Free Will

Rabbi Israel Chait

Free will is a philosophical issue and should not be addressed publicly. Talmud Chagiga 11b says:

One may not expound upon the act of Creation before two, nor upon the Chariot by oneself, unless he is wise and understands on his own.

The study of metaphysics and Creation have limitations. People can misinterpret such areas. Therefore, Chazal were careful not to discuss certain topics unless they were sure that those with whom they discussed these matters attained a certain level of intellect and would not come to false conclusions. The area of free will is one of these sensitive topics.

An important principle in Judaism is that a person should not venture into an area that is beyond his comprehension. One must have a barometer of how far he can investigate an area and not exceed his abilities. It is difficult to determine because usually the person who is not capable of restricting his investigations is not mature enough to recognize his limits. Overstepping one’s bounds is extremely dangerous, as Maimonides discusses in his introduction to his Guide, and in the Guide itself.

This is one of the fundamentals of Judaism. Maimonides discusses the verse “And you should not stray after your hearts and after your eyes” (Num. 15:39). One should not delve into an area where he is liable to come to emotional conclusions, since he is not capable of handling the area intellectually. The phrase “your hearts” refers to the emotions. “Your eyes” refers to what one sees—he is attached to the physical.

During the Revelation at Sinai, there were different groups of people, each with unique limits as to how close they could approach the mountain. Moshe, of course, was the closest, and the groups descended to the lowest level, which was the general nation. Anyone who violated and overstepped his limit was punished with death. This limitation applied not only to Sinai, but it also applies to the “constant state of Sinai.” There is a constant state of attempting to penetrate and understand the essence of God’s knowledge. Therefore, how one approaches knowledge is extremely important.

Regarding free will, Rabbeinu Yona quotes the verse “And choose life” (Deut. 30:19). A few verses earlier, God tells man that he should make a choice between life [truth] and his desires:

See [understand] I place before you today life and the good, and death and evil (Ibid. 30:15).

We must have a basic idea of what free will is. Many philosophers gave examples of their understanding, which are not in line with the Torah’s concept. The philosophers cited examples of people deciding whether or not to eat something. They asked if man has free will in this decision. According to Judaism, free will is not involved in every choice. “And choose life” indicates [the precise matter] wherein free will lies. The free will choice lies in the case where man has before his soul a choice between true life or physicality—this is the only case where free will exists. If one is confronted with conflicting desires, such as abstaining from food in order to be thin and healthy, or eating and enjoying the pleasure, it is not a free will decision, it is merely one emotion vying against another. There is no reason to suggest that free will operates in this case. Here, there is no choice between what is life and what is evil. The determinists might very well be correct in this case—it is a question of which emotion is stronger. Maimonides says that even the desire for good health is no different from any other physical desire. To be healthy, i.e., to extend one’s life, is merely a physical desire. The only case where good health is a case of “choosing life” is when the desire for health is to enable involvement in God’s wisdom and Torah.

The Torah’s concept of free will refers to a choice between two worlds: the world that man’s mind depicts, and the world depicted by man’s emotions. Here, the soul comes into the picture; it is presented with a choice and it is free to choose the world of wisdom. That is the description of free will. As the soul perceives the option of choosing wisdom, it participates in that world, and to follow that world, it is unimpeded [this is the free will choice, and nothing but man’s will selects wisdom over following his desires].

The philosophers do not define to what free will refers; it is not simply man choosing. But Judaism has a precise definition specified by the verse cited previously. When man chooses a life of wisdom, he does not relate to the world of causality as the soul is not physical [and as he is removed from causality, he is engaged in a free will decision. Here, the decision is not based on emotional desires, which might very well be predetermined, as previously stated.]

See [understand] I place before you today life and the good, and death and evil...and choose life.

Man was given free will only after receiving the Torah. Thus, without the Torah, many people would spend their lives with no free will.

Our society values fame, wealth, and success. Therefore, anything that comes after [one selects these values, is thereby dictated by] such poor values, and therefore must be false. Judaism does not share anything in common with society since society’s values directly oppose Judaism. All of society’s moral terms and ethics are worthless and empty [as they are built upon a false foundation]. Judaism stands apart.

The fact that a child is exempt from Torah [infractions] until the age of thirteen shows that all his choices are not in the sphere of free will. Thus, a person—even an adult— makes choices that are not free will choices.

The existence of Abraham shows that man has the inherent capacity to unravel wisdom. Thus, free will exists at every stage [not only after Sinai] but not to the same degree as after Sinai.

Rabbi Yisroel Salanter said that a wicked person is culpable on every evil he perpetrates, even though he may now have no choice, as he charted [determined] his path long ago. For example, an evil dictator chose his past decades ago, which does not allow him to refrain from killing a disturbing subordinate. No person can tell this dictator not to use his power to eliminate this person. Murdering this person is not a free will choice, but a natural decision that “follows” from his evil nature. Regardless, he is responsible for that person’s murder as it is based on his choice made decades earlier. If the soul chooses the world that the mind describes, then it is not simply a matter of choice in terms of the “following,” but it actually partakes of that world of mind, and it becomes likened to that of which it partakes. Thus, the soul, in choosing the world of ideas, changes its nature. Free choice is not just a matter of acting a certain way, i.e., choosing good or evil actions, but the nature of the soul is determined by the world that it follows and its whole nature is changed. That is why Rashi says, on Bechukosai, that a person deteriorates step-by-step (Lev. 26:15)

Thus, you have here seven sins, the first of which brings the second in its train, and so on to the seventh. And these are: H e has not studied and therefore has not practiced the commandments; consequently, he scorns others who do practice them, he hates the sages, prevents others from practicing, denies the divine origin of the commandments, and, finally, denies the existence of God.

Rashi teaches that one sin generates the next. The evil inclination functions in a manner where one cannot say, “I will do one sin and no more.” For once a person sins, he has changed his nature and he is no longer the person who said, “I will stop at one sin.” [This is the phenomenon we speak of, that in selecting either good or evil, the soul is thereby changed.] If the soul rejects following the mind, as it follows the emotions, the soul partakes of that world. This is the deterioration of the soul.

Rashi’s seven steps of deterioration should really be four steps: He does not learn, he does not act, he denies the mitzvos, and he denies God. Why does this person care to prevent others from performing mitzvos?

In Megillat Esther there is a strange phenomenon: When King Achashverosh brought out the vessels of the Beis Hamikdash, he said:

Seventy years has transpired and God has not fulfilled H is promise to redeem the Jews. Now there won’t be any repercussions if I use the vessels of the Beis Hamikdash.

King Achashverosh also wore the high priest’s garments. The reason he did these things was because he was obsessed with the Jew. Haman too was obsessed with the Jew, as we see he was elated that the lot [to annihilate the Jews] fell during the month of Adar. Haman said, “The lottery fell during the month of Moshe’s death!” [He felt that this was a fortuitous sign.] And when Haman’s plot failed, his wife and family said to Haman, “If Mordechai is from Jewish lineage, you will surely fail.” The verses reveal that both King Achashverosh and Haman were obsessed with the Jew and with the Torah’s ideas. The same is true of the person who deteriorates—he is bothered by the system of Judaism. But why does it bother him?

Even though the soul can make a choice and reject the world of ideas, it cannot remove itself completely from that world. The soul always retains a recognition of the world of wisdom and it is disturbed by it [when it’s not following it]. The evil person then attempts to overcome that disturbance: [King Achashverosh used the vessels of the Beis Hamikdash and the high priest’s garments, and Haman’s wife told him that Mordechai’s Jewish lineage forecasts failure. And Rashi says the evil person will prevent others from performing mitzvos and he will despise the sages.] King Achashverosh, Haman, and the evil person all recognized that there is truth to the world of wisdom. [Thus, these acts were attempts to deny what they sensed was true.]

King Achashverosh had great respect for the wise men of Israel. For when Queen Vashti sinned against King Achashverosh, he called the Jewish sages for advice. The gemara says (Megillah 12b) that these were the Sanhedrin. King Achashverosh asked them, “What shall I do about Vashti?” The Jewish sages discussed among themselves as follows:

“This is a bad predicament. If we tell the king to kill his wife, tomorrow his wine will wear off and he will be angry with us. But if we tell him to leave her alone, he will hate us because we would not be acting in the king’s honor.” The sages gave a political answer: “Good wine is preserved well in its own cask for many years. But if you pour the wine from cask to cask, it loses its flavor. We are a nation that was poured from one place to another. We are not the right ones to ask. Ask Ammon and Moab, for they have been in the same place all these years.”

Thus, King Achashverosh recognized the Jewish sages. The obsession with the Jew is an attempt to overcome the conflict he created by his free choice. The choice to follow the emotions is only one part of man; the soul remains disturbed and unhappy and the person tries to wipe out that other part that recognizes the truth.

Although those like King Achashverosh and Haman do not follow the world of wisdom, their souls cannot become completely involved in their selfish and physical lifestyles. [The soul remains tied to wisdom and is not converted to a physical and emotional condition. Therefore, these personalities needed to respond to the vessels of the Beis Hamikdash, to the high priest’s garments and to Mordechai’s lineage.] These were attempts at denying the reality of the Jewish nation. Using these sacred objects in mundane ways would reject their significance.

When one chooses the world of wisdom, the soul is being true to its nature. And when one chooses the physical lifestyle the soul violates its nature. Thus, part of the soul will always fight against itself: “The wicked are as turbulent as the sea” (Isaiah 57:20). This represents the conflict of the evil person. He is turbulent because there is a part of himself—the soul, which knows that the world of ideas is the real world—that he cannot appease. This also explains Rashi on Bechukosai, on why the evil person must hate those who represent the Torah: The righteous person creates conflict within the evil person and the evil person must reject the righteous person.

If one makes the wrong first step, it is the essence of his error. If he fails to learn and pursue wisdom, he then deteriorates and all the following stages [as Rashi states] depict his attempt to overcome His conflicts that stem from an underlying recognition of the truth.