In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 8 Building amidst Devastation Halakic Historical Observations on Marriage during the Holocaust Ester Farbstein The conventional combination of words in the phrase “halakah in the Holocaust” is an ostensible oxymoron. “Halakah” denotes continuity, permanence , an ordering of personal and public life in view of Torah laws, an adherence to a path paved since time immemorial. The origin of the word “halakah” is the Hebrew root heh-lamed-khaf—a “walking” on a path already laid out. “Holocaust”—the literal meaning of this term, like its historical meaning is discontinuity, dissociation, a descent into a deep pit. The Holocaust was a collapse of worlds, both the personal and the public, and a shattering of all systems: those of ethics and thought, those of existence and society. Therefore, the combination “halakah in the Holocaust” makes one ask if both ends of an oxymoron can possibly be discussed in one breath. How did these two concepts, continuity and discontinuity, become linked? The distance of years and the progression of research allow us to understand that life amidst contrasts such as these is one of the traits of the Jewish response during the Holocaust. Jews strove prodigiously to make sure that the outer circle of their lives—the one imposed on them, one of unparalleled enslavement, humiliation, and suffering—would not consume the inner circle—the one they preserved, their staff of support, the remnant of free choice, the struggle to maintain their identities as human beings and Jews. Thus, amidst a collapsing world, links of continuity—of morals, halakah, faith, and ideals—were preserved. The confrontation of halakah with the Holocaust was one of the most impressive links of continuity amidst discontinuity. 175 In the past few years, research on this topic has developed in several ways. First, it has moved from a generalized approach to an individualized one (as has occurred with many themes in Holocaust research). This approach is based on the integrated use of historical and halakic research tools, because only by understanding the specific reality in each situation can one discern the methods, meaning, and dynamic of pesiqa, halakic decision making. I will give two examples of this. The first concerns how to define the general halakic situation in the Holocaust. At an international conference at Yad Vashem in April 1968 on the Jewish stand during the Holocaust, where the halakic response was “recognized” for the first time as part of the concept of resistance,1 Professor Joseph Walk noted, also for the first time, the dilemma that rabbis faced in defining the halakic situation during the Holocaust. In the main, Walk distinguished between two halakic definitions that, in his opinion, reflected a difference in the way the overarching goals of Nazi anti-Semitism were perceived.2 One cannot possibly consider pesiqa in detachment from the thinking of the Torah sages. Only in view of the attitude of leading rabbis toward the phenomena of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust can one understand and explain the substantive differences in halakhic arbiters’ responses to questions that the circumstances of the time forced them to answer. Therefore, in his opinion, some rabbis defined the era as a time of shemad, an all-out onslaught against the Jews. In such an era, the observance of every religious precept should be upheld so stringently that the individual should accept death rather than commit any transgression. This is indicated in the Talmud (B.T. Sanhedrin 74b): “When a decree of shemad is in effect, one should die rather than transgress even in matters of sandal straps.”3 Others considered the Holocaust era a state of piquah nefesh, in which saving Jewish lives is the paramount value. In such a case, one may breach all commandments (except for idol worship, incest, and murder) because of the principle of va-hay bahem—commandments are to be “lived in,” not died for. From this perspective, every ruling would be biased toward lenience. The very fact of drawing this distinction was an important step, but today one may say that even this distinction is generalized in various respects. First, are there only two possible definitions? Second, was the halakic situation constant or fluid? Are halakic rulings in the Lodz ghetto in 1940 comparable to those in 1941, let alone in 1942? In other words, 176 e s t e r f a r b s t e i n [18.218.138.170] Project MUSE (2024-04-26 12:06 GMT...

Share