## Ibn Ezra on Exodus Chapter 1

###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:1:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:1:1)

ספר ואלה שמות, חבור לאברהם נשלם שנת תתקי"ג יקר כמו שהם

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
May the writer and the reader be strong and steadfast¹ 38. The printed editions omit it as they do many of the other poems which introduce Torah portions in I.E.’s *Commentary* on Exodus. Some manuscripts open with the following introduction: Abraham’s commentary on the book of Exodus, finished in the year 4913 (1152-53 C.E.), is as precious as onyx. However, other commentaries give the date 4927 (1166-67 C.E.) as the date of the manuscript’s completion. E. Levine notes, “Some writers have held that the 1152-53 date refers to the long commentary whereas the inscription 1166-67 refers to the short commentary; others have maintained that the 1152-53 refers to the short commentary and the 1166-67 refers to the long commentary which was written precisely between 1159 and 1167 C.E.” See Foreword. in the very ark². The reference is to I.E.’s commentary on Exodus. Commenting on the word *ba-aron* (in a coffin) in Gen. 50:26, I.E. explains, “The reason why *ba-aron* is vocalized with a *kamatz* is that it signifies the coffin which he had prepared for himself.” (See notes on Gen. 50:26.) The word *aron* can refer to an ark or to a coffin. I.E. is being a bit morbid. which is the house which the author prepared for himself.I now begin to explain the Torah portion, *Shemot;* which opens the second Book of the Torah.

footnotes:
¹ This poem is found in Vat. Ebr.
² In Hebrew, ba-aron be-kemutzot


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:1:2
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:1:2)

**ואלה,** טעם הוי"ו בעבור שהזכיר בסוף הספר הראשון, כי ראה יוסף לבניו בני שלשים (ברא' נ כב) הזכיר כי אחיו ברדתם היו מעטים ופרו ורבו ומלת אלה גם בחסרון הה"א שוה לזכרים ולנקבות וכתיב "כי את כל התועבות האל" (ויקרא יח כז) ואחריו מכל התועבות האלה (שם שם כט), לאנשים האל (ברא' יט ח) אלה ילדו להרפה (ש"ב כא כב) מה אעשה לאלה (ברא' לא מג) וככה מלת לז, השונמית הלז (מ"ב ד כה) הנער הלז (זכרי' ב ה), ובעבור היות מלת אלה מלעיל היה הה"א נוסף כה"א לילה (ברא' א ה) נחלה מצרים (במד' לד ה), ושם לשון זכר ורבים שמות כי התי"ו כולל סימן רבים ורבות כמו מקומות ואבות, גם המ"ם ככה סימן הזכרים והנקבות, כמו נשים ופלגשים ויש שמות שימצאו במ"ם גם בתי"ו כמו נפשים (יחז' יג כ) נפשות (שם שם יח) לבבות (דה"א כח ט) גם לבבים על לבבהן (נחום ב ה):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
NOW THESE ARE. Our book opens with a *vav*³ which literally means, and these are, and is so translated by I.E. The question thus arises, why open a book with a connective? Indeed, Deut. 1:1 opens with *elleh ha-devarim* and not with *ve-elleh ha-devarim*. Similarly, Exodus should have read *elleh shemot* and not *ve-elleh shemot*. because the end of Genesis relates that *Joseph saw the children of the third generation* (Genesis 50:23).⁴, i.e., that he was fruitful. However, it does not tell us about the fate of his brothers. The latter is related to us at the beginning of Exodus where we are told that *the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly* (Ex. 1:7). Thus the opening part of Exodus is connected to the closing section of Genesis. Hence the connective *vav*. Scripture notes that Joseph’s brothers were few in number when they descended to Egypt but that they were fruitful and multiplied there (Exodus 1:7).The word *elleh* (these) and *el* (these) are employed equally with the masculine and the feminine. We thus find, *For all these abominations* (ha-to’evot ha-el)⁵ (abominations) is feminine. (Leviticus 18:27) and then afterward, *any of these abominations* (ha-to’evot ha-elleh) (Lev. 18:29). We similarly read, *unto these men* (la-anashim ha-el) (Gen. 19:8); *These four* (arba’at elleh) *were born to the giant* (II Samuel 21:22); *and what can I do this day for these* (la-elleh) *my daughters* (Gen. 31:43). The same is the case with the word *laz* (that one).⁶ We thus find, *that Shunamite* (ha-shunammit ha-laz) (II Kings 4:25) and *this young man* (ha-na’ar ha-laz) (Zechariah 2:8). The fact that the word *elleh* is penultimately accented indicates that its *heh* is superfluous.⁷. The *heh* added to the word has no meaning. It is like the *heh* of *laylah* (night)⁸. and the *heh* of *nachlah* (brook) in *the Brook of* (nachlah) *Egypt* (Numbers 34:5).⁹.

footnotes:
³ The book of Exodus opens with the word ve-elleh
⁴ Genesis concludes by relating that Joseph saw the children of the third generation
⁵ The word to’evot
⁶ It too is employed both with the masculine and the feminine.
⁷ The basic word being el
⁸ The basic word being layil
⁹ The usual form is nachal


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:1:3
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:1:3)

ה"א מצרימה, תחת מלת "אל" כמו נלכה דותינה (ברא' לז יז) ותבא אותי ירושלימה (יחז' ח ג):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[THE NAMES OF.] *Shem* (name) is masculine. Its plural form is *shemot* (names), for the *tav* is used for both the masculine and the feminine.¹⁰ can be a plural masculine. I.E. makes this point because generally speaking only feminine plurals end in a *tav*. Compare, *mekomot* (places)¹¹, which is masculine. and *avot* (fathers). The *mem* is similarly used as a masculine and feminine plural. Compare, *nashim* (women) and *pilagshim* (concubines).¹² We also find some nouns employing both the *tav* and the *mem* in the plural forms. Compare, *nefashim* (souls) (Ezekiel 13:20) and *nefashot* (souls)¹³ is feminine. (Ezek. 13:18). We similarly find, *levavot* (hearts) (II Chronicles 28:9) and *levavim* (hearts).¹⁴ (heart) is masculine. Compare, *al livvehen* (upon their hearts)¹⁵ is made up of the plural *levavim* plus the suffix for their. (Nahum 2:8).[Into Egypt.] The *heh* of *mitzrayemah* (into Egypt) is in place of the word *el* (to). Compare, *dotayenah* (to Dothan) in *nelekh dotayenah* (let us go down to Dothan) (Gen. 37:16); and *yerushalayemah* (to Jerusalem) in *and brought me in the vision of God to Jerusalem* (Ezek. 8:3).¹⁶ is equivalent to *el yerushalayim* (to Jerusalem) and *dotayenah* to *el dotan* (to Dothan). Similarly, *mitzrayemah* is equivalent to *el mitzrayim* (to Egypt).

footnotes:
¹⁰ Hence the word shemot
¹¹ Its singular is makom
¹² These words are obviously feminine.
¹³ Nefesh
¹⁴ Levav
¹⁵ Livvehen
¹⁶ Yerushalayemah


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:1:4
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:1:4)

**את יעקב.** עם יעקב כמו כרת ד' את אברם (ברא' טו יח):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
WITH JACOB. *Et ya’akov* means with Jacob.¹⁷ is usually placed before the direct object. Here it is used as a preposition meaning with. Compare, *In that day the Lord made a covenant with* (et) *Abram* (Gen. 15:18).

footnotes:
¹⁷ Et


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:1:5
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:1:5)

**איש וביתו.** יוצאי חלצו ואין בית בכל המקרא אשה, והנה העד איש וביתו באו, כי לא היו נשי השבטים במספר השבעים, ואל יקשה בעיניך וכפר בעדו ובעד ביתו (ויקרא טז, ו, יא) כי פשוטו בית אביו, כי שלשה וידוין היו ועזר הכהן שהיא אשתו בכח בעדו, והיא נכללת עמו, כי האיש ואשתו הוא האדם:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
EVERY MAN CAME WITH HIS HOUSEHOLD. *Beto* (his household) refers to those who came out of his loins. The term *bayit* (house, household) in Scripture never refers to a wife.¹⁸ (house) as a synonym for wife. Cf. *Sabbath* 118b: “Rabbi Jose said, I never called my wife, my wife but I called her my house.” Also see *Yoma* 2a, “*Beto zo ishto* (*His household* [Lev. 16:18] refers to his wife).” *Every man came with his household* (beto) is proof of this, for the wives of the tribes are not included in the seventy who descended into Egypt.¹⁹ does not mean one’s wife. Do not permit the verse *and* (the high priest shall) *have made atonement for himself, and for his household* (beto) (Lev. 16:18) to cause you any difficulty.²⁰, “his household” seems to refer to the wife of the high priest. See end of note 18. For according to the plain meaning of the text, *beto* (his household) refers to his father’s house. *Beto* (his household) must be so interpreted because the high priest made three confessions on the Day of Atonement.²¹ (Lev. 16:18). According to the Talmud the making of atonement refers to confession of sins (*viduy*). Cf. *Yoma* 36b. The three confessions offered by the high priest were on behalf of himself (*for himself*), on behalf of the house of Aaron (*his household*), and on behalf of the people of Israel (*and for all the assembly of Israel*). The priest’s helpmate, who is his wife, is included in the term *for himself*. She is included with him because a husband and a wife make a “man.”²² 63a: “Any Jew that has no wife is not a man.” Also see Gen. 1:27, *And God created man…male and female created He them*.

footnotes:
¹⁸ The Talmud uses the term bayit
¹⁹ Gen. 46:8-27 lists the seventy descendants of Jacob who came to Egypt. Women are not enumerated. In fact they are specifically excluded (Gen. 46: 26). This proves that beto
²⁰ The Pentateuch states that on the Day of Atonement the high priest shall make atonement for himself and for his household. Prima facie
²¹ The Torah states that the high priest shall make atonement for himself, and for his household and for all the assembly of Israel
²² Cf. Yevamot


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:2:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:2:1)

**ראובן. ויהודה** כל שהוא נע כזי"ן זבולן בהכנס עליו אחת מאותיות בוכ"ל וראוי להיות האות המשרת בשוא נע, והנה אין יכולת בלשון לקרוא שני שואין נעים, על כן שמו חירק תחת האות המשרת, כי אז היה בי"ת האות המשרת הנכנס עליו יאמרו בִּזבולן, ואם כ"ף או למ"ד כִּזבולן, לִזבולן, ואם וי"ו יאמרו שורק תחת חירק, כאלו הוי"ו בקריאת אלף, כמו וזבולן, כי המלה תראה כקריאת אל"ף או זבולן, ואם היה האות הראשון יו"ד כמו יהודה, שהיו"ד מאותיות הנעלמות יעלימוהו, כמו נעלה ביהודה (ישעי' ז' ו') כִיהודה ליהודה נחשון (במד' א ז), כי עתה היו"ד הוא נעלם, ואינו נזכר ונרגש בשפה, וגם ככה עם וי"ו ויהודה, והנה נכתבו השבטים הנה כסדר תולדותם:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
REUBEN. When a word beginning with a letter that is vocalized with a mobile *sheva* (*sheva na*), e.g., the *zayin* of Zevulun, has a *bet, vav, kaf*, or *lamed* prefixed to it, the prefix ideally should also be vocalized with a mobile *sheva*.²³, and *lamed* are prepositional prefixes. They are usually vocalized with a mobile *sheva*. I.E. explains the rules of the vocalization of the prefixes in this note because a connective *vav* is prefixed to many of the names of the sons of Jacob listed in our chapter. However, due to the impossibility of sounding two mobile *sheva’im* in succession these prefixes are vocalized with a *chirik* rather than with a *sheva*. Hence if the word *zevulun* has a *bet* prefixed to it we say *bi-zevulun* (in Zebulun), If *zevulun* has a *kaf* or *lamed* prefixed to it we say *ki-zevulun* (like Zebulun) or *li-zevulun* (to Zebulun). However, if the word has a *vav* prefixed to it then it is vocalized with a *shuruk* rather than a *chirik*. We sound the *vav* as if it had an *alef* preceding it and pronounce the word *u-zevulun* (and Zebulun) for the word is sounded as if it were written *alef vav* plus *zevulun*.²⁴ is the sign of the *shuruk*. I.E. explains that a *shuruk* is sounded as if spelled *alef vav;* i.e., it is pronounced ooh. However, if we deal with a word whose first letter is a *yod*, an example being the name *yehudah*, then the *yod* is silent, for the *yod* is one of the quiescent letters.²⁵, and *yod*. These letters surrender their consonantal function by coalescing with surrounding vowel signs at the end of a syllable or word. Thus the *yod* following a *chirik* or *tzere* is not sounded as a consonant. Hence the term quiescent letters. Compare, *biyhudah* (against Judah) in *Let us go up against Judah* (Isaiah 7:6) and *kiyhudah* (like Judah) and *liyhudah* (of Judah) in *Of Judah, Nahshon* (Num. 1:7). In the latter case the *yod* is silent and is not perceived or felt when the word is enunciated. The same is also the case when a *vav* is prefixed to the word *yehudah*. The word is pronounced *viyhudah*.The tribes are here listed in order of their births.²⁶

footnotes:
²³ The bet, vav, kaf
²⁴ Vav
²⁵ The quiescent letters are the alef, heh, vav
²⁶ In the order in which they were born to their mothers. First Leah’s children are listed in the order of their birth. Then Rachel’s son Benjamin is listed. The children of the wives are followed by the children of the handmaids. The latter are also listed in the order that their mothers bore them. Joseph is listed last because he was in Egypt when the others arrived there (Krinsky).


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:3:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:3:1)

**יששכר.** בעבור התחברות שני שיני"ן חסרו האחר מהמבטא כדרך מחצצרים (דה"א טו כד) שיקרא מחצרים ואין שי"ן כמוה במקרא ומנהג העברים בהתחבר וי"ו עם אחד מאותיות השפה שהם במ"פ חבירי הוי"ו ינעו אל"ף נוסף בקריאה וינקדו הוי"ו בשורק כמו ופרו ורבו (ירמי' כנ ג) ומלאו בתי מצרים (למטה ח יז) וככה ובנימין, בעבור היות בנימין בן הגברת הזכירו לפני בני השפחות:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
ISSACHAR. Because the two *sins* in *yissachar* (Issachar) are written in succession only one is sounded. Compare, the word *machtzetzrim* (did blow) (I Chron. 15:24), which is pronounced *machtzerim*.²⁷ in succession. However, only one *tzadi* is sounded. Similarly, *yissachar* is pronounced *yisachar*. We do not find a similar case with regard to the *sin* in Scripture.²⁸ are written in succession and only one is pronounced (Krinsky). It is customary for the Hebrews to pronounce a *vav* prefixed to the labials which are related to the *vav*, namely, the *bet, mem, peh* with an *alef* added to it,²⁹ is a labial. Before a labial the *vav* is not pronounced like a labial but is pronounced “ooh” so as not to have two labials back to back. and to vocalize the *vav* with a *shuruk*. Compare, *u-faru* (and they shall be fruitful) in *and they shall be fruitful and multiply* (Jeremiah 23:3); and *u-male’u* (shall be full) in *and the houses of the Egyptians shall he full of swarms of flies* (Ex. 8:17). The word *u-vinyamin* (and Benjamin) is similar. Benjamin is listed before the children of the handmaidens³⁰ because he was a son of one of Jacob’s wives.

footnotes:
²⁷ The word is spelled with two tzadis
²⁸ There is no other instance in Scripture where two sins
²⁹ See note 24. The vav
³⁰ Even though he was born last.


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:4:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:4:1)

**דן.** בהתחבר השמות הם על ששה דרכים, נכונים, האחד כמו עילם ואשור וארפכשד (ברא' י כב) והשני בנפך ארגמן ורקמה ובוץ (יחז' כז טז) השלישי אודם פטדה וברקת (למטה כח יז) הרביעי דן ונפתלי גד ואשר החמישי מור ואהלות קציעות (תה' מה ט) הששי אדם שת אנוש (דה"א א א):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
DAN. Names are connected to each other in Scripture in six different ways. All of these styles are correct. One way of listing names is, *Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad* (Gen. 10:22).³¹ (and) is placed before each of the names that follows the first name (Krinsky). A second manner is, *with carbuncles, purple, and richly woven work, and fine linen* (Ezek. 27:16).³² is placed after the first two names in a list. A third way is, *carnelian, topaz, and smaragd* (Ex. 28:17).³³ is placed before the last name in the list. A fourth way is, *Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher*.³⁴ is placed before each of the second names in a list. The fifth is, *Myrrh, and aloes, and cassia* (Psalms 45:9).³⁵ is omitted before the last name. The verse literally reads, *Myrrh, and aloes, cassia are all thy garments*. The sixth way is, *Adam, Seth, Enosh* (I Chron. 1:1).³⁶ is employed.

footnotes:
³¹ A connective vav
³² A connective vav
³³ A vav
³⁴ Our verse. A vav
³⁵ The vav
³⁶ No connective vav


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:5:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:5:1)

**ויהי.,** מלת יהי, היתה ראויה להיות כמו ירב המשא עליו (דה"ב כד כז), ובעבור היות הה"א מן הגרון פתחו במלת יהי, היו"ד הראשונה בקמץ קטן יֶהִי, והיה ראוי להיות היו"ד האחרון בשוא נח נראה, כמו הבי"ת במלת ירב והיה ראוי להיות יהי רק יכבד על הלשון על כן העלימוהו וננקד הה"א בחירק על כן "לו יְהִי" (ברא' ל לד) "כי הוא אמר וַיֶהִי" (תה' לג ט), ובעבור שידברו במלה הזאת הרבה תמיד, השיבו הטעם מלרע, והניעו היו"ד בשו"א, יהי כן ד' (למטה י י), על כן אין בבנין הקל פעל שיהיה האות המשרת בשוא, רק זאת הגזרה וגזרת ויחי יעקב (ברא' מז כח) והיה זה כי השתים האותיות שלו שרש מאלה השתי גזירות ויהי ויחי, השתי אותיות הם מאותיות הנוח, והם יו"ד ה"א היה, חיה, ובעבור כי אלה שתי האותיות הם מאותיות הנוח, פעמים שאינם נראים בסוף המלה בא האות המשרת שהוא היו"ד עליהם בשוא, ולא כן בכל הגזרות בבנין הקל:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
WERE. The word *yehi* (let it be)³⁷ (were) is the word *yehi* with a conversive *vav*. should have been vocalized like the word *yirev* (the multitude)³⁸ is conjugated in the shortened third person imperfect *kal* form, the *yod* prefix is vocalized with a *chirik* and the first root letter with a *segol*. Compare, *yiven* (he will build), *yigel* (he will uncover). Thus *yehi* should have been vocalized *yihey*. in *and the multitude of the burdens against him* (II Chron. 24:27). However, since the *heh* is a guttural, the word *yehi* is vocalized with a *segol*³⁹ beneath the first *yod* and the word is read *yehi*. Furthermore, the final *yod* of *yehi* should have been pronounced with a sounded *sheva nach* (a quiescent *sheva*) as is the case with the word *yirev*. The word should thus have been pronounced *yihey*. However, because of the difficulty involved in the enunciation of the word in the aforementioned manner, the *yod*⁴⁰. was silenced and we vocalized the *heh* with a *chirik*. Hence the word is pronounced *yehi* (*sheva* beneath the *yod*) as in, *Behold, would it might be* (yehi) *according to thy word* (Gen. 30:34), or *yehi* (*segol* beneath the *yod*), as in *For He spoke, and it was* (va-yehi) (Ps. 33:9). The accent is placed on the last syllable of *yehi* and a *sheva* is placed beneath its *yod*⁴¹ prefix. because the word is used often in conversation, as in *So be* (yehi khen) *the Lord* (Ex. 10:10). Therefore only this root and the root of *va-yechi* in *And Jacob lived*⁴². (Gen. 47: 28) are found to have an imperfect *yod* prefix vocalized with a *sheva*⁴³ prefix is usually vocalized with a *chirik* in the *kal*. when conjugated in the *kal*. The reason for this is that two letters of the two roots *va-yechi* and *va-yehi* consist of the quiescent letters *yod, heh*, the root of one being *heh, yod, heh* and that of the other *chet, yod, heh*. Now since the *yod* and the *heh* are quiescent letters and are at times not pronounced at the end of a word, the *yod* prefix is vocalized with a *shev*a. We do not find any such other case in the *kal*.

footnotes:
³⁷ Va-yehi
³⁸ When a word from a root that ends in a heh
³⁹ It is so vocalized when a pausal.
⁴⁰ That is, the last yod
⁴¹ That is, the yod
⁴² From the root chet, yod, heh
⁴³ An imperfect yod


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:5:2
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:5:2)

**יוצאי ירךְ.** רמז לקרוב אליו אבר המוליד כמו להסך את רגליו (ש"א כד ד) כי ששים ותשע היו, אך יעקב יחשב בראשונה, על כן כתב בתחלה את יעקב, כמו שאמרנו למעלה, ופרשה הראשונה ויגש אליו כתיב "יעקב ובניו" (ברא' מו ח) והנה עם יעקב היו כל נפש בניו ובנותיו שלשים ושלש (שם שם טו) והעד בשבעים נפש ירדו אבותיך מצרימה (דבר' י כב) כי נפש היתה ליעקב, ויוסף שהיה במצרים במספר הוא ושני בניו:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
THAT CAME OUT OF THE LOINS OF JACOB. Loins allude to the male organ which is located near the loins.⁴⁴ It is similar to *and Saul went to cover his feet* (I Sam. 24:4).⁴⁵ is a euphemism for penis.The offspring of Jacob who descended to Egypt really numbered sixty-nine, not including Jacob who should be counted first. The Pentateuch therefore first states *et ya’akov* (with Jacob), the meaning of which is as we have noted earlier.⁴⁶ In the first listing of Jacob’s descendants in the Torah portion *va-yiggash* (then Judah came near unto him) (Gen. 44:18), Scripture states, *And these are the names of the children of Israel who came unto Egypt, Jacob and his sons*⁴⁷. (Gen. 46:8). Thus with Jacob, *all the souls of his sons and his daughters* (descended from Jacob and Leah) *were thirty and three* (Gen. 46:15).⁴⁸ The verse *Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten souls*⁴⁹ (Deuteronomy 10:22) is proof that Jacob is counted among the seventy, for Jacob had a soul. Similarly, Joseph and his two sons who were in Egypt are also included in the seventy.⁵⁰

footnotes:
⁴⁴ In other words, loins is a euphemism for penis.
⁴⁵ Here feet
⁴⁶ See I.E.’s comment on verse 1.
⁴⁷ Gen. 46 lists the descendants of Jacob who came to Egypt. Like Ex. 1:4, it gives their number as 70. In introducing the names of those who came to Egypt it tells us that the list includes Jacob and his sons
⁴⁸ Those descended from Jacob and Leah actually numbered 32. They number 33 only if Jacob is included in the count.
⁴⁹ Translated according to I.E. Since Jacob had a soul he must be included in the 70 souls that came down to Egypt.
⁵⁰ Even though Joseph is mentioned after the number 70.


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:6:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:6:1)

**וימת יוסף.** אב ובנו שתי דורות, והעד שחיה איוב אחרי שבותו מאה וארבעים שנה (איוב מב טז) והוא ראה ד' דורות, וקדמונינו ז"ל אמרו עשרה דורות מאדם ועד נח, ומנח עד אברהם עשרה, ואין מספר שנות אלה כאלה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND JOSEPH DIED AND ALL THAT GENERATION. A father and his son comprise two generations.⁵¹ Proof of this⁵² is the fact that after Job’s fortune was changed for the better, he *lived a hundred and forty years* and saw four generations⁵³ (Job 42:16). Furthermore, our sages tell us that there were ten generations from Adam to Noah and ten generations from Noah to Abraham (Abot 5:2, 3). Now the years of each of the aforementioned generations were different one from the other.⁵⁴

footnotes:
⁵¹ In other words, a generation does not refer to a fixed number of years.
⁵² That a generation does not refer to a fixed number of years.
⁵³ The four generations come to 140 years (Weiser). However, elsewhere in Scripture four generations come to more than 140 years. For example, the four generations that the Israelites dwelt in Egypt lasted 210 years. For other interpretations see Netter and Krinsky.
⁵⁴ The ten generations from Adam to Noah comprised more years than the ten generations from Noah to Abraham, for the antediluvian patriarchs lived much longer than the postdiluvian patriarchs. See chapters 5, 10, and 11 of Genesis. We thus see that a generation does not comprise a fixed number of years.


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:6:2
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:6:2)

וטעם וימת יוסף כי מת בגדולתו, גם אחיו לא ראו את ימי הרעה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
The meaning of *And Joseph died* is that he died in his greatness.⁵⁵ Similarly, his brothers also did not see the evil days which followed.⁵⁶

footnotes:
⁵⁵ Joseph’s death is reported before Scripture relates the rise of the new king over Egypt. Hence the implication that Joseph died while still serving in his royal position (Weiser).
⁵⁶ Their deaths are also recorded as occurring before the rise of the new king (Weiser).


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:6:3
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:6:3)

וטעם וכל הדור ההוא על המצרים כי יזכיר אשר לא ידע את יוסף:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[AND ALL THAT GENERATION.] This refers to the Egyptians. For Scripture goes on to note, *Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph* (v. 8).


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:7:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:7:1)

**ובני ישראל פרו.** הולידו כעץ יתן פריו:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WERE FRUITFUL. They produced children as a tree produces fruit.⁵⁷ means produced children.

footnotes:
⁵⁷ In other words, were fruitful


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:7:2
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:7:2)

**וישרצו.** כמו ישרצו המים (ברא', א כ) רק הראשון מהפעלים העומדים בעצמם כמו הלך, ישב, עמד, שכב, והשני מהיוצאים תלוים בדבר אחר כמו אכל, שמר, שכר, אכל את הלחם, שמר את הדבר, שכר את החמור, אלו נקראים פועל יוצא, והנה ישרצו המים מהפעלים היוצאים, וזה השני וישרצו, מהפעלים העומדים, והנה זו הגזרה, כגזרת שב, פעם עומד, כמו "ושב וקבצך" (דבר' ל, ג) ופעם יוצא, כמו "ושב ד' אלהיך את שבותך" (שם שם), אולי מלת וישרצו רמז שילדו נשיהם תאומים ויותר ואני ראיתי ד' בנים שילדה אשה אחת, והרופאים נותנים טעם עד שבעה יגיעו בבטן אחת:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND INCREASED ABUNDANTLY. *Va-yishretzu* (and increased abundantly) is similar to the word *yishretzu* (swarm) in *Let the waters swarm* (yishretzu) (Gen. 1:20). However, in the first instance⁵⁸ in our verse. the verb is independent.⁵⁹ It is like the verbs went, sat, stood, and lay. In the second instance⁶⁰ in Gen. 1:20. the verb is dependent upon something else. It is like the verbs ate, kept, and hired. We thus say, he ate the bread, he kept the thing, and he hired the donkey. The latter are called transitive verbs. Now *yishretzu* (swarm) in *yishretzu ha-mayim* (Let the waters swarm) is a transitive verb, while *va-yishretzu* (and increased abundantly) is an intransitive verb. Thus the root *shin, resh, zadi* is sometimes transitive and sometimes intransitive. It is like the root of the word *shav*⁶¹. which is at times intransitive as in *and (God) will return* (ve-shav) *and gather* (Deut. 30:3) and at times transitive, as in *that then the Lord thy God will turn* (ve-shav) *thy captivity* (*Ibid.*). It is possible that the word *va-yishretzu* alludes to the fact that the Israelite wives gave birth to twins and even more.⁶² is *shin, resh, zadi* our verse is to be rendered, the children of Israel swarmed (*va-yishretzu*); i.e., they multiplied like insects. See also Rashi, quoting *Shemot Rabbah*, that they bore six children at each birth. I myself have seen the quadruplets that a women gave birth to. Physicians tell us that a woman can have as many as seven fetuses in her womb at one time.

footnotes:
⁵⁸ Va-yishretzu
⁵⁹ It is intransitive.
⁶⁰ Yishretzu
⁶¹ Its root is shin, vav, bet
⁶² Since the root of va-yishretzu


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:7:3
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:7:3)

**וירבו.** שלא היו מתים כדרך עם רב:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND MULTIPLIED. They did not die in proportion to that of a large nation.⁶³

footnotes:
⁶³ They multiplied because they had a low death rate.


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:7:4
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:7:4)

**ויעצמו.** שהיו בעלי עצם תקיפין, ומלת במאד מאד, שלא היו יכולין להיות יותר ובי"ת במאד מאד כמו בי"ת "ויסעו בראשונה" (במד' י יג) כי כתיב "ראשונה יסעו" (שם ב ט):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND WAXED EXCEEDINGLY MIGHTY. They had strong bones.⁶⁴ (and waxed mighty) as, and they had (large) bones, for *va-ya’atzmu* comes from the root *ayin, tzadi, mem* meaning bone.

footnotes:
⁶⁴ I.E. renders va-ya’atzmu


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:7:5
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:7:5)

**ותמלא הארץ.** ארץ גושן היא:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[EXCEEDINGLY.] The phrase *bi-me’od me’od* (exceedingly) indicates that there could not possibly have been any more of them.⁶⁵ (exceedingly) is repeated. The *bet* of *bi-me’od me’od* is like the *bet* of *ba-rishonah* (first) in *and they took their first journey* (Num. 10:13), for we also encounter the term with out the *bet* in *they shall set forth first* (rishonah) (Num. 2:9).⁶⁶ is superfluous. The text could have read, *me’od me’od* (exceedingly), and the meaning would have remained the same. See I.E.’s comments on Gen. 1:1 and the notes thereto.

footnotes:
⁶⁵ This is the reason that the word me’od
⁶⁶ The bet


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:7:6
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:7:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:7:6)

רַעְמְסֵס, בשו"א נח תחת העי"ן, כי הראשון שתחת העי"ן שהוא דבק עם הרי"ש יקרא נח, והשני תחת מ"ם יקרא נע, כי הוא כמו תחלת נע השפה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THE LAND WAS FILLED WITH THEM. The land of Goshen, also known as the land of Rameses.⁶⁷ Rameses is sounded with a quiescent *sheva* beneath the *ayin*, for the first *sheva* in Rameses, the *sheva* beneath the *ayin* which is connected to the *resh*, is called a *sheva nach*. The second *sheva*, the one beneath the *mem*, is called a *sheva na* (mobile *sheva*)⁶⁸. because the lips seem to begin to first move when it is uttered.⁶⁹ means to move. A *sheva na* opens a syllable. The lips begin to move when a new syllable is pronounced.

footnotes:
⁶⁷ Rameses where Israel dwelt is not to be identified with the store-city Raamses (v. 12) which Israel built for Pharaoh. See I.E. on Gen. 47:1.
⁶⁸ Or vocative sheva
⁶⁹ Na


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:8:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:8:1)

**ויקם מלך חדש.** פירושו כמשמעו בלא תוספות, שלא היה מזרע המלוכה על כן כתיב ויקם, כמו כי הקים בני את עבדי (ש"א כב ה):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
NOW THERE AROSE A NEW KING. This is to be taken literally without any embellishments.⁷⁰ 11a). Scripture reads, *and there arose* (va-yakam) because the new king was not of the royal seed. It is like *that my son hath stirred up* (hekim)⁷¹ *my servant to lie in wait against me* (I Sam. 22:8).

footnotes:
⁷⁰ Contra the opinion in the Talmud a new king refers to the old king whose “decrees were new” (Sotah
⁷¹ Literally, set up or made to arise. Saul accused his son Jonathan of wanting to place David on the throne of Israel. We thus see that to arise refers to a new dynasty.


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:9:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:9:1)

**ויאמר אל עמו.** המצריים:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND HE SAID UNTO HIS PEOPLE. The Egyptians.⁷² does not refers to his advisers or nobles. It refers to the common people (Krinsky).

footnotes:
⁷² His people


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:9:2
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:9:2)

**הנה עם.** מלת עם איננה סמוכה, רק בני ישראל פירוש ותוספות ביאור, כמו "אהיה אשר אהיה" (למטה ג יד) "אשר התהלכו אבותי לפניו אברהם ויצחק" (ברא' מח טו):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
BEHOLD THE PEOPLE. The word *am* (people) is not in the construct with *bene yisrael* (the children of Israel). The term *bene yisrael* explains *am* and provides additional information concerning its meaning.⁷³ (the people of the children of Israel). *Prima facie, am* is in the construct with *bene yisrael*, and the meaning of our text is *the people of the children of Israel*. I.E. disagrees. He holds that our text is to be interpreted as follows: *the people*, i.e., *the children of Israel*. It is like the words *That I Am* in the phrase *I Am That I Am* (Ex. 3:14)⁷⁴ elaborates upon *I Am*. The phrase is to be understood as *I Am*, that is, *That I Am*. and the words *Abraham and Isaac* in the verse *The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk* (Gen. 48:15).⁷⁵ elaborate *my fathers*.

footnotes:
⁷³ The text reads am bene yisrael
⁷⁴ That I Am
⁷⁵ Abraham and Isaac


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:9:3
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:9:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:9:3)

**ממנו.** כל ממנו בספרי אנשי מזרח סימן לרבים הנו"ן רפה כמשפט להפריש בינו, ובין, ממנו פנה (זכרי' י, ד) שהוא סימן לשון יחיד שאיננו נמצא בפני המדבר, שהוא דגוש כמשפט וכל ספרי מערב שניהן דגושין, בין שהוא סימן לשון יחיד, ובין שהוא סימן לשון רבים, והיה כן, כי ממנו לשון יחיד דגוש הפך המנהג כי מלת אני רפה, וכן מלת נחני ד' (ברא', כד כז), והנה מלת מן כפולה, נדגש הנו"ן מִמֶּנִּי לחסרון הנו"ן האחר, כאילו היה מִמֶּנְנִי, כי הנו"ן הראשון תבוא עם אות המ"ם, כאלו היא מן, נו"ן ני, לסימן המדבר, א"כ יהיה איש ממנו (שם כג ו) שהוא לשון רבים כאילו הוא מִמֶּננו, וטעם נו"ן מִמֶּנּו דגוש להתבלע הה"א בחסרון, כי יאמר מן ישמור, יִשְׁמרוּ, אשר יִקְרְאוֹ (ירמי' כג ו) איוב יִרְדְפוֹ (הושע ח ג), והוא המעט, כי הרב ישֶׁמֶרהו (תה' מא ג) רק ישמרו דרך קצרה, כמו וְהִנֵהו עושה מלאכה (ירמי' יה ג) שהוא כמו והנה הוא, וְהִנֵה נצב (במד' כג ו), ופעמים יוסיפו הנו"ן, "ישחרונני ולא ימצאונני" (משלי א כח) תכרכני נפשך (ברא' כז יט) כמו תברכנני, זובח תודה יכבדנני (תה' נ כג), יסובבנהו, יבוננהו יצרנהו (דבר' לב. י) ופעמים יבלעו הה"א בנו"ן, ולא ישמרנו בעליו (למטה כא כט):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
FOR US. When the word *mi-mennu* (for us) is in the plural⁷⁶ may mean from him or from us (of us). the books of the Babylonians⁷⁷ adhere to the grammatical rule⁷⁸, meaning us, is added to a verb in the plural no *dagesh* is placed in the *nun*. Compare, *shamarnu* (we kept), and *katavnu* (we wrote) (Filwarg). and always omit the *dagesh* in the *nun* in order to differentiate between *mi-mennu* in the plural and *mi-mennu* in *Out of him*⁷⁹. (mi-mennu) *shall come forth the cornerstone* (Zech. 10:4). In the latter, *nu* is a third person singular suffix and has a *dagesh* placed in the *nun* in accordance with the grammatical rule.⁸⁰ signifying the third person singular always receives a *dagesh*. Compare, *yishmerenno* (Filwarg). However, all the books coming out of the Land of Israel⁸¹ have a *dagesh* in the *nun* of *mi-mennu* both in the singular and in the plural because the *nun* of *mi-menni* (from me)⁸². This appears to be a scribal error. It is clear from the context that we should read *mi-menni* (Filwarg, Krinsky). I.E.’s point is that *mi-mennu* in the plural receives a *dagesh* despite the rule because *mi-menni* in the singular also should not have received a *dagesh*. in the singular has a *dagesh* despite the rule.⁸³ generally does not receive a *dagesh*. For the *nuns* of *ani* (I) and *necheni* (hath led me) in *the Lord hath led me* (Gen. 24:27)⁸⁴ of the first person suffix (*ni*) does not receive a *dagesh*. do not receive a *dagesh*.Now the word *min* (from) is doubled,⁸⁵ (from me) is a contraction of *min min ni* (from from me). the *nun* of *mi-menni* receives a *dagesh* to make up for the missing *nun* of the second *min*, and the word is read as if written *mi-menni*. The *nun* of the first *min* is represented by the *dagesh* in the second *mem* of *mi-menni*⁸⁶ in the second *mem* of *mi-menni* and the word is therefore pronounced *mi-mmenni*. The *mem* is doubled to make up for the missing *nun* of the first *min*. See previous note. and the *nun* of the suffix *ni* serves as if it were in the place of the one speaking.⁸⁷ Similarly, the *nun* of *mi-munnu* in the plural, spelled *mem mem nun nun vav* (Gen. 23:6), receives a *dagesh* and is read as if written *mi-mennu*.⁸⁸ in *mi-mennu* in the plural is the same as that of *mi-menni*. The first *dagesh* (in the second *mem*) compensates for the missing *nun* of the first *min*, and the second one (in the *nun*) compensates for the missing *nun* of the second *min*. For *mi-mennu* is a compound of *min min nu* (*nu* being short for *anachnu*) in the same way that *mi-menni* is short for *min min ni*. The reason that the *nun* of *mi-mennu* (of him) in the singular receives a *dagesh* is to compensate for the swallowed *heh*,⁸⁹ (*heh, vav*) is the usual third person suffix. This suffix is missing in *mi-mennu* (of him). The *dagesh* in the *nun* compensates for the missing *heh*. for it is only in a few instances when the verb *yishmor* (he will keep) is combined with a third person suffix that we say *yishmero* (he will keep him). The same is true of the word *yikre’o* (he shall be called) in *whereby he shall be called* (Jer. 23:6) and the word *yirdefo* (shall pursue him) in *The enemy shall purse him* (Hosea 8:3). The usual form of the third person suffix is *yishmerehu* (preserve him) (Ps. 41:8). Thus *yishmero* (he will keep him) is a shortened form. It is similar to *hinnehu* in *and, behold, he* (ve-hinnehu) *was at his work* (Jer. 18:3), in which *hinnehu* is a compound of *hinneh* (behold) and *hu* (he); and to *ve-hinneh nitzav* (and, lo he stood) (Num. 23:6).⁹⁰ is the long form. *Ve-hinneh* is the short form, for *ve-hinneh nitzav* is short for *ve-hinnehu nitzav*. At other times an additional *nun* is added,⁹¹ rather than one *nun* are suffixed to a verb ending in a first person pronoun. as in *yeshacharuneni* (they will seek me earnestly) and *yimtza’uneni* (they will find me) in *They will seek me earnestly, but they shall not find me* (Proverbs 1:28). Similarly, the word *tevarakhani* (may bless me) in *that thy soul may bless me* (Gen. 27:19) is pronounced *tevarekhanni* because of the *dagesh* in the *nun*.⁹² doubles the *nun*. We also find an extra *nun* in the word *yekhabbdaneni* (honoreth Me) in *whoso offereth the sacrifice of thanksgiving honoreth Me* (Ps. 50:23) and in the words *yesovavenhu* (He compassed him about), *yevonanehu* (He cared for him), and *yitzrenhu* (He kept him) (Deut. 32:10).⁹³ At other times the third person *heh* suffix is swallowed by the *nun*, as in *yishmerennu*⁹⁴ is doubled to compensate for the missing *heh*. (kept it in) in *and its owner hath not kept it in* (Ex. 21:29).

footnotes:
⁷⁶ The word mi-mennu
⁷⁷ Literally, the Easterners.
⁷⁸ When the suffix nu
⁷⁹ I.E.’s rendition. J.P.S. translates as out of them
⁸⁰ The nun
⁸¹ Literally, the Westerners.
⁸² The text has mi-mennu
⁸³ That the suffixed nun
⁸⁴ We thus see that the nun
⁸⁵ Mi-menni
⁸⁶ There is a dagesh
⁸⁷ It is a first person suffix.
⁸⁸ In other words, the reason for the dageshim
⁸⁹ Hu
⁹⁰ Ve-hinnehu
⁹¹ Two nuns
⁹² The dagesh
⁹³ The verbs quoted by I.E. from Deut. 32:10 are third person singular.
⁹⁴ A third person singular suffix. The nun


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:10:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:10:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:10:1)

**הבה.** הבה את אשתי (ברא' כט כא) לשון זכר, והוא הנכון כמו לכה נא עמנו ולנקבה הבי המטפחת (רות ג' טו), לכי ובאי (מ"א א יג), בעבור שידברו במלות האלה הרבה, יאמרו הבה נרדה (ברא' יא) ולנקבה הבה נא אבוא אליך (שם לח טז) כמו "לכה נשקה את אבינו יין" (שם יט לב):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
COME (HAVAH). The word *havah* (give) in *Give me my wife* (Gen. 29:21) is in the masculine and as such is properly used there.⁹⁵, which is a masculine singular imperative, is properly used. J.P.S. in our verse translates *havah* as come. It is similar to the word *lekhah* (come) in *come, I pray thee with us*.⁹⁶. I.E.’s point is that both *havah* and *lekhah* come from stems that have a *yod* as their first letter and a *heh* added to their roots in the masculine singular imperative form; i.e., at times we say *havah* and *lekhah* in place of *hav* and *lekh*. In the feminine we say *havi*, as in *Bring* (havi) *the mantle that is upon thee* (Ruth 3:15), and *lekhi* (go), as in *Go and get thee in* (I Kings 1:23). Now because these words are used often the masculine form is employed both as a plural and as a feminine singular.⁹⁷ is a masculine singular form. Nevertheless, it is also used when the rules of grammar call for *havu* (in the plural) or *havi* (in the feminine singular). Scripture thus reads, *Come* (havah), *let us go down* (Gen. 11:7);⁹⁸ is used as a plural. *Come* (havah) *I Pray thee, let me come in unto thee* (Gen. 38:16).⁹⁹ is here employed as a feminine. It is like *Come* (lekhah), *let us make our father drink wine* (Gen. 19:32).¹⁰⁰ is used as a feminine. The usual feminine form of this word is *lekhi. Lekhah* is ordinarily masculine.

footnotes:
⁹⁵ Jacob was speaking to Laban. Hence havah
⁹⁶ There is no such verse in Scripture. I.E. is probably referring to Num. 10:29 which reads, come thou with us
⁹⁷ Havah
⁹⁸ Here havah
⁹⁹ Havah
¹⁰⁰ Here lekhah


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:10:2
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:10:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:10:2)

נתחכמה. נבקש דרך חכמה שלא ירבה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
LET US DEAL WISELY. Let us search for a wise way to prevent them from multiplying.¹⁰¹ (let us deal wisely) is a *hitpa’el*. Hence I.E.’s comment. Cf. Rashi, “Let us consider wisely what to do with them.”

footnotes:
¹⁰¹ Nitchakkemah


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:10:3
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:10:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:10:3)

לו. בעבורו, כמו "אמרי לי" (שם כ יג), דע, כי כל הפעלים עוברים או עתידים שם הפועל בכחם, פי' שם דבר הנגזר מן הפועל שהוא חסר הוא נשמע מכח הפעלים כמו "והנה ברכת ברך" (במד' כג יא) "וברך ולא אשיבנה" (שם שם כ) והטעם וברך ברכה, וככה "וברוב יועצים תקום" (משלי טו כב), והשלם יועצים עצה תקום, וככה כי תקראנה קורות מלחמה, א"ר מרינוס, כי טעם ועלה מן הארץ, כמו ועלינו, ודבר ככה שלא יכשיל השטן פיהו, ולפי דעתי אין צורך.

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
WITH THEM. The word *lo* (with them) is to be rendered, because of them.¹⁰² (with them) is, to him. Hence I.E.’s comment. It is similar to the word *li* (of me) in *say of me* (Gen. 20:13).¹⁰³Note that all perfect and imperfect verbs imply a verbal noun.¹⁰⁴. I.E. uses this term for both a noun and an infinitive (Weiser). I.E.’s point is that there are instances in which a noun or an infinitive should follow a verb but it does not. In other words, even though a noun derived from a verb is missing in the text it is implied in the verb. For example, *ve-hinneh berakhta varekh* (and, behold, thou hast blessed them altogether) (Num. 23:11)¹⁰⁵ (in this case the infinitive) *barekh* is stated in the text. and *And when He hath blessed, I cannot call it back* (Num. 23:20), the meaning of which is: And when he hath blessed a blessing, I cannot call it back.¹⁰⁶ (blessing) is omitted from the text. However, it is implied by the verb *u-verakh* (and when he hath blessed). The same is true of *But in the multitude of counsellors they are established* (Prov. 15:22). The complete version of the latter is: But in the multitude of counsellors, counsel is established.¹⁰⁷ (counsel) was stated rather than implied in the word *yo’atzim* (counsellors). Similarly, *when there befalleth us any war* (v. 10) is to be interpreted as, when there befalleth us any accidents of war.¹⁰⁸ (there befalleth) is a plural. *Milchamah* (war) is a singular. Hence I.E. suggests that the verse be read as if the noun *korot* (accidents) were written between *tikrenah* and *milchamah*.Rabbi Merinus¹⁰⁹ says that *and get them out of the land* means, and we will get us out of the land. He believes that Pharaoh said *and get them out of the land* so that Satan would not ensnare him in the utterances of his mouth.¹¹⁰ 11a and Rashi on this verse. However, I see no need for this interpretation.¹¹¹ means: Israel will leave Egypt and return to their homeland (Krinsky).

footnotes:
¹⁰² The literal meaning of lo
¹⁰³ Literally, to me. However, here it means because of me.
¹⁰⁴ The term used by I.E. is shem ha-po’al
¹⁰⁵ Here the shem ha-po’al
¹⁰⁶ Here the noun barakhah
¹⁰⁷ This is how the verse would read if the noun etzah
¹⁰⁸ Tikrenah
¹⁰⁹ Jonah ibn Janach.
¹¹⁰ Pharaoh employed euphemistic language because he was afraid that Satan would use what he said against him and cause the Egyptians to be expelled (to go up) from Egypt. Cf. Sotah
¹¹¹ The text is to be taken literally. And get them up out of the land


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:11:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:11:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:11:1)

**מסים** רבים, והאחד מס, וכמו פתים (ויקרא ב ו) פת (ברא' יח ה), והם מפעלי הכפל:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
TASKMASTERS. *Missim* (taskmasters) is a plural. Its singular form is *mas*. This word is similar in form to *pittim* (pieces of bread) (Lev. 2:7) and *pat* (piece of bread) (Gen. 18:5).¹¹² The word comes from a stem whose second and third root letters are identical.¹¹³ is *mem, samekh, samekh*. The root of *pat* is *peh, tav, tav*. Both are double roots and are similarly vocalized.

footnotes:
¹¹² Both words come from a double root and are similarly vocalized.
¹¹³ The root of missim


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:11:2
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:11:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:11:2)

וטעם ענותו ליבש זרע הזכרים:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[TO AFFLICT THEM.] To cause the semen of the men to dry up.¹¹⁴

footnotes:
¹¹⁴ They tried to overwork them to the point that they would lose their virility.


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:11:3
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:11:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:11:3)

**מסכנות.** אוצרות, וכמוהו אל הסוכן (ישעי' כב טו) ותהי למלך סוכנת (מ"א א ד), שומרת האוצר, ולא יודע לכל ושכבה בחיקך:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
STORE-CITIES. *Miskenot* means store-cities. *Ha-sokhen* (this steward) in *unto this steward* (Is. 22:15)¹¹⁵ should be rendered, the one in charge of the treasury (or store), not this steward, as translated by J.P.S. and *sokhenet* (companion) in *and be a companion for the king* (I Kings 1:2) are similar.¹¹⁶. Be that as it may, I.E.’s point is that *sokhenet* refers to a person in charge of the store (treasury). For the meaning of the latter verse is, let her be in charge of the king’s treasury so that no one will know that she lies in thy bosom.

footnotes:
¹¹⁵ According to I.E. ha-sokhen
¹¹⁶ I.E. quoted from memory. The text reads, and be a companion unto him


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:11:4
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:11:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:11:4)

**רַעֲמסס.** בפתחות העי"ן ואיננה מקום ישראל:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
RAAMSES. Has a *pattach* beneath the *ayin* and does not refer to the place where Israel dwelt.¹¹⁷

footnotes:
¹¹⁷ See the last part of I.E.’s comments on verse 7 and the notes thereto.


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:12:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:12:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:12:1)

**וכאשר יענו אותו.** אעפ"י שהיה בעינוי, כן ירבה כימים אשר לא עונה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
BUT THE MORE THEY AFFLICTED THEM. Even though they were afflicted.¹¹⁸ (ve-kha’asher) *afflicted them*. I.E. interprets this to mean *even though they afflicted them*. THE MORE THEY MULTIPLIED. As they did in the days when they were not afflicted.¹¹⁹. I.E. interprets this to mean *so they multiplied* as in days of old.

footnotes:
¹¹⁸ The Hebrew literally reads, and as they
¹¹⁹ The Hebrew literally reads, so they multiplied


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:12:2
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:12:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:12:2)

**יפרוץ.** שעבר החוק בפריה ורביה כמו ופורץ גדר (קהלת י):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THE MORE THEY SPREAD ABROAD. They were fruitful and increased above and beyond the norm.¹²⁰ *Yifrotz* (they spread abroad) is like *poretz* (breaketh) in *And whoso breaketh through a fence* (Ecclesiastes 10:8).¹²¹

footnotes:
¹²⁰ They were abnormally fertile.
¹²¹ They broke the rules of the natural rate of increase, so to speak, as one breaks through a wall.


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:13:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:13:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:13:1)

**ויעבידו.** רעות רבות חדש עליהם, בראשונה לעשות מלאכתו, וכאשר ראה שלא חסר רבותם נתן רשות למצרים ולשריהם להעבידם יותר מחק העבדים, וזהו בפרך והוא כדברי המתרגם ארמית ולומר בפיוט פרוכים איננו נכון כלל, וכאשר ראה שלא יועיל זה, אז קרא למילדות שהן שרות על כל המילדות וצוה להרוג כל הזכרים הילודים:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
TO SERVE. Pharaoh devised many evils with which to afflict the Israelites. First he ordered them to do his work.¹²² When he saw that this did not diminish their greatly increasing numbers he gave permission to the Egyptians and their princes to work them harder than slaves are normally worked. The latter is, as Onkelos explains, the meaning of the term *be-farekh* (with rigor). It is totally wrong to employ the form *perukhim* (broken) in liturgical poetry.¹²³ (the root of *perakh* [rigor] is never found in this form in the Bible (Weiser). When Pharaoh saw that the above measures did not stop the Israelites from increasing, he called the *midwives* (v. 13), the ones who were in charge of all the other midwives, and commanded them to kill all the males that were born.

footnotes:
¹²² The building of Pithom and Raamses.
¹²³ The stem peh, resh, kaf


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:14:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:14:1)

**וימררו.** ידוע הוא כי התי"ו סימן לנקבות על הרוב, והמ"ם סימן לזכרים, כמו מועדות (דה"ב ח יג) ומועדים (ברא' א יד), ודרך חכמי ספרד כי בניני הפעלים שמורים ולא תחסר אות מן השרש, ואינם כן, רק שמות דברים יאמרו כאשר נמצאו, כי יחיד מן מועדות מועד לא מועדה, כאשר יאמר החכם בעיניו כי מן מקום יאמר מקומים וממקומות מקומה אולי יפקח עיניו ויראה, כי מן בכור יאמר בכורים, למכה מצרים בבכוריהם (תה' קלו י), והנה ובכורות בקרך (דבר' יד כג), א"כ יהיה היחיד בכורה, וככה לבנים, לא יאמר לבן כ"א לבנה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THEY MADE THEIR LIVES BITTER. It is known that the *tav*, in a majority of instances, is the sign of the feminine plural and the *mem* of the masculine plural. Compare, *mo’adot* (seasons) (II Chron. 8:13) and *mo’adim* (seasons) (Gen. 1:14).¹²⁴ is feminine. *Mo’adim* is masculine. According to the Spanish scholars verbal forms are kept and do not drop any of their root letters.¹²⁵ However, this is not the case with nouns. Nouns are only employed as found in Scripture,¹²⁶ for the singular of *mo’adot* (seasons) is *mo’ed*, not *mo’adah* as the person who thinks he is so brilliant believes.¹²⁷ is a feminine plural form. *Mo’ed* is a masculine singular form. These two forms are inconsistent. The unnamed sage thus postulated that a female form *mo’adah* existed, the plural of which is *mo’adot*. However, no such form is found in Scripture. The latter would maintain that the plural of *makom* (place)¹²⁸ is masculine. is *mekomim*¹²⁹ is *mekomot. Mekomot* has a feminine ending. and the singular of *mekomot* (places) is *mekomah*.¹³⁰ is a feminine form. We thus see that the plural and singular forms of nouns are not consistent. Perhaps he will open his eyes and see that the plural of *bekhor* (first-born) is *bekhorim*, as in *To Him that smote Egypt in their first-born* (bekhorehem) (Ps. 136:10).¹³¹ (their first-born) is the word *bekhorim* with the pronominal suffix. However, we also encounter the form *bekhorot* (firstlings) in *and the firstlings of thy herd* (Deut. 14:23). Now, shall the singular of *bekhorot* be *bekhorah*?¹³². Thus we see once again that the singular (*bekhor*) and the plural (*bekhorot*) are based on different forms of the noun. The same is the case with *levenim* (bricks).¹³³ is feminine even though it has a masculine ending. Its singular is *levenah*,¹³⁴ is feminine. not *leven*.¹³⁵

footnotes:
¹²⁴ Mo’adot
¹²⁵ The root assigned to a verb is consistent throughout the conjugation. Thus one stem will not be assigned to the singular and another to the plural.
¹²⁶ Their singulars and plurals are often grammatically inconsistent.
¹²⁷ I.E. does not identify the grammarian that he is referring to. This grammarian held that a word with a feminine plural ending must similarly have a feminine ending in the singular. Mo’adot
¹²⁸ Makom
¹²⁹ There is no such word. The plural of makom
¹³⁰ There is no such noun. However, there would be if Hebrew were consistent, because mekomah
¹³¹ Bekhorehem
¹³² Its singular is bekhor
¹³³ A word found in our verse. All that preceded was written to explain this word, for levenim
¹³⁴ Levanah
¹³⁵ There is no such word. However, there would be if Hebrew singular and plural forms were consistent.


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:14:2
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:14:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:14:2)

וטעם בחומר ובלבנים, לבנות בתים וגדרות, גם לחרוש ולקצור, ולזמור ולבצור, וזה את כל עבודה בשדה ואח"כ כלל את כל עבודתם לצרכיהם:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[IN MORTAR AND IN BRICK.] To build houses and fences.¹³⁶ They also had to plow, harvest, prune, and pick olives. This is the meaning of *and in all manner of service in the field*. Scripture then alludes to all the other types of work which Israel did to fulfill the needs of the Egyptians by the general term *in all their service*.

footnotes:
¹³⁶ The mortar and brick were employed in the building of houses and fences.


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:14:3
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:14:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:14:3)

**אשר עבדו בהם.** ישרתו בעבור שנים, עבדו בהם בפרך, וגזרת עבד בלא בי"ת אחריה היא עבודת העבד וככה "עבדתיך" (ברא' ל כו), ואם אחריה בי"ת הוא על ב' דברים, האחד בעבור, כמו "ויעבד ישראל באשה" (הושע יב יג) והשני לא תעבוד בו בפרך כדרך "אשר לא עובד בה" (דברי' כא ג), וככה אשר לא יעבד בו (שם שם ד), כי כתוב והארץ הנשמה תעבד (יחז' לו לד) ועל הדרך הזה "כנושה כאשר נושה בו" (ישעי' כד ב):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
WHEREIN THEY MADE THEM SERVE. The word *avedu* (they made them serve) is to be read as if written twice. Our verse is to be read as if it were written: wherein they made them serve, they made them serve with rigor. When a verb from the root *ayin, bet, dalet* is not followed by a *bet* it refers to work performed by a slave. This is the meaning of *avadatikha* (I have served thee) (Gen. 30:26).¹³⁷ However, when the verb is followed by a *bet* it has one of the following two meanings. It means for the sake of, as in *va-ya’avod yisrael be-ishah* (and Israel served for a wife) (Hos. 12:13).¹³⁸ following *va-ya’avod* has the meaning of: for the sake of. Thus *be-ishah* means: for the sake of a woman. Its other meaning is illustrated by *thou shalt not make him to serve* (lo ta’avod bo) *with rigor*,¹³⁹. The words *with rigor* come from Lev. 25:43. I.E.’s point is that in this case the *bet* (bo) has the meaning of with him. which is like *which hath not been wrought with* (lo ubbad bah) (Deut. 21:3).¹⁴⁰ is the indirect object, for the meaning of *lo ubbad bah* is: *which hath not been wrought with* (Weiser). *Which may neither be plowed* (lo ye’aved bo) (Deut. 21:4)¹⁴¹ is the indirect object, for the verse literally reads: which may neither be plowed in, i.e., land that no one worked with. is similar, for we find, *And the land that was desolate shall be tilled* (Ezek. 36:34).¹⁴², the indirect object. Hence when the *bet* is there it represents the indirect object (Filwarg). In a like manner Scripture reads, *As with the lender, so with the borrower* (nosheh vo) (Is. 24:2).¹⁴³ (bo) is the *bet* of the indirect object and means with him (Weiser).

footnotes:
¹³⁷ Jacob used this term when speaking to Laban. What he meant was, I slaved for you.
¹³⁸ The bet
¹³⁹ There is no such verse. I.E. apparently combined Lev. 25:39 and Lev. 25:43. The literal reading of Lev. 25:39 is, thou shalt not work with him
¹⁴⁰ Here too bah
¹⁴¹ Here too bo
¹⁴² When the Bible wants to say that it is the land per se that is worked rather than somebody working with the land, it leaves out the bet
¹⁴³ Here too vo


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:15:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:15:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:15:1)

**ויאמר מלך מצרים למילדות.** שרות היו על כל המילדות, כי אין ספק כי יותר מחמש מאות מילדות היו, אלא אלו שתיהן שרות היו עליהן לתת מס למלך מהשכר, וככה ראיתי היום במקומות רבות, והאם והבת היו בדרך קבלה כי נכון הוא:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THE KING OF EGYPT SPOKE TO THE HEBREW MIDWIVES. These midwives were in charge of all the other midwives. For there can be no doubt that there were more than five hundred midwives.¹⁴⁴ These two midwives were in charge of all the other midwives and saw to it that they gave a tax to the king from the money they collected for their services. I have seen such a practice in many places. The opinion that the two midwives were mother and daughter was handed down by tradition, for it is correct.¹⁴⁵ 11b.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁴ The number “five hundred” is not to be taken literally (Weiser). What I.E. means is that there must have been hundreds of midwives to serve the Israelite population.
¹⁴⁵ The Talmud identifies the midwives (Shiprah and Puah) with Jochebed and Miriam, the mother and sister of Moses. Cf. Sotah


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:16:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:16:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:16:1)

**ויאמר בילדכן את העבריות.** כל שהוא ממשפחת עבר יקרא עברי, ועל אמונתו יקרא עברי על כן אבי כל בני עבר (ברא' י כא) הבא מעבר הנהר, עבר הנהר משתי העברים:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
WHEN YE DO THE OFFICE OF A MIDWIFE TO THE HEBREW WOMEN. Whoever comes from the family of *ever* (Eber)¹⁴⁶) was the ancestor of Abraham (Gen. 11:14-29). Hence his descendants are known as *ivrim* (Hebrews). is called a Hebrew. One is called a Hebrew because of his faith.¹⁴⁷, is also called a Hebrew (Filwarg). Krinsky explains: One is called a Hebrew both by virtue of descent from *ever* and also because of his or her belief in the faith of Abraham. Hence descendants of *ever* who do not believe in the faith of Abraham are not called Hebrews. Hence *the children of Eber* (Ever) in *the father of all the children of Eber* (Gen. 10:21) refers to those who came from the side (*ever*) of the river.¹⁴⁸. The reference is to the eastern side of the Euphrates. The side of the river refers to one of the banks of the river.¹⁴⁹ in Hebrew can refer to a person or to the side of a river. Gen. 10:21 reads, *And unto Shem, the father of all the children of Eber* (ever)…*also were born children*. Now Shem lived before Eber was born. I.E. assumed that Scripture would not report someone as being the ancestor of a person not yet born. Hence Eber in this verse cannot refer to a person. It refers to those born on one of the sides of the Euphrates. This interpretation contradicts the one I.E. gives in Genesis and elsewhere in Exodus. Cf. Gen. 10:21 and Ex. 21:2. Krinsky suggests emending “hence” to “or.” In other words, I.E. offers an alternative interpretation to the one he gave in Genesis and will offer later on in Exodus. Filwarg, on the other hand, suggests emending the text to read: Hence they err who say that *the children of Eber*, in *the father of all the children of Eber*, refers to those who came from the side of the river. For the side of the river refers to one of the sides of the river. In other words, *ever* cannot refer only to the western bank of the river where Abraham came from. A river has two sides and *ever* might refer to the eastern bank of the river, which is not the place that the Hebrews originally came from.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁶ Eber (ever
¹⁴⁷ One who adopts the faith of Abraham, even though he is not a biological descendant of ever
¹⁴⁸ See Josh. 24:2 which, according to I.E, reads: Your fathers of old time dwelt on the side of the river
¹⁴⁹ That is, the Euphrates. The word ever


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:16:2
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:16:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:16:2)

אמר בן קריש כי אל"ף אבנים נוסף מגזרת בנים והטעם המשבר כמו מי אפסים (יחז' מז ג), והנכון שהוא כמו באבנים, והאל"ף שרש:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[THE BIRTHSTOOL.] Ben Kuraish¹⁵⁰ says that the *alef* of *ovnayim* (birthstool) is superfluous because *ovnayim* comes from the same root as *banim* (sons).¹⁵¹. Hence the *alef* of *ovnayim* is superfluous. For I.E’s concept of superfluous letters, see his comments on Gen. 1:1 and the notes thereto. The meaning of *ovnayim* is birthstool. *Ovnayim* is similar to *afsayim* (ankles)¹⁵². Hence the *alef* is superfluous. in *waters that were to the ankles* (Ezek. 47:3). In reality, however, *ovnayim* is similar to *ba-ovnayim* (at the wheel)¹⁵³. I.E. probably quoted from memory. *Ovnayim* in Jeremiah refers to a double stone (*even*) wheel. Hence the *alef* is a root letter. According to I.E. *ovnayim* are birth stones. and the *alef* is a root letter.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁰ An eighth-century North African grammarian.
¹⁵¹ The root of which does not have an alef
¹⁵² The basic word is passayim
¹⁵³ The reference is probably to Jer. 18:3. However, there the reading is al ha-ovnayim


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:16:3
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:16:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:16:3)

והמתן אותו. בסתר שלא יודע הדבר כי חמס היה עושה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
THEN YE SHALL KILL HIM. In secret so that it will not become known, because he was committing an act of violence.¹⁵⁴

footnotes:
¹⁵⁴ An act of cruelty and injustice even by the standards of the times.


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:16:4
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:16:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:16:4)

ומלת וחיה קשה מאוד בדקדוק, והיא זרה כי המשפט וחיתה כי ה"א השרש מן חיה יחליפוהו בתי"ו כמשפט בסמוכים "ולכל חית הארץ" (ברא' א, ל), והיה כן בעבור שהה"א והת"ו קרובים במכתב, ואין ביניהם לבד משך הנקודה שבתוך הה"א אבל לא במבטא כי הבו ל יש ביניהן בשמות, כי תחלה תקרא ה"א וכשתמשך הנקודה תקרא תי"ו, וזה לאות כי הכתב שבידינו הוא כתב עברי והכלל כי מלת חי, גם חיים בספק, כי הסכימו חכמי הדקדוק, כי וארפכשד חי (ברא' יא יב) מפעלי הכפל, וכמוהו כי אם תם הכסף (שם מז, יח) שהוא מן "תמם" וחיי כמו רבים חיים, ולפי דעתי כי זו הגזרה זרה ואם איננה כן יראנו ממנו כעל עתיד כמו אחוג יחוג לחוג היה ראוי שיאמר אֶחוי יחוי לחוי או כמו "סוב", סובו ציון (תה' מח יג) סבי עיר (ישעי' כג טז), והנה זאת לאות כי היא מהפעלים בעלי הה"א באחרונה אחר שלא מצאנו מגזרת חי אחת מכל הגזרות שהזכרנו הנה זאת לאות, כי היא מהפעלים בעלי הה"א באחרונה, כי מצאנו שיאמר אחיה, נחיה, יחיה, תחיה כמו יאמר מן היה, נהיה, אהיה, תהיה, יהיה, וא"כ הוא מגזרת חיה, כמו היה, ואעפ"י שמצאנו שיאמר וארפכשד חי, בלשון עבר לא נחוש לכל זה, אעפ"י שידמה שהוא מפעלי הכפל, והוצרכתי לומר ככה בעבור שראיתי כן אין וי"ו בכל המקרא שהוא שרש בסוף המלה, ואין טענה עלי ממלת "שלו" (איוב טז יב) כי הוי"ו תחת ה"א, כי אותיות אהו"י מתחלפות זו בזו, והעד "שלו כל בוגדי בגד" (ירמי' יב א) והוא מן שלה והנה אפרש לך למה לא תבא וי"ו שרש בסוף המלה, והיה זה בעבור כי הוי"ו ישרת בסוף בעבור יחיד שאיננו נמצא כמו עבדו ואמתו (למטה כ יז) וסימן לשון רבים "פרו ורבו" (ברא' א כב) וגם יש וי"ו נוסף כמו בנו בעור (במד' כד ג), ואילו היה וי"ו שרש היה מתערב עם אחת מאלו השלשה ווין שהזכרנו, יחיד, ורבים, ונוסף, ולא תדע המלה, גם ככה אומר לך באות יו"ד שלא תבא שרש באחרונה כי הוא סימן יחיד מדבר יָדִי (ברא' מב לז) גם יָדָי (דבר' ט טו), וסימן רבים בסמוך, "ידי נשים רחמניות" (איכה ד י) וסימן נקבה "דעי וראי" (ש"א כה יז), ויו"ד היחוס, העברי, או העבריה (דבר' טו יב), גם נוסף בפעלים, המגביהי (תה' קיג ה) להושיבי (שם שם ה), גם בשמות "בני אתונו" (ברא' מט יא) גם במלות הטעם זולתי (דבר' א, לו) מני אפרים (שופ' ה' יד), ובעבור כל זה אינו ראוי שיבוא יו"ד שרש באחרונה, פן תתערב לנו המלה עם אחת מכל אלה שהזכרנו על כן אמרתי כי מלת וחיה זרה, והיא כמו וחיתה ותהיה מהפעלים בעלי הה"א באחרונה כאשר פירשתי:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[THEN SHE SHALL LIVE.] The word *va-chayah* (then she shall live) is irregular and presents a very difficult grammatical problem. The rules of grammar require *va-chayetah*¹⁵⁵ is masculine. *Va-chayetah* is feminine. Since the Bible speaks of *a daughter* the latter form should have been used. because the *heh* of the root¹⁵⁶. changes to a *tav*,¹⁵⁷ as it does in the construct in the case of the word *chayat* (beast of)¹⁵⁸. in *and to every beast of the earth* (Gen. 1:30). The reason for the change is that the *heh* and the *tav* are similar in appearance when written. The only difference between them is the extension of the dot that is within the *heh*. For the letter *tav* is first a *heh*. It is only when the dot is extended that it becomes a *tav*.¹⁵⁹ is open on the left side with the exception of a tiny line (referred to as a dot by I.E.) at the bottom. The *tav* is closed on both the right and left sides. Thus by drawing from the small line (the dot) to the top of the letter, the *heh* becomes a *tav*. However, the *tav* and the *heh* are pronounced completely differently.¹⁶⁰ They also have different names.¹⁶¹, one will not think he heard *tav*. This proves that our form of the letters is the original Hebrew script.¹⁶² 22a) over whether the original script of the Torah was identical to the script currently in use (the so-called Assyrian script), or whether the Torah was originally written in a script known as “Hebrew script.” In the Assyrian script the *heh* and the *tav* resemble each other. In the “Hebrew script” they are totally different. The fact that the Torah substitutes a *heh* for a *tav* because they resemble each other shows that the Torah was originally written in the Assyrian script. Historically speaking, the opinion that the Torah was given in “Hebrew script” is right, for all Hebrew writing extant from the period of the first commonwealth is in the “Hebrew script.”Generally speaking, the root of the word *chai* (lived) and the root of the word *chayyim* (life) are in doubt, for the grammarians have concluded that the root of the word *chai* (lived) in *And Arpachshad lived* (Gen. 11:12) is *chet, yod, yod*. The word *tam* (spent) in *how that our money is all spent* (Gen. 47:18) is similar, for it comes from the root *tav, mem, mem*.¹⁶³ The grammarians also agree that the plural of the root *chet, yod, yod* is *chayyim* (life). However, in my opinion we are dealing with an irregular root.¹⁶⁴ forms, the word *chai* is written as if it came from the root *chet, yod, yod*. On the other hand, it is conjugated in the other *kal* forms as if it came from the root *chet, yod, heh*. If this is not so¹⁶⁵ let someone show me a case where this root is conjugated in the imperfect according to the paradigm of *chet, gimel, gimel*, namely, *achog* (I will celebrate), *tachog* (you will celebrate), *yachog* (he will celebrate), *la-chog* (to celebrate).¹⁶⁶ imperfect. If the root of *chai* were *chet, yod, yod*, it should be conjugated *achoy, yachoy, la-choy* in the imperfect or like *sov* (go about) or *sobu* (walk about) in *Walk about Zion* (Ps. 48:13) and *sobbi* (go about)¹⁶⁷ or *sobbi* is *samekh, bet, bet. Sov* and *sobbi* are imperative forms. in *Go about the city* (Is. 23:16). This is proof that the word *chai* comes from a root ending in a *heh*. The fact that we do not find the root of *chai* conjugated in any of the above-mentioned forms is proof that it belongs to those verbs whose stems end in a *heh*,¹⁶⁸. I.E. is usually not this verbose and repetitious. Filwarg suggests that from “the fact” until “for we say” is an explanatory gloss that was incorporated into the text. The original reading was: This is proof that the word *chai* comes from a root ending in a *heh.*, for we say *echyeh, nichyeh*, etc. for we say *echeyeh* (I will live), *nichyeh* (we will live), *eheyeh* (I will be), *tiheyeh* (you will be), *yiheyeh* (he will be), all of which come from the root *heh, yod, heh*. Now if this is the case it comes from the root *chet, yod, heh* and is like the word *haya* (was).¹⁶⁹. The fact that we find the word *chai* (lived) employed as a third person perfect in *arpachshad chai* (Arpachshad lived) (Gen. 11:12) does not disturb us.¹⁷⁰. We are not bothered by the aforementioned even though it appears that *chai* comes from a double root.¹⁷¹ is the normal conjugation of the word if it comes from the root *chet, yod, yod*. I.E. is not disturbed by this because he believes this root to be irregular. See note 155. What forced me to come to this conclusion is the fact that I saw that there is no root in Hebrew that ends in a *vav*.¹⁷². See further in I.E.’s note. The word *shalev* (at ease) (Job 16:12) does not disprove my contention.¹⁷³ appears to come from the root *shin, lamed, vav*. Its *vav* is in place of a *heh*,¹⁷⁴. since the letters *alef, heh, vav, yod* interchange. Proof that what I say is correct is the word *shalu* (secure) in *Wherefore are all they secure that deal treacherously* (Job 12:1). For the root of *shalu* is *shin, lamed, heh*.¹⁷⁵ is the noun form of the verb *shalu*. Hence the root of *shalev* must be the same as the root of *shalu*.I will now explain to you why a *vav* is never employed as a third letter of a root. The latter is so because the *vav* serves as a third person singular suffix, as in the words *avdo va-amato* (his man-servant nor his maid-servant) (Ex. 20:14). The *vav* also serves as the sign of the plural, as in *peru u-revu* (be fruitful and multiply) (Gen. 1:22). There are also superfluous *vavs*, as in *beno be’or* (the son of Beor) (Num. 24:3).¹⁷⁶. Hence the *vav* of *beno* is superfluous. Now if the *vav* was also used as the final letter of a root it would be confused with one of the three types of *vavs* that we have just mentioned, namely, the *vav* indicating a third person singular suffix, the *vav* indicating a plural, and the superfluous *vav*; we could not then ascertain the meaning of the word.¹⁷⁷ is a root letter or a suffix (Krinsky). The same is also true of the *yod*. The *yod* cannot serve as the final letter of a stem because it is used as a first person singular suffix, as in the word *yadi* (my hand) (Gen. 42:37). It is also employed as a first person plural suffix, as in the word *yadai* (my hands) (Deut. 9:15). It is also the sign of the plural construct, as in *yede* (the hands of) in *The hands of women full of compassion* (Lamentations 4:10). It is used as the sign of the feminine imperative, as in *de’i and re’i* (know and consider) (I Sam. 25:17). It is used to indicate relationship, as in *ha-ivri o ha-ivriyah* (a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman) (Deut. 15:22). The *yod* is also used superfluously in verbs, as in *ha-magbihi* (that is enthroned) (Ps. 113:5) and in *le-hoshivi* (that He may set him) (Ps. 113:8).¹⁷⁸ and *le-hoshiv*. Hence the *yods* are superfluous. It is used superfluously with nouns, as in *beni atono* (his ass’s colt) (Gen. 49:11)¹⁷⁹. Hence the *yod* is superfluous. and also with particles, as in *zulati* (save) (Deut. 1:36) and *minni ephrayim* (out of Ephraim) (Judges 5:14).¹⁸⁰ and *min*. Hence the *yods* are superfluous. For these reasons the *yod* is not employed as a final root letter lest it be confused with one of the above-noted *yods*. Therefore I maintain that the word *va-chayah* (then shall she live) is irregular and is a variant of *va-chayetah*. It belongs, as I have already explained, in the family of verbs ending in a *heh*.

footnotes:
¹⁵⁵ Va-chayah
¹⁵⁶ In a root ending in a heh
¹⁵⁷ In the third person feminine perfect.
¹⁵⁸ From the root chet, yod, heh
¹⁵⁹ The heh
¹⁶⁰ The letters cannot be confused when spoken because they are sounded differently. But they can be confused when written, for they have similar forms.
¹⁶¹ Hence a person cannot mistake one for the other. Upon hearing heh
¹⁶² There is a controversy in the Talmud (Sanhedrin
¹⁶³ Similar in that both words have a doubled root letter.
¹⁶⁴ In the third person and participle kal
¹⁶⁵ If this root is not irregular.
¹⁶⁶ This is the form of a double root in the kal
¹⁶⁷ Another example of a double root. For the root of sov
¹⁶⁸ That is, its root is chet, yod, heh
¹⁶⁹ That is, it is conjugated according to the paradigm of hayah
¹⁷⁰ It does not disprove I.E.’s contention that the root of the word is chet, yod, heh
¹⁷¹ Chai
¹⁷² Or in a yod
¹⁷³ Shalev
¹⁷⁴ Hence its root is shin, lamed, heh
¹⁷⁵ Shalev
¹⁷⁶ The usual form is ben
¹⁷⁷ We would not be able to tell whether the vav
¹⁷⁸ The normal forms are ha-magbi’ah
¹⁷⁹ The usual form is ben
¹⁸⁰ The usual form is zulat


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:17:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:17:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:17:1)

**ותירֶאן.** העלימו האל"ף בעבור שלא תתערב המלה עם גזרת ראה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
BUT THE MIDWIVES FEARED GOD. The *alef* in *va-tirena* (feared) is not sounded lest the verb be thought to come from the root *resh, alef, heh*.¹⁸¹ is sounded, *va-tirena* is pronounced *va-tir-enah* and appears to come from the root *resh, alef, heh*, meaning: and they saw. The root of *va-tirena* is *yod, resh, alef*.

footnotes:
¹⁸¹ If the alef


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:17:2
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:17:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:17:2)

**ותחיין.** בכל כחן יותר ממשפט הראשון, כי מה צורך היה להאריך:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
BUT SAVED. Even more than at first, they now worked with all of their strength to save the children. Otherwise what need was there for Scripture to be so verbose?¹⁸² coming after *and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them* appears to be redundant unless it adds something new.

footnotes:
¹⁸² But saved the man-children


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:18:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:18:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:18:1)

**ויקרא.** הנכון בנות מות כי הפכתן מצותי, ואין הפרש בין ותאמרנה עבר, כמו ותאכלנה הפרות (ברא' מא ד) ובין כשידבר עליהן לנכח עצמן, בהכנס הוי"ו הפתוח וככה מדוע עשיתן ותחיין:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THE KING OF EGYPT CALLED FOR THE MIDWIVES, AND SAID UNTO THEM. You deserve to die¹⁸³ to *hinkhen*. because you have not obeyed my command.¹⁸⁴, etc. What he meant was, why have you violated my command and thereby incurred the death penalty. There is no difference in the form of the word *va-tomarnah* (said) in which the *vav* is vocalized with a *pattach* when it is in the third person perfect, like the word *va-tokhalnah* (did eat) in *And the ill-favoured, and lean-fleshed kine did eat* (Gen. 41:4), and when it is used as a second person perfect.¹⁸⁵ to the corresponding imperfect form. Thus *va-tomarnah* may mean either “and they said” or “and you (plural) said,” for *tomarnah* means either “they will say” or “you (plural) will say.” However, they differ in the regular perfect, for the normal second person form is *amarten* and the regular third person form is *ameru*. The same, of course, applies to the word *va-techayyenah* (and have saved). Indeed, I.E.’s comments are directed to explain this word, for *va-techayyenah* in our verse means “and ye have saved” while in verse 17 it means “and they saved.” Hence I.E.’s paraphrase: “why have ye done this thing and saved.” The meaning of our verse is: Why have ye done this thing and preserved the man-children alive?

footnotes:
¹⁸³ Following Filwarg, who emends ha-nakhon
¹⁸⁴ The king was not asking a question when he said, why have ye done this thing
¹⁸⁵ The second and third person feminine perfects are formed by adding a conversive vav


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:19:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:19:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:19:1)

**ותאמרנה.** לא עברנו על מצותיך, כי העבריות אינן כמצריות כי כח חיים הרבה יש להם ובא היו"ד רפה מן "כי חיות" והוא הנכון, כמו דוות רוות עלות עלי (ברא' לג יג), ונדגש יו"ד במלת חַיִּים שהוא תאר, כמו ונתפשם חַיִּים (מ"ב ז יב) כיו"ד "אלהי הָעִבְרְיִּים" (למטה ג יח) כן חיים שהוא שם דבר כמו עץ חַיִּים (משלי ג יח) וכמו ופטורי צִצִּים (מ"א ו יח):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THE MIDWIVES SAID UNTO PHARAOH. We have not violated your command because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; they have greater vitality. The *yod* of the word *chayot* (lively) in *For they are lively* does not have a *dagesh*. This is correct Hebrew usage. Compare, *davot* (ill), *ravot* (satiated), and *alot* (giving suck) in *the flocks and herds giving suck are a care to me* (Gen. 33:13). However, the *yod* in the word *chayyim* does receive a *dagesh* because *chayyim* is an adjective. Compare, *ve-nitpesem chayyim* (we shall take them alive) (II Kings 7:12) in which the *yod* in *chayyim* (alive) is like the *yod* of *ha-ivriyyim* (the Hebrews) in *the God of the Hebrews* (Ex. 3:18). The word *chayyim* (life) also receives a *dagesh* when it is a noun, as in *etz chayyim* (a tree of life) (Prov. 3:18). Similarly, the *tzadi* of *tzitzim* (flowers) in *and open flowers* (II Kings 6:18) receives a *dagesh*.


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:19:2
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:19:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:19:2)

**וְיָלָדו.** נקבות פועל עבר, כי שוה הוא לזכרים "טוו" (למטה לה כה) "צבאו" (שם לח ח):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND ARE DELIVERED. *Ve-yaladu* (and are delivered) is a feminine perfect. The third person perfect has the same form in the masculine and the feminine. Compare, *tavu* (did spin) (Ex. 35:25) and *tzave’u* (did service) (Ex. 38:8).


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:20:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:20:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:20:1)

**וייטב.** בעלי היו"ד בראשונה פעם יעמד היו"ד כמו זו ופעם יחליפוהו בוי"ו, כמו "ויושב שם רעבים" (תה' קז לו) שהוא מן ישב כמו וייטב מן יטב, וזה הטוב הוא הנזכר אחר כן "ויעש להם בתים" כמו "כי בית יעשה לך ד"' (ש"ב ז יא):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND GOD DEALT WELL. When a root begins with a *yod*, the *yod* does not always drop out when the verb is conjugated,¹⁸⁶. The word *va-yetev* (dealt well) is an example. At other times a *vav* is substituted for the *yod*, as in *va-yoshev* (He maketh to dwell) in *And there He maketh the hungry to dwell* (Ps. 107:36). The root of *va-yoshev* is *yod, shin, bet*, as the root of *va-yetev* is *yod, tet, bet*.¹⁸⁷ of a root beginning with a *yod* changes to a *vav* when the word is conjugated in the *hifil*. However, *va-yetev*, which comes from the root *yod, tet, bet* and is a *hifil* form retains its *yod*. Hence I.E.’s comment.*And God dealt well* is explained by what follows next, i.e., *He* (God) *made them houses*. The meaning of *He made them houses* is similar to *that the Lord make thee a house* (II Sam. 7:11).¹⁸⁸

footnotes:
¹⁸⁶ In the hifil
¹⁸⁷ In most instances the first yod
¹⁸⁸ Wherein “house” refers to an important family (Weiser).


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:21:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:21:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:21:1)

**ויהי כי יראו.** בעבור שלא יראו ממלך מצרים רק יראו מהשם, וייטב אליהן, ודע כי זו המלה איננה מהפעלים העומדים ולא מן היוצאים כי הוא על דרך שיקבל האדם היראה מאחר על כן יראו מאת ד' הוא הנכון, ואחזו דרך קצרה לומר "ירא את ד'" (מ"א יח יב), על כן מלת נורא איננה בבנין נפעל כמו נולד (דה"א ב ג) נשבר ונדכה (תה' נא יט), והמשכיל יבין;

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND IT CAME TO PASS, BECAUSE THE MIDWIVES FEARED GOD. Because the midwives did not fear the king of Egypt but feared the Lord, the Lord dealt well with them. Note that the verb *yare’u* (feared) is neither transitive nor intransitive, because its meaning is, to be afraid of someone.¹⁸⁹ means to be afraid of someone. The one who is frightened does nothing to the source of his fright. Hence the verb is not transitive. On the other hand, the frightened person does nothing to himself; i.e., he does not scare himself. Hence the verb is not intransitive (Weiser). Hence the correct way of saying “feared the Lord” would be *yare’u me’et Adonai*.¹⁹⁰ connects a transitive verb with the direct object. However, *yare*, as I.E. has noted, is not transitive. Hence I.E. notes that *et* is short for *me’et.*, the literal meaning of our text being: were afraid of God. Obadiah used a short form when he said, *yare et Adonai* (fear the Lord) (I Kings 18:12).¹⁹¹ is short for *me’et*. It is for this reason that the word *nora* (revered)¹⁹² is the passive form of the *kal*. Since the verb *yare* is not transitive it does not have a *nifal* counterpart. The word *nora* (revered) is thus not a *nifal* verb even though it has the form of a *nifal*. does not come in the *nifal* form as the words *nolad* (was born) (I Chron. 2:3), *nishbar* (broken) (Ps. 51:19), and *ve-nidkeh* (and contrite) (*Ibid.*) do.¹⁹³ verbs. The intelligent will understand why.¹⁹⁴ is not *a nifal* verb even though it comes in that form (Krinsky). However, I.E. uses this formula when he hints at some secret meaning. He apparently does so here. However, it is hard to ascertain what he is hinting at.

footnotes:
¹⁸⁹ The verb yare
¹⁹⁰ The text reads yare’u…et Elohim. Et
¹⁹¹ Here too et
¹⁹² As a verb. Nifal
¹⁹³ These are all nifal
¹⁹⁴ The intelligent will understand that nora


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:22:1
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:22:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:22:1)

**ויצו.** כל יושב על כסא מלכות מצרים יקרא בלשון מצרים פרעה, והנה הכתוב לא הגיד שמו, כפרעה נכה (ירמי' מו ב), ככה שמו בלשון עמו, וכן פרעה הפרע (ירמי' מד ל):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND PHARAOH CHARGED. All who occupy the throne of Egypt are called Pharaoh in the Egyptian language.¹⁹⁵ Scripture does not relate the name of this Pharaoh as it does in the case of *Pharaoh-neco* (Jer. 46:2) who was so called in the tongue of his people.¹⁹⁶ in Egyptian. I.E. comments thus so that we should not think that *neco* is a Hebrew adjective modifying Pharaoh, i.e., that *Pharaoh-neco* means Pharaoh the lame. Cf. I.E.’s comments on Gen. 41:10 and the notes thereto. The same is the case with *Pharaoh Hophra* (Jer. 44:30).¹⁹⁷ a personal name. It is similar to King *Hophra*.

footnotes:
¹⁹⁵ In other words, Pharaoh is a title. It is like the word king or tsar.
¹⁹⁶ He was called Pharaoh-neco
¹⁹⁷ Pharaoh is a title and Hophra


###### Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:22:2
[Ibn Ezra on Exodus 1:22:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Exodus/r/1:22:2)

**הילוד.** שם תואר כמו גבור שכור:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
THAT IS BORN. *Ha-yillod* (that is born) is an adjective. It is like *gibbor* (warrior) and *shikkor* (drunk).