א וַתְּדַבֵּר מִרְיָם וְאַהֲרֹן בְּמֹשֶׁה, עַל-אֹדוֹת הָאִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית אֲשֶׁר לָקָח: כִּי-אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית, לָקָח. | 1 And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman. |
והישר בעיני שזו הכושית היא צפורה, כי היא מדיינית ומדיינים הם ישמעאלים והם דרים באהלים.
וכן כתוב: ירגזון יריעות ארץ מדין ובעבור חום השמש אין להם לבן כלל, וצפורה היתה שחורה ודומה לכושית.
וטעם כי אשה כשית לקח –
זה הדבור שדברה מרים.
ומה נכבד דברי קדמונינו שאמרו על הזקנים:אשריהם ואוי לנשיהם.והנה חשדו משה כי לא נמנע לשכב עם צפורה, רק בעבור שאיננה יפה.
I disagree with this explanation, and specifically with his identification of Tzipporah with the Kushite woman. This is a nice midrashic closed-canon approach, but on a peshat level, no way. The whole parenthetical remark at the end of the pasuk of ki isha kushit lakach is to tell us something we did not know. They were speaking about the Kushite woman. Oh, by the way, he had married a Kushite woman. Compare to the parenthetical note by Yonah. And surely the reader knows of Tzipporah's existence!
So I don't agree with Ibn Ezra. But I am more interested in his explanation of why she was a Kushite woman. Ibn Ezra wrote:
והישר בעיני שזו הכושית היא צפורה, כי היא מדיינית ומדיינים הם ישמעאלים והם דרים באהלים.
וכן כתוב: ירגזון יריעות ארץ מדין ובעבור חום השמש אין להם לבן כלל, וצפורה היתה שחורה ודומה לכושית"And what is correct in my eyes is that this Kushite woman is Tzipporah, for she was a Midianite woman, and the Midianites are Ishmaelites, and they dwell in tents. And so it is written {Chabakuk 3:7}:{And though Ibn Ezra does not mention it explicitly, note the juxtaposition which he surely intends in part.}
ז תַּחַת אָוֶן, רָאִיתִי אָהֳלֵי כוּשָׁן; יִרְגְּזוּן, יְרִיעוֹת אֶרֶץ מִדְיָן. 7 I see the tents of Cushan in affliction; the curtains of the land of Midian do tremble.
And because of the heat of the sun, they have no whiteness at all, and Tzipporah was black and similar to a Kushite woman."
Now in this he is correct; but no longer so when he lays the black complexion and woolly hair of the Aethiopians on merely the waters and censures Theodectes,27 who refers the cause to the sun itself, saying as follows: "Nearing the borders of these people the Sun, driving his chariot, discoloured the bodies of men with a murky dark bloom, and curled their hair, fusing it by unincreasable forms of fire." But Onesicritus might have some argument on his side; for he says that, in the first place, the sun is no nearer the Aethiopians than to any other people, but is more nearly in a perpendicular line with reference to them and on this account scorches more, and therefore it is incorrect to say, "Nearing the borders . . . the sun," since the sun is equidistant from all peoples; and that, secondly, the heat is not the cause of such a discolouration, for it does not apply to infants in the womb either, since the rays of the sun do not touch them. But better is the opinion of those who lay the cause to the sun and its scorching, which causes a very great deficiency of moisture on the surface of the skin. And I assert that it is in accordance with this fact that the Indians do not have woolly hair, and also that their skin is not so unmercifully scorched, I mean the fact that they share in an atmosphere that is humid. And already in the womb children, by seminal impartation, become like their parents in colour; for congenital affections and other similarities are also thus explained. Further, the statement28 that the sun is equidistant from all peoples is made in accordance with observation, not reason; and, in accordance with observations that are not casual, but in accordance with the observation, as I put it, that the earth is no larger than a point as compared with the sun's globe; since in accordance with the kind of observation whereby we feel differences in heat — more heat when the heat is near us and less when it is far away — the sun is not equidistant from all; and it is in this sense that the sun is spoken of29 as "nearing the borders" of the Aethiopians, not in the sense Onesicritus thinks.Thus, there are competing theories, and Ibn Ezra combined into this that they typically live in tents (rather than being close to the sun) and thus are exposed to the elements. He does not seem to consider genetics to play a factor, as far as I can tell, except of course that such traits can be passed down.
I would end with a reference to Shir Hashirim, where tents are mentioned, and how the heroine is black (or extremely tan) as a result of exposure to the sun:
3 comments:
In Israel, the Bedouins tend to be a darker shade than the city Arabs . I suppose there is an adaptive natural selection process. Something to do with UV light and Folic Acid destruction, probably. So a bedouin woman who is dark will be more fertile on the long run.
Long term tanning also has an effect. I have a tan on my forearms than never disappears.
I enjoyed this fascinating post. I'm curious how you interpret the text.
Please forgive these four questions slightly off topic questions:
1. Might כוש, כושי, and כושית originally mean "handsome" or "beautiful" in the Bible with the ethnic meanings derived from the personal name?
2. Must Numbers 12:1 must refer either to a Kushite other than Tzipporah or to Tzipporah? If Moses married a Kushite before Tzipporah and Tzipporah is a Kushite in some sense, it seems to me the text might refer to both, particularly if Moses didn't consummate his marriage with the Kushite or didn't have children by her and now was not engaging in relations with Tzipporah.
3. Can "ki isha kushit lakach" be read as quotation?
4. How do we know "ki isha kushit lakach" didn't originate as a gloss? The text is absent in the Vulgate, and Targum Onkelos expands the text clarifying that "he kept [her] at a distance."
Thank you for any insights,
Wellington King
1. maybe, but on what basis? is there a pasuk (not this one) or linguistic cognate to argue for this meaning? the midrash understand it as a euphemism.
3. it reads more like a gloss than a quotation. but this is the sort of gloss which can be inserted even by the original author. specifically because we don't have the background that he took an Isha Kushit, rather than surprise us, the author adds this in.
4. since the vulgate is a translation, i would consider it more likely that the translator removed the extraneous restatement than that the original text lacked it. in general, the masoretic text i would consider more authoritative.
onkelos meanwhile is not evidence that the text is a gloss. rather, when he writes אֲרֵי אִתְּתָא שַׁפִּירְתָא דִּנְסֵיב, רַחֵיק, it is an attempt the bring the traditional midrashic explanation of LAKACH as divorced (רַחֵיק) in line with the more literal peshat explanation married (דִּנְסֵיב). So he works both into his translation, and rather than being "he kept her at a distance", it is idiomatic and means "for the beautiful woman he had married (literal meaning) he had divorced (midrashic meaning)."
All the best,
Josh
Post a Comment