Jeremy Rosen
Making Sense of the Bible: Can its Ancient Text be Relevant Today? Exodus 34

Jeremy Rosen - Making Sense of the Bible: Can its Ancient Text be Relevant Today? Exodus 34

- And now we turn to the text of our session today, the chapter 34. Chapter 34 continues the discussion over what happened after the golden calf episode. We’ve been on this now for three sessions. And so it’s such a significant episode that the Torah devotes so much time to it. And the question of course is why and what is unusual about chapter 34 that we haven’t come across already. So chapter 34 starts off with God turning to Moses. Moses has already negotiated with God to continue taking care of the children of Israel and leading them into the holy land. And in addition, God has needed to reassure, He needed to reassure Moses that God will be with him on this particular journey. But now in chapter 34, now God turns to Moses and He says in verse one, “I want you to produce” is a sculpture, it also means something carved. “I want you to carve out two tablets "of stone like the previous one which you broke,” which we’re going to come to in a minute. We’re going to repeat this, so what? Moses, in addition to all his other talents and his other greatness now becomes a Michelangelo. And now he has personally to carve out the stone. It’s no small thing to carve out a stone. It’s going to smooth out the surface that you’re going to write something in cuneiform or whatever it was that was written in it. But very similar to the previous ones, which in the previous ones, if you remember, it’s God giving them to Moses and now Moses has to produce his own.

It’s almost as if what this is saying is what God does and gives is ephemeral in human terms. It is beyond our mind and therefore things that we can wrap our minds around are what really matter for us in coping with the challenges of life. And so this time Moses actually has to make the effort of producing this stone, but then goes on to say, God goes on to say in verse one, “And I will write on these stones” “the same things” “that were on the first ones,” “which you broke.” Don’t we know already that he broke? Very interesting, the Talmud explains that this second statement of which you broke, is another way of saying God approved of what you did. You would’ve thought God would be angry, but the mere fact He says “produce other ones "like the ones you broke,” mentioning “you broke.” It’s almost like saying, “I approve of what you did given the circumstances,” which interestingly translates into Jewish law as saying, when you want to forgive somebody or want to ask for forgiveness, you need to specify why you are asking for that forgiveness. It’s not just enough to say, you’ve got to embrace it, and that is the path for forgiveness. Verse two, “Be ready for tomorrow morning,” “go up in the morning” “on Mount Sinai” “and you’ll stand there in front of me,” “on the top of the mountain.” Verse three, “I don’t want anybody to come up with you.” “And I want nobody standing on the mountain, "even the sheep,” “I don’t want them anywhere near feeding, grazing” “opposite the mountain.” Now remember that in the previous versions, there were various people going up the mountain with Moses, there was Aaron going up the mountain, then later on there were the young men or the leaders that went up part of the mountain, the Zakenim, and then there was Joshua up the mountain. This time there’s nobody, absolutely nobody.

It’s saying something about the relationship between God and Moses being unique in relationship to everybody else. So nobody’s up the mountain. And verse four, so Moses then, he carries out the engraving or producing the stone like the first ones, gets up early in the morning, he goes up Mount Sinai as God commanded him, taking with him two heavy stones, schlepping them up the mountain. Must have been an amazingly strong man to do that. But nevertheless, covering up the mountain, It’s interesting, getting up early in the morning, is a phrase that repeats in Genesis. It repeats, for example, with Abraham taking his son to sacrifice him. And he gets up early in the morning and saddles his own donkey, which normally you wouldn’t expect him to have to do. It shows enthusiasm, it shows passion, it shows commitment, which again is translated into the Jewish tradition of, first thing you do in the morning is thank God. And then you pray after you’ve washed up and everything like that. And that’s how you start your day early in the morning with enthusiasm to greet the day. And Moses goes down on the, and God, sorry, God comes down in this cloud and stands there and then he calls in the name of God, . Now those of you who’ve been with me over a year will know that in Genesis, in talking about the evolution of the relationship between man and God, we start off with Adam who’s just given the instructions.

“This is what you do, and do as you’re told.” We then have Cain and Abel trying to relate to God and developing this idea of sacrifice. In the case of Cain, it was from the leftover vegetables, whereas in the case of Abel, it was the very best of his flock. And then we moved on the process of evolution in relationship to God to a man called Enos. And Enos said, there in the Torah it says, “Then people began to call in the name of God.” And I suggested that what that meant was that people realised you didn’t have to sacrifice. You can if you want to, but there’s another way of relating to God on a spiritual level by this kind of verbal, what we would call prayer today. But I also pointed out that most of the rabbis don’t look at it that way in their commentaries. They say that was the beginning of idolatry, calling anything God. But this here looks pretty clear that I’m right, hate to have to say this and I have no right to say I compare myself in any way to the great rabbis of the past. But nevertheless, the fact that Moses calls out in the name of God, it’s another way of saying, establishing a relationship with this divine being. And then we have a series of verses which those of you who follow the prayers over the High Holy Days will know that this plays a constantly repeating themes, seven times repeated. And these are called the Middot, the qualities and characteristics of God, which in itself is very problematic because as my Maimonides says, you can’t give any characteristics to God that actually describe God. And therefore in a way they are the ideal qualities that anybody who assumes to be good and godly should have. What are they?

So in verse six, the phrase starts off, and I say, this is all familiar in the liturgy, , “And God passes by Moses” “and Moses calls out” “God, God,” El, another word for God, doesn’t mean to say they’re three different Gods. God, El, Rachum Ve'chanun, merciful and caring, charming, responsive, slow to anger, full of kindness, the Emet and truth. So these are the qualities. The first ones we’re going to go more in the next verse that describe God or rather describe us how we should be as human beings. And in addition to that, ending with a word emet. Now emet is a very, very complicated word. We translate it as truth. And when we talk about truth in the western world, essentially what we mean is there can only be one valid answer to every question. This is part of Greek philosophy. The truth is that which all things aim, everything has a perfect answer and a perfect explanation. And of course great as Greek philosophy was and how much it influenced both Muslim philosophy, Jewish philosophy and the mediaeval period, the early mediaeval period and later right through really until probably the 19th century, and I would even say the 20th century when philosophy started examining the meaning of words and what they actually mean rather than what we think they mean. So the word emet, we normally think and use is truth. This is true and there is no other, just as we say this is God and there is no other. But the word emet is used in the Torah very differently. First of all, it is used empirically. Empirically is did this actually happen? So when you are examining in Deuteronomy the question of an assault on somebody or rape for example, the question is, “Is it true this actually happened?” So this is an empirical truth, it’s not a theological proof.

At the end of the Shema, we also say and then we add the word emet, which is not in the original text of the Torah. But we added because at the time when this was added, we were in a theological world in which everybody had their truth. The Christians had their truth, the Muslims had their truth, and we had our truth, which I understand as meaning true for us, just as what is true for them is true for them. So on the one hand it means, empirically, did this happen? And in another word way, it is rather like the word amen, the word amen, which means I agree and has the root meaning emunah, which is often translated as to believe. But what it really means is, I’m strong about something. So again, the example of when Moses is holding his two hands up during the battle against Amalek and when his hands are up, the Jews are winning and the Israelites are winning. And when his hands down they fail. And we say that Hur and Aaron held his hands up, they were true, strong, reliable, right through. So the word amen, like the word emet means, “This is true for me. "This is my experience, my empirical experience,” rather than a philosophical theological statement of “Yes, I believe, glory, hallelujah.” And anybody can say that, but it’s only actions that prove if you really do. So this idea of emet and these qualities of God are qualities that we have to have, trustworthy, reliable, dependable, we mean what we say. And then we go on to verse seven, continuing this list of qualities that God is supposed to have. “Bestowing or giving kindness to thousands.” Thousands of what’s?

Thousands of people, thousands of generation. And I’ll tell you that, “forgiving mistakes,” interesting word, literally to lift up to bear, to carry, “I can cope with it, I can tolerate it.” Something that many people in our world are incapable of tolerating anything. and remember previously I mentioned all these different words for what we call in English sin, and each one of them means failing to live up to one standards. So for example, , which is to sin. The last of these four is, three of the actual word of sin means to miss the mark. Pesha means to fail in some way, to stumble. And avon is to come up short. But that means there are things that we can put right. And this idea that we are inherently sinners is quite offensive. We are not. We have the capacity to sin and the capacity to do well. But on the other hand, here’s the bit that I have problems with. God does not let things off just like that. Don’t think there are no consequences. It doesn’t mean punish, because we know that punishment is stated again in Devarim, in Deuteronomy that nobody is punished for the sins of somebody else, but nevertheless God does not let you off lightly. And here’s a line again that is in the 10 Commandments, forgiving or visiting are two sides of one coin. They are both to do with consequences. And so what He’s saying here is that there are consequences to what fathers do that affects the sons. And in that way, similarly what sons do that can affect the fathers, and therefore in coping with life, ‘cause this is supposed to be a kind of a statement of one’s ideals, in coping with life, we have to realise that even though our mistakes can be forgiven and mistakes can be repaired in many cases, there are still going to be consequences that we have to live with.

But what’s interesting is what this misses out is the end of the 10 Commandments, because the 10 Commandments adds in two other words, it adds in at the first three, “Forgiving all these things that go wrong” “to those who love me.” “But as far as,” “the consequences carrying on it adds” “to those who hate me.” That is to say it adds this extra dimension that you can see the two sides of one coin, that if things bad have happened and have alienated you, you can return from that alienation to a state of love. And conversely, you can go into a state of constant denial and hatred and antagonism, which prevents you healing, so to speak. So these are the qualities of God that are repeated throughout our liturgy, which we are supposed to try to emulate. Verse eight, “Quickly” “he bows down to the ground” “and he” is to bow down, but it’s also , these are two things, two words that appear later on in Jewish oral law that are not actually explained specifically. The term is used with regard to the custom in the Temple of lying flat on the ground. Whereas is to basically to bow or if you like to bend the knee so to speak, like you bow to the queen or the king or you curtsy or some acknowledgement. But is something that in fact very few people ever did later on, but it was considered the absolute flat on the ground. And he then turns back to God and continues the same appeal to somehow make God more than just an abstract idea, which is very difficult. If you don’t feel anything, it’s easy to say love, but what happens if you don’t love? “If I have found favour "in your eyes, dear God,” “I want to see the presence of God amongst us.”

“This is such a stiff-necked people” and this is a theme that goes right through and explains us today to this very moment where we are arguing with each other about absolutely everything. We are a stiff-necked people. That is both a blessing and a curse. “But” “I want you nevertheless to forgive us.” God’s already said this. How many times do we have to go on repeating it, repeating it time and time again? And yet the fact of the matter is we do. How often do we need to be told I love you? How often do we need reassurance? This is in that sense, a very, very human characteristic which he’s applying to God. So, “I want you to forgive us,” verse 10. God now says, “Okay fine, I’ve told you I’ll repeat it. "I will have a covenant. "I’ll reinforce the covenant I made to Abraham, Isaac, "and Jacob to all your people. "Wonderful things are going to happen. "Not only” “things that will not be seen elsewhere. "There’s something unique "about what is going to happen to you.” And I have to say, if there is one strong argument in favour of divine intervention, it is the fact that we have survived. And no matter what the world throws at us, we still survive. We are still here. Really feel this at this moment in time. “So” “people will then realise” “that” “you now,” this is again, God, “are amongst us.” “I’m amongst you.” “This is a divine gift,” so to speak, “which I am giving,” “this covenant that I’m making with you.”

It’s a little bit ambiguous, this language here, because it could mean sometimes what you, Moses, are doing. But it could also mean what I am doing. Verse 11, God then goes on to say, “But still I expect certain things from you.” And now we come to a very difficult part of the Torah that again, I have difficulties with explaining to myself. So I hope I can explain this to you in a way that will make sense to you. He says, verse 11, “But I want you to take great care. "I want you to realise, take this on board. "I don’t want you to make any covenant "with” “with the people in the land” “where you are coming to” “because they will only act as a trap.” “They will only ensnare you, they will only pull you down.” Now what does this mean? Don’t make a covenant? Can’t make peace? 'Cause we are going to see later on, there were occasions when they did make peace. And this is a statement which I don’t think has to be understood legislatively, but rather more theoretically. But practically, I do say, verse 13, “Break down their altars they worship idols on,” “their images, "you should break” “and their groves of trees,” Druids and all that kind of thing, “I want you to cut them down "because I don’t want you to bow down to any other god.” Only God who cares about Himself in the sense that wants you to know that it matters. So your mission is a monotheistic mission, and you have to do whatever you can to remove, to remove idolatry and to remove the threat.

But it is specified. This is not a universal thing. You don’t have to go out chasing idols all over the world, the North Pole, the South Pole, east, and the west converting anybody. I want you to set up a kind of an ideal state. And in this ideal state I want you to be purely monotheistic and get rid of anything that might detract from it. And we see that throughout Jewish life, we’ve always succumbed to the attractions of others in the outside world. So I see this not as “go kill everybody,” which people think and which I will explain later on, because historically, of course, the Canaanites went on living in conjunction with the Israelites and they didn’t go destroying them. And in many respects it was rather like the policy of Genghis Khan and the Mongols. They had this terribly bloody reputation. But the Mongols basically were traders. And before they came to a city, what they said to them was, “Will you trade with us? "In which case, open your gates and we’ll be partners.” And if they did, that’s what happened. One of the reasons why the Jews were treated so well by the Mongols. But if you refused and tried to fight, then they smash it to pieces in the most bloody, horrific, terrible way that they hoped would deter anybody else for standing up to them. So verse 15, carrying on this theme, what’s going to happen if you don’t have a solid, reliable state of your own with its own values? I don’t want you to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land because they will seduce you to follow their gods and you’ll eat at their sacrifices and at their temples, because paganism was a lot of fun. It was very self-indulgent. It had a lot to recommend it. That’s why it had a grip for so long and why it still does in our day. Because then what’s going to happen is, you are going to get on well, you’ll take their daughters to marry your sons, your sons, their daughters.

You are to marry and you’ll inevitably succumb, because they are greater in number, the majority always wins. Look what happens to Jews in America. They follow the Majority, go what everybody else is doing around them. It’s thousands of years ago saying what is happening today. “I don’t want you to create idols.” Now having said that, fair enough, I understand in this context, but now all of a sudden we change totally to a very different subject, you might think, although there’s a connection. And it goes on to say verse 18, “The festival of Matzot,” doesn’t say the of Pesach but Matzot. And I make that point in a minute. “I want you to keep,” Shiv'at Yamim, “for seven days,” “and I want you to eat matzot” “as I have already commanded you” “at this time of the year,” springtime, “because in the month of Aviv,” “you came out of Egypt.” Dunno where to start, there’s so much here. Let’s start on the simple thing. Well isn’t the first month Nisan? Don’t we go Nisan, Iyar, Sivan? I want you to know that Nisan Iyar Sivan, all those names of months of Babylonian. So it’s Nisanu is the Babylonian instead of Nisan. They’re all those names that we currently use today all came from Babylon. Before that there were a series of month names that were Hebraic before the Babylonian influence. Aviv was one of these months. But there were also other names that you’ll find in the Tanach and of course in the Bible, Bull is another one of them that were named after other Asian, sorry, Assyrian gods. So Aviv is unusual, but it’s the month of Aviv and Moed, which is another way of talking about festivals. But it means a time.

Moed is a time, a special time, a fixed time. And the implication here is this word was used initially in chapter one of Genesis about the sun and the moon. The sun and the moon, Ha, were described as being those elements that fix the times for us. And there were, and still are, lunar calendars and solar calendars, solar going by the sun, 365 days, lunar going by the month. For example, Islam only has a lunar calendar, which is why Ramadan moves around in the course of the year. But we have a lunar and a solar one which guarantees that our festivals always happen at the same time of the year. Pesach is always springtime. Sukkot is always autumntime. And so our calendar, the Mo'edim, are fixed by the sun and the moon and always come out at the same time and are not a movable feast. So that’s the idea of the months. And interestingly enough, what Rosh Hashanah, we say is the beginning of the year, there’s no hint of that in the Torah itself. The beginning of the year is Nisan. And then we have what was called in those days, the new years, and basically what this meant was that every calendar year went according to either something agricultural or something political. So really until the first millennium, the Jewish calendar was only how many years to the reign of King David, how many years to the reign of King Solomon, the sixth year of the reign of King Hezekiah and so forth and so on. Then when Christianity introduced the idea of a calendar based on going back to the birth of Jesus, we decided, “Well, we better compete with that, "and we’ll have a calendar "that will go back to the beginning "of the world as we imagine it,” going back in time and trying to track back when the world began,“ which of course we know now could only be figurative and doesn’t take into consideration all the different millions and billions before.

And then of course Islam came along and said, "Ah, no, to have what the Jews have "or the Christians, we’re going to have it from Mohammed.” So you’ve got three different calculations within the religious world. Anyway, so that’s the Moed. Then we have the principle of eating matzot. Now as you know in the Torah, there are different names for Passover, there is Pesach, where Passover comes from, which comes from the word that God pesach, God passed over the children of Israel’s homes in Egypt before He struck the poor royal Egyptian firstborn, and then they went out. So Pesach is talking about God’s role in this, whereas Matzot, eating matzot is something that we did, the people did. It’s what we do. And therefore Matzot is our involvement in the festival. And so again, you have this dual track, you have the spiritual track, we’ll call it the God track. And then you have the human track, which is us and how we behave. So the first thing we have is a statement of Pesach. And so in a sense what we’re having here is the counterbalance to idolatry. “I don’t want you to get involved in idolatry.” And the way to avoid getting involved in idolatry is by reinforcing your specific Jewish, God-orientated festivals and occasions. It’s basically an assertion of your cultural identity. But then we go on to something very interesting, verse 19, “The fruit "and the produce of every womb is mine.” And not only is this something that affects humans, it’s also something that affects your flocks and your sheep and all the, shall we say, domesticated animals. “And I want you also "to redeem those animals that you can’t eat,” “like” “or a camel or anything like that.

"I want you to redeem, to exchange,” okay? So I’m not going to be able to dedicate this donkey to God. So instead I’ll give some other animal, a sheep or a cow or a goat instead. And this is going to apply to the firstborn. That is to say, if you want to keep your firstborn, there has to be some sort of compensation to me. And this is going to be reflected in that whenever you come to worship God within the old Tabernacle Temple framework, you should never appear empty handed. So this is the initial basis for the sacrificial system. The sacrificial system going back to Cain and Abel is a way of saying, “Thank you God, here’s a token of my gratitude.” Now how that plays out, we’re going to see in the next book. But this is the statement. And what is interesting here is that Passover involved the firstborn of the Jews being spared, and therefore the idea initially was that it is the firstborn who should be the priests and they should be responsible for the nation, for the welfare of the nation. They would be the doctors and the teachers as well as the priests and the functionaries and the psychiatrists. That would be their role. And that was the initial dream. It doesn’t say so explicitly, but what obviously happened very shortly was the idea that this is not going to work. It’s not going to work because if you’ve only got one child, you can’t give that child up to go and function for the government. Somebody’s got to carry on the family business, and therefore it’s an ideal. And very often the Torah preserves ideals even though it knows and we know it’s not practical. And so what happened, if you remember in the story of Samuel where his mother prayed to God that she should have a son, and Samuel was the son that she got, she went and dedicated him to the Tabernacle. Did that mean he became a priest? Some people say yes, but others say no. But people could dedicate their children to go and service the community.

But now we have what’s called Pidyon HaBen, that everybody automatically redeems their firstborn, symbolically, gratitude for it. “But we are keeping him, thank you, God. "And instead we’ll give a token contribution "to your favourite charity.” So then we go on to say, verse 21, “But not just the festivals, but” “six days you can go” “but on the seventh day,” “you should take a break.” And this break should be that you have to do this break even when you’re in the middle of harvest, even when your busiest time of the year. You should take a break at this moment. So here you’ve got the link of the festival with agriculture and then , the Tabernacle, the Festival of Weeks, which we call Shavuot, which they call Shavuot here, but also has other names. We are going to talk about new fruits and agricultural features. You’ll do that, but “with the produce of the wheat harvest.” When the wheat harvest is completed, it begins Pesach time, early spring, and then it goes right through the first harvest is the barley, that’s the strongest one, and then the wheat coming following on. And it will also be called Chag Ha-Asif, the Festival of the Ingathering. But that is usually supposed to be a reference to the other harvest festival, which is Sukkot. And there is ambiguity. But on the other hand, if you don’t say that is Sukkot, somehow or other you’re missing that one out. But notice there’s no mention here of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. It’s all to do with the , the three festivals called three legs when you were supposed to turn up at the Temple or the Tabernacle and a kind of international gathering of everybody together to reinforce the sense of community. And therefore three times in the year, all males should appear before the master of the universe and the God of Israel. And once again we go on to say, back to the nations, “when I drive these people out,” “I expand your borders.”

“You don’t have to worry "that in your absence, people won’t come "and take over your land.” “When you come to greet God three times "in the year.” I find this so interesting, particularly in the context of what has happened 50 years ago and what happened this year, that it was actually on a festival when we were all getting ready to have a good time and in a sense drop our guard that the horrors attacked us. It seems to be a direct contradiction of what God has said. “If you come and celebrate, don’t worry. "You’ll be okay.” I’m afraid God will have to answer for that one. I have no explanation. But once again verse 26, it says, in verse 25, “I don’t want you to offer the blood of the sacrifices. "I don’t want you to offer that blood "and combine it with anything that’s leavened.” In other words, “I don’t want you to use it as gravy "to soak up the blood, soak up the food.” Drinking blood was a very important feature of the pagan rights. Indeed in Rome, people doused themselves in blood, bathed themselves in blood as part of a religious ceremony. So, “Don’t use blood for religious purposes,” 'cause that was also regarded for a long time as typical of the pagan world. “But I also want you to bring your first fruits,” verse 26, “to the house of God.” And now this very problematic statement, “Don’t boil a goat in its mother’s milk.” I have told you before the famous joke of Moses on the mountain with God. And God says to Moses, “Don’t boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” And Moses turns to God, “Oh, I see "what you mean is we should not eat meat and milk together.” And God says, “No, Moses, that’s not what I said. "I just said,” “'Don’t cook a goat in his mother’s milk.’”

“Oh,” says Moses. “So what you really mean is "that we should wait for six hours after eating meat "before we can have milk.” “No, Moses,” says, God, “I just said, ‘Don’t cook a goat, it’s mother’s milk.’” “Ah, so what you mean, God, is "that we should have separate plates for meat and milk,” to which God says, “Okay, Moses, have it your way.” But the question is, why is this statement mentioned three times? What’s so significant about it? And one can only understand it in the context of idolatry. This is being said to differentiate us from what was clearly a very common idolatrous fertility rite and practise that was common in the pagan world in which they lived. And that’s why it’s given so much significance. So this is where I want to stop for a moment for this session and turn to the questions and we will pick up again, “Please God,” next week in the middle of Hanukkah if you have the time to do that. So turning to the questions.

Q&A and Comments:

Rhonda asked me about the music you turned in, “Sorry about writing Rabbi Stern "instead of your correct name.” Nothing to worry about that. Thank you, so thank you Rhonda. Don’t worry, don’t worry. I don’t take offence easily. I really don’t. So not worry about that.

Q: Shelly, “In verse one, "the word is psal, isn’t it the same root as Pesach?”

A: Yes, exactly the same word, but a psal is an image, you make a sculpture, and the act of making a sculpture is to carve and psal has that function.

Romaine, “As man’s relation to God evolves, "it never seems to expect the absence of man’s ego.” Well, because, Romaine, I think we always have an ego. And in one way that’s a good thing to have. It’s giving us our character, it’s giving us our sense of our own validity. And it’s very, very important that Tanach reiterates that humans should not in a sense over-humble themselves or do themselves down. And so there’s a principle in the Talmud that a person cannot make himself wicked. In other words, you cannot convict yourself, because you may tend to want to do that. You must let the evidence show, but don’t you do yourself down. So I think ego has a good side to it. It also has a bad side, as we know.

Q: Shelly, “Verse five,” “translates” “as He, implying the one is calling out is God, "what’s going on?”

A: Yes, Shelly, that is definitely ambiguous. It can either mean God or it can be Moses. And if you go through those various places, it’s very difficult to know exactly what. And so you have to look at context and the context will explain, ‘cause could be God, could be man.

Q: Mark, “In verse five it says, 'Stood there with him.’ "Him is not capitalised. "So isn’t him Moses? "God stood there with Moses. "Does this mean God proclaimed Himself His own name, "not Moses proclaiming God’s name?”

A: And there again, Mark, I have to repeat this is the same problem that we have with the language. The language is in one sense beautiful as it is very minimalist. And so “as he said” and “as he called” and all these things can mean he or she or they, it can mean God, it can be Moses. And therefore you have to look at the context to make sense of it. But you are right, it’s definitely ambiguous. And I pointed out that it was ambiguous. Origen, yes, the component of original sin. This is something that you find a reference to in the rabbinic sources that’s saying that man was the first one to sin and therefore it was the first sin. But not, first is not what is meant by original. This is a Christian version and a Christian interpretation of what we mean by the first one, an origin. So later on in after Noah, the Torah specifically that God looked at man and saw that he had a tendency, it’s called yetzer, a tendency to do bad as well as yetzer, a tendency to be good. We have both within us. But it’s interesting that it describes man having a yetzer hara, the bad tendency from his youth, not birth. We don’t believe that it is from birth, but we do pick up, we, going back to ego, our ego, our superego demands things. And so we do demand and we do have an ego.

“Why don’t translators and publishers "of the Tanach actually say visiting the consequence "and iniquity of parents? "That makes more sense than visiting the sins. And visiting the sins, dear Mark, is the translation of the King James version of the Bible. And the trouble is that there are so many different translations, so many different ways of saying things, which is why I really, to repeat the famous statement from mediaeval monks, which is to say traduire, which is to translate, tradire est, is to betray. You can’t find one. I have my favourite version, somebody else sounds, there’s a very well reviewed translation of the Bible by the American academic Alter, which is the most recent one. And you know, I disagree with almost all his versions of translation. But it’s not wrong. It’s just, there is no exact translation that matches perfectly the original language. You won’t find one.

"I missed,” says Nurit, “explaining verse 11.” Oh, I’m sorry. Yes, I should have mentioned 11. “Be very careful that I want you "to drive out from before you the Amorites, "the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. These are the seven tribes, Canaanite tribes. Now it’s interesting, it says that in black and white. And yet the fact is that those tribes went on coexisting with the two kingdoms, the southern kingdom, the northern kingdom. They were able to live with full civil rights within that period of time so long as they abided by Jewish law. And they went on existing right until the seventh century BCE, when the Assyrians drove all the residents, including the Jews as well as the Canaanites out of the country. And they never reconstituted even though the Palestinians want to claim they’re the original Canaanites, but there was no trace of them after the Assyrians got rid of them. So in fact, what we are saying is that this is rather an expression of hope and of emphasising the threat that they present rather than an actual instruction to go killing everybody. And when they went in, they only attacked those tribes, those cities, and those towns that stood up to them and made the fight. So sorry for that, but thanks for reminding me, Nurit, that’s very important.

Q: "How does the idea of empirical truth apply today "with so many different narratives "about the state of the world?”

A: Well, April, I think the answer is that we have to decide what is true for us. Just as we Jews have to decide what’s true for us is not true for Hamas. Simple as that. Hamas believe theirs is the truth. We believe ours is the truth. And in the end people have to choose which one they prefer. Would you rather be in Hamas or would you rather be in Israel?

Q: “When do Rosh Hashanah,” says Yisrael, “begin to be known as the beginning of the spiritual year?”

A: That’s basically, it’s Mishnaic. So we have to put it down to sometime during the Second Temple period. We don’t have an exact date, but it’s around about that time, ‘cause it appears in the Mishna. So it’s in the Mishna of Rosh Hashanah that we have this idea of Rosh Hashanah being the start of the year.

Nurit, “We have leap year seven times in a cycle, "19 years in order the festivals "to fall the right season of the year?” That is to make sure indeed that, the leap year, makes sure that we keep our calendar in sync with the seasons. That’s precisely it. We have an extra month in the Jewish calendar basically that is Adar Sheni, the additional Adar. And we also have a variation of our month between 28 and 29 days so that our is slightly different to the universal calendar that we all have.

Q: “Does Mohamed in his teaching "in Quran change 'Kill the infidel?’”

A: Well, Mohamed gave instructions to kill anybody basically who didn’t agree with him and who stood up to him, which is why he killed all the Jews of Khaybar. But essentially what he says, you have to convert everybody. And technically speaking, he also says that you shouldn’t tolerate any other religion. But he meant any other pagan religion. And in fact, he called the Jews and the Christians the People of the Book, and therefore not Mohamed so much as Umar and the Pact of Umar that came after that gave others who were monotheistic extra status over and above pagans. But he wasn’t very keen on pagans.

Q: “Does shevut have the root of Shabbat?”

A: It does exactly, which is to break, to rest, can mean any of those things.

Lindy, you learned so much. I’m glad you did. Thank you, Rita. Thank you Liza. Clara, thank you so much.

Richard and all those people who I’ve been in touch with during the course of the week on email and everything and told me they listen and don’t identify themselves. Thank you so much and I’m glad you are here.

Q: “Can you repeat the Latin idiom,” Helen says, “of the translation?”

A: Yes, traduire, T-R-A-D-U-I-R-E, traduire, to translate, tradire est, to betray. Tradire is to betray. It sounds like, traduire, sounds like tradire, but of course, very different Richard.

“Adar one considered extra month?” Yes, I just mentioned that. And there we are, everybody, we’ve finished for the day. Happy Hanukkah, everybody, happy Hanukkah. And it’s hope, miracle against miracle, that all hostages are returned.