I believe it was Emil Fackenheim who said that we must vigilantly attack assimilation so that we do not give Hitler a posthumous victory. Bluntly, I have always had problems with that argument. I could contend that, in line with this type of argument, assimilation and more specifically intermarriage could be the best way to ensure that Hitler is not posthumously victorious. One of the first laws that the Nazis introduced were the Nuremburg Laws that made intermarriage between an Aryan and a Jew a criminal offense. The essence of Nazism was narrow racism built upon a belief that one person is inherently superior to another. The way to defeat such a concept, it would actually seem, is through the promotion of universalism and the treatment of all human beings as not only equal but inherently the same. Thus, if our sole concern is to defeat Hitler, the call should really not be to encircle ourselves in separate groupings and maintain distinctions between different people and peoples but to promote the common essence of all humanity and universalism. Of course, this is not what I advocate but then again my point in being Jewish is not to prevent Hitler from having a posthumous victory.
I have similar feelings in regard to a comparison between modern assimilation and the Holocaust. Such a comparison, in many ways, seems to me to be solely an attempt to bring the emotions a person feels towards the horror of the Holocaust into one's perception of assimialtion. As with most cases where the word Holocaust is used in comparison to some event, it is often just a marketing tool to try and evoke the passionate response that the user of this term desires. Is it truly comparable, though? The Holocaust was the imposition of one group upon another against the will and desire of those being imposed upon. Assimilation and intermarriage are, on the other hand, the actions of one group, based upon their will and desire, that is not viewed favourably by another person or group. Again, I am not, of course, promoting assimilation. What I am calling for, though, is seeing things honestly.
Of course, Torah calls upon the Jewish people to maintain a separation between us and other peoples; Inherently, there is thereby a challenge to universalism. Of course, Torah calls upon us to fight assimilation and to see the loss of Jewish identity and expression within a person as a tragic event, even if the person has so decided. Inherently there is thereby a challeng to the value of autonomy that is so significant within the realm of liberty. Does this mean Torah is against universalism and liberty? I believe that, of course, the answer to this question is no -- but to clarify the Torah understanding of universalism and nationalism, of imposition and liberty demands much work and effort.
Comparing the Holocaust and assimilation is such an easy thing to do -- and to thereby evoke emotions that would promote Jewish identity. The cost, though, is Jewish thought. The comparison is really inappropriate. There are reasons why the comparison is inappropriate. The comparison ultimately weakens the essence of what Torah really is all about. Such comparisons are used because their easy. Such comparisons, though, ultimately hurt Torah and Jewishness because what God has given us is not easy but demands much thought.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
4 comments:
I agree with your comments Rabbi. I would add that those kiruv organizations (which shall remain nameless) which overtly use the Shoah to further their organizational goals create a Chillul Hashem of the greatest magnitude. This is manipulation at its worst.
I just wanted to add a further idea that emerged during a discussion of this matter in one of my shiurim. A person questioned my critique of the comparison between the Holocaust and assimilation for both do indeed have a meeting point in that both sadly reflect a fall in the Jewish presence within the world. I agreed that on that level there is a connection but the problem is that by making this comparison one is trying to take that emotions of the Holocaust and apply them to assimilation. But the emotions of horror connected to the Holocause do not emerge from the fact that the Holocaust affected the Jewish presence in the world but rather from the oppression, torture and murder that was existent in the Holocaust. The person, in making the comparison is trying to take this emotion, developed in a person for one reason and apply in a case that does have some similarity but does not have the element that would bring about this emotion on its own. Its almost similar to the old commercials they had for cigarettes that tried to imply that if you smoked a certain type of cigarette you were a certain type of person. You develop a feeing, graft a feeling onto a product and then say that the feeling is inherent to the product and the product should thus be purchased. Similarly here, you develop the feeling of horror the emerges from the Holocaust because of the mistreatment of people in the Holocaust, you then make a comparions between the Holocaust and assimilation by stating that both concern Jewish identiy and then you take this feeling of horror that is tied to the Holocaust because of its oppression and by using the Jewish Identity similarity, you try to apply this emotion to assimilation. That to me is manipulation and you do not truly develop the real reason for assimilation to be battled and for Jewish identity to be strengthened and encouraged.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
The verse says that we are a nation destined to live alone. Not away from those who hate us. Just alone, from both the friendly and unfriendly around us. The more large portions of the community ignore this verse, the more our numbers drop.
I think the issue goes even deeper and opposite what some manipulators of the Holocaust want to assert. Growing up going to a Jewish day school , I remember some of the more observant teachers suggesting that the Holocaust taught a lesson to those enlightened, assimilating German Jews that were at the epicenter of the slaughter. However, I read the outcome quite differently: the traditional, separated communities of Eastern Europe were the most vulnerable. Odds of survival were highest in more assimilated Western europe or if you were married to a non Jew or converted. Moreover, for those want to see divine pattern in History, one might note that trayfe America and mostly secular Israel were spared. So the Holocaust poses a particularly thorny problem for religious or even secular people who want to claim that separation=survival. Denial of this salient reality may explain the movement of modern orthodoxy toward zealotry especially since 1967, a trend of brutal, anachronistic fantasy.
I submit that the Holocaust demonstrates the conclusion of Yoma 9b that the problem for Am Yisrael in our present epoch(from about 550 BCE to the present time) has no relationship with issues of observance. The Holocaust confirms that we are up against a profound disturbance in humanity at large. We do have an answer: sinat hinam.
sinat hinam is free floating hatred, hatred that does not belong to the situation it is being exercised in. This free floating hatred comes from hatred which is not revealed in its proper context. Free floatong hatred is repressed hatred which have should been presented openly.
Traditionally, sinat hinam is understood as divisivness among Jews but this is due to a flawed analysis of the Kamtza story. The problem there is not opposition per se but rather a power driven spitefulness between opponents and out of touch decisions by rabbininc bystanders. Both problems are driven by free floating hatred. In every stage of the story, the personalities behave with a distance from situation at hand. The actual details of dispute fade in comparison to the irrational vengefulness on the hand and the apathetic responses on the other. No one really seems to be responding to the matter at hand. R. Yochanan's remarks are to be seen as ironic. Its not that Betar fell on account of a broken wheel but that in a world swirling with sinat hnam , petty details seem to be the causes of things. I'm sure that R yohanan being one of the last powerful generation of amoraim living in Israel was not proud of the Bar cosiba revolt and probably did not attribute his difficult times to a broken wheel. The comments of r yohanan should be likened to someone who says the wings of butterflies churn hurricanes. Yes, the movement of one butterfly wing may be a last bit energy which sets up the spin of a hurricane but more fundamnetally it is the presence of huge amount heat stored in tropical water which sets up the situation for the storm. Similarly, in a atmosphere of backlogged hatred throughout a society, small details are merely the sparks that ignite forests of deadwood.
sSinat hinam names not only the problem of Israel but a problem for humanity. we as inheritors of the
talmudic culture of open opposition are well suited to be the ones who take on this problem. It may very well be that the world is terrorizing us to take this problem seriously. I t may be that the it took the Shoah to shock us into addressing free floating hatred before the world as we know it is destroyed. I've been hearing the shrying about assimilation since I can remember. Those sermons are a cheap salve to the separatists who are cut off from humanity. Our mission,as i understand Yehuda Halevi, is to live at the heart of humanity and that will be achieved by a life of tochacha. Then one day when we have a break from arguing out our basic disagreements or defending our very lives, we might be attracted to perform some simple mitzvah without self righteous pride, resentment or peer pressure, and we may see revealed a new world, a world yet to arrive.
Post a Comment