Resisting the command given by Pharaoh, the midwives do not kill the Israelite newborn children. Pharaoh uncovers their subterfuge, and calls them before him to have them explain why they have not fulfilled his command.
In response, the midwives say:
“Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women: they are lively (hayyot henah). Before the midwife can come to them, they have given birth” (Shemot 1:19).
What do they mean when they say: “ki hayyot henah - they are lively.” And what is their intention in contrasting Israelite women with Egyptian women?
The commentaries go in two opposite directions in interpreting this verse. One approach appears in Midrash Rabbah where we find:
“Hayyot henah - they are lively.”
This cannot mean that they, themselves, are midwives, for even a midwife needs assistance from another. Rather this is what they said to him: This nation is compared to animals in the field, which give birth without the assistance of a midwife.
The beginning of the midrash rejects the possibility that “hayyot henah” might mean that they have no need for midwives since they, themselves are midwives, since even professional midwives need the assistance of others when they give birth. This leads the midrash to explain that the word hayyot should be understood as “animals,” which is its common meaning. Animals have no need for operating suites with medical equipment – they give birth in a manner that is natural and comfortable.
The midrash goes one step further, however, and continues by pointing to the fact that this nation is compared over and over again to actual animals. The ease with which they give birth is but one example of how the Israelite nation is like animals. For we find:
Yehuda is compared to a lion: “Judah is a lion’s whelp” (Bereishit 49:9);
“Dan shall be a serpent by the road, a viper by the path” (Bereishit 49:17);
“Naphtali is a hind let loose” (Bereishit 49:21);
“Yissahar is a strong-boned ass” (Bereishit 49:14):
Yosef – “Like a firstling bull in his majesty” (Devarim 33:17):
“Binyamin is a ravenous wolf” (Bereishit 49:27);
and regarding the others it says: “What a lioness was your mother among the lions!” (Yehezkel 19:2).
The midrash views the consistency with which the tribes of Israel are compared to animals as a proof to its understanding of the word hayyot in our parasha. Although some might venture to view the comparison to animal as insulting, it is clear that Yaakov meant to make those comparisons in a positive manner when offering blessings to his children. It appears that Israelite nation possesses a deep connection with nature, and that this is part of the natural harmony that it enjoys. This also offers an explanation of sorts to the nation’s ability to survive. The midrash argues that the natural harmony developed by the Children of Israel reflects a most primitive use of senses. The more the people of Israel adopt simple, basic qualities, the greater its power.
Following the thinking of the midrash, the Hakham Zvi also suggests that the Israelite women possessed powers that distinguished them from ordinary, weak, human nature:
They differed from the ordinary manner of women with ordinary human nature, for they possessed the nature of animals of the field…
And my understanding is that the explanation of the midwives was connected to something else. For when the Torah relates that the people multiplied and became mighty, it refers to them having multiple births, which proved the words of the midwives – these women are like animals in that they do not have ordinary human nature.
(Responsa Hakham Zvi 69)
According to the Hakham Zvi, the fact that the women had multiple births connects with the unique abilities of these women, which were more similar to those of animals that to those of people.
We find the opposing approach in the Pesikta Zutrata, which teaches as follows:
Hayyot. Healthy. As in “two live (=hayyot) clean birds” (Vayikra 14:4).
And what is the meaning of healthy in this context? “Before the midwife can come to them, they have given birth.”
This teaches that they were righteous women, who were not affected by the curse of Eve.
According to the Pesikta, the speed and ease of these births has nothing to do with the primitive nature of animals, but to the righteousness of the women giving birth, who did not suffer the consequences of Eve’s sin.
The Hida explains as follows:
The explanation of the Kutnot Ohr is that they were righteous women, so they did not suffer from the curse of Eve, and they were compared to animals who do not need the services of a midwife…
According to this approach, perhaps one could make use of the kabbalistic idea
That before she sinned, Eve’s name was not Havah, but Hayyah.
Only after she sinned was her named changed to Havah, which shares a root with Hivya (snake).
(Pnei David)
Prior to her sin the first woman was called Hayyah, and she received the name Havah after the sin, reminding us of the sin with the snake. The daughters of Israel retain that human potential that is beyond nature. There is perfection in the Garden of Eden, with no pain or effort.
In conclusion, it appears that there are two ways of explaining the idea that the Israelite women were “hayyot.” One way is the almost embarrassing suggestion that they – and the entire Israelite nation – were like animals, or, alternatively, that they were on a high level of purity and righteousness that could transcend natural phenomena.
The contrast between the Israelite women and their Egyptian counterparts that is noted by the midwives leads to a fascinating discussion about the uniqueness of the people of Israel. What is especially interesting is that the positions taken appear to be exact opposites. There is no real need to explain the side that posits the unique qualities of the nation of Israel, as that is taken for granted by all of the Jewish commentaries. The side that emphasizes the animalistic qualities we discover by means of the midrash that suggests that approach. According to this perspective, the greatness of the nation of Israel is found specifically in its physical, natural strength.
The difference in approach can be viewed as the question of whether we see Israel as “the rose among the thorns,” the righteous among the nations, or do we see Israel as Tarzan in the jungle. The “Tarzan” qualities are expressed in the ability to shed human qualities and aim for a common living element, to the unifying principle inherent in animals that can be found in the depths of physical matter.
This is how Rabbi Chaim ibn Attar (18th century Morocco) explains the comparison between Israelite and Egyptian women in his commentary, the Ohr HaHayyim:
Perhaps they were hinting to the fact that Israelite women had two sources of knowledge.
First they were, in their essence, Israelite, but second, they were now Egyptian women.
Rabbi Chaim ibn Attar sees no contradiction in the distinction made between the daughters of Israel and the Egyptian women, rather he sees the possibility of cultural exchange that raises the status of the Israelites and helps the nation of Israel develop.
As a nation in exile, Israel is in a position to absorb knowledge and has broad opportunities to develop its knowledge and abilities – the first of which is the ability to survive under all circumstances, by making use of the broad knowledge that they attain. Their unique abilities in childbirth may not be the result of some inherent difference about them, or some magical element, but a change and development that takes place specifically because of the position of weakness and need, in which the Israelite nation found itself.
