The Danger of Changes
The shock that was expressed recently in the Torah world,
primarily by its leaders with HaRav Eliashiv at their
forefront, over governmental attempts to introduce changes
into the Bais Yaakov school system, is an indication of the
profound sense of responsibility that every Heaven fearing
Jew has for his children's Torah education.
In his talks, HaRav Shach zt'l, would repeatedly
stress that the basis of Klal Yisroel's survival as a
Torah nation, depends upon the fulfillment of the posuk
(Bereishis 18:19), "because he will command his sons and
his household after him." Indeed, generations of Jewish
parents have made tremendous sacrifices to ensure a pure
Torah education for their offspring, who themselves will in
turn one day be charged with building future generations.
Throughout the generations, our teachers have trembled at the
prospect of introducing any changes into the time-hallowed
system of Torah education. Even when a change appears to be
insignificant -- or even if it seems to be an improvement --
our leaders have taught us to view every departure from the
ancient system as a rocking of its foundations, with
inestimable final results. Any imperfection in a boy or a
girl's Torah education, has unknown implications for their
and their own future offspring's spiritual makeup.
The analogy of children to arrows in the posuk (Tehillim
127:4), "Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the
youth," has been explained to refer to the fact that just as
an imperceptible deviation in the direction in which an arrow
is shot results in its widely missing its mark, with the
deviation becoming more and more apparent as the arrow flies,
so it is with a child's education.
As important as this awareness has always been, it has been
especially urgent since the first of the maskilim
began their attempts to influence faithful Jewry, directing
their main efforts towards introducing changes into the
system of Torah education. They knew that this was what the
success of their ideology depended on, because if they
succeeded in ensnaring the youth, the future was theirs.
In our times, the danger is far more acute, since our schools
are subject to professional surveillance and are under the
administrative aegis of representatives of the governmental
education system who are liable to attempt to use their power
to dictate changes in the Torah education system. Both our
past and ll'a our present leaders, have ruled that the
chareidi educational system must retain full educational
autonomy. Whilst they permitted the acceptance of government
allocations because we are fully entitled to them like any
other citizens, they made this acceptance absolutely
conditional on there being no intervention or influence
whatsoever in the educational programs.
Their Goals and Their Means
The recent affair is a reminder that we cannot yet relax and
that the stubborn battle for the independence of chareidi
education must continue being fought as determinedly as ever.
Those who have designs on us today have not yet lost hope of
being able to "reeducate the chareidim" as the early
maskilim, from whom they take their inspiration,
wanted to do. They want to gain control of chareidi
education, either through legislation or by means of
incentives. Today, the struggle is over girls' education but
just a year ago, some "recommendations" were made to "improve
the program of studies for the chareidi boy."
The authors of the various articles and studies that
recommend changes, some of whom have decision-making powers
at official levels, profess to be motivated by "concern" over
"economic distress in the chareidi community," towards the
alleviation of which they demand that thousands of
talmidim should leave their Torah studies. They loudly
advocate a complete reshaping of the chareidi educational
system from the youngest grades, which they see as "the
source of the problem." They argue for increasing the
proportion of "general studies" in the talmudei Torah,
improving both the "quantity and quality" of the secular
studies, as well as adding "civic studies," and other such
subjects, in order "to equip the chareidi children and youth
for productive lives in modern society."
We of course reject all such proposals out of hand. But those
who are far from Torah find this hard to understand. There
are some, not among our community, who claim to understand
our opposition, whose roots they attribute to our concern
over "bitul Torah" in the hours that would be devoted
to their programs. The truth however is that the problem is
far deeper and more basic than that of a few hours of
bitul Torah (though this would be reason enough to
object, for every moment of Torah study is of supreme
value).
We have a tradition from our teachers, the luminaries of
earlier generations, that any change in the program of
studies or in the structure of pure Torah education, is
liable to lead to the utter ruination of that system of
education whose authentic form has been transmitted to us
from previous generations. This is not only true of changes
like the introduction of "general studies," but even of
changes in the mode of instruction in limudei
kodesh.
Two Centuries Ago
This fundamental principle was expressed by the Chasam Sofer
zy'a one hundred and ninety years ago in a discourse
that he delivered on parshas Beshalach, in which he
addressed a problem that was then facing the Pressburg
community and that has troubled many other communities in the
past two centuries.
The circles of maskilim wanted to open a new type of
school for children. The school was intended for religious
families and was to be run in an Orthodox spirit, as far as
teaching Torah and holding prayers went. Behind the venture
however, were the local maskilim who clarified that
all they asked were for certain "amendments" to be made to
the traditional curriculum: some secular studies would be
added and some "improvements" made to the Torah studies. To
the Jews of the town, these changes seemed insignificant.
The Chasam Sofer delivered a penetrating talk, in which he
laid the foundations for understanding the plan and function
of Torah schools, for all times. He began by quoting the
posuk (Shemos 13:17), "And Hashem did not lead them by
way of the land of the Pelishtim, because it was close," and
explained that this posuk warns us to keep our
distance from the influence of the "civilized" nations with
their "positive" ideas even those that make so much sense,
because our traditional educational approach is intended to
transmit the Torah's holiness, which is not dependent on
human logic.
In his opening comments, the Chasam Sofer cites the gemora
(Shabbos 63), that tells us that Rav Cahana said that
even after he had learned the entire Shas, "I did not
know [the rule] that `no posuk can be divested of its
literal meaning' until now."
"From here it appears," said the Chasam Sofer, "that Chazal
reversed the order and taught their sons the entire
gemora and the pesukim according to the way
they expounded them, without telling them the simple meaning,
even though the posuk can never be divested of the
latter. This would seem to be a bad way of doing things,
chas vesholom. [However,] there is no doubt that they
had a tradition of teaching like this, which had been
transmitted by word of mouth and which they had seen their
fathers and grandfathers following. "
He also mentions that we find that Chazal warn us to,
"Prevent your sons from engaging in higoyon" (Brochos
29). Rashi explains that this means, "Don't get them too
used to studying Scripture, because it is attractive." Others
explain that it means that they should be kept away from
studying other disciplines.
Why were Chazal so particular about children not engaging in
the study of Tanach too much, or even in other
subjects, asked the Chasam Sofer? Learning in an orderly
manner, stage by stage, would seem to be a good thing, first
learning all of Tanach according to the plain meaning,
before learning gemora. It would also seem good for
children to learn other disciplines, which seem to serve a
constructive purpose for Torah study itself. "For all the
other disciplines are [but handmaidens] in respect to Torah;
they are openings and gateways [affording approach to Torah].
If someone has no knowledge of anatomy, he will not fully
understand the laws of tereifos. Knowledge of ratios
and arithmetic is necessary for understanding eruvin,
succoh and the division of the Land etc. This being
the case, why should people prevent their sons from such
studies? It would be good for them to learn Tanach or
these disciplines when they are young and from these subjects
they could work their way up to what is greater and holier
still, namely the wisdom of the Torah?"
The Only Way
"However, there is a source for all of this, namely, the
Giver of the Torah, yisborach shemo. Hashem took
bnei Yisroel out of Egypt, a land of shame, where
every practice that is abominable to Hashem was practiced,
[inhabited by] a despised, ignoble nation, as is known from
the Egyptian customs. Yisroel lived among them, odious slaves
who worked with bricks and mortar. Without a doubt, they did
not know how to act straightly, nor did they possess any
wisdom or knowledge, nor any of the trappings of a nation,
nor any worldly ways. In Yoma 75 we find, "Rav Acha
bar Yaakov said, `To begin with, Yisroel were like chickens
pecking among the refuse, until Moshe came and fixed a
mealtime for them.' " They didn't even have a regular time to
eat, just like barbaric slaves.
"How then, did He bring them to Har Sinai straight away for
the great occasion, and reveal to them what was above and
what was below and they all merited the level of prophecy and
their hearts opened wide in comprehension -- while at the
same time they retained their bad habits, as is evident from
their behavior and their complaining in the desert? Wouldn't
it have been better to lead them slowly, to teach them civil
behavior like that of the civilized nations so that they
could at least be considered a nation, and then to raise them
level by level until they were fit to receive the Torah on
Har Sinai?
"But the path of truth is clear. It was clear to Hashem
yisborach shemo that the only way to separate Yisroel
from the nations was to separate from them utterly, not to
learn from their wisdom in the ways they are like us, not
even the plain meaning of Scripture, for they are the same as
us in that. Were this to have been the course, it would be
very quick and easy for the people to go back to the ways of
their [i.e. the gentiles'] multitudes -- were the separation
not to have been as drastic as could be. Were Hakodosh
Boruch Hu to have first led Am Yisroel along the
path of derech eretz, they would never have merited
attaining the truth of the Torah and of faith, because they
would have turned back before having reached the farthest
point, because all these studies and this way of learning,
are still close to the mentality of those gentiles. Even were
Yisroel to have realized that the gods of the nations are
worthless and illusory and even if they had not believed in
them, they would still have shrugged off Hashem's yoke
completely and they would have believed in neither this nor
that.
"So it is with our children and offspring. If, when they are
young, they first learn the simple meaning of the
pesukim and other disciplines that are external to
Torah, then before they grow up and arrive at the portion of
expounding [the pesukim] and the oral Torah, which is
the main thing, they will already have chosen abandonment and
will have denied Hashem and His Torah, as we see in this evil
generation in several countries where they reversed the order
set by the earlier generations and they ran afoul. None of
those youths remains within our religion, in our many sins.
Not one of them is interested in learning Shas, or the
rulings of issur vehetter. No true success will come
from them."
The Chasam Sofer explains that this is why Hashem warned the
people not to go close to the country of the Pelishtim. The
ways and the deeds of the Philistine nation were known as
being more reformed than those of the Egyptians, and it might
have seemed proper to have had them first learn civilized
ways from the Pelishtim.
"But He did not do so for the above reason. All this is
alluded to in the posuk, `And it was, that when
Pharaoh sent away the people, and Hashem did not lead them by
way of the land of the Pelishtim,' to teach them the proper
customs of the Pelishtim, even though this was a correct way.
Why? `Because it was close,' that way of life was close to
that of Egypt; it was not very far removed from their
original way of life, `lest the people have regrets' when
they see the beginnings of the war against desire and the
yetzer hora and then, in a moment, they might swiftly
`return to Egypt,' meaning the Jewish people would go back to
behaving like Egyptians, not like Jews."
The Chasam Sofer sums all this up very forcefully. "One
should take a lesson from this not to listen to those who
have recently arrived on the scene, [who wish] to distance
Hashem's nation from His Torah, to utterly reverse the order,
to teach us the path of logic, to corrupt our children, so
that no remnant will be left to study Talmud or gemora,
chas vesholom -- do not acquiesce and do not listen."
While this essay does not actually speak about the important
subject of the preservation of the traditional method of
educating our children, which deserves treatment on its own,
it should be noted that the leaders of recent generations
have warned us not to deviate at all from the ways of
teaching that have been transmitted to us, even when it seems
that a new way is simply a technicality, devoid of real
significance, only affecting the way the knowledge is
actually transmitted. (Our teachers have told us that even
when teaching the alef-beis, the traditional method of
"kometz alef -- oh" embodies the Torah approach to the
transmission of the holiness of the letters with which heaven
and earth were created and with which the Torah was given to
Yisroel.)
We have it by tradition that learning in a talmud Torah
is not merely supposed to convey knowledge but to fashion
the child's soul according to the oral Torah, at the same
time endearing him to the Torah's sweetness and to the
pleasantness of thinking, which should serve as a firm
foundation for his future bond with Torah, whether he merits
developing into a great Torah scholar or whether he sets
aside fixed times for Torah study. Without the proper
foundation his whole future relationship to Torah is
questionable, chas vesholom.
Bitter Legacy of a "Modest" Request
As we have said, this is a large and important subject, that
cannot be encapsulated in these short lines. However, the
Chasam Sofer's words provide us with an idea of great
centrality. The entire purpose of Torah education is to
distance us and separate us from other ways, which seek to
design "the complete man" or "the new Jew," without recourse
to a blatt gemora.
In his excellent new book on the Vilna Gaon, in the chapter
dealing with the battle against haskoloh, Rabbi Dov
Eliach tells the story of "the sage" Naftali Herz Wessely who
wreaked untold spiritual damage on Am Yisroel with his
attempts to introduce the ideas of haskoloh into
Jewish schools. He didn't seek to banish limudei
kodesh altogether. All he asked for was for a distinction
to be made between "Man's Torah" and "G-d's Torah," and that
the former be taught first to the children as a separate
discipline, equal in standing and prior in instruction to the
latter.
A study of the Chasam Sofer's words reveals that his remarks
are directed against this venomous attitude that attempts to
fashion man in the image of foreign ideas and disciplines,
relegating Torah study to a mere addition or to being extra
"study material" the way that any nation provides for
studying its culture and laws. This approach is extremely
dangerous and the Chasam Sofer therefore writes that our
entire education aims at separating us from alien
cultures.
As previously mentioned, all this is true of the way that
limudei kodesh themselves are taught, not only of
introducing other disciplines. With his foresight, the Chasam
Sofer saw that the demands of the maskilim to increase
the study of Tanach according to the simple meaning of
the text, were not purely inspired and that they were really
intended to push aside study of the oral Torah and in-depth
Talmud study.
Today, two hundred years later, we can see how these same
circles have broadened the involvement with "the simple
meaning of the texts." The State of Israel's first prime
minister prided himself on his knowledge of Tanach and
his followers held Tanach study groups and an annual
"Bible Quiz," in which youths who have devoted themselves to
learning pesukim compete, without having drawn
spiritual sustenance from the Torah's soul or from the holy
teachings of Chazal on the pesukim.
On this subject, it should be noted that Rabbi Eliach quotes
some forceful comments from one of the greatest transmitters
of the Vilna Gaon's kabboloh teachings, the gaon
and mekubal HaRav Shlomo Eliashiv zt'l,
author of Leshem Shevo Ve'achlomoh. HaRav S. Eliashiv
writes, "See that all those who are involved with the wisdom
of this world, such as the wisdom of nature and the like,
most of them are far removed from fear of Heaven. For the
power of evil that clings there [i.e. to those disciplines]
attaches itself to them R'l. Even in our holy Torah,
we also see that those who only involve themselves with the
outer aspects of Torah -- such as grammar knowledge which
consists entirely of the words and language, as well as those
who only busy themselves with the simple meaning of
Tanach though they have the wisdom and the strength to
become involved with gemora and poskim -- we
have seen a number of them who are far from fear of
Heaven.
"This is because the outer shell always dwells around the
superficiality of holiness, to draw its sustenance from it,
according to the secret of "the wicked go around"
(Tehillim 12:9), and therefore, all who are only
involved in superficiality are liable to sin, R'l."
All the methods of teaching Torah have been handed down from
generation to generation and our teachers have warned us of
the great danger that lies in exaggerated involvement in the
simple meaning of Scripture. This is why Chazal warned us to,
"Prevent your sons from engaging in higoyon."
However the Chasam Sofer identified a further point: the very
fact that this study is favored by the maskilim, who
prefer "the simple meaning of the text" and "knowledge of
Tanach," is reason enough in itself to distance
ourselves from such programs as they once wanted to introduce
into Torah schools.
The Aim of Our Education
The purpose of Torah education is to know that there is no
way for a person to develop without learning Torah in the way
that has been handed down to us, appreciating the sweetness
of a sugya in perek Shor Shenogach and keeping
far away from the derech eretz of the Pelishtim, even
if it is more cultured and more "sensible." We have to be
aware that it is only possible to escape from Egypt and its
forty- nine levels of tumah in one go, ascending
straight to the summit of kedushoh at Har Sinai. It
cannot be left gradually, where there is a danger of becoming
satisfied with an intermediary level, or where another
possibility for a person's development can be perceived, by
becoming acquainted with the world's civilization and by
gathering superficial knowledge of Tanach, devoid of
the soul of the Oral Torah.
This is why, writes the Chasam Sofer, our education is
principally based on the Oral Torah, not on learning the
simple meaning of Scripture, even though logically this seems
to be "a bad order, chas vesholom . . . However, there
is no doubt that this is what they received by word of mouth
and always saw their fathers and grandfathers doing."
The basic lesson lies in the obligation to distance ourselves
from the strayers, "because it was clear before Him
yisborach shemo, that it was impossible to separate
Am Yisroel from the other nations unless they are
utterly separated from them and from their ways, not learning
from their wisdom in what they are equal to us, not even
Scripture according to the plain meaning for they are equal
to us in that. For a man's heart can swiftly revert to be
like their multitudes unless he keeps the very greatest
distance possible!"
Better the Little of the Righteous
It should be noted that further on in his illuminating
discourse, the Chasam Sofer explains the pesukim (Tehillim
37:14 -16), "The evildoers drew their sword . . . to
slaughter those of upright path . . . the little that a
righteous man has is better than the large amount that the
many evildoers have." He explains this posuk to refer
to those of evil influence who throw off the yoke of Torah
and claim, with their smooth talk, that they only want "to
improve" the educational methods.
Such people have always claimed that the ancient methods "are
no longer relevant and no longer suited to the general
population" but only to the select few who utilize them to
grow into great sages. They are not for the majority, they
say who, they claim, require extra subjects and new pedagogic
approaches that are simple and easy to grasp, that take the
"modern era" into account and that plan new learning systems
that are designed with consideration for those who are not
going to grow up into talmidei chachomim and will go
out into the wide world.
"The posuk appears to allude to our situation now, in
this evil generation, when seducers and instigators have
arisen with the swords of their mouths and the bows of their
inkwells, writing works of iniquity to try and draw the
hearts of Am Yisroel and to push them away from Hashem
. . . saying, that the teaching methods that we have used up
until now are crooked and improper. The sign that this refers
to our time, is that numerous unstable and empty- headed
individuals are ruining themselves because they did not learn
according to the established order and they left school empty
of any knowledge.
"Because of this, they want to make a new order, so that most
pupils will leave school knowing Scripture and Latin and the
like -- this is what they say, and they mouth nothings." (The
Chasam Sofer adds that in order to further their plans, the
maskilim availed themselves of the gentile authorities
who, even though they did not intend any harm, "do not know .
. . that this contradicts the foundation of our religion and
that it is a plan to abolish Talmud [study] among us
and to make us forget it entirely.")
The Chasam Sofer therefore adds that Chazal explained the
posuk (Koheles 7:28), "I found one in a thousand," as
meaning that of every one thousand pupils that begin
learning, one hundred will know Scripture, ten will know
mishnah, and only one will be capable of making
halachic rulings. However, so long as we maintain the old,
traditional method through which one single pupil is versed
in halochoh then, at any rate, "all the other nine
hundred, who were not successful with Scripture, mishnah
or Shas, will not abandon their religion and will
not profane Shabbos publicly" since they have absorbed the
foundations of the oral Torah and have formed an attachment
to the teachings of the early Sages in a good and wholesome
way.
This is what Dovid Hamelech referred to when he said, "The
little that a righteous man has is better than the large
amount that the many evildoers have." The path which
guarantees the maximal success for the individual few who
will grow to become the teachers and leaders for the many,
and which at the same time promises that the many, who will
not merit attaining the highest levels, will still remain
observant of Torah and tradition, is better than the
alternative, which supposedly worries about "the many" and
"the general public" but which brings destruction to Klal
Yisroel as a whole, ruining the chances of developing the
select few, while wreaking havoc with the multitudes as
well.
"And if they argue, `Your own mouth answers against you:
Chazal say that a thousand enter school and [only] one
[knowledgeable one] leaves implying that the remainder have
no Torah knowledge,' whereas if we listen to them [they say]
knowledge will increase . . . In response to this the
posuk says, `The little that a righteous man has is
better than the large amount that the many evildoers have,'
because when they increase their knowledge they tend towards
heresy and there are many slaves [to their desires] who break
out of line in all kinds of ways while the few righteous
individuals who are put into every generation will guard the
edifice from decay, with Hashem's help to the valiant."
Keeping to Ourselves
We have quoted at length from the Chasam Sofer because his
words are so illuminating in fathoming the inner workings and
the spirit of pure Torah education and they help us to
understand to what extent we have to guard from the slightest
deviation from the educational path that has been transmitted
to us.
We learn from the Chasam Sofer that the duty to separate
ourselves from those who abandon Torah and the yoke of
Heaven's rule is especially important in matters of
education. We have no share in the universalist trends in
education. Their education is not ours. What they define as
"a developed individual" has not yet started to build himself
according to our approach.
Even the way limudei kodesh are taught is completely
different in our schools than in the "improved schools" of
the early maskilim, who wanted to make a revolution
from the very foundations.
We have concentrated on things that were written about boys'
education even though the current debate, which was mentioned
at the outset, centers upon girls' education, whose aims and
purposes are different. However, in view of what has been
written above a firm connection can be discerned between the
two. (Of course there is a need for us to also be constantly
watchful for attempts to force changes in boys'
education.)
If the Chasam Sofer warns us of the need for complete
segregation from all foreign ideas of "developing [civilized]
people" according to other systems, or studying Tanach
in any other way but our traditional one with regard to
boys' education, the basic thrust of which is the command to
learn Torah -- "and you shall teach them to your sons"
(Devorim 6:7) -- then how much more is his warning
valid for girls' education!
The Heart of Bais Yaakov
As is known, girls are not commanded to learn Torah. They
learn those halochos which apply to them, as well as
mussar, faith and fear of Heaven. Long ago, when Am
Yisroel was living its authentic, spiritual life, the
Jewish street was suffused with purity and holiness and there
was no need for educational institutions for girls. Only when
foreign ideas began to infiltrate and difficult trials began
to be encountered within our own quarters, there was a vital
need to strengthen the girls in Bais Yaakov schools, which
were set up as a pressing need of their time.
The whole idea of Bais Yaakov is to inculcate our daughters
with the awareness that we have no interest in the world of
education and academia, which seeks to value the culture of
knowledge for knowledge's sake and study for the sake of
study, while fostering the importance of getting a degree and
encouraging the pursuit of status and material achievement,
which requires getting an education of some kind. The
attempts to bring some of this spirit into Bais Yaakov
through the back door undermine the entire approach.
The Chazon Ish once commented to students who were learning
in a certain "yeshiva" whose leader was a scholar with false
ideas: the whole purpose of learning in yeshiva is to know
and understand that this is not the form that a talmid
chochom was supposed to take and that we are not seeking
this type of thing. What then, is the purpose of a yeshiva
that teaches exactly the opposite?
We can say the same about the present struggle. The whole
purpose of Bais Yaakov is to maintain a correct perspective
on the role of a Jewish woman and to keep our distance from
the crazy pursuit of academic and materialistic achievements.
What is the purpose of a Bais Yaakov that absorbs such
worthless ideas?
