Killing The Egypitan

What right did Moshe have to kill the Egyptian?  There is a machlokes in the Midrash how did Moshe kill the Egypitan man, either by uttering the shem hameforash or his fist or a rake used for cement. What difference does it make how Moshe killed the Egyptian? 

The the Gemarah Sanhedrin (58b) derives from this possuk that a gentile that hits a yisrael is obligated death. In other words, Moshe had the right to kill the gentile since he hit the Jew. However, the Rambam (Melachim 10:6) says that although he is deserving of the death penalty, the death penalty is not actually carried out. Based upon this idea, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik (in Igros HaGrid) and his nephew, Rav Dovid Soloveitchik, suggest that is why there is an opinion that Moshe used the shem hameforash for Moshe did have the right to actively kill the Egyptian man as the death penalty is not meted out but he was able to kill him through a manner that is not considered an act of killing. (They assume that killing through the shem hameforash is not considered a technical act of killing. However, The Halachos Ketanos volume 2 #98 [cited in Steipler Bava Kammah siman 45] says that killing through a shem or sorcery is an act of killing. [Rav Itzeleh Blazer in Nesivos Ohr cites Rav Yisrael Salanter says damaging someone through heavenly aided words is considered a mazik.]) The Briskor Rav says that the Rambam means there is an obligation of death by Heavenly punishment and Moshe used the shem hameforash to fulfill that law. However, it is not clear the Rambam means that there is Heavenly punishment and it is hard to hear that killing someone by evoking the shem mefurash is considered fulfilling the Heavenly death penalty.

However, the other opinions in the Midrash hold there are other reasons that the Egyptian was eligible for the death penalty and therefore Moshe had the right to kill him directly. One possibility raised in the Midrash is that he was a rodaf as his act of hitting the Jew may have led to a deathblow. Another option is that Moshe saw through reach hakodesh that this Egyptian has illicit relations with a married woman as the Midrash says elsewhere. But how can Moshe administer a death penalty based upon ruach hakodesh? Since a gentile does not require a formal Beis Din to rule on the death penalty for a gentile it suffices with a mere ascertaining of the facts which may be obtained through ruach hakodesh as well (Rav Yosef Engel.) Alternatively, Rav Dovid Somevetchik suggests since it was pre Matan Torah, when the dominion of pesak was still in hands of heaven, one may administer death based upon a pesak from heaven. This may explain the Midrash stating that Moshe consulted the angels to determine whether the Egyptian was deserving of death for Moshe was inquiring about a pesak from heaven. [See also Zohar Yisro 78b, וצ"ע.]  Rashi says Moshe knew through ruach hakodesh the episode of the illicit relations but also says that Moshe did not kill the Egyptian outright but through the shem hameforash. Why not kill the Egyptian directly if Moshe was aware of his guilt? Rashi holds that ruach hakodesh does not grant an obligation to adjudicate justice, it merely determines the person is deservant of the death penalty but not a license to kill directly and therefore he used the shem hameforash.

Rashi says that Moshe saw through ruach hakodesh that no righteous descendants would emerge from this Egyptian, and only then did he kill him. The Mizrachi asks, if the Egyptian was already liable to death, why should the merit of potential descendants matter at all? According to the approach that Moshe killed via the shem hameforash, the killing was extrajudicial rather than a formal execution. In such a case, it is reasonable to consider additional factors before acting (Brisker Rav). The Mizrachi, as explained by the Maharal, advances this further, even if Moshe acted because of the Egyptian man’s illicit relations, since this information was obtained only through ruach hakodesh, when acting on Divine revelation rather than judicial process, supplementary considerations such as future descendants may be weighed. The approach of the Mizrachi indicates that a Divine revelation does not create an absolute obligation to execute but rather grants Moshe a  license to act based upon his knowledge.  According to the view that the Egyptian was a rodef, however, the Mizrachi’s question remains difficult.

There is another approach advanced by some Midrashim cited in Torah Shelamah that indicate that there was some element of wrongdoing by Moshe killing the Egyptian. The Torah Shelamah cites the Ariza"l who says that that's why Moshe had to run away since he was obligated golus like one who kills by accident. This seems to be reflected in the Ramban who says that Moshe's may be the intent of the Ramban that indicates it was a spontaneous act of Moshe seeing another Jew in pain he jumped to kill the attacker. However, it is not the mainline approach to assume Moshe did something wrong by killing the Egyptian. 

The halacha aside, what is the message of the different forms of how Moshe possibly killed the Egyptian and what is the debate in the Midrash if he used his fist or a cement rake? Rabbi Y.Y. Jacobson  explains the message of the Midrash is that there are three approaches to dealing with mortal threats to outsiders. One approach is to fight back, that is killing with the fist. Another method is to kill by using the cement rake, a building tool, which represents the approach of building connections with the outside world, which will give importance to the Jew and thereby stave off his enemies. The third method is shem hameforash, by a deep connection to Hashem, the enemy will fall by the wayside. At different times, different methods are needed and sometimes all three methods must be employed. 

Yosef's Marriage

 ויאמר יוסף אל אביו בני הם אשר נתן לי אלקים בזה Rashi says הראה לו שטר אירוסין ושטר כתובה. The mefarshim say Yosef was telling Yaakov not to suspect that they weren't fit for beracha since they were not born to him from a proper marriage. But if this is the case, why didn’t Yaakov suspect this during the 17 years he had already been in Egypt? And why did Yosef need to present both a shtar kiddushin and erusin, the shtar kiddushin should suffice? The Rebbe (Likutay Sichos volume 30) explains that we don't find in the simple peshat of the pessukim that the Avos did kiddushin. Why not? For the cheftzah of kiddushin - of a marriage as a form of kinyan - is only a chiddush of the Torah. Pre-Mattan Torah the only form of marriage was through living together as a married couple. The Torah is mechadesh the concept of a binding kinyan of marriage through a kinyan. However, since Yosef was in Egypt, a place of immorality, he did the kinyan of kiddushin to demonstrate that his marriage was a binding kinyan that was not going to be broken. Hence, he had a shtar for the kiddushin as a lasting proof of his binding marriage and a shtar כתובה since that is part of the binding marriage post Matan Torah. Yosef was telenig Yaakov don't think that the fact they were born in such a terrible place should make them unfit for beracha for I erected extra safeguards that they should not be affected. 

When Yosef is sent by Yaakov to look for his brothers in Vayeshev, he asks someone where they are and the person answers נסעו מזה  which Rashi says means they have separated themselves from being your brother. The Sifsay Chachamim says that the word זה has gematria 12 alluding to the 12 brothers and the man was telling Yosef נסעו מזה, they have removed themselves from זה, being 12, they no longer want to be 12, they want to remove you. In light of this we can say the same idea Yosef was conveying to Yaakov. בזה, my children are proper children to descend from the 12 shevatim, they are fitting of receiving beracha like the shevatim. 

Frumkeit

 

Growing Through Breaking

Yosef reveals himself to the brothers, ויאמר אני יוסף אחיכם אשר מכרתם אתי מצרימה. Why does Yosef add אשר מכרתם אתי מצרימה? There are different approaches to this question. Some say it was a siman to prove he was Yosef, some say he was was saying he loved his brothers even though they hold him (see Or HaChayim, Kli Yakar.) The Safas Emes (5643) says כמ"ש חז"ל אשר שברת יישר כחך. כן ניחם יוסף אותם כי זכה לכל זה על ידי המכירה. He explains his point more in 5636 where he adds the possuk says כי נבהלו מפניו, literally מפניו from the face of Yosef since they say and sensed the kedusha that was present on the face of Yosef.  They could not fathom how they were so far off the mark. How did they not see this beforehand? Yosef adds the line אשר מכרתם אתי מצרימה as a way of consoling them. He explained I am Yosef, I was able to this obtain this kedusha only because you sold me. It was the low parts of my life, the sale, that led me to become greater in my life. It was the struggle through the difficulty that helped him soar to greater heights. The Sfas Emes cites as a template to this concept the breaking of the luchos, אשר כחך ששברת, the breaking of the luchos, the destruction gets a ישר כח. It was necessary to allow Klal Yisrael to go further beyond the chat haegel. The seed needs to be broken down in the ground before it can sproup into a tree bearing fruit. It is the breaking down that leads to the greatest growth.  

Yeshayeh (12:1) וְאָֽמַרְתָּ֙ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא אוֹדְךָ֣ ה כִּ֥י אָנַ֖פְתָּ בִּ֑י יָשֹׁ֥ב אַפְּךָ֖ וּֽתְנַחֲמֵֽנִי. It the future we will say thank to Hashem for the times of hardship of the golus for that is what paved the way for the geulah. Living through it one can can't see how the hardships are good. But looking back, when the story is complete, one can see how it led to the process of the geulah.

Chanukah Points

The Shu"t Shalmey Chova (#107) discusses can one say the ברכת הרואה on the lighting of a katan. He assumes the question is whether the action of the kid is considered a מעשה מצוה. He doesn't note the Butchatch (679) already raises the question. (It is interesting the Butchatch notes his missing the time to light the candles on Erev Shabbos.) Rav Tzvi Ryzman wants to say a different approach to the question, the question is not if the katan's lighting is a mitzvah lighting, but the question hinges on if the ברכת הרואה of שעשה ניסים is a birchas mitzvah of birchas hashevach akin to saying a beracha on a place that a miracle happened. If it's the first way, a birchas hamitzvah, there has to be an actual lighting of a mitzvah to say the beracha, which is not the case when a katan lights, but if it is a birchas hashevach, it would be possible to say the beracha even on the lighting of a katan. His explanation seems problematic for even if the geder of the beracha is a birchas hashevach, it needs to be recited over a חפצא של מצוה, would anyone contemplate saying a beracha on the lighting of a goy?

As mentioned by my father in the past, the Rambam's opinion is that the lighting of the menorah itself is a fulfillment of hodah, not a separate mitzvah.

The Gemarah Megillah (14a) says   ת"ר ארבעים ושמונה נביאים ושבע נביאות נתנבאו להם לישראל ולא פחתו ולא הותירו על מה שכתוב בתורה חוץ ממקרא מגילה מאי דרוש אמר רבי חייא בר אבין אמר רבי יהושע בן קרחה ומה מעבדות לחירות אמרי' שירה ממיתה לחיים לא כל שכן. Rashi asks but ner Chanukah was added? He says that wasn't an addition of prophets for there were no prophets any more. The Ritva asks but why did they add ner Chanukah? He explains it is the same reason as to why they added Megillah. According to the Ritva just as the Gemarah considers Megillah a form of shirah, ומה מעבדות לחירות אמרי' שירה ממיתה לחיים לא כל שכן, so too ner Chanukah. In other words the lighting is a form of shira. It is not just an act of a mitzvah.

The Rambam Chanukah (3:3-4) says וְהַדְלָקַת הַנֵּרוֹת בָּהֶן מִצְוָה מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, כִּקְרִיאַת הַמְּגִלָּה. כָּל שֶׁחַיָּב בִּקְרִיאַת הַמְּגִלָּה, חַיָּב בְּהַדְלָקַת נֵר חֲנֻכָּה. Why does the Rambam compare Chanukah to Megillah? In light of the Ritva, it is understood. The Rambam is explaining that in the same way Megillah is a mitzvah as a means of expressing shira, hoda to Hashem, so too ner Chanukah. The Rambam continues that all who are obligated in Megillah are obligated in ner Chanukah. Why does he connect it to expressing who the obligation is upon? Woman are obligated in these two mitzvot because אף הן היו באותו הנס. Tosfos asks why we don't employ the same logic to tell us women are obligated in sukkah, or for that reason, they should be obligated in the four cups of wine? The Rambam is telling us that אף הן היו באותו הנס doesn't create an obligation when the miracle is the mere reason for the mitzvah; it is only when the miracle itself defines the mitzvah as a cheftzah of hodah that אף הן היו באותו הנס creates an obligation on a woman (Rav Solevetchik in Mesorah Journal volume 13).

Tosfos Shabbat (21b) asks how the seal on the bottle of oil helps; it should still have been tameh since there is a gezerah that goyim are tameh like a zav. The movement of the jug would have made it tameh? There are a few answers to the question. The Bach (670) suggests that it had a small opening that one could not fit their finger into, and something that cannot be tameh through touching when in the vessel does not acquire tumah through movement either (Shabbat 84b). He adds that it still had to be sealed; otherwise, we would need to be concerned that maybe the oil had been removed and replaced, or it had become tameh through tumas ohel. Therefore, there must have been a צמיד פתיל on it. R. Akiva Eger asks that this contradicts an open Gemara in Chagigah (25a) that צמיד פתיל does not work for hekdesh. In שו"ת קרית חנה דוד  he suggests answers based upon the assumption that the din that צמיד פתיל doesn't work by hekdesh is only Rabbinic, and in this case, they did not impose the gezerah. As discussed in an article about preparing oil nowadays, there is a machlokes Rishonim about what level of kedusha is necessary for the law of צמיד פתיל not to apply. The Rashash in מדייק from the Rosh on Kelim (10:2) that only on kedushas haguf the צמיד פתיל doesn't help, but it does say something that only has קדושת פה. Tosfos Temurah (14a) says the oil for the menorah did not have kedushas haguf. The Chazon Eish (Menachot 30:7) says it is not logical that the oil never obtained kedusha at all. Tosfos means it didn't have kedushas haguf, but did not have kedushas peh. Putting that together, the oil for the menorah would be eligible to be saved by a צמיד פתיל (From here.)

Twins Of Sun And Moon

Rashi (Bereishis 38:27) notes the difference between the term תאומים used for Tamar’s pregnancy and תאמים used for Rivka’s. In Tamar’s case, both children were righteous, whereas Rivka bore Yaakov, a tzaddik, and Esav, a rasha. The Torah’s need to highlight this distinction suggests that there is a fundamental similarity between these two pregnancies. What is that comparison?

Regarding Zarach’s birth, Rashi comments that the phrase “ארבע ידות” appears, alluding to the four acts of treachery committed by Achan, who descended from Zarach. Others explain that it refers to the four items Achan took: a Shinar garment, two silver pieces totaling 200 shekels, and one golden tongue. Why is Achan’s sin hinted at here?

The Ramban, citing the Bahir, explains that Peretz and Zarach correspond to the sun and the moon. Zarach, whose name suggests “shining,” represents the sun—constant and unwavering. Peretz, whose name implies “breaking through,” parallels the moon, which waxes and wanes. What does this symbolism mean? Zarach embodies the tzaddik, whose light shines steadily and whose path is straightforward. Peretz represents the baal teshuva, whose spiritual journey includes ups and downs but ultimately reaches greater heights. This is why Mashiach descends from Peretz for the transformative power of teshuva surpasses the static righteousness of the tzaddik (see Likkutei Sichos vol. 30).

The Torah distinguishes between Yaakov and Esav, and between Peretz and Zarach, because the potential dynamic was similar. Yaakov parallels Zarach—the tzaddik—while Esav could have mirrored Peretz, becoming a baal teshuva. Instead, Esav succumbed to his lows and never rose above them.

The Maharal expands on the Ramban’s sun-moon analogy, noting that Achan’s four transgressions correspond to the four acts of betrayal against the four designated cherem items, reflecting the power of the sun created on the fourth day. Unlike the moon, which fluctuates, the sun is fixed and limited. Achan’s sin lay in trying to emulate Peretz—seeking expansion beyond his boundaries and taking what was not his. This overreach led to his downfall.

Self, Non-Self

 קטנתי מכל החסדים ומכל האמת אשר עשית את עבדך

The Gra (cited in Pardes Yosef) says this is the 8^th possuk in the 8^th parsha and that is where Chazal see to say a talmud chacham should have an eighth of an eighth of haughtiness (Sotah 5a.) The question is that this possuk seems to be the opposite of haughtiness, Yakaov is saying how small he is?  The Gemarah in Sotah is difficult for the Gemarah says haughtiness is a terrible middah and then throws in the statement about a talmud chacham, why is he given an allowance for a bit of haughtiness? The Gemarah compares this bit of haughtiness to the crown of the bristle-like growth on the top of the husk. What is the meaning of this comparison? 

The Midrash says קָטֹנְתִּי מִכָּל הַחֲסָדִים א"ר אבא ב"כ איני כדאי ר' לוי אמר כדאי אני. How can there be an opinion כדאי אני if this is the ultimate statement of humbleness on the part of Yaakov? 

Sfas Emes (5648) אך עי"ז עצמו שקטנתי. עי"ז כדאי אני. ואם אמנם לעיני בשר האומר קטנתי נראה כי הוא מתגאה. אבל מי שאומר לפני הבורא ית' קטנתי הוא שהכיר את עצמו וראה שיודע הוא שכל החסדים ואמת שעשה עמו הבורא ית' אינו בזכותו. ולכן באמת לא יגרע מזכותו כלום. וזה הכלל אם אדם תולה בעצמו נעשה לו באמת בזכות מעשיו.

When Yaakov says קטונתי it means that he felt so small, so nothing, that all he felt was his connection to Hashem. By totally negating himself he was able to say כדאי אני because the אני was not a אני of self merit but rather an אני of the Godliness within himself  being fit for anything. When there is the ultimate self negation that leads one to have a haughtiness, not of self inflation but due to the connection to The Infinite. 

The Alter Rebbe explains that the haughtiness of the talmud chacham is compared to the part of the chaff that guards the wheat for it is only a protective stage that the haughtiness is needed to inspire one to have the ability to increase one's avodah but after one reaches a greater level all haughtiness should be dropped. But as we see from Yaakov Avenu there is a third level of a haughtiness from the feeling of tremendous smallness. This is when haughtiness is desirable. That is why the Gra is pointing to this possuk as explanation of the Gemarah (based upon sicha of Rebbe 5749.) 

The Alter Rebbe after his redemption on 19 Kislev wrote a letter (Igros Kodesh Tanya letter 2) starting with this possuk emphasizing that the more chesed one receives from Hashem, the closer one seems, the more one sees their own smallness. This allows one to push aside their own self and be in tune with the Godliness within themselves.   

In terms of Rambam in Gemerah Sotah, see letter of Rebbe.