This following is an excerpt from Rabbi Fox's speech to Northwest Yeshiva High School's Class of 2007 at the NYHS graduation. In this speech Rabbi Fox clearly articulates the approach that sets NYHS apart from many other Jewish schools. After the excerpt, I will conclude with some brief remarks of my own.
On [the secular college] campus, religion is often characterized as a primitive, outlandish interpretation of reality. It is attacked both openly by instructors, professors and peers, and more subtly by an environment that suggests that modern is best, and traditional values are suspect and must be questioned.
How have you been prepared to respond to these challenges? In general, day schools and yeshivot have three options.
Approach #1: Some schools seek to isolate their students from hostile influences. These schools concede they cannot prepare their students to confront an outside world antagonistic to Judaism. Consequently, they seek to limit their students’ exposure to any elements of the outside environment that may pose temptations or lead its students to question the teachings of Torah.
In a sense, these schools attempt to self-impose the restrictions formerly forcibly imposed by the ghetto. Schools that adopt this perspective limit exposure to secular studies and carefully craft the presentation of secular subjects so as to avoid any conflict with Torah values. Rather than prepare their students for an encounter with the larger secular world, these schools seek to prevent this interaction.
Graduates of such programs are not encouraged to attend college or even to enter the “gentile” workplace. These are viewed as environments antithetical to the students’ spiritual safety.
Approach #2: The second approach grants the school’s students will interact with the secular world. This realization compels these schools to prepare their students for this inevitable encounter by endowing their students with an intense religious fervor. This passionate commitment will provide their students with the fortitude to resist temptation.
But these schools must also safeguard their students against doubts. To accomplish this, they elevate Torah above all criticism by presenting it as a meta-rational or an essentially mystical system.
Students are taught that Torah need not respond to questions. Torah need not make sense in any conventional manner. Its wisdom is not our wisdom and it is above our trivial questions. This completes the inoculation. The student confronts the external world endowed with an intense religiosity and faith in a set of unassailable beliefs.
Ironically, these schools attempt to secure their students’ loyalty to Judaism through misrepresenting and distorting the Torah they hope to protect. Our sages universally regard Torah as a source of knowledge and wisdom. No mitzvah is more important than the study of Torah. And what is Torah study if its goal is not understanding?
To contend that Torah is entirely above human understanding is tantamount to presenting it as a system bereft of wisdom in any meaningful sense. This approach dismisses generations of sages who labored to provide us with insight and understanding of the Torah.
Approach #3: At Northwest Yeshiva High School we have adopted a third approach. We make two assumptions: First, we accept that you will face temptation and you will be confronted with questions you will not be able to answer. We do not assume that we can desensitize you to temptation or that we can provide you with a simplistic response that will dismiss all doubts. Instead, we strive to provide you with experiences, tools and perspectives that will enable you to confront these issues and struggle through them.
Second, we never misrepresent or distort the Torah. Over the past four years we have striven to expose you to as much Torah as possible. We have seized every opportunity to impress upon you and demonstrate the profound wisdom of the Torah. We have shared with you the beauty and richness of Judaism and Torah life. We know that even if we have been successful, you will not be immune to temptation. But we have aspired to provide you with the fortitude to overcome temptation.
We have toiled to develop your thinking and critical abilities. We have carefully nurtured your personal development, and maturation. We know that these skills and your personal growth will not provide you with answers to all of the questions with which you will be confronted. But we hope you have learned that every honest person knows there are questions he or she cannot answer.
These mysteries should not be a source of doubt — we should not quake in the face of the unknown. Instead, questions should inspire wonder. Mystery should excite our imagination and provoke us to study further and think and search more deeply. Knowledge always begins with a question.
There you have it. Essentially, the educational philosophy can be summed up in one sentence: Prepare students to live as human beings with free will - not as children who must be eternally sheltered under misrepresented Torah values from the threats of an irreligious culture.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
I love approach #3, as long as the critical thinking is tempered by a love of the fanciful and imaginative as well. :-)
I have always seen truth/honesty as the best approach and distortion as lies that are simply waiting to be discovered. Once discovered, the student feels betrayed and wonders how much else of what he is taught was based on lies. In the end, it makes the ground we stand on so very shaky...
It's the same for insular communities. Why limit Judaism and suggest it can only be fully taught or protected within these sheltered communities? If Judaism is the true religion, we have nothing to fear from exposure to any ideas, any outside thought, because this is true and the truth conquers all.
Now, if only NYHS had a better track record of sending its alumni off to secular colleges and seeing them remain frum, then maybe I would have more respect for the degree of this hands-off approach.
But yes, it does sound great on paper. Sigh.
Anonymous,
One could express the same lament over the system of 613 mitzvos: "Now, if only Hashem had a better track record of sending Jews off to life and seeing them become tzadikim, then maybe I would have more respect for the degree of this hands-off approach. But yes, it does sound great on paper. Sigh."
The objective of Torah is to produce a nation of perfected human beings. But how many people really become perfected? Very, very few. Does this mean that the Torah failed? God forbid.
Toras Hashem temimah - the Torah was perfectly designed to achieve its goal. The only catch is that it was given to human beings with free will. As long as human beings have free will, some – maybe even the majority - will make the wrong choice, and abandon Torah. Moreover, there are many factors outside of the system of Torah which prevent people from achieving its objective – but that doesn’t mean that the Torah is defective. Even those who use their free will to follow the Torah are not guaranteed perfection.
NYHS, while not a God-given system, is similar to the system of Torah in many ways.
What is the objective of NYHS? In my opinion, the objective of NYHS is neither to instill nor to preserving frumkeit. These objectives of NYHS are clearly stated on the website:
- Northwest Yeshiva High School promotes excellence in education. We believe education should not exist simply to transmit knowledge. It is our responsibility to maintain an environment that encourages young minds to ask questions, and to clarify their ideas.
- It is our core belief that Judaism is a complete way of life that embraces and celebrates many of the best aspects of the religious and secular worlds.
- An NYHS education enables students to become increasingly sophisticated thinkers, both critically and creatively. NYHS strives to instill in its students a lifetime of devotion to, and love of, learning for its own sake.
In other words, the goal of NYHS is to produce free-thinkers who have been given the tools to develop – through Torah and through life in the real world – into perfected human beings. If you look at NYHS’s statistics in achieving this goal, I believe you’ll find much a much higher success rate.
Even the kids who do not emerge from NYHS with their frumkeit have, nevertheless, developed as human beings. They have been shown the beauty of Torah, have trained their minds in critical thinking, have gained the ability to tell the difference between chochmah and stupidity, and have acquired a love for thinking and learning. If these students someday choose to abandon Torah, that is their choice. But if we are to treat them as human beings with free will, we must be prepared for that possibility.
If a parent’s primary concern is to produce frum offspring, then there are other schools with better track records. But parents who want their children to live the way that man was designed to live, I am unaware of a better institution than NYHS.
Your last paragraph is highly frightening, Matt.
A person who attend NYHS, and has been exposed to the beauty of Torah together with a love of thinking and learning--and then goes on to find highly rational atheists who convince him that the Torah isn't true to him at all--would fit your description of a successful NYHS graduate.
Do you really mean to imply that Hashem would be proud of such a result?
Another point:
The Torah, which strives to produce a nation of individuals who observe ratzon Hashem, is hardly "hands-off" at all. Sure, we have free will. But at the same time, Hashem gives us an awful lot of guidance. A lot of requirements. And the sages after the Torah added a lot of further safeguards and requirements. They even warned against heretical ideas.
To say that Hashem is "hands-off" by giving us free will, while chazal are very protective of mitzvos and prohibit studying certain hereticals subjects, seems misplaced.
Also, you may be correct that NYHS does not have the goal of producing frum students. But who's to say that that is not Hashem's will?
I'm afraid that your analogy does not work for me.
Anonymous,
Allow me to answer your question with a story.
There once was a man named Eliyahu ha'Navi. Eliyahu was a leader of the Jews during the reign of the evil King Achav. The Jews at that time were led astray by the worshippers of Baal. However, they were not so far gone that they had abandoned Hashem entirely. Instead, they compromised: they believed in Hashem and in Baal.
How did Hashem respond? He sent Eliyahu to the Jews to deliver the following message: "How long will you dance between two opinions? If Hashem is the God, go after Him! And if the Baal, go after it!" (Kings I 18:21).
This statement is astounding! Could you imagine how Eliyahu's message would be received today? Imagine a group of average high school students. Most of these students are torn between two worlds. They are in tremendous conflict. Part of them is attracted to the lures of secular society and its pleasures. But another part of them is attached to the Torah, for whatever reason.
Imagine if a rabbi got up in front of these students at an NCSY convention and said: "O students! How long will you dance between two opinions? If the Torah is true, go after it! And if it is false, go after society!". Such a rabbi would be thrown out of town!
But that is precisely the message that Hashem delivered to the Jews through Eliyahu ha'Navi.
How did the Jews respond to Eliyahu ha'Navi's charge? "But the people did not answer him at all". They simply lacked the knowledge to make a decision either way.
In truth, from the standpoint of reason, it is impossible to believe in both Hashem and Baal. Either Hashem is God, and "ein ohd milvado", or Baal is god, and "yesh ohd milvado". But from an emotional standpoint, it is possible to feel an attachment to both Hashem and to Baal. A ba'al bechirah - someone who is capable of a free will decision - would recognize this contradiction. He would evaluate each side and choose the one which makes the most sense. But the Jews didn't even recognize that they were living a contradiction. The weren't even on the level of free will.
What do we learn from this story? That it is better for a person to make a free-will decision - even a decision for evil - than to live in contradiction, in a state without free will.
Let's take a moment to appreciate this point. Hashem would rather the Jews abandon their frumkeit - their observance of mitzvos and even their emunah in Hashem - than to keep their frumkeit but act irrationally, too paralyzed to make a free will decision.
To answer the question in your terms: Would Hashem be proud of the Jews for choosing to worship Baal instead of Him? No. But would Hashem prefer that the people choose Baal than to remain in conflict, drawn in both directions by emotion and whim? Yes.
NYHS seeks to do to today's students what Eliyahu did for the Jews of his time: to help them recognize both choices for what they are, and to make a choice like a human being - not the be emotionally torn between two mutually exclusive positions.
Anonymous,
The comment I just made was in response to your first objection. I didn't see the second one until after I posted my response. Unfortunately, I have a bris to attend in a few minutes, and will not be able to respond to your other points until later on tonight or tomorrow.
Thank you for this opportunity to refine and correct my educational philosophy! I'm glad we are able to have discussions like this.
Anonymous,
One third (and last) comment before I leave:
I do not think that NYHS is for everyone. For me, it was the best thing in the world. But I agree that there are some students who would be harmed by such a hands-off environment.
Likewise, the Torah - that is, the system of 613 mitzvos - is not for everyone. Non-Jews are free to follow it, but it was not God's intent that all of humanity should follow Taryag.
And just as certain people who are not cut out for Judaism end up abandoning it and going off the derech, certain students who are not cut out for NYHS also end up going off the derech.
Matt,
Since you take "society" and Torah to be two "mutually exclusive positions," I'm assuming that by "society" you refer to heretical ideas within society, like atheism or non-Divine authorship of the Torah.
If that's what you mean, then I don't understand what you're getting at. Do Jewish teenagers believe in both Torah and atheism? Are they more likely to believe this if their Judaism is emotion-based instead of rationally-based?
Your point is that it's better to be a well-thought-out athiest than to be a confused person who holds mutually exclusive ideas of truth and heresy in his heart at once. Fair enough. But what does this have to do with our teenagers?
Also, your interpretation of Nevi'im here isn't exactly a raiah of a real theological position, unless you have a source to back yourself up on that. There remains the possibility that Eliahu was challenging the people, telling them to make their positions clear and take a side, so that it would be more straightforward to punish them or something. Nowhere does it say explicitly that it would have been a more correct action to serve ba'al outright. Ba'al is a top three cardinal sin. It's pretty bad, you know.
So, until you have a stronger source for the preference of sinning with intellectual honesty over serving Hashem with intellectual confusion, I remain unconvinced.
...And NYHS's educational philosophy continues to trouble me greatly.
Matt,
Whatever it is that you thought you were saying when you said "the goal of NYHS is to produce free-thinkers who have been given the tools to develop – through Torah and through life in the real world – into perfected human beings" you did not say it.
First, the hated "connotation" comment. Free thinkers are not positive things. The root of "free thinking" comes from the same root as "debauchery"--The verb debauch, meaning to lead away from virtue or excellence, to corrupt by sensuality or intemperance, or to seduce from chastity, is of French origin (of course), and is derived from the same root as the word "balk," or horizontal support beam. A debauched person, then, seems to be lacking an internal source of moral reinforcement: He is sagging, scattered, not "upright." Free thinkers are those who have chosen to throw away the "support beams," who balk at any limitations to their thinking, and also to their actions. Free thinkers are so ego-centric that they define egocentrism. Timothy Leary prided himself on being a free thinker. Saying someone is a free thinker is not to pay them a compliment.
I also object to the opposition you create--there is Torah and there is life in the real world, as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive. Torah is the real world. If by "real world" you mean the secular world then Torah is a part of that too, since it forms our actions within the secular world and colors our view of the secular world.
I am also disturbed by the paragraph reading "If a parent’s primary concern is to produce frum offspring, then there are other schools with better track records. But parents who want their children to live the way that man was designed to live, I am unaware of a better institution than NYHS." As it is written, it says that offspring can either be frum or they can live the way that man was designed to live but not both, that parents have to make an either/or choice. Using the word "but" to start the second sentence leaves the reader NO choice but to interpret the paragraph this way.
Are you seriously saying that one cannot be both frum and live the way man is supposed to? I refuse to believe that. And what is more, I don't think you believe that either. So, what did you actually mean to say, which you did not say?
Whatever the clear pshat turns out to be on Eliahu's statement, Hashem seemed to have made it pretty clear what he wanted us to be, with no equivocation:"Kedoshim t'hiyu, ki Kodosh Ani." Just how many instances would you like listed of all the times that Hashem became angry with Klal and punished klal for turning to "false gods," for turning away from Him? (Didn't we just read Eichah?)
Speaking of clear pshat, we could also look at Eliahu's statement as "being an offer they couldn't refuse." Sure, klal had a choice. But inherent in that choice was the knowledge of what would happen if they chose baal. I don't agree when you say ""But the people did not answer him at all". They simply lacked the knowledge to make a decision either way." Their "silence" spoke for them--they knew better then to openly choose baal, and tell Hashem they were doing so. "Retribution is Mine," sayeth the Lord." You think klal did not take that into consideration? And no, I don't think that Hashem would prefer us to choose baal if if by choosing baal that meant we would not be conflicted or have internal contradictions. Our sanity and happiness lies not with making any decision, just to make one, but with making the right decision.
Of note is the Rambam's discussion on the issur of reading works of kefira. The issur dioroysa, as matt once pointed out, is formulated by the Rambam as following your intuition and not doing an extensive analysis, asking experts, etc. The Rambam adds that not everyone is able to decide what is truth on their own (da'atan k'tzara) so even if the free-thinkers perceive something is true and look at various opinions and do their research and extensive analysis, we can still end up with free-thinking kofrim.
Yes, ideally everyone should be educated followers of yahadus with Emuna (the real one...). But telling high school kids -- and yes, most of them would be in the lower catagory-- that it's a good idea to be a free-thinker at such a young age seems to run straight in the face of the concept the torah is trying to communicate to us with the issur of reading works of kefira etc. I myself know brilliant high school kids who consider themselves to be able to think freely. However, they aren't intellectually honest, so when the respected Atheists of society say God doesn't exist, the conclusion is that they're kofrim.
The rambam points out in the moreh that the function of the mitzvos in helping us come to knowledge of God is to remove the taavos and hergel that would prevent us form changing our ideas and actions freely. The system of the mitzvos was set up to help us come to the state where we can be intellectually honest in our analysis of ideas to incorporate them into our knowledge without doubts. If 15 year olds in high school were able to do this properly, God needn't have bothered us with the mitzvos -- even 15 year olds can be effective free thinkers!
Perhaps a better formulation is that NYHS attempts to instill in the talmidim that yahadus makes sense, and when they're at the level to properly analyze the myriad of philosophical opinions, yahadus gives the best answers.
(different Anonymous from before)
something else to consider is that the Rambam requires that we have emuna amitis(qafihh)/shelaima(shilat) in the 13 ikkarim to enter into klal yisrael (see the first sentance after the 13th ikkar).
While this may bring up the old R' Zucker -- Qafihh debate, we have three options for the interpretation of emuna (i haven't seen the arabic so we'll leave the debate out for now)
(1) the rambam's intention is as the Moreh 1:50, and only highly intelligent, philosophically trained individuals are part of klal yisrael. After all, only they have true emuna.
(2) The rambam's intention is straight-up blind-faith -- this would seem to go against your suggestion that the rambam would rather have people not-jewish thinkers than blind-faithers.
(3) The rambam's intention is faith (i.e. strong intuition and based on highly intelligent and respected individuals). Most of klal yisrael has this ("just by looking at the torah i see the great chockma of hashem -- it's impossible he doesn't exist!") It seems the first two options of education are better than the third if we take this approach.
Anonymous (3)
Here we go (in order):
Anonymous (#1)
1) “ I'm assuming that by "society" you refer to heretical ideas within society.”
Yes.
2) “Do Jewish teenagers believe in both Torah and atheism? Are they more likely to believe this if their Judaism is emotion-based instead of rationally-based?”
Jewish teenagers - at least, the type teenager who would find himself or herself at NYHS – believe in both Torah and atheism in that they are drawn to aspects of both, just like the Jews at the time of Eliyahu. How do I know this? Because there is a certain class taught at NYHS primarily for kids who did not have a “frum” upbringing. In this class students have the opportunity to ask Rabbi Moskowitz any questions and objections they have about Judaism. Every time I am in Seattle during the school year I attend these classes on a daily basis. Trust me: these kids are in conflict. They do not know how to think about these issues. Rabbi Moskowitz guides them in this area, and in many cases, it helps. I have seen aggressive apikorsim transform, over the course of years, into committed, knowledgeable, halacha-observant Jews – solely on the basis of this class. And yes, I do believe that Jewish teenagers are more susceptible to these doubts and conflicts if their Judaism is emotion-based than if it is rationally-based.
3) Also, your interpretation of Nevi'im here isn't exactly a raiah of a real theological position, unless you have a source to back yourself up on that. There remains the possibility that Eliahu was challenging the people, telling them to make their positions clear and take a side, so that it would be more straightforward to punish them or something.
If I need a raiah to back up my interpretation, don’t you need one to back up yours? Frankly, I don’t see why I need a raiah at all. My interpretation makes sense to me, and unless you see something faulty with it, then I will stick by my interpretation, which is also closer to the pshat. I do not quite see what your interpretation is getting at; perhaps you could elaborate on it for me.
Prof K
4) “Free thinkers are not positive things. The root of "free thinking" comes from the same root as "debauchery" etc.”
In order for us to communicate, I must attempt to understand what you mean by what you say, and you must attempt to understand what I mean by what I say. I am clearly using the term “free thinker” in a positive way, and am evidently oblivious to its French origins. So, you must make a decision: either you can accept my usage of the term for the duration of this discussion – however etymologically infuriating – and we can continue to learn from each other through discussion, or you can persist in the way that you want to use the term and ignore my intended meaning, thereby creating an obstacle to communication. I recommend the first method – not just in this instance, but in all learning. Chazal teach: "Who is wise? One who learns from everyone." Not everyone is the OED. In order to follow Chazal's advice, you must be willing to ask yourself, "I know what I mean by this term, but what does he mean?"
5) “I also object to the opposition you create--there is Torah and there is life in the real world, as if the two are somehow mutually exclusive”.
Ditto. See Point 1) for an example of how Anonymous #1 discerned my meaning from the way I was using the word "society."
Furthermore, I do not see where I indicated that the life of Torah and life in the real world were mutually exclusive. The only time I used the phrase "real world" was in the sentence: "In other words, the goal of NYHS is to produce free-thinkers who have been given the tools to develop – through Torah and through life in the real world – into perfected human beings." My point is that both the Torah and the real world provide opportunities to develop into perfected human beings. By "Torah" I mean the system of 613 mitzvos; by "real world" I mean life experience. The two are different, not mutually exclusive.
6) “[You imply that] offspring can either be frum or they can live the way that man was designed to live but not both, that parents have to make an either/or choice” .
Incorrect. If you have followed my discussion with Anonymous #1 up until now, you will understand that the topic at hand is the educational objective of NYHS. My contention is that the objectives of “frumkeit output maximization” and “free will education” are mutually exclusive – not that frumkeit and free will are mutually exclusive in an individual.
7) It seems we don’t agree on the pshat of Eliyahu’s statement. Fine.
Anonymous #2
8) I agree, in principle, with the concern you expressed in your comment – namely, that the Torah itself prohibits a certain type of speculation for a certain type of individual, and that NYHS should be cautious not to encourage that type of speculation. My response is that, in my experience – both during my time there and in my numerous subsequent visits – that the teachers take every precaution they can to prevent students from falling into that type of speculation, and that they do a pretty good job. The tremendous intellectual honesty displayed by the teachers there certainly helps.
P.S. Anonymous #1,
9) "And NYHS's educational philosophy continues to trouble me greatly."
I don't expect to change that, but I do want you to understand what NYHS's educational philosophy is. If you find my presentation of NYHS's educational philosophy unclear or you perceive it differently, please let me know so we can continue discussing it. I would be even more interested if someone could show me that my understanding of NYHS's educational philosophy is faulty.
This is a very interesting discussion...no doubt NYHS's philosophy is nearly unique among Jewish schools. And whether you agree with it or not, my personal experience indicates that Matt's understanding of it is accurate.
Matt,
We've had a go-round before on the Humpty Dumpty language approach of "a word means what I want it to mean when I use it" style of language usage. That aside, language functions as a tool used by the multitude because we have agreed that words need stable definitions and stable usages. Regardless of whether or not I understood how you were using the term "free thinker"--which I did understand--the term you used was incorrectly used. For the vast multitude of English language users, "free thinker" is not used as you used it, nor will it bring to mind what you wanted it to bring to mind.
If clarity of communication is what you are after, then muddying the waters with a mangled usage is not the way to go.
Let me quote Chazal to you: "Who is wise? One who learns from everyone." You clearly intended that to apply to me. By the same token it applies to you. When you send a word "out" it is your responsibility to determine not how you want the word to be taken but how others will likely take the word. And no, you do not have to be "boki" in OED to assign the word the meaning I did.
But hey, let's not use the OED, let's use R' S.R. Hirsch. In one of his writings is this line: "and the free thinkers among them, the apostates, have spread their nets like snares." Positive meaning? I don't think so.
I do believe that the answer you wanted to give me was "Oops sorry, I didn't look the word up and I'll use a different term from now on."
Matt,
What is interesting about the philosophy behind NYHS is all the questions it raises. Why this approach? Would the approach work as well if the school were located somewhere else but Washington?
What about the families who send their children there? What about the children themselves? What are the beliefs about Yiddishkeit that these families hold before they send their children to NYHS? How do these families define "frum"? What is the commitment these families have to being frum both before and after they have connected with NYHS? Are these families Ba'alei tshuva? For how long?
How does the greater Seattle community view the school? Is there a division of opinion? Why?
Do both the Ashkenazi and Sefardi communities support and attend the school? For years Seattle did not have a boys high school. The "frum" families almost all sent their boys to NY to YU, although a scant few found their way to Torah VoDaas as well, and an even smaller number found their way to other yeshivas--I am thinking Rabbi Yissochor Frand here. Why did this school find success in Seattle? Doees the community in general send all its boys to this school, or is there a divide, with some boys being sent out of town?
What experiences formed the rebbes who teach there? What yeshivas did they come out of? Are they mostly "locals" or are they out of towners?
If, as was stated by another commentator, a number of the school's graduates "lose" their frumkeit when attending secular colleges, what in the composition of the school's student body could account for this? Are there students who attend the school because of private/vs public school issues that many parents have? Do they perceive that it is better to be in a Jewish school with a solid English education then to be in a public school where the education is far more haphazzard? Did they come late to the yeshiva system of education and thus did not have a solid enough background before attending college?
The "right wing" yeshivas such as are in Brooklyn would certainly not be happy with NYHS's philosophy and approach. NYHS would not be happy with the "right wing" yeshiva's approach. The schools that fall somewhere in the middle of the two--and there are a few, although they seem to be a dieing breed--are viewed by both "ends" as being "neither fish, nor fowl, nor good red meat." Is there another possible approach not yet implemented somewhere that would deal with the frum kid/secular world issue in a way that would make more people "happy"?
NYHS is not quite all that unique by the way. I am thinking of the old Ramaz school in Manhattan, and the Yeshiva of Flatbush, and the old HILI school, which once occupied where Rabbi Bender's yeshiva is now in Far Rockaway. And YU high schools certainly once fell into this category as well. Why did those schools "have" to change, or why did they disappear, and what might NYHS learn from their experiences?
Prof K,
All good questions - all of which are, unfortunately, beyond the scope of the comments section of this post. If only all parents would ask such questions about the schools their kids attend.
(As an aside, I have a spelling question: Is "dieing" the acceptable spelling, as in your statement "although they seem to be a dieing breed"? I was always under the impression that it was "dying." Then again, my impressions are frequently incorrect.
Consider the following three hypothetical individuals:
Person A) A simpleton who feels and “thinks” that Judaism is the truth. He is not intellectually strong enough to really question why this is so, nor can he cogently respond to one who does question, but the questions don’t really bother him. He tries his hardest to keep the mitzvoth and is reasonably successful.
Person B) A very deep thinker who has spent years trying to resolve some contradictions he has with proofs about Judaism and can’t get himself to accept it as the truth. He now does not believe in God or Judaism, and does not keep the mitzvoth.
Person C) Also a deep thinker, and one who is in constant intellectual turmoil due to the inability to “prove Judaism.” He goes through the motions, and keeps the mitzvoth, but really does not believe that Judaism is true.
How would you rate these three people in terms of being “good human beings” (in your understanding of this term which you used)?
In terms of being good Jews?
In terms of being included/excluded from Olam Haba?
Of the three, which one would you most like to see your own child grow up as?
Matt,
The "dieing" is a typo that my mind seems to refuse is one--if it is died then it should be dieing, but it is dying, as "dieing" is a wholly different word coming from dice and casting the die. And then there is dyeing, but that is a word of a different color. I wish someone would have given our irregular verbs a hefty dose of milk of magnesia and "regularized" them a long time ago. Sorry for the confusion.
Anonymous - the most recent one,
Excellent, challenging, and important questions! So much so, that I am going to devote a whole post to them. Thanks!
Re: Anonymous's three people. Could there not be a fourth? This person would also be a deep thinker, and one who is sometimes in intellectual turmoil due to his ability to see and accept the "whole" of Judaism, but not be able to understand and prove some of the parts. He keeps the mitzvoth and believes in the whole of Judaism but sometime agonizes over why he cannot see how some of the parts fit into the whole. In this he blames himself for his lack of knowledge rather than assigning a fault to Judaism.
Prof K,
You are correct. I'll mention that in my post.
When Eliahu gave the option to the Baal worshippers to choose between Hashem and Baal, he was not necessarily saying that it would be halachically superior to worship Baal exclusively over the syncretistic practices. He could have just been appealing to them to make a choice--be a proper worshipper, or be an idolator. Take a side. Asking people to take a side does not in any way imply that choosing the bad side is somehow a "better" thing to do than being mixed up.
For you to assume that avoda zara straightout is halachically preferable over being confused is not clear from the story, which is why I would more easily accept it if you had support in another source.
-anonymous the first
Anonymous (the first),
Allow me to clarify my interpretation of the Eliyahu story: Worshipping avodah zarah straight out is not halachically better than being confused, but philosophically.
By "philosophically" I mean that at least such an individual has a consistent belief. A person who claims to believe in Hashem and baal doesn't really believe in Hashem and baal, since the two ideas cannot coexist (i.e. a person who believes in Hashem holds "ein ohd milvado" whereas a person who believes in baal holds "yesh ohd milvado").
Halachically, someone who only worshipped baal would be the same as someone who worshipped Hashem and baal: both would at least be over the lavim of avodah zarah and "lo yihyeh l'cha elohim acherim al panai", and both would be mevatel the aseh of emunah in Hashem (since the guy who claims to believe both really holds "yesh ohd milvado").
Post a Comment