Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 050

Thursday, May 13 1999

• Waiting for Moshiach
• Re: The Sho'a vs. mourning for the Crusades
• Re: The Sho'a vs. mourning for the Crusades
• Re: The Sho'a vs. mourning for the Crusades
• Re: The Sho'a vs. mourning for the Crusades
• Re: The Sho'a vs. mourning for the Crusades
• More on Sefira vs. Sho'ah
• Re: More on Sefira vs. Sho'ah

Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> writes:
: Those of us ...
:       ... do not disagree with the fact that normative Judaism
: considers it important to believe that the Moshiach can come any day.
: The question is: should we believe that there is any greater chance
: that he will come in our generation as opposed to any other?  If
: people do think that way, then some people's belief in Yiddishkeit
: will be shattered if in fact he doesn't come.

The first thing that came to mind was R' Akiva's peers' comments that
grass will grow between R"A's toes before the moshiach comes. However,
you can't really prove anything from either side of that dialogue. R'
Akiva didn't believe in the imminence of moshiach in general, he believed
moshiach had actually been identified -- this isn't a precedent for us.
And, the chachamim of his time had enough ruach hakodesh that it's possible
they knew enough pre-messianic future history to know that moshiach's arrival
couldn't be soon -- again, not applicable to us.

To my mind, it really boils down to the meaning of "lachakos". It seems to
consistantly be the word used for what we're supposed to do. The Rambam
borrows the pasuk "im tismahmeha, chakei lo" in his description of the 12th
ikkar. The "ani ma'amin" version turns that reference into "vi'af al pi
sheyismahmeha, im kol zeh achakeh lo bichol yom sheyavo". The grammar of
the quote is NOT stressed in any of the melodies for these words that I can
think of. The "bichol yom" goes on "achakeh lo" (I wait daily), not on
"sheyavo" (which would be "sheyavo bichol yom" and would mean that moshiach
would come daily, not "any day now"). In Yigdal, it's "michakei keitz", an
expression we find elsewhere in tephillah as well.

I may be reading too much between the lines, but to me it looks like Yigdal
is phrasing it as a reward thing. The repetition of the word "keitz" appears
to say that "yishlach likeitz" is a midah-kineged-midah for "michakei keitz".

Unfortunately, though, I didn't do a survey of the word's usage to see what
"lachakos" connotes.

Last, let's look at the Chofeitz Chaim's example. On the one hand, he kept a
suitcase packed in case moshiach came and spent much time learning kodshim.
On the other, what did the CC spend much of his time doing? Crisscrossing
Europe to raise funds for a yeshiva in Radun! Perhaps the message is that
while we believe moshiach could come tomorrow, and hope he would, we realize
the odds are against it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 13-May-99: Chamishi, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 318:43-49
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 79b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari II 29-32

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> That we no longer rhave the halachic right to tamper with the
> calendar and
> add permanent dates of either aveilus or simcha.
> 
> Personally, I myself heard from RYBS that we do not even have the
> perogative to add kinnos on the Churban of Europe to the 9 Av
> liturgy - it
> requires a Rishon. I think this is extreme, but it is interesting
> to note
> that common denominator between the CI and RYBS.

RYBS was fairly conservative in this regard, no different than his
position with regard to Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut--not only don't say
it with a bracha (despite recognition of the miracle) but don't say
it during tefillah, only afterwards, in order not to be mishaneh
mi'matbeah ha'tefillah.  Others are more liberal, certainly with
regard to hallel on Yom Haatzmaut.

Dr. Sternberg (the Mathematician at Harvard) gave shiurim
demonstrating that the conservative attitude of 19th & 20th century
Orthodoxy was not shared by earlier achronim.  He speculated that
this conservatism was a reaction to Reform & Conservative Judaism.

In addition, I find the notion that one cannot tamper with dates of
aveilut (such as Tisha b'av; cf. Rav Goren's position changing
"Nachem") to be different from establishing new aveilut for the
Holocaust.  First of all, changing or eliminating Tisha B'Av is
changing a takanah of chazal, while chazal never said anything about
not mourning the Holocaust.  Second, we do find that communities
commemorated the Chmelnitzky massacres.  I find it difficult to
distinguish mourning over the Holocaust from mourning over those
massacres (other than the fact that the Shach favored the latter
mourning while all the gedolim feel too "small"--compared to prior
generations--to be so proactive; it is ironic that R. Moshe Feinstein
in the introduction to his Iggerot Moshe takes such an active
position with regard to paskening, saying that even though "katonti"
somebody has to stand up and take action).

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

Praytell, since you feel that RYBS and the CI were engaging in - to your
mind - unnecessay "Katonti" - as opposed to a certain Dr. Steinberg in
Harvard - how we are all to guage who really knows his stuff and can weigh
in with a valid opinion and who cannot?

To say the least, I am thunderstruck!

On Thu, 13 May 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> --- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
> <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> > That we no longer rhave the halachic right to tamper with the
> > calendar and
> > add permanent dates of either aveilus or simcha.
> > 
> > Personally, I myself heard from RYBS that we do not even have the
> > perogative to add kinnos on the Churban of Europe to the 9 Av
> > liturgy - it
> > requires a Rishon. I think this is extreme, but it is interesting
> > to note
> > that common denominator between the CI and RYBS.
> 
> RYBS was fairly conservative in this regard, no different than his
> position with regard to Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut--not only don't say
> it with a bracha (despite recognition of the miracle) but don't say
> it during tefillah, only afterwards, in order not to be mishaneh
> mi'matbeah ha'tefillah.  Others are more liberal, certainly with
> regard to hallel on Yom Haatzmaut.
> 
> Dr. Sternberg (the Mathematician at Harvard) gave shiurim
> demonstrating that the conservative attitude of 19th & 20th century
> Orthodoxy was not shared by earlier achronim.  He speculated that
> this conservatism was a reaction to Reform & Conservative Judaism.
> 
> In addition, I find the notion that one cannot tamper with dates of
> aveilut (such as Tisha b'av; cf. Rav Goren's position changing
> "Nachem") to be different from establishing new aveilut for the
> Holocaust.  First of all, changing or eliminating Tisha B'Av is
> changing a takanah of chazal, while chazal never said anything about
> not mourning the Holocaust.  Second, we do find that communities
> commemorated the Chmelnitzky massacres.  I find it difficult to
> distinguish mourning over the Holocaust from mourning over those
> massacres (other than the fact that the Shach favored the latter
> mourning while all the gedolim feel too "small"--compared to prior
> generations--to be so proactive; it is ironic that R. Moshe Feinstein
> in the introduction to his Iggerot Moshe takes such an active
> position with regard to paskening, saying that even though "katonti"
> somebody has to stand up and take action).
> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> Praytell, since you feel that RYBS and the CI were engaging in - to
> your
> mind - unnecessay "Katonti" - as opposed to a certain Dr. Steinberg
> in
> Harvard - how we are all to guage who really knows his stuff and
> can weigh
> in with a valid opinion and who cannot?
> 
> To say the least, I am thunderstruck!
> 
It's not only a certain Dr. Shlomo STERNBERG (sorry for mistyping
earlier) (who, by the way, is a brilliant talmid chacham who has
smicha from the Rav).  I believe that there are a lot of gedolim out
there who are too afraid to innovate (this didn't include RYBS)
because they were afraid of what the velt might say.  (BTW, all Dr.
Sternberg did is show us what was written meforash by early achronim.
 He didn't take any positions against the Rav.  The only position he
was adamant about was that the Aish HaTorah number method was
inconclusive mathematically and therefore proved nothing.)  Others,
like the Rav, had a certain conservative streak (maybe, in RYBS'
case, to counter other liberal views that he had).  

With all due respect, there are many liberal talmidei chachamim who
had "valid opinions" (Rav Goren comes to mind) but were demonized by
the yeshivishe velt.  Appropos to this discussion, see the article in
the recent Tradition about women's minyanim.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

In a message dated 5/13/99 10:59:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< Praytell, since you feel that RYBS and the CI were engaging in - to your
 mind - unnecessay "Katonti" - as opposed to a certain Dr. Steinberg in
 Harvard - how we are all to guage who really knows his stuff and can weigh
 in with a valid opinion and who cannot?
 
 To say the least, I am thunderstruck!
  >>
I'm sure their are those on the list that can correct me based on the facts 
if I'm wrong(that's why we're better off positing what long dead rabbis were 
thinking:-), but I don't think RYBS's position was based on katonti(maybe not 
the CI either).  In many matters RYBS was conservative with a small c - 
especially with regard to matters involving the bet knesset and tfilla.  Yet 
Rav Scachter in Nefesh Harav mentions that RYBS changed the minhag with 
regard to certain piyutim (to include them in maariv) even though this was 
not the practice accepted by his father.  Rav Schachter uses some strong 
language (like horaat shaah I believe) to describe this change - done so that 
people who saw that something in the siddur was being skipped wouldn't say 
well if you can skip this I guess other changes(eg Conservative with a 
capital C) are also ok.  Perhaps we could also understand it as the normal 
halachik process where the concern over 'misinterpretation' is a davar 
hamachria between two 'acceptable' alternatives and in fact makes the 
otherwise less acceptable alternative more acceptable.RYBS position on shoa 
etc. could be in a similar category.  The obvious nafka mina would be if 
these outside inputs changed, then we would change the result(leaving aside 
who the 'we'  is.)

Reactions?(please be gentle)

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

--- Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/13/99 10:59:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> 
<snip>

> I don't think RYBS's position was based on
> katonti(maybe not 
> the CI either).  In many matters RYBS was conservative with a small
> c - 
> especially with regard to matters involving the bet knesset and
> tfilla. 

I agree.

> Yet 
> Rav Scachter in Nefesh Harav mentions that RYBS changed the minhag
> with 
> regard to certain piyutim (to include them in maariv) even though
> this was 
> not the practice accepted by his father.  Rav Schachter uses some
> strong 
> language (like horaat shaah I believe) to describe this change -
> done so that 
> people who saw that something in the siddur was being skipped
> wouldn't say 
> well if you can skip this I guess other changes(eg Conservative
> with a 
> capital C) are also ok.  

I should point out that RYBS had many sides to him and that Rav
Schachter (who was my rebbe and with whom I still maintain a cordial
relationship) prefers the conservative side.

> Perhaps we could also understand it as the
> normal 
> halachik process where the concern over 'misinterpretation' is a
> davar 
> hamachria between two 'acceptable' alternatives and in fact makes
> the 
> otherwise less acceptable alternative more acceptable.RYBS position
> on shoa 
> etc. could be in a similar category.  The obvious nafka mina would
> be if 
> these outside inputs changed, then we would change the
> result(leaving aside 
> who the 'we'  is.)

Exactly my feeling.  The Rav's positions were very appropriate for
the 1950's (when he was most active), not necessarily for 1999.  I
also note that Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik, in his hesped for the Rav (in
Lamport auditorium) said that the Rav's personality changed as a
result of his wife's death and implied that the former personality
was more true to what the Rav was all about.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

> Subject: Re: The Sho'a vs. mourning for the Crusades
> 
> - --- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
> > I am a bit cautious about those who try to compare the Crusades to
> > the
> > Sho'ah based upon the number of people involved..
> > 1. While 5,000 is only 1/4 of 20,000 (and 6,000,000 is 1/3 of
> > 18,000,000
> > [which was -- I think -- the then-estimated Jewish population],  I
> > suspect
> > that the Kehilla considered the events AT LEAST as traumatic.  
> 
> You are correct that the KEHILLAH considered the events traumatic. 
> However, at the time 90% of world Jewry was Sephardic.  So relative
> to the population of world Jewry, the Crusades were substantially
> less important than the Holocaust.  Remember also that many Sephardim
> migrated to Ashkenaz (via Turkey, Russia) in the aftermath of the
> expulsion from Spain, so that even many of today's Ashkenazim are not
> descended from survivors of the Crusades.

===> First, I am not even trying to compare the Sephardic approach.  As
you recall, according to the Beit Yosef, their Aveilut does not even end
at the same time as the Ashkenazi custom.  Also, the ARI ZT"L noted that
one is "really" supposed to observe Aveilut the WHOLE time.  I think (but
am not sure) that there was a different dynamic at work.  and, *for the
Ashkenazim*, the Crusades were unbearably traumatic.


> 
> I would also point out that Jews in the 11th century had less of a
> sense of "history" than we do today.  For example, some of the cities
> listed as "destroyed" in the Kinot we say about the Crusades were not
> actually destroyed, just that some died.  (I studied this in 1992 so
> you'll have to forgive me for mot providing sources or details.)

===> I think that the focus is upon the "destruction of Torah" and NOT
JUST the loss of life. Note in
the Kinot of 9-Av that commemorate the Churban of the Crusades.....



> 
> >  In
> > addition
> > to the killings, there was lots of other disruption...
> > 2. Another factor may be simply that given the SECULAR Jewish
> > "commemoration" of the Sho'ah to the exclusion of the other
> > tragedies of
> > our past (such as the Tach V'Tat massacres of Chelmnietzki (I am
> > not even
> > sure if I spelled that correctly) -- which ARE mentioned in S"A as
> > a time
> > to mourn) -- so the "FRUM" Jewish population has "gone the other
> > way" in
> > "downplaying" any religious significance...
> 
> I find this unfortunate.  The Nazis didn't differentiate between
> secular and religious, why should we?  Moreover, the Nazis tried to
> kill us, not stop our religious practice; cf. the difference between
> Purim and Chanuka and the Gemara [where?] talking about Hallel which
> says "u'ma me'avdut l'cherut omrim shira, m'mita l'chaim lo kol
> she'kain."

===> Purim is a time of *celebration*.  I am not sure how the equation
would fit.  Indeed, if there is physical hatzala -- then we celebrate that
as well...  ALSO, in that case, the *frum* element "got there first"...
The point is that the secular element treats the events of the Sho'ah as
worsethan ANYTHING ELSE in Jewish History.  I believe (but am not certain)
that some of these people who are so "into" Yom HaSho'ah will eat on 9-AV!
In that context, I am not surprised that the frum element will shy away
from such *insensitivity* (and, yes, I think that it IS insensitive to
"rank" tragedies to the extent that some are IGNORED while one's
"favorite" is celebrated.




> 
> > 3. The "survivors" at the time of the Crusades were all Frum (I
> > think) and
> > the Gedolim who saw that this all tended to occur between Pesach
> > and
> > Shavuot (either because of Easter of because that was when the
> > roads
> > became usable after the Winter) saw fit to link this to the
> > existing
> > mourning of Sefira (esp. in terms of the fact that both -- each in
> > a
> > different way -- represented an attack on Torah (Talmidei R.A. were
> > the
> > ones who could have brought much Torah to all and the Crusades were
> > an
> > attack upon Jews to convert).  In our case, first of all, many of
> > the
> > "survivors" (who escaped) were not frum (we will not even get into
> > the
> > opposition that the Orthodox encountered from the Non-Frum in
> > trying to
> > save Jews from Europe...) and second, the killing was not limited
> > to
> > between Pesach and Shavuot 
> 
> However, many survivors (for some reason) seem to assume that their
> relatives died right around Shavuot.  In fact, my mother, a survivor
> of Auschwitz who lost her parents and two siblings, mourns her
> parents during Shavuot.  In fact, the Nazis came to my mother's town
> in Czechoslokavia (Hungarian part--Kashau) the day after Pesach 1944
> and the townspeople were transported to Auschwitz, arriving a couple
> of days before Shavuot.


===> I think that the Nazis Y"Sh deliberately conducted raids around the
Yom tovim (in part because they knew the Jews would be easy to find and in
part to add a bit of glee in wrecking the Yom Tov).  Thus, the raid in
Denmark was (I think) at Rosh Hashana.  There were similar actions around
Chanuka and other such holidays...  Similarly, there was some activity
around Shavu'ot....



> 
> Yom HaShoah is commemorated on the 27th of Nissan.  Charedim protest
> that this is no good because you don't say Tachnun during Nissan. 
> Interestingly, they have no problem in following the Mechaber's
> minhag of Sefirah (which occurs during Nissan).

====> There have already been responses here pointing out the
*Inappropriateness* of that date.  It is an overt example of
anti-religious sensitivity and it serves as an object lesson as to why the
religious "velt" is si cautious in approaching it.  I recall that the
Rabbanut declared that Asara B'tevet is the "Yahrzeit" for those who do
not know when their relatives perished...



> 
> > and third, the attack was not
> > specifically
> > against Torah -- it was against JEWS (even converted ones...). 
> 
> Same as Purim.

===> See above.  




> 
> > Thus, I
> > can certainly see a reluctance to link the Sho'ah to Sefira and
> > they would
> > not make up NEW periods of mourning....
> > 
> 
> Chaval.  I would think that we should focus on mourning our most
> recent losses before we put any more energy in mourning over the
> losses of the Crusades (which, from a historical perspective, pale
> compared to those of the Holocaust).  After all, as time passes, we
> have the klal: "batla megilat taanit."

===> Actually, one can note that it is critical to focus on the past
first.  We see how our current tzarot "grew" out of the earlier ones.  For
that reason, the primary focus is on the Beit Hmikdash since the bitter
pill of Galut is the foundation for ALL of the later miseries.  Hence, the
Kinot for the crusades are formulated for 9-Av.  similarly, we do NOT make
a distinct mourning for the crusades -- instead, we "swallow" it into an
earlier period of mourning...  I think that the choice to focus on the
present can be misguided.  A people guided by mesorah need to understand
that our present situation is not one that stands in isolation...

That said, I would just note that I one heard R. Berel Wein say that we
are waiting for our Gedolim to formulate the "proper" reaction to the
events of the Sho'ah and the State of Israel

--Zvi



> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe
> 

--- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
> > - --- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
> > > I am a bit cautious about those who try to compare the Crusades
> to
> > > the
> > > Sho'ah based upon the number of people involved..
> > > 1. While 5,000 is only 1/4 of 20,000 (and 6,000,000 is 1/3 of
> > > 18,000,000
> > > [which was -- I think -- the then-estimated Jewish population],
>  I
> > > suspect
> > > that the Kehilla considered the events AT LEAST as traumatic.  
> > 
[Moshe Feldman responded:]
> > You are correct that the KEHILLAH considered the events
> traumatic. 
> > However, at the time 90% of world Jewry was Sephardic.  So
> relative
> > to the population of world Jewry, the Crusades were substantially
> > less important than the Holocaust.  Remember also that many
> Sephardim
> > migrated to Ashkenaz (via Turkey, Russia) in the aftermath of the
> > expulsion from Spain, so that even many of today's Ashkenazim are
> not
> > descended from survivors of the Crusades.
[Zvi:]
> ===> First, I am not even trying to compare the Sephardic approach.
>  As
> you recall, according to the Beit Yosef, their Aveilut does not
> even end
> at the same time as the Ashkenazi custom.  Also, the ARI ZT"L noted
> that
> one is "really" supposed to observe Aveilut the WHOLE time. 

That's not my point.  My point is that the Crusades vis a vis
Ashkenazim were from a historical perspective much less traumatic
than the Holocaust.

> I
> think (but
> am not sure) that there was a different dynamic at work.  and, *for
> the
> Ashkenazim*, the Crusades were unbearably traumatic.
> 

Perhaps at the time, the Crusades were.  But today, from a historical
perspective, there's no comparison.

> 
> > 
> > I would also point out that Jews in the 11th century had less of
> a
> > sense of "history" than we do today.  For example, some of the
> cities
> > listed as "destroyed" in the Kinot we say about the Crusades were
> not
> > actually destroyed, just that some died.  (I studied this in 1992
> so
> > you'll have to forgive me for mot providing sources or details.)
> 
> ===> I think that the focus is upon the "destruction of Torah" and
> NOT
> JUST the loss of life. Note in
> the Kinot of 9-Av that commemorate the Churban of the Crusades.....
> 

Much of the destruction of Torah occurred at a later period (e.g. the
kinah dealing with the burning of the Talmud in Paris).  While the
Crusades were disruptive, they did not cause a great break in Torah
learning (unlike the events in France &  Germany at the end of the
13th century).  Immediately after (and during) the Crusades came
Rashi and the Baalei HaTosfot.

In contrast, the destruction of Torah learning existing in Europe was
much greater (at least that's what the Chazon Ish implied to Ben
Gurion when he requested the draft deferment for Bnai Yeshiva).

> > >  In
> > > addition
> > > to the killings, there was lots of other disruption...
> > > 2. Another factor may be simply that given the SECULAR Jewish
> > > "commemoration" of the Sho'ah to the exclusion of the other
> > > tragedies of
> > > our past (such as the Tach V'Tat massacres of Chelmnietzki (I
> am
> > > not even
> > > sure if I spelled that correctly) -- which ARE mentioned in S"A
> as
> > > a time
> > > to mourn) -- so the "FRUM" Jewish population has "gone the
> other
> > > way" in
> > > "downplaying" any religious significance...
> > 
> > I find this unfortunate.  The Nazis didn't differentiate between
> > secular and religious, why should we?  Moreover, the Nazis tried
> to
> > kill us, not stop our religious practice; cf. the difference
> between
> > Purim and Chanuka and the Gemara [where?] talking about Hallel
> which
> > says "u'ma me'avdut l'cherut omrim shira, m'mita l'chaim lo kol
> > she'kain."
> 
> ===> Purim is a time of *celebration*.  I am not sure how the
> equation
> would fit.  Indeed, if there is physical hatzala -- then we
> celebrate that
> as well...  

Conceptually, it's the same.  We celebrate physical redemption and
mourn physical destruction (people dying).

> ALSO, in that case, the *frum* element "got there
> first"...
> The point is that the secular element treats the events of the
> Sho'ah as
> worsethan ANYTHING ELSE in Jewish History.  I believe (but am not
> certain)
> that some of these people who are so "into" Yom HaSho'ah will eat
> on 9-AV!
> In that context, I am not surprised that the frum element will shy
> away
> from such *insensitivity* (and, yes, I think that it IS insensitive
> to
> "rank" tragedies to the extent that some are IGNORED while one's
> "favorite" is celebrated.

The question is why the frum community must be so swayed by what the
secular do.  If the secular would make Tisha B'Av a commemoration of
the Crusades (to the exclusion of the destruction of the Bet
haMikdash) would we stop commemorating Tisha B'Av or stop saying
kinot dealing with the Crusades?  

Why do we let the secular monopolize the issue of the Holocaust?  Is
it because some have used it as a "proof" for the non-existence of
Hashem?  Because so many frum people perished?  Because our gedolim
told people to stay in Europe?  The Holocaust is the greatest tragedy
to befall the Jewish people since the destruction of the Bet
haMikdash, and the frum community has not come to grips with it.

> 
> > > 3. The "survivors" at the time of the Crusades were all Frum (I
> > > think) and
> > > the Gedolim who saw that this all tended to occur between
> Pesach
> > > and
> > > Shavuot (either because of Easter of because that was when the
> > > roads
> > > became usable after the Winter) saw fit to link this to the
> > > existing
> > > mourning of Sefira (esp. in terms of the fact that both -- each
> in
> > > a
> > > different way -- represented an attack on Torah (Talmidei R.A.
> were
> > > the
> > > ones who could have brought much Torah to all and the Crusades
> were
> > > an
> > > attack upon Jews to convert).  In our case, first of all, many
> of
> > > the
> > > "survivors" (who escaped) were not frum (we will not even get
> into
> > > the
> > > opposition that the Orthodox encountered from the Non-Frum in
> > > trying to
> > > save Jews from Europe...) and second, the killing was not
> limited
> > > to
> > > between Pesach and Shavuot 
> > 
> > However, many survivors (for some reason) seem to assume that
> their
> > relatives died right around Shavuot.  In fact, my mother, a
> survivor
> > of Auschwitz who lost her parents and two siblings, mourns her
> > parents during Shavuot.  In fact, the Nazis came to my mother's
> town
> > in Czechoslokavia (Hungarian part--Kashau) the day after Pesach
> 1944
> > and the townspeople were transported to Auschwitz, arriving a
> couple
> > of days before Shavuot.
> ===> I think that the Nazis Y"Sh deliberately conducted raids
> around the
> Yom tovim (in part because they knew the Jews would be easy to find
> and in
> part to add a bit of glee in wrecking the Yom Tov).  Thus, the raid
> in
> Denmark was (I think) at Rosh Hashana.  There were similar actions
> around
> Chanuka and other such holidays...  Similarly, there was some
> activity
> around Shavu'ot....
> 

So you agree that we can add an element of mourning for the Shoah
during Sefirah (just as in the Middle Ages they added an element of
mourning for the Crusades)?

<snip>
> > > Thus, I
> > > can certainly see a reluctance to link the Sho'ah to Sefira and
> > > they would
> > > not make up NEW periods of mourning....
> > > 
> > 
> > Chaval.  I would think that we should focus on mourning our most
> > recent losses before we put any more energy in mourning over the
> > losses of the Crusades (which, from a historical perspective,
> pale
> > compared to those of the Holocaust).  After all, as time passes,
> we
> > have the klal: "batla megilat taanit."
> 
> ===> Actually, one can note that it is critical to focus on the
> past
> first.  We see how our current tzarot "grew" out of the earlier
> ones.  For
> that reason, the primary focus is on the Beit Hmikdash since the
> bitter
> pill of Galut is the foundation for ALL of the later miseries. 
> Hence, the
> Kinot for the crusades are formulated for 9-Av.  similarly, we do
> NOT make
> a distinct mourning for the crusades -- instead, we "swallow" it
> into an
> earlier period of mourning...  

But why can't we swallow the mourning for the Holocaust into Sefirah
as well?

>I think that the choice to focus on
> the
> present can be misguided.  A people guided by mesorah need to
> understand
> that our present situation is not one that stands in isolation...

Agreed.  But the Rishonim nevertheless mourned the Crusades.

> 
> That said, I would just note that I one heard R. Berel Wein say
> that we
> are waiting for our Gedolim to formulate the "proper" reaction to
> the
> events of the Sho'ah and the State of Israel
> 

Seems like we've been waiting too long.  (Also, which Gedolim?  The
Rabbanim HaRoshim such as Rav Herzog did formulate policies.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]