5 min read

Moses Could Not Strike the River or the Sand That Once Saved Him

Moses could not strike the Nile or the dust. The river had hidden him as a baby. The sand had buried his first killing. He owed them too much.

Curated by Arthur · Told by Maggid ·
Table of Contents
  1. A Sign That Arrived With Death Inside It
  2. What the Nile Had Done Before
  3. The Dust That Had Swallowed a Corpse
  4. The Piety That Ran Ahead of the Law

A Sign That Arrived With Death Inside It

Pharaoh had a problem with Joseph's interpretation. The man had been hauled out of a prison cell that morning, and now he was standing in the throne room claiming to read royal dreams. The economic plan was sensible. The interpretation of the cows was coherent. But why trust a Hebrew slave with no credentials and no patron?

Joseph offered a sign. He told Pharaoh that his queen was on the birthstool at that very hour and would deliver a son before sunset. Pharaoh would receive the news with joy. And then, inside that same moment of celebration, a second messenger would arrive to say that the king's two-year-old son, his firstborn, had died. One door would open onto rejoicing and grief at the same time.

Both things happened exactly as Joseph said. The proof was devastating in the way that only proof of intimate knowledge can be. Joseph had known things no one else knew. Pharaoh believed him. The dream interpretation held. The grain storage began.

What the Nile Had Done Before

Generations later, Moses stood at the edge of the same river with a staff in his hand and a command to strike the water. He lowered the staff. He thought about the basket made of bulrushes and pitch that his mother had placed in the reeds when he was three months old. He thought about the current that had carried it to the place where Pharaoh's daughter was bathing. He thought about the water that had not drowned him.

He could not do it.

The first plague went to Aaron instead. Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt and they turned to blood. The Nile, the canals, the ponds, the pools, everything in vessels of wood and stone. The fish died. The river stank. Egypt could not drink. But Moses stood back, because a man who owes his life to a river cannot be the one who strikes it, even on God's orders.

The Dust That Had Swallowed a Corpse

Moses's first act of violent intervention had happened in the sand. He had seen an Egyptian taskmaster beating a Hebrew slave, and he had killed the Egyptian and buried him in the sand. The sand had taken the body. The sand had kept the secret, at least for a day.

When the third plague came, God told Moses to strike the dust of Egypt and turn it to lice. Moses stepped back again. Aaron stretched out his hand and struck the ground, and the lice rose from the dust and covered all of Egypt, man and animal.

The logic was the same. The sand had been an accessory to Moses's first act of justice. He would not repay that by turning it into an instrument of plague. Gratitude ran that deep in the rabbinic understanding of Moses. It was not sentiment. It was principle.

The Piety That Ran Ahead of the Law

What the midrash finds remarkable about Moses's refusal is that it was not commanded. God had told him to bring the plagues. There was no instruction to step aside for these two. Moses read the situation himself and handed the staff to Aaron without being told to. The gratitude he owed to the river and the sand was a rule he had internalized long before any explicit commandment about it existed.

The rabbis drew a direct line from this to Joseph. Joseph had given Pharaoh the sign of the birth and the death, had built a relationship between a Hebrew prisoner and an Egyptian king on the strength of honest testimony. That relationship, generations later, created the context in which Moses's mother could place a basket in the river and expect it to be found. The gratitude Moses felt toward the Nile was indirectly the gratitude he owed to Joseph for making Egypt a place where a Hebrew infant could be rescued by a royal household rather than drowned on a royal command.


← All myths

From the tradition

Sources

4 sources

The texts this telling draws on, in full. Open a card to read inline, or expand it for a wider, quieter read.

Legends of the Jews 1:170Legends of the Jews

He wasn't just some guy with a knack for dream analysis. According to Ginzberg's retelling in Legends of the Jews, he possessed something far more profound.

Pharaoh, wasn't entirely convinced by Joseph's interpretation of his dreams about the famine. He had doubts. Perfectly reasonable. But Joseph, being Joseph, didn't just reiterate his points. He provided proof. He offered a sign, a siman (סִימָן), a token of truth.

What was this sign? Joseph declared, "Let this be a sign to thee that my words are true, and my advice is excellent: Thy wife, who is sitting upon the birthstool at this moment, will bring forth a son, and thou wilt rejoice over him, but in the midst of thy joy the sad tidings will be told thee of the death of thine older son, who was born unto thee but two years ago, and thou must needs find consolation for the loss of the one in the birth of the other."

Wow.

Talk about high stakes! Joseph essentially predicted both a birth and a death, intertwining joy and sorrow in the most dramatic way possible. He wasn't just deciphering a message; he was seemingly influencing events.

Did Joseph truly know the future? Or did his words themselves become a self-fulfilling prophecy? Perhaps, by speaking these events into existence, he set a course that couldn't be altered.

It's a chilling thought, isn't it? The power of words. The weight of prophecy. And the enigmatic figure of Joseph, standing at the crossroads of fate.

Full source
Legends of the Jews 4:290Legends of the Jews

It's about a clash of wills, a battle of divine power, and ultimately, liberation. But have you ever stopped to consider the why behind how those plagues unfolded? to the very first plague: water turning to blood. A truly horrific event. But it wasn't just random chaos. As we read in Legends of the Jews, Pharaoh wouldn't heed the warnings, so the plague announced by Moses was unleashed. Makes sense so far.

Why this plague? Why blood?

Well, remember that old proverb: "Beat the idols, and the priests are in terror." God targeted the Nile directly. The Egyptians didn't just use the Nile; they worshipped it as a god! So, striking the Nile was a direct attack on their beliefs, on their very foundation. It wasn't just about making life unpleasant; it was about demonstrating the ultimate power.

Here's another fascinating detail, one that you might easily miss: It wasn't Moses who performed this particular miracle. It was Aaron, his brother, who stretched out his hand and brought the plague upon the waters. Why?

The answer, according to Legends of the Jews, is surprisingly touching. God said to Moses, "The water that watched over thy safety when thou wast exposed in the Nile, shall not suffer harm through thee." for a second. Moses, as a baby, was hidden in the Nile to save him from Pharaoh's decree. The river protected him. So, Moses, out of gratitude, couldn't be the one to bring harm to it.

Isn't that incredible? This little detail adds so much depth to the story. It's not just about divine retribution. It’s about loyalty, about gratitude, about recognizing the good even in the face of oppression. It reminds us that even in the midst of a cosmic struggle, there's room for personal connection and ethical considerations. It adds a layer of humanity to what could otherwise be seen as a purely vengeful act.

So, the next time you hear the story of the plagues, remember the Nile. Remember the idol. And remember Moses's gratitude. It’s these little details that transform a simple story into a timeless lesson.

Full source
Legends of the Jews 4:296Legends of the Jews

The frogs were gone. Vanished! You'd think he'd be thanking his lucky stars. You'd think he’d be packing up the Israelites and sending them on their way with a "Godspeed!" But nope. He "hardened his heart again, and refused to let Israel go."

So, what’s next? God sends another plague. This time: lice. Ugh. Just thinking about it makes you itch, doesn't it?

For this plague, Moses, usually the point man, is sidelined. He's out of the picture. Why?

God says, and this is a direct quote, "the earth that afforded thee protection when she permitted thee to hide the slain Egyptian, shall not suffer through thine hand." for a second. Remember the story? Moses, in his younger days, saw an Egyptian taskmaster abusing an Israelite slave. Moses intervened, perhaps a bit too forcefully, and ended up killing the Egyptian (Exodus 2:11-12). He then hid the body in the sand.

The earth, in a way, became an accomplice, shielding Moses from the consequences of his actions. And now, because of that past deed, because the earth offered him refuge, Moses is forbidden from using his power to inflict suffering upon it. The earth that hid the evidence of his sin shall not be made to suffer because of him, as we learn in Legends of the Jews.

It’s a powerful reminder, isn't it? Even our past actions, the ones we think are long buried, can have unexpected consequences. They shape our present and even limit what we can do in the future. And sometimes, the very things that once protected us are the things we can't touch again.

Full source
Shemot Rabbah 10:7Shemot Rabbah

Shemot Rabbah turns to Why Aaron Not Moses Struck the Dust for Lice.

Rabbi Tanchum offers a powerful explanation. The Holy One, blessed be He, says to Moses, ‘It is not proper that the dust that protected you when you killed the Egyptian will be stricken by you.’ Remember back in (Exodus 2:12), when Moses, still in Egypt, saw an Egyptian taskmaster beating a Hebrew slave? Moses intervened, killing the Egyptian and burying him in the sand. That dust, that very earth, had concealed Moses, protecting him from immediate repercussions.

So, according to this midrash (rabbinic interpretive commentary), Moses was spared from wielding the plague of lice. The first three plagues – blood, frogs, and lice – all originate from either the water or the dust. These elements had, in a way, shown kindness to Moses. It would have been an act of profound ingratitude for him to then turn around and use them to inflict suffering, even on the Egyptians.

The midrash doesn’t stop there. It asks: why lice specifically? Shemot Rabbah tells us it’s because the Egyptians had forced the Israelites to be sweepers of the streets and marketplaces. They demeaned the Israelites by forcing them into the dust. Therefore, their dust turned into lice, a measure-for-measure retribution. The Egyptians dug, expecting to find dust to further their oppression, but found only swarming pests. A chilling consequence of their mistreatment.

The story takes another interesting turn when the Egyptian magicians try to replicate the plague of lice. "The magicians did so with their spells to bring out the lice, but they could not," as (Exodus 8:14) tells us.

Rabbi Elazar draws a fascinating conclusion from this failure: a demon is unable to create something smaller than a barley-bulk. The Rabbis offer a slightly different take: They cannot even create something the size of a camel; rather, this it can gather and this it cannot gather. Meaning, even if demons can move large objects, they can't conjure something incredibly small like a louse.

And so, the magicians are forced to concede. "The magicians said to Pharaoh: It is the finger of God." (Exodus 8:15). When they realized they couldn't produce the lice, they immediately understood that these plagues were divine acts, beyond the realm of their magic. They stopped trying to imitate Moses, finally acknowledging a power far greater than their own.

What does it all mean? This passage from Shemot Rabbah isn’t just a historical account. It’s a lesson in gratitude, in recognizing the kindness we've received, and in the limits of even the darkest magic. It reminds us that even in the midst of divine justice, there's room for ethical considerations, for acknowledging the interconnectedness of all things. It's a powerful evidence of the depth and complexity of our tradition.

Full source