R’ Elchanan Wasserman in Koveitz He’Oros points out a different sugya in Sota that also seems to suggest (as discussed yesterday) that Divine foreknowledge poses no contradiction to free choice. The gemara (9b) writes that Shimshon was punished by being blinded because he was led astray by his eyes by being taken in by the sight of Delilah. The gemara asks: we see from the pasuk “v’aviv v’imo lo yad’u ki mei’Hashem hu” that this entire episode was part of the Divine plan to allow Shimshon to strike at the Plishtim – how could Shimshon be punished for what was bound to occur anyway? The gemara answers: “ki azil basar yashrusei azal”; when Shimshon acted, he was following his own desires. Even though there was Divine foreknowledge of events, even though there was a Divine plan for Shimshon to be taken by the Plishtim and ultimately to attack them, Shimshon was not privy to these plans and acted out of free choice.
Using my analogy from yesterday: just as if someone had theoretical foreknowledge of what I will eat for breakfast, it would not prevent my opening the breakfast cabinet and freely choosing which cereal to eat, so too, G-d’s foreknowledge of Shimshon’s actions does not contradict his freedom to act of his own volition.
R’ Elchanan considers this approach to be so sensible that he wonders why it was not suggested by the Rishonim. I assume he is alluding to Rambam in Hil. Tshuvah 5:5 who writes that the entire topic of free will vs. foreknowledge is irreconcilable within the limits of human intelligence. However, it seems to me that his approach is exactly what the Ra'avad meant in his critique of the Rambam when he refers to knowledge of the astrologers having no effect on freedom of action.