Kommentar zu Schemot 1:23

ואלה שמות בני ישראל NOW THESE ARE THE NAMES OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — Although scripture has already enumerated them by name whilst they were living, when they went down into Egypt (Genesis 46:8-27), it again enumerates them when it tells us of their death, thus showing how dear they were to God — that they are compared to the stars which also God brings out and brings in by number and name when they cease to shine, as it is said, (Isaiah 40:26) “He bringeth out their host by number, He calleth them all by name” (Exodus Rabbah 1:3; Tanchuma Yashan 1:1:2).

AND THESE ARE THE NAMES OF …. The meaning [of the connective vav — v’eileh, (‘and’ these are) — when it would have sufficed to say, “These are the names of …,”] is that Scripture desires to reckon the subject of the exile from the time they went down to Egypt. It was then that they were the first of the exiles to go into exile,¹⁶Amos 6:7. as I have explained.¹⁷See Note 7 above. It is for this reason that He returns to the beginning of the subject [stated in the Book of Genesis], which is the verse, And all his seed he [Jacob] brought with him into Egypt.¹⁸Genesis 46:7. There it is written afterward, And these are the names of the children of Israel, who came into Egypt, etc.¹⁹Ibid., Verse 8. This is the very same verse that He repeats here. Even though they are two separate books, the narrative is connected with subjects which follow one another successively. Here, once He mentioned the children of Jacob, He adopted a concise approach to his children’s children and all of his seed [and did not mention them by name as He had done in the Book of Genesis]. Rather, He alluded to them only generally, just as He had said there, All the souls of the house of Jacob, that came into Egypt, were threescore and ten.²⁰Ibid., Verse 27. In the same way He said here in Verse 5: And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls.
A similar case is found in the Book of Chronicles and the Book of Ezra. The Book of Chronicles finishes with the verse: Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the Eternal by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Eternal stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying: Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, etc.²¹II Chronicles 36:22-23. The author repeated the very language of these two verses at the beginning of the Book of Ezra in order to connect the narrative. However, since they were indeed two books, he completed the first book, [i.e., the Book of Chronicles], with the events that transpired before the building of the Second Sanctuary, and he devoted the second book, [i.e., the Book of Ezra], to the events that happened from the time of the building [of that Sanctuary].²²Ramban’s thesis apparently is that Ezra himself completely authored the two books, Chronicles and Ezra. See, however, Baba Bathra 15a, where it is stated, “Ezra wrote his book and the genealogy of Chronicles up to himself.” This would seem to indicate that only the first chapters of the Book of Chronicles, which deal with the genealogical tables, were written by Ezra, but not the other parts of the book. The key to the understanding of Ramban’s words must lie therefore in grasping his intent, i.e., that Ezra connected the Book of Chronicles with his own book by using the restoration-edict of Cyrus as the linking material, with the object of bringing out the continuity of the events during the two Sanctuaries. The same thing occurs in these two books, Bereshith and V’eileh Shemoth.

ואלה שמות, seeing that the Torah wanted to let us know how the Israelites had increased and multiplied (verse 3) it became necessary to repeat that when they had arrived in Egypt they had numbered only 70 souls. The dramatic increase in numbers of Israelites began only with the death of the generation that had moved there from the land of Canaan. As a result, when a new king came to the throne in Egypt, he wanted to diminish their numbers and did not succeed in doing so.

אלה, the ones mentioned here were deserving to be mentioned with their names. The reason is that each one of them possessed sufficient individuality to give meaning to his name. They were all of them an inspiration to their children as not one of them abandoned his family tradition. However, after the death of that generation even the relatively righteous ones among them did not rate so highly in the eyes of G’d or man so that the Torah deemed it necessary to tell us their names.

ואלה שמות בני ישראל, And these are the names of the children of Israel, etc. The reason that the Book of Exodus commences with the conjunctive letter ו is to teach that all these people were righteous, just like their parents. The word ואלה also is employed to show continuity with the people who had preceded them. In this instance the preceding people were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, all of whom were outstandingly righteous. The generation mentioned at the opening of the Book of Exodus too were righteous people.

 ואלה שמות בני ישראל, “and these were the names of the Children of Israel, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra the reason why the Torah decided to repeat the names of the sons of Yaakov here once more is because at the end of the last portion of the Book of Bereshit the Torah described how Joseph lived to see grandchildren and great grandchildren and how they multiplied. The Torah now wants us to know that the other sons of Yaakov experienced a similar blessing after arriving in Egypt. Nachmanides explains that the mention of the names here is designed to impress upon the reader that the exile in Egypt did not begin with the suppression of the Jews by the new Pharaoh, but that it commenced with Yaakov’ and his family’s descent to Egypt some 93 years earlier. The report helps to establish the fact that the Book of Exodus is a direct continuation of the Book of Genesis. The Torah abbreviates here, mentioning only “the sons of Yaakov, his family totaling 70 souls,” instead of listing their names again as in chapter 46 of the Book of Genesis.

Though [Scripture] has previously enumerated them during their lifetime, etc. Rashi questions the need to count them [the Bnei Yisrael] a second time. They had previously been counted in Parshas Vayigash (Bereishis 46:8). One cannot argue that they were previously counted while alive and now they were being counted after death because this makes no difference [in the count] since they had already been counted. This is why Rashi expounds, “[This is] to show,” etc. Rashi finds further difficulty with the “vav” [= and] at the beginning of the word ואלה [And these]. “‘These’ are the names,” would have been sufficient.

Kap. 1. V. 1. Mit dem zweiten Buche beginnt die Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes. Aus der Einzel- und Familiengeschichte wird in die Volksgeschichte hinübergeleitet durch erinnernde Nennung der einzelnen Männer, die uns bereits als die "Grundstöcke" der jüdischen Volksgesamtheit bekannt sind. וְאלה es sind dies ganz dieselben, in ihren gesonderten Eigentümlichkeiten, aus welchen nunmehr das jüdische Volk erwuchs. Einen gemeinsamen Grundzug brachten sie mit, der die Grundbasis der jüdischen Nationalität bildet: את יעקב איש וביתו! Wenn später, als die durch pharaonische Misshandlung zerstückte Volksleiche, wie sie einst dem Ahn prophetisch gezeigt war, dem Aasgeier der Geschichte zu willkommenem Fraß am Boden zu liegen schien und durch Gottes Weckerruf "in ihrem Blute" zu unsterblichem Leben erstehen sollte, Gott den Aufbau seines Volkes nicht mit den Giebelspitzen, sondern mit der Granitbasis des "Hauses" — בשה לבית אבות שה לבית — mit dem Familienband der Kinder aufwärts, mit dem Familienband der Eltern abwärts begann: so wird uns hier gezeigt, dass diese Grundbasis des ewigen Gottesvolkes nur gewaltsam geraubt und zerstört war zur Zeit des erlösenden Aufbaues, mitgebracht war sie von vornherein, als die Söhne Israels hinabzogen in den ägyptischen Mutterschoß, in welchem sie unter Leid und Weh zum Volke geboren werden sollten. את יעקב איש וביתו: obgleich sie schon alle ein selbständiges Haus ausmachten, hingen sie doch noch alle fest und innig an Jakob! — את יעקב ist eine viel innigere Verbindung als את) .עם יעקב, Wurzel אתת. Es ist eigentümlich, daß im Hebräischen Wörter, die eine Verbindung ausdrücken, größtenteils auch eine Trennung bezeichnen. So פתל und ברל, so אֵת und אֵת Plural אִתִים; es lässt sich keine innige Verbindung ohne Sonderung von andern denken.) את יעקב איש וביתו: alle zusammen an dem alten Stamm, und doch jeder wieder für sich ein eigener, selbständiger Zweig, ein eigener, selbständiger Mittelpunkt für einen eigenen Kreis; alle Kinder Jakobs, und doch wieder selbst Väter für eigene Kinder; dieser Familiengeist und dieses Familienherz, das jeden Sohn sein Haus nur als Zweig des eigenen Elternhauses bauen, und jeden Vater in Kind und Enkel fortleben lässt, das Eltern mit Kindern und Kinder mit Eltern auf ewig und innig vereint, das ists, worin Israels ewige Blüte wurzelt, darin liegt das Geheimnis des jüdischen Stammes.

ואלה שמות וגו....הבאים, “and these are the names, etc........who arrived in Egypt ” why is that verse written in the present tense, seeing that it was quite some time since Yaakov and his sons had arrived in Egypt? They had been there long before the death of Joseph. The reason that they are referred to as new arrivals was that as long as Joseph was alive they did not have to pay any taxes. As soon as he had died they became subject to normal taxation. Therefore they considered that day as if it was the day that they had arrived there. (Sh’mot Rabbah 1,4)

ואלה שמות, “And these were the names of;” the prefix letter ו in the word ואלה is intended to connect what is written here to what had been written at the end of the Book of Genesis. The connection is with the three generations of Joseph through Menashe that he is reported to have still known before he died (Genesis 50,22). He had witnessed the fulfillment of the descendants of Avraham multiplying while in a land not their own. Rashi points out that when the Jewish people were compared by G-d as “numerous as the stars,” G-d meant that these stars are not just numbers but each one has a name and its coming and going is supervised by its Creator. Similarly, in spite of becoming numerous the Jewish people never were just numbers but each one having a name ensured that he would be treated on an individual basis by G-d. If someone were to ask where it is written that the Jews that Yaakov brought with him to Egypt were numbered by him, the Torah states that not only were they numbered but they were named, i.e.

Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that because He mentioned at the end of Bereshith [50:23] that Joseph saw children of the third generation to his children, this is why He mentioned [here in the second book] that his brethren likewise were at first few and then were fruitful and multiplied. But this is not correct.²³Ramban did not explain the reason for his rejection of Ibn Ezra’s interpretation. I found this in Isaac Abarbanel’s (1437-1508) Commentary on the Torah, where he offers the following explanation for Ramban’s rejection: “The reason for it is that in the Book of Genesis, the Torah has already mentioned each one of the twelve tribes, their children, and their children’s children, who went down into Egypt. And this is far more than the mere names of the tribes He mentioned here. Besides, it would have sufficed to say here, And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, thus informing us of their great increase, and not just mentioning the names of the tribes. Moreover, in my opinion, if Ibn Ezra’s interpretation be correct, it would not have been necessary here to include Joseph as it did in Verse 5, since he had been mentioned already at the beginning of this topic, [i.e., at the end of the Book of Genesis]. Moreover, the division of the chapters refutes Ibn Ezra’s opinion.”
Rashi wrote: “Although Scripture had already enumerated them whilst they were living, it again enumerates them by name, following their death, in order to show how they were beloved by G-d. They are compared to the stars which G-d also brings out by number and brings in by number,²⁴In our text of Rashi: “Which G-d also brings out and brings in by number and name.” as it is said, He bringeth out their host by number, He calleth them all by name.”²⁵Isaiah 40:26. “It is for this reason that He mentions the names of the tribes always and repeats them, all for the sake of showing how dear they are to G-d” (Bachya). These are words of homiletic exposition,²⁶Shemoth Rabbah 1:3. and insofar as they indicate the love of G-d for the tribes — how the Holy One, blessed be He, loves them and repeats their names always — they are words of truth. But the matters of the connection of the verses and how they are joined by the vav — [v’eileh shemoth — (‘And’ these are the names of…)] — is as I have explained.

It again enumerates them at their deaths, but without using the phrase “by their names” in conjunction with their death. Previously (Ibid.) while alive a detailed count was made (including their extended families) whereas in death, only the tribal leaders were counted. As it is written here “seventy souls.”

Another reason for the letter ו in this instance is to remind us that the years of exile of the Jewish people were computed as having already begun during the time of Abraham, not merely after the arrival of Jacob in Egypt (compare Tanchuma Shemot 4).

ואלה שמות “and these were the names.” The Torah informs us that all the people that came down to Egypt with Yaakov also died in that land.

To show how dear they are [to God], because they are compared to the stars. Do not ask “what is this dearness” that they are compared to the stars. The answer is that just as the stars are exist forever and illuminate by day and night, but their illumintation is not visible during the day because “light at midday is of no value,” so too does Yisrael exist in this world and in the World to Come.

Still another reason for the Torah writing that letter is to tell us that just as the earlier generations perceived that they were in exile and accepted their fate without resentment, so the generation of which we read here also accepted their destiny without complaint.

הבאים מצרימה, this construction is most unusual, we would have expected the Torah to write: אשר באו, “who arrived,” not such an indeterminate present tense as הבאים, literally: “Who were arriving.” The fact is that in retrospect, after having been subjected to cruel treatment by the Egyptians, they had forgotten about the good years and felt as if they had only just arrived there.

Which He brings out and brings in by number and by their [individual] names; The words “and by their names” refer only to the words “and He brings them in.” But concerning taking them out, (Hashem takes them out) only by number and not by name as it says in the verse, “Who brings out their host by number, and calls each by its name (when bringing them back in)” — concerning taking them out it is written “by number,” and (only) concerning bringing them in it is written “by name.” (Mizrachi)

Perhaps this will help us understand why the Torah bothered to list the names of the tribes when we have been well aware of their names since the Book of Genesis, and particularly since the list of the seventy people who descended to Egypt with Jacob. While Rashi claims that the Torah's repeating these names after their deaths is evidence of how fond G'd was of them, this is hardly more than a homiletical explanation. Besides, if Rashi were correct then the Torah should have recorded these names after verse six in which we heard that the members of that generation had all died. Verse seven should then have commenced with the words: ואלה שמות בני ישראל.

את יעקב, “with Yaakov.”

According to our approach the Torah informs us of the reason why the names appear once more, i.e. that they had all willingly accepted their destiny to endure exile as distinct from Esau who had decided to leave the land of Canaan by moving to Mount Seir (Genesis 36,8). Bereshit Rabbah 82,13, attributes Esau's move to the decree of G'd mentioned to Abraham in Genesis 15,13 that Abraham's descendants would become strangers in a foreign land. Esau wanted to escape that obligation and that is why he moved away voluntarily at that time. הבאים מצרימה, who arrived in Egypt; they came in order to endure exile; את יעקב, together with Jacob; "with Jacob," i.e. in the same spirit as Jacob, to discharge their duty to become exiles. The Torah wants to prove that the Israelites did not move to Egypt for other reasons and that is why it writes that they came איש וביתו, everyone with his respective family, i.e. they prepared for a lengthy stay; otherwise they would have left their families in the land of Canaan.

איש וביתו, “man and wife.” We know this from Genesis 46,26: מלבד נשי בני יעקב, “in addition to the wives of Yaakov’s sons.” (Genesis 46,26) Yaakov was aware that the Egyptians were deeply involved in promiscuity. He was afraid that his offspring would learn to copy these ways of the Egyptians. He had therefore married them off before they could do so.

באו, they had come. The Torah draws our attention to the difference between הבאים, and באו. We have explained already in Genesis 46,7 that not all of Jacob's family were of one mind about the timing of the descent to Egypt. Some volunteered, others had to be more or less coerced. The Torah again alludes to this distinction when describing the descent of the people who accompanied Jacob.

The division may also have been different. All those who are named came to Egypt of their own initiative. They might even have come without Jacob (if, for instance their father had died before the end of the famine). However, all those whom the Torah has not named again only came as part of the entourage of Jacob; they would never have left ארץ ישראל unless their founding father had taken such an intitiative. This is why the Torah repeated: "they came with Jacob, each one with his family."

There is yet another possibility. The word הבאים is to prove that those people were not forced to go to Egypt with Jacob. Proof: When they returned to the land of Canaan with the funeral cortege of Jacob, they all returned to Egypt. Had their original descent been involuntary, why would they have chosen to remain in Egypt 15 years after the end of the famine? The Torah therefore gives all these people credit for accepting G'd's decree to be strangers in a foreign land though they could have resisted implementation of that decree at that time.

"These are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt: Yaakov, etc" What appears to me is that based upon the Talmud, "Yaakov our father did not die; just as his children are alive, so he is alive." This alludes to Tracte Terumos Chapter 9, where it says over that when you plant terumah whatever grows from those seeds is also terumah as long as the seed isn't ruined [as long as the seed exists, like an onion]. So it says in the Zohar, in Yayechi, "come and see: Yaakov approached to the moon and he made fruits for the world, and there is no generation forever that does not have the seed of Yaakov." Because he made an arousal from above, as it says in the Torah "he gathered his feet to the bed," and that is the bed of Yaakov. That's the meaning of the Gemara "just as his children are alive, so he is alive" because he is also alive with them as the Gemara compares with terumah "whatever grows from seeds of terumah is also terumah as long as the seed isn't ruined." This is the meaning of the verse, "these are the names of the children of Israel that came with Yaakov," as they are all called by the name of "children of Israel" since Yaakov's strength has not ceased from them, just as a fruit whose seed is still there has the same status as the seed so too Yaakov's power like himself. That's the meaning of the verse that "Ephraim and Menashe should be considered like Rueven and Shimon to me." That means there isn't a new generation; rather, they are literally like the previous generation, because they are likened to the fruit whose seed is still there and therefore grandchildren are just like children.

V. 2. Charakteristisch ist die Gruppierung: die ersten vier sind die ersten, von vornherein der Lea zugedachten Söhne; nach Juda heißt es: ותעמד מלדת. Jissachar und Sebulun waren gleichsam als Lohn besonderer Bestrebung gewährt. Benjamin ist ihnen als Sohn Rahels angeschlossen und in der folgenden Gruppe sind die Söhne der שפחות zusammengenommen. Befragen wir die Aussprüche Jakobs über die Bedeutsamkeit seiner Söhne für die nationale Zukunft, so sind auch dort (ויחי Kap. 49) Reuben, Schimeon, Lewi, Jehuda, Jissachar, Sebulun, Benjamin (— mit Übergehung Josefs, der bereits in Mizrajim war —) die bedeutsamsten, wie wir dies dort zur Stelle gefunden zu haben glaubten.

Reuven, Shimon; the Torah first mentioned the two oldest sons of Yaakov’s senior wife Leah, before mentioning any of the sons of the concubines; this is why it also mentioned Joseph and Binyamin before the sons of Bilhah, another concubine.

ויוסף היה במצרים lit., AND JOSEPH WAS IN EGYPT — But were not he and his sons included in the seventy? What, then, is this statement intended to tell us? Do we not know that he was in Egypt? But its purpose is to inform you of Joseph’s righteousness: this is the same Joseph who tended his father’s sheep; this is the same Joseph who was in Egypt and became king there, and yet he remained steadfast in his righteousness, and the change from a humble position to exalted rank in Egypt caused no deterioration in his character (cf. Sifrei האזינו; Exodus Rabbah 1:7).

ויהי כל נפש…ויוסף היה במצרים. And the total number of persons…plus Joseph who was in Egypt already." Why does the Torah introduce this paragraph with the word ויהי which always introduces a painful experience? If the Torah refers to the exile, this was not the place to mention this seeing that the negative aspects of the exile did not commence till over 90 years later. Furthermore, why does the Torah have to tell us again that Joseph was already in Egypt?

But, were not he and his sons included in the seventy? And if so, Yoseif’s name should have been included with those of seventy. In other words, it should have come before the sum total of Yaakov’s descendants.

V. 5. Vom Hause Jaakows, im Gegensatz zu Esaws, wie die Weisen bemerken, heißt es immer: נפש, nicht נפשות, weil in allen Gliedern des Hauses Jaakows nur ein Geist, die einheitliche Seele eines Prinzips waltet.

'ויהי כל נפש וגו, “the total number of people, etc;” the number seventy includes Joseph who had already been in Egypt. When you accept this explanation, you do not need to consider Yocheved as having been conceived in the land of Canaan and having been born at the crossing point into Egypt. (Attributed to Rabbi Shlomoh ben Parchon) This is also the reason why their number is repeated here although the Torah had given details already when it described Yaakov’s departure for Egypt in Genesis chapter 46. The purpose of repeating it here is to demonstrate the phenomenal increase in the numbers of Hebrews beginning with their arrival there. Forty male Hebrews who had arrived there increased to over 600000 in the space of 210 years. (Sh’mot Rabbah 1,7)

ירך יעקב, “Yaakov’s loins,” it is good manners to describe the sexual organ not directly, but by reference to an organ located close to it instead. (Ibn Ezra) We find this also in the oral Torah when the Mishnah in Megillah 13 writes that the principal organ that a woman is jealous of in her rival is the ירך; the author avoids naming the vagina. On other occasions, the word: רגלים is used as a substitute for the vagina. Compare Samuel II 19,25 ולא עשה רגליו, translated as “he had not pared his toe nails,” which is not really what the prophet had in mind.

Would we not know ourselves that he was in Egypt? We might suggest an answer [to Rashi’s original question]: It was necessary to write that Yoseif was in Egypt [and therefore mentioned him separately]. However, [as Rashi here points out,] another question would arise: “Would we not know . . .?” The Re”m writes at length where he could have been brief, saying Rashi holds that ויוסף (“Yoseif who was”) relates to what was written above, telling us that with Yoseif there were seventy souls. And it is so stated in Shemos Rabbah (1:7). Thus Rashi asks: “But, were not he and his sons included . . .?” So why then is Yoseif mentioned alone, [without his sons]? It is understandable regarding the other tribes because they all are covered by the phrase “ איש וביתו (Each man with his household),” but this phrase does not relate to Yoseif. Therefore, just as Yoseif is mentioned, so too his sons should have been mentioned. Alternatively, we might suggest that [Rashi does not hold that] “Yoseif who was” relates to what was written above. And “Yoseif and his sons” do not need to be mentioned, since all of them were already included in the count of seventy souls. Rather, “Yoseif who was” tells us that Yoseif was in Egypt. On this Rashi questions: Then what does [Scripture] intend to teach us? (Nachalas Yaakov)

Perhaps we have here an oblique reference to the comment in Sotah 36 that it had been planned originally that Joseph would become the founding father of twelve tribes and that it was only due to the attempts of Potiphar's wife that he forfeited this opportunity as per Genesis 49,24. We know already that but for that unfortunate circumstance Joseph himself would have founded twelve tribes. The Torah expresses regret over that missed opportunity and that as a result the number of Israelites who descended to Egypt were only 70. Had Joseph become the founding father by fathering twelve tribes in the land of Canaan, many more Israelites would have been the basis of what was to become the Jewish nation. The Torah streses ויוסף היה, "and Joseph was already in Egypt," i.e. prematurely, before he could complete the task assigned to him as founder of the nation.

יוצאי ירך יעקב, “Yaakov’s descendants;” he himself was not included in the count.

The same Yoseif who tended his father’s sheep. That is to say: since Yoseif was so lowly and humble, perhaps he sinned, since poverty induces a person to sin. Or since Yoseif was a king, perhaps he sinned as a result of his high status. But since this count (of B’nei Yisrael) is after their deaths, it tells here of Yoseif’s righteousness. For our Rabbis of blessed memory say (Avos 2 :4): “Do not trust yourself [that you will not sin,] until the day of your death.”

Perhaps the Torah wants to put Joseph and family on a par with the other members of Jacob's family who descended to Egypt at the invitation of Pharaoh and Joseph by phrasing it thus: כל נפש…ויוסף היה במצרים, "all the persons …including Joseph who happened to be in Egypt already at that time." They were all righteous though some had been born in Egypt, etc. The Torah uses the word נפש for persons in the singular to show that they all formed a single spiritual unit. This is a tremendous compliment for Joseph whose life-experience was so totally different from that of his brothers and who had been mistreated by them. The Torah testified that Joseph was in no way less of an Israelite or part of the common heritage than his brothers who had remained in the land of Canaan all these years. If anything, Joseph was the prime example that given the proper strength of character, one could maintain one's spiritual integrity even after having lived in Egypt for many years and having occupied a position of power and prominence in that society. I have already mentioned this aspect of Joseph when I explained why Jacob was willing to die happy the moment he had made visual contact with Joseph in Genesis 46,30.

שבעים נפש, “seventy persons.” This verse was written primarily to tell of G-d’s miracles, to remind the reader that whereas only 70 persons of Yaakov’s family migrated to Egypt, after 210 years over 600000 male adults between the ages of 20 and 60 left Egypt, presumably at least two and a half million people in all.

ויוסף היה במצרים, “and Joseph had already been in Egypt. Concerning the Hebrews that came with Yaakov, the expression used by the Torah is “הבאים מצרימה,” (verse 1) whereas concerning Joseph, although he had already been there for years, he was included in the “family”: moving to Egypt.

וכל הדור ההוא, the seventy souls mentioned.

וכל הדור ההוא, all of these 70 souls. None of the members of this group of migrants had assimilated to the Egyptian culture during their lifetime.

-8. וימת יוסף…ובני ישראל פרו, And Joseph died…and the Israelites were fruitful, etc. Why did the Torah have to repeat again that Joseph died? We have heard this at the end of פרשת ויחי. Why do we have to be told that all the other brothers and that whole generation of Israelites who had come to Egypt died? What is the connection between the respective deaths of the brothers and that of the generation and the proliferation of the בני ישראל in the next verse? If this was only a description of the manner in which the Jewish population explosion in Egypt occurred, the Torah should have written: ויפרו וישרצו בני ישראל, instead of ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו. The grammar is wrong here.

וימת יוסף וכל הדור ההוא, “Joseph and his whole generation died.”

V. 6. דור, verwandt mit דבר, תפר: aneinanderreihen; alle gleichzeitig Lebenden, Zeitgenossen.

וכל הדור ההוא, “and that entire generation.” This verse refers to both Israelites and gentiles, as we read immediately afterwards: ויקם מלך חדש על מצרים אשר לא ידע את יוסף, “a new king ascended the throne in Egypt, one who had not known Joseph.”

Ibn Ezra feels that the line וכל הדור ההוא, “and that whole generation,” refers to what follows, i.e. the connection with the following verse that introduces a new ruler in Egypt.

Actually, the two verses must be read in conjunction as describing the beginning of Jewish servitude and its causes. There were a total of four causes that brought about the enslavement of the Jewish people. The first cause was Joseph's death. Had Joseph lived on for some time the Egyptians would never have ruled over his countrymen. The Torah therefore informs us that as long as Joseph was alive the Israelites lived a serene and comfortable life.

The second cause leading to enslavement of the Jewish people was the death of Joseph's brothers. As long as even a single one of these brothers remained alive the Egyptians honoured them as our sages derive in Sotah 13 from Genesis 50,14 which hints that after the Egyptians had become aware of the honour paid by Canaanite kings to Jacob's bier, they began to honour all of Jacob's' sons, something they had not done previously.

The third cause leading to enslavement of the Jewish people was the death of the entire generation of Jewish immigrants, the sixty-six persons who had been born in the land of Canaan. All of these people were regarded as invited guests by the Egyptians, and there was no question of discriminating against them legally. This may also have been due to their being perceived as more intelligent than the local population so that they could outwit anyone planning to take advantage of them.

The fourth and final cause leading to the enslavement of the Jewish population was their unusual fertility. Any of the causes that had restrained the Egyptians from planning some way of keeping the Jewish population increase at bay had now been removed. When we keep this in mind we understand why the Torah wrote: "and the children of Israel had already been fruitful, etc." The Torah did not want to inform us of this detail but to indicate that it now served as a cause of the process of enslavement.

A further cause, one that did not have to do with Joseph, the brothers, or the first generation of Jewish immigrants to Egypt, was the fact that a new Pharaoh arose in Egypt. Even according to the view expressed in Sotah 11 that the word "new" only referred to new legislation designed to subdue the Jewish population, the absence of the four causes already mentioned which had held up discrimination against the Jews also helped to shape Pharaoh's attitude now. The plain meaning of the verse is, of course, that it refers to a brand new Pharaoh, a person who had not known the Joseph who had interpreted the dream of Pharaoh at least 102 years earlier.

Our difficulty is that the Torah only needed to write that the whole generation had died out. Why did the Torah have to refer separately to the death of Joseph, the brothers, and that of the generation? If there had not been enslavement as long as a single one of that generation was alive, there most certainly had not been any enslavement as long as one of the brothers or Joseph himself had been alive!

Perhaps the Torah wanted to describe a gradual deterioration in the status of the Jews in Egypt which commenced with Joseph's death. At that time the Jews who had up to then been considered the elite of Egyptian society were reduced to being no more than equals to the Egyptians at large. Once Joseph's brothers died the social position of the Jews underwent a further deterioration, some Egyptians beginning to detest them. However, they still had not lost their status of legal equality with the rest of the population. Once the last of the surviving Jewish immigrants died, the legal position of the Jews had become sufficiently shaky to enable a new king to legislate against them. The principal reason was that the proliferation of the Jews and the high degree of their visibility throughout the country frightened the local population and they feared that the Jews would eventually try to dominate them.

You may counter that according to the tradition of our sages the Jews did not suffer discrimination as long a single one of the tribal heads was alive, or according to our interpretation even as long as a Jewish immigrant survived. Our sages have not expressed themselves in such absolute terms. We find in chapter three of Seder Olam that 116 years elapsed between the death of Levi until the Exodus. The author adds that the actual enslavement did not last for more than 86 years, i.e. from the birth of Miriam. She was named מרים as a reminder of the מרירות the bitterness which characterised the life of the Jewish people at that time. You see from the above that at the time the last surviving brother of Joseph died, the Jews were still free. I conclude therefore that the enslavement did not commence until after the last of the immigrant Jews had died. The Torah compared these immigrants to the tribal heads because as long as they were alive their very lives protected the Jews against legal discrimination.

That there women did not miscarry and did not die when they were young.

פרו, the number of pregnancies;

פרו וישרצו, after the last of the original 70 migrants had died, their whole lifestyle became more like that of creeping insects, creatures headed for destruction. This is why when ויקם מלך חדש על מצרים אשר לא ידע את יוסף, although there can be no question that in the annals of Egyptian history the 80 year reign of Joseph and his legislation saving Egypt from the famine was duly recorded, as well as how he legislated that the whole land would belong to Pharaoh and the farmers would become his tenants, it did not occur to anyone to associate the Hebrews of his time with the family of Joseph who had been so highly esteemed. The idea that the present day Hebrews deserved special consideration on account of their illustrious forbears did not occur to anyone observing the way these Hebrews behaved at that time.

ובני ישראל פרו, “and the Children of Israel were fruitful;” in spite of the fact that the Egyptians oppressed them in order to limit their natural increase. Not only did they keep increasing in numbers, but they increased disproportionately, as do vermin.

They bore six children at one time. The Re”m writes that in Shemos Rabbah (1:8) the number of births at one time is derived from the six words in the verse [ פרו . . . מאד ]. But I would say Rashi is following a view in Yalkut Shimoni that compare them to the largest rodent; the rat gives birth to six at one time.” We see that Rashi is follows this view because he derives the number of births at one time from the word וישרצו . [This word is a variation of the word שרץ , “rodent”]. Since the common phrase “were fruitful and multiplied” is interrupted by “and prolific,” which is unusual, certainly the reason for this interruption is because “fruitful” implies one offspring, whereas “multiplied” implies many offspring, as Rashi explained in Parshas Bereishis (1:22). Thus, “prolific” interrupts the phrase “fruitful and multiplied” to teach that the number of offspring born at one time was like that of the largest rodent. (Nachalas Yaakov. See further in Gur Aryeh.)

V.7. Von diesem Geschlechte wird uns nichts weiter erzählt, als dass sie sich bereits außerordentlich vermehrt hatten. וישרצו, den niederen Tieren ähnlich, je kleiner das Tier, um so zahlreicher sind die einzelnen Geburten. Zwillinge, Drillinge bei Menschen sind jedoch in der Regel schwächer und häufig nicht lebensfähig, so dass durch solche Geburten eigentlich keine Vermehrung oder doch nur durch schwächliche Nachkommenschaft erzielt wird. Hier aber folgt der Zusatz: וירבו ויעצמו, ihre zahlreichen Geburten waren aber lebensfähig und stark. וירבו: die Eltern vervielfältigten sich physisch und geistig in den Kindern; ויעצמו, das verstärkte אסם: Schatz, Sammlung von Kräften, sie trügen eine Fülle geistiger und leiblicher Kräfte in sich, so dass sie in der Tat eine imposante Macht darstellten.

'ובני ישראל וגו, and the children of Israel multiplied etc.” according to Sh’mot Rabbah 1,8 this is a hint that Jewish women gave birth to sixtuplets, [or according to a different interpretation of that Midrash, that they became pregnant in much more frequent cycles so that they gave birth six times within a nine month period. Ed.] The six words in the verse all relating to multiplying are understood as a hint of this. If you were to think that many of these infants did not survive, the Torah writes: “they multiplied,” i.e. they all grew up normally.

ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו. “in the interval, the Israelites had been fruitful, and become prolific;” this confirms that G-d’s promise to Yaakov that his family while in Egypt would become numerous and develop into a nation had been fulfilled. (Genesis 46,3)

וישרצו AND THEY INCREASED ABUNDANTLY (more lit., they swarmed, a word used of the prolificness of reptiles) — they bore six children at one birth (the six words from פרו to מאד suggest or imply the number six) (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 5).

וירבו, “they multiplied,” they did not die in the manner other people die, i.e. leaving replacements for themselves, but they left behind far more than that.

ותמלא הארץ, nicht Ägypten, sondern die Provinz Goschen, die ihnen Josef um so lieber angewiesen hatte, weil sie ein entlegener Landstrich war und die Iwrim ihrem Geiste und ihrer Beschäftigung nach den Ägyptern zuwider waren.

ותמלא הארץ אותם, and the land became full of them.” The word אותם here must be understood as if the Torah had written: מהם, “filled with them.” Seeing that the root of the word אותם is את, “with,” this is not strange at all. Compare Leviticus: 22,28, אותו ואת בנו, “it and its young.” We also find the word את on occasion as meaning: “from,” as in Exodus9,29, when Moses says: כצאתי את העיר, meaning: “when I go out from the city.” Another example would be: חלה את רגליו, “being sick from his feet and up.” (Kings I 15,23.)

וירבו, the number of births. All the infants born grew up healthy, there were no deaths of children as could normally be expected.

ויעצמו, “they became powerful;” they were all physically exceptionally strong specimens, in spite of the fact that most were born as twins.

ויעצמו, they did not even die in early adulthood, but they were all healthy specimens. במאד מאד, until the whole country became full of them, ותמלא הארץ אותם. The Torah describes a perception of fullness, much as Ezekiel 10,4 describing והחצר מלאה את נוגה כבוד ה', “the inner courtyard was filled with the glow of the Glory of Hashem.” This was a perception, not something tangible. Similarly, Isaiah 6,1 ושוליו מלאים את ההיכל, “and its skirts filled the Sanctuary.”

במאד מאד, “very greatly indeed.” They had reached their full physical potential.

ויקם מלך חדש NOW THERE AROSE A NEW KING — Rab and Samuel (two Amoraim or Talmudical teachers) differed in their interpretation of these words. One said that he was really a new king; the other said that it was the same king but he made new edicts (Sotah 11a).

ויקם מלך חדש, “a new king arose.” According to Ibn Ezra the way the Torah introduces the new king is proof that he did not belong to the dynasty that had ruled Egypt up to that point. A similar phrase is used in Samuel I 22,8 הקים בני את עבדי עלי, “my own son has set my servant in ambush against me.”

The other said, [he was actually the same king] but his edicts were new. Otherwise, [if it was a new king,] the verse should have said “ וימת וימלוך , he [the king] died and a new king came into power.” [Rather it merely says ויקם (he arose).]

V. 8. Die ersten Anlässe des ältesten, ersten רשעות gegen Juden sind leider aus den ersten Sätzen darüber nicht mit entschiedener Sicherheit festzustellen. — ויקם מלך — ;bezeichnet auf keinen Fall einen gewöhnlichen, gesetzmäßigen Thronwechsel חדש על ist immer eine gewalttätige Überwältigung. Es scheint daher die alte Dynastie קום על gestürzt, Volk und Land in andere Hände übergegangen, eine fremde Dynastie von außen über Mizrajim gekommen zu sein, daher auch: אשר לא ידע את יוסף; einer anderen, inländischen Dynastie wäre Josef nicht unbekannt gewesen. Charakteristisch ist es sofort, dass die ganze folgende Judenfeindlichkeit dadurch motiviert wird, dass der König nichts von Josef wusste. Das Volk wusste wohl von ihm, es blickte nicht scheel auf das Judenland und das darin heranwachsende Judenvolk. Es betrachtete die Juden als Wohltäter und nicht als Eindringlinge und fand sich auch durch ihr Gedeihen nicht beengt.

ויקם מלך חדש, “a new king (dynasty) arose;” this was the first Pharaoh. The Egyptians suggested to him to join the Hebrews politically. The king said to them, how can we do this, seeing that thus far we have prospered thanks to them? The Egyptians did not like this and removed this new king from the throne for a period of three months. After the three months had elapsed, the king told the people that he was willing to change his attitude on the subject and to oppose the Hebrews. This is why the Torah wrote the word ויקם מלך חדש, “a new king;” The Torah did not report that the old king had died, as is customary.(Sh’mot Rabbah 1,8)

ויקם מלך חדש, “a new king arose.” Some commentators, citing the fact that the death of the previous king has not been reported, claim that the Torah speaks about the same King (body), but that his attitude vis a vis the Israelites underwent such a change that he might as well have been a different king altogether. Examples of the verb קום, “to arise,” being used in this sense can be found in Job 24,14: לאור יקום רוצח, “the murderer arises with the light;” or Psalms 27,12: כי קמו בי עדי שקר, “for false witnesses have taken the stand against me.”

אשר לא ידע WHO KNEW NOT [JOSEPH] — he comported himself as though he did not know him (Sotah 11a).

He acted as if he did not know [him]. The text of Rashi properly reads ואשר (And he acted). Otherwise it would imply that Rashi’s explanation is according to both Rav and Shmuel [who disagreed whether a new king arose], which is not so. Whereas “And he acted” implies that it was the same king but he acted as if he did not know Yoseif.

אשר לא ידע את יוסף, “who had not known Joseph.” Rabbi Yehudah ben Levi understands this line as a parable. There was someone who insulted the picture of the King. Having gotten away with that, the following week he insulted the king himself. The new king began by insulting the Jews, and when successful, proceeded to insult the G–d of the Jews. (Compare Sh’mot 5,20)

ויאמר אל עמו הנה עם בני ישראל, He said to his people: "here we have the nation of the children of Israel, etc." The expression הנה in this verse may be understood once we remember the interpretation of Genesis 34,30 where Jacob censured his sons saying עכרתם אותי, "you have made my image clouded" (as opposed to clearly transparent). Bereshit Rabbah 80,12 states that Jacob and the Canaanites had a long standing tradition that the Jews would overpower the Canaanites. This was supposed to take place after the Jews numbered at least 600.000. Now that Shimon and Levi had jumped the gun by destroying the inhabitants of Shechem, Jacob was afraid that such a premature action would backfire. Pharaoh, king of Egypt referred to this ancient prediction that the Jewish people would display such military strength, when he observed how the Jews constantly gained in numbers and vigour. הנה, i.e. the time has arrived of which the prophecy foretold.

V. 9. הנה עם בני ישראל: die Söhne Israels sind ein ganzes Volk geworden!

ויאמר אל עמו, “he said to his people: he initiated this new policy. Our sages in tractate Sotah foliol 1, state that there were three advisors of this king who were discussing how to preempt a saviour of the Israelites who would take them out of their land.[We must remember that a “people” who had come to Egypt only about 100 years previously, numbering only twelve families, and who had meanwhile multiplied and not only not assimilated, but had come to be viewed as an existentialist threat to the original Egyptians, were known to have a powerful G-d, and the Egyptians had made a point to know the source of this people’s strength. They had studied the traditions of that “people.” Ed.] The most radical advisor of Pharaoh among the three advisors, Yitro, Job and Bileam, was the latter who advised Pharaoh to commit genocide. Some of you my readers may wonder how Bileam, could have been alive still in the days of Balak when he had already been a senior advisor of Pharaoh, before Moses had been born even? This question is especially relevant in light of the tradition according to which Bileam was thirty three years old? He was still alive when the people killed him in the war against Midian in the 40th year in the desert, at which time Moses was almost 120 years old! According to the Talmud in Sanhedrin folio 106, when a heretic asked a Rabbi how old Bileam was when he was killed he was told that he was 33 or 34 years old, based on the fact that the wicked supposedly do not even reach the halfway mark of a normal lifespan of 70 years. The Rabbi who had given this answer had not been accurate, as he had based himself on the statement by Mar de brey de Ravino to his son, a scholar in the immediate post Talmudic period, according to which although we are asked to report historic events accurately, Bileam is an exception, as if one can find a way to make him look worse even than he was, we have full latitude to do so. There is an opinion according to which the Bileam who was an advisor to Pharaoh was not the same as the one we encounter in the Book of Numbers. The one mentioned here was the grandfather of the one who blessed the Jewish people in Numbers. There is also an opinion according to which there were three men who hatched the plot to seduce the Israelites to engage in sexual relations with the daughters of Moav, but that this had nothing to do with what is reported here.

הבה נתחכמה לו פן ירבה, "let us outsmart them before they become more numerous, etc." If we do not put a stop to their population explosion they will do exactly what the prophecy had forecast, namely ועלה מן הארץ, "they will move back to the land of Canaan and destroy our Canaanite brothers." Egypt's first decree against such a possibility had been a ban on Jews leaving the country.

רב ועצום ממנו kann nicht wohl heißen: zahlreicher und mächtiger als wir. Mizrajim war sicherlich mächtiger und zahlreicher als das in Goschen wohnende Israel. Es müsste denn sein, der fremde Dynast habe auch seinen fremden Volksstamm mit ins Land gebracht, die Ägypter seien bereits unterworfen gewesen, und zu seinem, dem mit eingedrungenem Volke, nicht zu Mizrajim, habe er gesprochen: die Mizrer haben wir nicht zu fürchten, die sind bereits unterworfen; aber in dieser fernen Provinz wächst uns ein Stamm heran, der uns zu stark wird, den wir nicht so leicht besiegen können. Wahrscheinlich aber ist das ממנו hier wie das לך מעמנו כי עצמת ממנו מאד zu Isaak (Bereschit 26, 16) zu verstehen, das doch auch nur heißt: du bist uns viel zu mächtig, wir können es nicht mit ansehen, dass du, ein einzelner, mächtig bist, weit mächtiger als irgend ein einzelner unter uns. Ebenso hier: Ägypten war ja in Kasten geteilt, bestand aus verschiedenen "עמים", und nun konnte er wohl sagen, seht das Judenvolk, das noch dazu so zusammenhält wie ein נפש, es wird zu mächtig, es gibt keine einzige Kaste unter uns, die so zahlreich, die eine solche Fülle unverbrauchter Kraft hat wie diese.

The word הנה may also be understood as follows: הנה עם, "this here nation," i.e. they are a people different from any other. Every other nation is an amalgamation of a number of different peoples. Not so the Jewish people. They are monolithic, like a single block. When Pharaoh added the words רב ועצום, he explained that the strength of the Jewish nation lay in its singlemindedness and unity of purpose. Because of this they represented a danger totally disproportionate to their actual numbers. Most military commanders are familiar with the phenomenon of a small, elite, but highly motivated force.

Bemerken wir im allgemeinen: 1) Auch dieses allererste רשעות ist durch nichts veranlasst, was die Juden etwa verbrochen hätten; Pharao konnte nichts gegen sie vorbringen, sonst hätte es nicht der חכמה gegen sie bedurft, man hätte offen gegen sie vorgehen können. Ferner: 2) das allererste רשעות ging nicht vom Volke, sondern von oben aus. Erst von oben herab war der Neid angeregt, war ein Mittel der Politik, die der neue Dynast zur Befestigung seiner eigenen Gewalt gebrauchte. Es gibt wenig Neues unter der Sonne, und die geschichtlichen Erscheinungen im großen sind so alt wie die Geschichte. So oft man von oben herab ein Volk drücken wollte, gab man ihm gern ein anderes Volk preis, das es drücken konnte, um sich für den eigenen Druck schadlos zu halten. Dieser Politik verdanken viele Judengesetze ihren Ursprung. Eine gleiche Rücksicht mochte den ersten Schöpfer des allerersten Judengesetzes geleitet haben. Er wollte das von ihm gewaltsam unterdrückte ägyptische Volk dadurch entschädigen, dass er ihm eine Pariaskaste schuf, auf welche alle anderen Kasten in stolzem Selbstgefühl hinabschauen und sich als freier träumen konnten. Dass er übrigens den Juden nichts weiter als ihre große Vermehrung vorwerfen konnte und zur Rechtfertigung der beabsichtigten Härte seine Zuflucht zu Motiven aus der höheren Staatsraison nehmen mußte, ist ein glänzendes Zeichen für das sozial sittliche Verhalten der Juden. Wohl lehrt uns Jecheskel (Kap. 20. 8), dass unsere Väter Gott gegenüber nicht die abrahamitische Treue in aller Reinheit bewahrt, vielmehr ägyptischem Unwesen in Geist und Sitte bei sich Eingang gewährt, und, woran das jüdische Geistesauge kein Gefallen haben (שקוצי עיני) und was das jüdische Herz als seiner unwürdig, als Auswurf, von sich weisen sollte (גלולי מצרים) bei sich hatten heimisch werden lassen; und wenn uns auch hier von beidem nichts erwähnt wird, so lässt doch schon das völlige Schweigen von einer positiven Gesamtäußerung des jüdischen Geistes, wie wir dies bei den Vätern im קרא בשם ד׳, im ויבן שם מזבח, gefunden, und das nicht sowohl eine Propaganda nach außen, als vielmehr eine Erhaltung der jüdischen Bekenntnistreue in Mitte einer so gegensätzlichen Bevölkerung gewesen wäre — auf ein Sinken des abrahamitischen Geistes schließen; allein sozial muss nicht das Geringste gegen sie vorgelegen haben. Hätte Pharao von bornherein das Volk gegen die Juden auf seiner Seite gehabt, es wäre überflüssig gewesen, künstlich ihren Neid und so fernliegende Befürchtungen zu erregen, und er hätte, statt mit einem "Galut" voranzugehen, sofort und kürzer einen "Gerusch" statuieren mögen.

There is another aspect of the words רב ועצום. They are רב, i.e. they multiply at an unnatural rate; ועצום, although it is well known that multiple births usually result in the children being below average weight, physique, etc., in the case of the Jewish people this was not so. Not only did they multiply at a phenomenal rate, but they were all physically healthy specimens. In fact each individual Jew, though in most instances the product of a multiple birth, was ועצום ממנו, physically stronger than any of us Egyptians. As a result, the only way to counter their physical predominance was to outsmart them. The word ממנו would then refer only to the word עצום, and not to the word רב.

Yet another way of understanding the sequence רב ועצום ממנו, is that the king stated that the fact that the Jews had developed as they did was by taking something that should have belonged to the Egyptians, ממנו, "from us." He wanted to forestall any argument by his countrymen who would protest the injustice of suddenly declaring part of their citizenry as inferior, as slaves. To that end he told his people that the Jews were actually owned by the Egyptians who had fed them during the years of famine and enabled them to not only survive but to thrive. Only 70 Jews immigrated. If they now were a numerous and strong people they owed it all to the Egyptians. It was quite in order for the Egyptians to legislate measures that would ensure their own supremacy. The way to do that was to outsmart them.

It is customary for the kings and leaders of highly developed countries to point with pride to the intelligentsia of their nation which alone is responsible for the prominence and the high regard in which their country is held. Wherever Jews were exiled, the host country developed out of all proportion due to the Jewish contribution to their host country (compare Lamentations 1,5) "its oppressors developed into being the head." In the case of Egypt, the elite were the Jews. Allowing the elite to depart was equivalent to what is called a "brain drain" in contemporary society. Pharaoh told his countrymen that unless they took measures to prevent such a brain drain, i.e. forbid the Jews to leave, they would eventually also lose their position in the world as a leading civilisation. The reason the Jews might decide to leave Egypt was that they admired brainpower not military power. If Egypt were to be involved in warfare, the Jews might prefer to migrate elsewhere.

הבה נתחכמה COME ON, LET US DEAL WISELY — Wherever הבה is used it has the meaning of preparing oneself and making oneself ready to do a particular matter; it signifies as much as: get yourself ready for this (cf. Rashi on Genesis 11:4 and Rashi on Genesis 38:16).

COME, LET US DEAL WISELY WITH HIM. Pharaoh and his wise counsellors²⁷See Isaiah 19:11. did not see fit to slay them by the sword, for it would have been a gross treachery to smite without reason a people that had come into the land by command of a former king. The people of the country also would not give the king consent to commit such perfidy since he took counsel with them,²⁸As it says in Verse 9: And he said unto his people… and all the more so since the children of Israel were a numerous and mighty people and would wage a great war against them. Rather, Pharaoh said he would do it wisely so that the Israelites would not feel that it was done in enmity against them.
It is for this reason that he placed a levy upon them, as it was customary that strangers in a country contribute a levy to the king, as it is mentioned in the case of King Solomon.²⁹II Chronicles 2:16-17. Afterwards he secretly commanded the midwives to kill the male children upon the birthstool³⁰Verse 16. so that even the mothers should not know it. Following that, he charged all his people, Every son that is born, ye — yourselves — shall cast into the river.³¹Verse 22. Essentially, Pharaoh did not want to charge his executioners to slay them by the decree of the king or to cast them into the river. Rather, he said to the people that whoever would find a Jewish child should throw him into the river. Should the child’s father complain to the king or to the master of the city, they would tell him to bring witnesses and then they will exact vengeance [for the crime]. Now once the king’s restriction was removed,³²Literally, “And when the king’s strap was untied.” In other words, when the government’s restraint against murder was removed, the Egyptians, etc. Ramban thus traces through the verses the gradual disintegration of the Israelites’ right to life in ancient Egypt. the Egyptians would search the houses, entering them at night, and indifferent [to the cries of the parents], would remove the children therefrom. It is therefore said, And when she could no longer hide him.³³Further, 2:3.
It appears that this [decree to drown the Israelite children] lasted but a short time, for when Aaron was born [three years before Moses],³⁴Ibid., 7:7. the decree was not yet in existence,³⁵This would explain why his mother did not have to seek a way to preserve his life. and when [shortly after] Moses was born, it appears that the decree was revoked. Perhaps it was through Pharaoh’s daughter, who, in her compassion for the child Moses, said to her father that he should not act in that way. It may be that when it became known that this decree was enacted by the king, he revoked it, or again it may be that it was revoked on account of the astrologers, as is the opinion of the Rabbis,³⁶“When Moses was thrown into the waters, the astrologers said to Pharaoh, ‘Their deliverer has already been cast into the waters.’ Immediately, they voided the decree” (Shemoth Rabbah 1:29). See also Rashi to Verse 22 here. since it was all done dexterously by them in order that the crime not be known. This is the meaning of the complaint made to Moses our teacher [by the officers of the children of Israel], Ye have made our savor to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of his servants, to put a sword in their hand to slay us,³⁷Further, 5:21. meaning, “Now they will increase their hatred of us and find justification for saying that we rebel against the government, and they will then openly slay us by the sword without the necessity of doing it slyly.”

נתחכמה לו, so that they will not increase further. In the event that they would continue to multiply and a war should break out between us and our enemies. The construction here is just as in Judges 5,26 ידה ליתד תשלחנה, “her left hand reached for the tent pin”. The word תשלחנה is in the plural mode although Devorah speaks of Yael using a single hand to do this. In our verse too the word תקראנה is unaccountably in the plural mode.

הבה נתחכמה לו, let us not confront them frontally but let us outflank them.

הבה נתחכמה לו, “come on let us outsmart it!” Neither Pharaoh nor his servants wanted to do violence to the Israelites, as it would have been a major act of betrayal to commit genocide against an innocent nation that had settled in Egypt at the request of the previous king. He was afraid that even if he were to give an order to destroy these people his subjects would not obey that order. Moreover, the descendants of Ephrayim and Menashe possessed considerable influence in the highest governmental circles, and the very number of the Israelites would have made open warfare against them a highly dangerous undertaking. The Israelites would surely resist any attack upon them by violent means. Therefore, he imposed a form of taxation upon that nation, a common practice in those days. When this did not have the desired effect, he resorted to instructing the midwives who assisted the Jewish women at birth, to kill the male babies before the mothers had held them in their arms. This was done clandestinely, so that even the mothers were unaware that they had given birth to a male baby. When this proved impossible to carry out, he issued the decree to drown all male babies. Instead of the government killing the babies, the population was encouraged to drown Jewish babies when found, and if the father would protest he would be invited to prove his allegation in court by producing witnesses to that murder. He would be assured that if the murderer would be found he would be duly punished for what he had done. As the restrictions the king had imposed upon himself were gradually loosened, many of his people would enter Jewish homes at night, misrepresenting themselves, searching for recently born boy babies. They would snatch these babies. This is why the Torah reports that Yocheved, after Moses was three months old, no longer risked hiding him at home. This situation was in effect for a relatively short period, as 3 years earlier, when Aaron had been born, this decree had not yet been in force. It appears to have been cancelled shortly after Moses’ birth, perhaps due to the intervention of the daughter of Pharaoh who had been audacious enough to save Moses’ life. It is also possible that the decree had been inspired by the astrologers who had predicted the birth of a saviour of the Jewish people on a certain day or in a certain month, as mentioned by our sages. This may also have been at the root of the overseers saying to Moses (and Aaron) 80 years later (Exodus 5,21) הבאשתם את ריחנו, “you have made our very scent abhorrent in the eyes of Pharaoh, etc.” They meant that until these “so called saviours” had given the Egyptians an excuse to deal harshly with the Jewish people, they had at least had to use subterfuge when applying discriminatory legislation. Now they felt entitled to repress the Jews with all their might openly.

To the nation [of Israel]. The [singular] word לו (to him) refers to עם (nation), and not to [the plural] Bnei Yisrael.

V. 10. Der Sinn dieses Verses ist dunkel. Stände der Akzent אתנח statt unter לו, unter ירבה, so würde man einfach das ועלה מן הארץ als das herbeizuführende Ziel auffassen können, und es würde heißen: wir wollen es so einschränken, dass es die erste sich darbietende Gelegenheit ergreifen wird, aus dem Lande fortzuziehen, indem es durch Anschluss an unsere Feinde bei ihnen sich Boden und Bürgerrecht erwerbe. Allein der Akzent ist dagegen und lässt das ועלה מן הארץ nicht als das durch die Maßregel zu Erzielende, sondern zu פן וגו׳ gehörig, als Teil des durch die Maßregel zu Verhindernden verstehen. Und da ist es denn sehr schwer zu begreifen, weshalb das Fortziehen der Ibrim so sehr gefürchtet worden wäre. Sie waren ja noch nicht Sklaven. Man müsste denn annehmen, es sei die Gegenwart der Juden im Grunde schon damals dem Staate so wichtig und nützlich gewesen, dass man ihre Verminderung wohl gewünscht, allein ihr gänzliches Fortgehen gefürchtet, vielmehr ihr Dasein in beschränkter Zahl für nützlich und notwendig gehalten habe. Wahrscheinlicher wäre dann das עלה מן הארץ nicht: aus Mizrajim fort, sondern: aus der ihnen angewiesenen entlegenen Provinz Goschen hinauf über das ganze übrige Land, zu verstehen; wozu es aber dann des Mittelfalls des Krieges bedurft haben sollte, ist auch nicht klar. Vielleicht sind es jedoch zwei Befürchtungen. Wer dem andern feind ist, setzt in der Regel seine Gesinnungen bei diesem voraus. Pharao mochte sagen: Die Juden sind unsere Feinde und meinen es nicht ehrlich mit uns. Werden sie zahlreich und es kommt Krieg, so werden sie es mit unseren Feinden halten, und auch ohnehin sich so vermehren, dass Goschen sie nicht mehr alle fassen kann, sie vielmehr mit gewaffneter Hand sich über das ganze Land verbreiten werden. Hat ja das böse Gewissen der Völker auch in späteren Zeiten die Juden verdächtigt, es mit den Landesfeinden, den Mauren, den Türken, den Franzosen, zu halten. Auch תקראנה als Plural zu מלחמה im Singular ist schwierig. מלחמה ist hier wohl nicht Subjekt, sondern Objekt – und תקרינה wie Jes. 41, 22 .את אשר תקראנה

הבה נתחכמה לו, “let us try to outwit it” (the Jewish nation). The numerical value of the letters in the word הבה , is 12. What the king meant was to outsmart the twelve tribes of the Jewish people. According to Rashi, what the king meant was to outsmart the deity of the Jewish people. How did he think to accomplish this? Seeing that G–d had promised never to bring another deluge, and His method is to match the punishment to the crime, he thought that by drowning Jews in water, G–d would not be able to punish him appropriately. (Talmud, tractate Sotah, folio11). Our sages say that the king had three advisors who helped him figure out how to deal with the ever increasing number of Israelites. They were: Bileam, Job, and Yitro. Bileam was killed for having given the advice the king accepted. Job was subjected to severe afflictions. He had not disagreed, but kept silent on the king’s proposal. Yitro who left that meeting and decided to flee, was rewarded by some of his descendants eventually being able to make their home near the Temple. (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 106, quoting Chronicles I 2,55.) According to the Talmud there, Bileam was only thirty three years old when Pinchas killed him during the punitive campaign against Midian reported in Numbers chapter 31. Our author, not surprisingly, questions the statement in the Talmud, seeing that if Bileam had been an advisor to the Pharaoh of whom the Torah speaks here, as that conversation took place before Moses was born and Moses was 119 years old when the campaign against Midian was fought. This is why Rabbi Menachem interprets the statement that when Bileam said to Balak in Numbers 24,14 before taking his leave: לכה איעצך, “I will now give you an advice,” and the Torah does not spell out what the advice was, but writes only what the Israelites will do to the Moabites in the distant future, that what he told him was that seeing the G–d of the Jewish most detests sexual promiscuity, he should arrange for the men of the Israelites to be seduced. (Compare Sanhedrin folio 106) As to the question raised by Rabbi Moshe that this advice of Bileam has been spelled out in the history of Moses’ life and been attributed there to the sorcerer Bileam, (compare a text quoted by Ibn Ezra on Exodus,2,22 and described by him as unreliable. Ed) Rabbi Menachem, quotes the Talmud tractate Zevachim folio 116 that at the time when G–d was ready to give the Torah to the Jewish people, all the gentile nations assembled around Bileam, fearful that another deluge was in the offing. They based themselves on the overwhelming sounds emanating from Mount Sinai at that time, as described in Exodus 19,16. Even if you were to assume that at that time Bileam was no older than twenty years of age, and that he was killed 40 years later during the campaign against Midian, i.e. when he was 60 years old, he clearly had not yet been born when the Pharaoh in our chapter of the Torah consulted how to stop the expansion of the Israelites in Egypt. There are books in which it is claimed that the gentile nations assembled around a person known as Kemuel, whom they asked about the imminence of another deluge. This interpretation is also not plausible, seeing that Kemuel was the founding father of the nation of Aram (Genesis 22, 21, who was a contemporary of Avraham and would have been over 500 years old at his death. Besides, according to B’reshit Rabbah, near the end of paragraph 57, this Kemuel is identified with Lavan, also identical with Kushan Rishatayim, i.e. Bileam. The reason given why he was also known as Kemuel, is that he rebelled against G–d his Creator. This comment is also listed in Sanhedrin folio 105. Why was Bileam’s father called בעור? This was because he had sexual relations with his she-ass, i.e. בעירו. He was also identical with Lavan, who was also known as כושן רשעתים, having been guilty of two sins, one in the days of Yaakov and one in the era of the Judges. From all this it is clear that he was תפל, someone of no value. This is the meaning of Job 30,11 כי יתרי פתח ויענני, “for the Lord has humbled me.” In the version by the Massoretes, the word יתרי is spelled יתרו, a reference to Moses’ father-in-law who had been present when Pharaoh consulted with his advisers how to deal with what he considered the danger of the multiplying Hebrews. Supposedly, he was the first to respond to Pharaoh’s question. This is difficult, as Job never fled, so how can we interpret the beginning of that verse in Job as applying to Yitro? We may have to answer that at that time Yitro was the most respected personage and he could have protested Pharaoh’s murderous intentions, but instead he was content to simply flee Pharaoh’s presence. This is why in the verse quoted Job accuses him of having failed.

נתחכמה לו LET US DEAL WISELY WITH THEM (לו more lit., with him) — i. e. with the people (the word לו, which is singular, refers to עם used in the preceding verse in the phrase עם בני ישראל): let us consider wisely what to do to them. Our Rabbis, however, explained that the singular לו refers to God, and that the words mean: “let us use our wisdom against Him who would show Himself Israel’s deliverer, by sentencing them to death by water, since He has already sworn that He will not bring another flood upon the world, and He will therefore be unable to punish us ‘measure for measure’, as is His way.”)

AND HE WILL GO UP ‘MIN’ (OUT OF) THE LAND. “I.e., ‘against our will.’ Our Rabbis explained that they spoke like a person who is pronouncing a curse against himself but assigns the curse to others. Thus it is as if Scripture wrote, ‘And we shall have to go up out of the land, and they will possess it.’” These are the words of Rashi. But if the explanation is as the Rabbi has it, [i.e., that the Israelites will go up to wage war against the Egyptians], Scripture would have said, “And he will go up al (against) the land,” [instead of saying min ha’aretz (out of the land)]. Such is the correct expression concerning warriors: Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up ‘al’ (against) all the fortified cities of Judah, and took them³⁸Ramban here combined two verses: II Kings 24:1 and 18:13.; Rezin the king of Aram… went up to Jerusalem to war ‘aleha’ (against it).³⁹Isaiah 7:1. Perhaps [Rashi will explain it by] saying that the meaning is that “he will come up against us from the land wherein he dwells,” meaning the land of Goshen.
It is possible to explain that Pharaoh is saying that “if wars will occur, the Israelites may join forces with our enemies to take the spoil, and to take the prey.⁴⁰Ibid., 10:6. They will get themselves up out of this land to the land of Canaan with all our belongings, and we will not be able to wreak our vengeance on them nor to war against them.” This is similar to the verses: that brought us up out of the land of Egypt;⁴¹Further, 32:1. that brought up and that led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries whither I had driven them.⁴²Jeremiah 23:8. Similarly, the verse, And they shall appoint themselves one head, and shall go up out of the land,⁴³Hosea 2:2. means they shall appoint over themselves a captain and they shall go up to their land out of the country in which they had been exiled.

כי תקראנה, as if the Torah had written כי תארענה, “if it were to happen.”

ועלה מן הארץ, of their own volition, without our having to expel them. If we do not have adequate reason to expel them we would become pariahs among our neighbours. If we were to do that, פן ירבה והיה כי תקראנה מלחמה, so that no additional problems would beset us, such as a war (compare Samuel II 13,39 ותכל דוד המלך, the king pined away), These words should be understood as a parenthesis.

ועלה מן הארץ, “and go up from the land.” Rashi views this simile as similar to people who are superstitious enough not to mention possible disaster in the same breath as themselves, so what the Egyptians were really afraid of was not the emigration of the Jews, but their own expulsion from Egypt by the Israelites. It is also possible to explain these words at face value, i.e. that they were afraid that the Israelites would emigrate to the land of Canaan, taking with them all the chattels of the Egyptians.

Let us wisely determine what to do to him. [Rashi adds the words מה לעשות (what to do) in order] to say that the Egyptians did not try to be wiser than the nation. Rather, to deal wisely with the nation. For if the Egyptians tried to be wiser than the nation, it should have said נתחכם עליו (become wise “over” him), so why does it actually say לו (“with” him)? Therefore Rashi explains: “[To wisely determine] what to do to him.” (Maharshal)

והיה כי תקראנה מלחמה, “it will be when war will break out, etc.” the word תקראנה refers to an unforeseen and unplanned event. One example in the Bible is Leviticus 10,19 when Aaron refers to the sudden death of two of his sons as such an event. The fact that the plural mode is used here is nothing exceptional, as we also find it again with this word in Numbers 10,9 when the use of the trumpets as a means of giving the alarm is discussed, i.e.וכי תבואו מלחמה, instead of וכי תבא מלחמה, “when war will come.”An alternate exegesis: the Torah here abbreviates instead of writing: כי תקראנה קורות מלחמה, “when warlike events will occur.” We find another verse with such grammatically unusual construction in Proverbs 15,22: וברב יועצים תקום, “when there are numerous counselors they will prevail.” The Hebrew word for “they will prevail is in the singular mode instead of in the plural mode as we would expect. When Bileam refuses to retract the blessings he gave to the Jewish people in Numbers 23,21 we also find such a grammatically puzzling construction. We have to imagine that the wording is: וברך ברכה לא אשיבנה, “a blessing once pronounced I cannot retract.”.

ועלה מן הארץ AND HE WILL GO UP OUT OF THE LAND, against our will. Our Rabbis explained that they spoke like a person who is pronouncing a curse against himself but attaches the curse to others (because he does not wish to use an ominous expression of himself), so that it is as though Scripture wrote “and we shall have to go up out of the land” and they will take possession of it (Sotah 11a).

ונלחם בנו ועלה מן הארץ, in order to return to the land of their ancestors. It would be disastrous for us to lose this source of cheap manpower. If that were to happen my kingdom would be an emaciated kingdom. [Pharaoh speaking of his loss of “face,” if he would allow the Jews to escape although they were also a great source of frustration. Ed.]

ונוסף גם הוא על שונאינו, at such a time they may display their hatred of us seeing that they have remained culturally incompatible with us both in practicing circumcision of their males, language, and in such practices as the way they eat meat only after the blood has been removed, etc. (compare Genesis 43,32). Let us therefore induce them to leave our country before it comes to this. In order to achieve this end,

Let us deal shrewdly with the Savior of Yisrael (God). According to this view, the word לו (with Him) is referring to Hashem [and not to the nation of Yisrael]. This explains the term רב ועצום (great and strong), and why the entire passage is written in the singular form. (Nachalas Yaakov)

ונוסף גם הוא על שונאנו, “and that in such an event, it (the Israelite nation), would make common cause with our enemies.” The word: שונאנו, literally meaning: “our enemies,” in reality refers to the Egyptians themselves. It is a figure of speech avoiding mentioning oneself in connection with a curse, as doing so is considered a bad omen. Another matter, joining our enemies will result in their leaving Egypt notwithstanding our need to keep them here.

By bringing about their fate through water. If so, why did Pharaoh immediately order the midwives to kill any son that was born? [This act was not through water.] The answer is that this wise strategy was without the knowledge of the Egyptians. Rather, Pharaoh himself ordered the midwives [to kill the sons], and he did not fear Divine retribution because the midwives, not he, would actually carry it out.

For He has already sworn that He will never again bring a flood upon the world. Hashem exacts justice only in a manner of measure-for-measure.

עליו [THEREFORE THEY DID SET] OVER THEM (עליו over him) i. e. over the people.

SAREI MISIM’ (OFFICERS OF THE TRIBUTE) TO AFFLICT THEM. Pharaoh imposed a tribute upon the Israelite people to take men from them for the king’s projects. He appointed Egyptian officers over the tribute to take men at will in turns to serve for a month or more in the royal building-projects and the rest of the days [they remained] at home. These officers commanded the Israelites to build cities for Pharaoh, and the people built storage-cities for Pharaoh through this levy. When the Egyptians saw that this forced labor did not harm the Israelites, they were in dread for their own lives⁴⁴Verse 12. on account of them. They decreed that all Egyptians force the Israelites to serve them,⁴⁵Verse 13. so that any Egyptian who needed work done had the authority to take from them men to do his work. This is the meaning of the verse, And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor.⁴⁵Verse 13.
They furthermore decreed against them that they do hard work in mortar and in brick.⁴⁶Verse 14. Ramban now proceeds to show how all the Israelites — not only those forced into labor for the king’s building-projects — were afflicted. It is necessary to recall the full text: And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor. And they made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field; in all their service, wherein they made them serve with rigor (Verses 13-14). Ramban understands the term “Egyptians” here as referring to the whole population. Further in the text, Ramban will suggest another interpretation. Whereas at first the officers would give them the bricks and the men of the forced labor would erect the buildings, they now conscripted the entire Israelite people into the work, commanding them to bring the earth, make the mortar with their hands and feet while only the straw was given to them from the king’s house, and give the bricks to the men of the forced labor engaged in the construction of the buildings. Every other manner of hard service in the field for Pharaoh and the Egyptians — such as excavations and the removal of dung — were all imposed upon them. In addition, they subjugated them, pressing them not to rest while beating and cursing them. This is the sense of the expression, in all their service, wherein they made them serve with rigor.⁴⁶Verse 14. Ramban now proceeds to show how all the Israelites — not only those forced into labor for the king’s building-projects — were afflicted. It is necessary to recall the full text: And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor. And they made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field; in all their service, wherein they made them serve with rigor (Verses 13-14). Ramban understands the term “Egyptians” here as referring to the whole population. Further in the text, Ramban will suggest another interpretation.
The king supported them with sparing bread,⁴⁷Isaiah 30:20. as is customary for those who work in his service. This is the purport of those lusting persons⁴⁸Numbers 11:4. who said, We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, etc.⁴⁹Ibid., Verse 5. Fish are very abundant in Egypt, and by command of the king, the Israelites would obtain them from those who caught them. They would also take cucumbers and melons from the vegetable-gardens,⁴⁹Ibid., Verse 5. no one putting them to shame, for such was the king’s command.
But our Rabbis have said:⁵⁰Mechilta, Bachodesh, end of Chapter 5. “The Israelites were servants to kings, but not servants to servants.” If so, the verse, And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigor,⁴⁵Verse 13. alludes to Pharaoh’s officers of the tribute, [mentioned above in Verse 11].

מיסים, typically one of the words with double consonants, the singular being מס and the plural requiring a dagesh in the letter ס to show there really ought to have been two letters ס in the middle. Similar examples are found in Leviticus 2,6 where the line פתות אותה פתים is spelled with the dagesh in the letter ת of the word פתים as being derived from פת it would require two such consonants in the plural.

למען ענותו, so that as an alternative they will agree to emigrate from our land.

וישימו עליו שרי מסים, They set taskmasters over them, etc. Where was the superior intelligence in applying brute force to the Jewish people? This was not an act of wisdom! Besides, why did the Jews appear to have accepted this procedure without protest? Why did the people who were famed for employing their brains suddenly become bricklayers? The sages in Sotah 11 describe the enslavement of the Jewish population as having occurred progressively; they were sweet-talked into volunteering their services for patritotic reasons until they suddenly found their labour not only as being taken for granted but they could not withdraw it from their superiors. This whole process must have started somewhow. We must assume therefore that before appointing taskmasters, the Egyptians appealed to the Israelites to demonstrate patriotism in return for all the good the Egyptians had done for them during the previous century.

שרי מסים, “taskmasters;” Jewish officials who would select men from among their people whom they considered as fit to perform hard physical labour at the command of the King. In turn, Pharaoh appointed officials of his own to supervise the activities of these Jewish taskmasters. The taskmasters would designate what precisely these servants were to do and where, in this case that they were to build fortified cities by means of laying the bricks for the buildings involved. When the Egyptian overseers became aware that this stratagem did not slow down the birth rate of the Israelites, they decreed that Egyptians generally were allowed to impose all kinds of menial labour on Israelites whom they chose for that purpose. This is why the Torah speaks of the Egyptians generally enslaving the Israelites, i.e.ויעבידו מצרים את בני ישראל בפרך, “the Egyptians (man in the street) enslaved the Israelites imposing harsh conditions.” They added a new element to the hardship by not only making the Israelites build with bricks supplied by them, but by expecting them to also make the bricks themselves. An additional hardship imposed was that they were made to perform labour in the fields, something the Israelites had not been trained to do. This was not constructive work such as sowing and planting, but digging canals, reservoirs, etc. The Torah emphasizes that the conditions under which all these tasks were performed were quite intolerable, and the food supplied by the king for these labourers was minimal and unappetizing. We can understand how ungrateful the Israelites who had been redeemed from such conditions must have been when they longingly looked back on that period in Numbers 11,5 implying that the only redeeming feature of the fish that Pharaoh had supplied had been that they did not have to catch the fish or pay for them. Similarly, gourds, melons, garlic and other low ranking produce they had been able to help themselves to as their staple diet in the fields in which they had been made to work. Our sages view the word לפרעה, “for Pharaoh,” in our verse as meaning that they consoled themselves by being slaves of Pharaoh, instead of slaves of Pharaoh’s slaves. If so, we must understand the line ויעבידו מצרים את בני ישראל as referring back to the phrase וישימו עליו שרי מסים, “they imposed taskmasters upon them.”

[The burdens] of the Egyptians. Rashi is answering the question: It should have said to oppress him with his burden, or to oppress them with their burdens. [Instead of to oppress him with their burdens.]

V. 11. Man erklärte die Juden im ganzen als ein Objekt des Fiskus, aus welchem der Staat so viel als möglich Geld zu machen suchen solle. Es waren ja "nicht hergehörige Fremde", denen man für die Luft, die man sie atmen ließ, jeden beliebigen Preis abfordern konnte. "Man übergab sie daher dem Fiskus." — סבל ,סבלתם ist nicht zunächst eine Last, die man auflegt, um jemanden zu drücken, sondern damit das auferlegte Objekt getragen und versorgt werde. Es liegt somit in dem Ausdrucke nichts Feindseliges. Verwandt ists mit ספל, Schale, in der etwas getragen wird; סבלות sind somit Lasten, die in der Form auferlegt werden, als von dem Staatsbedürfnis gebotene Zwecke. Der wirkliche Zweck war jedoch למען ענותו: das Judenvolk soll nicht zu übermütig werden, darum muss man unter Rechtsformen Plackereien für es ersinnen.

ערי מסכנות, “cities for storing goods.” In the Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 11, there are two opinions offered concerning the word מסכנות, One derives it from סכנה, hazard, danger, and accordingly concludes that anyone engaging in building something endangers himself. The other opinion derives it from מסכן, a poor person, suggesting that Pharaoh’s objective was to impoverish the Hebrews by making them do this kind of labour.

למען ענותו בסבלותם, ‘in order to oppress them with forced labour;” in this instance this is a veiled reference to diminishing the labourers’ ability of engaging in marital intercourse due to being overworked. [The Egyptians’ purpose was to control the Jewish birthrate explosion. Ed.] We find an example of the use of the verb ענה in this context in Genesis 31,50 where Lavan warns Yaakov against denying his daughters marital relations by sleeping with other women instead. Our sages also used this expression in this context when they are quoted as accusing the Egyptians of doing this in the Haggadah of Passover. It is paraphrased there as

מסים has the meaning of tribute (מס), a forced levy of labour, so that שרי מסים are the officers who exact the tribute of labour from them. And what was this tribute? That they should build store-cities for Pharaoh.

מסכנות, storages. You find the word as סוכן in the singular mode, in the same sense in Isaiah 22,15.

ויבן ערי מסכנות, they volunteered to accept as a form of taxation to build these storage cities for Pharaoh to prove their loyalty to Egypt.

They strengthened and fortified them. [If Bnei Yisrael built new cities] then the verse should have written ויבן את פיתום ואת רעמסס לערי מסכנות (And they built Pisom and Ramseis for supply cities). Since it is written “ ויבן ערי מסכנות (And they built supply cities),” this implies that Pisom and Ramseis already existed and Bnei Yisrael only strengthened them. (Re”m)

The plain meaning of the verse, however, seems to be that force was used to make the Israelites become bricklayers. The words: "let us outsmart them" must therefore not be applied to the details of the enslavement but to the drowning of Israelite babies in the sea as discussed by the Midrash.

סכן ,ערי מסכנות. Siehe (Bereschit 19, 4) מסכנות: Veranstaltungen, durch welche für etwa eintretende Fälle vorgesorgt werden soll: Magazinstädte. Wären das vielleicht Städte zur Aufbewahrung der durch Josef zum Wohl des Staates eingeführten Naturalienabgaben, wodurch möglichen "Notjahren", "Hungerjahren" (מסכנות) vorsorglich vorgebeugt werden sollte, so lag zugleich darin ein doppelter unendlicher Hohn. — Zum Bau einer Stadt gehören die verschiedensten Handwerkstätigkeiten, die somit alle von ihnen zu beschaffen waren. Es waren dies übrigens Staatsbauten, sie wurden für "Pharao" gebaut.

פיתום, name of one of the cities the Hebrews built; according to the Talmud there, so named as it was built near an abyss, threatening to bury its builders.

פרישות דרך ארץ, “abstention from marital relations.”

למען ענותו בסבלותם TO AFFLICT THEM WITH THEIR BURDENS — i. e. the burdens of the Egyptians.

At first glance, the words "in order to oppress them" seem superfluous; the intent was clear without these words. We must also analyse why the Torah needed to add the word בסבלותם, "during their forced labour." What precisely is this word meant to exclude?

רעמסס, name of the second city, symbolising the fact that the first city they had built had completely collapsed. Our author has difficulty in understanding this interpretation, seeing that the Torah had described the building of having been the result of פרך, understood as an acronym for פה רך, ‘with a soft tongue,’ i.e. Pharaoh having lured the Hebrews to volunteer to build fortifications, appealing to their patriotism, etc., before gradually becoming far more demanding. At the beginning he paid for each brick made, so that the Hebrews stood in line to participate in the project.

ערי מסכנות — Translate this as the Targum does: CITIES WHICH ARE PLACES FOR TREASURES; similarly we have, (Isaiah 22:15) “Go, get thes unto this steward (הסוכן)” — the treasurer appointed over the stores (Exodus Rabbah 2:1).

Perhaps the shrewdness of the Egyptians can be understood thus: Pharaoh no doubt had a team of engineers and builders who were civil servants employed in the construction of towns, etc. Such engineers were known as Mass. The word occurs in that context in Kings I 5,27. The 30.000 people described there as מס were the ones appointed over the total work force of over 150.000 described as doing the preparatory work for building the Holy Temple. Pharaoh appointed such people to guide the inexperienced Israelites in their labours. The Israelites were not able to object to this as the fact that they were being bossed by qualified engineers was not demeaning seeing they themselves were novices in that field. The Torah adds that the intention of the Egyptians in appointing these engineers as taskmasters was not because of their superior skills as the Israelites assumed, but to assert progressively harsher pressures and discipline on the Israelite labourers. The Egyptians withheld vital data from the Israelites without which the tasks allotted to the Israelite labourers could not be successfully completed. The Israelites therefore depended on the help of these engineers which gradually turned from help to oppression. This is what our sages had in mind when they spoke about the Egyptians sweet-talking the Israelites into forced labour, i.e. פה דך turned in to פרך.

את פתם ואת רעמסס PITHOM AND RAMESES — These cities already existed but were not adapted originally for this purpose; now they strengthened them and fortified them to serve as store-cities.

Some commentators explain: Because it is written et (a preposition indicating action upon the object,) Pithom and et Raamses," it implies that they were already in the world before the Israelites built them. As if you say that they were named Pithom and Raamses after they built them, it should have written, "And they built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Raamses..." But this is not correct. For behold, we find (Genesis 10:11), "and he built et Nineveh and et Rechoboth the city and et Kalach," the explanation of which is Nineveh and Rechoboth the city, that exist in the world now. Here too [it means], Pithom and Raamses that are now in the world; and like (Genesis 2:14), "it is the one that flows east of Assyria," today - and not in those days. Rather the correct understanding of this is...  

וכאשר יענו אתו AND AS THEY AFFLICTED THEM — In whatsoever matter it was that they set their hearts upon afflicting them so was the heart of the Holy One, blessed be He, set upon multiplying them and making them grow apace.

כן ירבה; the measures the Egyptians took to slow down the Jewish birthrate not only did not work but backfired.

וכאשר יענו אותו כן ירבה, The more they oppressed them the more they increased. There is a beautiful explanation by the Zohar second volume page 95 on Kohelet 8,9. Solomon says that "there is a time when one man rules over another to his detriment." The Zohar explains that when one has to endure persecution and troubles, the good [which may have been mixed with the evil. Ed.] is distilled from the evil joining other areas which are totally good; by the same token the evil of that mixture joins other areas of pure evil. These two details are hinted at when Solomon speaks of לרע לו. Similarly, the Torah here tells us the same thing. The more persecution the Israelites suffered the more "good" was released from what had been only a mixture of good and evil previously. With the release of that "good", i.e. good qualities, the Israelite families merited having more and more children. Hence the Torah adds the words וכן יפרץ in the sense of ופרצת ימה וקדמה, "You will burst forth to the West and to the East, etc." Alternatively, the word may mean "it achieved a breaking forth" i.e. a separation from an environment in which the good had been forced to mix with the evil. The evil was now released and separated. This resulted in the famous "iron crucible" in which the character of the Israelite people was forged in Egypt.

וכאשר יענו אותו כן ירבה, “they would continue to multiply in direct ratio to the degree of greater hardships imposed upon them.” This means that they maintained their birthrate at the same level as when they had been free men.

To the extent that they set their hearts to oppress [them]. Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that Bnei Yisrael increased because the Egyptians oppressed them. Would they not have increased otherwise? A further question: oppression decreases a population’s growth. Rashi answers: “To the extent that they set their hearts. . .” In other words, the Egyptians did not actually oppress them [at this point]. Rather, they intended to do so.

V. 12. Die in Form einer Steuer auferlegte Staatsmaßregel erreichte nicht ihren Zweck; in dem Maße, in welchem sie es zu entkräften suchten, in dem Maße wurde es immer zahlreicher und imposanter, so dass, wörtlich: "ihnen Ekel wurde", nicht "vor den Juden" — etwa á la Schudt — es steht זקף גדול auf ויקצו, sondern: sie hatten an allem Ekel wegen der Anwesenheit der Juden. Alles, woran sie sonst Freude haben konnten und obgleich sie dessen ja jetzt schon in so großem Maße vor den Juden voraus hatten, verlor den Wert in ihren Augen, weil auch Juden da waren, weil sie doch die Juden nicht von allem ausschließen konnten, — wie ילקוט zu ותמלא הארץ אותם erläutert: שנתמלאו בתי טרטיאות ובתי קרקסיאות מהם, gingen sie ins Theater, waren Juden da, in den Zirkus, waren Juden da. —

כן ירבה וכן יפרוץ, “so it would increase even more and multiply even more.” This was in line with G-d’s promise to Yaakov that his descendants would greatly multiply in Egypt. He told him not to worry about going to Egypt. (Genesis 46,3)

כן ירבה signifies: so they multiplied and so they grew apace (i. e. God’s determination was carried out, the imperfect tenses of the verbs denoting the continuance of the increase and growth). This is the real meaning; but there is a Midrashic explanation of these imperfect tenses: The Holy spirit (God) said this: You say פן ירבה, “lest they increase”, but “I” say כן ירבה, “thus will they assuredly increase” (Sotah 11a).

ויקוצו, they became frustrated with their own lives when watching the development of the Israelites. This expression for frustration with one’s own life has already been used when Rivkah could not bear thinking about Yaakov marrying a Canaanite girl. (Genesis 27,46) It also occurs in a similar sense in Isaiah 7,16.

וכן יפרוץ, “and they would proliferate ever more.” The term is borrowed from פורץ גדר, “making a breach in a fence,” (both literally and figuratively speaking, in this case making the efforts of the Egyptians to contain their birthrate ineffective). According to the commentators specializing in allegorical approaches, מדרש, the more the Egyptians tried to control the Jewish birthrate the more G’d blessed them by making them ever more fruitful.” This was most noticeable in the much smaller birthrate of the tribe of Levite, a tribe that remained exempt from performing slave labour. When the people were counted at the beginning of the Book of Numbers, the males of the tribe of Levi, even though they were counted already from one month up and not from twenty years up as the rest of the people, amounted to approximately 30-50% of the other tribes.

So they are increasing and becoming strong. Since כן ירבה (lit. “so they will increase”) is referring to Hashem’s intent [to increase them], and He desires that Bnei Yisrael should constantly increase, why does the verse say ירבה in the future tense, [implying that it did not take place now]? Therefore Rashi explained it as כן רבה וכן פרץ (they are increasing and becoming strong), which indicates that is was ongoing.

The plain meaning of the verse is that for every unjustified act of cruelty by the Egyptians, G'd compensated the Jewish people with a commensurate increase in the number of babies that were born to them. Additional hands enabled the parents to meet the work quota imposed upon them by the Egyptians. The words כן ירבה, "so they would multiply," would then mean that the additional number of children made up for the reduced performance by their weakened parents in proportion to the emasculating effect of the hard labour. This became a vicious circle as the Egyptians kept increasing the workload.

ויקצו the word means, THEY WERE WEARY OF THEIR LIVES. Our Rabbis explained that it means that they were as thorns (קוצים) in their eyes (cf. Sotah 11a).

Their lives became abhorrent to them. Rashi is answering the question: it says the Egyptians came to loathe, מפני בני ישראל (lit. in the presence of Bnei Yisrael). Yet Bnei Yisrael were not with the Egyptians all the time. They were in the land of Goshen far from Pharaoh and his people. Therefore Rashi explains: The Egyptians’ own lives became abhorrent to them when Bnei Yisrael were mentioned. I would rather say Rashi inferred it from the verse’s use of מפני (because of) instead of simply saying ויקוצו בבני ישראל , “They came to loathe the Bnei Yisrael.” (Maharshal)

בפרך means with hard service which crushes (מפרכת) the body and shatters it (cf. Sotah 11b).

בפרך. An expression related to breaking something, The treatment of the Israelites was intended to break them mentally and physically. In the Talmud the term is used to describe the cracking of the outer shell of walnuts. (Beytzah 12)

ויעבידו, once the Egyptians observed how the Israelites debased themselves by performing menial labour they decided to enslave them. They did this by heaping sin upon sin, thereby defeating their plan and they went from bad to worse.

V. 13. Hiermit trat die Misshandlung in ein zweites Stadium. Bisher hatte man ihnen "als Fremden" Lasten in Form nach Staatsrecht geregelter Maßnahmen auferlegt. Jetzt aber erklärte man sie als Sklaven, auf גרות folgte פרך : בפרך — .עבדות kommt in תנ׳׳ך nur noch in פרכת vor, und demgemäß würde sich der Begriff "Scheiden" als der natürlichste darstellen. Wie durch פרכת das Allerheilige von dem Minderheiligen geschieden wurde, so schieden sie die Juden aus dem berechtigten Teil der Nation als ganz rechtlose Sklaven völlig aus, zogen durch den Sklavenstand, in welchen sie sie erklärten, eine völlige Scheidewand zwischen sich und ihnen. Sie wurden als gar nicht der Menschengattung angehörig erklärt. Rücksichtsloseste Härte folgt dann von selbst daraus. Im Talmud bedeutet פרך zerbröckeln, נפרך בצפרן, und hieße es dann: sie verdammten sie zur Sklaverei mit der vollen Wucht der alle Kraft zerbröckelnden, zermalmenden Härte.

ובכל עבודה בשדה, ploughing and harvesting.

וימררו את חייהם, they ruined their own lives not only by improper deeds, but also by succumbing to alien philosophies. This is described in Ezekiel 20,8 “and they rebelled against Me and did not want to listen to Me. No Man!- the idols of their eyes they did not cast out and the idols of Egypt, they did not forsake.”

וימררו את חייהם, They made their lives bitter, etc. The Torah speaks of עבודה קשה, to describe work which was very difficult by its very nature without it being performed under intolerable conditions. What was the nature of this work? The making of clay bricks or working in the fields.

V. 14. Die ersten מסים hatten sie als Staatsgenossen zu leisten, sie verblieben dabei in ihrer Berechtigung, sie bezahlten ihre Staatsgenossenschaft, wenn man will, den Staatsschutz, durch besondere Steuerleistungen. Allein es hatte noch kein ägyptischer Gassenbube das Recht zu sagen: Jud' mach Mores. Sodann waren sie für rechtlos erklärt worden, wurden als Sklaven zu rechtlosen Wesen in den Augen des Volkes herabgewürdigt. Es hieß da schon nicht mehr ויעביד פרעה sondern ויעבידו מצרים, das Volk erhielt das Recht, sie als Sklaven zu behandeln. Dazu tritt nun noch ein drittes: וימררו וגו׳. Man kann Sklave sein, ja harte Arbeit, aber keine schikanöse Behandlung haben. Es kann die Arbeit den Kräften angemessen sein. Hier aber, wenn פרך die aufreibende, kraftbrechende Härte bedeutet, schüttete man eine doppelte Bitterkeit in den Lebenstrank der Juden, man verteilte die Arbeit in absichtlicher Unangemessenheit zu den Kräften der einzelnen Arbeiter, eben um die Kräfte durch die Arbeit "aufzureiben", — das wörtliche פרך — und diese, schon ohnehin keine Freude an der Arbeit zulassende raffinierte Härte, verbitterte man noch durch erfindungsreiche Schikanierungen.

וימררו, “they embittered” (the lives of the Hebrews) during that period Miriam was born, her name commemorating that period.

ובכל עבודה בשדה, “in addition to all manner of work in agriculture.” They had to plow, to plant seed, to harvest and prune trees.

את כל עבודתם, in addition to all their other work.

The Torah adds the words את כל עבודתם "with all their labours," meaning that you should not think that the Egyptians at any time relaxed their demands on these Jewish labourers. On the contrary, they added new tasks to the existing daily quota of bricks that they demanded to be delivered. The Egyptians' argument was that as long as the Jews had been inexperienced they had supplied them with the building materials. As the Jews became more experienced and faster they were no longer given the building materials but had to provide it themselves. This was all part of the Egyptians' shrewdness to prevent an increase in the number of Jews. None of this helped them. This is why the king resorted to an order to kill all male Jewish babies.

Damit waren denn alle drei Momente: גרות ,עבדות ,ענוי verwirklicht, die dem Abraham verkündet worden und die später sowohl in den die Bedeutung der Erlösung würdigenden לשונות של גאולה, als in den den Zustand der Knechtung in Mizrajim vergegenwärtigenden Chamezgesetzen: איסור אכילה ,הנאה ,ובל יראה וגו׳ charakteristisch festgehalten sind. Die Wurzel dieser namenlosen Mißhandlung war: גרות, war die vermeintliche Rechtlosigkeit der Fremdlinge als solche. Daher bildete auch das Fremdenrecht des jüdischen Gesetzes den tiefsten Gegensatz zu allen anderen nationalen Gesetzgebungen bis auf den heutigen Tag. Vierundzwanzigmal, überall, bei jeder Gesetzesbestimmung über Rechte von Personen und Sachen wird der "Fremde" unter den ganz besonderen Schutz der Gesetze gestellt. Nicht welches Recht dem Einheimischen, Reichen, nötigenfalls von Konnexionen etc. Getragenen und Vertretenen zusteht, mit welchem Rechte der völlig unbeschützte "Fremde" in einem Lande gemessen wird, bildet den Maßstab des Rechtszustandes dieses Landes, und die völlige Gleichstellung des Fremden mit dem Einheimischen bildet den Grundtypus des jüdischen Rechts. Im jüdischen Rechte verleiht nicht die Heimat das Menschenrecht, sondern das Menschenrecht verleiht die Heimat! Und zwischen Menschen- und Bürgerrecht kennt das jüdische Gesetz keine Scheidung. Jeder, der sich zu dem Sittengesetz der Menschheit bekannte, — שבע מצות ב׳׳נ — war heimatberechtigt in Judäa. Dieses Prinzip, das die Menschenachtung ablöst von der Zufälligkeit der Geburt und des Geschickes, wird überall im Gesetze durch die Erinnerung an das in Ägypten Erlebte proklamiert. In Ägypten war zuerst die Minderberechtigung der iwrischen Fremdlinge ausgeklügelt, die Härte und Grausamkeit kam von selbst hinterdrein, wie überall, wo zuerst das Rechtsbewusstsein irre geführt ist.

בחמר, “with mortar;” at the beginning only this aspect of the labour was conducted with pressure; eventually, everything the Hebrews had to do was done under constant pressure by taskmasters.

את כל עבודתם, in addition with all their other work inside the urban areas, everything was under harsh conditions.

אשר עבדו בהם, inside the city בפרך, all of it under the most intolerable conditions.

למילדת (the Piel participle) — This is synonymous with מולידות (the Hiphil participle, and both denote the women who assist the mother in bringing the child to birth). But some verbs are used in forms of a light conjugation (i. e. one which has no strong Dagesh as a characteristic) or in forms of a strong conjugation (one that has such a Dagesh), as e. g., שׁוֹבֵר (Kal) and מְשַׁבֵּר (Piel); דּוֹבֵר (Kal) and מְדַבֵּר (Piel). both having the same meaning; similarly here we may have מוליד (the Hiphil — without a strong Dagesh) or מְיַלֵּד (the Piel), both signifying one who helps to bring to birth.

למילדות העבריות; the ones who were Jewish.

למילדות העבריות, to the midwives resident in the capital. It was obviously impossible for such a large number of people residing in so many different parts of Egypt, to all be serviced by only two midwives. However, after the midwives in the capital, though Egyptian, betrayed the instructions by their king and explained to their king why they had done so, the king did not bother to rely on midwives anywhere else either, and the scheme was abandoned.

ויאמר מלך מצרים למילדות, The king of Egypt said to the midwives, etc. So far the Torah had described everything that happened in the plural, i.e. "they imposed taskmasters," "they enslaved them," etc. The king enjoyed a consensus of his people for his action (perhaps because the discrimination against the Jews had not yet been enshrined in law, but was "merely" a clever ruse to disenfranchise part of the population). Now, however, the king alone resorted to a measure which would not become public knowledge and would not run the risk of the Jewish mothers trying to hide the fact that they were pregnant so as to mislead the midwives. I will go into details later.

The Hebrew midwives - the understanding of our sages, o blessed memory, and Onkelos, and Rashbam, and Ramban and Ra"z is that those midwives were from the seed of Israel, and the understanding of the Alexandrian translator, and[Eusebius Sophronius] Hieronymos, and Yoseohus Flavius, and Don Itzchak [Abrabanel] is that they were Egyptian, these midvives of the Hebrews. And this is right, since how does it make any sense that [Pharaoh] would order Jewish women to destroy all the children of their own people and believe that they won't reveal such a thing? And [Philiphus] Klericus affirms that if they were not Jewish the text should have read "midwives to the Hebrews". And the Ra"z comes and says that it should read "the midwives that served the Hebrews" - and this has no standing, since the text could have said "the midwives that served the Hebrews" by omitting the word 'et' as it does in (Jer. 31:29) "every man that eats sour grapes". And what is proved by the phrase 'the midwives feared God' is no proof at all, since it is not written here Hashem, rather, E-lohim, and everyone who has a god (a God of truth or a god of falsehood) would fear killing babies that did not sin at all, whatever people they are from. And an example of this is what is said regarding Amalek 'and he attacked you in the rear, and you were tired and exhausted, and he did not fear E-lohim' (Deu. 25:18) and my dear student, R. Yaakov Chay Pardo, may the tzadik's memory bring blessings to us, adds that if they were from another people it made more sense to say they did this out of fear and not of love, since if they were Jewish what need would there be to remind us that they feared God, since all humans love the children of their own people. Also, what they point out that the names Shifra and Puah are not Egyptian, but come from Hebrew roots, this is not relevant, since they would come from the Land of Goshen, that is closer to the land of Israel (see Gen. 46:34), and it is possible that they just spoke a language closer to Hebrew like Cannanite, and so their names would be closer to Hebrew and Cannanite. And another thing that is clear is that for a people that is "many and strong" makes no sense to have only those two midwives, and so Rabbi Ibn Ezra and (and after him the Ra'z) says that those two were the supervisors of the all the midwives; and Rabbi Ovadia Sforno says that Pharaoh talked first to the midwives of his city, and after them not doing his bidding, he did not trust others from other places; and more, this is happening far away from his eyes, since Israel is living in the Land of Goshen and not in Egypt. How else could we explain that the land is full of them, but that "in the land of Goshen, where Israel lived, there was no hail"? And I say that Pharaoh did not want to talk to all the midwives at once, since if all of them would kill all the Israelite babies at one moment, the thing would be known and publicized.And if just two of them were going around killing them - and not all the other midwives, others could say it was an accident, and he thought to order all the midwives in small groups, so that the matter would not be known [if it had worked with those first two].

It sometimes comes in the קל (light) conjugation . . . מְיַלְּדוֹת (delivering births) is considered the כבד (heavy) conjugation since there is a dagesh in the ל . מוֹלִידוֹת [which means the same] is considered the קל (light) conjugation since there is no dagesh in the ל .

ושם השנית פועה. Her name reflected her vocation as mentioned in Sotah 11 פועה לולד, she would encourage the baby to leave its mother’s womb by whispering to it. Nowadays (author’s time) midwives call encouragement into the ears of the mother about to give birth.

V. 15 u. 16. Was auf indirektem Wege noch nicht gelingen wollte, versuchte der König nun auf direktem, kürzerem, aber noch immer möglichst verdecktem Wege. אבנים: Man denkt dabei an den Sitz, auf welchem die Frau sich befindet, wenn sie gebiert. Es kommt aber das Wort in dieser Bedeutung nicht wieder vor. משבר ist dafür der gewöhnliche Ausdruck. אבנים kommt überhaupt nur noch einmal vor und heißt da: Töpferscheibe. Ohnehin dürfte schwerlich an die Unterlage zu denken sein, auf welche das bereits geborene Kind kommt. Dort hat es sich in der Regel bereits als lebend angekündigt. Es geht aber aus dem Ganzen hervor, dass der König eine heimliche Tötung beabsichtigte, die selbst der gebärenden Mutter nicht zum Bewusstsein kommen sollte. Auch die Weisen im Rabba denken z. St. keineswegs an einen Sitz der Gebärerin, sondern an einen Körperteil der Gebärerin selbst. Eine der dortigen Erläuterungen heißt: מקום שהולד נפנה בו, der Ort, in welchem das Kind sich wendet, also offenbar der Mutterschoß, in welchem das Kind die Bewegungen zur Geburt macht. Dieselbe Auffassung ergibt sich auch aus Sota 11 b.: אר׳׳ח סימן גדול. מסר להן בן פניו למטה וכו׳ verglichen mit Nidda 31 a.: זו הופכת פנים וזה אינו הופך פניו, woraus sich ergibt, dass die den Hebammen empfohlene Aufmerksamkeit sich auf einen der wirklichen Geburt vorangehenden Moment beziehen kann und zwar denjenigen meint, in welchem das Kind die zur Geburt notwendige Wendung macht, die bei weiblichen und männlichen Geburten verschieden ist. Dies dürfte uns ein Wink sein, אבנים als einen uneigentlichen Ausdruck zu fassen. Der Töpfer heißt ja auch יוצר, er formt etwas und unter seiner Hand gewinnt es Gestalt. Jirm. 18, 4 in der Werkstätte des Töpfers ist אבנים entschieden die Bildungsstätte, die Stätte, worauf ein Stoff irgend eine Form erhält, wahrscheinlich ist es eine kreisende Scheibe, an die dort gedacht wird, und wagen wir zu glauben, dass es hier heiße: "Habet ein Auge auf den kreisenden Mutterschoß", sehet so früh als möglich zu ermitteln, ob es ein Knabe oder ein Mädchen ist, und ehe es noch geboren ist, greift rasch zu und tötet die Knaben. Die Wurzel ist jedenfalls אבן, die Form ist א֗בֶן, daher אָבנים. Möglich, dass die Töpferscheibe aus zwei Steinen bestanden. Möglich, dass dem ganzen Worte die Wurzel בנה (mit vorgesetztem. א׳ wie אפן von פנה) zu Grunde liegt, die ja auch nicht bloß bauen, sondern auch gestalten bedeutet: תבנית.

למילדת “to the midwife;” there is a disagreement in the Talmud regarding the identity of these two women. According to one opinion they were Yocheved and her daughter Miriam. According to the second opinion, they were mother-in- law Yocheved, and her daughter-in-law. Elisheva, wife of Aaron. (Talmud Sotah, folio 11) An alternate interpretation: this interpretation takes its cue from the fact that the Torah spelled the word מילדת in the singular mode instead of with the letter ו, seeing that there were two women. According to the spelling there was only a single midwife, Yocheved. Miriam was a teenager not capable yet of acting as a midwife, rather she acted as a bleater, to help the infant cry while still inside its mother’s womb encouraging it to emerge from the womb as fast as possible.

שפרה SHIPHRAH — This was Jochebed; she bore this additional name because she used to put the babe after its birth into good physical condition (משפרת) by the care she bestowed upon it (Sotah 11b).

The same is true of the words שוֹבֵר (break) and מְשַׁבֵּר , דוֹבֵר (talk) and מְדַבֵּר . שׁוֹבֵר is in the קל conjugation, whereas מְשַבֵּר is in the כבד conjugation, yet their meaning is basically the same. The same is true of דוֹבֵר and מְדַבֵּר .

למילדות העבריות, to the Hebrew midwives, etc..It is interesting to surmise what exactly the king said to these midwives the first time. [remember that the Torah credits the king with a second אמירה in the next verse. Ed.] Perhaps the Torah has clued us in with the words: "the name of one was Shifrah, whereas the name of the other one was Puah." No doubt there had been numerous midwives who attended the Jewish women. The king did not bother to know any of them by name except those whom he entrusted with a specific task. The Torah tells us that the king spoke to them by name, thus selecting them to perform a Royal command. By calling them by name, the king elevated them to the status of "midwives -in-chief." He had to commence his instructions by saying: "when you deliver the Hebrew women, etc." meaning that the order he was giving applied not only to those two but to all the Hebrew midwives. He instructed them directly as a sign of promoting them over their colleagues.

שפרה, פועה, some commentators claim that there were many midwives in Egypt, as it is impossible to believe that the two mentioned here could look after all the wives of 600000 adult males. These two were the supervisors of all the other midwives.

פועה PUAH — This was Miriam, and she bore this additional name because she used to Call aloud and speak and croon to the babe just as women do who soothe a child when it is crying (Sotah 11b).

This is Yocheved. . . It is written nearby (v. 21) that Hashem gave Houses to the midwives, which Rashi there explains as “Houses [i.e. families] of the Kohanim and the Levites and Royalty.” And we do not find that these families came from another woman, rather from Yocheved and Miriam. Therefore Shifra must be Yocheved, for she was Miriam’s mother — as it is not logical to write first the daughter and then the mother. [It follows that] Puah is Miriam.

We encounter the expression אמירה as one which describes appointing someone to a high position in Deut. 26, 17-18 where Israel and G'd each elevate the other to an exclusively superior status. Israel had appointed G'd as its only G'd, and in return G'd appointed Israel as His chosen people. Perhaps the fact that the midwives risked the displeasure of Pharaoh as well as being demoted or worse is reflected in the reward G'd gave them as reported by the Torah in verse 21.

פועה has the meaning of crying aloud, as (Isaiah 42:14) “I will cry (אפעה) like a travailing woman”.

בילדכן WHEN YE DO THE OFFICE OF A MIDWIFE — This word (the Piel) has the same force as בהולידכן (the Hiphil): when you assist them to give birth.

על האבנים; on the birth-chair. We encounter this expression משבר meaning birth-chair in Kings II 19,3 באו בנים עד המשבר, “the babes have reached the birth-stool.” The expression אבנים also occurs in Jeremiah 18,3 where it describes a tool similar to round millstones.

ויאמר…וראיתן על האבנים, He said: "look at the birthstool, etc." Why did Pharaoh have to instruct the midwives to look at the birthstool? Was it not enough to instruct them to kill male babies? It is true that our sages in Sotah 11 say that Pharaoh gave the midwives a sign which would alert them to the approaching birth of a male baby i.e. if the head of the baby was facing downwards, whereas if the head faced upwards this was an indication that a baby girl was about to be born. I have never understood why the midwives would need to be told such a sign [After all they were supposed to be the experts, not Pharaoh. Ed.]. Another thing we have to know is why Pharaoh did not decree death on all Jewish babies. It is most unlikely that he was motivated by a desire to ensure that some Jews would survive. Why did he not command the midwives simply: "kill them," without suggesting that they do something first which would eventually result in the death of these boy babies? What is the precise meaning of "If it turns out to be a daughter, let her live?" If Pharaoh himself had only decreed death on the males, why would the midwives need to be told to let the girls live? Surely midwives would not murder voluntarily!

Only in regard to the male children because his astrologers. . . We might suggest that Pharaoh’s decree was to prevent Bnei Yisrael from multiplying [and not because of his astrologers]. However, then Pharaoh should have killed the females. For if Pharaoh kills the males and leaves the females, as long as one male remains he could impregnate many females. (Re”m) But it seems to me [to explain Rashi otherwise]: If Pharaoh’s decree was only to prevent Bnei Yisrael from multiplying, why did he innovate the decree pertaining to the midwives? He was concerned about them multiplying because of “he will join our enemies and fight against us,” and this problem was removed by the decree of [appointing] the conscription officers. Rather, this new decree was “Because his astrologers. . .” (Nachalas Yaakov) See further elaboration there.

וראיתן על האבנים , you are to closely inspect the birth stools. Pharaoh gave the midwives a sign how to recognise if the approaching birth would be that of a male baby or a female. If a male, the face would be turned downwards and if a female the baby’s face would be looking upwards, as each would do during marital intercourse. [This editor finds it hard to believe that professional midwives needed instruction on this subject from Pharaoh. Ed.]

על האבנים UPON THE STOOLS — the seat for the woman in the act of childbirth; in another passage (Isaiah 37:3) Scripture terms it מַשְׁבֵּר. Similar is, (Jeremiah 18:3) “He was at work on the אבנים" — the place of the vessels of (being produced by) the craftsmanship of the potter.

וחיה. The stress is on the first syllable, just as in shavah from shav. We encounter the use of this term in Genesis 11,12 where the Torah, when telling us about the age of Arpachshad when he sired children, writes: ארפכשד חי, ”Arpachshad had lived, etc.” The parallel construction in the feminine mode is chayah. However, in a verse in Kohelet 6,6 אילו חיה אלף שנים, “if he were to live for 1000 years,” the stress is on the last syllable of the word chayah and is in the masculine mode, just like עשה or עלה, which being verbal modes are in the masculine mode, the letter ה at the end notwithstanding.

And she will live ( וְתִחְיֶה ). Rashi is answering the question that וְחָיָה (lit. “and he will live”) is in the masculine form, as is seen in many places, [and thus it does not fit the subject (girl) of the verse]. But this וְחָיָה is in the feminine form, and is like the term וְתִחְיֶה . For there is a difference. The word in our verse has the accent on the next-to-last syllable, on the ח , thus it is in the feminine form. But when the accent is on the last syllable, on the י , it is in the masculine form. We find [examples of the masculine form] in Megillas Esther (4:11) where it is written: אֶת שַׁרְבִיט הַזָּהָב וְחָיָה [the accent is on the י ]. And the same is in Koheles (6:6): וְאִלּוּ חָיָה אֶלֶף שָׁנִים . Another explanation: [Rashi is emphasizing that] since the letter ו begins the word וְחָיָה , this switches it to the future tense.

We must assume that Pharaoh wanted to ensure that his plan would succeed. Which expectant mother would expose her unborn child to be killed by inviting the midwife? Pharaoh therefore told the midwives to behave in a manner which could not arouse any suspicion. By having a look at the birthstool to determine if a girl or a boy was about to be born, they would be able to kill the baby prior to its being born and tell the mother that the baby had been stillborn. The midwives would announce this before the baby had left the mother's womb. How did the midwives know all this? This is where the sign mentioned in the Talmud comes in. Pharaoh told the midwives how to make sure beforehand. When he said והמתן אותו "and you shall kill it," the extra letter ו indicates that they should only kill after first having made sure that it was a male baby. The baby was to be killed before it could be heard at the moment of birth.

אם בן הוא והמיתן אותו, “if it is a son, you are to kill him;“ when the Egyptians realised that they could not prevent the Israelites from continuing to increase at an alarming rate, they decided to at least kill their males who might grow up and fight them.

'אם בן הוא וגו IF IT BE A SON etc. — He was particular only about the male children because his astrologers had told him that there was to be born to a Hebrew woman a son who would become their deliverer (Exodus Rabbah 1:18).

The words אם בת היא mean that Pharaoh was anxious to avoid having the mothers think that the midwives were implicated in murder; therefore as long as the mothers felt that some of their babies survived birth they would not grow suspicious of the midwives. Presumably the midwives were not even to reveal that the stillborn baby had been a boy. In this fashion suspicions could be long delayed.

ואם בת היא וחיה, “but if it is a daughter, let her live;” women are not in the habit of fighting during a war. They therefore did not need to be afraid of them.

וחיה has the same meaning as ותחיה THEN SHE SHALL LIVE.

Pharaoh displayed a double portion of shrewdness since it was also his objective to prevent the Jews from emigrating. As the proportion of females would increase they would be forced to look for Egyptian husbands due to the dearth of eligible Jewish males. Once the two peoples began to merge through intermarriage there was no longer any fear that they would try to emigrate. Moreover, from a mystical point of view, intermarriage results in holy souls becoming so intertwined with souls of impure origin that any eventual separation would become well nigh impossible. After all, our sages are on record in Vayikra Rabbah 32,5 that the Jewish people could not be redeemed from Egypt until 4 conditions existed, one of which was careful abstention from all kinds of incest and sexual licentiousness. Kabbalists interpret the words גן נעול in Song of Songs 4,12 as "chaste as a garden locked," i.e. that if the Jews had intermarried in Egypt they would never have been redeemed.

ותחיין את הילדים This may mean THEY MAINTAINED THE CHILDREN IN LIFE — they provided them with food (Sotah 11b). The Targum renders ותחיין the first time it occurs (i. e. in this verse) by וקימא (which means, “and they — the women — preserved the babes”). and the second time (Exodus 1:18) by וקימתן (which means, “and ye women have preserved etc.”) The Targum is able to distinguish between the two meanings of this word, but this cannot be done in Hebrew because in the Hebrew language in the case of fem. plur. this word and similar forms (ending in נָה or ןָ) are used in the sense of “they did something” (3rd person) and in the sense of “ye did something” (2nd person). For example: (Exodus 2:19) “And they (the daughters of Jethro) said, (וַתֹּאמַרְןָ) “An Egyptian man etc.”, which is the past tense (the Rashi text must read here לשון עָבַר) (imperf. with Vau conv.), just as one would use וַיֹאמְרוּ if one were speaking of men; (Jeremiah 54:25) “Ye women have spoken (ותדברנה) with your mouths”, having the same meaning as דברתן, and corresponding to ותדברו when used of men; (Ezekiel 13:19) “And ye (women) have profaned Me (ותחללנה) among My people” which is a past tense, the same as חללתן corresponding to ותחללו when used of men.

ותיראנה, meaning “they feared, revered.” If the word had been spelled without the letter י it would be a derivative of ראה, to see. It appears in that mode in Exodus 2,6.

ותיראן המילדות את האלוקים, The midwives were G'd-fearing, etc." Why did the Torah repeat that: 1) "they did not do what the king had told them to do," 2) "they kept the children alive?" According to Sotah 11 they supplied food and water for these boy babies. If so, why had they not been doing this before the king's decree came into effect? Perhaps all the Torah wanted to tell us is that they did not stop to provide these services at their own expense. The Torah therefore would describe the level of the midwives' fear of G'd. They did what they could to keep these babies alive; they most certainly did not kill the babies.

They provided water and food for them. When it says “And did not do as the Egyptian king had told them,” we infer that the midwives did not kill them. So what does “they kept the infant boys alive” teach? That “they provided water and food. . .”

V. 17. ותחייץ, sie taten nicht nur nicht, was der König sie geheißen, sondern taten alles Mögliche, die Kinder am Leben zu erhalten. Alles, was der König versuchte, schlug ins Gegenteil um. Fortan mussten ja die Hebammen als rechtschaffene Frauen alles Mögliche tun, mit aller ihrer Kunst arbeiten, auf ihren Knien Gott anflehen, dass jetzt kein totes Kind zur Welt käme, kein Kind zur Welt käme, das irgend einen Schaden habe, damit man sie nicht verdächtige, sie hätten auf des Königs Befehl irgend etwas getan oder unterlassen, und dadurch sei das Kind gefährdet worden.

ותחיין, there is no difference in meaning if the form of the past tense as a future with the letter ו in front is used or if the Torah had used a regular past tense such as והחיו את הילדים.

This word וַתְּחַיֶיo and any form thereof is used to mean: “they” (fem.) did something, as well as: “you” (fem. pl.) did something. In other words, there is no difference [in spelling or nikud] between the third person plural feminine and the second person plural feminine, in the future tense [which here is switched to the past by the ו ]. (Re”m) It seems that Rashi offers the above explanation because he is answering the question: Since we explained the first “ וַתְּחַיֶיo (they kept. . . alive)” as providing water and food, the Targum is difficult to understand. It translated the first “ וַתְּחַיֶיo as וְקַיָימָא (they kept alive),” yet the second (v. 18) as וְקַיֵימְתּוּן . Why the switch? Otherwise we could have said that וְקַיֵימְתּוּן means they provided water and food, and for this reason the translation differs. But according to our explanation that the first וַתְּחַיֶיo means providing water and food, why did the Targum translate it as וְקַיָימָא ? Therefore Rashi explains: “This is because, in Hebrew. . .” [Therefore the Targum translated the verbs according to their relative subjects].

It is also possible that as long as everything was normal they never even thought about providing food and water for the babies. Once Pharaoh had decreed that the boy babies should be killed, the midwives feared that if by chance one of those children should die they would be blamed for the death. They now began to provide food and water for these babies in order to deflect such suspicions. Perhaps this is the reason for the word את when the Torah describes the midwives as G'd-fearing. They also wanted to be seen as G'd-fearing in the eyes of man.

You [women] have spoken, וַתְּדַבֵּרְנָה , is the same as דִבַּרְתֶּן . Just as we find וַתּאמַרְנָה (third person, plural feminine) in one place, and וַתְּדַבֵּרְנָה in another, and this [second] word is like וַתּאמַרְנָה , with the same conjugation — yet it means the same as דִבַּרְתֶּן , which is second person. Here as well, the first וַתְּחַיֶיo is third person, while the second וַתְּחַיֶין is second person, although they has the same conjugation.

כאשר דבר, as he had said. The letter כ which precedes the word אשר is a Kaf hadimyon describing a comparison, a similarity. The Torah tells us that not only did the midwives not do what the king had ordered them to do, but that they did not even do anything similar to what the king had demanded of them. The Torah could also be telling us something about the general fate of Royal decrees. Normally, when a powerful king issues a decree it is observed by his subjects due to fear. As people notice that not every violation is followed by severe penalties, more and more people begin to ignore irksome decrees. In this instance the Torah tells us that the decree was not even observed when it was still new. The midwives לא עשו, never carried out, כאשר דבר, as soon as he had said it. The word כאשר may be understood as "as soon as," just as in Genesis 27,30: "as soon as Isaac finished speaking."

מדוע עשיתם, “why did you betray my trust?” After all, when I gave you these instructions you did not refuse the task, making me believe that you would indeed cause the death of these boy babies. “My trust has been betrayed.”

מדוע לא עשיתם…זתחיינן את הילדים? "Why did you not do…and you kept these children alive?" What did the king refer to when he asked the midwives: "why did you do, etc?" Their crime was what they had not done! Not killing the babies surely is not described as an activity! The king should have asked: "why did you not do etc.?" Furthermore, what did the king mean when he accused the midwives of keeping the children alive? If he referred to the fact that they supplied food and water, how did the midwives' answer satisfy him? Their answer would be equivalent to rebellion against the king's command!

ותחיינה את הילדים, not only did you not kill these babies, but you were actively involved in ensuring their survival!

Perhaps Pharaoh was not really sure that they had been supplying food to these babies as they certainly would not do this while other Egyptians were looking on. One could certainly not accuse any Israelites as reporting such a thing to the king. Basing itself on Exodus 3,22 where the Israelites were told 12 months before the Exodus that at that time women would "borrow" silver trinkets from their neighbours, Vayikra Rabbah 32,5 points out that not a single Israelite revealed this information to Pharaoh or to any other Egyptian. Israelites did not snitch on one another during that time. It must be assumed therefore that Egyptians did observe the midwives bringing victuals to the houses of pregnant Israelite women. These Egyptians also became aware that boy babies were being born and raised. Pharaoh therefore referred to the food the midwives were bringing to the pregnant mothers when he asked: "why did you do this?" Unless the midwives kept the boy babies alive, Pharaoh would have attributed their actions as designed to help the baby girls stay alive. Under the circumstances, i.e. the appearance of live baby boys, he had to assume that their existence was due to the midwives' action. Pharaoh simply used his powers of imagination. He had no proof of any sort that the midwives had contravened his orders.

כי חיות הנה signifies they are just as skilful as midwives. The Aramaic for מילדות, midwives, is חיתא (hence the term חיות in this verse). Our Rabbis, however, (taking this word in the sense of animals) gave the following explanation (Sotah 11b): they have been compared to the beasts of the field which do not require the help of midwives. And where are they compared to animals? (Genesis 49:9) “Judah is a young lion”; (Genesis 27) “Benjamin is a wolf that leareth”; (Deuteronomy 33:17) “Joseph is the firstling of his ox”; (Genesis 49:21) “Naphtali is a hind sent forth”. As for the ancestors of those tribes about whom such a comparison is not expressly written Scripture implicitly includes them in the several blessings bestowed upon their brothers, (and thus they also are compared, as their brothers, to animals), for Scripture states, (Genesis 49:28) “And he blessed them etc.” (cf. Rashi on these words). Then, again, it is written, (Ezekiel 19:2) “How was thy mother a lioness!” (The prophet is addressing the princes of Israel as the representatives of the people, and by the term “thy mother” means the progenitors of the nation; the chapter proceeds to speak of the mother’s offspring as “whelps”).

כי חיות הנה, “healthy, alert and the birthing process proceeds smoothly and quickly.”

כי חיות הנה, they themselves are expert in the art of midwifery. If we were to attempt to do anything contrary to accepted practice or even to speak to them in a suspicious manner they would notice this immediately and would not ask any of us again to assist when they were due to give birth. They argued that it is not worth the king’s while to have only a few babies killed.

כי לא כנשים המצריות העבריות, "the Hebrew women are unlike the Egyptian women, etc." Why did the midwives use such cumbersome language? All they had to say was לא כמצריות העבריות. Besides, how does their answer address Pharaoh's accusation that they supplied food to keep the babies alive? It appears that Pharaoh was satisfied with their answer! Another difficulty is the word וילדו; why did they not say ויולדות, "and they proceeded to give birth?"

They may be compared to animals of the field. . . [Rashi offers this explanation because of] a difficulty with the first explanation: Even if they were as knowledgeable as midwives, but a midwife also requires a midwife to deliver her. (Re”m)

V. 19. כי חיות הנה, es ist (mehr) Leben in ihnen, von נח ,חיי statt דגש. Wie schon (Jeschurun VIII. S. 436) bemerkt, bezeichnet חיי, unterschieden von חיה, die spezielle physische Lebenstätigkeit, die von innen heraus alles Entsprechende selbständig in sich aufnimmt und alles Fremdartige von sich abstößt. Jeder sich selbst ernährende und selbst verteidigende Punkt ist חי. Unsere Frauen sind nicht wie die ägyptischen, sie sind lebenskräftig, sie brauchen keinen andern. So wie das Tier ausgestattet ist mit der lebendigen Kraft, den Akt der Geburt ohne Beistand zu vollbringen, so auch unsere Frauen.

What a lioness is your mother! In other words, the verse compares the congregation of Israel (“your mother”) to a lioness.

The expression נשים מצריות mentioned by the midwives refers to the elite of the Egyptian women. The midwives explained to Pharaoh that the Hebrew women were superior even to the elite of the Egyptian women in that they either did not need the services of a midwife at all, or were חיות, knowledgeable in that art, and helped each other without reference to outside professionals.

Perhaps the midwives hinted that the Jewish women possessed a) the superior skills with which they were born, b) the skills possessed by the natural born Egyptian women which they had acquired during the years they had lived in Egypt. They combined the best skills of both categories of women. If Pharaoh wanted to know why they had not assisted in the births as emissaries of the king, the Hebrew women had always given birth already before the midwife could arrive; the Hebrew women had misled them concerning when a birth would be due. All of this is part of the meaning of their being חיות. The word וילדו means the birth had already taken place by the time the midwives arrived. If they had visited these expectant women bringing with them food and water it was in order to win these women's confidence so that when the time to give birth arrived they would trust them and let them assist. However, all this had been in vain. If, after finding that these women had already had their babies, the midwives would have taken the food away they would only have aroused suspicion that the food had not been intended as a friendly gift at all. In this manner the midwives satisfied Pharaoh while admitting that what the Egyptian women had reported to him was absolutely true, but the conclusions they had drawn did not fit the facts.

וַיֵּיטָב means HE DID GOOD TO THEM. — The following is the difference between certain forms in a word (verb) whose root is two letters when one prefixes ו and י to them: when it intends to express the meaning “and he caused someone or something to do a particular action” (i. e. the 3rd masc. sing, imperf. Hiphil with Vau conversive), the י has the vowel Tzéré which is what we call Kametz Katan, as, (in this verse) “And God dealt well (וַיֶּיטָב) with the midwives” (to Rashi the root it טב; we take it as יטב); (Lamentations 2:5) “וַיָרָב for the daughter of Judah [mourning]” i. e. He increased (made great) the mourning; (root רֹב; we take it as רבה). Similarly (II Chronicles 36:20) “וַיָּגָל the remnant” which occurs in connection with Nebuzaradon, i. e. he caused the remnant to be exiled; (Judges 15:4) וַיָּפָן tail to tail”, i. e. he turned the tails one towards the other (more lit., he caused one tail to turn to the other) — all these express the meaning “he caused others to do something” (i. e. they are of the Hiphil conjugation). When, however, it speaks in the sense of “and he did something” (3rd masc. sing, imperf. Kal with Vau conv.), the י has the vowel Chirik. For example, (Leviticus 10:20) “וַיִיטַב in his eyes” — this means, “it was good”. Similarly (in this verse) the people”, i. e. the people became many; (2 Kings 25:21) “וַיִגָל Judah”, i. e. Judah became an exile; (2:12) “וַיִפֵן this way and that way”, i. e. he turned this way and that way. Do not answer me (do not raise an objection) by quoting the words וַיֵּלֶךְ and וַיֵּשֶׁב and וַיַרֶד and וַיֵּצֵא (saying that these verbal forms also have ו and י prefixed and the י has the vowel Tzéré and yet they are Kal, not Hiphil forms), because these are not of the same class of verbs as those above-mentioned, for the י is part of the root in them — in יֵלֵךְ and יֵשֵׁב and יֵרֵד and יֵצֵא, the י is a third root letter in each of these.

וייטב אלוקים למילדות, G'd dealt well with the midwives, etc. We are entitled to know what precisely were the favours G'd did for the midwives. Perhaps the verse alludes to the houses that are described in the next verse. If that were so, however, there would have been no point in interrupting this sequence by stating that "the people increased and became very powerful." It appears rather that the verse explains the cause of the increase in the numbers of Israelites. The very food and water which the midwives provided resulted in G'd dealing well with the midwives. G'd enabled the midwives to continue their economically expensive efforts to feed the many newly born babies. Had G'd not helped them economically, they would not have had the wherewithal to supply all that food which resulted in the increase of the numbers of Israelites. The Torah reports the reward G'd provided for the midwives themselves only in the next verse where we are told that He built houses for them.

When it speaks in terms of “he did.” Meaning: he himself underwent the action [i.e. a transitive verb].

V. 20. וייטב א׳ למילדות. Siehe oben zu V. 17.

וייטב אלוקים, “G–d dealt well, etc.” Rashi explains this as a reference to the “houses” that G–d built for the midwife. This does not sound plausible, seeing that there is a whole verse between that statement and this verse. We must understand this statement as referring to something in our verse, i.e. the continued increase in the number of Hebrews. When the midwife(es) had told Pharaoh that the Jewish women were so lively that they had no need for midwives to assist them, Pharaoh had called them liars. When Pharaoh realised this, he was forced to agree that a single or even two midwives would not be able to suppress the increase of the Jews in Egypt.

וייטב אלוהים למילדות, “G-d dealt kindly with the midwives.” How did this “goodness” of G-d become evident? Pharaoh did not suspect that the midwives had deliberately let the boys live, but he figured that the contribution by two midwives to the increase in the Israelite population would not be significant, in light of the many Jewish mothers that were giving birth all the time. Therefore he accepted their explanations at face value.

וייטב אלהים למילדת THEREFORE GOD DEALT WELL WITH THE MIDWIVES — What was the good He dealt out to them? The next verse gives the reply to this —

Do not reject my [explanation] because of the words וילך . . . These words [seem problematic because they] also are vocalized with a צירי yet they mean that he himself underwent the action.

The Torah may also have hinted that when G'd realised the degree of piety demonstrated by the midwives, He decided to reward them by providing them with unlimited opportunities to continue their good work. The word וייטב is followed by וירב העם to show cause and effect. The "good" G'd did for the midwives was that they saw their efforts rewarded by an increase in the Israelite population. Who knows if leaders such as Moshe and Aaron were not provided by G'd for Israel as a direct reward for the selfless efforts of Yocheved and Miriam (the two midwives)? From a mystical dimension, Moses is perceived as a soul embracing all of Israel, i.e. our souls are "branches" of Moses' soul as per Isaiah 63,11 where Moses is equated with G'd's people Israel.

According to Rashi who describes the "good" G'd did for the midwives as the houses G'd is reported to have provided for them as mentioned in the next verse, we could say that the Torah first had to mention that the people kept increasing as providing a caste of Priests as well as Royalty, would not make much sense unless there were a sufficient number of Israelites to warrant all this.

ויעש להם בתים HE MADE THEM HOUSES — houses (dynasties) of the priesthood and the Levites and of royalty which are all termed בתים, “houses”, as it is said, (1 Kings 9:1) “and Solomon built the house of the Lord and the house of the king”: “the house of the Lord” i. e. a dynasty of priests and Levites — from Jochebed (Shifrah); and “the house of the king”, i. e. a royal dynasty — from Miriam (Puah), just as it is stated in Treatise Sotah 11b.

.ויעש להם בתים. A form of house arrest, to prevent them from attending Jewish women about to give birth.

ויעש להם בתים, He made houses for them.” This means that G’d made these midwives especially fruitful and people would refer to these offspring as “the children of Shifrah and Puah.” [instead of their fathers being mentioned as the progenitors. Ed.] The expression בתים, i.e. plural of בית is used in lieu of the word בנים, children, as for instance in Samuel II 7,11 בית יעשה לך ה' “for He will establish a dynasty for you.” Other commentators understand this as relating to the line ויהי כאשר יראו המילדות את האלוקים ויעש להם בתים, “when, due to the midwives being in awe of G’d, and Pharaoh’s decree therefore becoming futile, Pharaoh placed pregnant Jewish women in houses surrounded by Egyptians so that their neighbours would know when they would be likely to give birth.” These women were forbidden to give birth anywhere else but in these houses. Still a third way of interpreting this verse is that the “houses” were jails in which the midwives would henceforth be kept. The word בית does appear in this sense in Genesis 40,14 Joseph saying to the chief of the cupbearers והוצאתני מן הבית הזה, “so that you will bring me out of this jail (the jail being called a house).”

Houses of Kohanim and the Levites . . . וייטב [Rashi is explaining that] “He was good,” and “he gave them houses” are not two separate points, [as Rashi preceded this by saying: “What was this good?”]

V. 21. להם, dem Volke. Als der König sah, dass nach seiner Maßregel das Volk nur immer zahlreicher und kräftiger wurde und ihm immer mehr Familien entstanden, da ward er endlich wild und gab den offenen Blutbefehl zur Vertilgung der jüdischen Knaben.

ויהי כי יראו המילדות, “as a result of the midwives displaying that they were G–d fearing, etc. instead of obeying Pharaoh’s commands, he established houses where they had to check in and report on their activities.

ויעש להם, “He made for them;” we find in many places in the Torah that the masculine pronoun is used when the subject happens to be feminine. [The word for “for them” should have been: להן, seeing that the subject, the midwives were feminine. Ed.] To quote just two examples of similar occurrences: Genesis 31,9: ויצל אלוקים את מקנה, “G-d saved the livestock of your father,” אביכם where the grammatically correct word should have been: אביכן. Or, Exodus 2,17: ויבאו הרועים ויגרשום, “the male shepherds came and chased them (the daughters of Yitro) away.” The correct word should have been ויגרשון. There are many examples of a similar kind throughout the Holy Scriptures.

בתים, literally, “houses,” but that word is a substitute for “families,” in this instance. The children of human beings are often referred to as בית, as we find in connection with David Samuel II 7,11: והגיד לך ה' כי בית יעשה לך , “the Lord has told you that he will let you have children.” [The author followsthis with more examples. Ed.] Here too, the midwives gave birth to sons, including such people as Moses. A different explanation of our verse: The subject in the verse is not G-d, but Pharaoh, who set apart houses for the midwives from which they were not to depart. Instead of their visiting expectant mothers, these were brought to the midwives for treatment when their due date drew near. This would facilitate male babies being drowned forthwith.

לכל עמו This may be translated AND PHARAOH GAVE COMMAND REGARDING ALL (לכל) HIS PEOPLE — Regarding them, too, he made a decree (Sotah 12a). For on the day when Moses was born his astrologers said to him, “To-day their deliverer has been born, but we know not whether he is born of an Egyptian father or of an Israelite; but we see by our astrological art that he will ultimately suffer misfortune through water”. Pharaoh therefore made a decree that day regarding the Egyptians also, as it is said here, “Every son that is born [ye shall cast into the river]”, and it is not stated “[every son] who is born to the Hebrews”. They (the astrologers), however, were not aware that Moses was ultimately to suffer misfortune through the waters of Meribah and not through the waters of the Nile (Exodus Rabbah 1:18; Sotah 12a; cf. also Rashi on Numbers 20:13).

ויצו פרעה לכל עמו לאמר, the meaning of the line is: “and this is what he said to them.” Every time the word לאמר occurs in the Torah it implies a repetition of words spoken which had been introduced either with the word ויצו or ויקרא, or וידבר, or ויאמר as we explained in connection with Genesis 8,15.

ויצו פרעה לכל עמו, Pharaoh commanded his entire nation, etc. Whereas originally Pharaoh's command to the midwives to kill new born boy babies was a secret deal between him and the midwives, something the Hebrew women did not know about, now, in view of the failure of that plan, he resorted to a public announcement; he believed that in view of the continued expansion of the Israelite population he would have popular support for such a draconian measure. An additional factor forcing Pharaoh's hand to go public with the decree to drown all boy babies may have been that according to astrologers Pharaoh foresaw that the redeemer of the Israelites would be born and would end his career prematurely due to water (Sanhedrin 101). Pharaoh mobilised every Egyptian to participate in this decree in order to precipitate this event.

And Pharaoh charged (vayitsav): It is written, vayitsav, here, which is an expression of exhortation. And it is explained at the beginning of Parshat Tsav (Leviticus 6:2) that exhortation is whatever is required to be diligent about a matter so that it will be done in its totality. And [it was] since this decree was not similar to the prohibition to the midwives - as there it was easy to fulfill the decree, since it is impossible to give birth without a midwife; which was not the case with this prohibition. For it was possible to hide it from him, as they told him that the Israelite women were vigorous and [able] to give birth without a midwife. And those appointed over it could have also dealt with it weakly and said that they did not know about this boy. For this reason Pharaoh [decreed it] with an exhortation, that they diligent about the matter, so as to fulfill the decree in its totality.

Also upon them (the Egyptians) did he issue the decree. . . People ask: if they threw the infants into water because of what the astrologers said, what was their wisdom in “Come let us deal wisely with him” (Shemos 1:10), on this Rashi explains: “Let us . . . bring about their fate through water, for He has already sworn. . .”? The answer is: Originally, Pharaoh issued the decree only upon the Hebrews. “Come let us deal wisely,” refers to that decree. But Pharaoh issued an additional decree upon the Egyptians, on the day that Moshe was born. Only on that day all male infants were thrown into the river, since the astrologers said their savior will be smitten through water, “but we do not know whether he is from the Egyptians or the Hebrews.”

V. 22. לכל עמו, seinem ganzen Volke. Er hatte nämlich gesehen, wie die hebräischen Frauen seinen Befehl illusorisch gemacht hatten, und es ist kaum eine Frage, ob, wenn irgend ein Fürst bestimmten Leuten einen solchen Blutbefehl gegeben hätte, er auf Ausführung rechnen dürfte. Das menschliche Gefühl der damit Beauftragten dürfte sich gegen die Ausführung empören, und jedenfalls dürften bestellte Kindesmörder nur vom Abscheu des ganzen Volkes gebrandmarkt und gesteinigt werden. Aber dass sich in einem ganzen Volke nicht auch Unmenschen finden, die von dem Willen und von des Königs Befehl Gebrauch machen und ihre teuflische Lust an unschuldigen Kindern ausüben sollten, ist eben so unwahrscheinlich. Er erklärte daher die jüdischen Knaben für vogelfrei und konnte damit sicherer der Ausführung seines Befehles gewärtig sein. Es fiel das Odium auf keine bestimmten Personen.

לכל עמו, “to his whole nation;” seeing that Pharaoh saw that the midwives had not cooperated with him, he now ordered every Egyptian to drown each new born Jewish male baby since he thought that in this way no Jewish baby boy would survive. היארה תשליכהו “you shall cast in the river” since his astrologers predicted that one nation would be struck by water in the future (Sh’mot Rabbah 1,18), they suggested to turn this decree against the Jewish people. [According to my version first the King demanded that all pregnant Egyptian mothers be kept under his care for nine months to make sure the intended saviour of the Jewish nation would be killed. When the people refused to believe that an Egyptian could become the saviour of the Jewish people, he reinterpreted the astrologers’ forecast by saying that the saviour of the Jews would save them by means of turning water into their grave. He therefore restricted the decree to apply only to sons born by Jewish mothers.]

The Torah says לאמור, i.e. not every Egyptian should personally commit such a murder but that he should tell the Hebrew parent to drown his child seeing it was a Royal decree. Pharaoh's interpretation of what the astrologers had told him was that Moses would find a premature death by water at the hand of an Israelite. This is why he insisted that the Israelites themselves kill the children. The fact that Yocheved herself exposed Moses to a watery death is proof that the Egyptians themselves did not drown the children.

וכל הבת תחיון, “and allow all the daughters to live.” This was why only the male Egyptians who pursued them after the Exodus were drowned and not the females.

and every daughter: Whether they were already born or whether they be born from now, let them live - [meaning,] make efforts to keep them alive. And his intention with this was that since the daughters would be so more numerous than the males, they would per force marry Egyptians. And he saw to deal well with his land through this; as the Israelite women were vigorous, and he reasoned that this is what caused the proliferation of the people of Israel. So if they would marry Egyptians, they too would proliferate and increase.

It is also possible that the meaning of the word לאמור at this point is that only the neighbours of the Israelites were to be involved in this, not the entire population.

Some of our rabbis felt (Sotah 12) that Pharaoh commanded that all boy babies (Egyptian as well as Jewish) born on a certain day should be drowned as he believed that this was the day on which the Jewish redeemer was to be born. Such an exegesis is homiletics. The plain meaning is that the decree concerned only Jewish boy babies. Had it been in effect for only a single day, why did Yocheved feel she had to hide Moses for three months? Surely the decree was in effect for an indefinite period during the time Moses was born. The words לכל עמו simply mean that "his entire people be acquainted with this decree."

That is that He commanded us to eat from the meat of the second-Pesach offering on the night of the fifteenth of Iyar over matzah and bitter herbs. And that is His saying, "upon matzoh and bitter herbs shall they eat it" (Numbers 9:11). And they said that women are not obligated in it. For just as its slaughter is not obligatory for them - as we explained (in the previous commandment) - so too is its eating, without a doubt, not obligatory. (See Parashat Behaalotecha; Mishneh Torah, Paschal Offering 1.)