העורך Editor

Wikipedia cannot seem to figure it out.

Could it have meant:

1. That those who worked “enough” would subsequently be let free? (a lie)
2. That labor is “freeing”?
3. A deception so the prisoners would not realize this was a death camp, not a work camp?
4. A cruel mockery of the prisoners?
5. That they would be worked to death, and thereby “freed” from physical life?

It seems to me that the phrase indicates the Hegelian/Marxist idea, still widely held, of “State Slavery = Freedom”.  The National Socialist German Workers’ Party – surprise, surprise! – were socialists. Wiktionary points out: “The phrase has been used since at least the early 1800s, and appears for example in Heinrich Beta’s 1845 Geld und Geist.” Let’s not be too exacting when trying to understand government-issued literature…

And the various concentration camps this was shown at were often intended at conception to serve as work camps, and not solely for Jews.

“אם השם איתי אז מי יכול נגדי”

על העיבוד וההפקה המוסיקלית העכשווית הופקד ערן כרמי.

By the way, on an unrelated topic, how come most of our readers don’t seem to have noticed the gorgeous list of Shabbos-observant establishments catering for vacation time?!

Inspired by a fellow insulted by a previous post.

Intentional national sin is too explicit in our history to deny. But some try to deny the possibility of Shogeg, at least. This way, they are saved from ever needing to re-examine things like Heter Iska and Mechiras Chametz (assuming these heteirim are, in fact, innocent). The parsha of special korbanos for national errors is just ignored (it’s probably like Ben Sorer which some say never happened and never will).

The proof is adduced from Iggros Moshe Yoreh Deah volume two, at the beginning of chapter 146. The topic is germs not qualifying as sheratzim (insects we are forbidden to consume). Starting with not paskening halacha using a microscope (whose source he quotes as Rabbi Chaim Soloveichik*) for “Pegima” or “Mar’os” שג”כ הוא דין ברור ופשוט שאין להסתפק כלל, Rabbi Feinstein then adds the following regarding sheratzim :

ואף אנחנו קטני קטנים, ידענו לדבר פשוט שא”צ לפנים כי לא הוזכר בגמ’ וכל הדורות הכשרים הגאונים והצדיקים לא השתמשו במיקראקאף, וברור שהם קיימו כל התורה ולא נכשלו בשום דבר אף באונס.

Of course, one can find examples of all Jews doing aveiros in Onness, such as the Yerushalmi of the dead body buried under the Mizbe’ach. But that is not the logic here. He is also not saying Chazal’s scientific knowledge is inevitably infallible and unchanging. He is not even saying that Hashem’s intention of having mitzvos performed would have been thwarted had they not been due to no fault of their own. All of these claims are arguable. His actual point is that it is implied or explicit in Divinely inspired Torah works, such as Scripture (כן עשו בני ישראל) or Shas that the Torah was frequently kept, and it must be the case the Torah was possible to be kept from the very moment it was granted (even if improvements are possible because of historical and technological changes ).

(By the way, see the continuation of the Teshuvah for how the questioner was willing to kill people he technically knew to be alive.)

Here is the part of Iggros Moshe quoted above, from HebrewBooks:

Download (PDF, 28KB)

* There is a story of Rabbi Soloveichik using a magnifying glass for examining an Esrog, when he was corrected by a young Chazon Ish, so perhaps the Chazon Ish is the true source.