5 min read

The Egyptian Son Who Reviled the Name at Sinai

A son of the Egyptian Moses killed tried to pitch with Dan and lost. From that loss he hurled the Name heard at Sinai, and the camp answered with stones.

Curated by Arthur · Told by Maggid ·
Table of Contents
  1. The Peg That Found No Ground
  2. He Took It to Court
  3. The Only Thing He Still Had From Sinai
  4. Moses Did Not Answer Quickly
  5. The Men Who Held the Stones
The Egyptian Son Who Reviled the Name at Sinai Click for full size

The Peg That Found No Ground

He came into the camp of Dan carrying his tent poles on his shoulder and looking for a gap between the ropes. His mother had been born under those ensigns. That was the whole of his claim and he knew it was thin, so he had waited for midday, when men are slow, and he picked a stretch of open sand at the edge of the block where nobody's guy ropes would cross his own.

Three men were standing on it by the time he set the first peg down. They did not shout at him. They stood where the peg would have gone and let him work out for himself that the sand was not open.

In the arrangements of Israel every man camped with his family by the ensign of his father's house, and his father had been the Egyptian taskmaster Moses struck down in the sand years earlier. The tribes ran through the father. Through his father he was nothing in that camp, and no amount of mother would move those ropes an inch.

He Took It to Court

So he brought the case, since bringing a case was the one tool he still owned. For a while the argument was decent. His mother's line. His own body standing there in the wilderness, eating the same manna as the men who would not let him unroll a tent. The judges heard all of it out. Then they ruled against him, because the law of the encampment did not turn on where a man had been born or what he had eaten, only on whose house his father belonged to.

He had come out of Egypt with everybody else. He had walked the same road and drunk from the same rock, and now the ruling put him outside the ropes for good, with no tribe to bury him and no ensign to stand under.

The Only Thing He Still Had From Sinai

He had stood at the mountain. Whatever else the court had taken off him it could not take that, because he had been in the crowd on the day the great and glorious Name was spoken aloud, and he had heard it with his own ears the way everyone standing there heard it.

So he used it.

He turned around in front of the judges and brought the Name up out of himself and threw it. It came out of a mouth that Sinai had shaped to hold it, and it came out fast, before anyone had the presence of mind to put a hand over it. Men who had been talking stopped talking. Somebody behind him made the noise a man makes stepping into cold water, and the sand around the tent poles emptied of everybody who could get far enough away.

Moses Did Not Answer Quickly

They put him under guard and carried the case up to Moses, and Moses did not rule that afternoon.

In money cases he was fast, since money can be counted and returned. In a case with a life inside it he slowed everything down, and this was one of four such judgments brought to him in the wilderness. He said, in front of the men waiting on a verdict, "I have not heard." He was not confused. He said it so the chiefs who would sit in judgment after him would know that a judge can stand in front of a crowd and admit he does not yet know, and that admitting it costs him nothing worth keeping.

The camp waited. The man waited with them, guarded, unclaimed by any tribe, which meant there was nobody arguing for him in anyone's tent in the evenings.

The Men Who Held the Stones

The sentence came down and the camp carried it out, and among the hands that picked up stones there were men who had danced around the calf.

They had not been let off. The ones who had built the thing and sacrificed to it were already dead for it, and the ones who had only danced had been given something smaller to carry, because heaven had weighed the difference between making a god and enjoying one. Every man in that crowd knew which side of the line he had come down on. They had all been measured once, one at a time, by a court that would not hand out the same death twice unless the deeds were the same deed.

So they killed him for what he had said and not for what his father had been, which was the only thing he had ever asked that camp for. The poles were still lying where he had dropped them. Nobody from Dan came out to move them.


← All myths

From the tradition

Sources

2 sources

The texts behind this telling. Some cards carry a translation of the source; others are our own retelling of it, and each card says which. Every card links out to the original.

Targum Jonathan on Leviticus 24Targum Jonathan

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, trans. J. W. Etheridge, London, 1862 · Public Domain

Leviticus 24 tells the story of a man who blasphemed God's Name and was stoned. The Targum Jonathan turns this brief account into a full courtroom drama with backstory, legal philosophy, and procedural precedent.

The blasphemer was "a wicked man, a rebel against the God of heaven" who had "come out of Egypt." The Targum identifies his father as "the Egyptian man who had killed the man of Israel in Egypt", the same Egyptian that Moses killed (Exodus 2:11-12). This father "had gone in unto his wife, who conceived and bare a son among the children of Israel." The blasphemer was the product of that union.

His immediate problem: he tried to pitch his tent with the tribe of Dan (his mother's tribe), but "they would not permit him, because in the arrangements of Israel every man dwelt with his family by the ensigns of the house of their fathers." Tribal membership followed the father. His father was Egyptian. He belonged nowhere.

The dispute went to court. When he lost, he "expressed and reviled the great and glorious Name of Manifestation which he had heard at Sinai." He weaponized the holiest Name, the one he had heard God speak at the revelation, turning sacred knowledge into a curse.

The Targum then pauses to deliver a judicial philosophy: this was "one of four judgments which were brought before Moses the prophet." In money cases, Moses was "prompt." In capital cases, "deliberate." He even said "I have not heard", not because he was ignorant, but to "teach the chiefs of the Sanhedrin (the supreme rabbinic court) of Israel who were to arise after him" that judges should never be embarrassed to admit uncertainty.

The famous "eye for an eye" passage gets the Targum's standard reading: "the value of a fracture for a fracture; the value of an eye for an eye." It was always financial compensation, never physical retaliation.

Full source
Exempla of the Rabbis, No. 27Exempla of the Rabbis (Gaster, 1924)

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.The Exempla of the Rabbis, Moses Gaster (1924) · Public Domain

This exchange from the Exempla of the Rabbis records a sharp theological question put to Rabbi Eleazar by a matrona, a noble Roman woman who often appears in rabbinic stories as a probing outsider. Her challenge concerns the punishment that followed Israel’s worship of the golden calf at Sinai. She asked: if it was a single sin, the making and serving of the calf, why were the guilty punished with three different kinds of death?

Rabbi Eleazar declined to answer her directly, in keeping with his reluctance to engage a woman in such discussion. Instead, he explained the matter privately to his own pupils. His point was that the sin of the calf was not in fact uniform. Beneath the one act lay a threefold transgression, and the people had not all participated in the same way or to the same degree.

Therefore, he taught, each person was punished according to the particular form of his own offense. The one who actually offered sacrifice to the calf, performing the gravest cultic act, received the most severe penalty. The one who merely danced before it, taking part in the celebration without the central act of worship, received a lighter punishment. Divine justice, in this reading, is precise rather than blunt: it weighs the exact nature of each sinner’s involvement and measures the consequence to fit the deed, so that what looked like one sin with one penalty was really many gradations of guilt met with matching gradations of judgment.

Full source