Rashi cites Chazal who place emphasis on the word ,mjf, approximately midnight, which implies either before midnight or after it. Moshe did not specify exactly midnight lest Pharaoh’s astrologers say, “Moshe is a liar.” The simple interpretation of Chazal is that if Moshe is inaccurate by even one minute, this would give Pharaoh’s advisors license to destroy Moshe’s credibility. This is incredible! If all of the firstborn of Egypt were to die as Moshe had predicted, but it happened one minute past the prescribed time, would that have been sufficient cause to deny Moshe’s veracity? Horav Eliyahu Meir Bloch z.l.,…
Back to Home -> Bo ->
We do not find Pharaoh making any such concession after any of the other plagues. Was makas barad, the plague of hail, so “enlightening” that Pharaoh was inspired to condemn himself and his nation, while simultaneously offering plaudits to Hashem? Horav Aharon Rotter, Shlita, offers a very pragmatic response. Rashi explains that the physical composition of the hail was unique in that two chemically opposed substances mixed together. Indeed, the hail was viewed as a neis b’soch neis, miracle within a miracle. Fire and hail, which is essentially water, made “peace” with each other to do the will of Hashem….
The clear objective of Moshe’s mission was that Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt unconditionally. Why, then, did Moshe misrepresent his real purpose by merely asking for a three day respite from their servitude so that they could serve Hashem? The Ra’Mah asserts that the strategy was deliberate. If Moshe were to ask Pharaoh to fully release the Jews from slavery, his request would have absolutely been denied. The mission, however, was a pretense to punish Pharaoh for not listening to Hashem. If Pharaoh were to have been confronted with a demand that was perhaps “excessive,” like releasing an entire nation of…
Rashi explains that this is one of the ten instances of kal v’chomer, a fortiori argument, in the Torah. The commentators ask the obvious question. Does the Torah not give a reason for Bnei Yisrael’s reluctance to listen to Moshe? The Torah clearly states, “And they did not listen to Moshe because of impatience of spirit and cruel bondage (6:9).” This is not a kal v’chomer, since the reason that Bnei Yisrael did not listen to Moshe evidently does not apply to Pharaoh. Therefore, Pharaoh might even have been impressed with Moshe’s words, so that he would have submitted to…
Eretz Yisrael has been given to Am Yisrael as an inheritance. The concept of inheritance implies several lessons regarding our obligation to and relationship with Eretz Yisrael. A yerushah, inheritance, does not mandate a kinyan, a specific act of acquisition. The yerushah becomes the possession of the inheritor, even if his attention is diverted from it at the time. Wherever the inheritor may be, the inheritance becomes his possession. Likewise, notes Horav Mordechai Ilan z.l., is Eretz Yisrael’s relationship with us. Even when we are in galus, exile, it is kept guarded, waiting for our return. Eretz Yisrael is our…
Horav Yecheskel Abramski z.l., used to say that without the special “glasses” of the Torah, an individual can not really attain an appreciation of the wonders of Hashem. In the light of the Torah one is better able to acknowledge His Divine guidance of this world in general, and the activities of each individual specifically. Indeed, even the overt miracles which Hashem “performs” make a limited impression upon those who lack the proper Torah hashkafah, outlook/perspective. Horav Abramski applied this theory to the interpretation of the pesukim concerning the geulah, redemption from Egypt, in the following manner: “And I will…
The Torah relates that when Moshe refused to go to Pharaoh, Hashem became angry and told Moshe that his brother Aharon would be the spokesman instead of him. Describing Hashem’s anger, the Torah uses the phrase, ;t rjhu, which, according to Chazal, reflects a high degree of anger. It indicates that Hashem intends to punish the offender with midaas ha’din, the attribute of Divine justice, devoid of any rachamim, mercy. If this was the case, what was Moshe’s punishment? There does not seem to be any major punishment meted out to Moshe as a result of his resistance to go…
Horav Avigdor Miller, Shlita, offers a profound homiletic rendering of the dialogue between Hashem and Moshe concerning the miraculous transformation of the staff to a serpent. Moshe was reluctant to accept leadership because he feared he would fall prey to the yetzer hara, evil inclination, of pride and glory-seeking. This is symbolized by the serpent to which the staff was transformed. From the genesis of man, the serpent has been the symbol of evil. Instead, Hashem desired to instruct Moshe that failure to accept leadership in areas of Jewish concern, areas of virtue, benevolence and kindness to others, is in…
The Yalkut Shimoni cites a dispute between R’ Yochanon and Reish Lakish concerning the extent of Moshe’s “turning aside.” R’ Yochanon says that Moshe stepped three steps out of his way while Reish Lakish contends that Moshe merely turned his neck. Hashem responded, “Moshe, you troubled yourself to see (the bush); by your life, I will reveal My Countenance through you.” In citing this Yalkut, Horav Simcha Zissel Broide, Shlita, acknowledges the remarkable reward for performing a seemingly minor act. Moshe devoted seventy years of tireless commitment to Bnei Yisrael in Egypt. He reflected true Yiraas Shomayim, fear of Heaven,…
The Midrash states that there is a more profound meaning to the words, “An Egyptian man rescued us.” They do not refer to Moshe, but rather to the Egyptian whom Moshe originally slew in Egypt. This individual was the “cause” of Bnos Yisro’s rescue from the shepherds. He actually catalyzed the cycle of events which resulted in Bnos Yisro’s appearance in Midyan. The Midrash offers an interesting parable to elucidate this statement. A man, who was bitten by a poisonous snake, ran to the river to wash out the venom. The moment that he arrived at the river he heard…