Background:
Living in the KAJ-Breuer Community and the surrounding "Yekke" community, I could not help but FEEL that Judaism was understood to be practiced as a "Kehilla" that individual spirituality was subservient to making a "Mamlechet Kohanim v'Goy Qaddosh". I have sought sources from R. Hirsch himself and I found one today
P. 436 in the Siddur
«It is not to the individual, but to the community, "morash kehillat Ya'akov" that God entrusted His Torah as an inheritance for all generations to come."
Thus the primary goal is to serve Hashem as a member of the task force, not as individual.
However, R. Hirsch Himself goes on to make a Caveat - what if the community is off-track?
Hirsch did not pen a definitive "How-To" for every situation. Yet he maintained that a person who notes that the Tzibbur is deviating should be sincere - and not out to make egotistical statements. Furthermore, whilst remaining ATTACHED to the Tzibbur, he must steadfastly point out how-where the community has erred. IOW, one may be IN opposition, but LOYAL opposition, such that - that one's membership in good-standing is not in question
[NB: Knowing R. Hirsch's Austritt position, there must be times when breaking away from a community is necessary. Hopefully it's not about whether shibboleth shual is - or is not - OATS! Such Shibboleth's seem hard-pressed to justify a secession!
In the main, sticking with a network of committed, loyal, Observant Jews is superior to going it alone. In fact, the R Shimon B. Yochai method of hermitage, is strictly the exception. Monasticism is not a desirable approach. Aderabba A Societal Endeavour to learn Torah is the superior way [or maybe the Superior Lake
KT
RRW
1 comment:
See Rabbi Hirsch's "Jewish Communal Life". His real thesis there is that the laity must be learned in Torah precisely so that it may exercise oversight over the rabbi and the gabbi(aim)/parnas(im) - try equating this John Locke-ian thesis with Daas Torah! - but along the way, he discusses (at incredible length, sixty or so pages I think) his view of the role and nature of a Jewish community.
As regards Austritt: see Rabbi Dr. Leo Levi, "Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch – Myth and Fact" (Tradition 31:3) and Rabbi Shelomo Danziger, "Clarification of R. Hirsch's Concepts - a Rejoinder" (Tradition 6:2). Both show that Rav Hirsch not only followed his teacher (Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger)'s concept of tinok she-nishba, but that furthermore, the Hirschian kehilla permitted non-observant Jews to be members (as long as they and their children had milah, and no one was intermarried), forbidding non-observant Jews only to be shul officers. Also, Rav Hirsch's books were written for non-observant Jews as much as (if not more than) for observant Jews! See the entire first letter of Nineteen Letters, and see the subtitle (or dedication?) of Horeb ("For the thinking young men and women of Israel", with no mention of whether these young men and women are observant).
By contrast, Rabbi Akiva Yosef Schlesinger (the son-in-law, I think, of Rabbi Hillel Lichtenstein, who was the student of the Hatam Sofer), when he followed Austritt, said the Reformers were lost, and that the Orthodox should do nothing to attempt to save them or do kiruv. See Michael Silber, "The Emergence of Ultra-Orthodoxy: The Invention of a Tradition".
Post a Comment