Rabbi Haim Lifshitz

Home

Essays

Glossary

 
Go to Hebrew site

 

 

 

 

 

 


PARASHAT VA'ERA

                                                l'ilui nishmat Esther bat Mrdechai

Free Will Versus Divine Providence
Human Initiative Versus Godly Initiative
“Awakening Below” Versus “Awakening On High”


“I appeared to [your forefathers] as the Power of Creation, but by My name of God, I was not known to them.” (6:3)

[In your forefathers’ era,] an individual would take the initiative, and this would evoke a response by Divine providence toward those mighty heroes who fulfilled His word.  [In your era, Moses,] the initiative is taken by Divine providence, and this awakens a response by the average individual, by a member of the community – as part of a nation.  This is a block of normative, conformative individuals who are accustomed to and in need of a leader who will bear responsibility for them, and who will see to their needs, which are the generalized needs of the group, both social and spiritual; he will maintain their moral level.  First and foremost, he will protect the weak, and restrain the aggressive elements.

Was Moses, who was chosen by the Creator to lead God’s people, blessed with the character traits appropriate to a leader?  I believe not.  “Send whomever else You might send.”  “For I am clumsy of mouth and clumsy of tongue.”  Moses was not blessed with a leader’s character traits from birth.  Rather, out of nothing at all, yesh may’ayin, he became blessed with a leader’s powers – blessed by God.

However, he excelled by nature and was blessed by nature with the fundamental traits that characterize a leader who is greater than the people: Traits of sensitivity to others, of protecting the weak – to the point of self-sacrifice, of neglecting his own private needs – to the point of neglecting the commandment to circumcise his own son, which neglect endangered his own life, because of his utter preoccupation with the needs of the nation of Israel, to the point of utter self-forgetfulness.  His wife Zipporah was forced to perform the mitzvah of circumcising their son, though she had never seen this done in her father’s house.

Moses excelled in the role of a leader who worries for his people.  However, he was not endowed with the traits of a brute force leader who is greater than his people in terms of brute strength, and thus imposes his will upon them.  In his form of spiritual leadership, Moses belonged to the spiritual mode that characterized our sacred forefathers, who initiated their own path to their Creator, through their own personal awakening.

When the Creator changed His way of relating, from the power that creates to “I will be what I will be”, in which He accompanies the nation with His presence throughout their difficulties, it appeared to Moses that this would constitute a presence within distress, in which the nation would awaken to God only under duress.  Alternatively, they would awaken even less frequently, through an even rarer mode – though it does exist – awakening out of gratitude, a trait found in a very few individuals who possess unusually noble traits of character. 

Moses found such esoteric methods unacceptable, for he believed the majority of the nation to be unsuited for them.   What was Moses aspiring to achieve, for the sake of which achievement he would dare to refuse the mission that the Creator wished to place upon him – stubbornly holding out for an entire week?

Moses goal was to obtain the “awakening on high” from the Creator, to acquire the initiative of the Creator, to be granted the ability to impose the Creator’s initiated presence by force upon the nation, who were ignorant and insensitive to the dimension of sanctity.

Hence the “four terminologies of redemption,” all of which speak of the Divine initiative of “I am God,” and do not suffice with the omnipresence of the Creator as the power that creates, and that violates the natural systems.

As a first step, the Creator agrees with Moses.  Nine out of the ten plagues with which the Holy One smites Egypt are designed to prove to the Egyptians that the Creator of the universe controls the natural systems that have a direct connection and influence upon human needs from various perspectives.  Only the last plague, the smiting of the first-born, was directed toward human beings themselves.

However, for the purpose of educational punishment, these plagues entailed a form of persuasion that was somewhat problematic.  Such persuasion stood in contradiction to the hallowed principle that is the central principle of the Jewish faith: Free choice.  It is from this principle that we derive the sense of responsibility felt by the Jew, both toward himself and toward others. The principle of reward and punishment is second to the principle of free choice.  With the first five plagues, Pharaoh hardened his own heart, the sages of the Talmud disclose to us, yet with the last five plagues, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and this stands in utter contradiction to the hallowed principle of free choice, which derives mainly from human initiative.

If we compare the principle of free choice with the element of democracy, we realize that the element of democracy – which appears hallowed to all who belong to a modern society – should be able to stand on its own right, except for the fact that it is also based on the foundation of free choice.  Perhaps we could say that a democratic foundation cannot be attributed to a dictator, or to any society controlled by a tyrant, for such societies are accustomed to bowing their heads before the compulsions and coercions of a tyrannical regime. 

Yet still, it is somewhat puzzling how this qualitative equation of free choice – whose delicate, sensitive balance is carefully protected by supreme providence – or in other words: How could the Creator have denied Pharaoh his right to free choice?  This right is denied to all animals and to all natural systems.  Only a human being is granted this right.  Every individual made unique by having been created in the form and image of the Creator is blessed with the right of free choice.

This one-time cancellation of the right that accrues to every individual created in God’s image - begs explanation.  For the truth of the matter is that a comparable phenomenon never occurred, even with the wicked of Amalekite descent.  

Apparently the Creator wished to show His mighty hand and His absolute power, not merely as the One who violates the systems of nature.  "For He placed the boundary of the sea” and imposed the laws of nature over these systems but never bestowed His direct, daily providence upon nature [and certainly never gave them choice].  The human being, in contrast, as the apex of creation, had been endowed with free choice and initiative, which seemed given over to him, to do with as he wished. 

Suddenly the Creator decides to change his approach and take the initiative Himself, rather than simply responding to human initiative.

This was difficult for Moses to digest: Just how absolute would the Godly initiative be, and just to what extent would this push aside human initiative, which had heretofore ruled unchallenged?

The Creator wished to show Moses, who was planning to rule, how to impose his opinion, his will and his decision upon the nation, how one must sometimes lead in an absolute manner, even if the leader’s decision is absolutely opposed to the will and initiative of the nation, as when this initiative and decision is found to be in direct opposition to the will of the Creator.

The Creator’s cancellation of the will to choose, for an impudent heretic such as Pharaoh, served as a golden opportunity for the Creator to impose His own will, His own mighty and absolute hand.  Yet even this opportunity was implemented in an appropriately limited manner, corresponding to the punishment that the Egyptians deserved for their exploitation and enslavement of the people of Israel over the past few generations.

Furthermore, it served as an appropriate example of a leader enforcing his will.  The plagues were thus punishment to Egypt, yet illumination to Israel, who went forth from Egypt with a mighty hand, as it says: “ ‘He brings the prisoners
forth bechoshrot:’ ‘bechi,’ weeping for Egypt, yet shirot, songs for Israel.”