Presence

we actually concieved of it as a "machshava protocols" so you aren't very far off!

You'd be surprised who was "around" for Protocols. I didn't comment much back then, but I did read it (and well before Luke Ford took over).

Anyway, this post is spot on. Reading some of the analyses of Tanakh to be found in modern, untraditional sources its clear that a great deal is missing from contemporary yeshiva education.

Our educational system just barely enables us to make these kinds of observations, let alone put them into some sort of context that makes any sense. Despite what they'll tell you, our current incarnation of Judaism puts very little value in Scripture.

This is an unfair statement. You and I know some distinguished talmidei chachamim that have gone through the standard yeshiva system, and yet have a very unique and refreshing outlook when it comes to Tanach. Are they exceptions? Of course they are. But that's not to say that the educational system is flawed. Not everyone can be a great thinker, just like not everyone can be a great bowler.

Your roll.

Horse puckey. In the days of the Talmud you had 8 year old children reciting lines fro Hosea.

In Japan, they learn calculus in elementary school.

It's not that they can't, it's that they don't.

You're out of your league.

Maharatz Chajes, who died in 1855, wrote the following:

"Even that segment of the youth that prepare to devote themselves to a rabbinical career have not the vaguest notion of the scope of the office.... Of the vast corpus of the laws, of Orach Chayyim they study only the laws of Passover, and even that section not in its entirety...and then Yoreh De'ah, the laws of ritual slaughter, terefot, milk and meat, and forbidden mixtures. This constitutes their entire course of study. If one of them has a smattering of proficiency in these areas, even if he does not know that David reigned after Saul, he will be recommended by the Rabbis as the most qualified rabbinical candidate for even the most prestigious cities."

Even allowing for hyperbole, I can assure you that today there are parallels. No, I'm not saying that there are yeshiva graduates who think David came before Saul. But Greg is right. These kinds of observations, just plain analysis of our texts, just isn't being given over to our students. I wasn't given it and I was a pretty good bochur, both in elementary school and mesivta.

S.:

We have already had this discussion, and you were "maskim" to me.

Bandejo:

The yeshiva system provides us the tools to research any avenue of Jewish scholarship that we choose. I wouldn't say that there's nothing wrong with the system- there certainly is- but for the most part the day schools and mainstream yeshivos cater to the average Jewish student. If we want to learn Tanach, we know where to find it and have the skills to tackle it. I will reiterate what I've already stated: It simply isn't appropriate to teach a holistic view of Tanach to all students at the expense of other Jewish studies. Plus, don't forget that half the day is spent on "limudei chol". People mature, and with that, their understanding of Scripture does as well. I can almost guarantee you that the pshat you mentioned in your post wasn't contrived by a 7th grader.

>We have already had this discussion, and you were "maskim" to me.

That what, some people with extraordinary clarity and learning are produced by yeshivoth? Yes, of course I'm maskim.

I think the trouble is that the "complainers" (e.g., me, Greg etc.) notice that the immature view persists way past 7th grade and in fact many rabbanim either have an immature view or choose to present themselves as if they do publically. That doesn't mean that to have a mature view one needs to conform to my thinking. But it seems clear that for many people "learning" consists of repeating meforshim rather than analyzing texts.

I will agree that the immaturity typically persists past high school, and I share your frustration. I do not think that it is fair, however, to blame this phenomenon on the educational system. The system is arranged to cater to the average student. Teaching Scripture in an alternative manner might compromise other aspects of Jewish scholarship, not to mention possibly leading to other, far more severe, implications.

Then who is to blame?

And it isn't only in the area of Tanakh, its the whole thing; Talmud, hashkafah, mussar etc.

Also I would add that, in the case of Tanakh certainly, the "far more severe, implications" come to many who were mistaught when they were the captive audience of Orthodox rabbeim for literally hours a day. Since no one ever taught me a convincing Orthodox perspective on any of the issues raised by modern scholarship, for example, I am forced to confront it virtually alone. Are they not worried about this?

You bring up valid points. What do you propose? What would you change? Bear in mind that you need to keep the AVERAGE AMERICAN child in mind, and provide half the day to secular studies. Give me a curriculum and teacher/rebbi qualifications for 1st, 7th, and 12th grades. Seriously. No more complaints. Let's fix it.

You're asking me al regel achas. I'll give it some thought. But before I reply (which may take the form of a post in a day or a week or a month, since this is a weighty issue) I just want to remind ourselves that not having good solutions doesn't mean that the problems aren't there.

I just want to remind ourselves that not having good solutions doesn't mean that the problems aren't there.

Yes, but it might mean that the current method is the most appropriate. Nothing is perfect.

I anxiously await your post. Don't forget about this one! (I'm still waiting for your Meme post) :)

What's a Meme?

Ask S. He owes us one.

Do me a favor Bill, drop me an email some time to remind me that I owe you a curriculuum. :)

Can I ask a serious question: Was the Rashi/Ramban post not interesting?

Actually it was. Unfortunately I couldn't think of anything to say, even though "nice post" would have been polite.

I find the same thing on my blog On the Main Line. With site meter I can tell that tons of people are reading things on my site, things that I put a lot of thought into. And they don't say anything. Do they agree? Disagree? Think its boring? Stupid?

I wish they'd let me know more. Anyway, that's one of the things with blogging--many times more people read than comment.

Of course, Maimonides only appreciated art for its utilitarian contributions, specifically how good it was at dispelling depression.

I think our schools are probably as good as they can be, given the intellectual and economic constraints that aren't going away. The only big negative we have in this context is our fear of the not-yet-known, which is denigrated enough to potentially intimidate fans of modern parshanut.