Presence

Out of the Whirlwind

The Thematic Halacha is what we think of as Machshava (Jewish Thought). In this sphere, we have the traditional theodicy (justification of God's ways). Evil is not really evil. If only we could see the world from God's perspective, we would understand how the needless suffering and senseless destruction in the world all serve a purpose. The Thematic Halacha also takes the approach that all suffering is justified, in response to a man's action. "There is no death without sin, no suffering without transgression."

The Topical Halacha, which, I think, would associate most similarly to the Halacha that we think of, i.e. Jewish Law, takes a completely different view on Evil. Evil is real, it does not make sense. Don't spend your time coming up with reasons for it or justifing it. Fight it in any way that you can. A close look at the laws of mourning reveal that this is indeed the attitude that is taken; Evil is treated with respect, not explained away as illusory.

The Rav's opinion, according to Dr. Shatz, is that Judaism, while containing traditions attributable to both ways of understanding, strongly favors the latter. Our role as Jews is to eradicate Evil, not justify it. Although Dr. Shatz didn't mention it, I was drawing connections to confronted vs. non-confronted Man (which the Rav discusses in Kol Dodi Dofek). Suffice it to say, there is a lot more to say on this subject; I'm ordering the book to get the full version of the essay along with whatever other materials it contains.

I asked Dr. Shatz if there is any precedent for this kind of approach, either in philosophy or theology. I'm not sure I phrased my question very well (I asked if the division between theodicy and response appears elsewhere; I was really only interested in the idea of response), but his reply was that he wasn't sure. Not that I've read that much, but I think this is a novel approach to the Problem of Evil. The trend in contemporary Judaism is to either multiply the number of rational explanations for Evil to the point where the individual is unable to deduce a single causal explanation, getting them nowhere (this would be the haredi approach) or to limit in some God's power, thereby making room for Evil (this would be Harold Kushner, et. al.). I've yet to really delve into Emil Fackenheim's work on Tikkun Olam, but from my basic understanding, his approach is somewhat similar in that he refuses to assimilate or justify the Holocaust. Fackenheim's idea of Tikkun Olam (fixing the world) becomes compulsory because of the suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust. Tikkun Olam is a direct response to Evil. I think Fackenheim takes this elsewhere, however. Also similar in concept are the ideas of Emmanuel Levinas, whose philosophy basically states, "ethics precedes ontology," or that the ethical response precedes the rational one. Evil would require an ethical response first, followed, if at all, by a rational one.

I found this so intriguing because it fits with how I have come to understand this problem philosophically (I refer you to one of my earlier posts, The Only Question). There are differences between my ideas and the Rav's (rightly so, as the Rav was a Talmud Chacham of incomparable brilliance and a first-rate philosopher; I'm more of a hack), which I would like to explore further, but it gave me great support to see some of my thoughts in someone else's words (this is not what I was referring to in the previous post about others beating me to the punch with brilliant ideas; that was something else).

To delve a bit deeper into the differences (big, big lehavdil here), the Rav posits the Thematic and Topical halacha as separate entities. There would be no change in the treatment or conceptualization of Evil depending on the context (for example, at a time when God's Presence is immanent). A Presence based explanation, however, shifts the focus on Evil as God's Presence becomes manifest. The ethical response is mandated, but the theodicy becomes more real as God becomes more present. I have to think about this more. Re-reading what I wrote, it appears that what I am proposing would be that the Thematic approach is an ideal, the Topical a means to that ideal.

Either way, I think the ethical response to Evil is a product of modernity. Only in a world where God's Presence is so intangible to the senses, where our understanding of the world has shifted so far away from the religious to the mechanistic, could this approach become possible.