What is the meaning of "vi'Yehi Choshech... v'Yamesh Choshech"?
Rashi #1 and Rashbam: It means that the darkness of night should become darker still 1 - as if it had written 'v'Ye'amesh Choshech' (with an 'Alef'). 2
Rashi #2 (citing Targum Onkelos), Seforno and Targum Yonasan: It means that the darkness will descend, after the darkness of night has been removed. 3
Rashi #3 (citing the Midrash) and Ramban (to 10:23): It means that the darkness was so thick that it was tangible. 4
Kol Eliyahu: It means that darkness will dispel [the light]. 5
Refer to 10:23:2:3.
Oznayim la'Torah (according to Targum Onkelos' translation): It means that the darkness will be removed automatically 6 - even before seven days, as soon as it has fulfilled its objective for burying the Jews who died, and for the people to take inventory of the Egyptians' valuables.
Mechilta, Beshalach Perek 7: It means that the darkness was so dense that an Egyptian who was standing was unable to sit, and one who was sitting was unable to stand.
Rashbam: Inasmuch as it lasted for three days.
Rashi: The Torah sometimes spells omitting an 'Alef;' see for example Yeshayah 13:20 and Shmuel II 22:40.
Rashi: Like we find in 13:22. Only the 'Vav' in v'Yamesh" is then superfluous. See Targum Yonasan.
Ramban: Which explains why the Egyptians were unable to move, as the Pasuk relates (in 10:23 [refer to 10:22:1:1]), and why Moshe had to raise his hand above the heaven to bring it down, Unlike the darkness of night, which is merely the absence of light, and allows light to dispel it; the darkness of the plague was (a creation) so thick that light could not penetrate it. The Ramban, citing the Ibn Ezra, suggests that it was a thick fog (See Ramban to 10:23). Rashi - Compare to Devarim 28:29.
Kol Eliyahu: Like the Pasuk in Parshas Ki Sisa, "Lo Yamish mi'Toch ha'Ohel" (33:11). Darkness is a creation, whereas here Hashem ordered the darkness to dispel the light.
Oznayim la'Torah: Without Moshe having to Daven for its removal.
Why did Hashem bring the plague of darkness upon the Egyptians?
Oznayim la'Torah #1: Because they 'blackened the eyes' of Yisrael with back-breaking work. 1
Oznayim la'Torah #2: Refer to 10:21:1:6.
For a discussion of the Eser Makos according to Maharal, see our comments to 7:14 (especially 7:14:4 and 7:14:8).
Oznayim la'Torah: The first part of the promise that Hashem made to Avraham Avinu at the Bris Bein ha'Besarim, "v'Gam Es ha'Goy Asher Ya'avodu, Dan Anochi" (Bereishis 15:14), had now been fulfilled. The second part of that verse, "v'Acharei Chen Yeitze'u bi'Rechush Gadol" (ibid.), was now set-up during Makas Choshech. Yisrael took an inventory of the Egyptians' valuables, which they would later take with them when they left Egypt.
In the Midrash, Chazal differ as to whether this Choshech came from the darkness of on High (see Tehilim 18:12), or from the darkness of Gehinom (see Iyov 10:21-22). What are these different types of Choshech, and what is the Machlokes based upon?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, beg. Ch. 34, p. 126): Darkness indicates non-existence (He'eder), just as light indicates existence. Because the world came into being after having been non-existent, there is said to be Choshech which preceded the world. 1 That is the Choshech On High, which separates Hashem from the world. 2 There is also an aspect of He'eder within the creations themselves, because their existence is not complete perfection. Whatever does not deserve to exist, will end up at the Choshech of Gehinom. The opinions in the Midrash differ as to which of these is most closely associated to the Choshech of Mitzrayim. The Choshech of On High indicates the greatness of the Eternal Creator, relative to His creations; whereas the Choshech of Gehinom is appropriate for the wicked (e.g., the Mitzrim). 3
Maharal: In the sense that Hashem is Eternal (i.e., He always was); whereas everything else was first non-existent (represented by Choshech), and later came into existence. Thus, Choshech has been an intrinsic aspect of the world, since its beginning.
Maharal: thus, the first opinion focuses on Hashem Who brought the Makah; whereas the second opinion looks at the Mitzrim, who received the Makah.
Why was there no warning before the plague of darkness?
Hadar Zekenim: Because, had the Egyptians known about it, they would have hidden their Keilim, to prevent Yisrael from finding them. Now, Bnei Yisrael were able to see them, and take them before leaving Egypt - even if the Egyptians did not want to lend them.
Moshav Zekenim: Hashem actually warned them about the darkness, but not that Yisrael would have light - because, had they known that Yisrael will have light, they would have hidden their silver and golden Keilim, to prevent Yisrael from finding them. And since Hashem told them only partially, the warning is not recorded. 1
This ninth Makah was like the lice and boils (Makos #3 and #6), for which there was no warning. 2
The warning about Makas Bechoros was written, even though the Egyptians had no idea how severe it would be. After that, all the survivors (including the fathers who fought against their firstborns to suppress their revolt and their demand to let Yisrael go), pressed Yisrael to leave, and said "we are all dead" (12:33). Some explain that they all fell sick and expected to die! Refer to 12:33:2:4. (PF)
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'[Vi'Yehi Choshech ...] v'Yamesh Choshech' - Their Choshech will be darker than the darkness of night; and the Choshech at nighttime will be darker still." Why does Rashi explain in two different ways? How are these indicated in the Pasuk?
Gur Aryeh #1: After stating, "there will be darkness," why does the Pasuk need to add "v'Yamesh Choshech"? It means that the darkness would constantly increase; such that the [first] day of Choshech would be darker than the night which preceded it, and then the first night would be darker than the preceding day.
Gur Aryeh #2: Alternatively, the first part of Rashi, ("the Choshech will be darker for them than the darkness of night ") explains the first part of the Pasuk ("there shall be darkness" 1 ); and then only the second part of Rashi, ("... and the Choshech at night will be darker still), comes to explain the phrase "v'Yamesh Choshech." 2
Gur Aryeh: Meaning a darkness that was abnormal; darkness by daytime.
According to Gur Aryeh's first explanation, "vi'Yehi Choshech" means simply that there would be darkness, and all of Rashi's comments are based on the phrase "v'Yamesh Choshech" - that the darkness would constantly increase. If so, it follows that the second day of the Makah was then even darker than the first, and so on. According to Rashi's second explanation, however, there is no source for this. (EK).
Rashi writes: "... Onkelos translates ['v'Yamesh'] as 'removal.' [I.e., 'there will be darkness] after the dark of night is removed;' as daylight approaches. However, [Rashi says,] this does not fit well with the Vav in 'v'Yamesh.'" What is Rashi's question on the Targum?
Gur Aryeh: According to Targum, the sequence of events was that first, daybreak would approach as the night was removed; then the plague of darkness set in. But the conjunctive Vav in the Pasuk implies the opposite sequence -- first there would be darkness, and then "v'Yamesh Choshech."
Rashi writes: "... Onkelos translates ['v'Yamesh'] as 'removal' ... but this does not fit well with the Vav of 'v'Yamesh.'" How can we resolve this question on the Targum?
Gur Aryeh: Targum understands the Vav in "v'Yamesh," not as telling us a sequence (e.g., 'and then, this will happen'), but rather as introducing an explanatory phrase ('it shall be this type of darkness'). I might have thought that the Choshech would be merely an obstruction of the sun's rays, akin to nighttime. Therefore, the Pasuk says (according to Onkelos), ''it will be palpable that night had passed and the day has arrived," and still this new Choshech will remain, thick and tangible, as Chazal interpret. 1
Gur Aryeh: In this case, Targum is not giving a literal translation of the words, but rather explaining the matter at hand.
