Israelites will listen to his voice, and that the elders will accompany him to Pharaoh, to ask his permission for their departure. But as God added, that Pharaoh would not grant their request, Moses apprehended that the Israelites might doubt his mission and reproach him: "The Lord God of our ancestors has not appeared to thee," and therefore he justly desired to be furnished with some convincing proofs of his divine charge which God readily granted him.

Abarbanel reconciles our text with iii. 18, by the supposition, that the Israelites perhaps believed in the existence of an eternal and immutable being, whilst they might question the mission of Moses.

2. A staff (not rod, as the Engl. version has; similarly Sept. páßdos, Vulg. Virga), upon which Moses as a man of advanced age leaned, and which he therefore constantly carried with him. It was not a shepherd's staff, because it is improbable that Moses appeared before Pharaoh as a herdsman, a class so detested in Egypt. The question of God: "what is that in thy hand?" is merely an introduction to the description of the miracle, which the following verse contains, as Rashi justly observes. According to the existing monuments, Egyptian gentlemen used generally, when walking from home, sticks from three to six feet long, either surmounted with a knob, imitating a flower, or with the more usual peg projecting from one side. One of those, which have been found at Thebes, is of

cherry wood; but they were usually of acacia. Hard wood was preferred, as frequently the name of the owner was written on them (comp. Num. xvii. 2). Moreover, every Egyptian sage carried his staff (see vii. 12. Comp. Wilkinson, Manners iii. p. 386, 387). In the convent of Mount Sinai (see supra p. 47), even now the monks sell wood of a shrub (Coluthea Haleppica), which is suitable for such sticks, and is, not improbably, believed to be the wood of which the miraculous staff of Moses was made. We may add, that according to Jewish tradition, the staff of Moses was, together with nine other objects, made by God towards the close of the sixth day of the creation (see Ethics of the Fathers, v. 9). "From the story of Moses' rod, the heathens have invented the fables of the thyrsus of Bacchus, and the caduceus of Mercury" (!) observes Clarke. Here again is the Hebrew word alone sufficient to overthrow the artificial Mosaic-pagan conjecture, for neither the thyrsus nor the caduceus were used to lean upon. See note on ii. 5. There are still too many authors and critics who consider paganism as nothing but a degenerated Mosaism.

4. The ancient Egyptians were familiar with an art of taming serpents, which has been preserved to our time. Those who are practised in it keep off every attack of the serpents, which, on their command, even stretch themselves out stiff and hard like a stick. In granting this extraordinary gift to Moses, God

E

intended to manifest, that he was thereby, by divine assistance, raised above all common magic feats. See note to

vii. 12.

6. Behold, his hand was leprous as snow, elliptically instead of, "his hand became white with leprosy, like the whiteness of snow." Leprosy, that fearful epidemic, which rages with uncommon violence in Egypt (Déscr. de l' Egypte, xiii. 159, et seq.), and in the south of Asia, manifests itself in four different species, (Celsus, de Re Medic. v. 28). Our text alludes to the white leprosy, (Barras, λεúkη), which having once been most prevalent among the Hebrews, is called in medical phraseology lepra Mosaica; and in this circumstance originated the fable of several ancient and even modern historians, that the Israelites were expelled from Egypt on account of their being infested with that disease (see Introduction, § 3). We subjoin a brief description of this foul disorder, to which we shall have more than once occasion to refer in the course of our work. It begins with mealy crusts and scurfy scabs, originally not larger than a pin's point, a little depressed in the skin (Lev. xiii. 3, 30), and covered with white hairs (Lev. xiii. 3, 20). Those spots rapidly spread (Lev. xiii. 8), and produce wild flesh (xiii. 10, 14). The leprous symptoms appear most frequently on the hairy parts of the body (xiii. 29, et seq.); and also on members which have once been ulcerously affected (xiii. 18, et seq.). When the leprosy has gained ground, the whole skin appears glossy white at the

And he put his hand into

forehead, nose, etc., tuberated, thickened, dry like leather, but smooth; sometimes it bursts, and ulcers become visible. The nails of the hands and feet fall off, the eyelids bend backwards, the hair covers itself with a fetid rind, or goes off entirely (Lev. xiii. 42). All external senses are weakened; the eyes lose their brightness, become very sensitive, and are constantly blearing; from the nostrils runs a fluid phlegm. In some cases the disease heals from itself, the leprous matter breaking forth suddenly and violently, and covering the patient from top to toe with white ulcerations (Lev. xiii. 12, et seq.).

7. And, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh. This miracle was the more surprising as the white leprosy, when fully developed, is scarcely in any case perfectly curable. (“Leuce-λɛúкŋ—quem occupavit non facile dimittit; vix unquan sanescit ac si quid ei vitio demptum est, tamen non ex toto sanus color redditur." Celsus, loc. cit.).

8. If they will not believe thee. Although God knows before, whether they will believe or not, the text intimates, that if a part of the Israelites should not be convinced by the first miracle, the whole people would believe in Moses after the second sign. And similarly explains Ebn Ezra, the first words of the following verse.-Neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, i. e., to the voice or speech confirmed by the first sign or miracle (see Proverbs xviii. 21: "life and death are in the hand-power-of the tongue)." Compare Psalm cv. 27,

where Moses and Aaron are said to have performed before the Egyptians "the words of God's signs." Salomon and Arnheim understand erroneously: "to the fame or report of the first sign." The latter sign has here not superlative meaning, but is more like the second part of an antithesis, "the other or the latter," as in Gen. xxxiii. 2; Deut. xxiv. 3.

9. Thou shalt take of the water of the river, etc. Ebn Ezra observes: "This is a part of the first of the ten plagues which were to be inflicted upon the Egyptians." However, it was merely a sign to convince them of the omnipotence of the God of Israel, and of his superiority over their deities; and Rashi remarks properly: "This sign was a hint, that the Egyptians would, by the first plague, be chastised for their idolatrous veneration of the fertilizing Nile, which would be ominously converted into blood." Josephus (Antiq. II. xii. 3) materially modifies this sign by an apparently slight alteration, for he relates: Moses saw the surface of the water assume the appearance of blood (ὁρᾷ τὴν χρόαν αἱματώδη γενομένην), whilst our text asserts that the water was converted into blood. The same author, however, follows the sacred text more faithfully in the delineation of the first plague, describing it thus: "The Nile flowed, at the command of God, in waves of blood, so that the Egyptians had no water to drink, possessing no other springs. Nor was the water only of the colour of blood, but those who tasted it felt great pains and bitter

torments." The admirers of ingenious allegorical interpretation will find in Abarbanel different and very interesting symbolical expositions of the three signs, which he applies to Pharaoh (serpent), the children of Israel (who contaminate themselves as soon as they leave their own country), and the Egyptians (worshippers of the Nile); and happily he adapts them to the words of the text (iv. 11, 16).

10. I am not a man of words, which does not only signify "I am not an eloquent man (as Mendelssohn and the English Version translate), but, also,

'one to whom the enunciation of the words is difficult, owing to defects in the organs of speech," synonymous with the phrase: "of uncircumcised lips," compare vi. 12; however, the former expla nation is more rational, and seems to be confirmed by ver. 12. The Septuagint translates, indistinctly: "I am not capable or fit." Clarke, contrary to the Hebrew text: "not intimately acquainted with the Hebrew tongue." According to tradition, Moses was unable to pronounce with facility the labials.-It cannot be denied, that the words of our text: "I am not a man of words, neither since yesterday, nor the day before yesterday, nor since Thou hast spoken to Thy servant," produce a strange impression, since they appear to imply a climax, the last degree of which is not without difficulties, for it seems to indicate that God spoke to Moses longer than two or three days, whilst our context affords us no ground for such supposition, although rabbinical

1 Engl. Vers.-But.

writers believe that God conversed with Moses during seven successive days, to persuade him to accept the mission. Evidently in order to remove this difficulty, Abarbanel thus explains our verse: "I pray Thee, I am no man of words-and therefore I implored Thee to heal my defect;-but I am not only slow of speech since yesterday, or the day before yesterday, but even this very day, on which Thou hast spoken to me, and displayed before me Thy miracles; and whilst Thou hast convinced me that Thou art powerful to heal leprosy, Thou hast manifestly shown to me that Thou dost not intend to free me from the deficiency of my language, I am still 'slow of speech, and of a slow tongue,' and, therefore, send another messenger, gifted with eloquence, a quality so necessary to persuade a stubborn king, and to encourage a desponding nation." Although we admit, that this interpretation is, in some degree, artificial and complicated, it is not exactly in contradiction to the text, and is certainly the most plausible explanation of our verse hitherto proposed.-For I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue; literally, heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue, or, as the ancient commentators explain: "he had too much flesh on his lips and his tongue, which made the organs of speech heavy; he is, therefore, frequently called a man of uncircumcised lips" (vi. 12). The Septuagint and Vulgate translate: "I am of a stammering language and a heavy tongue." Targum Onkelos "I am of heavy speech, and stammering tongue." All these translations have a certain similarity, and are, in fact, almost identical; but we cannot find any foundation for the interpretation of others, who (like Rashbam) explain: "I am not well versed in the language of the Egyptians; I have forgotten it, for

2 The dumb, etc.

as a young man I fled from Egypt, and am now an octogenarian." The passage in Ezekiel (iii. 5), which Rashbam quotes, has no resemblance to our text, and the words, "slow of speech, and of a slow tongue," cannot possibly be understood of an individual language, but refer, in general, to the power of expression in which Moses was deficient. It might, certainly, be asked, with propriety, why Moses, who was singled out by Providence as the great medium for bringing the wisdom of heaven down to the earth, for ever substituting divine truth instead of human error, and who was gifted with such uncommon perfection of the mind and intellect, was denied the power of eloquence, apparently so indispensable for his extraordinary vocation. But it was an act of the sublime wisdom of the Almighty to withhold from Moses just the gift of persuasion, lest it should appear that he owed the triumph over the obstinacy of Pharaoh and the disbelief of the Israelites, not to the miracles of God and the intrinsic worth of the Law, but to the artifices and subtleties of oratory, which too often procure, even to fallacies and sophisms, an ephemeral victory. It was wisely designed that the power of God should the more gloriously shine through a humble and imperfect instrument. This is a remarkable and deeply interesting difference between the legislator of Israel and the founders of almost all other religions, to whom, uniformly, no quality is ascribed in a higher degree than the gift of eloquence.

11. Who hath made man's mouth? which Targum Jonathan renders freely: "who hath given speech in the mouth of the first man?" The antithesis to this is: or who maketh dumb? A similar contrast has been found in the adjectives seeing and blind, so that deaf alone seems to be without a corresponding ad

3

jective. But our verse has a general emphatical or poetical character, describing God as the Creator of man, and the omnipotent Author of all his gifts and defects, which latter He is able to cure, if He thinks it expedient, and mentioning the three principal and most tender senses, that of speech, hearing and sight, by which man resembles God most, or approaches to His perfection. From the same point of view the attempt of applying the qualities here enumerated to individual cases or persons, appears to us inadmissible, however interesting such lusus ingenii might in themselves be. Thus

refers Abarbanel the gift of speech to Aaron, who was the mouth of his brother; the dumbness to Moses; the deafness to Pharaoh, who did not listen to the requests of God's messenger; and the blindness to the Chartumim of Egypt, who did not see the light of truth. Another less happy symbolisation of our verse is given by Rashi in a quotation from the Rabbins.-The Midrash, and "The Chronicles of Moses," relate a story of a miraculous deliverance of Moses from imminent danger of death in his infancy, when he had, by chance, in his childish play, grasped at the crown on Pharaoh's head, so that it fell down and broke into fragments. The king, considering this circumstance a fatal omen, ordered the boy to be instantly killed, when, on the advice of Jethro, in order to prove that the child was still without discernment, two basins, one filled with gold, the other with burning coals, were placed before Moses, who, by the invisible interference of an angel, did not choose the dazzling gold, for which he had already stretched out his hand, but a burning coal, with which he touched his lips; and thus he became "slow of speech, and of a slow tongue," and especially

66

unable to pronounce the labials. "And because this defect of Moses," says Nachmanides, was the consequence of a miracle, God did not wish to remove it."

12. I shall be with thy mouth; which phrase, rather obscure in itself, is, according to a frequent Hebrew idiom, more distinctly explained by a succeeding phrase connected with the former by the conjunction and, which has, in such cases, almost the meaning of namely: "I shall teach thee what thou shalt say." The explanation, therefore, of Rambam, Abarbanel, and Mendelssohn, that God promised to Moses, that he would give into his mouth such words only, as would be easy for him to pronounce, is both unnecessary and trifling. The Septuagint renders: "I shall open thy mouth," which is too free and indistinct; the Vulgate has: "I shall be in thy mouth," (ego ero in ore tuo), which is still more unintelligible.

13. Send, I pray Thee, by the hand of him whom Thou wilt send. Simple as these words are, and clear as their meaning is: "Send another messenger to Pharaoh and the Israelites, better qualified than myself," they have much engaged the ingenuity of interpreters. The nearest to the words and sense of the text is Targum Onkelos: "Send by the hand of a man, who is fit or worthy to be sent." More paraphrastical, and connecting a later idea with our plain words, is the allegorical rendering of Targum Jonathan: "Send this message through Phinehas [who is identical with Elijah the prophet] whom Thou wilt send at the end of all days." Less founded still in the words of our text is the explanation of Rashi: "By the hand of him, whom Thou usest to send, and this is Aaron," which interpretation leans, no doubt, besides a