Right would You be, O Lord, were I to argue with You, yet I will contend with You: Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why are all they secure that deal very treacherously?  You have planted them, they have taken root; they grow, they bring forth fruit; You are near in their mouth, and far from their thoughts.  But You, O Lord, know me, You have seen me, and tried my heart toward You; pull them out like sheep for the slaughter, and prepare them for the day of slaughter.  (Yirmiyahu 12:1-3)

As do other prophets, Yirmiyahu expresses frustration at the injustice in our world; righteous suffer and the wicked propose.    Rashi cites two potential identifications for the wicked Yirmiyahu speaks of.  The prophet either refers to the success of Nevuhadnezar, king of Babylon and destroyer of the first temple or to the people of Anatot, his own townspeople who plotted against him.  According to the second view, Yirmiyahu calls out in a more personal vein about the triumphs of those who persecute him.

Yirmiyahu cries out because he cannot understand why the wicked prosper.  According to one Talmudic opinion (Berakhot 7a), Moshe himself did not know the secret of theodicy and the workings of divine providence.  This conundrum has perplexed religious thinkers for centuries and the answer eluded great prophets as well.  Though he affirms his faith in God’s wisdom and justice, Yirmiyahu remains frustrated by the lack of an answer to this ultimate question.

Some authorities state that success of the wicked is more theologically problematic than the travails of the righteous.  I would have argued for the opposite position and think it more important that righteous receive their just reward than evildoers receive their due punishment.  Nonetheless, R. Yosef Albo (Sefer haIkkarim 4:7) argues that “rasha ve’tov lo” provides a greater problem.  He assumes it more likely that a person seemingly righteous hides his serious corruption from society than a person outwardly wicked keeps his righteousness hidden.  Therefore, Yirmiyahu focuses his perplexity on the flourishing wicked.

R. Yosef Albo (Sefer haIkkarim 4:14) reads this passage differently and contends that Yirmiyahu intellectually knows an answer to the problem of theodicy.  Knowing an answer in a cognitive manner does not prevent complaining when confronted with the pain of raw experience.  To illustrate the difference between abstract knowledge and primal experience, R. Albo mentions the sin of the golden calf.  God informs Moshe about this sin while Moshe stands on the mountain yet Moshe does not shatter the luhot until he actually sees the calf in person.  Moshe did not doubt the divine report but accepting something as true is not as powerful as truly seeing it.  In a roughly analogous way, knowing explanations for injustice does not always provide comfort when experiencing injustice.  Yirmiyahu can recite answers but that does not help when the people of Anatot try to kill him.

Secondly, R. Albo suggests that Yirmiyahu objects to righteous suffering at the hands of the wicked.  Perhaps we can explain why the righteous suffer and why the wicked prosper but watching evil people inflicting pain on those of integrity strikes us as acutely unjust.  On this specific point, Yirmiyahu questions God.

Whether or not our prophet thinks that he has a developed theodicy, the experience of injustice inspires a legitimate complaint. Hazal do not fault Yirmiyahu for this verbal expression.  We believe in God’s goodness, power, and fairness but that belief does not eliminate the difficulty in dealing with apparent injustice.