In a dramatic opening, parashat Va-Era begins in Exodus 6:2-8 with God’s declaration of his name, his attentiveness to Israel’s plight in Egypt, and his vow to fulfill his promise to the Patriarchs by bringing them out of Egypt and into the land of Israel.  Most powerful here is God’s reiteration of that promise in five consecutive verbs of performance:

 “I will free (you from Egypt)”
 “I will deliver (you from slavery)”
 “I will redeem (you)”
 “I will take (you me as my people)”
 “I will bring (you to the land)”

The message contained in this revelation is not new, but the forcefulness of God’s declaration, with its rhythmic repetition of similar verb forms in short precise sentences, brings home the promise with striking power and clarity.  While the speech begins with Israel as the object of God’s actions, it ends with the people becoming a subject in its own right, capable of responding (“and you will know that I am God”) and entering into a full relationship with God.
 
Much of this message had been delivered to Moses in the revelation which follows the burning bush in Exodus 3.  There, too, God reveals himself as the God of the Patriarchs who has come to redeem Israel.  But the differences between the texts bespeak a significant change:  Where the earlier text spoke of Israel in the third person, here God addresses Israel (through Moses) directly as “You”, emphasizing the development of a closer, more immediate relationship, moving climactically to God’s adoption of Israel: “I will take you to me as a people”.  The Exodus is to be the moment of Israel’s election as God’s people.  God described himself earlier with the deliberately evasive expression Ehyeh asher ehyeh (“I will be what I will be”), but here Moses receives a more direct and fuller explication of God’s nature.
 
A further difference between the two revelations has to do with the responses of Moses and of Israel to God’s promise, for the question of the reception of this message is no less crucial than God’s stated intentions. Somewhat surprisingly, Exodus 3-4 is punctuated with Moses’ objections:  No less than five times he expresses his doubt about the entire venture. “The people won’t believe me,” “I can’t speak well,” and even to the extent of saying “Send someone else.”  But when Moses finally delivers the message to the people in 4:30-31, they display no resistance whatever, and are completely convinced of God’s promise.  In Exodus 6, by contrast, Moses himself raises no objections.  But when he speaks to the people, it is they who are resistant: “They would not listen to Moses, their spirits crushed by cruel bondage” (6:9). 

The difference between the texts illustrates the great difficulty involved in the process of leadership.  When Moses is full of skepticism the people are not, but when Moses himself is convinced, the people have lost their own sense of conviction.  The difficulty of matching the responses of the leader to those of the people is perhaps the greatest challenge of leadership. The content of the message may be inspiring in and of itself, but the timing of the message is often the most crucial factor.

But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that I may multiply My signs and marvels in the land of Egypt. (Exodus 7:3)

This verse and others in the parasha are problematic. How can a person be punished for actions over which he has no control? After all, it is God who is responsible for Pharaoh’s refusal to release the Israelites. Generations upon generations of exegetes have grappled with this problem. Maimonides proposed a particularly interesting explanation. In the eighth chapter of his Shemonah Perakim (Maimonides’ introduction to Ethics of the Fathers), Maimonides discusses the subject of the substantive free will of human beings. We are responsible for our actions because we choose them.

Maimonides, relying on his medical knowledge, explains that a person is born with certain physical traits that influence that person’s personality. In modern terms, we might say that each of us is born with specific physical capabilities. A person’s physical and psychological characteristics predetermine that one individual will excel in sports, while another will never be able to attain a degree of excellence in any sport. Similarly, some people are quick to anger, while others seem incapable of losing their temper. Maimonides is telling us that even if a person freely chooses to become a dancer or a poet, that person’s inborn abilities will largely predetermine that person’s chances for success or failure.

At this point, you are no doubt asking how this relates to our parasha. I, too, asked that question. Why does Maimonides think that this explanation is important to a discussion of Pharaoh’s behavior? I believe that Maimonides wishes to say that Pharaoh possesses certain personality traits that make it difficult for him to change his decisions.

1. Must a leader stick to his decisions in spite of the hardships that his policy may inflict?

2. Did Pharaoh worry only about perpetuating his reign?

3. Would the Egyptians have perceived agreeing to Aaron and Moses’ request as a form of surrender? If so, would such surrender have weakened Pharaoh’s reign?

4. Can Pharaoh’s conduct be viewed as that of a responsible leader acting for the public good? Is it possible that Pharaoh feared that if the Egyptians lost faith in his leadership, the result would be anarchy?

Maimonides claims that Pharaoh and his people freely chose to enslave the Israelites, and made shameful use of their power. The plagues were meant as punishment for all the years of slavery. Maimonides also adds:

And it was God’s punishment that He prevented them from repenting until they received the punishment they properly deserved. And preventing them from repenting is that they would not release them.

1. What might Maimonides have meant in claiming that the punishment was that God prevented Pharaoh from repenting, in other words, that He prevented Pharaoh from mending his ways and freeing the Israelites?

2. Should we read Maimonides’ conclusion in light of what he states at the beginning of the chapter? In other words, is Maimonides saying that Pharaoh had certain character traits that prevented him from acting differently?

3. Was it megalomania that prevented Pharaoh from appreciating the harm caused by his policy?

The Torah tells us that at one point Pharaoh becomes unable to listen to the advice of his advisors or hear the cries of his people.

At first, the magicians are able to reproduce what Moses and Aaron do. But they do not succeed in regard to the plague of lice. Then we read (Exodus 8:14-15):

The magicians did the like with their spells to produce lice, but they could not. The vermin remained upon man and beast; and the magicians said to Pharaoh, "This is the finger of God!" But Pharaoh's heart stiffened and he would not heed them, as the Lord had spoken.

Later, we read that he does not hear his people (Exodus 10:7):

Pharaoh's courtiers said to him, "How long shall this one be a snare to us? Let the men go to worship the Lord their God! Are you not yet aware that Egypt is lost?"

What could cause a leader to ignore his advisors and his people?