The Fourth Plague Arov

Warning at the river
Brought by HaShem
Lasted seven days
The animals killed Egyptians and polluted the land; Goshen was not affected
Egypt thrown into unprecedented havoc, inspiring fear

ח,יז כִּי אִּם-אֵינְךָ, מְשַׁלֵחַׁ אֶת -עַׁמִּי--הִּנְנִּי מַׁשְלִּיחַׁ בְךָ וּבַׁעֲבָדֶיךָ וּבְעַׁמְךָ וּבְבָתֶיךָ, אֶת-הֶעָרֹב; וּמָלְאוּ בָתֵי מִּצְרַׁיִּם, אֶת -הֶעָרֹב, וְגַׁם הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶר -הֵם עָלֶיהָ

What does “Arov” refer to?

Most of us assume that the fourth Plague consisted of an attack by various wild animals (chayos). This is essentially the approach taken by Rashi. This is the understanding of Rabbi Yehudah in the Medrash (Shmos Rabbsh 11:3).

However, the Medrash also mentions the opinion of Rabbi Nechemiah that the plague consisted of minei tzirin ve-yitushin (various species of hornets and mosquitoes/gnats). Both of these Sages are interpreting the word Arov as mixture. Just that in the view of R. Yehudah, it is a mixture of large animals, and in the view of R. Nechemiah, it is a mixture of much smaller ones. In the view of both, the precise animals are not identified in the name of the plague.

The reason for the disagreement about the identity of the specific animals involved is that the description of the plague does not give enough clues. The text does state that the Arov will fill the houses of the Egyptians and be on their land, and va-tishaches ha-aretz mi-pnei he-Arov. The text also records that after the plague was removed, “not one remained.” But these statements are vague as to the precise nature of the Arov.

Descriptions of many of the plagues are also found in Chapters 78 and 105 of Tehillim. With regard to the plague of Arov, there is a reference to it at 105:31, but it is not helpful. However, at 78:45 the reference to the plague does provide some information. We are told: yeshalach ba-hem Arov va-yochlem. The last word (“and it will eat them”) at first glance seems to support the view of R. Yehudah that large animals were involved that ate the Egyptians.

Do we have earlier sources for the meaning of Arov prior to the Amoraim? Our earliest source is the translation of the Torah into Greek, composed in Egypt around 200 B.C.E. Here the translation is kunomuia, literally: “dog-fly,” a particularly unyielding type of fly. Perhaps this translation was based on an older tradition as to the nature of Arov. Or the authors of the Greek translation knew that Arov meant mixture and believed or had a tradition that Arov was a very small animal, and then picked kunomuia because it was viewed as a hybrid type of animal. In this way, they were able to interpret Arov as a “mixture.”

Another early translation we have is that of Josephus (Antiquities II, 303), writing around 100 C.E. He translates the plague as “wild beasts of every species and kind.” This translation seems to be based on an understanding of Arov as “mixture.“

There are a few grounds to prefer the very small animal view (S.D. Luzzatto and U. Cassuto and many others.) First, the verses in Chapter 8 refer to the Arov entering the houses of the Egyptians. If the animals involved were large ones, the houses could have been secured to prevent them from entering. Also, if the securing would have been to no avail, the text would have described the animals breaking down the premises upon entering. But no such large-scale destruction upon entering is described. Rather, it is simply stated that the Arov would be sent out and fill the premises.

A second reason to prefer the very small animals approach is that the root ayin-resh-bet with the meaning of “mixture” is more naturally applied to small objects. Large objects, each taking up its own space, are inherently less of a mixture.

A third reason to prefer the very small animals approach is based on a widespread view that the plagues came in pairs. (e.g., the commentary to Shmos of Cassuto, and the Daas Mikra commentary) For example, the first and second plagues, blood and frogs, were both primarily addressed to the Nile. The seventh and eighth plagues, hail and locusts, were both primarily addressed to the crops. If our fourth plague, Arov, was meant as a pair to the third plague, kinim (lice), obviously the very small animal interpretation fits better. The va-yochlem of Tehillim 78:45 can easily be interpreted metaphorically to include damage inflicted by very small animals.

An altogether different approach to the plague is adopted by Rav S.R. Hirsch. He suggests that the word Arov derives from the word aravah (wilderness), and that the plague alludes to “animals from the wilderness.” Although there are verses that refer to animals in the context of an aravah, animals do not seem to be a primary characteristic of an aravah.

An even more speculative approach is adopted by Rashbam. He notes that the Tanach refers to ze’evei erev at Tzefaniah 3:3, and to ze’ev aravos at Yirmiyahu 5:6. These could mean “wolves of the wilderness.” But Rashbam suggests that both mean “wolves of the evening” and that the plague Arov is referring to such wolves, who typically go out and attack at night.

There is, however, an alternative approach to identifying the Biblical Arov. It relies on looking at other ancient languages. For example, in Akkadian there was a word urbatu that meant “worm.” Some theorize that this was the Arov of the Bible. Perhaps there is a much better suggestion. Let us meet the beetles. A scarab is a type of beetle. It was called karabos in Greek. It was called kh-p-r in Egyptian. There was probably a variant pronunciation in Egyptian, kh-r-p, which would explain the way the name was recorded in Greek. Karabos and Kh-r-p would both be very close to the Hebrew ayin-resh-bet, due to the guttural sound that the ayin made. (The “os” in the Greek is likely just a Greek addition to a foreign word.)

What do we know about the scarab in ancient Egypt? As Isaac Mozeson phrased it, the ancient Egyptians had “beetlemania.” They worshipped this particular beetle! In ancient Egypt, the scarab was sculptured on monuments, painted on tombs and worn around the neck as an amulet. Many (or perhaps all) of the plagues were attacks on the various deities of Egypt. This would be another such example! Here, at the end of this plague, HaShem took away all the Arov (8:27: “not one remained”). In contrast, a plague of “a mixture of animals” is not a clear judgment on an Egyptian deity.

The “scarab” suggestion (originally made by a 19th-century British scholar) was referred to by Rabbi J.H. Hertz in his note on this verse, and seems to have been his preferred interpretation. But R. Hertz did not sufficiently explain it. The suggestion was also referred to without sufficient explanation by R. Aryeh Kaplan in “The Living Torah.” But the suggestion was explained well by Isaac Mozeson in his book “The Word” and in his edenics.net site, entry “scarab.” The source that best describes the explanation is a blog entry of March 13, 2012, by Seth Ben-Mordecai, at the site exodushaggadah.com. (He is the author of a book, “The Exodus Haggadah.”)

What means “HE’AROV?”

He'orove" is written with a definitive Hei, meaning that there was a presence of a mixture of wild animals that Moshe showed to Paroh. Moshe was in Paroh's palace when he warned him of the impending plague, as Moshe was told to go to Paroh "hashkeim baboker," while he was still in his palace. Paroh's palace had artwork painted on the walls of a vast variety of wild animals. Moshe warned him that animals of the sort painted on his walls would invade Egypt. (Haksav V'hakabolah)

What means "V'GAM HO'ADOMOH asher heim o'lehoh?” (and also the land which they were upon)

1. If an Egyptian ran into Goshen to escape the wild animals, they would pursue him into Goshen. (Divrei Shaul)
2. The Sforno says that these words teach us that the ground on which the houses stand will be infested with snakes and the like, which will come to the surface from below, so that the Egyptians would not be safe even in enclosed fortified buildings.
3. Since the mixture of animals included every species, a problem arises. The mishneh K'layim 8:5 mentions a creature called Adnei Haso'deh which looks like a human and receives its nourishment through an umbilical like cord which is attached to the ground. There are other very unusual features to this unique creature. If its umbilical cord is severed it perishes. How then would this creature make the trip to Egypt? The GR"A say that these words teach us that a section of ground which had the cord of this creature attached to it was also transported to Egypt.
4. The Arugas Habosem says that these words teach us that the CLIMATE of the land in which the animals normally reside was brought along with them. Since a change from hot, warm, or cold to another condition could be fatal, it was necessary to bring along the climate.
5. Haksav V'hakabolah translates V'GAM as "and it will CUT," from the verb source GOMOM. This means that Paroh was warned that the wild animals would also "damage the earth." A similar translation is given by the Ari z"l on the verse in Koheles 11:3, "Ten cheilek l'shivoh v'GAM lishmonoh," which Rashi says in one interpretation refers to the mitzvah of bris miloh which is done on the eighth day of a male child's life. The Ari z"l says that this is alluded to in the words "v'GAM lishmonoh," which mean "and CUT on the eighth day."
6. The Gemara Pesachim 52b says that an animal that resides in Galil will not eat from the produce of Yehudah, and vice versa. HaShem had to send some of the land upon which the animals lived with its produce for them to be sustained during the plague. (Rogatchover Gaon)