Torah Readers Reflections

It wasn’t until the late 17th century that the absolute rule of a single monarch over his or her people was questioned in many countries - or at least the process of the transition of power from one ruler to the people, began. 

For almost all of human history, however, people have lived and died at the whim of a ruler. The power of the ruler was theologically justified by “the divine right of Kings”. This is a religious doctrine developed in the middle ages that asserts that the monarch is not subject to any earthly authority, instead his right to rule is given directly by God and he answers only to God.Therefore, to oppose the king in any way would constitute hearsay. In such an environment civil disobedience, or any questioning of the king's laws, would be met by  swift retribution - often death. 

In the 18th century we find the likes of John Locke developing theories of liberty and human rights. In countries such as England, France and the United States, the concept of a government by the people, for the people, had been fought for and won through war.

When a ruler has absolute authority to command his subjects to perpetrate what constitutes crimes, in his name; including crimes against humanity, there are no moral limits, and no accountability. The claim, “I was just following orders”, might have been an acceptable argument in the past, however the Nuremberg trials of 1946 against Nazis who perpetrated heinous crimes against humanity, made it clear that there are moral laws that are higher than the laws of the state. Crimes against humanity remain crimes regardless of the laws of the state.

From a  moral point of view, there are laws made by tyrants that as a human being we are morally bound to disobey; times when we must implement civil disobedience. At the heart of civil disobedience is the theory that there are moral limits to the laws issued by a state.  

Henry David Thoreau (July 12, 1817 – May 6, 1862) was an American naturalist, essayist, poet, and philosopher. Thoreau's philosophy of civil disobedience later influenced the political thoughts and actions of such notable figures as Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. In his book, Civil Disobedience that was first published in 1849, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery.

However, predating Thoreau by at least 3,000 years we find the first recorded instance of civil disobedience in this week's portion of Shemot.  Shifra and Puah, are two very ordinary women. The Torah only tells us that they were midwives responsible for delivery of the Hebrew babies. Pharaoh has deceived a plan for the genocide of the Hebrews, he tells the midwives to throw all the male Hebrew babies born into the Nile river. “When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live” (Exodus 1:16).

The midwives feared God and did not do what the Egyptian king had commanded. They allowed the infant boys to live. The king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them, “Why did you do this? You let the boys live.” The midwives replied, “The Hebrew women are not like the Egyptians. They know how to deliver. They can give birth even before a midwife gets to them.” God was good to the midwives, and the people increased and became very numerous. Because the midwives feared God, He made them houses of their own. (Exodus 1:17 - 21).

Who were these midwives, Shifra and Puah? The Torah does not give us any additional information on them. Surely they can’t be midwives from the Hebrew nation since they would never murder their people’s own children. Therefore, the view taken by some commentators is that Shifra and Puah were Egyptian midwives tasked by Pharaoh to deliver and murder the Hebrew babies.

The Torah's ambiguity on the midwives is very deliberate. We don’t know for sure what people the midwives belonged to since in this context it doesn’t matter! Their moral courage transcends nationality and race. Essentially Pharaoh had commanded them to commit a “crime against humanity” and they refused to do so. Within the context of disobeying the direct command of a ruler who has been granted God-like status, would almost definitely be a death sentence - and they knew this. Yet, because they feared God, because they were sure of a higher power, because they understood right from wrong, they refused his orders and God not only protected them but “Made them houses”.

What does this strange phrase “God made them houses” mean?

The Italian commentator Samuel David Luzzatto offered this interpretation. Sometimes women become midwives when they are unable to have children of their own. That, he suggests, was the case with Shifra and Puah. Because they saved children's lives, God rewarded them - measure for measure - with children of their own. In this case families equals “houses”.

Because of what Shifra and Puah did, the Children of Israel were redeemed from Egypt. The spirit of these two great women lives on and inspires the world to this day.