With regards to suffering versus happiness Friedrich Nietzsche wrote “...where they find suffering, they immediately look for someone to blame, and end up hating themselves, or generalize that into a hatred of ‘human nature’. They look for ‘peace of mind’...They confuse cause and effect, thinking that the connection between virtue and happiness is that the former leads to the latter, whereas in fact the reverse is the case.” (17) In ‘Beyond Good and Evil’, he writes: “ The discipline of suffering, of great suffering - do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far? That it is the tension of the soul in unhappiness which cultivates its strengths, its shudders face to face with great ruin, its inventiveness and courage in enduring, persevering, interpreting and exploiting suffering and whatever has been granted to it of profundity, secret, mask, spirit, cunning, greatness - was it not granted to it through suffering, through the discipline of great suffering? In man creature and creator are united... Do you not understand this contrast? And that your pity is for the “creature in man”, for what must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, and purified - that which necessarily man and should suffer?... But to say it once more: there are higher problems than all problems of pleasure, pain, and pity; and every philosophy that stops with them is naive.” (Sect. 225) The answer in this case seems to be that suffering is a completely irrelevant state of mind, that virtue or lack thereof has nothing to do with it, and that it is necessary for life.
Even in the Tanakh you find contradicting answers. In the early books it states that punishment and reward are based on your ancestors. If your ancestors did many evil deeds you will be held accountable regardless of whether or not you are a good person. The Jewish prophet Ezekiel taught that God holds you accountable only for your own actions (Ez. 18). Yet later in Job, a man goes through seemingly endless suffering for apparently no reason.
“One answer is that the sufferings of Israel provide a vicarious atonement for all the peoples of the world... another is: ‘sufferings of love’ because God loves Israel and trusts in their faith.”(Wylen 49). A story supporting this theory is that of Rabbi Ishmael. While being tortured by the Romans, he cried out for justice and was silenced when he heard the voice of God say that if he insisted on justice for himself, the whole created world would have to end.
In the 2nd century a theory evolved stating that evildoers must receive reward for their few good deeds while on earth and be judged upon death, while the righteous suffer for their few sins in this life and are rewarded in the next.
Around the middle ages the Greek philosopher Maimonides believed everything is simply cause and effect. He classifies all suffering into 4 categories:
1) Improper Living. One cannot complain of ill health if he eats and drinks too much.
2) Free Will. What people do to each other; one cannot expect God to intervene to prevent evil things. To do so would obviate the freedom of moral choice that God has granted to humankind.
3)Mortal Nature. We are human, we must die. It is neither punishment nor reward.
4) Sin. Punishment for our misdeeds by God. (But Maimonides believed this rare and most human misfortune derives from the 1st three causes) (Maimonides 54).
These answers seemed to be relatively acceptable in one form or another until one of the most horrific events in history: The Holocaust. After the Holocaust, Jews, Jewish leaders, and gentiles alike, no longer found past explanations acceptable. In fact, most believe that while we must find a new answer, there isn’t one. And that whatever hypothesis arrive will still be inadequate.
A ‘brit’ is a covenant between God and man. There have been many throughout history, and seemingly by coincidence there have been great tragedies that befall the Jews after one has been broken. But some believe these are consequences, not coincidences.
The first ‘brit’ was made with Adam in the garden of Eden. God told Adam that he would have immortality and all that he needed would be provided for him as long as he didn’t eat the forbidden fruit. Eve ate the fruit, and Adam followed suit. As a result they were both banished from Eden.
God then established a new ‘brit’. Adam was to work for what he needed and live in harmony with God’s creation. As long as he adhered to this, mankind would continue to grow and live through birth. But Adam’s son Cain killed his brother Abel, the world continued to live immorally and break God’s commandments. So God commanded a man named Noah to build an Ark, and to put his family and two of every animal on board. The rest of creation was destroyed by a flood.
Upon reaching dry land, God showed Noah a rainbow and promised never again to destroy the earth. He gave Noah 7 laws that he and his people (including gentiles) were to live by. Once again, the mass of humanity broke this ‘brit’. So God took one righteous man, Abraham, and said he was to establish a new society to lead the world to redemption. He told Abraham to have all males circumcised on the 8th day after birth. God later gave his descendants the ‘Ten Commandments’. He said that as long as they followed these, he would protect and provide for them as his ‘chosen people’. Since this covenant was made with all of Israel, all of Israel was expected to follow it. “An individual Jew cannot fulfill the Torah on his own....Hillel taught the maxim, ‘Do not separate yourself from the community!’” (Wylen 56).
Over time this covenant has been observed less and less. Since the French and American revolutions, Jewish law has ceased to be enforceable by leaders of the community. Observance has become voluntary. American law forbids the legal recognition of communities based on faith and only ½ of all American Jews belong to a synagogue. (Goldman 249). And after generations of Communist rule in Russia and eastern Europe, few Jews in these countries knew how to be Jewish in any active sense. So obviously this brit like so many others has been broken. Could the holocaust have been the corresponding consequence? It seems like a stretch considering the horrific nature of the holocaust, but then again look at the flood. It didn’t only kill millions of Jews, it destroyed the entire world. So it’s not unreasonable to make this connection. This answer may not satisfy the questioning minds of man, but at least it has basis and evidence to support it, rather than the many previous hypothesis’ by philosophers based simply on personal opinion.
The question now is what is the purpose in having an answer? To ease the minds of man, to prevent future catastrophies, or is it to simply to sustain man’s faith in God? In his book ‘Survival in Auschwitz’, Primo Levi writes: “Could it (the holocaust) happen again? Not in Europe, for reasons of immunity; Some kind of immunization must exist. It is difficult to think that in a few decades, 50, 100 years, another Nazism may be reborn in Germany, another Fascism in Italy... But the world is much bigger than Europe. I also think that there are countries in which there would be the desire, but not the means. The idea is not dead. Nothing ever dies. Everything arises anew.”(181). So if the goal in finding an answer was to provide a tangible reason behind Jewish suffering, this could be it. But if the goal is to prevent future events, no answer will ever be sufficient.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Works Cited:
Being Jewish by Ari L. Goldman
Ethical Writings of Maimonides by Maimonides
Settings of Silver by Stephen M. Wylen
Tanakh - JPS Hebrew-English
Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche
The Portable Nietzsche by Friedrich Nietzsche (Editor),
Walter Kaufmann (Translator)
