TheBibleNet: Psalm 106

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

Psalm 106:1 is mirrored in 1 Chronicles 16:34, and repeated, albeit with an interesting minor variation in the first of these, in 107:1, 118:1 and 136:1.

No title, no descriptor, no dedication, but clearly another in the series of Thanksgiving hymns, as well as being a Maskil, a teaching-Psalm, yet another teaching-Psalm, re-telling yet again the same old catechism of the Exodus. Or is it in fact a continuation of Psalm 105, split in two (or actually three, with Psalm 107 as the third; see my closing note on this page) because of its great length?

There is a dispute among the Jewish scholars, dating back to early Talmudic times, over which Psalms were sung as Hallel in the Second Temple. Today it is generally agreed that it was Psalms 113-118, but "agreed" is a complex term, and it is similarly agreed that Macbeth was an evil monster, the four Canonical Gospels are the only authentic biographies of Jesus, and Richard Nixon was basically a good and honest man. Several of the Psalms between this and 113 begin with that same phrase, "Hallelu Yah", and therefore qualify as candidates for having been Hallel Psalms; indeed it is entirely possible that all of these once were. But if so, then they were Psalms to the goddess, not the god.

106:1 HALELU YAH HODU LA YHVH KI TOV KI LE OLAM CHASDO

הַלְלוּיָהּ הוֹדוּ לַיהוָה כִּי טוֹב כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ

KJ (King James translation): Praise ye the LORD. O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.

BN (BibleNet translation): Sing praises to the great mother. {N} Give thanks also to YHVH, for he is good, for his compassion is eternal.

HALELU YAH: I am aware that I am going to be re-stating this in a number of the Psalms that follow, so skip this if you have read it before: "Hallelu Yah" means, in short, "Praise Yah"; means, in long, "Praise the goddess of the full moon, the Madonna, the Earth goddess, the Mother of the Beloved Son Yedid-Yah who is known in his abbreviated form as David or Daoud". YAH is how you write the number 15 in Yehudit; and the 15th is the day of the full moon, when the triple goddess comes into her Madonna-state, and therefore the date of all the fertility festivals. At some point of post-Ezraic proto-Jewish development, probably early Hasmonean, the cult turned patriarchal, and not only were all the gods and the several goddesses of the polytheon absorbed into the monotheistic Omnideity, but also masculinised. So names from the past that ended Yah were rewritten to end Yahu (Elijah, Isaiah, many others), or had the Yah dropped (Ezra was originally, from his grandfather, Azar-Yah, as Jesus, like David's father, Jesse, was really Isaiah in its abbreviated form, and then without the Yah), and words that could not be changed, like this one, were simply redefined: "oh, no, Yah was always male, from the very beginning". So Jewish orthodoxy continues to maintain to this day.

But this verse includes both of them, YAH and YHVH, and separately!

With the previous Psalm, I suggested that either the opening line and/or verse 2 had the rhythm and tone and feel of a Responsa, a phrase for the congregation to use as a refrain after every verse, the other verses all recited by either the chazan (the prayer-leader) or the choir. My sense of the opening line in this Psalm is that it would have worked in precisely the same way - indeed this could have been used as an example when I spoke previously about the leader-responsa technique: in many of today's synagogues that technique is still used, so that a verse like the one opening this Psalm would be split: "Halelu Yah" serving as a leader-and-congregation opening gambit, the leader reciting "Hodu la YHVH ki tov", the congregation responding melodically "Ki le olam chasdo" - many synagogues today use precisely this arrangement when they sing "Hodu L'YHVH" after "Baruch She Amar" in "Pesukei D'Zimra" (see page 134 ff in "A Myrtle Among Reeds"), though actually it is the 1 Chronicles 16 version that is used there. The remainder of this Psalm may not be quite so obviously conducive to that technique, but this very verse will appear in the very next Psalm, 107, doing precisely this right through.

106:2 MI YEMALEL GEVUROT YHVH YASHMIY'A KOL TEHILATO

מִי יְמַלֵּל גְּבוּרוֹת יְהוָה יַשְׁמִיעַ כָּל תְּהִלָּתוֹ

KJ: Who can utter the mighty acts of the LORD? who can shew forth all his praise?

BN: Who can express the mighty acts of YHVH, or make all his praise heard?

MI YEMALEL GEVUROT YHVH: The same words provide Chanukah with one of its most popular traditional songs, though there are those who would banish it - click here.

And that allusion to Chanukah is not insignificant, because YEMALEL... but rather than rewriting it here, go to my notes on Milelai and Gilelai at Nechem-Yah 12:36. Crucial evidence for the dating of this Psalm, and a very late, Hasmonean-era dating at that.

106:3 ASHREI SHOMREY MISHPAT OSEH TSEDAKAH VE CHOL ET

אַשְׁרֵי שֹׁמְרֵי מִשְׁפָּט עֹשֵׂה צְדָקָה בְכָל עֵת

KJ: Blessed are they that keep judgment, and he that doeth righteousness at all times.

BN: Happy are they who obey the law, who do what is right at all times.

KJ, for the umpteenth time, please stop translating ASHREI as "blessed".

Note that ASHREI connects with ASHERAH and SARAI/SARAH, both of them forms of the mother-goddess; though it is not obvious from the redacted tales in the Tanach whether ASHERAH was the young virgin, the Cinderella-Cordelia moon, or the Snow Queen, the post-menopausal, waning moon: but probably, from the Yitschak tale, the latter. The same is true for Regan and Goneril in the Lear tales, Cordelia clearly the Brünhild-Sleeping Beauty-Maid Marian, but which is the the elder step-sister and which the Madonna is not obvious. The pre-Moslem Daughters of al-Lah provide the same triplet, and probably Lot, in her original feminine form, with her two daughters (her elder sisters in the original), after the flight from Sedom, likewise.

106:4 ZACHRENI YHVH BIRTSON AMECHA PAKDENI BIYSHU'ATECHA

זָכְרֵנִי יְהוָה בִּרְצוֹן עַמֶּךָ פָּקְדֵנִי בִּישׁוּעָתֶךָ

KJ: Remember me, O LORD, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy salvation;

BN: Remember me, YHVH, with the favour that you show your people; think of me when you choose who to save.

BIYSHU'ATECHA: Returning us to YASHMIY'A in verse 2. I noticed, in that link in verse 2, that the "neo-Hasid" writing it also picked up my endlessly-repeated point about Moshi'a. Worth looking at that link again (the 2nd para after the box with the lyrics). And the same again at verse 10.

106:5 LIR'OT BE TOVAT BECHIYREYCHA LISMO'ACH BE SIMCHAT GOYECHA LEHIT'HALEL IM NACHALATECHA

לִרְאוֹת בְּטוֹבַת בְּחִירֶיךָ לִשְׂמֹחַ בְּשִׂמְחַת גּוֹיֶךָ לְהִתְהַלֵּל עִם נַחֲלָתֶךָ

KJ: That I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may glory with thine inheritance.

BN: That I may enjoy the prosperity awarded to the ones you choose, that I may participate in the joy of your nation, {N} that I may share personally in your bequest.

LEHIT'HALEL: The same root as HALELU YAH, but this time in the Hitpa'el or reflexive form.

106:6 CHATA'NU IM AVOTEYNU HE'EVIYNU HIRSHA'NU

חָטָאנוּ עִם אֲבוֹתֵינוּ הֶעֱוִינוּ הִרְשָׁעְנוּ

KJ: We have sinned with our fathers, we have committed iniquity, we have done wickedly.

BN: We have sinned like our ancestors; we have done iniquitously; we have dealt wickedly.

Standard Yom Kippur-Selichot liturgy; I shall need to check whether this is ever quoted directly in the texts, or simply provides a model. Certainly each of the words is breast-beaten in the Vidu'i (for a full explanation, see pages 21/26 of "Day of Atonement").

106:7 AVOTEYNU VE MITSRAYIM LO HISKIYLU NIPHLE'OTEYCHA LO ZACHRU ET ROV CHASADEYCHA VA YAMRU AL YAM BE YAM SUPH

אֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא הִשְׂכִּילוּ נִפְלְאוֹתֶיךָ לֹא זָכְרוּ אֶת רֹב חֲסָדֶיךָ וַיַּמְרוּ עַל יָם בְּיַם סוּף

KJ: Our fathers understood not thy wonders in Egypt; they remembered not the multitude of thy mercies; but provoked him at the sea, even at the Red sea.

BN: Our ancestors in Mitsrayim did not understand your wonders; {N} did not remember the number of your acts of loving-kindness; {N} and they were rebellious at the sea, even at the Reed Sea.

This the point at which the Psalm appears to become a continuation of the previous one - it even resumes at the same point of the tale (Exodus 14). But this verse is naughty. Nothing in the Toraic account confirms these statements. Saying it distorts history, or questions the veracity of Torah - either way unacceptable, the first to the irreligious, the second to the religious. Or were there other versions than the ones that Ezra included in his redaction, as there were numerous other Jesus gospels than the four canonicals?

YAM SUPH: For an explanation of my insistence that this was not the Red Sea, but the marshes of the Nile Delta known as "the Reed Sea" in ancient Egyptian, see my commentaries in the Book of Exodus. The "Red Sea", incidentally, should be translated as the "Sea of Edom", whose southern border it was: Yam Edom, not Yam Adom, though unpointed they look the same in Yehudit.

106:8 VA YOSHIY'EM LEMA'AN SHEMO LEHODIY'A ET GEVURATO

וַיּוֹשִׁיעֵם לְמַעַן שְׁמוֹ לְהוֹדִיעַ אֶת גְּבוּרָתוֹ

KJ: Nevertheless he saved them for his name's sake, that he might make his mighty power to be known.

BN: Nevertheless he saved them for his name's sake, that he might cause his mighty power to become known.

"For his name's sake" is another phrase that frequents the Yom Kippur and Selichot liturgy, though usually, because Talmudic Judaism is usually more personalised (2nd person), "for your name's sake", where Biblical proto-Judaism is generally (somewhat impersonalised) 3rd person, "for his name's sake". See my notes, for example, at Psalm 66:20.

And go back yet again to the link in verse 2, because this is precisely the point the "neo-Hasid" is making there: anything good that happens in the human world must be accredited to the deity, anything bad to the human.

106:9 VA YIG'AR BE YAM SUPH VA YECHERAV VA YOLIYCHEM BA TEHOMOT KA MIDBAR

וַיִּגְעַר בְּיַם סוּף וַיֶּחֱרָב וַיּוֹלִיכֵם בַּתְּהֹמוֹת כַּמִּדְבָּר

KJ: He rebuked the Red sea also, and it was dried up: so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness.

BN: And he rebuked the Reed Sea, so that it dried up; and he led them through its depths, as through a desert.

Ibid verse 7.

106:10 VA YOSHIY'EM MI YAD SON'E VA YIG'ALEM MI YAD OYEV

וַיּוֹשִׁיעֵם מִיַּד שׂוֹנֵא וַיִּגְאָלֵם מִיַּד אוֹיֵב

KJ: And he saved them from the hand of him that hated them, and redeemed them from the hand of the enemy.

BN: And he saved them from the hand of he who hated them, and redeemed them from the hand of the enemy.

VE YOSHIY'EM: See my note at verse 4.

106:11 VA YECHASU MAYIM TSAREYHEM ECHAD ME HEM LO NOTAR

וַיְכַסּוּ מַיִם צָרֵיהֶם אֶחָד מֵהֶם לֹא נוֹתָר

KJ: And the waters covered their enemies: there was not one of them left.

BN: And the water drowned those who sought to trouble them; not one of them was left.

The Talmudic scholars, and Rabbis ever since, have had a huge problem with this - and not just this verse, but the original event, in Exodus 14 - see my notes and links at ICHAVDAH, Exodus 14:17, rather than me repeating them here; and then look at verses 22 and 34.

106:12 VA YA'AMIYNU VI DEVARAV YASHIYRU TEHILATO

וַיַּאֲמִינוּ בִדְבָרָיו יָשִׁירוּ תְּהִלָּתוֹ

KJ: Then believed they his words; they sang his praise.

BN: Then they believed in his words; then they sang his praise.

106:13 MIHARU SHACHECHU MA'ASAV LO CHIKU LA ATSAT

מִהֲרוּ שָׁכְחוּ מַעֲשָׂיו לֹא חִכּוּ לַעֲצָת

KJ: They soon forgat his works; they waited not for his counsel:

BN: But just as quickly they forgot his works; nor did they wait for him to advise them...

Don't you just love the truth and honesty of that double-verse! Like all the lessons that we need to learn from history: crammed into short-term memory for an important test, deleted from the synapses altogether once we know we have passed it; after which, remake the same historical errors.

106:14 VA YIT'AVU TA'AVAH BA MIDBAR VA YENASU EL BIYSHIYMON

וַיִּתְאַוּוּ תַאֲוָה בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיְנַסּוּ אֵל בִּישִׁימוֹן

KJ: But lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tempted God in the desert.

BN: ...but lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tested El in the desert.

YIT'AVU: why are both Vavs medugash? The inference is that the first is a double-letter; in which case the same should apply in TA'AVAH.

EL: I take this for an oversight by the Ezraic, or perhaps the Hasmonean-era Redactor; it should have been replaced by YHVH. Except that once may be an error, twice... less likely: see verse 21.

BIYSHIYMON: I would also have expected a sheva under the Bet at the start of BIYSHIYMON, so that it can be fully BI YESHIYMON.

BA MIDBAR...BIYSHIYMON: And as to the difference between them, the roots of each word give them away: MIDBAR comes from the DAVAR, the word of the deity, of which there is absolutely no evidence in the 140 degree heat and nothing-but-sand of that type of desert - whence the MI prefix, providing the negative. YESHIYMON comes from the root YASHAM, and is always scrub-desert - see for example Psalms 68:8 and 78:40 as well as Numbers 21:20, and many others. Note that YESHIYMON is almost exclusively a word used in liturgy, and also take a moment to wonder if the tribe of Simeon, which is SHIM'ON in Yehudit... but SHIM'ON has an Ayin, and is therefore a different root... which is true, but about half of the the area of desert known as Yeshimon or Yeshiymon is also precisely the tribal territory of Shim'on.

106:15 VA YITEN LAHEM SHE'ELATAM VA YESHALACH RAZON BE NAPHSHAM

וַיִּתֵּן לָהֶם שֶׁאֱלָתָם וַיְשַׁלַּח רָזוֹן בְּנַפְשָׁם

KJ: And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul.

BN: And he gave them their request, but he left their souls still hungry.

Sadly this is a flaw in intelligent design, and not something that we humans are able to transcend or cure.

106:16 VA YEKAN'U LE MOSHEH BA MACHANEH LE AHARON KEDOSH YHVH

וַיְקַנְאוּ לְמֹשֶׁה בַּמַּחֲנֶה לְאַהֲרֹן קְדוֹשׁ יְהוָה

KJ: They envied Moses also in the camp, and Aaron the saint of the LORD.

BN: They were envious too, of Mosheh, in the camp, and of Aharon, the holy one of YHVH.

YEKAN'U: We tend to use "jealous" when we mean "envious", and need to get that distinction back. We are jealous of the things we want to keep; we are envious of the things we don't have, but want to obtain. So jealousy here (which most translations offer) would be pride in Mosheh, defense of him against his critics; but YEKAN'U means that they are themselves the critics.

BA MACHANEH...KEDOSH: The first is the secular, the second the religious.

If I am not giving source references for all of these, it is because they are recurrent themes rather than one-off incidents; you will need to follow the text for yourself to see the overlaps and variations.

106:17 TIPHTACH ERETS VA TIVLA DATAN VA TECHAS AL ADAT AVI-RAM

תִּפְתַּח אֶרֶץ וַתִּבְלַע דָּתָן וַתְּכַס עַל עֲדַת אֲבִירָם

KJ: The earth opened and swallowed up Dathan, and covered the company of Abiram.

BN: The earth opened and swallowed up Datan, and covered those who had gathered around Avi-Ram.

Where this one can be source-referenced, though it is oddly out of order; the Korachite rebellion is recounted in Numbers 16, while all the other events mentioned thus far have been in Exodus, before the arrival at Chorev, which will take place at verse 19, just two below.

106:18 VA TIV'AR ESH BA ADATAM LEHAVAH TELAHET RESHA'IM

וַתִּבְעַר אֵשׁ בַּעֲדָתָם לֶהָבָה תְּלַהֵט רְשָׁעִים

KJ: And a fire was kindled in their company; the flame burned up the wicked.

BN: And a fire was kindled where they were assembled; the flame burned up the wicked.

This needs to be read with the full tale on Numbers 16, because the fire is not volcano or lightning, but quite specifically the fire-pans which the Korachite priests used for the sacred... but better to read my notes at the text.

106:19 YA'ASU EGEL BE CHOREV VA YISHTACHAVU LE MASECHAH

יַעֲשׂוּ עֵגֶל בְּחֹרֵב וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לְמַסֵּכָה

KJ: They made a calf in Horeb, and worshipped the molten image.

BN: They made a calf on Chorev, and worshipped a molten image.

YISHTACHAVU: See my note to YIT'AVU in verse 14; the grammar here is identical to the grammar there, yet the Vav is not medugash - it seems to me more and more that the Masoretic decisions were very random, unstructured, needful of clearer rules and guidelines in order to obtain greater consistency.

Is it significant that the order of events here does not follow the order in Torah? The same was true of the earlier Davidic Psalms in relation to the Book of Samuel.

The destruction of the Golden Calf can be found at Exodus 32:20.

106:20 VA YAMIYRU ET KEVODAM BE TAVNIT SHOR OCHEL ESEV

וַיָּמִירוּ אֶת כְּבוֹדָם בְּתַבְנִית שׁוֹר אֹכֵל עֵשֶׂב

KJ: Thus they changed their glory into the similitude of an ox that eateth grass.

BN: Thus they exchanged their ikon for the likeness of an ox that eats grass.

This is unlikely to be intended sarcastically, and so we must regard it as theologically very serious, and then wonder: graven images were not permitted, were they? What ikon was it then that they had, that was available to be exchanged for this one? Nechushtan possibly - but no, Mosheh continued carrying that, through the full forty years. So it must have been a different ikon.

As to the mythology: the Yisra-Eli god was never corporeal, except by manifestation as Nature, and in human action, and depicting him/her has always been prohibited, from the very earliest days when it was still polytheistic. Every other religion in the world at that epoch did the opposite, and it defines the fundamental difference between the Yisra-Eli cult and all the others: in one, Nature and human actions are described as being gods, in the other the gods are described as being Nature and human actions. This is not just the clever-clever word-play that it might, at first, appear to be. The one reduces and simplifies, the other enlarges and exalts.

106:21 SHACHECHU EL MOSHIY'AM OSEH GEDOLOT BE MITSRAYIM

שָׁכְחוּ אֵל מוֹשִׁיעָם עֹשֶׂה גְדֹלוֹת בְּמִצְרָיִם

KJ: They forgat God their saviour, which had done great things in Egypt;

BN: They forgot El their saviour, who had done great things in Mitsrayim...

EL: Once again we have to ask if the Mosaic tale was not originally a Kena'ani tale, later borrowed and adapted by the Beney Yisra-El, and this therefore a Kena'ani Psalm, likewise borrowed and adapted by the Beney Yisra-El. See my note at verse 14.

106:22 NIPHLA'OT BE ERETS CHAM NORA'OT AL YAM SUPH

נִפְלָאוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ חָם נוֹרָאוֹת עַל יַם סוּף

KJ: Wondrous works in the land of Ham, and terrible things by the Red sea.

BN: ... performed miracles in the land of Cham, and wonders by the Reed Sea.

NORA'OT: does it really mean "terrible"? "wondrous" perhaps? In the same way that we use "awful" today to mean "something bad", and have had to invent "awesome" to counter it, because it means "awe-inspiring", and should therefore always be good. Or should it? It can in fact mean both, or either, and this may well be the source of the famous text of Mishnah referred to in my note to verse 11, which speaks with great compassion of the suffering inflicted by the deity on the wives and mothers of Mitsrayim, whose force-conscript husbands and sons were drowned in vast numbers when the waters of the Reed Sea swept over them. What was wondrously good to the fleeing Beney Yisra-El was also the worst catastrophe in history to the Beney Cham.

106:23 VA YOMER LEHASHMIYDAM LULEY MOSHEH VECHIYRO AMAD BA PERETS LEPHANAV LEHASHIV CHAMATO ME HASHCHIT

וַיֹּאמֶר לְהַשְׁמִידָם לוּלֵי מֹשֶׁה בְחִירוֹ עָמַד בַּפֶּרֶץ לְפָנָיו לְהָשִׁיב חֲמָתוֹ מֵהַשְׁחִית

KJ: Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach, to turn away his wrath, lest he should destroy them.

BN: Therefore he said that he would have destroyed them, {N} had not Mosheh his chosen stood before him in the breach, {N} to turn back his wrath, to prevent him from destroying them.

LEHASHMIYDAM: "Would have" does not really exist as a grammatical option in Yehudit, but "would have" is clearly the intention here, based on the grammar of the second half of the verse. In modern Ivrit we would probably say "HAYAH MASHMID OTAM", using the imperfect tense where the conditional and/or subjunctive are lacking.

106:24 VA YIM'ASU BE ERETS CHEMDAH LO HE'EMIYNU LIDVARO

וַיִּמְאֲסוּ בְּאֶרֶץ חֶמְדָּה לֹא הֶאֱמִינוּ לִדְבָרוֹ

KJ: Yea, they despised the pleasant land, they believed not his word:

BN: And then they scorned the desirable land, they did not believe what he had told them;

I presume this is the response to the twelve spies in Numbers 13. And for the second time (at least) in this Psalm, we have Exodus overlapping with Numbers in a way that suggests, perhaps, that they were concurrent in the original version (which actually makes much more sense!).

106:25 VA YERAGNU VE AHALEYHEM LO SHAM'U BE KOL YHVH

וַיֵּרָגְנוּ בְאָהֳלֵיהֶם לֹא שָׁמְעוּ בְּקוֹל יְהוָה

KJ: But murmured in their tents, and hearkened not unto the voice of the LORD.

BN: And they murmured in their tents, unlistening to the voice of YHVH.

The voice on that occasion being the rumbling of an earthquake.

106:26 VA YIS'A YADO LAHEM LEHAPYIL OTAM BA MIDBAR

וַיִּשָּׂא יָדוֹ לָהֶם לְהַפִּיל אוֹתָם בַּמִּדְבָּר

KJ: Therefore he lifted up his hand against them, to overthrow them in the wilderness:

BN (provisional): Therefore He swore concerning them, that He would overthrow them in the wilderness;

This is not my translation [you can tell by the capital "H" on "he"; click here for the source], and I do not agree with it, but I have included it because it is certainly a plausible translation, treating the two verbs here as metaphors rather than literalities. The reason for my disagreement is that the method of swearing an oath by raising the right hand is a relatively modern Christian practice, probably learned from the Romans; amongst the Biblical Beney Yisra-El an oath would have been sworn by placing the hand "under the thigh" - itself a euphemism (cf Genesis 24:9).

BN: Therefore he raised his hand against them, to cause their downfall in the wilderness.

LEHAPIYL: From the root NAPHAL, which has nothing to do with PO'AL, the source of the Binyanim and one of the words for the "works" of the deity, though it is in the Hiph'il form here, "to cause to fall", and it is a work of the deity. Because this is about Korach's rebellion, I have gone for "downfall"; which of course is also what happened to them physically when the earthquake happened.

106:27 U LEHAPYIL ZAR'AM BA GOYIM U LE ZAROTAM BA ARATSOT

וּלְהַפִּיל זַרְעָם בַּגּוֹיִם וּלְזָרוֹתָם בָּאֲרָצוֹת

KJ: To overthrow their seed also among the nations, and to scatter them in the lands.

BN: And to spread out their descendants among the nations, and scatter them in the lands.

LEHAPIYL: Same word as in the previous verse, but the context modifies its meaning. The figure of speech in the Yehudit is agricultural, the casting of seed across a field, but the intention is allegorical - the future diaspora, for which the author would have meant either the destruction of the northern kingdom in 720 BCE (click here), or the exile of Yehudah in 586 BCE (click here); whichever the intention, it helps us date this Psalm.

106:28 VA YITSAMDU LE VA'AL PE'OR VA YO'CHLU ZIVCHEY METIM

וַיִּצָּמְדוּ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר וַיֹּאכְלוּ זִבְחֵי מֵתִים

KJ: They joined themselves also unto Baalpeor, and ate the sacrifices of the dead.

BN: They bound themselves as a congregation before Ba'al Pe'or, and ate the sacrifices of the dead.

Were we told this at the time (Numbers 23:28 is its first mention, but the key parts are in Numbers 25)? And what does it mean/involve? The sacrifices in the Numbers tale are animal, but "sacrifices of the dead", which sounds like it means human beings, could perfectly well mean dead animals; and if so, was the problem that they were the sacrifices to the wrong deity, or because they were performing sacrifices as part of the bereavement rituals: either way, not properly kosher?

106:29 VA YACH'IYSU BE MA'ALELEYHEM VA TIPHRATS BAM MAGEPHAH

וַיַּכְעִיסוּ בְּמַעַלְלֵיהֶם וַתִּפְרָץ בָּם מַגֵּפָה

KJ: Thus they provoked him to anger with their inventions: and the plague brake in upon them.

BN: And they made him angry him with their practices, and the plague broke out upon them.

MA'ALELEYHEM: Which generally needs to be understood in relation to PO'AL - see my notes at Psalm 9:11, which has links to several others; and especially Psalm 28:4.

TIPHRATS: Burglars break "in"; plagues break "out".

106:30 VA YA'AMOD PINCHAS VA YEPHALEL VA TE'ATSAR HA MAGEPHAH

וַיַּעֲמֹד פִּינְחָס וַיְפַלֵּל וַתֵּעָצַר הַמַּגֵּפָה

KJ: Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed.

BN: Then Pinchas stood up, and prayed on their behalf, and so the plague was stayed.

PINCHAS: I have rendered it this way, in spite of the Yud added second letter by the Masoretes.

YEPHALEL: The root that gives LEHITPALEL, "to pray", prayer being a form of inner reflection for the most part, whence the "reflective" form of the verb; but also, as here, the act of petitioning.

106:31 VA TECHASHEV LO LITSDAKAH LE DOR VA DOR AD OLAM

וַתֵּחָשֶׁב לוֹ לִצְדָקָה לְדֹר וָדֹר עַד עוֹלָם

KJ: And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore.

BN: And that was accredited to him as an act of righteousness, for all the coming generations, for ever.

Which is why, by the time we reach Joshua 22:13, he is effectively the Kohen Gadol in succession to Aharon.

106:32 VA YAKTSIYPHU AL MEY MERIYVAH VA YERA LE MOSHEH BA AVURAM

וַיַּקְצִיפוּ עַל מֵי מְרִיבָה וַיֵּרַע לְמֹשֶׁה בַּעֲבוּרָם

KJ: They angered him also at the waters of strife, so that it went ill with Moses for their sakes:

BN (traditional translation): They angered him too at the waters of Meriyvah, and everything went wrong for Mosheh because of them;

MERIYVAH: Numbers 20, but references also at Numbers 27:14 and Deuteronomy 32:51.

YERA: How does that get this translation? (It is, anyway, a most unusual take on that particular story.) Is it understood as a Pi'el verb made from the root RA = "evil"? Check this against the verb for "to fear", and then see the continuation of this sentence in the next verse.

BN (preferred translation): They angered him too at the waters of Meriyvah, and Mosheh was struck with fear because of them...

We visited Meriyvah at Psalm 105:41. See my note there.

106:33 KI HIMRU ET RUCHO VA YEVAT'E BISPHATAV

כִּי הִמְרוּ אֶת רוּחוֹ וַיְבַטֵּא בִּשְׂפָתָיו

KJ: Because they provoked his spirit, so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips.

BN: For they embittered his spirit, and he spoke rashly with his lips.

BISPHATAV: Or BI SEPHATAV?

Isn't the whole point of that tale that he acted rashly with his rod, not his lips?

106:34 LO HISHMIYDU ET HA AMIM ASHER AMAR YHVH LAHEM

לֹא הִשְׁמִידוּ אֶת הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר אָמַר יְהוָה לָהֶם

KJ: They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them:

BN: They did not destroy the nations, as YHVH instructed them.

Hmmm! Like Av-Raham at Sedom, there has always been an issue between Humankind and the deity on this particular issue. He, aware that all creatures have to die eventually, doesn't seem too bothered whether it's natural causes aged 85 or a bomb aged 3, and in this case what would have to be called either a Holocaust or a Genocide if it had been carried out. Humans (some humans) just can't sign that particular covenant (and see again my note at verse 11)

106:35 VA YIT'ARVU VA GOYIM VA YILMEDU MA'ASEYHEM

וַיִּתְעָרְבוּ בַגּוֹיִם וַיִּלְמְדוּ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם

KJ: But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works.

BN: But mingled themselves with the nations, and learned their ways.

YILMEDU: We need a Yehudit linguistics expert on this one: "they learned" would be LAMDU; however, if the Vav Consecutive is being used, it would become VE YILMEDU. But this says VA YILMEDU, which is either an error by the Masorete and it should be VE YILMEDU, or it isn't a Vav Consecutive, and is in fact the Pi'el form, and in the Pi'el LILMOD = "to learn" becomes transformed into LELAMED = "to teach", which transforms this verse entirely (and doesn't actually make logical sense). I am treating this as another Masoretic error, and staying with my translation.

106:36 VA YA'AVDU ET ATSABEYHEM VA YIHEYU LAHEM LE MOKESH

וַיַּעַבְדוּ אֶת עֲצַבֵּיהֶם וַיִּהְיוּ לָהֶם לְמוֹקֵשׁ

KJ: And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them.

BN: And they worshipped their idols, which became a snare unto them.

MOKESH: Snare in the sense that a girl in a strip-joint or a third cocktail in the wine bar is a "snare": "irresistible enticement" might be a better way of phrasing it - and I have used these two analogies, because they are the modern equivalents of the two main attractions of the rites of Asherah and the ceremonies of Ba'al. Oh, and drugs, of course. They would have used haoma, probably smoked from a bubbling narguileh rather than its leaf dipped like tea as a drink.

106:37 VA YIZBECHU ET BENEYHEM VE ET BENOTEYHEM LA SHEDIM

וַיִּזְבְּחוּ אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם וְאֶת בְּנוֹתֵיהֶם לַשֵּׁדִים

KJ: Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,

BN: And they sacrificed their sons and their daughters to false gods.

SHEDIM: "Devils" and "demons" are both loaded and anachronistic, and in both cases from a Christian perspective. SHED means "breast", and infers the multi-breasted goddess, Dinah or Diana depending on whether you are in the Phoenician or the Yisra-Eli world; it is also used poetically for "mountain", because they tend to be breast-shaped, and provide the gods with a habitat. The pairing of these provides much argument among the scholars over the intention of Av-Ram's name for the deity, El Shadai. There is an option for a more precise translation - at the link to El Shadai.

106:38 VA YISHPECHU DAM NAKI DAM BENEYHEM U VENOTEYHEM ASHER ZIBCHU LA ATSABEY CHENA'AN VA TECHENAPH HA ARETS BA DAMIM

וַיִּשְׁפְּכוּ דָם נָקִי דַּם בְּנֵיהֶם וּבְנוֹתֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר זִבְּחוּ לַעֲצַבֵּי כְנָעַן וַתֶּחֱנַף הָאָרֶץ בַּדָּמִים

KJ: And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

BN: And shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Kena'an; {N} and the land was polluted with blood.

Highly ironic, not to say hypocritical, this, given verse 34.

106:39 VA YITME'U VE MA'ASEYHEM VA YIZNU BE MA'ALELEYHEM

וַיִּטְמְאוּ בְמַעֲשֵׂיהֶם וַיִּזְנוּ בְּמַעַלְלֵיהֶם

KJ: Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions.

BN: Thus were they defiled by their own deeds, and went astray in their actions.

As one who has delivered many a sermon down the years, it is always interesting to see how others go about theirs. Here, through the first 20+ verses, we heard how wonderful the deity is, and were put in a fine mood of loyalty and commitment by being reminded of his great miracles and virtues. Now, in the second half, we are being reduced to garbage, insult upon insult hurled upon our... but wait a moment, were they not our forefathers, our patriarchs, our great ones, greater than we are, and now they turn out to have been verminous rat-bags... and the emotional impact of this, on illiterate subject people... this is how brainwashing is done, this is how passive complicity and obedience is achieved.

106:40 VA YICHAR APH YHVH BE AMO VA YETA'EV ET NACHALATO

וַיִּחַר אַף יְהוָה בְּעַמּוֹ וַיְתָעֵב אֶת נַחֲלָתוֹ

KJ: Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.

BN: And YHVH's wrath was kindled against his people, and he abhorred his inheritance.

Until one reaches the point of wanting to say to him, look, if you hate us this much, if the evidence of history is that we always get it wrong and upset you, why don't you just cancel the covenant and make one with the cats, or the rose-bushes, or the ants, instead? The whales are said to be very intelligent too.

But then, look at the very next Psalm, 107, and wonder if it is not positioned immediately after this one because of precisely this paradox (or even, as per my note below, it is this Psalm, in continuation...) After all, if the deity is simply a metaphorical articulation of Nature...

106:41 VA YITNEM BE YAD GOYIM VA YIMSHELU VAHEM SON'EYHEM

וַיִּתְּנֵם בְּיַד גּוֹיִם וַיִּמְשְׁלוּ בָהֶם שֹׂנְאֵיהֶם

KJ: And he gave them into the hand of the heathen; and they that hated them ruled over them.

BN: And he handed them over to the nations; and those who hated them now ruled over them.

YITNEM: See my comment at verse 27, though what follows makes 586 much more likely than 720.

SONEYHEM: Not SNEYHEM - though it is difficult to see, there are actually two separate dots on the top-left of that Seen (ש), one indicating the consonant, the other the vowel. Why did the Masoretes not add a Vav cholam malay (click here to see what that is)?

106:42 VA YILCHATSUM OYEVEYHEM VA YIKAN'U TACHAT YADAM

וַיִּלְחָצוּם אוֹיְבֵיהֶם וַיִּכָּנְעוּ תַּחַת יָדָם

KJ: Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were brought into subjection under their hand.

BN: Their enemies also oppressed them, and they were subdued beneath their hand.

106:43 PE'AMIM RABOT YATSIYLEM VE HEMAH YAMRU VA ATSATAM VA YAMOKU BA AVONAM

פְּעָמִים רַבּוֹת יַצִּילֵם וְהֵמָּה יַמְרוּ בַעֲצָתָם וַיָּמֹכּוּ בַּעֲוֹנָם

KJ: Many times did he deliver them; but they provoked him with their counsel, and were brought low for their iniquity.

BN: Many times did he deliver them; {N} but they were rebellious in their counsel, and sank low through their iniquity.

And then, phase 3 of the sermon, the necessary completion if the brainwashing is to be effective: how wonderful and loyal the deity remained, despite the depths to which the humans sank; and so, for you too my good subjects, however but and nevertheless, so long as you repent, and obey... the Zero made Positive, or it will be, but fantasy-positive, in Psalm 107.

106:44 VA YAR BA TSAR LAHEM BE SHAM'O ET RINATAM

יַּרְא בַּצַּר לָהֶם בְּשָׁמְעוֹ אֶת רִנָּתָם

KJ: Nevertheless he regarded their affliction, when he heard their cry:

BN: Nevertheless he saw their distress, when he heard their cry.

106:45 VA YIZKOR LAHEM BERIYTO VA YINACHEM KE ROV CHASDO

וַיִּזְכֹּר לָהֶם בְּרִיתוֹ וַיִּנָּחֵם כְּרֹב חַסְדּוֹ

KJ: And he remembered for them his covenant, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies.

BN: And he remembered his covenant with them, and repented according to the multitude of his mercies.

YINACHEM: repented? The name Menachem comes from this root... and this completes the ideological full-circle! Who is the more "guilty", the deity for making ridiculous demands and then having yet another sulk and tanrum when they are not fulfilled, or the weak and feeble humans, who were never endowed with the capacity to fulfill them in the first place, and whose entire "nature" is the one "given to them" by this over-expectant deity. Humanity actually comes out, however badly, still better than the deity - and if my saying that troubles you, let me be swallowed up in an earthquake, covered by an avalanche, drowned in a tsunami, or forced to live in the Diaspora.

106:46 VA YITEN OTAM LE RACHAMIM LIPHNEY KOL SHOVEYHEM

וַיִּתֵּן אוֹתָם לְרַחֲמִים לִפְנֵי כָּל שׁוֹבֵיהֶם

KJ: He made them also to be pitied of all those that carried them captives.

BN: He also caused them to be pitied before all those who took them into captivity.

The grammar and syntax render this ambivalent; is it the deity's compassion that will carry through to captivity and diaspora, or are the conquerors and despots going to be imbued with compassion? Neither, in all honesty, seems very likely; neither is supported by any evidence from history.

Does this verse finally place a date on the Psalm? I am thinking of Koresh of the Medes, for whom click on the links, or read the books in the section "Return From Exile".

106:47 HOSHIY'ENU YHVH ELOHEYNU VE KABTSENU MIN HA GOYIM LEHODOT LE SHEM KADSHECHA LEHISHTABE'ACH BIT'HILATECHA

הוֹשִׁיעֵנוּ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ וְקַבְּצֵנוּ מִן הַגּוֹיִם לְהֹדוֹת לְשֵׁם קָדְשֶׁךָ לְהִשְׁתַּבֵּחַ בִּתְהִלָּתֶךָ

KJ: Save us, O LORD our God, and gather us from among the heathen, to give thanks unto thy holy name, and to triumph in thy praise.

BN: Save us, YHVH our god, and gather us in from among the nations, {N} that we may give thanks to your holy name, that we may triumph in your praise.

And conclude with some role-modeling, by personally leading a prayer of penitence and renewal. None of which would be objectionable if it were simply a rallying-call, a celebration of the human-divine; what is totally objectionable is its abrogation of any responsibility from the Creator deity, for either Human or divine action, and especially this reduction of the Human to the status of animals who cannot function humanly without the constant interference and support of daddy-deity with his chastising whips. It is, sadly, a strain that still runs through all human ideologies, religious and atheistic, to this day.

KABTSENU: One of the hypocritical prayers still recited every day, as the tenth blessing of the Amidah, Kivutz Gliyot - The Ingathering of the Exiles; hypocritical only in the Diaspora though, because it petitions the deity for something that the petitioner has neither wish to do nor intention of doing, unless some crisis of anti-Semitism impels it, and which has anyway already been granted so no need to ask for it, at Independence, in 1948.

106:48 BARUCH YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL MIN HA OLAM VE AD HA OLAM VE AMAR KOL HA AM AMEN HALELU-YAH

בָּרוּךְ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הָעוֹלָם וְעַד הָעוֹלָם וְאָמַר כָּל הָעָם אָמֵן הַלְלוּ יָהּ

KJ: Blessed be the LORD God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting: and let all the people say, Amen. Praise ye the LORD.

BN: Bless YHVH, the god of Yisra-El, from the infinite beginning to the infinite end, {N} and let all the people say: "I believe in this". {N} Hallelu-Yah. {P}

END OF BOOK FOUR

But is it really? The tale told here, itself a continuation of Psalm 105, will resume at 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 107 is regarded as Book 5 (the division is not Biblical, but came later).

SurfTheSite

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