The Merits of Righteous Women
Edna Hillowitz
Givat Shemuel
The story of Moses’ birth and rescue by Pharaoh’s daughter (Exodus 2:1-10) continues the motif of the previous story. Pharaoh had decreed death on the newborn sons of the Hebrews, but the midwives did not obey him and bravely rescued sons, at the risk of their own lives (Ex. 1:17-19). This was also the case in the story we shall discuss below. Even though they are not mentioned by name, it is the women—the daughter of Pharaoh, the mother of the child, and the sister-- who move the current story forward. [1] Moses is the only figure mentioned by name, and only at the end of the passage, after simply being called a “child” seven times and a “boy” once.
Scripture deliberately refrains from mentioning the characters by name; the reason for this will be discussed later. Here, too, as in the previous chapter, a woman acts contrary to the king’s decree: going through pregnancy and birth after the decrees were issued, hiding the child in her house, and placing him in a basket in the Nile. [2]
Jochebed, Moses’ mother, is mentioned by name only in chapter 6, verse 20. The message conveyed thereby is that from a simple man and woman, without name and connection, the Lord fashions a person who delivers Israel. [3] In Chapter 2 Jochebed is referred to as the “daughter of Levi” (v. 1), a “woman” (vv. 2, 9), a “nurse” (v. 7), and “the child’s mother” (v. 8). Jochebed knew that leaving the newborn in her own home would surely mean death, as Abarbanel explains in his commentary: “She saw that if the child remained in her home death would surely be at her throat, … and that if she removed him from her house then rescue from death might be possible … therefore she abandoned the path of certain death and took the one of possible death.” [4]
In the series of actions taken by the child’s mother – “she got a wicker basket for him and caulked it with bitumen and pitch. She put the child into it and placed it among the reeds by the bank of the Nile” (v. 3) – one sees how deliberate and practical she was. In order not to rely on a miracle, Jochebed acted swiftly, doing something that might provide a chance of saving her son.
Moses’ sister, as well, like all the other characters in this passage, is not mentioned by name, rather she is referred to as “his sister” (vv. 4, 7) or “the girl” (v. 8). She stationed herself where she could watch over the infant, even though any reasonable person would know that there was a family connection between her and the infant that had not been cast into the Nile, rather had been placed in the reeds.
Miriam continued the efforts to achieve the objective. Just as we read of her mother that she “got a wicker basket for him” (v. 3), [5] so too we read that Miriam stationed herself so as “to learn what would befall him” (v. 4). Moreover, before the Pharaoh’s daughter had time to decide what to do with the child, the Hebrew girl addressed her without hesitation or fear, making a clever suggestion that was favorably received: “Shall I go and get you [Heb. lakh] a Hebrew nurse to suckle the child for you [Heb. lakh]?” (v. 7). The repetition of you was intended to emphasize that the child would remain in the possession of Pharaoh’s daughter, and therefore the latter answered in a single word: “Yes” (Heb. lekhi, lit. “go”). Scripture continues, “So the girl went and called the child’s mother” (v. 8). This pronoun explains the double use of the Hebrew root h-l-kh: “Rabbi Eleazar said this indicates she went swiftly, like a young maiden. Rabbi Samuel bar Nahmani said ha-almah (the Hebrew word used for “the girl” in verse 8) means that she concealed the true meaning (Heb. he’elimah) of what she was saying” (Sotah 12a), that is, she hid the fact that she was bringing the child’s mother.
Pharaoh’s daughter, her maidens and her slave girl join the circle of women who affect the plot. The structure of the passage shows that the action taken by Pharaoh’s daughter forms the core of the story.
The
woman conceived and bore a son; and when she saw how beautiful he was, …
(v. 2)
She
got [Heb. va-tikah]… She put the child into it … (v. 3)
And his
sister stationed herself at a distance, …
The daughter of Pharaoh came down …
She spied … (vv. 4-5)
… to
fetch it. When she opened it, she
saw that it was a child (vv. 5-6)
She
took pity on it and said, “This must be a Hebrew child.” (v. 6)
Then his
sister said to Pharaoh’s daughter, … (v. 7)
So the
woman took [Heb. va-tikah] the child and nursed it.
(v. 9)
… who
made him her son. (v. 10)
Exactly the same Hebrew verbs used to describe the mother’s actions, “when she saw [Heb. va-tere] how beautiful he was, … she got [Heb. va-tikah] a wicker basket for him” (vv. 2,3) are used with respect to Pharaoh’s daughter: “She spied [Heb. va-tere] the basket … to fetch it [Heb. va-tikaheha] (v. 5). [6] In other words, she shows the same elementary maternal feelings.
Just as his mother was swift in acting, so was she: “... she fetched it. She opened it, and she saw him, ... and she took pity... and said” (vv. 5-7, translated more literally, to show the impact of the repetition of verbs). Pharaoh’s daughter is as different as can be from her father, who decreed annihilation on the Hebrew male children, while she saved a Hebrew child. How ironic that she, of all possible people, should have been the one who enabled the survival of the person who would implement the deliverance of Israel. [7] A sense of pity welled up in her, opposing and overcoming all feelings of patriotism, and therefore she was deemed worthy of having the child become her son.
Scripture admires the action taken by Pharaoh’s daughter so much so that it uses the same language in the following chapter to describe the events at the burning bush. Compare the following expressions:
|
At the burning bush |
Pharaoh’s daughter |
|
And the Lord continued, “I have marked well [Heb. ra’oh ra’iti] the plight of My people (3:7) |
She spied [Heb. va-tere], ... she saw [Heb. va-tir’ehu] that it was a child (2:5-6) |
|
I have come down to rescue them from the Egyptians (3:8) |
The daughter of Pharaoh came down (2:5) |
|
Come, therefore, I will send you to Pharaoh (3:10) |
She ... sent her slave girl (2:6) |
By virtue of the young child having been saved by three women, an entire people would later be delivered. Henceforth the root sh-l-h becomes the leitmotif, until the climactic Parashat Be-Shalah, which closes the circle begun in this week’s reading.
In this narrative the Torah places in the limelight the deeds that were done, for they, and not the figures performing them, were of primary importance and purpose in attaining the objective. Therefore the women are not mentioned by name.
To conclude, we note that throughout the entire passage there is not a single mention of the name of God. [8] Attention should be paid to the fact that the Deity acts through nature, and as long as human beings are capable of acting themselves, He does not intervene openly. True, His presence is sensed, but the Torah chooses to give center-stage to the wise and energetic women who led the redemption of Israel, championing them on high.
[1] M. D. Cassuto draws attention to the use of language, specifically the emphasis on the word bat, daughter, which appears in chapter 1 and is emphasized even more in chapter 2. Perush al Sefer Shemot, 1949, p. 9.
[2] This is in contrast to stories from the ancient world where the hero is abandoned at birth, as in the nativity story of Sargon, King of Akkad. In our story, the child is not abandoned at all. For more on the birth of Sargon, see Olam ha-Tanakh, Exodus, Tel Aviv 1998.
[3] The last mention of Levi was in the previous week’s reading, Genesis 49:5-7, where Jacob comes out against Simeon and Levi.
[4] Commentary on the Torah, Exodus, Jerusalem 1964, p. 17.
[5] She, and not her husband, who is no longer mentioned after verse 1.
[6] It should be noted that according to traditional sources, Moses was born on the seventh of Adar, and his mother hid him for three months. It follows that Pharaoh’s daughter rescued him on the sixth of Sivan, the same as the date on which Moses delivered the Torah to Israel (Sotah 12b).
[7] As attested by Midrash Tanhuma (Buber ed.), Ex. 8: “The daughter of Pharaoh raised the person who was destined to exact retribution (li-fro’ah, a play on the king Par’oh) from her father and his land.
Zippora – Building an Identity
By Edna Hilvitz*
The book of Exodus begins with the threat to the survival of the Israelites in Egypt. From Chapter 2 on the Torah unfolds the story of Moses, from birth through childhood and up to maturity. The fascinating figure of Moses, later to become the leader of the Israelites, illumines all of Exodus, indeed all the stories of the Torah. The brief narrative about Zippora en route to Egypt is the last episode in Moses’ life prior to his assuming the role of leader, but precisely here he plays no active role.[i] The story can be divided into nine passages, forming a circular structure:
1) At a night encampment on the way,
2) The Lord encountered him
3) And sought to kill him.
4) So Zippora took a flint
5) and cut off her son’s foreskin,
6) and touched his legs with it,
7) saying, “You are truly a bridegroom of blood to me!”
8) And when He let him alone,
9) she added, “A bridegroom of blood because of the circumcision.”
Moses and Zippora and their two sons were present at the event, but only Zippora is mentioned by name. The circular structure of the narrative points us to the event’s climax, situated in the middle—the rite of circumcision.[ii] Throughout the narrative the Torah seeks to highlight the figure of Zippora and her actions, presenting her as the primary heroine. We must ask why Zippora acted as she did. Zippora was the daughter of the priest of Midian, one of seven sisters who appeared by the well, and she, of all persons, was chosen to be Moses’ wife without any evident reason (Ex. 2:16-21).
Biblical exegetes are divided over the question of whose life was in danger—that of Moses or that of his son. For the purposes of this discussion we have chosen to present the view of those who believe Moses’ life was at stake.[iii] Moses is the central figure in the narrative unit preceding the circumcision story, and is mentioned there six times. We quote (Ex. 4:18-23):
Moses went back to his father-in-law Jether…And Jethro said to Moses, “Go in peace.” The Lord said to Moses in Midian, “Go back to Egypt,…” So Moses took his wife and sons, mounted them on an ass,… and Moses took the rod of G‑d with him. And the Lord said to Moses, “When you return to Egypt,…”
We may assume that if the figure in the neighboring unit, the story of the “bridegroom of blood,” is not mentioned by name, Scripture refers to the previously mentioned figure. Had it been the son who was attacked, we would expect Scripture to have said: “At a night encampment on the way, the Lord…sought to kill Moses’ son. So Zipporah took a flint and cut off his foreskin.” The transition from “sought to kill him” (v. 24) to “cut off her son’s foreskin” (v. 25) seems to hint at the fact that two figures were involved here.
There is another narrative in the Torah which is similar to the story at hand in its exceptional nature, namely the story of Jacob’s wrestling with the angel (Gen. 32:23-32). In these stories, both Jacob and Moses, major figures, were at the stage in life of starting a family and were on their way back to join their extended families. Jacob had to meet with Esau, and Moses had to meet with Pharaoh, and both Jacob and Moses had been preferred over their first-born brothers. Both were saved in an attack and immediately after the event met with their older brothers, kissed them, and embarked on a new era in their lives.[iv]
The main difference between the two stories is in the way they cope with being attacked. Jacob struggles with all his might and saves himself; whereas in our story, it is Zippora who saves Moses, thus creating an analogy between Jacob and Zipporah and leading the reader to expect a happy ending. The story of Jacob’s obdurate struggle with the “man” until the crack of dawn includes a divine touch to Jacob’s leg, and our story also has a touching of the leg: “and touched his legs with it” (v. 25). When the circumcision is completed, Zippora takes the foreskin of her circumcised son and touches his leg, or perhaps Moses’ leg.[v] This furthers our understanding of the story and enables us to argue that perhaps the Torah was not comparing Zippora to Jacob but rather to the angel of G‑d. Thus, little by little, the question we posed at the outset becomes elucidated.
The Hebrew word malon (rendered by the New JPS as “night encampment”) means a place for spending the night, a place to sleep for those who do not wish to continue their journey through the treacherous wilderness in the dark, thus indicating that the story took place at night. Zippora’s deed was performed in the dark, in foreign surroundings, not her familiar and natural setting. She responded swiftly and unhesitatingly, finding a way out of the trap she was in. This can be ascribed to none other than her great wisdom.
We learn of the swiftness of her response from the series of verbs appearing in a single verse: “So Zippora took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin, and touched his legs with it, saying, ‘You are truly a bridegroom of blood to me!’” (v. 25). Her practicality and expertise in performing a circumcision are surprising. The other description of circumcision in the Torah deals with Abraham, the father of our people (Gen. 17:23-27).[vi] “G‑d further said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you and your offspring to come throughout the ages shall keep My covenant. Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised’” (Gen. 17:9-10). Through her act of circumcising, Zippora takes us back to the patriarch Abraham.
Moses was born in Egypt, to the house of Levy. While an infant in an ark, he was described as “one of the Hebrews’ children” (Ex. 2:6). Pharaoh’s daughter adopted him, and so he grew up in Pharaoh’s house. Later, he had to flee to Midian, where he remained for many years. So what was Moses’ national identity? Was he a Hebrew? An Egyptian? A Midianite?
This important question occupied both the people living in Goshen and the reader skipping back and forth from Amram’s house to Pharaoh’s and Jethro’s.[vii] An answer to this question had to be given before Moses could embark on his mission. Paradoxically, it was Zippora, the daughter of the priest of Midian, who through her deed established the identity of Moses and his progeny, thus fulfilling the Lord’s command to Abraham and his offspring several centuries before the Torah was given to Israel. The rite of circumcision seals the identity both of the parents’ generation and of the children’s. It is fascinating to see how in the post-biblical era the custom of women circumcising their sons has spread, particularly on the basis of Zippora’s deed. This is instructive not only about the narrative importance of the event but also about its halakhic significance.[viii]
Zippora does not need to kill an “enemy,” as sometimes we find to be the case in stories where there is a threat to survival; rather, in her act of deliverance she fulfills one of the laws of the Torah. This depiction makes the story and its heroine a rare variety: a strong woman with tremendous emotional resources and courage that find expression at a fateful hour. Zippora presents us a fundamental assumption in forming identity and represents a huge challenge: when the nuclear family is under attack, conflicts and predicaments can be resolved by fulfilling commandments that leave their mark on succeeding generations.
Translated by Rachel Rowen
* Edna Hilvitz is a doctoral student in the Department of Bible, Bar Ilan University.
[i] For a detailed account of the questions and interpretations of this story, cf. J.T. Willis, Yahweh and Moses in Conflict: The Role of Exodus 4:24-26 in the Book of Exodus, Peter Lang 2010.
[ii] For further reading on this structure, cf. N. Klaus, “Mivnim Dikdukiyim be-Sefer Yehoshua,” in Iyyunim ba-Sippur ha-Mikra’i: Ne’umim, Mivnim Dikdukiyim ve-Hashva’ot, Tel Aviv 1990, pp. 30-42.
[iii] For a summary of the various views, cf. B. Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible (trans. W. Jacob), New Jersey 1992.
[iv] S.L. Shearman and J.B. Curtis, “Divine-Human Conflict in the Old Testament,” JNES 28 (1969), pp. 231-242.
[v] On the significance of touching as signifying transition to a new state in life, see R. Rappaport, Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity, Cambridge 1999.
[vi] Aside from the story of Jacob’s sons and the men of Shechem, which involves deceit (Gen. 34:20-25).
[vii] On Moses’ identity, see A.E. Gorospe, Narrative and Identity: An Ethical Reading of Exodus 4, Brill 2007.
[viii] Yossi Ziv, “Milah bi-Yedei Ishah be-Sifrut Hazal u-ve-Minhad Yehudei Ethiopia,” Netu`im (2004), pp. 1-16.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario