Appreciating the Nile

          Rashi, quoting our Sages, comments that it was Aaron, not Moses who struck the River Nile, because the Nile had saved the infant Moses. Hence, for Moses to have struck the River would have been a failure to appreciate what the River had done for him. It would have been a lack of hakarat haTov (“recognition of the good”, appreciation of what has been done for him). For the same reason, it was Aaron who brought the frogs out of the Nile (8:1). As well with the third plague, it was Aaron, not Moses, who was instructed to hit the soil of Egypt to bring out the lice. Rashi again comments that it would have been ungrateful of Moses to hit the soil of Egypt which had protected him when he killed the Egyptian and buried the body in the sand.

          Of course, both the River Nile and the land of Egypt are inanimate objects, which cannot feel being struck. Personifying the Nile and the soil, if they are to be struck, it makes not a whit of difference to them whether they are struck by Moses or by Aaron.

          Moses’ refraining from striking the River and the soil was for his own benefit, not for the benefit of the Nile nor the land of Egypt. It would be morally wrong, hence a sin against himself, for Moses to ignore the fact that he had been saved both by the Nile and by the land. Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe explains that the Torah teaches the important lesson that hakarat haTov extends beyond man’s relation with his Creator and beyond his relationship with fellow man. Hakarat haTov is obligatory in man’s relation to himself as well.