Free Will | Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz | January 13th 2026

Everybody I hope uh you're well hashem uh the reign should bring fertility to erat is um today the share is dedicated anonymously for the raffle of bascalina may she have a rafu is and then I have a very bit of a strange dedication it is also dedicated anonymously elo nish every nishama from adam harishon until day. Okay. Uh Basm all the namos should have an aliyah and um as I said last week I was not here. Uh although if I had a choice I should have cancelled this week probably probably instead of last week but okay I didn't want to do I didn't want to do two weeks uh two weeks in a row. uh but uh as I indicated we were going to digress a little bit to talk about the Rambam but but not necessarily so much of what he's talking about in the letters uh in his letters to Yoseph Ben Yehuda his beloved Talmud as well as Yoseph Iban Jabar who was if you remember he was the less educated person who was very very devoted to the Rambam. Uh the Rambam briefly touches on an issue of fatalism which was very very important in Islamic philosophy and that is the notion that God decrees everything that's going to happen to you and as a result whatever you do never makes a difference. Uh the the fatalism would basically mean uh if you put yourself in a dangerous situation if you cross against the light if you cross in the middle of traffic. So here's the story. uh God determines if you live and die and uh if uh you're supposed to die, you're going to die even if you stay at home. And if you're going to live, you're going to live even if you go through the traffic. And as a result, uh the fatalistic position uh took the uh had the understanding that any outcome in your life is not at all affected by your actions whatsoever. It will either happen or it will not happen. This is was a a theme in Islamic philosophy, a very highly deterministic uh system. Uh and of course the Rambam negates that and the Rambam brings actually biblical proofs to this point. Uh the Rambam points out that we are told for example in a time of war uh a person who betrothed a woman and did not yet consummate the marriage was sent home. Why? lest he die in war and another man will take his wife. Right? If he had a vineyard and had not had not yet enjoyed the fruit once again he is sent home. By the way, just we're not discussing today. Keep in mind that those exemptions at the end of parim are only referring to optional non-defensive wars of expansion. when something is a muhammed mitzvah such as fighting an enemy that's trying to destroy your people there are no exemptions and that would get us in turn to discussion of guidos the students and the like again this is not the time to talk about this uh but I just want to bely accurate that the exemptions from mil to rash which are called optional wars which we cannot conduct today because you need a son It does not apply to defensive wars. Okay. But be it as it may, uh the Rambam is not addressing that particular point. But the Rambam's point is if we see don't go to war lest you be killed. The implication would be that if you go to war something might happen that would not happen had you not gone to war. So obviously the Rambam says uh that obviously human decisions determine divine outcomes. It may very well be that God decrees if you'll live or you'll die because there are people who go to war and survive and people who go to war and die. So it may very well be determined by God. But God is interacting with the decisions that human beings make. Meaning if you put yourself in a dangerous situation, God may decide you're not worthy of divine providence or whatever it might be. Or God may decide for whatever reason that you're worthy. But the way God interacts with you is a function of the decisions that you make. And therefore the Rambam says the notion that a given divine outcome will happen irrespective of what you decide to do is simply facious because God's decision making is bound up with human uh decision- making. Now uh this is very important. I mean this is the key to why you have to be responsible. This is why one takes care of their health. Uh this is the meaning relevant today of a statement in the Gomorrah. Uh everybody knows the statement everything is in the hands of heaven except the decision to fear God. Everyone that's a very familiar statement but there's a little bit of a less familiar statement that says everything is in the hands of God except for colds and fevers. uh which basically means that a person uh can get sick because of the behaviors that they engage in. Now that doesn't mean it's not from God but it means God is interacting based on the choices or the even the circum even if it's not a choice the circumstances that a person is placed in. So that's a very important idea because that really takes out this element of this this passive fatalism that whatever I do doesn't make a difference. It certainly makes a difference. Now one has to understand that the Rambam is telling us uh an additional aspect of human free will because everyone admits well the Islamic wouldn't admit but going back to the first statement everything is in the hands of heaven except the decision to fear God and that's a very well-known statement rich poor healthy sick that's God but the decision to do moral choices. That's up to you. So certainly every Jewish authority basically acknowledges that in the realm of morality we are free agents. We choose to serve God or not to serve God. But the Rambam is extending it that it is lavka in the realm of moral choice. It also encompasses the consequences that flow from the natural order of things putting yourself in a dangerous situation. Which means the Rambam is greatly enlarging the idea of desay of free will that it encompasses not only morality, goodness and evil which is its core value but it even encompasses circumstances that the circumstances that you place yourself in may affect the things that happen to you in your in your life. So that that is a broadening of the notion of of of of free will. Now the rambug discusses the moral aspect of free will not so much this behavioral aspect uh but the moral aspect of free will is discussed in the laws of chuva the laws of repentance again I I hope I'm being clear meaning in in the letters to yosephuda the Rambam actually is not discussing the moral autonomy of free will the Rambam is simply discussing discussing that the circum irstances that one places oneself can determine one's fate. That that's really a separate issue. But in hila's chila the Rambam is largely concerned with the moral choices that people make and this is called free will and um the Rambam's position is very very clear that the very fact that the Tyra has a reward and punishment system presupposes human autonomy, human responsibility, human accountability. The Rambam's argument is if I am pre-programmed to behave a certain way then I don't deserve reward if I behaved in a proper way and I don't deserve any punishment if I behaved in a negative way. It was not a result of my choices. Moreover, given the fact that the purpose of a reward and punishment system is largely to act as a carrot and a stick, encouragement and deterrence. In the absence of free will, the encouragements are not going to encourage. And the deterrence are not going to deter because you're going to behave the way you behave no matter what. So the Rambam says it is inherently logical. is a logical necessity that at least in the moral realm which is not referring to getting coals and the like that's a separate issue but at least in the moral realm we are free agents we are as as the poem goes the captains of our ship the masters of our fate and yes God determines outcomes but the outcomes are connected to the choices that we make God has contingency plans if you choose xyz this will happen. If you choose another course of action, this will happen. But the the choice of your course of action is your own. I think I mentioned forgive me for repeating that uh when by Rosh Shiva would ask us if we were going to learn well and we would say if God wills we will learn well. He always would say that is the wrong answer. One should not say if God wants you to learn. God certainly wants you to learn. You should say, "If I want to learn, I'll learn well because these are my decisions. These are my decisions." Now, why does the Rambam discuss in the laws of repentance? So again uh seems to be a very simple idea that bira is both the reason why I must do chuva and it is the reason why I can do chuva. Once again in the absence of free will what obligation would I have to repent over my actions? I'm not responsible for them. And from another angle, in the absence of free will, how would I be able to change the course of my life? So, bakira enters into the picture with respect to chuva in two different ways. It creates the moral obligation to do chuva and it creates the empirical possibility of doing chuva. Free agent, free will. And the Rambam uses language that to some degree might be regarded as hyperbolic. The Rambam says every person can be as righteous as Mosha Rabenu. That's pretty good. And as evil as Yuravan Benat who was the first king of the 10 tribes who was considered to be a very degenerate person. Although actually he started off righteous but eventually the power corrupted him. As a little aside raises the question, okay, I got it. There's there's free will. I could be righteous. Okay, we accept all of that. Uh but come on, I could be as great as Mosher Rabenu. That seems a little exaggerated especially when the Torah says there will never be a prophet as great as Mosher Rabum. So Vasman offers a very beautiful explanation based on a comment of the Radak. Radak is Rabid Kimi. He was a reishonne in the uh in the 11 in the 12th century who wrote com very famous commentaries on Tanakh. Radak is one of the great mafia and in the beginning of Yoshua when it says Moshe Moshe the of Hashem died and Yeshua took over. So theak has a fascinating comment. Why is Moshe called Ev Hashem? What is the phrase servant of God? So the says there's actually a connotation in being an a slave. Whatever a slave acquires belongs to the master. If a slave finds a diamond ring in the street, of course, if he doesn't tell the master, the master won't know. But technically, the diamond ring that the ev finds does not belong to the EV. It belongs to the master. This is a well-known principle. So in Hashem is someone who takes whatever attainments they were given and devotes it totally to the service of God. So Moshe was called Evan Hashem because whenever he was he gave back to God. This is the radat. So says when the Rambam makes the otherwise hyperbolic statement that every person can be as righteous as Mosha Rabenu, he doesn't mean objectively we can attain the level of Mosher Rabenu. We don't have the talents, we don't have the abilities, we don't have the gifts. But just as whatever gifts Mosher Rabenu had, he gave back to God. Whatever gifts each and every one of us has, we give back to God. So we're the same hem. In other words, Hashem kind of grades on a curve. Uh, Hashem judges us not based on our objective achievements, but Hashem judges us as to how much of our potential was realized. So, I'm going to just make up meaningless numbers just just to illustrate this arithmetically. So, let's imagine someone has 100 gallons of potential. I I know that's a meaningless statement. and someone else has 10 gallons of potential. Uh so the guy that has actualized his 100 gallons has given 100% of his potential to God and the guy that actualized his 10 gallons has given 100% of his potential to God. So in a sense one might say they are equal because both of them has given whatever they have to even though one person has 10 times more accomplishment. So therefore the Rambam statement is not saying objectively I could be as great as Moshu Rabenum but it means I too have the same capacity to be an a Hashem. Now this is very very important. I mean it's an important lesson for parents to kind of communicate to their children because obviously in a classroom setting for example there are different levels of talents right there might be some kids who are brilliant in Gomorrah and some kids that are not doing so well and I know we like to give lip service to the idea that as long as you're trying your best that's fine but you know the truth of the matter is unfortunately that doesn't always translate into the real world because one kid will get 100, one kid will get, you know, 50 and he's not going to get 100 because of the effort. But it's important to understand that in God's book that in fact is a reality. You are judged not by your objective accomplishment. You are judged by how much of your potentiality did you realize and actualize and activate and dedicate to our bul in a good way. In fact, let me give you a fascinating story from the Gomorrah that illustrates this idea. The Gomorrah discusses a story about the son of Rab Yeshua bin Levy who clinically died. I guess today we would describe him as having a near-death experience. And his soul apparently went up to Olam Haba. And when he was revived, his father asked him, "What did you see up there?" And he responded, "I saw an upside down world. I saw a topsyturvy world. The big shots, the important people in this world were in an inferior position. And the less significant people of this world were elevated. Everything was reversed. The important people were La Mata and the unimportant people seemingly were Lala, an upside down world. And bin Levy told him, "You got your directions wrong. This is an upside down world. What you saw is the world of truth." that do is often called ol the world of truth. Now there is a great great aaron in the time of of Yoseph Cairo. In fact he was invas of Yoseph Cairo. He's known as the Mabit. Mabit is an abbreviation. Mosha ben Yoseph Trani the Mabid was the head of the bast invat when Yseph Cairo was the R. And although it's not our subject uh they didn't always get along. They had some very very very bitter strong in and at one point Kairo threatened to put the mid in because the mid did not accept a ruling of Yoseph Kairo. So their relationship was a bit stormy but that again that's not so important now but the mabit uh of course everybody knows the author of the but the mid himself was one of the very very highly regarded postkim of the time and in addition he wrote a very interesting book on Jewish philosophy which is not studied that much it's called the baselim the house of god and In the hakama to the bloim he quotes this story about Yoshua bin Levy and he raises the following question. What does the sun mean when he says the big important powerful people in this world were relegated to an inferior position in the world to come? If he means rich, politically well-connected, then what is his incredulinity? In other words, why would you have a havina that just because somebody was rich and powerful in this world that that should count? In other words, what is he so surprised if it refers to simply material material accomplishments? So, because of this, the mitz says a fascinating thing. When the son referred to the big people were inferior he means big people who achieved more spiritually and the example he gave my numbers might be off but let's imagine a person has the potential person is a brilliant person he has the potential to learn 100 p pages of kumar a day 100 blood a day that's very impressive that would mean he would finish the whole tom every month and Another person is much less gifted. He struggles to do a page a week. Now, let's imagine the guy that learns 100 blot a day is so far ahead of everybody else that he figures, you know, I don't have to do 100 blood a day. I'll do 50 blot a day. And that's still very very impressive. Super impressive. That's kind of the rate of the Vil Nagon. I I I think the vil nagon himself did 100 blood a day. That was the vil nagon's thing. But okay, 50 blood a day is pretty good. So we look at these two people. One guy is doing 50 blood a day. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. And we say, "What a goon. What an Eloy. What a what a learner. Phenomenal." And this other guy who does one page a week, we say, "Well, he has a good heart. He has good intentions, but you know, he's not really accomplishing much in Allah. The guy who does one blood a week is going to be held in higher esteem than the person who does 50 blood a day. Why? Because the guy who does 50 blood a day is only giving God 50% of what he could and the other guy is closer to 100%. And that was the that is what the the child could not understand. Somebody who was learning so many so much more Torah than the other person. Why would he be on a lower level? Because he gave less of his potential to the right. So when the Rambam says going back to when the Rambam says every person could be as righteous as Mosenu, it refers to being relative to your and the like. And again as I say this actually is an important message. to communicate uh to our children even to ourselves and that is Hashem truly truly truly values your efforts more than your accomplishments. Everybody has different potentials and there are reasons you know why didn't God make everybody a genius you know who knows but Hashem needs everybody that connection for forgive me for digressing because I do have a main point I want to get back to but I'll tell you a a cute story about uh not Tuscanini Tuscanini yeah Tuscanini Artur Tuscanini was a conductor a musical prodigy uh and The story goes that he was um at some point uh NBC actually had a very very good symphony orchestra in the 1950s and it doesn't sound like impressive today conductor of the NBC symphony but in fact he was and it was a fairly prestigious um musician and there was a reporter who wanted to interview Tuscanini and ask him about his work. Tosskanini said, "Well, he has a cold. He's not going out and uh tonight he has to listen. There's a big performance of his symphony orchestra and he's going to listen by radio so he cannot be disturbed. But if the reporter just wants to sit and watch him, he gave him rash, but not a word should be said. So he comes to Tuscanini's apartment in in Manhattan and Tuskanini is sitting in front of those remember those old radios look in the 50s those big big tall radios and the sound quality was not very good and this was a two-hour performance and Tuskanini is bent forward listening intently his eyes are closed and the reporter says nothing for two hours and at the end of the two hours Tuskanini said, "How come there were only 14 violins? There's supposed to be 15 in the violinist section." So the reporter said, "I cannot believe this. This is an ace. Uh the radio doesn't even have good sound quality, and you can tell the difference between 14 violins and 15 violins. I don't believe this is possible." So the reporter actually went to the first violinist in the orchestra and said, "How many violins were playing tonight?" So the first violinist said, "Well, we normally have 15, but right before the performance, one of the violinists called up and said he couldn't make it." And I figured nobody would know the difference anyway. 14, 15, no difference. So the reporter said, "Well, somebody did notice uh that was your boss. That was the conductor, Tuscanini." So he goes back to Tuscanini and says, "Ru, you know, equivalent, amazing. How did this happen? So, Tuscanini said the following. Tuskanini said, "You know, it could very well be that almost nobody in the audience even noticed the difference. 14 to 15 violins, you know, most people don't even notice. But when you're a conductor, you realize everything is important, everything contributes. When something is off, something is not there. the whole performance is degraded in some way and that's my job. So the mush that's given is Hashem is the conductor of the universe and a person looks at themselves and says I don't matter who am I. uh there are people who are great and brilliant and accomplished and you know I'm not necessarily there or whatever I'm just a a small little cog and yet to the conductor like Tuskanini everything matters so why hashem created such a diversity of talent or a range of talent is a bit of a mystery we don't really know but somehow the world needs the simplest person as much as much as it needs the greatest person that somehow all of this is necessary for the completion of God's plan and in the standard of judgment it is not the objective importance of what we accomplish it is how much of our potential did we utilize to serve hashem and the mabit writes in the that is the meaning of elonim lala I'm sorry. The big shots were inferiorim and the inf the so-called less important people so-called willa or in the place of honor. So as I say this can be a very very important message to communicate to children and even to ourselves when we sometimes feel that we're not accomplishing as much as other people. You know we get jealous or we feel bad and the like. It's important to understand that we do our best and ultimately remember this goes back to what Hashem told Cayenne all the way back first murder. Cayenne is upset because God accepts these sacrifices of heaven his brother and God says what are you upset? You do your best I will accept your offering. You do your best, say you will be uplifted. That's the only thing Hashem can require of us. Nothing else. That goes back again. I can talk about this a lot. I want to get back to the Rambam, but this is why for the construction of the Mishkan and every year a person has to give a half shekele towards the Corbanote of the Mishkan and later the Ba Mikdaf. And the Torah makes the point the poor does not give less and the rich does not give more. Has to be equal. Now I understand why the poor cannot give less minimum contributions but I've never heard of a schol saying rich people cannot give more or yeshiva. And yet when it comes to the maintenance of the ba mikt rich cannot give more than poor. And one of the metaphorical understandings is that rich and poor is not only a matter of money but rich and poor means attainments. There are people who are rich in attainments and people who are relatively poor in attainments. But in terms of access to God, they stand with equality of access. They are equal in the eyes of Hashem because Hashem judges you based on the potentiality that you have and how much of it have you given him. And that's the Rambam's reference. Each person can be as great as Mosha Rabenu in that particular way. Now the subject of free will is an immensely complicated uh subject. Um and there are so many different things we can point out about them. But let me start with um a very interesting point that Rabbi Desler makes from Leo Desler Mio who's really of the 20th century. And the problem basically is the Rambam seems to portray free will as existing irrespective of your circumstances and instantaneously you can decide to be righteous or to be evil and as a result you are accountable every second for not being a righteous person. The question is empirically, just realistically, how true is that? Are we not products of the cumulative experiences that we had? What does God expect of the drug addict or the alcoholic lying in the gutter? Does God say, "Why aren't you in the mirror yeshiva right now?" Does God expect that all of a sudden he will get up, clean off his jacket and say, "Okay, I'm going to dyomi and a person was abused, a person went through many many other experiences in life that brought them to a certain place. How does bakira work under those circumstances?" So Rev Destler offers a very significant modification to the Rambam. Again, the Rambam seems to look at as an onoff switch. turn it on, turn it off without looking so to speak that a person might be on some level a victim of the cumulative circumstances of their life as well as their genetics but just in terms of circumstances. So Rebes introduces an idea that is called theat, the fulcrum of choice, the fulcrum, the balance point, the tipping point of choice. And he points out the following. When we look and again we're not dealing with circumstantial like crossing against the leg. We're talking about moral choices, goodness choices, virtuous choices or nonverirtuous choices. If we look at our lives, there are many areas of choice that are behind us and many areas of choice that are yet in front of us. For example, the Torah says don't kill or don't murder a Seras. Now, most of us are not particularly struggling with that, you know, if if you were to be asked what good thing did you do yesterday? Well, I didn't kill anybody. Well, okay, that but you know, we wouldn't necessarily give you credit. On the other hand, if you had psychopathic tendencies and you literally had to control yourself against violence because you knew that this was no good, saying you didn't kill today might be deserving of a lot of credit. So for most of us, and of course I'm not addressing the issue embarrassing somebody publicly is also murder. Okay? But putting that aside, there are moral choices which were either never in the realm of our struggle or at least we've passed them. They're behind us. Now, kash might be such an example. A person is in the process of becoming religious, but they just can't wean themselves away from cheeseburgers. So they don't have bacon, they don't have ham, but cheeseburgers they have to have. So the day that they can walk by a cheeseburger place and not have a cheeseburger is a significant accomplishment. It is a choice and they exercise their on the other hand somebody who was born raised as kosher or or a person has been religious for many years that's a choice that's behind them. It's no longer in their to-do file. It's no longer in their active file. Now, those are examples of choices, theoretical choices that are behind us, meaning they're no longer part of our active spiritual agenda. Conversely, there may be moral choices that are presently beyond us. How much time dedicated to Torah learning, etc. We're not there yet. We're not yet ready for that. Between those two extremities, the choices that are behind us and the choices that are ahead of us is the active engagement you have where you can go either way. You're in the position where it could go either way. And that is your fulcrum. That is your tipping point. That is your and says God judges us. Once again, it goes back to to what I said a few moments ago. Not based on some objective are we sadikim, are we rashim, but based on our personality, based on our experiences, based on the cumulative effect of all the inputs of our lives, God expects that we make be able to make certain choices. And those and only those are the decisions for which we will be held accountable. So the drug addict is not going to be held accountable for not going to the mir yesa. But even in his addiction he has the choice to go to a rehabilitation center to take that step. It is that step that is his bakira obligation. His bakira obligation is not be a sadic. He's not able to do that. But his bira obligation is take the step that you can at every juncture in life. There is a step that one can take in the right direction as small as it might be. So this I think is an extremely important actually probably modification of the Rambam's notion of because the Rambam seems to ignore uh cumulative experiences. The Rambam seems to ignore the circumstances that a person is in and the Rambam simply asserts you can always make a choice. Rev. Desler is saying yes you can always make a choice but the choice may be severely circumscribed by the circumstances that you're in but your accountability will be predicated on the nikuda the point at which you can make a choice. So as I say that's a pragmatic idea and a very helpful idea and that is there is always a choice to be made and that choice will advance you. Now obviously what that means is as a person grows spiritually the fulk moves meaning issues which we were actively struggling with may recede and become behind us and then we have new issues. Suffice it to say that God never runs out of challenges. meaning to say no matter how far we advance, no matter how many issues are behind us, there will be new issues in front of us that we have to confront. So the is a very dynamic concept. It moves with you as you progress in your life or regress in your life either way. But at whatever point there will be a new nikuda, a new tipping point, a new fulcrum in which you could go either way. Uh, and God only holds you accountable for those areas where you could go either way. You're not going to necessarily get rewarded because you didn't murder anybody. And you may not necessarily be held to account because of choices that are beyond your madrega. But in that active area, which we can't always define, that is where the action is. that is where the the judgment is. So I think the is a very very worthwhile uh commentary on the Rambam although I'm not sure the Rambam himself would agree with it. Now a second issue is the apparent contradiction between moral free will and divine omnipotence. Omnipotence simply means God is all powerful. There is no force in the universe that can go against the divine will. omnipotent. So here we have a problem. Human free will is on that level, excuse me, a contradiction to divine omnipotence because when I kill somebody or I violate shabas or I violate kashas, I am doing something that is against the will of God. How can a human being do something that is against the will of God? That itself is a contradiction to divine omnipotence. Indeed, that was one of the Islamic arguments against free will and that is it contradicts the omnipotence of God. effect they took the position free will is a heretical idea because it denies divine omnipotence by positing a power that can violate the will of God. So on this the Rambam himself offers an answer. It all depends by what you mean the will of God. If we ask the question, does God want me to violate the shabas? The answer surely is, God does not want me to violate the shabas. But if we ask the question, does God want me to have the ability to violate the shabbas? The answer is yes. So in a sense, God himself made this rule. God himself, so to speak, tied his hands to give me the freedom to make choices against his will. But that itself is the divine will. In other words, you can't make the argument that my making choices against God's will is a contravention of God's will. It is God's will that I be empowered to make choices against his will. So at a higher level it is God's will. Now why is that? So so again I mean the answer is that goodness is goodness. Virtue is virtue only when it's chosen and not when it's compelled. So if from God's perspective he wants to create a universe of optimal virtue. optimal virtue, he has to create it in a way that human beings have the capacity for evil because virtue that is not coupled with choice is not virtuous. It is simply mechanical. So put that way, evil is a necessary evil. In other words, evil is necessary for the fing of good. Now this is in two different ways. Number one, free will facilitates virtuous choice. And then there's another way of looking at it which is really Victor Frankle's um thesis. I mean he didn't invent it and that is it is often evil that is the mechanism for bringing out qualities of goodness that would otherwise be dormant. Again, he he in his famous book, Man's Search for Meaning, and in his um psychological school logootherapy, he makes the point that sometimes it is precisely in our confrontation with tragedy and with evil that we develop qualities of heroism, generosity, kindness, and self-sacrifice that would otherwise not have and actualized. So evil is a mechanism by which goodness comes into the world. Not all I mean not always because we have free will on that too. But at least potenti potentially evil can be the crucible. Of course we you know I mean we see this um sadly we see this in aritral all the time the responses of people to very very difficult tragic plights and there's a certain heroism that gets developed in that in that in that context. So as a result, that's question number one. Is free will a contradiction to divine omnipotence? And the short answer is it is the divine will itself that we be empowered to violate his will. But that's his will because that is how goodness can be maximized, optimalized in this world. Okay. So that's question number one. Question number two is free will a contradiction to divine omniscience? Again, be sure you know the difference. I'm I'm sure you do, between these two phrases. Omnipotence means all powerful. Omniscience refers to God knowing knowing the future outcomes of things. Now, traditionally, Judaism believes that God is both omnipotent and omnisient in the sense that God knows the future. So, this is the famous question. I'm sure you may have raised the question even as children and your children and grandchildren probably ask you the question even today that is the old paradox that if God knows the future then how can it be said that I have choice in other words let's assume you say I got up Monday morning and I had whether I would um davin this morning or on now. God knew yesterday what I would do today. God knew it a year ago. God knew it 10 years ago. God knew it 10 billion years ago. So if God already knew what I would do, infinitely prior to my decision-making point, then in what way could I could it be said, I have this unfettered free will? Monday morning in 5786 in in in in Taves when God knew what the decision would be. This is a again a well-known conundrum of divine omniscience. Now the Rambam asked the question again the Rambam himself asked the question and the Rambam gives an answer which they say only a philosopher's mother would would love. Uh the bottom line is he says it's an impossible question. That's really his answer. But the way he gets around it is a bit intricate. The Rambam says that one of our fundamental beliefs is God is an indivisible unity. Now this is a very abstract idea. I mean if you look at a human being maybe I'm one person but as one person I can be divided. There are my fingers, there are my legs. Uh there's the brain. The brain itself has different components. So a human being might be a unitary being, but he's not a simple unity. He's a compound unity. God's unity is something we're not even familiar with and it's almost indescribable. And that is God is not composed of parts or functionalities. Every everything is to totally one. This is called which means a simple unity. That means unlike a human being whose knowledge can be separated from an essence, what I know and what I am are two different things. God's knowledge is the same as God's essence because God is not divisible. Therefore, the Rambam says, how do you reconcile God's knowledge with free will can only be answered if you understood God's essence? Because God's essence and God's knowledge are the same. And since you can't understand God's essence, you can't understand God's knowledge. So the Ram is basically saying, I don't have an answer, but he's trying to tell you philosophically why answering this question is impossible. Because God's knowledge is the same as God's essence. God's essence cannot be fathomemed. Therefore, God's knowledge cannot be fathomemed. The rivet was perhaps understandably I uh with the Rambam's non-answer and the rivet in his typically a Serbic pungent way says if you can't answer a question don't bother asking it. But in truth, in truth some have tried to offer a little bit of explanation in the Rambam's enigmatic answer and that is God is above time. That's really the problem. See the problem basically is we live in a dimension of life in which there is past, present, future. We live in a temporal existence. And from our perspective, the past has already taken place and the future hasn't happened yet and we're in the present, the present moment. If you live in a temporal existence, then the question is a good question. Look at the words. If God already, note the word already. If God already knows already knows what I'm going to decide, then by the time I make the decision, I don't have a choice anymore. Right? That's the question. But the fallacy is use of the word already because you're you're presupposing that God knows the future a billion years ago that within a temporal framework God in the past knows the future but God is above time. So from God's perspective, although this is also going to be a temporal language, past, present, future are concurrent realities. Although the word concurrent itself is is not the best word to use here. If that's the case, then God knowing the future is simply observing a present moment. Again, I'm mixing my language here. For example, if I see you actually dominating on Monday, I'm not influencing your choice. I'm just observing the choice you're making. So God's knowledge a billion years ago of what I'm doing today is no different than an observer of the present moment who is aware of the choice that was made but in no way is is influencing. In other words, the whole question only begins if you assume that the past took place prior to the to the present. But if everything is a concurrent reality that God is above time, uh then indeed God is observing a present moment and therefore within the realm of time, I'm sorry, once you're outside the realm of time, omniscience and free will are no longer in conflict. Now I do want to point out this idea that we assume is axiomatic that God knows the future and you know that's kind of basic Judaism is interestingly enough not accepted by everybody. There was a great Jewish philosopher very controversial Rambag Ra bender and it's interesting Rabb is interesting because Rabb is almost a dual personality and Rambag wrote commentaries on Nath regarded very accepted every mro the do has the Ralag's commentary so perfectly fine and yet his philosophical books are really really really really controversial >> name again >> ravi Ben Gersam Gerson Ralbag uh and not only that his commentary on the Torah it's interesting somehow his commentary on the VM and Kuven he tended to be more conventional his commentary on the Torah indeed is infused with a lot of his radical philosophy which is precisely why the commentary on the Torah never received the popularity of his commentaries on the VM kudum. It's almost like there are two real bugs. Maybe there are. I don't know. Two real bugs as it were. By the way, he was also an astronomer and I believe there is an asteroid or something that's named after him. What is it called? Something >> a crater. Okay. Okay. Um yeah. Uh so the Albag wrote a his book on philosophy is called Milan Hashem, the wars of God and some critics called it the wars against God. They paraphrase it. They consider it to be a courses. But there he actually makes the argument that who says God knows. Now God can control the future. If God wants to do something, he can do it. But God does not necessarily know the future. And he argues logically. Think about this. God cannot know something that's not yet in existence. There there is no now that depends how you perceive time as well but there is no future until it happens. So what is there for God to know God knows everything in the universe but the future event literally is not yet in existence. So the rabb actually makes the argument that hey God doesn't know the future so you don't have a question so to speak but as they say the Rambam does not go in that direction. The Rambam clearly assumes that God knows the future. Therefore God raises the question of divine omniscience uh versus free will. The Ramom seems to say it's an impossible to answer question. And others interpret this to mean that God is above time. And therefore, when you're not in a temporal sequence, God's knowledge of the future is simply the observer of a choice and not the influencer of the choice at all. Okay, so that's the second question. We did omnipotence. We did omniscience. Now, um I'm going to stop now. We'll continue next week, God willing. Uh but uh the truth of the matter is actually the next question are the biblical questions of God hardening Pyro's heart. Very very relevant Ramos uh for the para of the week, the para of the week. And even though it comes up this week, it'll also be relevant next week. So I I don't feel bad uh deferring it. Uh the notion where biblically God sometimes seems to suspend or terminate free will. And how does that work? And when will that ever be ever be uh justified? Okay. Uh be well and uh stay uh stay Mormon.