Fertility and Women in the Literary-Ideological Shaping of Israel's Origins in Egypt: A Literary-Ideological Study of Exodus 1-2

 Fertility and Women in the Literary-Ideological Shaping of Israel's Origins in Egypt: A Literary-Ideological Study of Exodus 1-2

Dr. Lea Mazor, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Introduction

No nation can forge a self-identity without a memory community—that is, without a public that shares a consciousness of a common past. In shaping this past, the period of origins holds a special status. This is the period when the founding events occurred, events that determined the nation's character, its meaning, and the justification for its existence. Many societies choose to fashion their origin memories in the form of a story (in Greek: 'myth'). This allows them to focus on specific events and heroes, to select and organize details, create causal links, evoke thoughts, feelings, and passions, and convey both overt and subtle messages. The biblical stories about the nascent formation of the people of Israel in Egypt and the emergence of Moses, their leader, are such origin myths. They fulfill a vital, identity-forming role in the historical consciousness of the people of Israel.

Chapters 1-2 of the Book of Exodus, which describe the events leading up to God's revelation to Moses, serve as the prologue to the literary shaping of the Exodus tradition detailed in Exodus 1-15. [1] The prologue opens by marking a change of eras: the end of the old era is symbolized by death, "And Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation", and the beginning of the new era is symbolized by life: "But the Israelites were exceedingly fruitful; they multiplied greatly, increased in numbers and became so numerous that the land was filled with them" (Exodus 1:6-7). A unique phenomenon in this prologue is its extensive focus on fertility: it contains information about fertility and attempts to stop it, about marriage and births, about birthing mothers and midwives, about birth stools and identifying the baby's sex, about wet nurses and nursing, about children and infants, about 'offspring' and 'houses' (descendants, families). The figures of women are prominent: midwives, birthing mothers, 'every daughter,' Moses' mother, his sister, Pharaoh's daughter, her servant girls, and the seven daughters of the priest of Midian. These female figures differ from one another in their ethnic identity, social status, age, and occupation. They include Egyptians and Hebrews, anonymous and named individuals, adults and infants, commoners and high-ranking persons.

The purpose of this work is to explore the phenomenon of fertility and women in Exodus 1-2, to understand its ideological and theological messages, and its contribution to the shaping of Israel's historical memory of its origins.

A. From Barrenness to Fertility

The period of the patriarchs is marked by barrenness. God repeatedly promises all three patriarchs, who long for a son, that they will be exceedingly fruitful and multiply, but this promise is slow to materialize. [2] The turning point occurs on the soil of Egypt; when the Israelites arrive there, they transform from a family of seventy souls into a countless nation. Accordingly, the phrase "B'nei Yisrael" (Sons of Israel) shifts its meaning from the specific sons of the man Israel (Jacob) to a collective term for the entire people. Preserving the name while changing its meaning expresses a process that contains both continuity and transformation. A nation whose women are prolific springs forth from the patriarchs, who were afflicted with barrenness. The root y-l-d (to bear/give birth) serves as a key word in the prologue, appearing 21 times, and the text as a whole conveys the message: a nation is born. [3]

The motif of multiplication and increase runs like a thread through the chapter, connecting its various parts: [4]

• The opening section: "were exceedingly fruitful, and multiplied greatly, increased in numbers and became so numerous that the land was filled with them" (verse 7)
• The story of the enslavement: "more numerous and mightier" (verse 9)
• The story of the midwives: "lest they multiply" (verse 10), "the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread" (verse 12), "the people multiplied and became exceedingly mighty" (verse 20)

The Israelites' multiplication in Egypt is presented as a prominent and persistent phenomenon. According to verses 9-10, Pharaoh was the first to become aware of it and immediately tried to stem the tide, but to no avail: "the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread." The Hebrew root p-r-ts (to break through) embodies both the roots p-r-h and sh-r-ts (to be fruitful and to swarm), signifying a breaking forth. "It is a term borrowed for anything that multiplies beyond the normal course of nature, as if it breaks the boundary set for it by nature," explains Shadal [5]. Rashi sharpens the point that the repetition in structure and sound—pen yirbeh / ken yirbeh (lest he multiply / indeed he will multiply) — highlights the irony of the situation: "The Holy Spirit is saying so: You say, 'Lest he multiply,' and I say, 'Indeed he will multiply.'" And so, despite the decrees, "the people multiplied and became exceedingly mighty" (verse 20).

"But the Israelites were exceedingly fruitful; they multiplied greatly, increased in numbers and became so numerous that the land was filled with them" (Exodus 1:7) – No other verse in the Bible contains such a long chain of successive verbs of procreation, further strengthened by the intensifying words "exceedingly mighty." This verse includes elements from the promise of offspring to the patriarchs, indicating its fulfillment's beginning ("were fruitful... and multiplied greatly, increased in numbers and became so numerous"), and elements linked to the blessing of fertility given to all humanity at creation ("multiplied greatly and the land was filled with them"). As soon as man was created, God blessed him with the blessing of multiplication: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28). After the flood, God blessed the representatives of humanity with it again: it opens with "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" (Genesis 9:1) and concludes with "And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; swarm on the earth and multiply in it" (9:7). The term sh'ritzah (swarming) is used for human beings only here and in the description of the Israelites' multiplication in Egypt. These linguistic connections show that Exodus 1:7 links the beginning of Israel's history in Egypt to different pasts: the relatively recent past (the patriarchs), the distant past (Noah and the flood), and the very distant past (the creation of the world). The language of multiplication makes these different pasts present in the context of Egypt, giving it meaning—the Israelites' proliferation in Egypt is not a random, earthly event, but a link in a long-term process guided by divine providence; it is a historical move that fulfills God's promise to the patriarchs and actualizes the divine plan whose roots are buried in creation.

The story of Moses' birth also maintains a connection to creation and the flood, linking the earthly and private with the cosmic and universal. Moses is born under Pharaoh's decree to "throw every newborn son into the Nile" (1:22), and he is saved against all odds: his mother, who "saw that he was good," hid him for three months, and when she could no longer hide him, "she took for him a basket of papyrus and daubed it with bitumen and pitch, and put the child in it" (2:2-3). The statement "she saw that he was good" seems puzzling—isn't every baby good in his mother's eyes? And if he were less "good," would she not have bothered to save him from death? Rather, according to the Midrash, the text points to a connection between Moses' birth and the creation of light: "At the moment Moses was born, the whole house was filled with light. It is written here, 'She saw that he was good,' and it is written there, 'And God saw the light, that it was good'" [6]. The two verses share a stylistic-linguistic pattern consisting of the root r-'-h (to see) in the Qal perfect, third person feminine singular + direct object (et/oto) + the evaluation "good." The meaning is that a new cosmic era began with the appearance of Moses. This insight is reinforced by the use of the word tevah (ark/basket), which appears in the Bible in only two contexts: twice in the story of Moses' birth and 26 times in the story of Noah and the flood (Genesis 6:14-9:18). In both contexts, there is a detailed description of the ark's construction; its coating with a sealant to protect against water penetration; the saving of its occupants from certain death by drowning; and the moment the cover is removed from it during the rescue process. The shared use of the unique term tevah and these thematic similarities invite an analogy between the cases: just as the salvation of Noah and all who were with him in the ark opened a new era in the history of humanity and the world, so too is it expected to be with Moses' salvation.

The description of Israel's beginnings in Exodus chapters 1-2 provides its audience with a sense of historical reality, which is achieved through various means: the depiction of a distinct time (the death of Joseph and the appearance of a new king over Egypt); the definition of the geographical space (Egypt, Pithom, Raamses, the Nile, Midian); and references to familiar peoples (the Israelites, the Egyptians, the Midianites). But woven into the concrete description are concepts of creation and fertility that give the events of historical origins a cosmic-universal significance.

The God of Israel is not mentioned in the prologue until its final section [7], at which point the silence concerning Him turns into a great emphasis: "And their cry for help went up to God... and God heard their groaning, and God remembered... and God saw... and God knew" (2:23-25). Meir Weiss sees in this stage of silence a special literary device, which he calls "internal silence." "The narrator identifies with the characters in his story, and in his objective report, he conveys their state of mind." Since God did not yet exist in the characters' consciousness, the narrator does not mention Him [8]. It must be added that despite the silence, God is perceived as present by virtue of the literary allusions described above and by the miraculous course of events. Therefore, during the stage of silence, God is depicted as a present absence.

B. Fertility as Power, a Means of Distinction, and a Cause for Hatred

The formation of the nation involved setting clear boundaries between it and its surroundings. The opening, "Now these are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt" (Exodus 1:1), declares that the Israelites are not an autochthonous Egyptian entity but a group of people originating from a single common ancestor who came to Egypt from the outside. Their common denominator is their ability to procreate with an unfamiliar intensity. Pharaoh views the Israelites' fertility as a danger, warning his people that an "other," whom he calls "this one," is suddenly growing within them and threatening their existence. He gives this "one" the unique designation "the people of the children of Israel," which gives the impression that the Israelites are a 'people' in the same sense that the Egyptians are a 'people' ("He said to his people, 'Behold, the people of the children of Israel'" verse 9), even though at that time the Israelites were a 'people' only in the sense of 'a population group,' while Egypt was a 'people' in the sense of 'a nation' [9]. Pharaoh presents this 'people' as "more numerous and mightier than we" (an exaggeration born of fear, as in Numbers 22:6) [10], and as a security risk to Egypt: "and if war breaks out... they will fight against us and go up from the land" (1:10). However, not only is there no basis for this fear, but it also contradicts the portrayal of the Exodus generation as people who are afraid of war: "God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines... lest the people repent when they see war and return to Egypt" (13:17). His claims that Israel is a people who will go up from the land sound ironic to the story's audience, who knows that the Israelites will, in the end, go up from the land and become a nation in the sense of a sovereign state. Pharaoh's demagogic speech to his people achieved its goal: "they loathed because of the children of Israel" (1:12), a verb used in the Bible to express the terror and disgust of one people toward another (Numbers 22:3; Isaiah 7:16).

C. The Midwives and Fertility

Verses 15-21 in chapter 1 are the most developed biblical text on midwives, mentioning them seven times. Their importance is also emphasized by the length of the narrative they receive, the mention of their names, their portrayal as "speaking characters" in contrast to all the other silent figures (except for Pharaoh), and the way Pharaoh, the main character in the story, addresses them. As described, he approached them personally, met with them twice, and allowed only them to respond to his words.

The midwives' appearance in the story begins with a mention of their ethnic identity: "And the king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives..." (verse 15). The lamed of the word l'mayaldot (to the midwives) is pointed with a patach, and the intended meaning of the text is that the king of Egypt turned to midwives who were Hebrew. The Septuagint, however, reflects a different reading of the same underlying letters: the king of Egypt turned to the midwives of the Hebrew women. As if the lamed of the word l'mayaldot had been pointed with a chiriq. According to this reading, it is not necessary to assume that the midwives were Hebrew; they could have been Egyptian [11].

A body of evidence tips the scales in favor of the understanding that the text's intention is that the midwives were Egyptian [12]:

1. It is more likely that Pharaoh would first turn to his own people, assuming they would obey him as his subjects and due to the Egyptians' hatred of the Hebrews, rather than assuming that Hebrew women would agree to cooperate with him in such a severe act directed against their own people.
2. If the midwives were Hebrew and delivered only women from their own people, there would be no need to say to the Hebrew midwives, "when you deliver the Hebrew women" (1:16).
3. If the midwives were Hebrew and delivered only women from their own people, they could not have compared the birthing process of the Hebrew women with that of the Egyptian women in Pharaoh's presence.
4. The midwives' reward was that God "made them houses" (21), meaning He gave them sons and established families for them [13]. This is a fitting reward for those who have no "houses," but it would be meaningless as a reward among a people who were already multiplying greatly.
5. After the failure of the midwives' plan, Pharaoh turned "to all his people" to kill the boys (Exodus 1:22). "All his people," as opposed to a part of his people (the midwives) [14].

The understanding that Egyptian midwives delivered both Hebrew and Egyptian women suggests that the Egyptian and Hebrew women lived in close proximity to each other. In the story of Moses' birth, too, Hebrew and Egyptian women operate in the same space: Moses' mother hides the basket in a place where Pharaoh's daughter arrives with her servant girls; Moses' sister watches from her hiding place as Pharaoh's daughter opens the basket, and in the same moment, manages to approach her, speak to her, and offer to bring a wet nurse from among the Hebrew women. The same concept exists in the description of the preparations for the Exodus, where the Egyptian women are presented as the neighbors of the Hebrew women and even as house guests (3:22; 11:2-3, cf. 12:13; 23). This concept of living in a mixed Egyptian-Hebrew space fits well with the sweeping statement that the Israelites' immense fertility caused them to "fill the land." This view contradicts the separatist view, which holds that the Israelites lived separately from the Egyptians [15], and that the Hebrew women had Hebrew midwives and the Egyptian women had Egyptian midwives—a view reflected in the interpretation of the Masoretes who vocalized l'mayaldot ha-'ivriot (the lamed with a patach).

The Egyptian midwives were, therefore, the first to rebel against Pharaoh. Not only did they disobey him, but they even subverted his command, "they saved the boys alive" (Exodus 1:18) [16]. Pharaoh had commanded them, "when you see them on the birth stools" (16), and they refused to do his bidding because they feared God more than him: "But the midwives feared God" (17, 21). The play on the verbs y-r-'- (to fear) and r-'-h (to see) highlights the contrast between Pharaoh's command and the midwives' response. The midwives' fear of God does not reflect faith in the God of Israel, but rather a proper moral behavior for any person, Israelite or foreigner, that keeps them from committing acts of injustice against the defenseless [17].

When Pharaoh turned to the midwives and demanded to know why they had saved the boys, they cunningly replied that the Hebrew women give birth so quickly that their services were not needed. "Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women, for they are like wild animals. Before the midwife comes to them, they have already given birth" (Exodus 1:19). The sound of "-iot" (-iyot) creates a musical path that leads from the Hebrew women (ivriot) to the claim of wild animals (chayot). In terms of the text, the underlying letters allow for different readings. The most expected reading is chayot, the plural form of chaya (wild animal), a common word in the Bible whose plural form is well known [18]. However, the ancient translators and some commentators preferred to interpret based on chaya in the sense of a midwife or a woman in labor in later Hebrew [19]. The birthing mothers were skilled in the art of midwifery and did not need professional midwives. In the Masoretic text, there is another reading: chayot (the chet with a qamatz), a hapax legomenon in the Bible whose meaning is vitality, life force [20]. According to this reading, the midwives' claim is that the Hebrew women have a great life force and give birth quickly before the midwife can reach them. A birth of this kind is used by Isaiah as an example of an amazing phenomenon not known from reality: "Before she is in labor, she gives birth? Before her pangs come, she delivers a male child? Who has heard of such a thing? Who has seen such things?" (Isaiah 66:7-8). The vocalization of l'mayaldot ha-'ivriot and chayot in the Masoretic text creates an interpretative continuum: courageous Hebrew midwives stand before the king of Egypt and seemingly justify themselves but are actually boasting of the wonderful vitality of the women of their people. But it is doubtful whether the Masoretes' interpretation aligns with the text's original intent. The story's logic requires, as mentioned, the understanding that the midwives are Egyptian and that they are in great danger. To appease Pharaoh, they make a completely different claim from the one that arises from the vocalization in the Masoretic text: there is a biological strangeness among the Hebrew women. They do not give birth like normal human beings but like animals who do not need the help of a midwife. In this way, they place themselves and Pharaoh on one side of the barricade (the human side) and the Israelites on the other (the animal side). To sharpen the distinction between the Hebrew women and the Egyptian women, or between the Israelites and the Egyptians in general, they use the word 'Hebrew,' which he himself had used. ('Hebrew' in the Bible is intended to distinguish between people from Israel and foreigners and is usually used by foreigners [21]). He commanded, "when you deliver the Hebrew women..." and they respond, "Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women." The midwives' claim of "wild animals" (chayot) is aimed at Pharaoh's hatred of the Israelites and also provides a kind of professional confirmation for his secret suspicions that the growing fertility of the Hebrews is evidence of their deviation from the human way—the Hebrews are actually animals. The dehumanization of the Hebrew birthing mothers, therefore, retrospectively justifies Pharaoh's cruelty towards them. It should be noted that the story states that the midwives said to Pharaoh that the Hebrew women are 'chayot'. In speech, the ear cannot distinguish between the two meanings of 'chayot'. It is very possible, therefore, that this is a ruse, intended to allow the recipient to hear what is in his heart. Pharaoh could have understood that the midwives were reporting to him that the Hebrew women are "wild animals" (chayot), i.e., non-human, and the story's audience can understand that the midwives were secretly impressed that the Hebrew women are 'chayot' (chayot), i.e., full of vitality.

Pharaoh and the midwives acted with mutual cunning. He wanted them to create the illusion among the birthing mothers that they were acting for their good, while in fact obeying his murderous wish, while they, in their cunning, reversed the situation and made him think that they were serving the Egyptian interest, when in fact they were serving the Hebrew interest. The story's audience cannot help but delight in the victory of the midwives' cunning: not only did they disobey the king's command, but they were also not punished by him and received a good reward from God. They risked their lives for the boys ("and they did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them") and were rewarded with sons of their own ("and He made them houses"). The use of the same language to describe the act and its reward shows a measure for measure and the triumph of justice [22].

Pharaoh saw the daughters of Israel as animals multiplying in a non-human way. But the similarity to animal procreation does not have to be negative. In verse 7, "But the Israelites were exceedingly fruitful, and multiplied greatly, increased in numbers and became so numerous that the land was filled with them," the word 'sharatz' (swarm) is understood positively, as Ralbag explains: "It means that they had fertility and multiplication in a very wonderful way, as is found in swarming things, where there is a great number in their offspring, and with this there is speed in giving birth. This is clear from the nature of swarming things. And behold, it says 'vayishretzu' as a matter of resemblance to fish in the abundance of their offspring. And behold, fish are called swarming things, as it says, 'Let the waters swarm with living creatures'" [23]. Noah and his sons also received the blessing of swarming (sharatz) (Genesis 9:7), which is close to the language of the blessing "let them increase like fish in the midst of the earth" (48:16). What is perceived as a blessing from the Hebrew perspective is considered a plague from the Egyptian perspective. Indeed, four of the plagues of Egypt are related to animals that multiplied excessively and disrupted the natural balance: the frogs, which 'swarmed' in the Nile and covered the land of Egypt (Exodus 7:28; 8:2, also Psalm 105:30), and the lice, the swarms of flies, and the locusts (Exodus 8:13, 17; 10:4-5, 14-15). The disruption of the cosmic order, which so troubled the Egyptians, actually began with the multiplication of the Israelites who swarmed and "filled the land." In light of this, the multiplication of the Israelites in Egypt can be seen as a "pre-plague."

It should be noted that the midwives scene is an internal Egyptian scene. Pharaoh and the Egyptian midwives spoke about the Hebrew birthing mothers and the fate of their children, but the birthing mothers themselves were not given a voice. There is no hint in the story that they were even aware of the drama that was unfolding behind the scenes: the threat of death that hovered over every son born to them and its thwarting by the midwives. The Hebrew women, like the Hebrew men, are presented in Exodus 1 as passive subjects only.

D. Saving "Every Daughter" and the Portrayal of the Egyptian Character

Pharaoh's decrees against the newborns have two distinct parts: death for the boys on the one hand and life for the girls on the other. The text does not elaborate on the purpose of the explicit command to save the girls, leaving it to speculation. "What need had Pharaoh to save the females? Rather, they said, 'We will kill the males and take the females as wives,' for the Egyptians were steeped in lewdness" (Exodus Rabba 1:18). This interpretation is supported by evidence.

In ancient warfare, victors did indeed kill the men and save the women and children [24]. Moses also commanded, after Israel's victory over Midian, to distinguish between male and female children: "Kill every male among the little ones... but save for yourselves every little one among the women who has not known a man by lying with him" (Numbers 31:17-18). The saving of the little ones among the women was intended for sexual intercourse, as can be inferred from the content, context, and phrasing, as well as from the only other story in the Bible that uses the phrase "a woman who has known a man by lying with him"—the story of the inter-tribal war at Jabesh-Gilead. It states that they killed every male and saved four hundred "virgin girls who had not known a man by lying with him" so that they could be wives for the Benjaminites (Judges 21:11-12). In our story, Pharaoh is portrayed as someone who fears war but behaves as if he has won one, and therefore commands to kill the male children and save the females.

Additional support for the possibility that saving the girls was intended for them to be taken as wives in the future can be found in the literary connections between the description of Pharaoh's decrees on the newborns and the story of Abram and Sarai in Egypt (Genesis 12:10-20): the distinction between males and females—"Every son that is born you shall cast into the Nile, and every daughter you shall save alive" (Exodus 1:22) versus: "they will kill me, but they will let you live" (12:12, cf. 26:7); the rebuke—"Then the king of Egypt called for the midwives and said to them, 'Why have you done this thing?'" (Exodus 1:18) versus: "Pharaoh called Abram and said, 'What is this that you have done to me?'" (Genesis 12:18); and the reward—"And God dealt well with the midwives" (Exodus 1:20) versus: "that it may go well with me for your sake... and he dealt well with Abram for her sake" (Genesis 12:13, 16) [25]. From these similarities, the analogy can be drawn: just as the purpose of saving Sarai was to take her into Pharaoh's house to be his wife, so the purpose of saving "every daughter" was for the Egyptians to take them as wives.

From both stories, the Egyptians are depicted as being eager for young ("every daughter") and beautiful (Sarai) women, and they will not shy away from any means, even murder, to fulfill their lust. This image is consistent with texts in narrative, law, and prophecy that attribute to the Egyptians an exaggerated, unrestrained, and promiscuous sexual behavior. The Book of Genesis describes in detail how the first of Jacob's sons to go down to Egypt was exposed to Egyptian sexual lust (Genesis 39:10, 12); the law in the Book of Leviticus forbids the Israelites from doing abominations "as the practice of the land of Egypt where you lived" (18:3); and Ezekiel describes the Egyptians as exceptional even on a physiological level: they are "large of flesh," "whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys, and whose issue is like the issue of horses" (16:26; 23:20). The story of Ham's act toward his father (Genesis 9:21-27) is a foundational story intended to point to the character of Ham, the ancestor of the Egyptians (Genesis 10:6). Since the ancestor is seen in the Bible as a prototype of the people who will descend from him, Ham's scandalous sexual behavior represents the Egyptians of all generations.

From all this, it follows that the second part of the decree, "Every son that is born you shall cast into the Nile, and every daughter you shall save alive" (Exodus 1:22), was not intended to soften Pharaoh's character or adorn it with some humanity. The explicit command to save the girls broadens the perception of the Hebrews as Pharaoh's victims and serves as another means of directing the readers' emotions against him.

E. The Decree on "Every Son" and the Birth of Moses

A common biblical method for describing the appearance of a person of high standing is to present him as the son of a barren woman, thereby conveying that he was born as a result of direct divine intervention. For Moses, the greatest figure in the Bible, this motif could not be used because a story of barrenness does not align with the theme of immense fertility. The narrator, therefore, used a different motif: not a birth against nature but the newborn's survival against all odds. Moses, who was destined to die at birth due to Pharaoh's decree against the sons, was saved and even raised in Pharaoh's house. Josephus and the Sages reflect a tradition that the astrologers predicted the birth of Israel's savior. Pharaoh sought to kill the newborns to prevent the fulfillment of the prophecy, but God's providence watched over Moses and saved him [27]. Many scholars hold the view that the decree against the sons was originally the backdrop for the story of Moses' birth, and only at a later stage in the development of the traditions about Israel's origins in Egypt was it incorporated into the story of the decrees intended to thwart or minimize the threat to Egypt stemming from the Israelites' immense fertility [28]. This hypothesis implies that the story also reports on the failure of the third decree—its failure is the birth of Moses!

F. The Women in the Story of Moses' Birth

The story of Moses' birth is an independent literary unit with its own structure, plot, and characters, which flows from the story of the decrees. Exodus 1 presents a long-shot image, depicting the people as a passive and silent collective body, faceless, formless, and voiceless. Exodus 2 presents a close-up image. The "camera" moves closer and focuses on a single family: instead of "Hebrew women," we have Moses' mother and his sister, and instead of "every son," we have the infant Moses. In Exodus 1, the initiators are exclusively Egyptian, as are all the voices (Pharaoh's voice, the Egyptian midwives' voice). In the story of Moses' birth, in contrast, initiative is revealed for the first time on the Hebrew side, and their voice is also heard. In parallel to the two Egyptian women who thwarted Pharaoh's decree (Shiphrah and Puah), two Hebrew women appear doing the same (Moses' mother and his sister). Afterwards, the women of the two peoples knowingly cooperate with each other: Pharaoh's daughter openly defies her father's command, saves a Hebrew child from drowning in the Nile, takes a Hebrew wet nurse for him through the mediation of "the girl" (Moses' sister), and in the end, he becomes her son.

The story of Moses' salvation is built on the motif of the reversal of fate, which is beloved in legends. The weak, small, and hopeless one defeats the strong and great one, to the delight of the readers who draw encouragement from it: the poor man beats the rich man, the slave beats the master, and the wicked ruler is humbled to the dust [29]. In the Bible, God is the one who reverses fates, "who raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap."

The moment Pharaoh's daughter took the basket into her hands was a fateful moment for the child and of historical significance in the history of the nation that was beginning to form. And as is fitting for a dramatic event, the narrative time expands—a common literary device in the Bible for marking important moments in a story. While only three words are dedicated to the three months Moses was hidden, his discovery by Pharaoh's daughter is dedicated several verses, and the basket scene goes into great detail: Pharaoh's daughter goes down to the water of the Nile, sees the basket lying on the bank of the Nile, and sends her servant girl to get it for her. "And she opened it"—it turns out the basket had a lid (a detail not given in the detailed description of its construction); "and she saw the child"—the doubling of the object emphasizes Pharaoh's daughter's astonishment, as if she rubbed her eyes in wonder to be sure that it was indeed a baby before her; "and behold"—a word of surprise—"a boy crying," meaning, showing clear signs of life; "and she had compassion on him," a report on a state of mind (a rare phenomenon in biblical narrative). Pharaoh's daughter concludes from the circumstances that "This is one of the Hebrew boys," and it seems that there is only a step between the child and death. After all, he is already in the Nile, surrounded by Egyptians, when the most expected thing is for Pharaoh's daughter to obey the command of her father, the king, turn the basket over, and cast the "son" into the Nile. And then fate is reversed. Pharaoh's daughter does not do so. The sister, who is secretly watching what is happening, draws encouragement from Pharaoh's daughter's reactions and suddenly appears before her. It is not yet said that Pharaoh's daughter decided to take the foundling under her care or even that it occurred to her to feed him, but the sister plants this idea in her mind and even phrases her offer as a service to her: "Shall I go and call for you a nurse from the Hebrew women to nurse the child for you?" Pharaoh's daughter immediately accepts the idea and replies to her: "Go, take this child and nurse him for me" [33]. The similarity in phrasing between the sister's words and Pharaoh's daughter's reply shows a perfect execution of the sister's initiative and even more, because Pharaoh's daughter adds a word of her own, "this," which indicates her personal regard for the child. Her immediate acceptance of the offer and her consent to a Hebrew nurse also point in this direction. The sister's and mother's designations in the story are carefully calculated. The readers, who are complicit in the plan, know what Pharaoh's daughter does not—that the women are "his sister" and "the child's mother," but in Pharaoh's daughter's mind, they were just women: "a nurse from the Hebrew women," "the girl," and "the woman." In terms of the art of storytelling, this is what Meir Weiss called "internal monologue." What appears to be a factual report from the narrator's mouth actually expresses the character's point of view in the plot [34].

From the few mentions of wet nurses in the Bible, one gets the impression that their employers were high-ranking women and that they themselves were respected figures [35]. Pharaoh's daughter's words to the Hebrew nurse are formulated as a legal contract stating the obligations of both parties: the service provider is to take the child and nurse him, and the service recipient is to give her her wage [36]. According to Mesopotamian documents, a child was given to a wet nurse for three years, and if she did not receive her wage, the child passed into her custody [37]. If this legal practice is in the background of our story, then Pharaoh's daughter's promise of a wage indicates that she acted to keep the child in her possession. And so it was. The nurse returned the child to Pharaoh's daughter and "he became her son." If the meaning of the phrase is adoption [38], then the adoption process was completed with the giving of the name, which is a stage parallel to the giving of a name to a child immediately after his birth by his natural parents. This entire course of events is ironic because the story's audience knows what the character in the story does not: that the foundling she took for her son is destined to be the savior of Israel from the sufferings of Egypt, and that by violating her father's decree on the sons, she unknowingly contributed to the future violation of his decree on forced labor.

The reader who is familiar with the ways of biblical storytelling expects the child's name to be announced in the marriage formula at the beginning of the story. The full formula consists of information about marriage, pregnancy, the birth of a son, the giving of a name to the son, and the name's etymology. For example, "So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son. And the Lord said to him, 'Call his name Jezreel, for in a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel'" (Hosea 1:3-4) [39]. The unique feature of the story of Moses' birth is the splitting of the marriage formula into two parts: the marriage, pregnancy, and birth appear at the beginning of the story, and the giving of the name and its etymology at the end. Between the two parts of the formula, the natural mother is replaced by an adoptive mother. The replacement is the end of the chain that transfers Moses from one place of safety to another: from the mother to the sister's care, from the servant girl to Pharaoh's daughter, from the sister to the nurse-mother, and back to Pharaoh's daughter. The chain of protective women begins with the natural mother and ends with the adoptive mother.

In between, the adoptive mother is described as unknowingly repeating the natural mother's actions, but in reverse order:

Actions of the Natural Mother:

1. Motherhood: "the woman conceived and bore a son."
2. Gaze: "and she saw him..."
3. Taking: "she took for him a basket of papyrus"

Actions of the Adoptive Mother:

1. Taking: "she sent her servant girl and took it."
2. Gaze: "she opened it and saw him."
3. Motherhood: "and he became her son."

In the Dead Sea Scroll 4QExodb from Qumran, there is a midrashic addition to the story that strengthens the symmetry between the two mothers. Moses' mother has a servant girl: "And she said to her servant girl, 'Go [and] place him in the reeds on the bank of the Nile.'" It follows that the first mother sent her servant girl to place the basket in the reeds, and the second sent her servant girl to take the basket from the reeds [40].

Moses is thus portrayed as one who grew up between two mothers—that is, as having a complex identity. He was not raised as a slave like the rest of his people but as a free prince. He knew the world of his brothers and the world of Pharaoh and chose the world of his brothers of his own free will.

G. A Man Is Born to Israel

The story of Moses' birth may be cushioned by women [41], but Moses is the plot's pivot. All the women labor around him; his female relatives are named according to their relationship to him—"his mother" and "his sister"; he is the only character who has a name; he is the only character who has a direct judgment about his inner being (he is "good"); and the keyword is "child," which appears seven times, with the additions of the words "son" and "boy." When Moses grew up and went out to his brothers (2:11), the protective women disappear, and the entire plot conveys that a man has risen in Israel.

In going out to his brothers, Moses reveals a compulsion to save the oppressed. Three episodes illustrate his intervention on their behalf: the first describes a confrontation between an Egyptian and a Hebrew, the second between two Hebrews, and the third between complete strangers. This means that his motivation transcends national identification. On the first day, he notices their oppression. The Egyptians placed taskmasters over the Israelites "to afflict them with their burdens" (1:11), and Moses goes out to his brothers and sees their "burdens" (2:11). The image of "an Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man" is a miniature of the great oppression. Moses does not hesitate to intervene and strikes the Egyptian, an act of a leader. On the second day, a furious reaction to this appears from the "wicked" Hebrew: "Who made you a man, a ruler and a judge over us?" (2:14), meaning, how do you dare to act as a ruler when you have no authority to do so? The killing of the Egyptian was an act of defiance against Pharaoh's policy of oppression, and because of this, Pharaoh sought to kill Moses (2:15). Did Pharaoh sense that Israel's savior had appeared and sought to complete what he had failed to do with the third decree? The text does not say. Moses flees to the land of Midian and there rises to save the daughters of the priest of Midian, who were driven away by the shepherds when they came to water their father's flock. He, whom a woman drew from the water to save him, now draws water for women and saves them. At this stage, Moses no longer needs protective women. On the contrary, he goes out to their defense. And there, in a world free from the threat of the decrees, Moses finds a normal life. The priest of Midian gives him his daughter Zipporah as a wife, and they have a son, Gershom.

H. Conclusion

In the literary portrayal of Israel's origins in Egypt, women occupy a prominent place. Their world is very different from that of the men. The men's world is characterized by power struggles and cruelty. It contains a tyrannical king, fear of war and decrees, oppressors and the oppressed, strikers and the struck, verbal and physical violence. Not so the women's world. The free women lead pastoral lives (though not without problems): Pharaoh's daughter goes to bathe in the Nile, the daughters of the priest of Midian go out to water their father's flock, and the midwives win the battle of wits that developed between them and Pharaoh without violence. There is no violence among the oppressed women either. Moses' mother and sister act with cunning and succeed in their goal. Bringing new life into the world and protecting it is a central value for these women. All the women who act in the story, regardless of their origin and national affiliation, receive a good reward, and the reward is always a son or sons. The midwives are rewarded with "houses," that is, families; Moses' mother and sister succeed in saving the child's life; Pharaoh's daughter is rewarded when Moses becomes her son; and Zipporah, the daughter of the priest of Midian, gives birth to Gershom. Sons are the ultimate good, and for the women, life and its protection are a central value.

Pharaoh acted against the Israelites on two fronts: the male sphere of action, the channel of oppression, with which Moses would later contend; and the female sphere of action, the channel of procreation, with which Egyptian and Hebrew women contended. Pharaoh tried to incite Egyptian women against Hebrew women just as he set Egyptian men against Hebrew men, but a female parallel to the "Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man" situation was not created. On the contrary, the midwives' desire to protect the lives of the newborns outweighed their loyalty to their king, and Pharaoh's daughter's desire to save Moses outweighed her loyalty to her father. The women of both nations acted to thwart Pharaoh's decrees against the newborns. They succeeded, and he was defeated. And what is a greater disgrace for a man in the biblical conceptual world than to be defeated by a woman [42]?

God promised the nation's patriarchs offspring and a land, and both promises begin to be fulfilled immediately with the burgeoning formation of Israel into a nation. The proliferation in Egypt is the process of the fulfillment of the promise of offspring, and the birth of the leader, who will lead the Israelites from Egypt to the promised land, is the beginning of the fulfillment of the promise of the land. The literary analogies that link the story of the people's multiplication and Moses' birth to the Genesis traditions show that God desires life for His people and that the appearance of Israel on the stage of history is an event of cosmic significance, the result of divine intention whose roots are grounded in the creation of the world and humanity.

Notes

1. The prologue is a single unit, although not uniform, and it is clear that its consolidation was preceded by a long and complex literary history. Today, there are growing voices that cast doubt on the ability of the Documentary Hypothesis to provide a satisfactory explanation for its development. This complex topic is beyond the scope of this work, which deals with a literary-ideological analysis of the prologue in its current state. See on this: M. Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, New York 1969, pp. 66-75; J.C. Exum, '"You Shall Let Every Daughter Live" - A Study of Exodus 1:8-2:10', Semeia, 28 (1983), pp. 63-82; G.F. Davies, Israel in Egypt - Reading Exodus 1-2, Sheffield 1992, p. 20; J. Siebert-Hommes, Let the Daughters Live! - The Literary Architecture of Exodus 1-2 as a Key for Interpretation, Leiden 1998, p. 52.
2. Genesis 12:2; 13:16; 15:5; 18:18; 22:17; 26:3-4; 24; 28:14; 46:3; 47:27.
3. See also Psalm 22:32 and cf. Isaiah 46:3-4; 66:8; Psalm 78:6.
4. Greenberg (above, note 1), pp. 32, 35.
5. S.D. Luzzatto, Perush Shadal al Hamishah Humshei Torah, Tel Aviv 1972, p. 213 (first published in Padua in 1871). (Hebrew)
6. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah 12a; Exodus Rabba 1:19-20 and also Y. Zakovitch, And You Shall Tell Your Son...: The Concept of the Exodus in the Bible, Jerusalem 1991, p. 103; W.H. Propp, Exodus (AB), New York 1998, pp. 147; 149.
7. On verses 17-21, see below.
8. M. Weiss, Mikra'ot Ke-Khvannotam, Jerusalem 1988, p. 311. (Hebrew)
9. On the distinction between 'am' and 'goy', see E. A. Speiser, '"People" and "nation" of Israel', JBL, 79 (1960), pp. 157-163.
10. Biblical Hebrew does not distinguish between quantitative and qualitative size. See: H. Rabin, 'Ha-Titahen Semantiqah Mikra'it?', Beit Mikra, 7 (1962), pp. 22-23 (Hebrew). 'Atsum' is both a great number and strong. For a great number, see: Isaiah 31:1; Jeremiah 5:6; 15:8; 30:14; Zechariah 8:22; Psalm 40:13; 135:10; 139:17; Proverbs 7:26. For power, see: Genesis 26:16; Psalm 105:24; Daniel 8:8, 24; 11:23. See M.Z. Kaddari, Milon ha-Ivrit ha-Mikra'it: Otsar Leshon ha-Mikra me-Alef ve-ad Tav, Ramat-Gan 2006, p. 823 (Hebrew). W.H. Schmidt, Exodus, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988, p. 19.
11. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Αἰγυπτίων ταῖς μαίαις τῶν Εβραίων. (And the king of the Egyptians said to the midwives of the Hebrews).
12. This is the view of most commentators. See, among others, N. Leibowitz, Iyunim Hadashim be-Sefer Shemot be-Ikvot Parshaneinu ha-Rishonim ve-ha-Aharonim, Jerusalem 1978, pp. 29-32 (Hebrew); Greenberg (above, note 1), pp. 26-27.
13. For this expression, cf. 2 Samuel 7:11; 1 Kings 2:24. For the meaning of "to make houses" against the background of the Akkadian language, see S. M. Paul, 'Exodus 1:21: "To Found a Family": A Biblical and Akkadian Idiom', in: Divrei Shalom: Collected Studies of Shalom M. Paul on the Bible and the Ancient Near East 1967-2005, Leiden and Boston 2005, pp. 177-180.
14. The midwives' names are not counter-evidence, as there is no prohibition for an Egyptian to have a Semitic name in the Bible. An example is Pharaoh's daughter herself, who was given the Hebrew theophoric name "Bithiah" in 1 Chronicles 4:18.
15. See Genesis 46:34; 47:1-6; 11; 27; Exodus 8:18; 9:26; 10:22-23.
16. "To keep alive" means to leave alive and also to act deliberately to protect life. See: J. I. Durham, Exodus (WBC), Waco 1987, p. 11.
17. Genesis 20:11; 42:18; Deuteronomy 25:17-18; Jonah 1:16. And see: Leibowitz (above, note 12), pp. 32-33; Greenberg (above, note 1), p. 31; Davies (above, note 1), p. 75; and also: N.M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus, New York 1987, pp. 25-26.
18. See for example Isaiah 35:9; Psalm 104:25.
19. In Rabbinic Hebrew, Galilean Aramaic, and Syriac, the midwife and the birthing mother are called 'chaya' or 'chayta'. Y. Maori, Targum ha-Peshitta la-Torah ve-ha-Parshanut ha-Yehudit ha-Kedumah, Jerusalem 1995, p. 76 (Hebrew); Y. Kutscher, 'le-Milon ha-Mikra'i', Leshonenu, 21 (1957), pp. 251-252 (Hebrew); G. R. Driver, 'Hebrew mothers (Exodus 1:19)', ZAW, 67 (1955), pp. 246-248.
20. S. Morag, 'Iyunim be-Yachasei Mashma'ut', Eretz Israel, 14, H. A. Ginsberg Book, Jerusalem 1978, p. 145.
21. In Genesis 14:13; 39:14, 17; 40:15; 1 Samuel 4:6, 9; Jonah 1:9 and many more.
22. The suggestion that "and He made them houses" means that the midwives made houses for them [=for the people, the Israelites] does not stand up to criticism. See: J. E. Hogg, 'Exegetical Notes', The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 41.4 (1925), pp. 267-270.
23. Y.L. Levi, Perushei ha-Torah le-Rabbeinu Levi ben Gershom (Ralbag), 2, Jerusalem 1995, p. 1 (Hebrew). For the comparison of humanity to creeping things, see Habakkuk 1:14-15.
24. See: Deuteronomy 20:14; 21:10-14; 1 Kings 11:15-16.
25. See Genesis Rabba 40:6 and also M.D. Cassuto, Sefer Bereshit u-Mivno (translated by M.Y. Hartom), Jerusalem 1990, pp. 258-260 (Hebrew); Y. Zakovitch and A. Shinan, Avram ve-Sarai be-Mitsrayim: Bereshit 12:10-20 ba-Mikra, ba-Targumim ha-Atiqim u-ve-Sifrut ha-Yehudit ha-Kedumah le-Sugyah, Jerusalem 1983, pp. 139-140 (Hebrew); M. Fishbane, 'Exodus 1-4 - The Prologue to the Exodus Cycle', Text and Texture, New York 1979, p. 76.
26. Haman said: "Pharaoh was a fool who said, 'Every son that is born you shall cast into the Nile,' not knowing that the daughters would marry men and be fruitful and multiply with them. I will not do so, but will destroy, kill, and exterminate." Leviticus Rabba 27:11 and see also Yalkut Shimoni, Zechariah, remez 583.
27. Antiquities of the Jews 2, 9:2; Babylonian Talmud Sotah 11a; 12b; Sanhedrin 101a; Exodus Rabba 1:31 and more. For a different perspective, see A. Shinan, 'Lidato shel Moshe Rabbenu be-Re'i Sifrut Hazal', Rimonim, 5 (1997), pp. 4-7 (Hebrew).
28. For diverse opinions on this topic, and also a reference to the similarities between the story of Moses' birth and the legend of the birth of Sargon, king of Akkad, see H. Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit, Göttingen 1913; B. S. Childs, 'The Birth of Moses', JBL, 84 (1965), pp. 109-122; D. B. Redford, 'The Literary Motiv of the Exposed Child', Numen, 14 (1967), pp. 209-228; Ch. Isbell, 'Exodus 1-2 in the Context of Exodus 1-14: Story Lines and Key Words', in: D. J. A. Clines & D. M. Gunn & A. J. Hauser (eds.), Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, Sheffield 1982, pp. 37-61; J. Cohen, The Origin and Evaluation of the Moses Nativity Story, Leiden 1983; N. M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus, New York 1987, pp. 267-268; J. Siebert-Hommes, 'Die Geburtsgeschichte des Mose innerhalb des Erzählungzusammenhangs von Exodus I und II', VT, 42 (1992), pp. 398-404.
29. D. Noy, Tsurut ve-T'kanim ba-Sippur ha-Amami, Jerusalem 1983, p. 217 (Hebrew).
30. M. Cogan, 'A Technical Term for Exposure', JNES, 27 (1968), pp. 133-135.
31. "And she sent her servant girl." R. Judah and R. Nehemiah: One said her hand, and one said: her servant girl (Sotah 12b). The Masoretes decided on "her servant girl" and vocalized a'matah and not amatah. "Amah" in the sense of an arm is not attested in the Bible.
32. Masoretic text: ותחמל עליו; Septuagint: καὶ ἐφείσατο αὐτοῦ ἡ θυγάτηρ Φαραω;Samaritan Pentateuch: ותחמל עליו בת-פרעה;  

4QExod^b: ותחמו]ל עליו בת-פרעה.

1. Later it says "So the woman took the child and nursed him" (2:9). It does not say "and she nursed him for her" because she did not nurse the child for Pharaoh's daughter but for his own sake, in the way of mothers.
2. Weiss (above, note 8), pp. 298-307.
3. See: Genesis 24:59; 35:8; 2 Kings 11:2 which corresponds to 2 Chronicles 22:11.
4. For "to give a wage" in transactions, see Deuteronomy 24:15; Jonah 1:3.
5. Y. Fleischman, Horim ve-Yeladim be-Mishpetei ha-Mizrah ha-Kadum u-va-Mishpat ha-Mikra, Jerusalem 1999, p. 60 (Hebrew).
6. Although there are no adoption laws in the Bible, this is most likely the intention. See 2 Samuel 7:14, which corresponds to 1 Chronicles 17:13; and cf. 28:6; Ruth 4:16-17; Esther 2:7, 15.
7. See variations of the formula in Genesis 4:1, 25; 38:1-5; 1 Samuel 1:20; 2 Samuel 12:24; Isaiah 8:3; Hosea 1:8-9; Ruth 4:13-17; 1 Chronicles 7:23.
8. A. Rofé, 'Imo shel Moshe ve-Shifchatah le-Fi Megillat Shemot mi-Qumran (4QExodb)', Beit Mikra, 40 (1995), pp. 197-202 (Hebrew).
9. The father's character is blurred and erased. A detailed discussion on this can be found in S. E. Loewenstamm, 'The Story of Moses' Birth', in: From Babylon to Canaan, Jerusalem 1992, pp. 201-221.
10. See: Judges 4:9, 17-23; 5:24-27; 9:53-54; 2 Samuel 11:21; 20:16-22.

 First Published in Massekhet - A Journal for Jewish Research, Creativity, and Thought, 7 (2008), pages 9-28 (Hebrew).