0

See Rashi (Shemos 2:12) "וירא כי אין איש" - שאין איש עתיד לצאת ממנו שיתגייר : Before Moshe Killed the Egyptian he looked [into the future] and saw that no person would descend from the Egyptian who would convert to Judaism. Obviously, in order to look into the future, Moshe had to transcend to where the dimension of time does not exist(למעלה מן הזמן). In the plane of למעלה מן הזמן everything of the past, the present, and the future exist simultaneously. This being so, the "future" which Moshe saw also included the act of his killing the Egyptian, (which he eventually did). Thus, it would be obvious that he would see that no person would descend from the [killed] Egyptian who would convert to Judaism, so what was he looking for?

RibbisRabbiAndMore
  • 6,969
  • 8
  • 31
  • Couldn't he be given insight into potential futures as well, wherein no descendant converts? – rosends Apr 26 '18 at 20:33
  • @rosends I'm sorry I'm not well versed on the subject of "above the plane of time" nor on the subject of having the ability to view that, so I cannot answer whether "potential futures" can be seen by someone who has a view of the future. – RibbisRabbiAndMore Apr 26 '18 at 20:46
  • You are making assumptions both about time and about the nature of Moshe Rabbeinu’s investigation. The Torah defines time as either זמן המשוער or זמן בלתי המשוער. The language is about linear time vs. non-linear. Linear time (past-present-future) is what we perceive naturally. The fact that the reference is to a linear component indicates Moshe was not gazing at the level of זמן בלתי המשוער. – Yaacov Deane Apr 26 '18 at 22:13
  • Similarly, the language איש implies a particular type of human being (איש גבר), someone who overcomes their nature, that Moshe was looking for. There are other sources that say Moshe looked both forward and backward to see what might come and also what merits lay in his past. So it is possible to say the expression איש is referring to the Egyptian that Moshe was looking at in the present only. That he would not overcome his nature and convert. – Yaacov Deane Apr 26 '18 at 22:22
  • 1
    I would read it as a potential, looking forward to see what would happen if he did not kill the Egyptian. Once he saw that, then he was able to kill the Egyptian. Looking into the future, implies as things are at this moment. At that moment the Egyptian wasa still alive and therefore had potential descendants. – sabbahillel Apr 26 '18 at 22:41
  • @YaacovDeane - 1- RE: Moshe was not gazing at the level of זמן בלתי המשוער, then how would you explain his "seeing" that no future decedent will convert? 2- RE: it is possible to say the expression איש is referring to the Egyptian that Moshe was looking at in the present only... This may be a good exxxxxplanation of the passuk, but it is definitely not what Rashi is saying. Rashi is clearly referring to decedents of the Egyptian who was killed and not to the Egyptian himself. – RibbisRabbiAndMore Apr 26 '18 at 22:45
  • @sabbahillel As I commented before to rosends, I'm sorry I'm not well versed on the subject of "above the plane of time" nor on the subject of having the ability to view that, so I cannot answer whether "potential futures" can be seen by someone who has a view of the future. – RibbisRabbiAndMore Apr 26 '18 at 22:48
  • My thought on this would be that it would be impossible to see an absolute future, because that would negate free will. I would consider it as a way of seeing a probable future, which may include the reaction to the vision. Consider the following example, a fisherman is told that his net will be ripped when he goes fishing the next day. He stays home and the net is not ripped. Was it a false vision? A person is told that if he goes to a sale he will come home rich. He fails. Had he not been told, he would have gone for a walk on the beach after a storm and found a treasure. – sabbahillel Apr 26 '18 at 22:58
  • @RibbisRabbiAndMore The Rashi says that the aspect of "Ish" would not come from "him". It isn't discussing offspring or descendants (as in toldot). Yitgai'er is 2nd person, future tense, which translates as "he will convert". You could assume that Moshe ignored potential future female converts (unlikely) or you could say that the expression is talking about the person standing in front of Moshe who might convert in the future for some reason. In his current condition, he deserves death. But perhaps something in his past or in his future will alter his current nature. – Yaacov Deane Apr 26 '18 at 23:21
  • @RibbisRabbiAndMore And the preceding phrase, that Moshe looked this way and that (koh v'koh), is again speaking in a linear time sense. And if you rely upon the Targum Yonatan, according to the meforshim, the more correct understanding of the Targum is referring only to the Mitzri and if he had merit in this world or the world to come. Meaning Moshe is only gazing at the Mitzri and not future generations. – Yaacov Deane Apr 26 '18 at 23:30
  • @sabbahillel RE: "My thought on this would be that it would be impossible to see an absolute future, because that would negate free will." Free will would only negate seeing absolute future that was relevant to the person himself who is seeing it, not which was relevant to another person as in our instance. – RibbisRabbiAndMore Apr 26 '18 at 23:47
  • @RibbisRabbiAndMore I would consider that it would negate the free will of the person who was being seen if the vision was told to that person. That is why I gave the examples that i did. Also the story of Shlomo and the Mal'ach Hamaves. In the case of Moshe and the Egyptian, Moshe saw what would happen if he had not gotten involved. Once he got involved everything changed. I was just at a shiur in which David Hamelech says that he owes his life to the fact that Hashem (and Moshe) looked ahead. Moav deserved being destroyed because of the attempt to have Bil'am curse the Bnai Yisrael. – sabbahillel Apr 27 '18 at 01:24
  • @sabbahillel Since the OP is basing his entire understanding on mistranslation of the verb ‘יתגייר’ found in Rashi, please take a look. Like I said to him, it is 2nd person, masculine, future tense of the verb. It means ‘he will convert’ or ‘he will be caused to convert’. The Rashi cannot be understood to to mean future converts. It presumes future converts like Ruth would not be relevant. She was the converting ancestor of King David. – Yaacov Deane Apr 27 '18 at 03:33
  • @YaacovDeane The shiur that I heard (I think it was about the Mishne Lamelech) dealt with the idea that the two circumstances (the Egyptian being killed and Hashem telling Moshe to not attack Moav) were both based on future righteous descendants of the people involved. Had Rus not been scheduled to come from Moav, Hashem would have allowed Bnai Yisrael to attack Moav as well as Midian and for the same reason. Had that occurred, David would not have been born and become king. – sabbahillel Apr 27 '18 at 03:42
  • @sabbahillel Please listen. Rashi is one of the ‘Medakdakim’ about proper grammar usage. Read his comment and verb usage here (which I have pointed out). It is not speaking about potential future converts, whether male or female or both. Grammatically, Rashi’s comment is speaking about a single, male convert. In context, and particularly considering the other commentaries on the page, it is only speaking about the Mitzri and his future behavior. It isn’t about bending the rules of time and space. It is about Moshe knowing & understanding people. – Yaacov Deane Apr 27 '18 at 03:52
  • @YaacovDeane I would follow the JPS translatipn and he saw that there was no man: [I.e., he saw that] there was no man destined to be descended from him [the Egyptian] who would become a proselyte [i.e., a convert]. [From Exod. Rabbah 1:29] – sabbahillel Apr 27 '18 at 03:56
  • The JPS translation is failing to properly translate the word גבר from the Rashi. That is why the Rashi is explaining the Peshat, the plain meaning of the text. Do you really think the plain meaning of the Chumash is dealing with the subject of Space/Time? There are many different words used to ‘loosely’ translate into English as man. But the Torah uses each different expression to mean something very different. They describe the nature and character of the individual. Without understanding the meaning of certain words or phrases, the entire translation falls apart. – Yaacov Deane Apr 27 '18 at 04:07
  • IIUC, you're saying that, once he looked and saw that he'd kill the guy, he needn't have looked further and seen the guy would have no Jewish descendants. Who said he looked further? Maybe he saw he'd kill him and knew he'd have no Jewish descendants. Or maybe he saw he'd have no Jewish descendants and didn't look at the more immediate future. – msh210 Apr 27 '18 at 11:11
  • @ Yaacov Deane I'm still not understanding why any future singular masculine convert (descending from the Egyptian) could not be included in what Moshe negated. How does the word יתגייר change that? As far a איש and the masculine יתגייר excluding female converts, i disagree on the basis of the known Hebrew grammar axiom that when there is a group, (or a variable member of a group) which includes both males and females the male version is used. – RibbisRabbiAndMore Apr 28 '18 at 20:32
  • Related: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/91127/ Perhaps if time functions that there's any number of potential futures, which get "locked in" once they become the present, Moshe could check in all futures in which the Egyptian marries if he has any righteous descendants. Put differently, there's the current timeline, but one can use his bechirah to change which course history takes; at that point, the Egyptian would still have kids, but when Moshe decided to kill him, that future was forever changed. – DonielF Apr 04 '19 at 21:26

0 Answers0