So then how does the Rabbi explain the destruction of the Temple? It says that on the one hand God did it, and the Babylonians were basically just His agents, and on the other hand it says the responsibility is on them and they are punished for it.

Maybe He caused them to do it, but they could have refused, and then He would have caused others to do it.

I don’t understand. If He causes them to destroy Jerusalem, that means He is bringing them to Jerusalem to bring destruction. In what sense do they have free choice? The verses are very explicit:
(9) “Behold, I am sending and taking all the families of the north, says the Lord, and to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and I will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and a hissing, and everlasting ruins.”
Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians are described in countless verses in the book of Jeremiah as direct agents of the Holy One, blessed be He, almost as if they are His hand acting in reality. Where is the free choice in this story? It isn’t that destruction is spoken of in general terms; rather, from the beginning of the book, and even earlier in other prophets, it is described directly how the Holy One, blessed be He, brings the Babylonians upon the people of Israel as punishment for their deeds.
If He sent them, without them knowing about it (it’s not like a prophet, whom He speaks to and who is able to refuse), then how does that fit together?

He can arouse in them an impulse to do it, and they still have the choice not to give in to that impulse.

But if it says they will definitely do it, by God causing them to do it, then how does that allow for free choice? It isn’t written as a recommendation, but as an actual act of the Holy One, blessed be He, who brings the Babylonians upon Israel.
In some places they are even described as a tool in the potter’s hand, where the potter is the Holy One, blessed be He.
Nebuchadnezzar is described as a direct agent:
(6) “And now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant; and the beasts of the field also have I given him to serve him.”
(2) “Thus says the Lord, God of Israel: Go and say to Zedekiah king of Judah, and say to him, Thus says the Lord: Behold, I am giving this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire.”
(4) “For thus says the Lord: Behold, I will make you a terror to yourself and to all your friends, and they shall fall by the sword of their enemies while your eyes see it; and all Judah will I give into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall carry them captive to Babylon and shall strike them with the sword.”
(25) “And I will give you into the hand of those who seek your life, and into the hand of those whom you fear, into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and into the hand of the Chaldeans.”
They are sent to destroy the Temple as His direct agents carrying out His plan; in what sense is that free choice?

I’ve written more than once that I don’t deal with the Bible. When there’s a difficulty, people press the text and interpret and explain it differently, and I don’t see the point in that.
You can say that this is what is expected, but they still could have resisted it (in the sense of a prophecy of doom that can be revoked). You can explain it by the law of large numbers (as Maimonides and the Raavad do in chapter 6 of the Laws of Repentance). You can explain that they already deserved punishment beforehand, and therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, brought this act about through them (as people explain regarding Pharaoh. Something like this appears in Babylonian Talmud Makkot 10b regarding an accidental killer).

1. If this were just a simple prophecy of the future, I would accept it, but since this is an active act of the Holy One, blessed be He, who brings the Babylonians, that’s a forced interpretation.
2. The law of large numbers can also work as prophecy, but not as divine involvement that compels the Babylonians to bring the destruction. If it was part of God’s will that the Babylonians come to destroy the Temple as punishment for the people of Israel (since they certainly deserved punishment), then why punish them?!
3. That would have been a possible explanation were it not for the prophecies at the end of the book that explicitly say that the punishment of the Babylonians comes because of the act of destruction:
(11) “Sharpen the arrows, fill the shields; the Lord has stirred up the spirit of the kings of the Medes, for His plan is against Babylon, to destroy it; for it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance for His Temple.”
(35) “The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon, shall the inhabitant of Zion say; and my blood be upon the inhabitants of Chaldea, shall Jerusalem say.”
(36) “Therefore thus says the Lord: Behold, I will plead your cause and take vengeance for you; and I will dry up her sea and make her fountain dry.”
(6) “Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and save every man his life; do not be cut off in her iniquity; for it is the time of the Lord’s vengeance; He will render to her a recompense.”

1-2. The interpretation that “an eye for an eye” means monetary compensation is also forced, and so are many other rabbinic interpretations and explanations. This is no different from them. The prophecy about Pharaoh too was given on the basis of the law of large numbers and could have failed to materialize. Divine necessity can also operate on the basis of the law of large numbers. Today we know that even the laws of mechanics are only the law of large numbers (the truth is quantum theory, and we know that according to it there is some chance that a basketball could pass through a wall—tunneling).
3. Even the punishment of exile for accidental killing is given because of the killing and not because of an earlier event. But the Talmud says it is indeed because of an earlier event. The fact that punishment is attached to a particular event doesn’t mean that the event itself isn’t a rolling over of an earlier event. Whether the second event was forced upon the doer, or whether there was only a tilting of the scales of his choice.
Precisely because of all this, I don’t see the point of this discussion. You can turn to those who enjoy and find meaning in engaging in interpretation of the Bible.

If so, why can’t one also say that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought about October 7, and Hamas are also responsible for it? After all, that’s exactly what you’re saying about the Babylonians—that the Holy One, blessed be He, sent them to destroy the Temple, and they are still responsible for it.

Who said you can’t? You can. Not only can you say it, you can say it even without our discussion here. Who said Hamas are responsible for what they did? One could say that everything is from the Holy One, blessed be He, and they really are not responsible. If you assume that they are responsible for some reason, only then will you need our discussion here.

The one who said Hamas are responsible is the Holy One, blessed be He, who gave them free choice, and each of our intuition that there is free choice. But from what I understand from you, there is no contradiction between the statement that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought about October 7 and the statement that Hamas carried out October 7 of their own free will. Am I right?
And if that is indeed possible, then why did you write this:
“In principle, no. But it is possible that two causes happened to converge at the same place and time and produce a result that either one alone would have been sufficient to bring about.”

I don’t understand what’s unclear. Everything was explained.
What I wrote is exactly what I explained: the Holy One, blessed be He, decided, and then they also had to decide. That chain itself is the one cause.
All this is according to the view that the Holy One, blessed be He, is indeed involved, which in my opinion is not plausible. But the discussion was only about whether it is possible.

Suppose I accept what you’re saying, and there really can be determinism at the collective level that allows for choice at the level of individuals.
The question of divine justice still remains, because if He compelled the Babylonians at the collective level to destroy the Temple, how is it just that He punishes them at the collective level?!
After all, He compelled the nation to destroy the Temple, and the prophet describes the destruction as part of the divine will. So how can one come with claims against someone who is simply fulfilling the divine will, and someone who was sent by God?

There is no such thing as compulsion at the collective level. It’s a tilting of the scales of choice so that, in large numbers, the result will probably be that. And still each person chose, and therefore they all bear responsibility.

Rabbi, regarding your last message—does that mean there is a scenario with a probability greater than zero in which the Holy One, blessed be He, wants to force a certain development in reality, but in the end no one chooses that course?

Indeed. He can of course decide to intervene and impose His will.

What does the Rabbi say about cases where the statistical explanation can’t solve the problem?
A few examples:
1. Joseph and the brothers.
2. The punishments King David received, which are literally measure for measure.
3. The downfall of Rehoboam and the split of the kingdoms.
4. The prophecy about King Josiah that he would be righteous.
5. Cyrus’s declaration.
And more and more…

What’s the problem? In those cases the Holy One, blessed be He, dictated the result. Or He tilted the scales, and the person in question could have decided otherwise, in which case the Holy One, blessed be He, would have found another agent.

And the very fact that the Rabbi says, “It’s a tilting of the scales of choice so that, in large numbers, the result will probably be that,” is problematic, because according to the wording of the prophecies in the cases I presented there is no possibility that anything else could happen. And if you claim that it is merely written that way but could in fact turn out otherwise, that means there is really no way to know whether a prophet is a true prophet or a false prophet, because every time he prophesies and the prophecy does not come true, he can wriggle out of it and say that the less probable option simply occurred. Forgive me, but that is not a serious interpretation, and it doesn’t really fit the verses in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh).

Please don’t get angry. First, I’m talking about prophecies of an already verified prophet. In the process of verifying him, perhaps the Holy One, blessed be He, intervenes. Do you have verses that speak about a prophet during the verification stage? Second, such prophecies are not always directed to a specific person or event. And it’s possible that this could also happen with an already verified prophet when the prophecies are concrete, as I wrote above.

The Sages also said that a prophecy of doom can be revoked. What would you say there?