For a graduate class this past semester, I wrote a paper on how the Talmud tries to resolve the problem of evil, more colloquially referred to as “why do bad things happen to good people." I thought this topic was interesting because the corpus of Talmud became my guide to this difficult question, rather than just one individual viewpoint. In the following post, I will weave a discussion of Rabbi Harold Kushner’s book When Bad Things Happen to Good People in-between my findings.
The problem of evil is one of the most ubiquitous questions in human history, specifically Jewish history. Taking the lead from Moses and Job, we have asked this question for centuries. We asked it most fervently last night when we exclaimed “Aicha?!”--G-d how could you have done this to us?! How could you not stop something so horrible from happening if you had the power to? The question hits home because it is so relevant to our daily lives. Genocide of Christians in Syria, the general distress in the Middle East, and what seems to be years of tsunamis, hurricanes and tornados leave much answered. That is even without looking on the more singular scale of a diagnosis of cancer, or a freak car accident.
I'll begin by saying that much of what I discuss here is not necessarily appropriate for someone who is going through a tragedy. As the Mishna in Avoth (4:18) says “Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar used to say: Do not appease your fellow in the time of his anger, nor comfort him while his dead lies before him.” Our theory can only go so far.
Modern philosophy has tried to deal with these issues, and those that have studied the problem on a meta-level have seen four basic answers. As I explain them I will show how they all are found in the Talmud albeit with a strong variation.
The first is the Denying approach. We deny the problem either by denying a traditional G-d or by denying that evil truly exists. This is found most strongly in Shabbat 55a:
Rav Ami said: There is no death without sin and there is no suffering without iniquity. There is no death without sin, for it is written, “The soul that sins, it shall die…(Ez. 18:20) There is no suffering without iniquity for it is written, “Then I will visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with strokes.” (Ps. 89:33)
Why do bad things happen? Rav Ami answers unequivocally: because people sin. In this view, evil is not evil, it is punishment. Kushner disregards this answer immediately because it is not how we perceive the world. The righteous do not always have the easy lives the wicked do; it is therefore not emotionally satisfying. In some ways this is similar to what the Talmud itself does. Rav Ami is rejected because we know there are some people that did not sin but did die. Since Rav Ami was unequivocal, the mere existence of a counterexample makes his argument fall apart.
The Talmud in Horiyos 10b uses the same idea but adds in a more enigmatic piece: The world to come.
Rabbi Nachman ben Hisda made the following exposition: …Happy are the righteous men unto whom it happens in this world according to the work of the wicked in the world to come; woe to the wicked men to whom it happens in this world according to the work of the righteous in the world to come.
By adding in the world to come, Rabbi Nachman no longer has Rav Ami’s issue because we cannot have a counter example. However, if we look closely, we see how Rabbi Nachman only tries to see how we should react to bad things but not how they are. A righteous person should be happy to have bad things happen to him. This is less of a philosophical argument and more of a philosophy on life. We will see this continue throughout. In Berachot 60b, Rabbi Akiva tells a story of how many bad things happened but they ended up being good for him. He states based on this: “A person should always accustom himself to say, "whatever the merciful one does, it is for good."” Again, Rabbi Akiva denies the existence of Evil; however he only does so softly. It is not “whatever happens IS for the best”. Rather, that is what one should say frequently. It is a good way to live.
The skeptic accepts that evil exists but assumes that evil is inherently tied to good and the good outweighs the evil. For instance, something bad happens as a wake up call to do better in the future, or for people to come together to help out. This is found in Brachot 5a:
Raba, and some say, R. Hisda says: If a man sees that painful sufferings visit him, let him examine his conduct.
The way to repentance is to see evil and react to it by looking to see what you did wrong. However Raba’s statement need not be a general answer but a response to evil. Like Rabbi Akiva and Rav Nachman Raba is telling us how to react to evil.
The third type is the compatibilist. This is a theory that says something is necessary (i.e. free will) that must allow for evil. This is also found in the Talmud in Moed Katan 28a: “Rava said: [Length of] life, children and sustenance depend not only on merit but [rather on] mazal.” Rava states this based on an example of two Rabbis who were both great but one had an easy life while the other had a hard one. Mazal (perhaps the modern equivalent to natural law) exists and that allows for both good and evil. Again Rava is not certain in all cases. He merely gives a hypothesis as to why this discrepancy can exist.
We can see from all these cases that the Talmud is not interested in a full proof answer to the question but is trying to find a way for us to live our lives with meaning in a variety of ways. In the end of the day we must accept the 4th answer, the confident one, who accepts G-d’s goodness and understands evil exists but is not bothered by it.
Rabbi Nachman ben Hisda made the following exposition: …Happy are the righteous men unto whom it happens in this world according to the work of the wicked in the world to come; woe to the wicked men to whom it happens in this world according to the work of the righteous in the world to come.
By adding in the world to come, Rabbi Nachman no longer has Rav Ami’s issue because we cannot have a counter example. However, if we look closely, we see how Rabbi Nachman only tries to see how we should react to bad things but not how they are. A righteous person should be happy to have bad things happen to him. This is less of a philosophical argument and more of a philosophy on life. We will see this continue throughout. In Berachot 60b, Rabbi Akiva tells a story of how many bad things happened but they ended up being good for him. He states based on this: “A person should always accustom himself to say, "whatever the merciful one does, it is for good."” Again, Rabbi Akiva denies the existence of Evil; however he only does so softly. It is not “whatever happens IS for the best”. Rather, that is what one should say frequently. It is a good way to live.
The skeptic accepts that evil exists but assumes that evil is inherently tied to good and the good outweighs the evil. For instance, something bad happens as a wake up call to do better in the future, or for people to come together to help out. This is found in Brachot 5a:
Raba, and some say, R. Hisda says: If a man sees that painful sufferings visit him, let him examine his conduct.
The way to repentance is to see evil and react to it by looking to see what you did wrong. However Raba’s statement need not be a general answer but a response to evil. Like Rabbi Akiva and Rav Nachman Raba is telling us how to react to evil.
The third type is the compatibilist. This is a theory that says something is necessary (i.e. free will) that must allow for evil. This is also found in the Talmud in Moed Katan 28a: “Rava said: [Length of] life, children and sustenance depend not only on merit but [rather on] mazal.” Rava states this based on an example of two Rabbis who were both great but one had an easy life while the other had a hard one. Mazal (perhaps the modern equivalent to natural law) exists and that allows for both good and evil. Again Rava is not certain in all cases. He merely gives a hypothesis as to why this discrepancy can exist.
We can see from all these cases that the Talmud is not interested in a full proof answer to the question but is trying to find a way for us to live our lives with meaning in a variety of ways. In the end of the day we must accept the 4th answer, the confident one, who accepts G-d’s goodness and understands evil exists but is not bothered by it.
We see this in Menachot 29b when Moshe asks what will happen to the great Rabbi Akiva and is shown his martyrdom. When he asks G-d how this could be he is rebuffed. Man does not understand how the world works. We must be confident that G-d is in control. However, this can be unsatisfying. What are we to do with all the evil in the world? In the end of the day, the Talmud is less interested in the “true” answer, but tries to give a meaningful one. We can give meaning to suffering (ala Rav Soloveitchik and Viktor Frankel) while still understanding that we cannot fully understand.
Kushner makes an argument similar to this but goes one step farther. Evil exists and we are to learn and give meaning to it. G-d does not do the evil, that just happens, but he gives us a space to make meaning out of it. While I enjoyed his book, I do not feel that his explanation is necessary. I do not need to deny the traditional G-d that is omnipotent to accept evil. I can give meaning to evil in my own right and understand in the end of the day, G-d has a plan.
Have an easy and meaningful fast, and may we have less and less evil to make meaning from in the future.
Have an easy and meaningful fast, and may we have less and less evil to make meaning from in the future.
