BN: "Do not touch my anointed ones. And as to my Prophets - do not harm them."
VIMSHIYCHAI: MASHIYACH, not MOSHI'A. And this is not just the king, but the Prophets (the Prophets, not the anointed priests) as well.
But turning this to prose does not mean turning it to narrative, which is why the KJ add-ons are unnecessary. This is still line-by-line recitation, probably with verse 2 as responsa; each statement, albeit connected grammatically, stands alone.
105:16 VA YIKRA RA'AV AL HA ARETS KOL MATEH LECHEM SHAVAR
KJ: Moreover he called for a famine upon the land: he brake the whole staff of bread.
BN: And he instigated a famine in the land; he broke the entire stave of bread.
MATEH: Is that spelled the same as MATEH = tribe? And, it indeed being so, is that why it is called a "tribe" - each group designated by its own "staff", which is to say, in modern terms, its own "logo", but then its CEO's equivalent of the royal sceptre; and hence the reason for the use of the same word in English for our employment-tribe (most of which evolved from the mediaeval crafts Guilds, which were all worshipful companies attached to a church, whose "father" would also have walked with an official "staff", etched with the company name, in his case a crucifix)?
105:17 SHALACH LIPHNEYHEM IYSH LE EVED NIMKAR YOSEPH
KJ: He sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant:
BN: He sent a man before them; Yoseph was sold into slavery.
The telling of the Yoseph story in the next verses does not fully accord with the version in the Book of Genesis, for which see chapters 37 ff.
105:18 INU VA KEVEL RAGLAV BARZEL BA'AH NAPHSHO
KJ: Whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was laid in iron:
BN: They hurt his feet with fetters, his spirit was bound in iron;
NAPHSHO: How do you bind a spirit in iron? I think NEPHESH is being used here for the physical body.
105:19 AD ET BO DEVARO IMRAT YHVH TSERAPHAT'HU
KJ: Until the time that his word came: the word of the LORD tried him.
BN: Until the time arrived that his prophecy came to pass, the word of YHVH tested him.
TSERAPHAT'HU: Literally it "smelted" him, which ties in with the iron of the previous verse: first he was bound in it, now he is being moulded with it as a leader by the metal-worker YHVH. They use the words "tested" and especially "proven" in the same industry today - things are 80% or 60% proof, depending on how much they have been treated.
105:20 SHALACH MELECH VA YATIYREHU MOSHEL AMIM VA YEPHAT'CHEHU
KJ: The king sent and loosed him; even the ruler of the people, and let him go free.
BN: The king sent for him - the ruler of the people himself - and untied him, and set him free.
MELECH: King rather than Pharaoh.
Multiple rhymes across and within the verses. Prose returned to song. I have re-arranged the order of the verse in my translation; it is out-of-syntax in the original to allow the two halves of the couplet to rhyme.
105:23 VA YAVO YISRA-EL MITSRAYIM VE YA'AKOV BE ERETS CHAM
KJ: Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.
BN: Yisra-El also came into Mitsrayim, and Ya'akov dwelled in the land of Cham.
YISRA-EL...YA'AKOV: Almost as if there were two different tribes! And if you follow my commentaries through the latter chapters of Genesis (42 for their first arrival, the second half of 44 with Ya'akov) and the early ones of Exodus, you will see why I think they were indeed two different people: Yoseph the leader of the Hyksos, who conquered Mitsrayim and enslaved its people, Mosheh the leader of those [Egyptian] people who overthrew the Hyksos, then drove them across the [northern!] Sinai desert and through Kena'an until Kena'an too was liberated. And most likely this is also retained in the separation of the sons of Rachel - Yoseph and Bin-Yamin - from those of the other three wives (the seeming anomaly here is Shim'on; but see my notes to Yamin); the Bene Jamun probably being their own name for the Hyksos.
105:26 SHALACH MOSHEH AVDO AHARON ASHER BACHAR BO
KJ: He sent Moses his servant; and Aaron whom he had chosen.
BN: He sent Mosheh his servant, and Aharon who he had chosen.
But surely he "chose" Aharon, according to the Exodus tale, because he was Mosheh's brother (Exodus 4:14).
105:27 SAMU VAM DIVREY OTOTAV U MOPHTIM BE ERETS CHAM
KJ: They shewed his signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham.
BN: They performed before them numerous tricks of shaman magic in the land of Cham.
Is my translation unfair? For SHAMANISM, click here.
KJ: He sent darkness, and made it dark; and they rebelled not against his word.
BN: He sent darkness, and it became dark; and they did not protest against his doing this.
CHOSHECH: Exodus 10:21.
Why are there 2 Vavs at the end of that last word? A typing error in the website this was taken from, or is it like this in the original? And if the latter, a scribal error or a grammatical anomaly? The version here is from Sar Shalom. Sefaria offers two different versions, but both in brackets, because it too is bewildered by this (Mechon-Mamre ditto).
105:29 HAPHACH ET MEYMEYHEM LE DAM VA YAMET ET DEGATAM
KJ: He turned their waters into blood, and slew their fish.
BN: He turned their waters into blood, and slew their fish.
This is out of order, if the Exodus version is correct. Chapter 7 for both of these.
105:30 SHARATS ARTSAM TSEPHARD'IM BE CHADREY MALCHEYHEM
KJ: Their land brought forth frogs in abundance, in the chambers of their kings.
BN: Their land swarmed with frogs, in the tombs of their kings.
Ditto: 7:27 on this occasion.
We are getting bored rigid by this tedious "highlights" version of history; but that is because we know the text. Remember that all women, and about 90% of men, were completely illiterate in the days of the First Temple (only the priesthood, and maybe some of the elders, would have had any education at all, despite the instruction in the Shema), and little better than that in the early years of the Second Temple; and so, like the frescoes painted on the walls of Catholic churches in the Middle Ages, these songs and recitations, or the Mystery and Miracle plays, were the primary means of imparting a knowledge of history, including cultural, religious and political (and "primary" in both senses of that word: the first tool, but also that level of education).
KJ: He spake, and there came divers sorts of flies, and lice in all their coasts.
BN: He spoke, and flies and gnats swarmed across all their borders.
Still out of sequence; chapter 8:12-17.
105:32 NATAN GISHMEYHEM BARAD ESH LEHAVOT BE ARTSAM
KJ: He gave them hail for rain, and flaming fire in their land.
BN: He poured torrents of hail down on them, and lightning flashed throughout their land...
The hail comes from Exodus 9:18.
ESH LEHAVOT: Hints of the volcanic eruptions described later on at Sinai; though also, metaphorically, an allusion to the flaming sword of Genesis 3:24. But the next verse confirms that this was lightning.
105:33 VA YACH GAPHNAM U TE'ENATAM VA YESHABER ETS GEVULAM
KJ: He smote their vines also and their fig trees; and brake the trees of their coasts.
BN: ... which struck their vines as well as their fig-trees, and split the trees throughout their borders.
105:34 AMAR VA YAVO ARBEH VE YELEK VE EYN MISPAR
KJ: He spake, and the locusts came, and caterpillers, and that without number,
BN: He spoke, and the locust came, and canker-worms without number...
YELEK: All this is told in Exodus 10, but with a difference on this occasion: the locusts at Exodus 10:4 were the same ARBEH as here, but the YELEK is an addition.
105:35 VA YOCHAL KOL ESEV BE ARTSAM VA YOCHAL PERI ADMATAM
KJ: And did eat up all the herbs in their land, and devoured the fruit of their ground.
BN: ... which ate up every herb in their land, and consumed the produce of their soil.
This purports to be the plagues, but actually it's describing a process of drought, famine and desertification, caused by the ravages of the sun and other weather.
105:36 VA YACH KOL BECHOR BE ARTSAM RE'SHIT LE CHOL ONAM
KJ: He smote also all the firstborn in their land, the chief of all their strength.
BN: He also smote all the first-born in their land, the first-fruits of all their loins.
Exodus 11:1.
105:37 VA YOTSIY'EM BE CHESEPH VE ZAHAV VE EIN BI SHEVATAV KOSHEL
KJ: He brought them forth also with silver and gold: and there was not one feeble person among their tribes.
BN: And he brought them out with silver and gold, and not one of them among his tribes had cause to stumble.
CHESEPH VE ZAHAV: Exodus 12:35.
BI SHEVATAV or BISHVATAV? And what is the difference between a SHEVET and a MATEH (for which see verse 16)? Both mean a staff, or perhaps the SHEVET is more like a rod - cf Isaiah 10:15 or 14:5, Proverbs 10:13 (the source of the cliché about "being a rod for the back") or 13:24, many others.
105:38 SAMACH MITSRAYIM BE TSE'TAM KI NAPHAL PACHDAM ALEYHEM
KJ: Egypt was glad when they departed: for the fear of them fell upon them.
BN: Mitsrayim rejoiced when they departed, for the fear of them had fallen upon them.
SAMACH: This is unlikely to have been true of a band of slaves who ran away, as the Exodus version tells it. More likely to have been the case when Ach-Mousa organised a rebellion against the Hyksos invaders, and drove them out after a hundred years and more of domination of the land and the somewhat collectivist feudal system imposed on them by Yoseph.
105:39 PARAS ANAN LE MASACH VE ESH LEHA'IR LAILAH
KJ: He spread a cloud for a covering; and fire to give light in the night.
BN: He spread a cloud for a screen, and fire to give them light by night.
PARAS ANAN: Not quite the same as the Exodus text; cf Exodus 13:21.
105:40 SHA'AL VA YAV'E SELAV VE LECHEM SHAMAYIM YASBIY'EM
KJ: The people asked, and he brought quails, and satisfied them with the bread of heaven.
BN: They asked, and he brought quail, and gave them in plenty the bread of heaven.
Exodus 16.
KJ: He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places like a river.
BN: He opened the rock, and water gushed out, and flowed, a river in those dry places.
Exodus 17 for this version, though any good educator will spend several lessons on this tale, because it clashes dreadfully with the second version, in Numbers 20 (and don't forget Numbers 27). Same events precisely (except for the manner in which the staff or rod is employed), but in one the full approval of the deity, in the other the exclusion from the Promised Land of a most terrible sinner. Use my link to MERIVAH to follow all this through. That second version can also be found in the continuation of this Maskil, at Psalm 106:32.
105:42 KI ZACHAR ET DEVAR KADSHO ET AV-RAHAM AVDO
KJ: For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant.
BN: For he remembered his holy word to Av-Raham his worshipper.
105:43 VA YOTS'I AMO VE SASON BE RINAH ET BECHIYRAV
KJ: And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness:
BN: And he brought out his people with joy, his chosen people with singing.
RINAH: Presumably that includes - here, anyway - the repeated singing of verse 2 as a refrain: and if that is correct, the choirmaster needs to pump up the choir to serious crescendo and fortissimo voce on this occasion, because, after, 41 repetitions, it may have lost some of its gusto!
105:44 VA YITEN LAHEM ARTSOT GOYIM VA AMAL LE'UMIM YIYRASHU
KJ: And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people;
BN: And he gave them the lands of the nations, and they hired the native peoples to work their inheritance;
VA YITEN: Not really; not until the conquest, if it can even be called that, by Yehsoshu'a.
KJ: That they might observe his statutes, and keep his laws. Praise ye the LORD.
BN: That they might keep his statutes, and observe his laws. {N} Hallelu-Yah.
HALLELU YAH: Clearly a male deity on this occasion, which helps us to date the piece - see my note at verse 1. Can we assume though that the presence of YAH infers a much older hymn which did include both king and consort, YAH and YHVH, and probably one so well known and so often sung that removing the YAH from the Hallelu was not likely to succeed unless some convenient theological explanation could be found: for which the Omnideity obviously serves?
105:1 HODU LA YHVH KIRU BI SHEMO HODIY'U VA AMIM ALIYLOTAV
הוֹדוּ לַיהוָה קִרְאוּ בִּשְׁמוֹ הוֹדִיעוּ בָעַמִּים עֲלִילוֹתָיו
KJ (King James translation): O give thanks unto the LORD; call upon his name: make known his deeds among the people.
BN (BibleNet translation): Give thanks to YHVH, call out in his name; make known his creations among the nations.
Is this split in two as a couplet, or four as a quatrain?
Once again, as throughout the second half of Book Four, the Psalm is addressed to YHVH alone - and as such we can say that this must be a very late Psalm (or a very late redaction of an earlier Psalm), post 400 BCE, probably later even than that, in the Hasmonean era, the epoch of the Omnideity.
105:2 SHIYRU LO ZAMRU LO SIYCHU BE CHOL NIPHLE'OTAV
שִׁירוּ לוֹ זַמְּרוּ לוֹ שִׂיחוּ בְּכָל נִפְלְאוֹתָיו
KJ: Sing unto him, sing psalms unto him: talk ye of all his wondrous works.
BN: Sing to him, play to him; speak about all of his marvellous works.
Two words, pause, then two words; equal syllables first and second; and rhyming, like a pop song; longer pause; completion, with a third first-word rhyme, and the last syllable rhyming with the last syllable of the previous verse. But the natural rhythm of the first verse, based on its metre and vocabulary, was musically quite different. How to convey that in a translation? Why is it like this? (Actually, if you sing this verse, it is virtually the same mangina as the traditional rendering of Adir Hu in the Haggadah - its first verse anyway, before the extensions!)
SIYCHU: A SIYACH is a conversation, so this is less about telling the world than making it the subject of a study-group (though it may very well be both, as per my comment at verse 30).
105:3 HIT'HALELU BE SHEM KADSHO YISMACH LEV MEVAKSHEY YHVH
הִתְהַלְלוּ בְּשֵׁם קָדְשׁוֹ יִשְׂמַח לֵב מְבַקְשֵׁי יְהוָה
KJ: Glory ye in his holy name: let the heart of them rejoice that seek the LORD.
BN: Glory in his holy name; let the hearts of those who petition YHVH rejoice.
MEVAKSHEY: KJ translates this as "seek", but in the next verse it translates DIRSHU as "seek", which narrows the range of meanings unnecessarily. LEVAKESH means "to ask" in the sense of a "request" (BE VAKASHAH is the modern Ivrit for "please"). DARASH is rather more demanding, and might well forget to say "please", but it is also the root that yields MIDRASH, which is a form of study, and we might suggest that "petitioning" is a way of asking the deity to provide the answer, but MIDRASH is really a going in search of that answer oneself, education rather than teaching: or the outcome of the colloquium in the previous verse.
And I am wondering if, perhaps, that second verse isn't in fact a refrain, a response-line, that the prayer leader recites the verses, and the congregation responds, quite possibly after every single one, with that line... and on, through forty-four repetitions, which by coincidence is the same number of verses as the Avinu Malkeynu (אבינו מלכנו) of Rosh haShana and Yom Kippur, which has a very similar repeating process, and for exactly the same purpose: this is a "Hallelu-Yah and Amen" prayer after all, a community thanksgiving. We will see something very similar with another of the Hodu Psalms when we reach Hallel.
105:4 DIRSHU YHVH VE UZO BAKSHU PHANAV TAMID
דִּרְשׁוּ יְהוָה וְעֻזּוֹ בַּקְּשׁוּ פָנָיו תָּמִיד
KJ: Seek the LORD, and his strength: seek his face evermore.
BN: Seek YHVH and his strength; seek his face continually.
TAMID: Yes, it means "evermore", but it is also the name of one of the daily offerings in the Temple, and clearly both are intended. See the link.
105:5 ZICHRU NIPHLE'OTAV ASHER ASAH MOPHTAV U MISHPETEY PHIYV
זִכְרוּ נִפְלְאוֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה מֹפְתָיו וּמִשְׁפְּטֵי פִיו
KJ: Remember his marvellous works that he hath done; his wonders, and the judgments of his mouth;
BN: Remember the marvellous creations that he has made, his wonders, and the judgements of his mouth.
MISHPETEY PHIYV: "The judgements of his mouth", in the case of YHVH, are
his Word, his DAVAR, for which see any number of previous explanations, and then verse 8. As to the "marvellous creations" - see my note to LAVASHTA at Psalm 104:1.
105:6 ZERA AV-RAHAM AVDO BENEY YA'AKOV BECHIYRAV
זֶרַע אַבְרָהָם עַבְדּוֹ בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב בְּחִירָיו
KJ: O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.
BN: The seed of Av-Raham his worshipper, the Beney Ya'akov, his chosen people.
AV-RAHAM: See the link.
BENEY YA'AKOV: There is no means of answering this question, but it remains intriguing anyway: on what principal, if any, did they determine whether to say Beney Ya'akov or Beney Yisra-El? We have the same issue in the United Kingdom, I mean Britain, I mean Great Britain, or in my case England; though I have never heard anyone from America call themselves United Statesers.
105:7 HU YHVH ELOHEYNU BE CHOL HA ARETS MISHPATAV
KJ: He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth.
BN: He is YHVH, our god; his ordinances apply throughout the Earth.
Which of course is why the concept of the Omnideity evolved - and modern science would agree. If the deity is the metaphor that explains the Creation and Functioning of the Cosmos (E = Elohim), and you finally work out that the manifestations may be different, but that the core is in fact universal, then the sun-god and the tree-goddess and the storm-god, and the planet Venus and the fishes and the worms ... and the god Genome and the goddess Quantum as well... are all One. See my notes on this in Genesis 1.
105:8 ZACHAR LE OLAM BERIYTO DAVAR TSIVAH LE ELEPH DOR
KJ: He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
BN: Remember his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
105:7 HU YHVH ELOHEYNU BE CHOL HA ARETS MISHPATAV
הוּא יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ בְּכָל הָאָרֶץ מִשְׁפָּטָיו
KJ: He is the LORD our God: his judgments are in all the earth.
BN: He is YHVH, our god; his ordinances apply throughout the Earth.
Which of course is why the concept of the Omnideity evolved - and modern science would agree. If the deity is the metaphor that explains the Creation and Functioning of the Cosmos (E = Elohim), and you finally work out that the manifestations may be different, but that the core is in fact universal, then the sun-god and the tree-goddess and the storm-god, and the planet Venus and the fishes and the worms ... and the god Genome and the goddess Quantum as well... are all One. See my notes on this in Genesis 1.
105:8 ZACHAR LE OLAM BERIYTO DAVAR TSIVAH LE ELEPH DOR
זָכַר לְעוֹלָם בְּרִיתוֹ דָּבָר צִוָּה לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר
KJ: He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
BN: Remember his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations.
His "judgements" in the previous verse, his "word" here, plus verse 5, but it amounts to the same: the laws of the deity are Physics, Chemistry and Biology first, moral and ethical legislation only secondary, along with the politics: the argument being that, if this is how the Cosmos operates, and we are designed the same as it, then we need to create societies that mirror and reflect those "laws" (yes, "laws", the same word Einstein used for his Second Law of Thermodynamics).
(And if you disagree with my remarks in these last two verses, make them the focus of your next study-group!)
(And if you disagree with my remarks in these last two verses, make them the focus of your next study-group!)
105:9 ASHER KARAT ET AV-RAHAM U SHEVU'ATO LE YISCHAK
אֲשֶׁר כָּרַת אֶת אַבְרָהָם וּשְׁבוּעָתוֹ לְיִשְׂחָק
KJ: Which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac;
BN: [The covenant] ... which he made with Av-Raham, and his oath to Yischak;
ASHER KARAT: The covenant is not actually mentioned, but only implied. See Genesis 12:1-3 for the first mention of it, and then here for the full list of all the covenants.
YISCHAK: Note this; hugely significant. The spelling of the name, I mean, not his being mentioned (see the link for other instances of this variation). Though his being mentioned, alongside Av-Raham as the third patriarch, is probably why verse 6 has Ya'akov rather than Yisra-El - and now see below, which appears to recognise the problem of the variant name, and then clarifies it.
105:10 VA YA'AMIYDEHA LE YA'AKOV LE CHOK LE YISRA-EL BERIT OLAM
וַיַּעֲמִידֶהָ לְיַעֲקֹב לְחֹק לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרִית עוֹלָם
KJ: And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:
BN: He also established it with Ya'akov as a statute, to Yisra-El as a contract in perpetuity;
CHOK... BERIT OLAM: Technical legal terms are being employed here. "What was given by God to Moses on Mt Sinai is written law - mitzvah. What was interpreted by the Rabbis and written down in the Talmud is Oral Law – chok; though there are also chokim in the Torah, which distinguishes chokim from mishpatim, gathering the two as mitzvot. The mitzvot are binding, the Rabbinic chokim are subject to constant scrutiny, revision, reinterpretation, and are only binding insofar as custom and tradition are binding". This from my exploration of the daily prayers, "A Myrtle Among Reeds" (page 63). For a full list of the Mitzvot, click here.
105:11 LEMOR LECHA ETEN ET ERETS KENA'AN CHEVEL NACHALAT'CHEM
לֵאמֹר לְךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת אֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן חֶבֶל נַחֲלַתְכֶם
KJ: Saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance:
BN: Saying: "To you I am giving the land of Kena'an as the portion of your inheritance."
Again using legal language: this the notification to the recipient of a bequest. So much so, my familiarity with such contracts has me expecting "whereas" - would that be VE IYLU in modern Ivrit (וְאִלוּ)? "Whereas the Beney Yisra-El agree to keep the following requirements..."
KENA'AN: See the link.
105:12 BI HEYOTAM METEY MISPAR KIM'AT VE GARIM BAH
KJ: When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it.
BN: When they were but few in number, had only just come to live there...
KIM'AT or KIM'E'AT? see my previous note. This is a very precise idiom in Yehudit, and revived with precisely the same intent in modern Ivrit.
105:13 VA YIT'HALCHU MI GOY EL GOY MI MAMLACHAH EL AM ACHER
KJ: When they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people;
BN: And were going about from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another...
What started as very structured verse has now become pure prose.
105:14 LO HINIYACH ADAM LE ASHKAM VA YOCHACH ALEYHEM MELACHIM
KJ: He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes;
BN: He would not tolerate anybody harming them, and on their behalf even rebuked kings:
I would like to be able to identify the precise texts from which these verses are sourced, but I am unable to do so. Verses 10 and 11 are Ya'akov, centuries before the Mosaic journey let alone the Yehoshuaic conquest, though verse 12 appears to be after that conquest, except that the numbers in the Book of Numbers made them far from few - see Numbers 3 for the first census, Numbers 26 for the second. Are verses 13 and 14 then from Shoftim (The Book of Judges?); the reference to "anointed ones" and "prophets" in verse 15 cannot, surely, be any earlier than Shoftim?
105:12 BI HEYOTAM METEY MISPAR KIM'AT VE GARIM BAH
בִּהְיוֹתָם מְתֵי מִסְפָּר כִּמְעַט וְגָרִים בָּהּ
KJ: When they were but a few men in number; yea, very few, and strangers in it.
BN: When they were but few in number, had only just come to live there...
KIM'AT or KIM'E'AT? see my previous note. This is a very precise idiom in Yehudit, and revived with precisely the same intent in modern Ivrit.
105:13 VA YIT'HALCHU MI GOY EL GOY MI MAMLACHAH EL AM ACHER
וַיִּתְהַלְּכוּ מִגּוֹי אֶל גּוֹי מִמַּמְלָכָה אֶל עַם אַחֵר
KJ: When they went from one nation to another, from one kingdom to another people;
BN: And were going about from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another...
What started as very structured verse has now become pure prose.
105:14 LO HINIYACH ADAM LE ASHKAM VA YOCHACH ALEYHEM MELACHIM
לֹא הִנִּיחַ אָדָם לְעָשְׁקָם וַיּוֹכַח עֲלֵיהֶם מְלָכִים
KJ: He suffered no man to do them wrong: yea, he reproved kings for their sakes;
BN: He would not tolerate anybody harming them, and on their behalf even rebuked kings:
I would like to be able to identify the precise texts from which these verses are sourced, but I am unable to do so. Verses 10 and 11 are Ya'akov, centuries before the Mosaic journey let alone the Yehoshuaic conquest, though verse 12 appears to be after that conquest, except that the numbers in the Book of Numbers made them far from few - see Numbers 3 for the first census, Numbers 26 for the second. Are verses 13 and 14 then from Shoftim (The Book of Judges?); the reference to "anointed ones" and "prophets" in verse 15 cannot, surely, be any earlier than Shoftim?
But the very next verses challenge this interpretation. The famine in verse 16 is the one that brought Ya'akov down to Mistrayim, the one that Yoseph in verse 17 is appointed to administer, and from then on it is the last chapters of the Book of Genesis and the early chapters of Exodus.
105:15 AL TIG'U VIMSHIYCHAI VE LINVIY'AI AL TARE'U
אַל תִּגְּעוּ בִמְשִׁיחָי וְלִנְבִיאַי אַל תָּרֵעוּ
KJ: Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm.
BN: "Do not touch my anointed ones. And as to my Prophets - do not harm them."
VIMSHIYCHAI: MASHIYACH, not MOSHI'A. And this is not just the king, but the Prophets (the Prophets, not the anointed priests) as well.
But turning this to prose does not mean turning it to narrative, which is why the KJ add-ons are unnecessary. This is still line-by-line recitation, probably with verse 2 as responsa; each statement, albeit connected grammatically, stands alone.
105:16 VA YIKRA RA'AV AL HA ARETS KOL MATEH LECHEM SHAVAR
וַיִּקְרָא רָעָב עַל הָאָרֶץ כָּל מַטֵּה לֶחֶם שָׁבָר
KJ: Moreover he called for a famine upon the land: he brake the whole staff of bread.
BN: And he instigated a famine in the land; he broke the entire stave of bread.
MATEH: Is that spelled the same as MATEH = tribe? And, it indeed being so, is that why it is called a "tribe" - each group designated by its own "staff", which is to say, in modern terms, its own "logo", but then its CEO's equivalent of the royal sceptre; and hence the reason for the use of the same word in English for our employment-tribe (most of which evolved from the mediaeval crafts Guilds, which were all worshipful companies attached to a church, whose "father" would also have walked with an official "staff", etched with the company name, in his case a crucifix)?
105:17 SHALACH LIPHNEYHEM IYSH LE EVED NIMKAR YOSEPH
שָׁלַח לִפְנֵיהֶם אִישׁ לְעֶבֶד נִמְכַּר יוֹסֵף
KJ: He sent a man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a servant:
BN: He sent a man before them; Yoseph was sold into slavery.
The telling of the Yoseph story in the next verses does not fully accord with the version in the Book of Genesis, for which see chapters 37 ff.
105:18 INU VA KEVEL RAGLAV BARZEL BA'AH NAPHSHO
עִנּוּ בַכֶּבֶל רַגְלָיו בַּרְזֶל בָּאָה נַפְשׁוֹ
KJ: Whose feet they hurt with fetters: he was laid in iron:
BN: They hurt his feet with fetters, his spirit was bound in iron;
NAPHSHO: How do you bind a spirit in iron? I think NEPHESH is being used here for the physical body.
105:19 AD ET BO DEVARO IMRAT YHVH TSERAPHAT'HU
עַד עֵת בֹּא דְבָרוֹ אִמְרַת יְהוָה צְרָפָתְהוּ
KJ: Until the time that his word came: the word of the LORD tried him.
BN: Until the time arrived that his prophecy came to pass, the word of YHVH tested him.
TSERAPHAT'HU: Literally it "smelted" him, which ties in with the iron of the previous verse: first he was bound in it, now he is being moulded with it as a leader by the metal-worker YHVH. They use the words "tested" and especially "proven" in the same industry today - things are 80% or 60% proof, depending on how much they have been treated.
105:20 SHALACH MELECH VA YATIYREHU MOSHEL AMIM VA YEPHAT'CHEHU
שָׁלַח מֶלֶךְ וַיַתִּירֵהוּ מֹשֵׁל עַמִּים וַיְפַתְּחֵהוּ
KJ: The king sent and loosed him; even the ruler of the people, and let him go free.
BN: The king sent for him - the ruler of the people himself - and untied him, and set him free.
MELECH: King rather than Pharaoh.
Multiple rhymes across and within the verses. Prose returned to song. I have re-arranged the order of the verse in my translation; it is out-of-syntax in the original to allow the two halves of the couplet to rhyme.
For the original of this, we have now reached Genesis 40; the next verse takes us to chapter 41.
105:21 SAMO ADON LE VEITO U MOSHEL BE CHOL KINYANO
KJ: He made him lord of his house, and ruler of all his substance:
BN: He made him the master of his house, the ruler of everything he owned.
105:22 LE'SOR SARAV BE NAPHSHO U ZEKENAV YECHAKEM
KJ: To bind his princes at his pleasure; and teach his senators wisdom.
BN: To forge his princes in his spirit, and to teach his elders wisdom.
LE'SOR SARAV: Sound-games first of all, the first with a Samech (ס), the second with a Seen (ש). But does it really mean "bind"? He might bind foreign princes, if he is engaging in war - but Yoseph in Genesis never did. He might bind national princes, if they were rebellious - but no evidence of that in the Genesis tales either. And then...
105:21 SAMO ADON LE VEITO U MOSHEL BE CHOL KINYANO
שָׂמוֹ אָדוֹן לְבֵיתוֹ וּמֹשֵׁל בְּכָל קִנְיָנוֹ
KJ: He made him lord of his house, and ruler of all his substance:
BN: He made him the master of his house, the ruler of everything he owned.
105:22 LE'SOR SARAV BE NAPHSHO U ZEKENAV YECHAKEM
לֶאְסֹר שָׂרָיו בְּנַפְשׁוֹ וּזְקֵנָיו יְחַכֵּם
KJ: To bind his princes at his pleasure; and teach his senators wisdom.
BN: To forge his princes in his spirit, and to teach his elders wisdom.
LE'SOR SARAV: Sound-games first of all, the first with a Samech (ס), the second with a Seen (ש). But does it really mean "bind"? He might bind foreign princes, if he is engaging in war - but Yoseph in Genesis never did. He might bind national princes, if they were rebellious - but no evidence of that in the Genesis tales either. And then...
NAPHSHO: And again an unusual usage of the word NEPHESH. "At his pleasure" is guesswork, trying to work this out, but failing. "To bind someone in your own spirit" sounds to me like a great teacher gaining disciples, and the second half of the verse endorses that. I have gone for "forged", because that continues the image of the smelting of the iron previously. And with this the anachronism "prophets" in verse 15 now seems rather less anomalous, if we abandon the silly notion of Prophets as gazers into crystal-balls and deliverers of horoscopes, and understand them as what they were, the Deans of the various Yeshivot of their epoch, professors of philosophy every one.
105:23 VA YAVO YISRA-EL MITSRAYIM VE YA'AKOV BE ERETS CHAM
וַיָּבֹא יִשְׂרָאֵל מִצְרָיִם וְיַעֲקֹב גָּר בְּאֶרֶץ חָם
KJ: Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.
BN: Yisra-El also came into Mitsrayim, and Ya'akov dwelled in the land of Cham.
YISRA-EL...YA'AKOV: Almost as if there were two different tribes! And if you follow my commentaries through the latter chapters of Genesis (42 for their first arrival, the second half of 44 with Ya'akov) and the early ones of Exodus, you will see why I think they were indeed two different people: Yoseph the leader of the Hyksos, who conquered Mitsrayim and enslaved its people, Mosheh the leader of those [Egyptian] people who overthrew the Hyksos, then drove them across the [northern!] Sinai desert and through Kena'an until Kena'an too was liberated. And most likely this is also retained in the separation of the sons of Rachel - Yoseph and Bin-Yamin - from those of the other three wives (the seeming anomaly here is Shim'on; but see my notes to Yamin); the Bene Jamun probably being their own name for the Hyksos.
MITSRAYIM: See the link.
CHAM: See the link.
The other options to consider here are that:
a) Mitsrayim stood for Lower Egypt, and Cham for Upper Egypt.
b) Mitsrayim stood for the "white" people of Egypt, who we would today call "north Africans" and associate more with the Arabs; Cham, from the word Chem meaning "black" or "hot"... which, on reflection, is no different from option a.
105:24 VA YEPHER ET AMO ME'OD VA YA'ATSIMEHU MI TSARAV
KJ: And he increased his people greatly; and made them stronger than their enemies.
BN: And he made his people rich and powerful, too much so for their adversaries.
TSARAV: see my note to Psalm 89:24.
The conquest of Mitsrayim by the Hyksos!
105:25 HAPHACH LIBAM LISNO AMO LEHITNAKEL BA AVADAV
KJ: He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servants.
BN: He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal deceitfully with his servants.
HAPHACH LIBAM: We have left Genesis behind and entered Exodus, without any connector in the text - the asumption throughout this Psalm is that we are in study-group, and the students know their texts well enough not to require connectors.
105:24 VA YEPHER ET AMO ME'OD VA YA'ATSIMEHU MI TSARAV
וַיֶּפֶר אֶת עַמּוֹ מְאֹד וַיַּעֲצִמֵהוּ מִצָּרָיו
KJ: And he increased his people greatly; and made them stronger than their enemies.
BN: And he made his people rich and powerful, too much so for their adversaries.
TSARAV: see my note to Psalm 89:24.
The conquest of Mitsrayim by the Hyksos!
105:25 HAPHACH LIBAM LISNO AMO LEHITNAKEL BA AVADAV
הָפַךְ לִבָּם לִשְׂנֹא עַמּוֹ לְהִתְנַכֵּל בַּעֲבָדָיו
KJ: He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servants.
BN: He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal deceitfully with his servants.
HAPHACH LIBAM: We have left Genesis behind and entered Exodus, without any connector in the text - the asumption throughout this Psalm is that we are in study-group, and the students know their texts well enough not to require connectors.
AVADAV: Is that AVADAV as "servants", or eventually "slaves", this being Mitsrayim; or was it always "worshippers" and we need to re-think the Mosheh stories? Ditto in the next verse.
105:26 SHALACH MOSHEH AVDO AHARON ASHER BACHAR BO
שָׁלַח מֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ אַהֲרֹן אֲשֶׁר בָּחַר בּוֹ
KJ: He sent Moses his servant; and Aaron whom he had chosen.
BN: He sent Mosheh his servant, and Aharon who he had chosen.
But surely he "chose" Aharon, according to the Exodus tale, because he was Mosheh's brother (Exodus 4:14).
105:27 SAMU VAM DIVREY OTOTAV U MOPHTIM BE ERETS CHAM
שָׂמוּ בָם דִּבְרֵי אֹתוֹתָיו וּמֹפְתִים בְּאֶרֶץ חָם
KJ: They shewed his signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham.
BN: They performed before them numerous tricks of shaman magic in the land of Cham.
Is my translation unfair? For SHAMANISM, click here.
ERETS CHAM: As per my noting, above, of the division of Mitsrayim into Lower and Upper Egypt, one with a capital at Thebes, the other at Tell el-Daba'a (Avaris) in Hyksos times, On (Heliopolis, today's Kahir/Cairo) in Pharonic times. Metser and Kemet are both used by Egyptians, then as now, for the whole of Egypt - see my page on Mitsrayim for more on this, and a map.
105:28 SHALACH CHOSHECH VA YACHSHOCH VE LO MARU ET DEVARAV
שָׁלַח חֹשֶׁךְ וַיַּחְשִׁךְ וְלֹא מָרוּ אֶת דְּבָרָוו
KJ: He sent darkness, and made it dark; and they rebelled not against his word.
BN: He sent darkness, and it became dark; and they did not protest against his doing this.
CHOSHECH: Exodus 10:21.
Why are there 2 Vavs at the end of that last word? A typing error in the website this was taken from, or is it like this in the original? And if the latter, a scribal error or a grammatical anomaly? The version here is from Sar Shalom. Sefaria offers two different versions, but both in brackets, because it too is bewildered by this (Mechon-Mamre ditto).
105:29 HAPHACH ET MEYMEYHEM LE DAM VA YAMET ET DEGATAM
הָפַךְ אֶת מֵימֵיהֶם לְדָם וַיָּמֶת אֶת דְּגָתָם
KJ: He turned their waters into blood, and slew their fish.
BN: He turned their waters into blood, and slew their fish.
This is out of order, if the Exodus version is correct. Chapter 7 for both of these.
105:30 SHARATS ARTSAM TSEPHARD'IM BE CHADREY MALCHEYHEM
שָׁרַץ אַרְצָם צְפַרְדְּעִים בְּחַדְרֵי מַלְכֵיהֶם
KJ: Their land brought forth frogs in abundance, in the chambers of their kings.
BN: Their land swarmed with frogs, in the tombs of their kings.
Ditto: 7:27 on this occasion.
We are getting bored rigid by this tedious "highlights" version of history; but that is because we know the text. Remember that all women, and about 90% of men, were completely illiterate in the days of the First Temple (only the priesthood, and maybe some of the elders, would have had any education at all, despite the instruction in the Shema), and little better than that in the early years of the Second Temple; and so, like the frescoes painted on the walls of Catholic churches in the Middle Ages, these songs and recitations, or the Mystery and Miracle plays, were the primary means of imparting a knowledge of history, including cultural, religious and political (and "primary" in both senses of that word: the first tool, but also that level of education).
Which paragraph appears to clash with my first comment at verse 25; but in fact not so: I am increasingly convinced that this is a Maskil, a teaching-Psalm, that the study-group are trainee teachers, and this Psalm, with the two that follow, are the curriculum that they will be going out to "deliver". Verse by verse, teaching period by teaching period - and enough material in the three Psalms to require a full school year.
105:31 AMAR VA YAVO AROV KINIM BE CHOL GEVULAM
105:31 AMAR VA YAVO AROV KINIM BE CHOL GEVULAM
אָמַר וַיָּבֹא עָרֹב כִּנִּים בְּכָל גְּבוּלָם
KJ: He spake, and there came divers sorts of flies, and lice in all their coasts.
BN: He spoke, and flies and gnats swarmed across all their borders.
Still out of sequence; chapter 8:12-17.
105:32 NATAN GISHMEYHEM BARAD ESH LEHAVOT BE ARTSAM
נָתַן גִּשְׁמֵיהֶם בָּרָד אֵשׁ לֶהָבוֹת בְּאַרְצָם
KJ: He gave them hail for rain, and flaming fire in their land.
BN: He poured torrents of hail down on them, and lightning flashed throughout their land...
The hail comes from Exodus 9:18.
ESH LEHAVOT: Hints of the volcanic eruptions described later on at Sinai; though also, metaphorically, an allusion to the flaming sword of Genesis 3:24. But the next verse confirms that this was lightning.
105:33 VA YACH GAPHNAM U TE'ENATAM VA YESHABER ETS GEVULAM
וַיַּךְ גַּפְנָם וּתְאֵנָתָם וַיְשַׁבֵּר עֵץ גְּבוּלָם
KJ: He smote their vines also and their fig trees; and brake the trees of their coasts.
BN: ... which struck their vines as well as their fig-trees, and split the trees throughout their borders.
105:34 AMAR VA YAVO ARBEH VE YELEK VE EYN MISPAR
אָמַר וַיָּבֹא אַרְבֶּה וְיֶלֶק וְאֵין מִסְפָּר
KJ: He spake, and the locusts came, and caterpillers, and that without number,
BN: He spoke, and the locust came, and canker-worms without number...
YELEK: All this is told in Exodus 10, but with a difference on this occasion: the locusts at Exodus 10:4 were the same ARBEH as here, but the YELEK is an addition.
105:35 VA YOCHAL KOL ESEV BE ARTSAM VA YOCHAL PERI ADMATAM
וַיֹּאכַל כָּל עֵשֶׂב בְּאַרְצָם וַיֹּאכַל פְּרִי אַדְמָתָם
KJ: And did eat up all the herbs in their land, and devoured the fruit of their ground.
BN: ... which ate up every herb in their land, and consumed the produce of their soil.
This purports to be the plagues, but actually it's describing a process of drought, famine and desertification, caused by the ravages of the sun and other weather.
105:36 VA YACH KOL BECHOR BE ARTSAM RE'SHIT LE CHOL ONAM
וַיַּךְ כָּל בְּכוֹר בְּאַרְצָם רֵאשִׁית לְכָל אוֹנָם
KJ: He smote also all the firstborn in their land, the chief of all their strength.
BN: He also smote all the first-born in their land, the first-fruits of all their loins.
Exodus 11:1.
105:37 VA YOTSIY'EM BE CHESEPH VE ZAHAV VE EIN BI SHEVATAV KOSHEL
וַיּוֹצִיאֵם בְּכֶסֶף וְזָהָב וְאֵין בִּשְׁבָטָיו כּוֹשֵׁל
KJ: He brought them forth also with silver and gold: and there was not one feeble person among their tribes.
BN: And he brought them out with silver and gold, and not one of them among his tribes had cause to stumble.
CHESEPH VE ZAHAV: Exodus 12:35.
BI SHEVATAV or BISHVATAV? And what is the difference between a SHEVET and a MATEH (for which see verse 16)? Both mean a staff, or perhaps the SHEVET is more like a rod - cf Isaiah 10:15 or 14:5, Proverbs 10:13 (the source of the cliché about "being a rod for the back") or 13:24, many others.
105:38 SAMACH MITSRAYIM BE TSE'TAM KI NAPHAL PACHDAM ALEYHEM
שָׂמַח מִצְרַיִם בְּצֵאתָם כִּי נָפַל פַּחְדָּם עֲלֵיהֶם
KJ: Egypt was glad when they departed: for the fear of them fell upon them.
BN: Mitsrayim rejoiced when they departed, for the fear of them had fallen upon them.
SAMACH: This is unlikely to have been true of a band of slaves who ran away, as the Exodus version tells it. More likely to have been the case when Ach-Mousa organised a rebellion against the Hyksos invaders, and drove them out after a hundred years and more of domination of the land and the somewhat collectivist feudal system imposed on them by Yoseph.
MITSRAYIM: First it was CHAM, then both, now only MITSRAYIM; and I find myself wondering if this is a version of history to which we need to pay closer attention: was the land perhaps called CHAM before the arrival of the Hyksos, but renamed MITSRAYIM either by them, or after Ach-Mousa drove them out? Or does this simply reflect the editing and re-editing of a text at different, later, points of history?
105:39 PARAS ANAN LE MASACH VE ESH LEHA'IR LAILAH
פָּרַשׂ עָנָן לְמָסָךְ וְאֵשׁ לְהָאִיר לָיְלָה
KJ: He spread a cloud for a covering; and fire to give light in the night.
BN: He spread a cloud for a screen, and fire to give them light by night.
PARAS ANAN: Not quite the same as the Exodus text; cf Exodus 13:21.
105:40 SHA'AL VA YAV'E SELAV VE LECHEM SHAMAYIM YASBIY'EM
שָׁאַל וַיָּבֵא שְׂלָו וְלֶחֶם שָׁמַיִם יַשְׂבִּיעֵם
KJ: The people asked, and he brought quails, and satisfied them with the bread of heaven.
BN: They asked, and he brought quail, and gave them in plenty the bread of heaven.
Exodus 16.
105:41 PATACH TSUR VA YAZUVU MAYIM HALCHU BA TSIYOT NAHAR
פָּתַח צוּר וַיָּזוּבוּ מָיִם הָלְכוּ בַּצִּיּוֹת נָהָר
KJ: He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places like a river.
BN: He opened the rock, and water gushed out, and flowed, a river in those dry places.
Exodus 17 for this version, though any good educator will spend several lessons on this tale, because it clashes dreadfully with the second version, in Numbers 20 (and don't forget Numbers 27). Same events precisely (except for the manner in which the staff or rod is employed), but in one the full approval of the deity, in the other the exclusion from the Promised Land of a most terrible sinner. Use my link to MERIVAH to follow all this through. That second version can also be found in the continuation of this Maskil, at Psalm 106:32.
105:42 KI ZACHAR ET DEVAR KADSHO ET AV-RAHAM AVDO
כִּי זָכַר אֶת דְּבַר קָדְשׁוֹ אֶת אַבְרָהָם עַבְדּוֹ
KJ: For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant.
BN: For he remembered his holy word to Av-Raham his worshipper.
105:43 VA YOTS'I AMO VE SASON BE RINAH ET BECHIYRAV
וַיּוֹצִא עַמּוֹ בְשָׂשׂוֹן בְּרִנָּה אֶת בְּחִירָיו
KJ: And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness:
BN: And he brought out his people with joy, his chosen people with singing.
RINAH: Presumably that includes - here, anyway - the repeated singing of verse 2 as a refrain: and if that is correct, the choirmaster needs to pump up the choir to serious crescendo and fortissimo voce on this occasion, because, after, 41 repetitions, it may have lost some of its gusto!
105:44 VA YITEN LAHEM ARTSOT GOYIM VA AMAL LE'UMIM YIYRASHU
וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם אַרְצוֹת גּוֹיִם וַעֲמַל לְאֻמִּים יִירָשׁוּ
KJ: And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people;
BN: And he gave them the lands of the nations, and they hired the native peoples to work their inheritance;
VA YITEN: Not really; not until the conquest, if it can even be called that, by Yehsoshu'a.
GOYIM: Translating this as "heathens", as I believe I have pointed out previously, is not simply innaccurate, because that is not what the word means, but shamefully so, because it superimposes a negative value judgement from a very specific ideological perspective - and one that isn't even Jewish.
AMAL: The KJ phrases this in a way that seems to infer slavery, which would be very ironic if it were correct.
105:45 BA AVUR YISHMERU CHUKAV VE TORATAV YINTSORU HALELU YAH
AMAL: The KJ phrases this in a way that seems to infer slavery, which would be very ironic if it were correct.
105:45 BA AVUR YISHMERU CHUKAV VE TORATAV YINTSORU HALELU YAH
בַּעֲבוּר יִשְׁמְרוּ חֻקָּיו וְתוֹרֹתָיו יִנְצֹרוּ הַלְלוּ יָהּ
KJ: That they might observe his statutes, and keep his laws. Praise ye the LORD.
BN: That they might keep his statutes, and observe his laws. {N} Hallelu-Yah.
HALLELU YAH: Clearly a male deity on this occasion, which helps us to date the piece - see my note at verse 1. Can we assume though that the presence of YAH infers a much older hymn which did include both king and consort, YAH and YHVH, and probably one so well known and so often sung that removing the YAH from the Hallelu was not likely to succeed unless some convenient theological explanation could be found: for which the Omnideity obviously serves?
The tale told here is not finished; it will resume at Psalm 106, and continue into 107, which does rather question both the numbering (is this in fact a single, very long Psalm?), and even more the division into books, because 106 is in Book 4, but 107 in Book 5.
Psalms:
Bk 1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Bk 2: 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72
Bk 3: 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89
Bk 4: 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106
Bk 5: 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119a 119b 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132
133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
Additional Psalms: 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 Samuel Chronicles
Essays: Intro - Music - Form & Language
Copyright
© 2022 David Prashker
All
rights reserved
The
Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment