Yes—why was the possibility of suffering created through the creation of the nervous system?

Because without nerves we wouldn’t feel pain, and we wouldn’t be able to treat the source of the pain. And if you ask why a nervous system wasn’t created that works without bothering us, I’ll answer as I already answered Elijah at Mount Carmel several times on this site: it may be that there simply is no system of laws that would do everything the laws of our world do, but without suffering, and I won’t elaborate here.

It’s still not clear to me why it wouldn’t be possible to create a nervous system that doesn’t produce suffering in a state of distress, but only an alert without suffering.

That isn’t clear to me either. But the burden of proof that such a thing can be created rests on the one raising the objection. Unless he shows that it can be done, there is no question.

I don’t understand what would make us think that it isn’t possible to create a world without suffering.

This doesn’t relate only to human suffering, but to the laws of nature in general. You’re assuming that it’s possible to create a system of laws—or really, an entire physics—that would do everything the current physics does, only without suffering. Specifically regarding the nervous system, you want it to do everything it does today, just without pain. Who told you there is such a system of laws/physics? Without showing that such a system exists, the question doesn’t get off the ground.
Of course, you could suggest that the Holy One, blessed be He, leave the world exactly as it is today and intervene every time something undesirable happens (like suffering or pain). But then, de facto, there is no system of laws in the world, and it is run chaotically. My assumption is that God wants it to operate according to fixed laws. I’ve already explained several times why that could matter to Him.

Seemingly I can suggest a nervous system without suffering: at the moment of a threat to survival (for example, a wound), there would be an alert—not through pain, but through an understanding that “organ x needs treatment.”
I don’t see why suffering in particular is necessary in order to preserve survival.

In high-tech terms, I’d tell you that you’re confusing specification with implementation. You’re specifying the system—that is, saying what it should do. But that isn’t the question. We all know that. The question is whether it is implementable—meaning, whether there is a system that can actually be built and that performs those specifications. Give me a plan that includes all the laws of nature required and their implementation (the new human under those laws), and then we’ll see whether it really does everything except the parts you wanted filtered out.
It’s like someone proposing to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by having all of us behave nicely, not be violent, recognize one another, and live in peace. Wonderful, right? Or alternatively, someone invents a flying washing machine that takes the clothes to be washed by itself and folds them. Is it implementable? Certainly. You just make a flying washing machine that takes the clothes to be washed and folds them. What’s the problem?!
[Besides that, you should remember that the nervous system has many functions beyond giving alerts, and the moment you change something in it, you have no idea what else will be harmed.]

The last response is a bit deep for me.
I’ll try to formulate my question mathematically (something I hate doing, but it seems I have no choice…):
Premise 1: God is good.
Premise 2: Man is the creature created in order to realize the good.
Premise 3: “Good” means “pleasure.”
Conclusion: A human being created by God will enjoy without suffering.
Refutation: There are people who suffer.
Resolution: It is impossible to create a system without malfunctions.
Difficulty: From where comes this basic assumption?

We do find the phrase, “This can be resolved, albeit with difficulty,” but we do not find, “This can be challenged, albeit with difficulty.” The burden of proof is on the challenger to show that such a fitting system exists.

With God’s help, eve of Shushan Purim 5778

In formulating your response mathematically—a formulation that caused you suffering—you paved the way to solving your own question. “Good” is not pleasure. “To be good” means to be truthful and moral.

The pinnacle of goodness is the ability to withstand all tests and trials, and to preserve one’s good character in every situation in life—both in times of abundance and comfort and in times of pressure and suffering.

The ability to preserve purity of character in stressful situations strengthens a person to deal successfully even with the much harder test: preserving purity of character amid the trials of wealth and honor.

We did not come into this world in order to sit in tranquility and enjoy life. We came here on a mission: to cultivate our personality, both individual and collective. We were given a soul perfect in potential, and our task is to bring the capacities for good within us into actuality, and coping with pressures and difficulties assists us in this mission.

Regards, Shatz Levinger

A.H. answered nicely (and I’ve already explained this several times). Read my words again; they aren’t complicated. Everything has already been answered.

Okay, I’m really a complete beginner in logic, so I apologize for all the pestering…
There’s something in the Rabbi’s argument that still isn’t clear to me:
Is the Rabbi claiming that it is impossible to create a world-system without suffering, or that he has no need to think so?
If the Rabbi holds that it is impossible to create a system without suffering—what led the Rabbi to think that?

(By the way, Rabbi, is there any expected date for the release of your theology book?)

Shai, you don’t need to understand philosophy, only to read. Everything you keep asking has already been answered earlier. I’ll answer one last time, and after that I won’t continue.
I’m claiming that the burden of proof is on whoever claims that there is such a system. As A.H. wrote: we find “this can be resolved, albeit with difficulty,” but not “this can be challenged, albeit with difficulty.” In order to raise the difficulty, you have to show that such a system exists, and you haven’t shown that.
I explained that what you proposed is a specification of the system, not its implementation (not how one actually does it), and I gave examples of this.

There’s no expected date in the meantime. It’s under review.

Maybe the Rabbi, in his great kindness, could update the notebooks here on the site to the new version and do a kindness for both the learners and the doubters alike. That way, instead of our waiting for the book to be published—and as is known, there are many obstacles if it’s a book that can lead to fear of Heaven.

It may be that I need to change the direction of the question:
If the Creator of the world is “good,” how do we explain the experience of suffering from the human side?
A human being, as a subjective self, can suffer experientially. Seemingly, that sharp question cannot be solved by answering that it’s impossible to create the experiencing human being without suffering; just as it was possible to create suffering, it would have been possible to create the human being without suffering…

You have a lot of demands of the Creator.

True…