Sh^әmot 33.12-16 — Mapping the same Hebrew word to the English semi-synonyms "know" and "show" has caused a loss of information in the translation of Scripture to English. Alternating between the English "know" and "show," conceals the emphasis that the original language places on ידע (yada; to know).

Pasuq 12a — "You לא הודעתני (lo hoda·^әtani; you didn't make known to me; you didn't show me) whom you would send with me." הודעתני attaches the 1^st pers. pron. suffix ני (ni; [to] me) to the hiphil past 2^nd pers. masc. sing. of ידע.

Pasuq 12b — ידעתיך (y^әdatikha; I have known you [by name]) attaches the suffix ך (kha) to pa·al past 1^st pers. sing. of ידע.

Pasuq 13a — הודעני נא את-דרכך (hodieini na et-d^әrakhekha; make known [!] to me Your Way). This phrase is bound together as a single clause by the cantillation. הודעני attaches the pronominal suffix mentioned earlier to the hiphil masc. sing. imperative — הודע (hoda; make known!) — of ידע. The other words in this phrase have been discussed in previous issues.

Pasuq 13b — Between the prefix ו (w^ә-; and, or, then) and the suffix mentioned earlier, ואדעך (w^ә-eida·akha; and I shall know you) sandwiches the pa·al fu. 1^st pers. sing. of ידע.

Pasuq 16 — יודע (yiwada; it shall be[come] known) is the niphal fu. 3^rd pers. masc. sing. of ידע.

The Hebrew idiom "find favor in the sight of" simply means "to like" in English. Then it becomes easier to see that Mosheh Rabeinu wants to get some things straight, for him and י--ה to agree together about knowing, with certainty, a few things so that the two can work together smoothly and not at cross-purposes.

Mosheh speaks to י--ה (33.12): "ראה (r^ә·eih!; See!) You told me, 'Bring this kindred up,' but You didn't make known to me whom You would send with me. Then You said, 'I know your name,' and You liked me. Please, if You like me, let me know Your Way so that I can know You and continue to be liked by You. Then r^ә·eih! — because Your kindred, is this goy."

While this may seem an impertinent and impudent way to speak to the Creator, we must recall the whole tradition of Ya·aqov Avinu wrestling with the malakh י--ה, the origin of the name Yisra·eil.

Any working relationship requires mutual, and clear, understanding; how much moreso between י--ה and a vastly inferior human. (Fools rush in where angels fear to tread… and the world is overflowing with fools.)

י--ה replied to Mosheh: "My Countenance shall go with, and I will rest, you."

But Mosheh was not yet clear about what this meant, and so pursued the question, intimating 'If not, then I couldn't carry out Your mishpatim.' Mosheh replied: "If Your Countenance isn't Holkhim then don't [even ] bring us up from here. Then in what shall it be known wherever we are, that You like me and Your kindred? Isn't it in Your lekhet with us that You distinguish me and Your kindred from every other kindred on the face of the earth?"

Notice that Mosheh isn't testing י--ה in any way. That is the intolerable blunder that people constantly make. Like Gidon putting out the fleeces (Shophtim 6.37-40), one may only test one's own understanding of י--ה. One must never test י--ה. Mosheh has no doubts about י--ה's power, he seeks only to know that he's really doing what י--ה wants, that he's not committing some human blunder of misunderstanding י--ה's Way. Herein is the key to obtain consistently positive answers to T^әhilot.

Sh^әmot 33.16 — "And how will it be known, then, that You like me, me and Your kindred, if not in Your lekhet with us; and how, then, would we be any more extraordinary — I or Your kindred — than any kindred that is on the face of the earth?"

In Hebrew we can say "I love someone" and even the slang "I love some thing." But when we wish to say "I like someone or something," in Hebrew we must use the idiom: "someone or something finds graciousness (pop. favor) in my eyes." We must avoid thinking of the phrase "found favor in (his, her, my, our, etc.) eyes" as being terribly spiritual and far removed from daily life. Using the slang meaning of love, I could say "I love falafel" in Hebrew. However, if I wanted to communicate "I like falafel" in non-slang Hebrew I would have to say "Falafel finds favor in my eyes."

בלכתך (b^ә-lekht^әkha; in Your walk [with us]) is enlightening when broken down into its components. Stripping away the prefix ב (b^ә-, in…) and the suffix ך (kha, your, of you) yields לכת (lekhet, walking), derived from the same root as Halakhah.

The Hebrew term pop. rendered here as separated or differentiated is ונפלינו (w^ә-niphlinu). Stripping off the prefix ו (w^ә-, and), as well as the suffix ינו (inu, we, of our), yields the niphal root: נפלה (niphlah; be discriminated, distinguished, differentiated). The pa·al root is פלה, and this, then, is a collateral form of פלא — to be distinguished as extraordinary or wonderful. The other instantiations in Scripture of פלה tend to reinforce this view: Sh^әmot 8.18; 9.4; 11.7 and T^әhilim 4.4; 17.7 and 139.14.

6.4 — הנפלים (ha-n^әphilim) is often considered to derive from נפל (naphal, he fell). Consequently, the N^әphilim are sometimes rendered "fallen ones." Yet, they may, instead, be related to פלא / פלה (above) and mean, instead, wonderful or extraordinary ones. This is bolstered in this same pasuq in that these were the product of בני האלהים (b^әnei ha-Elohim, sons of the Elohim — a euphemism for malakhim or Shophtim – see Sh^әmot 21.6, 13; 22.7-8, et al., mating with human women (6.4).

The shrewdest animal in Gan Eiden was the reptile (also dragon or snake; 3.1), which, some hold, apparently understood and spoke Hebrew. This reptile is often referred to as שטן (Satan). Some traditions hold that Satan is a heavenly being who was once stationed higher among the beings of the heavens than even MikhaeiI and GavrieiI. More likely, Satan was an epitomization of — more accurately a passing of the buck and avoidance of personal responsibility for — the evil inclination inherent in human free will and freedom of choice. In the words of American comic Flip Wilson, "The devil made me do it." I suggest an analogy. When a police officer uses a bomb-sniffing dog to locate and identify an explosive device and someone ventures to ask, "How did you know?" Would the police officer imply that his dog knows English when replying, "My dog told me"? Well, to literalists and other superstitious types, yes! The reptile ate the fruit unharmed, similarly "telling" Khava [corrupted to "Eve"] that no harm would come to her from also eating the fruit. Learn to look for the reality in Scripture and shed the ignorant fables that make educated people think that one has to become an ignorant jackass to believe the Bible.

Another alternate is that this could have been a beautiful reptile, though having a conversation with an upright reptile brings to mind the image of a small dinosaur. Interestingly, the N^әphilim seem to have died out at about the same time as the dinosaur! Moreover, the only physical evidence of large pre-historic beings is of dinosaurs. Perhaps one or more varieties of the smaller dinosaurs were intelligent and even communicated with man at some point in history — at roughly the level of a parrot? In this regard, note that scientists have related modern birds, some of which mimic speech, to dinosaurs. It is, then, not at all far-fetched that a parrot-like bird parroted a couple of words or a phrase that it had heard repeatedly. Perhaps such a dinosaur, repeating something that Adam had repeatedly uttered about the forbidden tree, tempted Khavah (corrupted to "Eve")? It may also explain why Halakhah dismisses any "voice out of the heavens" that is contradictory to Torah? (Aside from the fact that a Perfect Creator couldn't contradict His perfect Instruction, whether by a voice out of the heavens or any other way.)

Descendance from N^әphilim may also have emerged later (well before the time the Oral Biblical account was codified) from exaggerated stories that fable-ized malakhim, Shophtim, stories of ancestral heros and rulers (6:4). This is the likely origin of images of sphinxes – k^әruvim – and "angels." Surmising that the N^әphilim were a kind of dinosaur may have led to the idea that the malakhim, including Satan, have characteristics of dinosaur bones they may have discovered (e.g., horns and tail). Conjectures about human mothers may have inspired mammalian, and even human, characteristics.

ברא (bara) is the root form (e.g., past tense 3^rd pers. sing. masc.) meaning "he created." The pres. tense form is בורא (borei; he creates), as found in the Qidush.

In this pasuq, Torah teaches that what makes the followers of י--ה extraordinary is their adherence to His Halakhah. Those who develop the ears to Sh^әma to Torah will recognize that this same adherence to Halakhah is what makes the N^әtzarim, in the same group with other halakhic Y^әhudim and geirim, extraordinary above every sect of the goyim who claim, falsely, to follow Ribi Y^әhoshua — by whatever name.

This passage in Y^әkhezqeil was chosen as the Haphtarah selection for the Intermediate Shabat of Sukot because it elucidates Z^әkharyah 13.9 – 14.21, the Haphtarah for the first day of Sukot.

Pasuq 2 introduces גוג ארץ המגוג (Jog eretz Majog; popularly corrupted to "Gog" of the land of "Magog").

As the editors of the Artscroll "Yechezkel" [sic] note, Josephus identifies the descendants of Majog as the Scythians (Antiquities 1.6) and that this agrees with Y^әrushalmi M^әgilah 3.9, which renders Majog as גוטיא (Gutya), the Goths who occupied that region — and were a Germanic people. Targum Yonatan similarly renders Majog in b^ә-Reishit 10.2 as גרממטא (G^әram^әmaya), which is also גירמניטא (Geiyrmanya). These all orbit the central theme of ירכתי צפון (yark^әtei tzaphon; distant-places of the north). גמר (Jomer may well be a metathesis of גרם (perhaps pronounced Gorem) and, thereby, more closely related to תוגרמה (Tugarmah). Congratulation if you recognized Germany. However, that means this war is in our past and we're further along in the "end times," with almost everyone being clueless, than almost anyone dreamed (except those who have read my commentary on prophecy, The 1993 Covenant; for more detailed analyses, see there).

This, however, shouldn't be seen as Germany in a narrow sense, but places as distant as Europe generally – from Rome to Moscwa (Moscow) and Toboylsk, in central Russia — widely identified with משך ותבל (Meshekh w^ә-Tubal; Meshekh and Tubal), whose leaders were prophesied to be subjugated by Jog (pasuq 3), which, for a time, they pretty much were during WW-II.

Most commentators place these identities and events in some far-future time of fabulous (fable-ous) supernatural cosmological cataclysm; because, that way, they can boast all manner of knowledge and never be confronted with reality or have to deal with the real universe of י--ה – until it's too late.

However, this is a different conflict than the final war popularly known as "Armageddon." Pasuq 8 anchors the timeline of this prophecy: 1948, when the nation of Israel was restored to the world's stage. Pasuq 9 describes the 6-Day War. 10-13 describe the Yom Kipur War. Today, we are at the intersection of pasuq 13 and 14. All those bragging about others being "Left Behind" are the ones who are being "Left Behind"!!! Read more in The 1993 Covenant and, for those with an interest in the NT book of "Revelation" (Apocalypse), an analysis of that book is found in The Unveiling, both available in our Judaica Shoppe in our website Mall.