What is the (literal) meaning of "Ki Afilos Heinah"?
Rashi, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: It means that they ripen only later.
What is the significance of the fact that the flax and the barley were smitten by the hail, whereas the wheat and the spelt were not?
Rashi #2 (citing the Tanchuma): The fact that the wheat and the spelt survived was a miracle of miracles 3 - Pil'ei Pela'os. 4
Ramban #1 (citing R. Sa'adya Ga'on): Moshe was telling Pharaoh that when he Davened for the plague to cease, he would not be able to save the flax and the barley. Only the wheat and spelt could be saved. 5
Ramban #2: It was a warning to Pharaoh that if he did not relent, Hashem would send the plague of locusts, which would finish what the hail had left over.
Rashbam: Having said that the hail destroyed everything in the field, the Torah needed to inform us what the locusts still found to eat. 6
Seforno: It is to demonstrate the extent of Pharaoh's wickedness. Even though he saw that Moshe's prayers had prevented the hail from destroying everything, he hardened his heart and stubbornly refused to give in.
Oznayim la'Torah: Moshe was informing Pharaoh that, due to his having begun to do Teshuvah, Hashem, for the first time, stopped the plague in the middle, to give him a chance to repent fully.
And Pasuk 9:25 refers to vegetation that was fully-grown and brittle. But see 9:32:1.1:1.
Because it grew only later ("Afilos" means late). This also served as a lesson to Pharaoh - that someone who stands up to the storm will perish, and it is one who bends before it who will survive.
Because, ripe or not, there is no way that the wheat and spelt could possibly have withstood the velocity of the hailstones coupled with the fire. See Oznayim la'Torah.
To give Pharaoh a chance to do Teshuvah and save the land from total devastation. Refer to 9:16:2:1*.
See the Ramban's objection to this explanation.
Rashbam: Hail tends to destroy whatever is hard, whereas locusts consume whatever is soft.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'For they were Afilos' - ... Some of our Sages interpret "Afilos" as a contraction of 'Pil'ei Pela'os' -- [Only] by wonder of wonders, were [these crops] not stricken (by the hail)!" Why do they reject the simple explanation (i.e. that "Afilos" means late to ripen)?
Gur Aryeh: We learned above that "The hail struck all the plants of the field" (9:25) - which includes even the late-ripening ones! Rather, they interpret this verse to mean, that it was a direct miracle that the wheat and spelt were spared.
Rashi writes: " Some of our Sages interpret... [Only] by wonder of wonders, were [these crops] not stricken (by the hail)!" (As Gur Aryeh explains above - seeing as "the hail struck all the plants of the field" (9:25).) Mizrachi asks - How would this approach explain the preceding verse, "The flax and barley were stricken (Nukasah), because it was Aviv... " (9:31) - Weren't all the crops stricken by the hail, no matter what?
Gur Aryeh #1: (Rashi (to 9:31) emphasized that grammatically, "Nukasah" does not mean hit or struck, but rather "broken.") The flax and barley had already ripened and hardened, so they were completely broken by the hail's first contact. Verse 9:25, on the other hand, said "Hikah ha'Barad" (in the normal sense of hitting); all the softer crops were hit and damaged somewhat by the hail. The Torah now adds that the flax and barley were broken completely -- whereas the wheat and spelt miraculously were not stricken at all. 1
Gur Aryeh #2: The flax and barley did not experience a miracle, because they had already ripened and hardened (and for them not to break would have been a tremendous miracle). The wheat and spelt ripen late, and did receive a miracle. 2
But see our notes to the next question (9:32:1.3:1*).
Gur Aryeh: See Bava Metzia 106a; sometimes someone merits a small miracle but not a large one. (It seems that according to Gur Aryeh's first approach, all other crops not mentioned were hit partially; whereas according to this second approach, all the other crops were hit completely, because there was no miracle to save them. There would have been a possibility of a miracle for the flax and barley as well - had they not hardened. But see our notes to the next question (9:32:1.3:1*).) (EK)
Rashi writes: "Some of our Sages interpret... [Only] by wonder of wonders, were [these crops] not stricken (by the hail)!" Why were the Egyptians the recipients of such a miracle?
Gur Aryeh (to 10:1): Hashem spared the wheat and spelt from the hail - only so that the following plague of locusts would come and devour whatever was left! 1 The next plague of Arbeh would publicize the Name of Hashem - "So that you will tell your child and grandchild...." (10:2).
If so, the whole purpose of the miracle was to facilitate an additional Makah; it was not at all for the Egyptians' sake. But the second approach of Gur Aryeh to our Pasuk (see 9:32:1.2:2) speaks in terms of small miracles and big miracles, which makes it sound like the miracle was to benefit the Egyptians, and was dependent upon their relative merits! We see that it was not so! These crops were spared in order to punish the Egyptians further -- only that Hashem bent the rules of nature to only a small degree, and not to a large degree. According to Gur Aryeh's first approach (9:32:1.2:1), we can ask a similar question. If the wheat and spelt were miraculously unscathed, as opposed to the other soft crops, which were somewhat stricken, what difference would it make to the locusts? What then was the point of the miracle? Rather, the plague of locusts would by psychologically much more devastating for the Egyptians, if they would devour the wheat and spelt which was still in good condition, fit for human consumption. (EK)
