Moses Separated from His Wife: Between Greek Philosophy and Rabbinic Exegesis

Both Philo of Alexandria (c. 25 B.C.E. – 50 C.E.) and some later rabbinic interpreters insist that Moses remained celibate so that he might always be pure and ready to hear YHWH, but each arrived at this conclusion through a different approach.

Prof.

Karen Strand Winslow

Prof.

Karen Strand Winslow

Categories:

Beha’alotcha

Moses Separated from His Wife: Between Greek Philosophy and Rabbinic Exegesis

Moses marries Zipporah, daughter of Reuel, in Midian and together they have two sons (Exod 2:15–22; 18:2–6). Later, in the wilderness, Aaron and Miriam complain about Moses’ wife, who is described as Cushite (Num 12:1).^[1] Whether this is a reference to Zipporah or to a second wife,^[2] it is clear from these passages that Moses was married. Texts from late antiquity claim that at some point Moses withdrew from sexual relations with his wife.^[3] How did this tradition develop?

Philo: Moses’ Role as Prophet and Priest

Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, is the first known scholar to make explicit the perspective that Moses’ pursuit of divine wisdom and inspiration was incompatible with an active sex life.^[4] Philo depicts Moses as pure Mind, paying no attention to all things sensory and sexual.^[5]

^{On the Life of Moses (Mos.)}^1:28 For on his belly he bestowed no more than the necessary tributes which nature has appointed, and as for the pleasures that have their seat below, save for the lawful begetting of children, they passed altogether even out of his memory.^[6]

He also highlights Moses’ and God’s extremely close relationship:^[7]

^Mos.^2.67 Thus he came to love God and be loved by Him as have been few others. A heaven-sent rapture inspired him, so markedly did he honour the Ruler of the All and was honoured in return by Him. An honour well-becoming the wise is to serve the Being Who truly is, and the service of God is ever the business of the priesthood.

To prepare for the sacred tasks of the priesthood, Moses had to become clean, both in soul and body, including avoiding intercourse with women:^[8]

^Mos.^2.68 But first he had to be clean, as in soul so also in body, to have no dealings with any passion, purifying himself from every appeal of mortal nature, food and drink and intercourse with women.

This is because he wanted to always be ready for and receptive to God’s word:

^Mos.^2.68 This last he scorned for many days, almost from the time that he was inspired by the spirit, and entered his work as a prophet, because he thought it suitable to always be prepared to receive the oracular messages.

Philo thus associates sexual relations with lack of readiness to hear God’s voice.

Philo Influenced by Platonic Philosophy

Philo was influenced by his Platonic dualistic worldview, which contrasted the divinely inspired, rational, and immortal soul with the passions, senses, and mortality of the body.^[9] Elsewhere, he emphasizes how the needs of the flesh can distract from the pursuits of the mind:

^{Allegorical Interpretation}^2.50 For when that which is superior, namely Mind, becomes one with that which is inferior, namely Sense-perception, it resolves itself into the order of flesh which is inferior, into sense-perception, the moving cause of the passions. But if Sense the inferior follow Mind the superior, there will be flesh no more, but both of them will be Mind.

Indeed, Philo’s first man, created in the image of God, is asexual and represents man’s higher nature (Questions and Answers on Genesis 2.12). The term male itself represents the asexual realm, the sphere of Logos and God.

Alongside this belief in the “masculine” pursuits of the mind are Philo’s fundamental assumptions about female inferiority and the incompatibility of the “feminine” with the attainment to knowledge of the divine. Philo consistently indicts sexuality and women, both literally and symbolically.

In On the Creation he indicates that woman was responsible for the first sin of man, choosing the fleeting mortal life, which was the result of sexual desire (151–152). And in Questions and Answers on Exodus (QE), he argues that the achievement of divine inspiration can overcome the “womanly corruptions” of the flesh, a process that he describes metaphorically as becoming a virgin, i.e., male souls are transformed into pure, virginal vessels for God after their contact with God:

^QE^2.3 When souls become divinely inspired, from women they become virgins, throwing off the womanly corruptions that are in sense-perception and passion.^[10]

In contrast to Philo’s reasoning that reflects his Platonic dualism, later rabbinic texts appeal directly to scripture to substantiate Moses’ sexual renunciation.^[11]

Purification Prior to Divine Revelation

In preparation for the theophany at Sinai, YHWH instructs Moses to consecrate the people and have them wash their clothes:

^{שׁמות יט:י} וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה לֵךְ אֶל הָעָם וְקִדַּשְׁתָּם הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר וְכִבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָם. ^יט:יא וְהָיוּ נְכֹנִים לַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי כִּי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי יֵרֵד יְ־הוָה לְעֵינֵי כָל הָעָם עַל הַר סִינָי.

^{Exod 19:10} And YHWH said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments and be ready by the third day”; ^19:11 for on the third day YHWH will come down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people....

Moses descends, consecrates the people and they wash their garments:

^{שׁמות יט:יד} וַיֵּרֶד מֹשֶׁה מִן הָהָר אֶל הָעָם וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הָעָם וַיְכַבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָם.

^{Exod 19:14} So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people and they washed their garments.

After they have been consecrated, Moses adds a new instruction to the people not to approach women:

^{שׁמות יט:טו} וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל הָעָם הֱיוּ נְכֹנִים לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים אַל תִּגְּשׁוּ אֶל אִשָּׁה.

^{Exod 19:15} And he said to the people, “Be ready by the third day; do not go near a woman.”^[12]

Moses seemingly interprets YHWH’s command that the people “be ready” (v. 10) to include avoiding sexual intercourse.^[13]

A variety of rabbinic texts build on Moses’ own interpretation to argue that Moses himself chose to separate from his wife to always be ready to receive God’s word.^[14] For example, Avot of Rabbi Nathan (version A) presents Moses’ celibacy as a decision that he made of his own accord in order to put a fence around Torah:^[15]

^{אבות דרבי נתן א פרק ב} איזו סייג שעשה משה לדבריו הרי.... פירש מן האשה והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום כיצד אמר מה אם ישראל שלא נתקדשו אלא לפי שעה ולא נזדמנו אלא כדי לקבל עליהם עשרת הדברות מהר סיני אמר לי הקדוש ברוך הוא לך אל העם וקדשתם היום ומחר.

^{ARN A ch. 2}What fence did Moses make to his words?... He separated from his wife, and God agreed with his logic. How was this? He said, “[Consider] Israel, who was but sanctified for but a brief moment and not prepared except to receive the Ten Words at Mt. Sinai. The Holy One, blessed be He, told me to go to the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow” (Exod 19:10).^[16]

ואני שאני מזומן לכך בכל יום ויום ובכל שעה ואיני יודע אימתי מדבר עמי או ביום או בלילה על אחת כמה וכמה שאפרוש מן האשה והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום.

“But I, who am always prepared every moment and every day so that I do not know when he will speak to me, day or night, how much more should I separate from my wife?” And God agreed with his reasoning.

Rabbi Judah argues that the initiative for Moses’ decision to choose chastity came directly from God:^[17]

^{אבות דרבי נתן א פרק ב} רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר לא פירש משה מן האשה אלא שנאמרה לו מפי הגבורה שנאמר (במדבר י״ב:ח׳) פה אל פה אדבר בו פה אל פה אמרתי לו פרוש מן האשה ופירש.

^{ARN A ch. 2}Rabbi Judah b. Batriya said: Moses would not have separated from his wife except that he was commanded from the mouth of the Almighty. As Scripture says, “Mouth to mouth I will speak to him” (Num 12:8). Mouth to mouth I told him to separate from his wife, and he separated.

The biblical text does not claim that God ordered Moses to avoid sex, but Rabbi Judah imagines that when God says that he spoke to Moses פה אל פה, “mouth to mouth,” that means that He told him to separate from his wife.

A more direct connection draws on the account of the Sinai theophany in Deuteronomy:

^{אבות דרבי נתן א פרק ב} יש אומרים לא פירש משה מן האשה עד שנאמר לו מפי הגבורה שנאמר (דברים ה׳:כ״ח) לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם וכתיב בתריה ואתה פה עמוד עמדי

^{ARN A ch. 2} Others say Moses did not separate from his wife until he was commanded by the mouth of the Almighty. As Scripture says, “Go tell them to return to their tents” (Deut 5:27), but it is written next, “But you stand fast here with me” (Deut 5:28).^[18]

In both Exodus and Deuteronomy, after the Ten Words have been given, the people urge Moses to mediate between them and God, lest they die. YHWH agrees with this plan, but in Deuteronomy, the narrative continues with YHWH telling Moses to order the “people” to their tents while he remains with YHWH to hear further commands:

‏^{דברים ה:ל} לֵךְ אֱמֹר לָהֶם שׁוּבוּ לָכֶם לְאָהֳלֵיכֶם. ^ה:לא וְאַתָּה פֹּה עֲמֹד עִמָּדִי וַאֲדַבְּרָה אֵלֶיךָ אֵת כָּל הַמִּצְוָה וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תְּלַמְּדֵם וְעָשׂוּ בָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לָהֶם לְרִשְׁתָּהּ.

^{Deut 5:30} Go say to them, “Return to your tents.” ^5:31 But you, stand here by me, and I will tell you all the commandments, the statutes and the ordinances, that you shall teach them, so that they may do them in the land that I am giving them to possess.

The rabbis interpret Deuteronomy’s command that the people return to their tents as a euphemism for returning to having sex,^[19] thus ending the command in Exodus not to go near a woman. Although God’s demand that Moses remain with him on the mountain is not a command to renounce sex, Moses interprets that demand as a reason for him to do so, and God then agrees with his interpretation:

^{אבות דרבי נתן א פרק ב} חזר לאחוריו ופירש והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום.

^ARN^{A ch. 2} Moses then returned and changed [his ways] and became celibate (literally “separated”). And God agreed with his decision.^[20]

One Idea Arrived at from Two Different Directions

Did the traditions in Philo influence these rabbinic texts? These rabbinic exegeses make no direct reference to Greek philosophy, and could have formed among any community reflecting upon the Torah passages in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.^[21] We also have no evidence that biblical exegesis of the type found in the rabbinic traditions was used by Philo in regards to Moses’ decision to abstain from sex: Philo’s asexual Moses’ derived from a Platonic dualistic worldview, which required this practice for Moses as chief prophet and priest. Thus, here we have a case of the same conclusion deriving from two very different systems of biblical interpretation.^[22]

TheTorah.com is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
We rely on the support of readers like you. Please support us.

Published

June 28, 2023

Last Updated

November 14, 2024

Previous in the Series

Next in the Series

Footnotes

View Footnotes

Published

June 28, 2023

Last Updated

November 14, 2024

[1] Editor’s note: See Sidnie White Crawford, “Moses’ Black-Skinned Wife: What Does the Torah Think of Her?” TheTorah (2021).

[2] In my book, Early Jewish and Christian Memories of Moses’ Wives: Exogamist Marriage and Ethnic Identity (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2005), 108–112, I argue that Moses’ Cushite wife is not Zipporah. Editor’s note: Arguing instead that they are the same woman, see David Goldenberg, “Moses’ Kushite Wife was Zipporah the Midianite,” TheTorah (2022).

[3] This essay is based on my book, Early Jewish and Christian Memories of Moses’ Wives.

[4] It is possible that the sexual renunciation traditions represented in the Targums (see n. 14 below) may be older than Philo, but in their current form, they are later than Philo. Ramsdell Goodenough thinks that Philo’s presentation of Moses’ sexual renunciation indicates it was a familiar tradition to his readers. See Ramsdell Goodenough, By Light, Light: The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism (Amsterdam: Philo, 1969), 128.

[5] Editor’s note: On Moses’ wife in Philo’s allegorical interpretations, see Elad Filler, “Moses and the Kushite Woman: Classic Interpretations and Philo's Allegory,” TheTorah (2018). For more on Philo’s interpretive approaches, see Ellen Birnbaum, “What Caused the War Between the Kings? Philo’s Dual Interpretation,” TheTorah (2018).

[6] All translations from Philo’s works follow Philo, trans. F. H. Colson, Loeb Classical Library, 10 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962).

[7] This section follows a lengthy defense of Moses’ legislative position and kingly nature. For the analysis of Moses as king in Philo, see Wayne Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology, The Johannine Monograph Series (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1967), 100–117. He writes: “Philo’s summaries indicate plainly that the ‘offices’ of legislator, priest, and prophet are really adjuncts to the primary office of king.” (112; he cites as evidence Life of Moses 1.334, 2.187; and On Rewards and Punishments 56).

[8] Philo elsewhere references Moses’ marriages (On the Life of Moses 1.10; Allegorical Interpretation 2), but here he does not refer to either of them.

[9] Philo’s philosophy of religion follows Platonic ideas. See H. A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam 2 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948, 1975, 1982), 2:200–217 in the 1948 edition.

[10] For further examination of these passages, see Richard Baer, Philo’s Use of Male and Female (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), 16–35, 37–51.

[11] On attitudes towards sex in Philo and rabbinic literature, see David Winston, “Philo and the Rabbis on Sex and the Body,” Poetics Today 19.1 (1998): 41–62.

[12] The rabbis of the Mekhilta (“Bahodesh,” §3), question whether God in verses 10–11 meant the people should keep away from women.

^{מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל בחדש ג'} וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל הָעָם: הֱיוּ נְכֹנִים לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים! – אֲבָל לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁאָמַר הַמָּקוֹם לִפְרֹשׁ מִן הָאִשָּׁה, אֶלָּא ״הֱיוּ נְכֹנִים״, ״וְהָיוּ נְכֹנִים״ ״לֵךְ אֶל הָעָם וְקִדַּשְׁתָּם הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר״ (שמות יט:יא) לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה מָה ״הֱיוּ נְכֹנִים״ הָאָמוּר כָּן, לִפְרֹשׁ מִן הָאִשָּׁה, אַף ״וְהָיוּ נְכֹנִים״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן, לִפְרֹשׁ מִן הָאִשָּׁה.

^{Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael}^{“Bachodesh” §3} “And he said to the people: Be ready in three days” (Exod 19:17): But we did not hear the Lord telling him (Exod 19:11) that they should separate from their wives! But “Be ready.” “Be ready” constitutes a gezeirah shavvah (use of identical words in two different contexts): Just as “Be ready” here is linked to separation, so, “Be ready” there refers to separation.

Jacob Z. Lauterbach translation (with adjustments).

[13] This command to avoid woman effectively limits “the people” in Exodus 19:15 to include only men. Editor’s note: For a discussion of this issue, see Athalya Brenner, “The Decalogue: Are Female Readers Included?” TheTorah (2016).

[14] The tradition appears in texts ranging from rewritten Bible to halakhic and aggadic Midrashim. It is found in the Midrash Sifre to Numbers, some of the Targums to Numbers, and the Babylonian Talmud. The form of the tradition varies, however. For example, Sifre assumes that Moses withdrew from the beautiful and virtuous Zipporah. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan insists that Moses was forced to marry the Queen of Cush, but he never touched her. Targum Onqelos simply says that he kept his beautiful wife at a distance. Neither follows Sifre to claim that the distanced wife was Zipporah. Targum Neofiti is the exception among these texts. Although it reiterates descriptions of Zipporah familiar from Sifre, it does not claim that Moses was celibate, either at Numbers 1:1 or Numbers 12:8. These texts from late antiquity are the earliest datable records to reflect the tradition of Moses’ sexual renunciation, but the tradition may have originated earlier. Editor’s note: See also Marty Lockshin, “Did Moses Become Celibate?” TheTorah (2020).

[15] ARN is a midrash on m. Avot, which is also haggadic. It cites Tannaim, is composed in Mishnaic Hebrew, and must thereby be associated with Palestine. Günter Stemberger believes the core of ARN originated in the third century C.E. ARN’s commentary on Pirqe Avot continued to develop and its final redaction is seventh to ninth century. (See Günter Stemberger, Introduction to Talmud and Midrash [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991], 225–227.) The phrase “put a fence around Torah” derives from a passage in m. Avot on the transmission of the Torah:

^{משנב אבות א:א} משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי, וּמְסָרָהּ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ לִזְקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים לִנְבִיאִים, וּנְבִיאִים מְסָרוּהָ לְאַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הֵם אָמְרוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, הֱווּ מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִידוּ תַלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה:

^{m. Avot 1:1} Moses received Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua. And Joshua to the elders. And the elders to the prophets. And the prophets transmitted it to the members of the Great Assembly, and they taught three things: (1) Be careful in rendering judgment; (2) and nurture many disciples;(3) and put a fence around the Torah.

Translation follows Martin S. Jaffee, “Tractate Avot,” in The Oxford Annotated Mishnah, ed. Shaye J. Cohen, Robert Goldenberg, and Hayim Lapin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022), 2:710–758, with modifications. Jaffee notes: “In the context of Avot and the Mishnah as a whole, the metaphor probably refers to a protective barrier of rules and principles that prevent the Torah of Moses from being ignored or violated” (713).

[16] The Hebrew text of ARN follows Solomon Schechter, Aboth de Rabbi Nathan (ARN A and B): Edited from Manuscripts with an Introduction, Notes and Appendices by (Vienna, 1887; New York, 1945; corrected repr. Hildesheim, 1979), 8–10.

[17]

^{במדבר יב:ח} פֶּה אֶל פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר בּוֹ וּמַרְאֶה וְלֹא בְחִידֹת וּתְמֻנַת יְ־הוָה יַבִּיט.

^{Num 12:8a} With him I speak face to face—clearly, not in riddles, and he beholds the form of YHWH.

[18] ARN appeals to the same sources as:

^{בבלי שבת פז.} אָמַר: וּמָה יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא דִּבְּרָה שְׁכִינָה עִמָּהֶן אֶלָּא שָׁעָה אַחַת, וְקָבַע לָהֶן זְמַן, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״וְהָיוּ נְכֹנִים וְגוֹ׳ אַל תִּגְּשׁוּ״. אֲנִי, שֶׁכׇּל שָׁעָה וְשָׁעָה שְׁכִינָה מְדַבֶּרֶת עִמִּי, וְאֵינוֹ קוֹבֵעַ לִי זְמַן — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. וּמְנָלַן דְּהִסְכִּים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל יָדוֹ? — דִּכְתִיב: ״לֵךְ אֱמֹר לָהֶם שׁוּבוּ לָכֶם לְאׇהֳלֵיכֶם״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וְאַתָּה פֹּה עֲמֹד עִמָּדִי״. וְאִית דְּאָמְרִי: ״פֶּה אֶל פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר בּוֹ״.

^{b. Shabbat}^87a He [Moses] said: “Concerning Israel, with whom the Shekinah spoke but for a single moment and for a fixed time, the Torah said, “Do not come near a woman” (Exod 19:15), then how much more so for me, with whom moment by moment the Shekinah may speak, and for whom no single time has been fixed?” How do we know that the Holy One agreed with Moses’ decision? It is written [in Scripture]: “Go say to them, return to your tents,” (Deut 5:27); but it is written in Torah: “And you stand here by me” (Deut 5:28). Others say: “Mouth to mouth I will speak with him.” (Num 12:8).

Translated from the Hebrew of the Vilna-Romm edition as printed in The Babylonian Talmud: Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices, ed. I. Epstein (London 1935–1952, repr. 1960–1990). For other English translations, see Jacob Neusner, The Talmud of Babylonia: An American Translation, vol. 2C “Shabbat” (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 79. Similar arguments also appear in b. Yebam. 62a, though without the reference to Numbers 12:8. (The Babylonian Talmud was redacted throughout the fifth through seventh centuries C.E. See Stemberger, Introduction to Talmud and Midrash, 192–208).

[19] Editor’s note: On the background to this euphemism, see Erica Lee Martin, “How Lovely Are Your Tents, O Jacob” – Balaam’s Praise of Israelite Women TheTorah (2022).

[20] ARN B, an alternate version of the text, reads:

^{אבות דרבי נתן ב פרק ב}ומנין שעשה משה סייג לדבריו? ...(דן דין) [דין דן] משה ופרש מן האשה אמר מה אם ישראל שאינן כלי מיוחד ואינו מדבר עמהם אלא לשעה אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא להפרישן מן האשה אני שאני כלי מיוחד ומדבר עמי בכל עת ואיני יודע אימתי הוא מדבר עמי אינו דין שאפרוש מן האשה.

^{ARN B ch. 2} Where does Scripture say that Moses put a fence around his words? . . . Moses made a logical inference about himself and separated from his wife. He said: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said concerning [the people of] Israel, who is not a special vessel, and with whom He did not speak except for a moment, that they were to be separated from their wives. But I am a special vessel, He speaks with me always, so that I do not know when he will speak with me, is it not reasonable that I should separate from my wife?”

מנין שהודה לו המקום שנאמר לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם (דברים ה:כז) אף משה היה עמהם בהיתר ת"ל ואתה פה עמוד עמדי (דברים ה:כח) אמור מעתה ישראל חזרו להן בהיתירן ומשה עמד באיסורו:

Where is it acknowledged that God agreed with him? Scripture says: “Go and say to them, ‘Return to your tents’” (Deut 5:27). Was Moses included with them in this release? Scripture teaches: “You, you stand here by me” (Deut 5:28). Say then: Israel was released to return, but Moses stood in restriction.

Immediately preceding this passage in ARN B, the Holy One is said to have also made a fence around Torah, as did Adam, Job, the Torah itself, the Prophets, Writings, and Sages. Adam made a fence when he told Eve not to touch the tree, but his precautions gave the serpent his opportunity to deceive Eve. Job made a fence by saying: “I will not even look at a virgin” (Job 31:1), who might someday be another man’s wife, how much more will he avoid looking at a woman who is already married.

[21] Another text that could have been relevant for the development of the tradition that Moses was celibate is the story of David asking a priest for bread for his men. The priest replies that he has only holy bread, and asks if David’s men have kept themselves from women. David’s response connects abstinence with holiness:

‏^{שׁמואל א כא:ו} וַיַּעַן דָּוִד אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ כִּי אִם אִשָּׁה עֲצֻרָה לָנוּ כִּתְמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם בְּצֵאתִי וַיִּהְיוּ כְלֵי הַנְּעָרִים קֹדֶשׁ וְהוּא דֶּרֶךְ חֹל וְאַף כִּי הַיּוֹם יִקְדַּשׁ בַּכֶּלִי.

^{1 Sam 21:6} And David answered [Ahimelech, the priest of Nob], “Certainly women have been kept from us as always when I go out on a journey; the vessels of the youths are holy, even during a common journey, how much more so today will their vessels be holy?”

[22] The common element among Philo and the rabbis in the tradition discussed here is Moses’ choice to separate from his wife so that he would be prepared to receive divine inspiration. According to the rabbis, Moses understood this as early as Sinai. Philo represents Moses’ sexual renunciation through his preparation to ascend Sinai in service of God as a priest. Philo, however, does not cite Exodos or Deuteronomy, but refers to a time before Moses prepared to ascend Sinai when he first began to feel stirrings of divine inspiration (in Midian?). Philo’s Moses had already been chaste for a long time, scorning contact with women from the first moment he began to prophesy.

On the relationship between Philo’s teachings and rabbinic literature, see David Winston, “Philo and Rabbinic Literature,” in The Cambridge Companion to Philo, ed. Adam Kamesar, Cambridge Companions to Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 231–254; and Samuel Belkin, Philo and the Oral Law: The Philonic Interpretation of Biblical Law in Relation to the Palestinian Halakah, Harvard Semitic Studies 11 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 1940).

[1] Editor’s note: See Sidnie White Crawford, “Moses’ Black-Skinned Wife: What Does the Torah Think of Her?” TheTorah (2021).

[3] This essay is based on my book, Early Jewish and Christian Memories of Moses’ Wives.

[6] All translations from Philo’s works follow Philo, trans. F. H. Colson, Loeb Classical Library, 10 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929–1962).

[8] Philo elsewhere references Moses’ marriages (On the Life of Moses 1.10; Allegorical Interpretation 2), but here he does not refer to either of them.

[10] For further examination of these passages, see Richard Baer, Philo’s Use of Male and Female (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), 16–35, 37–51.

[11] On attitudes towards sex in Philo and rabbinic literature, see David Winston, “Philo and the Rabbis on Sex and the Body,” Poetics Today 19.1 (1998): 41–62.

[12] The rabbis of the Mekhilta (“Bahodesh,” §3), question whether God in verses 10–11 meant the people should keep away from women.

^{מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל בחדש ג'} וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל הָעָם: הֱיוּ נְכֹנִים לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים! – אֲבָל לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ שֶׁאָמַר הַמָּקוֹם לִפְרֹשׁ מִן הָאִשָּׁה, אֶלָּא ״הֱיוּ נְכֹנִים״, ״וְהָיוּ נְכֹנִים״ ״לֵךְ אֶל הָעָם וְקִדַּשְׁתָּם הַיּוֹם וּמָחָר״ (שמות יט:יא) לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה מָה ״הֱיוּ נְכֹנִים״ הָאָמוּר כָּן, לִפְרֹשׁ מִן הָאִשָּׁה, אַף ״וְהָיוּ נְכֹנִים״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן, לִפְרֹשׁ מִן הָאִשָּׁה.

^{Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael}^{“Bachodesh” §3} “And he said to the people: Be ready in three days” (Exod 19:17): But we did not hear the Lord telling him (Exod 19:11) that they should separate from their wives! But “Be ready.” “Be ready” constitutes a gezeirah shavvah (use of identical words in two different contexts): Just as “Be ready” here is linked to separation, so, “Be ready” there refers to separation.

Jacob Z. Lauterbach translation (with adjustments).

^{משנב אבות א:א} משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי, וּמְסָרָהּ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ לִזְקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים לִנְבִיאִים, וּנְבִיאִים מְסָרוּהָ לְאַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הֵם אָמְרוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, הֱווּ מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִידוּ תַלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה:

^{m. Avot 1:1} Moses received Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua. And Joshua to the elders. And the elders to the prophets. And the prophets transmitted it to the members of the Great Assembly, and they taught three things: (1) Be careful in rendering judgment; (2) and nurture many disciples;(3) and put a fence around the Torah.

[17]

^{במדבר יב:ח} פֶּה אֶל פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר בּוֹ וּמַרְאֶה וְלֹא בְחִידֹת וּתְמֻנַת יְ־הוָה יַבִּיט.

^{Num 12:8a} With him I speak face to face—clearly, not in riddles, and he beholds the form of YHWH.

[18] ARN appeals to the same sources as:

^{בבלי שבת פז.} אָמַר: וּמָה יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא דִּבְּרָה שְׁכִינָה עִמָּהֶן אֶלָּא שָׁעָה אַחַת, וְקָבַע לָהֶן זְמַן, אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: ״וְהָיוּ נְכֹנִים וְגוֹ׳ אַל תִּגְּשׁוּ״. אֲנִי, שֶׁכׇּל שָׁעָה וְשָׁעָה שְׁכִינָה מְדַבֶּרֶת עִמִּי, וְאֵינוֹ קוֹבֵעַ לִי זְמַן — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. וּמְנָלַן דְּהִסְכִּים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל יָדוֹ? — דִּכְתִיב: ״לֵךְ אֱמֹר לָהֶם שׁוּבוּ לָכֶם לְאׇהֳלֵיכֶם״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״וְאַתָּה פֹּה עֲמֹד עִמָּדִי״. וְאִית דְּאָמְרִי: ״פֶּה אֶל פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר בּוֹ״.

^{b. Shabbat}^87a He [Moses] said: “Concerning Israel, with whom the Shekinah spoke but for a single moment and for a fixed time, the Torah said, “Do not come near a woman” (Exod 19:15), then how much more so for me, with whom moment by moment the Shekinah may speak, and for whom no single time has been fixed?” How do we know that the Holy One agreed with Moses’ decision? It is written [in Scripture]: “Go say to them, return to your tents,” (Deut 5:27); but it is written in Torah: “And you stand here by me” (Deut 5:28). Others say: “Mouth to mouth I will speak with him.” (Num 12:8).

[19] Editor’s note: On the background to this euphemism, see Erica Lee Martin, “How Lovely Are Your Tents, O Jacob” – Balaam’s Praise of Israelite Women TheTorah (2022).

[20] ARN B, an alternate version of the text, reads:

^{אבות דרבי נתן ב פרק ב}ומנין שעשה משה סייג לדבריו? ...(דן דין) [דין דן] משה ופרש מן האשה אמר מה אם ישראל שאינן כלי מיוחד ואינו מדבר עמהם אלא לשעה אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא להפרישן מן האשה אני שאני כלי מיוחד ומדבר עמי בכל עת ואיני יודע אימתי הוא מדבר עמי אינו דין שאפרוש מן האשה.

^{ARN B ch. 2} Where does Scripture say that Moses put a fence around his words? . . . Moses made a logical inference about himself and separated from his wife. He said: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said concerning [the people of] Israel, who is not a special vessel, and with whom He did not speak except for a moment, that they were to be separated from their wives. But I am a special vessel, He speaks with me always, so that I do not know when he will speak with me, is it not reasonable that I should separate from my wife?”

מנין שהודה לו המקום שנאמר לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם (דברים ה:כז) אף משה היה עמהם בהיתר ת"ל ואתה פה עמוד עמדי (דברים ה:כח) אמור מעתה ישראל חזרו להן בהיתירן ומשה עמד באיסורו:

Where is it acknowledged that God agreed with him? Scripture says: “Go and say to them, ‘Return to your tents’” (Deut 5:27). Was Moses included with them in this release? Scripture teaches: “You, you stand here by me” (Deut 5:28). Say then: Israel was released to return, but Moses stood in restriction.

‏^{שׁמואל א כא:ו} וַיַּעַן דָּוִד אֶת הַכֹּהֵן וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ כִּי אִם אִשָּׁה עֲצֻרָה לָנוּ כִּתְמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם בְּצֵאתִי וַיִּהְיוּ כְלֵי הַנְּעָרִים קֹדֶשׁ וְהוּא דֶּרֶךְ חֹל וְאַף כִּי הַיּוֹם יִקְדַּשׁ בַּכֶּלִי.

^{1 Sam 21:6} And David answered [Ahimelech, the priest of Nob], “Certainly women have been kept from us as always when I go out on a journey; the vessels of the youths are holy, even during a common journey, how much more so today will their vessels be holy?”

Prof. Karen Strand Winslow is professor emeritus of Biblical and Theological Studies at Azusa Pacific Seminary/Azusa Pacific University. She received her Ph.D. in Near and Middle Eastern Interdisciplinary Studies from the University of Washington in 2003. Her research interests include biblical interpretation, the formation of Scripture, early Judaism, women in religion, the science and religion, and ethnicity and identity formation, especially as reflected in texts and traditions of Judaism and Christianity. She is the author of Exogamist Marriage and Ethnic Identity: Early Jewish and Christian Memories of Moses’ Wives (2005) and Imagining Equity: The Gifts of Christian Feminist Theology (2021). She has also written commentaries on 1–2 Kings (2017), Esther, and Isaiah (2018–2020), and she co-edited the Wesley Study Bible (2009), Relational Theology: Issues and Implications (2013), and the Global Wesleyan Theological Dictionary (2013).

Essays on Related Topics:

Symposium:More Responses