Free Will (PT II) | Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz | January 20th 2026

Uh today's share excuse me [clears throat] is dedicated anonymously for the refu of Aalina Batgalina may she have a rafu Israel and once again we have the anonymous dedication for the elishama of every nishama from Adam Harishon until today. So, okay. So, we were in the middle of a of an interesting topic last week uh based on the Rambam's letters, but it's something that the Rambam addresses in many many places. It was one of his favorites. Uh and that is the issue of free will, Bakira. And the reason why it was so important to the Rambam is because he was really addressing a conflict that had arisen in Islamic philosophy uh which basically said that if God is all powerful and everything that happens in the world is because it's directed by God then logically free will would be impossible because that would posit my ability to go against God and that would be impossible and as a result all human actions are predetermined. This was a a strong idea in Islamic philosophy. And because this had spread to the Jewish many Jews as well, the Rambam felt it's necessary to negate or disprove this particular argument and thus the Rambam in Hilis Chuva as well as in his letters uh talks about the idea of free will. Every person can be a sadic like Mosher Ravenu or a Russia like Yurav Benovat. And last week I'm not going to repeat you'll recall we discussed what that exactly means. Uh and the Rambam further argues two things. Point number one is that free will is not a contradiction to the idea that everything that happens is the will of God because it all depends on how you define the will. If you ask the question, does God want me to desecrate Chabas? The answer is no. But if you ask me, does God want me to have the ability to desecrate Chabas? The answer is yes. uh because goodness is goodness only when it's chosen and not when it's automatic pilot and therefore as a result when I make bad choices in an ultimate sense they are not against the will of God because it was the will of God to give me the ability to make those choices. So it may very well be that my particular choice is not the will of God. But what can God do about that? Meaning to say if God wants a universe where people have the capacity of choice then by definition they can choose wrong because if if they wouldn't have the capacity to choose wrong they also would not have the capacity to choose good and therefore the Rambam argues that free will is not against the will of God it is the will of God that there be free will uh the other issue which I I think I did address last week as well I just mentioned it quickly uh is the old question that I'm sure your your 5-year-olds have asked you and you probably asked your parents when you were 5 years old. Uh and that is if God knows the future, how can it be said that I have free will? Uh on one hand, we're told when I wake up in the morning, I have free will to davin or not to davin. But God knew yesterday what I would do and God knew a million years ago what I would do and God knew a billion years ago what I would do. So by the time I have to make the decision the the outcome is already known. So is that a contradiction to the notion of of of freedom? So um I had mentioned I think the kind of heretical idea of the rabbi Bengam which is after the Rambam and Relevi Bengam actually says God does not know the future because there is nothing to know. meaning to say the future has not happened yet and if the future has not happened yet there is nothing for God to know. Uh God knows everything that exists but even God the Raog argues does not know that which does not exist because it does not exist. So like the Ralbag uh you don't have a problem at all. On the other hand, as I say, many consider the Ralbag's position heretical. And as I mentioned last week, uh the Ralbog's uh commentaries have a very very interesting history. On one hand, his commentaries on Naveim and some casuim are very very well accepted. Every mikrose gadolot nim will have the perishal bag. So it's fine. It's mainstream. On the other hand, his perish alhatra as which many of you might not ever have seen even uh and his philosophical work which is called Milos Hashem, the wars of God uh have a very very controversial uh reputation because there are many philosophical ideas that uh other reonim strongly strongly disagreed with and one of them is this idea that God does not know the future because it hasn't it's not here yet. It's not that's based on idea that it's not here yet. Okay. Uh but another understanding that's not what the Rambam says. The Rambam does not give that approach at all. I'm not explaining the Rambam. Yeah. Let me just talk a little bit. I'm not explaining the Rambam. I'm just mentioning the Rach perspective. Um but the Rambam is generally understood as positing the idea that God exists above time. Uh and the notion that that which is known in the past precludes a choice in the future is only if you're living in a realm that is bounded by time because the past has already happened. But if God observes past, present, future from above the framework of time, then God knows the future as an observer would know the present. For example, if I see you Davening so I'm seeing you Davening, I'm not influencing your choice. I am simply seeing the choice you made. Now we normally a human being cannot have that perspective visav the future but if is above time can. So sees the future even though this is also a a temporal metaphor sees the future the way we see the present. And therefore once you're beyond a framework of time you don't have the problem that it's already been decided. The word already is positing a past which is different than the the present and the future. Again these ideas about time are very very interesting because uh if you study physics and Einstein and relativity uh and the like you actually see all of these questions discussed. I will actually come back to modern physics in in another sense about free will and determinism. Uh but in terms of the nature of time, uh do you look at uh past, present, future as uh temporal or do you look at them as concurrent realities that we just haven't been exposed to yet? Like a river, you're going down a river. So what's ahead of you is already here, but you just don't know it yet. Now that's not that's not the simple way we understand time and that's not the way the rabb understands time obviously but it may be the way the Rambam understands him. Did you want to say? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> [snorts] >> Yeah. So, so again, again, let me point out that even like the Albag, there are absolutely things that Hashem says through his Naveim that are going to be done. So, when Hashem is the one that is doing those future events, he certainly knows what he's what he's going to be doing. But the rabb's point is that God does not direct the events of individual human beings in the normal course of events and that that that's what enables >> direct history. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's correct. And that that that gives rise to the exact point I want to discuss now a little bit. And um I will apologize both to the non-physicists because this may be too complicated and even more so to the physicists because I may I may get it totally wrong. Uh so I'm kind of going to uh you know perhaps be criticized by both sides of the equation. Yeah. Why can't we just say that choice doesn't exist yet in that sense? >> Yeah. Well, well, um, yeah, you know, you know, the rivet says the following. By the way, let me just mention the rivet because the rivet says something that's very, very interesting. The rivet says I think what you're saying that God knows the future in the sense of predictive accuracy at the rate of 100%. Now let's take a simple example to illustrate that. Uh let's say you know you come home from yeshiva or seminary or college whatever it is to visit your parents and mom always uh gives you a nice milk meal and serves ice cream but she's of old school so she only has two flavors chocolate and vanilla as you don't have any any fancy stuff now for for 25 years of your life you have always wanted vanilla. So based on that, mom kind of knows based on your past, mom knows what you're going to choose. Even though you have the capacity to choose chocolate and maybe you will choose chocolate. So we might say that mom's predictive accuracy might be.9998, but it's not 100%. Because you have the capacity. Now the rabbit argues that since Hashem knows every single thing that ever has happened to you in your past, every single event and every single feeling you've had because that for sure that's indisputable. It's indis there is no makus whatsoever that Hashem knows to a 100% certainty everything that has transpired. So the ribbit says God is in a position to predict your choices based on the sum total of everything that has already happened in your life. And therefore the the rivet's argument is that God is does not know the future but God predicts the future which will always be correct based on on you but you still have the right uh the power to make those decisions. Now the rivet is offering this as a defense of free will. In truth, it actually raises a severe challenge to free will. You know, some of you might be familiar with a school in American psychology that was very popular in the beginning of the 20th century called behaviorism. And the leading proponent of that school was a a psychologist, John Watson. And John Watson famously said, "If I knew everything that happened to you in the past, I could predict everything how you how you will respond to every situation because you are simply a product of all of the inputs that were put into your life by parents, by environment, by school, even by genetics. Genetics is an input as well. So as a result, Watson denied free will because Watson said, "At any point in my life, I am the sum total of all of the things that have happened to me in the past, including my prior choices. My prior choices kind of paint me into a corner." Now, if the rivet is saying an idea that is similar to that, you have a very very serious charge. In fact, this is indeed even in modern times. putting aside the neurological critiques of free will, but you know, one of the basic arguments against free will is, hey, uh, your past molds you and it forms you and it pushes you in certain directions. You no longer have free will. We talked last week about Rabbi Dustler's point, which is a partial response. But the point is to say that God can predict my choice on Monday because of everything that happened to me prior in my prior existence seems to be an undermining of free will because it basically says I'm not really a free agent uh simply because whatever I decide is inevitable based on everything I've already decided. So it's something to ponder but but yeah uh the rivet does suggest that God predicts the future as opposed to knowing the future because the future hasn't happened yet but God is in a superior position to your mother who can say with 99.9% certainty you'll choose vanilla. Hashem could determine this at a level of 100% uh certainty. Yeah. >> Say again. predicted. >> Yeah. >> Well, yeah. Okay. So, number one, that that could be true. Uh but certainly Watson would argue that uh you chose vanilla even the first time because of, you know, different things that are going on. You know, who knows what the circumstances were. Uh maybe you saw somebody having an ice cream cone from a Mr. Softy truck and uh it was vanilla, you know, uh meaning there's always going to be a cause. U because once again, if you think about it, anytime we decide anything, there is presumably a reason why we made that decision and the reason might elude us. In fact, the origin of why we make certain decisions is not always clear. In fact, free will does not really explain it. Free will just says we had freedom to go either way, but it doesn't tell me why did I go that particular way. Huh? >> I didn't hear you. >> Well, okay. I I mean, listen, obviously we have we have motivators. Motivators do not negate free will because they just add to my struggle why I'm deciding both ways. But uh okay but but you know again even if you even if you are correct even if you're correct that the an initial decision in a given area was a genuine exercise of free will but once you're asserting that the past is a 100% predictor of the future uh then you're you're certainly denying free will for later decisions. So that's going to be a problem. That's going to be a problem as well. Uh yeah. about what >> no I I understand again I mean the Rambam certainly I mean let's not forget the main point the Rambam is certainly endorsing the idea that every person has free will at any moment in his life that he could be a Russia or a sadic and no matter what the past he could change it but the rivet is suggesting that even the person who changes the pathway of his life, it is a cumulative result of different things. I mean again a bit of a mystery. Uh some people become baluva, some people don't become baluva. Uh what are the factors there? Is it purely free will or is it other influence within? Again, this is an enormously complicated issue. I'm just trying to get out the main. Yeah. turn out that >> yeah turn out that way. We still have a God who created which is very no that he hears [snorts] our prayers and decides to answer them or not which is so what do we really lose if it turns out that God doesn't also now in the future. >> Well, I'm not sure if I would describe it as losing anything. In fact, in point of fact, Revl Ben Gersham's uh answer is a simple answer that really totally solves the question. But I think uh it would be criticized because uh by placing limitations on God's knowledge. So that's a bit of an undermining of God's omniscience. >> What do we lose? What do we lose in terms of our own avote? I'm not sure if we lose anything. I mean, basically, we'll relate to God in the same way. >> In other words, our awe of God, how how should that be diminished? >> Well, well, again, I'm not saying that it should be diminished or it would be diminished, but again, remember, at least according to the Rambam, theologically correct uh understandings of God are very very essential. And according to the Rambam, this would be a theological misunderstanding of God. So, uh, that's a serious according to the Rambam at least that's a serious offense. >> Yeah. is [snorts] principle. >> Uhhuh. No. Yeah. praying for something. It's all No, no, you're correct. Again, I'm not sure exactly how this uh dovetales with free will, but but but you are correct that the ultimate purpose of davening is not to get something from God. The ultimate purpose of davening is to create a relationship with a kadesh called and therefore you know people say what's the use of dabining if X Y and Z didn't happen. The answer is the purpose of davening is the relationship you form with and that itself is worth everything. In fact, it's the other way around. Instead of saying I davin because I have a problem that needs to be addressed, it may work the other way. Hashem gave you a problem that needs to be addressed so you will turn to him. The real thing you need is damining. Elm, we don't always din if we don't have a problem. So Hashem creates the problem. So we will be misavic to him. Yeah. So all of that is very very true and that should give people if sometimes they feel that Hashem did not give them the answer they wanted. Nevertheless uh the connection with Hashem is still there. Uh again this free will is a very very very thorny uh topic but again to keep it simple uh the Rambam looks at free will as a moral necessity in the spiritual structure of the universe uh because it is the fundamental basis of a reward and punishment system. It is the fundamental basis of the possibilities of chuva. And it is what we might call to use a bit of a fancy term a good a goodness optimalization mechanism. Meaning to say if God as an engineer is trying to model a universe where the highest degree of goodness can be obtained and if we understand that goodness is virtue only when it is chosen and not when it's automatic then by definition God had to build into the system the ability of choice to facilitate optimal goodness problem is once you introduce that factor of choice you are also introducing the factor of evil bad choices. So in effect we can say quite accurately that evil human evil is a necessary evil. Human evil is what enables goodness to exist in an ultimate virtuous sense. This is the Rambam's basic very sensical sensible argument and that is the idea that morality, ethics and the value of goodness and the possibility of repentance can only exist in a world that posits human free will. Again, I don't want to repeat everything last week. Remember Dustler pointed out that the spectrum of free will can change based on a person's situation in life which is very very true. It's not an instantaneous onoff switch. Uh there are gradations but at least within those parameters there's always a virtuous choice to be made. Now here though, as I say, I want to mention a little bit of science and again with apologies to the non-physicists and apologies to the physicists because I will I will certainly get it wrong one way or the other. And this goes back to um a comment that that you made and that is we talk about God as the architect of history. God has a plan, right? God has a plan for the universe. God has a direction in which the world, the Jewish people, really the whole world is supposed to be moving. And God's plan is going to happen. Whether we like it or not, it's God's plan. >> [clears throat] >> The question is, how do you reconcile the notion of a divine plan with the fact that the billions and billions of subunits called human beings are autonomous free agents who choose this, choose that, choose that, choose that. And how does that fit with the notion that God has a plan? So it's very very interesting that there's a famous Kazal hisa God looked into the Torah and the Torah was the blueprint from which he constituted physical reality. One mushel that's often given is we think the Torah is reacting to the world. In fact, the world is reacting to the Torah. For example, the fifth commandment of the dipra says honor your father and mother. So, we think since we have parents, God gave us a mitzvah to honor them. It's the other way around. Since the Torah said honor your parents, God had to make parents. Meaning to say God looked at the Torah and constructed the world, the universe. That would mean on a very deep level the deep structures of physical reality are going to be mirrors of the spiritual truths that are found in the Torah. That this world is a is a mimicking of this a mirror image on some level of truths found in the Torah. So let's talk a little bit a little bit about physics. Again I'm going way beyond my pay grade but okay just some basic ideas you know when you talk about uh classical physics so the name that comes to mind more than anybody is sir Isaac Newton sir Isaac Newton it's whether Einstein is number one or Newton is number one but but certainly Newton is widely regarded as perhaps the greatest scientific mind who ever lived. again some put Einstein number one, Newton number two, others reverse it. Um, what do they say? You know, Sir Isaac Newton developed all of the basic laws of physics, of light, of optics, uh, invented calculus. Some people may hate him for that. Uh, and this is before his 26th birthday. Uh, so it's absolutely stunning genius. Now, interestingly enough, this is fascinating. uh physics and mathematics were actually his sidelines. His passion was actually biblical commentary. Uh Isaac Newton has commentaries on the Old Testament, the Torah, and then and know the rest of the Jewish Bible. He never published them in his lifetime because they were heretical ideas against the Church of England. and he would lose his professorship in Cambridge had he been declared a heretic. So he kept it quiet. But indeed uh Bible commentary was his his passion. Now when we describe Newtonian physics or classical physics that is a very highly deterministic system meaning Newton developed or identified he didn't invent obviously but he identified laws in which if a if a if a if an identical force acts upon an identical object you will always get the same reactions. So, Newtonian physics is said to be deterministic, very stable. Now, obviously forces can vary and objects can vary, but if it's the same force and the same object, you will get identical results. Newtonian physics, classical physics is on some level the basis of all technology. This is why we have cars. This is why we have airplanes because you create certain systems and if the systems don't malfunction they will always produce identical results. Right? So Newton is the ar the uh the so to speak the architect of identifying the determinism that exists in the universe. Now towards the uh first decades of the 20th century a number of physicists Neils Boore Heisenberg a lot of people noticed that at the subatomic level at the subatomic level meaning when you're going the particles within the atom things are no longer deterministic. Sometimes a particle if it's struck a certain way will move in one direction. Other times it'll move in another direction. Sometimes in ways that we don't understand. The observer changes the reality. Meaning if you were watching it, it behaves one way almost like it was human in some ways. And this was created a field called quantum mechanics or whatever quantum physics. And it basically stated there is no such thing as a deterministic law of nature. All we can talk about are probabilities. There are probabilities that something will behave a certain way. But there is no such thing as certainty and the subatomic universe is highly unstable and indeterministic. Now in truth Einstein himself now Einstein was a very very fascinating person you know obviously a a genius um when he was young you know he was always rebellious he never accepted authority that's kind of part of his creativity but because he never accepted authority he flirted with everything including orthodox Judaism he grew up in an assimilated German family and at one point he explored religion from he was shar shabas. This is before his ra mitzvah shar shabas for a short time and the like. Uh the guy who talked him out of it was a border a medical students uh in his parents' house whose name was Max Talmwood. strange last night Max Tomud and Max Tomud was unfortunately uh an atheist and he convinced Einstein that religion didn't make sense again that's very tragic from our perspective but the thing about Einstein was that Einstein had a very very deep belief in God as a supreme creator Einstein rejected the notion of a personal God who cares if I put on fill in or not so he didn't he could not accept that this deity would give commandments to human beings. But as Einstein saw the order and coherence and structure and elegance of the universe, he was absolutely convinced this could not be a product of chaos or chance. It must be a product of intelligence. And that was his idea of God. That God is the supreme architect of the laws of nature. And he said that this God loved simplicity. And that's why Einstein attempted to unify different theories. Uh for example, uh the different forces in the world in the universe um we have gravity, we have electromagnetism, we have what's called strong force and and weak force. And hashem, one of the great accomplishments of physics, has taken all of the billions of phenomena and got them down to four forces. But Einstein and the physicists today are looking for what's called a unified field theory where they get it down to one. And Einstein spent 30 years of his life in this, the last 30 years. And it was unending frustration. He couldn't crack it. There are people who say he wasted the last 30 years. But Einstein himself said, "Listen, a younger physicist who has to make his career, can't afford to spend his time on this. I already got my discoveries in. I already got my Nobel Prize. I can try to go for the next frontier. And if I don't get it, someone down the line will get it." But people are still struggling. But again this comes from a very deep deep religious belief not in tom shamayim unfortunately but in the notion that the single god would create a unitary system. Because of this Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics or he had severe disagreements with quantum mechanics. His famous statement which was in German is uh the old man does not play with dice. Meaning God does not simply play gambling. There are rules. There are structures. And this was something that Einstein couldn't even prove obviously because there was evidence to the quantum system. But this was an example of an intuition that was so deep within him that he actually felt it was stronger than any empirical evidence. It's interesting. You know, you don't think of a scientist operating on the level of intuition. In the case of Einstein actually it was very often the case that there were deep intuitions that led him in a certain direction. Okay. So we have these two systems of physics. We have Newtonian determinism and we have quantum mechanics. Newtonian physics is deterministic. Same result every time. Quantum mechanics is probabilistic, uncertain, unstable. So if you ask a physicist, which is correct, which is the correct description of reality, you will often get an answer, well, they're they're both correct. and kind of on big things like cars, computers, airplanes, space uh rockets. Of course, Newton works. Otherwise, you can never get into a car because maybe it'll it'll fall apart, whatever it would be. So, sure, ordinary daily life, we operate with Newtonian physics all the time. That's what creates the stability of existence. But quantum governs the small things, the subatomic things. Determinism on big things, quantum uncertainty on little things. So let's ask a very almost infantile question. Big things are made up of a lot of little things. The table made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of subatomic particles. So if you have billions and billions of these little subatomic particles running around like a chicken without a head, then how does that get coordinated in a uniform result that you're going to get every single time? Somehow God evens it out, right? This is going too much in this way, so it'll cause the thing to go the other way. I don't have an answer but the point I want to make is that the inherent contradiction on some level between quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics is a mirror of the spiritual paradox of free will versus divine plan. Right? I had raised the question this was a long digression to this point. I had raised the question that if God has a plan for the world but the individual actors in the world are free agents. How can God's plan be carried out within the framework of human choice? The answer is we are the subatomic particles. We are like the quantum physics particles that can go every single way. But that doesn't contradict the in Newtonian determinism that exists in the larger picture. So again, I'm not answering the question. I'm not answering how it works out. Somehow God is the supreme chess grandmaster who can change who can turn every move you make to his advantage. God will take every choice that's made that's made to advance his particular plan. So again, it's a fascinating thing. Now again, Einstein himself, by the way, um did not believe in free in human free will because he said it's inconsistent with his understanding of the physical structure. And Einstein actually used the physical structure of the universe to um argue against free will. So um there was another physicist Max Bourne brilliant physicist but his wife's name was Hedwick. Hedwig was not a scientist but she used to like to argue with Einstein. She would argue with Einstein and she would say to Einstein well you don't believe in free will. So uh every murderer is okay every you know you can't condemn people that do evil. So Einstein said what did he say? Just because I don't believe in free will doesn't mean I want to have tea with the guy. Meaning he said that uh he didn't really explain it but he said we have to behave as if there's free will or civilization is not possible which is not an answer really but I think as I said last week that is a common assumption of life. I mean I had said every single person, every single scientist who denies free will lives his life as if there's free will. Which means you have your theory and then you have your life, right? If your son breaks a window by hitting a baseball through your glass and you say, "Why are you doing that?" And the kid says, "Well, I don't have free will, so I had to do it." uh even if dad is in the middle of writing a paper denying free will, he's going to give his son some discipline. So, how do you explain that? I really don't have an explanation. It just goes back to the point that the way we live our life is not always going to be consistent with our philosophical premises. But as I say, as a Jew, we have less of a problem because we do believe in free will. So, as a result, I can punish the kid. Yeah. >> I think that metaphor of a coin coin. Then each throw of the coin can go either way. But as you do more and more and more can go either way. Yeah. >> But when you have billions and billions of them, it goes towards >> Yeah. >> Because they're coordinated. uh >> coin forces then it's going to come that 50% are head% tail so it is a direction >> okay I hear again um okay but but we would say that's maybe a little more than that because Hashem is directing things too so Hashem will coordinate in fact one of the problems that Einstein had with quantum is that sometimes the direction that a particle went depended on the other direction another particle went as almost it was responding to it and Einstein hated that. Einstein called that spooky action from a distance. He never accepted that kind of magic idea. But again as I say u the sub on the subatomic level this seems to be true. So once again as I say obviously um either I've said things that u are not understood or I've said things that are wrong. So I apologize either way but but this is the basic uh paradox of histo. >> So would an example that entered into with them and said, "Okay, 400 years not in the end, it was [snorts] an example of a plan." Yeah. The human choice, the human choice can, you know, God as it were may have also an infinite set of contingency plans. Meaning God maps out particular directions based on the choices that human beings make and that will affect that will affect it's not going to affect the ultimate plan but it may affect the intermediate stages by which now this is a good segue because um the Rambam then deals with two textual questions um I'll probably have to save most of for next week but I'll start at least and that is textual question number one is exactly the text that you just cited, the Brisbar, the covenant of of the parts where Hashem says to Ara, "You shall surely know, your seed, your children, your progeny shall be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they this nation will enslave them. Enu and shall afflict them shah 400 years. Then Hashem says and the nation that enslaves you I will judge I will punish [clears throat] and afterwards uh the your your progyny will leave with great wealth. That's the the biz mit. So God decreed that there would be a servitude or at least three stages being an alien, a slave and being afflicted over a duration of 400 years. And you are correct that we in fact were not in Mitzim 400 years. We were in Mitzim 210 years. And the explanation is that we had descended unfortunately to the 49th level of impurity. Had we been there even another minute, we would have hit 50. We would have been irredeemable. So God had to truncate the process. But let me point out the following. Even when God truncates the process, he still has to recalibrate the 400 years. meaning to say as you know Rashi explains well it was 400 years from the birth of but that is a recalibration the original plan was 400 years of slavery when that didn't become possible so God reccalibrates the so he doesn't get rid of it but he recalibrates the 400 years okay but the Rambam raises the question here's the Rambam's question if God decreed that we would be slaves God decreed this is going to happen then how could parro and the Egyptians be punished for carrying out God's will did they not have they didn't have free will at that point now now again do not confuse this this is not yet asking the question of God hardening Pyro's heart that is another question okay don't don't mix them up this is a question not from God hardening Pyro's heart this is a question of the Brisbane itself so here is The Rambam's answer, the Rambam's answer is God had a plan and that plan did involve that the Jewish people would be enslaved and they would be persecuted for 400 years. But God didn't say it had to be Mitzim. Mitim is not mentioned and God did not make any individual mitz oppress or hurt the Jewish people. And if they persecuted or enslaved the Jewish people, they were free agents. Now granted, if they wouldn't have enslaved, some other nation would because God had a decree. But the Rambam says it was never nigar on any to engage in this bad behavior. And therefore, even if the punishment on the Jewish people or the suffering of the Jewish people was decreed by God, that does not let the bad guys off the hook because God never made them do this evil behavior. You see, this this actually is a very very valuable key to to a lot of problems. I mean, people talk about the Holocaust. Now, if we assume that nobody dies unless God decreed that they die. Now, again, not not because they're sinners necessarily, you know, God forbid. I'm not blaming the victim. I'm just saying that a person dies when God determines they're supposed to die. Then, how can a murderer be responsible? And the Rambam's answer is yeah, God decreed that person would die, but God didn't decree that you will kill that person. God simply takes your choice and links it to his plan, but you are still going to be morally accountable for the choice that you made. Now this distinction between the thing that happens and the actor that does it which the Rambam is making. In other words, the thing that happened was decreed by God. But the actor that perpetrated the evil was his own choice. This seems to be very reminiscent and perhaps even based on the salivas the duties to the heart which is a book that the Rambam himself writes in one of his letters that this was his father's favorite safer was written in Arabic originally and theavo says a very very kind of amazing proposition although it's kind of become mainstream in yeshivists and seminaries but it's to me It's quite extraordinary and that is no human being has any power to harm any other human being unless God decreed that that human being would be harmed. So a murderer has no power to kill a human being unless God has decreed for whatever reason. I'm not suggesting blame. That's not the issue here. But unless God decreed that it's this person's time to go. Now, on the other hand, the guy that pulled the trigger had free will. So, let's say somebody goes into a a store at 7-Eleven. We don't have 7-Elevens in Israel, but you may remember from the old country. 7-Eleven, 2 o'clock in the morning, Saturday night, and there's somebody, a robber comes in with a gun. Now, does the robber have free will to pull the trigger or not pull the trigger? Absolutely. Now, if he pulls the trigger, somebody might get killed. If he doesn't pull the trigger, that person won't get killed. But how does that work? If nobody dies unless God decrees that they die, then how is that going to work if the the robber does not pull the trigger? According to the this is to me quite astounding. If the guy doesn't pull the trigger, the one who is supposed to die is going to die anyway. The roof may collapse. He may get a heart attack. Whatever it is, meaning the murderer doesn't kill the person. It's the gazer of God that kills the person. But the murderer had the choice to act or not to act. And for that, he's morally accountable. Now, according to that, I mean, what does that even mean? Um, Hitler, Yumakimo, there were six million Jews killed in the Holocaust. Did the Nazis have free will? Yes. Did Hitler have free will? Yes. They could have decided not to kill a single Jew. But what does that mean? I I don't Again, I'm expressing my own increduluity. is does that mean that had the Nazis not done it six million Jews would have died anyway by something by a plague by by a flood by some catastrophe now that's hard to believe I mean you know maybe it's easier to handle with the you know the one guy in the store you know it's very difficult to imagine on the mass catastrophes that had the bad guy not acted it would have happened anyway okay we'll explore this more next week but but the point I want to make is that the Rambam differentiates between the consequence and the actor the consequence of enslavement was inevitable that was God's plan but since God did not decree who would be the actors who would be the perpetrators and each actor each perpetrator had unlimited free will to make a virtuous choice They are held accountable for their choices. Meaning had God said e Egypt will enslave you for 400 years that would have been a different story. But God does not decree the instruments that will carry out his plan. That is a function of free will and that is why the Egyptians were accountable. Now you understand this is not going to answer the next question of God hardening power because there God is directly interfering with someone's free will. We'll talk about that. That's another question. It is important not to confuse the questions. One is the britbsarim and the other is hashem hardened parro's heart. The Rambam's answer for the britzbsarim does not answer God hardening parro's heart. God willing we'll talk about that next week. Have a good good week everybody. Bye-bye.