Yitro Answers

Yitro 5715

Alef.

1.א. Professor Heinman is opposing the “either-or” view that pits universalism against particularism. He is suggesting that only a combination of the two will allow for a coherent understanding of the idea of Chosenness.

  ב. Shemot 19:5

     Now therefore, if ye will hearken unto My voice indeed, and keep My covenant,  then ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine.

Devarim 7:6

For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be His own treasure, out of all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.

Devarim 14:2

For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be His own treasure out of all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.

2.  Shemot 19:6

and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.'

The Chosenness of Israel results in their becoming priests of HaShem, serving the rest of mankind, as well as paradigms of holiness in the world. (If God is considered the essence of Holiness, then those who follow in His Path, who fulfill His Mitzvot, can represent that quality of Holiness to the rest of the world.

Bet.

1.א. In Shemot 19:2,

(ב) וַיִּסְעוּ מֵרְפִידִים וַיָּבֹאוּ מִדְבַּר סִינַי וַיַּחֲנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיִּחַן שָׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶגֶד הָהָר:

all the verbs are in the plural form except for the last one that is in the singular. Since the subject appears to be the same, i.e., the Jewish people, then why suddenly the switch? RaShI interprets that there was a change in the mindset of the people, from one of divisiveness to one of unity, hence the singular form of the verb when they come to Sinai.

   ב. Shemot 14:10

(י) וּפַרְעֹה הִקְרִיב וַיִּשְׂאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת עֵינֵיהֶם וְהִנֵּה מִצְרַיִם נֹסֵעַ אַחֲרֵיהֶם וַיִּירְאוּ מְאֹד וַיִּצְעֲקוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל יְקֹוָק:

While there isn’t the same direct contrast of verb forms as in 19:2, nevertheless, the army that was pursuing the Jews was made up of diverse individuals. Nevertheless the singlular verb form is used leading RaShI to a similar comment as in Chapt. 19. (Contextually, I could sooner imagine that members of a military unit would be united in their goals and motivations, sooner than a disparate group of civilians, let alone those who had just recently been freed from slavery and probably were quite self-absorbed, to the exclusion of being able to feel that they were part of some greater entity.)

ג. RaShI will interpret the singular as indicative of a unified purpose only when there isn’t other textual evidence to contradict such a conclusion. RaShBaM supplies textual evidence “on both sides of the ledger.”

a. It was only Kalev who went to Chevron:

i. Devarim 1:36

   Save Calev the son of Yephunneh, he shall see it; and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children; because he hath wholly followed the LORD.'  (If all of the spies had visited Chevron, then why should Calev be the one to receive this land as his portion?)

ii. Yehoshua 21:12

    But the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, gave they to Calev the son of Yephunneh for his possession. (This is the fulfillment of the promise that was made by HaShem in Devarim.)

b. They all visited Chevron, consistent with RaShI’s interpretations in Shemot.

i. BaMidbar 13:22

   And they (he)  went up into the South, and came unto Hebron; and Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were there.--Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.—

    Ibid. 33

   And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.' (The assumption is that the three childrenof Anak were synonymous with the Nephilim, and since they were located in Chevron, they all must have visited Chevron if they were witness to these giants.)

2.א. RaShI is addressing two difficulties in this verse:

a. Isn’t it obvious that the people whom Moshe will be addressing saw what took place in Egypt? How does this impact upon their choice to be HaShem’s Chosen People? (RaShi answers that because they were eye witnesses as opposed to people who simply learned of what took place, this should serve as greater impetus to accept HaShem’s terms and the responsibilities that He Wishes they will assume on His Behalf.)

b. If the Egyptians have been abusing the Jews all this time, as well as having sinned in other ways, why hasn’t HaShem Punished them previously? (RaShI answers that since HaShem had Promised Avraham that his descendants would eventually be redeemed from their servitude and afflictions, HaShem Decided to coordinate the Egyptians’ Divine Punishment with the Jews’ Divine Liberation and Redemption.)

3.א. RaShI reverses the order of the words “And now” and  “If” in order to demonstrate that HaShem was Presenting a choice to the Jews, rather than Assuming that they had already chosen to become His Chosen People. This is necessary from the immediate context. Since the people eventually say, (19:8) “And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.' And Moses reported the words of the people unto the LORD,” until they actually said that, there was no binding agreement. Consequently, if a choice is being offered, it is most appropriate that the conditional clause of the choice should begin with the word “If”.

      ב.

(ה) "וְעַתָּה , אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי , וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת בְּרִיתִי , (רק אז) וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכָּל הָעַמִּים , כִּי לִי כָּל הָאָרֶץ:

 ג. The simple meaning of the text is that what is being discussed is the here-and-now, i.e., what will happen if they accept upon themselves the yoke of Heaven. RaShI interprets that what is being discussed is a comparison of what is taking place now in contrast to what will take place in the future vis-à-vis the ease and comfort people will feel with respect to the performance of Mitzvot, a form of the principle of Mitzva Goreret Mitzva.

4.א.  Shemot 19:5 “Now therefore, 1) if ye will hearken unto My Voice indeed, and 2) keep My Covenant, then ye shall be Mine own Treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine.”

Since the verse precedes mention of the Covenant with the need to listen to HaShem’s Voice, i.e., to adhere to the Commandments that He has been and will Continue to issue, what is being discussed is not whether or not people accept God as their focus of worship, but rather accept His Program for how they are to live their lives. Discussing whether or not to listen to God presupposes an acceptance of Him as an authority figure.

     ב.  Verses 7 and 8 would seem to bear out RaShI’s approach:

“And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD Commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the LORD hathSpoken we will do.' And Moses reported the words of the people unto the LORD.” 

There is no mention of accepting HaShem as their God; only that they were prepared to enact the various Commandments that HaShem was Giving them.

Gimel.

1. When we compare this occasion of Moshe’s ascending Sinai, he does not give any instructions or leave anyone in charge, as he does when he embarks on his forty-day stay:  Shemot 24:14-15 “And unto the elders he said: 'Tarry ye here for us, until we come back unto you; and, behold, Aaron and Hur are with you; whosoever hath a cause, let him come near unto them.' And Moses went up into the mount, and the cloud covered the mount.” Consequently we wonder why we are not told about Moshe ordering the people to do things during the time that he is away. Sephorno suggests that this was not necessary since there was a lot to take care of on the part of the people in terms of their first setting up camp. In contrast, Shemot 24 is when the encampment is already set up and Moshe was going to be away for more than a month.

Despite the fact that Moshe was going to Sinai to be alone with God, much as he did in Shemot 3 when he was shepherding his sheep, in both instances, there was no one else with whom he was connected or for whom he was responsible. In this instance, there is an entire nation whom he has led out of Egypt who might become quite perturbed if their leader suddenly disappears. Apparently in Shemot 24 it would have been noticeable, but in Chapt. 19, the people were so busy with their own affairs, they didn’t have time to notice that he was gone before he returned with God’s Proposal to the people.

2.א. It would seem that Sephorno attributes to God a Concern that the people might be reticent to accept His Proposal because they might think that in light of what He Did to the Egyptians, He is very Vengeful  and therefore they are putting themselves at considerable risk were they to throw in their lot with Him. While they certainly appreciated His Redeeming them from slavery, if in fact they were being given a choice as to whether to become HaShem’s Am Segula, perhaps they would think twice. Therefore the commentary interprets this verse as God Claiming that He Gave the Egyptians many chances to repent before“lowering the boom” on them. The verse in Yechezkel 18:32 “For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, Saith the Lord GOD; wherefore turn yourselves, and live” is in order to demonstrate that the Jewish people should not think they have something to fear should they accept God’s Arrangement. 

   ב. RaShI interprets the verse as a demonstration about how HaShem Cares about the Jews, waiting to punish the Egyptians who had already incurred culpability for all sorts of bad acts, until it could be parlayed into a way to free the Jews from slavery. Sephorno understands the verse as an attempt to convince the Jews that they had nothing to fear from God Himself in the sense that perhaps He would Treat them cruelly as He Appeared to treat the Egyptians.

Daled.

1. The Midrash’s difficulty is with the order of the phrase in question, that would have made more sense if it was reversed, i.e., HaShem would Speak and Moshe would respond/explain/ repeat out loud. What is the meaning of Moshe speaking and HaShem, as it were, responding? Hence the Midrash’s interpretation that just as HaShem made it possible for Moshe to understand what was going on, on his level, the same was done for each different category and group.

2.  The Midrash parallels Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory. Since people have different ways of learning, looking at the world, understanding, etc., then in order to teach so many different people, one has to make it possible for different groups to each comprehend on its own level and on its own terms. While this can never be perfectly done by human beings, HaShem has the Capability to pull something like this off, and we assume that at Sinai this was exactly what he did. Were HaShem to “teach” but no one could understand, then what would have been the point of the entire exercise?

YITRO

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/598.html

Beshalach Answers

BeShalach 5718
Alef.

שמות פרק טז

(א) וַיִּסְעוּ מֵאֵילִם וַיָּבֹאוּ כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל מִדְבַּר סִין אֲשֶׁר בֵּין אֵילִם וּבֵין סִינָי בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי לְצֵאתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:

(ב) וילינו וַיִּלּוֹנוּ כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל מֹשֶׁה וְעַל אַהֲרֹן בַּמִּדְבָּר:

(ג) וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֲלֵהֶם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִי יִתֵּן מוּתֵנוּ בְיַד יְקֹוָק בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּשִׁבְתֵּנוּ עַל סִיר הַבָּשָׂר בְּאָכְלֵנוּ לֶחֶם לָשֹׂבַע כִּי הוֹצֵאתֶם אֹתָנוּ אֶל הַמִּדְבָּר הַזֶּה לְהָמִית אֶת כָּל הַקָּהָל הַזֶּה בָּרָעָב: ס

(ד) וַיֹּאמֶר יְקֹוָק אֶל מֹשֶׁה הִנְנִי מַמְטִיר לָכֶם לֶחֶם מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם וְיָצָא הָעָם וְלָקְטוּ דְּבַר יוֹם בְּיוֹמוֹ לְמַעַן אֲנַסֶּנּוּ הֲיֵלֵךְ בְּתוֹרָתִי אִם לֹא:

(ה) וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי וְהֵכִינוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָבִיאוּ וְהָיָה מִשְׁנֶה עַל אֲשֶׁר יִלְקְטוּ יוֹם יוֹם: ס

(ו) וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֶל כָּל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֶרֶב וִידַעְתֶּם כִּי יְקֹוָק הוֹצִיא אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם:

(ז) וּבֹקֶר וּרְאִיתֶם אֶת כְּבוֹד יְקֹוָק בְּשָׁמְעוֹ אֶת תְּלֻנֹּתֵיכֶם עַל יְקֹוָק וְנַחְנוּ מָה כִּי תלונו תַלִּינוּ עָלֵינוּ:

1.  All three sources are addressing how literally to take the claim that the Jews made in v. 3, i.e., that they ate relatively well in Egypt, as compared to their current situation in the desert.

2.  Mechilta: They were able to eat all things including meat.

     Shemot Rabba: They ate bread while they watched the Egyptians eat meat.

     Chemdat HaYamim: They ate poorly and this was only a means by which they tried to achieve for themselves better food at this moment in the desert.

3.  R. Eliezer HaModai, cited in the Mechilta, could perhaps cite in support of  his position the complaint of the people in BaMidbar 11:5 “We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic.” Whereas the statement in Shemot 16:3 is very general and perhaps could be understood as exaggeration, the very precise inventory that appears in BaMidbar 11 suggests true recall of a reality.

4.  Even if according to Shemot Rabba the people did not actually eat meat, by sitting in proximity of others cooking and eating it, they could benefit from the aroma, they fantasized about what it would taste like, and perhaps they were given the scraps for which the Egyptians had no  use.

5.  Perhaps since the Jews were fieldworkers, they would be more likely to be surrounded by animals living in the wild than farm animals. We also are told that since the Egyptians worshipped domesticated animals—this is why the Jews who described themselves as herders of domesticated animals were allowed to live in Goshen and why they argued they had to offer up their sacrifices three days journey into the desert since otherwise the Egyptians would take deep offense—they were not likely to eat these animals. Consequently if they did eat meat (Ibn Ezra suggests that the Egyptians were actually vegetarians and for this reason PotiPhera did not put Yosef in charge of his “bread”, i.e., kitchen because Yosef was from a culture of meat-eaters and could not be trusted to maintain the proper standards in a vegetarian kitchen), they would eat undomesticated animals like antelopes and deer.

6.  Since in BaMidbar 11 they don’t mention meat but only fish, it is likely that the source in Shemot Rabba is the most accurate.

Beit.

The verse suggests that the people were preoccupied with thoughts of death. Why are they considering death at all once they are freed? The Sephorno therefore points out that the quality or agony associated with one’s death is also of concern, with people preferring to be put immediately out of their misery rather than lingering, the latter clearly associated with death by starvation.

Gimel.

HaEmek Davar points out that the people are dramatizing their situation by calling attention to the fact that it is not individuals per se who are in danger of dying, but rather this vast mass of humanity, which makes the situation that much more desperate from the point of view of the people, and that much crueler from the point of view of Moshe who led the people to this place and circumstance.

Daled.

1.  Ibn Ezra apparently believes that the verb “Himtir” has to be reserved for only rain and not other materials that might fall like rain, but inherently are not rain. RaShi’s comment on Beraishit 19:24 seems to take a similar tack by insisting that what fell from the sky at least began as rain, thereby legitimizing the use of the word “Himtir”.

בראשית פרק יט

(כד) וַיקֹוָק הִמְטִיר עַל סְדֹם וְעַל עֲמֹרָה גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ מֵאֵת יְקֹוָק מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם:

רש"י

המטיר וגו' גפרית ואש - בתחלה מטר ונעשה גפרית ואש:

2.  Ibn Ezra, by expanding the range of substances that can be called “Lechem” legitimizes what the people say they ate in BaMidbar 11:5 “We remember the fish, which we were wont to eat in Egypt for nought; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlic.” According to a literal reading of Shemot 16:4, at best they were given only bread to eat.

Heh.

1.  Ibn Ezra understands the defense of Moshe and Aharon as saying they are Shlichim following orders, so to complain to them is meaningless because their hands are tied.

     RaMBaN says that Moshe and Aharon are saying that they are inherently and existentially powerless. They are mere mortals and if there is a complaint to be lodged, it is with HaShem Himself.

2.  I would think that Ibn Ezra makes more sense from the point of view that if indeed Moshe and Aharon are Shlichim, then they are the correct address for directing complaints. They are the middle-men between HaShem and the people and just as they carry out HaShem’s Directives, they should be prepared to convey the pushback of the people as well. RaMBaN suggests that they are claiming that they are powerless and insignificant. But if that is so, then why did HaShem Choose them to Represent Him?

Beshalach

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/519.html

Bo Answers

Bo 5727

Alef.

שמות פרק יא

(ג) וַיִּתֵּן יְקֹוָק אֶת חֵן הָעָם בְּעֵינֵי מִצְרָיִם  גַּם הָאִישׁ מֹשֶׁה גָּדוֹל מְאֹד בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בְּעֵינֵי עַבְדֵי פַרְעֹה וּבְעֵינֵי הָעָם: ס

1.  a) The “Chen” in Shemot 11:3, how did it alter the attitude of the Egyptians towards the Jews?

      b) How did the “Chen” alter the attitudes of the Egyptians and the Jews towards Moshe?

      c) Why did the “Chen” not affect Pharoah himself?

      d) How is the “Chen” in this verse different from the one that leads to the Jews “borrowing” the Egyptian possessions?

2.  In RaMBaN’s first interpretation , the last phrase of the verse “U’VeEinai HaAm” applies to the Jews—how they looked upon Moshe.

     In his second interpretation, the last phrase applies to the Egyptian people—how they looked upon Moshe.

     It would seem that the second interpretation would be closer to the Peshat since the entire second clause is focusing upon the servants of Pharoah and the people associated with Pharoah, i.e., the Egyptians.

3.  The fact that Shemot 12:36 is in the past tense, whereby Ibid. 11:3 is also in the past tense, unless 11:3 is referring to a different manipulation of the Egyptian attitudes (in the case being positively disposed to the Jews and Moshe), it would not make sense to repeat the same thing later in chapter 12.

Beit.

1. Ostensibly, the term “שאלה” which is used in the context of how the Jews asked the Egyptians for their possessions (Shemot 3:22; 11:2; 12; 35-6), suggests that the objects are expected to be returned after a certain amount of time. However, this does not appear as if it was ever intended since the Jews once they left Egypt did not plan to return (e.g., Ibid. 14:5).  Consequently it is necessary to rationalize why the Jews were allowed to keep the Egyptian property, and the Mitzva of Ha’Anaka, whereby a servant who has completed his years of servitude, is given a stake that will hopefully prevent him from soon reverting back into poverty and resulting slavery, is cited as the justification.

2. 

שמות פרק יב

(לו) וַיקֹוָק נָתַן אֶת חֵן הָעָם בְּעֵינֵי מִצְרַיִם וַיַּשְׁאִלוּם וַיְנַצְּלוּ אֶת מִצְרָיִם: פ

And the LORD gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they let them have what they asked. And they despoiled the Egyptians.

יחזקאל פרק יד פסוק יד

וְהָיוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה בְּתוֹכָהּ נֹחַ דנאל דָּנִיֵּאל וְאִיּוֹב הֵמָּה בְצִדְקָתָם יְנַצְּלוּ נַפְשָׁם נְאֻם ה' יְקֹוִק:

Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

מלבי"ם יחזקאל פרק יד פסוק יד

(יד) והיו שלשת האנשים האלה בתוכה. כי נח דניאל ואיוב היו בדור שהיו בלתי זכאים והם היו צדיקים בדור ההוא, נח בדור המבול, ודניאל בדור החורבן, ואיוב בדור שבא השטן לקטרג כמ"ש משוט בארץ ומהתהלך בה, וכן פגע אותם ד' שפטים אלה, המבול היה רעה שמיימית. ואיוב נענש ע"י יסודות רוח ואש שהיו ג"כ רעה שמיימית, וע"י חרב שבא וכשדים, ודניאל ניצול מחרב ומחי'ה רעה. המה בצדקתם ינצלו נפשם, פה אמר רבותא שהגם שבא התוכחה היותר קשה בכ"ז יועיל צדקתם להציל נפשם, ואין צריך לומר פה שלא יצילו בנים שזה פשיטא:

Benno Jakob probably would rely on the verse in Yechezkel 14 to interpret Shemot 12 as the Jews actually “saving the souls” of the Egyptians by accepting from them gifts that would somewhat ameliorate the enslavement to which the Jews had been subjected. At least they were paid for their work, creating a more “mercantile”, quid-pro-quo arrangement than if the Jews would have left with nothing after all those years of toil. (This is similar to the argument that is presented in the following Talmudic passage in Sanhedrin 91a:

On another occasion the Egyptians came in a lawsuit against the Jews before Alexander of Macedon. They pleaded thus: 'Is it not written, And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, and they lent them [gold and precious stones, etc.] Then return us the gold and silver which ye took!' Thereupon Gebiha b. Pesisa said to the Sages, 'Give me permission to go and plead against them before Alexander of Macedon: should they defeat me, then say, "Ye have merely defeated an ignorant man amongst us;" whilst if I defeat them then say, "The Law of Moses has defeated you."' So they gave him permission, and he went and pleaded against them. 'Whence do ye adduce your proof?' asked he, 'From the Torah,' they replied. 'Then I too,' said he, 'will bring you proof only from the Torah, for it is written, Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years. Pay us for the toil of six hundred thousand men whom ye enslaved for four hundred thirty years.' Then King Alexander said to them, 'Answer him!' 'Give us three days' time,' they begged. So he gave them a respite; they sought but found no answer. Straightway they fled, leaving behind their sown fields and planted vineyards. And that year was a Sabbatical year.)

Alternatively, the commentator might have understood the term as saving the possibility of a positive relationship between the Jews and Egyptians going forward, after the Egyptian servitude had been concluded.

3.  According to Benno Jakob, the “spoils” were intended for the Jews in the future to treat the Egyptians appreciatively in accordance with the Commandments that encourage proper relationships with converts in general and Egyptians in particular,  rather than resentfully were they have left Egypt without any compensation whatsoever.

Cassuto frames the taking of the Egyptian possessions in terms of legality. It would be unjust for there not to be payment to a servant who concludes his servitude. This has nothing to do with how the Jews will feel towards the Egyptians in the future; it is simply compensation for a debt that was incurred in the past.

Gimel.

1.  When comparing Onkelos’ translations of “Rei’ah” in Beraishit 26:26; 38:12 with his translations of Shemot 11:2 and VaYikra 19:18, one notes that in the former case, the individuals being described are actually known and have a social relationship with on the one hand Avraham and on the other Yehuda. In the latter cases the individual in question is another human being, with whom one might or might not have any prior relationship. You are interacting with him not due to some previous connection, but simply because he is another person.

2.  The importance of Onkelos’ point re VaYikra 19:18, is that it would be very self-serving, and not constitute a “stretch” if the only people you were commanded to love were those whom you would have cared about already. By making it impersonal, the message becomes one of universalism rather than particularism, and the tent of people that one should care about is very inclusive.

Daled.

1.א. The interpretations are different. In the case of the impending destruction of Sodom (Beraishit 18:21) the term “Kalla” means that HaShem will Destroy the city. With respect to Pharoah sending the Jews out of Egypt, (Shemot 11:1), the term is being used as connoting either that this will be final, without Pharoah changing his mind as he had done so many times previously, or that it will include everyone, rather than only a portion of the people, as Pharoah had previously proposed.

ב.  RaShI is supplying two different interpretations in Shemot 11:1. Since RaShI feels that Onkelos is closer to the Peshat of the word, he lists him and his interpretation first, before going on to an alternate interpretation.

2.א. In the case of Beraishit 19:18, where Lot is pleading with the angels to accept his hospitality, it would be out of character for him to insist by using “Na” as “now”, and therefore from the context it is clear what is meant. However in the case of Shemot 11:2, HaShem is Telling Moshe to order the Jewish people to take the spoils. It would be logical to assume that “Na” in this context means “now” because there is no other instance where HaShem Says “please” regarding an Order that He is Giving. Yet RaShI points out that it is proper to interpret even this instance in Shemot as “please” because HaShem had some special interest in the people carrying this out and He Wished to encourage them as much as possible.

ב.  The reason why RaShI has to go on to explain why “Na” means please in the case of Shemot 11:2 is because it is hard to imagine why and or who could make HaShem Adopt a particular course of action to the extent that He has to Plead with those in a position to carry the action out, to do so.

3.א.  Here is how Siftai Chachamim explains the problem with the Peshat:

(ו) ר"ל דחצות היינו שם דבר כמו חצות לילה אקום להודות לך (תהלים קיט, סב) כמו שאומרים חצי לילה אבל זה אינו כן דא"כ הוה ליה למימר חצות בלא כ' שאין הכ' נופל על לשון זה, ועוד דכחצות משמע שספק הוא מתי חצות וחלילה שספק הוא קמי הקב"ה אלא ודאי כחצות כהחלק הלילה:

i.e., if indeed “Chatzot” is a noun, then the “Chaf” before the word is unnecessary.

ב.  RaShI brings examples that begin with “Bet” rather than “Chaf” because he is not defining the meaning of “Chatzot” with either a “Beit” or a “Chaf”, but rather the fact that “Chatzot” itself is a noun and that any prefix is unnecessary.

ג.  Part of the point of doing the plagues is to demonstrate to the Egyptians, including the Egyptian magicians, that when HaShem Does something, it does not happen randomly or imprecisely, but rather very exactly and in accordance with all that was predicted. Consequently, it is important to Moshe that the magicians not be misled.

4. One could say that even if the first of the Ten Commandments is emphasizing how HaShem Redeemed the Jews from the servitude of Pharoah, such a powerful king, and no one else, in order to demonstrate how HaShem is more Powerful than Pharoah, that does not mean that the Jews were not subjugated by even the lowest members of Egyptian society, as is implied in Shemot 11:5.

Heh.

1. Since HaShem is Telling this to Moshe after the 9^th plague and just before the 10^th, until now, in the past, Pharoah has not listened to Moshe’s request. However, after the 10^th plague he will listen and let the Jews go. Therefore this verse only makes sense if it is describing the past rather than the future.

2.  RaMBaN on Devarim 29:18 :

“And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying: 'I shall have peace, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart--that the watered be swept away with the dry'”

notes that  while in the case in Devarim, the person to whom this will happen will be unawares, sometimes “LeMa’an” can precede a result of which the intended target would be aware. In the case of Pharoah in Shemot, the point would appear to be to impress upon him that despite all of the Egyptian ruler’s attempts at resistance, God will Carry out His Plan to free the Jews nevertheless.