Married her a second time. [The proof:] immediately after this marriage, Yocheved conceived and gave birth to Moshe. Yet, Aharon and Miriam were older than Moshe. Therefore, they were born from the first marriage of Amram and Yocheved’s first marriage.

**She, too, became youthful again.**Since Yocheved is described as בת לוי (lit. “girl of Levi”), this implies she was youthful.

When he was born the entire house was filled with light. Here it says כי טוב (he was good), and earlier (Bereishis 1:4) it says וירא אלהים את האור כי טוב (And Elokim saw the light, that it was good). Just as כי טוב earlier refers to light, so too here it refers to light.

One who gives birth in the seventh month can give birth to a live child, even though the seven months are incomplete, and are only six months and one day.

Tar on the outside. . . so that the righteous [child] should not have to smell. . . Rashi added a reason in Parshas Noach (Bereishis 6:14): “With Moshe’s box, since the water current was mild, it was sufficient to have [just] clay on the inside and on the outside.” See [Rashi] there.

They were going to die because they opposed her (Pharaoh’s daughter).” The maids opposed her rescue of Moshe.

Her handmaiden. Rashi said above: “Our Sages explained” [that the maids died.] For the angel Gavriel killed all the maids who accompanied Pharaoh’s daughter. If so, [how could she now send a maid to fetch the box?] The Gemara (Sotah 12b) already answered that Gavriel did not kill all her maids. He spared one maid, to extend honor to royalty, so that Pharaoh’s daughter would not be left alone. This remaining maid was sent.

But the Sages explained it as “hand” . . . and her arm extended many cubits . . . The verse should have said, “(She sent) נערתה or שפחתה ” if it simply meant handmaidens. Because it did not sprecifically state ידה , the Sages explained אמתה as implying that her arm extended many אמות (cubits). Alternatively, the Sages explained this because the מ [of אמתה ] has no dagesh [although the word אמה (hand or arm) requires one]. And the dagesh in nouns does not change even in the nismach form, or with a possessive suffix [such as תה as it appears here]. Yet the word did change here, for the א has a sheva [i.e., a chataf patach, due to which the dagesh in the מ drops out], although the א should have had a [simple] patach. [Therefore our Sages explain: The word אמתה changed, to indicate that the arm of Pharaoh’s daughter changed.] (Gur Aryeh).

She saw the Divine Presence with him. If [the verse means that]she saw Moshe, it should have stated ותראה (she saw). Therefore, the letter ו at the end of the word ותראהו refers to the Divine Presence, [Whom she saw with the child].

His voice was like that of a [grown] boy. Rashi is answering the question: Why is he called a נער (grown boy)? This implies thirteen years old, but Moshe was not this age.

She unknowingly prophesied. Although הֵא [i.e., the first half of הֵיליכי ] is normal usage of the language, as in (Bereishis 42:23) הֵא לכם זרע (here is seed for you), [Rashi offers his Midrashic explanation] only because ליכי is written instead of לָךְ . Although ליכי is feminine [and is thus fitting for the verse], but לָךְ also refers to females. For example [Elkanah speaking to Chanah]: אנכי טוב לָךְ (I have been good to you). (Shmuel I, 1:8)

As one who extracts a hair from milk. כמשחל בניתא מחלבא is Aramaic for “taking a hair out of the milk.”

He was one of the slave drivers. Since the beating [that the Egyptian did] is juxtaposed to the burdens of hard labor, they are related. Therefore Rashi explains: “He was one of the slave drivers.”

He would wake them at the crow of the rooster to their tasks. When the rooster crowed, they immediately needed to get up for their work.

He was beating and terrorizing him. We need not ask how Rashi knew that מכה means only beating rather than smiting and killing. For the answer is [clear]: Rashi explains later that Moshe killed the Egyptian only after seeing that there was no good man destined to descend from him. Otherwise Moshe would not have killed him. Whereas if מכה means kill, why did Moshe need to see this? Even if the Egyptian would have good descendants he would deserve death for murdering a Hebrew, as Scripture states (Shemos 21:23), “A soul for a soul.” Thus, מכה must mean beating and terrorizing but not killing. That is why Moshe needed to see if there would be any good descendant—otherwise he would not kill him since he was not liable for death by Torah law. You might then ask: how was Moshe allowed to kill him, [if he was not liable for death by Torah law]? The answer is that B’nei Noach are liable for death for violating any Noachite law. And they are commanded against beating, just as Jews are. Nevertheless, were he destined to have a good descendant, Moshe would have judged the Egyptian by Torah law rather than by Noachite law.

He (the victim) was the husband of Shlomis, daughter of Divri. [Rashi knows this] because of what is written later in Parshas Emor: “Shlomis daughter of Divri” (Vayikra 24:11). There Rashi explained: “It is praiseworthy to the Jews that Shlomis is specified, as this means only she had illicit relations.” And if this woman was not Shlomis, then there would be two Jewish women who had illicit relations.

He (the Egyptian) was attracted to her . . . and came upon his wife. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Moshe would not have killed him. The Egyptian would not deserve death for only beating the Hebrew. Therefore, he must have come upon his wife and definitely deserved death since adultery is forbidden by the seven Noachite laws, as it is written (Bereishis 2:24): “And he shall cleave to his wife” [and not to another’s wife; see Yerushalmi, Kiddushin1:1]. This also answers the question posed above (How was Moshe allowed to kill him?).

No man was there . . . that would convert. [Rashi offers this Midrashic interpretation] because the verse says “he saw that no איש (man) was there,” rather than “no אדם (person) was there.” Whereas according to the verse’s plain meaning that Moshe was afraid of being seen, there is no difference whether it was a man or a woman. Therefore Rashi explains, “No man. . . that would convert,” since איש implies a tzaddik. Similarly Rashi explains in Parshas Shelach (Bamidbar 13:3) and in Parshas Devarim (Devarim 1:13) that איש implies a tzaddik but it does not exclude women (Maharamash). You might ask that in Parshas Emor (Vayikra 24:10), Rashi says that בתוך בני ישראל (among the B’nei Yisrael) means that the son whom the Egyptian begat from Shlomis had converted. [Thus, he did have a righteous descendant.] The answer is that when Moshe killed the Egyptian, Shlomis had already conceived him. However, Moshe saw that no additional converts were destined to descend from him.

Dosson and Avirom. [Rashi knows it was them] because the verse here states “Two אנשים (men),” similar to what is written there [about Dosson and Avirom]: “Move away from the tents of these evil אנשים (men)” (Bamidbar 16:26).

Though he had not yet struck him. [Rashi knows this] because the verse should have said למה אתה מכה (“why are you beating,” in the present tense), as it did above: מכה איש עברי מאחיו (beating one of his Hebrew brethren). Thus, למה תכה (“why will you beat,” in the future tense) means “why do you wish to strike your friend?”

He is as wicked as you. Rashi is answering the question: why did Moshe call him רעך (your friend), if one was wicked and the other not? Therefore Rashi explains that also his friend was wicked (Maharshal).

He killed [the Egyptian] with the Divine Name. [Rashi knows this] since the verse states הלהרגני אתה אומר (Are you saying to kill me), rather than הלהרגני אתה מבקש (Are you planning to kill me). This shows that Moshe killed him through speech. Who told him that the Egyptian was killed by the Divine Name? We could say [that the wicked man knew how Moshe killed the Egyptian] since he saw that Moshe buried him in the sand but he did not see Moshe lift a hand against him. Thus he deduced that Moshe killed him with the Divine Name (Re”m).

Wicked people who were informers. The word דלטורין means “informers.”

To be subjugated by oppressive work. Although there had been a decree upon the descendants of Avraham: “And they will enslave them and afflict them four hundred years” (Bereishis 15:13), nevertheless, Moshe questioned [Why they were oppressed], since it is written (Devarim 24:16): “Children shall not die for [the sins of] their fathers.” Alternatively, [Moshe’s question was that] Avraham and Yitzchak had other descendants, so why was subjugation not decreed upon them. Alternatively, although “they will enslave them and afflict them” had been decreed, but oppressive work had not decreed upon them. And this [i.e., their oppressive work] is what puzzled Moshe (Maharma”i).

They (Dosson and Avirom) informed on him. [Rashi knows this because] it says later on (Shemos 4:19): “For they have died — all the men who had sought your life.” This was Dosson and Avirom, as we see in Maseches Nedarim 64b. (Nachalas Yaakov)

He abandoned the worship of idols whereupon they (the Midianites) banished him. Rashi is answering the question: Since Yisro was the most prominent man of Midian, why did the shepherds chase away his sheep? Therefore Rashi explains: “He abandoned the worship of idols. . .” (Maharshal) Although Yisro abandoned the worship of idols, he did not convert fully. For later, upon hearing of the Splitting of the Sea, he came to convert. But I heard it means that Yisro abandoned the idols of Midian to worship other idols. This is in accordance with the Mechilta (Yisro 1): “There was no idol that Yisro had not worshipped.” Thus we must say that Yisro abandoned one idolatry for another. According to this, we can understand why Yisro stipulated with Moshe that Moshe’s first son shall be devoted to idolatry (ibid.), [although Yisro had already “abandoned” the worship of idols]. (Maharamash)

For whom the waters [of the Nile] rose. It seems that Rashi inferred this from the fact that Yisro asked his daughters: “How did you get to come [home] so early today?” It is difficult to understand the basis of his question. If he knew that the shepherds came every day and chased the sheep away, they would not go in the first place before the shepherds finished watering. And if he knew that the shepherds did not come first every day, [why was he surprised his daughters returned early?] Perhaps the shepherds did not come [first] today. Thus we must assume that on that day Yisro’s daughters returned home so early that even if the shepherds did not come first, the daughters would not have returned so soon. Therefore he asked them: “How did you get to come [home] so early today?” And they answered that a man came and drew for them, and the water rose up for him, thus they did not need to draw. And how did Rashi know that they answered so? Because the verse stated previously: “To draw water and fill the troughs,” implying that the daughters would pour water into the troughs to water their sheep. Whereas they now said to Yisro: “He also drew for us, and watered the sheep,” implying that Moshe did not pour the water into the troughs but watered the sheep straight from the well. Since he did not need to pour, the water must have risen up for him (Maharshal). (There are new insights to be formulated here, but time does not permit.)

Perhaps he might marry one of you. Rashi [offers this Midrashic explanation in answer to] the question: Why did Yisro say “let him eat bread”? Is it proper that Yisro honor Moshe merely with bread, in return for his great kindness? It would be understandable [for Yisro to say so] if Moshe was present. Then we could assume that Yisro was saying little and doing much, as the Gemara (Bava Metzia 87a) states regarding Avraham’s statement, “I will bring some bread [for the guests to eat]” (Bereishis 18:5). However, Avraham was a tzaddik, and the tzaddikim say little and do much, but Yisro was not as righteous and Moshe was not present so Yisro would not say this, for even Avraham made his statement when the angels were present. Furthermore, the verse implies that Moshe was invited only for eating bread, and then he would go on his way. Was Yisro’s great concern justified for this [i.e., eatng bread] alone, that he should exclaim: “Why did you abandon the man? Call him . . .”? Therefore Rashi explains, “Perhaps he might marry one of you.” This also explains the verse following, “Moshe agreed to reside with the man . . .,” i.e., Moshe agreed to remain with Yisro because of “. . . and he gave Moshe his daughter Tzipporah.” The word ויואל (agreed) clearly implies that Yisro requested this of him, and now Moshe agreed to fill his request. Therefore, we must say that this request is hinted in “Call him and let him eat bread,” meaning: “perhaps he might marry one of you.” That is why Yisro sent after Moshe (Maharamash).

I have agreed to speak ( הואלתי לדבר ). We must say that Rashi is bringing his proof [that ויואל means “I have agreed”] from the second instance that הואלתי appears in Parshas Vayeira (Bereishis 18:31). For הואלתי appears there twice, and the first הואלתי (ibid v. 27) does not mean “I have agreed,” rather “I have begun,” as Rashi explains there.

He was stricken with leprosy . . . If the verse means that he actually died, why did B’nei Yisrael cry? Perhaps the king to reign after Pharaoh will be benevolent. Perforce we must conclude that he was stricken with leprosy, and a leper is considered as dead (Nedarim 64b).