Question

Peace to the honorable Torah scholar, the Gaon, may he live long — a few questions on this week’s Torah portion that I would be glad if the honorable Gaon could answer in his free time.
 
A) It is written in our portion: “He saw an Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man, one of his brothers. He turned this way and that and saw that there was no man, so he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand” (Exodus 2:11–12).
And in Sanhedrin 58b it says: Rabbi Hanina said, “A gentile who struck a Jew is liable for death, as it is said: ‘He turned this way and that and saw that there was no man [and he struck the Egyptian],’ etc.”
And Maimonides wrote (Laws of Kings 10:6): “A gentile who struck a Jew, even if he only injured him — although he is liable for death, he is not executed.” And the Kesef Mishneh explained there that Maimonides holds that although he is liable to death at the hands of Heaven, he is not executed by a court. And the proof is from the fact that in “These are the Exiled” (Makkot 9a) they discuss whether a resident alien who killed a Jew goes into exile or is executed; and if so, they should also have discussed a case of one who injured a Jew. Rather, certainly, although he is liable for death, he is not executed, and the verse “He turned this way and that” is merely a scriptural support, as he wrote there.
This is difficult: if so, why did Moses kill the Egyptian? According to the law he is not executed. [See the Ran’s novellae to Sanhedrin there, who disagrees with Maimonides and holds that a gentile who struck a Jew is literally liable for death, as Moses killed the Egyptian.]
Another difficulty: immediately afterward (verses 13–14) it says: “He went out the next day, and behold, two Hebrew men were fighting, and he said to the wicked one, ‘Why do you strike your fellow?’ He said, ‘Who made you a man, a ruler, and a judge over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?’” This too requires explanation: a Jew who strikes another Jew is not liable to death, so why did he suspect Moses of wanting to kill him just as he had killed the Egyptian?
Also difficult: in Sanhedrin there they derive that a gentile who struck a Jew is liable for death from the verse “He turned this way and that and saw that there was no man.” How does that phrase prove he is liable for death? They should have cited “and he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.” [In our Vilna edition of the Talmud, the words “and he struck the Egyptian” were inserted in square brackets.]
And even if we say the Gemara’s main proof is indeed from those words, as also seems clear from Rashi there, still it is unclear why the Gemara brought the first half of the verse at all — “He turned this way and that and saw that there was no man.” What does that have to do with the law of a gentile who struck a Jew? [See Yevamot 90b and Sanhedrin 46a: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says, “I heard that a religious court may administer lashes,” etc. Also see Maimonides, Laws of Murderer 2:4–5, and Laws of Sanhedrin 24:4 and 10, and consider it carefully.]

 
B) It is also written: “The Lord said to Moses: ‘What is that in your hand?’ And he said: ‘A staff’ … and it became a snake … and behold, his hand was leprous like snow” (Exodus 4:2–3, 6).
“‘What is that in your hand?’ — therefore it is written as one word, to expound: from this that is in your hand you deserve to be punished, because you suspected the worthy … ‘and it became a snake’ — He hinted to him that he had spoken slander about Israel and adopted the trade of the serpent … ‘leprous like snow’ — in this sign too He hinted to him that he had spoken slander when he said (verse 1), ‘They will not believe me’; therefore He struck him with leprosy, just as Miriam was struck for slander” (Rashi).
It emerges from Rashi: (1) because he suspected the worthy, he was told, “What is that in your hand?” — meaning, from what is in your hand you deserve to be punished, and he was subject to punishment through the snake; (2) in that the staff turned into a snake and Moses fled from it, there was a hint that he had spoken slander about Israel; (3) he was struck with leprosy because he had spoken slander about Israel.
Now in Shabbat 97a, Reish Lakish said: “One who suspects the worthy is stricken in his body,” as it is written: “Moses answered and said, ‘But they will not believe me’” etc. … And from where do we know that he was stricken? From what is written: “And the Lord said to him further: Put your hand into your bosom,” etc.; see there.
This requires clarification: according to Rashi here, Moses our teacher was stricken because he spoke slander about Israel. So what proof is there from the fact that he was struck with leprosy for Reish Lakish’s rule that one who suspects the worthy is stricken in his body? The leprosy came because of the slander.
Further, Rashi here regarding the staff explained the verse “What is that in your hand?” as meaning: you deserve to be punished because you suspected the worthy. That implies that the punishment for suspecting the worthy was that the staff turned into a snake. But in the Gemara it is explained that the punishment was that he was struck with leprosy in his body.
Now Maimonides wrote (Foundations of the Torah 8:1): “The Jewish people did not believe in Moses our teacher because of the signs he performed, for one who believes on the basis of signs has a defect in his heart … So through what did they believe in him? At Mount Sinai, when our eyes saw and not a stranger’s, and our ears heard and not another’s — the fire, the thunder, and the lightning; and he approached the thick darkness, and the voice spoke to him and we heard, ‘Moses, Moses, go tell them such-and-such’ … and also in you they will believe forever. It follows that before this they did not believe with a faith that endures forever, but only with a faith after which there remains doubt and second thoughts.”
And in halakhah 2 there Maimonides wrote: “Moses our teacher knew that one who believes on the basis of signs has a defect in his heart and entertains doubts and thoughts, and he was reluctant to go, saying, ‘But they will not believe me,’ until the Holy One, blessed be He, informed him that these signs are only until they leave Egypt, and after they leave and stand at this mountain, the doubt they entertain about you will depart,” etc.; see there.
According to Maimonides, then, this is very difficult: what exactly was the complaint against Moses that he was suspecting the worthy and speaking slander about Israel? According to Maimonides, this is simply the truth — faith built on signs is not complete faith, and the Holy One, blessed be He, agreed with him and told him that there would be the revelation at Mount Sinai, and then the faith would be true and complete. So what was the complaint against Moses?
On the other hand, this is also difficult, because it is written later (verse 31): “And the people believed.” Was that faith defective? Scripture itself testifies, “And the people believed,” which sounds like complete faith.
 
C) “And she said, ‘This is one of the Hebrew children’” (Exodus 2:6).
In Sotah 12b it asks: How did she know? Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Hanina said: Because she saw that he was circumcised.
Now, it is well known that the medieval authorities (Rishonim) disagreed regarding what is stated in Sanhedrin 59b, that the descendants of Keturah are obligated in circumcision.
Rashi there explained that only those six sons born to Abraham from Keturah were obligated in circumcision, but not all their descendants after them. However, Maimonides’ view (Laws of Kings 10:8) is that all descendants of Keturah for all generations are obligated in circumcision like Jews.
In the book Gan Raveh (on Vayigash, in Divrei Hanoch), he brought a proof from the above passage in Sotah in favor of Rashi’s view: for if we say like Maimonides that all generations of the descendants of Keturah are obligated in circumcision, it is still difficult — how did she know the child was from the Hebrews? Perhaps he was from the descendants of Keturah, who are also obligated in circumcision like Jews. See there, where he wrote to reconcile Maimonides’ view based on the approach of those who hold (Meiri on Yevamot 71b, s.v. “ha-milah”; Maharsha on Sanhedrin, Chiddushei Aggadot 92a; Shaagat Aryeh sec. 49; and Minchat Chinukh at the beginning of commandment 2) that even according to Maimonides, although the descendants of Keturah are obligated in circumcision, they are nevertheless not obligated in uncovering the membrane, and therefore she could indeed see that he was from the Hebrews.
However, this still seems difficult in light of what is explained in Yevamot 71b, that uncovering the membrane was not given to Abraham our father and is only a law given to Moses at Sinai, and it is explained there that in truth all Israel did not uncover their circumcision until the days of Joshua. [As for what Tosafot wrote there, that Abraham our father did uncover the circumcision even though he was not commanded — seemingly they only said this about the holy Patriarchs themselves and the Tribes of God, but not later.] If so, it still needs explanation: what proof was there that he was from the Hebrews?