This attitude, which departs from the traditional understanding, leads desperate yeshivas and day schools to accept the notion that unless parents – including those of limited means – are forced to carry most of the load, the schools are unlikely to survive because they can no longer depend on community support.
A key moment in this transformation came more than fifteen years ago when a Los Angeles yeshiva that could not meet its obligations – despite considerable local religious Jewish affluence and only a small number of schools to support – adopted draconian measures aimed primarily at the poorest of its parents.
One of these measures required parents whose children were on scholarship to give the yeshiva a mortgage on their homes equal to the assistance that they received.
Understandably, the plan provoked strong opposition, notably from parents who themselves were in religious education. Its appropriateness was submitted to the Rabbinical Board of Torah Umesorah. Whatever reservations the yeshiva deans may have had, they sanctioned the plan. My written remonstrations to the contrary were of no avail.
In this instance and in subsequent actions, we see the emergence of the view that basic yeshiva or day school education is the obligation of the consumer and not of the community. Like a container of milk, Torah chinuch is a product to be paid for by the purchaser.
I have great respect for our yeshiva deans and have been obedient throughout my years of communal service. They carry enormous burdens and face constant pressure. Above all, they are honorable and good people.
That is all the more reason why we must be willing to raise questions that otherwise might not be addressed – and why, entirely consistent with the respect that is due yeshiva deans, we must be comfortable about raising issues that affect most of us.
So far as I can recall, for at least a decade our respected Torah leaders have not even once issued a statement proclaiming that it is a communal obligation to support local yeshivas and day schools. This is a serious matter because they aren’t reticent people, as we know from the causes they do endorse.
If we would examine what is published in Yated Ne’man, the yeshiva world’s newspaper, it’s evident that yeshiva deans and Torah leaders are giving priority to special educational situations and chesed projects over basic Torah education. Is it preferable to advocate support for a special education program that, as meritorious as it may be, serves a small number of students and neglect a yeshiva ketana that enrolls 200-300 or more students and cannot meet its obligations?
When more than a generation ago the effort to pressure Federations to support day schools was launched, the philanthropic focus was on hospitals and activities that served the needy, projects that we would describe as chesed. If we read our mail and pay attention to other messages sent nowadays by Torah leaders, it appears that they are telling us that chesed has priority over chinuch. This isn’t what they believe, but it is the message that they are sending.
In the aggregate, what we are hearing from them is that in giving tzedakah, chesed has priority. Incidentally, the Federation’s basic grants that are being terminated amounted to $2.2 million a year. The chesed letters sent out by Torah leaders raise a far greater sum.
We should not forsake chesed causes. But why is the expanding Orthodox promotion of chesed activities less questionable than the funding preferences of secular Federations? It’s true that Orthodox chesed activities are nearly always voluntary so that contributions go directly to those who need help, and it is also true that those who are helped are needy Jews. Yet, shouldn’t Orthodox Jews be more attuned than secular Jews to the transcendent importance of sustaining Torah education?
