English translation — בא א

On the verse ¹

"Thus said the Lord, 'Around midnight I am going out into the midst of Egypt'",

Rashi brings two explanations of "around midnight":

1.

a)

"Its plain meaning, to settle it on its tracks" is,

that the translation of "around midnight" is "as the division of the night" — when the night divides,

which according to this explanation, "midnight" is not a noun of "half" — half the night,

rather it is a verb²

(and Rashi brings for this several examples).

b)

"And our Rabbis expounded<sup>3</sup>

like "as at midnight"<sup>4</sup>

of the night,

and they said that Moses said "as at midnight" which implies near it..

lest the astrologers of Pharaoh err and say 'Moses is a liar': "חצות" here is the "noun of half" — the middle of the night,

and that which Moses said "כַּחצות" — "near it",

and not "בַּחצות"

(exactly)

— is because he was concerned "lest they err etc. and say 'Moses is a liar'".

And afterwards Rashi concludes

(according to several versions<sup>5</sup>)

"but the Holy One, blessed be He, knows His times and moments, said 'at midnight'".

The Mizrachi learns

(and other commentators),

that the difficulty in the verse,

which Rashi comes to answer with the two explanations,

is — in the manner of the question in the Gemara<sup>6</sup>

— "Is there any doubt before Heaven?":

If one would say that "Chatzot" is "a noun of half",

then it would follow that the "kaf" of "keChatzot" is a "kaf of estimation" like the examples which he brings: keAseret haYamim⁷,

keEfah Se'orim⁸],

that is,

approximately,

about,

around the time of Chatzot.

Then it is,

that "the matter is doubtful"⁹

(one does not know the exact time when this will occur)

- and so one cannot say this regarding Above¹⁰.

Also this Rashi brings two explanations: a)

"keChatzot halailah" means "keChelek halailah" as in an action the "kaf" means "when": "keChatzot halailah" - "when the night is divided"¹¹,

<b>exactly</b> at midnight],

it follows,

that in this there was no doubt.

"keChatzot" means indeed "like keChatzot halailah ..

which implies near it",

and <b>Moshe</b> said thus "lest they err etc.",

but the Almighty indeed said "beChatzot" - the exact time.

b)

2.

One must, however, understand:

What is the necessity to say,

that when the kaf of "keChatzot" is a kaf hashi'ur, it is "it must be that the thing is <b>doubtful</b>"⁹?

- One could, after all, assume,

that he says "keChatzot"

(kaf hashi'ur)

not because of a doubt in the matter,

but because it will indeed occur "<b>close to</b> chatzot"¹²?

And in particular,

as the Levush asks: even when a person says in the language of "about" the measure,

it does not necessarily mean that it is for him a "doubtful thing"; it is only that "he did not care" to say the exact amount

(with specific numbers,

and therefore says near to a certain general number).

The simple reason why one cannot say so is¹³,

because it says further in the verse¹⁴

"And it was at midnight, and the Lord struck every firstborn, etc." - that the plague of the firstborn was exactly "at midnight",

and not "near midnight".

It is however not plausible to say that this is the proof of <b>Rashi here</b>—because if the entire proof of Rashi is from the <b>later</b> verse "And it was at midnight,"

Rashi would have needed to bring down the verse in his commentary here

that Rashi

(in his commentary on the Torah)

does not rely on a verse that the five-year-old has not yet learned]

And in particular, that earlier on the verse

(in the portion of Lech¹⁵)

"And he divided against them at night,"

brings

Rashi brings down

(from Midrash Aggadah¹⁶)

"that the night was divided ..

and its second half was guarded ..

for the midnight of Egypt",

that is,

that the "midnight of Egypt" is not necessarily connected specifically with the moment of midnight,

but with the "second half" in general¹⁷

Then Rashi certainly should have brought down here the verse "Vayehi bachatsi halaylah etc."

Since Rashi does not bring the verse,

and writes

(on the first explanation)

"This is its plain meaning to settle it on its course" — it implies,

that the "plain meaning" of <b>the verse </b>

(<b>in itself</b>)

compels to interpret "kechelek halaylah".

3.

Also one must understand:

a)

In what way is the first explanation of Rashi more "peshuto" than the second explanation

(which Rashi calls "derash")?

One cannot say,

that according to its simple meaning "in ḥatzot there is no word of half"

that "in ḥatzot there is no word of half" is a <b>giving of a reason</b> for "this is its simple meaning"]

- because the word "ḥatzot" appears twice in the verse¹⁸,

and in

<b>both</b> places "ḥatzot is a word of half"¹⁹

that with the phrase "this is its simple meaning ..

"that there is no 'chatzot' as a noun of 'half'" Rashi means: in order "to settle it in its proper way" according to &lt;b&gt;its simple meaning&lt;/b&gt;,

one must

(&lt;b&gt;renew&lt;/b&gt; and)

say "that there is no chatzot

(&lt;b&gt;in our case&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;)

a noun of 'half'"].

Now, since there where it says "chatzot" it is a "noun of 'half'" - why should one say,

that the "simple meaning" of "kechatzot" here is

(not a noun of 'half',

but)

"like the portion of the night"

(which has no [parallel] in Scripture),

and the interpretation that this means "close to chatzot" is only a matter of "derash"&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;?

that Moshe said "ka'chatzot" in order to prevent "lest they err etc." - this is, however,

at first glance,

irrelevant

(and concern)

that has a place also according to the simple explanation&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;].

b)

What does Rashi mean

(in the second explanation)

"lest they err etc. and say Moshe &lt;b&gt;is a liar&lt;/b&gt;" - why should Moshe assume the &lt;b&gt;concern&lt;/b&gt; of &lt;b&gt;lest&lt;/b&gt; with such certainty

(and consequently when all the firstborn

will die all at once

(according to the calculation of Pharaoh's astrologers)

"close to midnight" and not exactly at the moment of midnight,

they will say that "Moses is a liar"²³)

until changing the wording of the verse <b>at midnight</b> and saying <b>about midnight</b>?

c)

In the understanding of Rashi's commentary - "but the Holy One, blessed be He, knows His times and moments²⁴

said 'at midnight'" - it is not understood:

as discussed several times,

even when Rashi brings Chazal's midrashim,

he only copies <b>the</b> matters that settle the words of the verse and have a place in the plain sense - one must understand in our case: although the matter was taken from "our Rabbis"²⁵

- what is, however, the necessity in the plain sense to say that "the Holy One, blessed be He ..

said 'at midnight'",

and according to this one must say that Moses <b>changed</b> from the speech of the Holy One, blessed be He

(as commentators elaborate on this)

- one can indeed learn,

that also the Almighty said to Moses

(to announce to Pharaoh)

"<b>a</b>bout midnight",

due to that same reason itself: "lest they err etc."²⁶?

why does Rashi copy from the verse also the word "the night" - seemingly,

both explanations are only regarding the word "about midnight"

("like the half" or "like at midnight")?

d)

4.

This will be understood with an introduction of the precision in Rashi's language - "this is its simple meaning <b>to settle it on its tracks</b>",

for seemingly this is superfluous language; Rashi should have said in his language as everywhere in his commentary "this is its simple meaning,

and our Rabbis expounded etc.^<b>/"</b>.

But with this Rashi indicates,

that the difficulty in the words "around midnight"

(which he cites)

is

(not from the aspect of the explanation of the word "around midnight",

and even not because of the reason that it does not allow itself to be <b>translated</b> thus regarding Above,

but)

from the aspect of the <b>content</b> of the matter in the verse: the "simple meaning" must be such an explanation that settles the verse "on its tracks" - that the words "around midnight" should fit into the totality of the content of the matter in the verse.

The explanation in this:

Learning the verse "Thus said the Lord,

about midnight I will go out into the midst of Egypt" immediately a simple question arises: what is the practical difference to say that this

("I will go out")

will take place "about midnight"?

One cannot say,

that with this the Most High

(סתם)

wanted to inform Pharaoh of the <b>time</b> of the plague - because by most of the plagues the Most High did not determine the exact time when the plague would occur -

Even by "Dever,"

"Barad" and "Arbeh"²⁷

- by "Dever"²⁸

and "Arbeh"²⁹

the Most High had fixed the

&lt;b&gt;The day &lt;/b&gt;"tomorrow" and not the hour in the day&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

; and by "barad"

(where the Almighty said "&lt;b&gt;at this time &lt;/b&gt;tomorrow"&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;,

and according to Rashi's explanation: "at this very hour tomorrow,

he drew a line on the wall etc./")

- there is a special reason why this was necessary&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

-in order to ensure that the one who "fears the word of the L-rd"&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

should know the time in order to be able to save "his servants" and "his livestock" from the plague - unlike in our case.

but only that it would occur "at about midnight" - Pharaoh could therefore not know with &lt;b&gt;certainty &lt;/b&gt;the time of the plague&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

One must say,

that the intention in saying "at midnight" is not to announce the fixed time of the plague,

rather this is a special matter in the manner and quality of the plague: "at midnight" shows and emphasizes and reveals that "<b>I</b> will go out",

the <b>Almighty</b> Himself goes out and brings the plague

(in the manner that it is written

Earlier³⁵

"so that you will know that there is none like the L-rd our G-d").

This, however, requires explanation: in what does the special superiority consist in the time "around midnight of the night"?

(around midnight),

that this brings out the wonder of "I will go out"?

And on the contrary: after Pharaoh saw at the plague of hail that it came at the exact time,

at the moment that the One Above had said in advance: "At this time tomorrow ..

when the sun reaches here the hail will fall"

- would on the contrary weaken the "faith" in Moshe's saying that "I will go out" will take place "around midnight of the night"

(approximately,

close to midnight)?

5.

Therefore Rashi explains,

that "as midnight" means "&lt;b&gt;as the part &lt;/b&gt;of the night",

according to which explanation indeed the exactness of the specific time is brought out in the most precise manner

(even more than by "as tomorrow"³⁷)

The difference between the two ways of expressing the time of "half the night" - "midnight" or "as the part of the night" - is:

"Chatzot halailah" speaks about &lt;b&gt;time &lt;/b&gt;

(specific)

; "Kechetz halailah" - when the duration of the night &lt;b&gt;di‑ vides &lt;/b&gt;itself into two - describes

(not time,

but)

an action.

And with the addition that this ac‑ tion does not occur in a &lt;b&gt;continuum &lt;/b&gt;of time,

but in a &lt;b&gt;point &lt;/b&gt;of "time".

The point that divides the two halves of the night is not a &lt;b&gt;duration &lt;/b&gt;

(continuum)

of time that can be measured

(if it can be measured - it would also need to be divided - half to the first half of the night,

and the second half - to the second).

And this is the meaning of "&lt;b&gt;around midnight &lt;/b&gt;I will go out etc." - the Supreme One will "go out" precisely at the &lt;b&gt;point &lt;/b&gt;of "as the division of the night"&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

For He is "knower of its times and its moments."

6.

It is, however, not understood: Why does one say &lt;b&gt;around midnight &lt;/b&gt;which has &lt;b&gt;two &lt;/b&gt;meanings,

&lt;b&gt;And on the contrary&lt;/b&gt;: the simple meaning here must come to proofs

(and one is not enough)

and the proofs are not entirely similar to our case&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

for both speak about a starting point which afterwards had a continuation, a &lt;b&gt;duration &lt;/b&gt;of time

(out of a point),

but here it remained a point &lt;b&gt;literally &lt;/b&gt;as above - when he could have said &lt;b&gt;in the plainest sense &lt;/b&gt;at midnight with a &lt;b&gt;bet&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;

! - therefore Rashi must come to a second interpretation,

although it is not smooth according to the &lt;b&gt;simple meaning &lt;/b&gt;

(but not - the homiletical meaning)

that Moses began &lt;b&gt;thus &lt;/b&gt;said the Lord

(and it is directly changed instead of &lt;b&gt;at&lt;/b&gt;midnight -)

&lt;b&gt;around&lt;/b&gt;midnight.

But also according to the explanation of our Rabbis is - "The Holy One, blessed be He, knows its times and its moments

(and consequently, is there any doubt before Heaven?)

said <b>at midnight</b>",

and this emphasizes the

"<b>I </b>will go out" - in the land of Egypt,

after the millstones etc.

as above section 4 at length].

"Rabboseinu" also claims,

that when it came to conveying the words of Hashem to <b>Pharaoh</b>,

Moshe changed [it] due to the concern "lest they err etc."

(and certainly this itself was the will of Hashem⁴¹).

And for this reason this is only a matter of "derash",

because in the <b>plain meaning</b> of the verse it does not state about two <b>separate</b> utterances

said 'at midnight'",

and Moshe — "about midnight"],

this is only a matter of "derash".

7.

Moreover: seemingly there is a difficulty - what does the first explanation answer at all: since "like the division of the night" is a <b>point</b> in time,

which only the Most High can pinpoint,

and a person cannot discern it - then what will be accomplished by informing Pharaoh and his magicians and all Egypt about it,

when <b>he</b> and all of them will not be able to pinpoint it anyway - whether it occurred exactly at the point when the night is divided or not⁴².

- This is answered by Rashi's bringing

(lengthiness)

of the midrash

(reminding people about whom one had not spoken at all -)

- <b>I will not</b> [go in] to Pharaoh,

Not Pharaoh and his servants &lt;b&gt;etc.&lt;/b&gt;

- as explained

In the verse that Moses spoke to Pharaoh and the magicians who were at their speaking in order to demonstrate &lt;b&gt;with their enchantments&lt;/b&gt; at the time of the deed that they too can do it and also "all these your servants"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;,

The aforementioned that it does not come about through saying the point-in-time because one cannot intend the moment, this is regarding <b>Pharaoh and all Egypt</b>,

With <b>one exception</b>: <b>Pharaoh's astrologers</b> — seers of constellations and stars who see <b>in general</b> the truth⁴⁴

And Pharaoh reckoned with them and acted according to their instructions⁴⁵

And in general they discerned knowledge of the moment of God's action⁴⁶,

There was only the concern <b>lest they err</b>.

8.

And one must say,

Then with the phrase "But the Holy One, blessed be He, <b>knows its times and its moments</b> said at midnight",

Rashi intends to allude to his <b>previous</b> commentary:

On "And God finished on the seventh day"⁴⁷

Rashi brings down the statement of Rabbi Shimon "The Holy One, blessed be He, <b>who knows its times and its moments</b> entered into it <b>like a hair's breadth</b>".

The plain meaning of this is: a human being can be precise — at least with great effort — even in a moment; but also a moment has a measure — "one of five etc. moments as they say"⁴⁸,

to pronounce <b>three</b> letters.

But a "hair's breadth",

a hair,

means the smallest point of time that is

Generally not within the category of a human being to be able to distribute it and grasp it — even astrologers and Balaam⁴⁹

who can discern the <b>moment</b> of <b>the act of God</b>⁵⁰,

but specifically the One Above who knows "His <b>times</b> and moments" can discern it.

And this Rashi indicates in our portion by saying "but the Holy One, blessed be He, knows His times and moments, said 'at midnight'":

By "בחצות" is meant not simply the moment of חצות that even a human being can intend

(at least with great effort,

and in the language of the ראב"ע⁵¹

: "with great effort in large copper vessels"),

rather this is the "חוט השערה" of חצות⁵²,

which can be intended only by "הקב"ה

(Who is)

יודע עתיו ורגעיו".

(From talks of Parshat Bo and Parshat Yitro 1980)