Difference between revisions of "Hardened Hearts/2/he"
m |
m |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
<point><b>Sichon and the Canaanite nations</b> – As noted by R. Saadia, the terror felt by the nations of Canaan<fn>See Yehoshua 2:9-11, 5:1, 9:24.</fn> is what necessitated the strengthening of their hearts.</point> | <point><b>Sichon and the Canaanite nations</b> – As noted by R. Saadia, the terror felt by the nations of Canaan<fn>See Yehoshua 2:9-11, 5:1, 9:24.</fn> is what necessitated the strengthening of their hearts.</point> | ||
<point><b>The Children of Israel in the time of Eliyahu and Yeshayahu</b> – R. Saadia offers novel interpretations for each of these verses: | <point><b>The Children of Israel in the time of Eliyahu and Yeshayahu</b> – R. Saadia offers novel interpretations for each of these verses: | ||
− | + | <ul> | |
− | + | <li>"וְאַתָּה הֲסִבֹּתָ אֶת לִבָּם אֲחֹרַנִּית" – R. Saadia renders the words as Eliyahu asking Hashem to transform the backwards condition of the nation's heart.<fn>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.</fn></li> | |
− | + | <li>"הַשְׁמֵן לֵב הָעָם הַזֶּה" – R. Saadia interprets the command as to make the nation oblivious to the events going on around them.</li> | |
− | + | <li>"לָמָּה תַתְעֵנוּ ה' מִדְּרָכֶיךָ תַּקְשִׁיחַ לִבֵּנוּ מִיִּרְאָתֶךָ" – R. Saadia explains here that Yeshayahu is asking that Hashem not view the nation as disobedient.</li> | |
− | + | </ul></point> | |
<point><b>Outstretched arms toward penitents</b> – According to R. Saadia, the Gates of Repentance always remain open, as per the verses in Yechezkel and other Biblical examples.</point> | <point><b>Outstretched arms toward penitents</b> – According to R. Saadia, the Gates of Repentance always remain open, as per the verses in Yechezkel and other Biblical examples.</point> | ||
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="IbnEzraDevarim5-26" data-aht="source">אבן עזרא</a><a href="IbnEzraDevarim5-26" data-aht="source">דברים ה':כ"ו</a><a href="IbnEzraYeshayahu63-17" data-aht="source">ישעיהו ס"ג:י"ז</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' אברהם אבן עזרא</a></multilink>,<fn>Ibn Ezra's position may not be fully consistent. See <a href="A Three Day Journey" data-aht="page">A Three Day Journey</a> for Ibn Ezra's understanding that Hashem actively encouraged Paroh's stubbornness through the three day ruse and borrowing of vessels.</fn> various opinions cited by <multilink><a href="Meiri" data-aht="source">מאירי</a><a href="Meiri" data-aht="source">חיבור התשובה א':ו' (עמ' 157-155)</a><a href="R. Menachem HaMeiri" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' מנחם המאירי</a></multilink>,<fn>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 <multilink><a href="RasagEmunot4-6" data-aht="source">R. Saadia</a><a href="RasagEmunot4-6" data-aht="source">Emunot VeDeiot 4:6</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia</a></multilink> (see also Commentary of R. Saadia Shemot 10:20). See also <a href="Divine Plans and Egyptian Free Choice" data-aht="page">Divine Plans and Egyptian Free Choice</a> for the Rambam and Meiri's approach in understanding "הָפַךְ לִבָּם לִשְׂנֹא עַמּוֹ".</fn> <multilink><a href="KaspiShemot7-3" data-aht="source">ר' יוסף אבן כספי</a><a href="KaspiShemot7-3" data-aht="source">ר"י אבן כספי שמות ז':ג'</a><a href="KaspiMelakhimI18-37" data-aht="source">ר"י אבן כספי מלכים א' י"ח:ל"ז</a><a href="R. Yosef ibn Kaspi" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' יוסף אבן כספי</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="BiurShemot7-3" data-aht="source">ביאור</a><a href="BiurShemot7-3" data-aht="source">שמות ז':ג'</a><a href="Moses Mendelssohn" data-aht="parshan">אודות משה מנדלסון</a><a href="Biur" data-aht="parshan">אודות נתיבות השלום</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShadalShemot7-3" data-aht="source">שד"ל</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-3" data-aht="source">שמות ז':ג'</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' שמואל דוד לוצאטו</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="CassutoShemot4-21" data-aht="source">מ"ד קאסוטו</a><a href="CassutoShemot4-21" data-aht="source">שמות ד':כ"א</a><a href="Umberto Cassuto" data-aht="parshan">אודות משה דוד קאסוטו</a></multilink></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="IbnEzraDevarim5-26" data-aht="source">אבן עזרא</a><a href="IbnEzraDevarim5-26" data-aht="source">דברים ה':כ"ו</a><a href="IbnEzraYeshayahu63-17" data-aht="source">ישעיהו ס"ג:י"ז</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' אברהם אבן עזרא</a></multilink>,<fn>Ibn Ezra's position may not be fully consistent. See <a href="A Three Day Journey" data-aht="page">A Three Day Journey</a> for Ibn Ezra's understanding that Hashem actively encouraged Paroh's stubbornness through the three day ruse and borrowing of vessels.</fn> various opinions cited by <multilink><a href="Meiri" data-aht="source">מאירי</a><a href="Meiri" data-aht="source">חיבור התשובה א':ו' (עמ' 157-155)</a><a href="R. Menachem HaMeiri" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' מנחם המאירי</a></multilink>,<fn>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 <multilink><a href="RasagEmunot4-6" data-aht="source">R. Saadia</a><a href="RasagEmunot4-6" data-aht="source">Emunot VeDeiot 4:6</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia</a></multilink> (see also Commentary of R. Saadia Shemot 10:20). See also <a href="Divine Plans and Egyptian Free Choice" data-aht="page">Divine Plans and Egyptian Free Choice</a> for the Rambam and Meiri's approach in understanding "הָפַךְ לִבָּם לִשְׂנֹא עַמּוֹ".</fn> <multilink><a href="KaspiShemot7-3" data-aht="source">ר' יוסף אבן כספי</a><a href="KaspiShemot7-3" data-aht="source">ר"י אבן כספי שמות ז':ג'</a><a href="KaspiMelakhimI18-37" data-aht="source">ר"י אבן כספי מלכים א' י"ח:ל"ז</a><a href="R. Yosef ibn Kaspi" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' יוסף אבן כספי</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="BiurShemot7-3" data-aht="source">ביאור</a><a href="BiurShemot7-3" data-aht="source">שמות ז':ג'</a><a href="Moses Mendelssohn" data-aht="parshan">אודות משה מנדלסון</a><a href="Biur" data-aht="parshan">אודות נתיבות השלום</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShadalShemot7-3" data-aht="source">שד"ל</a><a href="ShadalShemot7-3" data-aht="source">שמות ז':ג'</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' שמואל דוד לוצאטו</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="CassutoShemot4-21" data-aht="source">מ"ד קאסוטו</a><a href="CassutoShemot4-21" data-aht="source">שמות ד':כ"א</a><a href="Umberto Cassuto" data-aht="parshan">אודות משה דוד קאסוטו</a></multilink></mekorot> | ||
<point><b>Why is the hardening attributed to Hashem?</b><ul> | <point><b>Why is the hardening attributed to Hashem?</b><ul> | ||
− | + | <li>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.</li> | |
− | + | <li>Shadal suggests that specifically strange events<fn>Cf. R. Yosef Albo and the Akeidat Yitzchak who try to show that Paroh's actions were rational and not at all inexplicable.</fn> are assigned to the hand of God,<fn>Cf. Rambam Moreh Nevukhim 2:48.</fn> as they are incomprehensible without postulating Hashem's intervention.<fn>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).</fn> The <multilink><a href="HoilShemot10-1" data-aht="source">הואיל משה</a><a href="HoilShemot10-1" data-aht="source">שמות י':א'</a><a href="R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe)" data-aht="parshan">אודות ר' משה יצחק אשכנזי</a></multilink>, though, points out that not only the narrative voice ascribes the hardening of hearts to God, but also Hashem himself.</li> | |
− | + | <li>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.<fn>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.</fn></li> | |
− | + | </ul></point> | |
<point><b>Shift midway through the Plagues</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>Shift midway through the Plagues</b> – 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.</point> | ||
<point><b>Yam Suf</b> – This approach encounters difficulties in explaining Hashem's apparent active encouraging of Paroh to chase after the Israelites in Shemot 14:2-4.</point> | <point><b>Yam Suf</b> – This approach encounters difficulties in explaining Hashem's apparent active encouraging of Paroh to chase after the Israelites in Shemot 14:2-4.</point> |
Version as of 03:36, 1 January 2015
הקשיית לב
גישות פרשניות
The commentators offer a spectrum of options in explaining the meaning of Hashem's hardening the hearts of Paroh and other Biblical characters and the effect this had on their free will:
Suppressed Free Will
Hashem's hardening of these characters' hearts prevented them from exercising their free will and reversing course to evade punishment. All variations of this approach must explain why these people did not deserve an opportunity to change their ways and why Hashem could not have arranged to punish them without needing to suspend their free choice.1
Severe Sins
Due to the nature and enormity of the sins these characters committed, punishment was a foregone conclusion from the very outset and would have been necessary even if those involved had elected to change their behavior and repent.2 Thus, disabling their free will (and the ensuing obstinacy) did not cause them to sustain any additional penalties, but rather merely facilitated the punishment for their original sins.3
- 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.
Squandered Chances
A sinner is granted only a limited number of chances to change course before the Gates of Repentance are closed and their fate is sealed. These sinners exhausted all of their opportunities, and once they had done so, Hashem took away their free will and ability to repent.
Idolaters Cannot Repent Sincerely
Repentance is a special Divine gift which is reserved for believers in God. Since these sinners were idolaters and could not have repented, there was no moral barrier to removing their free will.
- 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 תנחומא, 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.
- 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
- 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
Didn't Impact on Free Will
Hashem did not impact one way or another on any person's exercise of free will. This possibility subdivides in understanding what Hashem does do and regarding how to (re)interpret the phrase "וַיְחַזֵּק ה' אֶת לֵב":39
Ensured Survival
"וַיְחַזֵּק ה'" means that Hashem physically or mentally strengthened sinners to enable them to survive long enough to receive their full punishment, and not that he made them stubborn.40
- "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.
Merely Natural Order
Hashem did nothing out of the ordinary to cause sinners to lose their free will, but the natural way He runs the world was sometimes the indirect cause of people continuing to sin.
- 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.
Only a Figure of Speech
The characters hardened their own hearts, but the action is attributed to Hashem because He is the Prime Mover and ultimate source of everything in the world.54
- 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 משה, 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
Bolstered Free Will
Hashem strengthened the sinners' resolve in order to counterbalance their overwhelming fear of punishment or death. By doing so Hashem ensured that they would retain their free will and be able to repent sincerely rather than capitulating simply out of fear.62
- 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
- R. Yosef ibn Shushan emphasizes that the entire process was intended to be educational and rehabilitative rather than vengeful.72
- 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
- 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 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
- 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.