[Avodah] Heroes, Victims and Kedoshim

[Yitzhak Grossman]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:09:11 -0400
"Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgluck at gmail.com> wrote:

> R' YG:
> > I have wondered for many years whether there is *any* classic source
> > for the notion that one who is killed for being a Jew, as opposed to
> > one who *voluntarily* gives up his life for God, His Torah, His Mizvos,
> > or His people, can be said to have died Al Kiddush Hashem.
> <SNIP>
> > And so I throw down the gauntlet; I challenge anyone to provide a
> > classic, or at the very least pre-twentieth century, source for the
> > doctrine that being murdered for being a Jew is a sufficient condition
> > for being considered to have died Al Kiddush HaShem.
> 
> Would the crusades qualify? See Kinnah 25 (Ashmenaz, Mi Yitein Roshi Mayim)
> where those killed are clearly considered to have been Mekadesh Sheim
> Shamayim (for example, "Al Yichud Sheim Hameyuchad Yichadu Sheim B'gvurah,"
> or, "G'onei Eretz U'n'kiyei Taharah Pa'amayim Kidshu sheim Hameyuchad
> B'morah"). 

The Crusades, and particularly the First Crusade of 1096 ('G'zeiras
Tatn"u'), were actually my paradigmatic example of the classic idea of
"Kiddush Hashem"; the Jewish martyrs were legendary for their
magnificent defiance of the Christians and their solicitations for
Shmad.  By defiance, I mean verbal and moral, not military; besieged
Jews, in imminent danger of death, taunted their besiegers with insults
like: "Worshippers of an executed, bastard god!"

I believe that the very lines you cite indicate this.  "Al Yichud Sheim
Hameyuchad Yichadu Sheim B'gvurah" means that they valiantly gave up
their lives for their belief in God's unity, as does the other line you
quote.  [I don't have many commentaries on the Kinnos handy, but see
the Kinnos Ha'Meforush, who explains as I do.]

In general, the language here and elsewhere is always active, e.g.
"Yihadu" and "Kidshu ... B'Morah" here, and "She'masru Nafsham al
Keddushas Ha'Shem" in Av Ha'Rahamim.  The implication is that we are
referring to an active decision to be Mekadeish Shem Shamayim, not a
passive state of victimization.  The active component may be merely an
attitude of Mesiras Nefesh, rather than any practical decision, but I
stand by my contention that there is absolutely no early source for the
idea that mere victim-hood is a sufficient condition for death Al
Kiddush Ha'Shem. 

See the hair raising and heartbreaking description in the Kinnah
"Haharishi Mi'Meni Va'Adaberah" of the unknown martyrs' decision to
implement a communal murder / suicide pact:

<Quote>

And they gathered B'Prishus and in purity
to sanctify God's great and awesome name
and each man strengthened his brother with support
to cling [to him] with pure awe
to refrain from bowing to Avodah Zarah

...

and they spoke to them saying:
"we have not merited to raise you to Torah
we will offer you as an Olah and Haktarah
and we will merit with you to the light
that is hidden from all and obscured"

</Quote>

For more background on this, see Avraham Grossman, "The Roots of
Kiddush Ha'Shem in Early Ashkenaz" (Heb.) in "K'dushas Ha'Haim V'Hiruf
Ha'Nefesh", Y. Gafni and A. Ravitzky eds.

While Googling the subject, I turned up a rather provocative
revisionist article (David Malkiel, "Destruction or Conversion,
Intention and Reaction, Crusaders and Jews in 1096", Jewish History,
Volume 15 Issue 3 October 2001) which claims that, contrary to the
accepted narrative that the victims of the First Crusade were always
offered the choice of baptism, in actuality the primary intention of
the Crusaders was mayhem and destruction, and that offers of
salvation through conversion were only occasional and sporadic.  From
the article:

<Quote>

H.H. Ben-Sasson expresses this notion as follows: “Because every Jew
was offered the choice of converting to Christianity, and there were
those who apostatized and hoped to return to Judaism, the voluntary
sacrifice of the martyrs appears in bold relief.” For Ben-Sasson it is
clearly important that the martyrs of 1096 acted voluntarily; he
implies that the presence or absence of choice is crucial for the
proper evaluation of their behavior. Almost all other historical
accounts of the 1096 massacres present the same picture, though the
ideological significance of the option to convert is nowhere as obvious
as it is in Ben-Sasson’s formulation. Jacob Katz and Salo Baron agree
that the martyrs faced the alternatives of death or conversion.10
Norman Cohn feels that there was “no doubt” that “a Jew could always
save both life and property by accepting baptism.” Avraham Grossman
states that the martyrs took their lives and those of their wives and
children “primarily because of the concern that the Gentiles would
baptize them against their will.” Haym Soloveitchik asserts that the
Jews of Ashkenaz “committed suicide rather than have baptism forced
upon them, rather than be dipped in what they called ‘contaminated
waters.’ ” Robert Chazan writes that the purpose of the attacks on the
Jews of Worms, Mainz and Cologne “was to eliminate entirely the Jews –
preferably by conversion, or, failing that, by slaughter.” Jeremy Cohen
agrees that the Jews of Ashkenaz were “compelled by their attackers to
choose between conversion to Christianity and death.” Anna Sapir
Abulafia declares that the “hordes” approached the cities with Jewish
populations “voicing their intention of killing any Jew who would
refuse to be baptized.” Jonathan Riley-Smith claims that “every- where
attempts were made to force Christianity on the Jews, who had heard
that the crusaders intended to offer them the choice of conversion or
death.” Gavin Langmuir, too, states categorically that “Jews were not
killed if they would accept baptism.” Citing Hebrew and Latin sources
alike, Jean Flori asserts that the crusaders “did not seek to kill the
Jews, but rather forcibly to convert them.”

</Quote>

Malkiel disagrees that this is what actually occurred, although he does
concede that this was the medieval Jewish understanding of the events:

<Quote>

The notion that the martyrs spurned conversion – had the
opportunity of spurning it, to be more precise – has resonance only in
the medieval Hebrew chronicles of the events, which were mostly
written, and clearly edited, well after the events. The chronicles
describe the large-scale slaughter of the Jewries of Worms and Mainz
(and elsewhere), but also contain personal anec- dotes in which the
option of converting is heroically, and tragically, rejected. One
might be tempted to accept that at least these particular martyrs
really did choose. Yet the chronicled accounts are too problematic and
clearly directed toward other aims than those of the modern historical
scholar restricted by modern historiographical limits to permit reading
them at face value, certainly not as a simple historical record.

</Quote>

>From his conclusion:

<Quote>

For reconsidering the textual evidence, what, we ask, are we to do with
the old hypothesis, the one which Baer and so many others have argued?
Perhaps their case, with respect to what really happened is valid. But
the texts, as we have seen them, will not vouch for this. At the same
time, are we entitled to rewrite the story on the basis of the
chronicles, to suggest that murder was in fact the prime goal and
conversion was of survivors alone, or if conversion and murder were
simultaneous, was conversion a product of force or, again to cite
Baron, “the weak-kneed” alone? The answer is no. For this would be to
treat our sources unfairly as composites, as material of a single and
whole cloth. Were not the chronicles put together from preexisting and
not necessarily interdependent strands? If, too, we question the
historicity of the chronicles, Latin or Hebrew, or refuse to impute to
their authors modern historiographical procedures, then how may we
privilege one hypothesis, one version of the chronicles, as true
historically as opposed to another?

</Quote>

Note that I do not know that much about the period, and I have not yet
even had a chance to read the whole Malkiel article carefully.

> MYG 

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat