This week’s Torah-portion is parshas Bo. We would like to focus on the eighth plague HKB”H brought to afflict Mitzrayim (Shemos 10, 1):
Hashem said to Moshe, “Come to Pharaoh, because I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, so that I can put these signs of Mine in his midst. And so that you may relate in the ears of your son and your son’s son that I made a mockery of Mitzrayim and My miraculous signs that I placed among them, that you may know that I am Hashem.
Rashi comments: “Come to Pharaoh” and warn him. The commentaries ask an obvious question: Why doesn’t the text mention the fact that HKB”H instructed Moshe to forewarn Pharaoh of the upcoming plague of locusts? After all, we find that a warning is mentioned explicitly before all of the other plagues.
Apropos this question, we find a wonderful chiddush in the sacred teachings of Rabbi Bunem of Peshischa and the Chasam Sofer, zy”a. They assert that with regards to the plague of locusts, HKB”H did not reveal to Moshe exactly which plague He was bringing next. Instead, HKB”H left it up to Moshe’s discretion to decide which plague was most fitting to afflict Pharaoh with next. Moshe managed to perceive the will of Hashem that the next plague should be locusts—“arbeh.”
Based on their chiddush, we must suggest an interpretation of the following passuk (ibid. 12): Hashem said to Moshe, “Extend your hand over the land of Mitzrayim for the ‘arbeh,’ and it will swarm over the land of Mitzrayim and consume all the grass of the land— all that remained from the ‘barad’ (hail).” This passuk states explicitly that HKB”H instructed Moshe to initiate the plague of “arbeh.” Hence, we must suggest that this passuk is merely confirming that HKB”H concurred with Moshe’s choice.
Now, it is incumbent upon us to understand and explain why HKB”H chose the plague of “arbeh” specifically to provide Moshe Rabeinu with this amazing opportunity—the discretion to choose the upcoming plague. Furthermore, it behooves us to examine the fact that HKB”H associated the plague of “arbeh” with the plague of “barad,” as we see in the following pesukim:
We will endeavor to explain why HKB”H associated the plague of “arbeh” with the plague of “barad” both when He issued the instruction to initiate the plague and when the plague actually materialized. In the first instance, it says: “And it will consume all of the vegetation—everything that remained after the ‘barad.’” In the second it says: “It consumed all the vegetation of the land and all the fruit of the tree that the ‘barad’ left behind.” We do not find an association of two (consecutive) “makkos” with any of the other “makkos.” This implies that there is a deeper connection between these two “makkos.” Hence, we will try to clarify what that connection is.
The Klipah of Mitzrayim Strongly Opposes the Kedushah of Torah She’b’al Peh
We will begin to shed some light on the matter by examining the narrative at the beginning of parshas Shemos describing how the galus in Mitzrayim began (ibid. 1, 8): A new king arose over Mitzrayim, who did not know Yosef. He said to his people, “Behold! Bnei Yisrael are more numerous and stronger than us. Come, let us act wisely with him, lest he become numerous, and it may be that if a war will occur, he, too, may join our enemies, and wage war against us and leave the land” . . . The Egyptians enslaved Bnei Yisrael with back-breaking labor. They embittered their lives with hard work, with mortar and with bricks, and with every labor of the field; all their labors that they performed with them was back-breaking labor.
We must endeavor to explain why the Torah prefaces its account with the fact that a new Egyptian ruler rose to power “who did not know Yosef.” Now, according to Rashi: He acted as if he did not know Yosef. What difference does it make whether or not he knew Yosef? Additionally, we must endeavor to explain the significance of Pharaoh’s pronouncement: “Let us act wisely with him.” What was so clever about his plan to enslave Yisrael and subject them to back-breaking labor?
Lastly, it behooves us to examine an enigmatic statement in the Zohar hakadosh (Bereishis 27a): The Zohar hakadosh associates “embittering their lives” “mortar and bricks,” etc. with various aspects of Torah-study—such as difficult questions, “kal-vachomer,” clarification of halachos, Baraisa and Mishnah. We will endeavor to explain these obscure associations. [Note the play on words: “avodah kashah” becomes “kushya”; “chomer” becomes “kal-vachomer”; “leveinim” becomes “libun.”]
I believe that we can explain the matter by introducing a fundamental principle gleaned from the impeccable teachings of the great Rabbi of Ropshitz, zy”a, in Zera Kodesh (Bo). He teaches us that the klipah of Mitzrayim opposes Torah she’b’al peh. He provides us with an incredible “remez”: This wicked, corrupt nation is named מצרי"ם, because Torah she’b’al peh begins with an open letter “mem” in its first Mishnah (Berachos 1, 1): Torah she’b’al peh concludes with a closed letter “mem” in its final Mishnah (Oktzin 3, 12):
Let us explain this “remez”: When a person opens his mouth to articulate the letter “mem”— מ"ם—he begins by opening his mouth with an open מ' and concludes with a closed ם', without any interruption between them. This is how a person should study Torah she’b’al peh. He should begin with the open “mem” of "מאימתי" and conclude with the closed “mem” of "בשלום", without any interruptions or distractions in between. Stopping to satisfy bodily needs gives one the strength to study Torah and is an integral part of Torah-study; hence, it is considered as if one is still engaged in Torah-study.
This is the “remez” in the name מצרי"ם. It begins with an open “mem” and concludes with a closed “mem”; the three letters between them form the word יצ"ר. Thus, the name מצרי"ם alludes to the fact that the klipah of Mitzrayim opposes a Jew’s study of Torah she’b’al peh—that begins with an open מ' and concludes with a closed ם'. This concludes his sacred insight.
This explains beautifully another teaching of the Zera Kodesh (Chukas): The name פרע"ה –Pharaoh—is an anagram for פ"ה ר"ע –evil mouth. In keeping with what we have discussed, we can propose the following: Pharaoh was the king and leader of Mitzrayim. As such, he was the head of the klipah that opposed Torah she’b’al peh which the Mishnah depicts as the only true "טוב" (Avos 6, 3): "אין טוב אלא תורה"—there is no “tov” (good) other than Torah. Therefore, the name פרע"ה is an anagram for פ"ה ר"ע indicating that he was the head of the klipah of מצרי"ם whose middle letters— יצ"ר –strive to interrupt the study of Torah she’b’al peh that begins with an open “mem” and ends with a closed “mem.” Pharaoh was the nemesis of פ"ה טו"ב.
Yosef Was the Chariot for Torah She’b’al Peh
It is with great pleasure that we will now explain why HKB”H arranged for Pharaoh himself, the head of the klipah of Mitzrayim, to appoint Yosef as the viceroy of Mitzrayim. As the passuk says (Bereishis 41, 42): and Pharaoh removed his ring from upon his hand and put it on Yosef’s hand; he then had him dressed in garments of linen . . . and he had him ride in his second chariot (“merkavah”).
In Ohev Yisrael, the great Rabbi of Apta, zy”a, points out several allusions in this passuk: alludes to the fact that HKB”H adorned Yosef with the kedushah of the six (״שש״) orders of the Mishnah; he was the master of the chariot— “merkavah”—of the six orders of the Mishnah (note the similarity between the word “mishneh” in the passuk and Mishnah) that encompass all of Torah she’b’al peh. The Degel Machaneh Ephraim (Mikeitz) writes something similar and adds that Yosef actually merited becoming the “merkavah” of the six orders of the Mishnah.
This provides us with a very nice interpretation of the passuk (ibid. 41, 45): and Pharaoh named Yosef Tzaphnat Pahneiach. Rashi provides the following clarification: decipherer of the cryptic. Based on our current discussion, we can suggest that Pharaoh himself pronounced this prophecy unwittingly. For, as the “merkavah” of Torah she’b’al peh, Yosef was truly "צפנת פענח"—a decipherer of the cryptic; since Torah she’b’al peh deciphers and reveals all of the mysteries of Torah she’b’chsav. Now, Rashi adds that there is no word resembling פענח in Scriptures. Hence, we can suggest that Rashi is alluding to the fact that Torah she’b’al peh explains all of the things for which we cannot find a satisfactory explanation or similarity anywhere else in Torah she’b’chsav.
Now, if we combine this notion with the remarks of the great Rabbi of Apta, zy”a—that the klipah of Mitzrayim opposes the study of Torah she’b’al peh—we can suggest that HKB”H purposely arranged from the onset that Yosef HaTzaddik, as the “merkavah of the Mishnah,” would be appointed the viceroy—“mishneh la’melech”—the second in command to the ruler of Mitzrayim. As it states (ibid. 42, 6): now Yosef, he was the ruler of the land. Thus, as the actual, functional ruler of Mitzrayim, Yosef would be in a position to subdue the klipah of Mitzrayim that opposed Torah she’b’al peh.
We can suggest that this is why Yosef advised his father and his brothers to settle in the land of Goshen when they arrived in Mitzrayim. His reason for this suggestion was (ibid. 46, 34): since every shepherd is an abomination to Mitzrayim. In keeping with this discussion, Yosef was alluding to the fact that the Egyptians loathe the scholars of Torah she’b’al peh; for they are the trustworthy shepherds of the holy flock of klal Yisrael. Thus, he was advising his family that it is best to distance themselves from the Egyptians—i.e., by settling in Goshen—so that they would be able to engage in the study of Torah she’b’al peh without interference.
It appears that we can also explain the reason for the Egyptians’ intense opposition to Torah she’b’al peh based on what we have learned in the Gemara (Gittin 60b): HKB”H only entered into a covenant with Yisrael on account of the Oral Law, as it states (Shemos 34, 27): “For according to these words have I entered a covenant with you and with Yisrael.” The reason for this can be explained based on a passuk in parshas Kedoshim (Vayikra 20, 26): and I have separated you from among the nations to be Mine. Rashi comments: If you are separated from them, then you are Mine; but if not, then you belong to Nevuchadnetzar and his colleagues.
Now, we learn in the Midrash (S.R. 47, 1) that HKB”H said to Moshe Rabeinu: I am giving them the Written Law in writing; the Mishnah and the Talmud and the Aggadah, I am giving them orally; so that if idolaters come and enslave them, they will remain separate from them. Thus, we learn that as a result of studying Torah she’b’al peh, Yisrael separate themselves from the other nations of the world.
