Several excellent points have been made in the thread "Why begin teaching Gemara in elementary-school grades?" I list seven of these points below. I would like to offer some concrete educational alternatives. Also, I would like to defend a statement I heard from the Rav (Rabbi J B Soloveitchick) that not teaching Talmud **is** the proper alternative to exposing them to Talmud at to early an age.
First let me summarize the points made by other discussants.
A) MISHANIC IMPERATIVE TO DELAY TALMUDIC STUDY
Eli Handel citing Joseph Breuer suggests that initiating Talmudic study later is preferable based on the Mishnah in the fifth Perek of Pirkei Avoth.
GADOL HADOR PRECEDENT:
Gary Levine cited Rav Kaminetsky who (allegedly) did not start learning Talmud till 15 but was cautious about putting this in writing.
Yisroel Kaminetsky made several interesting points:
C) IS ANY SUBJECT TAUGHT EFFECTIVELY THE FIRST TIME
1a) "If Talmud is not learned effectively at an elementary school age then it is equally valid that Chumash and other subjects are not learned effectively at an elementary school age"
D) PREPARE FOR TALMUD BY TEACHING WORDS, PHRASES, CONCEPTS
1b)"The point of learning gemara in elementary school would be to give the kids
foundation, words, phrases, concepts to ground them in a firm
foundation and whet their appetites for later at a time when they can
perhaps more easily be excited about learning"
E) MISHNAH WRONG PREPARATION FOR TALMUD
2) Mishnaic study does not sufficiently prepare for Talmudic study since "the language is different, the logic is different, the flow is different."
F) IS NOTHING ALTERNATIVE TO BAD TEACHING
3a) "while I agree that we sometimes teach kids just enough gemara
to hate it, I don't think the answer is not to teach in elementary
school."
G) MOTIVATION
3b) "Motivation is, of course, the key in mastering any discipline, but the answer is not to "wait until they are motivated". Hopefully, mitoch shelo lishma ba
lishma, and ..."
Let me respond to all the above by making several points based on modern educational theory.
1st) AGE
The Rav's exact statement (stated in a Chumash/Rashi shiur I attended in the mid-70s) was "Teaching 7th graders Talmud is as absurd as teaching advanced physics to students who haven't learnt calculus." NOTE: The Rav was discussing Israeli public school students who if they didn't see Talmud in 7th grade would never see it. He was not necessarily applying this to students in Yeshivas (though personally I think his comments apply).
I believe I can use this statement to answer Yisroel's point that many subjects are ineffectively taught initially. Let us contrast the learning of Chumash and Talmud.
Chumash: I can teach 7th graders grammar. More specifically I can teach them how to recognize a biblical root and how to conjugate it using the parameters of person, plurality, time, gender, direct object, etc. If I do my job ineffectively perhaps I have not spent enough time or perhaps I have not defined adequate standards. If I do my job properly then using proper grammar my students can then explain several Rashis based solely on grammatical meaning- for example, if one accepts the distinction (made by Rashi) that the past conjugation indicates the past perfect while the past as indicated by a future conjugation with a prefix vav indicates the simple perfect then the proper translation of Gen 4:1 is "Adam had already known (past perfect) his wife....who had become pregnant and given birth to Kayin." From this grammatical translation we infer Rashi's comment (ibid) that Kayin had been born prior to the expulsion from Gan Eden (Note: Rashi makes this point based on the grammatical translation).
Talmud: My point above is that while grammar (and many other chumash topics) are closed, fixed and learnable, the degree of abstraction needed to properly explain a Talmudic controversy - e.g. the distinctions between performer and the performance object (Gavrah vs. Cheftzah) or the distinctions between restrictive and additive clauses (Lemaayt vs. Leraboth) and many other Talmudic distinctions - this degree of abstraction is not something that most 7th graders have. In fact the whole point of Piaget's theories is that one cannot accelerate cognitive development, rather, it must intrinsically take place in stages (see Gredler, Learning and Instruction, 2001 for an overview of Piaget and other educational theories).
The Rav's analogy - advanced physics requiring calculus - mirrors this objection. Advanced physics is not philosophy but a technical discipline requiring a technical language, calculus. Without the technical language the advanced physics does not make sense. In a similar manner the ineffectiveness of Talmudic teaching at an early age is not due to the amount of time I spent or my standards it is rather intrinsic to the learning incapability of these students.
2nd) MISHNAIC REQUIREMENT OF DELAY
I think the proper response to Eli is that there is not an **absolute** requirement of delay of exactly five years, but rather, a delay based on proper preparation. Piaget for example showed that the preparation for the abstract stage consists of certain experiences. Yisroel also speaks about preparation. However Yisroel want to prepare them for words, phrases and concepts I think both preparation and motivation can be accomplished differently. I present two methods below.
3rd) MOTIVATION - Part I
Mishnah has content and form. Content consists of laws. Mishnaic form consists of phraseology which when properly decoded gives you further laws. Talmud by contrast has content, form and method. You can prepare and motivate students to Talmud by making them empathic with the method. The fact that Talmud has method besides content and form is often overlooked educationally. The method must be treated separately.
I believe the best way to do this is to use an active vs. a passive student role. The last 20 years has seen a rising awareness (across multiple disciplines) that students learn and retain more when they actively participate in the learning process (vs. the traditional "Teacher lectures, student listens" passive approach). (My apologies for not having some literature to cite but it is quite extensive.)
Let me give a few examples of motivating using active participation.
Example 1: The first mishnah (and Talmud thereon) in Baba Kama deals with the four biblical passages discussing compensation for damages. An excellent preparation which also motivates students is to let them have a group effort to discuss their perception of the unique attributes of the biblical torts: goring ox, pit, consuming animal, fire. By asking the students to first practice the Talmudic method - finding distinctions in an aggregate biblical domain - the students are better able to relate to the Talmudic opinions and are motivated to hear how the Talmudic Rabbis answered the same question.
Example 2: The first two mishnayoth (and talmud thereon) in Baba Metziah deals with which articles can be kept by the finder and which must be advertised for return. An excellent active participatory exercise would be to ask the class as a group to make a two column list of items with one column indicating items that have to be returned and one column dealing with items that can be kept.
Such an initial preparatory exercise does not contradict the traditional goals of Talmudic study but does "involve" students motivating to hear how others solved the problems they just attempted to solve.
4th) FORESHADOWING (MOTIVATION PART II)
I wrote an article on "preparing concepts" in mathematics. My idea was that very often we *do* prepare students but don't tell them about it. Therefore I advocated "foreshadowing" (The article was "Foreshadowing as an assessment Vehicle", AMATYC Review, 17, 34-38, 1995). Here are some examples of this principle applied to Talmudic learning.
Example 1. If you teach "Love thy neighbor as thyself" which Rashi explains is an important principle. The teacher should foreshadow and indicate several Talmudic applications of the principle (which the students should be told they will learn when they grow older). For example, this verse justifies several rabbinic enactments for the sake of peace (such as giving charity to non-Jews along with Jews, etc.) which possibly is an application of "Love thy neighbor." Similarly the Talmud directly learns from this verse that executed criminals are first drugged (prior to execution) so as not to feel pain.
Example 2. If you are teaching Chumash Mishpatim, without teaching the Talmud, you can still foreshadow. You can ask the students why the Bible enumerates so many examples of torts, goring ox, pit, consuming ox, fire. The students can discuss it. You can then tell them that when they grow up they will learn how to cleanly distinguish between these examples so as to obtain a comprehensive theory of torts.
Note: In both these example I am not teaching Talmud. I am rather (lightly) foreshadowing and giving students a taste of what they will be able to do when their minds develop (Had I taught them Talmud I would hold them fully responsible for understanding something they cant yet understand which would turn them off - by contrast I am only foreshadowing and exposing them to it).
SUMMARY
Like the Rav I believe it pointless to teach youngsters Talmud before they have the necessary cognitive skills. But I can still foreshadow what is to come. I can also invite participation so that students are aware of the Talmudic process/method and become empathic with it. I would argue (to answer Yisroel) that traditional chumash and rashi (when properly done) is adequate preparation for Talmud if enriched by the simple implementable suggestions indicated above.
Respectfully
Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA; Dept of Math; Towson University
