Kommentar zu Schemot 2:12

ויפן כה וכה AND HE TURNED THIS WAY AND THAT WAY — he saw what he had done to him in the house and what he had done to him in the field (outside the house. viz., the beating to which he had subjected him) (Exodus Rabbah 1.28). But according to the literal meaning it must be explained in its ordinary sense: he turned this way and that way.

He turned this way and that. Moshe thought that one of his Hebrew brothers in the area would rise up against the Egyptian and save his fellow Jew.

No man was there . . . that would convert. [Rashi offers this Midrashic interpretation] because the verse says “he saw that no איש (man) was there,” rather than “no אדם (person) was there.” Whereas according to the verse’s plain meaning that Moshe was afraid of being seen, there is no difference whether it was a man or a woman. Therefore Rashi explains, “No man. . . that would convert,” since איש implies a tzaddik. Similarly Rashi explains in Parshas Shelach (Bamidbar 13:3) and in Parshas Devarim (Devarim 1:13) that איש implies a tzaddik but it does not exclude women (Maharamash). You might ask that in Parshas Emor (Vayikra 24:10), Rashi says that בתוך בני ישראל (among the B’nei Yisrael) means that the son whom the Egyptian begat from Shlomis had converted. [Thus, he did have a righteous descendant.] The answer is that when Moshe killed the Egyptian, Shlomis had already conceived him. However, Moshe saw that no additional converts were destined to descend from him.

Questions:
Why did it ennumerate all these deeds when there was no need? And why was it specific that "he went out to his kin... [he saw an Egyptian] striking... one of his kin..." (Shemot 2:11)? Why did he get involved in a dispute of the shepherds when they had a clear fix, i.e., not to water their flocks until all the herds were gathered, like the shepherds of Charan?

V. 12. ויפן כה וכה, er sah sich erst nach allen Seiten um, ob er auch allein sei, und die Tat wagen konnte. Dass er sie nicht gewagt hatte, wenn Zeugen da gewesen wären, dafür bürgt das אכן נודע הדבר im vierzehnten Vers. Von entschiedenster Wichtigkeit ist dieser Zug im Charakter Mosches. Er hat ein tiefes Pflichtgefühl, das ihn dem unschuldig Misshandelten beispringen lässt. Er rechtfertigt den Namen, den ihm seine Adoptivmutter gegeben. Aber er ist fern von jener tollkühnen Hitze, die sich unüberlegt in Gefahr stürzt, fern somit vor allem von jener hinreißenden Kühnheit, die dazu gehört, sich an die Spitze Hunderttausender zu stellen und sie zu dem Wagnis mit sich fortzureißen, die Fesseln zu brechen und mit dem Schwerte in der Hand sich von dem Tyrannen und seiner Macht die Freiheit zu erkämpfen. Dem Manne, der sich erst "nach allen Seiten hin umsieht, ob auch kein Zeuge da ist", dem ist es auch nicht im Traume eingefallen, Retter und Führer seines Volkes zu werden. Ihm fehlte "aus sich" die erste Faser zu einem solchen geschichtlichen "Heros".

וין את המצרי, “he struck the Egyptian (dead).” He found that he had committed a capital offence according to the seven laws that all of mankind must obey. His offence was that he had raped someone else’s wife, and the Torah had forbidden this when writing in Genesis 2,24: ודבק באשתו, “he is to cleave to his wife,” and not to the wife of another man. (According to Tossaphot, Kidushin 21.) There was no need to warn that Egyptian beforehand in order to make him culpable for the death penalty as we derive from Genesis 20,3: “you are going to die on account of the woman (Sarah whom you have taken captive)”, and Avimelech had not first received warning.

וירא כי אין איש AND HE SAW THAT THERE WAS NO MAN destined to issue from him, who would become an adherent of Israel’s religion (Exodus Rabbah 1:29; cf. Targum Jonathan on Exodus 2:12) .

And saw that there was no man. He saw that there was no man of courage; not one of them took his brother’s travail to heart to try and save him.

And he turned (Shemot 2:12), tells us that he was driven on by a Divine spirit (c.f. Yeshayahu 59:19) to break the arm of the wicked one and to release those destined for death. And so that you shouldn't say that he did this without consulting his reason, only from sudden anger, which is not praiseworthy - regarding this I say, that he "turned this way and that to see if there was anyone around" (Shemot 2:12) - for he did it premeditatedly and with consulting his reason. For he knew it was a dangerous thing to do if anyone knew, and so he killed him - to save the life of his kinsman. And the opinion of our sages of blessed memory in Sanhedrin 58b is that the Mitzri was liable for the death penalty, as an Egyptian who strikes a Jew is liable for the death penalty. And the Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 10:6 is of the opinion that [the Mitzri] is only liable at the hands of heaven. And regarding this the Midrash says that he consulted with the heavenly entourage. "And he saw that there was no man around" (Shemot 2:12) - but angels he saw, and he consulted with them. And by means of allusion, that he saw himself - that he himself was no man, only joined to the angels. And he struck him with the spiritual power that was within him, and regarding this our sages of blessed memory said that he struck him with the Explicit Name. (Shemot Rabbah 1:30)

ויטמנהו בחול, “he buried him in the sand.” Apparently there was sand at hand which was meant to be used in construction of houses.