¹ For a recent study, see Leaman, Oliver, Evil and Suffering in Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

² For a series of very interesting essays about the role of reason in the life of faith, see Morris, Thomas V., ed., God and the Philosophers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

³ For an overall review and analysis of Soloveitchik's œuvre, see Singer, David and Sokol, Moshe, “Joseph B. Soloveitchik: Lonely Man of Faith,” Modern Judaism 2 (1982) 227–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ “Kol Dodi Dofek” was first delivered as an address in 1956 and subsequently published in Hebrew in 1961. It is now available in a Hebrew-language collection of some of , Soloveitchik's work entitled Be-Sod Ha-yahid Ve-Ha-Yahad (ed. Peli, P.; Jerusalem: Orot, 1976) 331–400.Google Scholar The essay was recently translated by Lawrence Kaplan and published in Heuman, Fred and Rosenberg, Bernhard, eds., Theological and Halakhic Reflections on the Holocaust (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 1992) 51–117.Google Scholar Citations are from this translation and edition.

⁵ This address will be published under the title “The Halakha Approach to Suffering” in The Torah U-Madda Journal 8 (1999)Google Scholar.

⁶ , Soloveitchik, “Kol Dodi Dofek,” 52.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid., 54.

⁸ Ibid., 56-57.

⁹ Ibid., 56.

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ Job 42:10.

¹² The most striking example of Soloveitchik's neo-Kantianism is his argument that halakha is a set of a priori-like categories for apprehending the world. For more on Soloveitchik's neo-Kantianism, see Kaplan, Lawrence, “Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik's Philosophy of Halakha,” Jewish Law Annual 6 (1984) 139–97; andGoogle ScholarRavitzky, Aviezer, “Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik on Human Knowledge: Between Maimonidean and Neo-Kantian Philosophy,” Modern Judaism 6 (1986) 157–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³ See Cohen, Hermann, Religion of Reason Out of the Sources of Judaism (New York: F. Ungar, 1972),Google Scholar much of which is devoted to the problem of suffering and evil.

¹⁴ Gerald Blidstein has called attention to a distinction Buber draws between passive “peoplehood” and active “nationhood,” which parallels the distinction that Soloveitchik draws i n this essay. Buber, however, does not apply these categories to the problem of evil. See , Blidstein, “Biblical Models in the Contemporary Thought of Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik,” Journal of Literature and Theology 8 (1994) 237–40; and the references to Buber cited therein. See alsoGoogle ScholarBerger, Michael S., “U-vikashtem Mi-sham: Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik's Response to Martin Buber's Religious Existentialism,” Modern Judaism 18 (1998) 93–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ This extensive and important monograph has yet to be translated into English. See the Hebrew edition, published in Ish He-halakha-Galui Ve-Nistar (Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1979) 117–235Google Scholar.

¹⁶ See, for example, , Soloveitchik's later monograph, “Lonely Man of Faith,” Tradition 1 (1965) 5–67.Google Scholar

¹⁷ , Soloveitchik, “Kol Dodi Dofek,” 56.Google Scholar

¹⁸ The theme of what I am calling halakhocentrism (following isadoreTwersky) is a recurrent motif in Soloveitchik's thought and it is explored in virtually all of his major works, especially Halakhic Man (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1983)Google Scholar passim; and U-vikashtem Mi-sham, 207–13. Soloveitchik again and again, in varying ways and contexts, argues for the superiority of what he regards as the this-worldly, obligation-centered quality of Judaism, over more purely spiritual, other-worldly religious traditions. It is hardly surprising then that this foundational picture of Judaism, and the equally foundational picture of humankind and its summum bonum that flow from it, would be pressed into service in the construction of a theodicy.

¹⁹ Adams, Marilyn McCord, “Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God,” reprinted in Adams, Marilyn McCord and Adams, Robert Merrihew, eds., The Problem of Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990) 210.Google Scholar

²⁰ The “internalist” approach discussed here coheres well with (although does not entail, nor is it entailed by) George Lindbeck's “cultural linguistic” model for understanding religion. See his The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Post-Liberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984).Google Scholar For a discussion of Lindbeck's views see Lindbeck, George and Marshall, Bruce D., eds., Theology and Dialogue: Essays in Conversation with George Lindbeck (South Bend, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

²¹ Adams, McCord, “Horrendous Evils,” 218–19.Google Scholar

²² Allen, Diogenes, “Natural Evil and the Love of God,” reprinted in , Adams and , Adams, 189–221.Google Scholar

²³ Eleonore Stump, “The Mirror of Evil,” in , Morris, God and the Philosophers, 235–47Google Scholar.