parsha bit: Va'eira

[cellio]

When God sent the plague of blood, it affected not just the Nile but all Egyptian water. Rabbi Avun ha-Levi said that if a Jew and an Egyptian sat together, drinking from the same jug, the Jew drank water while for the Egyptian it was blood. Even if the Egyptian had the Jew pour the water for him, it turned to blood in his hands. Only if the Egyptian paid money for the water did it remain water. (Exodus Rabbah 9:10)

I think this is a sad midrash in one way. If, in the midst of oppression and plagues, a Jew and an Egyptian were able to sit down together as peers (which would be pretty remarkable), wouldn't a better teaching be that for that Egyptian, the water stayed water? But perhaps my modern thinking informs this; such a thing would certainly have undermined some of the power of the plagues. The p'shat (plain reading) of the torah account does not seem to allow for innocent Egyptians, which troubles me. I think we're supposed to read it at the grand, national level, not at the level of individual participants. I have trouble doing that sometimes.

Comments

[mabfan.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, perhaps it is teaching us that even innocent members of a society bear some responsibility for the actions of their governments.

For example, I'm not saying that those of us who oppsed the war in Iraq are responsible for what happened. But this midrash teaches us to oppose such things publicly, to write our representatives and to tell them what we think. In short, to get involved.

What's that old saying? "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

But, it also notes that the Egyptian can get water, by paying for it.

(Which is an interesting note, just from a theological persepctive -- Judaism assumes that commercial transactions have a genuine, spiritual reality -- commerce isn't simply something humans do, but it has a genuine reality to the universe itself.)

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

Weren't most of the Jews slaves? Wasn't that why they had to be set free? Maybe the divide isn't between friendly interaction and commerce so much as between ordering a slave and paying a free person?

[naufiel.livejournal.com]

Hello. I got pointed this way via rjmccall.

I've never seen the Exodus as actually painting G-d in a particularly favorable light. After all, most of the plagues happen not because Pharaoh actually changes his mind about the Jews leaving, but because G-d actually "hardens his heart" and makes him change his mind. It's a bit of a show-offishness that doesn't sit right with me from the get-go.

But I suppose it works to some advantage in this case. After all, when the Jews leave Mitzraym they take a lot of converts out, too. Which begs the question - if an Egyptian were to convert during, say, the plague of blood, would the blood turn to water for him?

[murphstein.livejournal.com]

Very interesting thought...

I had never heard the midrash that even when a Jew poured the water for an Egyptian it became blood. I agree with your sentiment that for the Egyptian who sat down with the Jew it should have remained water. There are often hints in midrash that Jews and Egyptians lived on good terms.