But what of the rarely used
alternative, dagah? Is that a cute diminutive limited to teeny
little fish, in which case that word would limit the legal obligation to small
fish? Or is dagah a more general way of referring to all fish big and small?
It must
mean all fish, the Talmud concludes. The
proof is simple. When the plague of
Blood was visited upon the Egyptians, the Torah testifies (Shmos 7:21) that the
dagah in the river died. Could it be that only the small ones died and
the big ones lived? Certainly not! Hashem was out to punish the Egyptians and
there is no reason to think He was doing so sparingly.
Based on this, it is
legally determined that dagah is an
inclusive phrase for fish of all sizes, so any transaction employing that
phrase will perforce encompass all fish, from the very largest to the very
smallest.
The great
scholar, Rabbi Joshua Leib Diskind (1818-1898) asks a simple question. Why does the Talmud wait to offer this verse
as proof that dagah means all
fish? The verse cited is the one at the
end of the narrative, where the Torah describes the actual event. But there already is an earlier verse using dagah in reference to the plague of
Blood. It comes when Moshe delivers his
forewarning to Pharaoh. He tells him
(7:18) that the water turning into blood will cause the dagah in the river to die.
Rabbi
Diskind wonders why the Talmud did not do the logical and orderly thing, which
would have been to ask from the earlier verse.
After all, that verse was the threat which was fulfilled by the arrival
of the plague. Thus, the same logic
applies. If Moshe was threatening that
the water would become blood and wipe out the dagah, it is pretty clear he does not mean to say only the smallest
of the fish in the river will be adversely affected.
*
I would
like to offer a solution to Rabbi Diskind’s challenge by presenting a
far-reaching principle in understanding the system Hashem used in delivering
the plagues, whereby Moshe first warned of the impending punishment and then
his predictions came true. My
observation is this. There is a pattern
of the actual plagues eclipsing their warnings.
They came to reality in a more severe form than was foretold.
Let us go
through them one by one to see if we can back up this startling claim. Although Blood is the first plague, we will
leave it for last in this discussion, as we investigate the text to see if this
pattern truly exists.
Plague #2
is Frogs. When Moshe warns Pharaoh
(Shmos 7:27), he tells him that frogs will afflict the Land of Egypt from
border to border. When they arrive, the
Torah says (8:2) that the frogs arose and “covered” the Land of Egypt. In practice there was full coverage, far more
than the warning promised.
Plague #3
is Lice. The Torah does not record the
language of Moshe’s threat to Pharaoh, but the presumption is that it is
mirrored in the language of Hashem speaking to Moshe (8:12) to introduce the
coming plague. There He mentions only
there would be dust turning into lice all over the Land of Egypt. When this decree was enacted, the Torah
reports (8:13) that “all” the dust in Egypt was transformed into lice.
Plague #4
is Wild Animals. Pharaoh was warned
(8:17) that wild animals would be sent into the main population centers of
Egypt, entering the homes and filling the streets. When the animals were sent, we hear something
entirely new. The Torah says (8:20) that
“the land was being destroyed by the wildlife.”
Plague #5
is Animal Disease. When the alarm bells
were rung (9:3), they prognosticated the advent of “a very severe
epidemic.” When the plague actually hit
the result was that (9:6) “all the livestock of Egypt died.”
Plague #6
is Boils. They were advertised in
advance (9:9) as a “rash which sprouts blisters.” They showed up (9:10) somewhat more nastily
as “a rash of blisters sprouting.”
Plague #7
is Hail. It was foretold (9:18) as “a
very heavy hailstorm.” When it made its
appearance, it turned out to be (9:24) something far beyond any hail known to
man, a miraculous confection composed of “hail with fire igniting inside the
hail.”
Plague #8
is Locusts. The lead-up to the plague
(10:5) anticipated the locusts would consume “all the trees which you are
growing in the fields.” It did all of
that, but also (10:12) gobbled up “all the herbage on the ground.”
Plague #9
is Darkness. The Torah does not present
a version of the warning about the impending darkness. The Early Commentators say that the language
about darkness in the warning about locusts is a hint to the plague of darkness
to follow immediately afterward.
One thing seems clear. Whatever language was used mentioned only the
idea of darkness per se. However, when
the plague was implemented it included a shocking side effect in its final
three days: absolute paralysis. The
Torah depicts (10:23) a condition in which “no person could stand up from his
spot.”
Plague #10
is the Death of the First-Born. The
original warning (11:5) covered every first-born child, “from the first-born of
Pharaoh to the first-born of the housemaid.”
In the end (12:29), it went a bit further to envelop also “the
first-born of the captives in the dungeons.”
Clearly, then, the pattern
holds throughout. The execution always
exceeds the admonition.
*
Our first
duty, in observing this system, is to wonder about its purpose. After all, there is clearly an effort to be
fair to Pharaoh in offering him the chance to mend his ways by laying out in
advance the consequences of his obstinacy.
Indeed Pharaoh was afforded
the same courtesy the Torah offers to every Jew: “There are no punishments
unless they are preceded by warnings.”
If so, why not warn thoroughly and comprehensively? Why give partial warnings rather than full
ones?
I would
suggest the solution lies in a discussion of the Talmud in Kesubot (33a)
dealing with Aidim Zomemim, witnesses
whose testimony was proven to be false.
The Talmud takes note of the fact that these witnesses are killed in
cases where they were trying to have the defendant receive capital
punishment. This is despite the fact
that the witnesses are not warned in advance that if their testimony is proven
false they will receive the fate for which they framed the defendant.
What happened to the rule
of “no punishments unless preceded by warnings” which is the standard for all
criminal penalties of the Torah?
The Talmud
answers that this is an exception based on a moral imperative. It is a central tenet of Torah justice that
the punishment should fit the crime, even reflecting it to the extent
possible. These pseudo-witnesses had set
out to use the machinery of the court as a weapon by which to give this
defendant an undeserved death penalty.
Had they succeeded, he would have been punished without being
warned. As a consequence, they too are
killed for their crime without first receiving a warning.
This
insight into Divine judgment can be applied to the sentences meted out to the
Egyptians for their unwarranted enslavement of the Jewish People, a nation
which had brought them nothing but loyalty and prosperity. We can do that by citing another salient
factor in the saga of Jewish travail in Egypt, described briefly by the Talmud
in Sotah (11b) and in detail by the Midrash in Bamidbar Rabbah.
There it
tells of Pharaoh’s methodology in drawing the Jews gradually into slavery. At each stage, he told them some work would
be necessary, but he understated the extent.
By the time they realized just how bad things were going to become, they
were already trapped. They were no
longer equipped to resist the tyranny effectively.
Thus,
Pharaoh had rendered some measure of warning before inflicting the misery, but
the outcomes far outpaced the predictions.
Justice demanded that Pharaoh be treated with a dose of his own medicine. Therefore the actual plagues were always
somewhat more severe than the previews provided by Moshe.
*
With this
principle firmly in place, we return to the plague of Blood. Here too the principle holds. When Moshe issued the initial warning (Shmos
7:18) he asserted that “the Egyptians would find it difficult to drink water
from the river.”
However, when the plague
came to pass, things were much worse than that (7:21): “The Egyptians were not
able to drink water from the river.”
We are now
equipped to answer Rabbi Diskind’s question.
The Talmud proved that dagah
means fish of all sizes from the Torah saying (7:21) that the dagah died when the river became
blood. Rabbi Diskind asks why they
failed to cite the earlier verse (7:18) in which Moshe warns that the dagah will die.
Now we
understand perfectly. The logic of the
Talmud’s proof is that Hashem would have no reason to limit the plague to the
smaller fish. On the contrary, the
Egyptians deserved to lose all the fish, just as they would later lose all
their plants and animals. This logic is
unimpeachable, but only in reference to the actual plague.
However, the warning verse
might well have understated the potential impact of the plague.
In fact,
it would have been perfectly within the system of partial warnings if Moshe had
only threatened the small fish and then wiped them all out, large and
small. Had the word dagah been used in the warning but not in the actual plague, we
could not have proved that this word means the big fish as well as the little
ones.
*****
