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

NOW THESE ARE. Our book opens with a vav³ 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

[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

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

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

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).

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.

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

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 segol³⁹ 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 yod⁴⁰. 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 yod⁴¹ 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 lived⁴². (Gen. 47: 28) are found to have an imperfect yod prefix vocalized with a sheva⁴³ 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 sheva. 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

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 sons⁴⁷. (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 souls⁴⁹ (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.

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.

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).

[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).

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

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 shav⁶¹. 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

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.

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

[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

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

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.

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

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

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 him⁷⁹. (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-menni⁸⁶ 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 yishmerennu⁹⁴ 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

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

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

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

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

[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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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 mekomim¹²⁹ 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.

[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.

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

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

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

[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

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.

[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-chayetah¹⁵⁵ 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

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

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

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

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.

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).

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).

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

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

THAT IS BORN. Ha-yillod (that is born) is an adjective. It is like gibbor (warrior) and shikkor (drunk).