Rabbi says "Jewish Holocaust victims were reincarnation of past sinners"

[marksman]

So it is the belief that god is powerless to stop the supernatual effects of worshiping something other than him?

"You didn't pay me enough respect, I am not responcible for what happens to you" Does anyone really buy this line of crap?

Actually, the philosophy is that God doesn't generally intervene in human affairs. He created an imperfect world and charged humanity with perfecting it. But now we're getting far afield from the initial post, and we're straying into some pretty complex philosophy.

Moreover, the rabbi completely and hypocritically contradicted that philosophy when he attributed Katrina to American approvalof the West Ban withdrawal. I won't defend that statement (which I raised in this thread).

But as to the Holocaust, yes, the belief is that karma is akin to a law of physics and God will not generally interfere in it. God did not want it to happen. The Nazis are not exonerated thereby and the Jews who died are not to blame for it. We can go afield and start criticizing the underlying philosophy of Orthodox Judaism as a whole, but I think that's off-topic for this thread.

 

[jimtron]

By the way, this controversy isn't new. He said a similar thing eight years ago, and he actually explained his remarks:

In remarks broadcast on Israeli television on Monday, the 79-year-old Iraqi-born rabbi said: "Who doesn't bemoan the Holocaust?... Six million Jews, among them one million children...were killed by the wicked Nazis. All were holy and pure and complete saints."​

Edited to add: I assume the saints he refers to are the victims of the Holocaust, not the Nazis.

I'm having trouble understanding the view that Holocaust victims: "all were holy and pure and complete saints," but also "were reincarnation of past sinners." Anyway, I find this very offensive, saying that Holocaust victims were sinners in past lives. Doesn't that sound a tiny bit like saying they deserved it, or that somehow it was justified? And how would anyone know that they were sinners in past lives?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, the philosophy is that God doesn't generally intervene in human affairs. He created an imperfect world and charged humanity with perfecting it. But now we're getting far afield from the initial post, and we're straying into some pretty complex philosophy.

Again this is the kind of thing that as an atheist I have problems see why believers buy it. What exact past sin were these people being punished for?

It seems that this goes beyond a non interfearing god not stopping some bad people or unfortunate force into explaining how the victims had it coming.

 

[marksman]

I'm having trouble understanding the view that Holocaust victims: "all were holy and pure and complete saints," but also "were reincarnation of past sinners."

In Judaism, the status of sinner and saint are not mutually exclusive. Everybody makes mistakes, but that doesn't prevent them from also being righteous.

There's also a bit of mistranslation, likely. Judaism doesn't have sainthood in the Catholic sense. More likely, he means they were martyrs in the sense they died blameless because of their status as Jews.

Anyway, I find this very offensive, saying that Holocaust victims were sinners in past lives. Doesn't that sound a tiny bit like saying they deserved it, or that somehow it was justified? And how would anyone know that they were sinners in past lives?

According to Orthodox thought, every Jew was present at Mount Sinai and participated in some way in the Golden Calf idolatry. So all Jews, including the victims of the Holocaust, and the Rabbi himself, was present and culpable.

That sin, so the philosophy goes, caused a lot of bad karma. That doesn't mean that people are to be blamed fo their own wrongdoing. It doesn't mean that the people who abuse Jews are blameless. It is just a theological basis for explaining why bad things happen to good people.

Sadly, this is not something that can easily be explained in a Jerusalem Post article, and it doesn't really seem the Post was all that interested in finding out the theological background to the statement. So his statement was reported without a proper context. It happens quite often when religious figures talk about events with historical or political significance.

The Rabbi has said plenty of offensive stuff. This wasn't one of them.

 

[marksman]

Again this is the kind of thing that as an atheist I have problems see why believers buy it. What exact past sin were these people being punished for?

Punish is an imprecise word in that context. The victims are punished by karma in the same sense that someone who is thrown off a building is "punished" by gravity. The fact that the victim was pulled by gravity does not impugn blame to the victim. Nor does it exonerate the person who threw the victim from the building.

It seems that this goes beyond a non interfearing god not stopping some bad people or unfortunate force into explaining how the victims had it coming.

That is not what the philosophy states. He is not blaming the victim.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Punish is an imprecise word in that context. The victims are punished by karma in the same sense that someone who is thrown off a building is "punished" by gravity. The fact that the victim was pulled by gravity does not impugn blame to the victim. Nor does it exonerate the person who threw the victim from the building.

The problem is that the person threw themselves off the building not was thrown off the building by someone else. Or was it now the Nazi's karma who caused all the problems?

It seems that by saying it is karma is saying that it is a trait of the victims that caused it.

That is not what the philosophy states. He is not blaming the victim.

And I don't see how you can reach that position.

 

[ponderingturtle]

According to Orthodox thought, every Jew was present at Mount Sinai and participated in some way in the Golden Calf idolatry. So all Jews, including the victims of the Holocaust, and the Rabbi himself, was present and culpable.

That sin, so the philosophy goes, caused a lot of bad karma. That doesn't mean that people are to be blamed fo their own wrongdoing. It doesn't mean that the people who abuse Jews are blameless. It is just a theological basis for explaining why bad things happen to good people.

The problem is that you seem to be saying that the golden calf means that they deserve what happened to them, because of their culpability. Then saying that they are innocent. The problem is taht they are either culpable or innocent.

He might not be excusing the Nazi's, but he is blaming the victims.

The Rabbi has said plenty of offensive stuff. This wasn't one of them.

And I can see broadly why that would be. This is not a remarkable way of dealing with the issue of why bad things happen to good people. But I don't see why it isn't part of it that blames the victims, like say Pat Robertsons saying that 9/11 was because of tolerance for homosexuals and abortion.

 

[jimtron]

In Judaism, the status of sinner and saint are not mutually exclusive. Everybody makes mistakes, but that doesn't prevent them from also being righteous.

So sinners are holy and pure? I guess I don't understand what those words, and the word "sinner" mean.

The Rabbi has said plenty of offensive stuff. This wasn't one of them.

What he said was offensive to me. And the idea that all Jews are sinners is an idea that I find offensive (same goes for all Christians are sinners, etc).

eta:

Yeah, what ponderingturtle said:

The problem is that you seem to be saying that the golden calf means that they deserve what happened to them, because of their culpability. Then saying that they are innocent. The problem is taht they are either culpable or innocent.

 

[Thunder]

This Rabbi was not saying that "all Jews are sinners". He was saying that the Jews who were killed in the Holocaust were reincarnations of Jews who had done a terrible crime, and therefore in some way, had it coming. This also means that the Jews who survived...did not deserve to die and therefore were not killed.

If a Catholic priest said something like this, the ADL and other groups would rise up in comdemnation. But because this is a rabbi, silence prevails.

=(

 

[marksman]

The problem is that you seem to be saying that the golden calf means that they deserve what happened to them, because of their culpability.

First off, I don't believe in karma, so please don't think I scrib to the rabbi's beliefs. I've studied them -- I don't accept them.

Second, there's no element of "deserving". In a past life bad things happened. Karma dictates some sort of metaphysical backlash will happen to correct the accounts. There is no blame attributed.

Then saying that they are innocent. The problem is taht they are either culpable or innocent.

They are innocent. There's no culpability.

He might not be excusing the Nazi's, but he is blaming the victims.

No, he isn't.

But I don't see why it isn't part of it that blames the victims, like say Pat Robertsons saying that 9/11 was because of tolerance for homosexuals and abortion.

Because karma is supposed to be like a law of physics (a law of metaphysics, if you will). It's a consequence to an action, but that doesn't mean you're to blame for that consequence.

 

[jimtron]

Marksman, in your opinion, what is the relevance of mentioning that the Holocaust victims were sinners in past lives? I'm curious to hear what you think the rabbi meant by that--what was his reason for mentioning it.

 

[marksman]

This Rabbi was not saying that "all Jews are sinners".

Yes, he was. Under Orthodoxy, every Jew was present at the Golden Calf incident.

I understand how people wouldn't get the enormous amount of context behind what the Rabbi said. And given this Rabbi's history of saying rather hateful things, that's understandable. In this specific context, though, he was not blaming the Jews for the Holocaust.

 

[marksman]

Marksman, in your opinion, what is the relevance of mentioning that the Holocaust victims were sinners in past lives? I'm curious to hear what you think the rabbi meant by that--what was his reason for mentioning it.

In my opinion, he was trying to explain the notion of the impact of the Golden Calf incident. The negative karma associated with it touches every Jew, even the most revered Jews in Israel -- the victims of the Holocaust. Even they are impacted by the negative karma of the Golden Calf. Nobody is exempt.

In essence, he was answering the unspoken implication that the Holocaust victims were so innocent that surely they should have been spared the negative karma. (In essence, he was imagining someone saying "I accept that bad things happen to good people, but surely the Holocaust was so bad, and its victims so good, that this should have been an exception.") His response -- nobody is spared of karma, just as nobody is immune to gravity, no matter how good they may be, even the victims of the Holocaust because they, like us, were present at the Golden Calf when the bad karma was first generated.

That's how it reads to me, having reviewed this article and the articles about a similar statement about the Holocaust he made in 2000.

 

[jimtron]

In my opinion, he was trying to explain the notion of the impact of the Golden Calf incident. The negative karma associated with it touches every Jew, even the most revered Jews in Israel -- the victims of the Holocaust. Even they are impacted by the negative karma of the Golden Calf. Nobody is exempt.

In essence, he was answering the unspoken implication that the Holocaust victims were so innocent that surely they should have been spared the negative karma. (In essence, he was imagining someone saying "I accept that bad things happen to good people, but surely the Holocaust was so bad, and its victims so good, that this should have been an exception.") His response -- nobody is spared of karma, just as nobody is immune to gravity, no matter how good they may be, even the victims of the Holocaust because they, like us, were present at the Golden Calf when the bad karma was first generated.

That's how it reads to me, having reviewed this article and the articles about a similar statement about the Holocaust he made in 2000.

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad that Orthodox Judaism, like all other religions, is most likely only imaginary, because this sounds pretty awful to me. All humans (or all Jews, or all Orthodox Jews, or all Christians--whatever) are paying for the sins of those who lived thousands of years ago--and this based on zero evidence. No thanks.

Also, and perhaps I'm nitpicking here; how were Holocaust victims "so innocent" or "so good?" I don't understand what is meant by that--the victims were more innocent or ethical or pure or something than everyone else?

 

[marksman]

how were Holocaust victims "so innocent" or "so good?" I don't understand what is meant by that--the victims were more innocent or ethical or pure or something than everyone else?

Not innocent in a purity sense (which is more of a Christian concept than a Jewish one), but innocent in that they didn't do anything to deserve genocide. It's sort of a reverse Godwin. Hitler is often invoked as the ultimate example of evil. Conversely, particularly in Israel, the victims of the Holocaust are invoked as the ultimate example of Jews unfairly persecuted

 

[ponderingturtle]

First off, I don't believe in karma, so please don't think I scrib to the rabbi's beliefs. I've studied them -- I don't accept them.

Second, there's no element of "deserving". In a past life bad things happened. Karma dictates some sort of metaphysical backlash will happen to correct the accounts. There is no blame attributed.

I don't see how you can say that, it is punishment for past actions, regardless of if you are aware of them.

They are innocent. There's no culpability.

Now you are just being inconsistent.

 

[jimtron]

Not innocent in a purity sense (which is more of a Christian concept than a Jewish one), but innocent in that they didn't do anything to deserve genocide. It's sort of a reverse Godwin. Hitler is often invoked as the ultimate example of evil. Conversely, particularly in Israel, the victims of the Holocaust are invoked as the ultimate example of Jews unfairly persecuted

Yes, the Holocaust probably is the ultimate example of Jewish persecution, but of course they didn't deserve genocide--who does? Were the victims more innocent than the average human being, or not?

Sorry, but I'm still confused about this--the victims were "pure," "holy," and "so innocent" and "so good," but also sinners in past lives. Again, I guess the problem here is that I don't buy the religion stuff, which from my view appears to be contradictory and nonsensical.

eta:

Second, there's no element of "deserving". In a past life bad things happened. Karma dictates some sort of metaphysical backlash will happen to correct the accounts. There is no blame attributed.

So all Jews sinned, and in later lives will/might receive Karmic metaphysical backlash. So they did bad, and they get punished, but there's no blame?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Not innocent in a purity sense (which is more of a Christian concept than a Jewish one), but innocent in that they didn't do anything to deserve genocide. It's sort of a reverse Godwin. Hitler is often invoked as the ultimate example of evil. Conversely, particularly in Israel, the victims of the Holocaust are invoked as the ultimate example of Jews unfairly persecuted

And here their actions in past lives meant that it was inevitable and as such they had it coming.

I don't see this as being specifically Jewish, lots of religions believe that if you are the victim of some great tragedy you had to be in some way responsible.

 

[FireGarden]

So all Jews sinned, and in later lives will/might receive Karmic metaphysical backlash. So they did bad, and they get punished, but there's no blame?

I'm confused, too. But here's a thought:

Let's go back to Katrina and the flooding of New Orleans. People ask "How could this happen to good people?" One answer could be "They lived in a place where the levies weren't strong enough".

A response to this answer could be: "What? Are you blaming the people of Katrina because they chose to live in a place were the levies weren't strong enough?"

In this context, the response seems unfair. Perhaps because blame is too strong a word. For sure: if people had chosen to live somewhere else, they wouldn't have suffered from that particular catastrophe. But it doesn't seem appropriate to assign guilt to that particular choice. Good people can make such a choice.


Now back to the Holocaust.
"How could this happen?" and the answer, "These people did something unspeakably bad in a previous life" -- after all, worshipping a Golden Calf is supposed to be unspeakably bad.

And all 6 million who died, the survivors, their relatives, the Gypsies, the gays, the mentally infirm... All of them did something unspeakably bad thousands of years ago. And that is the explanation of the Holocaust.

There is an important difference between the two cases: Choosing to live in New Orleans wasn't an unspeakably bad thing. Bad things can happen as a result. But that doesn't imply punishment. We are to believe that worshipping the Golden Calf also doesn't lead to punishment, but only to consequences.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to see things that way, but I think that is the argument.

 

[marksman]

I think firegarden has it essentially right, with one important caveat -- people aren't responsible for what they did in a past life (at least in a the Jewish version of reincarnation). The point of reincarnation is to give people another chance of living a righteous life. If you could be blamed in this life for sins of the past then the new incarnation really isn't a fresh start.

However, karma dictates that even though you are blameless for what happened in past life, the consequences are still there. It's like a business who buys property only to find that the prior owner (who is now gone) polluted the site. You're still responsible for cleaning up the mess, even though you didn't do the polluting.

And to reiterate, I don't believe in reincarnation or karma. I'm just trying to explain the doctrine.


As for whether the Holocaust victims were actually more innocent than other victims of other tragedies, of course they weren't. However, the Holocaust evokes very strong emotions from people, particularly Jews. So I think some emotional hyperbole is not something unexpected.