There is a very astute comment in the Midrash Tanhuma that blood was the first plague because the Egyptians worshipped the Nile river and therefore God first executed judgement on the gods of the Egyptians before taking on the people themselves. Of course the Midrash goes on to show how this plague was an utter disaster for the people since it wasn't only the Nile which turned to blood but all of the Egyptian water (even that which they had borrowed from the Israelites. When they first got it, it was clear and only became blood when it came into their hands). But, it seems that the idea is that this was not only a physical problem or a matter of revulsion but a matter of a clear theological statement by God against the Egyptian gods. The Midrash assumes the people felt this as strongly as they did physical revulsion and that God's first agenda was to set the theological record straight..

The midrash then goes into great length to describe how the Israelites survived the plague in that everything they came into contact with was clear and only the Egyptians were affected. THere is a very interesting aspect of this commentary that claims that there was only one way that an Egpytian could get and maintain clear water and that is if he bought it from the Israelites. This comment indicates that this is how the Israelites happened to leave Egypt with great possessions as the Torah says. What is interesting about this to me is not the story itself but the ingenious ability of the Rabbis to come with a completely fanciful explanation for something that solves a nagging problem in the text: How did the Israelites come out of Egypt with possessions?

Another Rabbinic commentary says that God is acting like a warrior in the bringing of the plagues. God starts as any king would by setting a seige against the people and closing off the water sources. Thus, it is not that the Nile is a god that makes it the object of the plague, rather that water is the lifeblood of any people and thus is the place of first attack. This commentary, you will see, will continue with later plagues.

The Rabbinic commentary on this plague is interesting and it is here that we see that the Rabbis had more on their mind than just this plague. This set the tone for a series of commentaries which reflects the frustration, the anger that had formed after the destruction of Jerusalem and the powerlessness that the Rabbis felt in some greater level. While Rabbinic Judaism clearly gained influence after the destruction of the Temple and the Rabbis pointed out on many occasions the superiority of prayer and repentance over ritual acts in the Temple, independence was another matter. They still yearned for a time when Jews would have more control over their lives and I think looked at the plagues as an opportunity to take out some of their frustrations by writing commentaries which celebrated this moment of victory and in a not so subtle way, urged God to act again on the enemies around them. It is one thing to spill out wine from our cups to feel pain for the Egyptians who suffered but I think the Rabbis also were, by commenting on these plagues in such depth, calling on God to be the warrior again who would lead them to victory over their political enemies.

Next, the plague of frogs and some interesting Rabbinic word play.

[Back to the Introduction]

Robert Dobrusin, Rabbi
Copyright © 2000, Robert Dobrusin.
Permission is granted for distribution of this message providing that it is distributed in its entirety and with full attribution, including this copyright statement.

This message was originally posted on April 7, 2000.

Please send comments or suggestions to Rabbi Robert Dobrusin.