Egel vs. Luchot, Part 2

As discussed here, Tanakh describes the luchot twice. The first is factual and to the point: when the luchot are creatd, we find out that they are -

a. “Tablets of Testimony” (i.e. symbolic of something important)

b. Stone slabs

c. Written (i.e. text) by God

It is all we need to know and nothing more.

The second, lengthier description serves to create a parallel within the narrative of the egel hazahav. It allows us to get more complete sense of the gap between calf and Commandment, and the gravity of Israel's sin. So its style is a bit more emphatic and encompassing:

Luchot	Egel Hazahav
The Tablets were written from both sides – from this side and that side they were inscribed. And these Tablets, they were the work of God; and the writing, it was the writing of God – engraved upon the Tablets. (32:15-16)	Break off the golden rings - which are in the ears of your wives, sons, and daughters - and bring them to me. . . Aaron took it from them, and fashioned it with an engraving tool, making a molten calf. (32:2)
Points to Note a. Tablets are the work of God. b. Writing of God. c. No description of how it was created d. Text e. Empty, inscribed space	Points to Note a. Calf made from gold rings. b. Aaron fashioned it. c. With a tool d. Calf e. Physical substance

For the luchot, we are told again and again that they were formed by God. We get no description of how that actually took place – it just happened, Divinely, mysteriously. The working material is a creation in and of itself – God didn't miraculously write on earthly stones, but created a heavenly pair of tablets.

For the golden calf, we get this great image of an eldery goldsmith hunched over a fire, working on this handmade calf. We learn about the tools he needed for his craft. The material is itself man-made and pre-formed (earings) the substance (gold) likewise a product/symbol of human work.

Furthermore, the egel is what it is by merit of its visual image and physical form: it looks like and physically represents a calf.

The luchot are what they are by merit of its words and those blank, non-tangible spaces: it is a text, composed out of air.

Graven Images, Graven Imagery

At the moment when God gifts His people the luchot, we get a neat little description of them:

When God concluded speaking with Moshe on the mountain, God gave him the two Tablets of Testimony – which were tablets of stone, written with the word of God.

Concise and sparing in detail, this description follows a style typical of Tanakh. However, in the next perek, we get a more elaborate – and somewhat out of place – repeat rendition. Just before Moshe walks in on the Israelite orgy of egel worship, leading him to smash these tablets, we read:

Moses turned away and descended from the mountain, with the two Tablets of Testimony in his hand. The Tablets were written from both sides – from this side and that side they were inscribed. And these Tablets, they were the work of God; and the writing, it was the writing of God – engraved upon the Tablets.

Q: Why another description, why here, and why in a different style?

Suggested A: To form a parallel between two utterly opposite relics. Perek 32 isn't just the story of Israel's sin, its the tale of two objects: the egel hazahav, placed in contrast with the luchot. We follow as both are created, as a leading figure brings it to the nation, and as – ultimately – both are utterly smashed into oblivion.

	Egel	Luchot
Wrought by . . .	Aaron	Moshe
Creation Description	Break off the golden rings, which are in the ears of your women . . . Aaron took it from them, and fashioned it with a tool, making a molten calf. (32:2)	The Tablets were written from both sides – from this side and that side they were inscribed. And these Tablets, they were the work of God; and the writing, it was the writing of God – engraved upon the Tablets. (32:15-16)
Destruction Description	Moses took the calf which they made and burnt it in fire, then ground it into fine powder.	Moshe became angry, casting the Tablets from his hands and shattering them at the base of the mountain. (32:17)

So why a repeated and lengthier description of the luchot? To form this parallel; to compliment the description of the egel; to make the tablets not just in the story, but part of the story. We get a symbolic story within a story: what happens to the two objects neatly represents the actual human narrative unfolding around them. The tablets' creation is Israel's loyalty/responsibility to God made tangible – its destructions signals the failure of that young endeavor. The egel's creation is Israel's pagan tendency embodied in gold – its destruction portends Moshe bringing the rebellon to a quick end.

Don't you Know who I am???: Parshat Shemot and the Joke of Authority

Authority is a joke in Exodus 1-4.

Tthe characters at Exodus' beginning seem either very forgetful of, or utterly oblivious to, people in obvious positions authority. Even more interestingly, those very authorities ignore their own power, letting obvious sedition pass without word.

a. Shifra and Pua totally ignore Pharoah's orders. Their ridiculous excuse - um, if Jewish mothers birth before you arrive, how do you make a living? - is accepted without question by someone who could just as easily have these women decapitated.

b. Yocheved ignores Pharoah's orders, by both hiding her child for three months and placing it in a baby-boat.

c. Pharoah's own daughter RESCUES a FREAKING JEWISH baby! Was she unaware of her father's - the KING's! - little executive order regarding Israelite babes?! And, she manages to keep him. Imagine that conversation between Pharoah and his daughter.

d. Moshe is upset when an overlord taskmaster whips his Jewish slave . . . precisely what an overlord taskmaster is granted the authority to do! Even so, why didn't Moshe just walk up to the guy and tell him to stop. Isn't he a prince or something?

e. Moshe tries to break up a fight between two slave Jews and they start trash talking him. Wait - don't you guys know this is a member of the royal family?

f. When Moshe flees to Midyan, he finds Yithro's daughters abused by a group of shepherds. Yithro, mind you, is the Cohen of Midyan (Targum: raba d'midyan) - yet his daughters are abused so often and consistently that Yithro is actually surprised when they arrive back at a normal time from the well. Who are these shepherds? Why isn't Yithro doing anything about this?

g. Moses' entire first dialogue with God is full of seditious comments. God is ordering Moses to do something and, again and again, Moses refuses. God doesn't assert His authority, but sweetalks Moshe, until God finally just starts getting annoyed.

What's going on!

A more realistic Greek-Hebrew connection

In which month was the world created? There is a relatively well-known dispute in BT Rosh Hashana 11a between R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua, the former arguing for Iyar as the first month, and the latter arguing for Nisan.

I'm sure one can create many fascinating and meaningful explications of this debate; I myself - during various Rosh Hashana davenings - have tried. But I don't think we can even begin to grasp the full meaning of this debate without recognizing that:

1. Aries (ie Nisan) is the first astrological sign in the Zodiac.

2. March (=Mars, i.e. Aries) was the first month in the ancient Roman calendar.

On one level, the Talmudic debate is taking up whether or not the Greeks and early Romans got it right.

Dante's Inferno - Part 1

Skimming through the guide to Hopkins' 2010 Intersession, I noticed a course called, "Three Weeks in Hell." Quite the experience.

An excerpt from the course description:

Before there were horror films, there was Dante. Rivers of boiling blood! Schismatics tearing themselves apart! Sinners locked in solid ice!

So far, the course has been excellent - and, thankfully, a bit more serious than the description suggests. Faithful reader(s), expect Hell-inspired updates.

Spurious Etymology

In Greek mythology, Acheron is a river leading to Hell.

Acheron = אחרון. Hmmmm?

Also, in ancient Greek, akhea means woe. איכה=Lamentations=woe=akhea.

Is there any historical/etymological evidence for either of these proposals? No. Can someone build a ridiculous Hannukah Dvar Torah around this . . . I'm working on it.

The Mystery of the Funnel

You definitely know what a funnel is. But why do you know what it is?

After all, when was the last time you saw a funnel, let alone used one. Yet, nonetheless, not only does everyone know what a funnel is, its obvious to everyone that everyone knows what it is. But funnels are entirely absent from our lives and even from representation in visual media.

Weird.

It's the Mystery of the Funnel.