Mail.Liberal-Judaism

• Robert <rkaiser1@email.msn.com>

• Polar <smeric@mindspring.com>
• PDZ99@aol.com

• Michael Berman <myberman@hotmail.com>

From: Robert <rkaiser1@email.msn.com>
Date: Sun Oct 14  8:03:04 US/Pacific 2001
Subject: Haredi theology on the Holocaust

Michael Berman <myberman@hotmail.com writes:
> Barry Kingsbury writes that "I shall not blame the victims for
> their deaths" - as if Adam Jessel had done so. Similarly,
> Robert Kaiser claims that this was Adam's intent, and that
> "ultra-Orthodox" theology says that Holocaust martyrs
> "deserved" to die for their sins. Both are mistaken on these
> counts. More than that, the last comment is a particularly
> outrageous slur, inspiring only a visceral hate for Orthodox
> Jews of whatever variety. It is certainly contrary to what
> Orthodox Jews actually believe.

Actually, this position is a mainstream Modern Orthodox point of view (which
is described in some detail in the webpage to which this letter links) On the
other hand, I cannot find any evidence to sustain Michael Berman's unique
claims.  The historical record shows the precise opposite: Much of the Haredi
community blames the Holocaust on Reform Jews, on Conservative Jews, or on
Jews who are Zionists. (A small number reverse the issue, and suggest that God
sent the Nazis to kill the Jews because the European Jews did not support
Zionism enough!)  In all cases of this type of Haredi theodicy, the Jews of
Europe were sinners who deserved to die, and the actions of God which allowed
this were righteous and just.  Here are just a few examples (more examples are
listed on the webpage to which this essay links).

(1) Haredi Satmar leader Rabbi Joel Moshe Teitelbaum writes: "Because of our
    sinfulness we have suffered greatly, suffering as bitter as wormwood,
    worse than any Israel has know since it became a people...In former times,
    whenever troubles befell Jacob, the matter was pondered and reasons
    sought--which sin had brought the troubles about--so that we could make
    amends and return to the Lord, may He be blessed...But in our generation
    one need not look far for the sin responsible for our calamity...The
    heretics have made all kinds of efforts to violate these oaths, to go up
    by force and to seize sovereignty and freedom by themselves, before the
    appointed time...[They] have lured the majority of the Jewish people into
    awful heresy, the like of which as not been seen since the world was
    created...And so it is no wonder that the Lord has lashed out in
    anger...And there were also righteous people who perished because of the
    iniquity of the sinners and corrupters, so great was the [divine] wrath.
    [Aviezer Ravitzky, Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism
    (1996 by The University of Chicago), p. 124.]

(2) "There were redemptionist Zionists, at the other end of the spectrum, who
    also saw the Holocaust as a collective punishment for a collective sin:
    ongoing Jewish unfaithfulness to the Land of Israel. Rabbi Mordecai Atiyah
    was a leading advocate of this idea. [Multiple footnotes available on this
    in Ravitzky's book]. Rabbi Zvi Yehudah Kook and his disciples, for their
    part, avoided this harsh position, but they too theologically related the
    Holocaust to the Jewish recognition of Zion. Kook writes "When the end
    comes and Israel fails to recognize it, there comes a cruel divine
    operation that removes [the Jewish people] from its exile. [Aviezer
    Ravitzky, Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism (1996 by The
    University of Chicago), p. 128.]

(3) Haredi Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky, in 1939, stated that the Nazi
    persecution of the Jews was the the fault of non-Orthodox Jews (Achiezer,
    volume III, Vilna 1939, in the introduction.  This is discussed in "Piety
    & Power: The World of Jewish Fundamentalism" by Orthodox author David
    Landau (1993, Hill & Wang).

(4) Haredi Rabbi Eliahu Dessler had similar views, also discussed in Landau's
    book.

(5) Some Haredi rabbis even today warn that a failure to to follow Orthodox
    religious law will cause God to send another Holocaust upon the Jewish
    people.  For example, Rabbi Eliezer Menahem Schach, a leader of the
    Lithuanian Yeshivish Orthodoxy in Israel, made just this claim on the eve
    of the Gulf War.  He stated that there would be a new Holocaust in
    punishment for the abandonment of religion and "desecration" of Shabbat in
    Israel.  Those who are loyal to Rabbi Schach gave a reaction to this in
    Yeted Ne'eman, 18 Tevet 5751 (1 April 1991).

In response to these and similar claims, some rabbis in the Rabbinical Council
of America (RCA) have consistently rejected the view that any mass murder is
God's judgement. Modern Orthodox rabbis such as Joseph B.  Soloveitchik,
Norman Lamm, Abraham Besdin, Emanuel Rackman, Eliezer Berkovits and many
others have done writing on this issue; many of their works have been
collected in a volume published by the RCA: "Theological and Halakhic
Reflections on the Holocaust" edited by Bernhard H. Rosenberg and Fred Heuman,
Ktav/RCA, 1992. As the Orthodox editors explicitly state, the entire purpose
of this collection is to rebut the Haredi position.

Just to give one example, Rabbi Norman Lamm points out that "almost all of
those (few) Orthodox thinkers who have ventured into this area at all offer
variations of the mi-penei hata'einu ("because of our sins") thesis, so-named
from the initial words of the special Musaf section of the service for the new
month and the festivals, declaring that we only recite the order of the
sacrificial Temple service liturgically, but do not actually make the
offerings, for the reason that the Temple was destroyed and we were exiled
"because of our sins." They see the Holocaust as punishment for Israel's
sins. The late Satmarer Rebbe, Rabbi Yoel Moshe Teitelbaum, is clear and
unambiguous. In his two hooks, "Va-Yoel Mosheh" and "Al ha Ge' ulah ve-al
ha-Temurah", he decides that the Zionists were responsible for the tragedy of
the six million. The arrogance of nationalistic self-determination in trying
to build a Jewish state caused the great destruction."

But this is only the tip of the iceberg, because as the rabbis of the RCA make
clear, these beliefs are in fact standard beliefs among the Haredi, and this
is why their book was made - to rebut their theology.  Would anyone think that
Rabbi Norman Lamm is anti-Semite? His position is the same as mine; he writes:

  "How dare anyone even suggest that any "sin" committed by any significant
  faction of European Jewry was worthy of all the pain and anguish and death
  visited upon them by Hitler's sadistic butchers? How dare anyone, skiing in
  the American or British or Israeli Paradise, indict the martyrs who were
  consumed in the European Hell? Second, whoever undertakes to expound the
  thesis of mi-penei hata'einu for any specific event, in the gory detail we
  mentioned earlier, risks violating a most heinous sin of his own - that of
  zidduk ha-din, justifying the punishment and travail of the people of
  Israel. The sages did not take to this too kindly....Third, I am also
  troubled by a certain moral deficiency in those who seek to apply the
  mi-penei hata'einu philosophy to the Holocaust, and that is their sense of
  utter self-confidence, their dogmatic infallibility....They just know
  everything about the Sho'ah, especially why it happened. The enormity of
  this callousness, the outrageousness of such insensitive arrogance in
  elaborating this zidduk ha-din is mind-boggling. It is to my mind,
  unforgivable."

I cannot understand why anyone would claim that these views are an "outrageous
slur, inspiring only a visceral hate for Orthodox Jews of whatever variety".
I would claim that they are, in fact, the opposite: they are a defense of
Orthodox Jewish theology.  Please read the following material for more
information and quotes.

http://communities.msn.com/JudaismFAQs&naventryid=305

Shalom,

Robert Kaiser

Return to Table of Contents

From: Polar <smeric@mindspring.com>
Date: Sun Oct 14 19:01:51 US/Pacific 2001
Subject: Origin of Prayers

Robert Rosin <rosin@shell.monmouth.com> writes:

>Polar raises questions about non-literal translations of Hebrew prayers
>into English.  This has been a concern of mine as well.
>
>It is first necessary to point out that a literal translation
>of anything is problematic; how does one respresent the *intent*
>of the original author beyond the particular words themselves?
>Translation of Hebrew into the vernacular clearly has been a
>problem for centuries, as evidenced in the significant differences
>in translation from Hebrew to Arameic in the various ancient targunim.
>The terse vocabulary of Hebrew, especially compared to the over-abundant
>vocabulary of English, also raises many difficulties for the translator
>and the reader.  

It has also generated  endless punditry in the interpretation not only
of Siddur and Machzor texts, but of Torah in general.  Which is not
entirely a Bad Thing.  Just Pilpul in modern format.  And a growth
industry for PhDs and rabbinic students <g>

I view much of this as a sort of Rohrschach test.  You can tell a lot
about rabbi/scholar/professor/lay person by their interpretation of
the texts.

>But none of this explains to me those translations that clearly change
>the meaning of the original Hebrew.  For example, in Hebrew the prayers
>for peace - Shalom Rav and Sim Shalom - specifically call for God to bestow
>peace on Israel in particular, yet the translations in Reform prayerbooks seem
>to request that peace be granted to all humanity.  Why the difference? And the
>Aleinu also focuses on the uniqueness of the Jewish people, yet the Reform
>translations conceal this aspect almost completely. 

Can't let the goyim think we think we are a Light Unto the World!

Not to mention *chayeh ha mehtim* vs. the Reform version.
>
>As you may know, there is a new Reform prayerbook in the works.
>I understand that it may include more literal translations of all
>prayers.  I wonder how worshippers accustomed to watered down,
>politically correct translations will react to it.

Thank you for assuming the burden of "watered-down,
politically-correct" translations! That's  how I feel about some of
these "prayers", but was sorta dancing around it.

In addition to the inaccurate translations, most Siddurim & Machsorsim
contain  long passages isn English that have zip to do with the
prayers, but are flowery expositions by contemporary authors. .

I'm not actually Reform [1] , but an uneasy,  conflicted mixture of
Conservative/Secular/Agnostic.  The "conflicted" part comes from my
fierce commitment to Judaism, and my awareness that I am standing on
the shoulders of giants (with whom I may not always agree, but whose
millennial scholarship I deeply respect, and try to consider in the
context of their times.

I actually didn't know there is a new Reform siddur in the works, and
join you in hoping that  it may include, if not more "literal", than
at least more accurate/faithful translations of prayers, and less
imitation goyish ornamentation.

[1] Though I have been going, for the last few years, to High Holy Day
services at a GLBT  (Gay/Lesbia/Bisexual/Transgender) congregation
where there is more love and true Yiddishkeit than I have ever seen
elsewhere. 

Polar

Return to Table of Contents

From: PDZ99@aol.com
Date: Sun Oct 14 19:03:08 US/Pacific 2001
Subject: Origin of Prayers

In a message dated 10/14/01 3:16:20 AM, Bob Rosin writes:

> For example, in Hebrew the prayers for peace - Shalom Rav and Sim Shalom -
> specifically call for God to bestow peace on Israel in particular, yet the
> translations in Reform prayerbooks seem to request that peace be granted to
> all humanity.  Why the difference? And the Aleinu also focuses on the
> uniqueness of the Jewish people, yet the Reform translations conceal this
> aspect almost completely.

Well, I think the short answer is that we are trying to be universalistic,
pursing social action at the expense of religion and sacredness.  I, as a
reform Jew, who is being educated by Orthodox and Chasidic rabbis, will
welcome any change in prayers that will point us back to a literal
translation. As many of our prayers have their origin in the text of the Torah
and Psalms, we Reform miss the whole subtlety of meaning with our
universalistic translations.  I don't know why our movement seems reluctant to
recognize Israel's "choosiness," but it's there in the Torah, no denying it.

My hope is that as we move toward a more traditional Judaism, we come to 
appreciate the whole spectrum of what our beautiful religion has to offer.

Patricia Zake  

Return to Table of Contents

From: Michael Berman <myberman@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun Oct 14  8:02:40 US/Pacific 2001
Subject: The RAC and "Fanatic Preachers"

It is interesting that when condemning those who looked at American 
"wrongdoing" as a possible "underlying cause" for the awful terrorist
attacks, the Religious Action Center of the Reform movement targeted Jerry
Falwell and Pat Robertson.

The clear implication of the RAC statement was that no one but Falwell
could blame America. "In the face of attacks on our nation, we stand
united... Except, it would seem, for Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat
Robertson." But as John Leo pointed out in a recent column, these two were
hardly alone in saying that "America had it coming." Quoting from Leo:

"A speaker at a University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill teach-in called
for an apology to 'the tortured and the impoverished and all the millions
of other victims of American imperialism.' Georgetown University is
holding a debate titled 'Resolved: America's Policies and Past Actions
Invited the Recent Attacks.' At a Yale panel, six hand-wringing professors
focused on 'underlying causes' of the attack and America's many faults,
including our 'offensive cultural messages.'"

Let us take it as a given that Falwell demonstrated a contemptible lack of
sensitivity, at the very least. Why, then, should we not denounce the
college speakers who similarly presented American "underlying causes" of
their own devising? Indeed, the only difference between the two sides is
that Falwell managed to condemn his imagined American misdeeds *without*
in any way minimizing the evil carried out by bin Laden and his minions.
Not so the university professors and speakers who claimed that American
attitudes inspired the attack, much as Palestinian apologists have claimed
that the "occupation" somehow mitigates the evil of suicide bombings
against Israelis eating pizza or going to a disco.

Again, the choice of target is interesting, and seems to indicate where
the RAC sees its mission. Falwell and Robertson were, at last count, not
Jewish, and I am aware of few Jews who are devoted viewers of the "700
Club." Not so a disproportionate percentage of college professors and
students, given the Jewish penchant for the academy - and, we can
justifiably assume, at least a proportionate share of these attend Reform
houses of worship.

[Moderator's Note: I'm not sure I agree with Michael's claim regarding the
religious affiliation of college professors; however, I encourage readers to
see past the claim to Michael's deeper question: Namely: Why was the focus on
Falwell and Robertson, and not on other who made similar claims?]

If it is the duty of a religious leadership to guide and correct its own
members, to criticize failings and wrongdoings within its religious
community, then the RAC chose a strange, in fact wrong, target. If,
however, it is the goal of a religious community to "score points" by
attacking other religious denominations, then the RAC has done well.

Michael Berman

Return to Table of Contents

"It is not our task as liberal Jews to complain about the Orthodox attitude or to be bullied by it, but rather to choose our legitimate path according to the inner logic and development of liberal Judaism" (Rabbi Walter Jacob)

Previous Issue: v11n47		Next Issue: v11n49
MLJ Home Page	Return to Retrieval Form