Author Archive
Machar Chodesh
Posted on: May 17, 2009
Machar Chodesh 1 Samuel 20:18-42
The New Moon
This haftarah is read whenever, in the words of Jonathan in the opening sentence, ‘Tomorrow is the new moon,’ and this shabbat is therefore called מָחָר חֹדֶש Our haftarah comes under the heading of ‘Special haftarot’ and, as an aspect of Rosh Chodesh, celebrates the natural phenomenon of the lunar cycle, rather than an event of Israelite history.
According to Gunther Plaut, Rosh Chodesh was regarded as a shabbat, when all abstained from work. A verse from Amos provides evidence for this:
Hear this, you who trample the needy and do away with the poor of the land, saying, ‘When will the New Moon be over that we may sell grain, and the Sabbath be ended that we may market wheat?’[1]
From Talmudic times[2], the Rosh Chodesh holiday was considered a privilege only of women,as a reward for withholding their jewelry during the episode of the Golden Calf. In midrash Pirke DeRabbi Eliezer, we are told that in the incident of the Golden Calf, the women refused to relinquish their earrings to the men who were building the calf.[3]
Repetitions in 1 Samuel 19 and 20
1 Samuel 20, a gripping narrative about danger, friendship and escape, might give the reader a sense of déjà vu, when read in sequence after chapter 19. There we find a similarly gripping narrative about danger, friendship and escape, featuring the same characters but with a woman also in the picture. It begins:
Saul told his son Jonathan and all the attendants to kill David. But Jonathan was very fond of David and warned him, “My father Saul is looking for a chance to kill you. Be on your guard tomorrow morning; go into hiding and stay there. I will go out and stand with my father in the field where you are. I’ll speak to him about you and will tell you what I find out.”[4]
There, as in chapter 20, Saul has confided his plan to Jonathan, but Jonathan’s loyalty to David is greater, either out of friendship or, as many readers would have it, out of homoerotic love. David’s military success and popularity threatens the dynastic expectations of Saul’s sons, including Jonathan, so Saul is naturally infuriated when Jonathan defends David in the haftarah we are about to read. Chapter 19 presents Saul’s reaction differently. When Jonathan spoke well of David, reminding Saul how Israel had benefited from David’s exploits, Saul listened attentively and replied ‘As surely as the Lord lives, David will not be put to death.’[5]
Saul does not remain long in a conciliatory state of mind. David’s military success arouses Saul’s jealousy and he attacks David with his spear. Somehow David eludes the spear, with which Saul fails repeatedly to hit his mark. [6]
David and Michal
That night, David makes his escape, assisted by his wife, Michal, Saul’s daughter who lets David out through her bedroom window. Michal’s deception of her father in this episode is reminiscent of an incident involving her ancestor Rachel, the mother of Benjamin.[7] Rachel’s motivation in stealing Laban’s teraphim is not clear, but there are points of similarity in the two stories, especially when we read:
Michal took an idol and laid it on the bed, covering it with a garment and putting some goats’ hair at the head. When Saul sent the men to capture David, Michal said, “He is ill.” Then Saul sent the men back to see David and told them, “Bring him up to me in his bed so that I may kill him.” But when the men entered, there was the idol in the bed, and at the head was some goats’ hair.[8]
The words teraphim, lakach and tasem occur in the Michal narrative, as well as that of Rachel.
וְרָחֵל לָקְחָה אֶת הַתְּרָפִים וַתְּשִׂמֵם בְּכַר הַגָּמָל
וַתִּקַּח מִיכַל אֶת הַתְּרָפִים וַתָּשֶׂם אֶל הַמִּטָּה
There are echoes of Jacob and Rachel in other aspects of David and Michal’s relationship: they argue and Michal is infertile, though, unlike Rachel, she remains so. The relationship between David and Jonathan does not echo anything except itself in the various narratives about their friendship. There are no close male relationships in the Pentateuch, other than the love between fathers and sons. Brothers in particular come off badly.
Jonathan loves David but we are not told that David loves Jonathan:
After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. [9]
We see from later events that David loves women but, although Jonathan has a son, we do not know anything about his married life.
Consistency of characterization: Saul, Jonathan, David
It looks as if chapter 20 should be read as a variation of chapter 19, rather than a continuation of it. We know that there is often a doubling of narrative in the bible, which creates discrepancies and riddles if the duplicated passages are interpreted as being a linear representation of events. Robert Polzin acknowledges that many scholars attribute the inconsistencies to the redaction of incompatible traditions, but makes the point that the characterizations in chapter 20 are quite consistent with those in previous chapters.[10]Jonathan’s love for David, his truthfulness and freedom from personal ambition are apparent in all the versions of his intervention between Saul and David. Saul’s jealousy of David and dangerously volatile mood swings are depicted in a variety of episodes from chapter 18:7 onwards:
And the women sang to one another as they made merry, “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.” And Saul was very angry, and this saying displeased him; he said, “They have ascribed to David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed thousands; and what more can he have but the kingdom?” And Saul eyed David from that day on.[11]
As for David, the different versions of his escapades and escapes tell us little of what he is thinking. Polzin says:
Whereas the narrator’s voice often reveals to the reader Saul’s true purposes, as well as his inner thoughts and feelings, and often speaks of others’ inner thoughts and feelings, especially their love and esteem for David, it gives us almost nothing in the entire five chapters since David’s appearance (chapters 16-20) that can be described as an inner psychological view of David
.[12]
A covenant of love has existed between David and Jonathan ever since David’s slaying of Goliath brought him to prominence in royal circles.
David Alter points out that Jonathan is proactive in making the covenant and sealing it by a gift of clothing. This gift is perhaps symbolic of Jonathan’s abdication in favour of David, especially as there are other symbolic changes of clothes in 1 Samuel: Saul tearing Samuel’s cloak,[13] Saul’s offer of armour to David,[14] David cutting Saul’s tunic[15] and Saul’s cloak of disguise when he visits the Witch of Endor.[16]
In chapter 20, David flees from Ramah where he had been hiding with Samuel, and comes to Jonathan for help. Alter points out that these are David’s first reported words to Jonathan, although Jonathan’s speech to David has been recorded in chapter 19.[17] David tells Jonathan to explain David’s absence from Saul’s table at the feast of the New Moon and if Saul is incensed, David will take flight again. Going by Saul’s past form, David may well expect Saul to be murderously angry; Jonathan on the other hand speaks as if he has no knowledge of Saul’s previous violence towards David. He swears that he will let David know Saul’s intentions, and reaffirms his covenant of chapter 18.
The meeting of David and Jonathan in Chapter 20 is not their last. Their final meeting takes place when David is hiding from Saul in Horesh in the Desert of Ziph. The brief description shows that Jonathan’s characteristics of supportiveness, piety and optimism are unchanged:
While David was at Horesh in the Desert of Ziph, he learned that Saul had come out to take his life. And Saul’s son Jonathan went to David at Horesh and helped him find strength in God. ‘Don’t be afraid,’ he said. ‘My father Saul will not lay a hand on you. You will be king over Israel, and I will be second to you. Even my father Saul knows this.’ The two of them made a covenant before the Lord. Then Jonathan went home, but David remained at Horesh.[18]
Rosh Chodesh at the court of Saul
Verse 18
This shows that David has a place at Saul’s court, which he is expected to occupy on the festival of Rosh Chodesh.
Verse 19
Why does Jonathan set their secret meeting for the third day? It seems that the Rosh Chodesh celebrations occupy two days, as a second day is referred to in verse 34. Only after the festival will Jonathan be free to slip away. Jonathan urges to David to use a previous hiding place; this could refer to 19:1, when David hid in the field where Jonathan and Saul spoke about him.
A cunning plan
Verse 20 – 22
Jonathan devises a plan for communicating with David, hidden in a place where he can hear Jonathan speak to the servant. The Etzel Stone is used as a landmark so that Jonathan knows David is within earshot. Incidentally ETZEL is an acronym by which the Irgun is known: ארגון צבאי לאומי .
The covert information which Jonathan intends to communicate concerns Saul’s plans towards David: is he reconciled to him or does he still seek David’s life?
The plan they devise is that Jonathan will shoot the arrows and and use the coded message to his na-ar, the boy, either that the arrows are this side, meaning no danger from Saul, or the arrows are beyond you, in which case go away for the Lord has sent you away. Rashi interpreted the words The Lord has sent you away away, as meaning that the fall of the arrows will be directed by God as a sign, rather than by Jonathan’s aim, that the arrows can be used as a means of divination.
Arrows, spears or javelins were the main weapons in Israel at this stage of the iron age and swords were of limited availability among the Israelites. At one stage, only Saul and Jonathan had swords.[19] The Philistines were well-equipped with long iron swords – David took Goliath’s sword and decapitated him with him.[20] The same sword was kept by the priests of Nob, wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. When David asked for a sword or a spear, as he had no weapon with him, Ahimelech the priest handed over the sword of Goliath, which David recognised:
[21]אֵין כָּמוֹהָ תְּנֶנָּה לִּי There is none like it – give it to me.
Fidelity between friends
Verse 23
Jonathan concludes his rapid, urgent speech by invoking the eternal covenant of fidelity between himself and David, which he affirms again in verse 42. It is noticeable that David’s words are unrecorded on both occasions. Jonathan will speak of this covenant again at their final meeting, when David is a fugitive in Horesh.
They do not meet after this as Jonathan will die with Saul in a battle against the Philistines on Mount Gilboa.At precisely that time, David and his followers will be in the pay of the Philistine king Achish.
Whether David remained loyal to Jonathan’s family is arguable. Once Jonathan is dead, David mourns equally for him and Saul. On the basis of David’s behaviour, a bystander would not guess that Saul had tried consistently to kill him, while Jonathan had been his loyal friend. When an Amalekite brings David news of their death:
David and all the men with him took hold of their clothes and tore them. They mourned and wept and fasted till evening for Saul and his son Jonathan, and for the army of the Lord and the house of Israel, because they had fallen by the sword.[22]
David’s lament in 2 Samuel 1 is notably even-handed in extolling Saul with Jonathan, even emphasizing that they were not parted in death. When he says I grieve for you my brother Jonathan, you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, passing the love of women,[23] the words hardly do justice to Jonathan’s fidelity. The proof of the pudding lies in David’s treatment of Jonathan’s son, when David is king. He asks Is there anyone still left of the house of Saul to whom I can show kindness for Jonathan’s sake? He seems to be unaware that Jonathan has a surviving son until a courtier comes up with the information.
The story of Jonathan’s son Mephibosheth does not put David altogether in a good light, showing him as strangely credulous and much too quick to dispossess Mephibosheth. He appears to fulfil his oath to Jonathan, by insisting that Mephibosheth should be provided for and eat at the king’s table. Mephibosheth is ‘crippled (literally ‘smitten’) in both feet’ so is unable to be a warrior and David chooses to be his protector.[24] We have seen from Saul’s Rosh Chodesh dinner that eating at the king’s table is no guarantee of personal safety.
Later on, David’s informant Ziba, who had been a servant in Saul’s household, deceives David into believing that Mephibosheth is disloyal:
Ziba said to him, “He is staying in Jerusalem, because he thinks, ‘Today the house of Israel will give me back my grandfather’s kingdom.'” Then the king said to Ziba, “All that belonged to Mephibosheth is now yours.” “I humbly bow,” Ziba said. “May I find favor in your eyes, my lord the king.”[25]
Ziba’s motivation of greed appears transparent but nevertheless David chooses to penalize Mephibosheth. His suspicion towards Saul’s remaining family is great, since they represent a rival claim to the throne, and being Saul’s grandson tilts the balance against Mephibosheth, even though he is also Jonathan’s son.When Mephibosheth makes a half-hearted attempt to vindicate himself, David rules that the property given to Ziba should now be divided between Ziba and Mephibosheth.[26]As this was originally Mephibosheth’s patrimony, this represents a fifty per cent loss, but, like Jonathan, Mephibosheth is willing to renounce everything for David’s sake:
Mephibosheth said to the king, ‘Let him take everything, now that my lord the king has arrived home safely.’[27]
David’s reply is not recorded, as is often the case in his encounters with Jonathan. The commentary in the Talmud is:
When David said to Mephibosheth, ‘Thou and Ziba divide the land,’ a Heavenly Echo came forth and declared to him, Rehoboam and Jeroboam shall divide the kingdom.Rab Judah said in Rab’s name: Had not David paid heed to slander, the kingdom of the House of David would not have been divided, Israel had not engaged in idolatry, and we would not have been exiled from our country.[28]
However, when David appeased the Gibeonites by handing over seven of Saul’s descendants, whom the Gibeonites put to death, he chose at that time to keep faith with Jonathan by sparing Mephibosheth:
The king spared Mephibosheth son of Jonathan, the son of Saul, because of the oath before the Lord between David and Jonathan son of Saul.[29]
In a veritable purge of Saul’s family, Mephibosheth and his son Mica survive, their names listed in the two targumim to the book of Esther as the ancestors of Mordecai and Esther.
At Saul’s table
Verse 24
The scene is set with David hiding in the field while a Rosh Chodesh meal takes place at the court of King Saul.
Verse 25
Why does Jonathan give his place beside Saul to Abner, Saul’s cousin and chief of staff? Kimchi’s interpretation is that Jonathan was afraid to be next to Saul because of his volatile temper. Alter refers to a textual reading of וְיִקְדָם, instead of the Masoretic וַיָּקָם, offering the translation Jonathan preceded him instead of Jonathan stood up.[30]
Verse 26
Saul notes David absence, but shows his equable side and makes no comment. The reader is told Saul’s thoughts, that David’s absence is caused by ritual impurity, a common condition which could be caused, as Alter suggests, by a seminal emission.[31]
Verse 27 – 30
Son of Jesse and sonofabitch
On the second day, Saul’s mood is quite different as we see when he refers to David by the patronymic ‘son of Jesse’. Jonathan comes up with an excuse for David, saying that family affairs have taken precedence, but this infuriates Saul, as does the fact that Jonathan is making excuses for David. Saul’s abusive language, demeaning to Jonathan’s mother, suggests that Jonathan is showing contempt for his own birth and parentage by his allegiance with the son of Jesse. The significance of being the son of Jesse is twofold: on the one hand, Jesse is merely a farmer from Bethlehem whereas Jonathan is the son of the king. On the other hand, there is Jacob’s prophecy that kingship is attached to the tribe of Judah[32] and the interesting ancestry of Jesse, the son of Obed, son of Boaz, grandson of Nachshon ben Amminadab who, according to midrash was the first Israelite to walk into the Red Sea.[33] Amminadab was the great-grandson of Perez, who was one of the twin sons of Judah and Tamar.[34]
By calling Jonathan’s mother a perverse, rebellious woman, Saul may be implying also that Jonathan is a bastard and not Saul’s rightful heir. Jonathan’s mother was called Ahinoam, of whom nothing is known except that she was the daughter of Ahimaaz.[35] Another Ahinoam, of Jezreel, was one of David’s wives, the mother of Amnon.[36]
What has he done?
Verses 31-32
Saul spells out to Jonathan that David threatens his kingdom and declares his intent to kill David, calling him בֶּן־מָוֶת,’son of death’. Jonathan is not intimidated and expresses David’s innocence by saying: Why should he be put to death? What has he done? David himself tends to protests his innocence with the words ‘What have I done?’ – he says this to his brother Eliab,[37]to Jonathan,[38] to Saul[39] and to Achish, the Philistine king.[40] David repeatedly portrays himself as a wronged innocent with this ingenuous expression.
Missing the target
Verse 33
This is the third time that Saul aims his spear at someone at close range. These seem to be half-hearted attempts at killing as he misses every time, so David survives the spear in Chapters 18,[41] and 19,[42] as Jonathan does here. The Hebrew does not say that Saul intended to kill Jonathan but that he meant to smite him, and some translators say ‘he raised his spear’. The verb יָטֶל is from the root ט וּ ל and means ‘hurl’ or ‘throw’.[43] It is used of the great wind that hits Jonah’s ship as it heads for Tarshish:
וַיהֹוָה הֵטִיל רוּחַ גְּדוֹלָה אֶל הַיָּם.[44]
There is also a verb נ ט ל which means to raise. If this were the intended meaning, there should be a dagesh in the letter tet, to show that the letter nun has been dropped. The Masoretes chose the meaning ‘to hurl’ by leaving out the dagesh, indicating the verb ט וּ ל but the LXX has ‘He lifted up his spear..’ και επηρε Σαουλ το δορυ επι Ιωναθαν[45]
Jonathan fasts
Verse 34
Again we are given an insight into Jonathan’s thoughts, his anger and grief at the way his father treated him. His fasting on the second day of the month reminds us of another episode when Jonathan refrained from fasting. Saul had declared a fast before battle with the Philistines, saying ‘Cursed be any man who eats food before evening comes, before I have avenged myself on my enemies’.[46] Jonathan had not heard his father’s words and ate some honey; for which misdemeanour Saul was prepared to put Jonathan to death, except that the men of Saul’s army spoke up for him, saying:
Should Jonathan die – he who has brought about this great deliverance in Israel? Never! As surely as the Lord lives, not a hair of his head will fall to the ground, for he did this today with God’s help.” So the men rescued Jonathan, and he was not put to death.[47]
Meeting by the Etzel stone
Verse 35 – 8
The scene changes to outdoors where Jonathan keeps his secret appointment with David, who is still hiding near the Etzel Stone. Jonathan shoots not three arrows but one.(Was Shakespeare thinking of David and Jonathan when he spoke of ‘slings and arrows’, their characteristic weapons of choice?) There is a sense of urgency and danger in the speed of events.Jonathan tells the boy to run for the arrows and shoots while he is running. He calls out ‘the arrow is beyond you,’ which one may suppose is meant for David’s ears, rather than those of the servants and adds ‘Make haste, don’t stay,’ which may also be a warning to David.
Verse 39 – 40
Why does the narrator make the point – which already seems clear – that the lad knew nothing? The conspiratorial relationship between Jonathan and David is being emphasized and we see that Jonathan, a notably truthful character, is capable of what Robert Polzin calls ‘double-voiced language’.[48] It is Saul, as much as Jonathan’s servant, who is being kept in the dark.
Jonathan gives his weapons to the boy and sends him away with them. This echoes the episode when Jonathan gave David his robe and weapons, divesting himself of the symbols of his royalty and martial power.
Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.[49]
Verse 41
David is nothing if not grateful, bowing three times to the ground in acknowledment of Jonathan’s royal status and David’s debt of gratitude to him. Then they behave as close friends, kissing and weeping together. Why does David weep longer? Is it that he feels compelled to exceed Jonathan and Saul in everything, even weeping?
David is depicted often as not very tall, perhaps because of the comparison with Goliath, but Saul is a six footer[50] and one can imagine Jonathan might approximate his father’s height. The imagery of the relationship between these two young men is that Jonathan is proactive, passionate, forthright and possibly tall; David is reactive, seductive, manipulative, shorter and more lachrymose.
However, the LXX does not mention David crying longer or, as the Hebrew says, עַד דָּוִד הִגְדִּיל. Instead, it has: ‘[they] wept for eachother, for a great while’.
Verse 42
David and Jonathan part, though not for the last time. Characteristically, it is Jonathan who has a voice, who says לֵךְ לְשָלום, and who alludes again to the eternal covenant between them, his words closing resembling those with which he took leave of David in verse 23.
It is slightly reminiscent of Laban taking farewell of Jacob with the words: May the Lord keep watch between you and me when we are away from each other.[51] There was no close friendship between Jacob and his father-in-law Laban, but they were bound by a common interest in their posterity, the way a divorced couple with children are bound.
As we have seen, it is debatable whether David is faithful to Jonathan’s desendants.
Hunger and fasting in 1 Samuel
The Talmudic rabbis were unusually critical of Jonathan regarding an aspect of David’s departure. David’s next meal is taken by courtesy of the priests of Nob, who gave him the consecrated show bread, as well as the sword of Goliath. After he left Nob, Saul had the priests killed, for collaborating with David.[52]
Rab Judah said in Rab’s name: Had but Jonathan given David two loaves of bread for his travels, Nob, the city of priests would not have been massacred.[53]
The subject of fasting and hunger comes up elsewhere in the David and Jonathan narrative; in Jonathan breaking the fast decreed by Saul in chapter 14 and in Jonathan’s fast on the second day of the new moon, in response to Saul’s anger. Now the plot will be driven forward by David’s hunger when he reaches Nob. He has been in hiding for three days, and it does indeed seem that it might have been wise for Jonathan to slip him a sandwich, before taking his place at Saul’s table for the feast of Rosh Chodesh.
Jonathan is a high minded young man and a prince of Israel, and does not think about catering, but the author of 1 Samuel has a realistic knowledge of meal times and their importance in history.
[1]Amos 8:4-5
[2] Megillah 22b
PRE 45
[4] 1 Samuel 19:1-3
[5] 1 Samuel 19:6-7
[6] ibid 8-10
[7] Genesis 31:19-35
[8] ibid 13-16
[9] 1 Samuel 18:1-4
[10] Samuel and the Deuteronomist Robert Polzin, Indiana UP, 1989 p188
[11] 1 Samuel 18:7-9
[12] Polzin, loc cit p190
[13] 1 Samuel 15:27-28
ibid 17:38
ibid 24:5
ibid 28:8
[17] ibid 19:2-3
[18] 1 Samuel 23:15-18
[19] 1 Samuel 13:22
ibid 17:51
[21] ibid 21, 10
[22] 2 Samuel 1:11-12
[23] 2 Samuel 1:26
[24] 2 Samuel 9:7-11
[25] ibid 16:3-4
[26] ibid 19:26-27
[27] ibid 19:30
[28] Bavli Shabbat 56b
[29] 2 Samuel 21:7
[30] The David Story Robert Alter WW Norton 1999 p127
[31] ibid
[32] Genesis 49:10
Sotah 37a; Numbers Rabbah 13:7
1 Chronicles 2:4-12
[35] 1 Samuel 14:50
1 Chronicles 3:1
[37] 1 Samuel 17:29
ibid 20:1
ibid 26:18
ibid 29:18
[41] 1 Samuel 18:10
ibid 19:10
BDB p376
[44] Jonah 1:4
[45] 1 Kingdoms 20:33
[46] ibid 14:24
[47] ibid 14:45
[48] Samuel and the Deuteronomist, Polzin p193
[49] 1 Samuel 18:4
[50] ibid 10:23
[51] Genesis 31:49
[52] 1 Samuel 21:1-7; 1 Samuel 22:16-19
[53] Sanhedrin 104a
Moses and the rays of light
Posted on: May 17, 2009
Torah portion Ki Tissa Exodus 34:29-35
If you get the opportunity to go to Rome, you might visit the church of San Pietro in Vincoli where you can see Michelangelo’s famous statue of Moses. The rays of light on Moses’ head are represented by two marble horns. That is the problem with a medium like marble. How could even Michelangelo convey the radiance of light which transfigured Moses as he came down from Mount Sinai, carrying the second set of the tablets of the Covenant?
The Hebrew phrase קָרַן עור פְּנֵיו – suggests that Moses had a luminous appearance and that his skin was radiant. The verb קָרַן resembles keren, the Hebrew word for a horn, so it was not entirely unreasonable for Michelangelo to represent this incandescence as horns, although, in my opinion, a halo would have done the trick.
When the bible was translated into Latin, early in the fifth century, קָרַן עור פְּנֵיו was interpreted as meaning that Moses face was horned, cornuta esset facies sua, since you ask. This launched a tradition which obviously influenced Michelangelo, although the Jewish commentators dismissed the idea of a horned Moses as foolishness[1] or heresy.[2]
The Hebrew word עור in this text sounds like the word אור which means ‘light’ but the spelling is different – with an ayin instead of an aleph – and it means skin. It could be connected with עֶרְוָה, nakedness, and it should be noted that Moses covers his face with a veil, to conceal from the Israelites the naked radiance which they might view with consternation.
A medieval Jewish interpretation[3] is that Moses covered his face with a veil ‘…out of respect for the rays of majesty.’ The majestic nature of the rays, which is not explicit in the text, was inferred also by the Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew bible into Greek in the third century BCE: the Greek Septuagint says that Moses’ face was glorified.[4]
There is a clue to the meaning of this word karan in the book of the prophet Habakkuk[5] who experienced a vision of God and said that God’s splendour was like the sunrise, with rays flashing from God’s hand:
קַרְנַיִם מִיָּדוֹ karnayim miyado
Karnayim, a plural form of keren, is much more intelligible as radiance than as horns. It is the only similar use of the word in the bible, but that is enough for it to offer evidence of linguistic meaning.
Sigmund Freud wrote an essay on the subject of Michelangelo’s Moses.[6] He noted that Michelangelo represented Moses as fiercely angry, and Freud therefore associated the statue with the narrative of the golden calf, which, as it happens, occurs earlier in this same sidra, Ki Tissa. Moses was indeed angry when he saw the Israelites dancing round the calf, so much so that he broke the first set of tablets. We see from our sidra that Moses received a second set of tablets, in place of those which were broken, and his face shone when he descended with these, the second luchot ha brit. Freud would have known this if he had gone to shul more often.
The word for a veil, מָסְוֶה, is not found elsewhere in the bible, so its exact meaning can be known only from the present context and from a small number of similar words which mean cloak, cover or curtain. The author Richard Elliott Friedman suggests that Moses’ veil has something in common with the curtain which covered the Holy Ark in the Tabernacle. The Ark had a holiness which could be dangerous to those who came close to it, and so did Mount Sinai, ablaze with fire which no one but Moses could approach. God said to Moses: You cannot see my face for no one can see me and live, and it is as if Moses’ face may not be seen, because it reflects his encounter with God. It is interesting that Moses himself was unaware of the rays which were observed at once by Aaron and the Israelites.
וּמשֶׁה לֹא יָדַע כִּי קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו
Moses knew not that the skin of his face sent forth beams.
Moses had so little thought for his appearance in the eyes of others that it was only when he saw their reaction that he thought to cover his face with a veil. We know from a verse in the book of Numbers:
וְהָאִישׁ משֶׁה עָנָו מְאֹד מִכֹּל הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה
The man Moses was very meek, above all the men that were upon the face of the earth.[7]
This seems an apt description for a man who had no idea that his face reflected his meeting with God, and who, learning that this was so, covered it with a veil so as not to be an object of wonderment to those waiting at the foot of the mountain.
[1]Rashbam cf N Leibowitz, Studies in Shemot vol 2 p632
Ibn Ezra ibid p643
[3]Rashi on Exodus 34:33
δεδοξασμενη
[5]Habakkuk 3:4
[6]Der Moses des Michelangelo Sigmund Freud 1914
[7]Numbers 12:3
[8]Genesis 28:16
Neviim Tovim, blogs by Gillian Gould Lazarus 
Micah 4:1-7
Posted by: Gillian Gould Lazarus on: May 22, 2009
Shabbat Atzmaut
Micah 4:1-7 is the haftarah for Shabbat Atzmaut, on 5 Iyar, celebrating David ben Gurion’s declaration of independence in Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948. The hatzi-Hallel is sung in the synagogue service for Yom ha-Atzmaut. The day before is Yom ha Zikkaron, remembering the fallen of Israel’s wars. The 2008 Movement for Reform Judaism siddur includes El Malei Rachamim for Yom ha Zikkaron and a variety of prayers for Yom ha-Atzmaut.[1]
Dating Micah
Micah was one of the eighth century prophets, a contemporary of Isaiah and Hosea, in the time of King Jotham the son of King Uzziah and continuing in the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. He was writing after the fall of the Northern capital Samaria to the Assyrians in 722 BCE, Micah’s ministry being c 735 to 700 in the kingdom of Judah. His came from Moresheth-gath, southwest of Jerusalem.
Micah is referenced in Jeremiah by some elders who speak in defence of Jeremiah, famous for his unpopular warnings of catastrophe:
The verse quoted is Micah 3:12 from a passage where Micah prophesies the fall of Jerusalem, a vision at odds with the glorious future which Micah promises in our reading from Chapter 4.
The integrity of the book of Micah as the work of a single author has been disputed. From the nineteenth century, the prevalent view of bible critics tends to attribute the first three chapters of the book to an eighth century prophet writing under the name Micah, but the tone and style of chapter four contrasts with the prophesies of doom in the first three chapters; there is also a reference to Babylon in Micah 4:10 which suggets a date later than the eighth century.
Many commentators consider that Micah 1 to 4 is a separate unit, but there is disagreement as to whether it is earlier or later than the first three chapters. There is also a view that Micah’s prediction in 3:12 of the imminent future, that the temple hill will be a mound overgrown with thickets, does not necessarily contradict Micah 4:1-4, which speaks of the last days, when the mountain of the Lord will stand firm.
Duplication in Isaiah and Micah
The first three verses of Micah 4 are the same as Isaiah 2:2-4
Isaiah was urban, resident in Jerusalem and Micah was, as we saw, from Moreshet-Gath, outside Jerusalem.
The Latter Days
Verse 1
‘In the Days to come’ or ‘In the last days’ is used by prophets to refer to an unspecified later time, where God accomplishes some kind of change in the world order. בְּאַחֲרִית could be translated as ‘latter days’ or ‘later’ but does not refer to the end of the world. It usually heralds a promise of fulfillment or redemption and this understanding of אַחֲרִית may be the reason why Kohelet says: The end of a matter is better than its beginning.[3]
טוֹב אַחֲרִית דָּבָר מֵרֵאשִׁיתוֹ
It resembles בַּיּום הָהוּא, which is often used prophetically to speak of God’s intervention in the world to bring about change and justice.
The LXX has eschaton ton emeron, which is more like ‘the last days’, the word eschaton being the source of the English word eschatology.
Handel set to music Job’s words: I know that my Redeemer lives, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth, which in Hebrew is
וַאֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי גֹּאֲלִי חָי וְאַחֲרוֹן עַל עָפָר יָקוּם[4]
It sounds final, but Jacob’s prophecy to his sons sounds less so when he tells them: I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.[5]
וְאַגִּידָה לָכֶם אֵת אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָא אֶתְכֶם בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים
The Temple Mount
Philip Peter Jenson in a commentary on Micah, notes that the Temple Mount was not high – the Mount of Olives is higher – and is ‘exalted’ in the metaphorical sense of communicating the authority of God, Who dwells there.[6]
The verb ‘they will flow’, נָהֲרוּ, suggests a river – literally, they will stream. Note also, the preposition is not ‘to it’ but עָלָיו ‘up it’.
Rashi’s interpretation is: ‘They shall gather there together like rivers flowing into the sea’.
The word order in Isaiah varies: וְהָיָה בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים נָכוֹן יִהְיֶה הַר בֵּית יְהֹוָה בְּרֹאשׁ הֶהָרִים וְנִשָּׂא מִגְּבָעוֹת וְנָהֲרוּ אֵלָיו כָּל הַגּוֹיִם
Nachon is in different places in the verses; Micah has the pronoun hu, and Micah has alav, ‘on it’, where Isaiah has elev, ‘to it’.
וְהָיָה בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים יִהְיֶה הַר בֵּית יְהֹוָה נָכוֹן בְּרֹאשׁ הֶהָרִים וְנִשָּׂא הוּא מִגְּבָעוֹת וְנָהֲרוּ עָלָיו עַמִּים
Poetic parallelism
Verse 2
The terms ‘mountain of the Lord/house of the God of Jacob,’ ‘teach us His ways/walk in His paths,’ and ‘Torah will go forth from Zion/the word of the Lord from Jerusalem’ display the poetic parallelism which is a predominant feature of biblical poetry.[7]
There is also the parallel use of synonyms or near synonyms, in the first line הַר יְהֹוָה and בֵּית אֱלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב, in the second line דְּרָכָיו and אֹרְחֹתָיו and in the third line צִּיּוֹן and ירוּשָׁלִָם
Isaiah says ‘peoples’ where Micah says nations; otherwise the verses are the same.
וְהָלְכוּ עַמִּים רַבִּים וְאָמְרוּ לְכוּ וְנַעֲלֶה אֶל הַר יְהֹוָה אֶל בֵּית אֱלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב[8]
There is a small variation on the Great Isaiah Scroll found at Qumran, where the words אֶל הַר יְהֹוָה, are missing. The DSS version therefore reads:
וְהָלְכוּ עַמִּים רַבִּים וְאָמְרוּ לְכוּ וְנַעֲלֶה אֶל בֵּית אֱלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב
A light to the nations[9]
The words of the nations, ‘Let us go up’ echo the exhortation of the Israelites to eachother, in Jeremiah:
Philip Peter Jenson points out that these pilgrims are not necessarily proselytes:
The name of the Zionist movement BILU which originated in Russia after 1882 was an acronym of the words from Isaiah 2:5 :בֵּית יַעֲקֹב לְכוּ וְנֵלְכָה , House of Jacob, let us go up – this was the rallying cry for the pioneers of Zionism and we see in this verse of Micah, actually in the mouths of the nations, לְכוּ and נֵלְכָה
The expression ‘the God of Jacob,’ found many times in the Pentateuch and in the Psalms, occurs only here in the prophetic books. It emphasises that the multitude of nations ascend the mountain to reach the very specific and national God, made known to Jacob the patriarch.
Zion and Jerusalem
The Talmud[12] tells that the calendar can be calculated only from within the Land of Israel, so dissident views from the Babylonian diaspora were silenced with the citation of For Torah will go forth out of Zion, and the word of God from Jerusalem
Rav Kook, the first Ashkenazi chief rabbi of the British Mandate for Palestine, commented on the use of the names Zion and Jerusalem:
Swords into Ploughshares
Verse 3
God intervenes to abrogate war in Micah’s vision of disarmament.
This is a the reverse of the militancy found in Joel, traditionally [but debatably) dated in the eighth century and earlier than Micah:
A ploughshare (or plowshare) is a cutting component of a plough, the sharp edge of the mouldboard which is the curved plate used to turn over the soil. Pruning hooks were used to remove leaves from vines. The iron available in that period was soft and could be hammered into a tool.
The metaphor has timeless relevance. One could speak of putting nuclear resources to benign use; of using the knowledge of biology for medicine rather than warfare.The striking expression לֹא־יִלְמְדוּן עוד מִלְחָמָה suggests that war is not instinctive but rather a skill to be acquired, or, in this case, rejected.
The vine and the fig tree
Verse 4
This verse is not found in Isaiah but the pairing of the vine and the fig tree do not belong only to Micah. It is found in 1 Kings, in a description of Solomon’s reign as the apogee of peace and prosperity:
In one of his apocalypses, Zechariah speaks of a time when there will be redemption from sin and messianic fulfillment:
The emissary (the Rabshakeh רַב־ֹשָקֵה- an Assyrian title) of the Assyrian king Sennacherib in the time of King Hezekiah uses the expression in an unsuccessful bid to elicit a surrender from Jerusalem:
Hezekiah, counselled by his prophet Isaiah, rejected this bit of Assyrian spin.
It is interesting that Isaiah’s version of ‘Nation shall not lift up sword against nation’ does not include the saying about the vine and the fig tree, which Isaiah would have heard, or had reported to him, as the propagandist words of the Rabshakeh.
Micah may not have had access to the king as did Isaiah, the court prophet, but he was contemporary with these events and the words seem to be loaded with reference to Assyrian ambitions in Judah. However Micah makes it clear that coming from his mouth, they can be believed, as he states: For the mouth of the Lord of Hosts has spoken. .
These words also indicate the conclusion of the pericope.
Haredi
Note that the word מַחֲרִיד ‘to make afraid’ is, literally ‘to cause to tremble. It is the causative (hiphil) form of the verb which gives us the word haredi.
A particularistic verse
Verse 5
Scholars tend to agree that this verse does not belong to the preceding unit of Micah 4:1-4, or to verse 6 and the following verses. It takes what seems to be a contrastingly dismissive view of the ‘peoples’ who worship pagan gods. God is called our God, with an emphatic אֲנַחְנוּ to distinguish between us and them The preposition כִּי is translated variously as ‘though’, ‘for’ or ‘let’, each of which gives a different emphasis to the verse. It could be interpreted as anything from judgmental to laisser-faire, but I do not think it goes so far in affirming diversity as, for example, Dave Allen, who used to say ‘May your God go with you.’
Jacob’s limp
Verse 6
Again Micah introduces this oracle with an eschatological term בַּיּום הַהוּא and goes on to speak of the ingathering of exiles, which some scholars regard as an indication of later, post-exilic authorship. The limping one is interpreted in Targum Jonathan and subsequently by Rashi as the Israelites in exile. The word for limping or lame is צֹלֵעַה rather than the more usual פִּסֵּחַ, and is allusive to a verse in Genesis where Jacob limps away from the angel with whom he wrestled till daybreak:
וַיִּזְרַח לוֹ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָבַר אֶת פְּנוּאֵל וְהוּא צֹלֵעַ[19]
This was of course the episode where Jacob was given the name Israel.
Ne-um and amar
נְאֻם, meaning ‘He says’ is a separate verb from א מ ר, to speak and BDB defines it as a prophetic utterance.[20] It is found in most of the prophetic books and, very significantly just after the binding of Isaac in Genesis 22:
“I swear by myself, declares the Lord, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.[21]
וַיֹּאמֶר בִּי נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי נְאֻם יְהֹוָה כִּי יַעַן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה וְלֹא חָשַׂכְתָּ אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶת יְחִידֶךָ:
)יז( כִּי בָרֵךְ אֲבָרֶכְךָ וְהַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה אֶת זַרְעֲךָ כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם וְכַחוֹל אֲשֶׁר עַל שְׂפַת הַיָּם וְיִרַשׁ זַרְעֲךָ אֵת שַׁעַר
The only other instance in the Pentateuch is in Shelach Lecha, where God is angered because the Israelites are disheartened by the report of the spies:
Say to them, ‘As I live,’ says the LORD, ‘just as you have spoken in My hearing, so I will surely do to you.’[22]
אֱמֹר אֲלֵהֶם חַי אָנִי נְאֻם יְהֹוָה אִם לֹא כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתֶּם בְּאָזְנָי כֵּן אֶעֱשֶׂה לָכֶם
The two consonants in common with א מ ר probably signify a common etymology.
A hapax legomenon and a return to Mount Zion
Verse 7
This word for ‘lame’ is repeated, but the word for driven away is different. Verse 6 has נִדָּחָה while verse 7 has נַהֲלָאָה. Whereas נ ד חoccurs fairly frequently, meaning ‘driven away’, נַהֲלָאָה is a hapax legomenon, a passive (niphal) form of a verb ה ל א, not attested elsewhere in the bible. It seems to be connected with an adverb הָלְאָה which means ‘beyond’ or ‘thenceforth’, suggesting distance.
The verse concludes with an allusion to verse one where the Lord’s house is at the top of the mountains; here the prophecy goes further in that mount Zion is specified and Micah speaks explicity of God’s eternal reign.
[1]Seder ha T’filot, 2008 pp394-401
[2] Jeremiah 26:18
[3] Ecclesiastes 7:8
[4] Job 19:25
[5] Genesis 49:1
[6] Obadiah, Jonah, Micah Philip Peter Jenson T&T Clark, 2008
[7] The Art of Biblical Poetry Robert Alter 1985
[8] Isaiah 2:3
[9] Isaiah 51:4
[10] Jeremiah 31:6
[11] Obadiah, Jonah, Micah Philip Peter Jenson T&T Clark 2008 p145
[12] Berakhot 63b
[13] Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935)
[14] Joel 3:9
[15] 1 Kings 4:25
[16] Zechariah 3:10
[17] 2 Kings 18:31
[18] 2 Kings 19:5-7
[19] Genesis 32:31
[20] BDB p610
[21] Genesis 22:16-17
[22] Numbers 14:26-28