CHAPTER 16<\/p>\n
THE SHORTAGE OF FOOD\u2014MANNA AND QUAIL (vv. 1\u201320)<\/p>\n
It is now six weeks after the Exodus. With the oasis at Elim now behind them and the provisions brought from Egypt exhausted, the people face a severe shortage of food. The wilderness conditions offer little possibility of securing fresh supplies. Popular discontent flares, and harsh accusations are hurled against Moses and Aaron.
\nGod responds to Israel\u2019s material and spiritual needs: He supplies manna and quail and institutes the weekly Sabbath rest day.<\/p>\n
The Complaint (vv. 1\u20133)<\/p>\n
1. The wilderness itinerary set forth in Numbers 33:10\u201311 refers to an intermediate encampment by the Sea of Reeds on the way to the region of Sinai, a clear indication that the present record is condensed.<\/p>\n
2\u20133. The hardships of life in the wilderness arouse nostalgia for life in Egypt. Another popular idealizing of the past is chronicled in Numbers 11:5: \u201cWe remember the fish that we used to eat free in Egypt, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic.\u201d<\/p>\n
2. the whole Israelite community The suffering is more severe and more widespread than in the previous crisis, for in that instance the grumblers are described as simply \u201cthe people\u201d (15:24).<\/p>\n
3. died by the hand of the LORD That is, from natural causes.1 Death in old age in slavery is deemed preferable to premature death by starvation in freedom.2 These hypothetical options show a lack of faith in divine Providence.<\/p>\n
fleshpots \u2026 bread3 Since the people left Egypt with their flocks and herds,4 they could hardly have been in danger of starvation. However, livestock is the most valuable possession of the pastoralist, who can seldom be induced to part with an animal. Besides, the people had probably already suffered losses for lack of adequate pasturage.<\/p>\n
The Divine Response (vv. 4\u20135)<\/p>\n
Even before Moses can \u201ccry out to the LORD,\u201d as in the preceding crisis (15:25), God responds to Israel\u2019s needs.5 No anger is displayed at the people\u2019s complaint; nor is any recorded in the historical recapitulation of this episode in Deuteronomy 8:3, 16. But in his sermon in Psalm 78:18\u201322, the psalmist portrays God as incensed at the disbelief and faithlessness inherent in the people\u2019s grumbling.6
\nIt may well be that implicit in the Torah\u2019s narrative is the biblical teaching that human beings have an obligation to imitate divine qualities (imitatio dei). This Jewish doctrine is based on such passages as Leviticus 19:2\u2014\u201cYou shall be holy, for I, the LORD your God, am holy\u201d\u2014and on the several texts in Deuteronomy that enjoin Israel \u201cto walk\u201d in God\u2019s way. The Sifrei phrases the teaching this way: \u201cJust as He is compassionate, so be you; just as He is gracious, so be you.\u201d7 It follows from the present narrative that Israel would be expected to emulate God\u2019s qualities of self-restraint in the face of base ingratitude and of solicitous concern for the hungry.<\/p>\n
4. the LORD said to Moses Moses is privy to God\u2019s intentions, but he is not instructed to divulge the information to the people.<\/p>\n
bread \u2026 from the sky This contrasts with the usual \u201cbread from the earth.\u201d The substance is also poetically called \u201cheavenly grain,\u201d \u201cthe bread of heroes,\u201d \u201cheavenly bread,\u201d and \u201cbread from heaven.\u201d8<\/p>\n
each day Hebrew devar yom be-yomo is an administrative formula used in connection with work schedules, sacrifices, and rations.9 The fixed daily allotment of manna to each individual ensured fair and equal distribution of this scarce commodity (v. 16). The insecurity of the people\u2019s day-to-day existence, wholly dependent on this unfamiliar substance, heightens their consciousness of absolute reliance upon God\u2019s beneficence.10<\/p>\n
that I may thus test them Two interpretations of this phrase are possible: (1) the gift of manna is to be subject to restrictions that test Israel\u2019s obedience and trust;11 and (2) God intentionally subjects Israel to hunger in order to demonstrate and inculcate the lesson of their absolute dependence upon Him for sustenance.12 This follows the understanding of the manna episode in Deuteronomy 8:2\u20133.<\/p>\n
My instructions This may refer to laws specifically relating to the manna or to God\u2019s laws in general. Exodus 15:25 leads us to assume a tradition about laws given before the Sinaitic revelation.<\/p>\n
5. the sixth day Of the week. The sentence is elliptical, meaning that \u201con Friday, twice the usual daily amount shall be collected and prepared.\u201d13 Verses 22\u201323 show that this is precisely what the people did. The Mekhilta takes the sentence to mean that the regular day\u2019s allotment would miraculously double when brought home, but the Hebrew should then be ve-hayah le-mishnah.14<\/p>\n
THE PEOPLE ARE INFORMED (vv. 6\u201310)<\/p>\n
Even though Moses and Aaron are not commanded to relay God\u2019s message, they do so in order to pacify the populace. But they speak in generalities and say nothing about the sixth day. That is why the chieftains are later puzzled about the purpose of the double portion of manna (v. 22).<\/p>\n
6. Aaron He is included because, along with Moses, he was the target of the people\u2019s complaint.<\/p>\n
all the Israelites The comprehensive formulation echoes verse 2.<\/p>\n
it was the LORD And not we, as was charged in verse 2. The unexpected and timely satisfaction of the craving for meat will be incontestable proof that Israel\u2019s experiences are determined by God\u2019s sovereign will.<\/p>\n
7. The Presence of the LORD This is the first biblical usage of the seminal Hebrew phrase kevod YHVH. Formerly rendered \u201cthe glory of God,\u201d it is now recognized to be multifaceted in meaning, its precise signification determined by the context.15 The reference here, as Rashi and Rashbam note, is not to any visible symbol, as in verse 10, but to the manifestation of God\u2019s essential nature, as He caringly and beneficently provides for His people\u2019s needs.<\/p>\n
against the LORD The carping against Moses and Aaron is really a questioning of God, from whom their mission and authority derived.<\/p>\n
For who are we \u202616 A self-deprecating rhetorical question that is intensified by the use of Hebrew mah, literally \u201cwhat,\u201d employed of things rather than persons.17<\/p>\n
8. Moses reiterates the sentiment just voiced and expands it to emphasize that the people\u2019s complaint is really a challenge to God.<\/p>\n
to eat \u2026 to the full The varying expressions indicate that the cravings for both flesh and bread are to be satisfied but that the former is an unreasonable need.18<\/p>\n
9. Aaron acts as Moses\u2019 spokesman\u2014now to Israel rather than to Pharaoh.<\/p>\n
toward the LORD Literally, \u201cbefore the Lord,\u201d a phrase that usually means in front of the altar, Ark, or Tabernacle.19 Here, as Rashi notes, it must refer to the direction of the cloud.<\/p>\n
10. in a cloud Rather, \u201cin the cloud,\u201d that is, the luminous cloud that symbolizes God\u2019s active, dynamic, indwelling Presence in Israel during the wilderness period; see Comment to 13:22. The sudden appearance of the cloud is an affirmation of the declaration, announced by Aaron.<\/p>\n
THE QUAIL AND MANNA ARRIVE (vv. 11\u201320)<\/p>\n
The divine promise is fulfilled. The narrative is expansive on the manna but terse with respect to the quail, for several reasons: the cry for bread was reasonable, the craving for meat was not; the manna appeared with attendant supernatural features, but, except for its timing, the quail was a wholly natural phenomenon; and the manna was supplied continuously for forty years, whereas the quail was only occasional.<\/p>\n
12. I have heard The repetition serves to introduce the account of the actual arrival of quail and manna. This is not fortuitous but determined by divine deliberation.<\/p>\n
By evening On Hebrew bein ha-\u02bfarbayim, literally \u201cat twilight\u201d; see Comment to 12:6.<\/p>\n
eat \u2026 have your fill See Comment to verse 8.<\/p>\n
you shall know This echoes verse 6. Israel \u201cknows\u201d God through the experience of His actions on their behalf. On the meaning of the Hebrew verb y-d-\u02bf, see Comments to 1:8 and 6:3.<\/p>\n
13. quail These migratory birds of the pheasant family, scientifically known as Coturnix coturnix, are to this day caught in large numbers in northern Sinai and Egypt.20 They migrate in vast flocks from central Europe to Africa in the autumn and return in the spring. They are small in size and make the long and tiring journey in stages. Flying low and landing exhausted, they are easily captured with nets or by hand. Numbers 11:31\u201332 gives a vivid description of this process. The tender meat of the baby quail is regarded as a great delicacy. It requires no oil for cooking and is speedily prepared over a hot flame. There is no suggestion in the narrative that the quail was other than a one-time provision. This is supported by the account in Numbers 11:4, 6, 13, 21\u201322, which records that some people, bored with the manna beyond endurance, hankered after meat. Hence, the quail could not have been available regularly or even intermittently. That is why both Deuteronomy 8:3, 16 and Nehemiah 9, which recount God\u2019s benefactions to Israel in the wilderness, ignore the gift of quail.21<\/p>\n
a fall of dew22 Numbers 11:9 reads: \u201cWhen the dew fell on the camp at night, the manna would fall upon it.\u201d That text, read in combination with verses 13\u201314, here yields a description of the manna as enveloped in two layers of dew. It would thereby remain clean until collected in the early morning. Because of its association with dew, which in biblical times was thought to descend like rain from the sky,23 the manna could be called \u201cbread from heaven.\u201d<\/p>\n
14. To the description \u201cfine and flaky, as fine as frost\u201d must be added the specification in Numbers 11:7 that the manna was like coriander seed, of the color of bdellium, and it tasted like rich cream when prepared. No natural phenomenon in the Sinai region entirely matches these details. Closest is a white honeylike substance excreted from the tamarisk bush and called manna to this day by the Bedouin who collect it and eat it. This sap, rich in carbohydrates, is sucked by insects, which excrete the surplus onto the twigs. These form tiny globules that crystallize and fall to the ground.24 However, no naturalistic explanation can do justice to the manna tradition as it is presented in biblical literature. Here the substance possesses a numinous quality. Its bestowal is distinguished by certain wondrous features. However much one gathered, it amounted to only one omer; on Fridays the amount doubled; it did not fall on the Sabbath; any surplus beyond the allotted amount became rancid on weekdays but not on the Sabbath. What\u2019s more, although the manna collected by Bedouins in the Sinai is seasonal and of limited quantity, the biblical manna nourished the entire Israelite population throughout the forty years of the wilderness wanderings.<\/p>\n
flaky25<\/p>\n
15. What is it? Hebrew man hu is a folk explanation for the term by which the inhabitants of the wilderness knew the substance described above. The usual Hebrew would be mah hu, but the form man may be an ancient dialectic variant.26<\/p>\n
16. an omer Hebrew \u02bfOmer usually means a sheaf,27 but in this chapter it appears as a measure of capacity. Quite likely, ours is a different word, perhaps connected with Arabic ghumar, \u201ca small bowl\u201d that was used for measuring. See Comment to verse 36.<\/p>\n
19. Ibn Ezra understands the purpose behind this restriction to be a test of faith that the manna would appear again the next day.<\/p>\n
20. infested with maggots Hebrew va-yarum may be a play on rimmah, \u201ca worm\u201d (cf. v. 24), as Ibn Janah suggests.<\/p>\n
THE LAW OF THE SABBATH (vv. 21\u201330)<\/p>\n
Divine abstention from creativity on the seventh day is the climax of the biblical cosmogony, as recounted in Genesis 2:1\u20133. For this, the Hebrew stem sh-b-t is used in its verbal form, with God as the subject. Now, for the first time, the noun shabbat occurs to designate the fixed institution that recurs with cyclic regularity.<\/p>\n
21. This verse introduces the entire section.<\/p>\n
22. Presumably, the people had been told to collect double the usual daily amount on Fridays, but had not been told why. The tribal chiefs report that the order was followed, and they await clarification.<\/p>\n
double the amount of food Hebrew le\u1e25em mishneh occurs in the Bible only here. Verse 22 is the source of the Jewish custom of having two loaves of bread (referred to in later Hebrew as le\u1e25em mishneh) on the table at the kiddush, the benedictory ceremony consecrating the Sabbath and festivals.28<\/p>\n
23. Rashbam takes this verse to mean that Moses deliberately withheld the information about the Sabbath from the people in order to use the clement of mystery as a pedagogic device.<\/p>\n
a day of rest Hebrew shabbaton is an abstract form meaning \u201crestfulness.\u201d It is also applied to the holy day later known as Rosh Hashanah, and to Tabernacles (sukkot).29 However, the weekly Sabbath and the Day of Atonement are designated shabbat shabbaton,30 a superlative signifying the highest degree of rest. Hence, \u201call manner of work\u201d (Heb. mela\u02bekhah) is proscribed on the shabbat shabbaton but only \u201claborious work\u201d (Heb. mele\u02bekhet \u02bfavodah) on the ordinary shabbaton.31<\/p>\n
a holy sabbath The holiness of the day flows from God\u2019s infusion of blessing and sanctity, as related in Genesis 2:3. Because it is an integral part of the divinely ordained cosmic order, its blessed and sacred character is a cosmic reality wholly independent of human initiative. Hence the frequent designation \u201ca Sabbath of the LORD.\u201d See further the Comment to 20:8\u201312.<\/p>\n
bake \u2026 boil A fuller description of the way the manna was prepared is given in Numbers 11:8. \u201cThe people would go about and gather it, grind it between millstones or pound it in a mortar, boil it in a pot, and make it into cakes.\u201d The present passage is the biblical source for the prohibition against cooking on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n
all that is left That is, what was neither baked nor boiled on Friday but remained in its raw, though still edible, state.<\/p>\n
26. Six days \u2026 on the seventh The law of the Sabbath is frequently styled this way.32<\/p>\n
27. Some people were skeptical of Moses\u2019 prediction that no manna would fall on the Sabbath (cf. v. 20), and they went out to test it. Ezekiel (20:10\u201313) most likely refers to this incident when he recounts that Israel had already violated the Sabbath laws in the wilderness. If so, it suggests that the number involved was far greater than the text might indicate.33<\/p>\n
28\u201329. There is an apparent disparity between the nature of the offense, which is lack of faith, and the content of the divine reproof,34 which refers to a violation of some law. Hence, either the text is also referring to the incident reported in verse 20, or it tacitly assumes that not keeping God\u2019s \u201ccommandments and teachings\u201d involves disbelief. At any rate, the verse\u2014like verses 4 and 15:25\u2014presupposes some prior lawgiving not otherwise detailed.<\/p>\n
29. has given you the Sabbath The institution is God\u2019s gift to Israel. As the rabbis of the Talmud expressed it, \u201cThe Holy One Blessed Be He said to Moses, \u2018I have a precious gift in My treasure house, called the Sabbath, and I desire to give it to Israel.\u2019\u00a0\u201d35<\/p>\n
Let everyone remain where he is \u2026 his place And not go out to collect manna. Early on this verse was more broadly interpreted as a general restriction on mobility during the Sabbath. The definition of the synonymous terms \u201cwhere he is\u201d (Heb. ta\u1e25tav) and \u201chis place\u201d (Heb. mekomo) was established to be two thousand cubits beyond the city wall. This distance was derived from Numbers 35:5, which fixes the boundaries of the Levitical cities. The same line of demarcation appears once again in Joshua 3:4 as a kind of cordon sanitaire separating the people from the Ark at the crossing of the river Jordan into the promised land.36<\/p>\n
AN APPENDIX ON THE MANNA (vv. 31\u201336)<\/p>\n
This section contains a note on the purported origin of the name manna, a description of the substance\u2019s appearance and taste, an instruction to preserve a sample, a historical retrospect, and a metrological note.
\nThe appendix stems from a time later than the events just narrated. It presupposes the erection of the Tabernacle, the appointment of a priesthood, the termination of the fall of manna, the settlement in the land, and the obsolescence of the omer measure.
\nMedieval Jewish commentators recognized that verses 32\u201334 tell of events that took place later on. It was already well established in rabbinic times that the order of the pentatechal narratives does not necessarily conform to chronological sequence. This observation was formulated in two ways: \u201cThere is no early and late in the Torah\u201d (\u02beein mukdam u-me\u02beu\u1e25ar ba-torah); and \u201cThe pericopes of the Torah were not given in order\u201d (lo\u02be nitnu parshiyoteiha shel torah \u02bfal ha-seder). This principle is the last of the \u201cThirty-two Rules\u201d employed in the rabbinic interpretation of the Torah, a compilation ascribed to Rabbi Yose ben Eleazar of Galilee (second century C.E.).37<\/p>\n
31. See Comment to verse 14. The information about the nature of the manna is provided for those who are no longer familiar with it. The comparison with coriander seed relates only to the shape and size, not to its color, which is dark. In Numbers 11:7 the manna is described as having the appearance of bdellium (Heb. bedola\u1e25). It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the term, whose precise meaning is now uncertain. In Genesis 2:12 it is associated with gold and lapis lazuli, and so should refer to some precious stone. The Septuagint understands the depiction of the manna in this way, as do Rashi and Saadia. Josephus, however, compares the manna with \u201cthe spicy herb called bdellium.\u201d38 The Akkadian cognate budul\u1e25u is, in fact, an aromatic resin.39 Genesis Rabba 16:2 cites both a \u201cprecious stone\u201d and \u201cthe bedola\u1e25 of perfumers.\u201d This was a fragrant semitransparent resin derived from trees of the genus Commiphora.<\/p>\n
like wafers Hebrew tsapi\u1e25it is an unknown word.40 In Numbers 11:8 the taste is compared to \u201ccream of oil,\u201d that is, \u201crich cream.\u201d Either we are dealing with varying traditions, or, as Bekhor Shor and Ibn Ezra suggest, our verse describes the taste of the manna in its raw state, while the passage in Numbers characterizes its flavor when cooked.<\/p>\n
32\u201334. For educational purposes, a sample of the manna\u2014an amount equal to an individual\u2019s daily ration\u2014is to be preserved as a kind of cultural relic. It is to serve future generations as a vivid reminder of God\u2019s providential care of Israel throughout the wilderness period.<\/p>\n
33. Since the priesthood in Israel has not yet been established, this instruction cannot be contemporaneous with the events previously described.41<\/p>\n
a jar Hebrew tsintsenet is a unique word. According to the context, it refers to a vessel of some kind. The Septuagint renders it stamnos, \u201ca jar\u201d (for storing wine). This is also the tradition of the Mekhilta.42 Leka\u1e25 Tov cites Jeremiah 32:14: \u201c\u2026 put them into an earthen jar, so that they may last a long time.\u201d Sealed with wax, jars of this type were the most common and effective receptacle for storing valuables. Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the caves at Qumran had been preserved in earthenware jars.<\/p>\n
before the LORD That is, in front of the Ark in the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle, which was not erected until the first anniversary of the Exodus.43<\/p>\n
34. the Pact Ellipsis for \u201cthe Ark of the Pact.\u201d44 Hebrew \u02bfedut is synonymous with berit, \u201ccovenant.\u201d The Ark housed the two tablets of stone on which the Decalogue was inscribed. These are variously designated \u201cthe tablets of the Pact\u201d (Heb. lu\u1e25ot ha-\u02bfedut), as in 31:18 and elsewhere, and \u201cthe Tablets of the Covenant\u201d (Heb. lu\u1e25ot ha-berit), as in Deuteronomy 9:9, 11. Following the revolt of Korah, Aaron\u2019s rod was similarly deposited \u201cbefore the LORD,\u201d that is, \u201cbefore the Pact,\u201d for safekeeping and for an educational purpose, as recounted in Numbers 17:19, 22, 25.<\/p>\n
35. After the Israelites crossed the Jordan and celebrated the Passover in the Land of Israel for the first time, Joshua 5:11\u201312 reports that \u201con the day after the passover offering, on that very day, they ate of the produce of the country, unleavened bread and parched grain. On that same day, when they ate of the produce of the land, the manna ceased. The Israelites got no more manna; that year they ate of the yield of the land of Canaan.\u201d<\/p>\n
to the border of the land of Canaan This note is obviously not consistent with the above-cited tradition, unless, with Ibn Ezra, the reference concerns Gilgal, the first encampment of Israel west of the Jordan. That locality is situated \u201con the eastern border [Heb. ketseh] of Jericho\u201d (Josh. 4:19).<\/p>\n
36. The omer as a measure never recurs in the Bible. The note is needed here because the omer became obsolete and unintelligible to later generations. A tenth of an ephah is otherwise termed \u02bfissaron.45 The ephah, a word of Egyptian origin, was a dry measure frequently mentioned in the Bible.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 17<\/p>\n
MASSAH AND MERIBAH (vv. 1\u20137)<\/p>\n
For the third time the people grumble against Moses. Their rhetoric grows stronger and more threatening; they even question God\u2019s providence. The seriousness of the episode left an indelible impression on the national historical memory, and its locale was called by a derogatory, symbolic name: Massah-Meribah. The frequent mention of this narrative in the Bible indicates that it had become a favorite subject of homiletic and didactic interpretation in ancient Israel.
\nBiblical authors used the theme in various ways. Frequently the episode serves as the motif of Israel \u201ctrying\u201d and \u201cprovoking\u201d God. Numbers 14:22\u201323 makes a general statement of the many such occasions during the wilderness wanderings. Deuteronomy 6:16 and 9:22 specifically cite the grumbling at Massah as the prime example of such discontent. This theme is echoed and emphasized in Psalm 95:8. Furthermore, a few texts associate the testing of God with the keeping of His commandments; in Deuteronomy 6:16\u201317, 8:2 and Psalms 78:56, we find the idea that the people make obedience to God dependent upon His benefactions. Having already so richly experienced God\u2019s blessings and favors in the events connected with the liberation from Egypt, they must be judged guilty of lack of faith and gross ingratitude.
\nThe Massah-and-Meribah theme also served as the paradigm of God\u2019s active presence in sustaining Israel during its moment of dire need. Deuteronomy 8:15 and particularly Psalms 78:15\u201316, 20 relate to it in this way. And although Isaiah 48:21 and Psalm 114:7 do not specify the locale, it is almost certain that these texts have the present narrative in mind.
\nMost creative and original is the third usage of the Massah-and-Meribah theme in biblical literature. Here the situation is reversed; it is God who is seen as trying Israel. The trials and tribulations that the people experienced in the wilderness on their way to the promised land were intended to test their faith. It is one thing to be able to affirm that \u201cwhen Israel saw the wondrous power which the LORD had wielded against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD; they had faith in the Lord and His servant Moses\u201d (Exod. 14:31). It is quite another matter to know whether that faith was powerful enough and disinterested enough to be sustained also in times of adversity and misfortune. Deuteronomy 8:2, 16 explicitly declare that the experiences during the forty years of journeying in the wilderness took place in order \u201cthat He might test you by hardships to learn what was in your hearts: whether you would keep His commandments or not\u201d and \u201cin order to test you by hardships only to benefit you in the end.\u201d This interpretation is taken up in Psalm 81:8: \u201cI tested you at the waters of Meribah.\u201d
\nDeuteronomy 33:8 seems to preserve an otherwise unrecorded tradition about the special role of the Levites in this incident. It is possible, however, that that text refers to quite a different narrative concerning \u201cthe waters of Meribah,\u201d an incident that occurred many years later and at another location, as recounted in Numbers 20:1\u201313 and cited often in biblical texts.1<\/p>\n
1. Repbidim The last station on the journey from the Sea of Reeds to Sinai, according to Exodus 19:2 and Numbers 33:14\u201315. Its location is uncertain. Verse 6 in the present chapter shows that it must be very close to Horeb\/Mount Sinai, but the identity of the latter is itself a matter of considerable scholarly controversy. Certainly, a wilderness station must be assumed to be an oasis. Why then was there no water at Rephidim? Unlike the situation at Marah (Exod. 15:23), potability is not mentioned as a problem here. Therefore, either drought conditions had caused severe depletion of the usually available local resources, or the people were forcibly denied access to them. The latter seems the more plausible explanation because it ties in with the next episode, verses 8\u201316. The hostile Amalekites were in control of this region and blocked the approaches to the sources of water.<\/p>\n
2. quarreled The two preceding stories about popular discontent employed the Hebrew verb l-w-n\/l-y-n, \u201cto grumble.\u201d2 The present narrative uses r-y-v as its key word, a far stronger term that carries quasi-judicial overtones. It conjures up a picture of angry and hostile confrontation in which the people, professing to be an aggrieved party, levy charges against God and Moses.<\/p>\n
Give us water The peremptory demand is, in effect, a denunciation and an accusation.<\/p>\n
3\u20134. This situation has seriously deteriorated. The language of the mob is intemperate, the ugly mood is explosive, and a riot may break out any moment.<\/p>\n
5. the rod This pointed allusion to the first plague, as described in 7:17\u201324, conveys a subtle lesson. Whereas, on the earlier occasion, striking with the rod had deprived the Egyptians of drinking water, the same action now serves to satisfy Israel\u2019s need for water.<\/p>\n
6. I will be standing there This anthropomorphism, or use of human language for God, is a response to the people\u2019s skeptical questioning of God\u2019s continued support (v. 7). God\u2019s immediate and potent presence will indeed be manifest.<\/p>\n
at Horeb This site is known as \u201cthe mountain of God,\u201d3 apparently another name for Mount Sinai; see Comment to 3:1. Here Moses first received both the call to leadership and the promise of Israel\u2019s redemption. The name is probably evocative and heartening to the hard-pressed leader, for on that occasion God had given Moses the assurance, \u201cI will be with you.\u201d<\/p>\n
Strike the rock The phenomenon is most likely to be explained by the presence of waterbearing formations of soft porous limestone, which has high water-retaining capacity. A sharp blow to such rock may crack its crust and release a flow of groundwater. What is of importance is that the miracle is credited to God not Moses, something that is emphasized several times in the Bible.4 As often in times of crisis, Moses acts only by divine instruction as the agent of God\u2019s will; he does not act on his own initiative.<\/p>\n
7. Massah Literally, \u201ctrial.\u201d<\/p>\n
Meribah Literally, \u201cquarrel.\u201d This double-barreled name arises out of the verbs used by Moses in verse 2 and repeated here. It is to be noted that Israel\u2019s grumbling and lack of faith here, as at Marah,5 goes unpunished, probably because it too occurred before the covenant between God and Israel at Sinai.<\/p>\n
THE BATTLE WITH AMALEK (vv. 8\u201316)<\/p>\n
A somewhat more expansive account of this incident is given in Deuteronomy 25:17\u201319, which reports that the Amalekites made a surprise rear attack on the famished and exhausted Israelites not long after the escape from Egypt. They ruthlessly cut down the stragglers\u2014the elderly, the weak, and the infirm. Israel was forced to fight its first defensive war for survival.
\nWho were the Amalekites? The name itself is non-Semitic; its origin is obscure. We first encounter Amalek as the thirteenth descendant of Esau-Edom in the lists in Genesis 36. He was born of Timna, a concubine of Esau\u2019s first-born son, Eliphaz.6 She is said to have been a \u201cHorite,\u201d which means that she belonged to the people who were indigenous to Mount Seir. The Edomites displaced them and largely wiped them out.7
\nTranslating the genealogical shorthand of Genesis 36 into terms of historical reality, we may reconstruct the following situation: The tribe of Amalek had been a late and subordinate adherent to the twelve-tribe Edomite confederation. Forced out of its habitat, it pursued a nomadic existence in the Negeb and Sinai Peninsula.8 The Amalekites interpreted the sudden appearance of the Israelites in this region as a menacing encroachment upon their territory and as a threat to their control of the oases and trading routes. The Amalekites thereupon savagely attacked the Israelites.
\nThis episode, like the preceding one, occurred at Rephidim. Apart from the locale, the two narratives also share in common certain other features: the rod (vv. 5, 9); the similar-sounding Hebrew stems n-w-s, n-s-h, and n-s-s, (vv. 2, 7, 15); and the demonstration of God\u2019s protective and supporting presence in times of adversity.<\/p>\n
9. Joshua Although not previously mentioned, he is not further identified, which suggests that he is already well known. Later he is revealed to be the son of Nun and grandson of Elishama, who was a chieftain of the tribe of Ephraim.9 According to Joshua 24:30, Joshua was buried in the hill country of the tribal territory of Ephraim.
\nJoshua was Moses\u2019 faithful attendant and became his designated successor.10 As commander-in-chief of the army, he led the conquest of Canaan, which is described in the biblical book that bears his name. The present incident is the only reference in the Torah to Joshua\u2019s military skill.<\/p>\n
rod of God See Comment to 4:20.<\/p>\n
10. Hur Like Joshua, he too must have been an important public figure at this time. Exodus 24:14 associates him with Aaron in judging the people during Moses\u2019 absence on Mount Sinai. A later tradition identifies him as the husband of Moses\u2019 sister, Miriam.11 He may be identical with the Hur who was the grandfather of the master craftsman Bezalel.12<\/p>\n
11. held up his hand The significance of this gesture is unclear. The hand, often the symbol of action and power, is also the instrument of mediation. The expression \u201cthe laying on of the hands\u201d13 exemplifies this idea. Moses\u2019 action might therefore be interpreted as a sort of mysterious focusing of supernal power on Israel. If so, it is noteworthy that Moses is here presented as being subject to the ordinary human frailties, in possession of no superhuman or innate magical powers. Another interpretation, highly plausible, is that of Rashbam, according to which Moses held up a standard bearing some conspicuous symbol that signified the presence of God in the Israelite camp. The name that Moses gave to the altar after the battle lends support to this explanation. Standards emblazoned with religious insignia are known to have been in military use in the ancient Near East.
\nA rabbinic comment on this verse reads as follows: \u201cDid the hands of Moses control the course of war? [No! The text] teaches that as long as the Israelites set their sights on High and subjected themselves to their Father in Heaven, they prevailed; otherwise they failed.\u201d14<\/p>\n
12. remained steady Hebrew \u02beemunah, \u201cfaithfulness,\u201d occurs in this physical sense only here. Generally, the word bespeaks a moral quality.<\/p>\n
13. overwhelmed This unique use of Hebrew \u1e25-l-sh, \u201cto be weak,\u201d15 as a transitive verb seems to convey the notion of inflicting heavy casualties, rather than of victory. Therefore, the Amalekites were forced to break off the engagement and withdraw.<\/p>\n
14. Inscribe This is the first reference to writing in the Bible.<\/p>\n
a reminder On the Hebrew stem z-k-r, see Comment to 2:24. Deuteronomy 25:17\u201319 asserts an unconditional injunction to remember Amalek, which is reinforced by the negative admonition \u201cDo not forget!\u201d<\/p>\n
I will The parallel account in Deuteronomy 25 has \u201cyou shall blot out.\u201d The two versions are complementary. The present text is a theological statement, a divine assurance of ultimate victory over Amalek. The later one makes the fulfillment of that promise conditional upon Israelite initiative and action.<\/p>\n
15. built an altar As an expression of gratitude to God and as a memorial and witness to the battle and its portents. The practice of giving names to altars is attested in Genesis 33:20, 35:7, and Judges 6:24. In none of these examples is any sacrifice mentioned. In fact, Joshua 22:26\u201327 explicitly excludes sacrificial rites from such a commemorative altar. The practice of designating commemorative altars seems to have ceased with the founding of the monarchy.<\/p>\n
Adonai-nissi Literally, \u201cThe Lord is my standard.\u201d See Comment to verse 11.<\/p>\n
16. This enigmatic verse appears to be a fragmentary citation from some ancient poetic text, now lost\u2014perhaps the Book of the Wars of the Lord, mentioned in Numbers 21:14, or the Book of Jashar, cited in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18.16 These works seem to have contained collections of war songs and poetic accounts of battles. The present verse may well be excerpted from a poetic version of the battle against Amalek.<\/p>\n
He said, \u201cIt means, \u2026\u201d Although the passage purports to be an explanation of the altar\u2019s name,17 the relationship between the two is difficult to discern.<\/p>\n
Hand upon the throne Jewish exegesis, ancient and medieval, understood the unique kes as kisse\u02be, \u201cthrone,\u201d18 and interpreted the phrase to be an oath-formula uttered either by Moses or by God. It reinforces the promise of verse 14.<\/p>\n
the LORD Hebrew yah; see Comment to 15:2.<\/p>\n
throughout the ages Hebrew mi-dor dor is unparalleled and is probably a poetic form of the phrase \u201cfrom generation to generation\u201d found in Isaiah 34:10. In Ugaritic texts,19 dr dr means \u201ceternity\u201d and is used in parallelism with l\u02bflm, \u201cforever.\u201d The Hebrew phrase envisages a protracted cycle of wars between Israel and Amalek. Several references to those wars are recorded in the biblical narratives. In the course of the wilderness wanderings, Amalekites and Canaanites jointly inflicted \u201ca shattering blow\u201d on an Israelite force, as told in Numbers 14:44\u201345. Amalekites, either as mercenaries of neighboring kingdoms or independently, made devastating incursions into Israelite settlements throughout the period of the judges.20 It was King Saul who first dealt effectively with the recurring Amalekite menace,21 and King David who finally confronted the implacable enemy on its home ground. He decisively neutralized its war-making capacities.22 Still, it was not until the days of King Hezekiah (715\u2013687\/6 B.C.E.) that \u201cthe last surviving Amalekites\u201d were destroyed, according to 1 Chronicles 4:43.
\nIn later Jewish literature, Amalek became a synonym for the implacable enemies of Israel. Haman \u201cthe Agagite\u201d was identified with Amalek;23 Josephus made him a descendant of Amalek.24 Rome, too, was given the code-name Amalek.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 18*<\/p>\n
Jethro\u2019s Visit and the Organization of the Judiciary (vv. 1\u201327)<\/p>\n
Yitro<\/p>\n
Two distinct but interrelated units make up this chapter: verses 1\u201312, describing the visit of Jethro to the camp of Israel; verses 13\u201326, dealing with his proposal for organizing the judicial system in Israel. The action of the two sections takes place over two days.
\nAs early as the second century C.E., it was recognized that this chapter is not in its proper chronological sequence and that the episode took place after the revelation at Sinai. The internal evidence for this judgment is set forth in Zeva\u1e25im 116a and in the Mekhilta (Yitro 1:1). It is summarized in the commentary of Abraham ibn Ezra as follows:<\/p>\n
The people are already encamped at \u201cthe mountain of God\u201d (v. 5), that is, at Sinai, where-as the notice about their arrival there does not appear until 19:1\u20132; Jethro brings burnt offerings and sacrifices (v. 12), so that an altar must by this time exist; the only such mentioned so far was located at Rephidim, not Sinai, and was purely commemorative, not functional; therefore, the altar on which sacrifices are brought must be either that mentioned in 24:4 or the one in the Tabernacle, both belonging to the period following the theophany; Moses and his father-in-law refer to \u201cthe laws and the teachings of God\u201d (vv. 16, 20), a phrase that is far more appropriate following the giving of the Torah than before it; the account in Numbers 10:11, 29\u201332 testifies to Jethro\u2019s presence in the camp of Israel in \u201cthe second month of the second year after the Exodus\u201d; accordingly, the report of his departure given here in Exodus 18:27 must be dated to that time; finally, the story about the establishment of the judicial system is repeated in Deuteronomy 1:9\u201317 and is immediately followed by the notice that the people set out from Horeb. All this strongly suggests that the events took place toward the end of the sojourn at Sinai.<\/p>\n
That the order of the narratives in the Torah need not necessarily be chronological was well recognized in rabbinic times. Radak, who subscribes to the view that this particular narrative is out of sequence, explains, in his comment to Judges 1:16, its intrusive position in the Torah as intending to contrast the treacherous behavior of the Amalekites with the friendliness of the Midianites\/Kenites. It is to be noted that 1 Samuel 15:6 can be adduced in support of this explanation. Before King Saul punished the Amalekites for their treacherous attack on Israel at the Exodus, he first exhorted the Kenites to evacuate the war zone because they had shown \u201ckindness to all the Israelites when they left Egypt.\u201d In fact, there is good reason to believe that the visit of Jethro to the Israelite camp belongs to a now lost record of a treaty of friendship between Israel and the Midianites\/Kenites, probably contracted with a view to neutralizing the Amalekite menace. At any rate, 1 Samuel 15:6 provides the clue to the present literary arrangement, which places the Jethro episode immediately after the account of the war with the Amalekites. At the same time, the second part of this chapter, verses 13\u201326, focuses on God\u2019s \u201claws and teachings\u201d and deals with the administrative arrangements for their implementation in the daily life of the people, thereby smoothing the transition to the theme of the succeeding chapters: the giving of the law.<\/p>\n
THE ARRIVAL OF JETHRO (vv. 1\u201312)<\/p>\n
1. Jethro See Comments to 2:18 and 4:18.<\/p>\n
2. after she had been sent home We are treated to a fleeting glimpse into Moses\u2019 domestic life. The narrative in 4:20\u201326 affirms that Moses\u2019 wife and sons accompanied him as he set out to return to Egypt. Hence, this verse presumes a story, now lost, about how they separated and rejoined their family in Midian. A midrash has it that Aaron convinced Moses of the folly of bringing his family into Egypt at such a time, and so Zipporah and the children were sent back to Jethro. It is quite possible that the full story about the \u201cbridegroom of blood,\u201d now abridged in 4:24\u201326, originally provided the details of Moses\u2019 separation from his wife.
\nThe translation \u201csent home\u201d for Hebrew shillu\u1e25im is by no means certain. The other biblical usages of this noun denote either \u201cdowry,\u201d as in 1 Kings 9:16 and the cognate Ugaritic \u1e6fl\u1e2b, or \u201ca farewell gift,\u201d as in Micah 1:14. Neither sense fits the context here. The verbal form shilla\u1e25 frequently means \u201cto divorce\u201d;1 but in light of Jethro\u2019s reference to his daughter as Moses\u2019 wife (v. 6), it cannot have this meaning here.<\/p>\n
3. Gershom See 2:22.<\/p>\n
4. Eliezer This fairly popular biblical name means literally \u201cGod is help.\u201d2 Although the birth of this son is hinted at in 4:20, it has not been previously recorded.<\/p>\n
The God of my father See Comment to 3:6.<\/p>\n
the sword of Pharaoh This probably refers to the incident recorded in 2:10\u201315. The explanations given for the names of both Moses\u2019 sons are also symbolic of Israel\u2019s experience in Egypt.<\/p>\n
5. the mountain of God See Comment to 3:1.<\/p>\n
6. He sent word Literally, \u201cHe said.\u201d In view of verse 7, it can only imply that Jethro announced his arrival through a messenger. The Septuagint and Syriac versions translate, \u201cIt was told,\u201d3 presupposing a Hebrew reading va-ye\u02beamer instead of va-yo\u02bemer.<\/p>\n
I The Samaritan version reads \u201chinneh, \u201cLo,\u201d instead of our Hebrew \u02beani. This is also how the Septuagint and Syriac render it.4<\/p>\n
7. Moses and Jethro engage in the formal civilities customary in the East.<\/p>\n
10. Blessed be the LORD Jethro the Midianite invokes YHVH, the divine name of the God of Israel. It is not uncommon in the Bible for a non-Israelite to do so when dealing with Israelites.5 In the present instance, the treaty background to the proceedings may well have influenced the usage.<\/p>\n
who delivered you The Hebrew plural object probably refers to both Moses and Aaron, whose lives had been threatened by Pharaoh.6<\/p>\n
11. Now I know This formula \u02bfattah yada\u02bfti may either introduce something newly discovered or reaffirm what was hitherto accepted.7 For Jethro, the divine superiority of YHVH has been demonstrated by the disaster suffered by the Egyptians in return for their machinations against Israel.8 The sentiment may well echo the idea expressed in Exodus 12:12 that the Exodus constitutes a mockery of paganism.<\/p>\n
yes \u2026 Most traditional Jewish commentators have understood this difficult clause to be an incomplete statement, its unexpressed complement being supplied by the imagination. It is taken to mean that the Egyptians were punished measure for measure. They perished by drowning\u2014the very fate they had devised for the Israelites (Exod. 1:22).9<\/p>\n
12. This ceremonial most likely possessed a juridical function. In the ancient Near East, treaties and pacts were often ratified by the involved parties participating in a solemn meal. This symbolic rite is mentioned in connection with the pact between Abimelech and Isaac, described in Genesis 26:30, and that between Laban and Jacob, as told in Genesis 31:54. Similarly, the covenant at Sinai is sealed with a sacrificial meal-sharing ceremony, detailed in Exodus 24:5, 11.10<\/p>\n
burnt offering and sacrifices These are the two main types of sacrifice offered in ancient Israel.11 The first, the \u02bfolah, was wholly consumed by fire upon the altar as a tribute to the Lord; the second, the zeva\u1e25, was only partially offered up, the major portion being eaten at a festive meal.<\/p>\n
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE JUDICIARY (vv. 13\u201327)<\/p>\n
Jethro, observing the daily routine in the Israelite camp, is highly critical of the inefficient and tiresome procedure employed by Moses in judging the people. The narrative is remarkable in several ways, not least because so important an Israelite institution as the judiciary is ascribed to the initiative and advice of a Midianite priest. This extraordinary fact testifies to the reliability of the tradition and to its antiquity. In light of the hostility that later characterized the relationships between the Midianites and the Israelites, it is hardly likely that anyone would invent such a story.
\nAlso remarkable is the secular nature of the judicial agency. Its organizational structure is humanly devised, and its personnel are drawn \u201cfrom among all the people\u201d (v. 21), from \u201call Israel\u201d (v. 25)\u2014from the civil and not the ecclesiastical sphere. Elsewhere in the Torah\u2014for instance, in Deuteronomy 17:9 and 19:17\u2014priests and Levites are also involved in the judicial process. Furthermore, it seems that Moses bypasses the existing power structure. The \u201celders,\u201d who usually exercise judicial functions in a tribal-patriarchal society, are, surprisingly, not mentioned. In fact, the tribal divisions are wholly ignored in the appointments to this new judiciary. The restructuring creates a centralized, supratribal system.
\nThe judicial machinery itself is decentralized to a certain extent by an internal hierarchy of authorities. Moses, who acts as the supreme judicial authority, functions as the mediator of divine will, but not as lawmaker or as one who dispenses justice by virtue of superior wisdom.
\nThe origin of the judiciary in Israel is also recounted in Moses\u2019 farewell address. There too it is not attributed to divine command, although no mention is made of Jethro\u2019s role. Deuteronomy 1:9\u201318 tells that Moses found the people too numerous and too litigious for him to bear the judicial burden alone. He therefore suggested that the people select representatives from each of the tribes to share it with him, men who are \u201cwise, discerning, and experienced.\u201d The proposal met with popular approval and was promptly put into effect. It involved the same multilevel system as is set forth in Exodus 18:21, 25. An added feature is Moses\u2019 charge to the judges: \u201cHear out your fellow men, and decide justly between any man and a fellow Israelite or a stranger. You shall not be partial in judgment: hear out low and high alike. Fear no man, for judgment is God\u2019s\u201d (Deut. 1:16\u201317).
\nTwo interesting parallels to these narratives in Exodus and Deuteronomy may be cited. The first comes from Egypt, from the days of Pharaoh Haremhab (ca. 1333\u20131306 B.C.E.). This pharaoh, who lived not too long before the Exodus, issued a decree for the reformation of the Egyptian judiciary. He writes that he sought out \u201cpersons of integrity, good in character,\u201d and placed them in the towns of Egypt. He charged them as follows: \u201cDo not enter into close relations with other people, do not accept a gift from another.\u201d
\nThe other parallel comes from 2 Chronicles 19:5\u20138, where we are told that King Jehoshaphat (873\u2013849 B.C.E.) appointed judges \u201cin all the fortified towns of Judah, in each and every town,\u201d and charged them as follows: \u201cConsider what you are doing, for you judge not on behalf of man, but on behalf of the LORD, and He is with you when you pass judgment. Now let the dread of the LORD be upon you; act with care, for there is no injustice or favoritism or bribe-taking with the LORD our God.\u201d<\/p>\n
14. act Literally, \u201csit,\u201d as in verse 13.12<\/p>\n
15. to inquire of God This biblical phrase originally meant to seek divine guidance in a situation in which human wisdom has unavailingly exhausted itself.13 Here it has acquired a legal nuance with the sense of \u201cseeking a judgment or decision,\u201d \u201cmaking judicial inquiry.\u201d14 This usage reflects the conception of true justice as being ultimately the expression of the will of God communicated through the human judge.15<\/p>\n
16. Moses does not function as lawgiver but as adjudicator. He operates by known rules\u2014the laws and teachings of God. Doubtless, in practice, the interpretation of the law in a specific situation creates a precedent that then becomes the basis of future adjudication.<\/p>\n
17\u201318. The inefficiency of the system is bound to have a debilitating effect on Moses and to impose hardship on the public.16<\/p>\n
19. Jethro volunteers his services as a management consultant. He fills for Moses the role that Joseph had filled for Pharaoh.<\/p>\n
21. Jethro now defines the ideal social, spiritual, and moral qualifications for judges\u2014those necessary to create and maintain a healthy and just legal order. In the corresponding account in Deuteronomy 1:13 the requirements for judges are given as \u201cwisdom, discernment and experience.\u201d<\/p>\n
chiefs of thousands Israel is frequently depicted in the Torah as an army marching out of Egypt and proceeding in military formation through the wilderness to the promised land.17 The administrative structure recommended here corresponds to the organization of the army in the days of the united monarchy.18 The setup seems also to have been in wide use beyond the Israelite sphere.19 The analogy between the military and the judiciary may have its origin in the practice of assigning judicial functions to military officers. This would explain why the judge is here termed \u201cchief\u201d (Heb. sar), a military title. This situation is well illustrated by an inscription discovered at an Israelite fortress at Yavneh-yam (ca. 630 B.C.E.). It is an appeal for justice addressed to the commander (sar) by one of the company.20<\/p>\n
22. at all times So verse 26. This new judiciary is to be a permanent, professional institution, not one that is convened on an ad hoc basis.<\/p>\n
every major dispute In verse 26 this is defined as \u201cthe difficult matters.\u201d To act as supreme judge was traditionally the prerogative of the leader and king.21<\/p>\n
23. will go home unwearied In contrast to what is described in verse 18. The phrase translates literally as \u201cwill go to its place in peace.\u201d It may well mean that the new court system will fulfill its assigned function to keep domestic peace and preserve the social order.<\/p>\n
27. Numbers 10:29\u201332 relate that Moses tried to persuade his father-in-law to act as guide for the Israelites through the wilderness.<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 19<\/p>\n
The Covenant at Sinai (19:1\u201320:21)<\/p>\n
The arrival at Sinai inaugurates the culminating stage in the process of forging Israel\u2019s national identity and spiritual destiny. The shared experiences of bondage and liberation are to be supplemented and given ultimate meaning by a great communal encounter with God. Henceforth, Israel is to be a people inextricably bound to God by a covenantal relationship.
\nThe Hebrew term for a covenant is the seminal biblical word berit. The Christian designation of sacred Scripture as \u201ctestament\u201d reflects this understanding of the covenant concept as the controlling idea of biblical faith; \u201ctestament\u201d is a now largely obsolete word for the written record of a compact.
\nIn the ancient world, relationships between individuals as well as between states were ordered and regulated by means of covenants, or treaties. Numerous examples of such instruments of international diplomacy have survived, deriving from various parts of the ancient Near East. These divide into two basic categories: (1) a parity treaty, where the contracting parties negotiate as equals; (2) a suzerain-vassal treaty, where one party transparently imposes its will on the other.
\nA study of these documents, particularly those of the latter type, leaves no doubt as to the influence of the ancient Near Eastern treaty patterns on the external, formal, literary aspects of the biblical berit. The affinities are to be expected. In order for the berit to be intelligible to the Israelites, it made sense to structure it according to the accepted patterns of the then universally recognized legal instruments.
\nThe Decalogue and its contents are, however, in a class by themselves. The idea of a covenantal relationship between God and an entire people is unparalleled. Similarly unique is the setting of the covenant in a narrative context. It is the latter that imparts to the covenant its meaning and significance; the covenant would be devalued were the link between them to be severed. Another major and original feature is the manner in which the content of the berit embraces the internal life of the \u201cvassal\u201d by regulating individual behavior and human relationships. Such a preoccupation with social affairs is beyond the scope and intent of all other ancient treaties, whose sole concern is with the external affairs of the vassal.
\nThe uniqueness of the Decalogue notwithstanding, it is undeniable that many of its provisions are closely paralleled in the wisdom and ethical literature of the ancient world. Several other ancient law collections rest upon foundations of ethical and moral principles of justice and morality. Sins of a moral and ethical nature, such as bearing false witness, disrespect of parents, theft, adultery, and murder, are all listed in the magic texts from Mesopotamia known as the Shurpu series. The \u201cDeclaration of Innocence,\u201d located in chapter 125 of the Egyptian \u201cBook of the Dead,\u201d is formulated in negative terms and clearly testifies to the reality of positive moral ideals. It is obvious that the great civilizations of the Nile and Mesopotamian valleys could not have functioned without a commitment to a set of ethical ideals and principles of morality.
\nWhat is revolutionary about the Decalogue in Israel is not so much its content as the way in which these norms of conduct are regarded as being expressions of divine will, eternally binding on the individual and on society as a whole. Both are equally answerable to the deity, which was not the case in pagan cultures.
\nAnother extraordinary Israelite innovation is the amalgamation of what in modern times would be classified separately as \u201creligious\u201d and \u201csecular,\u201d or social, obligations. This distinction is meaningless in a biblical context, where both categories alike are accepted as emanating from God. Social concern, therefore, is rooted in the religious conscience.
\nStill another outstanding feature of the Decalogue is the apodictic nature of its stipulations\u2014the simple, absolute, positive and negative imperatives are devoid of qualification and mostly presented without accompanying penalties or threats of punishment. The idea is that the covenant is a selfenforcing document. The motivation for fulfilling its stipulations is not to be fear of retribution but the desire to conform to divine will, reinforced by the spiritual discipline and moral fiber of the individual.<\/p>\n
NARRATIVE INTRODUCTION (vv. 1\u20133)<\/p>\n
1. On the third new moon The closer definition \u201con that very day\u201d shows that Hebrew \u1e25odesh, usually \u201cmonth,\u201d is here used in its original sense of \u201cnew moon.\u201d1<\/p>\n
on that very day Midrash Tan\u1e25uma comments that the Hebrew has \u201cthis\u201d instead of \u201cthat\u201d in order to teach that the revelation at Sinai\u2014the words of the Torah\u2014should be newly experienced each day.<\/p>\n
2. Rephidim See Comment to 17:1.<\/p>\n
the mountain The one selected to be the site of the revelation.<\/p>\n
ISRAEL\u2019S DESTINY DEFINED (vv. 3c\u20136)<\/p>\n
These verses express the essence of the covenant idea. Israel is chosen to enter into a special and unique relationship with God. This bond imposes obligations and responsibilities. The prophet Amos (3:2) formulated it this way: \u201cYou alone have I singled out\/Of all the families of the earth\u2014\/That is why I will call you to account\/For all your iniquities.\u201d<\/p>\n
4. on eagles\u2019 wings The king of the birds, the eagle, impressed the biblical writers for the prodigious expanse of its outstretched wings,2 its solicitous and protective carrying of its young on its back,3 and its ability to soar to great heights4 at considerable speed5 and to fly over long distances.6<\/p>\n
5. My covenant The stipulations soon to be set forth. This is the first mention of the covenant in the Exodus narrative. A new dimension is now introduced into the relationship between God and Israel.<\/p>\n
My treasured possession Hebrew segullah, like its Akkadian cognate sikiltum, originally denoted valued property to which one has an exclusive right of possession. It has this literal meaning in Ecclesiastes 2:8 and 1 Chronicles 29:3,7 and it is also so used in rabbinic texts.8 It then came to be employed in a figurative sense in theological and political contexts in the ancient Near East. A royal seal of Abban of Alalakh designates its owner as the sikiltum of the god, his \u201cservant\u201d and \u201cbeloved.\u201d A letter from the Hittite sovereign to the king of Ugarit characterizes his vassal as his \u201cservant\u201d and sglt, \u201ctreasured possession.\u201d The biblical description of Israel as God\u2019s segullah or as his \u02bfam segullah, \u201ctreasured people,\u201d as in Deuteronomy (7:6; 14:2; 26:18\u201319), thus expresses God\u2019s special covenantal relationship with Israel and His love for His people. At the same time, those biblical texts, as well as Exodus 19:6, all uniquely emphasize the inextricable association between being God\u2019s segullah and the pursuit of holiness.9<\/p>\n
6. This statement further defines the implications of being God\u2019s \u201ctreasured people.\u201d National sovereignty, here expressed by \u201ckingdom,\u201d is indispensable for the proper fulfillment of Israel\u2019s mission. Without it, the nation becomes the passive tool of historical forces beyond its control. At the same time, the priest\u2019s place and function within society must serve as the ideal model for Israel\u2019s self-understanding of its role among the nations. The priest is set apart by a distinctive way of life consecrated to the service of God and dedicated to ministering to the needs of the people.
\nThe present verse finds an echo in Psalm 114:1\u20132. The striving for holiness in the life of the people is to be the hallmark of Israel\u2019s existence. Time and again the Book of Leviticus repeats this exhortation. Holiness is to be achieved by human imitation of God\u2019s attributes (Lev. 19:1).<\/p>\n
THE POPULAR RESPONSE (vv. 7\u20138)<\/p>\n
Moses conveys the divine message through the agency of the elders. On this institution, see Comment to 3:16. The unanimous and unhesitating response is to accept, readily and freely, God\u2019s charge\u2014even before hearing the terms of the covenant (cf. 24:3, 7). Moses, in turn, reports this to God.<\/p>\n
PREPARATIONS FOR THE THEOPHANY (vv. 9\u201325)<\/p>\n
The mood has now been set for the solemn, formal enactment of the covenant between God and Israel. Preparations are begun at once. They comprise the following elements: authentication of the role of Moses; purification, which involves sexual abstinence and, most likely, bathing, and laundering of clothes; and repeated warnings against encroachment upon the holy domain of the mountain.<\/p>\n
9. This passage may well allude to the declaration in 3:12 that the climactic Sinai experience would be the ultimate validation of Moses\u2019 leadership. Here, in addition, the point is made that the public nature of the forthcoming revelation would further verify his authenticity. Finally, the statement anticipates the awestruck and fearful reaction of the people to the revelation as described in verses 16 and 20:18\u201319. As a result, according to Deuteronomy 5:5, 20\u201324, the people requested that the divine pronouncements be conveyed through the intermediacy of Moses rather than directly to them. For this reason, it is of vital importance that Moses\u2019 credibility as the true bearer of God\u2019s message be unchallengeable. This is achieved by a sign visible to all: the sudden appearance of a thick cloud, understood to symbolize God\u2019s corroborative presence.<\/p>\n
a thick cloud Compare 13:21. Anthropomorphism is carefully avoided.<\/p>\n
Then Moses reported This phrase refers not to the immediate antecedent but to the quote in verse 8. It is an instance of resumptive repetition, a literary device in which the text, following a digression, reconnects with an earlier text. Classic examples are to be found in Genesis 37:36, 39:1, 43:17, and 43:24.<\/p>\n
10. to stay pure This is defined in verse 15. It most likely includes bathing, which is taken for granted.10<\/p>\n
11. the third day In biblical consciousness, three days constitute a significant segment of time. As with Abraham at the Akedah (Gen. 22:4), so here the longish interval is crucial to the trial of faith. The people\u2019s immediate assent to God\u2019s declaration may otherwise have been given impulsively, without proper consideration. The three days of preparation and self-restraint allow time for sober reflection, so that acceptance of the covenant can be considered an undoubted act of free will.
\nAccording to Jewish tradition, the third day fell on the sixth of Sivan and is identified with the harvest festival of Shavuot, which consequently came to commemorate the giving of the Torah.11<\/p>\n
will come down This fairly frequent figurative depiction of God\u2019s action in terms of human motion expresses at one and the same time God\u2019s infinite transcendence and His personal and intimate involvement with humanity.12<\/p>\n
in the sight of The people will become intensely conscious of the Divine Presence.<\/p>\n
12\u201325. As Ramban noted,13 Mount Sinai assumes the character of a sanctuary for the duration of the theophany. A close similarity to the wilderness Tabernacle is suggested by several shared characteristics. Both Sinai and the Tabernacle evidence a tripartite division. The summit corresponds to the inner sanctum, or Holy of Holies.14 The second zone, partway up the mountain, is the equivalent of the Tabernacle\u2019s outer sanctum, or Holy Place.15 The third zone, at the foot of the mountain, is analogous to the outer court.16 As with the Tabernacle, the three distinct zones of Sinai feature three gradations of holiness in descending order. Just as Moses alone may ascend to the peak of the mountain, so all but one are barred from the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle.17 Just as the Holy Place is the exclusive preserve of the priesthood, so only the priests and elders are allowed to ascend to a specific point on the mountain.18 The confinement of the laity to the outer court of the Tabernacle, where the altar of burnt offering was located, evokes the parallel with Sinai in the restriction of the laity to the foot of the mountain, where the altar was built.19 The graduated restrictions on access, touch. and sight are the counterparts of the repeated regulations about the unlawful invasion of sacred domain in the same three ways.20 God is said to \u201cdescend\u201d upon the mountain as upon the Tabernacle,21 and He communicates with Moses on the summit as He does in the Holy of Holies.22 Finally, the vivid descriptions of smoke, dense cloud, and fire that issued from and enveloped Sinai are paralleled by the cloud and fire that become associated with the Tabernacle.23<\/p>\n
12. shall be put to death By human agency, as verse 13 makes clear.<\/p>\n
13. no hand shall touch him The trespasser shall not be seized since this would itself bring another person to violate the restriction. He shall be executed when he is beyond the limits of the mountain.<\/p>\n
ram\u2019s horn Hebrew yovel seems originally to have meant a sheep or a ram, as in Joshua 6:4, 5. It is also so used in the Punic Marseilles Tariff (line 7) of the fourth century B.C.E. However, it came to be restricted to the horn. Yovel lies behind the word \u201cJubilee,\u201d which was inaugurated by the sounding of the ram\u2019s horn (Lev. 25:9).<\/p>\n
they may go up Sinai possesses no inherent or \u201cnatural\u201d holiness, nor does it acquire such by virtue of the theophany. Its sanctity and hence untouchability do not outlast the limited duration of the event. See Comment to 3:5.<\/p>\n
15. for the third day Literally, \u201cfor three days,\u201d but verse 16 determines the precise meaning.<\/p>\n
16\u201319. Violent atmospheric disturbances are said to precede and accompany the theophany. The Bible frequently portrays upheavals of nature in association with God\u2019s self-manifestation. Apart from the present context, such mention is always confined to poetic texts.24 The conventional and stereotypical nature of the language employed here, and the numerous parallels found in ancient Near Eastern religious compositions, prove that a widespread and well-entrenched literary tradition lies behind it. However, the gods in the pagan religions inevitably inhere in nature, for they are actually personifications of natural phenomena. The upheavals and disturbances are taken literally as aspects of the lives of the gods. In Israelite monotheism, by contrast, God the Creator is wholly independent of His creation and is sovereign over it. The picturesque imagery constitutes, so to speak, the overture that sets the emotional tone for the grand drama that is to follow. The vivid, majestic, and terrifying depictions, which draw their ultimate inspiration from the storm and the earthquake, are meant to convey in human terms something of the awe-inspiring impact of the event upon those who experienced it. The narrative of 1 Kings 19:11\u201312 is intended to dispel any possibility of mistaking the atmospherics for the substance of the theophany.<\/p>\n
17. toward God Toward the site of the theophany.<\/p>\n
the foot of the mountain The lowest part, on the level ground.<\/p>\n
18. mountain Some Hebrew manuscripts, as well as the Septuagint, read here \u201cpeople\u201d as in verse 16. Bekhor Shor observes: \u201cThe terror of God was over the mountain so that all who observed it were terror-struck.\u201d<\/p>\n
19. the born Hebrew shofar, not the same term as in verse 13. A celestial flourish heralding the arrival of the King is imagined; compare 20:15. In Zechariah 9:14 the Lord Himself is poetically said to \u201csound the ram\u2019s horn\u201d and advance in a stormy tempest as He manifests His presence. The shofar in these texts is figurative for the blasts of thunder.<\/p>\n
20. Moses alone is privileged to ascend to the top.<\/p>\n
21. to gaze One to whom God\u2019s majesty and holiness are not unapproachable, and who is indifferent to the divine potency with which the mountain is charged, is no longer a participant but a mere spectator, a detached observer disengaged from the covenantal experience.<\/p>\n
22. the priests According to Exodus 28 and 29, the priesthood was not established in Israel until after the Sinaitic revelation, which would make the present reference to priests, like that in verse 24, an anachronism. Many modern scholars regard these verses as reflecting a different strand of tradition about the origins of the priestly institution. Jewish commentators understood \u201cpriests\u201d here as referring to first-born males, in that the latter functioned as priests until they were replaced by the Aaronides, as recounted in Numbers 3:11\u201313 and 8:16\u201318.25<\/p>\n
break out So in verse 24. The effect of such action is given in verse 21. The verb, with God as the subject, connotes a visitation that is sudden, violent, and destructive, as in the case of Uzzah, described in 2 Samuel 6:7\u20138.26<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 20*<\/p>\n
THE DECALOGUE (vv. 1\u201314[17])<\/p>\n
The Title The present chapter carries no designation for this document. The popular English title \u201cThe Ten Commandments\u201d is derived from the traditional, although inaccurate, English rendering of the Hebrew phrase \u02bfaseret ha-devarim that appears in Exodus 34:28 and in Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4. In fact, the term \u201ccommandment\u201d (Heb. mitsvah, pl. mitsvot) is not employed in the present context. The Hebrew means, rather, \u201cThe Ten Words,\u201d which the Jews of ancient Alexandria in Egypt translated literally into Greek as deka logoi. This gave rise to the more accurate English alternative \u201cDecalogue.\u201d In fact, traditional exegesis derived thirteen, not ten, commandments from the Decalogue as, for instance, in the Sefer ha-\u1e24innukh (13th cent.).
\nHebrew devarim does appear in the introductory verse as well as in the epilogue to the repetition of the Decalogue found in Deuteronomy 5. In rabbinic texts, and generally in Hebrew down to modern times, the common designation is \u02bfaseret ha-dibrot. This latter word is the plural of diber, which in Jeremiah 5:13 denotes the revealed word of God, a meaning that is singularly appropriate in the present context.1<\/p>\n
The Tablets of Stone Several biblical texts testify to the inscribing of the Decalogue on two stone tablets.2 The practice of recording covenants on tablets was well rooted in the biblical world, as was also the custom, mentioned in Exodus 25:16, of depositing the document in the sanctuary.3 A treaty between the Hittite King Shuppiluliumas (ca. 1375\u20131335 B.C.E.) and King Mattiwaza of Mittani in Upper Mesopotamia noted that each of the contracting parties deposited a copy in his respective temple before the shrine of the deity.4 Similarly, when Ramses II of Egypt and the Hittite King Hattusilis concluded a treaty around the year 1269 B.C.E., the clauses were inscribed on a tablet of silver, which was placed \u201cat the feet of the god.\u201d5 In Rome, too, treaties (Latin foedera) were written on tablets\u2014bronze\u2014and stored in the Capitol.
\nIn Israel a special container was fashioned to house the stone tablets. When the portable Tabernacle was erected in the wilderness, the container was placed in the Holy of Holies. In fact, the Ark, as the container was called, was designated the \u201cArk of the Covenant\u201d (\u02bearon ha-herit) or the \u201cArk of the Pact\u201d (\u02bearon ha-\u02bfedut). It was the only item of furniture in the most sacred part of the Tabernacle.
\nWhy two tablets were needed for the Decalogue is unclear; nor do we know the spatial distribution of the text. The Mekhilta6 assumes that five declarations were incised on each tablet, which is the tradition reflected in Jewish art since the thirteenth-century Spanish illuminated Bible manuscripts. However, such an arrangement would have resulted in a grave imbalance; one tablet would have contained 146 Hebrew words and the other only 26. The Palestinian Talmud7 has preserved a different tradition, there given as the majority view, that each tablet contained the entire Decalogue. Saadia maintained that the two tablets featured respectively the variant versions as found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.<\/p>\n
The Internal Division As noted, the Decalogue has come down to us in two distinct versions. The differences between them are minute and generally insignificant, except with regard to the Sabbath commandment, which is discussed in the Commentary below. Of greater importance is the matter of the internal division and numbering.
\nContext, style, and language suggest a basic division of the Decalogue into two distinct groups. The first governs the relations between God and the individual Israelite; the second regulates human relationships. The first group is characterized by the fivefold use of the phrase \u201cthe LORD your God,\u201d while the second contains no reference to Him. In addition, there is the striking fact that the document opens with \u201cthe LORD your God\u201d and closes with \u201cyour neighbor,\u201d Further, the first group features obligations unique to the religion of Israel, while the second series, which consists entirely of prohibitions, is of universal application and has numerous parallels in other literature of the ancient world. Only in Israel, however, are these injunctions presented as divine imperatives rather than as the fruit of human wisdom.
\nWhile these broad, basic divisions are clear and convincing, less obvious is the manner in which the number ten is attained. Here, there are varying traditions that center on (1) whether verse 2 is an independent declaration on a par with the others or simply an introduction to the entire document; and (2) whether verses 3 and 4 are treated as a single item or as two distinct commandments. On each of these issues, rabbinic tradition favors the first alternative. This is reasonable, given the understanding of \u02bfaseret ha-devarim as \u201cTen (divine) Pronouncements.\u201d Another approach is taken by Philo of Alexandria (d. 50 C.E.), in his work on the Decalogue, and by Josephus8 (d. after 100 C.E.); both reflect early Jewish traditions that make verse 3 the first commandment and verses 4\u20136 the second. Roman Catholic and Lutheran traditions interpret verses 3\u20136 as the first commandment and divide verse 14(17) into two commandments.
\nIt should be noted that from verses 13 on there are differences in the numbering in many editions of the Bible. These are here given in parentheses.<\/p>\n
The Decalogue in Liturgy and Ritual From Mishnah Tamid 5:1 we learn that in the days of the Second Jewish Commonwealth, the Decalogue enjoyed a special status, next to the Shema\u02bf, in the daily morning service held in the Chamber of Hewn Stones within the Temple precincts. A Hebrew papyrus from Egypt, known as the Nash Papyrus and dating from about 150 B.C.E., contains the Decalogue followed immediately by the Shema\u02bf. This must be either a liturgical text or part of a ritual object such as a mezuzah or tefillin. There is indeed evidence that the Decalogue once constituted one of the biblical passages contained in the tefillin, at least among certain segments of Jewry. Tefillin of this type have been found at Qumran, near the Dead Sea.
\nRabbinic sources9 inform us that at some unspecified time the liturgical use of the Decalogue was discontinued so as not to give credence to sectarian claims that the Decalogue alone, and not the rest of the law, was given at Sinai.<\/p>\n
1. This introductory statement is unique in the Torah in that it does not indicate to whom the divine declaration is addressed. The lack of specification satisfies an inherent complexity. On the one hand, it is \u201call the people\u201d as a corporate entity, a psychic unity, that enters into the covenantal relationship with God. On the other hand, each member of the community is addressed individually, as is shown by the consistent use of the second person singular. Moreover, from verses 15\u201318(18\u201321), and from the recapitulation of events found in Deuteronomy 5:4\u20135, it is clear that at some point in the course of the revelation the people, out of fear, demanded that Moses act as mediator between them and God. According to rabbinic tradition,10 the people heard the divine voice utter only the first two pronouncements; the rest of the Decalogue was mediated by Moses. This understanding receives support from the use of the first person by God through verse 6, followed by the third person in reference to God in the subsequent verses. The omission of an indirect object allows the opening statement to encompass all aspects of the situation as it unfolded.
\nIn rabbinic legend,11 the Decalogue was offered by God to all the other peoples of the earth only to be rejected by them. That it was proclaimed in the wilderness, and not within any national boundaries, highlights its universality. It is also said to have been simultaneously translated into all the languages of humankind.12 Again, because the audience in verse 1 is left undefined, the text permits of various readings.<\/p>\n
2. For the origin of this royal, self-identifying formula, see Comment to 3:6. In the present case its use not only underlines the unimpeachable sovereign authority behind the ensuing pronouncements but it also emphasizes that the demands of the Decalogue have their source and sanction in divine will, not in human wisdom. Hence they remain eternally valid and unaffected by temporal considerations.
\nAs noted above, Jewish tradition came to regard this verse as the first of the ten divine pronouncements and understood it as enjoining the belief in the existence of God who is the ultimate controller of the processes of history.<\/p>\n
who brought you out In this historical review God bases His claim to Israel\u2019s allegiance on His role as the Liberator of Israel, not as Creator.<\/p>\n
house of bondage See Comment to 13:3.<\/p>\n
3\u20136. Rabbinic tradition treats these verses as a single unit.13<\/p>\n
3. You shall have no Hebrew does not feature a verb \u201cto have\u201d but expresses possession by h-y-h le-, literally \u201cto be to.\u201d Since the idea of possession necessarily involves relationship, the same term is used for entering into the marriage bond14 and for establishing the covenant between God and Israel.15 This command, therefore, warns against violating the covenant by recognizing in any manner or form what other peoples accept as deities. Israel\u2019s God demands uncompromising and exclusive loyalty.<\/p>\n
4. The forms of worship are now regulated. The revolutionary Israelite concept of God entails His being wholly separate from the world of His creation and wholly other than what the human mind can conceive or the human imagination depict. Therefore, any material representation of divinity is prohibited, a proscription elaborated in Deuteronomy 4:12, 15\u201319, where it is explained that the people heard \u201cthe sound of words\u201d at Sinai \u201cbut perceived no shape\u2014nothing but a voice.\u201d In the Israelite view any symbolic representation of God must necessarily be both inadequate and a distortion, for an image becomes identified with what it represents and is soon looked upon as the place and presence of the Deity. In the end the image itself will become the locus of reverence and an object of worship, all of which constitutes the complete nullification of the singular essence of Israelite monotheism.<\/p>\n
5. an impassioned God The Hebrew stem k-n-\u02be, in its primitive meaning, seems to have denoted \u201cto become intensely red.\u201d Because extreme and intense emotions affect facial coloration, the term came, by extension, to express ardor,16 zeal,17 rage,18 and jealousy.19 It is used in a variety of contexts, even with God as the referent. The limitations of language necessitate the application to God of phraseology that typically belongs in the human sphere. The present epithet \u02beel kanna\u02be is most frequently translated \u201ca jealous God,\u201d a rendering that understands the marriage bond to be the implied metaphor for the covenant between God and His people. God demands exclusive loyalty from Israel, and, according to this interpretation, His reaction to their infidelity is expressed in terms of human jealousy. It should be noted, however, that the form kanna\u02be is used in the Bible solely of God,20 never of a human being, a distinction that testifies to a consciousness that the emotion referred to differs qualitatively from the human variety. Whether one renders kanna\u02be as \u201cjealous\u201d or \u201cimpassioned,\u201d the term emphasizes that God cannot be indifferent to His creatures and that He is deeply involved in human affairs. It underscores the vigorous, intensive, and punitive21 nature of the divine response to apostasy and to modes of worship unacceptable to Himself.<\/p>\n
visiting the guilt \u2026 The Israelite conception of itself as a community bound to God by a covenant has dual implications. Society is collectively responsible for its actions, and the individual too is accountable for behavior that affects the life of the community. There is thus forged a mutuality of responsibility and consequences. It is further recognized that contemporary conduct inevitably has an impact upon succeeding generations. These historical effects are perceived in terms of God \u201cvisiting the sins\u201d of one faithless generation upon the next or of His \u201cshowing kindness,\u201d that is, rewarding fidelity, far into the future. This understanding of God\u2019s governance of the world recurs many times in the Bible,22 and it has an educational function. Over time, however, intensification of the problem of evil led to a revision of this view, for it was perceived as engendering or deepening a pervasive feeling of hopelessness and apathy in an era of acute national crisis. The popular mood is well illustrated in Lamentations 5:7: \u201cOur fathers sinned and are no more;\/And we must bear their guilt.\u201d Jeremiah and Ezekiel felt compelled to deny cross-generational punishment: \u201cPeople shall no longer say, \u2018Parents have eaten sour grapes and children\u2019s teeth are blunted,\u2019 but everyone shall die for his own sins; whosoever eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be blunted.\u201d Such is the teaching of Jeremiah.23 Similarly, his contemporary Ezekiel denounced the popular belief:<\/p>\n
What do you mean by quoting this proverb upon the soil of Israel, \u201cParents eat sour grapes and their children\u2019s teeth are blunted\u201d? As I live\u2014declares the Lord God\u2014this proverb shall no longer be current among you in Israel. Consider, all lives are Mine; the life of the parent and the life of the child are both Mine. The person who sins, only he shall die.\u2026 A child shall not share the burden of a parent\u2019s guilt, nor shall a parent share the burden of a child\u2019s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous shall be accounted to him alone, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to him alone.24<\/p>\n
And the Talmud in Makkot 24a asserts: \u201cMoses pronounced an adverse sentence on Israel\u2014the visiting of the iniquities of the fathers on the children\u2014and it was revoked by Ezekiel.\u201d
\nIt is important to note that the statement in the Decalogue concerning the generational extension of punishment has nothing whatsoever to do with the administration of justice in Israel\u2019s legal system. There, vicarious punishment is never mandated; indeed, it is explicitly outlawed in Deuteronomy 24:16.25<\/p>\n
the third and \u2026 fourth generations This conventional phrase is otherwise always found in a context of longevity as a divine reward for righteousness, not only in the Bible26 but also in Aramaic inscriptions.27 Here, it is used to describe the enduring, baneful effects of evil.<\/p>\n
who reject Me This phrase may modify \u201cparents\u201d or \u201cchildren\u201d or both. Rabbinic exegesis seized on the ambiguity to soften the apparent harshness of the statement: The verdict applies only when subsequent generations perpetuate the evils of their parents.28<\/p>\n
6. showing kindness On Hebrew \u1e25esed, see Comment to 15:13.<\/p>\n
thousandth generation The corresponding text in Deuteronomy 7:9 shows that this is the correct rendering of Hebrew la-\u02bealafim. The rabbis were quick to point out the contrast between God\u2019s boundless beneficence and the limited extent of His punishment.29<\/p>\n
7. This command deals with the abuse of the divine name.<\/p>\n
swear Hebrew n-s-\u02be, literally \u201cto take up,\u201d is here an ellipsis for \u201cto take upon the lips,\u201d that is, \u201cto utter\u201d the divine name.30<\/p>\n
falsely Hebrew la-shav\u02be can mean this31 as well as \u201cfor nothing, in vain.\u201d32 The ambiguities allow for the proscription of perjury by the principals in a lawsuit, swearing falsely,33 and the unnecessary or frivolous use of the divine Name. In Berakhot 33a the view is expressed that even the recitation of an unnecessary blessing is a transgression of this command. It should be noted that several biblical passages favor the use of God\u2019s name in oath-taking when done in sincerity and truthfulness.34<\/p>\n
will not clear That is, God will not allow the deed to go unpunished even though it may go undetected or not be actionable in a human court of law.<\/p>\n
8. The Sabbath35, as a noun, is not found in Genesis 2:1\u20133. Only the verbal form, with God as the subject, is used. Already implied in 16:23\u201330, the Sabbath (Heb. shabbat) is not established by the Decalogue as a fixed, weekly institution. With the Creation as its rationale (as also reiterated in Exodus 31:13\u201317), the seventh day of each week is invested with blessing and holiness. It is an integral part of the divinely ordained cosmic order and exists independent of human effort. For this reason it is described here as \u201ca sabbath of the LORD Your God.\u201d
\nThe Sabbath is wholly an Israelite innovation. There is nothing analogous to it in the entire ancient Near Eastern world. This is surprising since seven-day units of time are well known throughout the region. Yet the Sabbath is the sole exception to the otherwise universal practice of basing all the major units of time\u2014months and seasons, as well as years\u2014on the phases of the moon and solar cycle. The Sabbath, in other words, is completely dissociated from the movement of celestial bodies. This singularity, together with Creation as the basis for the institution, expresses the quintessential idea of Israel\u2019s monotheism: God is entirely outside of and sovereign over nature.
\nThe etymology of Hebrew shabbat has been debated. It is uncertain whether the noun is derived from the verbal stem meaning \u201cto desist from labor,\u201d or vice versa. Semitists have long drawn attention to the similarity of sound to the Akkadian shabattum (or shapattum) which designated the fifteenth day of the lunar month, that is, the full moon. This is described in cuneiform texts as \u201cthe day of the quieting of the heart (of the god),\u201d the meaning of which is uncertain. It has also been noted that in the Mesopotamian lunar calendar the seventh, fourteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days of certain months, corresponding to the four phases of the moon, were all regarded as days of baneful character, controlled by evil spirits. Special magical rites had to be performed, and the king, in particular, had to refrain from all sorts of activities. These days, however, were not called shab\/pattu. Whatever the true etymology of the Hebrew term may be, the institution itself has no connection with any known Mesopotamian observance.<\/p>\n
Remember See Comment to 2:24. It is fitting that the law of the seventh day commences with the seventh letter of the Hebrew alphabet. The narrative about the manna in Exodus 16:5, 22\u201330 presupposes the institution of the Sabbath prior to the Sinaitic revelation.<\/p>\n
keep it holy Its intrinsic sacred character derives from God. By following a pattern of living and observance in conformity with that intrinsic holiness, Israel transforms its mundane existence into a spiritual experience one day a week. Texts like Hosea 2:13 and Isaiah 58:13\u201314 show that already in biblical times the Sabbath was a day of \u201crejoicing\u201d and \u201cdelight.\u201d It was these aspects of the day that rabbinic authorities sought to intensify in making the Sabbath \u201cthe cornerstone of Judaism.\u201d<\/p>\n
10. work The definition of prohibited labor (mela\u02bekhah) is not given here. Elsewhere in the Bible certain types of work are specified: \u201cleaving one\u2019s place,\u201d36 that is, walking beyond certain limits, agricultural activities,37 kindling fire,38 gathering wood,39 conducting business,40 carrying burdens,41 treading the winepress, and loading asses.42
\nThe rabbis of the talmudic period formulated the rules governing the Sabbath in systematic fashion. They were guided by the close proximity in the Torah of the prohibition of work on the Sabbath and the instructions for building the Tabernacle.43 Acts that were essential in the construction of the Tabernacle are termed \u201cprincipal\u201d categories (\u02beavot); thirty-nine such acts are listed in Mishnah Shabbat 7:2. Other subcategories, analogous but not essential in the construction of the Tabernacle, are called \u201cderivatives\u201d (toladot).44 Of course, all Sabbath prohibitions are suspended when human life is deemed to be in danger (pikkua\u1e25 nefesh)\u2014in such a situation it is a religious duty to violate them if that is what is required to save a life.45 This principle is grounded in Leviticus 18:5: \u201cYou shall keep My laws and My rules, by the pursuit of which man shall live; I am the LORD.\u201d<\/p>\n
you \u2026 the stranger The order of Creation is translated into a social pattern and woven into the fabric of society. By proscribing work and creativity on that day, and by enjoining the inviolability of nature one day a week, the Torah delimits human autonomy and restores nature to its original state of pristine freedom. Human liberty is immeasurably enhanced, human equality is strengthened, and the cause of social justice is promoted by legislating the inalienable right of every human being, irrespective of social class, and of draft animals as well, to twenty-four hours of complete rest every seven days. Exodus 23:12 emphasizes the social function of the Sabbath\u2014\u201cin order that your ox and your ass may rest, and that your bondman and the stranger may be refreshed.\u201d This humanitarian approach is the only one given in the Deuteronomic version of the Decalogue: \u201cRemember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the LORD your God freed you from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the sabbath day.\u201d Appropriately, the list in the present verse comprises seven categories of God\u2019s creatures who benefit from the rest on the seventh day.<\/p>\n
the stranger In the ancient world strangers were often without rights and were outside the protection of the law. The Torah is particularly sensitive to their feelings and solicitous of their needs and welfare. Numerous injunctions and obligations are set forth to ensure their humane treatment.46<\/p>\n
12. This command forms the transition from the first to the second group of divine declarations, in that it simultaneously possesses both religious and social dimensions. It shares with the preceding command the formula \u201cthe LORD your God.\u201d Also, the relationship of Israel to God is often expressed metaphorically in filial terms,47 and the same verbs of \u201chonoring\u201d and \u201crevering\u201d are used in expressing proper human attitudes to both God and parents.48 In fact, the obligation to respect is enjoined only for God and parents, and the offender in either instance is liable to the extreme penalty. The parallels point up the supreme importance that the Torah assigns to the integrity of the family for the sake of the stability of society and generational continuity. Family life is the bedrock on which Jewish society stands. No other item in the Decalogue is similarly formulated wholly in positive terms, and for none other is there a promise of reward. The prophet Ezekiel includes the dishonoring of parents among the grievous sins that characterized the generation of the destruction of the First Temple.49<\/p>\n
father \u2026 mother The command applies equally to son and daughter irrespective of their age, and it holds for both parents.50<\/p>\n
long endure Respect for parents is deemed to be vital for the preservation of the social fabric; dishonoring parents imperils the well-being of society.<\/p>\n
13. murder The Hebrew stem r-ts-\u1e25, as noted by Rashbam and Bekhor Shor, applies only to illegal killing and, unlike other verbs for the taking of life, is never used in the administration of justice or for killing in war. Also, it is never employed when the subject of the action is God or an angel. This command, therefore, cannot be used to justify either pacifism or the abolition of the death penalty, both of which would have to be argued on other grounds. Genesis 9:6 provides the rationale for the prohibition on murder: \u201cWhoever sheds the blood of man,\/By man shall his blood be shed;\/For in His image\/Did God make man.\u201d This means that society must exact satisfaction for the crime of murder because life, being derived from God, is infinitely precious and is His alone to give and to take. By his unspeakable act, the murderer usurps the divine prerogative and infringes upon God\u2019s sovereignty; and, because human beings are created in the divine image, he also affronts God\u2019s majesty. For this reason, it is not in the power of human beings to forgive a murderer or to commute the death penalty into ransom, as Numbers 35:31 makes clear. In practice, however, at least in Second Temple times, imposition of the death penalty was a rare occurrence. Mishnah Makkot 1:10 states:<\/p>\n
A Sanhedrin that carries out the death penalty once in seven years is designated destructive. Rabbi Eliezar ben Azariah says: Once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiba say: Had we been members of the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have received the death penalty. Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel says: They would also have multiplied those who shed blood in Israel.<\/p>\n
Significantly, the narrative about the first murder notes the obvious fraternal relationship of Cain to Abel seven times, a way of indicating that all homicide is fratricide. Commenting on God\u2019s censure of Cain in that text\u2014\u201cHark, your brother\u2019s blood cries out to Me from the ground\u201d (Gen. 4:10)\u2014the rabbis in Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 interpreted the use of the plural form (demei) in the Hebrew to encompass not only the blood of the victim but also that of all his potential offspring, now doomed never to be born. They further commented: \u201cWhy was only one man created by God?\u2014to teach that whoever takes a single life destroys thereby a whole world [of human beings].\u201d<\/p>\n
adultery In a society in which polygamy but not polyandry is socially acceptable, the definition of adultery is sexual intercourse by mutual consent between a married woman and a man who is not her lawful husband. Such was the case throughout the ancient Near East. Adultery was a private wrong committed against the husband, an infringement of his exclusive rights of possession. Hence, the punishment or pardon of the violators was left to his discretion. True, adultery is termed \u201cthe great sin\u201d in both Egypt and Ugarit, but the gods were not involved in its interdiction or in its legal consequences. In Israel, by contrast, the marriage bond has a sacral dimension,51 and the prohibition of adultery is divinely ordained. Since adultery is treated as both a public wrong and an offense against God, the husband has no legal power to pardon his faithless wife or her paramour. The gravity of adultery in Israelite law may be gauged both by its place in the Decalogue\u2014between murder and theft\u2014and by the extreme severity of the penalty.52<\/p>\n
steal The precise application of this prohibition is complicated by the lack of specifics. The Hebrew verb g-n-v may cover theft of chattels and kidnapping. Rabbinic tradition interpreted the command according to the latter meaning.53 Many modern scholars do likewise, arguing that otherwise there would be an overlapping with the last commandment; that, in the context of the foregoing items, a capital offense rather than a tort is more likely;54 and that, in the kind of pastoral society that is presupposed in the Decalogue, the protection of individual property rights would not have played sufficiently significant a role to have warranted inclusion. These considerations are not entirely persuasive. The summaries of the Decalogue\u2019s provisions found in Leviticus 19:11, Jeremiah 7:9, and Hosea 4:2 also fail to specify the category of theft that is intended. It would seem best, then, not to define this command so narrowly as to exclude from its scope the protection of property rights.<\/p>\n
false witness Each individual is here directly addressed as a potential witness in a juridical forum. This is not the same as \u201cswearing falsely,\u201d discussed above, for witnesses did not testify under oath in ancient Israel. The purpose of court procedure was to establish the truth, on which decisions could be based. The witnesses, whose testimony about the facts with which they were acquainted was always given orally, constituted the key factor in the judicial process. False evidence not only hindered the administration of justice in any particular case, but also undermined public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system\u2014and thereby jeopardized the very stability of society. As a consequence, various measures were taken to discourage false testimony. Two witnesses were necessary in order for the evidence to be valid,55 and false witnesses were punished according to the principle of talion. That is, for their mendacious, damaging testimony, they would receive the same punishment that would have been meted out to the accused. Also, the witnesses themselves had to initiate the execution in cases involving capital punishment.56<\/p>\n
14. covet A study of the biblical contexts in which the Hebrew stem \u1e25-m-d occurs discloses that it does not signify the general human proclivity for acquisitiveness and cupidity; rather it always focuses upon a specific object of desire, the sight of which stimulates the craving to possess it. However, because of an inherent ambiguity in the biblical usages of that Hebrew stem, the meaning of the present command has been a matter of dispute. Action, not just a hidden mental state, is certainly implied in Exodus 34:24: \u201cNo one will covet your land when you go up to appear before the LORD.\u201d Yet a decidedly inward feeling is understood in Proverbs 6:25, literally, \u201cDo not desire her beauty in your heart.\u201d Further, passages like Deuteronomy 7:25, Joshua 7:21, and Micah 2:2 indicate that \u1e25-m-d, itself having a passive nuance, is of sufficient intensity to stimulate active measures to gratify the desire. The issue is further complicated by such questions as whether desire or its avoidance can be commanded or legislated, and whether there can be liability for mere intention or feeling. But this poses no greater difficulty than does the oft repeated command to love God, one\u2019s neighbor, and the stranger, and not to abhor an Edomite or an Egyptian, or not to hate one\u2019s brother in one\u2019s heart.57 The Mekhilta, citing Deuteronomy 7:25, decides that one is culpable only when actions accompany the covetous feelings. Ibn Ezra, on the other hand, understands the thrust of the commandment to be an obligation to discipline and condition the mind so that its automatic response to covetousness is a sense of repulsion.
\nIt must be remembered that the Decalogue deals with the ideal. It does not concern itself with penalties, if any, to be imposed by a court of law.<\/p>\n
house Hebrew bayit here, as frequently elsewhere, means \u201chousehold.\u201d58 The following six items, listed in decreasing order of importance or worth, constitute the components of the household. They reflect a seminomadic society. In contrast to Deuteronomy 5:18, land is not included here.<\/p>\n
THE PEOPLE\u2019S REACTION (vv. 15\u201318 [18\u201321])<\/p>\n
15\u201316. (18\u201319.) witnessed Hebrew r-\u02be-h, \u201cto see,\u201d is extended to encompass sound, thus creating a \u201csense paradox.\u201d The figurative language indicates the profound awareness among the assembled throng of the overpowering majesty and mystery of God\u2019s self-manifestation. It is an experience that cannot be adequately described by the ordinary language of the senses. The encounter with the Holy universally inspires fascination; inevitably and characteristically it also arouses feelings of awe, even terror (see Comment to 3:1\u20136). Fear of death is a frequent reaction.59 The unique, transcendent, supernal holiness of the Divine Presence is felt to be beyond human endurance.<\/p>\n
17. (20.) Moses allays their fears. The purpose of the personal, direct, unmediated nature of the mass experience was to prove the quality of their faith. The enduring, living memory of the encounter should instill the fear of God and so be a deterrent to sin.<\/p>\n
18. (21.) the thick cloud Hebrew \u02bfarafel. The dense, dark cloud poetically expresses God\u2019s mysteriously perceptible yet invisible presence.60<\/p>\n
THE REGULATION OF WORSHIP (vv. 19\u201323 [22\u201326])<\/p>\n
These verses bridge the foregoing and following sections. They continue the preceding narrative by featuring the instructions that Moses received as he \u201capproached the thick cloud\u201d; they also serve as a crucial introduction to the following laws because without verse 19 (22) there would be no antecedents to 21:1. At the same time, these verses, together with 23:19, encase the regulations controlling interpersonal and societal behavior within a framework of prescriptions that govern the relationship of the individual to God.
\nIt is to be noted that verses 19\u201320 (22\u201323) are of general concern, being addressed to all Israel and couched in the plural. Verses 21\u201323 (24\u201326) are formulated in the singular and pertain to the individual in a specific circumstance. The delineation of the authentic modes of divine worship is the unifying theme of the entire section.<\/p>\n
19\u201320. (22\u201323.) The theophany was direct, public, and communal. All Israel was witness to the phenomenon of God speaking from heaven; that is, His abode is neither on nor of the earth. He is wholly removed from the natural confines of this material world. The noncorporeal nature of God\u2019s unmediated self-manifestation was apparent to all. As Deuteronomy 4:12, 15\u201318, 36 emphasize, the experience was entirely auditory. Those present \u201cperceived no shape\u2014nothing but a voice.\u201d Therefore, God may never be represented by any shape or form; nor may God be associated with any idol such as other peoples accept as gods.<\/p>\n
21\u201323. (24\u201326.) These laws, addressed to the individual, reflect and regulate the altars and worship that characterized the popular lay religion before the implementation of Deuteronomic law concentrated all sacrificial worship exclusively in one official national-religious center.61 The altars referred to are the kind erected ad hoc by Noah,62 the patriarchs,63 Gideon,64 Manoah,65 and the people of Beth Shemesh.66 See Comment to 27:1\u20138.<\/p>\n
21. (24.) altar of earth One made by heaping up a mound of earth in an open field. It was just such an altar that the Syrian commander probably had in mind, as told in 2 Kings 5:17, when he requested two mule-loads of the earth of the land of Israel to take back home with him. There, in Damascus, he could offer sacrifices on the earthen altar.<\/p>\n
in every place Hebrew makom, like Arabic maqam, most likely means here \u201csacred site,\u201d that is, a site rendered sacred by the location there of an altar to God, as in Genesis 12:6 and other texts.67 If the verse is to be integrated into its surrounding context, it must convey the teaching that God is content with a simple earthen altar and requires no elaborate structure.<\/p>\n
I cause \u2026 mentioned This construction, with both subject and object referring to God, is unparalleled. God would not be expected to call on Himself or evoke His own name in worship. Hence, the medieval Jewish commentators, followed by the present translation, understood the verb \u02beazkir to be causative.68 In this way, the sentence is harmonized with the Deuteronomic demands for the centralization of the sacrificial worship at one site chosen by God, be it Shiloh, Nob, or Jerusalem.
\nIn order to make the same point, Rabbi Yoshiah, in Sotah 38a, transposes the order of the clauses to read: \u201cIn whichever place I will come to you and bless you I will cause My name to be uttered.\u201d He, of course, identifies the \u201cplace\u201d with the Temple in Jerusalem, where the full divine name YHVH was uttered in worship in the days of the Second Jewish Commonwealth.69<\/p>\n
22. (25.) This prohibition is reiterated in Deuteronomy 27:5\u20136 in regard to the instructions for the altar to be erected on Mount Ebal, and Joshua strictly enforced it.70 We are told that in the construction of Solomon\u2019s Temple \u201conly finished stones cut at the quarry were used, so that no hammer or ax or any iron tool was heard in the House while it was being built.\u201d71 Many centuries later, when Judah Maccabee built a new altar following the liberation of Jerusalem, he was careful to use only uncut stones.72 Josephus, describing Herod\u2019s Temple, reports that no iron was used in the construction of the altar.73<\/p>\n
tool This is undefined, but Deuteronomy 27:5 and 1 Kings 6:7 specify iron. Mishnah Middot 3:4 explains the prohibition as follows: \u201cIron was created to shorten man\u2019s days [it being usedb to fashion weapons of destruction], while the altar was created to prolong man\u2019s days [by effecting reconciliation with God]. It is unseemly that that which shortens [life] should be wielded against that which prolongs [it].\u201d Put another way, it means that it is illegitimate to promote spiritual ends by violent means.
\nRashbam suggests that the ban on the use of a tool blunted the temptation to decorate the altar stones with images.<\/p>\n
23. (26.) The altar must be so designed as to permit access to it with suitable propriety. This contrasts with many scenes in ancient Near Eastern art that feature priests officiating in the nude.74 Ritual nudity is a phenomenon known to many religions. It is symbolically associated with both death and rebirth, and it also has a variety of magical uses.
\nThe instruction is clearly intended for the layman at a private altar since the uniform of the priests included \u201clinen breeches to cover their nakedness.\u201d75 The priests who removed the ashes from the altar each morning had to wear such a garment.76 It would seem, then, that the official altar was approached by steps. This inference is supported by Ezekiel\u2019s vision of the renewed altar; explicit mention is made of steps (ma\u02bfalot), and the priests wear \u201clinen breeches on their loins.\u201d77 Breeches are otherwise unknown in the Bible and Near East in preexilic times. The dress of the ordinary person included a shirtlike garb but not breeches. The Israelite altar excavated at Tell Dan, dating from the first half of the eighth century B.C.E., has a wide, monumental stairway built against the southern face of the platform on which it stands. In the Second Temple, however, the altar was approached by a ramp.78<\/p>\n