TheBibleNet: Psalm 78

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

Are there any patterns or rhythms or rhyme schemes anywhere in this? It must have some sort of structure...

It definitely has seventy-two verses, and 72 is not a random number in this world: 2x36, 3x24, 4x18, 6x12 mathematically, all sexagesimal numbers, for which no doubt somebody can conjuror up some Gematria... the Babylonian system originally, but in Egypt too it was a most significant number.

If this is genuinely from the time of Asaph, then we can say that the history of Yisra-El is broadly already established: what he tells here is essentially the Heptateuch (the first seven books of the Tanach) events and chronology (worth picking up the detail, and what's missing or different from the redacted version). But of course, this may be a much later Psalm, retroactively attributed...

78:1 MASKIL LE ASAPH HA'AZIYNAH AMI TORATI HATU AZNECHEM LE IMREY PHI

מַשְׂכִּיל לְאָסָף הַאֲזִינָה עַמִּי תּוֹרָתִי הַטּוּ אָזְנְכֶם לְאִמְרֵי פִי

KJ: (Maschil of Asaph.) Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth.

BN (BibleNet translation): A teaching-Psalm, for Asaph. {N} Open your ears, my people, to my instruction; bend your ears to the words of my mouth.

This is a standard, formal opening, in the same style and manner as the Shema, and the Ha'azinu of Mosheh in Deuteronomy 32. I wonder if the Shema began as a hymn and was then adapted or extended to be the prose we have today.

We have seen many times previously that a Maskil is a teaching-Psalm, and that the word connects to Haskalah, the name for the Jewish equivalent of the European Enlightenment. But this is a teaching exercise absorbed into liturgy, an early form of D'var Torah perhaps, which is to say a sermon, usually based on the Torah reading for that week. Which leaves open an interesting question: was it sung, as we think of singing; or chanted, the way Torah is chanted; or recited, as a prose lecture? And if sung, would it have been accompanied? Note that the title only says MASKIL: no MIZMOR, no SHIR, no NEGINOT... so it may well have been delivered as blank verse.

78:2 EPHTECHAH VE MASHAL PI ABIY'AH CHIYDOT MINI KEDEM

אֶפְתְּחָה בְמָשָׁל פִּי אַבִּיעָה חִידוֹת מִנִּי קֶדֶם

KJ: I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old:

BN: I shall open my mouth with a parable; I shall repeat some of the wise saws of the ancients...

MASHAL: As per the Book of Proverbs, which is called Sepher Mishlei in Yehudit, from the book's opening word.

78:3 ASHER SHAMA'NU VE NADA'EM VA AVOTEYNU SIPRU LANU

אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְנוּ וַנֵּדָעֵם וַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ סִפְּרוּ לָנוּ

KJ: Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.

BN: That which we have heard, and come to know, because our forefathers have recited them to us.

78:4 LO NECHACHED MIB'NEYHEM LE DOR ACHARON MESAPRIM TEHILOT YHVH VE EZUZU VE NIPHLE'OTAV ASHER ASAH

לֹא נְכַחֵד מִבְּנֵיהֶם לְדוֹר אַחֲרוֹן מְסַפְּרִים תְּהִלּוֹת יְהוָה וֶעֱזוּזוֹ וְנִפְלְאוֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה

KJ: We will not hide them from their children, shewing to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, and his strength, and his wonderful works that he hath done.

BN: We will not hide them from their children, but will share with the generations to come these praises of YHVH, {N} and of his strength, and of the wondrous works that he has done.

YHVH: so rarely have we encountered the name YHVH in these Psalms, and usually in company with, or after first mentioning Elohim, it comes rather as a surprise here, and again suggests a very late date for the piece.

78:5 VA YAKEM EDUT BE YA'AKOV VE TORAH SAM BE YISRA-EL ASHER TSIVAH ET AVOTEYNU LEHODIY'AM LIVNEYHEM

וַיָּקֶם עֵדוּת בְּיַעֲקֹב וְתוֹרָה שָׂם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֶת אֲבוֹתֵינוּ לְהוֹדִיעָם לִבְנֵיהֶם

KJ: For he established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they should make them known to their children:

BN: For he established the basic precepts with Ya'akov, and formulated them as law with Yisra-El, {N} and in them he instructed our forefathers to make them known to their children.

YAKEM EDUT: "Establishing a testimony" infers the equivalent of having the covenant notaried and witnessed, but the only instance of anything like such an occurrence with Ya'akov is the cairn-stone set up with Lavan, and that was an agreement about land-borders (Genesis 31:44). My reading is based on Psalm 119, where it appears repeatedly, and always with this meaning. However, I would be more than happy to accept "congregation" as an alternative - EDUT is used as such (ADAT actually, but the same root) at Exodus 12:3, 16:1, many others; and that would enhance the play here on Ya'akov having a second name, which is Yisra-El. In which case the whole verse would translate as

BN (alternate translation): For he established the congregation as Ya'akov, and gave it the law as Yisra-El, {N} and through it he instructed our forefathers to make it known to their children.

78:6 LEMA'AN YED'U DOR ACHARON BANIM YIVALEDU YAKUMU VIYSAPRU LIVNEYHEM

לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דּוֹר אַחֲרוֹן בָּנִים יִוָּלֵדוּ יָקֻמוּ וִיסַפְּרוּ לִבְנֵיהֶם

KJ: That the generation to come might know them, even the children which should be born; who should arise and declare them to their children:

BN: That the generations yet to come will know them, even the children yet to be born, who will get up and tell them to their children.

DOR ACHARON: Word-play. ACHARON really means "the last", so it not just the next generation, but onward to the very last; this is about perpetuity, not just continuity.

78:7 VE YASIYMU V'ELOHIM KISLAM VE LO YISHKECHU MA'ALELEY EL U MITSVOTAV YINTSORU

וְיָשִׂימוּ בֵאלֹהִים כִּסְלָם וְלֹא יִשְׁכְּחוּ מַעַלְלֵי אֵל וּמִצְוֹתָיו יִנְצֹרוּ

KJ: That they might set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments:

BN: That they may place their confidence in Elohim, and not forget the works of El, but keep his commandments.

EL: You cannot translate EL as God with a capital G, and there is no YHVH in this verse.

78:8 VE LO YIHEYU KA AVOTAM DOR SORER U MOREH DOR LO HECHIYN LIBO VE LO NE'EMNAH ET EL RUCHO

וְלֹא יִהְיוּ כַּאֲבוֹתָם דּוֹר סוֹרֵר וּמֹרֶה דּוֹר לֹא הֵכִין לִבּוֹ וְלֹא נֶאֶמְנָה אֶת אֵל רוּחוֹ

KJ: And might not be as their fathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation; a generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not stedfast with God.

BN: And so that they will not be like their forefathers, a stubborn and rebellious generation; {N} a generation that did not set their hearts right, and whose spirit was not steadfast with El.

MOREH: Yes, that really does mean "rebellious" (cf Numbers 20:10); but how odd to find the word for "‘teacher" being played with in this manner in a didactic Psalm!

EL: Again.

78:9 BENEY EPHRAYIM NOSHKEY ROMEY KASHET HAPHCHU BE YOM KERAV

בְּנֵי אֶפְרַיִם נוֹשְׁקֵי רוֹמֵי קָשֶׁת הָפְכוּ בְּיוֹם קְרָב

KJ: The children of Ephraim, being armed, and carrying bows, turned back in the day of battle.

BN: The Beney Ephrayim were the archers, the carriers of the bow, who turned back on the day of battle.

BENEY EPHRAYIM: Not "the children of Ephrayim", which infers the sons fathered by the tribal ancestor; this is the tribe itself, much later on.

But I am now convinced that, like the previous Asaph Psalms, these belong to a much later period. Just as it would have made no sense to separate Yehudah and Yisra-El in Psalm in Davidic times, so with Ephrayim: why single out any one tribe when your goal is the establishment of a confederacy? and especially Ephrayim, given the family history. But after the civil war that followed the death of Shelomoh (Solomon) the land was divided, the southern portion (Yehudah, Bin-Yamin and the already absorbed Shim'on) becoming known as Yehudah, and the remainder as Ephrayim (not, incidentally, after the tribe, though it included that tribe; but that is by the by).

But what historical incident is this referring to? No one has much of a clue, but for the bits they think they might, click here. The only suggestion I can offer (which none of them do), is Judges 12: 1-6.

78:10 LO SHAMRU BERIT ELOHIM U VE TORATO ME'ANU LALECHET

לֹא שָׁמְרוּ בְּרִית אֱלֹהִים וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ מֵאֲנוּ לָלֶכֶת

KJ: They kept not the covenant of God, and refused to walk in his law;

BN: They did not keep the covenant with Elohim, and failed to live by his law.

ME'ANU: Is that as strong as "refused", or simply an expression of their failure to do so?

78:11 VA YISHKECHU ALIYLOTAV VE NIPHLE'OTAV ASHER HER'AM

וַיִּשְׁכְּחוּ עֲלִילוֹתָיו וְנִפְלְאוֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר הֶרְאָם

KJ: And forgat his works, and his wonders that he had shewed them.

BN: And they forgot his great deeds, and the miraces that he had shown them.

ALIYLOTAV VE NIPHLE'OTAV: See my note on the various words used for the actions of the deity, at Psalm 77:12.

78:12 NEGED AVOTAM ASAH PHEL'E BE ERETS MITSRAYIM SEDEH TSO'AN

נֶגֶד אֲבוֹתָם עָשָׂה פֶלֶא בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם שְׂדֵה צֹעַן

KJ: Marvellous things did he in the sight of their fathers, in the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan.

BN: In the sight of their forefathers he performed amazing acts, in the land of Mitsrayim, in the field of Tso'an.

MITSRAYIM: Obviously referring to the Mosaic stories.

SEDEH TSO'AN: Cf Numbers 13:22, which will not help you to understand this verse, but is necessary anyway. Then Isaiah 19:11 and 13, for which I have given the Sefaria translation as my link, because it renders Tso'an as Tanis, and I wonder where it gets this from. But a little bit of Internet-surfing... and try here. But why o why do the English insist on changing the spellings? If it says Tso'an in the Yehudit, render it as Tso'an... grrrr!

78:13 BAKA YAM VA YA'AVIYREM VA YATSEV MAYIM KEMO NED

בָּקַע יָם וַיַּעֲבִירֵם וַיַּצֶּב מַיִם כְּמוֹ נֵד

KJ: He divided the sea, and caused them to pass through; and he made the waters to stand as an heap.

BN: He caused the sea to part, and them to pass through; and he made the waters stand in a heap.

Well, it's a good story, and the way that flash floods happen every winter in the wadis of the Sinai desert, it certainly has some scientific basis - not so much the parting, as the rushing back and drowning the pursuing Egyptians afterwards.

78:14 VA YANCHEM BE ANAN YOMAM VE CHOL HA LAILAH BE OR ESH

וַיַּנְחֵם בֶּעָנָן יוֹמָם וְכָל הַלַּיְלָה בְּאוֹר אֵשׁ

KJ: In the daytime also he led them with a cloud, and all the night with a light of fire.

BN: By day too he led them with a cloud, and all night long by fire-light.

See my commentaries on this in Exodus. But in addition, note that this is an OR (which plays a third word game with MOREH in verse 8) not an AMOD - no "pillar". Still a volcanic eruption, but differently described.

And if this is now a chronological account of Mosaic history, based on Torah, the Ephrayim incident referred to in verses 9 and 10 should fit, and therefore be findable in Exodus; but it isn't there.

78:15 YEVAKA TSURIM BA MIDBAR YA YASHK KIT'HOMOT RABAH

יְבַקַּע צֻרִים בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיַּשְׁקְ כִּתְהֹמוֹת רַבָּה

KJ: He clave the rocks in the wilderness, and gave them drink as out of the great depths.

BN: He broke open rocks in the desert, and gave them drink abundantly as out of the great deep.

KIT'HOMOT: Disguised (not deliberately, it's just the way the grammar works) inside that noun and preposition, here she is, once again, Tiamat.

I have been trying to determine who the audience for this teaching-Psalm might be. The language at the beginning was quite sophisticated, so I was tending to the assumption that it was an adult congregation. But as the verses pass by, and the standard mythological tales take pecedence over whatever might have been genuinely historical, as this becomes rather more catachism and doxology than seminar or colloquium, there is a growing sense of a school-age gathering, of Bar Mitzvah boys being drilled for their pre-aliyah test, or maybe even a group of B'nei Mitzvah on the day, and this the sermon to accompany their initiation. I am open to changing my view as the Psalm goes on.

78:16 VA YOTSI NOZLIM MI SALA VA YORED KA NEHAROT MAYIM

וַיּוֹצִא נוֹזְלִים מִסָּלַע וַיּוֹרֶד כַּנְּהָרוֹת מָיִם

KJ: He brought streams also out of the rock, and caused waters to run down like rivers.

BN: So too he brought streams out of the rock, and caused waters to run down like rivers.

Note how verses 15 and 16 parallel each other in form as well as poetic intent. So even if this is "just" a teaching sermon, it's also a show-off exercise in poetic construction. (And maybe it's "just" a teaching sermon in a course on poetic construction, but it also needed theme and subject-matter).

But mostly we need to note that the very fact that this is a teaching sermon, that its methodology is didactic, helps us to date it - and probably to late in the epoch of Ephrayim (c900BCE - 722BCE), or even after the destruction of the six and a half tribes. Why? Because in the mythological age there was no need to argue the case for the deity: the deity was, or were, and people feared them, needed them, propitiated them, made sacrifices to them, and hoped that rain would come at the right time, and in the right quantities, and sun likewise, but please no more volcanoes and earthquakes, and fertility would be nice, and please can we be prosperous.

The need to argue an intellectual case for "belief" begins with the evolution of the human brain from Key Stage 1 to Key Stage 2, the start of abstract thought, of conceptualisation. No longer primarily about fertility, but focused on the feminine idealisms of Mercy, Compassion, Justice, Truth etc, people are going to have to be convinced, because the evidence of their daily lives, and the substantiating evidence of history, does not favour the idealism.

What we are reading here belongs with the Book of Job, where friend after friend comes to make precisely these sorts of arguments, and with the Wisdom literature, the Book of Proverbs et al, and with the sermons of the Major Prophets.

78:17 VA YOSIYPHU OD LACHAT'O LO LAMROT ELYON BA TSIYAH

וַיּוֹסִיפוּ עוֹד לַחֲטֹא לוֹ לַמְרוֹת עֶלְיוֹן בַּצִּיָּה

KJ: And they sinned yet more against him by provoking the most High in the wilderness.

BN: Yet they still went on sinning against him, rebelling against Elyon in the desert.

ELYON: See the link.

The Golden Calf? Korach? Mosheh at Merivah? All of them. And then still more - as per the next verse.

78:18 VA YENASU EL BI LEVAVAM LISH'AL OCHEL LE NAPHSHAM

וַיְנַסּוּ אֵל בִּלְבָבָם לִשְׁאָל אֹכֶל לְנַפְשָׁם

KJ: And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust.

BN: And they tested El in their hearts by asking for food for their spirits.

BI LEVAVAM, or BIL'VAVAM?

This verse is not as straightforward as the KJ translation makes it appear. First it addresses EL, not Elohim, let alone the YHVH of the Mosaic texts. Then it asks BIL'VAVAM, which is for their hearts, not their digestive systems, and LE NAPHSHAM, which is spiritual succour, not food. KJ assumes, as I did in my last note (and the verse that follows will nevertheless validate their interpretation), that this is the request for manna, which may or may not have been quail or quail eggs, or simply some kind of an edible fungus that grew up on the desert floor, watered by dew or mist or even perhaps by flash flooding. But the Dover Torah, the author of this piece, wants us to hear spiritual and legal manna, metaphorical substance, and not just breakfast.

78:19 VA YEDABRU B'ELOHIM AMRU HA YUCHAL EL LA'AROCH SHULCHAN BA MIDBAR

וַיְדַבְּרוּ בֵּאלֹהִים אָמְרוּ הֲיוּכַל אֵל לַעֲרֹךְ שֻׁלְחָן בַּמִּדְבָּר

KJ: Yea, they spake against God; they said, Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?

BN: And they spoke with Elohim, and said: "Can El prepare a table in the wilderness?

EL: And yet, despite the dating by didacticism, the use of the name EL, which is Kena'ani (Canaanite) and not Yehudi, seems to suggest a very much earlier date: is it possible that the Psalm we have was built upon a much earlier text: modified, updated, extended? Or (should I fear excommunication for even suggesting this?) that this was the original, and the Mosaic story created later, from it?

LA'AROCH SHULCHAN BA MIDBAR is an odd phrase, one that stands out in such a way you feel you could use it as the title for a book about the Laws - as Joseph Karo did, in his 1565 work of that name, the Shulchan Aruch. I am simply making the presumption that he found the title here. I am unaware of any other usage of the phrase.

But I will also point out that it adds to the ambivalence of the OCHEL, and thereby endorses my comment about the Dover Torah, above; because the only "table" provided in the desert for the manna was the desert floor itself, and the play on the "table of destinies", which is the Babylonian origin of the Mosaic "table of laws", or "tablets" as we now call them, infers spiritual sustenance, not a picnic bench.

And just for the sake of doing so, take a look at another, very similar play with language, which has become normative in the Jewish world: the use of CHOMER, which is really "vinegar", to mean the substance of the intellectual menu - see my notes at Psalm 75:9.

78:20 HEN HIKAH TSUR VA YAZUVU MAYIM U NECHALIM YISHTOPHU HA GAM LECHEM YUCHAL TET IM YACHIN SHE'ER LE AMO

הֵן הִכָּה צוּר וַיָּזוּבוּ מַיִם וּנְחָלִים יִשְׁטֹפוּ הֲגַם לֶחֶם יוּכַל תֵּת אִם יָכִין שְׁאֵר לְעַמּוֹ

KJ: Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also? can he provide flesh for his people?

BN: Lo, he smote the rock, so that water gushed out, and streams overflowed; {N} can he give bread also? or will he provide meat for his people?

YACHIN: More word-games. And again one that emphasises the spiritual over the physical - Yachin was one of the two pillars at the entrance to the Solomonic Temple.

78:21 LACHEN SHAM'A YHVH VA YIT'ABAR VE ESH NISKAH VE YA'AKOV VE GAM APH ALAH VE YISRA-EL

לָכֵן שָׁמַע יְהוָה וַיִּתְעַבָּר וְאֵשׁ נִשְּׂקָה בְיַעֲקֹב וְגַם אַף עָלָה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל

KJ: Therefore the LORD heard this, and was wroth: so a fire was kindled against Jacob, and anger also came up against Israel;

BN: Therefore YHVH heard, and he was angry; {N} and a fire was kindled against Ya'akov, and his nostrils were inflamed against Yisra-El;

What exactly did YHVH hear that made him so angry - a request for food and water in the middle of the desert? No, the "anger" is the primitive explanation for the volcanic eruption.

And note that this time it is YHVH.

APH ALAH: The conventional image of divine anger - take a deep breath through your nose rather than your mouth if you are not entirely clear about its exactness. But this is the bull-god El, not the volcano-god YHVH, and I am assuming the name-change was part of the later redaction.

78:22 KI LO HE'EMIYNU B'ELOHIM VE LO VAT'CHU BIYSHU'ATO

כִּי לֹא הֶאֱמִינוּ בֵּאלֹהִים וְלֹא בָטְחוּ בִּישׁוּעָתוֹ

KJ: Because they believed not in God, and trusted not in his salvation:

BN: Because they did not believe in Elohim, and they placed no trust in his salvation.

HE'EMINU: And there it is, I believe, for the first time in these Psalms, quite possibly the first time anywhere in the Tanach, but I will need to go back and check that. "Belief". Not "trust" or "faith", which are encompassed in the next word here, VAT'CHU. Belief. An intellectual position, a ratiocinative conclusion, a philosophical paradigm; no longer metaphor, no longer allegory, no longer myth. And how fascinating that this manifestation of the metaphysical age should be placed next to so archetypal a manifestation of the mythological age as the one in the immediately previous verse.

For a fuller teaching-Psalm on the concept of "belief", click here for Moshe ben Maimon's "Principles of Faith", the source of two more modern hymns, Ani Ma'amin and the Yigdal.

BIYSHU'ATO: Returning to my discussion of the sheva (a lot of Bible teachers around the world are using these commentaries, and this is one of the main areas in which I am getting regular questions), here is a perfect illustration of the problem of the prefix. BIYSHU'ATO is really BE YESHUA'TO, with BE as a preposition ("in" or "at") prefixed. Because the first letter of the noun is a Yud, BE has to become BI (think of what happens to the pronunciation of "e" in English between THE END, the first E sounds like a double E, long and almost IY; the second is soft, short; and the reason for the difference is the context of adjoining letters. THE END has that long E, because it's an E before another E; but THE WINDOW is a short E, as though it were 'er; though it could become long again, if you want to emphasis one particular window). But then we have the problem that YESHU'ATO has a sheva under the Yud, while the Yud has changed sound because of the prefix; the sheva is therefore dropped, and the merge completed: BIYSHUA'TO.

Now look at verse 36 - VI LESHONAM - which retains the sheva because the linked consonants do not require the drop.

78:23 VA YETSAV SHECHAKIM MI MA'AL VE DALTEY SHAMAYIM PATACH

וַיְצַו שְׁחָקִים מִמָּעַל וְדַלְתֵי שָׁמַיִם פָּתָח

KJ: Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven,

BN: And he commanded the skies from above, and opened the doors of the heavens.

78:24 VA YAMTER ALEYHEM MAN LE'ECHOL U DEGAN SHAMAYIM NATAN LAMO

וַיַּמְטֵר עֲלֵיהֶם מָן לֶאֱכֹל וּדְגַן שָׁמַיִם נָתַן לָמוֹ

KJ: And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven.

BN: And he caused manna to rain on them for food, and gave them of the corn of heaven.

DAGAN SHAMAYIM: is this a metaphor for rain? if not, he's introducing a new concept (and on reflection, even if it is, this is still introducing a new concept; I cannot find any Torah quote for this; I am not aware that it ever rained, literally or metaphorically, at any time in the 40 year wandering).

And is the "corn of heaven" not yet another use of food as a metaphor for - what shall we call it in the context of this Psalm - HASKALAH, Enlightenment?

78:25 LECHEM ABIYRIM ACHAL ISH TSEYDAH SHALACH LAHEM LA SOV'A

לֶחֶם אַבִּירִים אָכַל אִישׁ צֵידָה שָׁלַח לָהֶם לָשֹׂבַע

KJ: Man did eat angels' food: he sent them meat to the full.

BN: Men ate the bread of the mighty; he sent them provisions until they were full.

LECHEM ABIYRIM: Another completely new concept, according to the KJ translation anyway: when did angels ever eat food, except the human angels in the mythological fables, such as the ones who ate non-kosher with Av-Raham in Genesis 18? No, this is a mistranslation by the KJ; "angels" are MEL'ACHIM, the lights from the stars which we read as "messages" from the metaphorical gods. ABIYRIM has an entirely different meaning...

ABIYRIM: Mighty ones, nobles... but also one of the many variants across the "common source" for the deity of Creation himself: Brahma, Ibrahim, Av-Ram, Av-Raham; and now go to Numbers 16:1 and 26:9 (and the number of times the references in this Psalm have taken us to the middle chapters of Numbers... can we deduce what Paresha it was on the week that this D'var Torah was given?)

SOV'A: Hard to tell, and you probably thought it was a speck of dirt on your computer screen, but there are two dots on the left fork of that Seen (ש), one to indicate that it is a Seen, and not a Sheen, the other for that "o" sound. Why not use a Vav, as most other texts do? (Because that would cause confusion - leaving people like me asking questions about Vavs next to Vets, and is this connected with some entirely different root).

78:26 YAS'A KADIM BA SHAMAYIM VA YENAHEG BE UZO TEYMAN

יַסַּע קָדִים בַּשָּׁמָיִם וַיְנַהֵג בְּעֻזּוֹ תֵימָן

KJ: He caused an east wind to blow in the heaven: and by his power he brought in the south wind.

BN (literal translation): He caused the east wind to set forth from the heavens; and by his power he brought on the south wind.

BN (alternate translation): He set out eastwards from the heavens, and travelled by his own strength southwards.

The text doesn't actually say "wind" as such; how are we inferring it?

Or is this in fact the real explanation of the Mosaic journey, an aetiological tale of the journey of the deity himself? The route out of Goshen, if indeed it went via the Red Sea, was likewise east and then south.

78:27 VA YAMTER ALEYHEM KE APHAR SHE'ER U CHE CHOL YAMIM OPH KANAPH

וַיַּמְטֵר עֲלֵיהֶם כֶּעָפָר שְׁאֵר וּכְחוֹל יַמִּים עוֹף כָּנָף

KJ: He rained flesh also upon them as dust, and feathered fowls like as the sand of the sea:

BN: He caused meat to rain on them too, like dust, and winged fowl like the sand of the seas;

Where does the text of Torah state this? Is this the "miracle" of the quail (either Exodus 16 or Numbers 11)? And is it being described as a separate incident from that of the manna - because we appeared to have that several verses ago?

78:28 VA YAPEL BE KEREV MACHANEHU SAVIV LE MISHKENOTAV

וַיַּפֵּל בְּקֶרֶב מַחֲנֵהוּ סָבִיב לְמִשְׁכְּנֹתָיו

KJ: And he let it fall in the midst of their camp, round about their habitations.

BN: And he let it fall in the midst of their camp, all round about their tents.

78:29 VA YO'CHLU VA YISBE'U ME'OD VE TA'AVATAM YAV'I LAHEM

וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׂבְּעוּ מְאֹד וְתַאֲוָתָם יָבִא לָהֶם

KJ: So they did eat, and were well filled: for he gave them their own desire;

BN: So they ate, and were well filled; and he gave them what they craved.

Belief, it appears, is something that has to be persuaded, cajoled, coerced, conditioned, inculcated, force-learned; there are no logical arguments here, and only anecdotal evidence. Science devoid of science. Nullius in verba applies.

And however much the previous may have been spiritual, in the end it comes down to this - feed them and they will follow you.

78:30 LO ZARU MI TA'AVATAM OD ACHLAM BE PHIYHEM

לֹא זָרוּ מִתַּאֲוָתָם עוֹד אָכְלָם בְּפִיהֶם

KJ: They were not estranged from their lust. But while their meat was yet in their mouths,

BN: But they did not cease in their craving, even when their food was still in their mouths.

Now we are getting to the crux of this sermon. You bad people! Even while the gods were doing favours for you, favours that you didn't even deserve, even then...

78:31 VE APH ELOHIM ALAH VAHEM VA YAHAROG BE MISHMANEYHEM U VACHUREY YISRA-EL HICHRIY'A

וְאַף אֱלֹהִים עָלָה בָהֶם וַיַּהֲרֹג בְּמִשְׁמַנֵּיהֶם וּבַחוּרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הִכְרִיעַ

KJ: The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel.

BN: When the anger of Elohim went up against them, and slew the fittest among them, {N} and smote the young men of Yisra-El.

Again - which scene is this?

VACHUREY: A BACHUR is a boy, in modern Ivrit (see verse 63) - spelled with a second-letter CHAF though, not the Chet that we have here. Biblically the BACHUR (still with a CHAF) was not just any boy, but specifically the first-born (Genesis 25:13, 35:23), and the BIKURIM are also the first fruits of the harvest (Isaiah 28:4, Numbers 13:20). Why am I giving this detail? Because the word-play between BACHUR meaning "chosen" and BACHUR meaning "first" becomes standard in Yehudit, and to such a degree that it is often very difficult, when hearing the word rather than seeing it written down, to determine which is intended (The violinist came back on stage for his bow. Was that because he had forgotten it, or because the audience was applauding. The same sort of word-play with BACHUR and BACHUR).

78:32 BE CHOL ZOT CHAT'U OD VE LO HE'EMIYNU BE NIPHLE'OTAV

בְּכָל זֹאת חָטְאוּ עוֹד וְלֹא הֶאֱמִינוּ בְּנִפְלְאוֹתָיו

KJ: For all this they sinned still, and believed not for his wondrous works.

BN: For all this they went on sinning, and did not believe in his miracles.

HE'EMIYNU: Imputing the same intellectual construct retrospectively to the people of that time, when the texts of that time tell us repeatedly that EMUNAH was not in their epistemology.

NIPHLE'OTAV: Which "wondrous works", or, indeed "miracles" - these two are not automatically the same? The Exodus text is all about pilgrims going to witness a volcanic eruption (definitely a "wondrous work", but equally definitely not a miracle), and then a number of them are killed by some kind of an earthquake - presumably one of the caverns of the crater splitting open along the side. And then Mir-Yam, presumably others, covered in volcanic ash descending like a cloud of plague. How can you believe in a deity that would do that to you? Fear it - yes. But "believe in it", as an intellectual paradigm of good, mercy, justice and compassion? No, what you feel after an experience like this is... see the last word of the very next verse.

78:33 VA YECHAL BA HEVEL YEMEYHEM U SHENOTAM BA BEHALAH

וַיְכַל בַּהֶבֶל יְמֵיהֶם וּשְׁנוֹתָם בַּבֶּהָלָה

KJ: Therefore their days did he consume in vanity, and their years in trouble.

BN: Therefore he ended their days as a breath, and their years in terror.

The standard eschatalogical argument used by Ponzi priests for millennia: obey and believe or your lives will end in misery. Very much the methodology of the Major Prophets. The evidence of History does not validate it.

78:34 IM HARAGAM U DERASHUHU VE SHAVU VE SHICHARU EL

אִם הֲרָגָם וּדְרָשׁוּהוּ וְשָׁבוּ וְשִׁחֲרוּ אֵל

KJ: When he slew them, then they sought him: and they returned and enquired early after El.

BN: But if he slew them, then they started enquiring after him, and turned back and sought El earnestly.

And always the same self-rebuttal: "But if..." - but this is not education, this is emotional coercion. What in the mythological epoch was called "fear" (YIYRAT) must still be called by the same name, but the concept of fear has shifted!

And if the deity is El, and if this was then a Kena'ani hymn and myth adopted by the Beney Yisra-El, what impact does it have on our understanding of the remainder of the Mosheh story?

78:35 VA YIZKERU KI ELOHIM TSURAM VE EL ELYON GO'ALAM

וַיִּזְכְּרוּ כִּי אֱלֹהִים צוּרָם וְאֵל עֶלְיוֹן גֹּאֲלָם

KJ: And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer.

BN: And they remembered that Elohim was their Rock, and El Elyon their redeemer.

ELOHIM... EL ELYON: But no YHVH, and YHVH is the deity named throughout the Exodus legend, adding urgency to my question in the last verse.

78:36 VA YEPHATUHU BE PHIYHEM U VIL'SHONAM YECHAZVU LO

וַיְפַתּוּהוּ בְּפִיהֶם וּבִלְשׁוֹנָם יְכַזְּבוּ לוֹ

KJ: Nevertheless they did flatter him with their mouth, and they lied unto him with their tongues.

BN: But they beguiled him with their mouth, and lied to him with their tongue.

YEPHATUHU: The classic strategy of the deceitful, usually politician, but also, in this case, priest: when you are telling lies and employing strategies of deception, accuse the other of doing precisely that, and claim the moral high ground by so doing (in America, since 2016, you would say that you have "trumped" them if you do it successfully). Actually, most of our capitalist enterprises use the same strategy to sell their products: "smoke tobacoo and improve your health" as Sir Walter Ralegh preached on first bringing the substance back from the New World.

Oh, hang on, have I misunderstood this? This isn't a self-description by the propagandist delivering this sermon? This is him honouring his fathers and his mothers, as per the 5th commandment, by calling them all a bunch of liars and swindlers? I must have mis-read it.

78:37 VE LIBAM LO NACHON IMO VE LO NE'EMNU BI VERIYTO

וְלִבָּם לֹא נָכוֹן עִמּוֹ וְלֹא נֶאֶמְנוּ בִּבְרִיתוֹ

KJ: For their heart was not right with him, neither were they stedfast in his covenant.

BN: For their heart was not steadfast with him, nor were they faithful in his covenant.

IMO rather than ITO: these are the hints and clues that enable us to distinguish historical epochs: like the change from "thou" to "you" in English.

NE'EMNU: From the same root as HE'EMIYNU, the same root as "Amen". Faith and trust, as well as intellectual belief.

BIVRIYTO: "His" covenant? But surely the whole point of the covenant is that it is mutual, an agreement? "His" covenant describes a one-sided document imposed on the second signatory.

78:38 VE HU RACHUM YECHAPER AVON VE LO YASHCHIT VE HIRBAH LEHASHIV APO VE LO YA'IR KOL CHAMATO

וְהוּא רַחוּם יְכַפֵּר עָוֹן וְלֹא יַשְׁחִית וְהִרְבָּה לְהָשִׁיב אַפּוֹ וְלֹא יָעִיר כָּל חֲמָתוֹ

KJ: But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.

BN: But He, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and did not destroy them; {N} indeed, many a time did he turn his anger away, and not stir up all his wrath.

RACHUM: I have noted many times before how close the Yehudit description of the abstract attributes of the deity are to the Moslem. RAHIM is the Arabic for the womb, as RECHEM is the Yehudit, both yielding concepts of mercy and compassion.

bismillahi racḥmani racḥimi - بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْمِ - "in the name of al-Lah, the most compassionate, the most merciful"...

YHVH, YHVH, El rachum ve chanun...

that latter sung on Yom Kippur... and note that the fourth word in this verse is YECHAPER, KAPPARA being the highest form of forgiveness (see page 15 of my book "Day of Atonement" for an explanation of the differences between SELICHAH, MECHILAH and KAPPARA.

78:39 VA YIZKOR KI VASAR HEMAH RU'ACH HOLECH VE LO YASHUV

וַיִּזְכֹּר כִּי בָשָׂר הֵמָּה רוּחַ הוֹלֵךְ וְלֹא יָשׁוּב

KJ: For he remembered that they were but flesh; a wind that passeth away, and cometh not again.

BN: Because he remembered that they were but flesh, a wind that passes away, and does not come again.

78:40 KAMAH YAMRUHU VA MIDBAR YA'ATSIYVUHU BIY'SHIYMON

כַּמָּה יַמְרוּהוּ בַמִּדְבָּר יַעֲצִיבוּהוּ בִּישִׁימוֹן

KJ: How oft did they provoke him in the wilderness, and grieve him in the desert!

BN: How many times did they rebel against him in the wilderness, and grieve him in the desert!

This I know I have commented on before, but it merits repeating, precisely because it is the second time, and therefore endorses the comment: YESHIYMON here is "the desert", but it is also quite specifically that area of the desert inhabited by the tribe of SHIM'ON, (although there is an ayin - ע - in SHIM'ON - שמעון, but not here). How does this relate to YISSACHAR, or YISASCHAR, both from its initial Yud but also that double Sheen (or possibly Seen)?

78:41 VA YASHUVU VA YENASU EL U KEDOSH YISRA-EL HITVU

וַיָּשׁוּבוּ וַיְנַסּוּ אֵל וּקְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל הִתְווּ

KJ: Yea, they turned back and tempted El, and limited the Holy One of Israel.

BN: But yet again they tested El, and set bounds to the Holy One of Yisra-El.

HITVU: The root is TAVAH, wich is not often used, but generally thought to mean "making marks", whether as in 1 Samuel 21:14, or the more rational manner of a map-maker or an architect, denoting space by drawing lines. In later Jewish theology there is the notion of "making a fence around the Torah", which is a strengthening of laws to ensure that a law whose meaning is not certain is at least not being broken (separating milk and meat, for example, or the 39 Melachot of Shabbat). This, however, would be the opposite: the people setting their own limitations on which parts of the covenant they will and will not comply with.

78:42 LO ZACHRU ET YADO YOM ASHER PADAM MINI TSAR

לֹא זָכְרוּ אֶת יָדוֹ יוֹם אֲשֶׁר פָּדָם מִנִּי צָר

KJ: They remembered not his hand, nor the day when he delivered them from the enemy.

BN: They did not remember his hand, nor the day on which he redeemed them from their troubles.

TSAR does not mean "enemy" or "adversary"; these are the "troubles" described above: thirst and hunger.

78:43 ASHER SAM BE MITSRAYIM OTOTAV U MOPHTAV BI SEDEH TSO'AN

אֲשֶׁר שָׂם בְּמִצְרַיִם אֹתוֹתָיו וּמוֹפְתָיו בִּשְׂדֵה צֹעַן

KJ: How he had wrought his signs in Egypt, and his wonders in the field of Zoan:

BN: That he established his signs in Mitsrayim, and performed his miracles in the field of Tso'an.

MITSRAYIM: See the link.

BI SEDEH: Or BISDEH - just testing to see if my explanation of the sheva has worked for you or not!

TSO'AN: See my note at verse 12 (but ignore my last comment there; I was simply doing what the deity is accused of doing throughout this Psalm; blowing my top off volcanically for some "sin" that really doesn't merit that scale of over-reaction).

78:44 VA YAHAPHOCH LE DAM YE'OREYHEM VE NOZLEYHEM BAL YISHTAYUN

וַיַּהֲפֹךְ לְדָם יְאֹרֵיהֶם וְנֹזְלֵיהֶם בַּל יִשְׁתָּיוּן

KJ: And had turned their rivers into blood; and their floods, that they could not drink.

BN: And turned their rivers into blood, so that they could not drink their streams.

Which sounds like the plagues of Egypt; but if so, then the chronology of the Mosaic tale is messed up, because this belonged at about verse 9 (actually, swap this for verse 9, and the bowmen of Ephrayim might well find their historical context after all: I wonder if there was an editing error at some point of history).

78:45 YESHALACH BA HEM AROV VA YO'CHLEM U TSEPHARDE'A VA TASHCHIYTEM

יְשַׁלַּח בָּהֶם עָרֹב וַיֹּאכְלֵם וּצְפַרְדֵּעַ וַתַּשְׁחִיתֵם

KJ: He sent divers sorts of flies among them, which devoured them; and frogs, which destroyed them.

BN: He sent among them swarms of flies, which devoured them; and frogs, which destroyed them.

Those people (myself very much one of them) who rail against the virulent anti-Semitism in the letters of St Paul, say, or the writings of St Augustine and Martin Luther, need to be aware of the sources of their rabies. All of them promulgate the impoverished ghettoisation and stigmatisation of the Jews, their exclusion from Christian society, their prohibition from entering certain schools, professions, golf clubs, etcetera, and they do so in order to provide role-models for Christian waverers: if this is what happens to the Jews on Earth as a punishment for denying, indeed for killing Christ, what do you think will happen to a Christian sinner in the next life? So, through fear, the Christian is chastised, and whipped into obedience.

And what were Paul and Augustine and Luther's sources? These texts of the Bible, this Psalm, and the sermons of the Major Prophets, defending the actions of the deity against the Egyptians, and using their fate, in exactly the same way.

78:46 VA YITEN LECHASIYL YEVULAM VIYGIY'AM LA ARBEH

וַיִּתֵּן לֶחָסִיל יְבוּלָם וִיגִיעָם לָאַרְבֶּה

KJ: He gave also their increase unto the caterpiller, and their labour unto the locust.

BN: And he allowed the caterpillars to increase their numbers, and the locusts to do their work.

LECHASIYL: Pointing under the initial Lamed needs confirming, because that segol is quite unusual (it is a segol, but the usual LE, with a sheva, might suggest an infinitive, where this is a preposition plus noun, so I presume the segol is being used to clarify it).

I don't actually recall this epidemic of caterpillars from the Mosaic tale, and would regard it as most unintelligent design if the deity had indeed sent the CHASIYL alongside the ARBEH (locusts), because both feed on the same plants, so one or other is redundant. See 1 Kings 8:37, where both get mentioned, or 2 Chronicles 6:28 if you prefer (it's the same text); and the CHASIYL may well be caterpillars, though just as likely grasshoppers. However, given the apparent return to the plagues in the previous verse, see Exodus 10:1, and you might as well look at Leviticus 11:21 and especially 22 while you have the book open: it reckons the CHAGAV was the grasshopper.

78:47 YAHAROG BA BARAD GAPHNAM VE SHIKMOTAM BA CHANAMAL

יַהֲרֹג בַּבָּרָד גַּפְנָם וְשִׁקְמוֹתָם בַּחֲנָמַל

KJ: He destroyed their vines with hail, and their sycomore trees with frost.

BN: He destroyed their vines with hail, and their sycamore-trees with frost.

CHANAMAL: This ditto. The hail, yes (straight after the locusts, Exodus 10:5), but where is the text that told us frost? And frost in Egypt, in the spring? In the winter, even! Zero! Click here.

78:48 VA YASGER LA BARAD BE IYRAM U MIKNEYHEM LA RESHAPHIM

וַיַּסְגֵּר לַבָּרָד בְּעִירָם וּמִקְנֵיהֶם לָרְשָׁפִים

KJ: He gave up their cattle also to the hail, and their flocks to hot thunderbolts.

BN: He subjected their cattle to the hail as well, and their flocks to forks of lightning.

VE YASGER: Odd this. The root is SAGAR, which means "to shut" or "to close", and clearly it doesn't mean that here. I think the answer lies at Genesis 2:21 - the hail (primitive medical knowledge!) causes the flesh of the animals to close up, in order to resist its beating and its wetness and its cold; which causes them to die. Not that primitive, on reflection. Hypothermia.

BE IYRAM: Or BE'IYRAM? Still testing!

RESHAPHIM: Which tells us that the ancients understood that the lightning was the cause of the thunder, or phrase that the other way around, though both apply: that the thunder was the sound of the lightning.

78:49 YESHALACH BAM CHARON APO EVRAH VA ZA'AM VE TSARAH MISHLACHAT MAL'ACHEY RA'IM

יְשַׁלַּח בָּם חֲרוֹן אַפּוֹ עֶבְרָה וָזַעַם וְצָרָה מִשְׁלַחַת מַלְאֲכֵי רָעִים

KJ: He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.

BN: He sent forth upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, a sending of messengers of evil.

78:50 YEPHALES NATIYV LE APO LO CHASACH MI MAVET NAPHSHAM VE CHAYATAM LA DEVER HISGIYR

יְפַלֵּס נָתִיב לְאַפּוֹ לֹא חָשַׂךְ מִמָּוֶת נַפְשָׁם וְחַיָּתָם לַדֶּבֶר הִסְגִּיר

KJ: He made a way to his anger; he spared not their soul from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence;

BN: He levelled a path for his anger; he did not spare their souls from death, but gave their life over to the pestilence;

As fine an example as we can ask for, of how these texts convey the world as the ancients understood it. In modern parlance, this being an earthquake, it would be (metaphorically) his anger that did the levelling of the path; but everything in the Biblical world stems from the deity, so the earthquake is his "action", and every action requires an explanation in the human world. If he had sent sunshine and a cool breeze, it would show that he was pleased with humanity, who had obviously been behaving well by obeying all his laws. But they haven't, so he is angry, which explains the earthquake - or it might be a hurricane, an avalanche, a flu-epidemic, a plague of caterpillars...

78:51 VA YACH KOL BECHOR BE MITSRAYIM RE'SHIYT ONIYM BE AHALEI CHAM

וַיַּךְ כָּל בְּכוֹר בְּמִצְרָיִם רֵאשִׁית אוֹנִים בְּאָהֳלֵי חָם

KJ: And smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham:

BN: And smote all the first-born in Mitsrayim, the first-fruits of their loins in the tents of Cham.

We were told that this would be a Maskil, a teaching-Psalm, and at first it looked like the lesson was either in "how to construct a teaching-Psalm" or, more likely, "why the gods expect good behaviour", which is the traditional school assembly sermon. But now we seem to have moved into a classroom in either religious studies or history, and are getting "Modern Mosheh's Easy Student Guide to the Exodus Story" - but with some very noticeable errors (are they errors?), or differences (at the very least), from the version in Exodus itself. And no question that we have now gone back to the plagues and the deparure from Egypt - but what a very odd way of doing this, jumping back and forth in the chronology: it can only confuse a student-audience.

CHAM: See the link.

78:52 VA YAS'A KA TSON AMO VA YENAHAGEM KA EDER BA MIDBAR

וַיַּסַּע כַּצֹּאן עַמּוֹ וַיְנַהֲגֵם כַּעֵדֶר בַּמִּדְבָּר

KJ: But made his own people to go forth like sheep, and guided them in the wilderness like a flock.

BN: But he made his own people go like sheep, and guided them through the wilderness like a flock.

VA: KJ usually insists on translating VA or VE as "and", and quite rightly, because that is its primary meaning. However and but, the context often suggests that Yehudit needs to add a word to its lexicon, there being at that time no word for "however", nor any for "but"; and on this occasion KJ has made the variation, exactly as I have done, and as I regularly do. Strange that such a rich and sophisticated tongue should be so lacking in this matter.

KA TSON: Isn't that the most terrible indictment of the deity, and of religion. Like sheep! And the leadership roles of Mosheh, Aharon, Yehoshu'a - no, sheep too, doing what the shepherd tells them, unless they disobey. See Psalm 23.

78:53 VA YANCHEM LA VETACH VE LO PHACHADU VE ET OYEVEYHEM KISAH HAYOM

וַיַּנְחֵם לָבֶטַח וְלֹא פָחָדוּ וְאֶת אוֹיְבֵיהֶם כִּסָּה הַיָּם

KJ: And he led them on safely, so that they feared not: but the sea overwhelmed their enemies.

BN: And he led them safely, and they had no fear; but the sea overwhelmed their enemies.

LO PHACHADU: Fear here should not be confused with fear elsewhere, when the verb used is YIR'A. The former is physical trembling, the latter rather more "respect" in the form of "awe".

78:54 VA YEVIY'EM EL GEVUL KADSHO HAR ZEH KANTAH YEMIYNO

וַיְבִיאֵם אֶל גְּבוּל קָדְשׁוֹ הַר זֶה קָנְתָה יְמִינוֹ

KJ: And he brought them to the border of his sanctuary, even to this mountain, which his right hand had purchased.

BN: And he brought them to the edge of Kadesh, to the mountain which his right hand had obtained.

GEVUL KADSHO: Translating this is tricky, if we are following the Mosheh story. There, the only border was of the land of Kena'an itself, certainly not Yeru-Shala'im, let alone the Temple on Mount Tsi'on. But this verse clearly intends either the latter, or more likely Mount Chorev, where the Laws will be given. I prefer to read KADSHO chronologically, as Kadesh, one of the early stopping-places on the wilderness journey immediately after the crossing of the Reed Sea, and before the arrival at Chorev.

However and but! "the mountain which his right hand had obtained" is not Chorev, but Mor-Yah in Yeru-Shala'im, the "right hand" being King David, the "KODESH" the Temple built on the site that David obtained, the Yevus or threshing-floor of Ornah (2 Samuel 24:16ff). And the tale told in Samuel is likewise about bad behaviour, plagues, ways of saying sorry, and even has a MAL'ACH, just as in verse 49 here.

78:55 VA YEGARESH MIPNEYHEM GOYIM VA YAPIYLEM BE CHEVEL NACHALAH VA YASHKEN BE AHALEYHEM SHIVTEI YISRA-EL

וַיְגָרֶשׁ מִפְּנֵיהֶם גּוֹיִם וַיַּפִּילֵם בְּחֶבֶל נַחֲלָה וַיַּשְׁכֵּן בְּאָהֳלֵיהֶם שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

KJ: He cast out the heathen also before them, and divided them an inheritance by line, and made the tribes of Israel to dwell in their tents.

BN: He also drove out the nations from before them, and agreed as part of his covenant to cause territories to fall as an inheritance, {N} and made the tribes of Yisra-El dwell in their tents.

GOYIM: The "other" nations, the ones who were not Yisra-Eli; but that does not make them "heathen" - in fact, from what we can deduce from these Psalms, they all worshipped the same polytheon, sometimes by the same, sometimes by variant names.

YAPIYLEM: From PA'AL, but in the Hiph'il or causative form, which, as we have seen repeatedly, is one of the forms of "action" peformed by the deities, generally those that do not involve new creation. So the shifting of geographical boundaries by land erosion would be new creation, but the shifting of the same politically, as a result of war or settlement, is PE'ULAH.

CHEVEL: This one is complex, and I have deliberately over-stated my translation in order to catch as much of its ambiguity as I can. A CHEVEL is a rope, and the verb has to do with tying ropes (Joshua 2:15). Ropes make good measuring lines, especially when you are trying to define the boundaries of a piece of land (Joshua 17:14). So the word comes to be used for "tracts of land" (Deuteronomy 3:4), and even for the contract signed between two people to agree who owns which tract of land, or indeed any form of pledge or contract (Job 22:6, Proverbs 20:16). So it becomes the means of defining a portion of land, and the inheritance being described here is the one obtained by Yehoshu'a after the conquest of Kena'an; the completion, indeed, of the pledge of the deity (cf Joshua 17:5, and notice the verb that is used there; YIPLU).

78:56 VA YENASU VA YAMRU ET ELOHIM ELYON VE EDOTAV LO SHAMRU

וַיְנַסּוּ וַיַּמְרוּ אֶת אֱלֹהִים עֶלְיוֹן וְעֵדוֹתָיו לֹא שָׁמָרוּ

KJ: Yet they tempted and provoked the most high God, and kept not his testimonies:

BN: Yet they tried and provoked Elohim Elyon, and did not adhere to his statutes.

78:57 VA YISOGU VA YIVGEDU KA AVOTAM NEHPECHU KE KESHET REMIYAH

וַיִּסֹּגוּ וַיִּבְגְּדוּ כַּאֲבוֹתָם נֶהְפְּכוּ כְּקֶשֶׁת רְמִיָּה

KJ: But turned back, and dealt unfaithfully like their fathers: they were turned aside like a deceitful bow.

BN: And turned back, and behaved treacherously just like their fathers; so they were turned aside like a deceitful bow.

KESHET REMIYAH: I have for some years been seeking a phrase to describe what the Polish government has been doing, throughout the 20-teens, to evade all or any responsibility for the Holocaust, and believe that it should be counted as a crime, second only to Holocaust Denial itself. I usually call it "Holocaust Responsibility Denial", which makes its point, but heavily, clmsily, and slightly misses its target in so doing, like a deceitful bow. Because a bow cannot be deceitful. A bow is an implement made by humans, and does what the human makes it do; if it misses its target, it is not the bow's treachery or deceit, but the fault of the human who is handling it; and he may have missed deliberately, as an act of resistance to bullying and coercion, or he may have missed because he has poor hand-eye coordination; but the fact is, he fired the arrow from the bow, whatever the outcome. So I am going to recommend "Keshet Remiyah" as the name we should be using for this crime.

78:58 VA YACH'IYSUHU BE VAMOTAM U VI PHESIYLEYHEM YAKNIY'UHU

וַיַּכְעִיסוּהוּ בְּבָמוֹתָם וּבִפְסִילֵיהֶם יַקְנִיאוּהוּ

KJ: For they provoked him to anger with their high places, and moved him to jealousy with their graven images.

BN: For they provoked him with their altars, and moved him to jealousy with their graven images.

BAMOT: Not RAMOT. The Bamot are the altars, and they may well be altars at one of the Ramot, which are the shrines in the hills and mountains, but they could just as easily be altars in the valleys or on the plains.

78:59 SHAM'A ELOHIM VA YIT'ABAR VA YIM'AS ME'OD BE YISRA-EL

שָׁמַע אֱלֹהִים וַיִּתְעַבָּר וַיִּמְאַס מְאֹד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל

KJ: When God heard this, he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel:

BN: Elohim heard, and was angry, and it made him him detest Yisra-El.

78:60 VA YITOSH MISHKAN SHILO OHEL SHIKEN BA ADAM

וַיִּטֹּשׁ מִשְׁכַּן שִׁלוֹ אֹהֶל שִׁכֵּן בָּאָדָם

KJ: So that he forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which he placed among men;

BN: And he forsook the tabernacle of Shilo, the tent which he had made to dwell among men...

MISHKAN SHILO: The one that Mosheh constructed, for the Tablets of the Law? But when was that called MISHKAN SHILO, unless at the much later time when it was kept there? The answer can be found in brief here, in the Tanach here, or in my fuller narrative version here.

Note the unusual spelling of SHILO here, and check back and forward (SHILOH, SHILO'ACH, SHILO'AH - there seem to be multiple versions, and this may be helpful in dating texts: cf Yorvik/York, Londinium/London, Brigstowe/Bristol, New Amsterdam/New York....)

78:61 VA YITEN LA SHEVI UZO VA TIPH'ARTO VE YAD TSAR

וַיִּתֵּן לַשְּׁבִי עֻזּוֹ וְתִפְאַרְתּוֹ בְיַד צָר

KJ: And delivered his strength into captivity, and his glory into the enemy's hand.

BN: And delivered his strength into captivity, and his splendour into the hand of trouble.

UZO: Just a few verses back, UZO was used to mean the fruit of his loins; is there any logic to it meaning "strength" in the literal-physical sense this time? To which the answer lies in the sacred number of the deity. Click here. NACHALATO in the next verse has the same metaphorical intention.

TIPH'ARTO: "Glory" or "splendour" are the standard Cabbalistic translations (click here); but the word here is also being used metaphorically: the "glory" of Yisra-El is the deity himself, represented on this occasion by the captured Ark.

TSAR: See my note to this, above.

78:62 VA YASGER LA CHEREV AMO U VE NACHALATO HIT'ABAR

וַיַּסְגֵּר לַחֶרֶב עַמּוֹ וּבְנַחֲלָתוֹ הִתְעַבָּר

KJ: He gave his people over also unto the sword; and was wroth with his inheritance.

BN: He gave his people over also to the sword, and was angry with his inheritance.

78:63 BACHURAV ACHLAH ESH U VETULATAV LO HULALU

בַּחוּרָיו אָכְלָה אֵשׁ וּבְתוּלֹתָיו לֹא הוּלָּלוּ

KJ: The fire consumed their young men; and their maidens were not given to marriage.

BN: Fire devoured their young men; and their virgins had nobody to sing their praises.

BACHURAV: See my notes at verse 31.

HULALU: The same root that gives Halelu-Yah (or Hallelujah if you insist). Nothing here suggests they didn't get married or produce children, simply that, like the widows and spinsters of every major war, the battle-outcome left their options limited.

I do hope that this wasn't a school assembly sermon, or a front-loaded teaching class, because the kids with ADHD will be long-gone, and even the "teacher's pets" in the front row will be sending each other text-messages - and especially with this verse. Long. Tedious. Boring. Pointless. Words that can easily be tweeted.

78:64 KOHANAV BA CHEREV NAPHALU VE ALMENOTAV LO TIVKEYNAH

כֹּהֲנָיו בַּחֶרֶב נָפָלוּ וְאַלְמְנֹתָיו לֹא תִבְכֶּינָה

KJ: Their priests fell by the sword; and their widows made no lamentation.

BN: Their priests fell by the sword; and their widows scarcely wept.

NAPHALU: Why not NAPHLU?

78:65 VA YIKATS KE YASHEN ADONAI KE GIBOR MITRONEN MI YAYIN

וַיִּקַץ כְּיָשֵׁן אֲדֹנָי כְּגִבּוֹר מִתְרוֹנֵן מִיָּיִן

KJ: Then the Lord awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine.

BN: Then my Lord woke as if from sleep, like a mighty man recovering from wine.

Did he too fall asleep from listening to this Psalm? Sorry, but my ADHD just kicked in (so far that I am ready to make a joke about Chateau Ritalin, and then get up and do some hulalu). And is there something of Shimshon and Delilah taking place in this tale? See my notes in Judges 14-16, but especially 16.

78:66 VA YACH TSARAV ACHOR CHERPAT OLAM NATAN LAMO

וַיַּךְ צָרָיו אָחוֹר חֶרְפַּת עוֹלָם נָתַן לָמוֹ

KJ: And he smote his enemies in the hinder parts: he put them to a perpetual reproach.

BN: And he beat those troublemakers back, and left their names behind as a perpetual reproach.

78:67 VA YIM'AS BE OHEL YOSEPH U VE SHEVET EPHRAYIM LO VACHAR

וַיִּמְאַס בְּאֹהֶל יוֹסֵף וּבְשֵׁבֶט אֶפְרַיִם לֹא בָחָר

KJ: Moreover he refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim:

BN: What is more, it made him hate the Tent of Joseph, and to decline to choose the tribe of Ephrayim.

OHEL YOSEPH: I presume this is being used as an idiom for the tribe - having settled them in tents, it becomes symbolic. As to there being an OHEL YOSEPH, as some kind of equivalent to the OHEL MO'ED of Mosheh - absolutely nothing to support this claim anywhere in the Tanach (which doesn't mean there wasn't one...)

EPHRAYIM: Which takes us back to the opening of this Psalm. Which takes me back to the list of weekly Torah readings in synagogue, and wondering again if this was a D'var Torah attached to a specific pareshah. My surmise, above, was Judges 12 - which would have to be an attached Haphtarah; but Judges 12 is never read. 11:1-33 is, combined with Chukat, which is Numbers 19 to 22:1, but that is the unrelated tale of Yiphtach and his daughter "Iphigenia"; and 13:2-25 is, combined with Naso, which is Numbers 4 to 7; but that is the start of the Shimshon tale, so again unrelated. Worth checking - but alas we are no nearer to answering that question.

78:68 VA YIVCHAR ET SHEVET YEHUDAH ET HAR TSI'ON ASHER AHEV

וַיִּבְחַר אֶת שֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה אֶת הַר צִיּוֹן אֲשֶׁר אָהֵב

KJ: But chose the tribe of Judah, the mount Zion which he loved.

BN: But chose the tribe of Yehudah, and Mount Tsi'on which he loved.

And now we can absolutely date this Psalm, and state without any further risk of contradiction, that Ephrayim's cowardice, Ephrayim's running, Ephrayim's "deceitful bow", was not Judges 12, or anywhere in Torah. It was the year 723 BCE, or anywhere between then and the final conquest of the northern kingdom of Ephrayim, which left only Yehudah - Bin-Yamin and Shim'on absorbed and assimilated into it - as the remnant of Yisra-El. Ephrayim defeated by Shalman-Ezer V, by Sargon II, finally by Sennacherib. So this Psalm has to have been written after that date.

And we can also read the moral lesson (Divrey Torah in shul or school always end with a moral lesson): what happened to Ephrayim was because they did not follow the halachah properly; and it will happen to Yehudah too, if we go by the same route (the manifesto of today's Israel Religious Party is identical).

78:69 VA YIVEN KEMO RAMIM MIKDASHO KE ERETS YESADAH LE OLAM

וַיִּבֶן כְּמוֹ רָמִים מִקְדָּשׁוֹ כְּאֶרֶץ יְסָדָהּ לְעוֹלָם

KJ: And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established for ever.

BN: And he built his sanctuary like the high places, like the Earth which he has established for all time.

RAMIM: Masculine of RAMOT, for which see my note to BAMOT earlier.

78:70 VA YIVCHAR BE DAVID AVDO VA YIKACHEHU MI MICHLE'OT TSON

וַיִּבְחַר בְּדָוִד עַבְדּוֹ וַיִּקָּחֵהוּ מִמִּכְלְאֹת צֹאן

KJ: He chose David also his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds:

BN: He chose David to be his servant, and took him from the sheepfolds.

MICHLE'OT: Double-allusion, for which we need to check the texts, because different words may have been used. There is boy David, flocking his father's sheep in the hills around Beit Lechem, and there is bandit David, in flight from Sha'ul, tracking him down to a very specific sheepfold, with an opportunity to macbeth him (to duncan him would be more precise) that he makes clear to Sha'ul he will not take. The next verse seems to insist it was the first of these.

But the verse is bad teaching again: the Sanctuary on Mount Tsi'on was built after David's death, and Ephrayim did not come into existence as the northern kingdom until after the civil war that followed Shelomoh's death.

And note that we are back in the sheepfolds with the shepherd, as in verse 52.

78:71 ME ACHAR ALOT HEVIY'U LIR'OT BE YA'AKOV AMO U VE YISRA-EL NACHALATO

מֵאַחַר עָלוֹת הֱבִיאוֹ לִרְעוֹת בְּיַעֲקֹב עַמּוֹ וּבְיִשְׂרָאֵל נַחֲלָתוֹ

KJ: From following the ewes great with young he brought him to feed Jacob his people, and Israel his inheritance.

BN: From following the ewes that were giving suck he brought him, to be shepherd over Ya'akov his people, and Yisra-El his inheritance.

Unlike Mosheh, above, who gets no credit at all for leading his people across the wilderness and bringing them to the edge of Kena'an, David is himself the shepherd, representing the deity on Earth.

78:72 VA YIR'EM KE TOM LEVAVO U VITVUNOT KAPAV YANCHEM

וַיִּרְעֵם כְּתֹם לְבָבוֹ וּבִתְבוּנוֹת כַּפָּיו יַנְחֵם

KJ: So he fed them according to the integrity of his heart; and guided them by the skilfulness of his hands.

BN: So he shepherded them according to the integrity of his heart; and lead them by the skilfulness of his hands. {P}

Was there perhaps a specific incident that triggered this sermon? Some boom-and-bust economic collapse, some foreign invasion, some particularly nasty crime that attracted national media attention? I have sympathised with the schoolkids, if they were the unfortunate recipients, but perhaps it was for an older crowd, and this simply the standard fire-and-brimstone sermon of then as now? I find it hard to imagine the congregation at the shrine not getting up and going home half-way through, inspired by boredom and desperate for coffee, or silence, or both!

I have to say that this is one of the worst pieces of literature I have ever spent time reading, translating, commenting on: it has no literary merit whatsoever, misremembers history, misquotes Torah, wraps intellectual syllogisms around intellectual solecisms, and is generally insulting to anyone of any intelligence, manipulative of the ignorant, and thoroughly fascistic in its aims. How on Earth did this get included in the anthology?

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