Our Gemara on Amud Beis mentions the idea that unlike rainfall, the dew is not a periodic manifestation, therefore it is not something we need a special prayer for. Rashi additionally explains, dew is essential daily for sustaining the world, so Hashem does not hold it back.
Tosafos (“Veiylu”) observed that since God never holds back dew, this explains the change in language used to describe the fulfillment of Gideon’s conditions (Shoftim 6:37-40). Gideon asked for miraculous signs, the first being that the sheared wool be wet and the ground dry from dew, and the second time the ground wet and the wool dry. The scenario where the ground was wet and the wool dry was described as “And God did so that night”, but the scenario where the ground was dry and the wool wet was described more passively as, “And it was so.” Tosafos suggests that it is stated passively because in fact the ground was also wet, as God doesn’t hold back dew, it just wasn’t miraculously wet, while the wool was miraculously wet.
Then Tosafos suggests an alternate explanation for the passive language and here is where we get into a metaphysical discussion about Theodicy, that is God’s role when evil occurs.
Tosafos says that since dew is a basic requirement, God would never be mentioned as directly withholding it. Tosafos goes on to quote several other verses in Tanach where God is not mentioned directly when it comes to evil or withholding. Thus it states (Bereishis 1:5): “God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.” By daylight God’s name is written clearly, but nighttime it’s passively implied. Even more evident proof for this pattern is that in the last commandments starting from “do not murder”, God’s name is absent. Tosafos’ point is that God will not, or possibly cannot allow his name to be mentioned in regard to evil And withholding.
Is this just a linguistic point or is it about something deeper? There is a verse in Eichah (3:38) that is subject to some confusion in this regard:
מִפִּ֤י עֶלְיוֹן֙ לֹ֣א תֵצֵ֔א הָרָע֖וֹת וְהַטּֽוֹב׃
The words literally translate as, “From the uppermost (God), comes neither evil nor good.”
Of course, the problem with this reading is that it sounds heretical. The simplest explanation is that the verse is a rhetorical question. Thus the reading would be, “Shall we not say that both the good AND the bad come from God?” In other words, we must accept His wisdom and judgement. However, there are Midrashic readings with nuanced variations that speak to deep ideas about God’s relationship with evil in the world.
Safra (Bechukosai 4:1) reads the verse differently:
אין הרעה יוצאת מלפני לעולם. וכן הוא אומר (איכה ג, לח : עיין שם) "מפי עליון לא תצא הרעות" אלא הטוב.
"This came to you by your own hands, (for) evil never proceeds from Me. And thus is it written (Eichah 3:38) "From the mouth of the Most High there shall not go forth the evils, but the good."
The verse is now saying, don’t blame God for the bad things that happen, because He doesn’t cause it, rather you yourself caused it! How do we understand this? Let’s see some more sources that spell this out in different ways.
Devarim Rabbah (4:3) seems to imply that God instituted an automatic system of consequences, kind of like getting a computer generated red light camera or speeding camera ticket in the mail:
דָּבָר אַחֵר, רְאֵה אָנֹכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִשֶּׁאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה בְּסִינַי, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה (איכה ג, לח): מִפִּי עֶלְיוֹן לֹא תֵצֵא הָרָעוֹת וְהַטּוֹב, אֶלָּא מֵאֵלֶיהָ הָרָעָה בָּאָה עַל עוֹשֵׂי הָרָעָה, וְהַטּוֹבָה בָּאָה עַל עוֹשֵׂי הַטּוֹבָה.
Once God issued the Torah on Mount Sinai, the evil automatically befell those who committed transgressions and reward automatically came to those who behaved virtuously.
Ohr HaChayyim (Shemos 6:2) similarly notes that verses about punishments are phrased in such a manner that it implies the consequences stem from the evil activity itself and not God. For example, (I Shmuel 24:14): “Wicked comes from wicked men.”, or (Yirmiyahu 2:19): “Let your evil reprove you.”, or (Yeshaiyahu 64:6) “And made us melt because of our iniquities.”
Kliy Yekar (Devarim 27:12, 31:17) explains that evil and misfortune arise from God’s withdrawal but not his direct action. That is why by the blessings the verse states: “The following shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people”, while by the curses it states: “And for the curse, the following shall stand.” The language is passive, instead of stating ״to curse״ like it did by the blessing, “to bless”.
Rambam in the Moreh III:22 discusses the role and characterization of Satan in Iyov:
The sons of God then came to present themselves before the Lord, and the Satan came also among them and in their number" (chap. 1:6, 2:1). It is not said: "And the sons of God and the Satan came to present themselves before the Lord"; this sentence would have implied that the existence of all that came was of the same kind and rank. The words used are these: "And the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and the adversary came also among them." Such a phrase is only used in reference to one that comes without being expected or invited; he only comes among others whose coming has been sought.
Rambam is saying Satan is not considered an active force within the heavenly entourage, but rather arises independently, as a result of a certain neglect. He goes into explain:
They said in the Talmud as follows: R. Simeon, son of Lakish, says: "The adversary (satan), evil inclination (yeẓer ha-ra’), and the angel of death, are one and the same being." …The Hebrew, satan, is derived from the same root as séteh, "turn away" (Prov. 4:15); it implies the notion of turning and moving away from a thing; he undoubtedly turns us away from the way of truth, and leads us astray in the way of error.
The Rambam suggests that Satan is a metaphor for the entropic destructive forces that overwhelm us and let us stray from attachment to God. This is why The Angel of Death, Satan and the Evil inclination are considered by Reish Lakish to be one in the same entity.
Moreh III:12 drives this point home in the strongest of terms:
Men frequently think that the evils in the world are more numerous than the good things; many sayings and songs of the nations dwell on this idea. …God is perfect goodness, and that all that comes from Him is absolutely good. The origin of the error is to be found in the circumstance that this ignorant man, and his party among the common people, judge the whole universe by examining one single person. For an ignorant man believes that the whole universe only exists for him; as if nothing else required any consideration. If, therefore, anything happens to him contrary to his expectation, he at once concludes that the whole universe is evil. If, however, he would take into consideration the whole universe, form an idea of it, and comprehend what a small portion he is of the Universe, he will find the truth..
Man's existence is nevertheless a great boon to him, and his distinction and perfection is a divine gift. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We complain and seek relief from our own faults: we suffer from the evils which we, by our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is far from being connected with them! Comp. "Is destruction his [work]? No. Ye [who call yourselves] wrongly his sons, you who are a perverse and crooked generation" (Deut. 32:5). This is explained by Solomon, who says, "The foolishness of man perverteth his way, and his heart fretteth against the Lord" (Prov. 19:3)…
It is on account of the body that some persons happen to have great deformities or paralysis of some of the organs. This evil may be part of the natural constitution of these persons, or may have developed subsequently in consequence of changes in the elements, e.g., through bad air, or thunderstorms or landslips. We have already shown that, in accordance with the divine wisdom, genesis can only take place through destruction, and without the destruction of the individual members of the species the species themselves would not exist permanently. Thus the true kindness, and beneficence, and goodness of God is clear. He who thinks that he can have flesh and bones without being subject to any external influence, or any of the accidents of matter, unconsciously wishes to reconcile two opposites, viz., to be at the same time subject and not subject to change. If man were never subject to change there could be no generation: there would be one single being, but no individuals forming a species. …It is therefore impossible that man should be free from this species of evil. You will, nevertheless, find that the evils of the above kind which befall man are very few and rare: for you find countries that have not been flooded or burned for thousands of years: there are thousands of men in perfect health, deformed individuals are a strange and exceptional occurrence, or say few in number if you object to the term exceptional,--they are not one-hundredth, not even one-thousandth part of those that are perfectly normal.
The Rambam’s main point is that our very physical existence is a gift from God. Physical existence by virtue of our being generated and created must also be subject to entropy and degeneration.
One might ask a foolish question, if God is omnipotent and all-kind why could he not have made us physical but not subject to entropy. This question is similar to the famous paradox, is God able to make a stone so big that He cannot lift? Ralbag (Iyov 7:21) famously answers as follows: The fact that a human cannot crow like a rooster does not make a human inferior to a rooster, though the rooster obviously possesses a quality that a human does not. In other words, God cannot make a triangle with four sides, and similarly God cannot create physicality that is subject to creation in the first place unless it is also subject to degeneration as well. Otherwise, all of existence would be subsumed in God and not subject to any independent function. For humans, that kind of existence would be the same as non-existence. (On the topic of Metaphysics and Triangles, Boruch Spinoza was said to have quipped, “If a triangle could think, it would totally think that God is a triangle.” That’s hilarious, profound and pertinent to helping us face our puny level of comprehension about God’s nature.)
Now, we can better understand these Midrashim and commentaries when they imply that God has no active role in evil or misfortune. Because any of those kinds of degeneration or decay is due to detachment from God and a necessary condition for physical existence.
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?)