Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 254

Fri, 11 Jul 2008

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:17:08 -0400
Re: [Avodah] public bet din

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:01 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 02:54:49PM -0700, Eli Turkel wrote:
> : I am not aware of any plave that says that monetary bet din procedures
> : are closed to non-participants...
> Me neither. What about LH -- attendees who don't need to know about the
> baal din's unreliability will learn LH. Or worse, motzi sheim ra if
> someone isn't around to hear the person was found to be dealing honestly,
> and just heard the accusations.
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
> _______________________________________________

IF one person accuses in Mamaonos it is ussually enough to require sa
shavua, so it is NOT motzi sheim ra

OTOH dinei kalkus/missa a sinlge witness is guilty of LH motzi sheim ra fro
coming w/o another. Masham the problem is the witnes not the laudience.

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:38:36 -0400
Re: [Avodah] TIDE and Austritt

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:52 PM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>    below]  The Red Sox come to Yankee Stadium, does any Yankee Fan have
>    any desire to Ausrtitt   the hated enemy by not letting him to play in
> the
>    very Holy of Holies that is Yankee Stadium!  <<
> TK:  This is a particularly ill-chosen analogy since it does imply that O
> and C are just two different home teams, eilu ve'elu.  How about having
> Yankee Stadium host a game between the Yankees and the Nuclear Weapons
> Engineers of Iran?  That would be a better analogy.

So R & C jews are as evil as Iranians silamo-Fasicists.
that puts a different spin onth Holcoasut. This implies that mostly resh'
a'im got killed and we should be clebrating not mournin

thsi si agood reason to show how Austritt demonizes fellow Jews. It's a
GREAT illustration.

OR as an Aushwitz survivor [a yeeke{] once told me we are our OWN worse
enemies.[not his owrds but hsi words were worse]  KINDA sad

> RRW: >>   4. Austritt has brought out such convoluted situations such  that
> two
>    noted Roshei Yeshiva who were "buddies" in Poland [either roommates of
>    havrusas I forget which] - and then lived about 0.5 a miles away from
>    each other in the USA - but would not even talk to each other merely
> because
>    of Austritt. Is Austritt a frontal assault on eilu v'eilu? <<
> TK: You have a specialized historical knowledge of particular situations in
> the past which may or may not have been justified but have nothing to do
> with the proper policy to be followed today by religious Jews.

NO I am describing a mindse3t that ican and is being used for sin'as HInam
between Rabanim.

See tomorrow's Daf [Sota 48b} fro what happens when 2 rabbonim live in the
same town and refuse to share torah. My illustratoin above is based 100% on
Austritt and I will nto name names but it is a real issue.

>  RRW:  >>   6. Didn't the deaths Talmidei R. Akiva teach us a bit about the
> danger of
>    lack of mutual respect? {at least between Austritt O's and non-Austritt
>    O's]<<
> TK:  This is no longer an issue.  Re-fighting old historical battles is of
> interest, perhaps, to scholars of history.  The only practical issue today
> is whether O Jews should treat C and R as in some way legitimate "streams"
> of Judaism.

No austritt is about shunning Orthodx jews who fail to practice Austritt.
You keep on ignring this slaient fact and PRESUME that Austritt is ONLY
about shunning C's and R's it's not. You are NOT fdescribing Austritt!

Austritt meant COMPLETELY shuunning Geminder Orthodox their kashrus their
learning etc.

>  RRW:  >>  7. No Ta'anis Tzibbur can exist without a Rasha. It seems that
> throwing
>    Resha'im out is a new idea. <<
> TK:  Again, you seem to be rehashing old historical battles.  In today's
> world no Orthodox synagogue will refuse to seat a non-observant Jew (and
> most non-observant Jews are not, in any case, reshaim).

That's not my point. Austritti s saying Resh'aim of ISrael are not really
jews. Read your Iran statement  above

> RRW:  >>At the Seder we remonstrate with them, but we
>    don't evict them. <<
> TK:  We knock them on the teeth.  Works for me.

Only whnethey open thie mouth. but they are at the Seder.
You have steadfastly refused to allow any interaction because it confers
legitimacy. But you contradict yourself if you DO interact with a Rash oat
the Seder

BTW, Hakheh does NOT  mean knock out but set on edge or sour
the poitn of the SEDER is ANTI-Austrit, it is saying debate the Rasha and
prove him wrong not shun him!I

> RRW:  >> Is having the Rasha
>    at the Seder legitimizing 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.<<
> TK:  Again you are fighting old battles, from Frankfurt and maybe from old
> Washington Heights, that I am not qualified to fight.
the what you are sying is NOT Austritt but something else

> All I know is that in today's world the advocates of austritt welcome
> non-frum Jews to their sedarim with open arms.

Again it is not Austritt

> But a joint seder led by an O and a C rabbi, or an O seder in a C
> sanctuary,  would be a horrible idea, against the halacha and very harmful
> from a public policy point of view.

RYBS was aggaisnt this. So is YU. YU co-oeprated onthe Chalaincy board and
save RW yeshivos from sending  Semciha studetns ot Korea etc. and the RW
yeshivos won't even acknowleldge that nowaedays [they used to back in the
late 1950's etc.]

> You have also alluded in the past to particular policy battles fought
> between Breuer's and YU.  While my sympathies are mainly with Breuer's, I
> have not seen in practice, and certainly not in my father's life, a blanket
> rejection of YU outside of that localized community tension.

When I ws at Ner Isrel I haeard all kinds of negative coments re: YU and
RYBS was never quoted as a gadol

>   I note that many products nowadays have both a KAJ and an OU on the label
> so I guess that particular fight is over -- as there is a close association
> between YU and the OU (many or most OU rabbanim having smicha from YU).  Of
> course there will continue to be areas of serious hashkafic disagreements.
> *--Toby Katz
> =============
> *

To summarize:

   1. Meetings  at secular events [NOT AT A SEDER] with non-O clergy does
   not confer legitimacy. This is an old battle and is obsolete. It only
   confers de facto reality no more than their being a shul presiident or to
   non-Jewish Clergy.  Fro example at Soveit Jewry Rallies non_jewish clergy
   spoek and so did non-O Rabbis. Does not mean that we can ride to shul the
   next shabos.
   2. Austritt is as much about shunning non-Austirrt Ortho's as shunning
   C's and R's. See the Rav Breuer bio re: Teh petirah of Rabbi Nobel
   3. I wil BEH post more on this but quickly siad I poist here and now that
   Austritt has succeed in snuffin out TIDE everywhere it is seriously

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:42:22 -0400
[Avodah] Who Was Rabbi Nobel Anyway?

114. Nehemiah Anton Nobel (1871?1922) was a "German Orthodox rabbi and
religious leader,...the son of Joseph Nobel (1840?1917), After being brought
up in Halberstadt, where his father was Klausrabbinner, Nehemiah Nobel
studied at the Berlin Rabbiner-Seminar. He served in the rabbinate of
Cologne from 1896 to 1899, and then for several months in Koenigsberg. From
there he went to the University of Marburg to study under Hermann Cohen, who
had a great influence upon him, although they did not agree about Zionism.
Nobel's activity in the Zionist Movement began in Cologne. He was on close
terms with Theodor Herzl and David Wolffsohn and was one of the original
founders of the Zionist Federation in Germany. He also took part in the
founding convention of the Mizrachi movement in Pressburg (1904). Nobel's
Zionist activity, motivated by his conviction that religion and nationhood
are organically connected in Judaism, stood out in contrast to the united
anti-Zionist front of Orthodox and liberal rabbis in Germany at the time.
From 1901 he served in the rabbinate of Leipzig, from 1906 in the rabbinate
of Hamburg, and finally, from 1910, in the rabbinate of Frankfort, where he
succeeded Marcus Horovitz. There he prompted closer contacts with Judaism
and Zionism in circles that had been drifting away from Judaism. His sermons
and preachings, in which he was extraordinarily impressive, tackled topical
problems. He influenced such Jewish thinkers as Ernst Simon, Oscar Wolfsberg
(Y. Aviad), F. Rosenzweig, and M. Buber....

Note the Roedleheim post-WWI prayer for the Government was composed by Rabbi
Nobel.  He would have been a brilliant  Modern Orthodox rabbi by today's
standards in the USA.
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:10:12 -0400
Re: [Avodah] money and halakhah

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:48 PM, kennethgmiller@juno.com <
kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:

> R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> > A ring is shveh kesef, not actual kesef.  You could be
> > mekadesh just as easily with a can of baked beans.  But
> > perhaps not with fiat money.
> I honestly don't see why fiat money is less of a shaveh kesef than baked
> beans.
> On the contrary, I could easily make a kal vachomer: Just as one can be
> mekadesh with baked beans (which some people might decline), certainly one
> can be mekadesh with fiat money (which no one would decline).
> Akiva Miller
> _

As I posted today's kitzur [145] rejects banknotes for pidyon habein, but
aiui excepts shava kessef.  You can do the hair splits.

Remember if I tear up a shtar chov I do NOT tear up the Chov, only the
Evidence of a Chov. The Chov is still there and the only damage is that I
destoyed a document that makes things convenient.

Now I am not saying fiat money is 100% the same as a shtar chov but it is
certainly not 100% the same as tangible kessef/silver or mamon. Fiat money
is a bit of a gray area, I don't find it to be blakc and white nor do I find
the debate nonsensical.

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:42:54 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Likut Atzomos

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 07:13:34PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: I thought they did not "bury their dead in a grave" but kept the bones in  
: some kind of container until the flesh decayed, after which they buried the  
: bones...

They buried people in caves. The logistics of how to place as many
shelves for bodies along the walls of the cave, or by digging holes
depthwise into those walls, comes up in Mes Eiruvin.


Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
micha@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fullfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:33:22 -0400
Re: [Avodah] TIDE and Austritt

The question I was exploring when I spun this thread off the original
1- Does TIDE necessitate Austritt, or are they two ideas emerging from
the same mind?
2- If Austritt is part of TIDE, what does that mean lemaaseh today for
people who want to raise its banner?

This discussion then led to a third question, since I questioned RnTK's
ability to give off-the-cuff answer's about RSRH's version of TiDE:
3- What exactly was that banner?

On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 10:57:57PM -0400, Samuel Svarc wrote:
: > How does this argument exclude R (or, as RRW pointed out, even
: > non-Austritt O), but not Schiller?

: Because reading Schiller doesn't dispute the supremacy of Torah, while the
: other two do.

To address question 1:
TiDE isn't the notion of Torah's supremacy. That notion existed before
TiDE, and was more explicit in Litta where they rejected TiDE. What TiDE
added was to start paying attention to what it was more supreme than,
the implied object of your statement.

For that matter, what challenges the supremacy of Torah?
NCSY's anthem closes with the words "see what it means /
that Torah reigns supreme!" And yet they are the product of RYBS's
kelapei chutz / kelapei fenim dichotomy.

RYBS believed that such preserved the supremacy of Torah, so I could
argue that TiDE doesn't nesssarily mean TiDE, that they are two ideas.

a- TiDE isn't defined by the supremacy of Torah.
b- The notion of Torah's supremacy doesn't force one to conclude

So it is possible to agree to RSRH's version of TiDE and not Austritt.

2- To get to the second question: Is there an entity that Austritt
would apply today? Given that a pesaq only applies to a given situation,
does the Austritt pesaq discuss today's situation?

To repeat my question, which I feel you left unanswered both in this post
and when RRW asked the question at length: In what way does a Protestant
who studied for the clergy (Friedrich Schiller) not dispute the supremacy
of Torah, but when Jews get together to do so, or even shomerei Torah
umitzvos who are simply willing to get together with those who do so,
it is? What makes R further from Torah than trinitarian Xianity?

There is clearly no problem pulling DE from a tainted source, since a
trinitarian is far from supporting Torah.

I was arguing that the issue wasn't where R was, but the fact that they
were on a strong trajectory away from Torah. IOW, it's the rebellion
that made R different.

Which would mean that someone could decide that today's R is more like
Schiller, inheritors of a point distant from Torah -- not actively
challenging it. And thus, like Schiller, they do not pose a challenge
to the supremacy of Torah than like German R.

So it is possible to agree to RSRH's version of TiDE and even his notion
of Austritt, and not believe it's lemaaseh WRT today's R. One therefore
doesn't know what RSRH would have decided.

:> Clearly RSRH divided the world into
:> at least three: Torah, DE, and things one must shun. Thus there is DE
:> or potential DE, things that could serve Torah IF one chooses to give
:> them the Torah's form. Survival of Jews would seem to qualify.

: Who disagrees with that? With what constitutes survival yes, but that
: survival is permitted?

I think you're thinking of survival in terms of life and death. What
about survival in terms of Federation money for yeshivos? Or joining
together with them to lobby for support for some cause for Israel?

And yes, this is disputed (because the non-O community will be represented
by their religious leaders, thereby implying their and their viepoints'

:> Would the Austritt community not use records of who is a Tay Sachs carrier
:> because the population was tested under a Federation program? (Okay, by
:> picking an extreme case I run potentially afoul of piquach nefesh issues.)

: No. But if they had to recognize that the Federation was the
: standard-bearer, blah blah blah, then yes. They would set up their own.

I don't know what you're inserting between your no and your yes, but
1- Lemaaseh, multiple small registries is pointless; you wouldn't know
about too many carriers that way; and
2- The fact that you can have a conditional "yes" is already non-Austritt.

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 02:09:13am EDT, RSS asked:
: Huh? Wouldn't RSRH eat from the Wurzburger Rav's hechsher?

I am actually not sure if he would go to a butcher under a Gemeinder
hechsher; quite probably not. But he never would have eaten in the WR's
home, attended a function in his shul or where he served in a role that
recognized him as rabbi, etc...

This is what RRW was saying... You're arguing in favor of Austritt, but
you have a watered down notion of what Austritt was.

If Austritt applied today it would mean shunning the OU and RCA
and avoiding functions where the O rabbi belonged to the SCA or some
still-existing parallel. Even political lobbying. Possibly not even giving
credance to the OU hechsher until they renounce RYBS's SCA responsum.

Now, on to the third question... Can the American-style chareidi be said
to be living TiDE whether he acknowledges it or not?

:> RMB:
:> The chareidi world as a whole toned down TiDE, IMHO.

: How is this relevant?

It is relevent because RnTK said she believes that most of the Torah
world today is TiDE, they just don't know it. If they do, it's not TiDE
as RSRH formulated the idea.

As a Litvisher example, let's look at Kelm. Kelm had a yeshiva qetana
(in the Israeli sense of the word) with a limudei chol curriculum. RYS
only gave it his nod while the Alter of Kelm was there to guide it,
so it closed after the Alter's petirah. However, even after that time,
Kelm still had a strong appreciation of DE. For example, REED writes of
how his father had him read and take lesson from Uncle Tom's Cabin. Which
also says something about Kelm's humanism (religious humanism: respect
for the tzelem E-lokim of ALL people), something else they shared with

But Kelm's relationship with chol wasn't RSRH's, any more than it
was the one RYBS would later develop nor the "nebich we can't all be
zochim to learn fulltime" of the typical chareidi today. Back when RYGB
worked for IDT, running a beis medrash for bachuring who were doing an
internship/apprenticeship in the afternoon, he wrote of his frustration
trying to convince them that what they were doing was valid lekhat-chilah.
That's not TiDE.

:> Since RnTK wrote
:> that she believes her father's TiDE is RSRH's exactly, and I disagree,
:> anything she says based on emanations of penumbras won't convince me.

: Once again, do you have anything to base this on, or are you doing what you
: are arguing against, basing it on your "gut"?

I am basing it on the fact that RNB was a ecclectic, and many of his
elements, such as Gerrer chassidus, are incompatible with TiDE. (And
beloinging to the OU is incomptible with Austritt, so leshitaskha that's
an argument against.) RNB had pieces that he had to unify.

RnTK is willing to state what RSRH believed based on the assumption RNB's
position was identical to Hirsch's. That's impossible. I also think that's
selling her father short -- ein beis medrash beli chiddush. However,
here it is in her own words (Apr 30th, v25n127):
> How I know what he would have thought about this or that is that RSRH
> was an ehrlicher Yid who followed da'as Torah (which I am defining as
> "the consensus of what most Torah leaders think and teach").

> Also my father channeled Hirsch and is probably sitting with him right
> now in Gan Eden.

That doesn't replace actually studying RSRH. Any gaps between my
understanding and her gefeel need proof that I'm wrong, not just an
assertion that RNB "channeled" RSRH. I think it's fair of my to simply
dismiss such claims and go with the words until I get that proof.

TiDE is incompatable with Litvisher yeshivish. Back in Litta, this was
obvious. Today we made peace where there were once major battles, which
shows someone has been modifying and adapting something.

I am arguing that based on my exposure to the primary sources (to
establish them: I learned Horeb, the CW, the 19 Letters [original and
again years later, R' Elias's edition], Pentateuch, Tehillim, and From
the Wisdom of Mishlei), I feel that R' Elias's portrayal of 19 Letters
show strong signs of that adaptation. Do I know the mterial as well
as he does? No. But enough people agree with my perception; and ein
ledayan ela mah she'einav ro'os -- I have seen enough to have my own
strong opinion. I have nothing against the MmE's hashkafah. But RSRH's
wasn't as similar to it as R Elias would have us believe.


R' Breuer (A Time to Build, pg 17):
    Rav Hirsch and the proponents of his ideology were fully aware that
    their approach to Jewish education and professional training would
    also claim victims. They regretted this deeply, but they saw no other
    way.... How many victims may have been claimed by /the rejection of
    TiDE ideology?"

R Elias (19Letters pp 323-325):
    Is there any way to meet this challenge other than by isolating
    oneself? .. Can TiDE have any relevance today? Would it not be more
    appropriate to forget about any mission to the nations, to limit our
    envolvement in the world to the absolutely necessary minimum, and
    devote all our efforts to Torah study and self-perfection?


Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 254

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

< Previous Next >