The Bach’s gloss there is cut off in the middle, and apparently what he meant to say is that possible free choice does not allow a heavenly voice to go out in advance and announce it (“the heart does not reveal itself to the mouth”), and it is not really so forced to say this even in Rashi’s words.

Why is it not possible for a heavenly voice to go out? If the Holy One, blessed be He, knows what I will choose, He can also announce it. After all, I don’t actually hear it (nor does anyone else). Simply speaking, it isn’t possible because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not know.

Because if a heavenly voice goes out, then this is no longer God’s unique knowledge, which is unlike our knowledge and does not contradict free choice (according to the various explanations of the medieval authorities), but something that has come out into actual reality. If there is a heavenly voice, then perhaps there is also someone who can hear it.
That is how they explained why Maimonides had to answer the question of “and they shall enslave them and afflict them” differently from how he answered the question of knowledge and free choice (“for ‘and they shall enslave them and afflict them…’ was said to Abraham, and Abraham’s prophetic knowledge, which is knowledge like ours, contradicts free choice”). And if they explained Maimonides that way, then the Bach can also explain Rashi that way.

(As is well known, Gersonides explicitly wrote that God’s knowledge before the act is only knowledge of the various possible options, and that aroused a great deal of opposition in you. We have not found such opposition to this interpretation of Rashi here; apparently it is not so explicit, and it can be explained in different ways.)

Later in the article there is a nice insight based on this, that there is no knowledge of future actions.
The Sages say that there were two murderers, one intentional and one unintentional, who killed without witnesses. The Holy One, blessed be He, brings them to an inn and brings witnesses there, and the unintentional killer falls on the intentional one.
Rabbi Ingber asks: why did the Holy One, blessed be He, not arrange for witnesses already at the time of the first murder? And the answer is that the act was done intentionally, and since the Holy One, blessed be He, did not know that he would murder, He could not arrange witnesses. That is his point.
But seemingly this does not explain why He did not arrange witnesses for the unintentional killer, since this is not an act of choice. It would seem one could say that although he did not choose to murder, he did choose to do a certain action (which would in fact unintentionally lead to death), and that itself the Holy One, blessed be He, did not know.

Or perhaps He did not arrange witnesses for the unintentional killer so that there would be a guilty person available to fall on the intentional one, and thus He would not have to bring in some other person to be punished by killing that the Holy One, blessed be He, had arranged for him, though he had done no wrong.

I know that you do not see much value in collecting sources, but still, it is nice to see that Rabbi Raphael Berdugo as well, one of the great sages of Morocco from two hundred years ago, strongly argued that God has no knowledge of man’s future actions, and in this way easily explains several verses that commentators strained to explain (such as “Now I know that you fear God”), and he also brought the above Rashi at the beginning of Sotah as supporting evidence, and explicitly rejected the Bach’s understanding.
Like you, he was also puzzled by Maimonides’ answer, for he himself had already written that God does not do the impossible, and that is no defect.
See his book Mei Merom, on the Torah portion Vayera, found here (pages 83–86):
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=38914&st=&pgnum=83&hilite

So the ranks of those who support your view have grown recently, and now include: Gersonides, Nachmanides, the Shelah, the author of Pardes, Rashi, Rabbi Raphael Berdugo, and in a certain sense also Or HaChaim.
For me this is a major lesson in how, over the course of history, views that were once legitimate and were stated by great figures were thrown into the historical trash bin of “heresy,” to the point that every person who trembles at the word of God is shocked by your words the first time around (if not more than that), and 99% of people do not know that all of the above say this.

Indeed. Thanks.

Could I get a link to the above-mentioned article, the article by Rabbi Shmuel Ingberg?

I saw it in Bar-Ilan’s weekly page, but that was a very long time ago. I think they have a search engine.

Thank you very much for the reply.
There are initials at the beginning of the page here—what does he mean by them there?

I wanted to ask you, Rabbi Michi: in your opinion, the Ari quoted below from the book Four Hundred Shekels of Silver at its end—what view is he holding like?

And this is its wording:
A question asked by the outstanding rabbi and divine kabbalist, our teacher Rabbi Abraham Monson from the city of Tenפיל of Barbary, to the Ari of blessed and holy memory:
One difficult thing must be asked, namely: for we have seen in the books of Kabbalah, and in the Zohar, and in Sefer HaMadda, and in Sefer HaKaneh ben HaKaneh of blessed holy memory, that when God is occupied with the world of Creation, He does not know, and when He is in the world of Emanation, He knows. If so, it has been explained that in the world of Emanation there is knowledge and compulsion. If so, the words of our Sages are difficult on the verse, “And the Lord said to Moses: Speak to the priests”—“the first king who will arise for Israel will be pierced by the sword.” He said to Him: “And You tell me, ‘Speak to the priests’? For he killed Nob, the city of the priests.” It thus follows that His knowledge compelled Saul in whatever manner it may be, whether in Creation or in Emanation, and if so, then it follows that there was compulsion in any case.
And the answer that my teacher of blessed memory gave was: it is true that in Emanation there is knowledge, but a person has the power to choose otherwise, as Scripture says: “See, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil… therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” From here it is understood that there was compulsion from Saul’s act, yet the verse proves that it is choice, as it says, “and choose.” And also according to our Sages, who said, “There is no evil above,” for above, in Emanation, all is simple, and that knowledge does not descend below to compel man, for there is no reward and punishment, and no free choice and will, above. This is the secret of “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother? says the Lord; yet I loved Jacob.” Does the blessed God say that Esau is just like Jacob, when the Torah has already testified that Jacob was a dweller in tents and Esau worshiped idolatry, and the blessed God chooses the righteous? If so, what is this that the blessed God then says, “yet I loved Jacob”—this one righteous and that one wicked? Rather, the intention is that above, in Emanation, Esau is just like Jacob, for there there is no reward and punishment. This is the secret of “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother? says the Lord,” that is Atika Kadisha, as explained in the Idra: “By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord,” for “says the Lord” is Atik. Therefore He said: you must listen to My voice and accept kingship over yourselves, for I have chosen Jacob, even though he is like Esau. And even if we say there is compelled knowledge, there is no need at all for Torah or commandments, for man is already compelled in his deeds. And also the statement of Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashya, who says, “The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to grant merit to Israel; therefore He gave them abundant Torah and commandments”—if we say there is compelled knowledge, there is no need for many commandments. Rather, the intention is that above, in Emanation, there is knowledge, and knowledge of a person’s evil does not descend from above, for it remains there. And it is in the hand of man, who has free choice, to choose otherwise. Therefore the Torah commanded its commandments; and also if a person cleaves to Torah, he draws good upon himself, for evil does not descend on its own from above; rather, if a person draws evil upon himself, then it descends. And with this one statement in the Zohar, in the portion of Vayikra, will be understood: “If a soul sins and hears the voice of adjuration, and he is a witness, or has seen, or known,” etc. For there it says that before the soul descends, the Holy One, blessed be He, adjures it above: “Be righteous and do not be wicked.” For if we say there is knowledge, it follows that He adjures it falsely, for He knows of him that he will sin and yet adjures him. And likewise another saying of our Sages: “They adjure him: Be righteous and do not be wicked.” If we say He knew, it follows that He adjures him falsely, and the blessed God does not want them to swear falsely in His name. Rather, these statements, and many verses as well, prove that at the time of Creation He has no knowledge.
And from what we have explained there is proof that even the knowledge of Emanation is simple knowledge, and it depends on man’s will, for it has already been said of him that he is like his Maker, that he has free choice and will, as Scripture says, “For the Lord has chosen Jacob for Himself, Israel for His treasured possession,” from which it is understood that He has free choice and will. Also what is said, “And I will favor you,” etc.—from the verses it is clear that He has free choice and will. And He also compares Israel to Himself, saying, “And you shall be holy, for I am holy”—just as I am holy, so shall you be holy, my brothers, my companions, my children, in His image and likeness. For if one says that He has knowledge and it is not compelling, as the rabbi said in his statement, then Saul, whom His knowledge compelled in his regard, would have a complaint about this. However, if we say as we have said, everything comes in truth and faithfulness. And this is the statement of Job: “Far be it from God to do wickedness, and from the Almighty to do injustice. For the work of a man He will repay to him, and according to a man’s path He will cause it to befall him.” When you investigate the explanation of these words—“For the work of a man He will repay to him, and according to a man’s path He will cause it to befall him”—investigate the matter well, and you will find the true answer. And peace to you, and peace to all that is yours. Complete and concluded—praise to the God who created the world.

Okay, apparently that was a lot of text and you don’t have time to read it (even though it seemed to me that with your quick glance you could).
So I’ll ask another question: is there not a contradiction between the above Rashi in Sotah and Rashi at the end of Genesis?

“And He was grieved in His heart” — He mourned the loss of the work of His hands, like “the king was grieved for his son” (II Samuel 19). And I wrote this as an answer to the heretics. An unbeliever asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha: ‘Do you not admit that the Holy One, blessed be He, foresees what will be born?’ He said to him: ‘Yes.’ He said to him: ‘But does it not say, “And He was grieved in His heart”?’ He said to him: ‘Has a male child ever been born to you?’ He said to him: ‘Yes.’ He said to him: ‘And what did you do?’ He said to him: ‘I rejoiced and made everyone rejoice.’ He said to him: ‘And did you not know that in the end he would die?’ He said to him: ‘At the time of joy, joy; at the time of mourning, mourning.’ He said to him: ‘So too with the Holy One, blessed be He: although it was revealed before Him that in the end they would sin and be destroyed, He did not refrain from creating them, for the sake of the righteous who were destined to arise from them’ (see also the Re’em).”