Our Gemara on Amud Beis references the verses about the Manna, and how the Jews were tested by God (Deuteronomy 8:2-3) 

זָכַרְתָּ֣ אֶת־כׇּל־הַדֶּ֗רֶךְ אֲשֶׁ֨ר הוֹלִֽיכְךָ֜ יְהֹוָ֧ה אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ זֶ֛ה אַרְבָּעִ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה בַּמִּדְבָּ֑ר לְמַ֨עַן עַנֹּֽתְךָ֜ לְנַסֹּֽתְךָ֗ לָדַ֜עַת אֶת־אֲשֶׁ֧ר בִּֽלְבָבְךָ֛ הֲתִשְׁמֹ֥ר מִצְוֺתָ֖ו אִם־לֹֽא׃

Remember the long way that the LORD your God has made you travel in the wilderness these past forty years, that He might test you by hardships to learn what was in your hearts: whether you would keep His commandments or not.

וַֽיְעַנְּךָ֮ וַיַּרְעִבֶ֒ךָ֒ וַיַּאֲכִֽלְךָ֤ אֶת־הַמָּן֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־יָדַ֔עְתָּ וְלֹ֥א יָדְע֖וּן אֲבֹתֶ֑יךָ לְמַ֣עַן הוֹדִֽיעֲךָ֗ כִּ֠י לֹ֣א עַל־הַלֶּ֤חֶם לְבַדּוֹ֙ יִחְיֶ֣ה הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֛י עַל־כׇּל־מוֹצָ֥א פִֽי־יְהֹוָ֖ה יִחְיֶ֥ה הָאָדָֽם׃

He subjected you to the hardship of hunger and then gave you manna to eat, which neither you nor your fathers had ever known, in order to teach you that man does not live on bread alone, but that man may live on anything that the LORD decrees.

A simple reading of this verse indicates that God tests people, that is they may go through hardships and sufferings not as a punishment but for some greater purpose. This is a basic religious idea.  Most of us learned in Grade School that Avraham withstood ten tests, the most notable, being asked to sacrifice his son Isaac (Avos 5:3).  The Gemara (Berachos 5a) informs us that if a person is suffering, and after careful introspection cannot find any wrongdoing (that deserves such punishment see Rashi Op. Cit.), and cannot find a lacking in Torah study time, then it must be “Afflictions of Love”.  Rashi (Op. Cit.) explains, “The Holy One Blessed Be He causes him to suffer in this world in order to increase his reward in the afterlife.” 

However, the notion that God tests people is problematic philosophically. God does not need to test our loyalty, as He can see into our hearts and know where we are holding, and what we are capable of. Furthermore, the idea that God tests people in order to increase their reward can be also difficult to accept if because it is based on a too simple understanding of reward and punishment. God does not seek to reward nor punish because he is disciplinarian; rather the rewards and punishments are “naturalistic” consequences from our soul’s attachment or alienation from God. As the Rambam clearly explains in his introduction to Perek Chelek, the fires of Hell and the Feast of Leviathan are metaphors for the indescribable pains or joys that will be experienced by the soul when it is time for it to return to its maker. This is the only sensible approach, as otherwise God comes off as petty and controlling. 

Here I add an important side point: People who are mean, petty and controlling often use religious ideas such as reward and punishment to justify their behavior. They think they are holy because they behave as God does, meting out fury, plagues and justice. But this is not God. God can only be loving and generous. All suffering in this world and the next comes from the soul’s disconnection from God and its inevitable consequences.  While there are numerous scriptural examples of God jealously smiting His enemies, and even his beloved people who betrayed him, these are anthropomorphisms and anthropopapisms, and require much more discussion than can be covered in this essay, (a good place to look for more insight on this is Guide for the Perplexed I:24.)  But one thing for sure, when you get angry and self-righteous with others, don’t kid yourself that you are walking in God’s ways.  Even if God really did get angry and vindictive, He has the right to do so, after all He is God, But you are not. 

Rambam maintains in his Guide for the Perplexed (III:17) that God never actually tests man, simplistically speaking, and explains the various indications of tests, such as verses regarding the Manna or Abraham, as referring to opportunities to strengthen the person, or teach others a lesson.  Thus, the people of the Exodus needed the hardships of travel through wilderness and deprivations to make them tough enough to coalesce into a nation that can stand on its own two feet.  Despite this preparation, even a superficial reading of the Book of Shoftim shows how disorganized and unruly the Jewish people were when they entered the Land of Israel, and how governance could slip into anarchy, civil war and chaos.  Regarding Abraham, the purpose of his tests was to prove his loyalty to inspire others, but neither he nor God needed his tests.  Rambam says that that though in some places in Shas there is an implication that people can suffer without sin, the Gemara (Shabbos 55a) is conclusive proof to the idea “"There is no death without sin, no sufferings without transgression.``

A number of other authorities agree with the Rambam’s position.  Here are a few:  Abarbanel (Bereshis 15, question 15), Ramban Sha’ar Hagemul 19 (perhaps says there are rare exceptions to this rule), and Re’em (Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi) on Rashi Bereishis (32:11), to name a few. 

However, we have what would seem to be a major contradiction to this position from the dialogue in Gemara Shabbos 55a. Because though Rav Ami asserts the dictum, “There is no death without sin; were a person not to sin, he would not die. And there is no suffering without iniquity.”, the Gemara conclusively refutes it. The Gemara states on 55b:

⁦It was taught in the following baraisa: Four people died due to Adam’s sin with the serpent, in the wake of which death was decreed upon all of mankind, although they themselves were free of sin. And they are: Benjamin, son of Jacob; Amram, father of Moses; Yishai, father of David; and Kilab, son of…Learn from it then that, in principle, he agrees that there is death without sin and there is suffering without iniquity, and this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Ami. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.

If so, how can many of the authorities listed above hold that there is no suffering without sin?

Indeed Tosafos (ibid), which we shall soon discuss, and Rav Yosef Albo (Sefer HaIkkarim (, Ma’amar 4:13) hold that there can be suffering merely to enhance reward or to test faith. As to why tests are necessary, Rav Albo maintains that this is to help the person bring out the latent middah himself. He says, we know that Thought alone does not create the mitzvah nor the reward, thus the experience must be enacted. This is the kind of tests Avraham had.

Returning to the problem of this contradiction, how will Ramban, Rambam, Re’em and others explain the contradiction from the Gemara?

A hint at this comes from Tosafos (Shabbos 55b). Tosafos, ever astutely aware of textual nuances, notices that the Gemara conclusively states a refutation of both principles, that is, (1) death without sin; and (2) suffering without iniquity. Yet the actual proof text baraisa only refuted the concept of death without sin, since the four aforementioned people never sinned and still died. To this, Tosafos cryptically says, even so both are refuted. We will presume Tosafos holds that since both dicta are based on the same idea of Divine Justice versus human comprehension, if one is refuted, so must be the other.

However, this does leave room to say that the Gemara only meant to refute one dictum, despite the actual text. Indeed Ramban (Shaar Hagemul 19, also see Pesach Enayyim on Shabbos 55) indicates that this is how he read the Gemara. Thus, there is indeed death without sin, due to the sin of the Serpent, which Meiri (ibid) brilliantly interprets as natural causes. However, in regard to afflictions, or untimely death, we rule in accordance with Rav Ami, that there is indeed no suffering without sin.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)