[Avodah] R' Angel & Geirus Redux

[Meir Shinnar]

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