Warning at the river
Brought by Moshe
Lasted seven days
Fire and Water existed together
Psychological Torture
Demonstration of G-d’s precision in the exact time the plague begins
Moshe warned Paroh early in the morning by the Nile river. The warning included instructions to shelter the animals and people, so they would not die during this Plague. The Egyptians that heeded the warning were able to protect their animals and possessions.
Egyptians had beaten and thrown stones at the Jews while they worked. Now, G-d throw His “stones” at them and their properties.
Finally, Paroh requested Moshe to end this plague ASAP. As Moshe left the gates of the city, he prayed and spread out his hands to G-d and the plague stopped. There is a tradition among Egyptian Jews that there is an ancient synagogue on the spot were Moshe prayed.
This Plague occurred in Ada (early spring). The wheat and spelt had not yet grew and were not affected by this Plague (but was available for the next Plague of the locust).
The Miracles of this Plague
- Fire and hail are opposites and according to nature do not exist together. In this plague there was fire right inside the hailstones.
- The hailstones were huge. Each hailstone was as large as six handfuls of ice and surrounded the fire.
- The ice was able to contain the fire without melting. Moreover, the fire was not extinguished by the hail.
- This plague was “nes bitcoch nes” “not natural in any manner (Maharal). The plague began abruptly. One second there was clear sky with bright sunshine. The next second there were heavy hailstones and darkness. For the same reason the plague ended abruptly, with the miraculous hailstones suspended in midair as the plague ended exactly 24 hours to the second after Moshe told Paroh it would so end.
In the painting by Yoram Raanan, Moshe, stands with his arms stretched up to a sky filled with fire and brimstone, heralding in the seventh plague of hail. The painting captures the feeling of both fire and ice. The hail stones, which on the outside with ice, contained a flame of fire that burned within the ice. In a simple palette of ochre and burnt sienna, the hail stones light up the somber sky as they begin to rain down to destroy the crops of the Egyptians.
THE SEVERITY OF MAKKAS BARAD (PSYCHOLOGICAL VS. PHYSICAL TORTURE)
The pasuk relates that HaShem told Moshe to inform Paroh that if he does not let Klal Yisroel free, He will send all of his makkos against him. This would seem to imply that makkas barad was the worst of the makkos. Rashi tells us that from this pasuk we see that makkas bechoros was the worst makkah. This seems incomprehensible.
The pasuk is talking about makkas barad; not makkas bechoros. Indeed, many meforshim say that the true intent of Rashi is as the pasuk implies; that makkos barad was the worst makkah.
And yet, we find that Rashi tells us otherwise. In the end of Parshas Shmos, Moshe warns Paroh that if he does not send out Klal Yisroel, HaShem will send makkas bechoros. Rashi explains that this Makkah specifically was chosen to warn Paroh as this was the worst of the makkos. We are now faced with the following contradiction. Which was worse? Makkas barad or makkas bechoros?
Perhaps we can explain as follows. We first have to understand why makkas barad was considered the worst of the makkos. At the end of Parshas Vayeira, Moshe gives Paroh mussar for not listening to HaShem. The pasuk then interrupts this discussion and informs us, that although the flax and barley were broken during the makkah, the wheat was not destroyed. Rashi explains that the flax and barley had already ripened and as such they were hard. When the barad struck them, they were destroyed. The wheat, on the other hand, was still soft and therefore when they were hit, they just bent over and were not broken.
At first glance, these two ideas seem to have nothing to do with each other. Rav Akiva Eiger, however, explains that in reality these two ideas are connected, as this was a continuation of the mussar that Moshe was giving Paroh. Why were the flax and barely destroyed? Because they were rigid and hard. They could not bend and therefore they were destroyed. The wheat, on the other hand, was soft and flexible and therefore it was saved. This was a lesson to Paroh. Paroh was haughty and refused to give in. He was therefore punished. He suffered only as a result of his gaava. If he would have had humility and given in, he would not have suffered.
It comes out that it was during this makkah specifically that Paroh realized the cause of his suffering. His own stubbornness. Perhaps this is why this makkah was considered so severe. Not only did Paroh and the Mitzrim suffer, but they suffered with that knowledge that it was their own fault. It is one thing to experience suffering, but that suffering is multiplied greatly when the person has to live with the knowledge that he caused it to himself. (This was not the only aspect of makkas barad in which the Mitzrim realized that their suffering was self-inflicted.)
Before the makkah, they were warned to bring in their animals. Many of the Mitzrim did not do so and as a result they suffered a terrible financial loss. They had an easy way out and they did not take it. Once again, they had to live with the knowledge that they had caused their own suffering.)
But if makkas barad was the worst makkah, why did Moshe not warn Paroh with this makkah? The answer is simple. The torture that the Mitzrayim experienced during this makkah was psychological in nature. The pain of living with the regret of not listening to Moshe. Although psychological torture is incredibly painful, a person cannot understand its severity until he has experienced it. If you warn a person that if he does a particular action, he will regret it, the warning will not be effective. The only to warn him, is to describe the physical pain that he will suffer as a result of his actions. Typically, a person can only relate to physical pain; a person has a hard time visualizing the extent of psychological pain.
Therefore, although in one aspect, makkos barad was the worst makkah, it would not have served as an effective warning to Paroh.
