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.

,‫ אוֹת ַאַחת ְבּקוְּלמוֹס‬,‫ אוֹת ַאַחת ִבְּדיוֹ‬:‫ ָבֵּﬠי ָרָבא‬.‫ ְשֵׁתּי אוִֹתיּוֹת ְבַּקְלָמ ִרין‬,‫ ְשֵׁתּי אוִֹתיּוֹת ְבּקוְּלמוֹס‬,‫ ְשֵׁתּי אוִֹתיּוֹת ִבְּדיוֹ‬:‫ָתָּנא‬
‫ ַמהוּ? ֵתּיקוּ‬,‫אוֹת ַאַחת ְבַּקְלָמ ִרין‬.
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.

‫ הוִֹציא אוֹת ַאַחת‬:‫ ְוָאַמר ָרָבא‬.‫ ְכִּתיָבָתן זוֹ ִהיא ַהָנָּחָתן‬,‫ — ַחָיּיב‬j‫ הוִֹציא ְשֵׁתּי אוִֹתיּוֹת וְּכָתָבן ְכֶּשׁהוּא ְמַהֵלּ‬:‫ָאַמר ָרָבא‬
‫ ֲחַסר ֵליהּ ִשׁיעוָּרא ְדַקַמּ ְייָתא‬,‫ ַמאי ַטְﬠָמא? ְבִּﬠיָדָּנא ְדַּאְפַּקהּ ְלָבְתָר ְייָתא‬.‫ ְוָחַזר ְוהוִֹציא אוֹת ַאַחת וְּכָתָבהּ — ָפּטוּר‬,‫וְּכָתָבהּ‬.

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
to be liable. In order to be ‫ חייב‬,the person has to place the ink down, so that there will be a
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:

,‫ ְבֶּרֶדת ֹמֶשׁה ֵמַהר ִסיַני‬,‫כט ַו ְיִהי‬ 29 And it came to pass, when Moses came down from mount
‫ ְבּ ִרְדתּוֹ‬,‫ֹמֶשׁה‬-‫וְּשֵׁני ֻלֹחת ָהֵﬠֻדת ְבַּיד‬ Sinai with the two tables of the testimony in Moses' hand, when
‫ ִכּי ָק ַרן‬,‫ָיַדע‬-‫ָהָהר; וֹּמֶשׁה ל ֹא‬-‫ִמן‬ he came down from the mount, that Moses knew not that the
.‫ְבַּדְבּרוֹ ִאתּוֹ‬--‫עוֹר ָפָּניו‬ skin of his face sent forth beams while He talked with him.

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),

‫ ַק ְרַנ ִים ִמָיּדוֹ‬,‫ד ְו ֹנַגהּ ָכּאוֹר ִתְּהֶיה‬ 4 And a brightness appeareth as the light; rays hath He at His
.‫ ֶחְביוֹן ֻﬠ ֹזּה‬,‫לוֹ; ְוָשׁם‬ side; and there is the hiding of His power.

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
 ‫ ַק ְרַנ ִים ִמָיּדוֹ‬,‫ד ְו ֹנַגהּ ָכּאוֹר ִתְּהֶיה‬ 4 And a brightness appeareth as the light; rays hath He at His
.‫ ֶחְביוֹן ֻﬠ ֹזּה‬,‫לוֹ; ְוָשׁם‬ side; and there is the hiding of His power.

and anyone who compares [our verse] to "his horn are like the horns of a wild ox" (karnei re'em
karnav - Deut. 33:17)

‫ ְוֵהם ַאְלֵפי ְמַנֶשּׁה‬,‫ָאֶרץ; ְוֵהם ִרְבבוֹת ֶאְפַר ִים‬-‫ ַאְפֵסי‬,‫ָבֶּהם ַﬠִמּים ְיַנַגּח ַיְחָדּו‬--‫ ְוַק ְרֵני ְרֵאם ַק ְרָניו‬,‫ְבּכוֹר שׁוֹרוֹ ָהָדר לוֹ‬.

is “mistaken”.3

Anyone who compares this word “keren” to the “keren/horns” of a ram is a fool. ‫אבן עזרא שמות‬
‫ שאמר כי בעבור שלא אכל לחם שבו פני משה‬,‫)הפירוש הארוך( פרשת כי תשא פרק לד ישתחקו עצמות חוי הפושע‬
‫ וטעם וייראו‬.‫ כי לא (יבשות כמו הקרן‬,‫ ואיך לא פקח זה המקולל את עיניו‬.‫ מפני שהיו פניו מכוערות‬,(‫שמות לד ל‬
‫ ולא יירא‬,‫ ואין אדם שלא ראה פני המת‬.‫יירא האדם לגשת אל האדם רק בעבור דבר פלא שנתחדש בו שלא ראה כמוהו‬
‫ ולמה היה מסיר אותו תמיד בדברו עם ישראל‬,‫ למה לא היה תמיד המסוה על פניו‬,‫ אלו היה ככה‬,‫ ועוד‬.‫מגשת אליו‬

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:

£‫ ְוַשְׂמִתּי‬,‫כב ְוָהָיה ַבֲּﬠֹבר ְכֹּבִדי‬ 22 And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by, that I
,£‫ְבּ ִנְקַרת ַהצּוּר; ְוַשֹׂכִּתי ַכִפּי ָﬠֶלי‬ will put thee in a cleft of the rock and will cover thee with My
.‫ָﬠְב ִרי‬-‫ַﬠד‬ hand until I have passed by.

'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.
,‫ ִמן ַהְמָּﬠָרה‬:‫ ָאְמרוּ ַרבּוֵֹתינוּ ִזְכרוָֹנם ִלְבָרָכה‬.‫ ִמַנּ ִין ָזָכה ֹמֶשׁה ְלַק ְרֵני ַההוֹד‬.‫ וֹּמֶשׁה ל ֹא ָיַדע ִכּי ָקַרן‬,‫ַו ְיִהי ְבֶּרֶדת ֹמֶשׁה ֵמַהר ִסיַני‬
‫ ְבּ ִנְקַרת ַהצּוּר‬£‫ ְוָהָיה ַבֲּﬠֹבר ְכֹּבִדי ְוַשְׂמִתּי‬:‫ כב(ֶשֶׁנֱּאַמר‬,‫)שמות לג‬. ‫ וִּמָשּׁם ָזָכה ְלַק ְרֵני‬,‫ הוּא ַכּף ָידוֹ ָﬠָליו‬j‫ָנַתן ַהָקּדוֹשׁ ָבּרוּ‬
‫ ַק ְרַנ ִים ִמָיּדוֹ לוֹ ְוָשׁם ֶחְביוֹן ֻﬠזּוֹ‬,‫ ְוֵכן הוּא אוֵֹמר‬.‫ ד(ַההוֹד‬,‫)חבקוק ג‬.
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).
‫ ְוַרִבּי ְשׁמוֵּאל‬.‫ ִמ ִנּיצוֹצוֹת ֶשָׁיְּצאוּ ִמִפּי ַהְשִּׁכיָנה ָנַטל ַק ְרֵני ַההוֹד‬,‫ הוּא ְמַלְמּדוֹ תוָֹרה‬j‫ ֶשְׁבָּשָׁﬠה ֶשָׁהָיה ַהָקּדוֹשׁ ָבּרוּ‬:‫ְוֵישׁ אוְֹמ ִרים‬
‫ ְוָרְחָבּן ְשׁל‬,‫ ַהלּוּחוֹת ָא ְרָכן ִשָׁשּׁה ְטָפִחים‬,‫<ַבּר ַנְחָמן ָאַמר‬iri> j‫ ְוַהָקּדוֹשׁ ָבּרוּ‬,‫ ְוָהָיה ֹמֶשׁה ַמֲחִזיק ִבְּשֵׁני ְטָפִחים‬,‫ָשה ְטָפִחים‬
‫ ִמָשּׁם ָנַטל ֹמֶשׁה ַק ְרֵני ַההוֹד‬,‫ ְוִטְפַח ִים ֶרַוח ָבֶּאְמַצע‬,‫הוּא ִבְּשֵׁני ְטָפִחים‬.
There are others who say that at the time the Holy One, blessed be He, taught him the Torah, sparks
emanated from the countenance of the Shekhinah, and he received the beams of glory from them.
R. Samuel the son of Nahman said: The tablets were six handbreadths long and three handbreadths
thick, and Moses held them by two of the handbreadths, and the Holy One, blessed be He, held
them by two, and Moses obtained the beams of glory from the two handbreadths in the middle.

,‫ וִּמֶמּנּוּ ַנֲﬠשׂוּ לוֹ ַק ְרֵני ַההוֹד‬,‫ ִנְשַׁתֵּיּר ַבֵּקְלמוֹס ִקְמָﬠא ְוֶהֱﬠִבירוֹ ַﬠל ר ֹאשׁוֹ‬,‫ ַﬠד ֶשֹׁמֶּשׁה כוֵֹתב ֶאת ַהתּוָֹרה‬,‫ַרב ְשׁמוֵּאל ָאַמר‬
.‫ ַק ְרַנ ִים ִמָיּדוֹ לוֹ ְוָשׁם ֶחְביוֹן ֻﬠזּוֹ‬:‫ ֶשֶׁנֱּאַמר‬,‫ ַקֶיֶּמת‬,‫ ִמַמַּתּן ָשָׂכר ֲאָבל ַהֶקֶּרן‬,‫ ָכּל הוֹד ֶשָׁנַּטל‬.‫ וֹּמֶשׁה ל ֹא ָיַדע ִכּי ָקַרן‬:‫ֶשֶׁנֱּאַמר‬
‫ִקים ְבָּחָזק ָיבוֹא וְּזֹרעוֹ‬-‫ ִהֵנּה ֲאֹדָני ֱא‬:‫ ֶשֶׁנֱּאַמר‬,‫ אוָֹתהּ ָשָׁﬠה הוּא נוֵֹטל ְשָׂכרוֹ‬,‫וְּכֶשׁ ִיְּטּלוּ ַהַצִּדּיִקים ַמַתּן ְשָׂכָרן ָלעוָֹלם ַהָבּא‬
‫ ִהֵנּה ְשָׂכרוֹ ִאתּוֹ וְּפֻﬠָלּתוֹ ְלָפָניו‬,‫ י(ֹמְשָׁלה לּוֹ‬,‫)ישעיה מ‬.

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: