Judaism, then, operates with two frames of reference because Judaism is engaged in the dialectical method, in an antithetical approach to reality. One frame of reference is one sector of being, the this-worldly sector, and a second frame of reference is Being in its majestic totality.((Ibid., p. 93))
After distinguishing between “thematic Halakhah” which addresses themes and motifs beyond the physical world of practicality and “topical Halakhah” which is “anthropo-oriented” and pragmatic, R. Soloveitchik notes that each of these systems of Halakhah has its own unique approach to the problem of evil.
It is very certain that the thematic Halakhah – the Halakhah related to the outside... something beyond – even though it was embarrassed to the point of perplexity by the existence of evil, managed to somehow accommodate it within its frame of reference. The best proof that the thematic Halakhah – thematic Judaism, axiological Judaism – was embarrassed and even tormented, was confused and bewildered by evil or by Satan, is the Book of Job.
Within the thematic Halakhah, we find theodicy or, to be more precise, a metaphysic of suffering. Judaism, at the level of axiology or at the level of transcendental reference, did develop a metaphysic of evil, or, I would rather say, of suffering...((Ibid. p. 95))
In this context, R. Soloveitchik notes that the thematic Halakhah’s metaphysic of suffering embraced Rambam’s negation of evil, whereas topical Halakhah rejects such denial and engages a reality of evil head on.
The dominant idea which underlies this metaphysic of evil developed by the thematic Halakhah is basically that suffering as a subjective experience – an emotion, an affect, a feeling – and evil as a reality are not identical. The fact that people in distress... ascribe their misery to some outside agency called “evil” or “Satan”... and identify their subjective experiences with a destructive fiend or enemy of man, does not prove that evil actually exists and that it reveals itself through the pathetic mood or the passional mood. On the contrary, the thematic Halakhah’s metaphysic maintained that the passional experience represents the highest good.((Ibid. p. 96))
The topical Halakhah could not accept the thematic metaphysic which tends to gloss over the absurdity of evil... Realism and individualism, ineradicably ingrained in the very essence of the topical Halakhah, prevented it from casting off the burden of the awareness of evil.((Ibid. p. 100))
The topical Halakhah, which is particularly interested in real man... could not be content with a fine metaphysical distinction between evil and the pathos of being... The topical Halakhah lacked neither the candor nor the courage to admit publicly that evil does exist, and it pleaded ignorance as to its justification and necessity.((Ibid. p. 101))
After clearly delineating the roles and goals of these two aspects of the Halakhah, R. Soloveitchik emphasizes the importance of practical response in the approach of topical Halakhah.
Yes, the topical Halakhah has evolved an ethic of suffering instead of a metaphysic of suffering. While the metaphysic is out to discover the ontological objective reason of suffering from within, the ethic posits meanings from within and without. It is concerned not so much with pathos as such but with the pathetic mood of the person in distress, with the assimilation of pain into the total I-awareness, with man’s response to adversity and disaster... The metaphysic seeks to justify evil or deny its reality. The ethic of suffering seeks the transformation of an alien factum which one encounters into an actus in which one engages, the succumbing to an overwhelming force into an experience impregnated with directedness and sense.((Ibid. p. 102))
Thematic Halakhah rightfully engages in theodicy. Topical Halakhah adheres strictly to the practical response to the suffering. In this context, R. Soloveitchik is lucid in his formulation: a philosophically inclined metaphysic is not inherently wrong, it is just often misapplied. Thematic Halakhah indeed toiled to justify or nullify the existence of evil in this world, although without complete success. However, God’s criticism of Iyov is due not to the wrongful nature of such a metaphysic, but rather to the gross misapplication thereof. When operating within the human experience, when real man encounters real evil – one must apply the topical Halakhah, a construct and theory which provides practical answers in the form of active responses to suffering.
It is through this lens of topical Halakhah which R. Soloveitchik is looking when he observes the futility and inappropriateness of the “why” question in Kol Dodi Dofek. Theodicy has its time and place, but it belongs not in the realm of the passional, human experience of a realistic evil.
