In speaking to you of this vexing problem that has so exercised the world Jewish community, I am reminded of the Viennese proverb that was prevalent during the waning days of the Austro-Hungarian empire: “the situation is hopeless but not serious." While our preoccupation with the "Who is a Jew?" issue seems to fall into that category, I am a bit more sanguine and believe that it is quite serious, but not at all hopeless--provided, that is, that leaders will exercise leadership and do so with perseverance, sensitivity, and a great deal of intelligence. Let me begin by laying my prejudices on the table. I am an Orthodox Jew who holds that the Halakhah is minimal Judaism. Hence my answer to the question "Who is a Jew?" is quite simple and straightforward: one is who is born to a Jewish mother or who has been converted according to standard halakhic procedures. Because this is the historic definition of Jewishness, one that has served us well for at least a couple of thousand years, the onus for divisiveness as well as the burden of proof rests on those who diverge from this time-honored principle. Many years ago, even before Ben Gurion sent his famous query on the "Who is a Jew?" problem to a number of distinguished Jews, I wrote an article on the subject which was distributed in the thousands by my friends of the Lubavitch movement. However, I also am aware of the realities of the Jewish situation, and recognize that not everything that is desirable is achievable and not all that is worthy is worth making an issue of. Hence, I opposed the effort of the religious parties in Israel to amend the present Law of Return to read that to be permitted to enter Israel under the Law of Return, one must not only be "converted to Judaism," but "converted according to the Halakhah." This would effectively limit the benefits of the Law of Return to those converted by qualified Orthodox rabbis. I opposed, and do now oppose, this amendment, and made this opposition known publicly, f…

Dear Mr. Kohn: I have just received the Independence Day issue of The Jerusalem Post and read the symposium, in which you participated. I assume that you were referring to me in your somewhat sarcastic comment reproduced in the first paragraph on page four. It is, of course, your privilege to disagree, even sarcastically, with any comments that are made in public. This is one of the risks that must be embraced by anyone who is going to enter the public arena. However, I have always respected your journalistic integrity, as well as admired your ability, and I trust that you will therefore accept a correction – purely on a personal basis. First, and less important, I am not quite sure what you mean by ”a professing Zionist,” but, fortunately or unfortunately, I have never officially belonged to a Zionist organization, although I have always found my own approach to be congruous with a great deal of Zionist ideology, in its many varieties.Second, and much more important, I think you misread my article in Panim el Panim on "Who Is A Jew?" I did not say, or even imply, that because of the Supreme Court decision we must reconsider our attitude to Israel, but that I expected this to be done as a normal psychological reaction. It would have been quite out of character for me to take the kind of patronizing attitude to Israel which you attributed to me.Furthermore, you seem to make the point in this paragraph that this proves the anti-Aliyah nature of religious Jews in the Diaspora. I don’t suppose that your busy schedule has permitted you to read any of my articles, or my recent book, or that, indeed, they have been available to you at all, but had you done so, you would have noticed that I have never hesitated to speak out for Aliyah, even when I knew and know that my own Immediate practice is inconsistent with my ideolgoical affirmation.I hope that if for nothing else, the point is cleared up. IAll my best to Pnina and Pinchas.Sincerely yours,

כ' ידיד, הרב נחום נ'. אחדשה"ט ושלו כל הנלוים אליו. ראיתי מ"ש בפא"כ ומשר כחו על עמצו בפרק להשיג מלחמה שערה בשאלה הכאובה הזו: "מנהו יהודי." (אשר רבט הורינו "זל במבילה, כל הכופר בעבודה זשה נקש" יהודי והרב תוצ"א כומש" קל שקי בגמטריא איש יהודי). ואין בית מדרש בלא חידוש. באמת מה שפשוט אצל העולם שכל מי שיש לו אש יהודית הרי הוא יהודי. הנה כבש נסתפק בחידושי הגש"ע א'בט זל (בה' שדות ס' של זו) בעכו"ם הבא על בת ישראל אם הוולד נימול בשבת עו"ש שהביא שיטת רש"י ותוס' סוף קדושין וע"ש במהרש"א…