Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 051

Thursday, May 13 1999

• Evaluating the Shoah
• date of yom hashoah
• More comments about Sho'a and sefira
• Yom HaSho'ah Discussions
• Re: Evaluating the Shoah
• Re: More comments about Sho'a and sefira

A discussion has arisen comparing the Holocaust to earlier Jewish
tragedies.  I think everyone agrees that there is no point to arguing
that "our" tragedy was worse that "their" tragedy, any more than we
should be arguing about whose Gadol is bigger.  Moreover, as I explain
below, I think such comparisons are, if anything, the opposite of what
we should be doing.

Of course, some valid issues have been raised.  The current Torah
leadership is definitely conservative in its approach.  But, depending
on the issue, this is not necessarily a bad thing.  Rather than focusing
on why the Orthodox community has not embraced Yom ha-Sho'ah, I think it
might be worthwhile to contemplate why the non-Orthodox community has
done so.  Below I have reproduced a message I wrote some months ago in
response to a specific question on the subject:

Is the Holocaust sui generis?  In certain ways, but not necessarily
significant ones.  What distinguishes the Holocaust is its scale, the
technology, and the motivation.

First, let us speak about the sheer numbers.  Frankly, I do not think
the scale of the Holocaust is relevant.  Yes, 80% of European Jewry was
destroyed.  And, as Ashkenazim, we feel this mightily.  But what of
Sefardic Jewry?  The Sefardim were not threatened at all by the
Holocaust.  And I detect a strain of ethnocentrism among the Jews who
feel the Holocaust is unique because of its scale.

As for technology, this clearly distinguishes the Holocaust from earlier
catastrophes and is largely responsible for the scale of the slaughter.
But this is a technical difference.

The motivation is an important distinction, especially for a secular
Jew.  Throughout Jewish history, there have been attempts to destroy
Jews.  But these were primarily motovated by religious animosity.  In
most cases, a Jew was given the choice to convert.  What is distinctive
about the Holocaust is that it reflects a racial ant-Semitism, as
opposed to a religious anti-Semitism.  (Jacb Katz has written a book on
the origins of this racial anti-Semitism.)  For a traditional Jew, this
distinction is historically significant, but not theologically so.
After all, many Jewish sources posit an eternal conflict between Jews
and non-Jews (until the advent of mashi'ah).  Think of the passage in
the Hagaddah which speaks of those who arise "in every generation to
destroy us."  But for the assimilated Jew, the Holocaust represented the
death blow to the dream of acceptance by the Gentile.  Philosophically,
the entire enterprise of Emancipation was shattered.  Indeed, part of
what makes the Holocaust so chilling to moderns is that Nazis
slaughtered their Jewish neighbors, including the assimilated German
Jewish bourgeoisie, as opposed to focusing exclusively on foreign Jews,
especially the "backward" East Europeans.  (I have been told, by the
way, that contemporary Germans who are grappling with Holocaust guilt
primarily see the Holocaust victims in terms of the latter group, rather
than the former.)

But the main reason that the Holocaust remains special for most people
is its immediacy.  The horror of so recent an event will always
overshadow events from the 17th (Chmielnitzky), 15th (Expulsion), 12th
(Crusades) or first centuries (Destruction of the Temple).  I remember
that, on Tisha be-Av morning at Shomrai, everyone read through scores of
heartbreaking kinot with equanimity, until we recited together the
special kinah for the Shoah, and suddenly everyone was crying.

<end of quote>

For what it's worth, I think that part of the genius of our tradition
has been a calendar that deepens our historical perspective and roots us
in our past, while giving us the opportunity to endow fresh meaning to
ancient events.  Sefirah is an ideal example.  For us, as well as for
the Ashkenazic community of the 11-12th centuries, the commemoration of
the death of R. Akiva's students cannot be felt viscerally; the event is
buried too far into our past for us to do anything other than imagine
what the tragedy must have been like.  However, when, lo alenu, a new
catastrophe befell Asheknaz, they wove their contemporary mourning into
the fabric of the ritualized commemoration of the ancient tragedy.

This did more than preserve the contours of the calendar.  It provided
the community with an avenue for memorializing its pain, while also
using its grief as a bridge to the past, to better appreciate the loss
that had occurred so many centuries before.  In other words, the
contemporary tragedy became slightly more comprehensible, because it was
associated with a broader historical context, and the ancient loss
was endowed with a new-found immediacy.

In a similar spirit, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate established Asarah
be-Tevet as the yom ha-kaddish ha-kelali, for those who do not know when
to mourn relatives slaughtered by the Nazis.  This strikes me as a
perfect example of the traditional method of relating to tragedies that
befall soneihem shel Yisrael.

It is clear that, whatever else is true, Yom ha-Shoah does not cohere
with this approach.  In my view, our task in relating to the Shoah is to
try, as best we can, to locate it within the broader framework of Jewish
history and to harness our emotions toward developing a stronger
identification with earlier instances of puranut.

Kol tuv (and Yom Yerushalayim same'ah),

Eli Clark

the reason those who celebrate yom hashoah do so on 27 Nisan is it is
the halfway date between when the warsaw uprising occurred and Yom Hautzmut
(needless to say most of those in chutz la'aretz who don't celebrate one don't
celebrate the other).

====> I tried to snip a fair amount of stuff to conserve space a bit...



> From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: The Sho'a vs. mourning for the Crusades
> 
> 
> RYBS was fairly conservative in this regard, no different than his
> position with regard to Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut--not only don't say
> it with a bracha (despite recognition of the miracle) but don't say
> it during tefillah, only afterwards, in order not to be mishaneh
> mi'matbeah ha'tefillah.  Others are more liberal, certainly with
> regard to hallel on Yom Haatzmaut.

===> I do not ( nor ever did) understand the Rav ZT"L simiply to act in a
manner because he was "fairly conservative".  His point was that there was
solid reasoning NOT to intrude with these sort of changes and it is not
proper to simply express this as "conservative" vs. liberal.



> 
> Dr. Sternberg (the Mathematician at Harvard) gave shiurim
> demonstrating that the conservative attitude of 19th & 20th century
> Orthodoxy was not shared by earlier achronim.  He speculated that
> this conservatism was a reaction to Reform & Conservative Judaism.

===> Speculation does not appear to be a great reason to alter hanhagos...



> 
> In addition, I find the notion that one cannot tamper with dates of
> aveilut (such as Tisha b'av; cf. Rav Goren's position changing
> "Nachem") to be different from establishing new aveilut for the
> Holocaust.  First of all, changing or eliminating Tisha B'Av is
> changing a takanah of chazal, while chazal never said anything about
> not mourning the Holocaust.  Second, we do find that communities
> commemorated the Chmelnitzky massacres.  I find it difficult to
> distinguish mourning over the Holocaust from mourning over those
> massacres (other than the fact that the Shach favored the latter
> mourning while all the gedolim feel too "small"--compared to prior
> generations--to be so proactive; it is ironic that R. Moshe Feinstein
> in the introduction to his Iggerot Moshe takes such an active
> position with regard to paskening, saying that even though "katonti"
> somebody has to stand up and take action).

==> The point that the Rav ZT"L (and the other poskim make) is that based
upon their understanding of the Kinot, the Rishonim have told us that we
cannot make up any additional days of mourning.  This seems to have been
accepted not only by the CI ZT"L and the Rav ZT"L but by other poskim of
our time...  In addition, the while point is that the Tach V'Tat massacres
have NOT been commemorated on a naitonal scale.  This further seems to
show (despite the statement of the Schach) that it was felt that we simply
cannot add days of Aveilut to our calendar...

--Zvi

> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe
> _________________________________________________________
> ------------------------------
> From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: The Sho'a vs. mourning for the Crusades
> It's not only a certain Dr. Shlomo STERNBERG (sorry for mistyping
> earlier) (who, by the way, is a brilliant talmid chacham who has
> smicha from the Rav).  I believe that there are a lot of gedolim out
> there who are too afraid to innovate (this didn't include RYBS)
> because they were afraid of what the velt might say.  (BTW, all Dr.
> Sternberg did is show us what was written meforash by early achronim.
>  He didn't take any positions against the Rav.  The only position he
> was adamant about was that the Aish HaTorah number method was
> inconclusive mathematically and therefore proved nothing.)  Others,
> like the Rav, had a certain conservative streak (maybe, in RYBS'
> case, to counter other liberal views that he had).  

===> That is not really a fair statement.  In the face of p'sak from the
CI, the Rav, the Brisker Rav (I think) and others -- it would seem to be
pretty arrogant to defy them -- just because of an emotional connection to
the sho'ah..  In fact, if Dr. Sternberg did NOT take any positions against
the Rav, it is not so clear that he owuld even support the suggestion
here.



> 
> With all due respect, there are many liberal talmidei chachamim who
> had "valid opinions" (Rav Goren comes to mind) but were demonized by
> the yeshivishe velt.  Appropos to this discussion, see the article in
> the recent Tradition about women's minyanim.

===> Possibly true (about the "liberal Talmidei Chachamim").  However,
regardless of that, in this case, there appears to be sufficient p'sak
ALREADY "generated", that it would take a lot of "chutzpa" to issue
something agianst it...

--Zvi

> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe
> ------------------------------
> From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: The Sho'a vs. mourning for the Crusades
> > 
> <snip>
> 
> > Yet 
> > Rav Scachter in Nefesh Harav mentions that RYBS changed the minhag
> > with 
> > regard to certain piyutim (to include them in maariv) even though
> > this was 
> > not the practice accepted by his father.  Rav Schachter uses some
> > strong 
> > language (like horaat shaah I believe) to describe this change -
> > done so that 
> > people who saw that something in the siddur was being skipped
> > wouldn't say 
> > well if you can skip this I guess other changes(eg Conservative
> > with a 
> > capital C) are also ok.  
> 
> I should point out that RYBS had many sides to him and that Rav
> Schachter (who was my rebbe and with whom I still maintain a cordial
> relationship) prefers the conservative side.

===> Unless the poster had a personal connection to the Rav ZT"L on the
level of R. Schachter SHLIT"A, I fail to understand his basis for positing
that Rav Schachter simply "prefers the conservative side".  On the
contrary, I am fairly sure that Rav Schachter would be able to explain
that what the poster thought was "liberal" on the part of the Rav ZT"L was
actually part of that same "conservative side".  Also, note R. Meiselman's
article in Tradition where -- inter alia -- he describes the Rav ZT"L as a
person who was part of the Rav's *family*.  Unless we are going to say
that everyone else has somehow a "distorted" picture because they "prefer
conservative", maybe we just have to say that the Rav was not the "liberal
Posek" that people in the Modern Orthodox world might like to see..




> 
> > Perhaps we could also understand it as the
> > normal 
> > halachik process where the concern over 'misinterpretation' is a
> > davar 
> > hamachria between two 'acceptable' alternatives and in fact makes
> > the 
> > otherwise less acceptable alternative more acceptable.RYBS position
> > on shoa 
> > etc. could be in a similar category.  The obvious nafka mina would
> > be if 
> > these outside inputs changed, then we would change the
> > result(leaving aside 
> > who the 'we'  is.)
> 
> Exactly my feeling.  The Rav's positions were very appropriate for
> the 1950's (when he was most active), not necessarily for 1999.  I
> also note that Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik, in his hesped for the Rav (in
> Lamport auditorium) said that the Rav's personality changed as a
> result of his wife's death and implied that the former personality
> was more true to what the Rav was all about.

===> Understood. But R. Schachter and R. Meisleman HAD a relationship
BEFORE his wife had passed away....  Also, I am a bit leery of trying to
say that "times have changed and the Rav *would have* done it my way --
were he still alive"... Maybe yes and maybe no....



> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe
> ------------------------------
> From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: More on Sefira vs. Sho'ah
> [Zvi:]
> > ===> First, I am not even trying to compare the Sephardic approach.
> >  As
> > you recall, according to the Beit Yosef, their Aveilut does not
> > even end
> > at the same time as the Ashkenazi custom.  Also, the ARI ZT"L noted
> > that
> > one is "really" supposed to observe Aveilut the WHOLE time. 
> 
> That's not my point.  My point is that the Crusades vis a vis
> Ashkenazim were from a historical perspective much less traumatic
> than the Holocaust.

===> If we are talking about Ashkenazim, why bring in Sephardim at all??
And, without the Sephardim, I still question the validity of claiming that
"from a historical perspective" the Crusades were less traumatic...  I
suspect (but cannot prove) that you will not find ANY halachic construct
that supports that sor of claim.  When we look at trauma, it seems that we
have to "compare" the *experience* of those who livbed then with the
experience of those who lived now and -- based upon the writings that we
*do* have, it seems that those who were alive then were "just" as
traumatized...



> 
> > I
> > think (but
> > am not sure) that there was a different dynamic at work.  and, *for
> > the
> > Ashkenazim*, the Crusades were unbearably traumatic.
> > 
> 
> Perhaps at the time, the Crusades were.  But today, from a historical
> perspective, there's no comparison.

===> Again, that has an arrogant ring to it.  will you similarly say that
the sho'ah was worse than the Churban Habayit?  Why not?  I think that we
can only look at tragedies through the eyes of those who experienced them
and that it is insensitive to claim that we can "rank them" based upon a
"historical perpective"..



> 
> Much of the destruction of Torah occurred at a later period (e.g. the
> kinah dealing with the burning of the Talmud in Paris).  While the
> Crusades were disruptive, they did not cause a great break in Torah
> learning (unlike the events in France &  Germany at the end of the
> 13th century).  Immediately after (and during) the Crusades came
> Rashi and the Baalei HaTosfot.

===> There were several cursades so I am not sure how to repsond here.  I
think that Rashi *preceeded* most of the Crusades and the Ba'alei
Hatosafot were somewhat caught up in them...




> 
> In contrast, the destruction of Torah learning existing in Europe was
> much greater (at least that's what the Chazon Ish implied to Ben
> Gurion when he requested the draft deferment for Bnai Yeshiva).

===> However, the destruction of Torah learning was simply a bi-product of
the general destruction.  The Massacres of the Crusades seem to have been
*focused* upon the destruction of Torah...



> > 
> > ===> Purim is a time of *celebration*.  I am not sure how the
> > equation
> > would fit.  Indeed, if there is physical hatzala -- then we
> > celebrate that
> > as well...  
> 
> Conceptually, it's the same.  We celebrate physical redemption and
> mourn physical destruction (people dying).

===> Not really.  In the case of salvation, it is fairly straightforward
to identify the "day" to celebrate.  In the case of Aveilut, it is a bit
more difficult to pick a specific day -- and, hence, it becomes much
trickier to specify a "ritual of mourning"...




> 
> > ALSO, in that case, the *frum* element "got there
> > first"...
> > The point is that the secular element treats the events of the
> > Sho'ah as
> > worsethan ANYTHING ELSE in Jewish History.  I believe (but am not
> > certain)
> > that some of these people who are so "into" Yom HaSho'ah will eat
> > on 9-AV!
> > In that context, I am not surprised that the frum element will shy
> > away
> > from such *insensitivity* (and, yes, I think that it IS insensitive
> > to
> > "rank" tragedies to the extent that some are IGNORED while one's
> > "favorite" is celebrated.
> 
> The question is why the frum community must be so swayed by what the
> secular do.  If the secular would make Tisha B'Av a commemoration of
> the Crusades (to the exclusion of the destruction of the Bet
> haMikdash) would we stop commemorating Tisha B'Av or stop saying
> kinot dealing with the Crusades?  

===> The point is not being "swayed" but rather the desire to distance
one's self from people who have a viewpoint that is so hostile to us.
Sure the Secular could *try* to make Tish'a B'Av into something else --
but the point is that we "are there first".. and so there is no reason for
us to "give up"...




> 
> Why do we let the secular monopolize the issue of the Holocaust?  Is
> it because some have used it as a "proof" for the non-existence of
> Hashem?  Because so many frum people perished?  Because our gedolim
> told people to stay in Europe?  The Holocaust is the greatest tragedy
> to befall the Jewish people since the destruction of the Bet
> haMikdash, and the frum community has not come to grips with it.

==> We "let" the secular monopolize the holocaust (I think) because they
(unlike us) cannot seem to have a "large view".  They see ONLY the SHo'ah
and -- in fact -- use that as part of their "ammunition" against those who
choose to continue to believe...  As for "not coming to grips" with it, I
think that -- for now -- the issue is still so unbearably painful (in
terms of questions of hashkafa) that we are still unable to "deal" with it
so closely..



> > ===> I think that the Nazis Y"Sh deliberately conducted raids
> > around the
> > Yom tovim (in part because they knew the Jews would be easy to find
> > and in
> > part to add a bit of glee in wrecking the Yom Tov).  Thus, the raid
> > in
> > Denmark was (I think) at Rosh Hashana.  There were similar actions
> > around
> > Chanuka and other such holidays...  Similarly, there was some
> > activity
> > around Shavu'ot....
> > 
> 
> So you agree that we can add an element of mourning for the Shoah
> during Sefirah (just as in the Middle Ages they added an element of
> mourning for the Crusades)?


===> Not exactly -- because the Nazis ALSO did this around R"H and other
chagim.  Should we incorporate mourning before those holidays also...??
In the case of the crusades, it seems that this was "the time" -- esp.
because it was right around Easter, as well...  Besides, what "added
element" would you now stick in??

> > > ===> Actually, one can note that it is critical to focus on the
> > past
> > first.  We see how our current tzarot "grew" out of the earlier
> > ones.  For
> > that reason, the primary focus is on the Beit Hmikdash since the
> > bitter
> > pill of Galut is the foundation for ALL of the later miseries. 
> > Hence, the
> > Kinot for the crusades are formulated for 9-Av.  similarly, we do
> > NOT make
> > a distinct mourning for the crusades -- instead, we "swallow" it
> > into an
> > earlier period of mourning...  
> 
> But why can't we swallow the mourning for the Holocaust into Sefirah
> as well?


===> How?  We seem to be in a society that is looking for ways to DECREASE
the nourning associated with Sefira...


> 
> >I think that the choice to focus on
> > the
> > present can be misguided.  A people guided by mesorah need to
> > understand
> > that our present situation is not one that stands in isolation...
> 
> Agreed.  But the Rishonim nevertheless mourned the Crusades.

===> Sure but they were careful to do so within the existing contextual
framework.  Thus, the kinot are recited on 9 Av --and NOT when the events
originally took place...


> 
> > 
> > That said, I would just note that I one heard R. Berel Wein say
> > that we
> > are waiting for our Gedolim to formulate the "proper" reaction to
> > the
> > events of the Sho'ah and the State of Israel
> > 
> 
> Seems like we've been waiting too long.  (Also, which Gedolim?  The
> Rabbanim HaRoshim such as Rav Herzog did formulate policies.)


===> Really?  What did the Rabbanut institute?
--Zvi

> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe

Although no one needs my haskomo, I would like to express my agreement
with REC's and RZW's posts, and mark my admiration of their comprehensive
approaches and e-eloquence!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

--- "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> wrote:
> However, when, lo alenu, a
> new
> catastrophe befell Asheknaz, they wove their contemporary mourning
> into
> the fabric of the ritualized commemoration of the ancient tragedy.
> 
> This did more than preserve the contours of the calendar.  It
> provided
> the community with an avenue for memorializing its pain, while also
> using its grief as a bridge to the past, to better appreciate the
> loss
> that had occurred so many centuries before.  In other words, the
> contemporary tragedy became slightly more comprehensible, because
> it was
> associated with a broader historical context, and the ancient loss
> was endowed with a new-found immediacy.
> 
> In a similar spirit, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate established Asarah
> be-Tevet as the yom ha-kaddish ha-kelali, for those who do not know
> when
> to mourn relatives slaughtered by the Nazis.  This strikes me as a
> perfect example of the traditional method of relating to tragedies
> that
> befall soneihem shel Yisrael.
> 
> It is clear that, whatever else is true, Yom ha-Shoah does not
> cohere
> with this approach.  In my view, our task in relating to the Shoah
> is to
> try, as best we can, to locate it within the broader framework of
> Jewish
> history and to harness our emotions toward developing a stronger
> identification with earlier instances of puranut.
> 
I agree with you.  (BTW I do not go out of my way to observe Yom
Hashoah despite the fact that my mother, a survivor, would prefer
that I do.)  However, considering the enormity of the Holocaust (80%
of European Jewry perished, vs. only 25% in the case of the Crusades)
and its recent vintage, I believe that frum Jews should do more than
say Kaddish Klali during Asara B'Tevet (in fact, I know of no one in
the U.S. who does so).  Why not either (1) go the way of Eastern
European Jews during the time of the Chmielnitzky massacre and have
additional fasts or (2) go the way of Ashkenazic Jews in the time of
the Crusades and increase the severity of Sefirah?

Kol tuv, 
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

--- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
> 
> ==> The point that the Rav ZT"L (and the other poskim make) is that
> based
> upon their understanding of the Kinot, the Rishonim have told us
> that we
> cannot make up any additional days of mourning.  This seems to have
> been
> accepted not only by the CI ZT"L and the Rav ZT"L but by other
> poskim of
> our time...  

What about Tach V'Tat in Eastern Europe?  Also, the Rabbanut HaRashit
designated Asara B'tevet for kaddish k'lali.

> In addition, the while point is that the Tach V'Tat
> massacres
> have NOT been commemorated on a naitonal scale.  

OK, so let all Ashkenazim who had any relatives killed in the Shoah
do the observance.

<snip>
> 
> ===> Possibly true (about the "liberal Talmidei Chachamim"). 
> However,
> regardless of that, in this case, there appears to be sufficient
> p'sak
> ALREADY "generated", that it would take a lot of "chutzpa" to issue
> something agianst it...
> 
I assume that if a recognized posek were to issue a psak to have some
form of mourning for the Shoah, that posek would not be considered
"chutzpadik."  Didn't you yourself quote R. Berel Wein as saying that
we are waiting for the gedolim to formulate a policy on this issue;
that implies that the current inaction is not meant to be permanent.

I would also like to reiterate my point, which does not seem to have
been sufficiently appreciated: What RYBS and CI did in the 1950s (in
the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust) is not necessarily relevant
40 years later.  There were other pressures at the time, e.g. people
becoming non-observant as a reaction to the Holocaust (read Eli
Wiesel's books on this issue).  Had the Rav been 40 years old today,
I have the feeling he would be more proactive with regard to this
issue.

> > <snip>
> > 
> > > Yet 
> > > Rav Scachter in Nefesh Harav mentions that RYBS changed the

*** correction: David Engelmayer, Rav Schachter's son-in-law (and a
former chavruta of mine) pointed out that the name of the sefer is
N'fash Harav.

> minhag
> > > with 
> > > regard to certain piyutim (to include them in maariv) even
> though
> > > this was 
> > > not the practice accepted by his father.  Rav Schachter uses
> some
> > > strong 
> > > language (like horaat shaah I believe) to describe this change
> -
> > > done so that 
> > > people who saw that something in the siddur was being skipped
> > > wouldn't say 
> > > well if you can skip this I guess other changes(eg Conservative
> > > with a 
> > > capital C) are also ok.  
> > 
> > I should point out that RYBS had many sides to him and that Rav
> > Schachter (who was my rebbe and with whom I still maintain a
> cordial
> > relationship) prefers the conservative side.
> 
> ===> Unless the poster had a personal connection to the Rav ZT"L on
> the
> level of R. Schachter SHLIT"A, I fail to understand his basis for
> positing
> that Rav Schachter simply "prefers the conservative side".  On the
> contrary, I am fairly sure that Rav Schachter would be able to
> explain
> that what the poster thought was "liberal" on the part of the Rav
> ZT"L was
> actually part of that same "conservative side".  Also, note R.
> Meiselman's
> article in Tradition where -- inter alia -- he describes the Rav
> ZT"L as a
> person who was part of the Rav's *family*.  

See the upcoming edition of Tradition where both Eli Clark (who
showed me his letter) and Rabbi Blau write letters disagreeing with
R. Meiselman's characterizations of the Rav.  Eli told me that he
takes issue with R. Meiselman's suggestion that he was part of the
Rav's inner circle; in fact only the Rav's children and sons-in-law
were part of that circle (receiving special shiurim, etc.).  R.
Meiselman, a nephew, was not.  Moreover, R. Meiselman, as one clearly
to the right of the Rav, is more likely to recreate the Rav in his
own image.

> Unless we are going to
> say
> that everyone else has somehow a "distorted" picture because they
> "prefer
> conservative", maybe we just have to say that the Rav was not the
> "liberal
> Posek" that people in the Modern Orthodox world might like to see..
> 

I can just tell you that--as a talmid of many of the Rav's talmidim
(Rabbis Schachter, Willig, Rosensweig, Genack, Lichtenstein) and a
student of his son R. Chaim-- R. Schachter (with whom, interestingly,
I have the closest relationship on a personal level) has the most
conservative view of the Rav (and I read through the Halachic
portions of N'fash HaRav at least 3 times).  (Also, as a person
utterly obsessed about the Rav, I ask every person who knew the Rav
about him.  Some of the more liberal views of the Rav I would not
publicize because some on the Right would take them negatively.)  

<snip>
[Moshe:]
> > 
> > Exactly my feeling.  The Rav's positions were very appropriate
> for
> > the 1950's (when he was most active), not necessarily for 1999. 
> I
> > also note that Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik, in his hesped for the Rav
> (in
> > Lamport auditorium) said that the Rav's personality changed as a
> > result of his wife's death and implied that the former
> personality
> > was more true to what the Rav was all about.
> 
> ===> Understood. But R. Schachter and R. Meisleman HAD a
> relationship
> BEFORE his wife had passed away.... 

I agree.  But in the mid-1960s, the Holocaust was still relatively
fresh and there were good reasons (which I mentioned above) why the
Rav may have preferred inaction.  By the 1970s and 1980s, when action
by the Rav may have been more appropriate, the Rav was not as active
as he had been before his wife's passing.

> Also, I am a bit leery of
> trying to
> say that "times have changed and the Rav *would have* done it my
> way --
> were he still alive"... Maybe yes and maybe no....
> 
Don't get me wrong.  I agree that it is impossible to speculate what
the Rav would have done.  But, because of that, I would support a
posek who would take a more active approach with regard to the Shoah;
I wouldn't view such a posek as necessarily DISAGREEING with what the
Rav would have done.

> > [Zvi:]
> > > ===> First, I am not even trying to compare the Sephardic
> approach.
> > . . . .
> > That's not my point.  My point is that the Crusades vis a vis
> > Ashkenazim were from a historical perspective much less traumatic
> > than the Holocaust.
> 
> ===> If we are talking about Ashkenazim, why bring in Sephardim at
> all??

You must have misunderstood me.  I was bringing in Sephardim only for
a side point.

> And, without the Sephardim, I still question the validity of
> claiming that
> "from a historical perspective" the Crusades were less traumatic...
>  I
> suspect (but cannot prove) that you will not find ANY halachic
> construct
> that supports that sor of claim.  When we look at trauma, it seems
> that we
> have to "compare" the *experience* of those who livbed then with
> the
> experience of those who lived now and -- based upon the writings
> that we
> *do* have, it seems that those who were alive then were "just" as
> traumatized...
> > 
> > > I
> > > think (but
> > > am not sure) that there was a different dynamic at work.  and,
> *for
> > > the
> > > Ashkenazim*, the Crusades were unbearably traumatic.
> > >
>> Perhaps at the time, the Crusades were.  But today, from a
> historical
> > perspective, there's no comparison.
> 
> ===> Again, that has an arrogant ring to it.  

No it doesn't.  I say this as someone who took Dr. David Berger's
course (at Revel) focusing on the Crusades.

> 
> > Much of the destruction of Torah occurred at a later period (e.g.
> the
> > kinah dealing with the burning of the Talmud in Paris).  While
> the
> > Crusades were disruptive, they did not cause a great break in
> Torah
> > learning (unlike the events in France &  Germany at the end of
> the
> > 13th century).  Immediately after (and during) the Crusades came
> > Rashi and the Baalei HaTosfot.
> 
> ===> There were several cursades so I am not sure how to repsond
> here.  I
> think that Rashi *preceeded* most of the Crusades and the Ba'alei
> Hatosafot were somewhat caught up in them...
> 

You missed my point.  As I recollect from the courses I took at Revel
(where I studied for a M.A. with an emphasis on Medieval Jewish
History), the Crusades did not cause a major disruption in Torah
learning.  You correctly note (as I parenthetically noted, using the
word "during") that Rashi lived both before and during the Crusades
and that the Baalei Hatosfot lived after the First Crusade.  Thus,
the leading figures in the Ashkenazic world continued their work of
disseminating Torah.  Contrast with the Agudah world which often
claims that we have no Gedolim today because no Gedolim were produced
post-Holocaust.

> > In contrast, the destruction of Torah learning existing in Europe
> was
> > much greater (at least that's what the Chazon Ish implied to Ben
> > Gurion when he requested the draft deferment for Bnai Yeshiva).
> 
> ===> However, the destruction of Torah learning was simply a
> bi-product of
> the general destruction.  The Massacres of the Crusades seem to
> have been
> *focused* upon the destruction of Torah...
> 
My coursework with Dr. David Berger does not bear out your assertion.
 At most, the Crusader mobs wished the Jews to convert; they did not
specifically go after the Gedolim.  In fact, the leaders of the
Church, who would have been most likely to wish to decimate the
Gedolim, tended to try to dissuade the mob from attacking.

> > > 
> > > ===> Purim is a time of *celebration*.  I am not sure how the
> > > equation
> > > would fit.  Indeed, if there is physical hatzala -- then we
> > > celebrate that
> > > as well...  
> > 
> > Conceptually, it's the same.  We celebrate physical redemption
> and
> > mourn physical destruction (people dying).
> 
> ===> Not really.  In the case of salvation, it is fairly
> straightforward
> to identify the "day" to celebrate.  In the case of Aveilut, it is
> a bit
> more difficult to pick a specific day -- and, hence, it becomes
> much
> trickier to specify a "ritual of mourning"...
> 
True, but my point was that we can deduce from Purim that events that
are physical (dying, being saved) rather than spiritual (being forced
to abandon mitzvot) also demand commemoration.  I agree that it is
not easy to specify a ritual of mourning, but that wasn't what I was
trying to derive from Purim.

> > But why can't we swallow the mourning for the Holocaust into
> Sefirah
> > as well?
> 
> 
> ===> How?  We seem to be in a society that is looking for ways to
> DECREASE
> the nourning associated with Sefira...
> 

So let people shave during Sefirah (as permitted by the Rav) but take
upon themselves not to eat fancy meals.

> 
> ===> Really?  What did the Rabbanut institute?

Saying Kaddish k'lali on Asara B'Tevet.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]