Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 108

Friday, July 2 1999

• Re: Chareidi Schools
• Re: Well-rounded Torah education
• Re: Rav Lichtenstein (was: Avodah V3 #106)
• Re: Sheep Mentality and Chareidi Schools
• Re: Well-rounded Torah education
• chareidi yeshivas
• R. Yaakov Weinberg zt"l
• Nature
• Re: Rav Lichtenstein (was: Avodah V3 #106)
• R. Lichtenstein on liberal arts

--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> From: "MARK FELDMAN" <mfeldman@CM-P.COM>
> My personal concern is that mentioned by Eli
> Turkel--sacrificing 
> the total development of the child (being "moser" his complete
> "nefesh") 
> for the narrow goal of promoting his Torah education.
> 
> BTW have their been any psychological studies done comparing
> children 
> raised at home with those raised in a boarding school?
> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe<<
> 
> Given the choice of:
> 
> 1) getting well-rounded  at a young are, and getting intense later
> OR
> 2) getting an intense Gemoro background FIRST and then getting
> well-roudned 
> later.
> 

I am not talking about (1) a well-rounded Torah U'Maddah education
vs. (2) an intense Gemarah education.  I am talking about (1)
upbringing by one's parents at home, parents paying attention to a
child's emotional and spiritual development, parents inculcating
their children with Centrist hashkafa vs. (2) an intense Gemarah
education in a dormitory yeshivah.

The Rav grew up at home and was influenced not only by his father but
by his mother as well.  His parents hired private tutors for him for
secular subjects (I think, during his teens).

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Rich Wolpoe asks: <<< Given the choice of: 1) getting well-rounded  at a
young are, and getting intense later, OR 2) getting an intense Gemoro
background FIRST and then getting well-roudned later, which one would YOU
pick? >>>

He concludes that <<< if you blow the early opportunity to get an intense
Gemoro education, you may never get a chance to overcome that. >>>

I agree very strongly with that statement. But I also feel that if you
blow the early opportunity to get an intense Tanach education, you may
never get a chance to overcome that. And if you blow the early
opportunity to get an intense Halacha education, you may never get a
chance to overcome that. And if you blow the early opportunity to get an
intense Mishna education, you may never get a chance to overcome that.
And if you blow the early opportunity to get an intense Kabbala
education, you may never get a chance to overcome that.

Can someone please explain to me why Gemara is so important? Gemara seems
to take up 50% to 100% of the time on Limudei Kodesh in some schools.
What will become of the REST of Torah? What will become of our children?

(I am NOT looking to discuss how much time or emphasis is put on secular
studies. That is an entirely different discussion. I am asking about the
relative importance of different subjects WITHIN Torah.)

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

--- Paul Rothbart <sroth4@juno.com> wrote:
> 	 I am somewhat shocked to hear that in order to grow and develop
> my spirituality I have to read avodah zara, which is exactly what
> Saint
> Augustines writings are
<snip>
> Do I really need to learn ethics from
> Plato,
> the same man who argued in one of his dialogues why homosexuality
> is
> better than heterosexuality. Is this really what Torah is lacking?
> <snip>

I fully agree with what Eli Clark wrote.  I would just add that my
understanding of Rav Lichtenstein is not that the Torah is lacking
but that there is value to be gained by supplementing the Torah books
we have.  As Eli noted, it would have been nice if Rabbi Akiva had
written a book about his spiritual journey, but he didn't while Saint
Augustine did.

There are many ways to get to the same result.  Some gedolim are
reputed to have figured out geometry based on the Torah.  Yet the
Vilna Gaon had R. Baruch of Shklov translate Euclid (for the rest of
us).  Often, secular knowledge serves as a more direct route,
especially where Torah scholars did put much effort into describing
certain concepts for the layperson.

> 
> 	Does the  profundity of Shakespeare include his descriptions of
> Jews in the character of Shylock, and is Romeo and Juliet the model
> for
> Jewish morality that we need Shakespeare to teach us? (I would
> mention
> Newman but I also have no idea who he was!)

Clearly, there is need for discretion.  But I don't think that Romeo
and Juliet are such a danger to all but the most sheltered of today's
youth.  In any case, in the ideal curriculum, Torah educators will
have complete control of the works studied in the secular program.

Also, it doesn't hurt for the (hopefully) frum teacher to confront
the romantic ideal head-on rather than completely ignore it.  I have
heard it said that the romantic ideal was conceived in the
Renaissance but has little basis in reality.  I would think that
there would be value in talking about this rather than have children
read Walt Disney's Bambi (who loves Feline) Cinderella, and Sleeping
Beauty, and watch G-rated movies.

> 
> 	I am just curious, now that I have been told that the gentiles
> have better cultivated almost every field of study, 

That's probably overstating the case.  Gentiles have documented many
fields in ways that Jews did not.  Certainly one can get a better
education in personality development through shimush talmidei
chachamim than by reading Saint Augustine (though, as I never did
read the work, who am to speak?).  However, if you don't have the
zechut to be meshamesh talmidei chachamim, apparently Saint Augustine
does provide a *certain type* of chizuk that a mussar shmeus does
not.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

See todays daf yomi---Abayee wished he would have been a sheep, There is a
lot we can learn from this
E.G.

--- Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
> I agree very strongly with that statement. But I also feel that if
> you
> blow the early opportunity to get an intense Tanach education, you
> may
> never get a chance to overcome that. And if you blow the early
> opportunity to get an intense Halacha education, you may never get
> a
> chance to overcome that. And if you blow the early opportunity to
> get an
> intense Mishna education, you may never get a chance to overcome
> that.
> And if you blow the early opportunity to get an intense Kabbala
> education, you may never get a chance to overcome that.
> 
> Can someone please explain to me why Gemara is so important? Gemara
> seems
> to take up 50% to 100% of the time on Limudei Kodesh in some
> schools.
> What will become of the REST of Torah? What will become of our
> children?

The Gemara states: Ben chamesh l'mikra, ben eser l'mishnah, ben
chamesh esrei l'talmud.  It seems from this that it is best to first
become a master of Tanach before moving on to Mishna.  In fact, there
are schools in Efrat and Jerusalem which run on this principle, and
supposedly many kids are really bik'im in Tanach at a very early age.
 Apparently, they learn tanach using a Teimani tropp (cantillation),
which makes it easier to memorize.  (I personally was very impressed
with one of the children of Rabbi Menachem Leibtag.  OTOH, I have
been told that some have not thrived in this school, so it's not for
everyone.)

Rabbi Hershel Schachter was asked about this once during an Oneg
Shabbat and he replied that the early push for Gemara is no good. 
(He was asked why the girls schools don't teach Gemara like the boys
schools do, and he replied that the boys schools should emulate the
curriculum of the girls schools.)

Young boys spend an enormous amount of time learning to make a
"laining" on Gemara and learning to deal with the abstract concepts
in the Gemara.  (I would say I spent most of 5th through 10th grade
doing just this.)  Yet many ba'alei tshuvah in their late teens or
early twenties pick up these skills in much less time.

Ultimately, Gemara is very important because it is the basis for
Torah She'b'al Peh and is necessary for a proper understanding of
Halacha.  

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Esteemed listowner Micha:
>>.. If you're busy
watching other people's problems instead of your own, that's just not going
to happen.

...-- judging another hashkafah by how it meets your hashkafah's
ideals.

Mod-O places strong values on personal autonomy -- just read anything from
the Rav on teshuvah or metahalachah. In the yeshiva velt, logically enough,
the focus is on learning. (What else would be the center of a movement
socially centered on yeshivos and lead by roshei yeshiva?) <<

OK, so how about a Modern or Centrist Orthodox sleepaway yeshiva that would 
foster an intense Modern Orthodox hahskofo with the same does of "mesiras 
nefesh" that so-called chareidi institutions foster?

When I attended Yeshiva College it was primarily a sleepawy institution and 
therefore  met the criteria for both intensity and Mesias Nefesh. I would 
venture to speculate, that the out-of-town students at MTA (IOW YU's high 
school) got a more intense epxerience than those who left for home every evening
at 6:00 PM, regardless of their home situation.

IOW, it's about intensity and commitment, not about hashkofo. 

Rich Wolpoe

If anyone on the list was at the levaya for R. Yaakov (Rosh Yeshiva of Ner
Israel) in Baltimore today, I wondered if he could summarize the hespedim
briefly for the list.

Arnie Lustiger

> Rich Wolpoe writes (v3n99):
> 
> Alternatively, we could go with R' Avraham ben haRambam's definition of shinui
> hatevah -- that the scientific thought changed, not nature itself. In which
> case, your question becomes one of arguing whether the soft sciences qualify
> as "science" or "art".

Micha Berger wrote:
> 
> BTW, R' Avigdor Miller accepts this definition, at least WRT medicine. He
> explains that the refu'os in the gemara really did work. Medicine doesn't
> heal, Hashem does. The purpose of going to a doctor is to render that
> healing a neis nistar instead of nigleh. Therefore, any medicine the people
> of that era thinks would work can serve equally well.
> 
> I wonder if this would reflect on forms of alternative medicine that run
> counter to theory or logic as well. And what about placebos?

The mind is a great healer. Norman Mailer wrote an entire book dedicated
to the notion that at least in his own case, where (if I recall 
correctly) he was diagnosed with a terminal illness.  His solution was 
to rent Marx Bros. comedy tapes and to everyones amazement he went into 
a full remission. ( He literally laughed himself into health!)  No one 
can explain this phenomenon.  But I believe it might be understood by 
looking at another phenomenon: hypnosis. In this hyper-suggestive state, 
one can actually cause the skin to retain third degree burns by simply 
touching one's skin to a peice of cool steel and being told by the 
hypnotist that  it is red hot.  Yes, the mind is a very powerful tool 
which can effect the body in a both positive and negative way.

This brings me to R' Avigdor Miller and the Refuos of the Gemmorah.  
IMHO (or LAD) the refuos of the Gemmorah more than likely worked as a 
combination of the Placebo effect combined with some actual physical 
medicinal effect. Of course all healing comes from G-d. But Judaism is 
not Christian Science.  To the best of my understanding, Judaism 
believes that Teva is the means whereby healing is acheived.  To that 
end it has been given over largely to science and medicine to find the 
best means within Nature to cure disease.  If one were to take the 
approach of R' Avigdor Miller to it's logical conclusion, then one may 
as well follow a similar path to Christian Science and say that G-d 
heals and we need do nothing but pray.  

This, of course, would likely lead to disaster.

HM

In a message dated 7/1/99 1:25:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:

<< Does the  profundity of Shakespeare include his descriptions of
 > Jews in the character of Shylock, and is Romeo and Juliet the model
 > for
 > Jewish morality that we need Shakespeare to teach us? (I would
 > mention
 > Newman but I also have no idea who he was!)
 
 Clearly, there is need for discretion.  But I don't think that Romeo
 and Juliet are such a danger to all but the most sheltered of today's
 youth.  In any case, in the ideal curriculum, Torah educators will
 have complete control of the works studied in the secular program.
  >>

If we want to turn this list into a discussion of the internal workings of a 
secular studies curriculum, by all means lets do it. But lets at least try to 
understand what it was about Shakespeare that R' Lichtenstein thought was so 
important. 
When we do engage in the study of secular subjects, we as intellectually 
honest people need to confront them on their own terms. Whether we approve of 
teenage kids becoming enmeshed in a passionate romance which leads to 
tragedy, or not, is                        not a reason to shy away from 
study of it. What we gain from study of this material has to do with the 
insights into human nature that Shakespeare was able to express. From this we 
learn not just the insights themselves, but additionally, the ability of an 
author to express them organically as part of a literary and dramatic work, 
rather then as some kind of shallow polemical writing as might be found in 
some lesser works which too often pass for literature. Besides, as far as 
Shakespeare goes, his characters are usually complex enough for there to be a 
good deal of question as to how clearly he conceived of good and evil in any 
particular character. As far as Romeo and Juliet go, what would be so bad 
about young people in a Jewish world where people dating for tachlis do so 
with checklists and the need for families to be involved in minute details of 
background, and the expressions of prejudice against any who come from the 
'wrong' strata of Jewish society, and obsessions about Yichus and Financial 
stature, to read a story about two young people who fell in love with each 
other, and not with some kind of preapproved predigested caricature of an 
ideal mate. 
Hmmm.....let me get off my soapbox a minute. I guess what I am really saying 
is that what makes great literature, such as Shakespeare, great, is the 
multilayered and complex way it can be understood. We should not be afraid of 
it, but rather, bring to it every critical faculty we have, to gain fully the 
lessons learned therein.
As far as Moshe's suggestion that Torah educators would have control over 
secular studies in an ideal situation, all I can say is that as a teacher of 
Humanities in a number of Yeshiva High Schools, I can assure you that the 
integrity of a teacher to serve as well as possible the needs of the 
curriculum and the relationship of the students to it is a much better 
safeguard against inappropriate messages then handing over final say to the 
Torah Studies Instructors. I would agree that the entire faculty of a school 
should openly discuss the goals and needs of curriculum development, and 
Torah Studies teachers should certainly have input into the process, but I as 
an individual teacher would be loath to pass my syllabus before some kind of 
board of censorship, especially with the low level of understanding of the 
Humanities I see among the Judaic Studies teachers in at least one of the 
schools where I have taught. 
At Ma'ayanot, where I am a Music Appreciation/History teacher, the opening 
faculty meeting is for both secular and Judaic Studies faculty. This kind of  
open atmosphere goes a long way in creating trust between the two staffs, so 
that the kinds of conflicts of goals which I have witnessed in other 
situations is not allowed to fester and ultimately harm the learning 
environment.

Jordan Hirsch

R. Lichtenstein has published three articles on the subject.

1. The Commentator article cited by M. Frenkel. This has been reprinted in
my Torah uMadda Reader with a new title. (The original title was not R.
Aharon's & he objected to it. I proposed a new title for the reprint & he
did not find fault with it. See, on this, R. JJ Schacter in Torah UMadda
Journal 1).

2. Tova Hokhma Im Nahala was published in Hebrew.

3. The article in Judaism's Encounter With Western Culture, which is the
most recent and most comprehensive.

The three articles are consistent with each other, but are independent.

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]