Having to Live With Ourselves

Parshat Mishpatim 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

In his very first comment on the Parsha, Rashi asks why the set of rules that comprise Parshas Mishpatim are told to us right after the rules of the Mizbeach, as described at the end of Parshas Yisro? “To tell you that you are to place the Sanhedrin right next to the Mikdash/Mizbeach.” (Both versions – Mikdash and Mizbeach – appear in Rashi, indicating a non-clear designation of exactly where the Sanhedrin will be seated. This could be Rashi’s doing, or it can be the comment of an editor. Suffice it to say, Rashi may not have felt a need to elaborate because he felt it was obvious.) 

Rashi’s question is stirred on by the fact that he is of the view that the rules of Mishpatim were told to Moshe while he was on Mt. Sinai, a trip he doesn’t take until the end of the parsha (in chapte24). Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, one of the super-commentator’s on Rashi, elaborates Rashi’s question, asking why the laws are mentioned in the context of instruction for the Mizbeach, seemingly out of order of how they were presented to Moshe! The proximity of both sets of rules “is to tell you to have the Sanhedrin set up next to the Mikdash in the Lishkas HaGazis (a separate dedicated room) which is close to the Mizbeach.” 

A possible reason for the Sanhedrin to be so close to the Mizbeach is to allow for the Sanhedrin to be able to observe the humanity of the Jewish people at their basic form of service of God. People bring korbanos (offerings) as a responsibility, as a devotion, as a form of gratitude, or on account of a sin (this list is not exhaustive). All are trying to feel closer to the Almighty, and through their sincere offerings, they demonstrate who they are at their core. 

While it can certainly be argued that “Justice must be blind” and that the Sanhedrin can’t show favoritism or sway the law in any manner that is improper, this does not mean that the Sanhedrin can’t take into account an individual’s humanity in certain errors brought their way! Certainly much of Mishpatim includes the law’s need to discern certain truths about people which play a factor in some of their mistaken ways. Perhaps we can take the imagery further and suggest that the “Mizbach Adamah” – the Mizbeach made of earth – is meant to keep the Sanhedrin “grounded” and “down to earth,” so they never lose sight of their obligation, even through their deliberations and judgments, to follow the drasha on וראהו הכהן (when a Kohen examines a person who has a tzaraas affliction) – which is to see the person, and not just the blemish that needs to be judged. 

To be intellectually honest, Rabbi Samson R Hirsch rejects such a concept: “The whole idea of the right of pardon is absent in the code law of the Jewish state. Justice and judgment are God’s, not man’s. When the precisely defined Law of God – which leaves no room for human arbitrariness – ordains death for a criminal, the execution of the sentence is not a harsh act that can be commuted in consideration of the circumstances, but is itself a most considerate atonement – for the community, for the land, for the criminal…” (21:14) 

At the same time, to be fair to the other perspective, he says this in the context of a case against a deliberate murderer. Would the same apply in a case that is a little more gray than black and white? Perhaps it is easy to understand how a court might conceptually be more lenient when a person sins between himself or herself and God, or when the error of one’s ways against another human being is easily rectified. 

Does anything change when the Sanhedrin is confronted with a case where someone has committed murder? Is it different if the charge is voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter (which are both different from murder on account of how “intent” or “lack of intent” is defined in a specific case, as well as the degree of negligence demonstrated in the act that took a life). 

The Torah gives us a case of murder in 21:14 when a person, בערמה, with guile, commits a murder, “He is to be taken from My Mizbeach for execution.” This phraseology is open to a number of interpretations: even if he is a kohen, he is to be taken to his death without allowing him to start / complete his service (Pesikta, Rashi, Targum Yonatan, Ibn Ezra, etc); the example of Yoav who ran to the Mizbeach to avoid arrest and execution, the Mizbeach was not to serve as a refuge, certainly not for someone who was to be executed by the king (Ibn Ezra, Rabbenu Bachaye, Haktav V’hakabbalah, etc); Rabbenu Bachaye adds the important reminder that “since he’s a murderer who is guilty and deserving of death, the pasuk commands us to take him out, and to give him over to those who have a complaint against him (ie. relatives of his victim who might take his life) because he is undeserving of compassion and mercy. Mercy in this situation [to a murderer] is in fact cruelty to all others.” 

All of these interpretations follow a similar pattern. A person who has murdered deliberately, without just cause (such as an act of defense, for oneself or defending another), while ignoring the warning of witnesses who subsequently testify against him, he is to be taken away from the Mizbeach, which, in light of Rashi’s opening statement in our parsha, would mean that at the very least he would be taken from in front of the Sanhedrin (which is at the Mizbeach) and executed elsewhere. Especially in light of how Rabbenu Bachaye views capital punishment for a deliberate murder as being an act of compassion towards the rest of the community (since keeping him alive would be an act of cruelty to everyone), we can at least understand, even if in our 21st century molding of the mind some of us may have a moral case against capital punishment. 

Arguably the most difficult concept to understand on this passage (21:14), however, is Rashi’s defense (based on the Mechilta) of individuals who commit involuntary manslaughter for the simple reason that their intent was not בערמה, with guile. They include the physician, Beis Din’s lashes-giver, a father who strikes his child, a Rebbe who strikes his student, and the accidental murderer. The explanation? Even though in each case the person in question intended to do what he did – ie, the doctor used an experimental treatment or messed up in surgery causing the patient’s death, the lashes-giver gave (on Beis Din’s authority, and on the say-so of a physician appointed by Beis Din to assess the health of the lashes-recipient) one lash too many which caused the death of the lashes-recipient, the father who potched his child too hard, and the Rebbe who disciplined too hard causing the child’s death – death was never on the mind of the so-called perpetrator! 

Can it really be true that these deaths, while notably tragic, have no repercussions to the one’s guilty of causing the death? How can we honestly argue it’s involuntary? The doctor knows there is risk in what he’s doing. In weighing the pros and cons, he made a choice that cost his patient’s life. The lashes-giver should have recused himself at the point he felt the person could not handle another Makkah as he watched the person deteriorate in front of his eyes. And it is very hard to have sympathy for the father or Rebbe who can deliver a blow that could lead to the death of the recipient. It’s hard to call it involuntary with a mighty blow like that! 

Perhaps we can say there was no intent to cause the loss of life. One saving grace. But seriously, how could there be ZERO repercussions to those who cause this kind of loss of life? Rabbi Chaim Paltiel calls them מזידין! People who deliberately did the action involved, but were saved because “they were not מערימין” (they didn’t behave with guile). It is true! Find me one of these individuals – the doctor, the Beis Din emissary, the father, the rebbe – who is pleased with the outcome. There isn’t one. Each one will regret how far things went, and will certainly acknowledge (if honest) that the actions taken were wrong and the outcome most tragic. 

How could there not even be a slap on the wrist and a warning? Alshikh, for example notes the distinction between someone who kills בשוגג, accidentally, and one who murders on purpose, that the reason to take the murderer out to his death is because “it is good for him to die immediately and to achieve atonement through his death and his ווידוי.” He doesn’t extend that argument to the one who is not classified as a מזיד. 

No one should be able to speak from experience. But I wonder, for someone who has this happen, what does the rest of life look like? Does living with the guilt of having killed someone undeserving of death serve as its own punishment? It’s almost as if a judge might say, “Look what you did. Now you have to live with yourself for the rest of your life.” 

While we certainly hope that kind of regret is one no one should ever have to face, there are many choices we make that we can consider, or reconsider, and do differently when faced with similar situations. What will we do to not live life with regrets? To never have to worry that “I have to live with myself” over what I did that impacted someone else’s life. 

May we be blessed to have clarity of vision, and clarity of all life paths going forward so we can always “live with ourselves” because our choices have been the kind we’d love our family members to write about when they tell the story of their ancestors, who not only never committed an act of involuntary manslaughter, but did all they could to lift us up, to encourage, to inspire, to serve as role models, to be there for a phone call, a little assistance and always an encouraging word.

The Sinai Experience – Unifying a People Apart

This is an expansion of this Dvar Torah

 Parshat Yitro

There is no question that the highlight of our parsha is the lead-in to and the declaration of the Aseres HaDibros, the Ten Statements that some call the Ten Commandments, of chapter 19 and 20 respectively. 

 There is a clear link between the events of Refidim (water and Amalek battle) and the arrival at Sinai (see 19:2 “ויסעו מרפידים” - they traveled from Refidim). This connection may serve to indicate that Yisro’s visit is simply thematically connected, but not chronological in the story (following views of Rashi and Ibn Ezra that Yisro’s presence is after the giving of the Torah). 

 Kli Yakar looks at the name Refidim, noting it has the same letters as פרידים (Peridim) – which means the people were divided. Is it any wonder that the event with the rock and the water is called Masah U’Mrivah, which reference fighting? He adds that on account of their division רפו ידיהם – they removed their hands from the Torah. 

 After the water incident, they were attacked by Amalek, which forced them to band together to fight a common enemy. Perhaps this is what is meant by זכור את אשר עשה לך עמלק – remember, what Amalek did to you, you being in the singular. Amalek united all of you against a common enemy. This was not the Modus operandus du jour of the Israelites in the wilderness. Targum Yonatan notes that the people were as one heart at Sinai, but Rashi (based on the Mechilta) expands on that sentiment noting that was not the case at any other encampment - אבל שאר כל החניות בתרעומת ובמחלוקת - “all other encampments were filled with complaints and argumentation.” Kli Yakar notes the singularity of the Sinai experience through first noting כי בקשת הכבוד והשררה סיבה לכל ריב ולכל נגע, that the pursuit of kavod and of ruling-power was the source for every fight and plague, but now that they realized how small Sinai actually was, אז ראו שהקב"ה בוחר בענוים! Now they saw that God prefers humble entities. Certainly mountains, and even moreso humans. 

 SEEING Sinai caused them to embrace the feeling of submission – in other words, to avoid strife – so that they could embrace PEACE. The essence of the mountain, עניוות, is what brought about the peace among the factions of Israelites. 

 Read carefully how the Torah presents their arrival. א) בַּחֹ֙דֶשׁ֙ הַשְּׁלִישִׁ֔י לְצֵ֥את בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם בַּיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה בָּ֖אוּ מִדְבַּ֥ר סִינָֽי: THEY (in the plural) came to the wilderness of Sinai ב) וַיִּסְע֣ו מֵרְפִידִ֗ים וַיָּבֹ֙אוּ֙ מִדְבַּ֣ר סִינַ֔י וַֽיַּחֲנ֖וּ בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר וַיִּֽחַן־שָׁ֥ם יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל נֶ֥גֶד הָהָֽר: THEY traveled from Refidim, THEY came to Sinai, and THEY camped in the wilderness (all plurals with the suffix וּ). Then the singular ISRAEL camped at the Mountain. 

 Wilderness-wise they were still many people, many opinions, not united. But when they got to the mountain, as they realized God would reveal Himself on this particular and specific mountain, they realized the key ingredient to accepting the Torah was humility!... then they were כאיש אחד בלב אחד – united in every way as one. 

 The Gemara in Shabbos 89b gives a number of explanations for why the mountain and its surrounding wilderness were called סיני, some of which are subsequently challenged. 

 Rav Kahana – it’s a play on words. סיני because ניסים (miracles) were done for Israel there. 

 Challenge: Then it should be called הר ניסאי! (“Mount Miracles”) 

 

Gemara suggests – סיני because it sound like סימן טוב – good things happened to Israel there. 

 Challenge: Then it should be called הר סימנאי! (“Mount Good Signs”) 

 

Gemara explains why it was really called Sinai הר שירדה שנאה לאמות העולם עליו. It is a mountain at which hostility was descended toward the nations (סיני and שנאה sound similar). 

 The Gemara presents a similar argument as it explains what Sinai’s real name was: חורב. It was called Horeb because שירדה חורבה לאמות העולם עליו. Because desolation [hurbah] to idolaters descended thereon. 

 Rashi explains the “hatred” or the “destruction” to the nations of the world as meaning their moral compass was demonstrably skewed! He says שלא קבלו בו תורה, simply because they themselves didn’t receive the Torah. [We are not getting into the question of whether people who are not guided by the Torah can live moral lives – of course they can! Nor are we entertaining the question of those who seem to live a life governed by the Torah, yet who are immoral.] 

 But the Gemara’s reality focuses on who did accept the Torah there? And the answer of course is the בני ישראל - in a crescendo of a 400-years process, during which time the descendants of Avraham had so many traumatic experiences. On individual levels they were going in different directions. Every personality was different, every family had a different outlook, and everyone had a different idea of what it meant to be freed from slavery, to leave the norm of Egypt – bad as it was – and begin to live a life תחת כנפי השכינה – under the wings of the Divine. Or על כנפי נשרים – on the wings of Neshers – as it were. 

 They arrived at Sinai, for the experience of Sinai, and they were united because the mountain demonstrated for them that the Torah isn’t just for the mighty and lofty and powerful. The Torah is for everybody. And everybody has a personal challenge, to ask oneself, how am I making the Torah mine? 

The Aseres Hadibros are written in the singular! It is as if God was speaking to every Jew, face to face, so that each Israelite could internalize the message, take the lessons, and apply the Torah as an individual mandate – as part of the collective Am Yisrael. 

 The Aseres HaDibros are timeless. And while they don’t need updating, perhaps an expansion on the Bein Adam LaChaveiro side would do us wonders. 

1. Believe that every Jew has value, and that Hashem loves every Jew. 

2. We should not worship any rabbinic leader, government leader, social activist, government organization or media company, especially (in the latter cases) when they pit human beings against one another. In the former, if they do what they do, say what they say, preach what they preach for any goal other than for the sake of heaven and the enhancement of human relationships, they are in the wrong position. 

3. Don’t put any instruction given by human beings above the basic premise of “Loving your neighbor” – even if you disagree with your neighbor 

4. Remember that every human being is created in the image of God. And only if that person damages the image of God (through murdering other people or denying others’ humanity through other horrific crimes) is the person to be treated in kind 

5. We honor those deserving of honor, including our elders and those who conduct themselves, and all of their affairs, with dignity and humility 

6. Do not destroy the life of the non-criminal (or innocent of sin) through Lashon Hora, even if you disagree with someone and believe you are right 

7. Do not betray a confidence if someone shares private information, unless someone is in physical danger – whether from someone else or potentially self-inflicted 

 8. Do not steal or tarnish a person’s good name just because the person holds an unpopular opinion (argue against the opinion if necessary, but leave the personal out of it!) 

9. If a dispute can’t be settled in person or through an intermediary, bring it to a respectable unbiased Beis Din. Both parties must agree to go so the dispute can be resolved with both sides accepting the ruling. 

10. Observance of the Torah is based on Anivus (humility), which means we are all imperfect and we know it. Just as we don’t want to change, we can’t expect others to change; just as we have a yetzer tov and a yetzer hara we struggle with all the time, so does everyone else have their own personal battles we know nothing about.

Too often people play God in their view of others. It is not our responsibility to decide what is best for other people, nor is it our responsibility to judge what determines a person’s place in our communities. Some people love Torah learning. Some can’t find the time for it. Some people shun sports and modernity, some people love sports and modernity. Some are careful about Cholov Yisrael, some follow Rav Moshe Feinstein’s teaching that in America, all milk is kosher. Some people don’t like concerts, some get spiritual highs from concerts. Some people have an amazing relationship with Hashem, some people struggle with the concept of God. Some find davening meaningful all the time, some don’t – ever. Some are more strict about halakhot, some are more lenient. Some people find an observant life easy, some struggle mightily. Some people think what a person wears defines the person’s Jewishness, some people are satisfied with simply being modest in dress. Some people don’t see modesty as a big deal. Just as every person’s medical profile is private, and should be no one else’s business (beyond physicians and close family members), we do not determine anyone’s place in the community based on those private decisions. 

 There is supposed to be room for all types in our community. We are all, by design, wired differently. Any set of parents who have more than one child know very well that even children who come from the same exact DNA can be so so so different from one another. Certainly that is true of all of humanity who do not come from the exact same two parents! 

 The Kli Yakar’s lesson was that the seeking of Kavod is what caused Machlokes, and the lesson of Anivus, of humility that was learned merely from LOOKING at Har Sinai, is what brought the Jewish people together, בלב אחד with one heart, כאיש אחד as one person. 

 It was called Sinai, because from there “Sinah went down upon the nations” – it doesn’t mean hatred. It just means there’s a difference between “us” and “them” – and that difference is that ALL of us (All of the Jewish people) received the Torah. And so, it is so important to remember that while Ahavas Yisrael is meant to lead us to love all Jews regardless… certainly all those who identify with Torah, and who struggle to do their best in their dedication to it and in their dedication to the Ribono Shel Olam, should be loved unconditionally. 

 If we can remember all we have in common, and do what we can to increase Ahavas Yisrael, hopefully we can experience once again, in a manner that need not be fleeting, what it means to be בלב אחד כאיש אחד, as we all embrace the Torah as one nation, as each one of us struggles to make the most of our relationships with, and our commitments to God, while never neglecting our duties toward accepting the humanity of other people, especially our fellow Jews.

How the Illness of Egypt Will Not Be Upon You

 Parshat Beshalach

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

 After the incident in Marah, when Moshe was instructed to put a specific עץ (stick, branch, or tree) into the bitter waters to turn them sweet, God says, “If you obey God your Lord and do what is upright in His eyes, carefully heeding all His commandments and keeping all His decrees, then I will not strike you with any of the sicknesses that I brought on Egypt. I am God who heals you.” 

 Many questions may be asked on this instruction. Is it instruction? Is it a promise? Is there really a guarantee? How do we know if we are fully obeying God and being upright in His eyes, etc.? Is this the ticket to perfect health? What sicknesses did God bring upon Egypt anyway? Is this referring to all of the plagues? Most of them weren’t sicknesses, as they were external to the body, so is it therefore referring to specific plagues? Will we not be subject to boils or to the death of our firstborns? 

One approach championed by the commentaries is that we need to look at this in the context in which it appears. God has just healed “sick” waters – waters which were bitter have now become sweet (Rashbam). Rashi says, along similar lines, that a physician advises what to eat and what not to eat, to help a person avoid illness, presumably the kind that comes from poor eating habits. Chizkuni adds that God’s input here was singular, demonstrating that no doctor has any ability without God. 

 In his Peirush Ha’Arokh, Ibn Ezra presents this as a contrast to the first plague, in which God made clean waters undrinkable. Here, in making the undrinkable drinkable, God was showing His unique power in this world. 

 All of these approaches suggest God is in charge of illness and its healing. Ibn Ezra’s instruction of how to overcome illness is to rely on God, כן יש לך להשמר שלא תמר בו, ולאהוב אותו, כי הוא ייטיב לך – “Thus you are to be careful not to provoke Him, and to love Him, for He will be good to you.” Of course it means to seek the assistance of a physician, but in light of what Chizkuni wrote every physician needs God’s help to be successful. 

In his Peirush HaKatzar, Ibn Ezra notes that we don’t know the identity of the עץ used to “heal” the waters because the Torah doesn’t tell us. But even if we were to know the species of wood and have all of that type of wood thrown into the water, it would not have worked. The combination of God identifying the specific עץ and Moshe’s following the instructions is what brought about healing to the waters of Marah. 

 Ramban warns us not to take this to mean a. that God wants the title of “Doctor,” or b. that this is a guarantee to be protected from all illness. Ramban views this as a warning to not follow the ways of Egypt who rebelled against God. After all, those who listened to God in Egypt through, for example, bringing their animals indoors during the hail, were saved. Ramban notes the verse in Devarim 28:60, “If you will not be careful to perform all the words of the Torah, God will bring upon you all the sufferings of Egypt, of which you were terrified, and they will cleave to you.” 

This still begs a much larger question about what clinging to God means, and how whatever efforts we make removes the possibility of what Ramban calls מחלה באה בדרך כל הארץ – naturally occurring illnesses from even happening? Beyond the verse itself, Ramban does not address that question here (though see his comment on Vayikra 26:11 for a further presentation of Ramban’s view on this subject.) 

But it is quite possible that Ramban’s side comment about what took place in Egypt gives us a hint to a much more rational explanation as to what the “illness that I put upon Egypt” refers. 

As has been noted, only the plague of boils was an illness, and of course, as the Torah Temimah points out, there was no natural remedy or physician-remedy that could heal the boils. [God’s guarantee to Israel is therefore that unlike My not providing an antidote to the Egyptians, I will provide antidotes for you!] And while fish died in the plague of blood, animals died in the plague of Dever, and the firstborns died in the final plague, none of these death-inducing plagues were preceded by a long, or even a short, illness. The deaths just happened immediately. 

 So perhaps we need to look at something else which can be classified as an illness in Egypt or of Egypt that we hope to avoid through heeding the word of God. 

 Ramban describes the Egyptians deciding to chase the Israelites, and specifically to go through the walls of water at the splitting of the sea as a שגעון, an act of insanity. 

 In this light, that a מחלה might refer to an illness of the mind, Seforno’s comment is particularly instructive. “All of My Mitzvos are meant to heal a soul from ‘illnesses’ related to desires and negative thoughts so that you can be holy unto Hashem your God… and if you rebel, the soul will become ill and desecrated.” 

Egypt was plagued by something far worse than the Ten Plagues, most of which served as a terrible nuisance, but for a limited amount of time. When the Torah describes most of the plagues, they are formidable and frightening when they are active, but when they end, life seems to return to a reasonable normalcy. Of course there is devastation to the economy and to the agriculture, but that could be seasonal and Egypt could at least foresee a recovery. 

 But what truly plagued them was the enslavement of their minds – to idolatry, to non-belief in God, to being led by an extremely stubborn ruler, to being so blind to the reality that God was defeating them at every turn, and to their general inability to see that their chances for things to improve would lay in their letting go of their trust in Pharaoh preferring to heed the word of God. 

For Mitzvos and for God to be the source of our healing, as the verse tells us, we need to be able to clear our minds from distractions which take us away from our task on this earth. We are all enjoined to grow in our relationship with God, to embrace mitzvos, to study Torah, to be kind to others, to be as nonjudgmental as possible, to give the benefit of the doubt.

All of the “illnesses” which plagued Egypt will not come upon us if we are focused on our Jewish tasks which are so beautifully expressed in the verse, “obey God your Lord and do what is upright in His eyes, carefully heeding all His commandments and keeping all His decrees.” If we are able to do this, we don’t need the verse to be a promise or a guarantee because the verse becomes self-fulfilling. The person who has the deepest connection with God knows very well that all healing is in God’s hands, including healing of the body, healing of the mind, and healing of the soul. When we have that deep connection, there is no such thing as suffering, because we are truly in tune to the notion that everything in our lives – good or seemingly bad – comes from Hashem. And thus we are healed from that which plagued Egypt.

Free Will and Doing God’s Will

Week of Parshat Bo 

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

A few things coincidentally came together at the same time this week, prompting the direction of this week's DT. Someone sent me an article about former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo incredible weight-loss journey (https://nypost.com/2022/01/06/mike-pompeos-weight-loss-story-down-90-pounds-in-6-months/amp), I finished my last training run for the Rabbis Can Run ½ Marathon I’ll be running on Tuesday (for which I thank all those who have sponsored the run!), and it dawned on me that I went several days this week without drinking my usual cups of coffee. 

Combine this with the never satisfying answers to the questions of Pharaoh’s free will being denied to him which continue to gnaw at the psyche, and we have what follows. 

Our general approach to the question of Free Will is that Mankind is gifted Free Will by God. To put it slightly differently, in the words of Rabbi Akiva in Avos (3:15) - הכל צפוי והרשות נתונה - “everything is anticipated [by God] but [humans] have permission granted to them [to choose.]” 

This is not the space for tackling the ramifications of what this means. Philosophers have spent many hours and pages debating how free a person’s will could be “if God already knows what you’re going to do.” 

Regardless, it is a hot conversation topic, which many people will never truly come to terms with simply because it is difficult to understand. 

Rambam (Maimonides) writes the following in his introduction to Pirkei Avos, in the Eighth Chapter of “Shmoneh Perakim.” [This translation is from Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Eight_Chapters.8.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en] [Translations appear in italics. All highlighted passages are ‘my emphasis’ and anything between paragraphs that is not italicized are my comments and additional thoughts – AB] 

“The sum and substance of the matter is, then, that thou should believe that just as God willed that man should be upright in stature, broad-chested, and have fingers, likewise did He will that man should move or rest of his own accord, and that his actions should be such as his own free will dictates to him, without any outside influence or restraint, which fact God clearly states in the truthful Law, which elucidates this problem, when it says, (Genesis 3:22) "Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil – הן האדם היה כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע". The Targum, in paraphrasing this passage, explains the meaning of the words "ממנו לדעת טוב ורע". Man has become the only being in the world who possesses a characteristic which no other being has in common with him. What is this characteristic? It is that by and of himself man can distinguish between good and evil, and do that which he pleases, with absolutely no restraint.” 

 With this acknowledgement, Rambam concludes that the basic knowledge of good v evil causes a person to typically choose good and obstain from evil in order to better round out one’s character in a positive vein. And yet, we know that a. some people make poor choices, and b. in particular in these parshas (Shmot, Va’era, Bo), the king of Egypt continues to choose not to listen to Moshe, until such time that God seemingly takes away his free will. Here is Maimonides’ explanation, preceded by a challenging question: 

“God said to Abraham, (Genesis 15:13) "and they (the Egyptians) will make them (the Israelites) serve, and they will afflict them". "Is it not evident", it is claimed, "that God decreed that the Egyptians should oppress the seed of Abraham? Then, why did He punish them, since, owing to divine predestination, it was inexorably decreed that they should enslave the Israelites?" 

“The answer to this is as follows. Suppose God had said that of those who were to be born in the future, some were to be transgressors and others observers of the Law, some pious and some wicked. Such would take place, but it would by no means follow from this divine decree that a certain individual would necessarily have to do evil, or that another pious individual would be forced to do good. On the contrary, every evil-doer would become such of his own free will; if he preferred to be a righteous man, it would be in his power, and nothing could prevent him from becoming such. Likewise, if every righteous man preferred to do evil, nothing would hinder him, for God's decree was not pronounced against any certain individual, so that he might say, "It has already been decreed that I do this or that", but [these words] applied to the race in general, at the same time allowing every individual to retain his own free will, according to the very makeup of his nature. Consequently, every Egyptian who maltreated or oppressed the Israelites had it in his own power not to do them any injury unless he wanted to, for it was not ordained that any certain individual should harm them."

[He then uses idolatry as an example – it is true that God warned that He would punish all idolators, but no one had to choose to specifically worship idols. Thus those who nevertheless chose that path were subject to the warning in the passage from Yeshayahu (66:3-4) "Yea they have made a choice of their own ways ... so will I also make choice of their misfortune.”] 

“As regards, however, the words of God, (Exodus 14:4) "and I will harden the heart of Pharaoh", afterwards punishing him with death, there is much to be said, and from which there may be deduced an important principle. Weigh well what I say in this matter, reflect upon it, compare it with the words of others, and give preference to that which is best. If Pharaoh and his counsellors had committed no other sin than that of not permitting Israel to depart, I admit that the matter would be open to great doubt, for God had prevented them from releasing Israel according to the words, (Exodus 10:1) "For I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his servants". After that, to demand of Pharaoh that he send them forth while he was forced to do the contrary, and then to punish him because he did not dismiss them, finally putting him and all his followers to death, would undoubtedly be unjust, and would completely contradict all that we have previously said. Such, however, was not the real state of affairs, for Pharaoh and his followers, already of their own free will, without any constraint whatever, had rebelled by oppressing the strangers who were in their midst, having tyrannized over them with great injustice, as Scripture plainly states, (Exodus 1:9-10) "And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel is more numerous and mightier than we, come let us deal wisely with it". This they did through the dictates of their own free will and the evil passions of their hearts, without any external constraint forcing them thereto. The punishment which God then inflicted upon them was that He withheld from them the power of repentance, so that there should fall upon them that punishment which justice declared should he meted out to them. The fact that they were prevented from repenting manifested itself by Pharaoh's not dismissing them. This God had explained and told him, namely, that if He had merely wished to liberate Israel, He would have destroyed him and his adherents, and He would have brought out the Israelites; but, in addition to the liberation of his people, God wished to punish him because of his previous oppression of Israel, as it is said at the beginning of the matter, (Genesis 15:14) "And also that nation whom they shall serve will I likewise judge". It would have been impossible to have punished them, if they had repented; therefore repentance was withheld from them, and they continued to keep the children of Israel in bondage, as it says, (Exodus 9:15-16) "For even now I have stretched out my hand, etc. . . . but for this cause have I allowed thee to remain". 

Maimonides concludes indicating that understanding the ways of God is beyond our comprehension, but as God judges and responds to humans choices, it is His world, and therefore His right, to decide who is still worthy of having their free will remain their own 

“No one can find fault with us when we say that God at times punishes man by withholding repentance from him, thus not allowing him free will as regards repentance, for God (blessed be He) knows the sinners, and His wisdom and equity mete out their punishment. Sometimes, He punishes only in this world, sometimes only in the world to come, sometimes in both. Furthermore, His punishment in this world is varied, sometimes being bodily, sometimes pecuniary, and sometimes both at once. Just as some of man's undertakings, which ordinarily are subject to his own free will, are frustrated by way of punishment… likewise does God withhold man's ability to use his free will in regard to repentance, so that it never at all occurs to him to repent, and he thus finally perishes in his wickedness. It is not necessary for us to know about God's wisdom so as to be able to ascertain why He inflicts precisely such punishment as He does and no other, just as little as we know why one species has a certain particular form and not another. It is sufficient for us to know the general principle, that (Deuteronomy 32:4) "God is righteous in all His ways," that He punishes the sinner according to his sin, and rewards the pious according to his righteousness. If you should inquire why God repeatedly asked Pharaoh to release Israel which he was unable to do while he, in spite of the plagues which befell him, persisted in his rebellion and stubbornness, which very rebelliousness and stubbornness was his punishment and yet God would not in vain have asked him to do a thing which he could not do, then know that , this, too, was a part of God's wisdom, to teach Pharaoh that God can suspend man's freedom of will when it pleases Him to do so. So, God said to him (through Moses), "I desire that thou should liberate them, but thou wilt not dismiss them, so that thou shouldst die". Pharaoh should have consented to release them, and thereby disprove the words of the prophet (Moses) that he was unable to obey, but he had not the power. Thus, a great wonder was revealed to the people, as it is said, (Exodus 9:16) "In order that they may proclaim my name throughout the earth", namely, that it is possible for God to punish man by depriving him of his free will respecting a certain deed, while he, though realizing it, is, however, unable to influence his soul, and return to his former state of freedom of the will." 

There are other explanations. Maimonides’ doesn’t work for everyone, but it is an approach that aims to understand why Pharaoh was undeserving, in God’s view, of having his free will dictate where the plagues were going and when Israel would finally leave. 

We have free will. We are not challenged in the way Pharaoh was, with evil designs plaguing our choices and deeds, causing God to look upon us and determine that we have lost the right to have free will. 

Some of the things we learn from running training (I share some of the lessons from other rabbis in our whatsapp group), life lessons perhaps, is that at times we do things we don’t like either because we have to or because we know these activities are good for us. We can freely choose what, if anything, we will do for our benefit – especially if these choices help us serve God better, and help us inspire others better. We can find time we think we don’t have to take positive steps in the direction of enhancing our own health. We don’t have to sample all the foods placed before us. We can choose carefully, and even eliminate from our diet things we enjoy which we also know are not good for us (this is not a knock on coffee which will certainly remain part of my diet!). Secretary Pompeo finally pushed himself to make changes when his scale hit a number he never thought he’d reach. 

Hashem isn’t preventing us from exercising our free will (or from exercising, for that matter!), and we have the chance to make choices that can help us improve our lifestyles without worrying that we are so far gone that the Almighty has taken away our chance to repent, improve, try harder, be better to ourselves. 

As the Bnei Yisrael, descendants of those whom God was looking out for in that fateful moment in time, we too can choose to align ourselves with our Father in Heaven, making decisions that allow us to always grow in our relationships with Him through challenging ourselves to reach even greater heights in the many ways we have the opportunity to serve Him. Taking steps to improve our health – in whatever way that translates to each person – is a form of serving the Almighty. If we are feeling better through the results of where our free will brings us we can fulfill His will better. 

May we be blessed to use our Free Will to make incredible choices, and to live a life most dedicated to Him, through the many years He should bless us with, and in good health!