Shemot 2:2-6 – Moshe, a foundling?

Shemot 2:2 records Moshe’s birth and that Moshe's mother hid him, apparently from the Egyptians, for the first three months of his life. After three months, she was no longer able to continue hiding him, 2:3. Was this because she had a close call that some Egyptian soldiers just barely missed finding him? She then build a basket for him and placed him in the reeds by the Nile, and lo behold, Pharaoh's daughter found him, 2:3-6. Was this a coincidence? Moshe's mother did not place Moshe in the middle of the Nile where he could have floated away, but in a specific place where the reeds held the basket from moving. Did Moshe's mother think that someone would find him at the specific place where she placed him? Was that a known place for people to bath? Also, how was she able to get to this place if the princess of Egypt bathed there?

It must be that the place where Moshe was placed was a pubic bathing place off the Nile (a canal?), which was safe from crocodiles, and it was open both to commoners and to the royal family though at different times. For instance it could be that in mid-day it was open to the public, and during this time period, Moshe's mother brought him and placed him in the reeds. At this same time, Moshe's sister also hid herself in the area, 2:4, as how else could she have gotten so close to the princess to speak to her, 2:7. After the commoners were cleared out, then the daughter of Pharaoh came to bath, and found Moshe. 2:6 records that Moshe was crying, and it is possible that he had been crying for a while, and this is what led Pharaoh's daughter to find him.

Thus, Moshe being found in the basket was most likely not a coincidence, but Moshe's mother placed him in a place where she knew that Pharaoh's daughter was known to bath. It is even possible that Moshe's sister would have taken Moshe out of the basket, if Pharaoh's daughter did not find him since he could only have survived a short while in the basket. Accordingly, Moshe's mother did not abandon Moshe.

It has been pointed that Moshe's early life follows the literary pattern of the birth of heroes (Fox, 1995, p. 260, see also Raglan, 1936). This pattern includes that the father is a relative of the mother, there is an attempt to kill the child at birth, the child is abandoned at birth, foster parents raise the child, and eventually the child becomes a hero. According to this idea, maybe the Torah recorded how Moshe's early years followed this pattern in order for people to be more inclined to accept Moshe. However, Sarna (1991, pp. 267,268) points out that there are significant differences between Moshe and the hero pattern. For instance, usually the child is abandoned to die while here Moshe was not abandoned at all. Also, usually the child was born into royalty and then when abandoned grew up in humble circumstances, while here Moshe's real parents were slaves and the daughter of the king adopted and raised him.

Instead, maybe the point of this episode is to show that Moshe was a regular human being. Moshe was about to perform many miracles, which might lead one to think that Moshe was almost like a god. Thus, the Torah records a normal birth for Moshe that he did not just appear, and we have an image of Moshe as a baby, crying, which gives us a depiction of Moshe as a regular baby as opposed to always thinking of Moshe as a man who does miracles. Furthermore, we see how precarious his life was when he was a baby, and this precariousness also makes him more human.

This idea suggests a reason why the Torah records Moshe’s birth and not Avraham’s. We are not told Avraham's early childhood since he did not perform miracles, but by Moshe, with his incomparable greatness, the Torah wants to point out from the very beginning that he was a human being and not divine.

Bibliography:

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Raglan, Lord (Fitzroy Richard Somerset), 1936, The Hero: A study in tradition, myth and drama, London: Methuen & Co., Ltd.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Shemot 3:11-4:24 - Moshe’s hesitancy to take the Jewish people out of Egypt

Shemot 3:11 records that Moshe did not jump on G-d’s offer to take the people out of Egypt, and instead Moshe stated that he was not worthy of being the emissary. G-d did not take no for an answer and told him not to worry since G-d would accompany him, 3:12. Moshe continued with three other questions, which G-d answered, 3:13-4:12. However, Moshe continued in his refusal and stated that G-d should send whoever He wanted, 4:13. Moshe was no longer giving any excuses, but declining the mission. G-d was now angry and Moshe was not given a choice, 4:14-24, see our discussion on 4:24-26, “Moshe and Tzippora by the inn”  It is interesting that Moshe never officially agreed to go on the mission, just like the people had to be forced to leave Egypt, 6:1,12:33.

Why did Moshe not want to go on the mission to free the Jewish people from Egypt? Was he just being modest? Or, did he not want to be the leader of the Jewish people?

The answer is that Moshe was atypical of leaders of nations. Leaders are self-motivated to become leaders. This drive comes about due to their ego or because of their belief in their particular cause. Moshe initially did not have this self-motivation, but why did he not respond more positively to G-d’s request? Was it just his sense of humility? Why was he not concerned about the fate of the Jewish people? Also, one would also have thought that the honor of being chosen by G-d and the opportunity to be G-d’s messenger would be enough of a reason to accept the mission. Yet, Moshe clearly did not want to go on the mission. Here goes for some speculation for why Moshe did not initially accept G-d’s request for him to take the Jewish people out of Egypt.

One possibility is that initially Moshe did not fully comprehend G-d’s power, and he might have thought that the mission would fail, as he stated after his first encounter with Pharaoh, 5:22,23. Also, afterwards G-d told Moshe that the people who were seeking his life were dead, 4:19, which indicates that Moshe was worried that he could die from the mission, though maybe this was just an excuse for Moshe. With this approach, the miracles of the burning bush (3:2) and the three signs (4:2-9) were not enough to convince him of G-d's powers. Could this be?

A second possibility is that Moshe's hesitancy was due to his feelings for the Egyptian royal family, if not to Pharaoh. We see from the reason for the name of Moshe’s son, Gershom, that Moshe thought of Egypt as being his home, 2:22. With this approach, Moshe would have realized that taking the Jewish people out of Egypt would have meant using force against Egypt (3:20), and maybe he did not want to destroy the people and the home where he had grown up.

Also, with this approach, Moshe was not sure of his ultimate loyalty: To the Jewish people or to the Egyptian royal family? I once suggested this in a class, and my daughter Talia and Annie Rosen suggested, that maybe because of this problem, G-d responded that Aharon your brother was coming to meet you, 4:14, to stress that his true identity was with the Jewish people, his family. In addition, the actions of the Jewish taskmasters who yelled at Moshe (and Aharon, 5:20,21) might have helped sway Moshe to identify with the Jewish people and not the Egyptians. 

A third possibility is that while Moshe did not have much feelings for the Egyptian royal court he also did not have enough feelings for the Jewish people. All decisions are based on cost/ benefit analysis and maybe Moshe thought that the cost of the mission was greater than the benefits. The costs were a huge amount of work, separation from his family for a long period of time, and possibly the loss of a comfortable life in Midyan. The benefits would be the feeling that he helped save the Jewish people from slavery. However, that feeling would only be powerful enough to overcome the costs involved if Moshe felt a strong connection with the Jewish people. Did Moshe initially have this strong emotional bond? Maybe not. Moshe had been raised separate from the Jewish people and had lived outside of Egypt for many years. Also, maybe his bad encounter with the two Jewish men fighting, 2:13,14, soured him on his feelings towards the Jewish people. Therefore, for Moshe to want to be the leader of the Jewish people it was necessary for him to develop an emotional attachment to the Jewish people, and this is what occurred in chapter five through the intentional failure of his first mission to Pharaoh and the criticism by the taskmasters. 

Highlights of parashat Shemot

This parasha begins by setting the background for the exodus, how the people became enslaved (chapter one) and Moshe's youth (chapter two).  The next two chapters record Moshe being commissioned by G-d to free the people, and the last chapter records the failure of Moshe's first mission to Pharaoh.  We have four discussions on this parasha.

The first discussion examines Pharaoh's plan to enslave and kill the male Jewish babies,  http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/01/shemot-18-22-population-dynamics.html

The second discussion discusses whether Moshe killed the Egyptian on purpose or by accident, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2010/01/shemot-216-23-shemot-moshes-flight.html

The third discussion discusses who is Yitro, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2012/06/bemidbar-1029-32-behaalothekha.html

The fourth discussion tries to understand what happened to Moshe and his son when Moshe was returning to Egypt, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/01/shemot-423-26-by-inn.html 

Bemidbar 10:29-32 - Confusion in the family of Yitro

Bemidbar 10:29 records that Moshe spoke to Hovav? Who is this mystery man Hovav? 

10:29 records that he was the son of Reuel, Moshe's hoten, father–in-law. Reuel is mentioned before in the Torah. Shemot 2:16-21 records that when Moshe ran away from Pharaoh, he married Tzippora the daughter of Reuel, the kohen of Midyan. (Kohen can be priest or chief, see Rashi on Shemot 2:16.) This would appear to make Reuel, Moshe's father-in-law, and Hovav, Moshe's brother-in-law. However, Shemot 3:1 records that Yitro was the kohen of Midyan and that he was Moshe's hoten, father-in-law. This description of Yitro is repeated again in Shemot 18:1. How does Yitro relate to Hovav and Reuel?

One popular answer (see Rashi on Bemidbar 10:29, on Shemot 4:18, on Shemot 18:1, and the second explanation of Ibn Ezra on Bemidbar 10:29) is that Hovav really was Yitro, as the same person had two different names, and Hovav/Yitro was Tzippora's father. Reuel would then be Hovav's/ Yitro's father, Tzippora's grandfather, and when Shemot 2:18 records that Reuel was Tzippora's father, this means her grandfather.

Ibn Ezra's (first answer on Bemidbar 10:29) offers a slight variation on the first approach. Again, Yitro and Hovav are two names for the same person, but now he is Tzippora's brother. This approach accords with Shemot 2:18 that Reuel was Tzippora's father, but how then can Shemot 3:1 and 18:1 refer to Yitro as Moshe's father-in-law when he was really Moshe's brother–in-law? Ibn Ezra answers that the term hoten in both verses, which we have been interpreting as father-in-law, can also refer to a brother-in-law.

Benno Jacob (1992, pp. 503-511) points out that while Yitro is referred to as the cohen of Midyan, Hovav is never designated with this term. Benno Jacob argues that Hovav and Yitro could not be the same person since Moshe could never have suggested to Yitro, the cohen of Midyan, to leave Midyan and accompany the Jewish people. Benno Jacob argues that Yitro and Reuel were two names for the same person, the father of Tzippora, and then Hovav was the son of Yitro/Reuel, and Tzippora's brother. Benno Jacob follows Ibn Ezra that Hovav is called hoten Moshe (Judges 4:11 and possibly Bemidbar 10:29) since he was Moshe's brother-in-law, Tzippora's brother.

Luzzatto (on Shemot 18:1) quotes two other opinions that Hovav was not Yitro. One, (R. Yonah ibn Janach, Spain, 990-1055), Hovav was the son of Yitro and brother to Tzippora. Luzzatto did not quote who R. Janach thinks is Reuel. If Reuel is the same person as Yitro, then this is the same opinion as Benno Jacob. Two, (Moses Mendelssohn, Germany, 1729-1786, on 10:29), Yitro and Hovav were brothers, the sons of Reuel, and Tzippora was their sister. Luzzatto rejects both of these opinions since he argues that the word hoten cannot refer to a brother in law, and he follows the first approach above.

The most reasonable approach is that different names signify different people unless we are specifically told that a person had two names as for example by Avraham, Yaakov and Sara. Thus, Yitro was not Hovav or Reuel, but both Yitro and Reuel were kohanim of Midyan. While Midyan could have had two kohanim at the same time, more likely, Reuel was the kohen of Midyan when Moshe first came to Midyan, but as Moshe was in Midyan for quite some time, Reuel died and was replaced by Yitro. Shemot 3:1 and 18:1 refer to Yitro as Midyan's kohen because by then Yitro had replaced Reuel as the kohen of Midyan.

Yet, if Reuel and Yitro were two different people, how can Shemot 2:18 state that Reuel was Tzippora's father and Shemot 3:1 record that Yitro was Moshe's father-in-law, hoten? One possibility is to accept Mendelssohn's approach that Yitro, Hovav and Tzippora were the children of Reuel and Ibn Ezra's approach that the term hoten also refers to brother-in-laws. With this idea, Yitro and Hovav were brothers, and the term hoten in Bemidbar 10:29 could refer to Reuel (father-law) or to Hovav (brother-in-law).

Another possibility is that really the term hoten means a non-blood relative through marriage, and then Yitro could have married one of Tzippora's sisters. Another case where the term hoten seems to refer to relatives and not a father-in-law is by Shoftim 1:16, which refers to the Keni as hoten Moshe, and the term seems to means a group of people who were relatives of Moshe. Also, Kings II 8:27 refers to hatan bet ahav, and again it seems to mean a relative through marriage (through his mother!) to bet ahav. (For a discussion of this second definition see T.C. Mitchell, 1969.)

With this idea, Reuel was Tzippora's biological father, Hovav was Reuel's son and Tzippora's brother but not Yitro's brother, and the term hoten in Bemidbar 10:29 refers to either or both Hovav and Reuel. Yitro was then not Reuel or Hovav, but a different non-blood relative of Moshe.

According to these last two ideas, as Hovav was not Yitro, then the conversation in 10:29-32 is unrelated to Yitro's visit to Moshe in Shemot 18. Hovav might have arrived with Yitro, or he might have come at another time. Even if he came with Yitro, Yitro's departure (Shemot 18:27) would not have required Hovav to leave as well.

Bibliography:

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, The second book of the Bible: Exodus, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House.

Mitchell, T.C. 1969, The meaning of the noun htn in the Old Testament, Vetus Testamentum, 19, pp. 93-112.

Vayikra 2:11 – Devash in the Torah: Bee honey, dates or fruit juices?

Vayikra 2:11 records that “no minhah sacrifice that you offer to G-d shall be made with leaven (hametz), for no se'or or devash may be turned into smoke as an offering by fire to G-d (JPS translation in Levine 1989).” This verse means that the minhah sacrifice, which was a grain sacrifice, could not contain devash. Today the term devash means honey from bees, but is that its meaning in the Torah?

Rashi in his comments on Shemot 13:5 explains that devash means the juice that comes from dates and figs, and in his comments on Vayikra 2:11 he writes that any juice from a fruit is called devash. (Rashi on Eruvin 4b, rov, writes that the word devash in the Torah always means juice from dates.) 

Ibn Ezra (on 2:11) notes that many understand the word devash as juice from dates, and he believes that this definition has support from the book of Ezra. Nahum Sarna (1986, p. 47) notes that the term devash corresponds to the Arabic words dibs, which means syrup from grapes and dates. Devash is also listed as one of the seven species of the land of Israel in Devarim 8:8, and Tigay (1996, p. 94) in his comments on the verse, writes that, "since this verse is a list of agricultural products, devash must refer to the nectar of dates and figs."

A different definition is that devash means dates, see Rashbam on 2:11. Rambam (Laws of Blessings 8:1) writes that dates are considered as being one of the seven species, while devash is not. This means that one recites the blessing meayen shalosh after eating dates, but not after eating honey from bees. We see that the Rambam is following the interpretation that the term devash in the Torah is dates, and then dates are part of the seven species, while honey from bees is not one of the seven species even though today it is called devash, see Mishnah Berurah 208:1. (Encyclopedia Talmudit 7:195 notes that by the time of Chazal the word devash was understood to mean bee honey, see Mishnah Nedarim 6:9.)

There are some interpreters who understand devash to also refer to bee honey. Hoffmann (1953, comments on 2:11) notes that Philo thought that the word devash in Devarim 8:8 means bee honey, but he thinks that devash must be dates since dates were such an important fruit in Israel that they had to be included in the verse. Rabinowitz (1977, p. 137, see also Levine, 1989, p. 12) writes, "that while in the biblical period, devash was essentially the juice extracted from fruit (not necessarily from dates), it was primarily the juice of dates, although bee honey is also included." His reason for including honey from bees is from the story of Shimshon's riddle, Shoftim 14:8, and not from the Torah.

The Rambam (Mishnah Torah, Laws of prohibitions of the altar, 5:1) records that the prohibition of 2:11 is when the devash is added to any sacrifice or when the devash itself is offered as a sacrifice. The Mishnah Le-Melekh (Judah ben Samuel Rosanes, 1657-1727, Turkey) in his commentary on the Rambam notes that the Rambam did not define the term devash. (Was he relying on his ruling in Laws of blessing 8:1?) The Mishnah Le-Melekh quotes the Raah (?), that devash has to be juice from fruits and not bee honey since the following verse 2:12 seems to refer to devash as an offering of first fruits (which is not placed on the altar) and honey from bees cannot be considered a first fruit.

In addition to recording the prohibition of placing devash on the altar, 2:11 also records the prohibition of putting se’or on the altar, and states that the minhah sacrifice cannot become hametz. This conjunction implies that se’or and devash are forbidden since they could cause the grain of the sacrifice to become hametz, see Ibn Ezra on 2:11. This would means that devash ferments, just like se’or, but the Talmud (Pesachim 35b, see also Shulchan Arukh Orah Chayyim 462:1, though see Rashi on Pesachim 36a) states that fruit juices do not ferment. However, the Shulchan Arukh 462:2 writes that fruit juices with water speeds up the fermentation process. The Torah does not refer to any water being offered as part of the minhah sacrifice, but maybe the prohibition is that nothing is to be added to the minhah that might possibly enhance the fermentation process.

This question how to define devash also relates to our understanding of the phrase “a land flowing with halav (milk) and devash,” Shemot 3:8. Does the phrase mean milk and bee honey, milk and dates, milk and the juice of dates or milk and the juice of all fruits?

Bibliography:

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1953, Leviticus, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Levine, Baruch A., 1989, Leviticus: The JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society

Rabinowitz, Louis Isaac, 1977, Torah and Flora, New York: Sanhedrin Press.

Sarna, Nahum, (1923-2005), 1986, Exploring Exodus, New York: Schocken Books.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. 1996, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society

Shemot 2:11-23 – Moshe going out to see his brethren: An accidental killing

Shemot 2:11,12 record that Moshe saw an Egyptian striking a Jew, that Moshe looked around to see that nobody was around, that he struck the Egyptian and buried him. Did Moshe intentionally kill the Egyptian? From the fact that Moshe looked around, we see that Moshe was acting deliberately but does this mean that Moshe intended to kill the Egyptian?

Many people have noted that the same verb, va-yak, strike is used both with regard to the Egyptian hitting the Jew and when Moshe hit the Egyptian, and this suggests that Moshe and the Egyptian were performing the same action. Was the Egyptian attempting to kill the Jew? Who was the Egyptian? Rashi (on 2:11) writes that this was an Egyptian taskmaster, but Propp (1998, p. 166) notes that the Torah just calls the person an Egyptian, which could mean that a regular Egyptian was beating a Jew. If the Egyptian was a taskmaster, then it is likely that the Egyptian was hitting the Jew to get him to work, and then he did not intend for the Jew to die because then the Jew would no longer be able to work as a slave. Even if the Egyptian was not a taskmaster, it is still unlikely that he intended to kill the Jewish person since there is no record that the Egyptians killed the adult Jews. In addition, the same word, va-yak, is also used in 2:13, where again the circumstance implies a fight but not an intent to kill. Thus, most likely just as the Egyptian was not intending to kill when he hit the Jew, Moshe also did not intend to kill when he struck the Egyptian.

A proof for this idea that Moshe did not intend to kill the Egyptian was that it was not in Moshe's interest to kill him. Moshe was concerned that nobody was looking when he hit the Egyptian, yet if he had killed him, then he should have been more worried that somebody would see since it takes quite some time to bury a body. (Presumably, Moshe did not want to leave the body not buried since then the Egyptians would have blamed his death on the Jews.) In fact, this is most likely the reason why his action was found out, as when Moshe was burying the Egyptian, other people saw him. On the other hand if he just meant to strike the Egyptian to stop him from hitting the Jewish person, then a brief glance to make sure that nobody was looking at that particular time was sufficient. Furthermore, the Egyptian would not have reported Moshe since Moshe was an Egyptian prince, and it would have been his word against Moshe's. With this understanding, Moshe looked around to make sure that there would be no witnesses to corroborate the Egyptian's accusation if he did in fact report Moshe.

Thus, Moshe just meant to strike the Egyptian and not to kill him, and it was an accident that the blow caused the Egyptian to die. Maybe the blow caused the Egyptian to fall, and he died when he fell on a rock or some sharp edge.

If Moshe did not intend to kill the Egyptian, then his flight to Midyan would be an example of the law of an accidental killer that such killers have to go live in a city of refuge, Bemidbar 35:9-34. Thus, from 2:22 we see that Moshe considered his stay in Midyan as a form of exile. (Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:26-27 asks why did Moshe institute the cities of refuge? R. Levi answers, "He who has eaten of the dish knows its taste." I thank Ari Zivotofsky for this source.) My son, Binyamin, pointed out that then Pharaoh's desire to punish Moshe was G-d's way of getting Moshe to the city of refuge in order that Moshe would gain atonement or serve his sentence for his actions. 

This understanding can also explain the connection between Pharaoh's death and Moshe's ability to return to Egypt. 2:23-25 record that Pharaoh died, and that G-d heard the cries of the people. Afterwards, chapter three records that G-d appointed Moshe to be His messenger to take the Jewish people out of Egypt. What is the connection between these events? Is it that Pharaoh's death caused the people to cry out? Or, is it that Pharaoh's death is what enabled G-d to appoint Moshe to be the leader of the people, but was unrelated to the cries of the people?

Rashbam (on 2:23, also see Bekhor Shor's and Ibn Ezra's long commentary on 2:23) suggests that Pharaoh's death enabled Moshe to return to Egypt. He explain that Pharaoh wanted to punish Moshe for killing the Egyptian, but now that Pharaoh died, Moshe could return to Egypt without being apprehended. Thus, 4:19 records that G-d told Moshe that the people who had been seeking to punish Moshe had died, and this is referring to Pharaoh.

Rashbam's approach that Pharaoh's death allowed Moshe to return to Egypt is reasonable, yet, I doubt that Pharaoh's death acquitted Moshe from killing the Egyptian. 4:19 records that the people (plural) who were seeking Moshe died, and thus there was more than one person who wanted to apprehend Moshe. If it was Pharaoh's death that acquitted Moshe, then 4:19 should have referred to him and not some unnamed people. In addition, if Moshe was wanted for murder, then the judicial system should have continued even if Pharaoh died. Finally, according to the Rashbam's understanding of 2:23, 4:19 repeats the information that Pharaoh is dead, and hence 4:19 is repeating 2:23. I prefer Hizkuni's (end of comments on 4:19) explanation that 4:19 refers to the relatives of the person Moshe killed that when they died then the criminal proceedings against Moshe ended.

The idea that Moshe killed the Egyptian accidentally suggests a different understanding to the connection between Pharaoh's death in 2:23, and Moshe's return to Egypt. The law by the city of refuge is that the accidental killer goes free when the High Priest dies, and my understanding (see our discussion on Bemidbar 35:28, "Something unpredictable") is that this condition is to make the stay in the city of refuge unpredictable similar to the accidental killing. Really, any event could be a signal for the freedom of the accidental killer as long as the occurrence of the event was unpredictable. Accordingly, with regard to Moshe, Pharaoh's death was the unpredictable act that allowed him to leave Midyan, his city of refuge, and then G-d could heed the cries of the people to free them.

Bibliography:

Propp, William, 1998, Exodus 1-18 A new translation with introduction and commentary, The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.

Shemot 1:7-22: Population dynamics of the Jewish people in Egypt

Shemot 1:7 records that the Jewish people were proliferating in Egypt. This population growth worried Pharaoh since in the event of war the Jewish people could side with Egypt's enemy (a "fifth column") and leave the country, 1:8-10. Accordingly, he decided to deal wisely with the Jewish people, so he placed taskmasters over the Jewish people to have the people build large storehouses (cities?), 1:11. What is the connection between the taskmasters and the Jewish population growth?

Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni (on 1:11) explain that the goal was that the work would somehow stop the Jewish people from procreating or from procreating successfully. Ramban (on 1:10) claims that really the goal was genocide but Pharaoh knew that the Egyptians would not immediately accept this, so the slavery was a slow way of building up to the genocide. According to both of these approaches, the main idea was to reduce the population of the Jewish people. Yet, if the goal was to reduce the Jewish population, why would Pharaoh be upset if the Jewish people left Egypt? Why did Pharaoh not throw the Jewish people out of Egypt instead of killing them?

Pharaoh wanted to benefit from the Jews, so he did not want them to leave. Maybe the Jewish people were slaves even before the decree of the taskmasters, or maybe he now wanted them to be slaves. With either possibility, he wanted them to work for him, but he was afraid that due to their population growth they would be able to leave on their own if there was a war. His response was the taskmasters who would control the Jews, and they would also force the Jewish people to work as slaves, which would benefit Egypt. The goal then was not per se to stop the population growth of the Jewish people but to ensure that the Jewish people would benefit Pharaoh and Egypt.

1:12 records that the Jewish people continued to proliferate and the Egyptians loathed the Jewish people. 1:13,14 then records that the Egyptians made the Jews work much harder. While many (see Ramban on 1:13,14) understand that this increase in the workload was a decree from Pharaoh, the Torah does not relate this action to Pharaoh. Instead, it was the Egyptians on their own who were cruel to the Jews because they loathed the Jews. A proof of this is from the incident recorded in 2:11, which records that an Egyptian was just beating a Jew with no indication at all that the Egyptian was acting on orders from Pharaoh. 1:13,14 are very important verses because they show that the majority of the Egyptian population participated in the enslavement of the Jewish people, and they were not just following orders.

1:15,16 then record that Pharaoh ordered the midwives to secretly kill the male Jewish children at birth. However, the midwives refused to kill the male newborns, 1:17-21 and the Pharaoh ordered the entire population to kill the male Jewish children, 1:22. (Note, as pointed out by Rashi technically 1:22 would include the killing of Egyptian male new born, but it would seem that the verse should be understood as only referring to the Jewish male newborns.)

Both by the order to the midwives and to the entire population, the goal was only to kill the male newborn children. Why only the boys and why only newborns? If the goal was genocide, then the order should have been to kill everybody. Philo (quoted in Kugel, 1997, p. 289) explains that since females are not as strong as men, the goal was to reduce the strength of the Jewish population by killing the men. This would accord with the fear that the people would become a fifth column, but then why only were the newborn males killed and not the young men? Also, why did Pharaoh not initially kill the males if he was worried about the problem of the fifth column? Why only after the continued increase of the population did Pharaoh decide to kill the male Jewish newborns?

One possibility for the delay in killing the Jews was that he was not sure if the population would agree to such a policy (see Ramban on 1:10), and it was only when he saw how much the Egyptians loathed and made the Jews suffer with hard work, that he thought that his plan to kill the Jewish babies would be accepted. Yet, still why only kill the male babies?

A second possibility is again that Pharaoh wanted to benefit from the Jewish people. Initially, Pharaoh did not want to kill the young men since that would reduce the number of slaves, and he thought that with his taskmasters, he would have control over the Jewish population. However, the continued increase in the Jewish population was threatening the taskmasters' control of the Jewish people. Thus, he decided to have the male Jewish newborns killed since this would stop the males, from whom there was a fear of a fifth column, from becoming a problem in the future. (Note, with this idea, this decree was unrelated to the Egyptians making the Jews work extra hard, 1:13,14, or one can combine both ideas.) Yet, what would happen to the future workforce if all the male newborns were killed?

We know that Jewish male newborns were killed, as Moshe's mother had to hide Moshe from being killed, 2:2,3. Yet, if the Egyptians were killing every newborn male, how could the Jewish people still have numbered 600,000 men (12:37) when they left Egypt? (Note Moshe was born 80 years before the people left Egypt, 7:7.)

Ramban (on 1:10) argues that the decree must have been temporary since we do not read about the decree when Aharon was born three years before Moshe (7:7). He writes that the decree was abolished after Moshe was born for two possible reasons. One, maybe Pharaoh's daughter convinced him to stop the decree as she saved Moshe, or following the Talmud (Sotah 12b), that after Moshe's birth Pharaoh's advisors told Pharaoh to stop killing the male newborns since they no longer saw that the savior of the Jewish people would be killed through water. Ramban's idea that the decree was temporary makes sense, but we believe that there was a different reason for why it was temporary.

Pharaoh's goal was to maintain the male Jewish population at certain level since if it was too small he would not have enough slaves, but if it was too large, then he could lose control of the population and the people would leave. How could Pharaoh maintain a steady state male Jewish population? The answer is a temporary recurring decree to kill the male Jewish population. The decree could exist for some period, and afterwards the male Jewish children would be allowed to live, which would allow the male Jewish population to grow again. Once the male Jewish population reached a threshold level, then the decree would be re-instituted until the population had fallen sufficiently and the decree would be relaxed. Thus, Aharon would have been born when the decree was not in effect, while Moshe was born when the decree had been re-instituted. This temporary recurring decree allowed Pharaoh to maintain the level of slaves he thought he could control and also benefit from the Jews.

Bibliography:

Kugel, James L. 1997, The Bible As it Was, Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Shemot 4:23-26 - Moshe and Tzippora by the inn

Shemot 4:24 records that Moshe and his family were at an inn on the way to Egypt and G-d sought to kill somebody. Who was the intended victim and why should G-d want to kill the person?

The Talmud (Nedarim 31b) quotes an argument as to whether Moshe or his son was the victim, and the reason was either because Moshe had been derelict in circumcising his son or because Moshe was stalling again in his mission, see Rashbam on 4:24. Yet, as 4:23 states that Pharaoh's son was to be held accountable for Pharaoh's lack of action, it is most likely that it was Moshe's son who the victim. 

If the victim was Moshe's son, then which one: Gershom, the eldest son or Eliezer? Ibn Ezra quotes Shmuel ben Hafni that it was Eliezer since he had just been born at that time. This seems too coincidental. In 4:20, we are told that Moshe had two sons, but their names were not mentioned. Gershom was mentioned before, 2:22, since one had to know about him for this incident. However, as Eliezer was not involved here his name did not have to be mentioned until chapter 18. Thus, if the victim was Moshe's son, then most likely it was Gershom.

4:25,26 records that Tzippora circumcised her son and touched somebody’s legs with the bloody foreskin. Ibn Ezra (on 4:24) explains that Moshe was in shock so Tzippora had to act, but how did she know what to do? Rashi (on 4:24) quotes from the Talmud that G-d had sent a snake, which swallowed and then regurgitated the victim until the place of circumcision. Tzippora learned from this that she was to circumcise her son. This is an incredible explanation.

Ibn Ezra and Hizkuni (on 4:24) explain that Moshe told Tzippora what to do. Yet, if Moshe was unable to do the circumcision, it is unlikely that he would have been able to tell her what to do, and how did Moshe know that circumcising his son would stop G-d’s attack?

Possibly the question of how did Tzippora know what to do relates to the question how did she know that G-d wanted to kill her son? If her son was just languishing, maybe he was sick. How did she realize that her son was being threatened by G-d?

Maybe the end of 5:3 suggests that the threat to Gershom (Eliezer?) was that there was a sword floating over his head. This was such a miraculous event that it was obvious that G-d was attacking her son. Thus, it was clear that she had to do something not related to medicine. When I mentioned this idea in my synagogue, Yehuda Bendet told me that maybe the image of the sword could also explain why Tzippora realized that she needed to circumcise her son since she needed to do something related to the sword, which was the knife for circumcision.

A different idea is that maybe the question of circumcision was always an argument between Moshe and Tzippora. Tzippora did not want to have Gershom circumcised since this signaled that he was no longer from her family, a Midyanite, but a Jew. Accordingly, she guessed that if the attack was from G-d, then she realized that she had to make her son Jewish which meant circumcising her son. It was only the danger to Gershom (Eliezer?) that convinced her to agree to circumcise him. 4:25 refers to Gershom (Eliezer?) as her son, which shows the tension of her action, that by circumcising Gershom she was reducing her bond with him since he became part of the Jewish people.

Who did Tzippora touch with the foreskin and why should she have done this? The Talmud (Yerushalmi, Nedarim) discusses whether she touched Moshe, her son, or even an angel that is thought to have been the attacker. My guess is that she touched Gershom with the bloody foreskin since he was the one being attacked. Ibn Ezra (on 4:25) notes that the placing of the foreskin is similar to when the Jewish people put blood on their doorposts prior to the 10th plague, 12:22,23. What is the connection between these two events? Also, how would Tzippora know that she was to mark her son’s legs? To answer these questions, we need to understand the reference to hatan in 4:25 and 4:26.

4:25 records that Tzippora said, “you are a hatan of blood” and 4:26 expands this to “a hatan of blood of circumcision.” What do these phrases mean? Rashi explains that she was telling her child that he almost caused her groom (hatan), Moshe, to die. Yet, Sarna (1991, p. 26) asks how could Moshe be called a groom when they had been married for some time? Also, as argued by Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, (Nedarim 32a) the reference to hatan is to her son and not Moshe.

My understanding is that the word hatan in the Torah means a non-blood relative see our discussion on Bemidbar 10:29-32, "Confusion in the family." While Gershom (Eliezer?) was Tzippora’s son, the circumcision had made him equivalent to a non-blood relative with regard to Tzippora since in both cases the relationship was not as close as by blood relatives. Tzippora understood that circumcising her son meant that she was losing some of her connection with him, but she acted to try to minimize this break. Her placing of the foreskin was to make a mark in blood to keep her connection with Gershom (Eliezer?). The idea is that the mark of blood was to reclaim their blood relationship. Thus, when she placed the bloody foreskin on Gershom (Eliezer?), she declared in 4:25 that Gershom (Eliezer?) was still her blood relative. After Gershom (Eliezer?) was saved, and the commotion had subsided, she explained in 4:26 that the relationship was from the blood of the circumcision.

The attack woke Moshe from his stupor and he went on the mission. This was the purpose of G-d’s attack on Gershom (Eliezer?), as G-d had never intended to kill Gershom (Eliezer?).  Furthermore, maybe due to Moshe’s new attitude, he might have sent his family back to Midyan, since their going to Egypt was part of his hesitation, see Ibn Ezra (long commentary on 4:20, short commentary on 4:25), and Luzzatto on 4:23.  Yet, Moshe was still not enthusiastic about the mission, and he would only become energized for the mission after the failure of first encounter with Pharaoh.

Bibliography:

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1991, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.