ויחזק את לב פרעה

(1) Who would grant! Scripture does not say, “who would grant me ”, but rather, “who would grant them ” (the word them is displaced in the sentence, and appears after that they had such a will ). Know that the Divine decree underlies all actions and all phenomena, in the sense that the nature and potentiality of everything in the universe, including living creatures, is determined by the action of the constellations on the four elements. A creature’s behavior at every moment is governed by its nature and its potential. However, as the author of the Sefer Yeṣira has explained, a certain amount of deviation can exist. Individuals derive their nature from the species, and they can change their nature within the boundaries of their species’s potential. This is the meaning of “God hardened the heart of Pharaoh” [Exodus 9: 12], although elsewhere Scripture asserts, “he hardened his heart; he and his officials” [Exodus 9: 34]. Both statements are true. Accordingly the prophets have said, “I know, God , that the way of a man is not in himself” [Jeremiah 10: 23] and “Why have you made us stray, God , from Your ways?” [Isaiah 63: 17]. Nevertheless, Moshe said, “choose life” [30: 19]. God does not prevent anyone from achieving good. Indeed, He wishes to bestow good; and Scripture says so anthropomorphically by using the expression, Who would grant.

(2) Many precepts in our Law are the result of a similar course adopted by the same Supreme Being. It is, namely, impossible to go suddenly from one extreme to the other: it is therefore according to the nature of man impossible for him suddenly to discontinue everything to which he has been accustomed. Now God sent Moses to make [the Israelites] a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) by means of the knowledge of God. Comp. "Unto thee it was showed that thou mightest know that the Lord is God (Deut. 4:35); "Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord is God" (ibid. 5:39). The Israelites were commanded to devote themselves to His service; comp. "and to serve him with all your heart" (ibid. 11:13); "and you shall serve the Lord your God" (Exod. 23:25); "and ye shall serve him" (Deut. 13:5). But the custom which was in those days general among all men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples which contained certain images, to bow down to those images, and to burn incense before them; religious and ascetic persons were in those days the persons that were devoted to the service in the temples erected to the stars, as has been explained by us. It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of God, as displayed in the whole Creation, that He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service; for to obey such a commandment it would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present if he called us to the service of God and told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and not by any action. For this reason God allowed these kinds of service to continue; He transferred to His service that which had formerly served as a worship of created beings, and of things imaginary and unreal, and commanded us to serve Him in the same manner; viz., to build unto Him a temple; comp. "And they shall make unto me a sanctuary" (Exod. 25:8); to have the altar erected to His name; comp. "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me" (ibid. 20:21); to offer the sacrifices to Him; comp. "If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord" (Lev. 1:2), to bow down to Him and to burn incense before Him. He has forbidden to do any of these things to any other being; comp. "He who sacrificeth unto any God, save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exod. 22:19); "For thou shalt bow down to no other God" (ibid. 34:14). He selected priests for the service in the temple; comp. "And they shall minister unto me in the priest's office" (ibid. 28:41). He made it obligatory that certain gifts, called the gifts of the Levites and the priests, should be assigned to them for their maintenance while they are engaged in the service of the temple and its sacrifices. By this Divine plan it was effected that the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of our faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly established; this result was thus obtained without deterring or confusing the minds of the people by the abolition of the service to which they were accustomed and which alone was familiar to them. I know that you will at first thought reject this idea and find it strange; you will put the following question to me in your heart: How can we suppose that Divine commandments, prohibitions, and important acts, which are fully explained, and for which certain seasons are fixed, should not have been commanded for their own sake, but only for the sake of some other thing: as if they were only the means which He employed for His primary object? What prevented Him from making His primary object a direct commandment to us, and to give us the capacity of obeying it? Those precepts which in your opinion are only the means and not the object would then have been unnecessary. Hear my answer, which win cure your heart of this disease and will show you the truth of that which I have pointed out to you. There occurs in the Law a passage which contains exactly the same idea; it is the following: "God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt; but God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea," etc. (Exod. 13:17). Here God led the people about, away from the direct road which He originally intended, because He feared they might meet on that way with hardships too great for their ordinary strength; He took them by another road in order to obtain thereby His original object. In the same manner God refrained from prescribing what the people by their natural disposition would be incapable of obeying, and gave the above-mentioned commandments as a means of securing His chief object, viz., to spread a knowledge of Him [among the people], and to cause them to reject idolatry. It is contrary to man's nature that he should suddenly abandon all the different kinds of Divine service and the different customs in which he has been brought up, and which have been so general, that they were considered as a matter of course; it would be just as if a person trained to work as a slave with mortar and bricks, or similar things, should interrupt his work, clean his hands, and at once fight with real giants. It was the result of God's wisdom that the Israelites were led about in the wilderness till they acquired courage. For it is a well-known fact that travelling in the wilderness, and privation of bodily enjoyments, such as bathing, produce courage, whilst the reverse is the source of faint-heartedness: besides, another generation rose during the wanderings that had not been accustomed to degradation and slavery. All the travelling in the wilderness was regulated by Divine commands through Moses; comp. "At the commandment of the Lord they rested, and at the commandment of the Lord they journeyed; they kept the charge of the Lord and the commandment of the Lord by the hand of Moses" (Num. 9:23). In the same way the portion of the Law under discussion is the result of divine wisdom, according to which people are allowed to continue the kind of worship to which they have been accustomed, in order that they might acquire the true faith, which is the chief object [of God's commandments]. You ask, What could have prevented God from commanding us directly, that which is the chief object, and from giving us the capacity of obeying it? This would lead to a second question, What prevented God from leading the Israelites through the way of the land of the Philistines, and endowing them with strength for fighting? The leading about by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night would then not have been necessary. A third question would then be asked in reference to the good promised as reward for the keeping of the commandments, and the evil foretold as a punishment for sins. It is the following question: As it is the chief object and purpose of God that we should believe in the Law, and act according to that which is written therein, why has He not given us the capacity of continually believing in it, and following its guidance, instead of holding out to us reward for obedience, and punishment for disobedience, or of actually giving all the predicted reward and punishment? For [the promises and the threats] are but the means of leading to this chief object. What prevented Him from giving us, as part of our nature, the will to do that which He desires us to do, and to abandon the kind of worship which He rejects? There is one general answer to these three questions, and to all questions of the same character: it is this: Although in every one of the signs [related in Scripture] the natural property of some individual being is changed, the nature of man is never changed by God by way of miracle. It is in accordance with this important principle that God said, "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me," etc. (Deut. 5:26). It is also for this reason that He distinctly stated the commandments and the prohibitions, the reward and the punishment. This principle as regards miracles has been frequently explained by us in our works: I do not say this because I believe that it is difficult for God to change the nature of every individual person; on the contrary, it is possible, and it is in His power, according to the principles taught in Scripture; but it has never been His will to do it, and it never will be. If it were part of His will to change [at His desire] the nature of any person, the mission of prophets and the giving of the Law would have been altogether superfluous.

(1) When Pharaoh shall speak unto you, saying: “Show a wonder for you” (Exod. 7:9). He will be making a reasonable request to you. You find in the case of Noah, that though He said to him, after He saved him from the flood, Neither shall there be anymore a flood (Gen. 9:11), Noah demanded a sign, and God assured him: I have set my bow in the cloud (ibid., v. 13). Similarly, when Hezekiah was sick, the Holy One, blessed be He, sent Isaiah to him and he said: Thus saith the Lord, the God of David, thy father: “I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears; behold, I will heal thee; on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the Lord” (II Kings 20:5). But he replied: What shall be the sign? (ibid., v. 8), and He answered: This shall be the sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing that He hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? (ibid., v. 9). Likewise, Joshua, the high priest, was told: Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, … for they are men that are a sign (Zech. 3:8). Since the righteous demanded signs, how much more did the wicked Pharaoh (have the right to do so). Hence, when Pharaoh says unto you: Show a wonder for you (he will be making a reasonable request).

(2) And Aaron forthwith cast down his rod before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent (Exod. 7:10). Whereupon Pharaoh said: “Is this the full power of your God? Why, my magicians travel throughout the world performing such feats.” Then Pharaoh called also (ibid., v. 11) the youths, and babes of five, yea, even of four years, and each of them cast his rod. It is written: Pharaoh called also because he disdained at first to summon his magicians and sorcerers. Our sages of blessed memory said: He actually performed a great miracle with that rod. When one serpent is able to swallow other serpents, that is not unusual, but this serpent turned itself back into a rod again, as it is written: But Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods (ibid., v. 12). If a man made bundles out of the rods that were cast to the ground to become serpents, there would have been more than ten bundles, yet Aaron’s rod swallowed them all and it became no larger than it was previously. When Pharaoh beheld that, he was amazed and exclaimed: “Surely if he should command the rod to swallow Pharaoh and his throne, it could swallow them.” That was the sign that He had given to Moses at the bush when He said: This which is in thy hand, cast it to the earth (ibid. 4:2). The word this alludes to Pharaoh, who is compared to a snake, as is said: The Lord with His sore and great and strong sword will punish leviathan the slant serpent (Isa. 27:1). When Moses withdrew from Pharaoh’s presence, the wicked one said: “If this son of Amram comes near me again, I will slay him, I will hang him, I will burn him.” That is why, when Moses returned, Pharaoh became like a rod. And Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, and he harkened not unto them, as the Lord had spoken (Exod. 7:13). With reference to the first five plagues, the words Pharaoh’s heart was hardened, etc., are written, but after the fifth plague occurred and he still would not permit them to leave, the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Henceforth, even if he desires to send them away, I will not allow it. Hence, with reference to the last five plagues it is written: But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart (ibid. 10:20). Moses decreed what was to transpire, and the Holy One, blessed be He, executed it, as it is said:: Thou shalt also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto thee (Job 22:28).

(3) Another explanation: For I have hardened his heart - Rabbi Yochanan said: Does this not provide heretics with an opportunity to open their mouths to say that he had no means of repenting, as it say "For I have hardened his heart". Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said to him: Let the mouths of the heretics be stopped up. Rather, (Mishlei 3:34) If it concerns the scorners, he scorns them. When the Holy One Blessed be He warns a man once, twice, thrice and he doesn't repent, and G-d will close his heart against repentance so that He should not exact vengeance from him for his sins. So to with the wicked Pharaoh, since Hashem sent five times to him and he took no notice, G-d then said: "You have stiffened your neck and hardened your heart; well, I will add impurity to your impurity". Hence, "For I have hardened his heart". What does "I have hardened" imply? That G-d made his heart like a liver (כבד) into which even if boiled a second time no juice enters; so also was the heart of Pharaoh made like a liver, and he did not receive the words of G-d. Hence, "For I have hardened his heart".

(1) And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased (Exod. 9:34). Such is the way of the wicked: whenever they are in trouble, they humiliate themselves, but once their troubles have ceased, they become corrupt again. When Nebuchadnezzar was in trouble, he said: Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and honor and extol the King of heaven, for all His works are truth, and His way is justice; and those that walk in pride, He is able to abase (Dan. 4:34).

(2) R. Berechiah stated in the name of R. Helbo, who had said in the name of R. Samuel the son of Nahman: Most assuredly, the Holy One, blessed be He, judges the thoughts and the heart of man. Nebuchadnezzar praised Him in this verse just as David did in the Book of Psalms. Nebuchadnezzar said praise, and David said Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem (Ps. 147:12); Nebuchadnezzar said extol, and David said: I will extol thee, O Lord, for Thou hast raised me up (Ps. 30:2); Nebuchadnezzar said honor, and David declared: Thou art clothed with honor and majesty (ibid. 104:1). After he achieved greatness, however, he became arrogant, as it is said: Is not this great Babylon, which I have built for a royal dwelling-place, by the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty? (Dan. 4:27). Whereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, rebuked him: Wretch! Again you are boastful, as it is said: While the word was in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven: “O King Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken: The kingdom is departed from thee” (ibid., v. 28). Hence, whenever the wicked are in trouble, they humble themselves, but when their difficulties cease, they revert to their corrupt practices. Pharaoh did likewise. When he saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he continued to sin (Exod. 9:34). The gentiles add to their sins, but in the case of Israel The punishment of thine iniquity is accomplished, O daughter of Zion, he will no more carry thee away into captivity; He will punish thine iniquity, O daughter of Edom, he will uncover thy sins (Lam. 4:22).

(3) And, it is possible that a man should commit either one grievous iniquity or a multitude of sins so that the Judge of Truth will decree against him that, whereas this sinner committed those sins of his own free will and consciously, repentance should be witheld from him altogether, and grant him no leave to repent, so that he might die and perish in the iniquity he committed. Even this is what the Holy One, blessed is He! said through Isaiah: "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their eyes heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they, seeing with their eyes, and hearing with their ears, and understanding with their heart will return and be healed" (Is. 6.10). It is, moreover, said: "But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words and scoffed at His prophets, until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people till there was no remedy". (II Chro. 36.16)—as if saying: "They sinned of their own free will and they have multiplied iniquities, until their guilt carried the punishment to withold repentance from them, which is the remedy". It is, therefore, written in the Torah; "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart" (Ex. 14.4), because at the beginning he sinned of his own free will, and meted out evil to Israel who sojourned in his land, even as it is said: "Come, let us deal wisely with them" (Ibid. 1.10). Thereat justice demanded to withold repentance from him, so that due punishment might be visited upon him. Wherefor, the Holy One, blessed is He! hardened his heart. If it be so, then why did He delegate Moses to him, charging him to let Israel go forth and turn to repentance seeing that the Holy One, blessed is He! long since told him thou wilt not let them go forth, saying: "But as for thee and thy servants, I know that ye will not yet fear the Lord God" (Ibid. 9.30), and again saying: "But in very deed for this cause have I made thee to stand, to show thee My power, and that My name be declared throughout all the earth"(Ibid. –16)? To demonstrate to the future generations whenever the Holy One, blessed is He! witholds repentance from a sinner he can not repent, but must die in the original evil which he perpetrated of his own free will. Sihon, too, by the measure of his iniquity became guilty of an offence which carried the punishment to have repentance witheld from him, even as it is said: "For the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate" (Deut. 2.30). Likewise the Canaanites, according to their abominations, did He withold repentance from them so that they engaged Israel in battle, even as it is said: "For it was of the Lord, to harden their hearts, to come against Israel in battle, that they might be utterly destroyed" (Joshua, 11.20). Even so was with Israel in the days of Elijah, because of the multiplied iniquity repentance was witheld from the gross evildoers, for it is said: "For Thou didst turn their heart backward" (I. Kings, 18.37)—as if saying: "Thou didst withold repentance from them". Thus, as a consequence hereof, we must say: God's predestination prompted not Pharaoh to wrong Israel, nor Sihon to sin in his land, nor the Canaanites to be abominable, nor Israel to worship idolatry; for they all sinned of their own free will and accord, and, therefore, were they all guilty of an offence which carries along the punishment to withold repentance from them.

(1) If we examine all the mandatory precepts in the Torah, we do not find any one precept through which alone one may attain the purpose intended by the Torah except repentance. The purpose intended by the Torah to be realized through the performance of its commandments, as we explained in the Third Book of this treatise, is the love of God, which leads man to the great reward destined for the soul. Now we find that this very purpose is stated in the Torah in relation to repentance. This proves the great importance of this commandment, and shows that it is a more comprehensive precept than prayer. For though prayer avails for particular purposes, it does not give the soul the comprehensive reward that is attained by repentance. Therefore we must treat this subject after prayer, rather than the other precepts, and with due brevity, as required by the limits of our treatise.

(2) If we examine carefully the section “Nizabim,” we find that the words: “See, I have set before thee … in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God … to hearken to His voice, and to cleave unto Him …,” as the context and sequence of thought show, have reference to repentance. For it says first: “And shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and hearken to His voice …” And it concludes with repentance, saying that it must be with perfect sincerity and that God will help one if it is; hence the concluding words: “If thou turn unto the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul.” Then the Bible speaks of the great importance of repentance and the ease with which it may be performed: “For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven … Neither is it beyond the sea.… But the word is very nigh unto thee …” All this no doubt has reference to repentance, as is shown by the words: “In thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.” For the essence of repentance consists in confession as expressed in words, and regret as felt in the heart, as we shall explain. Nahmanides also says that the text in question deals with repentance. The text gives it exceeding high praise, when it says: it is not in heaven, nor beyond the sea.

(3) The idea is: This thing (viz. repentance) is so valuable that you should undergo for its sake all the trouble in the world, even to go up to heaven, if possible, or beyond the sea, in order to obtain it, for it is something extremely valuable. For logically speaking, the sinner should not be forgiven under any circumstances, as the prophet says: “Wherewith shall I come before the Lord … Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams?” That is, the price of being delivered from punishment for one’s sins ought to be so great that he knows not how much he should give, or what would be sufficient, thousands of rams or ten thousands of rivers of oil; whether he should give his first-born for his transgression or the fruit of his body for the sin of his soul. All this shows that, logically speaking, no ransom should suffice to remove one’s sin. How much less reason is there then that the sinner should be received and forgiven for mere verbal repentance, as the prophet says: “Take with you words, and return unto the Lord,” unless it be by divine grace? Therefore the Torah calls solemn attention to it: “See I have set before thee this day … therefore choose life, that thou mayest live …”

(4) Having shown the facility of obtaining it: “But the word is very nigh unto thee …” he says: “See I have set before thee …” That is, you have no excuse in this case as you may have in respect to the other commandments, which, by reason of their great number and difficulty, you can not perform. It is not so here, for this commandment is very easy. And if you perform it you will obtain life and good, while if you indolently neglect it, death and misfortune will come upon you. Therefore you must be careful not to slight it. It is like the case of a person who is suffering from a serious illness which is regarded as incurable. Then a physician comes and says to the patient: I will tell you of a drug which will cure you of your illness. The patient thinks that since it can cure what is regarded as an incurable disease, the drug must be very costly, and extremely difficult to obtain. But the physician says: Do not think that there is any difficulty in obtaining this drug, or that you have to go up to heaven for it, or to spend a great deal of money to cross the sea in a ship, as ought to be the case. No, it is very easy to get. This is the meaning of the concluding words: “But the word is very nigh …,” i. e. since it is nigh, you must not be indolent and neglect to obtain it, for it is life to your soul, and as you do not indolently neglect to seek life, so you must not neglect this. Hence he adds: “Therefore choose life …,” explaining that the life which is obtained through this commandment is the very purpose intended to be obtained through the Torah: “To love the Lord thy God, to hearken to His voice, and to cleave unto Him; for that is thy life and the length of thy days; that thou mayest dwell in the land …” “For that is thy life,” refers to the world of souls. “And the length of thy days,” means this world, viz. to “dwell in the land.” In other words‘ through this love are obtained communion with God, eternal life and physical happiness.

(5) This is all true if repentance is motived by love, but if the motive is fear, he will indeed receive his reward, but it is not that complete repentance which confers the great reward of which we have been speaking. Our Rabbis say: “Resh Lakish said: ‘Great is the penitent, for his wilful sins are accounted to him as errors, as is said: “For thou hast stumbled in thy iniquity.” “Iniquity,” is a wrong done deliberately, and yet he calls it stumbling!’ But did not Resh Lakish say: ‘Great is the penitent, for his deliberate wrongs are changed into merits, as is said: “And when the wicked turneth from his wickedness, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby?” ’ Answer: The two statements are not contradictory, the one has reference to a person who repents from love, the other refers to one who repents from fear.”

(6) This matter requires explanation. How does Resh Lakish infer that if a man repents from fear, his wilful deeds are converted into errors? Justice requires that if one repents from fear of punishment, his repentance should not avail him at all. For an act deserving praise or blame or reward or punishment is one that is done voluntarily, without any mixture of compulsion, whereas the act of repentance from fear is not completely voluntary, why then should one receive any reward at all?

(7) The answer is that there are two kinds of repentance from fear. The first is that of the man who repents from fear of the punishment which is upon him, like a slave entreating his master while he is beating him, but as soon as his master removes the rod from him, he disobeys him as before, as was the case with Pharaoh. As long as the plague was upon him, he said: “The Lord is righteous,” but as soon as he was relieved, he hardened his heart again as before. This showed clearly that the first repentance was forced by the terrors of death which had fallen upon him …, and was not a free act. Such an attitude should not be regarded as repentance at all.

(8) The other is the case of the man who repents from fear of God and His punishment, who has the fear of the Lord before him even in time of respite. He is afraid of God’s punishment because he believes that all things come from God as reward or punishment, and does not ascribe events to nature and chance, as Pharaoh did, who as soon as the plague departed went back to his original bad behavior. Even after the plague of the first born, the moment he thought the Israelites had lost their way, he ascribed all the signs and wonders which he had seen, to chance. Therefore he took courage and pursued the Israelites, thereby proving clearly that his repentance in the first place was due to compulsion on account of the plagues, and was not voluntary.

(9) In this way we must explain the statements in the Bible that God hardens the heart of the wicked, or makes them stiff-necked, and prevents them from repenting. The wicked man, when misfortune comes upon him, pretends to become pious, and returns to God from the fear of the punishment which is upon him, as Pharaoh said: “I have sinned this time; the Lord is righteous.” Now, since this act is like one that is forced and not free, God hardens his heart, by suggesting to him other causes to which he can attribute the misfortune, accident, for example, rather than divine providence. This is done in order to remove from his heart the softening effect which came from the misfortune, so that he may return to his natural state, and act freely without compulsion. Then it may be found out whether his repentance was free or not. Now since, when the yoke of the plague was removed from Pharaoh, his choice was evil, God said: “I hardened his heart,” i. e. I removed from his heart the softening effect which came from the plague and restored him to the natural state of freedom; while he, owing to his wicked attitude, when in a state of freedom, sought for various causes and excuses to which he might ascribe the plagues so that they might seem accidental.

(10) This is the meaning of the words: “If you will walk with me keri (קרי),” i. e. if you ascribe events to chance (mikreh), “Then will I also walk with you with the wrath of Keri, etc.” It is in this way that the gates of repentance are closed before the wicked. God does not prevent a person from making a good choice, Heaven forbid! As the Bible says: “For I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that he should return from his ways and live.” But God leaves him to his freedom without any external compulsion, and he chooses his own way. This was also the case with Sihon, concerning whom the Bible says: “For the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate.” Sihon was guilty before God for his wickedness, but he was afraid to come into conflict with Israel because he feared God’s punishment, therefore God introduced various remote circumstances in order to remove from his heart the softening effect due to what he had heard of the miracles that were done for Israel, and to leave him solely to his freedom.

(11) God commanded Moses to send messengers to the king of Edom, saying to him: “Let us pass, I pray thee, through thy land.” And when Edom refused and came out against Israel, “with much people, and with a strong hand,” God commanded Israel to turn away from him. When Sihon saw this, he planned and plotted wickedly, saying to himself that Israel’s success was not due to divine providence, seeing that they turned away from the king of Edom and from the king of Moab, as Jephthah explained, and hence he thought he was no whit inferior to these, took courage and went out against them to fight, but Israel smote him with the edge of the sword and took possession of his land. If Moses had not sent messengers to the king of Edom, Sihon would not have had the courage to go out to fight against them, for fear of the Lord, and they would have required a long time to subdue all his land. This is the meaning of the hardening of heart of which the Bible speaks in such expressions as: “For the Lord thy God hardened his spirit … that He might deliver him into thy hand …”

(12) In this way we can explain why the Torah mentions the incident of the mission to the king of Edom. For at first sight it would seem to be obviously discreditable to Israel. When Israel said: “Thou shalt sell me food for money …,” the king of Edom thought that they were in want of bread and water, since they were willing to pay him for water, and therefore he asked to be paid also for allowing them to pass, so that Israel was obliged to say: “And if we drink of thy water, I and my cattle, then will I give the price thereof,” explaining that it was not necessary for them to buy water, but if they drank it, they would pay. But, they said, we will not pay for the mere passage. Then the king of Edom said: “Thou shalt not pass through. And … came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand.” God, then, commanded Israel to turn away from him, and Moses and all Israel were astonished at this. Later when God commanded them to send messengers to Sihon, king of Heshbon, against whom, when he came out against them, they fought and whom they defeated, they understood the deep thoughts of God. It was clear to them then that the command of God to send messengers to the king of Edom and the king of Moab and to turn away from them, was in order to strengthen the heart of Sihon, that he should go out to fight, so that Israel might defeat him and take quick possession of his land, in order to show his bad will.

(13) Accordingly we say that one who repents from fear in the manner of Sihon and Pharaoh, is not credited with repentance at all, but he who repents from fear because he believes in Providence, and for this reason is afraid of the word of God and does not seek for pretexts and extraneous explanations for God’s righteous judgments, but recognizes that all things that happen to a person are the result of providence and in the nature of punishment for his evil deeds,—a person of this sort deserves compensation for his repentance, though it is from fear, and concerning him Resh Lakish said that his wilful deeds are accounted as though they were unintentional, as he infers from the biblical expression: “For thou hast stumbled in thine iniquity.” From the text it would seem as if it refers to one who has not repented at all, but Resh Lakish infers from the expression: “Return O Israel, unto (‘ad) the Lord” [instead of to (’el)], that the text refers to one who has returned a little, but has not completely returned to God, from love. The first mode of repentance, namely from fear, still has remaining in it the obstacle of iniquity: “For thou hast stumbled in thine iniquity.”

(14) We still have to explain, however, the statement that if a man repents from love, his wilful misdeeds are converted for him into merits. Justice dictates that it is sufficient that repentance wipes out a man’s sins, so that they are as if they had never been, but how can such a person attain any degree meriting future life? If he has no merits, his status is zero and there is no distinction in this respect between the one who repents from fear and the one who repents from love.

(15) The explanation of the difficulty is as follows: Strict justice has no room for repentance at all, as we explained in the beginning of the chapter. Repentance is a matter of divine grace and charity. Hence there is no reason for surprise if God’s infinite kindness goes so far. Hosea explains this matter, when he says concerning the penitent: “I will heal their backsliding.” His contemporaries expressed their doubts and said to him: How is it possible that repentance should avail the person to obtain reward or happiness, since it is quite sufficient if it wipes out his sins? The person remains, therefore, equally devoid of sins as well as merits, how then can he be entitled to divine pleasure or love, which are promised in the Bible to the penitent? To this the prophet answers in the name of God: “I will hear their backsliding, I will love them freely,” i. e. It is true that the penitent does not deserve any degree of happiness by his own merit, the love of God which comes to him through repentance is due to divine grace and is in the nature of charity. This may be either because the precept of repentance stands higher than all the other precepts of the Torah, and through it alone one can attain the purpose intended by the Torah, viz. the love of God, or it means literally that the penitent gets his reward as a matter of pure grace and generosity, as we read: “I will love them freely,” i. e. as their repentance came from love, so I will love them freely. David also, when he repented of the Bathsheba affair, said: “And let a willing spirit uphold me,” i. e. a spirit of free gift and grace, not as the result of any merit, but as coming purely from God’s love and from the kindness which flows from God and influences every man in the measure in which he prepares himself to receive the divine kindness. The Psalmist also says: “So shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord;” “Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance;” “Open thy mouth wide and I will fill it.” We thus see that he makes the granting of the favor dependent upon the asking.

(16) A person who repents from fear, does so because he is afraid that punishment will come upon him for the sins he has committed. God, as a reward for his repentance, gives him grace as he requests, protects him from punishment, converts his wilful misdeeds into errors, and he is not punished for them, but requires atonement as for a deed done in error. But he who repents from love, not from fear of the punishment that may come upon him for his sin, who is not afraid of punishment, his heart being “as an adamant harder than flint,” in bearing punishment, who repents solely from a love of God, because he desires to do that which is pleasing to God solely because it is pleasing to God, as a lover does that which is pleasing to his friend, not because of the fear of any punishment,—such a person attains through such repentance the purpose intended by the Torah, viz. the love of God. Therefore it is fitting that God should love him, as we read: “I love them that love me,” which is not the case in the one who repents from fear. Therefore it is not proper that they should stand on the same plane. Nevertheless, although the repentance is not at first due to love, as is proper, but to fear of punishment, God promises that He will help him who repents in the first place from fear to achieve complete repentance before God, viz. repentance from love. This we infer from the fact that in the beginning of the section dealing with repentance, it says: “In thy distress, when all these things are come upon thee …,” showing that the original motive of repentance was the fear of punishment which has come upon him. Then it says: “And the Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart …,” which indicates that though originally repentance was due to fear, God will circumcise the heart of the sinner and help him to repent from love, which is true repentance, as we explained.

(2) "G-D SAID TO MOSES, I WILL TOUGHEN THE HEART OF PHARAOH."

(3) Rabbi Pinchas son of Chana explained the verse "He who announces the outcome at the outset, and beforehand things that have not yet occurred, says: "My counsel will prevail and I will carry out all My desires" (Isaiah 46,10). Anyone reading this verse might think that there are competing powers in Heaven; why else "all My desires I will carry out?" The meaning, however, is that G-d tries to find justification for all His creatures. He does not wish to find the wicked guilty, as we read, "You are not a G-d who takes pleasure in lawlessness." When G-d foretold Moses that Pharaoh would demand a miracle, He did not say "if Pharaoh will request a miracle," but "when Pharaoh will request a miracle." This is taken to mean that Pharaoh was within his rights to request such a miracle. If righteous people such as King Hezzekiah or Gideon requested signs from G-d, a lesser individual such as Pharaoh surely cannot be faulted for demanding that Moses prove both himself and his Sender, i.e. the One in whose name he claimed to speak (Tanchuma Parshat Nasso).

(4) Every nation or society has a set of weights and measures which are the yardsticks for fair trade and commerce. If anyone tries to pervert the system, the original weights and measures can quickly be used as a means of comparison, and help re-establish the true measures etc.

(5) The objective yardsticks of ethics and morality are the laws given by G-d. When David prayed "Grant, O Lord, to Solomon Your justice, to the king Your righteousness," it is as if David had prayed for Solomon to be granted that objective yardstick of justice which is reserved for the Lord Himself. Proof that this prayer was granted is found in Chronicles I 29,23, "Solomon sat on the throne of G-d as king, replacing his father David.” The first example of Solomon having been granted this Divine yardstick of justice, is the story of the two mothers who accused each other of having switched babies (Kings I Chapter 3). If human yardsticks were to be applied, the mother in possession of the surviving baby should have been awarded custody, since the other mother had no proof to offer. Solomon's initial decision to cut the living baby in half, and divide it between the two claimants, runs counter to Talmudic law, i.e. the example of two people each holding on to part of a garment, since in this case possession had not been shared. Obviously then, Solomon only used this to demonstrate that the ultimate decision was inspired by a superior logic, i.e. G-d’s. The idea of dividing the baby was so abhorrent to Rabbi Yehudah bar lla-i, that he says only a minor could have come up with a decision like that (Solomon at the time had not yet reached his thirteenth birthday). Rabbi Yehudah applied the verse in Kohelet 10,16, "Woe to the country that is ruled by a child." The same people who were aghast at a decision that would have resulted in the death of the surviving baby, hailed Solomon's eventual decision. This reflects the verse in Kohelet 10,17, "Hail to the country whose ruler is truly free." The Midrash stating that the words "she is his mother" were spoken by a Heavenly voice teaches that Solomon's decision was indeed the correct one. Solomon's initial verdict did not even correspond to the Talmudic principle of gud o agud (Baba Batra 13), which stipulates that in cases where physical division of disputed property would result in irreparable loss to either litigant, division of the disputed property is to be arranged in kind. It is clear that suspension of the Divine system of justice would result in perversion of justice, since our yardsticks of comparison would vanish. When only a small section of mankind indulges in false morality, the result, while damaging, might help to restore true morality elsewhere. To the Jew, Abraham's query "Shall the judge of the whole earth not do justice?" (Genesis 18,25) is not a question of "if," but a question of “how.” The fact that G-d’s morality is objectively true morality is axiomatic; our concern is only with attempting to comprehend some of its aspects. The premise is "the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are justice" (Deuteronomy 32,4). Similar statements can be found throughout the Bible. If we become too perturbed when enquiring into apparently unjust occurrences and one forgets this premise, then the danger of heresy is very real, and one can no longer claim to be a searcher for truth, but becomes a doubter of truth. This is the lesson the prophet Chabakuk (2,4) teaches, "The righteous lives by his faith." We proclaim the truth of G-d both by day and by night immediately following the shema yisrael, "hear O Israel," prayer.

(6) Yet one may strive to understand why the generation of Jews in Egypt was subjected to such a cruel fate at the hands of the Egyptians and Pharaoh. Especially, are we entitled to do so, since scripture does not offer a list of specific wrongdoings of the people? The author rejects many solutions offered by his predecessors as being inadequate. Most of those explanations would violate the principle of our freedom of choice in one form or another. The author insists that statements such as "he went down to Egypt," ((Deut. 26,5) or "and Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt," (Joshua 24,4) have to be understood at face value, and confirm that the move to Egypt was entirely voluntary, not pre­ordained in any way. It is interesting that throughout the events leading up to the arrival of Jacob in Egypt, G-d ascribes all happenings to Himself, except this last one (compare Joshua 24,3): "I took your father, I multiplied his seed, I gave him Isaac. I gave Jacob to Isaac,” but "Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt."The statement G-d made to Jacob while the latter was on his way to Egypt (Genesis 46,3), "Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt," is to be understood as permission, as an assurance of G-d’s continued support. Just as the spies Moses had sent out to check out the land of Canaan were not prevented from setting out on their mission (Numbers Chapter 13), so Jacob was not prevented from going down to Egypt. According to all this, the statement on the occasion of the covenant between the pieces (Genesis 15,13), "Know that your seed will be a stranger in a land that is not theirs etc.," was simply a piece of information to Abraham, not an evil decree. The Torah, by not stating that this occurrence would be due to Divine intervention, as could have been implied by such statements as "I will make them strangers" or "I will bring them down to Egypt," draws our attention to the fact that this was merely an announcement of an event in the future, but was not a decree. The most difficult example in the series dealing with the apparent suspension of free will is the repeated statement by G-d, "I will harden the heart of Pharaoh" or "I have hardened the heart of Pharaoh," as found in the chapters dealing with the ten plagues (Exodus Chapters 4-10). On the other hand, we find that repentance by even the worst sinners is readily accepted, such as the repentance of Achav and Menashe, son of Chiskiyahu (compare Kings I 16 and Kings I 21, Kings II 21, Chronicles II 33,13). The Bible describes those two as being wicked par excellence; yet in the case of Pharaoh it seems that whenever he began to repent, obstacles were placed in his way to prevent him from repenting effectively. The author argues against Maimonides's view (Hilchot Teshuvah 6) that wickedness is cumulative, so that at some point the sinner forfeits his right to free will. The author feels that the repeated missions to Pharaoh by Moses would have been wasted, had they not been intended to produce a change of heart in Pharaoh. Also, since G-d had already told Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3, 19) that Pharaoh would not release the Israelites of his own accord, this had been prior to any mention having been made that "I will harden his heart."

(7) Shemot Rabbah 7 states that G-d revealed the course of events to Moses so that the latter would not be dumbfounded by the apparently counterproductive results of his mission to Pharaoh. Even so, Moses was appalled, asking G-d: "Why have You caused things to get worse since I have come to Pharaoh?" This is what Solomon meant in Kohelet 7,7, "Oppression causes the wise to become foolish." Even a Moses can become confused in his faith when confronted by excessive oppression and apparent injustice. At any rate, G-d ascribes Pharaoh's obstinacy to Pharaoh himself, not to Divine interference. Maimonides's reason for Sichon King of the Emorites having been denied the exercise of free will when he denied the Israelites passage through his country seems inadequate. Why was his sin worse than that of the kings of Edom and Moab who did not have their freedom of choice interfered with according to Maimonides (compare Deuteronomy 2,30)? Most difficult however, is the thought frequently expressed in scriptures that the gates of repentance are never closed (Jeremiah 3, Psalms 25, to quote but a few).

(8) The Ramban's approach that, having refused to repent during the first five plagues, Pharaoh was no longer entitled to repentance, is also not considered satisfactory, even though it is based on Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in Shemot Rabbah 17. The proof for that view, namely the changes in grammar describing Pharaoh's obstinacy during the first five plagues as being self-induced, and that during subsequent plagues as being induced by G-d, (distinctions such as vayechezak versus vayachazek- 7,15, 9,12) would force us to believe that Moses was told in advance that at some stage Pharaoh would no longer be a free agent, that because he only mouthed thoughts of repentance without meaning them, G-d would force him to act in accordance with his true feelings. This is also what Rashi meant in his commentary on Exodus 7,3. The problem with this approach is that if G-d knows that the sinner does not plan to repent, why interfere with his decisions? His actions would automatically expose him to further punitive action by G-d. Surely it would be viewed as a greater success for G-d if His creatures are forced by circumstances to comply with His wishes! If this is indeed what happened after the tenth plague, what reason do we have to assume that Pharaoh's last pronouncement was any more sincere than his earlier ones? In fact, G-d would have delayed the deliverance of the Israelites by having interfered with Pharaoh's free will! For this and other reasons, the author prefers an approach supported by many Midrashim which state clearly that there had been no interference with Pharaoh's free will. Any person guilty of a variety of crimes, deserves a number of penalties to square the account. Even a single act can be a multiple offense, punishable by several penalties, such as the consumption of a hornet (Makkot 16). Pharaoh, having committed a variety of crimes against the Jewish people, had to endure a string of chastisements. Intervals between administering these various punishments were needed, so that he did not escape the impact by being unconscious at the time some of the punishments were inflicted. When each stage of the punishment is not as severe as it could be, namely resulting in probable death, the victim is far less likely to really repent. The major incentive for repentance is fear and terror. When this incentive is absent, the psychological climate for remorse has not been created. When the Torah in Deut 13,12 says, "All of Israel shall listen and be afraid, and will not continue to do such in your midst," the objective is twofold: a) destruction of evil by destroying the perpetrator; b) to frighten the population out of imitating the wrongdoer. Were the wrongdoer to be welcomed as a repentant sinner, all the onlookers would lose all their restraint and proceed to sin and expect to escape the consequences. This is the reason Moses’ss and Aaron's repentance did not help when they had publicly desecrated G-d’s name by striking the rock instead of talking to it (Numbers 20,12). Our sages (Yuma 86) tell us that when a sin includes chilul hashem, public desecration of the holy name of G-d, all the conventional ways of repentance do not help without the addition of the sinner's death. Only in this manner can atonement become complete. In Pharaoh's case, a period of respite between the plagues was mandatory, as otherwise he would not have received all the chastisements due him. The crimes of maltreating a people whose founder had been the savior of Egypt and whose only crime against Egypt had been their high birthrate, is unforgivable. The progressively harsher measures enacted against this people called for strong punitive action by G-d. The "great judgments" of which G-d speaks to Moses at the burning bush are these acts of multiple retribution. The Egyptians had been aware that the Jewish people were loyal to their G-d. Their whole behavior then was a rebellion against G-d, and as such it was not likely to lead to repentance. Since it was G-d’s stated purpose to convince the Egyptians that He was (1) a deity, (2) a power controlling the earth, and (3) a deity the like of which did not exist on the whole earth, the torture visited upon Egypt had to be staggered in such a way as to allow the Egyptians to recover from blow after blow and to absorb their lesson in the end. All the references made in the Torah to G-d hardening the heart of Pharaoh etc. have to be understood as the recovery Pharaoh was allowed to make between the plagues, so he could be made to feel the full impact of the next instalment. The Talmud in Makkot 10 produces proof from all parts of the Bible that the path in life a person wishes to take he is allowed to travel, i.e. freedom of choice is absolute. An example is the prophet Bileam who was first told by G-d not to accompany the messengers of Balak, but who, once it had become clear that he had made up his mind to go with them, was permitted to proceed (Numbers 22,12-20). The reference of Avshalom preferring the advice of Chushai, (Samuel II 17,14) is another such example. The classic example would be the deliberate turnabout by the Jewish people in the desert when facing Baal Tzefon (Exodus 14,1-3). All these examples illustrate that G-d does indeed provide opportunities for sinners to err, to draw false conclusions which will enmesh them in further difficulties. At the sea of reeds also the Egyptians chose to interpret that a twelve hour wind that had dried out the bed of the sea was a natural phenomenon and that the bottom of the sea was as safe for them as it had proved to be for the Israelites. It was in this indirect manner that G-d encouraged the Egyptians to fall into the trap He had set for them.

(9) The observation about G-d having hardened the spirit of Sichon King of the Emorites, which was referred to earlier, is to be understood in a similar vein. Sichon, who had observed that Israel seemed to have avoided battling the Moabites or the Edomites and had detoured around their respective countries, concluded that Israel's motive had been fear. Thus he felt encouraged to assume a militant posture. This resulted in his defeat and the conquest of his lands by the Israelites. But there had been no interference with his freedom of choice.

(11) To return to the quotation of the Midrash, at the outset of our chapter: One cannot escape the feeling that the words "My counsel will prevail," suggest that there are at least other counsels than the one of which G-d says that it will prevail. The true meaning seems to be that it was G-d’s original plan to create man equipped with freedom of choice. The reason for this was that only in this manner would man attain the ultimate moral stature that he wished him to attain. What G-d is saying therefore, is that ultimately His plan will prevail, since it had not been His primary objective to foil the plans of the wicked, but to help man to achieve righteousness. "G-d was pleased because of His righteousness" (Isaiah 42,21). The idea then that G-d Himself would impede man in attaining his moral perfection by interfering with his opportunity to do the right thing would be intolerable. Rabbi Yehudah wants to make it clear that the request for a sign from G-d is not evidence of obstinacy or lack of freedom of choice, but is a method employed even by prophets and worthy people to assure themselves that they are doing the right thing. That is why Moses and Aaron were told at the outset that Pharaoh would ask for such signs before negotiations could enter the substantive stage. Isaiah 7,11-12 teaches that, on occasion, failure to ask for such a sign can even be accounted as sinful. The concept is that when such requests for signs from G-d are made at the beginning, G-d provides such signs; when repeated requests are made, however, that violates the commandment "Do not test the Lord your G-d." (Deut 6,16). Pharaoh should have listened the first time around, when Aaron's staff swallowed the staffs of all the magicians. Turning scoffer instead of repenting, he had only himself to blame if he misread future signs at one stage or another in his reflections. The very fact that each plague contained an element that a recalcitrant spirit could seize upon in order to draw faulty conclusions, is the midah keneged midah, punishment which fits the crime, principle in action. It is this aspect of G-d’s justice that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish has in mind when he said that as a result of Pharaoh's obstinacy, G-d gave him additional opportunities to be still more obstinate, so that it appeared as if G-d Himself had hardened Pharaoh's heart.

(12) Some difficulties in the text of our story: 1) Chapter 7,3-4 seems to contain superfluous verbiage. If Pharaoh would not listen, he would obviously not release the Israelites. 2) Having produced the miracle of the reptile swallowing the staffs, why did G-d send other miracles that the magicians could duplicate? 3) An examination of the three groups of plagues suggests that each successive group was less miraculous than the previous one. The reverse would have been expected! 4) Pharaoh's reactions seem puzzling from a psychological point of view. Sometimes he reacts to the impact of a plague; other times he reacts to the impact of the relief from the plague. Why? 5) Why did G-d say on the occasion of the plague of hail, "This time I will send all My plagues against you" (9,13)? After all, hail is only one plague! If G-d wanted to kill the Egyptian's livestock, why suggest that they make them take shelter? 6) When Pharaoh asked Moses, "Who are those who want to go?" why did Moses not simply say, "The whole nation" instead of the cumbersome, "With our youngsters and with our old folk we will go"? 7) In Chapter 7,25-26, Moses states, "You too will give us offerings that we will present to the Lord our G-d, and also our cattle will go with us." The order seems inverted. Surely taking their cattle is the more important of the two statements! 8) What gave Pharaoh the courage to finally threaten Moses (10,28) when he had never done so previously?

(13) (1) The reason the Torah lists the ages of Moses and Aaron at the time they began their mission in Egypt, is to show that at that time they had ceased to be merely important persons in their own right, but had become instruments of G-d’s will. When Aaron's staff swallowed those of the magicians, Pharaoh, in his obstinacy, chose to interpret this as merely a difference in the calibre of Moses’ss and Aaron's magic as compared to the magic of his own magicians. He refused to see in this the legitimization of Moses and Aaron as messengers of another deity. Thus, G-d demonstrated to Moses and Aaron the rigidity of Pharaoh's state of mind. (2) Subsequent plagues were designed to make him more responsive. The plague of blood had the avowed purpose of demonstrating "so that you know that I am G-d," the first principle Pharaoh had denied when Moses introduced himself as a messenger of G-d. At that time, Pharaoh's reaction had been "Who is G-d?" (5,2). This query was to be answered by the conversion of water into blood. The plague established then that Moses was indeed a messenger of someone who could command nature in this fashion. The first few plagues were designed to demonstrate to the magicians that Moses’ss source of power was the same as theirs, namely G-d. In addition, the fact that Moses was able to call off a plague, not just to bring it on, should have convinced them of his superior powers. The Egyptians' desire to keep the Jews enslaved, was, however, stronger than their newly gained insight into the powers of the G-d of the Israelites. They were aided in this rejectionist approach by having found ways to circumvent the effect of the plague by digging for new sources of water in the ground. During the second plague, though the magicians copied it, the inconvenience was such that they asked for the plague to be called off. This was Pharaoh's first concession. Pharaoh acknowledges the existence of G-d, since he asked Moses to pray to Him. He implied that if Moses could call off the plague, something his own magicians had been unable to do, then he, Pharaoh, would acknowledge the fact that the plague did originate with G-d. He would then let the Jewish people go. Since Moses realized that Pharaoh was trying to test G-d, he allowed himself to boast and let Pharaoh set the timetable. This was in order that there could be no doubt as to who had made the frogs die. When Moses accepted Pharaoh's timetable, he added the words "so that you will know that there is no G-d like our G-d." Moses emphasized that the frogs would remain only in the river, to make it plain that nature would resume its normal course, that frogs would not be removed except as a plague. Pharaoh reneged, perhaps since the magicians had not yet admitted their own inability to duplicate Moses’ss feat until the third plague. Because of Pharaoh's having reneged, the third plague arrived without prior warning. If Pharaoh would respond to this plague by acknowledging the existence of G-d as well as His uniqueness, then this phase of plagues could be considered as concluded. (3) Even though Pharaoh had acknowledged G-d’s uniqueness at the end of the third plague, he had not yet acknowledged that a special relationship existed between Israel and G-d, and that Moses therefore had the right to demand the freedom of the Israelites. The fact that Moses was commanded to give Pharaoh warning of the fourth plague, meeting Pharaoh at the river, shows that G-d wanted him to know that he was aware of Pharaoh's intention to avoid just such a meeting. The plague would show that G-d could act arbitrarily on earth and at the same time distinguish between the part of the earth inhabited by the Israelites (8,18). The fifth and sixth plagues demonstrate the same point in varying degrees. Even the livestock of the Israelites would enjoy special protection by their G-d. Even microbes, bacteria, in the case of the sixth plague, would not harm Jews. Precisely because this was the purpose of these plagues, no new and unknown phenomena could be used to demonstrate the power of G-d. The fact that these plagues had been predicted to occur within a certain time frame, demonstrated that G-d was their author. Pharaoh's reaction, suggesting that the Jews serve their G-d within the country, is his response to Moses’ss statement that G-d is master in the whole land. Moses’ss reply to Pharaoh's unspoken question, "Why do you have to leave the country to do your worshipping?" is that the attitude of the Egyptians poses a threat to the Israelites' safety, especially when the Egyptians would become aware of the nature of the sacrificial service intended. From an objective point of view, service to G-d in Egypt would be possible. Moses, careful not to refer to an eventual return to Egypt, phrases his demand very vaguely, stating only that they would get their instructions from G-d. Pharaoh agrees, adding that they should pray for him also. Moses agrees to call off the plague, warning Pharaoh not to default on his promise again, and he agrees to pray for Pharaoh immediately, not at a distance of three days' march (8,21-26). (4) Pharaoh remains unrepentant also after this awesome display of G-d’s power as demonstrated by the strange immunity of the Jewish people to the invasion of the wild beasts. As a result, this group of plagues has to run its full course to teach Pharaoh a further lesson. The immediate reason for Pharaoh's astounding reversal may be due to his rationalizing the absence of the wild beasts' invasion of the land of Goshen being due to the particular area rather than the people living in it. After all, Moses had stressed that the miracle would occur "in the land of Goshen" (8,18). To cure him of this misconception, the plague of pestilence would not be restricted to certain areas, but cattle belonging to Egyptians that were grazing in Goshen would be struck, whereas cattle owned by Jews grazing in Egypt proper would remain unharmed. This would debunk Pharaoh's theory that makom gorem mazzal, that a certain location can be lucky or unlucky. Pharaoh still had doubts, ascribing good luck to the owners of these cattle rather than to a deliberate act of Divine intervention. Therefore, the third in the series of these plagues found the magicians unable to protect even themselves against the impact, much less to offer relief to anyone else struck by it. Pharaoh still does not admit that G-d’s power is more than local, and the third series of plagues will disabuse him of that fallacy: "So that you will know that there is no one like Me on the whole earth" (9,14). It was necessary to include amongst these plagues both qualitative and quantitative phenomena that would place them outside previous human experience. Thus G-d would demonstrate that He could alter the laws of nature. These phenomena had to be predicted both as to when and as to how they would occur, in order to provide absolute credibility of both messenger and Author. (5) When the Torah states prior to the plague of hail (9,14), "This time I will send all My plagues," the message is to acquaint Pharaoh with the fact that G-d’s power extends way beyond the boundaries of Egypt. Since the prime object of the plague was to demonstrate power, an opportunity to escape the immediate consequences could be allowed. The result of this plague was that Pharaoh, for the first time, acknowleged his guilt and G-d’s righteousness (9,27). When Pharaoh, in 9,21, states that "there is no need for further thunder from G-d," he meant that there was no need for G-d to teach him any further lessons, that he had become adequately convinced. That was the reason he asked Moses to pray for him, and why he offered to dismiss the Jewish people. Moses was audacious enough to point out that in his personal opinion further lessons would prove necessary (9,30). By including Pharaoh's servants in his comments, Moses in his wisdom had hoped to galvanize Pharaoh's servants into some action, since their own destruction would result should Pharaoh continue in his obstinate attitude. This explains the servants' remonstrations during the eighth plague (10,7). Pharaoh's latest reversal may have been induced by the hope that the unheard-of phenomena pointed at an imminent worldwide cataclysmic event, after which his fortunes would change for the better (his interpretation of the horoscope).

(14) Parashat Bo

(15) (3) In Chapter 10,1-2, G-d explains to Moses that the very order in which the plagues occurred accounts for Pharaoh's continued obstinacy. This was not outside interference in Pharaoh and his servants' decision making process. Moses was commanded (10,3) to threaten the onset of yet another plague, explaining that this time there would not be a display of power originating in Heaven, but rather there would be a demonstration that G-d operates at will within nature. Since Pharaoh, in his desperate search for causes other than G-d’s deliberate actions, had fooled himself into believing in the imminent arrival of the millenium, he would be forced to concede his error. The unique nature of this occurrence then was stressed by Moses (10,14; 10,6). This kind of locust never had been seen, nor would it ever be seen again. During the plague of hail, mention had been made that it was new; no word had been said, however, about it not occurring ever again. This had lead to Pharaoh's error. This time, care is taken to predict the uniqueness of the event so that Pharaoh could not again pretend that it augured a new order in nature, such as after the deluge. Since the Exodus of the Jewish people was to follow shortly, it did not matter that the locust also invaded Goshen, since the Israelites would not be there by harvest time anyways. After announcing the plague as punishment for Pharaoh's continued rebelliousness, Moses leaves the presence of Pharaoh to give him and his servants time to reflect. After some discussion at Pharaoh's Court, Moses is brought back, and the release of the Israelites to worship their G-d is authorized. (8) The snag occurs this time when Pharaoh finds out that not only male adults would go (10,9). Moses is accused of bad faith, Pharaoh claiming that it had now become apparent that the whole negotiations from the start had had as their purpose the permanent departure of the Jewish people from Egypt ("For this is what you are seeking," 10,11). The newfound repentance evaporates quickly, and for the first time Pharaoh treats Moses with disrespect, believing himself to have been wronged. As a result, Moses brings on the locust. Since this plague arrived without preamble, Pharaoh immediately summons Moses and Aaron. This time he does not only admit wrongdoing, but apologizes to Moses for his behavior. Again he asks Moses to pray to remove "this death" from Egypt. Moses responds without waiting for the customary promise that his people would be released. The wind is reversed, the locusts disappear utterly, giving Pharaoh a chance to view the whole event as due to the operation of winds rather than ascribing the phenomenon to its true author, the prime mover of all winds. Darkness follows immediately, showing that the very atmosphere is the victim of G-d’s anger, and creating a physical barrier to the movement of the Egyptians for a period of three days (10,23). Pharaoh calls Moses, and for the first time volunteers to release all the people, barring only their livestock. Pharaoh has come a long way, seeing that he makes this offer without the threat of yet another plague overhanging him so far. Thus the aim of the third group of plagues, "so that you know there is no one like Me on the whole earth," has been achieved. Since the plague of darkness had ended without supplication by Pharaoh to Moses and by Moses to G-d, his new humility is indeed remarkable. (7) He cannot yet understand why the Israelites wish to take their livestock, even though Moses had mentioned on occasion that they would slaughter for G-d. Pharaoh felt that he had responded completely to G-d’s demands, and that the demand to take the livestock along must have come at Moses’ss own initiative. When David lists the ninth plague as the one in which Pharaoh did not rebel (Psalms 105,27-8), and lists it ahead of all the other plagues, it may well be that he wants to emphasize this very point. The reason for the omission of the plagues of pestilence and skin sores in the same Psalm may well be similar. In both instances, neither refusal nor obstinacy are mentioned in the Torah; therefore they did not fit the categories of rebellion cited in that psalm.

(17) The lack of confirmation by the Torah that shortly after leaving Egypt the Israelites slaughtered sacrifices wholesale makes Pharaoh's incredulity at the statement that all the livestock would be demanded by the Jewish G-d appear more plausible. The Torah also does not report that Pharaoh did indeed supply animals of his own to be slaughtered on his behalf as predicted by Moses (10,25). To prove that Moses’ss demand that not a hoof would remain in Egypt was indeed a Divinely authorized demand and not merely a ploy by Moses to bait Pharaoh, a further plague had to be announced. On the one hand, feeling sure that Moses had overstepped the bounds of what was reasonable, Pharaoh threatened to kill him should he dare to appear before him again. He refers twice to previous statements by Moses such as "as you said" (12,31; 12,23). The first may refer to what he had perceived to be G-d’s instructions, the second to what he believed to have been Moses’ss own intiative. Moses announces the time and extent of the next plague to justify himself and announces that instead of his coming to Pharaoh's Court, the order will be reversed, and Pharaoh's ministers will come to the Jews pleading for them to leave. The final plague combined the three elements that have characterized the previous three groups, and this is the reason verse 13,15 refers to the obstinacy of Pharaoh causing him to suffer this plague. The creation of new criteria, i.e. the selection of only the first borns as victims, is suggestive of the "I am G-d" demonstrated during the first three plagues. The distinction between the houses having the blood of the Passover sacrifice on their doorposts, and those that did not, corresponds to the second group of plagues, when G-d left Jewish residential areas or Jewish property unharmed. The uniqueness of the event, never to be repeated is representative of the lesson contained in the third group of plagues.