DO WE HAVE FREE WILL? MY ER EXPERIENCE

Rabbi RiFat Sonsino, Ph. D 

Recently, I published a blog on free will and argued that , even though most of our activities are predetermined by our physical constitution and social environment,  we still have a few choices of our own in a very limited way. Let me apply this idea to an episode I had last week. 

In early February 2026, I ended up in the ER suffering from shortness of breath because of pneumonia and blood clots in my legs and lungs. So, I experienced in a very personal way the reality of free will, or the lack of it.

I first went to Marlborough hospital (MA) and then to Worcester hospital (MA) where I received great service. The staff was caring and professional. But I quickly lost my ability to act on my own for a few days. At the ICU, I was immediately hooked up to various machines. I was poked repeatedly, my arms bearing various small iv’s . Medicine was pumped into me at odd times of the day or night. I became  totally depended on my nurses to do anything I needed. I had to call in for help for every movement I made. One technician/medical student drew blood from the wrong artery, so another one had to come in to rectify the situation. Getting information about my condition took a long time. There was no privacy whatsoever. Even going to the bathroom became a whole production. I had to call one of the nurses to unhook me from all the devices and then accompany me to the John. Nurses even tried to clean me up. I firmly rejected their well-intended actions. 

After 3 days in the ICU, in the middle of the night, while I was deeply at sleep, I was moved to a regular room in the hospital. There, too, they had to get all my vitals again  (I thought they were in the computer), take more blood, and connect me  to different machines which left me once again at the mercy and care of the medical help that changed daily , with the difference that at the ICU the nurses dealt with fewer patients whereas in the regular room, I became part of a large  group of sick people who waited much longer for any medical response. After a week in the hospital, I was told that I could leave to become part of the hospital at home program. 

Do we have free will?  Hardly at the hospital. There must be another way.

I now realize that all of this was done for my well-being, but I was sorry to lose my independence, dignity  and  freedom of action. I’m glad I came to the ER but I hope I will never return. 

Your thoughts or experiences?

 

DO WE HAVE FREE WILL?

Rabbi Rifat Sonsino, Ph.D

The idea that we have free will is at the core of our ethical system. How can we be held responsible, if we are predetermined? On the other hand, If God is all-knowing and knows ahead of time how will we act, how can we be free to chose?

Throughout the years, Judaism had to struggle with this dilemma and came out with a variety and , at times, even conflicting answers.

The Hebrew Bible seems to promote the idea of free will when it urges us to “choose life” (Deut. 30:19, see Hertz, The Pentateuch, p. 882), and yet, it acknowledges that, at times, we don’t seem to have any choice in our actions. For example, In the Book of Exodus, we are told that God “will harden Pharaoh’s heart” (7:3), and thus deprive him of his freedom of action.

In the Mishnah, 2nd cent. CE, both assertions are made and, consequently, the problem is left unsolved: “Everything is foreseen, yet, freedom of choice  is granted” ( Pirke Avot 3: 15).

During the medieval times, some Jewish philosophers promoted the idea of free will, whereas others denied it. Thus, for example, Maimonides, the great Jewish Aristotelian who lived in the  12th  century Spain , defended the idea of free will by saying that “Man’s conduct is in his own hands” (Mishneh Torah, Knowledge, 3:2) based on the assumption  that  there is no resemblance between our knowledge and God’s knowledge. We do not know how God knows. Whereas Malbim, the 19th century Ukrainian Jewish bible commentator, denied that we can have freedom of choice based on the belief that “ God must have immutable foreknowledge of everything and so man has neither choice nor free will  and should not be responsible  for his actions” (On Job. 10:6:1).

Others , echoing the Talmudic statement that “everything is in the hands of heaven , except for the fear of heaven” (Ber. 33b), kept a middle position on this subject. For example, Gersonides, the 13th century French-Jewish philosopher, argued that God knows the choices which we will make but does not know the specific actions we actually carry out.

I follow the middle position and maintain that most of our deeds are predetermined by our physical constitution and our social condition, yet, we do have a few free choices among the alternatives presented before us.

What do you think?

Who is the suffering servant?

WHO WAS THE SUFFERING SERVANT?

Rabbi Rifat Sonsino, Ph.D

Recently, a friend asked me, who is the “suffering servant’ in the prophecies of Isaiah? 

Here is my answer: 

Second Isaiah, was an anonymous prophet who lived just before or after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. His writings (chapt.40-55) have been added to those of the First Isaiah who lived in ancient Israel in the 8^th cent. BCE. Chapters 56-66 are usually ascribed to a group of unknown authors called Third Isaiah. 

The chapters assigned by critics to  Second Isaiah include four  “Servant Songs” that seem to form a literary unity, even though they are spread within  chapters 40-55.  It is not clear who was the author of these songs. In  53: 3, he describes the servant as an individual who is “despised, shunned by men; a man of suffering, familiar with disease.” Hence, the reference to a “suffering servant.”

The question is : whom did the prophet have in mind when he wrote these lines? As the Jewish  Study Bible puts it, this is “one of the most difficult and contested passage in the Bible” (p. 890). As expected, throughout the centuries, various opinions have been advanced in order to solve this problem. We can break them down to three different types of suggestions: 

A.       A collective interpretation: according to some critics the reference is to the people of Israel.

B.       An individual interpretation: according to others, the reference is to an historic personality of the past. Some argued that it referred to Moses , or king Jehoiachin, or the prophet Jeremiah or even the prophet himself.  

C.      A theological/mythological  interpretation: The New Testament says that Isaiah’s prophecies were fulfilled in the life of  Jesus. (See, the Letter to the Hebrews, chp. 5)  Others, including some medieval Rabbis and the Aramaic Targum,  maintain that it refers to an idealized king or to a future Messiah. 

In reality, it must be admitted, as Boadt did, that “we may never know all that Second Isaiah actually intended by his servant” (Reading the OT, p. 429).

 

 Who is a mamzer ?

WHO IS A MAMZER?

Rabbi Rifat Sonsino, Ph.D

In Yiddish or even in Ladino the Hebrew word MAMZER means a bad guy, a real SOB. Hitler was a mamzer. Mussolini was a mamzer. Videla was a mamzer. What does it mean in the Bible and Jewish law? 

One thing is clear: In Jewish law the word, often translated as bastard, does not refer to a child born out of wedlock. 

The term MAMZER occurs twice in the Hebrew Bible: 
The first comes from Deut. 23: 3: “No MAMZER shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord .” That is, he will not be able to marry an Israelite even in the tenth generation. The second, in an enigmatic passage in  Zech 9:6: “A MAMZER shall settle in Ashdod”. It is not clear what this word means in either case. Von Rad, in his commentary to the book of Deuteronomy, clearly states, “We do not know what is meant precisely by bastard (mamzer)” (p. 146.)

The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (cir. 250 BCE), says it means, the son of a prostitute. The Jewish Publication Society renders the word as “misbegotten.” The Jerusalem Bible has it as bastard, with a note saying that the word possibly refers to the offspring of a mixed marriage between the Hebrews and the Philistines. The Catholic Bible translates it as: “a child of an incestuous union.” 

In rabbinic times, the term began to assume a more concrete meaning. The Mishnah (cir. 200 CE), quoting Rabbi Akiva, maintains that the word MAMZER refers to the offspring of any marriage of near of kin (Yeb. 4:13). In other word, a person born out of an incestuous marriage. The Babylonian Talmud (cir. 600 CE) agrees with it and expands its meaning. (Yeb.76b and others). A good summary of the rabbinic position on this subject is found in The Spirit of Jewish Law, by G. Horowitz who writes that a MAMZER is “the offspring of a father and mother  between whom there could be , in law, no binding betrothal, the issue of either an adulterous connection between a married woman and a man not her husband , or of an incestuous  union within the forbidden  degrees defined in Lev. 18 and 20” (p. 264).  According to Jewish law a MAMZER has full civil rights but can only marry another MAMZER or a convert.

In my professional life I have had to deal with one or two people who caused me headaches,  but I managed to outlive them, for which I am  grateful. 

THE RABBIS AND CHESEBURGERS

RABBI RIFAT SONSINO, PH.D

According to the ancient Rabbis, a Jew cannot eat something like a cheeseburger. Why? It is based on a biblical law that states “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk (ba-halev imo)” (Deut. 14: 21). The law is repeated in Ex. 23:19 and 34:26 but not in the list of prohibited food items in Lev. 11. Furthermore, the text is not clear, and no rationale is given. Biblical scholars have not found any written document about this topic in any of the writings of the ancient Near East. 

According to Maimonides, a famous Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who lived in the medieval times , this prohibition is based on a pagan custom (Guide, 3:48). Some modern critics think that the law shows sensitivity towards mothers. Others , reading helev (“fat”) instead of halav (“milk”), argue that the law prohibits boiling a kid in its mother’s fat, thus avoiding the economic loss of slaughtering two animals, one of which could still bear more young kids. Mendelssohn (d. 1786), the German Jewish philosopher,  simply gives up and writes, “The benefit arising from the many inexplicable laws of God is in their practice, and not in the understanding of their motives.”

 The ancient Rabbis forbade mixing meat and milk based on this law. In fact, the Mishnah, a second cent. CE text of Jewish law, clearly states, ““Every kind of flesh (of cattle, wild beast and fowl) is prohibited to cook in milk” (Hullin, 8:1, Neusner). They also add that in order to eat dairy products one must wait 6 hours after eating meat. But, according to many rabbinic sources, after eating cheese one can eat meat immediately thereafter. In other words, no cheeseburgers! That understanding is confirmed by Onkelos (2^nd cent CE) who, in his Aramaic translation of the Pentateuch, clearly writes, “you shall not eat meat and milk." Similarly, The Aramaic Targum Jonathan (perhaps 4th cent. CE) states, "no mixing meat and milk."

Christianity abrogated the Jewish dietary laws. In fact, in the Epistle of Barnabas (2^nd cent CE), the author tells us that the Torah’s dietary laws are symbolic   and are not meant to be literally observed. 

Islam has food that is either halal (“lawful”) or haram (“unlawful”), and that includes alcohol, pork and animals that died due to illness.

In Judaism, Orthodox and Conservative Jews observe the rabbinic dietary laws and do not mix meat and milk products. Most Reform Jews do not, arguing as they did in the Pittsburgh platform of 1885, that “all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity and dress originated in ages and under the influence of ideas entirely foreign to our present mental and spiritual state.”. 

In my case, I do eat crustaceans like shrimp but refuse to eat any pork products.