Do you mean that the portion of Lech-Lecha, for example, and likewise most of the rest of the book of Genesis, which tells facts that happened, did not exist?
What “basic outlines” do the stories of the patriarchs contain, aside from describing historical facts? (According to the plain meaning, of course.)
Do you mean that these stories did not exist in the Torah before they occurred?
So then what was in Genesis?

In the responsa of the Radbaz it is written that before the Torah was given to Israel, it was written without the spaces between the words (and therefore without the final concrete meaning). That is how he explains the midrash which says that the ministering angels considered keeping the Torah for themselves, even though they are not subject to the commandments written in it in its final form.
(And of course even the Radbaz should not be understood literally.)

Different educational basic lines. The book of Genesis is called the Book of the Upright One (see the introduction of the Netziv). And even if you don’t find something there, it is still possible that you didn’t find it, but it is there.

To the Rabbi: the Radbaz that Daniel brought contradicts your answer. And in any case, if it contains various educational basic lines, then necessarily the stories there are detailed and explained in the same order as we have them. So the question comes back: what about free choice?
And to Daniel: admittedly that is a good answer, but according to that we would need to explain what “He looked into the Torah and created the world” means, since it implies that He created the world according to a predefined plan, which also includes the creation of certain people and their actions.

Haim,
I don’t see why you think the words of the Radbaz that I brought are contradictory. The meaning of his figurative description is that the Torah existed not as a concrete verbal book but as the spirit of God, the purpose of creation, which would later take on one concrete form or another.
At the beginning of everything, this primeval Torah only indicates that the world needs Torah, without specific details (after the world is created it perhaps takes on a partial form of educational guidelines, for example), and when the Torah is given to Israel it takes on the concrete meaning.

Even if the Radbaz contradicts me, so what? Am I forbidden to disagree with him?
Obviously in the Torah before the world was created, if it existed at all, there were no stories of the patriarchs. So what was there? I have no idea, and I assume neither the Radbaz nor anyone else does.

Haim, without philosophizing with you the way the others did in order to answer you, I’ll choose the other route. The fact that the Sages said that God looked into the Torah and created the world is to show us how important the Torah is for the existence of the world and for the Creator’s providence, for He brings the world into being and sustains it every moment. It is written: “If not for My covenant day and night, I would not have established the laws of heaven and earth.” Understand? The Holy One, blessed be He, knows the future, and that has nothing to do with what you will do—He gives you free choice, but He knows in advance what you will choose. Now know this: the Torah certainly was not there before the creation of the world. And that is what the Rabbi told you. The Torah, as its name implies, is instruction—a guide. For whom? For man! The Book of the Upright One—that is, it instructs the upright path. And therefore wise Solomon said: “Do not write many books,” because no book is as worth the investment as the Book of the Upright One, which teaches you a paved road to a good life in this world and the next. Fulfill what is written in the Torah and you’ll see what success you’ll have. Follow the lines that God guided you by. “Be wholehearted with the Lord your God!” Good luck, my brother. “The world will be built on kindness.”

For someone who understands the midrash “He looked into the Torah” literally, one would have to conclude that the Holy One, blessed be He, contrives against His creatures. This is stated explicitly in Midrash HaGadol, precisely in relation to this question (and here is also a Torah thought for this week’s portion—Parashat Chukat and the striking of the rock): Midrash HaGadol, Numbers 20:
“Come and see the works of God, terrible in His dealing toward the children of men” (Psalms 66:5).
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha said: Even the terrible things that You bring upon us, You bring by way of contrivance.
Come and see: when the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world, from the first day He created the Angel of Death.
How do we know? Rabbi Berekhiah said: “And darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Genesis 1:2)—this is the Angel of Death, who darkens the faces of creatures.
And Adam was created on the sixth day, and the charge is pinned on him that he brought death into the world, as it says, “For on the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). What is this comparable to? To a man who sought to divorce his wife. Before going home, he wrote a bill of divorce. He entered his house with the bill of divorce in his hand, looking for a pretext against her in order to give it to her. He said to her: Mix me a cup to drink. She mixed it for him. When he took it from her hand, he said to her: Here is your bill of divorce. She said to him: What is my offense? He said to her: Because you mixed me a lukewarm cup. She said to him: You already knew that I was destined to mix you a lukewarm cup, since you wrote the divorce bill and brought it in your hand.
So too Adam said before the Holy One, blessed be He: Master of the Universe, before You created the world, two thousand years earlier, the Torah was with You, and it is written in it, “When a man dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14). Had You not prepared death for creatures, would You have written this in it?!
Rather, You came to pin the charge on me.
And so too you find with Moses, when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: “If any man of these men, this evil generation, shall see the good land that I swore to give to your fathers” (Deuteronomy 1:35). “Man” refers only to Moses, as it says, “And the man Moses was very humble” (Numbers 12:3)—the distinguished man among men. And so too He says to him, “Now you shall see” (Exodus 6:1)—in Pharaoh’s war you shall see, but you shall not see in the war of the thirty-one kings.
And when he said to Israel, “Listen now, you rebels” (Numbers 20:10), He said, therefore “you shall not bring this congregation into the land that I have given them” (Numbers 20:12).
Thus, terrible in His dealing toward the children of men.”

The author of Leshem understood this midrash literally, and indeed according to his approach all of history is conducted under the governance of what he calls “terrible in His dealing.” In my opinion the intention is only to a few central junctions (like the sin of the first Adam) that were planned in advance.

From the midrash “He looked into the Torah and created the world” one can prove that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not read Column 134, right?

Thank you very much. If you find the time to point me to the source in Leshem, I’d be glad. Many thanks.

There is a whole chapter about this in the book “Shaarei Leshem Shevo VeAchlama” (Alexander Mandelbaum).

Thank you very much, I wasn’t familiar with it. By the way, what is the policy about writing “thank you”? On the face of it, it is supremely important on the personal level, but unnecessary and cluttering for the site—certainly according to Kant’s categorical imperative—on the public level?

P.S. — “Act only according to that practical rule which, in accepting it, you can also will to be a universal law.”

And here I found myself a halakhic solution: one should say thank you only when it adds some added value for the public as a whole.

To Rabbi Michael: even if the midrash that Gil brought refers to central junctions in history, it still sometimes speaks about the choice of specific people, like Moses our Rabbi, for example.
And in general there are additional midrashim about specific figures in the Torah, such as Esau and Jacob, the sons of King Hezekiah, and yet another midrash about Moses that when he was born the whole house was filled with light, and so on.
These are not central junctions. These are specific people who seemingly were born without choice. And here too the answer regarding the midrash “He looked into the Torah and created the world,” that it is about basic outlines and so on, will not help.
And to Rabbi Gil: thank you always adds value for the general public, by instilling a culture of respectful discussion and making the conversation more pleasant.

Thank you very much.

Gil, I didn’t understand the question about the policy of saying thank you.

Haim, נכון. According to this interpretation there are specific situations in which the Holy One, blessed be He, takes the reins into His own hands and removes choice from one person or another.

It’s not all that important. I only meant that writing “thank you” seems to me more appropriate for a text message or email than for a public website, because I’m simply filling a page that is entirely informative and interesting, intended for many readers, with dead areas.

An example for illustration: on the Otzar HaHokhmah site there are so many fascinating discussions, but one of the things that exhausts and discourages wandering around there is the text that isn’t relevant—and sometimes it takes the reader time to realize that. Granted, “thank you” is short, but the common denominator of what I’m saying is wasting “paper” on irrelevant information.

From another angle, perhaps it can also be compared to writing in physical mail. It would never occur to someone to send a reply letter containing only the word “thank you.” You always add something else so as not to leave the paper blank. And that was my thought about the solution—how to write thank you here as well when I add some information too (like the categorical imperative above). See, once again I didn’t leave the page blank. From now on, if I don’t say thank you, that does not indicate that I am ungrateful. And thank you too, dear Haim.

Rabbi, if it is true that the Holy One, blessed be He, takes away the choice of some person, then once again there is no reason for reward and punishment. And of course we find that those people mentioned did indeed receive reward or punishment.
Moreover, Maimonides and other great Jewish sages struggled greatly to explain the verse “And I too will harden his heart…” because if choice is taken away, then there is no possibility of judgment. And part of the principles of faith is that there is justice and a Judge, and everything is with justice.
So regarding Pharaoh there are indeed many interpretations, but regarding Moses our Rabbi, as well as the sons of Hezekiah, and Jeroboam son of Nebat (whom Jacob saw would come from Benjamin—from the outset), and others like them, I am not familiar with any discussion at all.
Do you think that the Holy One, blessed be He, really took away these people’s ability to choose?
And if so, how can that be in light of the belief that judgment is righteous judgment?

That’s the difference between a talkback or email and a physical letter.
It reminds me of the story about Mark Twain, who received a letter with one word in it: Idiot!
He sent a reply: I have already received letters without the sender’s signature, but never in my life have I received a letter with a signature and no content.

Maybe those midrashim were meant to educate. Besides, even if it was prophesied in advance that there would be a Hebrew named Moses who would lead the Exodus from Egypt, maybe not all of his merits were foreseen in advance with certainty.

Indeed, there is no room for punishment in such a situation, and therefore they explain that Pharaoh deserved punishment for previous deeds (that itself was part of the punishment). In the case of “terrible in His dealing,” there really is no justification for punishment, and therefore the decree of death upon the first Adam is indeed not interpreted as punishment but as the implementation of a pre-planned scheme (that man should be mortal). This applies only in those cases, and only if you really accept the midrash’s premise that there is such a mode of governance of “terrible in His dealing.”

Forgive me, Rabbi, but you did not address the examples of specific figures that were brought, such as Moses (a mouth destined to speak with the Divine Presence), the sons of Hezekiah (who did not want to marry so that wicked people would not come into the world), Jeroboam son of Nebat (who was foreseen in Jacob’s prophecy when he blessed Manasseh and Ephraim), and Rabbi Akiva who was foreseen in Moses’ prophecy (“You have such a man, and You give the Torah through me?”) and so on.
Where was their free choice? Can this mode of governance of “terrible in His dealing” also apply to a private individual? And if so, what then is the question from Pharaoh? (And where is the justice?)
Thank you for the enlightening answers and the references above.

Well done, Haim,

To ask what you are asking is a kind of heresy—not that the questions aren’t good, they’re excellent, my brother. You ask what is heretical about this? I answer: it is a kind of casting doubt on God, and on His knowledge of creatures, who deserves what, and so on. Saul too was destined to rule, but go and see—he also sinned, yet he was destined to rule…
Go learn from Jonah the prophet: he did not want to prophesy, but he was forced into it—he could not run away. All this shows that God supervises every tiny detail from above… And you can always ask: what sin did all the priests of Nob commit, who were murdered en masse because they were accused of treason against the king for helping his enemy David? Where is providence? And as you asked, where is choice, where is justice? And you can always ask why God took Enoch so early.

Clearly this kind of governance of “terrible in His dealing” can also apply to a private individual. Who saved Daniel from the fire of the Chaldeans? And from the lions’ den?
By the way, regarding Pharaoh—Pharaoh murdered many babies, so he had blood on his hands.

The fact that Moses our Rabbi, the humble one, said to God about the greatness of Rabbi Akiva was only because Moses was very humble. It wasn’t really the case that Rabbi Akiva was greater than Moses our Rabbi—what’s gotten into you?! There is a decline of the generations… and Moses our Rabbi prophesied through a clear lens… so there is no comparison…

These questions are not heresy. He asked about these midrashim, according to which it comes out that people received reward for things that had been predetermined for them. And even if the questions are “heresy,” so what? He cannot make himself not think about it. Just like an idol worshiper cannot justify himself by saying that he did in fact have questions because of which he should have understood that idol worship was false, but he didn’t dare ask them because it is “heresy.” A person is supposed to seek the truth.

Dear Moshe, for your information, this site is intended for asking questions and clarifying issues on any subject whatsoever, in accordance with the spirit of the site’s founder, Rabbi Michael Abraham—especially on matters of outlook, thought, faith, science and Torah, and Jewish law, as needed for our time and generation.
And in any case, know that there is no wrong or improper question; there is only a wrong answer. Blessed be God that in our generation there exists someone like Rabbi Michi who is not afraid of questions that a large part of the commandment-observant public represses and ignores, despite the growing difficulty.
And again, the purpose of the site is to answer exactly these kinds of questions, without the silencing and repression of which there is no shortage.

Haim,
These midrashim are not factual descriptions, so there is no point in hairsplitting over them. Each one comes to teach some lesson, not to describe information determined in advance. Do you really think that the Holy One, blessed be He, took Moses and showed him Rabbi Akiva? Where did the Sages get that information from? Why didn’t Rabbi Akiva himself know it (that in the end his flesh would be combed with iron combs)?
By the way, regarding Hezekiah, aside from the fact that there too we are dealing with aggadah, it is possible that this is exactly what they answered him: why do you assume that your son will be wicked? Is there not free choice? Of course it is also possible to explain that he saw correctly and nevertheless was forbidden to make calculations, but no difficulty follows from there.
Also regarding Pharaoh, aside from what I already wrote, the commentators have already discussed it at length. Some of them claimed that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not determine Pharaoh’s response but only hardened his heart. And so on.

Well then, if so, which midrashim are factual descriptions and which are not? Descriptions of the splitting of the sea into twelve parts—does that midrash also not count as a factual description? And what about countless other midrashim that describe facts?
According to what algorithm do you divide the midrashim into those that are factually valid and those that are not (so what are they)? Do all the stories of the midrash have to undergo selection?
P.S. My main question was not from Pharaoh, but from Moses and the other figures mentioned above.
I brought Pharaoh only to show that the very fact that the commentators felt compelled to deal with the question of his free choice shows that this mode of governance of “terrible in His dealing” does not apply to the free choice of a private individual, and therefore the above cases remain difficult.

I look at midrashim as an additional explanation to the Torah. Sometimes the midrashim magnify the miracles, or they really are a factual description of what happened, but each midrash has to be examined for its purpose…
Why should they undergo selection? They don’t need to, but whoever wants to sharpen each midrash should aim at the purpose of each one.

I didn’t understand what you wanted to ask about Moses.

Pharaoh’s choice and stubbornness were part of his punishment—his free choice was taken from him in order to punish him. That is written explicitly in the Torah. Pharaoh gave the order to kill every male baby and enslaved the children of Israel with hard labor… and for that he paid a very heavy price. And suppose the Torah had shown his choice to send out the children of Israel after the first plague—would that have exempted him from the punishment he already deserved beforehand? So what is difficult here anyway?

Dear Moshe, I didn’t understand what was unclear.
I asked the Rabbi, who answered me in his previous comment that not all midrashim describe facts, what the mechanism is according to which one decides when to accept a midrash literally and when not. I would be glad to receive the Rabbi’s response on this point.

See Maimonides’ introduction to the chapter Chelek and the collection of essays at the beginning of volume 21 of Ein Yaakov. In general, one divides according to reason. My starting point is that aggadic midrash does not describe reality (if only because it does not seem that the Sages had a way to know those facts). Certainly when the midrash raises difficulties. To derive difficulties from the assumption that aggadic midrash is factual seems absurd to me. As far as I’m concerned, you need to bring proof that these midrashim are factual.