Allah the Exalted said: << فالتقطه ءال فرعون ليكون لهم عدوا و حزنا إن فرعون و هامان و جنودهما كانوا خاطئين >

He said: The people of Pharaoh picked it up in the early morning. He did not say: "They took it," because it had become in the status of an abandoned child. The scholars say that an abandoned child is one who is cast away and then found. This is why he said: "They picked it up" and not "They took it." Why? Because an abandoned child is one who is cast away. These people took this chest.
And regarding his saying: "The people of Pharaoh," the author said: "his aides". "His people" means his aides. It is also possible that "his people" means his relatives. In any case, the point is that he took it from... to Pharaoh, the king... No, even picking up must be with intention, because the one who picks up an abandoned child in the street or in the mosque... But here, it may seem like something he came across. However, the scholars here say that picking up applies to an abandoned child.
He said: "The people of Pharaoh placed it before him, meaning before Pharaoh. They were not aware of what was inside, and they perhaps thought that what was inside was wealth. It was opened and Moses was taken out of it, meaning he was taken out while sucking milk from his thumb." This... we do not know about him that he was sucking milk from his thumb. It means he was nursing himself from himself... But what is certain, as is customary, is that a person must open a closed thing and look at what is inside. As for him sucking milk from his thumb, this is among the Isra'iliyyat that are neither affirmed nor denied. Then we said it is denied because this is far from human nature.
And his saying: "so that it would be for them in the end of the matter". The pronoun "it" refers to what is upon Moses, and the pronoun "for them" refers to the people of Pharaoh. The people of Pharaoh include Pharaoh himself. And his saying: The author said: "in the end of the matter" is an indication that the lam here is for the outcome, not for the cause. Because if he had felt that it would be an enemy and sorrow for them, he would have killed him. But the outcome was that it was so. What Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) held, that the lam here is for the cause considering Allah's knowledge of it, has a point. That is: in the knowledge of Allah, and it is not a cause for the picking up. This has a point. But the closer view is what the author and others held, that the lam here is for the outcome, not for the cause. Now, the lam that enters the present tense verb is divided into two types: superfluous and non-superfluous. The superfluous one is for the cause, for the outcome, and for affirming benefit. This is the non-superfluous one. The superfluous one is what usually occurs after the verb of will, such as His saying: So the lam here is superfluous because if you delete it and estimate "Allah only intends to remove," "Allah only intends that He remove," the speech is complete. Is it not? It is complete. The speech is complete. And the non-superfluous lam is for the cause, such as "I came to learn it," meaning in order to learn it. And it is for affirming negation, such as His saying: For this reason, the grammarians call it the lam of denial, meaning negation. So it is for affirming negation. The third is for the outcome, such as this verse: Yes, after whether it is a present tense verb or a past tense verb.
And his saying: "so that it would be for them an enemy who kills their men and a sorrow that enslaves their women". This is questionable. Rather, the apparent meaning is that he was an enemy because of the severe harms that would occur through his hands to the people of Pharaoh. And a sorrow because he would sadden them with the great victories that would appear to them. The greatest of which was when? When he was victorious on the Day of Ornaments, because he was victorious over him with a complete and brilliant victory. And they had from this sorrow what no one knows except Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He). We do not know that Moses (peace be upon him) killed the men of the people of Pharaoh, nor that he enslaved their women. Rather, it is known that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) drowned them by His action. In a reading with a dammah on the ha' and a sukun on the dal, there are two languages in the source. And here it is in the meaning of the active participle from "he saddened him," like "he caused him to be sad." ......... - Now, is the reading of "huznan" here canonical or anomalous? It is canonical, because you know that when the author says "a reading" in it, it means canonical. And when he says "it was read," it is the anomalous one. He said with a dammah on the ha' and a sukun on the dal "huznan" and "hazan" have the same meaning, and they are two languages in the source. It is from "hazana" like "ahzana." "Hazana him" like "ahzana him." What does "he saddened him" mean? "Ahzana him" means that the sorrow that is not increased with the hamza, like "ahzana him" which is increased with the hamza, in terms of transitivity. And his saying: "in the meaning of the active participle" here. And it is here in the meaning of the active participle. What does "in the meaning of the active participle" mean? It means in the meaning of "hazin," meaning "causing sadness." Why did the author refer to this? Because sorrow is a feeling in the soul. Would Moses (peace be upon him) be a feeling in their souls? No. But he is the one who introduces this feeling, which is sorrow, into their souls. And thus "hiznan" is in the meaning of "hazan." Be careful, my people. And the source always comes in the meaning of the active participle and always in the meaning of the passive participle. It is said: So-and-so is "adl" (justice) and "rida" (satisfaction). And it is also said: So-and-so is "thiqah" (trustworthy) and "adl" and "rida" and "thiqah." These are sources in the meaning of the active participle. "Adil" (just) and "rida" in the meaning of the person, and "thiqah" in the meaning of the passive participle. The active participle and the passive participle. And his saying (peace be upon him): This is a source in the meaning of the passive participle.
"So they picked it up so that it would be for them an enemy and a sorrow". What is the enemy? The enemy, the jurists defined it with a definition that is the ruling in reality. They said: "The enemy is the one whose happiness is in the misery of a person or whose distress is in his separation from him. He is his enemy." Every person whose happiness is in your misery and whose sorrow is in your happiness is your enemy. And every person whose happiness is in your happiness and whose distress is in your sorrow is your ally. Because the enemy is the opposite of the ally.
He said: This sentence is the cause for his saying: As if it was said: Why would it be for them an enemy and a sorrow? So he explained that the reason for that is the error of these people: Pharaoh the king, Haman his minister, their soldiers, their followers who obey their command. And the origin of "junud" (soldiers) is the plural of "jund," and the "jund" are the supporters of a person. And they were said to be "khati'in" (erroneous) from "khat'i'ah" (sin) or "asiyyin" (disobedient), so they were punished through his hands. What is the difference between "khati'" (erroneous) and "mukhtai'" (one who made a mistake)? Ismail, what is the difference between "khati'" and "mukhtai'"? ... It means the one who committed the error intentionally is "khati'," and the one who committed it unintentionally is "mukhtai'." Therefore, the "khati'" is punished and the "mukhtai'" is not punished. Allah the Exalted said: And the "mukhtai'" has no sin upon him . And the verb "khati'" is from "khati'" (to err intentionally), and "mukhtai'" is from "akhtha'a" (to make a mistake). This is the difference. So his saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): "khati'in" means falling into error intentionally and with purpose. Therefore, the author said: meaning disobedient, so they were punished through his hands.