Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 261

Thursday, January 6 2000

• Re: Conservatives (was: Registry of Who is a Jew)
• Re: Registry of "Who is a Jew"
• Re: Gerus for marriage
• Re: Avodah V4 #260
• Re:Registry of "Who is a Jew"
• ATTN legal eagles: a yibbum inquiry
• Re: Registry of who is a Jew
• Re[2]: Registry of "Who is a Jew" - HUMOR
• Re[2]: Registry of who is a Jew
• Re: Conservative movement: knowing diddly
• re: Conservative movement: knowing diddly
• Re: Conservative movement: knowing diddly
• Re[2]: Conservative movement: knowing diddly
• Snood source?
• Re[2]: YU is a Litvishe yeshiva in the mold of Volozhin (?)
• Re: YU is a Litvishe yeshiva in the mold of Volozhin (?)
• Re: YU is a Litvishe yeshiva in the mold of Volozhin (?)
• Re: Registry of who is a Jew

In a message dated 1/6/00 8:03:18 AM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< Despite the other poster who said there is a variety of opinion on
 the matter, Documentary Hypothesis is what is taught at JTSA -- not only in
 a course on that subject alone, but also as a given in other courses. Their
 understanding of the text isn't based on the notion of derashos being 
miSinai,
 but on differing authors, editing mistakes, etc... Derashos are portrayed
 as a Rabbinic device for changing halachah and yet still claiming loyalty
 to the text. >>

I'm sure this description of JTS's classroom approach is correct. It misses 
the point, however. Outside of JTS and the Rabbinical Assembly, few 
Conservative Jews (and perhaps not that many Conservative rabbis, either) 
care about such issues. I can testify that these issues are virtually never 
raised in sermons, lectures, adult education classes, seminars, or other 
forums for intellectual exchange between the rabbis and their congregants. 
(This is the case even where the discussion at hand is one's faith in the 
divine authorship of Torah! The rabbis dance around the point, perhaps to 
avoid offending naive but politically powerful synagogue officers.) 

The problem with Conservatism isn't so much its theoretical position on Torah 
l'Moshe m'Sinai. It's the fact no one acts as if they really care.  

David Finch

In a message dated 1/6/00 9:10:20 AM US Central Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< If I am not mistaken Reconstructionists are more
 ritual oriented than Conservatives.
  >>

I don't think so. Read their prayer book, or books, if they've gotten around 
to publishing more than one. Also, look at their attitudes toward kashruth, 
shabbos, intermarriage, etc.

In at least one sense you are right, however. By definition, if one does not 
believe in G-d, then everything one does "religiously" is pure ritual. To 
that extent, Reconstructionism is pure ritual. 

David Finch

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> : "veChoshishim Lo Ad sheYisbareir Tzidkaso" is a throwback to the 
beginning 
> : of  the Se'if - it is talking about someone who has not yet converted.
>  I disagree, obviously. First, there's no reason to say that the Mechabeir,
>  and before him the Rambam, went from one case to another and then jumped

Sure there is - the inherent contradiction your reading puts into the line. 
Give a coherent translation of it with your reading.

>: For simple proof (aside from the inherent contradiction that your reading 
>: would introduce in the line), see Beiur HaGra 28 there.
>No, my reading is "he left the *kelal* of goyim and you worry about him..."
>IOW, he loses the vada'us of being a non-Jew, and enters the realm of safeik.

Ein Eilu Ela Divrei Nevius! MeiHeicha Teisei?!?!?

>The Gra is pretty clear that we hold both sides lechumrah.

You call "Kiyymu Neshoseihem" a Chumrah?!

>My understanding was formed when seeing it in the Rambam, who clearly
>states in an earlier halachah that the wives of Shimshon and Shelomo were
>not described by the pasuk as Jews. He very clearly states that bidi'eved,
> someone who went through the rituals of conversion solely for the purpose
> of marriage is not a Jew. It's proving that it was *solely* for that purpose
> that is near impossible, and therefore creates cheshash.

WADR, that's not what the Rambam said. Look at 13:16, where he writes 
explicitly that they were not converted with a Beis Din - that was his 
problem.

Mordechai
Cong. Ohave Shalom, YI of Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf

In a message dated 1/6/00 10:18:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Shoshana L. 
Boublil" writes:

<< While the learned rabbi apears to be correct in his
 characterization of the kids as mamzerim, he is obviously
 not a Dayan for he would then know that _A person is NOT a
 mamzer until a Beit Din declares him/her to be one_!!!!
 
 So his stating categorically that the kids are mamzerim can
 actually be considered as coming under the header of Lashon
 HaRa.   What he should do (and I think he did) was to go to
 a Beit Din and give Eidut that this is the situation (you
 need 2 eidim!) and if he has documentation he should bring
 it. >>
 I believe that this post is entirely halachicaly incorrect. If I am not 
mistaken, if you know somebody is a mamzer even without a pesak beis din it 
is a MITZVAH to publicize this fact (see hilchos milah). If there are clear 
halachic sources that state that a mamzer is not a mamzer without a pesak of 
a beis din of 3, I would appreciate if the author of this post would 
enlighten us with this source. 

--- Elazar M Teitz <remt@juno.com> wrote:
> With all due respect to Rabbi Bechhofer, not every
> pronouncement of a
> gadol batorah is a psak halacha.  Some
> pronouncements may be in the
> category of eitzah tovah or a statement of what he
> considers to be
> tzorech hasha'ah. 
> 
> While the same qualities which make him a gadol
> require that we pay
> attention to his advice and suggestions, they
> certainly do not have the
> force of psak.  Furthermore, while it would be
> ridiculous indeed for
> anyone here to feel that he (or she) is qualified to
> express an opinion
> on the quality of a gadol's psak, the same can not
> be said about that
> gadol's grasp of realpolitik--unless we have all
> become chassidim, and
> have anointed our g'dolei Torah with the
> near-omniscience that chasidim
> attribute to their Rebbe.
> Elazar M. Teitz


I couldn't agree more.  

I believe that Rabbi Bechoffer has that spark of
Gadlus, himself.  (Perhaps someday he will "earn" his
two buttons in the back of his jacket") :)

But, I disagree with his characterization of my
statement "There's got to be a better way".  I meant
that in the way of a plea not to have to resort to
such a drastic break from the totality of Klal Israel.
 I certainly meant no disrespect to one of the Gedolei
HaDor, R. Elyashiv.  I have tremendous respect for him
as I do other Gedolei HaDor.  But he is not a
Chasidishe Rebbe.  His word is not law. We certainly
have a right to ask questions about a statement of
public policy that effects every Jew in the world. If
I remember correctly from the article in the Yated,
his statement was based on a sort of a Horaas Shah
based on the intolerable circumstances caused by the
influx to Israel of massive amounts non Jews beleiving
they ARE Jews, and so identifying themselves. I
understand the concern. 

But RYGB's position seems to be that if a Gadol of the
Stature of R. Elyashiv, who is intimately involved
with these matters on a daily basis, makes a public
policy statement then we have no right to question it.
This smacks of the oft disputed (at least by some
members of this list) concept of Daas Torah.  

My perception of Daas Torah, as it seems to be defined
today, is that this concept has become for Yeshivishe
Velt a substitute for a Chasidishe Rebbe. Just as when
a Rebbe comes down with his pronouncements for his
Chasidim, so too, Daas Torah comes down with it's
pronouncements for the Yeshiva Velt.  As far as I am
concerened, Rav Schach has Chasidim virtually no
different than the Gerrer Rebbe has Chasidim. Chasidim
NEVER question the Rebbe and Yeshiva Bochurim NEVER
question Daas Torah.

But the search for Truth should allow for a free
expression of different Deios.  

If  someone like me (admitedly a nobody compared to R.
Elyashiv) has serious questions about a public policy
statement by even a Gadol BaTorah we should not only
have the right to ask those questions but, I believe,
have a responsibility to ask those questions...  not
to CV disrespect some like like R. Elyashiv, but to
seek and search for understanding, and even suggest
alternatives that may have support from other Gedolim.

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

Could someone knowledgeable of the current state of the legal biz in Israel
please enlighten me about the current practice (or not?) of yibbum.  I'm
aware, i think, that a 1950ish rabbanut takkonoh forbade yibbum and,
pursuant to israeli legalities which vest the rabbanut with such powers in
matrimonial matters, the chalitzah may now be enforced through the legal
suasion of the secular courts.  First of all, is that understanding of the
state of affairs correct?  secondly, does it also forbid yibbum if both
parties are willing?  thirdly, even if the latter question is answered in
the affirmitive, does yibbum as a practical matter continue to be practiced
at least in sephardic communities?  for that matter, are people aware of a
current incidence of yibbum in the ashkenazi community as well?   (As a
historical note - despite the traditional ashkenazi pisaq in favor of the
seifoh of the mishnoh in Bichoros 1:7 giving precedence to chalitzah, yibbum
was certainly practiced quite regularly until the end of the middle ages,
and its theoretical possibility was admitted earlier in the middle ages even
for an already married  yovom.  after the middle ages it might still be
practiced in ashkenaz but as a much rarer occurance. the sephardim of course
followed the rambam and rif who preferred the reisha dimishnoh giveing the
yibbum precedence).  

Mechy Frankel				W: (703) 325-1277
michael.frankel@dtra.mil		H:  (301) 593-3949

--- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> This is response to R' Harry Weiss. while the page
> from which this is taken,
> as others have noted here before, essentially the
> Web version of the Yated,
> takes a generally predictable viewpoint, the
> interesting thing about this
> essay is:
> 
> 1. The writer - not a Lithuanian Rosh Yeshiva, but a
> "Rabbiner Doktor"
> Yekkeshe (hooray!) Rav then Rosh Yeshiva, long-time
> editor of the
> Encyclopedia Talmudit, talmid muvhak (in Berlin) of
> RAEK.
> 
> 2. The date of its writing.
> 
> 3. The contents.
> 
> No, it is not R' Elyashiv alone. And, it is plain
> 'ol common sense (the
> fifth volume of SA). And, it is precedented. See
> below.

> A Call To Save Our Pure Yichus
> by HaRav Yonah Mertzbach
> 
> [In Adar II, 5703 (1943) HaRav Yonah Mertzbach zt'l
> published the following
> article in the chareidi publication HaDerech,
> dealing with the disastrous
> halachic problems created by the aliya from
Europe....

While interesting reading, the article, which suggests
that certificates of Yechus be handed out (basicly a
type registry)  does more to support my argument then
it does to counter it. 

The fact is that this type of problem existed in the
past and was NOT dealt with then by means of
establishing a registry.  This  means, to me, that the
solution was more drastic than the problem. 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

Joke:

Mordechai Kaplan had hearing defect...

Supposedly he overheard a great Rosh yeshiva saying "Ah  Halacha is just GADLUS!
and took it to mean "halacha is just G-dless" <smile>

which is how reconstructionism took off and how chachomim hizharu bedivreichem 
was said about people who (like me) make puns <smile> 

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Registry of "Who is a Jew" 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    1/6/2000 10:26 AM


In a message dated 1/6/00 9:10:20 AM US Central Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< If I am not mistaken Reconstructionists are more
 ritual oriented than Conservatives.
  >>

I don't think so. Read their prayer book, or books, if they've gotten around 
to publishing more than one. Also, look at their attitudes toward kashruth, 
shabbos, intermarriage, etc.

In at least one sense you are right, however. By definition, if one does not 
believe in G-d, then everything one does "religiously" is pure ritual. To 
that extent, Reconstructionism is pure ritual. 

David Finch

W/O taking sides, I had some "heated" debates w/ rabbi or2  vis-a-vis this 
problem.  one rabbi told me he doubted the "kashrus" of Ehtiopian Jews and I 
countered I think this is a bit prejudiced because no one is questioning the 
yichus of the Russians. Or IOW, let's be consistent and not pick on Africans 
over Euopeans...

Bottom line they probably both have yichus problems, and I frankly do not know 
the best course of action... 

Rich Wolpoe
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Registry of who is a Jew 
<snip>
For a year or two the Jewish Agency did not even bother asking the religion 
and faith of the immigrants' wives when they handed them a certificate of 
aliya. They and their Christian wives, and their halachically non-Jewish 
children, made aliya, and more children were later born here.  >>
<snip>

KT,
Shlomo Godick

--- Sholem Berger <sholemberger@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It seems you don't know diddly about the
> Conservative movement.
> Disagree with it if you want, but your inclusion of
> the phrase "or some such 
> nonsense" and your comparison of C Judaism to
> Christianity (!) betray an 
> ignorance of the theology which you seem to know is
> heretical.  Your 
> characterization of Reconstructionism as a branch of
> Conservatism is also 
> inaccurate.

Apparently you seem to know about Conservative
Theology. Please edify me.  

HM


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

RSBerger wrote: <<
It seems you don't know diddly about the Conservative movement.
Disagree with it if you want, but your inclusion of the phrase "or some such
nonsense" and your comparison of C Judaism to Christianity (!) betray an
ignorance of the theology which you seem to know is heretical. >>

Could you elaborate on what you think the Conservative theology is?

In the suburban Phila. neighborhood I grew up in, the Conservative
rabbi did not believe in the "supernatural", as he put it.   Later, when
I lived briefly in Highland Park, N.J.,  before making aliya, I understood
that the Conservative rabbi there was "RW" and sent his sons to
Torah va'Daas.

So I am a bit puzzled what exactly the Conservative theology is, and
whether something definitive can be located under this huge umbrella.

KT,
Shlomo Godick

In a message dated 1/6/00 11:33:17 AM US Central Standard Time, 
shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:

<< In the suburban Phila. neighborhood I grew up in, the Conservative
 rabbi did not believe in the "supernatural", as he put it.   Later, when
 I lived briefly in Highland Park, N.J.,  before making aliya, I understood
 that the Conservative rabbi there was "RW" and sent his sons to
 Torah va'Daas.
 
 So I am a bit puzzled what exactly the Conservative theology is, and
 whether something definitive can be located under this huge umbrella. >>

That's the point. The two leading Conservative rabbis in Chicago's North 
Shore send their children to Orthodox high schools in the city, a commute of 
about 35 miles each way. Neither is "RW," although both would frankly 
surprise many members of this list with their depth of knowledge of Gemorrah, 
the codes, and pre-War Orthodox responsa. (This I know from a few of their 
congregants who definitely can make such a judgment.) In their daily lives, 
both are utterly observant, following rules stricter than those they'd expect 
any of their congregants to accept.

What do they have to do with modern, "objectivist" Conservative Judaism? 
Everything and nothing. Both are active in the Rabbinical Assembly, and both 
are tolerant of ideas that would strike many as heretical or worse. Both 
believe in complete egalitariansim of the sexes. Both are sceptical of the 
rabbinic rulemaking process (even their own, even when they are highly 
influential within their own) as a form of divine revelation. Etcetera, 
etcetera. But neither has much of an impact of typical Conservative laypeople 
one way or another. My point is that neither aspect of their Jewishness (or 
lack thereof, in the eyes of some) -- either their day-to-day kosherness or 
their acceptance of Conservative theological tenets -- makes much of a 
difference. The laypeople don't really care.

(In fairness, I should say that one of these rabbis heads up a small 
congregation that has attracted many families who, in another setting, would 
or could be Orthodox. They don't compose the majority of his shul, but 
they're the bedrock. Virtually all of these families send their kids to 
Solomon Schecter day schools. One of the shul's weaknesses is its Hebrew 
school, which attracts the children only of its less religious and 
influential members.)

David Finch

FWIW, one of Dr. Grintein's courses focused on the 3 streams of Judaism in the 
USA (Recon was still nascent).  My "term" paper was on Norman Bentwiches Bio of 
Solomon Schachter.  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!

so in a sense, after studying it and reading up on it, I still know diddly, 
too! <smile>o

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: re: Conservative movement: knowing diddly 
<snip>
So I am a bit puzzled what exactly the Conservative theology is, and 
whether something definitive can be located under this huge umbrella.

KT,
Shlomo Godick

We have been away for about the last month or so (visiting my folks in
Australia), so I am massively behind in my email lists.  Hopefully I will
have a chance to catch up a bit and comment in the near future.

However, I have a more immediate problem, and I hope there is no
objection to my using the list for this:

Before I got married, I bought a number of snoods in Geula - in particular
some plain black long ones.  The ones I bought have a label saying
"Helen's Hats".  These are great (except that they tend to fall to bits after
a few months of constant use and washing).

I have been unable to find anything similar here in England.  I *do not*
want snoods:

a) with glittery bits, pearls etc in them;
b) snoods with a topknot;
c) short snoods (don't suit me - the ones I like hang down your back
almost to your waist).

I use them for work and particularly the glittery bits and topknots are just
not appropriate.

Does anybody out there know of a source of these snoods that would
be happy to a) take credit card and b) mail order?  I am assuming
probably Israel or the US (although if there is a source for these closer
to home that I have not managed to find that would be great).

I prefer the summer materials (I saw some with the outside made of a
thicker, woolier material, while the ones I have it is lighter and just slightly
shiny, but even the former would be acceptable).

Thanks in advance

Chana


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

it would be really nice to have a new synthesis

One combining the cold-analytical thinking and learning of the classic "kalte 
litvaks"

with warm-hearted Ahavas Hashem/ahavas yisroel expounded by "Chassidus".

Rich Wolpoe




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


I was so smitten with the diaries of RAEK and R' Hutner that I mentioned 
this to a member of the Soloveitchik family and tried to explain the 
"romantic" inspiration found in these diaries. He told me that R' Chaim 
Brisker kept a "diary" as well. He wrote his chiddushim on Kodashim in it 
between Dinei Torah.

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

On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 04:22:10PM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: it would be really nice to have a new synthesis
: One combining the cold-analytical thinking and learning of the classic "kalte 
: litvaks"

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

-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 Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Micha Berger 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?

YGB

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

On 6 Jan 00, at 8:41, Harry Maryles wrote:

> 
> 
> --- "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
> <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> > This is response to R' Harry Weiss. while the page
> > from which this is taken,
> > as others have noted here before, essentially the
> > Web version of the Yated,
> > takes a generally predictable viewpoint, the
> > interesting thing about this
> > essay is:
> > 
> > 1. The writer - not a Lithuanian Rosh Yeshiva, but a
> > "Rabbiner Doktor"
> > Yekkeshe (hooray!) Rav then Rosh Yeshiva, long-time
> > editor of the
> > Encyclopedia Talmudit, talmid muvhak (in Berlin) of
> > RAEK.
> > 
> > 2. The date of its writing.
> > 
> > 3. The contents.
> > 
> > No, it is not R' Elyashiv alone. And, it is plain
> > 'ol common sense (the
> > fifth volume of SA). And, it is precedented. See
> > below.
> 
> > A Call To Save Our Pure Yichus
> > by HaRav Yonah Mertzbach
> > 
> > [In Adar II, 5703 (1943) HaRav Yonah Mertzbach zt'l
> > published the following
> > article in the chareidi publication HaDerech,
> > dealing with the disastrous
> > halachic problems created by the aliya from
> Europe....
> 
> While interesting reading, the article, which suggests
> that certificates of Yechus be handed out (basicly a
> type registry)  does more to support my argument then
> it does to counter it. 
> 
> The fact is that this type of problem existed in the
> past and was NOT dealt with then by means of
> establishing a registry.  This  means, to me, that the
> solution was more drastic than the problem. 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.

I think there are some important distinctions. First, I think the scale 
of the problem today far exceeds what it was sixty years ago. 
Whatever else happened two generations ago, most of our 
grandparents' generation did not intermarry. Go off the derech, yes. 
Intermarry, no. 

Second, the Russian aliya has been systematically bringing in non-
Jews. This is partly because of the change in the law of return in 
1970 (I think) which gave rights to grandchildren of Jews under the 
law of return. But it's also partly a result of the percentage of 
intermarriage in Russia in general, which I believe far exceeds its 
percentage in the US. If there were 30% non-Jews in the early 
Russian aliya (1988-91), today the percentage of non-Jews reaches 
70 and 80%!

Third, unless you were escaping the war, you had to be either 
awfully Zionistic or awfully crazy to come here in 1943. The 
standard of living was atrocious, the contury was surrounded on all 
sides by hostile Arabs, and when the Arabs missed you there were 
always the British (I have relatives who left Israel in the 1940's 
because one of the children had been hanging posters for the Irgun 
and the British were after him). Today, Israel is an economic 
paradise as compared with any country in Eastern Europe and has 
a standard of living that compares favorably with those of many 
countries in Western Europe. Goyim WANT to move here for purely 
economic reasons. That only increases the scale of the problem. 

To give you an idea of how good things are here economically, six 
or seven weeks ago I spent Shabbos in your home town of Chicago 
(okay, Skokie :-) and someone spoke at Shalosh Seudos and 
basically said, "come on aliya and you'll all be rich." Twenty years 
ago - even ten years ago - he would have been laughed out of the 
shul for a statement like that. No more. And it isn't only Jews who 
are noticing.

The other thing you should know is that for all intents and purposes 
a registry exists. The problem is that it's a registry of psulim and 
not a registry of ksherim. The Rabbanut maintains it and it's called 
psulay chitun or something like that. The Rabbanut will not give a 
license to anyone on that registry to marry. The problem is that the 
number of people on that list is getting out of hand, and there are 
enough of them that there's a lot of pressure on the Rabbanut to 
solve their problems. 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), and it seems - to 
me at least - almost inevitable that the Rabbanut will be forced to 
make some sort of accomadation for all of these people, probably 
by converting them easily (i.e. the conversion institute - which 
according to today's papers may yet be stillborn). THAT is what 
Rav Elyashiv is getting at. Because the Rabbanut, for better or for 
worse, is a government body, it can be forced by the courts to act 
contrary to halacha (the individuals who are in the Rabbanut would 
likely resign if R"L that happened, but the Uri Regev's of the world 
would be happy to take their place and then the official Rabbinic 
arm of the State of Israel will do what Aharon Barak tells them to 
do). I think that what Rav Elyashiv is getting at is if the Rabbanut 
loses control over geyrus, then we'd better make our own registry, 
at least in Israel. 

Will the chilonim sign up? I'm sure Rav Elyashiv has no intention of 
excluding them. Will it split us into two nations? I'm afraid we're 
awfully far down that road already....

-- 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

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


[ 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         ]