An Important, and Remarkable, Correspondence
In an age of ephemeral communication – email and texts, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok – I cherish the fact that I lived for many years in an epistolary age of hand- and type-written letters, often delivered by snail mail. This type of correspondence, after being read, was often placed in a business or institutional file or tucked away in a night table, dresser drawer, or attic suitcase, for rereading by the recipients and, possibly, to be read by business associates or lawyers, and, importantly, by later generations of family and historians.
And so, I am grateful that an important series of five letters between Rabbi Leonard Rosenfeld and Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (the Rav) in 1953 was preserved in this manner, and is thus available to us more than 70 years later. This correspondence concerns an issue that is still of critical importance today – the teaching of torah shebe’al peh (TSBP; the oral Torah law including mishna and, significantly, talmud) to elementary and high school girls.
This is not the first time this story is being told, though it is, I believe, the most complete telling. It first came to light in 2005 (with one small caveat as explained in the following paragraph), in a book entitled “Community, Covenant and Commitment: Selected Letters and Communications of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik” (ed. Rabbi Nathaniel (Nati) Helfgot). This book, which collects “letters that the Rav sent to a wide variety of people on a broad range of issues,” has a section entitled “Academic and Educational Issues,” which includes quotes from one of Rabbi Rosenfeld’s letters and the full texts of two letters from the Rav.
(There was an article published before this book appeared which referred in a footnote to the most important of the Rav’s letters to R. Rosenfeld. I know this because I had read that article and noted the footnote, though I have no recollection of the article’s author, title, or publication. I was curious, contacted R. Rosenfeld’s son, Ezra, a close friend of almost seven decades, asked him about it, and he graciously sent me a Xerox copy of the original from his files. (Btw, if you are looking for an excellent Israeli tour guide with an expertise in Tanach, you can’t do better than Ezra.))
Five years later, Rabbi Dr. Seth Farber published an article entitled “Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Coeducational Jewish Education,” which provides additional background to the correspondence, quotes the texts of four of the five letters, and discusses related issues.
Finally, Michael Feldstein recently published a column, “The Rav’s Famous Letter to Rabbi Rosenfeld at HILI,” in the Times of Israel dealing with some of this correspondence. That column, which quotes me, generated much discussion on social media, via email, and, yes, by telephone. And it was that discussion that prompted me to dig into this exchange in greater detail and write what I hope is a more complete story of this important event in the history of Modern Orthodoxy (MO).
Background
I think most of my readers are well acquainted with the Rav, the (unofficial) Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary from 1941 to 1986. He was also, among many other things, a towering figure in Orthodoxy and the (again unofficial) head of MO (a locution he did not use) in the second half of the 20th century, renowned Torah scholar, halakhist, and talmud teacher par excellence, recipient of a PhD from the University of Berlin, and a creative thinker, profound philosopher, eloquent orator, scintillating eulogizer, innovative educator, and elegant writer.
Rabbi Rosenfeld, while well-known to me (see “Two Roads Diverged”), is not widely known today though he was an important leader in the world of Jewish education in the 1950s-70s, as well as a well-regarded talmid chacham, congregational rabbi, teacher, and scholar. In 1953 he was the director of the Department of Yeshivot at the Jewish Education Committee of New York (now known as the Board of Jewish Education of Greater New York), where he was later to become Executive Director, and chairman of the education committee of the Hebrew Institute of Long Island (HILI), a coeducational day school and high school located in Far Rockaway, Queens, upon whose behalf he began the correspondence. R. Rosenfeld was ordained by the Rav’s father, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik, and was a student of the Rav in philosophy.
HILI, where I was an elementary school student in the 1950s, was founded in 1937 as the first Jewish day school in Queens and Long Island. It was coeducational with partially coed classes; that is, limudei chol (secular study) classes were coed in both elementary and high school, while limudei kodesh (Jewish study) classes were coed only through fifth grade. Starting in sixth grade, boys and girls were split into separate classes where boys were taught talmud. While girls were taught TSBP consisting of mishna, HILI never taught them talmud.
The Letters
1. On January 12, 1953, Rabbi Rosenfeld sent a handwritten Hebrew letter to the Rav on official HILI stationery asking a number of questions about teaching TSBP to girls. It appears that this was not their first communication on this topic since the letter begins “previously I contacted your honor [R. Rosenfeld often addressed the Rav in the second person as a matter of respect] orally and in writing regarding teaching TSBP to girls in elementary school (and in high school) in general, and in HILI in particular.” I have been unable to find anyone who knows anything about such conversations or written communications.
The letter notes that the Rav had imposed “conditions upon which [he] would investigate the matter and the halachot connected to them.” And the next paragraph clarifies that those conditions were met: “I am pleased to report that I passed on your honor’s words to HILI’s education committee, and we concluded that we would be very grateful if your honor would kindly consent to investigate this question and we certainly, from our side, will fulfill all the conditions.”
This letter asks six specific questions:
“a. Is it desirable to teach TSBP to girls? b. Is it permitted to teach TSBP to girls? c. Is there a halachic difference between talmud, mishna, aggada, and halacha psuka [black letter Jewish law]? d. Is there a halachic difference between superficial and in depth study? e. Is it permissible and advisable, when the girls reach the age of 16-18, to continue to study talmud with them in the same depth and profundity that one engages in such study with boys? f. Is there a halachic difference between issues relating to mitzvot that women are bound by and accustomed to performing and other sugyot [issues] in the talmud?”
One peculiarity about this letter is that in addition to the handwritten original, another copy exists, dating back to at least 2002, written in a computer font. No one I’ve spoken to has any idea who prepared it or why.
2. On January 23, 1953, the Rav replied to R. Rosenfeld in a handwritten letter in English on his personal stationery. He noted that he had earlier “stressed that unless I am assured in advance by the school administration that my recommendations will be followed I would not take the trouble to investigate the matter. Since such an official assurance has been withheld (your letter did not contain any such commitment) I must decline to consider the problem.” Apparently, the Rav did not deem the assurance from HILI’s education committee sufficient.
The Rav further explained that “the reason for my reluctance to engage in this controversial issue is the unique stands taken by many of our Jews on matters of Law and tradition. We have reached a stage at which party lines and political ideologies influence our halakhic thinking to the extent that people cannot rise above partisan issues to the level of Halakhah-objectivity. Some are in a perennial quest for ‘liberalization’ of the Law and its subordination to the majority opinion of a political legislative body, while others would like to see the Halakhah fossilized and completely shut out of life. I am not inclined to give any of these factions an opportunity for nonsensical debates.”
3. Four days later, on January 27, 1953, R. Rosenfeld sent a typed letter, addressed to Dr. Joseph Soloveitchik, noting that he was “terribly sorry if my letter outlining the she’ela [question, with the connotation of a request for a halachic ruling, typed in Hebrew] was not as clear as I thought it was.” So he clarified the assurance being given: “The matter was thoroughly discussed in [HILI’s Educational] committee as well as the entire Board [of Directors]. It was moved, adopted and so recorded in the minutes that we shall be bound by your decision in the matter. There is thus a binding commitment on our part that this is halacha le-ma’asseh [practical halacha, typed in Hebrew] and not drash ve-kabel schar [just of theoretical significance, typed in Hebrew]. I, therefore, hope that since this condition has now been fulfilled that you will favor us with your teshuvah [response, with the connotation of halachic ruling, typed in Hebrew].”
Interestingly, although R. Rosenfeld wrote this letter on behalf of HILI, he signed it as Director of Yeshivot [of the Jewish Educational Committee].
4. Four months later, in a letter dated May 27, 1953 – the letter that has sparked so much discussion and debate in the MO community and beyond – the Rav answered R. Rosenfeld: “As to your question with regard to a curriculum in a coeducational school, I expressed my opinion to you long ago that it would be a very regrettable oversight on our part if we were to arrange separate Hebrew courses for girls. Not only is the teaching of TSBP [handwritten in Hebrew] to girls permissible but it is nowadays an absolute imperative. This policy of discrimination between the sexes as to subject matter and method of instruction which is still advocated by certain groups within our Orthodox community has contributed greatly to the deterioration and downfall of traditional Judaism. Boys and girls alike should be introduced into the halls of TSBP [handwritten in Hebrew].”
In a fascinating and tantalizing concluding paragraph, the Rav added: “I hope to prepare in the near future an Halachic brief on the problem which will exhaust the various aspects of the same. In the meantime, I heartily endorse a uniform program for the entire student body.” No such brief was ever published by the Rav or located in his unpublished papers.
(Although R. Rosenfeld asked the Rav to send his response to R. Rosenfeld’s home in Far Rockaway, for some unknown reason the Rav addressed his answer to R. Rosenfeld c/o his father-in-law, Rabbi Leo Jung of Manhattan’s Jewish Center, at Rabbi Jung’s home.)
5. Three months later, R. Rosenfeld wrote the Rav a letter dated August 27, 1953, that has not, to my knowledge, been previously publicized. R. Rosenfeld referred to the Rav’s May letter “indicating briefly your answer to the question on the problem of education for girls,” and noted that “you indicated that a full Teshuvah would be forthcoming shortly. I would be most appreciative if I could receive that Teshuvah from you at your very earliest convenience.”
Analysis and Discussion
It is interesting to compare R. Rosenfeld’s questions and the Rav’s answer. R. Rosenfeld asked whether it was permitted or desirable to teach TSBP to girls. And in a certain sense, the Rav responded that that was not exactly the right question. More than permitted or desirable, the Rav emphasized that it is “absolute[ly] imperative” to teach girls TSBP because “discrimination between the sexes as to subject matter and method of instruction . . . has contributed greatly to the deterioration and downfall of traditional Judaism.” Strong and powerful words indeed.
In fact, the Rav had already put this policy into practice in the Maimonides School which he and his beloved wife, Dr. Tonya Soloveitchik (who had a doctorate in education), founded in 1937, and whose “educational policies” they controlled through their leadership of the School Committee. In Maimonides there never was any “discrimination between the sexes as to subject matter and method of instruction”; rather, boys and girls were and still are taught TSBP, including talmud, in coed classes. And this mode of education was not, I believe, be-dieved – simply a Plan B. Rather, as their daughter, Dr. Tovah Lichtenstein, wrote recently in an article in Tradition magazine entitled “Mrs. Soloveitchik: A Biographical Sketch,” her “parents’ vision [was] of a co-educational school (with the same curriculum for the young women and young men).” To me, vision sounds le-chatchila – Plan A.
(Note, the issue in the 1953 correspondence, was not coeducation; it was teaching girls, in a coeducational school, the same limudei kodesh subjects as taught to boys and in the same manner, not necessarily in the same class.)
One other question always interested me from the moment I first saw the Rav’s May letter; one that, to my knowledge, has not been discussed by anyone until now other than social media comments I’ve made over the years and a quote in Michael’s column. It arises from the fact that HILI never, even after 1953, taught talmud to girls. The question ¬– what I’ve called the major irony of this story – is simple: Why did HILI, after passing an official resolution giving a “binding commitment” that it “would be bound by [the Rav’s decision] in the matter,” never comply with its commitment?
The only people who really know the answer to that question are, sadly, no longer with us. But I can speculate as long as I make it crystal clear, as I’m doing now, that it is only speculation, though one based on an analysis of all the correspondence and a knowledge of R. Rosenfeld and HILI and its leadership in the 1950s.
There are several possibilities that occurred to me and to some extremely knowledgeable observers (who shall remain nameless) with whom I discussed this matter, who provided me with the letters and other important background information, and to whom I am grateful; I thank them for their wisdom and time. Perhaps the teachers, who never previously taught girls talmud, felt uncomfortable doing so? Perhaps the administration was uncomfortable with such a revolutionary idea? Or, perhaps, the Board changed its mind and, officially or unofficially, rescinded its commitment.
Eventually, though, I arrived at a simpler speculative answer based mainly on R. Rosenfeld’s final August letter where he asks the Rav for the promised “Teshuvah,” or, in the Rav’s parlance, the “Halachic brief.” It is possible that what HILI had agreed to was to be bound by a traditional teshuvah ¬–¬ legal ruling – which discusses the surrounding circumstances, sets forth an answer to all the questions being asked, issues a specific psak halacha (halachic ruling), and, critically, details the halachic sources upon which such ruling is based.
The Rav’s terse May letter, however, was very different. It did not detail the circumstances or answer all the questions, and it provided no halachic sources whatsoever. Thus, it may not have been the type of opinion that HILI thought it had agreed, or felt obligated, to comply with. And so it did not. And, perhaps, this may be the subtext of R. Rosenfeld’s final August letter, almost pleading for the “Teshuvah,” knowing that without it, HILI would not change its policy of not teaching talmud to girls. As it never did.
Conclusion
Two conclusory comments. First, I had a very close and personal relationship with R. Rosenfeld for many years and spent untold hours talking to him about so many matters that were of concern to me as a teenager and young adult. Had I known of this correspondence back then I certainly would have asked him about it. Alas, that was not to be. And as his son Ezra and I have recently mused, we would give almost anything to have just one more hour of time with him to chat, to learn, and to get to the bottom of this matter. Alas.
And finally. A few years after these events, the Hillel School, another coeducational Jewish day and high school, was established in the Five Towns adjacent to Far Rockaway. Some of its rabbinic founders included R. Rosenfeld and other local rabbis who had likely been members of HILI’s educational committee. Hillel had coed limudei kodesh classes including talmud where girls received the education that the Rav deemed absolutely imperative. Two decades later HILI and Hillel merged to form HAFTR (Hebrew Academy of the Five Towns and Rockaway). And in this merged school, a successor to HILI, girls are taught TSBP including talmud.
And so the circle has closed.
