Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 420

Tuesday, March 7 2000

• Re: Livin' in the USA
• Re: Livin' in the USA
• Physical punishment by non-Samuch Bet Din
• Re[4]: Synagogue and State
• Livin' in the USA
• kipa
• MiSheberach for Cholim
• Re: Livin' in the USA
• Re: MiSheberach for Cholim
• Re: Chasam Sofer
• Hano'as Olam Ha'Zeh; was re: Mishna Berura reference
• Re: Avodah V4 #417
• Re: MiSheberach for Cholim
• Earlier post..
• Analysis of Esther
• Re: Livin' in the USA
• Re: Ten Commandments (was Avodah v4 no 415) and p'shat
• Livin' in the USA
• Re: Livin' in the USA

On 8 Mar 00, at 13:27, Kira Sirote wrote:

> Dang it, I must have been out of my mind to leave!
> 
> :-)

You and me both :-) 

> Unlike most olim, we did not make Aliya because life in the old
> country was intolerable.  We came kommemiyut" - upright.  And we thank
> the Ribbono Shel Olam for that every day.

This is true of us as well.

> I only wish the same to you and your descendents . . .

Actually, for those who don't have any yet, I hope they get here 
before they have descendants :-) 

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

On 7 Mar 00, at 23:01, SBA wrote:

> But at the same time he is quite damning about certain Zionist leaders
> who - for their own future political reasons  (Rak B'dam Tihyeh Lonu
> Haaretz) - were  prepared to sacrifice fellow Jews.

You won't find me defending that behavior.

OTOH, I have a friend here in Yerushalayim whose grandfather was 
(I believe THE) head of the Jewish community in Budapest during 
the war. Eichman YM"SH had told him that he would never leave 
Budapest alive, but towards the end of the war, he snuck over the 
border into Rumania (leaving his luggage at the border because 
otherwise they would not let him out of the country until morning, 
and by morning there were wanted posters with his picture all over 
Hungary - someone got them one and they hung it in their house 
as a reminder). 

When the Kastner trial happened in the 1950's, my friend's 
grandfather was called to testify. Obviously, he knew exactly what 
Kastner did and did not do, and could and could not have done - he 
was keeping the deportation lists for the community. He said that 
he would testify to anything they wanted to know about the 
situation of the Jewish community in Budapest in 1944-45. But he 
would not testify against Kastner. Al tadin es chavercha ad 
she'tagia limkomo. Food for thought....

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

See the book by Rav Assaf, Ha'onshin acharei chatimat hatalmud for a list
of batei din who were not semuchin who carried out physical punishment
or k'nas (see: Tshuvot haRosh 13:4; Halachot Pesukot min haGeonim 89;
Tshuvot haRosh 101:1; Rambam Hilchot Chovel u'Mazzik 8:11; Tshuvot Maharam
Lublin 138). Batei din carried out executions such as skila (Zichron Yehuda
75), sayif (Tshuvot haRosh 17:2), chenek (Zekan Aharon 95), starvation
(Tshuvot haRosh 32:4), drowning, bleeding, etc. See also Tshuvot haRema 11,
17). The cute one was chopping off hands (Tshuvot Zichron Yehuda 59) and
the Ninjutsu version of breaking someone's hand (Sefer Chassidim 631).

Josh

power tends to corrupt absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Did Chazal anticipate this 2,100 years ago and realize that kehuna and malchus 
should be subject to separation of powers?

Didn't they say to one of the chashmonaim kings "day lecho hakehuna" or 
something similar?

I see that despite the power of melochim in bayis Rishon there were some chekcs 
on that power in the office of Navi.  and Koehin Gadol played a role in the coup
at the time of Yehoash.  

So we have in effect a 3-part power structure in bayis rishon

Melech
Koehin gadol
Navi

I would say in bayis sheini there was a nasi (until the chasmonaim)
A koehin Gadol

And the sanhedrin (perhaps the knesses hagedloah firtst) that more-or-less 
replaced the navi.

Obviously the system was abuse at points in time, Hordos perhaps the most 
flagrant.

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Synagogue and State  

<< Like keeping the kohein gadol away from malchus as in the time of 
Chashmonaim?
  >>

Yes and no. The koheinim proved ultimately corrupt. That's one of the reasons 
why we lost the Second Temple. Their corruption inhered in the way they were 
allowed to use their power, especially in relation to outside political 
forces. The gadolim of today's Israeli rabbinate are, I hope, purer than the 
class of koheinim that led to our downfall. In fact, they *aren't* a 
spiritual caste like the koheinim, which is itself a hopeful sign. But I fear 
that they're learning bad lessons from the past.

David Finch

It occrued to me what if the DE in TIDE was something akin to Derech hamedinah?

Would Hirsch have seen that Germany needed one drech eretz and the USA another 
derech eretz and Iita another drech eretz and EY today another derech eretz?

IOW TIDE is how to apply Torah to a given society a given culture. And that any 
appliation of Torah to American culture is a form of TIDE?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

> 
> Yes there is. How else do you think they dealt with the fact that:
> : In general the chances of getting two witnesses for any crime is negligible
> : (not to speak of a warning)
> 
> The majority of violators were thrown in the kippa (with a normal diet).
> 
Kipa is very limited and not at all comparable to prison. In fact those
that were sent to kipa died from the diet.

The famous story of Shimon Ben shetach who saw the murderer walking out
with blood on his hand shows the difficulty of executing criminals.

Eli Turkel

>Gershon Dubin wrote
>I have heard of this solution,  and wonder whether it doesn't somehow
detract from the tefilas >hatzibur on behalf of the cholim.  I grant you
that shmoozing during the misheberach does not >constitute tefila for the
cholim,   and that there is a problem which needs to be addressed.  This
>solution,  however,  just doesn't sit right with me.

What is it that is detracting from tefilas tzibur?  If anything, it has
the tzibur more involved in tefila.  For most people , the part that
didn't sit right was that there was a CHANGE of procedure.  Once you get
over the procedural change, you will find that this part of the tefilla
is enhanced.  This is especially true of the people who have more than
two people to pray for.  Have you ever seen the looks people get when
they give over more than three names,RL.

In a message dated 3/7/00 12:12:20 AM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< The State Department KNEW they were true. Read the book. 
 Franklin Roosevelt, who is venerated today largely because of his 
 wife, was a lush, a womanizer, and one of the biggest anti-Semites 
 ever to occupy the White House (the only recent President I can 
 think of who might come close is the Peanut Farmer from Georgia). 
  >>

It's funny. All the many Jews who worked with Roosevelt -- including the 
left-wing types out of the labor movement, like Sidney Hillman, who had very 
sensitive antennae when it came to Jew-hating and no social-climbing 
pseudo-WASP aspirations whatever -- seemed somehow to miss the point that 
seems so obvious to today's revisionist thinkers, i.e., that Roosevelt was 
"one of the biggest anti-Semites ever to occupy the White House." Roosevelt's 
entire career, in fact, was spattered by charges that he was a "Jew-lover." 
Ah, well. His contemporaries, including those who worked closest with him, 
were poor deluded beings, not nearly as insightful as today's commentators.

U.S. Grant. Taft. Harding. Coolidge. Hoover. Compared to them, Roosevelt was 
"one of the biggest anti-Semites ever to occupy the White House"? I know this 
is a joke . . . but where's the punchline? I haven't read Arthur Morse's 
book. But have you ever listened to the comedian Dennis Miller's riffs on 
conspiracy theorists? At least Miller has good punchlines.

As for all this State Department stuff, well, it may be true. The State 
Department wasn't exactly the B'nai B'rith in those days. And it may be true 
that during the war the U.S. and Britain failed to act adroitly on 
intelligence they picked up on the concentration camps. I wouldn't be so 
quick, however, to chalk up the Allies' inaction to anti-Semitism. Eisenhower 
(doubtless another vicious anti-Semite, of course) had a number of 
priorities, like North Africa, Sicily, D-Day, the Ardennes, etc. When the war 
was over, Hitler was dead, and the German armies were crushed on both fronts. 
(We were also distracted by other things, like Japan.) Not a bad deal for 
Jews in the end.

David Finch

On 7 Mar 00, at 9:16, saul guberman wrote:

> What is it that is detracting from tefilas tzibur?  If anything, it
> has the tzibur more involved in tefila.  

I think that what is detracting is that each person in the tzibur is 
davening for someone else, rather than the whole tzibur davening 
for the same person(s) at the same time through the gabbai. At 
least that is what is *supposed* to be happening when the gabbai 
is making Mi Sheberach's. Admittedly it doesn't always work that 
way.

This is especially true of the people who
> have more than two people to pray for.  Have you ever seen the looks
> people get when they give over more than three names,RL.

Maybe I just daven in an unusual minyan, but I go up at least three 
times a week (five this week thanks to Rosh Chodesh) with about 
six names (lately) and no one ever gives me looks like that. I try to 
limit the Mi Sheberachs I ask for during the year to urgent cases 
(other than my son, who B"H no longer seems urgent, although we 
still have not gotten a psak to take him off the choleh lists), but I 
ask for the same ones Monday, Thursday and Shabbos, and no 
one (as RDS can testify) has ever looked at me funny or said 
anything to me. 

The only time someone DID make a comment was the first year we 
were in our shul on Rosh HaShanna and Yom Kippur. For Rosh 
HaShanna and Yom Kippur, I type a list before Yom Tov of all of 
my actively sick cholim (as opposed to those I daven for who are in 
"remission," for example) and give the gabbai the entire list. It is 
quite lengthy, because we are involved with a support group that 
my wife started for families whose children have the same thing my 
son has/had and because we are involved in a support group at 
Zichron Menachem. Not to mention all the people we befriended 
during our many visits to and stays in hospitals with Baruch Yosef. 
That first year, as I was walking back to my seat, someone (not a 
gabbai) asked me if I went up and down the hospital wards 
collecting names. I told him that I did not, but that I really did know 
that many people who were sick. I offered to go through the list and 
tell him who each one was and what they had. No one ever raised 
the topic again.

The other thing I have to say, as a parent, is that knowing that your 
own shul and others everywhere are davening for your child gives 
an immeasurable amount of chizuk. Of all the stories I remember 
best about people davening for Baruch Yosef, most of them involve 
someone who got on the MiSheberach line at a shul in city x only 
to discover that someone else ahead of him whom he didn't know 
was also making a MiSheberach for Baruch Yosef. And there have 
been several like that. The value of chizuk when you're dealing with 
this kind of crisis R"L cannot be underestimated.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

Perek Lulav Ha'Gazul 36a d.h. Domeh l'Kushi.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il>
To: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 4:11 PM
Subject: Chasam Sofer


> Where in Succa is the Chasam Sofer you cited re: Torah 
> u'Melacha?
> 
> TIA.
> 
> -- Carl
> 
> 

Takkeh a fascinting RYFP! Yasher ko'ach!

Why does he have difficulty taking the "mitzva" at face value - it is not
one of indulgence, but of "te'imah", i.e., to note Tuv OHZ (Olam Ha'Zeh),
but not excessively.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: <gil.student@citicorp.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>; <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Mishna Berura reference


> RYF Perlow (Sefer Hamitzvos leRS"G 1:95) notes that R. Sa'adiah Gaon
apparently
> counts Devarim 12:20 ("Ki yarchiv...") as a separate mitzvah.  RYFP first
> suggests that the mitzvah is to not be a glutton, mekadesh atzmecha
bemutar
> lach, etc. but then notes that it does not fit into RSG's language.
>
> He then suggests that the mitzvah is to enjoy what you can and struggles
to
> understand what that means.  Kedarko bakodesh, he quotes an obscure rishon
who
> says that the reason is to be marbeh berachos but RYFP rejects that as not
> making sense (he doesn't mention it but berachos lifneihem are only
miderabbanan
> and this mitzvah is mide'oraisa).  RYFP has a fascinating arichus on this
> subject but I am still left without a satisfying explanation of this
mitzvah.
>

In a message dated 3/7/00 12:16:26 AM US Central Standard Time, 
toramada@zahav.net.il writes:

<< As for facts, the first case that came to court in America, with the
 intent of forbidding Brit Milla was 16 years ago.  From what I've
 heard, things have just gone downhill from there. >>
 
You've heard wrong.

David Finch

RM Berger wrote:
>>The reason why I would like to see change is because you lost the kahal's 
attention. Mi Shebeirach licholim, at least where I daven and have davened,has 
become a shmooze break.>>

RD Schoemann wrote:

>>Interestingly enough, the Mi Shebeirach Lecholim tends to be a break until it 
hits close to home.>>

True.  But one place I used to daven also has a mishebeirach for America, 
Medinat Yisrael, Tzahal, and Tzahal MIAs.  It takes w-a-y t-o-o l-o-n-g!

Greetings all,

 I seem to have been a bit misunderstood regarding my post about the
Hoffman page and the anti-English view. Obviously, a lot of his rantings
and ravings are re-used claims from earlier times, but I just found it
unique in that he blatantly quotes from the Soncino, the Jewish Press, etc
(not that I have anything against those fine institutions). A further
point: Granted, as Gershon says,  that we may not have to make any
response because it's not worth replying to (and _we_ know
the talmudic truth anyway), but what about those who just stumble upon
pages like that and don't bother to look for refutation from reliable 
sources? (I presume Hoffman isn't so scholarly as to include a link to
the page that was mentioned.) And what about the more intelligent readers,
who when seeing things like those Hoffman has posted, might actually look up 
the source and see that in many cases, what was posted _is_ just a 
translation of what the Gemara says? 

 My only - and I emphasize only - conclusion is that it seems ironic
that one of the fears associated with translation of Sifrei Kodesh (and 
apparently disregarded in light of its greater benefits) has a
much greater chance to materialize with the advent of the 'net. That
doesn't,  of course, mean that Artscroll and co. should care a whit about
it. Leave it up to the Simon Wiesenthal center to take care of hate
sites. But I still find it amusingly ironic. 

 (Correct me if I'm wrong, but did R' Menashe Klein not issue an all-out
ban against translating? I recall reading something about that recently.)

 Adar Sameach,

 Shlomo Weiss 

On a lighter note, I remember reading an article (in print) a few years
ago that provided a literary analysis of Megilas Esther. Anyone have any 
idea where I can find that? TIA.

 Shlomo

On 7 Mar 00, at 9:22, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

I haven't read Arthur Morse's 
> book. 

Maybe you should.

> As for all this State Department stuff, well, it may be true. The State 
> Department wasn't exactly the B'nai B'rith in those days. 

It still isn't.

And it may be true 
> that during the war the U.S. and Britain failed to act adroitly on 
> intelligence they picked up on the concentration camps. 

That's putting it kindly.

I wouldn't be so 
> quick, however, to chalk up the Allies' inaction to anti-Semitism. Eisenhower 
> (doubtless another vicious anti-Semite, of course) had a number of 
> priorities, like North Africa, Sicily, D-Day, the Ardennes, etc. When the war 
> was over, Hitler was dead, and the German armies were crushed on both fronts. 
> (We were also distracted by other things, like Japan.) Not a bad deal for 
> Jews in the end.

Tell that to the six million who didn't live to see that "not bad" deal. 
Tell that to all the ones who died after D-Day (which I think was 
actually most of them).

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

Gil Student wrote:

<<<
So, would I be within bounds to suggest that pshat of "ayin tachas ayin" means 
an actual eye for an eye?  I don't think so.  I think (and was taught) that 
there are certain places where Chazal tell us what pshat is and there is no room
for argument.  That is why none of the traditional meforshim (Rashbam et al 
included) disagreed with Chazal's pshat of "ayin tachas ayin."
>>>

This a subject that has been discussed before on the list, perhaps before you
joined, but I am happy to return to it, because it involves yesodai ha-dat
v'ha-emunah about which there is some disagreement. The Rambam paskens
l'halakhah Mamrim 2:1 that a Sanhedrin may change the halakha p'suka of
a previous Sanhedrin based on a different interpretation of the relevant
Scriptural text, even if the previous Sanhedrin was greater in wisdom and
numbers. So it is not necessarily true that once Chazal (who are the current
embodiement of the Sanhedrin) have settled on a particular understanding of
a Biblical text that that understanding could not be changed. For example,
one could interpret the drasha of Moavi v'lo Moavit in just such a way,
though there are those who prefer to say that the drasha simply confirmed
what had been the practice up to that point. However, neither side has a
conclusive proof on that issue. Now it is true that the Rambam attempts to
place ayin tahat ayin in a different category of interpretation, which may
be called mi-pi ha-Shemuah interpretations. Thus, according to the Rambam,
the understanding of ayin tahat ayin was given at Sinai, so it was not Chazal
who established that interpretation, but the Almighty. He lists a few others
in this category, e.g., the meaning of pri etz hadar etc. but he evidently
does not included most interpretations of Chazal in the category of mi-pi
haShemuah interpretations, because his criterion for a mi-pi ha-Shemuah
interpretation is a posteriori, i.e., that we observe that there was never
any mahloket about that interpretation and therefore we infer ex post that
it must have been a mi-pi ha-Shemuah interpretation.

But there are major problems with the Rambam's position about mi-pi ha-Shemuah
interpretations. See Havot Yair, no. 192 (or is it 198?) in which he shows
that there were indeed Talmudic disputes about interpretations that the
Rambam claims were mi-pi ha-Shemuah or halakhot l'Moshe mi-Sinai (which are
not interpretations of the text, but additional halakhot not deducible from
the text). And the Dor Revi'i in his hakdamah to Dor Revi'i points out that
even with respect to the verse ayin tahat ayin, R. Eliezer actually holds
that nefesh tahat nefesh is literal and not damages, not to mention the
well-known mahloket whether a hovel pays the value of his victim's body part
or of his own body part. So the Dor Revi'i concludes that, notwithstanding
the Rambam's claim, not supported by any proof text, that no beit din ever
interpreted ayin tahat ayin literally, we simply don't know whether any
beit din ever did or ever didn't. Now I am sure that that is not what you
were taught. But standing on the incredibly broad shoulders of a giant of
the Dor Revi'i's magnitude, this puny dwarf has no hesitation in maintaining
the contrary position.

<<<
Would I be within bounds to suggest that "mocharas haShabbos" refers to a Sunday
without disagreeing with the halachic drashah?  What about saying that 
everything the Karaites said about pshat was correct but halachah is on the 
drash level?  I don't think so.
>>>

Excuse me, but I thought that the whole point of the dispute between the
rabbis and the tzodkim and karaites was that the halakhah is not constrained
by a literal p'shat reading of the text, because there is a torah she-ba'al
peh as well as a torah she-biktav. For you to insist that "Shabbat" literally
means the first day of Pesah would be to hand the rabbis a very hollow victory.
My take on that is that mohorat ha-Shabbat has no p'shat. It is, for whatever
reason, an enigmatic term that can only be understood at a drash level.

<<< 
>>Parshanut did not come to an end with Chazal, so even if Chazal said that lo 
tignov means only kidnapping and I say that it means kidnapping and all other 
forms of stealing, I would be within my rights to do so.>>

You could argue that Chazal did not establish pshat on this pasuk.  I was 
actually waiting for someone to do so because I have no proof.  If so, you can 
suggest a pshat.  But if they were kove'a a pshat then the discussion is over.
>>>

What I argued was that when Chazal said that lo tignov means kidnapping
they meant to expand the meaning of lo tignov to include kidnapping not to
restrict it to exclude everything else. I don't see why anyone would view
that interpretation as somehow in conflict with Chazal.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

n a message dated 3/7/00 10:16:10 AM US Central Standard Time, 
cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:

<< Tell that to the six million who didn't live to see that "not bad" deal. 
 Tell that to all the ones who died after D-Day (which I think was 
 actually most of them).
  >>

C'mon. Hitler killed the six million, not Roosevelt or Churchill or all the 
evil-minded Jew haters in the State Department.

After D-Day American and British troops slogged slowly across France and 
Belgium, dying by inches. Thousands were killed trying to move a hundred 
kilometers into the French interior. As late as December 1944 Americans were 
getting slaughtered by the Nazis in the Ardennes. For the most part, 
Americans and British fought far from the concentration camps, almost all of 
which were in the Eastern Zone, and thus were within the target area of the 
Russians. Do you want to blame the last years of the Holocaust on someone 
other than Hitler? Try Stalin. He didn't like Jews much, either. He also 
liked to see innocent people die.

Look. Hitler and his psychic allies in Poland, the Balkans, etc., destroyed 
European Jewry. My theory: The Nazi horror remains so large, so 
incomprehensible, that some of us need psychologically to find smaller, 
closer, more convenient targets. Like Roosevelt. So blame him if you must. 
But don't blame America, by which I mean the Americans themselves -- hundreds 
of thousands of whom were killed or wounded in the mud of Europe. How do you 
think they might feel if told that however much they sacrificed, they just 
didn't sacrifice enough for us?

David Finch

------- Forwarded message follows -------
From:           	Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
To:             	DFinchPC@aol.com
Subject:        	Re: Livin' in the USA
Send reply to:  	cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
Date sent:      	Tue, 7 Mar 2000 19:40:51 +0200

On 7 Mar 00, at 12:37, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 3/7/00 10:16:10 AM US Central Standard Time, 
> cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
> 
> << Tell that to the six million who didn't live to see that "not bad" deal. 
>  Tell that to all the ones who died after D-Day (which I think was 
>  actually most of them).
>   >>
> 
> C'mon. Hitler killed the six million, not Roosevelt or Churchill or all the 
> evil-minded Jew haters in the State Department.

Hitler pulled the trigger - or turned on the gas. The rest of them just 
stood around and couldn't have cared less.

> After D-Day American and British troops slogged slowly across France and 
> Belgium, dying by inches. Thousands were killed trying to move a hundred 
> kilometers into the French interior. As late as December 1944 Americans were 
> getting slaughtered by the Nazis in the Ardennes. For the most part, 
> Americans and British fought far from the concentration camps, almost all of 
> which were in the Eastern Zone, and thus were within the target area of the 
> Russians. 

Granted.

Do you want to blame the last years of the Holocaust on someone 
> other than Hitler? Try Stalin. He didn't like Jews much, either. He also 
> liked to see innocent people die.

Also true. Doesn't mean they couldn't have spared a bomber or two 
a night to hit the railroad tracks. They all knew what was going on. 
Read the book. Believe me, I thought Roosevelt was the greatest 
thing since sliced bread too until I read the book.

> Look. Hitler and his psychic allies in Poland, the Balkans, etc., destroyed 
> European Jewry. My theory: The Nazi horror remains so large, so 
> incomprehensible, that some of us need psychologically to find smaller, 
> closer, more convenient targets. Like Roosevelt. So blame him if you must. 
> But don't blame America, by which I mean the Americans themselves -- hundreds 
> of thousands of whom were killed or wounded in the mud of Europe. How do you 
> think they might feel if told that however much they sacrificed, they just 
> didn't sacrifice enough for us?

I would certainly not blame Americans. I would blame the State 
Department and Roosevelt himself for complicity. And that's 
without even considering things like immigration quotas. Ever hear 
of the St. Louis?

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

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


[ 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         ]