RSRH did not have to deploy Austritt to separate from groups that were authentically religious in many or most ways, but far from Torah-true in other ways. This may be how Austritt needs to be manifest today.
1 Like
Iâd argue that his opinion that one had to separate from the Breslau Seminary might fit into that category, since many of the members especially at the beginning were nominally Torah committed Jews?
It would be intersting to know, if the Austritt was a âHoraĘżat shaĘžahâ or not.
I would argue yes, because at that time, even amongst gentiles, almost everyone was religious in one way or another. Hence, there was a real danger of orthodox Jews âsettlingâ for Reform. Also, the average Reform Jew today is not a theologian or has deeply consulted sources to justify his or her believe system (based on my personal experience).
Where as today, the phenomena of orthodox Jews joining the Reform-Movement is basically inexistent (I am not aware of a single case) hence the interaction would be less dangerous.
However, it could also be, that RH did not want to touch the Reform-Movement based on other reasons (not yet knowm to me) which are still present today.
1 Like
Perhaps. I meant more something along the lines of https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BJpm4tgXq/
As I am suggesting here, the term should not be taken narrowly, as its original direct application is essentially irrelevant today. But as a principle it has modern applications.
1 Like
It was a nice and significant post. Why did you delete it?
1 Like
The principle of Austritt the sacred secession established by Rabbeinu Samson Raphael Hirsch ztâl was never intended as a mere historical relic or a simple boundary against the secular. It is a living, halakhic imperative: an uncompromising demand for the purity of our communal life.
Today, this mandate calls us to a new spiritual exodus. We must separate ourselves not only from the overtly heterodox, but from that far more insidious danger: a âpseudo-religiosityâ that wears the garb of the frum world but is fundamentally hollowed out of true Torah ideology.
True Austritt today requires us to categorically reject the rising tide of intemperate extremism. We see trends most notably exemplified by the unfortunate polemics associated with the followers of Rabbi Avigdor Miller that mock the very foundations of Torah im Derech Eretz. When the âzealâ of the hour replaces the refined Mussar of our fathers, and when the dignity of the human spirit is sacrificed for the sake of inflammatory rhetoric, we are no longer looking at the path of the Sinai-Israel.
To preserve the transcendent verity of the Torah, we must stand firm. We cannot allow the sacred synthesis of TiDE to be bartered away for a narrow, reactionary ideology. We must remain a âKehillahâ apartâŚnot out of arrogance, but out of a total devotion to the Emes that demands both the highest heights of scholarship and the most impeccable standard of Derech Eretz
2 Likes
I reposted again, thanks
1 Like
It does bear noting, however, that while RSRH strongly disagreed with the âAlt-Orthodoxeâs approach, and obviously with that of the Chasam Sofer and his ever more reactionary students, as well as the Eastern European wayâhe would never have dreamed of applying the term Austritt to such disagreements, as fundamental as they may be. If we wish to appreciate RSRHâs uncompromising stand contra Reform, and the extent of his application of Austritt, as well as not invent new this-is-kefira rifts within Orthodoxy, one may wish to handle the term carefully and conservatively.
It does not require Austritt to declare oneself firmly and fundamentally opposed to something.
2 Likes
Austritt was a precise, necessary separation from those who rejected the Torahâs divine authority. It is a tool for preserving Torah-truth, not for fracturing the Orthodoxy of those who share that core commitment. We uphold our principles through clarity and life-practice, not by misapplying historical schism to internal disagreements.
One must understand: Austritt was not a tool for intra-Orthodox boundary-setting. RSRH maintained profound, if sometimes vehement, disagreements with the Alt-Orthodoxe and the Eastern European schools, yet he recognized them as fellow builders of the Mikdashâthe Sanctuary of the Torah. To apply the term Austritt to differences within the camp of Torah-loyalty is not merely a category error; it is a distortion of the very concept.
Today, the manifestation of Austritt is not necessarily a formal act of administrative secession. It is a spiritual and intellectual Austritt a refusal to adopt the values, the aesthetics, and the intellectual compromises of a world that seeks to define the Jew by anything other than his total subordination to the Will of the Almighty.
We do not need to invent new rifts to prove our zeal. We demonstrate the principle of Austritt by remaining, in our own lives, so radically committed to the unadulterated Torah
3 Likes
Kryptonite. Definitely kryptonite
1 Like
I wonder for a moment whether austritt might be relatable to prishus- which could reasonably expand the more current understanding of austritt beyond its more limited origin. In this case, considering issues like:
metabolic diseases caused by perverse incentives in food manufacturing that are inimical to human health- it might be kosher, but it may also be sakanos nefashos- and permitted by the FDA and devoid of concern from the medical establishment
the depredations of financialization and its related ills in business school notions of business operation that are on careful examination inimical to our choshen mishpat, much less the complete deprecation of halachic mechanisms for regulating our own treatment of our economy
the lack of proper respect for our values/priorities in regard to end of life issues and other medical matters which have halacha and hashkafa established in our nation/spirituality
Might we be required to develop and maintain our own institutions so as not to put yidden at risk of foreign values in the general society that imperil our life/spirituality?
Maybe we need to think of practical examples of where austritt today is required.
I continue to remain extremely dubious that we need or ought to invent new Austritt where RSRH would never have dreamed of them. Either we are declaring that ânot my minhagâ/ âstrongly disagree withâ has the status of kefira, or we are utterly diluting and trivializing RSRHâs point. And believe me, I disagree heartily, strongly, and un-popularly with much of what markets itself as frum culture! Nevertheless, Austritt it ainât.
2 Likes
I agree strongly with professor Alpert on this one
I donât disagree, but then Austritt should be removed from the Core Principles because it is essentially irrelevant. To be honest, I think in its narrow application it is dangerous, as since its original application is mostly irrelevant, it becomes a free radical that can cause dangerous and inappropriate reactions. I will refrain from giving examples for now.
2 Likes
I dunno. I wonât give examples if you donât wish to, but I can think of plenty, originalist applications to which it can and should apply.
By all means. If you think there are actually tangible examples today that will not end up doing more harm than good, we should discuss them.
As for the core-ness of Austritt, while I do not think it can be ignored, or should be demoted, I do agree that TIDE, say, and Austritt are by definition on two planes of existence: One is a ××ת×××× one is a ×××ע××. Were there to be nothing requiring Austritt from, RSRHâs shita would not be harmed or lessenedâŚ..
3 Likes
Not just a matter of settling for reform but being persecuted by reform as happened in Frankfurt.
Curious if this would be considered anti-Austritt?