Parshat Bo answers

Bo 5723
Alef.

1. R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM assumes that Shemot 11:4-8 is a continuation of Moshe’s response to Pharoah that was interrupted after 10:29 by 11:1-3. Since in 11:4 it is unclear to whom Moshe is addressing his words, we receive no clear indication until 11:7-8. While the word “Teidun” (that you shall know) could apply to a skeptical Jewish audience as well, retroactively we see that it is addressed to Pharoah in light of the following phrases in 11:8

         a. “Kol Avadecha”—your (Pharoah’s) servants.

b. “Tzeh Atah U’Bechol HaAm Asher B’Raglecha”—directed at Moshe by Pharoah’s servants that he and the rest of the Jewish people should leave Egypt. (This only makes sense within the context of Moshe speaking to Pharoah and referring to Pharoah’s servants.)

c.  “VaYetzeh MeiIm Pharoah BaChori Af”—and he left Pharoah’s presence in anger. A reference to Moshe’s state of mind after responding to Pharoah’s demand in 10:28 never to see him again.

2. Since the non sequitor of 11:1-3 could be interpreted as a different conversation between God and Moshe, and that his audience with Pharoah had ended with 10:29, R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM once to clarify that in light of 11:8, the interchange between Moshe and Pharoah recorded at the end of Chapt. 10 had not as yet ended. It would also make sense that a plague as severe as the destruction of the First-born should be preceded by a warning to Pharoah to give him a chance to head it off. While RaShI on Shemot 4:23 posits that Moshe had warned Pharoah about the climactic plague right from the beginning, nevertheless, time had elapsed between that interaction and this point, and it would only be fair to warn the ruler again, in accordance with the principle “Ein Onshin Elah Im Kein Mazhirin”¹ (one does not punish unless previously warning is given.)² However, to assume that Moshe made an extra trip to see Pharoah in order to give him that warning would contradict Pharoah’s threat in 10:28, i.e., that should Moshe come to him again, Moshe would be killed. Since before he leaves Moshe has to impart whatever last words he has for Pharoah, he must have warned him at this point before finally leaving.

Beit.

Differences between the warning that Moshe gives Pharoah and the actual plague of Makkat Bechorot:

a. 11:4 It will take place approximately at midnight (KiChatzot).

   12:29 It takes place exactly at midnight (BiChatzot).

According to the Midrash quoted by RaShI on 11:4, whereas God can Calculate exactly when midnight occurs, this is not possibie for man to do. Consequently man must be given approximate times in order for him not to conclude that God has not Lived up to the prediction that He Made.³

b.  11:5 The firstborn will die.

   12:29 HaShem Struck down the firstborn.

It was not necessary to enter into yet another theological debate with Pharoah as to the origin of the plagues. The threat of this happening, whomever would be responsible, was sufficient to make the point. However, when the plague is actually described, the Party responsible, i.e., HaShem, is cited as the origin of the destruction.

c.  11:5 The plague will encompass the son of the hand-maiden who is sitting at the millstones.

   12:29 “       “         “          “               “     “     “    “   prisoner who is in prison.

   MaLBIM explains that even the Egyptian slaves were considered Egyptians, whereas those who were imprisoned were mostly foreigners (like Yosef, but unlike the Royal Baker and Butler) about whom the Egyptians, and therefore Pharoah, didn’t care. However, if they would not be mentioned with regard to the actual plague, it might be implied that their foreign gods had protected them from HaShem’s Plague. Since an aspect of the Plagues was to impress upon everyone, Egyptians, Jews and others, how Powerful HaShem was, the prisoners had to be included in the plague of the firstborn.

d.  11:6 No mention of the Egyptians awakening and arising in the middle of the night.

   12:30 This is mentioned.

   The description of the plague is dramatized by adding the information that people were awoken by the screams of either the dying firstborn, or the families which had lost the firstborn among them. Adding such a detail to the warning given to Pharoah would not have made a difference. If he is going to be affected, it is due to the consternation experienced by his subjects rather than the fact that they would be awakened in the middle of the night.

e. 11:6 The screams will be a phenomenon that has never before occurred, nor will it ever occur again.

   12:30 While the screams will be great, no comparison to any other incident is mentioned. What is added is that there wasn’t a single house in which there wasn’t someone who had died.

   Perhaps Pharoah will be concerned about his legacy. Consequently, a unique historical event that is so negative will create an indelible memory with which he might not wish to be associated. When the actual plague is described, emphasis is placed upon how ubiquitous the occurrence was. While that reflects the massive extent of God’s Power, if Pharoah, as a totalitarian dictator, was not terribly concerned about individual subjects in his kingdom, perhaps that would not have influenced him one way or the other. Furthermore, the fact that every house had someone who was deceased suggests that the definition of “firstborn” was broad, i.e., not only literal firstborn individuals, but even figurative ones, e.g., those who were the oldest survivors, or perhaps the heads of the households.

f.  11:7 Mention that no dogs will bare their teeth at the Jews when they are departing Egypt.

   12   No mention of this.

   Another indication of the supernatural nature of what is going to transpire. The typical attitude of dogs to disturbances and strangers is to bark, howl, bare teeth, etc. Furthermore, if a tremendous number of people have died, this would be further reason to expect the dogs in Egypt to be restless and respond to their surroundings in a hostile manner. Since Moshe predicts that this will not occur, he is supplying additional evidence that what is about to take place will be supernatural.

g.  11:8 Pharoah’s servants will come to seek Moshe out and tell him to leave with the people.

   12:31 Pharoah himself will call Moshe to come and see him.

   To predict that Pharoah will reneg on his previous threat in 10:27 to kill Moshe should he return to the palace, would not be politic. So Moshe attributes such a request to Pharoah’s servants. It also suggests that Pharoah’s policies with regard to preventing the Jews from leaving are unpopular, with even his own servants wanting Moshe’s demands to be met.

h.  11:8 The implication of what the people say is that the Jews should leave for good, as opposed to temporarily.

   12:31 Pharoah tells Moshe that the Jews should go and worship in accordance with what Moshe had originally proposed, i.e., three days journey into the desert, and then to return to Egypt.

i.   11:8 No mention is made of the final elements in 12:32.

   12:32 Explicit permission is granted for the Jews to take their animals with them when they go out into the desert. The truly remarkable addition is the request on Pharoah’s part for a blessing. (See Text and Texture, the RCA blog for an essay on this topic in an entry for Parashat Bo.)

Gimel.

1. The common denominator in the comments of Ibn Ezra and Ibn Kaspi is that nuances in language should not serve as the basis for drawing significant conclusions. These minor changes or the use of synonyms are essentially literary in nature and have nothing to do with the ultimate meaning of the text under scrutiny. On the one hand, this supports the view that since the Tora was intended to be given to human beings, we should readily expect to find the varieties of human style and turns of phrases that people use in their speech. And if that was the intention why such circumlocutions were employed, then to try to come up with rationales for them would entail reading too much into the text. On the other hand, when it is assumed that the Tora emanates from the Divine, then even if the text might appear to resemble human speech, nevertheless the text should never be trivialized and not closely read in order to seek out the Intention of the Infinite One.

2. Ibn Kaspi is reflecting on how literally to take a “Chuf” being used as a contraction for “Kemo”, i.e., like. When two things are compared, they may be compared approximately, i.e., they resemble one another but still differ in significant ways, or perhaps an identity is being established whereby the text is completely equating the two elements that are being cited.

3. Once I assume that the text is to be viewed literarily rather than literally, the difference between “KeChatzot” and “BeChatzi HaLayla” becomes nonexistent.

Daled.

1. The Midrash posits that every good deed, whether performed by a human being or other creature, will be rewarded in contrast to deeds that are not proper, those who carry them out will at best enjoy benefits only for a relatively short time. The dogs are rewarded for not baring teeth by being given Teraifa; people who obtain wealth unethically will have it unceremoniously stripped from him.

2.  Shemot 11:7, “But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog whet his tongue, against man or beast; that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel,” cites the behavior of the dogs as evidence of God’s Intervention in the history of the Jews and Israel. Consequently, the dogs did not act out of a spirit of good will, but rather because they were forced to do so by HaShem, must as HaShem Hardened Pharoah’s heart with respect to the final plagues. Just as Pharoah is understood to be punished only for the times when he refused to let the Jews leave due to his own volition as opposed to when HaShem Removed from him Free Will, so too rewarding the dogs for something that was imposed upon them rather than chosen by them to do, would make no sense. (RaMBaM writes voluminously in Mishna Tora, Hilchot Teshuva, Chapt. 5 how Free Choice is the foundation of the entire reward-and-punishment system.)

Heh.

1. There would appear to be two separate opinions:

a. R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM—the dogs that were guarding the Jewish slaves did not bark at or attack them.

b. Abrabanel—along with the relatives of those who had died during the plague of the firstborn, the attack dogs also did not lash out at the Jewish people. The commentator further speculates that perhaps this symbolizes that all of Egypt stood mutely by as the Jews were going to leave.

c.  ShaDaL—the dogs belonged to the Jews. And they did not become agitated, but rather were as calm as their masters despite their hearing screams of the dying and/or the mourning.

2. The Midrash emphasizes the “kindness” of the dogs, whereas R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM emphasizes the unnatural behavior of the dogs. It would appear that the latter is closer to the literal meaning of the verse in light of my answer to Daled. 2 above. If this was intended to be a symbol of God’s total Omnipotence, then the meaner the dog, particularly guard dogs, the bigger the miracle when they stand by without doing what they had been trained to do.

3.  In 11:7, the phrase “LeMeiIsh Ad Beheima” could have been understood as the objects against which the dogs did not show hostility. Abrabanel is suggesting that the phrase is actually referring to other subjects, i.e., the Egyptians, who like the dogs, did not demonstrate hostility against the Jews on their way out of Egypt.

Vav.

1.  In Shemot 3:19 HaShem had Told Moshe that Pharoah was not going to listen to his demands. So what is HaShem Telling Moshe in 11:9 that he does not already know?

2. From the context of 3:19, what is being referred to is the first appearance of Moshe befor Pharoah, when Pharoah responded by increasing the work burden on the Jews. The reference in 11:9 could summarize Moshe’s second coming to Pharoah when despite plague after plague, Pharoah refused to concede.