2

Rashi and Shemos Rabbah both do not say the frog was any larger than average.
The Gemara Sanhedrin 67b does not make sense to be understood that the first frog covered all of mitzrayim.
(I know that all the coloring pages show that but that's not a real proof.)
If you are giving me a source please use a source from a Rishon or earlier.

Some might want to say that the frog was large because why else would the Mitzriyim hit it; and if many other frogs came from it, then the first one was larger. A few points:
1) See this question and some of the answers- there's not really a source that the other frogs came from of the first one.
2) One of the more famous writings about why the mitzriyim kept on hitting the frog is from the Steipler here. For some reason it seems that he specifically doesn't mention that the frog was big?
3) Maybe the mitzriyim were hitting the frog because Moshe had said the whole plauge would come from it, so the mitzriyim thought that they would kill the frog and outsmart Hashem (no source).
4) This is just a thought, there is no backing to it. And from the fact that all the commentators that I've seen about this don't mention a big frog seems to indicate that there wasn't one.

Thank you.


Here are some of the places where this is assumed as a fact (For some of them it might be easier to do ctrl f and type "frog" or "big frog"):
From Mi Yodeya: This Question, This Answer, This Answer.
Articles about the Makkos: Aish, Aish, PCCK, Aish, Revach, Kol Torah.
Shiurim: TorahAnytime(0:26), TA(7:56), TA(22:53), TA(9:14),TA(1:30).
I have also seen this in children's Parsha stories/ Midrash Says.


(Interesting side note: When this question was asked to me, I looked around in a few seforim but didn't find anything. But when I was going through the Pesukim I saw something else. (Please note that I do not know of any source for this.) Hashem brought the makkos with a יד חזקה, a strong hand. The gematria of יד is 14. If you start at the letter ג from the word הָאֲגַמִּ֑ים in Parshas Vaeira 8:1 and count fourteen letters, you get the ד of הַֽצְפַרְדְּעִ֖ים. Fourteen letters to the ו of וַיֵּ֤ט. Thirteen letters (I know it's off by one) you get the ל of עַ֖ל. Fourteen letters you get the beginning of the word הַצְּפַרְדֵּ֔עַ. That spells out "גדול הצפרדע," the big frog .)

13
  • 2
    Welcome to Mi Yodeya. As it’s currently phrased, your question is not really answerable since we don’t know who assumed this (and certainly not why). You can edit this question to make it objectively answerable, e.g Do any sources imply that the first frog was larger? – Alex May 15 '20 at 20:26
  • the Torah Temimah quotes Sanhedrin as saying "ר׳ עקיבא אומר, צפרדע אחת היתה ומלאה כל ארץ מצרים, ור' אלעזר בן עזריה אמר, צפרדע אחת היתה ושרקה להם והם באו בר"ל שרקה לכל הצפרדעים שבעולם" at sefaria.org/… even though the linked gemara doesn't say this. – rosends May 15 '20 at 20:47
  • 1
    @TurkHill Maybe I just don't see it, but where does he talk about a big frog? – Shmuel L May 20 '20 at 23:30
  • 1
    @TurkHill I read the whole thing- does it answer my question, or you were just showing me an interesting essay? – Shmuel L May 21 '20 at 1:36
1

The midrash has a different version:

תנחומא וארא יד

רבי עקיבא אומר: צפרדע אחת היתה, והיו המצרים מכין אותה ומתזת צפרדעים הרבה.

Tanhuma Vera 14

At first there was only one frog, but after the Egyptians struck it, many frogs sprang from it

So, if many normal sized frogs came out of it, I guess it was large. Also, If it was just normal sized frog, why would the Egyptians mind about it?

5
  • I just added a response to this in my question. – Shmuel L May 20 '20 at 22:00
  • I wonder whats the deeper meaning of this – Adam May 20 '20 at 22:14
  • @ShmuelL I think that after my answer, you need to give some evidence that the frog was not large. I don't say it's impossible, but the burden of evidence is passed to you. – Alaychem goes to Codidact May 21 '20 at 6:03
  • @AlaychemRM As I pointed out in my question in reason #4, this is not an answer, it's just a thought, and as I pointed out in reason #1 and 3, there is no reason to think this thought in the first place. – Shmuel L May 21 '20 at 18:50
  • @AlaychemRM So you are just a shema and I had the question first, so you never "took away" my chazaka. – Shmuel L May 22 '20 at 4:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .