Correction to Holocaust Lamentations (Zohar – 2001)

Regarding the amendment to the Holocaust Memorial – response

In his article in Tzohar 7, Rabbi Rosen described the sequence of his efforts with Rabbi M.M. Kasher, z"l, regarding the revision of the Shoah lamentations, and regrets that they were unable to do so. Such proposals arise from time to time, and the responses to them usually refer to the authority of today's Sages to amend regulations, both because of their greatness in the Torah and because of the current situation in which there is no clear rabbinical authority that is accepted by the entire public. Furthermore, some argue that the authors of such laments cannot be poets, no matter how talented they may be, but rather possess the "holy spirit" in a certain sense.

Rabbi Rosen's words show dissatisfaction with these responses, even though his article contains no argument to justify this dissatisfaction, just as there are almost no direct references to the arguments for and against. Nevertheless, since this is a widespread dissatisfaction, it is important for the rabbinate to clarify it.

Rabbi Rosen cited a number of known precedents for such regulations. It should be noted that at least those from modern times, most of them, are not found in the Book of Lamentations that we have. Even the days of mourning and fasting, some of which were established by the great rabbis (Kashach and Tzvi concerning the 20th of Sivan), were abolished from the world (except for a few private communities). We can learn from history that these types of regulations did not spread throughout Israel, and most of them were not intended primarily for Israel as a whole, but for a particular community or communities.

In addition, it turns out that most of the great men of our generation oppose amending the laments on the Holocaust, and perhaps even new regulations in general, a fact that also speaks to my sermons. The same is true of the great men who themselves composed such laments (such as the Rebbe of Sanz-Klausenburg, cited in the above article. I also know that Rabbi Wesner, author of 'Shevet HaLevi', also composed such laments, and many other good ones).

It seems to me that a key element in understanding the matter is the distinction between two levels of reference. A distinction must be made between private laments about the Holocaust, which certainly anyone is entitled to and perhaps even appropriate to say, and a general regulation of saying laments, in a fixed form, which is binding on the entire public. No one objects to saying laments about the Holocaust, in any form, and as mentioned above, many great people have even composed such laments. Therefore, anyone who wishes to say such laments, be it an individual or a particular community, is not prevented from doing so. The form they choose is also up to them. As far as I understand, the discussion on which opinions were divided is solely in relation to a general regulation, which will be included in the general form of all Israel in a fixed form.

The distinction between these two levels of reference exists with respect to prayer in general, and not necessarily with respect to laments. Since the members of the Great Knesset revised the fixed formula for prayer, it has taken on a new character. In addition to the possibility that prayer invites one to pour out a discourse before God, it has become a mitzvah, which is an obligation like any other mitzvah. In other words, there are now two levels to prayer: Level A is the obligation to say a fixed formula at fixed times, and to fulfill the obligation, like any other mitzvah in the Torah. Level B is the possibility of pouring out a discourse, a request, or praise, before God, and in fact the very experience of standing before Him. Level A is based on the fixed formula that we must say (see, for example, the commentary on Halacha 3:114, cf. "may"), while Level B can also be accomplished through subjective additions that each person can insert at various points in their prayer, as their heart desires.

The complete prayer should consist of both levels, and this is what is implied in the well-known words of the Rabbi of Brisk, who distinguished between these types of intentions in prayer. Despite the desire for the experience of standing before God during prayer, even someone who does not receive this has a point in his prayer. He has certainly fulfilled the commandment of prayer. As Yeshayahu Leibowitz has already noted in his controversial way, most of the faithful of Israel go to the synagogue to pray 'on the first floor' above. This is a commandment of prayer.

The possibility of understanding the prayer in this way lies in the spiritual personality of the prayer leaders, the members of the Great Knesset. As the Rabbi of Volozhin elaborated in Nefesh HaChaim, Chapter 2, every word in the prayer was weighed in the balance of the holy spirit of the members of the Knesset, and its utterance has the power to correct sublime corrections, to live well.

Therefore, regular prayer is not measured by the degree of experience it gives to the worshipper, but by the deep meaning of the words, and their power to act in higher worlds. Of course, an important goal is also to try and introduce a dimension of experience into prayer, but this is a second level.

Regarding the laments, we also found in some of our rabbis (see, for example, Responsorial Psalm "Teshuvah Ma'Avah" 1st, and many others) references to the virtues of the words, beyond the experiences they evoke in the worshiper, references that are also based on the personality of the authors of the laments and the intentions that are embedded in them. Therefore, it seems that laments are not measured by the degree of artistry in composing the piyyut, but rather by their content and their ability to operate in the higher worlds.

It is known that the late Ari would only recite the laments composed by the Clear, which were composed in the way of true wisdom, and it is clear that he treated laments as prayers for everything. Our early rabbis would precisely determine various laws and spiritual understandings from the words of the piyyutim (see, for example, Toss. Hagiga 13:1, and the ancients).

It is true that we have laments that were composed during the time of the Rishonim (especially during the Crusades), but even toward the Rishonim, if they were like humans, we are like donkeys. In any case, from the time of the Rishonim, as mentioned, even though laments were composed by the great men of Israel, no lament entered the canon of regular laments that are recited by the general public in Israel.

So much for the facts. It seems to me that the simplest interpretation of this is that composing a lament for a specific event, and fixing its recitation in a particular community, is not the same as composing a lament for a general Israeli event, and fixing its recitation in all Israeli communities. Laments that will enter the canon must be fixed by the Holy Spirit, and therefore there is apparently no one in our generation who is willing to take on the task. I would like to emphasize again that the ability to say different laments for each individual or community exists and is not being challenged (to the best of my knowledge).

The same "Holy Spirit" that I spoke of, and that all those who oppose the correction of laments speak of, does not mean a type of prophecy. The matter is well explained in the Chass in his sermons for Shabbat "Shuva" (Cha 1:26), in his reference to the composition of prayers: "...and there is no doubt in my mind that even the orderers themselves, for whom the Blessed One commissioned this arrangement, did not themselves descend to the depth of His intention...". Here is a prayer arrangement that the orderer himself is not necessarily aware of the full depth of the intentions that come forth under his hand. This is its strength, and also the divine assistance that is given to the correction of a prayer for the entire public. A canonical prayer. This explanation raises the theoretical possibility of correcting a lament today, but only by some of the great men of the generation (and see Rabbi Rosen's reference to the composers of laments, below). Individual prayers can of course be composed by each individual for himself, and so on.

Today, some tend to treat 'mystical' statements of the above type as sermons intended for the masses, and not for sages like us who know that prayers contain nothing but what is stated in them for the sake of the Hadith. Many of us, even if they formally believe in the existence of layers of mystery beyond the halakha we have, do not practice this. With such an attitude, I do not understand at all how one can explain what some poskim have written, that there is an interest in preserving the exact words of the prayer as amended, even though from the perspective of formal halakha there is no such obligation (see the above-mentioned biyal).

In the G.M. in Berakhot 28b, which describes the correction of the blessing of the species, it is stated that the Rabbi asks whether there is anyone who knows how to correct the blessing of the Sadducees. And in P.N. on Atar, and in the Hidda in the Responsa Chaim Shaal (Chapter 2, 31) and others, who interpret the matter in light of the above.

It seems to me that if a clear distinction can be made between Reform and Conservatives, and Orthodox, it lies on this point. Those who come to correct (add or subtract) think that things are 'at eye level', meaning that they understand them and their meanings. Those who are afraid to correct it do so because they understand that things are higher than the highest, and that not every creature can touch them. To put something into a siddur, or into a canon of prayers that is binding on all of Israel, requires a measure of the Holy Spirit. I think that this is also part of the background to the controversy surrounding the prayer for the peace of the state by Sh. Agnon, and Akmal.

Against this backdrop of revisions to the halakhah, which have emerged strongly in recent generations, it is obvious that there is concern about this type of addition to the canon, even if there are those who can compose laments in the 'Holy Spirit' even in our generation. Many want to 'update' the siddur, and indeed do so. As I explained, this is not just a superficial concern, but a fundamental lack of understanding of the essence of the siddur, the Jewish canon. One should equally oppose the introduction of 'updated' additions to the canonical part of the Passover Haggadah. Of course, everyone can introduce private additions according to their own understanding.

Against this background, I find it puzzling that Rabbi Rosen is looking for a 'standard' version that will fit into all communities, and will allow us to 'connect' to the laments. In light of the above, it seems to me that there is a hidden secret here: the possibility of 'connecting' is the concern of every individual or community, that is, it concerns the second level. Whereas the 'standard' version belongs to the first, canonical level, of the prayers and laments. Those who mix these two levels think that the whole point of the prayer is only the second level. From such a position, one immediately arrives at replacing, or adding to, the prayers (if there were no formal problems of authority, which I did not address at all). Why not add beautiful passages by poets to the Amidah prayer as well (at least at its end). I must admit that I personally, like many of my friends, have a difficult problem of 'connecting' to it as well. By the way, there are precedents here too. The little Samuel added the blessing of the Minims (or Sadducees), long after the time of the people of the Great Knesset in light of a problem that arose at his time.

One indication that Rabbi Rosen refers to laments only on the second-story level is found in his reference to the possible authors of the laments. There is more than just displeasure in his words, perhaps even a kind of rebuke, when he refers to the fact that rabbis will not agree to include laments written by authors who are not Torah gurus, let alone those who are not Torah and mitzvot-observants. At this point I stand amazed by what I read there (and I am surprised that the editor did not include one of his comments below the aforementioned passage). A scholar and eminent halachic scholar like Rabbi Rosen thinks of incorporating into a permanent regulation that would obligate the whole of Israel, a poem penned by an apikorus to anger and whet the appetite like Bialik, a man who has translated and interpreted (except for a few bursts of nostalgic longing like "The Constant", etc.). Until they manage to explain to me why he deserves the title of "captured baby" (if at all), and I am allowed not to lower him into the pit, and perhaps even raise him, they come and want to include the fruit of his pen into the obligatory canon of prayers. I am amazed!

I don't see why Rabbi Rosen wouldn't recommend, for example, also making it mandatory to watch relevant Hollywood films every Tishrei B'Av. There is no doubt that they create a stronger experience for the viewer, stronger even than Bialik's poems! The same goes for other works of art by several Gentiles that will undoubtedly succeed in moving our souls, and there are many of them. It would be a shame to limit the search to our National Library, as Rabbi Rosen did, who turned up a meager spoil. There are places with a larger selection of moving and artistic works of art that could take a place of honor in the cycle of laments he proposes.

In a footnote in his article, Rabbi Rosen notes regarding Rabbi Weissmandel's laments that in his opinion they are 'inappropriate', 'not moving', 'not impressive', 'vague and unclear content', 'rather poor style and rhyme', and so on. In the laments in the cycle before us, there are many laments that meet all of these criteria (vague, not impressive, not moving, and there are some that have no rhymes at all). Does Rabbi Rosen think it is worth removing them from the cycle?! Etzag is also worthy, in Rabbi Rosen's opinion, since 'there is a religious dimension to his personality.'

With the forgiveness of Rabbi Rosen, we see here again a surprising insensitivity to the distinction between the two aforementioned levels. The purpose of lamentations is not only to excite and inspire, although this purpose is also important. Today, lamentations also have canonical validity. I do not mean a formal problem of authority, but a fundamental problem of the power and meaning of the words (the 'holy spirit' in their composition). Beyond that, what reverence for God will be added to us as a result of reading Bialik's poems? Is the point of lamentations only to arouse sorrow and nothing more. Is there nothing here more than a national ritual, as every gentile and nation mourns its dead. I feel that according to this approach, the concept of 'national-religious' is beginning to take a dangerous turn (Rabbi Rosen mentions several times in his article the difference that should exist between religious Zionism and Haredi on this issue).

God willing, the passing test of the 'tempter of the Hasidic Shtibel,' as Rabbi Rosen put it, saves us from such corrections. It is a great pity in my opinion that we still need the Shtibel's help in such a trivial matter, but if that is the case, it is good that he is always there as a signpost for us. It seems that this type of consideration itself constitutes the best answer to Rabbi Rosen's bewilderment/complaint as to why new laments for the Holocaust are not being corrected.

If I am not mistaken, from the midrash of Rabbi Kook we learned that every historical phenomenon has a fundamental reason. If most of the great men of our generation oppose the revision of Lamentations as a duty, it means that there are things in the body. The feeling of lack of authority indicates a fundamental problem in the background. If they had allowed this, we would realize that there were communities that would begin to sing Bialik's songs every Tish B'Av. The line between Conservatives and Modern Orthodox is already not very clear today, if it even exists, but I believe that such steps will only blur it even more. Again, I would like to emphasize that I do not mean a technical fear that we will become Reform, in the sense of a decree that will slow down problematic changes. I mean here a fundamental problem for its own sake: the Reformers are wrong in their approach, since according to them everything is 'at eye level.'

And now for the last point, which is more general. The desire to 'connect' that is so prevalent in the public, in all contexts, sometimes causes us to forget and neglect important elements of halakhic thought. Contrary to the conservative view, every halakhic law, or prayer, as well as a form of study that has entered the depths of Jewish custom, has deep reasons, beyond what meets the eye. If we get used to following the desire to 'connect', and following criteria of relevance, we will find ourselves lowering all the depths of Torah to the level of our eyes (or hearts), instead of an uncompromising demand to raise our horizon to a higher Torahic height (or depth). The desire to 'connect' stems from a gap between the Torah and halakhic law and our world. This is an expression of a real and painful distress, which it is good that it is coming to the surface, and it may also indicate a certain greatness of the generation. Despite all this, there is no room for attempts to solve it by lowering the Torah to our 'eye level' (and below), instead we must try and raise our world of concepts to loftier Torah heights. This discussion touches on many other levels, and is not its place here.

As stated, it seems to me that in the private sphere there is no obstacle to saying private laments, but the law has no place for canonical additions in the form of a binding regulation (although there would be a great Torah scholar who would compose such a lament, and would find it appropriate to amend the obligation to say it, and would have the agreed authority to do so). There is no doubt that Bialik's laments, despite being properly rhymed, moving, and impressive, are not recommended in the private sphere either (on the second floor).