Q&A: Consultation About Forms and Areas of Study
Consultation About Forms and Areas of Study
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I’m currently learning at Yeshivat Hesder Yeruham and this year I’m finishing my first year.
I’d be happy to know what the Rabbi thinks about the following issue:
A dilemma regarding my second year in yeshiva:
I’ve come to the conclusion that I’ll probably enlist for full military service and not through the hesder framework, and that has increased my already existing need to make even better use of my time in yeshiva than before.
In the yeshiva there is clear guidance and an accepted approach of learning Talmud in depth, but unfortunately I haven’t found a connection to that kind of learning. When I look back, I don’t feel that the morning study sessions in particular are what developed me, but rather the afternoon and evening sessions, in which I also dealt with Jewish law [both broad coverage and in-depth], thought [both broad coverage and in-depth], the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), more survey-style Talmud learning, etc.
I spoke with a few rabbis at the yeshiva about this. One of them said that even if at the moment I may not feel it, “in the end, a Torah scholar develops out of in-depth study” [of course this wasn’t said insensitively, but out of faith in the path and as personal advice]. The second rabbi I spoke with agreed with the statement that you need in-depth study in order to develop as a Torah scholar, but not necessarily in-depth Talmud in the current format. For example, one could learn Jewish law in depth, thought in depth, the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) in depth—and also develop through those channels as a person and as a Torah scholar. He argues that Talmud is one area of Torah that is important to engage in, but if there is a deeper connection and a sense of growth from another area of Torah, and it is learned seriously and from the outset, not out of laziness, then that too is a valid ideal alternative.
A point of clarification—when I speak about learning another field in depth, for example Jewish law, it could come out that the form and even the type of sources are almost identical to in-depth Talmud learning [Talmudic passages, medieval authorities (Rishonim), later authorities (Acharonim), etc.], but all the motivation comes from a different place. The whole approach is different.
From my perspective, there is nothing more practical than learning thought, faith, philosophy [whatever you want to call it]—because when you engage in that, you are engaging in setting life’s goals, and then breaking them down into practical life. That role is filled by in-depth study of thought—and in-depth study of Jewish law, from the sources, with conceptual arguments in different directions—but this is not learning “in order,” rather according to topics that interest me and force me to reach practical ramifications and take responsibility for what I say, and thereby push me toward uncompromising clarification. [Once it reaches actual halakhic ruling and not just abstract conceptual arguments, it has to be far more grounded. Not that conceptual arguments are something unserious—but if I said an incorrect argument, fine, unlike Jewish law, which has to come from a whole and fully clarified place.]
There were external issues that came up that perhaps should be taken into account:
A. The social aspect—not in the sense of changing my path because of social pressure, but that there is something constructive in everyone dealing with similar topics, in my sharing a topic and a study-world with friends.
B. It may be that I won’t find a study partner who wants to learn this way. [I’m also not sure that I want to.]
C. There is no guidance the way there is in in-depth Talmud learning [there are no source sheets, or weekly classes like there are in Talmud].
The responses I’ve found so far to these things:
A. On the social side—there are other shared learning frameworks in the yeshiva [a year-level faith program, other classes, and more than that—if I learn these things during the morning session, it frees up a lot of time in the afternoon session for study partnerships I want to do]. In short—I think this is the easiest of the three problems.
B. Study partner—as far as keeping myself going during the morning session, I’m less worried. Of course I’ll have to face the test of reality, but I’m optimistic. As for the drawback of lacking another opinion and live discussion, I don’t really have a true answer, but there is also something to the fact that I’ll be able to deal fully with the issues that preoccupy me. Besides that, maybe I’ll choose someone to sit with as a study partner outside the morning session, learn the main points together with him, and hear his opinion.
C. The issue of guidance—with regard to source sheets, I think it may still be manageable. The more central problem is the missing classes and the lack of supervision over effective, directed learning. I thought maybe to speak with my rabbi, explain to him the track I chose, and ask whether he could accompany me on some level or another.
The goals I set for myself in yeshiva are:
To find a connection to Torah, to acquire analytical and broad-coverage learning skills toward a lifetime of study, and to be prepared in terms of knowledge [Jewish law, etc.] for the army and the first stages of my life as an adult and independent person [both in terms of “dry” information and in terms of forming a worldview of faith].
I think this kind of learning answers those goals.
So, practically speaking—I think it may very well be that despite the above problems, given my current understanding of things, there is value in switching to learning Jewish law and perhaps also thought in depth during the morning session instead of in-depth Talmud.
I understood from several people that you specifically advocate in-depth Talmud study, and I wanted to ask you why specifically Talmud, and whether the alternative I proposed can be ideal as yeshiva study in preparation for life—both from the standpoint of developing learning skills, from the standpoint of connection to Torah, and from the standpoint of specific preparation for the coming stages of my life [the army and the early stages of adult life].
In addition to the fundamental question about the path itself, I also wanted to ask whether in your opinion there are any additional external factors worth taking into account.
Thank you very much,
Answer
Hello Ilay.
You’ve raised a serious pile of considerations here, and it’s clear you put real effort into this and that it matters to you (as is the way of Yeruham people 🙂 ).
Let me address this briefly and only on the level of principle, since in my opinion there is no textbook answer to a question like this.
First, it may be worth reconsidering the decision to enlist in the regular track. In my opinion, the added value (I assume for you this is the sense of equality in sharing the burden) is very small, if it exists at all, while the loss for your life (and also for your future spiritual contribution to the Jewish people) is much greater. That is my personal opinion for most people.
Of course, if the learning doesn’t speak to you and you think you won’t gain from it or progress, that’s something else. But if the consideration is where to contribute, in my opinion you will contribute more in yeshiva. I’m not talking about some mystical contribution, but a completely practical one. Moreover, since I don’t think learning in yeshiva contributes less than military service, I also don’t see a problem on the level of equality in sharing the burden.
As for your actual questions, I am among those who very much believe in Talmud as the central study. True, this depends on personal inclinations, and obviously if it doesn’t speak to you then there is no point in insisting, but as a rule there is nothing like learning Talmud. I have defined the other studies in a few places as Torah in the person and not in the object—that is, Torah whose value depends on what it contributes to the person, unlike in-depth Talmud study, which does not depend on that. Its value lies in the act itself. The effort required is completely different, the contribution to a person’s character is completely different (surprisingly so), and what you get out of it is completely different. In my opinion, studies of thought, the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), ethics, and the rest of that assortment contribute almost nothing. Usually the conclusions are the assumptions you came with. I’ve already written here several times that I was young and now am old, and I have not seen anyone change his position on any issue as a result of learning the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh). A brilliant move in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) is an original explanation of verses. But the value conclusions are always what you thought from the outset. So what that contributed to you and your life is pretty much negligible.
It may be that you still haven’t understood what the learning contributes to you, and maybe you simply haven’t found a kind of learning that speaks to you, and it’s worth trying more, maybe in other places or with other people. It is true that perhaps you’re not built for this, because as I said, there is no universal textbook solution. I don’t buy the idea of growing through other fields. At most you’ll acquire knowledge of what so-and-so thought about this or that question, but the growth and the tools you’ll gain from it are negligible in my opinion. As I wrote in those articles, in my view philosophy contributes to life far more than Jewish thought (the standard texts), which are basically a Torahized translation of archaic and irrelevant Greek philosophy. Moreover, in my opinion the yeshiva won’t contribute much to you in these matters. You can also learn them on your own.
A combination of philosophy and in-depth Talmud, in my view, is a wonderful contribution, but as I said, that too is not detached from my personal taste. Take it with a grain of salt.
All your other considerations are personal, and you certainly know yourself better. I don’t have anything intelligent to suggest to you regarding them.
Sorry that I repeated the expected mantras you’ve already heard. People tell me that with me, saying the expected is the unexpected. But I really do believe this.
——————————————————————————————
Baruch:
It’s true that the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) may not “change positions,” but it can definitely contribute to the personality of the learner. The world is full of people who can tell how reading a book (any book, not only the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)) affected them.
In my view, personality is built not only from analyzing different positions and deciding between them, but also from this kind of experience or that kind of experience, including reading stories.
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Hello Baruch.
You’re certainly right, but that doesn’t touch what I wrote here. Contribution to personality is an undefined parameter. Everything we go through contributes to our personality and changes it to some degree. So even by your definition, the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) still doesn’t seem to have any special value (you yourself wrote that everything does this, not only reading the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)).
Beyond that, passive emotional impact is, in my opinion, not what is called learning. Learning is supposed to pass through our cognition. To understand things, weigh them, and internalize them. Learning relates to content, not to an event that acts on me and changes me in an uncontrolled and perhaps unconscious way.
——————————————————————————————
Y.:
Hello Rabbi,
Although in absolute terms, at least according to the view of those who observe Torah, there is practical value in yeshiva no less than in the army, one of the central problems is inequality—not on the side of equality in sharing the burden, but on the side of the fact that religious people have the ability to develop their spiritual world at the army’s expense, whereas secular people do not. If you asked me how to act in order to create equality, I would not abolish hesder, but would work to establish secular “hesder yeshivas” in which secular people would develop their spiritual world, and thus the whole discourse here would be elevated and we could grow together spiritually.
In addition, it is important to emphasize that another important component in the inequality is the fact that even though a yeshiva hesder student gives 5 years of his life in “continuous service” for the state [when I include the time in yeshiva as practical activity], it is still not equivalent to the 3 years that a combat soldier does and risks his life [of course one can say there are many desk soldiers and also non-enlistment on the secular side, but right now the discussion is on the ideal plane, and let’s say we’re talking about a young man with a combat profile]. 5 years, even if they are intensive and well used [and even if a year and a half of them are spent in combat service and involve risking life], are not equal to 3 years of risking one’s life. The possibility for religious people [even if it comes from idealism and contribution] to shorten their period of service and the period in which they risk their lives compared to secular people who cannot, is also a point of inequality.
I’d be glad to know the Rabbi’s opinion on this,
Thank you very much
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
Hello.
The claims about inequality suffer from two main flaws, which are connected to each other:
First, equality is not a supreme value. If other values stand against equality, those too must be weighed and a bottom-line conclusion reached. Such arguments assume as though the value of equality has mandatory and absolute status, and that is not so. If in the name of equality you enlist for three years and thereby lose the possibility of growing in Torah, the Jewish people have lost for the sake of holy equality.
Second, there is no equality between any two people. Service in the General Staff Reconnaissance Unit is not like service in the Artillery Corps, and certainly not like a desk job. And you are mistaken if you attribute this to a non-ideal world. Even in an ideal world you need General Staff soldiers and desk soldiers and artillery soldiers and military bands. And certainly you also need yeshiva students.
And what about Talpiot participants or academic reserve soldiers? In your opinion is that also unequal and should be abolished? They too do not risk their lives, and in fact they do not risk their lives at all, whereas a hesder soldier certainly does risk his life, and for the rest of his life as well he will serve in the reserves like everyone else. The difference in compulsory service is completely negligible, and I would attach no importance to it. In my eyes these are trivialities.
Bottom line: what matters is whether you are doing meaningful and needed service, not whether you are equal to everyone else. You are never equal and do not need to be equal. And each person should do according to his abilities, outlook, and understanding.
As for spiritual development, whoever wants that should be allowed to pursue it, even if he is secular. If there were such a secular demand, it should be answered. And if as a result the army decided that there are too many hesder students and each one should be required to serve longer, that would be fine. At the moment there is no such demand, other than spitefulness toward yeshiva boys. So this is an empty discussion.
By the way, there once were Nahal settlement groups, and they too did not do full military service, and nobody peeped.
—————————————————————————————–
Israel:
You mentioned, if I’m not mistaken, that in your opinion yeshiva students should not have to do military service because the value of equality in sharing the burden is not worth the practical contribution they bring. What is that contribution?
——————————————————————————————
Rabbi:
The contribution is preserving the Torah. It seems to me that even without any mysticism it is clear that the Torah preserves our people as a defined and distinct entity. In my estimation, without it we have no existence.