ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף שמות 7:3

Bereshit Rabbah 29 states that Rabbi Shimon said, "G-d made three finds in this world. One is Abraham, ‘You have found his heart true before You’ (Nechemyah 9,8). The second one is David, ‘I have found My servant David.’ (Psalms 89,21). The third one is Israel, ‘Like grapes in the desert, I have found Israel’ (Hoseah 9,10).” Rabbi Shimon was questioned by his colleagues who asked, “Does not the Torah also mention Noach as having been a find of G-d, seeing it says "Noach found favor in the eyes of G-d?" (Genesis 6,8). Rabbi Shimon answered "Noach found, G-d did not find." Upon examination, you will find that the three finds represented three profound principles. Abraham primarily expounded the existence of G-d. David propounded the truth of the reward and punishment principle, composing many hymns on the subject. Israel propounded the Power of G-d, be it in Egypt or many subsequent historic events involving Israel. When the prophet describes the finding of Israel as like the finding of grapes in the desert, he draws attention to the unexpected nature of the find. The emergence of Israel was almost as if it had already been despaired of ever coming about. When it did finally happen, it was unexpected. Not so David, who emerged as the result of a diligent search for just such a person (Samuel I chapter 13). Abraham, on the other hand, was like the result one obtains after refining an orebody waiting for the precious metal to distil and crystallize in the crucible. The objection of Rabbi Shimon's colleagues was, "Did not Noach also demonstrate the Power and glory of G-d through the deluge and his being saved?" The answer was that this had not been G-d’s purpose when He saved Noach; in fact, there had been no one left to prove G-d’s Power to who had not already been aware of it though personal experience. When Israel appeared on the stage of history, however, G-d proclaims that He will demonstrate His Power by punishing Egypt for its treatment of Israel (Exodus chapters 7,9,10 and 14). All these quotes prove that Israel could have been saved by many other means, but that it served as a tool for G-d to demonstrate His Power through them. Since Abraham had become the founding father of this nation, it is only proper that he should be no less vis a vis Israel than Noach had been vis a vis the human race. Since G-d had made a covenant with Noach, promising to keep the human race going forever, G-d had to make a covenant with Abraham, promising to keep Israel going forever, and for Abraham to maintain his distinctive lifestyle and to transmit it to his descendants. G-d has granted man three faculties with which to achieve the level of perfection he is capable of achieving. 1) Willingness to listen to and absorb words of wisdom by those who teach him. 2) A basic intelligence characterized by his ability to communicate his thoughts by speech. 3) The ability to reason speculatively and to arrive at ideas not presented to him by outsiders in a finalized form. Unless man possesses all these three faculties, he cannot attain his purpose. When he does possess them, he is well equipped to advance towards his perfect state. Since man is inclined towards evil from his early youth, "for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth on" (Genesis 8,21), and this is an impediment to his achieving his goal, G-d in His great kindness equipped Abraham/Israel with a tool to counteract this impediment by legislating circumcision of the male on the eighth day of his life. Vayikra Rabbah 25 writes, “It says ‘at eight days old.’ Where does he have to be circumcised? If at the ear, he does not hear properly yet; if at the mouth, he does not speak yet; if at the heart, he cannot think yet. So where shall he be circiumcised? Clearly it must be from part of his body. Rabbi Tanchum remarked that since there is no foreskin which is exclusive to the female of the species, the foreskin referred to must be that of the male organ.” When viewed objectively, these questions posed in the Midrash can hardly be taken at face value, since all the other areas mentioned could have been subjected to a surgical procedure. However, since a surgical procedure of the mouth for instance, would also affect the ear's ability to hear and the heart's ability to understand, the effect of such surgery would have been self-defeating. The three organs are needed to be fully operative to help man achieve his goals. Moreover, unless the organ circumcised does itself benefit through that procedure, how can it hope to improve the function of the remaining organs? This is the reason that the Midrash which describes Abraham as a High Priest, could not conceive of the same person becoming a baal mum, physically defective. Such a defect would nullify his priestly status. All of this is true despite the fact that we have scriptural proof for also the other above mentioned organs being described as arel, uncircumcised. Since the male organ is also described as "the body's summit," the point at which all the body's forces coalesce, whoever touches that area is as if he had touched the whole body, the whole person. Whoever reduces its power is as if he had weakened the whole body. We observe that surgery in the face results in a loss of hairgrowth; frequently one's voice is affected also. Similarly, surgery on the male organ leaves its mark on the whole person. When the Talmud (Baba Batra 16) states, "Woe to the person whose children are female," the meaning is that it is shameful to have children who allow the physical to dominate them like women. Surgery on the male organ then inhibits the owner from being too preoccupied with his body, makes it easier for him to concentrate on the development of mind and soul. It is clear then why this mitzvah had to be given to Abraham prior to Isaac having been conceived.

The Ramban's approach that, having refused to repent during the first five plagues, Pharaoh was no longer entitled to repentance, is also not considered satisfactory, even though it is based on Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in Shemot Rabbah 17. The proof for that view, namely the changes in grammar describing Pharaoh's obstinacy during the first five plagues as being self-induced, and that during subsequent plagues as being induced by G-d, (distinctions such as vayechezak versus vayachazek- 7,15, 9,12) would force us to believe that Moses was told in advance that at some stage Pharaoh would no longer be a free agent, that because he only mouthed thoughts of repentance without meaning them, G-d would force him to act in accordance with his true feelings. This is also what Rashi meant in his commentary on Exodus 7,3. The problem with this approach is that if G-d knows that the sinner does not plan to repent, why interfere with his decisions? His actions would automatically expose him to further punitive action by G-d. Surely it would be viewed as a greater success for G-d if His creatures are forced by circumstances to comply with His wishes! If this is indeed what happened after the tenth plague, what reason do we have to assume that Pharaoh's last pronouncement was any more sincere than his earlier ones? In fact, G-d would have delayed the deliverance of the Israelites by having interfered with Pharaoh's free will! For this and other reasons, the author prefers an approach supported by many Midrashim which state clearly that there had been no interference with Pharaoh's free will. Any person guilty of a variety of crimes, deserves a number of penalties to square the account. Even a single act can be a multiple offense, punishable by several penalties, such as the consumption of a hornet (Makkot 16). Pharaoh, having committed a variety of crimes against the Jewish people, had to endure a string of chastisements. Intervals between administering these various punishments were needed, so that he did not escape the impact by being unconscious at the time some of the punishments were inflicted. When each stage of the punishment is not as severe as it could be, namely resulting in probable death, the victim is far less likely to really repent. The major incentive for repentance is fear and terror. When this incentive is absent, the psychological climate for remorse has not been created. When the Torah in Deut 13,12 says, "All of Israel shall listen and be afraid, and will not continue to do such in your midst," the objective is twofold: a) destruction of evil by destroying the perpetrator; b) to frighten the population out of imitating the wrongdoer. Were the wrongdoer to be welcomed as a repentant sinner, all the onlookers would lose all their restraint and proceed to sin and expect to escape the consequences. This is the reason Moses’ss and Aaron's repentance did not help when they had publicly desecrated G-d’s name by striking the rock instead of talking to it (Numbers 20,12). Our sages (Yuma 86) tell us that when a sin includes chilul hashem, public desecration of the holy name of G-d, all the conventional ways of repentance do not help without the addition of the sinner's death. Only in this manner can atonement become complete. In Pharaoh's case, a period of respite between the plagues was mandatory, as otherwise he would not have received all the chastisements due him. The crimes of maltreating a people whose founder had been the savior of Egypt and whose only crime against Egypt had been their high birthrate, is unforgivable. The progressively harsher measures enacted against this people called for strong punitive action by G-d. The "great judgments" of which G-d speaks to Moses at the burning bush are these acts of multiple retribution. The Egyptians had been aware that the Jewish people were loyal to their G-d. Their whole behavior then was a rebellion against G-d, and as such it was not likely to lead to repentance. Since it was G-d’s stated purpose to convince the Egyptians that He was (1) a deity, (2) a power controlling the earth, and (3) a deity the like of which did not exist on the whole earth, the torture visited upon Egypt had to be staggered in such a way as to allow the Egyptians to recover from blow after blow and to absorb their lesson in the end. All the references made in the Torah to G-d hardening the heart of Pharaoh etc. have to be understood as the recovery Pharaoh was allowed to make between the plagues, so he could be made to feel the full impact of the next instalment. The Talmud in Makkot 10 produces proof from all parts of the Bible that the path in life a person wishes to take he is allowed to travel, i.e. freedom of choice is absolute. An example is the prophet Bileam who was first told by G-d not to accompany the messengers of Balak, but who, once it had become clear that he had made up his mind to go with them, was permitted to proceed (Numbers 22,12-20). The reference of Avshalom preferring the advice of Chushai, (Samuel II 17,14) is another such example. The classic example would be the deliberate turnabout by the Jewish people in the desert when facing Baal Tzefon (Exodus 14,1-3). All these examples illustrate that G-d does indeed provide opportunities for sinners to err, to draw false conclusions which will enmesh them in further difficulties. At the sea of reeds also the Egyptians chose to interpret that a twelve hour wind that had dried out the bed of the sea was a natural phenomenon and that the bottom of the sea was as safe for them as it had proved to be for the Israelites. It was in this indirect manner that G-d encouraged the Egyptians to fall into the trap He had set for them.

The answer to question number one is the fact that Sichon would interpret Moses' offer as a sign of weakness, not as a desire to avoid blodshed. By allowing Moses leeway, G'd succeeded in having Sichon adopt a more arrogant posture. This is why he deserved to be punished. Having observed that Israel had preferred not to fight Edom or Moav, Sichon felt sure he could get away with his refusal. Og, on the other hand, was so sure of himself that he did not have to be provoked into assuming a hostile posture. For that reason, Moses needed to be reassured so that he would not worry about Og's self assurance or about his many prior military successes.