Moses and the Kushite Woman: Classic Interpretations and Philo’s Allegory

This piece is based on my longer academic article: Elad Filler, “Moses and the Kushite Woman according to Philo,” in Moses the Man – Master of the Prophets, (= משה אבי הנביאים: דמותו בראי ההגות לדורותיה; eds., Moshe Hallamish, Hanna Kasher, and Hanoch Ben-Pazi; Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 2010), 87-98 [Hebrew].

The problem with the former interpretation is that the Torah never mentions Moses marrying anybody other than Zipporah; the problem with the latter interpretation is that Zipporah is a Midianite not a Kushite. Another problem with this interpretation is why does Miriam see fit to comment only now, in Numbers 12, and not upon the arrival of Moses’ Midianite wife with her father and sons, in Exodus 18?

See Rashbam’s interpretation of Num 12:1:

כי אשה כושית לקח – כדכת’ בדברי הימים דמשה רבנו שמלך בארץ כוש ארבעים שנה ולקח מלכה אחת ולא שכב עמה כמו שכתוב שם, והם לא ידעו כשדיברו בו שלא נזקק לה. זהו עיקר פשוטו. שאם בשביל צפורה דיברו, מה צורך לפרש כי אשה כושית לקח? וכי [עד] עתה לא ידענו כי ציפורה מדיינית היא? ועוד תשובה כי לא היתה כושית כי כוש מבני חם הוא, ומדיין מבני קטורה אשר ילדה לאברהם:

For he married a Kushite woman – as it states in The Chronicles [of Moses], our teacher, Moses, ruled over the land of Kush for forty years, and married the queen but did not lie with her, as is written there. When [Aaron and Miriam] spoke about him they didn’t realize that he had never been intimate with her. This is the simple meaning. For if they were speaking about Tzipporah, what would be the necessity of explaining that he had married this Kushite/foreign woman? Did we not know until now that Tzipporah was a Midianite/foreign woman? Furthermore, she wasn’t Kushite, since Kush is a descendent of Ham whereas Midian is a descendent of Keturah, who bore him to Abraham.

Artapanus’ works are lost, but an excerpt appears in the work of Alexander Polyhistor, a first-century B.C.E. Greek scholar who lived in Rome. Though Artapanus omitted the story of Tharbis in his account of the war, Josephus chose to include it in his work. In his translation and commentary on Judean Antiquities (ad loc.), Abraham Schalit suggests that Josephus wished to lend some Hellenistic flavor to Moses’ life and prove to his gentile audience that their claim of Jewish amixia, or non-assimilation, was incorrect, since Moses himself had married a non-Jew.

Another version of this explanation appears in Midrash Tanchuma (Tzav 13):

ועל שם נויה נקראת כושית, כאדם הקורא לבנו נאה, כושי, כדי שלא תשלוט בו עין הרע.

She was called Kushite because of her loveliness, in the same way as a man calls his good-looking son “darky” so that the evil eye not have power over him.

Similarly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (ad loc.), who understands the Kushite woman to be the Ethiopian princess, focuses on Moses having separated from her:

וְאִשְׁתְּעִיוּ מִרְיָם וְאַהֲרֹן בְּמשֶׁה פִּתְגָמִין דְלָא מְהַגְנִין עַל עֵיסַק אִתְּתָא כּוּשְׁיָיתָא דְאַסְבוֹהִי כוּשָׁאֵי לְמשֶׁה בְּמֵיעַרְקֵיהּ מִן קֳדָם פַּרְעֹה וְרִיחְקָהּ אֲרוּם לְאִיתָא אַסְבוֹהִי יַת מַלְכְּתָא דְכוּשׁ וְרָחִיק מִינָהּ:

Miriam and Aaron said improper things about Moses with regard to the Kushite woman that the Kushites married to Moses when he escaped from Pharaoh, and he divorced her, for they married him to a Kushite princess, and he separated from her.

Another version of Moses’ divorce from the Kushite woman appears in, Adolph Jellenick, Beit Midrash 2, “The Chronicles of Moses” (Jerusalem, 1938), 6-7.

וַיִּקַּח יִתְרוֹ חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה אֶת צִפֹּרָה אֵשֶׁת מֹשֶׁה אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ.

So Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, after she had been sent home,

The last time we saw Zipporah before Exod 18 was in Exod 4, in which she is travelling with Moses to Egypt and circumcises their child in the story of the bloody bridegroom.

See b. Moed Kattan 7b, which states that “his house means his wife” (אין אהלו אלא אשתו).

See the words of Resh Lakish in b. Avodah Zarah 5a, “Go tell them to return to their tents for the enjoyment of marital relations” (לשמחת עונה).

Midrash Tanchuma, Warsaw ed., Tzav 13. The Tanchuma account is likely an elaboration of the opinion of Rabbi Nathan in Sifrei Bemidbar (99):

ר’ נתן אומר מרים היתה בצד צפורה בשעה שנא’ וירץ הנער [ויגד למשה ויאמר אלדד ומידד מתנבאים במחנה] כיון ששמעה צפורה אמרה אוי לנשותיהם של אלו בכך ידעה מרים ואמרה לאחיה ושניהם דברו בו.

R. Nathan said: Miriam was next to Zipporah at the time, as it says (Num 11:27): “and the young man ran [and told Moses: ‘Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp].” When Zipporah heard this, she said: “Woe to those men’s wives.” That is how Miriam found out, and she told her brother [Aaron], and the two of them spoke about him (=Moses).

וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא וַיַּקְרֵב אֶל אֶחָיו אֶת הַמִּדְיָנִית לְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה וּלְעֵינֵי כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.

Just then one of the Israelites came and brought a Midianite woman over to his companions, in the sight of Moses and of the whole Israelite community who were weeping at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting

All translations are from the Yonge edition.

By this he means something akin to what we call the “Argument from Design,” namely, knowing that there must be a creator because the created object is too complex to have been formed randomly (Leg. All., 3:97-99):

From the world and from its several parts, and from the powers which existed in those parts, we formed our notions of the Creator and cause of the world… They, then, who draw their conclusions in this manner perceive God in his shadow, arriving at a due comprehension of the artist through his works.

See Philo’s discussion in “On the Posterity of Cain” (De Posteritate Caini, 168-169):

But it is not correct to say that the living God is visible, that is rather an abuse of language, arising from referring God himself to his separate acts of power; for even in the passage cited above, he does not say, “Behold me,” for it is wholly impossible that God according to his essence should be perceived or beheld by any creature, but he says, “Behold! it is I,” that is to say, behold my existence; for it is sufficient for the reasoning powers of man to advance so far as to learn that there is and actually exists the great cause of all things, and to attempt to proceed further, so as to pursue investigations into the essence or distinctive qualities of God, is an absolute piece of folly; for God did not grant this even to the all-wise Moses.

See part one (“General”) of the “Virtues of Moses” section in, Louis H. Feldman, Philo’s Portrayal of Moses in the Context of Ancient Judaism (University of Notre Dame Press, 2008). Sarah Pearce, “Intermarriage and the Ancestors of the Jews,” The Studia Philonica Annual 27 (2015): 1-26 [23], expresses ambivalence about this.

See, Elad Filler, “Notes on the Concept of Women and Marriage in Philo,” Iyyun 53 (5765): 395-408 [395-398; Hebrew].

In theory, this could be the basis of Miriam’s criticism: Moses already has a wife and children and should, as a philosopher, spurn the pleasures of the flesh – so why does he marry a second woman?

Admittedly, this overlap is not exact here, since Philo doesn’t say Zipporah was beautiful, only that she was more beautiful than her sisters. This contrasts with Philo’s description of Moses’ beauty in an earlier passage, where he claims that Moses’ extraordinary beauty as a baby was the reason his parents hid him for three months and Pharaoh’s daughter subsequently aided him. See Life of Moses 1:9, 15. Artapanus also speaks about Moses’ good looks, as does Josephus (Ant. 2:224). The fact that he says nothing like this about Zipporah, only praising her looks comparatively, suggests that Philo may not have been imagining an extraordinary or “exotic” beauty such as the rabbis imagined.

Editor’s note: For a discussion of Philo’s view of Isaac as conceived by contact with God, and how this was picked up on by Paul of Tarsus, see Samuel Z. Glaser, “Isaac’s Divine Conception,” TheTorah.com (2017).

For various reasons, Philo does not include Rachel as a “matriarch” akin to Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah in importance. Instead, he places Zipporah in this category (see below).

Although the problem of how she can be described as both a Midianite and a Kushite remains, since her father is described as both a Midianite and a Kenite; this third ethnicity (Ethiopian) is just par for the course, interpretively speaking.

For example, in his On the Cherubs (De Cherubim, 60), Philo identifies Eve—the first woman—with perception as opposed to intellect:

God therefore, wishing to give it the faculty of comprehending not only incorporeal but also solid bodies, filled up the entire soul, attaching a second portion to that which he had already created, which he called appellatively woman, and by an especial name Eve, intimating the outward sense by a metaphorical expression.

See, for example, On the Descendants of Cain 135; Allegorical Laws 2:46.

Here Philo shows that he knew what the name Zipporah meant even though he did not really know Hebrew and read the Bible in Greek.

And yet, Philo is not pro abstinence. In On the Creation (De Opificio Mundi, 103), where Philo surveys the stages of human life from infancy to old age, he dedicates the fifth, from age 28 to 35, to marriage: “The fifth seven years is the season for marriage.” This stage corresponds to the fifth verse of an elegy by Solon that Philo cites (ibid., 104): “When five times seven years o’er his head have passed, the man should think to wed.” Compare to the discussion of abstinence in marriage in early Christian sources, such as Augustine’s claim that it is better to marry than to live in sin (Confessions 2:8), or Paul’s claim that it is better not to marry at all (1 Corinthians chs. 6-7).

Rashi’s comment on Num 12:4, “and YHWH appeared suddenly” makes this point:

פתאום – נגלה עליהם פתאום, והם טמאים בדרך ארץ, והיו צועקים מים מים,

“Suddenly” – He appeared to them suddenly, while they were impure from sexual relations [with their respective spouses], and they began screaming, ‘Water! Water!’ [for purification].

להודיעם שיפה עשה משה שפרש מן האשה, מאחר שנגלית עליו שכינה תדיר ואין עת קבועה לדבור:

[God did this] in order to show them that Moses had acted appropriately in separating from his wife, since the divine presence would appear to him regularly and there was no set time for communication [with God].

Rashi is based on the Babylonian Talmud’s reading (b. Yebamot 62a):

‘שלשה דברים עשה משה מדעתו והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום פירש מן האשה… אמר ומה ישראל שלא דברה עמהם שכינה אלא לפי שעה וקבע להם זמן אמרה תורה ‘אל תגשו אל אשה’ אני שמיוחד לדבור בכל שעה ושעה ולא קבע לי זמן על אחת כמה וכמה והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום שנאמר ‘לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם ואתה פה עמוד עמדי’.’

Moses did three things on his own initiative and his opinion coincided with that of the Omnipresent. He separated himself from his wife… He said, ‘If to the Israelites, with whom the Shechinah spoke only for a while and for whom a definite time was fixed, the Torah nevertheless said, Come not near a woman, how much more so to me, who am liable to be spoken to at any moment and for whom no definite time has been fixed’. And his view coincided with that of the Omnipresent; for it is said, Go say to them: Return ye to your tents; but as for thee, stand thou here by Me.

See also b. Shabbat 87a.

David Winston credits Philo’s respect for the physical with the value that Philo grants marriage beyond its instrumental value for producing offspring. Similarly, Winston notes that the Philo’s position in general is not much different than that of the Stoics according to whom reproduction, which is the main purpose of marriage, does not negate the importance of intimacy and mutual love. See, David Winston, “Philo and the Rabbis on Sex and the Body,”Poetics Today 19.1 (1998): 41-62 [53-55]. For more on Philo’s understanding of the mutual love of husband and wife (which he sees expressed in the Abraham and Sarah stories) in contrast to the place of reproduction (which he sees expressed in the story of Abraham and his concubine), see Questions on Genesis 3:21.

This demand later was given expression by the Rabbis in Kohelet Rabbah (7:1 [13], s.v.re’eh):

בשעה שברא הקב”ה את אדם הראשון, נטלו והחזירו על כל אילני גן-עדן ואמר לו: ראה מעשי כמה נאים ומשובחין הן. כל מה שבראתי בשבילך בראתי. תן דעתך שלא תקלקל ותחריב את עולמי.

When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first human, He took him and sent him to see every tree in the Garden of Eden and said to him: “Look at my handiwork, how lovely and praiseworthy [each tree] is. Everything I created I created for you, make sure you do not ruin it and destroy my world.”

The Neopythagorean movement was established in Rome mostly because of the influence of Publius Nigidius Figulus (ca. 98-45 BCE). For more on this, see, Walter Burkert, “Craft Versus Sect: The Problem of Orphics and Pythagoreans,” in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition (eds., B. F. Meyer and E. P. Sanders; London, 1982), 3: 22, 189 n. 105. For more on Pythagoreanism, see P. Kingsley, Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic: Empedocles and Pythagorean Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 317-334.

For more on the mystical understanding of numbers in the ancient worlds, see Michael Chyutin, “Mysticism of Numbers in the Ancient World: In the Bible the Qumran Scrolls and the Writings of Philo,” Beit Mikra 41:1 (1995): 14-30 [Hebrew]; Christopher Butler, Number Symbolism (New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1970), 8. Philo also discusses numbers inLife of Moses 2:84; On the Decalogue 28; On the Special Laws 2:58; Questions on Genesis3:38.

One is treated as exceptional in Pythagorean thinking. For the meaning of the number 1 in Philo’s philosophy, see, Elad Filler, “תיאור הבריאה ע”י פילון לאור תורת המספרים הניאופיתגוראית,”Da’at 62 (5768): 5-25 [12-14] [Heb.].

In Questions on Genesis 3:38, Philo writes:

…[S]ix, is the first perfect number, being equal to its parts, and being the first number which is composed of the multiplication of an odd and an even number; receiving also something from its efficient cause according to the odd or redundant number, and from its material and effective cause according to the even number. On which account, among the most ancient of our ancestors, some persons have called it matrimony, and others harmony; and our sacred historian too has divided the creation of the world into six days.

The later Greek philosopher Iamblichus (ca. 245-325 C.E.) also describes the number six as “matrimony” in his Theologoumena Arithmeticae (ed. Victorius De Falco; Leipzig, 1922), 43.