It is, in my mind, much more difficult to formulate a contemporary “true-to-the-source” Austritt policy than it is to formulate one for TIDE. There are at least three possible objectives to an “Austritt” philosophy, and anyone trying to implement one needs to specify both what they’re trying to achieve and how:
The “civil rights” argument: I should not be forced to contribute to an organization that denies my core values & beliefs
Insulation against harmful ideas. If I associate with organization/people (x), I run the risk of corrupting myself or my family/community
Bad PR. By associating with organization/person (x), I give third parties the mistaken impression that they are legitimate
I’m sure there are others that I’ve missed, but I think those are the main points that I’ve heard over the years…
I’m hoping you can elaborate on this, 20 days later. I do lean towards the idea that Austritt was a Hora’as Shah (HS), and I think R. YY Weinberg felt the same.
You invoke the followers of Rabbi A. Miller as an example of employing Austritt as a living halachic imperative. How would you employ Austritt in this scenario, and how does it compare to the Austritt of Hirsch? Are you not going to use mikvaos, Hechsherim, minyanim, and make shidduchim with followers of Miller? Surely the Austritt of Hirsch was more than a fancy name for vigorously defending TIDE against people who demean it.
This is my first post on this site. Thank you very much to R. Bechoffer and the others who are committed to investing in TIDE. I don’t know how this site works and I may be slow to respond.
I think people go a bit overboard in applying everything about RSRH in one package and insisting that it’s that way or the highway. If Hirsch liked watermelon, TIDE is not exclusive to people who like watermelon.
I think we are underselling the idea that the principles of TIDE (what @YGB refers to as “core principles”) are compatible with any hashkafah that does not undermine those principles. TIDE can be practiced by people who believe the Zohar was a forgery by Moshe de Leon, and by people who study Chasiddus. TIDE can be practiced by people who view the significance of Eretz Yirsael to be some sort of symbolic “take home” concept, and by people who believe that having the land controlled by Klal Yisrael is a mandate to imbue it with Torah values, gather the diaspora, and use it as a vehicle to bring unaffiliated Jews around the world closer to Torah and work towards rebuilding the Beis Hamikdash and bringing the geulah.
As it pertains to Austritt, I have 2 thoughts:
In line with my comments above, I do not think that TIDE is married to Hirsch, and even if he would somehow apply Austritt today, you can still be an adherent of TIDE if you would not.
I cannot see how Hirsch would apply Austritt today. Who is out to get us? Which movement is actively pulling our youth (or adults) away from Torah and Mitzvos? If your answer is “TYH” or “Avigdor Miller”, you cannot be taken seriously. Hirsch never applied Austritt in a way that violated ‘Lo sasu lachem Agudos agudos’. He applied it against active threats from people who were openly out to put an end to Halachic observance.
I saw a draft of the “core principles” a short while ago, and it included a comment that seemed to indicate that anti-zionism is a core value of TIDE. If I interpreted it correctly, I strongly disagree. Even if it can be proven that Hirsch would be opposed to Zionism today (R. Weinberg would likely not agree), and even with the understanding that Zionism was founded as an anti-Torah movement (an oversimplification), the very fact that there is a strong Religious Zionism today undermines the assertion that anti-Zionism is a TIDE core. Hirsch would apply TIDE to Jews of all Hashkafos. He was very respectful not to tread on other Hashkafic turfs like Eastern Europe (if only this courtesy would be returned), but that does not mean that he would apply TIDE only in communities with German sensibilities. On the contrary, he viewed it as an ideal.
I read a couple of essays that attempted to tie Austritt to TIDE and did not find them convincing enough to negate the arguments I have just made. I know I did not put forth my arguments eloquently. It is late, and I am engaging with this as an informal forum.
The TL;DR: I respectfully disagree with including any value as a core principle of TIDE, unless it is TIDE itself. Define TIDE, and there you have its core principles.
Marc Shapiro, in his “Igros Malchei Rabbanan”, has a couple of letters where he asks poskim if he is obligated to refer to the Satmar Rav as “Rav" & “zichrono livracha”, considering the Rebbe referred to Jews like Shapiro and many others as apikorsim due to their Religious Zionist beliefs. Even if these “denouncements" you refer to are as strong as Satmar ‘s, which would surprise me, it would still not be Hirsch’s Austritt. The Satmar Rav was unwavering is his criticism against certain Hashkafos, frankly to a point where it was inappropriate. Austritt, however, was never applied. On the contrary, beyond the hashkafic differences he was there for all news in a very real way, helping them with their institutions and more. This continues today. People with Satmar shittos collaborate with "apikorsim“ on institutional levels, daven together, share mikvaos & minyanim, and more.
Anything other than Austritt is not Austritt. And as @RA_Alpert wrote a couple of times in this thread, there is nothing forcing us to invent a new Austritt. (And even if we would, I don’t think it would be a core value of TIDE.)
Edit: This is meant as a reply to the previous post by @ASchwartz . Seems to have posted as a standalone post.
I think there are parallels-a principled refusal to work with non-Torah Jews on interests of communal concern, because of the perceived legitimization of their beliefs.
Disclosure: I have not read all the available information written by RSRH concerning the topic of Austritt.
I think currently an Austritt is only the way to go, if segments of a society/community are at a REALISTIC risk of leaving Judaism (perhaps in addition with joining anti-Tora forces).
I’m walking on thin ice here, but for the sake of arguments, I believe one can make a case FOR an Austritt (although not with the same “fanfare”) if someones shul/community fails in
a. providing proper chinuch (meaning a chinuch w a lack of TIDE);
b. violates fundamental principals of the community-life/values (I need to think of a way to define such violations).
Respectfully, I think that this misunderstands what R Hirsch was trying to get at with Ausritt. It wasn’t a defensive mechanism because of the power of reform. It was a principled stand for truth. The point is that one has to publically and explicitly reject anything that is claiming to represent Judaism without being Torah based, because otherwise your silence/collaboration is consent and then you are no longer participating in Judaism, but a Judaism, which undermines our national mission.
“claiming to represent Judaism without being Torah based”
I believe - and agree at the same time that this is a very far strech - that if your school does not offer you a proper education, which does not enable your child (or makes it very difficult) to earn an income (there are other non-finance aspects as well) AND the school does so based on its version of Daas Tora - then this qualifies as
“claiming to represent Judaism without being Torah based”
Equally respectfully, the circumstances surrounding Austritt speak for themselves. The notion that we separate ourselves from frum communities who hold different - or opposing - Hashkafos & values is absurd to me. Equally obvious is that RSRH did not apply Austritt to the frum communities who were living lives diametrically opposed to TIDE.
I would sooner move to Lakewood than join a community that has this approach to other hashkafos.
And more importantly: I don’t think TIDE is married to Austritt for the reasons I specified above. TIDE is an ideal that can benefit all Torah observant communities.
I completely agree. There’s a lot of room for variations within the Torah (eilu ve’eilu). Modern Austritt, like in R Hirsch’s time is directed towards distancing any association with secular “Jewish” organizations (eg federations) and still Reform and Conservative organizations where they exist (still quite prevalent/powerful in North America).
I’m not sure if you mean to agree with my comment on Austritt or on TIDE.
I don’t know where you live. There are of town communities that don’t have the luxury to “Austritt the Federation”. Nor do they have the desire to. Unlike what you may be comparing it to, the Federation in these communities does not seek to affect the Hashkafos of its constituents. On the contrary, it obtains security and funding for the most right wing institutions as much as it does for secular ones, demonstrating a hashkafically agnostic approach.
So once again I am making 2 distinct points.
1. I am not convinced that the criteria of Austritt are met these days. Others disagree and say that Austritt is a posture and not a reaction.
2. Even Hirsch would apply Austritt today I strongly believe, as I’ve explained in my original post, that TIDE is not married to Hirsch or his specific views on some matters. This is self evident - TIDE can be adhered to by a Chassid, a Zionist, a Yeshivisher, a Haimisher; by anyone who lives a Halachic life. Tide is an ideal for everyone!
On point 1, I do happen to believe that RSRH would reject Federation funding even as it is currently formatted. This was Rav Dr. Joseph Breuer’s position, lemaaseh, in NY. (By the way, pointing to far right-wing groups who accept funding is neither here nor there–RSRH was a far stronger proponent of seperatism than most of the Eastern gedolim.) I would also note last year’s WZO elections, and the resultant chilul HaShem, as a strong point towards Austritt.
But I am also puzzled why we seem to be only be looking at the yeshivish/haredi world. Need for Austritt, in the Hirschian view, is alive and kicking elsewhere, where joint programming with non-Orthodox groups is a very live and troubling issue.
Commenting on point 2, I would point out that while fully agreeing that anyone can and should by all means engage with and benefit from TIDE, that does not mean that RSRH’s own shitos should not be presented, without repression or dilution. Surely, I would hope, when we learn and absorb and gain from an idea of the Rambam, the Ramchal, the Baal HaTanya, or Rav Kook, we would like to know how this idea fit into their Weltanschauungen, even if we proceed to use it in our, different ones?
We all, I think, gain and borrow from many shitos to which we do not belong or fully or at all align with, yet we surely and all the more so would wish to know of the teachings as they were presented in the context of their original exposition.
Thank you for your comment. I’ve benefited from your comments here and on Whatsapp.
I am not “pointing to right wing groups” accepting Federation assistance. I am pointing to the Federation assisting right wing groups with no regard for their right wing views. And I am comparing that against the entities Hirsch directed Austritt at. I would go so far as to say that any discussion of Austritt that doesn’t involve this comparison is disingenuous.
As to R. Breuer in NY. I would be ok even if he openly applied Austritt against orgs like the Federation. I am, however, trying to stress something to the “in-towners" here. You often don’t seem to appreciate how lucky you are, as a Jewish community, to have some of the privileges you do. It is easy for you to operate autonomously as you wish. In contrast, there are communities served by the Federation that would not look the same without the org. The Federation lobbies for them and gets the greater Jewish community special considerations from the government. Special police relationships, funding for security cameras at Jewish institutions, and more. All this without hashkafic conditions (I say this both generally and accurately). This is not the Reform or even the general Gemeinde.
I am a follower of RSRH. I am also a follower of R. YY Weinberg. Weinberg was not Hirsch, even though to the ”outside" they are the same. This illustrates that, even within TIDE, there are different views. Just as Austritt wouldn’t be considered among us, I could t see how it could be considered among a) Halachic observing Jews and b) Jewish orgs that are not concerned with Hashkafa.
And most crucial to all my comments here: I don’t think Austritt should be listed as a " core value” of TIDE.
Your points are very well taken (and your screen name, a misnomer). I didn’t think you were pointing to the right-wing groups, but I have seen others do so, so just mentioned it agav.
The issue in the core values here is that, if I understand correctly, at least some of the founders would like this group to represent RSRH’s complete hashkafic profile, but (correctly) sense that TIDE is the most over-arching, and thus wish to go with that all-embracing title.
As I noted earlier, I certainly believe that TIDE is much more of a לכתחילה in RSRH’s worldview, than the regretable but necessary fact of Austritt.
The previous article I shared in an earlier post can be found here:
Both articles, written by Modern Orthodox Rabbis, seem to be calling for a willingness to work with Jews outside the Orthodox circles to sustain our communal Jewish faith and heritage. Obviously the Yeshivish Rabbis would strongly oppose such an approach, unless it’s under the guise of Kiruv.