Conference taveng::bagels

1.  Halacha [literally, "the way", from the root meaning "to walk"] refers
    to Jewish law.  Agada [from the root meaning "to tell"] consists of 
    homiletical stories.

2.  The notion of Satan as an incarnation of evil is not central to Jewish
    thought; it is more along the lines of Agada.  There is a philosophical 
    view underlying the quotes cited:  human nature is ambivalent, with
    innate tendencies to good and evil, side by side.  We are constantly
    making choices as to which of our tendencies and drives we follow at
    any given moment or opportunity.  This view is the foundation for
    Jewish understanding of good vs. evil.

3.  Rabbi Heschel is regarded by many as one of the fundamental Jewish
    philosophers of the modern time.  He belonged to the Conservative
    movement, and I cannot comment on how he is viewed from within other
    branches of Judaism.  I consider him to be right in the mainstream of
    Jewish thought.  An interesting thing to note is that he was
    an outspoken leader in the civil rights movement in the '50's and '60's.

re .1
>    The notion of Satan as an incarnation of evil is not central to Jewish
>    thought; it is more along the lines of Agada.  There is a philosophical 
>    view underlying the quotes cited:  human nature is ambivalent, with
>    innate tendencies to good and evil, side by side.  We are constantly
>    making choices as to which of our tendencies and drives we follow at
>    any given moment or opportunity.  This view is the foundation for
>    Jewish understanding of good vs. evil.

My only quibble with this is that in the mystical tradition Satan (and
the "forces of evil" or "of the other side" generally) are not
rationalized and ethicized away as you would have it, but do enjoy
some sort of existence outside the human conscience. This may or may not
be viewed today as a "central" Jewish tradition, given our myopic view
about what is "central" (viz. those traditions which do least violence
to a modern, rationalistic and moralistic religious viewpoint). I am
sure that students of Kabbalah would very much disagree with the
idea that Satan is "nothing but" the "yetser hara" (evil inclination)
that speaks from within every human breast. It is that plus much more,
according to Jewish mysticism.

Of course quite another matter is the BIBLICAL view of Satan, which
really means the viewpoint implicit in the book of Job (and a few
brief references elsewhere in the prophets). Satan is there depicted as
one of God's many messengers or angels... nothing special and
without any special powers. But that is a story unto itself.

About Heschel:

>    I cannot comment on how he is viewed from within other
>    branches of Judaism.

Unfortunately I do not believe that most Orthodox thinkers hold him
in high regard, because of his affiliation with the Jewish Theological
Seminar (the Conservative rabbinical seminary), not because of his
writings, which are indeed, as you note, pretty mainstream. Too bad,
because he really is (was) quite inspiring a person and thinker.

BTW is it true that he is descended from the very illustrious
Hassidic Rebbe of the same name?


-Zaitch

Re: .2:

I view Jewish mysticism as a branch of Agada around which a rich philosophical
structure has been developed and elaborated.  Whether or not it constitutes 
"central" Jewish tradition is open to debate.  The points I raised in .1 
[about the ambivalence of human nature and how Satan is relegated to the area
of folklore] spell out a fundamental difference between Jewish and Christian 
theology regarding the notions of Satan and of good and evil.  I believe that
was what the base topic addressed.

> BTW is it true that [Heschel] is descended from the very illustrious
> Hassidic Rebbe of the same name?

Yes.  He comes from a long line of prominent rabbis.  His family tree
is traced (along with many others) in the book _The Unbroken Chain_ by
Neil Rosenstein.

    The Jewish conception of evil has always been quite straightforward: evil
is a privation. That is, evil is not a thing or a force; rather it is the lack
of a thing or of a force. A long discussion of evil from this point of view 
can be found in Maimonedes' "Guide for the Perplexed", available from Dover
books.
    The "Guide for the Perplexed" is still considered a rather heterodox work,
and Maimonedes was certainly a representative of the rationalist school within
Judaism, but Jewish mysticism has always subscribed to the orthodox view of
evil. The major doctrines of Jewish mysticism are concerned precisely with
the question of evil viewed as negation - evil enters the world as the Creator
withdraws to make room for His creation. Some people say that these ideas
enter western philosophy with Spinoza. Being neither an expert in Kabahllah
nor in Spinoza, I have no opinion on this subject.
    As an aside, we can compare this attitude with Plato. Its a common
modern practice (very popular in England since Matthew Arnold) to contrast
Hellene and Hebrew, Athens and Jerusalem (and, of course, to present oneself
as the synthesis of both). This practice forgets that Hellene and Hebrew
lived at the same time in more or less the same place. Plato, in the Timeaus,
presents evil as non-existence, "existence is better than non-existence".
Tanach presents the opposition as between Life and Death. Life is the
definition of good. Lack of life is the definition of bad. G-d is the king
who delights in life.
    Evil as privation is a necessary consequence of Jewish monotheism. If
evil exists, either G-d is responsible for it, or something exists which is
independent of the divine will. Neither alternative is acceptable, so the 
conclusion is that evil does not exist, or more accurately, that evil is 
non-existence. This, by the way, is the reason that popular Christianity 
(please note the qualifier), is almost never a monotheism. It's because Satan 
is a god. He's a secondary god, a derivative god, a created and subordinate 
god; but he's a god all the same.

    Re: < Note 639.5 by NAC::RUBY >

                                
    >is the reason that popular Christianity 
    >(please note the qualifier), is almost never a monotheism. It's because Satan 
    >is a god. He's a secondary god, a derivative god, a created and subordinate 
    >god; but he's a god all the same.
    
     This is quite an interesting thought. I never quite looked at it
     from this perspective. I can see where one outside of Christianity
     would have this view. Were I in your shoes, I might see it the
     same way.
    
     However, being inside the religion, and being quite intimately
     and deeply involved in the spiritual dynamics and understanding
     of the faith, I'd have to say that appearances can be deceiving.
     While Satan is real in Christianity [as Heschel also says is true
     in Judaism], he is nowhere worshiped or regarded as a 'god'. He
     is in the very strongest sense of the word a spiritual adversary,
     resulting from his fall from heaven as a consequence of prideful
     ambition to become as G-d, who is now always seeking to separate
     others from G-d. I would say that Job's experience is one of the
     clearest and finest illustrations with which we both would be
     familiar.
     
    However, on a philosphical level, I can relate to your statement
    of evil being the lack of a thing or of a force. 
    
    Thanks for that perspective.
    
    Irena
        

    I am very intrigued by the "philosophy of evil" given in -.2,
    that  evil  is  non-existence  and  that  this is a necessary
    consequence  of  belief  in  one good G-d. 

    Is this,  then, the Jewish answer to the problem of theodicy?
    Theodicy,  simply  put,  is the question of how can a loving,
    omnipotent,  omniscient  G-d  permit  the  suffering  of good
    people  in  the  world.  I  know this is a central concern in
    Jewish  thinking,  especially  in  light  of  the cataclysmic
    events  inflicted upon the Jewish people in this century, not
    to mention the entire previous history of persecution, exile,
    and diaspora.

    Could someone direct me to good references of Jewish thinkers
    (Rabbis,  theologians,  philosophers, writers) that deal with
    this topic explicitly?  Thanks ahead.

    One question,  though, about the non-existence view. It seems
    to  make  G-d a very remote and aloof Being, far removed from
    the  affairs  of  people.  He must "withdraw from creation to
    make room for it," and sort of let it go off by itself like a
    wound  clock.  On  the other hand, The G-d of the Bible, as I
    can see it, is very much involved and concerned with the life
    of  His people. According to the biblical record, He acted in
    history through feats of miracles and deliverance (the Exodus
    and  Conquest,  for  example).  Not only that, He also showed
    Himself  to  be an intimate G-d with certain individuals. The
    Psalms  of  David  are  a beautiful testimony of that sort of
    close relationship.

    As I  understand  it,  this  presentation  of  G-d  is  quite
    different  from the "hands-off" totally transcendent G-d that
    seems  to  be  prevalent  in  much  of  modern  thinking. I'm
    wondering  what  others  in  this conference think about this
    discrepancy that I see.

Morgan

    RE: 639.7

    Some writers (e.g. Harold Kushner, _When Bad Things Happen to Good
    People_) have suggested that some of the problem is a result of the way
    we define God.  We assume omniscience and omnipotence, but that is not
    a logical requirement for God.  Why must it follow that a God that can
    create, must necessarily have full control of the created?  Kushner
    (who is not the first to suggest this answer) feels that it is more
    reassuring to assume a God who is not all-powerful and all-knowing than
    to assume one who is and does not intervene to prevent evil.

    Aaron

    I've seen the following proposed "solutions" to the problem of evil:
    
    1.	There are multiple gods and they are in conflict
    	(polytheism from duality (Zoroastrianism) to N (Hinduism)),
    
    2.	God is not all powerful (see .8, or Plato's demiurge),
    
    3.	God is evil (a hard one to take--by whose definition?),
    
    4.	(A combination of 1 and 3): The universe is a creation
    	of the "bad" god (heresy of the Bogomils),
    
    5.	God knows what the "big picture" is, and in that
    	big picture what looks like evil to us makes sense
    	(see Book of Job or theories of re-incarnation),
    
    6.	God wanted us to have free will, and that implies
    	that we can choose to do wrong things (variant of
    	2: omnipotence does not imply the ability to over-ride
    	logic and create a being with free will which only
    	wills the good),
    
    7.	Good and evil are illusions, and we're all missing the point
    	(variant of 5).
    	
    C. S. Lewis has written clearly about variant 6 from his point
    of view.
    				-John Bishop