Rabbi David Friedman of
Karlin (1823–1917), born in Poland, was a leading posek.
The Babylonian Talmud nowhere prohibits a father from teaching his son the
vernacular. To the contrary, it would appear that it is obligatory for a father
to teach his son the vernacular, just as it is obligatory for him to teach his
son a trade. Similarly, we find that Rabbi Judah the Prince said: "Why use
Syriac in the land of Israel, either Hebrew or Greek should be employed?“ So
too R. Jose said: “Why use Aramaic in Babylonia, either Hebrew or Persian
should be employed?” Clearly, it is obligatory to master the vernacular.
Indeed, the Jerusalem Talmud states: “Therefore choose life (Dt. 30:19)--this
refers to learning a trade.” The one passage in the Jerusalem Talmud that
prohibits a father from teaching his son Greek refers to a specific period in
the past when Jewish informers collaborated with the Greco-Roman authorities.
The latter had banned the observance of the commandments; thus, they could only
be observed underground. Jewish informers—consisting of heretics and disciples
of Jesus—informed on those Jews who secretly observed the commandments. The
rabbis therefore prohibited a father from teaching his son the vernacular, lest
the son communicate with the governmental authorities. Indeed, the rabbis
warned: “Seek not intimacy with governmental authorities.” The ban was issued
against teaching young children who in their innocence could reveal damaging
information to the governmental authorities. Thus, the ban was against teaching
children the vernacular, and not against individual study of the vernacular. In
our day, we have nothing to hide from the governmental authorities and nothing
to fear. We participate with Gentiles in all our business affairs. Every child,
as he matures, will have to master the vernacular in order to make a living.
Thus, in our day there isn’t the slightest prohibition against teaching
children the vernacular, mathematics, and whatever other scholarly disciplines
they need to master in order to succeed in business and in life. The only
constraint is that these studies be pursued under the guidance of God-fearing
teachers who will know how much time to devote to such study, at what age, and
at what level. in general, one needs to distinguish between different types of
students. For some, Torah study will be primary and secular or professional
study will be secondary; for others, secular or professional study will be
primary and Torah study secondary. In this manner, they will fulfill the
rabbinic teaching alluded to above: Therefore choose life (Dt. 30:19)—this
refers to learning a trade.
In the light of the above, it is clear that the ban issued in Jerusalem
was not valid. The Jerusalem ban was issued without constraints or
qualifications. The study of all foreign languages was banned, even the
vernacular. Moreover, the ban was issued for all time, to be applied to future
settlers in Jerusalem. Regarding this last point, those who issued the ban had
no authority to do so, without first receiving the approval of the majority of
the diaspora Jewish community. All Jews in the diaspora aspire to settle on
Jerusalem, all laws in the diaspora pray facing Jerusalem, and all Jews in the
diaspora are regarded as residents of Jerusalem. It was inappropriate for one
group of Jews to issue a ban that the rest of Jewry finds intolerable. Indeed,
the ban discourages Jews from settling in the land of Israel and is, in effect,
an enactment designed to prevent Jews from fulfilling a mitzvah. Indigent Jews
in the land of Israel will be forced to seek employment outside the land of
Israel. Worse yet, they will be forced to settle in distant lands, such as
America and Australia, where they will assimilate and ultimately become
extinct.
Now those East European rabbis in the diaspora who banned the study of
languages and secular study, never issued a blanket ban, to be applied under
any and all circumstances. They kept secular study at a distance so long as
circumstances warranted it. Even in this guarded approach, they were not
successful, for many students could not cope with the ban and were led astray
when exposed clandestinely to secular study. Far more successful were the West
European rabbis, leaders of the Orthodox Jewish community, who were zealots for
the Lord and His Torah. They established educational institutions that provided
Torah study on the one hand, and secular study on the other. Nonetheless, as
indicated, the East European rabbis never issued an unrestricted ban against
secular study. Moved by the Divine spirit, they understood that at certain
times and under certain circumstances the majority of Jews would find it
necessary to combine Torah study with secular study. Indeed, even those who
would ordinarily engage in Torah study alone will have to engage in secular
study. Some will be forced by circumstances to engage extensively in secular
study. God, however, will come to their aid so that they will not forget their
Torah study or abandon the commandments. “Let the clusters pray for the leaves,
for if not for the leaves, the clusters would not exist.”
In sum, in my opinion the Jerusalem
ban does not apply at all to Jews from the diaspora who choose to settle in
Jerusalem [after the ban was issued]. The rabbis in Jerusalem had no authority
to issue a ban that affects the majority of diaspora Jewry, in effect
preventing Jews from settling in Jerusalem. Indeed, it is incumbent upon those
who issued the ban to rescind it. For in these times when there are not
sufficient funds to support the Ashkenazi community in Jerusalem, it is
essential that Jews work for a living… I would advise that they rescind their
unrestricted ban. Instead, let them institute rules and regulations governing
the appropriate requirements and age for, and type and amount of, secular
study. Torah scholars should be appointed to oversee the implementation of the
rules and regulations. All this should be done calmly, without bans, for “words
spoken softly by the sages are heeded” (Koh. 9:17). So shall peace be restored
among the Jewish people.[1]
[1] “R.
David Friedman of Karlin: The Ban on Secular Study in Jerusalem,” Tradition,
26:4, 1992. Translated by Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Z. Leiman. This is a response to an
inquiry from R. Yehiel Michal Pines (1849–1913), brother-in-law of R. Friedman,
after R’ Pines was excommunicated for establishing an orphanage whose curriculum
included secular studies. It is found in the book Emek Bracha (1881). Rabbi
David Friedman of Karlin (1823–1917), born in Poland, was a leading posek.
His two volume She’elos u-Teshuvos She’elas David and two volume Piskei
Halahkos remain important halachic works.
No comments:
Post a Comment