<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Harry Maryles <<a href="mailto:hmaryles@yahoo.com">hmaryles@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><font color="#000000"><font style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000"><br> </font></font></div> <blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;"> <blockquote dir="ltr" style="margin-right: 0px;">
<div> </div> <div><font style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000">Please do not conflate TIDE with TuM. They are two very different philosophies, often at odds with each other. This has been extensively discussed on A/A before you came aboard.</font></div>
<div></div> <div><font color="#0000ff" lang="0"><br><b>--Toby Katz<br>=============</b></font></div></blockquote></blockquote> <div><font style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000">----------------</font></div>
<div> </div> <div><font style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000">Very different?</font></div> <div><font style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000"></font> </div> <div><font style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000">How do you define each and why are you so opposed to TuM and supportive of TIDE? I don't see that much of a difference between them. I know you've addressed this issue in the past in the course of disscussions on this issue. But can you be a bit more specific and do so in a single post? What is it about TuM that is not a part of TIDE that makes it so very different - that bothers you? ...that makes you believe that it is a wrong Hashkafa?</font></div>
<div><font style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000"></font> </div> <div><font style="background-color: transparent;" color="#000000">HM</font></div><br></blockquote></div><br>TuM is can be easilyseen aseither an Americanized branch of TIDE or a modernized application of it.<br>
<br>Frankly, RSR Hirsch was a kannai and he sees to feel that everything has to fit a VERT specifc narrowly defined model to be kosher . But the truth is that TIDE, TM and HIldesheimer wre all struggling with frumkeit in a post-ghetto Westernized world. {So Does Habbad, NCSY, Young Israel etc. etc.] <br>
<br>We can NEVER know for sure how RSR Hirsch MIGHT have acted had he been born in 1908 USA instead of 1808 Germany. He might have become very Revel-Like in his own way. <br><br>Also I recall in the very early days of Avodah, RYGB endorsed TuM as a philosophy but NOT YU's brand of implementation.<br>
<br>Knowing today what I know about the Hildesheirmer Seminary, I would say that is defintely my single favorite M-O of thm al. to the extent that YU or HTC etc. conform, I would applaud it.<br><br>Somehow Hildesheimer was able to keep Yir'as Shamayyim on a high level while still confronting Wissenshaft. I have met very few today who have handled both successfully.<br>
-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,<br>RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com<br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>