Basically, the Nazis would not have succeeded in wiping Jewish memory, Jewish thought, Jewish writing, Jewish poetry, songs, would not have succeeded in wiping those off the face of the earth as had been their goal. So it would be a bitter victory, but be a victory nonetheless. If we didn't have a the Ringelblum archive and these, you know, dozens, hundreds of eyewitness accounts, we would really know very little about what happened in the Warsaw ghetto.
And it was a ghetto that was in existence for three and a half years. It wasn't a place where people stop for a minute before they went somewhere to die. It was a living community. It was the largest Jewish community in Europe, shoved in a very small space and figuring out how to live and how to continue being human with one another. And if we had only Nazi documents to rely on, we wouldn't know anything. Imagine, you know, Anne Frank's diary is so famous and rightly so.
It's one diary. There's hundreds of diaries in the Ringelblum archive, from the Oyneg Shabes archive. There's a lot to it. It's a scholarly book. It's, you know, very thick scholarly book with footnotes and annotations and bibliography and sources. It's very, very thorough.
It basically reconstructs the world of post-Jewry starting before World War I, primarily between the wars. And then during the period of the war, it's at the aftermath of finding the archive, so it's a tremendously detailed deep-dive into the history. And so it's not necessarily accessible to people who are not scholars and perhaps don't have the patience to read such a complete work even though it's written very well and in a very compelling way, it still is a scholarly work.
And so that was the goal of the film, was to take the book, which is basically like the size of old yellow pages from the five boroughs of New York, and turn it into a film which basically has to be compressed into about the length of a Haiku. Because there's so much information in a film is conveyed visually, you really just can't shove a lot of information into a film in order to have the story be compelling.
So that was the work of making the film, was translating the story, finding from my point of view with the essence of the story was, and conveying it in an emotional way that's also historically accurate. Emanuel Ringelblum kept a daily diary, so that's quoted in the book and quoted heavily in the film as well. A man named Abraham Lewin who was a friend of Ringelblum from before the war, taught with him at the girls' school.
Film Festival Summary
He kept a daily diary that was very emotional and honest. Even he continued writing the day that his wife was deported. And then there was Rachel Auerbach who I mentioned to you before, who was one of the three people who survived the war, I ended up having Rachel be the narrator essentially, the point of view of which the story is told because she knew just part of that world, she knew Ringelblum before the war, she worked with the Oyneg Shabes during the war and she survived.
And then she spent the rest of her life writing about Oyneg Shabes, Emanuel Ringelblum and the Jewish intellectuals of Warsaw. The story is told from her point of view, of course she's highlighted in Sam's book as well.
Connect with Us
I know the San Francisco Chronicle says, "amazing historical footage. I mean it took seven years to make the film and we found footage in Russia, in Germany and Israel in United States. Footage and photographs, we really went literally to the ends of the earth to find the best images that we could fall into the Warsaw ghetto. The primary images that are in the film were taken by the Nazi propaganda unit. They were constantly Nazi cameraman and photographers in the ghetto, and, but those images are, they were taken with particular intent, which was to show that Jews in a terrible light.
But some of that footage we're able to use and repurpose. And as a Jewish filmmaker, I feel like I have every right to repurpose that footage because it's of the people, authentic footage, it's just shot through a Nazi lens. But we, you know, very carefully selected what we would use from that footage in order to help tell the story.
I look forward to sharing the film, the history and the story it tells with audiences in Wilmington and having an interesting conversation after the film is shown. It's got to feel good to do good work like this, to do important work. View the discussion thread.
Historians of the Jews and the Holocaust
Related Program:. Share Tweet Email. Roberta Grossman. Who Will Write Our History. When doing this, be sure that you attend to specifics! Present and explain specific examples and "ground" those examples in specific times and places. For example, in the s Mr. X, a Jewish activist in Paris, argued that Finally, how do various historians we have read this semester the authors of the books and chapters we have read together seem to understand the definition of "Jewishness"? In any event, the dating unusual but not unprecedented in Hasidic literature offers us an almost unique window into the way a Hasidic master used the Torah as a lens or filter to respond to a world collapsing around him.
Esh Kodesh thus serves as a kind of spiritual diary of a public figure, torn between his personal anguish and his communal responsibility to continue to instill hope to his congregants in a quickly darkening world.
- Recommended Reading!
- Rutgers Jewish Film Festival - Writing About Historical Events - a Panel Discussion.
- “MOVING AND SIGNIFICANT.”.
- Who Will Write Our History?: Rediscovering a Hidden Archive from the Warsaw Ghetto!
- Notes on Tlingit grammar.
The story of how these sermons made their way to the Oyneg Shabbos archive of Emanuel Ringelblum in the Warsaw Ghetto, where they were hidden with tens of thousands of other documents, is complex. Huberband was an Orthodox Jew and historian, and also a relative of Shapira. All of these works were also published after the war.
As was customary among many Jewish thinkers who spoke on Shabbat and Yom Tov, Shapira would deliver his sermons on Shabbat in Yiddish, then Saturday night would record them in rabbinic Hebrew. While Shapira was certainly addressing his constituents in these sermons, Reiser notes that the effort to record them afterward, especially under such dire conditions, implied that Shapira was looking beyond the ghetto.
Shapira was voicing his own inner desperation, trying to inspire his flock, and also writing for posterity at a time of utter confusion and uncertainty. The text was published in under the name Esh Kodesh. The name Esh Kodesh was decided upon by the editors and publishers. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D. Many excellent works have been written about Esh Kodesh by prominent and younger scholars a volume will soon appear from a conference on Esh Kodesh in Warsaw but, trusting the work of the first printers, none of them to my knowledge referred back to the original manuscript.
Studies depict a man of faith stretched beyond his limits; by the middle of , most of his community had perished, including his family, and he was increasingly alone with his thoughts, struggling to make sense of the tragedy that was unfolding before his eyes. Scholars differ as to how he fared: Did he remain a believer as before? Did his faith waver, change, or get destroyed? We will never know the answer.
Reiser decided to return to the original manuscript and compare it to the printed edition. As one can imagine, he found numerous errata, many not very significant. But he also found something quite important.
The manuscript was replete with marginal notes, crossing out and rewriting sentences, sometimes entire paragraphs, and in a few cases, footnotes that altered and revised the meaning of the original text. Through meticulous work, and with the use of cutting-edge technology, Reiser determined that these markings, notes, and glosses were not part of the initial transcription of the sermon but rather the product of Shapira continuing to return to his earlier drafts and make corrections and additions over the course of three years.
Thus, the text is not the product of a linear stream moving through time, but a jagged series of revisions and emendations from through Reiser writes:. It seems to me that we cannot limit each independent segment as paradigmatic. We can locate notions of suffering that come later in the text already in earlier sermons and earlier notions of suffering in later sermons. It is hard to believe that the Admor was able to develop this in an ordered manner and even less likely in a subconscious manner.
What Reiser means here is as follows: The developmental theory surmises that as time wore on, Shapira became less and less sure of normative covenantal theology, holding that we are punished for our sins, that what Jews were experiencing in the ghetto was no different than what others Jews had experienced throughout history.