Rebbe
Yehudah’s Mnemonic of the Ten Plagues
The following are the ten plagues that the Holy One Blessed Be He
brought upon the Egyptians in Egypt: Dam
(Blood), Tzfardeah (Frogs), Kinim (Lice), Arov (Wild
Beasts), Dever (Pestilence), Sh’chin (Boils), Barad
(Hail), Arbeh (Locusts), Choshech (Darkness), Macat Bechorot
(The Plague of the Firstborn). Rebbe Yehudah
expressed them through their initials – D’TzACh, ADaSh, BeAChaB. (Haggadah of Pesach)
The redemption from Egypt was preceded by ten
plagues. The Pesach Haggadah lists these plagues. Then the Haggadah tells us that the Sage Rebbe Yehudah created a three-word
mnemonic from the initials of the ten plagues.
This mnemonic cannot be accurately transliterated from Hebrew to
English. This is because some Hebrew
letters have alternate pronunciations. In
some instances a letter is pronounced in one manner in as part of the Hebrew name
for the plague and in another manner in the mnemonic for the ten plagues.
The commentaries discuss the purpose of this
mnemonic. We usually employ such
devices in order to commit complicated or intricate material to memory. This is not the likely explanation of Rebbe Yehudah’s
device. Ten plagues are not terribly
difficult to memorize. What was Rebbe Yehudah’s
objective in creating this mnemonic?
There are various approaches to answering this
question. Many of these Sages note that
the plagues are recorded in Sefer Tehillim in a somewhat altered order.[1] This might create some confusion as to their actual sequence of
occurrence. Rebbe Yehudah wished to indicate
that the actual sequence of occurrence is found in the Torah. He created a mnemonic that represents the
plagues in the order that they occur in the Torah’s narrative.[2]
This explanation implies that the order in which the
plagues occurred was significant. In
other words, there was a specific reason for the plagues to occur in this sequence
and in no other. The Midrash seems to
confirm this assumption. The Midrash
comments that the names of the plagues were carved onto Moshe’s staff. These names were arranged in the order of
their occurrence. This seems to confirm
the importance of the order.[3]
Why did the plagues occur in a specific
sequence? Again, the commentaries offer
a variety of responses. One well-known
explanation is offered by the Midrash.
The Midrash explains that the order corresponds to the strategy that
would be followed by a king putting down a rebellion. First, the king places a siege around the rebellious city. He cuts off the water supply. Similarly, Hashem turned the water in Egypt into
blood. Then, the king commands his
troops to sound their trumpets. This is
an attempt to confuse and discourage the rebels. The frogs fulfilled this function. Their constant croaking unnerved the Egyptians. The Midrash continues to delineate the
similarities between the sequence of the plagues and the strategy of the king.[4]
Other commentaries offer a completely different
explanation of Rebbe Yehudah’s mnemonic.
They explain that Rebbe Yehudah was not merely attempting to indicate
the sequence of the plagues. Instead, his
three-word mnemonic divides the plagues into three distinct groups. What are these three groups? The first three plagues were plagues of the
earth or water. The water was turned to
blood. Then, an infestation of frogs
was generated from the water. Next, the
dust of the earth turned to lice.
The next group is harder to characterize. These seem to be plagues that emerge from
the general surroundings. The first of
these was an infestation of wild beasts.
These animals emerged from the surrounding wilderness. Pestilence and boils also emerged from the
surrounding environment.
The final group of plagues descended from the
heavens. These were the plagues of Hail,
Locusts and Darkness. Appended to this
last group is the Plague of the Firstborn.
This plague is not truly a member of this group. However, it is attached to the last group in
order to preserve the three-word mnemonic.[5]
There is a basic difference between these two
approaches to explaining Rebbe Yehudah’s mnemonic. In order to better understand this dispute, it will help to
consider a pasuk in the Torah. Hashem sends Moshe to Paroh to warn him of
the coming plague of Hail. Moshe makes
an interesting statement. He tells
Paroh that Hashem could immediately end the bondage of Bnai Yisrael in Egypt. He could bring a plague of pestilence upon
Egypt that would obliterate the Egyptians. However, Hashem does not choose to do this. Instead, it is His will to extend His
conflict with Paroh. Why does Hashem
wish to prolong the struggle? Moshe
explains that Hashem wishes to demonstrate and publicize His omnipotence.[6]
What is Moshe’s message to Paroh? Moshe is explaining that Hashem could
destroy Paroh and his nation immediately.
Why is Hashem not acting more forcibly?
Moshe explains that this part of Hashem’s will to demonstrate His
omnipotence.
How did the plagues illustrate Hashem’s omnipotence? This demonstration required two
elements. First, the plagues could not
be mistaken for a natural set of catastrophes.
Second, they demonstrated the extent of Hashem’s control over all
elements of the environment. The
plagues included both of these elements.
They followed a plan. This is
the message of the Midrash. The plagues
followed the strategy of a king suppressing a rebellion. The expression of this strategy in the
sequence of plagues demonstrated the element of design. Clearly, these plagues were not a series of
natural catastrophes.
The plagues also affected every element of the
environment. The first three plagues
originated in the earth and water. The
second set of three was produced by the general surroundings. The last three descended from the
heavens. This demonstrated Hashem’s
control over every element of the environments.
We can now understand the dispute between the
commentaries. Which of these elements
is represented by Rebbe Yehudah’s mnemonic?
According to the first interpretation, the mnemonic represents the
element of design in the plagues.
According to the second interpretation, the mnemonic communicates Hashem’s
control over the various elements of the environment that was illustrated by
the plagues.
Discussion of the Pesach Sacrifice,
Matzah and Marror
Raban Gamliel said, “Anyone that does not discuss these three things
does not fulfill one’s obligation. And
these are the things: the Pesach
sacrifice, Matzah, and Marror.” (Haggadah
of Pesach)
Raban Gamliel explains that at the Seder we are obligated to discuss the
various mitzvot that are performed
during the evening. He comments that
any person who does not discuss the mitzvot
of the Pesach sacrifice, Matzah, and Marror does not fulfill one’s obligation. This statement is included in the Pesach Haggadah. The
author derived the statement from the mishne of Tractate Pesachim.
Raban Gamliel’s statement is somewhat
mysterious. He asserts that it is
absolutely necessary to discuss the various mitzvot
performed on the Seder night. One’s obligation cannot be fulfilled without
this discussion. However, he does not
identify the specific obligation to which he refers. Exactly, which mitzvah
is fulfilled with this discussion or if this discussion is omitted, which
commandment is incompletely performed?
Maimonides seems to provide an answer to this
question. In his Mishne Torah, he
places Raban Gamliel’s law in the seventh chapter that deals exclusively with
the laws Sipur Yetziat Mitzrayim –
retelling the account of our redemption from Egypt. The placement of Raban Gamliel’s requirement in this chapter
indicates that it is essential to the mitzvah
of Tzipur. One does not fulfill the obligation to recount the events of our
redemption without a discussion of the mitzvot
of Pesach, Matzah, and Marror. In other words, the redemption must be
described through a discussion of the significance of the Pesach sacrifice, Matzah, and Marror.
The Tosefot offer a different perspective on Raban
Gamliel’s law. In order to discuss this
perspective, a brief introduction is needed.
The Talmud provides a source for Raban Gamliel’s law. We are obligated to offer a Pesach sacrifice each year. We cannot perform this commandment in our age. However, during the Temple Period, this
commandment was performed. The Torah
tells us that our children will ask for an explanation of this sacrifice. We are to respond by providing an account of
the offering of the first Pesach
sacrifice in Egypt. Through the merit
of offering that sacrifice, the families of Bnai Yisrael were spared from the
final plague – the plague of the Death of the Firstborn. In other words, the Torah clearly states
that the Pesach sacrifice must be accompanied
by discussion.
Tosefot ask an interesting question. Raban Gamliel asserts that we must discuss
the Pesach sacrifice, Matzah, and Marror. The Talmud provides
a source for the obligation to discuss the Pesach
sacrifice. However, Raban Gamliel
insists that we must also discuss Matzah
and Marror. What is the source for the obligation to discuss these two mitzvot?
Tosefot answer that the Torah does not explicitly
state that we are obligated to discuss Matzah
and Marror. However, the Torah does equate Matzah and Marror to the Pesach sacrifice. Tosefot apparently refer to the injunction
to eat the Pesach with Matzah and Marror. Through the Torah’s
equation of the Pesach sacrifice, Matzah, and Morror,
Raban Gamliel derives the obligation to discuss Matzah and Marror in
addition to the Pesach sacrifice.[7]
Let us analyze Tosefot’s reasoning more
carefully. Tosefot explain that the
Torah equates the mitzvot of the Pesach sacrifice, Matzah, and Marror. They reason that because of this equation a
requirement that is fundamental to the Pesach
sacrifice is also essential to the mitzvot
of Matzah and Marror. We are required to
discuss the Pesach sacrifice. Therefore, discussion is also essential to properly
perform the mitzvot of Matzah and Marror. It is clear from Tosefot’s
reasoning that they regard the requirement for discussion as fundamental to the
proper performance of the mitzvah of
the Pesach sacrifice. The mitzvot
of Matzah and Marror are associated with the commandment of the Pesach.
Therefore, discussion of these mitzvot is also essential for their
proper performance.
This analysis indicates that Tosefot disagree with
Maimonides. According to Maimonides,
the discussion of the Pesach
sacrifice, Matzah, and Marror is part of the commandment of Sipur.
Tosefot seem to regard the discussion of the Pesach sacrifice as an aspect of the commandment to offer the Pesach.
They associate the obligation to discuss the mitzvot of Matzah and Marror to these mitzvot. In other words,
these three commandments – the Pesach
sacrifice, Matzah, and Marror – are only performed in their
entirety when they are accompanied by discussion of their significance.
The Dual Symbolism of Matzah
You shall not eat leaven with it; for seven days you shall eat with it
matzot, the bread of affliction, for in haste you went out of the land of
Egypt, so that you shall remember the day when you went out of the land of
Egypt all the days of your life. (Devarim 16:3)
One of the mitzvot
of Pesach is the prohibition against eating leavened bread. We eat matzah
in place of leavened bread. The
first night of Pesach we are obligated to eat matzah. The remaining days
of the festival, we are not obligated to eat matzah, but we are prohibited from eating chametz – leavened
products.
In the above passage, the Torah explains that the matzah recalls the bread eaten during
bondage. How does the matzah recall the bread eaten during
bondage? Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno
explains that while in bondage, the Jews were forced to constantly labor for
their Egyptian masters. The Egyptians
would not provide their Jewish slaves with the time required to mix the dough
for their bread and then allow it to rise.
Instead, once the dough was mixed, the Jews were forced to immediately
bake the bread. The resulting loaves
had the unleavened form of matzah.[8]
And one takes the middle matzah and breaks into two parts … and he
lifts the Seder plate and recites, “This is the bread of affliction,” until
“How is this night different.”
(Shulchan Aruch 473:6)
Another fundamental commandment performed on Pesach
is Sipur Yetziat Mitzrayim –
the recounting of our redemption from Egypt.
This mitzvah is fulfilled
through the Pesach Seder. One of the early steps in the Seder is Yachatz – breaking the
middle matzah from among the three matzot
that are before the person leading
the Seder. Shulchan Aruch explains this process. The middle matzah is
broken and half is retuned to the Seder
plate. The plate is then lifted and the
reader recites: “This is the bread of
affliction which our fathers ate in Egypt.”
In other words, the reader explains that the broken matzah recalls the bread that the Jews ate during their bondage in
Egypt. The identification of matzah with the affliction in Egypt is
based upon our passage in which the Torah refers to the matzah as “bread of affliction.”
They baked the dough that they had taken
out of Egypt as unleavened cakes, for it had not leavened, for they were driven
out of Egypt, and they could not tarry, and also, they had not made provisions
for themselves. (Shemot 12:39)
In the above passage, the Torah explains that Bnai
Yisrael left Egypt in tremendous haste.
They did not have the opportunity to prepare adequately for their
journey. They could not allow their
dough to mix. Instead, they mixed the
dough and immediately baked it. The
product was unleavened cakes.
Based on this passage, the Talmud explains the
significance of the matzah. Raban Gamliel explains that the matzah recalls our redemption. He explains that at the Seder we are required to explain that the matzah we will eat is intended to remind us of the haste with which
our ancestors left Egypt.[9] His comments are based upon our passage in the Torah. The comments of Raban Gamliel are
incorporated into the Seder and read
prior to fulfilling the commandment to eat matzah.
In short, the Torah suggests two alternative
explanations for matzah. In Sefer Devarim, the Torah explains that matzah recalls our affliction in
Egypt. In Sefer Shemot, the Torah
suggests that matzah recalls that
haste of our redemption from Egypt.
Paradoxically, both of these messages are associated
with matzah during the course of the Seder.
At the opening of the Seder,
we declare that the matzah recalls
our bondage. Later, before eating the matzah, we read Raban Gamliel’s
interpretation of the significance of matzah. In this interpretation, the matzah is associated with the redemption
from bondage. In other words, the
process of sipur requires that we recall both our bondage and our
redemption. Both of these phenomena are
symbolized by the matzah.
We can easily understand the importance of recalling
our bondage and our redemption. The
full meaning and significance of our redemption can be fully appreciated when
we remember the bondage from which we were redeemed. However, it is odd and paradoxical that the same object – matzah – is used to symbolize both of
these elements of our experience in Egypt.
Why did the Torah not create two separate objects – each designed to
recall one of the two elements?
Sforno’s comments also address this issue. He explains that the Torah intends to
communicate a message. During their
bondage in Egypt, the Jews were oppressed by their masters. The oppression of Bnai Yisrael was
epitomized by the bread they were forced to eat. The Egyptians would not even afford their Jewish slaves the time
to bake their bread properly. They
pressured the Jews to hurriedly prepare and bake their bread. The result was unleavened matzah.
At the moment of redemption, the demoralized Egyptians urged the Jews to
hurry. Again, the bread that the Jews baked epitomized the urgency of the
Egyptians. But this urgency was not
motivated by their desire to oppress the Jews.
Instead, their urgency was motivated by panic. They could not endure another moment of suffering![10]
Sforno is explaining that the Egyptians demonstrated
urgency in two situations. In both
instances, their urgency was expressed in a similar behavior. They hastened Bnai Yisrael to prepare their
bread without allowing their dough to rise.
But in the first instance – during their oppression of the Jews – this
urgency was an expression of oppression.
In the second instance – at the moment of redemption – this urgency
expressed the complete humiliation and defeat of the Egyptians.
Sforno’s comments indicate that the urgency of the Egyptians in these two
different situations in some manner communicates a fundamental message
regarding the redemption. What is this
message?
Apparently, the miracle of the redemption from Egypt
is not merely that a nation of slaves was liberated from the oppression of the
most powerful nation in the civilized world. The miracle can only be fully
appreciated if we recognize the total and sudden reversal that Bnai Yisrael and
the Egyptians experienced. Bnai Yisrael
did not gradually achieve liberation from oppression and freedom through a
prolonged struggle, or as the result of the gradual decline of power and
authority of their masters. Instead, in
a few months, the Jewish people emerged from a condition of abject subjugation
and tyranny into a state of total freedom.
Their masters – who once would not allow them a few moments to properly
prepare their bread – were reduced to trembling petitioners. They begged their former slaves to spare
them and to leave posthaste to end their suffering! It is this total and abrupt reversal that captures the gravity
and magnitude of the miracle of the redemption.
Still, why is matzah
used to symbolize both the severity
of the oppression and the totality of the Egyptians’ demise? Sforno is answering this question. An illustration will help explain this
point. It is difficult to appreciate
the speed of a fastball thrown by an accomplished pitcher. We lack a basis for comparison. But if we want to truly appreciate the
talent and skills of this pitcher, we must create a contrast. We can do this by placing on a
single-viewing screen a video of two pitches being thrown. One is the fastball of the professional and
the other is the best effort of an accomplished amateur. On the split screen, we can see the rate of
speed both pitches progress towards the batter. Now, we can more fully comprehend the
remarkable speed of the professional’s pitch.
According to Sforno, the full miracle of the
redemption can only be appreciated by recognizing the totality and abruptness
of the reversal experienced by Bnai Yisrael and the Egyptians. The reversal only becomes clear when the
severity of the oppression is contrasted with the panic of the Egyptians at the
moment of redemption. But, like the two
pitches in our illustration, the contrast between the oppression and the
redemption can only be fully appreciated when they are viewed side-by-side, on
a “split screen.” The matzah provides this “split
screen.” A single object – the matzah – captures and communicates the degree
of oppression and the total demise of the Egyptians. In matzah, the two
experiences are communicated side-by-side.
This dual symbolism within a single object eloquently communicates to us
the totality and suddenness of the redemption, and thereby, the extent of the
miracle of the redemption.
[1] Sefer Tehillim, Chapters 78 and 105.
[2] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on the Hagaddah of Pesach.
[3] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on the Hagaddah of Pesach.
[4] Midrash Tanchuma, Parsaht Bo, Chapter 4.
[5] Rabbaynu Shemuel ben Meir (Rashbam), Commentary on the Hagaddah.
[6] Sefer Shemot, 9:15-16.
[7] Tosefot, Mesechet Pesachim 116a.
[8] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Devarim, 16:3.
[9] Mesechet Pesachim 116:a.
[10] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Devarim, 16:3.