1907 was not a good year for the young Yeshiva. Since 1905, the school had
faced two publicity disasters in form of two student strikes against the
policies of the administration. In both instances, the students complained
about the lack of a curriculum in the school and administration's eagerness to
end the stipend program that students used to feed themselves.
The Yiddish press and a significant proportion of the dues paying members of
RIETS were siding with the students. The lack of a curriculum meant that there
was no explicit and clear path for students to follow that would endure their
graduation. This caused many students to spend more time in school that was
really necessary. The overall effect was that the Yeshiva graduated a few
rabbis per year in contrast to the 90 some full time students enrolled in the
school. The public along with the students were also pressuring the Yeshiva to
create a more advanced secular studies program to graduate more well rounded
rabbis.
Cohen's article does not address any of this controversy. Instead, he
attributes the formation of the Yeshiva to the organizing of the first Roshei
Yeshiva to teach there. Considering the start of the Yeshiva from the
beginning of when classes began to be offered and not from how the board and
funding was first organized. This focus on the development of the studies
themselves as the primary focus of the history is not unusual for histories of
Yeshivas, but it centers the primary mission of the Yeshiva as traditional
Torah study, like they have in Europe. As Cohen moves his narrative to his
present day, he praises the Yeshiva for its success in becoming a center of
pure Torah study, educating many American born students in traditional old
world methods of Talmud study. Even directly comparing the Yeshiva to the
Yeshiva of Volozhin.
When viewed in its historical context, Cohen was arguing for keeping the
Yeshiva running under the same model under which it had existed in the
previous decade. This argument, being written as a history, is probably
directed towards the public to encourage them to support the Yeshiva, though
Cohen never makes any specific appeals for donations. Its not clear if he was
directly involved in the administration. In fact Cohen's narrative lacks an
important part of the messaging that the Yeshiva administration had been
pushing until that point. Since 1897, the Yeshiva had been presenting itself
to the American public as a school that actively educated in Torah and secular
studies, seeking to educate well rounded students. By 1905 it became clear to
the public that this was not really true, but it did not stop the Yeshiva
administration from continuing to present itself in that way. Cohen does not
include any of this language. He makes no effort to exaggerate the elementary
English language classes that the school offered. He seems proud of the fact
that some of the students at RIETS were also high school graduates, but
college level studies seems out of the question for Cohen who clearly wants
RIETS to be as traditional a Yeshiva as possible.
Cohen's desire to keep the Yeshiva tradition had to contend against the
powerful arguments coming from those desiring reform. The reformers had
practical arguments for how curriculum reform would benefit the efficiency of
the Yeshiva education and would train rabbis more equipped to serve American
Jews. To combat this desire for change, Cohen turns to history for his
argument. Presenting the history of RIETS as a trajectory pushing towards a
traditional Yeshiva, a method that he argues has seen success.
Cohen's article can be found here. https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/espac/1907/02/15/01/article/4
No comments:
Post a Comment