Saint Hitler, or: On the Sanctity of the Holocaust (Column 216)
With God's help
I was asked on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day about my attitude toward the "sanctity of the Holocaust." The question came at exactly the right moment, when I had intended to write a column on the subject that would let me pour out before you all the revulsion I feel toward the Holocaust carnival we celebrate here every year. Its gist can be found in an aside here (which may have been the trigger for the above question). As I already mentioned, I decided to wait with publishing the column until the storm had passed, and now here it is before you.
Left-Wing Critiques of Holocaust Remembrance
On the left there is a well-known hobby of criticizing Holocaust remembrance. There it usually comes from a universalist standpoint (with a Marxist tinge that sees history as the fruit of the colonialism of hegemonic privilege). They tell us: there are other genocides, other suffering, and other victims, and enough with our Jewish-Israeli victimhood, which enables us to commit atrocities (Holocaust, apartheid). Their claim is that the memory of the Holocaust serves the Jews in general, and us in Israel in particular, to advance our interests, and that we use it to justify our (terrible) actions outwardly, and even more inwardly. I must say that in my opinion too there is a certain measure of justice in this irritating criticism (as the saying goes: even a stopped clock…).
Only now they sent me one such critique by Martin Weil, himself a Holocaust survivor. Among other things, he states there flatly that Holocaust museums have never prevented the murder of a single innocent person. How does he know? I was not privileged to understand. But begging the question is a common left-wing hobby (and not only theirs), and it is not what concerns me here. The justification for the conferences, museums, studies, and articles about which he complains is roughly the same justification that exists for gender studies, Chinese culture, the Aztec language, and the like. Among other reasons, one may cite the public (?) and/or intellectual (??) interest in these phenomena, and of course one should add the interests of those who are not talented enough to work in mathematics and physics. It is important to find academic outlets for them as well. And no, Martin Weil, none of this comes at the expense of investing money in the needy and in preventing present-day genocides. At least no more than investments in culture, the settlements, sports, universities, peace conferences, war cries, and Beit Berl (which, as was published years ago, was the institution that received the most earmarked funds in the merry days of earmarked funds for the Haredim).
But as stated, I do not want to deal with all that here. My concern here is with turning the Holocaust into something holy, and Holocaust Remembrance Day into a day with religious dimensions that are, to my mind, unbearable, which each year again brings down upon us a torrent of sentimental and pathetic trash (Never Again, The Silver Platter, eradication of evil, etc. etc.) that I am already tired of hearing through a transparent tear (as the poet said, there, there).
The Sanctity of Holocaust Remembrance Day
In Column 7 I wrote about the importance and meaning of memory. It enables us to commemorate things that have passed, and perhaps it even has metaphysical significance. Beyond that, it is important to remember in order to prevent similar events in the future and to sharpen awareness and concern. And of course it is also important to identify with the suffering of the people and the survivors and to show them empathy. Beyond that, collective memory requires rituals and pathos. I have no other efficient solution (though I am not to blame, and there is no reason in the world that an intelligent person should take part in all this shallow muck). So what exactly is the problem? Seemingly there are excellent reasons for this carnival.
And indeed, if you ask people about the meaning of the ceremonies and observances, I am sure most of them will tell you that the value of Holocaust remembrance and of Holocaust Remembrance Day lies in identifying with the victims (most of whom are no longer among us, and soon that reason too will pass from the world), in preventing future Holocausts (as one hears in all the pathetic speeches mentioned above), and in all the other reasons noted above. But it is clear that all these are explanations supplied after the fact. It is plainly evident that we do not really intend to engage in preventing future Holocausts.
Do not let anyone pull the wool over your eyes. All these important purposes are simply not the main thing. It is hard to shake the impression that the prevailing attitude toward the Holocaust and Holocaust remembrance is in terms of sanctity. Just listen to the tone of radio broadcasters, and of the man in the street as well. A kind of mournful and contemplative tone, wrapped in conspicuous (and somewhat artificial) sadness, because otherwise one has not fulfilled the obligation of the day. You can feel the religious tremor that passes through many speakers when they deal with the Holocaust. From this you will also understand that one must not "profane Holocaust Remembrance Day and Holocaust memory," for they are holy (to profane, from the same root as to secularize, of course, that is, to turn something holy into something mundane). And from here too comes the "sacred" duty to remember them and not forget. From here come the repellent speeches about the sacred duty to remember, the obsessive study of every historical detail connected to the Holocaust, the sanctimonious criticism that Austrian youths do not know that six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, or what color Hitler's mustache was and in what year the Wannsee Conference took place. Every detail here is part of the sanctity of the Holocaust, and there is a sacred duty to engage in it. We all have to be professional historians and know every detail in order to discharge our duty of Holocaust remembrance and not, heaven forbid, sin by committing sacrilege against holy things.
From here too come the endless and sanctimonious discussions of every marginal phenomenon connected to the Holocaust, whether it is proper or not. For example, a few days ago the media was in an uproar over a project whose aim is to remember the diary of a Hungarian girl named Eva by means of daily videos on Instagram: Eva's Holocaust Story. I kept hearing in-depth discussions of the issue, whether it is proper to do this, or whether it cheapens and profanes the sanctity of the Holocaust. There were stormy spiritual agonizings there, and people wavering this way and that (for example on the Kalman and Lieberman morning show, two intelligent Jews whom I usually enjoy listening to, who did not stop grinding my brain with this nonsense through almost half their program). True, if I remember correctly they did not use the term sanctity there, but it was entirely present in the background. The tremor expressed it very powerfully. Without it there would also have been no place for all these foolish discussions of an utterly banal and perfectly reasonable subject. If people want to remember the Holocaust by contemporary means, like a film, a newspaper, or a museum, what on earth could possibly be problematic about that?! Since when is Instagram unfit for Holocaust remembrance? If you listen to the discussions you will see that this is not about hurting the survivors' feelings either. It is about hurting the feelings of the public as a whole and everything precious and holy to it. Suddenly we have laws of the Holocaust that everyone observes in the smallest detail: how it is proper and improper to remember, and what profanes, cheapens, or sanctifies it. Soon there will be responsa on whether one may remember the Holocaust through a proxy or in an irregular fashion. Whether the flowers must be red or pink is also acceptable. Whether Yad Vashem is holy, and which of the ten levels of holiness in tractate Kelim it belongs to (whether one must immerse before entering, and whether everyone who works there is considered a priest according to Maimonides at the end of the Laws of the Sabbatical and Jubilee Years), and so on.[1]
And again, do not get confused. People are not really dealing with the question of injury to survivors or the form of identifying with them, nor with preventing a future Holocaust. All these exist, but at the margins. These are explanations offering an after-the-fact rationalization for an obsession that sees the Holocaust as sacred. For many of us this is a matter of profanation of the sacred, plain and simple. The discussions are about whether a holy day commemorating holy events ought to be observed in such a fashion. Does Instagram not cheapen the majestic sanctity of this day?! The logical justifications (the duty to remember in order to learn from memory and to prevent future Holocausts, and so forth) are no more than a fig leaf. People are looking for a rational justification for their fetish or obsession, and this is what they found.
Similar Façades
This phenomenon reminds me of everyday cases in which relatives of victims of terror attacks protest vociferously about the failure to deal with terrorists, while claiming that the purpose of their activity and demands is to prevent future attacks (so that we will be the last to suffer). But it is clear to everyone that that is not the point. They want revenge, period. Otherwise why are they, specifically they, so worried about future sufferers? They have already drunk the bitter cup. The same is true of various cases in which the relatives of someone harmed by an action of some authority or other (such as the army or a hospital) quite naturally demand a searching internal review and that the guilty be brought to account, all in order, needless to say, to prevent similar harms in the future. For some reason, here too the prevention of future harms is entrusted to those who were harmed in the past and not to the potential victims, that is, all of us. But it is of course clear to everyone that that is not the point. They want revenge. Incidentally, perhaps that is legitimate, but it should be put on the table. No interviewer, of course, dares put on the table what everyone understands: that this is about revenge. It is unpleasant to wound wounded people.
The same is true with respect to the memory of the Holocaust. The reasons placed on the table are identification with the survivors and the dead, the prevention of future Holocausts, and the like. Very reasonable. But it is hard not to get the impression that these are after-the-fact rationalizations. The true root of the matter is a tremor of sanctity with respect to these events and this day. This day has become our fetish or cultural totem, and therefore the victims who were offered up on this holy altar are all holy (that is the famous 'memory of the holy ones'). We do not even need a pope to canonize all those millions. For us it happens automatically.
Again, Sanctity
Here we return to Column 215, in which I dealt with the holiness of those who died because they were Jews. The approach that links the Holocaust and Holocaust Remembrance Day to sanctity, and death in the Holocaust to sanctifying God's name, besides being absurd on its face (for there is not the slightest connection there to sanctity), in fact completely contradicts reason. I once heard from Rabbi Shabtai Rappaport in the name of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (his wife's grandfather) that the Holocaust was the most terrible desecration of God's name in all of history. Jews are slaughtered helplessly by the millions, and a gang of wicked Teutonic savages, full of lunatic and grotesque ideas, speaking and behaving like idiotic children, rules them and the world with a high hand. What is holy about such a situation? What sanctification of God's name was there here? This was a dreadful desecration of God's name (of course not through the fault of the murdered, but that is the result). Here too I must clarify that I am not speaking about those who truly gave their lives or took valuable steps (observing commandments, helping others) for which they were killed. About them it is certainly fitting to say that they sanctified God's name. But the mere fact that someone died in the Holocaust does not make him holy, nor a hero, in any sense I can think of. At most it makes him a pitiable person worthy of compassion and identification with his suffering. But it is not advisable to do that by means of lies and hollow pathos about sanctifying God's name and empty heroism.
But of course we do not let all this interfere with our turning the Holocaust into something holy and the victims into holy people and heroes, sanctifiers of God's name. There were, of course, some of the victims who acted with courage and devotion worthy of great appreciation, and that must not be ignored. But there were also masses who behaved in less impressive ways (even horrific ones. No accusations, of course. I do not know what would have become of me had I been there). Did they too sanctify God's name in their deaths? In the previous column I already explained why it is not true that everyone who died as a Jew is holy (it is absurd as a matter of simple reasoning and utterly without source). This stupid and nonsensical myth has become the symbol of the Holocaust's sanctity.
Explanation
What can be the explanation for this deranged absurdity? How does a traumatic event of desecration of God's name become holy? It is especially strange when this happens in a culture in which, ostensibly, there are no holy things. As I explained in Column 212, in my opinion this bizarre attitude is rooted in the secular vacuum. In a world where there is no sanctity and one cannot speak consistently about values (see the fourth notebook, part C), it is no wonder that cheap substitutes are manufactured.
In the secular vacuum, a substitute for notions of sanctity must appear, and therefore they undergo secularization. The Holocaust and Holocaust Remembrance Day (as also Memorial Day for fallen IDF soldiers and victims of terror) have become holy events and holy days, and now secular people too have sanctity and holy days. Now they too can be jealous, offended, and even speak with a religious tremor about something. Simply put, they are no longer an empty wagon. They too have sanctity, and values, and consecrated days. They too have heritage and history (in the period after the Hasmonean victory and Tu BiShvat plantings), just like the religious crowd. And the religious? As usual, they are dragged along after them.
Beyond that, the centrality of emotion in the secular world (see Column 31) is also a contributing factor. In our strange world there is nothing more sacred than a person's emotion. Every emotion becomes sanctity and religiosity, and every matter that is not purely material (like art, for example)[2] becomes holy. People go to Poland and it is very moving, just like a work of art. So art is holy, and if so why should going to Poland not be holy too?! The tear-soaked journeys of excitement to Poland are nothing but secular ecstasy within a fictitious sphere of secular sanctity. They too need a temple, so Auschwitz is their temple. They too need ritual, so ceremonies can be conducted there and one can even be moved and cry. They too need holy days and holy people, so there they have them.
The Holocaust as the Focus of Jewish Identity
But this is not only about sanctity. The pilgrimage to the Holy Land of Poland and the pathetic celebrations of life held there every year express a slightly different aspect. There it is not only about sanctity but more about identity. The Holocaust has become the cornerstone of contemporary Jewish identity. More than once I have heard people declare enthusiastically, with misty eyes wearing an air of ardent profundity: my Judaism is Hitler and the Holocaust. Who is a Jew? Someone whose father was murdered/persecuted by Hitler. Who am I to deny the Jewishness of someone whom Saint Hitler himself baptized into being a Jew and sprinkled with sacred Zyklon B gas?!
It is no wonder that the Biton Committee, which sat to correct the "historical injustice" that Zionism inflicted on Mizrahi Jews, reached some bizarre decisions, among them the creation of a Holocaust consciousness regarding Middle Eastern and North African Jewry, complete with its own language innovators, its own poets, and its own marches of life (journeys to Algeria and Morocco instead of Poland. All that remains is to create some local Auschwitz there, and then everything will be perfect). But there is really nothing surprising about this. If the Holocaust is the ingredient that constitutes Judaism, Mizrahi Jews want one too. They did not have a Holocaust? No problem. We will manufacture one for them with our own hands. That way it will be made clear to everyone that they too are Jews. Perhaps you will say that the Jewish tradition that was better preserved there can serve as a substitute? Absolutely not. What has Judaism to do with religion? But in truth there is no need for religiosity. They too were murdered, they too rebelled and were slaughtered, and therefore they too are holy (The entire congregation are all holy, so why do you exalt yourselves over the Lord's assembly?!) and they too are Jews (the ultimate victim). To see just how pathetic and bizarre this is, I warmly recommend the first three minutes of this clip from Gav HaUma.
A Personal Stance
I will finish on a personal note. I refuse to join this carnival. There is not a shred of sanctity in the Holocaust or in its memory. The victims of the Holocaust are not saints, nor the children of saints. Most of them also did not sanctify God's name, and perhaps even desecrated it (the overwhelming majority, of course, through no fault of their own). They are not heroes either, but pitiable people. There were those who did sanctify God's name, and there were heroes too, of course. But that was not because they went through the Holocaust or suffered in it, but because of noteworthy decisions and conduct that they chose, acted upon, and paid for.
Obviously one must not hurt people, certainly not people who have suffered, and obviously it is fitting to help them as much as possible, but that is merely a simple human obligation. There is value in remembering people who perished, and certainly in drawing lessons and preventing future Holocausts. It is important to be sensitive and not to hurt survivors, as with any person. But none of this has anything to do with sanctity and with hollow, false mantras about it. All these things should be done on their own merits, not as fig leaves providing after-the-fact rationalizations for secular longings for sanctity.
Therefore it is also not especially important to me to prove the uniqueness of the Holocaust our people underwent, as one might think from obsessions common in our parts. Not because the Armenian genocide or the slaughter in Darfur are like our Holocaust, or because of any other left-wing idea. I do not know how to compare, and it does not interest me. None of this seems important to me, beyond whatever historical interest someone may have in these subjects. There are those who would say that this also has theological significance (why God did this specifically to us; as is known, I am not among them). But what importance do secular people see in this, besides scratching at a wound and picking at it? Even less important, in my view, is teaching young people how the decision was reached at the Wannsee Conference, how it worked, what the historical facts were, and what events took place there. Which gas and which train cars were used, and exactly how many perished. I am not at all shocked that in Austria most people did not know that six million Jews were murdered. Why is that important?! And if they think only ten thousand were murdered, then they are ignorant and potential Nazis? That is simply ordinary ignorance, of which there is plenty (and worse than that) in our own neck of the woods.
By the same token, I do not see much importance in the tear-extracting tours of Poland, and still less in those of Algiers and Morocco, in order to hear pathetic speeches delivered by pathetic public figures at pathetic marches of life, and to undergo wrenching emotional experiences (and also drink a little in a pub in Warsaw. I do not even especially enjoy being shocked by that). There too people talk about injury to the memory of the Holocaust and insensitivity toward the survivors, but in my view again this is an after-the-fact rationalization. In truth, it is about yet another profanation of secular sacredness. Whoever is interested in that, good health to him. It is no different from any other hobby, but what do they want from me?! I am tired of this pathos.
I confess, to my embarrassment, that my Judaism is not related to His Holiness Saint Hitler. He and his mustache and his whole gang do not particularly interest me. Do not tell anyone, but it is not even all that important to me if, before long, people no longer remember the scope of the Holocaust and the historical details. We are all transient and in the end everything is forgotten. I do not see any special value in this beyond the historical interest found in these mad and unique events. Certainly there is no sacred value in it in my eyes. Therefore I am also not looking for fasts and ceremonies that will make sure this does not happen. I already have enough fasts on my calendar as it is, let us not add to them (let us not add to them).
Just to complete the picture, I will repeat that in my view too memory has significance. It is not holy, but it has value (see above and in Column 7). Therefore, for example, the project "Every Person Has a Name" does not strike me as absurd, though I also understand those who do not identify with it, in the spirit of Do not weep for the dead and do not bemoan him; weep rather for the one who goes away, for he will never return and see the land of his birth (Jeremiah 22:10). That is in no way heresy, and there is no need whatsoever to be shocked by alternative ceremonies or by those who do not stand for the siren. Therefore you certainly will not be surprised to hear that I do not plan in the near future to donate my tithe money (all the millions) to Yad Vashem and its hundreds of employees, or to Holocaust remembrance and the study of history in general.
Likewise, I certainly agree that it is important to care for every person who has suffered or is suffering, whether a Holocaust survivor or not. But I am tired of the fixed mantras that have become part of the ritual and of the very essence of the day about the survivors who are disappearing without receiving care. That is of course infuriating, but no less and no more than any other needy and miserable person.[3] I do not think I am supposed to compensate someone for suffering he underwent and that I did not cause. The obligation incumbent upon me is to help him, not to compensate him, and there is a difference between the two. The obligation to help exists with respect to every needy person, even if he is not a Holocaust survivor. The Holocaust serves here only as an emotional wringer (which does not work all that well) and nothing more, one more expression of the decline of our world from intellect into the provinces of emotion and manipulation (see Column 31, and especially Dov Sadan's quip).
That is it. I have vented. As stated, I thought of publishing this in the middle of the day, but because of the sensitivity of the matter I decided to wait with it until the close of the holy day, when tempers would calm, the tears would evaporate, and the Holocaust survivors would return to their sufferings. My heart goes out to them, but I hate the pathetic use of their suffering as a fig leaf used to fill a secular vacuum or as a lever for promoting various aims, consciously (as the leftists claim) or unconsciously (as I claim). And above all, above all, I am tired of the conceptual and moral distortion that these phenomena reflect.
[1] Incidentally, none of this prevents, and perhaps even helps, the Instagram account "Eva's Story" from being considered the most popular in the world.
[2] See Doron on this here and in my response.
[3] Of course, the phenomenon of German reparations money being gathered by corrupt organizations that have made it their goal to rob the survivors' money for the benefit of fat salaries and festive conferences all over the world is a moral scandal, but that is mainly because the money belongs to them and not to the aforesaid robbers. In the language of the study hall, this is a matter of theft, not of charity.
Discussion
The link to the Gav HaUma video sends me to my email (?)
To Rabbi Michi,
To the best of my understanding, the national attitude toward Holocaust Remembrance Day is not that of a “holy day” but simply a “national day of mourning.” Days of mourning can also be “desecrated,” and one can certainly be appalled by people who do not stand for the siren and thereby announce to everyone that they are not mourning on this sad day (sad because of the great desecration of God’s name that occurred, or because of the many Jews who were killed).
On Tisha B’Av we fast because of the destruction of the Temple.
On the Seventeenth of Tammuz we fast because the walls were breached.
On the Tenth of Tevet we fast because the siege began.
And on the Fast of Gedaliah we fast over the murder of Gedaliah son of Ahikam.
How were all these fasts created? Someone came and said, “Children of Israel… something terrible happened to us on this date. Let us remember this day as a day of mourning and fast on it” (or perhaps it was simply a custom that developed among the people on its own, without anyone specific instituting it).
I do not see any essential difference between these things. On the contrary: if on the Fast of Gedaliah, for the murder of a Jewish leader two thousand years ago, we fast—then on Holocaust Remembrance Day, when all of European Jewry was murdered less than a hundred years ago, should we not fast?!
True, I too am not enthusiastic about unnecessary customs like flying teenagers to Poland in order to force them to cry… but one need not oppose an atmosphere of mourning that ought to prevail on this day.
P.S. the link to the “Gav HaUma” video sends me to Gmail… is this a problem on my side or on yours?
Eva’s story is based on a diary.
If Your Honor continues to recite Av HaRachamim, and kinot and selichot for the martyrs of Tatnu, whose blood numbered at best a few thousand, I do not understand how those killed in the Holocaust, whose blood numbered several million, are any less.
The secular intuition saw what Shalom Rosenberg formulated:
https://musaf-shabbat.com/2012/05/18/%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%9F-%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%96%D7%A0%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%92/
Rabbi Michi, don’t interfere with the secular person’s efforts to fulfill his religious needs. He has nothing else, so let him bask in the sanctity of Holocaust Remembrance Day, and perhaps also in the sanctity of the Eurovision (whose origins, as those initiated into the secret know, are rooted in the mountains of holiness, for the brotherhood of nations).
In my opinion, Holocaust remembrance has another aspect as well—a way to connect to one’s family history. On Holocaust Remembrance Day my Facebook page is always filled with many posts by people talking about their family’s part in the Holocaust.
I think it would be fitting for this to be true regarding other historical phenomena as well.
The style feels a bit too dismissive and condescending for my taste, even if the points themselves are sensible.
Even slaughtering sacred cows can be done with more tact.
And besides that, I tend to see a great blessing in the “secular religious tremor.” Would you really prefer that they follow their assumptions to the very end and live lives devoid of values or morality? It is important to point out the philosophical problematic, but in my opinion one should welcome its results.
Questions that arose in my mind while reading the text: what is the difference between remembering Holocaust Remembrance Day and remembering Rabbi Akiva’s 24,000 students? After all, more Torah scholars probably died in the Holocaust, so why should we observe mourning practices for them and not for the Holocaust?.
Could it be that “sanctity” is a translation of many people’s tendency to respect feelings? Children who mock an elderly disabled person and his suffering—even if they do not cause him suffering, because he does not know about it—are doing something improper. When there is an event involving enormous suffering, we tend to honor the occurrence, a kind of reverence for an event that is beyond our emotional capacity to contain, as an alternative (if not an addition) to practical compassion. Of course there are wild exaggerations in this area (such as financial aid to Holocaust survivors, outrage over people’s ignorance, or defining Jewishness according to the Nuremberg Laws), but the very reverence people feel toward a place or event in which people were killed is not at all rare, and it is apparently natural and understandable.
In a slightly different direction—it could be said, for example, that someone who does not stand for the siren is ignoring a desecration of God’s name, while someone who does stand for the siren expresses the required respect through an act of identification with the positive side (just as there is an obligation to protest a blasphemer).
I was criticizing the fact that this went up on Instagram. If it isn’t real, that is a different discussion (though I do not rule out inventing stories in order to illustrate).
By the way, regarding the story of the 93, there is disagreement about it. I saw an article claiming it did happen.
For me it opens correctly. I don’t know what to tell you.
Regarding the video, see what I wrote above. Since you are the second person, I’ll speak with Oren, the site editor, and ask him to check.
As for mourning, I am completely in favor of mourning. But mourning should not be seen as the focal point of our identity, nor should there be an obsession with details and sanctity and a prohibition on discussions and on raising opinions. That is not mourning but an attitude of sanctity.
I have no objection whatsoever to mourning. I wrote this explicitly. I do not understand the question.
And still I see no justification for obsessions.
And Aaron was silent.
Even if I welcome the results, that does not justify the processes. Some say that one of the results of the Holocaust was the establishment of the state, so should the Holocaust therefore not be criticized?
Beyond that, I definitely want to puncture the secular balloons of sanctity and place them in front of a mirror without giving them avenues of escape or concealment. So in my view the result is not blessed either. As long as there are substitutes for sanctity, that allows them to ignore real sanctity.
It seems to me that from the few comments I’ve already read, you are the third person asking this strange question. Where did I write that one should not mourn the Holocaust or remember it?
I agree, and I even wrote this (about the sanctity attributed to feelings, which also leads to attributing sanctity to art). By the way, standing for the siren is also sensible, and I have no criticism of it. I am speaking only about the dimensions of sanctity.
As for the obligation to care for Holocaust survivors and compensation, it seems to me that although we did not cause their suffering, the Jewish people have an obligation to protect anyone who is attacked simply because he is Jewish, and compensation is part of that protection. That is probably also the reason there is a law compensating victims of terrorist attacks motivated by nationalism, but no law compensating victims of rape/robbery/murder or just natural disasters.
R. Michael,
Clearly anyone sensible will agree more or less with your claims,
but there is an unpleasant feeling of condescension throughout reading the column,
in this column it is very prominent, but it is something very characteristic of your columns,
I do not understand the logic of writing in a way that provokes opposition,
Do you invest effort in writing columns so that your views will not be accepted?
(I suspect this writing style stems from despair over changing public opinion,
so if the herd will not change its mind, then at least we can enjoy feeling that we are smarter than the whole idiotic herd, and along the way also annoy a few of them.)
Perhaps. Although I am not convinced about an obligation to compensate victims of terrorism either.
At first the link was corrupted, and then I put in a fix.
Footnote: to the best of my knowledge, the person who actually started the trips to Poland was someone from religious Zionism, and that is how it continued from there.
Emotion is a problem for the right just as much as for the left.
A. Leibowitz already said that the only secular identity is the fact that they hate us (though perhaps he forgot falafel).
B. Since the budget for Holocaust matters is limited and appears to be a fairly closed system, the theater and commemoration come at the expense of the survivors. Therefore the memorial system has an interest in magnifying the sanctity of the day and the memory.
C. And not only the theater—the support system for survivors as well supports an entire apparatus [a funny example: my mother is a Holocaust survivor, and she was informed in an emotional letter that she could receive benefits. What was relevant for her was a heating stove. For that she had to fill out a pile of forms, travel to the committee located in central Israel (a woman aged 90…) etc. All this for a stove worth at most 500 NIS. I wonder what the cost is of the people drafting the forms, reading them, and of the committee].
D. Their suffering is not just every person’s concern, because the state took over, to some extent and in certain percentages, the compensation funds, and therefore it has an obligation to care for them.
With that I completely agree. Because the state disgracefully plundered their compensation funds, it has a special obligation to help them.
Condescending and hurtful writing. It seems you’re becoming bitter with the years.
Just noting that the sources do attribute sanctity to phenomena involving Jews murdered because of their belonging to the people of Israel.
“Those killed by the government—no creature can stand in their section [in the World to Come].”
One can discuss what produces that sanctity, but in my opinion it is very similar to what produces the sense of sanctity surrounding the Holocaust.
There is not the slightest hint of this in any of the sources. See column 214.
Sorry, 215.
“Otherwise why are they specifically so concerned about future sufferers? Their cup has already passed over them.”
What!? Maybe because they went through that hell and want to prevent others from having the same experience…
How glad I am that finally someone has put these things on the table (I had already begun to think maybe I was crazy :)). One commenter here claimed that the rabbi has become bitter over the years, but my feeling is that the people in this country are becoming more and more pathetic and childish over the years (and perhaps I too am becoming bitter myself, but in any case it is justified, because if time passes and instead of people becoming wiser and more mature they become more emotional and more mindless, with no ability to influence them, then I too become more frustrated), and just look at the collection of speakers on our memorial days, who are the leaders here in the country, and I do not know by what sin I sinned that the Holy One, blessed be He, stuck me in a world under the leadership of these feeble-minded people.
In any case, just one small remark: I am not sure that in the matter of protests by victims of terror attacks or various authorities, what is involved is revenge. Sometimes a person is simply indifferent to bad phenomena until they strike his own flesh, and then he understands that there is a general phenomenon here that must be dealt with, if only because he still has something to lose (more living relatives, more money in the bank). And even in a case where he has already lost and has nothing more to lose, even then it is not necessarily revenge but a desire to find meaning in the disaster or damage that happened to him, by preventing it from happening to others (to humanity in general or to the people of Israel), like all the medical organizations that help the needy or people with special illnesses that were established by parents who lost a child to that same illness (like Dor Yeshorim).
That said, I agree that one can tell from a speaker’s tone of voice whether he truly cares about the public or whether he wants only revenge (which, as the rabbi said, is also bad. It is proper that others know that this injured person is not ownerless; but of course he should put that plainly on the table). I think one can also distinguish over time what a person’s goal was. Those seeking revenge are driven by impulse, and usually that is not enough for a bureaucratic struggle with the authorities. For that you need faith. And those seeking revenge simply grow weary after a short time and forget the matter. Roughly like the religious motivation of the Women of the Wall, who, without the fight against them, would have ceased to exist long ago.
Michi didn’t answer you, and rightly so. It’s time you stopped picking on the man. Start dealing with the content.
Just a note regarding the “March of the Living”—I personally have never participated in it and also never went to Poland (and I also think there is something problematic in the fact that this trip has become a social “must” and a kind of basis for Jewish and/or Israeli identity, as you wrote, not to mention the uncomfortable sense of death pornography that sometimes accompanies any obsessive engagement with the Holocaust), and still, I did not understand why the March of the Living earned from you the label “pathetic.” I read things survivors write about the march, and in my eyes they are the people whose opinion on whether it is something pathetic or not is the most relevant, because in many ways the march is done for them and in their name—these are always statements of pride and tremendous emotion, and they sound to me completely justified and understandable (yes, there may always be Holocaust survivors who think the march is idiotic; personally I have never heard of them). The survivors return to the place where they were human dust, but this time they return as representatives of a sovereign state with an army and power, while all the Europeans whose grandparents slaughtered them stand at attention and salute them. This is truly the fulfillment of the prophecy, “The sons of your oppressors shall come bending low to you, and all who despised you shall bow at the soles of your feet.” Is this prophecy also considered pathetic? I cannot see the pathetic element in this display. I can perhaps agree that it is a display lacking in sophistication, or kitschy (which is true of all memorial ceremonies), but that sounds to me too delicate a complaint. Even revenge itself has something unsophisticated about it, but the emotion is completely understandable and not at all pathetic in my eyes. That of course does not make the march “holy”—it is a display of victory, but it is hard for me to imagine a more spectacular victory, one more worthy of such a display.
The intellectual depth of the article is this:
“My dad is stronger than your dad”
or this: “You’re worthless because you’re yuck”
or this: some bizarre creature with changing consciousness somehow bearing the name Michael Abraham gives a place of honor to all kinds of irrational things, such as the sense of meaning (what is that?) that he feels and attributes to the release of his disgust, or to the need to express his one-dimensional opinion in public (which he thinks belongs to some absurd “I” connected to the name attributed to his shifting consciousness), yet in another strange way does not give place to parallel feelings except insofar as the focus of absurdity to which they are directed differs (deifying the Holocaust as opposed to deifying reason, a sense of sanctity as opposed to a sense of disgust).
Thank you for the variety of weirdness in our reality. Now you can rest in peace.
And if we nevertheless try to find a shred of logic.
In the absurdity of the sense of disgust of the consciousness called Michael, it is hard for me to find logic.
But in sanctifying the memory of the Holocaust I actually can find some.
“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man.”
“For he that is hanged is a curse of God.”
We find that the image of God is present in man; harming a person and his image (for example, leaving him hanging for a long time) is an affront to the image of God. In the Holocaust, a person received a serial number, was killed when he was not efficient enough, and was used as a tool for scientific experiments. This is besides the other strange and numerous assaults on the divine image that had not existed before in the world.
Therefore, the labor of remembering the names of the victims, commemorating the struggle against the Nazi spirit, and engraving in the heart the horrors of the Holocaust as something that must never be done—these may very well contain a dimension of strengthening holiness.
And of course the apparent disparagement of my words was intended only to direct toward the conclusion of my final point: if you do not understand what is “special” about remembering the Holocaust—you do not understand what is special about yourself.
Not necessarily “you”—the consciousness in the image that wrote the article, but every you.
My remarks were aimed at the speeches by public figures at those marches.
A note regarding the claim: “Otherwise why are they specifically so concerned about future sufferers.” In my view it does not stand the test of reality. From my impression, the voice demanding action against hazards is also heard from among those who were not “fortunate” enough to be visited by the destroying plague, and the impression created that only (or mainly) families of terror victims make this claim is because only they are given a platform by the media (out of that same conception, which I agree deserves criticism, of their sanctity, etc., or out of fear of causing hurt. In any case, for the same reason one also hears not a few politicians and media people on the subject), or because they are aware of the previous reason and therefore exploit the platform given them by the public, and voice their claim (which existed earlier too, but who would listen to just some random Yael Shevach from Havat Gilad?). Perhaps revenge or pain also gives them more strength or desire to deal with it, but there is no flaw in that.
I did not write that only they make such demands. I wrote that there is a clear correlation between being a victim of terrorism and making such a demand. If among others the demand arises from a minority, among victims it arises from an overwhelming majority and with greater force. By the way, I have no problem with this. Revenge, in my view, is legitimate; it is just better to put it on the table.
Just yesterday I heard the families of the Nahal Tzafit victims demanding the establishment of a commission of inquiry and that the guilty parties be brought to justice. In my own estimation this is not so important, because these were good people who made a mistake, and I assume they have already learned lessons. This is a clear example of discourse that is ostensibly justified on utilitarian grounds but in fact comes from a place of revenge (and again, I understand their point of view. I am only illustrating).
An incidental note:
The issue of Nahal Tzafit is not revenge but a political matter. One of the leading voices in the families’ outcry was interviewed by Libskind and explained that she is angry that the pre-military seminaries are nationalist bodies, and that her daughter was taken to Hebron and met, God help us, its extremist Jewish residents, and she went on to explain how that atmosphere led to the disaster.
As you always say, every human act can be discussed both on the psychological plane and on the philosophical plane. I think that is true in our case too: the families want revenge, and they also sincerely want to spare others the suffering they experienced.
Ah, now my mind is at ease 🙂
Indeed. I did not come to malign the families (especially since revenge is also legitimate), but to illustrate the principle of façade arguments.
Why is revenge legitimate? And what about “You shall not take revenge”?
The desire for revenge is legitimate and natural. The act is legitimate if it has a justification in itself and the motivation is revenge. If one does something improper out of a motivation of revenge, then not.
With God’s help, 15 Iyar 5779
It may be that the feeling of sanctity accompanying engagement with Holocaust remembrance stems from the awakening to beneficence and moral self-examination to which we are stirred. When we encounter the war of evil and cruelty against millions of people, who after every possible criticism of them were for the most part decent and upright people by every human moral standard—we rise up against the injustice done to them, identify with them, and marvel at the strength of spirit they showed in the struggle for life and for preserving the image of God in man.
When we stand before their memory, we are stirred to become different people, better and more sensitive people. If under inhuman conditions they struggled and succeeded to a remarkable degree not to descend to the level of their tormentors—then we, who live in far better conditions, are called upon to aspire to be better!
With blessings, S.Tz.
With God’s help, 19 Iyar 5779
What I said above is true not only regarding Jews, but regarding every innocent victim, and therefore indeed the feeling of sanctity toward the memory of the Holocaust is not the possession of believing Jews alone.
It seems there is a unique faith-based aspect in seeing the victims of the Holocaust as sanctifiers of God’s name.
First of all, because of the self-sacrifice required of everyone who went through the Holocaust, whether in preserving basic human moral values or among those who tried to preserve their faith and the commandments of the Torah under those terrible conditions. Every good deed a Jew performed under those conditions was self-sacrifice for the sanctification of God’s name.
Regarding Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah it is said that had they tortured them, it is possible they would not have withstood the test; and here Jews underwent infernal torments for years (and the survivors—for many years afterward as well…). Every instance of withstanding the trial and holding fast to the path of good under such conditions is self-sacrifice for the sanctification of God’s name in the fullest sense of the term.
Moreover, all those Jews were tortured and killed for one reason alone: they were regarded by their oppressors as representatives of “Jewish slave morality,” which prevents the “beast of prey” in man from running wild as it wishes. In the center of the Nazi government there hung a map on which even a village in which there lived… five Jews… was marked.
It seems that even a single Jew, even if he is not aware of it, represents in the world the values of Judaism; the more we become aware of this and are committed to continue the struggle for the triumph of good—the more we can give the fallen “a memorial and a name” in the world.
With blessings, S.Tz.
..
Paragraph 5, line 3
there hung a map on which there was marked…
Paragraph 6, line 2
…we can give the fallen “a memorial and a name” in the world.
What have you to do with matters of morality and other spiritual subjects? Such things are not for talented people like you; go off to physics and mathematics… the awl that was never in the sack has popped up again…
For such things one needs a sense of smell, for holiness is not the what but the how, as the holy Zohar says, and that belongs only to one who keeps his soul in purity; an outsider will not understand, for he is secular in the Targum’s sense—standing outside.
The holiness attributed to the Holocaust stems only from the Jewish and universal human associative sense of smell: that there is here an absolute distinction between the Jewish people and the rest of the world. Hence the importance of the uniqueness of Jewish suffering, which is in fact the whole meaning of the Holocaust in general human consciousness, despite the millions from other nations who were killed.
Here “You have chosen us” kicks in. But one who gives no place except to his mathematical intellect will also be unable to feel even what is obvious, since every bringing to his consciousness of one scent or another he cancels with the might of his intellect.
A pity.
I would be glad to receive some further explanation.
I personally very much believe that God commanded the simple morality established within me, without any need for any halakhic book.
I also see in my national dimension a religious commandment, even without having a law book instructing me about it.
From the heavens of these things there emerges the idea of setting aside a day on which I emphasize the importance of these religious commandments (moral and national) and where we would end up without observing them.
Is the national custom known as Holocaust Remembrance Day not connected to strengthening moral and national consciousness? And if so, then these are religious commandments.
Or perhaps you oppose every intuitive religion that does not originate in a halakhic book?
In short, what is so strange to you about secular religion? And why do you call it a vacuum? Because it is not your religion? Because there is no prophet? It seems to me that in secular Israeli religion the people of Israel are the best prophet, bringing God’s commandments.
P.S. If before Holocaust Remembrance Day I were to say “for the sake of unification” and recite a blessing, would that be okay?
You may be surprised, but I too think God expects morality from me even without there being a commandment about it (there is an expectation—“and you shall do what is right and good”—but it seems to me that even without that I would say so). However, I do not see this as a religious commandment, but as a value grounded in God. That is not the same thing as a commandment. A commandment is grounded in command.
If you see the national dimension as a commandment, I disagree with you. For me it is an interest and nothing more. I have an interest in preserving my people and living with them. That is a right, not a value. But that does not relate to our discussion in any way that I can discern.
According to your view, if you want to dedicate a day to reinforcing those two things—that is perfectly fine. I did not say anything against it.
Secular religion is absurd not because there is no command, but because there is no commandment. One who believes in commandment (=God) sometimes does not need a command in order to understand that this is His will and to be obligated by it. But in the absence of someone who can confer validity upon commands, there is no meaning to command, nor to expectations, nor to any norms whatsoever. See the fourth notebook, in the third part.
If you were to say “for the sake of unification,” you would be violating the prohibition against adding.
That’s a problem, that the state is built on the Holocaust.
“Secular religion is absurd not because there is no command, but because there is no commandment.”
There is a commandment—its name is God. He simply commands through natural values. I don’t think your distinction between a commandment and a value grounded in God is all that important. Your identification of secularity with atheism is not accurate. There are many believing secular people. And in their eyes the March of the Living = a good deed = a divine commandment. Even if they do not say “for the sake of unification” (probably out of concern for Maimonides’ position on adding).
I do not identify secularity with atheism. If some value derives from God, there is no principled problem with it. The difference between a commandment and a value grounded in God is the whole essence of halakhah, and therefore it is very important (see the fourth notebook). But it is not relevant to our discussion.
I’d be happy to look into it. Could you give a page or chapter, because it isn’t clear to me what exactly you meant?
In the third part I compare a moral command to a religious one.
A thought-provoking article.
In fact, I had thought about the problematic nature of the sanctity of the Holocaust from the standpoint that it ignores the fact that Jews were persecuted and murdered throughout the exile, only in the Holocaust “more” died.
The sanctity of the Holocaust turns it into an event that is supposedly exceptional in history and prevents any substantive discussion of it.
After the massacres of 1648–49, in which tens of thousands of Jews in what is now Ukraine were murdered by Ukrainian nationalist rebels (led by Khmelnytsky), most of whom were simply murdered because they were Jews and were not given the option of converting, a number of prayers were inserted into the siddur (I am attaching a passage I copied from Wikipedia. Does the rabbi recommend removing them from the prayer book?
“In February 1650 the Council of the Four Lands convened in Lublin. There it established the twentieth of Sivan, the day of the Blois decree in 1171 and the day on which Nemirov fell, as a public fast in memory of all those killed in 1648–49. Laments and special prayers were composed to be recited on that day. Rabbi Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller then composed the lament ‘These I Remember with Triple Tears’ for the victims. Different versions of El Malei Rachamim prayers were also composed, to be recited on the twentieth of Sivan, on Yom Kippur, on the Sabbath before Shavuot, and on Shabbat Chazon.”
What does shemitta have to do with an omelet?
With God’s help, 1 Sivan 5779
The twentieth of Sivan was established by Rabbenu Tam as a fast day in memory of the blood libel of Blois in the 12th century. Following the events of 1648–49, the day took on a new significance because of the great massacre that occurred on that day in Nemirov, and it became a memorial day for the massacres of 1648–49. The twentieth of Sivan was also established as the memorial day for the Holocaust of Hungarian Jewry (because it falls in the middle of the period of deportations from Hungary).
Last year my son Avichai’s wedding to his dear bride (née Schwartz) took place on the twentieth of Sivan, and I looked for something good that had also happened on that day. I found that on that day the community of Alon Shevut was founded, where among other things Yeshivat Har Etzion and Herzog College are located. In the establishment of the community and the increase of Torah there—there is repair and consolation.
This symbolism is also expressed in the name of the community: ‘Allon HaBachut’ (“the terebinth of weeping”), from which people looked longingly toward Gush Etzion that had been destroyed, became ‘Alon Shevut’; and as throughout Jewish history: the memory of destruction is the lever for renewal with renewed strength.
With blessings, S.Tz.
On the twentieth of Sivan the Atomic Energy Commission was also established. Our nuclear capability too serves as a shield against those who rise up to destroy us…
Sorry, but I couldn’t find it. Does the rabbi mean the fourth book in the series called Ruach HaMishpat? I couldn’t find it. I’d appreciate it if the rabbi would say what page it is on. Sorry for the trouble….
I wrote it. The fourth notebook (here on the site), third part. Chapters 9–10.
Good evening, Rabbi, how are you? As someone who studies and teaches the subject [teaches history matriculation in high school], on the one hand I agree with some of what was said, but I dissent from some of it.
What do I agree with?
I agree that building Jewish identity on the Holocaust is absurd, and as you mentioned, the height of the absurdity was the Biton Committee, which tried to insert into the curriculum material about North African Jewry in the Holocaust so that members of those communities would also feel they were part of the “club”—that is indeed absurd as an identity marker. And you did not even bring Elazar Stern’s statement, “A person is obligated to see himself as though he came out of Auschwitz.” I also agree that the “tremor of sanctity” you speak of also causes the impossibility of conducting any normal discourse on the subject without emotional eruption striking with full force, and in this there is some of the exaggeration into which the Israeli public has entered regarding the subject. And the anger when other acts of genocide are compared to the Holocaust is also, in my opinion, pathetic—as though we are in a competition of “who had more of their people murdered?”
Where do I nevertheless dissent?
You wrote rather dismissively about the need to study the subject meticulously in terms of the historical details, and asked what it adds to know exactly what was said at the Wannsee Conference, etc. etc. So here I would say that in my humble opinion you are very much missing the point: this detailed information is extremely important. Why? The Holocaust was not just another traumatic event and another pogrom to which the people of Israel had “grown accustomed” during the years of exile; it was, as you yourself wrote in the name of R. Moshe Feinstein, a catastrophic event, an organized mass slaughter that planned to eliminate the Jews of Europe down to the very last one of them [“Come, let us wipe them out as a nation, so that the name of Israel will be remembered no more”], and all this in the name of a deranged racist ideology. This was not just one more of the many atrocities committed in history [Jewish and general alike], but an almost entirely unprecedented act. Beyond the fact that this event was so terrible and bloody, it is logical that it be commemorated and that it be important to commemorate it [of course in the proper proportions, as I wrote above]; indeed it is important to learn from it how far human beings can deteriorate, and what we must strive not to reach and from which to flee like fire.
This event has been denied for years by madmen and scoundrels who make every effort to deny the Holocaust and invest time and energy in this and bring evidence for their position, etc. And soon there will no longer be survivors who can testify. Therefore the emphasized and meticulous historical study of the matter is important beyond mere curiosity and documentation, and I am amazed why you wrote about it with undisguised disdain.
I repeat: defining the Holocaust as a component of our national identity is completely absurd, and treating the Holocaust in such a ceremonial way makes engagement with it very poster-like and such that it is impossible to discuss normally without people “heating up” and reacting from the gut. But on the other side of the coin, one should not disparage the importance of engaging with the subject when done in appropriate proportion.
Sorry for the length.
Hello A'.
I agree that it is important to remember and that lessons should be learned. I do not agree with sanctity and obsession. In my view there is no obligation for every person to master this or that detail of the events. Historians can and should of course fight Holocaust deniers. But outrage over the fact that this or that group does not know some particular detail strikes me as a tasteless joke. Especially when among us there is disgraceful ignorance of central details in foundational matters that are a thousand times more important. In short, it is a question of dosage and common sense.
I was speaking precisely about proportions. The details are the business of experts, as in any field. The answer to Holocaust deniers is not given in high school but in historical research.
Amazing! I wrote very similar things a few years ago.
Only now did I see this column, which in my opinion is nothing but a hymn to superficiality, ignorance, and forgetting. The things are written as crude and insensitive provocation, and they do not analyze the situation in a truly intelligent way. A great shame. On the substance of the matter, I suggest reading Moshe Feiglin’s response. It contains many answers to some of the questions raised here. https://israeltomorrow.co.il/%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%94…/
If that collection of stale nonsense, which in no way connects to itself, is the answer to my arguments, then I am really in good shape. Whoever finds there an argument that offers an answer (one, not many as Ehud wrote) to one of my arguments, I will lead after him my heart’s many possessions to the bathhouse. Ehud, you are invited to begin and spell out the wonderful answers you found there, here, instead of tossing out empty slogans with nothing behind them. Good luck.
With God’s help, 27 Nisan 5782
The State of Israel chose the 27th of Nisan as “Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day” because of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which broke out in Nisan 5703, yet the uprising actually broke out on the 14th of Nisan and not on the 27th. It seems there is here a kind of postponement until after Passover.
Perhaps it would be more fitting to mark the heroism of the oppressed ghetto Jews, who dared to fight the murderers, on the 21st of Iyar, on which day (in 5702) the first ghetto uprising broke out, in the Radin Ghetto in Lithuania. When some of the town’s Jews were taken to dig graves in preparation for the massacre planned for the town’s Jews, the blacksmith Meir Stoliar aroused the Jews to attack their German oppressors, kill them, and flee. This was the first ghetto uprising.
The 27th of Nisan is connected to a different kind of heroism, the heroism of rescue and survival. Jews and even decent gentiles acted with self-sacrifice to save as many Jews as possible from destruction. On the 27th of Nisan 5668 Oskar Schindler was born, who saved some 1,200 Jews from destruction by employing them in a factory considered essential by the Germans.
There are two facets of heroism against evil: the 27th of Nisan, Schindler’s birthday, would symbolize the heroism of survival and rescue; and the 21st of Iyar, the day the first ghetto uprising broke out, would symbolize the heroism of revolt and struggle.
With blessings, Ami’oz Yaron Schnitzler
Just regarding Eva’s story: the problem with it is that it isn’t real, and Holocaust deniers exploit every fake history story, like the 93 girls and like soap from Jews, to claim that there was no Holocaust.