What are some examples of places in option 1?

I don’t know the landscape well enough, and it also changes over time. Among the yeshiva high schools there is Makor Chaim, and in Efrat I think there are a few relevant ones, and maybe also HaZor’im (I don’t know it well enough. Full disclosure: the head of the yeshiva is a friend of mine, though he does not share my views). I know elementary schools less well, but I’m sure there are even more of those.

With God’s help, 28 Tevet 5781

To Rabbi David Avraham Mandelbaum — greetings,

And the fourth way is to provide truly open education, meaning: not only openness to liberal views, but also to views that are less “thin.” It is possible to disagree respectfully without mocking and belittling “everything that moves,” and enough said.

They once asked Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach about a neighboring Torah scholar whose sons left Torah, whereas another neighbor, who was not among the knowledgeable in Torah, had sons who became Torah scholars. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman answered: the sons of the Torah scholar heard their father belittling Torah scholars right and left, and they absorbed the message that Torah has no value, whereas the sons of the simple Jew constantly absorbed an attitude of respect toward Torah scholars.

Someone who is exposed from childhood to a Torah world that contains a diversity of outlooks within the framework of commitment to Jewish law and to the foundations of faith will choose his own path, and even if it is not the path of his parents and teachers, he will still accord them respect.

Best regards,
Shatz

Paragraph 2, line 2
… a neighbor who was not among the knowledgeable in Torah…

Rabbi Shach also explained that his son became a Religious Zionist, Heaven forbid, because they didn’t sing Sabbath table songs at home. And in my view that’s like the explanation that the messiah hasn’t come because the attendant of the rebbe of Krechtzlech didn’t put enough sugar in his tea to sweeten the judgments. Reality is much more varied and not necessarily connected to these funny ad hoc explanations at all. First you need statistical testing and not anecdotes, and only then is there any point in even trying to think of explanations. Otherwise it’s like Rabbi Michi says about learning from the Hebrew Bible: from anecdotes, everyone always learns exactly what he already knows.
I would also like to update you that the very, very harshest criticism of rabbis from other camps exists within the most faithful Judaism itself. In the Chazon Ish circles they tear apart the Rabbi Shlomo Zalman style of Jewish law and the Brisker approach, all the Lithuanians tear apart the Hasidim, among the Hasidim I don’t know but there too there is no small amount of group pride that gets translated in Torah terms into sharp and clear contempt for everyone else, almost all the Haredim tear apart the overwhelming majority of the Religious Zionist rabbis. A good friend of mine is the son of a member of the religious court of the Edah HaHaredit (he’s no longer Haredi), and he grew up on contempt shading into pointed mockery toward almost every group I know. Satmar donors demanded deleting even mentions of the Steipler and Rabbi Shach, those Zionists (for example in the story of the notes on Maharit Algazi). The problem is that the sharpest attacks won’t be published in Yated Ne’eman or HaModia; they pass in conversations and from rabbi to student, and are sometimes also expressed in closed forums. If you ever read accurate transcripts of the “gossip lesson” of Rabbi Avraham Yehoshua of Brisk, you’ll see what serious contempt looks like. Only the Religious Zionists, sparkling with the loftiness of their superior souls, are always careful to flatter everyone (though as far as I can tell, over time the general inferiority complex is receding and the sharpening of criticism to the “right” is increasing).

With God’s help, 28 Tevet 5781

To N — greetings,

More power to you for bringing Rabbi Shach’s words about the educational value of Sabbath songs, because it is obvious that when a life of Torah is bound up with an experience containing joy and enthusiasm, that has incomparable educational value.

As for his son Dr. Ephraim Shach, in my opinion Rabbi Shach’s education actually did succeed. He provided his son with a personal example of love of Torah and devotion — traits that Dr. Ephraim Shach implemented in his own life both as a fighter in the Irgun and as an educator in the path of Religious Zionism. The same enthusiasm that the Steipler instilled through Sabbath songs, perhaps Rabbi Shach instilled through his devotion to Torah study.

Educational success, in my opinion, is not necessarily when the son comes out as a “copy-paste” of his father, but when he adopts his father’s character traits. Diligence and a sharp, critical analytical ability can develop in different directions, and if they remain within the Torah framework, even if in another school, that should be seen as a great success.

Best regards,
Shatz

As for the tendency of some Haredim to belittle others — that is the problem I was pointing to. If the son adopts the father’s path, then fine, he adopted it. But the danger is that from all the belittling, the son will get used to belittling everything, and may, God forbid, come not only to disdain the Torah scholars of our generation, but also our early and later rabbinic authorities, and even the words of the Sages. An outlook does not necessarily pass by inheritance, but character traits certainly do, and the danger is not small that a negative character trait such as cynicism will lead its bearer, God forbid, to scorn even his parents and teachers. Therefore I do not recommend passing this trait on to children.

With God’s help, 28 Tevet 5781

Another point that can help in education is to relate to the student, even if he is a child, as to an adult with whom one can conduct a “peer-level” conversation. To take interest in what interests him, and to listen seriously to what he feels and thinks.

The adult has more knowledge and life experience, but the younger person also has an advantage, both in up-to-date knowledge and in fresh lines of thought that can challenge the adult’s thinking. It is not for nothing that the Sages said: “Much have I learned from my teachers, more from my colleagues, but from my students more than all of them.”

And after all, a great foundation in education is patience, and as Rabbi Ze’ev Krav said in the name of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, the foundations of education are three: patience, patience, and patience 🙂

And may it be His will that this be fulfilled in us: “Please make the words of Your Torah pleasant in our mouths, Lord our God, and may we and our descendants and the descendants of Your people the house of Israel all know Your name and study Your Torah for its own sake.”

Best regards,
Shatz

One should educate for critical thinking. Precisely dissonant situations are helpful for that.
But in any case, most of it is a matter of genetics and education from home.
If a child is educated to be dragged along and be part of the herd, then you simply choose the herd you like best and send him to graze with them. In any case he won’t get very far, so what difference does it make.

You don’t recommend it, fine, but your eyes can see and our ears know that all the groups that feel good enough about themselves pass on to their children, and their children to their children, and their children to another generation, a lethal and unequivocal criticism of all the others. And we’re not talking here only about others who are reed-cutters on the lakeshore, but also about others who are serious scholars, toward whom there is criticism at a level that from a distance looks like hairsplitting poverty — like the differences between Tnuva milk and Tara milk. But to someone on the inside it is highly significant. And it’s not only religious people who act this way; let us be precise and not forget that almost every group that regards itself as successful does not refrain from expressing in its children’s hearing its deep contempt for other groups that, in its opinion, are less successful than it is and are tainted by this or that.
So if statistics are what you’re after, take up your gear, your quiver and your bow, and examine whether the hypothesis that drawing sharp criticism “at everything that moves” within the realm of halakhic Judaism causes a reduced likelihood of raising children to observe Jewish law is a correct hypothesis. After all, if you reject the path of criticism, then you have thereby criticized all the critics whose beards are longer than yours, whose learning surpasses yours, whose little finger is thicker than your whole frame, and all that you have they have sevenfold. And if it is fitting for those who uphold the Torah of God to know its great figures in their true character, all the more so it is fitting for them to know its lesser figures and its younger youngsters too; “a person sees every blemish except his own.” And as for the criticism you slipped in regarding the trait of “cynicism,” saying that it is a negative character trait — I do not agree with that, because the stench in the world is far greater than the fragrance, and everyone according to his own intelligence sees those who are more foolish than he in some matter as extremely foolish in that matter, to a degree the mind cannot understand how they became so foolish. And I myself have experienced cases where men wiser than I constantly wonder why my mind is so thick and coarse that I do not grasp the idea with the quality and speed with which they grasped it; and who has the strength of stones to restrain himself from recoiling at the sight of nonsense? And although it is true that wiser and deeper people than I recoil at my own nonsense, no one comes with complaints against himself, and wherever the spirit is inclined to go, there we turn as we go. And N wrote.

Paragraph 3, line 1
… and as Rabbi Ze’ev Krav said…

With God’s help, 28 Tevet 5781

To N — greetings,

Regarding your claim that education based on mocking other views, even ones within the Torah world, is successful — I addressed this when I said: “If the son adopts his father’s path — then he has adopted it,” but alongside the risk that the trait of contempt and mockery implanted in the son will be directed toward his parents and teachers and toward early and later rabbinic authorities, and even toward the Tannaim and Amoraim, there needs to be serious examination whether it is worth producing a majority of “those who stay in line” together with a difficult minority that will kick with contempt at everything holy and precious to Judaism.

By contrast, the path that values and respects the wide spectrum of views that are “inside,” views based on commitment to Jewish law and faithfulness to the principles of religion — a path that does not refrain from criticizing other Torah approaches, but criticism carried out with appreciation and respect, as is the way of Torah. Just as in the disputes between Rashi and Tosafot, or between Maimonides and Nachmanides — although there is often sharp criticism, the overall relationship is one of respect. And just as Nachmanides, who frequently criticizes Maimonides’ approach in Guide for the Perplexed, writes of him with honor and admiration in his letter to the rabbis of France: “Before I answer, I err.”

And I have mentioned more than once that those who kicked away religion altogether, whether in secret or openly — there is a good chance that if they had “found themselves” in a different Torah school, they might have remained within the framework of Torah and faith. But when one is accustomed to despising the “Religious Zionist,” or the “Hasid,” the “Litvak,” or the “Sephardi,” and the like — then someone who does not “find himself” in his home environment may go completely outside.

And I once said half-jokingly that if we were to expand the acronym for “formerly religious” as “religious, but suited to a different path,” we would save ourselves a lot of “formerly religious” people 🙂

Best regards,
Shatz

If there is a statistical claim, please make it directly, and preferably also offer some sort of support. If there is only a hypothesis, then it doesn’t seem right to me. And personally, the sugary path that I understand you to be proposing also repels me in some sense. You just have to say exactly what you think; that seems to me the most logical, easy, convenient, free of internal contradictions, and non-manipulative. Whoever deserves respect is respected for what is worthy of respect in him, and whoever or whatever does not, is not. After all, the opinion itself cannot be avoided in thought; you are only proposing not to express it lest the child be educated to express contempt and then get used to despising others too and then and then and then kick away everything precious and true. In any case, I want to note once again that in my opinion the path you are proposing is a strange anomaly compared to the path practiced by the overwhelming majority of those who, in their own view, guard the pure cruse of oil.

To N — greetings,

One can say what one thinks, but what one thinks can also be good. One can respect the person who disagrees, even while disagreeing with him. There are times when one must rebuke in the heat of Torah, as explained by Rava and Rav Ashi in Ta’anit 4a, but even there Ravina left us the teaching that it is preferable to train oneself in gentleness. After all, we are dealing with education.

Best regards,
Shatz

Hello Rabbi Michi, it seems to me that in this wonderful and important thread, the main question was missed:
The Rabbi’s approach mainly concerns a person’s choosing out of understanding, agreement, and sincere self-conviction. The problem is that education is exactly the opposite of that — in education we train the young person to do things he did not choose, and it may be that he is not intellectually mature enough to choose. In truth, I have always wondered, according to the Rabbi’s truly wonderful and enlightening approach, how adolescence and its role are to be explained. I hope my question is clear. Thank you.

Education in school will always be technical, if only because the authority of a school is formal; no student chooses to go to school of his own free will. A school functions as an agent of the parents and/or the state, and truly free discussion can undermine its authority and thereby betray its mission toward the parents and the state. Aligning expectations with reality is the first step to success. A school can provide technical tools and no more.

And what about developing independent and complex thinking? That depends on the parent. If the parent shares his dilemmas and thoughts with the child, if the parent gives the child reading material that stirred him to thought — whether scholarly books or books of thought and science, or literature, and even watching sports games together can stir the child to thinking that will ultimately lead to intellectual independence.

Education is not the opposite of that. Education does have dimensions of an imposed framework, but their purpose is to shape a youth who will choose his own path and choose correctly. In practice I agree that very often this does not happen, but there is no necessity in that. As the child grows older, he is of course supposed to act more independently. In early childhood there is more room for coercion and less for his autonomy.