Quite an interesting article floating around on YNet relating to an Israeli documentary on Nazi descendents. Hitlers’ don’t exist, but those of other henchmen do. It is fascinating to see the extent to which each one has gone to bring their lives to a completely different part. One brother and sister, as you’ll read, had themselves sterilised, so as not to continue their Nazi name. Another gives lectures on his infamous father, detailing the evils which he perpetrated or those in which he participated in some way. You have that broad spectrum.
It brings to mind interesting theological points on the transfer of guilt. And therefore, of course, the transfer of guilt for the whole German people (and indeed the populations of most countries in the world who either did nothing to help or had companies such as IBM that actively aided the systematic slaughter of millions). <continued after break>
If you take the strict, traditional Catholic line of original sin, and their interpretation of the verse that seems to imply G-d visiting the sins of the fathers onto the children, they’re up for a lot of strife for things they didn’t do, and have a right to feel uneasy. Judaism, according to the way I learnt (with Rabbi Benjamin Blech at Yeshiva University), does not believe a loving G-d would do such a thing. Rather, the interpretation is quite profound. Using the Vilna Gaon’s (the Genius of Vilna) principle of first usage, whereby one looks to the first instance of a particular word in the Torah to determine such things as positivity or negativity of terms by means of context, we see that the verb P-Q-D is used in reference to G-d remembering Sarah and giving her a child – clearly a loving, giving connotation.
It follows that the sentence mentioned earlier must be rendered: G-d remembers the erroneous ways of fathers in reference to their children, to see whether or not the child in question has continued in the destructive path in which they were raised, or if they rejected it – choosing a completely positive and constructive path or at least are in some way acting more morally than their parents.
In this reading, G-d is looking to reward us, not punish us - for any change we make to our life paths, noting that it is difficult for a child raised among murderers to be anything but a murderer – the effect of nurture. Should such a child turn out to live a thief’s life – that would be considered highly meritorious. He would still cop it on the balance sheet for the thievery, but the work he put in to avoid awful activities that were de rigeur in his community, in his family, is of such value that perhaps it might even outweigh the thieving. This is a benevolent G-d. And this, independent of Judaism per se, makes a lot more sense.
A G-d that considers the life circumstances (rich/poor, unhealthy/disability/healthy etc) and unique moral tendencies both genetically (anger, sexuality, libido) and as a result of upbringing is an all-powerful, all-knowing G-d I can respect and love back.
