Pharaoh’s Deception, the Mechanics of Oppression, and Divine Justice: Talmudic Interpretations of Exodus 1:10-14 (Sotah 11a-b)
Part of a series, in honor of the upcoming holiday of Passover. Previous installment here.
Unrelated, I’ve added a new section to the main navigation bar of the blog: “Introduction to the Talmud“. It’s a relatively short, direct intro, with all the key terms hyperlinked. It contains the following sections: Origins and Structure; Historical Context; Key Figures and Schools; Language and Method; Halachic Dimensions and Observance; Aggadic Elements; Biblical Figures and Reinterpretations; Relevance Today. Check it out!
The sugya in Sotah 11a-b offers a layered reading of the biblical narrative of Israelite enslavement in Egypt, revealing rabbinic insights into Pharaoh’s policies, his advisors, and the nature of oppression. The Talmud dissects the language of Exodus 1:10-14, uncovering hidden meanings, wordplay, and ironies in the text.
At the center of the discussion is Pharaoh’s consultation with three figures—Balaam, Job, and Jethro—each of whom faces a different fate based on their response to his genocidal plans. The sugya further examines Pharaoh’s self-inflicted curse, the deceptive tactics used to coerce the Israelites into forced labor, and the psychological and physical dimensions of their suffering.
Throughout, the sugya extensively uses wordplay and folk etymology to find deeper meaning in unusual names and words.1 Through close analysis of terms such as sarei missim (taskmasters), miskenot (storage cities), and farekh (harsh labor), the Talmud exposes deeper connotations of power, control, and resistance.
The rabbis also highlight the paradox that affliction led to the Israelites’ growth.
Outline
Pharaoh’s Advisors and their fates
Part 1: Pharaoh’s Three Advisors: Balaam, Job, and Jethro
Part 2: their fates; Yitro’s Protest and His Descendants' Honor (I Chronicles 2:55, Judges 1:16); Connection to the Sanhedrin
Pharaoh’s Self-Curse (Exodus 1:10)
Pharaoh’s Deceptive Enslavement Tactics (Exodus 1:11)
The Meaning of “Taskmasters” (Exodus 1:11)
The Affliction of Pharaoh (Exodus 1:11)
The Meaning of “Storage Cities” (Exodus 1:11)
The Names of Pithom and Raamses (Exodus 1:11)
Affliction Leads to Israelite Population Growth (Exodus 1:12)
The Israelites as Thorns in the Eyes of the Egyptians
The Meaning of “Farekh” (Exodus 1:13)
The Gradual Intensification of Egyptian Oppression (Exodus 1:14)
The Meaning of "farekh" in Egyptian Oppression (Exodus 1:14): Gender Role Reversal in Forced Labor
Appendix - Analysis of the story of Pharaoh’s Three Advisors: Balaam, Job, and Jethro
The "Chamber of Hewn Stone" (Lishkat HaGazit) as metonym for the Sanhedrin
Parallel story: Three Voices on Roman Rule in Eretz Yisrael and the Roman Response (Shabbat 33b)
Expanded Analysis
Balaam: Advisor to Oppression – Death
Job: Silence in the Face of Evil – Suffering
Yitro: Refusal to participate through Flight – Reward
Midrashic Prooftexts
Kenite hypothesis
The Passage
Pharaoh’s Advisors and their fates
Part 1: Pharaoh’s Three Advisors: Balaam, Job, and Jethro
R' Ḥiyya bar Abba, citing R' Simai, states that Pharaoh consulted three advisors regarding the fate of the Jewish people: Balaam, Job, and Jethro.
אמר רבי חייא בר אבא, אמר רבי סימאי:
שלשה היו באותה עצה:
בלעם,
ואיוב,
ויתרו.
R' Ḥiyya bar Abba says that R' Simai says:
Three noteworthy people were consulted by Pharaoh in that counsel where Pharaoh questioned what should be done with the Jewish people.
They were
Balaam,
and Job,
and Yitro.
Part 2: their fates; Yitro’s Protest and His Descendants' Honor (I Chronicles 2:55, Judges 1:16); Connection to the Sanhedrin
Balaam, who advised Pharaoh to oppress them, was later killed (in the war with Midian, see Numbers 31:8)
Job, who remained silent, suffered.2
Yitro, who fled,3 was rewarded with descendants who became members of the Sanhedrin in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.4
This is supported by I Chronicles 2:55, which mentions the Kenites descending from Hammath, the ancestor of the Rechabites (בית רכב), and Judges 1:16, which identifies the Kenites as descendants of Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law.
The Kenites, Yitro’s descendants, lived in Jabez.5
בלעם שיעץ — נהרג,
איוב ששתק — נידון ביסורין.
יתרו שברח — זכו מבני בניו שישבו בלשכת הגזית,
שנאמר:
״ומשפחות סופרים יושבי
יעבץ
תרעתים
שמעתים
שוכתים
המה הקינים הבאים מחמת אבי בית רכב״,
וכתיב: ״ובני קיני חתן משה וגו׳״.
R' Ḥiyya bar Abba teaches what occurred to each of them:
Balaam, who advised Pharaoh to kill all sons born to the Jewish people, was punished by being killed in the war with Midian (see Numbers 31:8).
Job, who was silent and neither advised nor protested, was punished by suffering, as detailed in the eponymous book in the Bible.
Yitro, who ran away as a sign of protest, merited that some of his children’s children sat in the Sanhedrin in the Chamber of Hewn Stone,
as it is stated:
“And the families of scribes who dwelt at
Jabez,
Tirathites,
Shimeathites,
and Sucathites,
these were the Kenites who descended from Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab” (I Chronicles 2:55).
And it is written: “The children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law” (Judges 1:16).
This teaches that the Kenites, descendants of Yitro, the father-in-law of Moses, dwelt at Jabez [Yabetz], referring to the place where the Jewish people go for advice [eitza], i.e., the Chamber of Hewn Stone.
Pharaoh’s Self-Curse (Exodus 1:10)
Pharaoh’s statement in Exodus 1:10, “Lest he multiply, and fight against us, and get him up out of the land,” is analyzed:
R' Abba bar Kahana explains that Pharaoh should have said “get us up” instead of “him,” indicating that he inadvertently cursed himself rather than the Jewish people.
״ונלחם בנו ועלה מן הארץ״,
״ועלינו״ מיבעי ליה!
אמר רבי אבא בר כהנא:
כאדם שמקלל את עצמו,
ותולה קללתו בחבירו.
The verse states: “Come, let us deal wisely with him, lest he multiply, and it come to pass that when there befalls us any war, he will also join our enemies, and fight against us, and get him up out of the land” (Exodus 1:10).
The Gemara comments: He should have said: And get us up, as Pharaoh’s fear was that the Jewish people would join the enemies of Egypt and drive Pharaoh and the Egyptians out of Egypt.
R' Abba bar Kahana says:
By stating this, Pharaoh is like a person who curses himself
but applies his curse to another.
Pharaoh’s Deceptive Enslavement Tactics (Exodus 1:11)
The verse states that taskmasters were set “over him” instead of “over them.”
R' Elazar ben Shimon’s school explains that Pharaoh initially pretended to share the labor, having a brick mold (מלבן) placed on his neck.
When Jews protested, claiming delicacy,6 they were shamed by being told that even Pharaoh participated.
״וישימו עליו שרי מסים״,
״עליהם״ מיבעי ליה!
תנא דבי רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון:
מלמד:
שהביאו מלבן
ותלו לו לפרעה בצוארו,
וכל אחד ואחד מישראל שאמר להם: איסטניס אני,
אמרו לו: כלום איסטניס אתה יותר מפרעה?!
The next verse states: “Therefore they did set over him taskmasters in order to afflict him with their burdens” (Exodus 1:11).
The Gemara comments: It should have stated: Over them, in the plural.
The school of R' Elazar, son of R' Shimon, taught:
This teaches that
at first they brought a brick mold
and they hung it on the neck of Pharaoh to create the appearance that he was also participating in the labor.
And with regard to each and every Jew who said to the Egyptians: I am a delicate person [istenis] and I cannot participate in the labor,
they said to him: Are you at all more of a delicate person than Pharaoh?! and he is participating.
Therefore, the verse states: “They did set over him,” as they first placed the burden on Pharaoh as an artifice to enslave the Jewish people.
The Meaning of “Taskmasters” (Exodus 1:11)
The term “sarei missim” (שרי מסים - “taskmasters”) is homiletically connected to “mesim”.7
״שרי מסים״,
דבר שמשים (לבנים).
The term “Taskmasters [sarei missim]”
is formed from the term: A matter that compels [shemesim] the manufacture of bricks, as the Jewish people were forced into labor when these taskmasters were assigned to them.
The Affliction of Pharaoh (Exodus 1:11)
Exodus 1:11 states that the burdens were imposed “to afflict him.”
The expected plural form “them” is missing, since Pharaoh himself (ultimately) suffered from the oppression of the Jewish people (as mentioned in a previous section; an ironic twist).
״למען ענותו בסבלותם״,
[״ענותם״ מיבעי ליה]!
למען ענותו לפרעה בסבלותם דישראל.
The verse continues: “In order to afflict him with their burdens” (Exodus 1:11).
The Gemara comments: It should have stated: “In order to afflict them,” in the plural.
Rather, the intention is, as mentioned previously, in order to afflict Pharaoh, with the result of causing the burdens of the Jewish people.
The Meaning of “Storage Cities” (Exodus 1:11)
Rav and Shmuel debate the unusual term “miskenot” (מסכנות - “storage cities”):
One says they were “dangerous” to build (מסכנות - “mesakenot”), while the other says they “impoverished” their builders (ממסכנות - “memaskenot”), referencing a general idea that construction leads to financial ruin.8
״ויבן ערי מסכנות לפרעה״,
רב ושמואל:
חד אמר: שמסכנות את בעליהן.
וחד אמר: שממסכנות את בעליהן,
דאמר מר: כל העוסק בבנין מתמסכן.
The verse concludes: “And they built for Pharaoh storage cities [miskenot], Pithom and Raamses” (Exodus 1:11).
Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the precise interpretation of the word miskenot:
One says that they are called this because they were the type of structures that endanger [mesakenot] their owners, as it is dangerous to work in cities with tall buildings.
And one says that they are called this because this is the type of property that impoverishes [memaskenot] their owners,
as the Master said: All who engage in construction become poor.
The Names of Pithom and Raamses (Exodus 1:11)
Rav and Shmuel also debate whether Pithom or Raamses (רעמסס) was the original city name:
One view holds that Raamses means the buildings “collapsed” repeatedly (מתרוסס - “mitroses”).
The other suggests that Pithom means that the mouth of the “abyss” (תהום - “tehom”) swallowed the buildings.
״את פיתום ואת רעמסס״.
רב ושמואל,
חד אמר:
פיתום שמה,
ולמה נקרא שמה רעמסס?
שראשון ראשון מתרוסס.
וחד אמר:
רעמסס שמה,
ולמה נקרא שמה פיתום?
שראשון ראשון פי תהום בולעו.
The verse states that the names of the cities they built were “Pithom and Raamses” (Exodus 1:11).
Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the precise interpretation of this verse, both assuming that only one city was built, which had primary and secondary names:
One says that Pithom was its real name,
and why was it called Raamses?
It is an appellation indicating that as the buildings were constructed they collapsed [mitroses] one by one and needed to be rebuilt.
And one says that Raamses was its real name,
and why was it called Pithom?
Because the opening of the abyss [pi tehom] swallowed each building they constructed one by one, and it sunk into the ground.
Affliction Leads to Israelite Population Growth (Exodus 1:12)
The verse in Exodus states that the more the Israelites were afflicted, the more they multiplied. The Talmud questions why the verse does not use the past tense.
Reish Lakish explains that the Holy Spirit (רוח הקדש) proclaimed to the Egyptians that as long as they continued to afflict the Israelites, their population would continue to grow.
״וכאשר יענו אותו
כן ירבה, וכן יפרוץ״.
״כן רבו, וכן פרצו״ מיבעי ליה!
אמר ריש לקיש:
רוח הקדש מבשרתן:
״כן ירבה, וכן יפרוץ״.
The next verse states: “But the more they afflicted him,
the more he would multiply and the more he would spread about” (Exodus 1:12).
The Gemara comments: It should have stated: The more they multiplied and the more they spread about, in the past tense.
Reish Lakish says:
Divine inspiration proclaimed to the Egyptians:
As long as this nation is afflicted, the more he will multiply and the more he will spread about.
The Israelites as Thorns in the Eyes of the Egyptians
The verse states: “And they became disgusted (יקצו - “yakutzu”) due to the children of Israel.”
The Talmud explains that the unusual verb “yakutzu” implies that the Israelites appeared to the Egyptians like “thorns”.9
״ויקצו מפני בני ישראל״,
מלמד:
שהיו דומין בעיניהם כקוצים.
As the verse states: “And they became disgusted [vayyakutzu] due to the children of Israel.”
The Gemara explains: This teaches that
the Jewish people appeared in their eyes like thorns [kotzim].
The Meaning of “Farekh” (Exodus 1:13)
Exodus 1:13 describes the Egyptians making the Jews work with “rigor” (פרך - “farekh”).
R' Elazar interprets this as “feh rakh” (פה רך - “soft mouth/speech” - i.e. gradual coercion into slavery).
R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani understands it as “frikha” (פריכה - “crushing [labor]” - highlighting physical hardship).
״ויעבדו מצרים את בני ישראל בפרך״,
רבי אלעזר אמר: בפה רך.
רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר: בפריכה.
The next verse states: “And the Egyptians made the children of Israel work with rigor [befarekh]” (Exodus 1:13).
R' Elazar says: The word befarekh is a conjugation of the words: With a soft mouth [bifeh rakh], as the Egyptians enticed the Jewish people into slavery, gradually subjugating them until they had lost their freedom completely.
R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: The word befarekh should be understood as: With crushing [bifrikha], as the Egyptians subjugated Israel with backbreaking labor.
The Gradual Intensification of Egyptian Oppression (Exodus 1:14)
The verse first details the Israelites’ suffering in mortar (חמר) and brickwork (לבנים) before expanding to all forms of forced labor.
Rava interprets that the progression in the verse reflects the escalation of oppression:
Initially, the Egyptians imposed brick-making, but over time, they subjected the Israelites to all manner of harsh field labor.
״וימררו את חייהם בעבדה קשה
בחמר ובלבנים וגו׳״,
אמר רבא:
בתחילה ״בחומר ובלבנים״,
ולבסוף ״ובכל עבודה בשדה״.
The next verse states: “And they made their lives bitter through hard service,
with mortar and brick, and with every laborious service in the field” (Exodus 1:14).
Rava says:
The verse mentions specifically mortar and brick and then all forms of labor, as initially the Egyptians had them work with mortar and bricks,
and ultimately they subjugated them “and with every laborious service in the field.”
The Meaning of "farekh" in Egyptian Oppression (Exodus 1:14): Gender Role Reversal in Forced Labor
R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani states in the name of R' Yonatan that the word “farekh” refers to the Egyptians forcing men and women to perform labor unfamiliar to them:
They assigned men’s work to women and women’s work to men (thus increasing the hardship of their servitude).
״את כל עבדתם אשר עבדו בהם בפרך״,
אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני, אמר רבי יונתן:
שהיו מחליפין מלאכת אנשים לנשים
ומלאכת נשים לאנשים.
The verse concludes: “In all their service, wherein they made them serve with rigor” (Exodus 1:14).
R' Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that R' Yonatan says:
The meaning of befarekh is that the Egyptians would exchange the responsibilities of men and women, giving men’s work to women
and women’s work to men, requiring everyone to do work to which they were unaccustomed.
Appendix - Analysis of the story of Pharaoh’s Three Advisors: Balaam, Job, and Jethro
The "Chamber of Hewn Stone" (Lishkat HaGazit) as metonym for the Sanhedrin
The "Chamber of Hewn Stone" (Lishkat HaGazit in Hebrew) is a common metonym in the Talmud for the Sanhedrin, traditionally the supreme rabbinic court of the late Second Temple period.
This chamber, located on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and partially built into the Temple itself, served as the official meeting place of the Sanhedrin, a council of seventy-one sages who deliberated on matters of Jewish law, national policy, and capital cases.
Because of its central role as the physical seat of judicial authority, the phrase "Chamber of Hewn Stone" came to signify not merely the location but the institution of the Sanhedrin itself.
Thus, when the Talmud refers to the "Chamber of Hewn Stone," it is typically invoking the authority, rulings, or presence of the Sanhedrin as a governing body, rather than the literal room.
Parallel story: Three Voices on Roman Rule in Eretz Yisrael and the Roman Response (Shabbat 33b)
Compare a similar tripartite breakdown elsewhere in the Talmud, of three people who commented on Rome's governance in Eretz Yisrael, and the consequent response of the Roman authorities rewarding and punishing them:10
דיתבי
רבי יהודה
ורבי יוסי
ורבי שמעון
ויתיב יהודה בן גרים גבייהו
פתח רבי יהודה ואמר:
כמה נאים מעשיהן של אומה זו:
[…]
רבי יוסי שתק.
נענה רבי שמעון בן יוחאי ואמר:
כל מה שתקנו, לא תקנו אלא לצורך עצמן
[…]
הלך יהודה בן גרים, וסיפר דבריהם
ונשמעו למלכות
אמרו:
יהודה שעילה — יתעלה
יוסי ששתק — יגלה לציפורי
שמעון שגינה — יהרג
an incident that took place when
R' Yehuda
and R' Yosei
and R' Shimon
were sitting,
and Yehuda, son of converts, sat beside them.
R' Yehuda opened (פתח) and said:
How pleasant are the actions of this nation, the Romans
[…]
R' Yosei was silent.
R' Shimon ben Yoḥai responded (נענה) and said:
Everything that they established, they established only for their own purposes
[…]
Yehuda, son of converts, went and related their statements to others,
and those statements continued to spread until they were heard by the [Roman] monarchy (מלכות).
They [=the Romans] ruled and said:
Yehuda, who elevated (עילה) the Roman regime, shall be elevated and appointed as head of the Sages.
Yosei, who remained silent (שתק), shall be exiled from his home in Judea as punishment, and sent to the city of Tzippori in the Galilee.
And Shimon, who denounced (גינה) the government, shall be killed.
Expanded Analysis
This passage presents a striking moral and theological reading of the roles three non-Israelite figures—Balaam, Job, and Yitro—played during Pharaoh’s oppressive decrees against the Israelites in Egypt, and how divine justice responded to each of them.
The teaching attributed to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba uses a midrashic framework to align their respective choices with divine reward or punishment, offering a powerful message about moral responsibility in times of crisis.
1. Balaam: Advisor to Oppression – Death
Balaam, who later appears as a major figure in a later Biblical story (in Numbers 22–24), is here presented in a role based on rabbinic tradition: he was one of Pharaoh’s counselors, alongside Job and Yitro.
According to this tradition, Pharaoh consulted these three regarding how to deal with the growing Israelite population. Balaam advised the most ruthless policy—killing the male infants.
His fate is measure-for-measure. Though he seems to escape punishment for a time, he is ultimately executed during the war against Midian (Numbers 31:8), aligning with the principle that divine justice may be delayed but not denied. His end is violent, mirroring the violence he encouraged.
2. Job: Silence in the Face of Evil – Suffering
Job, famous for his personal suffering and the philosophical book bearing his name, is said to have remained neutral—neither supporting nor opposing Pharaoh’s decree.11
This neutrality, this silence, is viewed not as wisdom or restraint, but as a moral failing. The rabbis interpret his passive stance as a form of complicity.
His punishment—suffering without clear cause—is reinterpreted in light of this earlier inaction. This reading reframes the Book of Job not only as a story of personal piety and divine testing but also as a consequence of moral silence when action was demanded. It is a critique of inaction in the face of injustice, even when such inaction is not overtly malicious.
3. Yitro: Refusal to participate through Flight – Reward
Yitro is portrayed as the righteous gentile par excellence. Upon hearing Pharaoh’s cruel plan, he refuses to participate and flees Egypt, risking his position and perhaps his safety. His refusal to participate is not vocal or confrontational but enacted through decisive moral rejection and physical departure.
His reward is unique: rather than personal gain, his descendants are honored. They become soferim (scribes or scholars), and even more significantly, some sit in the Lishkat ha-Gazit, the Chamber of Hewn Stone—the very heart of the Sanhedrin, the supreme rabbinic court in the Temple. This honor symbolically places Yitro’s lineage at the core of Israelite legal and moral authority.
Midrashic Prooftexts
I Chronicles 2:55 refers to the Kenites, descendants of Ḥammath, father of the house of Rechab—connecting to Yitro’s lineage.
Judges 1:16 identifies the Kenites as descendants of Moses’ father-in-law, further establishing the genealogical link.
The name “Jabez” is midrashically interpreted as related to eitza (עֵצָה – counsel), suggesting that the Kenites lived in the place where Israel received counsel—interpreted as the Chamber of Hewn Stone.
This homiletical reading fuses geography, genealogy, and symbolism: Yitro’s descendants inhabit the space of righteous leadership and moral deliberation.
Kenite hypothesis
Compare Wikipedia, “Kenite hypothesis“:
The Kenite hypothesis, or Midianite–Kenite hypothesis, is a hypothesis about the origins of the cult of Yahweh.
As a form of Biblical source criticism, it posits that Yahweh was originally a Kenite (i.e., Midianite) god whose cult made its way northward to the proto-Israelites.
The hypothesis first came into prominence in the late nineteenth century.
It is based on four key points:
an interpretation of the biblical texts dealing with the Midianite connections of Moses;
allusions in ancient poetic compositions to the original residence of Yahweh;
ancient Egyptian topographical texts of the fourteenth to the twelfth centuries BCE;
and the presupposition of Cain as the eponymous progenitor of the Kenite tribe of Midian.
The hypothesis thus interrogates the ethnic origins of Judah and posits that the geographic origins of Yahweh, and by extension Yahwism, do not lie in the Biblical Canaan as conventionally understood but rather lie farther south, in the region the Bible calls "Midian" on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba on the Red Sea.
This land was inhabited by peoples including the Kenites […]
More recently, Blenkinsopp (2008) revisiting the available evidence concludes that "this hypothesis provides the best explanation currently available of the relevant literary and archaeological data".
By contrast Tebes (2021), focusing on archaeological evidence from the Southern Levant and Northern Arabia, presents the "Midianite" influence on Canaan as a drawn-out process of cultural transmission taking place during the 10th to 6th centuries BCE […]
Several assertions of Kenite hypothesis have been disputed by scholars […]
For these reasons, among others, many scholars outright reject the Kenite hypothesis.
Compare my piece at my Academia page on this trope: ““Why Was He Called Thus?”: An Anthology of Talmudic Passages Relating to Explanations of Biblical Names, Unification of Ostensibly Separate Biblical Personalities, and Etymologies of Biblical Words“.
נידון ביסורין - literally: “was judged/punished with suffering” - as famously portrayed in the biblical book that bears his name, the Book of Job.
ברח - presumably to avoid advising on this topic.
In the Temple.
On the whole story, see my Appendix at the end of this piece: Analysis of the story of Pharaoh’s Three Advisors: Balaam, Job, and Jethro
יעבץ ; compare also Jabez (biblical figure) - Wikipedia.
This place name is homiletically interpreted—via wordplay—as the place where the Jewish people sought “counsel” (עצה), i.e., the Chamber of Hewn Stone
איסטניס - from Greek.
See my extended note on this word at my piece “Lives, Loves, and Hatreds: Psychological and Social Commentary on Human Behaviors, Group Dynamics, and Animal Traits (Pesachim 113b)“, on section “Three Types of People Who Endure Psychologically Challenging Lives“.
משים - “placed, compelled” - meaning they compelled brick-making. This wordplay underscores the harshness of the forced labor.
This Talmudic wordplay hinges on a pun involving the Hebrew word "מִסְכְּנוֹת" (miskenot), used in Exodus 1:11 to describe the cities that the Israelites were forced to build for Pharaoh: "arei miskenot", usually translated as “store cities” or “storage cities.”
Rav and Shmuel creatively reinterpret this biblical word by playing on its sound and spelling, offering midrashic readings that reflect moral or practical lessons.
Hebrew roots are triconsonantal, and the same sequence of letters (especially without vowels) can be read in multiple ways. The biblical term miskenot (מִסְכְּנוֹת) is ripe for reinterpretation. Summary of the Hebrew root ס־כ־ן and its key meanings across different contexts (based on the relevant entries in the Ben-Yehuda Dictionary, see the first relevant entry here):
סֹכֵן / סֹכֶנֶת – Steward, manager. A person appointed over a household or institution (e.g. Isaiah 22:15).
סָכַן (verb A) – To be of use, benefit. Something that helps or benefits someone (e.g. Job 22:2).
סָכַן (verb B) – To be in danger (Nif'al: יִסָּכֶן). To incur or be exposed to danger (e.g. Ecclesiastes 10:9).
מְסֻכָּן – Impoverished. Passive participle meaning poor or destitute (e.g. Isaiah 40:20).
מִסְכֵּן / מִסְכֵּנֻת – Poor person / poverty. Possibly from a borrowed Assyrian root meaning humble or lowly.
סַכָּנָה – Danger, peril. The condition or risk of harm or disaster (this word appears extensively in rabbinic literature).
Each meaning reflects a distinct thread in the evolution of the root—ranging from benefit and danger to poverty and administration—some possibly originating from entirely separate etymological sources.
In early Biblical Hebrew, the root primarily conveyed the sense of “benefit” (a positive connotation), but by the time of Late Biblical Hebrew and the Mishnah, its usage had shifted entirely to “danger” (a negative connotation).
In our verse, the root ס־כ־ן carries the more positive or neutral sense of “to store” or “to be prepared.” However, Rav and Shmuel each interpret it according to different, negative meanings of the root:
to endanger
to impoverish
1. מסכנות – "Dangerous" (mesakenot):
One interpretation reads miskenot as mesakenot, from the root ס-כ-נ (samekh-kaf-nun), meaning "to endanger."
Midrashic message: These cities were “dangerous” to build—perhaps because of hazardous working conditions, instability of the structures, or metaphorically because they entangled Israel in further bondage.
2. ממסכנות – "Impoverishing" (memaskenot):
The other reading relates miskenot to the root מ-ס-כ-נ (mem-samekh-kaf-nun), meaning "to impoverish" (the same root as miskén, a poor person in modern Hebrew).
Midrashic message: Building these cities bankrupted those involved. There’s a broader Talmudic tradition that construction projects are financially draining, often cited in discussions about not beginning costly building endeavors lightly.
קוצים - “kotzim” - i.e. causing them discomfort and resentment.
I quote the full passage in my piece here, section “Appendix 2 - The Price of Speech: R' Yehuda, R' Yosei, and R' Shimon's Fateful Debate on Roman Rule (Shabbat 33b)“. And see my footnote there.
Re the subsequent story of R’ Shimon’s flight from the Romans (which possibly parallels Jethro’s flight from Pharaoh here), see my series “R’ Shimon’s Flight from the Romans, Hiding, and Return: A Story of Persecution, Miracles, and Retribution (Shabbat 33b-34a)“, final part here.
Parallel to R’ Yosei’s silence in the Roman story quote above; the same verb is used - שתק.