Warning at the palace
Brought by Aharon
Lasted seven days
Swarmed the entire life of the Egyptians
Lesson of Kiddush haShem
Deity of Egypt (Nile) is the source of havoc for the Egypt; everything created by G-d
Moshe warned Paroh that if he continue to refuse Moshe's request to let the Jewish people leave Egypt, then there would be a new plague: "And the river will swarm with frogs; they will rise up and go into your homes, your bedrooms; onto your beds; and in the homes of your servants and your people; and into your ovens and your kneading bowls." After Paroh's refusal, the frogs did indeed swarm all over Egypt, including into the ovens of the Egyptians.
When G-d tells Moshe about the second plague (known as tzfardea), He says that He will “smite” (nogef) Egyptian territory. Rashi (to Shmos 7:27) explains that the noun mageifah does not denote death, but rather denotes some form of striking or smiting. The root of mageifah are the letters GIMMEL-PEH(-HAY). Verbs that use this root also denote striking, hitting, or pushing — but not death. Rashi repeats this understanding in multiple places (see his commentaries to Shmos 21:22, 21:35, and Bava Kama 2b). With this, Rashi answered his unspoken question about why the plague of tzfardea (commonly translated as “frogs”) is called a “plague” if frogs do not kill. To answer this question, Rashi explained that the word mageifah does not inherently refer to a plague which brings death, so the entire quandary is moot.
Abarbanel disagrees with Rashi’s assertion that mageifah does not inherently refer to a lethal plague. To answer the aforementioned difficulty, Abarbanel is forced to adopt Rabbeinu Chananel’s view that tzfardea are “crocodiles”, not “frogs”.
Countless frogs covered the entire country, jumping into beds, food, and everywhere else you would not want frogs to be. They croaked and made life miserable for the Egyptians. When the Torah describes the beginning of this plague, it mentions that "the frog arose [from the Nile River]" (Shmos 8:2). From the singular form of the word "frog," Rashi, quoting the Medrash explains that the plague did, in fact, begin with only one frog. However, when the Egyptians hit the frog, it miraculously split into two frogs. Then, when those frogs were hit, they also split. Because the Egyptians kept hitting the frogs, they continued to divide until they filled the entire land.
The frogs left the Egyptians after the prayers of Moshe. Paroh tested Moshe and requested that he pray that they leave the next day and so it happened.
LESSONS TO LEARN
The Steipler Rav asks the obvious question. The Egyptians saw that whenever they would hit a frog, it would split and create more frogs. Logic would therefore dictate that in order to prevent a national frog epidemic, they should simply not hit the frogs! Why did the Egyptians continue to hit them?
He answers that we see from here the destructive nature of anger. The Egyptians would hit a frog and it would split. They would then become angry and frustrated at the annoying amphibians. They would vengefully hit them again, causing another split. The anger would escalate, and they would hit them again and again, all logic disregarded because of the burning anger they felt. While this actually sounds quite silly, we often do a very similar thing. Someone will insult us, and this will create a feeling of anger and annoyance. Logic would argue that we should just nip any oncoming arguments in the bud and ignore it. Yet, out of anger, we will retaliate, pushing the dispute along one step further. This will continue, back and forth, over and over again. Anger will escalate and fury will rise, to no end just as the Egyptians did with the frogs. However, if we learn to control our anger, we can prevent these negative circumstances from ever coming about in the first place.
The first two plagues represent parallel yet opposite ideas:
Dam- Blood is to warm Egypt from it's natural coldness to holiness, to be warmed by it.
Tzfardea- Frogs were to cool off Egypt's passions to worldliness.
The Gemara (Pesachim 53a) tells us that several hundred years later, the actions of the frogs who entered the ovens served as a lesson to three great men; Chanania, Mishael and Azariah. They lived in Babylon under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar. He made a decree that everyone must bow to a statue in his image, and the punishment for not doing so was to be thrown into a fire. The law states that one must give up his life rather than worship idols. However, the commentaries explain that bowing to this image did not constitute actual idol worship. Therefore, technically speaking, it was permissible to bow to the image, and most of the Jewish people did so. However, Chanania, Mishael and Azariah learnt from the example of the frogs who went into the ovens in Egypt, that they too should be prepared to be thrown into a fire. They reasoned that the frogs who were not commanded in the Mitzva of Kiddush HaShem (sanctification of God's name), nonetheless were willing to go into a burning oven for the sake of sanctifying God's name. All the more so (kal v'chomer), they, who, as human beings, were commanded in the mitzvah of Kiddush HaShem, should be willing to be thrown into the fire.
Further, while God did command the frogs to go into the ovens, He did not restrict the command to ovens - the bedrooms, beds, and kneading bowls were included in the list of the places where the frogs could go to. Therefore, each frog had the choice as to where they would go - he could conceivably decide that he would choose the more comfortable option of going to the bed or kneading bowl. Nonetheless, many frogs did indeed choose to risk their lives in order to ensure that God's command was fulfilled. Since each individual frog was not commanded to go into the fire and yet many of them still did so, Chanania, Mishael and Azariah learnt that all the more so they should be prepared to be thrown into a fire.
Biblical Occurrences
The word "צְפַרְ דֵעַ " appears in only three places in Tanakh: Shmos 7:26 – 8:11, Tehillim 78:45, and Tehillim 105:30. As all three chapters speak of the same plague that was visited upon the Egyptians, the word is a virtual hapax legomenon (a term of which only one instance of use is recorded) making it difficult to determine its meaning.
Possible Meanings
Commentators provide two different identifications of the צְפַרְ דֵעַ , each one casting the Plague and its purpose in a very different light:
1. Frogs
Sources: Philo, Shmos Rabbah, R. Yonah ibn Janach, Lekach Tov, Ibn Ezra, Ma'asei Hashem, most other commentators.
Meaning and derivation – The etymology of the word "צְפַרְ דֵעַ " is unknown. Some suggest that it may be an onomatopoeic expression of the frog's croak.
Purpose of the Plagues – Philo asserts that Hashem preferred "to admonish the Egyptians [rather] than to destroy them" and thus initially sent smaller nuisances rather than larger and more destructive plagues.
Nature of the miracle – Philo emphasizes how HaShem has "need of no assistant," and thus purposefully did not deploy mighty bears, lions, or snakes (in this instance) to do his bidding, but rather chose small, insignificant creatures as His instruments.
"וּבְתַנוּרֶיךָ וּבְמִשְאֲרוֹתֶיךָ" – R"Y Ibn Janach and R"E Ashkenazi note that the "צְפַרְ דֵעַ " was small enough to enter houses, and even ovens and dough (Shmos 7:28), and thus could not be much larger than a frog.
Effects of the Plague – Shadal explains that the language of devouring ("וַתַשְחִ יתֵם") found in Tehillim 78:45 regarding the "צְפַרְ דֵעַ " is simply a figure of speech.
"וַיִצְעַק מֹשֶה" – This is the only time that this verb appears during the course of the Plagues. Others suggest that Moshe instinctively shouted in order to hear himself over the croaking of the frogs.
Removal of the Plague – The Tanchuma and Shmos Rabbah note a distinction between the "צְפַרְ דֵעַ " which died in Egypt and the "עָרֹב" which simply left the country. They explain that Hashem removed the "עָרֹב" so that the Egyptians would not derive benefit from their hides but left the carcasses of the frogs in Egypt because they were worthless.
2. Crocodiles
Sources: R. Saadia, R. Chananel, opinion cited by Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel
Meaning and derivation – Unknown
Relationship to "תַנִין" – Commentators who identify "צְפַרְ דֵעַ " as a crocodile would likely identify the "תַנִין" as a serpent rather than a crocodile.
Effects of the Plague – The verbs "נֹגֵף" (Shmos 7:26) and "וַתַשְחִיתֵם" (Tehillim 78:45) which are applied to the "צְפַרְ דְעִים" are understood to mean that there were fatalities.
Purpose of the Plagues – According to this approach, the Plague of "צְפַרְ דֵעַ " was designed to inflict severe harm. See Purpose of the Plagues.
Nature of the miracle – According to Abarbanel, the natural result of the fish in the Nile dying during the Plague of Blood, was that the crocodiles invaded the land of Egypt to find alternative sources of food.
Origin of the Plague – Abarbanel attempts to prove from the repeated emphasis on "רַק בַיְאֹר תִשָאַרְ נָה" that the "צְפַרְ דֵעַ " was not previously native to the Nile, and thus the Torah states that hereafter they remained as living testimony to the miracle. The Ma'asei Hashem, though, dismisses Abarbanel's proof.
"וּבְתַ נוּרֶיךָ וּבְמִשְאֲרוֹתֶיךָ" – Abarbanel suggests that the crocodiles invaded the houses and ovens in search of food.
"רַק בַיְאֹר תִשָאַרְ נָה" – Abarbanel attempts to prove from here that the "צְפַרְ דֵעַ " could not be frogs, as frogs remained not only in the Nile, but also in other bodies of water
