[Avodah] TIDE and Austritt

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:09 AM, Samuel Svarc <ssvarc at yeshivanet.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Do Chazal say this?



>
> >    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?


>
> 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.
>

I'm not sure where you are going. Rav Hirsch's polemic Against the
Wurzburger Rav was quite sharp.

But your argument is inherently siecious. You are saying that w/o Austritt
you are FORCED to recognize non-Hlachic systems. But the Rasha is at the
Seder and if he sits quicetly we leave him alone,. and if rebels we blunt
his teeth.  But we ARE social with him and we do nto convery "ligticimacy"
to his shita jsut because he's at the Seder.

Austritt says: You cannot FAIL to convery legitimacy to C rabbis [or to
schiller} by taling with them or about them. Rav Salamon Breuer wouldn't
even discuss Rabbi Nobel when he died! Ad kdei kach!

And RYBS was largely persona nongrata in the "yeshivishe velt" in the 1950's
- 197'0s when I was there

>
>
>
> So for the sake of Jewish unity let's not keep Shabbos.


A highly speciosu argument. You don't mehcalel shabbos by co-operating
against Nzais but I can tell yo uit is a mtizvah to be mechalle shabbos for
pidyon shevuyim

See The Siyyum of Sota in which 2 rabbis in the same city who do NOT learn
from each other [nocheh to learn] one dies and one is exiled. This sounds a
LOT like the areality of the holocasut, that rabbis who refused to talk
where either killed or exlied from their homes. How prescient of hte Talmud
tos see taht Rabbis who cannot get along.....

Furthermore, the Austrit Gemeinde ALLOWED mechalleie shabbos as members only
they could not serve as officers. the only restirctions were intermarriage
and failure to practice bris milah. Shemiras Shabbos as NOT a criteria fro
joinging KAJ...



>
> 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.


Austritt made sense weh nteh lines wer not drawn and you didn;t know who the
Red Sox were and who the Yankees were. At one time people thought that
schollars such as Geiger or Graetz HAD legitimacy. But once the teams were
clearly drawn it really became obsolete. But like many other obsolete
institutions it survives after it has outlived any reasonable rational
usefulness.

Austritt nowadys would be like telling Titanicc survivors to walk around
with life jackets 24-hours a day even after they landed on dry land

As Koheles said, there is a Time [and place!] for Austritt and a time and
place where it is senseles.

Austritt today is about undoing Hirschian TIDE by putting the genie back
into the bottle and restoring halchic Judaism to the mivtzarim of the
Ghetto,

Hirsch [and hsi followers suc has Grunfeld et. al.] realized that Torah
Judaism would remain WEAK if one the defensive. Austritt is putting up wals
that will leave Trorah as inadeqaute to handle the WORLD so you might as
well throw out TIDE. It's like keeping the caterpillar in the cocoon
forever.

The whole process of a cocoon is for the emerging butterfly to chip away and
to gain strength to Fly. Austrit is [as used today]] about staying IN the
cocoon.

It is different in Hirsch's day.  There the R and C were predatory.  Perhaps
if R/C's were predatory today it might still applly.





>
>
> 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?


Huh?

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


Hhuh?h


>
>
>
> "Let your ears hear the words you are saying". Who throws out Reshoim from
> a
> community via Austritt?


See above re: the 2 talmiddim from POland who could not meet int hte USA due
to Asutritt.




>
>
> 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.


YOu are missing the point. Even though we disgrew with the Rasha we still
talk to him. Austritt would not permit him at the seder in the first place.
No Opportunity for Keiruv



>
>
> 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.


No one is defening resh'aim that is again a psecious argument,  any
co-oepration with theses communites can be very well-defined [as per RYBS]
and need confer no legitimacy.

In the era of 1850 when R was ATTACKING Orho's and virtually ALL R rabbis
had Ortho training it was hard to tell the players w/o a scorecard.  Later
on this is silly.

Of course a Red Sox is not welcome in the Yankee Dugout. any child would
know that! But he IS welomce on the field to join in the competition.  The
boundaries are clear.

If you are an Ortho, you don't JOIN the other team by talking to them,
Sitting intheir dugout is different. The only Austrit neeed is NOT to go
theri schools [e.g. PHilntropin] or their shuls etc. RYTS made this claer
wrt to hearing shofar in a non-O shul!  Any child can understand that we
don't hold anything from thier Schools, services, Torah etc.

But that does not mean we cannot talk about "other" matters.

The fact taht RYBS said it is suerpfluous. the lofic is unassailable.
Chaplains in HOpsitals and the military could NOT function if they strictly
followed Austritt.
And if the O community were to request for Police Protection on RH/YK I see
no reason to exclude protecting R & C congregations! .

Also CI has stated - except for the leaders - most congregants are tinokkos
shenishbu.

I wiil BEH post about some C rabbis that would also udnermine Austritt a
bit.




-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080715/158b69e3/attachment-0001.htm>