In these first sections of Exodus, ending with next week’s portion Beshalach, we are witnesses to the unfolding of God’s plan for Pharaoh and the Egyptians. To the layman, the acts and events, from the plagues to the splitting of the sea, seem to be Divine punishments targeting the Egyptians. But close analysis, along with the assistance of the commentaries, unequivocally demonstrates that these acts by God served multiple purposes and provided the opportunity for mankind to accept the truth of God’s existence. There is no greater example of this than in a seemingly benign comment by Rashi in this week’s Torah portion, Bo.
Immediately following God’s revelation to Moshe about the details regarding the Plague of the First Born, and prior to the presentation of the first commandment to the nation, the Torah tells us (Shemot 11:9-10):
“God said to Moshe, "Pharaoh will not listen to you. Thus I will multiply My wonders in the land of Egypt." Moshe and Aharon had done all these wonders before Pharaoh. [However] God hardened Pharaoh's heart and he did not send the B'nei Yisrael out of his land.”
What new information is to be gleaned from these two verses?
Rashi focuses on the multiplication of wonders (ibid 9):
“The word ‘mofsai’ [in the plural] represents two [wonders], ‘revos’ -increase - represents a third [wonder]: the killing of the first-born, the splitting of Yam Suf, and the turbulent stirring of the Egyptians.”
According to Rashi, then, these three future wonders would seem to be the “cure” for Pharaoh’s intransigence. What was so different about these three?
Another question concerns the third category. The Torah (ibid 14:27) explains that God was “menaer” – stirred up – the Egyptians as the waters came crashing down on them in the sea. Rashi (ibid) elaborates, based on the Midrash, that it is analogous to a person taking a pot of food and turning it over, mixing up everything inside so that that which was on top is now on the bottom and vice versa. While this is certainly a graphic description of the end of the Egyptians’ pursuit, it seems to be more of a detail under the subheading of splitting of the sea. How does this secondary feature merit its own category? Would Pharaoh not listen simply because the Egyptians were not thoroughly tossed around?
The Ramban (ibid) adds an additional question after offering his own answer. The Ramban indicates that Pharaoh and his people, after seeing Moshe’s predictions consistently come true, and after hearing about the next plague decimating the population, would be extremely fearful. In this state of mind, it would seem probable that Pharaoh would let Bnei Yisrael leave prior to the onset of the final plague. Therefore, God hardens Pharaoh’s heart once again, ensuring that the exodus wouldn’t take place until after this plague. God’s reference to Pharaoh not listening at that time actually meant God would intervene to bring about this result.
The Ramban then attacks Rashi’s explanation, based on the fact that the Torah clearly indicates Pharaoh did not send Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt (until after the tenth plague). The problem is that the splitting of the sea and the death of the Egyptians (as cited by Rashi) occurred after he actually sent them out – so how would this work into the explanation of these wonders occurring in order to change Pharaoh’s mind and allow Bnei Yisrael to leave?
Let’s first understand the explicit description of the death of the Egyptians. The Torah (ibid 14:21) explains that the splitting of the sea involved a wind being directed through this body of water for an extended period of time. As long as this wind remained, the sea would remain split. And, of course, the removal of this wind would, by definition, return the sea to its natural state. Anyone still caught on the dry land when this wind was removed would perish. If this is the case, then the death of the Egyptians would be viewed as a byproduct of the essential miracle--the splitting of the sea. At some point the sea had to stop being split and the death of the Egyptians would simply be the result of God’s ending of this incident.
Yet the Torah goes out of its way to tell us that God Himself caused the Egyptians to be tossed around. One implication from this is that the water returning to its normal state would not necessarily have produced this result of menaer. The more important detail, though, is God’s personal involvement in this aspect of the process. It seems God’s intent was that it would be indisputable that He alone was the primary cause of the death of the Egyptians, rather than their demise being a secondary effect of the wind being removed. This active involvement in their deaths, reflected in the characteristic of menaer, would lead one to conclude that God was directly involved with their destruction, rather than it being perceived as a byproduct.
The question, then, is why was it so important for God to act in such a manner, to bring so much focus to this type of destructive act? To answer this requires an understanding of the transition in God’s plan from the first nine plagues to the final act and the subsequent departure of Bnei Yisrael. Part of the objective of the plagues was to demonstrate God’s dominance over nature. However, these attempts were not enough to bring about the release of Bnai Yisrael from Egypt, nor were they sufficient to bring about a complete recognition of the truth of God. Therefore, God acts in a manner where His existence is unquestionable.
The first element of this is the construct of the tenth plague, the killing of the Egyptian first born. The previous plagues were awe inspiring events, but they worked within nature. What made the last plague qualitatively distinct is that there was no natural cause attributable to this event. There is no affliction that strikes only Egyptian first born people and animals at midnight of a specific night. Therefore, this plague would be undeniably an act of God. We see this in the Haggada, where God explains on the night of the exodus that He alone would pass over the houses of the Jews, striking the Egyptian first born. The emphasis is that it would be done by God alone, not through an intermediary, such as an angel.
This expression of God’s control over nature leads to one clear conclusion – God is the Creator. Yet this alone would be an incomplete expression of God’s relationship to the universe. God has a unique relationship to mankind, manifest through the system of scharv’onesh, reward and punishment. This relationship was on full display at the splitting of the sea, where He ensured the safety of Bnei Yisrael from the pursuing Egyptians. To just have this aspect of God’s justice would be incomplete – there is the side of punishment as well. This might be the reason why there is such emphasis on the tossing around of the Egyptians. God was demonstrating punishment through His active engagement in their deaths.
Therefore, we see through these three events God’s Justice and God as the Creator, the two main avenues of God’s relationship to the universe.
This might also help answer the Ramban’s question. The Ramban’s idea is that Pharoah’s refusal to listen was in the practical context of releasing Bnei Yisrael. In this case, Pharoah might have ultimately let them go had it not been for God’s intervention. Rashi understood this refusal to listen in a different context, that of his inability to accept the truth of God. It could only be through these events and God’s clear manifestation of His relationship to the universe as Creator and Judge, that Pharoah would finally lose the ability to deny the reality of God.
The above is but one small example of the infinite amount of ideas and concepts that can be drawn out from analyzing this transformative period in the history of the Jewish people and the entire world. It is crucial, then, to view these events beyond simply punishment to the Egyptians. In reality, there all were a vehicle for mankind to see the truth of God’s existence, unique moments that serve as catalysts for our understanding of God.