All this talk of the importance of giving charedim good secular education brings me back to the good ol' days of the British Mandate. Why? You'll see in a moment.
Eretz Israel in the first half of the 20th century attracted much more than its fair share of original, brilliant, independent and often idiosyncratic Rabbinic thinkers. One of the lesser known of these was Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel, Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv from 1936 until his death in 1946. In fact I think that in this department only Rav Kook pere and the Brisker (Rav Velvele) can claim to outclass him. One of these days I intend to discuss the riddle that is Rav Amiel, perhaps even the Brisker (who is woefully understudied in academia…). But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Rav Amiel was a big believer in Jewish education – specifically a "combined" curriculum of religious and secular studies. He established schools (for boys and girls) when he served in Antwerp. His crowning accomplishment, however, came when he settled on these shores. Its name is Yeshivat Hayishuv Hachadash or "Yishuv" as it is known – the first Yeshiva High School in Israel.
"Yishuv" was meant as a place for baalei batim (you know, those subhuman creatures who contribute to yeshivot) no less than for creating talmidei chachamim. Its discipline is legendary, as is its striving for academic excellence. Most "Old Yishuv" style Charedi Rabbis did not like this school to say the least. Efforts were made, both during Rav Amiel's lifetime and afterwards, to isolate it. Rav Amiel, a fiercely independent Rabbi who did not buy into the "Gedolim fiat" concept, refused to yield.
Ironically, the Charedi Yeshiva world benefited (and still benefits) tremendously from this "treif" institution. Many of the most brilliant and dedicated Charedi Rabbis, politicians and jurists rose from the ranks of "Yishuv". It has one of the highest matriculation clearing rates in the country.
Those Charedim that want to break the poverty circle and still maintain there "black hat"-ness could do a lot worse than creating a "grassroots" demand for more "Yishuvs".
2 comments:
amiel began his service in israel after kook died.
what about the chazon ish?
isser zalman meltzer?
herzog, slightly later, was independent.
fwiw, i heard benny brown give a talk focusing on the methodology of r velvele.
there are a number of hachadash-type schools out there now, but i believe they are largely a failure. often the grads end up 'between the chairs:' they are not really hareidi, and are looked down upon, and the army is out of the picture. so where are they? what are they left with?
>>what about the chazon ish?
isser zalman meltzer?
herzog, slightly later, was independent.<<
All were certainly independent. But I don't think any were really as "idiosyncractic" (or should I say "colorful")as the others I mentioned. Perhaps I should have made myself clearer on that point.
>>fwiw, i heard benny brown give a talk focusing on the methodology of r velvele.<<
That's a good start; but I'd like a more thorough and detailed discussion of his "historical role" in shaping the ideological and social contours of Israeli Charedi society. (i.e. his wars against Sherut Leumi, his attitude towards the state &c). A debate regarding "who influenced Charedi society more" - the Chazon Ish or Rav Velvele would make for good fodder.
>>there are a number of hachadash-type schools out there now, but i believe they are largely a failure. often the grads end up 'between the chairs:' they are not really hareidi, and are looked down upon, and the army is out of the picture. so where are they? what are they left with?<<
All the more reason to give them sociological and religious chizuk. If not by askani-led Gedolim, then at least by the community at large.
Post a Comment