[Avodah] TIDE and Austritt

[Samuel Svarc]

> From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com>
> 
> Dislaimer, I am in NO way questioning RSRH's decision inf 19th Cnetruy
> Frankfort nor do I think the Wurzburger RAv should have medllled in a
local
> affair. I am merely adressing our society here and now:
> I still don't get it.
> 
> 
>    1. if one can filter society in order to use TIDE on Genral Culture why
>    can't this same filter helpe with non-Observant communties with in
> Judaism?
>    Rabbi Mei'ri di it!  Who says that this is diffcicult?  IF it is OK to
>    confront Yaphet why not some imperfcect Sheimim?  And didn't NCSY
evolve
> out
>    of looking at USY for alterantive ideas of what to do?

No connection. The question by Acher wasn't whether or not to acknowledge
his Torah knowledge, it was if it's possible to learn from him without being
affected. Something that the rest of Chazal felt was too difficult. 

>    2. Austritt at KAJ implies that no offical of the kehillah may dine at
> an
>    OU Glatt hotel or restaurant.

Huh? Wouldn't RSRH eat from the Wurzburger Rav's hechsher?

>    3. Working with Non-O's does not necesarrily convery any legitimacy.
> {see
>    below]  The Red Sox come to Yankee Stadium, does any Yankee Fan have
>    anyDesire to Ausrtitt   the hated enemy by not letting him to play in
> the
>    very Holy of Holies that is Yankee STadium!  And to do so  w/o any fear
> that
>    one will confuse the visting grays with the hometown pinstripes.  I
> don't
>    see how joining the Bosox on the field confers legitimacy to them.
True
>    when the lines were not drawn things wer differnt. This is no longer
the
>    case anyomre.

I can't think of a better rayah listor then this one. By playing with them
on one field, the Yankees show that the Red Sox are a team to play with. G-d
forbid, and He does, to show that R and C are a "team" to play with.

>    4. Austritt has brought out such convoluted siutations such  that two
>    noted Roshei Yeshiva who were "buddies" in Poland [either roommates of
>    havrusas I forget which] - and then lived lived about 0.5 a miles away
> from
>    each other in the USA - but would not even talk to each other merely
> because
>    of Asutritt. Is Austritt a frontal asault on eilu v'eilu?  Beth Hillell
> and
>    Beth Shammai got along much better even over the issue of Mamzeirus
> mamash.

As did RSRH with the Wurzburger Rav, who he got along better then with the
Reform of his day. But when someone does something that cuts to the heart of
Yiddishkeit (as does Austritt, which deals with one of the "gimmel chamuros"
namely AZ [in this case minis]) what one considers the din will oblige him
to strong actions. As it did BH who didn't marry those they considered
mamzerim. Where was their Eilu V'Eilu?? But such an interpretation of EvE is
a misinterpretation. EvE never meant, does not mean, and never will mean,
failing to live up to what one considers to be the halacha.   

>    5. In the post Holocaust world it is realyl troubling to see that we
can
>    jsut forget about how precarious a situation we have as a people?

So for the sake of Jewish unity let's not keep Shabbos. At least not in
those places where the vast majority of Jews don't observe it. It's so
divisive, all those restrictions. And kashrus (at least certain aspects) is
designed to separate us. That too must fall by the wayside.

The truth is clear, "Oker hadin es hahar", we must follow it even when it's
not pleasant. As Austritt is an halachic imperative (something that no O Jew
denies; the question is one of degree, not if the principle exists) one must
follow it even post-Holocaust. 

>    6. Didn't the deaths Talmidei R. Akiva teach us a bit about the danger
> of
>    lack of mutual respect? {at least between AAsustritt O's and non-
> Asutritt
>    O's]

I can bandy about mamarie chazal as well. What lesson did you learn out from
tanur tachnie, where the ones who where in the right died? Don't pasken when
it might hurt someone?

Respect for someone (as stated above) is not predicated in subverting what
one knows is the halacha, R insistence to the contrary notwithstanding.  

>    7. No Ta''anis Tzibbur can esit without a Rasha. It seems taht trhowing
>    Resha'im out is a new idae. At the Seder we remonstrate wtih them, but
> we
>    don't evict them. Aderabbah, the fact that the rash ais at the seder
> says
>    sometihng about "aggadic hashkafa" as Micha would say.  Is having the
> Rasha
>    at the Seder legitimziing his life-style? we let him join in and if he
>    geahves we don't even start up with him, only when he brings up
> leitzanus we
>    push back.

"Let your ears hear the words you are saying". Who throws out Reshoim from a
community via Austritt? One wishes they would remain, but they have chosen
to organize their own community built on the lines of their Rishus. It is on
this cold hard fact that one then is forced to the step of Austritt. If only
reshoim would act according to the wishes of the Austritters...

The same applies to the example of the Rasha by the seder. Whose seder is
the ba'al Hagadah referring to, some "humanistic" farce, where the mention
of G-d is verboten and "lessons of freedom" is expounded on, including
"personal freedom of orientation [no, they aren't klerring on which side to
do haseiba...]"? Where the Rasha seats at the head and guides it? No! A
thousand times no! "[W]e let him join in" to *our* seder, our community.
When he starts his own community "l'chem v'lo lo, v'lfi sh'hotzi es atzmo
min haklal..." Then the ba'al hagadah pronounces halachic judgement,
"...kufar b'ikkar", and the halachic implications flow from there.

The Tam who is witness to the whole episode, bewildered, asks, "Ma zos?"
What is the whole fuss about, what happened to EvE? We answer, "B'chozok yad
hotzieonu Hashem m'Mitzrayim m'beis avodim", Hashem took us out and acquired
us as his slaves, we are now duty bound to obey his commands.

KT,
MSS