Whom and Where Did the Plagues Strike/2

Whom and Where Did the Plagues Strike?

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

The classic position adopted by most Midrashim and numerous commentators is that all Ten Plagues distinguished by ethnicity, afflicting only the Egyptians while sparing the Israelites. This approach is the logical extension of the perspective that the purpose of the Plagues was to punish the Egyptians while preventing the suffering of the Israelites. It thus expands the scope to from five to ten and maximizes the miraculous nature of the process. In order to do so, it must posit that there were many supernatural phenomena which are not explicitly recorded in the text.

Other commentators prefer to view the process of the Plagues as less of a deviation from the laws of natural order, and they achieve this in two different ways. The Moshav Zekeinim and Shadal maintain that there was differentiation in all of the Plagues, but propose that it was geographic in nature, distinguishing between the lands of Goshen and Egypt proper, rather than between two nations. In contrast, more rationalist commentators such as Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, and Ibn Kaspi limit the scope of the separation to only the five more severe plagues in which it is mentioned explicitly in the Torah.

The most unique approach is that of the Akeidat Yitzchak, who develops the idea that the main objective of the differentiation (and the Plagues themselves) was to serve as an educational tool to teach Paroh a series of lessons about the powers of Hashem. The Plagues thus formed a progression which started with no differentiation in the early ones, continued with geographic separation, and then reached a climax with the more miraculous ethnic distinction.

Commentators differ both as to whether Hashem distinguished between the Egyptians and Israelites in all of the Plagues or only in some of them, and also regarding the nature and purpose of His distinction:

Differentiation in All Ten Plagues

All Ten Plagues targeted only the Egyptian people or country, while the Israelites emerged virtually unscathed.

Ethnic

The Plagues struck the entire Egyptian population regardless of their location, but spared the Israelites even if they were outside of Goshen.

Sources: PhiloOn the Life of Moses I XXVI:143-146About Philo, JosephusAntiquities 2:14:1 (75)About Josephus,¹ TanchumaVaera 13Bo 3About the Tanchuma, Shemot Rabbah9:1014:3About Shemot Rabbah, Bemidbar Rabbah9:14About Bemidbar Rabbah, RambamCommentary on the Mishna Avot 5:3About R. Moshe Maimonides²

Israelites fully protected – This approach rejects the possibility that there was collateral damage to the Israelites in any of the Plagues. See the remarks of the TurLong Commentary Shemot 7:25About R. Yaakov b. Asher who emphasizes that Hashem is certainly not lacking the means to deliver His punishments only to the wicked. See also the Radbaz who points out that had also the Israelites been afflicted, the message of the Plagues would have been lost on Paroh.³

Natural or supernatural – This position views the Ten Plagues as a completely miraculous process which contravened the laws of natural order and was able to distinguish between an Egyptian and an Israelite standing next to each other.⁴ As this distinction was an overt miracle, there is no reason to assume that it applied only in some of the Plagues.⁵

"Ten miracles were performed for Israel in Egypt" – The Rambam⁶ interprets this Mishna in Masekhet AvotAvot 5:4About the Mishna as referring to the miraculous differentiation in each and every one of the Ten Plagues.⁷

Purpose of the Plagues and their differentiation – Philo and the Midrashim emphasize different aspects:

• Philo suggests that the extraordinary differentiation was designed to teach the Israelites piety, as it demonstrated in the clearest way possible the punishment of the wicked and the salvation of the righteous. This fits well with Philo's general view of the Plagues as an educational tool. See Purpose of the Plagues.
• In contrast, Tanchuma and Shemot Rabbah view the Plagues as a retributive (מידה כנגד מידה) process. From this perspective, it is logical that all of the Plagues were directed solely at those who deserved punishment.

Differentiation mentioned only in five plagues – According to this approach, it is difficult to understand why the Torah notes this overtly miraculous phenomenon only in some of the Plagues.⁸ The Rambam⁹ thus attempts to find textual hints for a distinction being made in each of the Plagues.¹⁰ However, even if his interpretations are accepted, there remains a significant disparity between the Plagues regarding the degree of emphasis placed on the differentiation.

Differentiation noted in the warnings of only three plagues – This approach does not account for why in the Plagues of עָרֹב‎, דֶּבֶר, and בְּכוֹרוֹת Paroh needed to be told about the differentiation in advance.¹¹

The Israelites' Egyptian neighbors – Philo, Tanchuma, and Shemot Rabbah portray the Egyptians and Israelites as living together and sharing even the same homes. For more, see Where Did the Jews Live.

No עָרֹב in Goshen ("וְהִפְלֵיתִי... אֶת אֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן") – These sources would explain that the safety net afforded by the land of Goshen worked only for the Israelites, as indicated by the subsequent verse "וְשַׂמְתִּי פְדֻת בֵּין עַמִּי וּבֵין עַמֶּךָ"‎.¹²

No בָּרָד in Goshen ("רַק בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן אֲשֶׁר שָׁם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל") – These sources would explain that "אֲשֶׁר שָׁם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" limits the protection of Goshen to the Israelites only.

Light for the Israelites "בְּמוֹשְׁבֹתָם" – Shemot Rabbah learns from here that the Israelites had light any place they were, and not just in Goshen.

Geographic

The Plagues were visited only upon the land of Egypt, but did not touch the land of Goshen.

Sources: Moshav ZekeinimShemot 8:19About Moshav Zekeinim, ShadalShemot 7:25Shemot 7:27Shemot 8:19Shemot 9:3Shemot 10:4Shemot 10:23Shemot 12:12About Shadal¹³

Israelites outside of Goshen and Egyptians in Goshen – Shadal "admits" that according to this position it is necessary to say that Israelites who were outside of Goshen were afflicted by at least some of the Plagues.¹⁴ Conversely, the logical upshot of this position is that the Egyptians in Goshen were spared.¹⁵

Natural or supernatural – Since who the Plagues struck or did not strike was based on geographical location, rather than on an individual's religious identity, the phenomenon did not need to violate the laws of natural order. Furthermore, if the Plagues were a chain reaction, differentiation between Goshen and Egypt proper in the initial plagues would have naturally resulted in continued distinction throughout the series.¹⁶

Differentiation mentioned only in five plagues – The Moshav Zekeinim explains that since the first three plagues came from the water and the earth, it was obvious that they were localized.¹⁷ Only in airborne plagues which came from afar was there a need to specify that they did not spread to Goshen.¹⁸

Differentiation noted in the warnings of only three plagues – The Moshav Zekeinim notes that the Plagues of עָרֹב‎, דֶּבֶר, and בְּכוֹרוֹת are unique in that they are the only ones which came directly from Hashem without any action of Moshe or Aharon. Therefore, their warnings needed to give Paroh an additional sign to demonstrate that their arrival was not just mere coincidence.¹⁹

Paroh checks only after דֶּבֶר – The Moshav Zekeinim explains that by עָרֹב, Moshe's ability to also remove the Plague amply demonstrated that it was a Divine punishment, and there was no need for Paroh to check whether the Plague had differentiated. It was only after דֶּבֶר where there was no active removal of the Plague, that Paroh needed to do a spot check.

The Israelites' Egyptian neighbors – Shadal maintains that the vast majority of Israelites lived in Goshen, and perhaps only a scant minority did not.²⁰ Thus, he is able to minimize the harmful consequences for the Israelite population. According to this, the Israelites' Egyptian neighbors described in the Torah must be in Goshen itself.²¹

No עָרֹב,‎ בָּרָד or חֹשֶׁךְ in Goshen – The verses "וְהִפְלֵיתִי... אֶת אֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן" and "רַק בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן אֲשֶׁר שָׁם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" work well with this approach. Shadal adds that the verse of "וְשַׂמְתִּי פְדֻת בֵּין עַמִּי וּבֵין עַמֶּךָ" is part of a פרט וכלל which also refers to this same location based separation.²² Similarly he interprets "בְּמוֹשְׁבֹתָם" in the Plague of Darkness as meaning "בארץ מושבותם", or the land on which the Israelites lived.²³

Israelites spared in מכת בְּכוֹרוֹת – Shadal says that the Plague of the Firstborn was unique from all of the previous ones in that it distinguished on the basis of ethnic identity. He adds that, because of the miraculous nature of this differentiation, the Torah attributes the passing from house to house to Hashem Himself.

Combination of Factors

The Plagues differentiated using a combination of ethnic and geographic factors, with differences existing between the various plagues. The commentators present a few variations of this possibility.

Sources: RashbamShemot 8:18Shemot 10:23About Rashbam,²⁴ Tosafist ManuscriptTosafot HaShalem Shemot 8:18:5About Ba'alei HaTosafot,²⁵ RambanShemot 8:18Shemot 9:4Shemot 9:26About Ramban

Israelites outside of Goshen – All of these sources appear to maintain that in most of the Plagues, Israelites outside of Goshen were not spared. However, they all note at least one exception, while differing as to that plague's identity. Rashbam says that the Plague of Darkness was an exception, the Tosafist manuscript contends that דֶּבֶר was an exception, while Ramban suggests that עָרֹב‎ was an exception.²⁶

Egyptians in Goshen – From Ramban it would seem that Goshen afforded protection even for the Egyptians living there throughout all of the Plagues. According to the Tosafist manuscript, though, this was a unique feature of the Plague of עָרֹב‎.²⁷

Differentiation mentioned only in five plagues

• Rashbam and Ramban explain that there is a need to specify that Hashem distinguished only in plagues that tend to spread.²⁸
• The Tosafist manuscript says that the Torah notes the differentiation only when it incorporates a special aspect that didn't exist in the rest of the Plagues. Thus, it suggests that while all of the Plagues spared the Israelites who lived in Goshen, עָרֹב was unique in that it did not harm even the Egyptians in Goshen, and דֶּבֶר was unique in that it did not affect the Israelites outside of Goshen.²⁹

Paroh checks only after דֶּבֶר – The Tosafist position that דֶּבֶר was the only plague which spared even Israelites outside of Goshen would account for why it is also the only plague after which Paroh checks to see who was affected.³⁰

Differentiation Starting From Second Triad

The last seven plagues with the exception of the Plague of Locust afflicted only the Egyptians, while the first three plagues hit even the Israelites.

Sources:Akeidat YitzchakShemot #36About R. Yitzchak Arama

Structure of the Plagues – The Akeidat Yitzchak splits the Ten Plagues into three categories, each of which was intended to teach a different fundamental principle.³¹

Purposes of the Plagues and their differentiation – R. Yitzchak Arama proposes that the sets of plagues form a progression. The first three plagues were intended merely to demonstrate Hashem's existence, and thus they did not differentiate.³² The second set of three plagues was designed to showcase Hashem's ability to distinguish between nations, and therefore they needed to differentiate. The third set of three plagues were brought to show Hashem's unlimited powers to override the laws of nature, and thus they also differentiated.³³ Thus, according to the Akeidat Yitzchak, the purpose of the differentiation was not merely to spare the Israelites from harm, but to demonstrate to Paroh the greatness of God.³⁴

Why mentioned in only five? – R"Y Arama explains that differentiation is not mentioned in the first three plagues as they did not come for this purpose and thus did not distinguish. Starting from the second triad, differentiation is mentioned, as Divine providence was the cardinal lesson imparted by these plagues. To sustain this interpretation, though, he must account for the absence of explicit differentiation in the Plagues of שְׁחִין and אַרְבֶּה. This he does with two different claims:

• שְׁחִין – The Akeidat Yitzchak maintains that this plague also affected only the Egyptians. He attempts to prove this by arguing that the Egyptian magicians would not have been embarrassed to stand in front of Moshe, if Moshe and Aharon and all of the Israelites were also afflicted by the Plague.³⁵
• אַרְבֶּה – The Akeidat Yitzchak holds that this plague is the only one of the last seven which affected even the Israelites. He explains that this was part of a scorched earth policy designed to prevent the Egyptians from being left with crops to harvest after the Israelites' departure.³⁶

Differentiation noted in the warnings only of עָרֹב‎, דֶּבֶר, and בְּכוֹרוֹת – This approach would explain that the emphasis in the preludes to עָרֹב‎ and דֶּבֶר is because Hashem's power to differentiate is the raison d'être of the second triad of plagues.³⁷ One could go a step further and suggest that it was only in the middle set of plagues and final plague that the purpose of the differentiation was to teach Paroh a lesson, but that in the other plagues the goal was merely to protect the Israelites.

Paroh checks specifically after דֶּבֶר – According to the Akeidat Yitzchak, the Plague of דֶּבֶר was a turning point, as it was the first plague to demonstrate Hashem's ability to differentiate ethnically among people living in the same location.

Ethnic or geographic – the variation between עָרֹב‎ and דֶּבֶר – According to the Akeidat Yitzchak, the differentiation during the Plague of עָרֹב‎ was geographic and protected everyone in Goshen. However, when Paroh was unimpressed by this, the differentiation in דֶּבֶר became ethnically based and even more miraculous.

No dual discrimination in עָרֹב – This approach would need to understand that "וְהִפְלֵיתִי... אֶת אֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן" and "וְשַׂמְתִּי פְדֻת בֵּין עַמִּי וּבֵין עַמֶּךָ" both refer to a location based differentiation.³⁸

Israelites outside of Goshen and Egyptians in Goshen in דֶּבֶר – It is unclear whether R"Y Arama maintains that the method of differentiating in דֶּבֶר expanded, supplanted, or narrowed the safety net afforded by the previous עָרֹב‎ method. In other words, there are three ways to understand the impact of the new method of ethnic profiling:

• It was designed only for Egypt proper, and Goshen continued to provide a safe haven even for Egyptians.³⁹
• It simply replaced the previous geographical distinction, and now all Israelites but no Egyptians would be saved.⁴⁰
• It was intended to narrow the scope of the previous protection of Goshen to Israelites only.⁴¹

No בָּרָד in Goshen ("רַק בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן אֲשֶׁר שָׁם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל") – It is unclear why this verse reverts to emphasizing the geographically based distinction. It is possible that the Akeidat Yitzchak would contend that the ethnically based differentiation was reserved only for the Plagues of דֶּבֶר and בְּכוֹרוֹת (as this was the central message of these plagues), but that the intervening plagues distinguished only by location.⁴² Alternatively, this verse can be interpreted as saying that only the Israelites in Goshen were spared.⁴³

Differentiation Only in Five Plagues

While five of the Plagues targeted only the Egyptians, the other five affected even the Israelites.⁴⁴

Ethnic

The five plagues which did distinguish afflicted the entire Egyptian population regardless of their location, but did not harm any of the Israelites even those outside of Goshen.

Sources:

Israelites fully protected but only in these five plagues – This approach could explain like Ibn Ezra below that there was differentiation only in the most severe plagues.⁴⁵ The purpose of the differentiation would be for the sake of the Israelites' survival.

Differentiation noted in the warnings of only עָרֹב‎, דֶּבֶר, and בְּכוֹרוֹת – This position could maintain that the distinction between Goshen and Egypt is not mentioned in the prelude to בָּרָד because even in Egypt one could avoid harm by staying inside one's home. By the Plague of Darkness, there is no warning whatsoever.

No עָרֹב in Goshen ("וְהִפְלֵיתִי... אֶת אֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן") – The safety net afforded by the land of Goshen worked only for the Israelites, as indicated by the subsequent verse "וְשַׂמְתִּי פְדֻת בֵּין עַמִּי וּבֵין עַמֶּךָ"‎.⁴⁶

No בָּרָד in Goshen ("רַק בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן אֲשֶׁר שָׁם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל")‎ – The words "אֲשֶׁר שָׁם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" limits the protection of Goshen to the Israelites only.

Light for the Israelites "בְּמוֹשְׁבֹתָם" – The Israelites had light any place they were, and not just in Goshen.

Israelites spared in דֶּבֶר and מכת בְּכוֹרוֹת – The verses by these plagues work well with this position.

Geographic

The five plagues which did distinguish came only upon the land of Egypt, but did not touch the land of Goshen.

Sources:R. Yosef ibn KaspiShemot 8:18Shemot 9:4Shemot 10:23About Ibn Kaspi⁴⁷

Israelites outside of Goshen and Egyptians in Goshen – Ibn Kaspi says that the Israelites who were enslaved in Egypt proper were affected by all of the Plagues.⁴⁸

Natural or supernatural – This more rationalist approach limits the miraculous aspects of the Plagues to what is explicit in the text.⁴⁹

Purpose of the differentiation and why only in these five plagues? Ibn Kaspi appears to understand that the differentiation was to protect the Israelites, and it existed only in the Plagues whose harmful effects were severe or fatal.⁵⁰

Differentiation noted in the warnings only of עָרֹב‎, דֶּבֶר, and בְּכוֹרוֹת – Ibn Kaspi does not explicitly address this issue, but he could explain like the Moshav Zekeinim above.

The Israelites' Egyptian neighbors – According to Ibn Kaspi, the Israelites all lived in Goshen, although many were enslaved in the Egyptian cities. The Egyptian neighbors which they had were in Goshen.⁵¹

No עָרֹב,‎ בָּרָד or חֹשֶׁךְ in Goshen – The verses "וְהִפְלֵיתִי... אֶת אֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן" and "רַק בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן אֲשֶׁר שָׁם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" work well with this approach, and Ibn Kaspi interprets "בְּמוֹשְׁבֹתָם" in the Plague of Darkness as also referring to the land of Goshen.

Israelites spared in דֶּבֶר and מכת בְּכוֹרוֹת – Ibn Kaspi would likely explain that all of the Israelites' cattle was in Goshen, and that the Israelites all returned to their homes in Goshen at night, or at least on the night of Pesach.

Combination of Factors

The five plagues which did differentiate, did so using a combination of ethnic and geographic factors. There are a couple of variations of this option.

Sources: Ibn EzraLong Commentary Shemot 7:24Long Commentary Shemot 7:29Long Commentary Shemot 8:18Long Commentary Shemot 9:9Short Commentary Shemot 7:29Short Commentary Shemot 8:19About Ibn Ezra, RalbagShemot 8:18Shemot 10:23About R. Levi b. Gershon

Israelites outside of Goshen and Egyptians in Goshen

• Ibn Ezra's position with regard to the plagues other than עָרֹב is not completely clear.⁵² In עָרֹב he maintains that both the Israelites outside of Goshen and the Egyptians in Goshen were saved.
• Ralbag says that עָרֹב spared only the Israelites in Goshen, but afflicted both the Israelites outside of Goshen and the Egyptians in Goshen. Similarly, by the Plague of Darkness he states the Egyptians in Goshen were affected.

Purpose of the differentiation and why only in these five plagues? The differentiation was for the sake of the Israelites, and thus Ibn Ezra explains that there was no need for differentiation in the less harmful plagues.⁵³ He adds that there was no need to protect the Israelite crops in the Plague of Locust since the Exodus was imminent.⁵⁴

Differentiation noted in the warnings only of עָרֹב‎, דֶּבֶר, and בְּכוֹרוֹת – This approach does not address this issue but could explain like the Moshav Zekeinim above.

The Israelites' Egyptian neighbors – According to Ralbag, the Israelites all lived in Goshen, as did the group of Egyptians who were their neighbors. For more, see Where Did the Jews Live.

Dual discrimination in עָרֹב – These commentators disagree as to how to understand the relationship between "וְהִפְלֵיתִי... אֶת אֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן" and "וְשַׂמְתִּי פְדֻת בֵּין עַמִּי וּבֵין עַמֶּךָ"‎:

• Ibn Ezra interprets that the two verses complement each other, and there were two processes of differentiation. The result was that the Plague spared both everyone in Goshen (including Egyptians) as well as all Israelites everywhere.⁵⁵
• Ralbag takes the opposite view, explaining that the two verses limit each other and there was only a single process of differentiation which spared only the Israelites living in Goshen.

¹ Josephus, the Tanchuma, and Shemot Rabbah mention the differentiation only in the Plague of Blood, but there is no reason to assume that they held differently regarding the other four plagues in which differentiation is not explicit in the Torah.

² The Rambam's interpretation of the Mishna AvotAvot 5:4About the Mishna is adopted by R. YonahAvot 5:4About R. Yonah, the MeiriAvot 5:5About R. Menachem HaMeiri, R. Bachya, and R. Shimon b. Tzemach DuranCommentary on Avot 5:4About R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran, among others. A similar interpretation is also found in the earlier commentary of R. Yaakov b. Shimshon on Avot 5:5.

³ Cf. Akeidat Yitzchak below who differentiates between the messages of the various groups of plagues.

⁴ See Philo who adds that there was even a double miracle in the Plague of Blood, in which the blood reverted back to water for the Israelites.

⁵ The approach of the Midrash is happy to maximize the number of miracles performed, even if they are not explicit in the text.

⁶ As well as the numerous other commentators following his lead referenced in the note above.

⁷ The MeiriAvot 5:5About R. Menachem HaMeiri emphasizes that the miracles in the opening statement of the Mishna "עשרה נסים נעשו לאבותינו במצרים" are none other than the differentiation which took place in the "עשר מכות הביא הקדוש ברוך הוא על המצריים במצרים" mentioned in the second statement of the Mishna. Rashi (cited by R. Yosef Nachmiash and the R. Shimon Duran), in contrast, did not understand like the Rambam, as he contends that the ten miracles are unidentified (and apparently not identical with the Ten Plagues). It is noteworthy that the second sentence of the Mishna does not appear in all textual witnesses, and the commentary by Rashi's student, R. Yaakov b. Shimshon, discusses whether it is part of the original text or just an explanatory gloss. See also Avot DeRabbi NatanVersion 1, Chapter 33About Avot DeRabbi Natan.

⁸ See Ibn Ezra who argues against this possibility: "א"כ למה לא נכתב אות זה בתורה". While the geographic option below can argue that in some of the Plagues, the differentiation was natural and obvious and thus did not need to be stated, the ethnic option cannot do the same because according to it, the differentiation was always miraculous.

⁹ See also Yefet b. Eli the Karaite cited by Ibn EzraLong Commentary Shemot 7:29Short Commentary Shemot 7:29About Ibn Ezra who interprets "וּבְכָה וּבְעַמְּךָ" in the Plague of צְפַרְדֵּעַ as coming to exclude the Israelites. Radbaz supports this reading and adds other textual support; however, Ibn Ezra himself rejects it. See also Shadal below regarding "גְּבוּלְךָ".

¹⁰ Only by the plague of כִּנִים does the Rambam fail to find a prooftext, and he thus concludes that this plague struck the Israelites as well but did not harm them. [From Bereshit Rabbah 96:5 which says that Yaakov did not want to be buried in Egypt so that his body would not be disturbed by the כִּנִים, it also appears that this plague affected Goshen.] Following the Rambam's lead, the RitvaCommentary on the Passover Haggadah s.v. דבר אחרAbout R. Yom Tov b. Ashbel suggests that the Egyptian magicians saw the כִּנִים strike the Israelites and were unaware that it did not cause them suffering. The magicians therefore reacted by exclaiming "אֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים הִוא", which the Ritva interprets as meaning that it was a far reaching and all inclusive plague (reading the word "Elohim" as a superlative – see אלהים), rather than as a recognition of God's intervention.

The Rambam could have argued that even by כִּנִים, the verse "הָיָה כִנִּים בְּכָל אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם" indicates that the Plague affected only Egypt proper and not Goshen (see the commentary of the Rashash on the Mishna). However, this could provide a source only for a geographic differentiation and would not suffice for the Rambam's position that ethnicity was the determining factor. [This issue is dependent on the conflicting versions of which prooftext the Rambam cites for the Plague of Locust, and on how he interprets the verses by עָרֹב.]

¹¹ The Moshav Zekeinim's approach cited below does not work well for this position, as the ethnic differentiation alone would have been enough of a proof of the Divine hand at work. Interestingly, R. Shimon b. Tzemach DuranCommentary on Avot 5:4About R. Shimon b. Tzemach Duran argues in the reverse direction that because these three plagues spread more freely than the others (it is arguable whether the Plague of Locust did not also spread rapidly), Hashem Himself needed to bring them, as their ability to differentiate between Israelite and Egyptian necessitated a more miraculous power.

¹² This is the position of Ralbag below.

¹³ R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 8:19Shemot 10:23About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor also says that the Plagues of עָרֹב and חֹשֶׁךְ distinguished between Goshen and Egypt proper, but it is unclear whether he thinks there was a distinction in all of the Plagues. See also Targum Pseudo-JonathanShemot 7:22About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which implies that the water in Goshen was turned into blood not by the Plague itself, but rather by the Egyptian magicians.

¹⁴ He appears to maintain this at least with regard to the Plagues of דָם,‎ צְפַרְדֵּעַ,‎ עָרֹב, and חֹשֶׁךְ.

¹⁵ See R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 8:19About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and a number of commentators below who say this explicitly with regard to עָרֹב.

¹⁶ See The Plagues – Natural or Supernatural.

¹⁷ This is the position of Rashbam and Ramban below. Shadal adds that the land of Goshen was not dependent on the Nile for its water supply.

¹⁸ This approach could possibly account also for שְׁחִין (although the ashes there are thrown up to the sky), but would have difficulty explaining אַרְבֶּה. Shadal notes that the word "גְּבוּלְךָ" which appears by both צְפַרְדֵּעַ and אַרְבֶּה comes to exclude Goshen.

¹⁹ According to the Moshav Zekeinim, the announcement to Paroh was intended to teach him a lesson, but the differentiation itself may have been to shield the Israelites. Cf. the Akeidat Yitzchak below who maintains that the differentiation itself was designed to educate Paroh.

²⁰ See also Shadal Shemot 1:7,15 and Where Did the Jews Live.

²¹ See Ralbag below and Where Did the Jews Live.

²² Shadal also suggests that the absence of עָרֹב in the land of Goshen may have prevented the Israelite population from being plagued by דֶּבֶר. According to this, the differentiation in the Plague of דֶּבֶר was also geographically dependent.

²³ R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 10:23About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Ibn Kaspi below explain similarly.

²⁴ Rashbam's question as to why the differentiation is first explicitly mentioned only by עָרֹב implies that there was a distinction in all of the Plagues. The same is true for the position of the Tosafist manuscript.

²⁵ See previous footnote.

²⁶ See also the Ma'asei HaShem.

²⁷ Cf. R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 8:19About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor.

²⁸ They do not address why a separation is not mentioned in the Plague of Locust.

²⁹ Although the Tosafist commentary does not address all of the other plagues explicitly, it would likely say that בָּרָד and חֹשֶׁךְ were similar to עָרֹב, and מכת בְּכוֹרוֹת was like דֶּבֶר.

³⁰ In the others, it was obvious that Goshen was unharmed, and this was less of a miracle. It is possible that the Plague of the Firstborn is an additional exception with regard to both of these aspects.

³¹ R"Y Arama here is following the lead of Ramban – for elaboration, see Purpose of the Plagues.

³² Alternatively, he could have suggested like the Moshav Zekeinim and others above that the effects of the first three plagues were localized by their very nature, and thus the differentiation in them was neither remarkable nor worth mentioning. Such an option could maintain that the purpose of the differentiation in the first three plagues was merely to protect the Israelites, while in the subsequent plagues its purpose was to teach Paroh a lesson.

³³ With the exception of the Plague of Locust – see below.

³⁴ See below for an alternative variation, that it was only in the middle set of plagues and the Plague of the Firstborn that the purpose was to enlighten Paroh, but that in the others the goal was to save the Israelites from harm's way.

³⁵ R"Y Arama is interpreting "וְלֹא יָכְלוּ הַחַרְטֻמִּים לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה מִפְּנֵי הַשְּׁחִין" as resulting from fear or embarrassment, rather than from physical infirmity (cf. R"Y Bekhor Shor Shemot 9:11).

³⁶ In effect, R"Y Arama's position is that there were seven minus one plagues in which there was differentiation. Were it not for the technical problem of leaving an abundant harvest for the Egyptians, אַרְבֶּה would have been like all of the other plagues in the second and third triads.

The Akeidat Yitzchak thus goes a significant step further than Ibn Ezra's position below. According to Ibn Ezra, the default setting for all of the Plagues was no differentiation, and a special distinction was applied only when necessary for the Israelites' survival (as this was the entire purpose of the differentiation). Thus, since the Israelites were not going to need the harvest, there was no need for differentiation in the Plague of Locust. For the Akeidat Yitzchak, though, the default state in the second and third sets of plagues is that there was differentiation (as the objective of these triads was to impart this lesson to Paroh), and it is only voided in אַרְבֶּה due to a technicality.

³⁷ There is no warning before שְׁחִין, the third member of this set. While there was differentiation also in the third triad, the main lesson of this set is Hashem's power to supersede the laws of nature, and thus the emphasis in the warnings for this series was on the "לֹא הָיָה כָמֹהוּ" aspect.

³⁸ Cf. Shadal above.

³⁹ Cf. Ibn Ezra and Ramban regarding עָרֹב‎.

⁴⁰ This would parallel the way the Tosafist manuscript cited above understands the difference between עָרֹב‎ and דֶּבֶר.

⁴¹ Cf. the position of Ralbag below.

⁴² For other aspects in which דֶּבֶר and בְּכוֹרוֹת constitute twin climactic points, see Structure of the Plagues.

⁴³ Similar to the verses by עָרֹב‎ and דֶּבֶר, this verse can theoretically sustain three possible interpretations. It can refer to only Israelites in Goshen, all inhabitants of Goshen, or all inhabitants of Goshen plus Israelites in all locations.

⁴⁴ See above for the TurLong Commentary Shemot 7:25About R. Yaakov b. Asher and Radbaz's critiques of this possibility.

⁴⁵ However, it is unclear why Hashem would not have spared the Israelites from harm in all of the Plagues. This perhaps accounts for why commentators do not adopt this approach. For fundamental critiques of the possibility that the Israelites suffered in some of the Plagues, see the TurLong Commentary Shemot 7:25R. Yaakov b. Asher and Radbaz.

⁴⁶ This is the position of Ralbag below.

⁴⁷ R. Yosef Bekhor ShorShemot 8:19Shemot 10:23About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor also says that the Plagues of עָרֹב and חֹשֶׁךְ distinguished between Goshen and Egypt proper, but it is unclear whether he thinks there was a distinction in all of the Plagues.

⁴⁸ He does not explicitly address the subject of the Egyptians in Goshen. However, it is likely that he maintains that they too were saved, as otherwise the distinction would have been ethnically based and should have included Israelites even outside of Goshen.

⁴⁹ Ibn Kaspi Shemot 11:10 is the first to suggest that the Plagues formed a natural chain reaction. See The Plagues – Natural or Supernatural. According to this, one might have expected that there would have been differentiation in all of the Plagues (or in none of them). Ibn Kaspi, though appears to understand that although the Plagues themselves were a natural process, the differentiation which took place in only five of them was supernatural.

⁵⁰ Thus, he follows the lead of Ibn Ezra below. This approach works well for four of the five plagues, but would still need to explain why Hashem made a distinction in the Plague of Darkness. For fundamental critiques of the possibility that the Israelites suffered in some of the Plagues, see the TurLong Commentary Shemot 7:25About R. Yaakov b. Asher and Radbaz.

⁵¹ See Ralbag below and Where Did the Jews Live.

⁵² His language (Long Commentary Shemot 7:24) may imply that the differentiation was ethnically based.

⁵³ For fundamental critiques of Ibn Ezra's position that the Israelites suffered in some of the Plagues, see the TurLong Commentary Shemot 7:25About R. Yaakov b. Asher and Radbaz cited above.

⁵⁴ Cf. the Akeidat Yitzchak above.

⁵⁵ Cf. Ramban above.