הנני מודה לא-ל על שזכיתי בפעם השנייה לעלות ירושלימה ולדבר מעל במה אחת עם ידידי הדגול, כבוד שר הדתות. הזדמנות זו מזכירה לי את המפגש הקודם שלנו, בביתי שבניו יורק – מוצאי יום טוב ראשון של גלויות – כשאנחנו קידשנו והוא הבדיל. ואילו היום, כאן בירושלים, נהפכו היוצרות: הוא קידש, ואני מבדיל – בין גולה לארץ, בין קודש לחול, בין אור לחושך, בין ישראל לעמים. אי אפשר, לדעתי, לדבר על יחסי בית הכנסת למדינת ישראל ועל חובות הקהילות הדתיות בגולה כלפי הארץ מבלי להתבונן באירועים הדרמטיים של ששת הימים. כל עוד לא ראינו את האירועים בעין אמונית, ולא שיבצנום במסגרת השקפת התורה, איננו ערוכים לדיון מהותי. אין מדובר בסיסמאות שחוקות אלא בעיון מעמיק במקרא ובחז"ל. איני מבקש לחשב את הקץ או לקבוע אם אלו ימות המשיח – איננו רשאים, כבני אנוש, לדון כך על ההיסטוריה מתוך ההיסטוריה עצמה. אך עלינו לשאול: מה משמעות ששת הימים הללו כהתגלות? מה הן המסקנות העולות מכך – להלכה ולמעשה?ברור לכולנו שהניצחון היה בעל אופי ניסי. אין צורך לטעון שכל נס חייב לשבור את הטבע – ולעומת זאת, גם הסבר טבעי לחלוטין עשוי להיות נס בתחפושת. ההסבר הדתי לא מסתפק בתיאור הצלחות טקטיות, אלא רואה את יד ה' המשדדת מערכות ההיסטוריה.לא פחות חשוב מהניצחון היה גל ההתעוררות הרוחנית – חשיפת עומק האמונה גם בקרב מי שחשבנו לחילוני מובהק. בלשון בעל התניא, זו הייתה התגלות "אהבת ה' המסותרת" – לא ראינו כדוגמתה לא במלחמת השחרור ולא במבצע סיני. זהו חידוש הדו־שיח בין העם לאלוקיו, דו־שיח שנקטע מאז חורבן הבית ושב עתה – ולו לרגע – לתחייה.בתנ"ך אנו מוצאים שני קטבים ביחסי העם וה': הסתר פנים ונשיאת פנים. החטא גורם להסתלקות ההשגחה, לניתוק, לתחושת בדידות רוחנית. נשיאת פנים, לעומת זאת, היא ברכת אהבה, ידידות מחודשת – "ישא ה' פניו אליך וישם לך שלום". אך לאחר ששת הימים איננו עוד בהסתר פנים מלא – ועם זאת, טרם זכינו לנשיאת פנים שלמה.חז"ל (חגיגה ה) מדברים על מצבי ביניים: "בחלום אדבר בו" ו"ידו נטויה עלינו". אלה הם שלבים שבין הסתר פנים לנשיאת פנים – רמזים של השגחה, הגנה מפני כליה, לחישה אלוקית אל תוך חיינו. אנו חיים כיום בתקופה של "בחלום אדבר בו" – מצב זמני, רווי אפשרויות, שאינו מבטיח דבר אך דורש מאיתנו תשובה, בירור, התעוררות.כך יש להבין גם את מגילת אסתר – סיפור שבו לא נזכר …

When I write about “meaning,” add the point that the statement I make – that Hester Panim is a period of meaninglessness – does not automatically nullify all meaning to Jewish history. I am not of the Ben-Gurion school which denies any significance or value to Diaspora history. Rather, what I mean is that the totality of Jewish history, from the beginning to the end point, is the highest form of meaning, in that it represents the engagement of man with God; and by “meaning,” I intend just that – the redemptive design of history. However, within this process of meaning there exists a hiatus, a blank, an empty space in which meaninglessness pervades. In this period, which is the epoch of Hester Panim, the history of the people as such makes no sense; by which I mean that this period taken by itself, other than the sheer survival of Israel, shows no specific responsiveness to a divine plan. It is thus, in a manner of speaking, a period of “meaningful meaninglessness.” This does not, however, mean that in the period of Hester Panim individuals can find no meaning in their lives. There is a mysterious economy of meaning, whereby individuals may find meaning in their engagement with God, whereas the people as a whole suffers meaninglessness – even as it is quite conceivable that individuals should be lost in a Hester Panim of meaninglessness while the people as a whole rises to new levels of meaningfulness. With regard to the present, one of the reasons I refuse to recognize contemporary history as Nesiat Panim is not only because we have obviously not reached the desired level of religious conviction and experience, but also because, even in the time of the glory of Israel’s triumphs, we must remember the agony of Russian Jewry.

Norman Lamm, Center Couples Club, October 22, 1972, "Role and Importance of the חמש מגילות" – I. Introduction: A. Most scholars – the connecting link of the five megillot is purely accidental or circumstantial – the fact that they are read on five synagogue occasions from seven begs the question. Can understand אסתר and איכה – but why need others? And why not e.g. יונה declared מגילה? Will return to this later. B. General – in listing in five megillot – five shortest books. They are interspersed chronologically amongst other books – not as a unit. C. Halakhah – all agree – blessing on all (except perhaps Esther – because only place find to read a megillah, hence one; others – only sometimes). Blessing on all, even printed; others – on all, yes – printed, no. At any rate, no evidence of early custom to specify – hence question: what unifies five megillot? II. Relevance to holidays – A. Esther and Lamentations – obvious. B. Spring – based on harvest; later – will give other reasons. C. Ruth – various: Abudrahm – Shavuot; Israel at Sinai; lineage of David, who was born and died on Shavuot; Rabbi Maimon – to complement with Ruth = conversion since... D. Kohelet for Sukkot – Abudrahm. III. My theory of unifying factor – each of five megillot speaks of "absence of God" and need for faith in His presence and providence, of love for Him. Each treats theme in a different way. And this makes five megillot a peculiarly contemporary set of books. A. Esther – even divine Name omitted. Book can be read on two levels, even as events themselves could be interpreted casually (secular-political) or religiously. (See Chap. II of Royal Reach.) B. Lamentations – obvious. C. Ecclesiastes – a meditation on meaninglessness of life, even when all virtues and goods available, as long as God not actively present in consciousness and practice of man. (See Chap. 37 Royal Reach.) D. Song of Songs – tradition focuses exclusively on symbolic meaning. Parable of approach and retreat – frustration…

1. In my attempt to formulate a Jewish approach to the Holocaust, it should not be expected that I will venture an answer to the ancient question of צדיק ורע לו (“the righteous whom evil befalls”), the vexing problem of the suffering of the innocent and the prosperity of the wicked, one that puzzled such Biblical giants as Samuel, David, and Jeremiah. The problem of theodicy—“justifying” the ways of God to man, offering rational explanations for the ethical and philosophical dilemmas presented by the disjointedness and inappositeness of conduct and circumstance, the quality of one’s moral life and his fortune or misfortune—has a long and honorable history. But there is no one theodicy in Judaism. From Job to the Sages of the Talmud, from Maimonides to Luria to the Besht, there is only one constant, and that is the question of צדיק ורע לו, the righteous who is afflicted with evil. The number of answers varies with the number of interpreters. No one approach has official, authoritative, dogmatic sanction in Judaism, although each has something of value to contribute. And the question remains the Question of Questions for Judaism, as it does for every thinking, believing human being. How, then, shall we approach the problem? Let us begin by dividing it into two parts: first, the universal problem of suffering, the cry of צדיק ורע לו, why should the innocent suffer, intensified in the Holocaust by its unprecedented magnitude and cruelty. In kind, the Holocaust mystery is a continuation of the ancient question of evil and suffering—more urgent perhaps, but essentially the same. The second part is not universal-metaphysical but national-theological. The Holocaust is not only a human challenge to God’s justice and goodness, but a Jewish challenge to His faithfulness and promise. The absolute novelty of the Holocaust lies in its threat to the continuity of the Jewish people as such. It not only outrages man’s ethical sensibilities, but it throws into disarray most of our n…

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)

(Note: Letters, in order to be considered tor publication, must be typed and double-spaced. All letters must be signed, although names will be withheld upon request. Due to the large volume of mail, we regret that we cannot acknowledge or return any letters.) You recently published a number of articles by the distinguished Rabbi Dr. N. Lamm based on a lecture given by him at Stern College. I have read these articles concerning the “Face Of G-D" in connection with the Holocaust with great interest and would like to make a few remarks.Rabbi Lamm quotes three opinions with regards to the Holocaust, that is, it was a punishment either for assimilation, for a godless nationalism represented by the Zionist movement, or for not doing sufficient for the rebuilding of the Holy Land.Rabbi Lamm rejects these three explanations as they contradict each other, therefore none of these can be right. It also seems to him abhorrent that G-d Almighty should send such a terrible punishment to the Jewish people. I beg to differ. Is it not possible that all three opinions are justified? Can they not refer to three different wrong attitudes by three different groups in Jewish life.There was one group centralized mainly in Western Europe that tried to assimilate individual Jews to their unJewish environment. Do we not all know the explanation of the Meshesh. Chochmo on Vayikro Ch-27 V.44 in which he predicted that from Berlin, the cradle of Reform, Antisemitism would spread all over the world, and that this sefer was published in 1928. It had been written many years before, when no one thought of Hitler as a menace to the Jewish people and as a threat to the world.And who can overlook the prophecy of Ezekiel (Ch-20, V.32,33) “And that which enters your mind shall not happen to pass. דג)ד949 that which you say let us be like the nations and the families of the earth to serve wood and stone. As I live say the L-rd G־d if I will not reign over you with a Strong Hand and Outstretched Arm and …

Rabbi Norman Lamm is one of the most gifted orators in today's English-speaking Torah world. It is precisely for this reason that we must be especially careful to protest, loudly and swiftly, the sort of thesis he presents in The Face of G-d: Thoughts on the Holocaust. Rabbi Lamm decries arrogance, smug interpretations, utter self-confidence, and dogmatic infallibility. Indeed, so do we all. His emphatic words can then only astound: “In sum, if we ask if we may resort to the mipnei chatoteinu rationale for the Holocaust, my answer is a resounding NO – indeed, six million times NO!” It is precisely here that this whole line of reasoning is wrong. Claiming to oppose pat answers as arrogant, it provides the smoothest, most comfortable formula of all, and asserts its validity with absolute authoritativeness. While purporting to condemn insensitivity, it offers us, heirs all to this oh-so-recent devastation, license for shrugging all the horror away as unspeakable, unexplainable. The bottom line, even after the sublime utterances which follow, is: This has nothing to do with me. I need not change my ways. There can be no greater insensitivity than that. For it must have something to do with me. G-d did indeed bring this horror upon our people in unprecedented magnitude. That is a crucial point. In any individual case of suffering, it is possible to shrug, acknowledging one's inability to assess the matter. Tzaddikveralo. An ancient problem. In this world, man cannot understand the ways of G-d. But when a punishment of such proportions comes upon our people, every fiber of the Jew’s consciousness recognizes that we are meant to search our ways. This many years later, each thinking Jew, at some level, is asking what can be learned from this nightmare. Can there be a greater desecration, more heinous callousness, more unforgivable indifference than to turn away from the events, and from the insistent intuition within ourselves without a lesson for our own behavior? No. But…

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.”