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 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 8:16-28 - The fourth plague in Egypt: Arov

Shemot 8:16-28 records the plague of arov, the fourth plague, but today nobody knows what exactly it was. The word arov implies a mixture of something, but a mixture of what?

Josephus writes that arov was a mixture of wild animals while Philo suggests that it was types of flies (quoted in Jacob, 1992, pp. 266,267). This argument continued in the Midrash. Shemot Rabbah (11:3) quotes that R. Yehuda suggests that the fourth plague was a mixture of wild beasts, while R. Nehemiah argues that the plague was gnats and hornets. The author of the Midrash favors R. Yehuda since he notes that 8:27 records that G-d removed all of the arov, which suggests that the arov had some value being dead, which he claims is the skins of the wild beasts. Possibly for this reason, this definition has become the traditional approach, see Rashi and Ibn Ezra on 8:17.

Luzzatto (on 8:17) argues that arov cannot be wild beasts since 8:17,20 record that the arov entered the house of the Egyptians, and if it was wild beasts then the people could have closed their doors and kept the animals outside. Furthermore, Benno Jacob (1992, p. 266) argues that arov cannot be wild animals since the plagues were not meant to be lethal, while if there really were wild animals then the plague would have killed large numbers of the Egyptians something not mentioned in the Torah. Yet, if arov is a mixture of insects, then it seems to have been almost identical to the previous plague, kinnim.

One clue to the difference between arov and kinnim is that the kinnim appear to have been in the air like dust and they affected people and animals, 8:13, while the arov was on the ground and seems to have affected the Egyptian homes, 8:17,20. In addition, the Torah does not record any damage due to the kinnim. Kinnim, which was the third plague in the first set of three plagues, appear to have been annoying as were the other two plagues (blood and frogs) in the first set of plagues. On the other hand, 8:20 records that the arov caused great destruction, but what was the destruction? It could not have been the destruction of the crops since that occurred later by the plagues of hail and locusts, 9:31, 10:15. The Torah twice refers to the arov as entering the homes of the Egyptians, 8:17,20, and on the second occasion this description precedes the statement that the arov caused great destruction.

My guess is that kinnim were insects that fly while arov were terrestrial insects. Some terrestrial insects (ants, termites) can cause great destruction to homes, and then the destruction attributed to the arov was to the Egyptian homes, something unique in the plagues. I am not sure what the Egyptian homes were made of, wood, stone, mud, and/ or dung, but the arov could have been a mixture of terrestrial insects that were able to eat through the building materials of the Egyptian homes.

8:18,19 note that the plague of arov would only affect the Egyptians, G-d would make a division (pedut) between the Jewish people and the Egyptians by this plague, and the plague would be a sign of this division. This distinction was not just that by the Jews there were no insects, while by the Egyptians there were insects, as this was the only plague that the Torah specifically states that it would be a sign (ot) of the division or separation between the Jews and the Egyptians.

What was the sign from the plague of arov? When terrestrial insects appear in the multitudes, they cover the ground, which takes on the color of the insects. However, since the insects did not enter the land of Goshen, they would have formed a line on the ground between the land of Goshen and the rest of the Egypt, which would be the sign that the plague only affected the Egyptians and not the Jewish people.

(There were other plagues where this division was very evident, as for example the plagues of darkness and the deaths of the Egyptian firstborn sons, 11:6,7, but the Torah does not use the word ot by these plagues. The word ot does appear by the blood on the homes, 12:13, and I believe that the sign here by arov would be similar to the sign of the blood, which was a red line.  It is possible that the Torah makes a point of the plague of arov being a sign of this division between the Jews and Egyptians since this was the first plague where this division occurred, see Ibn Ezra on 7:24.)

Bibliography:

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

The structure of chapters 25 and 26 in the book of Vayikra and the four words of redemption in Shemot 6:5-8

Chapters 25 and 26 in the book of Vayikra can be divided into four sections based on the concluding sentences, 25:38, 25:55, 26:13 and 26:45 of each section. These verses have a amazing literary connection with Shemot 6:2-8.

Shemot 6:2 records that G-d spoke to Moshe and the second half of 6:2 through 6:8 record the contents of this conversation. 6:3-5 record four past verbs in reference to G-d and 6:5-8 records eight future verbs (seven based on vav ha-hipuch) in reference to G-d: "I will remember," I will take them out," I will save them," "I will redeem them," "I will take them," "I will be for them," "I will bring them," and "I will give them." Of these eight future verbs, the Yerushalmi (Pesachim 10:1, 68b) quotes R. Yochanon in the name of R. Biniyah(?) that four of them (take out, save, redeem and take) are the reason why we drink four cups of wine at the Seder, and these four words are referred to as the four words of redemption. Yet, why are only four verbs counted? Why are there not eight cups? Also, three of the four selected verbs, "I will take them out," "I will save them," and "I will redeem them" refer to the same action. If one is only counting the four selected verbs, then maybe there should have only been two cups of wine. It seems that these four verbs are a mnemonic to remember the four cups of wine, but not that they are the source of the four cups, see our discussion in our commentary on the Haggadah. 

I believe that a different four words of redemption or four verses can be identified in 6:2-8 through an analysis of the structure of chapters 25 and 26 in Vayikra. Vayikra 25 and 26 can be divided into four sections.

The first section is Vayikra 25:1-38, and refers to laws (yovel, shemitta) relating to the land. The section concludes with 25:38, “I am G-d who brought you out of the land of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan to be for you a G-d.” (Translations are based on Fox, 1995.)

The second section is from Vayikra 25:39-55, and records laws concerning slavery. This section concludes with 25:55, “For it is to me that the Children of Israel are servants, my servants are they, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt, I am G-d.”

The third section is Vayikra 26:1-13 and records the rewards for upholding the laws. This section concludes with 26:13, “I am G-d who brought you out of the land of Egypt from your being serfs to them; I broke the bars of your yoke, enabling you to walk upright.”

The fourth section is from Vayikra 26:14-45, and records the punishments for disobeying the laws. This section concludes with 26:45, “I will remember to their (benefit) the covenant of the former-ones whom I brought out of the land of Egypt, before the eyes of the nations, to be for them a G-d. I am G-d.”

Each of the four concluding sentences in Vayikra 25,26 have the common theme that G-d took the people out of Egypt. Also, the phrase "I am G-d " appears in each verse in the concluding sentences in Vayikra and in Shemot 6:6-8 the phrase appears in each verse. More so, 6:2 has the phrase, "I am G-d" and this verse is connected to 6:5 through the word "also" in the beginning of 6:5. Thus, one can divide G-d’s words from the second half of Shemot 6:2 through Shemot 6:8 based on the phrase “I am G-d,” into four ideas, 6:2-5, 6:6, 6:7 and 6:8, and this division accords with the concluding sentences of the sections in Vayikra 25,26.

The conclusion to the first section, Vayikra 25:38, refers to the fact that G-d gave (la-tet) the land of Canaan to the people, and this corresponds with Shemot 6:8, which records that G-d promised to bring the people to the land of their forefathers (Canaan) to give them (la-tet) the land.

The conclusion to the second section, Vayikra 25:55, refers to the idea that the people are G-d’s slaves (lee) and this corresponds to Shemot 6:7, which records that G-d will take the people to be G-d's nation (lee).

The conclusion to the third section, Vayikra 26:13, refers to the fact that G-d took the people out of slavery (me-heyot la-hem avadim) in the land of Egypt and this corresponds to the three verbs in Shemot 6:6, that G-d promised to free the people from the bondage in Egypt (me-avodatam).

The conclusion to the fourth section, Vayikra 26:45, refers to the idea that G-d would remember the covenant (ve-zacharti la-hem berit) and this corresponds to Shemot 6:2-5, which that G-d said that He will remember the covenant (va-ezkor et beriti). 

Not only are the themes identical, but the order of the sections of Vayikra chapters 25 and 26 has a chiastic structure with the verses Shemot 6:2-8. The conclusion to the first section, Vayikra 25:38, corresponds with Shemot 6:8. The conclusion to the second section, Vayikra 25:55, corresponds with, Shemot 6:7. The conclusion to the third section, Vayikra 26:13, corresponds with Shemot 6:6 and the conclusion to the fourth section, Vayikra 26:45, corresponds to the beginning of G-d’s statement to Moshe, Shemot 6:2-5.

The correspondence between Vayikra 25,26 and Shemot 6:2-8 shows in a literary manner that the passages from Shemot 6 and Vayikra 25,26, are all one unit.

In addition, as Vayikra 26 records the blessings and curses that seal the covenant, the correspondence between Vayikra 25,26 and Shemot 6:5-8 indicate that the purpose of the Exodus is the establishment of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people.

Furthermore, the correspondence suggests that the four verses from Shemot 6:5-8 can be called the four verses of redemption. In terms of words or phrases, the four words or verbs would be: One, I will remember them (6:5). Two, I will take out, save and redeem them (6:6). Three, I will take them for me and will be for them (6:7) and four, I will bring and give them the land of Canaan (6:8). This division of the four promises of redemption differs from the usual understanding by the four cups since in the usual understanding all four words are from Shemot 6:6,7, while with this approach, Shemot 6:6 is counted once, and Shemot 6:5 and 6:8 are also included.

Bibliography:

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books

Highlights of parashat Va-era`

In this week's parasha, G-d commissioned Moshe to free the people from Egypt.  (G-d has already done this is parashat Shemot, but after the failure of Moshe's first mission, chapter five, then there is a need to start over again.  The difference is that now Moshe was a willing messenger, while before he was a reluctant messenger.)  Afterwards, the Torah records seven of the ten plagues.  We have seven discussions on the parasha on the blog.

One, we discuss why Moshe again mentioned to G-d his speech impediment, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2009/01/shemot-612-passion-and-speech.html

Two, we discuss who was the agent of the first plague of blood, and how long did the plague last, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2010/01/shemot-714-25-va-era-bloody-mess.html

Three, we discuss what was the plague of arov, http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2015/01/shemot-816-28-arov.html

Four, we offer an explanation how Pharaoh could have animals after the fifth plague since the  plague killed all the Egyptian animals,  http://www.lobashamayim.blogspot.co.il/2010/01/shemot-91-7-va-era-fate-of-animals.html 

Five, we discuss the structure and order of the ten plagues. 

Six, we discuss a literary connection between Shemot 5:6-8, the four words of redemption and structure of chapters 25 and 26 in the book of Vayikra.

Seven, we discuss the different terms used to describe the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, on 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

Shemot 7:14-25 - The first plague in Egypt: A bloody mess

Shemot 7:14-25 record the first plague of blood, and there are several questions concerning this plague. One, 7:14-18 record that G-d told Moshe to go to Pharaoh when Pharaoh was by a body of water, presumably the Nile, and to speak to him. Moshe was to take his staff and relay a message from G-d that Pharaoh was to let the Jewish people go. Towards the end of this message, the second half of 7:17 records that “I will hit the water of the Nile with the staff in my hand and the water will turn to blood.” The “I” in this phrase must be referring to Moshe not G-d since G-d would not hold a staff in His “hands” and then Moshe was telling Pharaoh that he was going to hit the Nile with his staff. This understanding corresponds to 17:5 which record that Moshe hit the Nile with his staff. However, 7:19, records that Moshe commanded Aharon to stretch out his hand and staff over the water, and that this act would cause the water in Egypt to turn to blood. Who was the agent of the plague, Moshe or Aharon? 

A second question is how extensive was the plague? 7:17,18,20,21, refer to the Nile, while 7:19,21 record that there was blood everywhere in Egypt. Was the plague just with regard to the water in the Nile or all waters in Egypt? 

A third question is that if all the water turned to blood, how could 7:22 record that the Egyptian magicians were also able to turn water into blood? How did they have any water? On the other hand if the plague was only by the Nile why does 7:24 record that everybody in Egypt had to dig for water around the Nile to get drinking water? Where there no other sources of water? We will start with the first question.

Rashi (on 7:19) quotes the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 9:10) that Aharon was the agent of the plague since Moshe could not hit the Nile since the Nile had saved him when he was a baby. Following this approach, Ibn Ezra and Ramban (on 17:5) claim that 17:5 does not imply that Moshe hit the water, but that in 17:5 G-d was telling Moshe to take the stick that Moshe commanded Aharon to hit the Nile. This is not the simple understanding of 17:5.

Abravanel (1997, pp. 105,106) writes that both Moshe and Aharon were the agents of the first plague. Moshe’s blow was in front of Pharaoh by the Nile River and Aharon caused all the remaining water of Egypt to turn to blood. Abravanel seems to explain that both Moshe and Aharon struck some water with their staffs, whereas Benno Jacob (1992, p. 256) and Cassuto (1967, p. 98), who follow this idea of dual agents to the plague, explain that only Moshe struck the Nile, while Aharon waived his staff in the air. This latter understanding is more likely, and both actions probably occurred simultaneously: Moshe hit the water in the Nile before Pharaoh, while at the same time, Aharon stretched out his hand and staff in some unknown spot (next to Moshe?) which caused all the remaining water of Egypt to turn to blood.

Accordingly, the second half of 7:17 informs us that Moshe would strike the Nile, while 7:19 records the instructions to Aharon to waive his staff in the air. 7:20 then records that they did as commanded, with the use of the plural referring to both Moshe and Aharon. 7:20 continues and records, "he raised his staff and he hit the water." These words are usually understood as referring to one person. According to the approach that Aharon was the agent of the plague, then the reference is to Aharon (see Altar, 2004, p. 348), while according to the approach that Moshe was the person who hit the water of the Nile, then the reference is to Moshe. With this latter understanding, the statement that “they did” in the beginning of the verse refers to Aharon raising his staff. A different possibility to understanding 7:20 according to the approach that both Aharon and Moshe were agents of the plague is that the words "he raised his staff and he hit the water" are referring to both Moshe and Aharon, with the phrase "he raised his staff" referring to Aharon, and the phrase "he hit the water" referring to Moshe.

Why were there two agents for the plague of blood? Why was not just Moshe or just Aharon the agent of the plague? A reason why Moshe participated in this plague was the need to build up his status with regard to Pharaoh. Previously, Aharon had done the miracle of the staff turning into a reptile and swallowing the staff of Pharaoh’s magicians, 7:10-12, and Aharon was Moshe’s spokesman, 4:14-16; 7;1,2. This might have given the impression that Aharon was the leader of the Jewish people, and if Aharon had also done this plague, then this impression would have only increased. Accordingly, Moshe both spoke directly to Pharaoh and struck the Nile in front of Pharaoh and his advisors, 7:15-18;20, which showed Pharaoh that Moshe was the leader of the Jewish people. These actions show the growth in Moshe that he was able to deal with Pharaoh on his own. On the other hand, Aharon also participated in the plague since the Egyptian magicians, hartumim, were involved in this plague, 7:22, and whenever they appear, Aharon appears as well since both have similar status as being assistants.

With regard to the third questions, the source of water for the Egyptian magicians, many answered have been suggested. The simplest answer is from the Bekhor Shor (on 7:20, quoted by Hizkuni on 7:20) who writes that the water only turned to blood temporarily, and in that brief time period, all the fish died. Bekhor Shor points out that the Torah does not state that the people could not drink the water from the Nile since it was blood, but rather it was the stench of the dying fish that stopped them from drinking the water, 7:18,21. Thus, the Bekhor Shor argues that once the water turned back to water, there was no problem for the magicians to get water since they could have used the water of the Nile River.

One problem with the Bekhor Shor's approach is that if all the blood turned back to water, then all the water that had no fish was drinkable. Yet, 7:24 records that everybody in Egypt had to get water by digging around the Nile. This digging accords with the Bekhor Shor’s idea since this water would not have had any fish, but was there no other water available? Did they not have enough waters in cisterns where there was no fish? The answer is that the Bekhor Shor's explanation only refers to the water that Moshe hit, the Nile River, that this body of water turned back to water almost immediately. However, the water that turned to blood due to Aharon raising his staff remained blood for some time (seven days, 7:25?) and this is the reference to the end of 7:21 "and there was blood throughout Egypt," which relates back to 7:19, the instructions to Aharon. Thus, the Egyptians had to find water that derived from the Nile but did not have fish in it which meant digging for water by the Nile, 7:24. (Note the Bekhor Shor does not follow the dual agent approach to this plague, as in his commentary on 9:8 he writes that Aharon was the sole agent of the plague of blood.)

This understanding of Moshe and Aharon both being agents of the plague of blood coupled with the idea from the Bekhor Shor that the water in the Nile only turned to blood temporarily answers the second question how extensive was the plague. The answer is that all the water in Egypt turned to blood but to a different extent. The water in the Nile River only turned to blood for a very short time, while the other water throughout Egypt turned to blood for a longer period, up to a week.

Bibliography:

Abravanel (1437-1508), 1997, Commentary on Shemot. Jerusalem: Horev.

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

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1967, A commentary on the book of Exodus, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press

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

Shemot 9:1-7 – The fifth plague in Egypt: The fate of the animals during the plagues in Egypt

שמות ט:ו,ז - "וימת כל מקנה מצרים, וממקנה ישראל לא מת אחד.  וישלח פרעה והנה לא מת ממקנה ישראל עד אחד ויכבד לב פרעה ולא שלח את העם."

Shemot 9:1-4 records that G-d told Moshe to tell Pharaoh that if he would not let the people go, then G-d would send pestilence, the fifth plague, that would kill all of the Egyptian mikneh, animals that were in the field, horses, donkeys, camels, cattle and sheep, livestock, but that the Jewish mikneh would not be harmed. 9:5,6 then records that the pestilence killed all the Egyptian owned mikneh, while none of the Jewish owned mikneh died. 

The declaration that all the mikneh of the Egyptian died during the fifth plague is puzzling since the Torah records the continued existence of Egyptian animals on several occasions after the fifth plague. One example is that 9:9,10 record that the sixth plague, boils, affected the Egyptian behamot. Many people understand that behamot are a subset of mikneh, and then it is surprising how there could be Egyptian behamot during the sixth plague.  Similarly, 9:22,25 record that the hail landed on the behamot that were left in the field.  Also, 11:5, 12:29 and 13:15 record that the first born Egyptian behamot were killed during the tenth plague. However, really behamot are ungulates, is a more general term than mikneh, and includes animals that were not livestock, see our discussion on Vayikra 11:2, "The definition of the words behamot and hayyot in the Torah." Thus, all these verse referring to behamot could be referring to deer or even pigs.

A more difficult reference is that 9:19 records that Moshe warned the Egyptians that they should move their mikneh inside to protect them from the seventh plague, hail, and 9:20,21 record that the G-d fearing Egyptians did so but the non-G-d fearing Egyptians left their mikneh in the fields. How did the Egyptians have any mikneh, livestock, after the fifth plague?

Another reference to Egyptian animals is that 14:6,7,23 record that the chariots of Egypt, which were pulled by horses (15:1), chased the Jewish people at Yam Suf, and horses are part of the category of animals called mikneh, as 9:3 refers to horses.

Various explanations have been suggested to explain the existence of Egyptian animals after the plague of pestilence. Rashi (on 9:10) suggests that the pestilence only killed the animals that were in the field, and thus the G-d fearing Egyptians would have brought them inside and they would not have died. One would then interpret 9:6 which records that all the Egyptian animals died, to mean that all the Egyptian animals that were in the field died.

This solution is difficult for at least two reasons. One problem with Rashi's solution is that, as the Bekhor Shor (on 9:6) points out, even according to Rashi, all the animals of the non-G-d fearing Egyptians died in the fifth plague, then how could 9:21 record that the non-G-d fearing Egyptians left their animals in the fields during the seventh plague? Bekhor Shor answers that maybe by chance the non-G-d fearing Egyptians had some animals indoors during the fifth plague. Secondly, this distinction between the G-d fearing and the non-G-d fearing Egyptians is only by the seventh plague, 9:20,21, and not by the fifth plague. If it occurred by the fifth plague, why did the Torah not mention this information as it does by the seventh plague? Rather, more likely, as noted by the Ramban (on 9:3) the fact that 9:3 refers to the animals in the field is because this is the usual place where these types of animals were located, but even if there were animals indoors they were also killed by the pestilence, as stated in 9:6.

A second approach to explain the continued existence of the Egyptian animals after the fifth plague is that the word all in 9:6 should not be understood literally but rather that most of the Egyptian animals died (see Ibn Ezra on 9:6, Rabbenu Bachya on 9:19, and Cassuto, 1967, p. 111). I doubt this approach since one of the points of the fifth plague was to distinguish between the Egyptian animals and the Jewish animals, and if not all of the Egyptian animals died, then this distinction would have been diminished.

A third approach is that some of the Egyptian animals were saved by the Jews. Shemot Rabbah (11:4) writes that any beast on which a Jew had the slightest claim was saved even if it was in the hands of an Egyptian, and animals that were jointly owned by Egyptians and Jews were not killed. The Netziv (on 9:7) suggests that the Egyptian had rented out their animals to the Jews and these animals survived the fifth plague. These possibilities presuppose a relatively high level of economic integration between the Egyptian and Jews, but this is doubtful since the Jews were slaves.

A fourth possibility is that the Egyptian acquired new animals after the fifth plague. Rabbenu Bachya (on 9:19) and Abravanel (1997, on 9:10, p.131) write that the Egyptians could have purchased animals from neighboring countries. Yet, most likely there was no international trade between Egypt and other countries during the period of the plagues, as who would travel to Egypt during the plagues? Another possibility raised by the Abravanel is that the Egyptians bought animals from the Jewish people. This is a possible explanation since this was feasible and from that fact that Pharaoh sent people to check that the Jewish animals did not die during the fifth plague, 9:7, we know that the Egyptians were aware of the Jewish animals. Yet, would the Egyptians really buy animals from slaves?

I would vary the Abravanel's approach that while maybe some Egyptians (G-d fearing ones?) bought animals from the Jews, most took them by force. (Note this would not mean that the Jews lost all of their animals because it is unknown how many animals the Jewish people had and how many were stolen.) This answer could then explain all the later references to the Egyptian animals, mikneh or behamot, except by the horses that led the chariots, since it is very unlikely that the Jews had horses. However, most likely the Egyptian soldiers on chariots who chased the Jews at Yam Suf were stationed at Egyptian forts that were located in the Sinai desert, and they and their horses were not affected by the plagues.

If the Egyptians stole animals from the Jewish people after the end of the fifth plague, then this offers a new perspective on three other questions concerning the fifth and sixth plagues in addition to the explanation for how the Egyptians could have mikneh after the fifth plague. One, 9:7 records that Pharaoh hardened his heart in conjunction with the fact that no Jewish owned animals died, but this information should have had the opposite effect. The answer could be that since no Jewish owned animals died, then Pharaoh knew that he had a source to acquire (by stealing) animals to replace his animals that were killed. Two, the Egyptian magicians appear in the first three plagues and then they disappear except for the sixth plague, as 9:11 records that they were particularly harmed by the boils. Maybe this mention and their suffering are because they advised Pharaoh to steal the animals from the Jewish people.  Three, the plagues are usually in ascending order in terms of severity except for the sixth plague, the boils, which appear to be harsher than the seventh, eighth and ninth plagues. Maybe the sixth plague was relatively more severe, boils, since it was a punishment for the theft of the Jewish owned animals after the fifth plague. (For more on this question, see our discussion on 7:14-10:23, “The nine plagues: Their order and maybe their reason.”)

I was talking about this idea to a friend Eric Sherby and he questioned me why then did the Torah not record that Pharoah stole the Jewish animals. My answer is that Torah gives a hint to Pharaoh’s action since 9:7 records that Pharaoh sent out, but the Torah does not explain who and why he sent out people. I believe that many people assume that he sent out people to inquire what happened during the plague (see for example, Fox, 1995, p. 303), but the word inquire is not in the Torah. Furthermore, by two other plagues, frogs and hail, the Torah records that Pharoah saw that the plague had ended, 8:11 and 9:34, but by pestilence, the Torah does not record that Pharoah saw the effects of the plague. Instead, the word sent out in 9:7 is hinting that this sending was not some innocent action, but the Egyptians who were sent out were to steal animals from the Jewish people. Why did the Torah only hint to this action? My thought is that the Torah did not want to minimize the much more horrible actions that the Egyptians did to the Jewish people such as making the people slaves and killing the male children, by adding on “and they also stole from them some animals.”

Bibliography:

Abravanel (1437-1508), 1997, Commentary on Shemot. Jerusalem: Horev.

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Shemot 6:12- Moshe's oratory skills: The passion and the speech

Moshe's first mission to free the Jewish people in Egypt failed (Shemot chapter 5), but due to this failure, Moshe changed from being an unenthusiastic leader of the people to an enthusiastic leader, 5:22,23.  Thus, G-d gave him new instructions to lead the people to freedom, Shemot 6:2-8.  Moshe then spoke to the Jewish people a second time, but they did not listen to him, 6:9. This result was not too surprising after his previous failed mission. Moshe then returned to speak to G-d, and G-d told him to bypass the people and speak directly to Pharaoh, 6:10,11. Moshe responded to this directive, by asking G-d, “Here, (if) the children of Israel do not hearken to me, how will Pharaoh hearken to me? – and I am foreskinned lips!” 6:12 (Fox, 1995, translation). 

Shemot 6:12 raises at least two questions. One, Greenberg (1969, p. 145) is bothered why Moshe did not refer to his previous failure with Pharaoh? One answer is that it makes more sense for Moshe to refer to his most recent failure that the Jewish people did not listen to him than to his earlier failure with Pharaoh. Secondly, the failure of the first mission was irrelevant at this point since in the first mission Moshe was an unenthusiastic leader of the people, while now Moshe had become a willing leader of the people.

A second difficulty of 6:12 is that Moshe mentions that he had some speech impediment, but this had already been dealt with in chapter 4. 4:10 records that Moshe told G-d that he was “heavy of speech” and G-d had responded that Aharon would speak for him, 4:14-16. This same result, that Aharon would help Moshe, occurs after Moshe’s complaint of his speech impediment in 6:12 and 6:30, 7:1. Even if Moshe had not been an unenthusiastic leader in the beginning, why did Moshe mention his speech problem a second time if the problem had already been resolved? Also, why would Aharon have to be appointed again if he was already appointed before? 

There are four possible answers to why Moshe refers to his speech impediment a second time. 

One, it is possible that Moshe was referring to different problems, as in 4:10 Moshe refers to his heaviness of speech, while in 6:12 he refers to his foreskinned lips. Maybe Moshe had two problems with his speech, which could be either that he was not loquacious (Luzzatto on 4:10), or he was not fluent in Egyptian (Rashbam on 4:10) or he had some physical defect (Rashi on 6:12). Yet, this approach does not explain why Moshe was worried about a second speech problem once he already knew that Aharon would do the speaking. 

Two, Bekhor Shor (on 6:29) suggests that really Moshe only asked about his speech once at the burning bush and chapter 6 is a brief review of that conversation. Yet, at the burning bush Moshe had many questions, why was only this question repeated, as for instance the Torah did not repeat that nobody was seeking his life (4:19)? 

Three, Or Hachayyim (on 6:28) suggests that initially Aharon was only appointed to speak to the Jewish people, and Moshe was worried about speaking to Pharaoh. Thus, now Aharon was appointed also to speak to Pharaoh. Moshe Greenberg (1969, p. 145) rejects this approach since 5:1 records that Aharon went with Moshe to speak to Pharaoh, and 6:9 records that Moshe spoke to the people without Aharon.

Four, Ralbag (on 6:12, also see Seforno on 6:12) suggests that Moshe thought that initially Aharon had only been appointed to be his speaker for the first mission, and hence Moshe raised the problem of his speech a second time before going on his second mission. Thus, at this time, Moshe learned that Aharon would help him on all his missions. 

Why would Moshe have thought that Aharon was only appointed for the first mission? The answer to this question is also based on the development of Moshe from an unenthusiastic leader to a willing leader. When Moshe was an unenthusiastic leader, then his complaint about his speech was not just a technical question, but also was an excuse not to go on the mission. Thus, the appointment of Aharon to help him speak in 4:14-16 was also to give him encouragement to go to Pharaoh. However, after Moshe became a willing leader, Moshe no longer needed Aharon’s encouragement. Thus, Moshe was to go by himself without Aharon even with his speech problem, and this is exactly what occurred in 6:9, that Moshe spoke to the Jewish people directly without Aharon. However, after the people did not listen to Moshe even when he was full of enthusiasm, then Moshe realized that enthusiasm was not enough to overcome his speech problem. Thus, Moshe refers to this speech problem again, and G-d appointed Aharon a second time not to give encouragement to Moshe but to solve the technical issue of Moshe’s speech problem. 

Did Moshe always need Aharon to speak for him? Ibn Ezra (on 7:2 and on 4:30) argues that Aharon always came with Moshe even when Aharon is not mentioned in the text. This would seem to assume to assume that Aharon always had to speak for Moshe, as why else did he always come with Moshe? It is true that generally Pharaoh called for both of them but this would not prove that when Moshe went to Pharaoh, Aharon went with him. Amos Chacham (1991, p. 176) brings a proof for the Ibn Ezra. 10:1 records only that Moshe was commanded to go to Pharaoh, but 10:3 records that both Moshe and Aharon went and spoke to Pharaoh. I believe that 10:3 is an exception, and it appears to me to be speculation to assume that Aharon was present when the Torah only refers to Moshe.  

Ibn Ezra seems to have a static understanding of Moshe that Moshe did not develop. However, after chapter 6 we never hear of Moshe complaining of his speech problems. Furthermore, Aharon only figures prominently by the meeting with Pharaoh before the plagues and for the first three plagues. Afterwards, Aharon becomes secondary in the narrative. 

My guess is that Moshe developed as a leader that he could speak and argue with Pharaoh without having to rely on Aharon, as his confidence enabled him to overcome his speech impediment (if the terms heaviness of speech and foreskinned lips are synonyms) or speech impediments (if the terms heaviness of speech and foreskinned lips refer to two separate problems).

Accordingly, by the fourth plague, Pharaoh called both Moshe and Aharon to begin negotiating, but Moshe answered Pharaoh directly without hesitating or having Aharon speak, 4:21-26. Aharon was needed initially when Moshe still did not have enough confidence to overcome his speech problem(s). However, as the plagues continued, Moshe’s confidence grew and he became the Moshe we think of for the remainder of the Torah.

Bibliography:

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

Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.

Greenberg, Moshe (1928-2010), 1969, Understanding Exodus, New York: Behrman House.