Hardened Hearts/2/he

הקשיית לב

גישות פרשניות

תרגום זה עדיין לא עבר ביקורת עורך

סקירה

פרשנים נחלקים באופן נרחב בהבנתם את הקשיית הלב של ה'. חלק מבינים את הביטוי בתור דרך מטפורית לומר שה' הפך אנשים לעיקשים, ודיכא את הבחירה החופשית שלהם כדי למנוע מהם לשנות את דרכיהם. דבר זה יכול לקרות בעקבות גודל חטאם, העובדה שהם מיצו את ההזדמנויות שלהם להשתנות, או, מכיוון שהם עובדי אלילים, הם פשוט לא זכו במתנת התשובה.

פרשנים אחרים לא מסכימים ומנסים לפרש מחדש את הפסוקים, מכיוון שהם אומרים שה' לעולם אינו נוטל באופן פעיל את הבחירה החופשית ממישהו. לשיטת ר' סעדיה, הביטוי "חיזוק לב" צריך להיות מובן כחיזוק ממש של מישהו, שנותן לו את היכולת להתמיד כך שיוכל לקבל עונש מלא. ר' יצחק עראמה מציע שהשגחת ה' על העולם בדרך הטבע לפעמים מובילה באופן עקיף לאנשים לשכוח ממנו ולהמשיך לחטוא, ולכן כביכול ה' הקשה את לבם. אחרים מציעים שהביטוי הוא רק ניב ציורי, אשר מייחס פעולות אנושיות לא מוסברות לה', המקור הבלעדי של הכול בעולם. רב יוסף אלבו וספורנו הולכים צעד נוסף קדימה, ומציעים שהקשיית הלבבות בידי ה' היא למעשה מה שמאפשר בחירה חופשית ותשובה אמתית. "חיזוק לב" מובן אם כן בתור חיזוק ההחלטיות של האדם כך שיהיו לו אפשרויות אחרות מלבד לומר "רחמים" ולהיכנע.

הגישות השונות מושפעות מעמדות הפרשנים במספר עניינים: מה הייתה המטרה הבלעדית של המכות; האם הן נועדו להעניש או לשקם? כיצד התורה רואה חזרה בתשובה של גויים? האם ה' פועל בדרך הטבע או שהוא מבצע ניסים גלויים?

פרשנים אלה מציעים ספקטרום של אפשרויות בהסברת המשמעות של הקשיית הלב של פרעה ודמויות נוספות בתנ"ך בידי ה' וההשפעה שהייתה לכך על הבחירה החופשית שלהם:

דיכוי בחירה חופשית

הקשיית הלב של דמויות אלה בידי ה' מנעה מהם לממש את הבחירה החופשית שלהם ולשנות כיוון כדי להתחמק מעונש. על כל הווריאציות של גישה זו להסביר מדוע לא הגיעה לאנשים אלה הזדמנות לשנות את דרכיהם ולמה ה' לא היה יכול לסדר דרך בה יוכל להעניש אותם בלי שיצטרך לדכא את בחירה החופשית שלהם.¹

חטאים חמורים

עקב טבעם וגודלם העצום של החטאים שדמויות אלה עשו, עונש היה המסקנה המתבקשת כבר מההתחלה והיה נצרך גם אם המעורבים בעניין היו בוחרים לשנות את התנהגותם ולחזור בתשובה.² לכן, נטרול הבחירה החופשית שלהם (והעקשנות שהגיעה בעקבות כך) לא גרם להם לקבל עונשים נוספים, אלא רק אִפשֵר את העונש על החטאים המקוריים שלהם.³

מקורות:שמות רבהה':ז'ו':א'אודות שמות רבה, לקח טובשמות ד':כ"אאודות ר' טוביה בן אליעזר, רמב"םהלכות תשובה ו':ג'שמונה פרקים פרק ח'אודות ר' משה בן מיימון,⁴ רלב"גשמות ז'מלחמות ה' ד':ו'אודות ר' לוי בן גרשון, אברבנאלשמות ז' התשובה הא'אודות ר' יצחק אברבנאל

חטאי פרעה והמצרים – מפרשים אלו נחלקו לגבי מהות החטאים:

• Persecution of the Israelites – Rambam and Abarbanel explain that Paroh's terrible treatment of the Children of Israel⁵ is what sealed his fate. Abarbanel further clarifies that repentance can only atone for sins between man and God but cannot avert the mandated punishment for murder⁶ and other severe sins committed by a man against his fellow man.
• Licentious society – Based on ויקרא י"ח:ג', Ralbag asserts that even if Paroh had immediately consented to free the Israelites, he and the Egyptians would still have been deserving of punishment due to their depraved sexual behaviors.

סיחון ועמי כנען לעומת פרעה – As Sichon and the Canaanites had little prior contact with the Israelites, the Rambam's approach regarding Paroh is inapplicable to them. He thus resorts to attributing unidentified offenses to them. Ralbag's explanation, though, can be applied equally well to Sichon and the nations of Canaan, as their revolting moral conduct is linked to that of the Egyptians in ויקרא י"ח:ג'.⁷

בני עלי ובני ישראל בתקופת אליהו וישעיהו – Rambam,⁸ רד"קשמואל א' ב':כ"האודות ר' דוד קמחי and רלב"גשמואל א' ב':כ"האודות ר' לוי בן גרשון associate grave sins also with these incidents.

"אתה נותן יד לפושעים" – The עקדת יצחקעקידת יצחק שמות שער ל"ואודות ר' יצחק עראמה argues against the Rambam from the many verses which imply that repentance is an option even for the wicked. He specifically notes the cases of Ahav and Menashe whose repentance was accepted despite their unprecedented evil actions.

מי הקשה את לב פרעה? The עקדת יצחקעקידת יצחק שמות שער ל"ואודות ר' יצחק עראמה notes that this approach does not account for why during the first five plagues the Torah states that it was Paroh himself who hardened his heart (ostensibly implying that Paroh still had free choice).⁹ The לקח טובשמות ז':י"גשמות ז':כ"בשמות ט':ז'אודות ר' טוביה בן אליעזר¹⁰ and רלב"גשמות ט':ז'שמות ט':ל"האודות ר' לוי בן גרשון attempt to address this issue by claiming that even during the first five plagues it was Hashem who caused Paroh to harden his heart,¹¹ just as He promised He would in שמות ד':כ"א and 7:3 even before the Plagues began.¹²

מטרת המכות – This approach maintains that the primary purpose of the Plagues was retributive.

לשם מה ההצגה והתהליך הממושך? Rambam grapples with the question of why Hashem would bother to repeatedly send Moshe to Paroh, given that Paroh's hands were tied and was simply incapable of letting the people go. Rambam explains that by doing so Hashem demonstrated His ability to hijack Paroh's mind and cause him to act both irrationally and against his own will,¹³ and that this was a great miracle which proclaimed to all Hashem's mastery over the world.¹⁴ Hashem's choice to exact retribution in this way was thus designed to maximize its impact.

נטילת הבחירה החופשית – רק אמצעי או מטרה בפני עצמה? While Shemot Rabbah views the suppression of freedom of choice as a means to exact a full measure of punishment from Paroh, Rambam and Ralbag see it as a means to inculcate belief in God. Alternatively, Rambam may understand it to be an integral part of the sinner's punishment in that he loses control over his own mind and actions.¹⁵

איך הוקשו הלבבות? According to this approach, the hearts were hardened through supernatural Divine intervention.¹⁶

הזדמנויות מבוזבזות

לחוטא מוענק רק מספר מוגבל של הזדמנויות לשנות כיוון לפני ששערי תשובה ננעלים וגורלו נחתם. חוטאים אלה מיצו את כל הזדמנויותיהם, וכאשר עשו זאת, ה' נטל מהם את הבחירה החופשית שלהם ואת יכולתם לחזור בתשובה.

מקורות:תנחומאוארא ג'אודות התנחומא (בובר), שמות רבהי"א:א'י"א:ו'י"ג:ג'אודות שמות רבה¹⁷

מי הקשה את לב פרעה ומתי? These Midrashim highlight the distinction between the first five plagues where Paroh hardens his own heart,¹⁸ and the final five plagues where it is predominantly Hashem who hardens Paroh's heart.¹⁹ However, the verses after the seventh plague of hail in Shemot 9:34-35²⁰ pose a difficulty, as from them it appears that Paroh reverts to hardening his own heart.²¹

מדוע נענש פרעה? According to this approach, it is possible that Paroh was punished either for his original sins (see possibilities above) or for his disrespect in disregarding Hashem's warnings (or for both). Cf. ראב"דתשובה ו':ה'אודות ר' אברהם בן דוד who suggests that Paroh could have repented and avoided punishment entirely, but that his utter disdain for God's warnings sealed his fate.²²

מטרת המכות – Shemot Rabbah implies that the primary purpose of the Plagues was retributive. This may be reflected by the use of parallel language. Hashem responds to Paroh's "וַיֶּחֱזַק לֵב פַּרְעֹה" and "וַיַּכְבֵּד פַּרְעֹה אֶת לִבּוֹ", using the same verbs "וַיְחַזֵּק ה' אֶת לֵב פַּרְעֹה" and "וְאִכָּבְדָה בְּפַרְעֹה"‎.²³

סיחון ועמי כנען – This approach can maintain that they too received opportunities to repent before Hashem hardened their hearts. However, the text gives no such indication.

בני עלי ובני ישראל בתקופת אליהו וישעיהו – In these cases, also, this approach can argue that there were ample opportunities for repentance which were not utilized.²⁴

"אתה נותן יד לפושעים" – The verses in Yechezkel and elsewhere which imply that Hashem prefers the sinner's repentance over his death refer only to the initial stages before the decree is finalized.²⁵

עובדי אלילים אינם יכולים לחזור בתשובה אמתית

תשובה היא מתנת א-לוהים מיוחדת ששמורה עבור אלו שמאמינים בה'. מכיוון שחוטאים אלה היו עובדי אלילים ולא היו יכולים לחזור בתשובה, לא היה מחסום מוסרי שניצב בפני הסרת הבחירה החופשית שלהם.

מקורות:רש"ישמות ז':ג'אודות ר' שלמה יצחקי,²⁶ אברבנאלשמות ז' התשובה הב'אודות ר' יצחק אברבנאל

מדוע הם לא יכולים לחזור בתשובה? There are some fundamental differences between the opinions of Rashi and Abarbanel:

• Abarbanel defines repentance as returning to Hashem, and thus, by definition, only someone who believes in God can repent. This thesis is limited to idolaters.
• However, Rashi, like the תנחומאוארא י"זאודות התנחומא (בובר), seems to be making an empirical observation that the repentance of the nations of the world is insincere and lasts only while the punishment is still in effect. The Tanchuma and Rashi²⁷ speak of non-Jews in general, and not just of idolaters.

מי הקשה את לב פרעה ומתי?

• According to Abarbanel's position, Paroh, as an idolater, never had an option of repentance. Paroh's initial hardening of his own heart thus poses a difficulty, as it implies that he could have repented.²⁸
• Rashi, on the other hand, contends that Paroh was given an opportunity to repent during the first five plagues, despite Hashem's knowledge that any penitence of his would at best be insincere. This allows Rashi to harmonize Hashem's announcement from the outset that He will harden Paroh's heart, with the verses during the first five plagues which speak of Paroh hardening his own heart.²⁹

יונה וחזרתם בתשובה של אנשי נינוה

• The repentance of the Assyrians in Nineveh ostensibly contradicts Abarbanel's thesis by demonstrating that non-Jews can and do repent.³⁰ Abarbanel struggles to respond that the Assyrians were an exception because Hashem had designated them to be his tool to destroy the Northern Israelite Kingdom.³¹ Alternatively, he could have answered that the people of Nineveh abandoned their idols for monotheism, and thus became capable of repenting.³²
• For Rashi, though, it poses less of a problem as Nineveh's repentance may not have been sincere.³³

בני עלי ובני ישראל בתקופת אליהו וישעיהו – According to רלב"גשמואל א' ב':כ"האודות ר' לוי בן גרשון the sons of Eli were guilty of idolatry, and this could explain why they were ineligible to repent.³⁴ רש"ישמואל א' ב':כ"האודות ר' שלמה יצחקי, though, says that they did receive opportunities to repent.

"אתה נותן יד לפושעים" – This position can explain that the verses which speak of an eternal option to repent are speaking only of Jews or non-idolaters.³⁵

מטרת ההצגה, התהליך הממושך, והמכות באופן כללי – Rashi explains that the purpose was to educate the Jewish nation and instill in them a fear of God.³⁶ He adds, based on Talmud Bavli Masekhet Yevamotיבמות ס"ג.אודות הבבלי that this is Hashem's general purpose in punishing the nations of the world.³⁷

יחס לגויים – The position of Tanchuma and Rashi reflects a generally negative evaluation of the actions and intentions of non-Jews.³⁸ For elaboration, see רש"י.

לא מנע בחירה חופשית

ה' לא השפיע בצורה זו או אחרת על אדם כלשהו לממש את בחירתו החופשית. אפשרות זו מסתעפת בהבנתה מה ה' אכן עושה וביחס לשאלה איך לפרש (מחדש) את הביטוי "וַיְחַזֵּק ה' אֶת לֵב":‎³⁹

חיזוק לאפשר הישרדות

"וַיְחַזֵּק ה'‏" משמעותו שה' באופן פיזי או נפשי חיזק חוטאים כדי לאפשר להם לשרוד מספיק זמן לקבל את עונשם המלא, ולא שהוא הפך אותם לעקשנים.⁴⁰

מקורות:R. Saadiaרס"ג הנבחר באמונות ודעות ד':ו'אודות ר' סעדיה גאון,⁴¹ Ba'alei HaTosafotכ"י המבורג 45 בתוספות השלם ד':כ"א:ח'About Ba'alei HaTosafot, חזקונישמות ד':כ"אאודות ר' חזקיה בן מנוח⁴²

מי הקשה את לב פרעה ומתי? In the midst of the first five plagues, Paroh was able to summon his own mental fortitude, but during the final five plagues which were more destructive, Hashem to needed to make him resilient enough to withstand them.⁴³

כיצד הוקשו הלבבות? According to this approach, the hearts were fortified through miraculous Divine intervention.

לשם מה התהליך הממושך? This position can explain that not bringing the plagues all at once maximized either their punitive effect or educative benefit.⁴⁴

גיוון בפעלים – חזק, כבד, קשה – While the root חזק means to strengthen, this approach encounters a measure of difficulty in interpreting the root כבד in "כִּי אֲנִי הִכְבַּדְתִּי אֶת לִבּוֹ וְאֶת לֵב עֲבָדָיו" (Shemot 10:1).⁴⁵

סיחון ועמי כנען – As noted by R. Saadia, the terror felt by the nations of Canaan⁴⁶ is what necessitated the strengthening of their hearts.

בני ישראל בתקופת אליהו וישעיהו – R. Saadia offers novel interpretations for each of these verses:

• "וְאַתָּה הֲסִבֹּתָ אֶת לִבָּם אֲחֹרַנִּית" – R. Saadia renders the words as Eliyahu asking Hashem to transform the backwards condition of the nation's heart.⁴⁷
• "הַשְׁמֵן לֵב הָעָם הַזֶּה" – R. Saadia interprets the command as to make the nation oblivious to the events going on around them.
• "לָמָּה תַתְעֵנוּ ה' מִדְּרָכֶיךָ תַּקְשִׁיחַ לִבֵּנוּ מִיִּרְאָתֶךָ" – R. Saadia explains here that Yeshayahu is asking that Hashem not view the nation as disobedient.

"אתה נותן יד לפושעים" – According to R. Saadia, the Gates of Repentance always remain open, as per the verses in Yechezkel and other Biblical examples.

דרך הטבע בלבד

ה' לא עשה דבר שונה מהרגיל כדי לגרום לחוטאים לאבד את בחירתם החופשית, אך הדרך הטבעית בה הוא מנהל את העולם הייתה לפעמים גורם עקיף לכך שהאנשים המשיכו לחטוא.

מקורות:עקדת יצחקעקידת יצחק שמות שער ל"ואודות ר' יצחק עראמה,⁴⁸ אברבנאלשמות ז' התשובה הג'אודות ר' יצחק אברבנאל, Ma'asei HaShemמעשי מצרים י"אאודות ר' אליעזר אשכנזי, הואיל משהשמות י':א'אודות ר' משה יצחק אשכנזי

מי הקשה את לב פרעה, כיצד, ומתי? This approach explains that Paroh hardened his own heart, but Hashem's bringing of plagues which were only gradual, temporary, and via natural means caused Paroh to believe that he was simply the victim of a series of natural disasters.⁴⁹ Thus, the Torah refers interchangeably to Paroh and Hashem as the cause of the hardened heart.⁵⁰ However, this does not explain the shift midway through the plagues to emphasize Hashem's role in the hardening of Paroh's heart.

מטרת התהליך הממושך

• R. Eliezer Ashkenazi explains that this is simply the way Hashem always runs the world, gently administering warnings at first rather than immediately wiping out the sinner.
• R. Yitzchak Arama and R. Moshe Ashkenazi suggest that while the lengthy punitive process may have misled Paroh, it had the opposite beneficial effect on the rest of the world,⁵¹ bringing them to a far greater recognition of the power of Hashem than a one-time punishment.

סיחון – Hashem's command to Moshe to avoid clashes with the neighboring nations of Edom, Moav, and Ammon resulted in Sichon thinking that the Israelites were too weak to withstand his army.⁵²

עמי כנען – The commentators in this approach do not address the hardening of the hearts of the Canaanite nations, and they would need to say that there too the hardening was through natural means.⁵³

בני ישראל בתקופת אליהו – See רלב"גמלכים א' י"ח:ל"זאודות ר' לוי בן גרשון who explains that Hashem, through nature, indirectly caused the nation's sins when He let the crops grow even when the people worshipped the Baal.

"אתה נותן יד לפושעים" – The Gates of Repentance always remain open, as per the verses in Yechezkel and other Biblical examples.

ניב ציורי בלבד

הדמויות חיזקו את ליבן בעצמן, אך המעשה מיוחס לה' מכיוון שהוא המניע הראשון ומקור הבלעדי של הכול בעולם.⁵⁴

מקורות:אבן עזראדברים ה':כ"וישעיהו ס"ג:י"זאודות ר' אברהם אבן עזרא,⁵⁵ דעות אחדות המצוטטות במאיריחיבור התשובה א':ו' (עמ' 157-155)אודות ר' מנחם המאירי,⁵⁶ ר' יוסף אבן כספיר"י אבן כספי שמות ז':ג'ר"י אבן כספי מלכים א' י"ח:ל"זאודות ר' יוסף אבן כספי, ביאורשמות ז':ג'אודות משה מנדלסוןאודות נתיבות השלום, שד"לשמות ז':ג'אודות ר' שמואל דוד לוצאטו, מ"ד קאסוטושמות ד':כ"אאודות משה דוד קאסוטו

מדוע ההקשיה מיוחסת לה'?

• Many of these commentators explain that Hashem created man, endowed him with free choice, and generated the various options to choose from. This reason, though, does not account for why only a small fraction of actions in the Torah are attributed to Hashem.
• Shadal suggests that specifically strange events⁵⁷ are assigned to the hand of God,⁵⁸ as they are incomprehensible without postulating Hashem's intervention.⁵⁹ The הואיל משהשמות י':א'אודות ר' משה יצחק אשכנזי, though, points out that not only the narrative voice ascribes the hardening of hearts to God, but also Hashem himself.
• The Meiri cites an opinion which expands on a position of R. Saadia and suggests that the hardening is attributed to Hashem because He is the one who displayed Paroh's obstinacy for the entire world to see.⁶⁰

מעבר באמצע המכות – According to Shadal's approach, Paroh's continued hardening of his heart became more and more incomprehensible as the Plagues continued, and this accounts for the attribution to Hashem only in the later plagues. The opinion cited by the Meiri could similarly explain that Paroh's intransigence became more publicly acclaimed as the plagues went on.

ים סוף – This approach encounters difficulties in explaining Hashem's apparent active encouraging of Paroh to chase after the Israelites in Shemot 14:2-4.

מטרת התהליך הממושך – This position can explain that not bringing the plagues all at once maximized either their punitive effect or educative benefit.⁶¹

סיחון ועמי כנען – The variations of Shadal and the opinion cited by the Meiri can work here as well.

בני עלי ובני ישראל בתקופת אליהו וישעיהו – רלב"גשמואל א' ב':כ"האודות ר' לוי בן גרשון suggests that the verse by the sons of Eli is merely referring to God as the ultimate source of everything, Ibn Kaspi says the same about the verse by Eliyahu, and Ibn Ezra explains similarly regarding Yeshayahu 63:17.

"אתה נותן יד לפושעים" – The Gates of Repentance always remain open, as indicated by the verses in Yechezkel and other Biblical texts.

העצמת בחירה חופשית

ה' חיזק את ההחלטיות של החוטאים בכדי להוות משקל נגד לפחד המכריע שלהם מעונש או מוות. על ידי כך שעשה זאת ה' וידא שהם ישמרו על הבחירה החופשית שלהם ויוכלו לחזור בתשובה באמת ולא להיכנע רק מתוך פחד.⁶²

מקורות:ר' יוסף אלבוספר העיקרים ד':כ"האודות ר' יוסף אלבו, ר' יוסף אבן שושןר' יוסף ן' שושן אבות ג':כ' (עמ' צ')אודות ר' יוסף אבן שושן, ספורנושמות ד':כ"אשמות ז':ג'אודות ר' עובדיה ספורנו,⁶³ מהר"לגבורות ה' ל"אאודות ר' יהודה ליווא מפראג

מבחן לקמוס או רחמים א-לוהיים

• R. Yosef Albo presents the strengthening of the sinners' hearts as a litmus test of the sincerity of their intentions⁶⁴ and a means to prevent fraudulent repentance.
• In contrast, R. Yosef ibn Shushan views the entire process as a manifestation of Hashem's "kindness and mercy" in directing evildoers to genuine repentance.⁶⁵
• Seforno charts somewhat of a middle ground in contending that although strengthening Paroh's heart insured his continued freedom of choice, the primary goal and hope was that at least the Egyptian people would repent sincerely.⁶⁶

הסבר מחדש לשמות י':א'-ב' – This approach faces a significant challenge from the explicit objectives set forth in these verses of punishment and the Israelites recognizing Hashem. R. Yosef Albo, who understands the strengthening as a test, might explain that the verses are not presenting the goals but rather the resulting benefits if and when Paroh fails the test.⁶⁷ In contrast, ספורנושמות י':א'אודות ר' עובדיה ספורנו reads into the text that punishing Paroh will lead to the repentance of his nation.⁶⁸

איך הוקשה לב פרעה? R. Yosef Albo explains that Hashem strengthened Paroh's will by causing him to attribute the Plagues to natural phenomena.⁶⁹ The other sources appear to understand that Hashem influenced Paroh's psyche in a more miraculous way.

מעבר באמצע המכות – Seforno explains that Hashem needed to bolster Paroh's resolve after the Plague of Boils because this was the first plague to afflict Paroh's body.⁷⁰ Similarly, Maharal suggests that the second five plagues were more severe, as they came from the heavens, and this created the need for Hashem's active involvement.⁷¹

מטרת המכות והתהליך הממושך

• R. Yosef ibn Shushan emphasizes that the entire process was intended to be educational and rehabilitative rather than vengeful.⁷²
• ספורנושמות ד':כ"גשמות פרק ז':ד'אודות ר' עובדיה ספורנו distinguishes between the first nine plagues which were intended to motivate repentance and the Plague of the Firstborn and the drowning in Yam Suf which were punitive and "measure for measure."⁷³

האם היו תוצאות חיוביות? This approach is unique in maintaining that Hashem expended considerable efforts to get Paroh and the Egyptians to repent. It must therefore wrestle with the question of whether these efforts bore any fruit, and why Hashem would do this while simultaneously announcing that Paroh was not going to change his path.

• Seforno attempts to address this question by positing that it was not really Paroh but the Egyptians who were the main focus of the educational process of the plagues. According to Seforno, even the drowning of the Egyptian army at Yam Suf was intended to motivate the repentance of the remainder of the Egyptian nation who remained in Egypt.
• פרקי דרבי אליעזר(היגר) מ"באודות פרקי דרבי אליעזר goes a great distance further and presents Paroh himself as a paradigm of repentance and as a proof for all-time of its redemptive powers ("תדע לך כח התשובה – בא וראה מפרעה מלך מצרים"). Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer presents a fantastic account of Paroh surviving the drowning of his army at Yam Suf,⁷⁴ becoming the king of Nineveh, and leading its ba'al teshuvah movement in the time of Yonah centuries later.⁷⁵

סיחון – There are two different understandings of the circumstances of this case:

• Parallel to Paroh - R. Yosef Albo says that Hashem's command to Moshe to avoid clashes with the neighboring nations of Edom, Moav, and Ammon misled Sichon⁷⁶ into believing that the Israelites were too weak to withstand his army.⁷⁷ He further explains that this tactic was needed as a counterweight to the news of Hashem's miracles which had frightened Sichon. Thus, similar to the case of Paroh, Hashem's strengthening of Sichon's heart balanced the scales and provided him with freedom of choice.⁷⁸ As the Torah, though, states explicitly that the goal of the strengthening was to enable Sichon's destruction,⁷⁹ R. Albo adds that had Sichon not attacked, it would have taken much longer to conquer his land.⁸⁰
• Contrast to Paroh - R. Yosef ibn Shushan contends that Sichon and Og were deserving of death as they were part of the seven Canaanite nations,⁸¹ and not because of their actions toward the Israelites. Thus, he argues that Hashem's strengthening of his will was merely the means to get Sichon out of his fortified city and facilitate his destruction,⁸² and is completely disconnected from the objectives of strengthening Paroh's will.

עמי כנען – R. Yosef Albo and R. Yosef ibn Shushan would likely explain in similar fashion to their understandings of the case of Sichon.⁸³ ספורנובמדבר כ"ג:כ"באודות ר' עובדיה ספורנו, though, posits that the original plan was for a bloodless conquest, with the Canaanites fleeing rather than being wiped out. It is unclear Seforno's position can be reconciled with יהושע י"א:כ'.

בני עלי ובני ישראל בתקופת אליהו וישעיהו – These verses are difficult for this approach, and it would have to maintain that these too are cases of insincere repentance.⁸⁴

"אתה נותן יד לפושעים" – This position maintains that the Gates of Repentance not only always remain open, as per the verses in Yechezkel and other Biblical examples, but that Hashem levels the playing field to give sinners a fair chance.

אוניברסליות – While most commentators appear to be mainly concerned with the philosophical questions the story raises, Seforno goes out of his way to show that Hashem does not discriminate against non-Jews, and they also are granted the option of repentance. This is consistent with Seforno's general tendencies throughout his commentary – see ספורנו.⁸⁵

¹ Cf. the dual question in Reparations and Despoiling Egypt regarding the justification of the action and the benefit of it being done in such a manner.

² See below for the contrary view of the Raavad that Paroh could have indeed avoided punishment had he listened to Moshe's warnings.

³ See below that according to the Rambam it may have been part of the punishment itself. Also see below for the completely opposite perspective of Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer that Paroh became a poster boy for the possibility and power of repentance under any and all circumstances.

⁴ The Rambam's position is elaborated on by the Meiri in Chibbur HaTeshuvah 1:6 (pp.147-152). The Meiri suggests that this might also be the position of the SifreNaso 42About Sifre.

⁵ Rambam and Abarbanel appear to conflate the actions of Paroh in Shemot 1 with the Paroh of the Exodus.

⁶ Abarbanel seems to assume that the decree to throw the male babies into the Nile continued during the reign of the Paroh of the Exodus. Even if this is true, one wonders why the earlier Paroh who initiated the decree was never punished.

⁷ It is noteworthy that the punishments for both the Egyptians and nations of Canaan are juxtaposed already in the Covenant of the Pieces in Bereshit 15.

⁸ See similarly R. Elazar in Bavli Berakhot 31b regarding Eliyahu's words.

⁹ Cf. Tanchuma and Shemot Rabbah below.

¹⁰ However, not all of the Lekach Tov's remarks are consistent. See hereEnd of Shemot 7:13Shemot 8:28Shemot 10:1.

¹¹ The difficulty with this reinterpretation is that it does not satisfactorily explain why the verses in the last five plagues mention Hashem's role explicitly while the verses in the first five plagues do not.

¹² Alternatively, it simply wasn't necessary for Hashem to intervene during the first five plagues, as Paroh was hardening his own heart. This is how R. Shemuel Ashkenazi in his Yefei Einayyim (Parashat Bo, p. 50a) defends the Rambam.

¹³ Rambam thereby addresses the additional issue of why the Torah needs to inform the reader that Hashem had taken control of Paroh's psyche. Cf. Nahum Sarna, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1996): 65 who suggests that the Torah is mocking Paroh's claims to divinity by demonstrating that he cannot even control his own heart (believed to be the seat of his divinity), and see Ramban Shemot 10:1-2 "כי אני מצחק בו". For recent discussions of the Egyptian context of our story and the possible allusion in "כָּבֵד לֵב פַּרְעֹה" to the Egyptian belief in the weighing of the heart after death, see N. Shupak, "Hzq, Kbd, Qsh Leb, the Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart in Exodus 4-15:21: Seen Negatively in the Bible but Favorably in Egyptian Sources", Egypt, Israel and the Mediterranean Worlds: Studies in Honor of Donald B. Redford, eds. G.N. Knoppers and A. Hirsch, (Leiden, 2004): 389-403 and D. Cox, "The Hardening of Pharaoh's Heart In Its Literary And Cultural Contexts," Bibliotheca Sacra 163 (2006): 292-311.

Regarding Hashem's informing of Moshe in advance, see Ramban Shemot 4:21 who suggests that there was a need to reassure Moshe "ואני אחזק את לבו – ואל תתיאש אתה".

¹⁴ See also Ralbag in Milchamot HaShem 4:6 that seeing the hardening of Paroh's heart and his repeated punishment helped instill a belief in Hashem in the minds of the Israelites, and cf. R. Chasdai CrescasOhr Hashem 3:2:2:2About R. Chasdai Crescas's interpretation of Shemot 10:1-2.

¹⁵ When the Rambam speaks here of the loss of the capability to do "תשובה", it is unclear whether he refers simply to a technical powerlessness to reverse course and avoid punishment or to a more profound removal of the ability of undergoing a religious transformation of one's behavior and persona (cf. Rashi and Abarbanel below). The latter would have consequences also for the World to Come (cf. Midrash Vayosha below), but Rambam explicitly addresses only the impact of the inability to repent on punishment in this world.

¹⁶ See Ramban Shemot 14:4 "וזה באמת שגעון להם, אבל סכל עצתם". Cf. Pseudo Philo in Biblical Antiquities 10:6 "And God hardened their mind, and they knew not that they were entering into the sea." See, however, the discussion of the position of the Ran in A Three Day Journey for the alternative that Hashem hardened Paroh's heart via natural means.

¹⁷ This might also be the meaning of the SifreNaso 42About Sifre's distinction between before and after the sealing of the verdict.

¹⁸ Regarding "וְהַכְבֵּד אֶת לִבּוֹ" in Shemot 8:11, see the opinions of Seikhel Tov, Rashbam and Ibn Ezra in his Short Commentary.

¹⁹ See, though, two passages in Shemot Rabbah13:413:6About Shemot Rabbah which imply that there were opportunities to repent even during the last five plagues.

²⁰ See also Shemot 13:15.

²¹ See, though, Rashbam Shemot 10:1 and Seforno Shemot 9:35 who explain that here too Hashem was involved. Rashbam and Seforno disagree over whether Hashem's hardening of Paroh's heart described in 10:1 refers to after the Plague of Boils or Hail.

²² See also Rashi below "מאחר שהרשיע והתריס כנגדי". According to the Raavad, Paroh was not culpable for enslaving the Israelites because he was merely fulfilling the Divine decree of the Covenant of the Pieces. He was held accountable only for not obeying Hashem's instructions to let the people go. For more, see Divine Plans and Egyptian Free Choice.

²³ For other possible wordplays, see Nethaniel Helfgot's article "שתי מלים מנחות בסיפור יציאת מצרים", Megadim 22 (1994): 81-83.

²⁴ See SifreNaso 42About Sifre and RashiShemuel I 2:25About Rashi, as well as the RidRid Yeshayahu 6:9-10About R. Yeshayah MiTrani.

²⁵ See SifreNaso 42About Sifre and Tanchuma Tzav 5.

²⁶ Most manuscripts and printed editions of Rashi contain some form of "שאין נחת רוח באומות לתת לב שלם לשוב". However, one of the earliest printings of Rashi, the 1476 Guadalajara edition, reads "שאין לו נחת רוח באותות לתת לו לב שלם לשוב", and the 1492 Zamora printing also reads "באותות". This version would give a completely different meaning to Rashi's statement. Rashi would not be commenting on the capacity of non-Jews to repent, but rather only on the likelihood of the wonders of the Plagues persuading Paroh to repent. The variant readings may be the product of an inadvertent copyist's error due to the orthographic similarity between the מ and ת in the word "באומות / באותות". Alternatively, though, it could have resulted from censorship or a sensitivity toward criticism of non-Jews. Interestingly, some later (and commonplace) printings of Rashi read "באומות עובדי עבודה זרה" which may reflect an alternate attempt to limit the offensiveness of Rashi's interpretation to non-Jews.

²⁷ See the note above that some later printings of Rashi limited his remarks to idolaters only.

²⁸ See above for possible approaches.

²⁹ According to Rashi, Hashem's removal of Paroh's free will in the last five plagues was justified because Paroh had already demonstrated his disregard for Hashem's warnings and his inability to repent.

³⁰ See the formulation of the Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelBo Pischa 1About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael cited by RashiYonah 1:3About Rashi "שהגוים קרובי תשובה הן".

³¹ See Abarbanel's elaboration in his commentary on Yonah 1,3.

³² See Yonah 3:5 and Radak there. Abarbanel adopts this approach in explaining the verses in Yirmeyahu 18:7-8.

³³ Cf. Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer42About Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer that the Assyrians ultimately returned to their evil deeds and acted even worse.

³⁴ This would be true also for the Baal worshippers in the time of Eliyahu, and perhaps for the nation in the time of Yeshayahu.

³⁵ See above that this is how Abarbanel interprets Yirmeyahu 18:7-8.

³⁶ See Shemot 10:1-2, and the paraphrase in 4Q422 III:7, and contrast with Seforno's position below.

³⁷ See Rashi for more on his general view of the purpose of the world and the Torah.

³⁸ Cf. Seforno below.

³⁹ Some of the variations below reinterpret "חיזוק לב", while other reinterpret "ה'‏".

⁴⁰ Cf. HaKetav VeHaKabbalahShemot 4:21Shemot 7:3About HaKetav VeHaKabbalah who takes the almost diametrically opposite position that the phrase means that Hashem delivered severe afflictions to Paroh's heart (similar to "אֲנִי שֹׁלֵחַ אֶת כָּל מַגֵּפֹתַי אֶל לִבְּךָ" in Shemot 9:14), but Paroh nevertheless refused to let the people go. The verses which speak of Paroh being מחזק his own heart pose a difficulty for this position, as do the verses by Sichon and the nations of Canaan (in those cases there are no known afflictions of which to speak).

⁴¹ This position of R. Saadia appears also in a Genizah fragment (see Commentary of R. Saadia Shemot 7:3), and is cited in an anonymous commentary (see Commentary of R. Saadia Shemot 14:17). See below for alternative interpretations of R. Saadia cited by Meiri and in Genizah fragments. For other places where R. Saadia adopts the position of the inviolability of human free will, see About R. Saadia, and see New King or Dynasty? for R. Saadia's understanding of "הָפַךְ לִבָּם לִשְׂנֹא עַמּוֹ" in Tehillim 105:25.

⁴² See also Yeshuah the KaraiteCited by Ibn Ezra Long Commentary Shemot 7:3.

⁴³ R. Saadia (cited in an anonymous commentary – see Commentary of R. Saadia Shemot 14:17) adds that the strengthening of Paroh in the prelude to his drowning at Yam Suf was necessary so that he wouldn't perish from the pillar of cloud and fire.

⁴⁴ See Shemot 10:1-2.

⁴⁵ The meaning of "כִּי הִקְשָׁה פַרְעֹה לְשַׁלְּחֵנוּ" in Shemot 13:15 is also unclear.

⁴⁶ See Yehoshua 2:9-11, 5:1, 9:24.

⁴⁷ R. Saadia thus interprets "הֲסִבֹּתָ" as a verb in future tense and "אֲחֹרַנִּית" as an adjective describing the heart. Radak in Sefer HaShorashim s.v. אחר cites his father who explains similarly that Eliyahu is asking Hashem to turn around the nation's heart, except that he reads "אֲחֹרַנִּית" as an adverb.

⁴⁸ R. Yitzchak Arama was not the first to offer this interpretation. A similar position is cited in the name of R. Saadia (see Commentary of R. Saadia Shemot 14:17). Also, as noted already by the Akeidat Yitzchak himself, R. Yosef Albo similarly explains the process by which the hardening of the person's heart occurs. However, R. Albo differs in that he maintains that Hashem intentionally intervenes in order to preserve man's free will - see below.

⁴⁹ The Akeidat Yitzchak explains that by Yam Suf, Paroh similarly thought that the sea splitting was simply a natural phenomenon. Cf. Ramban Shemot 14:4 cited above and R"Y Albo below.

⁵⁰ In the language of the Akeidat Yitzchak "אין שום הפרש בין אומרו ויחזק ה' את לב פרעה ובין אומרו ויחזק לב פרעה כאשר דבר ה'‏". He brings as evidence the switch between Paroh and Hashem as the cause of the hardening in the consecutive verses of 9:34-35 and 10:1. He and Abarbanel also cite as a parallel the variation between Bemidbar 13:2 and Devarim 1:22 as to who requested the sending of the spies.

⁵¹ As per Shemot 10:1-2.

⁵² The Akeidat Yitzchak compares this to the tactic of an ambush. See below for the influence of R. Yosef Albo on this interpretation.

⁵³ R. Yaacov Medan suggests that the initial defeat of the Israelites at Ai convinced the Canaanites that they had a fighting chance. See his article and the parallels he notes at the end of the article to contemporary events. See also R. Yehuda Eisenberg who proposes that the Canaanite kings pursued a militarily sound strategy and that Yehoshua himself was fearful of losing the battles (see Yehoshua 10:8, 11:6) until Hashem reassured him. R. Eisenberg notes that in the initial accounts of the battles with Sichon (Bemidbar 21) and the Canaanite kings (Yehoshua 10-11) there is no mention of hardened hearts because their actions appeared rational and the course of events natural. It was only in the retrospective accounts of Devarim 2-3 and Yehoshua 11:18-20 that the Divine guiding hand became unmistakably apparent. It should be noted, though, that in the case of Paroh, Hashem's hand is visible from beginning to end.

⁵⁴ See Free Will for other cases where positive or negative actions are similarly attributed to Hashem. Cf. Jubilees48:12-17About Jubilees which attributes the hardening of the Egyptians' hearts to Mastema (a Satan like figure), in an effort to deflect responsibility from Hashem. For other cases where Jubilees attributes actions to Mastema and for possible Zoroastrian influence, see Jubilees.

⁵⁵ Ibn Ezra's position may not be fully consistent. See A Three Day Journey for Ibn Ezra's understanding that Hashem actively encouraged Paroh's stubbornness through the three day ruse and borrowing of vessels.

⁵⁶ The Meiri (pp.152-157) cites three positions of "אחד מחכמי הדור"‎, "ויש שביאר"‎, and "ויש שפירש", all of whom suggest variations of this approach. The third approach is based on R. SaadiaEmunot VeDeiot 4:6About R. Saadia (see also Commentary of R. Saadia Shemot 10:20). See also Divine Plans and Egyptian Free Choice for the Rambam and Meiri's approach in understanding "הָפַךְ לִבָּם לִשְׂנֹא עַמּוֹ".

⁵⁷ Cf. R. Yosef Albo and the Akeidat Yitzchak who try to show that Paroh's actions were rational and not at all inexplicable.

⁵⁸ Cf. Rambam Moreh Nevukhim 2:48.

⁵⁹ Shadal points to two other examples – Devarim 29:3 and Shemuel II 16:10, but his interpretations of each of these verses are debatable. See also Shadal's comments to Shemot 12:12 and Devarim 4:19. In Shemot 21:13, Shadal adds that unintentional actions are also attributed to the hand of God (cf. Bavli Makkot 10b which postulates a less casual sequence of events).

⁶⁰ R. Saadia points to Devarim 25:1 "וְהִצְדִּיקוּ אֶת הַצַּדִּיק וְהִרְשִׁיעוּ אֶת הָרָשָׁע" as another case where an action is ascribed to the one who made it plain for all to see.

⁶¹ See Shemot 10:1-2.

⁶² In contrast to the first position which believes that Hashem actively takes away the sinner's free will so that he will not be able to repent, this approach suggests that Hashem takes steps to insure that even the worst of sinners maintains the ability to repent. See below that this approach encounters difficulties in understanding Hashem's explicit objectives set forth in Shemot 10:1-2.

⁶³ Free will and the ability to repent are major motifs highlighted by Seforno throughout his commentary, not only regarding Jews, but even with respect to non-Jews (see below) who are guilty of heinous crimes. See Seforno's interpretations of Bereshit 3:12-13, 4:9,13, 6:3-6, 18:17, Shemot 4:21, 4:23, 7:3, 7:4, 9:12, 9:16, 9:35, 10:1, 11:9, 14:18, 19:4, Bemidbar 11:23, 16:7, 20:8, 22:22,28, 23:22, Devarim 1:45.

⁶⁴ According to R. Albo, the strengthening caused the sinners not to surrender and thereby demonstrated that their short lived repentance was merely coerced.

⁶⁵ According to R. Yosef ibn Shushan, the strengthening enables the sinners to live for another day (like R. Saadia above) and provided another chance to repent (like R. Albo, and not like R. Saadia), and may not be the direct cause of their stubbornness. The plain meaning of the verses, however, appears to link the strengthening to both the recalcitrance and punishment (see particularly the discussion of Shemot 10:2 below).

⁶⁶ The basis for Seforno's thesis is the thrice repeated theme of "וְיָדְעוּ מִצְרַיִם כִּי אֲנִי ה'‏" (Shemot 7:5, 14:4, 14:18). It is not clear, though, whether this is a goal or merely a result.

⁶⁷ See below for his similar quandary regarding Sichon.

⁶⁸ The foundation for Seforno's reading is the thrice repeated theme of "וְיָדְעוּ מִצְרַיִם כִּי אֲנִי ה'‏" – see above.

⁶⁹ Similarly, in the buildup to Yam Suf (Shemot 14:2-3), Hashem's commanding the Israelites to reverse course caused Paroh to think they were lost, and this strengthened his resolve. [See A Three Day Journey for other approaches as to what motivated the chase.] R. Albo references the verses in Vayikra 26 which speak of walking with Hashem "בְּקֶרִי". He explains them to mean that the person ascribes God's punishments to the natural course of events.

See above that the Akeidat Yitzchak adopted the natural order aspect of R. Yosef Albo's position (with regard to both Paroh and Sichon). However, they diverge on the critical issue of intent. While R"Y Arama views Hashem as merely preserving natural order, R"Y Albo has Hashem intentionally (like the simple meaning of the verses) making Paroh more stubborn to counterbalance the fear of punishment. In highlighting the Divine master plan, R"Y Albo parallels the position of his teacher, the Ran, who also maintains that Hashem used natural means to harden Paroh's heart – see A Three Day Journey and Yam Suf.

⁷⁰ Seforno cites a parallel from Iyyov 2:5.

⁷¹ Cf. Ramban Shemot 9:12 who explains that Hashem's strengthening of Paroh was needed specifically starting from the Plague of Boils, because at this point Paroh's magicians were no longer present to offer support.

⁷² It is not clear how he would interpret Shemot 10:1-2.

⁷³ See above for Seforno's interpretation of Shemot 10:1-2.

⁷⁴ This notion is advanced already by R. Nechemyah in the Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelMekhilta Beshalach Vayehi 6About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael. R. Nechemyah interprets the verse in Shemot 9:16 as saying that Hashem kept Paroh alive so that Paroh could proclaim the glory of God throughout the land. Cf. Ibn Ezra (Long and Short Commentaries Shemot 9:16) who says that the word "סַפֵּר" in the verse refers not to Paroh, but rather to people in general who will recount Hashem's might in destroying Paroh. Ibn Ezra (Long and Short Commentaries Shemot 14:28 and Long Commentary 15:19) maintains that Paroh drowned in Yam Suf.

⁷⁵ Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer concludes its story with the people of Nineveh ultimately returning to their evil ways and being swallowed up by the earth, but it is silent regarding Paroh's own fate. An even more elaborate version of this legend appears in Midrash VayoshaOtzar HaMidrashim (Eisenstein p.154)About Midrash Vayosha and it ends with Paroh permanently stationed at the gates of hell to rebuke the kings of the world as to why they didn't learn from his example and repent. See also the additional sources cited in Torah Sheleimah Shemot 14:28 note 186.

⁷⁶ According to R"Y Albo, the command initially puzzled Moshe and the Israelites who could not fathom its purpose. Cf. the Ran's position that Moshe and the Israelites did not originally understand the purpose of the three day ruse and the command to borrow vessels - see A Three Day Journey, and Moshe.

⁷⁷ See above that this interpretation was adopted by the Akeidat Yitzchak. However, the Akeidat Yitzchak does not espouse R. Albo's additional thesis that the goal of the tactic was to ensure that Sichon had freedom of choice. See below for the difficulties inherent in this additional element. For parallel suggestions regarding the factors which caused Paroh to drown in Yam Suf, see A Three Day Journey.

⁷⁸ For the parallel to be precise, R. Yosef Albo should maintain that Sichon's sin was in ultimately deciding to attack the Children of Israel (cf. Rambam above that it was for other prior actions), as otherwise Sichon's free choice is unconnected to the sin for which he is being punished. R. Albo's position, though, is not completely clear on this matter.

⁷⁹ In order to harmonize the words "לְמַעַן תִּתּוֹ בְיָדְךָ כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה" in Devarim 2:30 with his interpretation, R"Y Albo must apparently read the verse as speaking of the benefits that accrued from Sichon being granted free will and failing the test, rather than as the original objective. See above for the similar problem he faces with regard to Paroh and Shemot 10:1-2.

⁸⁰ R"Y Albo assumes that the land of Sichon was always intended to be conquered by the Children of Israel, even had Sichon not attacked. In this regard, he follows Ramban Bemidbar 21:21,31:23, as opposed to Ibn Kaspi Devarim 2:26.

⁸¹ The nations of Canaan were presumably guilty of previously committed sins unrelated to the Children of Israel.

⁸² This seems to be the simple reading of "לְמַעַן תִּתּוֹ בְיָדְךָ כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה" in Devarim 2:30. R. Yosef ibn Shushan appears to be of the opinion that the Canaanite nations could not sue for peace and needed to be destroyed.

⁸³ See above. According to R. Albo, the Canaanites were likely punished for attacking the Israelites, and the stiffening of their resolve was to counterbalance their natural fears. In contrast, R. Yosef ibn Shushan would maintain that they were punished for their own unrelated sins and the strengthening of their hearts was to make the conquest simpler.

⁸⁴ See SefornoDevarim 1:45About R. Ovadyah Seforno regarding the sons of Eli.

⁸⁵ Cf. the opposite impression given by the Tanchuma and Rashi discussed above.