Home Vital Issues and Rabbi Jung's Plea - A Symposium: Myth and Counter-Myth (1959) / Vital Issues and Rabbi Jung's Plea - A Symposium: Myth and Counter-Myth (1959) / Letter from Prof. Kirschenbaum about "The Face of God"

Correspondence

1980s

Letter from Prof. Kirschenbaum about "The Face of God"

Hidden Face of God
Background Information

This letter is a response to "The Face of God," Rabbi Lamm’s lecture on theodicy and the Holocaust.

Background Information
View The Text

This content is currently available in its original PDF format. As we expand the library, we plan to add a text version as well.

RELATED CONTENT

Correspondence

Exchange with Shaul Bald about "The Face of God" (1987)

I am writing you regarding your worthy address on the Holocaust. I’m enclosing a maamar by the Or Hachaim Hakadosh which I believe has relevance to the topic of שואה. He reveals that certain rishut done by reshaim can cause a holocaust. Though not mentioning the aveira or aveirot that cause this catastrophe, he does state that people should curb their taava serucha. For if they do not do so, they may cause the death of countless נפשות, small and big, for which baal aveira is responsible.
Hidden Face of God

Correspondence

Letter from Prof. Woolf about "The Face of God" and the Crusades (1987)

Dear Dr. Lamm: As always it was a pleasure to see you last Shabbat in Riverdale, and I want to thank you for your kind words about my lecture; I cherish your friendship and guidance, and your favorable comments were all the more appreciated. You mentioned your interest in sources documenting the rejection of the nexus of sin and punishment as explanations for the massacres of Rhenish Jewry during the First Crusade of 1096. My major source has always been the crusader chronicles themselves, available in the pocket edition of A. Habermann, Sefer Gezerot Ashkenaz ve-Tzarfat (Jerusalem, 1945). Careful examination of these texts shows a definite incongruence of reaction: while the editors interpolate comments such as mipnei hata’einu, the recorded speeches of the principals speak rather of the privilege of dying al kiddush Hashem. Although the history of the creation and redaction of these texts is problematic, other evidence of the self-image of Ashkenazic Jewry in its “Heroic Age” (as Dr. Agus z”l called it) confirms the authenticity of these sentiments. Classical Ashkenaz was highly self-conscious of its piety and scholarship, and it would be consistent for them to refuse to see their trials as punishment, but rather as a test and testimony of loyalty to God. The acceptance of mass self-immolation, by children and students alike, testifies to this self-image. I have held this view for years, and before preparing my recent lecture I also consulted Alan Mintz’s Ḥurban (Columbia University Press, 1984), which independently reaches the same conclusion. I highly recommend it, although I disagree with Mintz’s downplaying of the Akedah motif in favor of the “Re-Creation of the Temple.” My remarks about Classical Ashkenaz’s self-image are further supported by studies including A. Grossman, Ḥakhmei Ashkenaz Ha-Rishonim (Jerusalem, 1981); J. Katz, Ma‘ariv Bizmano ve-Shelo Bizmano, Tarbiz 35 (1970); H. Soloveitchik, “Can Halakhic Texts Talk History?” AJS Review 3 (1978); and id…
Hidden Face of God

Correspondence

Letter about "The Face of God" (2006)

As I think you know, I am not by nature a meddler, but in this case I feel that the cause is worth the inconvenience of mediation. I have only one interest: to protect the Orthodox community from any more cynicism and hillul Hashem. That having been said, and with full knowledge that I have not discussed this at all with [name], I here offer you two parallel statements that I would like to propose to [name], if indeed both of you will agree to this plan. If you do not, then there is no reason for me to continue my efforts – which will be a relief to me, and probably to you as well. Here are the two statements that I suggest you approve for me to present to [name]. (1) “I am aware of all the pain and grief that has occurred because of the strife between myself and certain people at [synagogue], and I wish it were not so. I regret that this has gone on for some months. I believe it is time for reconciliation, in which all who have injured others by word or deed, whether intentionally or unintentionally, express contrition for their actions. I certainly include myself in that category, and hope that others will, in all honesty and modesty, come forth and do the same.” (2) “I am sorry that I was involved in the controversy which has caused so much grief for our synagogue, and that many people have been hurt. For my part, I regret any responsibility I may bear for this state of affairs, and hope that others will do likewise.” I ask of you now not to decide between them, choosing one and rejecting the other, but to give me your order of preference – which first, and which second. While the proposed statements are not engraved in stone, they present us with an opportunity to be oseh shalom. Revising them so that they make the statement stronger or weaker, to any appreciable extent, may well result in scuttling the entire effort and make eventual reconciliation even more remote. If neither of these is acceptable to you, please be open with me and tell me. If you can manage…
Hidden Face of God