Parshas Va'era
1. In the parsha, regarding the wonder of the staff1 — after "וישלך אהרן את מטהו לפני פרעה ולפני עבדיו ויהי לתנין" ("Aaron cast down his staff before Pharaoh and before his servants, and it became a serpent") and "ויעשו גם הם חרטומי מצרים בלהטיהם כן וישליכו איש מטהו ויהיו לתנינים" ("The magicians of Egypt also did so with their sorcery; they cast down each man his staff, and they became serpents") — the verse concludes: "ויבלע מטה אהרן את מטותם" ("And Aaron's staff swallowed their staffs").
Rashi comments on the words "Aaron's staff swallowed"2 and explains: "מאחר שחזר ונעשה מטה בלע את כולן" ("After it had turned back and become a staff, it swallowed them all").
Simply put, Rashi is coming to preclude something3 with this explanation4: the verse does not relate that afterward (once Aaron's staff had become a serpent) the serpent was turned back into a staff. Consequently, there would be room to assume that "swallowed" here means that while it was a serpent it swallowed the serpents of the magicians5; and the fact that the verse calls it "(swallowed) Aaron's staff ... their staffs" is because by their nature they were staffs (Aaron's staff and the magicians' staffs)6.
Therefore Rashi explains that this is not so; rather, "Aaron's staff swallowed" is meant literally: "After it had turned back and become a staff, it swallowed them all" — that having become a staff again, it swallowed them7.
Seemingly, the reason Rashi explains it this way — although the verse does not mention that "it turned back and became a staff" — is that this is the simpler meaning of the words "Aaron's staff swallowed etc." (and not "ויבלע תנין אהרן" — "Aaron's serpent swallowed").
It should be noted that in this manner the wonder and miracle in it is emphasized even more: Aaron's staff performed the act of swallowing, which is entirely outside the bounds of nature.
2. Accordingly, we need to understand:
The Gemara8 says regarding the verse "Aaron's staff swallowed their staffs" — "נס בתוך נס" ("a miracle within a miracle"); and the Midrash states further that here "a great miracle" occurred9. It is not understood: why does Rashi not also say, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, that this was "a miracle within a miracle" or the like?
And although in the plain meaning of Scripture it is seemingly not relevant to emphasize the greatness of the miracle here, and it suffices that Rashi describes the manner of the event — "After it had turned back and become a staff, it swallowed them all" (which is relevant to the explanation of the verses) —
we nevertheless see in our parsha itself, regarding the plague of hail, that Rashi specifies10 when there was a matter of "a miracle within a miracle"11. The reason for this is simply understood: when sending Moshe and Aaron to Pharaoh, G‑d said12 "ואני אקשה את לב פרעה והרביתי את אותותי ואת מופתי בארץ מצרים" ("And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and I will multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt"). Accordingly it is understood that in study according to the plain meaning of Scripture, the abundance of the signs and wonders in the land of Egypt should also be made as noticeable and as clearly explained as possible (and as Rashi (also) says regarding the plague of boils13, "הרי נסים הרבה" — "Behold, many miracles").
Accordingly it is puzzling: why does Rashi not add here as well the emphasis that a "miracle within a miracle" occurred here?
On the contrary: the main purpose of the plagues was to punish — to strike Pharaoh and the Egyptians — and for that the emphasis that several miracles occurred along the way is seemingly not relevant; nevertheless Rashi finds it necessary to emphasize, regarding boils and hail, the abundance of miracles in them. All the more so with the wonder of the staff turning into a snake, which was entirely (not a punishment and striking of Egypt, but) a sign and wonder — as an answer to "תנו לכם מופת" ("Show a wonder for yourselves")14 — surely Rashi should have brought out here the greatness of the miracle and wonder involved.
3. Simply, one could explain that the interpretation "a miracle within a miracle" here does not fit (in Rashi's explanation) the plain meaning of Scripture:
One of the explanations in the commentators15 of the meaning of "a miracle within a miracle" is: the first miracle is that the serpent turned back into a staff, and the second miracle is that the staff swallowed their staffs.
[And this is how one can interpret16 Rashi's explanation in the Talmud17 on "a miracle within a miracle": "לאחר שחזר ונעשה מטה בלען ולא כשהוא תנין דלא כתיב ויבלע תנין אהרן" ("After it turned back and became a staff it swallowed them, and not while it was a serpent, for it is not written 'Aaron's serpent swallowed'").]
But in the plain meaning of Scripture Rashi cannot accept this. For [in addition to the fact that the first miracle — that "it turned back and became a staff" — is not connected with "Aaron's staff swallowed," with the swallowing itself, and consequently it is not "a miracle within a miracle" — in essence]: according to the plain meaning of Scripture it must emerge that the return of the serpent into a staff was not a miracle at all. To explain this, we must first preface:
Earlier, in Parshas Shemos18, when G‑d showed Moshe the sign of the staff which he was to show the Jewish people, the verse states that after the act of "וישליכהו ארצה ויהי לנחש" ("He cast it to the ground, and it became a snake"), G‑d said to Moshe "שלח ידך ואחוז בזנבו, וישלח ידו ויחזק בו, ויהי למטה בכפו" ("Stretch out your hand and grasp its tail; he stretched out his hand and grasped it, and (only then) it became a staff in his palm"). We see that in order for the snake that had come into being to become a staff again, a special action was required.
The question arises: how is it that in our verse there is no mention at all of "it turned back and became a staff," nor that there was a special action (of Aaron's) for the serpent to become a staff again19? And this is also not mentioned in G‑d's earlier command: "כי ידבר אליכם פרעה לאמר תנו לכם מופת ואמרת אל אהרן קח את מטך והשלך לפני פרעה יהי לתנין" ("When Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, 'Show a wonder for yourselves,' you shall say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and cast it down before Pharaoh; it will become a serpent'")20.
We must say that according to the plain meaning of Scripture, the return of the serpent to a staff in our verse did not come about through an action; rather, it happened by itself, as will be explained.
4. We find two kinds of miracles in (the other) wonders in Egypt:
a) A miracle which changed a thing from one natural reality to another — as in the case of "ידו מצורעת כשלג" ("his hand (Moshe's) was leprous as snow")21, where after the miracle the leprosy on the hand became a natural thing, so that a second miracle had to come to nullify the leprosy, so that it "שבה כבשרו" ("had returned like his flesh")22.
b) Where the miracle did not effect an actual exchange from one nature to another, but rather such a change in the natural reality that the novelty is sustained every moment in a miraculous manner (similar to what took place at the splitting of the sea23) — as we find in the plague of blood, where the waters "נהפכו לדם" ("were turned to blood")24: even after they had become blood, the natural reality of water was not removed from them, and only the miracle effected, at every moment, the transformation of the water into blood25. Therefore, when the need for the miracle ceased, they automatically became a reality of water again26.
And in the plain meaning of Scripture it is reasonable to say that where the Torah does not say that there was a separate action and miracle to nullify the previous novelty and miracle,
we must assume that the novelty was nullified by itself, after the need for the miracle had ended, and not that another miracle was needed.
Accordingly it is understood in our case, regarding the staff in our parsha, that the reason the verse does not state that the serpent became a staff again through an action (of Aaron's) is that after the wonder of "וישלך אהרן... ויהי לתנין" ("Aaron cast down... and it became a serpent"), which G‑d had commanded to perform before Pharaoh, had been carried out, the miracle came to an end, and the serpent automatically27 returned to its natural reality — a staff28.
And therefore Rashi does not say, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, that there was a miracle within a miracle here.
5. However, we need to understand:
In explaining "a miracle within a miracle" in this matter, the Maharsha29 interprets the aforementioned Rashi (in the Talmud) to mean that "הנס הא' היא הבליעה גופה גם אם הי' תנין ועוד נס שני שבלען אחר שנעשה מטה" ("the first miracle is the swallowing itself, even had it been a serpent, and a further, second miracle is that it swallowed them after it had become a staff"). And the Maharsha himself learns (based on the words of the Midrash30) a second explanation: that the first miracle is the swallowing itself, that a staff swallowed, and "בתוך נס הבליעה כשנעשה מטה הי' עוד נס אחר בתוכו שלא נתעבה המטה ע"י הבליעה" ("within the miracle of the swallowing, when it had become a staff, there was another miracle within it — that the staff did not become thicker through the swallowing") of all the other staffs.
Accordingly, Rashi should have said that here there was a miracle within a miracle, for the reasons mentioned above.
6. Seemingly one could say that these two approaches as well do not fit the plain meaning of Scripture:
The first explanation, that "the first miracle is the swallowing itself, even had it been a serpent," is not understood (in the plain meaning): a) That a serpent swallows another serpent is no miracle at all, for "כן דרך התנינים לבלוע זה את זה" ("such is the way of serpents, to swallow one another") (as is seen in practice, and as the Maharsha cites from the Midrash31). b) According to this explanation the wording "a miracle within a miracle" is difficult — this was not one miracle within the other, but two separate miracles32.
And the Maharsha's explanation that the second miracle is that "the staff did not become thicker through the swallowing" is not (even) hinted at in the plain meaning of Scripture.
But in truth these questions are not sufficient reason to reject the two explanations:
Regarding the first explanation: a) Granted that when one serpent swallows another (smaller) one it is indeed no miracle; but when one serpent swallows many serpents it is indeed a miracle. b) Although the wording "a miracle within a miracle" would then not fit so well (as the Maharsha asks), Rashi could have said "שני נסים היו" ("there were two miracles"), just as Rashi himself says33 regarding the plague of boils, as mentioned, "Behold, many miracles," or "a great miracle"34 or the like.
And regarding the Maharsha's explanation that the second miracle is that "the staff did not become thicker through the swallowing" — one can also say that this is implied by the plain meaning of Scripture:
Further on in the parsha, regarding the plague of blood, the verse says35 "והמטה אשר נהפך לנחש תקח בידך" ("And the staff which turned into a snake you shall take in your hand"), and "קח מטך ונטה ידך" ("Take your staff and stretch out your hand etc."); in the plague of frogs it says again36 "נטה את ידך במטך" ("Stretch out your hand with your staff etc."); in the plague of lice37 — "נטה את מטך" ("Stretch out your staff etc."). The simple implication is that all of these refer to the same staff that is being spoken of here38. Now, if the staff had been changed and thickened so greatly through swallowing all the staffs of the magicians of Egypt — and as the Midrash says39, "אילו הי' עושה אדם מכל אותן המטות שהשליכו ועשו תנינים היו יותר מעשרה חבילות (ועומדין)" ("If a person were to make, from all those staffs which they cast down and made into serpents, there would be more than ten bundles (and standing)40)") — this should have been mentioned somewhere in the Torah (at least by allusion).
From this it is implied that (also) according to the plain meaning, "the staff did not become thicker through the swallowing."
And so the question returns to its place: why does Rashi not say that here there was "a miracle within a miracle" (or "two miracles" or the like)?
7. This will be understood by first noting a matter which seemingly requires explanation in the wonder of the staff:
In G‑d's speech to Moshe and Aaron — "When Pharaoh speaks to you, saying, 'Show a wonder for yourselves'"41 — G‑d said, "You shall say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and cast it down before Pharaoh; it will become a serpent,'" and nothing more. How is it that afterwards there was the wonder of "(Aaron's staff) swallowed their staffs," something not mentioned at all in G‑d's words regarding this matter?
And one cannot say, of course, that since something happened here which the magicians of Egypt did — "they cast down each man his staff, and they became serpents" — about which G‑d had not given notice earlier in His command, therefore there also had to be the additional wonder of "(Aaron's staff) swallowed their staffs." For G‑d certainly knew this, and nevertheless He did not tell Aaron about it.
8. The explanation of this is:
On the verse "Show a wonder for yourselves," Rashi explains: "מופת — אות להודיע שיש צורך (צרך) במי ששולח אתכם" ("A wonder — a sign to make known that the One who sends you has tzorech"). As commentators42 explain, "tzorech" in Rashi here means "לשון יכולת וממשלה" ("a term denoting ability and dominion").
That is to say: although the plagues themselves showed the power and dominion of G‑d (as stated earlier in the verse, as mentioned: "I will multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt... "וידעו מצרים כי אני ה' בנטותי את ידי על מצרים" ("And Egypt shall know that I am G‑d, when I stretch out My hand over Egypt")), G‑d nevertheless wanted that,
as a prelude to the plagues, the ability and dominion of G‑d over Egypt be brought out as a matter in its own right, not in connection with the punishment and plagues upon Egypt.
Accordingly it is understood that the sign of the staff was not simply to demonstrate G‑d's miracles, but to make known the "tzorech," the "ability and dominion," of G‑d over the Egyptians.
Consequently it is simply understood that "Aaron's staff swallowed their staffs" was not an additional thing that came about because of the addition of "they cast down each man his staff, and they became serpents" (that is to say, as if essentially all that was needed here was that Aaron's staff become a serpent before Pharaoh). Rather, this itself — the swallowing of their staffs (by Aaron's staff) — was the purpose of the wonder of the staff, since this demonstrated the power and dominion of the Holy One, blessed be He; so much so that one can say that "and it became a serpent" was merely a preparation for this43.
9. Accordingly it is simply understood why Rashi learns that "Aaron's staff swallowed" took place "after it had turned back and become a staff, it swallowed them all":
Had the swallowing taken place while the staff was a serpent — and the nature of serpents is to swallow one another — then although when one serpent swallows many serpents it is a miraculous matter, it nevertheless does not bring out so prominently the power and dominion of the Sender, of G‑d, over the Egyptians.
Only when the swallowing is done by a staff, which emphasizes power and dominion ("מקל לרדות" — "a rod with which to rule"44), was the "wonder" before Pharaoh thereby accomplished — the ability and dominion of G‑d over the Egyptians.
10. And this is the difference between Rashi's explanation on this verse, where Rashi does not say that there was a miracle within a miracle (or many miracles), and the following verses regarding the plagues, where Rashi emphasizes that a miracle within a miracle, or many miracles, took place:
With the plagues, the main intent is — as their name indicates: plagues; with them G‑d struck the Egyptians. But in order that it be recognizable that they come from G‑d — "And Egypt shall know that I am G‑d, when I stretch out My hand over Egypt" — in many of them there were miracles, a miracle within a miracle, many miracles, and the like.
Whereas with the wonder of the staff, whose purpose was "to make known" the "tzorech," the ability and dominion of G‑d over Egypt, here, according to the plain meaning, the emphasis on the abundance and greatness of the miracles involved was not (so) relevant; what mattered was G‑d's dominion over the Egyptians — and this is expressed in the very matter of "after it had turned back and become a staff, it swallowed them all."
11. Accordingly one can also explain why Rashi uses the wording "בלע את כולן" ("swallowed them all")45 and not the wording of the verse, "their staffs"46 [especially since the wording "(them all)" leaves room for the question47 whether their serpents also turned back into staffs and Aaron's staff swallowed them as staffs, or whether they remained serpents and Aaron's staff swallowed them in that state] —
because this detail is not relevant to the emphasis of the verse. The main intent of the verse is to bring out that Aaron's staff swallowed "them all"48: the fact that Aaron's staff, as the emissary of the Holy One, blessed be He, swallowed everything that had come about through the power of the magicians of Egypt (and there is no difference or practical distinction whether these were serpents or staffs*48) clearly demonstrated the ability and dominion of the Sender, of G‑d, over Pharaoh and Egypt.
12. All of the above will be even sweeter according to the explanation in the inner dimension of the Torah:
It is explained in Chassidus49 that the purpose of the ten plagues is to break the kelipos, which hold themselves to be an independent entity and thing. For through the wonders it was clearly demonstrated that they are not an independent, separate entity, but must constantly receive their vitality from holiness.
But this vitality reaches them through tzimtzumim and screens, which is why it is not revealed in them. When, however, a radiance of G‑d "שלמעלה מן הצמצום" ("which transcends the tzimtzum") is revealed, they are utterly nullified; and this is the content of the wonders (effected through the plagues).
And in this consisted the accomplishment of the first wonder — the staff turning into a serpent — which was a prelude to all the ten plagues50:
Each of the ten plagues had the aim of breaking a different level of the kelipah of Egypt, which in general consists of ten levels (as is known51, "את זה לעומת זה עשה האלקים" ("G‑d has made one opposite the other")52; and just as in holiness there are ten levels, so, lehavdil, there are ten levels in kelipah).
But as a prelude to the breaking of the particular levels there was the wonder of the staff: the staff was turned into a snake, and immediately afterward "Aaron's staff swallowed their staffs." The matter of "swallowing" indicates the general and complete nullification of the thing swallowed53; and through this general and complete nullification and breaking of the kelipah of Egypt as a whole, there could afterwards be the action of the ten plagues — the breaking and nullification of the particular levels of the kelipah of Egypt.
13. From every matter one must derive a lesson in the service of G‑d:
The Torah is eternal54. From this it is understood that especially a fundamental matter such as the Exodus from Egypt (and the matters connected with the Exodus, including the Egyptian exile) is present in all times and in all generations (in a person's spiritual service). As our Sages command: "בכל דור ודור (וכל יום ויום) חייב אדם לראות את עצמו כאילו הוא יצא (היום) ממצרים" ("In every generation55 (and every day56) a person is obligated to see himself as though he went out of Egypt (today)").
When one goes about "dealing" with another Jew, it must be done according to the instruction of our Sages57, in the manner of "ימין מקרבת" ("the right hand draws near"), out of ahavas Yisrael, following the conduct of Aaron the Kohen, "אוהב שלום ורודף שלום אוהב את הבריות ומקרבן לתורה" ("loving peace and pursuing peace, loving the creatures and bringing them near to Torah")58; and as the Alter Rebbe59 says: "אף הרחוקים מתורת ה' ועבודתו... צריך למשכן בחבלי עבותות אהבה וכולי האי ואולי יוכל לקרבן לתורה ועבודת ה'" ("Even those who are far from G‑d's Torah and His service... one must draw them with strong cords of love, and perhaps one will be able to bring them near to Torah and the service of G‑d"). Moreover: even those whom "it is a mitzvah to hate" — "it is a mitzvah to love them too"; and moreover, one must arouse compassion in one's heart for them, "והרחמנות מבטלת השנאה ומעוררת האהבה" ("and the compassion nullifies the hatred and arouses the love").
Sometimes, however, it happens that the other Jew is in such a low state — the good in him is so deeply hidden — that one must resort to the matter of "ירגיז אדם" ("a person should stir up")60, striking with words; until sometimes the only remedy is to effect in him a general nullification (and breaking)61 — an act of "swallowing," so that the other is "swallowed up"62, that he cease entirely to exist as an entity unto himself.
On this the lesson is that this act of "swallowing" must be done by "Aaron's staff":
First of all, it must be done by someone who is entirely permeated with kindness and true ahavas Yisrael; then one can be certain that the sole reason for the above action is only his absolute ahavas Yisrael (and that no other reasons and inclinations, G‑d forbid, stemming from bad character traits of his animal soul63, are mixed into it).
14. And within this itself one adds a further lesson — that the act of "swallowing" (by Aaron) must be done by a "staff," not a "serpent":
It is not enough that the reason for the action is ahavas Yisrael (the attribute of Aaron); rather, the act of swallowing ("a person should stir up") itself must not be done the way a "serpent" does it, with a feeling of anger etc. (like a serpent, whose character and nature is to frighten and to harm)*63 — but only like a "staff." The mashpia, the one doing it, must do it like a "stick": without any feeling of ire and anger, G‑d forbid, or even a sense of his own existence, but without any self-awareness (in the matter of the striking and swallowing), like a stick64 — and in the words of our Sages, as mentioned, the one who rebukes "did not become thicker" through it.
And then it is accomplished that the recipient indeed becomes "swallowed" into (the staff of) Aaron, in a positive sense: he becomes a part of the one who rebukes, the disciple of Aaron, and especially of Aaron the Kohen, "loving peace and pursuing peace, loving the creatures and bringing them near to Torah," until this becomes his existence in a revealed way as well, because the opposite of good in him has been entirely nullified;
and this service also hastens the departure from the present exile (of Egypt), because baseless love nullifies the cause of the exile — baseless hatred65;
"ומיד הן נגאלין" ("and immediately they are redeemed"), and "כימי צאתך מארץ מצרים אראנו נפלאות" ("As in the days of your going out of the land of Egypt, I will show him wonders")66.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Va'era 5742 and 5745)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 7:10–12.
2) So it is in the first and second printings and in several manuscripts of Rashi (in my possession), where the caption is "Aaron's staff swallowed." In one of the manuscripts of Rashi (in my possession), Rashi's caption also includes the words "their staffs." See below in the text, section 11, and in the notes there.
3) See below, note 7.
4) See Re'em, Gur Aryeh, the Ra"v (Bartenura), and others on Rashi here; and Rashi on Shabbos 97a.
5) As Ibn Ezra explains here. This is also the view of Ralbag here (see also Rabbeinu Bachya here, at the end). And Ibn Ezra writes regarding the explanation that "after it returned (to a staff) it swallowed their staffs" — "and this is a great wonder." See below in the text, section 3, and the sources cited there.
6) Ibn Ezra here.
7) The Maharshal here (Yerios Shlomo; and Minchas Yehudah here) explains Rashi as well to mean that the swallowing took place while it was a serpent, and Aaron's serpent swallowed their serpents; and he brings proof from Rashi's wording "after" (me'achar) rather than "afterwards" (le'achar). But several commentators have already raised difficulties with his words (see at length Ho'il Moshe (by the disciple of the author of Mateh Moshe); Be'er HaTorah, beginning of our parsha, which writes that it is a scribal error in Rashi and should read "le'achar," as in Rashi's commentary on the Talmud (cited below in the text, section 3); and so it is in the first printing and in one of the manuscripts of Rashi (in my possession), and so it is quoted in Re'em, Gur Aryeh, and others. In the second printing: "achar — after it turned back").
8) Shabbos 97a.
9) This is the wording in Tanchuma here, 3: "A great miracle was performed with the staff." In Shemos Rabbah (9:7), the statement of Rabbi Elazar, "a miracle within a miracle," is cited first, and afterwards the words of Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina, "a great miracle was performed with the staff." See below, the gloss on note 32.
10) 9:24.
11) This is from Tanchuma on our parsha, 14; Shemos Rabbah 12:4; and the sources cited there.
12) Our parsha, 7:3.
13) 9:8.
14) 7:9.
15) The second explanation in Nachalas Yaakov here.
16) But see below, section 5.
17) And seemingly this is implied by the wording in Shemos Rabbah 9, there: "A miracle within a miracle — this teaches that the staff turned back into a staff as it was created and swallowed them." And in Midrash Lekach Tov: "A miracle within a miracle — that it turned into a serpent and turned back into a staff, and the staff swallowed the staffs; for if the serpent had swallowed etc." There it is implied that this also includes the first miracle, that the staff turned into a serpent.
18) 4:3–4.
19) It is obviously very forced to say that [the verse] relies on what was stated earlier regarding Moshe, especially since these were two separate commands from G‑d, for two different purposes — the sign of the staff before the Jewish people so that they would believe Moshe, and the wonder with Aaron's staff before Pharaoh and his servants (see Rashi, Shemos 4:21). See below, note 28.
20) Cf. the Rif on Ein Yaakov, Shabbos there. And see, in the manner of Chassidus, Torah Or, Shemos 58a, end, ff.
21) Shemos 4:6.
22) There, verse 7. As is also evident from the statement of our Sages (Rashi on the Torah there, from Shabbos there): "From here [we learn] that the attribute of good comes more quickly than the attribute of punishment." Cf. Tzafnas Pa'neach on the Torah, Shemos there.
23) Which took place through "ויולך ה' את הים ברוח קדים עזה כל הלילה" ("G‑d drove back the sea with a strong east wind all night") (Beshalach 14:21). "And if G‑d were to stop the wind for a moment, the waters would return and flow downward as is their way and nature" (Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch. 2). See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 6, p. 89ff.
24) Our parsha, 7:17; there, 20.
25) "Even when a vessel was full of water... the Jew drinks water and the Egyptian blood; and when he would take from a Jew for money (specifically), he would drink water" (Shemos Rabbah 9:10).
26) Accordingly it is simply understood why the verse does not speak of the blood returning to water, as it does regarding the frogs (our parsha, 8:4ff.), but rather "וימלא שבעת ימים אחרי הכות ה' את היאור" ("Seven days were completed after G‑d struck the river") (7:25) — for the miracle of transformation was from the outset only for seven days, and afterwards "the river returned to its former state" (as Rashi there precisely words it). See Likkutei Sichos vol. 31, p. 34ff.
*) And we do not find that they needed to empty the blood out of the lakes and all their gatherings of water, and in the wooden and stone vessels, after the plague; or that there was a particular action and miracle for the blood in all the above places to return to water — like the wording stated regarding the plague (7:19): "Stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their canals, and over their lakes, and over all their gatherings of water, and they shall become blood."
27) Cf. Targum Yonasan here: "And immediately they turned to be as at first." See also [OCR unclear] on Ein Yaakov there.
28) Accordingly the difference is understood between this "wonder" of Aaron's staff and the "sign" of Moshe's staff, where an action and miracle were needed for it to become a staff again. With Aaron's staff the only need was that Pharaoh see a wonder, but there was no (particular) content (according to the plain meaning — unlike the approach of the Midrash; see Tanchuma (3) and Shemos Rabbah (there, 4) here, and see also Kli Yakar here, verse 9) in the staff's turning into a serpent (snake); therefore so it was also with the miracle, that after the wonder it immediately returned to its nature — a staff. Whereas with Moshe's staff, "and it became a snake" "alluded to him that he had spoken slander about Israel... and had taken up the craft of the snake" (Rashi, Shemos there, 3); that is, there was an allusion and content in its turning specifically into a snake. Therefore so too was the manner of the miracle: its nature was changed to (the essence of) a snake, and afterwards a command and action were needed — "grasp its tail; he stretched out his hand and grasped it, and it became a staff in his palm." See Tanchuma there.
29) Chiddushei Aggados, Shabbos there.
30) Tanchuma there.
31) Tanchuma there. In Shemos Rabbah there, before Rabbi Elazar's view of "a miracle within a miracle," it states: "At that moment the Holy One, blessed be He, said: If the serpent swallows the serpents of Egypt, that is the way of the world — a snake swallows a snake etc." And in Midrash Lekach Tov: "For if the serpent had swallowed the serpents, that would be no sign or wonder, for such is the way of the world — the large swallows the small."
32) As the Maharsha asks: "According to Rashi's explanation, it was nothing but two miracles." Seemingly more fitting (according to the above explanation of Rashi) is "a great miracle" (as the wording of Tanchuma on this) or the like, since there were not actually two miracles here.
*) Except that in Tanchuma one can say that the wording "a great miracle was performed with the staff" is on account of the two details it enumerates afterward — that it swallowed after it had become a staff, and that it did not become thicker through the swallowing (but each of them in its own right is not called "a great miracle"); whereas in Shemos Rabbah the wording "a great miracle" is stated explicitly regarding the miracle that the staff did not become thicker.
33) According to the Maharsha, as in the previous note.
34) As in Tanchuma (see note 32).
35) 7:15, 16, 19.
36) 8:1.
37) 8:12.
38) For even if we say that in Rashi's view, according to the plain meaning, Moshe's staff and Aaron's staff were two separate staffs, it is obvious that with the staff mentioned in the first three plagues, which were performed by Aaron and not by Moshe (see Rashi on our parsha, 7:19), Aaron did not use Moshe's staff — for this very reason, that the plague itself was not performed by Moshe. See Targum Yonasan 7:15; and Zohar II, 28a. And in Ibn Ezra on our parsha (7:9), and in his short commentary there, [it is stated] that they are all one staff. See Abarbanel and Kli Yakar there, and elsewhere.
39) Tanchuma there; and similarly in Shemos Rabbah there.
40) So it is in our version of Tanchuma. Seemingly it should read "omrin" (sheaves). In Chiddushei Aggados there he quotes from Tanchuma: "If a person were to make all of them into bundles, there would be ten omers." And in Shemos Rabbah there: "Although it swallowed all those staffs that they had cast down, which were enough to make ten omers etc."
41) Chizkuni and the commentary of the Rosh (Hadar Zekeinim) here. See also Re'em, Gur Aryeh, and the other commentators on Rashi.
42) [OCR unclear]
43) As for why Aaron was initially commanded only "cast it down etc., it will become a serpent" (7:9), with no mention of the wonder of the swallowing — one can say that Aaron's "casting down" effected only "it will become a serpent," whereas (the return to a staff and) the wonder of the swallowing was not a result of Aaron's action.
As for Rashi's explanation (on our parsha, 7:23), "גם לזאת — למופת המטה שנהפך לתנין ולא לזה של דם" ("Even to this — to the wonder of the staff that turned into a serpent — nor to this one of the blood"), meaning that this is the content of the wonder of the staff, that it turned into a serpent — whereas seemingly, according to the above in the text, he should have said simply "to the wonder of the staff," and nothing more: this is difficult in any case (even if we say, unlike the text, that the main intent of the wonder of the staff was "Aaron's staff swallowed"), for it is obvious that the wonder of the swallowing is greater than the turning of the staff into a serpent, something that the magicians of Egypt also did (see Ibn Ezra there: "for he first mentioned the sign of the staff that became a serpent and swallowed the staffs").
One can explain this in several ways: a) Rashi took the beginning of the miracle, "that turned into a serpent." b) The wording "even to this" in the verse indicates what is common to them, and therefore it fits "the wonder of the staff that turned into a serpent," which is similar to the transformation of the water [OCR unclear]
44) Cf. Rashi, Vayelech 31:7. See also Shemos Rabbah here (9:2).
45) In the second printing: "swallowed them."
46) In Be'er HaTorah (cited in note 7) he quotes Rashi as "swallowed their staffs." In one of the manuscripts of Rashi (in my possession) the caption (also) explicitly includes "their staffs," and it concludes "meaning, it swallowed them."
47) See Re'em; Ho'il Moshe (Be'er Heitev); Tzeidah LaDerech; Nachalas Yaakov; and others on Rashi.
48) Perhaps one can say that the emphasis "them all" in Rashi is that it swallowed them all at once.
*48) On the contrary: had he written "their staffs," there would be room to err that his intent is not to emphasize the control and dominion of the Holy One, blessed be He, over Pharaoh and his magicians, but only the wonder in the swallowing of "their staffs" (see the commentators cited in note 47).
49) The discourse beginning "ויאמר גו' קח את מטך גו' יהי לתנין גו'" ("And He said... take your staff... it will become a serpent...") — Torah Or on our parsha (56d, end, ff.); Maamarei Admur HaZaken 5565 (vol. 1), p. 188ff.; Or HaTorah on our parsha (vol. 7), p. 2494ff.
50) See on this in the sources cited in the previous note (in a somewhat different style).
51) Tanya, beginning of ch. 6.
52) Koheles 7:14.
53) See Torah Chaim, Shemos (58b, end): "That they swallowed them and included them in their very essence, and their own existence was not found at all."
54) Tanya, beginning of ch. 17.
55) Mishnah, Pesachim 116b.
56) Tanya, beginning of ch. 47.
57) Sotah 47a, and the sources cited there. Cited as halachah in the Alter Rebbe's Laws of Torah Study, ch. 4, sec. 10.
58) Avos 1:12.
59) Tanya, ch. 32.
60) Wording of our Sages — Berachos 5a, beginning.
61) See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, p. 122ff.
62) See Likkutei Sichos vol. 17, p. 367, on the explanation of the Mishnah (Avos 3:2), "איש את רעהו חיים בלעו" ("a man would swallow his fellow alive").
63) See Derech Mitzvosecha 89b.
*63) Although even in this manner it does it "not for its own pleasure, but only to fulfill His mission, may He be blessed," like a snake that has no pleasure from its bite (see Anaf Yosef on Ein Yaakov, Yoma 23a) — nevertheless there is enmity in its heart (see Rashi, Yoma there).
64) See Rambam, Laws of Character Traits 2:3: "He should appear before them as though he is angry... and his mind should be settled... and he is not angry." Cf. the precise wording of the Alter Rebbe (Laws of Torah Study, at the end): "He is obligated to show displeasure toward them and to shame them in order to discipline them and sharpen them" (and not as in Rambam (Laws of Torah Study 4:5), "he is obligated to be displeased with them," and in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah (246:11), "he is obligated to be angry with them"). See Likkutei Perushim etc. on Iggeres HaTeshuvah (Kehot, 5747), p. 151, in the note.
65) Yoma 9b.
66) Michah 7:15.
Key Lesson
Aaron's staff swallowed the magicians' staffs only after it had become a staff again, showing G‑d's dominion rather than a serpent's natural ferocity. So too, when another Jew must be firmly rebuked or "broken," it must come only from true ahavas Yisrael, like Aaron, and be done like a staff — without personal anger or ego — so that the other is drawn into goodness, and baseless love hastens the Redemption.