This chapter continues to recount Hashem's kindnesses toward Israel in contrast to the ingratitude with which they responded. In the passage before us, the Psalmist returns to the plagues of Egypt, describing how Israel forgot the mighty hand that redeemed them. We will examine the order of the verses and the commentaries of the Malbim, Radak, Ibn Ezra, and Rashi, and see how the seemingly "disrupted" order of the plagues is explained here.
לֹא־זָכְרוּ אֶת־יָדוֹ, יוֹם אֲשֶׁר־פָּדָם מִנִּי־צָר׃ - "They remembered not His hand, nor the day when He redeemed them from the adversary."
The question cries out: How were they not afraid of the plagues that the Holy One, blessed be He, struck Egypt with, culminating in the Plague of the Firstborn? How could they not fear His power? After all, they saw His hand strike the firstborn! Radak explains: "They remembered not His hand" - His great power that redeemed them from the distress they were in. In a general sense, this refers to all the troubles they had endured until now, from all of which He delivered them through His great might. If so, how could someone come and test the Holy One, blessed be He, to see how far His power extends? Have you forgotten everything He did up to this point?
This is especially true according to what we explained: their entire testing of Him was always an attempt to see where the limit lay - what Hashem was no longer capable of doing. Yet the Ten Plagues were intended precisely to close this breach, to leave no room for such questioning. For as we already asked: a single plague would have been enough to compel Pharaoh to let them go, whether he wanted to or not. Give him a toothache - how long could he scream? Two days, a month? At some point, he would call Moshe and send them out. Why was there a need for ten plagues, overturning the entire order of nature?
Rather, the Ten Plagues were proof of absolute mastery over nature. The Holy One, blessed be He, demonstrated to them: I rule over your deity - the Nile, the source of their life and water. I rule over the creatures in the air - here comes the swarm of wild beasts (Arov). I rule over the animals on land - that is the pestilence (Dever). I rule over the fish of the sea and the creatures in the water. I rule over the celestial bodies - darkness. And I also rule over human life - the Plague of the Firstborn. It was an absolute demonstration of sovereignty over all the hidden depths of nature and creation, leaving no room to wonder whether He could do this or that. And despite all this - "they remembered not His hand"; they forgot everything.
The Malbim notes two precise nuances in the verse: First, that He Himself redeemed them from the adversary - the "great hand that Hashem wielded," which they saw with their own eyes, as Chazal said regarding "and Israel saw," that even a maidservant saw at the sea what the prophets did not see. Second, that this forgetting occurred immediately after the redemption from Egypt - "and they rebelled at the sea, at the Red Sea"; they already rebelled at the Sea of Reeds. And what did they think? The Malbim explains that they thought that from that point on, His power was spent and He was no longer able to perform miracles, as if the batteries had run out. Such small-mindedness led to test after test after test - seeking to verify His power.
אֲשֶׁר־שָׂם בְּמִצְרַיִם אֹתוֹתָיו, וּמוֹפְתָיו בִּשְׂדֵה־צֹעַן׃ - "How He set His signs in Egypt, and His wonders in the field of Zoan."
The Malbim explains a fundamental principle here that he also elaborates on in the Chumash, and it is important to follow closely, as it will accompany us through the upcoming verses: Among the plagues, there were "signs" (otot) and there were "wonders" (moftim). The plagues that came with a prior warning are the "signs." Blood and frogs were a sign of the reality of Hashem's existence, that the Holy One, blessed be He, exists in the world. Regarding wild beasts and pestilence, it is likewise termed a sign: "so that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth." In contrast, the plagues that came without warning are the "wonders." The Malbim explains: they did not come to demonstrate anything or serve as a sign; rather, after every two plagues sent as signs to which Pharaoh did not listen, Hashem sent a plague that served as a "wonder" by way of humiliation, to punish them for not listening. In other words: two plagues prove the Creator's dominion, and if you do not listen, you receive a slap in the face. Blood and frogs were signs, followed by lice without warning - a slap. Wild beasts and pestilence came with warnings, followed by boils - a slap.
From this, the Malbim infers the precise phrasing of the verse: "How He set His signs in Egypt" - the signs were directed toward Egypt, meaning toward the Egyptian people, Pharaoh, and his ministers, their purpose being to teach a fundamental tenet of faith: "that you may know that I am Hashem," "that you may know that there is none like Me in all the earth." In contrast, "and His wonders in the field of Zoan" refers to a general striking of the land itself, not to teach a cornerstone of faith, but as punishment for refusing to listen. And the "field of Zoan" encompasses everything belonging to the realm of Egypt, for the wonders struck throughout the surrounding territories, whereas the signs were delivered primarily to Pharaoh and his ministers within the land of Egypt itself.
וַיַּהֲפֹךְ לְדָם יְאֹרֵיהֶם, וְנֹזְלֵיהֶם בַּל־יִשְׁתָּיוּן׃ - He turned their canals into blood, and their flowing waters they could not drink.
What is the difference between "their canals" (ye'oreihem) and "their flowing waters" (nozleihem)? Metzudat Tziyon explains: Ye'orim refers to man-made pools and channels. As is known, Egypt possessed a very branched irrigation system, diverting the waters of the Nile into fields through artificial canals and pools that they dug for themselves. "And their flowing waters" refers to the water that flows and streams naturally on its own.
The Malbim notes: Observe that the chapter here skips over lice (Kinim), boils (Shechin), and darkness (Choshech). Based on what we have explained, this is very illuminating, for these three plagues did not come as signs to demonstrate the Creator's power, but as a punitive slap after they refused to listen. In the first cycle it is said, "By this you shall know that I am Hashem" - blood and frogs, followed by lice, the slap. In the second cycle, wild beasts (Arov) and pestilence (Dever) came with forewarning, to teach "that I am Hashem in the midst of the earth," followed by boils - the slap. In the third cycle, hail and locusts came with forewarning, followed by darkness - the slap. These represent three "courses": the first teaches that Hashem exists; the second, that Hashem is in the midst of the earth, for they believed there was a God up in heaven but not down here below; and the third, "there is none like Me in all the earth," for they believed in other powers: the Nile, the lamb (Aries), and even Pharaoh himself, whom they considered a formidable god. Six plagues therefore came with forewarning, and between each pair came a punitive plague without forewarning.
The Malbim further addresses a point that all the commentators raise: the order here appears disrupted. In the Torah, the sequence is blood, frogs, lice, wild beasts, pestilence, boils, hail, locusts, darkness; whereas here the text lists blood, wild beasts, frogs, caterpillars and locusts, hail, pestilence. Why did the psalmist alter the sequence? The Malbim explains that there is a profound and marvelous intention here: the verses come to teach us that the ultimate purpose of the plagues was to demonstrate the Holy One, Blessed be He's might and sovereignty in the world. Therefore, all the plagues that came with forewarning - except for the plague of blood - came paired, two by two, where one of them was seemingly superfluous. That is to say, three plagues alone could have sufficed, and three additional ones were given to multiply His signs, so that they would recognize His power and might.
Therefore, the plague of blood, which was not paired, is listed here in its chronological order as a solitary plague: "He turned their canals into blood" - and not only the canals, but "and their flowing waters they could not drink," for all sources of water were struck.
יְשַׁלַּח בָּהֶם עָרֹב וַיֹּאכְלֵם, וּצְפַרְדֵּעַ וַתַּשְׁחִיתֵם׃ - He sent a swarm of wild beasts among them, which devoured them, and frogs, which destroyed them.
The Malbim explains: Wild beasts and frogs were paired plagues. Consider: in the plague of Arov, all manner of swarming creatures and destructive beasts came - were frogs not included among them? Certainly they were, for if the Holy One, Blessed be He, brings all living creatures, frogs are included among them as well. If so, why was a preliminary "preview" of frogs alone sent first? Wait for the main course, for Arov, which includes everything! It turns out that the initial plague of frogs was seemingly superfluous in its own right. And this is the intent of the verse: surely "He sent a swarm of wild beasts among them, which devoured them" - why, then, "and frogs, which destroyed them"?
Rashi interprets "and destroyed them" based on the Midrash: they castrated them, and that was the destruction they wrought. Ibn Ezra explains why Arov is mentioned first: because the plague of wild beasts was harsher than that of frogs, which is why it was given precedence. According to his approach, the order here is not chronological, but rather based on the severity of the plague. Ibn Ezra also offers another interpretation: "He sent a swarm of wild beasts among them, which devoured them" while the frogs had already struck them and ruined them - in which case everything follows the chronological order. This is like the verse, "and it bred worms and rotted," where strictly speaking it should have said "it rotted" and then "bred worms," yet what is written later in the text actually occurred earlier in reality.
Ibn Ezra adds: Why does the psalm omit lice, boils, darkness, and pestilence here? Because in those plagues people found ways to escape, whereas from the plagues mentioned here, no one escaped at all. And if you ask, were there not people who escaped the plague of blood by purchasing water from the Jews? To this he answers: because blood was the first of the plagues, it was mentioned, and furthermore, man has such a vital need for water that it was an exceptionally harsh plague.
Radak addresses the question of the altered order differently: there is no need to be meticulous about chronology here, since the plagues are already set in order in the Torah - "go and read in the schoolhouse" (zil krei bei rav hu); simply open a Chumash and see the order, so there is no deficiency in this. Radak further notes that "frog" (tzfardea) is stated in the singular as a collective noun for frogs, as in "and the frog came up," and similar to "I have acquired ox and donkey" - did he have only a single ox and a single donkey? Rather, it is a collective noun for oxen and donkeys.
וַיִּתֵּן לֶחָסִיל יְבוּלָם, וִיגִיעָם לָאַרְבֶּה׃ - He gave their produce over to the caterpillar, and their labor to the locust.
יַהֲרֹג בַּבָּרָד גַּפְנָם, וְשִׁקְמוֹתָם בַּחֲנָמַל׃ - He killed their vines with hail, and their sycamores with frost.
So too with the locusts and the hail, says the Malbim: these were dual plagues, and one of them seems redundant. After all, the locusts devoured whatever the hail had left behind. Had the locust been made the primary player, why was hail needed at all? Would the locusts have had any difficulty consuming everything from the start, such that they were only capable of eating leftovers? Furthermore, the hail did not destroy everything, as scripture states, "and the wheat and the spelt were not smitten." Why bring a partial plague like hail if a locust plague follows that completes the task anyway? Locusts alone would have sufficed. And this is what is stated: "He gave their produce over to the caterpillar, and their labor to the locust" - and if all their labor had already been surrendered to the locust, why "He killed their vines with hail, and their sycamores with frost"? That would appear completely redundant.
The Ibn Ezra explains why the verse specifically mentions the produce: because of the land's vital dependence on its crops. Just as water was mentioned because it is life itself, so too grain is mentioned, as it is an existential necessity for survival. And the Radak adds: "For the crops are the entirety of man's toil" - all of a person's labor is directed toward grain, "for man lives by bread," and all his days he labors to bring forth his bread from the earth in order to survive.
Today, we do not feel this as acutely. A person wakes up in the morning, goes to the grocery store, and there is bread. There is a story of a finance minister who was informed that a drought was projected for the coming year, and no one knew what would happen to the wheat supply. He asked, "Where?" They told him, "Here in Israel." He replied, "You have reassured me; I thought you meant in the United States, and I was already wondering what we would eat! If it is only here, that is fine." For today, wheat is grown locally primarily for shemurah matzah for Pesach - since supervisors cannot easily be sent to Arizona or Texas, it is grown in Israel - but most wheat is imported from abroad. In biblical times, the reality was the exact opposite: everything came from one's own land, and if you had no crops here, you had nothing to eat. That is why the verse emphasizes first: "He gave their produce over to the caterpillar."
The Metzudat David explains the dual expression "their produce and their labor": grain is produced only through immense toil, which is why it is called "their labor." As is well known, agricultural labor is among the most grueling kinds of work. That was why the Sephardic immigrants who arrived in Israel were immediately sent to field farming, while others arranged clerical, white-collar positions for themselves; when backbreaking labor was needed, the Yemenites and Moroccans were sent. It is told that when Ben-Gurion saw the Moroccans disembarking from the airplane, he instructed the truck drivers: load them up and drive south. They asked, "Where to?" He replied, "Drive until you run out of fuel." They drove, stopped in Yeruham and Dimona, and the rest is history. In any case, the most grueling tasks are the labors of working the soil, and that is the meaning of "and their labor."
Rashi cites a unique interpretation: "with chanamal" - this is the name of a species of locust. According to this, it continues the thought of "and their labor to the locust," meaning that even the sycamore trees were surrendered to the locusts. However, one must understand how chanamal becomes a locust, and there is an even greater difficulty: how could the verse jump from locusts to hail and then back to locusts? "He gave their produce over to the caterpillar, and their labor to the locust," and immediately follows "He killed their vines with hail" - shifting to hail - and then "and their sycamores with chanamal" - returning to locusts? This difficulty led the other commentators to diverge from the Midrash and Rashi's commentary and interpret the word differently.
First, let us explain Rashi's view. Rashi cites a Midrash that chanamal is a compound of three words: ba (came), chan (encamped), and mal (severed) - it came to the land, encamped upon it, overtook it, and cut it down. And what is mal? Just as we recite in Hallel, "for I will cut them off (amilem)" - meaning destroy them. This is also the origin of the Hebrew word for ant, nemalah, because it severs (malah) the grain: when a seed begins to sprout, a tiny shoot emerges, and had the ant left it alone, within a week all the wheat it had stored would turn into a wheat field, whereas it stores it for times of distress and for winter. What does it do? The moment growth begins, it severs it, cuts it off, thereby neutralizing its power to sprout, and the wheat remains preserved in its storehouses. Thus, mal denotes cutting off, as in "amilem" - I will cut off the nations; and similarly a mohel, who cuts off the foreskin. The Holy One, blessed be He, struck them with that creature which comes, encamps, and severs - cutting down the greenery of the earth and consuming it, or rubbing it away (molel, from melilah), which is likewise a form of destruction.
Yet the other commentators explain that chanamal is a species of hail, and then the question resolves itself: there is no return to locusts after hail, but rather a direct continuation of the theme of hail. The Radak explains it this way, citing the explanation of Rabbeinu Saadia Gaon in Arabic - al-saqī‘, the hard frost that shatters the blossoms of the trees and dries up their moisture. This is close to the words of the Ibn Ezra, who speaks of stones from heaven, except that here it refers to severe ice, harder than ordinary hail. And in Midrash Shocher Tov it is taught: because the grapevines were delicate, it fell upon them violently, in torrents; but for the sycamores, it would come, settle, and sever - coming, encamping, and cutting them down. Thus, the acronym "came, encamped, and severed" can also be applied to the hail itself, which descends and cuts them down. The Malbim likewise explains that chanamal is a type of hail. According to this: "He killed their vines with hail," and the sycamore trees with stones from heaven.
Still, one must wonder about the expression "He killed their vines with hail" - can "killing" truly apply to a grapevine? Killing is said of human beings and animals, not of trees. The Ibn Ezra answers that this is metaphorical, an extended figure of speech, and brings proof from the verse, "and you shall mar (takh'ivu, lit. cause pain to) every good plot of land with stones" - does a plot of land feel pain? Rather, it is a borrowed metaphor. Just as scripture says they "inflicted pain" upon the field with stones, so too it says they "killed" the tree, meaning they uprooted it or destroyed its capacity to grow. The Radak adds: do not wonder at this, for death can indeed apply to plant life, as it possesses a vegetative soul, as Iyov said: "and its stock dies in the dust."
וַיַּסְגֵּר לַבָּרָד בְּעִירָם, וּמִקְנֵיהֶם לָרְשָׁפִים׃ - He delivered their beasts over to the hail, and their livestock to the fiery bolts.
Rashi cites a Midrash: When the hail began to fall, an Egyptian would rush his sheep indoors, but the hail formed a kind of wall before him so that he could not proceed. He would slaughter it and place it on his shoulder to carry it home to eat, but a bird would come and snatch it from him. This is the meaning of "and their livestock to the reshafim" - reshef refers to a bird, as in "and the sons of reshef fly aloft" (Iyov 5:7); the bird of prey came and snatched the meat off his shoulder. According to the peshat, Rashi explains: reshafim means flashes of fire, for Scripture states that there was fire flaring up within the hail, and He delivered the livestock to the fire burning within it.
The Malbim explains the apparent redundancy between "their beasts" (be'iram) and "their livestock" (miknehem): Be'iram refers specifically to animals, whereas miknehem refers to all of one's possessions, since mikneh (livestock/possessions) and kinyan (acquisition) do not refer exclusively to flocks - which were simply man's primary acquisition in those days - but rather to anything a person acquires. In other words, whatever possessions were not struck down by the hail were consumed by the flames of fire: something sturdy that the hail does not destroy, the fire burns. This is the meaning of "fire flaring up within the hail."
יְשַׁלַּח־בָּם חֲרוֹן אַפּוֹ, עֶבְרָה וָזַעַם וְצָרָה, מִשְׁלַחַת מַלְאֲכֵי רָעִים׃ - He sent forth against them His burning anger, wrath, fury, and trouble, a dispatch of messengers of evil.
The Malbim explains: Za'am (fury) is associated with all terms that signify punishment and curse - za'am always comes as a punishment and a curse following an improper deed. And what is the difference between charon af (burning anger) and evrah (wrath)? The Malbim explains in several places that charon af is anger in measured proportion, whereas evrah is when the anger exceeds the measure - from the root meaning to cross over (la'avor) the boundary. Charon af strikes only those who deserve to be struck; but when there is evrah, the fury strikes even those who did not sin and did not deserve it.
This brings us to our verse: during the plague of hail, "whoever feared the word of Hashem" and brought his livestock indoors was spared, whereas the pestilence (dever) struck everything. This is why it says here that there was evrah - which, as it were, crosses beyond the strict line of justice and strikes even those who sheltered their livestock indoors. Even though such a person was among those who feared the word of Hashem, the hand of Hashem nevertheless struck him on account of evrah, which extends beyond what is strictly deserved according to the letter of the law.
The verses before us rebuke Israel for forgetting the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, on the day He redeemed them. The Ten Plagues did not come merely to coerce Pharaoh, but to demonstrate absolute mastery over every realm of creation and to silence any doubt regarding the limits of His power. The Malbim teaches us that the plagues were divided into signs (otot) - paired two by two with prior warning to teach a foundational pillar of faith - and wonders (moftim) - a third plague without warning as punishment for failing to listen. Furthermore, within the signs themselves there was an intentional proliferation, paired plagues where one was seemingly "redundant," in order to multiply His signs so that they would recognize His strength and mighty deeds. The other commentators resolved the order of the verses, each in his own way: according to the severity of the plague, according to who failed to be spared by it, or on the premise that there was no need to maintain chronological order here since the plagues are already set forth sequentially in the Torah. And yet, despite all the signs and wonders, "they did not remember His hand" - and this is the great rebuke of the chapter.