Shemot 9:34,35 – The two types of hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, va-yachbed and va-yechezak and two types of thinking, system one and system two

By each plague, the Torah records that Pharaoh's heart was hardened that he would refuse to let the Jewish people leave Egypt, but by the seventh plague, hail, this information is recorded twice. Shemot 9:34 records, va-yachbed lebo, and then Shemot 9:35 records ve-yechezak leb Pharaoh. Why is information repeated? In addition, the Torah uses two different words, va-yachbed and ve-yechezak to express this hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Are these words synonyms or do they express a different idea? (Note the Torah is written based on the common understanding of its time that the heart is the organ that controls a person’s thought.)

Daniel Kahneman (2011, Nobel laureate, the nephew of Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Kahneman, the founder of Ponevezh Yeshiva in Bnei Brak, and in high school and in university was a student of Yeshayahu Leibowitz) presents a fascinating description of how the human mind works, that there are two systems in the brain. The first system immediately appraises situations and responds intuitively, while the second system responds slower and with more thought. The second system is the "conscious reasoning self" but its usage involves more effort and work. The second system has the ability to override the first system, but it is lazy. Thus, the natural inclination is for the first system to function, but when it is stymied, then the second system takes over.

This distinction in the thinking process of the human mind can explain the different terminology, va-yachbed and ve-yechezak. The word va-yachbed refers to the first system of thinking that intuitively Pharaoh would refuse to let the people leave Egypt, while the word ve-yechezak refers to the second system of human thought that after some thought Pharaoh would refuse to let the Jewish people leave Egypt.

4:21 records that notwithstanding all of the wonders that G-d would do, G-d would achazek the heart of Pharaoh until the tenth plague. The wonders could refer to the three signs recorded in 4:3,6,9 or maybe the first nine plagues, but in any event, after a repeated set of miracles, both the intuitive reaction and thoughtful re-action would be for a person to be impressed and let the Jewish people go. However, in 4:21, G-d says that by these cases, G-d would harden Pharaoh’s heart that G-d would cause Pharaoh to concoct reasons why these set of signs were not significant, and this thinking is indicative of the second system of thinking. Thus, even if Pharaoh was impressed intuitively and would be inclined to let the people go, G-d made sure that his system two caused him to refuse to let the Jewish people leave Egypt.

The next reference to G-d hardening Pharaoh’s heart is 7:3, but here the word used is aksheh, which covers both ways of thinking.

The next case of Pharaoh’s heart being hardened is 7:13, which uses the word ve-yechezak after Aharon's staff swallowed the staff of the Egyptian magicians. (This miracle might refer back to 4:21.) This miracle was impressive, and the intuitive response would have been to agree to let the people leave. However, Pharaoh's system two of thinking took over, and he might have reasoned that this was only one trick or he was unimpressed for another reason, so he did not agree to let the Jewish people go.

In the following verse, 7:14, before the first plague, G-d told Moshe that Pharaoh's heart was hardened. The word used is cabed, which means that G-d was telling Moshe that Pharaoh's intuitive thoughts, gut impulse, was not to free the Jewish people, as the miracle of the swallowing of the staffs was then “ancient history” for Pharaoh.

By the first plague, Moshe turned the Nile into blood in front of Pharaoh, see our discussion on 7:14-25, “A bloody mess.” This act surely impressed him and should have changed his gut impulse to let the Jewish people leave. However, afterwards, his magicians were also able to turn water into blood. Even though the magicians' act was not as impressive as turning the Nile into blood, still this was enough for Pharaoh's second system to override his impression from Moshe's act, and then the Torah uses the word ve-yechezak, 7:22.  In addition, the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart was when the negative effects of the first plague were still existent, which meant that his gut re-action should have been to free the people to end the effects of the plague, but here Pharaoh’s second system of thinking overcame his gut impression, as maybe he reasoned that the effects of the plague could be overcome.   

At the end of the next plague, frogs, 8:11 records that ve-hachbed the heart of Pharaoh. Here Pharaoh’s intuitive re-action at this point was not to be swayed by the plague since the plague was over, as noted by the beginning of 8:11, and there was no need for him to rationalize why the miracle was not impressive.

By the third plague, the magicians admitted that the plague was an act of G-d, 8:15, so Pharaoh's intuitive response should have been to agree to let the Jewish people go. However, again his second system overcame his intuition, he refused to let the people go, and the Torah uses the word ve-yechezak. (A possible reason for why Pharaoh did not listen to his magicians, is because they knew all along that they were not able to duplicate the plagues and that G-d was helping them, but Pharaoh thought that they really had the ability to duplicate the plagues. Thus, by the third plague, the magicians admitted what they already knew, but for Pharaoh, this was the first time that the magicians could not copy the plague, and for him one time was not enough to lose his slaves. I thank Eric Sommers for this idea.)

At the end of the fourth plague, 8:28 records that va-yachbed Pharaoh of his heart since, just like by the end of the second plague, once the plague was over, then his intuitive re-action was to be unimpressed.

Similarly, by the end of the fifth plague, 9:7 records that va-yechbad the heart of Pharaoh. Again, once the plague was over, then there was no need for a great justification for why the plague should not persuade him to let the Jewish people leave. Instead, Pharaoh followed his first system of intuitive thinking to not let the Jewish people leave Egypt, see our discussion on 9:1-7, "The fifth plague: The fate of the animals during the plagues in Egypt."

The sixth plague, boils, was a very painful plague, and again as by the third plague, his magicians were unable to stop the plague. Accordingly, Pharaoh's intuitive response and his second system of thinking should have been to let the Jewish people leave. However, by this plague, the Torah specifically records that G-d intervened, 9:12. The idea here is that G-d intervened by Pharaoh’s second thoughtful system to not let the people go, possibly by not having the plague affect Pharaoh, and the Torah uses the word ve-yechazek, 9:12.

The seventh plague, hail, is where the Torah uses both ve-yachbed and ve-yechezak. First, 9:34 records that Pharaoh saw that the plague ended, and hence his intuitive response (and his advisors), as by the end of the second, fourth and fifth plagues, was not to let the people go. Thus, the Torah uses the word ve-yachbed. However, after seven plagues, Pharaoh should have thought some more, and his second thoughtful system should have overcome his intuitive reaction, and agreed to let the people go. Yet, in 9:35, the Torah uses the word ve-yechezak to indicate that for some reason (G-d intervened?) Pharaoh’s second system of thinking convinced him not to agree to let the Jewish people go.

The following verse, 10:1 then records that G-d hecbadeti the hearts of Pharaoh and his advisors. This verse apparently refers to all of the plagues up to this point, and the idea would be that G-d made it that both Pharaoh and his advisors’ intuitive thoughts (their first system of thinking, see 9:34) were not to let the Jewish people go since at that moment there was no plague or a threat of a plague. Yet, there was a difference between Pharaoh and his advisors. After hearing the warning about the next plague, the eighth plague, locusts, Pharaoh's advisors urged him to let the Jewish people leave, 10:7. By these advisors, their second system of thinking was overcoming their first system of thinking and G-d did not harden their second system of thinking to stop it from overcoming their first system of thinking. However, by Pharaoh, G-d also hardened his second system of thinking, as indicated in 9:35, and Pharaoh refused to let the people go, 8:11.

In the following two plagues, locusts and three days of darkness, the Torah only uses the word ve-yechezak, 10:20,27. In these cases, even after the plague was over, due to the cumulative number of plagues, Pharaoh’s second thoughtful system of thinking should have overcome his intuitive system of thinking and he should have agreed that the Jewish people could leave.   However, since there was a desire for there to be the tenth plague, G-d hardened Pharaoh's second system of thinking that he would not let the Jewish people leave Egypt. Similarly, 11:10 records that G-d va-yichazek the heart of Pharaoh since after the nine plagues, Pharaoh’s second system of thinking should have led him to let the Jewish people go, but G-d intervened that Pharaoh’s second system of thinking convinced Pharaoh not to let the Jewish people leave Egypt.

The final cases where G-d hardened Pharaoh’s heart was by Yam Suf, 14:4,8,17, and here the words are ve-chizakati, va-yechzak and me-chazek. After the ten plagues, the second thoughtful system of thinking should have convinced Pharaoh and the Egyptians not to chase after the Jewish people at Yam Suf, but G-d wanted there to be the miracle of Yam Suf, see our discussion on 14:4-31, “The miracle at Yam Suf: Bait.” Accordingly, G-d hardened Pharaoh's and his soldiers second system of thinking to chase after the Jewish people and hence the word used is va-yechzak or its variations, see our discussion on Shemot 14:1-8, 17, "The true colors of Pharaoh and the Egyptian army by Yam Suf."

Bibliography:

Kahneman, Daniel (1934-2024), 2011, Thinking, fast and slow, New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux

Shemot 11:4 – The timing of Moshe and Pharaoh’s conversation after the ninth plague and the narrative order of Shemot 10:24 (21?) – Shemot 12:28

Shemot 10:24-11:8 record a conversation between Moshe and Pharaoh after the ninth plague, the plague of darkness, and within this conversation, 11:4-8 records that Moshe told Pharaoh about the tenth plague, that G-d would kill the firstborn sons and firstborn animals of Egypt. How did Moshe know of this plague? It is not recorded that G-d had told Moshe about the plague. G-d had referred to the plague in 4:23, but that verse only refers to G-d killing the firstborn son of Pharaoh and not to all the firstborn male Egyptians and the firstborn animals. 11:1 records that G-d told Moshe that there would be one more plague, but the verse does not record any specifics about the plague. Another question about Moshe’s statement in 11:4-8, is that 11:4 records that Moshe told Pharaoh that the tenth plague would be at midnight. Was Moshe referring to a specific night?

Benno Jacob (1992, p. 288) explains that in 11:4 Moshe was referring to the upcoming night that tenth plague was going to happen that night. (Hoffmann, 2010, p. 114, mentions this as a possibility.) This understanding of 11:4 means that Moshe told Pharaoh the conversation of 11:4-8 on the morning of the 14th of Nisan since the tenth plague was on the night of the 14th/15th of Nisan, and the Jewish people left Egypt on the 15th of Nisan, Bemidbar 33:3, see also Vayikra 23:5,6. Furthermore, since it is generally assumed that 11:4 is a continuation of the conversation in 10:24-29, this would mean that the entire passage from 10:24-11:8 occurred on the morning of the 14th of Nisan. If this is true, then 10:24-11:8 is not recorded in chronological order since 12:2 records G-d's instructions to Moshe about the tenth plague, at least from the 10th of Nisan and maybe even on the 1st of Nisan, 12:1-20. Moshe relayed this information to the Jewish people no later than the tenth of the month, 12:21-28. With this understanding, the events recorded in 12:1-28, transpired prior to the conversation between Moshe and Pharaoh in 10:24-11:8.

In addition, it could be that the conversation of 10:24-11:8 transpired immediately after the end of the plague of darkness, 10:21-23, which means that the plague of darkness was on the 11th, 12th and 13th of Nisan, as suggested by Benno Jacob (1992, p. 301). This would mean that also 10:21-23, is recorded not in chronological order.

On the other hand, it could be that the conversation between Moshe and Pharaoh recorded in 10:24-11:8 did not occur immediately after the plague of darkness. Instead, following the idea that 12:1-28 occurred before 10:24-11:8, maybe Pharaoh saw the Jewish people had taken their sheep on the tenth of Nisan, and this prompted him to speak to Moshe and Aharon. With this latter possibility, the plague of darkness could have been earlier than the 11th of Nisan, and then only the passage from 10:24-11:8 is recorded out of chronological order.

A possible reason for the Torah recording 10:24 (21?) – 11:8 prior to 12:1-28, even though the conversation recorded in 10:24 (21?) -11:8 occurred afterwards is that had the passage of 10:24 (21?) -11:8 been recorded in its chronological order, then this section would have interrupted between the instructions for the tenth plague, 12:1-28, and the tenth plague, 10:29.

With this understanding, we now know how Moshe told Pharaoh about the tenth plague in 11:4-8. G-d told Moshe about the tenth plague in 12:12,13, and this conversation occurred before the conversation between Moshe and Pharaoh that is recorded in 11:4-8.

In addition, this timing of 10:24 (21?) – 12:28 can explain Moshe’s statement to Pharaoh in 10:29, that they would not see each other again. If the conversation of 10:24-11:8 occurred before 12:1-28, how did Moshe know that he would not see Pharaoh again? The answer is that since the conversation of 10:24-11:8 was on the morning of the 14th of Nisan, Moshe knew that the Jewish people were leaving the next day, so Moshe could tell Pharaoh that they would not see each other again.

Bibliography:

Hoffmann, David (1843-1921), 2010, Commentary on Shemot, translated by Asher Vestreel, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1992, The second book of the Bible: Exodus, translated with an introduction by Walter Jacob, Hoboken: Ktav Publishing House.

Shemot 11:5; 12:29 – The deaths of the firstborn Egyptians in the tenth plague

Shemot 11:5 records that Moshe warned Pharaoh that in the tenth plague all of the firstborn Egyptians including the firstborn Egyptian animals would die, and Shemot 12:29 records the fulfillment of this plague. Why were these people and animals killed? Was there a need for the tenth plague?

The tenth plague was not necessary to free the Jewish people from slavery since G-d could have continued each of the nine plagues until the people left Egypt. For example, during the plague of darkness, the people could have walked out when the Egyptians could not see anything. Or, G-d could have continued the plague of locusts until the people left. However, G-d always stopped the plagues without freeing the people and then after a plague ended, Pharaoh refused to let the people go. What was the reason for the tenth plague?

The tenth plague was a punishment for the Egyptians killing the male Jewish children, Shemot 1:22 (see Seforno on Shemot 8:12), and we see from the story of Moshe being hidden in the reeds of the Nile that Pharaoh’s decree to kill the male Jewish children was implemented, Shemot 2:1-6. This punishment accords with the verse in Bereshit 9:6 that people who murder are supposed to be killed. In addition, the Egyptians severely mistreated the Jews without any order from Pharaoh because they loathed the Jewish people, Shemot 1:12-14, see our discussion on Shemot 1:7-22, "Population dynamics" (https://lobashamayim.blogspot.com/2009/01/shemot-18-22-population-dynamics.html).

If all the Egyptians (except Pharaoh’s daughter and the midwives(?)) killed the Jewish male children, why was tenth plague limited to the firstborn male Egyptians? Bekhor Shor (on Shemot 4:23, quoted by Hizkuni on 4:23) writes that the tenth plague was a measure for measure, midah keneged midah, since Shemot 4:22 refers to the Jewish people as the firstborn of G-d. Yet, for some period of time all the Jewish male children were killed by the Egyptians, and then a punishment that was measure for measure would have been that all the Egyptian males should have been killed.

Rashi (on Shemot 11:5) tries to explain why the firstborn non-Jewish slaves, the firstborn of the poor Egyptians and the firstborn animals were killed. He writes that the firstborn non-Jewish slaves were killed since they should not say that their gods had caused the plague and the firstborn of the poor Egyptians were killed since they too had made the Jews slaves. This latter explanation accords with our understanding of Shemot 1:12-14, but there is no reason to assume that the poor Egyptians and non-Jewish slaves did not participate in the murder of the Jewish male children. With regard to the firstborn animals, Rashi writes that they were killed since these animals had been worshipped.

My understanding is that based on Bereshit 9:6 all the Egyptian men should have been killed in the tenth plague since the Egyptians killed the male Jewish children, and this would follow the idea of a punishment being measure for measure. However, the punishment was limited to just the firstborn male Egyptians to reduce the number of people who were punished. 

Why were the Egyptian firstborn males killed as opposed to some other criteria as for example, the youngest child in each family? My guess is that the firstborn males were selected since this would establish the law of the firstborn males by the Jewish people that they are kadosh, Shemot 13:1,12-15, independent of the fact that they are born first, as from the book of Bereshit we see that the Torah does not believe that being born first is a reason for a person to receive special privileges. This idea also explains why the firstborn animals were killed in the tenth plague since they too were killed to generate the source of the future law of the kedusha of the firstborn animals.

Shemot 12:30 (Exodus) - Deaths in the Egyptian homes during the tenth plague

Shemot 12:30 records that during the tenth plague, "there was a great outcry in Egypt for there was no household in which there was no death" (Alter translation, 2004, p. 381). How could this be if only the firstborn Egyptian males were killed? How could it be that every house in Egypt had a firstborn male? Even if three generations lived together, there must have been some homes with no firstborn males. Ibn Ezra (on 12:30) explains that the verse only means the majority of homes had a death during the plague but not literally every home. Was there even a majority of homes with firstborn males?

Rashi (on 12:30) quotes two explanations from the Midrash. One, if there was no firstborn males, then the oldest male was considered a firstborn male. Two, the firstborn could refer to either the firstborn to the father or to the mother, and since there was a great deal of promiscuity in Egypt, there could be many firstborn males.

Hizkuni (on 12:31) quotes two other explanations from the Midrash. One, from R. Natan that the Egyptians used to make a memorial to their dead, and during the plague the memorials were destroyed, which was equivalent to having the person killed. Two, the Egyptians used to bury their dead by their homes, and during the plague the dogs dug up the graves. This act was considered by the Egyptians as being equivalent to having the person killed.

Amos Chacham (1991, p. 202) suggests that the Egyptians used to live together as clans, and then the verse means that there was no clan that did not have at least one firstborn male who died. Yet, even if one accepts that house means clan, then still the clans would have to have been quite large that every clan would have a firstborn son. 

A different possibility is that reference to the dead in every Egyptian household in 12:30 includes the animals that died in the plague. The previous verse, 12:29, records that the plague "killed all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn who was to inherit the throne to the firstborn in prison and all the firstborn animals." Also, when Moshe warned Pharaoh about the tenth plague, he mentioned the death of the firstborn animals, 11:5, and the death of the animals is the source for the later law that a person has to redeem his firstborn donkey, 13:14,15. We see that that the death of the animals was an intrinsic element of the tenth plague and maybe then the idea that there was no Egyptian home without a death also includes the animals that died in the plague. 12:30 does not specify that the reference is only to humans, and people cry about the death of their animals. Note, I doubt that the firstborn animals died in order that the Torah could state that in each house there was a death, but once the firstborn animals died, then this led to the result that there was a death in each Egyptian house during the tenth plague.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company

Chacham, Amos, 1991, Da'at Mikra: Commentary on Shemot, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Shemot 7:1-12:29- The ten plagues in Egypt: Their structure, order, and maybe their rationale

Shemot 7:1-12:29 record the changing of Aharon's staff into a crocodile, and the ten plagues. 

The Haggadah quotes Rabbi Yehuda who states a mnemonic for the ten plagues that splits them up into three groups (3+3+4) based on the first letters of the plagues, dzakh adash bachav. In the Middle Ages, the Rashbam (on 7:26) seems to follow this division and noted that that by the first two plagues in each set, Moshe warned Pharaoh and by the third plague in each set there was no warning. Seforno (on 8:12) expands on this distinction and notes that the tenth plague is separate from the other nine plagues. This separation can be seen by the fact that there is a lengthy break from the nine plagues, 7:1-10:23, and the tenth plague, 12:29. Thus, the order of the plagues can be thought of as being nine plus one, or 3, 3,  3,  1.  

Many commentators (see for example Malbim on 7:14, and Sarna 1986, p. 76) have noticed other distinctions within each of the three sets of three plagues. When G-d tells Moshe to go to Pharaoh by the first plague in each set, the word used is nisav or hityasev, 7:15, 8:16, and 9:13, while by the second plague in each set the word used is bo, 7:26, 9:1 and 10:1. Furthermore, within the warning by the first plague in each set, G-d tells Moshe to tell Pharaoh a reason for the set of three plagues, 7:17, 8:18 and 9:14, while no rationale is recorded within the warning by second plague in each set. (8:6 records Moshe giving a reason for the removal of the frogs which was second plague, but this appears to be from Moshe since there is no indication that G-d instructed to Moshe to say this.)

In addition, and I did not see this mentioned, by the third plague in each set of three plagues not only is there no warning, but the plague comes and goes without any reaction by Pharaoh. By all the other plagues, Pharaoh responds in some way, by negotiating, 7:4, 8:21, 9:27, 10:16, by not being impressed, 7:23, or by noting the damage done by the plague, 9:7. 10:24 records Pharaoh speaking to Moshe after the plague of darkness (the third plague in the third set), but not only is the plague over, but Pharaoh makes no reference to the plague. Similarly, in the plague of kinnim (the third plague in the first set), Pharaoh's advisors state that the plague was "the finger of G-d," 8:15, but Pharaoh says nothing since he never responded to the third plague.

This grouping of three groups of three plagues plus the tenth plague does not include the miracle of changing the staff into a crocodile, 7:8-13, the introduction to the plagues, and hence really the order of the plagues should be 1, 3, 3, 3, 1. This pattern is similar to the structure of the creation of the world, which was 1, 3, 3, 1, see our discussion, "A literary pattern to the description in the Torah of the creation of the world."

Is there an order to the plagues?

A popular answer (see Rashi on 8:16 and Ralbag, comments end of Va-era`) is that the order is based on the escalation in the severity of the plagues. However, while the tenth plague is clearly the most severe plague, the ninth plague, darkness, seems to be less severe than the preceding plagues of locusts, hail and boils. It seems that if one wants to follow this idea of increasing severity, one would have to argue that the psychological effects of the plague of darkness were greater than the physical pain of boils, and then maybe one could divide the three sets of plagues into annoying, the first set, destructive, the second set and psychological, the third set. (The hail and the locusts, from the third set, also destroyed the Egyptian crops, but this was part of the psychological warfare since the people would worry about their future food.) On the other hand, if the second set of plagues was worse than the third set of plagues, than the severity of the plagues would be a parabola. Of course, the only people who can truly answer whether the plagues were escalating in severity were the Egyptians who lived through the plagues.

A different way to understand the order of the plagues is based on the rational for each of the three sets of three plagues in response to Pharaoh's statement in 5:2. (This idea is discussed in many places, see for example Greenberg, 1971, p. 607, and Weitzman, 1999, pp. 87-99.) In 5:2, Pharaoh stated that he did not know G-d, and even if he knew G-d, he would not release the Jewish people since he evidently did not believe that G-d had any power in this world.

The lesson of the first set of three plagues was that Pharaoh should learn of G-d, 7:17, and this lesson occurred in ascending order, first by nature (blood), then in the homes (frogs) and then on the bodies (kinnim).

The lesson of the second set of three plagues was that G-d is present in the world, 8:18, which was to be learned based on the distinction of the plagues by the Jews and the Egyptians, and this too had an ascending order. The first distinction (arov) was between the homes of the Jews and the Egyptians, 8:20, the second distinction (dever) was between the Jewish and Egyptian animals, 9:4, and the third distinction (boils) was between the bodies of the Jews and the Egyptians, 9:11.

The lesson of the third set of three plagues was that G-d was unique, Shemot 9:14, and the first two plagues of the set are reported as being unique Shemot 9:24 (barad), and 10:6 (locusts). The uniqueness here was in reference to G-d's control over the forces of nature. Note that by the plague of barad, the point of the plague was not to cause damage since Moshe warned the people to bring their animals inside, 9:19 (see Ramban on 9:19), and 9:33 can be understood, as explained by Rashi (on 9:33), that G-d even stopped the rain in mid-course. Instead, it was to show G-d's control over the rain, hail, lighting and thunder, 9:23,24. Also, the unique point of the plague of locusts was not its destruction of some of the crops, which occurs by all swarms of locusts, but the massive presence of the locusts throughout Egypt and this was due to the great wind that brought the locusts, 10:13. G-d's power and control of the wind was also evident when G-d removed the tremendous quantities of locusts, as 10:19 records that the locusts were dumped into the sea, which most likely gave the effect of a great tornado. By the third plague in this set of plagues, darkness, the word unique is not mentioned, but complete darkness for three days was also obviously unique, and this plague showed G-d's control of the sun. In this set of plague, the order was the increase in the demonstration of G-d's control of nature, first over the rain, barad, then over the wind, locusts, and then over the sun, darkness.

Accordingly, within each set of three plagues there is an order of ascending message/ lesson. These lessons of the plagues are most likely the rationale for the plagues since G-d did not have to do any plagues to take the people out of Egypt, as He could have told the people to walk and stopped the Egyptians from attacking them. The lessons of the plagues were to prepare the people for the Decalogue and the covenant with G-d, as finally after the miracle of the splitting of the Yam Suf, 14:31 records that the people believed in G-d.

On the other hand, 10:2 states that the reason for the numerous plagues was in order that the Jewish people would remember the plagues, which is different than the three lessons of the three sets of plagues. Also, 9:16 and 10:1 record in reference to Pharaoh and the Egyptians that the plagues were for them to tell the world about G-d. These are additional reasons to the main reason of the plagues, which was to inculcate the belief of G-d in the Jewish people.

Bibliography:

Greenberg, Moshe (1928-2010), 1971, Plagues in Encyclopedia Judaica, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 13, pp. 604-613.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1986, Exploring Exodus, New York: Schocken Books.

Weitzman, Gideon, 1999, Sparks of Light, Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc.

Shemot 12:11 (Bo) – Eating the korban pesach in Egypt: To gulp down?

12:11 records that G-d told Moshe that the korban pesach was to be eaten in haste. Why did the people have to eat the sacrifice quickly? The most popular answer is that the people had to eat quickly to be ready to leave Egypt. Yet, the people ate the sacrifice at the beginning of the night and they were not going to leave Egypt until the morning. They were not even allowed to leave their homes in the middle of the night, 12:22. Furthermore, if the reason for the haste was that they people would be ready to leave in the morning, then they should have been told to finish their food by midnight or some other time.

Hizkuni (on 12:11) writes that they had to eat the sacrifice fast since they also left Egypt quickly, see Devarim 16:3. Yet, why should there be this parallelism? Again, the leaving was many hours after the eating?

Maybe the reason for eating in haste is because when one eats quickly one does not enjoy the food. The point was that the people should realize that the sacrifice was because G-d commanded them and hence the following words after the commandment to eat in haste, are that the “sacrifice is for G-d.” The people were not to make the sacrifice into a type of goodbye party for leaving Egypt. The sacrifice was because G-d commanded them and not for their enjoyment. This was an important lesson by their very first commandment.

The Mishnah (Pesachim 9:5) records that only the korban pesach in Egypt had to be eaten in haste but not by future generations. Yet, if the reason for eating in haste was to show that one was following G-d’s command, why should this requirement not have remained forever? Maybe the answer is that by the korban pesach in Egypt, the crucial aspect was the sprinkling of the blood, while the eating was secondary and hence it was eaten hastily, which is not even really considered as eating. However, for the future generations who would not sprinkle the blood, if they ate the sacrifice hastily, then there would remain nothing significant to the sacrifice. One person would offer the sacrifice, but the family would just gobble down the food. However, if the family savored the sacrifice, then the korban pesach would be part of celebration of the festival.

Shemot 12:22,23 (Bo) - Why did the Jewish have to stay indoors during the night of the 10th plague?

Prior to the tenth plague Moshe gave the people various instructions, and one of these instructions was that the people could not leave their homes the night of the plague, 12:22. Why could they not go outside?

Rashi (on 12:22) writes that once the decree of death is declared, then even innocent people can be killed, so then there was a danger to the people from leaving their homes. A proof of this idea could be from Bemidbar 16:21 and 17:10.  Yet, as noted by the Netziv, in this particular case, if the plague could distinguish between firstborn Egyptians and non-firstborn Egyptians, then surely it could distinguish between Egyptians and Jews. G-d was able to distinguish between Egyptian animals and Jewish animals (9:6) but not between Egyptians and Jews? Thus, the plagues, and specifically the tenth plague, seem to be an exception to this rule.

Ramban writes that there was no danger to the people but that as G-d was in Egypt killing the Egyptians, there was a prohibition for any person to see G-d. I doubt this explanation since as discussed below, I believe it was the force of G-d that was in Egypt and then there was nothing for anybody to see.

Abravanel quotes from Ibn Kaspi (1279-1340) that the people were to stay in their homes in order that they would not see the Egyptians dying and in order that they would be ready to leave Egypt the following morning.

Rav Soloveitchik suggests two reasons why the people had to stay indoors. One, (Rav Schachter, 1994, p. 281) the people had to stay inside in order that they would not take revenge on the Egyptians for all the years of slavery. Rav Soloveitchik noted that in our "modern" times it was common for newly freed people to take revenge on their former colonial masters. Two, (Soloveitchik, 2007, p. 123) the people stayed inside to show that they did not participate in bringing about the Exodus. "G-d was saying to the Jewish people, 'Do not help Me; stay home. I will take care of Pharaoh and the Egyptians." Rav Soloveitchik explains that when there is a spiritual struggle, the people must participate but by a physical fight, then G-d alone is given the credit. Thus, he suggests that this is why Moshe is barely mentioned in the Haggadah.

Maybe there was another reason why the people had to stay indoors. One of the goals of the 10th plague was to separate the Jewish people from the Egyptians, 11:7, see above on 12:12,23, "A red line." The Exodus from Egypt was the beginning of the covenantal process that would culminate in the establishment of the covenant on Mount Sinai, and one crucial aspect of the covenant was the separation of the Jewish people from the rest of the world who were not part of the covenant. The remaining indoors was part of this separation process. Although it seems that the people lived apart from the Egyptians (see below on 12:37), if they went outside they could have wondered into areas where the Egyptians lived, and then there would have been no separation between the Jewish people and the Egyptians.

Maror

In the Seder, we state that we eat maror to remind ourselves of the bitterness of the slavery. This is a quote from Rabban Gamliel, in the Mishnah Pesachim 10:5, and is based on the similar word, va-yimareru, in Shemot 1:14, which records/ describes how the Egyptians treated the Jews ruthlessly. Yet, the eating of maror today is a Rabbinic law since there is no longer the korban pesach, Passover offering (Pesachim 120a). If the maror is to remember the slavery, then it is independent of the pesach sacrifice, and then why should it be that the Torah law of maror was annulled just because one cannot offer the korban pesach?

The answer is that the requirement to eat maror is from Shemot 12:8 not Shemot 1:14, and Shemot 12:8 records the obligation to eat maror in conjunction with the eating of matzah and the korban pesach. Thus, maror is related to the korban pesach, and hence once there is no longer the korban pesach, then maror is no longer a biblical requirement. Yet, if the maror is not to remember the slavery, what is its rationale? How does it relate to the korban pesach?

Ibn Ezra (lengthy comments on 12:8) quotes an anonymous person that the bitter herbs were condiments that were normally eaten at meals in Egypt. Ibn Ezra rejects this possibility but the Or Hachayyim (on 12:8, see also Breuer, 1993, p. 163) accepts this idea. With this idea, the eating of the maror is to enhance the eating of the pesach sacrifice, and this suggests that the eating of the matzot and the bitter herbs was to make the eating of the korban pesach into a complete meal, meat, a type of bread, and vegetables.

This idea that maror was a type of condiment accords with the list of vegetables in the Mishnah (Pesachim 2:6) that can be used for maror, as all are either lettuce or endives, see Schaffer, 1981, pp. 218-222. The Talmud (Pesachim 39a) in its discussion of the Mishnah notes that first item on the Mishnah's list, chazeret is lettuce.

The Mishnah, Pesachim 10:3, states twice that chazeret is brought to the Seder, once for karpas and once for maror. Thus, according to the Mishnah, at the Seder, the people ate lettuce twice in the meal, once after kiddush, as an appetizer, and once after the matzah, as maror. We see that karpas and maror are equivalent and this equivalency is also evident in the question in the Talmud (Pesachim 114b) that when a person just has lettuce for both karpas and maror, should one make the blessing on maror by karpas or wait? We see again that lettuce is maror and the use of maror for karpas shows that maror is a regular vegetable and not something bitter to remember the slavery.

The Talmud Yerushalmi 2:5, 18a, (also see Talmud Bavli, Pesachim 39a) questions the use of lettuce since it is not bitter, and answers that while initially it is sweet, it eventually turns bitter. This is a difficult answer since if the use of lettuce is because of its status when it is old, then one should only be allowed to use “old” lettuce for maror. More likely, the use of lettuce follows the understanding that maror was a condiment to enhance the eating of the korban pesach, and hence lettuce did not have to be bitter. However, the Yerushalmi was following Rabban Gamliel's understanding of maror.

A similar question arises from a statement of Rava (Pesachim 115b). Rava states that if a person swallows maror at the Seder without tasting it, then he/ she has not fulfilled the requirement to eat maror. The Rashbam in his comments on the Talmud explains that by maror one has to taste the bitterness since the maror is to remember the bitterness of the slavery. With this explanation, Rava was following Rabban Gamliel's understanding of maror, but Rava did not state his reason for why a person has to taste maror just that one has to taste the maror. This same obligation accords with the idea that maror was a type of condiment as then too the taste of the maror was crucial.

It seems that lettuce was used for maror by everybody until the Late Middle Ages. Schaffer (1981) writes that only in the 14th century was horseradish clearly mentioned as being used for maror, and he explains that this was because the Jews had moved to eastern Germany, and in that climate it was difficult to find lettuce by Pesach. This is not a new idea as the Be'er Hetev, Orah Chayyim 473:11, quotes the Chacham Tzvi, 1660-1718, who wrote that since in the lands of Ashkenaz lettuce is not found by Pesach, people use horseradish instead. (Schaffer notes that the custom could have started in even colder climates like Poland and Russia and then moved to Germany. Also, he notes that horseradish is first mentioned in the 12th century but then it was mentioned as an ingredient to charoset!)

With this change from lettuce to horseradish by the Ashkenazim there has developed the idea that horseradish, is the true maror, and lettuce is only for "wimps." However, really lettuce is the true maror, and horseradish is very problematic since one is eating the root of the vegetable, which is not allowed, see Shulchan Arukh 473:5. The Mishnah Berurah (473:36) defends the use of horseradish but he also acknowledges that its use was because it was the only vegetable available by Pesach.

We see that there are two explanations for the maror, one that it was a condiment and two, Rabban Gamliel's explanation, that it was to remember the slavery. Yet, was Rabban Gamaliel's statement that the maror was to remember slavery an explanation for the Biblical requirement to eat maror? Shmuel Safrai and Zev Safrai (1998, pp. 28, 35, 36, 227) write that the Rabban Gamaliel here is the one who lived after the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash. Similarly, Encyclopedia Judaica (1971, 7:298), states that Rabban Gamaliel of the Mishnah is the second Rabban Gamaliel who lived after the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash, and he made many takkanot "with the aim being to face up to the new reality created by the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash."

Goldschmidt (1960, p. 52) notes that it has been suggested that Rabban Gamaliel's statement was to repudiate Christians who claimed that the eating of the pesach, matzah and maror was to remember Jesus's last supper. Goldschmidt thinks this idea is reasonable, but Safrai and Safrai (1998, p. 156) doubt that the Christians had such a custom.

A different possibility is that Rabban Gamaliel's statement concerning maror was to offer a rationale for the rabbinic ruling to continue eating maror after the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash. While one could argue that the people should continue to eat maror even without the korban pesach to remember the Biblical requirement, still it is preferable to have a rationale that is independent of the korban pesach. Maybe then Rabban Gamaliel suggested that the maror was to remember the slavery, and this rationale would be particularly appropriate for the people who were suffering under the Roman rule after the destruction of the Bet ha-Mikdash. His message was that on Pesach night we should remember that in Egypt the Jewish people went from slavery to freedom, and this would give hope to the people that their suffering from the Romans would soon end. With this idea (or that his statement was to counter Christian beliefs) Rabban Gamaliel would not necessarily disagree that the rationale for the Biblical requirement to eat maror was to enhance the eating of the korban pesach. Instead, he was providing a rationale for the rabbinic law and not the Biblical law. (I believe this approach accords with the argument of Rabbi Soloveitchik, Haggadah, by korach, that today the eating of bitter herbs is not a rabbinic law based on 12:8, but is a separate rabbinic law.)

Shemot 12:9,46 – Some of the laws of the korban pesach in Egypt: Form generates substance

Shemot 12:9 records that the lamb of the korban pesach had to be roasted, which implies that the animal was roasted whole. Why was it required to roast the entire animal as one piece?

The Rashbam (on 12:8,9, also see Bekhor Shor, Rambam, Moreh 3:46) explains that the requirement to roast the lamb whole was because this was the quickest way of preparing the food, and 12:11 records that the sacrifice was to be eaten quickly. Benno Jacob (1992, pp. 309,310) claims that roasting isn’t really the quickest way to prepare food, that it would be quicker to boil the food in water. He also points out that the people did have time, as they prepared the sacrifice in the afternoon of the 14th and only left Egypt in the morning of the 15th. Instead, he suggests that the people had to be packed at night to show that they were ready to leave, and hence they had no utensils to cook with, so instead they roasted the sacrifice on an open fire.

Hizkuni (on 12:8,9, also see Abravanel) follows the idea that the korban pesach was to repudiate Egyptian idolatry that the Egyptians worshipped the lamb (see Ramban on 12:3 and 8:22, and Rambam, Moreh 3:46). He suggests that the roasting was in order that the smell would waft, and the Egyptians would know that their god was being cooked. Similarly, he suggests the animal was roasted whole because then if an Egyptian would have seen the animal being roasted or eaten, he would have recognized the animal since it was still would have been in its natural shape. Yet, I wonder whether any Egyptians saw the people roasting and eating the sacrifice.

My guess is that this requirement to roast the animal whole is due to another law of the korban pesach, which is recorded in the second section of the laws of the sacrifice in chapter 12. 12:46 records that no bone could be broken of the animal. This requirement would seem to correspond to the roasting whole since if the animal was baked or boiled it was likely that one would need to break the bones of the lamb, as who would have such a big pot to fit a whole animal? Yet, why was it forbidden to break the bones of the sacrifice?

The Rashbam (on 12:46, also Rambam Moreh 3:46) again explains that this requirement not to break the bones was relating to eating hastily, as Bekhor Shor (12:46) explains that a person who is eating fast throws the bones and does not break the bones to get to the marrow. The Rashbam and the Bekhor Shor are consistent with their explanation why the animal had to be roasted whole, but the law of 12:46 was for the future. Why was there a need to eat the sacrifice in haste for all the generations (see Ibn Ezra on 12:11)?

Hizkuni records several additional reasons why the bones of the sacrifice could not have been broken. One, the prohibition was in order that the group of people would not fight over the bones. Two, one is supposed to be satiated when one eats the sacrifice, and if one breaks the bones to get to the marrow of the bones, then it appears that the person is still hungry. Benno Jacob (1992, p. 356) quotes the Ralbag that breaking bones is bestial, and this is forbidden since the Jewish people are a holy people. Yet, then one could never break bones. Abravanel suggests that breaking the bones is disrespectful to the sacrifice. Luzzatto suggests that slaves break bones when they eat, so the prohibition is to show that the Jewish people we are free.

While all of these suggestions are possible, the law of not breaking the bones is recorded within the section that stresses the connection between the korban pesach and the laws of circumcision, 12:43-49. For example, a person who is not circumcised cannot eat of the sacrifice, 12:48. This connection suggests that the laws of not breaking the bones also relates to circumcision, but how?

When G-d told Avraham about the covenant of circumcision G-d began by telling Avraham, “be whole,” Bereshit 17:1. How does wholeness relate to circumcision? Many understand the term as being wholehearted with G-d, that Avraham should be willing to circumcise himself. However, the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 46:4, quoted by Rashi on 17:1) points out that the term can also be understood in a physical sense, that by removing the foreskin, Avraham became whole.

This physical understanding of the term “be whole” might be the reason why the korban pesach was roasted whole and no bones could be broken. The korban pesach is intrinsically related to circumcision, and thus the sacrifice was patterned after circumcision. Hence, if by circumcision, there is concept of making one whole physically, then also the korban pesach needs to be whole physically. Thus, the animal is roasted whole, and one would eat without breaking the bones, which leaves the form of the animal intact, the animal remained whole. This physical connection might also explain why 12:5 stresses that the animal must be whole. (Is this physical connection also the reason why the sacrifice must be a male, 12:5?)

Furthermore, if the prohibition of breaking the bones is related to the idea of being whole by circumcision, then this same rational might explain why one cannot take the meat of the sacrifice out of its designated house. This law is recorded in the same verse as the law prohibiting the breaking of the bones, 12:46, and this prohibition not to take the meat out keeps the whole household together, see Jacob, 1992, p. 356. The idea of wholeness also refers to 12:47, that the whole community must offer the sacrifice. Thus, in 12:46,47 we have the wholeness of the household, of the animal, and of the nation, and all are in accordance with G-d’s directive to Avraham “be whole” in Bereshit 17:1. If this understanding is true, then all the laws of the korban pesach in section 12:43-48 relate to the laws of circumcision.

Why is the korban pesach connected to circumcision? The point of the korban pesach was to take the blood of the sacrifice and put it on the doorposts, 12:13,27. This placing of the blood separated the Jewish people from the Egyptians and this is why G-d "passed over" their homes. Similarly, circumcision also separates the Jewish people from the rest of the world. These acts of separation are part of the covenantal process, and both are called signs, Bereshit 17:11 and 12:13. Why are two separations needed? My guess is that in Egypt, really the korban pesach was sufficient, and my guess is that the people only circumcised themselves after the night of the tenth plague, 12:50, see below. However, for later generations, the korban pesach was only a re-enactment and then the real separation is the circumcision. Yet, circumcision is a one-time act, and hence its significance can be lost. Also, many people never perform the circumcision if they do not have children or they only have girls. Thus, every year we bring the korban pesach which reminds us of the separation in Egypt, 12:26,27. Furthermore, following the explanation suggested above, the laws of roasting the sacrifice whole and not breaking the bones are to re-enforce the connection between the korban pesach and the circumcision.