> Does this mean to suggest that some are made to suffer
simply in order to test others?
There is also the other half of the question, "Why do the evil
prosper?" Without addressing this, no response to the first
question is complete.
Rabbi Benjamin Blech, Rabbi Emeritus of Young Israel of
Oceanside, LI, NY, issued a masterful cassette audiotape series
on this subject; eleven cassettes, about 18 hours. He
critiques Rabbi Harold Kushners book, "When Bad Things Happen
to Good People," and gives his Orthodox view of the subject.
The series is full of references to primary sources. Call
516-678-9186 for information.
Rabbi David Hartman also dealt with the subject in "Rabbinic
Responses to Suffering," Chapter 8 of his book, "A Living
Covenant (The Free Press, a division of Macmillan, Inc., NY,
From Volume 1 Digest 2
From: Yitzchak Freeman <J_F_S@delphi.com>
It seems a nice discussion; however, I must say that in terms of an easily
readable, rational, well laid out exposition, I have not seen better than
the chapter on this topic in "The Informed Soul" by Rabbi David Gottlieb
(Artscroll, I think).
From Volume 1 Digest 3
From: firstname.lastname@example.org ([Rabbi] Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
It should be noted that the Rambam's approach (Moreh 3:51) is that most
humans are not subject to individual Divine Providence (although Chassidim
are particularly vehement in their opposotion to this Rambam). Therefore,
according to the Rambam, the question of why good people suffer would only
apply to those on a high enough level that they are indeed under constant
Divine surveillance and manipulation.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
From Volume 1 Digest 3
From: Shaul Wallach <F66204@VM.BIU.AC.IL>
As expected, Rabbi Karlinsky's thoughtful essay has provoked some
equally thought-provoking responses on the timeless problem of evil in
the Jewish tradition. In particular, Isaiah Cox seems to be raising the
same kind of questions that Job raised thousands of years ago in his
Book that Oriental congregations read to this day on Tish`a Be-Av.
Time and space do not permit me to do justice to this great
theological issue, but I will try to cite a little source material
for those who are interested.
In the Talmud (Shabbat 55a) we see that the righteous not only
suffer, but they are also the first ones to suffer. In this passage
we are told that when Gabriel went out to punish the people in the
days of the First Temple (Ezekiel 9:4), he put a sign of ink on the
heads of the righteous and a sign of blood on those of the wicked,
so that the Angels of Destruction could tell them apart. At this
the Middat Ha-Din (measure of judgment) complained to the Holy One,
Blessed be He, and asked what the difference really was. She was
not content with the answer and said that the righteous deserved
to be punished first because they should have rebuked the people
but did not. The fact that the people would not have listened was
no excuse because they could never be sure. This passage brings me
to tears when I read it - what excuse do we have in our generation
not to rebuke and bring people back to Judaism, when we know many
of them will indeed listen???
Going back to Job, however, we see from the plain sense of the
Book that there is no really satisfying answer. The Book is well
worth close study with the classical commentaries such as the Ralbag,
the Mezudot and the Malbim. It is always a moving experience to read
the book on Tish`a Be-Av in a Yemenite congregation. Each person in
turn reads a verse out loud and participates himself in the drama of
Job maintaining his innocence against the attacks of his friends,
until everyone reads the last chapter together (in Haftaric trop)
celebrating his triumph after the climactic encounter with G-d. We
don't get any clear-cut answers to our questions, but our lesson
can perhaps be summed up in the verse (Job 28:28) "And He said to
man: Behold, fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to refrain from
evil is understanding."
In the Mishna we likewise learn (Avot 4:15) "Said Rabbi Yannai:
We have in our hands neither the comfort of the wicked nor the
sufferings of the righteous." Here too the commentators offer various
insights to this basic theme.
In the very first pages of the Talmud (Berakhot 4-5), too, we
see the greatest of the Amoraim crying over their misfortunes. Perhaps
the Talmud is trying to tell us not to worry if we don't understand it
all, because people far greater than we went through similar trials
and also proved to be only human.
What the Talmud does tell us to do in practice, however, is to
search our souls and do repentance in response to the troubles that
come over us, just as Rav Huna did in the above passage after his wine
turned sour. Even if we find no logical connection between our sins and
our sufferings, certainly G-d always wants us to mend our ways, as the
Rambam sums it up in Hilkot Ta`anit 1:1-3 and 4:2.
At this critical juncture in time, when we see our precious Holy
Land being given away from us before our very eyes, and Jewry falling
prey to assimilation around the world, I see no other course to follow
than that which the Rambam showed us on the basis of our Sages Z"L. What
is important for us in G-d's eyes is not the theory, but the practice.
From Volume 1 Digest 7
From: Michael Green <email@example.com>
I wish to comment on the reply to R. Karlinsky by Mr. Cox.
I agree with him in so far as we must examine all aspects of our lives
and ask questions regarding possible cause and effect, further more I agree
fully with the comment of Mr. Manskey regarding to the world not being a
simple place. However I take issue with Mr. Cox's oversimplification of the
horror's of jewish history. I would like to look, in light of R. Karlinsky's
outlook, upon those very 'sheep' who were herded to slaughter only a
generation ago. When a young, healthy, strong man was about to be
'herded', in many cases this young man had the chance to run and fight (the
natural impulse) yet doing so meant leaving weaker members of the family - a
mother and father perhaps - to die alone. Who is the weak 'sheep' here? I
dare say sticking with elderely parents to serve them to the end is a harder
decision to make then becoming a freedom fighter in an environment where all
The Holocaust and other periods of persecution leave every individual
with a test of belief, Why and How are questions that every one must ask for
himself. As for 'Tov ve'rah lo' [A good person, but for whom occurrances in
his life are bad] every individual has his relationship with Hashem and is
constantly being tested, this is the purpose of this world, as we learn in
Pirkei Avoth 'This world is a vestibule before the world to come, prpare
yourself in the vestibule such that you may enjoy the world to come'
(paraphrased by me). Everyone must deal with his own 'vestibule' - be it a
persecuted existance, an 'insular' yeshiva existance, or existing in the
complicated 'Jewish' state. Each and every existance has it's own trials
To sum up my point, I remind you of the story of the worm living in the
onion, since this is the worms existence, he doesn't realize His home is
bitter. Don't trivialize the Holocaust and other periods of Jewish History
with simple anger - nothing is simple.
From Volume 1 Digest 10
From: Micha Berger <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Unfortunately, the A-lmighty gave me time to consider this
question. Much of the week that my wife and I sat shiva for our
daughter. "Why me?" crossed my mind alot. I mean, I may not be "good
people", but surely I'm doing better than many people who haven't
lived through such tragedy. Aren't I?
I reached a few conclusions:
1- The pasuk in Yeshayah that is euphamized into the text of the first
brachah before the morning Shema reads:
Yotzeir or uvorei choshech
Who formed (yotzeir, from tzurah - image) light and created ex
nihilo (see Rashi on Breishis 1:1, bara means yeish ma'ayin,
creating something from nothing) darkness
Oseh shalom uvorei es hara (brachah reads: hakol)
Who does peace and created ex nihilo evil (brachah reads: the
all, i.e. the universe).
But more to the point of our question, we see that the two dichotomies
are compared; light is to darkness as peace is to evil. Both light and
peace are briyos, creations ex nihilo, darkness and peace are
A totally empty room is dark. Light is a substance, darkness is its
absence. The implication of the pasuk is that peace too is the
"substance", evil is merely the absence of peace, not an item iteself.
(BTW, this was my understanding of tzimtzum. In order to allow evil to exist
the A-lmighty provides the appropriate absence of good.)
During shiva, this point was brought home to me on a very emotional
level. The gift was that I had 3 healthy children (now 7, k"y). That
is the miracle.
Left to itself the universe decays in obedience to the 2nd law of
thermodynamics. The fact that we can live is the exception, the Divine
intervention. Just because we take usually take this intervention for
granted makes this point no less true.
2- R. Nachum Ish Gamzu used to say "gam zu litovah"
(this too is for the best) when faced with calamity. His student,
R. Akiva, would similarly say, "Kol da'avad rachmanah litav avad" (all
that the All Merciful does, He does for the best). They believed that
bad things don't happen to anyone -- bad or good people. Our problem
may be in that we have a misunderstanding of what a "bad thing" is.
Back to the pasuk in Yeshayah... R. SR Hirsch considers the root of
ra, evil, to be reish-ayin-ayin, to shatter. The root of shalom, peace,
is shin-lamed-mem, whole. Perhaps this tells us something about the
definition of "good". Being good, imitating the creator, is to be
constructive; evil is -- by definition -- to be destructive.
It's interesting that light vs. dark is paralled to
peace/wholeness/harmony vs. evil, and not good vs. evil. This may be
due to a problem with how to define the word "tov", good. For humans,
Judaism defines good behavior as imitatio D-ei, acting as G-d does.
With reference to Hashem, however, that definition is tautological. Of
course G-d is good, if "good" means to act like G-d.
Our problem is only because we have a definition of evil that is based on
humanism. The American ethic is that good is anything "that makes you happy
and doesn't hurt anyone". This is the ethic of an era of instant gratification.
It doesn't pursue building something for the future, to reach ultimate
hights, it goes for happiness in the here-and-now. The distinction is
obvious when we look at the difference between the Torah and humanistic
ethics on what goes on between "two consenting adults". (This distinction is
built into the systems' respective axioms: Torah, Divine in origin, takes
the long view; humanism, because of the limitations of humans, can't.)
Evil never happens because everything is toward building, toward shaping
oourselves to be receptacles for his goodness in the next world. This is
why the gemara calls this world the "foyer of the palace." Our goal here is
to get ready for the next world -- even if this means that we choose to
avoid happiness, or even happiness is forcibly taken from us in the short run.
Micha Berger Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3027 days!
email@example.com 212 224-4937 (16-Oct-86 - 31-Jan-95)
firstname.lastname@example.org 201 916-0287
AishDas Society's Home Page
From Volume 1 Digest 14
the pasuk quoted seems to come to the opposite conclusion that micha
reaches. the pasuk said bara choshech. darkness was the creation( as was
evil ) and light and good were merely formed from something already
existent, and are therefore the derivatives.
also, on nachum ish gamzu:
his opinion as well as r. akiva's is not that all that hashem does is good.
rather, all that hashem does is for the best ( nachum does not say gam zu
tova, ' this is also good', rather l'tova - 'for the good, or for the best'.
likewise r. akiva ' all that G-D did is "l'tav", for the good, not "tav"
good in and of itself. ).
the loss of any person can not be seen as good, and should not be seen as
good, in and of itself ( except maybe in the case of extreme r'sha'im ).
rather, it should be for the best, some good should come from this
situation. i can not even begin to discuss what that could possibly be, as
only a person put in that situation can fully comprehend the loss to try to
assess the good to come from it.
the point of the post though is still a valid one. looking at the long term
rather than the short term.
micha- hamakom y'nachem etchem... Hashem is truly the One who can comfort
you, and may you find that nechama. as david hamelech, a'h, wrote, luley
soras'cha sha'a'shu'ai, az avad'ti b'onyee - if not for torah that soothed
(?) me, i would have been lost in my grief.
From Volume 1 Digest 14
From: Micha Berger <email@example.com>
[This is in reply to a personal letter by Isaiah Cox. I thought the
chevrah (group of friends) might have comments.]
But we are
taught right from wrong, and G-d has taught us, by his contruction of
our world, that we must make our own decisions, and that we are responsible
for our actions, both in this world, and in the world to come. The world
is what we have made it, and what we continue to make it.
I do really think that atrocities and horrors are all for the good. To
break it down, there are three people affected by a crime: the
perpetrator, the victim, and the observer.
Just to dismiss the easiest case first, the observer clearly
gains. He has the ability to learn from other's mistakes without being
the one injured. But what about the other two?
G-d wants people _choose_ good over evil. This means that in order for
man to best reach his goal, it is best if the ability exists to choose
evil. So, while the perpetrator is actually harmed by commiting a
crime, it is best that the possibility exists.
The principle I quoted in an earlier post -- "All that the All
Merciful does, He does for good", forces us to phrase the problem in
terms of how is this "for the best". You seem to be answering that it
is for the best to let mankind live with his (and others choices),
that it is not only best that the possibility exist, but that we live
with the consequences.
The choice, however, need not succeed. As the Yiddishism goes: mentsch
tracht, unt G-tt lacht. Man preposes and G-d disposes. Planning does
not guarantee success. Many Arabs have killed themselves trying to
build bombs that exploded prematurely. (The State estimates at 2 or
even 3 to one ratio between premature explosions and successful
bombings.) If G-d intervened in EVERY attempt to do evil, then doing
evil wouldn't be a real choice -- it would be choosing immediate
punishment. So, even more to the point, why was the bombing at Beit
Lid when certain people were there r"l, and not others?
On the other hand, many evils occur without a human
perpetrator. Earthquakes, disease, flood, famine, Tay Sachs, Downs
So, it's possible to choose evil without creating a victim, and its
possible to be a victim without anyone choosing to do evil. Solving
the problem of why G-d allows us to do wrong does not answer the
question of why bad things happen to people who deserve better.
The problem is that we lack the ability to see subjuctives. The
homeless man who sleeps outside my office building -- what would have
happened to him had G-d created him sane? Would he have been a
successfull business man and philanthropist, a happy family man? Or
would he, with the same personal weaknesses, still ended up an addict,
but instead of alcohol, he runs the Wall Street rat race for crack money?
We can never know. We lack the ability to see the subjunctive, the
hypothetical, what would have been if. We have to take it on faith
that things would have turned out worse -- if not physically, than we
would have not have progressed as far in our spiritual quest.
This, in my opinion, is the message of the book of Iyov (Job). Iyov
seems to start out depicting the title character as a pawn in a game
between Hashem and the Satan. This is obviously an
over-simplification, as it casts a mere angel as being able to be
G-d's adversary. The Satan suggests that perhaps Iyov is only good
because he has life easy, that had he faced challenges, Iyov would not
maintain his faith.
After all the calamity, the final answer Iyov gets from Hashem is that
it is wrong to ask why Hashem does something, because we can not
understand Him, the answer is outside of our grasp.
This is the way I read the story.
Iyov grew all he can as a wealthy, happy man. The Satan, who is not an
adversary but a servant of G-d whose job is to introduce adversity
when Hashem's plan requires it, suggests that it is time for Iyov to
be challenged, to grow in times of trouble.
Hashem's answer to Iyov makes it clear that it was His plan for Iyov
to suffer, and that Iyov could never understand why. Not only for the
obvious reason, that calling what G-d does as "thinking" is overly
anthropic, that we can not understand Hashem or His Motives. But also
because Iyov does not know what he would have become in the "what if"
universe he preferred.
This is why, even after some part of the answer is given in the
opening pesukim (verses) of the book, we are told the answer is not
knowable. We may know that in theory this is for "our own good", but
we could never know why or how.
Micha Berger Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3033 days!
firstname.lastname@example.org 212 224-4937 (16-Oct-86 - 6 -Feb-95)
email@example.com 201 916-0287
AishDas Society's Home Page
Issues in Jewish Thought
The Project Genesis Global Learning Network