The last three makkot are found in our Parsha, with the final one being Makat Bechorot. Interestingly, while this plague is the final one to be executed, it was the plague included in the first warning delivered to Pharoah.
וְאָמַרְתָּ אֶל־פַּרְעֹה כֹּה אָמַר ה' בְּנִי בְכֹרִי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃ וָאֹמַר אֵלֶיךָ שַׁלַּח אֶת־בְּנִי וְיַעַבְדֵנִי וַתְּמָאֵן לְשַׁלְּחוֹ הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הֹרֵג אֶת־בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶךָ׃
You will say to Pharaoh, “This is what Hashem said, ‘Yisrael is My son, My firstborn. And I have said to you, send out My son and let him serve Me. If you refuse to send him, behold, I will slay your own firstborn son.’”
Rashi explains, Hakadosh Baruch Hu chose this as the initial warning for the makkot because it was the most severe of them all. He adds, a human who wishes to avenge himself against another human keeps his plans secret in order to maintain the element of surprise and not give his opponent a way out. Hakadosh Baruch Hu, on the other hand, is so mighty that there is no possibility of escape except by returning through Teshuva and thus, the warning is as strong as possible. The Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh explains it differently, saying Hakadosh Baruch Hu aimed to prevent a scenario in which Moshe Rabbeinu would witness Pharaoh enduring plague after plague but to no effect and with no impact on him budging. Such a prolonged resistance might have disheartened or shaken Moshe's faith. Therefore, Hakadosh Baruch Hu informed him from the outset that the ultimate plague would be Makat Bechorot, signaling that no relenting from Pharaoh should be expected until that point.
I’d like to now dive into this final plague, but not the punishment itself. Of note, at no point during our week do we bring up or focus on nine of the ten plagues. It is only Makat Bechorot that is recalled (alongside the crossing of Yam Suf), as directed by Halacha, and this occurs immediately following Kriyat Shema. Additionally, none of the other nine plagues resulted in a takeaway for future generations. Aside from mentioning them once each year at the Pesach Seder, we don’t have any ritual involving blood or frogs that is performed in commemoration of these two plagues. Nor for any of the other makkot, with the exception of Makat Bechorot.
This final plague was the impetus for a series of three Mitzvot: the sanctity and of our bechor (firstborn) and Pidyon HaBen (his redemption); the sanctification and offering of the firstborn of pure animals; and the mitzvah of Petter Chamor – redemption of a firstborn donkey by way of offering a lamb to the Kohen in place of the donkey. These three mitzvot are listed at the end of our Parsha:
קַדֶּשׁ־לִי כָל־בְּכוֹר פֶּטֶר כָּל־רֶחֶם בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּאָדָם וּבַבְּהֵמָה לִי הוּא׃
Sanctify to me all the firstborn, whatever opens the womb among the children of Yisrael, both of man and beast: it is mine.
Followed shortly thereafter by:
וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ כָל־פֶּטֶר־רֶחֶם לַה' הַזְּכָרִים לַה'׃ וְכָל פֶּטֶר חֲמֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה וְאִם לֹא תִפְדֶּה וַעֲרַפְתּוֹ וְכֹל בְּכוֹר אָדָם בְּבָנֶיךָ תִּפְדֶּה׃
You shall set apart to the Lord all that opens the womb, and every firstling that comes of a beast which belong to you; the males shall be the Lord’s. Redeem each firstling donkey with a sheep. If it is not redeemed, you must break its neck. Redeem every first-born male among your sons.
In terms of where the Mitzvah of Petter Chamor is to be observed, the Ramban learns from the introductory wording וְהָיָה כִּי יְבִאֲךָ ה' אֶל אֶרֶץ הַכְּנַעֲנִי, that it applies solely within Eretz Yisrael. And the reason for this practice is then presented in the Torah – it serves as an answer to the unknowing child:
וְהָיָה כִּי־יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ מָחָר לֵאמֹר מַה־זֹּאת וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו בְּחֹזֶק יָד הוֹצִיאָנוּ ה' מִמִּצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִים׃ וַיְהִי כִּי־הִקְשָׁה פַרְעֹה לְשַׁלְּחֵנוּ וַיַּהֲרֹג ה' כָּל־בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבְּכֹר אָדָם וְעַד־בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה עַל־כֵּן אֲנִי זֹבֵחַ לַה' כָּל־פֶּטֶר רֶחֶם הַזְּכָרִים וְכָל־בְּכוֹר בָּנַי אֶפְדֶּה׃ וְהָיָה לְאוֹת עַל־יָדְכָה וּלְטוֹטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ כִּי בְּחֹזֶק יָד הוֹצִיאָנוּ ה' מִמִּצְרָיִם׃
When your son asks you at a later time saying, ‘What is this?’ You should say to him, “With a strong hand Hashem brought us out of Egypt from the house of slavery. When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to send us out, Hashem killed every first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of man to the first-born of beast. I am therefore sacrificing to Hashem all that is first to open the womb which are male, and the first-born of my sons I redeem.’ These words shall be a sign on your hand and for totafot between your eyes, for with a strong hand Hashem brought us out of Egypt.”
It is the topic of Petter Chamor we’ll focus on during this shiur, but without going into all its Halachic details and ramifications. Of note, the donkey must be killed in the exact manner prescribed – by breaking the back of its neck – and not through any other potential means, whether a knife, a stick, starvation, or other. Is breaking the donkey’s neck a commandment or punishment for one who does not redeem the firstborn? Rashi says it is a punishment. The individual did not give the Kohen a lamb in place of their firstborn, so they, too, will not benefit from having an animal. The Rambam (Hilchot Bikurim 12:1) dedicates a full chapter to this mitzvah:
מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לִפְדּוֹת כָּל אדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר בְּשֶׂה. וְאִם לֹא רָצָה לִפְדּוֹתוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לְעָרְפוֹ ... וּמִצְוַת פְּדִיָּה קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִצְוַת עֲרִיפָה:
It is a positive commandment for every Jewish man to redeem the first male issue of a donkey with a lamb. If he does not desire to redeem it, it is a mitzvah for him to behead it… The mitzvah of redemption takes precedence over the mitzvah of beheading the donkey.
It is puzzling how there can be a positive commandment to break the donkey’s neck, given it is a fallback action in scenarios where the owner doesn’t wish to redeem their firstborn donkey with a lamb (or the monetary value of a lamb). The Ra'avad suggests the initial act of redeeming the donkey is in fact a Mitzvah, but questions whether the substitute act should not be the opposite – a sin. The Radbaz, however, is not comfortable with this question. He compares the case of Petter Chamor to the mitzvah of Yibum, where a man is commanded to marry his deceased brother's childless widow but has a fallback commandment – Chalitza – should he not want to follow through. In the case of Yibum, both actions are considered as distinct Mitzvot, so why should that not be the case for Petter Chamor as well? He eloquently states that he’s perplexed by the Ra’avad referring to the secondary act of breaking the donkey’s neck as a sin, given his fluency in the secrets of the Torah.
I’d like to add another question to the mix, based on what we read earlier – namely, that the mitzvah of Petter Chamor is to commemorate the killing of Egyptian firstborns during Makat Bechorot. We’re told the mitzvah of redeeming the donkey takes precedence over the mitzvah to break its neck, but if the commemoration is for the killing of firstborns, should we not prioritize breaking the donkey’s neck? Would that not be a more appropriate commemoration?
Let’s now dive into the topic, according to the commentary of Rabbi Ovadiah Seforno. We’ll begin with the question posed by the son – וְהָיָה כִּי־יִשְׁאָלְךָ בִנְךָ – which prefaces the explanation for the mitzvah of Petter Chamor and its connection to Makat Bechorot. Seforno points out this is the question of the simple son (Tam) who is unaware yet the question itself is not so simple. It is a very perceptive question, when considering the donkey is an impure animal suddenly finding itself sanctified and redeemed in a manner of holiness. Yishmael is compared to a donkey and there is no kedusha whatsoever to Yishmael; so, the son asks, why should this donkey be treated in a spiritually elevated manner. Neither can ever become kadosh. Furthermore, if there’s a need to kill this animal, why insist on breaking its neck from behind? Why not kill it with whatever means available? This are the child’s intelligent questions.
The answer lies in the words: בְּחֹזֶק יָד הוֹצִיאָנוּ. Hakadosh Baruch Hu redeemed Bnei Yisrael from the strong hand of Egypt, and due to the urgency with which the Egyptians wanted them gone, they could not depart Egypt in wagons (agalot) – i.e., the method with which they had arrived in the days of Yaacov Avinu. They had to instead settle for donkeys. However, a miracle occurred, and the wagons materialized together with the many donkeys needed to transport all the newfound riches of the people. The constructive role donkeys played in the redemption of Bnei Yisrael is reflected in their not being treated like all other impure animals. Thus, their firstborn may be redeemed in exchange for a pure animal, so that the donkey can then be used in the regular way. We are instructed to explain to our children why the donkey, exclusively amongst all impure animals, received this minor element of kedusha.
Seforno continues his commentary on the pesukim, pointing out that Pharaoh had put so many obstacles in the path of Bnei Yisrael’s eventual liberation that he himself is compared to a donkey. Yechezkel HaNavi (Yechezkel 23:20) describes the Egyptians as donkeys, and Pharaoh is the chief donkey among them. He had full control and could have easily redeemed himself by releasing Bnei Yisrael, but after failing to do so, the firstborns of Egypt were killed instead. Had only Pharoah followed his orders and given the lamb – i.e., Bnei Yisrael – to the Kohen – i.e., Hakadosh Baruch Hu – he’d have redeemed himself.
The Midrash (Tanchuma Bamidar 24; Bamidar Rabbah 4:5) also brings forth these answers of Rabbi Ovadiah Seforno. For the sake of Bnei Yisrael, and on account of His love of Bnei Yisrael, Hakadosh Baruch Hu changed the order of the world. Rather than redeeming a donkey through a sheep, He redeemed the sheep – i.e., Bnei Yisrael – by taking the life of a donkey.
The Gemara (Bechorot 5b) that deals with this mitzvah and the reasoning quoted by Rashi – namely, that the donkeys were of transportation assistance to Bnei Yisrael when they left Egypt – teaches us that each member of Bnei Yisrael left with ninety Nubian donkeys (חֲמוֹרִים לוּבִים). These donkeys were considered to be of superior quality, and they were loaded up with gold and silver. Rashi quotes this Gemara, but leaves out the number ninety, instead stating “many”. The Midrash HaGadol says the minimum number of donkeys each took out with them was seventy, also a fair number. According to the Midrash Rabbah (Esther), Haman spoke lashon hara about Bnei Yisrael to Achashverosh. He didn’t know what he was talking about, nor did he comprehend the evidence he himself submitted, but just like the case against Israel in the Hague, a grand and elaborate case was presented. Haman claimed the Egyptians graciously hosted Bnei Yisrael, allowing them to build two cities and become world-class developers. The Egyptians treated Bnei Yisrael well and fed them generously, he continued, only for the Jewish people to stab them in the back. According to his filing, they sent their representative witch – Moshe Rabbeinu – who inflicted great suffering on the Egyptians, allowing the guests to steal from their hosts and walk off with all their wealth and belongings, including their donkeys. He, too, does not mention a specific number. The Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh (Shemot 25:2), in reflecting on the gifts Bnei Yisrael brought to construct the Mishkan, says Moshe questioned the people’s financial ability to bring forth the necessary material. In His response to Moshe, Hakadosh Baruch Hu said even the poorest member of Bnei Yisrael had the means to contribute, as from the spoils of the Egyptians who drowned in the sea, each collected a minimum of forty donkeys loaded up with precious stones and metals.
So, how many donkeys did each of Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt with? The Gemara says ninety, the Midrash says seventy, the Ohr HaChaim says forty, and Haman’s testimony is moot, because just like its current reincarnation, his words were absurd, groundless, and devoid of all substance. If you ask me why it matters exactly how many donkeys each took from Egypt, I’d have to be honest with you. It really doesn’t matter. If you take the largest number of ninety, and multiply it by 600,000, the total is 54-million donkeys. And if you replace that with the smallest number, forty, it is still 24-million donkeys that accompanied Bnei Yisrael out of Egypt. Neither number is comprehensible. Even in today’s world, thousands of years later, it is simply impossible to obtain that number of donkeys. So, how is it possible that Hakadosh Baruch Hu set them up with such a fleet and made it possible for them to load them up and transport them out of Egypt? When they inform their children that they couldn't leave with wagons and had to settle for donkeys instead, what response should they give when asked how they managed to feed tens of millions in a desert that grew no grass or plants?
I asked this question yesterday, and someone told me donkeys were the primary means of transportation back then, and if that were the case today, we’d see Subaru, Mercedes, and Toyota all producing donkeys. They’d be imported from the Far East, the Houthis would swipe some along the way, and they’d eventually reach our streets. It's akin to driving on the highway between Beersheva and Arad at 8:00 am and being forced to come to a complete stop as thirty donkeys cross the road, shuttling thirty Bedouin kids to school. Each of these villages has hundreds of donkeys for that purpose (right next to the Toyota and Mercedes jeeps parked at the tin huts). That is what they use, so they can be found there, just like in Egypt and in the desert as Bnei Yisrael travelled. What seems ungraspable to us today was the norm at one time, even in the quantities discussed. And with regards to food, Tosafot says the layer of dew that covered the manna would melt, and from it the dessert would produce a thin layer of vegetation that these donkeys would sustain themselves with.
But my friend’s answer clearly was not good enough for the Ben Yehoyada, asks these questions with regards to the quantity of donkeys and all the surrounding logistics. In his opinion, not every member of Bnei Yisrael left with that number of donkeys. Even though the Gemara says each left with ninety, he says this refers to the head of each family, resulting in a far smaller number who collected spoils from the Egyptians and loaded up donkeys. In another location, he says some may have taken ninety, but most took closer to ten or twelve donkeys, also lowering the total number.
I’d like to share one final thought on this topic before moving on. What is the significance of ninety? One hundred is a nice and big round number, but ninety is nisht ahin, nisht aher – neither here nor there. Eighty-six would have significance in gematria (Elokim), but ninety isn’t even a number of guzma – a number we find used to represent exaggeration. Numerous commentators ask this question. Perhaps ninety of them. In sefer B'Yam Derech, an idea is brought from the Maggid of Kozhnitz, referencing a piyyut found in the Yotzrot for Shabbat Hagadol. As an aside, it is very enjoyable to read and study such piyyutim nowadays, with translations and explanations available to help us comprehend these magnificent masterpieces. It is incredible how, in a few poetic lines, so many ideas from such an array of sources can be beautifully presented, each adding to our understanding of a subject. These are not modern-day rhymes, l’havdil, where the sound patterns of its words match up but without any context or meaning other than to produce something that can be copyrighted and broadcast. The piyyut in question is Kerem Chemed, and it contains the following line:
וְנִגְלֵיתָ לְחַלְצָהּ מִבֵּין פּוֹשְׁעִים. בְּחֵיל אֲלָפִים רְבָבוֹת תִּשְׁעִים. וּבְצֶדֶק נִפְקַד לְתֵשַׁע וְתִשְׁעִים. הוּעֲמָסָה מַשָּׂא פְרָדִים תִּשְׁעִים.
Hakadosh Baruch Hu revealed Himself to save Bnei Yisrael from wicked Egyptians; together with ninety riboh angels; Therefore, Bnei Yisrael took for themselves ninety donkeys. Bnei Yisrael took ninety donkeys because Hakadosh Baruch Hu, together with ninety riboh angels (900,000), took them out of Egypt. The source of this statement is Targum Yonatan ben Uziel (Shemot 12:12). The Maggid of Kozhnitz says, to commemorate Yetziat Mitzrayim, each took ninety donkeys.
Another idea, found in Megaleh Amukot, is that the ninety donkeys were in honor of Moshe Rabbeinu, the leader of Bnei Yisrael as they exited Egypt, and the one who pushed them to ask for and then collect all these donkeys and riches. Moshe Rabbeinu is also referred to as Tzaddik (Nedarim 31b), and the name צַדִּיק begins with the letter צ, whose numerical value is ninety.
The Zohar (1:196) provides a similar reason for the quantity of ninety donkeys. The inspiration for that amount stems from Yosef HaTzaddik, as it was to his merit that Bnei Yisrael received silver and gold before their departure. This served as a reward for their moral conduct in the realm of forbidden and immoral relations, and the strength to uphold this holiness was derived from the example set by Yosef HaTzaddik during the episode with Potiphar’s wife, where he turned down payment and great reward in choosing to remain ethical and pure.
If you’d like, these last two answers can be combined, based on what we’ll read next week: וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת־עַצְמוֹת יוֹסֵף – Moshe took the bones of Yosef with him. Mishlei says (10:8):
חֲכַם־לֵב יִקַּח מִצְוֺת וֶאֱוִיל שְׂפָתַיִם יִלָּבֵט׃
He whose heart is wise accepts commands, but he whose speech is foolish comes to grief.
This pasuk refers to Moshe Rabbeinu, the tzaddik, taking the remains of Yosef, the tzaddik, while the rest of Bnei Yisrael at that very moment were running around Egypt collecting their reward in the merit of these two tzaddikim.
There is another opinion, however, that states the number ninety is not in honor of Yosef or Moshe, but rather Avraham Avinu, who was told hundreds of years earlier that Bnei Yisrael would be enslaved prior to leaving with great wealth. The Gemara (Berachot 9a) says, Bnei Yisrael were instructed to ask the Egyptians for silver and gold with an expression of supplication (נָא). Hakadosh Baruch Hu said to Moshe Rabbeinu, “Please, go and tell Bnei Yisrael to borrow vessels of silver and vessels of gold, in order to fulfill the promise I made to Avraham, so that that righteous person, Avraham, will not say I fulfilled My promise to enslave them but not My promise to have them exit with great possessions.” Once again, there is a righteous person – a צַדִּיק – in play, but it is Avraham Avinu according to this opinion.
The Ba’al HaTurim holds the number ninety was in the merit of Yitzchak Avinu. He points to the key word at the opening of last week’s Parsha – וָאֵרָא – whose numerical value (208) equals יִצְחָק. It was in Yitzchak Avinu’s merit that Bnei Yisrael were taken out of Egypt, and he cites a Midrash as his source. While we have no such Midrash in our possession today, we do know that many Midrashim were lost to us throughout history. His father, the Rosh, also cites this Midrash and gives us more detail as to its context (Shemot 6:2). When Bnei Yisrael were at their deepest point of suffering, their cries were heard in Heaven not only by Hakadosh Baruch Hu but also by the Avot, who begged for the redemption to begin. The response from Hakadosh Baruch Hu was shocking: “Whoever gives me a letter from their name, in his merit I will end the suffering.” Avraham and Yaacov were unable to modify their names, responding that their given names were already changed by Hakadosh Baruch Hu, and the new names were intentional and necessary for Bnei Yisrael in the future. Yitzchak responded, “My name was supposed to be written as יִשְׂחָק (Tehillim 105:9), but I am willing to forgo my honor and have it written as יִצְחָק.” The difference between shin (300) and tzadi (90) is 210, and thus, in the merit of Yitzchak Avinu, Bnei Yisrael would be rescued from slavery after an abbreviated 210 years.
The Chida questions this approach, however, pointing out that according to this Midrash, Bnei Yisrael should have been saved after 190 years of slavery – the planned 400 minus the 210 Yitzchak sacrificed – rather than after 210 years. I’ll leave you with this interesting question, to sort out over Shabbat with your friends and family.
Another idea relates to the custom of breaking the middle matza at the Pesach Seder, a matza that represents Yitzchak Avinu. This idea can be found in Ne'imot Yomeiru and Haggadah Baruch Yomeiru. We’re told that it is appropriate to recite the Maggid section of the Haggadah over a broken piece of matza, as a poor person is accustomed to eating a broken loaf – לֶחֶם עֹנִי. Is this really true? Do poor people break their food into pieces? I’ll explain the concept using a personal story. When I was a young Yeshiva bochur in Yerushalayim, there was a bakery in Talpiot called Hadar that sold cookies. Each Friday, we’d finish at noon and head there to buy broken pieces of cookies at half price. I recall purchasing both chocolate and lemon cookies, and where full cookies cost one lira, broken cookies cost only half a lira. The cookies still tasted great, and this was perfect for our limited budget of ten liras, which also had to cover our roundtrip transportation and all other needs that week. One Friday, I arrived and asked for a bag of broken cookies but was told there were only whole cookies available. I thanked the merchant but said I’d do without them that week and started walking out. The vendor called me over and asked how much I was looking to buy, to which I said a kilo of lemon and a kilo of chocolate. As he started filling up a bag, I quickly reminded him that I came to buy only broken cookies. He threw me a strange look and assured me he could break them if I insisted. After I explained why I sought to buy the broken ones, he informed me that at the end of each week he has permission to sell whole cookies at the same price as broken ones. Rabbotai, the poor person doesn’t buy broken food because they like broken food. They don’t intentionally take a whole cookie and break it, just so they can enjoy holding a broken piece. (This is especially true for handmade matza boxes which are sold for a pretty penny and come pre-Yachatz’ed, with half the box consisting of broken pieces ready for the afikomen bag.) The poor person takes a broken piece in order to save money, just as Yitzchak saved Bnei Yisrael time in slavery, and this is why we skip over the first available matza in order to break the middle one prior to Maggid.
The Meshech Chochma presents a beautiful thought on our topic. There are two items which can be redeemed, and a third which is, and remains, kadosh. The firstborn child and firstborn donkey can both be redeemed, whereas the firstborn of a pure animal is kadosh and must be given to the Kohen. Why is there a division between them? Or why is the firstborn son uniquely connected to the firstborn donkey? He answers, the Yerushalmi says we redeem the firstborn son because we sold the firstborn of Rachel – i.e., Yosef – for twenty kesef. Thus, this is the amount, in the currency of five shekalim, that one must give to redeem their firstborn son. The Meshech Chochma is troubled by this explanation though. If that is the case, why does someone from the tribe of Yosef (or Binyamin) need to perform the ritual and pay five shekalim? They should be exempt, as Yosef (and Binyamin) were not involved in that original transaction. He also asks how it makes sense that they should give their five shekalim to the Kohen. After all, he is from the tribe of Levi, a tribe that did take part in the sale of Yosef. It’s as if Levi made money from the original deal and is now reaping dividends!
He answers that the five shekalim are clearly not to atone for the sale of Yosef, but rather, the Yerushalmi means to teach us that we cannot place a value on any human being. Not on the whole being and not on any limb or organ. But when the brothers sold Yosef, that is exactly what they did. They placed a value on his life – twenty kesef. They were first to set a price and Hakadosh Baruch Hu thus said, “There were no price lists until you established the pricing. I will now follow it.” That is the meaning of the Yerushalmi, according to the Meshech Chochma. The Meshech Chochma continues, raising a pasuk in sefer Yeshayahu (43:12):
אָנֹכִי הִגַּדְתִּי וְהוֹשַׁעְתִּי וְהִשְׁמַעְתִּי וְאֵין בָּכֶם זָר וְאַתֶּם עֵדַי נְאֻם ה' וַאֲנִי־אֵ-ל׃
I have declared, and have saved, and I have announced, and there was no strange god among you: therefore, you are My witnesses, says the Lord, and I am G-d.
Hakadosh Baruch Hu arrived in Egypt as we escaped so that the Egyptians would give chase and drown in the sea. Hakadosh Baruch Hu then saved Bnei Yisrael for all to see and did not give any other nation the right to stand at the foot of Har Sinai. The Meshech Chochma explains the deeper significance and meaning here.
כִּי אֵין שִׁנּוּי רָצוֹן אֵצֶל הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַך, רַק הַכֹּל בְּסִיבוּב הַסִּבּוֹת וַעֲלִילוֹת בְּהַשְׁגָּחָה נִפְלָאָה. וְכַאֲשֶׁר תָּבֹא צָרָה לָאָדָם וְיִנָּצֵל מִמֶּנָּה בִּישׁוּעַת הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַך אֵין זֶה שִׁנּוּי חָלִילָה בִּרְצוֹנוֹ יִתְבָּרֵך רַק הָיָה גָּלוּי לַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַך שֶׁהָאָדָם צָרִיךְ לָבֹא לַצָּרָה וּלְהִנָּצֵל מִמֶּנָּה.
For there is no change of will with Hakadosh Baruch Hu; rather, everything is within the framework of causes and wondrous providence. And when adversity befalls a person, and he escapes from it through the salvation of Hakadosh Baruch Hu, this is by no means a change in His will. Rather, it is openly known to Hakadosh Baruch Hu that a person needs to encounter adversity and escape from it.
Everything that takes place in our world is part of Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s plan, except upon encountering difficulties, we do not see or grasp the full picture and find ourselves looking around mid-rotation wondering what’s going on. Everything is thought out though, its path pre-determined and calculated from beginning to end. Egypt was no exception. It was determined, by Hakadosh Baruch Hu, that Bnei Yisrael first needed to descend to Egypt and enter slavery in order to be readied for redemption and the Torah. The starting point of the sivuv was Brit Bein HaBetarim, and the end point was Yetziat Mitzrayim and delivery of the firstborn nation. It was the firstborn of Rachel who began that descent, as Yosef was the first to arrive in Egypt, and the rest of that descent until Yosef declared “Ani Yosef,” was performed with donkeys. Where do we find this? Parshat Mikeitz contains seven mentions of donkeys! The brothers travelled down on donkeys and returned on donkeys. They were fed along with their donkeys. They loaded and unloaded their donkeys. Their father sent donkeys as a gift. They feared being taken as slaves along with their donkeys. We read about donkey after donkey until the moment they disappear. That moment was Yosef’s revelation to his brothers, after which no further mention of donkeys is found. They turned into wagons. Yosef instructed that wagons be sent for his father’s journey, and וַיַּרְא אֶת הָעֲגָלוֹת – and Yaacov saw the wagons his son sent, and his spirit was revived. Four mentions of agalot without a single donkey in sight because the donkeys played a role only until Bnei Yisrael were in position, in Egypt, so that the firstborn nation can later emerge. This descent started with Yosef, who was sold down to Egypt for twenty kesef – five shekalim – and therefore, firstborns are redeemed for that same amount. Petter Chamor, the firstborn of a donkey, was given an elevated status of kedusha due to the donkey being a prime partner in that descent. The donkey became a prime partner in the exodus from Mitzrayim, with each member of Bnei Yisrael taking donkeys to carry the load of their reward. The Meshech Chochma says Petter Chamor serves as a commemoration of this entire sivuv, which needs to be seen and appreciated through a big-picture lens, beginning to end.
I’d like to relay something appearing in Torat HaKabbalah, but please do not ask me any questions on the subject – I am simply relaying the limited amount I know, in the simplistic language I can relay it in. [Ed. The limitations of this paper’s author may further impact the idea’s delivery.] The Arizal, together with the Ba’al HaTanya, says the head contains three elements of the Ten Sefirot (חב"ד): Chochmah – Wisdom; Binah – Understanding; and Da’at – Knowledge. The body is referred to as חג"ת נהי"ם – the remaining seven Sefirot. The neck, in between the two, is nothing on its own. It is only a conduit for the head to influence the body. That conduit consists of the קָנֶה and וֶשֶׁט – the windpipe and gullet (food pipe) – together with arteries for the transfer of blood. Yosef met three ministers in Egypt. In prison, he met the Sar HaMashkim and Sar HaOfim, representing the kaneh and veshet. And upon arriving in Egypt, he was sold to the Sar HaTabachim, who sat on his carotid artery. All three are found in the neck, the narrowest part of the body, and for that reason Egypt is called מִצְרַיִם, from the word מֵצַר – a narrow pass. The neck is called גָּרוֹן, and its numerical value is equal to three times א-להים, as each conduit in the neck reflects one of the Sefirot, the modes or attributes through which G‑d manifests Himself. Yosef was to influence all three ministers and spread Chochmah, Binah and Da’at throughout Egypt. But the back of the neck is called עֹרֶף – the same letters used to spell פַּרְעֹה. Why? Because he grabbed Yosef by the neck, not allowing for the shefa of Hakadosh Baruch Hu to reach the body. He did the same to Bnei Yisrael, holding us by the neck.
Go back now to what the Radbaz wrote on the Ra’avad, who was bothered by there being an alternative mitzvah to break the donkey’s neck when the original mitzvah was to redeem the donkey and never reach the point of requiring a fallback. The Radbaz wrote, whoever knows the secrets of the Torah does not ask such a question or raise such an objection. Pharoah was the back of the neck, the עֹרֶף, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu came to redeem His firstborn nation. Pharoah denied Him the ability, and the result was Hakadosh Baruch Hu giving him a blow to the עֹרֶף. Just as Pharoah was a chamor in not letting Bnei Yisrael out, that is precisely where the blow is delivered to kill the donkey as a fallback. And why are we commanded to redeem the firstborn of donkeys but not other impure animals? Rashi says, this applies solely to the donkey because the Egyptians are referred to as donkeys and Bnei Yisrael left Egypt with donkeys. But what is the significance of this גְּזֵרַת הַכָּתוּב (textual parallel)? The Egyptians are called many names, including horse, yet this mitzvah does not apply to firstborn colts! The difference between them is that the donkeys helped Bnei Yisrael, and thus, the Chatam Sofer says, in actuality we were supposed to break the neck of every firstborn donkey. That was the true mitzvah! It commemorates Pharoah, the chief donkey, choking us by the neck and not letting spirituality flow to our bodies. But because the donkeys were kind to Bnei Yisrael, an alternative was provided whereby the firstborn donkey is redeemed with a lamb before it goes on to live a regular life. In Torat HaSodot, the act of breaking the donkey’s neck comes first, not redeeming it for a lamb as the simple reading of the pasuk implies.
The first donkey was created at twilight on Erev Shabbat of Creation. This was the donkey of Bilaam, and Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer says, it was the mother of the donkey that served Avraham Avinu. After Avraham Avinu, Moshe Rabbeinu rode this same donkey to reach Egypt and redeem Bnei Yisrael. And the next in line to ride this donkey is Melech HaMashiach. Shemen Rosh asks how this donkey can live 5000 years and explains that the original donkey never ate from the fruit Chava served in Gan Eden and was never polluted by the snake’s venom. הֵן גָּאַלְתִּי אֶתְכֶם אַחֲרִית כְּרֵאשִׁית – the same way the original geula took place, so too the final geula will take place. In the same way Hakadosh Baruch Hu broke the necks of the Egyptians leading to the first geula, all those sitting in Khan Yunis, in Hezbollah territory, in Yemen and in Qatar will see their necks broken as the final geula begins, and we are redeemed by Mashiach Tzidkeinu.