[Avodah] TIDE and Austritt

[Samuel Svarc]

> From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
> 
> On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 12:56:50AM -0400, Samuel Svarc wrote:
> : TIDE requires Austritt. If one recognizes something other than Torah
then
> : the Torah in TIDE is not reigning supreme.
> 
> : As for the "possibility of cooperation on non-Torah matters", this is
> : something that needs more detail to be answered intelligently. Oh' and
> : TIDE
> : doesn't recognize any "Non-Torah matters", as all of DE is part of the
> : rubric on which Torah must be the master of.
> 
> 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.

> 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?
 
> :> RYBS's midpoint answer also insists on a society in which Torah reigns
> :> supreme. However, it does so without cutting themselves off from the>
:> non-observant world in matters in which that allegiance isn't
> threatened.
> 
> : I'm no expert on RYBS, so no comment.
> 
> He sought a way to work together on common cause without implying any
> religious legitimacy. Rather than total exclusion, he divided pragmatic
> survival questions from religious ones.

Once again, without particulars this is almost unintelligible. There are
very few ways that one can work together with R and C without legitimizing
them. This was the opinion of the majority, b'mchilas RYBS. Even he agreed
in religious matters. And I think history has spoken as to the rest. (But
this is totally off topic - Namely RSRH's Austritt.)
 
> 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.

> 
> ...
> : The beauty of RSRH's torah is that he didn't address certain situations
> : and
> : build things on them. He built edifices of thought based on what the
> : Torah
> : says, and with that addressed situations. So the answer is: No. Austritt
> : is
> : not bound to one particular situation but rather that nothing may reduce
> : Torah's dominion...
> 
> What does this mean? How does one have a pesaq that is NOT a function
> of the metzi'us at hand?

Doesn't exist. Pesak is always based on the circumstance. Why Frankfurt's
circumstances demanded Austritt was obviously based entirely on those
circumstances. Why the chiuyiv of Austritt exists is not based in any way on
the particular circumstances of Frankfurt. But your conflating the
circumstances of having caused the philosophy of Austritt, that's the
mistake.

> Yes, there are ideals. But what were they? What
> feature of German R and the Gemeinde was the subject of Austritt's
> ideal? And does it still exist today.

Read Collected Writings Vol. 6 page 86, "The Legal Case of the Jewish
Shoemaker", v'timtzu rov nachas. Most assuredly it exist today, but first
read it (and the rest of the volume which discusses Austritt) and then we
can discuss if RSRH's Austritt applies today.


> RnTK:
> : > : I admit that that whole last paragraph has no source other than my
> : > : gut
> : > : feeling, based on the emanations of penumbras from the corpus of
> : > : Hirsch's writings.
> 
> RMB:
> : > WADR, though, you already "admitted" a few weeks backthat your view
> : > of TiDE is based on the assumption that your father (note to newbies:
> : > RNBulman) "channeled" RSRH. OTOH, I can not picture someone of your
> : > gather's stature adopting someone else's hashkafah wholesale, with no
> : > personalization.
> 
> MSS: 
> : So which points do you think RNB personalized, and what is your evidence
> : for
> : those points? Lacking those, it appears that your intent is more to
> : disqualify RTK from basically ever voicing an opinion on TIDE (as
opposed
> : to
> : just straight quoting from RSRH), with the handy rebuttal, "That's RNB
> : not
> : TIDE".
> 
> RMB:
> The chareidi world as a whole toned down TiDE, IMHO.

How is this relevant?

> 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"?

> Yes, my intent is to disqualify RnTK's unsourced opinions of TiDE in
> the kinds of issues where R' Danziger and R' Elias disagree.

Kindly source this assertion as well. Where do R' Elias and R' Danziger
argue about Austritt? Furthermore, if we were do view this instance as
indicative, I would be more likely to trust her "gut" feeling about TIDE in
the future as she was spot on in this case.

> : Even when two separate people (one of whom never heard RNB) give
> : essentially
> : the same answer?

While you have answered the second half (omitted for brevity) eloquently
(and in a way that leads me to suspect that your feelings about Austritt are
highly questionable), you haven't addressed this point. Two separate people
gave the same answer. This should be a strong proof as to what Austritt
requires.

KT,
MSS