Letter & Spirit: A Bochur Does Not Belong in College

In this week’s edition of Letter & Spirit, we present a letter written by Rabbi Nissan Mindel on behalf of the Rebbe to the editor of a Jewish newspaper who advocated for Yeshiva Bochurim to go to college. The letter was made available for publication by Rabbi Mindel’s son-in-law, Rabbi Sholom Ber Shapiro.

In his clear and concise response, the Rebbe addresses some serious problems and misconceptions regarding the subject matter of college attendance for Jewish youth, with references to Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch and Rabbeinu Yona. Included also are some fascinating insights into the study of Chassidus.

This new weekly feature is made possible by a collaboration between CrownHeights.info and Nissan Mindel Publications. Once a week we will be publishing unique letters of the Rebbe that were written originally in the English language, as dictated by the Rebbe to Rabbi Mindel.

**********

                                                                                                                                                       By the Grace of G-d

                                                                                                                                                       5722

The Editor

N.Y.

Dear Editor:

We have brought the letter of your correspondent to the attention of the Lubavitcher Rabbi, Shlito, The following is his answer which, it is hoped, will be published unabridged, in the public interest:

It is not my custom to engage in polemics, least of all in the columns of the press. However, in view of the importance of the issue and the widespread attention which it has received, I consider it in the public interest to clarify my position in regard to certain points raised by your correspondent.

(1)     I have not made what your correspondent calls “scientific surveys” relating to college education and its effects on Jewish students. However, I have had sufficient contact, over many years, with Jewish under- graduates and graduates of a great many colleges and universities in the United States and Canada, as well as abroad, to speak from personal knowledge of the problem.

There is no need for statistics on this subject. The facts speak for themselves. Let anyone visit several colleges or universities (outside of New York City) and he can easily find out for himself how many colleges have a kosher canteen on the campus, or even nearby, and how many students strictly observe kashrus in their three meals a day, or two meals, or one. Of course, theoretically speaking, it may be possible for a Jewish student to go through the four years of his academic life without a hot meal.

Theoretically also, it may be possible for a student, after a day’s work, to go out to do his own shopping and cooking. But we are not dealing with theories. The undeniable fact is that a negligible proportion, if any, of Jewish students attending colleges and universities go through their  academic training without making concessions in basic matters of Yiddishkeit in their daily life,

I mentioned only the matter of kashrus, but the same is true of tefilo b’tibbur even on Shabbos and Yom Tov, and other areas of the religious life. It is painful to go into detail, and I am most reluctant to do so, since it is not in keeping with the Torah spirit, much less with the Hasidic approach, to speak ill of anybody. However, we are dealing with a situation where the Torah dictates that it is a time to speak. I shall therefore cite one actual illustration:

Some years ago I was asked to intervene in behalf of several Jewish students whose examinations had been scheduled to take place on Shabbos. The difficulty stemmed from the fact that the university authorities claimed that they had never before been confronted with such a demand by Jewish students. Such a situation is surely more eloquent than any “scientific survey.”

(2)    In his defense of college education, your correspondent uses the “economic” argument. He maintains that no one should be denied the opportunity of a better or easier parnosso that a college degree offers. Now, aside from the fact that this argument can easily be refuted from the Torah viewpoint, by simply reducing it to its logical consequence which would subordinate the spirit to the flesh, I submit (from personal knowledge of many cases) that the economic factor is of greater significance to the parents especially to the mother, rather than to the would-be student. The motivation for college education is generally much more “idealistic,” at any rate in the case of many Yeshivah boys. But this only aggravates the problem, for it indicates that a Yeshivah boy, having been successful in his Talnudic studies, and having earned the diploma of not only “Yore, Yore” but also “Yodin, Yodin“,  still feels that he is not complete without a secular college degree! The destructive implications of such an attitude are not less serious than the environmental influences of the college itself. It is indeed most unfortunate that Rabbis and Roshe-Yeshiva, generally speaking, do not sufficiently imbue the talmidim and youths who are entrusted to their influence with that age-old idea which every Jewish mother used to impart to her baby in the cot as she was rocking him to sleep with the lullaby “Torah is di beste s’chorah.”

(3)    I am not unaware that there are congregations which prefer a Rabbi with a college degree, and baale-battim who consider that a Rabbi is not yet fully qualified as a spiritual leader by merely possessing a Yeshivah smicha, until and unless he also has the stamp of approval of the gentile world in the form of a college diploma. This is an unfortunate symptom of certain Jewish circles which are suffering from an acute form of a chronic inferiority complex. This malady is expressed in a variety of symptoms, all of which are characterized by the urge to curry the favor and approval of the gentile neighbors. With true consistency, such baale-battim evaluate a candidate for their pulpit also by his qualifications as an entertainer, by the store of jokes at his disposal, by his ability to review the latest best-seller immediately following kerias haTorah as a preparation, no doubt, for musaf; and if he is to have real influence on the children and youths, he must be able to answer questions as to baseball stars, movie stars, etc. etc. Now, granting that there are congregations and baale-battim with such tendency, let us ask ourselves: Should a tendency which degrades the Torah, the synagogue and the Rabbi be catered to and fostered by a right-thinking Yeshivah boy who aspires to become a true Jewish spiritual leader?!

(4)    Your correspondent recommends that American orthodoxy adopt the system which Rabbi Shimshon Refoel Hirsch (Zal) introduced in Germany several generations ago. I cannot go along with this recommendation. The system had its place in Germany more than a century ago, but it would be quite out of place in American orthodoxy for the following reason. RSRH designed his system with a view to saving a generation who were already in the universities and who were already absorbing the secular culture. He attempted to provide for them the dimension of the Torah, so that they would not be completely lost to our fold. Our American orthodoxy is quite different, and more fortunate, thank G-d. The situation is, in fact, reversed. For the issue of college education under discussion is not concerned with those who are already in the colleges, but with the question – should Yeshivah bochurim be encouraged to attend college? Those advocating college education for Yeshivah bochurim are moving in the opposite direction to that of the Hirschian approach. Were Rabbi Shimshon R. Hirsch with us here today, he would consider it ludicrous (to say the least) to see his name used as a means to drag Jewish boys away from the Torah and Torah atmosphere of the Yeshivah into an atmosphere and education which is more often than not in violent conflict with the Torah.

(5)    One of the serious dangers that are inherent in college education has to do with its influence on the thought process of the college student. The college student is trained to think in secular terms and categories. In all courses (except theology) G-d is banished from the classroom. This often leads to the tendency of leaving G-d out of the Torah study as well. When, and if, the college student returns to the Gemoro, he is likely to approach it with the same mental process. He may still admire the wisdom of the Torah, and may still derive pleasure from its study, but he will not be able to recapture the sense of awe and holiness with which he had once approached G-d’s Torah. Hence, if he had picked up some apparent discrepancies between secular science and the Torah, he is inclined to solve the difficulty by simply taking the words of the Torah or of ChaZal out of their meaning in order to harmonize them with the college text-books, or even those used in High Schools and Public Schools. Unfortunately, this tendency has made inroads even among Talmidim of Kolelim, who sit and study Torah at great personal “sacrifice,” yet whose hashkofo had been contaminated by the secular hashkofo of the college.

One is reminded of the comment of Rabbeinu Yona Ha-Chosid on the maamar ChaZal  “Why was the Land destroyed? Because they did not precede their learning of the Torah with the blessing “Who has chosen us from among all the nations and has given us His Torah“. Rabbeinu Yona observes that although they engaged in the Torah constantly, it was of no avail because they did not approach the Torah with the full recognition that it was G-d’s Torah, and that we Jews are the chosen people and are different. (See Rabbeinu Yona on Nedorim 81a, and at greater length in the BaCh on Tur Orach Chayim, sec. 47).

(6)    Incidentally, if any proof is needed as to how be-clouded one may become in one’s thinking when one is carried away by one’s own subjective partiality to college education, suffice it to quote your correspondent: “Of necessity, time spent on secular study takes away time from Torah learning. The same would apply to time spent on studying Chassidus.” To equate secular study with the study of Chassidus! What a sad commentary it is on college education, and what it does to a Yeshivah boy. (I presume your correspondent is, or was, a Yeshivah boy). This clearly bears out the point I made earlier regarding the dangerous effect on the thought process of Yeshivah boys who expose themselves to the college atmosphere and the distortion of values that it can cause.

Your correspondent graciously concedes that Chassidus may have some value, but he wonders whether the time could not be spent more wisely on Talmud. It would not be amiss to remind him that we have but one Torah, which includes both niglah and nistar. If at one time or another in the past certain Rabbis found it advisable to discourage the study of nistar, they made it clear that it was because they felt that not everyone is worthy or sufficiently prepared to study it. It only emphasizes their high regard for nistar d’ Torah as being on a higher plane than nigla and therefore required a greater degree or preparation, a view clearly expressed in the Torah, from the Mishnah down to the latest Poskim.

So much for the Rabbis, Shlito reply.

Yours sincerely,

Secretary

***********

The above letter is from the archives of Rabbi Dr. Nissan Mindel, a personal secretary to the Previous Rebbe and The Rebbe, whose responsibilities included the Rebbe’s correspondence in English.

Many of the letters are now being published in The Letter and the Sprit, a series of volumes by Nissan Mindel Publications.

We thank Rabbi Sholom Ber Shapiro, director of Nissan Mindel Publications and the one entrusted by Rabbi Mindel, his father-in-law, with his archives, for making these letters available to the wider public. May the merit of the many stand him in good stead.