Moshe makes a kal vachomer

Summary: Considering the ten kal vachomers in the Torah (really, Tanach).

Post: In parashat Vaera, the people of Israel do not listen to Moshe:

9. Moses spoke thus to the children of Israel, but they did not hearken to Moses because of [their] shortness of breath and because of [their] hard labor.

ט. וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה כֵּן אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֶל מֹשֶׁה מִקֹּצֶר רוּחַ וּמֵעֲבֹדָה קָשָׁה:

And so, when Hashem tells Moshe to speak to Pharaoh, he says,

12. But Moses spoke before the Lord, saying, "Behold, the children of Israel did not hearken to me. How then will Pharaoh hearken to me, seeing that I am of closed lips?"

יב. וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה לִפְנֵי ה לֵאמֹר הֵן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֵלַי וְאֵיךְ יִשְׁמָעֵנִי פַרְעֹה וַאֲנִי עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם:

Rashi writes, regarding this,
ואיך ישמעני פרעה: זה אחד מעשרה קל וחומר שבתורה:

that this is one of ten kal vachomers in the Torah. "Torah" in this instance is being used in its broader sense, of Tanach. Rashi's midrashic basis for this is a Bereishit Rabba, 92:7:

הן כסף וגו'תני, רבי ישמעאל:זה אחד מעשרה קלים וחמורין, שכתובים בתורה. הן כסף וגו' השיבנו אליך,
קל וחומר ואיך נגנב!

ת(שמות ו) הן בני ישראל לא שמעו אלי,
וקל וחומר ואיך ישמעני פרעה!

ת(במדבר יב) ויאמר ה' אל משה ואביה ירוק ירק בפניה, קל וחומר לשכינה י"ד יום!

ת(דברים לא) הן בעודני חי עמכם היום ממרים הייתם, קל וחומר ואף כי אחרי מותי!

ת(ירמיה יב) כי את רגלים רצתה וילאוך,
קל וחומר ואיך תתחרה את הסוסים!

ת(שם) ובארץ שלום אתה בוטח, וקל וחומר ואיך תעשה בגאון הירדן!

ת(שמואל א כג) הנה אנחנו פה ביהודה יראים,
וקל וחומר ואף כי נלך קעילה!

ת(משלי יא) הן צדיק בארץ ישולם,
קל וחומר ואף כי רשע וחוטא!

ת(אסתר ט) ויאמר המלך לאסתר המלכה בשושן הבירה וגו', וקל וחומר בשאר מדינות המלך מה עשו!

ת(יחזקאל טו) הנה בהיותו תמים לא יעשה למלאכה, קל וחומר אף כי אש אכלתהו ויחר!

Let us briefly consider each of these in turn before any deeper analysis of the local one in parashat Vaera. The first is in parashat Miketz:

8. Behold, the money we found in the mouth of our sacks we returned to you from the land of Canaan; so how could we steal from your master's house silver or gold?		ח. הֵן כֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר מָצָאנוּ בְּפִי אַמְתְּחֹתֵינוּ הֱשִׁיבֹנוּ אֵלֶיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְאֵיךְ נִגְנֹב מִבֵּית אֲדֹנֶיךָ כֶּסֶף אוֹ זָהָב:
		הן כסף אשר מצאנו: זה אחד מעשרה קל וחומר האמורים בתורה. וכולן מנויין בבראשית רבה (צב ז):

The second one was listed above, in parashat Vaera.

The third, in Behaalotecha, in Bemidbar 12, regarding Miriam:

14. The Lord replied to Moses, "If her father were to spit in her face, would she not be humiliated for seven days? She shall be confined for seven days outside the camp, and afterwards she may enter.		יד. וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶל מֹשֶׁה וְאָבִיהָ יָרֹק יָרַק בְּפָנֶיהָ הֲלֹא תִכָּלֵם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תִּסָּגֵר שִׁבְעַת יָמִים מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְאַחַר תֵּאָסֵף:
		ואביה ירק ירק בפניה: ואם אביה הראה לה פנים זועפות הלא תכלם שבעת ימים, קל וחומר לשכינה י"ד יום, אלא דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון, לפיכך אף בנזיפתי תסגר שבעת ימים:

where, as per Rashi, really she should have been there twice as long, 14 days, but one does not derive more from the kal vachomer than the source.

Next, in parashat Vayelech, in Devarim 32:

27. For I know your rebellious spirit and your stubbornness. Even while I am alive with you today you are rebelling against the Lord, and surely after my death!

כז. כִּי אָנֹכִי יָדַעְתִּי אֶת מֶרְיְךָ וְאֶת עָרְפְּךָ הַקָּשֶׁה הֵן בְּעוֹדֶנִּי חַי עִמָּכֶם הַיּוֹם מַמְרִים הֱיִתֶם עִם יְ־הֹוָ־ה וְאַף כִּי אַחֲרֵי מוֹתִי:

(I could imagine reading this not as a kal vachomer, but it surely works as one.)

Next, in Yirmeyahu 12, there are two:

ה  כִּי אֶת-רַגְלִים רַצְתָּה וַיַּלְאוּךָ, וְאֵיךְ תְּתַחֲרֶה אֶת-הַסּוּסִים; וּבְאֶרֶץ שָׁלוֹם אַתָּה בוֹטֵחַ, וְאֵיךְ תַּעֲשֶׂה בִּגְאוֹן הַיַּרְדֵּן.

5 'If thou hast run with the footmen, and they have wearied thee, then how canst thou contend with horses? And though in a land of peace thou art secure, yet how wilt thou do in the thickets of the Jordan?

Next, in I Shmuel 23:

ג  וַיֹּאמְרוּ אַנְשֵׁי דָוִד, אֵלָיו, הִנֵּה אֲנַחְנוּ פֹה בִּיהוּדָה, יְרֵאִים; וְאַף כִּי-נֵלֵךְ קְעִלָה, אֶל-מַעַרְכוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים.  {ס}

3 And David's men said unto him: 'Behold, we are afraid here in Judah; how much more then if we go to Keilah against the armies of the Philistines?' {S}

Next, in Mishlei 11:

לא  הֵן צַדִּיק, בָּאָרֶץ יְשֻׁלָּם;    אַף, כִּי-רָשָׁע וְחוֹטֵא.

31 Behold, the righteous shall be requited in the earth; how much more the wicked and the sinner!

Next, in Esther 9:

יב  וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה, בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה הָרְגוּ הַיְּהוּדִים וְאַבֵּד חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת אִישׁ וְאֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת בְּנֵי-הָמָן--בִּשְׁאָר מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ, מֶה עָשׂוּ; וּמַה-שְּׁאֵלָתֵךְ וְיִנָּתֵן לָךְ, וּמַה-בַּקָּשָׁתֵךְ עוֹד וְתֵעָשׂ.

12 And the king said unto Esther the queen: 'The Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the castle, and the ten sons of Haman; what then have they done in the rest of the king's provinces! Now whatever thy petition, it shall be granted thee; and whatever thy request further, it shall be done.'

Finally, in Yechezkel 15:

ה  הִנֵּה בִּהְיוֹתוֹ תָמִים, לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה לִמְלָאכָה:  אַף כִּי-אֵשׁ אֲכָלַתְהוּ וַיֵּחָר, וְנַעֲשָׂה עוֹד לִמְלָאכָה.  {ס}

5 Behold, when it was whole, it was meet for no work; how much less, when the fire hath devoured it, and it is singed, shall it yet be meet for any work? {S}

The order of this instances strikes me as strange. Within Torah, it follows the order of the text. But what order is being followed in terms of the subsequent Biblical books?

At any rate, these were the ten. My guess is that these don't have to be strictly correct kal vachomers. It could be a kal vachomer which has a pircha. Indeed, with the one put forth by David's men in sefer Shmuel, it was followed by Hashem's command to attack. Rashi on Behaalotecha applying דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון notwithstanding, I think the point is to take a method of midrash halacha put to great use by Chazal and demonstrate that this logical argument has a basis in the text of Tanach itself.

Regarding the kal vachomer local to parashat Vaera, the Taz writes in Divrei Dovid:

"And how will Pharaoh heed me?" {Rashi}: "This is one of ten kal vachomers in the Torah" -- {Taz}: It appears that this is necessary. For in truth, there is a rebuttal {pircha}, for Israel had this kotzer ruach, shortness of spirit {as we see in 6:9, above -- וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֶל מֹשֶׁה מִקֹּצֶר רוּחַ וּמֵעֲבֹדָה קָשָׁה}. Meanwhile, one must say that there is a different reason that Pharaoh would not listen to him, from the aspect that he was of uncircumcised lips -- {וְאֵיךְ יִשְׁמָעֵנִי פַרְעֹה וַאֲנִי עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם} -- and this is not honor to the kingship. And if you want to say that they are equal, this one from the kotzer ruach and this one from the honor due to kingship, if so, there is no kal vachomer here. Perforce one must say that the Torah informs us that there is greater {rather than equal} reason for not heeding him, by virtue of the honor of kingship, more than shortness of spirit, and therefore the Torah uses here the language of kal vachomer {with הֵן...וְאֵיךְ }. And so too there is to explain as well in parashat Vayigash [sic; it is really the end of Miketz], upon the pasuk הֵן כֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר מָצָאנוּ בְּפִי אַמְתְּחֹתֵינוּ הֱשִׁיבֹנוּ אֵלֶיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְאֵיךְ נִגְנֹב מִבֵּית אֲדֹנֶיךָ כֶּסֶף אוֹ זָהָב, "Behold, the money we found in the mouth of our sacks we returned to you from the land of Canaan; so how could we steal from your master's house silver or gold?", as I mentioned there. And it was with this intent that Rashi notes that this is one of the ten kal vachomers in the Torah. And in this is answered why the pasuk states 'and I am of uncircumcised lips', before {?} 'and how shall Pharaoh listen to me', to teach the fix to the rebuttal of the kal vachomer. And according to this, Rashi does not hold like the Ramban who wrote upon 'and I am of uncircumcised lips' that its meaning is 'and furthermore, I am of uncircumcised lips', but rather that this matter is itself the essence of the kal vachomer. For just as Israel does not hearken to me from the shortness of spirit, all the more so for Pharaoh by virtue of my being of uncircumcised lips, for this is a greater reason to not listen, and the Torah testifies to this."

As I stated above, I don't think that the kla vachomer needs to work out precisely -- it can have a pircha, so long as it initially made sense as a kal vachomer to the speaker. Thus, I am not troubled by what troubles the Taz. On the other hand, what motivates Chazal might well not be the same thing that motivates Rashi. Chazal -- that is, Rabbi Yishmael -- might have been motivated with finding Scriptural support for this common hermeneutical principle, just as elsewhere there is a basis for gematria from Eliezer being the same gematria as 318. But what is Rashi's motivation?

What is bothering Rashi? After all, he does not note that it is a kal vachomer in all ten places mentioned by the midrash. And Rashi does not bring every midrash or maamar Chazal. I would thus agree with the Taz in trying to assess what is bothering Rashi.

I would guess that in each instance, it is possible to claim that there is no kal vachomer going on at all, which prompts Rashi to guide us in the way Chazal treated the pasuk, as an instance of kal vachomer.

Local to Vaera, I would suggest that it is NOT the possible rebuttal. Rather, it is the phrase וַאֲנִי עֲרַל שְׂפָתָיִם. This might have been taken as the cause, with Moshe merely being dispirited. That he is making a kal vachomer becomes non-obvious, so Rashi lets us know. I don't think that Rashi then has to argue with Ramban, as that phrase could either be the basis of the kal vachomer or an additional reason.

In Miketz, this need not be a kal vachomer. It might just be a way of establishing that they are honest people, so why should they now suspect them of the same, in an instance which the brothers could not have planned beforehand. The language of the pasuk can be taken to indicate kal vachomer, and so Rashi clarifies this for us, establishing peshat in accordance with the midrash.

In Behaalotecha, it could be merely comparison / allegory, and not an attempt to say "all the more so" regarding the Shechina. Rashi would therefore be prompted to note that this is indeed an instance of kal vachomer.