March 20, 2006
Moooses
I don't care how big an idiot the Rashbam says I am; the Torah's use of karan to describe the light emanating from Moshe's face is an intentional bovine reference. It makes perfect sense! The Golden Calf was in response to the absence of Moshe, not a replacement for God, as the Torah makes clear several times. And while the creation of the Golden Calf certainly led to trouble, the initial instinct to replace Moshe with something must have had some merit, or else Aharon wouldn't have gotten involved.
Now, I'm not saying that the proper translation of karan is horns, because it's not; I'm fully aware of the whole controversy surrounding Aquilas and the Vulgate translation, and the subsequent interpretations of Michealangelo and some farmer in Kasas. But there's any number of other words that could have been used to indicate that light shown from Moshe's face. My point is that the usage of karan is an explicit reference to the bovine in general, the Golden Calf in particular, indicating that Moshe had in some fashion subsumed the role that the Jews had thought the calf would play. Again, just what that role was depends on who you ask; I leave it as an exercise to the reader to fit this in, if possible, to the various commentaries on the nature of the Golden Calf (keep in mind, though, that an eigel doesn't yet have horns, I believe).
I don't think you're right. Is q-r-n, as it relates to the 'horns' of the mizbeah also a bovine reference? I do understand that you're making the connection between the egel and Moshe's 'horns [e.g., beams) of light,' but what other word in Biblical Hebrew would you have chosen?
Posted by: S. at March 20, 2006 10:12 AMI hadn't thought about the Mizbeach; there's no context to connect the two, though, which there is in our case. There's definetly connections between the keruvim and the eigel, but that's something else (although related).
As for other ways to express the shining of the face, "me'ir panav" comes to mind...I'm sure there are more.
Posted by: Greg at March 20, 2006 11:59 AMI'm no expert, but I think it would be "hey'eer panav". If I may humbly correct your suggestion, "me'ir" is wrong here (as it is in so many, many places). Har har har.
Two other thoughts - if the point of the pasuk is to suggest rays of lights, rather than simply illumination, there may not be an alternative to "koran," and in general, it's best not to confuse the limits of an author's intent with the limits of one's personal interpretation.
Posted by: Moishe Potemkin at March 20, 2006 3:29 PMThe fact that there is no other alternative could obviate the connection. On the other hand, the fact that there is no alternative could indicate a deeper link at the linguistic level. Flipping the argument around, there could have been another term for a cow's horns as well; the fact that it's the same as the term used to denote rays of light indicates a conceptual linkage.
Besides, assuming the purpose of this passage is symbolic or noetic, as opposed to historical, in nature, there's grounds for exploring interpretations at the narrative level that may lead in that direction.
Either way, my interpretation is based on both narrative and linguistic hints, which to me crosses the threshold of significance.
Posted by: Greg at March 20, 2006 4:00 PMThe similarity could just be the relatively straight projection. I'm not insisting that you're wrong, just that you might be overly sensistive.
Wow, how's about that for a double-entendre! You see, I was hoping you wouldn't be offended ("Don't be so sensitive") when I was commenting about you possibly reading in too much to an individual choice of word ("Don't be so sensitive.")
Deep, man.
Posted by: Moishe Potemkin at March 20, 2006 4:48 PMYo!
I love this way in which you've taken down these words with such a beautiful poetic analogy that really does makes quite good sense. My favourite thing about learning Torah is the word plays, the myriads of connotations hidden in each word or phrase. Of course, I usually get similar responses like "oh that's just bleich Torah." I see where the tradtition is coming from and while that is great for learning, there is a necessity for people to share how they find significance in the text. Maybe this linguistic connotation is not important to our tradition or how we learn out any halakhah. It is, however, extremely important in how we convey that infinite world of Torah to each other. Thanks for blowing your shofar out for us.
Posted by: j Block at March 24, 2006 12:15 PM
