“And I prostrated myself before G-d like the first time, forty days and forty nights” (D’varim 9:18). Based on Moshe telling the nation how long he had begged G-d not to destroy them despite their having worshipped the golden calf (see 9:26), Rashi reconstructs the timeline of Moshe’s primary stays atop Mt. Sinai. Included in Rashi’s timeline is that at the end of the third set of 40 days/nights G-d told Moshe “I have forgiven [them], as you have spoken.” This timeline, including G-d’s words to Moshe, seems to be based on Midrash Tanchuma (Ki Sisa 31), but is more likely based on the version of Seder Olam (6; see R’ Chaim Paltiel on Bamidbar 14:20 and Tosfos on Bava Kama 82a) Rashi had. Numerous commentators ask how these words (“sulachti kid’varecha”) could be quoted as having been said after the sin of the golden calf if they weren’t said then, but after the sin of the spies (Bamidbar 14:20), several months later.

Rashash, commenting on Sh’mos Rabbah (51:4) also using G-d’s response after the spies as if He said them after the golden calf, quotes several other instances where Midrashim and Rishonim do the same thing, as well as referencing it being presented that way in the Yom Kippur liturgy. Obviously, quoting G-d’s words of forgiveness after the sin of the spies as if they were said after the sin of the golden calf is not an isolated incident, but seems to be the norm. The question is why (and how it could be done if it’s really a misquote).

Rabbeinu Bachye (Bamidbar 14:17) mentions that Chazal understood G-d’s response of “sulachti kid’varecha” as having been said regarding the sin of the golden calf, and therefore explains G-d’s response after the spies as “I have already forgiven them for the golden calf, as you (Moshe) asked of Me, but I cannot do so for the sin of the spies.” If this is what G-d was saying, then the words “I have forgiven them as you have spoken” does in fact refer to the sin of the golden calf. However, although this could explain the way Chazal position things in some places (such as the end of chapter 46 of Pirkay d’Rebbe Eliezer), it cannot be used to explain all the times these words are presented as being about the sin of the golden calf. For example, Rashi (quoting Chazal) says that on that day (Yom Kippur) G-d said “sulachti kid’varecha,” meaning it was said on Yom Kippur itself, not months later referring to what had been said on Yom Kippur. Nevertheless, there are several commentators who either give or quote this answer to explain Rashi.

Tosfos Shantz (Bava Kama 82a, quoted in Shita M’kubetzes) brings two approaches to explain Seder Olam using “sulachti kid’varecha” as if it was said after the sin of the golden calf, with the first being the same as Rabbeinu Bachye. The second (which is also given by several of the Tosafists on Bamidbar 14:20) has Moshe as the one saying “sulachti kid’varecha” after the spies, quoting what G-d had said after the golden calf. According to this, the verses in Bamidbar (14:19-20, with Moshe ending his prayer) would read: “please forgive the sin of this nation as is consistent with the greatness of Your kindness, and as You have carried this nation (despite their missteps) from Egypt until this point by [You] saying (after their previous missteps, including the golden calf) ‘sulachti kid’varecha.” G-d’s response would then start with His saying (14:21-23) that even so, this generation cannot see the Promised Land. Although this does allow the words “sulachti kid’varecha” to have been said (by G-d) after the golden calf, the verses do not flow well. First of all, the switch from Moshe’s prayer to G-d’s answer would occur without any indication that there is a different speaker (whereas the straightforward reading has G-d’s response starting after “and G-d said,” as it normally would). Not only is there no indication that the speaker changed from verse 20 to verse 21, but the normal indication of such a change (which would still be Moshe speaking) is in verse 20! Even if there are times when biblical verses switch speakers without warning (Tosfos Shantz references Yirmiyahu 26:20), if there was a “false indicator” of such a switch in the previous verse, wouldn’t the text to clarify where the switch is actually taking place? Additionally, Moshe had been addressing G-d in the second person (“Your kindness,” You have carried”); if he was still talking to G-d, why would he all of a sudden switch to the third person (“and G-d said”)? It is therefore very difficult to say that “sulachti kid’varecha” was said by Moshe, quoting what G-d had said after the golden calf.

Some of these Tosafists add another possibility, that G-d was saying He had, in the past, forgiven them (“sulachti”) just as Moshe was asking Him to do again now (“kid’varecha”), but He couldn’t grant them the same level of forgiveness this time. Based on this, G-d had said “sulachti” after the golden calf. However, the word “kid’varecha” would still first have beeen said after the spies, even though it’s included in what Rashi quotes G-d as having said after the golden calf.

Chizkuni (see also Zichron Moshe) takes a completely different approach, suggesting that the words “sulachti kid’varecha” are not a direct quote, but a paraphrase, catchwords based on what G-d said after the sin of the spies that also apply to what happened after the sin of the golden calf. In both cases, the nation sinned, G-d got angry enough to wipe them out, and Moshe’s intervention saved them. Therefore, the expression “I have forgiven, as you have spoken” applies to both, even if those words were only actually spoken after the sin of the spies. (Taz says they were actually said both times, even though the Torah only recorded it by the spies.) Although Chizkuni only says that it is Rashi who is paraphrasing what G-d said after the golden calf by using the words He said after the spies, since this “paraphrase” is so widespread, it would apparently be an already established paraphrase that Rashi is just quoting. Although this seems to be the most acceptable of the approaches I have come across, by taking a closer look at how prophecy might work we may be able to expand the concept a bit further.

Every communication between two beings can be broken into two parts, the message itself and the medium through which the message is communicated. (The message is affected by other things as well, such as the perception of the one receiving it, but I am going to focus only on these two aspects.) This is true from a technical standpoint as well as from a conceptual standpoint, although they work in opposite ways. For example, if you are reading this on a computer screen, these words were typed into MS Works on a netbook runnging Windows XP, were saved as a file made up of ones and zeros, and then sent electronically (with many “way stations” in-between) to your computer — which could be any make or model, using any of a myriad of software programs to reassemble the ones and zeros back into words. They’ve gone from words to bytes and back to words, with an extreme likelihood that there was a faithful reproduction. On the other hand, what those words are trying to convey has gone (or is in the process of going, as I write this) from a concept in my mind into words that are being read by you, that I hope will faithfully recreate the concept in your mind. How successful I am is dependent on many things, none the least of which is my deficient writing skills (which I hope to improve). Rather than the starting and ending point being words with technology transmitting the words from one place to the other, the concept is the starting point and the words are the conduit through which I am hoping to transmit my thoughts to you.

When it comes to prophecy, is the means of communication between the divine and the mortal merely words? Does G-d speak using human language, or does he “upload” the concept He is trying to convey in a different way. Obviously I can’t speak from personal experience (that’s my story and I’m sticking to it), but prophecy seems to be conveyed through “visions,” scenes in the prophet’s mind that may include words, but whose message is conveyed through the entire experience. Moshe is described as the “master of all prophets,” having extreme clarity for his “visions” (“aspaqlarya ha’me’ira”) and able to experience his prophecy while awake and in full control of his faculties. It would seem that his prophecy was more like a “download” from G-d, so that the “ones and zeros” stayed intact (a Vulcan mind-meld?), with the trick being to reconstruct things in a way that enabled the concepts to be explained to others. This might be what is meant by “everything in the Torah, even the Oral Law, was taught to Moshe at Sinai.” Not that G-d told Moshe every conversation between Abaye and Rava (et al), but that the concept of every mitzvah was transferred so fully into Moshe’s mind that every aspect brought out throughout history was included in Moshe’s “download.”

Allow me to give a concrete example. After Aharon’s sons died when they “brought a strange fire before G-d,” Moshe told his brother “this is what G-d spoke, saying ‘through my close ones I will be sanctified and upon the face of the entire nation will I be honored” (Vayikra 10:3). “Where did G-d speak thus? ‘And I will meet there for the Children of Israel and I will be sanctified through my honor” (Rashi, referencing Sh’mos 29:43). Those aren’t the same words, though, are they? Yet the “words” G-d “spoke” as related in Vayikra are presented as if they are the same “words” G-d “spoke” in Sh’mos. It would seem that Moshe is not referring to literal words that G-d spoke, but to a concept that was relayed, one that was initially told to others via the words that appear in Sh’mos but were later transmitted via different words in Vayikra. Both accurately conveyed a facet of what G-d had communicated to Moshe, but neither could transmit the whole picture. Moshe was telling Aharon that when G-d had communicated with him then, a communication that was initially put into one set of words, included in that same communication, in that same “download,” was the meaning conveyed by the words Moshe was using after the death of Aharon’s sons. The bottom line is that G-d’s communication with Moshe was not through words; it’s Moshe’s communication with us that uses words.

After Moshe pleaded with G-d not to destroy the nation and G-d forgave them, how is that “forgiveness” communicated to us? After the golden calf, the words used by the Torah are “behold I (G-d) am executing a covenant, before your (Moshe’s) entire nation I will perform wonders that have not been created in all the land and in all the peoples, and the entire nation that you (Moshe) are amongst will see the action of G-d, for it is awesome, that which I (G-d) do with you” (Sh’mos 34:10). After the sin of the spies, the words used by the Torah are “I (G-d) have forgiven, as you (Moshe) have spoken” (Bamidbar 14:20). The concept is the same, G-d forgiving the sins of the nation because of Moshe’s intervention, even if the words are different. If G-d never used actual words to communicate this concept in the first place, does it matter which version of the words used to describe the same concept is quoted? The Torah may have used the words “sulachti kid’varecha” only after the spies, but the concept G-d conveyed to Moshe was the same as had been conveyed after the golden calf. Therefore, when referencing the forgiveness attained through Moshe’s intervention, the words used by Chazal (and Rashi) are the ones that are much more succinct.