By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com

There is a great debate about our Yeshiva curriculums that is now raging in both Eretz Yisroel as well as in certain communities in the United States.

The debate revolves around the following questions:  Ultimately, what do we want out of our Yeshivos for our children?   Should there be an expectation of our children coming out of Yeshiva with a full mastery of Chumash  and, say, one Seder of Mishnayos?  Or is it too much pressure and it is enough that the boys graduate with a vague familiarity with Chumash and perhaps with one or two mesechtos in Mishnayos under their belt?

WHY TWO POINT ZERO?

In this article, we will describe the two schools of thought.  But before we do that, an explanation as to why the headline included the term, “2.0” is in order.  The reason is that the debate is not new – it happened once before regarding a specific method of teaching in Eretz Yisroel called the “Zilberman Method.”  That method, which we can term the 1.0 version,  was launched by Rabbi Yitzchok Shlomo Zilberman in the 1970’s.  Rav Zilberman zatzal was an orphan who escaped from the holocaust to England – and made it to Eretz Yisroel on his own at the age of ten and a half.  He then became a talmid of Rav Leizer Yudel Finkel zt”l, the Mir Rosh Yeshiva.  Years later, Rabbi Zilberman launched a return to the Chinuch of yore movement, received encouragement from Rav Chezkel Abramsky zatzal,  and launched his movement.  It was primarily based on the Vilna Gaon’s model of teaching (although there is some Maharal in it too) and the flagship Cheder is located in the Old City of Yerushalayaim and is called, “Aderes Eliyahu.”  There is no time wasted in the original Zilberman method – and they learn every single day – even during Chol HaMoed, throughout the summer and  – even on Yom Kippur.

Some of the early proponents liked Rav Zilberman’s method, but felt that it was enormously effective, but needed to be modified a bit and made more palatable for contemporary children and their parents.  One of the Zilberman Rebbeim, broke off and launched a modified version – Zichru – which is short for Zichru Toras Moshe.  It was started by Rabbi Moshe Kletzkin.

THE MOTTO

The motto for both the original Zilberman method as well as the new movement is found in a recent Daf Yomi – Kesuvos daf 50a.  There the Gemorah states, “Safi Lay K’Turah – Stuff him (referring to the child being educated) like an ox.”  Farmers who make a living selling cows are well aware that the fatter the cow, the greater the market price.  They, therefore, try to stuff the cow or ox as much as possible.  The Gemorah is advocating the same approach with children’s chinuch.

This new movement, which does not have the rigorous schedule of the Zilberman schools, has 49 chadarim in Eretz Yisroel adhering to the new method.  There are also a number of communities in the United States oen such Chadarim.  A new 2.0 cheder is about to open in Monsey, and there is one in Lakewood called, “Yeshiva Nachlei Torah.”

THE 2.0 METHOD

Students attending Nachlei Torah finish Chumash and review it in its entirety several times, by the time they begin Gemorah.  But the emphasis on Chumash doesn’t stop with Gemorah.  It is reviewed both with the weekly Sedrah as well as other methods of review.   The Chumash taught in previous grades is also reviewed, with an emphasis on retention.  Thought was put into this system to keep the retention, but without the associated pressure.

Another feature is the emphasis on seeing what can be called the “Verbification of Nouns” that is found in Lashon HaKodesh, but not found in, say, English.  Children are taught to notice this when they first learn any Pasuk.  The advantage of this method is that it also involves more interaction and thought-filled participation of each student.

A byproduct of this method is that a 2.0 educated talmid is able to know everything that happens in that Parsha and the opposite as well.  Where is the Mitzvah of _____ (fill in the blank here) found in Chumash?  Most people respond, “I haven’t a clue.”  The 2.0 educated Talmid can say, “Oh, that is in two parshas   _______ and  ______.”  The two ways of remembering is very impressive.

At the Lakewood based cheder, Yeshiva Nachlei Torah, the boys develop a fluency in Navis as well.  They learn, know, retain, and review all of Sefer Yehoshuah through Malachim and also learn Megilas Rus, Megilas Esther and Sefer Yonah.   Several years ago, this author posed the question of Navi study to Rav Chaim Kanievsky zatzal, and he responded that each Yeshiva student must know it and create a study schedule for it.

In most chadarim, the amount of Nach learned is somewhat miniscule – perhaps half of Megilas Esther.  In the Lakewood based 2.0 school – the talmidim end up knowing all of Seder Moad and most of the three Bavas.  As far as Gemorah study goes, more of an introduction is given than in the standard chadarim, as well as understanding the specific meaning of each word.

Parents not only like this system, but they find it mind-boggling that a parent would even consider any other option.  “How can you give up the opportunity for your son knowing the entire Chumash?” asks R’ “Dovid”, a parent at one of the Zichru schools.  He further stated that he observes no more pressure on Zichru talmidim than talmidim in other chadarim or Yeshivos.  “The boys love going to Yeshiva, and that is why there is no perception of additional pressure on their part,” he concluded.

Recently, a popular Daf Yomi site called 7minuteiyun.com given by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Katz – a Rosh Chaburah in BMG – advocates strongly for this system.  The shiur can be heard at https://www.torahanytime.com/#/lectures?v=202656

THE OTHER SIDE

The other side of the coin can be summarized into four arguments.

1. Notwithstanding claims of parents, otherwise, why subject our children to additional pressures? Nowadays, with so many OTD children the main goal should be to have happy children.  They question the supposition that such a strong emphasis on covering so much ground can be compatible with a “no pressure” approach.
2. Our parents, our Bubbies and Zeidis, did not educate our children in this fashion. Our methods of chinuch are time-tested.  How can we justify changing up how our own parents educated us?
3. There is the Chasam Sofer’s concept of “Chodosh assur min haTorah.” Innovating things – by definition means the rejection of the previous methods.
4. The stronger emphasis on knowing so much will come at a cost of “Iyun – in depth study: when it comes to Gemorah study. Part of the appeal of our current system is the iyun – the profundity that is taught alongside the Gemorah.  Both 1.0 and 2.0 are missing that.

The responses to these three arguments given by the advocates of the 2.0 system are:

If the children want to be thereת שמג ןא ‘םוךג נק הקרט ומךןלקךט כםg as well as the interaction – then it is compatible with happiness.

2. The previous generations didn’t do so because of external pressures. We no longer have those pressure, so why not follow the Mishna’s and the Gemorah’s recommendations?
3. This is not true innovation – it is rather going back to the method of the Vilna Gaon himself.
4. Firstly, who says this is true? Secondly, student per student, when we calculate everything together – there is more Iyun being learned.

This author predicts that the trend here in the United States will grow. It will probably follow the same pattern as it did in Eretz Yisroel, where a number of new Yeshivos will start following the 2.0 philosophies and  pedagogical methods.  But, only time will tell.

The author can be reached at [email protected]