And warn him. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “ כי (for) I have hardened his heart.” Every כי that appears in Scripture comes to give a reason for what preceded. And if “Go in to Pharaoh” did not mean “and warn him,” how would כי be giving a reason for what preceded? This is what Hashem was saying to Moshe: [It is true that] warning Pharaoh will surely have no effect, since he did not send out the B’nei Yisrael in spite of his confession, “This time I have sinned” (9:27). Thus our verse explains: “For I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his servants.” In other words, the warning is necessary for his servants, whose hearts had not yet hardened [and they rebelled in the plague of hail only because Hashem hardened their hearts]. The reason Hashem did not harden their hearts sooner [but He waited for the plague of hail to do so] is that the verse states there, “he that feared the word of Hashem . . . made his servants and his livestock flee. . .” (9:20). If Hashem had not hardened the servants’ hearts at that time, they would have insisted that Pharaoh release the B’nei Yisrael. Thus He hardened their hearts, “So that I will be able to set these signs in their midst.” Although [with the coming plague of locusts] Pharaoh’s servants said, “Send the men out” (20:7), their repentance was not wholehearted [and they deserved the ensuing punishment]. For they said to send only the men [and not the entire nation], as Pharaoh himself said, “The [adult] men should go.” (20:11) (Nachalas Yaakov, see further elaboration there)

That I will set. We need not ask: The same word, שת , is written in Parshas Vayeitzei: “ וישת his own flocks. . .” (Bereishis 30:40), and in Parshas Va’eira: “Pharaoh . . . did not שת even to this” (Shemos7:23). Why did Rashi not comment there? The answer is: Here [the shin of] שתי is vocalized with a chirik and no yud, so I might think it does not mean שימי but is a different word, such as, “For they destroyed the שתות (foundation)” (Tehillim 11:3). Or, “ שות שתו (they did battle) at the gates” (Yeshayah 22:7). That is why Rashi needs to explain it here as שימי , although generally, the meaning is obvious. Even after explaining that שתי means שימי , Rashi explains further and says, “that I will set,” because שתי still has two possible meanings. This is similar to תִּתִּי , which has two possible meanings. One is written regarding Lavan, in Parshas Vayetzei (Bereishis 29:19): “Better תִּתִּי (I shall give) her to you.” The other [possible] meaning is written in Parshas Balak (Bamidbar 22:13): “For Hashem has refused לְתִתִּי (to give to me) permission to go with you.” Thus Rashi explains that here, שתי means “I will set” [and not “set for me”]. (Re”m) Alternatively: Rashi explains further and says, “that I will set,” because שתי could mean the past tense, “I already set.” Thus Rashi explains “I will set,” is in the future tense.

Which is from the root עני — poor. Rashi is explaining that לענות does not mean servitude as in, “ והתעני (submit yourself) under her power.” (Bereishis 16:9) Rashi continues by saying, “You have refused to be poor and humble,” because עני usually refers to [lack of] money, while here it refers to humility.

The illumination of the land. Rashi is answering the question: What is the meaning of עין הארץ (literally, “the eye of the land”), since land does not have eyes? Therefore Rashi explains: “The illumination of the land.” The shining of the sun brings illumination upon the land, enabling one to see the land. And that illumination, which is from the sun, was covered up [by the locusts]. Consequently, one could not see the land. Onkelos explains similarly: “The illumination of the sun of the land.”

Did you as yet not realize. Rashi’s view is that טרם means “not yet,” as he explained the verse in Parshas Bereishis (2:5), “The vegetation of the fields had not yet sprouted,” and in Parshas Va’era (Shemos 9:30), “You are not yet in fear.” Thus, טרם should not be explained as “before.” Accordingly, תדע really denotes past tense although it is written in the form of future tense.

They were brought back by a messenger. . . Rashi is answering the question: [If they returned on their own,] Scripture should have written וַיָשוּבוּ (“and they went back”). Whereas ויושב is a passive form, implying that Moshe and Aharon were acted upon by others.

Even were I to send. . . Rashi explains as he does because their flocks and cattle were more valuable to Pharaoh than were their children; for note that after the plague of darkness Pharaoh said (v. 24): “Just let your flocks and cattle stay behind. Even your little ones can go with you.” This implies that even though Pharaoh agreed to their children going with them, he still did not want their flocks and cattle to go with them. Accordingly, this is the meaning of the verse. Pharaoh said to them: You asked to send your children, flocks and cattle. May Hashem be with you [to protect you from disaster] if I send you and your children, and surely if I also send the flocks. This is because אף כי is like כל שכן (all the more so). And so it is in Parashas Vayelech (Devarim 31:27): “ אף כי (all the more so) after my demise.” (See Kitzur Mitzrachi for other versions of Rashi)

This service. . . Rashi is explaining that אותה refers to עבודה , i.e., “go and worship Hashem,” [although the actual word עבודה does not appear in the verse]. אותה cannot refer to the men, for then it should say, “ אותם ”. (Maharshal)

Is what you requested till now. . . But we cannot say it means what they are requesting now, since now they are requesting also the children, flocks and cattle.

This is a shortened statement. . . But we cannot say that Pharaoh himself expelled them, because it is written, “from Pharaoh’s presence.”

The likes of which never had been and never would be. Ramban and Re”m explain Rashi at length, but I say that Rashi’s own words elsewhere explain his intention. Rashi says on Sefer Yoel (2:2): “But the species of Arbeh on its own was not like that of Egypt.” This supports Re”m who said that the Arbeh of Moshe was greater than the Arbeh of Yoel, while the plague of Yoel was greater because of the multiple species it included. (Nachalas Yaakov) Some object and say that also the plague of Moshe had three species, as it is written (Tehillim 78:46) “Arbeh, Chasil,” and (105:34) “Yelek.” We could answer that the multiple terms in Tehillim are only for rhetorical purpose [while in truth there was just Arbeh]. Similarly [we find multiple terms used rhetorically]: “He killed with hail their vineyards, and their sycamores with hail-stones” (ibid. 78:47). And likewise, “He trapped their cattle by the hail, their herds by the plague.”(ibid. v. 48)

A green leaf. Rashi is answering the question: How can the word ירק (green vegetable) apply to trees? For it is written (Bereishis 9:3): “ כירק עשב (as the vegetable herbs),” and herbs in the fields are referred to as ירקות . Therefore Rashi explains it as “a green leaf,” as if the verse had actually said “green leaf.” Rashi proves this from “Verdure in Old French” which means green leaf [and comes from the root of verd, “green”]. And so it is in Hebrew.

Not even a salted one that they had salted. Rashi is answering the question: Since it is already written, “Carried away the locusts,” why does Scripture add, “Not a single locust remained”? It must come to include even the salted ones. And regarding the plague of wild beasts, Scripture did not need to indicate that even the salted ones did not remain. Since they were dangerous animals, the Egyptians surely were afraid to trap them.

The darkness of night will become even more black and dark. The phrase ויאמש חשך (He will darken the night) implies that night has already arrived. But “And there will be darkness” implies that the plague created a new darkness. Therefore Rashi explains: [“A darkness greater than the darkness of night. . .”]

Is the same as ויאמש (He will darken). This word is like אמש , which means night. For yesterday is referred to as אתמול , and last night is referred to as אמש .

After the darkness of night has departed. This means: After Hashem removes the darkness of night and the day has begun, at that moment that darkness will begin.

Why did He bring darkness on them? You might ask: In Parshas Va’era, Rashi explained the verse: “For if you do not send out My people” (8:17), that the reason for each plague is in accordance with the strategies of war, based on Midrash Tanchuma. If so, why does Rashi need to give a reason here for the plague of darkness? Furthermore, why did Rashi not ask this question [as his first comment] on the verse? The answer is: Rashi is explaining why Hashem brought such total darkness. [Ordinary] darkness that does not allow one person to see another would be sufficient [as a war strategy]. Therefore Rashi explains: “Because there were. . . [among B’nei Yisrael. . . Furthermore, the Israelites searched. . .]”

Furthermore, the Israelites searched and saw their vessels. . . It seems to me that [Rashi means as follows]: First he asks why there was darkness, i.e., why did the plague change so that at the end it was darker than at the beginning? Rashi answers [that there were two reasons for the darkness]. At first the darkness was needed only so the Egyptians would not see the downfall of the evil Israelites. Ordinary darkness was sufficient for this, and Hashem did not want to change nature more than necessary. Then after three days, and they were all dead and buried, Hashem brought extreme darkness to immobilize the Egyptians so B’nei Yisrael could enter their homes and search their vessels, and the Egyptians were unable to stop them. We need not ask: Why was all this necessary? Is it not written (12:36), “Hashem granted the people favor in the eyes of the Egyptians,” and the Egyptians even lent them items they did not ask for [see Rashi there]? The answer is: Since the Egyptians saw that B’nei Yisrael could have taken everything they owned during the days of darkness, without anyone to stop them, yet they did not take anything — this is what made B’nei Yisrael favorable in their eyes, and they even lent items that they did not ask for. (Maharshal)

A threesome of days. Rashi is answering the question: Why did the verse not simply write שלושה ימים (three days)? The word שלשת with a tav is in the nismach form (lit. three of days); why is this form needed? Furthermore, ימים is masculine [and should therefore have an adjective in the masculine form,] but שלשת is feminine! Therefore, Rashi explains that it means “a threesome of days.”

Shall remain in its place. [Rashi is explaining that although יצג is in the future tense], it****does not mean “will remain,” starting from now. This is because the sheep and cattle were already in their place.

The hoof of the foot. Rashi is answering the question: פרסה implies that Moshe requested only the animals with “split hooves” ( מפרסת פרסה ). Yet this cannot be, for in the beginning of the verse, does it not say, “Our own flocks will also go with us,” implying every animal? Therefore Rashi explains that פרסה means “the hoof of the foot, (plante in Old French).”

The magnitude of the service. [Rashi explains as he does because] it cannot be that they did not know what the service would be. For note that they said, “Our own flocks. . . We must take from them to worship Hashem our God.” Similarly, many times previously they said, “To sacrifice to Hashem.”

You have spoken properly and you have spoken at the right time. “You have spoken properly” is Rashi’s explanation of: “As you say.” This follows Onkelos’ translation, יאות מלילתא . Therefore Rashi explains why Pharaoh has spoken properly: He has spoken at the right time, since “it is true that I will never see your face again.”