Purpose of the Plagues/2

Purpose of the Plagues

Exegetical Approaches

This page is a stub.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.

Vengeance

Sources:Jubilees48:6-1248:19About Jubilees, Wisdom of Solomon11:16-2215:20 – 16:218:4-618:14-19About the Wisdom of Solomon, Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelBeshalach Shirah 4About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Talmud BavliSotah 11aAbout the Bavli, TanchumaVaera 13Vaera 14Bo 4About the Tanchuma, Midrash Aggadah (Buber)Shemot 7:15Shemot 8:12Shemot 8:16Shemot 8:20Shemot 9:10Shemot 10:12Shemot 10:21About Midrash Aggadah (Buber), Seder Eliyahu Rabbah8About Seder Eliyahu, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer48About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer19About Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer, Shemot Rabbah9:89:99:1010:411:311:512:313:614:3About Shemot Rabbah, Midrash Tehillim78:11About Midrash Tehillim, Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe RabbeinuOtzar HaMidrashim (Eisenstein p.360-361)About Divrei HaYamim LeMoshe Rabbeinu, Yalkut Shimoni#182About Yalkut Shimoni, Midrash HaGadolShemot 7:17About Midrash HaGadol, R. SaadiaTafsir Shemot 7:17About R. Saadia Gaon, Lekach TovShemot 7:17Shemot 7:28Shemot 8:15Shemot 8:17Shemot 9:3Shemot 9:11Shemot 9:23Shemot 10:21About R. Toviah b. Eliezer, AbarbanelShemot 7:3Shemot 7:25Shemot 10:1-2About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel¹

"אוֹתֹת וּמֹפְתִים" or "שְׁפָטִים" – This approach could say that all the terms refer to all the plagues as they were all wondrous signs of God's power, yet it views the miracles mainly as judgments on the Egyptians. Cassuto suggests that the phrase "שפטים" is meant to highlight how God's justice was served through the plagues as the evil were punished and the righteous were spared.

Why these?

• Measure for measure punishment – Most of these commentators propose that each plague was meant to correspond to a particular hardship that the Egyptians had thrust on the Israelites.² For example, God turned the waters to blood because the Egyptians had spilled the blood of Israelite infants by throwing them into the river.³ Plague came upon the Egyptian cattle in retribution for their forcing the Israelites to shepherd their animals. Similarly, hail and locusts attacked the agricultural produce to punish the Egyptians for enslaving the people to sow and harvest.⁴ Last, since the Egyptians had imprisoned the Nation of Israel, they were likewise imprisoned by darkness.⁵ God, thus, in each plague, punished the Egyptians "measure for measure".⁶
• Attack on Egyptian pantheon – Cassuto asserts that at least some of the plagues were chosen to counter Egyptian beliefs. Thus the plague of blood attacked the Nile, viewed by the Egyptians as a god.⁷ Similarly, frogs were assumed to have godlike powers due to their fertility, making them a second target.
• Undoing creation – According to MaharalGevurot Hashem 57About R. Judah Loew of Prague, each plague corresponds to one of the ten utterances through which the world was created.⁸ Thus, for instance the Plague of צְפַרְדֵּעַ corresponds to Hashem's words, "יִשְׁרְצוּ הַמַּיִם שֶׁרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה", the Plague of עָרֹב to "תּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה", and אַרְבֶּה to " תַּדְשֵׁא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא... עֵץ פְּרִי". According to this approach, with each plague, God slowly destroyed the world of Egypt.

Whom did the plagues strike – This approach assumes that the plagues struck only the Egyptians, those deserving of a punishment, while sparing the innocent Israelites. See Whom and Where Did the Plagues Strike for more.⁹

Why the drawn-out process – Cassuto explains that the drawn out process was necessary to ensure that Paroh received his just punishment for the years of oppression.¹⁰ The other sources might suggest that only through multiple different types of plagues could God punish the Egyptians for their various crimes measure for measure.

Hardened hearts – According to Rambam, the removal of Paroh's free will was part of the punishment process. R. Saadia Gaon and Cassuto assert that this was God's means to ensure that Paroh was adequately punished. Had Paroh sent the nation free immediately, he would never have been avenged for his misdeeds against the Israelites.¹¹ For elaboration, see Hardened Hearts.

Natural or supernatural – Many of the midrashic sources assume that the plagues were supernatural, allowing for the simultaneous punishment of the Egyptians and salvation of the Israelites.¹² Cassuto, though, asserts that many of the plagues had their origins in natural phenomenon common to Egypt, just in much larger magnitude than usual.

Explaining other verses – R. Saadia Gaon suggests that the verses which speak of an educative purpose of the plagues relate specifically to a recognition of God in his role as avenger. Cassuto also emphasizes how the punishments taught an important lesson to all regarding God's providence in avenging the wicked and rewarding the righteous.¹³

Education

Belief in Hashem

The miracles wrought on Egypt taught important lessons about Hashem and His power.

Sources:PhiloOn the Life of Moses XVI-XVII:96On the Life of Moses XVII:98On the Life of Moses XVII:98On the Life of Moses XXIV:134About Philo, Sifre DevarimDevarim 306About Sifre Devarim, RashiShemot 7:3Shemot 7:17Shemot 10:22About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Ba'alei HaTosafotShemot 7:3:7About Ba'alei HaTosafot, RalbagBereshit 15:14Shemot 6:6-8Shemot 6 Toelet 3Shemot 7Shemot Beiur Divrei HaParashah 7:3Beiur HaMilot Shemot 9:15Beiur Divrei HaParashah Shemot 10:1-2Shemot 10 Toelet 1Beiur Divrei HaParashah Shemot 11:9Bemidbar 14:41Milchamot Hashem 4:6About R. Levi b. Gershom,¹⁴ Tzeror HaMorShemot 9:29Shemot 12:12About R. Avraham Saba,¹⁵ Akeidat YitzchakShemot #36About R. Yitzchak Arama, AbarbanelShemot 7:9Shemot 7:17Shemot 7:26Shemot 8:11Shemot 8:18Shemot 9:13-19Shemot 9:27Shemot 10:1-2About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel,¹⁶ Ma'asei HashemMa'asei Mitzrayim 11About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi, NetzivShemot 7:5Shemot 7:17Shemot 8:6Shemot 8:18Shemot 9:14Shemot 9:15Shemot 10:1Shemot 10:2Shemot 11:7Shemot 14:4Shemot 14:18About R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin

"אוֹתֹת וּמֹפְתִים" or "שְׁפָטִים" – This approach might suggest that all three terms refer to all the plagues, yet it focuses on their role as signs rather than judgments.

For whom? These commentators differ regarding the intended audience of the plagues' lessons:

• Egypt – Most suggest that the message was aimed at Paroh and the Egyptians.¹⁷ Neziv, though, opines that the plagues served to teach only Paroh, and not his citizens, about God. As opposed to Paroh, the regular Egyptians were not present during Moshe's warnings and never felt the full impact of the plagues, so they were not able to recognize God's hand. It was only at Yam Suf that they understood Hashem's true power.
• Israel – Rashi and Ralbag assert that the wonders were meant to help the Children of Israel attain a full faith in God.¹⁸ Ralbag explains that the process was essential for the Israelites to attain the belief and perfection necessary to make them worthy of receiving the Torah and later inheriting the land.¹⁹
• The nations – Sifre and Tosafot HaShalem maintain that the point was to sanctify God's name amongst the nations and to ensure that these nations learned not to similarly oppress the Children of Israel. The Meshekh Chokhmah adds that since Egypt was the leading civilization of the time, their recognition of God would spread to other cultures who would then follow in their beliefs.

What lessons?

• Principles of faith – RambanShemot 13:16About R. Moshe Nachmanides suggests that the wonders were meant to teach three principles of faith – God's role as creator, God's providence and God's incomparable abilities. Many commentators after him²⁰ elaborate on the idea, but suggest that the first lesson demonstrated was the fact of God's existence.²¹
• Hashem as creator – Philo, Tzeror HaMor and R. Eliezer Ashkenazi assert that the destruction wrought by the plagues was meant to verify that God created the world.²² Each plague undid one aspect of creation, proving that Hashem was the initial architect.

Why these ten?

• The Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel explain that the plagues can be divided into three triads²³ and that each set came to teach one of the above-mentioned lessons. The Plague of דָם is introduced with ‏"בְּזֹאת תֵּדַע כִּי אֲנִי ה'"‏‎, עָרֹב by "לְמַעַן תֵּדַע כִּי אֲנִי ה' בְּקֶרֶב הָאָרֶץ", and בָּרָד with "בַּעֲבוּר תֵּדַע כִּי אֵין כָּמֹנִי בְּכָל הָאָרֶץ".‎ Thus, the first set was intended to verify Hashem's existence,²⁴ the second set to proclaim His providence,²⁵ and the final group to demonstrate His unique and incomparable abilities.²⁶
• According to Tzeror HaMor and R"E Ashkenazi, each plague corresponds to one of the ten utterances through which the world was created and was aimed at destroying one of the foundational elements.²⁷ Thus, for instance, blood attacked the water, lice the dirt, pestilence the air, boils the fire, and darkness obliterated the sun.²⁸
• Philo emphasizes that, initially, God purposefully sent small nuisances rather than destructive plagues as the goal was "to admonish" rather than to punish. Moreover, to demonstrate that he had "no need of assistant" Hashem did not deploy bears, lions, or the like to do his bidding, but rather chose small, insignificant creatures as His instrument.²⁹

Whom did the plagues strike?

• Israel is spared in all – According to Philo there was differentiation in all ten plagues, and the Israelites never suffered any ill effects. Through this distinction, the Israelites learned the beauty of piety and how God destroys the wicked and saves the righteous.
• Israel suffered some – Akeidat Yitzchak, on the other hand, suggests that during the first triad of plagues, there was no differentiation as these were intended merely to demonstrate Hashem's existence. In contrast, both the second set, which was designed to showcase Hashem's ability to distinguish between nations,³⁰ and the third set, which highlighted Hashem's unlimited powers to override the laws of nature, did differentiate. For more, see Whom and Where Did the Plagues Strike.³¹

Why the drawn-out process – The messages of the plagues could only be inculcated over a lengthy period of time. A one-time punishment would not have sufficed to bring either the idolatrous Egyptians or the Israelites to a full recognition of and belief in God.

Hardened hearts – According to Ralbag, Hashem hardened Paroh's heart so that He could bring wonder after wonder and thus instill in the Children of Israel a strong belief in God.³² R. Yitzchak Arama, Abarbanel and R"E Ashkenazi, in contrast, assert that in reality Paroh hardened his own heart. For elaboration, see Hardened Hearts.³³

Natural or supernatural – According to R. Yitzchak Arama, Abarbanel and R"E Ahskenazi the plagues came via natural means. As this made it more difficult for Paroh to see the hand of God, the ultimate purpose of the plagues, it seems a puzzling choice of means. One might say that Hashem preferred the process be gradual, which in the long run would lead to a greater belief.

Purposes of the Egyptian bondage – According to Sifre, Ralbag and R"E Ashkenazi, the entire reason for the exile and bondage³⁴ was the process of redemption and the miracles of the plagues which spread knowledge of God's power to the Israelites and/or the entire world. For more, see Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage.³⁵

Powerlessness of Egyptian Gods

The miracles served to attack the belief in the Egyptian gods and demonstrate their nothingness.

Sources:Tzeror HaMorShemot 9:29Shemot 12:12About R. Avraham Saba

"אוֹתֹת וּמֹפְתִים" or "שְׁפָטִים" – This approach might say that both terms are applicable as God intended to attack the Egyptian pantheon (שְׁפָטִים), as a sign (אוֹת) of their powerlessness. The approach focuses on Hashem's words in 12:12, "בְכָל אֱלֹהֵי מִצְרַיִם אֶעֱשֶׂה שְׁפָטִים"‎.³⁶

For whom – The intended audience could have been either the Egyptians, the Israelites, or both.

Why these ten?

• Several Midrashim³⁷ assert that the choice of blood as the first plague was due to the Nile's being perceived as a divinity.³⁸
• Tzeror HaMor suggests that the wonders began with the תנין, a sea creature from the Nile, as he was worshiped by the Egyptians as a god, and ended with the slaying of the firstborns, also understood to have divine status.
• Modern scholars³⁹ develop the idea and suggest more correlations between the plagues and the Egyptian pantheon: Heqet, the Egyptian goddess of childbirth (depicted as a frog), was mocked through the Plague of צְפַרְדֵּעַ‎.⁴⁰ The Plague of דֶּבֶר might have been directed at Hathor or Apis, both represented as bovines while the Plagues of Hail and Locust could have been targeting a number of gods: Seth, the storm god, Isis, the goddess who grinds and spins flax, or Min, the protector of crops. Finally, Darkness was an attack on the sun gods, such as Amon-Re, or Horus and the Plague of the Firstborn was directed against Osiris, judge of the dead.⁴¹

Whom did the plagues strike – This approach could either assert that there was differentiation in all of the plagues to highlight the differentiation between the God of Israel and the worthless Egyptian gods, or it could maintain that the Israelites were also harmed so as to combat any idolatrous beliefs that they might have shared with their Egyptian neighbors.

Why the drawn-out process – If each plague was intended to attack a specific deity, a one time punishment would not have accomplished the goal.

Natural or supernatural – This position could work with either a natural or supernatural understanding of the plagues.

Facilitating the Exodus

The plagues were meant to facilitate the Exodus.  This position subdivides regarding whom they were primarily meant to convince:

For Paroh

The plagues were a progressive process, meant to convince Paroh to free the Israelites from bondage.

Sources:TanchumaBo 4About the Tanchuma,⁴² RalbagBeiur HaMilot Shemot 4:21Shemot 7 Toelet 2Beiur HaMilot Shemot 8:11Beiur HaMilot Shemot 9:7About R. Levi b. Gershom⁴³

"אוֹתֹת וּמֹפְתִים" or "שְׁפָטִים" – It is unclear how this approach would read the various terms.

Why these? This position compares the process of the Plagues to a series of increasingly severe measures a king takes to subdue a rebellious country.

• Tanchuma points out that first a king attacks the water supply (as the Plague of Blood attacked the Nile), then he threatens them with frightening noises (as in the Plague of Frogs), and afterwards, he attacks with arrows (like the biting of lice). If the rebels have still not given up, he sends wild animals (עָרֹב) and pestilence (דֶּבֶר). Later he attacks with burning oil (שְׁחִין), throws rocks (בָּרָד), and hires other mercenary armies (אַרְבֶּה) to aid him. If still unsuccessful, he will imprison the rebels (חֹשֶׁךְ) and finally, kill the offending leaders (בְּכוֹרוֹת).
• Ralbag further notes that if one views the plagues as sets of three, in each triad the first two attack a source of sustenance while the last is a bodily affliction.

Whom did the plagues strike – This position works best if one assumes (as does Tanchuma) that only the Egyptians felt the effects of the plagues, since they were the ones who needed convincing to free the Israelites.⁴⁴

Hardened hearts and drawn-out process – If the main purpose was to emancipate the Israelites, it is not clear what was the point of hardening Paroh's heart or why Hashem did not simply send one very devastating plague and thereby convince Paroh to free the nation.

Natural or supernatural – According to Tanchuma (who asserts that there was differentiation between Egyptians and Israelites in all ten plagues), the process was miraculous. One could say though, that Hashem tried to convince Paroh through more natural means.

For the Israelites

The plagues were needed to ensure that the Israelites were not simply freed, but actively chased out of Egypt for otherwise they might not have wanted to leave.

Israelite mindset – This position assumes that, despite the harshness of the bondage, a large percentage of the Israelite population would not have willingly left Egypt to follow Moshe through the Wilderness to an unknown land.  Change is extremely difficult, and the unknown is very frightening.  Never having known a different life, the Israelites were not clamoring to leave Egypt, and maybe not even for freedom, but only for improved working conditions.  The idea of leaving all that was familiar in order to start anew was terrifying.

Why these? The various plagues had a dual purpose.  On one hand, they needed to cause sufficient suffering to the Egyptian nation that Paroh would want to kick the Israelites out (and not just free them).  In addition, though, they were meant to devastate the country itself, removing any idea that it was "home" or had the potential to provide for anyone. Hashem brought plagues such as hail, locusts, and plague of livestock to ensure that there was nothing in Egypt for which to remain.  People have much more incentive to stay put in an affluent country than in an economically ruined one.

Whom did the plagues strike? This approach might suggest that the Israelites, too, were affected by some of the plagues.  They, too, needed to feel the affects of Hashem's power and to be frightened by what was occurring in Egypt so that they would want to leave,.

Hardened hearts and drawn-out process – R. Meir Spiegelman⁴⁵ suggests that had the Plague of the Firstborn been the first plague, Paroh would have capitulated immediately and given permission to the nation to leave, but would not have aggressively kicked them out. Only after ten plagues, did he reach the point that he actively chased out even those Israelites who might have preferred to stay put

Number of Plagues – This position might suggest that the process of the plagues did not end with the killing of the firstborns, but with the Splitting of the Sea.  It was only then that the people truly realized that they were leaving Egypt for good with no option of returning.  As such, there were not ten, but either eleven or twelve plagues.⁴⁶  For more, see How Many Plagues Were There.

Multiple Purposes

This approach maintains that different plagues were brought for different purposes. While some served to educate, others aimed to either punish or facilitate the Exodus.

Sources:SfornoShemot 4:23Shemot 7:3-4Shemot 9:14-16Shemot 10:1-2Shemot 11:9Shemot 12:12Shemot 14:18About R. Ovadiah Sforno, HaKetav VeHaKabbalahShemot 7:3-5Shemot 10:2About R"Y Mecklenburg, R. N"H Wessely, R. Y"S Reggio, Shadal, R. S"R HirschShemot 7:15Shemot 10:2About R. S"R Hirsch, MalbimShemot 4:21Shemot 6:6Shemot 7:3Shemot 7:5Shemot 7:9Shemot 7:14Shemot 7:15Shemot 7:17Shemot 7:19Shemot 7:25Shemot 7:26Shemot 8:14Shemot 8:16Shemot 9:11Shemot 9:14Shemot 10:1-2Shemot 10:3About R. Meir Leibush Weiser, R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 4:21Shemot 7:5Shemot 7:6-7Shemot 7:9Shemot 7:15Shemot 11:9-10About R. D"Z Hoffmann

"אוֹתֹת וּמֹפְתִים" or "שְׁפָטִים" – Some of the plagues were signs and wonders while others were judgments or punishments. The commentators vary in their understanding of the specifics:

• According to Sforno, HaKetav veHaKabbalah, Malbim and R. D"Z Hoffmann, the first nine plagues were signs and wonders, meant to edify the Egyptians and help them repent and recognize God. Only the Plague of the Firstborn and the drowning at Yam Suf were a judgment,⁴⁷ meant to punish the Egyptians and facilitate the Exodus.⁴⁸
• The other commentators divide the plagues into triads and propose that in each set, some were signs and some were judgments. Wessely, Reggio, and Shadal divide the plagues into four sets of three⁴⁹ and assert that in each set the first plague (תַּנִּין,‎ כִּנִים,‎ שְׁחִין, and חֹשֶׁךְ) served as a warning, while the other eight, harsher plagues were vindictive "שְׁפָטִים"‎.⁵⁰ R. Hirsch, in contrast, divides the plagues into just three sets of three and suggests that the first two of each triad was educative while the last was punitive.⁵¹

Why these ten?

• HaKetav VeHakkabalah, Malbim, and R. D"Z Hoffmann, like many commentators above, suggest that each triad of plagues served to teach a different lesson about Hashem - His existence, providence and unsurpassed abilities.⁵²
• R. Hirsch, in contrast, suggests that each triad contained three elements - גרות, עבדות ועינוי. The first plague of each set aimed to make the Egyptians feel like foreigners in their own land,⁵³ the second meant to enslave them,⁵⁴ and the third to oppress them.⁵⁵ These were the very three things the Egyptians had done to the Israelites, as foretold already to Avraham: "גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה".

Whom did the plagues strike – Shadal asserts that there was geographic differentiation in all ten plagues.

Why the drawn-out process – The lengthy process was necessary to properly instill the lessons regarding Hashem.

Hardened hearts – According to Sforno, Hashem strengthened Paroh's resolve in order to counterbalance the overwhelming fear which would have been the natural response to the plagues. By doing so Hashem ensured that Paroh retained his free will and was able to repent sincerely rather than capitulate simply out of fear. For details, see Hardened Hearts.

Natural or supernatural – This approach could work with both possibilities.

Were the lessons learned? Sforno posits that it was not really Paroh but the Egyptians who were the main focus of the educational process of the plagues. Thus, even though God knew that Paroh was not going to change, the plagues and drowning in Yam Suf were meant to motivate the repentance of the remainder of the Egyptian nation. HaKetav VeHakkabalah, in contrast, brings the Mekhilta which suggests that Paroh survived the drowning in Yam Suf, just so that he could spread Hashem's name throughout the land.

¹ Abarbanel maintains that the plagues held a dual purpose; they were both punitive and educative.

² The sources vary in the details, with some just mentioning the fact of correspondence and others matching up each and every plague with a fitting crime.

³ Alternatively, it came as punishment for forcing the Israelites to draw water, or, for not allowing Israelite women to purify themselves from menstrual blood

⁴ Tanchuma Bo proposes, instead, that hail was a punishment for forcing the Israelites to remove stones while Abarbanel suggests that it was retribution for smiting the Israelites with fists and stones.

⁵ Lekach Tov suggests instead that the Egyptians did not give the Israelites freedom of movement and they thus found themselves similarly incapable of movement due to the darkness. Abarbanel opines that darkness symbolized the exile and oppression that the Egyptians had placed on the Israelites.

⁶ The other plagues are explained similarly. The croaking of frogs punished the Egyptians for their constant awakening of the Israelites to do their bidding, or, to avenge for causing the wailing of the Israelites when their sons were murdered. Lice sprung from the dirt as the Children of Israel had been forced to sweep and clean the dirt-filled yards. Wild animals attacked to compensate for the many animals that had harmed Israelite children and the Plague of Boils was retribution for the Israelites being forced to warm up water for their masters. Cassuto further suggests that Moshe brought about this plague specifically by throwing furnace ash into the air for it was these same furnaces at which the Israelites toiled to burn their bricks. Finally the Plague of the Firstborn and the Drowning in the Sea were vengeance for the killing of the male infants.

⁷ Tanchuma Vaera, Midrash Aggadah, and Shemot Rabbah similarly explain that Hashem chose to attack the Nile first for this reason. See the Tzeror HaMor and the position below that understands all the plagues as mocking and attacking the Egyptian gods.

⁸ Cf. the position of Tzeror HaMor below, who raises this possibility but suggests that the ultimate purpose was not destruction but teaching Paroh that Hashem is the creator of the world

⁹ Cassuto does not say this explicitly but he emphasizes throughout how the punishments wrought by the plagues proved "that there is justice and there is a judge, who pays each according to his deeds."

¹⁰ He does not explain why one big, extremely harmful punishment would not have sufficed instead.

¹¹ The two differ in their understanding of the term itself, though both agree that it does not mean that God removed Paroh's free will. According to R. Saadia Gaon, Hashem fortified Paroh's heart so that he could withstand the plagues and survive long enough to receive his just due whereas Cassuto suggests that Paroh really hardened his own heart and the term is simply a figure of speech, attributing human actions to God.

¹² See, for instance, Tanchuma Vaera, Shemot Rabbah and others who portray the Egyptians and Israelites drinking from the same vessel, with the liquid turning to blood for the Egyptians but remaining as water for the Israelites.

¹³ He also agrees that a secondary goal of the plagues was to convince Paroh to free the nation.

¹⁴ Ralbag also emphasizes how the plagues were aimed at convincing Paroh to free the Israelites. See below.

¹⁵ Tzeror HaMor also points to the plagues role in demonstrating the nothingness of the Egyptian gods. See below.

¹⁶ Abarbanel maintains that the plagues held a dual purpose; they were both punitive and educative. See above for a discussion of the punitive nature of the process.

¹⁷ The majority of the verses which allude to the plagues' lessons focus on Paroh or Egypt specifically.

¹⁸ This works well with Shemot 10:2 which focuses on the fact that the Children of Israel were supposed to learn from the plagues: לְמַעַן תְּסַפֵּר בְּאָזְנֵי בִנְךָ וּבֶן בִּנְךָ אֵת אֲשֶׁר הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי בְּמִצְרַיִם וְאֶת אֹתֹתַי אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בָם וִידַעְתֶּם כִּי אֲנִי ה'.

¹⁹ According to Ralbag, sometimes evil befalls a group of people so that God's providence can be felt by the righteous. Thus, here, plagues befell the Egyptians so that the Israelites could benefit.

²⁰ See R. BachyaShemot 9:14R. Dan, Akeidat Yitzchak, and Abarbanel.

²¹ These commentators point out that the miracles were addressing Paroh's lack of belief. He had declared "לֹא יָדַעְתִּי אֶת ה'" and so God replied: "בְּזֹאת תֵּדַע כִּי אֲנִי ה'". The Ritva explains similarly, but suggests that the third principle was the validation of prophecy.

²² Tzeror HaMor points out that when one says that a certain commandment "commemorates the Exodus from Egypt" this is equivalent to saying that it commemorates the creation of the world, since the miracles of the Exodus verified that fact. As such, there is really no difference between the reasoning given for the command of Shabbat in Shemot and Devarim.

²³ The first group consists of דָם,‎ צְפַרְדֵּעַ, and כִּנִים, the second includes עָרֹב,‎ דֶּבֶר, and שְׁחִין, and the third is composed of בָּרָד,‎ אַרְבֶּה, and חֹשֶׁךְ. For more about the division of the plagues into sets of three, see Patterns in the Plagues.

²⁴ The magicians' statement "אֶצְבַּע אֱ-לֹהִים הִוא" suggests that this was, in fact, achieved.

²⁵ As the two plagues in this unit are the first in which we are told that there was a distinction between the Egyptians and Hebrews, the lesson of God's providence is highlighted

²⁶ By both בָּרָד and אַרְבֶּה, the verses emphasize how such catastrophes had never before been seen in Egypt, underscoring the unique powers of Hashem.

²⁷ Tzeror HaMor also brings the midrashic approach laid out above that the plagues were chosen to correspond to the actions done by the Egyptians to the Israelites.

²⁸ See Philo, who similarly writes, "The country of those impious men was destroyed, in order to exhibit the height of the authority which God wielded, who had also fashioned those same elements at the creation of the universe, so as to secure its safety, and who could change them all whenever he pleased". For a modern development of the idea, see Z. Zevit, "Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues: Were They Natural Disasters, a Demonstration of the Impotence of the Egyptian Gods, or an Undoing of Creation?" BR 6 (1990): 16-23, 42.

²⁹ According to Philo, ערב refers to biting flies rather than wild beasts. See עָרֹב – Beasts or Bugs for elaboration.

³⁰ Though not mentioned explicitly in the text, Akeidat Yitzchak asserts that there was differentiation during the plague of שחין as well, evidenced by the fact that the text shares that the magicians were embarrassed to stand before Moshe and Aharon who were thus presumably not afflicted.)

³¹ Locusts was exceptional, affecting also the land of the Israelites, so that even after their departure, the Egyptians could not harvest any leftover Israelite crops.

³² Ralbag adds that regardless of the hardening of Paroh's heart, he and his nation deserved the punitive aspect of the plagues due to their general immoral behavior.

³³ The action is attributed to God since the bringing of plagues that were gradual, temporary and via natural means misled Paroh into believing that they were simply natural disasters, which in turned to his refusal to send the nation.

³⁴ Ralbag maintains that the enslavement came for a different reason, as punishment for the Israelites in Egypt for internecine feuding, tale-bearing and the refusal to receive rebuke.

³⁵ R. Ashkenazi goes as far as to say that upon hearing the decree of the bondage Avraham was actually happy in the knowledge that his children would be able to be the vehicle through which monotheism spread.

³⁶ See Bemidbar 33:4 as well.

³⁷ See Tanchuma, Midrash Aggadah (Buber), and Shemot Rabbah

³⁸ The Nile allowed Egyptian society to flourish without need of rain, and, thus, without feeling dependence on Hashem. In Tanakh it stands as the antithesis of Israel, a "land of hills and valleys" ever dependent on God and rain. The other hallmark of Egyptian self-reliance were their horse and chariots. Perhaps for this reason, it was the Nile which was attacked first and the Egyptian army, with their many horses, which were drowned in Yam Suf.

³⁹ See for e.g. A. Yahuda and U. Cassuto. For a detailed presentation, see Z. Zevit, "Three Ways to Look at the Ten Plagues: Were They Natural Disasters, a Demonstration of the Impotence of the Egyptian Gods, or an Undoing of Creation?" BR 6 (1990): 16-23, 42.

⁴⁰ The uncontrolled multiplication of frogs, served t highlight the lack of control of Heqet. Moreover, in attacking the goddess of childbirth, ione might see retribution for the Paroh's demand that the midwives kill all male babies at birth.

⁴¹ Z. Zevit (see note above) points to some of the weaknesses of this interpretation, including the lack of a godly candidate for the Plagues of כִּנִים, עָרֹב and שְׁחִין and the fact that the suggested pantheon might not have been the accepted one during the historical period of the Exodus.

⁴² See the first opinion brought

⁴³ Ralbag also speaks at length about the role of the plagues in educating the Children of Israel towards belief in Hashem. See discussion above.

⁴⁴ Ralbag thinks there was only differentiation in five of the plagues since he maintains that an important part of the process was also the edification of the the Children of Israel themselves. See above for elaboration.

⁴⁵ See his article, "יציאת מצרים - גוי מקרב גוי" in בחג המצות, ed. R"A Bazak (Jerusalem, 2015): 83-130.

⁴⁶ This depends on whether one includes the sign of the Tanin in the count.

⁴⁷ According to Sforno and Malbim, the drowning in Yam Suf was also a judgment.

⁴⁸ Sforno emphasizes the punitive aspect of the tenth plague, while the others highlight its role in convincing Paroh to send Israel free. Malbim further distinguishes between signs and wonders and suggests that in the first nine plagues, the first two of each triad were a sign (whose purpose is to demonstrate something and is thus not necessarily supernatural) while the last was a wonder. Though all nine were meant to teach about Hashem's power the signs were purely educative while the wonders also served to punish.

⁴⁹ They assert that there were actually 12 plagues altogether, and include both the wonder of the תַּנִּין and the drowning in Yam Suf in their count. See How Many Plagues for more.

⁵⁰ This is how R. Reggio and Shadal reproduce R. Wessely's position. The difficulty with this approach is that some of the eight harsher plagues are also called "אוֹתֹת" in the Torah – see Shemot 8:19 and 10:1-2, and the word "שְׁפָטִים" is mentioned only by the Plague of the Firstborn. R. Wessely, himself, actually vacillates regarding the meaning of "אוֹתֹת", and in one place he suggests that it refers to the eight harsher punishments (and is synonymous with "שְׁפָטִים" rather than "מֹפְתִים"). While this variation avoids the difficulties from Shemot 8:19 and 10:1-2, it does not account for the cases in Tanakh in which "אוֹת" and "מוֹפֵת" appear as a pair and do not refer to a punishment (e.g. Devarim 13:2-3).

⁵¹ For a larger discussion of the subdivision of the plagues, see Patterns in the Plagues.

⁵² See discussion above for elaboration.

⁵³ Blood, for instance, attacked the Nile, which until then had given them their self-confidence in their land.

⁵⁴ It is not clear why these plagues, as opposed to any others, gave the Egyptians a feeling of enslavement.

⁵⁵ Thus, these three plagues, lice, boils and darkness were the ones which afflicted their bodies.