I find this teaching of Rabbi Amital (which is closely reminiscent to the very controversial Holocaust theology of Irving Greenberg) to be deeply troubling.

Every aspect of the Holocaust is clearly foreshadowed in the Torah. The Holocaust creates no theological problem. On the contrary, given the course of events within the European Jewish world in the centuries leading up to the Holocaust, the lack of such an event would provide a far more serious theological problem.

The fact that we fail to see the Holocaust for what it is – a Scripturally predicted response to the failures of the Jewish community similar to many such events in the past – and choose, instead, to view it as if it was an unexplainable sui generis catastrophe, which forces us to abandon traditional Jewish theology, is evidence only of our stubborn self-centeredness.

It was precisely this issue that caused Rav Hutner to reject the use of the terms “Shoah” and “Holocaust” in reference to the destruction of European Jewry. He argued that these terms imply that the Holocaust was an isolated event that was fundamentally unique and distinct from the rest of Jewish history. It is this misperception that has caused some among us to to invent new “theologies” or “ways to relate to God”, instead of working to understand this event through traditional Torah teachings.

As the Rambam writes in the beginning of Hilchot Taaniot, it is “the way of cruelty” to deny that the suffering of the Jewish community is rooted in our own failures. There is no need or justification to come up with new “foundations” for our avodat Hashem.

I do not agree with Lazer A. Whether the Holocaust was sui generis or whether it poses no new theological problem is a matter hashkafah and both positions are legitimate in my view. The problem with the
view of my teacher, Prof. Greenberg (to whom I personally owe a great debt of hakarat tov) is that the CONCLUSION he draws from the Holocaust being sui generis is that the covenant is from now on a voluntary covenant. This, it goes without saying, is NOT the view of Rav Amital.

LazerA: Why do you assume biblical precedents to hold true in post-biblical times? Furthermore, how can you point to certain events in history and claim them to warrant such a horrific punishment, if being punishable at all?
On the point of the Holocaust ( I will continue to call it that) being theologically sui generou, it is worth seeing Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovits’s “Faith after the Holocaust”.

“Legitimacy” is one of those very fuzzy terms which, when used in an area with overlapping sets of criteria, tends to confuse issues more than it clarifies.

One, extremely low, criterion for legitimacy is whether or not it is heretical. The assumption being, of course, that heretical ideas are illegitimate “hashkafa”. There, of course, higher standards to which a hashkafic idea may be held.

One such would be whether the proposed “hashkafa” has (A) any precedent in traditional Judaism and (B) whether it is even consistent with traditional Judaism.

The idea that the Holocaust absolves us from gratitude to God may not qualify as heresy. I’m not sure. However, it clearly flies in the face of the essence of all traditional Jewish teaching.

The fact that the Jewish people have suffered immensely is never presented as a legitimate basis to deny our basic gratitude to God. As the Haggadah says, “אנחנו חייבים להודות וכו’ למי שעשה לאבותנו ולנו את כל הנסים האלו”.

The entire Jewish nation had just endured over two centuries of unimaginable brutality. The mass murder of children, the destruction of families, dehumanizing slavery. This was one of the most horrific periods in human history. Yet, the Jewish response was not, “how can I have gratitude to God after this?” but “כמה מעלות טובות למקום עלינו!”

Indeed, we are taught that – in a deeper sense – we must have gratitude for the suffering as well, for we have faith in God that He has not caused us to suffer in vain. The seforim (Chasam Sofer, Sefas Emes) explain that this is the symbolism of eating maror at the Pesach Seder, to remind us that – in principle – our gratitude is not only for the redemption, but also for the suffering.

The Egyptian exile afflicted the entire nation, the Holocaust afflicted a (very large) part of the nation. The Egyptian exile lasted for centuries – entire generations of Jews were born and died as slaves in Egypt, the Holocaust lasted a decade.

So was Egypt “worse”? I don’t know, and I don’t believe it can be known. It was certainly very, very, very, bad.

If those who were taken out of Egypt could have gratitude – could recognize all the varied kindnesses that God had bestowed upon them, then certainly we who were saved or spared from the suffering of the Holocaust, can and should do so. Do we lack things to be grateful for? Today, the majority of the Jewish population lives in either the United States – where they enjoy a higher standard of living and greater freedom than any Jewish community since well before the destruction of the Second Temple – or they live in the Jewish state of Israel – the mere existence of which should blow the mind of any historically conscious Jew. We live in a generation that has, in many ways, been more blessed than any previous generation in millenia.

The idea that the Holocaust has, somehow, exempted us from our obligation of gratitude to God is totally foreign to Judaism. That an immediate survivor (like Rav Amital) might be attracted to this idea may be understandable. That we, today, who have the benefit of at least a little historical distance, should be attracted to this idea is inexcusable.

——

To Alexander, I fail to understand your question at all. Of course Biblical teachings are to be applied to post-Biblical times, that’s why they exist. When we recite the second paragraph of the Shema twice a day, we are remembering the principle that our success as a community comes from obedience to God and our suffering comes from disobedience. When the Rambam cited the tochacha in Hilchot Taaniot he was applying these Biblical principles to “post-Biblical” times. It was the Rambam who said that failure to recognize this principle is cruelty. It is cruelty to those who will suffer again because they failed to get the message the first time, and it is cruel to the victims themselves, for it implies that their suffering “just happened” without any purpose.

The idea that when the Jewish people abandon the observance of the mitzvos, they will be inflicted with immense suffering is a basic theme of Scripture and all later Jewish teachings. The 19th and the early 20th century saw the most severe (quantitatively and qualitatively) abandonment of Jewish practice and belief in all of history. Given this, the Holocaust was – tragically – simply to be expected. As I said earlier, given what was happening in European Jewry at the time, the lack of a Holocaust would have been the real theological problem.

The topics raised in the comments require a full fledged discussion far beyond the scope of a comment on a blog. Let me just note to Lazar that his absolutist views on these topics such as the reason for the Holocaust and “that it was too be expected” (an amazing line) or its not being unique is far from the view of all gedolei yisrael. Let me cite two examples:

1. R. Kalman Klonymous Shapoira-The Piaczetzna Rebbe, Hashem Yikom Damo

On the Uniqueness of the Shoah:

In a derasha written in 1941 after mentioning that the sufferings in the Warsaw Ghetto were not unique in the annals of the Jewish people, he then appended a footnote written in late 1942:

“This statement (applied) only to the travails up until the end of 5702 (the summer of 1942). However regarding the sufferings and cruel and unusual methods of murder that the bizarre murders have innovated and brought upon us, the House of Israel, from the end of 5702 onward, to the best of my knowledge of the writings of Hazal and of the history of the Jewish people there has never been anything like this, may God have mercy upon us and deliver us from them” “Eish Kodesh”, pg. 22

2. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein shlita

On the Reasons for the Shoah

In a sicha given in 1986 Rav Lichtenstein discussed the Challanges of the Holocuast. The sicha was adapted and printed on the VBM of Yeshivat Har Eztion. And subsequently published in “By His Light”. (By the way, having been at the sicha in person I can testify that the written presentation is toned down from the passion that Rav Aharon brought o his comments here.) In 1993 he delivered a similar sicha which was adapted and published in Hebrew in Alon Shvut Bogrim #11 and in English in Alei Etzion #16 Below are the two excerpts :

1. (1986)
“A number of possible approaches exist in tackling
this problem.

a. Not only is it not true that God ignored what
was going on, but – on the contrary – the Holocaust
represented the fulfillment of His will. We need to
recognize this and to confess that it was “because of
our sins…,” to see the Holocaust as a punishment, and
to answer the question of the suffering of the righteous
with another question: why do we ignore our own behavior
which preceded the Holocaust? …

However, it may be preferable to remain with the
problem – even if it is multiplied six million times -
than to accept any of these answers. Not because there
are better ones – there are not, and any of these answers
may theoretically be correct. We should not reject
outright the answer which maintains “because of our sins”
- who are we to instruct Divine Providence as to how to
punish? However, morally we dare not say this, since by
uttering this answer we have to see European Jewry as a
terribly wicked community, to the extent that it brought
the Holocaust upon itself, or alternatively to adjust our
standards and to say that such terrible punishments are
the appropriate response to very ordinary sins.
Yeshayahu was punished for saying, “I dwell amongst a
nation of unclean lips.” For us to make such a serious
accusation against the previous generation is certainly
more serious than the accusation made by Yeshayahu; who
would dare to say that there is even some comparison
between the punished and those who effected the
punishment? Among the victims were people of the highest
spiritual level, saints from birth and childhood. On the
other hand, if we change our standards of sin and
punishment, then we have to see the God of the Thirteen
Attributes of Mercy in a completely different light.”

2. (1993)

“Would such a cataclysm be regarded as direct punishment, or as a result of hester panim, the hiding of God’s face? Our minds are incapable not only of supplying the answers, but even of formulating the questions.

But we are being told one thing here: even if various possibilities exist, and there is no answer to the question (nor will there be one in the future), God’s rebuke of Satan resonates loud and clear. Even if the garments were indeed filthy, even if there was a deterioration in the religious level of the Jewish nation in general and of European Jewry in particular, even if anyone wishing to adopt Satan’s role could point out a long list of sins and iniquities – it is not Satan’s words that we should hear, but rather God’s rebuke.

All too often, we hear people claiming, “Why was there a Holocaust? Because their garments were filthy” – i.e., the generation was sinful. These people should be told that it is none of our business to determine the degree of “filth” on the garments. To them we say unequivocally: “God rebukes you, Satan; God – Who chooses Jerusalem – rebukes you!” Such talk is forbidden!

It is forbidden not because it is inconceivable, but because such explanations are in the provenance of the prophets, and perhaps of Chazal – but we? Who gave us the right to speak in such terms?

Every Jew today – and the State of Israel and Jewish People as whole – is, to some extent, a “brand plucked from the fire,” and the Holy One rebukes those who bring accusations against him.
RESPONDING WITH HUMILITY
The first thing that is required, then, when relating to the Holocaust, is absolute humility and complete self-nullification. First and foremost, I refer to humility in relation to God. This means avoiding all those philosophical and theological statements, issued from all sides, with great pretension, seeking to provide one or another explanation – while the best response is silence.

Humility is required with respect to the victims, too, both those perished and those who survived. This does not mean that one should not try to address the problem, but one must know which ways of addressing are acceptable – both intellectually and religiously – and which cannot be accepted.

There is a question that is raised frequently, in varying formulations – the question of the “hiding of God’s face.” This question indeed has an answer, perhaps the sole answer. This true answer does not pretend to supply a philosophical answer. My neighbor, the poet R. Leib Rochman z”l, walked through the valley of death, experienced firsthand the Holocaust and its horrors, and later wrote about it. Once a woman approached him, seeking to provoke him: “And where was God during the Holocaust?” R. Leib looked directly at her and replied, “Mit unz” – God was with us.

For a believing Jew, this is the only answer that should be given – not because it solves all the questions and doubts, but because it does not pretend to do so. It places the whole picture in the perspective of “the Divine Presence in exile” (Zohar, Shemot 3a), of “I shall be with them in this time of trouble, and I shall likewise be with them in other times of trouble” (Berakhot 9b). There is no other answer!”

Nathaniel Helfgot

We have two separate questions here:

1. Was the Holocaust fundamentally unique?

Now, obviously, every historic event is unique in wide range of ways. The real question, then, is whether the Holocaust was unique in a sense that removes it from the categories of thought that existed in traditional Jewish teachings. Does the Holocaust justify any kind of basic change in how the Jewish people relate to God?

I don’t believe there is any reaonable way for such a claim to be made. Not only has the Jewish people suffered – on an absolutely immense scale – in the past, without such theological modifications, but the possibility of such suffering is clearly predicted in Scripture. Nowhere is it even implied that such suffering justifies our denial of God’s kindness. Hakaras hatov is nothing more than recognizing and acknowledging the good that God does for us and that continues for us even in times of suffering, and certainly decades later.

The statement of the Piacetzna rebbe (which can be found in his drasha for Chanukah תש”ב) certainly does not constitute evidence of such uniqueness. It simply states that he does not know of any sources that the suffering Jewish people at the time of the churbanos of the Temples or Beitar was equivalent to there current suffering (unlike what had been the case previously). He is not saying, or even hinting, that their suffering was – in any way – theologically unprecedented. Interestingly, he does not mention the suffering of the Jewish people in Egypt, but in a different footnote, also from תש”ג, on his drasha on parshas Eikev תש”א, he explictly describes the suffering of those who had not yet been killed as “דווים בשעבוד ועבודת מצרים”.

Those who experienced the Holocaust – and, to a lesser degree, all of us today for whom the Holocaust is still a relatively recent event – tend to see it as dramatically worse than anything we have ever learned about in history. This tendency is natural – but it not a reflection of the actual reality. It is the result of the inability of texts and traditions to convey the genuine horror of events that took place before living memory.

Just as those who did not directly experience the Holocaust can never truly comprehend the horrors that the victims experienced, so too, none of us can comprehend the horrors of the Egyptian slavery, or the churbanos, or any of the other such events that the Jewish people have experienced. We naturally tend to view the event with which we have the most immediate connection in far more vivid and emotional terms than the events of long ago. But those events were just as horrible for those who experienced them as the Holocaust was for those who experienced it.

In the last drasha in his Eish Kodesh (שבת חזון תש”ב), the Piacetzna rebbe himself describes this phenomenon. He writes, “…now we can see how far hearing and speaking of tzaros and yissurim is from seeing them, and, all the more so, from suffering them ר”ל. When we study the words of the prophets and Chazal about the tzaros of the churban, we think we have some comprehension of these tzaros and we even cry sometimes. Now we see that to hear of tzaros is so immensely distant from seeing them or, all the more so, suffering them ר”ל, that they have nothing in common.” (My own loose translation.)

(Incidentally, the Piascetzna rebbe goes on in that drasha to point out that when God decrees that the Jewish people must suffer, then God Himself does not “look” upon our suffering, much as a father who knows his child must undergo a painful surgery, will still be unable to look upon his child’s suffering. The Piascetzna rebbe had no question that their suffering was decreed by a good and loving God.)

2. Is it proper for us to ascribe the suffering of the Holocaust to the sins of the Jewish people?

Despite all the emotional content of Rav Lichtenstein’s words, the fact is that all traditional sources – from the Torah itself, to the siddur, to the Rambam, and on down through history – clearly endorses – indeed, demands! – the basic principle of accepting our guilt in the face of suffering.

It is not humble to refuse to accept responsibility for our failures. The declaration from sefer Nechemia that we repeat over and over again in our selichos and on Yom Kippur, “And you, God, are just in all that has come upon us, for you have done truth and we have been wicked,” is not a declaration of arrogance. The Torah demands from us to recognize certain basic patterns in history. As we say every day in the Shema, if we listen to His mitzvos then we will be blessed, but if we turn away from Him, “וחרה אף ה’ בכם” – “the anger of God will burn against you.”

There are few more basic themes in the Torah than this principle. I can’t help but feel that the refusal to apply this basic principle to the Holocaust is rooted primarily in a fear of the ideological implications than it is in any kind of genuine moral or religious principle.

“I can’t help but feel that the refusal to apply this basic principle to the Holocaust is rooted primarily in a fear of the ideological implications than it is in any kind of genuine moral or religious principle.”

Translation: “I am so obviously right, and my way is the one and only derech HaShem, that anyone who disagrees with me cannot possibly have any rational arguments or valid sources to rely on, but is instead simply deluding themselves.”

Speaking to people with this attitude = waste of time.

What could be a worse test than that of the Akeidah? Hashem commanding Avraham Avinu to kill his own son???!! And yet, the Torah does not say that this was a punishment but a test. The most elementary principal is that a G-d that can be understood by man is not G-d. So I am extremely leary of any one, rabbi or layman, who is trying to tell me why something happened. The hidden things are best left to G-d.
What I found is some people are able to leave the problem unanswered and others need some kind of answer. Each will reach their own conclusion and like the six blind men and the elephant no answer will be complete. I just everyone will remember the book of Iyov and not be overzealous in defending G-d, who is more impressed by an honest question than a callus answer.

Rav Nati,

Yasher Koach.

You wrote “It would be interesting to explore if there would be any poskim who would be willing to go further and limit this law to the actual sheat ha-tefillah in the sense used by the Mishnah-i.e Shemoneh Esrei, when one is directly standing before the King, in the language of Rambam, which would further limit the actual parameters of this halakha.”

Indeed R. Abadi in his Ohr Yitzchak (O”CH 42) permits an Oleh to be kissed because Keriat Hatorah is not part of zeman tefilah.

Thought you’d be interested…

Kol Tuv,
Ross