Read on Twitter
was rereading the Exodus story bc Passover and so
weird/punny/mysterious/etc. stuff in Exodus that either doesn't really translate or doesn't *get* translated for some reason, a thread
weird/punny/mysterious/etc. stuff in Exodus that either doesn't really translate or doesn't *get* translated for some reason, a thread
1:5 the term used for "of Jacob's issue" is actually יצא; it's "those who went out from Jacob's thighs."
It's the same term that's going to get used for the Israelites' leaving Egypt in 12:31 and 12:41. It's a nice little foreshadowing bit of wordplay.
It's the same term that's going to get used for the Israelites' leaving Egypt in 12:31 and 12:41. It's a nice little foreshadowing bit of wordplay.
A couple verses later, we've got a description of how many babies the Israelites are having.
it's literally, "they fruited, they swarmed, they [became] a lot, they became very very mighty, and the land was full of them"
![A couple verses later, we've got a description of how many babies the Israelites are having.it's literally, "they fruited, they swarmed, they [became] a lot, they became very very mighty, and the land was full of them"](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWLk22jVcAEWqDj.png "A couple verses later, we've got a description of how many babies the Israelites are having.it's literally, \"they fruited, they swarmed, they [became] a lot, they became very very mighty, and the land was full of them\"")
it's literally, "they fruited, they swarmed, they [became] a lot, they became very very mighty, and the land was full of them"
that "swarmed" verb? it's a callback to Gen 1:20 with the waters swarming with creatures
so on one hand, right here it's about birth (and the birth of a people vs a family), but Pharaoh's about to make the waters swarm with babies thrown into the Nile, so the use is dual-edged
so on one hand, right here it's about birth (and the birth of a people vs a family), but Pharaoh's about to make the waters swarm with babies thrown into the Nile, so the use is dual-edged
In 1:8 we get told that there's a new king of Egypt, who didn't know Joseph.
In 1:10, Pharaoh's worried they're going to "join [his] enemies," but the term for join is actually יסף, which is the shoresh (3-letter root most Hebrew words are based on) for Joseph's name.
![In 1:8 we get told that there's a new king of Egypt, who didn't know Joseph.In 1:10, Pharaoh's worried they're going to "join [his] enemies," but the term for join is actually יסף, which is the shoresh (3-letter root most Hebrew words are based on) for Joseph's name.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWLoZanUwAImrnI.png "In 1:8 we get told that there's a new king of Egypt, who didn't know Joseph.In 1:10, Pharaoh's worried they're going to \"join [his] enemies,\" but the term for join is actually יסף, which is the shoresh (3-letter root most Hebrew words are based on) for Joseph's name.")
In 1:10, Pharaoh's worried they're going to "join [his] enemies," but the term for join is actually יסף, which is the shoresh (3-letter root most Hebrew words are based on) for Joseph's name.
HE didn't know Joseph (who probably saved his family's throne, if he's a descendant of Joseph's pharaoh and not from a different dynasty), but if he's not careful, one of his enemies may benefit from a relationship with the Israelites like that Pharaoh had.
He's worried about them "going up from the land," v'alah min haaretz. The old JPS translation has "rise up from the ground," but it's also worth noting that in the text, one goes up to the land of Israel from outside it (and up to Jerusalem from within it).
So on one hand, there's this eerie image of the Israelites rising up out of the ground (like the plague of frogs will do), like the dragon's teeth soldiers in Greek myth, or like the resurrected dead.
On the other hand, more foreshadowing.
On the other hand, more foreshadowing.
Then in 1:11, we've got affliction & burdens. The term used for "afflict" here is ענה (which I believe is the root of the modern Hebrew word for "poor"). Same term for what Sarah does to Hagar, the Egyptian.
There's something maybe a little karmic, or at least cyclical, here.
There's something maybe a little karmic, or at least cyclical, here.
The other thing that's a little weird here is that the Israelites are referred to as "he" or "it" here, rather than "they."
Before the Israelites really conceptualize themselves as a nation, Pharaoh's treating them as a unit.
Before the Israelites really conceptualize themselves as a nation, Pharaoh's treating them as a unit.
What are the Israelites building for them? Treasure-houses, arei miskenot. I'm not sure about the etymology, but I've been told by more than one rabbi that the root of "treasure" here is actually from כנס, which means to gather together (it's the root of the term for synagogue).
And how do the Egyptians feel about this? They're "grieved" or filled with "dread," but that term (it also has connotations of "disgust") but it also has the sense of severing or distancing oneself.
Might be a stretch but it's an interesting juxtaposition.
Might be a stretch but it's an interesting juxtaposition.
