Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 256

Sat, 12 Jul 2008

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: T613K@aol.com
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:19:17 EDT
Re: [Avodah] TIDE and Austritt

RMB: >>Does TIDE necessitate Austritt, or are they two ideas  emerging from
the same mind?
TK:  Torah necessitates austritt.<<

RMB:  >>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.<<
TK:  Where do you see that NCSY is "the product of RYBS's
kelapei  chutz / kelapei fenim dichotomy"?!  Does NCSY have joint activities 
with  non-O youth groups?!  
RMB:  >>To repeat my question, which I feel you left  unanswered both in this 
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?<<
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.  
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?

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

RMB:  :> Would the Austritt community not use records of who is  a Tay Sachs 
:> because the population was tested under a  Federation program? 

RSS: 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.

RMB:  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.
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.  

RMB:  >>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.<<
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.

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

It is relevant 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.<<
TK:  It is DEFINITELY not TIDE as Hirsch envisioned it!  
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 

RMB:  RnTK is willing to state  what RSRH believed based on the assumption 
position was identical to  Hirsch's. That's impossible....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. 
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.

--Toby  Katz
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

**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music 
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.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 18:19:33 -0400
Re: [Avodah] TIDE and Austritt

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> The question I was exploring when I spun this thread off the original
> was
> 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?

I was in the process of composing a short article on how AUSTRITT has driven
out TIDE in every community that parctices - or better CLAIMED - to practice

Danny Frankel [son of KAJ Cantor Frankel] wrote a series of essays to the
Beuer community. He made a pretty strong case that TIDE is permanent and
Austritt as Hora'as Sha'as, but in general it's been tread the other way in
every TIDE-Austritt community I know.

One chaver off-list confirmed this same trend in Western Europe.

TIDE is kinda like American third parties. While completely both are
completely dead , they finluenced the survivors.  For example, in the 1920's
and 1930's English speaking Orthodox Rabbis were mostly Treif-Passul inthe
USA nad HAD to found the RACE. Rembmer the Kitzur {R. S Ganzfried]
considered the Neolog proposalsto have sermons in Hungarian a clear break
with Orthodoxy. Today, virtually every yeshiva accepts English as Kosher
language and some even permit college.  I have often speculated whether Ner
Israel permitted college because R. Neubereger was himself a Yekke.

Again, in Frankfort 1850 TIDE would nto have worked without Asutrit because
the lines had not been drawn. Despite protests on theis list otherwise, very
few people would construe interactoin of Modern O Rabbis with C or R Rabbis
as any kind of endorsement of their lifestyle.

In 1968, I attend a Soveit Jewry rally in Downtown Hartford and I was
appaled when a local C rabbi got up to spoke and prompty removed his kippah
just before speaking.  The fac t that Orthos were in solidarity with C
clergy re: Soveit Jews did not dimnish my disdain for his outrageous public
beahviour. I don't see how ANYONE would have construe me as a yeshiva bachur
as in ANYWAY endorsing C rabbis just because we stod together re: Soviet
Jewry. I find that argument specious - a canard if you will.  And what is
the big deal if a a C rabbi says a kappitel Tehillim at a UN rally.

One final note. When myu preedecessor, Rabbi Ralph Neuhaus [FWIW his father
Leopold was abosolutely the last pre-Holocaust rabbi in Frankfort] passed
awy the levaya was done vai Breuer's. Breuers' policy is not to share the
podium at a levary with ANY other pseaker other than the Rav of the
Kehillah. so despite the fact that I was teh hazzan at the shul and a
musmach, and eventually named his suceesor for 15+ years, I could not speak
at the levaya.
Now is this TIDE or Austritt at work?

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 18:59:16 -0400
Re: [Avodah] Who Was Rabbi Nobel Anyway?

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:24 PM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>   From: "Richard Wolpoe" rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com
> Thank you for that information.  Now please remind me again in what context
> his name came up -- someone shunned him under the principle of austritt?
> Who and why?
> *--Toby Katz
> *

When Rabbi Nobel was nifta in 1922r, Rav Samson Breuer - Hirsch's successor
- would not even mention his name re; the petira. The story is in the Breuer
Bio. It shows to what extent Asutritt went.,

If you look at posqim you wil see that for MOST aveiros all is forgiven by
death.  Even in Deatrh rabbi Nobel was being shunned.

Yes and geminder schechita was NOT allowed for Asutritt communites. And
today, officals of KAJ may not eat in OU only Glatt establishments.

As for your other point about C or R rabbis gaining legiticmacy, the Yeshiva
o hartford made ALL local rabbis viz. O/C/R as honorary board members even
though it as a troah Umersoarh schol [founded in 1939} and people Like R.
Shraga Feilb Mendlovich etc. were involed in itas well as Dr. Joe Kamenetsky
later on.   Was this conferring "legitimacy" for those rabbis?  It is kind
hard to say that. It wwas a communiyt school but the tents of the charter
wer 100% Orthodo.x they did hire a C rabbi to teach some Hebrew language

The plit came later when a new generation C rabbi founded Solmon Shechter
schoo,. The nthe C rabbis broke with the Ortho Day Schoo. Ironically some R
rabbis were still mildly supportive and the daughter-in-law of a major R
rabbi was exectuive director of the schol for a while

I don't think anyone considered this as conferring legitimacy to the C or R
shtia, jsut that the rabbis were leaders of the community to paraphrase
Norman Lamm's rejoinder to the Jewish Observer, much like heads of Jewish
Boy Scout Troops.
And as even Hirsch learned. Asutritt did NOT work in small communites. It
was workable in Berlin and Frankfort. It is noteworthy that Hildesheimer DID
have Austritt in Berlin but he was far moe liberal in how he applied it. But
Rabbi Nobel, seems to have rejected it when he took the Gemeinder position
in Frankfort..

any Jews from communites like Albany or Syracuse or new London or Norwich or
Wrocester mass. etc would probably find Austritt and impossiblity, but one
RW rabbincal borther DID ull it off in a small town, but he had a small
minyan with virutally zero outreach.

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 19:04:24 -0400
Re: [Avodah] money and halakhah

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:

> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>  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.
> Whereas if you destroy a $20 note, what happens?  It's gone.  There
> *is* no "chov", there never was one.

> --
> Zev Sero

As  I posted elsewhere, 60% of a $5.00 bill might be honoured if you can
PROVE the other part has been destroyed, and is stil not lurking for further
exchange - BUT but 60% of a $5.00 Silver coin isworth  merely $3.00 PERIOD
an dwaht is broken off is $2.00

Because with fiat money it is the shtar that coutns,  The paper has no value
and if you could get the ksaf off the paper somehow it's value would NTO
dminish, but that would NOT be true for gold/silver. if you removed the
element it intrinsically dminishes its moentary value as well as its
utility. That is how they are not domeh at all

True a reipped up dolalr is not 100% like a US savings bond which is
completely divorced from its paper andif you own stock in a trust the paper
never gets into your hand etc.

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: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:10:37 -0400
Re: [Avodah] public bet din

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> audience.
> ... or that they didn't have audiences, and therefore no one even
> existed in order to have a problem.
> :-)BBii!
> -Micha
> --

It is obvious from the Gmara that Audiences are a pre-suppostion. That is my
Furthermore the gmara states that a witness MAY not testify w/o an auftu
because eif he fails to effect anything he is merely motzi shiem ra.  This
clearly indicates that if he CAN effect something he msut tesfity and the
audicen is nto construed as hearing LH.

That is mashma behedya if you will. Why I don't know. But if a witness were
testifying in total secret [in camera] then what's the motzi sheim ra - to
the dayynim? They're not suppose to believe him anyway.
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: 6
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:48:11 -0400
Re: [Avodah] T'uM

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> To look at the cases already raised:
> Qiddushin and qinyan in general require shaveh kesef. I don't think the
> question of defining money applies to them directly. Except that...
> 1- Hilkhos Shabbos requires knowing when masa umatan occured
> and
> 2- Mi shepara distinguishes between payment with kesef the thing
>   bought.
> We also raised:
> 3- Mitzvos that are defined in sheqalim, such as pidyon haben and
>   machatzis hasheqel.

Corecton Kitzur SA re: pidyon  164:1. Further, Morechai Eliyahu Kitzur says
se Chasam Sofer 289. KSA says bransilber is kosher, Banotes are not. IIRC he
says shaveh kessaf IS OK which means shaveh kessa and banknotes are NOT one
and the same

> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 12:10:13AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> :
> Back to RRW's post, he asks:
> : When is shava kessef kessef?
> I would have asked the reverse: When is kessef, kessef?
> On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:16:42 (EDT) RZS responded to a post from RRW:
> >> Fiat money, like life insruance is an astraction.
> > No more than silver-as-money was an abstraction in Chazal's time and
> > through most of history.

> It wasn't so much an abstraction as a standardization. For small business,
> you trusted the coinage and didn't bother weighing each one.
> How far can you drift from kesef in the sense of silver and still be
> talking about what chazal were talking about? I don't know if Chazal
> ever dealt with the homonimity of kesef, that it means both silver and
> money. The split between the two meanings came later.


> At the time Chazal wrote about mi shepara, coinage had its inherent
> value. A sheqel was a sheqel's weight of silver. If it wasn't in coin
> form, it had the same value. If a coin were shaved, it was worth less.

The Kolbon required for Shekalim proves that for that usage a coin HAD to
have an exact weight and that fiat was insufficient...

You are missing a period in history. BEFORE governments starting putting out
worthless money, individual BANKS put out ppaer moeny called banknotes [see
KSA above for an illustration] Banknotes were kinda like pre-payed traveler

It was upon THIS existing structure that paper fiat money evolved.  But at
least in theory ther was metal behind it.  When I was a kid, every dollar
bill was a silver certificate, valid for $1.00 worth of silver. Until 1935
alL US currency was worth something in Gold.

> Then they introduced money that is more like stock -- proof of ownership
> of something of value. But by the later days of the gold backed dollar,
> the US didn't actually provide a means of getting to Fort Knox and
> putting in a claim for the gold. So even at that point, it wasn't too
> different than today's fiat money.

What they really did was took away real phsycial money [gold alone or gald &
Silver - see any artcile on Willam Jennings Brayn for the machlokes here]
and repalced it with banknotes.  But they are not banknotes from the BAnk fo
the United States, taht dies with Andrew Jackson. They are litearlly FEDERAL
RESERVE NOTES which are banknotes from a quasi public Quasi private bank
ssstem. It is not qite aanalogous to the "bank of Canada" which is a
creature of the Canadian Goverrnemt.  The Federal Reserve is much more
detached from te hactauly government of the US.

> I do not understand the discussion of fiat money as shetar chov.

Because fiat money evolved out of banknotes. Banknotes are not realyl
shtarie Chov they are more like Amex Traveler Checques but they are not
Governmetn money either

> I would consider that more abstract than the money actually be made
> of silver of that value, but that's neither here nor there; a possible
> debate over the meanings of the word "abstract".

Sotkc in a croporation is an abstraction. the point of options is that it is
an abstraction OF an abstraction.  Few people today relly have physical
stock certificates, but they were common at one time

My poitn is that if you have 2nd thoughts about the reality of mechiras
Hametz than fiat money is more-or-less simlarly flawed.

> To summarize:
> 1- Qinyan doesn't care whether or not you're using money, so for things
> like hilkhos Shabbos, the question isn't whether scrip is money, but
> whether one can make a qinyan before Shabbos without knowing until
> Shabbos what he's making the qinyan on....

> :-)BBii!
> -Micha

Again if a silver coin is worth $5.00 it is mamash $5.00
but an IOU for $5.00 is only a RAYA that there is a chov [shtarei chov] so
fiat money seems to be a gbray area in the middle. I think this trhead has
proved that fiat money is NOT like silver mamash and is not quite a private
promissory note either.

With a $5.00 silver coing you break it in half, and you have $2.50 of
silver. With a Federal Reerve note, if you can show that half of the bill
was damaged you will probably STILL get the full $5.00  forthe remaining
half because there is nothing intrinsic in the paper. [You will not get back
the full $5.00 in the case that the other half is still around for obvious

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


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 256

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 >