{"id":30,"date":"2006-10-05T15:14:57","date_gmt":"2006-10-05T15:14:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/"},"modified":"2018-04-23T16:28:22","modified_gmt":"2018-04-23T16:28:22","slug":"3002-elaboration","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/","title":{"rendered":"30.02 Elaboration (pps.20-31)"},"content":{"rendered":"

hard cover page 20<\/p>\n

The very fact that well over twenty major theodicies appear in various forms throughout Jewish literature reflects great dissatisfaction with any one existing theodicy. Our purpose, however, is not to critique all theodicies that have been previously suggested. We simply state that we personally do not find any given theodicy or combination of theodicies anywhere near fully satisfying intellectually or emotionally. This is sufficient reason for us to search further.<\/p>\n

Given its long history, one is unlikely to unearth the obvious, perfectly satisfying theodicy. Rather, the goal is to find or formulate a more satisfying theodicy. An examination of the seven groups of responses follows.<\/p>\n

Group I.<\/em> Finite man cannot comprehend infinite God’s ways:76<\/sup> EXPLICATION<\/strong><\/p>\n

The classic biblical support cited by the proponents of this theodicy comes from the final chapter of Job. The Divine voice addresses Job:<\/p>\n

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare if thou hast the understanding. -Job 38:4<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One possible interpretation is that “man’s suffering represents an infinitesimally small part of the cosmos. When the world is viewed from a perspective broader than man’s, the evil in it is not enough to call God’s rule into question.”77<\/sup> The sentiment is echoed by the third-century sage Yannai: “It is not in our power to understand the suffering of the righteous or the well-being of the wicked.”78<\/sup><\/p>\n

Thus in Job, a book which Maimonides79<\/sup> describes as a parable conceived for the purpose of articulating various<\/p>\n

===================================
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d- NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d-<\/p>\n

75 <\/sup>In the spirit of the folk etymology of the Talmud: T-Y-K-V (pronounced tay-ku).<\/p>\n

76 <\/sup>Cf. Hick, Readings in the Philosophy of Religion<\/em>, p. 86. David Hume provides an example of a classic perspective: “At least, you must acknowledge that it is impossible for us to tell, from our limited views, whether this system contains any great faults or deserves any considerable praise if compared to other possible and even real systems. Could a peasant, if the Aeneid<\/em> were read to him, pronounce that poem to be absolutely faultless, or even assign to it its proper rank among the productions of human wit, he who had never seen any other production?”<\/p>\n

77 <\/sup>Gordis, The Book of God and Man<\/em>,<\/em> p. 155.<\/p>\n

78 <\/sup>T. B. Avot 4: 15.<\/p>\n

79 <\/sup>After discussion in T B. Baba Batra 15a.<\/p>\n

~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 20<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5
\n6
\n7
\n8
\n9
\n10
\n11
\n12<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		20
\n21
\n22
\n23
\n24
\n25
\n26
\n27
\n28
\n29
\n30
\n31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 21<\/p>\n

\n

\n

theodicies,80 <\/sup>we find, among other theodicies, one attributed to God and seeming to deliver a message of ultimate unfathomability. Job seems to accept this answer only because of its unrnediated Divine origin and the implied promise of ultimate good.81<\/sup> Were it not for the Divine revelation out of the whirlwind, Job would continue to insist on the justness of his cause.82<\/sup>
\nIt is unclear whether it is Job’s fate in particular which is unfathomable, or whether it is Job in particular who has no right to question his fate.83<\/sup> Our study will later posit that when religious man finds himself in a vortex of suffering, it is not the appropriate time to commence moral protestations. In contrast, when man demands justice for others, as in the case of Abraham vis-a-vis the inhabitants of Sodom, moral protestations are most in order. Our study will also offer an alternative explanation for the Jobian finale one which falls within the realm of “intelligibility,” as opposed to “unfathomability.”Proponents of Group I theodicies, in any event, might cite the Jobian finale in support of their theses, as well as the events (exclusive of the finale) of the Akedat Yitzchk<\/em> (Binding of Isaac) (Genesis 22: 1-1 0). However, the theodicy of “unfathomability” of the Jobian finale has been on the defensive through most of the Book of Job. It is, moreover, a theodicy which remains isolated from any rational structure, and is strongly contradicted by an impressive array of scriptural texts, prophets, and authoritative rabbinic theologians. (see below)<\/p>\n

Group I<\/em>. Finite man cannot comprehend infinite God’s ways:
\nCHALLENGE<\/strong><\/p>\n

The classic and possibly most commonly accepted theodicy is the finitelinfinite defense. Finite man cannot be expected to understand the ways of infinite God. A closely related defense is the “inscrutability of God” formulation, which implies that almost by definition man cannot understand God. Despite their widespread acceptance, both assertions require scrutiny.<\/p>\n

These theodicies are open to the charge that the moral character of God’s actions is compromised in order to preserve<\/p>\n

===================================
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d- NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d-<\/p>\n

80 <\/sup>See Maimonides, Guide<\/em> for the Perplexed<\/em>, chap. 22.<\/p>\n

81 <\/sup>Cf. Gordis, “The Temptation of Job,” in Glatzer, The Dimensions of Job<\/em><\/em>, p. 84. “Job’s triumph lies in the fact that God speaks to him and does not ignore him. The confrontation of God is Job’s vindication.”<\/p>\n

82 <\/sup>Cf. Greenberg, “Cloud of Smoke, Pillar of Fire,” p. 34. “Rather, what is meaningful in Job’s experience is that in the whirlwind the contact with God is restored. That sense of Presence gives the strength to go on living in the contradiction.”<\/p>\n

83 <\/sup>Cf. Glatzer, The Dimensions of Job<\/em><\/em>, p. 38. Kant believed that “Man’s intellect is subjective, finite, and therefore unable to know the unconditional, the infinite, the perfect-God.”<\/p>\n

~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 21<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5
\n6
\n7
\n8
\n9
\n10
\n11
\n12<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		20
\n21
\n22
\n23
\n24
\n25
\n26
\n27
\n28
\n29
\n30
\n31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 22<\/p>\n

\n

God’s ultimately unfathomable benevolence. “The moral connotation of goodness is supplanted by amoral metaphysical or amoral personalistic meanings.”84<\/sup>All the ingenuity spent on the solution of the problem of the theodicy will not convince us that evil is not real, that undeserved suffering is so only in appearance, that life does not abound in irrationality and meaningless destruction.85<\/sup><\/p>\n

We may grant that in sum total God’s ways are infinite, mysterious, beyond the full scope of the finite mind, or inscrutable. However, that still does not mean that in God’s interaction with man, comprehensibility is not in order, if indeed not implicit in a convenantal relationship.86 <\/sup>Serious religious thought, from Abraham onwards, has never been quite satisfied with the “inscrutability” defense of any form of worship, be it idol worship or child sacrificing, in any classic religious doctrine. For those who adopt the “finite\/infinite” defense take legitimate attributes of God infinitude and inscrutability and then take the most dangerous step of extending them into overriding grand philosophies. One would like to think that there is a firm distinction between serious religious philosophy and fanaticism.<\/p>\n

Thus, while there is an important place in religious doctrine for the “finite\/infinite” argument, in major areas of Divinehuman relationship the defense is far from sufficient as a basis for serious religious commitment. For if the doctrine’s major argument is “inscrutability,” a point arrives rather early where, although doctrinal validity may indeed exist, adherence to the Covenant cannot be mandated except on moral as opposed to intellectual grounds. Certainly, except for areas specifically delineated as pure ritual, Judaism, of all religions, should very carefully explore alternative approaches before yielding to the “inscrutability” defense in any area of religious doctrine, let alone regarding the fundamental interaction between God and man.<\/p>\n

===================================
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d- NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d-<\/p>\n

84 <\/sup>Schulweis, Evil and the Morality of God<\/em>, p. 9. Cf. ibid., p. 95. “Once a radical qualitative difference between human and divine moral qualities is admitted, moral anarchy is let loose. Mill’s objection is particularly pertinent to our discussion:
\n” ‘If I know nothing about what the [Divine] attribute is, I cannot tell that it is a proper object ofveneration. To say that God’s goodness may be different in kind from man’s goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good?’ ”<\/p>\n

85 <\/sup>Berkovits, God, Man and History,<\/em> p. 75.<\/p>\n

86 <\/sup>Cf. Steven Ely, The Religions Availability of Whitehead’s God,<\/em> as cited in Schulweis, Evil and the Morality of God<\/em>, p. 59. “It is no help for present ills to know that God sees them in such a way that they are valuable for him. That my ill has an ideal counterpart in God does not help me very much as long as I am on earth and God is in heaven.”<\/p>\n

~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 22<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5
\n6
\n7
\n8
\n9
\n10
\n11
\n12<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		20
\n21
\n22
\n23
\n24
\n25
\n26
\n27
\n28
\n29
\n30
\n31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 23<\/p>\n

\n

One may legitimately take the position that finite man cannot comprehend all the ways of infinite God. However, it is difficult for man to enter into a lifetime commitment to a religious system in which the incomprehensibility factor is paramount. The system adopted by one who is committed to uuahem nehege yomum ualaylu<\/em> (“and thou shalt study them day and night”) must have a fairly solid theological underpinning. Religious man had best, to the absolute limits of human possibility, try to discern the comprehensible aspects in man’s relation to his deity.One is advised to accept the existence of evil in God’s universe on the basis of a leap of faith, if the existing theodicies are found wanting. Yet leaps of faith are not easily introduced by Judaism. And leaps of faith, by definition, require faith in the leap. Judaism requires leaps of faith when not emotionally or intellectually infeasible. (see discussion below)<\/p>\n

Halakhic man the Jew committed to God’s law in this world is not an emotional acrobat. He is averse to emotional acrobatics. And in a leap of faith emotion is crucial. Thus a leap of faith regarding the seemingly intractable dilemma of God and evil may be appropriate for some religions, but is quite inappropriate for Halakhic man.<\/p>\n

Jewish doctrine is more prudent than most in its approach to leaps of faith, miracles, and prophets. It manifests a general wariness towards extending the supernatural into the mundane. The God of Israel is not seeking the fealty of the starryeyed who are prepared to charge up the hill on a nod from the local guru. While Judaism is permeated by the transcendent, it is still a religion of carefully delineated law. carefully grounded in Divine texts.<\/p>\n

It is a theology which seeks system and order wherever appropriate. It is averse to loose ends. Judaism has confidence that all doctrine is ultimately reconcilable; that all doctrine must be reconciled. And, notwithstanding the fact that all challenges are vigorously and meticulously parried, it is tacitly understood that the weak spots in its articulated philosophical structure must ultimately be resolved. If one cannot give an emotionally or intellectually coherent, satisfying answer to an eighteen-year-old, one has either failed somewhere or is erring somewhere.<\/p>\n

~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 23<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5
\n6
\n7
\n8
\n9
\n10
\n11
\n12<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		20
\n21
\n22
\n23
\n24
\n25
\n26
\n27
\n28
\n29
\n30
\n31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 24<\/p>\n

\n

Hayim Greenberg, in his article “In Dust and Ashes” (1940), stirringly presents the “finitehnfinite defense.” He asserts that if a “man of faith” cannot accept injustice and suffering, then he simply does not believe. He concludes: “. . . one who cannot praise God even as he sits in dust and ashes and has no explanation for his suffering, nor any sign from above such a person is in the final analysis, not a believer.”We differ from Greenberg’s line of reasoning. The witnessing of tragedy may lead to a questioning of one’s commitment. The issue is not necessarily a lack of sincerity, however, but the failure on the part of the religious establishment to reconcile man’s suffering with his inner yearning for genuine faith.<\/p>\n

Greenberg maintains: “Religious thought must once and for all renounce rationalist interpretation and justification of the ways of God. There exists no science of God and no way of studying His ways. Religious man . . . must learn from Job to believe without understanding, to trust without explanation.”87 <\/sup>Greenberg posits two types of man: (1) rationalist man, and (2) religious man.<\/p>\n

Greenberg, however, seems not to differentiate between religious man and fanatic man. He seems to disregard halachic man, whose religious expression and philosophy is couched in the language of reason. Judaism treads very cautiously before demanding blind faith in any area.<\/p>\n

Finite man may not be able to comprehend the infinite, but finite man can discern a logical assault on his senses. An internal logical dilemma is constructed by those positing a neo-Stoic Divine presiding over a world plagued by evil. Jewish law sanctifies life and is averse to the termination of the life of the suffering. Yet simultaneously, some mainstream elements in Orthodox theology postulate an omnipotent, all-benevolent God watching a million Jewish infants and five million adults being shot, starved, gassed, or burnt to death.88<\/sup><\/p>\n

Nachmanides (Ramban) addresses the adequacy of Group I (“finite\/infinite defense”) theodicies in his The Gate of Reward:<\/em><\/p>\n

===================================
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d- NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d-<\/p>\n

87 <\/sup>See Greenberg, “In Dust and Ashes,” in Glatzer, The Dimensions of Job<\/em>, pp. 222-224.<\/p>\n

88 <\/sup>Ani Ma’amin<\/em> (Jerusalem: Mosad Ha-Rav Kook, 1965), p. 206, as cited by Fackenheim, The Jewish Return into History<\/em>, p. 28 1. Judaism does not easily acquiesce to a seemingly immoral interaction between the Divine and man.<\/p>\n

~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 24<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5
\n6
\n7
\n8
\n9
\n10
\n11
\n12<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		20
\n21
\n22
\n23
\n24
\n25
\n26
\n27
\n28
\n29
\n30
\n31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 25<\/p>\n

\n

You may ask us the following question: Since there is a hidden element in [Divine] judgment . . . why then do you trouble us to learn the previously explained arguments [theodicies] . . . ? Why can we not thrust everything upon the belief [in the unfathomable], which we must ultimately rely on . . . ? This [answer of using the “unfathornability defense” alone and stopping there] is an argument of fools who despise wisdom.89<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

While Nachmanides does not reject the broader concept of the unfathomability of the Divine, he argues that chiyuv talmud Torah<\/em> (“the obligation to study Torah”) requires us to seek to fathom those aspects of God’s governance of the world which are attainable to the intellect.90<\/sup><\/p>\n

A theology should be clear as to (1) which of its components require leaps of faith, (2) which of its components flow from reason, and (3) which of its components flow from generally accepted fact.<\/p>\n

Regarding those components which require leaps of faith, theologians must be cautious. For whereas these can be stacked ever higher and higher, and “true believers” may be asked to take yet another leap, the theological balancing act appears increasingly more and more tenuous to the disinterested observer. The more tenuous a theological structure, the greater reliance a theological system will have to place on an emotional constituency, and the more likely it is to lose layer after layer of its more intellectual wing. In extreme cases a theological system can find itself bereft of “men of reason.”<\/p>\n

Just as there are thresholds of pain, there are “leap of faith” thresholds. These are highly personal and individual. Judaism, in particular, has always been hard on theological systems requiring great numbers of presuppositions.<\/p>\n

Group II. Man is punished for his sins, failings: EXPLICATION AND CHALLENGE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Theodicy Group II receives more emphasis in historical responses. It is the theodicy espoused by the “friends of Job.” This is the “fundamentalist view” that man’s suffering<\/p>\n

===================================
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d- NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d-<\/p>\n

89 <\/sup>Ramban, Gate of Reward<\/em>, chap. 6, Writings and Discourses<\/em>, vol. 2, p. 468.<\/p>\n

90 <\/sup>Ibid. “With the enlightenment we have attained we can benefit ourselves by becoming wise and knowing God, blessed be He, through His manner and deeds. Moreover, we will believe and trust in his faith-in both the hidden and known matters. . . .We will recognize the fairness of the [Divine] judgment and the fairness of the [Divine] decision. Thus it is the duty of every person who worships God out of love and fear to search his mind in order to justify the Divine decision and to substantiate the judgment as far as his ability allows.”<\/p>\n

~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 25<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5
\n6
\n7
\n8
\n9
\n10
\n11
\n12<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		20
\n21
\n22
\n23
\n24
\n25
\n26
\n27
\n28
\n29
\n30
\n31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 26<\/p>\n

\n

originates in sin.91<\/sup> Job’s friends attempt to defend an obvious wrong as justice. By doing so, they unintentionally degrade Job’s idea of God. But because of his faith, Job cannot accept a defense of God that implies an insult to the dignity of God.92<\/sup> Ultimately, Job’s innocence is vindicated, and the friends’ “fundamentalist response” repudiated, by the Divine.93<\/sup>We will address directly one Holocaust theodicy. This theodicy, popular in certain circles, proclaims that the Holocaust was a punishment for European Jewry’s transgressions, and explains the Holocaust as a modern-day version of the tochacha<\/em> (admonition of punishment) cited in the Torah portions of Bechukotai <\/em>(Leviticus 26) and Ki Tavo<\/em> (Deuteronomy 28).94<\/sup><\/p>\n

Theodicies of “punishment” are less prevalent in newer theological writings,95<\/sup> in parallel to the amplification of the (Literal) Written Law by the Oral Law. While there is an old tradition within Judaism that suffering man should examine his deeds, the same tradition admonishes man against pointing at another’s suffering as Divine punishment.<\/p>\n

The Divine harshly reproves the friends of Job, who have explained away Job’s suffering as punishment for sin.<\/p>\n

The Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite: “My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.”
\n-Job 42:7<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Divine, in the final chapter of Job, continues his reproach of the “friends,” who have defended God by rationalizing Job’s suffering as punishment.<\/p>\n

. . . and My servant Job shall pray for you; for it is only by dint of his [Job’s] sufferance of you that I have not done terrible things to you; for ye have not spoken of Me the thing that is right.
\n-Job 42:8<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Norman Lamm, in a blistering assault on the “Holocaust as punishment” theodicy, terms it “massively irrelevant, impudent,<\/p>\n

===================================
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d- NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d-<\/p>\n

91 <\/sup>Interestingly enough, the Buddhist response to suffering bears a parallelism to mainstream rabbinic thought. See Kyokai, The Teaching of Buddha <\/em>(Tokyo: Kosaido Printing Co., 1966), p. 84. “But if one carefully considers all the facts, one must be convinced that at the basis of all suffering lies the principle of craving desire. If avarice can be removed, human suffering will come to an end.”<\/p>\n

92 <\/sup>Berkovits, Faith After the Holocaust,<\/em> p. 68.<\/p>\n

93 <\/sup>See Glatzer, The Dimensions of Job<\/em>, p. 287. “The aim of the Book of Job was to refute certain notions of retribution, of suffering as punishment.”<\/p>\n

94 <\/sup>See also the articles by Eliyahu Dessler (p. 26), Yitzchak Hutner (p. 39), and Mordechai Gifter (p. 56) reprinted in Wolpin, A Path Through the Ashes<\/em>. All three view the Holocaust as tochacha<\/em> (punishment). See Gifter, in particular: “The Churban should thus become a source of inspiration and encouragement for us. We are assured that we do have a Father in Heaven who cares for us and is concerned enough with our spiritual status to demonstrate His disfavor” (p. 59).
\nWe are left numbed by the reasoning and can only comment that great minds sometimes make great mistakes.<\/p>\n

95 <\/sup>Montefiore and Loewe, in A Rabbinic Anthology<\/em>, p. 541, refer to this theodicy thrust as “The old view, now far off, and obsolete.”
\nCf. T. B. Berachot 16.<\/p>\n

~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 26<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5
\n6
\n7
\n8
\n9
\n10
\n11
\n12<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		20
\n21
\n22
\n23
\n24
\n25
\n26
\n27
\n28
\n29
\n30
\n31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 27<\/p>\n

\n

and insensitive.”96<\/sup> He notes that whoever advocates this theodicy “risks violating a most heinous sin of his own \u00e2\u20ac\u201dthat of tsidduk ha-din<\/em>” \u00e2\u20ac\u201dattempting to justify Israel’s travail as particular punishment.97<\/sup><\/p>\n

Fackenheim articulates the fatal flaw in simplistic “suffering is punishment” theodicies:<\/p>\n

[Fundamentalist] Biblical faith originates as a myth which takes good fortune to be sufficient proof of righteousness, and ill fortune to be sufficient proof of sin. Good fortune is proof of God’s mercy and love; ill fortune merely proves that His ways are not our ways. For [fundamentalist] Biblical faith, in short, it is “heads-I-win-and-tails-you-lose”: its God has acquired the logical peculiarity that empirical evidence may confirm Him but that it is systematically unable to falsify Him.98<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is, of course, not biblical faith per se<\/em> which leads us into this logical conundrum; It is, rather, a misformulation of Jewish theology.<\/p>\n

Group III.<\/em> Hester Panim: EXPLICATION AND CHALLENGE<\/strong><\/p>\n

The third group of theodicies is also that of Job in his complaint and protest. It is the view of a God who contracts His providence by a Hester Panim<\/em> (Hiding of the Face).<\/p>\n

In subsequent chapters, starting in Section 900 of our Unified Formulation, we devote considerable attention to this line of approach. The subject will be covered in depth in that section and subsequently.<\/p>\n

As indicated, Hester Panim<\/em> is not employed as a response to the general theodicy dilemma. Rather, it is generally applied by its protagonists to specific historical periods, e.g., the Holocaust. At the same time, while some respected thinkers believe that the Divine has been in a state of Hiding since the destruction of the Temple, this concept has not been fully developed into a theodicy.<\/p>\n

===================================
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d- NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d-<\/p>\n

96 <\/sup>Lamm, The Face of God,<\/em> sec. 2.<\/p>\n

97 <\/sup>Cf. Borowitz, Choices in modern Jewish Thought,<\/em> p. 194. “That the Nazis’ bestiality was just compensation for Jewish sins; that God must allow such evils so as to preserve human freedom; that it taught a valuable lesson to the world; that God tests our faith; that God has compensated the Jews for their suffering by giving them the State of Israel; or that the Holocaust brutality can be expunged by the bliss of the world-to-come, are all morally unbearable notions. No God who did such things would be worth worshipping. Further, to take refuge in traditional humility and say that God’s ways are infinitely beyond us, is an utter abdication of our human judgment and of the victims’ human dignity.”<\/p>\n

98 <\/sup>Fackenheim, God’s Presence in History,<\/em> p. 39.<\/p>\n

~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 27<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5
\n6
\n7
\n8
\n9
\n10
\n11
\n12<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		20
\n21
\n22
\n23
\n24
\n25
\n26
\n27
\n28
\n29
\n30
\n31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 28<\/p>\n

\n

Group IV.<\/em> Other mainstream traditional responses:
\nEXPLICATION AND CHALLENGE<\/strong> <\/strong><\/p>\n

A common cord running through much of the balance of theodicies is that suffering “chastens” man or “challenges” man. In the Book of Job, Elihu stresses the idea that suffering frequently serves as a source of moral discipline.99<\/sup> Elihu maintains that by inflicting suffering, God chastens man.100<\/sup><\/p>\n

Variations and permutations of this theme appear through- out Jewish philosophy. However, this approach essentially con- cedes the major point: there is indeed such a phenomenon as undeserved suffering. Thus, it denies the correlation of suffering to sin of Theodicy Group 11. Some combine the two concepts. When suffering is not due to sin, it serves the purpose of chastisement. Thus, they “cover all bases,” with man remaining God’s unfortunate target in a no-win world.101<\/sup><\/p>\n

Another theme is that while God is perfect, the universe as a whole is not. This argument runs as follows: Religion must have the courage to face the facts; it must reject the dogmatic affirmations of religious thinkers through the ages that the universe is perfect, since only a perfect creation could have issued from an omnipotent and perfect Creator. It suggests that it is the worst form of anthropomorphism to assert that an omnipotent and omniscient God would only be responsible for an immaculate universe. It merely states what man, imagining himself almighty and all-wise, would do. God alone should be assumed to be perfect. Perfection, according to this theme, is identical with God; it cannot exist outside Him. But creation is separate from the Creator. The world is apart from God; it is, therefore, of necessity, imperfect. 102<\/sup><\/p>\n

Significant support for this approach can be gleaned from various elements of kabbalistic literature. The motif of the “breaking of the vessels,” with all of its variations and permutations, plays a major role in Lurianic Kabbalah.103 <\/sup>The universe did not end up perfect.<\/p>\n

The story of the “blasphemous” tailor presents the theme in Jewish folklore. When the rabbi reproached the tailor for<\/p>\n

===================================
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d- NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d-<\/p>\n

99 <\/sup>Cf. Gordis, The Book of God and Man<\/em>,<\/em> p. 145. ” ‘Yet he bore the sin of many’ [Isaiah 52: 13, 55:3. 4, 5, 121. . . . Thus for the first time, the prophet affirmed the possibility of national suffering that was not the consequence of national sin, but on the contrary, a tragic, yet indispensable element in the process of the moral education of the race. For the first time the nexus between suffering and sin is severed.”<\/p>\n

100 <\/sup>Cf. Luzzatto, The Way of God<\/em>, p. 101. “God gave suffering the power to dispel the insensitivity in man, allowing him to become pure and clear, prepared for the ultimate good at its appointed time.”<\/p>\n

101 <\/sup>See Cohen, The Trernendum,<\/em> p. 51.<\/p>\n

102 <\/sup>Berkovits, God, Man and History,<\/em> pp. 75-76.<\/p>\n

103 <\/sup>See Encyclopaedia Judaica<\/em>, vol. 10, col. 594.<\/p>\n

~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 28<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5
\n6
\n7
\n8
\n9
\n10
\n11
\n12<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		20
\n21
\n22
\n23
\n24
\n25
\n26
\n27
\n28
\n29
\n30
\n31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 29<\/p>\n

\n

taking six weeks to make a pair of trousers, while it took God no more than six days to create the entire world, the tailor parried. “Yes Rabbi,” he said “but just see what a world created in a hurry looks like104<\/sup>The question for those subscribing to the theodicy of an imperfect world reigned over by a perfect Divine is: Why does omnipotent God not intervene in this imperfectly crafted world?105<\/sup> Did God not show the inclination and power to do so in biblical times?106<\/sup><\/p>\n

One response is the Maimonidean theory of evil and Providence.<\/p>\n

If a man frees his thoughts from worldly matters, obtains knowledge of God in the right way, and rejoices in that knowledge, it is impossible that any kind of evil should befall him while he is with God. and God with him. When he does not meditate on God. when he is separated from God, then God is also separated from him; then he is exposed to any evil that might befall him; for it is only that intellectual link with God that secures the presence of Providence and protection from evil accident.107<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Stitskin elaborates:
\nIn this light Maimonides interprets the Book of Job. The bible describes Job as a good, virtuous man, fearful of God when tragedy befell him. But the text does not say that he was an intelligent, wise or clever man. It was only after he had attained a measure of enlightenment, wisdom and the realization that man’s highest good lies in an intellectual fellowship with God that his affliction came to an end. In the ultimate situation, when man’s encounter is rooted in an intellectual fellowship with God- in-Essence, he is finally relieved of all the accidents of time and space.108<\/sup><\/p>\n

Maimonides’ views in this area are paralleled in Ibn Daud’s \tEmunah Ramah.<\/em>109<\/sup><\/p>\n

Another response often encountered is that the need to maintain man’s free will precludes the possibility of Divine intervention. We deal with this theme in the following section.<\/p>\n

===================================
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d- NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d-<\/p>\n

104 <\/sup>Glatzer, The Dimensions of Job<\/em>, p. 221.<\/p>\n

105 <\/sup>See Schulweis, “Suffering and Evil,” p. 215.<\/p>\n

106 <\/sup>See Schulweis, Evil and the Morality of God,<\/em> p. 138.<\/p>\n

107 <\/sup>Maimonides, Guide<\/em><\/em> 3:5.<\/p>\n

108 <\/sup>Stitskin, Eight Jewish Philosophers<\/em>, <\/em>p. 164.<\/p>\n

109 <\/sup>See Ibn Daud, Emunah Ramah,<\/em> pt. 2, Basic Principle 6, chap. 2, cited in Bleich, With Perfect Faith,<\/em> p. 424. “. . . he who entrusts his spirit into the hand of God is supervised, since he tries to enter into the section of the notable substances, and the notable substances have supervision over existents in this world in general and over the human species in particular. Behold in all respects [the human species] is singled out by providence in great measure because of its diligence to entrust its spirit with Him. As we have said, ‘If one comes to cleanse himself he is helped.’ ”<\/p>\n

~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 29<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5
\n6
\n7
\n8
\n9
\n10
\n11
\n12<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		20
\n21
\n22
\n23
\n24
\n25
\n26
\n27
\n28
\n29
\n30
\n31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 30<\/p>\n

\n

Group V.<\/em> Freedom: EXPLICATION AND CHALLENGE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Man’s freedom, in and of itself, is deemed of surpassing importance. The God of Mercy is limited by the God of Freedom.<\/p>\n

Questions this approach raise are as follows: Why did God clearly intervene in Biblical times but no longer? How, indeed, can the rahamim<\/em> (mercy) face of God be so totally eclipsed by the freedom face? What is so absolutely crucial about freedom from even Divine deliverance from harm? Of what value is the Covenant if God withholds His saving hand? Of what value is freedom if the price is a Holocaust? Granted that man must be free (to commit “moral evil,” among other things), why could “natural evil” not have been eliminated? Why can’t man’s freedom assert itself within bounds of lesser evil? Of what worth is freedom if so much evil befalls innocent bystanders who become hostages to the moral choices of others?<\/p>\n

Group VI.<\/em> Kabbalistic responses<\/strong><\/p>\n

This group employs the motifs of “dualities,” tsimtsum,<\/em> and “breaking of the vessels”110<\/sup> as major elements in creation, imperfection, and evil. These extremely complex, image-laden, and elusive concepts fall beyond the bounds of this study, as they do not lend themselves to brief encapsulization. Nevertheless, a few kabbalistic concepts will be employed in our eventual formulation along with elements of Hester Panim and the Freedom arguments.<\/p>\n

Group VII.<\/em> <\/em>There currently is no answer.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The group of responses which posits that we currently have no answer to the problem has been one of the most popular responses, albeit not solutions, to date. By its nature it does not exactly lend itself to extensive analysis.<\/p>\n

Naturally, we pay a price for this response. Can one adhere to a theology which does not provide a solution to a fundamental problem?<\/p>\n

===================================
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d- NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d-<\/p>\n

110 <\/sup>The motif of the “breaking of the vessels” is more specifically associ- ated with Lurianic Kabbalah. There is considerable divergence among the elucidators of Isaac Luria’s teachings as to his precise intent in many crucial matters, including this one. Luria’s noted explicators Vital and Tishby provide various insights into the theme of the “breaking of the vessels.” These explanations include the philosophically daring one that this “breaking,” which is positioned as the direct source of evil on earth, was due to a Divine miscalculation. See articles in Encyclopaedia Judaica<\/em> on Kabbalah and on Luria, as well as Scholem’s chapter (7) on Lurianic Kabbalah in Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism.<\/em> [Vital was Luria’s foremost disciple, while Tishby is a contemporary scholar, who uses the methodology of critical scholarship.]<\/p>\n

~continued~
\n<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 30<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5
\n6
\n7
\n8
\n9
\n10
\n11
\n12<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		20
\n21
\n22
\n23
\n24
\n25
\n26
\n27
\n28
\n29
\n30
\n31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n

hard cover page 31<\/p>\n

A variation on this theme is the response that posits a “dynamic tension” existing between the Jew’s faith in God and the searing problem of evil, the Jew maintaining both simultaneosly.111<\/sup><\/p>\n

The early Hasidic master Levi Yitzhak of Berdiczev once interrupted the sacred Yom Kippur service in order to protest that, whereas kings of flesh and blood protected their peoples, Israel was not protected by her King in heaven. Having made his protest, he recited the Kaddish, which begins with these words: “Extolled and hallowed be the name of God throughout the world.”112 <\/sup>The Jew has found it possible to simultaneously protest and praise.<\/p>\n

Often the religious response will take the following form: One or more of the theodicies noted above will be cited, possibly in hybrid form, and the inquirer will be advised that any logical or emotional gaps must be bridged by “faith in God.” This response claims to provide an intellectual solution to the problem of theodicy, but in reality is effectively hinged on the “faith in God” defense. A thousand partial intellectual responses still do not equal one complete intellectual response. A panoply of partial solutions do not add up to one satisfying solution. In this case the whole is less than the sum of its parts. And bridging the shortcomings of a rational and reasoned response with “faith in God” is in reality dependent entirely on “faith.” And after all, “is not faith what religion is all about?” Yes, and no. Yes, for Western religion must ultimately rest on at least one leap of faith; but no. blind faith is not the end-all of religion, particularly Judaism.<\/p>\n

===================================
\n\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d- NOTES \u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u201d-<\/p>\n

111 <\/sup>See also Greenberg, “Cloud of Smoke, Pillar of Fire.”<\/p>\n

112 <\/sup>Fackenheim, God’s Presence in History, p. 76.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
CONVERSION TABLE for this multi-page unit<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
you are currently on hard cover p. 31
\n<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< BACK<\/a><\/td>\n<\/td>\nNEXT PAGE><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\t\t\t\tPages pointer<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/td>\nhard cover page<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1
\n2
\n3
\n4
\n5
\n6
\n7
\n8
\n9
\n10
\n11
\n12<\/td>\n		>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n><\/td>\n		20
\n21
\n22
\n23
\n24
\n25
\n26
\n27
\n28
\n29
\n30
\n31<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

hard cover page 20 The very fact that well over twenty major theodicies appear in various forms throughout Jewish literature reflects great dissatisfaction with any one existing theodicy. Our purpose, however, is not to critique all theodicies that have been previously suggested. We simply state that we personally do not find any given theodicy or […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"parent":28,"menu_order":120,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":[],"yoast_head":"\n30.02 Elaboration (pps.20-31) - David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/\" \/>\n<link rel=\"next\" href=\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"30.02 Elaboration (pps.20-31) - David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"hard cover page 20 The very fact that well over twenty major theodicies appear in various forms throughout Jewish literature reflects great dissatisfaction with any one existing theodicy. Our purpose, however, is not to critique all theodicies that have been previously suggested. We simply state that we personally do not find any given theodicy or […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-23T16:28:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/\",\"name\":\"David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/\",\"name\":\"30.02 Elaboration (pps.20-31) - David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-10-05T15:14:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-23T16:28:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"30.00 THEODICY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION (pps.16-31)\"}]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"30.02 Elaboration (pps.20-31) - David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/","next":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/2\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"30.02 Elaboration (pps.20-31) - David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I","og_description":"hard cover page 20 The very fact that well over twenty major theodicies appear in various forms throughout Jewish literature reflects great dissatisfaction with any one existing theodicy. Our purpose, however, is not to critique all theodicies that have been previously suggested. We simply state that we personally do not find any given theodicy or […]","og_url":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/","og_site_name":"David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I","article_modified_time":"2018-04-23T16:28:22+00:00","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/","name":"David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/","name":"30.02 Elaboration (pps.20-31) - David Birnbaum Summa Metaphysica I","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-10-05T15:14:57+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-23T16:28:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/3000-theodicy-in-the-jewish-tradition\/3002-elaboration\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"30.00 THEODICY IN THE JEWISH TRADITION (pps.16-31)"}]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/30"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/30\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":204,"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/30\/revisions\/204"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/28"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.summametaphysica.com\/ge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}