Many people have noted that the same verb, va-yak, strike is used both with regard to the Egyptian hitting the Jew and when Moshe hit the Egyptian, and this suggests that Moshe and the Egyptian were performing the same action. Was the Egyptian attempting to kill the Jew? Who was the Egyptian? Rashi (on 2:11) writes that this was an Egyptian taskmaster, but Propp (1998, p. 166) notes that the Torah just calls the person an Egyptian, which could mean that a regular Egyptian was beating a Jew. If the Egyptian was a taskmaster, then it is likely that the Egyptian was hitting the Jew to get him to work, and then he did not intend for the Jew to die because then the Jew would no longer be able to work as a slave. Even if the Egyptian was not a taskmaster, it is still unlikely that he intended to kill the Jewish person since there is no record that the Egyptians killed the adult Jews. In addition, the same word, va-yak, is also used in 2:13, where again the circumstance implies a fight but not an intent to kill. Thus, most likely just as the Egyptian was not intending to kill when he hit the Jew, Moshe also did not intend to kill when he struck the Egyptian.
A proof for this idea that Moshe did not intend to kill the Egyptian was that it was not in Moshe's interest to kill him. Moshe was concerned that nobody was looking when he hit the Egyptian, yet if he had killed him, then he should have been more worried that somebody would see since it takes quite some time to bury a body. (Presumably, Moshe did not want to leave the body not buried since then the Egyptians would have blamed his death on the Jews.) In fact, this is most likely the reason why his action was found out, as when Moshe was burying the Egyptian, other people saw him. On the other hand if he just meant to strike the Egyptian to stop him from hitting the Jewish person, then a brief glance to make sure that nobody was looking at that particular time was sufficient. Furthermore, the Egyptian would not have reported Moshe since Moshe was an Egyptian prince, and it would have been his word against Moshe's. With this understanding, Moshe looked around to make sure that there would be no witnesses to corroborate the Egyptian's accusation if he did in fact report Moshe.
Thus, Moshe just meant to strike the Egyptian and not to kill him, and it was an accident that the blow caused the Egyptian to die. Maybe the blow caused the Egyptian to fall, and he died when he fell on a rock or some sharp edge.
If Moshe did not intend to kill the Egyptian, then his flight to Midyan would be an example of the law of an accidental killer that such killers have to go live in a city of refuge, Bemidbar 35:9-34. Thus, from 2:22 we see that Moshe considered his stay in Midyan as a form of exile. (Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:26-27 asks why did Moshe institute the cities of refuge? R. Levi answers, "He who has eaten of the dish knows its taste." I thank Ari Zivotofsky for this source.) My son, Binyamin, pointed out that then Pharaoh's desire to punish Moshe was G-d's way of getting Moshe to the city of refuge in order that Moshe would gain atonement or serve his sentence for his actions.
This understanding can also explain the connection between Pharaoh's death and Moshe's ability to return to Egypt. 2:23-25 record that Pharaoh died, and that G-d heard the cries of the people. Afterwards, chapter three records that G-d appointed Moshe to be His messenger to take the Jewish people out of Egypt. What is the connection between these events? Is it that Pharaoh's death caused the people to cry out? Or, is it that Pharaoh's death is what enabled G-d to appoint Moshe to be the leader of the people, but was unrelated to the cries of the people?
Rashbam (on 2:23, also see Bekhor Shor's and Ibn Ezra's long commentary on 2:23) suggests that Pharaoh's death enabled Moshe to return to Egypt. He explain that Pharaoh wanted to punish Moshe for killing the Egyptian, but now that Pharaoh died, Moshe could return to Egypt without being apprehended. Thus, 4:19 records that G-d told Moshe that the people who had been seeking to punish Moshe had died, and this is referring to Pharaoh.
Rashbam's approach that Pharaoh's death allowed Moshe to return to Egypt is reasonable, yet, I doubt that Pharaoh's death acquitted Moshe from killing the Egyptian. 4:19 records that the people (plural) who were seeking Moshe died, and thus there was more than one person who wanted to apprehend Moshe. If it was Pharaoh's death that acquitted Moshe, then 4:19 should have referred to him and not some unnamed people. In addition, if Moshe was wanted for murder, then the judicial system should have continued even if Pharaoh died. Finally, according to the Rashbam's understanding of 2:23, 4:19 repeats the information that Pharaoh is dead, and hence 4:19 is repeating 2:23. I prefer Hizkuni's (end of comments on 4:19) explanation that 4:19 refers to the relatives of the person Moshe killed that when they died then the criminal proceedings against Moshe ended.
The idea that Moshe killed the Egyptian accidentally suggests a different understanding to the connection between Pharaoh's death in 2:23, and Moshe's return to Egypt. The law by the city of refuge is that the accidental killer goes free when the High Priest dies, and my understanding (see our discussion on Bemidbar 35:28, "Something unpredictable") is that this condition is to make the stay in the city of refuge unpredictable similar to the accidental killing. Really, any event could be a signal for the freedom of the accidental killer as long as the occurrence of the event was unpredictable. Accordingly, with regard to Moshe, Pharaoh's death was the unpredictable act that allowed him to leave Midyan, his city of refuge, and then G-d could heed the cries of the people to free them.
Propp, William, 1998, Exodus 1-18 A new translation with introduction and commentary, The Anchor Bible, New York: Doubleday.
No comments:
Post a Comment