Exodus 32:19

וַֽיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר קָרַב אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶה וַיַּרְא אֶת־הָעֵגֶל וּמְחֹלֹת וַיִּֽחַר־אַף מֹשֶׁה וַיַּשְׁלֵךְ מִיָּדָיו אֶת־הַלֻּחֹת וַיְשַׁבֵּר אֹתָם תַּחַת הָהָֽר׃

Hebrew interlinear

Tap a word to see its entry

The same verse in five languages

Hebrew

וַֽיְהִ֗י כַּאֲשֶׁ֤ר קָרַב֙ אֶל־הַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה וַיַּ֥רְא אֶת־הָעֵ֖גֶל וּמְחֹלֹ֑ת וַיִּֽחַר־אַ֣ף מֹשֶׁ֗ה וַיַּשְׁלֵ֤ךְ מִיָּדָיו֙ אֶת־הַלֻּחֹ֔ת וַיְשַׁבֵּ֥ר אֹתָ֖ם תַּ֥חַת הָהָֽר׃

Greek (Septuagint)

καὶ ἡνίκα ἤγγιζεν τῇ παρεμβολῇ, ὁρᾷ τὸν μόσχον καὶ τοὺς χοροὺς· καὶ ὀργισθεὶς θυμῷ Μωυσῆς ἔρριψεν ἀπὸ τῶν χειρῶν αὐτοῦ τὰς δυο πλάκας, καὶ συνέτρεψεν αὐτὰς ὑπὸ τὸ ὄρος·

Greek text from Swete's edition, CC BY-SA 4.0

Latin (Vulgate)

Cumque appropinquasset ad castra, vidit vitulum, et choros: iratusque valde, projecit de manu tabulas, et confregit eas ad radicem montis:

Spanish

En cuanto Moisés se acercó al campamento y vio el becerro y a la gente bailando, se enfureció tanto que arrojó las tablas y las hizo pedazos al pie de la montaña.

Classic Spanish (Reina-Valera 1909)

Y aconteció, que como llegó él al campo, y vió el becerro y las danzas, enardeciósele la ira á Moisés, y arrojó las tablas de sus manos, y quebrólas al pie del monte.

English

As Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, he burned with anger and threw the tablets out of his hands, shattering them at the base of the mountain.

What the text says

Summary

The verse narrates four sequential actions of Moses upon reaching the camp: he saw the calf and the dancing, his anger flared, he threw down the tablets from his hands, and he shattered them at the base of the mountain. The Hebrew ties these events together with a chain of consecutive verbs marking one continuous narrative sequence.

Key words

  • yichar ("it burned", H2734) — qal narrative form; the subject that "burns" is not Moses himself but his af ("nose/anger"), producing the idiom "the nose of Moses burned," i.e., his anger flared.
  • af ("anger of", H0639G) — masculine singular construct; grammatically it means "nose of," here functioning idiomatically as "anger of," bound to Mosheh ("Moses", H4872).
  • yadav ("his hands", H3027G) — dual construct noun with pronominal suffix -o ("his"); the dual form specifies both hands, not a generic "hand."
  • yashlekh ("he threw down", H7993) — hiphil (causative) narrative form, indicating Moses caused the tablets to leave his hands, distinct from a simple qal "to throw."
  • yeshabber ("he broke in pieces", H7665) — piel (intensive) narrative form, marking a more forceful or thorough breaking than a basic qal "to break" would convey.

What the text says

The verse opens with vayehi ka'asher ("and it was when"), a common Hebrew construction introducing a temporal clause before the main narrative action begins. The main sequence is carried by four verbs joined with the narrative vav (וַ), each marked "and then": vayar ("he saw", H7200G), vayichar ("it burned", H2734), vayashlekh ("he threw down", H7993), and vayeshabber ("he broke in pieces", H7665). This chain presents the events as a rapid, uninterrupted sequence rather than isolated statements.

The phrase vayichar-af Mosheh does not literally say "Moses became angry" but "the anger/nose of Moses burned," with af in construct linking to the proper name Mosheh. The grammar places the burning action on the "anger" itself as grammatical subject, with Moses appearing only as the possessor via the construct chain. The dual noun yadav ("his hands") specifies both hands are emptied of the tablets, and the hiphil stem of yashlekh frames this as something Moses causes to happen, while the piel stem of yeshabber intensifies the breaking of the luchot ("tablets", H3871).

Differences between versions

The LXX renders the idiom vayichar-af as ὀργισθεὶς θυμῷ ("having been enraged with wrath"), and the Vulgate as iratusque valde ("and being very angry"); neither preserves the Hebrew's literal "nose" imagery, both instead naming the emotion directly. The LXX also shifts vayar ("he saw") into a present-tense verb (ὁρᾷ, "he sees") within its narrative sequence, whereas the Hebrew and Vulgate maintain past-tense narrative flow throughout.

This explanation describes the text using linguistic data; it adds no doctrine or confessional interpretation.