Category: Hebrew Language Instruction (Fall 2005)

Rabbi Dr. David Eliach was dean of the Yeshivah of Flatbush for forty-three years. As noted by the United States House of Representatives, "Rabbi Eliach single-handedly inspired the parents and children of Flatbush, Brooklyn with his love and respect for the Hebrew language." Now retired, Rabbi Eliach still consults for the Yeshivah of Flatbush and numerous other educational institutions.

Prior to the interview, Rabbi Eliach expressed his preference that it be conducted in Hebrew. We thank Rabbi Eliach for granting us this interview, and for the sake of our broader readership, for consenting to be interviewed in English.

JEL: You were at the forefront of Ivrit be-Ivrit. Why was that such a priority?

DE: First, all our sources are in Hebrew. Shulhan Arukh, Torah, Nevi-im – everything is in Hebrew. If they wouldn’t be able to read these sources – they’d be Jewishly illiterate. So this is one of the reasons why we should learn Hebrew. By knowing the language, it will make it easier to learn our sources. All of the Rishonim (medieval commentaries) and all of the Aharonim (later commentaries) are in Hebrew.

A language is not merely a way to communicate. A language contains all the cultural foundations of its nation with all its details and nuances of the religion, tradition, the feelings, the history, the tragedies and triumphs. This is why it can be at times difficult to translate from one language to another, because only this language can capture the unique expressions of its culture.

Second, today there is no one language that joins all the Jews all around the world – some speak English, some speak French, some speak German. There should be one language that unites all the Jews, and the only language that fits into this category is Hebrew, lashon Ivrit. All the years when the yeshivot taught in Yiddish, it was a unique language, only for the Jews… and it brought in a special avira (environment) because it was a Jewish thing. Whereas today English is not a Jewish thing; it is a universal language. So therefore it is very important to have a language that is meyuhad (unique) to am Yisrael.

JEL: If you were starting a school today, would you insist on it being Ivrit be-Ivrit?

DE: Absolutely yes! I think now that I have influenced the elementary schools, we should start Ivrit be-Ivrit even in kindergarten. The only way that we’re not going to teach Ivrit be-Ivrit is because we don’t know the language, or the principal doesn’t know the language, he doesn’t want to make the effort. There is no problem teaching Ivrit be-Ivrit at any time, to any student, anywhere.

JEL: What is the importance of identification with Zionism as a factor in teaching Ivrit be-Ivrit?

DE: There was a time when this was really a kind of identification with Zionism, and therefore many yeshivot objected to teaching Ivrit be-Ivrit, even in Israel. The yeshivot did not teach in Hebrew but they taught in Yiddish for many, many years. There was an identification that if you taught in Hebrew then you were a Zionist, and since they did not want to be identified with secular Zionism they thought that Hebrew should not be taught. But I think that this kind of thinking is really passé. All of the yeshivas today teach in Hebrew – the Hevron Yeshiva, the Ponevezh Yeshiva (two haredi yeshivot in Israel) …For me the important thing is that all of our sources are in Hebrew, and the more you know the language, the easier it is for you to learn the sources.

JEL: Given the limited amount of time designated for Jewish Studies, choices must always be made. If you had to choose between Modern Spoken Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew, which would you emphasize? Why?

DE: I don’t know what you mean by Biblical Hebrew and Spoken Hebrew… We cannot speak Biblical Hebrew; nobody speaks Biblical Hebrew. The Hebrew that we speak and everyone spoke and in which the rabbanim wrote to each the other in the Middle Ages, it was the Hebrew of the Mishnah and that of the Rishonim, it was not Biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew is not a language that you can use, so I don’t see any distinction.

JEL: Part of the question is, in contemporary Hebrew classes, the vocabulary words emphasized are often kisei, shulhan, abba, ima – words that are much more practical on a day-to-day basis for the kids. If you focused on Humash, the primary words that you focus on would probably be different.

DE: I don’t think so, because when you come to the halakha, you need to know what is a kisei, what is a shulhan. ... In any case you need to teach [multiple] forms of Hebrew. Yes, you can eliminate certain things if they are very modern, unless you want to teach Hebrew literature like you teach Spanish or you teach French. Why shouldn’t you teach Hebrew literature? But I think the most important thing is to prepare a student to read the Torah and understand the Shulhan Arukh and to understand Rashi – and they use a more elaborate Hebrew than just Biblical Hebrew.

JEL: What would be reasonable educational goals in Ivrit for children with learning disabilities, with language difficulties specifically?

DE: I think that you [should] start in kindergarten… What do you do if a kid has learning difficulties and he is in France, or in Italy? Doesn’t he learn the language? The most important thing to be really successful in Hebrew is to start in kindergarten, or even in pre-kindergarten. It should be part of his language. At that time, he wouldn’t have any difficulties. He has difficulties because we start teaching him late, but he wouldn’t have more difficulties than in English or something else.

JEL: Many schools today have moved away from the model of Ivrit be-Ivrit, suggesting that it takes too great of an investment and that students would learn less content were they to insist on it. In fact many claim that they can point to substantive gains in knowledge, commitment to Judaism, dedication to talmud Torah (study of Torah) and ahavat Torah (love of Torah) that they have been able to achieve because they are speaking in the native language of their students. Some feel that Ivrit be-Ivrit creates an artificial barrier between an English speaking teacher and his/her students. Do you think that there is any validity to their arguments?

DE: There is validity to it if the teacher doesn’t know Hebrew and is not fluent in Hebrew. So it is a Catch-22. If teachers would know Hebrew well, there would be no problem to teach the students to be fluent in the language and they would be able to use the language. The problem is that, number one we don’t think it’s important. Many principals and teachers don’t know Hebrew… – either they don’t think it’s important or they don’t know it [themselves].

JEL: In the middle of the twentieth century, many day schools imported shlihim (emissaries) from Israel to teach Jewish Studies. While their Hebrew was excellent, they often had a hard time communicating with students, both linguistically and culturally. Since that time, this practice has waned considerably. Would you advocate a renewed effort to bring shlihim, albeit with better training, or would you prefer that the effort be made to increase Hebrew fluency in the graduates of the various teacher training institutes and Rabbinical programs?

DE: I think that any community that is unable to produce its own teachers has a problem – it’s a problem of the future, it’s a problem of the community. There is no question that the American teachers know the kids better … they understand them better. But what we have to do is to make sure that those teachers [are knowledgeable]. We would not let a teacher come to a school and teach if he never learned Humash. Who would dare hire a teacher like that? I think by the same token a teacher who does not know Hebrew should not teach in a yeshiva. If we would insist on that, we wouldn’t have that problem, but as it is now we have a problem. I would prefer to take a teacher from Israel… like somebody from the yeshivot hesder (Israeli yeshivot which combine army service with Torah study), because I know that there has been success in some schools where the teacher is excellent… I think we need to change our entire approach and make choices. We have to know what the goal is, and we have to work to achieve this goal. If the goal is to have instruction in Hebrew, we have to make sure that the teachers learn Hebrew, know Hebrew, and know how to teach in Hebrew. We have to invest money to send them to Israel so that they can learn the language… [The ideal teacher] knows Hebrew, is a talmid hakham, knows the methodology, and has a good approach to kids. All of these have to be the components of what is a good teacher, and of course, he should preferably be from the kehilla (community), because then there is a different relationship between him and his students. … If [the teacher training programs] would insist that in order to come in to be a teacher they must know Hebrew, they would know Hebrew. They would find all kinds of ways how to do it. But the problem is that it’s not important. … It is a problem of philosophy, and it is a problem of excellence.

Our thanks to Rabbi Benjamin Kramer, Jewish Studies faculty at the Yeshivah of Flatbush, for conducting the interview.