“And a man of the house of Levi went and took a daughter of Levi.” Rashi explains that he had separated from her, etc. It seems that he learned this from the verse saying “and a man went,” without specifying from where he went and to where he went. Also [the phrase] “from the house of Levi” — it should have said “and a Levite man went.” Rather, because we find the language of “going” used in divorce, as it says: and she shall go and be to another man (Deuteronomy 24:2). And a woman is called a “house,” and “Levi” is a term for the connection between husband and wife, as in this time my husband will be attached to me. Therefore, it says and a man went from the house of Levi, meaning he departed from his house, that is, his wife, and from the connection through which he was attached to her. And afterward, he returned and took the daughter of Levi. He made a second taking [marriage] with her, because this time her first husband would be attached to her again. This is why it says “the daughter of Levi.”

“And she saw that he was good.” The entire house was filled with light, as it is said: And God saw the light, that it was good (Genesis 1:4). For this reason, she hid him, because she feared that the Egyptians might see that light, and through the light they would also see the child. Therefore she hid him more than all the other children. Additionally, she feared they might notice the extraordinary light, for he was the redeemer who would bring them from darkness to light and from servitude to redemption. Perhaps she thought that this is why the light was created with him — to teach her to hide him, just as the original light was hidden away for the righteous in the world to come.

“For three months.” This hints that the light of the Torah was hidden until the third month, which is Sivan, as they derived from the verse He stores up sound wisdom for the upright (Proverbs 2:7); therefore “she could no longer hide him.” See further ahead in the verse Remove your sandals from your feet, that Moses was completely detached from materiality and was illuminated from both his parts, and his human abode was full of light, and this miracle testifies to his future essence. And it appears that regarding the existence of this light that was born with him, it is written: And she opened it and saw him, the child. What does “and she saw him” mean? Our Sages said (Sotah 12b) that she saw the Divine Presence with him. But where was the Divine Presence previously mentioned? Rather, and she saw him/it refers to finding the light which was mentioned earlier in saying “that he was good,” and she saw that light with the child, since “et” [generally understood to simply introduce “the child” as a direct object] serves in place of “with.” And in this way, he appeared like a grown youth because the child and the light joined together; therefore it says: and she saw it, meaning the light with the child.

And behold, a youth was crying. He appeared as a grown youth, and this crying is in reference to I am with him in distress (Psalms 91:15), as it is written: For I know his pains (Exodus 3:7). That is to say, I feel his pains, as it were, and this is the repetition of I will be what I will be (Exodus 3:14), for in their distress, He too is distressed. And some say that this is why his voice was heard as that of a youth, so that Pharaoh’s daughter would think he was born a long time ago. For if not, she would not have saved him out of doubt, because perhaps he was the redeemer and was born on the same day that the astrologers had mentioned.

His sister said, etc., “Shall I go and call a wet nurse for you, etc.” From here is proof that Miriam was a prophetess, for if not, how did she know that Pharaoh’s daughter would take pity on him? For the statement and she took pity on him is a statement of the [biblical] verse, but how did she [Miriam] know [this would happen]?

And he said to the wicked one, “Why do you strike your fellow?” Rashi explained that even though he did not strike him by raising his hand, he is called wicked; “your fellow” — a wicked one like yourself. But this is difficult: Who told Moses that this one was wicked like the other? Furthermore, where is it written that he sought to strike him, as it does not say “and he raised his hand to strike him”? It seems to me that the language of striking [hakkah] also applies to speech, as it is written: There is one who speaks rashly like the piercings of a sword (Proverbs 12:18). And it is written: Cursed be he who strikes his fellow in secret (Deuteronomy 27:24). For one who casts a blemish upon his fellow, there is no greater strike than this. And our Sages of blessed memory said (Kiddushin 70a), “Whoever invalidates others, does so with his own blemish.” Moses saw two Hebrews fighting with insults and blasphemies, and therefore both of them were wicked, for it is the trait of the righteous to be among those who are insulted but do not insult, who hear the voice of those who revile them but do not respond. He called him “your fellow, a wicked one exactly like yourself,” because with the same blemish that you invalidate him and strike him with the whip of your tongue, surely that same blemish is found in you as well, for whoever invalidates others does so with his own blemish. Therefore he said: Why do you strike your fellow?, because he is your fellow in this blemish.

And the proof of this, that there was no physical striking but rather verbal, is from what he said: Do you speak to kill me, as if to say, “Do you speak to kill me with your verbal pronouncement, to repay me measure for measure? But I have not yet actually killed him, that you should think to kill me. For this is your way, to add to the punishment beyond the sin, as the Egyptian was also [only] striking a Hebrew man, but you killed him; so you think to do to me as well.”

And Moses feared and said, “Indeed, the matter is known.” The sin of speech is why Israel dwells in distress more than all other nations, for the sin of lashon hara is among the greatest of sins, comparable to idolatry, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. But the truth is not so, because on the contrary, Israel was redeemed by virtue of there not being lashon hara among them, and only these two individuals were guilty of lashon hara, and the Scripture publicized them, similar to Shelomit bat Divri whom the Scripture publicized.

And the children of Israel sighed because of the work, and they cried out. It is somewhat difficult to understand why the verse did not mix and teach these terms, simply stating “The children of Israel sighed and cried out because of the work.” It appears that sighing is an internal, heartfelt response that was indeed due to the hard labor. However, Israel did not attribute their outcry to the work, as they believed they deserved redemption based on their own merits, even if they had not been subjected to such harsh labor. Nevertheless, in God’s eyes, they were evil and sinful, and unworthy of redemption except for the sake of the oppressive work they endured, as it is written: And I am exceedingly angry with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little angry, but they helped for evil (Zechariah 1:15). Therefore, it says: Their cry rose up to God because of the work, because the Egyptians had “helped for evil” as mentioned.

One can also interpret that there were two groups among Israel. The good ones among them cried out and prayed to God to save them from the burden of the labor, but the lesser ones among them did not pray to God, rather they cried out as if protesting against God. Regarding them, it says: they cried out [vayizaku], and therefore they were not included together. For what is stated: and the children of Israel sighed from the labor refers to the good ones who prayed to God, as prayer is primarily in the heart. And they cried out [vayizaku] refers to the lesser ones who cried out as if protesting. Therefore it says: and their plea ascended to God — from those groups who pleaded to God because of the labor, their plea ascended, but not from the group of those who cried out without prayer.

And there are those who say, that this crying out was openly expressed in front of the Egyptians as if it were about the death of the king, as if they were mourning for him, but the sighing in their hearts was because of the labor, for out of fear they were not permitted to say in front of the Egyptians that they were crying out because of the labor, and therefore these two [expressions of distress] were not mixed together.