Moshe's Killing of the Egyptian/2/en

Moshe's Killing of the Egyptian

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

Commentators disagree as to whether Moshe's killing of the Egyptian should be praised, condemned, or viewed neutrally. Some exegetes attempt to justify Moshe's behavior by portraying the Egyptian as a more blameworthy figure than he might appear to be on a first read. Thus, Vayikra Rabbah and others suggest that the Egyptian was not merely hitting the Hebrew but beating him to death, and thus Moshe's action wasn't murder but pikuach nefesh or saving a life. Philo and Rabbinic Midrashim similarly vilify the Egyptian's character by attributing to him capital crimes committed outside the context of our story, such as murder or adultery. On the other hand, R. Azariah Figo and R. D"Z Hoffmann look not to the culpability of the Egyptian himself, but to the state of Egyptian society as a whole. They suggest that amidst such tyranny and corruption, norms of law did not apply and Moshe had no choice but to take extraordinary measures to ensure justice.

Other commentators take the Egyptian's actions at face value and instead condone Moshe by reducing the harshness of his deed and suggesting that Moshe had not intended to kill the Egyptian. A final approach concludes that Moshe is indeed blameworthy.

The various approaches are motivated both by textual issues as well as philosophical and polemical concerns. The need to defend Moshe in the face of Christian criticism may have led to attempts to justify his actions. Wariness of setting up a model of militant activism, or conversely, a desire to provoke readers into action might have influenced other commentators. Finally, the various outlooks may be partially colored by their general perceptions of Moshe. Was he a perfect leader or did he have shortcomings? Does his character undergo any transformation over the course of his life?

In analyzing and assessing Moshe's actions, Biblical commentators offer three main categories of approaches which span almost the full gamut of possibilities:¹

Justified / Admirable

Moshe's action was an appropriate and praiseworthy² response because the Egyptian was either endangering the life of the Hebrew or guilty of other heinous crimes.

Saving a Life

The Egyptian taskmaster intended to murder the Hebrew man, and all bystanders were thus obligated to save the Hebrew even at the price of the life of his Egyptian pursuer.

Sources:Vayikra Rabbah32:4About Vayikra Rabbah, Shemot Rabbah1:28-29About Shemot Rabbah,³ Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe RabbeinuOtzar HaMidrashim (Eisenstein p.358)About Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbeinu,⁴ HaKoremShemot 2:11About R. Hertz Homberg, HaKetav VeHaKabbalahShemot 2:11-12About HaKetav VeHaKabbalah⁵

Meaning of "מַכֶּה" – HaKorem and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah bring prooftexts to demonstrate that "מַכֶּה" sometimes indicates striking with an intent to kill.

"וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה" – If Moshe needed to save the Israelite's life, it is unclear why he would have first stopped to look to all sides to confirm that nobody was in the vicinity. Thus, Vayikra Rabbah and Shemot Rabbah reinterpret these words to mean that Moshe saw with prophetic vision what the Egyptian had done in the past⁶ and what he was planning to do in the future.⁷ HaKetav VeHaKabbalah offers a simpler alternative that Moshe looked around in astonishment that none of the Israelites present were defending their compatriot.

"וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ" – Here too, this approach opts to avoid having Moshe stealthily scanning the scene for witnesses.⁸ Thus, Vayikra Rabbah and Shemot Rabbah cite a number of opinions which explain these words as meaning that there was nobody else capable of intervening.⁹ HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, on the other hand, explains that Moshe saw that none of the Israelites present were concerned enough to intervene.¹⁰

Backdrop – Vayikra Rabbah and Shemot Rabbah identify the "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" with the אִישׁ מִצְרִי" mentioned in Vayikra 24:10 whose union with an Israelite woman produced the blasphemer.¹¹ Based on this, they reconstruct the background to the story, suggesting that the Israelite man had discovered that the Egyptian had slept with his wife,¹² and the Egyptian intended to murder him so that nobody would find out. Alternatively, though, the Egyptian's savage conduct was merely typical treatment of slaves in the Ancient Near East.¹³ Cf. Philo below.

Capital Crimes

The Egyptian had committed crimes for which he was deserving of death, and Moshe was authorized to take the law into his own hands. There are a number of variations of this possibility:

Murder

The Egyptian taskmaster had previously murdered Hebrews.

Sources:PhiloOn the Life of Moshe 1:VIIIAbout Philo¹⁴

Backdrop – Philo attempts to place the episode in a context in which Moshe's persistent efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Israelite slaves¹⁵ had infuriated the Egyptian taskmaster and caused him to murder many of the Israelites. However, there is no hint of this in the Biblical text.

Worthy of praise – Philo notes that it was a pious action to kill such a savage taskmaster.¹⁶

Taking the law into one's own hands – Philo does not address this issue explicitly, but he may believe that Moshe was simply exercising his rights as the Egyptian crown prince and "future inheritor of his grandfather's kingdom". Interestingly, according to Philo, even Paroh was angered not by the killing of the Egyptian per se, but rather because his "grandson" Moshe was helping his enemies.¹⁷

Adultery

The Egyptian had committed adultery with the Hebrew's wife.

Sources:TanchumaShemot 9About the Tanchuma, RashiShemot 2:12About Rashi, Lekach TovShemot 2:12About Lekach Tov, Seikhel TovShemot 2:11About Seikhel Tov, ChizkuniShemot 2:12About Chizkuni¹⁸

Backdrop – These sources identify the "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" with the "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" from Vayikra 24:10¹⁹ whose union with an Israelite woman produced the blasphemer. This motif of the Egyptian committing adultery with the Hebrew's wife is found already in Vayikra Rabbah above, but there the Egyptian attempts to cover up his actions by killing the Israelite, and it is to prevent this murder that Moshe kills the Egyptian. In contrast, the sources here make no mention of attempted murder, and apparently have Moshe killing the Egyptian because of the adultery (this is explicit in Chizkuni).²⁰

Consensual relations or rape – In Vayikra Rabbah, the Egyptian seduces the Hebrew's wife after she flirts with him, and this is most explicit in Seikhel Tov "והשמיעה לו לרצון". According to Tanchuma, Shemot Rabbah, and Rashi, though, the act is against her will, as the Egyptian fooled her into thinking she was engaging in intercourse with her husband.²¹ Lekach Tov and Chizkuni refer to the act as outright rape, and this matches the description in Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbeinu.²²

Meaning of "מַכֶּה" – According to these sources "מַכֶּה" can mean simply beating and does not necessarily imply an intent to kill.

Taking the law into one's own hands – Chizkuni appears to view Moshe as a judge responsible for enforcing the Noachide laws.²³ Alternatively, these sources may hold like Avot DeRabbi NatanVersion 1, Ch. 20About Avot DeRabbi Natan that Moshe acted in due process by consulting with the heavenly courts.²⁴

Polemical motivations – Sefer HaNitzachon48About R. Yom-Tov Lipmann-Muhlhausen suggests that the amplification of the Egyptian's evil deeds according to this approach is prompted by polemical concerns and an attempt to defend Moshe's conduct.²⁵

Striking an Israelite

The Egyptian deserved death simply for beating the Hebrew.

Sources:<aR. multilink="1" Chanina in Bavli SanhedrinSanhedrin 58bAbout the Bavli, RashbaResponsa (New) #367About Rashba, Sefer HaNitzachon48About R. Yom-Tov Lipmann-Muhlhausen

Nature of the prohibition and the scope of its application – The RanSanhedrin 58bAbout R. Nissim Gerondi discusses two possible understandings of the Bavli's ruling:

• Personal injury is included in the general Noachide prohibition of stealing – The Ran notes that according to this possibility, the law would apply even in a case where a non-Jew struck another non-Jew. He also suggests that this reading could find support from Moshe's killing of the Egyptian, as since this event transpired before the giving of the Torah, the beaten Israelite had merely the same status as any other Noachide.
• Striking a Jew is prohibited because he is the recipient of additional Divine commandments,²⁶ and thus smiting him causes a desecration of God's name²⁷ – This is the Ran's preferred option. Accordingly, even prior to Sinai, the Israelites possessed a special status by virtue of the extra commandments which they had already received, and this is why Moshe was justified in killing the Egyptian.

Heavenly or human implementation – While the Bavli states that a non-Jew who strikes a Jew is deserving of death, it does not indicate who is authorized to enforce this penalty.

• RambamHilkhot Melakhim 10:6Hilkhot Chovel UMazzik 5:3About Rambam²⁸ maintains that this is a Divinely executed punishment²⁹ and not one carried out by the judicial system,³⁰
• Rashba proves from the case of Moshe that the death penalty is in fact meted out by the courts.

Taking the law into one's own hands – The Rashba views Moshe as acting in the capacity of a judge,³¹ while commentators on the Rambam view Moshe as an extension of the Divine court.³²

Meaning of "מַכֶּה" – According to these sources "מַכֶּה" can mean simply beating and does not necessarily imply an intent to kill.

Law of the Jungle

Moshe's action was due to the extraordinary circumstances and not based on a strict legal precedent.

Sources:R. Azariah FigoBinah LaIttim 25About R. Azariah Figo, NetzivShemot 2:11About Netziv, R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 2:12About R. D"Z Hoffmann

Judicial or extra-judicial – While the Rashba and Sefer HaNitzachon above appeal to the letter of the law, R. D"Z Hoffmann argues that the trampling of human rights in Egypt was so massive that legal norms did not apply.³³ In his estimation, any measure short of killing the Egyptian would not have prevented him from intensifying his abusive behavior in the future, and this is what obligated Moshe to act in the way he did.

Meaning of "מַכֶּה" – According to these sources "מַכֶּה" can mean simply beating and does not necessarily imply an intent to kill.

"וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ" – R. Azariah Figo and R. D"Z Hoffmann explain that Moshe looked around and saw that no other Israelite was coming to the rescue.³⁴ The Netziv, in contrast, interprets that Moshe searched in vain for an Egyptian authority to intervene, but realized that they all hated the Israelites and would not act.

Unintentional

Moshe's action was problematic, but it was considered to be unintentional (שוגג).

Sources:Devarim RabbahVilna 2:29Lieberman Vaetchanan (p.59)About Devarim Rabbah,³⁵ R. SaadiaCommentary Mishlei 17:19About R. Saadia, ZoharParashat Mishpatim (p. 114b)About the Zohar, R. Yitzchak Luria (HaAri)cited by the Shelah Vaetchanan, Torah Ohr 5About R. Yitzchak Luria (HaAri)

How was it unintentional? R. Saadia appears to maintain that Moshe had absolutely no intent to kill, and the Egyptian's death was completely inadvertent.³⁶ In contrast, the Ari says that although Moshe intended to kill the Egyptian, he was considered to be שוגג because he thought he was commanded to do so. This latter approach seems to also be how Devarim Rabbah³⁷ and the Zohar understood the story.

Meaning of "מַכֶּה" and "וַיַּךְ" – According to R. Saadia, the root הכה means to strike in the cases of both the Egyptian and Moshe, and does not imply any intent to kill.³⁸

"וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ" – It is unclear why Moshe would have looked to all sides.³⁹

Vigilantism and its evaluation – R. Saadia's approach avoids both the problem of an unjustified killing as well as the issue of Moshe taking the law into his own hands. From Devarim Rabbah, the Zohar, and the Ari, though, it seems that Moshe's action required some degree of repentance or atonement.

Yitro's priestly estate as Moshe's city of refuge – One advantage of this approach is that it explains the need for Moshe to remain in exile until the avengers of the Egyptian's blood had died (see Shemot 4:19). It is also possible that according to Egyptian law, Yitro's priestly estate was off limits even to Paroh's forces.⁴⁰

Blameworthy

Moshe's action was both intentional and wrong, and he may have been punished as a result.

Sources:Midrash Petirat MosheOtzar HaMidrashim (Eisenstein p.363)About Midrash Petirat Moshe,⁴¹ possibly R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 2:11,14,15About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor,⁴² R. Menachem TziyoniShemot 2:11About R. Menachem Tziyoni

Moshe punished – While the Torah does not state that Moshe was punished or even rebuked for taking the life of the Egyptian, the picturesque account of Moshe's dialogue with Hashem before his death found in Midrash Petirat Moshe⁴³ places such an argument in God's mouth and implies that this was the reason Moshe needed to die. Alternatively, Moshe's exile to Midyan may have served as a punishment for Moshe's action.⁴⁴

What was Moshe's sin? – These sources leave some ambiguity as to whether the criticism of Moshe is due to a miscarriage of justice (i.e. the Egyptian did not deserve to die – see R"Y Bekhor Shor) or because of vigilante justice (i.e. Moshe should not have taken it upon himself to serve as judge and jury).

Moshe's age – The Torah implies that the incident happened shortly after Moshe had reached the age of adulthood, and R. Menachem Tziyoni attributes Moshe's impetuosity to his relative youth. However, the Torah does not provide a precise chronological time frame for the episode, and some commentators depict Moshe as much older. See Chronology of Shemot 2-4 for the wide range of possibilities.

Emotions overcame him – R"Y Bekhor Shor attributes Moshe's actions to his anger boiling over out of mercy for his brethren, rather than to a strict sense of law and order.⁴⁵ For additional cases where Moshe displays anger, see Moshe's Character.⁴⁶

¹ For a comprehensive survey of this spectrum and the philosophical underpinnings of the various positions, see A. Sagi in his book יהדות: בין דת למוסר (תשנ"ח): 182-198, and in an earlier article "'He Slew the Egyptian and Hid Him in the Sand': Jewish Tradition and the Moral Element," HUCA 67 (1996): 55-76.

² See Philo below who describes it as a pious action. For additional sources which extol Moshe's courage and self-sacrifice, see Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelBeshalach Shirah 1About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, TanchumaShofetim 5About the Tanchuma, and Moreh Nevukhim2:45About Rambam. However, many other Rabbinic sources, despite vindicating Moshe, are much more muted in their praise. See A. Shinan, ‏"בין קידוש השם למיתת בית דין: עמדות שונות בספרות היהודית הקדומה כלפי סיפור משה והמצרי", בתוך: קדושת החיים וחירוף הנפש, בעריכת י' גפני וא' רביצקי, (ירושלים תשנ"ב): 67-68, who posits that later Rabbinic sources avoided presenting Moshe's actions as a model to be imitated. He suggests that in the wake of the failure of the Bar Kochba Rebellion, there was a general wariness of the consequences of militant activism, and an inclination toward keeping a lower profile.

³ Vayikra Rabbah and Shemot Rabbah also develop the motif of the Egyptian having committed adultery with the Hebrew man's wife - see below for a comparison of the various sources which present this motif.

⁴ Cf. Yalkut Shimoni Shemot 166.

⁵ ArtapanusCited by Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica 9:27About Artapanus omits the story of Moshe killing the Egyptian taskmaster, but does record Moshe's slaying of Chanethothes (the Egyptian king's officer) in self-defense. [JosephusAntiquities 2:11:1About Josephus, like Artapanus, also makes no mention of Moshe killing the Egyptian taskmaster, and both have Moshe fleeing Egypt because of the Egyptians' envy. Shinan (in his article cited in the note above) argues that Jewish-Hellenistic writers "censored" the story out of their discomfort with its implications. However, the story does appear in Jubilees, Ezekiel the Tragedian, and is mentioned by Eusebius (9:29) as having been extant in the account of Demetrius the Chronographer.]

⁶ See below for the Midrashic discussion of what the Egyptian had previously done to the Hebrew's wife.

⁷ Even without prophecy, though, Moshe could have seen that the Egyptian was raining deathblows upon the Hebrew.

⁸ If the Israelite's life was truly in danger, this should not have been Moshe's first concern.

⁹ See R. Ze'ev Einhorn in his commentaries (פירוש מהרז"ו) to Vayikra Rabbah and Shemot Rabbah and Cassuto who note the possible allusion to our verse in Yeshayahu 59:15-16 and 63:5, and the connection to Hillel's saying in Avot 2:5 "במקום שאין איש/אנשים השתדל להיות איש". It is not clear, however, why Moshe was willing to act only if there was no other capable person.

¹⁰ Cf. R. Azariah Figo below.

¹¹ The only other places in Torah where the term "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" appears are Bereshit 39:1 and Shemot 2:19. See Midrash for other cases where the Midrash consolidates characters.

¹² See below for further analysis of this motif.

¹³ The Torah legislates against this in Shemot 21.

¹⁴ Cf. Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer47About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer which states that an Egyptian taskmaster murdered an Israelite man from the tribe of Dan and slept with his wife and that the blasphemer was the progeny of this union. This account parallels the story found in Vayikra Rabbah and Shemot Rabbah above, leading some to suggest that according to Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer the taskmaster from Shemot 2 actually killed the Hebrew. However, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer itself explicitly states (earlier in Chapter 47) that the Hebrew in the Shemot 2 incident was a Kehatite (based on the word "מֵאֶחָיו").

¹⁵ See Shemot Rabbah 1:27-28 for a similar account of Moshe's efforts.

¹⁶ See note above regarding other sources which laud Moshe's conduct.

¹⁷ Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor Shemot 2:15 who disagrees.

¹⁸ Chizkuni notes that while a warning (התראה) is generally needed before punishment can be administered, it is not required for non-Jews (as per the precedent of Bereshit 20:3).

¹⁹ See the note above that the term "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" appears in only two other places in the Torah.

²⁰ Shemot Rabbah combines both possibilities, citing prooftexts that each of murder and adultery warrant the death penalty.

²¹ The point of departure in Vayikra Rabbah is the pericope of the blasphemer, and the goal is to show how he was conceived in sin. Thus Vayikra Rabbah indicates the culpability of both parents. In contrast, the goal of Tanchuma Shemot and Shemot Rabbah is to maximize the sins of specifically the Egyptian, and thereby vindicate Moshe.

²² In accordance with their positions, Vayikra Rabbah 32:5 links the woman's name שלומית to her chatting with men (saying שלום), while Tanchuma and Shemot Rabbah connect it to her beauty ("שלימה מכל מום").

²³ Cf. Rashba cited below.

²⁴ See Shemot Rabbah1:29About Shemot Rabbah and Midrash Tehillim24:7About Midrash Tehillim who also speak of Moshe consulting with angels.

²⁵ While he suggests this with regard to Rashi's position, it is possible that earlier Midrashim felt such a need as well, as many Christian theologians beginning with Augustine (see Contra Faustum, Book XXII, #70) were critical of Moshe's actions.

²⁶ Thus, the prohibition would be separate from the seven cardinal Noachide laws and, in contrast to them, it would be applicable only when the victim is a Jew.

²⁷ The notion of the desecration of God's name can be derived from the Bavli's juxtaposition of the two statements of R. Chanina. It is not explicitly stated by the Ran.

²⁸ Meiri Sanhedrin 58b follows in Rambam's footsteps.

²⁹ Rambam in a responsumTeshuvot HaRambam 149About Rambam deduces a parallel ruling from the Talmud's use of the language "חייב מיתה" rather than "נהרג".

³⁰ As the Rambam himself (like the Bavli) cites the case of Moshe and must account for Moshe's actions, R. Yehuda Rosanes in his Parashat Derakhim (#10) and MalbimShemot 2:12About Malbim explain that Moshe was acting as God's representative rather than in a judicial capacity. They support their contention from the various Midrashim that Moshe prophetically confirmed that the Egyptian would not sire any deserving descendants, that he consulted with the Heavenly court, and that he killed the Egyptian by uttering God's name (all of these would not apply in capital punishment implemented through a human judiciary). See Avot DeRabbi Natan and the other Rabbinic sources cited above.

³¹ Cf. the Israelites reaction in Shemot 2:14 "מִי שָׂמְךָ לְאִישׁ שַׂר וְשֹׁפֵט עָלֵינוּ".

³² See Parashat Derakhim and Malbim and additional sources cited in the note above.

³³ Thus, he neither cites the Bavli above nor suggests that Moshe was acting in the capacity of a judge, and he dismisses the need for the position of HaKetav VeHaKabbalah that the Israelite's life was in imminent danger.

³⁴ R. Azariah Figo elaborates on this callousness, and contrasts it with the impudence of the Hebrew on the following day. His interpretation is paraphrased by R. Barukh Yashar in his edited collection ספר בינה לעתים על התורה (p. 75):

"ויאמר לרשע למה תכה רעך – למה לא ידעת להרים יד על שונאך המצרי, ועל אחיך אתה כן מרים יד?... כל עם נורמלי אוהב את אחיו ושונא את מציקו, לא כן עמי האומלל, שונא הוא את אחיו ומגיב על הריגת המצרי."

R. Figo adds that this behavior explains the need for such a lengthy exile in Egypt. Cf. Shemot Rabbah 1:30.

³⁵ See also Tanchuma (Buber)Vaetchanan Hosafah 4About Tanchuma (Buber) and the Midrash found in Ginzei Schechter Vol. I p. 113.

³⁶ This is how R. Kapach understands R. Saadia, both here and in his Tafsir Shemot 2:12. [Interestingly, some Islamic theologians interpret the Quran's account (28:2:15-16) of the story in similar fashion.] However, it is possible that the unintended consequence to which R. Saadia refers was not the death of the Egyptian, but rather the subsequent tale bearing of the Hebrew.

³⁷ Both the Vilna and Lieberman versions of Devarim Rabbah link Moshe's killing of the Egyptian and subsequent fleeing to Midyan to his establishing of the Cities of Refuge for the unintentional killer. The Lieberman version is slightly more explicit in stating that Moshe himself fled to a city of refuge: "ויך את המצרי, וכיון שהרגו ברח לעיר מקלט שנא' ויברח משה מפני פרעה". While this would seemingly indicate that Moshe's killing of the Egyptian was unintentional, the Lieberman version also describes how Moshe consulted with the angels before acting, which implies that his action was premeditated. Thus, the Midrash is either conflating contradictory aggadic motifs or maintaining that Moshe qualified to flee to a city of refuge because of the extenuating circumstances for the murder. The possibility also exists that Moshe was simply following Egyptian law which allowed sanctuary even for intentional murderers (see below regarding Yitro's priestly estate), but it is unlikely that this is the understanding of Devarim Rabbah.

³⁸ Cf. HaKetav VeHaKabbalah who explains both "מַכֶּה" and "וַיַּךְ" as deathblows.

³⁹ See the note above for the inconsistency created by the Lieberman version of Devarim Rabbah's attempt to explain Moshe's action.

⁴⁰ Under Egyptian law, though, the priestly estate could have provided asylum even for an intentional murderer. For more, see the discussion of R. Dan's position in Yitro's Religious Identity.

⁴¹ See also the similar Midrash cited in the Eshkol HaKofer of R. Yehuda Hadasi the Karaite.

⁴² R"Y Bekhor Shor has the Hebrew whom Moshe encounters on the second day presenting the argument that the Egyptian taskmaster was merely carrying out the king's command. However, it is very possible that R"Y Bekhor Shor himself felt Moshe's action was justified.

⁴³ And in the similar account preserved in the Karaite work Eshkol HaKofer.

⁴⁴ See also Can Prophets Sin.

⁴⁵ Cf. RambanShemot 2:11About Ramban.

⁴⁶ See also the fascinating legend cited in the Tiferet Yisrael Kiddushin 4:77, and see Prof. S. Leiman, "Rabbi Israel Lipschutz: The Portrait of Moses," Tradition 24 (1989):91-98.