Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 030

Wednesday, October 16 2002

• Gdolim and the Holocaust
• Rav Yochanan ben Zakkai and Yavneh
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re:Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Gdolim and The Holocaust
• RE: Gedolim and their foresight
• Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Gedolim and the Holocaust
• The Godolim and the Holocaust
• RE: Gedolim and their foresight
• Gedolim and their foresight
• Re: Gedolim and their foresight
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• RE: Gedolim and their foresight
• Re: Gedolim and their foresight
• Gedolim and their foresight
• Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• Re: Gedolim and the Holocaust
• re: Gedolim and the Holocaust

The Gemara referred to RJK is in Brachos 28a or b. RYBZ there posits the
question on his death bed whether he will merit Gan Eden or Gehinnom
because he only sought the welfare of Yavne and its sages, as opposed
to Yerushalayim and the Beis HaMikdash.

Chas ve Shalom, noone is casting aspersions on Gdolim. We are only trying
to wrestle with how historical events impacted on their decisions and
how Daas Torah operated and functioned with regards to the demise of
Eurpean Jewry with regards to other issues such as Zionism, immigration
quotas to EY and the US and the attutude towards moving to either of these
locales. We are also trying to understand that European Jewry was caught
between FDR's plan to win the war first plan and Hitler's plan to kill
all Jews even if this meant a military defeat. Bli Ayin Harah, the tone of
this discussion has been superb with no flaming. Lets' keep it up, chevra.

Steve Brizel 
Zeliglaw@aol.com

R' Steve Brizel wrote <<< Read that Gemara again with Rashi ,especially R
Akiva's strong comments that R Yochanan ben Zakkai was wrong in seeking
only after the welfare of Yavneh and its TCs , as opposed to the Beis
haMikdash and Yerushalyim. >>>

R' Gershon Dubin wrote <<< We need to keep a clear distinction between
what one should do going in, and what turns out, with the benefit of
20-20 hindsight.  We all know that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai SHOULD have
asked for the Beis Hamikdash not to be destroyed.  He didn't, at the
time. >>>

I have never heard this perspective before. I thought that tradition
*approved* of RYBZ's request that Yavneh be spared. We can live without
the Mikdash, but not without Mesorah.

I'd like to hear more about this other perspective. What is the
reasoning? Can someone tell me where that Gemara is located?

Akiva Miller

From: T613K@aol.com

You could say that gedolim should have had supernatural vision, ruach
hakodesh, to save their flocks--and in certain individual cases, they did
(see Yaffa Eliach's book)--but the bottom line was, as my father said,
"GEZAIRAH HI MILFANAI." HKBH withheld knowledge from Torah leaders.
Everything, everything conspired against us.......
Accusations now against the gedolim of then are based on nothing but
arrogance (paraphrasing my father). And although many of the gedolim
were spared--obviously in a Yosef-preparing-the-way-in-Goshen Divine
scenario--most of them perished along with their fellow Jews, and many
of those who escaped lost their families in the inferno.
>>>>>>>>>>

True. Some that come to mind include the Bluzhover rebbe,
 the Gerer Rebbe, Belzer Rebbe, Klausenburger Rebbe,
RMB Weissmandl, his BIL the Nitra Rov shlit'a.

====================
 So the answer
to your question is, yes, their daas Torah was correct. G-d Himself
passed this decree, and there was no appeal. And don't be so arrogant
as to shout, "Never again!" Instead, daven, "Please G-d, never again."
>>>>>>>>

ZGG!

SBA

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Then you are saying they were wrong. Mislead by the Best, and therefore
> not blameworthy, but still wrong.
> So what's to prevent them from being wrong -- from having knowledge
> withheld -- again?

Nothing...and therefore...?

From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
<<Read that Gemara again with Rashi ,especially R Akiva's strong comments
that R Yochanan ben Zakkai was wrong in seeking only after the welfare of
Yavneh and its TCs , as opposed to the Beis haMikdash and Yerushalyim.
Was R Akiva wrong in his criticsm or we are merely unable to understand
what he meant in his comments?>>

Of course RYBZ was wrong; the Gemara says as much.  The point of the
Gemara bringing the pasuk "meshiv chachamim achor" is to tell us that
sometimes the RBSh"O blinds us, and it appears as though we are making a
wrong decision by our own sechel, but it is really a gezerah.

RYBZ was wrong, but only ex post facto.  At the time, he did what the
RBSh"O allowed him to do.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Since the shoah was a gezeira from Hashem, then Hashem guided them to do
exactly what they did. Thus, they had ruach hakodesh and did what Hashem
told them to do. That doesn't mean that we would be happy with the
results.

Why does it seem to you that if one follows Hashem's plan for the world,
that only what we want and what is pleasant to us will be the result?
Rav Dessler never said that ruach hakodesh means that we will never
suffer unpleasantness, no? I have no idea why, but for some reason
Hashem decreed the events of the holocaust and the entire world
conspired against the Jews to wipe out the Jews of Europe and the middle
east. 

What about the events of the ten tzadikkim who were murdered in such
terrible ways to ostensibly "pay for the kidnapping of Yosef's
brothers?"  They sent a representative to shamayim and when he was told
that this was a decree from Shamayim, they submitted to their fate with
love. These tzaddikim had ruach hakodesh, but got killed anyway. 

---Rena

-----Original Message-----
> You need to consider context as well;  when hundreds of
> thousands/millions of Jews live in communities many of which 
> existed for over 1000 years, "scanning the world for 
> opportunities" in the absence of solid evidence of the 
> alternative, is a position which would have been irresponsible.  

Clearly, in hindsight it would have been *very* responsible.  However,
it would have been irresponsible for a human being who did not have
Divine assistance.

Therefore, I agree with your statement from a non-Desslerian
perspective. But R Dessler believed that gedolim had something akin to
ruach hakodesh and that Hashem guided them in making their
decisions--this is the concept of daas torah.  Why didn't those gedolim
do the "responsible" thing?

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com

>>1) If more people had stayed in Europe, things might have turned out
differently in Europe. Who knows which emigrant(s) was the butterfly
whose having left Europe shifted the winds ever so slightly, but made a
major impact?

Not sure what you mean here, can you elaborate?

>>To think that we have "20-20 hindsight" over such things strikes me as
somewhat arrogant.

GG!

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

>Does that mean that the gedolim realized at the time that that
>was the reason (which seems like a huge chiddush to me) or
>that this is the reason HKB"H led them to the decisions He did?

Presumably the former.  And, yes, it is a big chiddush.

Regarding the claims of some that Hashem caused the gedolim to err, R'
Mordechai Willig makes this suggestion as well at
http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2000/parsha/rwil_shmini.html.

Gil Student

I've been seeing a number of perspectives on this question, based to 
varying extents on history.

1) Akiva Miller: The Gedolim were right, who knows, maybe those people
were destined to die in Europe?

2) Gershon Dubin: The Gedolim were wrong, but only in hindsight; the
Gedolim did the best they could with what H' let them see, based on 
the Gemara about RYbZ.

3) Eli Turkel: The Gedolim were wrong on both Europe and Soviet Jewry,
as history has borne out.

How about this:

The Sanhedrin left the Lishkat haGazit in 40 CE, thus removing from 
themselves (and all other Israeli courts) the power to judge dinei
nefashot.  When they passed out of existence c. 325 CE, they passed
what remained of their legislative power and authority on to the 
rabbis, whose representatives today are all poskim, particularly
Gedolim.  

Furthermore, "daas Torah" is a relatively modern phenomenon, granting
more power to the rabbis than the old "emunat chachamim" did, a power
more akin to that of the Chasidic rebbe as channel to Above in advising
their followers.  But the Gedolim can't have more power than God lets
them have (taking a thread from RGD).  And by destroying the BHMK, God
has ratified the decision of the Sanhedrin not to judge dinei nefashot.

Akiva would have the Gedolim using a power of deciding life vs. death
for their followers, and deciding that this shall die, this shall live.
BUT THE GEDOLIM, DESCENDENTS OF THE AMORA'EI SANHEDRIN, DO NOT HAVE THIS
POWER.  

So if the Gedolim were making decisions in dinei nefashot, that was
not in their purview, and thus such decisions were not made with
daas Torah.  Even if daas Torah is a form of ruach hakodesh, would
God give them ruach hakodesh for something which He, and their
predecessors, had decided they no longer had the power to do?

Perhaps they were making the best guesses they could, but no-one should
be faulted for disagreeing with them on life-and-death issues, such as
the Holocaust and Soviet Jewry, because the guesses were just guesses,
not made with daas Torah (however one defines DT).

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

Akiva Miller says that the Gedolim were not wrong, even in hindsight,
because had everyone stayed in Europe things might have turned out
differently (the butterfly argument) and who knows what happened in the Olam
Haemes.  Using those two criteria, then people can never judge whether a
particular decision was right or wrong, and if they can't make that
decision, then they can never learn from history.  For example, were the US
and Europe wrong in not trying to stop Hitler earlier?  Many people studying
history argue that it was a mistake; using R' Akiva's criteria, we can't
make a judgment.

If that's R' Akiva's philosophy, fine, I have no objection.  But it is not
mine.

Joseph C. Kaplan

From: Gershon Dubin [mailto:gershon.dubin@juno.com]
> ---------- "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> writes:
> >>Actually, the pashut pshat in the gemara is that there is no such thing as
> daas torah.  The gemara blames anvsanuso shel Zecharia ben Avkulus for the
> churban, and implies that we should learn a mussar haskel for the future.
> The gemara does not at all imply that Hashem misled Zecharia ben A.

> No, it implies that Hashem misled Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. 
>  As that great American Reb Yogi said, you could look it up.

Yes, I did. I'm talking about the top of Gittin 56a. "Anvsanuso shel
Zecharia ben Avkulus..." is a direct quote from the gemara. You are
talking about a different gemara, but you must deal with the gemara I
quoted too.

As to your gemara of "meishiv chachamim achor:" that does not necessarily
imply the concept of daas torah. Even those who believe that there is no
such thing as daas torah agree that Hashem controls the world--certainly
when it comes to macro levels, such as international events and events
which affect klal yisrael (as opposed to individuals who, depending on
their level, may be more or less affect by nature), and will manipulate
people's thoughts (e.g., hardening Paroah's heart; e.g., "lev melachim
b'yad Hashem"). That does not mean that humans should not try to exercise
their own minds and do what makes most sense to them.

Moreover, when it comes to the Holocaust, the attitude that Hashem wanted
all Europe to perish and therefore actively misled gedolim (and that
was a form of their "daas torah") relies on a "hot-house hashgacha" view
(term coined by Rabbi Shalom Carmy in his article on Suffering) and is
probably against the Rambam/Ramban et. al. understanding of hashgacha
pratis and nature. Specifically, Rambam/Ramban understand that the
world follows natural laws and that Hashem sometimes, but not always,
interferes with these laws depending on the person's knowledge [Rambam]/
merit [Ramban]. As such, the simple understanding of "v'anochi haster
astir panai" is that Hashem allows nature to take its course, without
interfering with it (as compared to the charedi/Desslerian view that
Hashem was intimately involved with every aspect of the Holocaust,
and just *acted* as if there were hester panim). If so, there was
room for gedolim to exercise normal human judgement and recommend that
people flee to America; had such a recommendation been forthcoming it
is quite possible that many more lives would have been saved (though
undoubtedly even if such a recommendation had been made, most of the 6
million kedoshim would have perished nonetheless).

Rav Soloveitchik viewed the Holocaust as a kasheh on the concept of daas
torah; we should not be so quick to say that it's a klutz kasheh.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R' Moshe Feldman wrote:
>>If so,there was room for gedolim to exercise normal human judgement and
>>recommend that people flee to America; had such a recommendation been
>>forthcoming it is quite possible that many more lives would have been
>>saved (though undoubtedly even if such a recommendation had been made,
>>most of the 6 million kedoshim would have perished nonetheless).

"Normal human judgement" in fact dictated that the antisemitism was of
a piece with that shown in Europe over the previous 1000 years (and,
unfortunately, to this day). Business as usual.

Few people had any indication that this was qualitatively different;
eyewitnesses who had seen the horrors of the concentration camps with
their own eyes were told that they had exaggerated or hallucinated.
And right up to when the victims got off the trains at the concentration
camps, the Nazis ym"sh carefully hid their fate from them.

It's possible that more lives would have been saved, but let's not forget
that the world (including the obvious destinations of Mandate Palestine,
the USA and Great Britain) emphatically didn't want Jews.

>>Rav Soloveitchik viewed the Holocaust as a kasheh on the concept of
>>daas torah; we should not be so quick to say that it's a klutz kasheh.

The point I've been trying to make all along is that it's not a kashe
on da'as Torah, it's a kashe on the Hashgacha which, in the absence of
nevuah, we'll never have an answer to. As such, some humility from the
never again camp and their fellow travelers (and all of us)is appropriate.

Vayidom Aharon is sometimes the only appropriate reaction.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 04:01:18PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: >>Rav Soloveitchik viewed the Holocaust as a kasheh on the concept of
: >>daas torah; we should not be so quick to say that it's a klutz kasheh.

: The point I've been trying to make all along is that it's not a kashe
: on da'as Torah, it's a kashe on the Hashgacha...

That's a viable position, IMHO, but not RYBS's. In Qol Dodi Dofeiq all
this is tied in to why RYBS left his grandfather's position on Zionism
to go to Mizrachi.

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
>> So what's to prevent them from being wrong -- from having knowledge
>> withheld -- again?

> Nothing...and therefore...?

And therefore even if you argue in favor of the broadest definition of DT,
it's no guarantee their advice is the best advice. The topic becomes moot.
After all, DT has gaps -- hester panim -- and your question might sit
within that gap.

I wonder if this is related to the machlokes between REED and CI about
bitachon. Once again we're seeing a divide between "everything turning
out for the best" and "everything turning out the way it's supposed to".

Also, I would like to throw into the discussion the line from the 10
harugei malchus... "Gezeirah hi lefanai..." There, they DID know that
they were making the non-survival and non-happiness decision when they
were making it. As opposed to ignorance.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org            remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org       winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Peter Marshall

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> my father z"tl ... said that with the knowledge available to the gedolim at
> the time,
> bederech hateva, their advice was correct. ...  the bottom line was, as my
> father said,
> "GEZAIRAH HI MILFANAI." HKBH withheld knowledge from Torah leaders....
> We have to daven that we never know such a hester panim again...Accusations
> now against the gedolim of then are based on nothing but
> arrogance (paraphrasing my father).

IIRC someone on this list once refused to enter a discussion of the
concept of "daas Torah" on the grounds that it's not a well defined
term. I think Rebbitzin Katz's father was trying to defend a particular
definition of daas Torah The "arrogance" consists of rejecting that
position based on empirical evidence. There is, however, an interesting
term in her account. If we are to understand what the gedolim gave as
"advice", then surely they were entitled to be mistaken. In order for
there to be a complaint, they have to have viewed what they gave as more
than mere advice.

One of my rebbeim studied with Rabbi Kotler both in Kletzk and in
Lakewood. He told me that Rabbi Kotler had advised the students not
to get visas to America since it was dangerous (Kletzk was then part
of the Soviet Union). He (my teacher) decided to ignore Rabbi Kotler's
advice and get a visa for America. Indeed it was dangerous (he was harshly
interrogated by the communists because of it) but it also enabled him to
cross the border from Siberia to China and ultimately saved his life. He
clearly viewed Rabbi Kotler's advice as advice, not as obligatory.

Even when I was growing up (sixties and seventies) only Hassidim (and
there weren't too many in Boston) believed that Rabbis had binding
authority when not giving psak. Admittedly the concept of daas Torah
goes back to Rabbi Wasserman, but I don't know when it spread to the
hoi polloi. Certainly not before WWII.

David Riceman

In a message dated 10/16/2002 12:24:10 PM EDT, T613K@aol.com writes:
> Accusations now against the gedolim of then are based on nothing but
> arrogance (paraphrasing my father).

I don't think we're dealing with accusations, rather the practical
question (which I'm sure we will never resolve nor convince each other to
change positions) of (what for lack of a better phrase) following daat
torah in all situations. In shamayim, how is one who heard from his Rebbe
to stay in Europe but escaped to the soon to be State of Israel, judged?

KT
Joel Rich

From: Shalom Carmy [mailto:carmy@ymail.yu.edu]
> At the same time, when a talmid remarked: "If the gedolim had told people
> to leave Europe in time, so many more would have been saved," he answered:
> "A ben Torah does not talk like that."

Presumably, RYBS felt that such a speculative statement was disrespectful
to the gedolim, not that the statement was necessarily untrue.
The statement was disrespectful because the gedolim had no reason to
believe that an atrocity on the scale of the Holocaust would occur,
and the gedolim exercised normal human judgment.

OTOH, the gedolim in pre-war Europe weren't asserting the concept of
daas torah. Now that Rav Dessler and others have developed this concept,
I believe that it does not denigrate gedolim to argue that they are not
infallible, so long as this is done with respect.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> >>Rav Soloveitchik viewed the Holocaust as a kasheh on the concept of
> daas torah; we should not be so quick to say that it's a klutz kasheh.
> 
> The point I've been trying to make all along is that it's not a kashe
> on da'as Torah, it's a kashe on the Hashgacha which, in the absence of
> nevuah, we'll never have an answer to.  As such, some humility from
> the never again camp and their fellow travelers (and all of us)is
> appropriate.
> 
> Vayidom Aharon is sometimes the only appropriate reaction.

The Rav indeed did not view greatness in Torah as a guarantee of
infallibility in political matters. It is likely that the Holocaust made
him more skeptical of such claims.

At the same time, when a talmid remarked: "If the gedolim had told people
to leave Europe in time, so many more would have been saved," he answered:
"A ben Torah does not talk like that."

A full understanding of this anecdote would require a review of the
particular circumstances of that day and many other factors. But the
words speak for themselves.

Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu> writes:
>>At the same time, when a talmid remarked: "If the gedolim had told
>>people to leave Europe in time, so many more would have been saved,"
>>he answered: "A ben Torah does not talk like that."

Those who have posited this conjecture (that "if the gedolim...) need
to hear both sides of the Rav's position. Thank you for balancing things.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Jonathan Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com>
>>So if the Gedolim were making decisions in dinei nefashot, that
was not in their purview, and thus such decisions were not made with
daas Torah. Even if daas Torah is a form of ruach hakodesh, would God
give them ruach hakodesh for something which He, and their predecessors,
had decided they no longer had the power to do?

The analogy fails the first and every time we find poskim deciding
matters of life and death. The fact that they did not formally rule on
dinei nefashos should in no way be construed as saying that no decision
ever made by any posek in 2000 years had life and death implications.
Just ain't so.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Gershon Dubin wrote:
>The analogy fails the first and every time we find poskim
>deciding matters of life and death. The fact that they did
>not formally rule on dinei nefashos should in no way be
>construed as saying that no decision ever made by any
>posek in 2000 years had life and death implications.

For example, paskening on when something is yehareg ve'al ya'avor, when
it is mutar to "pull the plug", whether someone can or should have a
risky operation,...

Gil Student

RGD:
> JJB:
 
> > My point is not that gedolim DON'T make life-and-death decisions,
> > it's that when they make such decisions, they are guessing as much
> > as you or I would in making an informed choice.  They do not have
> > whatever "ruach hakodesh" one might want to associate with Daas
> > Torah.
 
> > It's not an analogy, it's a speculation as to which conditions 
> > need apply for a gadol to speak with some kind of Divine aid,
> > and which conditions apply when he's only speaking for himself.
 
> OK, now that that's clear, what are the conditions?  I did not
> see that you delineated them in your post.  Or are you saying
> that gedolim NEVER have siyata diShemaya in their decisions?

Reread the original post. As I said, quite clearly, three times, our
courts/rabbis have no authority to judge dinei nefashot. Therefore,
whatever other conditions apply when they are not judging dinei nefashot,
siyata d'shmaya doesn't apply to life-and-death decisions.

IOW, hold what you like about daas Torah vs. non-daas Torah, history
bears out the point that on dinei nefashot questions, God has removed
His imprimatur/siyata from rabbonim. Their guesses are no better than
anyone else's.

That's not to say anything about ritual, monetary or ethical questions
(even those that would merit mitat B"D - since that's out of our hands,
it's not something that directly, or even as a grama, causes loss of
life). Telling people to stay in Europe during the War led to loss of
life as at least a grama - overwhelming probability.

BTW, I see Akiva's clarification. But even so, saying that the Gedolim
"might have been right" - yes. But they were wrong in the overwhelming
number of cases, which again supports the idea that their guesses as
to survivability in Europe were no more guided by siyata dishemaya than
anyone else's.

And as for the ones who left while telling their followers to stay -
that's just craven. To leave and tell the followers to try to leave,
and then they fail, that's one thing. To tell them to stay?

Saying "Hashem turns back the eyes of the wise" is, IMHO, more
theologically problematic than saying that Hashem didn't say yea or nay
through the Gedolim. It indicates an active antagonism towards those
Jews who ask their rabbeim for advice. When it was used in the Gemara,
it wasn't talking about direct life-and-death situation. It was talking
about things that, several stages later, led to the destruction of a
building and some loss of life. Using it here seems a mistaken parallel,
one which introduces more problems than it solves.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com [mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com]
> Eventually, we would have 
> gotten to a point where we'd ask what the Gedolim's reasons 
> were, and then we'd debate each of those reasons. But that 
> step has been skipped here. All we've said is that the 
> Gedolim were against leaving Europe. But the truth is that 
> some disagreed, having left themselves! Does anyone know what 
> the pro/con arguments they held were?

No one is *blaming* the gedolim for their decisions; I might have made
the same decision as they, had I been around at the time. But the
issue is whether they had special decision-making powers not available
to ordinary mortals.

<snip>
> My post from last night read: <<< ... all we know for sure is 
> that most of those who listened to those gedolim perished, 
> and most of those who didn't listen (but escaped from Europe) 
> were able to survive. That does NOT mean that the Gedolim 
> were wrong, and I say this for two reasons: (1) If ... who 
> knows ...? (2) Even if ... Who knows ... ? >>>
> 
> Again, all I said was that WE DON'T KNOW if the gedolim who 
> said to stay were right or wrong. 

Maybe you are being sidetracked by the terms "right" and "wrong;"
let's try using "correct" and "incorrect." The issue is whether in
hindsight, the gedolim who advised their followers to remain in Europe
in the late 30's were correct in their recommendation. I don't see why
it is disrespectful to state that *in retrospect* it turns out that they
were not correct. Isn't it absolutely clear that they were not correct?
What is there not to know?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I wrote <<< 2) Even if Europe would have played out the same way, the
story does not end there. Who knows what awaits those people -- or us --
in the Olam HaEmes? >>>

R' Moshe Feldman asks <<< Huh? Are you saying that a person who had
a choice to flee Europe (based on gut instinct that things were too
dangerous) or listen to the gedolim should have stayed because he might
have gotten a better share in the Olam HaEmes? I find that difficult to
stomach -- Judaism emphasizes living in *this* world -- the only place
we can have the ability to perform mitzvos. >>>

Excellent question. Unfortunately, I'm unable to answer it, because I
don't know the reasoning which those gedolim used in making that decision.

Life in this world is NOT the ultimate criterion for our
decision-making. Allegiance to the Torah is.

Under normal circumstances, even a single act of Avodah Zara cannot be
justified, even by all the mitzvos that a person might do for decades
afterward. In a time of sh'mad we must stand our ground, even for much
smaller things than Avodah Zara, even at risk to our lives. Perhaps -
PERHAPS - some gedolim felt that maintaining a Jewish presence in the
Nazi ym"s era fit that halacha. Again, I am NOT saying that I think they
were right; I just can't be *sure* that they were mistaken.

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]