[Avodah] . Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)

[Meir Shinnar]

RMB
>  REB even realized his argument was specious, which is why he had to
>  mention the metahalachic concept of "eis la'asos" -- this must be done
>  despite it violating the normal rules. I fail to see how this is an
>  eis la'asos, as no one's relationship to Hashem is saved through it,
>  "just" unity would.

I don't have the time now to get into the debate.  However, the above
paragraph summarizes a major problem and difference in perspective.

The argument that the unity of klal yisrael does not affect one's
relationship to hashem is, to my mind, quite startling - although,
perhaps, reflective on an approach emphasizing the individual rather
than communal perfection.  However, for many of us, the notion of
unity is an integral part of our avodat hashem - and yes, there is a
tremendous eys la'asos.  The fact that this is not viewed as part of
our relationship to hashem means that our relationship to hashem is
flawed.

Just some other points on the debate.  RDE's points suggest that the
notion gemeinde has completely disappeared from the radar screen.  The
notion of whether the individuals have the status of TsN is one that
we have had before - the citation of RMF about the fact that the non O
have contact with the O and therefore should have learned is
essentially a rephrasing of the radvaz's point about karaites - where
he modifies the rambam's position that current karaites do not have
the din of kofrim, because the radvaz says they could have learned
forom the rabbinic community.  Independently of whether one holds like
the radvaz or the rambam here, it is clear that today, most of the non
O community has little contact with the O community and therefore, it
is quite reasonable to argue that  the metziut has changed from the
time of that psak of RMF.

However, being TsN is only one part of the issue.
The gemeinde position in Germany was not that the Reform was tinokot
shenishbu (Rav Kook's and the Chazon Ish's shitta that, in essence the
prevalence of non O and secular culture made everyone a tinok
shenishba does not, TTBOMK, appear in the German literature. )However,
German Gemeinde Orthodoxy, including Rav Bamberger, the leading posek
in Germany at the time of Rav Hirsch, as well as Rav Hildesheimer, and
as well as the Seride Esh who participated in  gemeinde activities
(IIRC from Marc Schapiro) (the SE is Rav EB's moreh muvhak - remember
that REB is the reason the SE manuscripts were saved) allowed and even
encouraged religious interaction with the non O formal religious
communal structure.  Even though  many of the rabbinic leaders of the
non O had grown up O - and many even had O rabbinic training - and
that they espoused positions that made them mehallel shabbat
befarhesya and a kofer by many shittot - the O gemeinde still
advocated continued interactions and being part of the same community.
 It is clear that this is just incomprehensible to many.  However, if
the gemeinde position is accepted - whether on a n et la'asot basis or
other - much of what REB says becomes clear.

I would add that there is a tshuva by rav shlomo goren zt"l, who asks
about a ger who fully accepts ol malchut shamayim and the mitzvot, but
does not accept the national identity - and says that such a ger is
not valid gerut. National identity and the future of am yisrael are
very much part of our avodat hashem - and therefore, yes it is an et
la'asot

2) I think that RMB misunderstands Rav Uziel zt"l psak - and tries to
understand it from the context of other positions.   The issue of
gerut is amech ami ve'elokaich elokai - and the question is the
relative weight and need for specific kabbalat ol hamitzvot - versus
that by becoming ami one will perforce be performing mitzvot.  The
notion that kabbalat ol hamitzvot is the  central and dominant part of
conversion is so deeply ingrained that the notion that there are other
positions seems incomprehensible.

3) Finally, WRT RMB's general critique of REB, he is adopting an
essentially Hegelian position of the hazon ish - that the fact that it
happened is proof that
a) hashem wanted it to happen and
b)Therefore it is a good thing and it reflects a seal of divine
approval - it should have happened.

This is by no means a universally accepted position - because it is
(or was) a common belief that many things happened as a response to
human actions and errors rather than primary divine plan.  eg - the
hurban used to be viewed by many as, while reflecting divine will, it
was a divine will in response to human error, rather than primary
divine will.  The rambam goes even further in allowing blind chance
and nature to account for many evens, rather than intrinsic divine
will on the specifics.

REB's critique of halachic developments is in the same mode - the mere
fact that halacha developed in a certain fashion because of human
actions does not mean that this was the primary way or only way that
halacha should have developed - and the question is the reversibility
of the process.  The rambam held that the only binding period was the
talmud - and while some have argued that there were other binding
periods - and this seems to be the dominant position now - as has been
discussed before here, this is not a universal ly accepted position,
and indeed it is difficult to fit how real poskim work into this
model.  The question is how far one can go - and that is hardly a
point of essential belief.



Lastly, one small related  issue that was addressed in the past.  RDE asks
>  1) Could you please give a citation that a tinok shenishba "bears no
>  guilt".
See in the first few chapters of Pachad Yitzhak by rav hutner on
pesach, where he specifically argues that a tinok shenishba does not
have the status of a rasha, even though he violates all the mitzvot.

Meir Shinnar