Shemot 5769

One of the themes in Parashat Shemot that I find compelling is the role of women in the beginning of the parasha. Pharaoh’s underestimation of women leads to Moses’ survival and thus to Pharaoh’s eventual downfall/the liberation from slavery.

From the start Pharaoh decrees against Jewish men only, seeing the Jewish people in Egypt as a potential military threat/fifth column. Rashi, the prolific French medieval commentator, however says that Pharaoh decreed against the males only because of a prediction by his astrologers predicting Moses’ birth. I’m not sure how to square this with the text of the parasha which explicitly states that the Egyptians felt threatened by the possibility of the Israelites allying themselves with foreign attackers.

This decree is subverted by the two midwives, Shifra and Puach. It is interesting that in a section of the parasha with no names given, Shifra and Puach are called out by name. All the major characters go without names at this point (and some will continue to remain nameless, though our Midrashic tradition fills in the gaps). Is it possible that remembering Shifra and Puach by name is a reward itself, aside from the households (i.e., children) given to them by G-d? Shifra and Puach may not have been Israelite. Were they the first instance of Righteous Gentiles protecting Jews from persecution?

Rashi notes that the Israelite women are compared to animals which do not need midwives to deliver babies. The Israelite women are less than human in Pharaoh’s eyes.

Midrash famously has Miriam convincing her father Amram to decide for the Jewish people to continue having children despite Pharaoh’s decree. Amram hadn’t wanted to bring boys into the world only to have the Egyptians kill them. Miriam protests that Amram has decreed against all children while Pharaoh only decreed against the males.

When Moses is placed in his basket – really an ark, the same word as used for Noach’s ark – he’s watched over by his sister Miriam. This liminal event – the risky travel of the baby who will bring liberation to the Israelites – is guarded by her.

Closer to home for Pharaoh, he is deceived by his daughter, unnamed in the text, traditionally known as Batya – daughter of HaShem. Batya goes down to the river to bathe. Why? Surely there were baths in her palace. As was noted in my daughter’s class at KI Religious School, midrash holds that Batya was rebelling against her father’s decree. In protest, was she converting to Judaism and the river was serving as her mikvah? Could it be that Batya was going down to the river to try to rescue a Jewish baby?

Batya then arranges with Miriam to have Yocheved be Moses’ wet nurse. Yocheved then raises Moses and doesn’t bring him back to Batya until “he matures” (two years old in the midrash).

The infant Moses is protected every step of the way by women. Shifra and Puach protect him and every other Jewish child. Miriam follows him from the riverbank while he is in his ark/basket. Pharaoh’s daughter, Batya, adopts him, names him, and gives him back to his biological mother so she can raise him under the guise of being his nurse.

Sometimes finding non-patriarchal angles on our tradition can be difficult. As the father of two daughters, it is something that I try to bring to the fore when we discuss Torah. It’s particularly gratifying to find it so close to the surface in so important a parasha as Shemot.

Adam Solomon

Vayechi 5769

So he (Jacob) blessed them that day, saying, “By you shall Israel bless saying, ‘May God make you like Ephraim and like Menashe’”… (Beresheit 48:20)

It’s odd enough that one verse in Torah should repeat the word laymor (saying). It’s odder still that each laymor is spelled differently. The first is spelled with an extra vav (lamed-alef-mem-vav-resh). This is only instance in Torah in which laymor is spelled this way (there are two more instances in all of Tanakh, both in Jeremiah.) The second laymor is spelled in the usual fashion (lamed-alef-mem-resh).

Modern scholarship explains spelling variations several ways. For example, as we know, spellings vary over time. If a word is spelled two different ways in the Torah, perhaps they were written at different times by different authors. But we’re discussing two different spellings in the same verse! Another possibility is scribal error that is preserved over time. This explanation as well strains credulity. There are only three Hebrew words between each laymor: how could a scribe possibly fail to catch such an error?

The only credible possibility is that the spelling variation is deliberate. What, if anything, does the Torah mean by spelling laymor with an extra vav?

Most traditional meforshim (interpreters) duck the question. The Zohar (parashat vayechi), however, takes it on:

[T]he word 'laymor' is normally spelled without vav, but here there is an additional vav. What is the reason for the difference?... It is an allusion to a firstborn son, as it is written: "Yisrael is my son, my firstborn" (Shemot 4:22) and "Efraim is my firstborn" (Jeremiah 31:8). For this, there is an additional vav.

Rav Berg, commentator on the Zohar, explains that the letter vav alludes to birthright. In our verse, Jacob transfers Menashe’s birthright to Ephraim. The vav is meant to signal to us that the transfer is occurring.

But Rav Berg’s explanation amounts to a tautology. The text tells us explicitly that a transfer of birthright is occurring: we have no need of an extra letter to hint at the transfer. I confess I cannot understand the Zohar’s explanation of the extra vav!

Vav is the first letter of every word at the top of all but six columns in a Torah scroll. This tradition is meant to signify the continuity and unity of the Torah. Perhaps the vav is meant to focus our attention on the continual transfer of the birkat ha-banim (blessing of the children) from Jacob to his grandchildren and down the chain to us and our children.