26 Aug AI AND YESHIVA SECULAR EDUCATION

I. The Cost of Secular Education
The high cost of
yeshiva tuition remains
a significant challenge
to many in the
community. Artificial
Intelligence (AI)
promises a potential solution: it can reduce
costs while simultaneously improving the
education. Personalized instruction without
the staff overhead ake AI a potential
game changer for yeshiva secular studies,
provided it is designed properly.
For example, AI-based tools can provide
personalized learning programs, giving
each student their own content and learning
pace. Where a human teacher may be
responsible for dozens of students, AI
can deliver individualized instruction
simultaneously to all, with a teacher
overseeing many classes as a supervisor
and supplemental resource rather than as
the primary educator. This technology
would dramatically lower the need for
staff, allowing schools to reduce payroll,
the single largest driver of tuition costs.
It remains to be seen whether AI can serve
effectively as a teacher. We must also ask
whether it may do so halachically.

II. Teachers and Yeshiva Education
The Talmud (Avodah Zarah 15b) rules that
one may not send a Jewish child to a gentile
teacher. The reason for this prohibition
is debated by commentators. Rambam
(Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 22:5)
explains that the concern is primarily that
gentile teachers in the ancient world were
free to physically abuse Jewish students.
If that danger is absent, Rambam implies,
the prohibition does not apply. Rashi (ad
loc., s.v. <i>ve-ein mosrin lahem</i>),
however, presents a dual concern: not only
the possibility of physical harm but also
the spiritual danger that the teacher might
influence the child to stray from traditional
Jewish belief and practice. According
to Rashi, the concern for indoctrination
remains even if physical abuse is no longer
an issue.
Rav Moshe Isserles (Rema; Yoreh De’ah
153:1) follows Rashi, which the Vilna
Gaon (glosses, ad loc.) explains is because
the concern about improper influence
persists. Rav Shmuel of Furth, in his Beis
Shmuel commentary on Shulchan Aruch
(Even Ha-Ezer 22:7), argues that Rav Yosef
Karo likewise follows Rashi. Thus, we find
a critical disagreement: Rambam permits
gentile teachers under conditions of safety,

while Rashi maintains the prohibition due
to the risk of ideological influence. Modern
authorities follow Rashi’s strict view.
This seems to mean that yeshiva day schools
should be forbidden to employ gentile
teachers for secular subjects. And yet this
is common practice. The explanation, I
believe, lies in the difference between
the ancient model and the modern school
system. In Talmudic times, a child was sent
to a teacher who functioned independently,
teaching according to his own ideas. Such
an arrangement raised both dangers outlined
by Rambam and Rashi. Today, by contrast,
secular teachers are employed within
institutional frameworks. The yeshiva sets
the curriculum, supervises instruction and
enforces proper behavior. Teachers may not
introduce ideological material outside of
the approved syllabus.
I have found little discussion of this topic
among the major halachic authorities.
The earliest I had found is Rav Akiva
Schlesinger, in his 19th century polemic,
Lev Ha-Ivri (vol. 1, p. 29n1). In his
opposition to non-Orthodox Jews, Rav
Schlesinger argues that those who are
legally obligated to provide secular studies

should hire gentile teachers rather than non-
Orthodox Jews because the latter will be

more likely to proselytize. In a footnote,
he points out the Talmudic prohibition and
argues that it only applies when a child
goes to the teacher’s home or school to
study. But when the teacher comes to the
Jew’s home or to a Jewish school, it does
not apply.
Rav Avraham David Horowitz (20th
cen., Israel) reached an even more
lenient conclusion. He argues that the
prohibition only applies when there is a
concern that a teacher will taint his class
with his personal beliefs. However, if a
secular school maintains standards and
professionalism, a Jewish student may
attend without concern (Kinyan Torah
Ba-Halachah, vol. 1, no. 55, par. 7). Of
course, nowadays secular universities
allow professors free reign to dilute their
courses with their secular ideologies so no
such permission remains.
Jewish day schools do not allow
professors to inject their personal beliefs
into the classroom. The Jewish studies
faculty serves as role models and life
guides while the secular studies faculty is
there to teach the syllabus. This practice
would halachically justify the common
practice of Jewish schools hiring gentile
teachers for secular studies. However,
those schools that, in the name of
academic freedom, do not restrain their
teachers would presumably fall under this
prohibition.

III. AI as Secular Teachers
When applied to AI, this distinction
becomes critical. According to Rambam’s
view, an AI program cannot physically harm
a child. The central concern—violence—
does not exist. Therefore, Rambam’s
framework would support permitting AI
to serve as a secular studies instructor.
According to Rashi’s approach, the concern
of ideological influence remains. While AI
has no beliefs of its own, its training data
and algorithms may embed non-traditional
or secular worldviews into its functioning.
These could subtly shape a student’s
thinking, precisely the concern Rashi
articulated. On this basis, an unsupervised
AI would be prohibited. Since the Rema
codifies Rashi’s emphasis on ideological
influence, the halachic presumption is that
AI instruction would be forbidden unless
adequate safeguards are in place.
However, if supervision addresses the
concerns with gentile teachers, it should
likewise address the risks of AI. An
AI system can be restricted through
technical and educational “guardrails.”
Programmers can filter its content, block
religious or ideological commentary, and
confine its role to secular subjects such as
mathematics, science or language. It can
even push it in the direction of traditional
Jewish beliefs, forcing the AI to adopt an
Orthodox viewpoint. In addition, rabbinic
and educational supervisors can test the
system’s outputs to ensure conformity with
traditional Jewish standards. In fact, AI may
present fewer risks than human teachers.
While human instructors inevitably bring
personal worldviews into the classroom, AI
can be explicitly designed and constrained.
It lacks independent agency. Thus, when
properly programmed and supervised, AI
arguably offers a safer and more controllable
means of delivering secular education.
For yeshivos under pressure to contain
tuition costs, this understanding opens
a significant opportunity. If AI can be
implemented with the necessary safeguards,
not eliminating secular teachers but
reducing the head count significantly,
schools may deliver secular education more
effectively at far lower cost. This could
alleviate the crushing burden on families
while preserving the high standards of
Torah education. By investing in oversight
and careful design, the community can
reduce the financial burden while enhancing
commitment to tradition.