What does the Pasuk mean when it writes that "he turned this way and that"?
Rashi #1: It means simply that he looked in all directions to make sure that there was nobody in the vicinity.
Rashi #2: He saw what he had done to him in the house, and what he did to him in the field.
Targum Yonasan: In his profound wisdom, Moshe searched all his future generations. 1
What is meant by, "and he saw that there no man"?
Rashi and Targum Yonasan: It means that Moshe looked to ascertain that none of the Egyptian's offspring would ever convert (or do Teshuvah - Targum Yonasan).
On what grounds did Moshe kill the Mitzri?
Sanhedrin 58b: A Nochri who strikes a Yisrael is Chayav Misah. 1
Bi'Yedei Shamayim. See Torah Temimah, note 36, and Oznayim la'Torah DH "Ki Ein Ish...."
Opinions differ in the Midrash as to how Moshe struck down the Mitzri; a) with his fist, b) with a Magrefah (work-tool), or c) using the Name of Hashem? What is the reasoning behind these opinions?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 18, p. 84): Moshe was aroused [in anger] to stand up against the Rasha! He therefore did so a) with his own self; b) using a tool so as to finish him off with one blow; c) as quickly as possible, using a superior power.
Why did Moshe merely hide the Egyptian in the sand, and not bury him?
Oznayim la'Torah #1: Because that disgusting creature did not deserve to be buried.
Oznayim la'Torah #2: Because he was afraid that while he was digging a grave, an Egyptian might come along, discover what he had done, and report him to Pharaoh.
Because Cham was not given the privilege of burial - and Mitzrayim was a son of Cham. 1
See Rashi to Bereishis 9:23.
According to the Midrash, the symbolism of hiding the body in the sand, is that no sound is produced when moving sand about; so too, Moshe hoped that Bnei Yisrael would keep silent about the matter. What is the deeper meaning in Bnei Yisrael being compared to sand?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 18, p. 84): Sand is silent due to its fine consistency. The nature of a physical object is to spread (e.g. through sound); the silence of sand indicates that it is physical to a lesser degree. 1 The same praise is true of Yisrael; surely they too would remain silent and not reveal the secret. 2
We might explain from a graphical perspective, that a point does not spread at all, a line has one dimension (length), a shape has two dimensions (including width), and an object comprised of Chomer has three dimensions (also height). Thus, a physical objects "spreads." See Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 70). (EK)
For more about the sand, refer to Bereishis 32:13:3.2:1 and to Bereishis 32:13:151:1.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'He turned this way and that' - [Moshe] saw what [the Mitzri] had done to him in the house, and what he had done to him in the field." What is difficult with the verse's simple explanation - that Moshe looked both ways to make sure there would be no witnesses?
Gur Aryeh: The verse is about to say, "... and he saw that there was no man," such that the simple meaning would be slightly redundant. 1
Gur Aryeh: Nevertheless, Rashi continues, "... but in its simple explanation, the verse is literal." It is not redundant; the Torah is relating the normal course of action - when one wants to make sure no one is present, he first looks both ways.
Rashi writes: "He saw that there was no man - ... destined to descend from him who would convert." But Rashi (to Vayikra 24:10) later writes that the Mekalel was the son of none other than this Mitzri -- who later converted and joined Bnei Yisrael?
Chizkuni (to Vayikra 24:10); Gur Aryeh #1: When Moshe arrived on the scene, Shelomis had already conceived from the Mitzri (the previous night). Moshe saw that the Mitzri would have no future offspring that would convert.
Gur Aryeh #2: The Mitzri would have no legitimate offspring, who could stand to his merit. Shelomis was a married woman; his offspring from her was forbidden, and did not count in his favor.
Gur Aryeh #3: Moshe saw that he would have no righteous offspring. The Mekalel would turn out to be a complete Rasha.
Rashi writes: "He saw that there was no man - ... destined to descend from him who would convert." But the Mitzri deserved the death-penalty for his actions! Why would the possibility of worthy descendants be sufficient grounds to spare him from punishment?
Gur Aryeh: When Beis Din convicts someone of a capital crime through the testimony of witnesses, we do not consider any future ramifications as grounds for leniency. In this case, however, Moshe did not know of his crime though any witnesses, but rather through Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. Therefore, he needed to use the same Ru'ach ha'Kodesh to see if there was any future reason he should be spared.
