One of the famous questions regarding the slavery and oppression of the Jews, and the resulting retribution against the Egyptians is why should Pharaoh be punished for following God’s decree? God tells Avraham that his children will be strangers in a strange land, and serve them for 400 years. Yet in the next verse God assured Avraham that the oppressors will also be judged, and the Jewish people will leave with great wealth (Bereishis 15:13-14).  Why should the Egyptians be punished for merely following the script?

This question has been raised by many, for example Rambam Shemoneh Perakim (8) and Hilchos Teshuva Chapter 6 answers that though God predicted that a nation would enslave the Jews, it did not have to be the Egyptians. They eagerly volunteered, and therefore were liable for their own sins. (I suppose if no nation volunteered, God might have called on a prophet to instruct a suitable nation to do this “Mitzvah”, but it wasn’t necessary.)

The Chida (Rosh Dovid Yisro) uses a section of our Gemara to discuss Pharaoh’s motivations in the enslavement and the divine response.

Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses a situation where an agent performs his task, but does more than asked for.  In such a situation, is the original aspect of the task valid, or is the entire agency invalidated because instructions were not followed?

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זַבֵּין לִי לִיתְכָּא, וַאֲזַל וְזַבֵּין לֵיהּ כּוֹרָא, מַאי? מוֹסִיף עַל דְּבָרָיו הוּא, וְלִיתְכָּא מִיהָא קָנֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא מַעֲבִיר עַל דְּבָרָיו הוּא, וְלִיתְכָּא נָמֵי לָא קָנֵי? 

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one said to his agent: Sell on my behalf a half-kor, and the agent went and sold for him a kor, what is the halakha? Is he considered to be adding to the words of his employer? In that case, though he also performed an action that he was not assigned to do, part of his action was performing his assigned agency, and the buyer at least acquired a half-kor. Or perhaps he is considered to be disregarding his employer’s words, since he did not perform exactly what he was told to do, in which case the entire transaction was performed by his own volition, without the authorization of his employer, and even the half-kor is not acquired by the buyer.

Ultimately the Gemara concludes (99a) that the agency remains valid for the original requested portion, and so rules Shulkhan Arukh (182:8).  However, the Gemara and halakha also rule that in an opposite case, such as the messenger was told to sell a full kur, and he sells a half kur, or even if he sells two half-kurs to two separate people, the entire agency is invalidated.  In this case, the owner can claim that his real intention was abrogated.  The owner’s argument is, the sale of two separate half-kurs makes him look like he is having a panic sale liquidation of his assets, and it devalues his credit in the marketplace.

Thus, we see two halakhic points.  (1) If the agent violated the technical instructions by adding on something, the agency is still valid on the original portion. (2) If in violating the technical instructions there is a valid claim on the owner’s part that shows some loss or thwarting of the entire intention, then the entire agency is revoked.

The Chida suggests that Pharaoh’s claim was as follows: Even if you were to say, we were overly cruel to the Jews, and therefore should be punished, the extent that we were punished financially and physically shows no acknowledgement that we also fulfilled the divine mandate.  The halachic argument is that it is “adding - mosif” onto the agency and not “violating the agency”.  (I am not covering the full derash that the Chida discusses. I am just taking a part of it, you can look it up to see the whole discussion.  Also, this is another example of the fascinating midrashic genre of inserting lomdus into the arguments of Biblical protagonists and even villains, see Psychology of the Daf Yevamos 96.)

However, God refutes Pharaoh’s argument as follows: The extent of the cruelty was not merely an addition to the agency, but it was a violation of the entire intent. This is analogous to the second case we discussed, where the selling of land to two persons was technically accomplishing the task, but causing an unwanted effect that therefore invalidated the entire shelichus.  Here too, the argument is that the cruel enslavement was not an addition to the regular enslavement, but rather an alteration of the entire process. Pharaoh was not acting as an agent for the divine will at all.

Following directions and fulfilling intentions in a relationship is tricky business.  Sometimes we believe we are merely adding something on, but the other feels as if we have completely disrupted the entire mission and purpose.  Real life isn’t talmudic, so we cannot rely on logic or fairness.  The three most important factors to consider are:

1. How clear and assertive is the request?  Is the requester not confident enough and hints or assumes you understand when you don’t?
2. Does the listener have focus issues and is not processing the details mindfully?
3. Is there an element of passive aggressiveness in not following the directions?  If you resent the task or the burden, it is better to be honest with yourself.  Either push back and decline or do it with a full heart.