כי תשא

Two Stories of Faltering Hands – Amalek and the Golden Calf

The Torah readings of this week bring together two different episodes involving Moshe on top of a mountain. Parashat Ki Tissa relates Moshe’s presence on top of Mt Sinai as the people sin with the golden calf down below. On Purim we read about Moshe’s ascent of the mountain whilst Yehoshua leads the battle against Amalek. 

The outcome in both cases is of course very different. Yehoshua successfully defeats Amalek whereas the episode of the golden calf represents a colossal failure. Yet a close comparison of the two episodes demonstrates that the contrasts run far deeper.

1) In the battle of Amalek, Aaron and Chur ascend with Moshe whereas Yehoshua fights down below. When it comes to Mt Sinai, Yehoshua escorts Moshe to the mountain whilst Aaron and Chur stay in the camp (but fail to prevent the sin):

וְאֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים אָמַר שְׁבוּ־לָנוּ בָזֶה עַד אֲשֶׁר־נָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם וְהִנֵּה אַהֲרֹן וְחוּר עִמָּכֶם מִי־בַעַל דְּבָרִים יִגַּשׁ אֲלֵהֶם׃ (שמות כ״ד:י״ד)[1] 

2) The theme of Moshe’s hands is central to both passages. In the battle with Amalek, though Moshe struggles to maintain his posture, Aaron and Chur succeed in holding his hands aloft. However, when Moshe sees the golden calf whilst standing alongside Yehoshua, his hands falter and he smashes the tablets. If we accept the view of the Rashbam that Moshe’s actions were not intentional, rather his hands weakened upon seeing the golden calf, the contrast is even starker. (Yehoshua’s helplessness here must also be considered alongside his complete misreading of the situation, a point we will shortly return to.)         

3) The description of the two tablets recalls the positioning of Aaron and Chur on either side of Moshe:

וַיִּפֶן וַיֵּרֶד מֹשֶׁה מִן־הָהָר וּשְׁנֵי לֻחֹת הָעֵדֻת בְּיָדוֹ לֻחֹת כְּתֻבִים מִשְּׁנֵי עֶבְרֵיהֶם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה הֵם כְּתֻבִים׃ (שמות

ל״ב:ט״ו)

וִידֵי מֹשֶׁה כְּבֵדִים וַיִּקְחוּ־אֶבֶן וַיָּשִׂימוּ תַחְתָּיו וַיֵּשֶׁב עָלֶיהָ וְאַהֲרֹן וְחוּר תָּמְכוּ בְיָדָיו מִזֶּה אֶחָד וּמִזֶּה אֶחָד וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה עַד־בֹּא הַשָּׁמֶשׁ׃ (שמות י״ז:י״ב)

4) In the battle with Amalek, God instructs Moshe to inscribe in a book the requirement to ‘erase’ the memory of Amalek. In complete inverse, at Mt Sinai Moshe asks that he be ‘erased’ from God’s book. 

וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה כְּתֹב זֹאת זִכָּרוֹן בַּסֵּפֶר וְשִׂים בְּאׇזְנֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ כִּי־מָחֹה אֶמְחֶה אֶת־זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם׃ (שמות י״ז:י״ד)

וְעַתָּה אִם־תִּשָּׂא חַטָּאתָם וְאִם־אַיִן מְחֵנִי נָא מִסִּפְרְךָ אֲשֶׁר כָּתָבְתָּ׃ (שמות ל״ב:ל״ב)

5) A number of other commonalities, which may seem insignificant on their own, further sharpen the contrast when combined with the above: 

וַיִּקְחוּ־אֶבֶן וַיָּשִׂימוּ תַחְתָּיו (שמות י״ז:י״ב)

פְּסׇל־לְךָ שְׁנֵי־לֻחֹת אֲבָנִים (שמות ל״ד:א׳)

מָחָר אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל־רֹאשׁ הַגִּבְעָה (שמות י״ז:ט׳)

וֶהְיֵה נָכוֹן לַבֹּקֶר וְעָלִיתָ בַבֹּקֶר אֶל־הַר סִינַי וְנִצַּבְתָּ לִי שָׁם עַל־רֹאשׁ הָהָר׃ (שמות ל״ד:א׳)

וַיְהִי יָדָיו אֱמוּנָה (שמות י״ז:י״ב)

וְגַם־בְּךָ יַאֲמִינוּ לְעוֹלָם (שמות י״ט:ט׳)

The view of Yehoshua – rinse and repeat

It is not just the reader that hears echoes of the battle of Amalek. This is exactly what is going through Yehoshua’s mind when he declares to Moshe that he hears the sounds of battle:

וַיִּשְׁמַע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־קוֹל הָעָם בְּרֵעֹה וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־מֹשֶׁה קוֹל מִלְחָמָה בַּמַּחֲנֶה׃ (שמות ל״ב:י״ז)

Yehoshua seems to think it is a repeat of the last time. He confidently informs Moshe that there is a battle in the camp suggesting that all Moshe needs to do is raise his hands and they will be victorious. 

Moshe immediately corrects him that this is not the case and he has completely misread the events:   

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת גְּבוּרָה וְאֵין קוֹל עֲנוֹת חֲלוּשָׁה קוֹל עַנּוֹת אָנֹכִי שֹׁמֵעַ׃ (שמות ל״ב:י״ז)

The allusion here to the previous battle of Amalek is unmistakable and is picked up in various Midrashim:[2]

וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר יָרִים מֹשֶׁה יָדוֹ וְגָבַר יִשְׂרָאֵל… וַיַּחֲלֹשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת־עֲמָלֵק וְאֶת־עַמּוֹ לְפִי־חָרֶב׃ (שמות י״ז:י״א-י״ג)

Moshe reproaches Yehoshua for not correctly discerning the voices, a critical function for the future leader of the nation. 

This leads us to what is perhaps the most significant difference of all. In the battle with Amalek, the position of Moshe’s hands determines the fate of the battle below. At Mt Sinai, the fate of Moshe’s hands (and by extension the covenant represented by the Luchot) is determined by the actions of the people. 

This is the key point Yehoshua misses. Whilst he has set up base at the foot of the mountain focussing on what is happening at the top of the mountain, the real story is happening in the main camp. If Yehoshua had stayed or returned to the camp, similar to the battle against Amalek, perhaps they would have been in with a fighting chance.[3] Aaron and Chur on their own clearly could not contain them. As future leader, Yehoshua’s will need to lead from within the camp with his finger constantly on the pulse, and not from the ivory tower of Mt Sinai.

Though it is apparent that Yehosua’s appointment as Moshe’s successor is due to his attachment to his master, he must come to realise that his leadership role will be very different. A similar criticism is conveyed in the next story in which Yehoshua appears. When Eldad and Meidad are prophesying from within the camp, Yehoshua leaps up in protest:

וַיָּרׇץ הַנַּעַר וַיַּגֵּד לְמֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמַר אֶלְדָּד וּמֵידָד מִתְנַבְּאִים בַּמַּחֲנֶה׃ וַיַּעַן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן־נוּן מְשָׁרֵת מֹשֶׁה מִבְּחֻרָיו וַיֹּאמַר אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶׁה כְּלָאֵם׃ (במדבר י״א:כ״ט)

Yehoshua seems to believe that prophecy does not belong inside the camp, only outside the camp among the chosen few (in this case the 70 elders). As before, Moshe corrects him that this is not the case:[4]

וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מֹשֶׁה הַמְקַנֵּא אַתָּה לִי וּמִי יִתֵּן כׇּל־עַם ה׳ נְבִיאִים כִּי־יִתֵּן ה׳ אֶת־רוּחוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם׃ (במדבר י״א:כ״ט)

The goal is not that holiness and prophesy remains confined to the top of the mountain, or the Mishkan for that matter. Holiness is meant to diffuse through the entire camp and enable prophecy to emerge from within. For this reason, Yehoshua’s place is in the camp and not on the top of the mountain like Moshe. 

The appointment of Yehoshua

This shift in leadership responsibility from Moshe to Yehosua is discernible in the passage in which Yehoshua is appointed. When Moshe requests that God appoint a leader, he describes the role as that of a shepherd who comes and goes in front of the people.

אֲשֶׁר־יֵצֵא לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא לִפְנֵיהֶם וַאֲשֶׁר יוֹצִיאֵם וַאֲשֶׁר יְבִיאֵם וְלֹא תִהְיֶה עֲדַת ה׳ כַּצֹּאן אֲשֶׁר אֵין־לָהֶם רֹעֶה׃ (במדבר כ״ז:י״ז)

When God responds, however, the emphasis changes subtly:

וְלִפְנֵי אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן יַעֲמֹד וְשָׁאַל לוֹ בְּמִשְׁפַּט הָאוּרִים לִפְנֵי ה׳ עַל־פִּיו יֵצְאוּ וְעַל־פִּיו יָבֹאוּ הוּא וְכׇל־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אִתּוֹ וְכׇל־הָעֵדָה׃ (במדבר כ״ז:כ״א)

According to the revised version, the people will not follow behind Yehoshua but move alongside him. The new leader will not be set apart from the people, but stand with them shoulder to shoulder in front of God.   

[1] The separation of Moshe and Yehoshua from everyone else is further highlighted when we take account of the parallel to the Akeidah where Avraham and Yitzchak part ways with their attendants to continue their ascent of Mt Moriah in private:

וְאֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים אָמַר שְׁבוּ־לָנוּ בָזֶה עַד אֲשֶׁר־נָשׁוּב אֲלֵיכֶם (שמות כ״ד:י״ד)וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָהָם אֶל־נְעָרָיו שְׁבוּ־לָכֶם פֹּה עִם־הַחֲמוֹר וַאֲנִי וְהַנַּעַר נֵלְכָה עַד־כֹּה וְנִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה וְנָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם׃ (בראשית כ״ב:ה׳)

[2] Not just the echoes of the battle of Amalek, but also the underlying criticism of Yehoshua and the question around his leadership ability is addressed the Midrash:

אמר רבי אחוה בריה דרבי זירא שני דברים דבר יהושע בפני משה ולא נגמל חן בעיניו, ואלו הן, אחד במנוי הזקנים, ואחד במעשה העגל. במנוי הזקנים, דכתיב (במדבר יא, כח): אדני משה כלאם, אמר לו כלם והעבירם מן העולם (במדבר יא, כח): ויאמר לו משה המקנא אתה לי, אמר לו יהושע בך אני מתקנא, הלואי בני כיוצא בך, הלואי כל ישראל כיוצא בך (במדבר יא, כח): ומי יתן כל עם ה' נביאים וגו'. ואחד בעגל, שנאמר (שמות לב, יז): וישמע יהושע את קול העם ברעה, אמר לו משה, יהושע, אדם שעתיד להנהיג שררה על ששים רבוא אינו יודע להבחין בין קול לקול. אין קול ענות גבורה, האיך מה דאת אמר (שמות יז, יא): וגבר ישראל. ואין קול ענות חלושה, האיך מה דאת אמר: ויחלש יהושע. (קוהלת רבה, ט׳:י״א)

[3] It is notable that in the battle with Amalek, God commanded Yehoshua to fight the battle with the people. In the other passages Yehoshua acts of his own volition (he was in fact never even instructed to accompany Moshe up to Mt Sinai).

[4] The connection between these two episodes Yehoshua is noted in the previously cited Midrash:

שני דברים אמר יהושע לפני משה ושניהם לא יישרו בעיניו. זה הראשון. והאחר אדוני משה כלאם.

     

  

  

 

      

שבועות

The Mass Ascent of Mt Sinai

During the preparations for Matan Torah, the people are cautioned not to ascend the mountain. Alongside the ominous warnings, Moshe is informed that at a certain stage they may (or should) ascend:

לֹא־תִגַּע בּוֹ יָד כִּי־סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל אוֹ־יָרֹה יִיָּרֶה אִם־בְּהֵמָה אִם־אִישׁ לֹא יִחְיֶה בִּמְשֹׁךְ הַיֹּבֵל הֵמָּה יַעֲלוּ בָהָר (שמות י"ג:יט)

Rashi interprets this to mean that a Shofar (Yovel) sound will declare the departure of the divine presence, hence enabling them to ascend:

כְּשֶׁיִּמְשֹׁךְ הַיּוֹבֵל קוֹל אָרֹךְ, הוּא סִימָן סִלּוּק שְׁכִינָה וְהַפְסָקַת הַקּוֹל, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁאֶסְתַּלֵּק, הֵם רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲלוֹת

But this interpretation encounters a number of difficulties. The first problem is that we do not read of such a Shofar as the events unfold. If the plan dictates that a Shofar sound announces the departure of the divine presence, we may expect a reference to appear within the recorded events.[1]

We do of course hear of a prominent Shofar during the events of Matan Torah, but it is the exact opposite of the one Rashi tells us about. The Shofar we read about heralds the arrival of the divine presence and not its departure:

וְקֹל שֹׁפָר חָזָק מְאֹד וַיֶּחֱרַד כָּל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר בַּמַּחֲנֶה... וַיְהִי קוֹל הַשּׁוֹפָר הוֹלֵךְ וְחָזֵק מְאֹד מֹשֶׁה יְדַבֵּר וְהָאֱלֹוקים יַעֲנֶנּוּ בְקוֹל (ט"ז:יט)

 The function of the Shofar as signaling the climax of the revelation of the divine presence (rather than the end) is consistent with other references to the Shofar: 

עָלָה אֱלֹהִים בִּתְרוּעָה ה' בְּקוֹל שׁוֹפָר (תהילים מ"ז:ו)

וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִתָּקַע בְּשׁוֹפָר גָּדוֹל וּבָאוּ הָאֹבְדִים בְּאֶרֶץ אַשּׁוּר וְהַנִּדָּחִים בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם וְהִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַה' בְּהַר הַקֹּדֶשׁ בִּירוּשָׁלִָם (ישעיהו כ"ז:יג)

Presumably due to this problem, Rashbam understands that the Shofar referred to in our verse is, in fact, identical with the Shofar we subsequently read about. According to the Rashbam, the word bimshoch in this context refers to the cessation of the sound. The meaning is that when the Shofar sound subsides, the revelation has concluded and therefore it is permissible to ascend.

This interpretation, however, is contradicted by a parallel verse in Sefer Yehoshua which clearly demonstrates that these words, taken together, refer to the actual sounding of the Shofar and not its cessation:

וְהָיָה בִּמְשֹׁךְ בְּקֶרֶן הַיּוֹבֵל בשמעכם [כְּשָׁמְעֲכֶם] אֶת־קוֹל הַשּׁוֹפָר יָרִיעוּ כָל־הָעָם תְּרוּעָה גְדוֹלָה וְנָפְלָה חוֹמַת הָעִיר תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְעָלוּ הָעָם אִישׁ נֶגְדּוֹ׃ (יהושע ו':ה)

When the Israelites surrounded the city of Yericho, they were instructed to charge towards the city at the sound of the Shofar. There are a number wider parallels between the capture of Yericho and Matan Torah beyond this specific phrase which we will return shortly.  For our immediate purposes, the context makes it clear that the phrase – bimshoch ha-yovel - refers to the sound of the Shofar (either its commencement or its elongation) as Rashi suggested, and not its termination per Rashbam. The phrase is basically identical to the phrase in our verse making it untenable to interpret them differently.

This leads us to a more profound problem affecting either interpretation. The idea of ascending Mt. Sinai once the divine presence has already departed, seems to lack significance. It seems strange to inform the people that they are permitted to ascend once there is nothing to see and the party is all over. More importantly, ascending a mountain in Tanakh has the connotation of a purposeful spiritual ascent, as in the verse:

מִי־יַעֲלֶה בְהַר־ה' וּמִי־יָקוּם בִּמְקוֹם קָדְשׁוֹ (תהילים כ"ד:ג)

The critical point is that our verse seems to contain an invitation for the people to participate in the spiritual union at the summit, and not just for a leisurely hike when all is over. The sense is that there will come a later stage, heralded by the Shofar, when everyone is called upon, to 'ascend the mountain' to personally encounter the divine presence.

Ascending at peak time

As mentioned above, Matan Torah shares a number of wider parallels with the conquest of Yericho, in addition to the role of the Shofar already discussed. Both events are prefaced with a personal revelation involving an angel whereby the leader (Moshe/Yehoshua) is instructed to remove his shoes. Both events are associated with counts of seven (post-facto in the case of Matan Torah in the form of sefirat ha-omer). Both prominently feature a separation barrier, a leading position for the priests, and the centrality of the ark/tablets. The miraculous nature of the conquest may also be seen as a function of divine revelation comparable in concept to Sinai.

Based on these parallels, Jonathan Grossman argues that we are to understand the plan at Mt. Sinai at face value.[2] When the Shofar would sound as indeed it did - during the revelation itself, not once it had concluded - the people were meant to ascend and join Moshe at the summit. This would model what happened at Yericho whereby the Shofar sounded at the climax, the walls collapsed, and the people ascended (ve-alu ish ke-negdo).

Why did this not happen in practice? The Torah itself provides the reason - because the people were too fearful:

וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֶל־מֹשֶׁה דַּבֵּר־אַתָּה עִמָּנוּ וְנִשְׁמָעָה וְאַל־יְדַבֵּר עִמָּנוּ אֱלֹקים פֶּן־נָמוּת׃ (שמות כ':טז)

This emerges even more explicitly from the review of the events in Sefer Devarim:

אָנֹכִי עֹמֵד בֵּין־ה' וּבֵינֵיכֶם בָּעֵת הַהִוא לְהַגִּיד לָכֶם אֶת־דְּבַר ה' כִּי יְרֵאתֶם מִפְּנֵי הָאֵשׁ וְלֹא־עֲלִיתֶם בָּהָר לֵאמֹר׃ (דברים ה':ה)

According to this verse the sole reason they did not ascend was that they were overawed by the divine presence manifest through the fire.

As enticing and simple as this proposal sounds, there seems to be good reason that it was not proposed by the classical commentators. Firstly, there is a technical issue that the prohibition against ascending is referred to again after the Shofar sounds (see v. 21-24). The straightforward reading suggests the same restriction remained in place even after the Shofar.

Furthermore, if there was really a dramatic point at which they were supposed to ascend, one would expect this to be far better defined. The five-word instruction seems far too concise and vague to counter the forcefulness of the restriction. Too many questions remain open, some more difficult than others. How were they supposed to physically overcome the barrier? Were they all simply meant to rush to the top? How could the summit of the mountain contain them all? What were they supposed to actually do once they reached the top?

In the case of Yericho the plan is clearly set out – the walls are to come crashing down enabling them to enter and fight. But at Mt Sinai, according to this reading, all is left to the imagination.[3] The idea of a mass of people chaotically rushing up a mountain, lacks the order and structure we are familiar with when it comes to divine service (at least as far as concerns the Torah).[4]

Transposing Mt. Sinai into the Land of Israel

Understanding the deeper meaning of the verse perhaps requires an abstraction of the mountain reference. As mentioned before, 'ascending the mountain' in biblical language correlates with spiritual ascent more generally, which loosens its attachment to the specific reality in front of us. For example, in the verse referred to earlier (mi ya'aleh vehar hashem), it is unclear that 'ascending the mountain' refers to a geographical movement altogether. I do not mean to allegorise the ascent altogether but to locate it elsewhere.

Within the Torah, there is only one other prominent reference to a mass ascent of a mountain and that is the entry to the Land of Israel. When Moshe instructs the spies, he tells them to 'ascend the mountain':[5]

וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם עֲלוּ זֶה בַּנֶּגֶב וַעֲלִיתֶם אֶת־הָהָר (במדבר י"ג:יז)

The identity of the mountain in the verse is unclear and the reference seems somewhat odd as the approach from the south is not known as a mountainous region. Rashi, for example, simply assumes there was some mountain on route. Yet it seems the Torah deliberately wishes to describe the entry into the land in terms of ascending a mountain. When God instructs them to turn around to commence the 40 years of wondering in the wilderness, some of the people refuse and insist on 'ascending the mountain':

וַיַּעְפִּלוּ לַעֲלוֹת אֶל־רֹאשׁ הָהָר (במדבר י"ד:מד)

The determination of the group to ascend the mountain without God's consent may be seen as a continuation of the tension at Mt. Sinai, where God had to repeatedly warn against a forced ascent.[6]

The dialogue between Mt. Sinai and the Land of Israel is further supported by the description of the approach to the land in the historical review in Sefer Devarim:

ה' אֱלֹקינוּ דִּבֶּר אֵלֵינוּ בְּחֹרֵב לֵאמֹר רַב־לָכֶם שֶׁבֶת בָּהָר הַזֶּה: פְּנוּ וּסְעוּ לָכֶם וּבֹאוּ הַר הָאֱמֹרִי... (דברים א':ו)

The choice of words here is dramatic. God demands that they stop lingering at 'this mountain' – Mt. Sinai – in favour of a different mountain which is none other than the Land of Israel.[7] In light of this relationship between the two 'mountains', we might suggest that the mass ascent referenced at Mt. Sinai is realised in the entry into the land.

To support this approach, however, we need to locate the Yovel/Shofar associated with this event. Here we may return to the presentation of the conquest of Yericho which was the entry point to the land. As already mentioned, the episode contains numerous parallels to the Sinai experience, but most significant for our purposes is the call to ascend following the blast of the Shofar with the exact same expression used at Mt Sinai.   

If correct, the symbolic significance is that the Land of Israel represents an expansion of Mt. Sinai on the spiritual plane. The Torah's laws guide the people living throughout the length and breadth of land, on a private-individual as well as a national level. Thus, the Torah received on top of Mt Sinai infuses holiness to the entire nation and land.[8]

Yovel of Sinai and the Yovel laws

Perhaps the most significant corroboration within the Torah, of the nexus between the ascent of Mt. Sinai and ascent to the land, is the law of Yovel. Aside from the Yovel laws and the Yovel at Sinai, there is no other reference to 'Yovel' in the Torah.

The location of the Yovel laws is highly significant. The beginning of Parashat Behar notably geolocates us at the summit of Mt. Sinai. As we now approach the conclusion of the covenant with the blessing and curses, we may indeed expect to hear the Yovel (=Shofar) to enable their ascent of the mountain.

Instead, we are presented with the Shofar announcing the advent of the Yovel year. [9] The Yovel year comprises of two central tenets - emancipation of Jewish slaves and the return of the land to its original owners in accordance with the initial allocations. These laws are themselves premised on God's ownership of the Land of Israel and his acquisition of the Israelites as the Chosen People.

כִּי־לִי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים עֲבָדַי הֵם אֲשֶׁר־הוֹצֵאתִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי ה' אֱלֹקיכֶם (ויקרא כ"ה:נה)

וְהָאָרֶץ לֹא תִמָּכֵר לִצְמִתֻת כִּי־לִי הָאָרֶץ כִּי־גֵרִים וְתוֹשָׁבִים אַתֶּם עִמָּדִי (ויקרא כ"ה:כג)

Both of these points were strongly emphasised in the prelude to the Sinai covenant:[10]

וְעַתָּה אִם־שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־בְּרִיתִי וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכׇּל־הָעַמִּים כִּי־לִי כׇּל־הָאָרֶץ׃ (שמות י"ט:ה)

It follows therefore, that the Yovel law, which recalls and renews the experience of the entry to the land and sanctity of the people, stands in for the Yovel of Sinai. The purpose of this transposition is to highlight that the Mt. Sinai covenant sets the blueprint for a holy existence in the land which embraces the entire nation. If all goes to plan, the divine presence which only Moshe was privy to encounter directly at the summit of Sinai, diffuses across the entire land and people. In other words, the settlement of the land on the basis of the Torah's value system, constitutes the fulfilment of the ascent of the mountain as instructed at Sinai.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Another potential issue emerges from the Talmud (TB Beitzah 5a) which considers the clause redundant on the assumption that it was self-evident that the restriction was contingent on the divine presence residing on the mountain.

One might counter that the temporary nature of the prohibition was indeed obvious; the function of the Shofar was primarily to signify the departure of the divine presence to determine the precise point of reversion. Perhaps this is implied in Rashi, but it should be noted that the Talmud takes a different direction and derives from here the law: כל דבר שבמניין צריך מניין אחר להתירו.

[2] See here

[3] One might suggest that God knew that no one would dare ascend in the midst of the revelation. The concern was that people would approach before the fireworks kicked-off and then it would be too late to retreat. The purpose of such a hypothetical instruction would be to convey the message that God invites everyone to approach, whereas distance is a result of human limitation. In any event, this doesn't address the technical issue.

[4] Chaotic crowds on a mountain trying to get close to a fire may conjure up images of Mt. Meron on Lag BaOmer. Depending on one's viewpoint that may or may not inspire.

[5] The Akeidah also refers to an ascent of a mountain (albeit not a mass ascent) and there are indeed many correspondences between the Akeidah and Matan Torah.

[6] The question of whether or not to 'ascend the mountain' seems to be a recurring theme in Jewish history. Some of the debates around religious Zionism centred on the Talmud's alleged injunction against ascending en masse to the land (TB Ketubot 111a) שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה. Incidentally, I wonder whether the use of word chomah is intended to recall the chomah of Yericho which they were prohibited from approaching until the 'appointed time' on the seventh day. (The controversies around ascending to Har HaBayit may also be added to the list.)  

[7] Another place we find such a phrase is with Korach who challenged the privileged position of Moshe under a cynical claim of equality. Korach argued that the entire congregation is holy (as God indeed declared at Mt. Sinai) and therefore challenged the uniqueness of Moshe and the Kohanim. In the terms of this article, in Korach's view everyone has a right to 'ascend the mountain' and this should not have been the exclusive remit of Moshe and the Kohanim.

[8] The expansion of holiness as described resonates with the structural form of Sefer Vayikra (an example of the principle of form follows function), discussed here.

[9] Ibn Ezra (Lev. 25:10) assumes this is the original meaning of Yovel (cf. Ramban). For more on the etymology of the word Yovel see here.

[10] Another connection between Yovel and Shavu'ot is that both are preceded by a 7x7 counting period. Interestingly, there are also a number of similarities between the presentation of Yom Kippur (on which the shofar of the Yovel was sounded) and Shavu'ot in Parashat Emor (e.g the phrase etzem ha-yom ha-zeh appears in both). 

פסח

Breaking the bones of the Korban Pesach: Enigma and possible solution

Whilst there was no 'Korban' Pesach in the formal sense in Egypt, many of the involved details can be explained as modelled on the world of Korbanot:[1]

1. The specific requirement regarding the nature of the animal. It had to be a one-year old unblemished sheep (12:5).[2] These requirements are otherwise found only in relation to sacrifices (see Vayikra 22:20).

2. The requirement that the animal be ‘roasted with its head on its entrails and legs’ (12:9) parallels the preparation of the Korban Chatat (see Vayikra 4:11).

3. The injunction against leftovers and the requirement to burn any leftovers (see 12:10) corresponds to similar rules concerning the Korbanot.

4. The absence of Chametz recalls the prohibition of bringing Chametz into contact with the Mizbe’ach.

5. The positive requirement to eat matzah together with the Pesach, corresponds to the consumption of Matzah alongside many of the Korbanot.

6. The smearing of the blood on the lintel and doorpost recalls the sprinkling of the blood on the Mizbe’ach.

As discussed previously, the obvious missing component is the Mizbe’ach. Yet this is precisely the point. Replacing the formal Mizbe’ach, is the home itself. The symbolic implication is that each family unit is transformed into an object of sacrifice as an expression of dedication. This also explains why there was such a strong injunction against leaving the home that night (see 12:46). On a superficial level it relates to a physical danger lurking on the outside, but the deeper point is the story on the inside, which is the transformation of the home to a Mizbe’ach, and the people to a nation. Like the Korbanot which need to stay on the Mizbe’ach whilst they are burnt, so too everyone is required to stay within the confines of the metaphorical Mizbe’ach of the home. Outside lies the culture of Egypt, whilst on the inside, exists a sanctified space dedicated towards a very different ideal. Each Jew is called to decide which side they are on.

This explains the role of house as a central point of focus in relation to the laws of the Korban Pesach as well as the wider holiday. Throughout the holiday one’s home must be cleansed of Chametz the same way that a Mizbe’ach may not receive any Chametz. The home-Mizbe’ach paradigm is thereby an integral component of the annual celebration (Pesach Dorot) much as it was for the original event (Pesach Mitzrayim).

Breaking the bones: an anomalous injunction 

A particular law concerning the ‘Korban’ Pesach which cannot be explained by way of the Korban analogy, is a law prohibiting the breaking of the bones of the Pesach:

בְּבַיִת אֶחָד יֵאָכֵל לֹא־תוֹצִיא מִן־הַבַּיִת מִן־הַבָּשָׂר חוּצָה וְעֶצֶם לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ־בוֹ׃ (יב:מו)

Not only does this law not seem to share a parallel to the world of Korbanot, but interpreting its significance is altogether challenging. 

Rashbam and others linked the requirement to the atmosphere of haste (Chipazon) which must accompany the Korban Pesach. Someone who eats in haste does not have the leisure of breaking bones to extract the marrow. It seems far-fetched, however, to assume that the injunction against breaking the bones is merely a safeguard against eating the marrow (not mentioned anywhere in the text), which itself is only significant in its apparent defiance of the Chipazon principle.[1] Moreover, the law against breaking the bones appears in an entirely separate passage to the wider laws of Korban Pesach containing the Chipazon principle, a point we will return too shortly. It is worth noting that Tosfot (TB Pesachim 70a) states that the reason one must eat the Korban Pesach in satiation - ‘al hasovah’- and not whilst hungry, is so that one doesn’t rush and break the bones in the process. The exact opposite direction to the Rashbam.

Sefer HaChinukh (#16) suggests that breaking the bones to suck out the marrow is the way a poor man would act and not reflective of the manner of a wealthy free person. This too is speculative since, as already mentioned, the verse does not refer to the marrow. The straightforward meaning is that the injunction against breaking the bones is an end to itself. Furthermore, there is no hint in the text that the Korban Pesach must be eaten in a way which specifically reflects a position of wealth and leisure. On the contrary, such a requirement would seem inconsistent with the very notion of Chipazon.[4]   

Another suggestion found in the medieval commentaries is that leaving the bones intact would ensure that the lamb is still recognisable after it was consumed, leaving no one in doubt regarding the humiliation of the Egyptian god.[5] This too seems forced. If this were truly the concern there should have been a general injunction against discarding the bones altogether, or even a requirement to publicly display them. Furthermore, the ritual as an act of degradation does not sit well with the world of sacrifice which assumes an affinity with the object of sacrifice. Finally, the suggested reason is temporal, located within very tight circumstances, and would have little relevance within the annual commemoration. This is particularly problematic as the law is mentioned specifically in the context of Pesach Dorot and not Pesach Mitzrayim. 

Korban Pesach and the sale of Yosef

To work towards an answer we will first explore some intriguing, but well established, connections between the Korban Pesach and the sale of Yosef.

The sale of Yosef was a traumatic event which tore the family apart and sent Yosef into exile. As we have discussed in a previous post, the word ‘house’ (Bayit) features as a keyword in the Yosef story as he is transferred from one place to another in search of a new home following his eviction. Seemingly, his search comes to an end when Pharaoh brings him into the palace, provides him new clothes, a new name, and a prominent Egyptian wife. The name given to Yosef’s eldest son suggests Yosef has indeed found a new home to replace his old one:

וַיִּקְרָא יוֹסֵף אֶת־שֵׁם הַבְּכוֹר מְנַשֶּׁה כִּי־נַשַּׁנִי אֱלֹהִים אֶת־כָּל־עֲמָלִי וְאֵת כָּל־בֵּית אָבִי׃ (בראשית מא:נא)

But the truth turns out to be more complex.[6] Whilst Yosef adopts a new identity in Egypt, when all is said and done, he does not forget his roots. Although we (and perhaps Yosef as well) have doubts along the way, Yosef’s loyalty comes though clear and strong at the end of his life with his final recorded words:

וַיֹּאמֶר יוֹסֵף אֶל־אֶחָיו אָנֹכִי מֵת וֵאלֹהִים פָּקֹד יִפְקֹד אֶתְכֶם וְהֶעֱלָה אֶתְכֶם מִן־הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק וּלְיַעֲקֹב׃ (בראשית נ:כד)

Against this background, the Korban Pesach acts as a healing process as each family unites and collectively rediscovers its roots. As with the Yosef episodes, the word Bayit is used intensely in the passages dealing with the Korban Pesach, signifying this reversal.

There are other linguistic parallels between the sale of Yosef and Korban Pesach. Most prominent is the ‘dipping’ and use of the blood of the goat as a ‘cover up’. In the sale of Yosef, the dipping of Yosef’s coat into the blood of the slaughtered goat was used by the brothers in an attempted cover up and deception:

וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת־כְּתֹנֶת יוֹסֵף וַיִּשְׁחֲטוּ שְׂעִיר עִזִּים וַיִּטְבְּלוּ אֶת־הַכֻּתֹּנֶת בַּדָּם׃ (לז:לא)

In the context of the Korban Pesach, the act of dipping and displaying the slaughtered lamb/goat’s blood also creates a ‘cover up’ for those performing the ritual. This time, however, the blood is proudly displayed to God in an act of family unity and renewed dedication. God sees the blood and protects those on the inside of the house from the destruction on the outside.

וּלְקַחְתֶּם אֲגֻדַּת אֵזוֹב וּטְבַלְתֶּם בַּדָּם אֲשֶׁר־בַּסַּף וְהִגַּעְתֶּם אֶל־הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְאֶל־שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזֹת מִן־הַדָּם אֲשֶׁר בַּסָּף וְאַתֶּם לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח־בֵּיתוֹ עַד־בֹּקֶר׃ (יב:כב)

In view of the above, it may well be – as R. Bahya (12:21) indeed suggests - that drawing in the lamb (מִשְׁכוּ וּקְחוּ לָכֶם צֹאן לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתֵיכֶם) for each family recalls – and symbolically reverses - the drawing out of Yosef (וַיִּמְשְׁכוּ וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת־יוֹסֵף) from the pit to advance the sale. 

Symbolism of the bones

I would like to propose an extension of this idea to address the question at hand. When Yosef dies, he receives a full Egyptian burial in the tradition of the Egyptian elite. He is embalmed and placed in a coffin, presumably within a sarcophagus. The embalming process was prolonged and highly invasive, intended to preserve the physical body for as long as possible for its continuation in the afterlife.[7]

According to the account of Yaakov’s own death, the embalming process took 40 days. This should be contrasted with the Jewish requirement to bury someone on the day of death (see TB Moed Katan 27b). The Jewish view does not seek to glorify or artificially preserve the external body. Instead, it is the core of a person - the ‘dry bones’ not prone to decay - which are the physical representation of one’s eternal essence. The association of bones with a person’s core is the basis for the wider usage of the word ‘Etzem’ to express the essence of someone or something.

From an archaeological standpoint we now know that burial practice was a notable point of divergence between the general Egyptian population and the semitic migrants residing on the eastern Delta. The graves discovered at Avaris, which was the capital of the eastern Delta during the Hyksos period, were constructed from mudbrick, as was typical in Canaan, as opposed to stone as per the Egyptian custom. More relevant for our purposes, the bodies were placed directly in these tombs without a coffin or sarcophagus.[8] Yosef being embalmed and laid to rest within a coffin and/or sarcophagus, placed him resolutely on the Egyptian side of the cultural divide. For this reason, we should take careful note of Yosef’s choice of words:

וַיַּשְׁבַּע יוֹסֵף אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר פָּקֹד יִפְקֹד אֱלֹהִים אֶתְכֶם וְהַעֲלִתֶם אֶת־עַצְמֹתַי מִזֶּה׃ וַיָּמָת יוֹסֵף בֶּן־מֵאָה וָעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וַיַּחַנְטוּ אֹתוֹ וַיִּישֶׂם בָּאָרוֹן בְּמִצְרָיִם׃ (בראשית נ:כה-כו)

Yosef only mentions his bones and makes no reference to the coffin. When the Israelites fulfil Yosef’s request two centuries later, there is again no reference to the coffin, only to the bones. Even if they didn’t physically remove the bones from the coffin, the emphasis on the bones in place of the coffin is instructive. Removing Yosef’s bones from his Egyptian tomb (at least from a literary perspective) and interring him in the land of Israel, symbolically strips away his Egyptian character and reveals his core identity.[9]

Preserving the bones of the Korban Pesach speaks to this very idea. Given the significant parallels between the Korban Pesach and the sale of Yosef, it seems reasonable to suggest that preserving the bones whilst the flesh is consumed, establishes a connection with Yosef’s request to take care of his bones. We must remember that the nature of a Korban entails an expression of human devotion via the sacrifice of the animal. The meaning of the sacrifice should therefore be located within the emotions of the person responsible for the sacrifice. This is true even more so when it comes to the Korban Pesach, where the people themselves stand as virtual offerings on the metaphorical Mizbe’ach. If bones represent the core identity of a person which do not decompose, then this is a fitting parable to the inner Jewish spirit which remains alive even after centuries of exile. No person models this better than Yosef in his own life. In light of the wider symbolism of the Korban Pesach as an act of dedication of the Jewish home and simultaneous rejection of Egyptian culture, the association with Yosef’s bones strongly reinforces that motif.

This suggestion is perhaps corroborated by the familiar imagery of the burning bush. There too it is correct to associate the survival of the bush amongst the flames, with the endurance of the Jewish people. It must be added, however, that this is prescriptive as well as descriptive. The bones may be innately durable but there is nevertheless a command not to break them. 

As mentioned earlier, the injunction against breaking the bones does not appear alongside the primary laws relating to the manner of preparing and eating the Korban Pesach. Instead, it appears sandwiched between the categories of people that are permitted to eat from the Korban Pesach.

Why is this particular law which concerns how to eat the korban pesach attached to the laws concerning who may eat from the Pesach. Based on what we have said we may suggest that the common denominator revolves around identity. For someone to be eligible to participate in the Korban Pesach he must be a member of, or affiliated to, the ‘community of Israel’ (Adat Yisrael – see 12:47), which includes the requirement of Brit Milah. This is the physical mark which links one to the covenant and through which one shares in the destiny of the Jewish people. As mentioned before, those principles of identity and destiny are represented in the bones of Yosef and embedded in the requirement to preserve the bones of the Korban Pesach.

BeEtzem HaYom HaZeh

We will end the discussion with reference to another wordplay which perhaps supports our suggestion. It does not seem coincidental that the same word ‘Etzem’ appears immediately before, and immediately after, the passage containing the prohibition Ve’Etzem Lo Tishberu Bo:

וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיְהִי בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יָצְאוּ כָּל־צִבְאוֹת יְהוָה מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם׃ )יב:מא(

וַיְהִי בְּעֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה הוֹצִיא יְהוָה אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם עַל־צִבְאֹתָם׃ )יב:נא( 

Is this just literary enhancement or is there something deeper? The emphasis that the exodus occurred ‘BeEtzem HaYom HaZeh’, after exactly 430 years, reflects the fact that the end of the exile was preplanned and foretold in the Brit Bein HaBetarim.[10]

When Yosef instructed for his bones to be taken out of Egypt as they leave Egypt, he speaks with certainty that God will eventually remember and redeem the nation. He knows this to be true because he is familiar with the content of the covenant which was relayed to him by Yaakov. The request for his bones to be brought up from Egypt is therefore inextricably linked with the fulfilment of the covenant and Yosef makes this connection explicitly. He promises that God will remember the people and ‘bring up’ the people from the land, whilst adjuring the nation to ‘bring up’ his bones when that time comes. If the requirement to keep the bones intact harks back to the message of inner loyalty as symbolised by the preservation of Yosef’s bones, then the notion of BeEtzem HaYom Hazeh is the counterpart which expresses the durability of God’s covenant.

In other words, the Etzem which signifies the fulfilment of the covenant, creates a contact point with the Etzem of the Korban Pesach which alludes to the perseverance of Jewish identity. It is this identity which enables, and is enabled by, the covenant.  

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] For reasons of familiarity, we will refer to the Pesach ritual – even as practiced in Egypt (Pesach Mitzrayim in Mishnaic parlance) - as ‘Korban Pesach’.

[2] Verse references are to Shemot unless stated otherwise

[3] Rashbam (12:46) does not directly refer to the marrow, but it seems to underly his comments and is explicit in the commentaries of Bechor Shor and Chizkuni. See also Rashbam 12:8 and 12:9.

[4] Though Shadal (12:46) had no problem listing this reason alongside Rashbam’s reason.

[5] See Chizkuni 12:6 and 12:8; Da’at Zekeinim 12:9.

[6] Discussed in more detail here

[7] See here for summary of the process: https://discoveringegypt.com/egyptian-mummification/

[8] https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/magazine/does-archaeology-confirm-josephs-time-in-egypt/

[9] Jonathan Grossman, Yosef: Sippuram Shel Chalomot, (Yediot, 2022), final chapter.

[10] We need not delve here into the discrepancy between the 400 and 430