<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1611" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>RMB: >>Does TIDE necessitate Austritt, or are they two ideas
emerging from<BR>the same mind?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>TK: Torah necessitates austritt.<<</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2><BR>RMB: >>For that matter, what challenges the supremacy
of Torah?<BR>NCSY's anthem closes with the words "see what it means /<BR>that
Torah reigns supreme!" And yet they are the product of RYBS's<BR>kelapei chutz
/ kelapei fenim dichotomy.<<</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>TK: Where do you see that NCSY is "the product of RYBS's<BR>kelapei
chutz / kelapei fenim dichotomy"?! Does NCSY have joint activities with
non-O youth groups?! </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>RMB: >>To repeat my question, which I feel you left
unanswered both in this post<BR>and when RRW asked the question at length: In
what way does a Protestant<BR>who studied for the clergy (Friedrich Schiller)
not dispute the supremacy<BR>of Torah, but when Jews get together to do so, or
even shomerei Torah<BR>umitzvos who are simply willing to get together with
those who do so,<BR>it is? What makes R further from Torah than trinitarian
Xianity?<<</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>TK: You asked this question of R' Shmuel Svarc and I look forward
to seeing his answer, but I will say that Schiller was an open Christian and did
not claim to be a Jew. Had he claimed to be a Jew, and to have a correct
understanding of Judaism, it would certainly be assur to give him the time of
day, or to read his books in anything other than two-fisted "dah ma lehashiv"
mode. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000
size=2>It is also my understanding that Hirsch did not advocate studying
Christianity or Christian theology -- and that Schiller was a philosopher,
not a theologian. Reading a book of philosophy is akin
to reading a book of science or medicine. (In fact the distinction
between philosophy and science was not a clear one at all before the 20th
century.) Is there anyone at all who would refuse to read a
medical textbook because its author happened to be a Reform Jew or a
non-Jew? Anyone?</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>RMB: >>There is clearly no problem pulling DE from a
tainted source, since a<BR>trinitarian is far from supporting
Torah.<<</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>TK: That is correct. Chachma bagoyim ta'amin, Torah bagoyim al
ta'amin. We don't read them for their theology, we do read them for their
secular knowledge. <BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>RMB: :> Would the Austritt community not use records of who is
a Tay Sachs carrier<BR>:> because the population was tested under a
Federation program? <BR><BR>RSS: No. But if they had to recognize that the
Federation was the<BR>: standard-bearer, blah blah blah, then yes. They would
set up their own.<BR><BR>RMB: I don't know what you're inserting between
your no and your yes, but<BR>1- Lemaaseh, multiple small registries is
pointless; you wouldn't know<BR>about too many carriers that way; and<BR>2- The
fact that you can have a conditional "yes" is already non-Austritt.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>TK: Austritt deals with the possible. Hirsch himself did not
withdraw from the general community until he was legally and practically able to
do so. A Jew in the Gemeinde community /before/ Hirsch came to Frankfurt
would not have had a personal obligation to withdraw and become a hermit if
there was no other alternative. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>RMB: >>If Austritt applied today it would mean shunning
the OU and RCA<BR>and avoiding functions where the O rabbi belonged to the SCA
or some<BR>still-existing parallel. Even political lobbying. Possibly not even
giving<BR>credance to the OU hechsher until they renounce RYBS's SCA
responsum.<<</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>TK: It is obvious that in today's terms austritt has a different,
maybe less radical, application. Maybe you can come up with a different
word. Actually there are some O rabbis who really /should/ be shunned by
all O rabbis -- "CLAL" comes to mind. But it doesn't happen. America
really doesn't have the official, legal communal framework that they had in
Frankfurt (and elsewhere in Europe). So Austritt here couldn't take the
same form even if we wanted it to.<BR><BR><BR>RMB: >>Now, on to the
third question... Can the American-style chareidi be said<BR>to be living TiDE
whether he acknowledges it or not?....<BR><BR>It is relevant because RnTK said
she believes that most of the Torah<BR>world today is TiDE, they just don't know
it. If they do, it's not TiDE<BR>as RSRH formulated the idea.<<</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>TK: It is DEFINITELY not TIDE as Hirsch envisioned it! </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is merely a series of ad hoc accommodations that demonstrate
conclusively that TIDE /in some form/ is necessary. Unconscious
sort-of TIDE merely proves what a terrible pity it is that Hirsch is not more
widely read and understood.<BR><BR><BR><BR>RMB: RnTK is willing to state
what RSRH believed based on the assumption RNB's<BR>position was identical to
Hirsch's. That's impossible....However,<BR>here it is in her own words (Apr
30th, v25n127):<BR>> How I know what he would have thought about this or that
is that RSRH<BR>> was an ehrlicher Yid who followed da'as Torah (which I am
defining as<BR>> "the consensus of what most Torah leaders think and
teach").<BR><BR>> Also my father channeled Hirsch and is probably sitting
with him right<BR>> now in Gan Eden.<BR><BR>That doesn't replace actually
studying RSRH. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>TK: No two people think exactly alike, even a rebbe and his
closest talmid. Kesheim she'ein partzufeihem domos, ein dei'oseihem
domos. So to say that "RNB's position was identical to Hirsch's" is
indeed, ridiculous and impossible. The particular question we
discussed at that time was whether Hirsch would have applied his austritt
philosophy to the State of Israel, and would therefore have adopted the Neturei
Karta position. I remain absolutely 100% certain that he would not have
been NK but would have been straight Aguda RW frum on this particular
question.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT></FONT><FONT lang=0 face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"><BR><B>--Toby
Katz<BR>=============<BR></FONT><FONT lang=0 face=Arial color=#000000 size=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"></B>President Reagan talked with the Soviets
while pushing ahead with the deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles in
Europe. He spoke softly — after getting himself a bigger stick. --Mark
Steyn</FONT><FONT lang=0 face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10"><B><BR></B><BR></FONT></DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - <A title="http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112" href="http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112" target="_blank">Check out TourTracker.com</A>!</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>