In T-F V3 #55 Micha Males wrote:
>It would seem to me that Mrs. Amit was misunderstood in her question. True,
>as Maayan points out, Jews have "risked" to perpertuate our heritage.
>Without our children continuing in our path, Judaism can't survive. However,
>there is another question that begs to be asked. (I think Mrs. Amit meant
>this.) Why can't certain communities allow schools that aren't 100% in line
>with the "party line"? Don't they realize that by making children travel
>further they are putting these children at an unnecesary risk? My question
>is not on the parents, but rather on communities that cannot accept other
>religious Jews who have an ideological difference of opinion. Although, I'm
>sure this is done to maintain a certain community, I wonder which Rav ruled
>that it is better to endanger children or cause uneeded brotherly hatred.
>Bear in mind that my frame of reference is from growing up in America.
>There, we knew a Jew was special. There are diffeent types of Orthodox Jews
>too. There are Briskers, Yeshivas Chofetz Chaim, and even some modern places
>too. We are not all the same. But assuming that certain basics are in place,
>the extra hatred in disgusting.
I don't believe Mrs. Amit was misunderstood at all. I think
maayan@inter.net.il understood the question completely, both as originally
stated, and as re-iterated by Micha Males and the response addressed it
directly. However, it appears to me that Micha and Florence Amit are both
unclear on exactly what their 'question' asks of the people involved.
<<Why can't certain communities allow schools that aren't 100% in line with
the "party line"?>>
This is not an issue of a community 'allowing' a particular school, it is
an issue of parents choosing to send their children, to a different
geographic location to insure educational emphasis in particular areas.
Mrs Amit closed her posting with the statement "as someone outside the
orthodox community, I ..." With all due respect, I don't think that "as
someone outside the orthodox community" you are qualified to form an
opinion and make such a blanket condemnation of a parent's prerogative and
responsibility to raise and educate their children as THEIR faith requires
of them rather than yours. It disturbs me that the general opinion,
expressed by uninvolved people, seems to be that these decisions are based
upon intolerance and hatred. In my experience, this could not be farther
from the truth. You seem to equate choosing Cheredi over National, or
Chabad over Chofetz Chaim, with deciding to send a child through a
minefield because the school on the other side teaches penmanship with a
right-hand slant rather than vertical.
If there was a girl's high school nearby, which focused primarily on the
Chofetz Chaim, I would do all in my power to get her there despite what
someone else may see as 'unnecessary risk'. Not because I 'hate' the other
school. We are fortunate enough, Baruch Hashem (Thank G-d), to have a
wonderful girls school just a few blocks from us, whose curriculum is
outstanding, and whose program and staff are unimpeachable. What about
sending our children to learn in Israel? Relative to the safety of a local
school, and being in the relative safety of the US, simply crossing the
Atlantic to get there should constitute 'unnecessary risk'.
These decisions are not made capriciously or out of hatred. It has been my
experience that these decisions are made primarily based on what school X
will emphasize rather than hatred of what school Y teaches. If you
objectively examine the doctrines and differences between Orthodox "isms",
and between various Chasidic groups, it should become clear that these
communities each have particular areas of educational and community
interest. Where I send my children to school is based on seeing those
interests and teachings kept in the forefront, not on 'hatred' of another
school or some ambiguous 'party line'.
Mr.Males apparently rejects the idea that adherence to the customs and
traditions of your community is as valid and necessary today as in the time
of our Sages and Martyrs. I submit however, that it is only by adherence
to them at ALL TIMES, can we be certain that we may rely on them if, G*d
forbid , we are ever faced with the adversity of those times. "When the
Law was being forgotten in Israel, Hillel came up from Babylon and
re-established it." The Law was being forgotten, because people had no
choices about schools. ALL schools were persecuted, yet learning
continued. Was Shammai chopped liver? He was already in Eretz Israel, and
while persecuted and threatened (it was certainly a danger for him to
continue), people continued to put their children in the 'unnecessary
danger' of learning from them. If his school was not viable and valid we
wouldn't have volumes upon volumes recording the disputes between the
schools of Hillel and Shammai. For several hundred years, the Jews had
lived relatively unmolseted in Babylon, and 'going up' certainly put
everyone at <<unnecessary risk>> as you put it. Don't imagine that he came
up alone either, hundreds (thousands?) of his students, and their families
came with him.
If all (or even just many) of the parents of students of Yeshivos Chofetz
Chiam decided that the location was inconvenient, and sent their students
to a closer school, or even worse, the local public school, who would carry
on the teachings of this giant of modern times? Judaism has NEVER been
convenient or safe. To put it maybe a little more in your frame of
reference, do you imagine that as the 'haskalah' (enlightenment) movement
grew and spread, that there was never a time when the local cheder was more
convenient and often less dangerous than traveling across town to newer
'modern' schools? I would suggest that for the first hundred years or more
of the movement, when numbers were small but growing, there were not
alternative schools available, yet these people believed in what they were
building, and took the risks. Consider the probability that if people were
not willing to weigh 'risk' against belief, and still find the 'risk' worth
it, that today there would be no question of 'religious plurality'; there
would only be Orthodox Judaism, or G*d forbid, no Judaism.
Bud