נשים בדיון הלכתי, לימודי חול בישיבת וולוז'יןJewish Legal Writings by Women, Secular Studies at the Volozhin Yeshiva

א׳

1Maidi Katz z”l^*This paper was written in 1985 while studying at the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Advanced Jewish Studies of Yeshiva University in New York.

ב׳

2The question of the permissibility of philosophic inquiry and of secular learning has long been a source of disagreement in Jewish thought and has often caused conflict within the Jewish community. In the early days of Rabbinic Judaism various injunctions¹It is not always clear in the Talmud whether they are meant as actual prohibitions or merely as good advice. were invoked against study of certain materials such as chokhmat yevanit²Menachot 64b, 99b; Sota 49b; Bava Kamma 82b. and higayon;³Berakhot 28b. these terms are not clearly defined in the Talmud and later interpretations have run the gamut from the prohibition of a today unknown sign language⁴Rashi on Menachot 64b. to the prohibitions of logic⁵R. Hai Gaon interprets higayon as logic: ׳׳.כמו חכמת האמנטיקו״ See Otzar HaGeonim LeMasekhet Sanhedrin 491. and philosophy.⁶Nachmanides, Kitvei Ramban, vol. 1, ed. Chevelle (Jerusalem: haRav Kook, 1963). Similarly, the reasons for these injunctions are ambiguous in the Talmud and both heresy and bitul Torah arguments have been offered as explanations.⁷Jewish males are obligated to learn Torah day and night; when time is spent not learning Torah (unless it is spent in a sanctioned activity) it is considered “bitul Torah.” Thus, depending on the historical context, these terms have been interpreted and reinterpreted by Jewish scholars each of whom was striving to maintain and defend his own particular world view.⁸For example, the interpretations of the pro-philosophic schools: Joseph ibn Caspi (Muslim Spain) says in his ethical will (Hebrew Ethical Wills, Israel Abrahams, ed.) that higayon cannot be interpreted as logic, because clearly Chazal would not have prohibited such a beneficial activity. Similarly, R. Jacob Anatoli (13^th century) in his introduction to Melamed haTalmidim says that מנעו בניכם מן ההגיון applies only to young people who are not mature enough to study the sciences. On the other hand, those who opposed philosophic study interpreted the statement differently. For example, we find in Minchat Kena’ot (15^th century) that the prohibition of higayon is equated with that of philosophic study. Similarly, R. Joseph Haviva (15^th century) writes in his commentary to Megilla 25b:
״חכמת ההגיון מושכת לב האדם… ולא יהיה חפץ בתורה וישכח מה שלמד.״
Varying attitudes to philosophic inquiry and to secular studies caused the focus of the conflict to shift back and forth along a spectrum ranging from the permissibility and value of secular culture and learning in general,⁹For example, during the Haskalah period (19^th century). involving possible problems of bitul Torah, to heated debate about the possible consequences of philosophic study, such as heresy.¹⁰For example, during the Maimonidean controversy.

ג׳

3In the Eastern European Jewish communities (Lithuania, Poland, and Russia) of the 16^th and 17^th centuries, neither the issue of secular learning in general nor the issue of philosophy in particular was the source of much controversy. The Jewish communities during that period experienced an inward turning and focused their attention primarily on talmudic studies and on pious living. Judaism became a closed system of thought.¹¹Jacob Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1961) ch. 12. Even according to those historians who maintain that Jewish scholars of this period continued to incorporate rationalist Maimonidean philosophy into their own beliefs,¹²See for example: Ephraim Kupfer, “Ledemuta haTarbutit sheYahadut Ashkenaz VeChakhameha beMe’ot ha-14 ve-15.” Tarbiz 42: 113–45. See also: J. Ben Sasson, Mishnato Ha’Iyunit shel ha’Ramoh (Jerusalem, 1948). it hardly appears that these intellectual activities made major inroads on the narrow focus of Jewish life or disrupted the Jewish communities to any discernible extent. Attempts were made to define the parameters of chokhmat yevanit¹³For example, Maharal, Sefer Netivot Olam ch. 14. and higayon, in as much as they were part of Talmud study, but these prohibitions were not subject to prolonged or acrimonious debate.

ד׳

4However, at the end of the 19^th century a curious event occurred: the Eitz Chaim Yeshiva in Volozhin was closed by the Russian government on the grounds that it did not meet the secular studies requirements previously imposed upon it.¹⁴Samuel Ettinger, “Volozhin,” Encyclopaedia Judaica 16:218. In order to fully understand why this happened at that particular time (1892) and in that particular place (Russia), we must first investigate what in the 18^th and 19^th centuries caused the renewed stir concerning secular studies, what were the prevalent attitudes among the Jews towards these studies, and how the Russian government came to be involved in an issue which seemingly should have been the concern of the Jewish community alone.

ה׳

5Without a doubt, the advent of the Haskalah movement (late 18^th century) usually associated with Moses Mendelssohn (Germany, 1729–1786), was intimately connected to the resurgence of the debate over secular studies. Among other objectives, the proponents of the Haskalah ideology wanted secular studies recognized as a legitimate part of the curriculum in the education of every Jew, both because of their unwavering faith in rationalist-intellectual inquiry and because of their wish for closer relationships with the non-Jewish community.¹⁵Zevi Scharfstein, History of Jewish Education in Modern Times, vol. 1 (NY: Ogen, 1945) 65–66. The Haskalah movement started and was most widespread in western and central Europe, but by the early 19^th century its influences were felt in eastern Europe as well.¹⁶Ibid., 241–45. Scharfstein notes that there had been “Maskilim” for quite some time, but not as part of a larger movement. Scharfstein states that the Russian Haskalah developed as a result of internal, as well as external influences. As in Germany, the groups of Maskilim pressed for imposition of reforms on the masses such as change of the traditional dress to the European clothes of the period and for the establishment of modern Jewish schools in which the students would be taught both secular studies and Jewish studies.¹⁷Yehuda Slutsky, “Haskala,” Encyclopaedia Judaica 7:1447–49. An anti-talmudic mood was prevalent among groups of Maskilim; in 1848 a teacher in the Rabbinical Seminary in Warsaw, Abraham Buchner, wrote a book entitled Der Talmud in Seiner Nichtigkeit (The Talmud in its Emptiness), and Joshua Heschel Schorr in Galicia claimed that the legal decisions of the Talmud were outdated socially and spiritually, though the Talmud is an important source of historical information.¹⁸Ibid., 1436. Slowly but surely, the less radical of the new Haskalah ideas began to have an impact even upon the more traditional Jewish circles, creating tension within the Jewish communities.¹⁹The development of the haskalah movement and analysis of its goals and motives is clearly too broad a topic to be dealt with here, considering the scope of this paper. For a general overview of the movement see Slutsky, “Haskalah” in Encyclopaedia Judaica. For a collection of primary haskalah sources concerning these issues see Yehuda Slutsky, Tnu’at haHaskalah beYahadut Russia (Jerusalem: HaChevra haHistorit haYisra’elit, 1977).

ו׳

6The Maskilim were not alone in their desire to reform the Jewish community. The Russian government, for its own reasons, also wished to change the very nature of the Jewish communities under its rule;

ז׳

7The question of the enlightenment of the Jews began to interest the Russian government, especially at the beginning of the 19^th century, after the partition of Poland, when Russia received dominion over a large Jewish population. To the Russian government, the lives of the Polish Jews, with their autonomous communities, their own religious and educational institutions and their own courts, appeared to be a government within a government. The autocracy in Russia, considering this autonomy an infringement on its own power, sought to destroy this way of life, to subjugate the Polish Jews and to imprint upon them the Russian way of life.”²⁰Scharfstein, 244. This area to requires a more detailed analysis which is not within the scope of this paper. The Hebrew original reads:
שאלת השכלת היהודים החלה לעניין את ממשלת רוסיה ביחוד בראשית המאה הי״ט, לאחר חלוקת פולין, כשקבלה רוסיה אוכלוסיה יהודית רבת נפשות אל תחת חסותה. חיי היהודים הפולנים עם האבטונומיה שלהם, מוסדות דתם וחינוכם ובתי דיניהם נראה לרוסיה כממשלה בתוך ממשלה. השלטון האבטוקראטי ראה בזה הסגת גבולו ובקש להרוס את ארחות החיים האלה ולהכניע את היהודים הפולניים לעצמו. כמו כן רצו לטבוע עליו את חותם החיים הרוסיים.

ח׳

8Early in the 19^th century (1802), a government commission established to study the “Jewish problem,” recommended that certain regulations be enacted which would force the Jews to mend their ways. Among these was the decree that Jewish children study in Russian schools. The government’s efforts however, were largely ineffective, and in 1840 renewed attempts were made to rectify the situation. The new commission, after consulting with Max Lilienthal,²¹Max Lilienthal, originally from Munich, was a well known, influential Maskil. decided to establish government-run Jewish schools. Lilienthal was sent to the major Jewish communities to help overcome resistance there and to convince the Jews of the good intentions of the government. By the end of the 1840s these schools (elementary schools of two grades) as well as two state-run rabbinical seminaries were in fact established. In addition, new laws were passed concerning the chederim in an attempt to integrate secular studies there as well. By 1859, however, it became apparent that these requirements would not and could not be met and the regulations concerning the teachers and the curriculum were abolished on the condition that the students receive minimal secular education outside of the chederim. Also at this time, the government ceased operating the elementary schools of the second level in order to give Jews an incentive to attend the non-Jewish public schools.²²For a more detailed description of these events see Scharfstein, 10.

ט׳

9It was against the backdrop of this turmoil in Jewish education created by the Maskilim and the Russian government that Yeshivat Eitz Chaim (the “Volozhin Yeshiva”) was founded, flourished, and eventually became the prototype for all Lithuanian yeshivot. R. Hayim b. Isaac Volozhiner (1749–1821), a student of the Vilna Gaon, established the yeshiva in 1803 for a variety of often disputed reasons:²³Saul Stampfer, Three Lithuanian Yeshivot (unpublished dissertation, Hebrew University, 1981) 17. to counteract the perceived decline of Torah study, to provide much needed teachers and leaders for the Jewish community, to institute a logical approach to analysis of the Talmud,²⁴Logical analysis of the Talmud might have been used to counteract the arguments of the Maskilim about the irrationality of the Talmud. and to counteract Hasidism. “Secular studies” was not a real issue in R. Hayim’s time since neither the Haskalah movement nor the Russian government had as yet picked up momentum in pursuing their goals or in finalizing their choice of means. In any event, R. Hayim’s ideology concerning secular studies was probably akin to that of the Vilna Gaon: subjects which increase and deepen one’s comprehension of Torah should be studied, in order that one may reach the broadest and fullest understanding of Torah within one’s capabilities.²⁵Stampfer, 26.

י׳

10A number of factors distinguished this new yeshiva from previous yeshivot: it was an independent institution supported not by the local community but by the whole Lithuanian Jewry; it had a teaching staff; the students did not have to board; each student was largely responsible for himself and his own learning; the methodology in learning was analytic and synthetic—analyzing “various details of many scattered and complex halakhot to join them together and establish general rules.”²⁶Gedalyahu Alon, “The Lithuanian Yeshivas,” The Jewish Expression, ed. Judah Goldin, trans. Sid Leiman, (NH: Yale University Press, 1976) 458–59. It is told that there were students studying around the clock in the beis medrash (study hall) so that the voice of Torah learning should never stop; though this story may be exaggerated it does reflect R. Chaim’s philosophy that the world’s existence is dependent on Torah study.²⁷Stampfer, 21.

י״א

11In 1821, R. Isaac, R. Chaim’s son, became the head of the yeshiva and served in that capacity until his death in 1849. The government closed the yeshiva in 1824 but it continued to operate openly, with close to 200 students.²⁸The reason for the closure is unclear, but was probably related to the government’s policy of reform of Jewish education. In 1842, during his travels through Russia, Lilienthal met with R. Isaac to ask for his support in the establishment of Jewish schools under government auspices (see page 5), he was greatly impressed with R. Isaac’s breadth of knowledge and intellectual curiosity:

י״ב

12He [R. Isaac] spoke the German, Russian, and Polish languages very fluently and though being unacquainted with the literature of any of these languages he understood it well, that the reforms of the scholars could be delayed no longer, and though feeling somewhat uneasy about the fate befalling his Yeshiva, when these reforms would be carried out, he did never hesitate to recommend an alteration of the educational system.²⁹As quoted in Stampfer, 248, from Max Lilienthal, “My Travels in Russia,” American Israelite, vol. 2 (1856) 52.

י״ג

13The Haskalah periodical Ha’asif describes R. Isaac in a similar vein: “[R. Isaac] also attached himself to the enlightened people of his generation, maybe from this will arise benefit to the people…[R. Isaac] gave his sanction to the commentary and translation of the Pentateuch….”³⁰Ha’Asif 3 (1887) 240. The original Hebrew reads:
הוא התחבר גם למשכילי דורו אולי יצמח מזה תועלת להאומה… [הוא] נתן הסכמתו על הביאור ותרגומו על התורה. His personal views,³¹These descriptions of his views, coming from Maskilim, may have been exaggerated in order to lend further credence to their own views. however, did not find expression in the running of the yeshiva; we have no evidence whatever of a broadening of the curriculum.³²Stampfer, 34.

י״ד

14In 1843, R. Isaac was chosen to participate in a Jewish conference convened by the government in Petroburg, to discuss the future of Jewish education.³³S.K. Mirsky, ed., Mosdot Torah be’Eiropa beVinyan ubeChurbanam (NY: Ogen, 1956) 33. Though forced to accept the government’s plans,³⁴Scharfstein, 275. he took advantage of the meeting to reaffirm the official government recognition of the yeshiva which his father had obtained in 1813.

ט״ו

15In 1849, upon R. Isaac’s death, R. Eliezer Isaac Fried (R. Isaac’s son-in-law) became head of the yeshiva and R. Naphtali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv), the second son-in-law of R. Isaac, was appointed his deputy. When R. Fried died in 1854, the Netziv took his place. Because of a severe disagreement about the administration of the yeshiva between the Netziv and R. Joshua Heschel, a group of rabbis was called in to settle the controversy. Finally, in 1853, R. Berlin was appointed head and R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik (R. Chaim Volozhiner’s grandson) his deputy. R. Soloveitchik left Volozhin in 1865 and R. Raphael Shapira (the son-in-law of the Netziv) was appointed in his stead. Upon R. Shapira’s departure in 1881, R. Chaim Soloveitchik took his place. Clearly then, the stability in Volozhin was provided by R. Berlin, as he was the continuous thread running throughout the period 1849–1892, the time in which the Maskilim and the government gradually increased the pressure for change in Jewish educational institutions and the effects of the Haskalah slowly began to take hold in the yeshiva.³⁵Stampfer, 38. And in fact, R. Berlin’s attitudes and opinions did seem to be crucial in shaping the yeshiva, as he was involved more than anyone else in its administration.³⁶Mirsky, 50.

ט״ז

16The attitude of the Netziv to secular studies per se was not a negative one; in fact he seems to have agreed with the Vilna Gaon’s position, as he states in his commentary Harchev Davar on Genesis 45:16:

י״ז

17And from this we understand that ‘external wisdom’ [external to the Torah, i.e., secular studies] is called ‘daughter’ and in the plural ‘daughters,’ in that they are not the main principles of [the structure of] the world but join together to expand upon the Torah…and the Torah assists those people [who diligently study Torah with great love] to reach a deeper understanding of the ‘external wisdoms’ in order that they may fully understand the words of the Torah in the areas that require knowledge of the ‘external wisdoms.’³⁷The original Hebrew reads:
ומזה אנו מבינים דחכמת חיצונית מכונה בשם בת וברבים בשם בנות באשר אינם עיקר בנין עולם אלא מצטרפות להרחיב בנין התורה…דקאי על שוקדי התורה באהבה ואלו שהגיעו לכך התורה מסייעת להם להבין ולהשכיל בחכמות אחרות כדי לעמוד על ד״ת בענינים הנדרשים לה.

י״ח

18Again in his commentary Ha’emek Davar to Exodus 37:19 and Numbers 8:2: “…And behold the six stems of the candelabrum together with the middle stem are the seven areas of ‘external wisdom’ which are secondary to the Torah. And that the Torah requires [knowledge of] them for all the details of measure and similar subjects….”³⁸The original Hebrew reads:
והנה ששה קני מנורה עם הנר האמצעי הן המה שבע חכמות חיצוניות הטפלים לתורה. ושהתורה צריכה להם להתפרש בכל פרטי שיעורין וכדומה…
See also his commentary to Numbers 8:4. In his commentary Harchev Davar to Deuteronomy 32:3, the Netziv stipulates that the person studying secular subjects be well-versed in Torah studies first: “…in growth, the main element is the rain [the Torah]… and afterwards it is good to sweeten one’s strength with the ‘external wisdoms’ which are the sun. This is not true, however, before one has studied Torah sufficiently; in that case the ‘external wisdoms’ are not beneficial….”³⁹The original Hebrew reads:
אבל סדר הגידול העיקר הוא הגשם…ואח״כ טוב להמתיק עוד כמו ע״י חכמת חיצוניות שהוא השמש. מה שא״כ בעוד לא גדל בלימוד אין חכמת חיצוניות מועיל…

י״ט

19In his responsa, R. Berlin reaffirms this position. There is no prohibition against learning the language of the country or against secular studies in general, or even, in certain instances, in taking foreign names and changing one’s style of clothes. In fact he recommends that:

כ׳

20The Rabbi and the community leaders should see to it that the students be learned in Torah and, if the students are required by the government to study secular subjects, this too should be done under the supervision of the Rabbi and the leaders of Israel, so that the teacher [of the secular subjects] be a God-fearing person. This would be impossible were each person to see to his son’s education himself, as he would be unable to choose a religiously upright teacher. Consequently, he would prevent his son from studying secular subjects against his [the son’s] will and thus would cause the son to rebel against his parents and follow a crooked path in order to attain knowledge of secular subjects.⁴⁰Naftali Zevi Yehuda Berlin, Mayshiv Davar (Responsa) 1:44. See also 4:71. The original Hebrew reads:
יתעסקו בזה הרב וראשי הקהילה שהיו התלמידים גדולי תורה וגם אם יצטרכו ע״פ המלכות ללמוד לימודי חול ג״כ יהא בהשגחה מהרב וראשי ישראל שיהא המורה ירא אלקים, וזה אי אפשר אם יהיה כל אחד דואג לבניו ואין בידו לברור איזה מורה הגון ומחזיק הדת, על כן הוא מבריח את בנו מלמודי חול בעל כרחו וזה גורם שהבן בועט בהוריו והולך בדרך עקלקלות כדי להשיג למודי חול.

כ״א

21Why then was the Netziv so opposed (as we will see he was) to any introduction of secular studies into his yeshiva, especially at a time when he was under tremendous pressure to do so? Though a Maskil’s harsh description of the mistreatment of students who read newspapers and books may be exaggerated,⁴¹HaShachar 8 (1877) 112–19. it does seem that study of such material was frowned upon by the administration,⁴²Stampfer, 78. even though the Netziv did read newspapers himself!⁴³M. Berlin, Raban shel Yisrael (NY: Mizrachi, 1943) 112. This problem too is addressed in his responsa:

כ״ב

22…This is the way of the Torah, that its perfection and completeness is only attained by one who devotes himself exclusively to its study… it is impossible to be a great Torah scholar at a time when one is involved in other matters. And all great Torah scholars who are also learned in secular subjects, did not study the secular subjects until they had devoted themselves exclusively to Torah [for a period] or until after they had already achieved greatness in Torah study; but together [Torah and secular studies] it is impossible to attain perfection in study.⁴⁴Mayshiv Davar 1:44. The original Hebrew reads:
זה דרכה של תורה, שאין עמלה ותכליתה מתקיים אלא במי שמפנה כל ראשו בה… ואי אפשר להיות גדול בתורה בשעה שעוסק בדברים אחרים. וכל גדולי תורה שהמה גם חכמים בלימודי חול, אינם אלא שנתעסקו בלימודי חול קודם ששקעו ראשם בתורה או אחר שכבר נתגדלו בתורה, אבל ביחד אי אפשר להגיע לתכלית הלימוד. Thus, R. Berlin did not feel that secular studies per se necessarily involved the prohibition of bitul Torah, though he was opposed to introduction of secular studies into the curriculum of Yeshivat Eitz Chaim; time devoted to things other than Torah would detract from the purpose and mission of the yeshiva; maintenance of great Talmudic scholars and rabbis as the very form of Jewish existence.

כ״ג

23Nevertheless, private study of Haskalah journals and papers as well as some writing of Hebrew poetry was widespread in the yeshiva in its later years,⁴⁵Stampfer, 77–80. though only as a peripheral activity. And in fact, it seems that generally the study of Haskalah material was not so much borne of rebellious spirits or of burning desires to reform Jewish society, as of wishes to become well-respected, dignified members of the Jewish community.⁴⁶Stampfer, 76: In the later years of the 19^th century, it was already accepted by many that one must be well-read in order to achieve good standing in the community. The official line of the administration was one of disapproval, but often the matter was simply ignored.⁴⁷As quoted in Stampfer, 78, from “Yeshivat Volozhin,” Shevivim 1:61. Even when punishment was forthcoming, it was of more lenient form than the punishments given for deeds which were considered sinful per se, such as contact with women.⁴⁸Stampfer, 79.

כ״ד

24Towards the end of the 19^th century, as the Haskalah movement was increasingly accepted by many Jews,⁴⁹Ibid., 115–16. groups of students renewed their efforts to involve the yeshiva in Haskalah activities in an organized fashion:⁵⁰Ibid., 100–1: in these years (1880s) a general tendency towards student organization was evident in the yeshiva. there was one unsuccessful attempt to establish a “Haskalah club” at the yeshiva and later, certain students began publishing a Haskalah-type newsletter.⁵¹Ibid., 104–5. Clearly these efforts mark the change in the attitude of the yeshiva students and may have partially caused the final closing of the yeshiva in 1892.⁵²Ibid., 127: It seems that some of the students may have complained to the government about the yeshiva’s failure to add secular studies to the curriculum. A contemporary describes the Netziv’s attitude to these changes:

כ״ה

25The Netziv saw that the generation was progressively deteriorating, and if he would be strict about the dress and the side-locks of the students their numbers would decrease from year to year and the Torah would, God forbid, be forgotten in Israel; so he started to be more lenient in these matters, and students with cut side-locks and ‘partial’ Maskilim began to appear in Volozhin… Every young man who learned in Volozhin, with a few exceptions, knew more or less, about world events and especially about politics…⁵³Ibid., 79.

כ״ו

26Thus it seems that the increasing tolerance of Haskalah materials in the yeshiva was a result of the very same belief which prevented the Netziv from incorporating secular studies into the curriculum: the belief that the students of the Volozhin yeshiva were vitally important to the continuation of traditional Judaism. Once the Netziv realized that he would no longer attract top quality students if he berated them for their side interests, he became more lenient in order to perpetuate Torah study. Nevertheless, his fundamental and official position, remained unchanged, that any serious student should not engage in secular studies simultaneous with his Torah studies at the yeshiva.

כ״ז

27The internal problems and developments within the yeshiva were the least of the Netziv’s worries; the more pressing problems were the attacks from the outside, from the Maskilim and from the Russian government. The Maskilim wanted to normalize the Russian Jewish community by changing its system of education and its “outdated” customs. The purpose of the government as stated in a secret communication was to bring the Jews nearer to the Christian population by destroying the study of the Talmud and the prejudices fostered by it.⁵⁴Eliezer Leoni, ed., Volozhin: Sifra shel ha’Ir veshel Yeshivat “Eitz Chaim” (Tel Aviv, 1970) 108. Thus, though the final goals of the two groups were not identical, their strategies concurred, and they often worked closely in their implementation.

כ״ח

28In 1856, the government wanted to close the yeshiva, ostensibly because it had not filed the required reports with the government. The administrator of the Vilna region suggested that they require institution of secular studies in the yeshiva instead, so as not to cause an uproar among the Jews.⁵⁵Stampfer, 118. The government, however, eventually returned to its original plan, for as long as yeshivot existed, the graduates of state rabbinical seminaries (see above) would not be accepted by the communities to rabbinical offices. Many Maskilim favored this move as they considered the traditional yeshivot a drain on the community’s finances and thought that traditional Talmud study yielded no practical results.⁵⁶HaShachar 8 (1877) 161–69. On April 6, 1858, the order was issued to close the yeshiva; many influential Jews beseeched the government to revoke the decree, but to no avail. Nevertheless, the order to close the yeshiva had no practical effect. Subsequently, in May 1859, a law was passed (and reaffirmed in 1879, after a third attempt to close the yeshiva), requiring that secular studies be taught, but this law too, had no practical consequences.⁵⁷Stampfer, 120. The yeshiva continued to flourish, attracting the best students from Russia, England, Germany, Austria, and even America. By the end of the 1880s there were over 400 students, the budget was expanded, and a new building was built.⁵⁸Ettinger, Encyclopaedia Judaica 218. The government, however, had other plans: its demands for institution of secular studies (especially Russian language and literature) became more extensive and this time, more rigidly enforced. Government representatives were sent to inspect the yeshiva. Among these inspectors was Joshua Steinberg, the head of the state rabbinical seminary in Vilna, who, wanting to see the Volozhin yeshiva closed, had no reservation about accurately reporting that the yeshiva had no substantial secular studies program.⁵⁹See M. Berlin, 141, and Stampfer, 120.

כ״ט

29In 1887, S. Poliakov assembled a group of rabbis and Jewish leaders (including the Netziv and R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik) in Petroburg to discuss broad changes in the Jewish educational system. The rabbis reluctantly agreed to having Russian language taught on premises near the yeshivot for those students who were not familiar with the language,⁶⁰Stampfer, 120. This agreement was largely because of their fear of Poliakov. but stipulated that only the Russian language be taught: “…the teacher will not be permitted to have books of ‘free opinions or of romance literature which are foreign to us; according to the holy Torah they are an abomination and are not desirable for those who come to the holy yeshiva….”⁶¹As quoted in Mirsky, 70. The original Hebrew reads:
לא יהיה רשות להמורה הנ“ל להחזיק שם ספרי חפש הדעות וספרי ראמאנעו אשר הם זרה לנו עפ״י תוה״ק, פגול הם לא ירצו לבא בבית הישיבה הקדושה… this time the Netziv, realizing the severity of the situation, did make an effort to meet the requirements. A small group of pious students, considered “volunteers” to help save the yeshiva, was chosen and received instruction from 7:30 to 9:30 P.M. in a building outside the actual yeshiva (a fact which infuriated the Maskilim) by a non-Jewish teacher.⁶²Stampfer, 121. There were either 10 or 50 students; the sources disagree. Apparently, the Netziv thought that though secular studies per se were permissible and would not cause spiritual harm, a Maskil teacher might try to influence the students with heretical views.

ל׳

30The yeshiva continued to function in this manner until the fatal day of Dec. 22, 1891, when the government (possibly prodded by students from the yeshiva who were Haskalah sympathizers as well as by the Maskilim themselves) issued “Regulations concerning Volozhin yeshiva.” This document stated that all yeshiva pupils were required to study general subjects to elementary school standards. Among other things, it also listed necessary qualifications for teachers in the yeshiva, drastically reduced the numbers of hours to be devoted to Talmud study to four per twenty-four hour period, and further reduced the number of students allowed to attend the yeshiva.⁶³HaMelitz 32 (1892) 50. Of course, such requirements could not be met without destroying the essential nature of the yeshiva, a fact the government well realized. The Netziv ignored the regulations and the Volozhin yeshiva was closed on Jan. 22, 1892. Though the yeshiva was reopened in 1895, two years after the Netziv’s death, and continued to operate until World War I, it never regained its former prestige and prominence.

ל״א

31What then were the crucial factors which interacted to lead the Volozhin yeshiva to its unfortunate demise? Clearly the heated debate was not concerned with the legitimacy of secular studies per se: even the Netziv did not believe that the particular subjects which the government and the Maskilim wanted taught would lead to heresy. The bone of contention was not even the question of bitul Torah as most generally applied: even the Netziv felt that certain secular subjects should in fact be studied to deepen one’s understanding of and appreciation for the Torah. Ultimately, the question was that of the role and the purpose of the Volozhin yeshiva within the Jewish community. It was only in this context that the Netziv felt strongly about the inappropriateness of secular studies in his institution.

ל״ב

32In the Netziv’s eyes, the maintenance of the Volozhin yeshiva was of vital importance to the continuation of traditional Judaism; his view required that the students be totally immersed in Torah studies to the exclusion of all else, in order that they become the great scholars needed by the Jewish community to counteract the decline in Torah study and observance. Secular studies could play no role here. Of course, his goals for the yeshiva were constantly being eroded by the changing character of the student body in the late 19^th century, and it is not at all clear that the yeshiva could have indefinitely maintained the status quo, even barring outside pressures forcing its closure.

ל״ג

33For the Maskilim, the goal was modernization of the Jewish people. Thus, secular studies were a necessary factor in the development and education of every Jew. Though many Maskilim were adamantly opposed to Talmud study and pressed for closing the yeshiva already in the 1860s, it seems that most would have tolerated the Talmud studies were the Netziv willing to meet their secular studies requirements. In fact, after the yeshiva’s closing in 1892, the Haskalah journal HaMelitz praised the Netziv’s concern for the preservation of the Jewish people and his efforts on their behalf⁶⁴Ibid. and proceeded to explain what had to be done in order that the yeshiva be reopened by the government: “…even the most zealous people of our generation have come to terms with [the need for]… this small amount of secular studies, because this type of knowledge is necessary and beneficial for every person and contains no poison which impinges upon Torah study or fear of God.”⁶⁵Ibid. The original Hebrew reads:
לימודי חול מעטים כאלה בדורנו כבר השלמו להם אפילו הקנאים והאדוקים, כי ידיעות כאלה נחוצות ומועילות לכל אדם וכי אין בהם ארס מזיק ללמודי תורה וליראת שמים. Indeed, the Maskilim felt that this type of study was necessary especially for a community leader: “…[the government] only requested proper order [in the yeshiva] and some secular studies which are necessary for every person and especially for a person who wants to lead a community…”⁶⁶HaMelitz 32 (1892) 47. The original Hebrew reads:
רק דרשה סדר ומשטר נכון ואיזה לימודי חול, הנחוצים לכל בן מדינה ובפרט להחפץ לעמוד בראש קהל ועדה. Thus, the Maskilim essentially agreed with the Netziv in that training leaders was a necessary function of the yeshiva, but they disagreed over the correct training procedures. Had the Netziv agreed to the government demands, perhaps the Maskilim would have been satisfied. Though purely conjecture, perhaps they even thought that eventually the yeshiva would become another state-run rabbinical seminary.

ל״ד

34The Russian government, with goals fundamentally different from those of the Netziv and the Maskilim, wanted to terminate the existence of all particularistic Jewish institutions and to blur all distinctions between Jews and non-Jews. After coming to the realization that it would be impossible to do this in one fell swoop, the government tried to create what was to be, in effect, a transition period in which Jews would gradually become accustomed to the ways of the non-Jews. The government was essentially attempting to gradually transform Jewish educational institutions out of existence! The Netziv’s intransigence made even this impossible and the government opted for its initial goal: by imposing requirements that could not be met, the government provided itself with a pretext for immediate closure of the yeshiva.

ל״ה

35Thus, throughout the 19^th century the history of the Volozhin yeshiva reflected and was a microcosm of the developments in the Jewish community at large. A community subject to many different influences, which on the one hand did not want to break ties with its past, but on the other, did not want to trail behind the rest of the world remaining “unenlightened.” This inner tension was further complicated by external pressure (the government) pushing the Jewish community towards an eventual loss of identity and self worth.

ל״ו

36Hence, in its later years, the yeshiva was caught in the midst of a tug-of-war between the Netziv (representing the traditional Jewish community opposed to a fundamental change in its structure) on the one hand and the government and the Maskilim on the other—two sides, but three groups, with three very different sets of goals. Each group was so determined to meet its goals that the snap of the rope was almost inevitable.

Today's Learning

נשים בדיון הלכתי, לימודי חול בישיבת וולוז'יןJewish Legal Writings by Women, Secular Studies at the Volozhin Yeshiva