2022/5782

There are two Makkot narratives outlined in Tehillim, in Perakim 78 and 105. Each one lists only some of the Makkot in a different order than they actually occurred. The Malbim interprets these two narratives to understand both the selection and order of the Makkot in each. In Tehillim 78, the Malbim says, the purpose of the discussion of the Makkot is to emphasize their didactic nature, “to tell us that the purpose of the Makkot was to display His might and strength” (Malbim s.v. 78:44). For this reason, the three Makkot that came without warning are omitted from the narrative in that Perek. To address the alternative order of the Makkot there (Dam, Arov, Tzefardei’a, Arbeh, Barad, Dever, Makkat Bechorot), the Malbim invokes the structure of the Pesukim, which mention two Makkot each. He says that, with the exception of Dam, which is mentioned first and alone due to its being outside of the pattern, the Makkot that are mentioned in Tehillim 78 can be viewed as functional pairs. The purpose of having pairs of Makkot that served the same function was to increase the total number of Otot (didactic Makkot) that Mitzrayim would witness. The Makkah of Arov is mentioned before Tzefardei’a because the former Makkah must have included frogs, so Tzefardei’a was the “extra” one added for emphasis. The Makkah of Arbeh precedes Barad because, while the hail had left some produce untouched for the locusts to consume, the locusts would have been capable of destroying all of Mitzrayim’s produce by themselves. The verse (78:50) says “He leveled a path for His anger”, which the Malbim says refers to Dever. Hashem’s anger could have wiped out all of Mitzrayim, but He calculatingly channeled it into a conduit that destroyed only the animals. This was done so that Makkat Bechorot could be a widening of this same channel to include the Mitzri firstborn in the death toll. Thus, Dever and Makkat Bechorot form a pair in a sense, despite the unique nature of the final Makkah. 

The Malbim also sheds some light on the Makkot narrative in Tehillim 105, which functions in the context of a larger narrative describing the origin of the Jewish nation. Tehillim 105 lists Choshech, Dam, Tzefardei’a, Arov, Kinnim, Barad, Arbeh, and Makkat Bechorot. It is immediately apparent that this list contains both Otot and Mofetim and is written mostly in chronological order, with three major differences: Choshech begins the list, Arov and Kinnim are reversed in order, and Dever and Shechin are omitted entirely. Malbim addresses these three anomalies fairly easily. Choshech is mentioned following an introductory Pasuk that states “(Moshe and Aharon) placed His Otot amongst them, and His Mofetim in the land of Cham”, and this informs the reader that the division of the Makkot into Otot and Mofetim ended with Choshech. That was when Hashem ceased to harden Paroh’s heart, and there was no further extension of the Ot/Mofet display through which Hashem made His power known. The reversal of Arov and Kinnim is due to the fact that there is no explicit statement in Shemot that the lice ever departed, which the Malbim uses as proof that the lice were still oppressing the Mitzrim at the time of the arrival of the animals, so that the two Makkot functioned as one. The omission of Dever is due to the fact that the Makkah didn’t fully culminate until Makkat Bechorot, as explained earlier with regard to Tehillim 78. It is also because Paroh never sought Moshe’s help in removing the pestilence because he stubbornly attributed it to happenstance. In explaining the omission of Shechin, the Malbim clarifies that the other two Mofetim also ought not to have been mentioned, and were only listed for specific reasons: Choshech is included because it ended the main sequence of Makkot, and Kinnim because it extended into Arov. Unlike those two, there was no particular reason to mention Shechin, so it doesn’t appear in this Perek. Thus, the Malbim explains that the Makkot narrative in Tehillim 105 is essentially a poetically and stylistically altered version of the original narrative in Shemot.

All in all, it is readily apparent from the Malbim's analysis that Hashem saw fit to display His might to Mitzrayim through the Makkot. The narrative in Shemot serves to convey the full importance of the sequence and structure of the Makkot. The hardening of Paroh’s heart served to extend the ordeal, providing ample room for Hashem to create an intricately structured display that would convey the messages He intended. His goal, so to speak, was for Mitzrayim to recognize Him and to free His people and for the Jewish people to learn the same lessons of faith. Through the alternative framings of the narrative in Tehillim, a greater appreciation of the original framing from Shemot can be attained, and through that appreciation, an understanding of what we can learn from the events that led to the Ge’ulah from Miztrayim.