YAVNEH STUDIES IN SHEMOT Moshe Litoff

In the Book of Exodus we first encounter Moshe Rabeynu. We are told about many events in the life of Moses prior to his being sanctified as a prophet. It will be our purpose to investigate some of these events; we will pose some problems, suggest some answers and hope that the reader will be motivated to seek his own conclusions and applications.

Moses is depicted as having been abandoned as a child, found by the daughter of Pharoah, and raised in the palace. Eventually he flees to Midian and there, while tending the flocks of Jethro, encounters God. Why indeed did God choose this devious way of introducing Moses as a prophet?
Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on Exodus 2:3, suggests the following: Perhaps God caused these events so that Moses would grow up in a palace in order that his soul be elevated to a high level: his soul would not be lowly and accustomed to bondage. Do we not see that he killed an Egyptian because he was doing injustice? He helped the daughters of Midian when the shepherds sought to water their flocks from the waters that these young girls had drawn. In addition, if Moses had been raised among his brethren, had they known him from his youth, then Moses would not have been respected by his brethren; they would have considered him as one of their own.

Do not Ibn Ezra’s psychological insights have meaning for us today? People unaccustomed to freedom and continuously enslaved suffer degradation of soul as well as of body. They lack the vision of the free life necessary to inspire them to rise above their station. Those members of the group who have succeeded in freeing themselves from bondage now have a special responsibility to return and help their brethren. We also see in Ibn Ezra’s interpretation a much too common tendency among Jews: Jews often accept readily an outsider of high station from whom they hope to receive help and look down upon one of their own leaders raised in their own community.

The Bible tells us of three incidents in the life of Moses where Moses intervenes on behalf of someone being wronged. In the first of these incidents we are told that Moses goes out to his brethren, sees an Egyptian striking a Hebrew, one of his brethren, and “he turned this way and that way, saw that no man was there, smote the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.”

Later Moses sees two Hebrews quarrelling. He rebukes them by saying, “Wicked one, why do you smite your friend?” The Hebrew answers him saying, “Do you intend to kill me as you did the Egyptian?” Moses fears and says, “So the matter is known” and flees.

He comes to the land of Midian and there rests near a well. Seeing the daughters of Jethro driven by some shepherds away from the well, Moses stands up and helps them. Three times now Moses has actively attempted to right an injustice. Let us investigate these incidents a little more in depth.

Moses kills the Egyptian. Did Moses have the right to take such an extreme measure to right this wrong? Was no other alternative possible to save the Hebrew from a beating? Assuming no other alternative, does Moses have the right to kill? Part of this problem hinges on the Hebrew root hakay. Does this root mean “to hit” or does it mean “to kill”? If the root means “to kill,” then the Egyptian intended to kill the Jew. In accordance with the Talmudic law of rodaif, the law of one who pursues another with the intention of killing him, Moses had the right to kill the Egyptian. There are places in the Bible where the word hakay is used to mean “to kill.” In our own chapter we are told he slew the Egyptian. The word used for slaying is vayach from the root hakay.

If, indeed, the Egyptian was engaged in killing a Jew, then Moses had the right, even the obligation, to kill the Egyptian. Rashi, however, translates the word makeh here to mean “hitting and lording over.” The Talmud Sanhedrin 58b also interprets this word as hitting. R. Hanina said: “If a heathen smites a Jew he is worthy of death, for it is written, ‘and he turned this way and that way, saw no man was there, he smote the Egyptian.’” From the Talmud, one might infer that a general rule results from Moses’ action - namely that a Jew may kill any non-Jew that he sees smiting a fellow Jew. Maimonides, however, in his Mishnah Torah (Kings 10:6), states that a non-Jew who strikes a Jew even though he wounded him slightly is worthy of death but he is not put to death. Maimonides then interprets R. Hanina who says, “is worthy of death” to mean death by the hands of heaven. His judgment is left to God but no court of law nor any individual Jew has a right to kill him. This statement of Maimonides leaves unanswered the question, “Why did Moses kill the Egyptian?”

The Ramban, in his commentary, states the following: “He, Moses, saw their suffering and their hard work and he was not able to stand it. Moses therefore killed the Egyptian who was smiting the down-trodden.” Ramban makes no value judgment as to Moses’ act. He simply seeks to explain it on the basis that Moses could not “stand it.”

Rabbi Mecklenberg, the author of the Ktav V’Hakabala, comments on the verse, “and he turned this way and that way” as follows: Moses thought that one of his Hebrew brothers standing near would rise up against the Egyptian and save his smitten brother, but he saw no man. He saw that there was no strong person among the Jews. No one seemed to pay attention to the troubles of their brother or attempt to save him. Moses’ act is then spoken of as a desire to impress his fellow Jews, and to give them strength and courage. Rabbi Naphtali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin comments on the same verse: “He, Moses, sought someone to whom to complain and present the case of this Egyptian hitting his brother for naught. He saw that there was no one to whom he could tell this injustice. All of Egypt was a band of evil people who hated Jews.” Rabbi Berlin sees Moses acting out of desperation and out of the realization that for the Jew there was no place where Moses could turn and demand justice. There are some sources that take Moses to task for killing the Egyptian. Rabbi Naphtali Hirz Wessely comments that “it would appear that this act was not just. How is it that Moses killed because the Egyptian was hitting his brother? The spilling of blood is a sin that people were commanded before the giving of the Torah. What difference is it if he spills the blood of a Hebrew or if he spills the blood of an Egyptian? Of what assistance will it be if he kills one man secretly? This is simply revenge and anger without justice.”

There is a Midrash which takes Moses to task as well. The Midrash discusses the plea of Moses that he be allowed to enter the Land of Israel. After a lengthy exchange between God and Moses the following appears in the Midrash. “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: ‘Did I command you to kill the Egyptian?’ Moses answers: ‘But you killed all of the first born of Egypt and I shall die for the sake of one Egyptian.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: ‘Do you compare yourself to Me? I have the power to kill and to restore to life. Can you restore life as I can?’”

Later Moses comes upon two Hebrews who are quarrelling and says to the wicked one: “Why do you smite your friend?” Here we find Moses in the role of rebuking fellow Jews who are acting incorrectly. The Talmud, Sanhedrin 58b, carries this theme even further. Resh Lakish says: “He who lifts his hand against his fellow man even if he did not smite him, is called a wicked man; as it is written, ‘and he said to the wicked man, why would you smite your fellow?’ ‘Why have you smitten’ is not said but ‘why would you smite,’ showing that though he had not as yet smitten him, he was already termed a wicked man.”

Moses reacts to the taunt, “Do you intend to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?” by saying, “So the matter is known,” realizing that his having killed the Egyptian is common knowledge. Rashi quotes the Midrash which interprets the phrase, “So the matter is known” differently. R. Judah, son of R. Shalom, said in the name of R. Hanina the Great, and our Sages quoted it in the name of R. Alexandri: “Moses was meditating in his heart, ‘Wherein have Israel sinned that they should be enslaved more than all the nations?’ When he heard these words, he said: ‘Tale-bearing is rife among them, and how can they be ripe for salvation?’ Hence, surely the thing is known - now I know the cause of their bondage.”

In this same vein, the Ktav Sofer quotes a saying of the Rabbis “As long as there is peace in Israel, no nation can rule over them.” The Ktav Sofer then goes on to say that when Moses sees Jews quarrelling among themselves he says, “Now it is known to me why Egyptians lord over Jews.”

Finally, Moses flees and comes to the land of Midian and sits near a well. There he helps the daughters of Midian who are being oppressed by their fellow shepherds.

Rabbi Obadiah Sforno has categorized these three events in the life of Moses as follows: The first incident represents an evil committed by a non-Jew against a Jew. The second incident represents an evil committed by a Jew against a fellow Jew. The third incident represents an evil committed by a non-Jew against a non-Jew. Moses involves himself on all three of these levels. Sforno further categorizes the behavior of Moses in these situations: With the shepherds Moses simply helps; he gives aid and assistance. With the two Jews, Moses sees more than the simple role of helping; he chides them. His goal is not simply to avert a single evil deed - Moses seeks to teach his fellow Jews proper behavior and therefore rebukes them. When Moses sees a Jew being wronged by an Egyptian his reaction is more than giving help to his fellow Jew - he becomes emotionally involved. Sforno uses the phrase, “Moses was aroused to vengeance.”

Jews today operate within each of the three categories suggested by Sforno. Jews are members of a general community whose problems are not uniquely Jewish. These are the problems of the non-Jewish world. Jews are also members of a Jewish community where their relations are primarily between Jew and fellow-Jew In this role the Jew often is involved in conflicts between his own community and the non-Jewish world

The incidents in the life of Moses teach us that a Jew must involve himself in each of the categories suggested by Sforno. Regardless of who the person in need of assistance may be, to paraphrase the verse, Jews must stand up and help. On the other hand, Jews are expected to exhibit special behavior towards the problems of fellow Jews. A sense of fierce loyalty and love of fellow Jews is legitimate and expected. Even Moses, the great prophet and lawgiver, allowed himself to become emotionally involved and open to criticism when he witnessed a Jew in trouble.