On Suffering and Evil

Since time immemorial humans have struggled to make sense of suffering and evil and how to square it with an omnipotent, omniscient and good God. 

Leibniz even gave it a name—theodicy. 

Many have said that if this world is all there is then its nigh impossible to see divine justice. 

The immortality of the soul and/or eventual bodily resurrection go a long way toward allowing justice to prevail. 

R. Saadia Gaon placed emphasis on the olam hatechiya. 

R. Yehuda Halevi accentuated hasharas hanefesh. 

Ramban synthesized them. 

R. Yosef Albo wrote that the how isn't as important as subscribing to the idea that HaShem will ultimately square accounts one way or another. 

Rambam's position is that one participates in a bodiless afterlife commensurate with ones knowledge of the divine, seemingly not subscribing to traditional notions of s'char/v'onesh (see Ramban in shaar hagemul). 

Sefer Iyov, wholly devoted to dealing with this issue, does not offer either hasharas hanefesh or techiya as solutions to the problem, ending with vivid illustrations of Gods overwhelming creative power and benevolence, ostensibly communicating that there's no reason to worry about HaShem getting this one wrong, despite how things may appear. 

Tanach on the whole doesn't really mention either the souls immortality or the body's resurrection, with just a sprinkling of allusions here and there (rishonim offer various approaches when dealing with these omissions). 

The Talmud ascribes to Moshe the desire to understand what appeared to him to be tzadik v'ra lo/rasha v'tov lo with HaShem declining to clue him in. 

The problem of evil and suffering is truly a vexing issue. 

Ultimately, it is the number one issue believers in an all powerful, knowing and benevolent God grapple with. 

Perhaps that is the significance of Chazal ascribing authorship of Iyov to Moshe (TB BB 15a; also jives well with the above cited gemara): Moshe, who was introducing the idea of a God that is intimately involved with humanity, rewarding and punishing according to their deeds, needed to grapple with the apparent lack of justice like no one else before him. 

After all the suggestions and attempts at explanation, an abiding faith and trust in a perfect God, who is full of love and does only good, coupled with the recognition that we humans may simply be unable to comprehend His ways, seems to be as good as it will get for the time being. 

As R. Yannai stated in Avos (4:15) אֵין בְּיָדֵינוּ לֹא מִשַּׁלְוַת הָרְשָׁעִים וְאַף לֹא מִיִּסּוּרֵי הַצַּדִּיקִים.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Zionism done right

This piece attempts to provide some color to a comment of Chazal regarding the Bnos Tzelafchad's חיבת הארץ as well as explain away an apparent inconsistency in a specific Amora's approach to it Bamidbar 27 opens with the daughters of Tzelafchad making their case to share in the distribution of EY by inheriting their sonless father Tzelafachad's portion instead of his brothers. Chazal posit a love for the land of Israel as their motivation, explaining that the reason this narrative is juxtaposed with the previous chapter owes to it being illustrative of an inferred contrast therein that only the men died out in the midbar as only they had cast aspersions on the land (to the extent of wanting to return to Egypt) as opposed to the women that were lovers of the land and wanted to proceed apace even after the report of the spies. Namely, ibid 26:64: וּבְאֵלֶּה לֹא הָיָה אִישׁ מִפְּקוּדֵי מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר פָּקְדוּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמִדְבַּר סִינָי with Rash...
Read more

Sukkos: Pesach in the fall

This piece attempts to uncover an entirely new way of looking at the significance of Sukkos in what essentially amounts to a paradigm shift about the chag Vayikra 23:42-43 בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כׇּל הָאֶזְרָח בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשְׁבוּ בַּסֻּכֹּת. לְמַעַן יֵדְעוּ דֹרֹתֵיכֶם כִּי בַסֻּכּוֹת הוֹשַׁבְתִּי אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּהוֹצִיאִי אוֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲנִי י"י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. There is no other biblical record of our forefathers ever having stayed in booths, certainly not immediately after the exodus. The rishonim (ad loc) quote a disagreement (bavli sukkah 11b) between R Eliezer and R Akiva as to the identity of the pasuk's obscure referent: כי בסכות הושבתי – איזו סכות היו, ר' אליעזר אומר ענני כבוד היו, ר' עקיבא אומר, סכות ממש then saying that it works out acc to R Eliezer but acc to R Akiva what exactly are we celebrating?; see there for various solutions. The rishonim have in common an understanding that the holiday is somehow related to hitherto un...
Read more

How does Teshuvah work?

This piece attempts to explain the mechanics of Teshuvah in two distinct ways, each corresponding to different conceptions of the purpose of punishment Yoma 86a correlates the efficacy of Teshuvah to atone with the severity of the sin committed: עָבַר עַל עֲשֵׂה וְשָׁב אֵינוֹ זָז מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁמּוֹחֲלִין לוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר {ירמיהו ג':י"ד,כ"ב} שׁוּבוּ בָּנִים שׁוֹבָבִים עָבַר עַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְעָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה תְּשׁוּבָה תּוֹלָה וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר {ויקרא ט"ז:ל'} כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם עָבַר עַל כָּרֵיתוֹת וּמִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין וְעָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה תְּשׁוּבָה וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים תּוֹלִין וְיִסּוּרִין מְמָרְקִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר {תהלים פ"ט:ל"ג} וּפָקַדְתִּי בְשֵׁבֶט פִּשְׁעָם וּבִנְגָעִים עֲוֹנָם אֲבָל מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ חִילּוּל הַשֵּׁם בְּיָדוֹ אֵין לוֹ כֹּחַ בִּתְשׁוּבָה לִתְלוֹת וְלֹא בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לְכַפֵּר וְלֹא בְּיִסּוּרִין לְמָרֵק אֶלָּא כּוּלָּן תּוֹלִין וּמִיתָה מְמָרֶקֶת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר {ישעיהו ...
Read more