What is the significance of the fact that Pharaoh's daughter (Bisyah) went down to the river to bathe?
Targum Yonasan: Hashem struck her with leprosy, which caused her to feel hot; so she went down to the river to cool down. The moment she took the basket, Hashem cured her and her leprosy disappeared. 1
Sotah 12b: She went to be Tovel and 'wash her hands of her father's idolatry.' 2
Sotah 12b: The word "Lirchotz" is as in Yeshayah 4:4.
Oznayim la'Torah: Borne out by the fact that on that very day, her father had decreed that all babies should be drowned. Now she found Moshe in the water, knowing that he was a Jewish baby, yet she took him out (perhaps even with the full realization that he was the savior in question - as the Torah hints when it writes "va'Tir'ehu Es ha'Yeled" - Sotah 12b).
Why does the Torah write that "Bas Pharaoh went down," without telling us exactly where she went down to?
Rashi: That is why we need to invert the words, to read that she 'went down to the river to bathe.'
Why does the Torah write "Al ha'Ye'or," and not 'El ha'Ye'or' (to the river), or 'ba'Yeor' (in the river)?
Ramban #1 (according to Rashi): The word "Al" sometimes means 'to.' 1
Ramban #2: There were steps leading down from the palace to the river, and she only stood on the first step to 'bathe.'
Ramban #3: The word 'Al' sometimes means 'in." 2
Seforno: Bisyah did not actually go down to the river! She entered a room that belonged to her father, that looked out over the river, (to bathe). 3
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 17, p. 79): Her objective was not the water itself! Rather, she went to wash herself from the detestable idolatry of her father's house (i.e. to immerse herself and convert) - as Chazal interpret in Sotah 12b. 4 The Nile was simply the location where she did so.
Ramban: See for example Shmuel I 2:11, and Yirmeyah 23:35).
Ramban: See, for example, 29:3.
Seforno: As it would not have been befitting for a princess to bathe in a public place, due to the principle "The Kavod of a princess is inside" (Tehilim 45:14). Also refer to 2:5:5:1*.
Maharal (loc. cit.): Had she not taken this step, she would not have merited to save Moshe, nor would she even have been capable of doing so.
Why does the Torah see fit to inform us that Bisyah was bathing in the river - while her maidservants were strolling ("Holechos") along the river bank?
Rashi: When the maidservants tried to stop her from saving the Ivri boy, 1 Hashem struck them down (refer to 2:5:4.1:1). 2
Seforno: While Bisyah was bathing at the palace (see 2:5:3:4), her Na'aros (her noble ladies-in-waiting) went out strolling by the river. This explains, a. why she saw the basket, but they didn't, and b. why she did not send one of them to fetch it. 3
Oznayim la'Torah: To teach us that she saved Moshe, in spite of her maidservants' efforts to stop her, and in spite of the probability that they would report her to her father. 4
Whom her own father had decreed was to be killed - See Tosfos and Hadar Zekenim.
Sifsei Chachamim: ... leaving Bisyah one maidservant, as it is not befitting for a princess to travel unaccompanied.
Seforno: This was Hashem's Hashgachah! Had her ladies been available, they might have disregarded her request, and tipped the basket into the Nile. Rather, she sent her Amah (the lowly maidservant who was helping her bathe), who fulfilled her request and brought her the baby.
Oznayim la'Torah: Which no doubt they would have done, had Gavriel not killed them (refer to 2:5:4.1:1*).
What are the implications of the word "v'Na'arosehah Holechos"?
Rashi: "Holechos" is an expression of Misah. 1
Rashi: Like we find in Bereishis 25:32. Sotah 12b - When Bisyah's maidservants saw that she wanted to save Moshe, they pointed out that if a king's subjects do not adhere to his decrees, at least his children and family would be expected to do so. Hashem sent Gavriel who came and knocked them into the ground.
What exactly was "Amasah," which Bisyah sent to fetch the basket containing Moshe?
Rashi #1, Ramban, Rashbam and Seforno: She sent her maidservant. 1
Rashi #2, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: She stretched out her hand 2 and pulled it in.
Seforno: She sent the slave-girl who was assisting her to bathe (in the room overlooking the river; refer to 2:5:3:4). Sotah 12b - Even though Gavriel had killed her maidservants, he left one alive, refer to 2:5:4.1:1* and 2:5:4:1**.
Rashi: Which extended many Amos until it reached the basket. See Sotah 12b.
If Bisyah stretched out her hand (see 2:5:5:2), why does the Torah write "Amasah," rather than 'Yadah'?
Sotah 12b: It teaches us that her arm stretched many Amos. 1
Oznayim la'Torah: There were perhaps thousands of babies cast into the Nile, yet Bisyah made the effort to save just one. This teaches us that even when many people are dying or suffering, one should not be deterred from saving even just one, since one never knows who that one will turn out to be (Though in any event, saving one life is akin to saving the entire world - Sanhedrin 37a). The commentaries also learn from here, that one should make an effort to perform a good deed, even when the task appears impossible, because one is likely to enjoy Siya'ata di'Shemaya - just like Bisyah.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'... Descended to bathe upon the river' - Invert the Pasuk in order to interpret it; 'She descended upon the river, to bathe.'" Why must we invert the Pasuk?
Gur Aryeh: One bathes in the river, not above it! 1 Rather, interpret the phrase as, 'She descended to (the banks) upon the river, to bathe therein.'
Rashi writes: "Our Sages interpret [the word] 'Holechos' (lit. 'walking') to mean 'death'... [The maidens] were going to die, because they tried to prevent her [from saving him]." Why interpret this way?
Gur Aryeh: We would expect the verse to say that her maidens were 'sitting' or 'standing' next to the Nile, near their mistress. Would they literally go off for a stroll, and leave the princess unattended?! Thus, Chazal's interpretation. 1
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 17, p. 79): If it were literal ('her maidens were strolling'), why would the Torah need to mention it? Rather, as Chazal interpret, they were dying.
Gur Aryeh: Also note that the word 'Holechos' (written without a Vav) equals the word "Misah" in Gematriya (455).
Rashi writes: "Our Sages interpret [the word] 'Holechos' to mean 'death.'" If so, why is this written as an allusion, and not explicitly?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 17, p. 79): This was not an overt miracle. They 'died' in the existential sense - their ability and Mazal were removed on High, such that they could no longer protest.
Rashi writes: "Amasah - [lit.] her maidservant. Our Sages interpret it to mean 'her hand (or arm)' -- however, according to the rules of Dikduk in Leshon ha'Kodesh, the Mem would then have a Dagesh." If this is correct, how did the Sages nonetheless interpret 'Amasah' to mean 'arm'?
Gur Aryeh #1: That opinion in fact reads the word "Amasah" with a Dagesh. Rashi is pointing out that in his current tradition, the Mem is read without a Dagesh; thus, it means 'maidservant.'
Gur Aryeh #2: According to Sotah 12b, that opinion will say that the word "Amasah" is used instead of just 'Yadah,' to teach us how it [miraculously] became greatly extended. Usually, nouns containing a Dagesh do not lose them, even in possessive (i.e. her arm) or construct form. The unusual change in the Nekudos of this word 1 is precisely the hint to the unusual, miraculous change in her arm. 2
Gur Aryeh: 'Amasah' meaning 'her arm' would have a Patach under the Alef, and a Dagesh in the Mem. Our text has a Chataf-Patach under the Alef, and no Dagesh.
Gur Aryeh: Rashi implies this as well. Even after he points out the problem in the Dikduk, he concludes, "[The Sages] interpreted 'Amasah' as 'her arm' - that her arm was extended by many Amos."
