Parashat Bo

Parashat Bo lists the victims of Makas Bechoros three times:

1) (11:5) Here, Moshe warns Paroh of the Makah. PREDICTION

2) (12:12) Here, Hashem describes the Makah to Moshe DESCRIPTION

3) (12:29) Here, Hashem executes the Makah. EXECUTION

To keep things clear, let’s refer to these three accounts as the Prediction, the Description, and the Execution respectively. The given lists of victims change slightly from one account to the next, as do the reasons Rashi provides for why each type of person, animal, or object was smitten.

For instance, in the Prediction, Rashi explains that Hashem killed all the Bechor animals because the Mitzrim worshiped them. Later, in the Description, the pasuk lists “MeiAdam Vi’Ad Beheimah,” prompting Rashi to explain that the people were struck first because they sinned first. Not only do these two explanations differ from one another, but they emerge from contrasting premises. The first reasoning suggests that the animals never sinned but instead were merely the objects of Mitzrayim’s transgression, whereas the notion that Hashem struck the people first because they sinned first suggests exactly the opposite.

Rashi’s peirush here bears many difficulties of this sort, with one bold exception. In the opening to the Prediction, Rashi comments that Hashem killed the captives’ firstborn (Bechor HaShvi) in order “Shelo Yomeru Yerasam Tavah Elbonam,” so they should not claim that their god (as opposed to Hashem) sought retribution for their slavery (and nto in response to the Jews’ slavery). As expected, Rashi’s explanation in the Prediction does not match up with his explanation in the Execution, where he claims that Hashem killed the Bechor HaShvi “SheHayu Shmeicim LiEidam Shel Yisrael,” for they were delighted with the destruction of the Jewish nation. At least these two explanations can coexist. (One should also note that Rashi brings both explanations by the Execution.) What is inexplicable about Rashi’s comments by the Prediction, however, is that the pasuk never mentions the Bechor HaShvi altogether.

The Gur Aryeh connects Rashi’s out-of-place comment to his remark in the previous pasuk. In pasuk 4, Moshe elected to say KaChatos instead of BaChatzos to Paroh and his magicians so that they not accuse him of lying about the precise time of the makah (should their calculations of midnight be a little mistaken). In case one has any concerns that the Mitzrim will accuse Moshe of lying because he never mentioned that Hashem would strike the Bechor HaShvi, the Gur Aryeh explains, Rashi comments that the Bechor HaShvi died simply to quash the captives’ potential claim that their god and not Hashem brought about the makah, but not to affect the Mitzrim’s perspective of their plight. In truth, Moshe Rabbeinu did not bother to mention the death of the Bechor HaShvi to Paroh, for Paroh could care less about the wellbeing of a few measly captives.

The Gur Aryeh’s claim resolves the contradiction between Rashi’s reasons for the Bechor Beheimah’s death. The Prediction stated to Paroh only listed those victims Paroh cared about. Moshe informed Paroh that his animals, the ones he deified and concerned himself with, would die. In truth, though, not only Paroh’s deified animals but every animal that sinned also died, as Hashem described in His Description of the makah. Rashi therefore notes in the Description that man precedes animal in the pasuk because the men sinned first (and presumably influenced the animals, as Rashi describes occurred in the Dor HaMabul).

But then why does Hashem list the wooden and metal gods of Mitzrayim as victims of the Makah in the Description but not in the Prediction? By the Gur Aryeh’s understanding, Moshe should inform Paroh that his idols will be destroyed, for Paroh surely cared about his idols.

The Levush HaOrah uncovers a far more critical flaw within the Gur Aryeh’s position. The Gur Aryeh somehow reasons that the Mitzrim would not be concerned with the death of the Bechor HaShvi, yet they would be so overly concerned with proving Moshe a liar that if the makah occurred a few minutes after chatzos they would immediately jump to false conclusions.

In a way, the strongest refutation to the Gur Aryeh’s explanation comes from Rashi himself:

And the Mitzrim pressed the Jews to hurry [preparations] to be sent [by Paroh] from the land [for three days] for they said “we are all going to die.”

They said, “It is not as Moshe decreed, for he said all firstborns would die, and yet even commoners perished, five or ten from a single household!”

Rashi, Shemos 12:33

Rashi himself acknowledges that the Mitzrim believed Moshe’s prediction was incorrect! It seems all of Moshe’s work to avoid this predicament is for naught. The Tzeida LaDerech explains that the Mitzrim were all suspect of licentiousness, and therefore when they came to their senses and accepted their wives were adulteresses, they realized that Moshe was indeed not a liar. In a similar vain, the Maharshal explains that the Mitzrim’s wives confessed to adultery and so everyone soon realized Moshe spoke the truth.

But these answers are not totally satisfying for two reasons: 1) The people still do accuse Moshe of having lied, and there is no indication that their first impression of Moshe’s prediction was overwritten by their subsequent understanding of his words. 2) When Rashi discusses the lewdness of Mitzrayim and the consequent mass execution of firstborns (see 12:30), he comments “five sons for every woman, each the firstborn of his respective father.” Indeed the Mechilta uses this same number when describing how the Mitzrim exclaimed “we are all going to die.” Yet Rashi here conveniently adds the number “ten” to his comments, as if to suggest that more than the given five firstborns died.

Indeed, it would be silly to think that Hashem could not kill an Egyptian deserving on death just because that Egyptian was not a firstborn. Hashem asks the Jews to remain in their homes, lest the Mashchis should attack them, and Rashi explains that Hashem let many harmful forces out into the streets of Mitzrayim that night. Without question, many commoner Mitzrim died that night, and so Moshe indeed was a “liar.”

The Gur Aryeh’s, Tzeidah LaDerech’s and Maharshal’s understanding of Moshe’s need to speak the “truth” all focus around an assumption that the occurrence of an event Moshe does not predict (i.e. the deaths of captives and commoners) is comparable to the non-occurrence of a predicted event (i.e. Makas Bechoros at precisely midnight). However, this is not necessarily so. Moshe can only be proven a liar if something he predicts never comes true, but Moshe can always argue that he never bothered to mention how commoners and firstborns of captives would also die for these occurrences were of little importance within the grand scheme of HaKadosh Baruch Hu’s plans.

The Levush HaOrah takes this issue a step further. On the contrary, he writes, it is Hashem’s very nature to trip up the Goyim and leave them room for error, as He does by suggesting Na’aseh Adam (Beraishis 1:26). Hashem in fact is willing to lie for the sake of Shalom, as He does when relaying Sarah’s words to Avraham (VaAni Zakanti, Beraishis 18:13)! Why then would Moshe even concern himself with being thought of as a liar?

The Levush HaOrah maintains that Rashi is in fact bothered by this very issue. The Mechilta clearly expresses Moshe’s concern not to be thought of as a liar, but does not express the reason for this concern (in light of Hashem’s willingness to lie in some cases). However, if the very purpose of the Makos in Mitzrayim is LiMa’an Yaidi’u Ki Ani Hashem BiKerev Ha’Aretz, in order that the Mitzrim know and understand that Hashem is present in the land and the force behind these plagues, then Moshe has very good reason to state KaChatzos instead of BaChatzos, lest some Mitzrim fail to acknowledge Hashem’s presence. Rashi therefore notes how Hashem was compelled to kill the Bechor Shvi, even though their deaths were not mentioned in Moshe’s Prediction, because their deaths nonetheless helped the Mitzrim acknowledge Hashem’s hand in the makah, to the exclusion of the captives’ god.

Interestingly, Rashi comments by the Execution that the Bechor Shvi was struck SheLo Yomeru Yerasainu Hava’a Puraniyos Zu, so that they should not say “our god brought these tragedies [upon the Mitzrim].” Rashi subtly changes the word Yerasem by the Prediction to Yerasainu by the Execution, suggesting that these are indeed two different reasons for the Bechor Shvi’s death. From one angle, Hashem did not want the captives themselves to acknowledge their god as the enforcer of the makah, as is suggested by the word Yerasainu (our god). Additionally, Hashem did not want the Mitzrim drawing any such conclusion, as is suggested by the word Yerasam (their god, our captives’ god).

It is evident then that Hashem’s concern by stating KaChatzos does not involve any such calculation between what is true and what is false. Rather, all that concerns Hashem is whether the Mitzrim will be capable of acknowledging Him and His presence in Mitzrayim. Nonetheless, there is no need for Moshe to explicitly state within the Prediciton that the Bechor of the Shvi wil die, just like there is no need for him to state that the idols will rot and melt. The Mitzrim will see this in due time and draw the correct and intended conclusions whether they were precisely warned or not.

In fact, it worked to Moshe’s advantage to leave some facts out of his Prediction in order to later frighten the Mitzrim into thinking “we are all going to die.” Moshe Rabbeinu mentions Bechor Paroh and Bechor Shifcha, but then even the Bechor Shvi dies. Likewise, Moshe Rabbeinu mentions Bechor Beheima, but then even the other deities are destroyed. Moshe’s words truly are calculating within his Prediction of Makas Bechoros, but not in the manner one normally imagines.