Giving Israel Gold and Silver, Cyrus Improves on a Biblical Motif

Abraham, Jacob, and the Israelites in Egypt acquire wealth from foreign peoples in morally ambiguous ways. In contrast, the Judeans’ return from exile, depicted as a second exodus, is accomplished with the blessing of the gentile king, and the wealth obtained in exile is entirely untainted.

The book of Ezra-Nehemiah, composed during the Persian period, opens with Cyrus’s proclamation allowing the Judeans to return home and rebuild Jerusalem:

^{עזרא א:ב} כֹּה אָמַר כֹּרֶשׁ מֶלֶךְ פָּרַס כֹּל מַמְלְכוֹת הָאָרֶץ נָתַן לִי יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵי הַשָּׁמָיִם וְהוּא פָקַד עָלַי לִבְנוֹת לוֹ בַיִת בִּירוּשָׁלַ‍ִם אֲשֶׁר בִּיהוּדָה.^א:ג מִי בָכֶם מִכָּל עַמּוֹ יְהִי אֱלֹהָיו עִמּוֹ וְיַעַל לִירוּשָׁלִַם אֲשֶׁר בִּיהוּדָה וְיִבֶן אֶת בֵּית יְ־הוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר בִּירוּשָׁלִָם.

^{Ezra 1:2}Thus said King Cyrus of Persia: YHWH God of Heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has charged me with building Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. ^1:3And whoever among you of all His people, may God be with him, let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah, and build the house of YHWH, God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem.^[1]

The proclamation continues with Cyrus’s authorization to the returning Jews to gather material support for their return:

^{עזרא א:ד} וְכָל הַנִּשְׁאָר מִכָּל הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר הוּא גָר שָׁם יְנַשְּׂאוּהוּ אַנְשֵׁי מְקֹמוֹ בְּכֶסֶף וּבְזָהָב וּבִרְכוּשׁ וּבִבְהֵמָה עִם הַנְּדָבָה לְבֵית הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר בִּירוּשָׁלִָם.

^{Ezra 1:4}And whoever remains in all the places where they sojourn,^[2] let the people of his place support him^[3] with silver and with gold and with goods and with beasts together with the freewill offerings for the house of the God who is in Jerusalem.

According to this, the Judeans who will be returning to Judah should collect these goods from the locals. The chapter continues with the fulfillment of Cyrus’s proclamation:

^{עזרא א:ה} וַיָּקוּמוּ רָאשֵׁי הָאָבוֹת לִיהוּדָה וּבִנְיָמִן וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם לְכֹל הֵעִיר הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת רוּחוֹ לַעֲלוֹת לִבְנוֹת אֶת בֵּית יְ־הוָה אֲשֶׁר בִּירוּשָׁלָ‍ִם. ^א:ו וְכָל סְבִיבֹתֵיהֶם חִזְּקוּ בִידֵיהֶם בִּכְלֵי כֶסֶף^[4] בַּזָּהָב בָּרְכוּשׁ וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבַמִּגְדָּנוֹת לְבַד עַל כָּל הִתְנַדֵּב.

^{Ezra 1:5}So the chiefs of the clans of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites, all whose spirit had been roused by God, got ready to go up to build the House of YHWH that is in Jerusalem. ^1:6And all those around them strengthened their hands with silver vessels and with gold and with goods and with beasts and with delicacies besides all the freewill offerings.

Commentators debate who is expected to give the returning Judeans these goods: Is the reference to other Judeans who will not be returning themselves or to their non-Jewish neighbors? In support of the latter possibility is the use of the term סְבִיבֹתֵיהֶם “those all around them.” The term is generally geographical, referring to the outlying areas,^[5] but here clearly refers to people. Moreover, whereas the reference to surrounding people is often used to describe enemies that need to be subdued,^[6] here they are financial supporters of the move to Yehud (Judea) and the building of the Temple.

A Biblical Motif

This account of Judeans obtaining wealth in a foreign land and bringing it back makes use of a motif found in a number of biblical stories.

Abraham’s Return from Egypt

In Genesis 12, when Abram goes down to Egypt to avoid a famine, Pharaoh tries to marry Sarai, thinking she is Abram’s sister:

^{בראשית יב:טז} וּלְאַבְרָם הֵיטִיב בַּעֲבוּרָהּ וַיְהִי לוֹ צֹאן וּבָקָר וַחֲמֹרִים וַעֲבָדִים וּשְׁפָחֹת וַאֲתֹנֹת וּגְמַלִּים...

^{Gen 12:16}And it went well with Abram on her account, and he had sheep and cattle and donkeys and male and female slaves, and jennies, and camels…

The story concludes with:

^יג:א וַיַּעַל אַבְרָם מִמִּצְרַיִם הוּא וְאִשְׁתּוֹ וְכָל אֲשֶׁר לוֹ וְלוֹט עִמּוֹ הַנֶּגְבָּה. ^יג:ב וְאַבְרָם כָּבֵד מְאֹד בַּמִּקְנֶה בַּכֶּסֶף וּבַזָּהָב

^13:1And Abram came up from Egypt, he and his wife and all he had, and Lot together with him, to the Negeb. ^13:2And Abram was heavily laden with cattle, with silver and gold.

Jacob’s Wealth from Haran

When Jacob runs away to Haran, and works as a virtual slave to his uncle Laban, he leaves with substantial property (Gen 29–31):

^{בראשית לא:יז} וַיָּקָם יַעֲקֹב וַיִּשָּׂא אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת נָשָׁיו עַל הַגְּמַלִּים. ^לא:יח וַיִּנְהַג אֶת כָּל מִקְנֵהוּ וְאֶת כָּל רְכֻשׁוֹ אֲשֶׁר רָכָשׁ מִקְנֵה קִנְיָנוֹ אֲשֶׁר רָכַשׁ בְּפַדַּן אֲרָם לָבוֹא אֶל יִצְחָק אָבִיו אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן

^{Gen 31:17}And Jacob rose and bore off his children and his wives on the camels. ^31:18And he drove all his livestock and all his substance that he had acquired, his property in livestock that had acquired in Paddan-Aram, to go to Isaac his father in the land of Canaan.^[7]

Egypt’s Gold and Silver in Exodus

At the scene of the burning bush, God announces that he will grant the people favor in Egyptian eyes; moreover, they will not leave Egypt empty-handed:

^{שמות ג:כא} וְנָתַתִּי אֶת חֵן הָעָם הַזֶּה בְּעֵינֵי מִצְרָיִם וְהָיָה כִּי תֵלֵכוּן לֹא תֵלְכוּ רֵיקָם׃ ^ג:כב וְשָׁאֲלָה אִשָּׁה מִשְּׁכֶנְתָּהּ וּמִגָּרַת בֵּיתָהּ כְּלֵי כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב וּשְׂמָלֹת וְשַׂמְתֶּם עַל בְּנֵיכֶם וְעַל בְּנֹתֵיכֶם וְנִצַּלְתֶּם אֶת מִצְרָיִם:

^{Exod 3:21}And I will grant this people favor in the eyes of Egypt, and so when you go, you not go empty-handed. ^3:22But each woman will ask of her neighbor and of the sojourner in her house objects of silver and objects of gold and robes, and you shall put them on your sons and on your daughters and you shall despoil Egypt.

YHWH repeats the command in abbreviated form before the plague of the first born,^[8] and the fulfillment of this directive appears in chapter 12, in which the Egyptians are described as willingly handing over their belongings (Exod 12:35–36):

^{שמות יב:לה} וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עָשׂוּ כִּדְבַר מֹשֶׁה וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם כְּלֵי כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב וּשְׂמָלֹת׃ ^יב:לו וַי־הוָה נָתַן אֶת חֵן הָעָם בְּעֵינֵי מִצְרַיִם וַיַּשְׁאִלוּם וַיְנַצְּלוּ אֶת מִצְרָיִם:

^{Exod 12:35}And the Israelites had done according to Moses’s word, and they had asked of the Egyptians objects of silver and objects of gold and cloaks. ^12:36And YHWH had granted the people favor in the eyes of the Egyptians, who lent to them, and they despoiled Egypt.

Intertextual Theme

The three stories above share this same motif; the Israelite protagonist(s) obtains wealth from a powerful non-Israelite outside the land. In the case of the story of Abraham’s descent to and exodus from Egypt, interpreters as early as the rabbis (Gen. Rab. 40), continuing into medieval times (Ramban ad loc.) and modern exegesis,^[9] have understood it as a prologue to or foreshadowing of the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt and their eventual exodus.

The texts are connected thematically and even linguistically. Note specifically that both Abraham and the Israelites bring gold, silver, and מִקְנֶה כָּבֵד מְאֹד “laden heavily with cattle” (Exod 12:38),^[10] suggesting that this similarity is deliberate rather than accidental.

The Moral Ambiguity of the Motif

Each of these cases has moral ambiguity, as certain commentators note. For instance, Abram amasses his wealth on the back of a lie about Sarai.

Genesis Apocryphon

Some traditional interpreters seem unfazed by the problem. For instance, the 1^st century B.C.E. author of the Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20), embellishes the story in great detail, including Abram’s lie about his relationship with Sarai. The story emphasizes that because of plagues that God sent against him, the pharaoh never touched Sarai, and ends with (col. 20, lns. 29–33):

‎ו֗ק֗ם ו֗י֗הב ל֗י֗ מלכא ב[יומא] ד֗נֹא֗ מנתנ[ן]... ‎ואת֗יֹב֗ לי לש֗ר֗י ויהב לה מלכא֗ [כסף וד]הב ש֗גיא ולבוש שגי די בוץ וארגואן... ואזלת אנה אברם בנכסין שגיאין לחדא ואף בכסף ודה֗ב וסלק֗ת מן [מצרי]ן

The king gave me gift[s] that [day]… Then he returned Sarai to me, and the king gave to her [m]uch si[lver and g]old and much clothing of fine linen and purple… So I [Abram] went forth with very much property (or “very many flocks”) as well as with silver and gold, and I went up from Egypt.^[11]

In this version, the pharaoh gives Abram gifts early on in the story, but the silver and gold come only after Sarai is returned, and they are given to her, though as her husband, they constitute Abram’s wealth. This retelling is likely influenced by the story of Abimelech in Genesis 20, since he too gives Sarah (=Sarai) silver after he learns of his error (v. 16).

Jubilees

In contrast, other Second Temple period authors seem to have been troubled by the story and try to adjust its details to avoid this problem. Jubilees (3^rd/2^nd cent. B.C.E.), for example, narrates:

^{Jub. 13:13}When the pharaoh took Abram’s wife Sarai by force for himself, the Lord punished the pharaoh and his household very severely on account of Abram’s wife Sarai. ^13:14Now Abram had an extremely large amount of property: sheep, cattle, donkeys, horses, camels, male and female servants, silver and very (much) gold. Lot—his brother’s son—also had property. ^13:15 The pharaoh returned Abram’s wife Sarai and expelled him from the land of Egypt…^[12]

Jubilees makes no mention of Abram pretending that Sarai was his sister,^[13] and it mentions Abram’s wealth in the middle of the Egypt story without suggesting that it was given to him by the pharaoh.

Judith

A similar reimagining of how the patriarchs became wealthy appears in the book of Judith. In this story, the Assyrian general Holofernes asks the Moabites and Ammonites to tell him about the Israelites. In response, Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, gives a brief history of Israel, mentioning how they were once Chaldeans:

^{Jdt 5:9}Then their God commanded them to leave the place where they were living and go to the land of Canaan. There they settled, and grew very prosperous in gold and silver and very much livestock.^[14]

The author here alludes to Gen 13:1–2: “And Abram was heavily laden with cattle, with silver and gold” but instead of saying that the wealth came from his sojourn in Egypt, it says that the patriarchs gained their wealth while living in the land.^[15] Moreover, when retelling the exodus story, Achior makes no mention of wealth taken from the Egyptians.

The Jacob narrative has a similarly morally ambiguous element, since Jacob obtains this great wealth through impressing the sheep with the image of spotted staffs.^[16]

Despoiling the Egyptians

Finally, early and modern commentators, both traditional and historical-critical, have expressed concerns about the moral implications of the “despoiling” of the Egyptians.^[17] Much of this debate is based on the precise meaning of the two main verbs used in the contexts above: ש.א.ל and נ.צ.ל.

Did the Israelites request gold and silver objects and cloaks as a gift (one meaning of the root ש.א.ל) or did they cheat the Egyptians by borrowing the objects (the other meaning of the root) with no intention of returning them?[18] Similarly, did the Israelites plunder/despoil the Egyptians, one meaning of the root נ.צ.ל, or perhaps they merely stripped them of their possessions, following this root’s meaning in Exod 33:6.[19]

All three of these cases of borrowing or despoiling have been defended by noting that the Israelite protagonist was merely fooling a wicked person. The Egypt that Abram visits was a frightening place, and he needed to protect himself. Laban tricked Jacob into working for seven extra years for a woman he didn’t even want to marry. The Egyptians enslaved the Israelites for centuries, and thus needed to pay them in arrears for their service.

But even for interpreters who might feel that such explanations are insufficient, an important difference between the story of the exodus and those of the patriarchs needs to be noted: Abram’s misleading of Pharaoh is his own idea, as is Jacob’s manipulation of Laban, while the Israelites requesting or “borrowing” silver and gold in the exodus story was carried out at God’s command. In fact, even before the revelation at the burning bush, God informed the first patriarch of this part of the plan.

God promise at the Covenant Between the Parts

In Genesis 15, at the Covenant between the Pieces, God promises Abraham that after being enslaved, the Israelites will return with great substance:

^{בראשית טו:יג} וַיֹּאמֶר לְאַבְרָם יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה... ^טו:יד וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן יֵצְאוּ בִּרְכֻשׁ גָּדוֹל.

^{Gen 15:13}Know well that your seed shall be strangers in a land not theirs and they shall be enslaved and afflicted four hundred years ^15:14…and afterward they shall come forth with great substance.

The description in Exodus of the Israelites borrowing gold and silver objects from their neighbors prior to leaving Egypt fulfills the divine promise to Abraham that his descendants will obtain wealth from their oppressors in a foreign land,^[20] a notion that finds poetic expression in Midrash Exodus Rabbah (3:11.1).^[21] Viewed in this light, the Israelites obtaining wealth from the foreign Egyptians is meant to be interpreted as an unmitigated good, and this is how it functioned in the reception history of exilic and post-exilic literature.

Exilic Period: A Hopeful Message (Psalm 105)

Psalm 105, a psalm that surveys Israel’s history, retells and reinterprets various pentateuchal pericopae.^[22] It devotes extensive space to the Egypt experience (vv. 23–38),^[23] and in that context briefly mentions:

^{תהלים קה:לז} וַיּוֹצִיאֵם^[24] בְּכֶסֶף וְזָהָב

^{Ps 105:37} And He brought them out with silver and gold…^[25]

This statement appears in the third-person singular, referring to God; this is consistent with the verb form found in the preceding verses with reference to divine actions, both with regard to his people and with regard to punishing the Egyptians.^[26] The use of third-person verbs underscores direct divine involvement in events and, in contrast to the passages in Exodus, sparks no linguistic-ethical dilemmas.

Scholars generally date this psalm to the exilic or Second Temple period,^[27] and its reliance on Torah traditions attests both to the formation of the Pentateuch and the Torah’s central status in restoration period Jewish society.^[28] Specifically, its use of the exodus material here fits with the way Second Temple authors used the exodus tradition to understand the return from Babylonia.^[29] Focusing on “the release from slavery in a foreign land and reaching the land of Israel,”^[30] Second Temple authors aimed to foster that generation’s self-perception as themselves “having left Egypt” and as heirs to the pre-exilic Israelites.^[31] This theme was expanded upon and canonized in the Passover Haggadah:

בכל דור ודור חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא ממצרים

In every generation, people must see themselves as if they left Egypt.

In this case, the author of Psalm 105 sought to infuse in his audience the hope that just as God protected the wandering, homeless patriarchs, so too will he guard their descendants in Babylonian exile; just as he rescued the Israelites from Egypt, so too will he rescue them from Babylonian exile and restore them to their land, as promised in the Abrahamic covenant.^[32]

The Proclamation of Cyrus: A New Exodus from Egypt

Returning to the proclamation of Cyrus in Ezra-Nehemiah, we can now see clearly how the motif of leaving exile with substantial property underwent further development. First, Cyrus’s proclamation is addressed to the diaspora Jews, who are defined as YWHH’s people, who must “go up” (ע.ל.ה) to Judah in order to build the Temple.^[33] This root occurs frequently in the phrase עלה ממצרים (Gen 13:1; 46:4; Exod 3:8, 17; 13:18; Judg 11:13, among others),^[34] and its use draws a parallel between the going up from Babylonia and the going up from Egypt.^[35]

More significantly, the description of Israel going up from exile with goods taken from locals is reminiscent of the scene in Exodus in which alludes to the asking or borrowing of goods from their Egyptian neighbors in the exodus story,^[36] but here, significantly, the non-Jewish king donates these items of his own free will.

Here we see a development from the Pentateuchal text. Whereas the despoiling of Egypt in exodus is about YHWH giving the persecuting Egyptians their just deserts, and enriching his own people in the bargain, the text in Ezra has no negative valence regarding Cyrus or the Persian people.

Not only are the Persians innocent of having harmed the Judeans—it was the Babylonians who destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple, not the Persians—here YHWH does not need the Judeans to fool the local population into giving them gold and silver. Instead, YHWH communicates the information to King Cyrus directly. It is thus Cyrus, not a Jewish leader, who encourages the Jews to ask for goods and for his people to supply them.

Such a contrasting presentation conveys the positive perspective that the Second Temple authors of Ezra-Nehemiah wished to convey concerning their Persian overlords. The return from Babylon was a second exodus, except this time, it is accomplished with the blessing of the gentile king, and the (real or imagined) wealth obtained in exile is entirely untainted.

View Footnotes

Published 2020-04-01

Unless otherwise indicated, all biblical translations follow Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary (New York: Norton, 2019), with slight revisions.
Using the term כָל־הַנִּשְׁאָר to describe the returnees to Judah “appears illogical and even paradoxical: ‘the one who remains’ is the one who goes up’!, but this appears to be a technical term for those ‘who belong to the remnant’, who will renew life in Judah.” Sara Japhet, עזרא-נחמיה: עם מבוא ופירוש [Ezra-Nehemiah: Introduction and Commentary], Mikra Leyisrael (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2019), 58–59. Cf. Neh 1:2–3, Hag 2:3. See also Joseph Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 76. For a survey of the solutions to this linguistic difficulty, see Sara Japhet, “The Concept of the ‘Remnant’ in the Restoration Period: On the Vocabulary of Self-Definition,” in From the Rivers of Babylon, 423–449, here 444–45.
Japheth (Ezra-Nehemiah, 59) attributes the rare use of נש"א in the pi‘el pattern with a direct object to denote to be assisted to the influence of 1 Kings 9:11:
^{מלכים א ט:יא} חִירָם מֶלֶךְ־צֹר נִשָּׂא אֶת־שְׁלֹמֹה בַּעֲצֵי אֲרָזִים וּבַעֲצֵי בְרוֹשִׁים וּבַזָּהָב לְכָל־חֶפְצוֹ.
^{1 Kings 9:11} Hiram king of Tyre had furnished Solomon with cedarwood and cypress-wood and gold as all that he desired.
Here too the context is the temple.
Instead of כסף וזהב found in v. 4 in the proclamation, we find here בכלי כסף בזהב. The mention of silver objects does not fit the context and it appears that the LXX version ἐν πᾶσιν, ἀργυρίῳ is preferable: בכל, כסף וזהב. See BHS ad loc. and Japhet, Ezra-Nehemiah, 61.
Cf. סביבת היאור (Exod 7:24); סביבת האהל (Num 11:24); סביבות ירושלים (Ps 99:3). See Japhet, Ezra-Nehemiah, 60.
Josh 23:1; Judg 2:14, 8:34; 1 Sam 12:11, 14:47; 2 Sam 7:1, 1 Kgs 5:4, 11, 18.
Daube, Exodus Pattern, 62–72; Zakovitch, The Concept of Exodus in the Bible, 37–38, 46–48.
^{שמות יא:ב} דבֶּר־נָא בְּאָזְנֵי הָעָם וְיִשְׁאֲלוּ אִישׁ מֵאֵת רֵעֵהוּ וְאִשָּׁה מֵאֵת רְעוּתָהּ כְּלֵי־כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי זָהָב
^{Exod 11:2}Speak, pray, in the hearing of the people, that every man borrow from his fellow man and every woman from her fellow woman, objects of silver and objects of gold.
Cassuto, Commentary on Genesis, 2:334-37; Zakovitch, The Concept of Exodus in the Bible, 18–26, among others. See also Yairah Amit, “Travel Narratives and the Message of Genesis,” in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North American, ed. Jan C. Gertz et al., FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 223–242, here 237, 238, and n. 65.
Zakovitch, The Concept of Exodus in the Bible, 58.
“Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20=1QapGen),” trans. Daniel A. Machiela with James C. Vanderkam, in Genesis Apocryphon and Related Documents, vol. 8A of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, ed. James H: Charlesworth (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018).
Cited from James C. VanderKam, Jubilees 1: A Commentary on the Book of Jubilees Chapters 1–21, ed. Sidnie White Crawford, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2018).
Yair Zakovitch and Avigdor Shinan, אברם ושרי במצרים: בראשית יב 10–20 במקרא בתרגומים העתיקים ובספרות היהודית הקדומה לסוגיה [Abram and Sarai in Egypt: Gen. 10:10–20 in the Bible, The Old Versions and the Ancient Jewish Literature], Projects of the Institute of Jewish Studies Monograph Series 2 (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1983), 78.
Betsy Halpern-Amaru, “Judith,” in Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture, ed. Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2013).
Yair Zakovitch, צבת בצבת עשויה: מה בין מדרש פנים-מקראי למדרש חוץ-מקראי [Inner-biblical and Extra-biblical Midrash and the Relationship between Them] (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1983), 261.
For a discussion of this trick, see Zev Farber, “Maternal Impressions: From Sheep to Humans,” TheTorah (2013). Shakespeare makes much of the moral problem in the dialogue between Antonio and Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. See discussion in Herbert Basser, “Shakespeare Plays on the Questionable Source of Jacob's Wealth,” TheTorah (2015).
For a survey of opinions, see Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 43–44, trans. of פירוש על ספר שמות(Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975); David Daube, The Exodus Pattern in the Bible, All Souls Studies (London: Faber and Faber, 1963), 55–72; Moshe Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, Heritage of Biblical Israel Series 2 (New York: Published by Behrman House for the Melton Research Center of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1969), 86–87; Brevard S. Childs, Exodus: A Commentary, OTL (London: S.C.M. Press, 1974), 175–77; Nehama Leibowitz, “שאילת הכלים” [Borrowing Objects], in עיונים חדשים בספר שמות [New Studies in Shemot] (Jerusalem: Hahistadrut ha-tziyonit ha-olamit, 1970), 129–35; Leonard Greenspoon, “Despoiling the Egyptians: A Concerning Jewish Legacy,” TheTorah (2017).
For ש.א.ל as borrowing see Exod 22:13; 2 Kgs 4:3, 6:5; for ש.א.ל as requesting a gift, see 1 Sam 1:28, 2:20; Judg 8:24. See discussion in BDB, 981–982; Menahem Zevi Kaddari, מילון העברית המקראית [A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew] (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2007), 1040–41. I note that this polysemy is reflected in the selections quoted above, where we find both “ask” and “borrow” used by the same translator, Robert Alter.
But here we have hitpa‘el and not pi‘el . See Rashi ad loc. and others in his wake. For the meanings of the root נ.צ.ל, see BDB, 664–65; Kaddari, Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, 726.
See, among others, Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part II, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964(, 334–37, trans. of פירוש על ספר בראשית (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1974); Leibowitz, “שאילת כלים,” 134; Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, 86; Daube, Exodus Pattern, 55–61; Yair Zakovitch, ......And You Shall Tell Your Son : The Concept of the Exodus in the Bible (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1991), 17, 58. They note the affinity between the borrowing of objects in Exodus and the bonus granted to a Hebrew slave on his release (Deut 15:13–14); cf. Exod 3:21–22.
ונתתי את חן העם הזה בעיני מצרים [והיה כי תלכון לא תלכו ריקם] (ג 21). מה שאמרתי לאברהם: ואחרי כן יצאו ברכוש גדול (בר' טו 14), כן אני עתיד לעשות אותם לחן בעיני מצרים כדי שישאילום וילכו מלאים, כדי שלא יהא פתחון פה לאברהם אביהם לומר: ועבדום וענו אתם (שם 13) קיים בהם, ואחרי כן יצאו ברכש גדול – לא קיים עמהם.
“And I will grant this people favor in the eyes of Egypt [and so when you go, you not go empty-handed]”—As I promised Abraham, “and afterward shall they come out with great substance” (Gen 15:14), thus will I make you find favor in the eyes of the Egyptians, so that they may lend you things that you may depart well laden; so that Abraham, our father, may not have the excuse to say that God has certainly fulfilled His promise “and they shall serve them and afflict them” but not His promise of “and afterwards shall they come out with great substance.”
The Hebrew is from: Avigdor Shinan, שמות רבה פרשות א–יד [Midrash Shemot Rabbah: Chapters I–XIV] (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1984), 133. The English is from: Midrash Rabbah: Exodus, trans. S. M. Lehrman (London: Soncino, 1951) with adjustments.
The psalmist also relies on other pentateuchal narratives and even on other books (other Psalms, Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah, among others) using them to create allusions or inner-biblical interpretations. Berlin, “Torah Traditions in Psalm 105,” 20–36, 239–43.
See, among others, Berlin, “Torah Traditions in Psalm 105,” 33; Penina Galpaz Feller, ונתתי את חן העם הזה" "בעיני מצרים ... (שמות ג, כא) [And I Will Give This People Favor in the Sight of the Egyptians (Exodus 3:21)], Bet Mikra 47 (2002): 133–42, here 140; Rolf A. DeClaissé-Walford, Nancy L. Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner, The Book of Psalms, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 79.
According to Charles A. Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 2:341, 347, the verse originally read ויוצא את עמו בכסף וזהב and the phrase was reduced by a copyist to the suffix mem. In previous contexts it was used with reference to Egypt and it was necessary to specify that Israel is the object here. Support for this supposition comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls: 11QPs^a: יוצא עמו; 4QPs^e: ויוצא את עמו. See DeClaissé-Walford, Jacobson and Tanner, Book of Psalms, 786 n. 22. They adopt this version.
The verse makes no mention of the divine command to request these objects, the enactment of the command by the Israelites, or how they found favor in the eyes of the Egyptians, but this is not surprising considering the terseness of the cola here.
: ויפר, ויעצמהו, הפך, שלח, בחר, שלח, הפך, וימת, אמר, נתן, ויך, וישבר, אמר, ויך. This is also the case for the following verses: פרש, שאל, ישביעם, פתח, זכר, ויוצא, ויתן.
See Yair Hoffman’s interpretation of Ps 105 in תהילים ב' [Psalms 2], ed. Nahum M. Sarna; Olam Hatanakh (Tel Aviv: Davidson-Iti, 1995), 129; Adele Berlin, “Interpreting Torah Traditions in Psalm 105,” in Jewish Biblical Interpretation and Cultural Exchange: Comparative Exegesis in Context, ed. Natalie B. Dohrmann and David Stern (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 20–36, 239–43, here, 22, 240 n. 6; Atar Livneh, “אברהם בסקירות הסטוריות בספרות הבית השני” [Abraham in Second Temple Historical Summaries], Meghillot 13 (2017): 119–59, here, 124 n. 19. For a survey of scholarly opinion, see Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150, WBC (Nashville: T. Nelson, 2002), 53–57. For a dating of Psalm 105 to the exilic or early postexilic period, see Marc Zvi Brettler, “The Poet as Historian: The Plague Tradition in Psalm 105,” in Bringing the Hidden to Light: The Process of Interpretation - Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, ed. Kathryn F. Kravitz and Diane M. Sharon (Winona Lake, IN: JTS and Eisenbrauns, 2007), 19–28.
On the stabilization of pentateuchal authority in Israelite life during the restoration period, and the importance assumed by its public reading and study (see Neh 8:1–9:4; 10:30; 13:1–3), see Mark J. Boda, Praying the Tradition: The Origin and Use of Tradition in Nehemiah 9, BZAW (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999), 197; Sara Japhet, "טקס קריאת התורה: נחמיה ח:1–12" [The Ritual of Reading Scripture: Nehemiah 8:1–12], Shnaton 22 (2013): 67–82, here 77–78; idem, “What May Be Learned from Ezra-Nehemiah about the Composition of the Pentateuch,” in The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North American, ed. Jan C. Gertz et al., FAT 111 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 543–60; David M. Carr, "The Rise of Torah," in The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. G.N. Knoppers and B.M. Levinson (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 39–56; Konrad Schmid, "Divine Legislation in the Pentateuch in its Late Judean and Neo-Babylonian Context," in The Fall of Jerusalem and the Rise of the Torah, ed. Peter Dubovskỳ, Dominik Markl, and Jean-Pierre Sonnet, FAT 107 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 129–53.
See e.g. Jer 23:7–8, Isa 51:9–11. It is especially prominent in Deutero-Isaiah. See Claus Westermann, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary, trans. David M.G. Stalker, OTL (London: SCM, 1969) 21-22; Hoffman, Doctrine of the Exodus in the Bible, 60–65, 155–60; Yonina Dor, "תפילת עזרא בהקשרה (עזרא ט–י)" [Ezra’s Prayer in Its Context (Ezra 9-10)], Shnaton 14 (2004): 75-99, here 89-90; Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40-66: Introduction and Commentary, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012), 45–46; Sara Japhet, “The Temple in the Restoration Period,” in From the Rivers of Babylon to the Highlands of Judah: Collected Studies on the Restoration Period (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 183–232, here 202–203, among others.
Yair Hoffman,יציאת מצרים באמונת המקרא [The Doctrine of the Exodus in the Bible] (Tel Aviv University, Chaim Rozenberg School for Jewish Studies, 1983), 185.
Dor, “Ezra’s Prayer,” 89–90.
Berlin, “Torah Traditions in Psalm 105,” 26, 31. Editor’s note: For a similar argument pertaining to another exilic psalm, 114, see Marc Zvi Brettler, “Psalm 114,” TheTorah (2020).
The opposite root, י.ר.ד, is frequently used to describe going down to Egypt (Gen 12:10; 46:3, 4, among others); see Japhet, Ezra-Nehemiah, 57–58.
See Greenberg, Understanding Exodus, 21 and n. 2; Hava Shalom-Guy, אלה תולדות גדעון: מחזור סיפורים מקראי בראי מקבילותיו [The Gideon Cycle through the Mirror of Its Literary Parallels] (Tel Aviv: Resling, 2013), 48 and n. 36.
Japhet, Ezra-Nehemiah, 58.
See Zakovitch, “The Concept of the Exodus in the Bible,” 57 – 58; Japhet, Ezra-Nehemiah, 57–58, see also 19–20; idem, “The Temple in the Restoration Period,” 202–4.

Essays on Related Topics:

The Mormon Book of Abraham: Joseph Smith Deciphers Abraham’s Papyri

Title Colby Townsend