Divine Plans and Egyptian Free Choice/2

Divine Plans and Egyptian Free Choice

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

In trying to determine the extent to which Hashem forced the hands of the Egyptians into enslaving the Israelites, commentators find themselves struggling with the question of the relationship between divine foreknowledge and human choice. Did Hashem's prediction at the Covenant of the Pieces preclude any further freedom of choice on the part of the Egyptians or can it be squared with their free will? Further complicating the issue is a verse in Tehillim 105 which appears to imply not just foreknowledge but Hashem's active manipulation of the Egyptians.

Commentators are therefore left with three choices. One option (Tanchuma, Raavad) assumes that there was active intervention and attempts to justify the suspension of free will. Others (Meiri, Ran) assert that there was free choice and must therefore reinterpret the verses which imply that Hashem intervened. Finally, the compromise position (Ramban) charts a middle course which views God's words as a command, but leaves humans the choice whether to fulfill it or not.

Remote Control

Hashem pulled the strings behind the scenes, compelling the Egyptians to enslave the Israelites in order to realize His plan,¹ and the Egyptians had no freedom of choice whatsoever regarding this matter.

Sources: TanchumaShemot 5About the Tanchuma, Shemot Rabbah1:8About Shemot Rabbah, RaavadHilkhot Teshuvah 6:5About Raavad

Covenant of the Pieces – According to this approach, the Divine prophecy constituted an immutable decree which determined the course of history, and the Egyptians served as merely a tool in Hashem's hands to enable the implementation of the slavery.² This interpretation is rejected by the RanBereshit 15:14About R. Nissim Gerondi who notes that the Covenant nowhere indicates that Hashem would actively instigate the slavery, and that it rather implies that it would happen on its own.

"הָפַךְ לִבָּם לִשְׂנֹא עַמּוֹ" – According to the Tanchuma and Shemot Rabbah, Hashem actively intervened³ and caused the Egyptians to persecute the Israelites by changing their love for the Israelites into hatred.⁴ See also MalbimTehillim 105:25About R. Meir Leibush Weiser who explicitly links Hashem's intervention to the need to fulfill the prophecy of Bereshit 15.⁵

Why were the Egyptians punished? The Raavad suggests two possible justifications for why the Egyptians received a punishment even though Hashem forced them to enslave the Israelites. The first focuses on a sin against God, while the second is a crime against humanity:⁶

• The Egyptians were punished for their utter disrespect for God and for not freeing the Israelites immediately upon receiving Hashem's instructions to do so.
• The Egyptians were punished for going beyond the call of duty and attempting even to exterminate the Israelites, whereas Hashem's decree was to only enslave and oppress.

Why did Hashem manipulate the Egyptians? Raavad explains that Hashem's modus operandi is to utilize the wicked as agents of punishment and then punish them in turn once they have completed their mission.⁷ According to this approach, the Israelites sinned and deserved punishment.⁸

Why is Hashem's role mentioned only in Tehillim but not in Shemot 1-2? It is possible that the Torah did not want to draw attention away from the Egyptians' own responsibility for their cruelty toward the Israelites.⁹

Historical parallels – Raavad draws an analogy to the Assyrians who served as a Divine instrument of punishment, but were then punished, in turn, for their arrogance toward God.

Israelite free choice – This approach would maintain that Yaakov and his family did not decide on their own to descend to Egypt, but were forced by Hashem to do so. For more, see Divine Plans and Israelite Free Choice.

Divine Orders

Hashem issued a decree which was realized through the Egyptian enslavement, but the Egyptians exercised free choice in deciding on their own whether to fulfill it.

Sources: Shemot Rabbah30:15About Shemot Rabbah, RadakBereshit 15:14Tehillim 105:25, 2nd answerAbout R. David Kimchi, RambanBereshit 15:14About Ramban

Covenant of the Pieces – Shemot Rabbah views the Divine prophecy regarding the enslavement of Avraham's descendants as a command which the Egyptians were supposed to fulfill.¹⁰ It is unclear, though, how the Egyptians would have learned of this decree,¹¹ and even less clear that they would have cared enough to try to fulfill it.

"הָפַךְ לִבָּם לִשְׂנֹא עַמּוֹ" – This approach needs to reinterpret this verse, and thus R. SaadiaCommentary Shemot 1:10About R. Saadia and Radak explain that the subject of "הָפַךְ" is the Egyptians themselves who were responsible for their own change of heart. According to them, "הָפַךְ" should be understood like the passive form of נהפך‎.¹²

Why were the Egyptians punished? These commentators offer two justifications for why the Egyptians deserved to be punished even though their actions fulfilled Hashem's command:¹³

• The Egyptians were punished for attempting even to exterminate the Israelites, whereas Hashem's decree was to only enslave and oppress – Shemot Rabbah, Radak, Ramban's first approach.¹⁴
• The Egyptians' intent was to do evil rather than to fulfill the Divine decree – Ramban's second approach.

Why did Hashem command the Egyptians to enslave the Israelites? According to these commentators, the Israelites (or their ancestors) sinned and deserved punishment. For further discussion, see Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage.

Historical parallels – All of these sources cite the verse from Zekhariah 1:15 which speaks of Hashem's anger at the Babylonians for being overly zealous in punishing the Jewish nation, and Ramban cites also the cases of Yehu and Sancheriv who were commanded by Hashem to be agents of punishment.

Israelite free choice – This approach would maintain that Yaakov and his family were obligated to go down to Egypt in order to fulfill Hashem's decree. For more, see Divine Plans and Israelite Free Choice.

Passive Prediction

Hashem's words were just a prediction, and had no impact on or relevance for the Egyptians' decision to enslave the Israelites.

Sources: RambamHilkhot Teshuvah 6:5Moreh Nevukhim 2:48About Rambam,¹⁵ MeiriChibbur HaTeshuvah 1:6Tehillim 105:25About the Meiri, RanBereshit 15:14About R. Nissim Gerondi¹⁶

Covenant of the Pieces – The Covenant merely foretold the future, and it neither constituted a command nor implied that there would be any Divine coercion.¹⁷ For the general question of how Divine foreknowledge can coexist with free choice, see Free Will.

"הָפַךְ לִבָּם לִשְׂנֹא עַמּוֹ" – The Meiri offers two reinterpretations of this verse. The first proposes, like R. Saadia above, that the Egyptians changed their own hearts, and "הָפַךְ" should be read as נהפך. The second posits, like the Rambam,¹⁸ that even though the Egyptians changed their own hearts, the action is attributed to Hashem because He is the ultimate source of everything in the world.¹⁹

Why were the Egyptians punished? The Meiri and Ran explain that since Hashem only foretold the future and did not compel the Egyptians to act in any particular way, they bore complete responsibility for their actions. The Ran adds that the identity of the oppressing nation was not even specified at the Covenant of Pieces²⁰ making it impossible to claim that Hashem had negated anyone's free will.²¹

Why did Hashem not prevent the Egyptians from enslaving the Israelites? The Ran explains that Hashem did not intervene because the slavery was intended for the Israelites' good. For further discussion, see Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage.

Israelite free choice – The Ran appears to maintain that the Covenant of Pieces also did not compel Yaakov and his family to act in a certain way, and that they went down to Egypt of their own volition.²² However, this position could maintain that the Covenant was binding on Avraham's descendants, but not on the Egyptians.²³ For more, see Divine Plans and Israelite Free Choice.

¹ Whether Hashem did this via a seemingly natural process or overtly miraculous means is a separate issue.

² The Raavad appears to distinguish between the Covenant with Avraham and Hashem's prediction to Moshe in Devarim 31:16-18. Regarding the latter, he states that Divine foreknowledge does not constitute a decree. Raavad does not explain the basis for his distinction, but it could relate to the Covenant specifying the generations during whose time it was to be realized.

³ They do not specify whether Hashem did this through natural or supernatural means. For discussion of the Netziv's understanding of the Midrash, see Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage.

⁴ This is the clear meaning of the text found in Shemot Rabbah "הפך הקדוש ברוך הוא האהבה שהיו המצריים אוהבין אותן לשנאה". In contrast, the printed edition of the Tanchuma reads: "הפר הקדוש ברוך הוא את האהבה שהיה אוהב אותם". This could conceivably be interpreted as saying that Hashem abrogated His own covenantal love for the Israelites (in response to the Israelites' abrogation of the covenant of circumcision). However, the version preserved in Shemot Rabbah would seem to be the original text, as it both matches the Biblical verse and is supported by manuscripts of the Tanchuma. [The reading of "הפר" likely originated from the shortening of the "ך" in "הפך" and the use of "הפרו" in the immediate context.]

⁵ Cf. RadakTehillim 105:25, 1st answerAbout Radak.

⁶ According to both of the Raavad's suggestions, there is no accountability for what is Divinely ordained, and thus the Egyptians were not punished for the enslaving of the Israelites.

⁷ Raavad cites the verse in Yeshayahu 10:5 "הוֹי אַשּׁוּר שֵׁבֶט אַפִּי וּמַטֶּה הוּא בְיָדָם זַעְמִי". See also Bavli Makkot 10b on "מֵרְשָׁעִים יֵצֵא רֶשַׁע".

⁸ For further discussion, see Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage.

⁹ In Shemot 1-2 there is also no discussion of the idolatry of the Israelites (cf. Yechezkel 20). See Israelites' Religious Identity that this may also be to keep the focus on the Egyptian culpability.

¹⁰ Ramban even implies that any Egyptian who had known of Hashem's decree and not participated in enslaving the Israelites would have been a sinner.

¹¹ See Radak and Ramban who do not explicitly say that the Egyptians were aware of this decree. Ramban, though, does cite a precedent from Yirmeyahu 40:2-3 from which it is clear that Nevuzaradan was aware of Yirmeyahu's prophecy regarding the Babylonian Exile. Ramban argues the same regarding Nevuchadrezar (note the term "עבדי" which Hashem applies to him in the prophecy of Yirmeyahu).

¹² They could also adopt the alternative explanation of the Rambam and Meiri below. See also R. Moshe Alshikh'sTehillim 105:25About R. Moshe Alshikh attempt to explain that Paroh is the subject of the verse.

¹³ Alternatively, they could have explained like the Raavad's first approach above.

¹⁴ See above that this is also the Raavad's approach.

¹⁵ This is how the Meshekh Chokhmah Bereshit 15:13 and others understand the Rambam's position. See, though, the RaavadHilkhot Teshuvah 6:5About Raavad who assumes that the Rambam holds that there was a decree on the Egyptian nation, just not on any individual member. He thus argues that a national decree should also obligate its individual members. However, it would seem that the Rambam maintains that even on the national level there was just a general forecast but no decree, precisely because there cannot be a decree which does not obligate any individual person.

¹⁶ This is presumably also the position of Akeidat YitzchakShemot #36About R. Yitzchak Arama and Abarbanel (Approach #3)Zevach Pesach s.v. "Baruch Shomer" Approach #3Zevach Pesach s.v. "וירד"About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel.

¹⁷ The Ran notes that Bereshit 15:13 makes no mention of Hashem playing any role in the exile or slavery. This stands in contrast to the following verse which emphasizes His role in bringing about the redemption.

¹⁸ The Rambam does not interpret Tehillim 105:25, but he takes this approach regarding the earlier verse of Tehillim 105:20.

¹⁹ Cf. the similar views cited by the Meiri discussed in Hardened Hearts and the discussion of "לֹא אַתֶּם שְׁלַחְתֶּם אֹתִי הֵנָּה כִּי הָאֱלֹהִים" in Divine Plans and Israelite Free Choice.

²⁰ According to the Ran, the lack of identification is understandable as it was not yet determined (cf. one option mentioned in the Derashot of R"Y Ibn Shuib on Parashat Vayigash).

²¹ This reading of the Ran assumes that he is offering a single answer for why the Egyptians were punished, and the fact that the enslaving nation is not identified is just a proof that there was only a prediction and not a decree. Alternatively, though, the Ran is giving two separate answers to the question of why the Egyptians were punished. [Cf. the discussion above of the Rambam's argument that no individual person is mentioned in the Covenant.] In contrast to the Ran, Ramban argues that even though the oppressing nation was not specified, once Yaakov's family came to Egypt, the obligation to enslave them fell on the Egyptians ("שהכתוב אמר וגם את הגוי אשר יעבודו, שיעבדו הגוי כולו, והם הלכו מעצמם למצרים").

²² This is the implication of his words: "אבל אמר כמגיד עתיד ידוע תדע, שיתגלגל הענין מצד מנהגו של עולם שיהיה זרעך גר בארץ לא להם".

²³ The textual basis for this position would be that Avraham's descendants were named in the Covenant, but not the Egyptians, while the logical basis would be that the Covenant was a reward or punishment only for the Israelites.