Our Gemara on Amud Beis brings scriptural support for the idea that ground gold could be sufficiently dirt-like in its properties that it can be used in the mitzvah to cover the blood.

Ben Yehoyada (Sotah 11a) uses the idea that gold can be considered as dirt for a clever exegesis. It starts with the Aggadah (ibid) that states the Egyptians were punished by drowning in the water (Mayim) of the Red Sea, in a measure-for-measure response to them having drowned the Jewish male infants at birth.

Ben Yehoyada asks, didn’t the Egyptians also seek to enslave the Jews? In fact, the verse (Shemos 1:11) mentions the enslavement before the decree of murdering the babies. If so, where is the measure-for-measure punishment on that?

He answers, within the Hebrew word mayim (water), which was the explicit punishment, is a hint for the second punishment. Mayim is composed of three Hebrew letters, Mem-Yud-Mem. If the letters are fully spelled out, you get mem-mem, Yud-Dalet, and mem-mem. This gives you letters to form mayim (water) and domem (earthy substance). Therefore the Gemara that says they were punished with water also hints at the earthy substance that was part of the punishment. The Jews were made to work with bricks and mortar (Shemos 1:14), a kind of dirt, and the Jews received payment of gold (Shemos 12:35) from the Egyptians, which is a kind of earthy substance too, and that is the corresponding measure for measure. In fact, it is hinted in Pharaoh’s name. The Hebrew letters for Pharaoh are Pay-Reish-Ayin-Heh, which unscrambles into he-afar, the dirt.

This is a clever exegesis, but is there a deeper lesson? I think so. The idea that within one word there is another concept that is also embedded is an expression one mayter should be explicit, the punishment of the water, and the other matter is hidden within the letters, the punishment for the working and the payment for that. This is suggesting that one experience is supposed to be out in the open and the other private. We then must ask ourselves, why is that? The compensation for having their children murdered is a direct and clear balancing of the scales of justice. On the other hand, money is a mixed bag. Did the Jews really need the money? In fact, the Gemara (Berachos 32a and Rashi Shemos 32:21) says Moshe defended the Jews, saying that God set them up with too great a test by giving them all that gold and silver, enabling them to sin with the Golden Calf:

“Moses said the following before the Holy One, Blessed be He, to atone for Israel after the sin of the Golden Calf: Master of the Universe, because of the gold and silver that you lavished upon Israel during the exodus from Egypt until they said enough [dai]; it was this wealth that caused Israel to make the Golden Calf….The Gemara offers another analogy: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is comparable to a person who had a son; he bathed him and anointed him with oil, fed him and gave him drink, and hung a purse of money around his neck. Then, he brought his son to the entrance of a brothel. What could the son do to avoid sinning?”

Therefore, the punishment and financial compensation is not stated explicitly, as a hint that it should be taken cautiously and modestly, which apparently the Jews did not fully succeed with.

Relating to this metaphor that is given, about a spoiled, indulged adolescent who was given a purse full of gold and planted in front of a brothel, there is an interesting side point. Within the reality of the metaphor, there is a presumption that in certain circumstances, a sexual temptation can be too hard to overcome. After all, in the metaphor, it’s being suggested that the young man will not be able to resist. This speaks to an issue I wrote about in a different blog post (Psychology of the Daf, Makkos 6, https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/can-god-give-a-test-that-you-cannot-overcome-makkos-6/) — according to Jewish ethics, can God give a person a challenge that they cannot overcome? Spoiler alert: As far as I’m concerned, the saying that God does not give you a nisayon that you can’t overcome is a bubbe maaseh, as I give ample proofs from various Gemaras and Midrashim that indeed there are certain situations where a person effectively loses free choice. The above quoted mashal seems to be yet another proof of this idea. Otherwise, Moshe’s defense is not valid.