וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְֳדוד אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה בֹּ֖א אֶל־פַּרְעֹ֑ה כִּֽי־אֲנִ֞י הִכְבַּ֤דְתִּי אֶת־לִבּוֹ֙ וְאֶת־לֵ֣ב עֲבָדָ֔יו לְמַ֗עַן שִׁתִ֛י אֹתֹתַ֥י אֵ֖לֶּה בְּקִרְבּֽוֹ׃ ולְמַ֡עַן תְּסַפֵּר֩ בְּאָזְנֵ֨י בִנְךָ֜ וּבֶן־בִּנְךָ֗ אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁ֤ר הִתְעַלַּ֙לְתִּי֙ בְּמִצְרַ֔יִם וְאֶת־אֹתֹתַ֖י אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֣מְתִּי בָ֑ם וִֽידַעְתֶּ֖ם כִּי־אֲנִ֥י יְֳדוד:וַיָּבֹ֨א מֹשֶׁ֣ה וְאַהֲרֹן֮ אֶל־פַּרְעֹה֒ וַיֹּאמְר֣וּ אֵלָ֗יו כֹּֽה־אָמַ֤ר יְֳדוד֙ אֱלֹקי הָֽעִבְרִ֔ים עַד־מָתַ֣י מֵאַ֔נְתָּ לֵעָנֹ֖ת מִפָּנָ֑י שַׁלַּ֥ח עַמִּ֖י וְיַֽעַבְדֻֽנִי׃ כִּ֛י אִם־מָאֵ֥ן אַתָּ֖ה לְשַׁלֵּ֣חַ אֶת־עַמִּ֑י הִנְנִ֨י מֵבִ֥יא מָחָ֛ר אַרְבֶּ֖ה בִּגְבֻלֶֽךָ׃
“And Hashem said to Moshe, ‘Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants in order to put My signs in his midst. And in order that you will relate in the ears of your sons and your son’s sons how I made fools of the Egyptians and the signs I put in them. And you will realize that I am Hashem.’ And Moshe and Aharon came before Pharaoh and they said to him, “This is what Hashem the God of the Ivrim said, ‘Until when will you refuse to humble yourself before Me. Send out My people and they will serve Me. For if you refuse to send out my people, I will bring locusts in your boundaries.’”” (Shemos 10:1)
Upon examining the pesukim, it becomes evident that in the initial pasuk, where the Torah recounts Hashem instructing Moshe to approach Pharaoh, there is no explicit mention of the impending plague. Yet, when Moshe and Aharon stood before Pharaoh, they explicitly warned him of the plague of locusts. This raises a question: How did Moshe have this knowledge? The midrash explains that although the Torah does not directly state the nature of the plague, there is an implicit hint: the phrase, “in order that you will relate to your children and grandchildren,” is a phrase that also appears in Tanach, specifically in the context of a plague of locusts during the time of Yoel. This parallel suggests a hidden link, revealing that Hashem actually specified to Moshe that the next plague would be locusts but it was only written in a veiled manner.
Zera Shimshon raises two questions: Firstly, why only regarding locusts were the instructions to Moshe not written openly?
Secondly, the Torah specifies that the purpose of this particular makkah is “in order to relate it in the ears of your children.” This specification prompts the question: Why is this stated only in the context of the locusts? Seemingly, the objective of all the makkos was to narrate to future generations how Hashem exacted punishment on the Mitzriyim for what they did to Bnei Yisroel.
A third question is why in pasuk 10, after Hashem struck Mitzrayim with the locusts and Pharaoh agreed that Bnei Yisroel can leave to make their sacrifice, Pharaoh said, “ … realize that evil is opposite you.” Why only after this makkah did Pharaoh try to frighten Moshe by saying that something bad is going to happen?
Zera Shimshon answers these three questions in light of another midrash.
On the pasuk (10:4), “ … for if you refuse to send out my people I will bring locusts in your boundaries.” The midrash explains, “in your boundaries and not in the boundaries of the rest of the descendants of Cham … ” From this midrash, we learn a way to establish the exact territory and borders of Mitzrayim; wherever there was locusts—was Mitzrayim. In a place where there were no locusts, it was not Mitzrayim.
Zera Shimshon explains that there is a very unique aspect to the plague of locusts—different from the other makkos. In previous makkos, such as when Mitzriyim’s water turned to blood, Bnei Yisroel remained unaffected; their water stayed pure. This pattern was consistent across the makkos, where the afflictions did not extend to areas inhabited by Bnei Yisroel. Even if a member of Bnei Yisroel resided deep within Mitzrayim, their vicinity remained untouched by the makkos—thus not clearly establishing the borders of Mitzrayim.
However, the makkah of locusts deviated from this pattern. Since certain types of locusts are kosher, Bnei Yisroel could derive benefit from them. Consequently, Hashem did not exclude the areas where Bnei Yisroel lived from the plague of locusts. While the density of locusts in Jewish neighborhoods and homes was much lower than in other parts of Mitzrayim, these areas were not entirely free of locusts. This presence—whether abundant or sparse—signified that the area was part of Mitzrayim. Therefore—unlike the other makkos—the plague of locusts uniquely delineated the boundaries of Mitzrayim, as wherever locusts were found—be it in large or small numbers—was within Mitzrayim, and areas devoid of locusts were outside of Mitzrayim.
Pharaoh failed to differentiate between a large infestation and a minor presence of locusts. This lack of discernment led him to a flawed conclusion: since locusts also appeared near Bnei Yisroel—albeit in much smaller numbers—he interpreted it as a sign that Bnei Yisroel, too, deserved punishment.
This mirrors a common error in human judgment, where we often struggle to distinguish between the magnitude of different events or actions. For example, a minor mistake made by a spouse might be blown out of proportion, transforming a small oversight into a major issue. One late meal or one forgotten birthday can turn into, “the meals are never on time,” or “they never care about me. Similarly, upon failing a test from Hashem, an individual might consider themselves to be a complete rasha—firmly believing that they are beyond the scope of teshuva—and not simply seeing it as a solitary, isolated and one-off event. (See Sefer Chafetz Chaim Hilchos, Lashon Hara Clal 4:4) In both cases, the inability to recognize the difference between “a lot” and “a little” can lead to exaggerated reactions and misguided decisions.
Based on this understanding, Zera Shimshon explains that just as Pharaoh didn’t recognize the difference between being infested with locusts and few locusts, so too, might Bnei Yisroel misinterpret their situation and feel that Hashem was also punishing them—leading them to conclude that they are not eligible for redemption or having negative feelings towards Hashem. Thus, the commandment for this plague was written in an indirect manner, cloaked in the words, “You will relate in the ears of your sons and your son’s sons,” as if there was no plague.
Zera Shimshon continues that this also answers why Pharaoh cautioned Moshe, saying, “… realize that danger is looming.” This warning wasn’t just an exaggerated alarm; Pharaoh genuinely thought (perhaps honestly or maybe as a subconscious desire to keep them as slaves in Mitzrayim) that Bnei Yisroel—like himself—were undergoing punishment for their sins. Consequently, he suggested Moshe reevaluate his plans for taking Bnei Yisroel from Mitzrayim to the desert.
This insight also answers the second question: Why—in the narrative of the makkah of locusts—the Torah specifically states, “And in order that you will relate in the ears of your sons and your son’s sons how I made fools of the Egyptians?” It was the only makkah directly observed by Bnei Yisroel (without suffering from it), thus, it was especially relevant for them to “relate in the ears of your sons and your son’s sons how I made fools of the Egyptians.”
The tendency to draw flawed conclusions, reminiscent of Pharaoh’s error due to poor judgment and ignoring clear and blatant contrasts—like mistaking a few locusts for a swarm—remains very pertinent in our times. Today, people often express their viewpoints with persuasive catchy phrases, cunningly chosen words and skillfully crafted language that initially seem credible and convincing. However, when one really thinks about what is being said, the actual content—its validity and the evidence provided—it becomes clear that these arguments are without foundation and lack substance. They can be recognized as illogical, even by younger individuals.
Diligent consideration and unwavering commitment to Torah values are crucial to avoid being misled by such convincing and polished rhetoric with seemingly robust “facts and figures.” This cautionary advice is not new; the Chovos Halevavos—almost one thousand years ago—warns that the yetzer hara doesn’t just lead one astray, but uses “deceptive proofs with false bases, resulting in conclusions that do not hold up to logical scrutiny (adapted from parshas Bo, derush 1).”
This week’s dvar Torah is being sponsored as a merit for the refuah shelaima of Yosef Yehuda ben Tzafra. In the merit of learning Zera Shimshon, Hashem should send him very soon a refuah shelaima and Hashem should answer all his prayers and the tefillos of the sponsor.
