 |
| Robert Aumann accepting the Nobal Prize |
A while back during the height of the battle over a secular studies curriculum between the New
York State Education Department (NYSED) and Yeshivos, Professor Aumann
was asked to write an endorsement of a Yeshiva education. Which he gladly did.
The purpose was to show that a Yeshiva education can indeed produce Nobel Prize
winners. Professor Aumann attended one such Yeshiva, RJJ in New York.
It would seem that there is no better argument for
the type of education received in Yeshivos than one coming from a Nobel Prize
winner who attended one. When PEARLS - an organization created to defend Yeshivos that had no Limudei Chol (secular studies) curriculum at all - asked him to write an affidavit he was happy to do it. (As were others like him that were asked and happily complied too). Here in part is what Professor Aumann wrote:
The immersive, time-consuming experience of deep Talmud study in an educational setting such as RJJ is absolutely necessary for the continuity of Orthodox Jewish life and practice. We were taught not merely a religion, but a way of life. And in that way of life, we were taught — and to this day I repeat daily — ‘Talmud Torah Kenneged Kulam’: the study of Torah is as important as all other religious observance put together.”
I of course agree with that. However, I recall saying at the
time that ALL those endorsements were from people that attended Yeshiovos that
offered a dual curriculum of both Limudei Kodesh (religious studies) and Limudei Chol. What those affidavits decidedly did NOT do is endorse a
curriculum that offered no secular studies at all past 8th grade. And little if
any before that.
That controversy rages on. What should have been a
remedy that insisted that all Yeshivos follow the kind of dual curriculum of Yeshivos attended by those endorsers, has morphed into a battle over religious freedom.
That became a legitimate fight. PEARLS assembled a group of petitioners to fight NYSED. All of whom insisted that the constitutional rights to
teach their religion as they see fit was being challenged by new guidelines issued by NYSED.
I agreed with that in principle. But I also believe that there is nothing in Judaism that precludes the
study of Limudei Chol. Which means that insisting a core secular curriculum be taught does not by itself violate anyone's religious rights. However, challenging NYSED on religious grounds by default meant perpetuating ignorance as an inherent religious right as well.
Religious rights are not a one way street. Children have religious rights
too. They are religiously entitled by Judaism to get a decent education in Limudei
Chol too. Not just in Limudei Kodesh.
The defenders of the 'no Limudei Chol' schools were determined to succeed along those lines. They invited observers to monitor some of those classes and see that what is studied in their religious studies curriculum does in fact offer skills that are normally learned in a secular studies curriculum.
The study of Gemarah (Talmud) certainly has its place in this regard. It is a wonderful way to learn analytical skills and logical thinking. The
intensity of Talmud study probably prepares the Yeshiva student better that way
than most secular curricula does. There are other disciplines that are studied
via the Talumd as well.
It is also true that there is great value in the study
methods employed by Yeshivos. Such as Chavrusa (study partner) system. Some Asian countries and have been successfully implemented a Chavrusa system emulating what they observed in Yeshivos.
Those advantages should be acknowledged. But they are clearly not enough. And are overcome by the disadvantages of no formal Limudei Chol curriculum at all.
Which brings me back to Professor Aumann. From his Algemeiner
article:
Shortly after news of the affidavit was reported in the Yeshiva World News website under the headline “INCREDIBLE: Nobel Prize Winner & Yeshiva Graduate To NYS Education Dept: ‘Talmud Torah Knegged Kulam!’” I got an email from a Chasidic yeshiva graduate that I found deeply upsetting. He informed me that he himself had received no secular instruction at all; and that most Chasidic yeshivas teach only a few hours a week of sub-par secular studies in elementary school and none at all in high school
The picture that was painted for me — and later confirmed by other Chasidic graduates and parents of current students — is of young men who often graduate without even the basic skills to operate professionally. In many cases, this leads to poverty, and also to a sense of insuperable handicap.
Having left New York well over 60 years ago, all this was a revelation to me. Despite the distance, I find it impossible to ignore the genuine distress of the young men with whom I corresponded and the grave wrong being perpetrated on generations of children.
I stand behind every word in the affidavit; but knowing what I know now, I ask the public to read it with an emphasis that is perhaps a little different. Namely, that “I had wonderful experiences with BOTH secular and Jewish studies at RJJ…
This is exactly my point - and why I am dismayed by those that insist Chasidic schools have the religious and constitutional right
to in effect keep their children ignorant.
In my view they have neither. The government
has a right to insist on educational standards so children can become productive citizens.
The Torah has something to say about
that too. When the government asserts a right that does not conflict with Halacha - it falls into the category
of Dina D’Malchusa Dina – the law of the land is the law! But perhaps even
more important is what Professor Aumann notes at the beginning of his article:
In last week’s Torah reading, Moshe Rabbeinu commands us to choose life — “Uvacharta Bachaim.” From this, the Talmud Yerushalmi in Kiddushin derives that a father must teach his son a trade and thus provide him with a livelihood. In this Talmudic passage, Rabbi Yehuda puts it bluntly: “If a father doesn’t teach his son a trade, it’s as if he taught him highway robbery.”
Truer words were never said.
