There are so many things that are just 'off' in the Orthodox community, but a couple of the best involve twisted knowledge. First and foremost is the complete lack of awareness among people about how much it costs to live. ProfK has a series of posts,
this being the last, that details a number of the little things that people often forget about when they actually bother to budget (and those who even bother are rare). I haven't had a chance to check out the numbers completely, and still would like to write a series detailing expenses for everyone, but her list is rather comprehensive. And scary.
So how much do the items above cost? No definite figure because it depends on each couple's desires and spending each year. But it would not be out of the ordinary to add another $10,000--$30,000 a year, certainly for a young couple just starting out and who need to provide everything for their new home. (Note: this does not include school tuition and camps for children. That expense is yet to come.) That would put our young couple at $70,000 to $90,000 a year. And whatever the figure, it's coming from after tax dollars.
Then, on top of that, you have
all the fun "segulos" that people go crazy about. Granted, most are rather harmless, and a small handful have old sources, but most of them are simply laughable. I think an old Rebbe once put it well:
"A segula only has meaning if you believe it does."
Sigh. What else?
Sigh. What else?
ReplyDeleteLOL. You're really going to set me up like that? ;-) I can't take the bait. It wouldn't even be fair.
Ha. Well, Ezzie gave me the go-ahead, so here I go:
ReplyDelete1) The chumras. This generation is friggin' nuts. My zayde was a rabbi from the old country. His line: "It was never like this in Lithuania!" (Young, right-wing rabbi's response: "This isn't Lithuania.") You know, Orhtodox boys and girls used to be allowed to talk to each other. Even date. Even touch each other chas v'challilah! My zayde also believed in evolution, and look how I turned out, so maybe you guys are onto something.
2) Sex segregation. Separate schools? No dating without "tachlis?" Are you kidding me? What is this, Saudi Arabia?
3) Community segregation. Orthodox people used to go to public schools in America. The shonda! Jews talking to non-Jews, Orthodox to non-Orthodox, it was like tohu vavohu out there.
3) The focus on Talmud. There have always been Jews who studied the Talmud. It's just that they used to be, you know, the rabbis and scholars of their generation, not Ploni Amoni who'd rather sit in a beis medrash and collect a paycheck than get a job. Also, boys don't need to know Tanakh any more? What's up with that?
4) The devaluation of secular education. What, God had nothing to do with math, science, history or literature?
5) The dress code. What are we, Amish?
6) Racism.
7) Pretending that Higher Criticism doesn't exist. Pretending that evolution doesn't exist. Pretending that the Torah is a history book. Per DovBear, the mainstreaming of Rashi's whimsical decisions on how to interpret said Torah.
8) Letting the nuts and clowns speak for Orthodoxy. Not, e.g., denouncing Aish's Discovery seminar. Allowing rabbis hostile to modernity to teach in Modern Orthodox schools. Sending Modern Orthodox kids to right-wing yeshivot following high-school. Pretending that today's gedolim are gadol in areas other than a particular kind of learning. Modern rabbis keeping their views to themselves for fear of getting Slifkined.
I think that's it for now. I'm sure I'll think of more. :-)
Pretending that today's gedolim are gadol in areas other than a particular kind of learning.
ReplyDeleteGood point.
About the lack of knowledge in society- you are completely right about it. Until a guy I was seeing brought it up, I had never considered it!!! I think high schools have a HUGE achrayos on their heads that they don't teach a thing about providing for your family and marriage prep in general. I went to a BY high school, and one of the things that got me very nervous there is that they preached to marry a learning boy without ANY explanation of how you were expected to provide for yourself. It was downright ludicrous.
Also, I feel that they don't address the issue of what marriage will be like at all. They somehow assume that we will automatically learn it ourselves, or watch the way our parents do it and learn form them. Well, I got news for you, buddy- A- our parents have been working at it for about 25 years plus, and -B- not neccisarily are their marriages ideal either!
Whatever. One of the zillion things to keep in mind when I open up my own school. :) (and I mean that seriously...)
See, this is good, because it's actually worth a discussion...! Not only are there more than what you listed, I'd also disagree with a few on the list you started.
ReplyDelete1) Seriously. Agreed. Funny about the evolution, though. :P
2) Actually disagree on that one. A lot of secular schools are separating classrooms, finding that students (particularly female) do better when the other sex is not around.
3) Partially agree. I see a great value in (good) Jewish schools, and if you are Orthodox, Orthodox schools. At the same time, I don't understand why people view talking to non-Orthodox or non-Jewish people as "so bad".
3b) Agree to an extent, though having two #3's really hurts your point :) . I don't understand why it's Talmud above all, and I also don't know what happened to Tanach. But there's a lot to be learned from simply learning how to learn Talmud - it's an extremely useful tool in so many different fields because it hones deep analytical skills and thinking outside the box.
4) Grr. Agreed.
5) Hehe. Agreed.
6) Agreed. I never got where the racism comes from, though some might be from living in poorer neighborhoods and facing crime that was primarily done by blacks. Rabbeim I had always were harsh to guys who expressed racist views or comments, so I think that this comes more from the home than the schools.
7) Basically agreed. I don't see why the Torah can't be used as a tool for history, though. Never understood why Rashi's quoting of midrashim turned into pshat - he himself doesn't seem to have intended it as such.
8) I don't know that it's a matter of letting the clowns speak, but that the clowns often have more control than people realize until it's too late. The rest of this section was more "what's wrong with MO" than the Jewish community as a whole. The gedolim point is mostly on the mark.
I think high schools have a HUGE achrayos on their heads that they don't teach a thing about providing for your family and marriage prep in general. I went to a BY high school, and one of the things that got me very nervous there is that they preached to marry a learning boy without ANY explanation of how you were expected to provide for yourself. It was downright ludicrous.
ReplyDeleteYup. Good way of putting it!
Also, I feel that they don't address the issue of what marriage will be like at all.
Oooh, good one. That's definitely true - in all types of Orthodox schools. I'm not sure that secular education is much better on that one, however.
feel good story
ReplyDeletehttp://rdaam.blogspot.com/2008/02/dangerous-minds-chassidish-style.html
Actually disagree on that one. A lot of secular schools are separating classrooms, finding that students (particularly female) do better when the other sex is not around.
ReplyDeleteThere's more to school than academic performance. Particularly when school takes up most of a child's day, as it tends to in Orthodox schools. However, separate classes with some coed activities might be a good compromise.
But there's a lot to be learned from simply learning how to learn Talmud - it's an extremely useful tool in so many different fields because it hones deep analytical skills and thinking outside the box.
I agree with that.
Rabbeim I had always were harsh to guys who expressed racist views or comments, so I think that this comes more from the home than the schools.
I literally heard it more often from rabbis than from kids or parents. Maybe that gets back to the modern school, un-modern rabbis point, though.
Overall, I thought we would agree on most of this stuff. :-)
But there's a lot to be learned from simply learning how to learn Talmud - it's an extremely useful tool in so many different fields because it hones deep analytical skills and thinking outside the box.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Gemara helps develop analytic skills, but how does it teach people to think outside the box? Maybe in theory it could teach people to think freely, but when people are taught that every word in the Gemara (and by extension the Rishonim and Achronim) are literally Kodesh Kidashim, there isn't going to be a lot of thinking outside the box.
Oh, I definitely agree with Nephtuli... must have skimmed right over the "out of the box" part. :-)
ReplyDeleteJA- my mom went to public school and her principle came around- if her skirt was more than half an inch above the knee, they got sent home- so my mom went and she is sill orthodox today- so i agree with you. that being said, My dad has taught in both secular and judaic studies for over 17 years, in the high school arena. (He has a phd in the science field and smicha- sh! don't tell anyome, or he'll be, as you put it, Slifkined).Anhow, he says, that from his experience, especially when there are tracks (levels), it;s very hard when its boys and girls becuase they are overall on diff maturity levels. His 9th grade girls are ok learning aboutreproduction in science while his boys giggle and laugh. He finds girls learn better with girls not worrying about their make-up etc, how they look, every 10 minutes), while guys, learn better with girls (they are more inclined to act better, etc, to show off). On the other note, about all the stupidity going on with chumras, we were just having these discussions on shabbos, where the more you ban something the more experimental it becomes for a teen to go out and do it. Teach your children about sex, drugs, etc, teach them about the negativities of drugs, what sex is etc, otherwise they will go out and find other ways to learn about it (like experimenting). People gotta pick their battles and I truly believe that a big part of the "teens at risk" issue today, stems from the fact that we restricted them o no no, that they went out and did it themselves, instead of allowing them a safe and healthy environment (going out in groups with guys an girls, parents talking to their kids abouts STD's, drugs etc)., in which to explore.
ReplyDeleteps. my dad is a big advocate of people needing to know tanach before they learn gemarah- becuase he likes totrach them how to learn gemarah, as opposed to other schools that just that just teach them the gemarah, and he belives you can't learn how to learn it, without the proper background that tanach sobeautifully provides- should we even open pandoras box and start on the whole "woman learning gemarah" issue, or shall we save that for a rainy day?
wow- I see what a long way off my comment was,from jewish economics and money- i guess it's cus i have none!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous at 11:10 - maybe im reading your post wring but you seem to be saying that the seperation of the sexes, not doing drugs, not contracting STD's have something to do with chumras. Is that right?
ReplyDeleteJewish Atheist - you mention that your Zayde was a "rabbi from the old country". I highly doubt and would be very interested to know where orthodox boys and girls were allowed to touch eachother. Also, please inform me of the school in the old country that were for both boys and girls. You seem to have a major problem with the seperation of the sexes and you suggest that this generation is different that a few generations ago. Which orthodox schools in europe were mixed?
If you concede that your argument has nothing to do with Europe and instead has to do with your aetheism that is one thing. But to claim that your problem with the orthrodox world today is based on the difference between now and 150 years ago is a total joke.
One of my pet peeves is the claim that the study of Gemorah is the highest intellectual endeavor. This claim is usually accompanied by a unsubstantiated assertion that yeshiva Bochurim can reason much better than Ph.D students.
ReplyDeletePre-WW II the public schools in Hungary and Romania were co-ed but with separate classes for boys and girls. The government said you had to attend so everyone went to public school first and then the boys went to cheder. Was only mandatory until the 6th grade however. The girls got no Jewish education except how to read in a siddur--taught at home--until the first graduates of Sara Scheneirer began spreading across Europe, only a few years before the war broke out.
ReplyDeleteDon't know precisely where jewish atheist's grandfather lived, but in my mother and father's area no one dated, speaking to the opposite sex was only if your cousin was sitting at your dinner table and touching each other--never! There was a highly modern group of young people that joined the fledgling Betar and Mizrachi movements; those were mixed sex. But those who joined were not considered mainstream frum.
However, separate classes with some coed activities might be a good compromise.
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
Maybe that gets back to the modern school, un-modern rabbis point, though.
Eh. Don't know about that.
Overall, I thought we would agree on most of this stuff. :-)
Yup...
I agree that Gemara helps develop analytic skills, but how does it teach people to think outside the box? Maybe in theory it could teach people to think freely, but when people are taught that every word in the Gemara (and by extension the Rishonim and Achronim) are literally Kodesh Kidashim, there isn't going to be a lot of thinking outside the box.
ReplyDeleteSorry, that's not how I was taught, and my elementary school and high school were definitely not MO. Thinking outside the box was extremely encouraged - to come up with different explanations, approaches, chakiros, whatever. That's different than outside the box for hashkafa.
Anon 8:04 - I don't think that's what anon 11:10 was saying. I think the chumras have led to a feeling that certain issues need not be discussed properly; and that chumras have led to people rebelling by doing more extreme things (after all, once you've 'crossed the line' of a chumra, they're all the same in the mind of a teenager).
ReplyDeleteDAG - Agreed.
ReplyDeleteSorry, that's not how I was taught, and my elementary school and high school were definitely not MO. Thinking outside the box was extremely encouraged - to come up with different explanations, approaches, chakiros, whatever. That's different than outside the box for hashkafa.
ReplyDeleteThat's not outside the box; that's thinking freely within the box. Outside the box thinking would involve challenging some of the less plausible assumptions we make, like that every Tanna was consistent in every statement he made or that all the Deroshos make sense.
Nephtuli - Two different things. I was referring to the skills it teaches you in terms of thinking outside of what's written there to come up with better solutions to problems; you're referring to general open-mindedness. The former is useful in most fields of study, as every field has its limitations and laws and presumptions that surround it; the latter is not nearly as useful.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to imply that the schools in Europe were coed. I don't know if they were or weren't. I was talking about my parents' generation for that one.
ezzie:
ReplyDeleteFor example, the Documentary Hypothesis is completely verboten in Orthodox Talmud classes, even though it's obviously quite relevant. That's more than hashkafa. You're sitting there analyzing why the Torah used an extra bet or why it uses elokim here and YKVK there and you're NOT ALLOWED TO MENTION the answer that is obvious to any mainstream Bible scholar.
I agree with Nephtuli. That's being trained to think very creatively within the box. It's being trained to not even see the box.
That's being trained to think very creatively within the box.
ReplyDelete-----------
Don't be obtuse, you cannot always take everything to an extreme. What exactly would you define that as?
Is it open to an unlimited degree, no. However, that does not negate the general creative thoughtful approach that is fostered.
Jewish Atheist - What makes your parents generation the model for what should be today?
ReplyDeleteI was referring to the skills it teaches you in terms of thinking outside of what's written there to come up with better solutions to problems;
ReplyDeleteBut like JA said, that's not always true. Sometimes the better solution involves looking at historical data to ascertain why the Taanaim felt the way they did. Such an approach is strongly frowned upon, if not prohibited outright. We are expected to think creatively within the system.
The former is useful in most fields of study, as every field has its limitations and laws and presumptions that surround it; the latter is not nearly as useful.
I agree to a point. No field could ever advance if its axioms are constantly challenged. That's why science presupposes a certain number of assumptions and works from there, and philosophy of science debates whether those assumptions are warranted. The same is true with law and philosophy of law.
But law as a discipline really began to make strides when scholars began to realize that law is not some ontological entity but rather just the opinions of a number of men. Sometimes serious advances can only come after the assumptions are challenged. The Yeshiva world does not do that at all.
Ezzie - anonymous at 11:10 said
ReplyDelete"I truly believe that a big part of the "teens at risk" issue today, stems from the fact that we restricted them o no no, that they went out and did it themselves, instead of allowing them a safe and healthy environment (going out in groups with guys an girls, parents talking to their kids abouts STD's, drugs etc)., in which to explore."
It seems that the suggestion is that we should allow activities that have not been permitted for a very long time to accomodate modernism. While I understand that this seems logical, I do not think Halacha (YES - HALACHA - NOT CHUMRA) permits this.
We find that Chazal made "fences" in halacha for fear that halacha might be violated. These "fences" did not extend what was permitted; they put more restrictions on the said halacha to ensure people would not violate it.
Today, when secular society is filled with what orthodox jews would consider beyond what halacha allows, I do not think that easing the restrictions is the solution.
Again, I understand that it may be hard to hear this suggestion; it sounds like I am suggesting what many here would consider "chumras". I am not. I am suggesting sticking to halacha and doing what is necessary to mantain the standards that have been around for hundreds of years.
Also, I think that those who suggest permitting more activities need to learn halacha themselves before they label a certain halachas as a chumra.
I do agree that because of society today we need to speak to our children about drugs and possibly STD's. However I stand strong in my belief that permitting the mixing of the sexes is a violation of halacha and not a chumra.
But like JA said, that's not always true. Sometimes the better solution involves looking at historical data to ascertain why the Taanaim felt the way they did. Such an approach is strongly frowned upon, if not prohibited outright. We are expected to think creatively within the system.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you're referring to the limitations involved in interpreting the specific issue that is being discussed at that moment. I'm referring to learning the ability to think outside the box only; that there's another box outside of the one you're thinking outside of is irrelevant to learning the skill of how to do it. I'm not disagreeing with your points about the limitations in how we learn; I'm noting that the skills are useful. You can add yours to the "What's Wrong" list. :)
Sometimes serious advances can only come after the assumptions are challenged. The Yeshiva world does not do that at all.
Whether one might agree or not, this is because the Yeshiva world feels that those assumptions are not necessary to be challenged - that they already know the answer.
However I stand strong in my belief that permitting the mixing of the sexes is a violation of halacha and not a chumra.
ReplyDeleteI think that were we to agree on this point, we'd have no disagreement, so I'll just take this on. I think the focus of the commenter above was more on the restrictive approach taken to any mixing of the sexes as opposed to encouraging mixing of the sexes; I think there's a balance there of what's normal and within the confines of halacha and what would be forbidden. For example, I don't see why co-ed schools would be preferable or necessary, and therefore am not a fan; but I don't see why stores have separate times for men and women, either.
I'm referring to learning the ability to think outside the box only; that there's another box outside of the one you're thinking outside of is irrelevant to learning the skill of how to do it.
ReplyDeleteHow could it be irrelvant? Telling someone they can think outside of a sub-box but not outside the box itself is not teaching them to think outside the box.
Whether one might agree or not, this is because the Yeshiva world feels that those assumptions are not necessary to be challenged - that they already know the answer.
Is there a better example of not thinking outside the box than this?
Telling someone they can think outside of a sub-box but not outside the box itself is not teaching them to think outside the box.
ReplyDeleteOf course it is. It in fact might be better than thinking completely outside the box, because, as we both mentioned earlier, there is almost always a list of presuppositions in any field that one must work within even as they are free to think outside of what's already there. It's quite a good framework, if you think about it: For an accountant, lawyer, doctor, whomever, the ability to come up with ingenious ideas while still focusing on what the conclusion must contain and what rules it must follow are rather important.
Is there a better example of not thinking outside the box than this?
Different debate: Whether it is worth thinking of alternative solutions when one will not accept them anyway for whatever reason. I can argue both sides of that one, but as a practical matter, it's probably not an important skill to learn.
Of course it is. It in fact might be better than thinking completely outside the box, because, as we both mentioned earlier, there is almost always a list of presuppositions in any field that one must work within even as they are free to think outside of what's already there. It's quite a good framework, if you think about it: For an accountant, lawyer, doctor, whomever, the ability to come up with ingenious ideas while still focusing on what the conclusion must contain and what rules it must follow are rather important.
ReplyDeleteWe're just arguing over semantics. I wouldn't call that thinking outside the box, but you think it is.
Different debate: Whether it is worth thinking of alternative solutions when one will not accept them anyway for whatever reason. I can argue both sides of that one, but as a practical matter, it's probably not an important skill to learn.
Not being willing to accept certain conclusions is practically the definition of thinking inside the box.
We're just arguing over semantics. I wouldn't call that thinking outside the box, but you think it is.
ReplyDeleteYep. They're thinking off the page at hand, coming up with their own original ideas. That there is a framework to work within does not mean they're not thinking outside the box.
Not being willing to accept certain conclusions is practically the definition of thinking inside the box.
That's not true. It means there's a framework there. That doesn't mean we have to accept everything that's in front of us, just that there are certain lines that are pointless in crossing. Again, I'm not saying I agree with it, but it doesn't mean the person isn't learning a valuable tool in how to approach problem-solving.
That's not true. It means there's a framework there. That doesn't mean we have to accept everything that's in front of us, just that there are certain lines that are pointless in crossing. Again, I'm not saying I agree with it, but it doesn't mean the person isn't learning a valuable tool in how to approach problem-solving.
ReplyDeleteI never disagreed with your claim that Gemara study teaches valuable learning skills. Of course learning to think analytically within a framework can be beneficial for life, as most fields require just that. We agree on this point.
But saying that the framework is sancrosanct and cannot be challenged cannot be considered thinking outside the box. That attitude creates a box and requires people to thinking within it.
You guys are obviously not very lomdishe. Don't you realize there are two boxes? Tzvei dinim. There is one box that you cannot leave. Then within that box there is a smaller box. You are supposed to think outside of that smaller box and land somewhere between the two boxes. The real question is how big is the bigger box. That is a major issue.
ReplyDeleteEzzie:
ReplyDeleteIt's quite a good framework, if you think about it: For an accountant, lawyer, doctor, whomever, the ability to come up with ingenious ideas while still focusing on what the conclusion must contain and what rules it must follow are rather important.
Ah, but if it doesn't even occur to the lawyer that his client might commit perjury, he's a bad lawyer indeed. Students of gemara are trained to not even see the "rules" that constrain them.
Jewish Atheist - What makes your parents generation the model for what should be today?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
I'm not saying that this generation is wrong because they aren't following their parents' -- just that this particular way of not following their parents' example is silly, for other reasons.
You guys are obviously not very lomdishe. Don't you realize there are two boxes? Tzvei dinim. There is one box that you cannot leave. Then within that box there is a smaller box. You are supposed to think outside of that smaller box and land somewhere between the two boxes. The real question is how big is the bigger box. That is a major issue.
ReplyDeleteI think that's what Ezzie has been saying. I disagree because it students are being taught to think within any box, that can't be called thinking outside the box. It might be a useful skill, but it's not thinking outside the box.
ELamdan - That's exactly what I've been saying, just putting it in more generic terms (not all readers here are Orthodox/Jewish).
ReplyDeleteN - But saying that the framework is sancrosanct and cannot be challenged cannot be considered thinking outside the box. That attitude creates a box and requires people to thinking within it.
I think that's what Ezzie has been saying. I disagree because it students are being taught to think within any box, that can't be called thinking outside the box. It might be a useful skill, but it's not thinking outside the box.
Because we're going outside the first box, I'm calling it outside the box. Not saying it's perfect, just noting that it does teach that skill. That it doesn't go outside the second box doesn't mean it's not teaching the skill. I think we're agreeing. I agree that it's not thinking outside the other box. :)
Ah, but if it doesn't even occur to the lawyer that his client might commit perjury, he's a bad lawyer indeed. Students of gemara are trained to not even see the "rules" that constrain them.
ReplyDeleteNot an equitable example. A more similar example would be a lawyer coming up with an argument that has never been used but still might work within US law. US law is the outside framework the arguments must fall within, even if there's never been a similar argument used on a [say] real estate case before.
Amazing thread of comments in reaction to the word "segulah." Wonder what you would get if the mentioned word were "spaghetti"?
ReplyDeleteSorry if I was misleading... I realized that's what Ezzie was saying. I was trying to use lomdishe thinking itself to answer the question of whether lomdishe thinking is outside of the box by being mechadesh two boxes. It was supposed to be humor, but I guess it didn't go over so well. I've gotta get back to my day job!
ReplyDeleteEven in science, there is often thinking between two boxes. For example, say a scientist like Einstein notes that the speed of light is constant, even though the distance traveled is varying. Einstein now keeps these two ideas as fact. These are his "outer box". He refuses to abandon these ideas. However, he also sees a smaller box - that time is constant. Einstein realizes that to answer the question he needs to keep the "big box" intact, while exiting the "small box". So he figures out that time can actually expand and shrink. If you think about it, all creative thinking keeps some ideas as true and discredits others. In order to figure out which ideas to tinker with you have to know how to distinguish the smaller boxes from the bigger ones. Hey, this is great stuff... why am I posting it as a comment on another blog? This should be in my blog! Oy Vey... gotta run...
ReplyDeleteelamdan:
ReplyDeleteIf science were taught the way gemara is, Einstein would have been forbidden to think outside the box of Newtonian mechanics.
Ezzie - I am pretty sure the commenter was encouraging the mixing of the sexes:
ReplyDelete"instead of allowing them a safe and healthy environment (going out in groups with guys an girls,"
While I agree with you that it would be silly to have seperate times for men and women in stores, where I live I have never heard of that. I was wondering how many stores in your neighborhood do that?
Also, Ezzie, according to your post at 9:42 AM you agree that it would be a good compromise to have seperate classes along with oced activites. To me this seems like encouraging mixing of the sexes.
J.A.
ReplyDeleteLuckily, Einstein figured out that Newton was the smaller box.
Luckily, Einstein figured out that Newton was the smaller box.
ReplyDeleteEveryone would agree science operates within a framework (or box as you want to put it). However, the framework itself is challenged philosophically and there is an entire subset of philosophy called the philosophy of science. Is there anything analogous in Halacha?
ProfK - I think we tried something like that once... :)
ReplyDeleteELamdan - :P
Anon - While I agree with you that it would be silly to have seperate times for men and women in stores, where I live I have never heard of that. I was wondering how many stores in your neighborhood do that?
I was giving an extreme. But there are places here that run their schedules so the boys and girls' schools' students won't be on the street at the same time. Everything starts somewhere.
Also, Ezzie, according to your post at 9:42 AM you agree that it would be a good compromise to have seperate classes along with oced activites.
Yes. A Rebbe in HS gives the seniors a series of discussions about different subjects, discussing different issues in the frum world. One of those is co-ed vs. not; there are distinct advantages to each side. One of the ways of combining the advantages of both is to have certain programs or the like that are mixed. Moreover, the policy of treating as anathema those who speak to members of the opposite sex is neither productive nor healthy.
Ezzie - nobody said anything about a policy about treating those who speak with the opposite sex as outcasts. The question is whether "lichatchila" it is a good idea. I know plenty of guys who went to yeshiva and spoke to girls. They were not banished. Many turned out to be talmidei chachamim.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it would be interesting to do a study to find out how many guys and girls just speak.
From what I have heard and from personal experiences (yes - personal experiences - i am not making that up to sound more legit) it is extremely difficult to stick to talking.
Also - were you suggesting a HS rebbi talk about these issues or is that a fact? I did not understand what you were saying.