Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
TheFakeMaven:
You wrote: “i might add ‘and the experience of the beauty of Torah and mitzvos’… can only be done through teaching theology. Now, I don’t mean the philosophical aspect of theology, or as it is known as ‘chakira’ that is a pure waste of time, and most people will not understand it anyway. what I mean is either Chassidus or Nefesh Hachaim (or both as they are not mutually exclusive). Without teaching them the beauty of the Torahdige worldview one cannot show the ‘beauty of the mitzvas since without this deeper understanding the mitzvahs are nothing but a pressure.”
Whatever learning addresses the sheer beauty of Torah and mitzvos is great. But the emotional aspect is absorbed, rather than learned. This requires a role model, who displays how Torah and mitzvos are fulfilled, with anticipation, with motivation, with joy, with emotional connection, etc. If one never observes this, the studying of the greatest texts are in danger of barely making a dent – if that. All of Torah and mitzvos is about connecting to HKB”H, and the greatest connection is the loving relationship we have with HKB”H. The more we recognize the love He has for us, the more we can grasp at the love we need to feel for Him. But these sentences are only verbal descriptions of an emotional experience. We achieve this through experience, with vicarious experience being part of the deal. As for chinuch, the greatest flaw has been the failure of our mechanchim serving as role models. But I digress.
Go ahead and learn Nefesh Hachaim, Tanya, and whatever sifrei mussar and chassidus. The understanding needs to be a supplement to the experiential chinuch.
Let’s simplify the discussion a bit. The intellect and emotion are two different aspects of the personality. They interact much, but each manages its affairs differently. There are intellectual disbelievers, and these comprise the realm of apikorsim. These are few and far between. The Kotzker rebbe describes this at great length (atypical for his style of sharp, brief witticisms). He states that what we tend to call apikores is actually nothing better than a baal taavah, looking for a verbal excuse for following hedonistic pleasures.
Most people do not engage in deep philosophical investigation and reach a logical conclusion that there is no god, or that someone else it it. Rather, those who choose these ideologies are doing so because it provides then a (PC) explanation for doing what they want. This process is emotion driven, not logic. The reason we should not waste time talking theology with someone who is OTD is because that is not the type of issue.
OTD kids are not even doing what they do because they are attracted to those behaviors. I have yet to meet a single OTD kid that went that direction because of the internet or the movies, or the opposite gender, of because they liked dressing differently. They are always escaping something related to their experience within their frum community, usually some combination of what they experienced at home and school. This escape is emotional in nature. The cure is not a solid philosophical lecture that proves to them that their way is logically bankrupt. That has been tried, and fails 100% of the time. A little love and acceptance, and the experience of the beauty of Torah and mitzvos works. The emotional angle is all that is effective.
I hope this simplifies the discussion.
“Boys will be boys” might sometimes be true, but often it is not. If there were a small chance that someone’s food is poisoned, it would not be dismissed as quickly. If there is a remote chance that the occurrences observed are not “Boys will be boys”, there would need to be some increased observation, investigation, assessment, consultation, something to verify that there is nothing dangerous happening here. It is irresponsible and unprofessional for the school to be alerted to this multiple times, and to dismiss it with the wave of a hand. One cannot cry wolf for everything, but the ease of dismissing it is the opposite extreme, and intolerable.
As for begging for mechila, it is not quite so simple. The interpersonal asking and granting of mechila is a more complex subject than just a ritual of asking mechila. If it is not asked with sincerity, it is a sham. If the victim is not ready to forgive, because of the intensity of his pain, he cannot be forced to grant mechila. These are areas of halacha that are seldom studied, and may well be outside the scope of the kollel learning that somehow was allowed to become the prerequisite for employment in the chinuch field.
Forgiveness is an entire subject, both in halacha and in the professional world. It ain’t simple. It is truly a shame that such subjects are not taught in yeshivos, as they are pertinent to daily life, and should be a prerequisite for marriage.
I find the extremes of sensitivity and insensitivity among the comments here.
Bullying is a serious issue, bordering on or crossing the border of pikuach nefesh all too often. Every single yeshiva must have training for all staff, teachers, administrators, clerical staff, etc. And the policies for how to deal with every situation must be in place. For a serious, serial bully, experience suggests that measures short of arrest are futile. Many other cases are not as advanced as that, but cannot be allowed to pass lightly. The smack on the wrist of the bully just contributes to the anger that gets dumped on the victim(s), and enables further violations.
Discipline is rarely a preferred modality in chinuch. But it is the only one with an ounce of value in bullying. Bullies do not stop until the pain they incur themselves is greater than the glee from inflicting pain on others. I have heard of some old school mechanchim giving a punishment of writing lines to a bully, or similar gestures. What a complete waste. There was a chinuch moment that was scuttled. It is not rare that a bully is from a family that has some form of clout with the yeshiva, money, stature, family connection to the hanhala, etc. Protecting the bully here is as disgusting and abhorrent as harboring a pedophile who victimizes kids.
Every case must be assessed on its own merits. But bullying is rarely fabricated. And any school that supervises its students properly can have evidence in most cases that do lack the types of injuries that cab be detected visually. Are students supervised during recess? How about before and after school? Do students feel safe enough to bring such reports to the administration?
Why look to protect a school before looking to keep a child safe?
Joseph:
You wrote: “children with televisions in their home affects the child and carries a very strong possibility of that child negatively affecting classmates. No question about it. And there are other influences that a child can have that will negatively affect his or her classmates that must be accounted for. Sometimes the damage that can be done to multiple classmates is more than the damage of requiring that one child to change yeshivas.”
My previous comment was that the statement about negative effect from television sounds really holy. However, it does not pan out in terms of the consequence. Many of my generation grew up with televisions in the home, and turned out to be successful klai kodesh. Their TV’s had no impact on them, and certainly not on me. I am not defending TV, and feel that no home should have one. I oppose using yeshivos as the enforcers of that, or children as the victims. The labeling of a child by the yeshivos based on some of these “standards” is arbitrary. It sounds noble, not different from Korach pronouncing כל העדה כלם קדושים ובתוכם ה. But it has no factual basis, and has yet to be proven. Rather, the role of the yeshiva is to bring the child to the level of Yir’as Hashem in which the choice of that over the TV will be made. That’s what yeshivos did for a few generations. Are we holier now? Where are the current Gedolim that are being produced from this noble arrangement?
You are correct that there are instances in which a child needs to leave a particular yeshiva. There are “rodfim”. But the burden of proof that a given child is among those is on the yeshiva, and outside of the holy sounding words of “standards”, there is nothing to support the expulsion or rejection. There are situations of a mismatch between a yeshiva and an applicant. If the yeshiva was ever in a position of being responsible for the child, it is incumbent on that yeshiva to participate in the effort to find alternative placement. If the parents fooled the yeshiva with inaccurate information, they bear the responsibility.
You referred to “changing yeshivos”. I would agree. However, my experience with many cases is that the expelling yeshiva does not contribute to the alternative placement. It is fact that they sometimes sabotage efforts for the talmid to go elsewhere. This is not an empty or vicious accusation, but facts on the ground. In such cases, the talmid is being sent to the street. The balance of the two sides is not the same as your statement about “changing yeshivos”.
GH:
You wrote: “The school is NOT obligated to find a new school for this girl…that is the parents’ responsibility. If no school in Lakewood will accept her, perhaps they need to look in the mirror and try a bit of critical self-examination as to whether there is something they can do to better conform with the schools’ requirements. ”
I must disagree. The school who rejects an admission might have no obligation to help find an alternative placement. A school who tells a child to leave, regardless of why, does have a responsibility. That does not exclude the parents, but the expelling school should definitely participate in getting this kid placed elsewhere. Painfully, I am aware of yeshivos who sent a kid out, and followed by calling other schools to tell them not absolutely NOT accept that kid. This anger being released on a kid with such damage is inexcusable. This is fact, not theory or belief. I know such families/kids.
Conform to school requirements – this is a challenging issue, and my opinion is not very popular today. I do not believe it is the domain of a yeshiva to conform parents to anything at all. In fact, I believe that most of these rules about parents are arbitrary, and have nothing to do with a child’s potential for success. There are exceptions to this, but very few. If we look back in history just a few decades where this craze about setting standards did not exist, it is hard to find those kids who were negatively influenced by this. I had classmates whose fathers wore colored shirts. It had zero effect on me or my other classmates. Many classmates came from homes where there was television. Quite a number of these kids are today Roshei Yeshivos or Kollelim. No effect on them or other classmates. I propose that these “standards” are artificial, and make some people feel better (placebo effect), but are not truly related to chinuch or potential for success.
Lastly, this critical self-examination you propose with the subsequent changes will hardly accomplish much. Let’s suppose mother’s shaitel was too long, or father wore colored shirts. Changing that will have no effect on admission for the child, who will be viewed as flawed by virtue of the shaitel or colored shirt having tainted this child for the all the past years of growth. Nothing fixed.
RebYidd23:
1. Opening new yeshivos is not efficient. Ask anyone who attempted to do that.
2. Specialized yeshivos for OTD kids carries a Pandora’s Box of other issues. It is difficult to create the proper environment, and the matching of a child to a particular setting is infinitely tougher. Again, ask anyone who runs such a yeshiva.
3. I suspect that you missed the entire matter here. To create a system that catches the throw-outs might have some redeeming value, but it circumvents the true problem. The real issue is that yeshivos have become exclusive instead of inclusive. That is inherently problematic. It was achdus that merited Klal Yisroel to receive the Torah. The continuity of Torah demands that achdus be maintained. If we mess that one up, we have a serious problem. Chinuch is extending the chain of Torah to yet another generation. Exclusivity challenges one of the foundation criteria. The problem is not just a single individual or a particular yeshiva. It is a system where this becomes the modus operandi. You are correct in noting that efforts to change the “system” are so difficult that doing other inefficient things gotta be easier.benignuman:
There is an entire new career path with several people who work in it almost full time. It is called yeshiva placement. It consists of some very precious tzaddikim who devote their time, generously at that, to insuring that individuals get placed in yeshivos (both girls and boys). The phenomenon of yeshivaless kids is not new, and it is far from uncommon. In fact, the estimates for the region of northeast US (encompassing New York all boros, Lakewood, Monsey, and neighboring NJ) are a few thousand kids. It is foolish and even infantile to simply suggest that we create more yeshivos dedicated to OTD kids. There is a huge leak in the ship, consisting of rejected admissions and expulsions, and the kids are drowning. They are not drop outs, but push outs. This has been said by Gedolim, and repeated at conventions of Agudah and Torah Umesorah.
Recognizing the yeshiva’s privilege to be selective, one can still question whether the criteria being used have any connection to the eventual success of the talmid and the welfare of the yeshiva. The statement that a particular kid “will ruin my child” or will “destroy the yeshiva” cannot be supported by any empirical data, even by anecdotal experience. Yet, yeshivos “check”, and make decisions that are life changing, even tragic.
North America is quite steeped in this problem. But we should turn to the meeting table or drawing board. What is being done to remedy the situation? What can be done to save the neshamos that are being thrown into the streets?
ZD:
That is a bold statement. Can you support that? How do you know who does or does not believe in Daas Torah? And, for that matter, what is your working definition of Daas Torah?
DY:
How does anyone know that this girl will had a bad effect on anyone? If the school is mekarev her, and makes her feel like she belongs and can succeed at her level, she will improve, not deteriorate. This defining a child as a rodeif is a fatal excuse, and one which rarely has any merit at all, except for becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This expulsion problem is not just serious, but it defies logic. Can anyone explain why we have worthy tzedokoh organizations who look for all sorts of immigrant children in public schools to rescue and introduce to Yiddishkeit (that’s a great thing), but are way too quick to throw out someone from a frum background and nice family, into the streets and the public school? For anyone wondering, check out a few Brooklyn high schools for how many girls from frum families are there because they were either expelled or not admitted to frum schools. I checked this once, and it was very alarming.
DY:
Actually not. But the opening question can mean many different things, and until these are clarified, no one can answer anything.
First, there needs to be a defining of the terminology. What are public issues? What is dirty laundry? What is considered airing? Are these halacha questions, or are we seeking wisdom to guide us?
Second, Talmidei Chachomim are exactly that. They might be poskim, but might not have smichas chachomim to pasken shailos. They have their specialties. Some have many, others have few. Some are knowledgeable about many non-Torah issues, many are not. Can a Rosh Yeshiva guide a talmid in choosing a career? I wish he could. But the odds are that without having had a vast amount of exposure, which is unlikely because he was probably in the beis hamedrash learning, he cannot.
My experience is that the well recognized Gedolim do not tread into unknown waters. I have engaged with many of them. I have also experienced quite a few rabbonim that feel free to advise on anything, and make tragic mistakes when they leave the confines of their professional (Torah) domain. Their noble intentions are not supported by their knowledge gaps.
The Steipler ZT”L was hesitant to offer specific advice on many subjects. He consulted with experts. Sometimes, he would make a suggestion such as, “Ask your doctor about such-and-such.” Not direct advice because, as he stated to me personally, “I am not a doctor, and not qualified to give such advice”. Reb Moshe ZT”L was also one who consulted with experts regularly. Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ZT”L spent many hundreds of hours studying about electricity, with electrical engineers and electricians before feeling himself knowledgeable enough to pasken shailos in hilchos Shabbos and electricity.
The past many years of a mistaken and dangerous approach to molestation by prominent rabbonim seems to be on the mend. They simply did not know or understand. So we had some great rabbonim making statements that are known to the professional world to be completely inaccurate, as there was a knowledge gap. This appears to be mending today. But gaps still exist. Thanks to the intervention of askanim who engaged with the Moetzes and provided badly needed information.
As for the שופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם, there is a simple comment that should put this in perspective. Yisro directed Moshe to create a hierarchical system of dayanim, with only the toughest being posed directly to Moshe. But the pattern was that anyone with a shailoh approached his שרי עשרות and asked. If this was too difficult, it was passed upward, until it reached Moshe. Recognize that all the way up the line, there were dayanim who had no problem saying that they lacked the ability to pasken. Their true power lay in their ability to say, “I don’t know.” The שופט that the posuk refers to here is not the lower level dayan, but the recognized leader of Klal Yisroel. It does not mean the average Rov, however scholarly he might be, unless he has that broad range of experience and world knowledge.
Dr. Nat:
If you read the Steipler’s letter carefully, you will find that he is responding to a shailoh in a more general sense, not just to the recipient of the letter.
BTW – that letter was written to Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski in Milwaukee. The Steipler knew his father from Hornesteipel, and concluded the letter with sending regards to him. The Twerski family has many anecdotes from interactions with the Steipler ZT”L, who spoke of their family with great awe and respect. Rabbi Dr. Twerski published a sefer with his correspondence with the Steipler, which lasted for over 30 years.
Perhaps Rabbi Twerski was an unusual case. But the letter was written as a general issue. You are correct, however, in suggesting that one with such aspirations have someone to serve as a guide. This is ever more important with the vast changes that have occurred in the medical field, medical education, and technology over the years since 1955.
DY:
I reread that comment. I do NOT trash Gedolei Yisroel. A real gadol does NOT give advice regarding subjects he does not know. It is the ignorant public that pushes the Rav to advise on medical subjects. But their advice there is actually lay knowledge, not Daas Torah. And it is unfortunate that this is a sizable portion of the “Daas Torah” that gets flaunted today. Have you heard the “Daas Torah” that gets attention in cases of marital discord, mental illness, addiction, even chinuch? Anyone can have opinions, but it does not become worthy of being “expertise” or “Daas Torah” until it is based on a body of learned information and experience. This is why I wish rabbonim were consulted on many areas, but that they should reject the questions in areas where they lack the information and experience. This is why the Agudah created a mechanism that offers such education opportunities for rabbonim of various subjects so that they are not “talking though their rabbinical hats”.
As for the Daas Torah regarding chinuch, I suggest you examine the many seforim now available from experts and gedolim. I dare you to question whether there was any lack of expertise among the following: Rav Gamliel Rabinovich, Rav Ovadia Yosef, Chazon Ish, Rav Pam, Slonimer Rebbe, Rav Shach, and Rav Wolbe. None of them intruded into areas in which they had not been informed and experienced. Look at what they said about yeshivos, chinuch, and parenting.
It is not about a world view. I do not fix cars because I really know very little about that. The Rabbonim whose “Daas Torah” is being flaunted in the other thread are not the caliber of recognized Gedolei Yisroel like the list in the previous paragraph. I bet those rabbonim know a lot more than I do, but not enough to be the expert in absolutely everything. As long as they are within their domain of expertise, I listen and follow. When they are pushed to creep outside that, they are no better than the next bloke who knows much less Torah than them.
aishes chover and godolhadorah:
Both of your comments give yeshivos a pass for being brutal to talmidim. I wish to set a few things straight, as priorities that should exist in chinuch.
AC: You posited that the issue of denying admission was based on matters of kedusha, not elitist attitude or shirt color. My simple reaction – I wish that were true. Sadly, it is certainly not true. One case I know involved a school trying to reject a student because the father was seen with a blue shirt. He happens to work in construction, and this was a working uniform. He never appeared in shul without appropriate dress. It took intense lobbying effort to get the school to accept a perfectly normal student from a normal family. Does any yeshiva administrator truly know anything at all about someone’s kedusha? I know way too many cases in which clergy have been playing around where no one should go, yet their children are universally accepted, and get great, newsworthy shidduchim. There is quite a bit of conceit in believing that we can estimate the level of kedusha anytime, anywhere, anyone. The reality is that the bigotry is thriving. It goes under different labels, which sound appealing to the frum ear, but are actually bluff. Length of shaitel? Really?
gadolhadorah: You wrote, “Yeshivos are a business in a highly competitive market and must operate to at least break even and earn a profit. They cannot afford to antagonize their customer base any more so than other businesses absent some fundamental issue of ethics or borderline illegality. If this girl was mamash admitted without the proper vetting to the yeshiva’s standards or would have resulted in conflict and brogias with the school’s existing student base and families, they were within their rights to reverse an admissions decision. ”
If you listen to the rhetoric that gets repeated by the administrators and leaders at the annual fundraiser events, you will hear the wonderful accolades about how this yeshiva is so successful at providing a desperately needed service to the tzibbur, and how dedicated they are to the youth of Klal Yisroel. That is a shameful lie, and they know it. Your characterization of yeshivos is painfully true. They are competitors in a marketplace, and want to everything conceivable to make their name and image second to none. That is the elitist attitude that gives special dispensation to wealth and political clout. You referenced their “customer base”, which consists only of existing parents, but excludes the rest of Klal Yisroel. Your description gave all the power to the parents and their opinions as the real customers, without a trace of the dedication to the children. The children are only incidentals. Can anyone believe that this concept even exists as a passing thought? Well, it is not just a passing thought, but one that has become the unwritten mission statement. One that defies every statement by Gedolei Yisroel about chinuch. The video clip of Rav Shteinman shlit”a is very telling, and only a single example of what many have been saying for generations. But it barely exists in Klal Yisroel today, and this is a source of great shame to us all.
Some of these “Yaffas” have gone on to become great, going against the odds, and pouring their pain into the fuel tanks of motivation. Others went to forms of anesthesia, drowning their pain in drugs, street life, the fantasy (and its inherent dangers) of the internet. Yes, some died of suicide and overdose. Those who survived physically may have perished emotionally and spiritually. But this blood was spilled, and was murder, not real suicide.
You nailed the situation quite well, and you should be commended for it. Yeshivos are a business in a competitive environment. But should this be true? I believe that Torah should be available to all, and that chinuch should be, as the Chazon Ish ZT”L proclaimed, geared to the yochid, no longer the tzibbur. Are the yeshivos doing a public service?
With all the respect due to Daas Torah, we are suffering in the present generation from a lack of leadership. Our “Daas Torah” are learned scholars, and each has their areas of great expertise. Yet, many are limited and handicapped when advice is needed about a great many subjects. We tend to seek their advice regarding medical matters, when the greatest proportion of them have zero knowledge in the subject. Many are sought for guidance on business matters. Yet, their knowledge of the subject can range from the common place common sense, or often less than that. These gaps in knowledge do not diminish their chashivus or their value to the Klal. But much as one would not likely consult a Rav about an issue with a malfunctioning washing machine, or a stalled car, one gotta wonder why we are expected to bring these questions to a Rav. Seeking the brocho of a Rav or other talmid chochom is praiseworthy. But advice?
One can, perhaps should ask shailos regarding the permissibility of discussing certain things in public. There can easily be questions about lashon horah, defamation, etc., which can be matters of halacha. Outside of that, one needs to know a bit more about the breadth of knowledge, outside of Torah erudition, that qualifies the Rav to respond to requests for guidance and advice.
There is another take on this subject. Airing in public. What today is not already public? We can consider the far reaching spying of NSA, turning on webcams remotely, scanning and screening email, etc. I doubt the NSA would find anything of interest on my computer, but the delusion that it is private is B”H not one of my symptoms.
Does discussion about some of the hot subjects that appear in articles on YWN, or some of the discussions and debates here in the CR constitute airing dirty laundry? Is it considered public? Were these positions ever secret or private?
So I’m not sure that Daas Torah has the ability to be the ultimate guide here. And I am not sure that the CR is considered airing dirty laundry in public. That’s my two cents.
Smoking versus chilul Shabbos.
There are plenty of technical differences. Shabbos is a lo sa’aseh and an asei. Smoking is probably only a lo sa’aseh. Shabbos is used as a benchmark, with the example of someone who is mechalel Shabbos befarhesyoh. That distinction is not found in most other areas of aveiroh. Smoking is transgressed in one single manner. Chilul Shabbos has 39 melachos plus many hundreds of toldos, with additional shvusim which are Miderabonon.
I am not getting into the details of the subject. One who is oveir a lo sa’aseh that is Mide’oraysa has violated something very serious. Smoking meets that criterion quite well. Regardless, I was making the point that PBA was grouping all frum doctors as baalei aveiroh. Aside from the factual accuracy of that, I was addressing his choice of the medical field, singling it out from among a vast number of careers. His argument was thus limited to having used accurate grammar, not having sensible content.
Joseph:
I am not the only one who has commented on YWN about smoking. But you might consider searching the archives. I wrote a long comment some time ago in which I documented the overwhelming majority of poskim who ruled that smoking was assur min haTorah. Repetition should not be necessary. Look it up.
PBA:
Most frum doctors are mechalel Shabbos? Do you really think so? Based on what? Your fantasy about this is getting a lot of people irritated. Is that your goal?
Meanwhile, I know of lots of non-medical people who commit all kinds of aveiros, some related to their careers, others unrelated. What sorts of pronunciations will you conjure up for them? How about people who smoke, which is an issur d’oraysa according to the overwhelming majority of poskim? What about those people who have unfiltered phones? Any labels or fantasy accusations for them? Or are all these people undercover physicians?
You have settled on the bizarre, and should not be taken seriously.
tb:
There is no school named, so no one is bashing the school. Reality is that similar stories occur all the time, and there is something really stinky at the core of all this. That is the message, and that is why people are responding as they are. You may decide that this letter is a hoax, or that the missing information renders it trivial. But the real problem continues to exist, for boys and for girls. If you wish to deny the existence of the many hundreds of kids who are yeshivaless today, I wish for you teshuvah and kaporoh. I know nothing specific about Lakewood, but the problem is rampant throughout all the concentrated frum communities. Now, would you rather bury your head in the sand and pretend the problem doesn’t exist, or would you choose to recognize it and address it?
Israellakewood:
This letter and story read Lakewood. Reality is that this occurs almost constantly in the mainstream mosdos of Brooklyn, and I suspect Monsey. The attitude of the average yeshiva is מה לי לצרה הזאת. Let someone else deal with this “problem”. You are correct that this would be highly rare out of town.
2scents:
You ask if there is any behavior that warrants other parents putting their foot down. My humble opinion – NO. The acceptance or rejection of a student is purely the responsibility and authority of the yeshiva administration. If they reject, they need to have a valid reason for this. If they accept, no other parent has the jurisdiction to intervene or interfere. If they wish to pull out their children, they are certainly free to do so. But to manipulate a yeshiva is plainly immoral. In addition, the yeshiva is required to know something about their applicants prior to admission. It is presumed that they have the ability to collect enough information and to make a responsible judgment about the appropriateness of the admission. Parents lack the resources to know enough and to have the judgment. There is also an assumption by the parents that they know what will transpire in the yeshiva with the other child present. That is extremely conceited.
Chaver:
The issue here is not about bashing principals. It is making an observation that what has become common practice can have deadly consequences. Even with less blood spilled, the destruction that such a rejection has on one’s emotional life is unfathomable. Picture this happening to your own child ch”v. You would be going nuclear. It is undeniable that what occurred here was a serious injustice.
Avi K:
You assume that this committed suicide, and that this indicates that she already suffered from emotional problems. You are not seeing the entire picture. I happen to know many young people like this. The pain of such rejection is enough to cause severe depression. The OTD problem has its roots in rejection. Being thrown to the street without recourse is a major blow, one that many struggle to recover from. Our Gedolim continually tell us that we need to be accepting and loving, but the “holier than thou” attitude that perpetuates rejection always wins. The losses of neshamos are great, whether their bodies remain alive or not. Someone with perfect mental health that gets this level of rejection is a prime candidate for the steep slope down. The rejector gives that push. The kid started off healthy.
This article speaks volumes about what our schools have become. It is always disturbing to hear these stories, and they are unfortunately not rare. However, as long as yeshivos consider themselves competitors in a market, and not a public service, the arrangement for such tragedies is guaranteed.
Just few years ago, Reb Shlomo Yehuda Rechnitz addressed this in public. It caused a furor. How could anyone dare to challenge the status quo of how yeshivos maintain quality? But he got a pass, because he has money. You or I would be expelled from every beis hamedrash and shul, and our kids from their respective yeshivos. But truth hurts. The problem is not a fabrication, and there are live victims all the time.
Denying fact is plainly foolish, and I would assume that most people who are proud of their intellect will not do that. I do suggest that many are the victims of “spin”, quite similar to the pattern of the secular mainstream media. Words that sound good are used to obfuscate truth. The child that is no longer here cannot be restored to life and a school. Or to quote Hillary, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Perhaps, if we examined the issues that enable this to happen, we can learn something about prevention. But it is not about an individual or a particular school. It is about a system.
So I ask the following pointed questions:
Does any yeshiva feel any sense of responsibility to insure that every Jewish child receive a Jewish education?
How was the calculation of the child’s emotional reaction to expulsion or rejection made? Was any outside professional (mental health professional or Rav) consulted?
Since when do other parents become baalei batim over a school?
Why is anyone playing the game of choosing one child over another?
Does anyone really know who is the better child, or is there a game of Ruach Hakodesh being played by amateurs?
Is the role of our yeshivos academic excellence or is it raising a Jewish child to live a Torah life? If the latter, what is the point of competition?
We know what the real answers should be, but we also know what they are. These questions go to the core issues. Sadly, the answers speak to the kavod and reputation of the institution without prioritizing the talmid. Such has evolved into today’s yeshivos. And the tragedy preceded the suicide by many years. Or maybe we should refer to this loss as a murder?
Before anyone wishes to bash me for daring to utter such things, please review the growing number of seforim on chinuch habonim, where Gedolei Yisroel made these points. I could relate countless stories of situations in which Gedolei Yisroel prohibited this practice of selectivity, and were moseir nefesh to prevent rejection. The viral video clip of Rav Shteinman shlit”a referring to this selectivity as גאוה, is just one example.
The Gemora (Nedarim 81a) tells us הזהרו בבני עניים שמהם תצא תורה. Be careful with the children of the poor because Torah will come from them. Simple pshat would be a warning to us to resist our tendency to predict where Torah will be found. Do we really believe the A student will fare better than the poorer performer with motivation?
This awful story with a tragic ending is not about Lakewood. Nor is it about a girls school. It is about every yeshiva, girls or boys, in E”Y and America. And the horrible endings vary as well. But there is blood, and the responsible parties all consider themselves innocent, even tzaddikim.
It is rare that a child is a true rodeif. Rather, the menahel that throws the kid to the streets is. Our world is upside down, and the beneficiary is the chevra kadisha. How many more levayos will occur before someone wakes up?
Joseph:
The meforshim on that mishnah in Kiddushin are quite clear. The doctor who believes he is so great that he never needs to consult with another belongs in Gehinnom. The mishnah never maligned an entire profession. In fact, the Gemora (בבא קמא פ”ה א) explains on the posuk תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל ורפא ירפא מכאן שנתנה רשות לרופא לרפאות. You have a hard sell if you want to explain the mishna as knocking the medical field. The latter seems to be the gist of PBA’s comment. Completely inconsistent with the position of Chazal.
PBA:
While many of your comments are tongue in cheek, they are usually not offensive or simply untrue. Well, you finally fell into that. I happen to know quite a few frum doctors, and their shmiras Shabbos is as good as anyone else’s. I also know many other people whose shmiras Shabbos leaves much to be desired, and they are counted among Klai Kodesh, and the gamut of professional and non-professional careers. They span the spectrum of Chassidishe and Litvishe groups. Any effort to malign doctors is not just inaccurate, but a blatant attack on some people who are moseir nefesh for Klal Yisroel without compromising on Torah values or halacha. Your comment undeniably crossed into the boundaries of hilchos lashon horah.
As with any other career, there are challenges to overcome. HKB”H created each of to live a shuman being and face these challenges, not as mal’achim who never encounter such nisyonos. As for percentages how many withstand the nisyonos, there is no data on how they group as different careers. My quite varied experience finds no predominance of any career regarding the nisyonos of Hilchos Shabbos.
ZD:
You are correct, that the behavior we observe could be just cooling periods, much as climate varies due to factors that we can’t identify. But the overwhelming majority of cases involve a form of rebellion. The kids are purposely and consciously rejecting the “frum lifestyle”. There are reasons for this, but it is enticing to blame everything on the family, the school, the internet, spoiled kids, etc. There may be common factors to many situations, but it is often difficult to know which observations are causes and which are effects.
Having quite a bit of connection to the “parsha”, I do have a label for what I believe is universal in ALL cases. REJECTION. Now it is incumbent on those involved to determine what, where, how, and when. The refu’ah is to swing the opposite direction, with the wealth of love, unconditional at that. That’s all that works, and so say the Gedolei Hador.
Sitting shiva is for someone that died, not someone that is sick. The children we are addressing today are suffering. There have been many labels used for these kids, OTD, at-risk, KIPs. KIP stands for Kids In Pain. They are suffering, usually far more than their parents are. How they got there may make for an interesting study, and there are rarely cases that are identical, just as everyone has their own, unique fingerprints. I have commented in other threads that the single universal ingredient for all of these kids is REJECTION. Different flavors perhaps.
We are far more capable than ever in our history, though perhaps more resistant to the idea, of loving these kids, accepting them without necessarily approving of their behavior, and including them in Klal Yisroel. Ultimately, we do not know why this happened to our family. Gedolei Yisroel have made comments on this. The Steipler ZT”L suggested that these are nisyonos for us, and we will never be capable of grasping why. Do we understand gilgulim, often jumping over many generations? Are we being given the nisayon of Sinas Chinom – Ahavas Chinom? Maybe. Should we not try to pass it? I would give my maximum. I bet it sometimes gets really hard. I may need to lean on others, get chizuk, even therapy. As long as I do not see the child as dead, I will love him/her, include them in the family, and see them as a precious neshomoh who is struggling and suffering. I would want HKB”H to do that for me when I struggle.
I know a parent whose kid was acting out in all sorts of ways. He or his wife regularly prepared his negel vasser, even though he was sleeping late (having watched movies for many hours of the night), and might not be putting on tefillin. He is gainfully employed, keeping Shabbos today. he was never lost, just in pain.
OhTeeDee:
You misunderstood me, and I want to clarify my statement. I did NOT mean kiruv as exactly that which is done with baalei teshuvah who come from non-frum backgrounds. In fact, there was a presentation at an AJOP Convention quite a few years ago in which the panel of presenters drew many contrasts between the two.
I used the word kiruv in the sense as it is opposite of richuk. We may disagree with the choices of our children, but we must maintain unconditional love. That includes a child who is behaving in ways that are so opposite of ours that we can be disgusted by it. How about the vulgarity and chutzpah? Each parent will develop their own formula, but it cannot include rejection as that seals the fate for the child. In a much more global sense, Klal Yisroel is an OTD child of HKB”H. Just listen to the viduy we recite in tachanun, in selichos, and on Yom Kippur. But HKB”H continues to provide us with so much. Have we had a simcha lately? Have we achieved something lately? Are we making parnosoh? Etc. Yes, the מודים אנחנו לך that we repeat thrice daily is truth. But with our aveiros, should we not be rejected, and distanced from any of His graces? Answer – that is not the way of a parent. A parent does not reject. Punish – sometimes. In the case of HKB”H, everything is chesed. Yes, 100% of everything. Maybe not packaged that way, but the best for us.
You are correct in noting that the traditional “kiruv” would be provocative to the OTD child. I could explain this in greater length. I used the word to refer to the unconditional love that HKB”H showered on Klal Yisroel after the sin of the eigel, the worst situation for Klal Yisroel. he never stopped giving us מן, and there was uninterrupted באר של מרים and ענני הכבוד. That is a parent, never rejecting, always supportive.
Gedolei Yisroel have been making statements about OTD kids for several generations. What is universal to all statements is that kiruv, not richuk, is the only approach. Many emphasized the role of tefiloh. Never, ever, stop davening for your children. The ways of Hashem are so far beyond our ability to grasp. The Steipler ZT”L was quoted as responding to the question about how there is a current influx of baalei teshuvah. He attributed this to tefilos recited by zaides and babbes even many generations ago.
If someone’s child is rejecting their obligations bein odom laMakom, that does not justify the parent abandoning their obligations bein odom lachaveiro.
DY:
The underperforming rebbi is a serious risk of being abusive. The good rebbi makes his teaching enjoyable enough to the talmidim that motivates them to learn. They behave, and progress according to their capability. The poorly performing rebbi is not doing that. He is apt to follow the lead, and utilize discipline to beat his students into compliance through strict reward and punishment. It will assist in classroom management. But it will fail him academically. One must assume the poorly performing rebbi is at high risk of becoming abusive, if just to maintain some semblance of control. One does not need to get to the abusive level of molestation to be damaging to kids.M:
Your idea of tenure just formalizes what occurs anyway. Nice try. But this is currently out of the box. Today’s hirings are done by the connection with the hanhala, not merit. “It’s who you know, not what you know.” That is as painfully true in Chassidishe yeshivos as in non-Chassidishe yeshivos. If quality were the main ingredient, then training, which is available but underutilized, would give one applicant priority over another. Sadly, that does not happen. Meanwhile, once someone has managed to stay at a job for a while, he has seniority. Perhaps no formal tenure, but the same result.I know my comments here sound quite cynical about chinuch. A word or balance is needed. It is wholly possible that a rebbi functions quite well for many years, and then slackens off. Aside from personal factors related the rebbi’s own personal life and aging, the population of students is undergoing great change. No rebbi I ever had was at risk of having his cell phone ring during class. Why? Won’t say my age, but it should be easy to answer that question. Kids today are living in an ever changing world, with new issues that did not exist when an older rebbi began working in chinuch. That’s a great explanation for the mandated continuing education that exists in every other profession.
Haimy:
You wrote: “Relieving an incompetent Rebbi of his job is a very rare occurrence in the chareidi world we live in. It’s not just the financial distress, it’s his self-esteem as a member of a kehillah. ”
Good midos are a mainstay of living as a Torah Jew. No one can legitimately argue against that. But business is business. It is unconscionable to allow a poor rebbi to wreck my child, possibly for life, because of our concern for his self-esteem. I certainly advocate for preserving his self-worth, and I would never take someone whose problem is underperformance as someone to punish. But my obligation here is to prevent the severe damage that can happen to a child who loses a year of education, and possibly gets harmed by unnecessary and damaging discipline by someone who is in the wrong job.
It is not likely that we will witness much perfection, not in ourselves, and certainly not in the chinuch system. But we are never absolved of the responsibility to seek improvement. There are punches that will happen. We might find milder ways to deliver the termination notice, perhaps with warnings earlier, and the idea of helping to find other employment sounds nice (despite being unlikely).
In past years, there were multiple situations that achieved public exposure of rebbeim who were found to have been severely inappropriate with talmidim. They fought against dismissal, citing their families, needs for parnosoh, shidduchim for their children, etc. I found these forms of resistance intolerable, to the point of nausea. Should a pedophile be kept in a position of risk to countless others because he needs to marry off his children? Anyone with positive number IQ believe that? This thread is not about a criminal rebbi, but someone who just ain’t got what it takes to do the job. The primary responsibility is to provide a good rebbi to the class, not a salary to pay for his child’s wedding.
MASK 718-758-0400 does exactly that. Aside from support group meetings, this organization also connects these parents to each other for support. They often arrange for a parent mentor. Call.
akuperma:
You talk of the cup being half empty or full. Your handicap is that you are addressing the issue from a statistical point. I happen to be quite involved in chinuch, and I believe the statistics are the opposite direction, but I won’t get into that debate here. The problem, which is certainly not uncommon, is that we have rebbeim in our yeshivos whose performance warrants termination. We can conjure up a list of excuses, the challenges in finding other employment, the poor salaries, the supply-demand issue, etc. We are still left with a classroom with a rebbi that cannot do the job, and this will impact negatively on all.
One problem, rather off the track here, is that our entering rebbeim are inexperienced, untrained, and lack knowledge how to manage a classroom. Truly, a good curriculum with a well planned lesson will result in a rather well managed class. But unless someone knows how to do that, the alternative method is some version of discipline. There certainly is a role for that, but it has become the majority classroom tool, which it is not intended to be. This neophyte rebbi will likely resort to that approach. While it may contribute to decorum in the classroom, it is actually detrimental to the education. The average talmid who gets punished is more likely to associate learning with negativity. The mission of instilling אהבת התורה in such a talmid is doomed.
I don’t want to get into that subject more deeply, as it probably deserves its own forum. But the underperforming rebbi is more apt to use other methods to “make his job easier”. And considering that this will not be done by giving a better and more interesting lesson, it will be in the direction of behavioral control and management. The result is not just poor education, but poor preparation for future learning, and perhaps a negative association. Yes, the talmid can be harmed by the poorly performing rebbi.
Putting the numbers to the side, we have Reb Ploni here who is underperforming in Yeshiva Enkas Mesaldecho. The dilemma is this person, not the broader issue of how many such rebbeim there are. How would you guide this puzzled menahel to handle the situation?
ywcomment2:
You nailed it. Incompetents in any field are let go. Why is chinuch different? Because those incompetents have zero training to find other employment? That is so far from rational that I would wonder whether psychiatric evaluation should be considered. If we return to the core issue – which individuals comprise the mission of the yeshiva, the students or the faculty – we can answer the question. Gedolim of earlier generations were not brutal to melamdim, but were intolerant of their talmidim being subjected to inferior melamdim.
If I have tremorous hands, I should not enter careers where steady hands are a requirement. That’s not hard to understand. If someone lacks the skills to plan lessons, manage a classroom, or prioritize the needs of a student, then that person should NOT be an educator. I am sure there are other skills and talents that can be useful elsewhere. But the incompetent teacher will not have his way with my kid. The yeshiva, the rebbi, other parents of that class, and anyone with influence will know that.
You introduced the ingredient of training for chinuch. That is actually critical. The trained melamed is always better than the untrained. And training, as in every profession, needs to be the requisite for entry into the field, and ongoing continuing education and supervision. I have yet to encounter a mainstream frum yeshiva that requires its applicants to have completed some form of training.
There is a real question that lies at the core of this issue. The yeshiva and its administration are here to serve whom?
If the mission is to provide jobs to those seeking careers in chinuch, then the rebbi must be kept in his position at all costs.
If the mission is to provide the best chinuch possible to the children, then this rebbi must be replaced.
What makes this problematic is that we have a situation here of אחד בפה ואחד בלב. No yeshiva would openly say that they are here for any other other purpose than to do the best for the talmidim. But that becomes an obvious decoy for the mission to keep themselves in business, with the “best” talmidim, the “best” image and reputation, and the record of doing such great jobs of hiring faculty.
In reality, there are rotten apples in every bushel, and chinuch is no different than any other employer. If a grocery store hired a worker that was ineffective, that employee would be replaced. There is no acceptable excuse to not replace a rebbi who cannot do the job.
There was a book published in 1969 called The Peter Principle. He studied the subject of incompetence at great length and depth. The result was the formulation, “In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence”. It is a good, healthy read, and highly recommended. One of the tenets is that when the incompetent reaches that level, he/she is maintained there and not let go. I bet this has been witnessed by many. I have observed it in chinuch, but similarly in many other places, businesses, government, etc. Sadly, our yeshivos can boast a good measure of this.
Yes, it is a menahel’s dilemma. But the primary responsibility is not to the rebbi, but to the flock that is losing out on his continued employment. I would insist the stated mission for the yeshiva should dictate the direction of the decision. And upon the notice of termination, the rebbi should be advised to make a change in his career direction.
Syag:
I have found some comments here objectionable (unless they agree with me), but I do not detect blatant apikorsus.
You are correct, that one cannot sit idle stating that Hashem will provide. But that is not because we don’t excel in bitachon. We are not permitted to do that. Several earlier comments cited chapter and verse regarding our obligation for hishtadlus. If people are pleased with poverty, they can have it. But that does not give them the privilege to public funds. לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ is not a mitzvah. It is Hashem’s notice that there will be those at the lower end of the financial continuum. And in assets, as well as in other parts of life, equality is a foreign concept. The challenge for this was in the drama by Korach, who insisted that there be no leaders, that everyone was equal. He got what was deserved for this approach. There will always be the richer and poorer. But that is not accomplished by volunteering to be either – it comes from the combination of hishtadlus and Hashgochas Hashem.
In addition, the benefits that kollelim provide to the frum community are not in dispute. What some are rejecting is that there are too few that are excelling and deserving of public subsidy. The rest should not be there. It is these that are in crisis after spending several years too many in the refuge of the kollel beis hamedrash. It is not about bitachon. It is about mature responsibility. Yes, some will try and fail. They are chayav to continue trying. But it is foolish to expect wealth to rain down upon them when they emerge from their decade of learning with their beautiful growing family. That is not bitachon. It is אין סומכים על הנס. That is the crisis. And as Einstein defined insanity – doing the same thing and expecting a different result. That is NOT a Torah virtue.
Meno:
You crept into another hole. It is not for you or me or anyone else for that matter to determine whether someone has given enough tzedokoh, nor are we authorized to allocate it for them. I know many fundraisers for yeshivos. They always want more than they get. But, for that matter, so does every single fundraiser for any other tzedokoh. There is nothing that will be done that can accomplish the redirection to yeshivos and kollelim. It remains my choice completely whether to give to a yeshiva, a keren for chassanim and kallos, a soup kitchen, or countless other causes. In fact, the Purim scene is flooded with kids collecting for yeshivos, when hachzokas Torah is not a tad different on Purim than any other day of the year (the collectors consider it so, as do the yeshivos). In reality, all of these causes are worthy, and this goes without debate. Donors are free to allocate as they see fit.
But again, you changed the subject. Is it permissible (halacha, yashrus, common sense) to enter long term learning on yenem’s expense? Doesn’t it create voluntary poverty and dependence? Or should the yungerman who wishes to learn begin some degree of the process of getting prepared for a career? How should one approach the financial crisis of the emerging kollel yungerman who no longer has the youth or the time to engage in career training? And there are two questions here. One – should this situation be avoided? Two – once in this matzav, what should one do?
Meno:
You missed the point. If this is your question, then your comment would be interpreted as implying the need to re-educate Klal Yisroel to redirect all tzedokoh funds to yeshivos and kollelim, and to render all others secondary. That thought frightens me greatly, and I doubt you will find any support for such an idea, not in any reputable Torah sources, nor among Gedolei Hador.
My message was that there is a wealth of tzedokoh being given, and no one needs more education on the subject. Yeshivos and other Torah related causes are recipients of generous support from the entire Klal. No one doubts that the needs are greater than the proceeds they get. But it is bizarre to think that there is education that will alter what is already going on. Either such education won’t work, or it looks for non-existent monies. It is probably also inconsistent with the halachos of tzedokoh as in Shulchan Aruch and Rambam. I would put you to the challenge to demonstrate, with Torah references, that one must divert tzedokoh from all other causes to Torah institutions.
Meno:
Sorry, but you are in la-la land.
Firstly, Klal Yisroel gives fortunes in tzedokoh. While there is likely a small number of people who are miserly and give less tzedokoh than they can, it is mostly the other way around. Our community can boast of countless tzedokos for hachnosas kallah, infertility, medical costs and needs, feeding poor families, and others. There is also a staggering variety of gemachs. Add to that, there are massive amounts of tzedokoh that go on between people that do not involve organizations or publicity. No one takes being machazik Torah lightly. With all that is already going on, in very handsome numbers, all yeshivos are hurting. Before making an accusation like you did, just ask. There is a lot being given to support Torah. The needs are far greater.
Second, you are talking party line, and completely ignoring the real issue. You are once again allowing anyone who wants the label as Kollel Yungerman to take it, without demonstrated merit, and at the expense of everyone else (community support and government). That is foolish, futile, and dangerous. That is what led to the current matzav. The culture of dependency is found nowhere in Torah. In fact, we specify in ברכת המזון, that we do not want to be dependent on others.
ונא אל תצריכנו ה’ אלקינו לא לידי מתנת בשר ודם ולא לידי הלואתם.
We baalei batim have all the education we need about supporting Torah. That does not include supporting someone who should not sit in kollel for years of unproductive time. It does not mean assisting someone to achieve the status entry level – low pay jobs when he has already a sizable family. This is an aveiroh for the yungerman, and all the helpers carry the responsibility as מסייע לדבר עבירה. If you are looking to re-educate me, spare yourself the wasted time and effort.
Lastly, as ZD said, there are wealthy people who give generously to so many causes. The rest of us are making ends meet (hopefully), and our tzedokoh dollars are limited. If you had your way, most all the baalei batim would be barely eking out a living so that there would be hardly any tzedokoh available from them for supporting Torah. Rethink your comment please.
DY:
You wrote, ” you can pontificate all you want, the fact is that people at a certain threshold are worse off financially for earning more money.”
That is correct. But that is an anomaly of the government systems that give these handouts. I would fully agree that this matter should be examined for modification. But that is the legislators’ problem. We continue to be left facing a harsh reality. It is simply impossible to enter the world of career at a late stage and expect to make the progress to the level of someone that has been there much earlier. And that is precisely what the prevailing belief is in the frum community regarding kollel, and that is exactly the definition of the “Post Kollel Financial Crisis”. If we keep believing that fire is not hot, we are at risk of continuing to get burned.
There are not enough chinuch, rabbinical, or communal jobs to accommodate the population of bnei kollel. Davening for this to change is, at the very least, a תפלת שוא. It is also a fantasy to expect every kollel yungerman to qualify for such positions. Does anyone honestly believe that sitting in kollel for 12 years prepares someone to teach elementary school yeshiva students? And with the glut of supply for mechanchim, simple economics would keep salaries dangerously low. That’s a no win situation.
We certainly need to make wages in chinuch competitive, and this can be made reasonable by requiring training before getting a position in the chinuch profession. But that would help a tiny fraction of yungerleit who need to establish themselves as baalei parnosoh. We need to abandon the attitude that makes a working Ben Torah into a second class citizen. And we should be encouraging the inclusion of קביעות עתים לתורה into the working life as a norm that is a source of pride to Klal Yisroel. I would group such people together with the כלי קודש who derive their parnosoh from chinuch, serving as rabbonim, magidei shiurim, etc. The inclusion of all לומדי תורה is a source of great pride to הקב”ה, and this is ישראל אשר בך אתפאר.
But as long as we deride career as a source of shame, we will continue to see young families live in their delusion and fantasy for several years, only to be rudely awakened later.
Several commenters used some version of the phrase “losing government benefits”. This is objectionable. These are entitlements for which one needs to qualify. If someone gains employment, they do not really lose benefits, and it was not theirs to lose. All that really happened was that they progressed in life to where they no longer qualified. I don’t fault those who express themselves this way. we are conditioned to feel entitled, that these benefits are ours. Well, no, they are not. They might be given to us if we are eligible. Just look at how we have been trained to think. We have a huge problem in attitude that underlies the myth of “kollel for everybody” and the propensity to calculate these benefits as part of the family budget. It is this attitude that leads way too many to be מורה היתר with regards to compromised honesty and the circus that affected Lakewood these past 2 weeks.
This is from Sotah 44a:
תנו רבנן אשר בנה אשר נטע אשר ארש לימדה תורה דרך ארץ שיבנה אדם בית ויטע כרם ואח”כ ישא אשה ואף שלמה אמר בחכמתו הכן בחוץ מלאכתך ועתדה בשדה לך אחר ובנית ביתך הכן בחוץ מלאכתך זה בית ועתדה בשדה לך זה כרם אחר ובנית ביתך זו אשה
It is a valid point that learning after marriage before engaging in parnosoh has its benefits. But the question to ask is whether this is the derech the Torah guides us to follow. The above excerpt from the gemora tells us clearly that this is NOT what to do. It does not say go to college, but it does clearly demand that parnosoh not be delayed or postponed.
It is said that this was posed to Rav Aharon Kotler ZT”L as a question when he was embarking on establishing the kollel concept in America. He responded that this was a הוראת שעה. Even Rav Aharon fully recognized that the Chazal were smarter than us, and that they did not believe in the current trend to ignore the fundamental responsibility of ואפרנס ליכי that is spelled out in the כתובה. Learning is always great, but it does not absolve anyone from the Torah obligation to support a family. And it is not the chiyuv of the community or the public to fund that desire to learn.
The same proponents for the filling of the kollel beis hamedrash have nothing to advise for the sufferers of the post kollel financial crisis. How do they assume the responsibility for placing yungerleit there?
Huju:
You have missed the point. I got the “innocent until proven guilty” message. And every media report that discusses any of the arrestees must include the word alleged. Got it. You are obsessed with the technicalities. You have missed the elephant in the room.
The culture of Lakewood and other kollel communities is based on avoiding parnosoh, assigning oneself to full time learning, at yenem’s expense. Whether this should be permitted altogether is not a clear issue. The Gemora specifies not to do that at all. There are reasons to make exceptions and permit עשרה בטלנים. And these can continue their learning at the expense of the public. But these are the exceptions, and is NOT the rule.
We need our kollelim, to have where the growth from bochur to klai kodesh takes place. These are our future roshei yeshivos, magidei shiur, poskim, dayanim, rabbonim, etc. They are important assets to the community. But not everyone should go that way. Those equipped with the resources to become business owners, mechanics, doctors, etc. should utilize their potential and become assets to the Klal in their own way. Of course, they should continue to live as Torah true Yidden, with regular learning. One can be quite holy as an owner of a hardware store, a car service driver, or insurance agent. Perhaps the kollel yungerman has more data of Torah knowledge. Hopefully that yungerman is working towards his own potential.
Another angle – the poverty (at least the spirit of the law) that renders one eligible for entitlements is not the kind that is self imposed. The latter might be someone’s privilege, but that cannot be at the expense of others. That is not exactly what I would call a Kiddush Hashem. If I throw my wallet into the ocean, do you have an obligation to compensate me for my loss?
So I am ignoring the issue of the couples arrested here. I am only addressing the kollel lifestyle and the kollel community. I question whether it is permitted altogether to make oneself a “case” for public assistance because one followed the trend to sit in kollel. And upon whose direction has this yungerman rejected going to work or training for work?
There are a few issues that seem to elude most of the previous comments.
1 – Federal investigations rarely end up in trials. The pattern of the Feds is that they get involved in investigating, and utilize several different arms of law enforcement to get at all angles. The FBI is only one investigative arm. There are others, including postal service, IRS, and others. If there are state crimes involved, they can easily connect and collaborate with those investigators. By the time there are arrests, and the investigations are permitted to take time and be thorough, the evidence to convict is established. There are exceptions, but the rule is that all that one can do is to plea bargain, and there is rarely much wiggle room.
2 – It seems that the public assumes that chilul Hashem is that which occurs in the media. That is categorically inaccurate. What is the mishna in Pirkei Avos about מחלל שם שמים בסתר? One may review the Rambam (הלכות יסודי התורה פ”ה) to see that he discusses קידוש השם and חילול השם without regard to publicity, noting that if the event occurs before 10 Yidden, than it becomes ברבים. The issue of defrauding the government is a serious issue, and the chilul Hashem existed before there was media attention. And upon review of what Chazal say about chilul Hashem, it is clear that talmidei chachomim are held to a higher standard, and must be impeccably honest, completely above reproach. It is undeniable that that was the case here, and the fear that spread through the Lakewood community is testimony that the high standards that are a requirement for bnei Torah were not upheld.
There are lessons to learn here. The ניצוח about הלכות לשון הרע might be a wonderful academic discussion, but fails to address the problem in a meaningful way. There is a huge problem to fix, and the smokescreens do not help.
There is nothing to this subject that is pleasant discussion. Rebbeim are often not earning a decent income. This is coupled with the financial woes that yeshivos often carry, resulting in few raises that can offset the deficit that the average rebbe experiences.
The trend of yungerleit staying in kollel, then hunting for employment in the chinuch system keeps the supply far greater than the demand, thus the low cost of a rebbe.
But there are other angles, all equally as uncomfortable as topics for discussion. The first question is, how many rebbeim are expert enough in what they do to deserve extra pay? Plenty, who are otherwise wonderful people, and mediocre in the classroom. Being minimally adequate, they are often kept on the job, but without reason to raise their pay. They are easily replaceable if one looks for the same level of skill. It is becoming more common that a rebbe has undergone training of some sort before applying for a job. But this blink of optimism is minimized by the fact that the percentage of applicants for chinuch jobs who have such training is still quite low. And there are opportunities to get the training.
Second question is, the time in kollel is often considered a preparation for chinuch. I disagree with that. It might be a useful part of training for rabbonus, or for teaching in a yeshiva gedola. But elementary and even high school demands a different set of skills (way beyond the knowledge of Torah material). Kollel rarely, if ever, has such a focus.
Third question is, the motive for going into chinuch is a critical issue. It is often that it is not the love of bringing children to launch their lives in an environment of Ahavas Hatorah. More often, it is the belief that entry into the work environment that is not “klei kodesh” is somehow a treif thing to do, and that by default, one must turn to chinuch.
A fourth question concerns the understanding of what comprises the job. Most enter the system believing that they need to prepare a lesson, enter the classroom, and deliver it. It is only after having taken the plunge that one recognizes that the task is many times greater than that. Preparation demands quite a bit, but the need for attention to each talmid is completely overwhelming. The good rebbe, worth every dime, has learned to master this. The mediocre ones look for all kinds of ways to avoid this huge investment of time and effort. Among these, we have the disciplinarians, who are obsessed with the talmidim’s compliance, at the severe expense of generating the passion for Torah and Mitzvos. I know there is a whole lot of generalization here, but these are the kinds of questions we need to entertain when we wish to discuss the rebbe’s pay.
We need to identify chinuch as a profession, meaning that it requires training and a proper match of someone’s nature and skills to the type of employment. As such, it should be reimbursed at an appropriate level. This at least provides a challenging dent to the trend of sitting in kollel, and then, with the strokes of a pen on an application, walking into a classroom of children.
In direct response to the question of the OP, most Rebbeim are underpaid. But way too few have the qualifications to deserve the better pay. This is pessimistic, and things have improved over the past years. But there is a long way to go.
My answer to the title question is that not Chassidim are Chassidic either. What was once only a reference to a particular approach to Avodas Hashem has become a sociological label. It has become enormously difficult to know anything about someone’s Avodas Hashem by which European city is the brand name for the Rebbe they follow or the kehila where they associate. For that matter, Litvishe are not Litvish either. These are labels applied for convenience, and are more related to someone’s affiliations and attire. And even these have proven to be rather fluid and dynamic.
Someone I know compares different Chassidic groups to competitive sports teams, where the focus on the real rules of the game is very secondary to the competition and pursuit of victory. Just a few generations ago, there was a preoccupation with being better at fulfilling the Ratzon Hashem, with nuances of simcha, certain minhagim, recognizing the kedushas haneshomoh of the “simple” Yid, and the self effacing chesed to those in need. Sadly, many of these are no longer the hallmarks of chassidus. The focus has strayed deep into the the chitzoniyus, the glitter and pomp, and the photographic publicity of the “grandeur” of the particular groups/leaders. The Litvishe velt is not far behind on this either.
I have often wondered whether someone could create an app that would identify true Yir’as Shomayim, or a sensor that would display real kedusha. We are being physically blinded from these with the flashing lights of chitzoniyus, and deluded into believing that it is the color of the beketshe or the number of spectators that determines one’s true spiritual value. It is my firm belief that the Baal Shem Tov did not subscribe to this secular focus.
Avram in MD:
Whoa. Not just any rabbi is a good assistant or wise counsel for a beis din, and not just every beis din is good for any rabbi. There is a matter of experience in the subject, and the knowledge about how specific rabbonim and batei din work. The rabbi that “knows you well” might possess many great talents and skills, but that does not guarantee that he has what it takes to give the best guidance when involved in a beis din. I am personally talented in several areas, but I cannot perform surgery or play violin. You are certainly correct in drawing attention to the “knowing you well”, but there is a particular skill set and other variables that are equally relevant.
Perhaps the title of this thread is not reflective of the OP’s real question. I gather the OP means to ask, “How can we manage to tuition if we are not on a substantial income?” A corollary to that question is how to cope with the heavy and pressing demands of the yeshivas. But the question is not the same. The title implies that yeshivos charge too much. I am not the field of school administration, and I also doubt that any two schools will have very different profiles that would result in very different tuition scales.
When I am short on money, everyone else appears to be rich. And when they ask me for anything, I judge it to be greed. No, that is not okay. But that is human nature, one of those midos we need to overcome.
The real issue is that yeshivos have tended to use parents and their tuition obligations as an area of leverage. These yeshivos exist on a spine of donations, and many have a welcoming hand for government funding. They create budgets that include tuition, and this is the only piece where they can exert force. Yes, if the balance is outstanding, your child will be denied entry or admission. Nice, no. Menchlich? Of course not. Is this compatible with their stated mission of providing as much chinuch of the highest quality to as many talmidim as possible? No. But yeshivos are business as much as a professional, a grocery store, and any other private enterprise. And they can use this leverage because, well, because they can.
Ideally, there would be a huge measure of tolerance to give a break to those parents who experience financial struggles. Again, midos we wish existed. Maybe some yeshivos do behave this way. Some food stores and take outs do function this way, and these are praiseworthy. But the average store does not allow poor people to shoplift, and the average yeshiva does not tolerate those who do not pay tuition. Again, what is fair? My opinion won’t matter much.
My advice, focus on what you do have, and do your best at living up to your responsibility to provide chinuch to your children. It is not your business or mine that other parents take vacations or have nice cars.
These artificial groupings of people are commonly used when describing people, and all too often in the shidduch world. Personally, I find these labels offensive, and truly meaningless.
The boy/girl entering shidduch eligibility can be labeled as virtually anything, and this has no real bearing on how he/she will be living life after marriage. How many “learning boys” are truly so? Many try, but cannot sustain the life of dependency, and lack the resources to remain outside the working world. Even more do not really belong there, and should be addressing their parnosoh needs in a Torah and honest way, and taking steps to pursue gainful employment. Yet, such boys are labeled “learning boys” or “yeshivish”, with zero correlation to their actual futures. We would be far more productive if we assessed our shidduch age boys and girls by their midos (I refer specifically to the real midos, not the standard “information” that flows freely when inquiries are made about a shidduch prospect).
The same problem is when we label “hashkafa” as Chareidi, Modern, Machmir, and similar concoctions. These words do not really carry any standard definition, and tell us virtually nothing about the compatibility for a shidduch.
If all this was funny, we might be laughing a lot. But it is a tragic misuse of our intellect.
I’m not sure if what I am about to say is implied in any previous comments, but here goes.
The issue I have with the burqua women is simple. I strongly suspect that the burqua is not a mode of tznius. I postulate that it is a statement of arrogance, “I’m holier than thou.” As such, it does not truly represent the positive, but rather the negative. To exploit the midah of tznius in a negative manner is unacceptable.
Perhaps, when dressing in this manner was the norm, there was no haughtiness to it, and it can more easily be an expression of tznius.
Additionally, I have no issue with women covering themselves up more. But when doing so actually triggers more to focus on them, the values of tznius are being undermined. I am not even blaming this on anyone, just looking for the norms and patterns.
I would rather hear others’ opinions on this. There are two separate issues here, and they should be discussed individually. One thing is about how victims of bullying should handle the bully. There is a completely different issue how a school should deal with the bully. It needs to be borne in mind that bullies tend to be those with various forms of “pull”, either parents who are substantial supporters, good students themselves, or related/connected to senior faculty/administration. This usually leads to bullies being able to get away with their behavior for quite some time. It also explains why the victims, who are generally afraid to speak up, tend to be disbelieved, while the bullies are somehow trusted in their denial of responsibility. From my observation, it takes major interventions (expulsion or arrest) for a bully to stop and to change.
In many chassidishe shuls, there is a common practice to provide tikun (liquor with some cake/cookie mezonos). It is usually to observe someone’s yahrtzeit, and that the wishing of l’chaim is traditional. There is more to say about this minhag. What is typical is that one of the tables in the shul is where this happens, and siddurim from all year round are frequently left around. In addition, people tend to use siddurim when there is eating during the year, such as Shalosh Seudos, or if there is a kiddush, sholom zochor, or a tish (if the Rebbe of that shul conducts one). Regardless, finding siddurim in close contact with chometz is common, and it is judged best to simply do a cursory job of cleaning them, and not using them on Pesach.