BS’D
A NOTE ON “FREEDOM OF THOUGHT” IN THE RAAVAD
Rav Zvi Leshem, Tevet 5764
In The”Laws of Repentance” (3:7) the Rambam writes as follows, There are five who are called heretics (minim)… the one who says that there is one Master, but that He has a body and a physical form. Responded the Raavad, Why does he call him a heretic? There were many who were greater and better than him (than us?) who followed this path due to what they saw in verses, and even more due to rabbinic homilies that confuse the mind. The later commentaries, beginning with the Kesef Mishna, questioned the Raavad on several points. How could great people think that G-d has a body? And how could these people be greater than him (the Rambam)? Or is the proper reading in fact, greater than us? Most of the commentaries tried to soften the dispute and argued that the Raavad disagreed only on the question of who technically could be branded a heretic, but that there was no theological debate.
In the Twentieth century several thinkers saw the Raavad in a more radical light. Rav Kuk, (Shmoneh Kevazim 1:31), in a discussion regarding freedom of thought, writes that, In this we are closer to the position of the Raavad…And we agree that as long as the (one who views G-d) physically does not actually create a statue or picture he has not actualized his thought and she (the thought) remains within the spiritual camp and cannot be considered as uprooting and as leaving the religion. A careful reading reveals that not only has the thinker not been disqualified as a heretic, but the thought as well retains legitimacy!
And if the words of Rav Kuk are subtle, the same cannot be said for those of Rav Kalonymus Kalmish Shapira, the martyred Piaseczner Rebbe, in a controversial[1] passage in his Bnai Machshava Tova, page 19. The Rebbe, responding to the question of a Yeshiva student who has difficulty praying to a completely abstract and transcendental G-d, gives startling advice to one at the beginning of the process of spiritual consciousness expansion. Rely on the Raavad who responded to the Rambam in the Laws of Repentance…not that the Raavad meant to say that a person would actually think that there is a ” picture above”, but one should know that G-d has no picture, but that he who is a physical person imagines this. In order that his imagination will be able to grasp on, develop and expand…. You as well…in a difficult situation imagine that you are standing before G-d’s throne, praying and requesting like
a child before his father, ‘father have mercy on me’…”. Here the discussion no longer focuses on the question of who is to be considered a heretic, it has moved into the realm of practical advice! Like Rav Kuk, the Rebbe decides in favor of the Raavad against the Rambam, but here the explanation of his words is infinitely more radical!
It is fascinating to note that support for the Rebbe’s interpretation (not his advice!) is found in an early work of Rav Soloveitchik. In The Halakhic Mind, the Rav deals with the Rambam’s theological polemic against anthropomorphism, and his willingness to describe the transcendental Being with only negative attributes. This stands in stark contrast to the immanent view that dominates Judaism. As the Rav writes on page 39-40, Not even Maimonides succeeded in his attempt to purge Jewish liturgy of poetic elements and anthropomorphic symbols derived from our sensational experience…It is not the logos but the psycho-physical man who sings of G-d and His Glory…the worshipper…begs the Almighty for a guiding hand, and friendly eye and a forgiving smile. On page 115 the Rav brings the Raavad into the discussion. When Rabad criticized Maimonides for including the non-corporeality of G-d among his articles of faith, he was guided by the practical needs of the worshipper who imagines G-d in sensible forms. So even according to Rav Soloveitchik the Raavad is not arguing with the Rambam only on the abstract theological level. The debate has significant consequences in the realm of worship. Unlike the Rebbe, the Rav does not view the Raavad as offering practical advice, Nonetheless he does view the debate as centering on the issue of prayer and the worshippers intense existential need for a relationship with an immanent G-d, unlike the distant transcendental Diety of the Rambam.
[1] Regarding this passage Rav Shagar writes in “Mashiv HaRuach” #12, 202-03, p. 57, The Rebbe relied upon the Raavad’s famous words and permitted the student to imagine a picture when praying. Of course this was with the clear knowledge that he should not think that this was actually a picture of the Divine,G-d forbid. These words, when I read them on another occasion, caused a certain Rosh Yeshiva to completely lose control. He viewed them as an actual provocation, and his Lithuanian soul recoiled from this permission. (My translation, with thanks to Talia Cohen for this reference.)
Articles: Chassidic Educational Philosophy
בס”ד THE TRANSLATION OF CHASSIDIC EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY INTO THE CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL LANDSCAPE
Zvi Leshem (Blobstein)Sivan, 5763
“The essence of the Torah of Chassidut is not to be satisfied with having one’s intellect absorbed in Divine service…One must rather serve HaShem with all aspects of thought, speech, and action.” Rav Kolonymos Kalmish Shapira, Chovat HaTalmidim, p. 21. “I would not want to choose, but if I had to choose whether my child would be a reader or a loving human being, I would choose the latter with alacrity.” Nel Noddings, Caring, p. 20.
INTRODUCTION[1]On the 18th of Sivan, 5763 (June 18, 2003), a symposium was held at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem on the topic of “The Nature of the Religious Experience”. Among the speakers was Professor Yehuda Gellman, and Professor David Hartman was the respondent. Gellman called for the traditional Jewish community to encourage the cultivation of “religious and mystical experiences” for three reasons. Firstly, in the same way that it is healthy for a religious community to be confronted by self-criticism of a moral nature, as a kind of self-check, so too, it would benefit from criticism of a mystical nature. This could help revitalize Judaism in a way similar to that of the beginnings of the Kabala, which had a strong impact upon liturgy, and the understanding of Taamay Hamitzvot. Secondly, in a world where externalities and materialism are dominant forces, it is crucial to encourage a drive for “inner transformation” as well. Lastly, since Judaism is based on a very strong collective identity, including Halachic conformity, it is crucial to balance this with more of an outlet for individual expression and creativity. While Gellman acknowledged that there were clear dangers inherent in his proposal, he felt that the benefits would probably outweigh the risks, and we should not refuse to try something new simply because it carries a certain risk, an approach he described as Charedi. In addition, according to Gellman, any antinomian tendencies inherent in the mystical experience would probably be mitigated by the community’s encouragement and supervision of them, as opposed to driving them underground. Professor Moshe Idel, also a speaker, pointed out that in terms of the tension between the collective and the individual, a strong collective is able to allow more individual expression, and that seeking individuals tend to search to rejoin a collective, thus maintaining a balance. Professor Hartman, responding to Gellman, objected to his proposal on several grounds. Among them was the question, “who needs it?’. Hartman also spoke of people whom he knew who were affiliated with Orthodox synagogues but preferred driving out to the country or playing music on Shabbat attending services, which they perceived as less spiritually uplifting. While not being judgmental, he clearly viewed this as a problem. Gellman did not really respond to these points, for he was advancing the argument for spirituality as an enhancement to the current religious landscape, and not also as a solution (or at least part of a solution) to serious problems inherent in that very community. Thus it seems to me that Gellman could easily have made the following two points. Firstly, spirituality is not a luxury but rather a necessity in order to cope with the alarming trend of alienation and secularization among our young people. Secondly, had Rabbi Hartman’s synagogue been more spiritually uplifting, perhaps his congregants would not have felt the need to run of to the mountains in order to have a “spiritual” experience, they could have had it right in shul! It is to the first of these points, i.e. the use of spirituality in an educational setting in order to both enhance and to remedy, that I will address my remarks. I ask the reader to accept this paper as an exploration of the issues involved in implementing this type of education in contemporary schools. It is neither exhaustive nor is it sufficiently detailed as an actual curriculum or educational plan, as the practical translation would depend very heavily upon the particular educational setting in which it was being implemented. Recent years have witnessed several religious trends within the Dati Le’umi community in Israel, some of which are paralleled in Diaspora communities as well. The process of secularization is a serious problem in modern society. External influences such as the theater and literature have today been augmented by cinema, television, and the internet. The hope to isolate young people from harmful outside influences today, especially to those who wish to engage with modernity, is nearly impossible. The trend of secularization in Israel, while not a new phenomenon, seems nonetheless to have been strengthened in recent years due to a variety of factors in addition to the above-mentioned “modern influences”. The breakdown of the dream of Eretz Yisrael HaShelamah in light of the Peace Accords with Egypt, and especially after the signing of the Oslo Accords has left a theological void and much confusion in its wake. The assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, z”l, further served to destabilize the community, throwing off its sense of self-confidence. In addition to this the growing trends in Israel towards materialism, self-fulfillment, and personal autonomy have all taken their toll on the religious community as well.[2] Perhaps it is possible to view these trends not (only) as a problem, but as an opportunity for educational and religious renewal as well. In contrast to the secularization, there has also been a renewed interest in “spirituality” in Israeli society in general, and this trend is also clearly visible in the Dati Le’umi community as well.[3] Interestingly, this seeming contradiction may in itself be similar to the situation of Polish Jewry between the wars. The Piaseczener Rebbe, Kalonymos Kalmish Shapira, in Aish Kodesh, page 112, writes regarding the situation before the Holocaust: We have seen for several years that many children of Charedi families have, unfortunately distanced themselves from the Torah, and become secular (Chofshi’im), God forbid. On the other hand…many children of simple fathers have come closer to the Torah. They have even withstood tribulations in order that they could become Bnai Torah and Hassidim.
The current trend towards spirituality, sometimes described as “neo-Hassidic”, is often credited to (or blamed upon) the late Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach. It manifests itself in several ways, including the existence of numerous “Carlebach Minyanim” throughout Israel (and the Diaspora).[4] In the educational realm, the study of Hassidic texts, once almost unheard of in “modern” circles, has penetrated into almost all Dati Le’umi higher educational institutions. Several Yeshivot, such as Beit El and Ohr Etzion, have taken upon themselves to republish annotated versions of classical Hassidic works. More dramatically, there are now several institutions that are guided largely by the notions of Hassidism. These would include the Yeshivot Hesder; Siach, Ramat Gan, Otniel, and Tekoah, as well as the Yeshiva High School Mekor Haim in Kfar Etzion. The English speaking Yeshiva in Bat Iyan is clearly within this camp as well. Among the institutions for young women, those who most prominently stress Hassidism in their curriculum are Nishmat and Shuvah. It is however noteworthy, that despite the similarities between Chassidic educational theory and feminist educational theory, (a topic which we shall return to later), there is no high school for girls run along these lines, and in the post-high school world, the choices are much more limited for young women than they are for men. While there may be explanations for this disparity, it may well be that the major effort in integrating Chassidic educational philosophy into our schools needs to be concentrated in the sphere of education for women. The writings of Rav K. K. Shapira, the Piaseczner Rebbe, to whom we shall return shortly, are also studied in many of the above-mentioned institutions. Much of this trend can be attributed to a few Israeli educators such as Rabbis Adin Steinsaltz, Shagar (Shimon Gershon Rosenberg), and Yitzhak Ginsburgh, and their students. The reprinting of numerous Hassidic books and their translation into English (including most of the Piaseczner’s works) is evidence of the great interest in this literature, and would seem to indicate that it is helping to fill a spiritual gap and provide meaning for many Jews.[5] Polish Jewry in the interwar period was faced with a spiritual crisis of massive proportions. Economic and demographic factors, combined with the influx of modern trends, all contributed to a radical process of secularization, especially among the youth. Even Hassidic communities found themselves threatened by alienation and defection. The Piaseczner Rebbe sought to combat these trends on a wide variety of communal and educational fronts. One of his strategies was the organization of secret societies for the elite of the Hassidic community. Devotion and service to God, experienced in a group setting, would enable the individual to reach spiritual heights he could not attain on his own. Perfecting their own relationship to God, the participants would eventually create a ripple effect revitalizing the Hassidic world. This was the subject of the Rebbe’s first book, Bnai Mahshavah Tovah, written around 1920, and features prominently in his later works as well. His major spiritual technique is the development of the imagination through exercises in guided imagery on a series of religious topics. Ultimately one’s consciousness could be raised to the level of a constant awareness of God’s presence, and stronger sense of connectedness with the Divine. In light of the above, it would be wise for Jewish educators and community leaders such as congregational rabbis to look more carefully at Hassidic literature in general, and that of the Piaseczner in particular, to carefully examine their relevance and applicability to our society as well. As both a communal leader and a master pedagogue who devoted much of his writing to educational theory and method in the confrontation between tradition and modernity, the Rebbe may have much to say that could help us to address the problem of secularization by enhancing the spiritual lives of our students. In an era where the traditional study of Talmud, especially in Yeshiva High Schools has been decried as being “dry” and “irrelevant” it is clear that not all of our institutions can continue to function along the lines of the “Lithuanian Yeshiva” model. Many of today’s students crave pathos in their spiritual and intellectual lives, and we need to be ready to serve as authentic guides. It seems clear that the study of Hassidic texts with an aim to implementation should be part both of our curriculum and of teacher training. Of course the classroom is only one aspect of this program. The Carlebach style of Tefilah, and in general the attempt to build an atmosphere of Avodat HaShem based upon joy, Devakut and a rich inner life are also essential if this is to be a holistic system and not just another variation on an intellectual approach to Judaism. The idea of spiritual societies along the lines of Bnai Machshavah Tovah should also be considered carefully and experimented with. Needless to say, we are dealing here with a powerful emotional tool, one that would need to be used wisely and responsibly by serious and sensitive educators. The Rebbe’s personal work was cut short by the Holocaust. Nonetheless we can continue to implement his vision through the careful analysis and adaptation of his methods to the current educational landscape.
CHAPTER ONE: FOUNDATIONS OF CHASSIDIC EDUCATIONAL THEORY: In this discussion we shall base ourselves primarily upon the writings of Rabbi Kolonymus Kalmish Shapira, the martyred Rebbe of Piasezcena, and subsequently of the Warsaw Ghetto.[6] The Rebbe’s educational philosophy is expressed in a series of books, beginning with Chovat HaTalmidim, published in 1932, and Hachsharat HaAvreichim, and Mevo HaShaarim, published posthumously. His early pamphlet, Bnai Machshava Tova (c.1920) contains much of the underpinnings of his later works. Our choice of this figure is based upon several considerations. Firstly, he is one of the few Chassidic thinkers to write systematically about education. Secondly, as an active Rebbe and head of the Yeshiva that he founded (Daat Moshe, in Warsaw in 1923) he was a master of practice, not only of theory. Thirdly, his work, while in interwar Poland, was meant to address some of the same issues religious education is still confronted with today, i.e. the influence of secularization and alienation from the religious community. Obviously the application of his philosophy requires much in the way of translation, but nonetheless, his foundations can serve as a basis upon which to base the revitalization of religious education today. The Rebbe begins Bnai Machshava Tova with a clear statement of his spiritual goals: Our goals are not new, nor do they differ from the goals of all Jews…. to serve God….Perfect and complete service with all of the limbs of our bodies and of our souls, so that no thread of our bodies, nor no spark of our souls should remain outside of God’s holiness…. Merciful Father, have mercy on us, light in our hearts a spark of desire and knowledge, so we will know that it is not sufficient for us to be as a slave…who serves the king, …only from afar…. One whose service is with a closed mind and a covered heart. Our desire and yearning is to be like children, ‘you are children to the Lord your God’. In our service, through Torah, prayer, and other Mitzvot, we will feel closeness to God, like the son who rejoices after not seeing his father for several years, now that his yearning has been answered, so will we, during our service feel our souls run toward Him, for we yearn for him day and night. Running and melting, as our souls melt in their outpouring into the lap of our Father in Heaven. Not only in prayer and service will we feel close to God and enjoy his splendor. Rather our consciousness will always be so clear and strong, and connected to His holiness that it will overcome our senses, so that not only will our senses not rule our consciousness…rather our senses will submit to our consciousness, and they will also perceive the holiness of God spread over all that exists. The person will visualize that he is found in the garden of God…before the Divine throne. This is the goal of our group.[7] In other words, the goal of the society (and of the book), is to guide the members in a type of spiritual service, with the entire being, like a child, feeling closeness to the Divine, and the soul’s melting. Not only should this be achieved through classic acts of religious devotion, such as prayer or study, but the goal is to achieve such a heightened state of consciousness, so that this is perceived at all times! The goal is a total revolution in the religious persona of the individual, in all aspects of his life, so that he thinks constantly of God, in a state of intense concentration and powerful emotion. Forgetfulness is a major cause of a person’s distance from God, and therefore one must work to strengthen the imagination, expand and develop it, in order that it help one to feel connected to God.[8] According to the Rebbe, there are two main reasons why the imagination (consciousness) is weak among modern people: “1) The lack of arousal, whether the excitement of joy or of the broken heart, and 2) It is a natural defect that a person has no strong imagination…he is like a person of small intellectual capabilities.”[9] These limitations are a great liability for spirituality, for:When a person with developed awareness has moments of powerful, clear perception, he can see what the Israelite prophets saw: that we are in the palpable presence of God, be He blessed….with this capacity…he can reawaken the initial inspiration atany time. However, if we have not developed this faculty…we are constantly limited….Since our sensitivity to spiritual arousal is blocked…we constantly focus on mundane considerations…”.[10] Therefore, in order to enter into spirituality, it is necessary to reveal and strengthen one’s imagination through various exercises. In this context the Rebbe offers a variety of exercises in guided imagery as a means to strengthen the imagination and expand one’s consciousness. However, he first turns to a more basic problem, the difficulty of concentration, (kavanah) during prayer, a problem heightened by the need to pray before an abstract being. Here the Rebbe reveals himself at his boldest, advising the reader that a beginner in the process can rely upon the Raavad in Hilchot Tshuvah and imagine a physical image of the Divine when praying! This radical position, based upon an innovative reading of the text, is motivated by the Rebbe’s sincere concern for the Hassid, and his insistence that he cannot demand the impossible, especially from those at the beginning of their training.[11] The exercises in guided imagery, a topic developed in great detail in Hakhsharat HaAvreikhim, include visualizations of the experience of one’s own death[12]and the experience of Seudah Shlishit[13]. In introducing a long exercise on Yitziat Mitzraim, we are told, “When you study Bible try to participate in all of the holy events as though you yourself were present.”[14] After the imagery he concludes, “I hope to God that after what you have experienced…that you are convinced of the benefit of these exercises. If initially you were skeptical, no longer. Certainly you became emotional, sweeping away all profane thoughts, and were filled with holy feelings and the desire for God. What more can we ask?”[15] Other related topics include the recital of Psalms and the importance of speaking with God in one’s own language.[16] The importance and nature of song and music is dealt with in great length.[17] The Rebbe also gives advice and exercises to help the Chassid to learn to overcome physical desires. These include occasionally drinking coffee without sugar, eating bread as the main staple, but relatively little sweet food, limiting the intake of meat, or deliberately selecting the type of meat that one does not prefer.[18] The Rebbe sums up the central section of the work with the following words:Our goal is to help you evolve from the level of a menial laborerin the house of God to the level of an intimate of the One. Yourdaily practice and devotion can draw you nearer to God….We do not merely want to do the deeds that God commands, but to become God’s vessels. We do not merely strive to perform sacred acts, but to become sacred beings…. After each activity, look inward and say: I worked, I studied, I prayed…now do I feel more refined, more attuned? Now that I have opened myself to holiness, do I feel at all elevated, liberated from the …distractions of daily life? Have I created a hunger…for the heights I achieved during prayer? … If this is what you experience and observe it is an indication that …your work is effective. Your spiritual work is becoming integrated with, and transforming, the very substance of your physical reality. And if this is not what you experience…..you must not succumb to despair….you must gather your courage and strength to continue to work, using even more dignity and more resolve.[19] Before going on to address the application of the above theories, let me summarize the above by reference to the concept of the “Ideal Educated Jew”. Clearly our goals would need to be subsumed under the rubric of “multiple intelligences”, and not merely in the cognitive model. The affective aspect is crucial as well. In this one can ascertain certain theoretical models which echo aspects of Feminist educational criticism[20], a subject we shall return to in Chapter two.
CHAPTER TWO: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: ASPECTS OF APPLICATION The education that we are advocating is not only cognitive. Rabbi Dov Zinger, the Rosh Yeshiva of Mekor Chaim, in “הישיבה-מקור חיים”, lists eight characteristics of the Chassidic Yeshiva. Although he claimed that it was not intentional, I found it very telling that “Curriculum” was the last of the qualities discussed, after the topics of “Learning Community”, “the Yeshiva of all of its citizens”, “student participation”, “from religious education to education for religiosity”, “student choice”, “student population”, and “staff”. It would seem that the usually primary question of what is to be learned is perceived of as less important than the questions of who is learning (and from whom?), how is this learning taking place, and perhaps most importantly, in what atmosphere? These issues are reminiscent of Joseph Schwab’s “commonplaces”[21], and we will continue our discussion using them as a basis for organizing our remarks.[22] THE STUDENTS The students that we are planning for at this stage represent a broad spectrum of “religious”[23] students who study within the framework of the “National Religious” ((דתי לאומי school system in Israel. Many of the students studying in this framework would probably be defined as “traditional” rather than “religious” given that in Israeli nomenclature the term “religious” (דתי), usually refers to the normative observance of Jewish Law rather than to “religiosity” in the philosophical sense. Nonetheless, we would contend that many of the issues and suggestions raised here could be relevant and significant also in the secular ((חילוני school system. In theory the “ultra orthodox” (חרדי) schools may be closer to certain aspects of this model already. That assumption however is not based upon empirical evidence and needs to be substantiated. It is certainly clear that many of the ideas outlined here are applicable in that educational system, while others are most certainly not. We will restrict our discussion to the regular religious system.[24] In addition, while certain of our principles are probable adaptable also for primary education, our remarks are geared towards high schools and programs for young adults. We have already seen how the contemporary student in this school system is struggling, especially during adolescence, with issues of religious identity, faith and observance, and personal autonomy. As previously discussed, we contend that a rich and vibrant inner life, based upon a strong sense of the spiritual, as described in Chassidic literature, could form the basis for a renewed commitment to the values of Halachic observance and identification with the surrounding community. One question that remains to be addressed is the potential differences in education based upon gender considerations. It is well known, (and beyond the scope of this paper) to discuss the traditional distinctions that were made between the study of men and of women, especially regarding curriculum, as well as the radical developments in the curriculum for women in the last twenty years. It is significant and somewhat surprising to note, that most of the “Chassidic” type institutions that have developed in the last few years are for men. One would have perhaps expected the opposite, as the emotional and creative aspects of Chassidic education, would normally be considered more “feminine” in characteristic. This is readily apparent from reading feminist educational thinkers such as Carol Gilligan, Nell Noddings, or Jane Roland Martin. In fact, the ethnographer, Tamar Elor, who specializes in the study of “Midrasha” programs for young religious women, remarked to the Jerusalem Fellows in 2003, that the Hesder Yeshiva in Otnial was a “feminine yeshiva” (ישיבה נשית)! This she attributed to the influence of the midrashot upon the yeshivot. Thus we may be witnessing a process, whereby higher Torah study for women initially began by copying men’s yeshiva study, eventually developed its own method and style, and now actually serves as a model for some yeshivot wishing to break out of the prevalent Lithuanian mode. Thus, by and large, those yeshivot that emphasize Chassidic spirituality, are also more open to the addition of art, creative writing, music and dance, as well as Bible, Midrash, Kabbalah and Chassidut, to the general Talmudic curriculum.[25] At Nishmat, a midrasha dedicated both to Talmudic study, and to the development of a womanly spirituality, the issue of how much Talmud, and what type of Talmud study, and its balance with other, “softer” parts of the curriculum is central to the educational discourse.[26] It is as though Martin’s criticism of Peters’ “Ideal of the Educated Man”[27] is playing itself out here in Torah education, as the realization that a strictly cognitive educational ideal is one-sided, masculine in nature, and inappropriate for many women. It is in addition perceived as limiting for many men as well, who feel the need to develop other aspects of their “multiple intelligences” as well. In this context it is also interesting to note the connections between Kabbalah and femininity, but that topic is certainly beyond the scope of this paper.[28] THE TEACHERS Obviously, for a program of this type to be effective, it is crucial that the faculty (and staff) share its vision and model its ideals. This is dependent upon a different model of teacher training.[29] At Yeshivat Mekor Chaim, a teacher training seminar Lifnai VaLifnim has been set up in conjunction with the Herzog Teachers College. In addition to emphasizing the more emotional and spiritual aspects of education that we have been discussing, there is a very strong emphasis upon getting the teacher in training out of his classroom, and into the classroom. Thus the program demands less time in formal classes in educational theory, didactics, etc, and more time spent with a mentor in participating in all aspects of life in the Yeshiva where the young teacher is learning hands-on how to teach. Lifnai VaLifnim is also involved in the Yachdav program at Nishmat, where the students study at both Nishmat and the David Yellin Teachers College. Recently, Rav Dov Zinger of Mekor Chaim, with other like-minded educators, and with the backing of the Ministry of Education, established, a Beit Midrash LeHitchadshut, which specializes in seminars for principals of Yeshiva High Schools, and trains them in the more spiritual approach. The demand, even from formerly very traditional schools, is great. These teachers need to be steeped in Chassidic text and tradition, as well as open, honest and caring mentors, who not only teach their students, but pray for them as well[30], and are able to provide a safe space where students can express themselves emotionally without falling prey to the competitiveness and cynicism often prevalent in the high school setting. In the context of women’s education it is of course crucial that a significant percentage of the faculty, and preferably the director, be women. This will provide for necessary role models obviously lacking in those institutions where the administration and faculty are dominated by men, however qualified and well-intentioned that they may be. With awareness of the issues involved, it seems to me that it would be healthy for male students, at least on the high school level, to have some female teachers. This would serve to help balance the very dominant “male energy” found in the yeshiva setting, hopefully leading to a gentler atmosphere.[31] It is also important that the faculty be somewhat diversified in styles and outlooks. A student faced with a monolithic faculty has nowhere to turn if he does not identify exactly with that faculty. He will be forced to conform, or will feel the need to leave. Of course, everyone on the faculty must identify with the vision of the school and be able to sincerely model its approach, but hopefully that approach will be broad enough to allow for some diversity, enabling different students to identify with at least one of several differing role models. While in a Yeshiva setting it may seem as though the concept of the “learning community” can be taken for granted, this is not necessarily so. Too often the ramim and teachers are susceptible to the same syndrome of burn-out that is often associated with teaching. It is easy to fall into the rut of merely preparing for the classes and no more, or constantly teaching the same material in order to avoid the need for extensive, time-consuming preparation. These pitfalls need to be avoided if the students are to be inspired by being in an atmosphere of a true learning community where every member is engaged in a continuous learning process with enthusiasm and vitality. Needless to say, it is not enough to simply exhort the teachers regarding this, but the schedule needs to be built is a manner that encourages this of environment. THE CURRICULUM For the purposes of this study, one can categorize aspects of the curriculum in several different ways, such as with the dichotomies of formal/informal, religious/secular, group/individual, and cognitive/affective. Within each of these categories there are also numerous sub-categories. For example, within religious (Torah) studies, one can break down the curriculum into four core subjects; Bible, Rabbinic Literature, Jewish Law, and Jewish Thought, with each of these having several sub-categories. In the Yeshiva setting (and not only) there is also the question of the breakdown of time between Bet Midrash-chevruta learning and frontal lectures, as well as between iyun and bekiut. The tension between covering more ground and reviewing is also a factor here. Differences in curriculum planning will also of course reflect age differences, and probably gender considerations as well. The line between “formal” and “informal” education is often a thin one, and in a holistic educational environment may be artificial. Dewey and other modern educational theorists have urged us to see all aspects of what goes on in the school, including aesthetic considerations, such as the layout of rooms, furniture etc. as part of the learning process and to plan accordingly.[32] Chevruta learning is less formal than the shiur, but may be more central. Tefillah may be only an hour a day, but could be seen as more important than all of the cognitive study combined! A program for community volunteer work could also be seen as more important than textual study, even though relatively few hours are assigned to it weekly.[33] The question of how to relate to “secular” (or “general”, obviously the terms are value-laden) studies is an enormous topic, upon which much has been written. Suffice it to say that we are addressing schools in which such studies are part of the curriculum. The question is partially one of balance. How do I send a clear message that Torah study is primary without denigrating the importance of general studies? One possibility is in the scheduling itself. For example, every day should start with Torah, and there should certainly never be a day without at least some Torah study in the schedule. There are several models for how to relate to the relationship between the two realms, including that of Rav Hirsch (תורה עם דרך ארץ), also espoused by Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Lichtenstein ((תורה ומדע as well as the more organic synthesis outlined by Rav Kook. Our approach would be inclined towards the latter, although one has to be careful that a possibly artificial synthesis not lead to superficiality. Unfortunately as long as Israeli high schools are bound by the need to prepare students for the Bagrut matriculation exams these questions are largely taken out of the hands of the individual school. On the post-high school level there remains the freedom to devote the entire curriculum to Torah or related studies, although at that stage questions of academic or career training, and where they fit in become relevant issues. The issue of Talmud study in the Yeshiva high school setting (and in Yeshivot Hesder) is known to be problematic. One suggested solution has been to combine classical lomdus with modern Talmudic research methods in order to create a method which students can better identify with, both spiritually and intellectually.[34] While not removing Talmud as the centerpiece of education for boys[35], we would surely strive to balance it with more study of Bible, Halacha, and Jewish Thought. In the latter category we would put a strong emphasis on Chassidic texts, with the assumption that these address the existential issues of the students as well as enhancing the spiritual atmosphere we are trying to build. For young women for whom the ethos of Talmud study is not taken for granted, there is less pressure for conformity in that area. Thus while I would certainly put Talmud into the curriculum, it would by no means be with an eye to “copying” Yeshiva study or trying to create a female version of the male yeshiva student. Here we enter into a grey area, which needs to be clarified, but may not be possible at this time. That is the need to develop a form of Talmud study, which while being serious and intense, is nonetheless more “feminine” than what goes on in yeshivot. At least one midrasha, which takes Talmud study seriously and yet, has not made it the core curriculum as have some others, is working in this direction, but it may take another generation of women studying Talmud in order for this to crystallize. It is important that women’s Talmud study not become a mere copy of the yeshiva model, in the spirit of “we can do it too”. On the other hand, as the feminist critique of male education pointed out, not only women but even men suffer from it, and men’s curriculum could be modified in the “feminine” direction somewhat as well.[36] THE ATMOSPHERE In Scwab’s view the commonplace of milieu is concerned primarily with what goes on outside of the school. Obviously, no educator can afford to ignore this issue, which in our context has to do primarily with the problem for potential “cognitive dissonance” between home life and the values being taught at school. For the Dati-Leumi (or “Modern Orthodox”)[37] educator, this is not a new issue. In addition, since our approach is holistic, ideally factors outside of school would be of great significance, either to strengthen, or to detract from the education. To give just one example, let’s think about the issue of prayer. If students are taught in school, not only to pray slowly and seriously, but also to combine it with song, dance, and perhaps even meditation, the experience of their parents synagogues will not only not reinforce their experience, but may very well serve to undermine it. Ultimately, the changes in the structure and atmosphere of the school are only one component of a broader religious and social transformation. Therefore, we will address the following remarks to atmospheric conditions within the school, those that the administration and faculty have some control over. Rabbi Hillel Zeitlein, in ספרן של חסידים, originally published in Warsaw in 1928, set out the goal of the creation of a Chassidic society, that was, according to him, both a return to the original Chassidut of the Baal Shem Tov, and adapted to the modern conditions. In his view, three adaptations were necessary. Firstly, that Chassidut became open to learning not only from Torah proper, but also from science and the arts. Secondly, it could no longer be concerned only with the Jewish people, but needed to take a more universal approach as well. Thirdly, it must not limit itself to “religious” concerns only, but must strive towards the betterment of society, regarding issues of social justice, workers’ rights, and socialism. In this same book he called for the establishment of groups of Chassidim (”בני יבנה” ו”בני היכלה”) who would be the vanguard of the new Chassidism. In this he unknowingly echoed the secret plan of the Piaseczner Rebbe, some eight years early, to establish groups of the Chassidic spiritual elite to work together in the service of the Divine.[38] It is certainly possible to experiment with groups of this nature in the context of our schools. Another technique of the Rebbe’s that could be adapted is the idea of a special chevruta, with whom one doesn’t necessarily study text, but instead shares his ups and downs, both materially and spiritually for a kind of “co-counseling”. This technique is used at the Bat Ayin Yeshiva, where it is referred to as Avodat HaShem Chevruta. Of course, in order for this to be effective, it is necessary for the school to truly be a “safe space”, where students can express themselves freely, without fear of being judged negatively, being made to feel uncomfortable, or being made fun of. At Mekor Chaim the students participate in periodic gatherings (התוועדויות) where they openly express their feelings, and share intimate feelings pertaining to serious personal issues in just such an environment. The concept of “non-judgementalism” is crucial for the creation of such a “safe space”.[39] In general much must be done to development the notions of “caring” and relationships, both through the use of classic Jewish sources, such as the works of Mussar and Chassidut, as well as supplements from modern works such as Nell Noddings’ seminal work Caring.[40] As we have already mentioned, prayer must be serious and intense, and at the same time joyous spontaneous, and inspiring, in the spirit of the late Rav Shlomo Carlebach. Meditation techniques, such as the “Hitboddidut” of Rebbe Nachman, and the guided imagery exercises of the Piaseczner Rebbe[41] Needless to say, all of these techniques are powerful, and intense, and potentially dangerous, and must therefore be exercised only under the supervision of competent, experienced, and sensitive educators. We have already alluded to the importance of community work and volunteerism, as well as to that of both the plastic and the performing arts as a way for the students to develop their creative potential and to express themselves.
CHAPTER THREE: CONCLUSIONS: RISKS AND SUCCESS This program is not risk free, and it certainly is not meant for everyone. Firstly, we must be careful to avoid it becoming another elitist approach, only for the most highly motivated students. Mekor Chaim, for example, has been criticized that it makes things easy for itself by only accepting highly motivated students. I raised this issue with Rav Zinger, and he professed a clear conviction that the method could be successful in almost any school, although the bigger the school, the more difficult it would be to maintain the proper level of necessary intimacy. This assertion must, of course, be tested.A second issue is that we must be careful not to foster an atmosphere in which the emotional zest for performing of the Mitzvot replaces (rather than enhances) the feeling of obligation to fulfill the Mitzvot. In a highly normative system such as Halachic Judaism, the basic concept of “Accepting the Yoke of the Commandments” ( (עול המצוותis a crucial ingredient in spiritual life. This topic has recently been addressed in some length by Rav Amital.[42] Thirdly, with the general trend towards “mysticism”, spirituality, and even “pop-Kaballah” in today’s society, we must be careful to distinguish between that which is authentically Jewish, and that which is not. We must as well, be careful not to allow our students “spirituality” to degenerate to the lowest common denominator of “what is out there”. As previously stated as well, in dealing with such a powerful emotional tool, great caution must be taken that charismatic individuals not be allowed to manipulate our students, who need to be helped to distinguish between genuine spirituality and charlatanism. We must constantly reinforce the idea that only in conjunction with strict adherence to Halachah can our spirituality be real. We must further teach that no personal spiritual experience should ever come at the expense of an absolutely ethical approach to the needs of the Other. A spiritual experience that impinges upon another’s rights, is nothing more than an ego-trip, and is such may be closer to idolatry than to a legitimate Jewish experience. In general, the need to distinguish between the thrill of an ego high and a real experience of the Divine must be taught, as difficult as this is. Success will be measured on two levels. Firstly, by our success in reducing the alienation and secularization of our youth. This is of course not easy to measure, as it is hard to have a reliable “control group”. That is to say that the success of Mekor Chaim is also based upon the students that it accepts, and may not prove anything about the viability of such a program with different students. Secondly, and more importantly, we will measure success by the development of G-d-fearing and ethical students who live a highly vibrant and meaningful inner life, based upon the happiness of serving G-d joyfully, and a feeling of connectedness with the Divine. This is of course no easier to evaluate, but let us not desist for this reason. The potential for great educational success clearly out ways the dangers, if our program is instituted responsibly, and if we merit a strong dose of סעייתא דשמיא for our efforts.
Bibliography
מקורות בעברית
בבליוגרפיה של מקורות ראשוניים
אקשטיין, מנחם, תנאי הנפש להשגת החסידות, בני ברק, תש”ךברזובסקי, שלום נח, נתיבות שלום, כרך א’, ירושלים, תשמ”בברזובסקי, שלום נח, נתיבי חינוך, ירושלים, תנש”אברזובסקי, שלום נח, עולם הישיבה, ירושלים, תנש”אהשתפכות הנפש, (ברסלב), ירושלים תשל”דהוטנר, יצחק, פחד יצחק:אגרות וכתבים, ניו יורק, תשנ”אהנקין, חנה, “תלמוד תורה לנשים-לאן?”, ירושליםוולבה, שלמה, זריעה ובנין בחינוך, ירושלים, תשנ”וישראל מרוזין, עירין קדישין, בני ברק, תשמ”גלייענר, מרדכי יוסף, מי השילוח, ניו יורק, תשד”מנחמן מברסלב, ליקוטי מוהר”ן, בני ברקנתן מנמירוב, ליקוטי הלכות, ירושלים, תשמ”בנתן מנמירוב, ליקוטי תפילות, ירושליםעמיטל, יהודה, התחברות, אלון שבות, תשס”גציטלין, הלל, ספרן של יחידים , ירושלים, תש”בציטלין, הלל, בפרדס החסידות והקבלה , תל אביב, 1977קוק, אברהם יצחק, אגרות הראי”ה, כרך א’, ירושלים תשמ”הקוק, אברהם יצחק, אורות, ירושלים תשמ”בקוק, אברהם יצחק, אורות התורה, ירושלים, תשל”גשג”ר (שמעון גרשון רוזנברג), זכרון ליום ראשון, אפרת, תשס”אשליט, דניאל, אור שבעת הימים, תשנ”חשפירא, ישעיהו, עלינו המלאכה לגמור (עורך:רקנטי, יצחק), בית אל, תשנ”בשפירא, מלכה, מדין לרחמים, ירושלים, תשכ”טשפירא, קלונמוס קלמיש, אש קודש , ירושלים תש”ךשפירא, קלונמוס קלמיש, בני מחשבה טובה תל אביב, תשמ”טשפירא, קלונמוס קלמיש, דרך המלך , ירושלים תשמ”א שפירא, קלונמוס קלמיש, הכשרת האברכים, ירושלים, תש”כ”ושפירא, קלונמוס קלמיש, חובת התלמידים , תל אביב, תשנ”בשפירא, קלונמוס קלמיש, מבוא השערים, ירושלים תשכ”ושפירא, קלונמוס קלמיש, צו וזירוז, ירושלים תשכ”ושפירא, קלונמוס קלמיש, בני מחשבה טובה, עם הערותיו של בלאבשטיין, צבי, אפרת, תשס”ב בבליוגרפיה של מחקריםאטקס, עמנואל, עורך, במעגלי חסידים, ירושלים, תש”סאלאור, תמר, בפסח הבא, תל אביב, 1998בלאבשטיין, צבי, “עיונים בשיטתו הרוחנית של האדמו”ר מפיאסצ’נא”, ירושלים, תשס”בבר-לב, מרדכי, “בוגרות הישיבות התיכוניות בישראל: בין מסורת וחידוש”, באר שבע, 1977ברנר, יוסף חיים, “על הלל ציטלין”, מכתב בספריה הלאומית ירושלים, 1920גארב, יוני, “תחייתה המובנת של המיסטיקה בימינו”, ירושלים, 2002 גוטנמכר, דניאל, עורך, לפנים, ירושלים, תש”סדון-יחיא, ש., אדמו”ר-חלוץ, תל אביב, תשכ”אהלחמי, מאיר, תולדות החסידות בא”י , כרך ב’, ירושליםוולפסברג, ישעיהו, והרכבי, צבי, עורכים, ספר ציטלין , ירושלים, תש”הזילברשלג, דוד חיים, עורך, ספר זכרון קודש לבעל אש קודש , ירושלים תשנ”דזינגר, דוב, “הישיבה החסידית”, כפר עציוןזינגר, דוב, “הישיבה-מקור חיים”, כפר עציוןפייאקאז’, מנדל, חסידות פולין : מגמות רעיונות בין שתי המלחמות והגזירות ת”ש – תש”ה, ירושלים 1990פינקלמן, יואל, עורך, חינוך לתפילה בעלת משמעות, ירושלים, תשס”גפישרמן, שרגא, נוער הכיפות הזרוקות, אלקנה, 1999פישרמן, שרגא, עלמה אבדה, אלקנה, 2000 רואי, ביטי, “נשים ונשיות-דימויים מספרות הקבלה”, ירושלים, תשס”גרואי, ביטי, “ערכים של חירות במערכות חיים שמרניות-אוטונומיה וסמכות”, ירושלים, תשס”גרוזנברג, שלום, “ההלכה ומלכודת השיח והרטוריקה” בכלביא יקום , תל אביב 2000 שג”ר (שמעון גרשון רוזנברג), “מיתודה ומוטיבציה בהוראת הגמרא”, ירושליםשלג, יאיר, הדתיים החדשים, ירושלים, 2000ש”ץ-אופנהיימר, רבקה, החסידות כמיסטיקה, ירושלים תשכ”ח Sources in EnglishEnglish Primary SourcesEkstein, Menachem, Visions of a Compassionate World, translated by Yehoshua Starett, Jerusalem-New York, 2001Shapira, Kalonymus, A Student’s Obligation , translated by Micha Odenheimer, New Jersy 1991Shapira, Kalonymus, Conscious Community , translated by Andrea Cohen-Kiener New Jersey 1999Shapira Kalonymus – Sacred Fire : Torah from the Years of Fury, 1939 – 1942, translated by J. Hershy Worch, New Jersey 2000Shapira, Kalonymus, To Heal the Soul , translated by Yehoshua Starett, New Jersey, 1995 Shapira Malka, The Rebbe’s Daughter, translated by Nehemia Polen, Philadelphia, 2002
English Secondary Sources
Alexander, Hannan, Reclaiming Goodness: Education and the Spiritual Quest, South Bend, 2001Blobstein, Zvi, “Hassidism Confronts Modernity: The Spiritual Societies of the Rebbe of Piazetzna: Implications for Contemporary Jewish Education”, Jerusalem, 2002Blobstein, Zvi, “The Spiritual System of the Rebbe of Piaseczneh: Implications for Contemporary Jewish Education”, in Spirituality Today, Jerusalem, 2002Blobstein, Zvi, “Some Thoughts on the Motivation of Midrasha Students”, Jerusalem, 2001Cohen, Jonathan, “Deliberation, Tradition, and the Problem of Incommensurability: Philosophical Reflections on Curriculum Decision Making”, in Educational Theory, 1999Derovan, David, editor, Spirituality Today, Jerusalem, 2002Dewey, John, Dewey on Education, New York, 1959Frank, Aaron, “Towards an Understanding of Male Gender Identity in Contemporary American Orthodox Judaism”, Jerusalem, 2002Freire, Paulo, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Middlesex, 1972 Friedman, Asher, “K’Gananim b’Gan Hashem: As Gardeners in the Garden of God: Hasidic Thought and its Implications for Teacher-Student Relationships”, Jerusalem, 2001Gellman, Yehudah: “Buber’s Bluff: Buber’s Replies To Scholem and Schatz-Offenheimer,” Jerusalem, 1999Gilligan, Carol, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development, Cambridge, 1982Idel, Moshe, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, New Haven, 1988. Idel, Moshe, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic, Albany, 1995James, William, The Varieties of Religious Experience, New York, 1929Kaminetsky, Joseph, editor, Hebrew Day School Education, New York, 1970Kaplan, Aryeh, Jewish Meditation, New York, 1985Kaplan, Aryeh, Meditation and Kabbalah, Maine, 1982Klein, Rachel Levitt, “Teachers in Search of G-d: Spiritual Education in Modern Orthodox Day Schools”, Jerusalem, 2002Korczak, Janusz, How to Love a Child,Martin, Jane Roland, “The Ideal of the Educated Person”, in Changing the Educational Landscape, New York, 1994Nisan, Mordechai, “Beyond Intrinsic Motivation: Cultivating a ‘Sense of the Desirable’”, in Effective and Responsible Teaching, Oser, Dick, Patry, editorsNoddings, Nel, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education, Berkeley, 1984Perl, Gil and Weinstein, Yaacov, “A Parent’s Guide to Orthodox Assimilation on University Campuses”, Internet, 2003Polen, Nehemia, “Miriam’s Dance: Radical Egalitarianism in Hasidic Thought”, in Modern Judaism 12 (1992)Polen, Nehemia, “Sensitization to Holiness”, in Jewish Action, Winter 1989 – 90Polen, Nehemia, The Holy Fire , New Jersey, 1994Rappaport-Albert, Ada, editor, Hasidism Reappraised, London, 1996Scheffler, Israel, “The Concept of the Educated Person”, in Work, Education and Leadership, New York, 1995Scholem, Gershom, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, New York, 1974Schwab, Joseph, “The Practical: Translation into Curriculum”, in School Review, #81, 1973.Stone-Halpern, Ariel, “ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם: The Meaning of Spirituality for the Post Modern American Jewish Community”, Jerusalem, 2003.Weiss, Avi, Principles of Spiritual Activism, Hoboken, 2002Wexler, Phillip, Mystical Society, Boulder, 2000Wexler, Phillip, “Social Psychology, the Hasidic Ethos and the Spirit of the New Age”, in Kabbalah, vol 7, 2002
[1] I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the faculty of the Mandel School and especially to the other Fellows, with whom I had many fruitful discussions regarding the ideas expressed in this paper. In particular I would like to thank Professor Mordechai Nisan and Dr. Moshe Meir who mentored aspects of this work, and Dr. Ari Ackerman for help in preparing its presentation. Among the Fellows, my work benefited most greatly from numerous discussions with Michael Feigenblatt, Aaron Frank, Keith Kahn-Harris, Rachel Klein, Malka Landau, Hannah Porat, Biti Roi, and Ariel Stone-Halpern. Needless to say, this, and all of my work, benefits greatly from the encouragement, constructive criticism, and uncompromisingly high standards of my wife Julie. See מי השילוח on the phrase עזר כנגדו. All shortcomings are, of course, solely my responsibility. [2] These issues have been the subject of much sociological research and theological interest in the last quarter century, including academic studies, books, and numerous popular articles in the press, such as in Nekudah, and Mekor Rishon. The first major study on the secularization trend among Yeshivah High School students was Bar-Lev, Mordekhai, Bogrei HaYeshivot HaTihoniot BeEretz Yisrael, Bain Mesoret veHidush, (Ramat Gan, doctoral dissertation at Bar Ilan University, 1977). More recently Dr. Shragah Fisherman of Mikhlelet Orot has written two books on the topic of datlashim (the formerly religious. The very existance of a term like this in wide usage would seem to point to the extent of the problem). See Fisherman, Shragah, Noar HaKipot HaZerukot, (Elkana, Orot Yisrael, 1998), and Almah Avdah, (Elkana, Orot Yisrael, 2000). In a more popular vein, the jounalist Yair Sheleg also devotes space to the issue in his recent book, HaDatiim HaHadashim, (Jerusalem, Keter, 2000). [3] Sheleg, Yair, HaDatiim HaHadashim, 249-264.[4] These minyanim are not only found in the Orthodox world. At the recent Limmud Conference (an annual multi-denominational Jewish educational conference in England), a friend remarked to me that while there were many different services on Shabbat, (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Egalitarian, etc.), they were “all doing Carlebach!” When I recently visited the Hillel House of a major American university for Shabbat, I found both “regular” and “alternative” Orthodox Minyanim. To my surprise, the “regular” Minyan was “Nusach Carlebach”, while the “alternative”, breakaway Minyan was actually the standard Nusach![5] In Woodmere New York, there exists a non-Hassidic congregation, named Aish Kodesh that has a Hassid for the Rabbi, and attempts to run itself upon the model of a Hassidic community. [6] For biographical and bibliographical background, see the articles by Blobstein and by Polen in the English bibliography, as well as Blobstein’s “עיונים…” in the Hebrew bibliography.[7] Bnai Machshava Tova, 7.[8] Ibid,11.[9] Ibid. 12-13.[10] Ibid. 13. The translation is from Cohen-Kiener,13-14.[11] Ibid.,19-20. The Rebbe bases himself upon the comment of the Raavad to the Rambam; Hilchot Tshuvah, 3:7. His interpretation continues to cause controversy even today. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik was also well aware of this inherent tension in religiosity. See The Halachic Mind, (New York, Seth Press, 1986), 39-40, “Indeed, not even Maimonides succeeded in his attempt to purge Jewish liturgy of…anthropomorphic symbols….Jewish liturgists were not inclined to dispense even with anthropomorphic metaphors that lend warmth and color to the personal man-God relation….The worshipper…begs the Almighty for a guiding hand, a friendly eye, and a forgiving smile.” See also the note to this section, on page 115, “When Rabad criticized Maimonides for including the non-corporeality of God among his articles of faith, he was guided by the practical needs of the worshipper who imagines God in sensible forms.” This reading of the Raavad sounds suprisingly similar to that of the Rebbe.[12] Ibid.,22-23.[13] Ibid. 28-30. It is fascinating to note that at approximately the same time that the Rebbe composed Bnai Mahshavah Tovah, unbeknownst to him, another Polish Hassid also wrote a short book dedicated to spiritual growth through exercises in guided imagery, although of a different sort. See Eckstein, Menakhem, Tenai haNefesh leHasagat haHassidut, (Bnai Brak, Netzach, 1960). Eckstein also perished in the Holocaust. The book was recently translated by Yehoshua Starett, and published as Visions of a Compassionate World, (Jerusalem, Urim, 2001). We also have no indication that Eckstein was aware of the Rebbe’s work. For a detailed comparison of the two methods, see Blobstein, Zvi, Iyunnim BeShitato HaRuchanit Shel HaAdmor MiPiazetznah. [14] Hakhsharat HaAvreikhim, 33a.[15] Ibid, 37b.[16] Ibid.,22-23. The latter point is similar to the meditative technique of Hitboddidut, a major aspect of Breslov Hassidut.[17] Ibid. 41-44. See Nehemia Polen,”Sensitization to Holiness”, Jewish Action, Winter 1989-90, 32, “In common with other Rebbeim of his lineage, R. Shapiro played the violin himself, and would often lead his Hassidim in song on the violin.” The Rebbe also had a detailed system of meditation, which he referred to as “hashtakah” (”quieting”), taught to his closest disciples. The technique is described in Derekh HaMelekh,406-407.[18] Ibid. 46-47. I would be mistaken to conclude from here that the Rebbe advocates asceticism as the appropriate vehicle for Divine service. In Mavo HaShaarim, chapter 9, the Rebbe explains in great length that the uniqueness of Hassidic devotion is predicated upon its holistic nature, stressing the involvement of the entire body. This is the idea that is generally refered to as “avodah begashmiut”. What we have here represents means to an end, and not the end itself.[19] Ibid. 47. Translation from Cohen-Kiener, 76-77.[20] See Martin, Jane Roland, “The Ideal of the Educated Person” in Changing the Educational Landscape, New York 1994. See also Scheffler, Israel, “The Concept of the Educated Person” in Work, Education, and Leadership, New York, 1995.[21]The students, the teachers, the curriculum, and the educational milieu. Schwab, Joseph, “The Practical: Translation into Curriculum”, in School Review, #81, 1973.[22] Our use of the “Commonplaces” is meant as a helpful and “neat” structure for organizing ideas. It is not meant as an endorsement of them as the totality of the educational experience. For example, Schwab, as a Deweyan, sees the process of educational analysis as a primarily a deliberative, problem-solving one. This being the case he does not list “educational goals” among his commonplaces. Religious education, on the other hand, being more normative, as well as affective, often begins with a discussion of educational goals, which could be seen as a “fifth commonplace”. For an attempted synthesis, see Cohen, Jonathon, “Deliberation, Tradition, and the Problem of Incommensurability: Philosophical Reflections on Curriculum Decision Making”, in Educational Theory, 1999. It is also important to remember that these categories are also artificial in the sense that it is very difficult to maintain them within a descriptive or proscriptive analysis of education. It is easy to see, for example, the extent to which “teachers” and “the educational milieu” actually overlap.[23] In general I prefer to avoid the use of stereotypical descriptive terms such as “religious” or “secular”. For the purpose of this discussion, however, I have no choice. I request the reader’s understanding. [24] In reference to the use of some similar ideas in Orthodox day schools in America, see Klein, Rachel Levitt, “Teachers in Search of God: Spiritual Education in Modern Orthodox Day Schools”, Jerusalem 2002.[25] In my wife’s ceramics studio in Efrat, are currently found not only female students from the nearby midrasha in Migdal Oz, but also avreichim from Yeshivat Siach in Efrat. One of these students told me that he definitely feels that working with clay is a significant spiritual experience, and that many more students from the Yeshiva are hoping to join. [26] For a fascinating discussion of women’s prayer, study and spirituality in the surrounding atmosphere of post-modernism, see the article by Nishmat’s founder and Dean, Rabbanit Chana Henkin, “תלמוד תורה לנשים-לאן?“, Jerusalem. [27] See note 20, and the discussion on gender under “STUDENTS”.[28] See the works by רואי and שליט in the bibliography.[29] See the articles by Rav Dov Zinger in the appendix, as well as that of Asher Friedman, “K’Gananim b’Gan HaShem” in the billiography, which deals with student-teacher relationships. Several of the articles in לפנים, (bibliography) are also relevant. [30] Rabbi Dov Zinger in remarks before parents, 2003, based upon וולבה, שלמה, זריעה ובנין בחינוך, ירושלים, תשנ”ו.[31] See Frank, Aaron, “Towards an Understanding of Male Gender Identity in Contemporary American Orthodox Judaism”, Jerusalem 2002. While that paper addresses the American context, many of its findings are equally relevant in Israel, and perhaps even more so, given the ethos of the Army on Israeli life in general, and on masculinity in particular. [32] This idea is taken to the extreme in the Waldorf schools of Theosophist philosopher Rudolf Steiner. In these schools, such as the one in Kibbutz Harduf in the Galil, even the colors in which classrooms are painted are planned in advance according to the age of the students.[33] See the quote from Nell Noddings, Caring, at the beginning of the paper. In one school known to the author, there were yearly debates over how much time to allot for volunteer work, and when to place it in the weekly schedule. Those focused on the cognitive model found it very difficult to give up “learning time” for this purpose, whereas the more “holistic” educators felt that without a clear message to the students that volunteer work is central to the learning process, the students intellectual achievements would largely be meaningless. [34] See הרב שג”ר, “מתודה ומוטיבציה בהוראת הגמרא”, ירושלים.. On the other hand, one must be aware of the huge controversy in Dati-Leumi circles over the question of “Talmud Criticism” (”שיטת הרבדים“) in general, and in education in particular, that raged during the 5763 academic year. Some Rabbis went so far as to call for the blacklisting of anyone known to teach or even to have studied with this method! My own teacher, HaRav Professor David Halivni, arguably the “father” of this method, once remarked to me that it is absolutely inappropriate for all but very advanced Talmud students. [35] Rav Shagar, speaking with his students at Yeshivat Siach in July, 2003, noted that it is still inconceivable to think of a yeshiva in which the in-depth study of Talmud is not the central part of the curriculum.[36] See note 20, and text on p. 14.[37] My use of the term “Modern Orthodox” is meant in its broadest context, including what has come to be referred to as “Centrist Orthodox”.[38] While there are similarities, there are also significant differences. For a detailed comparison see Blobstein, עיונים בשיטתו הרוחנית…”“. In a recent lecture at Beit Morasha, I suggested that the current trend of “חסידות ארץ-ישראלית” as found among Rav Shagar, his students, and their institutions, such as Mekor Chaim, seems to reflect Rav Zeitlein’s vision of a futuristic Chassidut. One of the students perceptively pointed out that this “Israeli” Chassidut was probably most influenced in these directions by Rav Kook. We know as well that Rav Zeitlein was also deeply influenced by Rav Kook, with whom he visited on a trip to Palestine.[39] According to Rav Shagar, it is also crucial for one’s own spiritual growth and repentance, as one must learn how to forgive one’s self as well as others. See זכרון ליום ראשון, אפרת תשס”א..[40] The author would like to note that there may be certain aspects of Noddings’ work that are incompatible with a religion such as Judaism, which is based upon a normative code of behavior, which is also meant to govern relational ethics. Noddings’ call for spontaneity in the ethical response, as opposed to a measured apparatus for moral decision-making, is hard to reconcile with a Halachic approach. In her work, as in that of Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice, the more legal approach is seen as a “male” model, whereas women are (either by nature or in their opinion, because of social construction) more inclined to a non-structured, spontaneous approach to caring for the Other in need. Nonetheless, much in Noddings is certainly an important statement of a powerful ethic which should be compatible with our approach. Her work was influenced to some extent by Buber, as well as by Levinas, who certainly saw his approach as having been informed by rabbinic theology, ethics, and law.[41] Interestingly, at about the same time that the Rebbe first spelled out these ideas in בני מחשבה טובה another Polish Chasid, Rabbi Menachem Eckstein, also wrote a book advocating the use of guided imagery in Chassidic spirituality, תנאי הנפש להשגת החסידות. For a comparison of the two methods, see Blobstein, “עיונים…”. The book was recently published in English under the title of Visions of a Compassionate World. A wealth of information of Jewish meditative techniques is also found in the works of the late American Kabbalist, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, such as in his Jewish Meditation. It is also important to note there his repeated warnings about “safe” meditation.[42] Amital, Yehuda, התחברות, אלון שבות, תשס”ג. Rav Amital distinguishes between the categories of “התחייבות” and “התחברות”.
