 |
| Image from the Forward |
Not that what he said isn’t true. It is absolutely true.
His point being that charity is one of the definitive characteristics of the Chasidic world. One
which is at the core of their character and is emphasized in their schools.
As Professor Krakowski notes, the trait of giving charity is not unique to Chasidim. The larger Charedi community is also heavily vested with this trait. I recall a New York Times feature story on the community of Lakewood which noted that despite the relatively modest incomes of those studying there full time, they are among the most charitable people in the country – giving a much larger share of their income to charity than any other American demographic!
I would take this a step further and say that charity is an
innately Jewish characteristic. One that is expressed by all manner of the Jewish people from the
completely secular to the most devout. Just by example - if one traverses the many non profit institutions in
Chicago that rely on contributions – be it hospitals, schools, museums, the arts, and more - one will inevitably see names of secular Jews like Pritzker and Crown
as the main donors. Their names will be prominently displayed as part of the
name of whatever it is they donated to. Sometimes their generosity even benefits religious institutions.
Arie Crown Hebrew Day School was named for one of the Crown family’s patriarchs
and the school receives an annual stipend from them.
This is because Tzedaka is a form of Chesed that the Jewish
people inherited from our forefather Abraham who personified Chesed. It is in our DNA. So to say that
Chasidim are among the most charitable among us is not too much of a
surprise. And yet it is to their credit that they are the MOST charitable among
charitable people.
Professor Krakowski testifies to that via his own experiences.
When his son was in the NICU at Columbia University Medical Center he and his
wife were the beneficiaries of of both Satmar and Skvere kindness:
…who generously provided heimish meals, places to sleep, and any other resources my wife and I needed while in the hospital.
Chicago has its own version of this in an organization called
The Chicago Center for Torah and Chesed – founded by The Zidochover Rebbe, R’ Yehoshua
Heshel Eichenstien. (May he have a Refuah Shelaima B'Karuv!). This is a Chesed organization that benefits the entire Orthodox Jewish community
and beyond - with volunteers from across the entire spectrum of Orthodoxy.
So I come not to bury Caesar but to praise him. And yet it
is this very trait among Chasidic communities like Satmar and Skvere that
contributes to their ignorance. As Professor Krakowski himself notes:
The intense focus on religious study, the smaller proportion of secular studies, post-high school religious study, young marriage, religious occupations privileged over secular, secular occupations that don’t require extensive education privileged over those that do — all of these features would be impossible if there was no ethic of charity and interpersonal support. The large infrastructure of charity serves to make these religious choices possible: religious study can be supported and lower salaries can be endured when others step in to help out wherever needed. This is why charity and good works are so essential to the curriculum, aside from the obvious religious values expressed; the same curriculum that emphasizes a life of study must also emphasize a life of service, or else the whole system would be unsustainable.
Unsustainable indeed! It is the reliance on charity that enables this community
to function in a world that demands more than a curriculum that denies their children a Limudei Chol (secular) curriculum. The sages tell not to rely on charity. We, are supposed to support our families by the ‘sweat of our brow’.
Not by the sweat of other people’s brows.
But in their zeal to shelter themselves
from the influences of the outside world they insist only on a religious education. Instead of teaching them to better support themselves, they ask their Chasidm to live a modest lifesytle and to rely on communal resources to help feed their very large families.
Chazal tell us that by
not teaching a child to support himself – we are teaching them to be thieves.
It is one thing to try and make a living after being prepared to do so with a
decent education - and missing the mark. Then, accepting help
from others is perfectly fine. That is what charity organizations should be for. On the other hand there is something terribly wrong with accepting charity as a way of life. Making matters worse is that the vast majority of communities like these end up using a
welfare system as a means of income instead of the safety net it is designed
for. Such widespread use if the welfare system lends itself to abuse. Perhaps that is an illustration of the thievery Chazal spoke of.
This is why I remain unconvinced by Professor Krakowski’s
conclusion:
...when people suggest a radical transformation of these schools, with State oversight of the curriculum, they are indirectly suggesting gutting the schools of their religious curriculum. This is what the current New York State guidelines would do, albeit indirectly, and as a result, it is not just religious study that will be lost, but religious service as well.
Just to be absolutely clear. This is not to say that I agree with any kind of radical
transformation. I emphatically state here that I do not! So if the current guidelines are as radical as Professor Krakowski suggests, I too am opposed to them.
But what should not be
lost in the process is need to change a system that relies on charity
to survive. That would be eminently helped by requiring a Limudei Chol curriculum in consonance with the vast majority of Orthodox Yeshivas
and day schools.
This will not
undermine their charitable acts anymore than it undermines the charitable acts of
other Orthodox communities. What it might instead do is enhance them by enabling their Chasidim to earn more
money and rely less on those charities. Which would free up more of those funds for people that really need them. The greater wealth that will generated by better incomes might even increase the coffers of those charities.
So I stand by my belief that we should not drop the ball
here. We should not just protest an unjust curriculum requirement without
insisting that it be replaced by a just one. That is really the best if not the only way to proceed.
