Difference between revisions of "Moshe's Killing of the Egyptian/2/en"
(Original Author: Yonatan Novetsky, Rabbi Hillel Novetsky) |
|||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
<subopinion name="Adultery">Adultery | <subopinion name="Adultery">Adultery | ||
<p>The Egyptian had committed adultery with the Hebrew's wife.</p> | <p>The Egyptian had committed adultery with the Hebrew's wife.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot><multilink><a href="TanchumaShemot9" data-aht="source">Tanchuma</a><a href="TanchumaShemot9" data-aht="source">Shemot 9</a><a href="Tanchuma" data-aht="parshan">About the Tanchuma</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashiShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:12</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About Rashi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="LekachTovShemot2-12" data-aht="source">Lekach Tov</a><a href="LekachTovShemot2-12" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:12</a><a href="R. Toviah b. Eliezer (Lekach Tov)" data-aht="parshan">About Lekach Tov</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SeikhelTovShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Seikhel Tov</a><a href="SeikhelTovShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11</a><a href="R. Menachem b. Shelomo" data-aht="parshan">About Seikhel Tov</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot2-12" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot2-12" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:12</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About Chizkuni</a></multilink><fn>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).</fn></mekorot> | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="TanchumaShemot9" data-aht="source">Tanchuma</a><a href="TanchumaShemot9" data-aht="source">Shemot 9</a><a href="Tanchuma" data-aht="parshan">About the Tanchuma</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashiShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:12</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About Rashi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="LekachTovShemot2-12" data-aht="source">Lekach Tov</a><a href="LekachTovShemot2-12" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:12</a><a href="R. Toviah b. Eliezer (Lekach Tov)" data-aht="parshan">About Lekach Tov</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SeikhelTovShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Seikhel Tov</a><a href="SeikhelTovShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11</a><a href="R. Menachem b. Shelomo (Seikhel Tov)" data-aht="parshan">About Seikhel Tov</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ChizkuniShemot2-12" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniShemot2-12" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:12</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About Chizkuni</a></multilink><fn>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).</fn></mekorot> |
<point><b>Backdrop</b> – These sources identify the "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" with the "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" from Vayikra 24:10<fn>See the note above that the term "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" appears in only two other places in the Torah.</fn> 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).<fn>Shemot Rabbah combines both possibilities, citing prooftexts that each of murder and adultery warrant the death penalty.</fn></point> | <point><b>Backdrop</b> – These sources identify the "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" with the "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" from Vayikra 24:10<fn>See the note above that the term "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" appears in only two other places in the Torah.</fn> 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).<fn>Shemot Rabbah combines both possibilities, citing prooftexts that each of murder and adultery warrant the death penalty.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Consensual relations or rape</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn> Lekach Tov and Chizkuni refer to the act as outright rape, and this matches the description in Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbeinu.<fn>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").</fn></point> | <point><b>Consensual relations or rape</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn> Lekach Tov and Chizkuni refer to the act as outright rape, and this matches the description in Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbeinu.<fn>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").</fn></point> | ||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
<subopinion name="Striking an Israelite">Striking an Israelite | <subopinion name="Striking an Israelite">Striking an Israelite | ||
<p>The Egyptian deserved death simply for beating the Hebrew.</p> | <p>The Egyptian deserved death simply for beating the Hebrew.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot><multilink>R. Chanina in <a href="Sanhedrin58b" data-aht="source">Bavli Sanhedrin</a><a href="Sanhedrin58b" data-aht="source">Sanhedrin 58b</a><a href=" | + | <mekorot><multilink>R. Chanina in <a href="Sanhedrin58b" data-aht="source">Bavli Sanhedrin</a><a href="Sanhedrin58b" data-aht="source">Sanhedrin 58b</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashbaResponsa367" data-aht="source">Rashba</a><a href="RashbaResponsa367" data-aht="source">Responsa (New) #367</a><a href="R. Shelomo b. Aderet (Rashba)" data-aht="parshan">About Rashba</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SeferHaNitzachon48" data-aht="source">Sefer HaNitzachon</a><a href="SeferHaNitzachon48" data-aht="source">48</a><a href="R. Yom-Tov Lipmann-Muhlhausen" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yom-Tov Lipmann-Muhlhausen</a></multilink></mekorot> |
<point><b>Nature of the prohibition and the scope of its application</b> – The <multilink><a href="RanSanhedrin58b" data-aht="source">Ran</a><a href="RanSanhedrin58b" data-aht="source">Sanhedrin 58b</a><a href="R. Nissim Gerondi (Ran)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Nissim Gerondi</a></multilink> discusses two possible understandings of the Bavli's ruling: | <point><b>Nature of the prohibition and the scope of its application</b> – The <multilink><a href="RanSanhedrin58b" data-aht="source">Ran</a><a href="RanSanhedrin58b" data-aht="source">Sanhedrin 58b</a><a href="R. Nissim Gerondi (Ran)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Nissim Gerondi</a></multilink> discusses two possible understandings of the Bavli's ruling: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
<multilink><a href="RasagMishlei17-19" data-aht="source">R. Saadia</a><a href="RasagMishlei17-19" data-aht="source">Commentary Mishlei 17:19</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia</a></multilink>, | <multilink><a href="RasagMishlei17-19" data-aht="source">R. Saadia</a><a href="RasagMishlei17-19" data-aht="source">Commentary Mishlei 17:19</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia</a></multilink>, | ||
<multilink><a href="ZoharMishpatim" data-aht="source">Zohar</a><a href="ZoharMishpatim" data-aht="source">Parashat Mishpatim (p. 114b)</a><a href="Zohar" data-aht="parshan">About the Zohar</a></multilink>, | <multilink><a href="ZoharMishpatim" data-aht="source">Zohar</a><a href="ZoharMishpatim" data-aht="source">Parashat Mishpatim (p. 114b)</a><a href="Zohar" data-aht="parshan">About the Zohar</a></multilink>, | ||
− | <multilink><a href="ShelahVaetchanan" data-aht="source">R. Yitzchak Luria ( | + | <multilink><a href="ShelahVaetchanan" data-aht="source">R. Yitzchak Luria (HaAri)</a><a href="ShelahVaetchanan" data-aht="source">cited by the Shelah Vaetchanan, Torah Ohr 5</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Luria (HaARI)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Luria</a></multilink></mekorot> |
<point><b>How was it unintentional?</b> R. Saadia appears to maintain that Moshe had absolutely no intent to kill, and the Egyptian's death was completely inadvertent.<fn>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.</fn> 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 Rabbah<fn>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.</fn> and the Zohar understood the story.</point> | <point><b>How was it unintentional?</b> R. Saadia appears to maintain that Moshe had absolutely no intent to kill, and the Egyptian's death was completely inadvertent.<fn>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.</fn> 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 Rabbah<fn>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.</fn> and the Zohar understood the story.</point> | ||
<point><b>Meaning of "מַכֶּה" and "וַיַּךְ"</b> – 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.<fn>Cf. HaKetav VeHaKabbalah who explains both "מַכֶּה" and "וַיַּךְ" as deathblows.</fn></point> | <point><b>Meaning of "מַכֶּה" and "וַיַּךְ"</b> – 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.<fn>Cf. HaKetav VeHaKabbalah who explains both "מַכֶּה" and "וַיַּךְ" as deathblows.</fn></point> |
Version as of 23:25, 21 January 2015
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.
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.
Adultery
The Egyptian had committed adultery with the Hebrew's wife.
Striking an Israelite
The Egyptian deserved death simply for beating the Hebrew.
- 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.
Law of the Jungle
Moshe's action was due to the extraordinary circumstances and not based on a strict legal precedent.
Unintentional
Moshe's action was problematic, but it was considered to be unintentional (שוגג).
Blameworthy
Moshe's action was both intentional and wrong, and he may have been punished as a result.