Kaisipang Hudyo sa Josue 24:4: Akeidat Yitzchak

Yet one may strive to understand why the generation of Jews in Egypt was subjected to such a cruel fate at the hands of the Egyptians and Pharaoh. Especially, are we entitled to do so, since scripture does not offer a list of specific wrongdoings of the people? The author rejects many solutions offered by his predecessors as being inadequate. Most of those explanations would violate the principle of our freedom of choice in one form or another. The author insists that statements such as "he went down to Egypt," ((Deut. 26,5) or "and Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt," (Joshua 24,4) have to be understood at face value, and confirm that the move to Egypt was entirely voluntary, not pre­ordained in any way. It is interesting that throughout the events leading up to the arrival of Jacob in Egypt, G-d ascribes all happenings to Himself, except this last one (compare Joshua 24,3): "I took your father, I multiplied his seed, I gave him Isaac. I gave Jacob to Isaac,” but "Jacob and his sons went down to Egypt."The statement G-d made to Jacob while the latter was on his way to Egypt (Genesis 46,3), "Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt," is to be understood as permission, as an assurance of G-d’s continued support. Just as the spies Moses had sent out to check out the land of Canaan were not prevented from setting out on their mission (Numbers Chapter 13), so Jacob was not prevented from going down to Egypt. According to all this, the statement on the occasion of the covenant between the pieces (Genesis 15,13), "Know that your seed will be a stranger in a land that is not theirs etc.," was simply a piece of information to Abraham, not an evil decree. The Torah, by not stating that this occurrence would be due to Divine intervention, as could have been implied by such statements as "I will make them strangers" or "I will bring them down to Egypt," draws our attention to the fact that this was merely an announcement of an event in the future, but was not a decree. The most difficult example in the series dealing with the apparent suspension of free will is the repeated statement by G-d, "I will harden the heart of Pharaoh" or "I have hardened the heart of Pharaoh," as found in the chapters dealing with the ten plagues (Exodus Chapters 4-10). On the other hand, we find that repentance by even the worst sinners is readily accepted, such as the repentance of Achav and Menashe, son of Chiskiyahu (compare Kings I 16 and Kings I 21, Kings II 21, Chronicles II 33,13). The Bible describes those two as being wicked par excellence; yet in the case of Pharaoh it seems that whenever he began to repent, obstacles were placed in his way to prevent him from repenting effectively. The author argues against Maimonides's view (Hilchot Teshuvah 6) that wickedness is cumulative, so that at some point the sinner forfeits his right to free will. The author feels that the repeated missions to Pharaoh by Moses would have been wasted, had they not been intended to produce a change of heart in Pharaoh. Also, since G-d had already told Moses at the burning bush (Exodus 3, 19) that Pharaoh would not release the Israelites of his own accord, this had been prior to any mention having been made that "I will harden his heart."

(1) We must make a distinction between G'ds reasons and Israel's motivations. Israel was very interested in avoiding a major detour around the land of Edom, an inconvenience, which as we have seen in this chapter, resulted in many complaints. Therefore, the Torah credits Moses with the despatch of messengers, (20,14) i.e. G'd did not prevent the people from trying diplomatic means to secure passage through the country. He knew of the futility of the excercise, and that is why all the reasons are listed that could have persuaded the Edomites to grant Israel's request. Edom, in common with many other countries, had two kinds of roads that traversed it. The one used by armies would be far away from the built up areas so as to ensure that whoever travelled that route would not cause damage or interfere with either agriculture or civilization. The other road, the derech messilah, the paved main highway, was the link between the built up areas. On that route would be found suppliers of water and food for travellers. Israel first offered to travel the first kind of road. When refused, Israel suggested using the other type of road, offering economic benefits to the host country by using and paying for the facilities available. In the latter event, they wanted to reassure Edom that they would not cause destruction or damage in their wake, something the Edomites had reason to be afraid of, considering the size of Israel's army. (2) Aaron's death may have been reported, since he was able to see his son Eleazar take over his position, a zechut, merit, that might well have been the reason Moses wished himself a death such as that of Aaron had been privileged to experience. (Sifri Parshat Ha-azinu) He was not buried where he died, since there was concern that Edom might desecrate his grave, were the grave to be situated close to Edom's borders. When we read in Deut. 10,6, "there Aaron died and was buried," the word "there" does not necessarily describe an exact location, just the general area. (3) The absence of the tzaddik Aaron was felt, but not to the extent that lives were actually lost. After Israel had made the vow to destroy the Canaanite cities, the prisoners were freed as a result of renewed fighting. (4) The displeasure of the people was occasioned through the tedious detour around Edom, a march away from the direction of their eventual destination. The general dissatisfaction also led to the search for complaints against the manner of G'ds Providence. Their complaint was that all their provisions, both bread and water were due only to miraculous, supernatural means. They did not feel assured of the continuance of these supplies, and longed for a normal existence based on natural law. The appearance of the snakes reminded the people that an existence based on natural law would be precarious indeed, and that they therefore had no reason to quarrel with G'ds Providence. They realised this when they begged Moses to pray for renewed hashgachah peratit. (21,7) Actually, ever since the blessing Noach had received after he had offered the thanksgiving offering for having survived the deluge with his family intact, snakes ought to have been afraid of humans. (Genesis 9,2) An attack by snakes on humans, therefore, is an extraordinary phenomenon. However, the blessing bestowed on Noach, and through him on mankind, is conditional on mankind retaining its tzelem elokim, reflecting the Divine image accorded by its Creator. When man does not live up to the moral stature expected of him, the animals sense this and act accordingly. As long as Israel lived on a morally high plateau in the desert, the animals had kept their distance. However, as soon as they failed to maintain their standards, the predators also failed to keep their respectful distance. Animals who observe humans provided for by G'd, certainly are afraid to molest such humans. Reliance on help from above, just like during the first battle against Amalek, was demonstrated symbolically by the copper snake on a high pole. When our sages say that Moses actually threw the copper snake up into the air, and that it remained suspended there, that is precisely the point that they were making, namely that help comes only "from up there."