And our hard labor – this refers to the infant boys: This comment is meant to explain why there was a forced separation of the sexes. The infant boys were being thrown into the Nile River; but what “hard labor” was there as a result of the boys? What is the connection between these “hard labor” and “infant boys?” We learn that the women gave birth in the fields and that God then sent an angel to care for them, as an animal cares for its young – so how can this be considered “hard labor?” We also learn that God provided the infants with two rings, one of honey and the other of oil, and when they were old enough they returned to the Israelite settlements in herds like sheep.¹⁷¹ However, when the women came to the fields to tend to their husbands, they found the men exhausted from their hard labors and unable to be intimate with their wives. Still, the men engaged in sexual relations with their wives so that the Egyptians would not be able to fulfill Pharaoh’s decree to kill the Israelites babies, as he said “All the male children shall be cast into the Nile.” This happened at the noon hour when they were allowed to rest – after eating, they engaged in relations with their wives when they should have rested, as the doctors had recommend. Afterwards, the men went back to their work, as the Midrash says, “And our oppression – this is the severe pressure.”

footnotes: ¹⁷¹ BT Sotah 11b

In Yalkut Shimoni the statement, “And our hard labor – this refers to the boys, as it is written: Every boy that is born you shall cast into the sea…” is followed by Rabbi Yehudah statement regarding the ten plagues: *D’tzakh A’dash Ba’achav.*¹⁷² Why does Rabbi Yehudah divide the plagues up into three groupings of three, three and then four? They could have been divided up into pairs or into two groupings of five? The Kol Bo and Abudraham both comment that in each grouping the first and second plague is prefaced by a warning while the third plague in each grouping occurs without a warning. The tenth plague is joined to the last three because it is one of a kind and separate from all the rest.¹⁷³ This does not explain the connection between the final plague and the previous ones. A better explanation can be found in the interpretation of Psalm 136: “Who struck Egypt through their first born.” It should have said, “Who struck the first born in Egypt!”¹⁷⁴ This is a reference to the firstborn - we learn that the firstborn killed more people than died during the tenth plague in Egypt. Before the tenth plague, the Egyptian firstborn told their people to free the Israelite slaves so that the they would not die. When the people refused to free the Israelites, the first born of Egypt took up their weapons and began killing their fellow Egyptians. This was in a sense, ‘an eleventh plague.’ There was no warning for the rebellion of the first born against the people of Egypt.¹⁷⁵ This is how the Midrash explains Psalm 136:10 – God struck Egypt by fermenting a rebellion of the first born before the tenth plague. Like the other series of plagues, then, there was no warning during the tenth plague, and before the plague of the first born. The worst part of the tenth plague was the death caused by the first born; and this is why Rabbi Yehudah grouped the plagues as he did so, that the death caused by the first born was the climax of the plagues. This also explains the Midrash which states that the tenth plague was just recompense for casting the Israelites infants into the Nile River. The tenth plague was an example of midah k’neged midah, measure for measure:¹⁷⁶ just as the Egyptians cast the Israelite boys into the Nile, so God took the lives of the Egyptian first-born. The problem with this explanation is that it does not account for the singling out of the first born. Midah keneged midah should have applied to all the Egyptian males and not just the first born. So why did the tenth plague strike only the first born of Egypt? The worst part of the tenth plague was not just the death of the first born in Egypt but the revolt of the first born in which they killed many other Egyptians as well: so in the end between the death of the first born and the death of other Egyptians, the tenth plague was measure of measure recompense. There were two aspects to the tenth plague just as there were two aspects to Pharaoh’s decree against the Israelite babies: it was cruel to the babies and cruel to the parents who watched their children being killed. So in the tenth plague: there was the terror that the first born faced and the terror that the people of Egypt faced from the death of the first born. Finally, the revolt of the first born was a supernatural plague because it is against the laws of nature for sons to kill their fathers.

footnotes: ¹⁷² The author will have more to say about this later on. Here he offers an aside on the breakdown of the plagues. ¹⁷³ There is a warning for the tenth plague so it does not seem to follow the pattern of the first three groupings. Since it is the last of the plagues, there should have been no warning and the people of Egypt should have been punished. ¹⁷⁴ Psalm 136:10 See Midrash Tehillim ¹⁷⁵ See BT Shabbat, 87b, Tosafot, “V’otan” ¹⁷⁶ This is a concept commonly used in Midrashic literature which claims that Gods rewards and punishments are commensurate with the actions they are either rewarding or punishing.