7:1 VA YEHI BISHNAT ARB'A LE DAR-YAVESH HA MELECH HAYAH DEVAR YHVH EL ZECHAR-YAH BE ARBA'AH LA CHODESH HA TESHI'I BE CHISLEV
וַיְהִי בִּשְׁנַת אַרְבַּע לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ הָיָה דְבַר יְהוָה אֶל זְכַרְיָה בְּאַרְבָּעָה לַחֹדֶשׁ הַתְּשִׁעִי בְּכִסְלֵו
KJ (King James translation): And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Darius, that the word of the LORD came unto Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, even in Chisleu;
BN (BibleNet translation): And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Dar-Yavesh, on the fourth day of the ninth month, which is Kislev, that the word of YHVH came to Zechar-Yah.
BISHNAT ARB'A: Darius came to the throne of Persia in 521 BCE, so that makes this 517.
KISLEV: Useful information for all the prophets of this epoch, because it confirms that they were now using the Babylonian calendar, which begins in Nisan, in the spring. Today's Judaism celebrates the new year on the first of Tishrey, but also notes that Tishrey is the seventh month - which seems odd but is a consequence of the shift from the Kena'ani calendar of the majority of the Tanach to this Babylonian calendar. For more detail, click here.
Two years to the day after Chagai's fifth speech, for which see Chagai 2:10. Was it a significant date for any other reason? Given the time of year, was there perhaps already a "festival of lights", a Yehudan Diwali, long before Chanukah was attributed to Hasmonean miracles?
7:2 VA YISHLACH BEIT EL SAR ETSER VE REGEM MELECH VA ANASHAV LECHALOT ET PENEY YHVH
וַיִּשְׁלַח בֵּית אֵל שַׂר אֶצֶר וְרֶגֶם מֶלֶךְ וַאֲנָשָׁיו לְחַלּוֹת אֶת פְּנֵי יְהוָה
KJ: When they had sent unto the house of God Sherezer and Regemmelech, and their men, to pray before the LORD,
BN: Now the governor of the town's treasury and the master mason, with their men, had been sent to the shrine, to ask YHVH if the omens were propitious.
BEIT-EL: Possibly the shrine of Beit-El, associated with Luz in the earliest of the tales in the Tanach; or it could be a synonym for the partially reconstructed Temple, which was indeed a "house of El" - and religious shrine is, by definition. It depends on the meanings of the next several words, which are equally complex.
SAR ETSER: SAR usually means a "prince", or a "minister", in the political rather than the clerical sense, while the root of ETSER has to do with laying up stores, or specifically money in a treasury. So the probability is that this was the man's role, rather than his name.
REGEM MELECH: "Friend of the king" would work as a literal translation, but the only king these people have is in Susa (it's winter-time, Susa was the winter palace; the rest of the year was spent in Babylon), so it might be better translated as "the Persian ambassador to Yehudah". But the reason they have gone there, which will be elaborated in the following verses, has to do with the esoterics of the Yehudan cult, and is not something that would concern the envoy of the Persian king - so that cannot be the meaning. It is highly unlikely to be a person's name, which leaves only one other possibility, and it is the one I favour, because this is all about the reconstruction of the Temple, and getting the king's permission is one thing, but it also needs the ready availability of the builders. So:
LECHALOT: As opposed to LEHITPALEL, which is petition through prayer. But this one really bewilders me, because the verb means... "to fall ill". Whence CHOLEH = "sick". However, there is also a secondary usage, CHALAH, something "polished", something "rubbed smooth", usually connected with female grooming, though Job 11:19 metaphors it into something close to sycophancy, which becomes "courting favour" in Psalm 45:13; in the case of this verse "schmoozing the deity", which is not as strong as Mosheh in Exodus 32:11, though it too uses YECHAL, and even stronger when Shemu-El uses it in 1 Samuel 13:12.
REGEM: Means "to join together", and is used of people, whence "friend", but it is mostly used of stones, people being stoned to death in Ezekiel 23:47, or laying the stones for a bridge across a river (which leads, interestingly, to the word TARGUM, "to translate", because that is a process of building a bridge between two languages; and even more interestingly, to me anyway, the colour ARGAMAN comes from the same root, probably because it was created by building up huge piles of murex shells, and then crushing them in one joined-up go, the extruding mucus collected in a vat and then used as a dye).
LECHALOT: As opposed to LEHITPALEL, which is petition through prayer. But this one really bewilders me, because the verb means... "to fall ill". Whence CHOLEH = "sick". However, there is also a secondary usage, CHALAH, something "polished", something "rubbed smooth", usually connected with female grooming, though Job 11:19 metaphors it into something close to sycophancy, which becomes "courting favour" in Psalm 45:13; in the case of this verse "schmoozing the deity", which is not as strong as Mosheh in Exodus 32:11, though it too uses YECHAL, and even stronger when Shemu-El uses it in 1 Samuel 13:12.
Which still leaves us wondering why the town or shrine of Beit-El would have sent these two representatives to petition the deity, and I can only conclude that it was at Beit-El (a mere 12 miles from Yeru-Shala'im) that the main cult ceremonies and rites were based, pending completion of the Temple, and these two men amongst the most senior on its Buildings and Refurbishments Committee, or whatever contemporary equivalent, come to enquire of their spritual superiors in Yeru-Shala'im what plans they should be making for the coming year - precisely what you would expect them to be doing in the month of Kislev, with the Tishrey festivals now wrapped up, the Sukkah taken down, and nothing major on the calendar until Pesach, four months hence, in Nisan - though their immediate concern relates to the fifth month hence, Iyar (had the Fast of Ester, which was really the Persian New Year festival, been introduced yet? Had they brought it back with them from Susa, or did it come later, with Ezra and Nechem-Yah, or later even than that?).
7:3 LE'MOR EL HA KOHANIM ASHER LE VEIT YHVH TSEVA'OT VE EL HA NEVIY'IM LE'MOR HA EVCHEH BA CHODESH HA CHAMISHI HINAZER KA ASHER ASIYTI ZEH KAMEH SHANIM
לֵאמֹר אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים אֲשֶׁר לְבֵית יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת וְאֶל הַנְּבִיאִים לֵאמֹר הַאֶבְכֶּה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַחֲמִשִׁי הִנָּזֵר כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי זֶה כַּמֶּה שָׁנִים
KJ: And to speak unto the priests which were in the house of the LORD of hosts, and to the prophets, saying, Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?
BN: And to speak to the Kohanim in the house of YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, and to the Prophets, saying, Should I weep in the fifth month, separating myself, as I have done these so many years?
BEIT YHVH: making a clear distinction between this one, which can only be the Temple in Yeru-Shala'im, and the Beit-El of verse 1, which may or may not have been in the town of Beit-El.
EVCHEH...HINAZER: Interesting piece of sociology this. Was this a tradition before the captivity, or something inaugurated because of it - a month of Lent before the spring festivals perhaps, or more likely an act of mourning for the lost Temple? The weeping, and the professions of the two men, suggest the latter, though the Nazirut could suggest the former; and of course it could be both, the later rites made to coincide with the earlier. But the date is what counts here:
BA CHODESH HA CHAMISHI: The fifth month, by the pre-Babylonian calendar (see my note to verse 1) was Av, on the 9th of which the Temple was destroyed in 586 BCE. Can we draw the inference that those who came back were using the Babylonian, but those who had escaped the captivity were still using the old calendar? After all, there is no subject more obviously pertinent to their question than the rites of Tisha Be Av - with one qualification: we know from historical records that the 9th of Av was the date of the destruction of the Second Temple, but placing the destruction of the First on the same date is a matter of conjectural symmetry, not archeological evidence (click here).
samech break
7:4 VA YEHI DEVAR YHVH TSEVA'OT ELAI LEMOR
וַיְהִי דְּבַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אֵלַי לֵאמֹר
KJ: Then came the word of the LORD of hosts unto me, saying,
BN: Then the word of YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, came to me, saying...
Which makes it sound like Zechar-Yah was the one asked to provide the oracle on this occasion; though perhaps several prophets and the Kohanim all gave their oracles, but this book only feels the need to record this one. Either way it confirms the significant and official role played by the Prophets, alongside the Kohanim, at this epoch.
7:5 EMOR EL KOL AM HA ARETS VE EL HA KOHANIM LE'MOR KI TSAMTEM VE SAPHOD BA CHAMIYSHI U VA SHEVIY'I VE ZEH SHIV'IM SHANAH HA TSOM TSAMTUNI ANI
אֱמֹר אֶל כָּל עַם הָאָרֶץ וְאֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים לֵאמֹר כִּי צַמְתֶּם וְסָפוֹד בַּחֲמִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי וְזֶה שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה הֲצוֹם צַמְתֻּנִי אָנִי
KJ: Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying, When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and seventh month, even those seventy years, did ye at all fast unto me, even to me?
BN: "Speak to all the people of the land, and to the Kohanim, saying, 'When you fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month, through all these seventy years, did you really fast in my name - in my name?..
VA SHEVIY'I: The seventh month in the Babylonian calendar, as today, would be Tishrey, and the fast is still known as Tsom Yom Kippur - TSAMTEM and TSOM in this verse. The seventy years confirms that this was definitely mourning for the Temple, but that doesn't preclude it from having already been a fast before then. We know from verse 1 that we are in 517 BCE, and seventy years therefore takes us to 587 BCE, precisely the date argued about by the archeologists as the year of the destruction of the First Temple (some insist on 586, because that was the year of the formal start of the captivity).
ANI: This is almost but not quite Yesha-Yahu's constant complaint - that the prayers are automatic, lacking Kavanah, which is both intensity and sincerity; though Yesha-Yahu wasn't the only Prophet to make this complaint; Shemu-El says the same thing in 1 Samuel 15:22: "Does YHVH delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obedience to his voice? No, obedience is better than sacrifice, and attentiveness is better than the fat of rams". But in our verse there is also the great ego trumpeting itself once again: me, Me, ME! And rather unfair of Zechar-Yah: they want to know if the period of mourning is now ending, or ended, or still in place, dependng on whether there is, or is not, or might yet be, once again a Temple; but he turns it into an entirely different sermon, and actually doesn't answer their question.
7:6 VE CHI TO'CHLU VE CHI TISHTU HA LO ATEM HA'OCHLIM VE ATEM HASHOTIM
וְכִי תֹאכְלוּ וְכִי תִשְׁתּוּ הֲלוֹא אַתֶּם הָאֹכְלִים וְאַתֶּם הַשֹּׁתִים
KJ: And when ye did eat, and when ye did drink, did not ye eat for yourselves, and drink for yourselves?
BN: "'And when you ate, and when you drank, did you not feed others, did you not provide drink for others?..
HA'OCHLIM...HASHOTEM: This is complex, and I think it is because there are so many HAs in the verse. HA can be the definite article, or it can function as an interrogative preposition, and no question it is the second of these with HA LO ATEM. But then what? I am reading HA'OCHLIM and HASHOTEM as neither the definite nor the inerrogative, but as yet a third option, the prefix for the Hiphil; but properly the Hiphil of OCHEL would mean "feeding someone else", because Hiphil is causative; ditto for HASHOTIM. Then perhaps it isn't Hiphil. But if not, it cannot be the interrogative, because we already have that with HA LO ATEM, and it obviously isn't a definite article. So there must be a distinction being made between the Pa'al (active) of TO'CHLU and TISHTU, and the two Hiphils, and thence my translation.
7:7 HA LO ET HA DEVARIM ASHER KAR'A YHVH BE YAD HA NEVIY'IM HA RI'SHONIM BIHEYOT YERU-SHALA'IM YOSHEVET U SHELEVACH VE AREYHA SEVIYVOTEYHA VE HA NEGEV VE HA SHEPHELAH YOSHEV
הֲלוֹא אֶת הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר קָרָא יְהוָה בְּיַד הַנְּבִיאִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים בִּהְיוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַםִ יֹשֶׁבֶת וּשְׁלֵוָה וְעָרֶיהָ סְבִיבֹתֶיהָ וְהַנֶּגֶב וְהַשְּׁפֵלָה יֹשֵׁב
KJ: Should ye not hear the words which the LORD hath cried by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and in prosperity, and the cities thereof round about her, when men inhabited the south and the plain?
BN: Have you not [heard] the words which YHVH spoke through the Prophets of times past, when Yeru-Shala'im was inhabited and prosperous, and the cities round about her likewise, and the Negev and the Shephelah were inhabited?'"
HA LO ET: There is actually no verb here: "have you not... the words which...." Most translators add a verb, and the obvious one is LISHMO'A, "to hear", though why they also subjunctify this into "should" is not apparent.
NEGEV...SHEPHELAH: There is no reason for translating these, though the translations are accurate; the Negev and the Shephelah are specific regions, and these their names.
pey break, marking a very clear change in the text.
7:8 VA YEHI DEVAR YHVH EL ZECHAR-YAH LE'MOR
וַיְהִי דְּבַר יְהוָה אֶל זְכַרְיָה לֵאמֹר
KJ: And the word of the LORD came unto Zechariah, saying,
BN: Then the word of YHVH came to Zechar-Yah, saying...
7:9 KOH AMAR YHVH TSEVA'OT LE'MOR MISHPAT EMET SHEPHOTU VE CHESED VE RACHAMIM ASU ISH ET ACHIV
כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת לֵאמֹר מִשְׁפַּט אֱמֶת שְׁפֹטוּ וְחֶסֶד וְרַחֲמִים עֲשׂוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו
KJ: Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother:
BN: Thus has YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, spoken, saying, "Execute true judgment, and let every man show kindness and compassion to his brother...
EMET...CHESED...RACHAMIM: Words that are normally descriptions of the deity himself - see for example the great prayer of Yom Kippur, ADONAI ADONAI EL RACHUM VE CHANUN, which comes from exactly the same "Thirteen Attributes" of Exodus 34:6/7 as the NETSER of Zechariah 6:12, as though he is completing that allusion here. Words that will be familiar to any Moslem reading this (the next verse perhaps even more so), because they are likewise characteristics of al-Lah, restated every time his name is uttered (click here). But also words that make me wonder if this section of Zechar-Yah isn't later, Talmudic, redaction, adding the conveniently ideological retrospectively. Why do I say that? Because the style and form and tone is not Zechar-Yah as we have heard him up till now, but is very much that of the Pirkei Avot, a section of Mishnah which, since the 2nd century CE when it was written, has been the central text for study on Shabbat afternoons during the spring and summer months. Click here for the full text.
7:10 VE ALMANAH VE YATOM GER VE ANI AL TA'ASOKU VE RA'AT ISH ACHIV AL TACHSHEVU BILVAVECHEM
וְאַלְמָנָה וְיָתוֹם גֵּר וְעָנִי אַל תַּעֲשֹׁקוּ וְרָעַת אִישׁ אָחִיו אַל תַּחְשְׁבוּ בִּלְבַבְכֶם
KJ: And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart.
BN: "... and [to the] widow, and [the] fatherless, [and the] stranger, and [the] poor, let none of you devise evil against his brother in your hearts."
VE ALMANAH...: The verse is simply a continuation of the previous verse; no other verb is added and the phrasing is positive, not anti-negative.
YATOM: The word should really be translated as "orphan", but these were different times from ours, and not having a mother was far less significant for a person's legal status and general protection than not having a father, and this because of the mother's status, not the child's. I have taken my cue from Job 24:9, and note that the King James makes the same decision at Exodus 22:21 and 23, as well as at Deuteronomy 10:18 and 14:29.
GER: Why is there no conjunction on this occasion? Having said which, as per my square brackets... very odd sentence altogether.
The overall sense of the two verses is "Love thy neighbour as thyself" (Leviticus 19:18), which provides another hint that this belongs to the Rabbis of the Pirkei Avot, Rabbi Hillel's two explanations of that verse being probably the best-known of all tales from the period (the link only tells one half of it: "do not do to others what would be objectionable if they did it to you" is one side of the coin; the other, the one usually told, says "behave to others as you would have them behave to you"; one a positive, the other an anti-negative); and again a phrase that is reflected in the Moslem.
7:11 VA YEMA'ANU LEHAKSHIV VA YITNU CHATEPH SORARET VE AZNEYHEM HICHBIYDU MISHMO'A
7:11 VA YEMA'ANU LEHAKSHIV VA YITNU CHATEPH SORARET VE AZNEYHEM HICHBIYDU MISHMO'A
וַיְמָאֲנוּ לְהַקְשִׁיב וַיִּתְּנוּ כָתֵף סֹרָרֶת וְאָזְנֵיהֶם הִכְבִּידוּ מִשְּׁמוֹעַ
KJ: But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear.
BN: But they refused to listen, and shrugged their shoulders, and stopped their ears, to prevent themselves from hearing.
VE YEMA'ANU: He is still referring to the words of the earlier Prophets, Mosheh included, as the next verse indeed confirms. The root, for the information, is MA'EN (מאן).
7:12 VE LIBAM SAMU SHAMIR MISHMO'A ET HA TORAH VE ET HA DEVARIM ASHER SHALACH YHVH TSEVA'OT BE RUCHO BE YAD HA NEVIY'IM HA RI'SHONIM VA YEHI KETSEPH GADOL ME ET YHVH TSEVA'OT
7:12 VE LIBAM SAMU SHAMIR MISHMO'A ET HA TORAH VE ET HA DEVARIM ASHER SHALACH YHVH TSEVA'OT BE RUCHO BE YAD HA NEVIY'IM HA RI'SHONIM VA YEHI KETSEPH GADOL ME ET YHVH TSEVA'OT
וְלִבָּם שָׂמוּ שָׁמִיר מִשְּׁמוֹעַ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה וְאֶת הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַח יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת בְּרוּחוֹ בְּיַד הַנְּבִיאִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים וַיְהִי קֶצֶף גָּדוֹל מֵאֵת יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת
KJ: Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the LORD of hosts.
BN: Indeed, they made their hearts as sharp as thorns, lest they should hear the law, and the words which YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens, had sent by his spirit in the hands of the former Prophets. And so there came great wrath from YHVH, the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens.
SHAMIR: Tricky!
There are two towns named Shamir, one in the tribal territory of Yehudah (Joshua 15:48), the other on Mount Ephrayim (Judges 10:1); but clearly it is neither of these.
Then there are "thorns" - and thorns around the Law would prevent a man from getting too close, just as much as the metaphorical hardening of his heart. Given that its use as "thorn" is mostly in Yesha-Yahu (Isaiah 5:6 - I have linked this to a text that has Rashi's very strong view on this matter - 7:23, 9:17 et al) there is good reason for assuming this was Zechar-Yah's intention.
However, there is also that "adamant stone", which former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Yezernitsky definitely intended when he changed his Russian birthname to Shamir (one of his daughters was even given the last name Diamant). How do we get from "thorns" to "diamonds"? The sharp point is the answer to that. In Jeremiah 17:1 the writing-tip of the stylus was made from a cut diamond; and this of course would make a splendid irony in our context, or would if this were Mal'achi and not Zechar-Yah, because in Mal'achi's time, seventy years from now, the main use of that diamond stylus will be the writing of the scroll of the Torah.
And finally there is the King James preference, for a stone that is rather more adamant than diamant. The source of this is probably Ezekiel 3:9, "כְּשָׁמִיר חָזָק מִצֹּר נָתַתִּי מִצְחֶךָ - As an adamant harder than flint have I made your forehead".
BE RUCHO: Yes, his spirit, as in the creational spirit of Genesis 1:2; but the allusion is back to Zechar-Yah 6:5, where the four spirits in the form of four winds went out from the quarters of the heavens to patrol the Earth.
BE RUCHO: Yes, his spirit, as in the creational spirit of Genesis 1:2; but the allusion is back to Zechar-Yah 6:5, where the four spirits in the form of four winds went out from the quarters of the heavens to patrol the Earth.
NEVIY'IM HA RI'SHONIM: The first time he used this phrase, in verse 7, the context can only have meant the Yesha-Yahus and Yirme-Yahus and Yechezke-Els to whom we attach the name Prophet. But Mosheh is also considered to have been a Navi, and it is not always obvious that Zechar-Yah is including him, despite his referencing the law. Later Judaism would be far more likely to name him, and leave out the other Prophets.
KETSEPH: See my note to Zechar-Yah 1:2; but things have moved on since then, and we now need to see this word in connection with Zechar-Yah 6:12 as well - and having done so, and realised the extent to which he is playing with the names of the various parts of the trees and shrubs and hedges, it seems to me even more certain that he intends "thorns" by SHAMIR.
7:13 VA YEHI CHA ASHER KAR'A VE LO SHAME'U KEN YIKRE'U VE LO ESHM'A AMAR YHVH TSEVA'OT
וַיְהִי כַאֲשֶׁר קָרָא וְלֹא שָׁמֵעוּ כֵּן יִקְרְאוּ וְלֹא אֶשְׁמָע אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת
KJ: Therefore it is come to pass, that as he cried, and they would not hear; so they cried, and I would not hear, saith the LORD of hosts:
BN: And it is come to pass that, as he called, and they would not hear, so they shall call and I will not hear, said YHVH the Lord of the Hosts of the Heavens;
There are times with Zechar-Yah when it is simply impossible to decide if he is speaking, or, in earlier passages, the "messenger inside him", or if that messenger is quoting YHVH, or is YHVH, as here. And here, where to put the quotation marks at all: "as he called" at the beginning has to be Zechar-Yah, but "I will not hear" is just as certainly YHVH, albeit through Zechar-Yah's lips.
7:14 VE ESA'AREM AL KOL HA GOYIM ASHER LO YEDA'UM VE HA ARETS NASHAMAH ACHAREYHEM ME EVER U MI SHAV VA YASIYMU ERETS CHEMDAH LE SHAMAH
וְאֵסָעֲרֵם עַל כָּל הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יְדָעוּם וְהָאָרֶץ נָשַׁמָּה אַחֲרֵיהֶם מֵעֹבֵר וּמִשָּׁב וַיָּשִׂימוּ אֶרֶץ חֶמְדָּה לְשַׁמָּה
KJ: But I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations whom they knew not. Thus the land was desolate after them, that no man passed through nor returned: for they laid the pleasant land desolate.
BN: But I swept them away in a storm to dwell among all manner of nations whom they had never known. Thus the land was left desolate behind them, so that no man passed through it, nor returned: for they left the pleasant land desolate.
No comments:
Post a Comment