professor richard elliott friedman, in his commentary on the torah, pages 180-181, as well as in his book the exodus and in his lectures, tackles the famous passage of describing moses as being “heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue”.
this passage- part of the exchange between the master of the universe and moses during the burning bush encounter- has sparked much speculation as to moses’ nature. did moses have some speech problem or defect? was moses not fluent in certain languages? or, was moses’ communication skills impacted by something else? moses’ employment of the term was an attempt to disqualify himself from the task of liberating the children of israel from egyptian bondage.
professor friedman’s methodology to bring meaning to the phrase consisted of finding other uses of the phrase within the hebrew bible. dr. friedman indentifies the book of ezekiel, chapter 3: lines 5-7, as the other time the phrase was employed. in that passage, it states , “and he said to me; “son of man, go, come to the house of israel and speak to them with my words. for it is not to a people of an unfathomable language and a heavy tongue that you are sent, [but] to the house of israel…”
thus, dr. friedman contends that heavy of tongue refers to a different language. thus, was moses only problem in taking on the task of freeing the children of israel that he needed a pimsleur or berlitz class on conversational ancient hebrew?
prior to professor friedman’s assertion, rashi, the most famous medieval torah commentator opined that the phrase meant stammering. in essence, moses was a stutterer.
using context can also be a tool used to interpret the phrase. in this instance, there is significant interaction which occurred prior to moses’ utterance and immediately after moses’ utterance. prior to the burning bush, moses had an interaction with hebrew slaves. moses’ engagement with them took place after he had murdered an egyptian task master who had been mistreating a slave. moses, at the time of his interaction, believed that his act of violence was unknown to others.
thus, in exodus chapter 2, it states that “he went out on the second day [after murdering the task master], and behold, two hebrew men were quarreling, and he said to the wicked one, “why are you going to strike your friend?” and he retorted, “who made you a man, a prince, and a judge over us? do you plan to slay me as you have slain the egyptian?” moses became frightened and said, “indeed, the matter has become known!”
this passage provides important data for interpreting the controversial phrase. moses was capable of communicating to hebrews. impliedly, moses spoke hebrew or the slaves understood egyptian. thus, one can argue that language presented to barrier for moses. the passage also exposed that moses was viewed with little credibility in the eyes of some hebrews. with compromised credibility, moses lacked the ability to communicate a message of morality. finally, the interchange may have evidenced a moment in which moses was literally tongue tied. his speech impediment prevented him from providing a retort.
the exploration of context continues as we look towards what transpired post moses’ comment. according to dr. friedman’s torah translation, moses was told by god “who set a mouth for humans? or, who will set a mute or deaf or seeing or blind? is it not i… and now go, and i’ll be with your mouth and i will instruct you what you shall speak.” exodus 4:11-12 in another english translation, the passage goes as follows “moses said to the lord, “i beseech you, o lord. i am not a man of words, neither from yesterday nor from the day before yesterday, nor from the time you have spoken to your servant, for i am heavy of mouth and heavy of tongue.” the master of the universe, in response states “but the lord said to him, “who gave man a mouth, or who makes [one] dumb or deaf or seeing or blind? is it not i, the lord?”
impliedly, the master of the universe does not take issue moses did not take advantage of online language applications such as babel to nail down his ancient conversational hebrew. rather, the master appears to address moses’ concern as if he did have some speech problem. his references to those with impairments would lead one to that conclusion.
thus, one may wonder, at this point, why is this debate over the interpretation so important? the reason is that it offers lessons concerning leadership. it provokes a discussion as to how those impaired can rise to become leaders. it provokes discussion as to one’s past can present difficulties when they must become a moral authority. finally, if we take professor friedman’s position, it offers a discussion over the value of being able to communicate in multiple languages. how many leaders have gained favor by speaking in foreign languages?
be well!!
The Ten Commandments Project 