ועבדיך באו לשבור אכל matical rule, which is, that the 1 (and), is often used in place of bas (but) as "but thy servants came to buy food."1 "And I know the king of Egypt will not let you go, but if not, with a mighty hand;" that is, if he does not, freedom shall be acquired with a mighty hand. Nachmanides expounds it by uniting the following verse with it, by which he renders it thus: "And I know the king of Egypt will not let you go (not by words), nor with a mighty hand; and I will stretch out my hand and smite," &c.; as if he had said, "Not until I punish him with my hand, which will be necessary." R. Bechayai understands, from "strong hand" being in the singular, that it means a single plague; so as to say in one place, he would not let them go, nor with a mighty hand, from being only once smitten; but the other place saying, he would let them go with a mighty hand, means for the last of the ten plagues. Don Isaac Abarbanel understands this mighty hand to refer to Israel; as if it said, "I know the king of Egypt will not let you go," (that is, voluntarily), "and not by mighty hand," is, "nor shall you go out by raising your hand, and revolting from his subjection, because I will stretch out my hand and smite Egypt," &c. R. Meir Arama adopts the same in his exposition on Psalm 106.2 R. Eliezer Askenasi, entering deeply into the text, for various reasons infers, that what the Lord announced to Moses in the first place, was, that Pharaoh never would voluntarily allow them to go free, nor even would he be moved by punishments; and as we see, when God sent the plague of the firstborn's death, he said to them, "Take all, as you have said, and go,”3 that is, for the space of three days; therefore the verse saying, "I know the king of Egypt will not let you go, nor with mighty hand," is, to go free with perfect liberty, but will pretend to continued or renewed subjection; and the other verse saying, "with a mighty hand he will drive them from his land," is to be understood for the term of three days only, as actually happened; for at the expiration of that time he went in pursuit of them. Thus, by any of these interpretations, there remains no discrepancy. QUESTION 73. Exod.4:20. And Moses took his wife, and his sons, and mounted them on an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt. Exod. 18:2. Then Jethro, Moses' father in law, took Zipporah, Moses' wife, after he had sent her back. 18:3. And his two sons. If Moses took his wife and sons with him to Egypt, how does the latter say, that after leaving Egypt with the Israelites, Jethro, his father in law came to meet him with his wife and sons? RECONCILIATION. Although it appears at first sight from the reading of the first verse, that Moses took his wife to Egypt; according to Rashi it was not so, for his brother Aaron meeting him, asked (as it is supposed) "Who are these?" Moses 1 Gen. 42:10. 2 Mehir Tehelot. 3 Exod 12:32. answered, "My wife and sons." Aaron replied, "Where do you take them to ?" "To Egypt," said Moses. Aaron, much surprised, rejoined, "We are grieved for those already there, and you are going to increase the captives." Moses on reflection adopted the tacit advice contained in this observation, and sent his wife and sons back to her father's house, and the meaning of the words, "after he had sent her back," is thus explained, as being after he had thus sent her back to her father. Aben Ezra infers the same from the first verse, which says, "And Moses took his wife, &c. and he returned to the land of Egypt," for to have included his wife and sons it ought to have said, “they returned," in plural, but it says, "he returned," in the singular; for although he intended taking them all, he returned alone, by the advice of Aaron. Thus the texts are conciliated. QUESTION 74. Exod. 7:3. And I will harden Pharaoh's heart. 10:1. Go in unto Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart. Deut. 11:26. Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse. 30:15. See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil. 30:19. Therefore choose life, that thou and thy seed may live. Whoever possesses Freewill acts as he chooses, but according to the cited verses from Exodus, man does not as he likes, as we see that the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, that he should not let the people go; ergo, man possesses not Freewill. But the verses in Deuteronomy are opposed to this, as they clearly demonstrate that God placed before them life aud death, good and evil, and advised man to choose life and good. How then can these verses be reconciled? RECONCILIATION. The subjects of Freewill and Predestination have been so much disputed, and so many arguments have been adduced pro and contra, that to treat them properly it would be necessary to write a separate treatise; but brevity being preferable, the following observations will suffice. All that mankind knows or can learn, is either from Authority; Reason, the senses; or Experience. All these apparently prove that man does possess Freewill. As to what he attains from Authority, it proceeds from a source in which error could not arise, and being the most certain, shall occupy our attention the first The first thing by which it is manifest that man possesses Freewill is, from having been made in the image of God; so the Lord speaking with the angels said, "Let us make man in our image and as our likeness.' That is, until now I have formed creatures, which, as natural agents, cannot avoid doing that which they were made for. Fire cannot avoid burning, the sun to give light, water to cool, &c., but man I desire to form in our image, free, and master of all his actions. By which we see, he may or not, act as he chooses, whereas all other creatures are shackled and slaves to the purposes for which they were formed. To this creature (man) God, therefore, gave a precept I Gen. 1:26. I involving a punishment if he broke it, "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat thereof; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (or, "dying ye shall die")" Where God commanded a precept to Adam, he certainly possessed Freewill, for a command is not given, nor a punishment denounced, to that which, by its constitution, is forced into action, for, being unable to act as it likes, it naturally follows what it is predestined to. As Maimonides says,3 the law and its precepts would have been given in vain, if man by performing them did not gain merit and deserve reward, as he incurs punishment for infringing it. On the contrary, we see that Adam became mortal on account of his transgression, and was banished from Paradise in consequence. The Antediluvians and those of Sodom were severely punished for their wickedness; it follows, therefore, that every one being completely free in his actions, may be rewarded or punished according to his works. Now Adam sinning, retained free-will, as is testified by Holy writ, saying, “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden."4 Here it is clearly seen that God did not oblige man to act as he did; for, speaking with the angels, he told them it was requisite to drive Adam out, and banish him from Paradise: that being, as he was, free, he might not put forth his hand and eat of the tree of life (which had the property of instantly renewing the natural heat, and conferring immortality), and so live for ever. Had he not been free, his remaining in the garden was of little moment, since he might have been prevented, even there, from touching and eating of that tree. The natural result of this is, that from his creation, man was born with, and retained, free-will. The Lord most clearly signified it to Cain, that if he amended his works he should obtain forgiveness, but if not, sin and evil desires would be constantly at the gate, inciting him to evil; but by his exercise of wisdom (or virtue) he might overcome and conquer them. The same is proved by other passages of Scripture, when Israel went out of Egypt, the text says, "God led them not by the way of the land of the Philistines, although it was near; for God said, Lest the people repent when they see war, and return to Egypt.' So in Deuteronomy, the same Lord says, "O that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear me, and always keep my commandments." 6 Whoever says, "O that there were," admits that it does not depend on him; and, therefore, God did not restrain them; for as the 995 every thing is in the hands) הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים ,ancient sages say it of Providence except the fear of God) because this, in the same manner as the Divine Will, imposed a necessity on some things, and contingencies on others, from proper contingent causes. For this reason, to induce and not to compel, says, "See, I set before thee this day life and good, death and evil, in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God;" as much as to say, I have given and placed in your hands good and evil, I command and give you the you "I call heaven and earth to witness that I have this day set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore, choose life," &c. Since God advises that they should choose life, they had the power to do so or not, for if they had not, the advice would be superfluous. The prophet Jeremiah in his Lamentations expressly points out this truth; "From the mouth of the Most High proceed not evils nor good."8 4 Gen.3:22. 5 Exod. 13:17. 6 Deut. 5:29. precept, that love me. Further on it says, 2 Gen. 2:16. 3 Pirque Abot, c. 8. 6 Lam. 3:38. Evils are bad and depraved actions, which, as discrepant to good, are beyond bounds and innumerable, therefore, he says "evils" (in the plural), the good having but one purpose, which is pious and correct actions, there is but one way of performing them. These evils and good proceed not, he says, from the mouth of the Most High, but emanate and spring from the mouth and will of man; therefore, he continues, Let us examine, and search our ways, and turn again to the Lord;"9 by these words inciting man, since he is free in his actions, to look to what he does, to turn to the Lord and repent of his sins, as the Lord says through Isaiah, " They have chosen their own ways, &c., I also will choose their devices." 10 Thus from various passages of the Holy Scripture it is proved that man possesses Freewill. From Reason it is also inferred; for we see some act without judgment, as in removing an understone (endangering a building): such are deficient of understanding. Some act by natural instinct, fixed to a particular object, without acting voluntarily, as in the brute creation; for the sheep fearing the approach of the wolf, and that he ought to avoid him, from natural knowledge judges instinctively; and every other animal acts in the same way: but man, exercising Freewill and judgment by understanding, judges it necessary to avoid some things and pursue others; this is not instinct, acting occasionally, but reason, which, being unshackled, may act variously. If, then, in particular works, contingencies occur, and the decision is not fixed to one, it necessarily follows that man possesses Freewill. From Experience it is also proved, as R. Judah à Levill says, no one will deny Freewill, nor even believe its non-existence, but those who say what is not in their heart, and what they do not believe; for, even to them it shews itself in hopes and fears, for if the firm opinion was, that what was fixed or predestined must necessarily occur, there would be no use in preparing offensive and defensive arms for war, nor provisions for hunger. And if such should say, "That which must necessarily be and happen, must be so by those means, and those sought are necessary and obligatory (because God chose that such an end should be obtained by such means)," he falls into the very case he would avoid; and this, because in admitting and conceding that he could not fulfil his intent without those intermediary means, what are they but Freewill? If Freewill is one of them, he contradicts himself, and advances nothing, for desiring to prove that every thing depends on the Divine Will, without dimin-· ishing in any thing from His decree and sentence, he afterwards changes and admits the contrary, by interposing intermediary causes. Finally, we see by experience that man uses diligence-if every thing must be, that diligence would be vain and useless, as he would attain the same end with or without it. All work, art, advice, and admonition would cease, it not being in the power of man to attain what he desired. It would be unnecessary to flee from evil or seek good; and Will would have no place: which it is proved cannot be the case; but, on the contrary, we see diligence is highly necessary and advantageous in every thing, as our ancient sages say, the verse, "He will bless thee in all thou settest thine hand unto," 12 is, he will not bless those who are idle, but those who put forth their hand and work. Such being the case, God commanded the children of Israel, "Let no man go without the door of his house until the morning,"13 to avoid a threatened danger to the Egyptians; and as a precept, he ordered that a parapet should be put to the roof of the house, that no one might fall, 14" And that the fearful man should 9 Lam. 3:40. 10 Isaiah 66:3, 4. 11 Cuzari, b. 5, art. 20. 12 Deut. 28:20. go and return home;" 15 from which it is inferred, that diligence and care are necessary and advantageous. R. Isaac Arama 16 corroborates this by an admirable allegory: he says, if a man seeks your life and you will not surrender to him, you will defend yourself, and shut yourself up in a close place, using all diligence to escape and deliver yourself from his hands; and if he should collect others to help him against you, you will try to avoid it by flight, and get into your own house, carefully closing the doors. If they pursue you, and force the doors to take you to prison, you will fly by some secret means, and place yourself under the protection of some powerful man, to whom you have been serviceable, that he may defend you if they should find you. Certainly the nobleman whose protection you have claimed will endeavour to assist you; but if he is shewn a royal order or mandate, commanding that you should be delivered up to justice as a criminal, he will then undoubtedly deliver you up as a delinquent. Experience shews us the same with respect to mankind: for example; if the plague be in a city, a man shuts himself up in his house, and does not venture out: if he sees it extending and spreading through all the city, he quits it, and removes into the country if this be not sufficient, and it attack him there, he omits not taking the necessary remedies to get cured, by which he sometimes escapes: and if all this be insufficient, the man has fulfilled his obligation and done his duty, knowing that the time has arrived when it is requisite he should pay the debt of nature, and justify the justice of God: and the same arises in every thing else; wherefore the Lord said by the mouth of the prophet Isaiah, "Go, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee, hide thyself, as it were, for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast. He commands to hide from his anger; for which sages say, "Pestilence in the city-take to your heels!" 18 meaning, that it is necessary to take the road, and quit it; and the text of Exodus, 19 which ordains, that the injurer should pay the injured until he is cured, infers, they say, that licence is given to physicians to cure. We generally see mankind endeavour to defend themselves most diligently from an enemy, to flee from evil, and to obtain good by every possible means. We also see, that as man acts intentionally, those who act judiciously are praised, and otherwise blamed; but a child, a Somnambulist, or one of unsound mind, who does an injury, are not; but if such were to be judged by contingencies, they would certainly be culpable, for such injury was contingent; but seeing there is none so unwise as to condemn such, it follows, that it is because they know and feel they ought not to praise or blame any but those who act from Freewill, and intentionally: that being the case, it results that those who deny Freewill ultimately acknowledge it; except they should say unreasonable passion is a power undetermined in nature, and, therefore, vain in man. If so, then the speech of man is consequently natural and obligatory, like the natural movement of the pulse. This is manifest delusion, since we find that man speaks under the influence of the understanding, which governs, or he is silent according as he considers how and when it is necessary to be so. 20 "17 From what has been said, it is proved by Authority, by Reason, and by Experience, that man is possessed of Freewill. Now, to answer the doubts arising from the contradiction of the verses of the text, from the very passages adopted by some who deny Freewill, it may be infallibly collected that it does exist; because, if the hardening of Pharaoh's heart signifies that he 18 Baba Kama, c. 6. 15 Deut. 20:8. 16 Aquedat, c. 26. 19 Exod. 21:19. 17 Isaiah 26:20. 20 Berachot, c. 9. |