Parshas Va’era
Va’ani aksheh es lev Paroh
The Torah tells us that Hashem hardens Paroh's heart so that Paroh would not free Bnei Yisroel and
send them away from Mitzrayim .Why did Hashem do this? The posuk writesi, “And I will increase the
signs and wonders in Eretz Mitzrayim.” Hashem wanted to bring more makos, more miraculous
punishments against the Mitzrim, and therefore he hardened Paroh's heart that he should not send away
Bnei Yisroel.
How should we understand this episode of the Torah? We know that bechira chafshis is a foundation of
Yahadus. Why would Hashem harden Paroh's heart? Superficially, it seems to us to be almost unfairii.
The Sfornoiii has a unique approach to this topic. The Sforno writes that Hashem did not take away
Paroh's bechira chofshis. Just the opposite, Hashem allowed Paroh to maintain and retain his bechira
chofshis. The Sforno writes that one of Hashem's goals in bringing the punishments and the miraculous
ten plagues was to bring the Mitzrim themselves to teshuvah. He quotes several pesukim along these
lines. For example, the Torah writesiv, “Ba'avur zos he'emad'ti'cha ba'avur har'oscha es kochi l'ma'an
saper sh'mi b'chol ha'aretz.”
‘On account of this, I have left you standing, in order to show you My power and so that My name may
be declared throughout the world.’
Hashem wanted the Mitzrim to talk about Hashem's greatness and recognize Hashem v. The Sforno
writes that Hashem wanted Paroh to do teshuvah and come back to recognize Hashem. Hashem wanted
Paroh to be “mitnachem mihiyos mored,” to change his mind from being rebellious and submit to
Hashem's authority in the world.
The makos were obviously very difficult for Paroh and the Mitzrim; they were basically unbearable.
Therefore, due to the pressure of the makos, Paroh would have naturally let Bnei Yisroel go. But, this
would not have been a sincere teshuvah; he would not have been letting us go due to his submission to
Hashem's authority. Rather, he would be letting them go due to the unbearable suffering of the makos,
and that is not what Hashem wanted. Hashem wanted Paroh to choose, using his bechira chofshis, to do
a teshuvah shleimah. The Sforno writes, therefore, that Hashem hardened Paroh's heart in order that he
would be able to withstand the pain and suffering of the makos, and then Paroh would maintain his
bechira chofshis and decide if he really wanted to submit to Hashem's authority.
Rav Copperman shli”ta explainsvi that Hashem ‘evened the scales.’ There was tremendous suffering
from the makos which would tilt Paroh in the direction of letting Bnei Yisroel go. And in order to
counterbalance the suffering, Hashem hardened Paroh's heart enough to endure the suffering and even
the scales. Hashem hardened Paroh's heart in order that Paroh should maintain his bechira chafshis.
This pshat is very different from the other meforshim on the chumash.vii
The Sforno, in his approach, emphasizes that Hashem wanted the Mitzrim to do teshuvah, and he
quotes the pesukim to this effect. We find here one the first examples of a major yesod of Torah
hashkafa. Ultimately, Hashem’s goal for the world is that everyone will recognize Hashem as the
Creator, and everyone will be mekabel ol malchus shamayim. The Ramban himself, in Parshas
Ha’azinuviii, discusses this point at some length. This is also one approach to the tefillah of ‘Aleinu.’
The first paragraph of Aleinu is focused on Bnei Yisrael’s own commitment to avodas Hashem, and
the second paragraph of Aleinu discusses our hope for the future that everyone will ultimately bow
before Hashem and accept Hashem’s sovereignty over the world. This idea, again, that we hope that the
whole world accepts Hashem’s sovereignty finds expression here in these pesukim which the Sforno
quotes. Jews have an obligation to be an ohr lagoyim. We have to act in an upright, moral fashion and
be a model for the non-Jewish world. When a Jew is in the workplace, he has to recognize that he is on
stage, and the way he acts there will either be mekadesh shem shamayim, or unfortunately, the
opposite. I once heard Rav Schachter shli”ta discuss this point. He mentioned he knows someone who
works in a company with mostly non-Jews, and they are careful not to use nivul peh when this person
is around. They would not use nivul peh, foul language, when this person is present. This person is
careful how he acts and careful how he speaks, and the goyim appreciate on their own that it would be
inappropriate to act or speak improperly around him. That is fabulous. That is a kiddush Hashem. That
is being an ohr lagoyim.
This yesod is one part of the Sforno’s unique approach to Hashem hardening Paroh's heart.
Good Shabbos,
B. Ginsburg
i
Shemos 7,3. See also 10,1-2.
This question is raised by the meforshim. The Ramban discusses it at some length, and Rashi has a comment as well. The
Sha'arei Aharon presents a summary of the various opinions.
ii
See the Sforno’s comments to Shemos 7,3 and 10,1.
Shemos 9,16.
v
Along with that goal, certainly another goal Hashem had was that Bnei Yisroel should see the makos and fear Hashem and
have greater emunah, etc…
vi
The language of Paroh being in a balanced state so that he can maintain his full bechira chofshis, is found in the Sforno
(7,3) footnote 10 in Rav Copperman’s comments. In general, one should be aware that Rav Copperman has published a
Sforno with footnotes and commentary, and it adds a tremendous amount to one’s understanding of the Sforno. The Sforno
with Rav Copperman’s comments is a different world. He compares one Sforno to another, he contrasts the Sforno to other
Rishonim, he adds his own insights to the Sforno’s comments, and one’s understanding of the Sforno is enhanced
immeasurably with Rav Copperman’s footnotes.
iii
iv
vii
I mentioned above the Ramban has a long discussion on this topic. The Ramban quotes two midrashim and presents two
explanations of Hashem hardening Paroah’s heart. In the Ramban’s second explanation, it seems he has one sentence which
sounds similar to the Sforno. This has led several meforshim to assume that the Ramban’s second pshat is like the Sforno.
Lichora this is incorrect. It is clear in the Ramban that according to both approaches of the Ramban, Paroh lost his bechira
chofshis. The Ramban presents two approaches as to what aveirah Paroh did that caused him to lose his bechira chofshis.
But it’s clear in the Ramban that Paroh lost his bechira chofshis. This is the opposite of the Sforno. It is explicit in the
Sforno that Paroh did not lose his bechira chofshis. So although the Ramban has that one sentence which parallels the
Sforno, the Ramban is not the approach of the Sforno. If you look in the Sha’arei Aharon, this becomes clear. Again, there
are many who link the Ramban’s second pshat to the Sforno, but it seems clear that this is incorrect.
viii
Devarim 32,26