Pharaoh’s Decree and the Midwives’ Response: Talmudic Interpretations of Exodus 1:16-21 (Sotah 11b)

Part of a series, in honor of the upcoming holiday of Passover. Previous installments here, here, and here.

This passage from the Talmud (Sotah 11b) explores the biblical narrative of Pharaoh’s command to the Hebrew midwives, weaving together linguistic analysis, legal reasoning, and midrashic interpretation. The sugya scrutinizes Pharaoh’s instructions and the midwives’ response, uncovering layers of meaning behind seemingly straightforward phrases.

The discussion begins by examining the term "avnayim" ("stones"), offering two interpretations: one that childbirth leads to the cooling of the thighs, and another drawing from the imagery of a potter at work.

The Talmud then analyzes Pharaoh’s directive to kill newborn boys, noting his advice for how to determine the infant’s gender at birth. A striking exegetical turn follows in the interpretation of the phrase “spoke about them” (aleihen) instead of the expected “spoke to them” (lahen), leading to the claim that Pharaoh propositioned the midwives sexually.

The Talmud further discusses the midwives' resistance, emphasizing their role not merely as passive non-compliers but as active caretakers who ensured the survival of Hebrew infants. Their justification to Pharaoh—that Hebrew women are like "ḥayot" ("wild animals")¹—is examined through a broader biblical lens, linking Israelite tribal ancestors to various animal metaphors.

Finally, the passage concludes with a debate between Rav and Shmuel regarding the divine reward granted to the midwives, either establishing dynasties of priesthood and Levites or the Davidic dynasty.

Outline

1. Interpretations of "Avnayim" in Pharaoh’s Instructions (Exodus 1:16): “stones” or “Potter’s Wheel” (Jeremiah 18:3); Pharaoh’s Sign for Identifying Gender

2. Pharaoh propositioning the midwives for sex (Exodus 1:17)

3. The Midwives' Acts of Resistance: Providing Care, Beyond Mere Disobedience (Exodus 1:17)

4. The Midwives’ Excuse to Pharaoh for not killing Israelite infants at birth (Exodus 1:19): their midwife services unnecessary for Israelite women

   1. Part 1: “Ḥayot" - “Midwives"

   2. Part 2: "Ḥayot" - “Wild Animals” (Genesis 49; Deuteronomy 33; Ezekiel 19:2)

5. The Midwives’ Reward: Houses of Priesthood, Levites, or Royalty (Exodus 1:21; I Chronicles 2:19, I Samuel 17:12)

The Passage

Sotah.11b.14-22

Interpretations of "Avnayim" in Pharaoh’s Instructions (Exodus 1:16): “stones” or “Potter’s Wheel” (Jeremiah 18:3); Pharaoh’s Sign for Identifying Gender

The Talmud discusses the unusual term "avnayim" (אבנים) in Pharaoh’s command to the midwives.

R' Ḥanan interprets this word to mean that Pharaoh provided (מסר) the midwives with a “great sign” (סימן גדול): a woman's thighs become cold (מצטננות) like “stones” (אבנים) when she is about to give birth.²

Another interpretation connects "avnayim" to a potter’s wheel, as in Jeremiah 18:3:

Just as a potter works with his thighs (ירך) apart and the block³ in the center, a woman giving birth positions her thighs similarly, with the newborn (ולד) emerging between them.

R' Ḥanina adds that, here too, Pharaoh provided the midwives with a “great sign” to determine the baby’s gender immediately: boys are born face down, while girls are born face up.⁴

״ויאמר בילדכן את העבריות וגו׳״.

מאי ״אבנים״?

אמר רבי חנן:

סימן גדול מסר להן:

אמר להן:

בשעה שכורעת לילד, ירכותיה מצטננות כאבנים.

ואית דאמר:

כדכתיב:

״וארד בית היוצר

והנה הוא עושה מלאכה על האבנים״,

מה יוצר זה — ירך מכאן וירך מכאן, וסדן באמצע,

אף אשה — ירך מכאן וירך מכאן, והולד באמצע.

״אם בן הוא והמתן אותו״.

אמר רבי חנינא:

סימן גדול מסר להן:

בן פניו למטה, בת פניה למעלה.

The next verse relates the instructions of Pharaoh to the midwives: “And he said: When you deliver the Hebrew women, and you look upon the stones [ovnayim], if it be a son, then you shall kill him; but if it be a daughter, then she shall live” (Exodus 1:16).

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “stones”?

R' Ḥanan says:

Pharaoh transmitted a great sign to them:

He said to them:

At the time when a woman crouches to give birth, her thighs become as cold as stones, and, therefore, this shall be for you a sign that the woman is about to give birth.

And there are those who say an alternative explanation for ovnayim:

As it is written:

“So I went down to the potter’s shop,

and behold, he was at his work on the wheels [ovnayim]” (Jeremiah 18:3).

Just as this potter sits so that one thigh is here and one thigh is there and the block upon which he works is in the middle,

so too, a woman giving birth also has one thigh here and one thigh there and the newborn is in the middle.

The verse continues: “If it be a son, then you shall kill him; but if it be a daughter, then she shall live” (Exodus 1:16).

R' Ḥanina says:

Pharaoh transmitted to them a great sign to enable them to know the gender of the infant from the beginning of the birth process:

A boy is born with his face downward;

a girl is born with her face upward.

Pharaoh provided them with this sign so that they could kill the boys secretly even before the mother realized what was happening.

Pharaoh propositioning the midwives for sex (Exodus 1:17)

The Talmud notes that the verse states Pharaoh "spoke about them [aleihen]" rather than the expected "spoke to them [lahen]." This deviation prompts an interpretation beyond a simple command.

R' Yosei ben Ḥanina explains that this linguistic choice suggests Pharaoh propositioned⁵ the midwives for sex,⁶ but they didn’t yield (נתבעו).

״ותיראן המילדות את האלהים

ולא עשו כאשר דבר אליהן וגו׳״.

״להן״ מיבעי ליה!

אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא:

מלמד:

שתבען לדבר עבירה

ולא נתבעו.

The next verse states: “But the midwives feared God,

and did not as the king of Egypt spoke about them [aleihen], but they kept the male children alive” (Exodus 1:17).

The Gemara comments: It should have stated: “Spoke to them [lahen].”

R' Yosei, son of R' Ḥanina, says:

his teaches that

Pharaoh proposed to them to engage in a sinful act, i.e., sexual intercourse, with him,

but they did not accept his overtures.

The word aleihen is often used in reference to sexual intercourse, for example: “And brought her to him; and he consorted with her [eileha]” (Genesis 29:23), and that is its connotation here as well.

The Midwives' Acts of Resistance: Providing Care, Beyond Mere Disobedience (Exodus 1:17)

The verse states that the midwives "kept alive (תחיין) the male children", which a Sage interprets as more than just passively refusing to kill them.

Rather than merely not killing (המיתו) the children, the midwives actively sustained them, providing (מספיקות) them water and food (מזון).

״ותחיין את הילדים״.

תנא:

לא דיין שלא המיתו אותן,

אלא שהיו מספיקות להם מים ומזון.

The verse concludes: “But they kept the male children alive” (Exodus 1:17).

A Sage teaches:

It is not only that they did not kill the children as Pharaoh had commanded them,

but that they would even provide for them water and food, as the phrase “But they kept the male children alive” indicates.

The Midwives’ Excuse to Pharaoh for not killing Israelite infants at birth (Exodus 1:19): their midwife services unnecessary for Israelite women

Part 1: “Ḥayot" - “Midwives"

The midwives told Pharaoh that Israelite women are themselves all “midwives” (חיות - “ḥayot”), meaning they give birth without assistance (i.e. only Egyptian women ever required midwife services).

The Talmud questions this, noting that even midwives themselves require assistance from another midwife when giving birth.

The Talmud therefore says that what the midwives meant by “ḥayot” was that the Jewish people (אומה) are metaphorically (נמשלו) like “wild animals”, who give birth independently.⁷

״ותאמרן המילדות אל פרעה:

כי לא כנשים וגו׳״.

מאי ״חיות״?

אילימא חיות ממש,

אטו חיה מי לא צריכה חיה אחריתי לאולודה?!

אלא

אמרו לו:

אומה זו כחיה נמשלה:

After being questioned by Pharaoh concerning their failure to obey his command, the midwives responded, as it is written: “And the midwives said to Pharaoh:

Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women, for they are lively [ḥayot], and are delivered before the midwife comes to them” (Exodus 1:19).

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “ḥayot”?

If we say that the Hebrew women are like ḥayot, meaning actual midwives for themselves, and therefore they do not need assistance from others,

is that to say that a midwife does not need the assistance of another midwife in order to help her give birth?!

Rather,

the midwives said to Pharaoh:

This nation is compared to an animal [ḥayya], and animals give birth without a midwife:

Part 2: "Ḥayot" - “Wild Animals” (Genesis 49; Deuteronomy 33; Ezekiel 19:2)

This is supported by various biblical verses comparing various founders of the tribes (i.e. the sons of Jacob) to wild animals: Judah to a lion, Dan to a serpent, Naphtali to a deer (אילה), Issachar to a donkey, Joseph to a bull, and Benjamin to a wolf.

For tribes not explicitly metaphorically compared to wild animals in the Bible, the Talmud cites Ezekiel 19:2, which describes the Jewish nation in general as a lioness (לביא) raising cubs.⁸

1. יהודה — ״גור אריה״,

2. דן — ״יהי דן נחש״,

3. ״נפתלי אילה שלחה״,

4. ״יששכר חמור גרם״,

5. יוסף — ״בכור שור״,

6. ״בנימין זאב יטרף״.

דכתיב ביה — כתיב ביה.

ודלא כתיב ביה —

כתיב ביה:

״מה אמך לביא

בין אריות רבצה וגו׳״.

1. with regard to Judah it is written: “Judah is a lion’s whelp” (Genesis 49:9);

2. with regard to Dan it is written: “Dan shall be a serpent in the way” (Genesis 49:17);

3. with regard to Naphtali it is written: “A hind let loose” (Genesis 49:21);

4. with regard to Issachar it is written: “A large-boned donkey” (Genesis 49:14);

5. with regard to Joseph it is written: “His first bullock” (Deuteronomy 33:17);

6. with regard to Benjamin it is written: “A ravenous wolf” (Genesis 49:27).

The Gemara comments: Concerning those individuals where a comparison to an animal is written with regard to him, it is already written with regard to him.

And concerning those where no specific metaphor comparing them to an animal is written with regard to him explicitly,

in any case a general comparison is written about the Jewish people:

“How your mother was a lioness;

among lions she crouched, in the midst of the young lions she reared her whelps” (Ezekiel 19:2), indicating that all the Jewish people are compared to animals.

The Midwives’ Reward: Houses of Priesthood, Levites, or Royalty (Exodus 1:21; I Chronicles 2:19, I Samuel 17:12)

Rav and Shmuel debate the meaning of the "houses" (בתים) given to the midwives as a reward for their fear of God:

One opinion holds that these houses refer to the “houses”⁹ of priesthood (כהונה) and Levites (לויה), as Jochebed, a midwife,¹⁰ was the mother of Aaron (the ancestor of all priests and Levites) and Moses.

The other opinion argues that the houses refer to royalty (מלכות), as David is traced back to Miriam.

This connection is established through Caleb’s wife, Ephrath (I Chronicles 2:19), who is identified as Miriam. This reveals her as an ancestor to David, as David is called “the son of that Ephrathite (איש אפרתי)” (I Samuel 17:12).

״ויהי

כי יראו המילדות את האלהים

ויעש להם בתים״.

רב ושמואל:

חד אמר: בתי כהונה ולויה,

וחד אמר: בתי מלכות.

מאן דאמר בתי כהונה ולויה —

אהרן ומשה.

ומאן דאמר בתי מלכות —

דוד נמי ממרים קאתי,

דכתיב:

״ותמת עזובה אשת כלב

ויקח לו כלב את אפרת

ותלד לו את חור״.

וכתיב: ״ודוד בן איש אפרתי וגו׳״.

The verse relates the midwives’ reward: “And it came to pass,

because the midwives feared God,

that He made them houses” (Exodus 1:21).

Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the precise interpretation of these houses:

One says that God made the houses of the priesthood and the Levites descend from the midwives,

and one says that God made the houses of royalty descend from them.

The one who says that it is referring to the houses of the priesthood and the Levites

is referring to Aaron and Moses, who were sons of Jochebed.

And the one who says that it is referring to houses of royalty

is referring to David, who also comes from Miriam,

as it is written:

“And Azubah,” the wife of Caleb, “died,

and Caleb took to him Ephrath,

who bore him Hur” (I Chronicles 2:19) and, as will be explained further, Ephrath is Miriam.

And it is written: “David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah” (I Samuel 17:12). Therefore, he was a descendant of Miriam.

1. As opposed to domesticated animals, referred to in classical Hebrew as behema (בהמה).

2. כורעת לילד - literally: “crouches (כורעת) to give birth”; presumably referring to the traditional squatting or all-fours childbirth positions, as opposed to the lithotomy position (i.e. s lying on back with legs up in stirrups) common today. For illustration, see the Pre-Columbian Dumbarton Oaks birthing figure at Wikimedia here.

3. סדן - with the potter’s wheel on top of it.

For the etymology of the word sadan (סדן - “anvil, [block that holds] potter's wheel, tree stump“), see Hebrew Wiktionary, my translation:

The word saddan (סַדָּן) first appears in Mishnaic Hebrew, and its etymology remains somewhat uncertain. Two primary theories have been proposed regarding its origin:

1. Borrowing from Persian:

Based on the morphological and semantic similarity to the Persian word sandan, which shares the same meaning as the first definition above (a blacksmith’s anvil), several scholars in the 19th and early 20th centuries argued that saddan was borrowed from Persian. At the time, however, other scholars rejected this view due to a lack of sufficient evidence.

Later research, however, yielded findings that support the borrowing hypothesis. Most notably, comparative linguistic research revealed that cognates of saddan in other languages: saddana in […] Aramaic, sindān in Arabic, and sandān in Middle Persian are all relatively late and appear in only a limited number of languages.

This suggests that the word is not an old and well-established Semitic term, but rather a later development with limited distribution.

Furthermore, the currently prevailing scholarly view is that the Aramaic equivalents of saddan were themselves borrowed from Persian.

If this view is correct, it becomes highly likely that saddan in Hebrew was also borrowed from Persian, probably via Aramaic.

Finally, one occurrence of the form sandan (סָנְדָּן) has been found in the Parma manuscript of the Mishnah, in place of the usual form saddan.

This variant may point to an original nun (נ) in the word (as found in the Persian form), which was assimilated into the doubled dalet (דּ).

2. Derivation from the Hebrew root ס־ד־ד (S-D-D):

The biblical word sad (סַד) refers to an instrument of torture that restricts a person’s movement. Some have proposed that the Mishnaic saddan was derived from sad through the addition of the suffix nun.

According to this theory, the doubled dalet in saddan reflects the assimilation of the final two consonants in the root S-D-D, the root of sad.

Although a definitive decision between these two etymologies is not possible—so we cannot conclusively determine whether saddan comes from the root S-D-N or S-D-D, nor whether its form follows the qattal pattern or is simply sad + -an—it appears that the borrowing-from-Persian theory is more convincing.

In Akkadian, the word šadânu means “iron ore” or “red gemstone.” Accordingly, the expression “between the hammer and the anvil” may be understood literally as “between the hammer and the ore” or “between the hammer and the polished gemstone.”

The small bone called saddan (the incus) is so named because its shape closely resembles that of a blacksmith’s anvil. This resemblance has also served as the source of its name in other languages (for example, in English, the bone is called incus, after the Latin word for anvil).

4. This knowledge allowed them to kill male infants secretly before the mother noticed.

Fact-Checking the Talmudic Claims Against Modern Science:

1. Do a Woman’s Thighs Become Cold Like Stones During Childbirth?

• Claim: R' Ḥanan states that during labor, a woman’s thighs become cold like stones, serving as a sign that birth is imminent.

• Scientific Perspective:

  • There is no known physiological process that causes a laboring woman’s thighs to become cold specifically during childbirth.

  • On the contrary, during labor, increased blood flow to the pelvic region and muscular exertion can cause warmth, not coldness.

  • Some women experience cold extremities due to changes in circulation or the body's stress response, but this is not a universal or diagnostic sign of labor.

2. Are Boys Born Face Down and Girls Face Up?

• Claim: R' Ḥanina asserts that boys are born face down while girls are born face up.

• Scientific Perspective:

  • The most common fetal presentation in childbirth is occiput anterior (face down relative to the mother’s body), occurring in about 90-95% of all deliveries.

  • Occiput posterior (face up) is less common and can make delivery more difficult, but it occurs in both male and female infants.

  • There is no scientific basis for gender differences in presentation at birth; the positioning is determined by fetal movements and uterine shape rather than sex.

Conclusion

1. The cold thighs claim lacks scientific support.

2. The gender-based birth position claim is incorrect; both boys and girls are predominantly born face down.

5. תבען - this term for verbally propositioning sex is a common one in the Talmud, see for example my piece “Wine, Women, and Widowhood: A Talmudic Exploration of Behavior and Stipends (Ketubot 65a)“, section “How drinking wine affects a woman's behavior, cup by cup“:

תנא:

1. כוס אחד — יפה לאשה.

2. שנים — ניוול הוא.

3. שלשה — תובעת בפה.

4. ארבעה — אפילו חמור תובעת בשוק, ואינה מקפדת.

It was taught in a baraita:

1. One cup of wine is good (יפה) for a woman;

2. after two cups is disgusting (ניוול), as she’ll be drunk and act accordingly;

3. after three cups, she will become lustful and verbally (בפה) request (תובעת) sexual intercourse, which is unseemly;

4. after four cups of wine, she will even request (תובעת) intercourse from a donkey in the marketplace (שוק), as at this stage she is so drunk that she is not particular (מקפדת) about with whom she has relations.

Another common term for a man propositioning sex from a woman is “listen to me!" (השמיעי - hashmi’i). See for example in my piece “Talmudic Elaboration of Sexuality and Love in Biblical Narratives - Pt. 2“, section “Ahav and Zedekiah Proposition Nevuchadnezzar’s Daughter (Sanhedrin 93a)“:

"יען אשר עשו נבלה בישראל

וינאפו את נשי רעיהם"

מאי עבוד ?

אזול לגבי ברתיה דנבוכדנצר

אחאב אמר לה:

"כה אמר ה':

השמיעי אל צדקיה",

וצדקיה אמר:

"כה אמר ה':

השמיעי אל אחאב"

The verse states: “Because they have committed baseness (נבלה) in Israel,

and have committed adultery (ינאפו) with the wives of their friends (רעיהם)” (Jeremiah 29:23).

What did they do?

The Gemara relates: They went to the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar.

Ahab said to her:

So says YHWH:

Submit (השמיעי) to Zedekiah and engage in intercourse with him.

And Zedekiah said to her:

So says YHWH:

Submit (השמיעי) to Ahab and engage in intercourse with him.

6. דבר עבירה - literally: a “sinful act”; a euphemism for sex.

The word “aleihen” parallels Genesis 29:23, where the word “eileha” describes Jacob’s sex with Leah.

7. The Hebrew noun haya has two major senses (in both biblical as well as mishnaic/talmudic Hebew): “midwife” (or post-partum woman), and “wild animal, beast”.

See Jastrow:

חיה I

f[eminine]

(b[iblical] h[ebrew]; חיה) 1) (adj[ective]) [see] חי. —2)

animal, esp[ecially] beast of chase, deer etc.., [contrasted] to בהמה.

And ibid., the next entry:

חיה II f. (חיה) 1)

[recovering,] lying-in woman, woman in confinement […]

2) [physician,] midwife.

8. Showing that all Israelites are likened to wild animals in their strength and independence.

In general, on animals in the Bible, including as metaphors, see Wikipedia, “Animals in the Bible“

9. I.e. “houses” in the metaphorical sense, of a “dynasty, clan”. The same metaphor is used in English, see Wiktionary, “house“, sense # 9:

A dynasty; a family with its ancestors and descendants, especially a royal or noble one.

And see my piece “Abba”, at my Academia page, that this term is used especially in the regards to clans related to Temple service. For example, see my previous pieces on the “houses” of Eutinas and Garmu, who served in the Temple:

• “Guardians of Temple Incense: The Eutinas Clan and Their Secret Craft (Yoma 38a)”

• “Honorable Innovations and Selfish Secrets: Contributions and Criticisms in Second Temple Service (Mishnah Yoma 3:9-11)“, sections “House of Garmu - showbread preparation“ and “House of Eutinus - incense preparation“.

10. As stated by the Talmud previously in the sugya, see my previous piece here, section “Identity of the Hebrew Midwives (Exodus 1:15): Jochebed, Miriam, and/or Elisheba“:

״ויאמר מלך מצרים למילדות העבריות וגו׳״.

רב ושמואל:

חד אמר: אשה ובתה,

וחד אמר: כלה וחמותה.

מאן דאמר אשה ובתה — יוכבד ומרים,

ומאן דאמר כלה וחמותה — יוכבד ואלישבע.

The verse states: “And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah” (Exodus 1:15).

Rav and Shmuel disagree as to the proper interpretation of this verse:

One says that these midwives were a woman and her daughter,

and one says that they were a daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law.

According to the one who says that they were a woman and her daughter, the women were Jochebed, the mother of Moses and Aaron, and her daughter, Miriam.

And according to the one who says that they were a daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law, the verse is referring to Jochebed and her daughter-in-law Elisheba, the wife of Aaron.