Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Rav Steinman says to shun secular studies

Haaretz   "What is education today? Education is Torah! And more Torah! Whoever seeks happiness should teach his son Torah." This statement was made earlier in the week by Israeli Haredi leader Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman during a brief visit to France. Israelis might be accustomed to hearing such sentiments from the Lithuanian religious authority of Bnei Brak, but in France the declaration took on heightened significance, and was seen as a Haredi challenge to the French law mandating study of core subjects such as mathematics, science, language and history in all private schools.[...]

Shteinman's visit came at a time when the French public is engaging in a sensitive discussion about private education. France's Jewish community is also embroiled in a debate over whether Haredi institutions should teach core secular subjects. Most Orthodox Jewish institutions in France integrate general studies in the curriculum, but as many as 10 Haredi institutions reject core studies, and are financed entirely by private donations. The object of Shteinman's visit was to strengthen these institutions. 

51 comments :

  1. that's a particularly bad idea, since they damage the children by not teaching them what they will need later in life and the parents by refusing the subsidies.

    I think the combination of secular and religious studies in France creates quite clever, well educated children, and the secular studies do not at all damage torah learning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you should be the godol hador and you'll replace Rav Shteinman and everyone will listen to your wonderful words of wisdom.

      Delete
  2. I have tremendous respect for Rav Shteinman, and this statement doesn't fit with his previously expressed views on education for Haredim.

    However, this is political reality - as new Lithuanian leader he must make such statements to gain acceptance amongst his own constitution. Be prepared for some further moves and seeking a scapegoat, usually MO or Zionist Rav to bash, or perhaps a moderate Haredi .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you don't like what the godol hador said so you find excuses to attempt to explain away his holy words.

      That's why he's the godol and you're not.

      Delete
  3. The real issue has never been about secular learning. It's about who controls the yeshivas - the state or the rabbis.

    If the rabbis let the state have some control of the secular learning of the kids, then the state will end up controlling their Torah learning too, telling rabbis what they can teach, which is unacceptable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose you are referring to the French State, of course, as the audience were French Jews.

      Delete
    2. Any state, French, English, American, Russian, or Israeli.

      Delete
    3. Oh. I wasn't previously aware that the American or French seek to "control the yeshivas".

      Thanks for the update.

      Delete
    4. Dovid, stop being obnoxious.

      Delete
  4. There are several perhaps conflicting reasons that might explain the opposition to even basic education.

    a) Logical and rational thinking is a challenge to the hegemony of the rabbis. Look at the difference between MO communities and Haredi.

    b) Although Chazal stated that they would always be aware of parnassa of Jews, unfortunately, the Haredi model is quite the opposite, and they perhaps prefer Jews to be in financial trouble and dependent - or that they have no compassion whatsoever as long as they can maintain their power structures.

    c) This is all double talk. There are a few sticks that Haredi rabbonim use to beat Yidden, and education is one of them. of course, when G-d forbid, they are in need of someone with a secular education, either for finance or medicine, then suddenly this doctor is a a Tzaddik, and given many honours.

    d) The interview with R Nosson Kamenetsky was a good example. R Shach left a Mizrochi yeshiva, but he was able to find parnassa elsewhere. Not everyone is a Rav Shach, and even if they are, they should not derive their parnosso from teaching Torah. The Brisk/Elyashiv story is also very interesting. So basically rabbis can tell their people to go to hell, not be trained or have chance of finding a job, shidduch, yet they themselves will always have some contributions to sustain their families, and will use political power to get the best rabbinical positions for their own sons, in laws, grand sons etc.

    If Rav Elyashiv can get a salary from an idolatrous institution such as the Rabbanut, then anyone can go to University and try to improve their lives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The pope agrees with you.

      Delete
    2. Chazal highly recommend that each person should have a parnosah. The brother of this blog just put out on you tube why everyone needs money. It's called money and marriage . I can't understand why some people are so against having an education.

      Delete
    3. You can have a good parnasa without a secular education.

      Delete
    4. Dovid, can you give me some ideas on good parnassa?

      Delete
    5. There are many. One idea is the diamond business. There are others too.

      Delete
  5. It is part of the power struggle between rabbi Shteinman and rabbi Auerbach. The death of rebbi Elyashiv created a vacuum where both rabbis fight each other to be the new godol.

    Rabbi Shteinman who used to be relative moderate (some support for nachal Haredi) is now trying to out-Haredi rabbi Auerbach who is sort of kanoy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no struggle to disagreement between the two gedolim other than in the imagination of the Zionist media. But, hey, that's it. Rav Shteinman flew to France to get French support.

      Delete
    2. "...the Zionist media"

      Ahmadinejad, Abbas, Assad, Haniyeh, all agree with you Dovid!

      Delete
    3. And Jews for Jesus agree with you, Eddie.

      Delete
  6. Here Eddie goes again. He has yet to answer the corruption of the BDA, r schachter, ORA etc and their repeated violation of halocho.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The title of this post is "Rav Steinman says to shun secular studies."

      Eddie is participating in the discussion with his views on the matter.

      Save your rant against the BDA, etc. for posts on which it is relevant.

      Delete
  7. Are כיכר השבת וחדרי חרדים Zionist ? Nice to know. In any case those publications and others reports on insults, beating, peace meetings, destruction of properties etc.

    Looks like the frum version of the Sopranos.

    They shots learn from the Satmar and the Bobov and settle it in court of (secular) law.

    The Ponevez succession was solved by the Zionist court which both r' Markovitz and r' Kahaneman use to their advantage and we have two yeshivos in one building.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ponovez succession was first dealt with by Haredi methods, i.e. attempted assassination of one of the claimants to the throne. Perhaps their lack of knowledge of how to assemble a home made bomb saved the Rosh Yeshiva's life.

      Delete
  8. Dovid, Really? just because someone believes that a child should also be schooled in subjects that will serve him later in life he is equated to a "Jews for J". Really? Isn't Torah a life long study. So what's wrong with learning something that will actually help the child get a well paying JOB later in life. Ooops!! I said the J word

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stan/Dovid, how dare you write in English, since you must have learned that secular subject in school. Apikorsim!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't need to go to school to learn a language. Also, Jews always spoke a language other than Hebrew, even if they never went to school.

      Delete
    2. Yea, Jews "always" had professions as well.
      It is obvious some people never went to school form the level of their English. However, it is still a secular subject, alphabet , rules of grammar etc.

      I was pointing out the absurdity of the anti secular studies crusade.

      Delete
  10. It is not Jews For Jesus Dovid is objecting to, his objection is to Jews For Jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There is another problem with all of this anti education propaganda.
    Many Haredim, Rabbonim included, have secular education, and they make their parnassa from it. Should they now abandon their parnassa, just because the kanoim cannot think of any new Torah Hiddushim so they attack secular studies in place of that?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rabbi Eidensohn

    It would be nice if you could express a view, being Chareidi and holding a Phd. It would be nice if you could also produce sources in Chazal about secular education and Chazal's view on the value of secular studies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't know what I can add since this topic has been beaten to death over the years.

      I would recommend Rabbi Dr. Leo Levi's book on the topic if you want sources. This was a book commissioned by Rabbi Shimon Schwab dealing with the topic. It has excellent and enthusiastic haskomas from Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky, Rav Ovadia Yosef and the Gerer Rebbe. Despite this it was put in cherem by Rav Shach.

      A revised edition came out with the additional haskoma of Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky.


      Rav Nossson Kaminetsky told me that before Rav Shach put the book in cherem he asked him to review the language of the cherem because he didn't want to offend the kavod of Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky. So even though Rav Shach felt he had to condemn the book he didn't want to give the impression that he was condemning those who supported it.

      On a related note - perhaps the premier high school for Torah and secular studies is Maarava - run by Rav Zev Leff at the suggestion of Rav Shach. However the school was regularly denounced by Rav Shach. Rav Leff went to him the first time it happened and said he was quitting because he didn't want to go against Rav Shach's wishes. Rav Shach replied, My job is to condemn the school and your job is to make sure it is successful."

      It is important to note that when Maarava started there was no opposition to it. It was a school for those who couldn't handle full time learning. However when some of the top yeshiva students enrolled - it brought down the wrath of the establishment. They had no problem have a hospital to rescue second and third rate students - but they had a major problem of it being viewed as l'chatchila for all students.

      This is also the view of Rav Dessler in his writing about the Frankfurt vs Lithuianian yeshiva systems. He asserted you can't take away the motivation for learning by providing alternative paths that don't require full term learning.

      Delete
    2. " Rav Shach replied, My job is to condemn the school and your job is to make sure it is successful."

      This is further evidence for what I stated earlier, i.e.

      - The opposition to education has nothing to to with Torah, but is a political ideology.
      - That all these claims are hypocritical, and that even the most extremist rabbis rely on secular studies, eg r Shach's wife was trained as a doctor, and he benefited from her parnassa. Just like he, and R Elyashiv benefitted from other "illegal" monies

      - That these are regular flogging horses that Rabbis use as tools to brainwash their faithful flocks.

      Delete
    3. Eddie you are wrong. You totally missed what I said. Please reread my comment again

      Delete
    4. Yes, I have read it again. Are you suggesting that secular studies are only forbidden to the iluim and full time learners? R Shach said it is assur for everyone. One has to be clear about what is forbidden to whom? The pronouncements made were blanket attacks on all secular studies.
      There is a clear contradiction here, and if you suggest I am misreading what you have written, then please clarify the contradiction.

      Delete
    5. Read the following:

      http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2010/11/rav-dessler-yeshiva-should-deny-self.html

      I am claiming that Rav Shach is in complete agreement with Rav Dessler's view.

      The fact that he encouraged Rav Leff to run Maarava where secular studies were taught despite that the fact that he denounced the school indicates that he was trying to convey values - that secular studies are only bedeived. While he didn't state this clearly, it is clearly implied from his conversation with Rav Leff.

      One of my rebbeim was a talmid of Rav Hutner. Rav Hutner told him he should go to college. He went to one class and walked out in the middle. Went back to Rav Hutner and told he couldn't do it. Rav Hutner replied, Baruch HaShem - go back to the beis medrash and learn.

      Gedolim don't express ideas the way you or I do.

      Delete
    6. The discussion is very intricate, and it is important to be careful about each point being made.
      Firstly, the denunciation of the school that you refer to is called a herem in another blog http://haemtza.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/two-torahs.html

      I don't really know much about R Dessler, but what you says about Gedolim expressing ideas differently is very strange. Many rabbonim who follow these gedolim take their words very plainly, and then spread that message to the masses. Hence, YU, is reform, R JB Soloveitchik was a kofer gamur, etc etc.

      Now if we apply your argument to these statements, as well, it really means we should add a lot of "salt" to the words of the Gedolim, and try to remove the "blood" in the ideas they express.

      I believe in Avot it reminds talmidei Hachamim to be very careful with their words, since they have serious consequences. And this is just one example. entire segments of Orthodoxy are regularly demonised, and then the masses take this as an Ikkar.

      One Rav I met a few eyars ago, who learned in Brisk, never mind MO, but Agudah was reform!

      And I have pointed out in several posts over the last year or 2 how some such statements - which caused a lot of damage and hatred, were then turned around, with the Gedolim taking the position they had previously called heretical or forbidden.

      And is there a key for interpreting the words of the gedolim, and for that mater a key that is accepted universally?

      We are not actually in disagreement on the issue of taking what Gedolim say at face value.

      Delete
    7. I've never met an intelligent Haredi who thinks secular education is necessarily bad. They all tend to respect it.

      Delete
    8. I went to a yeshivish HS in NY with a decent secular studies program. But I remember how we students didn't treat our teachers with respect. Occasionally our rebeim cought wind of this and we were chastised with a wink and a nod. Sort of, we don't really owe them respect but dont misbehave.

      The real issue is not a lack of respect for secular education; it is a lack of respect for secular knowledge.

      Delete
    9. "I've never met an intelligent Haredi who thinks secular education is necessarily bad. They all tend to respect it"

      Chazal say, Chochma ba goyim taamin, Toerah ba Goyim, al taamin. Clearly, goyim have chochmah, which is something we respect. They lack Torah, and that lack often distorts or corrupts what they do.

      (While I am no authority, I think the main difference between Chochmah and Torah is that Chochmah is external to the person and morally neutral. You can be a great chochom and still be morally corrupt. Torah by definition affects the whole person. A talmid chochom has to have middos tovos and yiras shomayim as well as intelligence and learning.)

      Delete
  13. To Dovid:
    Godols come in various sizes. Could you please be specific about Rav Shteinman. Is he S, M, L, XL or XXL ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't a small Godol an oxymoron.

      Delete
    2. Are all tannaim equal? Are all rishonim? achronim? Why would you think that all godolim are equally authoritative in all matters?

      If they are not all equivalent - how would you differentiate?

      Delete
  14. I will go off on a slight (but related) tangent, regarding Gedolim's decision making process, and ask if anyone can provide a rational basis for it.

    In a shiur give by Rav Millevsky ztl, he tells a story of when he was Mexico's Chief Rabbi, and was Rav of a big shul, which was nominally Orthodox but majority of attendees were not frum, and were very noisy, would drive on Shabbat etc.

    For Barmtizvahs, there was a discussion of moving the actual ceremony to a Sunday, since people would drive to shul on Shabbat, hence being mechalel shabbes.

    He asked the sheilah from several Gedolim (sometime back in the 1970s), and they unanimously said NO, cannot change the tradition one iota, even if it means saving a massive Hillul Shabbos. The reason was that if we start changing here, where will we stop.


    Now this type of argumentation seems very queer indeed. On one hand , there is issur which is subject to death penalty, ie Shabbat. On the other, there is a tradition of the Barmitzvah ceremony, which is not even d'oraita, which doesn't need to be on Shabbat, and at most is rabbinical.

    Why should a temporary change of this ceremony, which has very little basis in the Torah, outweigh a certain hillul Shabbes by many hundreds of people, who otherwise might just stay at home and swim in their pools?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. שו"ת ציץ אליעזר חלק ו סימן ג

      (ט) בסיכומם של דברים, נלע"ד דמעיקרא דדינא יש למול המילה בזמנה בשבת מכיון שזה חיוב המוטל בכלל לא רק על האב בלבד כי אם על הבי"ד ועל כל בית ישראל אשר בכללם המוהל. וכשם שלא יצוייר לומר למשל שלא יפתחו הבית כנסת בשבת להתפלל בו מפני שעי"כ ישמעו מחללי שבת שישנו בכאן בית כנסת ותפלה בצבור ויסעו במכונית לבית כנסת לעת מצוא שלהם (דבר שמצוי בעו"ה באמריקה), כן אין לומר שהמוהל יבטל החיוב שמוטל עליו למול הבן הנולד ביום השמיני אפילו בשבת, ושוטים המקלקלים ומחללים את השבת יתנו את הדין. ומובן שעם זאת יש להתריע ולמחות בכל האמצעים שביד כשרואים על המקום את החילולים לדרוש במפגיע להפסיק החילולים ולחכות עם המילה עד שיחדלו. אלא שאם לפי ראות עין ישנה איזה תקוה לגדירת פירצת החילול שבת להבא בזה שימנעו מלמול בשבת מילות כאלה ארבע או חמש פעמים, דישמעו ויראו ולא יזידון עוד, דלא יתאים להם להיות מובדלים לרעה משאר בנ"י =בני ישראל= הכשרים שאינם מחללים את השבת, בכה"ג אפשר שפיר להמנע מלמול, וכדנתבאר לעיל בדברינו במילתא בטעמא.

      Delete
    2. I am not sure how your citation from the Tzitz Eliezer relates to Rav Milevsky's point, as milah b'zmanah is, unlike a bar mitzvah celebration, a Biblical obligation.

      Delete
    3. "Why should a temporary change of this ceremony, which has very little basis in the Torah, outweigh a certain hillul Shabbes by many hundreds of people, who otherwise might just stay at home and swim in their pools?"

      Because you are posing the question in a way which does not fit the situation you described. The question was not posed by a God fearing Jew who has to chose between Chillul Shabbos or making a Bar Mitzvah on a Sunday. That's an easy one, and would probably be answered as you say.

      The question as you presented it was posed by a Rov of a community where most people had a basic problem of dedication to the Torah itself. Such people have a feeling that they can pick and chose what they want to follow or not -- the whole masorah becomes nothing but a nice custom to follow when it makes you feel good, and ignore when it is inconvenient. In that context, moving a Bar Mitzvah celebration to Sundays would reinforce the feeling that the masorah is something we can change at will.

      Remember, the Rov was not telling people to be mechallel shabbos, they were chosing to do it. The decision of the gedolim was in that context, the best thing is to remain steadfast to the masorah, whether it be in large things or small, and to continue to educate the community about the importance of preserving the tradition.

      Delete
  15. Eddie,

    I think your question is answered by a story they say in the name of Rav Kamenetsky. What is worse - for a non frum yid to marry a non Jewish woman or to marry a non frum Jewish woman? With the Jewish woman, there will be issurim of nida whereas with the no Jewish woman there won't be. Rav Yaakov said, anyone analysing this problem from a pure halachic perspective (like a mathematical equation) would argue that marrying the non frum Jewish woman is preferable. However, Reb Yaakov said that anyone who has had shimush and understands more than just the mathematical analysis knows that it is much better if the non frum Jew marries a non frum Jewess. Seems like halacha is more than just a local question for a particular circumstance at a particular time - it needs to take into consideration many more issues that do not fit a pure mathematical equation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the quote is found in Emes L'Yaakov - his commentary to Chumash. It is important to note however that his conclusion is by no means universally accepted.I have heard talmidei chachomim who have said his statement is not only wrong but unacceptable.

      Delete
    2. Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky (Emes LeYaakov Parshas Yechi page 237): A practical example of zealousness which is not based on a correct reading of the halacha is found in the following question. A person has the choice of marrying a Jewish woman who doesn’t observe the laws of family purity or a non Jewish woman. Which is preferable? A student who has not properly served an apprenticeship with an experienced posek will say that it is obvious that the person should chose to marry the non Jewish woman. That is because sexual relations with a nidah is punished by kares while sexual relations with a non-Jew is only a violation of a negative commandment of the Torah which is not punished by kares. The truth is not this way. Rambam (Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 12:7-8) states that even though sexual relations with a non-Jewish maidservant is only a rabbinic prohibition he rules that, “this sin even though it is not punished by capital punishment from the court should not be viewed lightly. That is because there is a loss associated with sexual relations with a non Jew which you don’t find in the violation of all the other prohibited sexual relations. That loss is that the son from the other prohibited sexual relations is still his son in every respect and is considered a Jew. That is true even if the child is a mamzer. In contrast the son from a non Jewish woman is not his son…. This sexual relationship with a non-Jewish woman will cause him to turn away from G-d and to attach himself to non-Jews. - from whom G-d has deliberately separated us so that we can be close to G-d... “ It is clear from this that the person should chose the relationship with the Jewish woman even though she doesn’t observe the laws of family purity.

      Delete
    3. I've often wondered about that -- especially if the non-Jew is a Believer and values human life and say the Jewish woman is an atheist and pro-abortion??

      TAIKU?

      Delete
  16. Rav Leib Tropper was known to say that a Jew who is married to a non Jewish woman is on higher madrega than a Jew who is married to non frum woman for this reason.

    Of course Rav Tropper knows best, he had relationship with both.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.