[Avodah] R' Angel & Geirus Redux
Meir Shinnar
chidekel at gmail.com
Sun Mar 23 17:02:44 PDT 2008
Unfortunately don't have the time for full engagement.
However,
a) WRT R A Folger response to my comments:
i) I appreciate his description of gemeinde - but,BMKVT,it is
irrelevant to the point that I was making. I wasn't arguing that
anyone held gemeinde to be the ideal in the sense that isn't it
wonderful that instead of everyone being O, we have diversity. The
issue that arose on this list was the very permissibility of dealings
with the non O, given their status, according to some poskim, as
kofrim - and the heter being sought was that they were tinokot
shenishbu. My point was that the gemeinde approach permitted and
even encouraged such interaction - I would agree for the sake of the
masses who were am aratztim - but the status of the leadership did
not prevent the formation of institutional ties. I would think that
the vast majority of American R/C are as much am aratzim as the
German 19th century - and the lack of institutional relationships
limits our ability to reach out to them.
Being willing to have a common umbrella and insitutional relationship
does not translate to being willing to compromise on halachic issues
- and there were clear red lines. Rav Hildesheimer was head of a
nominally austritt congregation, because he wanted to have autonomy
and not be subject to pressure from the gemeinde that migh compromise
his halachic integrity - but he still was willing to interact on an
institutional base with the general community - which did mean
dealing with their rabbinic leadership.
REB was continuing this tradition - of dealing with the R and C. The
essay that RDE cited that he found so objectionable was just REB
telling the R and C that they have to understand that he thinks that
they are wrong, and he also understands that they think that he is
wrong - and he can't convince them, and they can't convince him, so
they will still work together for the common good. A classic
gemeinde position - not an acknowledgement of the rightness or
equality of the other position - but an acknowledgement that we are
unable to convince each other, but still want to work together on
common issues.
WRT second point - that the lack of relationship has allowed
Orthodoxy to flourish - I don't know that there is a basis for e such
a claim. I think that the American model of nonstructured
communities has allowed much more diversity of models of institutions
and personal initiative than possible within the European communal
model - and that in the European model, allocation of resources may
have been far less responsive to changing needs and demographics -
but that is a different issue than the issue of unity. I do agree
that (unfortunately from my viewpoint), austritt has been the
dominant model in America - and even for MO, RYBS version of
cooperation is far less than the German gemeinde model.
I would add that the Netziv's opposition to austritt on halachic
and theological grounds is well known, and Rav Kook argued that it
was a hora'at sha'a for Rav Hirsch and the Hatam Sofer, but
intrinsically, the notion of austritt is tantamount to kfira (based
on the rashi on the mishna in megilla on yevarchucha tovim) - and
some of us think they were right...
Meir Shinnar
More information about the Avodah
mailing list