Small Lexemes, Large Semantics 93 This is an explicit denial of the possibility of constructing the tabernacle at this point, the most horrific development possible given God’s original intention in Exod 25,8 (4). Once Yahweh sends Moses away to lead the people to Canaan without his being in front of or among them, this news reaches the people’s ears and they mourn deeply (Hithpael of lba) and refrain from putting on their ornaments. The differences between the two episodes of 33,1-4 and 5-6 are noteworthy. In the first, Yahweh’s absence is the topic (ÚB]r“qiB] hl,[‘a, alø), and is in fact necessary lest he destroy them in the course of the journey (not immediately). In the second, Yahweh’s punitive presence is the topic (ÚB]r“qib] hl,[‘a,, not negated), and it is equal to the Israelites’ being destroyed immediately. This suggests that Yahweh’s two speeches here contain an escalation of the threat of judgment. Corresponding to this is a development in the people’s responses. In Yahweh’s first speech he gives no commands, and the people spontaneously abstain from donning their ornaments (5). His second speech commands the permanent jettisoning (Hifil of dry) of the people’s ornaments, and the people obey heartily (Hithpael of lxn) and remain obedient to that command from Horeb on (6). The mourning noted after the first speech (33,4) is intense (Hithpael of lba), and it is reasonable to suppose that a similar disposition was continued or enhanced by the events described in the second response, since that involved long-term obedience to Yahweh (a rarity in this pericope!). The last important difference involves Yahweh’s pondering of Israel’s fate (33,6), unique to the second speech. The suspense this creates is heightened by the narrative’s hiatus in 33,7-11, establishing this as a critical juncture in the golden calf episode. The tabernacle project remains canceled, and Yahweh’s beneficent presence among the people is still ruled out. b) The Tent of Meeting (33,7-11) Most interpreters, regardless of their methodology, see this passage as hopelessly misplaced, often assuming that it represents an older, competing prophetic tradition (deriving from J) regarding the “tent of meeting.” Consequently, there is thought to be a “profound theoretical and conceptual gap between the two concepts of the tent of meeting that have been preserved in the Torah” (7). (4) The thematic ties between Exod 32–34 and the tabernacle context of 25–31; 35–40 show that there is appreciable continuity between them. The fact that the non-Priestly material (on the usual understanding of 32–34) stresses the importance of Yahweh’s presence in the same way as the key P passages of 25,8 and 29,45-46 is significant for showing that their treatment of divine presence is quite compatible. (5) “In a setting of idol production, the non-use of the ornaments alludes to a general background of purification and renunciation.” M.R. HAUGE, The Descent from the Mountain. Narrative Patterns in Exodus 19–40 (JSOTSS 323; Sheffield 2001) 77, with reference to Exod 19,10-15; Gen 35,1-4; Isa 3,18-26. A.M. Rodriguez reaches similar conclusions in his “Jewelry in the Old Testament,” in To Understand the Scripture. Essays in Honor of William H. Shea (ed. D. MERLING) (Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology/ Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum 1997) 103-125 (esp. 115, 118). (6) On the temporal nature of constructions like bre/j rh'me, see Num 10,33; 21,4; 23,7; 33,24.41.48; 34,8, inter alia. (7) I. KNOHL, “Two Aspects of the ‘Tent of Meeting’”, Tehillah le-Moshe. Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (ed. M. COGAN ET AL.) (Winona Lake 1997) 74.