[Avodah] R' Angel & Geirus Redux

[Arie Folger]

On Monday, 24. March 2008 01.02:44 Meir Shinnar wrote:
> a) WRT R A Folger response to my comments:
> 	i) I appreciate his description of gemeinde <SNIP> 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. 

But there are institutional relationships, in social areas, which is precisely 
what the gemeinde had become, a provider of Jewish social welfare, including 
perhaps such social religious services as providing for kosher food (you do 
need to feed people), but the rabbinic leadership had become sectarian.

>SNIP>

> 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.

I am unaware of REH's extensive nonpolemical contact with R spiritual 
leadership. Please enlighten me. AFAIK (see Ellinson's biography of REH) he 
polemicized extensively against Liberal Judaism, including using any 
expedient argument to legally thwart the advancement of heretical Judaism.

> 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.

I am willing to be enlightened, but AFAIK, none of REB's mentors were so 
accomodating to the R/C spiritual leadership.

> 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.

But the evidence shows that the German communal model was not succesful in 
turning around the communities. German communities still suffer from that 
ambivalence to this day.

>   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...

Nu, that is debatable. It is a legitimate ma'hloket no less than other 
halakhic disputes.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com