Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Pirkei Avot 3:18 states “Free will is granted.” Similarly, Berachot 33b states: “Everything is in the hand of heaven except the fear of heaven.” In the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 17, the Rambam writes: “Man has a completely independent potential, i.e., he can, by his choice, desire, and inclination, do whatever he wants to do.” In the following halachot, the Rambam deals with many of the theoretical questions concerning free will, among them: the fact that certain people seem to have inherent tendencies to good or evil, the relationship between free will and reward and punishment, and the apparent contradiction between free will and God’s omniscience. The Rambam also discusses these issues at great length in his Commentary to the Mishnah, in Chapter Eight of his introduction to the tractate of Avot, which is popularly referred to as Shemoneh Perakim. Frequent references to that text are made in this commentary. As explained at the beginning of this text, in his introduction to the Mishneh Torah, the Rambam outlines the structure of the text as “halachot, halachot,” practical directives for our behavior. Philosophical and ethical concepts are only mentioned if they can be applied as “halachot.” In this context, the discussion of free choice in this and the following chapter must be seen, not as abstract philosophy, but rather as fundamental principles necessary to bring a person to the conclusion mentioned in Chapter 8, Halachah 1: “Since free choice is granted to all men, a person should always strive to do Teshuvah.

In Shemoneh Perakim, Chapter 8, the Rambam writes: All of man’s actions are placed in his hand. He is not forced to do any of them and there is no external force motivating him…. [Deuteronomy 30:15, 19] teaches “Behold, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil…. Choose life.”
All the other principles concerned with study and fulfillment of the mitzvot [depend on this principle].

Other commentaries render the phrase כאחד ממנו as “one of us.” The Rambam’s interpretation is based on Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonatan. See also Bereishit Rabbah 21:5.

In Shemoneh Perakim (loc. cit.), the Rambam explains that, when He created the world, God established certain natural laws to govern its functioning. Any creation bound by those laws lacks free choice. God, the Creator, stands above the limitations He instituted. Man has also been endowed with the unique potential to govern his own behavior, without the laws of nature governing his decisions.

It is his choice and no predetermined factors that govern his behavior.

The wording of this halachah is problematic. It appears to imply that man gained the power of choice because he ate from the tree of knowledge. In truth, the power of choice is vested within man because he was created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27). His soul is “a spark of God.” Hence, even the most elevated Divine potentials are reflected within his soul.

This fatalistic perspective runs contrary to the very core of Jewish belief. Though certain verses from the Bible appear to support it, e.g., “The wicked are estranged from the womb (Psalms 58:4),” “Before you came out of the womb, I sanctified you (Jeremiah 1:5),” as will be explained, these verses refer to a person’s natural inclinations. However, each person has the potential to rise above these tendencies.

Tana D’Bei Eliyahu, Chapter 25, states that every man is obligated to say: “When will my deeds equal those of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

Who “sinned and caused the many to sin.”

These statements can be clarified on the basis of some Talmudic references that deal with these questions. Bava Batra 16a relates that Job attempted to free the entire world from judgment, complaining to God: “You created righteous men; You created the wicked.” His colleagues answered him: God created the evil inclination and created Torah as “a condiment for it.” This implies that although man may have been created with certain negative tendencies, he has the potential, through Torah, to elevate and refine them. Niddah 16b states: The angel who governs pregnancy… takes a drop [of sperm] before God and asks: “Master of the world, what will be the fate of this drop? Will [the resulting child] be strong? Will he be weak? Will he be wise or foolish, rich or poor”? However, he does not ask: “Will he be righteous or wicked… for everything is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven.” In Shemoneh Perakim (loc. cit.), the Rambam elaborates on this issue: It is impossible that a person will be born possessing a certain positive attribute or character fault…. However, it is possible that a person will be born with a natural tendency towards a [particular] quality or fault; i.e., this activity will be easier for him than others…. However, if a person with a particular tendency ignores and does not train his natural inclination, his potential will never be aroused. Similarly, even an obtuse person [with little intellectual ability] will succeed in knowing and understanding if he is instructed and taught. People are born with different natures. Some have a greater degree of natural refinement than others. Hence, it is easier for them to be righteous. Others, either because of heredity or environment, possess more materialistic tendencies and will have a more difficult struggle. However, to be righteous, even the most refined must make an effort to elevate himself. Similarly, even the most coarse is not predestined to sin, but rather, has the potential to rise above his natural inclination. This potential is an expression of the essential Godly nature possessed by every individual. Just as God is not limited or bound by nature’s rules, so, too, no Jew need be held back by these constraints. Regardless of his nature, he has the potential to reveal his inner Godly nature. Nevertheless, to allow for the expression of this inner Godliness, each person must undergo at least a minimal amount of personal struggle and challenge. In matters that are not associated with the service of God, a person’s natural tendencies have a stronger hold. However, since a Jew’s Godly essence affects every aspect of his personality, he is able, even in these areas, to rise above and change his natural tendencies. Thus, though one may be born without great intellectual gifts, he may with effort, develop his mind and achieve higher degrees of understanding than others born with greater natural gifts.

As explained, some people require greater determination and effort to make a positive choice, but each individual is ultimately responsible for his own behavior.

The source for the designation of Jeremiah as the author of Eichah is the Pesikta to Eichah Rabbah which interprets the narrative in Chapter 36 of the book of Jeremiah as describing the composition of the scroll of Eichah.

Devarim Rabbah 4:3 states: After God declared, “Behold, I have given you today the blessing and the curse,” “from the mouth of the Most High, neither evil nor good come forth.” Rather, good and evil come about as a natural process. Those who do evil must face difficulty and those who do good are granted benefits. It must be noted that this interpretation differs from that of most commentaries who consider the verse as a rhetorical question: “Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that [both] evil and good come forth?” However, even those interpretations explain that God does not arbitrarily dispense good or evil. Rather, as implied by the following verse, a person’s fate is dependent upon his deeds.

Whatever evil comes to man is a result of his own doing.

For regardless of his circumstances, he had the potential to act righteously.

Rabbi Brachiah interpreted this verse: “Why should a person complain about his lot in this world? Let him complain about his sins (Eichah Rabbah).”

And reap the consequences of this behavior.

Even if man has sinned, at all times, he has the potential to repent and better his lot.

That man is granted free choice.

As explained in the following halachah.

Verse 19 continues with the request “Choose life, so that you and your descendants will live.”

The narrative continues: “The blessing [will come] if you obey the commandments of God…. The curse [will come] if you do not obey the commandments of God….”

Perhaps, by this expression, the Rambam implies that this includes even those deeds which are not directly associated with a person’s service of Torah and mitzvot; for example, the woman one will marry or possessions one will acquire. Though Sotah 2a relates that these matters are decreed “forty days before a child is conceived,” in Shemoneh Perakim (loc. cit.), the Rambam writes that even these matters are given over to man’s choice. Since a person may marry according to Torah or in violation of its rules, and, similarly, may acquire wealth in good faith or unjustly, these matters are also related to his Torah service and, consequently, left to his choice.

God wants the people to remain righteous. Nevertheless, though He desires their righteousness, He does no more than wish, as it were, for He has left the matter to their choice (See Avodah Zarah 5a).

And each individual bears responsibility for his actions. The question arises: God loves man and desires his welfare, why does He not merely wish that He do good? Why does He grant man the possibility to sin? Wouldn’t it have been better to have created him with the tendency to do only good? The resolution to these questions can be explained as follows: Bava Metzia 38a states, “A person desires one measure of his own more than nine measures belonging to a colleague.” Our natural tendencies are to appreciate what we have earned and worked for, and to regard presents that are given to us without any effort on our part as “bread of shame.” This same principle also applies regarding our spiritual accomplishments. Were we able to attain spiritual heights without effort, we would not appreciate them. Therefore, in His generosity, God created a challenge for us. In this context, we can understand the inner meaning behind our Sages’ comment (Bereishit Rabbah 9:5) on Genesis 1:31, “And God saw all that He had made and it was very good” — “Very” refers to the evil inclination.” Ultimately, it is the struggle to subdue and transform the evil inclination which brings us to the most complete good. Nevertheless, the question still remains: Man’s choice is equally balanced. If so, how can God risk that His most beloved creation might possibly choose evil? In His willingness to allow man this choice, we see God’s great trust in man. He is willing to grant us that choice for He trusts that we will choose good. He knows that, temporarily, we may succumb to our natural instincts and make a wrong choice, but has faith that, ultimately, we will turn to Him in genuine Teshuvah.

As believed by religious fatalists.

These statements appear to contradict Hilchot De’ot 1:2 which declares: There are certain qualities that a person possesses from the beginning of his creation according to the nature of his body. There are other qualities towards which the nature of a person is inclined and he will be able to accept them more readily than other qualities. The last statement does not present a great problem for, as explained on the basis of Shemoneh Perakim (Chapter 8), a person’s natural tendency to a particular quality does not contradict the principle of free choice for he can, albeit with greater effort, overcome that tendency. However, the statement that there are qualities inherent to a person’s character is problematic. Certain commentaries have explained that this is referring to personality traits such as cleverness, introversion, and the like which are not directly related to one’s service of Torah and mitzvot. Alternatively, the above can be explained in terms of the statement (Shabbat 156a), that a person born under the sign of Mars will shed blood. However, it is not known whether he will be a murderer or a mohel (a person responsible for ritual circumcision). Similarly, in this context, a person may be born with certain attributes. However, the manner in which he expresses them, whether in accordance with Torah law or not, is dependent on his choice.

The Rambam totally discounts the influence of astrology. In Shemoneh Perakim (loc. cit.), he describes it “the madness with which the astrologers attempt to deceive….” Similarly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah 4:7, he writes: “Many people… think these matters are true…. Even good and pious followers of our Torah think they are correct, although forbidden by the Torah. They do not realize that they are empty words and lies….” See also Hilchot Avodat Kochavim 11:16. It must be noted that many prominent Rabbis do not share the Rambam’s opinion. The Nimukei Yosef (Sanhedrin, Chapter 7) writes that the workings of the heavens and their influence on man’s behavior is “great wisdom and a decree by which God… instituted that the world would be governed.” See also Ramban, Responsum 282.

As mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 2, the function of the prophets is to admonish the people. However, if man did not have freewill, these reproofs would be of no avail.

Hence, there would be no need for the prophet’s words of admonishment. Those whose tendencies were inclined to good would act righteously regardless and those whose natures were inclined toward bad would, nevertheless, be doomed to continue their pattern of behavior.

Reward and punishment only apply when one has free choice. What sense it there in rewarding one for doing something that he was fated to do? How can one be punished for a wrongdoing that was his destiny? Furthermore, if a reward would be granted to the righteous, it should also be rendered to the wicked for both equally exercised the potentials that God granted them (see also Emunot V’De’ot, Discourse 4).

Similarly, Psalms 37:23 states: “The steps of man are ordered by God” and Avodah Zarah 7b comments: “A person will not stub his toe unless it is declared upon him from above.”

In this resolution, the Rambam must show how an unchanging Divine will can allow for variations in behavior dependent on man’s choice. To do so, he takes an example from the powers of nature.

In Shemoneh Perakim, the Rambam emphasizes that God’s desire for the universe to be guided by nature’s rules “was willed in the six days of creation. All entities should continue to follow their nature as stated [by Ecclesiastes 1:9], ‘That what has been will be, and that which has been done is what will be done. There is nothing new under the sun.’” Thus, we see how God’s original desire for creation allows for a variety of natural phenomena without any change of will on His part.

Thus, God’s initial desire in granting man freewill included within it a willful acceptance of any and all decisions that man would make even if those decisions run contrary to the Torah.

Exercising freewill in all aspects of his behavior.

I.e., since man is responsible for his actions.

As our Sages commented: “God does not withhold the reward of any creature from him.”

As our Sages commented: “There is no death without sin and no hardship without iniquity.”

I.e., the reward or punishment received by man is a product of his own behavior.

The verse continues “walk in the ways of your heart and the sight of your eyes;” i.e., exercise free choice.

Kohelet Rabbah relates that the Sages considered entombing the book of Ecclesiastes because of certain verses. For example, the first section of the above verse appears to contradict the Torah’s command: “Do not follow after your heart and your eyes.” However, these fears were resolved by the second half of the verse which explicitly states that God will judge man for all of his deeds.

Thus, the verse means: rejoice in the free expression of your potential, but control that potential so that it will be expressed according to God’s will. Otherwise, you will be judged for your shortcomings.

Devarim Rabbah 2:22 states: “God knows what has been and what will be in the future as [Isaiah 46:9-10] states: ‘There is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning.’”

The concepts of free-choice and God’s omniscience appear contradictory.
As explained in Halachot 3 and 4, the concept of free-choice is fundamental to our faith. Similarly, the concept of God’s omniscience is stated in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 2:9 as one of the essential foundations of our thought system. The existence of entities which are not known by God would imply that they are independent of Him and, thus, other gods, as it were.

Thus, there would appear to be a restriction on man’s freedom of choice.

Granting man totally free-choice.

. And there would be an entity with a certain degree of independence from God, ח”ו. Furthermore, if God did not have a complete knowledge of man’s future behavior, after man acts independently, God’s learning of the choice which a person made would involve a change within Him. One of the basic principles of faith is that God cannot change (See the Responsa of the Rivosh, 118).

The phrase is borrowed from Job 11:9.

Though the Rambam does not completely resolve this apparent contradiction, by outlining the fundamental principles of faith involved in the issue, he demonstrates how the matter transcends our human comprehension. Accordingly, it should be accepted as a matter of faith and not rationalized according to the principles of intellect (Avodat HaMelech).

Halachah 10 of that chapter states: God recognizes the truth [of His being] and knows it as it is. He does not know with a knowledge that is separate from Him, as we know, for we are not one with our knowledge. In contrast, the Creator, blessed be He; He, His knowledge, and His life are one from every side and standpoint, in every manner of unity. For were He to live with a life that is apart from Him or know with a knowledge that is apart from Him, there would be many gods, He, His knowledge, and His life…. Thus, you must say that He is the knower, He is the object of knowledge, and He is the knowledge itself. All is one. This matter is beyond the potential of [our] mouths to mention, [our] ears to hear, or the heart of man to grasp it in its entirety.

In the Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. I, chapter 68, the Rambam relates that human intellect reflects the interrelation of three entities: the person who conceives of the idea, the idea which he desires to conceive and his actual thought processes. Shemoneh Perakim (loc. cit.) explains that a person can exist independent of the idea he conceives and the idea can exist independent of the person. Thus, they are obviously two separate entities.

Within God’s knowledge, there is no concept of separation. He is one with His knowledge. Furthermore, as Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 2:10 continues: “He does not know the creations from the perspective of the creations as we know them. Rather, He comprehends them from His perspective. Thus, as He knows Himself, He knows everything.” Thus, He is one with the object of knowledge as well.

The basis of the difference between our knowledge and that of the Creator is, nevertheless, within our comprehension. God is קדמון. Nothing caused Him and He exists independent of all other entities. Accordingly, all of God’s powers and all the effects produced by them, including His knowledge and all that He knows, exist within the context of His oneness. In contrast, man exists within the context of an environment separate from himself. Even the powers granted to him existed before he came into being. Therefore, even though through his knowledge, man can reach beyond himself and develop a connection with other entities, that connection, as any bond with an external entity, is, by definition, limited and no compete oneness can exist.

The word creation implies the existence of a Creator who is of a totally different nature than the entities He creates and thus, unable to be comprehended by them.

Which is one with His essence.

Though we are also blessed with the power of knowledge, the difference between His knowledge and our knowledge is greater than the difference between heaven and earth (Guide for the Perplexed, Vol. III, Chapter 20).

Thus, it is impossible to fully explain the apparent contradiction mentioned at the beginning of this halachah. The Ra’avad comments on these statements: This commentator did not follow the manner of the wise, for a person should not initiate discussion of an idea if he does not know how to conclude it. [Here], he began by asking questions and left the matter unanswered, relying on faith. [If so,] it would have been better to [initially] leave the matter for the believers to accept with trust, without arousing their hearts and causing their minds to be left in doubt…. Even though there is no ultimate answer, it is proper to offer a partial answer and say: Were man’s righteousness or wickedness dependent on the Creator’s decree, i.e., His knowledge was His decree, we would have a severe question. However, the Creator has removed this dominion from His hand and transferred it to man. Thus, His knowledge is not a decree. Rather, it resembles the knowledge of the astrologers who know from the appreciation of one power what will be a certain person’s path [of behavior]. It is well known that [the fate which governs] everything that happens to a person, whether of great or lesser importance, was transferred by the Creator to the constellations. However, He granted man the wisdom to have the power to take his destiny out from under the influence of the constellations. This is the power which was given to man to be either good or bad. The Creator knows the power of the constellations… and also whether [man’s] intellect will have the power remove the matter from their influence. Thus, His knowledge is not a decree. However, all this is not worthwhile. The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s statements because, ultimately, he leaves the matter as a question of belief, without explaining the issue on an intellectual basis. Thus, a person might be aroused to question and doubt these fundamental points of faith without receiving a sufficient conceptual base to resolve them. In his own attempt at resolving this issue, the Ra’avad differentiates between decree (גזרה) and knowledge (ידיעה). Divine decree and free-choice are two contradictory concepts that can never be resolved. However, God’s knowledge is not a decree. Instead, His knowledge can be compared to that of a person who appreciates a pattern of causation and accordingly, knows what will be the future outcome. No one would say that his knowledge caused that chain of events. The various array of forces involved produced the outcome and the person was merely an outside bystander who was able to appreciate the factors at work. The forces governing man’s destiny are the powers of fate vested in the constellations (in this matter as well, he contradicts the Rambam who discounts the influence of astrology as explained in Halachah 4) and man’s power of choice which is enclothed in his intellect. God knows the strength of both these powers and, thus, can appreciate the future outcome without at all compromising on man’s power of choice. However, in conclusion, the Ra’avad is unsatisfied with his own explanation as well and prefers that the matter be left entirely to faith without any attempt at resolving it intellectually. A resolution similar to that of the Ra’avad is also offered by Rav Moshe Almoshino (See Medrash Shmuel, Tosafot Yom Tov, Avot 3:15), who differentiates between the knowledge that an event will take place and the forces causing it to occur. The Tosafot Yom Tov explains that the Rambam also had this conception in mind, nevertheless, he maintained that the matter can only be grasped through faith because of a different problem. A person can predict a future event only if the chain of causation he comprehends is invariable. If there is a possibility for change, it is impossible for him to have any definite knowledge. Thus, in regard to the question of free-choice, we must say that there is a possibility for man to act as he wishes. If so, it is impossible for any knowledge that resembles man’s to appreciate beforehand the outcome of such a pattern of causation. However, God’s knowledge, which is one with His essence and, therefore, views past, present, and future as one, can appreciate the choice which man will make. Torah Or, Parshat VaYera, adds a further point, God’s knowledge is the force which maintains the creations and keeps them in existence. Furthermore, God’s potentials are complete in themselves and, thus, must ultimately be expressed (אין הכח חסר פועל). If so, the above cannot serve as a complete resolution of the apparent contradiction between free-choice and God’s omniscience. Torah Or continues, differentiating between two types of Divine knowledge: Frequently (e.g. Eruvin 13b, Kiddushin 30b), our Sages use the expression, “it is revealed and known before God,” describing God’s knowledge in passive terms. On the other hand, there are times when an active term is used; for example, Genesis 18:21, “I will descend and see,” Exodus 2:25, “God saw the Israelites and God knew.” The active expression implies a type of knowledge which will bring about an effect in our world (in the above examples, the destruction of Sodom and the redemption of the Jews). In contrast, the passive term alludes to God’s knowledge as it is united with His essence, the level of “He and His knowledge are one.” The nature of that level of knowledge is too transcendent to have an effect on matters of this world. God knows the course of behavior we will choose through the second form of knowledge. Hence, that knowledge does not affect our decisions and allows us to choose freely.

Thus, man is granted absolute freedom to determine his own fate.

Since the choice is man’s, he must take responsibility for his deeds, as above Halachot 2 and 4.

See Halachah 4.