[Avodah] R. Hirsch as a Modern Orthodox Leader

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 07:26:39AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> In fairness, I am sure that RSRH would be comfortable with someone like 
> Rabbi Yaakov Yosef Reinman, co-author of One People, Two Worlds: A Reform 
> rabbi and an Orthodox rabbi explore the issues that divide them, who 
> resides in Lakewood.

You think that the leading proponent of Austritt would be comfortable with
someone who coauthored a book with a Reform rabbi? I very much don't.

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:07:52AM -0400, Yitzchak Schaffer wrote:
> On 2011-06-30 06:21, Micha Berger wrote:
>> RZ violates Austritt. Zionism's success doesn't change that.

> I don't see how ideological RZ per se violates Austritt. Working
> together with secular Zionist organizations, yes; but working
> independently toward the same goal seems incidental to me. Do you mean
> that participating in the state as citizens would be a violation of
> Austritt?

No, I presumed that working with other Zionists was part of the definition
of RZ. As opposed to chibat Tzion, ahavat EY, or some other concept that
drove anti-State chareidim to move to EY. We hit a "definition of terms"
issue.

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 06:25:58AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: You're right that there is no way of knowing whether RSRH's views about
: Austritt would have been moidifed by the Holocaust. Can't prove it one
: way or the other. But I don't think it is fair to assume he would not
: have been influenced by the Holocaust and therefore still opposed to it.

Until the Holocaust, RYBS was a firm believer in Daas Torah (in caps). His
hesped for R' Chaim Ozer Grozhinsky (HaTzitz vehaChoshen) is possibly
the most poetic defense for the concept. The person who bears the tzitz
reading Qodesh Lashem has to be the same one wearing the choshen bearing
the names of the shevatim -- religious and mundane leadership must be
in the same person.

However, later in Yosef veEchav, RYBS, argues that the fate of the Jews
who listened to Daas Torah rather than Mizrachi was HQBH pasqening that
Mizrachi was right. There was an ideological reason for RYBS to shift
position in response to the Holocaust. (Aside from his own father's ties
to Mizrachi making it more thinkable for him.)

But RSRH's argument for Austritt has nothing to do with the Holocaust.
So, while we don't know what he would have said, there is no room to
justify the supposition that his position would have changed from what
RSRH did say in the 19th cent.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
micha at aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507