Letter & Spirit: Schools’ Obligation to Welcome All

In this week’s edition of Letter and Spirit, in preparation for the new school year – as yeshivos open their doors to welcome their students – we present a letter of the Rebbe about the obligation of schools to open their doors to all who come to learn Torah. The letter was written in English through the Rebbe’s trusted secretary Rabbi Nissan Mindel, and was made available by the latter’s son-in-law, Rabbi Sholom Ber Shapiro.

The Rebbe explains, in a unique and instructive manner, the well-known story of Hillel the Sage, who risked his life for the study of Torah.

This weekly feature is made possible by a collaboration between CrownHeights.info and Nissan Mindel Publications. Once a week we publish a unique letter of the Rebbe that was written originally in the English language, as dictated by the Rebbe to Rabbi Mindel.

**********

                                                                                                                                         By the Grace of G-d

29 Tammuz, 5737

Brooklyn, N.Y.

Mr.

Silver Springs, Md.

Greeting and Blessing:

This is to acknowledge receipt of your comments on “A Thought of the Week” on the subject of Torah study, wherein you take exception to the story of Hillel and the doorkeeper of the Bais Hamedrash, as related by our Sages and cited in the said “Thought.”

Needless to say, in relating this story and including it in the Torah (meaning – teaching, instruction), the Sages did not intend to focus on the doorkeeper’s conduct with a view to condemn him. The real purpose of the story is to bring out a two-pronged lesson, both for those who are in the category of the doorkeeper and those who are in the category of seeking admission to the house of learning, as pointed out in the said “Thought.”

First of all, there are several points in the story which you have apparently overlooked:

It should be self-evident that the doorkeeper had no idea that his refusing to admit Hillel would result in any danger to him (Hillel).

It should also be self-evident that the charge of a (relatively small) fee for admission was necessitated by the need to defray the costs of maintaining the school. It only reflects the general state of poverty of Jewish communities in those days which could not afford to provide free tuition to advanced students. This can also be seen from the poor economic situation of Hillel himself.

It may be assumed that had Hillel sought assistance or intervention, he could have gained admission without imperiling his life. But in view of his character and extraordinary humility, as related in various places in the Talmud and as indicated in this episode itself, it was out of the question for him to accept charity or any special favor. He would only use his own hard-earned money for admission, and even if he could be admitted free, by way of a special “scholarship” as it is now called, it would be at public expense, which would not be acceptable to him.

A further mitigating circumstance is the fact that – insofar as the doorkeeper is concerned – Hillel had been paying the admission fee daily, prior to the incident. Undoubtedly, the doorkeeper did not know that Hillel was paying for it with half of his daily earnings, for true to his character, Hillel would surely not have boasted about it. It is therefore reasonable to assume that Hillel was well able to pay for his admission, but for some reason did not want to pay it on that particular day.

Now for the lessons of this story:

Insofar as those who are in the category of the doorkeeper, those in charge of admission to a Yeshiva or similar institution, they should bear in mind that Torah study is a matter of life for a Jewish boy and girl and should seek every possible means to make it available to each and every Jewish boy and girl. Even if there may be a doubt that a particular applicant might be trying to evade paying for tuition, no child should be turned away; nor should any applicant be made to feel embarrassed in any case of hardship. Unfortunately these principles have not always been fully observed in admissions to some Day Schools and Torah institutions in the present time.

And for those who are in the category of seeking admission to Torah learning, the lesson is that no sacrifice should be too great when it comes to Torah study. Even those who have been learning Torah every day, and it is a question of missing just one day (as in the case of Hillel), the same sacrifice should be made not to miss even a single day of Torah-study.

There is surely no need to elaborate further on the above.

To conclude on a more personal note – seeing your interest in Torah-study, as is evident from your annotations, I am confident that you realize its underlying principle, which is – as our Sages define it – “learning for the purpose of practicing,” for “the essential thing is the deed,” namely, the fulfillment of the mitzvos in the daily life and conduct. This includes, of course, the mitzvah of v’ohavto l’re’acho komocho, the Great Principle of our Torah, which makes it the duty and privilege of every Jew to work for the dissemination of the Torah and mitzvos to the utmost of one’s ability, both by “words coming from the heart” and, even more effectively, by showing a living example.

With blessing,

**********

The above letter is from the forthcoming volume IV of The Letter and the Spirit by Nissan Mindel Publications. The letters are 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.

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.

8 Comments

  • 2. To the so called principal wrote:

    Perhaps the principal who penned the ugly letter explaining why he maintains a ‘selktzye’ when he chooses whom to accept into ‘his’ school, and all the yea sayers who try to impress upon us what ‘Lubavitch’ standards are and why if you can’t live by our standards your children deserve no Chasidishe Chinuch should read this letter.

    The standard bearer of ‘Lubavitch’ and what Lubavitch policy in Chinuch should be is non other than the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and he and only he sets those standards, and that is that there should never be a reason to deny a Jewish child the best Chinuch, regardless of financial reasons or background reasons.

    I know, I know that you’ll gang up and say that the Rebbe only addresses financial situations in this particular letter, but don’t allow the sand to be thrown in the eyes to blur your vision, there is never a good enough reason to deny a Jewish child any Chinuch.

    The classic story from the Talmud that the Rebbe quoted other times is the story of when Rabon Gamliel was removed from the Nesius and Rabi Eliezer ben Azarya was appointed in his place (you know that story from the Haggada) and the Gemara says that on that day the Yeshivos filled with thousands of new students due to the open handedness of Rabi Eliezer vs. the tight control that Rabon Gamliel had over the quality of students that he would accept into Yeshiva.

    There are dozens of Sichos and letters from the Rebbe on this which everybody can lookup by using the various indexes that were published over the last few years namely Rabbi Seligsons Mafteiach which has hundreds of entries on Chinuch and also the Sefer on Chinuch collected by Rabbi Levi Goldstein.

    I just didn’t want to pass on this opportunity of having this letter published here only a week after that other stupid letter was posted.

    • 3. Ezra wrote:

      Nope. Because when it comes to improper behavior things are indeed different: “One should not teach an unworthy student” (Makkos 10a), and “one who teaches an unworthy student falls into Gehinnom… and is like one who throws a rock at a Merculis idol” (Chullin 133a).

    • 4. To Ezra wrote:

      One will always find a hook to hang his zealotry, but certainly this was not the way the Rebbe taught us and that’s why all the Kanoiin (zealots) from Stamar and on always had with what to criticize the Rebbe because he never subscribed to this philosophy and instructed his Chasidim not to follow this way.

      The only one situation that the Rebbe allowed to send a child out of school was if the child him/herself was influencing other children negatively, but never did the Rebbe allow to exclude a child from a Yeshiva because of who their parents were and how they behaved.

      I challenge anybody to find me a source in the Rebbe’s teaching where the Rebbe allows to exclude a child from Yeshiva because of the negative behavior of their parents.

    • 5. Ezra wrote:

      There is a vast difference between accepting students from nonreligious families (where the very fact that they want to send their child to a religious school shows that there is room for influencing them and their children positively) –

      which is what the “kanoim” of whom you speak criticized –

      versus what the principal mentioned in his letter: families who know better, who themselves grew up with Yiddishkeit and Chassidishkeit, and know what is and isn’t proper behavior, but who choose to jettison some or all of it. Such parents – and children – aren’t going to be affected positively by the school; on the contrary, they will drag down its standards, because there’s nothing that you can teach them that they don’t already know and simply don’t care about.

  • 6. Saddend wrote:

    So why do we make such a big geshrei? Seminarys and yeshivas should be more tolerant or, at least help those kids that can’t find a place find something suitable for them!
    Also when a child is made less from his/her peers who pay full tuition, it makes them feel really really bad.
    We need to be more sensitive.

  • 7. to #4 wrote:

    Your comment is a contradiction in and of itself.

    Just think of the negative influence the child from the parental negative behavior home has on the other students, PHYSICALLY AND SPIRITUALLY !!!
    The parental behavior as well as the influence !!!
    (without going into any detail!)

    The HOME is and should be the real HOME.

    • 8. To to #4 wrote:

      Your theory is wonderful and is practiced by many Jews who call themselves Chareidi, but the Rebbe refused to accept this Shita and even if you’ll present all the arguments why you’re right, still you’ll be wrong according to the Rebbe.

      And as I wrote earlier: I challenge anybody to find me a source in the Rebbe’s teaching where the Rebbe allows to exclude a child from Yeshiva because of the negative behavior of their parents.

×

Comments are closed.