Whereas the biblical perception and that of the sages recognised the existence of evil as such and stressed God's responsibility for it, the aim of medieval philosophy was to move God away from the responsibility for evil by a view which denies the existence of evil.

The influence of Greek philosophy is especially to be found in Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed. In Chap. Maimonides notes three types of evil which befall man:

a) evil related to man's material nature, such as bodily handicaps and injuries, which exists either from birth or as a result of injuries of nature;

b) evil which is caused to people as a result of the actions of other people, such as theft, murder, or war.

c) spiritual and physical evil that the person brings upon himself, by following his lusts or by not living his life in accordance with the dictates of common sense. The source of the first two types of evil is the matter of which the world and man are composed, and these are inescapable. The third and most common type of evil is man's responsibility. None of these kinds of evil contradicts the perfect goodness of God. One who truly cleaves to God is outside the power of evil. Man's suffering stems from his inability to continuously cleave intellectually to God.

 The various mystical streams dealt at length with the question of evil. The kabbalists burst through the philosophical system of concepts and developed ideas which do not attempt to evade the problem of the reality of evil. The various kabbalistic schools have in common the definition of evil as a special ontological domain, often described as being subordinate to the world of the Godhead and sometimes even as part of it. Within the framework of the theory of the Sefirot (spheres of emanation), the kabbalists see the root of evil, sometimes even the world of evil itself, as being rooted in the Godhead. The Book of Bachir presents this view in the most extreme fashion, when it states that “God has an attribute called ‘evil’.” In certain kabbalistic streams, certain tendencies appear; the world of evil is depicted as a hierarchic system which parallels in its structure the system of Divine Sefirot. The view of evil as a system of powers paralleling those of the Divine world and as being engaged in a struggle with it, is to be found in the Zohar.

 The perception of man as responsible for evil was given new significance by the Kabalah. Not only is he responsible for those troubles which befall him, but man's evil deeds influence the status of evil in the entire world. Evil, which is contained within the Godhead in potential, emerges in practice as a result of man's sins.

In the modern and post-modern periods, Jewish thinkers have continued to apply the guiding values of Judaism to the problems of evil in their generation. In the 19th century, the foremost Neo- Kantian philosopher, Herman Cohen (1842 1918), denied the existence of evil as a metaphysical power, which, he wrote, “exists only in myth.” Echoing an earlier kabbalistic voice, Cohen understood suffering in general, and Jewish suffering in particular, as God's way of chastening and challenging man to greater ethical heights. Israel, especially, is called upon to act in accordance with the high moral standards of God's covenant and therefore is destined to be the constantly beleaguered “suffering servant.” A love of morality is expressed in an act of conscience and not in detached debate of the subject.

Missing the opportunity to enter into a relation with another, by omission or commission, is the source of evil for Martin Buber (1878- 1965). According to his existentialist approach, human potential becomes misdirected and then takes on a momentum of its own. Although evil is never capable of becoming an independent force, it acts within man to thwart the self-realisation that comes through a redeeming encounter with the other.

 Efforts to evolve a religious response to evil in this century have had to re-evaluate the covenant theology of Herman Cohen and the “Eternal Thou” of Buberian thought in light of the cataclystic extermination of European Jewry during World War II. Buber himself, after the Holocaust, expressed doubt whether he could address God as “kind and merciful,” but never surrendered his faith in humanity's potential to redeem evil and sanctify the world.