As a person who says to his friend. . . This does not contradict the Midrashic explanation [which preceded]. Rather, it explains why Hashem said: “What is that in your hand?” in the form of a question. For did Moshe not know what was in his hand? He surely saw it was a staff.

Once you tell them, “because of you I was struck [with tzora’as]” . . . they will believe you. [Rashi offers this explanation because] otherwise the last sign is no better than the first. [Rashi offers this explanation because] otherwise the last sign is no better than the first. The Re”m asks: “But [according to this,] I do not know what Rashi would say regarding the sign of [water turning to] blood. How is it better than the two preceding signs?” It would seem the answer is: the B’nei Yisrael did not actually see the first two signs, thus they might not believe them. But the sign of blood they will see with their own eyes, therefore they will believe in it. And Moshe was not commanded to perform the first two signs [before them] because these signs served also to punish Moshe, as Rashi explained, [and it would not be proper to punish Moshe in front of them]. The Maharshal explains [why the first two signs were not repeated]: For if we say the tzora’as punished Moshe for slander, then he had received his [due amount of] suffering from Hashem the first time, and need not be afflicted with tzora’as again. And if we say it was not because of Moshe’s sin, then surely Hashem would not make him suffer a second time for naught.

They will not turn into blood until they reach the dry land. You might ask: But why is the first והיו needed? The answer is: It is the way of Scripture to begin [a phrase] with והיו . (Re”m)

[And who made] his servants deaf. The Re”m asks: If Pharaoh became dumb and exerted no effort to kill Moshe, why did Hashem also need to make his servants deaf and blind? The Re”m answers: [Originally, Pharaoh spoke up and ordered Moshe’s death. And] after he heard of Moshe’s escape, he commanded his servants to give chase and capture him. It was then that all his servants became deaf. And when Pharaoh saw that Moshe was not captured, he thought they gave chase but did not find him. Thus Pharaoh did not exert any effort to send many more servants from all areas to find and capture Moshe and have him executed. Instead, he kept silent and went his way.

Is it not I, that My Name is Adonoy, who did all this? [Rashi adds*“that MyName*” to explain that] it does not mean “My essence is Adonoy.” For it is written (Shemos 6:3), “My Name Adonoy I did not make known to them.” The reason Rashi says, “ ששמי ה (that My Name is Adonoy)” instead of simply “ שמי ה' (My name is Adonoy),” is that it would otherwise mean Hashem is informing us of His Name, which is Adonoy. And if so, how does it relate back to [the beginning of the verse]: “Who gave man a mouth . . .”? But with the added ש it means: “Who gave man a mouth? . . . It is I, that My Name is Adonoy.” Rashi’s further addition, “Who did all this?” refers back to “Who gave man a mouth . . .”

Through the one You usually send, namely, Aharon. This raises a difficulty: Why did Moshe not expressly say: “Send Aharon”? Thus Rashi offers the alternate explanation. And the alternate explanation raises a difficulty: It is not plausible that Moshe would himself utter this bad matter. Thus the first explanation is needed, too. (Maharshal)

The adornment of the breastplate. The word עדי means “ornament.”

This is an indication. In other words, this verse is one of the indicators. For Rashi has many other verses to prove that these words mean על , which denotes בשביל (for). [The proof here is that] if לך is to be taken literally, then it means that Aharon will speak to Moshe. If so, what does “to the people,” which follows it, mean? Therefore it must mean “for you,” i.e., “in place of you.”

But had become paupers. Although it is stated (Nedarim 64b): “Four [kinds of people] are considered as if dead: a poor man, a blind man, a metzora and someone without children,” [nevertheless, for the following reasons Rashi knew that] here, “died” certainly means poverty. We cannot say they became blind, for regarding Korach’s rebellion it is written (Bamidbar 16:14): “If you put those people’s [Dasan and Aviram’s] eyes out.” [This implies they could indeed see.] And we cannot say they were afflicted with tzoraas, for it says (Devarim 11:6) that they were “in the midst of the camp,” [and a metzora must dwell outside of the camp]. And we cannot say [they were afflicted with tzoraas or blindness at the time] but were healed when the Torah was given, because all the people’s blemishes returned after the sin of the Golden Calf (Bamidbar Rabbah 7:4). And we cannot say they were considered as if dead because they had no children. For why would Hashem tell Moshe to return to Egypt because of this? Would their lack of children cause the authorities not to accept their slander against Moshe. Rather, it surely must be that Dasan and Aviram [were considered as if dead] because they became paupers, and for that reason Pharaoh would not heed their words. (Ran in Nedarim 7a)

“Earlier” or “later” are not exact in Scripture. [Rashi states that events are not always recorded chronologically. This answers the question:] it should have been written “Moshe took the rod” before “Moshe took his wife.” For Moshe did not take the rod in Egypt, rather in Midian.

Moshe. You might ask: perhaps ויהי (he was, or: it was) refers to an event rather than to a person, as in (Bereishis 14:1), “ ויהי (Itwas) in the days of Amrafel,” and (ibid., 15:17), “ ויהי (It was) at sunset.” The answer is: since it says afterwards “ ויפגשהו ה' (Adonoy confronted him),” without stating who was confronted, we must say that ויהי refers to Moshe [and thus means: he was].

Because his first concern was his lodging. You might ask: Rashi himself explained earlier that [Moshe did not circumcise him] because traveling endangers the child during the first three days [following circumcision]. If so, why was Moshe punished, [as they were in the midst of traveling]? The answer is: Moshe was now at an inn that was a distance of one day’s travel to Egypt. Such a short journey would not hurt or endanger the child. (Re”m)

The angel turned into a kind of snake. [Rashi knew this] because otherwise, how could Zipporah have known that it was because of the circumcision that the angel wanted to kill Moshe? We need not object: Perhaps the angel told her expressly that it was because of the circumcision? For the answer is that the verse later states: “Then she said, ‘[You are] a bridegroom of blood [to me] because of the circumcision.’” This implies that Zipporah did not actually understand it until then. Whereas if the angel told her expressly, why did she not understand?

She understood . . . You might ask: Rashi explained above (v. 24) that she understood why the angel came since it swallowed Moshe from his head to his thigh, etc. Yet here Rashi explains that [she understood it] since the angel withdrew from Moshe now. Also the Re”m asked this, writing: “I do not understand Rashi’s intent . . .” The Re”m elaborated on this point, leaving the question unresolved.

Referring to the blood of the circumcision. Whereas according to Rashi’s explanation, דמים (blood) is an expression of death and murder.