The End, Yet Again
Today’s daf yomi, Sotah 12b, has one of my favorite famous interpretations, about Pharaoh’s daughter stretching out her arm.
״וַתִּשְׁלַח אֶת אֲמָתָהּ וַתִּקָּחֶהָ״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, חַד אָמַר: יָדָהּ, וְחַד אָמַר: שִׁפְחָתָהּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר יָדָהּ — דִּכְתִיב ״אַמָּתָהּ״. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר שִׁפְחָתָהּ — מִדְּלָא כְּתִיב ״יָדָהּ״.
The verse concludes: “And she sent amatah to take it” (Exodus 2:5). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya disagree as to the definition of the word “amatah.” One says that it means her arm, and one says that it means her maidservant. The Gemara explains: The one who says that it means her arm explained it in this manner, as it is written “amatah,” which denotes her forearm. And the one who says that it means her maidservant explained it in this manner because it does not explicitly write the more common term: Her hand [yadah]. Therefore, he understands that this is the alternative term for a maidservant, ama.
This interpretation gets a bad rap, as clear midrash, since (a) super-extended hands are supernatural and (b) the interpretation goes against the vowel points. However, as I’ve discussed at length in a previous post, the original explanation works well with local textual features, and doesn’t include extremely long arms; we can consider just how the Talmudic Narrator added that. Also, the vowel points, as placed by the Tiberian Masoretes, are themselves interpretation and are not necessarily dispositive. That’s why Onkelos and Saadia Gaon can deviate in their translations. But I’ve stretched out this discussion here for long enough. Go check out my earlier post on the subject.
The daf (Sotah 12a) also discusses the expansion, or gradual expansion, of Pharaoh’s decree about offing the firstborn males.
״וַיְצַו פַּרְעֹה לְכׇל עַמּוֹ״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אַף עַל עַמּוֹ גָּזַר. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: שָׁלֹשׁ גְּזֵירוֹת גָּזַר: בַּתְּחִילָּה ״אִם בֵּן הוּא וַהֲמִתֶּן אוֹתוֹ״, וּלְבַסּוֹף ״כׇּל הַבֵּן הַיִּלּוֹד הַיְאֹרָה תַּשְׁלִיכֻהוּ״, וּלְבַסּוֹף אַף עַל עַמּוֹ גָּזַר.
§ The Gemara returns to the discussion of the bondage in Egypt. “And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying: Every son that is born you shall cast into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive” (Exodus 1:22). Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The use of the phrase “every son that is born” indicates that he decreed even on his own nation that all their male babies must be killed. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says further: He decreed three decrees. Initially, he commanded the midwives only with regard to Jewish infants: “You shall look upon the stones. If it be a son, then you shall kill him; but if it be a daughter, then she shall live” (Exodus 1:16). And afterward, he decreed with regard to the Jewish infants: “Every son that is born you shall cast into the river” (Exodus 1:22). And ultimately, he decreed even on his own nation that Egyptian infant boys should be cast into the river as well.
This because, as other midrashim spell out, the astrologers predicted the redeemer of Israel / usurper of Pharaoh would be born, would meet his end via water, would either be a Hebrew slave or an Egyptian — because of Moshe’s conflicted identity. We only encounter it in extreme shorthand in the gemara.
What seems strange, partly, is the middle וּלְבַסּוֹף. Yes, the text says that Pharaoh decreed three decrees. But why the middle ולבסוף? This וּלְבַסּוֹף does seem the pattern through various midrashim on this page and the surrounding ones, an initial and an eventual state. But doesn’t it mean “at the end”?
(This concern reminds me of a gemara or midrash, I can’t find right now, about גָּד֣וֹל יִֽהְיֶ֡ה כְּבוֹד֩ הַבַּ֨יִת הַזֶּ֤ה הָאַֽחֲרוֹן֙ מִן־הָ֣רִאשׁ֔וֹן, where acharon applied to the second beit hamikdash implied that there would not be a third. But acharon can be a relative term.)
This concern influenced the Artscroll to follow the marginal note in Vilna, and as appears in Ein Yaakov and Yalkut Shimoni, to replace that middle ולבסוף with ואחר כך.
As a matter of Talmudic style, I don’t think this is at all required. All printingss and manuscripts have ולבסוף. And compare Megillah 13b:
״וַיִּבֶז בְּעֵינָיו לִשְׁלוֹחַ יָד בְּמׇרְדֳּכַי לְבַדּוֹ״. אָמַר רָבָא: בַּתְּחִילָּה בְּמָרְדְּכַי לְבַדּוֹ, וּלְבַסּוֹף בְּעַם מָרְדֳּכַי, וּמַנּוּ — רַבָּנַן, וּלְבַסּוֹף בְּכׇל הַיְּהוּדִים.
The verse states: “But it seemed contemptible in his eyes to lay his hand on Mordecai alone; for they had made known to him the people of Mordecai; wherefore Haman sought to destroy all the Jews that were throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus, even the people of Mordecai” (Esther 3:6). Rava said: At first he wanted to lay his hands on Mordecai alone, and in the end on the people of Mordecai. And who were the people of Mordecai? They were the Sages, i.e., Mordecai’s special people. And ultimately he sought to bring harm on all the Jews.
The alternative could be that there were only two despite our texts starting out with “three” and listing three. Where is the prooftext for the third decree? It is missing from all texts, printings, manuscripts.
But the prooftext for that third decree needs to be in that second listed pasuk. In the first listed pasuk, it was targeted to Jewish infants:
וַיֹּ֗אמֶר בְּיַלֶּדְכֶן֙ אֶת־הָֽעִבְרִיּ֔וֹת וּרְאִיתֶ֖ן עַל־הָאׇבְנָ֑יִם אִם־בֵּ֥ן הוּא֙ וַהֲמִתֶּ֣ן אֹת֔וֹ וְאִם־בַּ֥ת הִ֖וא וָחָֽיָה׃
saying, “When you deliver the Hebrew women, look at the birthstool: if it is a boy, kill him; if it is a girl, let her live.”
But in the second:
וַיְצַ֣ו פַּרְעֹ֔ה לְכׇל־עַמּ֖וֹ לֵאמֹ֑ר כׇּל־הַבֵּ֣ן הַיִּלּ֗וֹד הַיְאֹ֙רָה֙ תַּשְׁלִיכֻ֔הוּ וְכׇל־הַבַּ֖ת תְּחַיּֽוּן׃ {פ}
Then Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, “Every boy that is born you shall throw into the Nile, but let every girl live.”
Where the charge was both el amo, and also with kol haben, every boy.