What happened to the Nile in the week following the first plague?
According to the tosafist R' Yosef Bechor Shor, as cited in answers here and here, the Nile turned to blood only long enough to kill all the fish and then it turned back to water (which was now fouled by dead fish). I had been under the impression that the river stayed as blood for a week, which led me to ask where the magicians got water for their trick, and from answers there, R' Shor's view isn't universal.
If the Nile turned to blood only briefly and then turned back as R' Shor says, then what happened in the following week, where the text tells us (Shemot 7:25):
וַיִּמָּלֵא, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, אַחֲרֵי הַכּוֹת-יְהוָה, אֶת-הַיְאֹר.
And seven days were fulfilled, after that the LORD had smitten the river.
It doesn't seem to be saying merely that seven days passed uneventfully; the text says וַיִּמָּלֵא, which JPS translates as "were fulfilled", rather than something more passive like וַיְהִי. It sounds to me like something happened at the end of the seven days.
What was it that happened? According to the R' Shor view, did it take seven days for the dead fish to clear so the water was usable again? Or does the text just mean that seven days passed before preparations for the next plague began, and in fact it is more passive (just that time passed)? Or does the text mean that the river stayed as blood, contrary to R' Shor?
R' Shor doesn't comment on that verse and the person who provided one of those answers didn't know how he handles this.
parshanut-torah-comment plagues-makkos va-eira blood
add a comment |
According to the tosafist R' Yosef Bechor Shor, as cited in answers here and here, the Nile turned to blood only long enough to kill all the fish and then it turned back to water (which was now fouled by dead fish). I had been under the impression that the river stayed as blood for a week, which led me to ask where the magicians got water for their trick, and from answers there, R' Shor's view isn't universal.
If the Nile turned to blood only briefly and then turned back as R' Shor says, then what happened in the following week, where the text tells us (Shemot 7:25):
וַיִּמָּלֵא, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, אַחֲרֵי הַכּוֹת-יְהוָה, אֶת-הַיְאֹר.
And seven days were fulfilled, after that the LORD had smitten the river.
It doesn't seem to be saying merely that seven days passed uneventfully; the text says וַיִּמָּלֵא, which JPS translates as "were fulfilled", rather than something more passive like וַיְהִי. It sounds to me like something happened at the end of the seven days.
What was it that happened? According to the R' Shor view, did it take seven days for the dead fish to clear so the water was usable again? Or does the text just mean that seven days passed before preparations for the next plague began, and in fact it is more passive (just that time passed)? Or does the text mean that the river stayed as blood, contrary to R' Shor?
R' Shor doesn't comment on that verse and the person who provided one of those answers didn't know how he handles this.
parshanut-torah-comment plagues-makkos va-eira blood
add a comment |
According to the tosafist R' Yosef Bechor Shor, as cited in answers here and here, the Nile turned to blood only long enough to kill all the fish and then it turned back to water (which was now fouled by dead fish). I had been under the impression that the river stayed as blood for a week, which led me to ask where the magicians got water for their trick, and from answers there, R' Shor's view isn't universal.
If the Nile turned to blood only briefly and then turned back as R' Shor says, then what happened in the following week, where the text tells us (Shemot 7:25):
וַיִּמָּלֵא, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, אַחֲרֵי הַכּוֹת-יְהוָה, אֶת-הַיְאֹר.
And seven days were fulfilled, after that the LORD had smitten the river.
It doesn't seem to be saying merely that seven days passed uneventfully; the text says וַיִּמָּלֵא, which JPS translates as "were fulfilled", rather than something more passive like וַיְהִי. It sounds to me like something happened at the end of the seven days.
What was it that happened? According to the R' Shor view, did it take seven days for the dead fish to clear so the water was usable again? Or does the text just mean that seven days passed before preparations for the next plague began, and in fact it is more passive (just that time passed)? Or does the text mean that the river stayed as blood, contrary to R' Shor?
R' Shor doesn't comment on that verse and the person who provided one of those answers didn't know how he handles this.
parshanut-torah-comment plagues-makkos va-eira blood
According to the tosafist R' Yosef Bechor Shor, as cited in answers here and here, the Nile turned to blood only long enough to kill all the fish and then it turned back to water (which was now fouled by dead fish). I had been under the impression that the river stayed as blood for a week, which led me to ask where the magicians got water for their trick, and from answers there, R' Shor's view isn't universal.
If the Nile turned to blood only briefly and then turned back as R' Shor says, then what happened in the following week, where the text tells us (Shemot 7:25):
וַיִּמָּלֵא, שִׁבְעַת יָמִים, אַחֲרֵי הַכּוֹת-יְהוָה, אֶת-הַיְאֹר.
And seven days were fulfilled, after that the LORD had smitten the river.
It doesn't seem to be saying merely that seven days passed uneventfully; the text says וַיִּמָּלֵא, which JPS translates as "were fulfilled", rather than something more passive like וַיְהִי. It sounds to me like something happened at the end of the seven days.
What was it that happened? According to the R' Shor view, did it take seven days for the dead fish to clear so the water was usable again? Or does the text just mean that seven days passed before preparations for the next plague began, and in fact it is more passive (just that time passed)? Or does the text mean that the river stayed as blood, contrary to R' Shor?
R' Shor doesn't comment on that verse and the person who provided one of those answers didn't know how he handles this.
parshanut-torah-comment plagues-makkos va-eira blood
parshanut-torah-comment plagues-makkos va-eira blood
asked 1 hour ago
Monica Cellio♦Monica Cellio
36.3k577252
36.3k577252
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Ramban connects the seven days mentioned concerning this maka to the need to dig for fresh water in the passuk beforehand.
ופסוק וימלא שבעת ימים קשור בעליון, וימלא בזה שבעת ימים, שחפרו מצרים סביבות היאור ולא יכלו לשתות ממימי היאור עד מלאת שבעת ימים אחרי ההכאה:
Rabbi Shor, while not making this direct statement, did also mention that the digging was done in order to find fresh water that didn't have rotting fish in it
ויחפרו. לעשות מעיינות להם שלא יהיו שם דגים ולא יבאשו אותם מנבלת דגים:
This is important as they seem to side with Ibn Ezra at least in the point that fresh water was available to Egyptians who dug for it. In contrast to the medrashic approach assuming no Egyptian had access to fresh water unless bought from the Jews.
This was in fact one of my suggestions in a comment to one of the linked answers.
– Alex
59 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Ramban connects the seven days mentioned concerning this maka to the need to dig for fresh water in the passuk beforehand.
ופסוק וימלא שבעת ימים קשור בעליון, וימלא בזה שבעת ימים, שחפרו מצרים סביבות היאור ולא יכלו לשתות ממימי היאור עד מלאת שבעת ימים אחרי ההכאה:
Rabbi Shor, while not making this direct statement, did also mention that the digging was done in order to find fresh water that didn't have rotting fish in it
ויחפרו. לעשות מעיינות להם שלא יהיו שם דגים ולא יבאשו אותם מנבלת דגים:
This is important as they seem to side with Ibn Ezra at least in the point that fresh water was available to Egyptians who dug for it. In contrast to the medrashic approach assuming no Egyptian had access to fresh water unless bought from the Jews.
This was in fact one of my suggestions in a comment to one of the linked answers.
– Alex
59 mins ago
add a comment |
Ramban connects the seven days mentioned concerning this maka to the need to dig for fresh water in the passuk beforehand.
ופסוק וימלא שבעת ימים קשור בעליון, וימלא בזה שבעת ימים, שחפרו מצרים סביבות היאור ולא יכלו לשתות ממימי היאור עד מלאת שבעת ימים אחרי ההכאה:
Rabbi Shor, while not making this direct statement, did also mention that the digging was done in order to find fresh water that didn't have rotting fish in it
ויחפרו. לעשות מעיינות להם שלא יהיו שם דגים ולא יבאשו אותם מנבלת דגים:
This is important as they seem to side with Ibn Ezra at least in the point that fresh water was available to Egyptians who dug for it. In contrast to the medrashic approach assuming no Egyptian had access to fresh water unless bought from the Jews.
This was in fact one of my suggestions in a comment to one of the linked answers.
– Alex
59 mins ago
add a comment |
Ramban connects the seven days mentioned concerning this maka to the need to dig for fresh water in the passuk beforehand.
ופסוק וימלא שבעת ימים קשור בעליון, וימלא בזה שבעת ימים, שחפרו מצרים סביבות היאור ולא יכלו לשתות ממימי היאור עד מלאת שבעת ימים אחרי ההכאה:
Rabbi Shor, while not making this direct statement, did also mention that the digging was done in order to find fresh water that didn't have rotting fish in it
ויחפרו. לעשות מעיינות להם שלא יהיו שם דגים ולא יבאשו אותם מנבלת דגים:
This is important as they seem to side with Ibn Ezra at least in the point that fresh water was available to Egyptians who dug for it. In contrast to the medrashic approach assuming no Egyptian had access to fresh water unless bought from the Jews.
Ramban connects the seven days mentioned concerning this maka to the need to dig for fresh water in the passuk beforehand.
ופסוק וימלא שבעת ימים קשור בעליון, וימלא בזה שבעת ימים, שחפרו מצרים סביבות היאור ולא יכלו לשתות ממימי היאור עד מלאת שבעת ימים אחרי ההכאה:
Rabbi Shor, while not making this direct statement, did also mention that the digging was done in order to find fresh water that didn't have rotting fish in it
ויחפרו. לעשות מעיינות להם שלא יהיו שם דגים ולא יבאשו אותם מנבלת דגים:
This is important as they seem to side with Ibn Ezra at least in the point that fresh water was available to Egyptians who dug for it. In contrast to the medrashic approach assuming no Egyptian had access to fresh water unless bought from the Jews.
answered 1 hour ago
user6591user6591
25.1k12656
25.1k12656
This was in fact one of my suggestions in a comment to one of the linked answers.
– Alex
59 mins ago
add a comment |
This was in fact one of my suggestions in a comment to one of the linked answers.
– Alex
59 mins ago
This was in fact one of my suggestions in a comment to one of the linked answers.
– Alex
59 mins ago
This was in fact one of my suggestions in a comment to one of the linked answers.
– Alex
59 mins ago
add a comment |