Exodus: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13a 13b 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30a 30b 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38a 38b 39 40
SHEMOT - THE BOOK OF NAMES
EXODUS
Sedra 1: Shemot (Exodus 1:1 – 6:1)
1:1 VE ELEH SHEMOT BENEY YISRA-EL HA BA'IM MITSRAYIMAH ET YA'AKOV ISH U VEITO BA'U
וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הַבָּאִים מִצְרָיְמָה אֵת יַעֲקֹב אִישׁ וּבֵיתוֹ בָּאוּ
KJ (King James translation): Now these are the names
of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household
came with Jacob.
BN (BibleNet translation): Now these are the names of the Beney Yisra-El who came into Mitsrayim with Ya'akov; each man came with his household:
BN (BibleNet translation): Now these are the names of the Beney Yisra-El who came into Mitsrayim with Ya'akov; each man came with his household:
BENEY YISRA-EL: See the link.
MITSRAYIM: See the link.
YA'AKOV: See the link.
רְאוּבֵן שִׁמְעוֹן לֵוִי וִיהוּדָה
KJ: Reuben, Simeon, Levi,
and Judah,
RE'U-VEN: See the link.
SHIM'ON: See the link.
LEVI: See the link.
YEHUDAH: See the link.
Presented in birth-order in this verse, but not in the next - click here.
1:3 YISASCHAR ZEVULUN U VIN-YAMIN
יִשָּׂשכָר זְבוּלֻן וּבִנְיָמִן
KJ: Yisachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin
BN: Yisaschar, Zevulun, and Bin-Yamin
YISASCHAR: See the link.
ZEVULUN: See the link.
BIN-YAMIN: And definitely Bin-Yamin; he will never again be known as Ben-Oni, which was Rachel's name for him.
1:4 DAN VE NAPHTALI GAD VE ASHER
דָּן וְנַפְתָּלִי גָּד וְאָשֵׁר
KJ: Dan, and Naphtali,
Gad, and Asher
BN: Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher
DAN: See the link.
NAPHTALI: See the link.
GAD: See the link.
ASHER: See the link.
1:5 VA YEHI KOL NEPHESH YOTSEY YERECH YA'AKOV SHIV'IM NAPHESH VE YOSEPH HAYAH VE MITSRAYIM
וַיְהִי כָּל נֶפֶשׁ יֹצְאֵי יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב שִׁבְעִים נָפֶשׁ וְיוֹסֵף הָיָה בְמִצְרָיִם
KJ: And all the
souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in
Egypt already.
BN: And the total number of souls that came out of the loins of Ya'akov were seventy souls; and Yoseph was in Mitsrayim already.
That word Yerech (ירך) is significant in relation to Penu-El; Yerech is "a thigh", but the root connects it with "Yareyach" (ירך) = the moon, and Yericho which is Jericho; so we can see that "the man" or "the angel" of Penu-El with whom he wrestled (Genesis 32) must have been a night-demon, some male form of the Lilim.
YOSEPH: See the link
1:6 VA YAMAT YOSEPH VE CHOL ECHAV VE CHOL HA DOR HA HU
וַיָּמָת יוֹסֵף וְכָל אֶחָיו וְכֹל הַדּוֹר הַהוּא
KJ: And Joseph
died, and all his brethren, and all that generation.
BN: And Yoseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation.
1:7 U VENEY YISRA-EL PARU VA YISHRETSU VA YIRBE'U VA YA'ATSMU BI ME'OD ME'OD VA TIMAL'E HA ARETS OTAM
וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל פָּרוּ וַיִּשְׁרְצוּ וַיִּרְבּוּ וַיַּעַצְמוּ בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ אֹתָם
KJ: And the
children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and
waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.
BN: And the Beney Yisra-El were fruitful, and their numbers grew exponentially, and they went on growing, in numbers as well as their considerable power; until the land was filled with them.
As discussed throughout the latter chapters of Genesis, the people identified here as the Beney Yisra-El did not exist as such at that time, but were either nomadic Kena'ani, or more likely the hordes of Hyksos migrants who were seeking homes across the Middle East at that time, and found Egypt particularly favourable, eventually, as per the tale of Yoseph, become so powerful that they ruled the land for more than a century, eventually being driven out, as we shall see in later chapters of this book, by a descendant of the previous Pharaonic dynasty named Ach-Mousa, who will likewise be identified with the Beney Yisra-El, through Mosheh, though in fact they were the two opposing sides.
1:8 VA YAKAM MELECH CHADASH AL MITSRAYIM ASHER LO YADA ET YOSEPH
וַיָּקָם מֶלֶךְ חָדָשׁ עַל מִצְרָיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַע אֶת יוֹסֵף
KJ: Now there
arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.
BN: Now there arose a new ruler over Mitsrayim, who did not know Yoseph.
MELECH: The text, somewhat surprisingly, says MELECH, rather than PAR'OH (פַּרְעֹה) which is the more customary designation. Melech means "ruler" in the general sense, so it could be applied to a King or a Pharaoh. See verse 15.
Historical evidence points to an invasion by a Beney Chet (Hittite) people known as the Hyksos, who defeated the aboriginal Mitsrim (Egyptians); however, those declared to be Habiru contained a much larger group than just the Beney Yisra-El, almost certainly including Nubians and other black Africans. If this enslaved group fled Mitsrayim en masse, then the Habiru arriving in Kena'an (Canaan) were already inflated beyond the basic tribe. My own view is that Ya'akov was (represents) the Hyksos – evidence can be found in the coat of many colours, the sheep stories from Lavan, the roots in Padan Aram, the "hatred of shepherds" described by Yoseph when his family arrive (Genesis 46:31-34), residence in Goshen where the Hyksos established their capital, and the fact that Yoseph was described as the man who "enslaved the people". This would allow Mosheh (Moses) to be a variation of Mousa, the dynastic title of the Mitsrim who defeated the Hyksos and restored the former cults: for which the plagues, and the ceremonies at Chorev (Horeb) both at the start and the completion of the wilderness journey were the formal covenant renewal.
1:9 VA YOMER EL AMO HINEH AM BENEY YISRA-EL RAV VE ATSUM MIMENU
יֹּאמֶר אֶל עַמּוֹ הִנֵּה עַם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל רַב וְעָצוּם מִמֶּנּוּ
KJ: And he said
unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and
mightier than we:
BN: And he said to his people: "Behold, the people of the Beney Yisra-El are too many and too powerful for us…
BN: And he said to his people: "Behold, the people of the Beney Yisra-El are too many and too powerful for us…
1:10 HAVA NIT'CHAMAH LO PEN YIRBEH VE HAYAH KI TIKRE'NAH MILCHAMAH VE NOSAPH GAM HU AL SENE'NU VE NILCHAM BANU VE ALAH MIN HA ARETS
הָבָה נִתְחַכְּמָה לוֹ פֶּן יִרְבֶּה וְהָיָה כִּי תִקְרֶאנָה מִלְחָמָה וְנוֹסַף גַּם הוּא עַל שֹׂנְאֵינוּ וְנִלְחַם בָּנוּ וְעָלָה מִן הָאָרֶץ
KJ: Come on, let
us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when
there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against
us, and so get them up
out of the land.
BN: "Come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they go on increasing in number, and it happen that, should we find ourselves engaged in a war, they ally themselves with our enemy, and fight against us, and then simply emigrate."
Throughout this speech Pharaoh uses the third person singular, not plural, for the children of Yisra-El, presumably rendering it as a single tribe.
VE ALAH MIN HA ARETS: We expect this verse to end differently. "Lest they join our enemies, and fight against us" is fine, and then the decision to murder all boy-children that follows also makes a barbarically eugenical kind of sense. But this is not what Pharaoh really fears; rather that, after the war - and the inference is that the enemy has been defeated - they will simply leave (rather than staying to face the inevitable consequences of siding with the defeated enemy), which in fact is precisely what Mosheh will come to him and request.
And so what if they do? Unless there is an economic need for them. From what we know, from the Genesis story, they are a favoured group, but still "bondsmen to Pharaoh", so why would they want to leave; and why would they need the cover of a war to do so; and why does Pharaoh think they might not be keen to take up arms against the invader, or join him in a foreign war? a) if they are minded to leave, because a state of war allows the possibility of escape, then keeping them there as press-ganged soldiers is not a realistic option: they might well defect to the enemy and their presence be more harmful than their absence; b) if an enemy attacks and Mitsrayim loses, the Habiru might be glad to have joined the enemy and fought with them, in order to reap the rewards of freedom in the aftermath; c) if the enemy attacks and Mitsrayim wins, and the Habiru have stayed, even passively, their condition will be no worse than it is now; and if they decide to fight, again they could reap the rewards of freedom in the aftermath. What this is saying is: if there is a war, not only will we have an enemy to fight, but no slaves to keep the economy going, no soldiers to press-gang, and a bunch of refugees out in the desert as well.
And so what if they do? Unless there is an economic need for them. From what we know, from the Genesis story, they are a favoured group, but still "bondsmen to Pharaoh", so why would they want to leave; and why would they need the cover of a war to do so; and why does Pharaoh think they might not be keen to take up arms against the invader, or join him in a foreign war? a) if they are minded to leave, because a state of war allows the possibility of escape, then keeping them there as press-ganged soldiers is not a realistic option: they might well defect to the enemy and their presence be more harmful than their absence; b) if an enemy attacks and Mitsrayim loses, the Habiru might be glad to have joined the enemy and fought with them, in order to reap the rewards of freedom in the aftermath; c) if the enemy attacks and Mitsrayim wins, and the Habiru have stayed, even passively, their condition will be no worse than it is now; and if they decide to fight, again they could reap the rewards of freedom in the aftermath. What this is saying is: if there is a war, not only will we have an enemy to fight, but no slaves to keep the economy going, no soldiers to press-gang, and a bunch of refugees out in the desert as well.
Or is it simply that Pharaoh is looking for a pretext to turn the foreign bondsmen into fully-fledged slaves? Mere demagoguery and propaganda.
Or is it simply that the later Redactor, needing to compile a history for this period, was struggling with so many different memories of so many disparate people, all of whom were on different sides at different times. Imagine a modern equivalent: you have the job of constructing both a Literature and a History syllabus for the newly independent Republic of Scotland, and need the History to include the true story of Scotland's greatest ever king, the heroic Macbeth, but the Literature syllabus requires you to include Shakespeare.
1:11 VA YASIYMU ALAV SAREY MISIM LEMA'AN ANOTO BE SIVLOTAM VA YIVEN AREY MISKENOT LE PHAR'OH ET PITOM VE ET RA'AMSES
וַיָּשִׂימוּ עָלָיו שָׂרֵי מִסִּים לְמַעַן עַנֹּתוֹ בְּסִבְלֹתָם וַיִּבֶן עָרֵי מִסְכְּנוֹת לְפַרְעֹה אֶת פִּתֹם וְאֶת רַעַמְסֵס
KJ: Therefore
they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they
built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.
BN: Therefore they set taskmasters over them, to afflict them with their burdens. And they built store-cities for Pharaoh, one at Pitom and the other at Ra'amses.
PHAR'OH: Note that on this occasion he is called Phar'oh (which is really Par'oh, but the prefix softens the Pey to Phey), not Melech.
The description given in the closing chapters of Genesis (47 in particular) makes clear that these conditions already applied at the time of Yoseph, that in fact he created them when he bought up all the herds and flocks, then all the land, and finally all the people, who effectively mortgaged themselves to him in exchange for food. At that time they were called "bondsmen", though the word "avadim" (עבדים) was used; we need to consider what exactly slavery meant, given that an "eved" may be a slave, a paid worker (today Ivrit mostly uses po'alim - פועלים - in order to make the distinction), or even a "worshipper".
We also know from those chapters that the store cities either already existed, and were added to by Yoseph, or were established by Yoseph; so Pitom and Ra'amses may be a reflection of that time, or they may be further additions.
PITOM: Properly Per-Atum or Heroonopolis on the east bank of the Nile delta. Atum was the local name for the sun-god, elsewhere known as Ra and Aten.
RA'AMSES: Properly Ra-Mousa, the name combines the sun-god Ra with the dynastic title of the Pharaoh, Mousa – the same name in Egyptian as Mosheh himself. The store-city referred to here is generally held to have been Avaris, the Hyksos capital of Mitsrayim, in the north-east section of the Nile delta, in the land referred to in this text as Goshen. In Arabic, Mosheh is known as Mousa.
The text would read better as "And they built for Pharaoh Ra'amses two store-cities, one at Per-Atum and the other at Avaris". We know from Egyptian sources that the store-cities were in the control of the priesthood, and that the method of gathering the corn that was attributed to Yoseph in Genesis 47 was precisely the purpose of the store-cities, and one of the principal roles of the Egyptian priesthood. It is interesting that this highly successful economic strategy was not copied when the Beney Yisra-El established themselves in Kena'an.
1:12 VE CHA ASHER YE'ANU OTO KEN YIRBEH VE CHEN YIPHROTS VA YAKUTSU MI PENEY BENEY YISRA-EL
וְכַאֲשֶׁר יְעַנּוּ אֹתוֹ כֵּן יִרְבֶּה וְכֵן יִפְרֹץ וַיָּקֻצוּ מִפְּנֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל
KJ: But the more
they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved
because of the children of Israel.
BN: But the more they afflicted them, the more they went on increasing their numbers, and the further afield they spread. And they lived in dread of the Beney Yisra-El.
Again the singular form.
Why does hardship lead to their having more children? Unless, like settlers on the West Bank today, they are making real what is the real fear of Pharaoh: increasing the population to establish themselves as such a powerful group that they become dominant by default, and as such a threat to the indigenous rulers.
I am inclined to invent the term "Habiruphobia"to describe the situation in Mitsrayim at this time.
1:13 VA YA'AVIDU MITSRAYIM ET BENEY YISRA-EL BE PHARECH
וַיַּעֲבִדוּ מִצְרַיִם אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּפָרֶךְ
KJ: And the
Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour:
BN: And Mitsrayim envassaled the Beney Yisra-El in a manner than brought them close to breaking-point.
PHARECH: the word is generally understood to mean "crush" or "break" and contains an inference of tyranny (cf Leviticus 25:43, 46).
1:14 VA YEMARERU ET CHAYEYHEM BA AVODAH KASHAH BE CHOMER U VI LEVEYNIM U VE CHOL AVODAH BA SADEH ET KOL AVODATAM ASHER AVDU VAHEM BE PHARECH
וַיְמָרְרוּ אֶת חַיֵּיהֶם בַּעֲבֹדָה קָשָׁה בְּחֹמֶר וּבִלְבֵנִים וּבְכָל עֲבֹדָה בַּשָּׂדֶה אֵת כָּל עֲבֹדָתָם אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ בָהֶם בְּפָרֶךְ
KJ: And they made
their lives bitter with hard bondage, in morter, and in brick, and in all
manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them
serve, was with
rigour.
BN: And they made their lives bitter with hard labour, both in mortar and in brick, and in every type of agricultural work; whatever task they set them, they pushed them to the edge of breaking-point.
The phrasing here will become significant later. When the Beney Yisra-El arrive at Sinai, they are apparently laden down with gold and jewellery, sufficient to make the Golden Calf and still enough left over to provide the full requirements of the Mishkan; a fact that seems unlikely if they had indeed escaped such rigorous slavery in Mitsrayim. Two years into the wilderness, Korach and his followers will rise against Mosheh, demanding a return to "the fleshpots of Mitsrayim (Egypt)"; again, not a likely aspiration if they had fled from what is described here. The Yoseph stories, the tale of Ya'akov's arrival with his family, and these details, suggest that the Beney Yisra-El were a wealthy and established people, "avadim" in the sense of "worshippers" not "slaves", who - and we shall see much evidence for this very shortly - simply wished to go to the holy mountain, possibly to witness a volcanic eruption and worship their gods there, possibly to celebrate the annual Passover ceremonies, possibly to reinstitute the annual covenant renewal ceremony which, according to some interpretations, had been suppressed by the Hykosos during the previous centuries - and most likely all three of these reasons, at different moments of history, but now amalgamated into the single tale of Exodus.
YEMARERU: note the first appearance of the word MAROR (מרור) here, significant to the Passover ceremonies, where "bitter herbs" are eaten as a reminder of the "hard times in old Egypt". The name MIR-YAM (Miriam) stems from the same root, and the pilgrimage through Sinai later on will take us from shrine to shrine around what are still named the "Bitter Lakes" - see Marah (Exodus 15:23) and Merivah (Exodus 17:7 and Numbers 20:13) in particular, both likewise from the same root.
SADEH: the clear inference here is that their "slavery" was not exclusively store-city building, but also agricultural labour.
1:15 VA YOMER MELECH MITSRAYIM LA MEYALDOT HA IVRIYOT ASHER SHEM HA ACHAT SHIPHRAH VE SHEM HA SHENIT PU'AH
וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם לַמְיַלְּדֹת הָעִבְרִיֹּת אֲשֶׁר שֵׁם הָאַחַת שִׁפְרָה וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית פּוּעָה
KJ: And the king
of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah,
and the name of the other Puah:
BN: And the ruler of Mitsrayim spoke to the Ivriyot midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah, and the other was named Pu'ah.
BN: And the ruler of Mitsrayim spoke to the Ivriyot midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah, and the other was named Pu'ah.
MELECH: See my note to verse 8.
ACHAT: Is ACHAT not masculine, and ECHAD feminine?
IVRIYOT: Until this verse, they have been called Beney Yisra-El; but now they are suddenly Ivrim. What changed? Did they lose their identity when they became slaves? The Egyptian word Habiru had the same connotation as "Welsh" or "outcasts" or "foreigners" or "Palestinians". In the same way slaves of the colonial era from Ghana or the Congo or Zimbabwe became simply "blacks" (or worse...)
SHIPHRAH: The name means "fair" or even "beautiful".
PU'AH: The name is Kena'ani, and means "a young girl".
1:16 VA YOMER BE YALEDCHEN ET HA IVRIYOT U RE'ITEN AL HA AVNAYIM IM BEN HU VA HAMITEN OTO VE IM BAT HU VE CHAYAH
וַיֹּאמֶר בְּיַלֶּדְכֶן אֶת הָעִבְרִיּוֹת וּרְאִיתֶן עַל הָאָבְנָיִם אִם בֵּן הוּא וַהֲמִתֶּן אֹתוֹ וְאִם בַּת הִוא וָחָיָה
KJ: And he said,
When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the
stools; if it be a son, then
ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter,
then she shall live.
BN: And he said: "When you perform the office of a midwife to the Ivriyot women, pay close attention to the birthstool: if it's a son, make sure he dies; but if it's a daughter, then let her live."
AVNAYIM: Interesting link, with lots of illustrated background material.
HU VE CHAYAH: Why HU? This may be a scribal error; one that we have seen before. It should be a YUD, but it only needs a nanometre and the Yud is extended to look like a VAV. With a YUD it reads HI which means "she", which is logical here as it refers to girls.
The policy is interesting. In China, where a one-child-per-family law was adopted, families tended to "lose" daughters in order to have sons, because sons are traditionally preferred as a macho symbol, but mostly because sons can support families economically better than daughters, and daughters require dowries when they are married. If Pharaoh was planning to run a slave empire, then reducing the number of males would, in a generation, be catastrophic, leaving him only old men and girls to do his labour; however, by the second generation, the girls needing husbands, and having now to find them among the Egyptians, would produce a new generation of boys who would be counted as Egyptians; a process of delayed ethnic cleansing, provided the economy could withstand the extended "famine". However, this is not the explanation given: we are told that Pharaoh was scared of them leaving. How would killing all the boys prevent that? More likely, knowing the boys were being killed, and fearing the impact on their tribe, the Habiru would be even more likely to run. Think of what happened in Ruanda. And then ask if Mosheh's desire to leave was perhaps instigated by this, even before the fully-fledged slave empire came into being, even before the religious revival, even before the excitement of a volcanic eruption.
1:17 VA TIRE'NA HA MEYALDOT ET HA ELOHIM VE LO ASU KA ASHER DIBER ALEYHEN MELECH MITSRAYIM VA TECHAYENA ET HA YELADIM
וַתִּירֶאןָ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים וְלֹא עָשׂוּ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר אֲלֵיהֶן מֶלֶךְ מִצְרָיִם וַתְּחַיֶּיןָ אֶת הַיְלָדִים
KJ: But the
midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved
the men children alive.
BN: But the midwives feared Elohim, and did not do as the king of Mitsrayim commanded them, but made sure the boys remained alive.
The first mention of a deity in this book; Elohim, not YHVH. Keep an eye on this and note which parts of the tale are Elohim and which YHVH.
Given the number of "Ivrim" at this time, it seems unlikely that there were only two midwives to share between them!
1:18 VA YIKRA MELECH MITSRAYIM LA MEYALDOT VA YOMER LAHEN MADU'A ASIYTEN HA DAVAR HA ZEH VA TECHAYENA ET HA YELADIM
וַיִּקְרָא מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם לַמְיַלְּדֹת וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶן מַדּוּעַ עֲשִׂיתֶן הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה וַתְּחַיֶּיןָ אֶת הַיְלָדִים
KJ: And the king
of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this
thing, and have saved the men children alive?
BN: Then the ruler of Mitsrayim summoned the midwives, and said to them: "Why have you done this, making sure the boys stay alive?"
1:19 VA TOMARNA HA MEYALDOT EL PHAR'OH KI LO CHA NASHIM HA MITSRIT HA IVRIT KI CHAYOT HENAH BE TEREM TAVO ALEYHEN HA MEYALEDET VA YALDU
וַתֹּאמַרְןָ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶל פַּרְעֹה כִּי לֹא כַנָּשִׁים הַמִּצְרִיֹּת הָעִבְרִיֹּת כִּי חָיוֹת הֵנָּה בְּטֶרֶם תָּבוֹא אֲלֵהֶן הַמְיַלֶּדֶת וְיָלָדוּ
KJ: And the
midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not
as the Egyptian women; for they are lively,
and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.
BN: And the midwives said to Pharaoh: "Because the Ivri women are not like the Mitsri women; they are lively, the children are delivered before the midwife ever gets to them."
TOMARNA: ancient grammatical form?
Great answer!
1:20 VA YEYTEV ELOHIM LA MEYALDOT VA YEREV HA AM VA YA'ATSMU ME'OD
וַיֵּיטֶב אֱלֹהִים לַמְיַלְּדֹת וַיִּרֶב הָעָם וַיַּעַצְמוּ מְאֹד
KJ: Therefore God
dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.
BN: And Elohim dealt kindly with the midwives; and the people grew in numbers, and became ever more powerful.
As people in the southern states speak of the "Mexican invasion", or the complaint against Moslems in France; Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech in England against Caribbean immigration. The eternal, despicable, but understandable xenophobia of the indigene.
1:21 VA YEHI KI YAR'U HA MEYALDOT ET HA ELOHIM VA YA'AS LAHEM BATIM
וַיְהִי כִּי יָרְאוּ הַמְיַלְּדֹת אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים וַיַּעַשׂ לָהֶם בָּתִּים
KJ: And it came
to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.
BN: And it came to pass, because the midwives feared ha-Elohim, that he made them houses.
Much dispute among the commentators over this line. The inference is that none of the Ivrim lived in proper houses, but for some reason the midwives now did. "House" however can also mean "clan" or "tribe", or even, which is much more likely, describes what would in much later times be thought of as a craft guild or professional body. It may even mean that this was when they started dividing into
clans and tribes.
1:22 VA YETSAV PHAR'OH LE CHOL AMO LEMOR KOL HA BEN HA YULAD HA YE'ARAH TASHLIYCHU'HU VE CHOL HA BAT TECHAYUN
וַיְצַו פַּרְעֹה לְכָל עַמּוֹ לֵאמֹר כָּל הַבֵּן הַיִּלּוֹד הַיְאֹרָה תַּשְׁלִיכֻהוּ וְכָל הַבַּת תְּחַיּוּן
KJ: And Pharaoh
charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the
river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.
BN: And Pharaoh instructed all his people, saying: "Every son that is born you shall cast into the river, but every daughter you shall save alive."
The implication of which is that this was not something ordained against the Beney Yisra-El alone, but was nationally edicted. Was it then a political or a religious action?
Stifling at birth having failed as a plan, Pharaoh tries another strategy: drown them in the river. Or so the Yehudit would have us believe. Two problems. We are in Mitsrayim (Egypt), in the realm of Osher (Osiris), and he does not say "drown them" (in Yehudit that would be LITBO'A = לטבוע); rather he says TASHLICHU'HU = "send them"; which may mean drowning, but could just as easily be a requirement to some Egyptian form of baptism, as a result of which they would be like the men of Shechem (Genesis 34) and Gat (1 Samuel 18) after their forced circumcision: honorary Mitsri in this case.
And then the word itself, which has unignorable connotations in theJewish world. TASHLICH (תשליך), from the same root (שלך) is an ancient alternative to the Azaz-El ritual; in the latter a scapegoat was either driven into the desert or, in the Yeru-Shala'im version, pushed over a cliff, carrying the sins of the people on its back as part of the Yom Kippur purgations; in the former, based on Micah 7:19: "You will cast all their sins into the depths of the sea", is the origins of Jesus' "cast your bread upon the waters" (he is actually quoting Ecclesiastes 11:1), the bread in this case carrying the sins: the ritual is still performed today at the New Year rites of Rosh Hashana.
What we need to ask is: was there an Egyptian version of Tashlich? And was it, in some liturgical sense, a prelude or prologue to a larger ceremony, of which the plagues and the Passover will be either the next phase, or the next festival in the calendar?
The Nile, which is the ye'or/river in question, was the domain of Osher (Osiris), who we shall see very shortly floating among its bulrushes in his holy ark, "cast into the water" like King Arthur at Avalon. We also know that the ancient Gnostics, who existed at least as early as Pythagoras' time (570 - circa 495 BCE), practiced a form of baptism not dissimilar to that of John the Baptist and the Hindus of India - the latter both in Namakarana and the regular dipping in the Ganges.
And then the word itself, which has unignorable connotations in theJewish world. TASHLICH (תשליך), from the same root (שלך) is an ancient alternative to the Azaz-El ritual; in the latter a scapegoat was either driven into the desert or, in the Yeru-Shala'im version, pushed over a cliff, carrying the sins of the people on its back as part of the Yom Kippur purgations; in the former, based on Micah 7:19: "You will cast all their sins into the depths of the sea", is the origins of Jesus' "cast your bread upon the waters" (he is actually quoting Ecclesiastes 11:1), the bread in this case carrying the sins: the ritual is still performed today at the New Year rites of Rosh Hashana.
What we need to ask is: was there an Egyptian version of Tashlich? And was it, in some liturgical sense, a prelude or prologue to a larger ceremony, of which the plagues and the Passover will be either the next phase, or the next festival in the calendar?
The Nile, which is the ye'or/river in question, was the domain of Osher (Osiris), who we shall see very shortly floating among its bulrushes in his holy ark, "cast into the water" like King Arthur at Avalon. We also know that the ancient Gnostics, who existed at least as early as Pythagoras' time (570 - circa 495 BCE), practiced a form of baptism not dissimilar to that of John the Baptist and the Hindus of India - the latter both in Namakarana and the regular dipping in the Ganges.
Micah's dates (approximately because there are reckoned to be three different Micahs who contributed to that one short book) were 730–690 BCE. In other words, at the time of the writing down of this story, the custom of Tashlich was definitely in place in both Yehudah (Judea) and Mitsrayim (Egypt).
And if this is in fact a Pharonic decision to immerse the boys in water, in order to "nationalise" them, we will need to rethink our reading of the birth of Mosheh in the following scenes.
And one last thought: Dante's "Inferno" 14:90-102 has a reference to Saturn devouring his first-born sons because of a prophecy that one of them will overthrow him, which is clearly a reduction of an earlier practice of sacrificing first-born sons to the deity. Obviously the Biblical parallels are the Akeda and the Crucifixion, but might it also be that the tale of the midwives is a later "watering-down" of an Egyptian version of the same?
Pey break; end of Chapter One
Exodus: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13a 13b 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30a 30b 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38a 38b 39 40
Copyright © 2020 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
No comments:
Post a Comment