Shemot 32:11-35 – Sin and forgiveness by the sin of the golden calf

Shemot 32:7-10 record that when Moshe was up on Mount Sinai, G-d told Moshe that the people sinned with the golden calf, and then 32:11-13 record that Moshe prayed for the people to be forgiven. These verses indicate that Moshe prayed for the people immediately upon hearing about their sin when he was on Mount Sinai. G-d quickly agreed to forgive the people, 32:14. Yet, even though G-d forgave the people, when Moshe came down from the mountain, he broke the tablets, 32:19, told the Levites to kill the people, 32:27, and then on the following day he told the people that he had to go pray for them that maybe G-d would forgive them, 32:30. Why did Moshe break the tablets, have the Levites kill people and need to pray again when 32:14 records that G-d forgave the people? Also, 32:33-35 indicate that G-d did not accept Moshe’s prayers in 32:31,32, but had not G-d already accepted Moshe’s prayers in 32:14?

Ibn Ezra (on 32:11) explains that really Moshe only prayed (once) on the day after he came down from Mount Sinai. This appears to accord with Moshe's account of the sin of the golden calf in the book of Devarim, that there he said that he first went down from the mountain, broke the tablets and only afterwards began to pray for the people, Devarim 9:15-18. Ibn Ezra argues that Moshe could not have prayed before he destroyed the golden calf. With this approach, Ibn Ezra is forced to argue that the verses 32:11-14, which indicate that Moshe prayed on the mountain immediately upon hearing of the people's sin, are recorded out of their chronological order and really follow 32:30. Yet, still there remains the problem that 32:14 (even recorded out of order) indicates a complete pardon for the people, and 32:33-35 indicate that there was only a partial pardon for the people.

Ramban (on 32:11) asks that if Moshe really only prayed once, why would the Torah split the prayers by recording half the prayer sixteen verses before the other half of the prayer? Furthermore, Ibn Ezra's proof from Moshe's account in Devarim is not so convincing. Devarim 9:19 records that G-d listened to Moshe for a second time, which implies that there were two prayers. Also, in Devarim, Moshe was not giving a complete recording of the events, and hence maybe he skipped mentioning his first prayer since he did not want the people to know that they had been forgiven so quickly for their sins. 

Ramban argues that Moshe had to pray immediately for the people's welfare when he heard of their sins since he believed that there was a possibility that the people would have been destroyed at that moment. Thus, he claims that Moshe prayed twice, once as recorded in 32:11-14, when he heard about the sin on Mount Sinai, and then again as recorded in 32:30-34, after he had come down from Mount Sinai. Why was there a need for two prayers?

The Ramban (also see Hoffmann on Devarim 9:18,19) suggests that when 32:14 records that G-d agreed to Moshe's prayer on the mountain this just meant that the people would not be wiped out at that moment, but the people had not been truly pardoned and they could be punished later for the sin with the golden calf. Hence, Moshe had to pray again on the day after he came down from Mount Sinai. This approach is difficult since 32:14 seems to mean that G-d renounced punishing the people, and not that G-d might punish the people a few days later.

Abravanel accepts the Ramban's answer (1997, p. 542) and then he suggests (p. 546, also see N. Leibowitz, 1976a, p. 579) that the second prayer was for those people who did not participate in the sin but who did not attempt to stop the people from sinning. I doubt this since 32:14 seems to mean that everybody had been forgiven.

In his comments on Devarim, Abravanel (1999, p. 162) suggests two additional reasons why Moshe prayed twice.  One, while the Torah records that G-d renounced punishing the people in 32:14, he suggests that this information was not told to Moshe. And, then if Moshe did not know that the punishment was rescinded, Moshe had to pray a second time. This approach is difficult since there is no reason to think that Moshe was not informed that G-d renounced punishing the people, and if Moshe did not know this fact then he would have kept on praying before descending from the mountain.

Abravanel's other answer in his comments on Devarim is a variation on the Ramban's approach.  This suggestion is that when G-d renounced punishing the people, this meant that G-d would not directly kill the people, but G-d was still going to indirectly destroy the people by leaving them to fend for themselves in the desert. With this idea, one would understand that the threatened destruction recorded in Devarim 9:19 was indirect and not complete. Yet, the word in Devarim 9:19, le-hashmid, means to destroy and not simply to let the people fend for themselves, and again 32:14 seems to mean that the people would not be punished at all for their sin of the golden calf. Also 32:35 records that G-d would send a plague on the people, which is not just letting the people fend for themselves.

A different approach is that Moshe had to pray a second time due to the events that occurred after Moshe came down from Mount Sinai. When Moshe came down from Mount Sinai, he saw not only the golden calf but the dancing (around the idol?) and he broke the tablets, 32:19. N. Leibowitz (1976a, pp. 610,611) quotes Isaac Arama and the Netziv that Moshe broke the tablets to shock the people. This makes sense to me since there was pandemonium in the camp and he needed to do something to restore order in the camp. However, N. Leibowitz rejects this approach since she claims that with this approach Moshe's act was premeditated while 32:19 implies that it was a "spontaneous reaction sparked off by indignation." Yet, afterwards she writes (p. 612), "It is difficult to accept that Moshe deliberately planned to break the tablets. But the alternative – that it happened in a spontaneous fit of anger without any thought at all is equally implausible."

I would understand that after Moshe heard that G-d had forgiven the people, 32:14, he took the tablets with the idea that he would speak to the people and tell them that G-d had forgiven them. He did not intend to break the tablets when he was going down the mountain. However, when he came down, he was angry since he had not realized the mad frenzy scene that was occurring and he had to think of a way to get the people to stop. Moshe's solution was to break the tablets in front of the people, Devarim 9:17. However, this plan did not succeed.

32:25 records that even after Moshe broke the tablets and destroyed the golden calf, still the people were going wild. Accordingly, he went to plan B. He asked the people "Who is with G-d, come to me," 32:26. However, only the Levites responded. They compromised approximately 4% (22,000 males/603,000 men 20 years and up) of the population, which meant that 96% of the population was not with G-d. Moshe then sent out the Levites to kill the people who sinned, and as we discuss on 32:20-28, "Spiked water and the aftermath of the sin of the golden calf," they only killed people who had marks on their bodies which indicated that they had sinned. These people were not being killed for their actions with the golden calf, which no longer existed and for which they had been forgiven, but because they had not responded to Moshe when he asked who was with G-d. By not responding to Moshe’s call, this showed that they rejected G-d and were in essence continuing with the sin by golden calf even though the idol had been destroyed. Note, it could be that the Levites had also sinned by the golden calf, but once Moshe called to them, then they repented and answered Moshe’s call.

After this killing by the Levites, it seems that the pandemonium in the camp ended, and on the following day, Moshe told the people that they had sinned greatly and that he would pray for them, 32:30. What was the need for this prayer?  One possibility is that G-d's forgiveness of the people in 32:14 was no longer relevant since the people continued to sin by not responding to Moshe when he asked who was with G-d, 32:26. A second possibility is that in 32:14, G-d forgave the people for their worship of the golden calf, a full scale idolatry, while in 32:30, Moshe needed to pray for the people for making the golden calf independent of their worship of the golden calf. Thus, in Moshe prayer’s he refers to the making of the golden calf, 32:31, and in G-d’s response that there would be a plague for the people’s sin, again the reference is to making the golden calf, 32:35. Moshe also refers to this sin as being a great or large sin, chataah gedolah, when he spoke to the people, 32:30, in his prayer, 32:31, and when he questioned Aharon about his actions, 32:21. The reason for this designation is that people might have thought that just making the golden calf was not such a terrible action since the goal might have been to use the idol to worship G-d, and hence to impress on Aharon, the people, and readers of the Torah, Moshe uses the phrase great sin to teach that even just making the golden calf was a terrible sin.

Bibliography:

Abravanel (1437-1508), 1997, Commentary on Shemot. 1999, Commentary on Devarim, Jerusalem: Horev.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976a, Studies in Shemot, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

The definition of the word shamor in Moshe's speeches in the book of Devarim - To remember

Most of the book of Devarim records Moshe’s speeches to the Jewish people at the end of his life. One of the key words in Moshe’s speech in the book of Devarim is shamor, and there is great confusion about the meaning of this word since the word in the Torah has a different meaning than its meaning in modern day Hebrew. In modern Hebrew it means to watch, guard, protect, but in the Torah, the word shamor means to remember. I will now give several examples.

The first time the word shamor appears in the book of Devarim is 2:4, when Moshe was re-telling the people G-d’s instructions to the people when they had circled around Edom/ Esav. 2:4 records that the people were told that even though Edom was scared of them, ve-nishmartem meod. Tigay (1996, p. 24) translates the phrase as “be very careful” that the people were to be careful not to provoke Edom, the following verse. This definition follows the idea that shamor relates to guarding but does it accord with the definition of keeping, which is how the word shamor is explained in most cases in the book of Devarim? Instead, the phrase should be understood to mean that people are to strongly remember that Edom/ Esav is considered their brother, which is mentioned in the beginning of the verse, and hence they should not provoke Edom, the following verse.

The next case of the word shamor is Devarim 4:2, which records that Moshe told the people that they are to lishmor the mitzvot of G-d. Can this phrase mean to guard or protect the mitzvot? Instead, the usual explanation/ translation is to keep the mitzvot (see for example Alter, 2004, p. 897) which can fit the context, but it is not the idea of guarding. Instead, the phrase should be interpreted to mean that Moshe told the people to remember the mitzvot.  This same idea appears in 5:10,26, 8:2, 10:13, 12:28, 13:5, 26:17, 18, and 28:9.

Devarim 4:6 records that Moshe told the people, u-shemartem va-asitem. Alter (2004, p. 898) translates the phrase as meaning that Moshe said “you shall keep and do,” as again he translates the word shamor as meaning keep. How does keep differ from do? It is redundant to say to do, to do. Instead, the word shamor means to remember, and Moshe was telling the people to remember the laws to do them. Similarly, 5:1, 5:29, 6:3, 6:25, 8:1, 11:32, 12:1, 13:1,19, 16:5,12, 17:10,19, 19:9, 24:8 (the second and third times the word appears in the verse), 26:16, 28:1,13,15, 28:58, 29:8, 31:12 and 32:46 have the phrase of shamor la-asot, which again means to remember to do.

Devarim 4:9 then records that Moshe told the people “But, he-shamer lecha, ushemor nafeshcha moed, pen tishkach.” In this phrase, the word shamor appears twice. Alter (2004, p. 898) explains the phrase as meaning “Only be you on the watch and watch yourself closely lest you forget.” In this phrase, Alter is translating the word shamor to mean on the watch. Is this the same meaning as keep, his translation of the word shamor in 4:6? What does it mean for a person to be on their watch? Instead, Devarim 4:9 means, “But, you should remember, remember greatly with your nefesh, do not forget.” This double language of remembering stresses the importance of the people remembering. 6:17 and 11:22, also record the word shamor twice, which again is to stress to the people to remember. 9:18 also had the double language of remembering, though with the word zachor, the synonym of shamor. In addition, 4:15 records remembering with regard to a person’s nefesh.

4:23 records that Moshe told the people, “he-shamru lachem pen tishkachu.” Alter (2004, p. 901) translates the phrase as "Be you on the watch, lest you forget," similar to his translation of the word shamor in 4:9. However, the phrase means that Moshe told the people to remember, do not forget. This phrase has both the positive injunction to remember and the negative injunction not to forget, as in 4:9, 6:12, 9:7 (with the word zachor) and 8:11.  This charge to remember, hishamer, in order not to do something wrong also appears in 11:16, 12:13,19,30, 15:9, and 24:8 (the first time the word appears in the verse and this remembering connects with the remembering in 24:9).

4:40 records that Moshe ended his first (?) speech in the book of Devarim by saying “ve-shamarta et chukov ve-et mitzvotov.” Alter (2004, p. 904) translates the word shamor here as keep as he did in 4:6, but Tigay (1996, p. 39) writes that the word shamor should be translated as “take to heart.” This is similar to idea of remembering, and 4:40 should be understood to mean that Moshe was telling the people to remember G-d’s laws. This same idea appears in 7:11, 8:6, the end of 8:11, 9:13, 11:1, and 11:8.  Similarly, 27:1 records that Moshe told the people to remember to follow his instructions when they would cross the Jordan River.  Also, in 33:9, the idea is that the tribe of Levi remembered G-d’s words.

In Moshe’s second speech to the people in the book of Devarim, he re-calls the Decalogue and he stated, shamor et yom ha-Shabbat le-kadsho, 5:12. On this phrase, Tigay (1996, p. 68) writes, “the verb shamor is commonly used for keeping a holiday and fulfilling obligations.” This understanding creates an inconsistency with the Decalogue in the book of Shemot (20:8), which records the phrase, “zachor et yom ha-Shabbat lekadsho.” However, as should be clear from all the examples above, the words shamor and zachor are synonyms, and in both cases the phrase has exactly the same meaning, that the people are to remember the Shabbat to make it kadosh (to separate it from the other days of the week), see our discussion on Devarim 5:6-18, “The Decalogue in Shemot 20 and Devarim 5.”  This similar idea also occurs in 16:1, that the people are to remember (shamor) the month of Aviv.

The beginning of 6:2 records that the people should fear G-d, which will lead lishmor all the laws, and the beginning of 6:3 records that the people should hear, shamarta, to do. Tigay (1996, p. 75) explains that the beginning of 6:3 means “literally, obey and faithfully do,” as now he is explaining the word shamor to mean faithfully. However, again the word shamor means to remember. The beginning of 6:2 means that Moshe told the people that they should fear G-d and this fear will lead them to remember the laws, as in 4:40, and the beginning of 6:3 means that Moshe was telling the people to listen, to remember (shamor) and to do (la-asot).

Towards the end of parashat Va-ethannan, Moshe told the people that G-d shomer the covenant, 7:9, and this idea is repeated in the second half of the first verse of parashat Ekev, 7:12. In between these verses, 7:11, records that the people are ve-shamarta et ha-mitzvah and the first half of 7:12 record that if the people shemartem va-asitem, then G-d will shomer the covenant. In these four verses, 7;9-12, the word shamor appears four times, twice in reference to G-d and twice in reference to people. Tigay (1996, p. 88) writes that in reference to the people, the word shamor means to observe, while in reference to G-d, the word means to keep or maintain, maybe since he did not want to say that G-d observes the covenant. Again, the simplest explanation is that shamor means to remember that the people are to remember the covenant, and G-d will remember the covenant, see Vayikra 26:42,45.

One case that is not clear is 23:10. This verse records that when the people go to war, ve-nishmarta from all bad things. In this case, one might be tempted to interpret the word shamor as guard, that when the people go to war, the soldier should guard himself from all bad things. What are the bad things? Something dangerous, but then the soldier would have known this on his own. Also, how does this verse relate to the ensuing verses which refer to a person having a nocturnal emission? I think the verse is usually understood to mean that a soldier should not do bad things, that is to say to keep from bad things. These bad things are undefined and then the verse is unrelated to the following verses. A different possibility based on the definition of shamor meaning to remember, is that the verse is stating that when a soldier in the war camp remembers some bad things, something sexual, then this can lead the soldier to have a nocturnal emission, see Talmud Avodah Zara 20b.

One interesting case in the section of laws is 23:24 which records that what comes out of one’s lips, tishmor. The usual translation is that a person should keep the promises that he/ she makes, but really it means that a person needs to remember his/ her promises and vows.

This understanding that the word shamor means to remember is not unique to the book of Devarim.  In the story of Yosef, Bereshit 37:11 records that after Yosef told his second dream to his father and brothers, that Yaakov shamor the words, and this means that Yaakov remembered the dream, see Rashi on 37:11.  My impression is that the majority of cases where the word appears in the Torah, the definition it to remember and not to watch.  Hopefully in the future, I will add posts about the word in the other four books of the Torah.

I did not examine the word shamor in Neviim and Ketivum, but in Tehillim 121:3,4,5,7,8 the word shamor has the meaning to watch and protect, the modern interpretation of the word. However, Tehillim 130:3, follows the meaning of the word shamor in the Torah that the verse records a plea to G-d not to shamor, not to remember, the sins of the people. Three verse later, Tehillim 130:6, the word shamor (twice) also probably refers to remembering.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company

Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Shemot (Exodus) 32:20-28 – Spiked water and the aftermath of the sin of the golden calf

Shemot 32:27 records that Moshe ordered the Levites to kill the people who had sinned by the golden calf, and 32:28 records that they killed 3,000 people. How could Moshe order the Levites to go through the camp and kill people?

There are three approaches to understanding Moshe's order to the Levites. One, Moshe set up a court system to judge the people, and apparently the Levites were both the officials of the court and the executers of the court's judgments. (See Yoma 66b, also the Midrash Meor ha-Afalah, who is quoted by Menachem Kasher, Torah Shelemah 32:114, and Kasher's comments 114. In addition, see Midrash ha-Gadol, who is also quoted by Kasher, 32:225, Kasher's comments on 225, and Arussi 2000.) With this approach, there was no indiscriminate killing. However, as noted by the Ramban (on 32:27), this approach is problematic since there were 600,000 men and if there was a trial for each man (also the women?) then this would have taken years, while the impression of the Torah is that the actions of the Levites transpired immediately.

A second approach is from the Ramban who writes that this incident was a unique case to sanctify G-d's name, and did not follow normal judicial procedures, as for example there was no one around who could have warned each sinner. However, he also maintains that the Levites did not kill indiscriminately, but only those people they personally knew who had sinned.

A third approach is from the Ibn Ezra (short commentary on 32:27) who mentions the idea that the Levites only killed those people they knew had sinned, but he adds that they also killed those people who had a sign on their bodies that they had worshipped the golden calf. Ibn Ezra elaborates on this idea in his long commentary on 32:20. Ibn Ezra explains that when Moshe came down from the mountain he made the people drink the ashes of the golden calf with water, 32:30, and this caused the bodies of the people who had sinned with the golden calf to swell or for there to be marks on their faces similar to the water of the suspected adulteress (Bemidbar 5:27, see Avodah Zara 44a). The disfigured bodies or marks indicated to the Levites which people deserved to die.

Ibn Ezra's explanation is logical since 32:20 records that Moshe forced or caused the people to drink the ashes, and there is no record of any consequence to their drinking of the ashes. Why would Moshe cause the people to drink the water for no reason? However, once we know the case of the suspected adulteress, who would drink ashes which would cause marks on her body, then we can infer that Moshe forced the people to drink in order for there to be marks on their body, and the reason why the people had to have marks on their bodies was in order that the Levites could identify which people to kill. Accordingly, G-d did a miracle to identify the people deserving of punishment and this obviated the need to have courts. (Rashi on 32:20 based on the Talmud implies that the drinking per se caused the people to die, which is difficult since presumably more than 3,000 people drank the water, 32:20.)

While the Ibn Ezra's explanation is logical, how did Moshe get everybody to drink the water? Ibn Ezra writes that he commanded the people to drink, but would the people listen to such an order? Could a person be forced to drink water? The answer is from Moshe's' recollection of the sin of the golden calf in Devarim 9:21, where Moshe explained that he poured the water into the stream that flowed from Mount Sinai.

What seems to have happened is that Moshe went to the source of the water on Mount Sinai, and poured the ashes into the stream but the people did not see this. The people then naturally drank from the water as it flowed into the camp, and when they did this, the bodies of those people who were guilty were marked. Thus, Moshe caused or forced the people to drink the ashes, see Bekhor Shor on 32:20. This would be the same idea as in modern times if the government puts fluoride in the main water pumps of an area, and then everybody drinks the fluoride knowingly or unknowingly.

With this approach, we can understand the order of the events when Moshe came down from Mount Sinai. First, Moshe broke the tables, 32:19. Then, Moshe pulverized the golden calf, 32:20, and poured the ashes into the stream, Devarim 9:21. He did this away from the people on the Mount Sinai, and it took some time. He probably finished sometime in the afternoon, and he had hoped that the people would have quieted down after he had broken the tablets. Only after he had destroyed the idol did he confront Aharon as to what happened, 32:21-24. This conversation would have occurred in the late afternoon. At this point, the people were still out of control, 32:25, and when they did not respond to him after he asked the people, "who is with G-d, come to me," 32:26, he gave his order to the Levites to kill the people.

By this time, the late afternoon, there had been some time for some of the people to have drank the water and for the marks on their bodies to develop. It seems that not all the people who had rejected G-d were killed, but rather the 3,000 people killed were enough to restore order in the camp, and Moshe went to pray for the others, 32:30. Or, maybe, these 3,000 people had been particularly egregious sinners either in not listening to Moshe in 32:26 or by the golden calf. Note if the people had responded positively to Moshe's question, "Who is with G-d" in 32:26, then they would not have been killed. Either there would have been no marks from drinking the water, as G-d would not have caused the miracle to occur, or maybe the people would have remained with marks throughout their lives, but they would not have been killed.

Ramban (on Devarim 9:21) asks why does Shemot 32:20 record that Moshe forced the people to drink the ashes, while Devarim 9:21 just records that Moshe put the ashes in the stream. He suggests that in Devarim, Moshe was showing respect for the people since he did not want to recall that he had treated them as a suspected adulteress. Our approach here offers a slightly different answer.

In the description of the sin of the golden calf in Shemot, the Torah had to record that Moshe forced or caused the people to drink the ashes since otherwise one might have thought that Moshe just poured ashes into the water to destroy the idol (see Bekhor Shor and Hizkuni on Shemot 32:20). This language of causation implies that there was a reason for the drinking of the ashes, and this reason was for the Levites to be able to identify the sinners. On the other hand, in Devarim, Moshe did not explicitly refer to the Levites' actions (see Devarim 10:8), and consequently he did not have to state that he forced the people to drink the ashes. Instead, in Devarim, Moshe was explaining how he got the people to drink the ashes, and hence he just said that he put the ashes into the stream. Thus, the two verses, Shemot 32:20 and Devarim 9:21, complement each other.

Finally, if G-d performed a miracle that the ashes enabled the Levites to identify the sinners, why did G-d not simply strike those sinners or have the people die from the ashes without the Levites killing the people? One answer is that this is the usual method of the Torah to minimize miracles. In this case, the judicial system was impossible, so G-d performed a miracle, but just to identify the sinners. A second answer is that the steadfastness of the Levites would later lead the people to accept them as replacements of the firstborn sons, Bemidbar 3:41,45, and Devarim 10:8.

Bibliography:

Arusi, Ratzon, 2002, The trial of those who worshipped the golden calf, A divinely given Torah in our day and age, Vol. II, edited by Aryeh A. Frimer and Shlomo H. Pick, Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, pp. 245-249. 

Kasher, Menachem (1895-1983), 1992 (first volume appeared in 1927), Torah Shelemah: A talmudic-midrashic encyclopedia of the five books of Moses, Jerusalem: Beth Torah Shelemah, the Torah Shelemah Institute.

Devarim 9:9-10:10 (Ekev) – One hundred and twenty days on high?

How many times did Moshe go up on Mount Sinai after the Decalogue and for how long did he go each time? Also, were these ascents consecutive or was there a break between them?

The book of Shemot seems to record that Moshe went up three times to Mount Sinai. Shemot 24:16,18 record that Moshe went up to Mount Sinai for forty days, and then Shemot 32:15 records that Moshe came down with the tablets. Afterwards, Shemot 33:20 (see Rashi on Devarim 9:18) seems to imply that Moshe went up a second time to Mount Sinai, but there is no mention for how long. Afterwards, Shemot 34:4,28 record that Moshe went up a third time for forty days.

The book of Devarim also seems to record that Moshe went up on Mount Sinai three times. Devarim 9:9,11 record that Moshe went up on Mount Sinai to get the first set of tablets. Afterwards, Devarim 9:18, 25 record that Moshe prayed for forty days, but it does not record that Moshe went up on Mount Sinai. Rashi (on 9:25) explains that 9:25 does not refer to a new set of 40 days but refers back to the second set of 40 days. This would be a case of resumptive repetition, where the text repeats itself to resume the narrative. Moshe had been discussing the sin of the golden calf from 9:8-21, but then he digressed to mention other sins of the people beside the golden calf, 9:22-24, so the text repeated itself to return to the incident of the golden calf, 9:25. Afterwards Devarim 10:1 records that Moshe was to go up to Mount Sinai to get the second set of tablets, but there is no mention for how long. This ascent corresponds to the third ascent recorded in Shemot 34:4,28. The final reference to being on Mount Sinai is Devarim 10:10, which records that Moshe was on the mountain for forty days. One might be tempted to understand that the verse is referring to Moshe's ascent to get the second set of tablets since this verse is recorded after 10:1, but 10:10 also records that “that G-d agreed not to destroy the people,” which is in reference to Moshe's prayers in 9:25. This means the verse is referring to the second set of forty days. If this is true, then Devarim 10:10 implies that Moshe went up to Mount Sinai also by the second set of the forty days.

This reading of Shemot 33, 34 and Devarim 9, 10 indicates that Moshe went up to Mount Sinai three times, each time for forty days. Luzzatto (on 9:18) agrees that there were three sets of forty days, but he argues that for the middle forty days, Moshe was not on Mount Sinai since Devarim 9:18,25 do not record that Moshe went up to Mount Sinai. Luzzatto brings a proof from Shemot 33:7, which records that Moshe moved his tent outside the camp, and this means that Moshe was not on Mount Sinai. How does he understand Shemot 32:30? I did not see him comment on the verse. Maybe he understands that as Shemot 32:30 just records the words “go up” but no mention is made of Mount Sinai, then “go up” means to separate from the people, which Moshe did in Shemot 33:7, but not that to ascend the mountain. Luzzatto notes that Devarim 10:10 seems to contradict his approach, but argues that the verse refers to the last set of forty days.

I think the simple reading of Shemot 32:30 is that for the middle forty days, Moshe was on Mount Sinai, and this is also the implication of Devarim 10:10. 10:10 is a continuation of 9:25-29, and is another case of resumptive repetition. Moshe had digressed from the story of the sin of the golden calf to discuss the selection of the Levites, and 10:10 returns to the second set of forty days when Moshe prayed for the people after they had sinned by the golden calf. Accordingly, since 10:10 states that Moshe was on Mount Sinai, then this means that also by the second set of forty days Moshe went up on Mount Sinai. However, as Luzzatto argued Shemot 33:7 and the ensuing conversation, 33:12-23, between G-d and Moshe could not have been on Mount Sinai. Thus, I think there is a need to offer a different chronology.

My guess is that there was a break in between the second and third sets of forty days. After breaking the tablets, at the end of the first set of forty days, Devarim 9:11-17, Moshe went back up to Mount Sinai for a second time, as indicated by Shemot 32:30 and Devarim 10:10, and this ascent was for forty days as indicated by 9:18, 25 and 10:10. After this second set of forty days, Moshe pitched his tent outside the camp and had another conversation with G-d, 33:1-23, but this conversation was not on Mount Sinai. We do not know how long this conversation lasted, a week, a month? At the end of this conversation, Moshe went up to Mount Sinai again, Shemot 34:4 and Devarim 10:1. In Devarim, there is no record of how long this third ascent lasted, but from Shemot 34:28, we know it lasted another 40 days.

With this chronology, Moshe went up to Mount Sinai three times after the Decalogue, each time for forty days, but these ascents were not consecutive. I think this approach gives a consistent reading of the text in Shemot and Devarim. (However, this approach does not accord with the idea mentioned by Rashi on 9:18 that Moshe came down with the second set of tablets on Yom Kippur.)

Shemt 20:3 (Yitro) - The prohibition of idolatry in the Decalogue: Forces and gods

Shemot 20:3 records that G-d said "You are not to have other gods al panai."  The Abravanel (1997, p. 318) understands the verse as an introduction to the following laws, 20:4,5. However, the Rambam's understanding, which I believe today is considered the traditional approach, is that the verse is a separate prohibition from 20:4,5. According to the Rambam (Mishnah Torah, Basic principles of the Torah 1:6), "whoever permits the thought to enter his mind that there is another deity besides G-d, violates the prohibition of 20:3," (translation from Twersky, 1972, p. 44).

What do the last two words of the verse, al panai, mean? N. Leibowitz (1976a, pp. 316-319) reviews three different ways the phrase has been understood. 

One, (see Rashi and Fox 1995, p. 369) the phrase signifies G-d's presence. This would seem to limit the prohibition of believing in other gods to only being in G-d's presence (see Seforno?), and then this would be a partial recognition of the other gods. However, she notes "of course this is not so since He is omnipresent in both time and space." Yet, what then is the point of this phrase? Rashi quoting the Mechilta suggests that one might have thought that the prohibition was only applicable for the generation who left Egypt, but once the phrase al panai is added, which signifies G-d's presence, which is forever, then we know that the prohibition is binding on all generations. This is a difficult drasha since why would one have thought that the prohibition was only for the generation who left Egypt? And, if the point of the phrase is to teach that the prohibition is forever, it would have been simpler to say that directly.

A second approach to understanding the phrase al panai is that the phrase means "besides Me." (N. Leibowitz quotes this in the name of the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, and this understanding appears in the translations by JPS, Sarna, 1991, p. 109 and Alter 2004, p. 428). With this understanding, it is also unclear what is the need for phrase since the verse could have just said "You are not to have other gods" without the phrase "Besides me."

A third approach is from Luzzatto that the phrase al panai refers to G-d being angry, and the phrase is a warning to the people that if they worship other gods then this will make G-d angry. With this understanding, the phrase al panai has a similar message to the end of 20:5.

My guess is that phrase "al panai" means that one is not to believe that other gods are equal to G-d. With this understanding, 20:3 does not prohibit the belief in other gods, as argued by the Rambam (above), but it prohibits one from believing that they are equal to G-d. 

The idea that other gods exist but that they are inferior to G-d occurs repeatedly in the Torah. For instance, Yitro states "now I know that G-d is greater than all the other gods" Shemot 18:11. In the song by the Sea, Shemot 15:11 records that Moshe said (and we recite the verse three times in our daily prayers) "who is like You amongst the gods? (Alter, 2004, p. 400 on Shemot 15:11 writes the Torah "had no difficulty in conceding the existence of other deities, though always stipulating their absolute inferiority to the God of Israel.") Avraham in his conversation with Malki-Tzedek, refers to G-d as the highest god (Bereshit 14:22, and this verse is included in the first blessing of the shemoneh esrei), which signals an acceptance of other gods but G-d is greater than them. The acceptance of the existence of other gods also appears in Shemot 12:12, Shemot 18:11, Shemot 22:19, Bemidbar 33:4, Devarim 3:24, Devarim 10:17 (also recited in the first blessing of the shemoneh esrei), Devarim 13:8, and Devarim 29:25. In Devarim 32:12 the words "there was no god with Him" implies that there are other gods since the verse could have simply said "there are no other gods."  (Is the term Azazel in Vayikra 16:8,10 another example?  Another example in our prayers is by ein ke-elohanu.)

Devarim 4:35 (also Devarim 4:39) records that there is no other besides G-d, which might be interpreted to mean that one cannot conceive of the existence of other gods. However, the explanation of the verse is that there are no other gods like G-d since even if one believes in other gods, one must recognize that they are inferior to G-d. (Even the Rambam, Basic principles of the Torah 1:4, explains the verse that it means that there is no being like G-d, see Twersky, 1972, p. 44.) With this understanding, these verses do not repudiate the existence of other gods, and they accord with all the verses quoted above and our understanding of Shemot 20:3.

Of course, just because the Torah allows one to believe that other gods exist does not mean that they exist, only that one is not prohibited from thinking this way. Also, even if one thinks they exist, still these other gods cannot be worshipped in any way, Shemot 20:4,5; 34:14, and it is forbidden to mention their names, Shemot 23:13, since this might lead one to worshipping them.

Why was the Torah written from the point of view that there are other gods who are inferior to G-d? A possible answer is from the Rambam's (Moreh 3:32) explanation for why the Torah includes sacrifices, that the people of the generation who received the Torah could not conceive of a religion without sacrifices. Similarly, G-d could not have commanded the people not to believe in other gods since in those days the existence of all gods was an accepted fact. This seems to be the idea behind G-d's statement to Moshe by the sin of the golden calf, that the people are stiff or hard necked, Shemot 32:9. Luzzatto (on 32:9) explains that G-d was saying to Moshe that the people were attached to making and worshipping idols, and that the people were too stubborn to change their practice. Instead, the goal was to minimize this belief by demanding that the people accept that G-d was superior to these other gods and by forbidding worship these other gods, a lesson that was not learnt by the sin of the golden calf.

I discussed this idea in my synagogue, and a friend Harold Davies suggested another or complimentary reason. He suggested that it is natural for some people (even in modern times) to believe in forces in the world, and hence G-d did not prohibit these beliefs as long as people do not worship these forces and think they are equal to G-d. This idea relates to the further question what does it mean other gods? G-d is the supreme force who controls the world, and exists for eternity, while these other gods are supernatural forces that people believe in such as demons, angels, and fairies (tooth?).

Possibly then the understanding to all these reference to other gods in the Torah just boils down to semantics. If one calls then gods, as the Torah does, then it is permissible to acknowledge their existence, provided that it is understood that they are inferior to G-d and not worshipped. On the other hand, if people want to label them as "forces," which immediately makes them inferior to G-d, then it is forbidden to acknowledge other gods since with this approach all gods are considered equal. Presumably those people who believe in angels and do not believe in the existence of other gods (following the Rambam's interpretation of the 20:3) follow this second approach.

In conclusion, in the Torah and in our prayers, we clearly refer to the existence of other gods. If this understanding bothers a person, then he/ she can label all the references to other gods as forces. However, the crucial point is that Shemot 20:3 does not prohibit people from believing in other gods or forces if they want to, just that they cannot think that they are equal to G-d, and Shemot 20:4,5 prohibits them from being worshipped.

Bibliography:

Abravanel (1437-1508), 1997, Commentary on Shemot. 1999, Commentary on Devarim, Jerusalem: Horev.

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976a, Studies in Shemot, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Tigay, Jeffrey H., 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Twersky, Isadore, 1972, A Maimonides reader, New York: Behrman House.

The mitzvah of putting a mezuzah on your doorposts

Devarim 6:9 and 11:20 record that one is to write these words on your doorposts and gates. This is the mitzvah of mezuzah, and this mitzvah has had an interesting history.

One question about the mezuzah is what words are to be written down (6:4-11:20?) as the Torah does not specify what these words are. A second question is how were the words to be written down? Tigay (1996, p.79, 443, 444) notes that "the text implies that the words were to be inscribed directly on the doorposts and gate structures." This seems to have been the Samaritan's understanding of the law as to this day by their homes on Mount Gerizim their mezuzot are either inscribed on the wall or on a plaque which is attached to the wall. (I thank Ari Zivotofsky for sending me pictures of these mezuzot.) Derby (1999) further suggests that the phrase "on your gates" means that the words were to be written on a "stela in a plaza within the gates." However, Chazal interpreted 6:9 and 11:20 to mean that the verses 6:4-9 and 11:13-20 are to be written on a parchment and that the parchment is placed in a case which is attached to the doorpost. (The term mezuzah is technically the doorpost, but traditionally it has been understood to refer to the case with the parchment.)

It seems that the point of the mitzvah is for a person to be reminded of the words that were written down when the person passed the door or the gates, see Rambam, Laws of mezuzah, 6:13. This could have occurred if the words were written directly on the doorposts or if the words were hanging on the doorposts since then a person would see the words when he/ she would pass by. However, even if the words are enclosed within a case, a person can still recall the words when he/ she sees the mezuzah.
However, over the years people began to see the mezuzah as a type of amulet to protect the house and the people associated with the house. Some passages in the Talmud (Menachot 33b, Menachot 43b, Avodah Zara 11a, Yerushalmi Peah 1:1) would seem to indicate this idea, but Gordon (1977) disputes this understanding of the passages. He argues that Chazal did not view the mezuzah as having any protective role. One of his proofs is that an arched doorway does not require a mezuzah, but if the mezuzah was to protect the house, then this protection should be needed even if the doorway was arched. Thus, maybe one can say that in Talmudic time, not all of Chazal viewed the mezuzah as a form of protection for the house and people, but for sure many did.

In the period after the Talmud, it seems that almost everybody believed that the mezuzah was to protect the home and its inhabitants. The name of G-d, Shad-dai, was added to the back of the parchment and it was decreed that the mezuzah could only be written on certain propitious times (Trachtenberg, 2004, pp. 147, 148, see also Y. Liechtenstein, 1989, p. 419). More importantly, the names of angels, figures, which were believed to have magical powers, and various verses, were added to the parchment. This occurred both by the Sefardim, as can be seen by mezuzot that were found in the Geniza (see Bohak, 2009-2010) and by Ashkenazim (see Sperber, 2007, pp. 96-124). Perhaps the most famous example is from the Ravyah (Germany 1140-1225, see Y. Liechtenstein, p. 421 or Sperber, p. 123) where the names of angels and figures can be seen within the verses of Devarim 6:7, 6:8, there are figures at the end of various verses and names of angels on the side. Also, at the bottom of the mezuzah there are several verses from Tehillim. All of these additions were to enhance the protective powers of the mezuzah. (One might wonder why there was a need for extra protection but I guess the idea was that these elements could only help more.)

Almost all of these additions came to an end with the Rambam (1135-1204) who seems to have been one of the few people who objected to this practice. He writes (Laws of mezuzah 5:4, translation from Twersky, 1972, pp. 94,95) "It is a universal custom to write Shad-dai (Almighty) on the other side of the mezuzah, opposite the blank space between the two sections. As this word is written on the outside, the practice is unobjectionable. They, however, who write names of angels, holy names, a biblical text, or inscriptions usual on seals within the mezuzah are among those who have no portion in the world to come. For those fools not only fail to fulfill the commandment but they treat an important precept that expresses the Unity of G-d, the love of Him and His worship, as if it were an amulet to promote their own personal interests; for according to their foolish minds, the mezuzah is something that will secure for them advantage in the vanities of the world."

After the Rambam's harsh words, which scribe would want to lose his place in the next world or be called a fool? Hence, this practice of adding names of angels, verses and figures ended, see comments of Haghot Maimonides on Rambam, Laws of mezuzah 5:4. However, the belief that the mezuzah was a form of protection continued. Thus, the Tur (1275-1340, Yoreh De'ah 285) writes at length how the mezuzah gives one long life and protects one's house, though he concludes very briefly that these benefits should not be the reason why a person fulfills the commandment.

One practice that began (continued?) is that the words "G-d, our G-d, G-d" from Devarim 6:4 is written in code (by writing the following letter for each of the real letters) on the outside of the mezuzah, see comments of Haghot Maimonides on Rambam, Laws of mezuzah 5:4. The Tur (end of 288) writes that this was the custom in France and Germany. It seems the Rambam did not know of this custom since he did not mention it, and this practice continued since the words are written on the outside of the parchment just like Shad-dai.

Another new custom was to touch the mezuzah. The Darkei Moshe (R. Moshe Isserles, 16th century, on the Tur 285) quotes that the Maharil (Germany 1365-1427) said that when a person leaves his house to go on a journey he should touch the mezuzah and recite the words "be-shimkha tal atleh" (from a piyyut) since the numeric value of the letters (gematria) of the word "tal" equals the value of the letters of the word G-d that is written in code on the back side of the parchment. The Maharil also said that when a person leaves his house, he should touch the mezuzah and recite the verses from Tehillim 121:4,7, which were two verses on the bottom of the mezuzah of the Ravyah. This practice continues the idea that the mezuzah protects, but now it was not the house or a person within the house who sought protection but one who left the house.

The Darkei Moshe notes that this idea of touching the mezuzah can be found in the Talmud (Avodah Zara 11a), but if this was really the source for this custom it is odd that nobody mentioned touching the mezuzah until the Maharil. More likely, this custom developed in the end of the Middle Ages, either as a popular practice or the Maharil suggested it. With either possibility it is not clear why it suddenly developed, but maybe it was a re-action to the Rambam's ruling against adding the names of angels, figures and verses to mezuzot. The idea being is that if the people could not add names of angels, figures, and verses to the mezuzah, then instead they would recite verses on the mezuzah (the same verses that had been added to the mezuzah) and they touched the mezuzah to connect these verses with the mezuzah.

The Shulchan Arukh does not mention touching or kissing the mezuzah, but Rama in his comments on the Shulchan Arukh (285:2) quotes the Maharil again but with two small changes. One, he does not mention the case of going on a journey. Two, he adds that when one enters a house one touches the mezuzah, but he does not state that a person recites any verses in this case. This addition would be the idea that the mezuzah protects a person when entering the house, but it is not clear why no accompanying verse was recited. It could be that this was the practice that had developed from the time of the Maharil to the Rama. We see that up to the middle of the 16th century, the practice amongst some Ashkenazim was to touch the mezuzah by the opening of the house, but there is no record that anybody kissed the mezuzah.

This touching of the mezuzah would naturally lead one to kiss the mezuzah, and the kissing continues the idea of viewing the mezuzah as an amulet since the kiss would be for good luck. The custom became popular amongst the kabbalists who claim that the Ari instituted the custom of kissing the mezuzah and Hasidim who follow the kabbalists. It also spread to the Mitnagdim, as R. Avraham Danzig (1748-1820, Chayyei Adam 15:1) writes that when a person leaves his house, he should kiss the mezuzah. It is interesting that he does not mention that one should recite any verses when kissing the mezuzah and he only refers to kissing when one leaves the house. (Again was R. Danzig recording the custom of his time or was he writing what was his belief as to what one should do?) I think today the people who kiss mezuzot kiss them by every room and not just when leaving their house.

Would the Rambam have approved of this custom of kissing the mezuzah? The Rambam did not address this question since in his time this custom did not exist, and hence we have to infer what he would have thought. My guess is that his opinion would depend on why a person is kissing the mezuzah. If a person kisses a mezuzah because he thinks it will protect him from danger, as for example if one makes a special effort to kiss the mezuzah before he/ she goes to sleep, then most likely the Rambam would be upset just as he was when people added names of angels, figures and verses to the mezuzah since the person is subverting the law to his own personal benefits. (Thus, I have been told by people not to kiss the mezuzah.) However, if a person kisses the mezuzah to show his love of the law or of the Torah, which seems to be R. Danzig's understanding of the custom, then maybe the Rambam would have approved.

In conclusion, the idea of the law of mezuzah in the Torah seems to have been to encourage people to contemplate the verses contained in the mezuzah, but over time there developed the idea that the mezuzah is to protect people as a type of amulet. The Rambam tried to end this practice but it has continued in the popular belief of people. It is likely that this belief is the reason for why the custom developed since the 17th century to kiss the mezuzah, while others view the kissing of the mezuzah as expression of their devotion to G-d. Hence we have a practice, which some people view as extremely praiseworthy and indicates of high level of religiosity, while others, admittedly a much smaller group, view negatively.

Bibliography:

Bohak, Gideon, 2009-2010, Mezuzot with magical additions in the Cairo genizah, Dine Israel, 26-27, pp. 387-403.

Gordon, Martin, L., 1977, Mezuzah: Protective amulet or religious symbol, Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, 16:4, pp. 7-40.

Lichtenstein, Yechezkal, 1989, The mezuzah as a protection for the house, Techumin, 10, pp. 417-426.

Sperber, Daniel, 2007 (vol. 8), Minhagei Yisrael: Sources and history, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Trachtenberg, Joshua (1904-1959), 2004 (re-print of 1939 edition), Jewish magic and superstition: A study in folk religion, Jerusalem: Sefer ve-Sefed Publishing.

Twersky, Isadore, 1972, A Maimonides Reader, New York: Behrman House.

Bemidbar 20:29 and Devarim 10:6 - Where did Aharon die?

Bemidbar 20:28 records that Aharon died on Mount Hor, and this is also recorded in 33:38,39 and in Devarim 32:50. G-d also stated that Aharon was to die on Mount Hor in G-d’s instructions for Moshe, Aharon and Elazar to go on Mount Hor, 20:24,26. However, Devarim 10:6 records “And the Israelites journeyed onwards from Beeroth-Bene Jaakan to Mosera. There Aharon died, and he was buried there, (Alter, 2004 translation, p. 931). The word “there” refers to the previous location mentioned, Mosera, which means that according to Devarim 10:6, Aharon died in Mosera. Also, only in Devarim 10:6 does the Torah state where Moshe was buried, as in Bemidbar there is no mention of where Aharon was buried. Where did Aharon die and why would he be buried in Mosera if he died on Mount Hor?

Rashi (on Devarim 10:6) based on the Midrash explains that Moshe’s reference to the death of Aharon in Mosera means that the people associated Mosera with Aharon's death, but really, Aharon died on Mount Hor. Rashi explains that when Aharon died on Mount Hor, the clouds of G-d’s glory departed from the people, and hence the people feared the King of Arad, which caused them to march back towards Egypt. The people marched backwards to Mosera, (Moserot in 33:31) and there the tribe of Levi battled with the people to stop their march back towards Egypt. Many people died in this battle at Mosera, which caused a great mourning for Aharon because his death had led to this tragic civil war. Thus, according to this idea, while Aharon really died at Mount Hor, because of the great mourning at Mosera (Moserot), the people associated his death with Mosera.

This explanation is difficult for many reasons. One, there is no mention at all in the Torah of this battle between the people and the tribe of Levi at Mosera. Two, as pointed out by the Malbim (1809-1880, on Bemidbar 20:29), Devarim 10:6 records that Aharon died and was buried in Mosera, which cannot be understood to mean that the people just associated Aharon's death with Mosera.

Hizkuni (on Devarim 10:6) quotes from an unknown Midrash a slight variation of Rashi’s approach. This explanation is that for some time after the people left Mount Hor, they were able to see Aharon’s gravesite. It was only when they reached Mosera that they were unable to see the gravesite, and hence it seemed to the people that Aharon died at Mosera. However, still Devarim 10:6 records that Aharon died at Mosera and not that the people associated his death with Mosera.

A second approach to explain where Aharon died is to argue that the places Mount Hor and Mosera are really the same place. For example, Ibn Ezra (on Devarim 10:6) suggests that Mosera was the name of the desert where Mount Hor was situated. According to this approach, Aharon died both in Mount Hor, the specific place, and in Mosera, the general name of the area. A problem with this explanation is that Bemidbar 33:31 refers to a place called Moserot, which could be the same place as Mosera, but Bemidbar 33 records that the people came to Moserot several stops before they came to Mount Hor, 33:37.  However, one could maintain that Mosera is not the same as Moserot.

Ramban (on Devarim 10:6) follows this approach that Mount Hor and Mosera are not two separate places, as he suggests that Mount Hor was a large mountain, and due to its great size, there were many places that faced the mountain. Bemidbar 20:22 records that the people camped by Mount Hor, which means that they were at the foot of the mountain. Ramban then suggests that Mosera was the place that faced the top of the mountain, and thus it could be said that Aharon died at Mosera. Ramban further suggests that maybe the mountain was also referred to by the names of the places situated near the mountain, so then Mosera would also be a name for Mount Hor.

Hoffmann (1961, on Devarim 10:6) slightly varies Ramban’s answer. He suggests that Mosera was the name of the place where the people camped by the foot of Mount Hor, and Aharon died on the Mount Hor itself. Thus, it could be written that Aharon died on Mount Hor, but also his death and burial could be considered as being at Mosera since that was where the people were camped. Hoffmann then suggests that Bemidbar 20:22 recorded the encampment of the people as being at Mount Hor, even though it really was Mosera, to focus on the death of Aharon, which was on Mount Hor. Yet, if all the names really refer to the same place, then one would have thought that the Torah would have used just one name consistently in all references to Aharon’s death.

A third approach is to understand that the word “there” in Devarim 10:6 is not referring to Mosera. The idea is that the word “there” means at that time, and then 10:6 should be understood that at the time when the people were traveling to Mosera, they happened to be near Mount Hor and Aharon died on Mount Hor. This approach is quoted by Ibn Ezra (on Devarim 10:6) in the name Yitzhak Ibn Geat (?), Da’at Zekenim (13th century), Bekhor Shor (12th century) and Hizkuni (13th century) on all on Devarim 10:6. This approach is difficult since it introduces a break in the sentences, and requires one to add words to the verse.

Malbim (on Bemidbar 20:29) offers two other answers. The first explanation centers on the fact that only Devarim 10:6 records where Aharon was buried, in Mosera.

How could Aharon be buried on Mosera if he died on Mount Hor? Malbim suggests that after Aharon died on Mount Hor, the people went up and saw his body (Bemidbar 20:29) and they intended to eulogize him on the mountain in the presence of his body. However, the Canaanites attacked the people during the time they were doing the eulogy, as Bemidbar 21:1 records this attack immediately after the mention of Aharon dying on Mount Hor. The people then retreated due to this attack, as Bemidbar 21:1 records that the Canaanites were initially successful in their attack. When the people retreated, they took Aharon’s body with them on their retreat from Mount Hor. In their retreat they went to Mosera, and there they buried Aharon. This answer is reasonable, but still Devarim 10:6 records that Aharon also died in Mosera. In this explanation, Malbim explains that Devarim 10:6 only mentions that Aharon died as part of the reference to the burial. However, this is difficult since according to this approach, Devarim 10:6 should have just recorded that Aharon was buried in Mosera, and not mentioned anything about where Aharon died.

Malbim’s second explanation centers on the fact that Bemidbar 20:29 records that the people saw that gavah Aharon. What does the word gavah mean? While in some verses, Bereshit 6:17 and Yehoshua 22:20, it seems to be synonymous with dying, in many more verses, it seems to refer to a stage prior to dying, Bereshit 7:21,22; 25:8,17; 35:29 and 49:33.

Ibn Ezra (on Bereshit 25:28) suggests that gavah signifies dying without suffering, and hence he claims that gavah always refers to dying, but dying does not always refer to gavah.

Malbim also notes that there is a difference between gavah and met, and he suggests that gavah means a loss of crucial life functions, while met refers to the state afterwards where the body degenerates due to the loss of these life functions. Thus, he explains that Bemidbar 20:29 means that the people only saw that Aharon was in a state of gavah but not a met. According to this, Aharon only partially died by Mount Hor, while the full state of being a met occurred when the people were at Mosera. Accordingly, Aharon was buried in Mosera since one does not bury somebody who is in a state of gavah. Note, I did not see how the Malbim explained the use of the word met in Bemidbar 20:26,28.

I used to think that gavah could refer to a condition where a person is alive but something (a famine, a virus, a decree, not including the aging process) is impacting the person that he/ she will die because of this thing, the person understands that the thing will kill him, and a person has no ability to reverse this process. However, after seeing how my mother died (June 27, 2024), that she accepted that she was dying a week before she actually died, left the hospital, and then literally waited in bed to die barely eating or drinking, I would vary my suggestion as to what the word gavah mean. Now, I think that gavah means that a person has accepted his/ her immanent death and stops living, which means to stop eating, drinking and taking medicines that could delay one’s death. I was told that many people sort of “shut down” before they die, as they willingly stop eating and drinking and doing normal human activities prior to the actual death. This would be a state of gavah. Note, that in some situations this could viewed as being a better state than dying instantaneously since it allows a person to “say goodbye to the world.”

This understanding would mean that in Bereshit 6:17, G-d told Noah that the ensuing flood would cause the animals to give up hope of living. Afterwards, when the flood occurred, Bereshit 7:21 records the fulfillment of G-d’s statement in 6:17, and then Bereshit 7:22 records that the animals then died.

This understanding of the term gavah also accords with 17:27,28, when the people were physically fine, but they said that they were giving up on living once they realized that they were destined to die from G-d’s decree after the sin of the spies, see our discussion on 17:27,28, “The people’s state of mind after the rebellion of Korah and the miracle of the blossoming of the staffs: Hopeless in the desert.” Similarly, in 20:3, the people referred back to the statement of people who gave up hope of living in 17:27,28, and in 20:3, the people were saying that they also should have given up hope of living (gavah) and then died earlier, instead of living and going to a new desert to die.

Following this understanding of the word gavah, we can answer the apparent contradiction as to where Aharon died. The verses which state that Aharon died (met) on Mount Hor are referring to when he gave up on living since G-d had told him that it was his time to die, even though he might have been physically healthy. On the other hand, Devarim 10:6 which records that Aharon died at Mosera, is where he stopped breathing, and hence he was buried at Mosera.

Once he had given up hope of living on Mount Hor due to G-d’s decree, then even though he was alive, he could no longer function as the high priest, so his special clothing was transferred to his son Eliezer, 20:28. Also, 20:29 can use the word gavah as the people did not see Aharon when he had died (stopped breathing), rather when he had given up hope of living.

Furthermore, while by G-d’s instruction to Moshe and Aharon, Aharon was “to be gathered to his kin” 20:24,26, the fulfillment of this instruction is not recorded in Bemidbar 20 since he had not died yet. 20:24,26 would then mean that he would be gathered to his kin in the future, and this process started on Mount Hor. Devarim 32:50 implies that Aharon was gathered to his kin on Mount Hor, but it also records that he died on Mount Hor. Thus, just as the giving up of hope of living on Mount Hor was the beginning of the death process, so too the reference to Aharon gathering to his kin on Mount Hor should be understood as the beginning of the gathering process. 

In addition, by the second statement by G-d that Aharon would be “gathered to his kin,” 20:26, this gathering is stated before the statement that Aharon was to die, but usually first one dies and then one is gathered to one’s kin, see Bereshit 25:8,17; 25:29; 49:33(?), and Devarim 32:50. The change in order could signify that in case since Aharon began the dying process on Mount Hor, that is where the process of “being gathered to his kin” began even before he actually died.

It remains a question how did Aharon get from Mount Hor to Mosera? In class, people said that it could not be that he walked down from Mount Hor since 20:28 record that only Moshe and Elazar walked down. Yet, by the Akedah, the Torah only records that Avraham returned and not Yitzhak, Bereshit 20:19. Another possibility is that people went up the mountain to help/ get Aharon after they saw that he did not return with Moshe and Elazar. Maybe Moshe went down first and then Elazar waited until people came up to take Aharon down? Note that 20:28 records Moshe and Elazar descending by using a singular verb, which could imply that they came down separately. A different and not so likely possibility is that Moshe and Elazar carried Aharon down, and since Aharon was not considered dead, he did not generate any tumah. Yet, it would have been physically hard for just two people to carry Aharon down a mountain. Another also not so likely possibility is that other anonymous people went up with Moshe, Aharon and Elazar on Mount Hor (maybe staying in the background), and these unnamed people brought Aharon down. With any of these possibilities, if Aharon’s body was brought down, then it gives a simple explanation to the word seeing in 20:29, that the people literally saw Aharon. (For other explanations of this seeing, see Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni all on 20:29.) 

To summarize, Bemidbar 20:26,28, Bemidbar 33:39 and Devarim 32:50 all record that Aharon died on Mount Hor, which can be understood to mean that Aharon stopped trying to live (eating and drinking) due to G-d’s statement that it was his time to die, as indicated by the use of the word gavah in Bemidbar 20:29. However, Aharon only finally expired at Mosera and there he was buried as recorded in Devarim 10:6. (Note with this idea still one has to maintain that Mosera is not the same place as Moserot.)

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Hoffmann, David (1843-1921), 1961, Commentary on Deuteronomy, translated by Tzvi Har-Shefer, Tel Aviv: Nezach.

Vayikra 2:11 – Devash in the Torah: Bee honey, dates or fruit juices?

Vayikra 2:11 records that “no minhah sacrifice that you offer to G-d shall be made with leaven (hametz), for no se'or or devash may be turned into smoke as an offering by fire to G-d (JPS translation in Levine 1989).” This verse means that the minhah sacrifice, which was a grain sacrifice, could not contain devash. Today the term devash means honey from bees, but is that its meaning in the Torah?

Rashi in his comments on Shemot 13:5 explains that devash means the juice that comes from dates and figs, and in his comments on Vayikra 2:11 he writes that any juice from a fruit is called devash. (Rashi on Eruvin 4b, rov, writes that the word devash in the Torah always means juice from dates.) 

Ibn Ezra (on 2:11) notes that many understand the word devash as juice from dates, and he believes that this definition has support from the book of Ezra. Nahum Sarna (1986, p. 47) notes that the term devash corresponds to the Arabic words dibs, which means syrup from grapes and dates. Devash is also listed as one of the seven species of the land of Israel in Devarim 8:8, and Tigay (1996, p. 94) in his comments on the verse, writes that, "since this verse is a list of agricultural products, devash must refer to the nectar of dates and figs."

A different definition is that devash means dates, see Rashbam on 2:11. Rambam (Laws of Blessings 8:1) writes that dates are considered as being one of the seven species, while devash is not. This means that one recites the blessing meayen shalosh after eating dates, but not after eating honey from bees. We see that the Rambam is following the interpretation that the term devash in the Torah is dates, and then dates are part of the seven species, while honey from bees is not one of the seven species even though today it is called devash, see Mishnah Berurah 208:1. (Encyclopedia Talmudit 7:195 notes that by the time of Chazal the word devash was understood to mean bee honey, see Mishnah Nedarim 6:9.)

There are some interpreters who understand devash to also refer to bee honey. Hoffmann (1953, comments on 2:11) notes that Philo thought that the word devash in Devarim 8:8 means bee honey, but he thinks that devash must be dates since dates were such an important fruit in Israel that they had to be included in the verse. Rabinowitz (1977, p. 137, see also Levine, 1989, p. 12) writes, "that while in the biblical period, devash was essentially the juice extracted from fruit (not necessarily from dates), it was primarily the juice of dates, although bee honey is also included." His reason for including honey from bees is from the story of Shimshon's riddle, Shoftim 14:8, and not from the Torah.

The Rambam (Mishnah Torah, Laws of prohibitions of the altar, 5:1) records that the prohibition of 2:11 is when the devash is added to any sacrifice or when the devash itself is offered as a sacrifice. The Mishnah Le-Melekh (Judah ben Samuel Rosanes, 1657-1727, Turkey) in his commentary on the Rambam notes that the Rambam did not define the term devash. (Was he relying on his ruling in Laws of blessing 8:1?) The Mishnah Le-Melekh quotes the Raah (?), that devash has to be juice from fruits and not bee honey since the following verse 2:12 seems to refer to devash as an offering of first fruits (which is not placed on the altar) and honey from bees cannot be considered a first fruit.

In addition to recording the prohibition of placing devash on the altar, 2:11 also records the prohibition of putting se’or on the altar, and states that the minhah sacrifice cannot become hametz. This conjunction implies that se’or and devash are forbidden since they could cause the grain of the sacrifice to become hametz, see Ibn Ezra on 2:11. This would means that devash ferments, just like se’or, but the Talmud (Pesachim 35b, see also Shulchan Arukh Orah Chayyim 462:1, though see Rashi on Pesachim 36a) states that fruit juices do not ferment. However, the Shulchan Arukh 462:2 writes that fruit juices with water speeds up the fermentation process. The Torah does not refer to any water being offered as part of the minhah sacrifice, but maybe the prohibition is that nothing is to be added to the minhah that might possibly enhance the fermentation process.

This question how to define devash also relates to our understanding of the phrase “a land flowing with halav (milk) and devash,” Shemot 3:8. Does the phrase mean milk and bee honey, milk and dates, milk and the juice of dates or milk and the juice of all fruits?

Bibliography:

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Levine, Baruch A., 1989, Leviticus: The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society

Rabinowitz, Louis Isaac, 1977, Torah and Flora, New York: Sanhedrin Press.

Sarna, Nahum, (1923-2005), 1986, Exploring Exodus, New York: Schocken Books.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society