1)

What was the significance of this Makah against the firstborn, as the final Makah against Egypt?

1.

Maharal #1 (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 37, p. 140): A firstborn is called "Reishis" - the beginning and root for whatever will follow. Thus, the firstborn of Egypt were the equivalent of all of Egypt; and when they were killed, Egypt had no more power.

2.

Maharal #2 (ibid.): The Egyptians worshipped the constellation of the lamb, the first of the twelve Mazalos. 1 Thus, to be "first" was their primary power.


1

Refer to 8:22:1.2:1 with its notes.

2)

How did the firstborn die simply because Hashem passed by?

1.

Oznayim la'Torah (citing an explanation he once saw in a Midrash): Every Bechor - even those of animals - contains a spark of Kedushah, and as the Shechinah passed, it drew out that spark 1 and they subsequently died.


1

Much in the same way as a flaming torch draws out the flame from a candle as it passes, and the candle goes out after the torch has passed.

3)

Why were the firstborn of the slaves smitten?

1.

Rashi: Because they too, took part in subjugating Yisrael and rejoiced at their suffering.

4)

Why were the firstborn of the captives smitten (see 12:29)?

1.

Rashi #1: Because they would otherwise have said that it was their god who had avenged their disgrace 1 and killed the Egyptian firstborn. 2

2.

Rashi #2 (to 12:29) and Targum Yonasan (ibid.) 3 : Because they rejoiced at Yisrael's suffering.

3.

Riva and Moshav Zekenim: It refers to firstborn Egyptians who were captured elsewhere. Refer to 11:5:3:4 and 11:5:3:6.


1

This does not explain why other firstborn (such as visitors) in Egypt were smitten (there was no disgrace to avenge! It seems that the Moshav Zekenim asks this, only there is a printing mistake. - PF)

2

Rashi notes this, even though the firstborn of the captives are not mentioned here (but only in 12:29). See Sifsei Chachamim, and refer to 11:5:2.1.

3

According to Targum Yonasan, the "captives" refer to the captured sons of enemy kings, who were thrown into the dungeon as hostages of Pharaoh.

5)

Why does the Torah mention here only the firstborn of the slaves (the Bechor ha'Shifchah), and later, in 12:29, only the firstborn of the captives (the Bechor ha'Shevi)?

1.

Rashi (to 12:29): The latter Pasuk incorporates from the most important (Pharaoh) down to the least important (the Bechor ha'Shevi)), incorporating the Bechor ha'Shifchah. 1

2.

Rashbam: The two are really one and the same, because the captives would work behind the mill as slaves - as we find with Shimshon (Shoftim 16:21).

3.

Seforno: Here the Torah is incorporating all the firstborn, from the most important to the least important; whereas later, it incorporating from the most guilty to the least guilty.

4.

Riva: When the firstborn slaves heard about Makas Bechoros, they fled, and were taken captive. 2

5.

Riva citing R. Elyakim: Here Moshe spoke to Pharaoh; it is appropriate to discuss slaves vis-?-vis a king. Below, it discusses from the most important to the least important. 3

6.

Moshav Zekenim (here and to 12:29): ('Captives' refers to captive Egyptians elsewhere.) Moshe did not warn about them, in case someone will later claim that Peloni was a firstborn captive elsewhere at the time, and he did not die. Later, the Torah says that Hashem killed them. Similarly, Moshe did not say at midnight, but the Torah says that it was at midnight.


1

Rashi does not explain why the Torah here inserts only the Bechor ha'Shifchah. (PF)

2

This concurs with Rashi, and not with the Seforno (who holds that captives are more esteemed than slaves - see answers #1 and 2 (11:5:3:1 and 11:5:3:2)).

3

Moshav Zekenim (to 12:29): If so, the verse here connotes that firstborn captives will not die! (Indeed, he gives a reason why Moshe omitted this from his warning - refer to 11:5:3:6.) Also see Gur Aryeh; refer to 11:5:2.1:2.

6)

Why were the firstborn animals smitten?

1.

Rashi: Because the Egyptians worshipped them, and when Ha'Kadosh-Baruch-Hu punishes the idolatrous nations, he includes their gods in the punishment.

7)

Everyone knows that Pharaoh sat on his throne, so why does the Torah insert "mi'Bechor Pharaoh ha'Yoshev Al Kis'o"?

1.

Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: It refers (not to Pharaoh, 1 but) to Pharaoh's firstborn, who was otherwise destined to sit on Pharaoh's throne.


1

See Na'ar Yonasan.

8)

Why does the Torah give the location of the slave as 'behind the millstone;' whereas below (12:29), the captive is 'in the pit'?

1.

Moshav Zekenim: Because whereas here, the warning took place during the day, when they worked in the mill, the Makah occurred at night, when they 1 were in the pit (the dungeon) where they were placed to prevent them from fleeing.


1

Here it discusses slaves, and below, captives! It seems that this is like those who say that they are the same (refer to 11:5:3:2 and 11:5:3:4). (PF)

9)

Pharaoh's servants tried to persuade him to let Yisrael go, prior to the plague of locusts. Why didn't the Bechoros do the same before Makas Bechoros?

1.

Riva (to 12:29): They did! They went to their fathers and to Pharaoh, and, when they did not agree [to send Yisrael out], they went to war against them and killed many of them. 1


1

As the Pasuk writes, "L'Makeh Mitzrayim bi'Vechoreihem" (Tehilim 136:10). Tanchuma in Bo 18 - Every Bechor killed his father.

10)

Rashi (to 12:29) writes: "'[Hashem] struck every firstborn [in the land of Egypt]' - even those of other nations, that were [presently] in Egypt." Why didn't Moshe allude to this detail, in his warning here?

1.

Gur Aryeh (to 12:29) #1: There was no reason to warn the Egyptians about this; they would not have cared. 1

2.

Gur Aryeh (to 12:29) #2: Our Pasuk (11:5) also says, "Every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die;" by which Moshe included all of the above (even if a specific warning would not be relevant).


1

Gur Aryeh (ibid.): This is an extension of what Gur Aryeh comments to our Pasuk, about the firstborn of the captives.

11)

Rashi (to 12:29) writes: "'From the firstborn of Pharaoh' - Pharaoh too was a firstborn, but he was spared... in order that Hashem show him His might, at the sea." Our Pasuk uses the same phrase; why doesn't Rashi explain this on our Pasuk as well?

1.

Gur Aryeh (to 12:29) #1: In Pasuk 12:29, "Bechor Pharaoh" is parallel to "Bechor ha'Shevi" - meaning any captive who was himself a firstborn; and so too, Pharaoh was himself a firstborn. But in our Pasuk (11:5), "Bechor Pharaoh" is parallel to "Bechor ha'Shifchah," which cannot be explained this way.

2.

Gur Aryeh (to 12:29) #2: At the end, Pharaoh was spared at Makas Bechoros, so there is no need to mention him here at the warning. Only when the Makah occurred do we need to explain why he was spared. 1


1

Also refer to 12:29:3.2.

QUESTIONS ON RASHI

12)

Rashi writes: "... Why were the maidservants' children stricken? Because they too would subjugate [the Bnei Yisrael], and would rejoice in their pain." Why does Rashi add this?

1.

Gur Aryeh: We might have thought that since the Egyptians ordered their servants to subjugate the Jews, they were forced to comply, and were not to blame. But then they should have had no joy in doing so! Their joy at the Jews' distress made it as if they subjugated them of their own will.

13)

Rashi writes: "'... To the firstborn of the captives' (12:29) - Why were the [foreign] captives stricken by this Makah? ..." Why does Rashi comment on Pasuk 12:29, here at this point?

1.

Gur Aryeh #1: Rashi to the preceding Pasuk (11:4) cited Chazal, that Moshe said "ka'Chatzos" rather than 'ba'Chatzos,' so as not to be accused of fabrication (Berachos 4a). But if that were a concern, why did Moshe say here that the Makah would strike "... to the firstborn of the maidservant," which excludes that of the captives, who are more lowly - when in fact the Makah did strike the captives' firstborn (12:29)! Wouldn't Moshe be accused of inaccuracy? 1 Rashi therefore explains at this point, that the captives' firstborn were stricken for an entirely different reason than the Egyptians themselves - so they would not attribute the Makah to their own gods. There was no reason to include them in the warning to Pharaoh, because the Egyptians could not care less about the death of their captives. 2

2.

Gur Aryeh #2: Rashi wants to explain the inconsistency in the Pesukim. Why does the warning include only until the firstborn of the maidservants, whereas the Makah actually struck even the firstborn of the captives (12:29)? He answers that the Egyptians could not care less about the death of their captives, and there was no reason to warn them. 3 At the end, they too were stricken; but for a different reason.


1

Gur Aryeh: But if the concern here was that Moshe not be accused of inaccuracy, at the end even many non-firstborn died, bringing the Egyptians to exclaim, "We are all dying!" (12:33). Gur Aryeh explains that this was not a contradiction to Moshe's prophecy (that all the firstborn would die), but rather an addition. But were Moshe to define the range of firstborns to be stricken by the Makah, as including only those of the maidservants and no further - and the Makah would then extend further, and include the captives' firstborn - that would be an inaccuracy, and it requires our explanation.

2

Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 34, p. 128): As opposed to a warning about the maidservants' firstborn, who performed slave labor which the Egyptians would lose out on upon their deaths.

3

Gur Aryeh adds that Rashi comments on verse 12:29 first, to show that this is not its proper place (and we should not think that Rashi had "firstborn of the captives" written in his Sefer at this point).

14)

Rashi writes: "'And all the firstborn of the animals' - Because [the Egyptians] would worship them; and when Hashem punishes a nation, He [also] metes out punishment to their gods." But Rashi (to 7:17) explained regarding Makas Dam, that Hashem punishes their gods first! If so, why are the firstborn animals mentioned last here?

1.

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). In the context of the first Makah, the Egyptians' gods were struck first; but now at the last Makah, their gods were stricken last.


1

Also see Gur Aryeh to 12:12; refer to 12:12:3.2:1.

Sefer: Perek: Pasuk:
Month: Day: Year:
Month: Day: Year:

KIH Logo
D.A.F. Home Page
Sponsorships & DonationsReaders' FeedbackMailing ListsTalmud ArchivesAsk the KollelDafyomi WeblinksDafyomi CalendarOther Yomi calendars