The Case For Academic Jewish Studies

This article solely represents the views of the writer and should not be construed to represent the views of the Division of Academic Jewish Studies or of any of its component departments.

The ongoing curriculum review raises important questions about the role of academic Jewish Studies (aka “afternoon Jewish studies”) in YC. Jewish Studies requirements typically involve 20 of the 120 credits earned at YC, an appreciable portion of the curriculum. College alumni of yesteryear tend to see the need for these requirements as self-evident, part of the dual mission of a yeshiva/college. But many faculty members – as well as nearly all of the administration – are new to YU, and feel it necessary to re-think the college’s mission. They justly point to the need to expand majors, to deepen the liberal arts component of the curriculum, and they question why Jewish studies requirements need eat such a large percentage of credits.  The student body has also grown in number and in diversity in recent years, and now includes many who are not the children of YU alumni and whose connection to the yeshiva is less intense.  Those who are not “YU insiders” tend to challenge and question the institution’s traditions, including that known as “afternoon Jewish studies.” Questioning traditions is part of any review process, but this particular tradition rightfully ought to form a crucial part of the Yeshiva College curriculum.

There is a fruitful tension between the Torah studies programs at YU (aka “morning Jewish studies”) and the academic (or “afternoon”) Jewish studies, reflecting a broader tension in traditional Jewish learning. One way of formulating the distinction between these is that the yeshiva, which is the core Torah study program, focuses on Talmud, while afternoon Jewish studies focus on subjects as diverse as Bible, Jewish history, and Hebrew language. But this formulation fails to do justice to the difference in approaches and methods, which go far beyond the distinction in subject matter.

Talmud study is sui generis as an experience and in method. Various methods of Talmud study have been developed over the generations, but they are all variations on a basic theme: deriving legal concepts and rulings through intensive study and comparison of rabbinic texts. It is a highly insular and self-contained method of learning, which does not admit influence or interference from disciplines such as history and philology in determining the meaning of particular passages. One salient example of this is the passage with which the fourth chapter of Tractate Bava Metsia begins, in which a distinction is drawn between two rulings by R. Judah ha-Nasi on the status of silver in Jewish civil law: one given in his youth and one in his old age. Historians have shown that this distinction stems from economic history: the prices of precious metals in the Roman empire underwent a change during R. Judah’s lifetime. But this historical information is not relevant to traditional Talmud study, and ought not to be used in producing legal rulings.

In contrast, there is no single method of Bible study accepted in all Jewish communities. Approaches vary and include the expansive midrash of the Talmudic era, the philosophic approaches of the Gaonim, and the rationalist pashtanim of medieval France. Because it is not primarily a legalistic discipline, Jewish study of Bible has always been part of a dialogue with other areas of knowledge: the Gaonim drew on the early Arabic philosophers and the French pashtanim were in dialogue with the Christian humanist rationalists of their era. More recently, Jewish study of the Bible has been influenced by narratology, poetics, and ancient Near Eastern studies. Because Bible study has always been located at the nexus of traditional Torah learning and secular disciplines, it drew the ire of those who opposed any non-traditional study during the  Maimonidean controversy. Partly because of this, the early modern period in Europe saw a tendency to exclude Bible from the place it rightly deserves in the curriculum of the traditional yeshiva. This exclusion has not been universally accepted, but the truth is that serious study of Bible does require engagement with a variety of other disciplines, primarily history and literature.

What is true of Bible is doubly true for Jewish history. It is an even less insular discipline than is Bible, engaging the broad sweep of Jewish experience throughout the ages and drawing on the approaches of general historians in formulating its narrative. Moreover, Jewish history does not deal with Jews in isolation, but with their interaction with the wider world and its social, political, and intellectual trends.

All of this illustrates clearly that serious study of Bible and Jewish history cannot be divorced from more general approaches to knowledge. Therefore, to study Bible and Jewish history is to engage in dialogue with “the academy.”   In a curriculum designed for students who are engaging deeply both with Torah and with general knowledge, Bible and Jewish history deserve a privileged place which allows for that dialogue. If students are to ever achieve any degree of intellectual synthesis between Torah and general knowledge, Bible and Jewish history must form part of the curriculum, and they must be taught in a manner that combines respect for tradition with the openness of the academy.

The metaphor of a “bridge between Torah and general knowledge” is often used in curricular discussions with regard to “afternoon Jewish studies.” More precise metaphors might be a salient, or intersection, since these are areas within Jewish learning that require engagement with general knowledge, or perhaps a window, since they show students that within certain areas of Torah, information from “the academy” can be used to promote religious understanding and dedication  (aka yir’at shamayim). As with all liminal spaces, battles for ownership emerge. Faculty members from other fields in the humanities, as well as Roshei Yeshiva, feel that they ought to contribute to the curriculum in these areas. The very existence of these competing claims shows the utility of these fields, and their central place within the experience of students who engage deeply with Torah and with general knowledge. I do believe, however, that a coherent curriculum in Bible and in Jewish history can best emerge from faculty whose primary expertise is in these fields, and who interact with teachers and scholars both in the yeshiva and in the college. Such a curriculum must try to guide our diverse student body towards defined educational goals.

Two challenges emerge from our diverse student body. One of these is less serious, and it relates to the professional drive of many of our students. “Why do I need four Bibles if I want to go to law school?” opined one student on my end-of-semester evaluations. The same question can be asked about any other aspect of a liberal arts education: why does a student need humanities or social sciences? Pre-professional schools exist, and serve a critical educational function, but Yeshiva College’s goals do not consist solely of preparing students for the professions.
The second challenge is more serous. For a significant portion of our students, “afternoon Jewish studies” cannot yet serve as a bridge, salient, or window. But it can serve another function, perhaps a more critical one. It can serve as an “enforcer of literacy,” or to use the Talmudic metaphor, “a revealer of one’s inner will to read Torah in its original language.”

Who are these students who need an “enforcer,” or “a revealer of one’s inner will?” They are hardly a small minority. A significant portion of our student body cannot  “engage deeply with Torah” on an intellectual level, because they lack literacy skills in reading classical Jewish text.  Surveys have shown that at least half the students in IBC, a similar or higher percentage in SBMP, and about 30% of those in MYP cannot meaningfully and independently read a passage of Hebrew Bible with commentary, much less study it in depth. Since ability to read Bible in Hebrew is a necessary prerequisite for serious Talmud study, it is very difficult to see how they can “engage deeply” with Torah on an intellectual level. Instead, they may study “about Torah” by reading various works in translation. More meaningfully, they may immerse themselves in the atmosphere of the beit midrash, the traditional house of Torah study, and have meaningful encounters with rabbis and mentors. Still more meaningfully, with diligent guidance from rabbis, they will labor intensively over a short text to grasp its meaning, and thereby build their literacy skills. 

But out of necessity, those in charge of Torah studies often encourage students to focus on the type of study they will find exciting and immediately gratifying, instead of acquiring the skills needed to attain literacy.  The goals of Torah studies, after all, are partly experiential, and not only intellectual.  In a “world awash with secularism,”   involvement in a Torah atmosphere forms a bulwark against religious lapses.  Thus, “Talmud Torah” (studying and knowing Torah) can be replaced with “involvement in a Torah atmosphere.” This may be necessary in the short term, but these students lose greatly by this replacement, and academic Jewish studies can help reverse it.

Because academic Jewish studies forms part of the academy, where grades and requirements are more rigid than in the yeshiva, and because the yeshiva addresses students’ religious needs, academic Jewish studies can require that these students develop literacy skills in classical Hebrew, which they need in order to “engage deeply with Torah.” The study of any language is not fun, and is not immediately fulfilling.  Since academic Jewish studies can afford to take a more long-range view, focusing on knowledge for life, rather than on more immediate issues of religious development, it can require that students attain literacy. To do this, it will need faculty who can draw on pedagogic research in language acquisition and cooperation from the Torah studies programs, as well as from the university administration. It will need to present this program in a manner that is attractive to students. Cooperation with the Israel programs, in which too many of our students spend a year and earn a quarter of their college credit without developing sufficient Hebrew literacy, will need to be enhanced. Ultimately, the goal is to add these students to the circle of those who “engage deeply with Torah.”

As a window or as an enforcer, requiring academic Jewish studies serves a critical role in promoting both the yir’at shamayim and the intellectual development of our students. “And all your sons will be trained of the Lord, and the wellness of your sons will increase” (Isa. 54:13).

Dr. Shawn Zelig Aster is Assistant Professor of Bible at Yeshiva College and Bernard Revel Graduate School