Rabbi Akiva Tatz- Free Will at the Project Inspire Convention 2019

So, this is a complicated subject and a very challenging both intellectually and also philosophically. So, let me try to explain the the issue, the problem and see if we can get it right together. That's good to say, isn't Is that okay? Do you mind? It's fine. Okay, so let me Sorry. No, I'm back here again. No, the just the noise was bothering me. Thank you. Um So, the subject the problem is like this. Do you have energy for something a little challenging? Sure. That's why we're here. Yeah. All right, so let's see if we can do that. The The problem is Let me state the problem and then we'll take a tour through the issues that that that examine this issue. The problem is that we discussed free will a couple of days ago. My free will means I can do things completely unconstrained within the parameters of within the borderline the the borders of where free will operates, but I can do things and I can certainly do things that I think myself. So, if I do something dangerous and get hurt, that's natural. Right? A person could even kill himself. I mean, you could If you if you if you do things that benefit you, then you'll have a benefit. If you do things that harm you, you'll be harmed. I have no problem with that. The problem is how can I harm you? How can I use my free will to affect you in a way that you don't deserve? This is the clash between behirah and hashgacha, meaning Like I can I No, I don't don't You can ask questions, but just give me a few seconds to If I use my free will, let's say, to hurt someone and that person does not deserve to be hurt. That person has hashgacha. God is Hashem certainly taking care of you. He's doing you giving you what you need, right? He's certainly not going to let you come to any harm that's inappropriate. No? That's hashgacha. Hashgacha means divine providence. He's taking care of you. If If you not If you If he doesn't want to intend it, it's not decreed, so to speak, that you'll be harmed, then surely you cannot be harmed. And if it's decreed that you will be harmed, then nothing you can do to get out of it. Right? I'm not talking about chuva, I'm talking about in the para- So, how can I Let's make it brutally clear. Mr. A is walking down the street, and God does not intend him to die. God has not decreed death upon him. I'm not talking about what Hashem knows. That's another sub- You think this subject's difficult? That's tiger country. Right? And if you want the reference for this, by the way, I wrote a book called Will, Freedom, and Destiny, right? That is a book about free will, and it has a detailed section, and you can maybe Can you hold up a copy? Here Here Here Here's the book. This is an excellent book. You got to buy at least at least two copies. And thank you. That's a great book. And if you don't want to If you don't want to read the book, you can email me, and I'll download you the the references, the chapter, whatever you want. So, there you'll find the complex background and details, but I'll try to give you an overview of the subject. Mr. A is walking down the street. You in- Could you close the door, please? You interview Hashem. Hashem, how do you feel about Mr. A? He says, "No, he's cool, Mr. A. No problem with him." Hashem, do you decree that he die today? God says, "No, no decrees." A- Again, please, I'm not talking about Hashem's foreknowledge. That's You can't That's inscrutable, beyond us. I'm talking about a divine decree, which is a concept that needs understanding, but there is such a thing. God says, "No decree upon this person to die." Hashem, how long would you like him to live for? "Another 25 years. I've got plans for him." Okay. And at that point, Mr. B turns the corner and tries to kill Mr. A. Now, we're in trouble. If B cannot kill A because God does not want it, then you're limiting the free will of B. And if you say can kill him, what happened to Hashem's such gocha? That was not appropriate for A to die. Do you see the problem? This is a serious problem. It would seem That's another That's another amazing problem. Are you Ashkenazi or Sephardi? Well, if you're a Sephardi, I would send you to Rabbi Hillel. And you know, even as Ashkenazi, you can read it anyway. Rabbi Hillel has an amazing article called Yesh Yesh Nisba B'lo Mishpat, that that people could die without justice, like a mistake that you're talking about. An amazing amazing article. And if you read my book, you'll find it quoted. And if you email me, I'll download it to you. But just hold the questions. Okay. It's going to be a long day. It's going to be a long day. It's not your phone? It's what? It's what? I stepped That was my phone. Yeah, could you just stand on it? Put your heel on it and crush it. Let's try again. We need all the help we can get, right? So let's let's switch your phone off. It would seem that there are only two ways to handle this problem. Either you could say that if A kills B, you have to say, it would seem, that B must have been decreed to die that day. That's one way to handle it, right? He must have been decreed. The only interpretation, as walking on the street, B kills him, the interpretation must be that B was meant to die. A A As one B kills him, A was meant to die. Right? Which means that B used his free will, but he never perpetrated anything in the world that wasn't going to happen anyway. He killed him, but he was going to die anyway. He can turn around to his widow and say, "Lady, your husband wasn't coming home anyway. What do you want What do you got to do with me?" That's a little strange. That means you never affect a change in the world that wasn't going to happen otherwise. Right? The other The other The alternative is, of course, you hold him accountable for pulling the trigger. No one No one denying that. One second. One second. He's going to go to court for this. He's going to pay. In a society where he's a death sentence, he's going to get a death sentence. There's no question about that. But ultimately, the person would have died. You're guilty for your free will action in the world, but you never make a difference to what happens in the world. That's one way to handle it. The other way to handle it is to say that he wasn't going to die, and this person used his free will and killed him. That's very distressing. Agreed? So, whichever way you go, you're in trouble. Either you say that you never really make a change in the world, that's very difficult to hear. Or you say, you know, I see blank faces. When you pull out of here today, you get in your car, you and some idiot backs into you and makes a big dent in your car. You get out and you start yelling and screaming. Well, you're you're Project Inspire from Jews, you'd get out and say good morning. You say to the person, You say to the person, "Look what you've done to my car." The guy says to you, "You're You're a religious Jew, aren't you?" You say, "Yes." He said, "Well, you must believe you had it coming." What do you want from me? No. The world doesn't look that way to us. That's one way to handle it. But, that way That way I'm not talking about that. When a person is the agent of someone else's harm without free will, we use that principle. I'm driving down the street, someone runs in front of me, you know, no way I could have stopped. No way, completely exempt, completely exonerated, right? Why was I chosen to be the agent of that person's misfortune? Okay, I'm talking about when you deliberately do something. First of all, before we move on, do we see the problem? Otherwise, we're going to get nowhere. So, we have a problem of the clash between and How can I You you worked in late, right? How can I use my free will to harm someone else or help them if it's not decreed on that individual? Okay. So, that With that question in mind, let's take a trip through this amazing area. I'm warning you, it's a distressing subject. You're probably not going to enjoy this. And not only that, most people who've thought about it, I think think about it wrong. Most religious people think that indeed you cannot affect someone else, and I think that's wrong. So, let me try to to prove that. Let's Let's Let's back up a couple hundred years to the time of the Pesach Turah. The Pesach Turah was one of the great later commentaries on the code of Jewish law. It was a marvelous commentary with many fascinating things. And here's what he says. He was sent a question by a Jew who found himself in a very interesting situation. This man was a serious Talmud Chacham, one of the great I don't know what his name was, but one of the very competent rabbinic figures of his generation. And he found himself at a commercial exposition somewhere, I think it was in Leipzig. At the time where people come to buy and sell. And in that place, there was a procedure that when there was financial litigation between any two Jews, they would constitute a Bet Din, right? They would make a Bet Din. Three people co-opted onto the Bet Din as we do. They would hear the case, and then they would make a decision. In fact, even the non-Jews they used to subject themselves to the same form of arbitration. And on this occasion, this rabbi was there, whatever business he had to do, and two Jews had some problem. So, the local people co-opted a Bet Din. They put two people on the Bet Din, and to the third one, obviously they chose him. He was a a known rabbinic figure. And and they put him onto the Bet Din. And here's what he says. He says, "I found myself sitting there with two other individuals that they had chosen from the community, and the case began to be heard, and it became immediately apparent to me that the other two judges were lying. Completely. They had no intention of voting for the truth. They were partial to one of the individuals. Clearly, they were going to vote in the wrong direction. Money What Money would change hands in the wrong direction, and I'll be to a miscarriage of justice." In a Bet Din, a minority opinion, right, is not even allowed to disclose that he was the minority. If the three of us are on a Bet Din, and we judge his case, and you outvote me, I'm forbidden to go to him afterwards and say, "You know, I was on your side, but they outvoted me." Not allowed to do that. Not even allowed to do Not like in America when the court makes a thing, there's a learned dissenting opinion, and the judge writes why they are wrong. In Jewish law, not allowed to do that. Why? Because a Bet Din is a unitary body, and any decision of the base in is a fiat that comes down from the from the the majority constitutes a totality and you're absorbed in the majority. You've got no opinion at that that point. Is this clear? So, what do I do? I sit there They got Can you close the door, please, ladies? Thank you. I am going to be outvoted by these two liars. I'm going to be carried along in a miscarriage of justice. There's nothing I can do. So, he thought to himself, there's one thing I can do. I can say I don't know. I can say I don't know. Voting against them is not going to help. They're going to outvote me. But if a judge says I don't know in base in, the case is closed. You He's recused from the case. You start again. You call up another judge. The The case at this point is closed. Why? Cuz in Jewish law, you can never have an even number of judges in a base in. Right? There's always to be an odd number of Why American jury has 12 people, I've never figured out. But anyway, you need an odd number of people so you can never have a hung decision. And if one judge says I don't know, the case is closed. So, he said, I can say I don't know. But the problem was to say I don't know, he would have had to lie. Cuz he did know. So, so, so, so his question to himself was like this. Is it better to say the truth, vote for the truth, be outvoted and become party to a lie, or is it better to say a lie to achieve the truth? What amazing question. One second, you have to enjoy the You have to You have to enjoy the questions, that's what I Do the end justify the means in Yiddish law? No. You know, it's such a pleasure to speak to Americans. They've all got opinions. You know? I live in England now. You speak to them, you don't know if they're alive or dead. You know? In Israel, they throw things at you before you begin, you know? But Anyway, we can't all be South African. If he recuses himself Yes. It's a lie. It's a lie. It's a lie. I say I don't know. That's what you have to say. The Dedeen is the Dinus to say in any of the I don't know. If he says I don't know, but he'd he'd be lying. He didn't know. He knew where the money should go. So the question is it's a fantastic moral question. Does Judaism Can he dig down to the place where he doesn't know? Like really, really are you are you are you a Yeah, yes, yes, yes. Are you a therapist? No, it's from the Itchkus. Woo! Let me Let me say this. If you dig down deep enough, you get to the absolute truth. There's no There's no There's no not knowing there. If you get into your dice, you know everything. Anyway, this is your It's a It's a very creative audience. Now, listen. I'm I'm a Lithuanian, yeah. Are you allowed to lie when when you're doing it for the right purpose? That's exactly my question. So stay with me. Just give me a chance. Give me a moment. Give me a moment. Do you say a lie to achieve the truth or do you say the truth and have a lie? What is the truth in Halakha? Is it the naked legalistic meaning of the words or is it contextual? You're sitting at home, the phone rings. Your wife picks it up. From her tone of voice, you realize this is someone you don't want to speak to. So this is this is this is this is what you do. I'm not in the room. I'm not home. And your wife says, "I'm sorry, he's out." Is that a lie or the truth? You're outside the door. What would you say? Is it truth or a lie? A white lie. So our authorities that speak about this say that's false. The meaning of the question is not which side of the door is your husband standing on. That's not the meaning of the question. And you can't you can't get away with it. Right? That's not the case. You're running for the bus and someone says, "Have you got a pen?" And you say, "No." And you have one in your pocket. That's okay. The meaning of the question is do own a pen? That's not the meaning of Is this clear? And therefore, what do you say in the situation? Am I supposed to say the correct answer and yield a false legal result? Or should I say Should I say the a false answer and have a greater good? So he thought to himself, "How can I solve this problem?" And then he thought, "I have a precedent. I have a precedent. The Gamorah talks about such a thing." The Gamorah says, "What happens if the Sanhedrin is voting?" The Sanhedrin is voting, right? With the great Sanhedrin, 23 judges or 71 judges, and let's say it's a capital case. Someone this this person's on trial for his life and the best thing. Now, let's assume that you are all members of the great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. I'm sure you're all fully capable. Black belts. And we're about to judge. Now, you know, they sat in a semicircle so they could all see each other, and they voted from junior to senior, right? They would vote from junior to senior. That's how the order of the voting would go. What the reason for that would be? So that a junior should not be intimidated by a small senior opinion, and that's how they'd vote. Now, they would vote and count the number to see if there's a majority. The Torah has some extremely peculiar laws when it comes to capital judgment, unlike all other due process. And that is that to to convict someone of a capital crime. Today, we can't do it at all, but but even in days when it could be done, to convict someone of a capital crime in Judaism is almost impossible. Almost impossible. There are procedural issues that are so demanding that they're virtually impossible to fulfill. For example, a majority is good enough to acquit, but a majority is not good enough to convict. You need more than a simple majority. You need a majority of at least two. They are also The witnesses get cross-examined in a way that's almost impossible to fulfill. By the way, for homework, when you go home, I hope it keeps you up all night tonight. Why does the Torah have so many death sentences and make it almost impossible to apply? The Torah death sentences for breaking Shabbos and death sentences for all kind of things. Death sentences, stoning, beheading, strangling, burning, and make the same Torah makes it virtually impossible. To have Yaakov One Books spoken about so that's very wonderful subject. But nevertheless, and here comes one of the quirks. Listen carefully. There's one particular majority to convict that paradoxically acquits. There's one particular proportion. You count up the votes and the one particular proportion that says he's guilty that if that proportion occurs, he's innocent. What is that? If the 100% of the judges agree he's guilty, he's freed. Is that logical? They all agree guilty, he's freed. The Rambam says if it's a murder case, he's not freed, but he's dealt with in another fashion. But any other death sentence is completely freed. Why? This is not our subject directly, but just to mention, a reason is this. If the judges all say that he's guilty, nobody argues in his favor at all, we suspicious they didn't examine his case well enough. First of all, all Jews agreeing, that's definitely miraculous. I mean, there's something wrong with that, right? All Jews agree, that's for sure wrong. So, if they all agree that he's guilty, then he's innocent, right? That's That's the din. That's the law. At least one, by the way, there's a wonderful dramatic piece that was written about this. Fantastic. If you teach the subject in Kiruv, you should definitely use that. It's a wonderful play, old old play called 12 Angry Men. It was made into a movie in 1953 with Henry Fonda. All black and white movie. You can show it to people. It's 100% kosher. There's not a woman in in the whole movie. You know, it consists of 12 men in a jury room where a crime was committed and the jury has heard the evidence. A young fellow killed his father. There's no doubt about it at all. They walk into the courtroom, they all vote guilty except for one. He says, "I think there's room for doubt." And they think he's crazy. As the play evolves, it's very beautiful dramatic piece. As the the play develops, he tries to show them why there may be room for doubt even in this case. Fantastic piece of drama. So, I was used to tell the people in the old days, this is the last DVD you buy and you show it on your TV and then you kick the screen out and use it to keep your Gemaras. But anyway, that's Kiruv. Um but the point is that um if they all judge guilty then he's innocent, clear? Now watch carefully. This person's on trial for his life. You are members of the Sanhedrin and here's how the voting goes. The Ramam talks about this. The voting goes like this, guilty, guilty, death, execute, guilty, guilty. They all vote guilty until the last member of the Sanhedrin, the great 10th day in black belt of the generation, right? The The Muflesha of the Sanhedrin. He's the genius leader of the generation. He's the last person to speak and he knows that the man's guilty. Now what does Now Now what does he say? If he says guilty, this If he says guilty, this guilty man walks free. Should he say not guilty to get a true conviction? Or should he say guilty and have a false acquittal? What should he say? Is the truth the naked legalistic technical meaning of the words or is it the context? If it's the context, he should say innocent cuz he knows he's guilty. But it's a lie. At what point does the base and shamble I'm asking the questions. What would you say? Guilty. The Ramam says he has to say guilty. The dinner of the day and he says the female ain't a boy says to judge according to what his eyes see. Guilty, guilty, walks free, that's his problem, not ours. Is this clear? Okay. So he thought to him that's what the law of is there for in the Torah. Therefore he said to himself, oh, so I'm sitting on this base and with these two individuals, they're both lying. I should say the truth. And he wrote that to Piskei Teshuvos. Look, it says that in the Ramam and he brings down this halacha from the Gemara. If they all the judges, the last person has to say the truth even though a clear falsehood results. And therefore that's what I have to do. Piskei Teshuvos says wrong. That's a wrong precedent. You're making a wrong comparison. That case of the Sanhedrin is exactly not like your case. Now let's think about it. Isn't learning Torah amazing? Huh? What would you be doing on a Sunday morning? Playing golf? What would you be doing up here? Huh? Golf is playing an inning. Let's go back to our subject. Can you ever affect anyone in a way that wouldn't happen otherwise, right? That's the famous question of the Ra'av Haiim. Could you do something to someone that's not decreed? I'm not talking about go going against the divine decree. I'm not talking about going against Hashem's knowledge. I'm talking about the specific situation in which Hashem has not made the decree on someone and you try to kill him. That's That's the particular context. So, it seems again that there are two ways. Let's go through it again. There are two ways to handle this question. Either you cannot do it because you can't affect anyone else's hashgacha. You can pull the trigger and you'll be accountable, but he was going to die anyway. The other option is that you could actually kill a person, go so far as to kill someone who was not decreed to die. Is that fair on them? No, but that's free will. That's what free will means. Most people in the religious world, if you talk to them, they think clearly it's the former. Definitely, you can't do something to somebody who was not meant to happen to him. Definitely. Why are you guilty? Cuz you took action and you used your free will, but the result would have happened. And I think that's wrong. I think that's wrong. And I'd like to share with you some sources for this. In fact, the truth is I can tell you a long list of sources that say you can affect someone when it's not their due their due dispensation and I don't know a single source that says the opposite. People will try and tell tell you sources, but I don't think it's correct. And what I'm telling you is the way Rav Moshe Shapiro used to present the subject. Rav Gurwitz also, they both used the same the same words. They said "Ze pashut kakh." This is clearly the way that it is and I don't know any any sources to the contrary. And if you read my book, you'll find 20 different sources. The Ra'av Haiim is wonderful on this. And there there are many other classes, but let me try to present you a few proofs for the very distressing notion that you could do something to someone that was not destined to not not not not decreed upon them. First proof. This is a classic. I actually heard it originally from Rav Yaakov Weinberg. I when I was living in Israel, his son used to live close to where I was and one Shabbos afternoon I took a walk with him and I asked him this question and here's how I put it. We say by Yoman David Al Gad, David said to God, "Niphlah na b'yad Hashem, let us fall into Hashem's hand ki rabim rachamav cuz he's very merciful. Uv'yad Adam aleh phola, let me not fall into human hand." Ooh, that's very telling. Here's what happened. Hashem came to David and said to him, "David, you have sinned. You need suffering. You need suffering. Now, I'm giving you a choice. What kind of suffering would you like? Would you like a war where the enemy Philistines attack and you'll have to deal with a war? Would you like a disease epidemic among your people where many people get ill? It's up to you." David said, "Hashem, I'll take the disease cuz that comes from you and you are merciful. And I know that everything that comes from you will be exactly what I deserve and what we deserve. But there's no trusting a Philistine soldier. They could do more than I deserve." That's a very powerful proof. If you believe that every bullet has your name on, every Philistine sword has your name, flip a coin. Hashem, it's up to you. What is the difference? I'm only going to get what I deserve. Uh-uh, he didn't say that. He said, "I'll take the disease cuz that comes from you. But war involves human beings, not animals, not bacteria. And human beings have free will and therefore ki rabim rachamav, your dealing with me is merciful and I'll get a merciful deal from you cuz you judge that appropriate for me. But a human may give me a non-merci I may get worse pain from a human even though this is a decree from Hashem. It's going to be worse one way than the other." That's a very powerful proof. In fact, I don't see how you can interpret that any other way. But isn't there a distinction between means and ends on that? I'm talking about the means. I'm talking about the means. You be the dispenser. I'm talking about that. I'm afraid that by man by man's hand it'll be dispensed in an improper fashion. That's right, worse. Not worse. He said worse. Rabim rachamav, from you there'll be rachamim, from them there may be no rachamim." I'll get a kind from you and cruel from them. You have to know the difference. I don't see a difference. Let me say it again, you okay? This is incontrovertible. David said, "Hashem, I'll see a disease cuz it comes from you. That will be with rachamim, rabbim rachamim, but not a human being, there will not be rachamim. So, the pain will be less from you, there'll be rachamim with it. From the human being, it may less more more pain, less rachamim." Do you hear what I'm saying? I I hear what you're Give me a logical A disease comes, it hits him, it gives him a 102 temperature, 105 temperature. No. Man comes and and he smacks him with a a punch or a a sword a hot sword. Yeah. The temperature is 104°. The results of that temperature is 104°. So, it's worse. So, it's worse from man. It'll be 102 but isn't that what he's answering? Yes, he's I'm I'm bringing you a proof that from Hashem is not as bad as from people. Why should the decree change by the means? Well, it's the same difference between when you say when misha's best than misha's misha's misha's misha's Maybe. Yeah, but misha's best than you can't do chuvah. Indeed. Maybe. Misha's misha's misha's you can, so it's not the same. Maybe. Maybe. Thanks for giving me a proof. I'm glad you're on my side. So, it that that's a very elegant and succinct proof. But let me tell you the classic. The classic is the Orach Chaim. This is said not only by People think it's Orach Chaim. The Alshich says the same thing. The Malbim says the same thing. The Netziv says the same thing. So, it's a very very broadly accepted idea. But in fact, the Zohar says it. Unusually, the Orach Chaim doesn't quote the Zohar. But it's a clear Zohar. And here's what happened. And if you don't know this, you don't know the subject. This is the professional, so to speak, core of the of the issue. When Yosef approached his brothers, they decided to kill him. You know the story. They said, "Hinei ba'al hachalomos zeh, this dreamer of dreams approaches. Let's kill him v'nireh and see may Yemach shemo let's see what becomes of his dreams. That's what they said. The Achime explains, they weren't being childishly sarcastic. Let's see what becomes of his dreams. This is what they meant. Yosef had dreams that we would bow down to him. That's completely illegal and illicit. He's a He's a He's a He's a imposter. And he deserves to die. How brothers could make a bet in on a brother? There are many questions here. But he's a rodef. He's an aggressor on us, and therefore in the future history of the Jewish people in the world, he has to die. So they made a bet in and they said he's going to die. Then they said to each other, can we be sure that our judgment is correct? We're humans. We may have been making a mistake. And then they said to each other, of course we can be sure. Cuz if he dies, it will be immediately apparent that his dreams were false. Here's Joseph, he's born Joseph. 17 years old, he has dreams that we'll bow down to him in the future. Well, if we kill him now, there ain't going to be a future in which we'll bow down to him. So his dreams are false. Not only will justice be done, it'll be seen to be done. Is this clear? He predicted that there'll be a time when we bow down to him. And if he's a prophet and they're prophetic dreams, they must come true. But let's kill him, and then we'll see immediately that his dreams are false. And I ain't going to bow down to him ever. So we rest assured that what if we do, we kill him. If he does, then Reuben stepped forward and said, "Gentlemen, you're making a serious askafic mistake. Human free will is so important that if you decide to kill him, even though he had correct prophetic dreams, and even though he's right, Hashem will let you kill him anyway. Against all divine decrees. Why? Because free will, Hashem's going to say hands off. I created the world for this. I'm not interfering with free will. And he will die, and you'll think you're right, and you'll be wrong. Cuz that's the power of free will. So they said, "Well, what should we do?" Reuben said, "Don't touch him. Throw him in this pit full of snakes and scorpions, cuz no self-respecting scorpion is going to touch you unless it's decreed, cuz he's an animal, he's got no free will. Don't touch him with your human hands. So they throw him in the pit. The moral says the pit was not full of snakes and scorpions cuz then you'd be guilty. The missioner says if you take a person and throw him onto a pile of snakes and scorpions and he gets killed, you killed him. There's a fascinating discussion in the Gamoran Sanhedrin. The Yad Rama goes into how proximate does your act have to be before it's considered not your act. If you hold someone's head underwater and say I didn't kill him but it was just a lack of oxygen. You're guilty. So there's a discussion and the missioner says if you throw someone to snakes and scorpions, you could kill him. But there were enough snakes and scorpions to be a dangerous place. And therefore, let's see if they kill him. If they kill him, then it's from Hashem because then they all act under orders. But if we kill him, then all bets are off. And that's what they did. That's what they did. By the way, the missioner says they set their dogs on him first cuz dogs have got no free will and they didn't kill him. So then they threw him in the pit. This is Orach Chaim. The Zohar says the whole story in great The way the Zohar puts it is it says, listen to this. The Zohar says you need a more miraculous intervention to be safe from humans than from animals. More s'chus because to be safe from a human, you could be safe from a human but that's called miraculous. To save from an animal is a small miracle. Because human free will is so important in the world that Hashem deals with it differently. This is the classic source. It's the Orach Chaim. It is in fact the Zohar and in fact nobody says Orach Chaim's wrong. Nobody. From the days of Orach Chaim to today, nobody has argued with Orach Chaim. Nobody says he's talking nonsense. It's wrong. How can he say such things? Right? That is the proof. The truth is Can you just clarify this? You said the snakes and scorpions weren't in the pit. Snakes and scorpions would You said they weren't in the pit. They weren't by the side. Sure. It wasn't full. If the pit was full of snakes and scorpions, there were enough to be dangerous. You can't throw a person onto a pit of snakes and scorpions and say you didn't kill him. Animal So that's the proof. And there are so many. Once you start seeing this, you see it everywhere. Everywhere. One example. One example. When the Egyptians tortured the Jewish people, the Rambam and the Ramban both ask all commentaries ask, why were they punished for doing something that was predicted? Why did the Egyptians get punished for something that Hashem predicted would happen? They should They should be rewarded. Not only not only is was the thing that Hashem knew, that's one problem. The Rambam has two problems. One is when Hashem knows in advance something will happen, how can there be any free will at all? That's a classic problem. Read my book, you'll see it. But here, one second, one second. How can if Hashem knows something in advance, how can you have free will? But this is Rambam says that the worst problem. If Hashem knows something in advance and announces it in the world as a prophecy, then for sure it can't change. Hashem says to Abraham, "You'll be enslaved in a strange land and you'll be" Hashem announces that as a prophecy. The Egyptians walk in, fulfill the prophecy, and then you punish them? Hashem, reward us. We fulfilled your prophecy. This is this is a That's not what they No one gives that No one gives that answer. No one gives that answer. No one gives that answer. But doesn't it make sense? The Rambam The Rambam does not agree with you, neither does the Ramban. So, stay with me. Stay with me. The Rambam has a version of your answer. Just just one second. This is the classic problem. And there are many answers to this. Just to satisfy you, otherwise you won't you won't sleep tonight. Just one second, one second. Yes, yes, indeed, indeed. What you learned in base Jacob? So, here here's an answer to your question. The Rambam says, there was no decree on any individual Egyptian. The decree was on the Egyptians, not on Ahmed and Mahmoud and and therefore when he hurt a Jew, Hashem said, "Why you?" Okay. But nevertheless, there are many answers, but listen to this. Listen to the Ramban. There are many answers, but listen to his answer. The Egyptians were not punished for enslaving the Jewish people, not enslaved, not punished at all cuz it was decreed. They were only punished for doing worse than was decreed. They didn't have to torture them and kill their children. And so since they and they were only punished for doing the worse than they were decreed. Oh, so you can do worse to people than is decreed on them. It's clear. When the Egyptians enslaved the Jewish people to the extent that was decreed and necessary, you can't punish them. They're doing the decree. But they hurt them worse. Ah, so you can hurt people worse than is decreed. Is this clear? There are many other answers. One other answer is they did what was decreed, but they enjoyed it and they did it out of a malicious motivation not to fulfill decrees. So they get slammed for that as well. This is not our subject today. There are many but the answer I'm trying to bring out is only this. The Egyptians hurt the Jewish people worse than decreed and he punished them for the worse. So you see you can do worse than is decreed. You can hurt a person more than I shall would have hurt him. Okay, once you see this the whole thing I'll stop for questions. Once you see it you see it everywhere and if you read my book you'll see 20 examples. I'll just give you one one more. When Daniel Daniel was serving in the Persian court, right? I think it was courage was the king or or Daryavush. Darius the second who might have been a son or grandson of Esther. But when he was king Daniel was still alive and like many Jews throughout history he was an advisor to the government. Not only was an advisor the king worshipped him. He was a prophetic individual. His friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah survived in the fire. The king worshipped him. And as often happens, the other courtiers in the court told the king that Daniel was a traitor. They wanted him killed. So they told the king that he was treacherous and the king should kill him. The king said, "I don't believe you. I think he's a loyal servant. But you know what I'll do? I'll put him into a lion's den. Famous story. I'll put Daniel into the lions' den and see if the lions eat him. I'll starve the lions till they're hungry. I'll put Daniel in the lions' den. If I'm right and he's righteous the way I say, he'll survive like his friends survived in the fire. That's how holy he is. If you're right and he's a traitor, he'll be eaten by the lions. So, here's what happened. He threw Daniel into the lions' den. Everyone knows the story, but they don't know the next possuk. The next possuk says the king came and he sealed the mouth of the lions' den with a big rock. Why? It says cuz he was concerned that those who hated him would kill him with their spears or their or their arrows and then say the lions killed him. Oh, you're not afraid of hungry mountain lions killing him. You're afraid that the jealous people might kill him. That you have to protect him against. Because humans could kill you even if you don't deserve it. Listen what's going on. The king knows that Daniel is such a such a kodesh that he's going to survive in a den of hungry lions and they won't touch him. He's completely confident. But when a human being tries to kill him, there'll be no proof at all. That you have to protect him against. So, you see that a human could do us something even to a person who merits to be protected from but no self-respecting hungry lion is going to touch you unless it's decreed on me cuz he's got no free will. So, once you start seeing this, you see it everywhere and there are so many proofs to this to this to this theme. And I don't know any that prove the opposite. And therefore, it is a distressing subject. Just one second. Let Let me finish and then I'll stop for questions. But it's clear from all our sources that there's people bringing to mind here and there's this from but actually they're very late sources and even if they do disagree, it doesn't change the overwhelming majority approach to this and I I think that actually people are misunderstanding those sources, too. So, the conclusion we come to is that you can do something to someone that's not decreed upon the person. I'm not talking about where Hashem decrees the opposite. And Hashem always has to to Let's get that clear. When the person does something to someone else, Hashem has to agree to that. He has to allow it. Listen to the the way it's the right way to say this. And if you really read of Chaim Friedlander's volume, right, he has a Chaim Friedlander has um He has a volume on Hashgacha and Bechira. And the way he puts it is like this, and this is the right way to say it. You can use your free will to put someone in a situation of danger that they wouldn't have been in otherwise. You put them in the danger. And in that situation of danger, Hashem has to have to make the decree do they deserve to be saved or not. The Zohar says it takes more miraculous intervention to save him from a human, from animals less. So, you can't kill somebody that Hashem does not want killed. Let's get that clear. But you can put a person in a situation of danger in which Hashem has to open the books and see whether the person does it. Not unlike your own situation of danger that Mishna says when a woman's in childbirth, Hashem opens the books and sees she's in danger. Person's going through an operation. You walk under a leaning wall or a dangerous place, Hashem opens the books and says, "I You want my protection? Do you deserve it?" So, here's what we're saying. You can put a person in a situation of danger that they wouldn't have been in otherwise, that Hashem would not have caused. But now that you've caused the situation of danger through your free will, now there'll be an assessment of whether they deserve to survive or not. And if they don't deserve it, they could die, which means you put them in the situation in which they died, which they wouldn't have died otherwise. That's how far it goes. Yes, what you just He says it. Listen to what he says. It doesn't get clearer than this. The Zohar says it takes more miracle. The Ruach Chaim says this. He says Vayatzel Listen, this is beautiful. He says Reuven Vayatzel omiadam. Reuven saved Yosef from their hand. Miyadam. Miyad habechiri. That's what he says. He didn't save Yosef from his fate or from the scorpions or from what He saved him from the hand of human free will. I would say that he doesn't say that. No, he doesn't say that. Yeah, he doesn't say that. He and many others say that. Many others have They all say the same thing and verify it. Yes. What what else is there? It could be time of judgment. You can kill him. Nobody says that. No one says you can kill a person against the decree of Hashem. And everybody's clear that Hashem has to agree has to allow it. Well, we we don't need to go further It's bad enough already. We don't have to go Does this hold true in monetary situations as well? Why not? And not only that, it also helps in mitzvahs. When you help someone you could put a person in a situation cuz you gave them that stock, huh? That wouldn't necessarily have happened otherwise. Most people think, "Well, he had it coming anyway cuz of his hashgacha. Had it not been you, it would have been the lottery or his aunt would have died that he never heard about." According to this, you could put a sit Hashem Hashem could stop it and say he doesn't deserve it. Right? And therefore It's always like that. You about when he went to was sold, he was in the in the the wagon had the good smelling food. Yeah, mhm. The phone Yeah, fine. So, this is the subject. Let's take one one further step. Is it Is it clear You don't agree with me? Just to understand what's being said here. Okay, let's go one step. Yeah. As to clarify that there's a difference between what a person can impose on somebody else and then Hashem will still have to decide that situation, but um but the degree of pain in a way Everything Everything. Consequences, pain, every detail. Every detail. And then you have person A and person A and B and B come around the corner wanting to shoot him. Yeah. Where How does that factor into that? That's the point. He can shoot him, hurt him, help him, hurt him a little bit, hurt him a lot. It's like a new din that our time is like a new din. I want to shoot him. Yeah, sure. It's like an eye. If someone Okay, now. It could be. It could be. It could be that he was going to lose it anyway. No, the other person that gets it. Yeah. What about He did that anyway. from somebody else. All of a sudden now he has a million dollars. Yes. What if I He got it through an aveira. He's going to be punished for that. Of course. Okay, let's let's take one step further. Are we saying that you can do anything to anyone under all circumstances? No. The bechira that you can use to put someone in a situation is seriously limited. And let me speak out some of the limitations. And by the By the time we finish, you'll see the two original positions are not that far apart. It could be that most times what people do to other people is going to happen anyway. Could be. But in certain unique circumstances, you could do something to somebody that might not have happened. So So let me speak out the details. The first and by far the most important By far the most important is that the victim must lack s'chut. We're saying this. A tries to kill B. He can only hurt him to the extent that B lacks the s'chut to be protected. If he's protected If he has enough s'chut, enough merit, he'll be protected under all circumstances. If he has total s'chut, there's nothing you can do that can possibly touch him. And if he dies, it was certainly decreed on him. But the classic example is Mordecai. Mordecai was impervious to Haman. Why? I'm not going to go into that now, but he knew that. And therefore he sat in the place where Haman was walking past to drive him to such an anti-Semitic frenzy that he would self-destruct. But that's very dangerous. The principle in Jewish history is eretz nitnah b'yad rasha. That's the principle. It's a pasuk in Iyov. Eretz nitnah b'yad rasha, the world is controlled by the wicked, in case you hadn't noticed. They The world is controlled by people who kill you for far less than a vote. The politicians running the world are not out there worrying about your beneficent you know well-being. The world is run by the wicked. And therefore the strategy in Jewish history from the time prophecy ended until the end of history is not to come into full frontal battle against the wicked. The shoe's on their foot. The strategy is to walk between the raindrops and use your head. He's standing in front of Haman deliberately so that he won't stand up and bow down to him so you'll make He knew he could destroy him that way. But he knew he was protected, impervious to him. His free will could not touch him. If you have full house of nothing could touch you. The trouble is maybe you'll be vulnerable. Maybe you yourself was not perfect. Maybe you yourself had done something that made him less than perfect not to decree death upon him but made him vulnerable to human free will. And therefore that's the most important limitation. We're not saying you can do something to anybody under any circumstance. Saying that you have to be first of all about the hero. This does not apply to a 14-year-old Arab. That they put a bomb on his back and send him into a bus. That does not apply. This applies to somebody who's about to hear that the brothers of Joseph you have to be about to hear that. And then you have to be attacking somebody who lacks this. Serious limitation. By the way, doesn't have to be his house. Could be his wife's. It could be that he does not deserve to be protected but his wife doesn't deserve to be a widow and that will protect him. Could be his mother cuz a human being doesn't take that into account but our sham's does. So this person saying no good nick. But his wife's a righteous. And therefore he won't die. By the way, this is why some people don't take out insurance. Why? Now you should take out insurance. It's very important. My son sells insurance. You should see him. But some people have the logic like this. Mr. A is walking down the street and he has no insurance policy and Mr. B tries to kill him. Our sham's going to look down and say you don't deserve to be saved but your wife doesn't deserve you the person who brings home the bacon or whatever you bring home and therefore she needs you and I'm going to But if Mr. A is walking down the street he's got a hundred million dollar life insurance policy and B tries to kill him. Our sham's going to look down and say your wife's okay. I know some wives would be better off. And this is the logic some people that you should make yourself so indispensable to so many poor families. Support so many poor families single-handedly when you Mr. A is walking down the street somebody Our sham's going to say you know what it's just too complicated. I'll put up with you in the world a bit longer because I have to rearrange too much else." It's not the best motivation for stock and but it's kosher. And therefore, we're talking about schuss of yours or someone else. That modifies the power of someone to affect. That's first one. Second one. Alshich says it applies only to an individual targeted specific, not a bomb thrown to a group. Not groups. Groups have different kind of as an amazing thing where you he discusses, let's say a ship is sinking with many people on board. Our group. Why are they all about to die at the same time? Are they all people who had the same destined moment of death? And Hashem invited them on the same cruise. That's called mazminim le pun da echad. Or are some of them due to die and the others are just in the wrong place at the wrong time? That's called rosh u'shcheinav. And the difference is if it's the former, trying to escape is not going to help you. You invited there for a reason. If it's the latter, get out of there. You're just in the wrong place at the wrong time and attached to somebody else's destiny. So, that's another example. A third is war. War is completely out of this discussion. Milchemes Hashem is a completely different dispensation. Four, mass destructions. The Gemara says when a mass destruction occurs against the Jewish people, there's no discerning between tzaddik and rasha. Keivan she'nitin reshus le mashchis, when Hashem gives the reshus to the destroyer to destroy, shuv einu mavchin. He doesn't discern between those who deserve and those who don't. Amazing concept. Needs another discussion. That's also off limits. And finally, somebody who has major political power has no bechira at all. Lev melech be yad Hashem. So, when a person is elected president or king or a mayor of a major city, he is a puppet. He makes his choices. He's accountable. But there's nothing he can do to the population that they don't deserve. The irony in our society when a man is elected president, he thinks he has real power. In Jewish terms, he just became a complete puppet at that moment. His life is in Hashem's hand. Lev melech be yad Hashem. And then, by the way, this means that it's useless voting. The reason you have to vote is cuz you're to make a like in anything else. You should vote. It's your job as a citizen. But it's going to make no difference to what you get. That's what you need you're going to get. Does that apply to Yes, of course. Of course. Of course. Of course. Of course. More to them. Okay. So, those are some of the limitations. All right. Let me come back spend a few more Is this all clear? Okay, are you ready for one more level? But more challenging? Yes? Yes. Okay. There's one place that seems to be a contradiction to this. One place in the Hinuch. The Hinuch spe- speaks of you know the Hinuch the the great work on the mitzvahs who classically not only gives you all the parameters of the mitzvah, but also the reasons. Why would I want us to do this mitzvah, right? That's called mitzvah. It's very embarrassing that the Hinuch was written for a 12-year-old. Right? Written 800 years ago for his son becoming bar mitzvah. Yeah, it's a great classic, but a little humiliating. You can learn By the way, you should have the Hinuch on every Shabbos. You learn one mitzvah. It's beautiful. Learn the table, right? Learn one mitzvah in the Hinuch and this better than the English, if you need that. And share with your family the reasons behind the mitzvahs. It's a wonderful classic work. The Hinuch talks about one person's free will affecting another in two places and appears to contradict himself. So, this is demanding. Stay with me. And there's no way he can contradict himself on a major principle like this. So, let's understand. In noon aleph and base, he says that the Torah has a prohibition of taking revenge and bearing a grudge, right? Not allowed to take revenge, you're not allowed to bear a grudge. What is taking revenge? Doing something to somebody that they did to you. Right? So, you go to your friend's house and you say, "Can I please borrow your I don't know magic mix?" What do you use in America? Can I borrow What do you call it? What? A pot? What? KitchenAid mixer. KitchenAid, great. Can I please borrow She says no. Next week she comes over to you and you you no, you're guilty of a Torah offense. You're doing to her what she did to you. What's bearing a grudge? Letting the person have it, but reminding. You Can I please borrow your KitchenAid? No, she comes over and you can't. You say, "Sure, I'm not like you." That is bearing a grudge. If you're a observant Jew, you have to give it and say nothing. Right, they tell a story about a man crawling through the desert dying of thirst. And another man rode past him on a horse, looked at him and just ignored left him to die. Miraculously he survived, and a few years later turned out to be the president of a big business corporation, when one day a man came in begging for a job, and he recognized the face of the man who left him to die. If he refused him the job, he's guilty of taking revenge. If he gave it to him and reminded him, he'd be in it. He said nothing, he gave him the job. Of course, if he was applying for the job to be a tender, gentle caregiver of frail little old ladies, you could probably refuse him. Do you understand? That's not revenge, that's just common sense. If she If this neighbor breaks KitchenAids, then you don't have to give it to her, you understand? So, she's going to mix concrete, you know, um So, so that's it. Okay, now now listen well, says the Chofetz Chaim. Listen very carefully. Why would Hashem not want us to take revenge? What's the reason? And it's a very powerful human motivation. It's a very sweet feeling when you do something to somebody else that they did to you. He says this, this person hurt you? Don't don't don't lash out at him. You know why? Cuz if it happened to you, you must have had it coming. He's only the agent. When a man hits a dog with a stick, the dog turns around and bites the stick cuz it's a dog. So, if somebody hurts me, look to Hashem. Isn't this a contradiction to everything we've said? This is a contradiction. This means that it it's not his free will, he's only an agent. I got what is coming to me. So, let me let me tell you where he contradicts this. Now, this takes a little sophistication. The Chofetz Chaim says in tough half dollar then there's a mix of eating something without going into all the background in Jewish law there's a peculiarity of two witnesses contradicting two other witnesses. If this person is on trial for his life and two witnesses come in and say that he committed the murder and two others say that he didn't. That's a stand off and the case is closed. But if these two witnesses say that he killed and these two witnesses come along and say we don't know about the murder but you couldn't have seen it. You witnesses are lying. You were with us at a different place at that time. That's a unique situation. They don't impugn the evidence. They They don't speak but they impugn the witnesses. You guys are lying. So there's two quirks here in Jewish law. One is we believe the second rather than the first. We believe that the second are telling the truth and the first were framing the the right which is not logical. Maybe they're framing them. So that'll keep you up tomorrow night to think about it. And that's a logical logical question. That's one. But there's something much more peculiar. Listen carefully. The Torah says that the second two witnesses are believed and what you do to the first two witnesses is what they tried to do to the victim. If they made him pay money and now it turns out they're lying they've got to pay money. If they wanted to have him killed and it turns out they're lying they get killed. So they get what they're trying to they get what they're trying to do but only if they were not successful. Not successful. If they were successful they get no punishment at all. Is that weird? Let's get this clear. This person is on trial for his life. These two witnesses come along and say that he killed. These two witnesses say right and they say he killed. And then they take this person out to execute him. Just before they kill him two others arrive. Wait wait it's a miscarriage of justice. Stop stop stop. They bring back the accused. They hear the witnesses. It turns out the first two are lying. The accused is freed. The witnesses are killed. They're killed because they tried to have him killed but did not succeed. But if two witnesses testify that he killed and they take him out and kill him dead. And then two other witnesses just us they're lying no problem. They go on free. Hey, what is going on? They tried to kill a man and failed, they get killed. They tried to kill a person and succeeded, no problem. Okay, this is a famous question. The Gemara deals with it. But and the Maharal is a famous expert. Listen to what the Listen to what the Chinuch says. The Chinuch says, I will give you ketzas ta'am, a partial reason, somewhat of a reason for why, listen carefully, it's amazing. I will give you a partial reason for why if the person died the people who accused him are not killed. And here it is. Cuz if he actually died, he must have had it coming. Cuz a person could never die unless he had it coming. Now, does this agree with our thesis or is it against it? Contradicts. Contradicts. And here's where it turns around. Listen carefully, this is very, very beautiful. The Chinuch gives one more line. And he says, if the witnesses testified that the person killed and they killed him, he must have had it coming. You know why? Cuz this is a bet din. Cuz there's a possuk that says, "Elokim nitzav ba'adas kayl, Hashem sits with the dayanim on a bet din." And therefore, since Hashem is sitting with the Sanhedrin and he died, it's guaranteed. Cuz Hashem, the Rambam says, the only reason you can administer human justice is cuz Hashem sits with you. Who knows you're right? Hashem says, "Don't worry. Follow the rules, I'll take care of the justice." And look, he quotes the verse like this, "Elokim nitzav ba'adas dayanim." Hashem sits with every court. And therefore, it could be non-Jewish courts as well. Hashem sits with a court, with a bet din. And therefore, if you died, he had it coming. Now, listen carefully, we do what's called a de'uk. We make an inference. Oh, he only got what's coming cuz this is a bet din. That's what he says. Which means if it's not a bet din, it's just an individual pulling a gun in the street, then the all bets are off. Then something could clearly happen that Hashem did not intend. Because if what the if Chinuch means is, you always get what's coming to you, he wouldn't have to quote the verse about it based in Hashem being there. If he means you always get what's coming to you, then it's a principle. He doesn't say that. He says he gets what's coming to him cuz this is a Sanhedrin, and Hashem guarantees the outcome of a Sanhedrin. That's why we know it's true. Inference, if it's not a Sanhedrin, a person in the street acting on his own, then there's no guarantees that it's true. Or if it's a base in with two liars. And that's what the Piskei Teshuvos says. The Piskei Teshuvos says, if this is a Sanhedrin and they vote and the last judge votes and it's all according to the din, cool, he's going to get what's coming to him. If he's acquitted, Hashem wanted that. But if you're sitting on a base in with two jokers who lying, this ain't no base in. And therefore say I don't know. Is this clear? Glad you came, huh? It's nice stuff. Okay, so let's start with some questions. So that in summary, in summary what we learned today, and therefore the Hinuch agrees like everyone else that you can't do anything to anyone that didn't come in a base in situation, but very Oh, so why does he not want you to take your revenge? Because you should have had enough to protect you against that individual. You were vulnerable. If you deserved it, he wouldn't have been able to touch you. Of course it comes from Hashem ultimately. Not only that, even when he put me in danger, Hashem opened the books to see whether I was deserving. And had I deserved it, he would have protected me. So don't be immature and lash out at the proximate cause. There's always Hashem behind the scenes. And therefore it turns out that to the best of my knowledge, all Jewish sources agree that you could under certain limited circumstances with certain specified limited individuals put a person in a situation of danger. And it's how mature is the person, and how big a bal bechira is it, what are his merits, etc. etc. But in great cases and clear cases like Yosef and the brothers, it is clear that they could do something to him. They could have done something, right? That might not have happened otherwise, and therefore don't touch him, put him in the pit. That is the power of human free will. Any questions before we close? Yeah. That That lion had a question and wanted an answer. Maybe I didn't pick up on the answer was Did he say I don't know? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Listen carefully. The You look it up in the You're It's in question about you dress. He writes this. If the You tell me that you're sitting with two judges that you disagree with, argue. Vote. You voted out But if you think they're not wrong, they're lying, this is not a legitimate base din. Don't say a word. Get out of this. Lie. Say I don't know. Have a sudden gastroenteritis. You know Because they're not a base din. There's no guarantee. This is what I shall one say to all. That's what he says. Yes. I think you came in a bit later. I discussed this. There's a question how they could make a base din in the first place on a brother. Not only that, they were sent out of to the base din. Very weird. So So it's a very strange situation of base din. And despite that, despite the din of being a base din, Reuben said to them, "You could kill him unjustly." Much more probably they weren't Jews. Yeah. Question. Quick example. Yeah. Theoretical example. So I understand what Reuben is saying. How do you reconcile this with the Torah? Quick theoretical example. Yeah. Healthy child goes in for surgery. Doctor comes in drunk. Yes. Child is a simple surgery. Yeah. Doctor comes in drunk. Yeah. Child rendered. So does the mother say? Nothing. Hashem. Yes, indeed. Of course. Of course Hashem at least allowed it. First of all, we're talking about malicious using your deliberately to harm. That's the first question. You're talking about a accident or misadventure situation, right? We're talking Of course. Yes. Of course. Of course. Of course. He's accountable. He's accountable for his malpractice and his damage. And absolutely, no question about that. This discussion doesn't change one bit the responsibility duty person acting. So a person can inflict harm on another. Only in the unique circumstances where he's about to hear it acting maliciously against an individual. The individual is vulnerable and doesn't have enough or his mother doesn't in your case. Plus, it's not war, plus etc. etc. Under those unique circumstances, you could put him in danger. In the danger, Hashem's going to open the books and say, "Does this child deserve to be saved? Do his parents deserve it?" etc. And even then, there's going to be a judgment. Yes. Yes, speak. So, so in specifically within the confines of our faith, if we meet somebody who's not religious, and they always ask us the same question, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" Yes. So, we basically I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about human malicious action, not bad things in general. I'm not following you, but I'm just saying, if something if something occurred in their life Yeah. that's not correct, that's not right, that's evil, whatever the story is. Yes. So, if you answer them that the the other person had the fear of God Yes. or the Jewish person Yes. had the fear to do it, and or you didn't have the wisdom to, it's going to happen anyway. Does that make sense? No. No. The person has to know. Let's say this person has suffered harm at the harm of an abuser. An abusive spouse, whatever it was, right? Maliciously with all the conditions. They've got a claim against them, absolutely. First of all, they're going to claim against them anyway, even if you don't agree with what I'm saying today. Because the person because the person you because the person did something illegal. Again, if somebody harms you, you have a claim. Financial, whatever the damages are. But I'm going further than that. You should know, to the extent that the conditions are fulfilled, the person did something, put you in danger that you might not have been in otherwise it's possible. Do we know exactly how far that goes? No. No. But you certainly Hashem judged your situation in the in real time at that at that and therefore you would have been protected had you been deserved to be that way. But it's certainly But let's get one thing clear. This does not exonerate people who hurt other people, no matter how you approach the subject. You're responsible The guy pulled the trigger is 100% accountable. It doesn't change anything. It's only an argument in the background how you understand the subject in Torah. Yes. That's not my point. is, so sorry. I mean, the point is is that if you answer them specifically, it technically wouldn't happen anyway, whether it's the person's choice or whether it's the person's choice or whether it's the person's It helps them to know that I got what I needed is all from Hashem. Of course, it helps him. It's just not true. thing. It's just not true. It's not true. We don't want People are very comforted to know that whatever happened to me is going to happen anyway. This person died in an accident, whatever, is going to happen to me. Unfortunately, it's not always true. That means they might have been put in danger by somebody else, but it does not apply to accidents and to children. This applies to one person maliciously targeting another one specifically under all these limited conditions. You need this to explain Joseph and his brothers. Yes. Yeah, exactly Joseph and his brothers. We I think we think of Joseph and his brothers as the start of the whole Exodus, you know, going out of Egypt and coming out of Egypt and all that. Started with Joseph and his brothers. So, that example What's your question? This is all predetermined by Hashem. This is what we needed. Right. So, it's what we're saying that maybe with Joseph But, the Egyptians treated us more Yes, indeed. They affected I said that. Indeed, indeed. Yes. I just want to make sure I'm encapsulating properly because some people said like all this goes against base Yakov. The question is always is there a contradiction between Hashgacha Yes. and and Bechirah. Yes. And the answer we always learn is like there isn't. They both go together. You're just explaining how it That's right. But but but you should know that when they teach children that issue, there is a truth to it. In other words, it's all a modeh that Hashem wanted this meaning that at the final moment of effect, he did allow that to happen and he would have prevented it otherwise. Yes. By the way, let's get one thing clear. You can clearly do do things that Hashem doesn't want. That's for sure. You can do aveiros. You can hurt yourself. He clearly does not want that. He tells you, "I don't want this." But, he allows you to do it. That no one argues. You can hurt yourself terribly, right? No one argues with that. What about Hashgacha? No, free will means you can do things and Hashem says, "I do not want you to do this." I don't want aveiros. And you can do them. We're saying one thing further. You can even do things that involve another person. Yes. Yes, please. I just want to know how this all applies to shidduchim. What? A shidduchim? When you choose a shidduch victim Right. to marry, you You're accountable. But Hashem is putting that person your way, making it possible, the fact that you were born in this particular place and these opportunities and all that is tremendous hashgacha in that. But you use your bechira to choose. You can meet your bashert and refuse to marry them. You can meet them and marry them and then not behave correctly in the marriage. There's all sorts of possibilities in this. This marriage is certainly an act of free will. What's the problem with it? That it's all from Hashem and he's he's everything. Yes. Yes. Yes, yes, yes, because Hashem is ultimately everything. From his perspective, there's no bechira at all. But that takes us into the thorny territory of yediyah and bechira. That's rather You have to invite me another time for that. That's a much more much more difficult subject, much higher subject. Is it Yes, any other questions before we close? When the brothers decided to sell him Yeah. Why didn't they accept over there that that Hashem in the ground didn't kill him, so we So on that on that I think Let me remind myself of the the Rabbeinu Bachya says that when they saw that he wasn't hurt When they saw that he wasn't hurt they rationalized He he has an explanation of that. He says they said to themselves Oh, they said to themselves, he must have had an unusual scos that even though he's guilty, Hashem protected him. He's guilty and we have to do it and therefore we can't kill him, we're selling him. Because people rationalize any situation to justify what they thought. So they said, "Look, the dogs didn't kill him. Let's put him in the pit. The scorpions didn't kill him. He must have had a special scos because how he treated his father, he did certain good stuff in the world, therefore Hashem unfairly protected him. But we have to carry out the din. Yes, that's how people That's how people think. Yes. How does that apply to a de Hava de bola So if a de Hava de bola how responsible am I for the days to go in my head? You're not responsible for thoughts that occur in your mind. You the that's dependent on what what you've been doing before, what you've exposed yourself to, your hinukh. I Did you come to my other talk on free will? I spoke about that. I know I did. Okay. So free will only operates in a particular zone, and things that arise in your mind, right, and how you find the words to say them, there's a large degree to which that's not amenable to But I explained that in the other talk, and you can listen to that recording. Or if you go to simple to remember.com you can or read my book I'm sorry. you can download or tell me you have a free will talk of mine or the previous one? So you can listen to the previous It was not on Shabbos, that talk. When was that? I think it was on Shabbos. But you can download a talk on free will and understand that subject. Yes, any final question? Yes. Cain and Abel. What's the question? Because you can commit murder. What's the question? You could kill somebody. The Torah is clear with that, isn't it? Who says he didn't deserve? So in our in terms of today's discussion, you could put a person in a situation of danger, and in that situation Hashem will assess whether he needs to die or not, and he have a will. Hashem decided that he was not to be protected at that time. Like any murder, yes. So this is Rabbi saying that really it's like all roads will end up the whatever road a person takes or onto can be chosen by him or by someone else, but he'll get to him. That's true as well. So let's end on that note. That's a good note That's a good note to end on. Very comforting. There's no bechirah at all with regard to the final situation. How you are going to reach your perfection, and the world as well, is totally guaranteed. The only bechirah we have is which road we choose to get there. The final project you can rely on him is going to succeed. Like when you have a child and you say to your child, "I'm going to get you to your perfection. Now, let's work hard together. You'll do your homework, etc. Or I'm going to beat the daylights out of you." What do you do? Your mothers use here in America? Probably electric cattle prods or monkey monkey wrenches. I don't know what you use, but you're going to say to your kid, "No matter how much it hurts, I'm going to get you there cuz I love you." The child only has the bechirah how hard they want to make it, but you are not going to tolerate their non non-success. And Hashem says to us, "You will reach your perfection no matter how many times we will have to bring you back to the world, no matter how many marriages I have to put you through, gilgulim. I'll do whatever's necessary. You will reach perfection, even if you have to go through all of Gehenna." And history will reach its perfection, the Jewish people in the world. That's not up for grabs. The only option you have is how much you want to help him or obstruct him. Thank you very much. Thank you. Finally night after we had