9:1 U CHE CHALOT ELEH NIGSHU ELAY HA SARIM LEMOR LO NIVDELU HA AM YISRA-EL VE HA KOHANIM VE HA LEVIYIM ME AMEY HA ARATSOT KE TO'AVOTEYHEM LA KENA'ANI HA CHITI HA PERIZI HA YEVUSI HA AMONI HA MO-AVI HA MITSRI VE HA EMORI
וּכְכַלּוֹת אֵלֶּה נִגְּשׁוּ אֵלַי הַשָּׂרִים לֵאמֹר לֹא נִבְדְּלוּ הָעָם יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם מֵעַמֵּי הָאֲרָצוֹת כְּתֹעֲבֹתֵיהֶם לַכְּנַעֲנִי הַחִתִּי הַפְּרִזִּי הַיְבוּסִי הָעַמֹּנִי הַמֹּאָבִי הַמִּצְרִי וְהָאֱמֹרִי
KJ (King James translation): Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.
BN (BibleNet translation): Now when these things were done, the princes approached me, saying: "The people of Yisra-El, and the Kohanim and the Leviyim, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, but are participating in their abominations, those of the Kena'ani, the Chiti, the Perizi, the Yevusi, the Amoni, the Mo-Avi, the Mitsri and the Emori...
U CHE CHALOT: Meaning both the sacrifices at the Temple and the delivery of the king's treasures to the various satraps and governors - see chapter 8.
TO'AVOTEYHEM: cf Deuteronomy 7:26, which suggests that these were the sort of teraphim (household gods) that Rachel stole from her father in Genesis 31:19 ff. However the verse that follows this clearly intends something quite different - the "abomination" of marrying out.
KENA'ANI: see the link.
KENA'ANI: see the link.
CHITI: The Hittites actually surprise me more than any of the others; it had appeared that they had died out as a people, evolving into Phoenicians, Greeks and others in the intervening centuries, losing that original identity in the process (cf Jutes and Frisians along the east coast of England, none of whom have used that designation for a thousand years, but regard themselves as English, even though they were never Anglii or Saxons).
PERIZI: see the link.
YEVUSI: see the link.
AMONI: see the link.
MO-AVI: see the link.
MITSRI is at first slightly surprising, though in fact there had been Egyptian colonies and towns in the land for centuries.
EMORI: The list is somewhat curious, in part because it is identical to the one given in the early chapters of Bere'shit (Genesis), at the time that Av-Ram and Sarai arrived, but mostly because of the absences - no Pelishtim for example, though they dominated the Mediterranean coast at this time, from Azah all the way to Mount Carmel, and quite a distance inland to what had been the tribal territories of Shim'on and Yehudah; but even more significantly, no Shomronim, who were by far the dominant ethnic group in the former northern kingdom. And it could be argued that Ezra's list is only of the inhabitants of Yeru-Shala'im and its immediate environs - but Amonites, Emorites, Mitsrim? No, this describes the entire region, from Damasek to Moph, and the absences are the absences.
Or is it possible... and this is a very long and speculative speculation... is it possible that Ezra was playing politics here, acknowledging the presence of all the aboriginal ethnic groups (of which, cf Genesis 14:13 et al, the Emorites were one), as well as all of the conventional foreigners who had come to settle at various times, and then looking for a clever way to offer an opportunity to the Shomronim to assimilate into the new power-group - and the way the arrival of Av-Ram is recounted in Genesis, coming initially from Ur Kasdim, just like these returnees, but with the rest of the family settling in Padan Aram, encourages this speculation. The Shomronim came from precisely the area around Nin'veh and Padan Aram, which made them Emorites of the former Hittite empire, while Ezekiel 16:3 states very clearly of the Beney Yisra-El, "your father was Emori and your mother Chitit - your father was an Emorite, and your mother a Hittite". In other words, we are the same people.
Alas, I think the answer is: no. Later verses in this chapter, continuing the attack upon exogamy and insisting on the predominance of the cult of YHVH, certainly indicate that it was not so. But there is a far more damning piece of evidence, from elsewhere in Jewish liturgy: the 12th blessing of the Amidah, "Ve La Malshinim", introduced by Rabban Gamliel II at Yavneh, early in the 2nd century CE. How can a prayer from six hundred years after Ezra tell us what he thought? Because Gamliel's was an emendation of the Ezraic original, introduced by him into the Amidah in the Second Temple, precisely at the moment in history that we are reading.
"Ve la malshinim al tehi tikvah, ve chol ha rishah ke rega toved, ve chol oyevecha meherah yikareytu, ve ha zedim meherah te'aker u teshaber u temager ve tachniya bimheyrah ve yameynu. Baruch atah YHVH, shover oyevim u machniya zedim."
"And for slanderers let there be no hope, and may all wickedness perish in an instant, and may all your enemies be cut down speedily. May you speedily uproot, smash, cast down and humble the wanton sinner - speedily, in our days. Blessed are you, YHVH, who breaks his enemies and humbles wanton sinners."
9:2 KI NAS'U MIBNOTEYHEM LAHEM VE LIVNEYHEM VE HIT'ARVU ZER'A HA KODESH BE AMEY HA ARATSOT VE YAD HA SARIM VE HA SEGANIM HAYETAH BA MA'AL HAZEH RI'SHONAH
כִּי נָשְׂאוּ מִבְּנֹתֵיהֶם לָהֶם וְלִבְנֵיהֶם וְהִתְעָרְבוּ זֶרַע הַקֹּדֶשׁ בְּעַמֵּי הָאֲרָצוֹת וְיַד הַשָּׂרִים וְהַסְּגָנִים הָיְתָה בַּמַּעַל הַזֶּה רִאשׁוֹנָה
KJ: For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.
BN: For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed has mingled itself with the people of the land; yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been first in this faithlessness.
Racial purity, one of the great obsessions of the Jewish people throughout history. Nechem-Yah will make the same complaint (Nehemiah 13:23). And when the Torah is written down, over the next few months, and then recited twice weekly in the marketplace so that everyone will hear and know it, no subject will come up more frequently, nor with more curses attached, and the perpetrators driven out of the community, than exogamy - Kayin, Yishma-El and Esav, the first-born sons of the three primal ancestors, all marry out, and all end up lost to the nation of Edom, on the far side of the river Yarden, beyond the borders of Yisra-El; while Eli-Ezer will go to Padan Aram to bring a wife for Yitschak, and Ya'akov will find wives there too.
samech break
9:3 U CHE SHAM'I ET HA DAVAR HA ZEH KAR'ATI ET BIGDI U ME'ILI VA EMRETAH MI SE'AR RO'SHI U ZEKANI VA ESHVAH MESHOMEM
וּכְשָׁמְעִי אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה קָרַעְתִּי אֶת בִּגְדִי וּמְעִילִי וָאֶמְרְטָה מִשְּׂעַר רֹאשִׁי וּזְקָנִי וָאֵשְׁבָה מְשׁוֹמֵם
KJ: And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astonied.
BN: And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down appalled.
SHAM'I: Why is this not SHAM'ATI, which is how it would be said today, and grammatically would follow the same pattern as KAR'ATI? Is this another example of Ezra not being terribly fluent in Yehudit? Or is he simply being precious: "on my hearing of this"?
Does he literally do these things, or only metaphorically? See verse 5 for the clothing; not so certain about the hair. People generally say this as a way of venting their feelings, but don't actually mean it literally. On the other hand, I have known people in the Jewish world who, upon hearing that their son or daughter had become engaged to a non-Jew, did indeed tear their clothing as a sign of mourning, and then sat shiva for what was now regarded as dead.
There is a lesson to be learned here for all the world's ideologues, whether religious or secular. Left to their own devices, human beings will abandon every ideology and follow their natural instincts, which do not break the world down into racial and ethnic divides at all, but only into people one is attracted to, or not; and people will devoutly follow the ideology too, but only if you impose it through the power of bullying. As we will see in the Book of Nehemiah, once power is established by Ezra, and the Yehudim are told to divorce their foreign wives, divorce becomes instantly pandemic, and the non-official cults disappear underground for the next several generations, just as they always do.
ASTONIED: In the previous verse as well, but this is KJ's translation, not mine, so I simply note that it is not my typing error.
9:4 VE ELAI YE'ASPHU KOL CHARED BE DIVREY ELOHEY YISRA-EL AL MA'AL HA GOLAH VA ANI YOSHEV MESHOMEM AD LE MINCHAT HA AREV
וְאֵלַי יֵאָסְפוּ כֹּל חָרֵד בְּדִבְרֵי אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל מַעַל הַגּוֹלָה וַאֲנִי יֹשֵׁב מְשׁוֹמֵם עַד לְמִנְחַת הָעָרֶב
KJ: Then were assembled unto me every one that trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the transgression of those that had been carried away; and I sat astonied until the evening sacrifice.
BN: Then were assembled before me every one that trembled at the words of the gods of Yisra-El, because of the faithlessness of those of the captivity; and I sat appalled until the evening offering.
CHARED: The origin of the word CHAREDI?
MINCHAT HA AREV: Ezra's "radical fundamentalism" once again made clear; but actually what is really interesting about this verse is that they performed the Minchah sacrifices in the evening at that time, where Jewish tradition has always argued that Minchah had to be complete by the time three stars were in the sky, and that the "evening prayers" are Ma'ariv, no sacrifices at all, simply prayers and blessings connected with the cleaning of the altar. But when I wrote "argued" I really did mean "argued"; a sample of the debate on this issue can be found here.
9:5 U VE MINCHAT HA EREV KAMTI MI TA'ANIYTI U VE KAR'I VIGDI U ME'ILI VA ECHRE'AH AL BIRKAY VA EPHRESAH CHAPHAY EL YHVH ELOHAY
וּבְמִנְחַת הָעֶרֶב קַמְתִּי מִתַּעֲנִיתִי וּבְקָרְעִי בִגְדִי וּמְעִילִי וָאֶכְרְעָה עַל בִּרְכַּי וָאֶפְרְשָׂה כַפַּי אֶל יְהוָה אֱלֹהָי
KJ: And at the evening sacrifice I arose up from my heaviness; and having rent my garment and my mantle, I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands unto the LORD my God,
BN: And at the time of the evening prayers I arose from my participation in the liturgy, and from the tearing of my garment and my mantle; and I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands to YHVH my god.
TA'ANIYTI: The only occasion in the Tanach where we find this form of the word, so it is difficult to determine what exactly it means. First, there is no known root TA'AN, so we have to deduce what the root, and form, might be, and scholars for 2000 years have assumed, entirely logically, that it must be ANAH (ענה), but using that rare extended-intensive form which, in modern Ivrit, has taken the word DELEK, meaning "fuel", and invented LETADLEK, for refuelling one aeroplane from another while in mid-flight - the key to the success of Operation Entebbe. How, if that method is correct, does ANAH become TA'ANIYTI?
ANAH is the term used for "affliction" in the Yom Kippur liturgy, and therefore, because we also fast on Yom Kippur, as one of the forms of self-affliction, many translators go for "fasting" here, encouraged though not fully supported by Leviticus 16:31 and 23:27, as well as Numbers 29:7 - and quite probably, if they are regulars in
synagogue, by the words of Aneynu, recited between the seventh and eight blessings of the Amidah in each of the three daily services.
But "affliction" is only one usage, and ANAH in general can mean any form of intensive activity, intellectual engagement in Ecclesiastes 1:13, spiritual engagement in Ecclesiastes 3:10, even hard physical labour in the fields, as in Psalm 129:3. And even singing and dancing, as in Exodus 15:21, where Mir-Yam calls on the priestesses to join her in song, and 1 Samuel 21:12, where David is pointed out singing while he dances, and Psalm 147:7, which invites all of us to do what surely Ezra has just spent Minchah doing, which is to "sing out intensely to YHVH", and which is my preferred translation here (though I confess that the one in green above is a rather neutral cop-out).
Aneynu is worth further examination because it plays with two very different directions in which the same root develops in Yehudit. "Aneynu YHVH aneynu be-yom tsom ta'aniteynu" it begins, "aneynu" being the call on the deity to respond, "ta'aniteynu" being the same "affliction" that Ezra is describing here. So TA'ANIYTI might simply mean that he has been engaged in deep self-interrogation, going over and over in his mind what to do about this challenging problem of "abomination". But if he was fasting, why was he fasting? Aneynu may well provide us an answer to that question. First, the prayer in full:
"Answer us, YHVH, answer us, on this day of our fast, for we are in great distress. Do not pay attention to our wickedness. Do not hide your face from us, and do not ignore our supplication. Please be near to our outcry, please let your kindness comfort us. Even before we call to you, answer us, as it is said, 'And it will be that before they call, I will answer; while they yet speak, I will hear.' For you, YHVH, are the one who responds in times of distress, who redeems and rescues in all times of distress and sorrow. Blessed are you, YHVH, who responds in times of distress."Then, quoting from a longer piece on this subject in my book "A Myrtle Among Reeds", the explanation of the prayer:
"Added on fast days, this is a cry of distress that reflects, not the pangs of hunger, but the circumstance behind the fast. The 9th of Av commemorates the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem - and not once, but twice. The first time in 586 BCE, the second in 70 CE - so tradition, which likes symmetry, tells us; though history has not yet corroborated the coincidence. The fast of the 9th of Av also recalls the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, which history does confirm took place on that date. The fast of the 10th of Tevet marks the start of the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonians under Nebuchadrezzar, which would end with the fall of the Temple. The Fast of Esther precedes the feast of Purim (all Jewish festivals are ringed around with food, either its eating, or else our abstinence from eating: feasts or fasts), recalling Esther’s call to fast in order to convince Ahasuerus. The fast of the 17th of Tammuz marks the first breach in the walls of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. The fast of Gedaliah, occurring on the 3rd of Tishrey, the day after Rosh ha-Shana, recalls the assassination of Nebuchadrezzar’s governor in Judea, and with it the fall of the First Commonwealth."So at least four possible dates on which Ezra might very well have been fasting, and three of them directly connected with the mission he has come to carry out in Yeru-Shala'im.
The impression from these few verses is of a religious fantatic, who undertakes ascetic practices and indulges himself sado-masochistically in order to achieve, and/or express, his fervour - that term Charedi again. A Cromwell, a Martin Luther, a St Paul - where all the history books emphasise Ezra the Scribe and not Ezra the Archbishop, the intellectual politician not the Ayatollah Khomeini. This is really very disappointing, to have discovered that we are indeed in Salem, but it is more like the one in 17th century Massachussetts.
But that is Ezra through the lens of a non-religious modern Jew, and as such bad scholarship; what is needed is to try to understand Ezra through the lens of his epoch.
So, again, was he fasting? We do not know specifically, because the text does not tell us. However, if prayer then was anything like prayer in the Hasmonean age and afterwards, about which we know a great deal, or even if it was purely Psalmic, we should be able to deduce from the phrases that he uses precisely what and why and wherefore. Let us try.
MINCHAT HA EREV: Generally translated as "evening sacrifices", but, as I have pointed out above, sacrifices in the Temple took place at Shacharit (dawn) and Minchah (afternoon), while the Ma'ariv service did not include sacrifices; it was a time of cleaning up the barbecue which was the altar, made holy with songs and prayers, and as such a definition of the closing of the day - usually, in fact, Ma'ariv is davened after the day has officially ended, so that it is really the next day, because a Jewish day is based on the moon, not the sun. So was this MA'ARIV, but with a different name? Or was this truly MINCHAT HA EREV, a prayer service at the end of a day of what may or may not have been fasting and self-flagellation, depending on the calendar, and not at that time dependent on the three stars? Just, it strikes me, like today's ALEYNU, with hints, as we shall see, of tomorrow morning's opening MAH TOVU.
KAR'I VIGDI U ME'ILI: The grammar of this is identical to the grammar of KAMTI MI TA'ANIYTI earlier in the sentence, so we cannot translate it as though it were different. He got up from whatever he had been doing in the first part, so he got up from the tearing of his garment and mantle in the second, a description of a liturgical process rather than a physical action: presumably some form of Selichot, as we would expect if this has been a day of self-flagellation; though Selichot do not require fasting.
VA ECHRE'AH: Sometimes we stand, sometimes we sit, very occasionally (the Aleynu of Rosh ha Shanah and Yom Kippur) we kneel; but in ancient times we prostrated ourselves, and we still claim to do so, in the words of MAH TOVU, the prayer that opens the Shacharit service: "Va-ani eshtachaveh ve-echra'ah evracha liphney Adonay osi". And what is the word that follows ESHTACHAVEH? VE -ECHRA'AH, just as Ezra is doing here. "I will prostrate myself and bow down, I will kneel before the Lord who made me."
AL BIRKAY: The "kneel" of that last sentence. The reason why certain types of prayer are called BERACHOT in Yehudit is not only their inclusion of the phrase "Baruch atah YHVH, Blessed are you, YHVH"; it is also the fact that the root of BARUCH is BEREK, which is a knee. It is a Barucha because it is recited kneeling. Or was, in Ezra's time.Today we stand.
And finally, left to last deliberately, and wondering if the thought had occurred to you. Prayer? Yes, the Psalms and the Yevarechecha, but Selichot, equivalents of Mah Tovu and Aleynu? Prayer? In Ezraic times? Some sort of formal liturgical service, kneeling, prostrate, standing, making the Shadai, offering Berachot? Have we just witnessed the first prayer service in Jewish history (probably not the first, probably it was another of the substitutes applied during the exile, but still, the first documented account of one)? I rather think we have.
And note yet again that both YHVH and Elohim are used in the same sentence, having connected but still different meanings. The advocates for J/E hypothesis as Ephrayim v Yehudah really do need to go back and rethink the matter.
9:6 VA OMRAH ELOHAY BOSHTI VE NICHLAMTI LE HARIM ELOHAY PANAY ELEYCHA KI AVONOTEYNU RAVU LEMA'LAH ROSH VE ASHMATENU GADLAH AD LA SHAMAYIM
וָאֹמְרָה אֱלֹהַי בֹּשְׁתִּי וְנִכְלַמְתִּי לְהָרִים אֱלֹהַי פָּנַי אֵלֶיךָ כִּי עֲוֹנֹתֵינוּ רָבוּ לְמַעְלָה רֹּאשׁ וְאַשְׁמָתֵנוּ גָדְלָה עַד לַשָּׁמָיִם
KJ: And said, O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God: for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens.
BN: And I said: O my god, I am embarrassed, and blush to lift up my face to you, my god; for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our guiltiness has risen to the heavens.
This entire verse, and the following, are in the classical language of Jewish liturgy, specifically the Selichot, quite possibly Yom Kippur, though there is no need for it to be that particular occasion, or a fast. And is it possible that what is being described here has nothing to do with the announcement about people marrying out, but is in fact the prayer service that accompanied the sacrifices in chapter 8? Given that that was the first prayer service of the new epoch in the restored Temple (as far as Ezra was concerned anyway), it would make sense to record its detail: leaving aside Zeru-Bavel's return, which built a second-rate Temple and whose walls the Greeks have destroyed, this, today, is the formal return of the captives from exile, and we have much to atone for, because had we been observant in our faith we would never have been taken into captivity and our shrine, our political capital, destroyed... Much bigger, much higher priority, than the sin of exogamy. Verse 8 appears to confirm this.
BOSHTI: See my note to this at Ezra 8:22.
9:7 MIYMEY AVOTEYNU ANACHNU BE ASHMAH GEDOLAH AD HA YOM HA ZEH U VA AVONOTEYNU NITANU ANACHNU MELACHEYNU CHOHANEYNU BE YAD MALCHEY HA ARATSOT BA CHEREV BA SHEVI U VA BIZAH U VE BOSHET PANIM KE HAYOM HA ZEH
מִימֵי אֲבֹתֵינוּ אֲנַחְנוּ בְּאַשְׁמָה גְדֹלָה עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וּבַעֲוֹנֹתֵינוּ נִתַּנּוּ אֲנַחְנוּ מְלָכֵינוּ כֹהֲנֵינוּ בְּיַד מַלְכֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת בַּחֶרֶב בַּשְּׁבִי וּבַבִּזָּה וּבְבֹשֶׁת פָּנִים כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה
KJ: Since the days of our fathers have we been in a great trespass unto this day; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to a spoil, and to confusion of face, as it is this day.
BN: Since the days of our fathers until this very day we have been exceedingly guilty; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to spoiling, and to confusion of face, as it is this day.
Standard liturgy, today anyway, for Selichot - to see examples, including Psalms and other Biblical exemplars, click here.
9:8 VE ATAH KIM'AT REG'A HAYETAH TECHINAH ME ET YHVH ELOHEYNU LEHASH'IR LANU PELEYTAH VE LATET LANU YATED BIMKOM KADSHO LEHA'IR EYNEYNU ELOHEYNU U LE TITENU MICH'YAH ME'AT BE AVDUTENU
וְעַתָּה כִּמְעַט רֶגַע הָיְתָה תְחִנָּה מֵאֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ לְהַשְׁאִיר לָנוּ פְּלֵיטָה וְלָתֶת לָנוּ יָתֵד בִּמְקוֹם קָדְשׁוֹ לְהָאִיר עֵינֵינוּ אֱלֹהֵינוּ וּלְתִתֵּנוּ מִחְיָה מְעַט בְּעַבְדֻתֵנוּ
KJ: And now for a little space grace hath been shewed from the LORD our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in his holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage.
BN: And now for a brief moment grace has been shown to us by YHVH our god, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in his holy place, that our god may lighten our eyes, and give us an opportunity to recover from our bondage.
AVDUTENU: Where earlier in this chapter we believed we were seeing the reason behind the Av-Ram text, here we are seeing the reason behind the Mosheh text: the slavery transformed into freedom, the release from bondage. No one creates a text without a reason, and Ezra is about to undertake the writing of theTorah/Tanach as we know it, as the key document to establish his people, which is also more than just his people (see verse 1). Almost certainly those tales already existed, but which ones to include and which to leave out (Midrash and Apocrypha have scores of these), and in what order, and with what precise language and tone and message?
9:9 KI AVADIM ANACHNU U VE AVDUTEYNU LO AZAVANU ELOHEYNU VA YAT ALEYNU CHESED LIPHNEY MALCHEY PARAS LATET LANU MICH'YAH LEROMEM ET BEIT ELOHEYNU U LEHA'AMID ET CHARVOTAV VE LATET LANU GADER BIYHUDAH U VIYRU'SHALA'IM
כִּי עֲבָדִים אֲנַחְנוּ וּבְעַבְדֻתֵנוּ לֹא עֲזָבָנוּ אֱלֹהֵינוּ וַיַּט עָלֵינוּ חֶסֶד לִפְנֵי מַלְכֵי פָרַס לָתֶת לָנוּ מִחְיָה לְרוֹמֵם אֶת בֵּית אֱלֹהֵינוּ וּלְהַעֲמִיד אֶת חָרְבֹתָיו וְלָתֶת לָנוּ גָדֵר בִּיהוּדָה וּבִירוּשָׁלִָם
KJ: For we were bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the desolations thereof, and to give us a wall in Judah and in Jerusalem.
BN: For we are bondmen; yet our gods have not forsaken us in our bondage, but have reached out mercifully toward us in the eyes of the kings of Persia, to give us an opportunity for renewal, to set up the house of our gods, and to repair its ruins, and to give us a fence in Yehudah and in Yeru-Shala'im.
But only a hint (see my last note to the previous verse). My complaint is because we are now freemen and women once again, in our own land, and need prayers that reflect and endorse that, but which also recognise that a majority prefer the Diaspora and do not intend to return from exile, while the patriates have even less intention of rebuilding the sacrificial altar. But not yet any of this for Ezra. He has not even achieved the independence of land yet, let alone the establishment of a people, the restoration of language, the writing of a shared history...
AVADIM: Yet again that word, and yet again the translators are quite happy not to translate it as "slaves"; here "bondmen", a very different concept. But the reality is that they were just as much "slaves" in Babylon as they were in Mosaic Egypt, and the key here is not this anyway, but the use of the present tense. In the Haggadah for Passover, "avadim hayinu be Mitsrayim", "We were slaves in Egypt", where here it is AVADIM ANACHNU, "we are slaves" or servants, or bondsmen; though the nature of the servitude has switched from the Babylonians to the Persians; the point is, they are not free men in independent Yisra-El.
GADER: The word means "fence", and Ezra may simply be wanting to get the ruined walls of the city rebuilt, which is why KJ and others render it (forgive the pun) as "wall"; but he says GADER, and all previous references to rebuilding the walls focus on rebuilding the gates, and use the Aramaic SHURAY'A - see for example Ezra 4:12.
In which case we have to ask what he means, because it is quite obscure otherwise; is it, perhaps, the same concept, even if it is not the same word, as "asu seyag la Torah"? That can be found at the end of the opening paragraph of the Pirkei Avot, "The Ethics of the Fathers", a collection of wise saws and aphorisms written down as part of the Mishnah, not earlier than 170 CE (we can say that because it includes maxims of Yehudah ha Nasi, who lived from 135 to 217 CE; and it may well have been he who edited the anthology). For an excellent explanation of the concept of "building a fence around the Torah", click here. For an excellent understanding of what kind of a fence Ezra might have wanted to build around Yehudah and Yeru-Shala'im - why, just read on until the end of this book, because he is about to elucidate it.
samech break
9:10 VE ATAH MAH NOMAR ELOHEYNU ACHAREY ZOT KI AZAVNU MITSVOTEYCHA
וְעַתָּה מַה נֹּאמַר אֱלֹהֵינוּ אַחֲרֵי זֹאת כִּי עָזַבְנוּ מִצְוֹתֶיךָ
KJ: And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken thy commandments,
BN: And now, O our gods, what shall we say after this? for we have abandoned your commandments...
MITSVOTEYCHA: Look at the Vav with the dot above it (a cholem, to be correct) - I wrote about this a chapter or so back (7:11) when there was a query inside the Masoretic text about the spelling of this. Look also at TO'AVOTEYHEM in verse 11, which has the same cholem.
AZAV: here, as above, translated as "forsaken"; is that as strong as "abandoned"?
9:11 ASHER TSIVIYTA BE YAD AVADEYCHA HA NEVIYIM LEMOR HA ARETS ASHER ATEM BA'IM LE RISHTAH ERETS NIDAH HI BE NIDAT AMEY HA ARATSOT BE TO'AVOTEYHEM ASHER MILU'AH MI PEH EL PEH BE TUM'ATAM
אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָ בְּיַד עֲבָדֶיךָ הַנְּבִיאִים לֵאמֹר הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם בָּאִים לְרִשְׁתָּהּ אֶרֶץ נִדָּה הִיא בְּנִדַּת עַמֵּי הָאֲרָצוֹת בְּתוֹעֲבֹתֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר מִלְאוּהָ מִפֶּה אֶל פֶּה בְּטֻמְאָתָם
KJ: Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness.
BN: Which you have commanded by your servants the prophets, saying: The land to which you are going, to possess it, is an unclean land through the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, through their abominations, with which they have filled it from one end to another with their filthiness.
By your servants the Prophets, rather than by Mosheh! But then it was always the prophets who railed against the cults, never Mosheh.
The way this is presented, he appears to be citing, rather than putting his own words into the generalised mouths of whichever Prophets; but who is he citing? Amos 7:17 is one possibility, though he is speaking of the land of exile, where Ezra is speaking about the land of return; but it is hard to find any other verses that are as explicit as that one. References to uncleanliness in general, and the need to do something about it, can be found at 2 Chronicles 29:5 (though oddly it is 1 Chronicles 29, and especially verse 5, which has nothing to do with uncleanliness, but still epitomises the whole of Ezra's task and attitude since he left Babylon, down to the smallest detail), or at Lamentations 1:17, which is quite specifically about Yeru-Shala'im, and therefore a strong candidate, except that it isn't prophetic. Leviticus 18:27 is the other place to look, though it too is not prophetic.
9:12 VE ATAH BENOTEYCHEM AL TITNU LIVNEYHEM U VENOTEYHEM AL TIS'U LIVNEYCHEM VE LO TIDRESHU SHELOMAH VE TOVATAM AD OLAM LEMA'AN TECHEZKU VA ACHALTEM ET TUV HA ARETS HE HORASHTEM LIVNEYCHEM AD OLAM
וְעַתָּה בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם אַל תִּתְּנוּ לִבְנֵיהֶם וּבְנֹתֵיהֶם אַל תִּשְׂאוּ לִבְנֵיכֶם וְלֹא תִדְרְשׁוּ שְׁלֹמָם וְטוֹבָתָם עַד עוֹלָם לְמַעַן תֶּחֶזְקוּ וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אֶת טוּב הָאָרֶץ וְהוֹרַשְׁתֶּם לִבְנֵיכֶם עַד עוֹלָם
KJ: Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.
BN: Now therefore do not give your daughters to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons, nor seek their peace or their prosperity for ever; that you may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.
But at the end of all this, it really does come back to "will your children be counted as Jewish?", the issue of racial purity, and it is no longer even the patrilocal-matrilocal debate, because everyone will now be living as one people, in one nation, under one religious and political authority, so that no longer applies. Ideological supremacy, in a two-tier society: Jews and non-Jews.
9:13 VE ACHAREY KOL HA BA ALEYNU BE MA'ASEYNU HA RA'IM U VE ASHMATENU HA GEDOLAH KI ATAH ELOHEYNU CHASACHTA LEMATAH ME AVONENU VE NATATAH LANU PELEYTAH KA ZOT
וְאַחֲרֵי כָּל הַבָּא עָלֵינוּ בְּמַעֲשֵׂינוּ הָרָעִים וּבְאַשְׁמָתֵנוּ הַגְּדֹלָה כִּי אַתָּה אֱלֹהֵינוּ חָשַׂכְתָּ לְמַטָּה מֵעֲוֹנֵנוּ וְנָתַתָּה לָּנוּ פְּלֵיטָה כָּזֹאת
KJ: And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great trespass, seeing that thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such deliverance as this;
BN: And after all that has come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great guilt, seeing that you our god have punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and have given us such a remnant.
What can he mean? That the fifty years of captivity were a just (actually not a fully just, a merely inadequate) punishment for all the sins of idolatry over many years? Is this what "justify the judgement" really means: "you get what you deserve"? And if that is the case, then the same has to be said for the Holocaust. (And many do!)
ASHMATENU: My struggles with the inconsistencies of the Masoretes continue. ALEYNU with a YUD. MA'ASEYNU with a YUD. ELOHEYNU with a YUD. But ASHMATENU and AVONENU without one. Why?
CHASACHTA: And why is there no Hey on the end of this word?
9:14 HA NASHUV LEHAPHER MITSVOTEYCHA U LEHIT'CHATEN BE AMEY HA TO'EVOT HA ELEH HA LO TE'ENAPH BANU AD KALEH LE EYN SHE'ERIT U PHELEYTAH
הֲנָשׁוּב לְהָפֵר מִצְוֹתֶיךָ וּלְהִתְחַתֵּן בְּעַמֵּי הַתֹּעֵבוֹת הָאֵלֶּה הֲלוֹא תֶאֱנַף בָּנוּ עַד כַּלֵּה לְאֵין שְׁאֵרִית וּפְלֵיטָה
KJ: Should we again break thy commandments, and join in affinity with the people of these abominations? wouldest not thou be angry with us till thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant nor escaping?
BN: Shall we again break your commandments, and make marriages with the nations who commit these abominations? Would you not be angry with us until you had consumed us, so that there should be no remnant, nor any one left to escape?
These verses are crucial to our attempt to understand the historical agenda. In constructing the Tanach, Ezra is seeking to create a national identity, one that can bring together all the tribal and the ethnic myths and legends and histories, so that everyone will feel included. But at the same time those myths are to be Yehudaised (see "The Book of Judges" for the simplest and most obvious examples of the non-Yisra-Eli that will be absorbed), and that national identity will be focused on the Yehudit god YHVH, and his Temple in Yeru-Shala'im, a Jewish state, in which other cults, sects, superstitions, beliefs, ideologies etc may be "tolerated", but are just as likely to be suppressed, perhaps even outlawed. So perhaps a multi-cultural state, but definitely not a multi-religional one. The god of Yehudah is to be imposed, and those who reject it will themselves be rejected; two classes of citizenry, despite the Mosaic code that insists "ka ger ka ezrach" (cf Leviticus 16:29 and 25:35, Numbers 15:29 et al). This is no different really from the politicians in London who speak of the United Kingdom, when the Gaels and Picts and Celts who inhabit the fringes, in Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Cornwall, know that the land is really England and its remaining colonies, and the monarch of this multi-cultural democracy is crowned in a Christian church, by an Archbishop, in the name of "Our Lord Jesus Christ".
pey break
9:15 YHVH ELOHEY YISRA-EL TSADIK ATAH KI NISH'ARNU PHELEYTAH KE HAYOM HA ZEH HINENU LEPHANEYCHA BE ASHMATEYNU KI EYN LA'AMOD LEPHANEYCHA AL ZOT
יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל צַדִּיק אַתָּה כִּי נִשְׁאַרְנוּ פְלֵיטָה כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה הִנְנוּ לְפָנֶיךָ בְּאַשְׁמָתֵינוּ כִּי אֵין לַעֲמוֹד לְפָנֶיךָ עַל זֹאת
KJ: O LORD God of Israel, thou art righteous: for we remain yet escaped, as it is this day: behold, we are before thee in our trespasses: for we cannot stand before thee because of this.
BN: YHVH, god of Yisra-El, you are righteous; for we are the remnant that has escaped - this is how it stands today. Here we are, standing here before you in our guilti; yet how can any man before you in such a manner?
TSADIK: Can mean "just" or "righteous", but can also mean "wise".
HINENU: a variant, but nonetheless with the same intent, as HINENI, a key word used repeatedly in the Torah.
No comments:
Post a Comment