by Rabbi Avi Billet
Rabbi Meir Soloveichik wrote regarding the plagues – firstly noting that the first sign to Pharaoh was of a staff becoming a tannin, which is most accurately translated as a crocodile*:
Aaron’s rod transforms into a crocodile and swallows the others. The reference here, obvious to all in Pharaoh’s court, is to Sobek, the Egyptian god of the Nile who takes on the form of a crocodile. Aaron is signaling that the Nile, the source of Egyptian prosperity, is about to be undone. The waters will turn to blood. Thus begins the steady, unremitting attack on the Ma’at of Egypt, where every aspect of the natural order, and the animal gods that embody them, turn on their master, on Pharaoh. This brings us to our next plague, which is tzefardea, frogs. Here too, as noted by both Rabbi Sacks and the Hertog Koren Tanakh, what is being described is no mere affliction… Heqet is the frog goddess of fertility, and this is a clear ironic reference to the Egyptians being punished for throwing the Israelite babies into the Nile. Thus plague after plague—each one symbolically linked with purported divinity or agricultural prosperity in Egypt—steadily strips away the theological claims of the tyrant Pharaoh himself,
It’s an old argument, that the plagues are not only to afflict the Egyptians but also to prove the defeat of Egypt’s many gods. Rabbi Soloveichik notes that the plague of darkness is the penultimate plague as it darkens the sun, whose god, Ra, was of the greatest in Egyptian culture.
What happens in the plague of blood, from the vantage point of Moshe and Aharon, is very clear in the Pesukim. Somehow the commentaries have introduced a terrible amount of confusion. Here is my direct translation [with comments in brackets] of the relevant passages in Shemot 7:15-21.
“Go to Pharaoh… and the staff which switched to a nachash [this would be Moshe’s staff, as Aharon’s switched to a tannin] you shall take in your hand. You shall tell him ‘God… sent me… you haven’t listened. So said God… I shall strike with the staff in my hand on the water that is in the Ye’or [Nile] and they [the waters] will turn to blood. The fish in the river will die, the river will become disgusting, and Egypt will grow weary of trying to drink water from the river.’ God then told Moshe, ‘Say to Aharon ‘Take your [implication is Aharon's] staff, and stretch your hand to the waters of Egypt, on its rivers, canals, reservoirs, and all waters gathered and they will be blood.’ Thus blood will be in all of Egypt and in wood and in stones.”
Thus far Moshe has been told to tell Pharaoh what he is going to do (strike the water of the Ye’or with the staff in his hand), and he has also been instructed to tell Aharon to take his own staff to other gathered-water places.
“And Moshe and Aharon did as God instructed and he [a pronoun is given, the subject is unidentified] raised with the stick and he [a pronoun is given, the subject is unidentified] struck the water in the Ye’or to Pharaoh’s eyes and to the eyes of his servant, and all the water of the Ye’or switched to blood. And the fish in the Ye’or died, and the Ye’or became disgusting, and Egypt was unable to drink of the waters of the Ye’or, and there was blood in all the land of Egypt.”
A priori, anyone who had no biases or pre-conceived notions would assume that Moshe took his own staff and struck the Ye’or and that Aharon took his own staff and either waved in all directions or physically walked around Egypt waving his own staff over other gathered-waters. [This is the approach of Abravanel!]
Not only that, but those paying attention towards the end of Parshat Beshalach will note that God told Moshe (17:5), as he is heading to Horeb to get water for the complaining people in Rephidim, "And take in your hand your staff with which you hit the Ye’or." Note that the word Ye’or that Moshe hit refers to the River in Egypt, not the Sea which Moshe had split 2 chapters earlier (which he didn’t hit, but passed his hand over). It is difficult to get around that God indicates the staff Moshe used to hit the Ye'or is the one he is to take in his hand.
The opinions of how far the plague went in turning ALL “water” in Egypt (beyond what the Pasuk mentions) into blood, are rather extensive: water in a pitcher, Egyptians' saliva (Midrash Agaddah); Water from elsewhere, water in a cup shared with an Israelite (Pesikta, etc); Water in ‘sticks and stones’ = water in idolatrous temples (Pesikta), vessels made of wood and stone (T. Yonatan, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and see R’ Chiam Paltiel who says נטה ידך על מימי מצרים. ס"ת הכלים); water in bathhouses and private homes (Rashi, Ibn Ezra)
The opinions of which staff used: Moshe’s, though used by Aharon (Midrash Sechel Tov, Rashi, Alshikh); Moshe’s, used by Moshe (Abravanel); Aharon’s (R SR Hirsch). As noted, Abravanel believes Moshe used his staff for the Ye’or, and Aharon used his own staff for the other waters.
As far as what the roles were (beyond what’s already been mentioned): Moshe’s job was to warn about the coming plague (Malbim, Haksav V’Hakabbalah) and Aharon’s was to strike the water. Netziv says the vagueness of who actually struck the water actually leaves us open to understand that while Moshe did something, ultimately it was God, Who כביבול, raised Moshe’s staff and made the miracle happen. [Note that the last verse in the section says "it was 7 days after God struck the Ye'or."]
For how long did the water remain blood? A week (mostly everyone); A very short while (R Yosef B’chor Shor, Chizkuni); Not at all (Netziv). Netziv believed the color changed for a short while so it looked like blood. But that change was mainly to kill the aquatic creatures. The similar opinion of B’chor Shor and Chizkuni is that the water turned to blood for a moment, just long enough for the fish to die. This is why the Egyptians couldn’t drink from the WATER – because of the dead fish in it. The proof is that Pharaoh’s Chartumim also had water to “switch” to blood. Had all the water changed, they’d be unable to match the “trick” performed by Moshe and Aharon, as they'd have no water to work with!
In this perspective, the Egyptians could dig around for water, because it was only the Ye’or itself that was affected, but not what was underground near the Ye’or, unless Aharon had gotten to it.
What’s the correct interpretation? I vote with Abravanel as to who struck the river - Moshe. I find B’chor Shor’s argument about the length of the plague of blood compelling - quick, though the river remained spoiled for a week. I find the delegated roles of Aharon and Moshe to be most aligned with how the text presents the narrative. Abravanel extensively explains how each of the plagues was measured for measure to Pharaoh and the Egyptians, similar to how Rabbi Soloveichik at the beginning (above) demonstrated how the plagues were attacks on the Egyptian gods. It is worth noting that HaKsav V’haKabbalah fundamentally rejects Abravanel, but he does not give a reason why, or a compelling argument. It comes across as “Abravanel is wrong because I say so,” though obviously he is hanging on the approach that Moshe could not have stricken the river because of the Hakaras Tovah (gratitude) Moshe needed to have to the river for saving his life. [While this is certainly a wonderful lesson, I am not convinced that it aligns with the pshat of how the Torah presents the ‘facts.’]
I still vote with Abravanel.
What do YOU think?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* It should be noted that the Shemos Rabba 9 has several paragraphs dedicated to this narrative. Paragraph 2 indicates that the stick is to be used to symbolically represent beating Pharaoh with a stick. Paragraph 3 mentions that the Egyptian Kingdom is compared to a snake (a point emphasized by Daat Zekenim 4:3), alluding to the idea that Moshe’s staff which turned into a nachash was a symbol to that idea. It does not say that Aharon’s staff turned into a nachash. Paragraph 4 quotes the verse in Yechezkel 29 in which Pharaoh is compared to a tannin (clearly a crocodile). Rashi’s comment on 7:9 “לתנין – נחש” is thus rather confusing, as it selects one paragraph as a base for his interpretation and ignores the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment