A Little Fear is Good

And Paroh summoned Moshe and said:  Go forth and serve Hashem. However, your flocks and your cattle leave behind.  Also, your children shall go forth with you. (Sefer Shemot 10:24)

Paroh’s response to the plague of darkness

Parshat Bo details the final three plagues.  At its conclusion Bnai Yisrael leave Egypt.  The above passage describes Paroh’s response to the plague of darkness.  He summons Moshe and tells him that Bnai Yisrael may travel to the wilderness to serve Hashem.  Paroh’s acquiescence to Moshe’s demand is odd in two respects.  First, Paroh agreed to release Bnai Yisrael after the plague of darkness ended.  Second, he set limitations upon his agreement.  He allowed the people to travel into the wilderness but demanded they leave their flocks and cattle in Egypt.  Let us consider more carefully each of these anomalies.

Three previous times Paroh agreed to release the Jewish people.  Paroh first agreed in response to the plague of frogs.  He again agreed during the plague of wild beasts.  The plague of hail also induced him to agree.  In each instance, he released the Jewish people in order to gain relief from the plague. Once the plague ended, Paroh immediately retracted.  The plague of darkness was unique.  Paroh did not summon Moshe during the plague.  Only after the darkness had lifted, Paroh summoned Moshe and agreed to send forth Bnai Yisrael.

 

One did not see his brother and one did not arise from his place for three days.  And for all the Children of Israel, there was light in their place of dwelling.  (Sefer Shemot 10:23)

Moshe could not be summoned during the plague

Why did Paroh not summon Moshe during the plague?  The above passage provides an explanation.  During the plague of darkness, each Egyptian was totally isolated from all others.  He was restricted to a solidary existence.  He could not move from his place.  Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra explains that the darkness was not simply an absence of light.  It was not caused by some phenomenon that blocked the sun’s light.  The darkness was tangible.  It was a thick cloud.  No natural or artificial light penetrated it.[1]  Consequently, during the plague it was not possible for Paroh to communicate.  He could not summon Moshe.  Only after the darkness lifted was it possible for Paroh to seek him.[2]

 

And Paroh summoned Moshe and Aharon.  And he said: Beseech Hashem and remove the frogs from me and from my nation.  I will send forth the nation and they will offer sacrifices to Hashem.  (Sefer Shemot 8:4)

Paroh requires a guarantee that the Jews return

The above passage describes Paroh’s response to the plague of frogs.  Paroh summoned Moshe and Aharon.  He petitioned them to pray to Hashem that the plague end.  In return, he promised to send the Jewish people into the wilderness so they may offer sacrifices to Hashem.  Paroh did not qualify his commitment.  He did not demand that Bnai Yisrael leave behind their cattle and flocks.  In response to the plagues of wild beasts and hail Paroh made the same unqualified commitment.  Why in response to the plague of darkness, did Paroh qualify his agreement to Moshe’s demands. He allowed the nation to leave but insisted that the cattle and flocks be left behind as a guarantee of the nation’s return.  In order to fully explain this behavior, let us consider an interesting problem in the comments of Nachmanides – Ramban.

 

And I will make Paroh’s heat hard. I will multiply My signs and wonders in the Land of Egypt.  (Sefer Shemot 7:3) 

Hashem granted Paroh freewill

Hashem reveals to Moshe that He will harden Paroh’s heart. Ramban raises an important and well-known question.  How can Paroh be punished for refusing to release the Jewish people?  Hashem hardened his heart.  He prevented Paroh from acquiescing to Moshe’s demand.  His intransigence was a result of Hashem’s interference with his freewill.

Ramban offers two responses.  We will focus on one of these.  He explains that Hashem did not interfere with Paroh’s decision making.  He hardened his heart; He gave Paroh the capacity to endure the suffering and terror inflicted by the plagues.  By giving him the capacity to endure, Hashem preserved Paroh’s freewill.  Fear and pain would not debilitate Paroh, forcing him to give-in to Moshe’s demands.  His decision to send forth Bnai Yisrael or to continue their bondage would be made based upon Paroh’s assessment of the meaning of the plagues.[3]

 

And they will fill your house, the houses of all your servants, and all the houses of Egypt – to an extent not seen by your fathers and grandfathers from the time they were upon the land until this day.  And he turned and went out from Paroh.  (Sefer Shemot 10:6)

Moshe uses fear to persuade Paroh

In this passage Moshe describes the coming plague of locusts.  The locusts will consume all remaining crops in Egypt.  They will fill the land and infest the people’s homes.  After delivering his warning Moshe turns and leaves Paroh.  Why did Moshe not provide Paroh an opportunity to respond to this warning?  Why did he immediately leave?

Ramban addresses this problem.  The previous plague of hail had destroyed much of the crops in Egypt.  The plague of locusts would destroy the remaining foodstuffs.  Moshe knew that the plague of hail had instilled fear in the Egyptians.  This fear would be intensified by his description of the coming plague of locusts.  Moshe wanted to provide time for Paroh and his ministers to fully consider their response.  He hoped that their fear would break their resistance to releasing Bnai Yisrael.[4]

A contradiction in Ramban’s comments

In these comments Ramban is identifying Moshe’s motive for departing from Paroh immediately after warning him about the coming plague.  He explains that Moshe wanted to prevent Paroh from responding immediately.  He wanted to create an opportunity for Paroh’s and his ministers’ fears to assert their influence.  He hoped that fear would contribute to securing the release of Bnai Yisrael.  This explanation of Moshe’s motive seems to contradict Ramban’s comments earlier.  In those comments, he explained that Hashem hardened Paroh’s heart so that he would not release Bnai Yisrael as merely a reaction to fear.  In other words, Hashem wanted Paroh to resist or accede to Moshe’s demand based upon assessment of the message of the plagues.  Moshe seems to be content to secure Paroh’s submission as a reaction to fear.  How did Moshe pursue a strategy that contradicted Hashem’s wishes?

Positive and negative fear

A comment of Maimonides – Rambam – will help us resolve this question.

Anyone who does not mourn as commanded by the Sages is cold-hearted. Rather, one should be fearful, evaluate one’s actions, and repent.  When a member of the community dies the entire community should be troubled.  The full first three days one should imagine that a sword is placed upon his shoulder.  From the third day through the seventh, (he should imagine it) resting in a corner.  From that point forward, (he should imagine it) approaching him in the market.  All of this is in order that one prepare oneself to repent and awaken from one’s slumber…[5]

Rambam explains that when one encounters the death of a member of the community, one should be reminded of one’s own mortality.  Recognition of mortality should awaken fear and inspire repentance.  In other words, a person who is acutely aware of mortality makes different choices than one who ignores the finitude of life.  For example, slights received from others become less significant.  The pursuit of material possessions and passing pleasures becomes less compelling.  One recognizes the insignificance of these slights and the meaningless of many material passions.

Rambam is explaining that fear of death – recognition of its reality – has a positive impact.   It brings clarity to one’s prioritization of pursuits.  In other words, some fears actually facilitate a clearer assessment of reality.

Fear can also be debilitating.  Intense fear does not facilitate the deliberations described by Rambam.  Extreme fear evokes a fierce need to remove the source of the fear by any means.  This is not a deliberation; it is a deeply instinctive response.

Moshe’s use of positive fear

Now, Ramban’s comments can be reconciled.  Hashem hardened Paroh’s heart.  He provided Paroh the capacity to endure the plagues and not succumb to intense fear.  Response to such fear does not involve deliberation and consideration of the message of the plagues.  The response is an instinctual act of flight from the source of the fear, not an exercise of freewill.  In contrast, Moshe provided Paroh and his ministers time to consider the plague of hail and the coming plague of locusts.  He hoped that they would be influenced by the fear that brings clarity and a more objective perspective.  This fear would overcome pride and stubbornness, replacing these petty motivations with an objective appraisal of the consequences of the starvation that would result from refusing to release Bnai Yisrael.

Paroh’s conflict

We can now understand Paroh’s response to the plague of darkness. This response was different from Paroh’s responses to the other plagues in two respects.  First, he was responding after the plague passed.  He was not reacting to intense fear and acceding to any demand in order to end his terror.  This was a more carefully considered response.  It reflected two conflicting considerations vying for Paroh’s attention.  He recognized that the plagues communicated a message.  They evidenced Hashem’s omnipotence and His relationship with Bnai Yisrael.  Competing with this consideration was Paroh’s resistance to allowing Bnai Yisrael their freedom.  The consequence of these competing considerations was Paroh’s compromise.  The people could travel into the wilderness to serve Hashem.  They must leave behind their possessions – assuring their return.

Moshe’s unique wisdom

There are not many other narratives in the Torah that demonstrate Moshe’s wisdom. This discussion provides an unusual insight into this wisdom.  Moshe decided to grant Paroh time to consider his warning about the coming plague of locusts.  This was not in response to instructions given to him by Hashem.  He determined this to be the best course of action.  He decided to use fear to motivate Paroh.  He understood that Hashem did not want Paroh to release Bnai Yisrael merely in response to fear.  Moshe made the distinction between debilitating fear and fear that brings clarity and perspective.  He implemented his plan based upon this distinction and was confident that he acted in accordance with Hashem’s wishes.

The extent of Moshe’s wisdom is beyond our imagination.  He thoroughly understood Hashem’s message.  This understanding was so profound that he had the justified confidence to make a decision that – on its surface – contradicted Hashem’s intentions.  However, guided by his thorough understanding of Hashem’s message, he implemented a strategy to assist Paroh in making the proper decision.

____________________________

[1] Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Extended Commentary on Sefer Shemot 10:21-23.

[2] Rabbaynu Avraham ibn Ezra, Extended Commentary on Sefer Shemot 10:23.

[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 7:3

[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 10:6

[5] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Avel 13:12.