[Avodah] TIDE and Austritt

[Micha Berger]

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?

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.

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

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'
legitimacy).

:> 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
RSRH's TiDE.

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.

E.g.

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?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha at 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.