Comentario sobre Exodo 10:36

ויאמר ה' אל משה בא אל פרעה AND THE LORD SAID UNTO MOSES GO IN UNTO PHARAOH and warn him.

AND THE ETERNAL SAID UNTO MOSES: GO IN UNTO PHARAOH; FOR I HAVE HARDENED HIS HEART AND THE HEART OF HIS SERVANTS. The Holy One, blessed be He, informed Moses that it is He Who has hardened their hearts in spite of their fear of Him during the hail and their confession of sin.¹Although Scripture above (9:27) mentions only Pharaoh confessing his sin, it is apparent from Verse 30 there that the king’s servants also made this confession, since Moses said to all of them, But as for thee and thy servants, I know that ye will not yet fear the Eternal G-d. This is a clear indication that the servants too had joined the king in admitting their guilt. Ramban is thus correct in writing here in the plural: “their confession of sin.” And He explained to him: “The reason I hardened their hearts is that I might set in their midst these signs that I wish to do among them so that the Egyptians will know My power, but not in order that I can punish them more on account of this hardening of heart, and also that you and all Israel should recount during the coming generations the power of My deeds, and you shall know that I am the Eternal,²Verse 2. and whatsoever I please, I do in heaven and in earth.”³See Psalms 135:6.

כי אני הכבדתי את לבו, during all the preceding plagues we do not find that G’d had told Moses that it was He Who had stiffened Pharaoh’s heart. However, since we have reached the stage where Pharaoh himself had said that “G’d is just whereas he and his people are the sinners,” (9,27) and still he had reneged and sinned deliberately, a phenomenon which must have seemed incomprehensible to Moses, G’d explains the psychology behind this, i.e. that it was not as hard to understand, as He Himself had to stiffen Pharaoh’s resolve causing him to renege. ואת לב עבדיו, as we are told in 9,34.

כי אני הכבדתי, even though Moses had said; “I know that you do not yet relate with awe and reverence to G’d,” (9,30) he thought that even if he does not humble himself to G’d because of G’d’s greatness, at least he should do what G’d says seeing that he has no choice, and can no longer withstand the cumulative effect of the plagues. He had arrived at this conclusion when he noted the words ה' הצדיק, “the Lord is the Just One.” However, when he found out that all these pious words notwithstanding Pharaoh continued to oppose G’d’s will in spite of the fact that he found it impossible to cope with the plagues, Moses had come to the conclusion that warning Pharaoh of an impending plague was an exercise in futility. This is why G’d had to tell him at this stage that already during the sixth plague (9,12) He had stiffened Pharaoh’s heart so that ordinary rules of psychology could no longer be applied to this man. The purpose was to enable G’d to demonstrate more miracles so that maybe some Egyptians would be moved by what they experienced to become penitents. If so, the Israelites in the future would be able to tell their children of the greatness of G’d’s miracles. This in turn would convince mankind that G’d loved His creatures and was very patient with them, giving them opportunities to mend their ways. This is why the warning to Pharaoh was in place although it would prove ineffectual. G’d’s plan was

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה, G'd said to Moses, etc. The Torah mentions אמירה, the soft approach as well as G'd's name as the Merciful One. This did not refer to the "sender," i.e. to G'd, but to the messenger Moses, as we see in verse 3. [Whereas as recently as 9,35 the Torah referred to Moses as having spoken sternly, דבר, to Pharaoh, now there is a change of mood. Ed.] Moses spoke in a kindly manner to Pharaoh even while delivering a warning of a devastating plague. G'd warned him to do so as otherwise he might have lived up to the description of the righteous man in Psalms 58,11 where the Holy Spirit describes the righteous as rejoicing when he observes G'd taking revenge. Moses is reminded that what truly makes the righteous happy is seeing G'd's attribute of Mercy in action.

בא אל פרעה כי אני הכבדתי את לבו, “come to Pharaoh for I have hardened his heart.” G’d informed Moses that although, by natural processes, Pharaoh’s heart had already become softened, and he had even confessed his guilt, He, the Lord, had now hardened his heart again.

And warn him. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “ כי (for) I have hardened his heart.” Every כי that appears in Scripture comes to give a reason for what preceded. And if “Go in to Pharaoh” did not mean “and warn him,” how would כי be giving a reason for what preceded? This is what Hashem was saying to Moshe: [It is true that] warning Pharaoh will surely have no effect, since he did not send out the B’nei Yisrael in spite of his confession, “This time I have sinned” (9:27). Thus our verse explains: “For I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his servants.” In other words, the warning is necessary for his servants, whose hearts had not yet hardened [and they rebelled in the plague of hail only because Hashem hardened their hearts]. The reason Hashem did not harden their hearts sooner [but He waited for the plague of hail to do so] is that the verse states there, “he that feared the word of Hashem . . . made his servants and his livestock flee. . .” (9:20). If Hashem had not hardened the servants’ hearts at that time, they would have insisted that Pharaoh release the B’nei Yisrael. Thus He hardened their hearts, “So that I will be able to set these signs in their midst.” Although [with the coming plague of locusts] Pharaoh’s servants said, “Send the men out” (20:7), their repentance was not wholehearted [and they deserved the ensuing punishment]. For they said to send only the men [and not the entire nation], as Pharaoh himself said, “The [adult] men should go.” (20:11) (Nachalas Yaakov, see further elaboration there)

Kap. 10. V. 1. Wie bei allen עדרות-Plagen, den bisherigen צפרדע und דבר, heißt es auch hier, der dritten und letzten עבדות-Plage: בא אל פרעה, suche Pharao in seinem Palaste, in Mitte seiner Großherrlichkeit auf. Es galt ja, durch diese Plagen Pharao inne werden zu lassen, dass selbst, wenn Fluss und Boden, das Land mit all seinem üppigen Naturreichtum unverändert bliebe, Besitz und Genuss dieser ganzen Herrlichkeit doch von dem Belieben Gottes bedingt sei, und wenn er, stolz auf diesen Besitz, Fremdlinge, als Unberechtigte, den ihnen gegönnten schmalen Mitgenuss derselben mit der Einbuße ihrer Freiheit und Selbständigkeit bezahlen zu lassen, und sie zu knechten sich berechtigt glaube, so wisse ihm Gott all diesen Reichtum zu vernichten und ihm ganz andere Fremdlinge in sein Reich zu senden, die ihm den ganzen Reichtum vor seinen Augen bis auf die letzte Faser zu verzehren verständen. —

בוא אל פרעה....מביא מחר, “go in unto Pharaoh...I will bring on the plague of locusts tomorrow to your territories.” How had Moses had advance warning of this plague, seeing that we have no word in the Torah where G–d had given him advance notice about this plague? We will have to fall back on the tradition that the acronyms of the ten plagues as per Rabbi Yehudah, had been etched into the side of his staff. The problem with this interpretation is that if so why did G–d bother to give him advance notice of the two plagues following after the plague of locusts? It may be more plausible to assume that the words למען תספר באזני בנך ובן בנך את אשר התעללתי במצרים, “in order that you will be able to tell your son and your grandson what I have wrought upon Egypt,” (verse 2) that this had included details about the forthcoming plague of locusts. We find that the plague of locusts recorded in the Book of Yoel (Yoel 1,3-4) was also introduced by the prophet telling his people to tell his children and grandchildren about it. [In that instance the plague of locusts smote the land of Israel. Ed.]

בא אל פרעה כי אני הכבדתי את לבו ואת לב עבדיו, “go toPharaoh for I have hardened both his heart and that of his servants;” We have not found this formulation in connection with any of the previous plagues. The reason that G-d reacted so harshly was that after Pharaoh himself had confessed that he had sinned, instead of releasing the Israelites, both he and his servants continued to oppress the Israelites. This retraction by Pharaoh forced G-d’s hand, so to speak, to react in kind, matching the punishment to the sin committed. [In verse 34 at the end of the last chapter the Torah testified that Pharaoh’s servants had supported him in his retraction of his confession. Ed.]

שתי means my setting (an infinitive of שית), so that the phrase, which literally means “for the sake of my setting these my signs”, denotes “that I may set”.

שיתי, equivalent to שומי, “I am setting.”

למען שיתי אותותי אלה אלה בקרבו, so that I can demonstrate these miracles of Mine in its midst, so that the people realise My greatness and return in contriteness.

למען שיתי, “in order that I can demonstrate, etc.;” to give Me an opportunity to perform My miracles so that the Egyptians (and the Israelites) will become familiar with My power; Pharaoh will not, however, be subjected to additional punishment on account of My having hardened his heart.

That I will set. We need not ask: The same word, שת , is written in Parshas Vayeitzei: “ וישת his own flocks. . .” (Bereishis 30:40), and in Parshas Va’eira: “Pharaoh . . . did not שת even to this” (Shemos 7:23). Why did Rashi not comment there? The answer is: Here [the shin of] שתי is vocalized with a chirik and no yud, so I might think it does not mean שימי but is a different word, such as, “For they destroyed the שתות (foundation)” (Tehillim 11:3). Or, “ שות שתו (they did battle) at the gates” (Yeshayah 22:7). That is why Rashi needs to explain it here as שימי , although generally, the meaning is obvious. Even after explaining that שתי means שימי , Rashi explains further and says, “that I will set,” because שתי still has two possible meanings. This is similar to תִּתִּי , which has two possible meanings. One is written regarding Lavan, in Parshas Vayetzei (Bereishis 29:19): “Better תִּתִּי (I shall give) her to you.” The other [possible] meaning is written in Parshas Balak (Bamidbar 22:13): “For Hashem has refused לְתִתִּי (to give to me) permission to go with you.” Thus Rashi explains that here, שתי means “I will set” [and not “set for me”]. (Re”m) Alternatively: Rashi explains further and says, “that I will set,” because שתי could mean the past tense, “I already set.” Thus Rashi explains “I will set,” is in the future tense.

Furthermore, the Torah employs the attribute of Mercy to remind us that G'd did not send the plague immediately after the warning but gave Pharaoh time to change his mind and to release the Israelites. If he did this then he and his country would be spared the suffering entailed by the plague of locusts. According to Shemot Rabbah 9,12 a week or even twenty-four days would elapse between the warning and the implementation of the plague. All this was part of the attribute of Mercy in action.

אני הכבדתי, dadurch, dass ich ihm nicht alles zugleich vernichtete, sondern ihm immer, und so namentlich bei dem Hagelschlag, noch das Wertvollste unverletzt gelassen, habe ich ihm etwas gelassen, woran er sich anklammerte, und da ich ihm das Empfindlichste, die Vernichtung des eigentlichen ägyptischen Fruchtreichtums bis zuletzt ersparte, konnte er noch immer an meiner eigentlichen Allmacht zweifeln, sich noch immer hinter den Gedanken bergen, der eigentliche Kern der ägyptischen Macht und des ägyptischen Wohlstandes stehe unter einem Schutz, der meiner Macht unerreichbar sei. Ich habe dies aber getan, um eben nacheinander das Siegel meiner Hoheit und Herrschaft an alle einzelnen Träger und Stützen des menschlichen Daseins und der menschlichen Macht auf Erden zu legen, um בקרבו, in dem stolzen machtreichen Ägypten, אותותי, meine Wahrzeichen aufzustellen.

On the other hand, it is possible that our verse underlines that even the attribute of Mercy agreed joyfully that the time had arrived to take revenge on this enemy of G'd and the Jewish people (compare my comments on 7,2).

כי אני הכבדתי את לבו, "for I have hardened his heart, etc." G'd means that Moses would realise as of now that He had indeed hardened Pharaoh's heart. Even the most obstinate person would have broken down by now if he had experienced what Pharaoh had endured during the last seven plagues. Only intervention by G'd could have accounted for his continued refusal to let the Israelites depart. G'd did not, of course, interfere outright with Pharaoh's free will; rather He performed a miracle such as the immunity of the wheat and spelt to the plague of hail, to give Pharaoh a chance to delude himself that G'd's power did not extend to those two categories of grain. When G'd said כי אני הכבדתי He referred to that phenomenon in the past tense.

It is also possible that G'd's words were directed primarily at Moses who must have despaired of the purpose of going to Pharaoh time and again without accomplishing his mission. G'd told Moses that Pharaoh's obstinacy was not that of an ordinary human being, but the reason he could not respond as he should was that G'd Himself had hardened his heart. The moment G'd decided not to interfere with whatever motivated Pharaoh's decisions he would relent and send the Israelites on their way.

ואת לב עבדיו, and the heart of his servants, etc. The reason G'd also had to harden the heart of Pharaoh's advisers was so that they would not urge him to release the Israelites. G'd had to do so in order to bring the plagues not only on Pharaoh but on the whole nation. If Pharaoh had been the only one punished, this would not have made an impact on the people. Although G'd had not mentioned this detail to Moses at the beginning of his mission, and He had spoken only of hardening Pharaoh's heart at that time, He had told Moses the essential part of what would happen. Perhaps G'd wanted to explain to Moses at this stage that not only one man was obstinate, i.e. Pharaoh, but also his servants. He may have been prompted to do so now because of Moses' gratuitous remark in 9,30 that both Pharaoh and his servants had not yet developed true fear of the Lord. Moses' comment had indicated that he had not previously understood the word "Pharaoh" to include also Pharaoh's entourage. Therefore G'd explained to him that the obstinacy of the servants could also be explained by the same phenomenon as that of their master, i.e. that G'd had interfered with their normal decision-making process. Up until now, Moses had assumed that the servants were naturally obstinate whereas Pharaoh had only remained obstinate because G'd had interfered. G'd was at pains to correct Moses' error.

למען שתי אותותי אלה בקרבו, "so that I might display My signs in the midst of them." Why did the Torah have to write אותותי אלה, "these My signs?" This implies that the main reason G'd hardened Pharaoh's heart was to have an opportunity to display miracles. Furthermore, why did the Torah have to add בקרבו, "in their midst?" Where else would G'd perform these miracles? We may understand these expressions on the basis of Shemot Rabbah 12,5 that the plagues in Egypt were to demonstrate that G'd is Ruler and Master. He is Master inasmuch that He desires to bring Israel closer to become His servants and to cleave to Him. In order to do this He had to demonstrate that it was foolish to put one's trust in anyone but Him. He had not yet shown them that He creates the wind and employs the wind as His angels (messengers). He had also not yet demonstrated to the Israelites that He created light and darkness. Having told Moses that He, G'd had made Pharaoh unresponsive, Moses would have been entitled to ask: "why bother?" G'd therefore justified the plagues which were yet to occur as designed to demonstrate His creative power in the spheres we have just mentioned. Regarding the chance of Pharaoh's responding to them, it was true that these miracles were somewhat wasted, but their impact on Israel was vital. The seven plagues which had occurred so far did not offer an answer to people who wanted to worship such powers of nature as the sun and the moon. Anyone who claimed that the force which created earth was not the same force which created the wind could not find proof that he had been wrong by experiencing any of those plagues. The plague of locusts would demonstrate G'd's power to employ the wind as His messenger, by the wind bringing the locusts and removing them. It would even carry away all the locusts which had died so that the Egyptians would not benefit from the dead locusts as mentioned in Shemot Rabbah 13,7. The plague of darkness would demonstrate that G'd had created the luminaries, and exercised control over them. The plague of the dying of the firstborn demonstrated that G'd creates every creature and can distinguish between who was the issue of the first drop of semen (Baba Metzia 61). This plague also generated the commandment in 13,2 to sanctify every firstborn. One of the reasons for that commandment was that it serve as a reminder that it is G'd who creates the firstborn out of the womb of his mother in order that he should be His servant. When G'd encountered this evil Pharaoh, He made use of him by hardening his heart and performing miracles which would make him taste the cup of retribution. Had it not been for these various considerations G'd would not have troubled Himself to orchestrate all these major changes in nature.

התעללתי means I HAVE MOCKED, as in, (Numbers 22:29) “Because thou hast mocked (התעללת) me”; (I Samuel 6:6) “Indeed, when he mocked (התעולל) them”, which, also, is said in reference to Egypt. It is not an expression denoting doing and action, for were this so it should have written עוללתי, similar to (Lamentations 1:22) “And do (עולל) unto them as thou hast done (עוללת) unto me”, and to (Lamentations 1:12) “which he has done (עולל) unto me”.

HITH’ALALTI.’ “I have mocked him, for it is I Who hardened his heart and exacted punishments of him.” This is similar in intent to the verse: He that sits in heaven smiles, the Eternal mocks them.⁴Ibid., 2:4.
The Holy One, blessed be He, now informed Moses of the plague of locusts, [although this is not stated here in Scripture], and that he should tell it to Pharaoh, for what sense was there that he be commanded, Go in unto Pharaoh,⁵Verse 1. and not say something to him, the plague being mentioned only in the words of Moses to Pharaoh,⁶Verses 4-6. as Scripture spoke succinctly of this. So also was the case above with the plague of hail, where Scripture told of the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses, Stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, etc.,⁷Above, 9:13. but did not at all mention that Moses said so to Pharaoh, as I have explained.⁸Ibid., Verse 18. The reason for it is that Scripture does not want to elaborate on it in two places, [i.e., when G-d said it to Moses, and when Moses relayed it to Pharaoh], and so it shortens the narrative sometimes at one point and other times at another.
In Eileh Shemoth Rabbah,⁹Shemoth Rabbah 13:5. I have seen it stated: “And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son. The Holy One, blessed be He, informed Moses what plague He is about to bring upon them, and Moses wrote it down with a hint: And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son’s son, which is an allusion to the plague of locusts, just as it is said [of the locusts in the days of the prophet Joel], Tell ye your children of it, and let your children tell their children, etc.”¹⁰Joel 1:3. This was said by the prophet during the terrible plague of locusts and drought. See Ramban further, Verse 14. The Midrash thus confirms Ramban’s explanation that within G-d’s command to Moses, as stated in the Torah, there was also included the oral communication concerning the locusts. The Midrash however added that the plague is alluded to in the expression, And that thou mayest tell, etc., which is a reference to the locusts.

התעללתי, engaged in actions.

ולמען תספר, and so that you Israelites will be able to tell about My attributes and remember this throughout future generations.

ולמען תספר, "and in order for you to tell, etc.," Why did G'd have to provide this additional reason to justify the plague of locusts? Besides, what is the meaning of the words אשר התעללתי במצרים? Why did G'd add: "and My miracles," as if this was something distinct from אשר התעללתי? Why did G'd add: וידעתם כי אני השם?

ולמען תספר, “and in order that you will tell, etc.” What G’d said to Moses here, He said on behalf of the whole Jewish people, i.e. for the people to tell their children and grandchildren all that had happened to the Egyptians just before the Exodus, how G’d had made a mockery of the Egyptians. He mentions the hardness, obstinacy, of the Egyptians who were the servants of Pharaoh, seeing that the Torah had reported that both Pharaoh and his servants had (on their own) stiffened their attitude (9,34). This audience with Pharaoh had as its purpose to warn him of the impending plague of locusts if he would persist in reneging on his promise to let the Israelites depart. There would have been no point in sending Moses to Pharaoh unless he was meant to deliver a message. The Torah abbreviates the narrative of the first audience involving this warning, describing Moses as not waiting for any response from Pharaoh. The Torah sometimes chooses to be more succinct in its narrative than on other occasions. Midrash Shemot Rabbah 13,4 quotes G’d as having told Moses about the forthcoming plague by the hint that it would be something that would be talked about for many generations. The Midrash quotes Joel 1,3 which discusses another plague of locust, this time in Israel, as something that made an equally lasting impression.

את אשר התעללתי, “how I have made a mockery.” According to the plain meaning of the text the words mean “I have toyed with them when I performed great acts of retribution.” The expression is similar to the one used by David in Psalms 2,4: יושב בשמים ישחק, אד-ני ילעג למו, “The One who resides in heaven laughs; the Lord mocks at them.”

V. 2. באזני, nicht bloßes Erzählen, sondern hinein reden, etwas jemandem so ins Bewusstsein bringen, dass es durchs Ohr ins Herz dringe. — עולל ,עלל: das in Entwicklung begriffene Kind, woher עלילה, nicht eine einfache Tat, und עולל, nicht ein einzelnes Tun, sondern eine Entwicklungsreihe von Taten oder Tätigkeiten, und עולל: etwas durch eine solche fortgesetzte Reihe von Tätigkeiten bewirken. התעלל: sich in einer fortgesetzten Reihe von Tätigkeiten zeigen, ב־: an jemandem, d. i. jemanden bloß als Stoff behandeln, an dem man in fortgesetzten Tätigkeiten seine Kraft usw. zeigt. Daher in der Regel vom Menschen an Menschen: Mutwillen üben, wo man die Menschenwürde des andern nicht achtet. Hier von Gott: "Wie ich in einer fortgesetzten Reihe von Taten mich, d. h. meine Macht, meine Größe usw. in Mizrajim gezeigt." עול Joch hieße demgemäß nicht also als drückende Last, sondern als angestrengte Tätigkeit erzwingendes Mittel. — וידעתם wenn auch Mizrajim nichts daraus gelernt hat, für euch zunächst waren sie geübt, eure Gotteserkenntnis damit zu begründen.

התעללתי, any expression of this type, when it commences with the letter ת describes some kind of mockery or ridicule on the part of the subject vis a vis his opponent. When the same word appears without the prefix ת, the element of ridicule is absent. (Compare Rashi)

I believe that first and foremost G'd wanted to make it plain that it was not His purpose to bring on the plague as an act of revenge on Pharaoh. Rather, the miracle was designed to strengthen Israel's faith in G'd so that they would remember these miracles forever. This could be achieved only if G'd not only performed the miracle without hurting any Israelite by it but that Pharaoh himself would be so impressed by the miracle that it would also impress G'd's power on the minds of the Israelites in an unforgettable manner. The psychology of the aforesaid is demonstrated in the halachah of the בן פקועה in Chulin 75. This concerns a fetus found alive [if the pregnancy was incomplete, or dead if the pregnancy was complete. Ed.] inside an animal after the mother-animal has been ritually slaughtered. The question is if the ritual slaughter of the mother-animal made the fetus fit for consumption by Jews without further ado. The Talmud discusses whether such an animal may be eaten without it being slaughtered seeing that the onlooker may suspect the person eating it of committing a sin; it concludes that when this animal has been different in at least two exceptional ways such as that it does not have a cloven hoof, everyone will remember what its origin has been and one will not suspect someone eating it without having performed ritual slaughter as having committed a sin. Although G'd had demonstrated miracles which clearly proved His power, this would not have sufficed to make a lasting impression on the Israelites unless He had at the same time proven that He distinguished miraculously between the guilty and the innocent, i.e. between the Israelites and the Egyptians and that the miracles had hurt only the guilty parties. When G'd said: "in order that you will tell your children and your children's children, etc." He meant that this would be assured only if He performed the miracles in such a way that only the Egyptians were seen to be hurt by them. The first impression would be created by אשר התעללתי במצרים, "How I wrought the plagues on Egypt;" the second and more lasting impression would occur when the Israelites realised את אותותי אשר שמתי בם, that what occurred was an outstanding miracle even if the Egyptians had not been a factor at all. These combined experiences would prompt the Israelites to tell their children about what they had seen. The purpose of telling their children was "so that you will know beyond doubt that I am the Eternal G'd."

לענת Translate as the Targum: TO BE HUMBLED. It is of the same derivation as עני poor, so that the passage signifies, “thou refusest to be poor and lowly before Me”.

AND MOSES AND AARON CAME IN UNTO PHARAOH. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “We know that Moses never came to Pharaoh without being accompanied by Aaron, who was the interpreter.¹¹Above, 7:2. Scripture here makes a point of mentioning Moses and Aaron in order [to make clear] that Pharaoh’s command that both of them be brought again before him¹²Further, Verse 8. and his final act of driving them out¹³Ibid., Verse 11. — something he had not done previously — [applied to the two brothers alike].”

לענות, related to עני, poor, ענוי, oppressed, Pharaoh refused to humble himself, to act as if he was a poor man rather than an autocrat.

עד מתי מענת, seeing that in the meantime I have demonstrated to you My dominance even in the atmosphere, how much longer will you refuse to humble yourself seeing that I control the very air you need to breathe? Seeing that you were not impressed, there is no sense in hoping that you will be impressed by the overwhelming show of strength represented by the plagues. However, perhaps if the impact of the miracle itself did not make an impression on you, perhaps the drawn out duration of the effect of the plagues may finally have the desired effect. This is why the question “how long must a plague continue before it will have the desired effect?” is not out of place.

ויבא משה ואהרן, “Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh, etc.” Ibn Ezra writes that it was a known fact by now that whenever a plague was to be announced both Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh. Why then did the Torah see fit to single out this occasion by writing that both Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh? The reason may be that we hear later that Pharaoh dismissed both Moses and Aaron summarily. Had we not been told that they both had come to Pharaoh, this would have sounded strange. Pharaoh’s reaction to the warning on this occasion was out of character, seeing that he had clearly admitted being in the wrong. Had it not been for G’d stiffening his attitude to the point of being rude to Moses for the first time, his behaviour would be totally beyond comprehension.

Which is from the root עני — poor. Rashi is explaining that לענות does not mean servitude as in, “ והתעני (submit yourself) under her power.” (Bereishis 16:9) Rashi continues by saying, “You have refused to be poor and humble,” because עני usually refers to [lack of] money, while here it refers to humility.

V. 3. Gewöhnlich steht der Kürze willen der dem Mosche zur Ausführung an Pharao erteilte Auftrag und dann sofort der Eintritt der Plage, ohne zu berichten, dass Mosche auch also im Namen Gottes zu Pharao gegangen und geredet, weil dieses sich von selbst versteht. Hier ists umgekehrt. Wir erfahren den Inhalt des Auftrages erst aus der Ausführung und zwar deshalb, weil uns die bei dieser Ausführung geschehenen Vorgänge zu erzählen waren. — עד מתי מאנת וגו׳: Auf wie lange hast du dir denn vorgenommen, dich nicht in deiner Armut vor mir zu fühlen!

ויבא משה ואהרן, Moses and Aaron arrived (at the Palace); the reason why the Torah did not mention during the other plagues that both Moses and Aaron arrived at the Palace together, is that Aaron had been present at every interview Moses had with Pharaoh. The reason that it needed to be stressed here, is that shortly the Torah will tell us that after Pharaoh had thrown out Moses and Aaron they were both recalled at Pharaoh’s servants urging him to do so. (Verse 8)

לענות מפני, “to humble yourself before Me;” seeing that Pharaoh had boasted about the crops that the hail had not destroyed, [attributing it to G-d’s “weakness” Ed.] He retaliated in kind.

'כה אמר ה, ”thus has the Lord said, etc.;” other prophecies which have been introduced with this introductory phrase are numerous, as are commandments (in the future) which have been introduced with the introductory: “thus the Lord has said.” The author cites: Exodus 11,5; 32,27; Numbers 19,2; Numbers 30,2 as well as reminding us that in the Books of the prophets, especially Isaiah and Ezekiel, this formula is used frequently. It happens several times that what was predicted has not later on in the text been spelled out as having happened; [one of the reasons is that when the prophecy is a warning of something unpleasant it need not be fulfilled if the circumstances changed. Ed.] At any rate, in this case it was important for G-d to show Pharaoh that a prophecy by Moses would be fulfilled, because Moses, G-d’s spokesman, had said that it would. This is what Isaiah 44 26 had in mind when he said that G-d fulfills promises or threats made by His servants. (Compare our author on Exodus 11,4)

BEHOLD, TOMORROW WILL I BRING LOCUSTS. Commentators¹⁴Ibn Ezra (Verse 5) in the name of another commentator. have said that there was a long interval between the plague of hail and that of locusts, as is suggested by the expression, and [the locusts] shall eat every tree which groweth for you out of the field.¹⁵In the present verse. Since we have been told that the hail broke every tree of the field (above, 9:25), a long interval must have passed to allow the trees to grow back. In my opinion, the interval between these plagues was not a long one but rather was very brief. It is known that the judgment of the Egyptians did not last more than a year, this being so established through our knowledge of the years of Moses our Teacher,¹⁶Moses was eighty years old when he stood before Pharaoh (above, 7:7). Add the forty years of the desert, and you have the one hundred and twenty years he lived (Deuteronomy 34:7). Thus, the elapsed time of all the ten punishments decreed for Egypt could not possibly have been more than a year. just as we have been taught in Tractate Eduyoth:¹⁷Eduyoth 2:10. “The judgment of the Egyptians in Egypt endured twelve months.” And so it is indicated by Scripture when saying, and they shall eat the residue of that which is escaped, which remaineth unto you from the hail.¹⁸Verse 5. And it is further written, even all that the hail had left,¹⁹Further, Verse 12. thus indicating that it was in that very same year. If so, [we must say that] the hail came down that year during the month of Adar, not before, for the barley was in the ears²⁰Above, 9:31. [and therefore smitten by the hail], but the wheat had not grown up²¹Ibid., Verse 32. and therefore its tender sprouts could not be completely destroyed by the hail, as they would grow back again. Then too the vine had not yet budded, and the trees were not in flower. It is for this reason that Scripture states, and [the hail] broke every tree of the field,²²Above, 9:25. meaning that it broke the branches and boughs. Then, in one month’s time, in the month of Nisan, the wheat and the spelt grew, these being the residue of that which is escaped, which remaineth unto you from the hail,¹⁸Verse 5. and the trees began to blossom and the flowers appeared. This then is the purport of the word hatzomei’ach (which groweth),¹⁸Verse 5. since the locusts came and ate their blossoms and thus destroyed everything since they did not leave them a blossom or flower. And in this very month, the children of Israel were redeemed [from Egypt]. The verse which states [that the locusts consumed] all the fruit of the tree,²³Verse 15. [which would indicate that there were fruits already on the tree and, therefore, that a long interval must have passed between the plagues of hail and locusts], is to be understood as referring to the flower which produces the fruits, similar to the expression, every herb on the tree,²³Verse 15. [which cannot be understood literally, since herbs do not grow on trees. Consequently, it must be understood as Rashi has it: “any green leaf on the tree.” Here too then, “the fruit of the tree” is not to be taken literally, but should be understood as “the flower of the tree”].

הנני מביא מחר ארבה, “behold I will bring on a plague of locusts,” Nachmanides writes that some commentators believe that many months separated the plague of hail from that of the locusts. These scholars base themselves on the line (verse 5) ואכל את כל העץ הצומח לכם מן השדה, “it will consume every tree that grows for you in the field.” [seeing that the Torah had described the hail as ruining all the trees, (9,25) until they had been replaced how could the locusts eat their foliage? Ed.] Nachmanides himself disagrees with this view, claiming that only a few days elapsed between the plague of hail and that of locusts, seeing that the judgments visited upon the Egyptians did not exceed a period of 12 months. Moreover, it is clear from the Torah that there had been some residue which had not been harmed by the hail (again verse 5,ואכל את יתר הפלטה הנשארת לכם מן הברד, “it will consume any remnants left intact for you by the hail.”) This clearly shows that both plagues occurred in the same calendar year. The hail could not have occurred before the month of Adar, as no crop would have had advanced enough to be ruined; the plague of locusts, obviously, must have occurred before the middle of the month of Nissan, the month of the Exodus. The trees that the hail struck were the branches which had not yet sprouted blossoms or fruit. The trees struck by the locusts had already produced leaves, etc.

V. 4. בגבולך: du atmest wieder auf, hast wieder das alte Ägypten, und weil dir der eigentliche ägyptische Reichtum noch unangetastet geblieben, fühlst du dich sicher und reich und glaubst deshalb mein Volk knechten zu dürfen: wenn du sie nicht ziehen lässest, so sende ich dir in dein Gebiet mein Heer.

את עין הארץ means THE COLOUR OF THE GROUND.

ולא יוכל (הרואה) לראות, anyone trying to see would be unable to see what he was trying to see as it was covered with locust.

ואכל את כל העץ, it will destroy it. The word אכל here is used in the same sense as in Psalms 79,7 כי אכל את יעקב, “for he has consumed Yaakov,” i.e. destroyed him. Deuteronomy 31,17 והיה לאכול also means “that it may be destroyed.”

The illumination of the land. Rashi is answering the question: What is the meaning of עין הארץ (literally, “the eye of the land”), since land does not have eyes? Therefore Rashi explains: “The illumination of the land.” The shining of the sun brings illumination upon the land, enabling one to see the land. And that illumination, which is from the sun, was covered up [by the locusts]. Consequently, one could not see the land. Onkelos explains similarly: “The illumination of the sun of the land.”

They will cover the visible surface. They will form a barrier between the sun and the surface of the land while they are in the air.

V. 5. עין הארץ: das Auge des Menschen heißt עין, Quell, nicht weil der Geist des Menschen aus ihm ausströmt, sondern weil durchs Auge die Welt in ihn einströmt. Das Auge des Menschen ist daher buchstäblich עין הארץ: der Quell der Erde. Die Heuschrecken werden verhindern, dass nichts von der Erde in das Menschenauge dringe, es, das Auge, wird die Erde nicht sehen können. — יתר הפלטה הנשארת לכם, הצמח לכם der עבדות-Plage entsprechend, den Besitz hervorhebend, der sie überhaupt stolz gemacht, und weil ihnen das Wertvollste noch geblieben, mit der Hoffnung, dem Gotte "Mosches" doch trotzen zu können, erfüllt hatte.

הצומח לכם מן השדה, ‘”which grows for you from the fields.” The hail ruined what grew on the trees; the locust would ruin what grows in the fields.

ולא יוכל AND HE — i. e. anyone who is looking — WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE EARTH; it speaks in (uses) an elliptical expression.

העץ הצומח, for the hail had destroyed the trees. The locust would devour anything which would grow after the hail.

AND HE TURNED AND WENT OUT FROM PHARAOH. Due to the fact that the Egyptians were in a state of trepidation during the plague of hail, Moses thought that now too they would fear lest they die from famine if they lose the residue of that which is escaped,¹⁸Verse 5. which remained to them. Therefore he went out without the king’s permission before they accepted or rejected his request, so that they might take counsel on the matter. This was indeed correct, for so the servants did and said to Pharaoh, Knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?²⁴Verse 7. In the words of our Rabbis:²⁵Shemoth Rabbah 13:5. “Moses saw the servants turning to each other, believing in his words, so he went out from there in order that they may take counsel to do repentance.”
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Moses did so every time he came to Pharaoh’s palace; he warned him and went out. Scripture found it necessary to mention it only here because of the sequel: And Moses and Aaron were brought again unto Pharaoh.²⁶Verse 8.

ויפן ויצא מעם פרעה, He turned and left Pharaoh's presence. By not asking permission to leave Moses demonstrated his lack of regard for this king who had once again reneged on his promise even after he had proclaimed: "G'd is righteous and I and my people are sinners." Actually, the wicked Pharaoh repaid Moses for this slight when he had him brought back to the palace unceremoniously in verse 8. After that Pharaoh expelled Moses from the palace in verse 11. He was aware of his lack of deference when he begged Moses to pray for him again in verse 16 adding: "I have sinned against the Lord your G'd and against you." He had never previously apologised to Moses, only to G'd.

ויפן ויצא מעם פרעה, “he turned (without taking leave) and left the presence of Pharaoh.” Some commentators think that Moses turned to face the King and to retreat walking backwards, all the while facing the King. Other scholars, on the contrary, interpret our verse to mean that Moses turned his back on Pharaoh and marched out of the room. He indicated that he was angry and did not request permission to withdraw. The reason why Moses acted in this fashion was that he assumed that just as Pharaoh had once before demonstrated real fear during the plague of the hail, he would do so again now, and he would finally humble himself to prevent wholesale deaths from hunger of his subjects due to the locusts. By leaving at this moment, Moses wanted to afford Pharaoh and his advisors an opportunity to consult and agree on a course of action. Nachmanides writes that the correct interpretation of what the Torah narrates here is that this was Moses’ standard procedure after he had delivered a warning. The only reason why the Torah dwells on this detail here is that for the first time Moses and Aaron were recalled after they had left.

ויפן ויצא מעם פרעה, “he turned around and left the presence of Pharaoh.” Moses left immediately after having warned Pharaoh of the forthcoming plague without taking his leave. This was a well calculated move by Moses who wanted to give Pharaoh and his advisors an opportunity to consult amongst themselves and to release the Children of Israel prior to the onset of that plague. During the previous plague of hail the Egyptians had already viewed themselves as if they were about to die so that now that Moses had warned that every remaining tree and food producing plant would die they had every reason to become scared. In fact, Moses had anticipated their reaction correctly as we know from verse eight where we are told that Moses and Aaron were recalled to the palace. This is the meaning of ויושב משה ואהרן, “Moses and Aaron were brought back.”

V. 6. Es ist nicht unmöglich, daß bis dahin überhaupt kein Heuschreckenschwarm in Ägypten gesehen worden, ihre eigentliche Heimat ist Asien, woher sie ja auch der Ostwind brachte.

הטרם תדע means KNOWEST THOU NOT YET that Egypt has perished. (Cf. Rashi on Exodus 9:30.)

?הטרם תדע; do you still not realise that Egypt will be lost by the cumulative effect of these plagues?

עד מתי יהיה זה לנו למוקש, "how long will this one continue to be a snare for us?" Pharaoh's servants were most certainly not prepared to let the Israelites depart for the prophecy G'd had told Moses i.e. that He had hardened both the heart of Pharaoh and that of his servants would contradict such an assumption. All the servants had in mind was to ensure that the Israelites' departure would be such that they would be sure to return after having offered their sacrifices. This is why the servants did not pursue the matter once Moses had made it plain that they would take both their children and their aged with them. Their very words proved that they considered Moses' invoking G'd as the driving force behind the Israelites' demands merely as a snare. They could not believe that the great and powerful G'd whose existence Moses had demonstrated would bother to punish the Egyptians in order to let the Israelites go to the desert for three days. There is no greater denial of G'd than that.

ויצא....ויאמרו עבדי פרעה, “after Moses had left the servants of Pharaoh said, etc.” They waited until Moses had left, as they did not want to challenge their King in Moses’ presence, and they did not want to give Moses the satisfaction to know that they were afraid of him.

עד מתי יהיה זה לנו למוקש, “for how long is this one going to remain a snare for us?” According to the plain meaning of the text the servants said this on account of Moses. This explains the words זה משה האיש, “this man Moses.” (Exodus 32,1) The ערב רב had been well aware that it was Moses who had caused the plagues and that he was the Egyptians’ bane.
It is possible, however, to understand the words as aimed at the cause of the plagues, at G’d whom the Jewish people extolled in the song after the crossing of the sea (15,2) with the words זה א-לי ואנוהו, this is my G’d and I want to build Him a Sanctuary.” According to this version Exodus 13 8 בעבור זה עשה ה' לי, the word זה in that verse would also be a reference to an attribute of G’d. The advisors of Pharaoh would then have revealed their true nature by still denying the supremacy of Hashem.

Did you as yet not realize. Rashi’s view is that טרם means “not yet,” as he explained the verse in Parshas Bereishis (2:5), “The vegetation of the fields had not yet sprouted,” and in Parshas Va’era (Shemos 9:30), “You are not yet in fear.” Thus, טרם should not be explained as “before.” Accordingly, תדע really denotes past tense although it is written in the form of future tense.

V. 7. למוקש. Mosche war ja ganz offen aufgetreten, wie konnten sie ihn denn מוקש nennen? Allein dies bestätigt unsere Auffassung. Hätte Gott eine Plage kommen und andauern lassen, bis sie Israel fortgeschickt, es wäre schon längst frei geworden. Allein, dass die Plage nur immer eine partielle war, auf Pharaos Bitte immer aufhörte, aber nur, um dann in immer steigender Größe und Furchtbarkeit Gottes Macht in einer neuen Plage fühlbar zu machen, dieses התעלל בם, das durch die Pausen Pharaos Herz immer wieder zu neuem Widerstand aufrichtete, dieses הכבד את לבו das konnten sie von ihrem Standpunkte aus nur als eine "Falle" bezeichnen.

ויאמרו עבדי פרעה אליו, (after having heard this threat) “Pharaoh’s servants said to him;” when we had read previously in 9,34 that both Pharaoh as well as his servants (ministers) continued to sin, that referred to the ministers who had advised him now to let only the men go into the desert to offer sacrifices as requested.

הטרם תדע כי אבדה מצרים, "do you not know yet that Egypt is about to be destroyed?" They meant "why wait till after Egypt is destroyed before letting these people go? Let them go now!"

They now questioned Pharaoh’s judgment by asking him if he wanted to wait until the whole of Egypt was ruined? They implied that if Egypt were to be ruined, in the end Pharaoh would have no option but to give in to the Israelites’ demands. Why not give in while Egypt was still a functioning nation?

Why would the servants suddenly agree to take a chance of Egypt being destroyed after Moses had spelled out who was going to the desert? What made them keep their peace when they heard Moses' latest demand? In order to understand this we must first explore what Pharaoh and his servants had thought initially. Is there anyone so foolish that he would risk all the discomforts, pains and even danger of submitting to these plagues? Not only that but these people had endured that their deities were smitten, their livestock killed, their crops ruined, and even they themselves came within an inch of destruction. Ordinarily it would be considered unbelievable that there are people who are so stupid! Nonetheless, these people must have had some plausible reason to act in such a foolish fashion. Their behaviour is all the more strange as G'd had not demanded from Pharaoh that he free the Israelites but only that he should give them a three-day vacation! It is true that I have written (3,18) that Moses had never mentioned the three-day limitation to Pharaoh, that he had only spoken about celebrating in the desert (5,1) not mentioning any time frame, and that the only ones who did mention three days were the people (5,3); this indicated that G'd had not demanded a total release of the Israelites.

I believe that Pharaoh's error was based on these conflicting demands by Moses on the one hand and the Israelites on the other. There could be no question that the word of G'd was the truth. Pharaoh and his servants had to consider two possibilties. 1) G'd did not desire a total departure of the Israelites but only an absence of three days' travel into the desert. 2) At the same time Pharaoh felt that the Israelites' demand for three days was a trick designed to cloak their true intentions never to return to Egypt. If so, this was proof (in the mind of Pharaoh and his servants) that the G'd of the Hebrews was unable to orchestrate an Exodus in the proper sense of the word. He had instructed His messengers to make a lesser demand, one that He was able to perform. Keeping in mind that Pharaoh and company were non believers, they preferred an interpretation which implied that G'd's power was limited. As a result of this they remained obstinate, probing for weakness in G'd's power. When the servants contemplated the fact that they had already endured seven plagues none of which had advanced the Israelites' cause substantially, i.e. they were still enslaved in Egypt though they had not performed slave labour for a while, they had to adopt an attitude concerning the warning of the plague of locusts. The servants swung to the belief that they were not being tricked but that G'd only wanted the Israelites to leave for three days. Hence their question "how long are you going to detain these men?" They added: "send these men so that they can serve their G'd;" what they meant was that it was clear to them that all their G'd wanted was that they should serve him, not that they should leave Egypt for good. The servants attributed great destructive power to G'd and that is why they disagreed with Pharaoh's present policy. On the other hand, they were convinced that if G'd really wanted or had been able to free the Israelites completely, He would not have wasted His time with all these plagues but would have done so at once.

Pharaoh, on the other hand, was wily and had Moses and Aaron brought back to the palace to demonstrate to his servants that they were wrong, that Moses and Aaron intended to lead the whole nation out of Israel once and for all. This is why he asked Moses and Aaron who the people were that would go into the desert to offer sacrifices. When Moses and Aaron replied that everybody would be going, he accused them of bad faith (verse 10). This conversation showed Pharaoh's servants that they had been wrong in their estimate that all that was at stake was a three-day absence from work. They now reversed their previous estimate that G'd could indeed do everything He wanted, else why had Moses and Aaron not announced their true intentions at the beginning? This is the reason we do not hear the servants argue with Pharaoh anymore.

ויושב [AND MOSES AND AARON] WERE BROUGHT BACK (The verb has a passive meaning [Hophal], not an active as the particle את before משה and אהרן might lead one to suppose) — They were brought back by a messenger: they (Pharaoh’s servants) sent people after them and these brought them back to Pharaoh.

BUT WHO ARE THEY THAT SHALL GO? Pharaoh desired that their leaders, elders, and officers²⁷See Deuteronomy 29:9. should go, men that are pointed out by name.²⁸Numbers 1:17. Moses answered him that also the sons and daughters will go, “for we must hold a feast unto the Eternal,²⁹Verse 9. and it is mandatory upon us all to take part in the feast.” Pharaoh’s anger was then kindled on account of the sons and daughters, and he said that under no circumstances will he send the little ones, for they take no part in the offerings. Instead he would send all the adult males because of the feast which Moses mentioned, while the little ones and the women will remain [in Egypt].

Exactly who will be going. Pharaoh said to Moshe, “Do you think you are going to enter the Holy Land? In fact, you are all destined to die in the desert with the exception of Yehoshua and Caleiv!” Thus the numerical value of mi vemi haholchim (“Exactly who will be going”) is equal to that of Caleiv ve[Yehoshua] Bin Nun. Moshe responded, “With our young and with our old we will go!” because the decree that they would die in the desert did not apply to those below the age of twenty nor above the age of sixty.

לכו עבדו…מי ומי ההולכים "Go and serve…who are the ones going?" Pharaoh asked a rhetorical question; it had not occurred to him that they would demand that all of them should go. This is why he had simply said: "go and serve" without limiting the ages or sexes of who was included in that offer. He had naturally assumed that only adult males would particpate in the ceremony under discussion. This is why he said later: "your menfolk may go because that is all you ever requested." He did not even want all the adult males to go.

מי ומי ההולכים?, “who are all those who are going?” Pharaoh wanted to know, that seeing the request of the Israelites had been for a leave of absence to offer sacrifices to their G’d, who would be the people involved in that other than adult males of superior rank, the ones normally performing such rites. Moses replied that seeing the occasion was happy one, a festival, the entire nation would participate in such celebrations.

They were brought back by a messenger. . . Rashi is answering the question: [If they returned on their own,] Scripture should have written וַיָשוּבוּ (“and they went back”). Whereas ויושב is a passive form, implying that Moshe and Aharon were acted upon by others.

Who will go. Par'oh and all ancient idol worshippers thought that there was a force of good and a force of evil, and would serve the force of good in order that it would do good for them, and serve the force of evil to appease it so that it would not do evil to them, and their service would be different. For the force of good they wouldn't slaughter animals, for it didn't want blood and the murder of flock and herd. It was only that they came before it with their wives and children and infants, to celebrate with drum and tambourine, as it desired good and joy. And for the force of evil they served it with slaughter and sacrifice, to appease its anger with blood. Infants and children would not come, lest it injure them with its evil or wish that they be slaughtered on its alter, for it desired human sacrifice. And regarding this Par'oh asked, who will go - for if their service was to the good force, infants and women also went, but they wouldn't take herds and flocks, and if they served the evil entity the herds and flocks would go and not the women and infants.

V. 8. ויושב: Pharao gab nicht den Befehl ausdrücklich, aber die Diener sahen es ihm an, dass es ihm recht wäre.

כי חג ה' לנו, “for it is a festival of Hashem for us.” The festival Moses and Aaron spoke about was the holiday of Shavuot, the day the Torah would be given. G’d had already advised Moses of that event when He had told him at the burning bush: “when you take out the people from Egypt you will serve Me at this Mountain” (3,12). The festival Moses spoke of is not to be understood as the festival of Passover; the Passover was observed inside Egypt. It is also impossible to understand the word חג Moses spoke about as the festival of Tabernacles as nowhere is that festival connected to the Mountain of G’d. There is no doubt therefore, that the festival in question is Shavuot which occurs in the month of Sivan. The Torah writes: “in the third month after the Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt they arrived in the desert of Sinai.” The date mentioned there was the first day of Sivan (Shabbat 19). After an interval of five days the Torah (Ten Commandments) were given at Mount Sinai.

V. 9. בנערינו וגו׳. Wir haben keine Stellvertreter, keine Priester, keine Repräsentanten vor Gott. Wenn wir gehen sollen, gehören wir alle dazu, das jüngste Kind in der Wiege wie das letzte Schaf unserer Habe. In jedem findet sich unsere Gesamtheit. Es darf keiner und nichts zurückbleiben, denn wir haben חג ד׳, einen "Kreis um Gott" zu bilden. Gott ruft uns um sich zusammen, und wenn Gott uns ruft, dann will er uns in allen unseren Gliedern und mit allen unseren Gütern um sich erblicken.

כי חג לה' לנו, “for we celebrate a festival in honour of the Lord;” it is customary to celebrate festivals in the presence of wife and children.

כאשר אשלח אתכם ואת טפכם [MAY THE LORD BE WITH YOU] AS I WILL LET YOU AND YOUR LITTLE ONES GO — even though I were to let go also the flocks and herds as you have said.

SEE YE THAT EVIL IS BEFORE YOUR FACE. “The intent of the verse is as the Targum [Onkelos] explained it.” Thus the language of Rashi. Now how commendable it would have been if Rashi had written out [the text of Onkelos he referred to], since there are variant texts of this Targum! In some texts, it is written: “See, the evil you are about to do is set against you.”³⁰This is not the text found in our version of Targum Onkelos. Ramban will later mention two other variants of Onkelos’ text here. See Note 34 for the text found in our version of the Targum. According to this text, it appears that Onkelos intended to explain: “the evil you are contemplating to do is set before you, bearing witness against you that it is your desire to escape altogether.” This is similar to the verse, And set two men, base fellows, before him [Naboth], and let them bear witness against him, saying, etc.³¹I Kings 21:10. It is also similar to [the expressions]: And they sat down to eat bread,³²Genesis 30:25. which the Targum translates v’istacharu (and they sat down), [the same as the term istacharat that appears to be in the Targum here]; Arise, I pray thee, sit,³³Ibid., 27:19. which the Targum translates istachar (sit).
And there are versions of [Targum Onkelos] in which it is written: “will turn against yourself.”³⁴This text appears in our version of Targum Onkelos. The purport thereof is thus: “Behold, this evil you are about to do is destined to turn against you, for it will pass upon you.” This is similar to the expression, So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel pass from tribe to tribe,³⁵Numbers 36:7. which the Targum translates: lo tistachar (not pass), [similar to the Targum here, l’istachro]. This explanation finds authority in the Midrash of the Sages, who said in Eileh Shemoth Rabbah:³⁶Shemoth Rabbah 13:5. “[Pharaoh said]: ‘It is the custom of young men and the elders to offer sacrifice, but is it the custom of children and the little ones to do so? He who says so intends only to escape. See that which you want to do, namely to escape, will turn against you, that you will not go forth from here,’” a kind of measure for measure.
And I have found yet another version in the Targum: “your countenance does not bear witness to the absence of this evil,” meaning that “your countenance does not bear witness to the removal of the evil in your hearts. On the contrary, the show of your countenance bears witness against you.”
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, [the intent of the verse is to be understood as follows]: “Know that evil is before you, ready and imminent to come upon you from me, for I will requite you evil when I see that you want to escape.”

כי רעה נגד פניכם. You have foolish designs in your hearts. The accuracy of this interpretation is reflected by Isaiah 5,21 הוי חכמים בעיניהם ונגד (פניהם) נבונים, “Ah, those who are so wise, in their own opinion, so clever in their own judgment.” Pharaoh was at pains to tell Moses that what he thought was good for the Jews was not good for them at all.

כאשר אשלח אתכם ואת טפכם, even less your livestock.

And your little ones. Pharaoh asked, “Who is going to provide for your needs in the desert? Will you not die of hunger?” This is the significance of his warning, “for evil confronts you.” That is, you are seeking your own misfortune by taking your little ones into the barren desert.

ראו כי רעה נגד פניכם, “see here, your evil intent is staring you in the face.” The evil you plan to embark on, i.e. your attempt to flee from Egypt, is clear from the fact that you want to take even your small children with you. Another possible explanation for the above line is: you should face the fact that you will shortly be faced with retaliation by me, so that your illusion of freedom will be short-lived. Alternatively, the words ראו כי רעה נגד פניכם, could mean “the evil which you intend to do will boomerang and hit you in your faces.” I will forbid you to leave altogether, and you will be paid back tit for tat.

Even were I to send. . . Rashi explains as he does because their flocks and cattle were more valuable to Pharaoh than were their children; for note that after the plague of darkness Pharaoh said (v. 24): “Just let your flocks and cattle stay behind. Even your little ones can go with you.” This implies that even though Pharaoh agreed to their children going with them, he still did not want their flocks and cattle to go with them. Accordingly, this is the meaning of the verse. Pharaoh said to them: You asked to send your children, flocks and cattle. May Hashem be with you [to protect you from disaster] if I send you and your children, and surely if I also send the flocks. This is because אף כי is like כל שכן (all the more so). And so it is in Parashas Vayelech (Devarim 31:27): “ אף כי (all the more so) after my demise.” (See Kitzur Mitzrachi for other versions of Rashi)

V. 10. רעה נגד פניכם wie: לא אשית לנגד עיני דבר בליעל (Ps. 101,3), euer Angesicht ist auf etwas Böses gerichtet, ihr habt etwas Böses im Sinne.

ראו כי רעה, “see you are planning something wicked;” i.e. “you are planning to escape from the land and all your obligations.”

ראו כי רעה נגד פניכם Understand this as the Targum takes it: See, the evil you are about to do wilt turn against yourself. I have heard a Midrashic explanation: There is a certain star the name of which is רעה “Evil”. Pharaoh said to them, “By my astrological art I see that star rising towards you in the wilderness whither you wish to proceed. It is an emblem of blood and slaughter”. Consequently, when Israel sinned by worshipping the calf and the Holy One, blessed be He, intended to slay them, Moses said in his prayer, (Exodus 32:12) “Wherefore should the Egyptians speak and say, He brought them forth together with רעה (i. e. under the influence of the star רעה); this is, indeed, what he (Pharaoh) has already said, “See, the ‘רעה’ is before you”. At once, “the Lord bethought Himself concerning ‘רעה’”, and He changed the blood of which this star was an emblem to the blood of the circumcision because indeed Joshua had them circumcised. This is the meaning of what is said, (Joshua 5:9). “This day have I rolled from off you the reproach of the Egyptians”, for they said to you. “We see blood impending over you in the wilderness. (Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 1:392; cf. also Rashi on Joshua 5:9.)

ראו כי רעה נגד פניכם. I warn you that what you have in mind will boomerang on you and instead of improving your lot will worsen it. Pharaoh used this expression in a sense similar to Esau rejecting his birthright saying הנה אנכי הולך למות, “I am pursuing a path which will lead to my premature death, anyway” (Genesis 25,32). A similar meaning is Solomon saying in Proverbs 5,5 of the immoral woman: רגליה יורדות מות “her feet go down to death.” Our sages in Berachot 28 described the same thought as והם רצים לבאר שחת.

נגד פניכם, “it is clearly visible from your whole mien, as if written on your faces. This is why you insist on taking all your portable belongings with you.

לא כן NOT SO as you have said, to take the children with you, but 'לכו נא הגברים ועבדו את ה GO YE WHO ARE ADULT MEN AND SERVE THE LORD.

ועבדו את ה' כי אותה אתם מבקשים, you have requested from me to let you serve the Lord; what do you need women and children for? This is why Pharaoh got angry and expelled Moses and Aaron, adding that “by G’d I will not grant such an unreasonable request!” (verse 10)

This service. . . Rashi is explaining that אותה refers to עבודה , i.e., “go and worship Hashem,” [although the actual word עבודה does not appear in the verse]. אותה cannot refer to the men, for then it should say, “ אותם ”. (Maharshal)

לכו נא הגברים, “you, i.e. the men, may go;” the children will remain behind as guarantees that you will return.

כי אתה אתם מבקשים means FOR THAT IS WHAT YE DID SEEK till now: let us sacrifice to our God — and it is not the custom for little children to offer sacrifice.

(2) AND HE the one who expelled them EXPELLED THEM.

Is what you requested till now. . . But we cannot say it means what they are requesting now, since now they are requesting also the children, flocks and cattle.

ויגרש אותם, “he dismissed them (expelled).” The reason that Pharaoh had not expelled Moses and Aaron up until now, before they had been recalled, when they were not even allowed to leave before having been given express permission to do so, was because they knew that G-d would not bring on the same plague a second time. (Sotah 9) [Pharaoh considered locusts as a repeat of the hail, as both plagues ruined the food supply from the earth. Ed.]

ויגרש אותם AND HE DROVE THEM OUT — This is an elliptical phrase and it does not expressly state who drove them out (i. e. the subject of the verb is omitted).

This is a shortened statement. . . But we cannot say that Pharaoh himself expelled them, because it is written, “from Pharaoh’s presence.”

בארבה means on account of the plague of locusts (the prefix ב signifies “on account of”).

על ארץ מצרים בארבה. A reference to the region from which the locusts generally came, i.e from the southern part of the continent. We have references of this kind in Isaiah 5,26 describing that these locusts traveled long distances before arriving in Egypt.

בארבה, with locusts. The word may either refer to a single locust which stuck to Moses' staff, or he may have articulated the word ארבה as he inclined his staff as a sign that the reason he inclined his staff was in order to initiate the plague of locusts.

V. 12. בארבה, wider die Heuschrecke. Sie ist jetzt in ihrer Ruhe und ihrem Behagen im fernen Osten und du sollst sie aufstöbern.

על ארץ מצרים, “on the land of Egypt.” According to what we would have expected, Moses should have extended his staff over the sea of reeds, in order call forth the locusts, as the locusts are found near the sea of reeds. However, since G-d intended for Moses to extend his staff over the sea of reeds at the time when the Israelites needed that sea to split in order to let them cross, G-d did not want the sea to depart from its routine for a second time.

ורוח הקדים THE EAST WIND — It was an east wind that brought the locusts because that came (blew) from the direction opposite to it (to Egypt), since Egypt was in the south-west, relative to Palestine, as it is explained in another place (Numbers 34:3).

ורוח הקדים נשא את הארבה, “and this easterly wind carried the locusts.” Seeing that an east wind is a blast of hot air, as we know from Jonah 4,8, where the effect of this hot easterly wind on Jonah’s state of mind is described, and it is the custom of locusts always to make their appearance when it is hot, as we already know from the prophecy of Nachum 3,17 מנזריך כארבה וטפסריך כגוב גבי החונים בגדרות, ביום קרה שמש זרחה ונודד ולא נודע מקומו אים, “Your guards were like locusts, your marshals like piles of hoppers which settle on the stone fences on a chilly day; when the sun comes out, they fly away and nobody knows where they are.” When G’d would want the plague to disappear, all He had to do was to command a west wind to that region.

וה' נהג רוח קדים, “and G’d guided an easterly wind, etc.” As on previous occasions, the letter ו at the beginning of the name of G’d is an allusion to the celestial tribunal working together with G’d. An easterly wind is perceived as a forerunner to disaster striking on earth. We find that wind in evidence in 14,21 prior to the Egyptians drowning in the sea after the sea had been split to allow the Israelites to cross safely. Jeremiah 18,17 wrote concerning the surviving tribes of Yehudah and Binyamin “I will scatter them in front of the enemy like an easterly wind.” Concerning the other ten tribes (prior to their exile) Hoseah 13,15 writes: “a blast of the easterly wind from the Lord will come blowing up from the desert and it will dry up its fountain and his spring will be parched.” Describing Israel going into exile, Isaiah 27,8 writes: “assailing them wih fury unchained, His pitilesss blast of the easterly wind bore them off on a day of gale.” There are more such quotes to be found in the Bible pertaining to an association between an easterly wind and disaster.

V. 13. בארץ durch die Erde hin, um von überall her die vorhandenen Heuschrecken herbeizuführen.

רוח קדים, “an east wind.” It is called קדים, as this is where the sun begins its daily route; this is also why west is called אחור, “hindmost,” as this is where the sun completes its daily route.

Moshe stretched out his rod. Hashem honored Moshe by saying that the locusts would come through the extension of Moshe’s hand (see v. 12) and Moshe reciprocated the honor by extending the rod of Hashem.

הבוקר היה ורוח הקדים נשא את הארבה, “when it had become morning, the easterly wind had carried the locusts.” The easterly wind brought disaster with it, whereas a westerly wind removed disaster. This is why the Torah wrote (verse 19) Hashem turned back a powerful west wind; it carried the locusts away toward the sea and spewed it out there. The reason the Torah had spoken about “it was morning,” is an allusion to the fact that usually disaster strikes the wicked in the morning. We have scriptural support for this from Psalms 101,8: “each morning I (G’d) will destroy all the wicked of the land.” When Moses predicted the disaster which would strike Korach and his fellow rebels, he said (Numbers 16,5) “in the morning G’d will make known who is His and who is holy.” We also find that the salvation of the righteous occurs in the morning such as in Exodus 34,2 where G’d told Moses to be ready in the morning to ascend the mountain and to receive the replacement of the first set of tablets which he had smashed. Isaiah 33,2 also speaks of salvation for the righteous in the morning when he writes: ”be their arm every morning, also our deliverance in time of stress.” Lamentations 3,23 also refers to G’d’s mercies being renewed every morning and His grace being ample.

ואחריו לא יהיה כן NEITHER AFTER THEM SHALL BE SUCH — That plague of locusts which happened during the days of Joel of which it is said, (Joel 2:2) “there hath not been ever the like” — which statement teaches us that it was more grievous than that in the days of Moses — was, however, caused by many species of locusts, together, those called ארבה and ילק and חסיל and גזם; but that which happened in the days of Moses consisted of only one species (the ארבה) and any ארבה like that there never was and never will be.

NEITHER AFTER THEM SHALL BE SUCH [LOCUSTS]. Scripture informs us by way of prophecy that after them, there would never be such [locusts]. Now Rashi commented: “[The plague of locusts] which occurred during the days of Joel, of which it is said, There hath not been ever the like,³⁷Joel 2:2. teaches us that it was greater³⁸“Greater.” In our text of Rashi: “more grievous.” than that in the days of Moses. The one that happened in the days of Joel was caused by many species together: locust, caterpillar, canker-worm, palmer-worm.³⁹Joel 2:4. But the one which occurred in the days of Moses consisted only of one species, the like of which there never was and never will be.”
I have found difficulty in understanding the explanation of the Rabbi [Rashi]. It is written [of the plague which happened in the days of Moses], He also gave their produce unto the caterpillar,⁴⁰Psalms 78:46. and it is also written, He spoke, and the locust came, and the canker-worm without number.⁴¹Ibid., 105:34. Thus it is clear that in the plague which occurred in the days of Moses, there were also many species of locusts involved, unlike Rashi’s explanation above. Perhaps the Rabbi [Rashi] will answer by saying that in the days of Moses, locust proper was greater than that in the days of Joel, but all other species of locusts in the days of Joel were greater than those in the days of Moses. But these are useless arguments.⁴²It is illogical to say that the Torah here attached such importance to the plague just because one of the species involved was greater than that in the days of Joel, although in the number of species, the plague of locusts which occurred in the days of the prophet was unparalleled. (Mizrachi in explanation of Ramban’s intent.) Instead, [we must say that the expression], in all the borders of Egypt, is connected with the end of the verse: before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such there [in Egypt, but in other places there may be].⁴³There is thus no contradiction to the prophet Joel’s words. That plague of locusts did not occur in the land of Egypt. It is possible that because the land of Egypt is exceedingly moistened by the river, locusts are not abundant there, for these naturally come in years of drought, as is mentioned by the prophet Joel.⁴⁴For the water brooks are dried up (Joel 1:20).
Now Rabbeinu Chananel⁴⁵A Rabbi of Kairwan, North Africa, who flourished in the first half of the eleventh century, just when the Gaonic period in Babylon was about to come to a close. Rabbeinu Chananel’s commentaries on the Talmud are among the most important works in Rabbinic literature. He also wrote a commentary on the Torah, which has been lost in the course of time, except for important extracts from it which are found mostly in the commentary of Bachya ben Asher. Some extracts are found in the works of Ramban and in the Sermons of Yehoshua ibn Shuib, a pupil of Rashba. An edition of mine of these collected explanations of Rabbeinu Chananel has recently appeared through the Mosad Harav Kook, Jerusalem, and they indicate a wide spectrum of interests on the part of the author in Biblical themes. has written in his commentary on the Torah: “From the time that Moses our teacher prayed [for the removal of the locusts] till now, the locusts have not caused damage to the entire land of Egypt, and if an attack of them does occur in the Land of Israel and they proceed to enter within the border of Egypt, they do not devour the produce of the land. People say that this is known by all. Come and see! In the case of frogs, Moses said, Only in the river they will remain,⁴⁶Above, 8:5. and therefore the altamtzach — [the Arabic word for frogs] — have remained in the river till now. However, in the case of the locusts it is written, There remained not one locust in all the border of Egypt.⁴⁷Further, Verse 19. It is of a phenomenon of this kind that Scripture says, Speak ye of all His marvellous works. ”⁴⁸Psalms 105:2. Thus the language of the Rabbi.
In my opinion, the plain meaning of the verse, [neither after them shall be such], is that because the plague of locusts is known to come in all generations, and moreover since this one [in the days of Moses] came in a natural way, it having been the east wind that brought the locusts,⁴⁹Verse 13. [and there was thus reason to believe that such a plague would again come upon Egypt in a natural way], Scripture therefore states that such locusts were the greatest that ever occurred in the natural order of things. Neither before them were there such locusts as they, nor after them shall be such. Through the magnitude of the plague, the Egyptians thus knew that it was a special act of G-d, since the like never happened before. [The plague] that occurred in the days of Joel was likewise a special act of G-d, [and hence Scripture also describes it by saying, There hath never been the like].³⁷Joel 2:2.

ואחריו לא יהיה כן, “and after it there will never be its equal.” The plague of locusts during the life of the prophet Joel could not be compared with the plague in Egypt, as the latter comprised a single species of locusts, whereas in Israel at the time of Joel there were a number of different species of locusts combining to make the experience so memorable. (compare Rashi) Nachmanides questions the above, quoting Psalms 78,46: “He gave their crops over to the grubs, their produce to the locusts.” He also quotes another verse in Psalms 105,34 “Locusts came at His command, grasshoppers without number.” According to both these verses there were more than one species of locusts that invaded Egypt during the plague described in our chapter. Perhaps, in order to reconcile the apparently conflicting statement by Rashi with the verses mentioned fro the Book of Psalms, Rashi meant to say that the species of locusts which invaded Egypt in our chapter was a much larger one than people had ever become familiar with, whereas the species that appeared in the time of Joel were larger than the several species which became manifest in the days of Moses. This attempt to resolve the problem is futile, as there is no question that when the Torah in our chapter discusses the uniqueness of this plague of locusts it means that neither prior to that time nor afterwards did such a plague ever again occur on such a scale. Rabbeinu Chananel, on this verse, writes first of all, that the Torah means that such a plague of locusts, which had been predicted by a prophet, never occurred again. The invasion of the land of Israel in the time of the prophet Joel had not been announced beforehand by a prophet. Furthermore, ever since the prayer of Moses to have the plague of locusts removed, Egypt was never again plagued by locusts. [My edition of Rabbeinu Chananel does not contain such a statement, Ed.] At any rate, Rabbeinu Chananel feels that just as Joshua requested the miracle of the sun and moon being arrested in their orbits until he had mopped up the opposing armies, Moses predicted the miracle of the plague of locusts, and he did not even have to request it.] It is possible to understand the plain meaning of our text differently. Just because a plague of locusts was something quite common in those regions in those times, and moreover, seeing that the one which occurred during the reign of Pharaoh, was orchestrated by a completely natural event, namely a strong east wind blowing, it was necessary for the Torah, i.e. in this instance Moses, to mention the fact that it would occur, to point out when and how it would occur, and that it would be disproportionately severe in the damage it would cause, so much so that it would be more severe than anything like it ever, before or after. This would bring home to the victims that this was not a natural disaster but a punitive act by the Creator.

The likes of which never had been and never would be. Ramban and Re”m explain Rashi at length, but I say that Rashi’s own words elsewhere explain his intention. Rashi says on Sefer Yoel (2:2): “But the species of Arbeh on its own was not like that of Egypt.” This supports Re”m who said that the Arbeh of Moshe was greater than the Arbeh of Yoel, while the plague of Yoel was greater because of the multiple species it included. (Nachalas Yaakov) Some object and say that also the plague of Moshe had three species, as it is written (Tehillim 78:46) “Arbeh, Chasil,” and (105:34) “Yelek.” We could answer that the multiple terms in Tehillim are only for rhetorical purpose [while in truth there was just Arbeh]. Similarly [we find multiple terms used rhetorically]: “He killed with hail their vineyards, and their sycamores with hail-stones” (ibid. 78:47). And likewise, “He trapped their cattle by the hail, their herds by the plague.”(ibid. v. 48)

ואחריו לא יהיה כן. At the command of a prophet. [this answers the question raised in connection with the prophet Yoel describing an unprecedented plague of locust. [That plague had been a natural disaster, had not been predicted by a prophet. Ed.] The expression describing the unique nature and quality of this phenomenon is similar to the Book of Kings II 18,5 describing the unparalleled faith in the Lord by the King Chiskiyah. The meaning there is that whereas Chizkiyah’s faith in the Lord was unparalleled, his fear of the Lord was matched by other people. Similarly, we are told in Joshua 10,14 that G’d’s responses to Joshua’s requests was unparalleled, so that even the sun was made to arrest its orbit as his request. However, G’d had done the same thing for the sake of Moses at his time, as well as for Nakdimon ben Gurion, the difference being that Moses did not even have to ask for it. (compare Taanit 20)

V. 14. כן — כמהו, es ist zweifelhaft, worauf sich diese doppelte Vergleichung bezieht. Es scheint כן auf die Art des Kommens, die Massenhaftigkeit usw. כמהו auf die Art der Gattung zu gehen. Vielleicht war es eine Sammlung der verschiedensten Arten. Ps. 78, 46, 47 werden חנמל ,ארבה ,חסיל genannt.

ואחריו, “and after it (there will never again be a plague of locust of such dimensions.)”. When describing a similar plague in the Book of Yoel,2,2, the prophet stated s that never again had there been a plague of locusts of such dimensions, nor would there ever be again. Apparently there are many different strains of locusts, and the statements by both the Torah and the Book of Yoel do not refer to the same strain. Even so, we are puzzled by a statement in Psalms 78,46, as well as 105,34-35 as the same strains of locusts are mentioned. Possibly, in the days of Moses all the different strains of locusts combined to invade that country at the same time. [A week before writing these lines, the land of Israel was invaded by a plague of locusts originating in Egypt and was repelled by spraying poison from airplanes. Our farmers had been very concerned. Ed.] The references in Yoel apparently must have referred to one specific strain that invaded the land of Israel at that time in such intensity. The Torah treated the strain known as ארבה and that of ילק as distinct species. [This makes sense as some kinds of “locusts,” are permitted to us as food, whereas other kinds are not. Ed.]

ואחריו לא יהיה כן, “and there will never be a plague of locusts kike this;” according to Rashi, the meaning is “a single type of locust.” Seeing that the Bible records other plagues of locusts at least as severe, (Psalms 105,34, Yoel 1,4), and Rashi was surely aware of this, we must understand the words of Rashi as referring to a single species of locusts at the same time.

כל ירק means any green leaf (not “any herb”, since it speaks of the ירק of the trees); old French verdure.

ויכס את עין כל הארץ ותחשך הארץ, “it covered the surface of the entire land and the land was darkened.” There was no area which remained free from locusts. The matter is comparable to Yoel 2,9: “they rush up the wall, they dash about in the city; they climb into the houses, they enter like thieves by way of the windows.” The word עין here is derived from גוון, i.e. all the normal colors on earth turned to look black.

A green leaf. Rashi is answering the question: How can the word ירק (green vegetable) apply to trees? For it is written (Bereishis 9:3): “ כירק עשב (as the vegetable herbs),” and herbs in the fields are referred to as ירקות . Therefore Rashi explains it as “a green leaf,” as if the verse had actually said “green leaf.” Rashi proves this from “Verdure in Old French” which means green leaf [and comes from the root of verd, “green”]. And so it is in Hebrew.

ותחשך הארץ, “the earth became darkened;” from the amount of shade produced by the flying swarms of locusts.

על ארץ מצרים בארבה, before the locust could destroy also the roots of the wheat and spelt and other plants they had been devouring. 10,20-23. נטה ידך על השמים, “in the direction of the atmosphere referred to as “heaven.” We have explained this in connection with Genesis 1,7.

חטאנו לה' אלוקיכם ולכם, “we have sinned against the Lord your G’d and against you.” He apologized to Moses and Aaron for having insulted them and banished them from his presence.

חטאתי לה' אלו-היכם ולכם, “I have sinned against the Lord your G’d and against you.” The reason Pharaoh added the words: “against you,” was because he had treated them disrespectfully and expelled them from his palace (verse 11).

'חטאתי לה, “I have sinned against the G-d called Hashem.” He acknowledged the attribute of mercy, realising that this G-d had warned him before bring evil upon him.

ולכם, “and against you,” for having thrown you out of my palace in disgrace.

NOW THEREFORE FORGIVE, I PRAY THEE, MY SIN. This is an expression of respect to Moses [on the part of Pharaoh] since Moses was in G-d’s stead to Pharaoh,⁵⁰Above, 7:1. and very great in the land of Egypt.⁵¹Further, 11:3. [Hence Pharaoh addressed this appeal to Moses alone, as the singular verb sa (forgive) indicates, for the king knew of the extraordinary position of Moses, as explained.] And entreat ye the Eternal your G-d. He addressed this appeal to both Moses and Aaron. He respectfully spoke thus every time [that he asked for prayer on his behalf]⁵²Above, 8:4 (in the case of frogs), 8:24 (swarms of beasts), and 9:38 (hail). In each case, Pharaoh said ha’tiru (pray ye) in the plural. although Pharaoh knew that Moses alone was the one who prayed, for so he told him: Against what time shall I entreat for thee;⁵³Above, 8:5. And I will entreat the Eternal;⁵⁴Ibid., Verse 25. I will spread forth my hands to the Eternal.⁵⁵Ibid., 9:29. Moses did not say it in the plural, [i.e., “we shall entreat”], so that he should not utter a falsehood, [but Pharaoh nevertheless addressed himself to both as an expression of respect].

שא נא חטאתי, “please forgive my sin.” Pharaoh employed the singular mode when addressing Moses seeing he was the senior leader and was an elokim, Divine representative vis a vis Pharaoh. When appealing for their prayer on his behalf to G’d, he employed the plural mode, i.e. העתירו, not העתר. He did so as a form of courtesy, knowing full well that it was Moses who would pray for the cessation of the plague. We know this already from Moses’ offerלמתי אעתיר, “for when shall I pray,” during the plague of the frogs. He is also on record as having said: והעתרתי אל ה' “I shall entreat the Lord.”

ועתה שא נא חטאתי אך הפעם והעתירו לה' אלו-היכם, “and now, please forgive my sin only this once and entreat the Lord your G’d.” Nachmanides points out that Pharaoh should have said: “pray to the Lord that He should forgive my sin.” After all, it was not up to Moses to forgive sins. The reason he worded his plea as he did was that G’d had appointed Moses to be a deity as far as Pharaoh was concerned (compare 7,1). The reason Pharaoh used the plural, i.e. העתירו, was in honour of Aaron. Pharaoh knew quite well that only Moses would do the praying. Moses had told him already twice “I will entreat the Lord” (8,25 and 8,5).

V. 17. המות הזה, in der Vernichtung des ägyptischen Fruchtreichtums sieht er endlich ihren völligen Untergang. Wenn die Heuschrecken dableiben und ihre Larven im Lande legen, so ist auch die Ernte der Zukunft von Vernichtung bedroht.

רק את המות הזה, “only this death.” This teaches that human beings also died during the plague of locusts, just as they had died from the effects of the hail. Perhaps the locusts caused them to become blind as a result of which they were prone to have fatal accidents. In the days of Joshua it is reported that the affliction of the skin disease called tzoraat caused blindness (Sotah 36). Alternatively, the reason that Pharaoh referred to this plague as “this death,” was that seeing the hail had killed the crops, the earth and the fruit, the locust finished what was still left over. As a result Pharaoh was correct in describing the situation in Egypt now as one of “this death.” The Torah adds the word רק, “only,” as a hint that the way he felt about things was temporary. As soon as there would be relief he would undergo a change of heart. What appeared to him as hopeless at this moment would suddenly assume a totally new dimension. He would think that he had survived the worst that the Jewish G’d was able to do to him. He revealed his eventual change of mind by asking that Moses entreat G’d “only at this moment.” He implied that there would not again come a time when he needed Moses’ intercession.

רוח ים is A WEST WIND.

ויהפוך ה' רוח קדים, because the east wind had brought them from the west so that a west wind will bring them back to where they came from.

לא נשאר ארבה בגבולך, “not a single locust remained behind within the boundaries of your country.” The locusts, as opposed to the frogs at the time, did not die, the reason being that they had not come into existence for the purpose of this plague. They had merely been transported across a great distance, away from their natural habitat [this is all based on the opinion that the wordsותעל הצפרדע in 8,2 appears in the singular mode as opposed to the other occasions when this word appears in the plural mode. According to this view, a single frog became converted into millions of frogs for the sake of the plague, but after it had already left the river Nile. The frogs would therefore not have been able to “return” to their habitat, not having had a habitat in the first place. Ed.]

Not even a salted one that they had salted. Rashi is answering the question: Since it is already written, “Carried away the locusts,” why does Scripture add, “Not a single locust remained”? It must come to include even the salted ones. And regarding the plague of wild beasts, Scripture did not need to indicate that even the salted ones did not remain. Since they were dangerous animals, the Egyptians surely were afraid to trap them.

לא נשאר ארבה אחד בכל גבול מצרים. From the time Moses prayed not a single locust caused damage in Egypt. If, by chance locusts would land in the land of Israel and would cross the border of the land of Egypt, they would not eat anything of the local harvest until now. [the “now” refers to the era of Rabbeinu Chananel. Ed.] It is common knowledge in my time that this is the correct interpretation, as in connection with the crocodiles (or frogs, depending on which interpretation we accept for the meaning of the word צפרדע), the Torah stated that these creatures remained only in the river Nile, not posing a threat to the urban areas, whereas here the Torah speaks of the total disappearance of all the locusts from the entire territory of Egypt. Concerning this latter phenomenon the psalmist writes in Psalms 105,2 שיחו בכל נפלאותיו, “speak of all His wondrous deeds.”

V. 19. ויהפן רוח ים, gewöhnlich hat das aktive הפך den zu umwandelnden Gegenstand zum Objekt, wie הפך ים ליבשה und sonst. Hier aber ist der durch Umwandlung herbeigeführte Gegenstand das Objekt, es heißt nicht ויהפך רוח קדים לרוח ים sondern ויהפך רוח ים. So auch: ויהפך לו אל ד' לב אחר (Sam. I. 10, 9). אהפוך אל עמים שפה ברורה (Job 34, 35) והפן לילה ןידכאו (Zephania 3, 9).

רוח ים חזק מאד, “ very strong westerly wind;” the east wind had brought the locusts and the west wind swept them away. This had been alluded to in verse 13: והרוח הקדים נשא את הרבה, “and the east wind had carried the locusts

ימה סוף INTO THE RED SEA — I say that the Red Sea was, as to part of it, in the west opposite the whole southern side of Palestine, and was also eastward of the Land of Israel; therefore a west wind blew the locusts into the Red Sea which was in the opposite direction to the west of Egypt. Thus do we find mentioned regarding the boundaries of Palestine that it (the Red Sea) faces the east of Palestine, since it states, (Exodus 23:31) “[And I will set thy boundaries] from the Red Sea even unto the sea of the Philistines”, which means from east to west since the sea of the Philistines was in the west, as it is said of the Philistines, (Zephaniah 2:5) “the inhabitants of the sea-coast, the nation of the Cherethites (the Philistines)”.

ויתקעהו, “the Torah had used this verb in connection with Lavan in Genesis 31,25: ולבן תקע את אחיו and Lavan pitched tent with his brothers.” In other words, the wind arrested the flight of the locusts.”

לא נשאר ארבה אחד THERE REMAINED NOT ONE LOCUST — not even those which they had salted — for they had salted some of them (Exodus Rabbah 13:7).

ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה, “G’d reinforced Pharaoh’s resolution.” It is totally unnatural for a person experiencing the kind of plagues Pharaoh and the Egyptians endured not to suffer a total mental collapse. The Torah had already described how, during the first five plagues, Pharaoh had drawn on his psychological reservoirs of obstinacy to stand fast in face of these plagues. Starting with the sixth plague, pestilence, however, G’d had lent him psychological support as we read for the first time in 9,6. This bears out what the prophet said in Jeremiah 18,6, “O House of Israel, can I not deal with you like this potter?- says the Lord. Just like clay in the hands of the potter so are you in My hands!” The prophet continues: “one moment I may decree that a nation or a kingdom shall be uprooted, etc., but if that nation turns back from wickedness I change My mind, etc.” Similarly, Solomon states (Proverbs 21,1) "Like channeled water is the mind of the king in the G-d’s hand; He directs it to whatever He wishes".

וימש חשך signifies and it (the darkness mentioned in the preceding phrase, ויהי חשך) shall darken for them the natural darkness to a higher degree than the darkness of night: i. e. the darkness of night shall become even more black and dark.

וימש חשך, same as ויאמש חשך. This construction with variable spelling is similar to Isaiah 13,20 ולא יהל שם ערבי meaning the same as ולא יאהל שם ערבי, “no Arab shall pitch his tent there.” By remembering this missing letter א, we understand the meaning of the line as “the darkness of the (previous) night will continue and intensify so that there will be no light for three days.”

נטה ידך על השמים, “in the direction of the atmosphere referred to as “heaven.” We have explained this in connection with Genesis 1,7.

וימש חשך, “the darkness will be tangible.” This expression describing touching something, as when Yaakov expressed his concern to his mother Rivkah that his father, being blind, would subject him to the ”touch-test.” (Genesis 27,12) The darkness was so opaque that the people could feel it with their hands. The reason was that this “darkness” was not merely the absence of light of the sun, but it was caused by the descent of “thick” air into the lower atmosphere covering Egypt. This layer of “thick” air extinguished any candles or other artificial means of lighting the Egyptians would use at night to see by.

The darkness of night will become even more black and dark. The phrase ויאמש חשך (He will darken the night) implies that night has already arrived. But “And there will be darkness” implies that the plague created a new darkness. Therefore Rashi explains: [“A darkness greater than the darkness of night. . .”]

V. 21. חשך, die letzten ענוי-Plage. Wie die גרות- und עבדות-Plagen dieser dritten, letzten Gruppe die umfassendsten waren, Hagel und Heuschrecken das ganze Land und den ganzen Reichtum des ägyptischen Menschen zu vernichten drohten, so war auch die dritte und letzte ענוי-Plage die umfassendste und legte den ganzen Menschen in den Bann, sperrte ihn von aller Gemeinschaft und aller Habe ab, dass er nicht Hand und Fuß zu irgend einer Tätigkeit im Dienste seines Daseins regen konnte. Es war dies die vollendetste, buchstäbliche ענוי. Es war ein dreitägiges fastendes Gefesseltsein an der Stelle, wo ein jeder sich befand. —

וימש means as much as (is a contraction of) ויאמש (a Hiphil form of אמש, evening darkness). We have many words in which an א is omitted; since the sound of the א is not very marked, Scripture is not particular about omitting it. An example is: (Isaiah 13:20) “the Arabian לֹא יַהֵל there”, which is the same as לא יַאֲהֵל, shall not pitch his tent. Similar is, (II Samuel 22:40) “וַתַּזְרֵנִי with strength”, which is the same as וַתְּאַזְרֵנִי “And thou hast girded me” (cf. Psalms 30:12). Onkelos translated it in the sense of removing, from the same root as, (Joshua 1:8) “it shall not depart (ימוש)”, his rendering being, “[and there shall be darkness..] after the darkness of night has departed”, i. e. when the time approaches near to the light of day. But the statement does not then fit with the ו of וימש, because this word is written after ויהי חשך. A Midrashic statement explains it in the sense of (Deuteronomy 28:29) “groping (ממשש feeling) at noon-day”, so that the meaning would be that it was of such a double character and so thick that there was something tangible in it (Exodus Rabbah 14:1-3).

וימש חשך, this will remove the normal darkness called “night.” The reason this was necessary was that the night consists of air ready and capable to absorb light in the morning. The darkness that would occur now was something unable to interact with light at all. The reason for this inability to interact with light was the density of the texture of this darkness. As a result of this totally different kind of darkness לא ראו איש את אחיו, for even a lit up flare would not be able to make a “dent” in that darkness.

Is the same as ויאמש (He will darken). This word is like אמש , which means night. For yesterday is referred to as אתמול , and last night is referred to as אמש .

וימש חשך: Hiphil von מוש. Simson bat in seiner Blindheit seinen Führer: המישני את העמדים (Richter 16, 26) lass mich die Säulen betasten, und hieße dem nach: ימש חשך, die Finsternis wird alle Ägypter "tasten" lassen, sie werden sich in keiner Weise des Augenlichtes bedienen können, und zur Erkennung von Gegenständen lediglich auf das Tastgefühl angewiesen sein. Es involviert dies allerdings, dass ihnen auch mit künstlicher Beleuchtung nicht zu helfen war. Eigentümlich ists, dass מוש zugleich auch: weichen heißt, also zugleich das Gegenteil von Tasten. Tasten bezeichnet ja die unmittelbarste Annäherung an den Gegenstand. Vergleichen wir alle Stellen, in welchen מוש weichen bedeutet, so ergibt sich, dass מוש, nicht wie סור im allgemeinen sich entfernen heißt, sondern immer nur: aus der nächsten Nähe weichen. Es kommt daher vorzugsweise nur negativ in diesem Sinne vor: לא ימוש, nicht von der Stelle weichen, nicht von etwas loslassen. Positiv von dem Lockerwerden eines eingeschlagenen Nagels: תמוש היתד התקועה (Jes. 22, 25) oder; אם ימושו החקים האלה so wenig wie die Naturgesetze je im geringsten schwankend werden usw. (Jirm. 31, 36). מוש muss somit die unmittelbarste lose Umgebung einer Sache bedeuten, ein Berühren ohne zu fassen, eine Berührung ohne Verbindung, das ist einerseits: Tasten, — ist ja Tasten, ein unsicheres Berühren, das den berührten Gegenstand immer wieder losläßt, um erst sich zu vergewissern, dass es der gesuchte sei. Es liegt darin eben so sehr ein Entfernen, als eine Annäherung zum Gegenstande — andererseits für etwas bis dahin Verbundenes: lose werden, aus der Verbindung weichen. Ganz entsprechend heißt daher auch מוץ: Hülse.

ויהי חשך, “there will be darkness.” Rashi points out that this darkness was not preceded by a warning, as G-d did not want the Egyptians to have an opportunity to first hide their valuables.

After the darkness of night has departed. This means: After Hashem removes the darkness of night and the day has begun, at that moment that darkness will begin.

שלשת ימים denotes a triad of days. old French terziane; so, too, שבעת ימים everywhere it occurs denotes in old French a septaine of days (a period of seven days).

חשך אפלה, a combination of regular darkness (absence of sunlight), plus added deep darkness.

ויט משה את ידו, "Moses inclined his hand, etc.," We need to understand why Moses had used his staff to bring about the plague of locusts (verse 13) when G'd had told him to incline only his hand (verse 12). There had not been a single plague so far which was introduced by Moses being told to use "his hand" rather than his staff.

Why did He bring darkness on them? You might ask: In Parshas Va’era, Rashi explained the verse: “For if you do not send out My people” (8:17), that the reason for each plague is in accordance with the strategies of war, based on Midrash Tanchuma. If so, why does Rashi need to give a reason here for the plague of darkness? Furthermore, why did Rashi not ask this question [as his first comment] on the verse? The answer is: Rashi is explaining why Hashem brought such total darkness. [Ordinary] darkness that does not allow one person to see another would be sufficient [as a war strategy]. Therefore Rashi explains: “Because there were. . . [among B’nei Yisrael. . . Furthermore, the Israelites searched. . .]”

V. 22. אפלה, ist der höhere Grad von Dunkelheit, bei welchem alles zweifelhaft wird (אול).

ויהי חשך אפלה, “there was a thick darkness;” Rashi comments that the Israelites were able to see as usual and could find where the Egyptians kept their valuables, so that when the time came to ask for them they could know if they lied when claiming they did not possess certain items an Israelite had requested. This is the deeper meaning of Exodus 12,36: וה' נת! את חן העם בעיני מצרים וישאילום, and the Lord had disposed the Egyptians favourably towards the people and they lent them willingly.

ויהי חשך אפלה … שלשת ימים — there was darkness of gloom when no man saw another during those three days, and there was moreover another period of three days’ darkness twice as thick as this when no man rose from his place: one who happened to be sitting when this second period of darkness began was unable to rise, and one who was then standing was unable to sit down. And why did He bring darkness upon them? Because there were wicked people amongst the Israelites of that generation who had no desire to leave Egypt, and these died during the three days of darkness so that the Egyptians might not see their destruction and say, “These, (the Israelites) too have been stricken as we have”. And a further reason is that the Israelites searched (the darkness came just in order that they might do this) and saw their (the Egyptians’) jewels, and when they were leaving Egypt and asked them for their jewels, and they replied, “We have none at all in our possession”, they answered them, “I have seen it in your house and it is in such and such a place” (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Bo 1; Exodus Rabbah 14:3).

Furthermore, the Israelites searched and saw their vessels. . . It seems to me that [Rashi means as follows]: First he asks why there was darkness, i.e., why did the plague change so that at the end it was darker than at the beginning? Rashi answers [that there were two reasons for the darkness]. At first the darkness was needed only so the Egyptians would not see the downfall of the evil Israelites. Ordinary darkness was sufficient for this, and Hashem did not want to change nature more than necessary. Then after three days, and they were all dead and buried, Hashem brought extreme darkness to immobilize the Egyptians so B’nei Yisrael could enter their homes and search their vessels, and the Egyptians were unable to stop them. We need not ask: Why was all this necessary? Is it not written (12:36), “Hashem granted the people favor in the eyes of the Egyptians,” and the Egyptians even lent them items they did not ask for [see Rashi there]? The answer is: Since the Egyptians saw that B’nei Yisrael could have taken everything they owned during the days of darkness, without anyone to stop them, yet they did not take anything — this is what made B’nei Yisrael favorable in their eyes, and they even lent items that they did not ask for. (Maharshal)

Perhaps the reason why this plague was different is best explained in Shemot Rabbah 14, according to which the darkness in Egypt belonged to the category of darkness described in Psalms 18,12: "He made darkness His screen, dark thunderheads, dense clouds of the sky were His pavilion around Him." Inasmuch as the darkness was of a supernatural kind, Moses did not consider it appropriate to raise his staff against supernatural phenomena.

ויהי חשך אפלה שלשת ימים ולא קמו איש מתחתיו, “the thick darkness remained for three days so that not a single Egyptian even dared to rise from where he had been sitting on. This means that the darkness lasted a total of six days, Moses did not decree the plague to last one quarter of a month. This is also how the verse is explained in the Mechilta (according to Rabbi Chavell, this is an error); in Rabbi Kasher’s Torah Shleymah (item 66) a Midrash Rabbah is quoted which deals with the seventh day of that plague instead.

A threesome of days. Rashi is answering the question: Why did the verse not simply write שלושה ימים (three days)? The word שלשת with a tav is in the nismach form (lit. three of days); why is this form needed? Furthermore, ימים is masculine [and should therefore have an adjective in the masculine form,] but שלשת is feminine! Therefore, Rashi explains that it means “a threesome of days.”

Other rabbis, commenting in the same section of that Midrash, considered this darkness as belonging to purgatory. Both groups of rabbis may have been correct; there were two categories of darkness. One prevailed during the three days no Egyptian could move, the other during the days they merely could not see one another.

THEY SAW NOT ONE ANOTHER, NEITHER ROSE ANY FROM HIS PLACE. The meaning thereof is that this darkness was not a mere absence of sunlight where the sun set and it was like night. Rather, it was a thick darkness.⁵⁶Verse 22. That is to say, it was a very thick cloud that came down from heaven. It is for this reason that He said, “Stretch out thy hand toward heaven⁵⁷Verse 21. to bring down from there a great darkness which would descend upon them⁵⁸See Genesis 15:12. and which would extinguish every light, just as in all deep caverns and in all extremely dark places where light cannot last [as it is swallowed up in the density of the thick darkness].” Similarly, people who pass through the Mountains of Darkness⁵⁹The name is found in the Talmud (Tamid 32a) in connection with Alexander the Great, who told the Sages of the south: “I wish to go to the country of Africa,” whereupon they answered him, “you cannot go, for the Mountains of Darkness intercede.” It would seem then that these were mountains somewhere in the heart of Africa, a dim knowledge of which reached the outer world. Considering the fact that the heart of central Africa was not penetrated by European explorers till the end of the nineteenth century, it is no wonder that not much was known in Medieval Europe about this region. find that no candle or fire can continue to burn at all. It is for this reason that they saw not one another, neither rose any from his place, for otherwise they would have used the light of fire. This is the intent of the verse, He sent darkness, and it became dark.⁶⁰Psalms 105:28. It was not the usual absence of daylight above but an extraordinary darkness as well. It is possible that it was such a very thick cloud that there was something tangible in it, as our Rabbis have said,⁶¹Shemoth Rabbah 14:1. and as indeed it happens on the Atlantic Ocean, as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra testified.⁶²“It often happens on the Atlantic Ocean that it is impossible to distinguish day from night, and this sometimes lasts for five days. I have personally experienced it many times” (Ibn Ezra). A native of Spain, Ibn Ezra was born in the city of Tudela in the year 1093. In search of knowledge, he journeyed throughout the European countries and the Near East, where he made the acquaintance of the greatest luminaries of his time. Sometime after 1150, he visited London, where in the course of his journey he most likely experienced the density of fog he describes.

מתחתיו, according to the plain meaning: “from his house.” The reason was that they did not know where they would be headed.

ולכל בני ישראל היה אור, all the Israelites had light, etc. The Torah makes a point of writing ולכל, "and for every Israelite," to tell us that whenever a Jew went to the house of an Egyptian he had light even within the dwellings of the Egyptians.

לא ראו איש את אחיו, for even a lit up flare would not be able to make a “dent” in that darkness.

היה אור במושבותם, “there was light in their dwellings.” It is noteworthy that the Torah here does not refer to the province of Goshen as it had done during other plagues, but implies that Israelites living in other parts of Egypt were also not affected by this plague. Our sages claim that when an Israelite entered the house of an Egyptian he was able to see normally in that house also. (Sh’mot Rabbah 14,3)

היה אור במושבותם, even if he lived right next to an Egyptian.

Another possible meaning of that line could be in answer to the question "where did this light emanate from?" The answer is that it was light originating in the Egyptians' homes. The absence of the word אשר is not especially significant as we have many examples when the Torah omits the word אשר. The meaning of the verse is analogous to our sages telling us that the wicked envelop themselves in darkness. Accordingly, we may understand the darkness as being something subjective; the Egyptians who were evil experienced darkness whereas the Jews who were good experienced light in the very places the Egyptians experienced darkness. The Torah alludes to this idea by writing: במושבותם, within their dwellings.

יצג means SHALL REMAIN STANDING in its place.

ONLY LET YOUR FLOCKS AND YOUR HERDS BE STAYED. Since the Israelites were keepers of cattle,⁶³Genesis 46:32. and all their wealth and belongings consisted of cattle, Pharaoh thought that they would not leave all their possessions and flee from the country. Even if they were to flee, he would be left with their great wealth, as they were very rich in cattle.

ויקרא פרעה, Pharaoh called, etc. This occurred after the plague had run its course; previously the Egyptians had been incommunicado. Pharaoh expressed his anger over that fact by adopting a severe tone when addressing Moses in verse 28 when Moses had been adamant that even the livestock would accompany them into the desert. He would not have dared threaten Moses unless the plague had already run its course without Moses having prayed for it to be lifted.

צאנכם ובקרכם יוצג, “your flocks and herds will stay put.” Pharaoh, knowing that the Israelites’ original vocation was to be cattle herders, was convinced that if they meant to leave permanently, they would not leave their livestock behind. Even if he should have miscalculated, Pharaoh figured that the huge amounts of livestock left behind by the Israelites could be viewed as a compensation for the need to make do without their slave labour.

Shall remain in its place. [Rashi is explaining that although יצג is in the future tense], it does not mean “will remain,” starting from now. This is because the sheep and cattle were already in their place.

V. 24. Nach drei Tagen, als die Finsternis zu weichen begann und die Ägypter sich wieder bewegen konnten. — יוצג, sollen her-, unter Kontrolle, gestellt werden, als Unterpfand für ihre Rückkehr.

רק צאנכם ובקרכם יוצב, “only your sheep and cattle will stay here; as guarantee that you will return.”

גם טפכם, also your children. It is somewhat strange that Pharaoh mentioned first who could not go before conceding that the children could accompany their parents. Perhaps Pharaoh was clever enough to first spell out the conditions under which permission would be granted for the Israelites to leave [The author presumably refers to the halachah that unless the condition is mentioned first and not as an afterthought it is not binding. Ed.]. According to the above we may understand the verse as Pharaoh saying: "go and serve the Lord as you have said, i.e. the men and not the children; if you fulfil the following condition namely that your livestock stays in Egypt, I am even prepared to let you take your children along. If you do not agree to this condition I do not revoke my permission, but then only your menfolk may go because they are the ones who perform the religious rites you spoke about." Perhaps the Gentiles generally consider that any condition in a commercial transaction has to precede the main part of an agreement and not merely appear as a codicil.

גם אתה תתן THOU MUST GIVE ALSO — It will not be enough for you that our cattle will go with us but you will give also of yours.

THOU MUST ALSO GIVE INTO OUR HAND SACRIFICES AND BURNT-OFFERINGS. Moses did not make this a condition, neither did Pharaoh. Rather, these are words to impress Pharaoh. In effect Moses was saying to him that G-d’s power will be so heavy upon him and his people that even sacrifices and burnt — offerings and all that he hath will he give for his life.⁶⁴Job 2:4. Indeed, when Pharaoh said to Moses and Aaron [at the time that he gave the people permission to go], And bless me also,⁶⁵Further, 12:32. he would willingly have given all his cattle in atonement for his sin [of rebelling against G-d’s command till then]. Moses however had no intention to do so, for the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination,⁶⁶Proverbs 21:27. as it pleased the Eternal to crush him,⁶⁷Isaiah 53:10. not to forgive him but instead to punish him and to overthrow him with all his host in the midst of the sea.
Now our Rabbis have said⁶⁸Mechilta d’Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, on the Verse further, 12:32. that Pharaoh’s expression [to Moses and Aaron], Take both your flocks and your herds, as ye have said,⁶⁵Further, 12:32. refers to their saying to him, Thou must also give into our hand sacrifices and burnt-offerings. Perhaps the Rabbis intended to say that Pharaoh hinted to Moses and Aaron that he is ready to give them whatever they say, but not at all that they took anything from him. It may be that he supplied them with sacrifices and burnt-offerings for their use so that the Israelites would fulfill their own obligation [in the observance of G-d’s feast]. But this also is not correct.⁶⁹Since permission for their own cattle for sacrifices was specifically made a condition by Moses [here in Verse 26 — Our cattle shall also go with us… for thereof must we take to serve the Eternal our G-d] — it could not be correct to say that they later took sacrifices for themselves from Pharaoh. We must therefore conclude that Pharaoh only hinted to them that he was ready to give them whatever they demand, but actually they took no animals from him for sacrifice.

גם אתה תתן בידנו זבחים, "you too will give into our hands meat-offerings, etc." It is somewhat difficult to understand why a servant of the only G'd should ask a confirmed sinner such as Pharaoh who had repeatedly raised his voice against G'd to offer his animals to the G'd of the Hebrews as sacrifices on his behalf. Do we not know that G'd hates the offerings of sinners? While it is true that we learned in Chulin 13 that the words איש איש in Leviticus 22,18 are the basis for our ruling that G'd accepts sacrifices from Gentiles, this certainly does not mean that a Jew should request a Gentile to offer such offerings!

גם אתה תתן בידינו זבחים ועולות, “you too will give to us (from your own herds) meat offerings and burnt offerings.” Moses did not intend to use Pharaoh’s animals as sacrifices by the Jewish people, seeing that such offerings belonging to idolators, would be an abomination in the eyes of Hashem. He made these remarks to show Pharaoh that not only would he not benefit financially by the departure of the Israelites, but on the contrary, he would be so anxious for them to leave when the time came that he would compensate them financially in order to get rid of them sooner. The Lord’s hand would be felt so severely that Pharaoh would be willing, if only able, to offer all kinds of sacrifices to assuage the Lord’s feelings which he had hurt by his obstinate posture during this whole period. All he would be concerned with at that time would be to save his own life.

V. 25. זבחים ועלת, nach der Ansicht (Sebachim 116 a.): die Opfer der noachidischen Menschheit haben nur aus עולות bestanden, die Gottesverehrung durch שלמים, durch das Bewusstsein eines von Gott stammenden und Gott zuzuwendenden heiteren Genusses eines ungestörten glücklichen Daseins, sei nur dem Judentume charakteristisch, müssten hier זבחים nicht als Mahlopfer, sondern als festliche Mahlzeiten verstanden werden.

גם אתה תתן בידינו, “also you will give to us,” Moses tells Pharaoh that not only will the Israelites take with them their own livestock, but Pharaoh will give them of his own livestock as sacrifices to be offered by them on his behalf. Pharaoh did not ask Moses and Aaron to pray for the removal of the darkness as he thought that surely the Israelites are afflicted by the same plague, and if so, prayer would be useless.

A close look at our verse will show you that Moses did not request such offerings. He had only said ועשינו לה׳ אלוקינו. Moses predicted that Pharaoh would voluntarily give the Jews animals which would be suitable as offerings to G'd and that the Israelites would use these animals for such a purpose on their own behalf. The animals were to be viewed as gifts from Pharaoh to the Jewish people to enable them to have enough animals for their requirements. We have proof of what Moses had in mind because we are taught in Menachot 63 that the only sacrifices accepted from Gentiles are total offerings, as opposed to peace offerings. Since Moses spoke also about זבחים i.e. peace-offerings, it is clear that he did not mean to offer these animals on behalf of Pharaoh.

פרסה is the hoof of the foot; in old French plante.

וגם מקננו ילך עמנו, "our cattle also shall go with us, etc." Why did Moses have to add that the Israelites would take along their own cattle seeing that Moses had already said they would even take along livestock donated by Pharaoh? Obviously, Pharaoh's animals would be in addition to their own! We have to assume that Moses was concerned lest Pharaoh misunderstand the words גם אתה as referring to the children. Pharaoh might have understood that Moses had demanded that not only would they take their children but they demanded that Pharaoh give them in addition of his own herds. To avoid such a possible misunderstanding, Moses, as if correcting himself, said "also our cattle will go with us. This is a very forced explanation. Another difficulty in the verse is Moses' having to justify that they would take their cattle because they would use some of it as sacrifices. What new facts did he reveal to Pharaoh with these words? If he wanted to tell Pharaoh that their sacrificial acts would include the slaughtering of sheep (a sacred animal in Egypt) he had already told Pharaoh this when he told him that Pharaoh himself would supply animals for that purpose. Another curious statement by Moses in this verse is his comment "we do not know what we must serve the Lord until we get there." Apparently Moses indicated that he did not know how many animals G'd would require of them and that was also the reason that he expected Pharaoh to contribute to the number of animals. However, if that were the reason, Moses should have spoken not about "what" would be required but about "how much" would be required.

The hoof of the foot. Rashi is answering the question: פרסה implies that Moshe requested only the animals with “split hooves” ( מפרסת פרסה ). Yet this cannot be, for in the beginning of the verse, does it not say, “Our own flocks will also go with us,” implying every animal? Therefore Rashi explains that פרסה means “the hoof of the foot, (plante in Old French).”

V. 26. פרסה, da פרסה auch von dem einhufigen Pferde vorkommt, פרסוח סוסיו, so kann פרסה nicht, etwa von פרס, brechen, schon die gespaltene Klaue bedeuten. Vielmehr scheint es, von der Bedeutung פרס, ausbreiten, decken, die den Huf bildende Horndecke zu bedeuten, in welcher die Klauen der Huftiere stecken, und hieße dann פרסה: Huf. — מה נעבר את ד׳. Es kommt nur noch einmal in dieser Konstruktion vor: Jes. 19, 21 ועבדו זבה ומנחה, und merkwürdigerweise auch von Ägypten. Sollte עבד את auch faktitiv, jemanden, oder etwas dienstbar, zum עבד machen bedeuten, wofür vielleicht ועבדום Bereschit 16, 13 spräche, welches Onkelos ויפלחון בהון übersetzt, dann könnte מה נעבר את ד׳ heißen: was wir Gott dienen lassen, was wir Gott dienstbar machen sollen, das heißt: was wir im Opfer Gott zum Dienste unterordnen sollen, und dann wäre der Ausdruck, gerade an Ägypter und von Ägyptern gebraucht, in hohem Grade bezeichnend. Was sonst Ägypter als Gott verehren und dem sie sich dienend unterordnen, das wird im jüdischen Opfer Gott dienend untergeordnet. Siehe oben Kap. 8, 22.

לא נדע מה נעבד means WE DO NOT KNOW WITH WHAT WE MUST SERVE we do not know how heavy will be the service: perhaps He will ask more than we have in our possession.

The magnitude of the service. [Rashi explains as he does because] it cannot be that they did not know what the service would be. For note that they said, “Our own flocks. . . We must take from them to worship Hashem our God.” Similarly, many times previously they said, “To sacrifice to Hashem.”

Moses may have wanted to rebut one possible argument namely that they did not need to take along all kinds of species, only the ones suitable as sacrifices. This is why Moses said: "we do not know what (species) we will be required to offer as sacrifices." Therefore, Moses said we have to take along even those species which ultimately will not be used as sacrifices. This is also why he added: "not a hoof will remain." This reference included such animals as horses, mules, camels and donkeys as they are all included in the term מקנה. When Moses appeared to imply that the Israelites would even use the last-mentioned species as sacrificial animals we must understand this comment as similar to the Talmud Avodah Zarah 24 interpreting Samuel I 15,15 to mean that when King Saul referred to certain types of animals saved by the people for sacrifices, the proceeds of the sale of certain animals were also included. The expression: "we will take from them to sacrifice" does not have to mean that the actual animals mentioned have to serve as offerings. The words ממנו נקח have to be translated as "from their proceeds we will take, etc."

When Moses added "and we do not know what we shall serve," this means that he did not know what part of the value of the animals would be required in order to meet G'd's requirements and what part of the herds could safely remain behind. The word מה can have two meanings. 1) "how much," 2) "what," in the sense of "what is the nature of, etc." Moses referred to the fact that G'd would reveal what and how much He required. Perhaps G'd would demand that the people build an altar for Him made of gemstones or some other expensive way of displaying respect and admiration for Him. While it is true that Moses had always spoken about the fact that the Jewish people would "slaughter" animals, he had at the same time referred to some other undefined עבודה, service to G'd. After all, during the original revelation at the burning bush (4,23) G'd had told Moses to tell Pharaoh: "let My people (My firstborn son) go in order that they may serve Me (joyfully)!" This was a general statement which provided for more more ways of serving the Lord than merely the offering of sacrificial animals. As a result, Moses explained, they would need to take along everything they possessed in order to meet their obligations vis-a-vis G'd. This was also why Pharaoh would have to contribute of his own property.

Moses added the apparently gratuitous words עד בואנו שםה, "until we arrive there," because he anticipated Pharaoh challenging his competence as a prophet if he did not even know what kind of service his G'd demanded. Pharaoh might say to him: "if you really do not know, why do you not ask your G'd before setting out on a trek into the desert with all those herds?" Moses may also have reasoned that Pharaoh would not believe him in any event, preferring to believe that Moses was trying to trick him. At any rate, this answer of Moses to Pharaoh was obviously one that Moses invented and is not to be regarded as an instruction given to him by G'd. Pharaoh realised that Moses had acted on his own and that was the reason he was so angry at Moses. As long as Moses delivered messages from G'd, Pharaoh could have been angry at G'd but not at Moses, His messenger. As a result of his anger at what he perceived to be Moses' arrogance, Pharaoh forbade Moses to bother him again.

ויחזק ה׳ ..ולא אבה, G'd hardened Pharaoh's heart and he did not want to dismiss, etc. The Torah testifies that on this occasion Pharaoh decided not to let the Israelites go, period. He no longer weighed the pros and cons but decided to hang tough even if this should cost him his life. This is why the Torah attributes this decision to him with the words לא אבה.

V. 27.ויחזק : durch die immer mehr schwindende Finsternis.

Alternatively, he tried to outsmart G'd and Moses by analysing the pattern of the plagues to-date. There had always been two plagues which he was warned about followed by a plague without warning. The last plague, darkness, had not been preceded by a warning. Pharaoh realised that if there were to be another plague, G'd would first warn him. By denying Moses access to the palace he hoped to prevent Moses from issuing the warning which he thought had to precede the next plague. Since Moses was aware that there was only one plague to follow and that G'd would not need to harden the heart of Pharaoh again in order to have an excuse to inflict further plagues upon him, he was able to respond immediately: כן דברת לא אוסיף עוד ראות פניך, "you are quite right; I am not going to see you again, ever." I have already commented on Moses' response in connection with Exodus 7,3 ואני אקשה.

On a more subtle level, Moses may have taught Pharaoh a different lesson when he said כן דברת. Pharaoh had threatened to have Moses killed if he dared to appear before him again. Moses answered him in a sarcastic manner, i.e. "indeed you have spoken." He meant that all Pharaoh was able to do was to issue empty threats; there was no clout behind this paper tiger. He was not able to kill Moses or to have him killed. Moses may also have referred to a previous occasion in Exodus 2,15 when Pharaoh had given orders to execute him but had been unable to have these orders carried out. This could have been because of miraculous intervention by G'd such as suggested by Shemot Rabbah 1,31, according to which an angel had assumed the appearance of Moses and while the angel was arrested Moses had escaped to Midian. It could also have been due to what we are told in Yalkut Shimoni 175 that Moses outwrestled all his captors. At any rate, Moses challenged Pharaoh to make good on his boast. As far as Pharaoh's not wanting to see Moses again, Moses told him that the feeling was mutual, that he would not see him again.

כן דברת signifies RIGHTLY HAST THOU SPOKEN, and in its proper time hast thou spoken; for it is true that I will not see thy face again (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:31; Exodus Rabbah 18:1; cf. also Onkelos).

AND MOSES SAID: THOU HAST SPOKEN WELL; I WILL NOT SEE THY FACE AGAIN ANY MORE. That is, “I will not see you again after I leave you.” After the plague of the firstborn, Moses did not see Pharaoh. The meaning of the verse, And he called for Moses and Aaron,⁷⁰Further, 12:31. is [not that he called them to come to see him, but instead] that he himself went to the entrance of their home and shouted in the darkness, Rise up, get you forth from among my people.⁷⁰Further, 12:31. Perhaps he sent the message to them by Egyptians, of whom it is said, And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people to send them out of the land in haste.⁷¹Ibid., Verse 33.
It is possible that the verse, I will not see thy face again any more, means “in your palace,” namely, “I will not come to you any more.” And so the Rabbis have said in Eileh Shemoth Rabbah:⁷²Shemoth Rabbah 14:4. “You have spoken well in saying, See my face no more.⁷³Verse 28. I will not come to you again; you will come to me.”⁷⁴According to this Midrash then, Moses did see Pharaoh later, but the king came to him. According to the first explanation, however, after he left the palace this time, Moses no longer saw Pharaoh at all.

לא אוסיף עוד לראות פניך, “I shall never see your face again.” If, in apparent contradiction to this statement, the Torah described Pharaoh as calling Moses and Aaron (12,31), on that occasion Moses may have stopped short of entering Pharaoh’s palace, or, what he meant here was that instead of Moses coming to see Pharaoh, as had been the case lately, the next time Pharaoh would have to come to see Moses.

You have spoken properly and you have spoken at the right time. “You have spoken properly” is Rashi’s explanation of: “As you say.” This follows Onkelos’ translation, יאות מלילתא . Therefore Rashi explains why Pharaoh has spoken properly: He has spoken at the right time, since “it is true that I will never see your face again.”

V. 29. Indem Mosche diese Antwort geben konnte, muss ihm notwendiger Weise der Auftrag hinsichtlich der nun sofort das Ende herbeiführenden letzten Plage bereits gegeben worden sein. Dazu führt auch eine Erwägung des Inhalts der beiden folgenden Kapitel, über deren chronologische Aufeinanderfolge Klarheit zu suchen Bedürfnis ist.

“לא אוסיף עוד ראות פניך, will not ever see you again;” Moses meant that if there were to be any additional meeting between them, Pharaoh would seek him out instead of his being the supplicant. This is confirmed by the Torah when we read in 14,13: אשר ראיתם את מצרים, “as when you see Egypt.”

Offenbar ist V. 4 des folgenden Kapitels die Fortsetzung der hier mit V. 29 abgebrochenen Antwort Mosche. Indem er aber in dieser Antwort das Eintreten des Sterbens der Erstgebornen um Mitternacht ankündigt, ist es klar, dass diese Ankündigung nicht früher als nach bereits zurückgelegter Mitternacht vom 13. zum 14. Nissan gesprochen sein kann, da die nächstfolgende die Mitternacht des 14. zum 15. gewesen sein muss. Es ergibt sich daraus ferner, dass die drei Tage der Finsternis die Tage des 11., 12. und 13. Nissan gewesen sind. Nun lehrt uns aber Kap. 12, dass bereits am 1. Nissan Mosche und Aaron und durch sie dem Volke das Sterben der Erstgebornen auf die Nacht vom 14. zum 15. Nissan und in Folge dessen der Auszug verheißen war: dass sie bereits am 10., also noch vor Eintritt der Finsternis, im Angesicht der Ägypter das Lamm zum Opfer des 14. zu nehmen und zu weihen gehabt. Wenn daher das Kap. 12 Erzählte jedenfalls bereits der letzten Berufung Mosches zu Pharao vorangegangen war, so kann auch das Kap. 11, V. 1 —3. Enthaltene bereits dieser Berufung vorangegangen sein und wird hier nur eingeschaltet, um Mosche Antwort an Pharao zu motivieren. Die Worte עוד נגע אחד וגו׳ lassen sie jedoch auf keinen Fall früher als nach Beendigung der Finsternisplage gesprochen sein; der Umstand aber, dass hier das Volk angewiesen wird, sich Geräte von den Ägyptern schenken zu lassen, hierfür aber nur höchstens bis zum Mittage des 14. Zeit gegeben war, lässt annehmen, dass diese Weisung nicht allzuspät nach Beendigung der Finsternis erteilt worden. Nach allem diesem dürften sich die Vorgänge also gruppieren: Am 1. Nissan ward bereits der Monat als Erlösungsmonat bestimmt, das Nehmen des Peßachopfers am 10., sowie dessen Opferung am 14. Nachmittags angeordnet und das Sterben der Erstgeborenen für die Nacht vom 14. zum 15. verkündet. Die Weisung hinsichtlich der Forderung der Geräte war jedoch noch nicht erteilt und ebensowenig der Eintritt des Sterbens auf die Mitternacht präzisiert. Beides geschah erst nach Beendigung der Finsternis. Die Finsternis schwand am 13. abends. Das Dunkel der Nacht begrüßten die Ägypter nach solcher Finsternis als Morgenröte. Da sprach Gott zu Mosche das Kap. 11, V. 1 — 3 Enthaltene hinsichtlich der Forderung der Geräte, sowie die Präzisierung des Sterbens auf die Mitternacht. Dies letztere ist in den V. 1 — 3 nicht enthalten, wie gewöhnlich, weil wir dies sofort aus dem Verfolg der Antwort an Pharao erfahren. Noch in der Nacht gab Mosche diese Weisung und diese präzisierte Verkündung dem Volke, und wurde nach Mitternacht zu Pharao gerufen. Als Mosche daher zu Pharao kam, war er schon völlig von Gott instruiert. Darnach erläutert sich auch ein Satz (Berachoth 14 a.), der sonst auffallend wäre. Es wird dort der Ausdruck כחצות הלילה אני יוצא וגו׳ V. 4 besprochen, der, wenn das כ nicht eine Konjunktion der Vergleichung sein kann, eine in dem Munde eines Gottesboten unziemliche Unbestimmtheit enthalten würde. Nach ר׳ זירא habe Mosche sich dieser Unbestimmtheit des Ausdrucks bedient, damit, wenn etwa die Hofastronomen beim Eintritt des Sterbens sich in der genauen Zeitbestimmung irren sollten, sie seine Ankündigung nicht sofort als unwahr verwerfen möchten. רב אשי aber sagt: בפלגא אורתא דתליסר נגהי ארבסר הוה קאי והכי קאמר משה לישראל אמר הקב׳׳ה למחר כחצות הלילה כי האידנא אני יוצא בתוך מצרים, d.i. ,"gerade in der Mitternacht des 13. zum 14. habe Mosche diese Worte zu Israel gesprochen: so hat Gott gesprochen: Morgen, in demselben Mitternachtsmoment wie jetzt, trete ich hinaus in Mizrajim". Auffallend wäre da das Wort לישראל, da ja offenbar diese Worte dort an Pharao gerichtet waren. Allein wie wir gezeigt, hatte Mosche diese Worte bereits, bevor er zu Pharao gerufen war, an Israel ausgerichtet und seine Antwort an Pharao lautete im Zusammenhange also: Du hast recht gesprochen, ich werde nicht mehr vor dein Angesicht kommen. Denn so hat bereits Gott gesprochen: Wenn wieder wie jetzt die Nacht sich teilt, trete ich hinaus in Mizrajim und es stirbt jeder Erstgeborene usw. Dass aber R. Aschi diese Worte lieber als eine Wiederholung der an Israel ausgerichteten Verkündigung als in der Weise zu Pharao gesprochen lassen sein möchte, Mosche habe gerade um Mitternacht vor Pharao gestanden und habe gesagt, morgen zum selbigen mitternächtlichen Augenblicke usw., dürfte darin wohl seine ganz entsprechende Motivierung finden, dass in dem Augenblick, nach welchem soeben erst eine dreitägige, alle Tagesunterschiede aufhebende Finsternis in der Nacht geschwunden war, die Ägypter schwerlich bereits genau gewusst, in welcher Zeit des Tages oder Nacht sie sich befunden. Im Jalkut ist allerdings die Lesart: והכי קאמר להו משה und nicht לישראל, und demgemäß hatte Mosche gerade um Mitternacht vor Pharao gestanden und ihm das Eintreten des Sterbens bei der nächsten Wiederkehr der Mitternacht angekündigt. — Dass aber die erste Hälfte des Kap. 12, sowie die ersten drei Verse des Kap. 11 außer der chronologischen Ordnung des Vorganges stehen, ist durch die Aufgabe der Erzählung selbst motiviert. Es soll erst der ganze Verlauf der Plagen mit ihrem Erfolge bei Pharao erzählt und dann mit dem 12. Kap. zu Israel und deren Vorbereitung zum Auszuge übergegangen werden. Das 12. Kap. hat daher notwendig zurückzugreifen. Das V. 1 —3 des 11. Kap. Erzählte fällt aber fast gleichzeitig mit Mosches Berufung zu Pharao zusammen, ging ihr unmittelbar vorher und wird in die Mitte der Antwort eingeschaltet, um diese zu rechtfertigen.