I've always loved the account of the 10 plagues (who doesn't?), but I always felt a little odd about the several times (7, in fact) Pharoah's heart was made "hard/heavy" by G-d because I'm a strong believer in free-will, and that didn't seem fair/just to me. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that Pharaoh was a good guy -- he was given plenty of chances, and time and time again, he was stubborn and did not obey G-d, but this makes it all the more peculiar to me. Why would G-d need to make Pharaoh's heart heavy if it already was?
For years, I just accepted Maimonides comments in the Laws of Teshuva: "yes, there is free will... but if your sins become colossal, grievous, frequent, etc. enough, then the courtesy of free-will will be revoked" (I'm, of course, paraphrasing here). It wasn't the perfect answer, but I accepted it because "hey, Pharaoh, was indeed a bad guy. It probably would have happened anyway, and Maimonides knows what's up."
But lately, I've been working with an Egyptologist, help teaching an Egyptology course to undergraduates, and new ideas have occurred to me. Now, I work at a public university so for the most part, we were looking at it from an Egyptian point of view, and a light bulb went off in my head. Was the 10 plagues a symbolic "show-down" (in addition to physical miracles leading to the redemption of the Hebrews) between the Egyptian pantheon and G-d? In antiquity, Egypt was well known as a polytheistic nation, with more than 80 deities being worshipped throughout the land. Even pharaoh was considered to be a god, along with a host of insects, reptiles, mammals, fish, the sun, and so forth. Could each plague actually be a personal attack against one of the Egyptian gods?
For example (choosing just a few):
- Plague 1--water turned to blood: The Nile was the lifeblood for the Egyptians and a prominent god was Hapi -- this would be a direct attack against Hapi.
- Plague 5--disease of livestock: Hathor, Cow goddess and fertility, was not able to keep her livestock alive. Her powers proved fruitless.
- Plague 9--darkness: Attack against the sun god of Ra. His powers were clearly overshadowed by G-d's.
- Plague 10--death of first-born: Pharaoh (who was considered divine) is unable to save his own child from death's grasps, demonstrating that there is only one true divine Being.
Now G-d and the Israelite would know that these so called "gods" were not real, but could it be a symbolic attack on (as well as demonstrating G-d's gradneur and commitment to His people) the Egyptian Pantheon, accentuating His power over their hierarchy of gods?
Now with that said, going with this premise, could one make the argument that G-d made Pharoah's heart harden/heavy because it would be the apex of a symbolic battle between G-d and Pharoah since the Egyptians believed that in the Afterworld, the heart would be weighed against a feather, and if the heart was heavier than the feather, it would be gobbled up by creatures literally known as the "gobblers", sealing Pharoah's fate in the Underworld, and ultimately emphasizing that there is but one G-d.
I'm not saying that this whole account be taken symbolically because I think it can operate on two levels: physical and symbolic. So maybe Pharoah's heart became hardened on his own (as we read he does), but the parts where it mentions G-d making it hard, indicates the symbolic aspects? Does that make sense? Is there room for interpretation here?
Answer
Rav Ovadiah Seforno (on Shemos 9:35) suggests that Hashem "made his heart heavy" (heavy objects are hard to move) and "made his heart strong" (more literal translations of "הכבדתי" and "חזקתי" then "hardened) in order to preserve Par'oh's free will!
Had Hashem allowed Par’oh to be influenced by the miracles then Par’oh’s decisions would have been altered through supernatural means. Therefore, Hashem removed Par’oh’s ability to be moved by the miraculous events he witnessed. The means for doing so, this “hichbadti”, the immobilization, was to blind him to the awe, the yir’as Hashem, that the plagues would normally cause.
In comparison (my comparison, not the Seforno's), there is a famous story of Rav Chanina ben Dosa (Taanis 25a), a miracle working Tanna who was so poor that he lived off a single carob from Shabbos to Shabbos. One week his daughter filled the Shabbos lights with vinegar rather than oil. She was distressed by this mistake, perhaps because of their inability to afford wasted oil or vinegar. Rav Chanina answered her, “He Who made oil burn can make vinegar burn.” And the vinegar burned. Rav Chanina witnessed miracles because they would not violate his free will. He saw in the supernatural burning of vinegar no more proof of G-d’s existence than he saw everyday within nature.
Miracles are normally only witnessed by those who already believe so strongly, that the miracle doesn't convince them of anything they don't already believe. Chanina ben Dosa's oil burned because to him it was no more startling than oil burning. Until the plague of shechin (boils), the his court magicians could duplicate the miracles well enough that the miracles didn't prove anything to Par'oh. And notice that it's Par'oh's own stubbornness exclusively until the plague of shechin took down his magicians. The Exodus required exposing Par'oh to miracles despite his own belief and awe not being anywhere near that level. There are no longer a balance of good and evil in his experience, and the subsequent plagues served as proof of G-d. Miracles, so supernatural proof of G-d. A tampering with free will.
Therefore G-d made his hear unresponsive to this evidence, having him act exactly as he would if his experience was in accord with nature.
In contrast, Maimonides (Laws of Teshuvah 6:3) says that indeed there are sins whose punishment includes the loss of free will.
Personally, I understand the culpability question in this case akin to that of someone who does something while drunk that they never would have planned to do back when they were sober; they didn't make the decision while of sound mind, but it was their decision to get to an unsound one.
As for the Egyptology; I don't know enough to comment. But R' Hirsch understands the blood and frogs just as you suggest -- symbols of death and of Hapti (and thus birth) in the Nile would be clear to the Egyptians as a message about drowning the Jewish babies in the same Nile
No comments:
Post a Comment