Moshe’s initial appeal to Pharaoh brings him to turn his attention to the Israelites, but the results are disastrous. In response, Moshe is sent by God to speak with Pharaoh a second time. His reaction to this is to say:“The Israelites would not listen to me; how then should Pharaoh heed me, a man of impeded speech!” Rashi notes that this is one of ten times in the Torah that we find the concept of Kal VaHomer (Argumentum a fortiori) - Moshe makes a simple logical step – if the Israelites would not listen to him, how much more so Pharaoh will not listen.
Many of the commentaries struggle with this idea, for Moshe’s logic appears to be flawed. Who is to say that Pharaoh will not listen? Perhaps the arguments that fell on the deaf ears of the slaves will be accepted by the master!
The Ibn Ezra explains the Kal VaHomer as follows. Moshe turns to God and says: If Your nation would not listen, how much more will Pharaoh, who does not serve You and who perceives himself as a god, refuse to listen. The Alshikh goes in a similar direction, saying: If the nation of Israel, whose faith is built on the faith of their fathers and forefathers did not believe, how can we expect the denier of God to believe. According to the Riva, the point of the Kal VaHomer is that Moshe’s intention was for the benefit of the people and yet they did not listen – how much more will his message be rejected by Pharaoh, who would lose out were Moshe’s demands to be met. In a similar vein, the Da’at Zekenim miBa’alei haTosafot explain that if those who were enslaved refused to accept the message of redemption, how much more would the message be rejected by the one who enslaved them who does not desire their freedom.
As noted, the main reason why all the commentaries strive to explain the logic of the Kal VaHomer is that one could have argued that this is not a Kal VaHomer at all. Perhaps the Israelites could not hear the message because “their spirits were crushed by cruel bondage.” Pharaoh, on the other hand, lives a life of pleasure, luxury and boredom. Perhaps he sits waiting for new ideas and would welcome the opportunity to listen to Moshe.
In truth, the whole concept of Kal VaHomer is based on problematic logic.
First, it is impossible for us to know whether the parameter that determines whether one proposition is “kal” (mild) and the other “hamur” (severe), is the central one. One could always make the absurd argument, for example, that if a man who is not obligated to place a mezuzah on his body nevertheless must wear tzitzit, Kal VaHomer a doorpost that is obligated in mezuzah must surely be obligated in tzitzit! Thus, the concept of Kal VaHomer can be used to reach ridiculous conclusions. It is similar to trying to make the argument that if we use a spoon to eat soup but not to eat chicken, the fork that we use to eat chicken should certainly serve as a utensil with which to eat soup.
Another problem with reaching logical conclusions based on a Kal VaHomer relates to the fact that even if we succeed in determining which parameter establishes “kal” or “hamur,” we may still be unable to reach a proper conclusion. Lat us take, for example, the laws of a kohen and a nazir, who have similar prohibitions – neither can come into contact with ritual defilement. While the kohen is restricted from becoming impure his entire life, the nazir has this restriction only for a set period of time. Can we suggest that since the kohen is on this high level of holiness his entire life we should conclude by means of a Kal VaHomer that all the laws of the nazir must apply to him, as well? Or, perhaps, holiness for a set period of time is more severe than lifetime holiness, since during that time extra care must be taken to remain pure? Similarly, we can posit that Torah study is more severe than all other commandments, since we are always obligated in Torah study. Can we then suggest that we should be free from other commandments in the face of our obligation to study Torah? Should we ignore such commandments as charity or reading Megilat Esther?
It becomes clear to us that deriving a Kal VaHomer is not a simple thing – and not only in the case of Moshe who is commanded to face Pharaoh even as he is desperate and hopeless.
The Siftei Hakhamim suggests that there is an alternative reading of the verse that does not necessitate Rashi’s suggestion of a Kal VaHomer. A simple reading of the verse has Moshe making two separate statements: “The Israelites would not listen to me,” “Pharaoh also will not heed me.” Perhaps because Moshe’s speech is impeded, he cannot successfully convince anyone.
Why then does Rashi suggest that there is a Kal VaHomer implicit in Moshe’s words? The Siftei Hakhamim explains as follows:
One can say that Moshe was unaware that it was because of “their spirits crushed by cruel bondage” that they did not listen to him.
The Torah records this, because it was the truth,
But Moshe, himself, believed that it was because his speech was impeded that they didn’t listen to him.
According to the Siftei Hakhamim, if we read Moshe’s statement as relating to a Kal VaHomer, we can understand the greatness of Moshe. Moshe thought that there was a Kal VaHomer: The Israelites did not listen to him because of his own failings so Pharaoh certainly would not listen to him, either. If he was unable to properly express the promise of freedom to oppressed slaves who were in need of that message, he would certainly be unsuccessful convincing Pharaoh. Moshe was mistaken, however, for the Israelites could not accept his message because of their own suffering and travails. The Kal VaHomer was Moshe’s own subjective reasoning that cannot be proven true; it does, however, offer us a picture of the humbleness of Moshe.
Like all of the problematic Kal VaHomer arguments that we have discussed, the difficulty in this one stems from the fact that Moshe is trapped by a perspective that may not be true. Moshe chose to base the Kal VaHomer on a specific parameter because of his humbleness and his modesty. He is certain that the failure stemmed from his own failing, and he takes full responsibility for it.
There is something else we can learn from Moshe in this story. The possibility of alternative readings of the verse – not only as a Kal Vahomer – is a sophisticated method used by the Torah to teach us that reality can often be viewed in more than one way. Every failure can be seen as the precursor to the next failure by means of a Kal VaHomer. But if we choose to avoid focusing on the failure and instead forge ahead, we can turn today’s failure into tomorrow’s springboard to future success.