Main Ideas of the Readings

Uri Kestenbaum | Foundations of Learning 2014

Overview of Unit Two

Do Jewish art and philosophy need to be about a Jewish subject, but not
created by a Jewish artist/thinker, or is it any art/philosophy thought of by a
Jew?
Rosenak, Berkowitz and Alexander all are Jewish philosophers that attempted
to bridge Jewish traditional education with modernity.
Rosenak distinguished between the more Traditional form of Jewish education
that concerned itself with the imparting of valuable knowledge of goodness
and truth, as opposed to the more Progressive form of education that starts
with the learners hands-on interaction with the world.
Berkowitz points out the distinction between the approach to Jewish
education in regards to religion and how it changes in regards to the
sciences. Modern, contemporary Jewish education revolves around the
melding of the two.
Alexander addresses the concerns that arise in the post-modernist model of
education. Orthodox Jewry, in its conservative leaning, does not yet feel the
ramifications of such educational theory.

Berkowitz: Knowledge of G-d

There are many individuals and substantial groups within Orthodoxy that
question the validity of teaching secular subjects along with religious study.
The Rashba allowed the study of medicine and so, one may make an
argument that any study that is essential to the maintenance of life be
permitted to study. The existence of a Jewish state is predicated on
knowledge of multiple sciences. Indeed, the practical education necessary to
run any government must have been present when Jews inhabited their own
governed land in history.
When teaching secular and religious subjects, there is a general disconnect
between both realms of study. A worldview which incorporates both realms
should be examined and as proposed as an educational philosophy that can
gather both realms under one fundamental unity.
Religious study and the study of knowledge share the crucial importance of
truth. R Saadiya Gaon highlights sensory perceptions, rational insight and
logical inference as three sources of knowledge. Determining the truth of Gdly revelation and the validity of its tradition must stand up to these three
standards of truth. From R Saadiya Gaon we can see that truth is a religious
value; whether approaching religion or secular study.
Maimonides teaches that knowledge of G-d is only accessible to us by the
study of His deeds; thereby necessitating the study of natural sciences to
attain this end. Rabeinu Bachya, as well, maintains an obligation to study
nature as a tool to understand G-dly wisdom.

Maharal, while distinguishing between knowledge gleaned by human

endeavor as opposed to divine revelation, agrees that there exists a general
duty to understand the essential nature of the world and how everything is Gds work. This is achieved by studying the man-made disciplines.
By using these classical sources as a guide, Judaism can meet objections
based on scientific investigation with intellectual honesty - by mastering
secular subjects. Judaism can withstand scrutiny without having to convince
itself of its truths by questionable means.
Failure to view the entire scope of human knowledge within religion causes
the individual to lose sight of Judaism as a worldview that can deal
meaningfully with the human condition.
While there are dangers of studying all the various disciplines, we can learn
to find the truth-contents of the sciences while discarding the elements that
lack validity from a Jewish standpoint.
The Jewish peoples return to Israel can be viewed as a calling to uncover the
partial truths of the various sciences and demonstrate how the different
branches of science weave together as a unity between life and Torah.
Rosenak: Philosophy of Jewish Education
Great thinkers who develop worldviews are deserving of philosophies of
education based on their worldview, even if they do not specifically espouse
one. It is important to discern what is important to transmit to future
generations.
Rav Soloveitchik was certainly one of those thinkers whose body of thought
requires an educational philosophy on which of his ideas should be
transmitted to students. A formation of his philosophies regarding major
issues, such as what he considers good or fit or even what the concept of
man is would be required in order to develop his philosophy accurately.
There are two strata of questions that will be dealt with. 1) The ideal
educated man: a man who achieves harmony with his world, culture, with G-d
and with himself. 2) The four commonplaces of education: the teacher, the
student, the milieu and the content being taught.
Regarding the educated man we can ask three questions: 1) How do we
cultivate a student to be equipped with the tools necessary to confront and
deal with his environment properly? 2) How do we transmit our Jewish and
general world culture to our youth in a way that will cause them to be active
participants in it? 3) How can we help students attain fulfillment based on
their individual strengths and disposition?
Rav Soloveitchik views Judaism as, foremost, a halachic religion; which places
halacha as the source of wisdom, awe and focus around which his identity is
forged. The halachic man must confront the world in a way that recognizes
the situation he is put in and learn to coexist in whatever that situation may
be. In this way, on must have reservations about the Western world, yet learn
to sustain himself within it.

Three questions come of this link between these two systems (namely;
Western society and Judaism): 1) How does a philosopher develop an
educational philosophy by approaching Western thought meaningfully while,
at the same time, maintaining an exemplary stature of an ideal Jew? 2) How,
and what, can the student learn about both of these systems while
understanding that both of these systems really are separate? 3) What sort of
teacher does it take that can bridge the divide and show how Judaism
encompasses elements of the general culture?
Rav Shamshon Refael Hirsch draws a parallel between the story of Cain and
Abel to the struggle of man within his environment. Abel is seen as more
spiritual and works to find G-d and develop himself in matters of the spirit.
Cain, however, is materialistic, and a man of culture. G-d had the archetype
of Cain in mind when He created the world; a being that is active and creative
but subject to moral decay as a result of his worldly work. Abel, however, is
seen as an individual ill-equipped to confront the world.
Ultimately, the Torah was given to a man like Cain to tame him and save him
from corruption. By remembering Shabbos and separating Priestly gifts, he
sets limits on his material possessions and is not ruled by them. In the
Hirschian model, the Torah is the moral agent that restrains and hallows the
world. Rav Soloveitchik would agree with this model, albeit he would see
more of a connection between the Halachic man and both Cain and Abel`s
archetype.
Within his essays, Rav Soloveitchik presents two types: Adam I and Adam II.
Adam I is a sovereign, majestic personality whose prowess in subduing and
inhabiting the world attests to his being created in the image of G-d. Adam II,
however, builds a community that subdues itself to G-d, and, by giving glory
to G-d, shares in authentic encounters between friends who share the same
goals as he does.
Rav Soloveitchik recognized the dichotomy between Adam I and II as a
transformative experience that man undergoes. Man internally develops from
the majestic, yet lonely existence of Adam I to the covenantal communityman that is reflected by Adam II - while not abandoning the majestic,
dominant creature that he identified himself as originally.
A program of education that nurtures the complex identity of a Jew
transitioning between Adam I and Adam II presents unique difficulties in all
the areas of educational commonplaces mentioned earlier.
How can a student who is used to the routine of making good impressions
and engaging in social, worldly affairs acclimate himself to the world of Adam
II? Assuming that there is usually some catalyst in a students life that causes
him to recognize the loneliness of the majestic life of Adam I, do we have to
create to streams of learning; one streamlined to the pre-catalyst student,
and another for the student positioned to develop the covenantal life of Adam
II? How can a teacher who is teaching material that he perceives as suitable
for a member of the covenantal community also present his material in a way
that includes members of the majestic community? Or, in other words, how

can a teacher communicate that faithfulness to the mitzvos is also relevant to

the cultural and historic identity of a member of the majestic community?
Questions about the milieu: What should be the attitude towards seclusion
from aspects of the Western culture and from aspects of the non-Orthodox
Jewish public? Is there a specific milieu we should be fostering in the attempt
to develop an Orthodox identity? What material should be chosen, and should
we be suppressing material that is taught in non-religious schools?
In his essay Kol Dodi Dofek, Rav Soloveitchik contrasts the elements of the
covenant of fate: the Jew who is born a Jew without choice, facing hostility
from the world and linked to his brethren eternally, to the man of destiny,
whose covenant looks towards his duties as a servant of G-d and embodies
itself in the commandments and the fulfilment of a life full of holiness.
Rosenak (1984) suggested that the life of the man of fate is linked with the
personality of Adam I and that the saving grace of the man of fate was
adherence to Halacha. Ultimately, he claims that Halacha was actually
intended for Adam II and the covenant of destinty.
To this the authors disagree, for the man of destiny actually has nothing to do
with Halacha, rather with the survival of the Jewish people on its most basic
level. If Adam I adheres to Halacha then he has begun to partake in the
covenant of destiny even if not on the intimate level of Adam II.
Accordingly, Rav Soloveitchik would not consider a Jew to be part of Jewish
destiny unless he follows the Halacha. The problem with this is that we find
Jews that, while not observing Halacha, still possess values and perspectives
worthy of the values espoused by the Jewish man of destiny. Are such people
to be considered remote milieu or proximate? It would seem that
acquaintance with such a milieu would blur our lines between fate and
destiny.
This problem led to the hiring of either religious Jews who were clearly from
the covenant of destiny, or non-Jews who are clearly not related to the idea of
covenant at all.
A final problem with the clearly demarked covenant of destiny is that it may
cause the student to view himself with an arrogance towards people who do
not share his exact identity. Only a teacher with a certain openness (while at
the same time being religious and starkly a man of destiny) can transmit that
there is beauty, as well, to be found among the remote milieu.
Alexander: Goodness
Our way of life is a product of the Enlightenment and the Emancipation (17 th
and 18th century). The Enlightenment sought to replace faith in Scripture with
scientific inquiry and new forms of reasoning. The Emancipation project
sought to lead society, socially, economically and politically, along the way of
Enlightenment individualism.
People began to realize that Enlightenment does not provide a sufficient
concept of goodness and spirituality.
Until the advent of religious philosophy in the 9 th century, Moslems, Christians
and Jews based their religious life on didactic belief in Scripture and its

teachings. Eventually, these three religions came to realize the veracity of

matching revelation with reason and started to think of ways that religion
could be sustainable through Aristotelian reasoning. By the middle of the 14 th
century, scholasticism had emerged, in which no intellectual sacrifices
needed to be made to embrace faith in G-d.
The Enlightenment cast doubts upon the veracity of scholasticism and
rationalists; indeed, even upon Aristotelian rationalism overall, which relied
heavily on the metaphysical rather than empirical evidence. Rene Descarte
pioneered a new kind of reasoning that questioned any reasoning that was
not clear and apparent. He claimed that Liberation from error requires
liberation from culture, from example and custom. (Gellner: Reason and
Culture, p. 2)
Benedict Spinoza applied Descartes skepticism to theology, and argued that
the Hebrew Bible could only have limited ethical consequences on modernday man. David Hume, a Scottish empiricist categorically stated that religious
belief could not stand up to empirical knowledge, and could be no more than
opinion. The good life according to Scripture was under attack.
Immanuel Kant (18th century) argued that even without reliance on Scripture,
the basic principles of morality could be sustained; through critical reason
alone. This rational morality meant that it could not be assumed that
everyone would share the same vision of how life should be lived, instead
individuals share a common approach for the justification of their own specific
vision.
John Locke extended this idea by conceiving of a society in which people of
different faiths, or with no faith at all, would participate in a common civic
and political system without sharing the same vision of good. This led to
separation of religion and state, people could choose freely to live without
religion; and thus, secularism was born.
In the 19th and 20th century, liberal Protestants, Catholics and Jews replaced
scholasticism with a new synthesis that admitted the rationality of scientific
knowledge but not of religion and ethics. The effects of this, and of Lockean
separation of church and state, effectively relegated religion to the personal,
private sphere of individual life. Religion was to be excluded from the public
spheres of work, politics and education, and was to be restricted to the
supplemental school of the church or synagogue.
Within the places of worship, as well, the influence of Enlightenment reigned.
Worship became less emotional and more about liturgical structure than
creating meaning. Bible studies were now Bible stories, and ethical questions
were simplified and reduced to kindergarten level. Any religious education
was now receiving little support and resources from the culture at large, and
low salaries coupled with part-time instructional schedules made it difficult to
attract properly prepared staff or to market adequate curriculum materials.
Even those who maintained their religious commitment were often
ambivalent towards their religious identity since society did little to validate
them.

As of late, there has been a retreat from modernism within religious

education. The very term religious education is seen as too modern;
representing a dry and heartless education that doesnt focus on becoming a
better person. The word education is, in many institutions, being replaced
with nurture or theology. Jewish leaders have begun to realize that the
modern synthesis is speaking less and less to the hearts and minds of
students and this has given rise to fears that the Jewish educational systems
can no longer ensure the continuity of Jewish identity.
In its effort to reconcile tradition with modernity, too much modern
rationalism was embraced, and not enough feeling. Spirituality, on the
other hand, allowed for the embracing of some of the more positive aspects
of religious experience.
Besides the emotional flatness of Enlightenment, flaws in Cartesian logic,
Kantian ethics and Lockean politics have begun to unravel the enlightenment
synthesis. Martin Heidegger argued that all human communication is
predicated on pre-understandings and cultural assumptions that is brought to
the discourse. Philosophy is no different than any other discourse. Other
objections have surfaced, such as the assumption that people value
rationality above all else. And Lockean politics have been shown to be not as
neutral as was portrayed; for the Lockean liberal society may be seen as
actually expressing (and imposing) the liberal and secular values in
replacement of religious values.
Even in the 17th century, a rebellion against Enlightenment rationalism
formed, and was termed romanticism: a romantic response that criticized the
lack of feeling and emotion present in the new rationality. Then again, in the
18th century, the lack of community in the wake of the industrialized world
was bemoaned.

Part 2:
Part 2: Take the seven principles proposed by Sokolow (that's me!) for modern
Orthodox day school education and place them in a descending order of
priority. Explainbriefly!why you assigned priority to your first choice.

1) The preeminance of Torah and the fulfillment of mitzvoth according to

halakha.

2) The primacy of moral virtue and ethical integrity in personal, business,

and professional life.
3) The value of all segments of the Jewish community.
4) The Torah as the possession of all Jews.
5) The need for excellence in both General and Jewish studies.
6) The need to set common educational goals for boys and girls, young
men and young women.
7) The centrality of the State of Israel to the religious and national
existence of the Jewish people.
I believe that imparting the centrality of Torah and Halacha creates a
scaffolding for the entirety of Jewish religion. The rest of the principles can
be derived by the student if the first principle is successfully transmitted.