NON-COMMITTAL

“It was in those days, Moshe grew and he went out to his brethren. And he saw their burdens, and he saw an Egyptian man beating a Hebrew man from his brethren. He tuned this way and that, and he saw that there was no man. He smote the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.” (Shmot 2:11-12)

The uniquely Jewish word (of uncertain origin) parev or parave is used to describe a food that is neither dairy nor meat but which can be consumed with either, such as vegetables, fruit and eggs. In common usage, the word has also come to connote a point of view that is non-committal. A person can therefore be described as parev if he fails to take a side in a particular matter. It would seem that this was the case with Moshe when he was still a young man living in the palace of Pharaoh. He knew he was a Hebrew and he was most definitely sympathetic towards the plight of his brethren but he had remained silent and had not rocked the boat. Perhaps this strategy was merely a question of prudence. Moshe may have been concerned that should he speak out on this matter, his life would be in danger and, as it happened, this was exactly what transpired. 

The young Egyptian/Hebrew maintained his silence until one fateful day, as described in the verses above. The simple meaning of the phrase “he turned this way and that and saw that there was no man” is that Moshe ensured there was nobody watching when he killed the taskmaster who was beating the Hebrew slave. Rashi, citing the Midrash, explains that Moshe “looked this way” i.e. he perceived what the Egyptian had done to the Hebrew in his home (he had raped his wife); and “that way” – he saw what the Egyptian had done to him in the field (the beatings he had administered). He saw “there was no man”, meaning that he perceived with prophetic vision that no righteous person would descend from the Egyptian and therefore he felt justified to take his life. 

Rabbi Menachem Genack (23 February 2000, available on YUTorah.org) provides a most fascinating take on this episode. He explains that Moshe had been raised in Pharaoh’s home and had attained status and standing in Egyptian society to the point that he would have inherited the throne from the monarch. He viewed himself first and foremost as an Egyptian.  But on the day he left the palace and saw the taskmaster beating the slave, he now had to choose which one of the two men was truly his brother – the Egyptian or the Hebrew.  Moshe’s overarching sense of truth and kindness would not allow him to witness this cruel act and in that moment, he identified with the victim rather than the perpetrator. Thus, when the verse states “he looked this way and that” it means that Moshe looked first at the culture and society of Egypt in which he was raised and then at the plight of the Hebrew slaves. He contemplated these two very different segments of society and he saw “that there was no man”, that the Egyptian was not a man deserving of respect and that his culture was rotten.  Thus when Moshe struck him, the Torah omits the word “man” and simply states “the Egyptian”. This is in contrast to the original description of the scene that reads, “he saw an Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man”, where the word “man” denotes a person of stature.  Initially, Moshe had viewed both of the people in front of him as men of stature in their respective societies. But after contemplation, he came to the conclusion that the Egyptian was not a man but a beast driven by the cruelty that had become entrenched in Egyptian society.

Rabbi Shlomo Kluger (Poland, 1783-1869, cited by Rabbi Natan Sifkin, rationalistjudaism.com) has a similar but slightly nuanced explanation of this watershed event in the life of the great prophet. He also notes that we are being told here about the identity crisis of the prince of Egypt. When Moshe saw the Egyptian beating the Jew, “he looked this way and that way” – he looked at his royal Egyptian upbringing, and at his Israelite ancestral roots. “And he saw that there was no man”, he saw that he was not a real man because he lacked a true identity – was he an Egyptian or a Hebrew? At this stage he was neutral and parev, and had not adequately committed himself. The verse continues: “And he slew the Egyptian”, that is, the Egyptian within himself, “and hid him in the sand” – he totally detached himself from the Egyptian mindset, and aligned himself fully with the fate of the Hebrews. This was the trial of identity for Moshe. Would he give up all the luxuries and familiarity of Egyptian culture, as well as the relationships from his life so far, to go over to “the other side” and reunite with the slave nation? Moshe passed the test.

Often we have the luxury of remaining parev and not having to take sides in a certain matter.  But sometimes life requires us to commit ourselves, even if it is uncomfortable. We should take the moral high ground and side with what is good and just.

Lee, Chani Merryl & Naomi join me in wishing you Shabbat Shalom!

Rabbi Liebenberg.

YouTube message: https://youtu.be/D1ld2o6B_jA?si=xP3TOJeNZCcNs3EQ