What did Pharaoh mean when he said, "Havah Nischakemah Lo!"?
Rashi #1, Rashbam, Seforno, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: He was referring to outsmarting Yisrael. 1
Rashi #2: He meant that they should outsmart the Savior of Yisrael (Hashem, Kevayachol), 2 by drowning 3 Yisrael's newborn babies, since He had sworn that He would never again bring a flood upon the world. 4
Ramban: He meant that they should search for ways and means to kill them, in a way that they would not realize what was happening. 5
Oznayim la'Torah: By stopping them from increasing without sending them back to Kena'an on the one hand, and without killing them on the other - with the intention of retaining them as slaves. See Oznayim la'Torah.
Rashi implies that Chazal interpret this way, as Pharaoh said "Lo" in the singular, and not 'Lahem.'
Sotah 11a: If the Mitzrim would kill them with fire, Hashem would retaliate with fire; and if they would kill them with the sword, He would retaliate with the sword - as in Yeshayah 66:15.
Bearing in mind that Hashem always punishes Midah k'Neged Midah.' (If so, how were the Mitzrim punished by drowning in the Yam Suf? Refer to 1:10:1.7.
That is why he first imposed a tax upon them, then ordered his people to kill every Jewish baby boy that they found (in an individual capacity). Once this was permitted, they took matters further and entered into the Jewish homes to look for the babies. This seems to have occurred at most during the three years between the birth of Aharon and the birth of Moshe. See Ramban.
Why did Pharaoh not simply order his people to slay Yisrael by the sword?
Ramban #1: It would have been an act of treachery to wipe out a nation who had arrived in his land at the invitation of his predecessor. Moreover, his people 1 would never have given their consent to permit such a wicked act.
Ramban #2: Because Yisrael had become a large and powerful nation, and they would have resisted, thus resulting in a war which Pharaoh did not want.
Ramban: With whom he consulted and who, it seems, still possessed a modicum of decency.
What exactly, was Pharaoh afraid of?
Rashi #1, Rashbam, and Targum Onkelos: He was concerned that, after helping the Egyptians' enemies 1 defeat them, Yisrael (whom they viewed as potential slaves) would leave the country against their (the Egyptian's) will.
Rashi #2: He was afraid that they (Yisrael) would join their enemies and help drive the Mitzrim out of the land, 2 and then take possession of it. 3
Ramban: He was afraid that they would join forces with their enemies for the spoil that they would capture. 4
Seforno: He was afraid that they (Yisrael) would join their enemies. 5
Targum Yonasan: He was afraid that, a. they would help their enemies to annihilate them; b. they would then leave Egypt. 6
Ba'al ha'Turim: The kings of Kena'an, who would attack them on account of the vast stores of money that Yosef had accumulated from the sale of grain.
Rashi: And Pharaoh said, "... they will go out of the land" in the way that people tend to attribute their curse to somebody else.
Seforno: Due to the fact that they were so totally different than them (because of the Bris Milah and the language and culture), to the point that they would not eat together with them (Bereishis 43:32).
So what if they did? See Perush Yonasan and Na'ar Yonasan.
What did Pharaoh mean when he added, "v'Alah min ha'Aretz"?
Ramban #1 Refer to 1:10:3:2 and its note. [Therefore Ramban explains,] 'And they will attack us from the land in which they live' - i.e. Goshen.
Ramban #2: Refer to 1:10:3:3. And they would then flee the country and return to Eretz Kena'an with all their (the Egyptians') possessions.
Seforno: With reference to the beginning of the Pasuk, this as part of Pharaoh's plan - that they find ways and means of forcing Yisrael to leave Egypt, to prevent them from joining forces with their enemies.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'Nischakemah Lo' - I.e., towards the nation." What does this explain?
Gur Aryeh: We would expect to find the plural, 'Lahem.' Rather, the pronoun refers to 'the nation,' which can be put in the singular.
Rashi writes: "'Nischakemah Lo' - ...Let us use wisdom [as to] what shall be done to them." What is Rashi adding?
Gur Aryeh: The word "Lo" is extra; it could have said merely 'Havah Nischakem.' Rather, the verse means, 'let us use our wisdom against them.'
Rashi writes: "'Nischakemah Lo' - ... But Chazal interpret, the [Mitzrim] said, 'Let us outsmart [Hashem,] the Redeemer of Yisrael.....'" This would indeed explain the word "Lo" in singular. But Mizrachi asks, the words "[Am Bnei Yisrael] Rav v'Atzum" (1:9) in the previous Pasuk were already in the singular - and there was no Derashah?
Gur Aryeh #1: The simple meaning is certainly that one can refer to a nation in the singular. But if the very fact that scared the Mitzrim was the miraculous increase in Bnei Yisrael, it is most surprising that they would refer to Bnei Yisrael in the singular - even while referring to themselves in the plural ("Sone'einu... Banu")! That is what drove Chazal to interpret the Pasuk to refer to Hashem. And once "Nischakemah Lo" is in the singular, the rest of Pharaoh's address (both Pesukim) must remain consistent. 1
Gur Aryeh #2: Adjectives such as "Rav v'Atzum" can refer to an individual or to a nation; but the pronouns "Lo" (or "Alav" 2 ) indicate one individual, to the exclusion of others.
Gur Aryeh: In the next verse as well, 'Va'Yasimu Alav" (1:11), Chazal interpret (in Sotah 11a) that the singular refers to Pharaoh. They hung a brickmaking mold around Pharaoh's neck, to lure all of the Bnei Yisrael to follow suit. But our Rashi does not cite this Chazal; see Gur Aryeh.
See above, 1:10:1.3:1*.
Rashi writes: "... But Chazal expounded, they said, 'Let us outsmart [Hashem,] the Redeemer of Yisrael.....'" Why did Chazal veer from the simple meaning?
Gur Aryeh: The singular tense is most significant here! What the Mitzrim wanted to attack was the unity of the Jewish people. It is Hashem Who unifies us, remaining with us always in order to redeem us, and making us a singular people.
Rashi writes: "... For Hashem has already sworn not to bring another Flood upon the world!" Why does Hashem punish the wicked specifically with water (e.g. the generation of Enosh, and the Mabul)?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 14, p. 70): Water flows freely; it has no shape or Tzurah. Neither of the terms 'Beri'ah' or 'Yetzirah' are used in Bereishis regarding water. HaSh-m created the world for His glory, to be brought about primarily through man, who possesses Tzurah. When man misuses his high level towards sin, then Hashem is glorified [through punishing the wicked] by means of water, which lacks Tzurah.
Rashi writes: "... For Hashem has already sworn not to bring another Flood upon the world!" What was the purpose of this oath? Hashem may still exact punishment on the wicked in many other ways!
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 14, p. 70): Wiping away the world would be accomplished specifically with water, 1 which lacks Tzurah. 2
Refer to 1:10:1.5:1.
Maharal (Chidushei Agados Vol. 2, p. 107, to Gitin 56b): A property of water is that it melts and dissolves any Tzurah. Fire, by contrast, destroys the base material, making form irrelevant. Also refer to Bereishis 7:11:3.1:4.
Rashi writes: "... Let us sentence them [to death] by water; for Hashem has already sworn not to bring another Flood upon the world!" If so, how were the Mitzrim indeed punished by water in the end (at the Yam Suf)?
Maharal #1 (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 14, p. 70): See Sotah 11a, and Shemos Rabah. As Maharal explains, the oath was not to flood the world as a whole; it did not preclude punishing individual people or even nations.
Maharal #2 (ibid.): The oath was not to allow the waters to overpower the creations (i.e. and overrun the dry land). The Egyptians, however, were (lured and) thrown into the sea, which is parallel to any other punishment.
Rashi writes: "'And ascend from the land' - [I.e. the Bnei Yisrael will leave,] against our will." Why must Rashi add this?
Gur Aryeh: The simple meaning is difficult; if they feared that Yisrael would fight against them, what would be so bad if they left? Rather, the Mitzrim did not want them to leave (but rather, to become their slaves).
Rashi writes: "... But our Sages interpret... [they euphemistically] placed the curse upon others; the verse means, 'We will [be forced to] leave the land, and they will inherit it!'" Why interpret this way?
Gur Aryeh: If Egypt's fear was that Yisrael would join forces with their enemies in war, then their primary concern ought to be lest they themselves lose and get killed (and not merely that the Jews would then escape). Rather, the Egyptians feared lest they be faced with the choice of fleeing their land, or else being killed by Yisrael in battle.
