Rabbi Akiva Tatz - Does My Free Will Affect You?

let's think about a subject in Torah that is particularly demanding one of the most difficult areas of Torah thought what we call my shovel or ash gopher and that's the very difficult problem of how one person's free-willed interacts with another that very thorny philosophical problem Forney religious problem and that is the problem of how if I use my free will to do something that affects you in a way that's inappropriate what happens in other words if I use my free will which is the defining characteristic of the human being right we know that the way the Torah puts it is that the human being is formed but selam aleykum that means in a godly image and the divine image all our deep sources say means that we have free will right that's a very mysterious thing that we can be a cause of our own action and not simply a response of feedback a feedback loop so the most deeply axiomatic feature of the human being is our free will and the problem is one of the problems of free will is that if you use your free will to affect someone else in a way that's not appropriate for their dispensation what will happen if I use my free well let's say I do something dangerous and I get harmed there's no philosophical problem I got harmed because I did something dangerous it's not a not a philosophical problem but if I put you into danger where you don't deserve harm in other words you have a divine dispensation we call that oshkosh gafas means there's a set of decrees in the spiritual world that govern what is your appropriate dispensation what happens if I use my free will to affect you in such a way that goes against what's correct for you right to put it most dramatically what happens if somebody tries to kill someone else who doesn't deserve to die right somebody who has no divine decree of death on him at that point they're not talking about divine knowledge a shams knowledge God's foreknowledge is a completely different subject right that's the classic problem of predestination or foreknowledge and free will that's a myth if possible that's a more difficult subject than the siblings that's another whole issue that's one classic problem in Jewish philosophy and in fact in general philosophy how does predestination or foreknowledge impact on our free will that's one area but the way we put this in informal Torah terms we're not talking about divine knowledge we talking about decrease just to give it a sort of some sort of graphic field if you imagine Hashem God as being somewhere above the ceiling right out of sight but impinge us on the world through a mechanism of interaction let that call at the Zodiac world whatever you want to call it spiritual energies impinging on the world and the channels that come into the world take the form of what's called Zara's divine decrease why that is and how it operates and how they've formed on Rosh Hashanah during the year is a long discussion but there are certain things called decrease and decrease are not strictly immutable right for example prophetic decrees for bad can be changed if because they're conditional as the whole world of understanding of what these divine decree saw that the point to make for now is we're not talking about divine foreknowledge we're talking about decrees well but without going to it more specifically what happens if mr. a is walking down the street and he has no divine decree upon him to die at that time in fact if you interviewed our Shem at that time and you sell a Shem God how do you feel about this person and Hashem would say you know he's cool you know from my point of view it's got 25 more years to live do lots of mitzvahs get married have a family I'm fine with him and at that point mr. B turns the corner tries to kill him we have a problem now because from the one point of view this person does not deserve to die that means it rose up to God he wasn't going to kill him another had been another human beings free will and you're created in the world to use your free will there has to be very real well we have a problem now which is going to which will supplant which will override the other right if you say is no free will to kill him because this person's destiny or whatever the appropriate word would be the decree upon this person is not to die now then you're pulling the teeth of the power of the free will of this agent if on that hand you say that he could kill him there's something desperately unfair about that that means his free will is very real but the person's dying completely inappropriately I mean that's very very strange that's the dilemma right so let's let's take a look at this very difficult subject which of these principles is gonna soften are we going to say that you don't have free will to affect anyone else you only have an illusion of free will are we going to say that you do have free will and did your divine dispensation the way I was dealing with you and what you deserve in the world is somehow unreliable or somehow somehow because someone else put you at risk how do we approach this subject classic problem in Torah thought very badly misunderstood subject a lot of the stuff you'll read about this is his miss misrepresented let me give you a scenario fascinating setting on which to build this subject stay with me carefully because in our logic settings every nuance can make a major difference to the output and here's the scenario long time ago more than a hundred years ago a certain very learner rabbi happened to be visiting a an expo you're not like a commercial fair I think it was in Leipzig and he found himself in a very strange dilemma if you'd like to look this up it's in the Pisco chamber Greta logic comment on the Shannara in question mishpat you dress he actually analyzes this question but I'm gonna give you some more background that he doesn't he doesn't mention there and but look it up you'll find it fascinating this is what he says this well-known and major Thomas Holcomb great rabbinic thinker was visiting this particular place and the procedure there was that if people had a financial dispute they would make a based in they make a Jewish court that caught up three people to form a tribunal and the litigants would present their cases in the tribunal the judges would issue a ruling in fact the non-jews their you subject themselves to the same arbitration that was the way it was done to Jews on this particular occasion had some financial dispute and so they considered based in what did they do they come up to two Jews who were happened to be there at the time to be judges on the westin and for the third judge they put him on the best and he was a very accepted knowledgable halakha figure he happened to be there there was no where they could choose somebody else and so the three of them said you know the rule of a best deals you have always have done odd number of people right you can never have an even number of people one American Jewry has twelve people I've never never figured out rights is a recipe for trouble you have always an odd number so that can never be a hung decision and therefore the minimum numbers three and so they made a based in and the two Jews began to present their cases and this rabbi writes as follows he says that it became immediately apparent to him that the other two judges were colluding dishonestly against the innocent party and they were going to lie in their vote and he would be carried along with the miscarriage of justice they were going to there was clearly they were biased in favor of one of the litigants they were going to vote on his favor the money would change has be complete miscarriage of justice there's nothing he could do because in Jewish law all you can do is vote well he's gonna vote is they're gonna advert him and not only that but he'll be carried along involved in that because how logically when the best in issues are ruling it comes down as a Fiat of the whole base did you know for example if the three of us are sitting on the Westin and we judge in your case and they vote against me I'm forbidden to go to you afterwards and say I was on your side but the advert will be not disclose that in Jewish law in other words the decision comes as you as if it was the unanimous decision of the best thing and therefore he would be carried along in this travesty of justice and that was the problem say what could he do he thought himself he had two options one option was to vote which means that he'd vote for the truth now the to advert him and the vote would carry in the favor of a dishonest result and he'd be party yet but yet another option the other option was to say I don't know because the the color of Jewish law says that if one of the judges on the base Dean says I don't know the case is closed all you co-opted two more or you start again but basically the case then ends because you now left with only two active judges that's an even number of judges and that's an invalid based in and therefore he could have gotten out of the problem by saying I don't know but his moral dilemma was that in order to say I don't know you would have had to lie because he didn't know say thought it so what am I supposed to do and we're supposed to now say the truth and have a falsehood result or should I say false to have the truth result then amazing question see in Jewish law the question is what is the truth very sophisticated question right in he is the truth the naked technical meaning of the words or is the truth contextual so in Jewish law the truth is always contextual you can't get away with the legalistic meaning of the words you're sitting at home the phone rings or wife picks it up from the tone of voice you hear that this is somebody you definitely don't want to speak to so this is what you do you step out across the doorway and you say and your wife says I'm sorry is that would you say that's a lie or the truth it's technically true but in Jewish law it's a lie it's a worse liar than remaining in the room and saying I'm not available because the question is not asking which side of the doorstep your husband's Danny that's not the meaning of the question you can't get out of it when that technicality right and therefore in Jewish law if you want to look this up by the way this is all based on Yaakov saying that he's a sob when Yaakov said he was a self right technically speaking he was lying but in truth he was a SAP here taken over that persona he bought it I a mess of your firstborn I have those rights I've bought there's a very fascinating area needs to look it up at a lot of a lucky discussion about that but the question is here what is called the truth and therefore to vote for the truth and have falsehood result is one option but to cite false which is I don't now and have a greater truth result man marry this man that's correct so he says there and he wrote this question for biscaia who analyzes it so he said he's dead he's dead thought about it he thought to himself maybe there's a precedent in the game or your mama says what happens in the following scenario let's say of the Sanhedrin you know for a capital trial in Judaism you need like 23 judges or 71 judges are many many rules you need many conditions for the great Sun heavy in their judges capital cases what happens in the following scenario let's say you have someone if this man is on trial for his life and you are the gentleman of the Sunday time showing you all duly qualified a logically and you are going to sit and constitute this tribunal that's going to try this man for his life now you know that the laws of capital cases in Judaism are very extreme you know that you have all sorts of stringencies it's virtually impossible to get a death sentence intuitional for example you don't need a simple majority to convict you need more than that many many preconditions but one of them is this they used to sit in a semi-circle that's how they set so they call see each other and when the case was finally heard and and the arguments were concluded they began the vote and they always voted from the junior to the senior right they voted from the most junior member of the Sanhedrin through to the most senior was the reason for that they didn't want anyone to be influenced by prior senior opinion so they voted in order of seniority so imagine you you you're gonna be the junior on this I mean you have to be major to be on the sanhedrin okay and we're gonna go around in order and you're gonna be in the final you don't mind giving you're gonna be the final black belt tenth den you know roofless shippers has a great great genius of a generation they start voting now there's a remarkable condition here that the non-jewish world does not have and that is that you need a majority to convict yeah not just a majority you need more than a majority of one to convict but there's a remarkable quirk here that the non-jewish world doesn't have and that is that there's one particular proportion of majority to convict that in fact the quits there's one particular proportion that if that proportion of majority says guilty right that unique proportion in fact paradoxically it cuts the accused what proportion is that unanimous if there's a unanimous verdict that is guilty he's free makes sense well the logic is there's a lot to talk about here but one one theme here is this that if nobody could think of anything is in defense there's something wrong with this case first of all all Jews agreeing but all Jews agreeing I mean it definitely something wrong with that I mean this no no okay but the theory is that somebody has to argue in his favor somebody's got to try out right say something in his defense if there's no one to speak in his defense then in fact paradoxically he gets acquitted there's got to be somebody who says innocent enough imagine this mess on trial for his life and the voting begins guilty death guilty guilty execute guilty guilty guilty every single member the Sanhedrin says guilty until he's to speak and he knows that demands guilty do you see the problem if he speaks the truth and he says guilty this man walks free actually technically and halakha doesn't walk free but he doesn't get one of the four classic death sentences that they that the Talmud yeah it requires at the capital cases he would walk three murders different but be that as it may so now everyone said guilty and there's one vote left if he says guilty which is the truth this man is acquitted which is wrong so what should he do should the last dine on the Sanhedrin should he say guilty which is the truth and have a man who's guilty walk free or should he stay in sent to have him convicted which is the truth the Rambam writes he must speak the truth a judge has to judge in Jewish law the female Marcia enough rice has to judge what is I see and if he says guilty yes to say guilty this man walks free that's his problem not ours that's what he rules so he thought himself if that's true I know what I have to do in my case as you said and if I have to speak the truth and the Pisgah Shiva says wrong the two K's are not parallel now to understand why they are not parallel let's take a little detour and go through some of the areas of this fascinating question of whether one person's free will in fact affect others there have been two approaches suggested to this I'd like to try to convince you that either one of them is correct but if you look in the modern literature on this logic literature you'll see two approaches to this presented and I think very often mistakenly one of them is presented as as valid or even the dominant opinion but there's no question there are two possible approaches to this question one approach is that you never affect anyone else at all all you can ever do is act but you never are the author of the outcome right in other words the only possible interpretation of a killing B is that B was going to die then anyway that means a is guilty for pulling the trigger for making the choice and pulling the trigger and all the legal consequences applies go no question that the legal consequences apply but he never caused the death it wasn't going to happen otherwise that means the truth of the situation is B was going to die then anyway only eight chose to be the agent but we have a principle called a alibi should look him the mocking Hashem has many agents and have had not been for be pulling the trigger a scorpion would have thing he would have got a heart attack a brick would have fallen off the building a bus would have come around the quarantine something would have happened and he would have died in that's one possible approach which means that you never do something to someone else that's not fair deserved all you can possibly choose to do is to be the agent but I hadn't been you it would have been somebody else but that's one possibility and superficially there are sources that seem to say that for example the classic source of all is Rosario GaN when you look his writings he says something dramatically clearer and as succinct you know in those days they spoke very short and very very clear and he says something exquisitely cleared he says according to this approach when somebody dies all that happens is a death becomes a murder isn't it beautiful you can't say it more clearly than that right the death was gonna happen anyway that's called a murder had you not pull the trigger you would at that know instead of dying you got murdered but he would have died then anyway he says two things he says that if somebody kills somebody else all that happens is that death becomes a murder and he somebody steals from someone else well that happens it's a lust became a theft but had you not had he not stolen it the person would lost the money anyway because you can't do something to someone else that he doesn't deserve there's no part of his dispensation Hashem is conducting this person's affairs in direct response to what he deserves and needs and therefore and that is the superficial reading of rape surgery on the other sources that appear to same the same thing I'll try to show you that I don't think it's correct I think it's a mystery ting that you never touch anyone else and you only choose tact and possibly act in the world and possibly even cause consequences but the consequences would have been anyway this of course is very reassuring from the point of view of the victim because nothing ever happens to you there wasn't gonna happen anyway but it's very problematic from the point of view of somebody perpetrating it you're using is free food free well in the world right because it certainly seems that we are the actors and imagine imagine imagine this evening after this talk you get in your car you're at lost in thought I hope and as you back out some careless idiot backs right into you and makes a big dent in you and you'd say look what you done to my car and the guy says you're religious you aren't you and you say yes he says well you must believe you had it coming does that sit right I mean you know well maybe technically was it on the feel that way we certainly feel that when we act in the world we are the authors of what happens in the world right didn't happen anyway very hard to I see a lot of religious conviction to keep reminding yourself of that but that is one possible approach however however amazingly there's another approach and I think this is the correct one and I'll try to prove it to you and that is that your free will is so real and so important you could do something to somebody else that he does not deserve one possible interpretation of a killing B is that B was not gonna dive in he was going to live for 25 more years and they killed him but now this is very concerning and worrying for the victim this means you could you could you're at the mercy of human free will in a way that that actually unlike any other dispensation that comes your way it's very powerfully it's very empowering from the point of view the person using is free will in the world because don't forget if you don't say this if you said that whatever you do in the world is only administering to somebody else what would have happened anyway it means you can never affect anyone else at all you can't help anyone you can't harm anyone else you could never do a mitzvah for example you couldn't give someone charity it's Tucker according to the first opinion they were going to get it anyway you get the Mitzvah there's no question about it it's your merit there's no question about that but that you affected this life would be wrong because you could never benefit someone else if it wasn't part of his spiritual dispensation so you got the Mitzvah of activism in any way all your interactions would be this way imagine imagine you're an ideal Jewish husband ten o'clock every night you make your wife a cup of tea no matter how tired you are exhausted I want a bad day you make yourself a wife your wife a delicious cup of tea and you bring it on you feel like a big deal cause humanity according to this way of thinking had you not made it for her someone else would have you know she she hasn't counted you know had you not done it she she's gonna get it she gets what she deserves kind of takes the teeth out of the you know the feeling of your interactions in the world right so so an according to the second way of thinking the teaching is and there many sources that say this that you can affect someone else and do something you can help somebody and know that had not been for me they would have died I saved their life not just technically fit it into the role but it would have happened some other way I actually was the author of that of course this this opinion doesn't claim that it's always the case the second opinion could readily agree that most human interactions fit into the first category but at least holds that it's possible to do something to somebody else good or bad that wouldn't have happened otherwise let me bring you some prisons a very surprising if that sounds very surprising approach that I that somebody could kill someone else who is not gonna die that's that's incredible but a very very distressing thought but let me prove to you that it's true first of all first of all I'll give you one very beautiful succinct proof and then a more formal and better known one here's the brief one you know when we say Tuckerman we say value Oh God David said to God new plan Nevada sham let us fall into a sham sent key Robin Rock'em f.cuz his mercy is very great over yacht Adam Ally Pally but let me not fall into human hand very telling very telling David Emmel our King David is facing two possible options he's got to face two kinds of dangers not he can either choose a danger that is non-human in fact what happened was a sham said to him you're guilty of a certain sin and you're gonna suffer but I'm giving you the choice of what kind of suffering you want do you want to go through an illness and a plague that will affect you in your people or do you want to deal with enemy an enemy attack and have it said I shall take the illness because the illness comes directly from you and your hand is kind but it's not trusting a Philistine soldier very telling that means it makes a difference where the justice is administered by a sham because that the contrary way of thinking is every bullet has your name on makes no difference the Ovid should have set a flip a coin whatever I get comes from you according to the first way of thinking right whatever you get is what you deserve what difference does it make if it's a hungry mountain lion or some kind of pestilence or play or it's a enemy soldier you're only gonna get what you deserve if that was the right way of thinking Davi would have said I sham what difference does it make but he didn't do that he said I shall deal with you and not with humans he's not trusting a human key rabbi menachem of your mercy is great you'll deal with me kindly but a human being might deal with me cruelly right you see apparently it makes a big difference by the way there are so many proofs I thought of one myself we've been going through the researching for this book like there's obvious sources one classic source is this why with the Egyptians held guilty for torturing the Jewish people when it was predicted it would decrease there was a divine decree hundreds of years before God said to Abraham they'll be enslaved in a strange land they'll be tortured there be enslaved etcetera etc exact prediction and the Rambam says when there is a divine prediction you have real trouble when is divine foreknowledge it's enough trouble but a divine prediction openly revealed in the world how can you move from that the logic should be an Egyptian should turn to God and say I had God what are you punishing us for we only fulfilled your decree you decreed that the Jews would be enslaved in our country right so we did it what do you want from us you should reward us when Joseph's brothers sölden remember the story they felt that he was an impostor and he was a threat to them and threat to the Jewish people in the future of the history of the world and what happen was Joseph approached his brothers and they said behold this dreamer of dreams approaches let's kill him and see what becomes of his dreams yes let's kill even areum my here McCollum waist up let's kill him and see what becomes of his dreams Rohan explains at what they were saying look at something foolish because his language is very very specific and very very explicit very clear he says that they weren't speaking sarcastically let's kill him and see what becomes we're talking about people of cosmic greatness every word is measured and weighed and what they meant was this if we kill him not only will we be correct in our doing but we'll be seen to be correct why because Joseph dreamed then at some time in the future we'd bow down to him right let's say he's born 17 years old and he dreams that somewhere in the future will bow down to him not which we believe is a completely false non not a prophecy it's a false claim that is complete illusion and he's a liar at this point well if we kill him now not only will we be just justified will be vindicated because the moment he dies it immediately apparent and will never bow down to the future because they're there for justice will be done it'll be seen to be done so let's kill him and see what becomes of his dreams meaning the dreams are now falsified and because he dies it's patently obvious that we were correct beautiful plan so Reuven the oldest brother stepped forward and he said gentleman you're making a serious philosophical error mistake in a scoffer you think that if you kill him it'll be apparent that the dreams were false I'm telling you an amazing novelty in Torah approach to the world I'm telling you that you could kill somebody who does not deserve to die who had valid dreams of prophecy and you killed him and you killed the man who was not destined to die and you mistakenly conclude that his dreams are false but I'm telling you that his dreams were true and we would have bow down to him but human free will is so important that our shams got a step back and say free will I'm not messing on a bird I'm not tearing with it I created the world for your free will I'll reconfigure the whole computer system and the whole plans for history I'll find another way but I'm not going to controvert your free will and therefore although his dreams were prophetically true again there's a deep philosophical problem here how could he have dreamed something about the future right how could he have dreamed something about the future that then doesn't come true that's very very by the way can you handle in the side in the discussion here's an aside this is a constant problem in Tarot by the way there's a constant problem in Tarot that people see a future thing and then it might not be true but the partials were going through now think about it's a very challenging thing my should have been a seasoned Egyptian beating a Jew right so it says by FN Kovac I he looked here and there via RT Amy she saw there was no man simple interpretation is no one watching and so he killed him deep interpretation says Rashi and the commentary say he saw that there was no descendant of this Egyptian that was worthy no good person would be descended from in the future and because of Mattie killed him in other words had he seen prophetically that this Egyptian would help some outcome some descent in the future would be meritorious and righteous he wouldn't have killed him but since he saw that this Egyptian had no potential future that means no one ever came out would come out of him in the future so he killed him but the obvious question is this but of course he's got no descendants coming out of the future you're about to kill him talk about it self-fulfilling prophecy he looks into the future and since there's no descendant but of course not in two minutes ago to kill him well how could you possibly what's going on you see this problem and it's a constant issue interim I give another example yesh mal is dying of thirst yesh Mel's buying her first hug or his mother Cydia disease no one's seen the boy die right s is about to die of thirst Hashem is about to manifest her wealth that will feed him give him water and he'll survive as I'm about to make the miracle of the revealing the world to hug are the Angels say to God the Angels say to God how can you save him this is a child Ishmael is going to grow up to be a man he left children his descendants will torture the Jewish people the burnished world Arab peoples in referring to a particular incident then when the Jewish people went into the first exile the Arabs came to greet them on their way out and gave them bags that looked like they were water perks to drink but they were filled with compressed air and as the Jews tried a drink they exploded and killed him very crew killing them through water and now you want to make a well of water to save this young man he's going to descendants who are so cruel how can you do that so Hashem says tell me is he righteous now and they and they say yeah said I'll be judge people as they are now and so he saved it so the Schloss obvious question the Angels see a future in which he has descendants of gonna kill the Jewish people so what do they propose that he should die now you've seen the future already you've seen a future in which he has descendants how can you apply now to have a prophetically seen future canceled you just seen it prophecy sees the future you've seen that there's going to people coming out of him who are gonna be evil down the line now you want God to kill him now but he just saw that that's not gonna be did you see the problem deeply paradoxical it's a constant issue one of the approaches to this issue the Schloss is he says this when Moses looked at that Egyptian he didn't see the future he saw the seed of potential in him now and right now in that Egyptian he saw no seed of spiritual content that could ever eventuate in to send us down the line right there angel saw in your smile now didn't see the future events of those people in they saw in your smile now their seed of a cruelty that could come to expression later in that particular fashion and therefore they applied to have it canceled right but they see a a a they sing an incipient reality of potential that existed look it up in the Schloss ox about it by you want something long long p-paige as long in which he goes through these types of cases fascinating goes cabbalistic explanation but that's a very beautiful piece back to our subject let's kill Joseph and see that his dreams are false Reuben said now that will not prove that his dreams are false maybe the dreams are true but free will is so important and so potent that you could kill him and you think you were right and you were wrong so they said to him what should we do he said see this pit it has it had snakes and scorpions throw him in there because no self-respecting scorpion he's gonna touch anyone unless he has decree against him because the scorpions got no free will and therefore an inanimate object or an animal and non-human agent is never gonna do anything to anybody else that isn't part of his natural dispensation could got no free will the problem is a human hand acting against him by the way the marled says that the pit was not full of snakes and scorpions because if it was full of snakes and scorpions if you throw someone in it that's called homicide if you throw somebody if you hold someone's head underwater and you sad and kill him it was just a lack of oxygen you culpable there that's actionable in Jewish law not you culpable for that so if there's a directly homicidal Act then you are definitely guilty but the moral says but they were not snake and scorpions in the pit that was very dangerous not guaranteed death but very dangerous because the snake or scorpions gonna touch him unless that fits with his correct dispensation and therefore Ruben said I'm not against he's getting his fate that is destined I'm just against using human hand to do that because then and it's very beautiful since I yet see lay who me are dumb and orihime says he saved joseph from their hand he didn't save him from his fate he saved him from their hand his language is Miyata Beqiri from the hand of human free choice and that's the message the messages that a person will get what he deserves as long as that is administered by a nonhuman agency but a human being who has free will could do something to somebody else that could override the natural dispensation because human free will is so important that it is that powerful in the world and this is a very dramatic classic demonstration the szura takes this piece about Joseph and expands it and talks about it in great detail the al-sheikh says the same thing the malbim then then it's if all the major commentaries say the same thing about about Joseph and his brothers and this is the classic demonstration that you can do something to somebody else that they do not deserve let's try to take this one step further by the way oh and I'm warning you you'll find lots of sources that say there are two approaches this is the wrong one orihime is an outlier and and he's not right and everyone else is right but but if you look carefully take for example of sad you're gone in a municipal days he says that when a person dies death simply becomes a murder look very carefully it's in a paragraph that begins very specifically three lines prior the paragraph begins like this he says when the human beings walking down the street and has a decree of death on him in those circumstances when it dies the death normal for says a man but he's only talking about a scenario where somebody has a decree on him already he that says nothing about a case where a person is not agreed to die whether somebody else will kill you so there's no proof at all from the serve subject and the higher self obviously is exactly the same and I don't think I don't believe there's any source that says that whatever happens to a person classic source that says that whatever happens to a person was decreed already and there are countless sources that say you could certainly do something to somebody that he doesn't deserve now the next step is this are we together so far any questions yeah you said that uh there's a divine decree and there's very few sources that could say that this wasn't going to come true because the freewill choice overrides divine decree yeah I think everybody if not everybody certainly must but I believe everyone who comments on this says that you could override intercut divine decree because freewill is more powerful than the divine decree we have the example of King yes right he was marked 77 generations yes don't you touch it on the seventh generation you kill buyers so everybody agrees even the second opinion Greece richly and clearly that there are certainly circumstances where decrees issued and cannot be changed that God can override free will that there's no question about that the only debate is are the ever circumstances in which you you could give me many examples of people in Turin where their destiny was inexorably fixed and nothing could change that no argument about that again I would be ready to admit that 99.9% of events that happen in the world are simply a human agent fitting into and predestined the reality the debate is is the every time where somebody could do something to somebody else that was not decreed you understand so even if you write about a bad kind maybe it was the greeter maybe couldn't escape that but the question is by Joseph or some other circumstance could you ever override somebody's agree dispensation again the argument isn't do Utah's human being the human free will always override no on the country probably most times they fit very well the debate is could there be human free will so important that it could override in divine decree by the way all the commentaries say that even where human free will overrides a decree it never happens without God's permission and I try to explain that in other words when the brothers are about to kill Joseph God's going to look down and say one second do I allow this it will never happen without divine some does so forced to say without a new decree being issued in that circumstance in other words if you found me a source to say that everything that happens if it's a divine decree maybe but the commentaries say but which divine decree whereas the pre-existing was the decree now set up in line with this humans free will that God now decreasing these circumstances you deserve to die are we saying that free will is so powerful it can override anything no this power of free will is very constrained and by the time you see all the constraints you'll see that it comes much much closer to the other suggested position and let me speak out some of the limitations here's the most important by far when we say that one person's freewill can override another we do not mean carte blanche to do whatever you want we just mean and here it comes listen carefully this is the key that when somebody uses freewill to affect somebody else you affect him in a way that was not deserved and not fair but only to the proportion that is spiritually vulnerable we say he needs more schools you need more merit to protect yourself against the human agent than against the nonhuman agent again if you have more merit you'll be protected we are saying that again whatever agency comes against you has a certain power against you but to protect yourself against human agency you need to be better spiritually or put it this way you're more vulnerable to human than non-human action or put it this way people are dangerous because you hadn't noticed people are dangerous more dangerous than non-human now when a dog attacks you or a scorpion or whatever it is you in less danger that when a human attacks you you understand because here the issue of free will is that we'd not mean you totally vulnerable with no protection we mean you're more vulnerable to humans just give me a second to explain this to make it plain take the case of total merit in Hawking literature this is called sorry gamma sorry gamma means somebody who's impervious spiritually classic example motor high moral highs sits in the place where Hammond is walking past and he decides to inflame his anti-semitic passion to an absolute frenzy and what does he do he deliberately sits we're home on his walking past and refuses to stand to bow down driving into such an illogical frenzy that he will self-destruct that's a very dangerous game very dangerous game the reason is there's a principle in Jewish history called Eretz nitin a vineyard Russia it's a prosecutor you know if the world is given into the hands of the wicked again in case you hadn't noticed the world is in the hands of the wicked the world is not being run by benevolent sweet kind people did what has been wrong about people who kill you far less than about no question about it that's who runs the world and therefore the world is given into the hands of the wicked and the principle in Jewish history at least in post prophetic Jewish history is we walk patrone the between the raindrops and we use strategy we don't meet evil with a full frontal attack because we will lose but because the world the power is in their hand and therefore we use strategy and wisdom we don't use power and therefore to stand in front of an anti-semitism all-powerful second-in-command of the world and and inflame his anti-semitism is a very unwise both but more to Hanyu that he was invulnerable for what reasons I'm not gonna going to now but I knew that it was impervious and he could use that to a court of cause the showdown in which the new Haman would lose so full house means nobody could touch you no animal not a scorpion or and no human being the question is are you vulnerable the fear was that Joseph might have done something that made him vulnerable to his brother's attack not deserving of death he was genuine in his prophecies but had he done something wrong in his past he would have opened a of vulnerability and on that human free will Caramba and therefore when we said that humans are free will to affect you we mean only in proportion to a spiritual vulnerability if you have merit you'll be protected and by the way it doesn't have to be all merit it might be your mother's might be Oh apps you might not deserve to die yeah is walking down the street right and we trust to kill him maybe be maybe I deserves to die but his wife doesn't deserve to be a widow well here's some crimes on the felt I used to ask him he said he was guaranteed a share in the world to come he himself they said rabbi how do you know he's my wife is such a Sudeikis my wife he's so righteous for sure she's going to the world to come they were never put in there without me I mean no one doing it they wouldn't do that so therefore not therefore you better marry somebody righteous okay because you know in case you needed but the point is that the police map your mother and by the way if you want a practical output of this question this is why some people do not buy insurance now insurance is a very good idea many great rabbis safe should definitely have insurance life insurance definitely but there's a thinking like this mister is walking down the street here's not a life insurance policy mister B tries to kill him it does not deserve to be saved but a sham looks down and says but your wife who's going to bring on the bacon or whatever you whatever you bring home I was going to break you she needs you right where is the mr. Hayes walking down the street he's got a hundred million dollar life insurance policy and a trust beat tries to wipe him out God's look down and it's gonna say your wife's okay in some cases she's probably a lot better off yes there and therefore this is a very good reason to make yourself as indispensable to as many people as possible single-handedly support so many poor families that when you a and B tries to wipe you out as God's gonna look down and say you know it's just too complicated I'll put up with you a little longer in the world because a lot of people need you right it's not the highest motivation for stuck about its gotcha you know and therefore this is part of the calculation of how your merits could protect you right against against other people's removal so the first factor here limiting this discussion is you're not saying that a person's vulnerable to free will and all costs but only proportion to the lack of your merit secondly the one acting has to have free will we're not talking about a fourteen-year-old arab who is sent onto a bus where the bomb on his back not talking about that we talk about a person who's a bulb of Hira there's no accident that the Torah teaches it by those great Brothers of Joseph who were cosmic figures for a Shinto to change the whole dispensation of decrees that were made before and you need to be a somebody for good or for bad you need to be somebody who wields but here in the world so there's a tassel here between the merits of the recipient and the power of the actor that both of us need to be real third this only applies to individuals the al-shaikh says it only applies to individuals we're not talking about a group when a group is threatened that's a completely different dispensation we're talking about a targeted individual does he of the merit or not groups are completely different when groups are threatened there's another whole calculus the were says for example for O'Connor has a wonderful piece on this imagine as ship is sinking with lots of people on board why are all those people dying at the same time two possibilities either those were all people who had the same moment of death so they were all invited onto the same cruise that's called Muslim enamel upon dark ahead God as if I arrange the ticket for all of them to be at the same but possibly only one of them needs to die now this just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time that's called Euler Russia le chameau a very very distressing big difference if it's the first guys scenarios trying to escape is not going to help you you invited there for a reason if it's the second guys get the heck out of it you're just going down because of somebody else so fourth this does not apply to masses of people for example for example a war wars have completely different rules Mohammad sannyasi sees complete the differences concession 5 Holocaust type situations where there's a large numbers of threatened people the ethic Ramona says Kevin should Nitin rehearsal emotionless Lashley's when the permission is given to the destroyer to destroy shove a norm of conveyance article Raja he no longer discerns between the righteous and the wicked amazing thing when a major disaster taken major numbers of people are destroyed there the commentaries say the righteous often go first now the whole discussion about why there is 5 this does not apply to major movements in the world water for example there are man says says is about parade that major political leaders have no free will at all this is called lave melaka by jana shim the heart of a king is in a sham sent but a major political figure mayor of a large city a president of Prime Minister a king they have no free will at all but you know the irony in Western society when a man is elected president he thinks he has real power in Judaism that's when he became a total puppet at that moment lost all power of free will in terms of what the people need doesn't mean it's not guilty of course is guilty but the people will only get what they deserve because nobody has the authority to move the lives of masses in that fashion that's a part of a history's march to its final destiny and no human as it has so then many many exceptions to this rule many limiting factors but in general there is at least a possibility of in the right circumstances that somebody could affect somebody else's free will let's try and circle back to the beginning of our discussion about the three judges try to understand how that operates one of the major sources of Canoga speaks about this problem in two places and appears to contradict himself so does the surah by the way and therefore we have to find a resolution there's no way that on a major axiomatic principle in judaism like this there can be it can be the same author taking two positions that's not that's not possible let me share with you the two places where he speaks about this show you what appears to be the contradiction and suggest you what I think is the correct resolution here it is if you look as you know is a classic work on the myths right you can get an English today I strongly recommend you all get a copy you can learn every Shabbos you can learn one Mitzvah beautiful but number of weeks go by you don't know all the mitzvahs the Chinook has a very classic approach not only does he tell you all the parameters of the Mitzvah he also gives you what he calls me sure sure mitzvah not only does it teach you how the Mitzvah operates but why would God want this for me why does God want you to give charity why does he want you to take a look why does he want you to send away a mother bird what lies behind the myths as far as humans can understand by the way it's quite humiliating this is an absolute classic in traditional attrition was written for a 12 year old it was written 800 years ago by an author who wrote it his son was rushing from it sir so I thought you know this would be a good opportunity to cheat the kids mitzvos so what a 12 year old was able to relate to a little little embarrassing for us but you know be that as it may now the two mitzvahs that he talks about which appear to contradict each other the first one is Reshma Reshma malov 240 241 and those are the prohibitions of taking revenge and bearing a grudge but you know in Judaism you cannot take revenge you can't bear a grudge right taking revenge means doing something to somebody that he did to you and bearing a grudge means not doing it but bearing it in mind right I got it you got your neighbor and you're saying can I please borrow your lawnmower and he says no a wheat lady comes to you and says can I please borrow yours and you say no you're guilty of nakama taking revenge you're doing Tim what he did to you Judaism that's not allowed what's bearing a grudge you go to your neighbor and say can I please bro you know man who says no a week later he comes to says can I please borrow yours you say sure you didn't do to him what he did to you but you reminded him that's bearing a grudge right in Jewish law you say nothing you given them all know they tell a story about a man crawling through the desert about to die first and on the point of death another man rode past on horse looked at him and left him to die it left him abandoned in today miraculously survived and a few years later turned out to be the president of a big business corporation and one days office door opened and a man came in begging for a job and he recognized the face of the man who left him to die in the desert if he would have refused him the job he'd be guilty of like in revenge if he give them the job and remind him he'd be guilty of bearing a grudge he said nothing who gave him the job that's what you required to visit you of course if you judge him to be unsuitable for the job right he's applying to be the tender gentle caregiver frail little old ladies and and and and you feel he may be unsuited to the task you can say no right you say no because you know he destroys long malice right that's fine but not all of your personal animus against the person right so that's the problem now listen to this says the canook why would God not want you to take revenge listen carefully it's a classic piece why would God not want you to take revenge against other people a bit taking revenge very sweet feeling and a tremendously powerful human motivation somebody hurt you you want to do the same thing to that person why would you like you want to take revenge against this individual says the fellow Hashem says don't do that you know why because don't look at him where did this come from when this person want you and you want to harm him look to where it came from don't look to him when a man hits a dog with a stick and the dog turns around and bites the stick cause it's a dog it doesn't know that a hand wheels the stick when someone harms you right why do you want to take revenge against him look to the author of your problem not the agent what does this sound like the first approach well that sounds very much like a first approach but here's where here's where he contradicts himself which shows that we must have misunderstood this here it comes without going into all the detail you know there's a mitzvah called Adam Simon have you studied that Ezrin very briefly in torah law you have the following unique situation imagine you have a court case let's say this person is on trial for his life two other witnesses come along and contradict the first two case closed but that's called a kasha year contradiction in fact all four witnesses remain culture because we don't know who's lying that's a classic case but in Judaism you have a unique permutation two witnesses come along these dude and they say this man committed murder two other witnesses come along and they say we have no idea about the murder but you couldn't have seen it it do not confound the testimony they don't contradict the testimony they impugn the witnesses you were with us at that time at another place you couldn't have seen it is this clear in that circumstance the Torah has a remarkable and unique quirky sounding outcome and here's what happens that first two witnesses are now judged to be illicit framers of the original accused and they because we believe the second two and the first to get what they tried to do to the if it was a financial case they'd have to pay the money it was a murder case they get killed okay we believe the second two the first two are judged to be illicit people framing the original person and they get what they try to do to him but there are two remarkable quirks to this case number one why do you believe the second two maybe the second two are framing the first two but here comes a second quote listen carefully and this is very strange the first two witnesses say the person committed murder the second to say that you couldn't have seen it here's the rule if the person if these two these two are given the quarter what they wanted to do that person only if justice had not yet been done if he had not yet been executed means that this person's on trial for his life these two say I murdered the court hears the case and they convicted like he's marched out to be executed on the way to be killed these two come in and they say stop a second miscarriage of justice they're lying we call the man back we hear them out we convict these two the accused is freed these two died but if the man's marched out to be executed and he's killed dead and then these two rush in and say they're lying no case at all scot-free no case against it is that weird they try to kill a man and fail they get killed they try to kill a man and succeeded no problem is that weird listen carefully the clinic says I'll give you a consistent at least a partial reason for this law and here it comes listen carefully he says if these two people accuse the person of murder and he was taken out and killed do you know why we do nothing to them he didn't get to steal because what the guy that got killed didn't get to see those two died he would have benefited if he got to see them like they're accusing him because he must have had it coming he never wouldn't got killed unless he had it coming these two could never have gotten him killed if it wasn't right now which opinion disappeared to be number one as well you only get what's coming to you and here comes the problem he then adds one line he says you know what person could never get killed by best if it wasn't his dispensation and his decree because God sits together with her based in Enochian it's of other scale he the way quotes the verses elokim nitsa a de Sade only God sits with every based in her son Henry in fact some of our team cites the only reason that humans are oven ever allowed to administer justice who are you to administer justice how do you know you're right God says don't worry about that you go through the motions I'll assured therefore God sits with every son Hedren he says it's a principle of Jewish law it's a verse in the Torah Hashem sits with every best in every son Hedren and assures the outcome and therefore if he died he must have had it coming so far so good he has the problem he must have had it coming because God said to the best him which means that justice is always correct and you always get what the decree was but only in circumstances over based in wash M is sitting but some individual acting unilaterally in the street absolutely not because if it was always the case that you got was coming to you he wouldn't have to quote the verse about our sham study with the best in this is a straightforward Duke right gentleman a Duke Duke means a straight forward inference it doesn't get simpler than this in Torah an inference is if I give you one case I'm inferring that case only the reason if he got killed there must be correct he says he's because this was a base didn't our shame is where the best in Parrish M is not with the individual in the street acting you know naturally clear inference that a person could die in the improper fashion in such circumstances which is the second opinion you see that and therefore we have to reenter stand the first and so here's the correct understand in the film and look it up yourself the words are subtle we need to work through the to the text he says when a person hurts you don't try to hit back at him out of a simple childish revenge because he was spiritually mature you don't look at him you look at your D merits had you merited more you wouldn't have been subjected had you been a better person spiritually he couldn't have touched in other words of course we agree that a person can do something to somebody else using his free will but only to the extent that you sleep on and therefore he agrees as all our sources do that you could do something somebody that he does not deserve because free will is so powerful that you could actually affect other people's lives at least to a degree that is greater than non-human agency let's come back to original case and close the circle and we'll stop there let's have any questions what was our regional problem three people on the best age you remember the scenario two judges are lying and therefore he what should he do he thought at 100 when the Sanhedrin sits in the final judge has to say his opinion what should he say the truth you know why because this is Hashem is sitting together with us there's no way could turn out wrong you follow the rules he says the truth the man walks free he knows what he's doing because I look him nits off but you sitting on a basting with two jokers two Liars basted in such a circumstance get the heck out of this say I don't know is that correct when you're sitting on a valid based in and you disagree with the two judges try to convince them you can't convince them but virtue that's what he wants but if you're sitting on a vest anywhere your conviction is that the other two are not are not wrong they lying this is not a vest in a basin not constituted of two people sitting there lying through their teeth and therefore he says this not similar to the solid case of the Sanhedrin you say the truth Hashem Stoics cares the result and the result is guaranteed when you sit with Liars that is not you have no assurance of a divine dispensation yet and therefore and therefore in that circumstance he says you should certainly sound on No and that is how he would resolve the case okay since summary what we studied this evening was the very thorny issue of whether one's freewill affects anyone else you will find this written in many modern sources that there are two approaches to this not only that you'll find that the dominant approach which is very reassuring familiar for many people and maybe that's the motivation here is that you all you need is total faith in God and assure me takes care of you no one else can touch you and therefore you know no one can harm you right you're not your mother not your father not you marry the kind of lady who needs a place to park a broom when she visits you neither cuz that's not your perpend - anyway according to this opinion not so people could affect other people at least some degree in some circumstances proportional to various factors that could actually manifest change in the world and this simply is another expression of the power and potency of human any questions and he said that vane was in favor of sending Joseph into the pit where there were snakes and scorpions to test whether this prophecy was true or to let Hashem rule yeah so we seem to make a binary distinction between humans having free will and animals not absolutely is there any argument to say that you know naturally the way that the scorpion or a snake is programmed is to attack and to seek the pleasure of eating from the flesh and therefore it's not really a fair situation for music because they I know what's follow the program nature right whatever they their own motivations are absolutely so you would situation of dangers will depend on the animals programming is he hungry Z not hungry does he perceive and so threatened whatever the natural rules are but that's not like human free will you know there's a very beautiful example as well I think then it's if says this you know when Daniel was thrown into a lion's den very parallel he got Joseph thrown into snakes and scorpions Daniel was thrown into a lion's den they've opened nets a'right the King threw him into the lion's den very beautiful it says this look at the verses it's amazing he used read the verse of this time he strikes you that you never noticed this it says like this that the king through you know what happened there was a plot by the courtiers accusing Daniel of being rebelling against the king they wanted to get him killed so the King decided maybe the plots truth so this this Jew who he actually was one of his central advisors in fact the commonness is used to worship Him he felt this Jew was some sort of a divine figure but maybe he's an illicit figures trying to ha me throw him into a pit of snakes and scorpions if he is all he's cracked up to be it'll survive miraculously and if he's if he's a traitor traitor he'll die so he starved the Lions and he threw Daniel into the Lions Den and then it says he sealed the pit with a stone he covered the mouth of the den of the Lions with a stone so that the human standing by could knit sneakily kill Daniel with his spit with the arrows and Spears and say that the Lions cuz then be moved by the Lions and claimed that the Lions had killed him that's what he did in other words he was worried that is that the courtiers whom he knew had an antagonism for Daniel he knew that they may want to make certain feel that he might be protected miraculously against the Lions and there they would kill him so to prevent the humans killing him he sealed the pit so he was only dealing with lions so the tip says what's going on here if Daniels not gonna die cuz he doesn't deserve it nobody's gonna kill him and he says not so he knew that Daniel might be vulnerable to to humans when he wouldn't vulnerable to lions because he'd be protected against the lies because it got not free will they're only gonna kill him if he deserves it but human will human being so all bets off and knowing that the king decided to seal the pit so that not because he knew that if humans killed him wouldn't prove anything and therefore he wanted to see how he would deal with lions only agents that have no free will right very clear very dramatic look at that the versus clear and obvious yeah and there countless examples of this I mean that's just one yeah you were speaking about about sort of leading up to a death like Isaiah versus the fear other things but I'm wondering if let's say we have a case where we were totally convinced that there was not a gazebo that this was a something that shouldn't have happened that it was from the hand of man yet we still say Burroughs and Diana net we still are afterwards we are we see it in the same way as that after that right tell you what yes and I'll tell you why because all commentaries agree that at the point of the attack itself at that moment of crunch is divine permission if not a new decree that means when the human raised his hand against another human being technically what happens is this the human puts this human in a situation of danger that's what you do now the books are opened and the spiritual world they say do you deserve to be safe by the way that's the general principle when any human beings in a situation of danger the books are opened it says when a woman's in childbirth persons undergoing operation the Talmud says you shouldn't stand under a ladder or a leaning wall why not you only can get what's coming to you no you put yourself in a situation of danger the books are now we need to change the natural order do you deserve it and therefore when one attacks another we don't say kills if we say puts him in a situation of danger and in that situation do you deserve a decree to save you or don't you and if you don't then the person dies yeah some goes so fast to say a decrees now issued making you vulnerable to that individual says now question the final common pathway is God's will a decree God's permission argument the question is could you ever put some in this situation a Benicia that puts him into that which he wouldn't have been in other words that's as far as it goes but that's enough that's very powerful that's the way to say it yeah so what about that moment of the here from the other agent opens up the books whereas regular daily living is not so finally and is only one possibility you being in a medical situation of risk childbirth putting yourself into danger that all opens books by the way even if you flaunt your good fortune in front of somebody who doesn't have it he has a woman who has ten children and she walks up and down in front of the house of the lady who's doesn't have any children at all and the lady looks through the window and she has a feeling of her pang of a pain of gotelli see opens the books the spiritual world when she thinks God why don't I deserve that does that lady deserve it the books are opened does she indeed yes when you a suicide or person harming himself doesn't raise this philosophical question because it could well be that a decree of death is deserved by this person because he's put himself in this is really a by the way even there the commentary say that if this person is not meant to die at this moment for certain divine reasons he wouldn't even manage to kill himself because that always overrides right the halacha debate about suicide is are you obliged to stop someone trying to kill himself since he doesn't want to live do you have an obligation to save his life and second did you have an obligation to put yourself in danger to save his life so wrote another book about that and you'll see a copy over there that's an even better book you need to buy three copies of that but that talks about do you have EE how much risk do you have to put yourself there to save someone else when after all he you know he has values on life at that point the bottom line is we do we do do that but an interesting logic about why we did it but they don't have the same for this article problem here we talking about you're putting someone else in danger that he didn't deserve when it's you you can say you deserve that you do that to yourself that you certainly have free will to do that yes so anytime someone dies or gets professing not among another person like sitting with cancer and dies that's always they had that coming this way they were they that's a divinely ordained we're talking about a situation that's not due to any negligence nothing but a long-term smoker we knew that it was dangerous you're talking with somebody yes yes not only that even a situation caused by another human where it's a child or a group a group thing or somebody you understand all those situations we delineated that are not subject to this power of free will absolutely and certainly an illness that came out of it or suggestion or a child is ill who never got into the whole category of responsibility in the first place and so many human situations but it's clearly the ones that challenge us more about the ones where you don't see that where it does appear to be another human being you know we don't see why it's fair in yeah just there's a certain reality because a domino effect to the body or certain things you might have done it won't put your life effect in 50 years on the line you're saying that we're not called accountable for that because we can't have any practical way of the cause of my presentation there's a very deep question and just to say one word about maybe we'll finish with this there's a very interesting spectrum of opinion on that on that point and really what you're asking goes to the heart of how powerful free will is altogether not just other people affecting me you've asked a question I did something now 50 years down the line attest consequences right all those really subject to my free will at that time so there's a fascinating debate about this and the most extreme position there's a lot to talk about here but I'll just tell you one the most extreme position on this is one of the great authorities Spanish authority called up has died chriskiss lived in the 1212 1300s fascinating figure and he is classically assumed to hold that we don't have free will at all if you read superficially some of his writings it seems that human beings have no free will at all that's not correct but if you look carefully what he says is among the things he says is that there are many aspects of our lives that are not subject to freedom at all like things 50 years down the line where you are so deeply in the grip of a habit pattern or a course of events that has been set up that you could not do you couldn't choose different if you tried you might not even aware of an alternative choice and you have no free will but you got into that situation through a deep course maybe many years before where there was a subtlety of choice and you and you took that line and it could be now many years down the line where the consequences are being felt and you went out of the category of free will now but you're accountable you're accountable because of a deep root of choice that was made he puts it in two ways that's one way another way he says he's even when you deepen the grip of a situation let's call it an addiction for one of a better world it might be a little technical addiction it might be a habit pattern at me if a life process where you cannot choose differently not only could you not do differently you couldn't even well differently you couldn't even choose differently he says this and so you do the action anything you're accountable for is when you do the action what's your other attitude - do you accept responsibility and not notify with it what do you feel I wish I hadn't done that in your repudiated and rejected as being part of you that's what you're accountable again much of your life maybe you virtually all of it is no longer subject to freedom of will your habits are formed your personality is formed many things in your life have taken a certain course of action and you do certain things and let's say those things are wrong and you cannot be held accountable for them but you are accountable for is what's your in that response are you glad those things do you accept them identify with him or do you feel that's beneath me I shouldn't have done that I wish I could have been different yeah when you do a mitzvah he says do you do the midst as part of yourself to identify with it and you rejoice in it what do you do it out of a habit pattern and don't rejoice in it that's what you're accountable for in other words the debate chair is how deep how pervasive is your freedom of law is it actually in actions is it only an attitude is it only in some deep root that was made long in the past it's a fascinating debate but where this begins and ends yeah last question tehilim like so how much does that affect my mother's sick so how far does that go any spiritual merit whether it's your prayer whether it's saying to heal him right whatever good thing you be doing in the world is elevating your spiritual situation and others too if your mother's saying it for you well you as a Jew you as you elevate yourself you you lift everyone we all organically bonded right not just use the whole universe organically bonded when when the Jewish people sinned and where sherburn was on the mountain a sham said to him you go down because they went down he wasn't part of it but he's the head of a body and the feet step down he goes down - and therefore any any activity right but sure Santa used to say that when Torres pure in Jerusalem so people in Paris remain Jewish and when you do something bad here the nerve center of the world you bring everything else we organically interconnected right this our responsibility for each other by the way ironically the Jews aren't always aware of that the non-jewish world totally aware of that the non-jewish world always holds accountable for each other right you do something as a Jew there are no problem identifying us the truth is they're right there is an organic interconnect and therefore absolutely when you elevate yourself when you do something wrong in private you harming me Rohan and says that every sin between people is also to ascend between you and God and every sin privately between you and cars also sin against people because when you damage yourself spiritually bring down the spiritual never forget nobody else - and therefore in that sense our free will is certainly professor thank you very much