Is Moses a Bad Lawyer?
By Rabbi David Polsky

A defendant is on trial for murder. In his closing argument, the defense attorney argues that if the jury finds his client guilty, the jury will be thought of as cold-hearted. In most cases a lawyer who makes such an argument will soon find himself out of a job. No jury would buy such an argument, since juries are called upon to determine guilt or innocence. Caring about what others think is completely extraneous to their decision.

In his defense of the Jewish people after their sin with the Golden Calf, Moses appears to make the same mistake as the incompetent defense lawyer. When God threatens to wipe out the Jewish people because of their grievous sin, Moses argues that the Egyptians will say that God took the Israelites out from them only to kill them all in the desert (Exodus 32:11-12).

From a legal perspective, Moses argument is ridiculous. Why should anything the Egyptians say mitigate what the Israelites have done? Worse yet, why should an omnipotent God care about what the Egyptians think of Him? To compound our perplexity, God actually buys Moses’ argument and forgives His people.

Nahmanides writes (Commentary to Deuteronomy 32:26) that Moses’ argument is more convincing than our brainless defense attorney. God created the world in order for humans to recognize Him. Since other nations fail to recognize Him, it falls upon the Jewish people to testify about God and His omnipotence.

Moses is thus really arguing that were God to wipe out the Israelites, there would be no one left to serve as His representatives. Destroying the Jewish people, argues Moses, defeats God’s purpose in creating the world in the first place. While God is unaffected by anything other nations say about Him, their blasphemy would undermine His goal of being recognized by the rest of the world. Although Moses’ tactics might not hold up in a conventional court of law, his argumentation on behalf of the Israelites more than does the job.