Why Didn’t the Nations Choose Peace? A Shocking Revelation - Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz

land was divided or will be divided uh the entire boundary of Erico will be divided among all theatim but much of that land is not going to be conquered till after Yoshua's Yoshua's death now I want to just read you um someim from peral which is after the insur and it mentions this is per yimosa column Uh it was yim many days which actually means years seven years uh Yoshua pursued all of these enemies and says this is perices lob Israel there was not a single city that had made peace with Ben Israel built except Except for Givine. Except for the people who were the inhabitants of Givine. Remember they were the ones who try to get a brisk by deception. Everything. Right. So the PK here is telling me that not a single city made shalom with Ben Israel except for the Gonim later called the Ninim. And then says, and this came from Israel mish, the same phrase as pyro to harden or strengthen their heart so they would wage war with Ben Israel lean in order that they should be destroyed. that they should not have any type of mercy or compassion that they should be utterly eradicated as Moshe as God commanded Moshe. So these these these verses could be very easily overlooked as you're just reading the story but in in indeed they are quite astounding and quite amazing. First let's analyze the the PK that says there was not a single city that made Shaim with B is except for the so again a few points once again we have to go over the Mlo Rambam and Rashi according to Rambam even according to the Rambam and even after B is cross the Ardane and begin Mil every given city still has the opportunity to make shalom and if they make shaim they will be spared. So in the middle of the war any one of these cities could have made shalom. What is shalom in this situation? So you'll recall shalom is a reference to accepting the seven mitzvos accepting aos a state of some type of slavery subservience which means Jewish sovereignty and paying taxes. So according to the Rambam the option of creas shalam was ever present and therefore what is the p telling me but no city took advantage of it they wanted to fight now according to rashi you'll recall that it's the shittita of rashi that once yahosua crosses the ardane the option of shalom is off the table and we are [snorts] to eradicate the seven nations unless they would flee based on not keeping anybody anybody alive. So when the PK says there was not a single city that made peace except for the Gonim, it must mean according to Rashi that there was not a single city that accepted Yahosua's preyard offer to make peace because once they cross the Ardane there is no option of making peace anyway. Okay. So once again therefore uh the reference that there was not a single city that made peace because God hardened their heart which I'll get to in a in a minute according to the Rambam that would be understood that even during the seven years of fighting there was an opportunity of Shaolam but nobody took advantage of it according to Rashi you'd have to it's Rashi is a little more do you'd have to interpret it that not a single city accepted the peace treaty that was offered to them before Yoshua across the arate. So again whenever we confront anything about shaime and the shama we always have to bring in the rashi and the raam. Now the other point is let's go back to the Rambam for a moment. Um according to the Rambam the PK is very straightforward. There was not a single city that made peace even though they could have made peace uh except for the Gonim. But let me just point out that even this doesn't mean that there weren't for example how does shalom work right? So according to the Rambam even when we're initing we offer them peace which once again means shva mitzvos taxation and abdos some type of of servitude or acceptance of Jewish sovereignty. So if a city doesn't accept it, we are to eradicate. What about in the city though? In other words, is this decided by a majority vote? What if you know 51% want to wage war? Uh but 49% don't want to wage war. Uh can shaolan be done by individuals or minority parts of the population? The mash although it's not beferish the mashmos of the Rambam and even theim is Yes. Yes. And that is why throughout Tanakh throughout all of Tanak or at least Yoshu and Shaftim you will find here and you you you you constantly find people like from the seven nations that are hanging around. And the way we would have to explain it is these were individuals who accepted Shalom. So the statement there was not a single city that made Shalom except for the Gonim that refers to a city as a whole. But there were yeim who uh accepted Shalom and that's why we do find that they were hanging around. In fact, we even find ammo who are hanging around uh and uh apparently there was no problem with that. Yeah. >> Like if their ch do the children need to also accept it individually or just like >> well um it depends what you mean by children. I I I assume that children who are katanim would simply be covered by the family acceptance like later offspring who weren't alive. >> No, it see it see it seems Yeah. Yeah, I don't think shalom is a consist constant thing. Meaning once it's done, they're allowed and then um if a later generation violates the Noahide law, they could be punished as Noahites who violate the Noahide law. But it wouldn't be an eradication of the of the seven nations. Okay. So having that in mind, let's now go on to the next idea which is very complicated and that is the Nvi Yoshua gives us a reason. Why did no community accept Shaolim except for the gain? After all, logically they should have accepted Shalom. They see the Jewish people are defeating all of these kings. So it says God hardened their heart because God wanted them to be destroyed. meaning to say logically [clears throat] there would have been cities people that would have accepted shalom but Hashem didn't want it which means even when the seven nations accept shalom it is not desirable to have them inherit Israel they're a bad influence they're a destructive influence but kind of neb if they accept Shalom, you're stuck with them. So God hardened their hearts. Their meaning the the seven nations. God hardened their hearts so they would not want to make sh. Yeah. >> If the hardened all their hearts, why didn't why didn't that work for the gonu? Like meaning like if that was what he did, how >> did the gonu go under the radar? You mean why did they make sh that's a good question. why Hashem let one example. But maybe maybe that wanted to prove the idea by the fact that one nation made shalom and no other meaning if no nation made shalom we would say ah the the Canaanites are stubborn. But if one nation made shalom and no one else did that would be evidence of God hardening the heart. So, so obviously when you read this idea of hardening hearts, you you think immediately of the makos and this raises the same problem as the macos and that is [clears throat] it is fundamental in Judaism that there is bakira there is free will right this is or's favorite favorite topic probably every division we discuss free will free will free will and [clears throat] the Rambam writes in hesuva that without a concept of free It's impossible for there to be reward for doing good things because why should I be rewarded? I'm just conditioned to be good. And it's impossible for there to be a punishment for a veros because I didn't choose. It's not fair to punish me for something over which I don't have free will. Right? And the Rambam writes every person can be as righteous as Mosha Rabenu or can be as evil as Yurava Benat. Now the concept of Bakira is a very very complicated concept simply because realistically based on a person's circumstances in life they don't always have unfettered free will. I mean is Hashem going to talk about the drug addict lying in the gutter? Why weren't you in Lakewood? Why aren't you learning in cola? So Rav Desler modifies the Rambam very significantly. I wouldn't I wouldn't call it a perish on the Rambam. really is a a different insight in which Rav Desler address uh develops the idea that is called meaning there is a certain fulcrum point meaning in life uh there are many many decisions that are past us and there are many many decisions that are ahead of us and that is not where we exercise our by past us I mean the following let's [clears throat] assume that a person has been keeping kosher all of his life or for 20 years. So, initially when you first decide to keep kosher, you have a struggle. You have a certain struggle. You walk by a McDonald's. Uh you walk by whatever it is, uh bacon and eggs. So, you may have a tya and you have to make a decision. I'm not going to give in to that tya. So you're exercising your not to eat and you get rewarded for exercising that but after a while or if you were never raised you know you've always kept kosher that that decision is behind you meaning to say it's no longer part of your active struggle meaning you walk by a non-coosher restaurant it doesn't even occur to you to go in just beyond you. So at that point that's no longer in your vision because you're past it or you never had that problem. You can take a lot of examples, you know, murder. Uh, you know, the Torah says don't murder. So am I going to get rewarded every day that I didn't shoot somebody? Well, it depends. You know, if you're a kind of a psycho who loves to murder people, but you somehow control yourself because you realize it's not a good thing. Yeah, you're going to get rewarded for not pulling out your machine gun. Yeah, but the average non-cycle person, you know, you know, God's going to ask you after 120 years, what good thing did you do in your life? Says, I never killed somebody. Well, besides the fact that Hashem might say, well, did you embarrass somebody? There are different ways we kill people, by the way. So, we're not even so clear about that one. Uh but but literally, there's not a single person I ever gunned down. unless I was a or something. Well, you're not going to get you're not going to get a lot of credit for that, you see, because that's not within the ambit of your struggle. So, those are decisions that are behind us. There are other decisions that we're not yet on the Madrega to make in a good way and Hashem does not hold us accountable for that. where the Hashem is going to ask you know why you know didn't you learn 20 hours a day and you're going to say how could I do that says well the villa the gone did it why couldn't you do it you know we're not there yet so if Dler says reward and punishment are not computed based on the decisions behind you or some decisions are ahead of you although that's more of a vague category you never really know if I if I should be there or not. But there is a certain range in the middle where you are actively in a situation where you could go either way. There's a tipping point. You could go to the good, you can go to the bad. And Ravesler developed the idea called nikuda, the point of choice. And Ravesler says when God holds you accountable for not making good choices, it is based on where you are in life. So the guy in the gutter, his choice, you know, is not should I stay in the gutter or should I learn in yeshiva, assuming he's Jewish. His choice is should I stay to the gutter or go to a treatment center. So the sabak is that particular decision and there always is. So this is a again a very very fascinating idea. It's not so so relevant to the text here, but I think Rod Duster qualifies it because one of the difficulties in the Rambam is the Rambam seems to posit an onoff switch. Every person at any moment I could be Mosha Rabeno or I could be a Rav Ben. Well, come on. I mean after all I am affected by the cumulative choices of my life and by the time I reach a certain place I may not be capable of being on that high madrega but's point is okay that may be true but there's always a choice there's always a choice that you can make and hashem says why didn't you make that choice okay that's again a very very important but be it as it without we're back to the Rambam's original argument. How could there be reward? How could there be punishment? Yeah. >> How does it work when Hashem knows everything? >> Yeah. So, yeah, that's the that's a question the Rambam himself raises. Uh the Rambam raises the question, if Hashem knows the future, Hashem knows the future, then how could there be free will? Meaning the following. You're telling me every morning when I open my eyes, I have to get out of bed and dav or stay asleep and miss keshma. It's up to me. I could go either way. And for most of us, that's actually still a live struggle, right? That's nudas. But wait a second here. Hashem knew whether I would get up or not. He knew it yesterday. He knew it a thousand years ago. He knew it 10 million years ago. So how is it that Monday morning I have when Hashem already knew what I was going to do before I was born, before I was created, right? He already knew everything that would ever ever happen. So that's a a famous question. Uh now the Rambam himself asked the Rambam asks the question. The Raam says, "How can there be human free will if Hashem knows the future?" Yeah. >> Where does >> where in Hashuva? Uh so the Rambam gives an answer. What do they say? Um only a philosopher's mother would like. The Ram gives a very very philosophical abstract answer. And the answer the Rambam gives is the following. He says, "Hashem is a unity." Meaning unlike human beings where we're divisible into parts, right? We have a hand, we have a foot, uh we have a brain, we have a mouth, right? You could take a human being and you can identify separate parts in them. We don't even we say the words, we don't even know what that means. is the unity of Hashem is not divisible because that creates huge problems. What does it mean when we say our nishamos are a part of God? What do you mean? What do you mean a part of God? You just said there are no parts to God. Okay, we we'll leave it. There's a lot that's very difficult here. But Hashem is now ifadesh is a total unity. That means Hashem's knowledge is the same as Hashem's totality. Meaning unlike a human being where there's me and there's my knowledge. The idea of aut means that Hashem's knowledge is the same as Hashem. Therefore, the Rambam says since it is impossible to understand Hashem, it is definitionally impossible to understand Hashem's knowledge because Hashem's knowledge is the same as Hashem. Therefore, how does Hashem's knowledge exist when there's free will is an impossible question to answer. Essentially, this is a complicated way of saying can't answer it. But but he's giving you a re but he's giving you a reason why you can't answer it. He's predicating the reason why you can't answer it on the notion of unity of God that since God's knowledge is equal to God's essence because of a sapasha then if you don't understand God's essence you can't understand God's knowledge. Therefore how do you reconcile free will with advanced knowledge the Rambam says is an unanswerable question. It is a question that is impossible to answer. Now the rivet was quite annoyed at this [snorts] because you could almost see the rivet's frustration. The rivet right if he can't answer the question he shouldn't have bothered to ask it in the first place. The rivet gives another answer I mentioned but I want to point out that the way many people answer the question is that the whole question is predicated on uh a concept of time. In other words, you're kind I mean, look at the way the question is. How can I have choice on Monday if Hashem already, right? Look at the word already knew. So by Monday, he already knew. That's presupposing a past, a present, a future. That's called temporal, living in time. And when you live in time, if something is already known yesterday, then there's no choice to be made today. But does not live in the world of time. Boru is above time. Although I'm going to use a timely. Therefore, God is living. This is also not an accurate way of saying it. in a continuous presence. God sees the future not as something that is going to happen. God sees the future. It's already here. Now from that perspective, knowledge is not a contradiction to l choice. Because for example, if I see you do I mean let's say a human being, I see you doing shakras. Now the fact that I see you dominating chakras that doesn't affect your free will. I'm just observing your choice. Now since the future is a concurrent reality then Hashem does not know ahead of time what I'm going to choose. Hashem just sees my choice. And therefore once you live only [clears throat] Hashem once is beyond time there actually is no question. You see in other words the question that God's knowledge takes away choice is only if God knew what I'm doing before I did it. But that's not the way God knows it. God doesn't know it before I did it. God is above time. So God is observing what I'm doing. It's still my choice. Okay. So that that's uh how how uh one of the ways of understanding again it's obviously it's um we don't know how any of this works. We don't understand uh how the future works. I mean you know the truth is the Ralbag okay I don't want to get any mail on this but usually I don't get so much mail from this year. I mean the Ralbag Revy Bengam who was a very uh very controversial philosopher. He was rel related to the Ramban actually makes the point he has a very simple answer to the question how can I have free will if God knows the future he says God doesn't know the future he actually says God doesn't know the future because he says the future is not something you can know because it didn't happen yet meaning it's not a limitation in Hashem now this is almost the opposite approach if Hashem sees it as a concurrent reality The rabb says there is no future until it happens. So there is nothing for Hashem to know. Now that's the Rabag as you would suspect. Now it's interesting. The Rabbach has an interesting double career. I think I mentioned this before. Rabbi Bengam actually is one of the most accepted perushim. And if you look at any mcgrosk uh you'll see besides rashi and mitsudos David uh the two leading perushim are radishonim and rabb. So Ralbag is a very very very respected and accepted perush on Nim and yet Dabbag wrote a book in philosophy called Hashem the wars of God. Of course, his enemies called it the wars against God. And they retra Muhammed Hashem. Uh, and this is one of the most by far one of the most controversial books on Jewish philosophy that was ever written. Uh, and indeed he wrote a commentary on the Torah, which is also contro. It's interesting in he kind of kept it out. But uh in his hashem and in his perish Torah which by the way is not printed as often as the perish um he's he's very very very very controversial and one of his big controversies is his assertion that Hashem does not necessarily know the future. Now, as I say, I'm being very superficial here because there are huge makim what the rabb even means and there's going to be a lot of discussion about that. But at least if you follow the simple meaning of the rabbs that uh you don't have a problem to begin with. Uh yeah. >> So outside of time on this discussion like free choice this challenge of like how can someone go against free will? What's the usual response to that? Meaning if Hashem wer to be here in this room. No, no, so so that's what I'm going to get to that I'm I'm segueing it around to address that particular question. Right. So this is the general idea of of free will. Now the Rambam himself then asks [snorts] the f the he asks a number of questions but one of the main questions he asks is how do we understand Hashem hardening Pyro's heart and continuing to bring macos on Pyro and onim because they didn't send out the Jewish people. Now the implication is if Hashem would not have intervened and kind of made them be stubborn, the Egyptians or Pyro might have given in earlier but Hashem wanted to show his power and Hashem wanted to show his might. So Hashem said essentially I'm not going to let you let them go. So it took the the form of stubbornness and then we'll send you more macos and more macos and more macos and more macos. And the question becomes where is the justice? God made them sin or at least made pyro sin. If God made them sin, how could they be punished? Right? Famous again famous question and it's in the Rambam Hilshuva by the way. He addresses it in two different places. It's in hilus chuva and earlier it's addressed inim uh that's the ram's hakavos where the rambom there too develops the idea of free will and raises the question of hashem hardened pyro so here is what the raam himself says the rambom himself says the following we know that there is a system of punishment in the Torah for different aos and we know that punishment can take many many forms. There is a punishment that might be death, a punishment that might be illness, punishment that might be loss of function, right? Paralysis, loss of limb. And the Rambam says by and large we can't really identify, we don't have the the understanding of why a given particular punishment was chosen. uh will it be mazabah ganam but generally speaking there is a concept of punishment. So here's what the Rambam says. The same way that a punishment for a sin might be loss of limb, a punishment of a sin might be God will take away your capacity to do chuva and make the right decision in order that you receive the full punishment for the previous aos that you chose to do. So here's what the Rambaman points out. The phrase Hashem hardens Pyro's heart does not appear in the first five makos. The first five makos the Egyptians could have let the Jewish people go. And it says parro hardened his own heart. So, one, two, three, four, five. Five opportunities seeing the miracles of Hashem over and over and over again. And the Egyptians made a decision on their own not to listen to God. Their punishment was God took away their capacity to do chuva because if they would have done chouba they could have gotten out of their fully deserved punishment. In other words, the point the Rambam is making is that macOS 67 89 were not punishments for their refusal to let the Jews go after Hashem hardened their heart. It was punishment that they deserved for the first five maros. But had they done chouba, they wouldn't have gotten that full punishment. Hashem took away. Even that, by the way, is not as literal. Took away does not necessarily mean impossible, but Hashem made it harder for them. Meaning, theoretically, there may have been a possibility to even overcome that, but Hashem made it super hard. So according to the Rambam, you don't get punished for what God makes you do. But God will make you do something sometimes in order to punish you for the aos that you previously did through uh through and the Rambam says that is why Hashem hardened Pyro's heart only after the first five because at that point they deserved all of the onshim that would come but had they done chouba God would have no choice but to forgive Hashem took away the and the Rambam says that is the worst of all punishments. You know we say loss of arm, loss of eyesight, those are awful things. But the loss of the capacity of that is the most grievous of all because that takes away or at least limits the ability to do to do chuva. Yeah. >> Can we say that that world leaders Yeah. So that's uh the Rambam does not use that idea per se, but some some uh some invoke a puk in Mish that says leimar hashem. The heart of kings and princes are controlled by God. that God kind of directs u the decisions because unlike an individual where my decisions are about me a king or a government affect everybody therefores kind of controls that's why people raised the question according to that uh what difference does it make who you vote for what difference does it make who wins elections uh what difference does anything in the political realm make uh gales is going to control the decisions that people make. Anyway, it's an interesting question. So, among some religious people, there is actually a notion of absolute fatalism when it comes to politics and they say it makes no difference who wins. Most do not go that far. Most say they're still kind of hishadless, meaning what Hashem is going to make the leader decide to some degree is affected by how much you worked to get a certain result. So there's going to be an interaction uh an interaction there. So Trump versus Harris, you know, could indeed make a difference even though Hashem is causing the decisions to be made uh to be made anyway. Um yeah. So apparently if you plug in the Rambam, now the Rambam does not bring the puss in Yoshu. He does not he does not bring this at all. But apparently you can take what the Rambam says about Hashem hardening parrot and you could apply it to this situation as well. And that is the seven nations were mis because of their avodor because of their violence because of their perversity they deserve to die. Now most of the time Hashem leaves open pathways of chuva even to the biggest Russia. But there are times that the rishious is so severe that he is ma from them chuba so they will get their full punishment. That's exactly what this puss is saying. This puss is basically saying hashem didn't want the seven nations to have opportunities for chuva because they had already crossed the no man's land. Now what degree of rishious is that? I mean again that's very rare. That is very rare. Meaning most of the time the biggest Russia is given the chance to do chuva. Most of the time there are extraordinary instances where Hashem is Mona the but even then the punishment is not for what you did after you lost your free will. Okay, this is important. You're not being punished for what you did after you lost your free will. You're being punished for what you did before you lost your free will. Except you don't have the opportunity to do chuva to get out of that. You see the the nature of the Rambam in that in that way as the Rambam is learning. You don't get punished for uh what you do after you lose your free will. It just means that you lose the cap. you can lose which is rare rare the capacity of chuva and then you get punished what you did before now there is another way of understanding it a little bit which is um people sometimes interpret the ram this way but it's not really the rambom it's a it's a a separate sora and they go with the idea that god can even punish that when when it says god hardens your heart it's really understood as a kind consequence of your addiction to evil. Meaning, let's take a very simple case. Let's say from the secular world, somebody drives while they're intoxicated. They're drunk and they kill somebody, right? So, that's a serious crime. Uh vehicular homicide while under while intoxicated. Now, what if the drunk guy simply has a very simple defense? Hey, I was drunk. What do you expect? I'm not able I wasn't able to control the car. Um I couldn't drive any better than I drove. Um I was too intoxicated to know that I shouldn't go into the car. So you know what? How can I be punished for what I did when I was drunk? So the answer is it's true that when you were drunk you had no control, no self-control. But since that is a consequence of the voluntary decisions you made, Hashem can hold you liable even for the involuntary actions because they came from the voluntary ones. Now this is a different understanding. This is not exactly the same as the Ramba. So here's the argument. When a person does aos, every time we do aos, we kind of become addicted to sin. We we we may lose our we may lose our capacity of choice because it becomes harder and harder. The garra says in mo a person does an ara one time and then a second time it becomes mudra to him. At that point it's not even a problem. and raisant added and if he does it a third time it becomes a mitzvah >> right so a person might say well if I'm doing an ara the fifth sixth seventh millionth time how could I be responsible it became much to me the answer is yeah but it's connected to the volitional choice so according to this pyro and the Egyptians could be punished even for their refusal after they became addicted to sin because that was a consequence it's a little different than the ram Raam was saying you're getting punished for the pre uh of aos and this simply means you didn't do chuva according to this you can even get punished for that and by the way this applies to mitzvah too you know I mentioned before uh the nuda that you're not going to you know let's say if you keep kosher and I walk by a a tra that point right I'm not making a choice because it's not within my struggle. So the question becomes so that means I'm not going to get rewarded for keeping kosher. So some want to say if it if it initially was a struggle for you and you made it not a struggle then even what you do when it's not a struggle you're going to get reward because that is the product of your struggle. Now that is a terrorist for a bala that's not necessarily a terrorist for an FFB. If I may never have had the struggle, that's another discussion. Uh but at least the concept is that things that were part of your struggle and now you've gone beyond them, you may still get rewarded. And in fact, that may be an explanation perhaps of why we might get reward from mitzvos even after Mashiach comes. Because one of the famous questions is gee when mashiach comes and we don't have a yates or so when I'm doing mitzvah there's no struggle. So that means how can I get reward for messianic mitzvah? But the answer is if you're doing the mitzvah in a state of purity but it's a result of the struggles you had earlier. Hashem still considers those mitzvah to be part of your struggle as well. I mean that might be an explanation of reward liia. But be it as it may, uh it is interesting that although the Rambam does not mention it, uh the Rambam's Hezbar of Hashem hardening Pyro's heart is going to be very very relevant these seven nations. Hashem did not want them to be in it realm. But Nebuch Hashem would be stuck if they would have done Shuva by cre. But Hashem doesn't want him there. So Hashem hardens their heart. So the Jewish people kill them off. But as I say, in spite of this, there were yeim who in fact accepted. Yeah. >> Someone was born during the Messiah era era. >> Say I getting it here. someone's born like after Mashiah. >> Yeah. >> They'd be born without >> Yeah. So that's going to be a problem. Um so again, maybe we we'll have to talk about this later. Uh the idea that there's no Yates lios mashiach does not automatically have to be understood as a total absence of Yates. It means the struggle will be carried off carried at a higher level and therefore even one born during Mashiah will have his struggle and that will be the basis of his heart. Okay, we'll see you. >> Thank you for listening to this awesome [music] production. To find out more and to partner in our mission, please visit oh.edu.