Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The final plague struck down all the first-born males in Egypt. Paro was not struck down this way, so does that mean he had an older brother? If so, what happened to him that Paro, not the older brother, got the throne? (Google led me to speculation that Paro was Thutmose I, but I don't see anything there about siblings and, anyway, we don't know if he's the right Paro.)

Or wouldn't Paro have been struck down anyway, because God had other plans for him?

share|improve this question
1  
judaism.stackexchange.com/a/13633/759 I don't think Par'o was ever included in the scope of the plague. The original scope was from the lowliest person up to Par'o's oldest son. –  Double AA Jan 20 '13 at 1:11
1  
Weren't all heads of households also struck? He certainly would have been the head of his household. I'm pretty sure I remember a Midrash that he was a first born, but that HaShem wanted him to witness the miracles and salvation, in any case. –  Seth J Jan 20 '13 at 1:28

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Rashi (12:32) says that Pharoah asked Moshe to bless him because he was a firstborn and thus was liable to die in the plague.

share|improve this answer

The verse says "from the firstborn of Paro who sits on his throne to the firstborn of maid who is behind the millstones", thus implying that anyone greater than Paro's son, i.e. Paro himself, was exempt from the plague.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.