KMTT - the Torah Podcast
KMTT - Parsha - 04 Vaera
-undefined-
Today's year in Pashat-Shahrua will be given by Harav Dhabit Silverberg. The year is 40 minutes long, and therefore after the year there will not be a Halaha Yomit today. Harav Dhabit Silverberg. The topic I would like to discuss with Pashat Pashat Vaihira is a topic which they really spend this entire narrative of the Tiasman's reign here in the beginning of Sefer Shmo's. It's really relevant to Pashat Shmo's as well, also Pashat Vaihira Vaihira Vaihira. And that is the issue of quote unquote "the hardening of Paro's heart." The fact that Akarash Barofu, as we read in several instances in this early section of Sefer Shmo's, Akarash Barofu, as it were, he hardened Paro's heart, he made it. That's what it sounds like to him. He made it. That Paro would be unable to change his mind and free binay Israel from slavery. We find this for the first time in last week's Pashat Pashat Shmo's. And when Akarash Barofu tells Moshe to go back to Metran from Midyan, and this is in Shmo's Paro Dhab, Pasak Haveliv, he says, "Vaniyah Hazekas Leibov, lo yu shalakas haam." Asim Thas Moshe, I will harden, strengthen, so to speak, Paro's heart, so that he won't send binay Israel. Then again in this week's Pashat, right before the beginning of the Essamakos, here too in Parak Zion, Pasak Gimmel, "Vaniyah Hazekas Leibov, Paro, Hashem says to Moshe, "Aniya Hazekas Leibov, I will harden Paro's heart, but here they see us also, Saavya's mophesai bearets mitzrayim. And there abi, in that way, says Hashem, "I will increase my miracles and wonders in Mitzrayim." What it sounds like is that Akrash Paro interfered with Paro's decision-making faculties, so to speak, he ensured that Paro would refuse to send binay Israel, and in that way he can continue punishing Paro and demonstrate with greater force, more convincingly, more dramatically, he can demonstrate his unlimited powers because you'll have to continue punishing Paro because Paro would not be doing true law, he would not be repenting because, of course, Paro is not letting him repent. We find this again several times throughout the story, beginning of Pashat's bow, Akrash Paro tells Moshek, "Boh, Paro, Kaniy, Hech, Badad, D.S., Leibov, is Leibov, Adov." This time you see he harden the heart, not only Paro, but also his servant's heart, and also the beginning of Pashat's Bishalath, Hashem tells Moshe that binay Israel should retreat, as they're leaving with tribe, they should retreat and head towards the sea. Vyomar Paro will think that they have been lost, that his Actias Leib Paro over Adafah Raheb, says Hashem, "I will strengthen our heart and Paro's heart, so that he will chase after binay Israel, and that way we'll have the whole incident of Kriyas Yamsul, and once again we cover up Paro over Fokhilo, because Rahe will be honored, he'll be glorified to the miracles that he will perform, when Paro chases after binay Israel." So of course the question that many, many, many in the fortune of disgust is how does this, how can we reconcile this interference of Akrash Barakul in Paro's decision-making? How do we reconcile that with the fundamental belief in Bukhirah Habshis? The Ramban, both in Shmona Prakhan, Para Fess, as well as in help of Shulu Para K discusses the importance of Bukhirah Habshis, the concept of Bukhirah Habshis, there is no such thing as a pre-determined Sadhic or Russia, and he refers to this fundamental doctrine in Para K of Akrash Chufa Hala Fagivol, vidavra say Ikar Gadalhu, it's a fundamental principle, the Hu'amud Hatha Raveh Hamid Spah, this is the very pillar upon which the entire Torah stands, and the Ramban goes on, he explains, he says, "There will be no such thing as Kava Onesh, it will be impossible to have such a thing as a reward for mitzvos and punishment, for Averos, if a person is not capable of personally deciding how he wants to conduct himself, if Akrash Barakul determines ahead of time how a person will act, then of course we cannot begin to talk about a person being meritorious, a person earning merits, a person deserving reward, or to the contrary of a person deserving punishment. And so it's very very strange how is it possible that Akrash Barakul forced Paro not to release Benai Yisrael and then come and punish him for that decision. So of course this is a very famous topic, it's been discussed by many of us from throughout the ages, we're not going to know obviously we can't touch upon all the imochoros relevant to this issue, but at least we'll discuss some of the some of the main ideas that have been written. The most famous approach, I think, the most famous and most common approach is that of the Rambam, he establishes the very famous principle again in those two places in Shmonaprakim, as well as in Hukos Chuvah. The al-Riju from Hukos Chuvah, it's in Parakwav, Hala Fagimah. The Efshar, Shihi Ghatar, Shihi Ghatar, Adam, Heit Gadol, Ochato Imrabiim. It is possible that a person will commit a particularly grave sin, Ochato Imrabiim are many sins, meaning he'll commit a sin that is so grave, or he'll commit so many sins, and he'll commit so many sins, and he'll commit so many sins. He'll be prepared to be prepared to be prepared to be prepared to be prepared to be prepared to be prepared. His sin will be so great, or his sins will be so numerous that the punishment that Akhra's Brakhul will decide upon is that he will be prevented from doing Chuvah, that he will be no longer given the opportunity to repent, that is the punishment for his faith. Vain Manikhan al-Rishus, La Shuvmi Risho, and he is not given the permission, the opportunity, the ability to repent. Kedayshi Amus, Viyovad bhikatoshayas says, so that he will be able, so that according to the strict judgment, he will be killed punished by Akhra's Brakhul and destroyed. The Rama brings several examples to this principle. One is a pastor from Sipi Isha'el Parigav, Hashemain Leif Amhazeeh, that Akhra's Brakhul tells Yishayahu that the the heart of this nation, referring of course to the name Israel, their heart is Shamain, it's shut, it's closed, it's impossible for them to ever return. Al-Ridya the pastor, it's Yishayahu Parigav, Hashemain Leif Amhazeeh, Viyovaznav, Viyovaznav, Vaidweinav, Hasha, this people's heart has been closed and their ears have been made heavy, their eyes have been dimmed, Peñerav, Viyovaznav, Yishmahod of Avoyah bin Vashavarapalau. Lest this nation see with their eyes, or they're here with their ears, or understand with their hearts, and then do Chuvah and be cured. The Rama obviously understands this passing as referring to the fact that Rishbarkhu is telling Yishayahu that he has intentionally prevented this nation, prevented the nation, throughout the time from doing Chuvah, because Rama closed up their faculties, lest they do Chuvah. The Rama brings this as a proof, or as at least one instance in Tana where we see this phenomenon at work. The Rama then brings a post circuit from the very end of Tanaq, the very end of Tanaq, the very end of the Rehiamen Bayes, by Yishmahod of Avoyah bin Vashavarapalau. The people were insulting the Naveem, and they were scrawning them, they were rejecting them, and to the point where Chuvah was so angry, other in my pay, so that there was no cure that was possible anymore, meaning there was no opportunity for Chuvah left. Kilomar, the Rama explains, Khatubirat Sonam, they sinned willfully, in her beautiful shower, and they committed so many avaros, Adishin is revealed in Nomehena Chuvah, she Yama pay, and told it was necessary to prevent them from doing Chuvah, Chuvah being referred to in this passage as Marpe. The phirak says the Rama kasuvba torah, it therefore says in Prashasva era, Vaaniya Khaziq is late Paro, Der Krsbrahu says that he will strengthen Paro's heart, he will harden Paro's heart. The phishak had taught me at Smotahila, because he initially sinned, the Haravi Israel, Hagarimbiarzo, and he did evil too, Benai Israel, who were living in his land, Chinamara, as the Pusik says, unless he's Prashas Prashas Mohs, Haban is Khakmalo, that's the Pusikran Paro of his own free will, devises this plan to subjugate and oppress Benai Israel. Now San Haden, it became the appropriate measure for Krsbrahu to take was Limnawahat Chuvami Manu, Aacheniframi Manu, to prevent him from doing Chuvah, to withhold from him the possibility of Chuvah until he, until so he can be punished. The phirak, Chizaka Krsbrahu as they bow, therefore Krsbrahu hardened his heart, so Rama now asks the obvious question, if that's Chuvah Krsbrahu prevented Paro from doing Chuvah, so why did he keep on sending Moshe to Paro to ask him to send Benai Israel, he knew ahead of time that Paro was not going to send Benai Israel, and only did he know ahead of time, he himself, Akash Prashav, who could be of homemade sugar, the Paro would not send Benai Israel. So Rama asks, "Pelama, Yosholeh philobian Mosheh, Yomasholeh, Yomasholeh, Yosheh, Chuvah, Yosholeh, Yosheh, Chuvah, Yosholeh. So why did he keep on sending Mosheh? So the answer is, [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH] A fascinating concept that the Rama says, "Hakashprahu kept on sending Mosheh, this entire routine that keeps on going throughout Paro's Vahira, throughout Paro's Vahira, as well as beginning of Paro's bow, was specifically for the purpose of informing us, informing everybody, informing the world of this principle, that it is possible for a sinner to sin to such an extent that he will no longer have the opportunity to do Chuvah." That is exactly the point that Akashprahu wants to bring out by constantly and repeatedly sending Mosheh to Paro, when Paro keeps on being confronted by Moshe, and the plagues keep on coming exactly as Mosheh predicts. And he still refuses, that is a clear demonstration, says the Rama of this very principle, that it is possible for a person to do Vahira to such an extent to the point where he no longer has the opportunity to do Chuvah. The Rama then goes ahead to bring other examples, he says, "The same applied to Cihon, Malefashbond, the Malefa Emori, that been Hubelei's well defeated. Before they entered Ertizra'el, the story is told in Paro's - excuse me, in Paro's hookah, so then again in Paro's Devarim, "The fiyyavonosha yudon is right of the monomina Chuvah, because he had committed so many grave of arrows, he deserved to lose the opportunity of Chuvah. Shani'amaah is the plastic says in Paro's Devarim, he says, "The Fiyyavonosha is right of his heart in Cihon's heart and he, as it were, drew Cihon, he lured Cihon to command and fight against Pina' Israel because of his arrows that he had done. The Hena Kina'anim and also the Kina'anim, Khrushbarovos, strengthened their hearts. He hardened the Kina'anim's hearts to make him fight against Pina' Israel, so that they could be destroyed. According to Samposki, he had the Kina'anim surrendered and accepted Pina' Israel's authority over Ertizra'el, then they would have been left to live. But Khrushbarovos, as the Rambam, strengthened their hearts, he made them continue to fight and resist Pina' Israel in order that he could punish them. Same idea, they've sent a such an extent, they became so corrupt that they lost the opportunity to do Chuvah. The Rambam brings yet another example from the period of Eliyahu Hanavi in Seifamalaka Malef. The Hena' Israel be male Eliyahu, the fish, the hirbulif showa, because they have sent a such an extent, this is under the reign of Hamilah Akhov, Akhov Hamilah, over the northern kingdom. When Alvarazar and the worship of Vahaw was rampant throughout the northern kingdom, Manameo Sanhamr ibn al-Shawa, Chuvah Khrushbarov, withheld Chuvah from those who continue to sin repeatedly. Shinamar, Eliyahu tells Akhoshbarov with Hara-Kramil and Seifamalaka Malef, the Hatha'a has, the Hatha'a has, he bows as the Boma-Karanis. You have turned their hearts the other way, what does that mean? Seifamalaka, the Rambam-Kalomar, Manateh, Meihan had Chuvah, you prevented from doing Chuvah. So these are numerous examples that the Rambam brings for his fundamental theory that it is possible for Akhoshbarov to deny a person in the fear of hardships, for Akhoshbarov to deny a person the opportunity to choose between right and wrong, between good and evil, and force him to do a virus, and when this is happening, when a person seems to such an extent that he no longer deserves the opportunity to do Chuvah, part of his punishment is that he can no longer do Chuvah so that he can deserve even the worst punishment afterwards. He brings numerous examples, he brings the Nwar from Yishayahu, he brings Paro, Sihlun, the Kananim, and Manateh's order in the time of Eliyahu with Meihar Simaka, and Yerasameh, on this Rambam, he brings another example from the beginning of Seifar Shmul Allef. The passage there says that Elihakohane, he spoke to his sons, Rafnio Penghas, and he tried to convince them to improve their behavior, and the person there says that they didn't listen to Shmul, they didn't listen to what their father had to say, and the person there says because Hashem wanted to kill them, this is the passage in Seifar Shmul Allef, Paroek Beit, Passuf, Passuf Khafay, says, "for though Yishmul would have called Avihamak, Yishafeh, Hashem, the Hamisam." They didn't listen to what Elihakohane had to say, because Akhash Breghal wanted to kill them. What does that mean? So there are some Fsas, it means like what the Rambam says, that they didn't listen to Akhash Breghal with help from the opportunity to do Chuvah because they had sinned so gravely to such an extent. So that is the Rambam Sheetah. It's interesting that I wouldn't call this a "Raya" for the Rambam Sheetah, but from Manacam Khashar in the front of Satora Shlimah, in Pashash Shmul, he says that the Kubian indication of what the Rambam is saying already in the Haggadah. In the Magid section, the heart of the Magid section is when we go through the Psukim from Mikro Bikurim, in Pashaski Savo, when the Psukim to the farmer would say, when he brings his first verse to Rishadayim, and there he goes to the story of Etsia's Metrayam, and in Haggadah, what we do is we quote the Drashos of Fazal on those Psukim, and for each phrase from the account of Etsia's Metrayam, there in Mikro Bikurim, for each phrase we bring the corresponding Psuk or phrase from the original account of Etsia's Metrayam in Pashas Shmul. So, for example, on the Psukim, in Pashaski Savo, via Rayo Sanuha Metrayam, which seems to mean the Egyptians mistreated us, they acted wrongly to us. Daggadah says, "Kamash in Aemar, what is the original source from Shmul's to that idea, to via Rayo Sanuha Metrayam?" So, they bring the Psuk from Pashas Shmul's, when Paro says to the Egyptians, "Havan is kakmodo pinyr bevayakhi sigrina mafamavana safga mhoaso nainou vinokambano." The Allahmin Haaretz. That Paro tells the Egyptians, "Look, we have to be careful from the day Israel, because they are reproducing so rapidly, and if a war breaks out here in Egypt, they might join our enemies, they're not loyal citizens, they might join our enemies and wage war against us." So, Daggadah brings that Psuk of Havan is kakmodo as a proof, or as the original source to the Psuk in Pashas Kisavo, via Rayo Sanuha Metrayam. I made many of them a freshman of Aemar. Daggadah are bothered, why Daggadah does this Psuk? Why specifically the Psuk of Havan is kakmodo? Why does that best describe the theme of via Rayo Sanuha Metrayam? Pashas Shmul's is full, but there are many Psukans that describe the injustices that Banay Israel suffered at the hands of the Egyptians. Why specifically this Psuk is best suited to demonstrate the kinds of the via Rayo Sanuha Metrayam? So, the most famous answer that many, many of the Prashan gave is that the Hagadah understood that via Rayo Sanuha Metrayam doesn't mean that the Egyptians acted wrongly to us, or they mistreated us. It means they made us bad, they viewed us as being bad. We were good, we were loyal, upright citizens of the country, but they made us into evil, they considered us evil, and therefore it makes perfect sense why they would choose the Psuk of Havan is kakmodo, that's the Psuk where Taro expresses his completely unfounded suspicions regarding Banay Israel's loyalty to the kingdom. Rufkasha suggests however that according to the Rambo, we can understand full well why this Psuk is chosen to demonstrate via Rayo Sanuha Metrayam, because if you look carefully at the Rambo, as I said, the Rambo says that Paro began sinning of his own free will, he sinned of his own volition at the beginning, and the Rambo too, of course, this Psuk of Havan is kakmodo, it was in that pussle when Paro committed the Avaira that was so grave, and it was over a long period of time that for that reason, after I was propped aside to withhold from him Chuvah, and therefore we miss deeds of the Egyptians, the crimes that they committed after that point, well, that was already a certain sense, he can't really blame them directly, because after all, Akhosh Rufkah prevented Paro from doing Chuvah at that point, but from that stage, the initial stage, when he tells his people, Havan is kakmodo, of Peinjibeh, Vayakkhus Raghunamah, etc, then initial stage, when he convenes a meeting and he says, okay, we have to subjugate Banay Israel, we have to oppress them, a really event, that is what, that is the crime that he committed, that is Vayrayo Sanuha Metrayam, that is the evil that was perpetrated against Pena Yisrael, for which Paro was punished, yeah, so if Anur of Fapshan and Haggadah is correct, but if it is, then already that's an early source for the Haggadah, excuse me, for the Rambam's shitha, the Abar Benel, in his parish here in Parshas Vayra, he has a discussion about this topic, and he quotes the Rambam, and he also mentions that the Rambam, here in Parshas Vayra, subscribes to the Rambam's theory, which he does, in slight variation, the Rambam says that the Rambam says that initially in the first few plagues, Paro hardened his own heart, he is a dying in the past of the test, it doesn't say Vayakkhus, shame in the first few plagues, so going to the Rambam, it wasn't, it was still, during the process of the S. Rambako's Paro was still in control, he still had the power to destroy Vanya refused, and was only later at the beginning of the final five plagues, when Haggadkhus brought her heart into his heart, according to the Rambam, it sounds like it was already initially, but either Vayra's in May, the Abar Benel quotes the Rambam's view when he disagrees, and he says, he says, "Who has these Zarvik Hashemi Oud?" he says, "This is, this is untenable." He says, he can't accept this. So, Rambam now says, he does not like this theory of the Rambam and Rambam, he says, "The Rambam says he does not like this theory of the Rambam and Rambam." He says, "Who are greater sinners than Akhav and Menasha?" He says, I'm sorry, it says from Alachim, that when Akhav, he heard Al-Yahu's prophecy of calamity that were before the family of Akhav, he subdued, he was subdued, Akhav said, he would delay the catastrophe, and also, Menasha, it says, when he was taken into captivity to Aram, who the Hitza al-Aqalas, Paine Hashem al-Aqav, by Yasha al-Aqal, they used to manage to do true for the Rambam himself, cancel them among those who have no credit to the Rambam. Says the Rambam, he doesn't like it. He doesn't like it. The Rambam himself points out that the Rambam addresses this question. He addresses the question of, on what basis do we know, why does One Rashad lose the opportunity to do true for while others show him don't. The Rambam deals with this question in Shmana Prakim, and the Rambam says, he quotes it with the Rambam now. He says, "The Rambam understood the problem with this view of the Khasab, and he wrote, "Shayim, let all the curve of the shawl, lemah, tima na habukhir al-Zevah, there is no point in inquiring why the Khir habshis would be taken away from one person and not another person. He motioned on the shawl, as she knew it to rose honey rose. Just like we won't start asking questions as to why Khasab has created some things in one shape and form and other objects in a different shape and form." He says that this is not worth anything for me. He says this is not an answer. He says it's clearly a difference. I believe that there's not much of a question against the Rambam, because once we accept the doctrine of Skarva Onesh, once we accept that there is a concept of reward and punishment, depending on our person acts, despite the fact that very often that is not manifest in the world. The problem of Sadhikvarado and Rashavatovlo has bothered the theologians of all faiths for a very long time. Once we believe that there could be a concept of Skarva Onesh, even though we can't really understand how Khasabarahu decides these things, then it stands to reason that we also don't understand how he chooses to punish a person. On what basis, he chooses to punish one person by withholding Truva from him and another person he did not punish the same way. I guess the Rambam felt that if the Rambam is making this into such a fundamental principle to the point that the whole purpose of Mosha's repeated demands of Baro was to tell the world of this important principle that it's possible for a person to lose the chance to do Truva. If that were true, then we should have more, we should have clearer an idea of how it works, specifically on what basis, how could Rashavatov decide on this, what kind of rate, what kind of Khattarim generate this response on the first purpose part and which don't. But again, I don't think much of a catch against the Rambam because again the Rambam could say the same thing as Phabhanesh. We believe in Phabhanesh as a fundamental principle and even though we don't understand how exactly it works. So too, this concept that Khattarish Baro will deny people the opportunity to do Truva, this is also something like a fundamental principle that we believe, even though we don't always see precisely how Khattarish Baroesh brings about this process. The last point I'd like to make regarding the Rambam's Shita is that this, whether or not we can say such a thing, whether it's possible to say that Khattarish Baro will punish somebody by denying him the opportunity to do Truva, it might depend on how one understands the nature of Truva itself. There are two ways, theoretically, that a person can perceive the idea of Truva, the idea that a person could commit a crime, he could commit a sin against God, he could commit a sin against God and deserve punishment and through Truva, he could earn forgiveness. And then why don't you can say that this is part of Khattarish Baroesh didn't be touched upon, this is part and parcel of the actual calculation, if Khattarish Baroesh has kiviyakol a formula or an algorithm, as it were, by which he decides whether a person will earn a reward and whether he'll be punished and if so, how much, to what extent, then what we might say is Truva is part of that computation, it's an integral part of the process. Khattarish Baroesh does not look only at the actual mass, same actual deeds themselves, but he also takes into account the degree, the extent of a person's to Truva. If you say that, then it would seem very difficult to accept the Ramam's position, it seems difficult to understand that Khattarish Baroesh would go against the actual rules that will change the entire method of computation and how he determines a person's worthiness, how he determines the Scrabhu Anish for giving an individual as a punishment. It's more likely that if you accept the Ramam's position, it's more likely that you would say that Truva works externally, works outside the system, so to speak. I saw this idea developed in a safer called Hammerli Olam by his name was Revanmihal, he was a great great nephew of the Volmagon. I got this safer from the Seifra Mateaf, the Franco edition of the Ramam, he discusses the Ramam Sheetah and to explain the Ramam, he discusses the mission in Prakayevos, that describes Truva as Kichrisp, if me, I'm a piranhas, it's like a shield in the face of catastrophe, in other words, Truva operates as a shield, what does that mean? So the Seifra Mateaf, the Olam explains that a shield does not defeat the enemy, a shield does not make the enemy go away, it doesn't take the enemy's weapons already, it doesn't reduce the threat, it just means that right now you're protected, you're protected from the effects of the enemy from his attacks. Similarly, he explains, Truva works in the same way, that it doesn't eliminate the Avera so much, but Avera gives you a shield, the way he explains it is a person appeals to Avera's prophet, Avera's attribute of compassion, and that protects him from the natural effects of his Avera and the ownership he deserves as a result. So Truva is like a shield, it's not part of the calculation itself, it's kind of into a part of the system, but it's outside the system, it grants a person outside protection from the results, from the effects of his Avera, and in that way we can understand a little bit more clearly why it is Akhosh Brakhul might deny a person the opportunity to do Truva if he doesn't deserve it, a person who has committed such a grave sin or he has sinned repeatedly over a period of time, then Akhosh Brakhul will deny that person access to the Midas Arachamid, he will not be able to make use of this truce, Akhosh Brakhul will deny him the opportunity to do Truva and in that way and that will be his punishment. There could be a different explanation as to why this is so, why it is Akhosh Brakhul denies a person the opportunity to do Truva, I was thinking it could be a necessary and inherent limitation within the very concept of Truva, and that is, Scarva Onesh works as a sort of a deterrent to ensure a person's compliance with the Mitzvos, we need the institution of Scarva Onesh. Now, if a person knows that Truva is always available, that there's always the option of Truva, if the option of Truva and its accessibility was unlimited, then that deterrent would be diminished. The primary function of Scarva Onesh as to ensure a person's compliance, it would be undermined to some to one extent or another, for person knows, after I can always do Truva at some point, and Truva is always an option, so that at a certain point, he is no longer deterred by the punishments that the Tarah warns about for committing sins, for violating the Tarah, so therefore it's necessary for there to be limitations on Truva, that Truva cannot always be an option, and for that reason perhaps, it's important, as the Ramam says, it's important for us to know that at a certain point, Akhosh Brakhul will deny a person the opportunity to do Truva. As you just mentioned, for those of you who prefer reading rather than listening, and I should have mentioned this maybe earlier, a lot of this discussion about the Ramam Sheita, I wrote it up, it's an article available online, for though my manani is heritage center, if you go to my manani's heritage.org, and look at the Torah portion section, and you read for Pasha Shmo's, you'll see our discussion regarding the Ramam's Sheita. Okay, so that's what I wanted to say about the Ramam. There are several other opinions on the issue of the hardening part as hard, but I'll briefly discuss with you now. One very interesting Sheita, which for one reason or another, doesn't receive the same, I guess, suppressed coverage, if you will, as the Ramam Sheita is that of Rashi. Rashi impreshes for Ira Parak-Zyan, Pasha Gimmel. Rashi says it follows me, "Hashi, Harshiya behitrisk, enaghi," because Para was evil, and he protested against me. "He opposed me," says Akhosh Brakhul, "we got Louis the Fonai, and I know it's revealed to me. I know ahead of time. She ain't nachas ruach but umos." La says, "Leaf shalem lusher." And I know that he will not ultimately do chuva. "Tov shiit ka shali bho the manhara bossbo o socai." It's better, it's preferable, that it's heartbeat-hardened, so that my miracles and wonders will be increased. The ta'kiro atem, as the vorasi, and that you will recognize my power. "The flame he does, so shalak rasprachul, may be Paranus ad humos, kdeshishimu yisravi rho." And that's what Akhosh Brakhul does. He brings calamity over the evil nations in order to get in a yisra'el, could see God's power, and they'll be afraid of him. It's the whole discussion, as to what exactly rashi means, the mafrashirim to discuss it. At risk of sounding arrogant, I would say that what rashi is saying is as follows. That, yes, Akhosh Brakhul, as the Ramam says, Akhosh Brakhul did take away Paraus bakrachul, he denied him the opportunity to do chuva. Why did he do that? It's not what the Ramam said, there was a punishment for being so bad. Generally speaking of Akhosh Brakhul will not punish a person for, will not punish a person in this way. And what did Para do? He didn't just do evil, he didn't just sit, but he trisked. He went out on a campaign to deny Akhosh Brakhul. When Moshe first confronted Paraus Paraus bakrachim, he made this into a campaign, "Me against God." There is no such thing as God, I deny him. Because he did that, and because Akhosh Brakhul knew in advance, that Paraus would not do complete chuva, therefore he would help for him. Generally speaking, the Ramam talked about this, also in Akhosh Shubha in Shwanaprakim, the fact that Akhosh Brakhul knows ahead of time whether a person will do good or evil, that has no bearing, that has no impact upon a person's bakrachumshis. That's the famous paradox of Bakir Adiyya. Leaving that aside, generally speaking, Akhosh Brakhul's advanced knowledge of how a person will decide has no bearing on his actual decision. But in this case, in this case, since Akhosh Brakhul knew that Paraus would not do chuva, and since Paraus made this into a campaign of a position to Akhosh Brakhul, therefore Akhosh Brakhul found it necessary to harden his heart, to prevent him from doing chuva in order that he could demonstrate his power and his might. Because Paraus came out so forcefully, denying God, it was necessary for God to, in the most demonstrative and dramatic way possible, show the world that he is God and that he is the ruler. And for that reason, Akhosh Brakhul hardened Paraus' heart. It wasn't like the Ramam said as a punishment. It wasn't that he punished Paraus by denying him the opportunity to do chuva, but rather because of what Paraus did, because of Paraus' public and vehemently denial of Akhosh Brakhul's power and his rule and dominion, it was necessary for Akhosh Brakhul to counteract those effects by showing as extremely as he possibly could. I shouldn't say as he possibly could, but the show in a very demonstrative and clear way that he is God and that he controlled the universe. Now, of course, he wouldn't have done that if he had known that Paraus had the capacity or had the willingness to do chuva because, "Go leave you, do all the fun I Rashi says." Because Akhosh Brakhul knew it advanced that Paraus would not do chuva, therefore, he would help him. He would have helped from him with the clear accomplishes. So, that is Rashi's shitha. The Seifar Haikari, I'm also discussing this issue with my my dollar, Para Pfei, and I'll mention his shitha very, very briefly. The Seifar Haikari says that when a sinner experiences punishment and when it's so clear that the punishments he suffers are a result from his katayim, then naturally, he will break under the pressure, under the pain, under the suffering of these punishments. In other words, what he is saying is that Akhosh Brakhul hardened Paraus's heart bidavka in order that to allow him to be the clear accomplishes. Had Akhosh Brakhul not hardened Paraus's heart, then he would not have had the clear accomplishes because the punishment would be so overbearing that Paraus would have no choice. He would almost be forced into complying into surrendering. So Akhosh Brakhul gave, he manipulated Paraus's mind, so to speak, he did it in such a way that Para would still have the ability to make this decision. He wouldn't be forced into surrendering. This is more or less what the Sverno writes. The Sverno says that if Paraus would have done Chuvah, just to rid himself of the of the Makos, the Sverno says, "Zos lohisa chuvaklau, that is not Chuvah". So therefore says the Sverno, Akhosh Brakhul made it, she saw mates of the Spoham Akhosh, and he manipulated Paraus's decision making faculties. But rather he made Paraus able to withstand the Makos. He gave Paraus the fortitude, the strain, to withstand the Akhosh's anguish and the suffering wrought by the Makos in order that he would still have the buchira, in order that he would still have the opportunity to choose between right or wrong. Without this process of Chuvah, if Paraus's heart had not been hardened in this way, then he would not have had buchira kabesha, so it would be natural, it would be instinctive that he would have to send Bena Yisrael, if nothing more than just to rid himself of this of this pain. But therefore, Khosh Brakhul gave him the ability he gave him the strength and accorded to withstand the Makos in order of bedavkut and preserve his buchira kabesha. So this view clearly disagrees with what we just saw from the Rambav and Rashi, that Akhosh Brakhul will at times deny a person buchira kabesha. According to this theory, no, that's not true at all. Akhosh Brakhul never takes away a person's buchira kabesha, and that's not what happened with Paraus. It wasn't the denial of buchira kabesha, but rather he was given the strength to withstand the Makos. This resembles another theory, the Abravanel, after he rejects the theory of the Rambam, he suggests a number of his own explanations, the third one being that the Hakbada's lay, the hardening of Paraus's heart, it wasn't some kind of emotional modification within Paraus's being. That's not what happened at all. Rather says about another fact that Akhosh Brakhul kept on accepting Paraus's promises and doing away with the Makos. Hakkosh Brakhul, every time Parau called Moshe and Aron and complained and said, "Okay, okay, I'm ready to give in." The fact that each time Akhosh Brakhul would then remove the Makah, that was the Hakbada's lay. That was the hardening of Paraus's heart, because that gave power and opportunity to claim that maybe it was just some natural occurrence. Maybe this is not the divine hand, maybe this is not Yat HaShem, maybe this is not divine power, it's just the fourth of nature, it's happenstance, and it won't happen again. So that was the hardening of Paraus's heart. Now the Abravanel does not tell us why Hakkosh Brakhul did that, but it could be that what he had in mind was this theory, this general theory of the Akharnim and the Sfarno, that Hakkosh Brakhul had to do that, otherwise that wouldn't be buchira. It wouldn't be buchira for him to Paraus to give in, once he saw the natural causes. If there was such a incontrovertible cause and effect relationship between his refusal to lepene Israel ago and the Makahus, then that would not be a buchira options for him to lepene Israel ago. So therefore, he made it look like, or he at least gave Para the opportunity, I should say, he gave Para a way of looking at the situation, whereby it was not a punishment for his crimes, and that was the Hakkosh Brakhul's way. That was the hardening of Paraus's heart, so that he would still have the opportunity to choose between good and evil. Those of you who want to see on the internet the VBM archives, the Roshishiva Raviakkul made down, he develops the similar theory regarding the nature of the hardening of Paraus's heart, saying it wasn't any manipulation of Paraus's decision-making faculties, but it was more the fat that Kosh Brakhul kept on listening to him. He focuses less on the fact that the Makah would end up more on motion Aron's diplomacy. Motion Aron, they just believed what he said, they didn't, there was no way of checking Paraus or threatening him. It was as soon as Paraus gave in, they said, okay, as soon as Paraus said, okay, I'll free the slaves, they said fine, and they got rid of the Makah, that was the hardening of Paraus's heart, and the reason for that, the reason why Hakkosh Brakhul worked that way presumably is, as the safari karim, and this farno said, in order that he would be able to have this bakira, because otherwise he would have just freed the bina Israel just to rid himself of the Makos. So just to review, we had the famous position of the rambam that Akkosh Brakhul will deny a person the opportunity to do chuva as a punishment if he continues to sin excessively or if he commits a particularly grave crime, that's the sheet of the rambam. The view of Rashi seems to be that because Paraus was much risk, Kenega Akkosh Brakhul, because he came out in such forceful opposition and denial of God's power, therefore knowing that Paraus wouldn't do chuva anyway Akkosh Brakhul denied him bakira Khafshis. And then finally, the theory of the safari karim and the sfarno, that kosh Brakhul really did not withhold Paraus bakira at all. Rather he gave Para the opportunity, he gave Para the ability, he designed the situation as such, that Paraus would have a way of looking at things, not as a punishment for his sins, for his crimes, but rather as a natural occurrence and that maintained his bakira, because otherwise it wouldn't be bakira Khafshis at all. You have been listening to Harav David Silverberg on Pashaat Tasharwa. That's it for today, tomorrow we will be back with the Air Shabbat program for Pashaat Vaira. This is Ezra Beck from Ishivat Harakshyan in Gushityan. Koltov, this was KMTT, Kimi Tzion, Tzeit Tora, Ujvara Shami Urushalain.