Kommentar zu Schemot 2:30

ויקח את בת לוי AND HE HAD TAKEN TO WIFE A DAUGHTER OF LEVI — He had lived apart from her in consequence of Pharaoh’s decree that the children should, on their birth, be drowned. Now he took her back and entered into a second marriage with her, and she also physically became young again. For really she was then 130 years old — for she was born “between the walls” when they were about to enter Egypt (cf. Rashi on Genesis 46:15) and they (the Israelites) remained there 210 years, and when they left Egypt Moses was 80 years old; consequently when she became pregnant with him she was 130 years old — and yet Scripture calls her בת לוי a young daughter of Levi (Sota 12a; Bava Batra 119b).

AND THERE WENT A MAN OF THE HOUSE OF LEVI. Our Rabbis have said⁵¹Sotah 12a. that he went after the advice of his daughter.⁵²Amram and Jochebed, Moses’ parents, had been married previously. The children of that union were Miriam and Aaron. “When Pharaoh decreed that the male children of the Hebrews be killed, Amram separated from his wife, and his example was followed by all of the Israelites. Miriam then told her father that his decree is worse than that of the king. ‘Pharaoh decreed only against the male children, while you include the girls as well. It is doubtful if the decree of wicked Pharaoh will persist, while you are a righteous man and your enactment will surely be upheld by G-d.’ Upon recognizing the justice of her plea, Amram remarried his wife, and the men who had previously followed his example also remarried” (Sotah 12 b). It is this episode which the verse suggests by saying, And there went a man, i.e., “went” after the advice of his daughter and remarried his divorced wife. See also further on in the text for a reference to a prophecy Miriam made at that time. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the Israelites dwelled in many cities, and this woman Jochebed lived in another city. [This would explain the term “went” in the above verse, i.e., he went to another city for his wife.] But what need is there for Scripture to mention this?
In my opinion Scripture uses the term “went” because this man paid no heed to Pharaoh’s decree and took to himself a woman to beget children. Such is Scripture’s way of speaking of anyone who prompts himself to do something new. Thus: And Reuben went and lay with Bilhah;⁵³Genesis 35:22. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim;⁵⁴Hosea 1:3. Since she was a harlot, it required self-prompting on his part to perform the novel act of marrying her. Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites;⁵⁵Genesis 37:27. Come, and let us smite him with the tongue;⁵⁶Jeremiah 18:18. Come now, and let us reason together.⁵⁷Isaiah 1:18. Similarly this man Amram alerted himself and married a daughter of Levi.
The reason Scripture does not mention the name of the man nor the name of the woman he married is to avoid tracing their genealogy and mentioning who their fathers and their fathers’ fathers were up to Levi. At this point, Scripture desires to shorten the subject until the birth of the redeemer takes place, and after that, in the second seder,⁵⁸I.e., in Seder Va’eira. (A seder is the weekly portion of the Torah read in the synagogue at the Sabbath morning services.) Specifically, Moses’ genealogy is found in Seder Va’eira, Chapter 6, Verses 16-20. He traced the genealogy even of other tribes⁵⁹Reuben and Simeon. (Ibid., Verses 14-15). on account of Moses.
In line with the simple meaning of Scripture, i.e., that this was a first marriage [and not a remarriage as stated above], there is no significance in its being mentioned earlier or later in the chapter. This marriage took place before Pharaoh’s decree [that all male Hebrew children be killed], and she gave birth to Miriam and Aaron. After that, Pharaoh decreed, Every son that is born, ye shall cast into the river,⁶⁰Above, 1:22. and then she gave birth to this goodly son Moses. Scripture did not mention the birth of Miriam and Aaron inasmuch as there was nothing new about them. However, in the opinion of our Rabbis,⁵¹Sotah 12a. this was a remarriage, since Amram separated from his wife in consequence of Pharaoh’s decree and then took her back on account of his daughter’s prophecy.⁶¹Miriam prophesied, “My mother is destined to bear a son who will deliver Israel” (Sotah 13 a). He made her a wedding and placed her in the litter, while Miriam and Aaron danced about them in their joy⁶²So clearly stated in Sotah 12a. because through this marriage, Israel would be redeemed [from Egypt]. Even though Aaron was young⁶³He could have been no more than two years old since he was but three years older than Moses, and Moses was born after the second marriage. [at that time], G-d put gladness in his heart for this occasion, or possibly his sister Miriam taught him.

וילך איש מבית לוי, a reference to Amram.

A man went. This appears twice in Scripture, here, and the second time (Ruth 1:1): “Now it came to pass in the days when the judges judged, that there was a famine in the land, and a man went from Bethlehem of Judah to sojourn in the fields of Moav.” As a result of “a man went,” the first redeemer (Moshe) was born, and by means of the latter “a man went,” the last redeemer, who is the Mashiach, the son of David, will come.

And a man from the house of Levi went - as it was stated that the man was from Levi and he took a woman from Levi, and it is clear that she was older than him by many years, and it is not common that a man marries a woman older than him. And this happened just because they were both from the house of Levi, and they behaved with piety, they saw secrets that were hidden from the eyes of that generation, and that is why he took her. That is why it is written "he went", it was a surprising thing, and it was done outside the normal human behavior.

וילך איש מבית לוי, “A distinguished man from the house of Levi went, etc.” our sages comment that this means that Amram followed the advice of his daughter. (He had divorced his wife so as not to condemn any new born children to death. Thereupon his daughter accused him of being worse than Pharaoh who only murdered the male babies. Thereupon, Amram reconsidered and remarried his wife). Ibn Ezra comments that the Israelites at that time lived in many different cities of Egypt, and that the wife Amram married lived in another city, so that he had to go there to ask her to marry him. Nachmanides writes that the reason why the Torah tells us of the apparently trivial fact that Amram went to get a wife, is only to show us that Amram publicly demonstrated that he was unconcerned about Pharaoh’s decree, and that he married precisely in order to sire children. The word וילך is used by the Torah again and again when it introduces any act performed by someone which demonstrates special initiative by that person. Examples are found in Genesis 30,14 and 35,22 where the Torah describes initiative displayed by Reuven. Similar use of the word וילך occurs in Genesis 22,13, Samuel II 21,12, Kings II 5,5, and Hoseah The Torah did not bother to mention Amram’s name at this point, nor that of Yocheved, as the important thing was only to report whose offspring they were. The Torah was anxious at this stage to reveal the birth of the Israelites’ saviour.

Married her a second time. [The proof:] immediately after this marriage, Yocheved conceived and gave birth to Moshe. Yet, Aharon and Miriam were older than Moshe. Therefore, they were born from the first marriage of Amram and Yocheved’s first marriage.

Kap. 2. V. 1. Es wird uns der Name nicht genannt, bloß vorgeführt: "ein Mann aus dem Hause Lewi", ebenso die Frau. Denn wir kennen bereits die Bedeutung des "Hauses Lewi". Wir haben aus des sterbenden Vaters Mund den Tadel kennen gelernt, aber auch gesehen, welche tiefe sittliche Bedeutung in dem Tadel lag. Der Levitengeist, der in Zuständen des Druckes der rettende werden sollte — אחלקם ביעקב — war ja gerade für Zustände, wie sie eben damals herrschten, der berufene. Waren ja nach der Überlieferung die Hebammen selbst aus dem Hause Lewi. In solcher Zeit gehörte Mut dazu, Vater und Mutter zu werden. Es heißt daher nicht: ויהי איש מבית לוי ויקח וגו׳, sondern וילך וגו׳, in diesem וילך liegt der ganze große Entschluss, der dazu gehörte. Es heißt ferner nicht: ויקה בת לוי, sondern: את בת לוי, also: eine bereits vorausbestimmte. Wir wissen ohnehin aus dem Verfolg, dass, als dieses vorging, das Ehepaar schon verheiratet gewesen, es war schon eine Schwester da, und die Schwester hatte bereits einen Bruder. Alles dies sagt uns, was die Weisen sagen, dass dies nicht die erste Heirat gewesen, sondern dass ein Mann, der sich bereits in Folge des königlichen Blutbefehles von seinem Weibe getrennt hatte, es unternahm, es wieder zu nehmen, um dem Blutbefehl entgegenzutreten.

וילך איש, Rabbi Yehudah son of Bizna in the Talmud Sotah folio 12, is quoted as saying: “why does this verse commence with the word: וילך, “he went?” [The word seems superfluous. Ed.] Answer: “he took the advice of his daughter.” We had been taught that when Amram, eventually Moses’ father, heard of the decree that all male babies had to be drowned, he divorced his wife so that he would not produce a child that would be drowned. When his daughter Miriam heard of his reasoning, she accused him of being worse than Pharaoh who only wanted to kill male Jews, whereas he would prevent the birth of any Jews if the people were to follow his example. Not only that, she said, but Pharaoh deprived the Jews only of life in this world, on earth, whereas her father’s policy would also deprive them of their share in the world to come. Amram saw the logic of his daughter and went and re married Yocheved, the wife he had just divorced. Nonetheless, according to the plain meaning of the text, what is reported here as Amram getting married to Yocheved and siring Miriam and Aaron, took place prior to the decree of Pharaoh to drown Jewish boy babies; however seeing that the Torah was interested in reporting to us what transpired later, it commenced with telling us about when Amram got married first and to whom, i.e. a daughter of Levi, many years his senior.

ויקח את יוכבד בת לוי, She had been born for Levi in Egypt (Numbers 26,59). He married her many years before Moses was born, for Aaron was 83 years old when he appeared before Pharaoh with Moses who was 80 years old at the time.

ויקח את בת לוי, “he married Levi’s daughter.” According to our sages this was a second marriage for both, but to the same spouses. According to the plain text we speak about the first marriage of this couple. However, seeing that the Torah has never felt constricted to report events in their historical sequence, we are in order to understand this wedding as having occurred prior to Pharaoh’s decrees. During those years Yocheved bore Moses and Miriam for Amram. Their births were not reported as this was nothing out of the ordinary. Rashi claims that Yocheved had miraculously regained her youth at the time, basing himself on the fact that the Torah did not write that Amram married “Yocheved, a daughter of Levi.” [which would not necessarily have meant that Yocheved was a real daughter, but a descendant, Ed.] Instead, the Torah wrote that he married a daughter of Levi, which means that the woman in question was 130 years old at least when she gave birth to Moses.

She, too, became youthful again. Since Yocheved is described as בת לוי (lit. “girl of Levi”), this implies she was youthful.

And the Children of Israel sighed from their labor and they cried out. And their groaning rose up to God from their labor. At this moment, the salvation began. Once they started to cry out, then immediately "their groaning rose up" - meaning that it catalyzed the salvation. For until this moment they had no awakening to scream and pray. And because the Holy Blessed One desired to redeem them, [therefore] the scream was awakened within them. And this is the beginning of redemption, when a person is roused to scream to God. Similar to what King David, peace be upon him, said (Psalm 66:20), "blessed is God for not taking away God's prayer and kindness from me." Meaning that if there is prayer within him, then God will shine kindness upon him. For before God desire to bring salvation a person does not even acknowledge their own lack, and they are not at all aware what they are lacking. But when God desire to redeem them, God shows a person their lack, and the person therefore becomes aware that all of the outgrowths of their lacking derive from this primary root. And God sends the person the strength to pray and scream to God, and they begin to make a lot of noise about this to God - and then God shines kindness upon them.

כי טוב הוא THAT HE WAS GOODLY — When he was born the whole house became filled with light (Sotah 12a).

AND WHEN SHE SAW HIM THAT HE WAS GOODLY SHE HID HIM. It is a known fact that all mothers love their children, goodly or ungoodly, and all of them would hide them [from harm] with all their might. There is thus no need for Scripture to explain that he was goodly. But the meaning of this goodliness is that she saw in him some unique quality which, in her opinion, foreshadowed that a miracle would happen to him and he would be saved. Therefore she applied herself and thought of ways to save him. When she saw that she could hide him no longer, she thought of saving him by another device. She made him an ark of bulrushes [and put him among the reeds at the side of the river], and his sister placed herself at a distance⁶⁴Verse 4. — so that the Egyptians would not recognize her — to know what would be done to him.⁶⁴Verse 4. All this is support for the words of our Rabbis who expounded,⁵¹Sotah 12a. “That he was goodly, namely, that the whole house became filled with light,” and for what the Rabbis have said,⁶¹Miriam prophesied, “My mother is destined to bear a son who will deliver Israel” (Sotah 13 a). i.e., that Miriam prophesied, “Mother is destined to bear a son who will deliver Israel.”

ותהר האשה, during the period that Pharaoh’s decree that every male baby had to be thrown into the Nile to be drowned.

And she saw that he was good. That the house was filled with light, as it says "And God saw the light, that it was good" (Bereishit 1:4). And for this reason she hid him, because she was scared that the Mitzrim would see this light, and through the light see the boy also. For this reason she hid him more than all the other boys [were hidden]. And further, [she worried] that they would sense through the excess of light that this [boy] was the redeemer who would bring "from darkness to light, and from subjugation to redemption" (Siddur Ashkenaz, petitionary prayer before returning the Torah to the Ark on a weekday). And perhaps she thought that the light was created with him in order for her to learn from it to conceal him, just like the Original Light which was stored away for the righteous in the future to come (see Rashi on Bereishit 1:14).

כי טוב הוא, The word טוב may be understood as meaning the same as “handsome, beautiful,” the same meaning as in Genesis 6,2 כי טובות הנה, “that they were beautiful.” The word describes something unusually handsome, beautiful. Yocheved thought that this was an omen, a sign from the Creator, telling her that a beautiful exterior encloses an equally beautiful personality.

So she hid him. What precisely was the "goodness" that Yocheved observed when Moses was born? Our sages (Sotah 12) say that Moses was born without a foreskin and that the house was filled with light when he was born. Surely this is homiletics. Besides, what does Yocheved's hiding Moses have to do with her observing that he was "good?" Assuming Moses had not been "good," would she not have had motherly feelings of pity for his future?
We can determine the meaning of the verse from the comment of our sages in Sotah 12 that the Egyptians calculated the length of her pregnancy from the day Yocheved remarried Amram. She gave birth to Moses six months and a day after he was conceived. Normally, babies born after only six months of pregnancy do not have much of a chance to survive, whereas babies born after seven months have an excellent chance to develop normally. The average mother is unable to determine to the day how long her pregnancy has been in progress. When she gives birth to a baby after six months pregnancy the baby is considered as aborted. The Torah told us that when Yocheved looked at the fetus she realised that contrary to her expectations he was healthy and well. This was the "good" that she saw. This is also why she took extraordinary care to nurse this child through the difficult period until it would be out of danger. She endangered herself by hiding Moses seeing that the Egyptians used to carry out house to house searches for Jewish babies. Our sages base their exegesis on the Torah choosing the word טוב rather than any other word describing Moses' state of health. They concluded that he must have been born without a foreskin. According to our tradition Adam was created without a foreskin. As a result of his sin his glans became covered with additional tissue, something that required removal if man wanted to regain a status the Torah describes as "perfect" when G'd instructed Abraham to circumcise himself.

ותרא אותו כי טוב הוא, “she realized that he was ‘good.’” Rashi says that although this baby was born several months prematurely, after a pregnancy of 6 months and a day, all his limbs were perfectly formed already at birth. Hence she saw that he was “good.” Some commentators hold that the word טוב here means something similar to Jeremiah 44,17 ונשבע לחם ונהיה טובים, “when we will at our fill of bread we will be טובים, “good.” [in good shape. Ed.]

When he was born the entire house was filled with light. Here it says כי טוב (he was good), and earlier (Bereishis 1:4) it says וירא אלהים את האור כי טוב (And Elokim saw the light, that it was good). Just as כי טוב earlier refers to light, so too here it refers to light.

V. 2. טוב, man nimmt dies gewöhnlich für "schön". Allein nichts unnatürlicher als dies. Es gibt keine Mutter, die ihr Kind nicht schön fände; und wenn es minder schön gewesen wäre, da hätte eine Mutter nicht das Mögliche getan, um es dem sicheren Tode zu entreißen?! Vielmehr heißt טוב: gut. Sie sah, dass es gut war, ein Kind, das nicht schrie, wenn es kein Bedürfnis hatte, das man nur zu befriedigen bräuchte, um es still zu halten, das konnte sie verbergen. Sie hatte nur als sorgsame Mutter dafür zu sorgen, dass es satt und verpflegt war, dann schrie es nicht. —

ותרא אותו כי טוב, although he had been born prematurely after a pregnancy of only six months, the infant looked as if fully developed. Even his fingernails had developed completely. Having taken note of this, his mother decided to risk hiding him, i.e. to endanger her own life in addition to that of her infant. A different interpretation of our verse, The words: כי טוב , refer to Moses’ appearance being that of a beautiful baby. Compare the use of this word in the same sense in Jeremiah 44,17: ונשבע לחם ונהיה טובים, “for then we had plenty to eat and we looked well.”

ותרא אותו כי טוב, “and when she saw (realised) that he was good (healthy) etc.” seeing that Moses was born to his mother after a pregnancy that had lasted only six months, she noted when examining the baby in detail, that all of Moses’ fingernails and toe nails were fully developed just like those of a baby after a nine month pregnancy, she realised that he was healthy and would survive the critical months ahead of him. She had no problem hiding him for three months as she had not been due to give birth during that period. When she was asked about the baby she had born by her neighbours, she would say that she had already complied with the kings’ decree and had thrown him into the Nile. A different interpretation views the word טוב as a hint that Moses had been born without a foreskin. The custom of reciting the line: הודו לה' כי טוב, “praise the Lord for He is good,” is recited during the circumcision ceremony, as a reminder that Moses did not need to be circumcised.

ותלד בן. ותרא אותו כי טוב הוא ותצפנהו, anyone who translates this as “she (only) hid him because he was good, is lying.” Mothers display mercy for all their children. If this is so, we need to explain the reason why the Torah added the words כי טוב הוא. At the end of the story of creation in Genesis 1,31 the Torah wrote וירא אלוקים את כל אשר עשה והנה טוב מאד. G’d, at the end of six days of creation surveyed all He had done to find out if any of it needed improving. He was pleased to find that all had turned out as He had wished it to be.”

And the number of "three months" is an allusion to the light of the Torah, which was stored away until the third month, which is Sivan. This is as we learn from the verse "They lay up sound wisdom for the upright" (Mishlei 2:7) - therefore, she could not hide him further. And see further in the verse of "your sandals from on your feet" (Shemot 3:5), that Moshe was totally lacking in materialism, and he would illuminate from both his parts [i.e. body and soul], and his human body was full of light. And this miracle proves his quality for the future. And it seems that regarding the reality of this light that was born with him, it's written "and she opened it, and saw it; the child" (Shemot 2:6). What is "and she saw it; the child"? Our rabbis of blessed memory said, "she saw God's Presence with him". And God's Presence, who mentioned its name? Rather "and saw it" refers to her finding of the light which is mentioned obliquely in the saying "for he is good" (Shemot 2:2). And this light she saw with the child, because [the particle] את et is used in the place of עם im. And because of this he seemed like an older youth, because they were connected together, the boy and the light. Because of this, it's said "and she saw it", wishing to say: the light to the boy, the light with the boy.

We can determine the meaning of the verse from the comment of our sages in Sotah 12 that the Egyptians calculated the length of her pregnancy from the day Yocheved remarried Amram. She gave birth to Moses six months and a day after he was conceived. Normally, babies born after only six months of pregnancy do not have much of a chance to survive, whereas babies born after seven months have an excellent chance to develop normally. The average mother is unable to determine to the day how long her pregnancy has been in progress. When she gives birth to a baby after six months pregnancy the baby is considered as aborted. The Torah told us that when Yocheved looked at the fetus she realised that contrary to her expectations he was healthy and well. This was the "good" that she saw. This is also why she took extraordinary care to nurse this child through the difficult period until it would be out of danger. She endangered herself by hiding Moses seeing that the Egyptians used to carry out house to house searches for Jewish babies. Our sages base their exegesis on the Torah choosing the word טוב rather than any other word describing Moses' state of health. They concluded that he must have been born without a foreskin. According to our tradition Adam was created without a foreskin. As a result of his sin his glans became covered with additional tissue, something that required removal if man wanted to regain a status the Torah describes as "perfect" when G'd instructed Abraham to circumcise himself (compare Sanhedrin 38).

ירחים ist nicht der gewöhnliche Ausdruck für Monat. חדש bezeichnet den Monat nach der in die äußeren Sinne fallenden, somit für jeden erkennbaren Erscheinung des verschwunden gewesenen und wieder gekommenen Lichtes, und ist daher die allgemeine Bezeichnung des Monats als Periode der Zeitrechnung. ירח aber bezeichnet den Mondlauf auch nach seinem physischen, kosmischen, tellurischen Einflusse, insbesondere auf Zeitigung und Entwicklung der Frucht, ממגד גרש ירחים (Bamidbar 33,14) תספור ירחים תמלאנה (Job 39, 2) und ist daher hier der ganz entsprechende Ausdruck. Sie konnte den Knaben nur in den ersten drei Monaten seiner Entwicklung verbergen.

ותצפנהו שלשה ירחים, “she hid him for a period of three months.” Precisely during which three months did she hide him? Moses was born on the seventh day in the month of Adar, so that his mother hid him for twentythree days during that month; she hid him during both the month of Nissan and lyar, so that the last day of the three months was the sixth day of Sivan, the date on which in due course, the Torah would be revealed to lsrael. The reason why the Torah makes an issue of the mother of Moses hiding him for three months is that the Egyptians had decreed that the last of those days would be the day on which the Jewish saviour would be born. By rights, they should have cancelled the decree to drown Jewish boy babies, but seeing that they did not do so, shows that hatred of the Jews, more than fear of a Jewish saviour was their principal concern.

Here too, seeing that Moses had been born 3 months premature, just as we encounter such a phenomenon in Samuel 1,20, when the prophet Samuel was born prematurely, the prophet writing לתקופת הימים, there was good reason to examine such a premature baby as to its viability. The word תקופה, a season, is a period of 91 days. Seeing that Samuel was born after 2 such תקופות he was born after 182 days of pregnancy. [perhaps the fact that the Torah did not mention that the time for Moses to be born had arrived, as happens very often, is another support for the assumption that he was 3 months premature. Ed.] At any rate, she had nothing to fear during the three months she hid Moses at home as the Egyptians had not expected Yocheved to give birth until the end of that period of time. When Yocheved had noted that in spite of being born so much prematurely, Moses was fully formed in every way, she decided it was worthwhile to hide him and to hope that somehow he would be spared from the decree. When an inspector would show up, she would tell the inspector that he had been premature and incapable of living so that she had had to bury him or that the Egyptians had drowned him anyway.

ותצפנהו שלשה ירחים, “she kept him hidden for three months.” Moses was born on the seventh of Adar; the Egyptians had waited for Yocheved to give birth at the end of nine months as was customary. These nine months would have expired on the sixth of Sivan. The Torah does not use the word חדשים to describe “months” but ירחים, as normally you would have two months with 30 days each and one month of 29 days in between. In this instance the three months were reversed i.e. two months of 29 days and one month of 30 days giving us a total of 58 days for the period the Torah describes. The end of this period occurred on the sixth day of Sivan (the day the Torah would be given 81 years later). Moses was exposed to the waters of the Nile on that very date. The Torah hints that on the date that Moses was exposed to the cruel fate of death in the river he was compensated many years later for ascending to heaven via Mount Sinai in order to receive the Tablets. This may be what David had in mind when he said (Psalms, 138,3) “on the day I called, You answered me, You inspired me with courage.”

ולא יכלה עוד הצפינו AND SHE COULD NO LONGER CONCEAL HIM, because the Egyptians calculated the period from when he (Amram) took her back. She, however, bore him after a term of six months and one day — for a woman who gives birth to a child in the seventh month may do so in incomplete months (i. e. the seventh month of pregnancy may not be completed) (Niddah 38b) — and they (the Egyptians) made enquiry regarding her at the end of nine months (the normal term of pregnancy, but in this case three months after the child’s birth; therefore “she could no longer conceal him”).

בחמר, on the inside,

ותשם בסוף, a place where the people passing would not see her deposit the basket; in spite of this, the reason why she chose the reeds was that she thought the decree of babies having to be thrown into the river had been fulfilled by placing him within the river’s domain.

ולא יכלה עוד הצפינו, “and she could no longer hide him.” According to Rashi, the Egyptians who had been aware of Yocheved’s pregnancy had miscalculated, expecting her to give birth after 9 months. This is based on Sotah which claims that she had been pregnant with him already for 3 months before Amram remarried her. The Egyptians assumed that her pregnancy did not predate her remarriage, so that she could not have been due to give birth to a live baby at the time she did. There is therefore no need to postulate that Moses was born after a mere six months’ pregnancy. Had he been born after a six month pregnancy, under these circumstances, Yocheved should have been able to hide him for 6 months, not merely three, unless we assume that the Egyptians were keeping a close check after Yocheved had been remarried for six months. Under such circumstances, according to the view that Moses was indeed born 3 months premature, this occurred three months after her remarriage.

One who gives birth in the seventh month can give birth to a live child, even though the seven months are incomplete, and are only six months and one day.

V. 3. הצפינו, Hiphil. Warum konnte sie ihn nicht länger verbergen? Weil sie es nicht länger bewirken konnte, dass andere ihn verborgen ließen, (dies liegt im Dagesch), sie hatte die Macht nicht über ihre Umgebung. Der Knabe war schon über das erste Vierteljahr hinaus, war schon entwickelter, jeder wollte mit ihm spielen, und wenn das Kind auch nicht schreit, so wird es zum Krakeln und Jauchzen gebracht etc. Sie konnte es nicht verhindern, dass nicht jeder sich mit ihm zu tun machte, und da konnte es nicht geheim bleiben. —

ולא יכלה עוד הצפינו, “she could not (successfully) hide him any longer; Rashi comments here that the Egyptians had kept track of when Yocheved had finished serving as the King’s midwife, and calculated the earliest date that she could give birth to a child from her husband. At the end of nine months they checked her out. They had allowed for the fact that she might have been three months pregnant when appointed as midwife. This explains why she felt safe hiding her baby during the first three months.

ולא יכלה עוד הצפינו, “and she could not hide him any longer;” according to Rashi, she had given birth to him one day into the seventh month of her pregnancy. The Egyptians had demanded to examine her on the day following. If you were to ask that according to the Talmud in Sotah 12 Yocheved was already 3 months pregnant when her husband remarried her, how could Moses have been born after a six month pregnancy? We must therefore say that the Egyptians examined her already after six months after she had remarried. This would be nine months after she had become pregnant from her husband. The Egyptians knew that sometimes babies are born and survive after being born during the seventh month of pregnancy. Moses, on the other hand, was born three months after Yocheved had been remarried. This is why she could not hide him for longer than an additional three months.

גמא PAPER-REED — In the language of the Mishna it is called גמי (Shabbat 78a), and in old French junc. It is a flexible substance that offers resistance to the pressure of both soft and hard things (Sotah 12a).

ובזפת, on the outside, so that the water would not get inside the basket.

Tar on the outside. . . so that the righteous [child] should not have to smell. . . Rashi added a reason in Parshas Noach (Bereishis 6:14): “With Moshe’s box, since the water current was mild, it was sufficient to have [just] clay on the inside and on the outside.” See [Rashi] there.

גמא, von גמא schlürfen, eine Pflanze, die viel Wasser trinkt, היגאה גמא בלא בצה (Job 8. 11). סוף, Röhricht, das בַסוֹף, am Ende des Trockenen, an der Grenze des trockenen Erdbodens steht, wo Wasser und Land zusammenstoßen. Wenn diese Erklärung richtig ist und hier wirklich eine Pflanzenart nach der Örtlichkeit ihres Vorkommens bezeichnet ist, so wäre dadurch vielleicht eine Benennung deutlicher gemacht, die sonst rätselhaft erscheint. חציר heißt Gras und חצר Umhof (nicht Hof in unserem Sinne, sondern der ganze freie, ein Gebäude umgebende Raum, verwandt mit עצר ,עזר usw. So auch עזרה im מקדש, parallel dem חצר des משכן, der ganze den Tempel umgebende Raum). Im großen ganzen besteht die Pflanzenwelt da, wo sie noch keine Menschenhand berührt hat, aus zwei Elementen: יער und חציר, Wald, und der von Bäumen nicht eingenommene Raum ist mit חציר bedeckt, Bäume und sie umgebende Gräser. Wir haben schon früher יער in seiner Lautverwandtschaft mit יאור Fluß, insbesondere der auf Speisung durch den geschmolzenen Gebirgsschnee angewiesene Nil, betrachtet. Die Grundbedeutung beider ist: Ansammlung von Wasser. Daher auch das verwandte קערה ,קער: Schüssel für Flüssigkeiten. Wälder haben ja ihre wesentliche Bedeutung als Flüssigkeitsansammler. Alle Fruchtbarkeit ist von der Regenmenge bedingt und diese von dem Waldreichtum. יער ist daher eigentlich der vegetabilische יאור, speist das חציר, die ihn umgebenden niederen Gewächse, Gräser. Eigentümlich hängt mit סופה סוף: Sturm, zusammen. Möglich ist סופה eben das über סוף, über die Grenze Hinüberschreitende, wie שוף das plötzliche Hervorschlüpfen, und wäre dann סופה die plötzlich aus ihrer bisherigen Grenze hinüberstürmende Luft, während סערה den Sturm mehr als Wirbel bezeichnet, verwandt mit סחר ,סהר.

תיבת גומא, “an ark of bulrushes;” seeing that the basket resembles in texture and colour the bulrushes along the river Nile, it was suitably camouflaged. The Talmud tractate Sotah, folio 12, uses this example as proof that the righteous consider their belongings as even more important than their bodies. [She used inexpensive material, as the chances that both Moses and the basket would be lost to her were overwhelming. Ed.] This is not a reflection on the righteous being tightfisted with their money, but a result of their being careful not to acquire any possessions illegally.

תיבת גומא, a basket made from the kind of reeds that grew along the banks of the river Nile and served as camouflage.

בחמר ובזפת — with pitch (זפת) outside, but with slime (חמר) inside, in order that that righteous child might not smell the disagreeable odour of the pitch (Sotah 12a).

ותשם בסוף; which was על שפת היאור, near the embankment of the river. People walking along the river would not automatically be able to spot the basket from the outside, but people bathing in the river would be able to see it. Yocheved had not entered the water to hide the basket from all directions. This is why the daughter of Pharaoh saw the basket while she was bathing in the river. Her maidservants, who were only walking along the embankment, had not noticed the basket and who was inside it.

ותחמרה בחמר, “she daubed it with slime (and pitch)”. She put the former on the outside and the latter on the inside; in order that it would not attract attention of passers by. Even though the pitch was evil smelling, if she had put it on the outside, being black it would have attracted too much attention. However, Rashi¸ makes the opposite point; he says that the זפת she applied on the outside so that Moses would not have to inhale its unpleasant odour, whereas the slime was on the inside. Ibn Ezra considers the word חמר as referring to a type of bulrushes.

ותחמרה, “she made it waterproof from the inside;” the letter ה at the end does not have a dagesh.

ותשם בסוף AND SHE PUT IT IN THE FLAGS — It (סוף) has the same meaning as אגם. old French rosel. Another example of the word is (Isaiah 19:6) “And reeds and flags (סוף) shall wither”.

ובזפת, “and she tarred it from the outside;” if the bitumen had been on the outside, the waters would dissolve it gradually. She had intended to recover Moses from there as soon as she had been examined and not been found pregnant anymore.

על שפת היאור, “by the banks of the river.” She had been unable to step into the Nile waters to completely cover that basket and hide him from all directions. She could only hide him so that he could not be seen by river traffic passing by. This is why the daughter of Pharaoh did not discover him until she had descended to actually bathe in the river. Her servant maids walking alongside the river bank did not see the basket. (Rash’bam.)

לדעת מה יעשה לו. She thought that some Egyptian would pick up the baby as a foundling. There were no doubt many such illegitimate babies in Egypt who had been abandoned by their unwed mothers. The prophet Ezekiel 23,20 speaks about the sexual licentiousness in Egypt that would make such incidents nothing out of the ordinary.

V. 4. ותֵתַצב müsste eigentlich וַתִתְיַצב heißen. Es ist dies eine ungewöhnliche, aus Kal und Hithpael komponierte Form. Es finden sich Analogien ähnlicher komponierter Formen wie הוכַבֵס aus Hophal und Piel, הָתְפָקדו aus Hophal und Hithpael, יִרַדוֹף aus Kal und Piel. וַתַצַב wiese auf Kal hin, (obgleich die ע׳צ gewöhnlich חסרי י׳ sind, so ist אֶצָרך und ויֵצר לו usw.) und hieße: stand da, von selbst; תתיצב aber: sie stellte sich mit vollem Bewusstsein, voller Energie hin. Die Erzählungen des göttlichen Wortes scheiden sich scharf von den Erzählungen der Menschen. Diese vermögen sich selten rein objektiv zu halten, es genügt ihnen nicht, die Tatsachen rein tatsächlich zu erzählen; die Gefühle, Stimmungen etc. ihrer Helden, in deren Lage sie sich hineindenken, müssen gleichzeitig zum Ausdruck kommen, und wo gäbe es einen Moment wie diesen, in welchem der Erzähler die stärksten Empfindungen der handelnden Personen, die Verzweiflung, die Angst, den heroischen Entschluss, das zitternde Herz bei der Ausführung, den Angstruf zu Gott, die des Ausgangs harrende Erwartung usw. usw. sich wohl hätte entgehen lassen. Das göttliche Wort erzählt die nackte Tatsache für den Verstand. Was eine Jochewed, eine Mirjam, in einem solchen Augenblick gefühlt haben, das kann ein jeder fühlende Mensch von selbst ihnen nachfühlen. Allein, soweit es eben die Fakten selbst berührt, malt das göttliche Wort auch die feinsten Nuancen. In einem solchen Augenblick handelt der Mensch nur mit halbfreiem Bewusstsein. Er ist seiner Handlung bewusst und es wirkt sein Wille dabei; allein die Macht des Augenblicks ist eine so überwältigende, dass er halb auch gleichsam einer höheren, zwingenden Macht folgt. Die Schwester wusste, dass sie hinging, aber sie fand sich auch plötzlich da, wie von einer höheren Macht dorthin gestellt. וַתֵתַצַב: ein Gemisch von überlegter und unfreiwilliger Handlung. — לדֵעָה, nicht לָדַעַת. Dieses bezeichnete nur ein Motiv der Neugierde. לְדֵעָה aber, Substantiv, um der Kunde willen, bezeichnet von vornherein die Absicht, die erlangte Kunde dann möglicher Weise zu fernerer Rettung zu verwerten.

לרחץ על היאר — Invert the order of the words in this verse and then explain it: “The daughter of Pharaoh went down על היאר, by the river, לרחץ to bathe in it”.

TO BATHE ‘AL’ (BY) THE RIVER. “Transpose [the order of the words in] the verse⁶⁵The order of the Hebrew words is: And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe by the river. Rashi explains it to mean: “And the daughter of Pharaoh went down by the river to bathe in it.” and then explain it: the daughter of Pharaoh went down by the river to bathe in it.” Thus the language of Rabbeinu Shlomo [Rashi]. If so, al haye’or (by or upon the river) is like el haye’or (to the river). Similarly, And Elkanah went to Ramah ‘al beitho’ (upon his house)⁶⁶I Samuel 2:11. [is like el beitho (to his house)]; Thus shall ye say every one ‘al rei’eihu’ (upon his neighbor) and every one to his brother⁶⁷Jeremiah 23:35. [is like el rei’eihu (to his neighbor)].
It is possible that there were steps upon the bank of the river and that she went down from the royal palace to bathe upon the first step by the river, but did not enter into the river’s stream. [In this case, the expression al haye’or would be completely understandable, as it would mean that she came down to bathe “upon the step near the river”], and then she saw the ark among the reeds far from her and she sent her handmaid to fetch it. It may be that to bathe ‘al haye’or’ is like “to bathe baye’or (in the river).” Similarly, And thou shalt put them ‘al’ one basket⁶⁸Further, 29:3. [is like b’sal echad (‘into’ one basket)].

אמתה, not “her nursemaid,” but “her maidservant.”

לרחוץ על היאור. She had a view of the river, her room in the palace bordering on the embankment. No doubt, royal etiquette would not permit an Egyptian princess to actually bathe in the river. [the author was alerted by the preposition על instead of ב, “in,” in front of the word יאור. Ed.]

ונערותיה הולכות, walking with her ladies-in-waiting, etc. Why is that detail pertinent to the story of Moses' rescue? Perhaps the Torah felt that inasmuch as Batya (Pharaoh's daughter) had performed such a great deed in rescuing the life of a Jewish baby, she deserved that all the details be revealed for all to know. It is a well known fact that a Royal princess does not go down to the river to bathe without her attendants. Moreover, it is customary that amongst her attendants there should be one who is senior, in charge of all the other junior attendants. The Torah speaks about "her attendants who were walking, etc." Presumably, the Torah means that at the time when the princess was actually bathing in the water all the other attendants were walking some distance away, affording the princess a degree of privacy while she bathed. Only the senior attendant stayed close to the princess. The Torah referred to this senior attendant when it writes: "she sent out her maidservant who picked up the basket." It is possible that the princess sent her maidservant to save the baby whereas the maidservant merely picked up the basket without the baby. In either event, the princess deserves praise for displaying noble human feelings. Her soul was pure, indicating that sometimes something pure emerges from something impure (Job, 14,4). One of two things may have happened. 1) Although the princess was attended by only a single servant at the time, she sent even that servant away and she herself picked up the baby remaining alone and vulnerable at the time. 2) Although the princess had only one attendant close by at the time, having sent her other maids some distance away, she even took a chance by sending the one remaining servant to pick up the basket with the baby.

ותרד בת פרעה לרחוץ על היאור, ”Pharaoh’s daughter descended to the banks of the river to bathe.” Rashi claims that our verse is truncated and that its correct meaning is as if the Torah had written: “ותרד בת פרעה על היאור לרחוץ בו.” [as written it could be understood as “Pharaoh’s daughter descended to bathe above the river.” Ed.] Nachmanides writes that it is possible to understand the verse to mean that there were steps leading down to the banks of the river and that these steps led directly to the river from the palace of the king, the lowest step being covered by the water in the river. When reaching that lowest step, Pharaoh’s daughter saw the basket in which Moses had been placed from a distance and she ordered one of her attendants to bring it to her. Alternately, the words לרחוץ על היאור is another way of writing לרחוץ ביאור, “to bathe in the river.”

They were going to die because they opposed her (Pharaoh’s daughter).” The maids opposed her rescue of Moshe.

Questions:
Why did it tell that her young women walked by the Y'or? And what is it written "the baby [crying] - and behold, it was a youth" (Shemot 2:6)? And why did she [Miryam] say to her [bat Par'oh] that she would call for a wetnurse specifically from the Hebrews?

V. 5. על היאר, an der Seite des Flusses, wo er nicht zu tief ist. Möglich auch am oberen Flusse, oberhalb der Stadt, am "Obernil", wo er noch nicht durch den Schmutz der Stadt getrübt ist. Vielleicht hatte die Mutter das Kind dort mit Absicht hingelegt, weil der Ort sauberer, weil er auch der Platz zum Baden, und vielleicht gar ein gesonderter Platz zum Baden. für Frauen war und bei Müttern eine Mutter mehr Erbarmen voraussetzt. — Ihre Begleiterinnen gingen am Ufer: schöner Zug der Schamhaftigkeit. Auch von weiblicher Umgebung nimmt die Fürstin nur eine Magd mit sich, glaubt nicht, dass sichs ihre Hofdamen als große Ehre anrechnen dürften, um die Fürstin im Bade zu sein.

ותשלח את אמתה, “she sent her handmaid (to fetch it).” In the Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 12, two sages disagree concerning the meaning of the word אמתה here, one claiming that it refers to her forearm, (The princess’;) According to one sage this was a bodily owned slave, שפחה, whereas the other sage the princess went down to bathe on her own. [The author speculates how to reconcile the opinion of the sage who claimed that she sent forth a slave with the aggadic statement that an angel struck down all but one of her slaves at the time. [This editor does not follow the need for these far fetched interpretations, and I have not pursued them further. Ed.]

לרחוץ על היאור, “to bathe in the waters of the river; other examples of the word על meaning “in,” instead of “on, or above,” are found in: Genesis 27,40 על חרבך תחיה, “you will live with the use of your sword.” Also Exodus 12,7: על הבתים אשר יאכלו אותו בהם, “in the houses that they will eat it in.

על יד היאר means BESIDE THE RIVER. Similar is (II Samuel 14:30) “See, the field of Joab is beside mine (על ידי)”. It really denotes even in this sense the actual hand, for a person’s hand is beside him (i. e. beside his body). Our Rabbis explained that the word הלכת “they were going” denotes dying, similar to (Genesis 25:32) “Behold I am going (הולך) to die” — they were going to their death because they attempted to prevent her from saving the child. Scripture, too, supports them in this explanation, for if this is not the meaning, why do we need that it should write “and her damsels were going”? (Scripture reports nothing as having happened because they were walking there. Why then stress this detail if it merely signifies that they were walking along the bank?).

ונערותיה הולכות, this is the reason why she did not command one of them to bring the basket to her as they were not with her at that time.

Her handmaiden. Rashi said above: “Our Sages explained” [that the maids died.] For the angel Gavriel killed all the maids who accompanied Pharaoh’s daughter. If so, [how could she now send a maid to fetch the box?] The Gemara (Sotah 12b) already answered that Gavriel did not kill all her maids. He spared one maid, to extend honor to royalty, so that Pharaoh’s daughter would not be left alone. This remaining maid was sent.

And she went down (Shemot 2:5). Now, the reasons for which God presented him that he would be saved will be told: that he would be "reared in purple" (Eicha 4:5) in the king's house, but despite all this his people and his tribe would recognise him.
1. God invited bat Par'oh - regarding whom, "all the glory of the king's daughter is within" (Tehillim 45:13) - and "she went down" from her height "to wash in the Y'or", in an open place and a public thoroughfare. For if it weren't, his sister [Miryam] wouldn't have been able to reach her.
2. That her young women weren't directly with her - she would have been afraid before them to transgress her father's commandment and save those given to death.
3. "And she saw the ark" (Shemot 2:5) and wasn't it also that God may They be blessed was within the reeds, concealed and covered by the reeds.
4. That she took it by means of her slavegirl - the lesser one, that she wasn't embarassed to do anything she wanted in front of her. And there's a difference between young women [ne'arot] and slavegirls [amahot]: young women are given to her as a staff and they're honoured and the daughters of dignitaries, and slavegirls are lesser and stand in her service.

ונערותיה, “and her servantmaids;” this is mentioned here as the Torah shortly will refer to a specific servant maid who went to take the basket in which Moses was lying.

את אמתה means her handmaid. Our Rabbis, however, explained it in the sense of hand (cf. Sotah 12b) — but according to the grammar of the Holy Language it should then have been written אַמָּתָה , dageshed in the מ. — And the reason why they explained את אמתה to mean את ידה “she stretched forth her hand” is because they hold that Scripture intentionally uses this term to indicate that her hand increased in length several cubits (אמה, a cubit) in order that she might more easily reach the cradle.

ותשלח את אמתה, the servant who was attending her at the time when she bathed herself. All of this happened at the instigation of G’d so that she would not dispatch one of her regular attendants as she might mistakenly place her trust in them and such an attendant would throw the baby in the river.

But the Sages explained it as “hand” . . . and her arm extended many cubits . . . The verse should have said, “(She sent) נערתה or שפחתה ” if it simply meant handmaidens. Because it did not sprecifically state ידה , the Sages explained אמתה as implying that her arm extended many אמות (cubits). Alternatively, the Sages explained this because the מ [of אמתה ] has no dagesh [although the word אמה (hand or arm) requires one]. And the dagesh in nouns does not change even in the nismach form, or with a possessive suffix [such as תה as it appears here]. Yet the word did change here, for the א has a sheva [i.e., a chataf patach, due to which the dagesh in the מ drops out], although the א should have had a [simple] patach. [Therefore our Sages explain: The word אמתה changed, to indicate that the arm of Pharaoh’s daughter changed.] (Gur Aryeh).

הולכות ,ונערותיה, “and her servantmaids “walking,” Rashi, while interpreting the word as meaning “walking towards her death,” quotes a traditional explanation in the Talmud Sotah 12 according to which it is short for “being on a path which leads to death,” as in Genesis 25,32, where Esau is quoted as saying: הנה אנכי הולך למות, “here I am pursuing a path that will result in my death;” The scholar in the Talmud has the servant maids warning the daughter of Pharaoh who was actually going to use the waters of the Nile as a mikveh, ritual bath, in order to cleanse herself from the desecrations that were a daily occurrence in her father’s palace, by warning her that even when other people might disregard the king’s command surely his own daughter would not dare do so? They warned that by doing so she would condemn herself to death by execution. When hearing what her maidservants had said to Pharaoh’s daughter, the angel Gavriel struck them so that they fell to the ground. At this point there surfaces a divergence of opinion between two scholars, one saying that the word אמתה, as distinct from the word נערות for the servant maids used by the Torah previously, refers to the servant maid who had been spared by the angel, as it is not fitting for a princess to remain without at least one of her attendants. The other scholar does not understand the word אמתה as “her servant maid,” but as “her arm,” i.e. the arm of the princess which had been miraculously lengthened to the extent of about 2,5 meters for this purpose. Rashi, for reasons of a grammatical nature, rejects the second opinion offered in the Talmud, saying that if correct the letter מ in that word would have to have a dot, dagesh in it. He adds that further proof is the fact that the letter א in the word is vocalised with an abbreviated vowel chataf patach.

ותפתח ותראהו lit., AND SHE OPENED IT AND SHE SAW HIM — whom did she see? את הילד THE CHILD. This is the literal sense of the suffix in ותראהו. A Midrashic explanation is (taking את in the sense of “with”— she saw Him with the child): she saw the Shechina with him (cf. Sotah 12b).

AND BEHOLD IT WAS A WEEPING LAD. “His voice sounded like that of a grown lad.”⁶⁹This interpretation is based on the change of reference to Moses within the same verse: And she opened it, and saw it, even ‘hayeled’ (the child), and behold it was a weeping ‘na’ar’ (a young lad). Hence, in accordance with Rabbi Yehudah’s opinion in Sotah 12 b, Rashi construed that he was a child with the voice of a young lad. Thus the language of Rabbeinu Shlomo. Now the Rabbis have already rejected this opinion, saying,⁷⁰This is the opinion of Rabbi Nechemya (ibid.). “If so, you have made Moses our teacher appear as having a blemish [and being unfit for Levitical service in the Tabernacle].”⁷¹Part of the Levitical services in the Tabernacle — and later in the Sanctuary in Jerusalem — consisted of the chanting of the services. A Levite who had no sweetness of voice was disqualified for this service. (See Maimonides’ The Commandments, Vol. I, pp. 32-3, Soncino.) Now if as an infant, Moses, who was a Levite, already had a voice like that of a young lad, as he grew older his voice must have thickened. After the building of the Tabernacle when he was past eighty, his voice naturally could no longer be a singer’s voice, as it would have been greatly out of proportion to his age. Besides, what reason is there for Scripture to mention his unnatural voice?
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that his limbs were developed as that of a young lad. Perhaps Scripture mentioned this in order to denote the child’s beauty. It was due to his exquisite beautiful appearance that she [the princess] had compassion for him since she recognized that he had been recently born and yet his limbs were well-developed like those of a lad.
A more correct interpretation is that his was a strong and unrelenting cry like that of a lad, and therefore she had compassion for him. A homiletic exposition has it:⁷²Shemoth Rabbah 1:28. “A weeping lad. He was a child whose behavior was that of a lad [who is not prone to crying]. At that moment, the angel Gabriel came and struck him so that he would cry and she would be compassionate towards him.”
In my opinion there is no need for all this. From the day of his birth, a child is called na’ar (lad) [in Scripture], as it is said, What shall we do ‘lana’ar’ (to the lad) that shall be born?⁷³Judges 13:8. Similarly, And David besought G-d for ‘hana’ar’ (the lad).⁷⁴II Samuel 12:16. The subject there is a child, not a grown lad. Conversely, Scripture calls a grown lad yeled (child), as it is said in the case of Ishmael.⁷⁵And she cast ‘hayeled’ (the child) (Genesis 21:16). At that time, Ishmael was seventeen years old. (See Ramban, Vol. I, p. 270, and Note 329, ibid.). Yet he is called yeled. Similarly, ‘v’hana’ar na’ar’ (and the lad was young),⁷⁶I Samuel 1:24. That Samuel was but a child at that time is explained by Ramban in the text, and yet Scripture refers to him as a na’ar. meaning that he [Samuel] was a young child of twenty-four months. As soon as she [his mother, Hannah] had weaned him, she brought him up to Shiloh, as it is written, And she gave her son suck until she weaned him. And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her.⁷⁷Ibid., Verses 23-24.

ותפתח ותראהו את הילד, anyone explaining that the meaning of the line is that “she saw the infant,” is in error. Who does not know that when someone would open the basket that he or she would see the infant? Surely, the Torah did not have to tell us something so elementary! Therefore, the meaning of the line is this: when she opened the basket and saw the infant and wanted to know if it was male or female, she found that the baby was a נער, that it was male and not female. When she also observed that his member had been circumcised, she realised that this baby had not been abandoned but had been hidden in the reeds. If she would have found that the baby was a girl, she would have assumed that it had been abandoned (as an illegitimate birth) There is nothing unusual about an infant being called נער, as we find Manoach asking the angel who had predicted the birth of Simshon מה נעשה לנער אשר יולד,”what shall we do for the boy once he will be born?” (Judges 13,8).

ותפתח, she then saw that this was an exceptionally beautiful baby.

And behold! A youth was crying. This refers to Aharon, for his mother placed him near the wicker basket (Yalkut Shimoni, Parshas Shmos, 166). “A youth was crying” in gematria is equivalent to “this is Aharon HaKohen”.

ותראהו את הילד והנה נער בכה, When she saw the child it turned out to be a crying boy. Why did the Torah write ותראהו, "she saw him," instead of simply "she saw, etc.?" Presumably she assumed that the basket would contain an abandoned baby and she planned to rescue the baby. The Torah therefore refers to the princess "seeing what she expected to see, i.e. an abandoned child." Had the Torah written ותרא את הילד, the Torah would have created the impression that the princess saw something she had not expected.

והנה נער בוכה. “and here there was a crying lad.” Rashi understands the phrase as meaning that the voice of this baby was as strong as that of a lad, i.e. a growing youngster.” According to Nachmanides, Rashi’s explanation has already been discounted, for if it were correct we would have to view Moses as being halachically blemished, something that according to our tradition disqualifies a person from becoming a prophet, or performing priestly duties. Ibn Ezra writes that Moses’ limbs were exceptionally large for a baby of his age, as large as those of a growing lad. This would not be a blemish, but, on the contrary, would be a compliment to Moses and might account for the fact that Pharaoh’s daughter took pity on that child. I believe that the correct interpretation of our phrase is that the manner in which Moses cried was that of an older child, something not as irritating as a baby’s howls, and that this was what prompted Pharaoh’s daughter to have pity on him. According to the Midrash Moses did not display symptoms of being much older, but the angel Gavriel struck him so that he broke out weeping on account of his pain, which in turn attracted the attention of the daughter of Pharaoh and aroused feelings of pity within her. I do not believe that there is any need for such esoteric explanations. Children are described as נער already at birth, compare Judges 13,8 מה נעשה לנער אשר יולד, “what are we supposed to do to the child that is going to be born?” on the other hand, growing lads are referred to by the Torah as ילד, such as when Avraham placed the 17 year old Ishmael on Hagar’s shoulder in Genesis 21,14, so that there is nothing strange in the Torah again applying this adjective in our verse.

She saw the Divine Presence with him. If [the verse means that]she saw Moshe, it should have stated ותראה (she saw). Therefore, the letter ו at the end of the word ותראהו refers to the Divine Presence, [Whom she saw with the child].

V. 6. Sie öffnete und sah es. Erst als sie es öffnete, erfuhr sie den Inhalt. Es kann also das Kind nicht geschrien haben. Was muss das für ein "ילד "טוב gewesen sein! In solcher Lage! Wie spricht sich schon in diesem einzigen Zuge die Anlage zu dem künftigen ענו מאוד, zu der ruhigsten geduldigen Anspruchslosigkeit aus! Und da sie es öffnet, ותראהו את הילד, blickte es sie zuerst als Kind an, und erst nachher fing es an zu weinen. Ein schreiendes Kind ist nicht schön, gewinnt nicht durch Liebreiz, und darauf war ja die Rettung basiert. Der erste Eindruck des ruhig sie anblickenden Kindes gewann ihr Herz. Nachher erst weinte es. Der Anblick eines fremden Gesichtes bringt ein Kind zum Weinen, und noch dazu die Physiognomie einer Ägypterin, ein Kind, das bis dahin in seiner Verborgenheit nur die semitischen Profile seiner hebräischen Eltern und Geschwister gesehen. — חמל drückt wohl wie המל und עמל eine heftige Bewegung aus, חמל speziell die innere Rührung, die durch den Zustand hervorgerufen ist, in welchem ein Mensch oder ein Gegenstand sich befindet, oder von dem er bedroht wird.

ותפתח ותראהו “she opened (the basket) and she saw him;” who is the subject of the suffix הו in this line? Seeing that at that point Pharaoh’s daughter did not yet know if the infant was an abandoned girl or an abandoned baby boy, the word ילד, is used which is neutral. After she opened the basket, she realised that it was a crying baby boy. Another exegesis: she suddenly noticed an older boy crying, i.e. Aaron, seeing that he was the brother of the baby in the basket. Noticing Aaron, she immediately came to the conclusion that the baby boy in the basket must be one of the Hebrews. Our sages, commenting on the fact that the baby Moses is once called ילד, and once נער in the same verse, teaches that his mother had made a wedding canopy inside that basket. (Sotah 12) She did so as she worried she might not merit seeing him get married.

והנה נער בכה lit., AND BEHOLD A BOY WEEPING — Although he was a ילד, “a child”, his voice was like that of a נער, a grown up boy (cf. Sotah 12b).

AND SHE SAID, THIS IS ONE OF THE HEBREWS’ CHILDREN. [She came to this conclusion because] contemplating what happened, she said [that his mother had done it] in order to save him or that she had placed him there so that she might not look upon the death of her child, and why should an Egyptian do that? Some Rabbis say⁷⁸This opinion, found in Sotah 12 a and in Shemoth Rabbah 1:29, is ascribed to Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina. that [she knew he was a Hebrew because] she saw that he was circumcised. If so, [we must assume that] she removed his clothes and examined him. But there is no need for this.⁷⁹Ramban’s intent seems to be that since Pharaoh’s decree to cast the male children into the river applied only to Hebrew children — as the simple meaning of Scripture indicates — there was no need for the princess to seek to establish his identity. There is, however, a Midrashic tradition mentioned in Rashi (above, 1:22) that for one day the aforesaid decree applied to all children. The astrologers had said to the king, “Today the deliverer of the Hebrews has been born, and we do not know whether he is born of an Egyptian father or of an Israelite.” Therefore the decree on that day applied to all children. In accordance with that opinion, it is logical to assume that she examined the child, and only then did she come to the conclusion that he was a Hebrew. This is the basis of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei the son of Rabbi Chanina (see preceding Note), i.e., that she knew he was a Hebrew because she saw that he was circumcised.

והנה נער בוכה, ותחמול עליו, because he was crying she took pity on him. Furthermore, because she saw that he was a circumcised boy, she added: מילדי העברים זה, that it was one of the Hebrew children. We find something parallel in Samuel I 1,5 where we are told ולחנה יתן מנה אחת אפים, that Elkanah would give his wife Chanah a double portion, the reason being explained later with the words: כי את חנה אהב “for he deeply loved Chanah.” This is all very fine, but why does the prophet stress the word אחת in the description מנה אחת אפים, “one portion twice,” instead of writing שתי מנות, “two portions?” The reason is that although she was childless her husband gave her a double portion (only), whereas Peninah, having numerous children received far more than 2 portions. Elkanah compensated Chanah for her childlessness. Here the daughter of Pharaoh reacted to the miserable condition Moses found himself in.

את הילד, בוכה, she noticed that though his size was that of an infant, when he cried he sounded like a far older child, a lad. Actually, from birth until maturity a child is still called ילד. The best proof of this is found in Kings I 12,10 where the advisors of Rechavam, the son of king Solomon who ascended the throne after him, is described as listening to his youthful advisors who are called הילדים אשר גדלו עמו “the children who had grown up with him.” [Rechavam was 41 years of age at the time. Ed.] Also in Daniel 1,4 youngsters at least in their teens are referred to as ילדים. The term נער is applied to someone who no longer enjoys the perfection of early youth. According to our author perfect co-ordination of one’s limbs results in one’s making wrong moves on occasion. The reason why servants are referred to as נער is that they frequently are inept in their movements to the annoyance of their masters. The daughter of Pharaoh recognised in this baby that though this child had only recently been born it already showed signs of physical maturity as she could hear by the manner in which it cried. נער בוכה, awakening, shaking himself like a child of this age.

ותאמר מילדי העברים זה, “She said: “this is one of the Hebrew boy babies.” According to the plain text she had every reason for this assumption, for why would an Egyptian place her baby in such a place at such a time? Our sages, however, say that she arrived at that conclusion when observing that Moses had been circumcised.

His voice was like that of a [grown] boy. Rashi is answering the question: Why is he called a נער (grown boy)? This implies thirteen years old, but Moshe was not this age.

Our sages in Sotah 12 explain the pronoun הו at the end of ותרא as a reference to Batya seeing the שכינה together with the child. This is homiletics. We would have to assume that Batya had experience with the way the שכינה looked from her father and grandfather, something quite unlikely! Our sages may simply have meant that Batya saw that the baby was surrounded by a great halo; G'd arranged for this in order to impress Batya that this baby was someone special. The Zohar section 2, page 12 writes something similar concerning the words "the boy was crying," namely that the cries were on behalf of the Jewish people's suffering in exile." G'd opened her eyes in order for her to be able to "see" the great light surrounding Moses.

ותחמול עליו, seeing that he was such a beautiful baby, far too perfect a creature to simply throw into the river.

Alternatively, Batya's experience with the שכינה may be explained in terms of Shemot Rabbah 1,23 according to which Batya suffered from Tzoraat, the dreaded skin disease. As soon as she touched the basket she felt that she had been healed. This was her encounter with the שכינה. The word נער may then have a double meaning. When the Syrian general Naamon was healed of his Tzoraat, the prophet described his flesh as again becoming like that of a teen-aged boy, נער, (Kings II 5,14).

ותאמר מילדי העברים זה, this is not an illegitimate baby, abandoned by its mother. Such a baby, when it grew up was likely to become a criminal, as we know from Isaiah 57,4 ילדי פשע זרע שקר, “children born in sin, offspring of treachery.”

ותחמול עליו. She pitied him. Seeing that she had already set out determined to save the child, the pity mentioned here may refer to her determination to nurse the child. This is why Moses' sister immediately volunteered to call a Jewish wet nurse to nurse Moses. According to Sotah 12 all this occurred after Moses refused to accept milk from the breasts of non Jewish wet nurses.

ותאמר מילדי העברים זה. She said: "this one is one of the Jewish babies." This was quite obvious as the Jews would abandon their children near the river on account of Pharaoh's decree. On the other hand, if all this occurred on the one day when Pharaoh had ordered the Egyptians to throw also their new-born boy babies into the Nile, how did Batya know that Moses was a Jewish baby? This may have forced our sages in Sotah to say that Moses refused to drink the milk of non Jewish wet nurses. [I do not see this as a compelling explanation. The fact that the child had no foreskin clearly marked him as Jewish unless the Jews had abandoned the practice of circumcision already at that time as is evident eighty years later at the time of the Exodus. Ed.]

Accordingly, the Torah does tell us something that was not so obvious after all. Let us examine if the reason Batya saved the baby was because she thought it might be an abandoned Egyptian baby, or if she had made up her mind to save the baby even if it turned out to be a Jewish baby. If we were to assume the former, the words מילדי העברים זה express Batya's amazement at the fact that the child was Jewish. This would indicate that originally the thought of saving a Jewish child had not occurred to her. There would be nothing unusual about a Gentile displaying sympathy only for her own kind. Even though we observe that she held the child and hired a nursemaid for him after she found out that it was a Jewish child, this fact does not prove that she would have saved the child and have displayed pity for it if G'd had not first healed her from her affliction and provided a sign that the child was someone out of the ordinary. These incidents acquainted Batya with the wonderful ways of G'd.

If we are to assume that Batya already set out to rescue the baby although she was aware that it would turn out to be a Jewish baby, then the words מילדי העברים must be understood as the reason why the baby refused to suckle at the breasts of the Egyptian wet nurses. It was not because the baby had become weak through lying in the reeds of the river, or for any other biological reason, but because it was a Jewish baby. This is why his sister (Miriam) immediately volunteered the services of a Jewish wet nurse stressing the words: מן העבריות, "one of the Hebrew women," in order to prove that she knew the true reason why the baby refused to be nursed. This is also why the Torah had to report in verse nine that the child's mother took the child and was able to nurse him.

מן העבריות OF THE HEBREWS — She expressly said, “shall I call a nurse of the Hebrews?” because she (Pharaoh’s daughter) had handed him to many Egyptian women to suckle him and he had refused to take suck — this was because he was destined to hold converse with the Shechina (Exodus Rabbah 1:21 and Sotah 12b).

ותיניק לך את הילד, A transitive construction, meaning the Hebrew nursing woman would perform on her behalf as if it were her own child.

מינקת מן העבריות, whose milk would be more compatible to its constitution.

And his sister said. Due to Hashem’s protection of Moshe, his sister found the courage to speak before Pharaoh’s daughter and was not afraid of punishment. In addition, due to His protection her advice to bring a Hebrew wet nurse was also accepted. Had he been given over to an Egyptian wet nurse he would have been conceivably murdered in secret because the Egyptians hated the Hebrews.

V. 7. Von den Hebräerinnen: bei durch Pharao künstlich hervorgerufener Feindschaft der Ägypter gegen die Hebräer konnte man einer ägyptischen Amme schwerlich das Kind mit Beruhigung anvertrauen.

מן העבריות, “from amongst the Hebrew wet nurses. Egyptian wet nurses would refuse to nurse Hebrew children. (Avodah Zarah 26).

ותיניק לך, so he will be capable to stand in your presence (not to make you ashamed of him) seeing that his beauty is such that he can take his place with royalty.

ותלך העלמה AND THE YOUNG WOMAN WENT — she went eagerly and with vigour (עלמות) like a young man (עלם) (cf. Sotah 12b).

ותלך העלמה, “the young lady went, etc.” The reason why the Torah calls her by the description עלמה, is because she concealed the fact that she was the baby’s sister.

היליכי (the word may be explained as a compound of two Aramaic words, הי, here is, and ליכי, that which belongs to thee — thine own) — she prophesied without knowing what she was prophesying (unconsciously she stated the actual fact) — here is thine own (Exodus Rabbah 1:21 and Sotah 12b).

ותניקהו, There is no need to assume that we are dealing with a two-letter mode of the verb as in שב, בא, or קם, and that the letter י of the root ינק is missing here as is usual in the transitive form, הפעיל of the roots קום or שוב, so that we have the construction ותקימהו “she made him stand up,” or ותשיבהו, “she brought him back.” The root we are dealing with here is the verb ינק, and in order to shorten the word somewhat the Torah writes instead of ותיניקהו simply ותניקהו.

She unknowingly prophesied. Although הֵא [i.e., the first half of הֵיליכי ] is normal usage of the language, as in (Bereishis 42:23) הֵא לכם זרע (here is seed for you), [Rashi offers his Midrashic explanation] only because ליכי is written instead of לָךְ . Although ליכי is feminine [and is thus fitting for the verse], but לָךְ also refers to females. For example [Elkanah speaking to Chanah]: אנכי טוב לָךְ (I have been good to you). (Shmuel I, 1:8)

V. 9. הֵיליכי: ungewöhnliche Form für הוֹליכי, das jedoch führen bedeutet hätte Und bei einem Kinde in diesem Alter ein unpassender Ausdruck gewesen wäre, man hätte קחי erwarten sollen. Allein הֵיליכי scheint ähnlich dem היצא für הוציא bei Noach zu sein. Wie dieses dort nicht: führe hinaus, sondern: lasse hinausgehen bedeutet, und die Sehnsucht andeutet, mit welcher die so lange — auch in einem "Rettungskasten" — eingeschlossen gewesenen Geschöpfe sich heraussehnten, denen man nur die Türe zu öffnen hatte, so gingen sie von selbst hinaus: so scheint auch hier in der Form היליכי der Gedanke zu liegen: mache, dass das Kind aus seiner es so gefährdenden Lage und Örtlichkeit fortkomme. Könnte es gehen und hätte Bewusstsein seiner Lage, so würde es allein forteilen.

היליכי, some commentators claim that this word is from the root הלך as in הולכה, the letter י taking the place of the letter ו. Similar examples occur with the mode: ,היטיבי .היניקי

והניקהו לי, “and nurse him for me.” The letter ק has the vowel chirik under it.

משיתיהו The Targum renders this by שחלתיה which in the Aramaic language means drawing out. The word occurs in the Talmud, (Berakhot 8a) “as one draws out (משחל) a hair from milk”, and in the Hebrew language משיתיהו might be taken to mean “I have removed him”, just as, (Joshua 1:8) “it shall not depart (ימוש)”; (Numbers 14:44) “they did not depart (משו)”. Thus indeed did Menachem b. Seruk classify it (i. e. he put משיתיהו under the same root as מש and משו in the verses quoted; according to him a biliteral root מש, our ע"ו root מוש). I, however, say, that it should not be classified together with מש and וימוש but that it is to be derived from משה, and that it means taking out, similar to (II Samuel 22:17) “He draws me out (ימשני) from many waters”. For if it were of the same class as מש, it would not be correct to say משיתיהו (in the Kal), but הֲמישׁוֹתִיהוּ a Hiphil form, (since this root in the Kal means “to depart” or “go away” and not “to make a thing go away”), just as from קם one says הֲקִימוֹתִי and from שב — הֲשִׁיבוֹתִי and from הֲבִיאוֹתִי — בא; or one must say מַשְתִּיהוּ (which is also a form from מוש used in a causative sense), just as, (Zechariah 3:9) “And I will remove (וּמַשְׁתִּי) the iniquity of that land”. But מָשִׁיתִי can only be derived from a word whose verbal form has a ה as a root letter at the end of the word, as e. g., משה and בנה and עשה and צוה and פנה. When it wishes to say in regard to these verbs, “I have done so-and-so” (a Kal), a י takes the place of the ה, as in בָּנִיתִי and עָשִׂיתִי and צִוִּיתִי.

משיתיהו. As if to say: משכתיהו, “I pulled him forth.” We know that the word used here is also used elsewhere in connection with pulling something out of the water, as in Psalms 18,17 ימשני ממים רבים, “He drew me out of the mighty waters.” The construction follows the same pattern as with the root קנה the intransitive form of which parallel to ours would be קניתיהו, “I have acquired him, whereas the transitive mode, הפעיל would be יקנני, yakneyni in the future tense, “he will acquire me.”

ותקרא שמו משה, someone who will save others by pulling them out of their calamity.

"And she called his name, etc. and she said, etc." Here we find a difference from the way Yitzchak and Yaakov and the tribes were named. For all of them, the meaning came before the name itself. For Yitzchak, (Breisheet 21:6), [Sarah said] "anyone who hears will laugh (Yitzchak) etc." and that is when she named him Yitzchak. For Yaakov, (Breisheet 25:26), 'his hand was holding the heel (Ekev) [of Esav] and he called him Yaakov.' With the tribes, [Leah said], 'For Hashem saw ... and she called him Reuven." (Breisheet 29:32), "For Hashem heard ... and she called him Shimon." (Breisheet 29:33) and so on in this manner.

ותקרא שמו משה, “she named him Moses.” Rabbi Joseph Kimchi writes that according to the rules of grammar she should have called him משוי, if she wanted to name him in commemoration of his having been pulled from the water. Similar constructions such as קנוי from the root קנה, “to acquire,” describe something that has been acquired. However, Pharaoh’s daughter was not sufficiently familiar with the finer points of grammar in the (Hebrew?) language and did not know how to distinguish between a verb in the active mode and the same word when used as a past participle. The name she gave Moses was inspired by Divine input as is appropriate seeing that in due course this child would pull the Children of Israel out of their exile, i.e. מושה.

As one who extracts a hair from milk. כמשחל בניתא מחלבא is Aramaic for “taking a hair out of the milk.”

V. 10. משה verwandt mit: מצה, etwas mit Anstrengung aus dem Wasser ziehen ziehen, aussaugen; משח ist auch ein künstliches Trennen von allem andern Flüssigen. Sie hat ihn nicht משוי, einen aus dem Wasser Gezogenen, genannt, sondern משה, einen aus dem Wasser Rettenden. Vielleicht ist damit die ganze Richtung der Erziehung angedeutet, die die Fürstin ihrem Pflegesohne gab und der tiefe Eindruck, der von früh an dessen Charakter prägte. Mit seinem Namen sagte sie ihm: er soll sein Leben lang nicht vergessen, dass er ins Wasser geworfen war und ich ihn herausgezogen habe. Deshalb soll er sein Leben lang ein weiches Herz für die Leiden anderer haben und stets bereit sein, ein Helfer aus der Not, ein מֹשֶה, zu sein. Der hebräische Name hielt ferner stets in ihm das Bewusstsein seiner Herkunft wach. Die Prinzess hat sich gewiss bei der Mutter erkundigt, wie man den Gedanken hebräisch ausdrücke, sonst hätte sie ihn ägyptisch genannt. In diesem allen spricht sich die edle menschliche Gesinnung der Retterin Mosches aus.

ותקרא שמו משה, “she named him: ‘Moses.’” If you were to ask how she, the Egyptian gave him a Hebrew name? We have to answer that in fact she gave him an Egyptian name which was the equivalent of the word משה in Hebrew. The Torah contented itself with giving us his Hebrew name. An alternate interpretation: Pharaoh’s daughter had learned Hebrew after the Hebrews had come to Egypt and had made up a large percentage of the population. [Since Moses was born 130 years after Yaakov had come to Egypt, she had never known an Egypt without Hebrews. Ed.] Pharaoh had even given Joseph a Hebrew name as we know from Genesis 41,45.

ותאמר כי מן המים משיתהו, the reason why I called him thus is so that he in turn would rescue others from their problems, just as I have pulled him out of the water (in which he would have drowned.) She considered the find as decreed by a higher power (compare Daniel, 4,14) Moses was saved only so that in his life he would become the instrument of saving others.

She called his name Moshe. Basyah, the daughter of Pharaoh, merited that the name she chose for him became his permanent name, in commemoration of the miracle of his being drawn from the water and saved from death.

Perhaps all the matriarchs possessed a measure of the Holy Spirit which enabled them to appreciate the deeper meaning of these names. Batya did not possess Holy Spirit so that her naming Moses did not reflect special insights on her part as to the deeper significance of that name. The Torah alludes to this by reversing the sequence in which it reports Moses being named. It is very interesting to read what the Zohar section 3, page 276 in the Tikkunim 69 writes about the allusions contained in the name. G'd inspired Batya to name Moses as she did; she herself was totally unaware of the additional implications of the name Moses. All she was aware of was that inasmuch as she had drawn him from the water that event should be reflected in his name.

ותקרא שמו משה, “she named him: Moses.” According to our sages this proves that she converted (by immersing herself in the Nile) to Judaism and learned the Hebrew tongue.) She commemorated the miracles of his& having been saved from the waters of the Nile by expressing this in her choice of name. An alternate explanation: the daughter of Pharaoh did not know any Hebrew, but the plain meaning of the text is that his mother Yocheved called him Moses. When the daughter of Pharaoh wanted to know the meaning of this name, she explained to her that in Hebrew the word משה derived from המשכה, means drawing something, pulling it. When hearing this, the daughter of Pharaoh agreed wholeheartedly with the name given to this infant, for in her own words: “I have pulled him out of the water.” She added that in the future she hoped that what she had done for that infant he would do for others when he would grow up, that is, that he would pull the Jewish people out of Egypt. (Midrash hagadol)

It is also possible that Batya was very careful not to publicise the name Moses and what had inspired it seeing she had flouted both her father's and her people's wishes that the Jewish boy babies be killed. She did call the child Moses. The words: "for I have drawn him from the water," were revealed only by the Torah, not by her.

And a man of Levi went, and took a daughter of Levi - it appears to me, with the help of heaven, that the letters in Levi, written in full as Lamed Vav Yud sums up Ayin [the are letters spelled out in full, and then the letters in the spelling out are added up, not including the letters themselves, so if לוי is למ"ד וא"ו יו"ד, we add up: / מ"ד – 44/א"ו – 7 /ו"ד – 10 for a total of 61 = אין ], and it is known that every letter in their full form is called House (Bayit), and Amram merited to take the characteristic of humility, which is Ayin, which is hinted at in "house of Levi", that is, in the letters of Levi, in their full form, they are called Houses, and this is how he merited to take a daughter from Levi that gave birth to Moshe, our teacher, peace be upon him whose humility surpassed any living person, and he seized the characteristic of Ayin to its fullest. Or you can understand "he took a daughter of Levi" because the letter in its full form is called daughter or son of the simple letter, as it is known, and we know what the Ari of blessed memory wrote, that when Amram took his wife this time, the soul of Chava mixed itself in her, and that is why this was like a new marriage, and her youth returned to her, and this is the secret of "and the woman conceived", that is to say the idea is that the first woman, which was in the world, see there, and also note that Chava plus Yocheved sum up 61 like the full form of Levi. And this is why it says "and he took a daughter of Levi", this is a hint to "Chava Yocheved" which is hinted by the full form, which is called "daughter" in the simple reading.

ויגדל משה AND MOSES WAS GROWN — But has it not already been written, (Exodus 2:10) “And the child grew”? Rabbi Judah the son of Eloai said: the first time it refers to growth in stature, the second time to greatness, — that Pharaoh appointed him to have charge over his palace (Tanchuma Yashan 2.2:17; cf. also Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 166:11).

AND WHEN MOSES WAS GROWN UP HE WENT OUT UNTO HIS BRETHREN. This is to be understood that he grew to manhood. It has already been said, And the child grew,⁸⁰Verse 10. which means that it was no longer necessary to wean him, and then the mother⁸¹Verses 8-9: And the maiden went and called the mother of the child, etc. brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son,⁸⁰Verse 10. for he was to stand in the presence of kings.⁸²See Proverbs 22:29. After that, he grew to manhood in maturity of mind.

מכה, perhaps he only struck him and did not kill him.

וירא בסבלותם. He made it his concern to take a benevolent interest in the afflictions suffered by his brethren.

2,11 איש עברי מאח ;יו, a Hebrew man, one of his brethren. The Torah makes a point of adding "one of his brethren." This is the Torah's way of hinting that Moses recognised that the individual in question was one of the righteous Israelites. There were at that time both righteous and wicked Israelites. It is worthwhile reading how the Mechilta 12,26 interprets the meaning of Exodus 13,18 that the Israelites marched out of Egypt חמושים, reduced to one fifth of their original number. According to the Mechilta only one in every five Israelites took part in the Exodus. The other 80% of the Israelites (the wicked ones) died during the plague of darkness so as not to publicise that fact and allow the Egyptians to gloat. The two Jews who are described as Jews fighting amongst themselves in verse thirteen were not described as "Moses' brethren;" this proves that they were wicked Jews; according to Shemot Rabbah 1,29 they were Datan and Aviram of whom we hear more in פרשת קרח.

ויגדל משה ויצא אל אחיו, “when Moses grew up he went out to his brethren, etc.” In verse 10 when the wet nurse brought Moses back to his foster mother the daughter of Pharaoh, he is described as ויגדל הילד, the child grew up. Now, in the verse following, the adjective “the child,” has been omitted. He was now an adult and had been told that he was actually Jewish.

He was one of the slave drivers. Since the beating [that the Egyptian did] is juxtaposed to the burdens of hard labor, they are related. Therefore Rashi explains: “He was one of the slave drivers.”

V. 11 u. 12. Der Mensch, der als Prophet in Israel aufstehen soll, muss, nach jüdischer Lehre, schon vor seiner Berufung als חכם ,גבור und עשיר ausgezeichnet dastehen. Nicht die Schwäche, nicht die Einfalt, nicht die soziale Abhängigkeit wählt sich Gott zu Boten seines Wortes und seiner Tat. "Stark, weise und unabhängig" muss der Mann dastehen, den Gott als seinen Boten senden soll. Mit diesem einzigen Satze scheidet sich scharf das jüdische Prophetentum von allem, was man gedankenlos mit diesem zusammen zu werfen manchen Ortes so gerne geneigt ist. Unter diesen Kriterien der zum Propheten sich eignenden Persönlichkeit steht גבורה, gesunde Körperkraft, wohl nicht unverdient in erster Linie. Wie sehr sucht man nicht der Tatsache der jüdischen Prophetie ihre Welt und Menschen bauende Kraft zu rauben, indem man sie zuerst ihrer hellen Göttlichkeit entkleidet, um sie dann in das Nachtgebiet der Visionen, des magnetischen Hellsehens usw. usw. zu verweisen. Alles dies sind jedoch Erscheinungen, die nur in Zuständen von Schwäche, Krankheit und Kränklichkeit vorkommen. Die erste Forderung aber, die unsere Prophetie an ihre Träger macht, heißt: גבורה, Gesundheit und Stärke. Nur in einem gesunden, ungeschwächten Leib erreicht der Geist jene Klarheit, die aus dem Born der allen geöffneten Gotteslehre die הכמה zu schöpfen vermag, welche die zweite Vorbedingung, und auch עושר, die Selbständigkeit und Unabhängigkeit, welche die dritte Vorbedingung bildet.

וירא בסבלתם AND HE SAW THEIR BURDENS — he set his eyes and mind to share in their distress. (Exodus Rabbah 1:27)

AND HE WENT OUT UNTO HIS BRETHREN. This indicates that they told him he was a Jew,⁸³See Esther 3:4. and he desired to see them because they were his brethren. Now he looked on their burdens and toils and could not bear [the sight of his people enslaved]. This was why he killed the Egyptian who was smiting the oppressed Hebrew.

וירא איש מצרי מכה איש עברי מאחיו. He was aroused to avenge his death because of this feeling of brotherliness to the victim.

מכה איש עברי מאחיו, “striking down a Hebrew man, one of his brethren.” Ibn Ezra queries the need for the additional word מאחיו in our verse, something we knew seeing that the man had been described as being a Hebrew. He therefore concludes that this word means that the individual in question belonged to the family of Moses. [seeing that his family members were all Levites and exempt from the forced labour, this appears tenuous. Ed.]

He would wake them at the crow of the rooster to their tasks. When the rooster crowed, they immediately needed to get up for their work.

איש מצרי AN EGYPTIAN MAN — This was one of the taskmasters appointed over the Israelite officers and he used to rouse them from their beds at cock-crow that they might proceed to their work (Exodus Rabbah 1:28 and Leviticus Rabbah 32:4).

He was beating and terrorizing him. We need not ask how Rashi knew that מכה means only beating rather than smiting and killing. For the answer is [clear]: Rashi explains later that Moshe killed the Egyptian only after seeing that there was no good man destined to descend from him. Otherwise Moshe would not have killed him. Whereas if מכה means kill, why did Moshe need to see this? Even if the Egyptian would have good descendants he would deserve death for murdering a Hebrew, as Scripture states (Shemos 21:23), “A soul for a soul.” Thus, מכה must mean beating and terrorizing but not killing. That is why Moshe needed to see if there would be any good descendant—otherwise he would not kill him since he was not liable for death by Torah law. You might then ask: how was Moshe allowed to kill him, [if he was not liable for death by Torah law]? The answer is that B’nei Noach are liable for death for violating any Noachite law. And they are commanded against beating, just as Jews are. Nevertheless, were he destined to have a good descendant, Moshe would have judged the Egyptian by Torah law rather than by Noachite law.

מכה איש עברי SMITING A HEBREW MAN — beating and flogging him. The latter was the husband of Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri (see Leviticus 24:11), and the Egyptian taskmaster had set his fancy upon her. During the night he compelled him (her husband) to rise and made him leave the house. He, however, returned, entered the house and forced his attentions upon the woman, she believing it was her husband. The man returned and became aware of what had happened, and when the Egyptian perceived that he was aware of it he beat him and flogged him the whole day long (Exodus Rabbah 1:28).

He (the victim) was the husband of Shlomis, daughter of Divri. [Rashi knows this] because of what is written later in Parshas Emor: “Shlomis daughter of Divri” (Vayikra 24:11). There Rashi explained: “It is praiseworthy to the Jews that Shlomis is specified, as this means only she had illicit relations.” And if this woman was not Shlomis, then there would be two Jewish women who had illicit relations.

He (the Egyptian) was attracted to her . . . and came upon his wife. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Moshe would not have killed him. The Egyptian would not deserve death for only beating the Hebrew. Therefore, he must have come upon his wife and definitely deserved death since adultery is forbidden by the seven Noachite laws, as it is written (Bereishis 2:24): “And he shall cleave to his wife” [and not to another’s wife; see Yerushalmi, Kiddushin 1:1]. This also answers the question posed above (How was Moshe allowed to kill him?).

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.

שני אנשים עברים TWO MEN OF THE HEBREWS — viz., Dathan and Abiram (Nedarim 64b); it was they, too, who left over some of the manna (Exodus Rabbah 1:29).

ויאמר לרשע, seeing that each one of them was one of his brethren he did not act as avenger but intervened with words rebuking the aggressor.

?ויאמר לרשע למה חכה רעך He said to the wicked one: "why are you about to strike your companion?" Moses addressed the one of the two who was clearly wicked. He referred to the victim as "your companion," because if the victim were as wicked as the attacker why would the attacker want to strike him, seeing they were birds of a feather. Alternatively, Moses recognised that he dealt with one righteous and one wicked Israelite. This is why he challenged the attacker saying: "why are you about to strike a righteous person, someone who has not done you any harm?" He called the righteous person רעך, i.e. he relates to you like a friend. Although the Torah described the two as apparently on the same moral level when it says שני אנשים נצים, "two quarrelling people," it will be found that one of them started the fight because he was wicked, whereas the other continued the quarrel without compelling cause.

Dosson and Avirom. [Rashi knows it was them] because the verse here states “Two אנשים (men),” similar to what is written there [about Dosson and Avirom]: “Move away from the tents of these evil אנשים (men)” (Bamidbar 16:26).

V. 13. .מַצָה.נצים Streit. נצה, verwandt mit נשה. נשה: sich freiwillig, jedenfalls widerstandslos in die Macht des andern begeben, ihm von seinem Vermögen in die Hände gegeben, und somit an ihn zu fordern haben. נצה: der Unterordnung unter den andern Widerstand entgegensetzen, daraus naturgemäß: Streit. Hat einer der Streitenden das Ziel erreicht, so wird aus נצח :נצה, der Streit ist zur Ruhe gekommen, wie gewöhnlich der ח-Laut ausdrückt. Daher auch נסה: auf friedlichem Wege jemandes Widerstands- und Überwindungskräfte hervorlocken, ihn auf die Probe stellen, prüfen. Dieser soziale Vorgang auf chemisches Gebiet versetzt, wird: מצה. Der chemische Prozess der Gährung ist nichts als ein in gegenseitigen Kampf geraten der Bestandteile eines Stoffes. Hat dieser Kampf begonnen, wird jedoch vor der Beendigung unterdrückt, so entsteht מצה: festgehaltener Streit. Daher der Satz: .דברים הבאים לידי חימוץ אדם יוצא בהן ידי חובתו במצה (Pessachim 35a)

נצים means quarelling.

Though he had not yet struck him. [Rashi knows this] because the verse should have said למה אתה מכה (“why are you beating,” in the present tense), as it did above: מכה איש עברי מאחיו (beating one of his Hebrew brethren). Thus, למה תכה (“why will you beat,” in the future tense) means “why do you wish to strike your friend?”

למה תכה lit., WHEREFORE WILT THOU SMITE — Although he had not yet smitten him he is termed here רשע wicked, because he had merely raised his hand against him (Sanhedrin 58b).

He is as wicked as you. Rashi is answering the question: why did Moshe call him רעך (your friend), if one was wicked and the other not? Therefore Rashi explains that also his friend was wicked (Maharshal).

רעך THY FELLOW (the word denotes one who is the equal of another) — who is as wicked as yourself (Exodus Rabbah 1:29).

מי שמך לאיש WHO MADE THEE A PERSONAGE (lit., a man), and you are yet only a boy (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 10).

WILT THOU SPEAK TO KILL ME? “From here we learn that Moses had killed the Egyptian by merely pronouncing the Tetragrammaton.”⁸⁴The Tetragrammaton (Shem Hamphorash or Shem Hamyuchad) is the Proper Name of G-d. It consists of four Hebrew letters, the utterance of which is now forbidden. It is translated here as the Eternal. By pronouncing this Name, Moses needed no weapon to accomplish his purpose of bringing about the deserved death of the Egyptian. Thus the language of Rashi, and it is also a Midrash of our Rabbis.⁸⁵Shemoth Rabbah 1:35.
But I wonder. If so, who told the wicked one⁸⁶“The wicked one” — so called by the Torah in Verse 13: and he [Moses] said to the wicked one, ‘Why do you smite thy fellow?’ that Moses killed him? Perhaps Moses placed his hands upon the Egyptian and cursed him in the Name of G-d,⁸⁷See II Kings 2:24. [and the Hebrew who was now quarrelling with Moses saw him doing that]. This would explain the term vayach (‘and he smote’ the Egyptian).⁸⁸A similar use of the term is found in the case of the Assyrian army that was smitten outside Jerusalem by the angel of G-d. It says there, And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Eternal went forth ‘vayach’ (and smote) in the camp of the Assyrians (II Kings 19:35). Now just as in that case vayach does not signify a physical act of striking by hand but rather the inflicting of defeat by supernatural power, so also here in the case of Moses. (Bachya.) It may be that because the Egyptian had fallen dead before him [after he had pronounced the Tetragrammaton over him], Moses feared that they may report him and so he buried the Egyptian in the sand. The Hebrew who saw him doing that reckoned that Moses had caused [the Egyptian’s death somehow, even though he did not know that he had killed him by pronouncing the Tetragrammaton]. Perhaps he thought Moses had killed him by the sword, as he saw only the burial.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, scholars say⁸⁹Ibn Ezra in his commentary here, and R’dak in his Book of Roots, under the root amar. that the expression, wilt thou ‘omer’ (speak), means “think,” since we find amirah (speaking) referring to the thought of the heart. I said in my heart;⁹⁰Ecclesiastes 2:1. I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.⁹¹Ibid., 6:3. It is obvious that Ramban’s intent in selecting these two verses from the Book of Ecclesiastes is to show that the term amirah (saying) as such is equivalent to amirah b’leiv (speaking in one’s heart). Hence the Book of Ecclesiastes uses them interchangeably. But here there is no need for this, for [the intent of the Hebrew’s words to Moses] is as follows: “Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? Is it because thou dost desire to kill me as thou didst kill the Egyptian that thou reprovest me and sayest, ‘Why smitest thou thy fellow?’”⁹²In other words, Ramban is saying that the expression atah omer (thou sayest) alludes to that which Moses had said in Verse 13: Why smitest thou thy fellow? The Hebrew thus said to Moses: “Is it because you desire to kill me as you killed the Egyptian that you reproved me by saying, ‘Why do you smite your fellow?’”

הלהרגני אתה אומר?, because I am striking my fellow ?

הלהרגני אתה אומר? Are you stirring up a quarrel to get me killed?

מי שמך לאיש, “who has appointed you as a dignitary?” He implied that Moses was far too young to have been given any position authorizing him to act on his own. He added the word ושר, in order to say that even assuming that you were old enough and mature enough, no one has appointed you as an authority, שר, over us to unilaterally execute anyone. He added the word שופט, judge, to emphasise that even if you had the legal status of being a judge, you would not have authority over us. (Israelites)

He killed [the Egyptian] with the Divine Name. [Rashi knows this] since the verse states הלהרגני אתה אומר (Are you saying to kill me), rather than הלהרגני אתה מבקש (Are you planning to kill me). This shows that Moshe killed him through speech. Who told him that the Egyptian was killed by the Divine Name? We could say [that the wicked man knew how Moshe killed the Egyptian] since he saw that Moshe buried him in the sand but he did not see Moshe lift a hand against him. Thus he deduced that Moshe killed him with the Divine Name (Re”m).

V. 14. Das "מי שמך לאיש" offenbart schon früh einen Charakterzug, der uns noch heute kennzeichnet und in welchem alle unsere nationale Untugend und — Tugend wurzelt. 600000 Männer haben nicht den Mut, gegen nichtjüdische Schergen ihre Kinder zu verteidigen, aber einem Juden gegenüber ordnet keiner sich unter, da gibts keine menschliche Autorität, und die berechtigtste Zurechtweisung muss sich darauf gefasst machen, als die Gleichheit aller verkennende Anmaßung zu werden. Diese Untugend haben wir noch nicht ganz verlernt, nachdem wir schon so lange in der Galutschule geschult worden, welch ein ungefügiger Stoff müssen wir vor dem Betreten dieser Schule gewesen sein! Nicht den gefügigsten, den ungefügigsten Menschenstamm — עז שבאומות — hat sich Gott erwählt, ihm gab er sein אשדת, sein Feuergesetz, in seiner Überwindung sollte sich zuerst die Feuerkraft seines Gesetzes erproben. Harte Schläge des Geschickes mussten uns hämmern, damit wir so hart wurden wie Stahl und so — biegsam wie Stahl. Gott gegenüber biegsam; unbeugsam, hart und fest aber aller menschlichen Autorität gegenüber. Diese "Nackenhärte" kann auch ausarten und sich in dem Gegenstande verirren. Allein ohne sie wären wir nicht das unsterbliche Gesetzesvolk geworden.

מי שמך לאיש שר ושופט, “who has appointed you as lord or judge?” The word איש here was a reference to Moses’ youth, to the fact that he was below the minimum age for having risen to such a position.

הלהרגני אתה אמר lit. WILT THOU SPEAK IN ORDER TO SLAY ME — From this we may learn that he had killed him by the mere utterance of the “Shem Hamephorash” (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 10; Exodus Rabbah 1:30).

כאשר הרגת את המצרי, .on account of an Egyptian hitting an Israelite.

ויירא משה, as a result Moses became careful and fled.

הלהרגני אתה אומר?, “are you going to say something which will kill me?” From this phrase we learn that Moses had killed the Egyptian by cursing him in the name of the ineffable G’d. This does not contradict what the Torah wrote, i.e. ויך את המצרי, “he struck (dead) the Egyptian,” (verse 12) The Bible uses the verb הכה to describe words, such as in Isaiah 11,4 והכה ארץ בשבט פיו, “and he will smite a land with the rod of his mouth.” (the Messiah when he comes.) Although, according to Sanhedrin 105, what Solomon means in Proverbs 17,26 when he says גם ענוש לצדיק לא טוב, is that the righteous should never place themselves in a position of causing or administering punishment, even when the victim would be a confirmed heretic, this situation did not meet the criteria discussed in the Talmud. The victim of Moses was guilty of raping a married woman, and clearly deserving the death penalty, as our sages derive from the words ויפן כה וכה, that Moses saw not only what this Egyptian had done in the field, but what he had done prior to this in the house of the Jew whom he had killed. Nachmanides questions this whole line of exegesis, writing that if Moses had used the holy name of G’d to kill the Egyptian, who had told the quarrelling Jew about this? He reasons that possibly Moses had placed his hand on the Egyptian prior to cursing him, so that the words ויך את המצרי, “he struck the Egyptians,” may be understood literally without contradicting the opinion that his death was caused by G’d honouring Moses’ curse. When the Egyptian suddenly fell dead as his feet, Moses became afraid and covered him with sand, The wicked Jew who had observed all this realized that either G’d had caused the death of the Egyptian, or if he had not observed the actual death, assumed that Moses had killed him with the sword, and that therefore he had buried him to obliterate the fact that the man had been killed violently, seeing he only had seen Moses burying the corpse. If we follow the plain meaning of the text, the words אתה אומר, need not refer to words spoken by mouth at all, but may describe someone’s intention, as in Kohelet where Solomon repeatedly introduces a thought with the words אמרתי אני בלבי, “I used to say in my heart.”

Wicked people who were informers. The word דלטורין means “informers.”

ויירא משה AND MOSES FEARED — Explain it in its literal sense: he was afraid of Pharaoh. A Midrashic explanation is: he felt distressed because he saw that there were wicked men among the Israelites — common informers. He said: Since this is so (מעתה), perhaps they are not worthy to be delivered from bondage (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 10).

אכן , Moses had come to the realisation that he had been wrong when he buried the Egyptian thinking that no one had observed his death and burial. It turned out that the matter had been witnessed.

ויאמר אכן נודע הדבר, when the snitch said these words to him, in the presence of others, he did not kill him seeing there would be no point in doing this, seeing he had already reported what Moses had done to the authorities.

אכן נודע הדבר, “indeed the matter has become known.” Ibn Ezra equates the word אכן with the expression אם כן, “if so, etc.” Rash’bam changes the meaning to אכן אם כן, “if indeed it is different from what I thought, and the matter has become common knowledge.

To be subjugated by oppressive work. Although there had been a decree upon the descendants of Avraham: “And they will enslave them and afflict them four hundred years” (Bereishis 15:13), nevertheless, Moshe questioned [Why they were oppressed], since it is written (Devarim 24:16): “Children shall not die for [the sins of] their fathers.” Alternatively, [Moshe’s question was that] Avraham and Yitzchak had other descendants, so why was subjugation not decreed upon them. Alternatively, although “they will enslave them and afflict them” had been decreed, but oppressive work had not decreed upon them. And this [i.e., their oppressive work] is what puzzled Moshe (Maharma”i).

אכן נדע הדבר SURELY THE THING IS KNOWN — Explain it in its literal sense: the fact that I have killed the Egyptian is known. A Midrashic explanation is: now there is known to me that matter about which I have been puzzled — how has Israel sinned more than all the seventy nations, that they should be oppressed by this crushing servitude? But now I see that they deserve this (Exodus Rabbah 1:30).

וישמע פרעה AND PHARAOH HEARD IT — they (Dathan and Abiram) slandered (denounced) him (Exodus Rabbah 1:31).

וישב בארץ מדין. A general description of the locality, followed by more details of why he settled there, i.e. his experience at the well. He had originally only stopped there for refreshment as do most travelers. The Torah follows this with the story of Yitro and his daughters.

. וישב בארץ מדין. He had decided to remain for a while in that country.

ולכהן מדין שבע בנות, “and the priest of Midian had seven daughters.” Their father was not mentioned by name as his reputation was based on his official status, i.e. that he was the High Priest of the Midianites. In fact, he was identical with the well known Yitro about whom we will hear more. We know that it was he, as the Torah narrates: וישב אל יתר חותנו, he (Moses) dwelled with his father-in-law Yeter, which is short for Yitro. We find similar interchangeable names elsewhere, such as Elijah sometimes being spelled אליה and other times אליהו. After Yitro converted to Judaism he was renamed חובב, as we know from Judges 4,11 מבני חבב חתן משה, “and from amongst the descendants of Chovav, Moses’ father-in-law, etc.” It is customary to give new names to people who convert to Judaism. Chovav was actually a son of Re-uel, as is written in Numbers 10,29 ויאמר משה לחבב בן רעואל, “Moses said to Chovav son of Reu-el.” As to Exodus 2,18 ותבאנה אל רעואל אביהם, “when they came to Re-uel, their father,” which on the face of it seems to contradict what we have said, it is not unusual for the paternal grandfather to be described as “father.” Yaakov himself described Avraham, his grandfather, as “my father,” when he spoke about “the G’d of my father Avraham” in Genesis 31 as well as in Genesis The reason why the daughters of Yitro are reported as returning to the house of Re-uel is that their father was not at home but occupied with his tasks as the High Priest of the country.

They (Dosson and Avirom) informed on him. [Rashi knows this because] it says later on (Shemos 4:19): “For they have died — all the men who had sought your life.” This was Dosson and Avirom, as we see in Maseches Nedarim 64b. (Nachalas Yaakov)

את הדבר הזה, this matter, etc. Moses used the word הזה, to indicate that it was only after this aggressive Jew had said to Moses: "are you going to kill me also, etc." that he realised with certainty that he had observed him killing the Egyptian.

V. 15. Das ויבקש להרוג setzt eine besondere Stellung voraus. Pharao war ja ein absoluter König und Moses hatte einen Mord begangen. Es heißt auch nicht להמית, der gewöhnliche Ausdruck für Hinrichtung, sondern להרוג. Moses muss somit als Adoptivsohn der Fürstin eine sehr angesehene Stellung innegehabt haben, dass Pharao Rücksichten zu nehmen hatte, welche einem gewöhnlichen Menschen wohl nicht zu gute gekommen wären. — ויברח וישב. Er floh und kam erst zur Ruhe, ließ sich erst ruhig nieder im Lande Midjan. Zwischen dieser Flucht und der Niederlassung in Midjan muss eine sehr geraume Zeit verstrichen sein. Bei seiner Rückkehr war er 80 Jahre alt und es war ihm eben erst höchstens sein zweiter Sohn geboren. Es ist wohl unwahrscheinlich, das eben erzählte Ereignis von dem ויגדל משה zu trennen und auf eine um so viel spätere Zeit zu verlegen.

ויבקש להרגו, “he tried to have him executed.” He handed him over to his executioner. However the executioner’s sword did not carry out its function. His neck had turned into stone. (Jerusalem Talmud tractate B’rachot 9,1) As a result, Moses was able to flee to Midian. The numerical value in the words: וישב משה, “Moses settled down,” are equivalent to אבן שיש, “stone of marble.” A Midrash quoted on the same folio of the Jerusalem Talmud just related also says that the Archangel Gavriel descended to earth, grabbed the executioner’s sword and made his face look like that of Moses, and proceeded to execute him. [It would have taken a while to realise that the dead body was not that of Moses, giving him a head start when he fled. Ed.]

ויבקש להרג את משה AND HE SOUGHT TO SLAY MOSES — He handed him over to the executioner to slay him, but the sword proved powerless against him. It is to this that Moses referred when he said, (18:4) “And He delivered me from Pharaoh’s sword” (see Mechilta יתרו and Exodus Rabbah 1:31).

וישב על הבאר. While Moses was traveling through the land of Midian it happened once that he settled near a certain (well known) well. The construction here is similar to Genesis 28,11) which describes Yaakov as encountering a certain place, also described with the preposition ה i.e. המקום instead of simply מקום, to show that the site had been known already.

ותבאנה ותדלנה, “they came and drew water, etc.” According to Nachmanides these words describe their normal habits, i.e. that on every day the male shepherds would water their flocks first, before the arrival of the daughters of Yitro with their flocks. On that particular day, the daughters of Yitro arrived at the watering troughs ahead of the male shepherds, assuming that they could proceed and water their flocks first, without interfering with the flocks of the male shepherds who were due to arrive at that spot later. They had already filled the troughs with water from the well used. As luck would have it, they had miscalculated, and the male shepherds arrived prematurely, and when they saw what had happened they simply drove off Yitro’s daughters, intending to water their flocks first as was their custom. The violent means used by the male shepherds enraged Moses so that he intervened on behalf of the female shepherds, helping them to water their flocks first as they had intended. He also helped with the actual drawing of the water, as the troughs did not hold enough water to still the thirst of the whole flock in one filling. Upon their return home, their grandfather was surprised to see them return so early. This is why he questioned them, and they answered that a distinguished Egyptian had helped them.

ויבקש להרוג אותו. He tried to kill him. This means that Pharaoh tried to establish proof that Moses had killed the Egyptian as a result of which he would be brought to trial and be executed. This is why Moses fled from Pharaoh in case Pharaoh would obtain enough proof to make him stand trial. On the other hand, the words מפני פרעה may refer to Pharaoh's face. When Moses looked at Pharaoh's angry face he realised that he was in danger and fled even though he did not know what Pharaoh knew and what he did not.

[וישב בארץ מדין AND HE ABODE IN THE LAND OF MIDIAN — the word וישב means he stayed there, as (Genesis 37:1) “And Jacob abode (וישב)‎”.]

וישב על הבאר — Here the word וישב has the meaning of sitting down. He learnt to sit at the well from Jacob whose marriage had been brought about by means of a well (Exodus Rabbah 1:32).

ולכהן מדין THE PRIEST OF MIDIAN — כהן signifies the chief amongst them (see Targ. Onkelos and Mekhilta יתרו); he had abandoned the idol-worship to which they were addicted and they banished him, driving him away from them (Exodus Rabbah 1:32).

NOW THE PRIEST OF MIDIAN HAD SEVEN DAUGHTERS. Scripture does not mention him by name for he is not known [to the reader], but rather epithetically mentions that he was the honored one in his priesthood. This was Jethro, for after he became related to Moses it is written, And Moses went and returned to Jether his father-in-law,⁹³Further, 4:18. and there it is written, And Jethro said to Moses: Go in peace.⁹³Further, 4:18. [This proves that Jether and Jethro are the same person], just as Eliyah and Eliyahu,⁹⁴Eliyah (II Kings 1:3), Eliyahu (I Kings 17:1). Yirmiyah and Yirmiyahu.⁹⁵Yirmiyah (Jeremiah 27:1), Yirmiyahu (ibid., 1:1). After he became a proselyte to Judaism, he was called Hobab, as it is written, from the children of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses,⁹⁶Judges 4:11. for it is the way of all who become converts to Judaism that they be called another name in Israel. And he [Jethro or Hobab] was the son of Reuel, for it is written, And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite.⁹⁷Numbers 10:29. The verse here stating, And they came to Reuel their father,⁹⁸Verse 18. means “their father’s father,” just as [Jacob had said], O G-d of my father Abraham,⁹⁹Genesis 32:10. [and Abraham was his father’s father], and [when speaking of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, Scripture says], Nebuchadnezzar his father,¹⁰⁰Daniel 5:2. [while he was his father’s father].¹⁰¹Evil-merodach, king of Babylon, ruled after Nebuchadnezzar (see II Kings 25:27), and he was followed by Belshazzar (see Megillah 11a). Nebuchadnezzar was thus Belshazzar’s grandfather, and yet Scripture (Daniel 5:2) speaks of him as his father. Similarly: Know ye Laban the son of Nahor?¹⁰²Genesis 29:5. But Laban was really the son of Bethuel, for he was the brother of Rebekah (ibid., 24:29), and of Rebekah it is written that her father was Bethuel (ibid., Verse 15). Bethuel’s father was Nahor (ibid., 22:20-22). Yet Jacob asked, Know ye Laban the son of Nahor? It is because a grandfather is called “father.” And Mephibosheth the son of Saul.¹⁰³II Samuel 19:25. Mephibosheth was the son of Jonathan (ibid., 4:4), who was the son of Saul. There are many other such verses.
[Jethro’s daughters came and told Reuel their grandfather of how Moses came to their aid — as is related in Verses 18-19 — and did not tell Jethro] because the priest was not found in the house since he was preoccupied with the ministry in his temple, and so they came to the grandfather. It is possible that the verse, And Moses was content to dwell with the man,¹⁰⁴Verse 21. refers to the priest mentioned above [in Verse 16 — namely, Jethro]¹⁰⁵The intent of Ramban’s words is as follows: According to the above-mentioned interpretation that Jethro was not to be found in his home and that consequently his daughters told Reuel, his father, what had happened (as stated in Verses 18-20), it should follow that the expression, And Moses was content to dwell with ‘the man’ (Verse 21) refers to Reuel, and it was Reuel who gave Moses Zipporah his granddaughter as a wife. But, continues Ramban, it is possible that “the man” in Verse 21 refers back to “the priest” in Verse 16, and so it was Jethro who gave Moses his daughter in marriage. — for it was he who gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.

THE PRIEST OF MIDIAN ... TO R'U'EL, the father of THEIR FATHER (v. 18). If so, their father's name is Yitro, and Hovav, the son of R'u'el, who is mentioned below in Parashat B'ha'alot'cha (Num. 10:29) -- "Moses said to Hovav son of R'u'el" -- Hovav and Yitro are the same. And if R'u'el is Yitro, then he [Hovav] was Yitro's son. But what is written in the Prophets (Jud. 4:11) -- "descendants of Hovav, father-in-law of Moshe" -- proves that Hovav is Yitro, since all other mentions of "Moshe's father-in-law" mention Yitro.

He abandoned the worship of idols whereupon they (the Midianites) banished him. Rashi is answering the question: Since Yisro was the most prominent man of Midian, why did the shepherds chase away his sheep? Therefore Rashi explains: “He abandoned the worship of idols. . .” (Maharshal) Although Yisro abandoned the worship of idols, he did not convert fully. For later, upon hearing of the Splitting of the Sea, he came to convert. But I heard it means that Yisro abandoned the idols of Midian to worship other idols. This is in accordance with the Mechilta (Yisro 1): “There was no idol that Yisro had not worshipped.” Thus we must say that Yisro abandoned one idolatry for another. According to this, we can understand why Yisro stipulated with Moshe that Moshe’s first son shall be devoted to idolatry (ibid.), [although Yisro had already “abandoned” the worship of idols]. (Maharamash)

ולכהן מדין שבע בנות, “and the priest of Midian was father of seven daughters;” Yitro was the High Priest in Midian, and the Torah had to explain that the reason none of his sons was tending his livestock was the fact that he only had daughters. Another explanation: Yitro had dissociated himself from paganism, and after that no one was willing to tend his flocks after he had been officially ostracized by his townsfolk.

את הרהטים THE GUTTERS — the troughs for the currents of water which are excavated in the ground.

AND THEY CAME AND DREW WATER. Every day, the practice was that the shepherds drew water, filled the troughs and watered their flocks first, and then these women watered their flocks. It happened that on this day, the women preceded the men and they came and drew water, thinking to water their flocks before the shepherds came. But then came the shepherds and drove them away¹⁰⁶Verse 17. from the troughs, insisting on watering their own flocks first as they had always done. Moses’ anger was aroused because of this injustice, and he saved them, for since they had filled the troughs, the water belonged to them. Moreover, he drew water for them¹⁰⁷Verse 19. as the troughs did not suffice for all their flocks. This is the purport of the question, How is it that ye are come so soon today?¹⁰⁸Verse 18. [which Reuel their grandfather asked them]. And they answered, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds,¹⁰⁷Verse 19. meaning that “they had always driven us away when we came to the troughs first.”

ויגרשם AND THEY DROVE THEM AWAY, because of the banishment into which their father and his family had been driven (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 11).

ויקם משה ויושיען, seeing that both parties to this argument were non-Jewish, Moses did not intervene by avenging the wronged party but only made sure that he would redress the injustice done to the innocent party.

V. 17. ויגרשום — ויושיען — צאנם. Die Mädchen werden hier zweimal männlich genannt und einmal weiblich. Ein solcher Wechsel des Geschlechtes ist nie grundlos. Hier liegt die Erklärung sehr nahe. Die Hirten kamen und vertrieben sie, nicht als wären sie Mädchen, sondern behandelten sie roh, als wären sie ihresgleichen, während sonst ja selbst bei den Rohesten das weibliche Geschlecht geschützt gewesen wäre. Mosche half ihnen, weil sie die Schwächeren waren, nicht weil sie im Recht waren, was er ja als Fremder gar nicht beurteilen konnte, sondern, weil sie roh behandelte Mädchen waren. Das Tränken der Schafe gehörte nicht mehr zur Rettung. Um aber zu sagen, dass Mosche dies nicht aus Galanterie gegen Frauen getan, sondern es auch gegen Männer getan hätte, weil es Menschen waren, die eben in Gefahr und als solche abgemüdet gewesen, heißt es: וישק את צאנם. Er stand ihnen bei, weil es Frauen waren, und tränkte ihre Schafe aus Menschlichkeit gegen abgehetzte Menschen.

ויקם משה ויושיען, “Moses arose and saved them.” From the use of the word: “he arose,” it is clear that that the male shepherds had thrown Yitro’s daughters into the troughs, as a punishment for their father who had become an outcast for his religious beliefs, and who had rejected idolatry as a result. (Sh’mot Rabbah 1,32.) The expression ויושע makes it clear that the persons helped had been in mortal danger as we know from Psalms 69,2: הושיעני אלוקים כי באו מים עד נםש, “deliver me, O G–d, for the waters have reached my (soul) neck.”

איש מצרי, “a distinguished Egyptian.” Moses had deliberately dressed as an Egyptian, seeing that he was a fugitive and had to mislead his pursuers. There is a comment in a Midrash that Moses, who had allowed others to think of him as an Egyptian, did not merit to be buried in the Holy Land, whereas Joseph who had proclaimed the fact that he was a Hebrew even when it could have hurt him socially and career wise, did merit to be buried in the Holy Land. The other Midrashim, including Shemot Rabbah 1,32, understand this differently, Moses declining to accept the thanks of the shepherdesses by saying that it was actually due to the Egyptian man whom he had killed that they had been helped, as if he were not trying to escape Pharaoh’s police he would not at that time have been near these troughs. [in other words, Moses, far from using his disguise to merit the gratitude of the Yitro’s daughters, attributed their good fortune as due to his victim the Egyptian whom he had slain. It would appear most unwise for Moses to have revealed at this stage why he had come to Midian just then. On the other hand, if the Midrash Shemot Rabbah is correct, it makes the fact that the daughters of Yitro did not immediately invite him to their house much more understandable. They were scared to harbour a fugitive from Egyptian justice. Ed.]

וישק את הצאן. “he watered the flock.” The reason why they did not say: “he watered our flock,” was that they had witnessed that due to Moses’ intervention the waters came forth on their own until there was enough to also water the flocks of the male shepherds.

למה זה עזבתן — WHEREFORE HAVE YE LEFT [THE MAN]? — He recognised that he was of the offspring of Jacob because for him (Moses), as for Jacob, the water had risen in the well at his approach (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 11)

למה זה עזבתן?, since he is a guest, and a person who has demonstrated kindness you should at least have reciprocated by showing him a measure of hospitality.

למה זה עזבתם את האיש, "Why did you leave the man?" Yitro meant "why did you abandon a man who had done you a favour?" Alternatively, he meant: "how long can you let a man who has done you such a favour wait outside? Bring him inside, etc.!" Still another meaning of Re-uel's (Yitro's) words may be that though ordinarily Yitro would not want his daughters to strike up an acquaintanceship with men to whom they had not been introduced, this situation was different. He stressed that this man had already proved himself by his deeds. The word זה indicates that Yitro meant that this situation was different. This was especially so in view of the opinion expressed in Shemot Rabbah 1,32 that the waters in the well rose of their own accord towards Moses.

ויאמר....למה עזבתם את האיש, “He said: ’why did you abandon the man?” According to Ibn Ezra the Torah searched for a brief method of describing what happened. It omitted reporting that the daughters complied with Reu-el’s instructions, as it is clear from what follows that they had done so.

For whom the waters [of the Nile] rose. It seems that Rashi inferred this from the fact that Yisro asked his daughters: “How did you get to come [home] so early today?” It is difficult to understand the basis of his question. If he knew that the shepherds came every day and chased the sheep away, they would not go in the first place before the shepherds finished watering. And if he knew that the shepherds did not come first every day, [why was he surprised his daughters returned early?] Perhaps the shepherds did not come [first] today. Thus we must assume that on that day Yisro’s daughters returned home so early that even if the shepherds did not come first, the daughters would not have returned so soon. Therefore he asked them: “How did you get to come [home] so early today?” And they answered that a man came and drew for them, and the water rose up for him, thus they did not need to draw. And how did Rashi know that they answered so? Because the verse stated previously: “To draw water and fill the troughs,” implying that the daughters would pour water into the troughs to water their sheep. Whereas they now said to Yisro: “He also drew for us, and watered the sheep,” implying that Moshe did not pour the water into the troughs but watered the sheep straight from the well. Since he did not need to pour, the water must have risen up for him (Maharshal). (There are new insights to be formulated here, but time does not permit.)

למה עזבתן, “Why did you abandon him?” According to Rashi, when Yitro heard that the waters from the well had risen at the approach of Moses, he realised that this man was someone special. The expression דלה דלה לנו, implies that the waters rose towards them as a result of Moses’ assistance.

ויאכל לחם THAT HE MAY EAT BREAD — perhaps he will marry one of you — just as you say, (Genesis 39:6) “except the bread which he did eat” (cf. Rashi on this verse, where the word “bread” is explained as a euphemism) (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 11).

Perhaps he might marry one of you. Rashi [offers this Midrashic explanation in answer to] the question: Why did Yisro say “let him eat bread”? Is it proper that Yisro honor Moshe merely with bread, in return for his great kindness? It would be understandable [for Yisro to say so] if Moshe was present. Then we could assume that Yisro was saying little and doing much, as the Gemara (Bava Metzia 87a) states regarding Avraham’s statement, “I will bring some bread [for the guests to eat]” (Bereishis 18:5). However, Avraham was a tzaddik, and the tzaddikim say little and do much, but Yisro was not as righteous and Moshe was not present so Yisro would not say this, for even Avraham made his statement when the angels were present. Furthermore, the verse implies that Moshe was invited only for eating bread, and then he would go on his way. Was Yisro’s great concern justified for this [i.e., eatng bread] alone, that he should exclaim: “Why did you abandon the man? Call him . . .”? Therefore Rashi explains, “Perhaps he might marry one of you.” This also explains the verse following, “Moshe agreed to reside with the man . . .,” i.e., Moshe agreed to remain with Yisro because of “. . . and he gave Moshe his daughter Tzipporah.” The word ויואל (agreed) clearly implies that Yisro requested this of him, and now Moshe agreed to fill his request. Therefore, we must say that this request is hinted in “Call him and let him eat bread,” meaning: “perhaps he might marry one of you.” That is why Yisro sent after Moshe (Maharamash).

ויואל — Translate this as the Targum does: AND HE WAS WILLING. Similar are: (Judges 19:6) “Be content (הואל), I pray thee, and tarry all night”; (Joshua 7:7) “would that we had been content (הואלנו)”; (Genesis 18:31) “I am content (הואלתי) to speak”. A Midrashic explanation is that it has the sense of taking an oath (אלה), so that it should be rendered, “And Moses pledged himself by an oath to remain with the man” — he swore to him that he would not stir from Midian save by his permission (cf. Exodus 4:18) (Nedarim 65a).

לשבת את האיש, to tend his flocks, a similar construction to Lavan inviting Yaakov to stay with him in Genesis 29,19.

ויתן את צפורה בתו למשה. He gave his daughter Tziporah to Moses. The reason the Torah repeats Moses' name in this verse, when it could have simply written: "he gave her to him," is that Tziporah was the divinely appointed wife for Moses, his בת זוג.

I have agreed to speak ( הואלתי לדבר ). We must say that Rashi is bringing his proof [that ויואל means “I have agreed”] from the second instance that הואלתי appears in Parshas Vayeira (Bereishis 18:31). For הואלתי appears there twice, and the first הואלתי (ibid v. 27) does not mean “I have agreed,” rather “I have begun,” as Rashi explains there.

V. 21. הואיל משה באר .ויואל משה (Dewarim 1, 5) — ויואל שאול את העם (Sam. 1. 14, 24) — נואלו שרי צוען (Jes. 19, 13). Wurzel: יאל verwandt mit יחל יעל. יעל: nützlich sein, gefördert sein, gedeihen. יאל: der Anfang zur Förderung einer Sache; erster Entschluss zu einem Unternehmen, dessen Fortgang dann durch יעל ausgedrückt wird. Daher ויואל: er fasste den Entschluss. יחל ist das Innehalten eines schon im Anfange begriffenen Beginnens: warten. Daher auch הואיל: veranlassen, dass jemand den Entschluss zu etwas fasst, oder: machen, dass in uns ein solcher Entschluss zur Reife kommt, sich anschicken, etwas zu tun. ויואל שאול braucht daher nicht regelwidrig von אלה Schwur zu sein, sondern: er brachte das Volk dazu, den Vorsatz zu fassen. נואל, Niphal, würde dann — (ebenso wie: ושנתו נהיתה עליו (Daniel 2, 1) sein Schlaf wurde in seinem Dasein getroffen, d.h. gestört; נוחלה אבדה תקותה (Ezech. 19, 5): sie ward in ihrer Erwartung gestört, wo überall durch die passive Form die Passivität, das Gehemmt- und Gehindertwerden ausgedrückt wird), — das Gestört-, Gehemmtsein in Entschlüssen ausdrücken, ratlos sein, sich nicht zu entschließen wissen. אשר נואנו (Bamidbar 12, 11): wozu wir ohne vorgängige gehörige Überlegung, ohne eigentlichen Vorsatz gekommen sind.

ויתן את צפורה בתו למשה, “He gave his daughter Tzipporah to Moses (as a wife.)” What is the significance of the name “Tzipporah?” She had run towards Moses like a bird (צפור) An alternate interpretation: she was beautiful as the morning at the time of sunrise. She lit up the atmosphere in the morning. The Aramaic word צפרא means: “morning;” it is used to describe how welcome the morning is. Our author quotes Ezekiel 7,7 “the day is near,” as well as Judges 7,3: as a bird flies from Mount Gilad,” to support his point.

בארץ נכריה. The meaning of the name Gershom, i.e. a stranger in a distant land.

גר הייתי בארץ נכריה. A stranger in a land which is not my birthplace.

גר הייתי, "I was (used to be) a stranger, etc." The Torah deliberately phrases this in the past tense because the Torah reports events as of the time the Torah was written (at that time Moses could speak of his being a stranger in the past tense, whereas at the time the baby was born he was still a stranger in Midian). Alternatively, the words may be understood along the lines of Psalms 119,19: גר אנכי בארץ, "I am only a stranger on earth." Righteous people in this world are merely strangers, they have no permanent abode. Moses meant that ever since he was born he had merely been a stranger in a foreign land, seeing he had not been raised in his parents' home or shared his youth with his siblings.

“I have been a foreigner.” Although he lived in Midian and married there, and although he had to flee Egypt because of the slander of a fellow Jew, in spite of this he never lost his love for his people. All his life, he longed to return to his people in Egypt and save them.

V. 22. גר הייתי בארץ נכריה ist nicht recht klar. Wo anders ist man fremd als im ארץ נכריה? Ferner: הייתי, ich war; als er den Namen gab, war er es ja noch. Es scheint: man kann irgendwo גר sein, allein nach kurzem Dortsein wird man heimisch, das Land ist nicht mehr נכריה. Im Namen seines Erstgebornen sprach Mosche aus, dass er noch nach Midjan nicht hingehöre; obgleich dort frei und sorgenlos und Familienvater, gehört sein Inneres doch seinen Stammesgenossen in Mizrajim. Spräche dies aber einen Tadel gegen seine Umgebung aus, so wäre es begreiflich, weshalb er גר הייתי und nicht גר אני sprach. In Wahrheit war er es noch; er war jedoch so rücksichtsvoll, dieses Gefühl nur in der Vergangenheit auszudrücken. גר שוֹם, nicht גר שָם, daher wohl nicht von שָם, dort, sondern von שמם: öde, entsprechend dem ארץ נכריה.

ותלד בן, “she gave birth to a son;” there is no mention of her having been pregnant first; this is to tell us that she remained looking like an unmarried virgin, slim throughout her pregnancy. (Pessikta Zutrata)

ויקרא את שמו גרשום, “he called his name Gershom.” If we were to be judgmental, Moses should have given his son a name that reflected his miraculous escape from Pharaoh and his police. Moses did not mention this until his second son was born whom he called appropriately “Eliezer,” i.e. “My G-d Who is my helper.” We may explain this as Moses feeling that as long as Pharaoh was still on the throne he was still in danger regardless of where he had found temporary refuge. We see proof of this when G-d told him in Exodus 4,19 that all the people who had sought his death had died in the meantime. This meant that the Pharaoh whom he had known had died also. Immediately Moses heard this he responded when his second son was born. Compare 4,24 where Moses is punished while at the inn for having delayed circumcision of his second son, seeing that he was no longer in danger as G-d had told him. [This suggests that Eliezer may have been as much as 50 years younger than his older brother. Ed.] A different interpretation: when Gershom had been born Moses was still a newcomer in Midian, and he felt like an alien there. If he had called the first son Eliezer, he would have endangered himself by hinting that he had needed to escape from Egypt as a common criminal and had only been saved by Divine intervention. By the time Eliezer was born, he felt at home in Midian, hence the time had come to thank the Lord for his deliverance from danger.

[ויהי בימים הרבים ההם AND IT CAME TO PASS DURING THOSE MANY DAYS during which Moses was sojourning in Midian, וימת מלך מצרים THAT THE KING OF EGYPT DIED, and the Israelites felt the need of help; and therefore ומשה היה רעה “And Moses fed the flock” and help came through him. For this reason these chapters are placed in juxtaposition].

AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE COURSE OF THOSE MANY DAYS. Scripture uses the expression “in those days” or “on that day” only when alluding to a brief current event, but of a past event it says, and it came to pass afterward.¹⁰⁹As in Judges 16:4. In that case then, it should have said here, “and it came to pass afterward that the king of Egypt died.” It is for this reason that our Rabbis have said¹¹⁰Shemoth Rabbah 1:40. that because they were days of suffering [for Israel], Scripture calls them “many” although alluding to a brief current event.¹¹¹In other words, Scripture is really referring here to a specific current event, namely, the death of the king, and yet it uses the term “many” — and it came to pass in the course of those ‘many’ days — instead of saying “in those days.” To a suffering people — as Israel was at that time — even a brief period appeared as a long one. So also have the Rabbis said¹¹²Shemoth Rabbah 1:32. in connection with the above-mentioned verse, And it came to pass in those days when Moses was grown up,¹¹³Above, Verse 11. that his growth was unnatural, meaning, sudden and fast.¹¹⁴Ramban is thus confirming what he stated above, i.e., that the Scriptural expression in those days alludes to a brief current event. Hence when it says in the case of Moses’ growth, and it was in those days and Moses was grown up, the Rabbis interpreted it to mean that his growth was brief and sudden. Under all circumstances, the period [covered in the verses], and the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel cried out and their cry came up unto G-d, was [altogether] a brief period of time.
However, we might also explain that in the course of those many days refers to the days of suffering and hard labor which were exceedingly many, as the exile became very prolonged. It was this [long period of suffering and hard labor] which caused them to cry out, and their cry came up unto G-d. Similarly, the verse, And it came to pass after many days, the word of the Eternal came to Elijah, in the third year,¹¹⁵I Kings 18:1. means that there were many days [of famine] and afterwards this event, [related there in the Book of Kings], occurred.
In my opinion, the purport of this verse, [And it came to pass in the course of those many days], is to allude to those days when Moses was a fugitive from Pharaoh. Indeed he was but a youth when he fled, as the verse said, And when Moses was grown up he went out unto his brethren,¹¹³Above, Verse 11. suggesting that immediately when he grew up and became self-conscious and they told him that he was a Jew, he longed to see the burdens, toils and oppressions of his brethren. On that [first] day on which he went out, he smote the Egyptian, and on the second day, they denounced him [to the authorities] and he fled. He was thus at that time approximately twelve years of age, as our Sages have mentioned,¹¹⁶Shemoth Rabbah 5:1. and at any rate not twenty,¹¹⁷Ibid., 1:32. and when he stood before Pharaoh he was eighty years old.¹¹⁸Further, 7:7. In that case, he was a fugitive from Pharaoh for about sixty years, [and it is with reference to those sixty years that Scripture speaks of those ‘many’ days].
It is likely that at the end of that period, Moses came to Midian and married Zipporah, since when this word [of G-d that he return to Egypt] came to him, he had begotten of her only his firstborn son Gershom¹¹⁹Verse 22. [while Eliezer, his second son, was born during his journey to Egypt].¹²⁰See Rashi further, 4:24. This proves that Moses’ arrival and marriage in Midian were towards the end of his sixty-year absence from Egypt.
Scripture however mentions nothing of [the entire period of] his flight excepting, And he dwelt in the land of Midian, and he sat down by a well,¹²¹Verse 15. since nothing happened to him in those other days which Scripture found necessary to relate. And it is logical. He who flees from the reach of a government does not tarry in a settled place or its environs. Instead, he flees from place to place in remote regions. Thus he stayed away for a long time, hiding himself and feigning to be a stranger, going about from nation to nation, from one kingdom to another people,¹²²Psalms 105:13. and at the end of that time he came to Midian and stayed there. This is the meaning of the verse, And he dwelt in the land of Midian.¹²¹Verse 15. It would have been fitting for Scripture to say, “and he went to the land of Midian,” but instead it implies that he did not dwell in any city until the end [of the period], when he came to the land of Midian and there he dwelt.
Now due to the fact that Scripture mentions his flight from Pharaoh and his dwelling in Midian, and it immediately relates that he was made to return to Egypt by command of the Holy One, blessed be He, it alludes to this entire period by saying, And it came to pass in the course of those many days, meaning [those days] when Moses fled from before Pharaoh and during part of which time he stayed in Midian. At the end [of that period], the king of Egypt died, and the Divine Revelation concerning it came to Moses and he was returned to Egypt and redeemed the children of Israel. It is for this reason that Scripture does not say, “and it came to pass after many days,” for the purport of that would have been that [the death of the king of Egypt] occurred long after Moses dwelt in Midian. But that is not so, for the expression those many days refers to all that is related above.

ויהי בימים הרבים ההם, after Moses had slain the Egyptian and Pharaoh had tried to execute him for murder, and Moses had fled from his presence and remained in hiding until he was 80 years of age when G’d decided to speak with him, the King of Egypt who had tried to kill him died (only now). The Children of Israel had merely groaned under his persecution all this time. G’d now saw their suffering, while Moses during all that time had been a shepherd of his father-in-law’s flocks. At that time G’d appeared to Moses and commanded him to return to Egypt (3,1). Moses was unwilling to return to Egypt as he was still afraid of criminal proceedings against him, until G’d told him (4,19) that there was no cause for this, as all the people who wanted him dead had already died themselves. This is why the Torah reports here וימת מלך מצרים, so that we would understand what 4,19 is all about. The entire literary construction is similar to Genesis 9,18 וחם הוא אבי כנען. [verses 19-21 after that are in parenthesis before the Torah continues about Cham. Ed]

And the children of Yisrael sighed from the labour and cried out. It's a bit difficult to mix them, and to teach "they sighed and cried out from the labour". It seems that the sighing was internal and because of the labour; however, the crying out wasn't dependent on the labour. For they thought that they were worthy of redemption due to their deeds, even without this harsh labour - however, in the eyes of God they were wicked and sinners and unworthy of redemption except due to their labour, as it is written "For I am very angry with the nations... for I was a little angry, but they helped forwards the evil" (Zechariah 1:15). For this reason it's said "their cry for help... went up to God, because of the work" (Shemot 2:23) - that "they helped forwards the evil", as is said.

בימים הרבים ההם, from the day Moses had fled from Egypt in his youth until Gershom had been born when he was close to 80 years of age. We are assuming that Eliezer was not much younger, and we know that he was only born when Moses was already on his way back to Egypt. We know that that Moses was 80 years of age t that time.

מן העבודה, on account of the bondage. They did not appeal to G'd to save them from their situation; they merely groaned, something which people who feel that their burdens are too great are wont to do out of a sense of helplessness. The Torah informs us that although this outcry was not a direct appeal to G'd for help, it did reach the ears of G'd because their situation was indeed intolerable; this is why the Torah adds that the reason G'd responded was מן העבודה, their bondage was too intolerable. However, G'd did not respond to a prayer but to a general groaning, i.e. נעקתם (verse 24).

ויהי בימים הרבים ההם, “it happened during these many years, etc.” Our sages explain that the reason these years are described as “many,” is the fact that all these years were filled with pain for the Israelites. They therefore appeared as lasting far longer than if they had been years filled with happy events. Nachmanides writes that it is not customary to refer to years as ימים ההם, “those years,” or יום ההוא, “that day,” unless one wants to pinpoint a certain time during which an event not yet discussed took place. When the event in question is already history, the Torah customarily introduces such a narrative with the words ויהי אחרי וגו', “it was after a certain event, etc.” Accordingly, we would have expected the Torah, at this juncture, to write: ויהי אחרי הימים הרבים ההם וימת מלך מצרים, “it happened after those many years that the King of Egypt died, etc.” By writing בימים ההם, “during those years,” the Torah alluded to the nature of these years, i.e. that they represented a most painful period to the Israelites, and that when the king died, they used the opportunity to cry out to G’d on account of their sorry condition, and that G’d immediately responded to their outcry. The period described was not really so long in astronomical terms. We can therefore explain, in conjunction with the description of Moses’ growing up in the palace Pharaoh, until he went out and for the first time met his brethren, as a result of which he smote an Egyptian, that he was possibly 12 years of age but certainly not over twenty, so that he spent 60 years or more in exile, seeing that the Torah describes him as being 80 years of age when he first approached Pharaoh. (Exodus 7,7) We may assume that he came to Midian only toward the end of those 60 years. We know that when G’d first appeared to him he had only fathered Gershom, as when the angel tried to kill him for failing to have circumcised his son Eliezer, the latter could only just have been born. Seeing that according to the narrative, the reader may form the impression that Moses’ slaying the Egyptian, finding refuge in Midian, marrying Tzipporah, and encountering the burning bush, and his subsequent return to Egypt, that all these events occurred with practically no interval between them. The Torah therefore mentions that many years had passed between different events reported here as if they occurred successively within a short time capsule. The “long” period of which the Torah speaks here referred to time already elapsed. From the time the King of Egypt died, matters moved at a much faster pace.

He was stricken with leprosy . . . If the verse means that he actually died, why did B’nei Yisrael cry? Perhaps the king to reign after Pharaoh will be benevolent. Perforce we must conclude that he was stricken with leprosy, and a leper is considered as dead (Nedarim 64b).

The Torah mentions the king’s death so that Moses would hear about it, seeing that the king had been seeking to execute Moses, as we know from verse 16 וישמע פרעה את הדבר ויבקש להרוג את משה, “Pharaoh heard about the matter, and he tried to kill Moses.” In chapter 4,19 G’d Himself told Moses that all the people who had an interest in seeing him killed had already died.

V. 23. בימים הרבים ההם, in diesen vielen Jahren, die seit Mosche Flucht bis zu den so eben erzählten Begebenheiten verstrichen waren. (Siehe zu V. 15.) Der Zusammenhang, in welchem der Tod des Königs mit dem Aufseufzen von der Knechtschaft steht, ist, dünkt uns, klar. So lange die Urheber einer so großen staatlichen Gewalttat, wie die Knechtung eines ganzen freien Volksstammes, leben, ist Hoffnung da, es werde endlich das Gewissen erwachen und eine Änderung des auf Gewalt gebauten Unrechts herbeiführen. Geht aber einmal die, wenn auch aus schreiendstem Unrecht erwachsene Institution mit der Staatsgewalt in andere Hände über, die sich des Ursprungs derselben nicht bewußt sind, und denen sie ein überkommenes Staatsregal ist, so wird sie als überkommene Einrichtung geheiligt, durch Herkommen sanktioniert, die neue Regierung hält sich gar nicht berechtigt, an dem von den Vorfahren Überkommenen zu rütteln, setzt ohne weiteres die Legalität alles Vorgefundenen voraus, und die mit macchiavellistischer Gewalt geknechteten Freien sind zum ewigen Pariastande verdammt. Das ist der Fluch der Verjährung in der Entwicklung der Staaten. Die Vergangenheit bestellt einen Acker mit Blut und Tränen, und die Gegenwart erntet ihre Ernten in vollendeter Gewissensruhe von dem Boden des kalt accompli und hat keine Ahnung mehr von dem Fluche, der an jeder Ähre hängt, die sie zum frohen Genusse heimträgt. — So lange der König von Mizrajim lebte, hofften Israels Söhne auf eine mögliche Änderung ihres Loses. Als der König von Mizrajim starb, sahen sie sich für ewig zu Sklaven verdammt und seufzten auf von diesem Sklavenlose. — אנח .ויאנחו verwandt mit אנה: von einer Persönlichkeit ausgehen, daher אני und אנחנו oder אנו (wo somit אנה und אנח zusammenfällt): die Person, von welcher etwas ausgeht, die erste Person. אַנֵה: etwas von sich ausgehen lassen, etwas fügen, geschehen lassen. הֵאָנַח, das Echo eines in seiner Persönlichkeit tief Getroffenen: seufzen (vergl. נהיתה oben V. 21) זעק: laut aufschreien (siehe Bereschit 17, 17). שוע ,שועתם wie השע ממני וגו׳ ,שעה: sich jemandem zuwenden, שַוֵעַ jemanden aufrufen, sich uns zuzuwenden. Wiederholt heißt es, dass ihr Seufzen und ihr Aufruf der göttlichen Gerechtigkeit מן העבדה war. Ihr Seufzen und Hilferuf galt nicht ihren Lasten und Mühen, sie waren kräftiger Natur, konnten viel ertragen, und diese Behandlung konnte sich ändern. Allein über עבדתם, über dies Sklaventum, zu welchem sie sich nun mit dem Tode des Königs für immer verdammt sahen, darüber schrieen sie. Über das an ihnen verübte Unrecht riefen sie Gott, den Richter, an.

וימת מלך מצרים, the King of Egypt died;” as long as that king had been alive, the Hebrews had been hoping and praying all the time that he would die soon. They hoped against hope that his anti-Hebrew decrees would die with him. When none of his decrees was annulled even after his death, they sighed; they realised that there was no relief in sight and for the first time in 86 years they turned to their G–d in prayer. An alternate interpretation: they felt that their potential leader Moses would now be able to return to Egypt without having to fear an indictment. G–d also used this opportunity of their prayer to reveal Himself to Moses at the bottom of Mount Sinai, at the burning bush, setting in motion the process of their redemption.

ויהי בימים הרבים ההם, “It was during these many years, etc;” the reference is to the 400 years that G-d had told Avraham that it would take before His promise to him that his descendants would be redeemed from the land in which they would be slaves would be fulfilled. The Jewish people in Egypt now felt that the time for them to be redeemed had arrived.

וימת מלך מצרים THE KING OF EGYPT DIED — he became stricken with leprosy (and therefore may be spoken of as dead; cf. Numbers 12:12), and he used to slaughter Israelitish children and bathe in their blood as a cure for his disease (cf. Targum Jonathan and Exodus Rabbah 1:34).

AND THE KING OF EGYPT DIED, AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SIGHED BY REASON OF THE BONDAGE. “He was stricken with leprosy [and hence may be considered as dead], and he was wont to slaughter Israelitic babes and bathe in their blood.” Thus the words of Rashi. This is a Midrash of the Sages.¹²³Shemoth Rabbah 1:41.
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, [it is to be explained that] the custom of all subjects of a wicked tyrant is to hope for and look forward to the day of his death. But when the Israelites saw that the king died, they wailed bitterly lest a godless man may come to reign,¹²⁴Job 34:30. who will be more wicked than the preceding king. They said, Our bones are dried up, and our hope is lost,¹²⁵Ezekiel 37:11. and thus they chose death rather than life.¹²⁶See Jeremiah 8:3. This is the sense of the word na’akatham (their groaning),¹²⁷Verse 24. for they groaned with the groanings of a mortally-wounded man.¹²⁸Ezekiel 30:24.

One can also explain that there were two groups in Yisrael. The good amongst them cried out and prayed to God to save them from the weight of the labour, but the lesser among them didn't pray to God - they cried out like merchants to God, and regarding them it says cried out, and for this reason it didn't combine them together, since it says And the children of Yisrael sighed from the labour - these are the good ones, who prayed to God, for the principal of prayer is in the heart. And cried out - speaks of the lesser ones, who cried out like merchants. For this reason it says "And their call for help ascended to God" (ibid.) - from the groups, those who called for help to God from the labour, their calls for help ascended, but not from the crying group who did not pray.

וימת מלך מצרים, the same Pharaoh who had been pursuing Moses wanting to execute him. This is why he called his second son Eliezer, as then he realised that he had finally been saved by G’d from the sword of Pharaoh.

וימת מלך מצרים, “the King of Egypt died.” According to our sages the King did not actually die, but was smitten with a form of leprosy. Jewish children were slaughtered as their blood was supposedly capable of alleviating his condition. According to the plain meaning of the text, normally, when a king who ruled harshly dies, the survivors hope that the new king would treat his subjects more kindly. In this instance, the Israelites found out that the new king was even worse than the old one so that they turned to G’d in prayer, begging for Divine intervention on their behalf. Some commentators say that what happened is that contrary to accepted norms, when the king dies the prisoners are given an amnesty, in this case the Egyptian prisoners did indeed get a pardon, but no Jewish slaves were allowed to return to their homes. This finally triggered the Jewish people turning to G’d in prayer.

The Torah may also teach us something that David referred to in Psalms 118,5, where he speaks about מן המצר קראתי קה, "I have called upon the Lord out of distress, etc." One of the prayers to which G'd responds is the one that is prompted by the distress a person finds himself in. We find that Jonah prayed from similar motivations (Jonah 2,3) when he said: "I called out because I am in distress." The Torah testifies that G'd responded to the distress the people found themselves in. According to our analysis the word שעוה means prayer, as well as an outcry prompted by pain; this is hinted at by the Torah's use of the words מן העבודה ויזעקו; the Torah is quite correct therefore when it introduces G'd's response as being in response to שועתם instead of זעקתם. The Torah wanted to point out that the outcry of the children of Israel consisted of two elements, i.e. both זעקה and שעוה.

ויאנחו בני ישראל; our sages in Berachot 58 say that אנחה is the kind of sigh which breaks half a person’s body. They quote Ezekiel 21,11 as proof for their statement. We read there: בן אדם האנח בשברון מתנים, “Now you, Ben Adam, groan with breaking loins, etc. The loins are half way from one’s feet to one’s head.

הרבים ההם, “these many.” When times are bad (for the people under discussion) then the expression for “many” used in the Torah is רבים. When times are good, even for a long period, they are referred to as מעטים, “few.” The reason is that as soon as the good times are over, the people who have enjoyed them consider them as having been too short.

And some say that this "crying out" was that they said openly to the faces of the Egyptians that it was for the death of the king, as though they mourned him. But the "sighing" was internal, from the labour, for out of fear they couldn't say in front of the Egyptians that they were crying out from labour. And we don't mix them this way.

ויזעקו, they cried out of frustration about their miserable fate and their enslavement. A similar expression for venting such feelings of frustration occurs in Isaiah 14,31הלילי שער זעקי העיר, “Howl, o gate! Cry out, o city!”

The stress on the words מן העבודה may indicate that the prayer/outcry rose up to G'd without the help of any intermediary [such as the accompanying prayer of the patriarchs Ed.] because it was due to the intolerable burden of their workload and working conditions.

ויזעקו ותעל שועתם, they cried out, and their outcry rose (to heaven). The outcry by the Israelites reported here (after 86 years of oppression) proves that their suffering had reached new heights. We find such a reaction to excessive oppression in Job 35,9 “because of contention the oppressed cry out; They shout because of the power of the great.” [in that paragraph, alas, the complaint has no address, no one addresses the only One Who can help. Ed.]

וימת מלך מצרים, “the King of Egypt died.” G-d advanced the time of his death. As soon as that king had died, G-d appeared to Moses at the thorn bush and told Moses to go back to Egypt. Seeing that all the people who had been interested in killing him or seeing him killed had died already, (4,19) G-d did not want Moses to be in a position of refusing the leadership of the Jewish people due to fears for his personal safety. He had already found sufficient arguments to decline G-d’s request as we will read shortly, without raising the subject of his personal fear. He went as far as telling G-d to look for someone else. (4,13)

ותעל שועתם אל האלוקים מן העובדה. G’d’s response was not due to their repenting and praying, but He simply was angry over the excessive cruelty with which the Egyptians treated the Jewish people This is why He added (when He spoke to Moses in 3,9) וגם ראיתי את הלחץ אשר מצרים לוחצים אותם, “and I have also seen the pressure that the Egyptians keep imposing on them. [perhaps the reason why our author does not consider the Jews’ repentance and prayer being a factor is the fact that the attribute with which G’d responded was still the attribute of Justice, אלוקים and not the attribute Hashem as he explained to Moses in 3,9 Ed.]

ויאנחו בני ישראל, “the Children of Israel were groaning;” they were well aware that their G-d had decreed a period of 400 years of mixed bondage and being treated as aliens at the time He concluded the covenant of the pieces with Avraham in Genesis chapter 15. They had mistakenly thought that the period of 400 years commenced from the day that covenant had come into force. They did not know that if they had paid close attention to the wording of that covenant, they would have realised that the countdown could not have started until the day Yitzchok was born, as the promise was not to him (Avraham) but to Avraham’s descendants (Compare Genesis 15,4). A different interpretation of the reason why the Israelites are described as groaning at this point: As long as the old king had been alive, they had hoped that with his death the harsh decrees against them would “die” also because the custom was that a new king would free all prisoners. But now the decree of their enslavement was not cancelled. When they found out that they had hoped in vain, they groaned and prayed to G-d, as they were on the verge of giving up hope. [This was the first time in 86 years that they prayed to G-d. Ed.]

נאקתם means THEIR CRY. Similar is, (Job 24:12) “from out of the populous city men groan (ינאקו)”.

ויזכר אלוקים, which He had sworn to all three patriarchs, and the end of the period of the 400 years G’d had spoken of to Avraham in Genesis chapter 15 promising to give his descendants the land of Canaan was fast approaching.

וישמע אלוקים את נאקתם, a reference to the prayer of a few of them, [as Moses recalls in Numbers 20,16 ונצעק אל ה', i.e. the prayer by the righteous few. Seeing that Moses speaks in the plural and he had not been in Egypt at the time, he must have paraphrased why the few righteous people of the time had done at the time before G’d’s response came. Ed.]

V.24 u. 25. Alle Momente, die nur von einem menschlichen Bewusstsein ausgesagt werden können, sind hier von Gott gebraucht: וישמע ,וידע ,וירא ,ויזכר ,וישמע nicht שועתם ,זעקתם, sondern נאק .נאקתם kommt nur selten vor, — verwandt mit הינהק פרא עלי דשא :נהק (Job 6, 5) —, נאקות חלל (Jechesk. 30, 24), מעיר מתים ינאקו (Job 24, 12). Es bezeichnet jedenfalls den letzten Schrei, der dem, welcher ihn hört, sagt: es geht ein Mensch zu Grunde, wenn ihm nicht geholfen wird. Sie schrieen über das Unrecht, das ihnen angetan ward, hatten kräftige Naturen, erkannten die Gefahr nicht; Gott aber erkannte die Angst, die sich in diesem Schrei unwillkürlich aussprach, hörte darin den Ruf der ihnen drohenden Zukunft und gedachte seines Bündnisses mit den Vätern, somit der fernen Vergangenheit. Indem hier aber Gottes Einschreiten nicht mit dem Unrecht, das Israel geschah, motiviert wird, sondern mit dem sonst sich vollziehenden gänzlichen Untergang und der Vereitelung des als ברית, als absolut zur Erfüllung kommend Verheißenen, so ist damit hier das angedeutet, was Jecheskel wiederholt ausführt, dass Israel sich von dem ägyptischen Unwesen nicht also frei gehalten, dass es an sich der Erlösung würdig gewesen wäre (siehe Jechesk. Kap. 20). Die drohende Zukunft, die zurückliegende Vergangenheit trat vor Gottes Augen und darum: וירא ,וידע, richtete Gott seinen Blick auf die Gegenwart, sah die äußere Lage der Söhne Jisraels und erkannte deren innere allseitige Bedeutung, machte damit Israel zum Gegenstande seiner besonderen Beachtung, seiner השגחה פרטית. Damit ist aber gesagt, dass die Zeit gekommen war, von welcher voraus verkündet: פקד יפקד א׳ אתכם (Bereschit 50, 25). Bis jetzt hatte gleichsam Gott sich nicht um sie gekümmert, hatte sie den natürlichen Ergebnissen der Verhältnisse überlassen. Was bis jetzt an ihnen geschehen, war eine natürliche Folge ihrer Heimatlosigkeit und der sittlichen Verkommenheit des Staates, in dessen Mitte sie waren. Jetzt nun griff Gott ein, und damit war die Rettung so gut wie vollbracht.

את נאקתם, “their moaning;” they complained about the physical abuse they had to endure from the Egyptian taskmasters. Compare 3,7: ואת צעקתם שמעתי מפני נוגשיו, “and I have heeded their outcry because of their taskmasters.”

‎ את בריתו את אברהם — The words את אברהם, are the same as עם אברהם, with Abraham (i. e. the word את means “with”, whilst in the preceding phrase, את בריתו, it is the sign of the accusative).

ויזכר אלוקים את בריתו, for He had said: in Genesis 17,7: “I will maintain My covenant between Me and you and between your descendants after you to be (remain) your G’d also for your descendants after you.” This promise remains valid whatever may happen to us, as pointed out in Exodus 6,5 וגם אני שמעתי את נאקת בני ישראל ..ואזכור את בריתי, “and I have also heard the groanings of the Children of Israel…. And I remembered My covenant.”

ויזכור א־לוהים את בריתו, “G-d remembered His covenant;” part of the covenant had been the promise that the people maltreating the Israelites would be punished by Him. (Genesis 15,14) The period of 400 years slavery which is reckoned from the birth of Yitzchok had now come to an end.

וידע אלהים AND GOD KNEW — He directed His heart to them and did not hide His eyes from them.

AND G-D SAW THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained this as meaning that G-d saw the violence which the Egyptians overtly did to them, and G-d knew what was done to them secretly. And Rashi explained: “And G-d knew. He directed His heart to them and did not hide His eye from them.” This is correct in line with the plain meaning of Scripture. At first He hid His face from them and they were devoured,¹²⁹See Deuteronomy 31:17. but now G-d heard their groaning and He saw them, meaning that He no longer hid His face from them; He knew their pains and all that was done to them, as well as all that they required.
Now Scripture gives a lengthy account of the many reasons for their redemption: And G-d heard their groaning, and G-d remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob;¹²⁷Verse 24. And G-d saw the children of Israel, and G-d knew; For I know their pains.¹³⁰Further, 3:7. This is because even though the time [of bondage] decreed upon them was completed, they were not worthy of redemption, as was explained by the prophet Ezekiel;¹³¹Ezekiel 20:6-10. it was only on account of the cry¹³²And we cried unto the Eternal, the G-d of our fathers, and the Eternal heard our voice (Deuteronomy 26:7). See also Numbers 20:16. that He in His mercies accepted their prayer.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic lore of the Cabala], there is in this verse one of the great mysteries of the Torah, suggesting that their afflictions came up to the light of His countenance, which brought them [their afflictions] near the Knowledge [of G-d], just as is implied in the verse, In midst of the ‘shanim’ (years) make it known; in wrath remember compassion.¹³³Habakkuk 3:2. Shem Tov ibn Gaon, (a Spanish Cabalist of the pupils of Rashba — printed in Ma’or V’shamesh, Livorno, 1839), explains that Ramban’s intent in mentioning this verse is that the word shanim (years) should be understood as sh’nayim (two), a reference to the two Divine attributes, justice and mercy. When they unite, Israel is remembered for help and redemption. This is explicitly referred to in the second half of the verse: in wrath remember compassion. It is for this reason that Scripture gives this lengthy account — [And G-d saw the children of Israel, and G-d knew] — after already having mentioned, And G-d heard… and G-d remembered.¹²⁷Verse 24. This verse, [And G-d saw…,] has been explained in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah.¹³⁴Also called Sefer Habahir. Ramban’s reference is found there in paragraph 76 (Margoliot ed.). See Vol. I, p. 24, Note 42. Ramban was the first author to quote from this classic of Jewish mystic thought in an open and extensive manner. See the learned work of Israel Weinstock, B’maglei Haniglah V’hanistar (Mosad Harav Kook, Jerusalem) on various aspects of this book. From there you will understand the verse.

וירא אלוקים את בני ישראל, He now took a personal interest in their fate and no longer hid His countenance from them. This is perceived as similar to Samuel I 9,16: כי ראיתי את עמי, כי באה צעקתו אלי, “for I have seen My people, for its outcry has come to Me.” G’d Himself said this later in 3,7 ראה ראיתי את עני אשר במצרים, “for I have seen My people, the suffering they are in Egypt.”

וירא אלוקים…וידע אלוקים. G'd saw,….and G'd knew. After the children of Israel had raised their voices in groanings and prayers and G'd had heard those, He remembered His covenant with the patriarchs. This was the reason He turned His attention to the people. Whenever G'd is described as viewing someone's pain this is sufficient to result in the removal of such pain from the person so afflicted, for His mercy extends to all His creatures. It follows that when G'd is angry He must hide His face from the people otherwise He would have to act in accordance with the principle we have just described. This is why G'd said in Deut. 31,18: "As far as I am concerned, I will surely have to hide My face, etc." The word וידע may refer also to information that had thus far been hidden even from the Israelites concerning evil the Egyptians had perpetrated against that people.

וירא אלוקים...וידע אלוקים, “G’d saw and took notice of the condition of the Israelites.” Rashi explains these various verbs as meaning that G’d responded to their prayers by paying heed with His heart and by not ignoring their plight. Anyone who does not recognize the person who walks in front of him is considered as not seeing him, even if he knows that person well. If he recognizes him but does not love him, he is also considered as behaving as if he did not know him at all, did not “see” him. The Torah therefore describes G’d’s reaction as one of seeing the plight of His people, i.e. “loving” them, as in וידע אדם את חוה אשתו, “Adam had intimate relations with his wife.” G’d’s love manifested itself in His taking note of the Israelites’ plight. Ibn Ezra explains the words וירא אלוקים as G’d taking note of the violence committed against the Israelites in public, and the expression וידע אלוקים as referring to the violence committed against His people under cover of darkness. Nachmanides writes that the various statements of G’d’s reaction which appear in our verse mean that although the time intended for the enslavement of the Jewish people had expired, the people had not yet become worthy of being redeemed. However, G’d decided to intercede at this time already in light of their complaints, i.e. in response to their נאקתם, their moaning. He remembered His covenant, i.e. as promised in Ezekiel who describes G’d remembering the people and redeeming them in spite of their not being worthy of this.

וידע אלוקים. G’d took notice of them. The meaning of the words וירא אלוקים immediately before this is that G’d saw that the Israelites had done Teshuvah, and as a result He had mercy on them.

וירא אלהים את בני ישראל, “G-d saw the Children of Israel;” the words “He saw,” mean that “He paid attention to what He saw.” He paid attention to their suffering. Other examples of similar constructions in the Torah are: Exodus33,12, ראה, אתה אומר אלי, “See, You say to me;” or Exodus 12,13: וראיתי את הדם, “when I see the blood, etc.”

וידע אלוקים, and that the prayer and outcry were totally genuine. This is why He Himself speaks later of כי ידעתיו את מכאוביו “for I am aware of its pains.” This was in contrast with Psalms 78,36-37 where the Jewish people were described as paying only lip-service to their G’d and continued to be disloyal to heir covenant with G’d.

וידע א־להים, “G-d knew.” A construction similar to Proverbs 27,23: ידוע תדע פני צאנך, “make sure that you know the looks of your flocks;” G-d summoned His mercy in order to react to their problems. Another exegesis of the repeated name of G-d here: the expression וירא אלהים, refers to G-d seeing what the Egyptians were doing to the people publicly; the expression וידע אלהים, refers to G-d seeing what they were doing to the Israelites where no one saw it. This is also how our sages in the Haggadah shel Pessach understand this verse, i.e. the first expression refers to the Egyptians making it almost impossible for the Israelites to maintain marital relations. The second expression tells the reader that although due to the intimate and private nature of having marital relations there were no witnesses to these sufferings, G-d goes on record that He is a living witness. Nothing can be concealed from Him.