short review
Parshas Va'eira
1. In connection with the plague of Arov (the mixture of wild beasts) that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought upon Egypt, our parsha relates1 that G‑d commanded Moshe to tell Pharaoh: "כי אם אינך משלח את עמי הנני משליח בך וגו' את הערוב ומלאו בתי מצרים את הערוב וגם האדמה אשר הם עלי'" ("For if you do not send out My people, behold, I will incite against you etc. the mixture of wild beasts, and the houses of Egypt shall be filled with the mixture of wild beasts, and also the ground upon which they are").
Rashi, in his commentary, quotes from the verse the words "משליח בך" ("I will incite against you") and explains: "מגרה בך, וכן ושן בהמות אשלח בם" ("I will stir up against you; and similarly, 'and the teeth of beasts I will send upon them'2"), "לשון שסוי" ("an expression of sisui — setting on, inciting"), "enticier" in Old French. Simply put, his intent is to explain that the word "meshi'ach" is not from the term "sending," like "if you do not send out (meshalei'ach)" at the beginning of this very verse, but rather from the term "stirring up" [along the lines of "אל תתגרו בם" ("Do not provoke them")4, and the like]. And several precise readings compel this interpretation3:
a) If "meshi'ach" means sending, the verse should have said "meshalei'ach," as at the beginning of the verse5.
b) In the language of sending, it would be more fitting to say "I will send the mixture of wild beasts against you" — that is, first the thing that is sent, and afterwards to whom it is sent — as below*4: "שולח את כל מגפותי אל לבך" ("I will send all My plagues upon your heart"). Whereas if it is from the term "stirring up," then the word "against you" is joined to "I will incite," for "against you" is part of the action itself (and not merely that the action is carried out "against you"): one "stirs up against him" a wild beast, or the like.
c) If the meaning is sending, it would be fitting to say "I will send to you" or "I will send unto you," and not "I will send against you"; but if its meaning is stirring up, the expression "I will incite against you" is fitting6.
Because of the latter two reasons, Rashi quotes from the verse the word "against you" as well, even though he explains only the word "meshi'ach," which means "I will stir up" — and afterwards in his explanation he also writes once again "(I will stir up) against you" — because this is part of what compels the conclusion that "meshi'ach" means "I will stir up."
2. However, this explanation of Rashi needs to be understood:
a) Why does he bring a proof for his interpretation from the verse in Parshas Haazinu, and not from what is written earlier (in Parshas Bechukosai7): "והשלחתי בכם את חית השדה" ("I will incite the beasts of the field against you")? This is all the more difficult, since there is an additional reason to prefer citing this verse: in the plague of Arov we are speaking of stirring up wild beasts, and likewise in Parshas Bechukosai we are speaking of stirring up wild beasts, whereas in Parshas Haazinu it states explicitly "and the teeth of domestic beasts (behemos) I will send upon them."
b) After explaining that it is from the term "I will stir up," why does Rashi need to add further: "an expression of sisui"? One cannot say that by "an expression of sisui" his intent is to explain and clarify "I will stir up" — for (a) is the word "sisui" any better known and understood to the student than the word "I will stir up"? On the contrary: "stirring up" is an expression found several times in the Five Books of the Torah8, whereas the term "sisui" is not found even once in the Chumash. (b) According to this, he should have placed "an expression of sisui" right next to "I will stir up against you," and only afterwards written "and similarly, 'and the teeth etc.'" (c) He should not have said "I will stir up" (and then explained it), but simply "I will set on against you," and nothing more.
Nor can one answer that with this addition he comes to make a precise point: although the meaning of "meshi'ach" (in itself) is "I will stir up," nevertheless in our case it is not merely stirring up, but (also) "an expression of sisui" — for according to this, difficulty (b) above still remains. Furthermore: how does he know this very point — that the meaning here is also "sisui," in addition to "stirring up"?
3. Further on, Rashi continues his commentary, quoting the words "את הערוב" ("the mixture of wild beasts") and explaining: "כל מיני חיות רעות ונחשים ועקרבים בערבוביא והיו משחיתים בהם. ויש טעם בדבר באגדה בכל מכה ומכה למה זו ולמה זו. בטכסיסי מלחמות מלכים בא עליהם כסדר מלכות, כשצרה על עיר בתחלה מקלקל מעינותי' ואח"כ תוקעין עליהם ומריעין בשופרות ליראם ולבהלם, וכן הצפרדעים מקרקרים והומים וכו' כדאיתא במדרש רבי תנחומא" ("All kinds of wild beasts, snakes and scorpions, in a mixture, and they destroyed them. And there is a reason for the matter in the Aggadah, for each and every plague — why this one and why that one. With the tactics of the wars of kings He came upon them, in the manner of a kingdom: when it besieges a city, it first ruins its water sources, and afterwards they blow and sound the shofars against them to frighten and confound them; and likewise the frogs croaked and made noise etc., as is found in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma")9.
This needs to be understood:
a) The source of these words of Rashi is the Midrash10, but in Rashi's commentary the wording is changed. In the Midrash there are two opinions regarding the species in the plague of Arov: (a) that they were "bears, lions and leopards"; (b) that they were "hornets and gnats." Now, why Rashi does not list the wild beasts by their species (according to the first opinion), the reason is simple: he suffices with mentioning them by their general description — "wild beasts"11. [Especially since, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, there is no compelling reason that it was specifically these beasts.] And certainly Rashi could not explain and list (the species) according to the second opinion, as the aforementioned Midrash itself proves: "Regarding the frogs it is written12 'and the frogs died,' because there was no benefit in their hides; but the Arov, whose hides were of benefit — therefore not one of them remained; for had they been hornets and gnats, they would have had to rot." Since Rashi too12* adopted this reason in his commentary ("and they (the Arov) did not die as the frogs died," etc.), it is understood that this rules out the opinion that they were "hornets and gnats."
But what Rashi added after "wild beasts" — "and snakes and scorpions" — is not understood. Either way: if, in the simple sense, the Arov, which consisted of "all kinds of wild beasts," also includes "snakes and scorpions," why does he need to specify them, when he does not specify who the "wild beasts" are? And if, in the simple sense, there is no compelling reason that "snakes and scorpions" are included in "wild beasts" — and therefore he mentions them specifically — then how does he know this very point, that there were also "snakes and scorpions"?
b) Why does Rashi explain specifically on this verse that there is a reason for the matter "for each and every plague, why this one and why that one"13? For if, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, a reason is required for each and every plague — why the Holy One, blessed be He, brought it — then it was necessary to explain this reason at the first plagues (or immediately at the first plague) — why they were brought, and why in this order. Why did Rashi wait until the plague of Arov, the fourth plague?
Some commentators explain14 that for the first three plagues Rashi did not need to explain their reason, since it is understood from what is written about them earlier: the plagues of "blood" and "frogs" were in order to strike, through them, the object of their worship — as stated explicitly in Rashi15 on the plague of blood: "ומצרים עובדים לנילוס לפיכך הלקה את יראתם ואח"כ הלקה אותם" ("The Egyptians worshipped the Nile; therefore He struck their deity first, and afterwards He struck them") (and therefore it is the first plague, through which their actual "deity" was struck). Likewise in the plague of "frogs" it is written16: "ושרץ היאור צפרדעים" ("The river shall swarm with frogs"), and in Rashi too17 it is explicit: "Because the river protected Moshe etc., it was not struck through him, neither with the blood nor with the frogs" — so that "frogs" too is a plague of the river (except that it was not their actual "deity" that was struck through it, and therefore it came after the plague of blood). As for the plague of lice, the reason for bringing it is likewise evident from its content, for through it the magicians admitted and said "אצבע אלקים היא" ("It is the finger of G‑d")18. But when Rashi reached the plague of "Arov" in his commentary, he was troubled: why specifically this plague? And to this he explained that the reason is "with the tactics of wars etc."
However, this explanation is not at all understood19: (a) If Rashi's intent in citing the Midrash is primarily to explain the reason for the plague of Arov20 — how is it possible that he does not bring the reason for the plague of Arov (but only notes that it is found in Tanchuma), while he explicitly quotes the reasons that are not relevant to our matter?
(b) Conversely: according to the view of the aforementioned commentators, that the reasons of the first three plagues are known and simple (and therefore Rashi did not explain them by asking why "this plague") — why then does Rashi retract from those reasons and quote other reasons from the Midrash?
(c) According to the above interpretation, the continuation of this comment in Rashi is solely an explanation of the reason for the plague of Arov alone, meaning that it is a separate matter with no connection or continuity to what he said earlier in the same comment ("all kinds of wild beasts"). Yet the rule is known that wherever Rashi explains two separate matters in his interpretation of one word (or several words) of the verse, he quotes that word twice, before each matter separately — as earlier21, in the plague of frogs, where he quotes the word "אעתיר" ("I shall entreat") a second time. Accordingly, in our case too, Rashi should have quoted "the mixture of wild beasts" a second time, in order to separate one matter from the other.
c) In the reason for the plague of "blood," Rashi brings only the parable, without explaining its meaning in the analogue; whereas in the plague of frogs he adds and explains its significance in the analogue as well: "and likewise the frogs croaked and made noise." What is the difference between them22?
d) From the fact that Rashi prefaces "and there is a reason for the matter in the Aggadah," it is understood that the explanation is not according to the plain meaning of Scripture23. Yet seemingly, this reason — that the Holy One, blessed be He, "came upon them with the tactics of wars etc." — is a matter that fits well also with the simple meaning of Scripture24.
e) Why does Rashi conclude "as is found in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma," when it is not Rashi's way to note the source of his words except where this is relevant to the interpretation of the verse — and what difference does it make here? Also, why did he split it in two, writing at the beginning of his comment that "there is a reason for the matter in the Aggadah" and at its end "as is found in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma"? He should have combined them and said "and there is a reason for the matter in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma."
f) Why does Rashi quote from the verse also the word "את" ("the" — the object marker before "the mixture of wild beasts"), when his whole explanation concerns only the word "the mixture of wild beasts"?
4. The explanation of all this is as follows:
In each and every plague, both those before the plague of Arov and those after it, its punishment and the content of its penalty are understood and evident — either from the words of the warning given to Pharaoh before the plague was brought, or [in those plagues not preceded by a warning] from the words of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moshe when He commanded him to perform the action that brings the plague (meaning that we know what the blow is before we learn afterwards about its actual coming).
Not so with the plague of Arov, where in its warning it says only "behold, I will incite against you etc. the mixture of wild beasts, and the houses of Egypt shall be filled with the mixture of wild beasts, and also the ground upon which they are" — without informing us what the plague of Arov consists of (a mixture of what?) and what its punishment is25.
This compels us to say that in the words "I will incite against you" the essence of this plague and its punishment are emphasized. And since from the entire continuation it is understood only that this is a matter of a mixture ("the mixture of wild beasts"), and in a manner that it will reach everywhere ("against you etc., and the houses of Egypt shall be filled etc., and also the ground etc.") — therefore Rashi explained "I will incite against you — I will stir up against you," so that from the necessity (cited above, section 1) to interpret "meshi'ach" as "I will stir up," it will also be understood who and what the "Arov" is: those to whom stirring up applies, namely animals. And when animals are stirred up, it is simply understood that they bite and destroy, etc. Thus it is clear what "the mixture of wild beasts" is and what the punishment is: the Holy One, blessed be He, will stir up many animals in a mixture, and they will bite and destroy the Egyptians.
Now, the fact that the Torah specifies, of all the details of the plague, only that they came as an "Arov" (in a mixture), to the extent that it did not explain what is (seemingly) the main thing — that wild beasts etc. came [and this we know only from "I will incite against you," as above] — compels us to say that through this something is clarified that we would not have known otherwise, namely:
The main novelty and miracle (in this miracle that wild beasts etc. came) was that many kinds of wild beasts came in a mixture; but the other details of this plague did not contain any novelty or special miracle.
If so, we must say that only wild beasts (chayos) were in the "Arov," and not domestic animals (behemos). For if domestic animals also came and destroyed etc. like the wild beasts, that would be a great novelty and miracle in this plague — whereas the verse (with the word "Arov") proves that the entire main miracle was only "the mixture" — the mixing of the wild beasts.
However, according to this there is a difficulty: if this plague consisted only of destructive wild beasts, what need was there for special stirring up26? Had domestic animals come as well, it would be understood that there was a need to stir them up so that they would destroy, contrary to their nature; but wild beasts — this is their nature!
To answer this question, Rashi adds "an expression of sisui." His intent in this is that although the core meaning of the word "meshi'ach" is "I will stir up," nevertheless there are levels of stirring up: there is ordinary stirring up — which wild beasts do not lack; and there is a strong stirring up called "sisui," in which the wild beasts are stirred up to do harm with greater force than usual. Here, since we are speaking of wild beasts, one must say that the stirring up was of the strong kind, in the manner of sisui [and nevertheless this did not constitute a primary miracle and novelty contrary to their nature, since wild beasts destroy in any case].
Therefore Rashi brings a proof from the verse "and the teeth of domestic beasts I will send upon them," and not from the verse in Parshas Bechukosai. For first Rashi explains the core meaning of the word "meshi'ach," that it is "I will stir up," and for this he brings a proof from a verse speaking of domestic animals, to which the basic concept of stirring up applies (since in themselves they are not inclined to destroy and harm). After explaining the matter in general, Rashi adds that in our case the stirring up was in the manner of "sisui," since stirring up in the ordinary manner is not needed for wild beasts27.
5. According to the above it will be understood that what Rashi continues in explaining the words "the mixture of wild beasts" — "all kinds of wild beasts, snakes and scorpions, in a mixture, and they destroyed them" — its main point is not to specify who was in the Arov, for that is explained specifically by the words "I will incite against you." Rather, its main point is to say that the intent of the verse in the word "the mixture" is that they came in a mixture, and that this was the only miracle and novelty in this plague, in addition to the plague itself. And since he needs to write that they came in a mixture, he also adds "all kinds of wild beasts, snakes and scorpions," for with this he explains the mixture that occurred in this plague.
Therefore he also quotes the word "את" (before "the mixture"), which adds a further compelling reason to say that the main novelty was that they came in a mixture: for if this were not the main novelty, but only one detail of the whole plague, how could one say "behold, I will incite against you etc. the mixture of wild beasts," which implies that this is everything He stirs up against him?! From the fact that it is written "(behold, I will incite against you etc.) the mixture of wild beasts," it is compelled that this is the novelty and special miracle in the plague. And this is Rashi's proof [in addition to the above] that the verse comes to emphasize that the main miracle is that they came in a mixture28.
6. According to the above, it is all the more understandable why Rashi does not specify "bears, lions and leopards": there is no proof at all in the plain meaning of Scripture as to which wild beasts were found at that time within the borders of Egypt and its surroundings. Consequently, there is no compelling reason that there were "bears, lions and leopards" there. Had Rashi specified "bears, lions and leopards," it would imply that if they were not then found in the vicinity of Egypt, the Holy One, blessed be He, brought them from a place far from Egypt — and that would be an additional miracle. Therefore Rashi writes simply "wild beasts," meaning the wild beasts that were then commonly found in the vicinity of the border of Egypt, without specifying which beasts they were.
7. For the above reason, the necessity for Rashi to explain that there were also "snakes and scorpions" will also be understood. This verse concludes "and also the ground upon which they are." Had it been written "and the mixture of wild beasts shall fill the houses of Egypt, and also the ground upon which they are" ("the mixture of wild beasts" being the main subject of the verse), there would be room to say that "they" refers to the main subject — the Arov*28. But since it is written "and the houses of Egypt shall be filled with the mixture of wild beasts etc." ("the houses of Egypt" being the main subject), it is as if it were written "and the houses of Egypt shall be filled with the mixture of wild beasts, and also the ground upon which the houses (or the Egyptians) are shall be filled with the mixture of wild beasts." Furthermore, and most importantly: throughout this passage, the Arov is in the singular — "and it came," "and it departed," "and He removed" — and if so, it should have said "upon which it is."
And it appears, in my humble opinion, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, that the intent of "upon which they are" is the houses, or the Egyptians: that the mixture of wild beasts would not only fill the houses, but would also fill the ground upon which the houses (the Egyptians) stand29, meaning that the Arov would be also inside the ground. Seemingly, this would be a special and wondrous miracle — that wild beasts would be inside the ground, contrary to their nature — and this contradicts what is emphasized earlier in the verse, that there was no novelty or miracle here in addition to "the mixture."
Therefore Rashi must explain that there were also "snakes and scorpions"30, which by their nature are found in pits inside the ground. This is already known from what is written31 earlier: "והבור ריק אין בו מים" ("and the pit was empty; there was no water in it"), and Rashi explains: "מים אין בו אבל נחשים ועקרבים יש בו" ("There was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it"). Thus snakes and scorpions are found by their nature in pits inside the earth, and this involves nothing contrary to their nature.
Nevertheless, Rashi does not quote the words "and also the ground upon which they are," nor does he allude to them with "etc.," for, as mentioned, here Rashi's main concern is not to specify the species of animals that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought in the plague of Arov, but to emphasize that they came in a mixture; only incidentally does he specify that there were also snakes and scorpions there.
8. However, the matter requires explanation: what is the significance of their coming in a mixture, to the point that this is the entire novelty of this plague?
To this Rashi continues: "and there is a reason for the matter in the Aggadah, for each and every plague — why this one and why that one," through which the greatness of the novelty in the "mixture" will be understood: "With the tactics of the wars of kings He came upon them etc., and afterwards they blow and sound the shofars against them to frighten and confound them; and likewise the frogs croaked and made noise etc." It turns out, then, that one of the main tactics of war is to take actions to frighten and confound them. So too in the plague of Arov: the reason He brought the wild beasts in a mixture was in order "to frighten and confound them." For when the animals are each species by itself, the panic is not so great; but when many animals of many species come in a mixture, then the panic and fear are extremely great.
Since his intent is to explain the great significance of the mixture32, Rashi brings this reason for the plagues here, as a continuation of what he said earlier in the same comment, and he brings only the reason of the first two plagues — that is, only up to the reason for the plague of frogs, and no further — since it is mainly this plague that Rashi intends in citing this Midrash.
Consequently, it is also understood why Rashi explains the analogue only in the plague of frogs: for only through the analogue of this plague do we know that the concept of "to frighten and confound them" was present in the plagues.
Nevertheless, Rashi must preface that this reason is stated "in the Aggadah" — even though in the plain meaning of Scripture too there is room for this reasoning (as above, section 3) — because in the plain meaning of Scripture other reasons for these plagues are already known: for the plagues of blood and frogs — to strike their deity; and for the plague of lice — to show the magicians that "it is the finger of G‑d," as above. Therefore Rashi prefaces that this reason is "in the Aggadah"; but through this Aggadah the reason why He brought them "in a mixture" will be understood [for this reason does not contradict the plain meaning of Scripture — it is just not compelled by it; whereas the aforementioned reasons are each compelled in its own place].
9. However, the matter is still not entirely clear-cut (although this is not an actual question — and therefore the explanation of it is also only alluded to in its place — as follows): Granted that their coming in a mixture is a great matter, which confuses etc. — but nevertheless, why is only this mentioned in the verse, as if the very fact that wild beasts came and destroyed is considered insignificant by comparison?
To this Rashi concludes and alludes: "as is found in the Midrash of Rabbi Tanchuma." There33, continuing the above matter, it is related that "their croaking was harder for them than their destruction." From this it is understood regarding the Arov as well, that this is an exceedingly major element of the plague.
For this reason, too, Rashi adds "etc.," even though, according to the above, what is said there afterwards regarding the other plagues is not relevant here — because his intent with "etc." is not the reason for the other plagues there in the Midrash, but what is said there: "their croaking was harder for them than their destruction."
10. According to what was said above — that the main reason for the first three plagues, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, is not the reason of the Midrash, but rather to strike their deity and to show the magicians that "it is the finger of G‑d" — another matter will be understood:
In the plague of Arov it is written afterwards: "והפליתי ביום ההוא את ארץ גושן אשר עמי עומד עלי' לבלי היות שם ערוב וגו'" ("And I will set apart on that day the land of Goshen, upon which My people stand, so that there shall be no mixture of wild beasts there etc."), meaning that among the Children of Israel there was no plague of Arov.
The difficulty is: why is it not written regarding the first three plagues that they were not among the Children of Israel? And if it is a simple and understood matter, why does the verse spell it out in the plague of Arov?
Now, on this matter there are several opinions. Ibn Ezra34 writes: "In my opinion, the plague of blood, the frogs and the lice included the Egyptians and the Hebrews etc., and these three caused little harm; only the plague of Arov, which was severe — G‑d separated between the Egyptians and Israel."
However, the Radbaz35 writes in his responsum: "As for what Ibn Ezra wrote, that the plague of blood, the frogs and the lice were upon Egypt and upon Israel — it is forbidden to believe this, all the more so since the verses indicate the opposite: 'and Egypt could not drink from the river,' 'and Egypt dug around the river' — implying that Israel did not need to do this, for they drank from the waters of the river. And regarding the frogs it is written 'and into you and into your people etc.,' 'and the frogs shall depart from you and from your houses and from your servants and from your people etc.' — implying that they were not among Israel36. And likewise the lice; and one learns the unspecified from the explicit. And I do not know: if the plague was also upon Israel, what proof would there be in it for Pharaoh to send out Israel?"
And the Rambam, in his Commentary on the Mishnah37, writes that the plagues of blood and frogs were not among Israel at all, whereas the plague of lice was also among them, but "they did not cause them distress."
Since Rashi does not answer [even by allusion] the question of why "and I will set apart etc." was not written regarding the first three plagues, it is proven that according to the plain meaning of Scripture the first plagues were also among Israel. This also appears from what is written38: "ותהי הכינם באדם ובבהמה" ("and the lice were upon man and upon beast") — "man" unqualified. Nor can one say that the plague of lice "did not cause them distress," for from where do we know this39 according to the plain meaning of Scripture40?
As for the Radbaz's question of why the verse emphasizes "Egypt" in the plagues of blood and frogs — it is simply understood, since this is the main point in bringing the plagues.
But his last question is seemingly truly difficult: "If the plague was also upon Israel, what proof would there be in it for Pharaoh to send out Israel?" And also: why indeed were the plagues also upon Israel?
However, according to the above it is understood: since Rashi explained that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought the first two plagues in order to strike their deity, it is understood that when Pharaoh would see that his idol was being struck, the verse "בזאת תדע כי אני ה'" ("By this you shall know that I am G‑d")*40 would be fulfilled in him [and if the Children of Israel would also suffer from this, the striking of his idol would not be diminished thereby]. On the contrary, for this very reason it was necessary that these two plagues be also in the waters etc. of the Children of Israel: since through them He struck their deity, wherever their deity was found the plague had to be there; otherwise Pharaoh would think that this part of his idol (found in Goshen and the like) is greater, Heaven forfend, than the Holy One, blessed be He41.
Similarly with the plague of lice: since the intent was that through it the magicians would see that "it is the finger of G‑d," it was necessary that it be unlimited — throughout the entire land of Egypt. For otherwise there would be room to say that it was performed by limited beings, by human beings — Moshe and Aharon being magicians (as they said regarding the first two plagues42). And although the magicians of Egypt could not bring up the lice, Moshe and Aharon too could bring them up only over a specific area and upon specific people — except that in this they were greater than the magicians of Egypt43. Therefore it had to be everywhere, also among the Children of Israel.
Whereas in the plague of Arov, where there was no such necessity — it says "and I will set apart etc."
11. In the inner dimension of matters, the reason why "and I will set apart etc." occurred specifically in the plague of Arov can be explained: in the first three plagues there was no need to separate between the Children of Israel and the Egyptians, for even if the plagues were also among Israel, it would not have entered anyone's mind, Heaven forfend, that because of this it was possible for the Children of Israel to intermingle with the Egyptians. But in the plague of Arov, in which the Holy One, blessed be He, mixed together the animals, there was then room for an alien thought, as if the Holy One, blessed be He, had removed all the partitions — just as He removed the partition between one wild beast and another, and between the snake and the scorpion — and consequently the fence between Israel and the nations, to differentiate, was also breached. Then the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to show that the partition exists even at this time, and therefore: "And I will set apart on that day etc., upon which My people stand etc., ושמתי פדות בין עמי ובין עמך" ("and I will make a distinction between My people and your people").
The lesson from this is simply understood: specifically at a time when there is confusion in the world, and at a time when the fences of the world have been breached in a manner that has never been before — there is a special need to strengthen the partition between Israel and the nations. For even then, while they were in Egypt, before the Giving of the Torah — that is, before "ובנו בחרת מכל עם ולשון" ("and You have chosen us from among every people and tongue")44 — at a time when there was "Arov" and there was room for concern, the Holy One, blessed be He, performed a special miracle45 to make "a distinction between My people and your people"; all the more so in our time.
And this separation and distinction applied to every single one of the Children of Israel, even to those who did not want to leave Egypt46. From this there is an additional lesson: that this partition and separation applies to every man and woman who is called by the name Israel47.
And when the Children of Israel strengthen this partition, there will be no partition or separating thing48, Heaven forfend, between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the Children of Israel; and every single Jew, man and woman, will return in complete teshuvah, and "מיד הן נגאלין" ("immediately they are redeemed") with the true and complete Redemption through our righteous Moshiach.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Va'eira, 5732)
Notes
1) 8:17.
2) Haazinu 32:24.
3) And so it is in the Re'em and the Gur Aryeh here.
4) Devarim 2:5.
*4) 9:14.
5) And so it is in the Gur Aryeh here.
6) But what the Re'em and the Gur Aryeh (and the Sifsei Chachamim on Bechukosai 26:22) write — that the term "sending" applies only to a being with understanding — I have not merited to understand, for it is stated explicitly (Noach 8:7; and see Rashi there, 8:8) "וישלח את העורב" ("and he sent out the raven"), and (Mishpatim 22:4) "ושלח את בעירו" ("and he sends out his animal"). Likewise it is stated explicitly in Yeshayahu (32:20) "משלחי רגל השור והחמור" ("who send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey"), and Rashi explains there: "you will send forth the feet of the ox." Likewise in the language of the Sages (where it is even more obvious that one would not use a word unsuited to the nature of the thing) we find the term "sending" with regard to animals: see Bava Kamma (3a), "this is where it went on its own, this is where he sent it." He should have said "this is where it went because of me" [although one could say that it comes as a continuation of the wording of the verse "ושלח" cited there].
7) 26:22.
8) Devarim 2:5; there, 9; there, 24.
9) Bo 10:22.
10) Shemos Rabbah 11:2.
11) And so it is explained in the Maskil LeDavid here.
12) Va'eira 8:9.
12*) There, 27.
13) As the commentators on Rashi asked. And what the Sifsei Chachamim writes in his first answer — "that Rashi was troubled: why did G‑d bring the Arov upon them, since they derived benefit from it, from the hides and their flesh and other benefits; therefore Rashi explained that there is a reason for the matter" — is not at all understood, for this question would arise at the conclusion of the passage [reference unclear in OCR], and there Rashi states explicitly (8:26) "not one remained," so that they should not benefit. And what is written in Levush HaOrah — "that he was troubled: since the intent was only to kill them, why did He trouble Himself to bring the Arov upon them, and not bring at once something very great so that they would die all at once, as He did with the army of Sennacherib" — is also not understood: for the intent was not to kill all of them [as is evident from the fact that in actuality not all of them were killed]. And if so, He could not bring something upon all of them [nor upon some of them — for why should a particular person specifically die (to the extent that even in the last plague there had to be a specific limitation as to who would die — the firstborn — and not simply that some of the Egyptians would die)]. Regarding the answer of the Gur Aryeh and the Maskil LeDavid, see below, note 19 and note 20.
14) Sifsei Chachamim, in his second answer.
15) Va'eira 7:17. And so it is in Shemos Rabbah 9:8.
16) There, 28.
17) There, 19. And so it is in Shemos Rabbah 10:4.
18) Va'eira 8:15.
19) And understandably, all three of these questions apply also to the answer of the Gur Aryeh: "Regarding blood and frogs there is no question etc., because the water is close to Egypt etc., and likewise the frogs that are in the river etc., and likewise the dust of the earth etc."
20) This question, as well as the third question below, is difficult on all the answers cited above (note 13). And also according to the Maskil LeDavid, who explained that Rashi was troubled why specifically the plague of Arov was a plague that killed some of the Egyptians, unlike the earlier plagues, and to this Rashi explained that there is a reason for this in the Aggadah — as is understood.
21) 8:5.
22) And although one could say that in the plague of blood this is self-understood from the words "ruins its water sources," whereas with the frogs the connection of "they blow against them etc." to the plague of frogs is not self-understood — this is not so, for Rashi has already explained (7:29) "they enter their innards and croak."
23) For although many interpretations in Rashi's commentary come from the Midrashim of our Sages, as Rashi states explicitly (Bereishis 3:8), "I have come only for the plain meaning of Scripture and for Aggadah that settles the words of Scripture" — nevertheless Rashi does not preface "our Rabbis said" and the like when they are compelled by the plain meaning of Scripture; whereas when he prefaces that it is from a Midrash, this comes to indicate that it is not the actual plain meaning of Scripture [and nevertheless he brought it in his commentary because the plain interpretation is somewhat difficult].
24) And so it is stated explicitly further on (Beshalach 14:14), "G‑d will fight for you"; (there, 15:3) "G‑d is a Master of war." But even without these verses, it is understood thus also in the simple sense.
25) And in the plague of frogs, "and into you and into your people etc." is part of the content of the plague, as Rashi explains there: "they enter their innards and croak."
26) For it has already been stated that Yaakov said regarding Yosef, "A wild beast has devoured him" (Vayeishev 37:33), and Yaakov certainly did not think that the Holy One, blessed be He, had incited a wild beast against Yosef (especially since he knew his virtues, that he was his "child of old age" (Vayeishev there, 3, and in Rashi's commentary)); rather, certainly this is in the nature of a wild beast.
27) And on the verse "I will incite the beasts of the field against you," Rashi explains "והשלחתי — לשון גירוי" ("I will incite — an expression of stirring up"), and not "an expression of sisui" — because there "the beasts of the field" includes both wild and domestic animals, as stated explicitly in Rashi (Shemini 11:2), "for the domestic animal is included in chayah." Consequently, Rashi's intent is to state only the core point, that it is "an expression of stirring up," and it is understood that the manner of stirring up a wild animal differs from stirring up a domestic animal. Whereas in our case (as in the text) there were only wild animals, and so Rashi must explain that here the intent is specifically "an expression of sisui." And regardless, one must say that "the beasts of the field" there includes domestic animals too, from what Rashi says afterwards: "I would know only of a wild beast that bereaves, as is its way; a domestic animal, whose way is not so — from where? The verse states, 'and the teeth of domestic beasts I will send upon them.'" Seemingly, what is the proof, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, that here too He will incite domestic animals, from the fact that in another verse and on another subject this is stated? [It is obvious that one cannot say this is learned by a gezeirah shavah (as in the Sifsei Chachamim there) — for that is not the way of the plain meaning of Scripture.] One must therefore say that Rashi's intent is that, according to the plain meaning, "the beasts of the field" includes domestic animals too, and on this he asks: since the intent here is that domestic animals too will bereave — where do we find that such a supernatural occurrence is possible? To this he cites that we find explicitly elsewhere that by decree from Above this is possible. Continuing this (and along the lines of the above), he goes on afterwards: "There were already two in Eretz Yisrael etc." — for even after finding a verse that it is possible for domestic animals to bereave, nevertheless, since this is a great novelty, perhaps it applies only where it is stated explicitly; to this he adds that it is not such a great novelty, since "there were already two etc." [And consequently the question falls away: why does Rashi need to add "there were already etc." (and see Sifsei Chachamim there)].
28) Accordingly, it is understood why Rashi adds "(wild beasts that are) harmful (ra'os)," for this emphasizes all the more that the novelty and the miracle here are not in their destroying (but in their coming in a mixture).
*28) And although "Arov" is in the singular — this is along the lines of Rashi's explanation earlier (8:2) on the words "the frog" and "the lice."
29) In Ibn Ezra: "The meaning of 'and also the ground' — a place where there are no houses" (and so it is in the Tur HaAruch); accordingly, "they" refers to "Egypt" mentioned in the verse.
30) See Sforno here.
31) Vayeishev 37:24.
32) Accordingly, Rashi's wording is understood — "and there is a reason for the matter in the Aggadah, for each and every plague, why this one and why that one" — for seemingly he should have said "and there is a reason in the Aggadah for each etc." For "the matter" refers to what was said earlier, "in a mixture," and to this he adds: "and there is a reason for (this) matter in the Aggadah (according to what is said there), for each and every plague etc." But this is somewhat forced.
33) Whereas in the Midrash Rabbah (Shemos Rabbah 10:6) it is a separate matter.
34) Va'eira 7:24. And see there, 29.
35) Vol. 1, sec. 813. And this is also the opinion of many commentators (cited in Torah Sheleimah, Va'eira 7:17; 8:13).
36) [And it is surprising that he does not mention Ibn Ezra's answer (7:29) to this question (for if his intent is that Ibn Ezra's answer is not acceptable — the main point is missing from the book).]
37) On the Mishnah (Avos 5:4), "Ten miracles were performed for our forefathers in Egypt" — "for so the Sages explained" (and see Rabbeinu Yonah there); and in the Meiri: "they said in the Talmud."
38) 8:14.
39) One cannot say that he relies on what is stated in the Talmud, for this is not Rashi's way even when it is compelled by the plain meaning of Scripture; all the more so with this statement, which is not in our Gemara.
40) Especially since in the Mishnah too they are called "ten miracles etc.," which shows that this is not something understood by simple reasoning.
*40) Va'eira 7:17.
41) Similar to Rashi's explanation (Beshalach 14:2 [OCR reads 14:20]), that they would say their deity is powerful.
42) Rashi, 7:22.
43) For one must say that they did not know that "the demon has no power over a creature smaller than a barleycorn" (Rashi, 8:14), for otherwise how could they have wanted at the outset to bring up the lice?
44) Text of the blessings of the Shema. See Shulchan Aruch of the Alter Rebbe, sec. 60, par. 3.
45) As explained in several of the commentators on the Chumash (Rabbeinu Bachaye, the commentary of the Riva, the Tur HaAruch, and others) on the verse "and I will set apart etc.," that according to nature, when wild beasts roam freely there is no restraint on them, and consequently a special miracle was needed to restrain them from going into the land of Goshen.
46) See Rashi, Bo 10:22; Beshalach 13:18.
47) As stated explicitly in Sanhedrin (44a): "Even though he has sinned, he is Israel."
48) See Iggeres HaTeshuvah, ch. [chapter number unclear in OCR].
Key Lesson
Specifically when the world is in a state of confusion and its accepted boundaries are breached, there is a special need to strengthen the distinction between the Jewish people and the nations. G‑d Himself set Goshen apart during the plague of Arov, protecting even those Jews who did not want to leave Egypt; when every Jew strengthens this distinction, no barrier remains between G‑d and His people, and the true and complete Redemption through Moshiach comes immediately.