Shemini - Lev. 9:1-11:47

FIRE!

There is a verse at the end of chapter 9, and two others at the beginning of chapter 10 that are normally read as though they are unconnected, but let's connect them to see something interesting.

Most of chapter 9 is about Moses and Aaron, who were together, and it was Aaron's initiation ceremony as to becoming the high priest, and he performed the three required sacrifices. We were told, in the previous Torah portion, that this was to be an induction for not only Aaron and his sons, and this portion has the sons summoned, awaiting their turn.

When the sacrifices are done, Moses and Aaron descend and the two of them entered the Tent of Meeting to meet with YHVH. And when they exited, the two of them not only blessed the people, but the Gory of YHVH (כבוד יהוה) was seen by the entire nation.

Perhaps the flap of the tent was open, because what happens next:

9:24 - And a fire went out from before YHVH and consumed the burnt-offering (olah) and the fats that were on the altar (mizbeach). When the people saw this, they vayarnu and threw themselves on their faces.

10:1 - And Aaron's sons, Nadav and Avihu, each of them took his censer (fire pan) and put in it a fire, and set upon that, incense, and offered before YHVH a foreign fire, [a fire] that He had not commended them [to bring].

10:2 - And a fire when out from before YHVH and consumed them, and they died before YHVH. 

Here are a few things to note:

1. The expression that the fire went out from before YHVH is an interesting one. The sifra is uncomfortable with the idea of YHVH thrusting out a fire while residing in a tent, so changes "from before YHVH" to "from heaven", The Rashbam gives the fire a supernatural flavor, saying that it was the existing fire that was burning, not a new one, and YHVH made the fire grow and go outward and drew it back in. There are many argument for this being a separate fire or the same, supernatural, or natural. 
2. This expression is repeated when it comes to YHVH having the fire consume (literally, "eat") the offering. As we learned at the beginning of the last portion ("Tzav"), the olah was an offering that nobody but YHVH would be consuming, and that the priesthood would have their usual share denied to them.
3. Nobody really knows what vavarnu means. There is a tradition that it must mean some sort of praising. In Hebrew grammar, the ending "u" sound means "they" as a past tense verb, but it could just was well mean that they freaked out seeing the Glory of YHVH through the tent flaps, then He case a great supernatural fire that ate up all of that meat and fat in an instant. We just don't know.
4. I added "[a fire]" to near the end of 10:1 to indicate that a "foreign fire" meant one that YHVH had not yet commanded them to bring.

So did the sons of Aaron sin?

The text never says so, and it is quite common for Jews to name their sons Nadav and Avihu. You have Moses and Aaron who are standing on either side of the tent, who saw nothing wrong with what was going on, and the sons felt that it was their turn, but YHVH either killed them as a punishment, or for some other reason.

After they are killed, Moses says something odd to his brother, "This is what YHVH said, saying, "I will be sanctified through those who are near Me, and I will be glorified before all the people." And Aaron was silent.

First of all, there is no text where YHVH says that, so many render it as Moses providing an interpretation, or Moses revealing a private prophecy.

And it is from this that we have a Midrash, where Moses is saying, "I had a prophecy that the two most righteous members of this people would be sacrificed to dedicate this altar, but I had thought that it was to be you and me.Now I see that your sons were the most righteous." And Aaron was silent.

Many are quite uncomfortable with the idea of YHVH initiating a human sacrifice, an olah, which is reminiscent of the story of Jephthah offering up his daughter as an olah.

So some say that Aaron was silent because he felt that he was being punished for making the Golden Calf.

Others say that the sons of Aaron were inebriated, which would be forbidden in a later verse, and since the Torah is not in order, those verses still apply.

The thing is this: YHVH was in His tent and sent out a fire to eat His offering. He did this twice. And the people reacted with a word for which we have no meaning. And Aaron said nothing.

These three verses are difficult for many. With some study, it's not difficult to grasp, only difficult to accept.

Tzav (Part 2) - Lev. 6:1-7:36

When speaking of the olah (burnt) offering, both here and in chapter 2, there is a term associated with it that many people ignore: azkarah (or azkartah, depending on the gender). Some translations will use "memorial", although "remembrance" is probably a better English word to use. The root, Z-Ch-R, means "remember", and many Jews, on the anniversary of the death of a loved one, will have an azkarah ceremony.

But how is a pleasing fragrance for YHVH, which He shares with no one, (unlike some of the other offerings, when the humans would share in the portion), a remembrance?

It should be noted that the Akkadian cognate of the word means "token", and that may give some insight into the use.

Rashi, citing the sifra, claims that when someone brings an ohlah as a fragrant smelling remembrance for YHVH, it means that YHVH will remember and bestow blessings upon the person(s) offering it to Him.

Many, including the Targum Onkelos, are uncomfortable with these anthropomorphisms. He changes "offering to YHVH" to "offering before YHVH", to eliminate the view that He is physically present. He also does not translate the word into Aramaic, but leaves it alone. When Onkelos does that, it's as if he is tossing his hands up and going, "I am NOT touching that!"

I suppose one could also read "remembrance" going in the other direction, meaning, that the person is offering it to remember and honor YHVH.

Except that while there are types of olah that are voluntary, that are daily ones that YHVH demands, and a fire that must never go out, and the savory smell of burnt meat is required to be present every day, an offering that is for YHVH alone.

And as we read in the book of Judges, when Jephthah vows to give YHVH and olah if the Jews will win the war (unfortunately, his daughter was the offering), it is a form of a bribe, a token, to encourage YHVH to do something in return.

And because of that, and other examples, and the Akkadian cognate, and the Targum's refusal to translate the word, I am suggesting that the sifra was correct in having it be something that God will remember and do good. It is a token offering, where "token" means something that is used for an exchange of services or goods.

A bribe.

And if this is the case, what of the olah that YHVH demands to be given daily, and repeatedly? If He demanding a bribe in order to keep bestowing good upon the people (or that is the line given to the people by the priesthood)?

It is something to ponder!

Tzav - Leviticus 6:1-7:36

This portion is named after the 6th word, "Tzav" (צו).

Now, the Rabbis had a lot of problem with this verb, because it is in the 1st-person-singular imperative form. In other words, Moses is being told by YHVH to "COMMAND Aaron and his sons..." on the the steps that YHVH requires in order so that the olah offering, as described last week and takes up all of the first chapter.

In that version, the details of the olah were not called a "law" or "instructions" as they are this week, and this week, there are some additional details, especially concerning changing the clothes and how to dispose of the remains.

So what is the problem with the leader of Israel commanding the priesthood to perform these actions?

According to Rashi, the priesthood might be reluctant because they would get no benefit from the burnt offering. They don't get to keep a portion of the meat like some of the other ones, for example.

It's an odd statement to make, because nowhere else is such a comment made. For example, in being told to leave a corner of the farm available for the poor to take food from, or any other commandment where someone is not going to gain, tzav is not used to indicate, "you need to do this even if you don't like it."

Also, "tzav" appears a total of 14 times in the entire Tanach.

Leviticus: 6:2, 24:2
Numbers: 5:2, 28:2, 34:2, 35:2

(Notice that all of these are in the second verse? But the pattern now changes:)

Deut. 2:4
2Kings 20:1
Isaiah 28:10 (twice), 28:13 (twice)
Hosea 5:11

In the case of the Torah, all uses of tzav are early into the chapter, as if to being with a command.

So, if we ignore the attempt by commentators to reduce the intensity of tzav when it comes to the relationship between Moses and Aaron, what can we get from the use of such a word?

Last week, the first word, vayikra, was used, with a small aleph which is often interpreted to signify humility, and a close relationship between YHVH and Moses. Even so, YHVH doesn't speak with Moses, but talks to Moses. Despite their close relationship, never forget that YHVH is still #1, and Moses, even though he is, essentially, the chief leader/prophet, is yet he is still an underling.

I find it quite likely that we have YHVH establishing an order of importance here as well. Yes, the priesthood is all important (at least to the Levitical authors), but they are still the underlings of the king, and even if the high priest is the brother of the chief leader/prophet, the high priest must remember his place and bow to the wishes of the chief leader.

There are a few times when YHVH speaks to both Moses and Aaron, but they are not equals.

So when YHVH is is speaking to Moses, as the One in authority, and telling Moses to command the priesthood, the order of importance has been established.

But the idea that the priesthood would refuse an commandment from God because there was no profit in it - that's just...odd!

Vayikra (Part 3) - Lev. 1:1-5:26

The Five Offerings

In this weeks portion, we are introduced to five different types of animal offerings, some of which can be replaced with bringing fine flour if you are poor enough, and a couple of general terms for sacrifices in general.

The general terms are qorban, which is an animal offering that may or may not be a sacrifice, and a zevach, which is a slaughtered animal which is often for a sacrifice.

So these general terms alone don't really define a sacrifice. For example, on Passover, a lamb or goat is treated as a qorban, and may be killed outside of the Temple and away from the mizbeach, and by any person. So in effect, it's a sacrifice (made sacred), but it isn't an offering which gives it a spark of "holiness", rendering it to be limited to God and His priesthood.

The five types of animal sacrifices listed in this weeks portion (which is by no means a complete list), are:

1. Elevation (1:3 olah עלה) - (also called a "burnt offering")
2. Meal offering (2:1 mincha - מנחה)
3. Peace offering (3:1 - shelamim - שלמים)
4. Sin offering (4:1 - chatah - חטא) 
5. Guilt offering (5:15 - asham אשם) 

There are others, and not all sacrifices are about sin and/or atonement. These were systems put in place for the people to interface with God trough the priestly cult as their intermediary. And while the average reader may be puzzled about how all of these systems worked, it is assumed that the people of that time knew full well how all of this worked.

But apparently some of that information is not so clear, based on the text.

For example, an olah was offered by Noah and then by Jethro to YHVH. So it seems like it was a general term for either honoring God, or being grateful (or perhaps both). And it seems to be something that the people knew that YHVH desired, since He would demand that two olah offerings were to be burned before Him daily. This is not counting the ones that the general population would bring for whatever reason, and it was an optional offering on their part and did not deal with sin. 

And as we read in Judges 11:30-39, Jephthah promises YHVH an olah if He will aid the Jews in defeating their enemy. Of course, in the story, it was his daughter who was sacrificed (although some apologists will disagree. I explain that story fully in this post.)

The shelamim offering, which is a plural form for "peace" could also be a plural form of "completeness". It is brought and dealt with differently than the olah, in that the person or persons bringing it would eat it with the priesthood. There are various interpretations as to how this brings peace or wholeness, but one view is that it was a way to get close to the priesthood who were the intermediaries to God. Again, this was strictly voluntary and had nothing to do with sin or atonement.

The mincha offering is unique in that the verse speaks of it as "a soul (nefesh) offering it", which is a unique language to the mincha. According to Rashi, this is to be thought of as though the aspirant had offered his very soul to God. And unlike the other offerings, this one does not involve and animal, but involves flour that is either raw, baked (bread), or fried (donuts). Unlike the olah which is burned, and the shelamim, which is shared, the mincha is food for the priesthood. And according to the Rambam, the prohibition to adding sweet liquids or yeast when offering this to God (or His priests), was to distance the Jews from the practice of other nations, who would offer sweet soft cakes to their Gods.

So, again, this offering is not about sin. The final two, however, are.

The first, a chatah, is for an unintentional sin, and the second, the asham is for an intentional sin.

What would be an unintentional sin?

Well, a woman who cries out in childbirth, "This is the LAST time I am going to be doing this!", then that is an unintentional sin. And in order to not embarrass a specific woman who uttered these words, the Rabbis instituted a custom, back when sacrifices were brought, that all women who gave birth were to bring a chatah. 

An intentional sin is one where your body would not atone for it (such as being whipped or executed). An example given is cheating your neighbor ("Your hammer? I don't know anything about your hammer." which you know is sitting in your house.).

Of course, there are more offerings, but those we will look at when they are mentioned in later chapters.

A Bloody Business

It appears that whoever wrote this text, wrote it during a time when there weren't a lot of offerings being brought. And so, perhaps this was a text to outline the expectations by the priesthood.

Why do I say that?

Let's say that you have a million people, and only .001% of the overall population will sin unintentionally or intentionally each day. That's 1,000 people per day. And since these could only be brought during the daylight hours, let's say that you have 1,000 minutes in the day to do this. It's not impossible if you have a big enough team to do it in, but it would be pretty rough to meet the deadline. According to Josephus, the hands of the priesthood moved so fast, they were like a blur.

Part of the problem is also the blood. 

A typical lamb has about 6 liters (2 gallons) of blood. A goat is about the same. A bull has about 40 liters (10 gallons) of blood.

So let's keep it low, lets use 5 liters times 1,000 animals every day.

Here is a picture of a man standing next to a 5,000 liter water tank.

Again, that may not seem like a lot of blood to dispose of every single day, until you remember that 2,300 years ago in Jerusalem, there was no place for this blood to go except upon the temple floor, and there weren't power hoses to clean it, nor an underground cistern for it to flow into.

And that much blood (which is being grossly underestimated) flowing every day, being dashed all around the altar, is going to reek on a hot Israeli day! And over time, with the right wind, everyone who lived near the Temple would be well aware of its location!

Hence the ancient Rabbis declaring that the Temple didn't smell and there were never any flies, because, "it was a miracle"!

My guess is that that animal offerings were probably quite rare, and that the priesthood struggled to get people to participate, and wrote Leviticus to tell the people that they had an obligation to give fruit, meal, and meat to the priesthood daily, because God demanded it.

I don't have any proof. It just seems very unlikely that the Temple processed so much blood, daily.

Vayikra (Part 2) - Lev. 1:1-5:26

It Smells So Good!

Picture this:

You have the special "Tent of Meeting" where the Ark is sitting, atop of which are the golden cherubs, and between them the presence of God sits or dwells. At the beginning of this portion (1:1), we have YHVH calling to Moses from that spot.

At the entrance of the tent is a special altar, a mizbeach.

This portion begins by telling us all about the korban, a general term for an offering, just as zevach is a general term for any animal that is to be sacrificed (ritually slaughtered to be made sacred), before God.

One can bring a bull, a ram (goat or sheep), or birds, depending on your financial situation (don't try to be cheap, because that's a sin too!), and if you are really poor, then bring the finest of grains that will be mixed with oil, salt, and frankincense.

Now, remember that altar? Well, for animals, their blood is captured and dashed on all sides of it. For the birds, their bodies are squeezed against the altar to ensure that all of their blood is spread upon all the sides, and the "horns" of the altar.

If you have hundreds of thousands of people with you, and only 1% of them does some unintentional sin, or have a feeling of gratitude to God, or anything else, you are going to have rivers of blood pouring out.

According to the Jewish sages, one of the miracles of the Temple was that it never smelled, and another is that there were never any flies.

Speaking of smells, this brings us to an often occurring theme in the Torah, which is "a pleasing aroma Yahweh". ריח ניחח ליהוה 

This phrase occurs 16 times in the Torah, as we see below:

It also occurs a number of other times as simple "a pleasing aroma", inferring that it is for God, but let's just consider, for a moment, "an aroma that is pleasing to Yahweh".

Remember, this is YHVH saying to Moses that it will be pleasing.

Given all of the blood congealed on that altar a few feet from where His Presence is sitting, it is likely to be pleasing!

If you recall the story of Noah, after "YHVH smelled the pleasing aroma" (one of the other instances of God smelling things) in Genesis 8:21.

The idea of God liking certain smells that He dictates to be provided for Him is uncomfortable with many who reject such anthropomorphisms. The Targumist, Onkelos, changes it to "it is a pleasure before YHVH". In fact, throughout Leviticus, the Targum diverges frequently from the narrative and even obscures the differences between sacrificial offerings.

So how does YHVH smell?

With all of that burnt meat and frankincense, pretty good, I suppose.

Except for all of that blood.

But then, as the Jewish Sages wrote, "It's a miracle!"

Vayikra - Lev. 1:1-5:26

General Details

Last week, we finished a book called "Exodus". The Jewish masoretic tradition calls it "shemot", meaning "names". This is because the word "shemot" appears within the first few words of the text. This is how the titles of the books, as well as the portions, or parashah (plural parshiyot), were named, but they weren't always this way.

This week begins the book "Leviticus". And like "Exodus", the name Vayikra, comes from the fact that vayikra appears within the first few words of the book (it is actually the very first word).

But it wasn't always named vayikra.

Before the masoretic tradition was established, this book was called "torat kohanim" or "Teaching of the [laws of the] priests", and when the text was translated into Greek, the term "Leviticus" or "[The book] belonging to the Levites (priests)".

Later on, the title Vayikra would be used.

Besides naming portions and books, there are traditions as to how the text is written. There are a number of words in the text that will have a letter enlarged or reduced in size, or will have small crowns drawn over some words and not others (Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews, for example, have different traditions concerning the drawing of these crowns).

So vayikra begins with this word:

As you can see, the aleph (א) is smaller than the one right next to it (אל), and there is a crown over the letter shin in Moses' name.

Now the term Mesorah means "traditional", and so there is a tradition of all of this updating of the names and the characters.

Interestingly enough, there are rules for how the crowns are to be made, depending on your affiliation (Yemenite vs. Easter European Jewry, for example). And everybody has an interpretation as to why these things exists.

Some will say that the small "aleph" indicates that YHVH gently called. Another is that the aleph represents God, whose name is missing from the sentence. Another holds that it indicates a humility by Moses, who wrote it smaller then necessary.

The thing is, nobody really knows, and despite this, the belief in an unbroken oral tradition remains unaffected by any of this.

Points of View

The reference to the priesthood is an interesting one, and still, one should keep in mind that this book does not simply give the details of the priesthood, but rules for the non-priests as well. So the "teaching of the laws  of the priests" is not to be understood that these were laws that the priests were required to perform, but the laws demanded by and enforced by the priesthood cult.

By "cult", I use the term in the same manner as "culture", and "cultivate", meaning, something that is considered special by right of selection. In this case, those who happened to be born from the right family would be considered special and would be the intermediaries between the average person and God.

It should also be noted that many of the great Jewish commentators had differing views about this book, especially since it was obsessed with sacrifices. Some claimed that the later prophets indicated that God did not need or desire sacrifice, and others used those same verses to show how God really did desire sacrifice, but not sacrifice without purification of the soul.

And when it comes to offering a sacrifice to Azazel, these same commentators are all over the place as to who or what was this entity. Those from the middle-ages, and impacted by an obsession concerning demons, had one view, while those who dismissed the idea of demon had a different view.

Again, it appears that the so-called "unbroken tradition" of the "Oral Law" is unable to explain clearly what many of these passages actually mean.

Christian and Jewish Differences

One of the immediate differences that should be noticed is that chapter 5 of the Masoretic Text (MT) has 26 verses, while the Christian version has only 19 verses. 

So where did those 7 verses go?

The MT version of Chapter 6 has 23 verses while the Christian version has 30 verses.

Problem solved!

But why the difference?

There are several such numbering incompatibilities between the MT and the Christian versions.

Sometimes the difference is ideological, and other times it is for symmetry.

In this case, Leviticus 5:20-26 speaks about how to handle thievery, while all of the verses up to that point were about different types of sacrifices. So it appears that the Christian compilers wanted to keep the general theme of offerings intact and push the apparently new tpic into the next chapter.

However, moving that description into the next chapter doesn't correct that problem either. Another possibility is to separate 5:16 from 5:24, since there appears to be a contradiction between these verses.

It's hard to know the actual reason why the Christians made the choices that they did.

But it is worth considering!

Pikudei - Exodus 38:21-40:38

The last few chapters of the Book of Exodus (one could say, the last third of the entire book), was all about building the mishkan, this special place for God that needed all of this gold, and jewels, and lights, and fresh bread daily, and fresh meat, and plates, and incense, and lovely curtains, and the strongest of wood, because, God wanted this.

Let's talk about clouds for a moment.

Starting in chapter 13 and continuing until the last sentence of the Book of Exodus, we read about this "pillar of cloud".

The Book of Genesis author(s) was not so concerned, and the only place where a cloud is written was when YHVH put one over the earth in order to make a rainbow.

The Book of Numbers author(s) was equally concerned with such things, repeating this idea several times.

The visual is this: the pillar of cloud would lead the Jews by day, and would disappear at night, to be replaced by a pillar of fire. And when this pillar of cloud was there, the Hebrews would get up and follow, and when it wasn't there, they would stay put.

Now check out these verses:

40:34 - And the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the Glory of YHVH filled the mishkan.

40:35 - And Moses was not able to come to the Tent of Meeting because the cloud rested upon it and the Glory of YHVH filled the mishkan.

 40:36 - And when the cloud was raised up from upon the mishkan, the Children of Israel would journey on all their journeys.

40:37 - If the cloud did not rise up, they would not journey until the day it rose up.

 40:38 - For the cloud of YHVH would be on the mishkan by day, and fire would be on it at night, before the eyes of the House of Israel in all their journeys. 

There are x things that we can take from this:

1. It's not a cloud, but a poetic expression of a symbol that indicates that YHVH was among them.
2. The cloud was a symbol of "let's go" and "don't go", depending if it rose up or not.
3. When the cloud was there, the Glory of YHVH was there.
4. Moses could not enter when the cloud was there and the Glory of God was there.

It's #4 that's a problem.

If YHVH is always with them, and Moses can't enter to speak with YHVH, how is it in the Book of Numbers that Moses enters and speaks with YHVH? (Num. 7:89)

So the apologetic on this is based on a Midrash (Torat Kohanim) and referenced by Rashi who basically says "There's no contradiction. When the cloud would raise up, Moses would go in!"

But if the cloud was raised up, then would not the Hebrews start marching?

"Ah, but the cloud wouldn't move, so they would just stand there while Moses met with YHVH."

A more likely explanation is that the Book of Exodus ended with YHVH leading the Jewish people to the Promised Land, and vaguely references that there was a lot of journeying. The later, Book of Numbers is a book about those journeys, a different text with more details by different authors. The Book of Exodus author(s) was not concerned with the details of those journeys, or was not familiar with them, while the Book of Numbers author(s) was familiar with the Book of Exodus narrative, but was not concerned with its details.

In fact, Numbers  9:15-23 is basically a repeat of much of the last few verses of Numbers, talking about the cloud, how it would move and the people would follow. But it omits the part about Moses not being able to enter. And as far as the cloud being but an expression of YHVH, Numbers 11:25 says that YHVH would descend upon a cloud, making it His vehicle.

Of course, it could just be a poetic expression from a different author.

So remember, if there's a cloud over the mishkan, then "The God is Present" and He fills the entire mishkan with His Glory (k'vod כבוד) - whatever that means. Later on, rules will be established as to how one must approach YHVH in order to not be killed. And there is at least one moment (Numbers 12:10, where YHVH gets upset with Miriam, curses her, and takes His cloud and leaves for a time.

It's an interesting bit of imagery that will be presented in the next book, which starts next week.

Yayakhel - Exodus 35:1-38:20

Take a look at this picture:

This is a picture of a rally of about 500,000 (half a million) people.

Imagine yourself needing to address all of them.

You would probably need to stand on a high spot, a platform of some type, just to see them all and, of course, so that they could see you.

There's a story in the Talmud about during the time of the Temple, that there would be so many people filling the Temple square, and behind it, that when it came time for the blessings, men in front would wave flags on very long poles so that the people in the back, who couldn't hear a thing, would know when to shout, "Amen!"

This brings me to the first word of this weeks parashah: "Vayakhel" (ויקהל), or "And [Moses] gathered..."

Remember, there are 600,000 men of fighting age and an untold amount of youth, elderly, and women as well. So look again at the picture, and try to triple that amount in your mind.

Rashi, in commenting on this first word says that the apparent simple verb form should not be read as being in the Qal form, but in the causative hifil form, and the Targum Onkelos agrees, rendering it at "An [Moses caused there to be] an assembly of the ENTIRE congregation", meaning, nobody was left out, and that Moses simply sent the word out and let the leadership gather all of these people together in one spot.

Moses doesn't have a microphone, no large screens projecting his image for the people in the back, and no speakers in the back for anyone to hear.

And what he is about to do is, for the most part, repeat what was said in Parashah "Terumah", concerning the building of all of the ritual items and YHVH's ark, to the people, giving them details concerning the building of these items and, of course, asking for donations.

These details were very important, and they had to be done exactly as YHVH had demanded it of Moses, and so Moses told everyone himself, repeating the details (and adding a few of his own), that they had to stick to. But even more important is that he begins his litany with a single warning:

"Don't work on the seventh day, or you will be put to death!"

Is Moses relying on word of mouth for that warning to spread to the back rows?

The Sages of the Talmud also had such concerns, and so they declared that "Moses was 10 amos (cubits) tall", or about 15 feet tall. (Babylonian Talmud, Tractates Berachot 54b and Shabbat 92a)

OK, that might help...a bit

Now, what about the leadership?

After all, maybe the leaders got the front-row seats, and after Moses finished, they went back to their groups and repeated things exactly as they had heard them. After all, relaying something to a couple of million people by word of mouth will never go wrong, right?

The text doesn't say that such a thing happened, but maybe the leaders did just that.

In Numbers 30:2, "And Moses spoke to the chiefs of the tribes of the people of Israel, saying, this is the thing that YHVH has commanded..."

So later on, he will certainly do that, but not in the Book of Exodus. In this story, what Moses is about to tell them is so important that they have to hear it themselves from his own mouth.

So, as to "how so many people could hear", well, that's a bit of a quandary...

...unless you believe that God can do anything, and in this case, God caused Moses to have a really big voice.

You don't believe that?

Well, prove that He didn't!

Update

It has brought to my attention that there is an apologist view that the word for "thousand" (אלף) could also be read as "contingents". It is an add view and explained in detail at this site.

The primary problem is treating the entire Tanach as though everyone used the words the same, as well as "well, the big numbers don't make any sense" argument, or an "argument of personal incredulity". 

In the Torah, אלף is used in the singular form 79 times:

Genesis: 1

Exodus: 2

Numbers: 74

Deuteronomy: 2

Leviticus,  being unconcerned with such things never references the word.

Let's look at Genesis and Deuteronomy, since they are both small, even though comparing the author's use from one collection may not be relevant to the author of the two verses in Exodus.

In Genesis 20:16, "I have given your brother אלף silver" obviously means "100 [measurement] of silver and not a "silver contingent".

In Deuteronomy 1:11 we have: "...may He increase you אלף times..." and Deut. 32:30 we have "How should one chase אלף?" The last one is possible, but it doesn't indicate how big the group is, and reduces the drama of the verse. But, it's possible.

I won't go through Numbers, since it's too lengthy, and it irrelevant. If you want to go through the exercise, feel free to do so.

Let's look at the two verses in Exodus, since that is pertinent to this text:

Exodus 12:37 - "And the Children of Israel journeyed from Ramses, by way of Succhot; Around six-hundred אלף brave-men on foot...". 

About 600 of the "tough-guy group" were marching. 

Exodus 38:26 - "...from 20 years old and upward, for six hundred אלף and three אלף and five-hundred and fifty men."

This one is difficult because, for some reason, the "550" at the end of the verse is not considered a group, using this apologetic, and just hangs there.

This is an obvious force from the point that "אלף" is inconsistently used in this verse.

In conclusion, I am not impressed by this particular apologetic, nor am I convinced that this is what the original authors of the story intended.

Ki Tisa (Part 3) - Exodus 30:11-34:35

Exodus 33:18-23

Before I present my commentary, let's first look at the verses in whole. 

The context: At the beginning of this chapter, YHVH decides that he's fed up with the Israelites, and won't go with them to Israel. Moses argues with him, and YHVH tells Moses that He will send his face. Moses argues that if His face is not sent forth with the Israelites, then they won't go. YHVH agrees and announces that Moses has found favor in His eyes. It is at this point that Moses, seeing an opportunity, makes a request:

33:18 - And Moses said, "Please show me Your Glory!"

33:19 - And He replied, "I shall cause all of my goodness to pass before you and I will call out with the name "YHVH" before you; And I will show favor when I will will show favor and I will have mercy when I will have mercy."

33:20 - And [YHVH] said, "You will not be able to see My face, for no human can see my face and live!"

33:21 - And YHVH said, "Behold! There is a place with/by me, and you shall stand upon the rock (צור)...

33:22 - ...when My Glory passes by, I shall place you in the cleft of the rock (צור), and I will cover you with My palm until I have passed by...

 33:23 - ...And then I will remove My palm, and then you will see My back, but My face may not be seen."

Yahweh's Face

As I have pointed out in other posts, not only is the Torah an anthology of stories composed by many different anonymous authors, each with differing views on "What is God". Because of that, there will often be verses that will contradict other verses and will require a form of apologetics to reconcile them. 

And every once in awhile a gem like verses 33:18-23 of Exodus pops up with just so many issues that it requires ideological blinders to ignore the problems.

Before discussing those verses, let's review a few things.

First, many of the authors of the Torah had no problem with God having a face and having humans see it.

Whoever authored the portion where YHVH is still sulking about the Golden Calf (33:11) had no problem with it:

33:11 - YHVH would speak to Moses face-to-face, like a man would speak with his fellow/friend...

And the Deuteronomists had not problem either, not only proclaiming that Moses spoke with YHVH face-to-face (Deut. 34:10), but all of the people of Israel as well (Deut. 5:4). And if you want to say that "speaking face-to-face" is not the same as "seeing face-to-face" there are verses that include that variant as well (Num. 14:14, plus Genesis as explained below).

The authors of Genesis also had no problem with God showing his face to mortals:

We can find this throughout the Torah.

So what's the big deal here? Saying "you can see my back, but not my face" is no less of an anthropomorphism (not that the authors of that time had any problem with such an idea).

A Fragment of a Story

After YHVH says, "...then I will remove my palm and you will see my back", nothing more is mentioned.

The story suddenly just stops.

We don't know if YHVH did pick up Moses and insert him into the rock, or not. We don't know if this deal was acceptable to Moses.

The story suddenly just stops.

Now, look at verses 18-23 as to how they connect to the previous narrative.

You could remove them entirely and the story would still have ended on an upbeat note.

These verses are a new narrative, appended to another, where the author had the view that one could not see the face of a God and survive it, which contradicts the view of the author who wrote of Moses and YHVH being chummy and speaking face-to-face, as partners in this venture.

The author of this fragment likely wanted to present a view of the relationship between Moses and YHVH that was unique to him, and the compilers felt that this would have been a good place to put it. (In actuality, you could cut--and-paste these verses almost anywhere in the Book of Exodus and it would make just as much sense).

Conclusion

Since the other verses, before and after these, speak of God (both YHVH and Elohim) and seeing or speaking with him "face-to-face", then this verse was most likely composed by someone who had a different view of God; a God who is so beyond human comprehension that, to see Him, one would die.

Other contributors to the Torah narrative did not share this view.

I find such contradictory views to be fascinating.

It should be noted that apologists will commonly treat these specific verses as though God is speaking in code, and one cannot take these words literally, and must dwell upon their secret meanings.

It is as this point that Occam's Razor is especially useful!