Parshat
VaEyrah
Rabbi
Bernard Fox
“When
Paroh will say to you, “Provide for yourself a mofait (wonder).” And you
will say to Ahron, “Take your staff and throw it before Paroh. It will become a tanin (serpent).” (Shemot 7:9)
The wonders that Moshe
and Ahron performed in Egypt are referred to with two terms. These terms are ote and mofait. What is the difference between these
terms?
Sforno explains that
these terms have very different meanings.
These meanings can be understood through better appreciating Moshe’s
situation. Moshe claimed to be the
messenger of a G-d. This G-d was
represented as the absolute ruler of the universe. Moshe’s credibility depended upon his response to two
issues. He must prove that he was the
messenger of Hashem. He must also prove
that Hashem is omnipotent.
The term mofait is best translated as
wonder. A mofait provides evidence of the Almighty’s authority over the
physical universe. Paroh denied that
Hashem possessed this power. Paroh
required a mofait. He could only be convinced by a wondrous act
that would testify to the awesome power of the Almighty. The transformation of Ahron’s inanimate
staff into a living creature served this purpose.
The term ote means sign. Bnai Yisrael accepted the existence of a
Creator. The Creator rules the universe
He formed. However, Moshe was required
to establish that he was the messenger of Hashem. They needed an ote or
sign that Moshe was Hashem’s servant.
Moshe’s ability to alter nature indicated that he had been empowered by
Almighty.
Sforno notes that the
same act can function both as an ote
and mofait. The purpose of the act will determine the term by which it is
described. Therefore, the
transformation of the staff before Paroh was a mofait. The same act performed
in front of Bnai Yisrael was an ote.[1]
“And
the magicians said to Paroh. “It is the finger of the L-rd.” And Paroh’s heart became hard and he did not
listen to them as Hashem had spoken.” (Shemot 8:15)
Paroh’s magicians
could not duplicate the plague of Lice.
They told Paroh that this plague was the “finger of the L-rd”. Rashi seems to indicate that the magicians
were attesting to the authenticity of Moshe’s claims. This plague was caused by the G-d of the Jewish people. Moshe was His agent. Hashem was intervening in nature to save His
people.[2]
Rabbaynu Avraham ibn
Ezra disagrees with this interpretation.
The magicians did not say that the plague was from Hashem. They counseled that
the cause was the L-rd. Ibn Ezra explains that the Egyptians did not
deny the existence of a Creator. They
understood that this Creator ruled the universe through a system of natural
law. The issue in dispute was the Torah
concept of a Creator with a providential relationship to His people. This understanding of G-d is expressed by
the Tetragrammaton – the name we pronounce as “Hashem”. The Creator fashioned a universe in which
natural disasters occur. Floods,
earthquakes, terrible storms destroy cities and even civilizations. The magicians did not understand such
phenomenon to be providential. The
magicians acknowledged that this plague was not merely an illusion or
impressive trick. It was the work of
the Creator. But, they claimed, it did
not support the concept of Hashem.[3]
Nachmanides offers a
third interpretation. The magicians
accepted Moshe’s claim that the plague was from Hashem. They did not use this name. It was a foreign
term to the Egyptians. Speaking among
themselves, they would not refer to G-d with an unfamiliar name. However they claimed it was only the
“finger” of G-d. The plague caused
discomfort and some suffering. However,
it was not catastrophic. They advised
Paroh to be calm – to recognize the limited effect of the plague and maintain
his resolve.[4]
“And
I will separate on that day the land of Goshen, that my nation stands upon, so
that there will not be there wild beasts; so that you will know that I, Hashem,
am in the midst of the land.” (Shemot 8:18)
G-d tells Paroh,
through Moshe, that the upcoming plague of Wild Beasts will affect only the
Egyptians. Bnai Yisrael will be
protected from the infestation.
Nachmanides explains
that Bnai Yisrael were also spared the suffering caused by the pervious
plagues. The waters of Goshen were not
affected by Blood and Frogs. There was
no outbreak of Lice in Goshen. However,
this aspect of these plagues was not stressed.
Moshe could not point to this localization as proof of the plagues’
Divine origin. It was understandable
that these plagues were localized phenomena. However, the infestation of Wild
Beasts should not have been localized.
There was no natural reason for the beasts to stop at the border of the
Jewish province. Only providence could
explain this behavior.[5]
Rabbaynu Avraham ibn
Ezra disagrees. He maintains that the
Jews were not exempt from the effects of the previous plagues. Bnai Yisrael also suffered from lack of
water and infestations of frogs and lice.
These plagues did not threaten lives.
Hashem did not insulate His people.
However the wild beasts were an actual danger. This infestation would result in death not mere suffering. In order to protect the lives of His people,
G-d shielded the Jewish people from this plague.[6]
“And
Moshe said to him, "When I leave the city, I will spread my hands to
Hashem. The thunder will cease. There will not be any more hail. This is so you
will know that the land is Hashem's." (Shemot 9:29)
Our pasuk describes the conclusion of the
plague of hail. Paroh beseeches Moshe
to pray to Hashem. He should appeal to the Almighty to end the plague. Moshe responds that he will comply. However,
he adds an important phrase. He tells Paroh that first he will leave the city.
Only then, will he spread his hands to Hashem in prayer. Why did Moshe stipulate that he must first
leave the city?
Rashi quotes the
Midrash Michilta in response to this question.
The Midrash explains that the city was permeated with idols. Moshe would not pray in this abominable
environment. First, he would remove
himself from this city of idolatry.
Only then, would he pray to Hashem.[7]
Moshe was waging a
battle against idolatry. He was asserting that Hashem is the only true
G-d. The deities of Egypt were false
gods. He would not pray in a place dominated by these idols. Perhaps, he feared that his prayers might be
misinterpreted as appeals to the abominations of the Egyptians. He would leave
the city and its idols. He would pray
to Hashem only in a place free of these false gods.
The commentaries are
troubled by the Midrash's comments.
This was not the first occasion on which Moshe prayed on behalf of Paroh
and the Egyptians. On these other
occasions, Moshe did not stipulate that he must first leave the city. Why, now, does Moshe add this requirement?
Rav Naftali Tzvi
Yehuda Berlin Zt”l – the Netziv –
offers an answer to this question. His
answer is based upon a previous passage. Let us consider this pasuk.
As we have explained
above, Moshe was not immediately successful in winning the support of Bnai
Yisrael. His initial appeal to Paroh
resulted in an intensification of the bondage. Bnai Yisrael sharply criticized
Moshe for this outcome. Moshe sought an
explanation from Hashem. The Torah uses
an interesting phrase in describing Moshe's communion with the Almighty. The
Torah says that Moshe "returned to Hashem" and sought His counsel.[8]
Netziv asserts that
this phrase should be understood somewhat literally. Moshe actually went
somewhere. He went to a place that he had designated for prayer and
prophecy. He had established a
synagogue – a Bait HaKenesset. Moshe retreated to this sacred place to
commune with the Almighty.[9]
Netziv explains that
this provides a partial answer to our question. Actually, each time Moshe
prayed to Hashem he carefully considered his environment. He was consistently concerned with the
problem of praying to Hashem in place associated with idolatry. In order to address this issue, Moshe
established a special place that was sacred and devoted to the worship of the
Almighty. Each time Moshe prayed or
sought prophecy, he retreated to his Bait
HaKenesset.
Netziv acknowledges
that this insight does not completely answer our question. Why did Moshe now
insist on leaving the city? Why did
Moshe not follow his established practice? He should have entered his synagogue
and prayed to Hashem?
Netziv explains that
the answer is provided by another stipulation made by Moshe. He told Parch that his prayers would be
accompanied by a physical demonstration.
Moshe would spread his hands to Hashem. Netziv explains that Moshe
intended to spread his hands towards the heavens. This could not be done inside a building. Moshe intended to pray
outside.
Moshe could not
fulfill this requirement in his Bait
HaKenesset. Therefore, he was confronted with a problem. He would not pray
to Hashem in a place associated with idolatry. Yet, his accustomed refuge was
indoors and consequently inappropriate for the prayer he planned. Moshe solved his dilemma by leaving the
city. In this manner, he was able to pray outside in a proper environment.[10]
Netziv's insight
provides an explanation for an amazing halacha. Tur explains that one should always pray in
a Bait HaKenesset. He adds that the
synagogue must have a minyan a quorum
of ten males. Bait Yosef observes that
there is an obvious implication in Tur's formulation of this halacha. If a synagogue does not have a minyan, one is not required to pray there. Bait Yosef questions this formulation. He explains that many Sages maintain that
one should pray in a Bait HaKenesset
regardless of the presence of a minyan.
He explains the reason for this position. A synagogue is designated for prayer.[11]
Why is this
designation important? According to the comments of Netziv, we can answer this
question. Prayer involves making an
exclusive commitment to the service of
Hashem. Like Moshe, we live in an environment that
is dominated by the expressions of other religions. It is appropriate for us to remove ourselves from our ambient
surroundings when demonstrating our exclusive devotion to Hashem. The synagogue provides this opportunity. It
is our refuge. It is a place completed designated for the service of the
Almighty.
[1] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Shemot, 7:9.
[2] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 8:15.
[3] Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer Shemot, 8:15.
[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 8:15.
[5] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 8:18.
[6] Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Commentary on Sefer Shemot, 8:18.
[7] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 9:29.
[8] Sefer Shemot 5:22.
[9] Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv), Commentary Hamek Davar on Sefer Shemot 5:22.
[10] Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv), Commentary Hamek Davar on Sefer Shemot 9:29.
[11] Rabbaynu Yaakov ben HaRash, Tur Shulchan Aruch, Orech Chayim 90.