출애굽기 9:32의 인용 해설

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.

אפילו אמר חטה ושעורה וכוסמת – for Rabbi Meir held that a person who makes a claim [in court] of wheat from his fellow, a species of wheat is mentioned, and similarly barley, and similarly spelt, as it is written (Exodus 9:32): “but the wheat and the emmer (a kind of wheat) [were not hurt, for they ripen late].” For it is as if they made the claim of wheat and barley and spelt. But the Rabbis held that one grain/berry of wheat and of barley and of barley is mentioned. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

4. צָרָ֑ה “Trouble” - There was a burning fire within the hail so that the hail smashed trees and the fire burned them and dried them out. This is what the sages explained, “but the wheat and the emmer were not hurt, for they ripen late.” (Ex. 9:32) God caused wondrous things to them. But the real wonder was that the fire was within the hail, mixed together. Normally the trees would have damaged the wheat and the emmer but God caused this miracle (that it remained undamaged) This is explained by the author of Toldot Yitzchak.

והפשתה והשערה נכתה AND THE FLAX AND THE BARLEY נכתה — i. e. were broken; it has the same meaning as in, (2 Kings 23:29) “Pharaoh-Necho (נכה)”, which denotes Pharaoh the lame i. e. broken in so far as the power of his legs is concerned (cf. II Samuel 9:3); (Isaiah 16:7) “brocken (נכאים)”, and so too לא נכו (v. 32), “they were not broken”. It would not be correct to explain that it is connected in meaning with the word that signifies “smiting”, הכאה, for a נ cannot take the place of a ה that one may explain נֻכָּתָה as being equivalent to הֻכָּתָה, and נֻכּוּ to הֻכּוּ, but the נ is a root-letter in the verb, and the word נֻכּוּ is of the same grammatical form as the verb in, (Job. 33:21) “and all his bones are laid bare” שֻׁפּוּ (i. e. Pual of כי השערה אביב