Does Hashem Change His Mind? You'd be Surprised!

By Rabbi Moshe Taragin 

Parashat Mishpatim delves into the intricate web of civil laws that govern monetary and commercial interactions. 

It opens with an allusion to beit din: ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם

 "These are the principles which should be placed before them" 

 The term "לפניהם"—"before them"—is interpreted by Chazal as a directive to bring civil and monetary disputes before a beit din. 

The preface to Parshat Mishpatim, which establishes the framework of Choshen Mishpat, empowers a beit din to oversee and resolve all legal monetary matters. 

 DELIBERATION AND CHANGING OPINION 

 The second Mishnah of Pirkei Avot encourages dayanim to be מתונים בדין—to carefully deliberate before issuing a verdict. This instruction not only urges caution but also allows for the possibility of their changing their opinion, especially if the reconsideration occurs before the verdict or pesak din is formally delivered. Regarding capital crimes of dinei nefa shot, dayanim are not only permitted but, in certain circumstances, even encouraged to retract their ruling, particularly if they had initially deemed the accused guilty.

 In these instances guilty verdicts can be reversed even after a formal verdict has been handed down. The halachic legal system values intellectual honesty and the willingness to reconsider, ensuring that justice is pursued with the utmost integrity and deliberation. Reevaluating a ruling—even one rooted in halachic reasoning—is seen as a mark of wisdom among seasoned judges. 

Changing an opinion is not a sign of intellectual inconsistency but rather of sharp reasoning and of intellectual integrity.

 HASHEM "CHANGES HIS MIND" 

 Several times in the Torah, Hashem Himself is depicted as changing His mind. After witnessing a series of moral failures—from the sin of Adam and Chava to Kayin’s murder of Hevel, followed by the corruption of the "Children of God"— Hashem regretted creating humanity, a shift that ultimately led to the mabul that engulfed the world.

וינחם ה" כי עשה את האדם בארץ ויתעצב אל ליבו 

 Of course, theologically, Hashem does not actually "change" His mind. Yet, despite the provocative wording, the Torah presents this imagery to teach us that we, as finite

beings must cultivate the ability to reassess, refine, and, when necessary, change our own opinions. 

 Similarly, the Torah describes Hashem reversing His decision to annihilate the Jewish people: 

וינחם ה' על הרעה אשר דבר לעשות לעמו

 Though this "change of heart" was triggered by Moshe Rabbeinu’s fervent tefillot and our collective teshuva, Hashem already knew this outcome beforehand. He knew that He would ultimately forgive us. And yet, once again, the Torah portrays Him as "changing His mind," underscoring the value of reconsideration, and the importance of changing a decision.

 IDENTITY AND OPINIONS

 Ideally, our identity should be shaped by our character traits, our relationships, our experiences, and, of course, by our religious life and connection with Hashem. By contrast, opinions and ideologies should not define the core of who we are. 

When a person has a strong sense of self—rooted ideally in both a deep relationship with HaKadosh Baruch Hu as well as a secure inner identity—they are not defined solely by their opinions or positions. A strong "inner" identity should be stable enough to allow our views to evolve without fear of "losing ourselves". Reconsidering a viewpoint does not mean surrendering ourselves or undermining our essence since the foundation of our identity rests on something far deeper than any particular position.

 By contrast, an inability to reconsider views may sometimes indicate a fragile identity, one that is precariously perched on opinions rather than built upon character. and lived experience. Changing your opinion or ideological standpoint is often a sign of a balanced and healthy identity. Opinions can change. 

 THE AGE OF IDEOLOGIES 

 We live in an era of intense ideological ferment. Monumental shifts in Jewish history, coupled with rapid technological and cultural upheavals, have thrust upon us fundamental questions rarely confronted in the past. These questions center primarily upon two pivotal issues: 

Jewish engagement with broader society, and the role of the State of Israel and how it influences this extraordinary historical moment.

 Diverse ideological perspectives, or hashkafot, have emerged, each striving to help us navigate these defining challenges. As always, we turn to our past for guidance, drawing from our Mesorah. In particular, many look to the towering figures and thinkers of the past 150 years—a period of remarkable intellectual creativity—for wisdom. 

The Ashkenazi Orthodox world was shaped both by the flourishing yeshiva movement, and by Chassidut, each of which produced prodigious Torah thought and extraordinary talmidei chachamim. Naturally, we seek direction from these recent luminaries, whose lives feel closer to our own reality than those of the Rambam or Rabbi Akiva, whose historical realities were far more distant from our own. 

 Many of the towering Torah scholars from Pre-WWII Europe held views on both the State of Israel and the role of secular engagement which seem to align more with contemporary Charedi culture. Though there was a diversity of opinion, the majority of these Torah thinkers opposed the emerging secular State and resisted the integration of secular studies with Torah learning. Some voiced their opposition to both the State and secular studies in stark and forceful terms. Therefore, in our modern reality those who embrace a Charedi orientation more naturally identify with these Torah figures. Rooted in an unwavering commitment to preserving the past, the Charedi world sees itself as the direct heir to this rich world of Torah and ideas. As a result , it has directly adopted the classic positions of these Torah personalities regarding the broader world and the State of Israel.

By contrast, serious Torah Jews who do not identify as Charedi often struggle to connect with great pre-WWII Torah figures whose views do not align with their unconditional support for the State of Israel or their openness to the broader world of ideas.

 At best, many non-Charedi people resolve this tension by separating Torah scholarship from hashkafah—appreciating the brilliance of their Torah while sharply diverging from their worldview. 

For many, though, this split proves difficult; they find it challenging to divorce ideology from Torah. And even when such a separation is possible, the lack of identification with their hashkafah makes it harder to fully connect with their Torah and their legacy.

 A NEW WORLD

 There is a third approach. The world has shifted so dramatically since the pre WWII era that it is difficult to determine exactly how these Torah giants would have responded to our current reality. 

 For example, many of the rabbinic opponents of Zionism were contending with a movement that, in its early stages, was led by aggressively anti-religious secularists who sought to replace Jewish tradition with nationalism—often infused with Marxist/socialist ideology. 

Additionally, Torah leaders were engaged in fierce struggles with local Zionists in European shtetls and cities, where political battles over resources—both human and financial—posed a direct challenge to the social order and rabbinic authority. 

What would these towering Torah personalities say if they lived in our modern reality?

 What would Rav Elchonon Wasserman think if he beheld today’s State of Israel—a land home to eight million Jews, where the majority, though not traditionally observant, still harbor a deep spiritual connection and recognize this Land as a divine gift, foretold in the prophecies of the Torah?

 How would the horrors of the Holocaust, which many anti-Zionist rabbis never witnessed, have influenced their support for a Jewish state as a refuge from antisemitism? 

 Would their perspective remain steadfast, or would the sweeping transformation of Jewish history compel them to reconsider? 

 Would they have reexamined their stance in light of the unfolding redemption? 

 In a similar vein, those who opposed any encounter with the secular world lived in a reality where universities were hotbeds of heresy. Rav Baruch Ber Leibowitz, known as the Birchat Shmuel, was one of the great Torah scholars of the early 20th century. He penned a famous and scathing opposition to any interaction with the secular world. 

In truth, enrolling in the University of Berlin or Moscow was often a one-way departure from religious commitment. 

 The academic landscape has dramatically shifted. Studying in a university in 2025 certainly presents challenges, but these institutions are no longer the ideological battlegrounds they once were. If anything, the surge of rampant antisemitism has diminished the cultural pull of these institutions upon Jewish students, making them less likely to drift from their heritage. The hostility directed at Jews has, paradoxically, lessened the spiritual danger these environments once posed. There are still significant concerns regarding engagement with secular studies and life in non-Jewish environments, but these concerns have evolved dramatically since the early part of the previous century. 

The presence of strong Jewish frameworks—both within explicitly Jewish settings and embedded in broader non-Jewish institutions—has made the encounter with the world of the university far less perilous. 

 Would opponents of secular engagement have been equally resistant had they witnessed the modern context?

 Great people possess the wisdom and humility to reassess their views when new realities emerge. It is difficult to determine how positions articulated in the early 20th century might have evolved, given the seismic transformations of our world— the devastation of the Holocaust, the mass migration of millions of Jews to Israel, and the shifting cultural landscape. 

 Torah Jews of every ideological persuasion should feel a deep connection to the great figures who shaped the Torah world, even when their positions differ from our own. The fact that they took stances that may seem incongruous with our present reality does not mean they would have maintained them unchanged in the face of the dramatic upheavals history has wrought. 2025 isn’t 1925. Cutting and pasting opinions across 100 years of tectonic shifts doesn’t always work. 

Hashem "changed His mind", and we are expected to change our minds as well.