<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18999"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org><BR>:
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>>>RAB already brought to Avodah the discussion of whether the
current<BR>plaza has more qedushah than the area had in 1918.<BR><BR>There was
also a second thread of discussion in the general topic:<BR><BR>The local
gov't's didn't allow a mechitzah to be put at the kotel,<BR>for fear it would
trigger riots. (Rather than trying to contain the<BR>criminals. <sigh>)
And in fact, the British finally allowed a mechitzah<BR>in 1929, which did
indeed led to rioting across EY -- most notoriously<BR>in Chevron,
Hy"d.<BR><BR>Does this qualify as she'as hadechaq or ein danin es ha'efshare
mishe'i<BR>efshar?<BR><BR>Others, including myself, argued that since there is
no chiyuv to<BR>daven at the kotel, or for the women to be there during minyan,
with<BR>all those other shuls Y-m had at the time (how far away are the
four<BR>shuls of the rova?), had davening without a mechitzah been a
problem,<BR>they simply wouldn't have davened there. The presence of
alternative<BR>locations removes the dochaq-ness. <<<BR><BR>--
<BR>Micha
Berger
<BR>micha@aishdas.org
<BR><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>>>>></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>1. Davening at the kosel, when the population was tiny in comparison to
today's, was considered like davening at a kever. There was no mechitza at
Kever Rochel or at Me'aras Hamachpela when I first visited those places, and
there is to this day no mechitza at the kever of any tzaddik buried on Har
Hamenuchos. I don't know the halachos of what makes a place a bais
knesses but certainly there is some critical mass where the sheer numbers
of people davening at a place make a mechitza necessary. IIRC there was
originally no mechitza in the BHM'K even, but the crush of people on yom tov
eventually necessitated that a balcony be installed for the women.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2. We cannot allow the goyim to keep us away from the kosel, our
holiest site. That alone is she'as hadechak. It doesn't matter how
many shuls there were in Yerushalayim when the Turks ruled E'Y, it was
critically important that we maintain our ties to our own holiest site. We
could not and cannot allow the goyim to sever our ties to the kosel.
Saying "you don't /have/ to daven at the kosel" is like saying you don't /have/
to love your mother. Where is your Jewish heart?!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><BR><B>--Toby Katz<BR>==========<BR><BR></FONT><FONT lang=0 color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"></B>--------------------
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT lang=0 color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial><BR><BR></FONT> </BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>