Daf Ditty Shabbes 80: Ink, Letters and Horns
Ennemoser's Geschichte der Magie ("History of the Magic"), (Leipzig, 1844).
Our Daf discusses a case of carrying out enough ink to write two letters, while carrying only enough for one letter at a time. After the first drop was taken out and the letter was written, the ink dried. At this point, even with the remaining drop being taken into the public domain, the person is no longer liable, because the cumulative amount of ink, the amount dried plus the remaining drop, is no longer enough to comprise the minimum volume for culpability.
:אָנָתּ יֵתְּשׁ תוֹיִּתוֹא ,וֹיְדִבּ יֵתְּשׁ יִּתוֹא תוֹ לוּקְ בּ ,סוֹמְ תְּ שׁ יֵ תוֹא תוֹיִּ קְ בּ לַ מְ רָ .ןיִ ﬠָ בּ ֵ י בָ ר :אָ תוֹא חַ א תַ דִ בּ ,וֹיְ תוֹא חַ א תַ לוּקְ בּ ,סוֹמְ ,סוֹמְ לוּקְ בּ תַ חַ א תוֹא ,וֹיְ דִ בּ תַ חַ א תוֹא :אָ בָ ר י ֵ ﬠָ בּ .ןיִ רָ מְ לַ קְ בּ תוֹיִּ תוֹא יֵ תְּ שׁ ,סוֹמְ לוּקְ בּ תוֹ . תוֹא חַ א תַ קְ בּ לַ מְ רָ ,ןיִ ?וּהַ מ וּקיֵ תּ ?וּהַ מ ,ןיִ רָ מְ לַ קְ בּ תַ חַ א תוֹא
A Tanna taught in a Tosefta: The measure that determines liability for carrying out ink is equivalent to that which is used to write two letters when he carries out dried ink, and two letters when the ink is in the quill, and two letters in the inkwell [kalmarin].
Rava raised a dilemma: What is the halakha if one carried out sufficient ink to write one letter in the form of dried ink, and sufficient ink to write one letter in the quill, and sufficient ink to write one letter in the inkwell?
Do they join together to constitute the measure for liability, or is each considered separately? No resolution was found for this dilemma. Therefore, let it stand unresolved.
רַמָא :אָבָר איִצוֹה יֵתְּשׁ תוֹיִּתוֹא ןָבָתְכוּ אוּהֶשְׁכּ ֵלַּהְמ — ,ביָיַּח ןָתָביִתְכּ וֹז איִה .ןָתָחָנַּה רַמָאְו :אָבָר איִצוֹה תוֹא תַחַא תַחַא תוֹא איִצוֹה :אָבָר רַמָאְו .ןָתָחָנַּה איִה . כוּ ְ ,הָּבָת רַזָחְו איִצוֹהְו תוֹא תַחַא הָּבָתְכוּ — .רוּטָפּ יאַמ ?אָמְﬠַט אָנָדּיִﬠְבּ הַּקְפַּאְדּ ,אָתיְיָרְתָבְל רַסֲח הּיֵל אָרוּעיִשׁ יַמַּקְד אָתיְ ְַַ ָוּישׁהֵּ ֲַ אתְְְָָ ְְַַ ָָיﬠבּ?ְַָ אמ.וָּ
Rava said: One who carried out a measure of ink equivalent to that which is used to write two letters on Shabbat, and he wrote two letters as he walked, even though he did not place the written material in the public domain, he is liable for carrying out the ink. Their writing is their placement. He is liable even without placing the ink on the ground.
And Rava said: One who carried out sufficient ink to write one letter and he wrote it, and then proceeded to carry out sufficient ink to write one more letter and he wrote it, is exempt. What is the reason that he is exempt? At the time that he carried out the last drop of ink, he was lacking the first measure of ink.
The ink that he carried out first dried slightly in the interim and not enough remained to write one letter.
Gemara discusses the case where a person carries ink out into the public domain, and he performs hanacha by inscribing the ink upon a piece of paper.
From where, however, did the paper appear?
If the paper itself was also carried into the public domain together with the ink, then the person should be liable for transporting the paper itself, regardless of the ink being placed upon it.
The RAN notes that one possibility is that it must be referring to a case where the person found the paper in the street after bringing the ink out from his yard.
Or, it could be that he brought the paper out into the street, but the size of the paper was too small the person has to place the ink down, so that there will be a, יח בי to be liable. In order to be hanacha.The fact that the Gemara tells us that the person wrote the letters down indicates that there was no placement of the ink other than in their being written.
Rashi explains that this is because the person continued walking the entire time. Therefore, although the ink is considered in motion as he walks, once the letters are written down on the paper, the ink is now considered as placed in a stationary position.
The RAN asks why this should be different from a case earlier, which was left unresolved on 5b. The case there is if someone places a nut upon an object that is floating upon the water. Is this an hanacha or not?
Relative to the object, the nut is stationary. Yet, the object itself is in motion as it floats on the water.
The Gemara leaves that question unresolved.
Here, too, the ink is on the paper, but the paper is still being carried by the person who is moving. Why is it so clear here that the ink is considered stationary?
The RAN answers that the nut is not expected to remain in the floating object forever. It is only there temporarily, and that is why it’s being “fixed” in the floating object is not necessarily significant.
However, the ink being inscribed on the paper in our Gemara is now being placed in its final resting place.
This is a stationary and stable condition, and its placement upon the paper is certainly considered a valid form of hanacha.1
A measure of ink sufficient to write two letters reminds me of the famous mistranslation by Jerome of the verse:
And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount 29 טכ ,יִהְיַו תֶדֶרְבּ הֶשֹׁמ רַהֵמ ,יַניִס ,יַניִס רַהֵמ הֶשֹׁמ תֶדֶרְבּ ,יִהְיַו Sinai with the two tables of the testimony in Moses' hand, when נְשׁוּ יֵ תֹחֻל תֻדֵﬠָה יְ בּ דַ - ,הֶשֹׁמ וֹתְּדִרְבּ וֹתְּדִרְבּ ,הֶשֹׁמ he came down from the mount, that Moses knew not that the ןִמ - ;רָהָה הֶשֹׁמוּ אֹל - ,עַדָי יִכּ ןַרָק ןַרָק .skin of his face sent forth beams while He talked with him רוֹע ָ פּ ָנ י ו -- וֹרְבַּדְבּ .וֹתִּא וֹרְבַּדְבּ
IBN EZRA has strong words for those who misinterpret the word keren for horns:
The bones of the sinner should deteriorate, who says that Moshe’s face was dry like a horn, because he hadn’t eaten bread, and the reasoning for “and they feared” was because his face was ugly. And how would this destroyed person not open his eyes?
Because man isn’t afraid to approach a person unless they are in awe by something which they have never seen before. And there isn’t a man who has seen the face of a dead man and wasn’t afraid to approach him.
1 Daf Digest Shabbes 80 And, additionally, if this was so, why wasn’t the mask on his face at all times?
Ibn Ezra Shemot 34:
Rabbi Yosef Bechor Shor (Northern France, 12th century) likewise wrote about this expression as follows2:
"Behold the skin of his face was beaming" : His skin was shining from the aura of the Holy Presence. It is the same in 'Rays (Karnayim) issued from His hand' (Habakkuk 3:4)
The explanation is that when the light shone from his face, and the pillar of light which formed opposite him it resembled horns (Keren = horn of an animal).
Similar to this is the expression Gazelle of Dawn (Ayelet Hashahar) because the shining sun looks like a gazelle whose horns (karnayim, sing. keren) are spread out. Thus (the Torah) used the word keren, since the first tablets were given amidst much commotion and these second ones in secret. The Holy One Blessed Be He demonstrated that these, too, were holy, by the fact that the face of Moses shined from the aura of the Holy Presence when he received them.
Rabbi Yosef Bechor Shor explains that the passage before us describes a shining light - that the face of Moses shone from the aura of the Holy Presence. This wondrous phenomenon occurred only when he received the second Tablets and this came to demonstrate that despite the fact that they were given in secret, their holiness was no less than the holiness of the first Tablets which were given amid much pomp.
In any case the meaning of the verb karan in this passage is a description of a beam or ray of light which emanated from the face of Moses. Rabbi Yosef adds that the same meaning can be found in another passage, in the prayer of the prophet Habakkuk which describes, among other things, the revelation of the Holy Presence going forth to strike the Chaldeans (Hab 3:4),
And a brightness appeareth as the light; rays hath He at His 4 ד הַּגֹנְו רוֹאָכּ ,הֶיְהִתּ םִיַנְרַק וֹדָיִּמ וֹדָיִּמ םִיַנְרַק ,הֶיְהִתּ רוֹאָכּ הַּגֹנְו .side; and there is the hiding of His power וֹל ; ,םָשְׁו ןוֹיְבֶח .הֹזֻּﬠ ןוֹיְבֶח ,םָשְׁו
This passage from Habakkuk is the only passage in the Bible in which the word keren appears as a noun in the sense of a ray of light (keren or). Rabbi Yosef Bechor Shor also commented on the parallel usage of keren as light and keren in the sense of horns or antlers. He explained that the light that emanated from the face of Moses like the pillar of dawn looked like horns.
Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (Rashbam), the grandson of Rashi and a contemporary of Bechor Shor, also writes concerning the term in question as follows: "karan refers to splendor, and similarly in 'rays’ issue from His hand' (Hab. 3:4),
2 ed. Y. Nevo, Mossad HaRav Kook, 5754 p.176 And a brightness appeareth as the light; rays hath He at His 4 ד הַּגֹנְו רוֹאָכּ ִתּ ,הֶיְה םִיַנְרַק וֹדָיִּמ וֹדָיִּמ םִיַנְרַק ,הֶיְה .side; and there is the hiding of His power ;וֹל ,םָשְׁ ו בֶ ח ןוֹיְ ֻﬠ .הֹ זֻּ וְֹב םשׁ וֹ and anyone who compares [our verse] to "his horn are like the horns of a wild ox" (karnei re'em karnav - Deut. 33:17)
. רוֹכְבּ וֹרוֹשׁ רָדָה ,וֹל יֵנְרַקְו םֵאְר ויָנְרַק -- םֶהָבּ םיִמַּﬠ חַגַּנְי ,וָדְּחַי יֵסְפַא - ;ץֶרָא םֵהְו תוֹבְבִר ,םִיַרְפֶא םֵהְו יֵפְלַא הֶשַּׁנְמ יֵפְלַא םֵהְו ,םִיַרְפֶא תוֹבְבִר םֵהְו ;ץֶרָא is “mistaken”.3
בא ן ע ז אר ומש ת .Anyone who compares this word “keren” to the “keren/horns” of a ram is a fool שוריפה( )ךוראה תשרפ יכ אשת קרפ דל וקחתשי תומצע וח י ,עשופה רמאש יכ רובעב אלש לכא םחל ובש נפ י השמ השמ י נפ ובש םחל לכא אלש רובעב יכ רמאש ,עשופה י וח תומצע וקחתשי דל קרפ אשת יכ תשרפ )ךוראה שוריפה( תומש דל ,)ל ינפמ ויהש וינפ .תורעוכמ ךיאו אל חקפ הז ללוקמה תא ויניע , יכ אל ) תושבי ומכ ןרקה . םעטו ו י וארי ור םט רה מ וב אריי ה םדא תשגל לא םדאה קר רובעב רבד אלפ שדחתנש וב אלש האר והומכ . יאו ן םדא אלש האר נפ י ,תמה אלו י ארי ארי י אלו ,תמה י נפ האר אלש םדא ן יאו . והומכ האר אלש וב שדחתנש אלפ רבד רובעב קר םדאה לא תשגל םדא תשגמ ילא ו . ,דועו ולא היה ,הככ המל אל היה דימת הוסמה לע נפ י ו , המלו היה ריסמ ותוא דימת ורבדב םע לארשי לארשי םע ורבדב דימת ותוא ריסמ היה המלו , ו י נפ לע הוסמה דימת היה אל המל ,הככ היה ולא ,דועו . ו ילא תשגמ
Rashbam's understanding of the word keren is similar to that of Rabbi Yosef but in his comments, we hear of others who interpreted keren literally in keeping with its meaning in Deut. 33:17.[4]
Who were these interpreters?4
E. Touitou5 has shown that the commentary of Rashbam on the Torah challenged Christian Biblical exegesis, as indicated by the Rashbam's phrase:
"[This explanation is] according to the way of the world and an answer to the heretics" (E.g. Lev. 19:19).
In our passage, the Rashbam rejects the interpretation that Moses sprouted horns, probably espoused by Christian scholars with whom he had contact.
Such an interpretation is based on the Latin Biblical translation, the Vulgate, which translated keren in our passage: quod cornuta esset. 6
3 Rashbam Shemot 34 4 See Dr Yaakov Gartner https://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/kitisa/gartner.html
5 E. Touitou, "Shitato Haparshanit shel Harashbam al Reka Hametziut Hahistorit shel Zmano", Iyunim B'sifrut Chazal Bamikra Ubetoldot Yisrael, (in honor of Prof. E. Melamed ) Ramat Gan, 1982, pp.48-74
6 Translation of Tremellius, Quod splendida facta esset cutis faciei ejus; or as Estius hath interpreted it, facies ejus erat radiosa, his face was radiant, and dispersing beams like many horns and cones about his head; which is also consonant unto the original signification, and yet observed in the pieces of our Saviour, and the Virgin Mary, who are commonly drawn with scintillations, or radiant Halo's about their head; which after the French expression are usually termed, the Glory. The Biblia Sacra (1587, i. p. 87) version of 34:29 reads "Fuit verò descendente Mosche e monte Sinai, quum essent duae illae tabulae testimonii in manu Moschis, descendendo ex monte illo; ut ignoraret Mosche splendidam esse factam cutem faciei suae, quum ille loqueretur secum."
The Vulgate followed Jerome, one of the Church Fathers, whose interpretation follows the Greek translation of Aquilas in translating karnayim (Amos 6:13) with the Greek equivalent word for "horn".7
R. Mellinkoff, in her book devoted to this subject,8 claims that neither Aquilas nor the Vulgate , which both translated keren as the horns of an animal, intended to say that Moses sprouted horns. Rather in the ancient world, and as it seems from numerous Biblical passages, horns were simply a metaphor for might, honor and splendor. It is therefore not surprising that until the 11th century no illustrations are to be found in which Moses is portrayed as having horns.
From the 11th century onward, Europe underwent a change, and the general public understood the Biblical text, literally, though most Christian theologians, some of them influenced by the commentary of Rashi, continued to explain keren as a metaphor for rays of light or glory.
It is from this period that we begin to find drawings and sculptures which show Moses with horns in a range of shapes (for further details consult the book of R. Mellinkoff.
The most well-known of these is the statue by Michelangelo in Rome in which Moses has two horns protruding from his head. However, other examples of medieval art reflect the approach of the theologians and portray Moses not with the horns of an animal but with rays of light.
7 Gartner adds: It must, however, be pointed out that the Septuagint translates keren in the sense of splendor, and in the Eastern Church (in which the Septuagint and not the Vulgate is the accepted translation of the Hebrew Bible) the idea that Moses had horns cannot be found in interpretation or in art.
8 The Horned Moses in Medieval Art and Thought, Berkeley, London and Los Angeles; University of California Press, 1970. See also a further article by the same author - "More About Horned Moses," Jewish Art, vol. 12-13 (1986-87), pp. 184-198.
Mellinkoff (p. 135) relates the story of the American Jewish scholar who, during a trip to the Midwestern United States, became involved in discussion with a farmer.
The farmer refused to believe that the scholar was a Jew, since he did not have horns! This story and other evidence to the like clearly show that the medieval superstition that Jews have horns continued well into the modern period. Several appropriate illustrations are brought by Mellinkoff, who raises the possibility of a connection between this belief and the illustrations of Moses in Christian manuscripts in which Moses appears with animal horns.
Saint Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin, deserves credit for the mix-up.
To be honest, the confusion is kind of understandable. In ancient art, horns were a symbol of power and divinity. Perhaps the translator wanted to signify the close resemblance between the prophet and God.
Later versions of the Bible adopted the word "beaming," but some ambiguity remained.
That explains why the French artist Marc Chagall gave the prophet two horn-like luminous beams in his Moses Receiving the Tablets of the Law.
Marc Chagall, "Moses Receiving the Tablets of the Law", 1952, oil on canvas, Musée National Marc Chagall, Nice, France. © ADAGP, Paris 2017
The Midrash (Shemot Rabbah (47,11) is my earliest source for the ink of Moses and his “horns” on the question: "From where did Moses derive rays of splendor? Our Rabbis said: From the cave, as it is said:
And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by, that I 22 בכ הָיָהְו רֹבֲﬠַבּ ,יִדֹבְכּ יִתְּמַשְׂו יִתְּמַשְׂו ,יִדֹבְכּ רֹבֲﬠַבּ הָיָהְו will put thee in a cleft of the rock and will cover thee with My תַרְקִנְבּ ;רוּצַּה יִתֹכַּשְׂו יִפַּכ , יֶלָﬠ , יֶלָﬠ יִפַּכ יִתֹכַּשְׂו ;רוּצַּה תַרְקִנְבּ .hand until I have passed by דַﬠ - .יִרְבָﬠ
'And it will be when My honor passes by' etc. (Ex. 32:32)'.
R. Berechiah Hacohen said in the name of Shmuel: The Tablets were six Handbreadths in length and six in width; Moses held two handbreadths, the Holy Presence held two and there were two between them and from there Moses took the rays of splendor.
R. Yehudah bar Nachman said in the name of R. Shimon Ben Lakish: While writing with a quill something was left over and he passed it over his head and from that the rays of splendor were created for him, as it is said ‘And Moses did not know that his face was shining’”.
Shemot Rabah (Vilna) Parshat Ki Tisah Parshah 47
“And Moshe didn’t know that his face beamed with light:” And from where did he receive this light? Rabanan: from the crevice in the rock, as it says, “When I pass my Kavod over you, I will put you in the cleft of the rock and I will cover you with my hand as I pass by.”
Rav Brechiah HaKohen in the name of Rabbi Shmuel says that the Luchot were six Tefachim (handbreadths) long. Moshe held two tefachim, Hashem’s “hands” held two tefachim, and there were two tefachim in between them. Moshe’s emanating light derived from the closeness of their touch.
Rav Yehudah bar Nachman said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that Moshe was writing the Torah down with his feather, and a bit of ink was on his finger as he scratched his head. This ink left upon him the mark of the beaming light.
Rav Amnon Bazak9 looks at the similarities and differences in the episodes of the first Luchot and the second Luchot.
The relevant one here is the strange repetitions that happen after each descent.
9 http://www.hatanakh.com/en/%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/rabbi-amnon-bazak-1
By the first Luchot, it repeats three times that Hashem wrote the Luchot. By the second Luchot, it repeats three times that Moshe’s face beamed with light.
The transition that occurs here is that- after Chet Ha’egel , Hashem transfers the focus from Torah descending from God to the affect Torah has on man. Instead of focusing and emphasizing Hashem’s hand in writing the words of the Dibrot, Hashem emphasizes the brilliant affect Torah can have on the human being. Man can beam with light, if he engages in Torah study.
To emphasize this point, the Midrash explains three ways that Moshe received the beaming light upon his face. Interestingly, each of these methods of reception encompass involvement in the Torah processes. The first possibility provided is: that when Hashem held Moshe in the cleft of the rock, His kavod passed through His “hand” and into Moshe’s being. This transfer of kavod only occurs after Moshe questions Hashem and desires to dig deeper and learn more about what lies within His power.
Moshe involves himself in the creative process of learning Torah, seeking deeper elements and searching for new understandings. The second answer of the Midrash explains that Hashem physically handed Moshe the Luchot, and in this moment of mesorah, of the first link in the chain of Hashem transferring His Torah from His hand to Moshe’s hands, allows for Moshe to radiate light. Only once Moshe is personally involved in the Torah process, is he truly impacted by its greatness.
The third answer of the Midrash explains that Moshe was physically involved in writing the Luchot themselves, and as any student in a puzzled state scratches their head and potentially leaves a pen mark, Moshe left a blotch of ink on his forehead, allowing for the light to pass over and overtake his face.
The act of being involved in writing the Torah is symbolic for the act of engaging in the text and finding residue ink on one’s forehead as a natural result of writing Torah shows the automatic result that Torah has upon a person engaged in its study.
It’s entirely inevitable, that a person will be affected by their Torah study. Ultimately, we see that Moshe’s radiating light derives directly from the light that Hashem exudes Himself, often representing His “kavod,” His honor and splendor.
This light transferred to Moshe because he embodies the essence of Torah and was born with the potential to bring this Torah to his nation. However, Moshe only actually exudes this light once he involves himself in the Torah, and he is personally affected by it. The light of potential is fleeting, but the light of permanent and personal impact allows the potential to take root and create change.
Which brings us back to our Daf, Rava said: One who carried out a measure of ink equivalent to that which is used to write two letters on Shabbat,
Maybe the Shabbat law of ink and two letters represents the two drops of ink that Moses left on his forehead….
The first word Vayikra (vav – yud – kuf – resh – aleph – “And God called Moses…”)
ends with an unusually small aleph. This anomaly in the k’tiv (written text) gave rise to much rabbinic interpretation over the centuries.
Rashi explained that the small aleph teaches Moses’ humility. Others said that the aleph is an introduction to the Levitical laws of sacrifice, which requires humility.
A Midrash suggests that when Moses descended from Mount Sinai carrying the tablets of the law, he emitted keren or (“a ray of light”) compelling Moses to shield his face with a veil because the people could not look upon him in such a state. יִהְיַו תֶדֶרְבּ הֶשֹׁמ רַהֵמ ,יַניִס הֶשֹׁמוּ אֹל עַדָי יִכּ .ןַרָק ןִיַנִּמ הָכָז הֶשֹׁמ יֵנְרַקְל .דוֹהַה וּרְמָא וּניֵתוֹבַּר ְכִז נוֹר םָ בִ ל רְ כָ :הָ ןִ מ מַּה רָﬠְ ,הָ ,הָ רָﬠְ מַּה ןִ מ :הָ כָ רְ בִ ל םָ נוֹר ןַתָנ שׁוֹדָקַּה וּרָבּ אוּה ףַכּ וֹדָי ,ויָלָﬠ םָשִּׁמוּ הָכָז יֵנְרַקְל .( מש ו ת ל ג , כ ב ) נֶּשׁ :רַמֱאֶ יָהְ ו הָ רֹבֲﬠַבּ דֹבְכּ יִ יִתְּמַשְׂ ו נְבּ תַרְקִ רוּצַּה רוּצַּה תַרְקִ נְבּ יִתְּמַשְׂ ו יִ דֹבְכּ רֹבֲﬠַבּ הָ יָהְ ו :רַמֱאֶ נֶּשׁ .( קבח ו ק ג , ד ) .דוֹהַה ןֵכְו אוּה ,רֵמוֹא יַנְרַק ִ ם יִּ מ וֹדָ וֹל םָשְׁ ו בֶח ןוֹיְ ֻﬠ וֹזּ וֹזּ ֻﬠ ןוֹיְ בֶח םָשְׁ ו וֹל וֹדָ יִּ מ ם And it came to pass, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai … Moses knew not that the skin of his face sent forth beams (Exod. 34:29). Why did Moses merit the beams of glory? Our sages of blessed memory said: Because of the incident at the rock, as it is said: And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by (Exod. 33:22). The Holy One placed His Hand upon him, and because of that he merited the beams of glory. For so it says: Rays hath He at his side; and there is the hiding of His power (Hab. 3:4). שֵׁיְו :םיִרְמוֹא הָﬠָשְׁבֶּשׁ ֶשׁ הָיָה שׁוֹדָקַּה וּרָבּ אוּה וֹדְמַּלְמ ,הָרוֹת תוֹצוֹציִנִּמ וּאְצָיֶּשׁ יִפִּמ הָניִכְשַּׁה לַטָנ יֵנְרַק .דוֹהַה ִבַּרְו י לֵאוּמְשׁ לֵאוּמְשׁ י הָש ,םיִחָפְט יָהְ ו הָ הֶשֹׁמ זֲחַמ קיִ ִבּ יֵנְשׁ ,םיִחָפְט שׁוֹדָקַּהְו ָבּ וּר
בַר לֵאוּמְשׁ ,רַמָא דַﬠ הֶשֹׁמֶּשׁ בֵתוֹכ תֶא ,הָרוֹתַּה רֵיַּתְּשִׁנ סוֹמְלֵקַבּ אָﬠְמִק וֹריִבֱﬠֶהְו לַﬠ ,וֹשׁאֹר נֶּמִּמוּ וּ וּשֲׂﬠַ נ וֹל רַק נְ ֵ י ,דוֹהַה ,דוֹהַה י ֵ נְ רַק וֹל וּשֲׂﬠַ נ וּ נֶּשׁ :רַמֱאֶ הֶשֹׁמוּ אֹל דָ י עַ יִכּ רָק .ןַ לָכּ דוֹה נֶּשׁ ,לַטָ ןַתַּמִּמ רָכָשׂ לָבֲא רֶקַּה ,ןֶ ,תֶמֶיַּק :רַמֱאֶנֶּשׁ יַנְרַק םִ וֹדָיִּמ וֹל םָשְׁו ןוֹיְבֶח .וֹזֻּﬠ .וֹזֻּﬠ ןוֹיְבֶח םָשְׁו וֹל וֹדָיִּמ םִ יַנְרַק :רַמֱאֶנֶּשׁ ,תֶמֶיַּק יֶּשְׁכוּ ִ וּלְטּ םיִקיִדַּצַּה ןַתַּמ ןָרָכְשׂ םָלוֹעָל ,אָבַּה הָּתוֹא הָﬠָשׁ אוּה ֵטוֹנ ל כְשׂ ,וֹרָ נֶּשׁ מֱאֶ :רַ נִּ ה הֵ דֲא נֹ ָ י םיִק ֱא חְ בּ זָ קָ אוֹבָ י זוּ רְ וֹעֹ וֹעֹ רְ זוּ אוֹבָ י קָ זָ חְ בּ םיִק ֱא י ָ נֹ דֲא הֵ נִּ ה :רַ מֱאֶ נֶּשׁ ,וֹרָ כְשׂ ל .( יעשי ה מ , י ) הָלְשֹׁמ ,וֹלּ הֵנִּה וֹרָכְשׂ וֹתִּא וֹתָלֻּﬠְפוּ ויָנָפְל ויָנָפְל וֹתָלֻּﬠְפוּ וֹתִּא וֹרָכְשׂ הֵנִּה ,וֹלּ הָלְשֹׁמ
R. Samuel said: After Moses wrote the Torah, a little ink was left in the pen, and when he passed it before his head, the beams of glory were formed upon him, as it is said: And Moses knew not that the skin of his face sent forth beams. All the glory he obtained was a reward (for what he had done), but You placed the beams, as it is said: Rays hath He at His side; and there is the hiding of His power. The righteous receive their reward in the world-to-come, but he received his reward at that time, as is said: Behold, the Lord will come as a Mighty One, and His arm will rule for Him; behold, His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him (Isa. 40:10).
The source of that ray of light was divine ink left over when Moses wrote a small aleph instead of one of normal size. The Midrash explains that Moses had sought to lessen his own stature by using a small aleph, but God restored the extra drops of divine ink by placing them upon Moses’ forehead. this Midrash (teaches that the small amount of unused ink which should have been utilized on the regular-sized alef of the Torah (as it were), was placed by God on Moses’s forehead; that ink of humility is what provided Moses’s face with the translucent glow with which he descended from Mount Sinai.
So, Shabbat and ink and the letters and the horns of Moses bring us back to humility as the prerequisite for learning.
I end with a weird publication that made its way through European esoterica regarding Moses’ magical powers (sic).
The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses, arguably one of the most popular magick books ever published, contains two secret apocrypha ascribed to Moses, perhaps pseudepigraphically. The book consists of a collection of texts, which claim to explain the magick Moses used to win the biblical magick contest with the Egyptian priest-magicians, part the Red Sea, and perform other miraculous feats. It includes instruction in the form of invocations, magick words, and seals for calling upon the angels to affect worldly ends, from the sublime (calling down a plague of locusts and frogs upon your enemy) to the mundane (getting more money). Many manuscripts and printed pamphlet versions circulated in Germany in the 1800s, and an English translation by Johann Scheible first appeared in New York in 1880 that had not been corrected or re-edited until now. In creating this restored, corrected edition, Joseph Peterson drew on Scheible's final edition of the text and his original sources.
The most famous replication of Moses’ horns was of course Michelangelo: