SHEMOT 10:1 - 13:16
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.
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.
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.
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?
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."
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
ויאמר ה׳ ..עוד נגע אחד, G'd said to Moses: "one more plague, etc." This chapter tells us about matters G'd had already mentioned to Moses earlier while Moses was still in Midian. At that time (3,19) G'd had informed Moses that Pharaoh would not let the Israelites depart even after He applied a strong hand against him. In 4,22-23 G'd had already warned Pharaoh of the consequences of not letting the Israelites depart. You will observe that the end of the cycle of nine plagues left Pharaoh exactly as obstinate as he had been at the beginning. He had started out by not even considering the demands of G'd, and though he appeared to have softened his stance, making progressively greater concessions, he was now back to square one having ruled out the departure of any of the Israelites. In 7,4 G'd had told Moses that the sign that the plague of the killing of the firstborn was about to occur would be Pharaoh's refusal to listen. As soon as Moses heard that he was not to appear again at court he knew that the time had come for the last plague after which the Exodus would begin. Moses knew that this plague would be the most severe because G'd asked him to instruct the people to "borrow" as many silver and golden trinkets as they could. The word עוד then does not mean an additional plague as much as it means "the plague I have already spoken to you about once before, I am mentioning again." This explains why Moses did not wait after verse four until G'd described the plague to him, though G'd had done so every other time when Moses was told to warn Pharaoh. Moses proceeded to inform Pharaoh on the spot. Whereas it is true that we do not find that G'd had previously told Moses that the plague of the killing of the firstborn would occur at midnight, we may assume that G'd had told Moses that detail also at that time, but that the Torah did not record it there as it had not yet become relevant. This is why it is not difficult to understand that G'd repeated here what He had told Moses originally, i.e. that the Jews would take with them the silver and gold trinkets borrowed from the Egyptians as well as their garments and that they would "empty" Egypt (Exodus 3,22).
כחצות הלילה, "at around midnight, etc." The Talmud Berachot 4 already discusses that the reason that Moses did not give the precise time but only an approximation was so that in the event the Egyptian astronomers were inaccurate in their calculations they should not be able to accuse Moses of having lied. Possibly the reason is related to what Bereshit Rabbah 43,3 has to say about Genesis 14,15 where Abraham is described as defeating the four kings. That event occurred on the night of the 15th of Nissan. In that case the letter כ before the word חצות does not describe an approximation but refers to a previous event which took place on that date at that time. Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 42 tell us that the night in which Abraham defeated the four mightiest kings of the world (Genesis 14,15) caused many people to re-evaluate the beliefs they had held up to that time. The Torah therefore mentioned the time when this miracle had occurred. In our paragraph too, the people who survived this event must have done some serious soul-searching as to the validity of their religious beliefs. The letter כ then refers to such re-evaluations as a result of what would occur at midnight.
אני יוצא. "I will go out, etc." G'd stressed the "I" as if to say that although He has many agents who could perform this task at His behest, He would do so personally and would descend right into the midst of Egypt. G'd had two reasons for doing this personally. 1) As an expression of His fondness for His people whom He wanted to liberate personally. 2) Angels are not capable of distinguishing which human being was formed from the first drop of semen of his father so that he deserved the description בכור, firstborn. Even if such a fetus would emerge as the second or third of a multiple birth it would still deserve to be considered the firstborn. No one but G'd Himself is able to make these distinctions.
ומת כל בכור, and every firstborn will die, etc. G'd did not say: "I will kill him." The reason, as we have pointed out on previous occasions is, that evil does not originate with G'd. He is the Creator of all that is good. Anything in the nature of evil is initiated by one of the agents He has designated. G'd Himself indicated who was the firstborn, His agents carried out the death sentence. This is why the mention of "destroyers" at the time the Israelites put the blood on their door-posts and the fact that G'd Himself orchestrated the plague are not contradictory.
There may also be another meaning, similar to what we are told in Shabbat 34 where Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai put his eye on a sinner and that sinner died as a result. At first glance, how are we to understand that a pious person of the calibre of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai would summarily "execute" someone by giving him "the eye?" The same Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai had castigated people of the evil eye as possessing a very negative virtue (Zohar 3, page 211). Actually, the exact wording in the Talmud was יהבי עיניה, "he looked at him with his eye" (singular). We would have expected the Talmud to say that "he looked at him with his eyes (pl)." We have to remember that inasmuch as "evil" and "death" are synonymous how is it that evil exists at all? This is because there are no absolutes; just as the attribute of Mercy contains a small part of the attribute of Justice, so every good virtue contains a small element of evil, and vice versa. In the case of evil, death occurs when that small part of "good" or "life" which kept it alive is withdrawn. Keeping this in mind, we can understand the peculiar statement in Sukkah 52 according to which G'd will slaughter the evil urge at an appropriate time in the future in the presence of the righteous. How are to understand this? How can one slaughter an angel (disembodied spirit)? Considering what we have just said we can understand the statement in the Talmud very easily. G'd will remove the part of the evil urge which makes it a viable i.e. active force.
We also need to appreciate the natural tendency of identical or basically similar virtues to coalesce with each other. The good attracts the good, the evil tends to attract more evil to itself. This is the secret of how the souls of the Israelites which had their origin in the positive emanations could "draw" to themselves the "lost" souls which we described as being particularly prevalent in Egypt. [The author has repeatedly described these souls as having been captured by the negative side of the emanations as a result of Adam eating from the tree of knowledge (compare his comments on Genesis 49,9). Ed.] G'd had given outstanding Torah scholars the ability to attract to themselves the "good" part of any sinner. When Rabbi Shimon looked at the sinner in question he extracted the good part of that sinner, thus leaving no viable element within that person. As a result the sinner died. When G'd passed through Egypt on that night, He extracted the good that was within any of these firstborn; as a result such a firstborn simply dropped dead. It was as if Rabbi Shimon had put his eye on such an individual.
The meaning of ומת כל בכור is not simply that the soul of that person would die leaving the body as it had been, but the element which had made that person different from others because he was a firstborn would die with him. In other words there would never again be Egyptians (or even other Gentiles) whose characteristics would include elements of what had been known as the "firstborn" of the people beholden to the powers of the קליפה, the forces of negative virtues. Perhaps this is why no exile ever again assumed the dimensions of the exile in Egypt. G'd had weakened the powers of the קליפה permanently.
I have tried to find a reason why the dying of the firstborn was a necessary prerequisite for the Exodus, as well as why even non-Egyptian firstborn (compare 12,29) had to die if they happened to be in Egypt on that fateful night. The reason is connected to G'd having described Israel as "My firstborn son" (4,22). We have a tradition (Zohar 2, page 263) that whenever G'd created some phenomenon which is clearly recognisable as something good, He also created its counterpart, i.e. something potentially evil at the same time. Every sacred phenomenon in our world is matched by a parallel phenomenon under the control of Satan, or what is known in Kabbalistic parlance "the forces of the קליפה." The latter make every effort to gain dominance over the former. We must therefore understand the forces of the קליפה which represented their firstborn as exerting every effort to frustrate the emigration of the Jewish people from Egypt. These efforts did not cease until G'd had "killed" the firstborn of the powers of the קליפה which opposed His will. What G'd had to do was to eliminate the concept of the firstborn being special, otherwise the relief as a result of the death of the Egyptian firstborn would have been only temporary. When the Torah (12,29) stresses that: "the firstborn of the captive, the firstborn of the maidservant and the firstborn of the animals died," this is in contrast to the firstborn of the Israelites who were subsequently sanctified (Numbers 8,17). The reason this sanctification of the Jewish firstborn became necessary is that G'd had done away with the concept of the firstborn being somebody special at the time He eliminated the firstborn on the night of the 15th of Nissan. Had this not been the case we would not understand why the firstborn of the animals had to die also. In Numbers 8,17 G'd declared that henceforth the firstborn of the Jews would be sacred to Him, i.e. there should no longer be a firstborn associated with the powers of the קליפה. If we find that the Egyptians still engaged in hot pursuit of the Israelites even after the death of the firstborn, this was because they had not yet realised that their former power had vanished. As a result, not a single one of them survived the debacle at the Sea of Reeds.
ולכל בני ישראל לא יחרץ כלב לשונו, "not a single dog will whet his tongue against any Israelite, etc." Why was this so important? If the meaning of the line is that not a single Israelite would die as a result of a bite by a dog, why did the Torah not spell this out?
Perhaps we should understand this as an allusion to a well known proverb quoted in Baba Kama 60 that when one hears the dogs bark it is a sign that the angel of death is in town. The Torah wanted to tell us that the angel of death did not cause the death of a single Israelite during that night. The Torah added the detail about the dogs not whetting their tongue against Israel as evidence that they did not even attack a Jew. The reason was "so that you shall know that G'd will make a miraculous distinction between Egypt and between Israel."
The word ולכל may also mean that only where the Jews congregated did the dogs not whet their tongues against them because this would prove that no stranger was amongst them. Wherever Jews and Egyptians would mingle the dogs would most certainly bark as proof that the משחית, the angel of death, was active in that environment. What the Torah revealed then is that no trick would save the Egyptian firstborn. If they decided to hide amongst the Israelites the barking of the dogs would reveal their presence (compare Shemot Rabbah 18,2).
וירדו כל עבדיך, "and all your servants will come down, etc." This was a promise by G'd that the servants referred to would all survive this plague. Perhaps this was because none of them were firstborns and Moses knew this through his prophetic vision. Alternatively, even though some of these servants may have been firstborns, Moses exempted them from the effects of this plague. This was not because of their righteousness but so that they would get their deserts for having been present and silent when Pharaoh used abusive language against Moses and Aaron. The principle of the punishment fitting the crime demanded that these servants would themselves be demeaned when they would beg Moses and Aaron to leave the land in order that not all the Egyptians would die. They would have to ask public forgiveness for their previous conduct. We know that Moses had felt insulted by their behaviour since the Torah told us at the end of this verse that Moses left the palace in a very angry frame of mind. Actually, Moses included Pharaoh himself in his warning that all his servants would get up at night, etc.; he only maintained a degree of respect for Royalty and that is why he did not refer to Pharaoh by name.
והשתחוו לי לאמור, "they will bow down to me saying, etc." The reason that Moses said לאמור instead of ויאמרו לי, was that he implied that the mere fact they would prostrate themselves would convey their intent to beg Moses to leave the country with his people. Inasmuch as Moses was superior to them why would he need their permission to leave altogether?
In addition the Torah tells us that the servants treated Moses like a king. Just as it is not customary for a citizen to approach the king and begin to speak without having received permission, Pharaoh's servants prostrated themselves as a sign that they asked for permission to speak. The Torah makes this plain by quoting Moses as saying: "they will bow down to me to say, etc;" the bowing was a form of asking permission to speak. While it is true that the Torah does not report these details as having occurred when the events of that night are described in chapter twelve, the fact that the Torah does report that Pharaoh himself arose during that night is sufficient proof that whatever Moses had predicted did in fact occur.
ויאמר ה׳ אל משה לא ישמע אליכם פרעה, G'd said: "Pharaoh will not listen to you, etc." Perhaps G'd answered a privately held belief by Moses that after Pharaoh would experience this dreadful plague he would not only free the Israelites but not pursue them even when he became aware that they had no intention of returning. This would also explain the use of the future tense by G'd. The reason that Pharaoh would remain obstinate was to give G'd an opportunity to perform still more miracles in the land of Egypt. Compare Mechilta 14 which explains why the word ארץ was needed and it was not enough to speak about מצרים.
G'd may also have told Moses that Pharaoh had not yet understood the impact of Moses' prediction, namely, that as of the moment that he and his servants would urge Israel to leave they would be subject to Moses' authority and not to his. G'd did not want him to understand this yet so as to bring more plagues upon Egypt.
ומשה ואהרון עשו…ויחזק ה׳ את לב פרעה, Moses and Aaron performed all these miracles in Pharaoh's presence….but G'd hardened the heart of Pharaoh, etc. This verse tells us that in spite of all the miracles Moses had performed, Pharaoh was still not willing to let the Israelites leave, not even conditionally, such as had been proposed in 5,3.
החודש הזה לכם ראש חדשים, "This month shall be for you the beginning of the months." Why did the Torah repeat ראש חדשים and ראשון הוא? I believe the meaning of ראש is that the month of Nissan will be particularly important, the choicest of the months. We find the word ראש used in this sense in Exodus 30,23 when the most important of the spices in the making of oil for anointing is discussed.
The Torah stressed the word לכם, for you, to tell us that this month would be special only for the Jewish people. Our sages pointed out in Rosh Hashanah 11 that Israel was redeemed from Egypt in Nissan and that the future redemption would again occur in that month. This is so because this month is a harbinger of good tidings for Israel. It is appropriate that Israel should begin the count of the months of the year by making Nissan the first month.
Another reason that the Torah writes החודש הזה instead of writing חודש זה, is to allude to something or someone we are already familiar with. The reference to this known entity is G'd who is described in 15,2 as זה קלי, "this (One) is my G'd." The Torah alludes to the promise that it is this G'd who will orchestrate the redemption.
An additional meaning derived from the wording of this line is that Israel will be a ראש, head, as a result of what happened in this month. The numerical value of the word זה is 12, i.e. Nissan will be the first and most distinguished of these twelve months.
דברו אל כל עדת ישראל לאמור, "speak to the whole community of Israel to say, etc." Why did G'd have to use the instruction דברו and could not make do with the method of communicating with the Israelites i.e. לאמור? In fact why did G'd not omit the word לאמור altogether and simply said: דברו? Moses' address could then have included both the information about the new moon as well as the details of preparing for the Passover. The word לאמור is altogether hard to comprehend since it is not clear to whom the Israelites were to communicate this new law about the Passover lamb.
Perhaps the reason two expressions had to be used is quite simple. The law of the Passover comprised two aspects, 1) that Israel would be uplifted by showing their enemies how they themselves exacted retribution from their deities by slaughtering the sheep (compare Shemot Rabbah 16,3), and 2) performance of the command was accompanied by the threat that anyone failing to carry out this command would face death. The word לאמור is therefore appropriate for the first of the two aspects of this commandment, whereas the word דברו is appropriate for the instructions containing a warning about possible non-compliance. Another, secondary meaning of the word לאמור maybe that G'd instructed Moses and Aaron to exercise their authority gently.
Moses was also to communicate first with the elders as we find that he did in 12,21 where he is reported as having called in all the elders of Israel. The instruction דברו was intended to the elders, whereas the word לאמור teaches that he was also to communicate the details of the law to the entire nation.
ויקחו להם איש שה, "that they should each take a lamb for themselves, etc." The conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of this legislation is strange. Perhaps we have an allusion here to what Moses said to the Israelites later in verse 21 when he communicated the instructions received here. According to Shemot Rabbah 16,2 the word משכו contained a command to the Israelites to refrain henceforth from any idolatrous activity. This instruction did not emanate from G'd but was something Moses told the people on his own. On the other hand, seeing the way Moses told the people one gains the impression that G'd had communicated this to him as a prophetic insight. Perhaps the letter ו here at the beginning of the paragraph is proof that what Moses said in verse 21 and onwards was also part of the instructions he had received from G'd earlier. Precisely what did Moses mean with the word משכו?
Seeing that Moses told the people to purchase the lamb on the tenth of the month people would think that those who bought it on that date could slaughter it whereas those who had failed to purchase it or set it aside on the tenth could not buy it on the 11th the 12th or the 13th, therefore Moses added the words "and they may purchase it" to indicate that even if they bought the lamb after the tenth of the month it would still qualify as a sacrifice. All this we derive from the word ויקחו which is preceded by the conjunctive letter ו. The Mechilta on our verse arrives at the ruling about purchasing the lamb on the 11th, 12th, or 13th of the month by a process called a fortiori, simple logic. If something can be deduced by that method and in addition we find an allusion in the text this reinforces our opinion.
Inasmuch as both the words להם and איש in our verse seem superfluous at first glance seeing that all the Torah had to write was ויקחו שה לבית, we are entitled to derive additional meanings from these words. In a similar situation where the letter ו at the beginning of the word ויקחו seems strange, (Exodus 25,2) Tanchuma understands the letter as including G'd Himself. Here is what Tanchuma has to say there: "G'd said to them: 'take Me with you."' [This would suggest that the gifts the Israelites donated for the Tabernacle would ensure that G'd's presence would dwell amongst them. I have not found this text in my edition of the Tanchuma. Ed.] In our situation, considering that these were the first commandments addressed to the Jews as a people, G'd may also have suggested that performance of these commandments would ensure His Presence amongst the Israelites and that even the Gentiles would become aware of this as pointed out in Deut. 28,10. Sotah 42 claims that on occasion the word איש refers to the Almighty, such as in Samuel I 17,8 where Goliath blasphemes, provoking G'd to battle against him. Here too the word איש may be an allusion to G'd whom Moses called איש מלחמה in Exodus 15,3. The Tikkuney Zohar section 29 demonstrate that the word מצוה contains half of the Ineffable Name at the end, and the other half at the beginning if one applies the method known as aleph tav, bet shin when reading the alphabet. [The letter צ would correspond to the letter ה, whereas the letter מ would correspond to the letter י. Ed.] According to this the Torah hints that by means of this מצוה the Jewish people would make a great acquisition (לקיחה) i.e. they would establish a claim on G'd.
I have been puzzled why G'd did not specifically exclude the people who were either Gentiles, uncircumcised, or had contracted impurity through contact with the dead from offering and eating the Passover lamb, just as He legislated for the future observance of the Passover holiday (12,43-46 as well as Numbers chapter 9). Whereas we have pointed out in our commentary on Numbers 19,2 that there was a good reason for not permitting the ritually impure to participate in that commandment in subsequent years, there remains the question why the proselytes and the uncircumcised were not excluded from participating in the original passover lamb in Egypt? According to our sages as interpreted by Shemot Rabbah 19,6 based on Ezekiel 16,6 the blood mentioned there was the combined blood of circumcision and the blood of the paschal lamb the Israelites offered prior to the Exodus and which G'd "kissed" in appreciation of the readiness for martyrdom the Israelites demonstrated on that occasion. Our sages also interpret on Exodus 12,21 that the word משכו implies that the Israelites first had to divest themselves of any remnants of idolatrous conduct. This would include circumcision. They would have to become full-fledged members of the Jewish people before they qualified for participation in this great מצוה. These are all very fine exegetical points, but they do not address our question why G'd had not spelled out these conditions explicitly, seeing that our chapter contains so many details about this מצוה.
At the end of our paragraph, (verse 43) after Moses has dealt with the preparations for the Exodus, the Torah legislates the way Passover is to be observed in the future, as a reminder of the Exodus. We find there that a בן נכר and an עבד כעני, a Gentile or a slave whose body is owned by a Jew must not participate in the Passover. Ibn Ezra writes that the whole paragraph starting with verse 43 refers to observance of the Passover by future generations. This was why G'd used that opportunity to add other details which did not apply to the observance of the original Passover in Egypt whereas other details such as the blood which had to sprinkled on the doorposts did not need to be repeated as they would not apply in the future. If he meant that the law about the בן נכר and ערל were new additions, to be observed by future generations only, Ibn Ezra would be in direct contradiction to the traditional views we have cited. Besides, how does he deal with 12,50 where the Torah reports the Israelites as having observed the Passover in accordance with the instructions Moses and Aaron had received from G'd? Surely the Torah would not have written: "the Israelites carried out, etc." if the previous paragraph had dealt only with the observance of the Passover in the future! Ibn Ezra's comment that verse 50 speaks of the observance of the Passover while the Israelites were in the desert seems devoid of any basis in fact. It is unlikely that anyone will take these comments of Ibn Ezra seriously.
I have found the following comment in the Mechilta on 12,43: "Scripture deals here with both the Passover of Egypt and the Passover of subsequent generations, these are the words of Rabbi Yoshiah. Rabbi Yonathan says that the passage deals with the Passover in Egypt. Whence do I know what rules apply to subsequent Passovers? Scripture says: "in accordance with all its statutes and all its social laws you shall perform it" (Numbers 9,3). According to the foregoing all the Tannaim of the period agreed that the paragraph in question speaks about observance of the Passover in Egypt, thus Ibn Ezra's words are to be disregarded completely.
It is therefore possible that when the Torah wrote ויקחו with the extra letter ו, it referred to additional commandments over and above that of circumcision and the need to remove all vestiges of idol worship. The commandment referred to would be the restrictions on the בן נכר and the ערל, the uncircumcised Israelite as outlined in the paragraph commencing with verse 43.
ואם ימעט הבית, If the household be too small, etc. This verse can be explained satisfactorily both according to the view of Rabbi Yossi and the view of Rabbi Yehudah who have conflicting views reported in Pessachim 99 in a situation where the two lambs of two different families have become mixed up and the members of the respective families are not sure to which animal they belong. According to Rabbi Yehudah it is sufficient if one member of each family partakes of both animals in order to fulfil the condition laid down in our verse, i.e. if the number of people originally designated to eat from one lamb had somehow shrunk. Rabbi Yehudah considers the operative part of the verse אם ימעט הבית מהיות משה as the diminutive word ימעט, reduced number, but not total absence. Rabbi Yossi holds that as long as either one of the two animals is not temporarily without anyone committed to eat from it, neither one is disqualified. Rabbi Yossi pays especial attention to the words מהיות משה, i.e. to leave that lamb as temporarily not belonging to anyone.
The verse may also tell us that the lamb must be big enough to provide a minimum of an olive size's amount of meat for every member of that household.
The verse may also be understood as a blessing. If someone has a large family and the family cannot afford much, the lamb will nevertheless provide an adequate amount of meat for every member thereof because consumption of the meat is for the sake of fulfilling G'd's commandment.
לפי אכלו תכסו על השה, "according to every man's eating you shall make your count for the lamb." According to Pessachim 88 this means that a father may slaughter the Passover lamb on behalf of his wife and his children who are minors without having to consult them first. Pessachim 87 also teaches that a married woman who was still in the habit of frequenting her father's home, and who finds that both her husband and her father have included her as potential participants in their respective Passover offerings, has the choice to decide to which household she wishes to belong for the purpose of consuming the Passover. This is based on the words לפי אכלו meaning "according to where she is in the habit of taking her meals."
Another rule we learn from this verse (Pessachim 90) is that a person who is obligated to bury a near relative maybe included in the count for a Passover lamb though at the time the lamb is being slaughtered he is not yet under an obligation to fulfil this commandment due to his prior obligation to attend to the burial. The operative word is לפי אכלו meaning that as long as he is fit to eat it in the evening.
The same word also serves as a ruling concerning a person afflicted with a discharge from his sexual organ (זב). The Passover may be slaughtered on such a person's behalf. The same applies to a person who is in the process of undergoing ritual purification and only needs to await sunset on that day to have completed this process. In all these instances the deciding factor is whether the person in question will be legally entitled to partake of the Passover on the evening of the 15th of Nissan.
Both Mechilta and Pessachim 90 consider Numbers 9,6 in which Israelites are complaining about not being able to eat of the Passover in the desert due to their being ritually impure, as referring to people who would have completed their purification process by the evening of the 15th of Nissan. Why were these people prevented from eating the Passover then? The reason was that their ritual impurity was of the most severe kind, i.e. due to contact with the dead. According to one authority such impurity is still considered as sufficiently effective even if the party concerned has already undergone the final sprinkling of spring water. According to Rabbi Yossi we could conclude that even a person who was on the last day of purification after having been in contact with a corpse would qualify to join a household whose head had included him in the Passover guests at the time he slaughtered his animal. This is especially so if the person had already undergone immersion in a ritual bath.
ומן העזים תקחו, "or you may take it from amongst the he-goats." The reason the Torah had to write the word תקחו, you shall purchase or take once more is to teach that it is permitted to use a goat even if one owns a sheep of the appropriate age group.
והיה לכם למשמרת, "And you will keep it under observation until the fourteenth, etc." This means that the lamb required special examination just as any animals designated to become sacrificial offerings. This begins as soon as one has designated what "name" i.e. the specific offering the animal is to serve as. According to an opinion in Shir Hashirim Rabbah on the verse "like a lily amongst the thorns" this is a reference to the phenomenon that G'd had to liberate the Jewish people as גוי מקרב גוי, "one nation immersed within another nation" (Deut.4,34), the reason the Israelites had to set aside the lamb four days prior to being able to slaughter it was because it took that length of time to divest themselves of the remnants of their pagan practices. All of this is hinted at in the word משכו in verse 21. When the Midrash speaks about the Israelites having to divest themselves of vestiges of idol worship this is not to be understood as their being idol worshippers. However, they still used to wear clothing which the pagans wore, ate foods that the pagans ate, etc. The fastest and most effective way of countering the psychological impact of their former practices was to set aside the Egyptian deity in the knowledge that they would slaughter it in a few days' time. Inasmuch as the Egyptians believed in astrology, the constellation of the ram represented a handicap Israel had to overcome. Slaughtering a ram was the most effective way of doing this.
ואכלו את הבשר, "and they will eat the meat, etc." Pessachim 83 states that the emphasis here on the Israelites eating the "meat" means that they were not to eat the horns, the hooves, the sinews, etc. This exegesis is strange since we have a rule that the expression את always means that something is to be included not excluded and the Torah here wrote את הבשר! Perhaps the addition alluded to by the word את can be traced to the Mishnah Pessachim 7,11 that "the parts of the lamb that are permitted to be eaten are those which are analogous to the parts of the ox that are permitted to be eaten." Ravah explains Pessachim 84 that what is meant are parts of the animals which become soft as a result of boiling them in water.
There is also a disagreement between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish (folio 84 Pessachim) about the permissibility of sinews which though soft after boiling revert to becoming hard when taken out of the water. Rabbi Yochanan feels such sinews are not permissible as food as they are not analogous to "meat," whereas Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish feels that the sinews are sufficiently analogous to flesh to be included under the heading בשר.
ומצות על מרורים, together with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. The plain meaning of the verse seems to be that the roasting of the lamb whole is a symbol of freedom. Freedom means wholeness. The requirement to eat bitter herbs with it is natural; Egyptians used to eat roast meat with something pungent as this enhanced the taste of the meat and enabled the person who ate it to thoroughly enjoy his meal. Letting the bitter herbs precede the meat in his mouth made one more conscious of the contrast and of how something which by itself had tasted bitter would suddenly transform the whole meal into an enjoyable experience. The unleavened bread also contributed to that feeling. We therefore find that there were three components which combined to make the meal enjoyable.
These three components symbolised three things. 1) The exile which had embittered the Israelites' lives; 2) The suddenness of the Exodus so that even their dough did not have time enough to rise. 3) The fact that G'd "passed over" the houses of the Israelites which was a major element of the redemption. This "leap-frogging" severed Israel's previous dependence on the Egyptians which had appeared as incapable of separation. I have explained the nature of the good being inextricably intertwined with the evil in my commentary on Exodus 11,5. Redemption meant the tearing asunder of these bonds between good and evil. These three phenomena had to be experienced simultaneously otherwise the whole redemption would not have been possible. If a single element had been lacking the other two would not even have been miraculous at all by themselves. Without the exile experience no other refining process could have been effective and could have borne fruit. We have explained in our commentary on Genesis 46,3 how the descent into the immoral environment of Egypt was a necessary prelude to "rescuing" the souls that had been taken captive by the forces of the קליפה at the time Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge. This is also the mystical dimension of Kohelet 8,9: "there is a time when one man rules over another to his detriment." Had the Exodus not occurred as abruptly as it did, the Israelites might well have returned to Egypt to become ever more deeply mired in that moral morass. This idea is best expressed by the author of the Haggadah shel Pessach who claims that: "if G'd had not taken us out of there (at the time), then both we and our forefathers would have remained subservient to Pharaoh in Egypt." This is what the Torah means in 12,39 when it testifies that "they could not tarry any longer." The principal element of the redemption was the פסיחה, "the skipping over." Hillel (Pessachim 115) symbolised the importance of the simultaneous occurrence of these three elements when he insisted that we must consume the meat, the bitter herbs and the unleavened bread as a single "sandwich."
ולא יהיה בכם נגף למשחית, "so there will be no plague against you to destroy, etc." What is meant is that the destructive force (angel of death) will have no excuse to attack you rather than his other natural targets; he will notice the blood on the doorposts of your homes as if it were the seal of the Almighty and be afraid to approach and inflict harm. This was the reason G'd commanded the Israelites to use the blood as a sign. Should you say that in that case any Egyptian hiding out in the house of an Israelite which bore the sign of that blood could escape the plague, the Torah wrote בכם, the restrictions on the angel of death applied only "to you." The "light" of having performed the commandment illuminated only Israel; we find confirmation of this in Isaiah 60,2: ועליך יזרח ה וכבודו עליך יראה, "but upon you the Lord will shine and His Presence will be seen over you."
חקת עולם תחגהו, "you will celebrate it as an everlasting statute." Why did the Torah not only use the expression לדורותיכם, "for your generations" which it uses normally? While it is true that the Mechilta states that the word "your generations" would imply only the minimum, i.e. two generations, and the expression חקת עולם means forever, it is still peculiar that the Torah had to use both expressions. The reason is connected to the discussion in Berachot 12 about the verse "in order that you remember the day you came out of Egypt for all the days of your life (including messianic times)." The opposing interpretation of that verse claims that the words "all the days of your life" mean "the whole days of your life" i.e. including the nights (Deut. 17,3). If the Torah had only used the words חקות עולם, I might have concluded that this day is to be observed only during periods when the Jewish people are free and independent; when they are in exile, however, I could argue that there would be no occasion to especially mark that date, therefore the Torah had to add the word לדורותיכם to tell us that the Passover rites are to be observed not only when we are free and independent but even when we are in exile. It is a statute, חוקה, and does not depend on our circumstances.
שבעת ימים מצות תאכלו, "You shall eat unleavened bread for seven days, etc." This is connected to the fact that the Israelites' dough did not rise due to the suddenness of the redemption. You may well ask how the Torah could legislate (verse 14) a memorial for something that had not even taken place yet? After all, the dough did not rise because of the constant motion of the people carrying it on their backs, something that occurred on the morrow! They had not even slaughtered the Passover lamb yet and already the Torah speaks of an annual memorial to something that had not happened as yet! The whole Exodus would not occur until after the Israelites had slaughtered the Passover and eaten it with unleavended bread, and had thereby acquired the merit enabling G'd to take them out of Egypt! This is the day which G'd would remember for them in order to take them out, etc.
In support of our contention that the Torah here does not speak of a commandment to eat unleavened bread for seven days, you will note that Pessachim 120 arrives at the conclusion that the mention of "seven days you shall eat unleavened bread" in our verse is not a commandment but a voluntary observance, the commandment to eat unleavened bread applying only on the night the Passover is eaten; the duty to eat unleavened bread became effective only on the evening preceding the Exodus. In later generations, the eating of unleavened bread was not a reminder of a miracle at all. Perhaps the manner in which the Torah reports this legislation is meant to tell us that the eating of unleavened bread on the night of the Passover will be accounted for the people eating it as if they had eaten unleavened bread during all the seven days of that holiday.
G'd commanded two kinds of מקראי קדש, "holy convocations," one on the first day, i.e. the 15th of Nissan and one on the seventh day, i.e. the 21st day of Nissan. The latter "holy convocation" was in respect of the final stage of the redemption, the drowning of the pursuing Egyptians in the sea. There were two separate miracles which needed to be commemorated then.
Another reason accounting for the seven days from the 15th to the 21st of Nissan being considered as a unit, i.e. שבעת ימים instead of שבעה ימים, is because G'd did not formulate the prohibition not to eat leavened bread as an outright commandent, such as "do not eat חמץ." I would have thought that a person who does not eat leavened matter during these days is neither culpable nor has he acquired special merit. The Torah therefore implies that not eating חמץ is equivalent to eating מצה and that such a person has acquired the merit of seven consecutive positive commandments (one for each day he did not eat חמץ.) [I believe the author refers to the fact that the prohibition of eating leavened matter in verse 19 is phrased impersonally, i.e. "anyone who eats leavened matter will be cut off from his people," whereas the repetition in verse 20 which addresses itself directly to the people makes no mention of seven days. If this is not the correct interpretation we must assume an uncorrected error in all the earlier manuscripts. Somewhat remarkably, the author does not comment on either verse 19 or verse 20 in this chapter. Ed.]
The reason the Torah already mentioned seven days here is that the Israelites should be occupied with the performance of מצות right until the moment on the seventh day when the last stage of the redemption would be completed after G'd had displayed even greater miracles than previously.
There is another mystical reason for the number seven, the root of the souls of the Jewish people being equated with שבעה עינים, as we know from Zachariah 3,9, and the community of Israel is therefore frequently referred to as בת שבעה, "the seven-fold one," compare Zohar volume 3 page 6). [According to Rabbi Moshe Cordovero in his פרדס רמונים the expression שבעת ימים is a reference to the emanation בינה which presides over the 6 days preceding it, i.e. which are subordinate to it. Ed.]
ושמרתם את המצות, "You shall guard the unleavened breads, etc." G'd told us that just as He had carefully guarded that date and had not redeemed us a single day later than the timetable He had planned, so we should be careful not to allow the dough for the unleavened bread to remain inactive a minute too long ; otherwise it might begin to rise.
The Torah added: "you shall observe this day" to teach that not only must we be very careful in the preparation of the unleavened bread, but we must also be very careful with our calendar calculations so as not to observe the Passover on the wrong day of the month. We cannot substitute a different day for celebrating this holiday. The reason is that what occurred happened בעצם i.e. this word is to be read in both directions. The careful watch over the dough and the careful observance of the correct date are both because of what occurred on that very day. We are to emulate what G'd did at that time to the best of our ability.
ויקרא משה לכל זקני ישראל, Moses called all the elders of Israel, etc. Although G'd had told Moses to speak to the whole community of Israel we must interpret this commandment as similar to Leviticus 4,13 where the Torah speaks of: "if the whole community of Isael committed an unintentional sin, etc." In that instance the Torah also refers to the elders, as Torat Kohanim explains on that verse. The words following, i.e. ויאמר אליהם, may mean that Moses addressed the rest of the people just as became customary with informing the people of any of the other commandments of the Torah.
Alternatively, Moses only told the elders and they in turn told the people. In that event this commandment would be different from all the other commandments in the Torah. The reason that the Israelites were not addressed by Moses directly could be that they had not yet entered the holy covenant, had not yet been circumcised. As a result they needed an additional intermediary. The elders had their own method of prevailing on the people to accept this legislation.
ושמרתם את הדבר הזה, "You will observe this matter." According to the plain meaning of this verse the Torah tells that such matters as the sprinkling of the blood of the paschal lamb would also be performed in future generations. However, we have no reports to indicate that these details were ever observed again. We do not find that either the Mishnah or the Talmud ever instituted this as a rabbinic requirement. I believe that the words לחק לך on the one hand, and ולבניך on the other hand, mean that the application of the Passover law is not identical for future generations. As for as you, i.e. the present generation is concerned, all the aforementioned details apply. As to לבניך עד עולם only certain details of the Passover in Egypt will apply. The verse relies on legislation repeated in the Torah elsewhere to arrive at the pertinent observances to be observed in the future. The repetition of the purpose of these observances in Egypt, i.e. to keep the angel of death away from the homes of the Jews makes it plain that certain of the details would not apply in the future when G'd would not kill the firstborns.
והיה כי תבאו אל הארץ, "It will be when you come to the land, etc." According to the plain meaning of the verse the commandment mentioned here does not apply until after the Israelites enter the Holy Land. If that were so, however, why did G'd appear to have changed His mind when He commanded the Israelites to observe the Passover in the second year of their wanderings in the desert "at the appropriate time and in all its details" (Numbers 9,1)?
It would appear that this verse contains an assurance that if the Israelites would conduct themselves meritoriously they would already observe the following year's Passover in their homeland. The delay occurred only because of the Israelites' disobedience and rebelliousness which commenced already before the completion of the Exodus at the Sea of Reeds (compare Psalms 106,7: "they rebelled at the sea, at the Sea of Reeds"). All these factors delayed the conquest of the Holy Land. When G'd saw that they were still in the desert He had to issue a command that they should observe the Passover even in the desert. Up to that point in the Book of Numbers they had only been commanded to observe the Passover once they arrived in the Holy Land. While it is true- as the prophet Isaiah has said- that G'd knows of all future developments in advance (Isaiah 41,4), He had held back with issuing instructions which would indicate that the trek through the desert would be beset with problems.
וילכו ויעשו בני ישראל כאשר צוה השם, The children of Israel went and did as G'd commanded, etc." The Torah had to repeat כן עשו, "they did so," to underline that they obeyed what Moses had commanded them in the name of G'd though they did not understand the meaning of all these regulations. Had the Torah not written the words כן עשו, we could have thought that they did so because they understood it all.
ויקם פרעה לילה, Pharaoh rose up during the night, etc. The reason that the Torah mentions "at night," something that was obvious, is that according to the Zohar 2, page 38 that night was as bright as daylight. I have already found an allusion to this fact in Exodus 13,8 where the Torah instructs the Jewish father to tell his sons about the happenings during that night ביום ההוא, "on that day." The Torah means that the father should not fail to mention that one of the things that occurred during that night was that the night turned into day. In the event that we would think that the daylight during that night shone for both the Egyptians and the Israelites, the Torah emphasises that when Pharaoh rose he thought it was night because for him it was dark.
ויקרא למשה ולאהרון לילה, "He called for Moses and Aaron at night, etc." The reason that the Torah repeats the word לילה, night, could be that Pharaoh was afraid that inasmuch as he had forbidden Moses and Aaron to see him again on pain of death (10,28), they would use this as an excuse not to see him, fearing it was a trap to give Pharaoh an excuse to execute them. By emphasising the word לילה Pharaoh indicated that he had only threatened them on "the day you will see my face, etc." Since it was night, they had no reason to be afraid. Alternatively, Pharaoh meant that seeing it was dark they would not see his face anyways, and his threat applied only to their seeing his face.
One could also interpret this verse by viewing the word לילה as part of Moses' answer. Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, whereupon the latter responded that it was now night, i.e. not the time to conduct negotiations. Moses may have added that G'd had forbidden any of the Israelites to leave their houses during that night (12,22) until morning.
Upon hearing this Pharaoh said: קומו צאו, "arise and depart." In other words Pharaoh freed the Israelites by this proclamation. The expression קומו, "arise," may even contain a hint of Pharaoh's granting the Israelites a "higher status" than they had possessed heretofore. Bereshit Rabbah 58,8 explains Genesis 23,17 where the field and cave of Machpelah are described as ויקם, having arisen. Whereas previously, before Abraham's purchase, the field and cave belonged to a low-life such as Efron, the field and cave "rose" to a higher status by becoming the property of a man of the calibre of Abraham. At any rate, Pharaoh believed that by declaring the Israelites a free people without any further ado, he could free himself of the plague of the dying of the firstborn. If they did not leave immediately, their continued stay could not be blamed on him.
Another meaning of the words קומו צאו is that it is an accusation. Seeing that Moses and Aaron had refused to come to Pharaoh, he called upon them to rise from their beds for their own benefit, i.e. "the reason I have called you was so that you should leave the country." Accordingly, Moses and Aaron explained that their failure to get up from their beds immediately was not lack of respect for the king but לילה, G'd had ordered them not to leave their houses during that night.
גם אתם גם בני ישראל, "both you and the children of Israel." Why did Pharaoh say גם, also, already before mentioning that Moses and Aaron were to leave? Besides, why did Moses and Aaron need Pharaoh's permission to leave that he said to them: "depart from amongst my people?" They were not his prisoners! Perhaps the wording of Pharaoh's dismissal reveals that subconsciously he had always wanted to arrest Moses and Aaron. When he now gave orders that the Israelites could leave, he had to first reverse his thinking about detaining Moses and Aaron individually. None of this would have been discernible if the word גם had been used only in connection with the departure of the Israelites as a people.
Still another meaning of this verse is that Pharaoh not only discharged the Israelites but he expelled them. The words גם אתם may then be interpreted thus: "Although you are no longer under my control as slaves, I do not want you to reside in my country any longer." This was a new element. Now the point had been reached of which G'd had said to Moses in 11,1: "when he will finally discharge you completely he will not only discharge you but he will expel you." The words גם בני ישראל refer to the women and the children; the word גם, also, in connection with גם צאנכם in verse 32 refers to the other items such as the animals Pharaoh himself was to supply (compare 10,25).
וברכתם גם אותי, "bless me also." The past tense here is to be interpreted as a wish, i.e. "bless me too." Pharaoh meant that not only should the plague stop but that the result of Moses' blessing should be the process of the rehabilitation of Egypt.
עשו כדבר משה, they did in accordance with Moses' instructions. The Torah stresses that the reason the Israelites "borrowed" all this silver, gold, etc., was not because they were greedy for material goods but because Moses had instructed them to. The Torah may also teach us an object lesson in what Maimonides wrote in chapter nine of his Hilchot Yesodey Hatorah that if a prophet orders the people to commit an act which is against Torah law and such an order is of a temporary nature, an emergency situation, the people are to accept the prophet's instructions as long as the violation is not in the realm of idol worship. The people here were not happy about deceiving the Egyptians by making them think they were borrowing these trinkets intending to return them in a few days. Seeing that Moses was a duly accredited prophet, however, they complied with bis instructions in spite of their misgivings.
וישאילום, וינצלו את מצרים, they let them have what they asked; they emptied Egypt (of valuables). All this was a result of G'd giving the people favour in the eyes of the Egyptians so that the Egyptians lent them these trinkets against their will (the will of the Israelites). This proves that the Israelites were not prepared at that time to leave Egypt permanently else they themselves would have asked not only for what the Egyptians volunteered but for much more in order to enrich themselves. When the Torah writes that: "they emptied Egypt," the subject are the Egyptians themselves. From the above we see how correct the Talmud was in Berachot 9 where it is stated that the Israelites were so enamoured of the idea of leaving Egypt that financial gain did not interest them at that time. As a result G'd helped them acquire great possessions in a miraculous manner. All of this was a reward for their meritorious behaviour. [The author implies that if the Israelites had displayed greed by asking for a lot they never would have received as much as they did. Ed.]
מצות כי לא חמץ, unleavened breads because it was not leavened. The Torah means that the reason they baked Matzot was that they did not have permission to eat leavened bread; as a result they had to hasten in order to bake מצות. These loaves turned out to be matzot even though some time had elapsed between the kneading of the dough and the baking. Possibly, they kept the dough in motion in order to prevent it from becoming leavened. When the Torah bothered to graphically describe that "their kneading bowls were slung as bundles in their dresses over their shoulders" (verse 34), such a description would not be justified unless we were to learn something from it. Surely the Israelites had some other place where they could have carried their dough. The Torah wants to teach us that they deliberately vibrated the dough to keep it from rising. The process was facilitated by the fact that they had not added yeast to the dough in the first place. The Torah describes that the reason the dough did not have a chance to become leavened before the Exodus as being: "for they were being expelled from Egypt."
ויהי מקץ שלושים שנה, It was at the end of 430 yers, etc." The Torah does not tell us what happened at that time, otherwise why would the word ויהי be repeated immediately afterwards. If the Torah had alluded to the time of the Exodus the second ויהי would be superfluous. Another thing requiring exegesis is what painful element is alluded to in the word ויהי in this instance.
Perhaps the painful element referred to is the very length of time it took for the people to be redeemed. Had they possessed the necessary merit they would not have had to wait until the pre-arranged timetable, i.e. מקץ, the end of the time originally allocated for their bondage. Alternatively, the pain alluded to is the very length of the 430 years mentioned earlier as the time the people sojourned in Egypt.
ויהי בעצם, it was on that same day, etc. The Torah may use the expression to tell us that though the Israelites departed on that day, the troubles of the Egyptians had not come to an end. We have a reference to the Egyptians being busy on that day burying their dead (Numbers 33,4) whereas at the same time the Israelites left Egypt their heads held high.
ליל שמורים הוא לה׳ It was a night of vigil for G׳d, etc. The verse refers specifically to those miracles G'd performed at night. 1) In the days of Abraham when the latter defeated the four kings with his 318 men at night (Genesis 14,15); 2) during the Exodus when G'd is reported to have killed the firstborn at midnight (12,29). 3) In the days of Hezekiah when the angel Gabriel smote the army of Sancheriv on that night (Kings II 19,35). 4) In the days of Mordechai and Esther when the king could not sleep (Esther 6,1). 5) The redemption of the Jewish people in the future.
Concerning the miracle in Abraham's time, the Torah says here "it was a night of vigilance for G'd," because G'd had demonstrated His truth as mentioned in Bereshit Rabbah 42. According to the Midrash there were some people who did not believe that G'd had saved Abraham from Nimrod's furnace in Ur Kasdim at the time. When they heard about how Abraham defeated these four kings, they changed their minds. The verse goes on to say "to take them out of Egypt," a reference to what happened during this night; the words הוא הלילה, are an allusion to the night in the future when G'd would smite the army of Sancheriv. The allusion to what would happen in the time of Mordechai and Esther is contained in the words הזה לה׳, whereas the reference to the redemption of the future is provided by the words שמורים לכל בני ישראל לדרותם, i.e. at the end of the exiles, may it happen soon.
ויאמר ה׳…זאת חוקת הפסח, G'd said: "this is the statute of the Passover, etc." It is puzzling why this verse does not follow the usual procedure of introducing a direct commandment, i.e. "speak to the children of Israel, etc." According to what we wrote on verse 3 that this paragraph was said on the 14th of Nissan there was no need to write: "speak to the children of Israel" because it is a continuation of what is written in verse 3, i.e. "speak to the whole community, etc." We must explain then why this paragraph is not recorded as part of what Moses said in that verse. The answer is that this whole commandment is designed for observance of the Passover in future generations only, hence it was revealed after the Exodus. The principle reason for the legislation is to inform Israel that every detail mentioned here is essential for performance of the Passover in the future.
I have seen a view expressed in Shemot Rabbah 19,5 according to which G'd despatched a special wind from Paradise which lent its fragrance to Moses' Passover. When the Israelites inhaled this fragrance they all begged Moses to allow them a taste of his Passover lamb. Moses replied they could not do this as they had not been circumcised, seeing it states in our verse that you have to be circumcised in order to eat from the Passover. Thereupon the Israelites performed the rite of circumcision upon themselves. According to this Midrash we can easily explain why the Torah here did not write: "speak to the children of Israel, etc." An alternative explanation is that this paragraph was addressed only to Moses and Aaron and that G'd commanded them that uncircumcised people should not eat from the Passover. After the Israelites came to Moses and wanted to eat from his Passover they decided to circumcise themselves. [after all the commandment to circumcise themselves dated back to Abrahamitic times and was not valid only for consumption of the Passover. Ed.]
According to the aforementioned Midrash how was it possible that Moses would let everyone partake of his Passover seeing it could only be eaten by people who had been invited prior to its being slaughtered? Perhaps Moses only promised them that they could eat from it in order to encourage them to perform circumcision. As soon as the Israelites had circumcised themselves they found that their own Passover exuded the same fragrance as that of Moses so that they did not need to ask him to share it with them. I have seen a proof that the words of that Midrash are true, i.e. that the Israelites had not been prepared to circumcise themselves up to that point. We read in Ezekiel 20,8: "they rebelled against Me and did not want to listen to Me, and I threatened to pour out My wrath over them in the land of Egypt." Clearly, the prophet speaks of the Israelites' unwillingness to observe even the few commandments of G'd which applied at that time, primarily that of circumcision.
וכי יגור אתך גר, "When a stranger will sojourn with you, etc." This was Moses' authority to accept converts from amongst the Egyptians. The reason the Torah writes אתך, "with you" (sing), is that such conversions had to be personally approved by Moses. There is also a hint here that G'd agreed to this only reluctantly, i.e. לרצון משה, and that is why the Torah wrote אתך גר, "he is a stranger (proselyte) with you, (but not with Me). G'd's reluctance was due to Moses' inability to examine G'd's hidden reasons. We all know what the result of Moses' accepting such proselytes was and how they triggered the sin of the golden calf.
המול לו כל זכר, "let all his males be circumcised, etc." Just as failure to circumcise a slave prevents such a slave from participating in the Passover, so failure of a proselyte to circumcise all his male slaves is a prerequisite before the proselyte himself can eat of the Passover. The reason that the Torah adds ואז יקרב, "and then he may approach," is to tell us that he does not need to appoint a natural born Jew to slaughter his Passover offering but that he may do so himself. This is why the Torah adds: "he will be just like a natural born Jew."
ויהי בעצם היום הזה, It was on the self-same day, etc. The reason the Torah records the Exodus immediately after concluding the legislation of the Passover ceremonies is to remind us that the fulfilment of this מצוה is what triggered the redemption from Egypt. The Israelites had no other credentials than performance of this commandment.
והיה בי יביאך ה׳ אל ארע הכנעני, "It will be when G'd brings you to the land of the Canaanite, etc." The reason that this particular commandment is conditional on arrival in the Holy Land is either in accordance with what I have written on Exodus 12,25, or in order that the story of the Exodus should not be forgotten once the Israelites had lived in the Holy Land for many generations.
והגדת לבנך, "you shall tell your son, etc." The expression והגדת instead of ואמרת is unusual and our sages in Shabbat 87 state that the term implies "words which are as tough as tendons." Another peculiarity is the expression ביום ההוא, "on that day," whereas immediately afterwards the verse concludes with the expression בעבור זה, "on account of this." The Haggadah shel Pessach as well as the Mechilta understand the verse as referring to a time when Matzah and bitter herbs are in front of you, i.e. at night. Seeing that I know that the time for that recital is at night, why did the Torah have to mention "on that day" at all? Furthermore, why do we need the word לאמור seeing that the Torah already wrote והגדת, "you shall tell?"
We may have to understand all this in accordance with the statement in Pessachim 116 that when one recites the Passover story one begins with aspects which reflect discredit and concludes with aspects which reflect credit on the Jewish people. The discredit consists of the fact that our ancestors were pagans, something one can hardly boast about. The Torah therefore hints at this procedure by writing והגדת, "you will relate matters which are as tough as tendons;" you will conclude with אמירה, i.e. לאמור, words which recall that you were meritorious. The words ביום ההוא are a hint of the future redemption when the night will be called "day" (compare Psalms 139,13). It is also a reminder that the night preceding the morning of the Exodus was illuminated for the Jews (see our comment on 12,30). The Torah adds the words בעבור זה so that we will not err and conduct these ceremonies during the hours which belong to the day but at the time when we have to consume Matzah, i.e. in the evening. Possibly the words והגדת and ביום ההוא have been placed next to one another in order that we will also include the miraculous way in which that night turned into bright daylight for the Jews.
Another reason that the Torah had to write the word לאמור in addition to והגדת is that the former was addressed to "your son." A father of girls or a husband not blessed with children might have concluded that since he had no son he would be free from the obligation to conduct the annual סדר celebration; the Torah writes לאמור, to tell us that even if the person is all alone he must relate what happened during that night to himself. Seeing that this is so, you may well ask why the Torah had to speak about a father telling his son at all? Perhaps I would not have known that under certain conditions one must "tell oneself" the Haggadah shel Pessach unless the Torah had used extra verbiage. Perhaps the Torah hinted that if someone is particular about telling of the Exodus, G'd will eventually grant him a son to whom he can relate these events.
בעבור זה, "on account of this, etc." Perhaps the word זה (numerical value 12) alludes to 12 commandments connected with the Passover observance. The first three are the lamb, the unleavened bread, and the bitter herbs; then there is the Haggadah followed by the seven days of the festival and the benediction over wine on the night of the festival. The Torah has to phrase it as בעבור זה עשה because the seven days of the festival do not count as seven separate commandments in the list of 613 commandments.
והיה כי יביאך, "It will be when He will bring you, etc." The Torah underlines once more that it is G'd who will bring you to the Holy Land so that you should not forget about His commandments in the belief that you yourself have achieved all this, especially after your border will gradually extend further and further. Although this commandment is not applicable until after conquest of the land, it remains in force even if the land is lost as it is a commandment that involves the body and not the earth. Kidushin 36 teaches that all commandments which are performed by one's body apply throughout the ages and wherever a Jew resides.
והיה כי ישאלך בנך, "It will be when your son enquires of you, etc." The Torah means that when your son observes you perform the ceremony of redeeming a firstborn he will ask you the reason for that commandment. In that event you are obligated to explain the meaning of the commandment. If the son does not ask you, you are not obligated to answer him except on the night of the Passover. This is the reason the Torah added the word מחר, "tomorrow;" This means that even if your son will ask you already tomorrow you are immediately obligated to tell him the reason for this commandment. The Torah adds the word לאמור to indicate that what is meant is a situation when your son expects an answer to his question. If the son, however, simply asks מה זאת, i.e. "what is this all about?" a derisive way of questioning, then you are under no obligation to answer him at that time.
The question need not necessarily be exactly "what is this all about?" Any question whose upshot appears to be that the questioner wants to be told what our tradition is all about is to be answered forthwith. It is clear therefore that the Torah does not speak of the night of the Passover but of the commandment to sanctify the firstborn of the womb. When our sages (Mechilta) comment that the four occasions when the Torah cites the sons as asking refer to four different types of children this is all homiletics.
[This is a comment to the Torah’s statement, “It shall be a sign upon your Handידכה .”] Our Rabbis of blessed memory said (Menachot 37a), “’Yadchah (spelled with an extra hey implies the weaker hand (yad kehah), which is the left hand. We need to understand why Hashem did not choose the right hand to perform this mitzvah, since it is greater. Our Rabbis say that this is in order that (the tefillin) be aligned next to the heart, which is towards the left side (of the body), and their words are true. However it appears to me that there is an additional reason, for the Torah itself gives a reason for the matter in saying, “Because with a strong hand.” You need to know that HaShem has 2 aspects within His attributes. The first is called “the great hand, yad hagedolah”, and the other is called “the strong hand, yad hachazakah”. “The great hand” represents (G-d’s) aspect of kindness and goodness; “the strong hand” represents His strength, which He repays the wicked according to their wickedness. In removing Bnei Yisrael from Egypt, Hashem stretched out “the strong hand” and struck His enemies with ten plagues. For this reason G-d said that tefillin, which contain the written remembrance (of these events), should be placed on our weak hand (our left hand), which represents “the strong hand” that removed us from Egypt. This is why the pasuk here says, “for with the strength of a hand.” This is correct. Granted that it says in many places (regarding punishment), “the great hand,” in those instances G-d’s attribute of mercy concurred with the attribute of justice, but the essence of justice is still performed through the “strong hand.” {Ed. Note - Thus, despite the term “strong,” the “strong hand” which represents justice is, in fact, weaker than the “great hand” which represents mercy. To symbolize the vengeance that G-d exacted from Egypt through His “weaker hand,” we don our tefillin, which memorialize these events, on our weaker hand.}
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario