Memory and Remembrance Days: Between Remembrance and Obligation

From the Desert of Matana – 1998

We are currently (at the time of writing) between two days of remembrance: Holocaust Remembrance and Heroism Day, and IDF Martyrs' Day. This is the foundation that the people of Israel have chosen to lay as the foundation for celebrating their independence. I would like to record here some reflections on the subject of days of remembrance, and perhaps also the concept of remembrance itself, which seems not always to be fully examined and understood.

The concept of memory has several appearances, both in the sources and in everyday language. There is memory of events, such as the memory of the Exodus from Egypt. There is memory of information, such as when we usually try to remember the Torah, as well as other things we learn. There are objects that themselves constitute a memory of various things (perhaps memory aids), from tombstones and museums, to the tzitzit (that you may remember all my commandments). There is memory of references, which usually appears in the context of God (although not always), such as remember your mercy, or your loving-kindness, etc.

At the same time, there are also several types of memorial days. There are memorial days for people who have passed away, and there are memorial days for events, such as Purim, Passover, Sukkot, memorial days for private miracles, and more (in this sense, Independence Day also has a dimension of a memorial day). The two memorial days we are between have a more complex nature.

Holocaust Remembrance Day and Heroism does not seem to mark different events or people today. It is a day that marks phenomena. The phenomena we remember on this day are abysmal evil on the one hand, and supreme heroism on the other. Persecution of a satanic and incomprehensible nature, compared to death or survival, and functioning in the depths of that valley of death. We compare these two poles before our eyes on Holocaust Remembrance Day and Heroism. We also remember people who were partners in these events and phenomena, those who lacked the human image and the image of God, and those who possessed such an image, but it seems that the emphasis is on the phenomena more than on the people and the events. Here the people and the events serve as the essence of the phenomena. It is clear that we must not forget that these phenomena were caused by people, and perhaps this is their main meaning, but the emphasis in remembrance is on the phenomena themselves.

Although memorial days for individuals can also be perceived as days in which we remember the qualities and deeds of the person to whom the day is dedicated, in simple terms there is an issue here that goes beyond the concrete history of the person being remembered. We remember him in himself, and use his qualities and deeds to do so. In the Rosh Hashanah supplement, we describe the memory of God on these two levels: "For the memory of all creation comes before you, the work of man and his command, and the deeds of the steps of man" (and read the entire passage there). The deeds and deeds are the way in which the person is remembered.

The Day of Remembrance for the Fallen of the IDF is also of a more complex nature. It is not a day of remembrance for the concrete individuals who fell, as each of them has their own personal day of remembrance. On the other hand, it seems that it is not a day of remembrance for a phenomenon, nor for the phenomenon of heroism and sacrifice that is often talked about on this day. It is a collective memory for those who walk. There is a kind of day of remembrance here for a person, but not for a concrete person but for his general aspect as he fell in the battles of Israel. Heroism and sacrifice on this day are not the content of the remembrance, but rather its essence. Before celebrating our independence, we need to remember what the masters (the masters of money instead of the 'money tray', and that's it) are on which it rests.

Today, the perception is widespread that the individual cannot be an instrument, a means, a quintessence, or a 'master' of something. He is an end in himself. Therefore, the prevailing way of remembering today is also increasingly moving towards remembering the fallen individuals. Referring to the fallen as a group that fell for a purpose is diminishing. Such a way of speaking, and assertions about the individual being quintessence, seem contradictory to the humanistic values that currently dominate the world. Grouping the individuals into a whole seems like a loss, neglect, or at least a disdain for the personal image of each of them.

Indeed, for those who believe in the individual being a member of the general organism of the people, the perception of memory is completely different. Here, the person is indeed the essence, whose individual image only serves us to develop identification and memory, but is not the purpose of memory. For this purpose, there are the days of death of each of these fallen. I do not intend to diminish in the slightest their importance, as well as the importance and status of each individual among the components of the whole. This is just a different perception of reality, from that which is prevalent today in the liberal-humanist world.

Now the question arises, why do we really need to remember all these recollections? What is this operation, or operations, of memory? I mean a two-dimensional question: how do we operate this operation, and what does it operate?

R. Tzadok writes in several places that there is a close connection between Zekira and Pikida. This connection is expressed in several contexts, such as Pikida for infertility, and Pikida for the Jewish people to Galem. For example, we cite his words in S. Puked Akarim, page 2: (and also on page 23:):

Therefore, we read Parashat Veda, which is the day of the conception of the world and the stewardship of the entire world, meaning the beginning of the thought and desire that the created beings be His army and His servants, and that the Lord would be steward over them and watch over and supervise His servants. And who is not stewarded on this day before Him, because then it is the day of command and supervision over all His creatures, just as on that day was the beginning of creation in the Old Testament, and therefore in the Old Testament, Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah were stewarded, and about Rachel and Hannah it is said, "Memory," and in the Old Testament (32:) there is a group of stewards, not stewards, as in "Memories," and "These" and "These" because stewardship is also a term of remembrance, but it adds to it with greater care and quality, and in contrast, the term of remembrance adds to it in quantity and duration of time, as in the Risha in the Haggai, where stewardship is for an hour and remembrance for generations of the ages. And we are told that in the mind there is a chamber of memory where All the things that are in his memory are engraved and recorded, and a word that is not a lie that is forgotten is erased from that room and the book of remembrance. But when he puts it to heart to remember it, it is remembered and stands with him. It is engraved in his mind, and even when he does not remember it at that moment, its inscription still exists and is evident in his mind, for if he had wanted, he would have remembered it. And the essence of the Lord is called the Day of Remembrance, which from this point of view is the beginning of the year, from which the influence continues throughout the year, and the continuation is through remembering and raising the memory to goodness, it is the continuation of the abundance of providence in the quality that is the matter of the trustee…

And in his book, Thoughts of Harut (SA), he wrote further:

According to the word "remember" and "remember" is the depth, the beginning and the beginning, as God calls the Day of Remembrance, because the end of a deed is the beginning in thought, and the day that conceives the world of pregnancy and thought, as it says in the Torah, the 27th day of Deveshri, the thought is the thought of the deed. Then is the time of remembrance to deposit every spirit and soul, because the beginning of thought is the memory that remembers above in one's mind all the work that one wants to do, and hope is for the end, as it says in the words of the scripture, "afterlife" and "good hope," because the hope is for what is to come, and it is the depth, the end, at the end of the deed and the end of everything for good, and so is the beginning of everything, because Israel ascended in thought, and also their sins, are ordered and come from the six days of Genesis, as it says in the psalm of Re"k, meaning from the beginning of creation, God thought for good, and despite God foreseeing before Him and seeing the corruptions, He did not prevent creation, for Israel, who are the essence of creation, everything is transformed for good in them, and despite their transgression, after the correction, the depth is revealed, the beginning and the depth is the end, which is all good and in any case We'll sweeten what we have in the meantime.

And this is the validity and strength of joy when it becomes clear after the spoilage that everything is for the best and that there was no spoilage in the first place, but rather, there were additions of good and gains. Like someone who lost all his possessions and returned and found them with him and had twice as much as before, this joy is greater than for someone who did not lose and gained….

There is no room here to elaborate on this. For our purposes, we will only say that remembrance is the root of the pikaida. He who remembers is the one who visits. When God remembers us, so to speak, then He also visits us. On the human level, too, he who remembers is the one who will visit, in the sense that all the mourning over Jerusalem is rewarded and sees its joy. Rabbi Tzadok here adds that after the pikaida, it will become clear that what is remembered (sins or bereavement) is also part of the pikaida itself, to make it more excellent.

The connection between remembrance and remembrance seems different between God and humans. With God, when He remembers, He remembers, and with humans, it is the one who remembers who remembers. And according to the law, both things have a common root, as the measure of God is, so is the measure of flesh and blood. And the explanation for this seems to be that the concept of remembrance is not something separate from the person or event being remembered, but rather it is a part of it. We found the verb 'zakh' in the Bible in such a context as well. In the verse 'Timcha et zakhr Amalek' which appears twice in the Torah, the meaning of 'zakhr Amalek' is clearly 'a part of Amalek'. Although according to the midrash it is possible to explain that his memory must also be erased, but simply put it is interpreted that the memory of Amalek is the remnant of Amalek. The last part, or what remains of Amalek. Similarly, every memory is not just a state of consciousness, but it is a part of the person or event being remembered that remains with the one who remembers. This may also be the interpretation when the Bible speaks of remembering kindnesses or mercy. A memory of kindness or mercy is also a remnant of that kindness or mercy, and not just a renewed mental state in the one who remembers (and certainly when it comes to God).

Here we encounter memory in a slightly different meaning: memory means to connect the one who remembers with the one who is remembered. When God remembers someone, then his memory comes before Him and a connection is created, as it were, between him and God. This connection itself gives him life as someone who is connected to the source of life, and thus the fiqida is created. The person or people who are remembered by God, as it were, are nourished and receive renewed life by the power of that connection to the One whose life is His.

In an ordinary organic being, all the organs are connected anyway, physically and simultaneously. The head immediately knows what hurts the leg by the connection between them. Even in a spiritual organism, such as a people, there is a connection between the various organs, even those belonging to different generations. The entire historical sequence is one organic sequence. The connection is made by memory. This is the mechanism through which the later organ in this sequence knows about what is happening (or happened) to the earlier organ. A people, like an individual, is a sequence that is both spatial and temporal. It is memory that creates continuity in the dimension of time, both in the people and in the individual.

In light of what is said here, it seems that the obligation to remember, and the act of memory, between human beings, are interpreted in a similar way to that between God and man. Maimonides, Teshuvah 4:

And there are five things that close the paths of repentance to those who do them. These are: a) One who withdraws from the community, so that when they do repentance, he will not be with them and will not receive the merit that they do…

Those who belong to the same historical continuum and are connected to it can clearly also bear the fruits of that ongoing effort. The right we have to enjoy the fruits of the sacrifice of our predecessors is that they are not separate entities from us, the one who sacrifices and the one who reaps the fruits belong to the same organ. Those who do not connect to this continuum will also not be able to enjoy its fruits. In this sense, those we remember are also those who reap the fruits, even before they are resurrected in the resurrection. Some of them live within us and enjoy these fruits with us. This is the depth of the perception of the whole as an organism, in contrast to the perception, mentioned earlier, which sees the individual at the center. Therefore, memory and the function are inextricably linked. Those who remember are also absent, because they are the ones who sacrificed, and therefore they too can enjoy the fruits.

This is the answer we give to the wicked son in the Passover Haggadah: since he excluded himself from the general atonement… and therefore if he had been there, he would not have been redeemed. He who does not bind himself to the general cannot also be redeemed in its entirety (and see ‘On the Repentance’ by Rabbi Soloveitchik, who expanded on this in the third chapter regarding the atonement of Yom Kippur to the specific within the general).

Maimonides, in the Laws of Repentance, specifies who is not bound by the rule, and therefore does not enjoy its rights, and he is mentioned in the same chapter, 3:11 (and in the same chapter, 3:56):

He who withdraws from public ways, even though he has not committed any offenses, but has separated himself from the community of Israel and does not perform any of their commandments, nor does he enter into their troubles, nor does he suffer their suffering, but rather walks his path as one of the nations of the earth, and as if he were not one of them, he has no part in the world to come.

In a discussion of one of the Tishim, we discussed what the commentators found difficult by contradicting the parallel words of the Maimonides in the book of Abel 1:1, and the following verse:

All those who have separated themselves from the ways of the people are the people who have lifted the yoke of the mitzvot from their shoulders and are not included in the generality of Israel in performing the mitzvot and honoring the festivals and attending synagogues and seminaries. Rather, they are like free people to themselves. Likewise, the heretics, the apostates, and the reformers. All these do not mourn for them, but their brothers and other relatives wear white and wrap themselves in white and eat, drink, and be happy. For the enemies of the Blessed One, the Blessed One, have perished, and about them the Scripture says, "Does not the Lord hate those who hate you?"

And apparently it is difficult to say that only when they do not observe the commandments are they called to withdraw from the paths of the public, and not as he says in the answer to the question, that if they did not commit any offenses, then so be it. And it seems clear that in both places the Rambam's intention is the same: one who does not perform the commandments with the public is the one who withdraws from the paths of the public, even if for himself he observes a mild or severe observance. The Rambam's language in the answer to the question is, "And he does not perform the commandments in general." Also in the answer to the question, his language is, "And he is not included in the generality of Israel in performing the commandments, etc.", and in light of the similarity, it is clear that his intention is the same: one who does not observe the commandments can still be called in the generality of the public. But if he does so privately, and does not follow the paths of the public (not only withdraws from the public, but also from the paths of the public, and that is correct), he is called to withdraw from the paths of the public.

And it is precise in the language of the laws of the Hebrews, but so is the name of the Rambam, as well as the heretics and the converts, etc. And if it was previously written that anyone who does not perform a mitzvot is not in the general public, why would he subtract the part of the mitzvot of faith, and apparently it is a KOH? Rather, simply, the one who does not perform the mitzvot is still in the general public, and only the one who performs them alone is called a disfellowshipper from the general public.

It is interesting to note that according to the KM (see Hal. Abel there) it seems that the commandments of faith are an exception to this matter, as the KM states that the heretics and the moralists are also those who withdraw from public ways. That is, there are parts of the Torah that those who do not observe them are indeed called to withdraw from public ways. Another very important point that emerges from this KM is that heresy is not a reason not to mourn someone in itself. Just because the heretic is called to withdraw from public ways, one does not mourn for him. This point has enormous halachic and philosophical implications for our time, and in particular for these days of remembrance that we are in, and Akmal.

In light of all of the above, the understanding of the duty of remembrance these days seems very clear. On Memorial Day for an individual, we want to maintain the private connection we had with the deceased. Remembering his actions, qualities, and exploits, as we wrote above, is only the essence of this. Likewise, on Memorial Day for those who fell in Israel's wars, we connect to the impersonal continuity (although it consists of many details) of the fallen. This is indeed the appropriate infrastructure for winning independence, which is the fruits of those acts of sacrifice. Those who are connected to the public have the right and the ability to also enjoy their rights and the fruits of their efforts. Those who fell in Israel's wars, as well as those who perished in the Holocaust on the altar of Jewish identity, are the ones who paved the way, the masters, thanks to whom we, together with them, are winning the results.

When we will merit complete redemption, and everyone will face their fate at the end of days, we will realize (as stated in the above-mentioned "Thoughts of the Diligent") that nothing has been lost. There, the remnant of the difference (= the memory of the difference), which is nevertheless felt today, between the sacrificers and the reapers of the fruits, will be erased.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to conclude with the concluding section of the chapter on remembrance at the end of Memorial Day (=R.H.), which expresses the relationship between the memory of the sacrifice of the past and hope for the future, and thus the transition from Memorial Day to Independence Day:

Our God and the God of our fathers, remember us with a good remembrance before You, and visit us with the command of salvation and mercy from the heavens of Your glory. And remember for us, O Lord our God, the covenant and the grace and the oath that You swore to Abraham our father on Mount Moriah, and show before You the bond that Abraham our father bound his son Isaac upon the altar, and He overcame his mercy to do Your will with a complete heart. So may Your mercy overtake Your anger against us, and by Your great goodness, the fierceness of Your wrath will turn away from Your people, from Your city, and from Your inheritance. And fulfill for us, O Lord our God, the word that You promised us in Your law through Moses Your servant from the mouth of Your glory, as stated: And I remembered for them the covenant of the first, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God, that I, the Lord, might be their God. For You remember all that is forgotten, You are from of old, and there is no forgetfulness before the throne of Your glory, and You remember today with mercy the binding of Isaac to his seed. Blessed are You, O Lord, who remembers the covenant.