Making Choices
R. Yaakov Bieler
פרשת
נצבים-וילך,
תשס"ט
One of the most psychologically astute and intriguing
comments in the Talmud concerns the manner in which an individual publicly
demonstrates his true essence:
Eiruvin 65b
Said R. Ilayi: By means of three things, a person comes
to be recognized: By his “cup”,[1]
and by his “pocket”,[2]
and by his anger.[3]
[4]
[5]
And there are those who say: By his “amusement.”
R. Ilayi astutely suggests that one can tell more about a
person when s/he is not unduly influenced by his inhibitions, than when under
full conscious control. Consequently, after alcohol has loosened the drinker’s
self-control, what someone actually buys or spends money on rather than merely
gives lip service to, and what is said or done when one “loses it” in a
challenging situation are tremendously revealing of an inner essence that may
usually be repressed or hidden. Similarly, the manner in which a person spends
his/her spare time may be far more personally revealing than one’s occupation
to which the majority of his/her waking hours are devoted.
Yet a
fifth element is highlighted by a fictional character in J.K. Rowling’s iconic
series of Harry Potter novels. Albus Dumbledore, headmaster of the Hogwarts
School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, when he tells his prize student, “It is our choices,
Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.”[6]
It could be argued that directing our attention to an individual’s choices is
not essentially different from R. Iyayi’s observation, i.e., what one chooses
to do when one is inebriated, moved to spend his tightly held resources,
angered, and/or devotes his/her spare time are deeply revealing. However, our
lives are made up of myriad choices that have nothing directly to do with these
four aspects of human experience, which nevertheless say a great deal about
each of us. On a “meta” level, whom one marries, where s/he chooses to live,
the decision of how to support oneself will hopefully not come about during
moments of drunkenness, anger, or economic irresponsibility. And then there are
all of the daily, hourly and momentary situations in which a person finds
him/herself and is required to make choices. While some of these decisions are
nothing more than arbitrary, others can have great significance. One’s eating
habits, his/her level of honesty, the manner in which one drives, to whom one
is prepared to extend him/herself in order to offer support and encouragement
all serve to contribute to the pastiche of actions and expressions of which our
lives consist.
Parashat
Nitzavim in two separate verses characterizes our relationship with God by
means of either fulfilling or ignoring the Tora as an essential matter of
choice:
Devarim 30:15, 19
Behold! I have Placed before you today life and the good,
death and the evil.
I am calling upon the heavens and the earth to witness
concerning you: Life and death I have Placed before you, the blessing and the
curse, and you will choose life in order that you will live, you and your
offspring.
Avraham Sofer,
son of the Chatam Sofer, interprets another evocative verse in Parashat
Nitzavim as similarly concerned with the question of personal choice:
Ketav Sofer
on (Devarim 29:28)
“The hidden
things are the Lord’s, our God, and the revealed things are ours and our
offspring eternally to do all of the words of this Tora.”
…The Rabbis
have said, (Berachot 33b R. Chanina said:) “Everything is in the hands of
Heaven with the exception of the fear of Heaven…”[7]
Whether one will be righteous or evil is not predetermined. Man is a master of
choice and God does not Force his hand. Whether he is righteous or evil is
solely dependent upon his choice and therefore is something that “belongs” to
us and it is in our hands. That is what is meant by “The hidden things are the
Lord’s, our God”—although God Knows all the hidden things including our
thoughts, nevertheless the revealed things belong to us, i.e., there is one
thing that is hidden from God, since He does not Coerce a person to be either a
righteous individual or evil doer, but rather this is something that is
revealed to us, something that is within our purview, to carry out all of the
words of this Tora…
The
assumption that each of us has been granted by God the ability to make our own
moral choices lies at the heart of the Jewish religion, according to RaMBaM,
who devotes several chapters in the Laws of Repentance[8]
to this topic:
RaMBaM,
Mishneh Tora, Hilchot Teshuva 5:4
If God would
Decree regarding an individual whether to be a righteous or evil person, or if
there was something within a person that from birth would draw him in a
particular moral direction, or a certain wisdom, a particular character trait
or a set of actions, as the fools who depend upon astrology assume, how could
He Command us by means of His Prophets, “Do this and don’t do that!” “Improve
your ways and don’t follow in that path!” if from the beginning of our
existence it is already pre-destined or his make-up draws him in a particular
direction from which it is impossible to turn away? And what purpose would
there be for the entire Tora?[9]
And according to what sort of law or judgment could the evil doer be punished
or reward given to the righteous? The Judge of the entire earth would not Do
Justice?[10]…
But, in light
of modern psychological research, one has to wonder whether the issue of human
free choice is as absolute as RaMBaM wishes to make it. In the current Newsweek
(September 14, 2009, pp. 53-60) in a cover story entitled, “Is Your Baby
Racist? Exploring the Roots of Discrimination”,[11]
by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman, the authors discuss research demonstrating
that children only a few months old judge others based upon skin color. In the
same issue, Sharon Begley contributes a column, “Pink Brain, Blue Brain”,[12]
conclusions arising from research that indicates that different parental
expectations for boys vs. girls very much impact upon an individual’s
development. These articles bring to mind Andrew Sullivan’s cover story “Are We
Hard-Wired to Hate?” in a 1999 issue of the New York Times Magazine, following the
Columbine, CO high school massacre. Sullivan’s thesis maintains that human
beings have evolved with a built-in capacity for hatred of others, an survival advantage
for members of the species possessing such a sensibility since they will more readily be able to protect themselves from those who
have been defined as alien or other. If any or all of these observations are
correct, i.e., we have innate tendencies to be racist, we are limited from a
very formative age by parental expectations for our respective genders and we naturally
hate certain individuals who we have decided are significantly different from
ourselves, then how truly free are our choices in these areas and probably
myriad others? Is the playing field really “that level” in terms of the
reasonableness of our being held accountable for our actions and attitudes?
Should someone who acts politically incorrectly be entirely blamed for doing
so, or are there forces that at least oriented him/her in that direction, if not
predetermined his/her ultimate response?
Yeshaya Leibowitz, in comments on
Parashat Netzavim from a collection of 15 minute Divrei Tora on Parashat
HaShavua that he delivered on behalf of the educational channel of Israeli Army Television in 1986,[13]
places RaMBaM’s rather doctrinaire view about free choice in a greater context.
He notes that an exemplar of the school of thought among medieval Jewish
philosophers who believed that in fact man does not possess free will, but
rather existed in a deterministic universe, was Chasdai Crescas. Leibowitz goes
on to note that even among secular thinkers, the issue of free will was a
matter of controversy, with Immanuel Kant essentially siding with RaMBaM, while
Baruch Spinoza agreeing with the likes of Crescas on this issue. Leibowitz
contends that philosophically, when one is confronted with the ordered manner
in which the universe appears to operate, in accordance with scientific laws
and principles, to suddenly assume that a part of that universe, i.e., man, can
defy the laws of causality that appear to pervade every aspect of nature, is
illogical to say the least.[14]
[15]A
literal leap of faith would seem to be required to assert that man is such an
extreme exception to the rule. At this point Leibowitz suggests an evocative
approach that would take into consideration the perspectives on both sides of
the argument in what appears to me to be a most reasonable manner. He writes,
And there are
those who say that there is great value even for the situation where an
individual would be aware that he is Commanded to achieve a particular end,
even when he understands that he will never actually be able to realize it. He
fulfills his obligation by striving to reach the goal.
In other
words, the Mitzvot of the Tora can be thought to comprise “a culture of
aspiration”[16]
which an individual approaches asymptotically, but never completely achieves.
Perhaps if achievement were possible, at least some individuals would spend the
better part of their lives simply coasting, basking in their achieved glories.
Given man’s imperfections and inability to maintain high levels of involvement
and commitment, improvement is possible for everyone at every moment of their
lives. A literary hint to such an
understanding is offered by Leibowitz with respect to his reflection on the
first word in R. Yosef Karo’s Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 1:1:
“Yitgaber”[17]
(one should prevail upon himself courageously) like a lion to rise in the morning for the service of his
Creator, that he should “awaken” the morning (i.e., get up before dawn.)[18]
Leibowitz asserts that the quality of being “Mitgaber”, sums up the
responsibility of the individual who wishes to act freely, but is beset by all
sorts of personal tendencies, habits, physical and emotional limitations, etc.
The manner by which we can free ourselves of these pressures and shortcomings,
is by refusing to make excuses, fighting against giving in to inner callings to
be less than sacrificial, diligent and responsible, and demonstrate by word and
deed that we are free agents who act in accordance with principle and high
ideals. While this may not be possible every day—there may be times when e.g.,
sleeping in just can’t be resisted, and perhaps if someone’s health is at risk,
should not be resisted—nevertheless, the word sets up for ourselves an attitude
and an outlook that is critical for a meaningful spiritual existence.
[1] RaShI: If he is settled when he has drunk a significant amount of wine.
[2] RaShI: That he is not overly miserly.
[3] RaShI: That he is not excessively given over to becoming infuriated.
[4] An abject recent case in point is the tennis player Serena Williams striking outburst during her losing effort in the U.S. Open semi-final match against Kim Clijsters, engendering a discussion regarding to what extent does a very public angry outburst define an individual’s career and overall accomplishments?
[5] The first three elements in R. Ilayi’s statement are linked together in Hebrew by means of alliteration: “BeKoso, U’BeKiso U’BeKaso”.
[6] Harry
Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Scholastic Press, 1999, Chapt. 18,
quoted in The Yale Book of Quotations, ed. Fred Shapiro,
[7] R. Chanina’s sentiment reflects the observation that while there are many things that an individual will not be able to control, e.g., one’s physical appearance, intellectual abilities, the historic epoch during which one lives, one’s family members, etc. nevertheless moral decisions regardless of the immediate situation and contingencies, are ultimately the responsibility of the individual making them.
[8] According to RaMBaM it is impossible to even entertain the possibility of repentance unless man is both accountable for his actions and capable of deciding to change his life patterns.
[9] The underlying assumption of a “commandment” is that there is a commander and that the commandee has a choice as to whether to comply or not. Such assumptions are negated once a fatalistic perspective is adopted.
[10] Although this is a quote from Beraishit 18:25 in which Avraham challenges God regarding the indiscriminate destruction of righteous residents of Sodom and Amora, RaMBaM employs the verse with respect to the unfairness of holding people accountable for things that they cannot help doing or not doing.
[13] HeErot
LeParashiot HaShavua, Akadmon (
[14] The debate continues during the modern period, with the behaviorist, B.F. Skinner, in Beyond Freedom and Dignity, (Knopf-Random House, 1971) arguing vociferously that if we could only identify the finite number of variables that contribute to human behavior, all people would be utterly predictable, with the assumption of free choice being nothing more than an illusion.
[15] An additional concern of some thinkers, not mentioned by Leibowitz in this instance, is the problem of God’s Omniscience, i.e., if we posit that there is no limit to God’s Knowledge, then He must also Know what an individual is going to do before it gets done, and if so, how can that person be endowed with free choice? R. Akiva stated the paradox in the Ethics of the Fathers:
Avot 3:15
Everything is foreseen and permission/free choice is given...
RaMBaM attributes man’s lack of understanding how these two antithetical ideas can coexist to the limits of human intelligence:
RaMBaM, Mishneh Tora, Hilchot Teshuva 5:5
Lest you say, “Behold the Holy One, Blessed Be He, Knows all that will be and before it will be, He Knows that this one will be a righteous person or an evil person, or does He not Know? If He Knows that he will be a righteous person, it is impossible for him not to be a righteous person. And if you say that He Knows that he will be a righteous person, but it is still possible for him to be an evil person, then He does not Know the matter in a clear manner,” know that the answer to this question is longer than the measured land and wider than the sea, and several essential principles and great mountains are involved in it. But you must know and understand regarding what I am about to say: We have already explained in Chapt. 2 of Hilchot Yesodei HaTora 2:10, that God does not Know with a knowledge that is outside of Himself, as is the case of human beings since they and what they know are two separate entities, whereas vis-a-vis God, He and what He Knows is a continuous whole. And the intelligence of a human being cannot comprehend this clearly. And just as man does not have the faculties to comprehend and find the true nature of the Creator, as it is said, (Shemot 33:20) “Because man cannot see Me and live,” so too man does not have the faculties to comprehend and find the manner in which God Knows. This is what the prophet said, (Yeshayahu 55:8) “For My Thoughts are not like your thoughts, and your ways are not My Ways,” and since this is so, we do not have the ability to know how God Knows all of His Creatures and actions, but we must know without a doubt that the actions of man are given over to man’s decisions, and the Holy One, Blessed Be He does not Draw him and does not Decree upon him to do so. We know this not only because of accepting the religion, but also from clear proofs from matters of wisdom (secular knowledge). And for this reason it is said in prophecy that an individual is judged for his actions in accordance with his actions whether he is good or evil, and this is the essential principle that all aspects of prophecy are dependent upon.
Nevertheless, I have thought that there is a way to at least understand this issue to some extent. Philosophers and theologians have discussed down through the centuries the “Stone Paradox,” i.e., can God Create a stone that He cannot Lift?”—if not, then He is not Omnipotent, and if yes, again He is not Omnipotent. My solution for this problem is that God can Will Himself not to be able to Lift the stone as long as He Wishes, with the option to change the arrangement any time He Wishes, as well. Consequently, this does not impose a limitation upon His Omnipotence from without, but rather from within. Similarly, while God can Choose to control an individual’s choices as he did with Pharoah during the plagues or the sons of Eli when they took the Ark out to battle resulting in the Philistine’s capturing it, He can also Will to cede free choice to man with His Willingly Restricting His Interference with man’s making free choices. Furthermore, just because God Knows what a person will choose to do, does not mean that person’s free will has been compromised. R. Jonathan Sacks has likened this to someone watching a video replay of a sporting event. The viewer might already know the outcome, but the participants that he is watching do not.
[16] In his
seminal essay, “Does Jewish Tradition Recognize an Ethic Independent of
Halacha?” (Contemporary Jewish Ethics, ed. Menachem Kelner, Sanhedrin
Jewish Studies,
[17] The reflexive form of being courageous and heroic.
[18] The clearest comparison between R. Yosef Karo’s opening lines, and another Halachic compendium is provided by the Tur by R. Yaakov Ba’al HaTurim, the first to arrange Jewish law into four categories, hence the “Turim” (pillars):
Yehuda ben Teima says: Be as audacious as a leopard, swift as an eagle
(according to R. Natan Slifkin, “Nesher” is a Griffin Vulture), fast as a deer
and mighty like a lion to do the Will of your Father that is in Heaven…
The Tur cites the
Mishna towards the end of the fifth chapter of Avot. And we see how R. Yosef
Karo took one portion of this Mishna, i.e., the parable of the lion, as his
opening statement. However, by beginning with the word “Yitgaber” he is placing
far more stress upon this particular quality as opposed to audaciousness and
speed, a character trait that not only applies to when one first awakens in the
morning, but throughout one’s life.