Why did the Pasuk find it necessary to insert the fact that Hashem would pass through the land of Egypt?
Rashi: 'Like a king who passes from one place to another.' 1 He would pass through the entire land, and kill all the Egyptian firstborn in one second - at the stroke of midnight.
Seforno: Hashem did so in order to create a path for His anger to pass through 2 - something which no Shali'ach could possibly have done.
Targum Yonasan: It teaches us that He passed through the land with His retinue of nine hundred million angels. 3
Gur Aryeh: When a king passes, he travels straight through, veering neither right nor left. Mizrachi - I.e., a king takes the straight road; he does not turn into the alleyways of the city.
Cf. Tehilim 78:50.
Even though He alone killed the Egyptian firstborn. See also Torah Temimah, citing the Yerushalmi Sanhedrin, 2:1 and note 103.
"On this night." Conceptually speaking, why would Makas Bechoros take place specifically by night, whereas Yetzi'as Mitzrayim itself took place by day?
Maharal #1 (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 36, p. 135): Removal of the Egyptians' power came at night (which is a time of destruction); whereas the formation of Am Yisrael was appropriate for daytime. 1
Maharal #2 (Ohr Chadash, intro. p. 53): Day is for the rules of nature, whereas night is suited for miracles. Thus, the miracle of Makas Bechoros took place at night, whereas the Exodus itself which conformed with world order, 2 happened by day.
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 37, p. 138): Thus, the miracles that destroyed Mitzrayim - the plagues in the land of Egypt (and later at the Yam Suf) took place at night, the time associated with destruction. Even the Shechitah of the Korban Pesach had to be after midday, as the day begins to wane towards evening. Indeed, the Torah emphasizes many times in our Perek, that Makas Bechoros took place at night, and likewise the Mitzvos specific to the Chag (Korban Pesach, Matzah, Maror, Sipur Yetzias Mitzrayim) are all to be performed at night - on "Leil Shimurim" (12:42). The Exodus itself, however, took place by day - "b'Etzem ha'Yom ha'Zeh" (12:51). Refer to 12:15:153.61:1 - Even though the event which Matzah commemorates, when their dough did not have a chance to rise, took place by day, the Mitzvah to eat it is at night, the time of "Chipazon" (haste- see Berachos 9a). Also see 12:31:1.02, and 12:31:2:2 - The Egyptians already announced that night, that the Bnei Yisrael were free. In a related topic, the opinion of Rebbi Elazar Ben Azaryah, is that the daily Mitzvah to mention Yetzi'as Mitzrayim is both by day and by night; whereas the Chachamim says it applies only by day. Explains the Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 53, p. 230) - According to Rebbi Elazar Ben Azaryah, the Exodus came in two parts - Makas Bechoros at night, and the complete Exodus by day. According to the Chachamim, the main Redemption came by day, and Makas Bechoros at night was only to facilitate this.
Refer to 12:12:7.5:1 and its note.
Why does the Torah add the word "Kol [Bechor b'Eretz Mitzrayim]"?
Rashi: To include the firstborn of other nations who happened to be in Egypt. 1
Rashi: As for Egyptian firstborn who were in other lands, we learn that they too died, from the Pasuk in Tehilim, "l'Makeh Mitzrayim bi'Vechoreihem" (Tehilim 136:10). (Why can we not learn this from the extra word "Kol" in this Pasuk? Gur Aryeh - Refer to 12:29:2.4:1 and 12:29:2.3:1.)
Why did this last Makah strike specifically the firstborn?
Maharal #1 (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 37, p. 140): A Bechor is first and foremost (Reishis), the equivalent of all others put together. 1 This Makah would be the equivalent of all the rest combined, and would leave the Egyptians powerless.
Maharal #2 (ibid.): The Egyptians primary power was the firstborn; they worshipped Mazal Taleh, the first of the zodiac constellations. 2
Conceptually, the initial root contains all [future growth]. (EK) For more on the concept of a Bechor, refer to Shemos 4:22:1.
Also refer to 12:29:3.3:1, 12:30:2.1:1, and 8:22:1.2:1.
What is the significance of Makas Bechoros, in terms of the progression of the Eser Makos?
Maharal: See the preceding question (12:12:2.2). We presented Maharal's perspective of the Ten Makos in our questions to Shemos 7:14; beginning with 7:14:4.
What are the implications of the words, "me'Adam v'Ad Behemah"?
Rashi: It implies that the Egyptians died before the [firstborn] animals - because they had sinned first. 1
What are the ramifications of the fact that the gods of Egypt are called "Elohei Mitzrayim"?
Nedarim 25a: It teaches us that the gods of the nations are also called Elohim. Consequently, when somebody makes a Neder 'Al Da'as Ha'Makom,' or when Beis-Din make a litigant take a Shevu'ah in the Name of Hashem, one must check that he is indeed referring to Hashem, and not to the god of one of the nations.
What are "Elohei Mitzrayim"? What was the "judgement" that Hashem carried out against them?
Rashi, Ramban #1 and Targum Yonasan: Each idol 1 was struck using the appropriate method - those made of wood rotted, 2 whereas those made of metal melted. 3 (Targum Yonasan - The stone idols broke into pieces, and those made of clay split.) 4
Hadar Zekenim: These are the great people of Egypt; as in the term "Elohim" in the verse, "Nesaticha Elohim l'Pharaoh" (7:1). 7 Bechor Shor - 'Bechor' includes great people; as in the verse "Af Ani Bechor Etenehu" (Tehilim 89:28).
Sukah 29a: This teaches us that whenever Hashem punishes a nation, He punishes their god together with it.
Oznayim la'Torah: It comes to include Baal Tzefon, which Hashem destroyed separately. Refer to 12:12:5.1:1.
Nedarim 25a understands that "Elohei Mitzrayim" refers to their idols. (PF) But see answers #2 and #3.
According to Targum Yonasan, they became ashes.
Another proof that Hashem is the Master of Nature, and that He uses its forces as He sees fit. For Maharal's comments on these four types of destruction, see 12:12:5.3.
Yet the Pasuk only hints at this great miracle - both here and later (in 12:29) - because the Egyptians' main concern was the death of the firstborn children and animals (see Ramban).
Seforno: "Shefatim" means the denigration of the angels of Egypt, thereby increasing the punishment. (Bearing in mind that each nation has one guardian angel, it is not clear why the Seforno refers to the 'angels' of Egypt in the plural.)
Ramban: See Yeshayah 24:21.
But earlier, Hadar Zekenim (to 7:1) explained that Hashem made Moshe a god over Pharaoh! Refer to 7:1:151:1* and 7:1:151:4.
Seeing as Hashem destroyed the Egyptian gods before slaying the firstborn - as is evident from 'Dayeinu' that we recite on Seder night - why does the Torah invert the order here?
Oznayim la'Torah: Because although Hashem destroyed their gods on that night, He only destroyed Baal Tzefon at Keri'as Yam-Suf (see Rashi to 14:2) - and 'everything goes after the conclusion.'
The Midrash points out, that the Torah uses three different terms for striking the Egyptian idolaters - "v'Hikeisi" (I shall hit); "Li'Negof" (to plague -12:23); and "ha'Mashchis" (i.e. to destroy -ibid). Why is this?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, end Ch. 36, p. 137): Idolatry is called "dead." Someone who attaches himself to idolatry, is punished for abandoning Hashem, the Source of life - Who always was, is and will be. 1
Thus, the three expressions.
The Midrash cited in the Hagadah Shel Pesach, interprets this Pasuk as follows, "'V'Avarti' - I; and not a Mal'ach. 'v'Hikeisi' - I; and not a Saraf. 'E'eseh Shefatim' - I; and not the Shali'ach." Who is this 'Shali'ach' who would not perform Makas Bechoros?
Ramban: "Shaliach" refers to Matatron (an angel of a caliber all unto his own), whom Hashem sends to perform all kinds of errands. 1
Why does Hashem add, "Ani Hashem" at the conclusion of the Pasuk?
Rashi: Because Hashem Himself passed through the land, 1 killed all the firstborn, and destroyed their gods 2 - and not a Shali'ach.
Ramban: After precluding a Mal'ach, a Saraf and a Shali'ach, 3 Hashem added "Ani Hashem" to make it clear that He is One (Hashem Echad), and there is nobody with Him to stop Him from doing what He said He would do.
Oznayim la'Torah: Even though "Hashem" is synonymous with Midas ha'Rachamim, Hashem says it here, because even Midas ha'Rachamim agreed with the punishment that Hashem was meting out to the Egyptians.
Targum Yonasan: Accompanied by nine hundred million angels.
Why does Rashi derive this idea from the Pasuk's conclusion, deviating from the Derashah that appears in the Hagadah? Refer to 12:12:7.1.
Refer to 12:12:6. Unlike Rashi, Ramban cites the three-part Derashah from the Hagadah Shel Pesach. He learns from the fact that the entire Pasuk is written in the first person, that Hashem did not kill the firstborn via a Mal'ach, a Saraf or a Shali'ach - unlike in the days of David (Shmuel II 24:16) and Sancheriv (Melachim II 19:35), when He did kill via a Shali'ach.
The Midrash cited in the Hagadah Shel Pesach, interprets this Pasuk as follows, "'V'Avarti' - I, and not a Mal'ach. 'v'Hikeisi' - I, and not a Saraf. 'E'eseh Shefatim' - I, and not the Shali'ach. 'Ani Hashem' - I, and none other." What is the distinction between all of these terms?
Gur Aryeh: A Mal'ach strikes with the right hand. 1 A Saraf burns and destroys everything in its path. 2 A Shali'ach refers to Matat-ron, the heavenly officer whose name is numerically equivalent to that of Hashem (in the sense that a messenger comes in the name of his sender). 3 The concluding phrase, "Ani Hashem," comes to exclude any other, external power. 4
Maharal #1 (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 55, p. 245): Events in this world can be categorized into the natural and the miraculous. Miracles, in turn, can be performed either via creation, 5 or via destruction. 6 The Exodus from Egypt came neither through a Mal'ach 7 (i.e., a miracle of creation); nor a Saraf (i.e. of destruction). Nor did it come through a Shali'ach, the natural forces exerted by the heavens.
Maharal #2 (ibid.): The word "Mal'ach" has the same letters as 'Micha'el' (spelled without a Yud). Micha'el is the angel appointed over water; whereas "Saraf" refers to Gavri'el, appointed over fire. The Exodus came through neither of these forces. Yet another Mal'ach is appointed over all forces, namely Matat-ron; albeit with weak powers, 8 thus, he is called "the Shali'ach." Chazal teach us that the Exodus from Egypt came through none of these; but rather from Hashem alone, Who includes everything, and His power is unlimited. Chazal then add, "I, and none other" - The Exodus was not via external powers that are outside of reality (e.g. destructive forces and demons), but rather by Hashem's Unique Name. 9
Although Maharal's commentary on this matter is difficult, his three explanations (presented in the three answers here - one in Gur Aryeh, and two in Gevuros Hashem) clearly follow along the same lines. Perhaps let's attempt to explain a bit further. According to Maharal, the term "[Ani v'Lo] Mal'ach" is related to the right hand (see answer #1), to miracles involving generation (#2), and to Micha'el, the Mal'ach appointed over water (#3). The right symbolizes Chesed (just as the right hand is always ready to act and influence). Chesed likewise relates to creation (as opposed to destruction); and to water. And yet, Chazal tell us, this track was not how Yetzias Mitzrayim came about. (EK)
See the preceding note (12:12:7.4:1*). Here too, Maharal's three explanations are parallel. "Saraf" implies destruction, specifically miraculous destruction; and Gavri'el who is appointed over fire. Midas ha'Din is symbolized by the left side, and by a fire that consumes [those found wanting in judgment]. Yet, this too was not how Yetzias Mitzrayim came about. (EK)
"Shali'ach" refers to Matat-ron; whose name is that of his Master (i.e. its Gematriya equals that of the Name Shakai). This Mal'ach oversees the course of nature - i.e. the natural forces exerted by the heavens -which are wide in scope, yet limited in power. Unlike all other angels, who are appointed over a specific matter, Matat-ron is appointed over all actions taken in the world; he is called generically the "Shali'ach" (messenger); when the Shaliach is closer to the recipient than the sender would be, he stands in place of the sender and acts on his behalf (based on Maharal, Chidushei Agados Vol. 3, p. 154, to Sanhedrin 38b). Perhaps this is what Maharal means in Gevuros Hashem, that Matat-ron acts within the realm of nature (see Answer #2); and is also the reason that his acts are lesser than those of other angels (#3). (EK)
Here, the Maharal is even more ambiguous. In his formulation in Gevuros Hashem (see Answer #3), he adds, "'I am Hashem' - to Whom the Se'ir ha'Penim is offered... '... And none other' - i.e. to whom they offer the Sa'ir la'Azazel." He explains that this relates to destructive forces and demons (Shedim). Regarding the Sa'ir la'Azazel, see Ramban (to Vayikra 16:8) - This goat is sent into the desert [on Yom Kippur], to the officer over devastation... whose portion includes the Shedim, which the Sages call Mazikin. The intent is not as our offering to him, G-d forbid! But rather, our intent must be to fulfill the will of our Creator, Who commanded us to do this. We might add that all sections of the Torah that discuss Korbanos, use the Unique Name (Havayah) specifically. As Maharal explains (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 69), Korbanos indicate that Hashem is One, and that everything relates back to Him. If so, we then understand the purpose of the Sa'ir la'Azazel - to rectify those few places that have not yet returned back to Hashem (for example, Keshafim (sorcery), which 'denies the Heavenly retinue' - Sanhedrin 67b); and perhaps this approach explains the matter of Shedim as well. Chazal are telling us here, that this too was not how the Redemption arrived. Rather, it was through the Unique Name - like the Korbanos - which means that everything relates back to Hashem, and there is none other than He. (EK)
Maharal (loc. cit.): E.g., the Man and the Be'er that Bnei Yisrael received in the desert.
E.g., the destruction of the camps of Ashur.
Perhaps miraculous creation is associated with a "Mal'ach," similar to the word "Melachah" (a creative act). (EK)
Maharal (loc. cit.): Micha'el and Gavri'el, on the other hand, have great power, but are appointed over specific forces.
See the following question, 12:12:7.5.
The Midrash cited in the Hagadah Shel Pesach concludes its interpretation of this Pasuk, "... 'Ani Hashem' - I, and none other." Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 55, p. 245) explains that this comes to exclude destructive forces (refer to 12:12:7.4:3 and 12:12:7.4:1****). But Bil'am later uses the phrase "k'So'afos Re'em Lo" (Bamidbar 23:22) in describing Yetzias Mitzrayim; which Rashi (loc. cit., citing Chazal) explainss as "demons"!
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, end. Ch. 55, p. 246): What Chazal mean in that context, is that Hashem brought Bnei Yisrael out with deeds and plagues that could not be compared to anything natural. In that sense, they resembled acts of demons, which are also divorced from the natural. Yet, the Redemption was not actually through demons, but rather within reality. 1
Perhaps what this means, is that the ten Makos were not within the natural order, but rather in the destructive realm associated with demons. Yetzias Mitzrayim itself, however, was within the realm of existence, not of destruction (also see 12:12:2:2). Also see Gur Aryeh (to Bamidbar 23:22) - Shedim are outside of nature and normal world order- in contrast to the Mal'achim. Although in the preceding question (12:12:7.4), Maharal told us that there are Mal'achim whose task is miraculous destruction, seemingly the general task of Mal'achim is to preserve the proper order in Creation, whereas the demons disrupt that order. (EK)
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "All firstborns in the land of Egypt - Including even other [non-Egyptian] firstborns, who were [presently] in Egypt." How is this derived?
Gur Aryeh: The word "land" is extra; the verse could have said 'all the firstborns of Egypt.' 1
Also refer to 12:29:2.3:1.
Rashi writes: "... Even other firstborns who were [presently] in Egypt." Why does Rashi repeat this same derivation in 12:29?
Refer to 12:29:2.4:1.
Rashi writes: "... And we know that Egyptian firstborn [presently] in other locations were also [stricken], from the verse, 'To [He Who] struck Egypt through their firstborn' (Tehilim 136:9)." What is the derivation?
Gur Aryeh: That verse could have said, "To [He Who] struck the firstborns of Egypt.' Its actual wording includes even those who were not in Egypt at the time. 1
Also refer to 12:29:2.3:1**.
Rashi writes: "'From man until beast' - Punishment begins with whomever started the sin." But perhaps the intent here is not to specify the order, but rather to define the scope of the plague (as in verses 11:5 and 12:29)?
Gur Aryeh: The above verse said, "... from the firstborn of Pharaoh... to the firstborn of the maidservant" (11:5) - to include the range of everyone in between. 1 But in our verse, there is no one else to include between 'firstborn of man' and 'firstborn of beast'! Rather, it is specifying the order in which the plague hit.
Hence, that verse defines the scope of the plague.
Rashi writes: "The punishment begins with whomever started the sin." Rashi (to 11:5) explained that the animals' sin was that the Egyptians worshipped them. But conceptually, as idols, they should have been hit first; as Rashi (to 7:17) wrote in explanation of Makas Dam?
Gur Aryeh: Both being first and being last are significant. 1 To be first means to be the Shoresh (the initial root), and to be last means to be the Tachlis (the end-goal). The idols are both of these to their worshippers. In the context of the first Makah, the Egyptians' gods were hit first; but now at the last Makah, their gods were hit last. 2
Also see Gur Aryeh to 11:5; refer to 11:5:4.1:1.
Gur Aryeh: But if so, we no longer need Rashi's reason - that the people were hit first because they had started the sin? Our Pasuk tells us that the final stage in Makas Bechoros will be, "... and against all the gods of Egypt I shall perform judgements." The Egyptian idols in the broad sense were punished last. If so the only reason the firstborn animals came last among the firstborn, is the one Rashi gives us.
Rashi writes: "'And upon all the gods of Egypt...' - Those [idols made] of wood rotted, and those of metal dissolved and melted to the ground." What is Rashi's source, and why did this occur?
Maharal #1 (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 36, p. 137): The word "Shefatim" (pl.) appears twice - here, as well as in Bamidbar 33:4. Indeed, the Midrash 1 lists four 2 types of self-destruction -- rotting, breaking, tearing and burning. Thus, the idols themselves were punished alongside those who worshipped them. Additionally, we find four prohibitions relating to Avodah Zarah in the Aseres ha'Dibros. 3
Maharal #2 (ibid.): The idols were destroyed in four ways (see above), and this corresponds to the four types of Avodah for which one is liable for serving [any] idol -- burning (an offering), slaughter, libation, or prostration (Sanhedrin 60b).
See Yalkut Shim'oni (to our Pasuk, # 199).
The minimum plural is two, in two verses.
You shall not have other gods... Do not make for yourselves an idol... Do not bow to them, and do not worship them" (20:3-5). Maharal (Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 38, p. 115) - These corresponds to four possible rationales of idolaters -- they actually think it is a god, or [they serve] out of love, out of fear, or to gain reward. See Maharal further, as to other connections to the number 4.
Rashi writes: "'... I shall perform judgements; I am Hashem' - I, Myself; and not through a messenger (Shali'ach)." Ramban asks - But the Midrash uses a different formulation of the derivations from this Pasuk (as cited in the Hagadah Shel Pesach; refer to 12:12:7.4)! And how does Rashi derive all of these from the final phrase in the Pasuk, "Ani Hashem"?
Ramban: What pushes the Midrash to interpret this Pasuk? This entire section (beginning at 12:3) is the instructions of Moshe and Aharon to Yisrael. 1 Why does the text switch here to the first-person, "I will pass... I shall smite... I shall perform judgements"? The Midrash interprets these terms to exclude a Mal'ach, Saraf, and Shali'ach, respectively.
Gur Aryeh #1: (Unlike Ramban), what pushes the Midrash to interpret this Pasuk is that 'passing through Egypt' is presented as a separate act. (It could have said, 'I shall pass through Egypt in order to smite...', 2 and thus suffice with one verb.) The extra verbs must be interpreted to exclude the participation of three types of angels, etc.
Gur Aryeh #2: Rashi understands 'Shali'ach' as including anyone else. Thus the final Derashah, "Ani Hashem," excludes all others. 3
Gur Aryeh disagrees. This section is not Moshe speaking to Bnei Yisrael, but rather Hashem's words to Moshe. For example, the next Pasuk remains in the first-person - "I will see the blood, and I shall skip over you" (12:13). Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 55, p. 244) - That is why it refers to Yisrael in third-person ("they") in verses 12:7-8. Refer to 12:7:0.1:1.
Which would parallel the later verse, "Hashem will pass through to plague Egypt" (12:23).
Gur Aryeh himself sides with Ramban; three Derashos are necessary. Refer to 12:12:7.4:1. Also see Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 55); refer to 12:12:7.4:2 and 12:12:7.4:3.
Rashi writes: "'... I shall perform judgements; I am Hashem' - I, Myself, and not through a messenger (Shali'ach)." But the Torah says in Parshas Chukas, "and He sent a messenger (Mal'ach), and brought us out of Egypt" (Bamidbar 20:16)!
Gur Aryeh: The "messenger" in that verse refers to Moshe, who performed the Hishtadlus (efforts) towards the Exodus. But the actual Exodus, which culminated in Makas Bechoros, was done by Hashem Himself. 1
Rashi (to Bamidbar 20:16) indeed explains that "Mal'ach" in that context refers to Moshe; and Gur Aryeh (loc. cit.) explains that we know this because of our Pasuk and its Midrash, that Hashem Himself brought us out. In other words, we know that it was Moshe who performed the Hishtadlus, and that Hashem Himself smote the firstborn; so in neither role were any angels involved. (EK)
Rashi writes: "I, Myself, and not through a messenger." But Rashi (to 12:29) interprets the word "Va'Hashem" to mean that 'Hashem and His [Heavenly] court' were involved in Makas Bechoros?
Gur Aryeh (to 12:29): Hashem performed the essence of Makas Bechoros, taking the essential life (Ikar Nefesh) of the firstborn. His court took a secondary role, striking peripherally. 1
Who or what then was stricken by the Heavenly court? Perhaps it was the firstborn of the foreigners presently in Egypt, the Egyptian idols, and the oldest member of the households that did not have a firstborn (see Rashi to 12:30). Gur Aryeh to 12:30 - The initial Makah was against the firstborn of each Egyptian mother. It also included the firstborn of each father; but the Mitzvah that commemorates this event is to sanctify the mother's firstborn specifically. Additionally, verse 12:23 refers to a "Mashchis" (destroyer) that would circulate on that night, and so Bnei Yisrael had to take heed. (But see 12:22:3.4; and if so, the "Mashchis" (12:23) is not the same as the 'Beis Din' that Rashi to 12:29 mentions). (EK)
Rashi writes: "'... I am Hashem' - I, Myself; and not through a messenger (Shali'ach)." Why was it necessary for Hashem Himself to kill the firstborn?
Seforno: Because no Shali'ach could possibly have performed all of the above - 1. to distinguish between a Mitzri and a Yisrael; 2. between Bechor and Pashut; 1 3. to negate the power of the Egyptian gods.
Va'Yashav ha'Yam (1:13, citing the Arizal): The Tum'ah of Egypt was too great for angels. If an angel would descend there, it would be clothed with that filth.
Maharal #1 (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 52, p. 226): Chazal write (Ta'anis 2a) that the three 'keys' to childbirth, rain, and reviving the dead, remain in Hashem's hands; they are not given over to a Shali'ach. Maharal explains - To transform something from potential to actual, can be carried out only by Hashem. Chomer 2 (material) means 'potential;' and Hashem transcends any Chomer, such that only He is absolute 'actualization.' That is why Yetzi'as Mitzrayim was done by Hashem specifically. It was the birth 3 of Am Yisrael, who are the perfection of the world.
Maharal #2 (ibid. p. 227): Hashem did not only bring the generation of the Exodus out of Egypt (as from that perspective, all future generations of Am Yisrael were saved merely by default). Rather, Hashem brought out all their future generations as well. 4 This could be done only by Hashem; the effects of His actions are all-encompassing and continual (as opposed to angels, who can act only upon specific things 5 ). Only this would ensure that it would be impossible for later generations to re-enslave them.
Maharal #3 (ibid. Ch. 55, p. 244): Hashem wanted that Bnei Yisrael would become His nation, and serve Him. Because Yisrael is designated for Hashem, it was fitting that Hashem Himself take them out.
Maharal #4 (ibid.; also see Hagadas Maharal): An action must be lesser than the one who takes that action. 6 The Exodus could not come through any angel or agent, because it was through this Exodus that Yisrael cleaved to Hashem - without any intermediary. 7
Maharal #5 (ibid.; also see Hagadas Maharal): Yisrael had been enslaved under Mitzrayim 8 - i.e., under the Egyptians' Heavenly angel. 9 No Mal'ach can encroach upon the sphere of its colleague; such that it would be impossible to bring them out via a Mal'ach. 10
Rashi (to 12:30): Since the Egyptians were highly promiscuous, and the women would often give birth to a firstborn son from a man who was not her husband. (However, Hashem could have made a Siman on the Bechoros! When Yisrael needed to kill girls of Midyan above three years, the faces of those girls turned yellow! (Yevamos 60b) (PF).)
In Maharal's terminology, Chomer is raw material or potential; and Tzurah is the function-specific form that it may assume to actualize that potential. To illustrate, in a knife, the metal it is made of is the Chomer, and the sharp edge that allows it to cut is the Tzurah. Any deficient being contains Chomer that must assume a Tzurah, meaning it is not fully actualized - in contrast to the Creator. (Even Mal'achim do have some relation to the physical, such that they are not at absolute perfection. For further explanation (based on Michtav me'Eliyahu), refer to Bereishis 32:26:1:6**. (EK))
Chazal describe Yisrael while enslaved in Mitzrayim, as a developing fetus within the mother animal. Refer to 1:1:2.7:2 and its note.
Hagadah Shel Pesach.
See above, 12:12:7.4:3*.
To illustrate - a person cannot raise an object higher than his own height.
This could not be accomplished by the Mal'achim, who are themselves intermediaries.
See above, second note 3.
See Rashi to 14:10.
If so, whenever one nation rules over another, only Hashem Himself can free the latter! (PF)
