Difference between revisions of "Moshe's Killing of the Egyptian/2/en"

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
<div class="overview">
 
<div class="overview">
 
<h2>Overview</h2>
 
<h2>Overview</h2>
<p>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 <i>pikuach nefesh</i> 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.</p>
+
<p>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 was not murder but rather 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.</p>
 
<continue>
 
<continue>
<p>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.</p>
+
<p>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.</p>
<p>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?</p>
+
<p>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?</p>
</continue>
+
</continue></div>
</div>
+
<p>In analyzing and assessing Moshe's actions, Biblical commentators offer three main categories of approaches which span almost the full gamut of possibilities:<fn>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.</fn></p>
<p>In analyzing and assessing Moshe's actions, Biblical commentators offer three main categories of approaches which span almost the full gamut of possibilities:<fn>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.</fn></p>
 
 
<approaches>
 
<approaches>
<category name="">Justified / Admirable
+
 
<p>Moshe's action was an appropriate and praiseworthy<fn>See Philo below who describes it as a pious action. For additional sources which extol Moshe's courage and self-sacrifice, see <multilink><a href="MekhiltaBeshalach" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a><a href="MekhiltaBeshalach" data-aht="source">Beshalach Shirah 1</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="TanchumaShofetim5" data-aht="source">Tanchuma</a><a href="TanchumaShofetim5" data-aht="source">Shofetim 5</a><a href="Tanchuma" data-aht="parshan">About the Tanchuma</a></multilink>, and <multilink><a href="RambamMoreh2-45" data-aht="source">Moreh Nevukhim</a><a href="RambamMoreh2-45" data-aht="source">2:45</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About Rambam</a></multilink>. However, many other Rabbinic sources, despite vindicating Moshe, are much more muted in their praise. See A. Shinan, &#8207;"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.</fn> response because the Egyptian was either endangering the life of the Hebrew or guilty of other heinous crimes.</p>
+
<category>Justified / Admirable
<opinion name="">Saving a Life
+
<p>Moshe's action was an appropriate and praiseworthy<fn>See&#160;<multilink><a href="PhiloMoses1-8" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloMoses1-8" data-aht="source">On the Life of Moses 1:VIII</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink> below who describes it as a pious action. For additional sources which extol Moshe's courage and self-sacrifice, see <multilink><a href="MekhiltaBeshalach" data-aht="source">Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a><a href="MekhiltaBeshalach" data-aht="source">Beshalach Shirah 1</a><a href="Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael" data-aht="parshan">About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="TanchumaShofetim5" data-aht="source">Tanchuma</a><a href="TanchumaShofetim5" data-aht="source">Shofetim 5</a><a href="Tanchuma" data-aht="parshan">About the Tanchuma</a></multilink>, and <multilink><a href="RambamMoreh2-45" data-aht="source">Moreh Nevukhim</a><a href="RambamMoreh2-45" data-aht="source">2:45</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About Rambam</a></multilink>. However, many other Rabbinic sources, despite vindicating Moshe, are much more muted in their praise. See A. Shinan, &#8207;"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.</fn> response because the Egyptian was either endangering the life of the Hebrew or guilty of other heinous crimes.</p>
 +
<opinion>Saving a Life
 
<p>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.</p>
 
<p>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.</p>
<mekorot><multilink><a href="VayikraRabbah32-4" data-aht="source">Vayikra Rabbah</a><a href="VayikraRabbah32-4" data-aht="source">32:4</a><a href="Vayikra Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Vayikra Rabbah</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShemotRabbah1-28" data-aht="source">Shemot Rabbah</a><a href="ShemotRabbah1-28" data-aht="source">1:28-29</a><a href="Shemot Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Shemot Rabbah</a></multilink>,<fn>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.</fn> <multilink><a href="DivreiHaYamimLeMoshe" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbeinu</a><a href="DivreiHaYamimLeMoshe" data-aht="source">Otzar HaMidrashim (Eisenstein p.358)</a><a href="Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbeinu" data-aht="parshan">About Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbeinu</a></multilink>,<fn>Cf. Yalkut Shimoni Shemot 166.</fn> <multilink><a href="HaKoremShemot2-11" data-aht="source">HaKorem</a><a href="HaKoremShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11</a><a href="Hertz Homberg (HaKorem)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Hertz Homberg</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="HaketavShemot2-11" data-aht="source">HaKetav VeHaKabbalah</a><a href="HaketavShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11-12</a><a href="R. Yaakov Mecklenburg (HaKetav VeHaKabbalah)" data-aht="parshan">About HaKetav VeHaKabbalah</a></multilink><fn><multilink><a href="Artapanus" data-aht="source">Artapanus</a><a href="Artapanus" data-aht="source">Cited by Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica 9:27</a><a href="Artapanus" data-aht="parshan">About Artapanus</a></multilink> 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. [<multilink><a href="Josephus2-11" data-aht="source">Josephus</a><a href="Josephus2-11" data-aht="source">Antiquities 2:11:1</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus</a></multilink>, 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.]</fn></mekorot>
+
<mekorot><multilink><a href="VayikraRabbah32-4" data-aht="source">Vayikra Rabbah</a><a href="VayikraRabbah32-4" data-aht="source">32:4</a><a href="Vayikra Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Vayikra Rabbah</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShemotRabbah1-28" data-aht="source">Shemot Rabbah</a><a href="ShemotRabbah1-28" data-aht="source">1:28-29</a><a href="Shemot Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Shemot Rabbah</a></multilink>,<fn>Vayikra Rabbah and Shemot Rabbah also develop the motif of the Egyptian having committed adultery with the Hebrew man's wife&#160;– see below for a comparison of the various sources which present this motif.</fn> <multilink><a href="DivreiHaYamimLeMoshe" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbeinu</a><a href="DivreiHaYamimLeMoshe" data-aht="source">Otzar HaMidrashim (Eisenstein p.358)</a><a href="Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbeinu" data-aht="parshan">About Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbeinu</a></multilink>,<fn>Cf. Yalkut Shimoni Shemot 166.</fn> <multilink><a href="HaKoremShemot2-11" data-aht="source">HaKorem</a><a href="HaKoremShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11</a><a href="Hertz Homberg (HaKorem)" data-aht="parshan">About Hertz Homberg</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="HaketavShemot2-11" data-aht="source">HaKetav VeHaKabbalah</a><a href="HaketavShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11-12</a><a href="R. Yaakov Mecklenburg (HaKetav VeHaKabbalah)" data-aht="parshan">About HaKetav VeHaKabbalah</a></multilink><fn><multilink><a href="Artapanus" data-aht="source">Artapanus</a><a href="Artapanus" data-aht="source">Cited by Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica 9:27</a><a href="Artapanus" data-aht="parshan">About Artapanus</a></multilink> 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. [<multilink><a href="Josephus2-11" data-aht="source">Josephus</a><a href="Josephus2-11" data-aht="source">Antiquities 2:11:1</a><a href="Josephus" data-aht="parshan">About Josephus</a></multilink>, 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.]</fn></mekorot>
 
<point><b>Meaning of "מַכֶּה"</b> – HaKorem and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah bring prooftexts to demonstrate that "מַכֶּה" sometimes indicates striking with an intent to kill.</point>
 
<point><b>Meaning of "מַכֶּה"</b> – HaKorem and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah bring prooftexts to demonstrate that "מַכֶּה" sometimes indicates striking with an intent to kill.</point>
 
<point><b>"וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה"</b> – 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 past<fn>See below for the Midrashic discussion of what the Egyptian had previously done to the Hebrew's wife.</fn> and what he was planning to do in the future.<fn>Even without prophecy, though, Moshe could have seen that the Egyptian was raining deathblows upon the Hebrew.</fn> HaKetav VeHaKabbalah offers a simpler alternative that Moshe looked around in astonishment that none of the Israelites present were defending their compatriot.</point>
 
<point><b>"וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה"</b> – 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 past<fn>See below for the Midrashic discussion of what the Egyptian had previously done to the Hebrew's wife.</fn> and what he was planning to do in the future.<fn>Even without prophecy, though, Moshe could have seen that the Egyptian was raining deathblows upon the Hebrew.</fn> HaKetav VeHaKabbalah offers a simpler alternative that Moshe looked around in astonishment that none of the Israelites present were defending their compatriot.</point>
 
<point><b>"וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ"</b> – Here too, this approach opts to avoid having Moshe stealthily scanning the scene for witnesses.<fn>If the Israelite's life was truly in danger, this should not have been Moshe's first concern.</fn> 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.<fn>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 <a href="Yeshayahu59-15" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 59:15-16</a> and <a href="Yeshayahu63-5" data-aht="source">63:5</a>, 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.</fn> HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, on the other hand, explains that Moshe saw that none of the Israelites present were concerned enough to intervene.<fn>Cf. R. Azariah Figo below.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>"וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ"</b> – Here too, this approach opts to avoid having Moshe stealthily scanning the scene for witnesses.<fn>If the Israelite's life was truly in danger, this should not have been Moshe's first concern.</fn> 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.<fn>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 <a href="Yeshayahu59-15" data-aht="source">Yeshayahu 59:15-16</a> and <a href="Yeshayahu63-5" data-aht="source">63:5</a>, 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.</fn> HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, on the other hand, explains that Moshe saw that none of the Israelites present were concerned enough to intervene.<fn>Cf. R. Azariah Figo below.</fn></point>
<point><b>Backdrop</b> – 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.<fn>The only other places in Torah where the term "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" appears are Bereshit 39:1 and Shemot 2:19. See <a href="$">Midrash</a> for other cases where the Midrash consolidates characters.</fn> Based on this, they reconstruct the background to the story, suggesting that the Israelite man had discovered that the Egyptian had slept with his wife,<fn>See below for further analysis of this motif.</fn> and the Egyptian intended to murder him so that nobody would find out. Alternatively, though, the Egyptian's savage conduct was merely typical treatment of slaves in the Ancient Near East.<fn>The Torah legislates against this in Shemot 21.</fn> Cf. Philo below.</point>
+
<point><b>Backdrop</b> – Vayikra Rabbah and Shemot Rabbah identify the "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" with the "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" mentioned in Vayikra 24:10 whose union with an Israelite woman produced the blasphemer.<fn>The only other places in Torah where the term "אִישׁ מִצְרִי" appears are Bereshit 39:1 and Shemot 2:19. See <a href="$">Midrash</a> for other cases where the Midrash consolidates characters.</fn> 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,<fn>See below for further analysis of this motif.</fn> 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.<fn>The Torah legislates against this in Shemot 21.</fn> Cf. Philo below.</point>
 
</opinion>
 
</opinion>
<opinion name="">Capital Crimes
+
<opinion>Capital Crimes
 
<p>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:</p>
 
<p>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:</p>
<subopinion name="Murder">Murder
+
<subopinion name="Murder">
 +
Murder
 
<p>The Egyptian taskmaster had previously murdered Hebrews.</p>
 
<p>The Egyptian taskmaster had previously murdered Hebrews.</p>
<mekorot><multilink><a href="PhiloMoses1-8" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloMoses1-8" data-aht="source">On the Life of Moshe 1:VIII</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink><fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="PirkeiDRE47" data-aht="source">Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer</a><a href="PirkeiDRE47" data-aht="source">47</a><a href="Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer" data-aht="parshan">About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer</a></multilink> 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").</fn></mekorot>
+
<mekorot><multilink><a href="PhiloMoses1-8" data-aht="source">Philo</a><a href="PhiloMoses1-8" data-aht="source">On the Life of Moses 1:VIII</a><a href="Philo" data-aht="parshan">About Philo</a></multilink><fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="PirkeiDRE47" data-aht="source">Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer</a><a href="PirkeiDRE47" data-aht="source">47</a><a href="Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer" data-aht="parshan">About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer</a></multilink> 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").</fn></mekorot>
 
<point><b>Backdrop</b> – Philo attempts to place the episode in a context in which Moshe's persistent efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Israelite slaves<fn>See Shemot Rabbah 1:27-28 for a similar account of Moshe's efforts.</fn> 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.</point>
 
<point><b>Backdrop</b> – Philo attempts to place the episode in a context in which Moshe's persistent efforts to alleviate the suffering of the Israelite slaves<fn>See Shemot Rabbah 1:27-28 for a similar account of Moshe's efforts.</fn> 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.</point>
 
<point><b>Worthy of praise</b> – Philo notes that it was a pious action to kill such a savage taskmaster.<fn>See note above regarding other sources which laud Moshe's conduct.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Worthy of praise</b> – Philo notes that it was a pious action to kill such a savage taskmaster.<fn>See note above regarding other sources which laud Moshe's conduct.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Taking the law into one's own hands</b> – 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.<fn>Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor Shemot 2:15 who disagrees.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Taking the law into one's own hands</b> – 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.<fn>Cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor Shemot 2:15 who disagrees.</fn></point>
 
</subopinion>
 
</subopinion>
<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.<br/>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> Lekach Tov and Chizkuni refer to the act as outright rape, and this matches the description in Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbeinu.</point>
 
<point><b>Meaning of "מַכֶּה"</b> – According to these sources "מַכֶּה" can mean simply beating and does not necessarily imply an intent to kill.</point>
 
<point><b>Meaning of "מַכֶּה"</b> – According to these sources "מַכֶּה" can mean simply beating and does not necessarily imply an intent to kill.</point>
 
<point><b>Taking the law into one's own hands</b> – Chizkuni appears to view Moshe as a judge responsible for enforcing the Noachide laws.<fn>Cf. Rashba cited below.</fn> Alternatively, these sources may hold like <multilink><a href="AvotDRN20" data-aht="source">Avot DeRabbi Natan</a><a href="AvotDRN20" data-aht="source">Version 1, Ch. 20</a><a href="Avot DeRabbi Natan" data-aht="parshan">About Avot DeRabbi Natan</a></multilink> that Moshe acted in due process by consulting with the heavenly courts.<fn>See <multilink><a href="ShemotRabbah1-28" data-aht="source">Shemot Rabbah</a><a href="ShemotRabbah1-28" data-aht="source">1:29</a><a href="Shemot Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Shemot Rabbah</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="MidrashTehillim24-7" data-aht="source">Midrash Tehillim</a><a href="MidrashTehillim24-7" data-aht="source">24:7</a><a href="Midrash Tehillim" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Tehillim</a></multilink> who also speak of Moshe consulting with angels.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Taking the law into one's own hands</b> – Chizkuni appears to view Moshe as a judge responsible for enforcing the Noachide laws.<fn>Cf. Rashba cited below.</fn> Alternatively, these sources may hold like <multilink><a href="AvotDRN20" data-aht="source">Avot DeRabbi Natan</a><a href="AvotDRN20" data-aht="source">Version 1, Ch. 20</a><a href="Avot DeRabbi Natan" data-aht="parshan">About Avot DeRabbi Natan</a></multilink> that Moshe acted in due process by consulting with the heavenly courts.<fn>See <multilink><a href="ShemotRabbah1-28" data-aht="source">Shemot Rabbah</a><a href="ShemotRabbah1-28" data-aht="source">1:29</a><a href="Shemot Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Shemot Rabbah</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="MidrashTehillim24-7" data-aht="source">Midrash Tehillim</a><a href="MidrashTehillim24-7" data-aht="source">24:7</a><a href="Midrash Tehillim" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Tehillim</a></multilink> who also speak of Moshe consulting with angels.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – <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> 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.<fn>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.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – <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> 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.<fn>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.</fn></point>
 
</subopinion>
 
</subopinion>
<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="Talmud 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" 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>
+
<mekorot>R. Chanina in <multilink><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> – <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>
<li>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.</li>
+
<li>Personal injury is included in the general Noachide prohibition of stealing – 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.</li>
<li>Striking a Jew is prohibited because he is the recipient of additional Divine commandments,<fn>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.</fn> and thus smiting him causes a desecration of God's name<fn>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.</fn> – 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.</li>
+
<li>Striking a Jew is prohibited because he is the recipient of additional Divine commandments,<fn>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.</fn> and thus smiting him causes a desecration of God's name<fn>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.</fn> – This is 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.</li>
</ul>
+
</ul></point>
</point>
 
 
<point><b>Heavenly or human implementation</b> – 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.
 
<point><b>Heavenly or human implementation</b> – 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.
<ul>
+
<ul>
<li><multilink><a href="RambamMelakhim10-6" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamMelakhim10-6" data-aht="source">Hilkhot Melakhim 10:6</a><a href="RambamChovel5-3" data-aht="source">Hilkhot Chovel UMazzik 5:3</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About Rambam</a></multilink><fn>Meiri Sanhedrin 58b follows in Rambam's footsteps.</fn> maintains that this is a Divinely executed punishment<fn>Rambam in a <multilink><a href="TeshuvotRambam149" data-aht="source">responsum</a><a href="TeshuvotRambam149" data-aht="source">Teshuvot HaRambam 149</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About Rambam</a></multilink> deduces a parallel ruling from the Talmud's use of the language "חייב מיתה" rather than "נהרג".</fn> and not one carried out by the judicial system,<fn>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 <multilink><a href="MalbimShemot2-12" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimShemot2-12" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:12</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About Malbim</a></multilink> 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.</fn></li>
+
<li><multilink><a href="RambamMelakhim10-6" data-aht="source">Rambam</a><a href="RambamMelakhim10-6" data-aht="source">Hilkhot Melakhim 10:6</a><a href="RambamChovel5-3" data-aht="source">Hilkhot Chovel UMazzik 5:3</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About Rambam</a></multilink><fn>Meiri Sanhedrin 58b follows in Rambam's footsteps.</fn> maintains that this is a Divinely executed punishment<fn>Rambam in a <multilink><a href="TeshuvotRambam149" data-aht="source">responsum</a><a href="TeshuvotRambam149" data-aht="source">Teshuvot HaRambam 149</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Maimon (Rambam, Maimonides)" data-aht="parshan">About Rambam</a></multilink> deduces a parallel ruling from the Talmud's use of the language "חייב מיתה" rather than "נהרג".</fn> and not one carried out by the judicial system,<fn>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 <multilink><a href="MalbimShemot2-12" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimShemot2-12" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:12</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About Malbim</a></multilink> explain that Moshe was acting as God's representative rather than in a judicial capacity. They support their contention from the various Midrashim which indicate 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.</fn></li>
<li>Rashba proves from the case of Moshe that the death penalty is in fact meted out by the courts.</li>
+
<li>Rashba proves from the case of Moshe that the death penalty is in fact meted out by the courts.</li>
</ul>
+
</ul></point>
</point>
+
<point><b>Taking the law into one's own hands</b> – The Rashba views Moshe as acting in the capacity of a judge,<fn>Cf. the Israelites reaction in Shemot 2:14: "מִי שָׂמְךָ לְאִישׁ שַׂר וְשֹׁפֵט עָלֵינוּ".</fn> while commentators on the Rambam view Moshe as an extension of the Divine court.<fn>See Parashat Derakhim, Malbim, and the additional sources cited in the note above.</fn></point>
<point><b>Taking the law into one's own hands</b> – The Rashba views Moshe as acting in the capacity of a judge,<fn>Cf. the Israelites reaction in Shemot 2:14 "מִי שָׂמְךָ לְאִישׁ שַׂר וְשֹׁפֵט עָלֵינוּ".</fn> while commentators on the Rambam view Moshe as an extension of the Divine court.<fn>See Parashat Derakhim and Malbim and additional sources cited in the note above.</fn></point>
 
 
<point><b>Meaning of "מַכֶּה"</b> – According to these sources "מַכֶּה" can mean simply beating and does not necessarily imply an intent to kill.</point>
 
<point><b>Meaning of "מַכֶּה"</b> – According to these sources "מַכֶּה" can mean simply beating and does not necessarily imply an intent to kill.</point>
 
</subopinion>
 
</subopinion>
 
</opinion>
 
</opinion>
<opinion name="">Law of the Jungle
+
<opinion>Law of the Jungle
<p>Moshe's action was due to the extraordinary circumstances and not based on a strict legal precedent.</p>
+
<p>Moshe's action was due to the extraordinary circumstances in Egypt and not based on a strict legal precedent.</p>
 
<mekorot><multilink><a href="BinahLaIttim25" data-aht="source">R. Azariah Figo</a><a href="BinahLaIttim25" data-aht="source">Binah LaIttim 25</a><a href="R. Azariah Figo" data-aht="parshan">About R. Azariah Figo</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="NetzivShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Netziv</a><a href="NetzivShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11</a><a href="R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv)" data-aht="parshan">About Netziv</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RDZHoffmannShemot2-12" data-aht="source">R. D"Z Hoffmann</a><a href="RDZHoffmannShemot2-12" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:12</a><a href="R. David Zvi Hoffmann" data-aht="parshan">About R. D"Z Hoffmann</a></multilink></mekorot>
 
<mekorot><multilink><a href="BinahLaIttim25" data-aht="source">R. Azariah Figo</a><a href="BinahLaIttim25" data-aht="source">Binah LaIttim 25</a><a href="R. Azariah Figo" data-aht="parshan">About R. Azariah Figo</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="NetzivShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Netziv</a><a href="NetzivShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11</a><a href="R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv)" data-aht="parshan">About Netziv</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RDZHoffmannShemot2-12" data-aht="source">R. D"Z Hoffmann</a><a href="RDZHoffmannShemot2-12" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:12</a><a href="R. David Zvi Hoffmann" data-aht="parshan">About R. D"Z Hoffmann</a></multilink></mekorot>
<point><b>Judicial or extra-judicial</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn> 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.</point>
+
<point><b>Judicial or extra-judicial</b> – While the Rashba and Sefer HaNitzachon cited 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.<fn>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.</fn> 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.</point>
<point><b>Meaning of "מַכֶּה"</b> – According to these sources "מַכֶּה" can mean simply beating and does not necessarily imply an intent to kill.</point>
+
<point><b>Meaning of "מַכֶּה"</b> – According to these sources "מַכֶּה" can mean simply beating and does not necessarily imply an intent to kill.<fn>See similarly <multilink><a href="RashbamShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Rashbam</a><a href="RashbamShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11</a><a href="R. Shemuel b. Meir (Rashbam)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel b. Meir</a></multilink>.&#160; Rashbam notes that the Hebrew man who was beating his compatriot draws his parallel between his own action (non-life threatening smiting) and that of the Egyptian taskmaster.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>"וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ"</b> – R. Azariah Figo and R. D"Z Hoffmann explain that Moshe looked around and saw that no other Israelite was coming to the rescue.<fn>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):
 
<point><b>"וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ"</b> – R. Azariah Figo and R. D"Z Hoffmann explain that Moshe looked around and saw that no other Israelite was coming to the rescue.<fn>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):
<p dir="rtl">"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."</p>
+
<p dir="rtl">"<b>ויאמר לרשע למה תכה רעך</b> – 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."</p>
<p>R. Figo adds that this behavior explains the need for such a lengthy exile in Egypt. Cf. Shemot Rabbah 1:30.</p></fn> 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.</point>
+
R. Figo adds that this behavior explains the need for such a lengthy exile in Egypt. Cf. Shemot Rabbah 1:30.</fn> 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.</point>
 
</opinion>
 
</opinion>
 
</category>
 
</category>
<category name="Unintentional">Unintentional
+
<category name="Unintentional">
 +
Unintentional
 
<p>Moshe's action was problematic, but it was considered to be unintentional (שוגג).</p>
 
<p>Moshe's action was problematic, but it was considered to be unintentional (שוגג).</p>
<mekorot><multilink><a href="DevarimRabbah2-29" data-aht="source">Devarim Rabbah</a><a href="DevarimRabbah2-29" data-aht="source">Vilna 2:29</a><a href="DevarimRabbahLiebermanVaetchanan" data-aht="source">Lieberman Vaetchanan (p.59)</a><a href="Devarim Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Devarim Rabbah</a></multilink>,<fn>See also <multilink><a href="TanchumaBuberVaetchanan4" data-aht="source">Tanchuma (Buber)</a><a href="TanchumaBuberVaetchanan4" data-aht="source">Vaetchanan Hosafah 4</a><a href="Tanchuma" data-aht="parshan">About Tanchuma (Buber)</a></multilink> and the Midrash found in Ginzei Schechter Vol. I p. 113.</fn>  
+
<mekorot><multilink><a href="DevarimRabbah2-29" data-aht="source">Devarim Rabbah</a><a href="DevarimRabbah2-29" data-aht="source">Vilna 2:29</a><a href="DevarimRabbahLiebermanVaetchanan" data-aht="source">Lieberman Vaetchanan (p.59)</a><a href="Devarim Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Devarim Rabbah</a></multilink>,<fn>See also <multilink><a href="TanchumaBuberVaetchanan4" data-aht="source">Tanchuma (Buber)</a><a href="TanchumaBuberVaetchanan4" data-aht="source">Vaetchanan Hosafah 4</a><a href="Tanchuma" data-aht="parshan">About Tanchuma (Buber)</a></multilink> and the Midrash found in Ginzei Schechter Vol. I p. 113.</fn> <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="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>
<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="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" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Luria (HaARI)</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>
Line 82: Line 81:
 
<point><b>Yitro's priestly estate as Moshe's city of refuge</b> – 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 <a href="Shemot4-19" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:19</a>). It is also possible that according to Egyptian law, Yitro's priestly estate was off limits even to Paroh's forces.<fn>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 <a href="Yitro – Religious Identity" data-aht="page">Yitro's Religious Identity</a>.</fn></point>
 
<point><b>Yitro's priestly estate as Moshe's city of refuge</b> – 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 <a href="Shemot4-19" data-aht="source">Shemot 4:19</a>). It is also possible that according to Egyptian law, Yitro's priestly estate was off limits even to Paroh's forces.<fn>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 <a href="Yitro – Religious Identity" data-aht="page">Yitro's Religious Identity</a>.</fn></point>
 
</category>
 
</category>
<category name="Blameworthy">Blameworthy
+
<category name="Blameworthy">
 +
Blameworthy
 
<p>Moshe's action was both intentional and wrong, and he may have been punished as a result.</p>
 
<p>Moshe's action was both intentional and wrong, and he may have been punished as a result.</p>
 
<mekorot><multilink><a href="MidrashPetiratMoshe" data-aht="source">Midrash Petirat Moshe</a><a href="MidrashPetiratMoshe" data-aht="source">Otzar HaMidrashim (Eisenstein p.363)</a><a href="Midrash Petirat Moshe" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Petirat Moshe</a></multilink>,<fn>See also the similar Midrash cited in the <a href="EshkolHaKofer83" data-aht="source">Eshkol HaKofer of R. Yehuda Hadasi the Karaite</a>.</fn> possibly <multilink><a href="RYBSShemot2-11" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYBSShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11,14,15</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>,<fn>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.</fn> <multilink><a href="TziyoniShemot2-11" data-aht="source">R. Menachem Tziyoni</a><a href="TziyoniShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11</a><a href="R. Menachem Tziyoni" data-aht="parshan">About R. Menachem Tziyoni</a></multilink></mekorot>
 
<mekorot><multilink><a href="MidrashPetiratMoshe" data-aht="source">Midrash Petirat Moshe</a><a href="MidrashPetiratMoshe" data-aht="source">Otzar HaMidrashim (Eisenstein p.363)</a><a href="Midrash Petirat Moshe" data-aht="parshan">About Midrash Petirat Moshe</a></multilink>,<fn>See also the similar Midrash cited in the <a href="EshkolHaKofer83" data-aht="source">Eshkol HaKofer of R. Yehuda Hadasi the Karaite</a>.</fn> possibly <multilink><a href="RYBSShemot2-11" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYBSShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11,14,15</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>,<fn>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.</fn> <multilink><a href="TziyoniShemot2-11" data-aht="source">R. Menachem Tziyoni</a><a href="TziyoniShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11</a><a href="R. Menachem Tziyoni" data-aht="parshan">About R. Menachem Tziyoni</a></multilink></mekorot>
<point><b>Moshe punished</b> – 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 Moshe<fn>And in the similar account preserved in the Karaite work Eshkol HaKofer.</fn> 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.<fn>See also <a href="$">Can Prophets Sin</a>.</fn></point>
+
<point><b>Moshe punished</b> – While the Torah does not state that Moshe was punished or even rebuked for taking the life of the Egyptian, the picturesque account of Moshe's dialogue with Hashem before his death found in Midrash Petirat Moshe<fn>Cf. the similar account preserved in the Karaite work Eshkol HaKofer.</fn> places such an argument in God's mouth and implies that this was the reason Moshe needed to die. Alternatively, Moshe's exile to Midyan may have served as a punishment for Moshe's action.<fn>See also <a href="$">Can Prophets Sin</a>.</fn></point>
<point><b>What was Moshe's sin?</b> 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).</point>
+
<point><b>What was Moshe's sin?</b> 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).</point>
 
<point><b>Moshe's age</b> – 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 <a href="SHE$">Chronology of Shemot 2-4</a> for the wide range of possibilities.</point>
 
<point><b>Moshe's age</b> – 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 <a href="SHE$">Chronology of Shemot 2-4</a> for the wide range of possibilities.</point>
<point><b>Emotions overcame him</b> – 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.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="RambanShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About Ramban</a></multilink>.</fn> For additional cases where Moshe displays anger, see <a href="Moshe" data-aht="page">Moshe's Character</a>.<fn>See also the fascinating legend cited in the Tiferet Yisrael Kiddushin 4:77, and see <a href="http://leimanlibrary.com/texts_of_publications/50.%20Rabbi%20Israel%20Lipschutz%20The%20Portrait%20of%20Moses.pdf">Prof. S. Leiman</a>, "Rabbi Israel Lipschutz: The Portrait of Moses," Tradition 24 (1989):91-98.</fn></point>
+
<point><b>Emotions overcame him</b> – 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.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="RambanShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanShemot2-11" data-aht="source">Shemot 2:11</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About Ramban</a></multilink>.</fn> For additional cases where Moshe displays anger, see <a href="Moshe" data-aht="page">Moshe's Character</a>.<fn>See also the fascinating legend cited in the Tiferet Yisrael Kiddushin 4:77, and see <a href="http://leimanlibrary.com/texts_of_publications/50.%20Rabbi%20Israel%20Lipschutz%20The%20Portrait%20of%20Moses.pdf">Prof. S. Leiman</a>, "Rabbi Israel Lipschutz: The Portrait of Moses", Tradition 24 (1989): 91-98.</fn></point>
 
</category>
 
</category>
 
</approaches>
 
</approaches>
<!--
 
<point><b></b> –
 
<ul>
 
<li></li>
 
<li></li>
 
<li></li>
 
</ul>
 
</point>
 
-->
 
 
</page>
 
</page>
 
</aht-xml>
 
</aht-xml>

Latest revision as of 03:35, 24 December 2019

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 was not murder but rather 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.

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.

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.

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.
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.22 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.23
Polemical motivationsSefer 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.24
Striking an Israelite

The Egyptian deserved death simply for beating the Hebrew.

Nature of the prohibition and the scope of its applicationRanSanhedrin 58bAbout R. Nissim Gerondi discusses two possible understandings of the Bavli's ruling:
  • Personal injury is included in the general Noachide prohibition of stealing – 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,25 and thus smiting him causes a desecration of God's name26 – This is 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.
Taking the law into one's own hands – The Rashba views Moshe as acting in the capacity of a judge,30 while commentators on the Rambam view Moshe as an extension of the Divine court.31
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 in Egypt and not based on a strict legal precedent.

Judicial or extra-judicial – While the Rashba and Sefer HaNitzachon cited 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.32 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.33
"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).

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.

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