Vaera: Must a Kal Vachomer Be Good?
Before getting to the main post, here’s some of what I’ve written already on this parasha. Back on parshablog, I have a roundup of about 47 of my posts on Va’era, up to 2015. Since then, here are three recent posts.
(1) Suggesting the bal yeraeh in the prohibition of chametz applies specifically to dough, taking bechol gevulecha as “in all your kneadings”. Indeed, I later turned this into a Jewish Link article, here:
(2) . Taking off on a Shadal explaining that Pharaoh the great Tanin was a crocodile in the Haftara, I point to Sobek. Pharaoh was supposed to be a living incarnation of Horus, falcon-headed, but eventually Horus was fused with Sobek, the crocodile god.
(3) In Do Tzfardea Defecate? I think I solve a problem posed by Rabbi Slifkin. Some rabbi mentioned that the plague of frogs were a middah keneged middah for Pharaoh assuming deity status by denying that he would defecate; frogs don’t defecate. My solution is that there is indeed a myth that crocodiles do not defecate.
Towards the start of the parasha, Moshe wonders how Pharaoh will listen to him, given that even the Hebrews did not. In Shemot 6:12:
וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר מֹשֶׁ֔ה לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָ֖ה לֵאמֹ֑ר הֵ֤ן בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֹֽא־שָׁמְע֣וּ אֵלַ֔י וְאֵיךְ֙ יִשְׁמָעֵ֣נִי פַרְעֹ֔ה וַאֲנִ֖י עֲרַ֥ל שְׂפָתָֽיִם׃ {פ}
And Moshe spoke before the Lord, saying, Behold, the children of Yisra᾽el have not hearkened to me; how then shall Par῾o hear me, who am of uncircumcised lips?
Rashi comments, channeling Bereshit Rabba:
ואיך ישמעני פרעה. זֶה אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה קַל וָחֹמֶר שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה (בראשית רבה צ"ב):
ואיך ישמעני פרעה HOW THAN SHALL PHARAOH HEAR ME? — This is one of the ten inferences from minor to major which are found in the Bible (Genesis Rabbah 92:7).
And here are the enumerated kal vachomers in Bereshit Rabba:
הֵן כֶּסֶף וגו' (בראשית מד, ח), תָּנֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל זֶה אֶחָד מֵעֲשָׂרָה קַלִּים וַחֲמוּרִין שֶׁכְּתוּבִים בַּתּוֹרָה, הֵן כֶּסֶף וגו' הֱשִׁיבֹנוּ אֵלֶיךָ, קַל וָחֹמֶר וְאֵיךְ נִגְנֹב. (שמות ו, יב): הֵן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֵלַי, וְקַל וָחֹמֶר (שמות ו, יב): וְאֵיךְ יִשְׁמָעֵנִי פַרְעֹה. (במדבר יב, יד): וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל משֶׁה וְאָבִיהָ יָרֹק יָרַק בְּפָנֶיהָ, קַל וָחֹמֶר לַשְּׁכִינָה אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר יוֹם. (דברים לא, כז): הֵן בְּעוֹדֶנִּי חַי עִמָּכֶם הַיּוֹם מַמְרִים הֱיִתֶם, קַל וָחֹמֶר (דברים לא, כז): וְאַף כִּי אַחֲרֵי מוֹתִי. (ירמיה יב, ה): כִּי אֶת רַגְלִים רַצְתָּה וַיַּלְאוּךָ, קַל וָחֹמֶר (ירמיה יב, ה): וְאֵיךְ תְּתַחֲרֶה אֶת הַסּוּסִים. (ירמיה יב, ה): וּבְאֶרֶץ שָׁלוֹם אַתָּה בוֹטֵחַ, וְקַל וָחֹמֶר (ירמיה יב, ה): וְאֵיךְ תַּעֲשֶׂה בִּגְאוֹן הַיַּרְדֵּן. (שמואל א כג, ג): הִנֵּה אֲנַחְנוּ פֹה בִּיהוּדָה יְרֵאִים, וְקַל וָחֹמֶר (שמואל א כג, ג): וְאַף כִּי נֵלֵךְ קְעִלָה. (משלי יא, לא): הֵן צַדִּיק בָּאָרֶץ יְשֻׁלָּם, קַל וָחֹמֶר (משלי יא, לא): וְאַף כִּי רָשָׁע וְחוֹטֵא, (אסתר ט, יב): וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה וגו', וְקַל וָחֹמֶר (אסתר ט, יב): בִּשְׁאָר מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ מֶה עָשׂוּ. (יחזקאל טו, ה): הִנֵּה בִּהְיוֹתוֹ תָמִים לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה לִמְלָאכָה, קַל וָחֹמֶר (יחזקאל טו, ה): אַף כִּי אֵשׁ אֲכָלַתְהוּ וַיֵּחָר.
“Behold, silver that we found in the opening of our sacks, we returned to you from the land of Canaan; how would we steal from the house of your lord silver or gold?” (Genesis 44:8).
“Behold, silver…” – Rabbi Yishmael taught: This is one of the ten a fortiori inferences that are written in the Torah: “Behold, silver…we returned to you,” all the more so, “how would we steal?” “Behold, the children of Israel did not heed me” (Exodus 6:12), and all the more so, “how will Pharaoh heed me?” (Exodus 6:12). “The Lord said to Moses: And if her father spit in her face, would she not be ashamed seven days?” (Numbers 12:14), all the more so, for [a rebuke from] the Divine Presence, [she should be ashamed] fourteen days. “Behold, while I am still alive with you today, you have been defiant” (Deuteronomy 31:27), all the more so, “so too, after my death” (Deuteronomy 31:27). “For you ran against those on foot and they exhausted you” (Jeremiah 12:5), all the more so, “how will you compete with horses?” (Jeremiah 12:5). “In a land of peace where you are secure” (Jeremiah 12:5), [you are overcome], all the more so, “how will you fare in the thickets of the Jordan?” (Jeremiah 12:5). “Behold, here in Judah we are afraid” (I Samuel 23:3), “all the more so, if we go to Ke'ila” (I Samuel 23:3). “Behold, restitution will be made to the righteous on earth, all the more so the wicked and the sinner” (Proverbs 11:31). “The king said to Queen Esther: In Shushan the citadel [the Jews have killed and eliminated five hundred men]” (Esther 9:12), all the more so, “what must they have done in the rest of the king’s provinces?” (Esther 9:12). “Behold, when it was whole it could not be used for labor, all the more so when fire has consumed it and it is charred” (Ezekiel 15:5).
Various other commentators take issue with this being a legitimate kal vachomer, for isn’t there an obvious pircha, refutation. Namely, two pesukim earlier, Shemot 6:10, we learned why the Hebrews did not listen to Moshe:
וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר מֹשֶׁ֛ה כֵּ֖ן אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְלֹ֤א שָֽׁמְעוּ֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה מִקֹּ֣צֶר ר֔וּחַ וּמֵעֲבֹדָ֖ה קָשָֽׁה׃ {פ}
And Moshe spoke so to the children of Yisra᾽el: but they hearkened not to Moshe for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage.
Pharaoh would not have the same anguish of spirit.
For instance, the Baal HaTurim asks this:
and answers (a) if the Bnei Yisrael didn’t listen and didn’t want to go from the fear that Pharaoh would increase the burdens more upon them, all the more so that Pharaoh wouldn’t listen to send them out. (b) Once Pharaoh saw that the Bnei Yisrael didn’t listen to Moshe, all the more so that he himself wouldn’t listen.
Chizkuni is a Biblical commentator and aggregator of commentary, but also an early supercommentator of Rashi, so his comments should be understood as reacting to Rashi. He writes:
My translation:
“Behold, the Bnei Yisrael won’t listen to me” (Shemot 6:12) — Moshe didn’t sense that it was because of the shortness of spirit that they didn’t listen to him. And therefore he said “Behold, the Bnei Yisrael won’t listen to me”; therefore it is stated “and He commanded him upon the Bnei Yisrael”, to explain that this was because of the shortness of spirit. And that is why Moshe responded to Hashem in the second parasha (the repetition in Shemot 6:30) that Hashem had not responded about “for I am of uncircumcised lips”, until He said to him (next verse, Shemot 7:1) “and Aharon your brother will be your prophet.”
This is IMHO great. Because the impact is that Moshe made his kal vachomer from limited knowledge. Hashem knows all, but Moshe is human and does not know everything at all times.
And, at the time Moshe made the kal vachomer, it was logically sound. And therefore, it stands as a legitimate precedent for kal vachomer made by Chazal as derashot.
Note that Eliyahu Munk leaves this Chizkuni comment untranslated, thus effectively or deliberately censoring it. If I had to speculate why he would do this, it is because of discomfort with the idea that pesukim (or kal vachomers) will state things that are factually inaccurate, as a result of the limited perspective of the Biblical characters. That’s an idea we see in e.g. Ibn Caspi, but it isn’t so frum.
Separate from Chizkuni, I wonder whether any of these 10 have to be logically sound. It is a fun intellectual exercise to discover pirchot, undermining aspects, to a kal vachomer. But, where Rabbi Yishmael had the hermeneutical principle of kal vachomer, and wants to point to Biblical precedent, does he really have to say that every kal vachomer made by a Biblical character is unassailable? Maybe all he needs is the rough idea of a kal vachomer, that even within the Biblical text, people found a fortiori arguments to be compelling, so that a Biblical author could expect his readers to draw such inferences.
By the way, speaking of Eliyahu Munk and censorship, here is an example of where we should not blame him for censorship in Chizkuni. Looking at the start of perek 7 in Va’era in Sefaria:
We see that comments on 7:1 and 7:2 are not translated. But they are also, strangely, in square brackets. Looking at one of the printed Chizkunis, we see it actually starts on 7:3.
So these bracketed comments are from some variant text. Presumably Eliyahu Munk never saw that text, and indeed, he never translates one of these bracketed Chizkuni comments. That is legitimate.