Dear Dr. Lamm, As an introduction to a unit that I am teaching on Ashkenazic history of the Middle Ages and all of the tragedies that occurred therein, I used your article, “The Face of G-d.” I used the enclosed questions as a didactic tool. I would appreciate your suggestions and comments. Best wishes, Rebecca Kupchik (11th grade Jewish History)

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.

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…

Perhaps the best & most dynamic illustration of your thesis on the phases of Hester Panim (as set forth in your superb essay “The Face of God…”) can be found in this week’s Torah reading. Rashi’s exposition is particularly pertinent to your further point on the efficacy of prayer in advancing from stages (A) to (B) (“Absolute Hester Panim”) to (C) & (D). Ramban’s emphasis on this points up the rare opportunity granted to us today. How the Jewish community can continue its historic advance from the dramatic existence often tied to the phases of “Absolute Hester Panim.”

Dear Norman: During the year I am rushed and cannot get into much reading in a substantial way beyond immediate preparation for classes and writings, but in August and September I get my chance to catch up on back reading. This summer I brought along two of your writings, “Some Comments on Centrist Orthodoxy” and “The Face of God: Thoughts on the Holocaust.” This is a belated fan letter. It was a pleasure to read both pieces. Personally I always worry that administration and organization will erode my scholarship and intellectual vitality; it was a pleasure to see that your own thinking continues to mature and deepen despite the burdens of your office. The effort must be great but it is surely worthwhile. The Centrist article is an important articulation at a time when ideological awareness and self-confidence are at a low ebb in the community. Your three principles of synthesis, moderation, and the centrality of the people of Israel are right on. It was especially important for you to say that the “changes” Centrist Orthodoxy has introduced result “not in the diminution of Torah but in its expansion. Some changes are, indeed, for the good. And such positive and welcome changes were introduced at many a critical juncture in Jewish history.” Aside from the truthfulness of these statements, they are courageous—coming at a time when everybody is leaning over backwards to avoid criticism. Your list of unprecedented challenges to our whole way of life and thinking was also courageous, correct, and central to the agenda of the entire Jewish people, not just Modern Orthodoxy. Your interpretation of “the Way of the Lord” was outstanding, and equally significant was the humor and charm of your satire on how our contemporaries might respond to Abraham’s plea for Sodom and Gomorrah. Finally, I was most touched by the integrity of your analysis of the tension between love of Israel and love of Torah. Everybody likes to affirm both loves promiscuously and without cost, but the …

Dear Norman, שליט"א, I am sorry that my comments caused you distress and sleeplessness, but then something very good came of it – your excellent interpretation of your grandfather’s ז"ל's final remark. I believe that you really penetrated to his meaning. What moved me about the remark was his humanism – his religious humanism. I shared his humanistic concern about punishment (in institutional sense) after death, but mine led to an irreligious conclusion whereas his never did. I never doubted his great piety – how could anyone who knew him! – but I feared that some on the right (perhaps just a hint) might besmirch him. Hence I wondered whether you would want it published; but with your clarification, perhaps it should be published. I am indeed very happy that with your clarification. I trust that you never questioned my esteem for his piety and wisdom – which was shared by my father and is still shared by my mother.

Dear Zeida, I am writing to you in a frenzy of excitement which has resulted from your lecture entitled “The Force of God’s Judgment in the Holocaust.” The lecture has definitely triggered off serious questions, the questions that I, just like everyone else, have regarding frankfurt vrs tzur, that since possible in Jewish history which must fall under the category of literal punishment for sins the Jews have involved in since time back. Reading this lecture was the most thrilling intellectual experience I have been involved in since I came back to Israel. I probably haven’t yet marked the response in the correct probable books, I am putting it down under the title “we ask the questions” “he just don’t understand Hashem.” Here my controversy is sparked within me. All the questions asked however I would like an answer for the greatest answer is, could this be answered if we are the Jewish people so involved in questioning all the time and not getting any answer to it and not getting settled within ourselves, if this still is the situation? We might continue to rebel – still never being able to get back to your point that the answer will not come expected. The involvement in questions is always a beautiful experience but involvement in questions that never get answered is depressing. To my point – all that we can accomplish nothing. It seems as though this stage of Jewish history has no meaning and nothing that stems from it will give us any objective base upon which to stand. You are not answered. You only see that you have a special job as a Jew – we see that. What then can be accomplished if you are not answered? We can’t believe that in a perpetual involvement in questions and never arriving at any answer is good for us. We must have some kind of answer or at least something to believe in. We can’t be satisfied that Hashem has special ways. We know that! But what does it mean for us to know this and for you to tell us this, which is impossible to find some signif…

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…

Dear Norman, I just came across a passage in Chochma Umussar Chelek Bet lehaSabba miKelm that should be of interest to you. After your piece on The Face of God and your presentation of hester panim, Judy remarked, "He may be hiding His face, but He does peek!" But my kushya still stands! Aaron.