Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 262

Friday, January 7 2000

• Re: Registry of who is a Jew
• Re: YU is a Litvishe yeshiva in the mold of Volozhin (?)
• Re: Registry of who is a Jew
• Jewish Registry
• Re: Jewish Registry
• Conservative/Reform/Orthodox/Whatever - Who cares?
• Re: Registry of who is a Jew
• Re: Conservative/Reform/Orthodox/Whatever - Who cares?
• Daas Torah (was Re: Jewish Registry)
• Basar neelim min haeyin/non-Jewish babysitter
• Wearing a tallis gadol in public on Shabbos
• Fwd (micha@aishdas.org): Re: Wearing a tallis gadol in public on Shabbos
• Re: Conservative/Reform/Orthodox/Whatever - Who cares?
• Re: Conservative/Reform/Orthodox/Whatever - Who cares?
• Re: Basar neelim min haeyin/non-Jewish babysitter
• Re[2]: Registry of who is a Jew
• Re: Basar neelim min haeyin/non-Jewish babysitter
• Re[3]: Registry of who is a Jew corrected

In a message dated 1/6/00 5:23:54 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< Add to that the non-marriage related problems 
 that come with goyim (we have already had several soldiers killed 
 who could not be buried in a Jewish cemetary) >>

A problem? Non-Jews are killed while serving their adopted country, and the 
question of their remains is treated as a problem? Just another goyishe 
irritation? 

You've been away from America too long!

David Finch

On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 05:08:50PM -0600, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:
:> The ultimate derech for me (as such things are by nature subjective) would
:> include, in part:
:>     - Davening like a chosid
:>     - Learning like a Telzer (R' Shimon Shkup / R' Dovid Lifshitz's flavor)
:>     - Torah im Derech Eretz
:>     - Paying attention to my midos and motivations like a Mussarnik

: Isn't that why we started Avodah?

I thought we needed to get back to our roots. I hope others will ammend the
list.

Speaking of ammendations, anyone want to take a crack at the AishDas charter
<http://www.aishdas.org/charter.shtml>?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  6-Jan-00: Chamishi, Vaera
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 95a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 01:01:59AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: Will the chilonim sign up? I'm sure Rav Elyashiv has no intention of 
: excluding them.

My guess is that when Shuky becomes Shmuly, and now he found a nice frum girl
to settle down with, he's going to make sure Sabba signs up. Until then,
only some of the non-anti-dati camp are going to bother, and the anti-dati
camp grows daily. A move like this may make a huge incremental jump: Look,
those dati'im are trying to exclude us! They're eugenicists! vechulu...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  6-Jan-00: Chamishi, Vaera
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 95a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

I would like to express my complete agreement with Rav E.M. Teitz's
views on the propriety of respectfully disagreeing with the views of a
renowned contemporary posek that were given in a non-halachic
framework.  Rav Y.G. Bechofer has stated that Harav Eliashiv's views on
a yichus registry were offered as a possible consequence of current
policies in Israel.  I see that as a political statement rather than a
p'sak halacha.  Why, then, is there a perceived need to discourage
discussion on this topic?  Are we on orthodox internet discussion groups
required to adopt the attitudes on conformity that is prevalent in
yeshivish circles?  I remember the statements attributed to renowned
Roshei Yeshiva in 1972 about voting for Nixon rather than McGovern for
President.  I thought it peculiar that they, apparently, decided that it
was better to vote for a ruthless politician than for someone who seemed
to be a decent person.  Some have said that Nixon's election and
policies saved Israel in the Yom Kippur war, but I find such assumptions
to be highly questionable.  Why should the acceptance of the views of
our sages be a matter of faith rather than reason?  Does their stature
necessitate that their views be accepted as correct?  I highly doubt,
for example, that Harav Moshe Feinstein would have been accepted as the
posek of American Jewry if his responsa did not exhibit reasonableness
and a clear mastery of the halachic sources.  The same should be true of
contemporary poskim, Roshei yeshivah, and other would be authorities.
The cogency of their arguments should determine the extent of their
general acceptability, rather than their reputation in select circles.

I found the article by Rav Mertzbach on a yichus registry to be peculiar
considering the time and circumstances.  In Adar of 1943 his primary
focus is on continuing his battle against German Reform and its
consequences.  It would seem that a more well-balanced reaction would
have been to focus on saving as many people as possible from destruction
and leaving the sorting out for a later time.  His statement that "
'wars were only created to destroy the mamzerim from among Yisroel'.
Hashem, the vineyard's owner, burns down the thorns in His vineyard, and
after the fire starts, stacks of good produce are sometimes also
destroyed", is astonishing.   If that statement really does refer to
WWII, then the owner of the 'vineyard' took out his wrath on the vines
rather than the 'thorns'; for the primary victims were the Jews in
Poland and Lithuania (Hungary came later) rather than the assimilated
German Jews.  While the extent of the Jewish losses in Eastern Europe
were not fully known by the end of 1943, enough was known to have given
a reasonable person much pause before making such statements.

Yitzchok Zlochower

----- Original Message -----
From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@bellatlantic.net>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2000 10:49 PM
Subject: Jewish Registry


> I would like to express my complete agreement with Rav E.M. Teitz's
> views on the propriety of respectfully disagreeing with the views of a
> renowned contemporary posek that were given in a non-halachic

I too agree with REMT. I see no relevance in his position to the current
discussion.

> framework.  Rav Y.G. Bechofer has stated that Harav Eliashiv's views on
> a yichus registry were offered as a possible consequence of current
> policies in Israel.  I see that as a political statement rather than a

You need to prove that. (Of course, you can't. and there's the rub.) R'
Elyashiv, whether you agree with his piskei halacha or not, is one of the
foremost poskim in Am Yisroel today. He is the premier posek for Ashkenazim,
at this point in time. As such, an overwhelming number of major she'eilos of
Mamzeirus, Chalalus, and non-Jewishness come before him. He is, therefore,
uniquely situated and most acutely aware of what the problems are and what
the necessary solutions might be. For some individuals here on Avodah, who
can have no comparable knowledge by any stretch of the imagination, of the
scope and extent of the problems, to critique R' Elyashiv, boggles my mind.

And, R' Isaac, to call it a political statement, I believe, is completely
out of line. I deleted the implied contrast between R' Moshe Feinstein and
R' Elyashiv in your next paragraph. I found it, again, out of line. As I did
your next paragraph after that. Much credit is due R' Mertzbach for speaking
out on an issue that was certainly not PC in 1943. He fully believed that
the resolution of such problems would be a zechus for Am Yisroel in the then
current crisis. I am dismayed that his sincere attempts, based on Chazal, to
understand somewhat what was happening and to find spiritual remedies,
probokes derision rather than respect.

> I found the article by Rav Mertzbach on a yichus registry to be peculiar
> considering the time and circumstances.  In Adar of 1943 his primary
> focus is on continuing his battle against German Reform and its
> consequences.  It would seem that a more well-balanced reaction would
> have been to focus on saving as many people as possible from destruction
> and leaving the sorting out for a later time.  His statement that "
> 'wars were only created to destroy the mamzerim from among Yisroel'.
> Hashem, the vineyard's owner, burns down the thorns in His vineyard, and
> after the fire starts, stacks of good produce are sometimes also
> destroyed", is astonishing.   If that statement really does refer to
> WWII, then the owner of the 'vineyard' took out his wrath on the vines
> rather than the 'thorns'; for the primary victims were the Jews in
> Poland and Lithuania (Hungary came later) rather than the assimilated
> German Jews.  While the extent of the Jewish losses in Eastern Europe
> were not fully known by the end of 1943, enough was known to have given
> a reasonable person much pause before making such statements.
>

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

R' Shlomo Godick wrote <<< I am a bit puzzled what exactly the
Conservative theology is, and whether something definitive can be located
under this huge umbrella. >>>

And R' Rich Wolpoe wrote <<< Though I've tried I STILL cannot figure out
a discernable identifiable shito of what Conservative Judaism is.  I gave
a talk on this once and the best I could come up with is" CJ is neither
Orthodox nor Reform! >>>

Me? *I* still cannot figure out what "Orthodox" Judaism is.

Okay, "Torah MiSinai".... and then what?

Look at the wide variations we have just among the members of Avodah.
Daas Torah yes, Daas Torah no. Yesh Me'ain yes, Yesh Me'ayin no. YU is
mussar, YU is not mussar. We're pixels, we're not pixels. Torah U'Mada,
Torah by itself. Learn Shas, learn Shulchan Aruch.

Sorry, folks, but I have to vent and ramble a bit here... Other people
like to write post after post, trying to pigeonhole the exact derech of a
certain person or institution. I'm not into that, but others are. No
problem. Now it's my turn.

People who call themselves "Orthodox" often argue that it violates their
principles to daven in a shul where the men and women are mixed, but that
people who call themselves "Reform" or "Conservative" should not have any
comparable compunction against davening with separate seating, and
therefore the "Orthodox" rules should be the standard.

But that argument is wrong. If someone's principles are violated by a
real or percieved imbalance between the roles of men and women, what will
you tell him? Why should he (or she!) be forced to attend the "Orthodox"
service?

This is not a rhetorical question; I have seen people actually ask this.
In my opinion, it is a serious mistake to attempt the politically
expedient approach of whose principles are violated more, vs. whose are
violated less, such as I described above. The only correct response (in
my opinion) is one which makes an honest attempt to find out what HaShem
wants us to do.

Avodah had a recent discussion about counting a non-ShomerShabbos person
to a minyan. Almost everyone pointed out the kiruv value of including
him, and only one or two asked the all-important question: Is it a
*minyan*???? We all know that the Halacha considers a willful violator to
be similar to a non-Jew if he touches wine --- Why are people surprised
to find that the same (or similar) halachos consider him to be non-Jewish
in regards to minyan? Or, for that matter, in regards to letting him
duchan, or if his cooking is bishul akum, or cooking for him on yom tov?

Let's focus on the real issues, people. Kiruv is important, but let's not
be yotzay s'charo b'hefsedo.

I try, whenever possible, to avoid referring to myself as "Orthodox". In
the words of an old roommate, "I'm not Orthodox. I'm Jewish. I try to
follow the Torah."

That's what it's all about folks. Following the Torah. Someone recently
used the phrase "Orthodoxly Jewish". There's no such thing. Either the
Torah says yes, or the Torah says no, and sometimes we're not sure which,
but it is always HaShem and the Torah that we must try to follow.

People like to claim that the non-Orthodox are the divisive ones, that
there was a single, cohesive unit called "Judaism" prior to their
defection, and their creation of splinter groups. But those who call
themseleves "Orthodox" are just as much at fault. They love to point with
pride at their boycott of various organizations, claiming that
participation would give legitimacy to the other groups. But it seems to
me that this whole "three branches" concept would not exist if they had
not accepted the name of "Orthodox". -- Why not just be Jewish?

It really bugs me, the way this word "Orthodox" is used. To demonstrate
what I mean, I flipped through last week's Jewish Press, looking at
random pages, for the first occurence of that word. The paragraph, which
appeared on page 4, refers to a large shul to be built in Ramat Shlomo.
It reads:

   The idea is to build in Jerusalem a special great synagogue, a
   cultural center where people will be taught about the great Sages
   of the previous generations that we lost in the Holocaust; as well
   as about the great Sages who laid the foundation for the existence
   of Orthodox Jewry in our Holy Land.

Why does it have to say "Orthodox Jewry"? Didn't those Sages do those
things for *all* Jews? Similarly, when a group like the OU or Agudah
talks about how they work with legislators regarding things important to
the Orthodox community (or some similar wording), what do they mean? They
try to enable *all* Jews to be able to avoid discrimination at work. If a
member of a Reform institution asked them to help him leave work early on
Erev Shabbos, they would certainly do so. So why does the work "Orthodox"
need to appear?

I have more to say, but it's 2 AM, and I am late for my appointment with
my pillow. It's not derech eretz to keep him waiting. Have a Good
Shabbos, everyone.

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

On 6 Jan 00, at 18:41, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 1/6/00 5:23:54 PM US Central Standard Time, 
> sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> 
> << Add to that the non-marriage related problems 
>  that come with goyim (we have already had several soldiers killed 
>  who could not be buried in a Jewish cemetary) >>
> 
> A problem? Non-Jews are killed while serving their adopted country, and the 
> question of their remains is treated as a problem? Just another goyishe 
> irritation? 
> 
> You've been away from America too long!

*I* don't have a problem. The halacha is (AFAIK) quite clear that a 
non-Jew cannot be buried in a Jewish cemetary. So on the 
occasions that this has happened (with one or two exceptions who 
actually sent the remains back to Russia), the remains have been 
buried in areas on the perimeter of the cemetary that are reserved 
for non-Jews and for people whose Jewishness is b'safek (I think 
they may even have separate areas). 

But other people DO have a problem with treating non-Jewish 
soldiers differently from Jewish ones (BTW this does not include 
the Druze who bury their own in their own cemetaries). The issue of 
burying non-Jews who consider themselves Jewish has been in the 
news many times over the last few years, and the cases that have 
raised the most controversy have been cases involving soldiers.

IMHO it is likely that there will be "civil burial" in Israel. And I don't 
think that's such a bad thing. But halacha is halacha, and whether 
we like it or not, we follow it.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 7 Jan 00, at 2:12, Kenneth G Miller wrote:

> I try, whenever possible, to avoid referring to myself as "Orthodox". In
> the words of an old roommate, "I'm not Orthodox. I'm Jewish. I try to
> follow the Torah."

I'm not sure who coined the term Orthodox, but somehow I doubt it 
was the Aguda or the OU. I suspect that much as the term Charedi 
started out as a derogatory term and was adopted by the people 
who were so named, so too with the word Orthodox. I think that 
most people who call themselves "Orthodox" will agree with you 
that their real goal in life is to follow Torah.

> It really bugs me, the way this word "Orthodox" is used. To demonstrate
> what I mean, I flipped through last week's Jewish Press, looking at
> random pages, for the first occurence of that word. The paragraph, which
> appeared on page 4, refers to a large shul to be built in Ramat Shlomo.
> It reads:
> 
>    The idea is to build in Jerusalem a special great synagogue, a
>    cultural center where people will be taught about the great Sages
>    of the previous generations that we lost in the Holocaust; as well
>    as about the great Sages who laid the foundation for the existence
>    of Orthodox Jewry in our Holy Land.

Out of curiousity - which shul in Ramat Shlomo was the subject of 
the article? (You can answer that one privately).

-- Carl (Ramat Shlomo, Yerushalayim Ir HaKodesh, where it is 
almost Shabbos)


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 6 Jan 00, at 23:49, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:

I remember the statements attributed to renowned
> Roshei Yeshiva in 1972 about voting for Nixon rather than McGovern for
> President.  I thought it peculiar that they, apparently, decided that it
> was better to vote for a ruthless politician than for someone who seemed
> to be a decent person.  Some have said that Nixon's election and
> policies saved Israel in the Yom Kippur war, but I find such assumptions
> to be highly questionable.  

While Richard Nixon was clearly a crook, and he may well have 
rigged the 1972 Democratic nomination with dirty tricks, George 
McGovern was an anti-semite who would have sold Israel and 
American Jewry down the creek in a second. I don't see how 
anyone who makes an objective evaluation of his Congressional 
record can reach the conclusion that McGovern would have done a 
tenth of what Nixon did to help Israel in the Yom Kippur war. 

Why should the acceptance of the views of
> our sages be a matter of faith rather than reason?  Does their stature
> necessitate that their views be accepted as correct?  

Well, let me mention a bit of Daas Torah that was not acted upon 
and you can start to figure out where we would have been today 
had the Gadol who gave it been listened to.

One of the criticisms the Charedi world has for the MO world is that 
the MO world does not (allegedly) hold from Daas Torah. In 1974, 
the Mafdal (Mizrachi) was torn over whether or not to go into 
Rabin's first government. The issue that was tearing them apart 
was Giyur k'Halacha. They did what Jews should do when they 
can't decide - they consulted Daas Torah. They called RYBS zt"l 
and asked him whether they should join the coalition. RYBS 
responded that if Giyur k'Halacha is part of the coalition agreement, 
then they should join, otherwise they should not. The first coalition 
that Mafdal did not join was in 1992. Giyur k'Halacha has not been 
part of ANY coalition agreement. Where would we be today (and 
what would we have been discussing over the last week) if Mafdal 
had listened to RYBS 26 years ago? In 1974, Reform had NO 
interest in Israel and Conservative didn't exist here. No one would 
have made anywhere near the fuss that is being made today over 
giyur. Why didn't they listen?

I highly doubt,
> for example, that Harav Moshe Feinstein would have been accepted as the
> posek of American Jewry if his responsa did not exhibit reasonableness
> and a clear mastery of the halachic sources.  The same should be true of
> contemporary poskim, Roshei yeshivah, and other would be authorities.

Kvodo shel HaRav Elyashiv shlita b'mkomo munach. And even if it 
weren't, we don't compare the Gdolim of one generation to the next.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Can one compare basar ne’elim min haeyin to leaving one’s children with a 
non-Jewish babysitter?

We all know the halacha of basar ne’elim min haeyin (leaving unsealed kosher 
meat in the presence of a non-Jewish person).

So if we can not leave kosher meat unsupervised in the presence of a 
non-Jewish person, how do we justify the widespread practice of parents 
going to work the while leaving their children with a non-Jewish sitter?

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Is it appropriate for a man to wear his tallis gadol in public on Shabbos 
(in chutz la’aretz)?? It seems like many men wear their tallis gadal to and 
from shul on shabbos in plain view.

I heard it said in Rav Yakov Kamenetsky’s name that the ga’as street) is not 
a befitting place for a man to wear his tallis gadol.

I think this was mainly due the fact that since we are in galus, the 
unrestricted wearing of a tallis gadol in public is a rather chutzpahdik 
action.

Any comments?

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 05:42:49AM -0800, aviva fee wrote:
: Is it appropriate for a man to wear his tallis gadol in public on Shabbos 
: (in chutz la’aretz)?? It seems like many men wear their tallis gadal to and 
: from shul on shabbos in plain view.

If you don't use the eiruv (assuming there even is one), and you keep your
talis at home, how else is it going to get to shul? Particularly in the warmer
months, when wearing a coat on top of it would be overly warm.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  7-Jan-00: Shishi, Vaera
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 95b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

1) it's oke to vent and ramble

2) this is primarily a machshovo/hashkofo list NOT a halachah list.

Making disctinctions and analyzing is part of what we do; soemtimes it 
pidgeonholes and soemtimes it enlightens.

To me One aspec of Avodah, is to see the validity of various sides and to 
pin-point the "machlokes"; often in such a way that can make peace out of a 
mis-understanding.

EG, it is an important discitintion to understand how a chosid views his rebbe 
and the way a YU musmach views the head of YU.  If a rebbe says something and a 
chosid does otehrwise, I can question the chosi'ds loyalty or sincerity or 
whatever.  For a YU musmahcto take a radically different position from the head 
of his instiution needs no justification, it's expected!

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Conservative/Reform/Orthodox/Whatever - Who cares? 


<snip>

Sorry, folks, but I have to vent and ramble a bit here... Other people 
like to write post after post, trying to pigeonhole the exact derech of a 
certain person or institution. I'm not into that, but others are. No 
problem. Now it's my turn.
<snip>
Akiva Miller

On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 02:42:37PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: I'm not sure who coined the term Orthodox, but somehow I doubt it 
: was the Aguda or the OU. I suspect that much as the term Charedi 
: started out as a derogatory term and was adopted by the people 
: who were so named, so too with the word Orthodox.

So writes RSRH in "19 Letters". O was coined by the early Reformers, with
connotations of East European, antiquated, overly ritualized, and everything
else that German culture wouldn't like about the Orthodox Church.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  7-Jan-00: Shishi, Vaera
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 95b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Isn't there a "gezeorah" re: bossor ne'lam min ho'ayin?

Is there any corresponding gezeiro against gentile Nannies?

Rich wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Basar neelim min haeyin/non-Jewish babysitter 


Can one compare basar ne'elim min haeyin to leaving one's children with a 
non-Jewish babysitter?

We all know the halacha of basar ne'elim min haeyin (leaving unsealed kosher 
meat in the presence of a non-Jewish person).

So if we can not leave kosher meat unsupervised in the presence of a 
non-Jewish person, how do we justify the widespread practice of parents 
going to work the while leaving their children with a non-Jewish sitter?

______________________________________________________ 

My historical undrstanding of the "status quo" was that the Orthodox would by 
consensu control life-cyle issues such as kiddushin and gittin, etc.

While Geirus was probably always a grey area for incoming Jews, it was not in 
dipuste.

The current problem seems to have emerged when the "status quo" became 
challenged...

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Registry of who is a Jew 
<snip>

 Remember that this was in the Era of Gedolei Torah of 
the Stature of the Briker Rav, and the CI.  They knew 
of the problem and did NOT establish a registry 
eventhough the conditions then must have appeared to 
be as dire (which the article suggests) as ours does 
now... maybe even more so.

HM
__________________________________________________ 
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. 
http://im.yahoo.com

On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 09:23:17AM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: Isn't there a "gezeorah" re: bossor ne'lam min ho'ayin?
: Is there any corresponding gezeiro against gentile Nannies?

Someone <poke, poke> recently said that this was a machshava list, not a
halachah one. In that vein, I think the question is appropriate.

Why would we think that our children require less supervision for their
"kashrus" than our meat would?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  7-Jan-00: Shishi, Vaera
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 95b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

corrected 

My historical undrstanding of the "status quo" was that the Orthodox would by 
consensu control life-cyle issues such as kiddushin and gittin, etc.

While Geirus was probably always a grey area for incoming Jews, it was not in 
dispute  ==>within EY itself<==

The current problem seems to have emerged when the "status quo" became 
challenged...

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Registry of who is a Jew 
<snip>

 Remember that this was in the Era of Gedolei Torah of 
the Stature of the Briker Rav, and the CI.  They knew 
of the problem and did NOT establish a registry 
eventhough the conditions then must have appeared to 
be as dire (which the article suggests) as ours does 
now... maybe even more so.

HM
__________________________________________________ 
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. 
http://im.yahoo.com

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]