I received quite a few resources over the past few weeks, some of which I have included in today's digest. One resource that was sent to me was a new project called "The Animated Talmud" - http://www.animatedtalmud.com/ - that attempts to "edutain" students while introducing them to basic Talmudic concepts. Although the publicity material assures that "Animated Talmud is not a replacement for diligent study" nevertheless I was surprised to discover that watching animation might be construed as actual Talmud study. Discussing this point with friends and colleagues led to a more general question - "Why teach Gemara?" Given the complexity of the language and concepts, why is the study of Gemara so central to the curricula of so many yeshivot and day schools today? I have turned this question over to a number of educators and look forward to posting their responses in upcoming issues of Lookjed. Shalom http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,18948#msg-18948 Sun, 19 May 2013 02:43:53 -0600 Phorum 5.2.19 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19239#msg-19239 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19239#msg-19239
1) INDEPENDENTLY USEFUL. One should teach Mechilta and Sifrei anyway. Such study has several utilities: A) It sheds light and expands on many Rashis which are simply summarizing sifrei. B) It prepares for **certain** Gemarahs (See point #2 below). C) It exposes students to religiously acceptable higher textual criticism – the students can see how Rishonim formulated halachic text by reviewing and selecting texts from the Gemarah Bavli, Jerushalmi and midrashei halachah. D) It trains people to understand certain Midrash as the Peshat in the text (See point #3 below)

2) DEPENDS ON WHICH GEMARAH: Certain tractates – Nazir, Sotah, parts of Baba Kama, almost all of Kodoshim – are heavily dependent on interpretation of Pesukim. For example, I recommend to anyone learning Seder Kodoshim, in even advanced Talmudic institutions, to learn Sifrei with Malbim. Very often, the entire “Talmudic commentary on a mishnah” is nothing but a chapter from Sifrei.

I **do** recommend learning the “pesukim” tractates. But, there are other tractates and other interests in Talmudic study. Perhaps you are learning Beracoth where the issues are not biblical textual but rather the development of halachah and minhag in rishonim and acharonim (When are the zemanim?; which beracoth are said? etc). Perhaps you are learning Shabbos where the major issue is clear, succinct, rigorous definition: the “criteria” for the major 39 Shabbos categories and their applicability to a variety of old (and modern) contexts.

So Midrash has a place in learning Gemarah but not an exclusive place

3) MALBIM: Too often when discussing modern issues I hear echoes of the viewpoint that Midrash consists of “reading into the text” (I believe Livni coins or emphasizes that term). This reduces Judaism to a smorgasbord. Different *authorities* read-in - take what fits your taste and needs today. (Byron Sherwin coined the smorgasbord analogy to halacha describing some of what goes on today).

One component of a remedy to this problem (it is a problem because you are in effect equally legitimizing all opinions) is to place greater emphasis on “correct inference” from biblical texts. I don’t agree with everything Malbim said. But, modern scholarship has ignored the beautiful yet precise sensitivity to biblical nuances which he presented. My own (harsh) feeling is that if Judaism is to survive confronting modern problems we must have a firm logical foundation and that should begin with a re-emphasis of the Peshat intrinsic to many (not necessarily, all) so called Derashoth. At any rate – perhaps my views are extreme – if you are studying Mechiltah and Sifrei I would emphasize accompaniment with Malbim

Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.D., A.S.A
Dept of Mathematics, Towson University
Towson, Maryland
[www.Rashiyomi.com]]]> Russell Jay Hendel Lookjed List Archive Tue, 14 Dec 2010 13:02:48 -0700 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19204#msg-19204 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19204#msg-19204 suggested studying midrashei halachah, Mechilta and Sifrei as a prep
for the study of Gemorah. The advantages are a closer link to the
biblical text; less Aramaic if any; affords excellent examples of
rabbinical thinking. Comments anybody?

Yosef Goldberg]]> Yosef Goldberg Lookjed List Archive Tue, 07 Dec 2010 04:06:31 -0700 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19185#msg-19185 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19185#msg-19185 Avraham Norin Lookjed List Archive Tue, 30 Nov 2010 04:48:52 -0700 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19181#msg-19181 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19181#msg-19181
Rabbi Kaminetzky claims that he feels that Middle Schools should start Gemara so that students can build the vocabularies and Gemara skills. I have to disagree on both counts. I have found that main difficulty that many Middle School students have with Gemara is following the shakla v'tarya, and thus they basically try to repeat back key phrases - and thus teachers either dumb down their assessments or lose their students. That being the case, is this really the best way to pick up vocabulary? Wouldn't students pick up the key words just as fast if they waited a year or two and learned them while learning a text that they were developmentally ready for? The same argument goes for Gemara skills - which skills are we talking about?

Keep in mind as well that Middle Schools generally have the practical consideration of limited time to worry about. While there are some high schools which give Gemara 2-3 hours per day, rarely is there a Middle School that does that, and thus the choice is often a mutually exclusive one between Mishna and Gemara. Given that choice, which one will be best understood and appreciated by the pre-analytical minds of 12 year olds?

For a test case of these ideas, I would suggest looking at Maayanot Yeshiva High School for Girls in Teaneck. They tend to draw girls who have learned Gemara in Middle School as well as those who have not learned it at all. And yet they do not have separate tracks for those two groups of girls. What happens? Those who have not learned Gemara before high school usually make up the ground within the first months of their high school careers. Why is that? I would suggest that since their minds are now more ready for Gemara, they are able to pick up all of the skills that their classmates laboriously and sometimes painfully acquired in the previous two or three years. Something to think about.

Aaron Ross
Yavneh Academy, Paramus, NJ]]> Aaron Ross Lookjed List Archive Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:55:58 -0700 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19166#msg-19166 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19166#msg-19166
Kol tuv,
Ari Kinsberg]]> Ari Kinsberg Lookjed List Archive Tue, 23 Nov 2010 06:37:38 -0700 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19160#msg-19160 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19160#msg-19160
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.

B) 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]]> Russell Jay Hendel Lookjed List Archive Mon, 22 Nov 2010 00:33:06 -0700 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19159#msg-19159 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19159#msg-19159
Stuart Schnee
Public Relations, Marketing & Sales]]> Stuart Schnee Lookjed List Archive Fri, 19 Nov 2010 03:48:03 -0700 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19154#msg-19154 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19154#msg-19154
I think that there is a substantial difference between the effectiveness of tanach study in elementary school as opposed to gemara. It is realistic for a student to graduate eighth grade knowing the story of Chumash, the basic contents of each parsha, most of navi, the megilot, etc. Students can't even learn the basic Pshat of a single masechet of Gemara at that age. I think students memorize better at a younger age, and analyze better at an older age. While a post HS student can analyze tanach well, they can't memorize as well. Most of us will never know melachim as well as bereshit because we learned bereshit earlier. I think Gemara, which requires a higher proportion of analytical thinking to achieve any comprehension, is better suited to older students. Tanach, which benefits from analytical thinking but can be understood at a basic level with a simple read through, benefits from being taught young and revisited when the student matures.

I know this is counterintuitive, but with Torah shebiktav I would aim for outright memorization of the text, because the text is immutable, relatively short, and has cantillation notes that make it easier to remember. The oral Torah, especially the Gemara, is too long for this to be realistic, plus it is more about the concepts than the exact words, the order is far more haphazard, and it has no cantillation marks.

I also think that the values of the Chumash, especially breshit, are comprehensible to small children and serve an important role in their moral development. We cannot possibly wait for students to go to Gush to discover the values of tzedaka umishpat ascribed to Avraham, etc. They must be taught these lessons from infancy. The lessons of the Gemara, aggadic portions excepted, are much more abstract and cannot be digested until a later developmental stage.

I agree that Mishnah does little to develop Gemara reading skills. These must be taught separately, and it is crucial that they be taught in an intentional and structured manner. However, I think mishna does give students the knowledge to understand what context the Gemara is working in. I think that when the Gemara cites a mishna students who are familiar with it already have a distinct advantage because they can better discern the mishna's relevance to the discussion at hand. I also think that it protects students from inventing creative svarot that contradict mishnayot not on the current page of Gemara. Finally there are the many masechtot without Gemara that students should be familiar with as part of basic education. Without that, every Gemara that cites zraim, kodashim, or taharot will seem alien to them.

And to Gary Levine, thank you for your interesting comments, and if you are Rabbi Levine who taught mishna in Yavneh Academy when I was in fifth grade, I thank you for that as well.]]> Aaron Frazer Lookjed List Archive Thu, 18 Nov 2010 23:41:10 -0700 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19138#msg-19138 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19138#msg-19138
One of our activities on the program was to visit a wide variety of educational institutions throughout the country. One such visit took us to a large boys' Yeshiva in Meah She'arim. Interestingly enough, although the school had a full administrative staff, it also had a school "ideologue", who served as the guardian of the school's ideology. What impressed many of us was that, aside from being an experienced teacher and, of course, a dedicated member of the Me'ah She'arim community, he was also widely read in educational philosophies outside, not only of the chareidi world, but of the Jewish educational world as well. He saw it as his responsibility to his school and his students to be well versed in a broad spectrum of educational philosophy and practices.

We asked him what his most difficult problem was, and he said: "Gemora." The community at large, parents and educators alike, were constantly asking him to begin the study of gemora in earlier and earlier grades and to assign more and more of student time to its exclusive study.

He said, "I happened to meet once with HaGaon HaRav Yaakov Kaminetsky, and I told him of this difficulty I was having, and he said to me: 'I did not open a gemora until I was fifteen years old.' I said to him, 'If you could give me a note to that effect . . . if I could produce a note from a gadol hador to that effect, it would be of tremendous help to me in trying to convince the community that we should not be starting gemora at such an early age.' HaRav Kaminetsky put his arm around my shoulder and said: 'If I gave you such a note, I would not longer be a gadol hador.'"

Gary Levine
Jerusalem]]> Gary Levine Lookjed List Archive Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:40:19 -0700 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19136#msg-19136 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19136#msg-19136
While I agree with some of what my friend Ezra Frazier wrote about teaching gemara in Elementary School, I'd like to respectfully disagree with some of his points, and, I suppose, ultimately, with his conclusion.

Ezra writes:

When I think about my own anecdotal experiences as a student, and,
later, a teacher, 3 things stand out.

1. Very few students, myself included, learn gemara effectively at an
elementary school age, regardless of the skill of the teacher. What
little I did learn in several years of elementary school and
extracurricular learning, could have been accomplished in a few weeks
when I was older.

I question whether that is only true of gemara, or of anything one learns in elementary school. I suspect that all the chumash that Ezra learned in his entire sixth grade could have also been learned in two weeks at Gush. Although it is of course true that basic gemara is significantly more complex than basic chumash, 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.


2. At the elementary school age, students can remember large amounts
of mishnayot very well, which prepares them for future Gemara study.
If not learned at this stage, mishnayot may never be learned. Students
who don't know mishnayot can't learn Gemara at a high level.

I have heard many people say this, and not only has my own personal experience run counter to this, but I also don't agree with this statement educationally. There is a reason why every time I ask kids to read gemara, they always want to volunteer to read the mishna. I fail to see how learning mishna is any preparation for gemara. The two disciplines, on a basic "teaching skills" level, have almost nothing to do with each other. The language is different, the logic is different, the flow is different, I see almost nothing the same about them. The mishnayot are of course valuable in teaching shas concepts, and in teaching basic opinions about things, as an introduction to torah sheb'al peh. But reading your average hebrew mishna is in no way that I can see, any kind of preparation to learn how to read gemara aramaic or gemara logic. That elementary school students come into high school with a basic gemara vocabulary is invaluable, in my opinion.

3. Teaching Gemara that is not understood well is worse than teaching
nothing - it convinces students they don't like or don't understand
Gemara, and makes them less receptive to it in the future. Motivation
is the key - mastery of Gemara study requires a huge time commitment,
and ultimately the only students who attain proficiency are those who
devote themselves to it outside of school. I have seen motivated
college-age students go from zero Jewish knowledge to strong Gemara
skills within a time frame of about 3 years, in an informal setting,
easily surpassing the level of skill that students gain in a 12 year
formal day school education.

Again, 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. I think that in high school kids are often even less motivated, and it is less likely they will get turned on to it in high school with no background in elementary school. 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 demanding of them age appropriate gemara skills at an early age should be no less valuable than demanding of them age appropriate math skills, whether they are motivated to learn math or not. If we can enrich, not reduce, their gemara experience in elementary school, their future excursions into the yam hatalmud will be more enjoyable, not less so.


I believe the motivation to teach Gemara before students are ready
stems from keeping up with the Joneses - who wants to be the only
elementary school that doesn't teach it? From an educational
standpoint, teaching large volumes of mishnayot at the elementary
school level would be more effective and result in greater overall
gemara interest, knowledge and skill by the end of high school.

I respectfully disagree, as I have outlined before. I would urge the elementary schools to focus on words, basic reading, phrases, and use mishnayos for concepts, and very basic lamdut, but not to think that loading up on mishnayot is a better torah sheb'al peh curriculum than basic gemara words and skills.

Kol Tuv,
Yisroel Kaminetsky
Menahel
Davis Renov Stahler Yeshiva High School for Boys
rabbikam@drshalb.org]]> Yisroel Kaminetsky Lookjed List Archive Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:36:13 -0700 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19135#msg-19135 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19135#msg-19135
Eli Handel]]> Eli Handel Lookjed List Archive Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:27:24 -0700 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19123#msg-19123 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19123#msg-19123
1. Very few students, myself included, learn gemara effectively at an elementary school age, regardless of the skill of the teacher. What little I did learn in several years of elementary school and extracurricular learning, could have been accomplished in a few weeks when I was older.

2. At the elementary school age, students can remember large amounts of mishnayot very well, which prepares them for future Gemara study. If not learned at this stage, mishnayot may never be learned. Students who don't know mishnayot can't learn Gemara at a high level.

3. Teaching Gemara that is not understood well is worse than teaching nothing - it convinces students they don't like or don't understand Gemara, and makes them less receptive to it in the future. Motivation is the key - mastery of Gemara study requires a huge time commitment, and ultimately the only students who attain proficiency are those who devote themselves to it outside of school. I have seen motivated college-age students go from zero Jewish knowledge to strong Gemara skills within a time frame of about 3 years, in an informal setting, easily surpassing the level of skill that students gain in a 12 year formal day school education.

I believe the motivation to teach Gemara before students are ready stems from keeping up with the Joneses - who wants to be the only elementary school that doesn't teach it? From an educational standpoint, teaching large volumes of mishnayot at the elementary school level would be more effective and result in greater overall gemara interest, knowledge and skill by the end of high school.

Aharon Frazer
[www.orachmishor.org]]]> Aharon Frazer Lookjed List Archive Thu, 11 Nov 2010 02:05:48 -0700 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19101#msg-19101 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19101#msg-19101
Thank you for a detailed response to the question.

I think there are two main objections to early gemara study:

1) Children are not ready for it developmentally/intellectually (and worse, teaching it to them may be counterproductive).
2) They have not even begun to master more elementary texts (chumash, nach, mishnah) and often there is no chance this will be accomplished once gemara learning takes over.

So as I understand you, the answer to the first objection is that there is nothing wrong with young children learning gemara, rather the problem is they are not being taught the right way.

How would you respond to the second objection? Driving home the point (to me at least) is that in certain co-ed schools, while the boys learn gemara the girls have classes in siddur, practical halacha, etc. Or in girls-only schools, they may simply have more chumash/nach or stronger Hebrew/dikduk. So basically the message (and practical carry-over) is that boys don't really have to worry about these basic educational goals, which are sacrificed for gemara. So do you think that early gemara study is at the expense of mastering these other subjects? (In the same context, you wrote, "if the goal of Torah SheBeal Peh is: to fill in the missing pieces left by the Torah SheBichtav." But in my--admitteldly limitted-- experience, to most students even torah shebichtav is a closed book.

Thanks again for your input.

Kol tuv,
Ari Kinsberg]]> Ari Kinsberg Lookjed List Archive Wed, 03 Nov 2010 12:47:49 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19099#msg-19099 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19099#msg-19099
I was somewhat surprised that so few, if any, have suggested that it is in fact a mistake to teach Gemara. In the capacity of my work with literally hundreds of Gemara teachers (rebbeim in the vernacular) during my numerous visits to schools, I have repeatedly heard this sentiment. Not so much from the teachers themselves, but rather from the teachers-as-mouthpieces-for-their-students who hear from their students that they feel bored/disaffected/uninterested/frustrated/mind-numbed/bored (did I mention bored already?) with learning Gemara. These teachers tell how they answer their students that: there is no Torah without Torah She’beal Peh, that all of halacha is based on Gemara, that it is Dvar Hashem etc. In fact many ideas similar to those proposed by the respondents in previous postings, in many variations, have reached my ears, all of which I certainly agree with. But these rebbeim complain that rarely do these reasons resonate with these students. They simply don’t motivate them to rise above their anti-Gemara feelings.

(In certain circles, the answer they give is: Its good for Parnosso. If the expected thing is for the student to eventually go to kollel, the size of his kollel check might be in proportion to his ability to learn. Or to go into Chinuch. Now there’s a sobering thought….)

I am firmly of the opinion that we should teach Gemara, and that we should be starting to do so in middle schools, if not even earlier. Beyond the responses that have been posted so far and to which I would certainly sign off on in principle, I would like to suggest two separate though connected additional angles that address these questions.

1. Most Gemara teaching is content-driven, and since the level of sophistication and relevance varies from sugya to sugya, and since most Gemara teaching doesn’t take this into consideration, most Gemara teaching is in fact a mess, and for many, if not most students is a counterproductive exercise, because they simply don’t get it. To illustrate this, let me take the subject of mathematics for example. Imagine a teacher entering a 2nd grade class and announcing “today we will deal with calculus”, and then going to a 9th grade class and announcing “today we will deal with simple multiplication and division”. Sounds absurd right? Such a teacher would surely be severely reprimanded at such a miserable ignorance of the need to teach different aspects of this particular subject-matter (math in this case) in a particular scope-and-sequence that is age-appropriate and logical in terms of its skills hierarchy, not-to-mention that this teacher probably has a well-researched curriculum that the school has adopted that has obviously been ignored. But we come across this exact occurrence daily in many Gemara classes (except for the well-researched curriculum bit, which is inexplicably missing from the Gemara teaching landscape – and hence the current crisis). Choices regarding which Gemaras should be taught are usually decided by what is considered as Mesora to be the correct sequence of perakim. Beyond this there is little pedagogic consideration given to what should be taught at different age levels and how to go about doing so.

Clearly, what is missing is a skills-driven approach to teaching Gemara that identifies the different skills and knowledges that constitute the ability to eventually open up almost any page of Gemara, and independently “make a leyning”. Such an approach would allow students to experience the empowerment of their real (and assessed) ability at their stage of Gemara-skills development. As they develop, they will have the ability to grapple with more and more sophisticated sugyas and eventually rishonim and achronim, etc. Since we have left behind the elitist “Gemara-for-the-Metsuyanim-only” era, and are now firmly entrenched in the “Gemara-education-for-the-masses” era, the need for this skills-based approach is even more acute.

“Gemara Berura”, that I am privileged to direct, is one such (computer-assisted) skills-based approach to teaching Talmud (Mishna and Gemara). It allows teachers to focus not only on the contents of the piece of Talmud at hand, but to expose to their students the inner methodology of Talmudic reasoning, namely OMD”T for Mishna and Shaqla Ve’Tarya for Gemara. Schools are now beginning to identify the skills that they wish their students to acquire and are adjusting their curriculum accordingly. As a result students are more empowered, motivated and eager to attend Gemara classes, and teachers are more capable of assisting their students to increase their Talmud-skills level via a clear and systematic approach. This is not the place to go into details, and anyone interested in finding out more is invited to check out the website, email, and links listed below.

2. In broad brush-stroke terms, if the goal of Torah SheBeal Peh is: to fill in the missing pieces left by the Torah SheBichtav, to continue the search for the truth, to discover what might be Retson Hashem in any given situation; then the method in which the Gemara does this, the technique it employs to achieve these goals, is probably as important as the actual contents that appear as the end result of such a method and technique. The Talmud is powered by a particular “toolset” that dictates how each and every issue raised by the Chachmay Hatalmud is treated and addressed. As mentioned above, this toolset is the basis for the investigative system known as OMD”T for Mishna and Shaqla VeTarya for Gemara, that includes a systematic series of function classifications that every part of the Talmud needs to be classified into (question, answer, conclusion, etc.). It also includes a list of key-words and phrases that are used to inform the reader how to classify a particular piece of Talmud. For example, Urminhu denotes a contradiction between two sources of equal authority. Or Hacha Bemai Askinan means there is an Ukimta (reassignment) answer that reassigns one of the conflicting sources to mean something else such that there is no longer any conflict. In addition, this toolset includes a set of strict Clallai HaTalmud that dictates the do’s and don’ts of Talmudic argumentation*.

The upshot of this is that if we teach our students to master the toolset, the system, the overall approach – and not only the contents, we are providing our students with the ability to perceive reality via the unique perspective that Chaza”l employed to discover the truth, the Ratzon Hashem that is waiting to be revealed in any given situation – not just the particular scenarios that appear in the Talmud. When we do this, we view reality via the unique prism of Statement, Question, Answer, Reinforcement, Conclusion, etc. that structures an ongoing conversation that spans many generations, from Har Sinai, to ours, and beyond, in order to unearth the truth and Ratson Hashem in every generation. Our experience is that if this powerful and empowering idea is conveyed and implemented properly (we have developed a number of approaches to achieve this) students are more likely to feel empowered, challenged, and motivated to invest more of their energies into Talmud studies.

Therefore, my answer is: Yes, we should teach Talmud, so long as we are employing a sound skills-driven approach. And since Talmud is a complex subject to master (think of the mathematics example I mentioned earlier), we need to begin the process early with age appropriate texts and skills and a properly developed scope-and-sequence, starting with a skills-based approach to teaching Mishna, and then seamlessly moving on to a skills-based approach to teaching Gemara. If we do this right, we will have motivated, skilled and empowered students who will have access to the Talmud and who feel an integral member of the people who’s task it is to discover the truth and Ratson Hashem in this world, and thereby desire to live a life that would be considered a Kiddush Hashem. Amen!

*The scope of this posting only deals with the Halachic elements of the Talmud – not the Aggadic elements.

To see the main elements of the Gemara Berura methodology, click this link:
[www.gemaraberura.com]

To view a brief video presenting the OMD”T methodology for Mishna-type texts, click this link:
[www.youtube.com]

To download the Pilot Hascholas Gemara curriculum prototype Student Workbook on Tfillas Hashachar, click here:
[80.244.164.91]


Rabbi Meir Fachler
Director
Gemara Berura (www.gemaraberura.com )
Phone (US and Israel) (917) 779 8056
Israel cell ++ (972) 52 385 8455
meir@jet-start.com]]> Meir Fachler Lookjed List Archive Wed, 03 Nov 2010 08:46:38 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19073#msg-19073 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19073#msg-19073
Kol tuv,
Ari Kinsberg]]> Ari Kinsberg Lookjed List Archive Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:08:35 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19033#msg-19033 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19033#msg-19033
I prepared a powerpoint presentation on the topic based on Rav Aharon Lichtenstein's article on the topic in Leaves of Faith

See it at [www.lookstein.org]

--
Alan J. Wecker
Senior ACM Member]]> Alan J. Wecker Lookjed List Archive Sun, 24 Oct 2010 06:56:35 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19029#msg-19029 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19029#msg-19029
A parent of a student in our school who is an orchestra conductor told her that he understands classical music more deeply because of his having studied Talmud when he was younger. If one properly studies Talmud in depth then these types of universally applicable insights can possibly be made and the value of Talmud study becomes self evident.

I think it is important to become a Lamdan even more than it is important to study Talmud as they are not always one and the same. Fluency in Aramaic and medieval Hebrew used by Rishonim is only half the battle. That only relates to deciphering the bdieved written down form of Oral Torah printed in books.

The other half of Talmud study is the abstract thinking that can be developed by studying with a master pedagogue who can impart analytic skills and utilize the main chakiros needed to ask probing questions in order to help a student become a deep and rigorous critical thinker who can propose both novel and true solutions to classical Talmudic problems.

Once we help students escape the illness of superficiality plaguing our generation by learning how to think deeply, Judaism and the world may become deeper, more sophisticated, and hopefully more meaningful to them. The sad part is many kids give up before reaching this second half of Talmud because they think they are not cut out for the first half of Talmud or they deem the whole subject as superficial and irrelevant.

Shalom,

Elisha Paul]]> Elisha Paul Lookjed List Archive Sun, 24 Oct 2010 03:36:29 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19020#msg-19020 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19020#msg-19020
Anyone familiar with the basic layout and structure of the Talmud can probably understand a student’s essential frustration. Before a particular halacha is firmly and formally stated, the Talmud busies itself with extensive analysis, much of which is oftentimes rejected. Additionally, the Talmud regularly takes painstaking efforts to resolve questions that appear to have no practical application to the reader of the modern era. For example, why should a High School student be concerned with the halachic consequences of a divorce bill that is written on the side of a cow? It would certainly seem that Halacha could be better learned from the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries rather than the Talmud and its commentaries. Similarly, if the student is in fact to learn Talmud, would his time not be better spent concentrating on those Tractates such as Brachos and the like which deal primarily with laws whose every day application is readily apparent?

Simply stated our students are asking: If the goal in learning Talmud is to know what to do, then why spend so much time discussing positions which are rejected or those laws which are seemingly irrelevant in today’s day and age?

Our students have taken for granted the notion that the ultimate goal of studying the Oral Law is to know how to act according to Halacha. At first glance it would appear that this position is well founded. With regard to Torah study the mishna in Avos (1:17) teaches that “The main goal is not study but deed” and it is generally well established that an essential goal in learning Torah is “leAsuki shmaitsa aliba de-hilchasa” for the sake of establishing the laws. It is for this very reason that we are taught (Avos 2:5) “lo am ha-aretz chosid” - one cannot be righteous without knowing the laws in which he is obligated. Moreover, the Ramban in a famous letter to his son writes “and be exceedingly careful to learn Torah constantly so that you may be able to fulfill it and when you get up from your book, search in what you have learned to see if there is something which you can fulfill.” At first glance, therefore, it would appear that our students’ assumption has validity. However, elsewhere, the Talmud teaches us that the sole purpose for the Torah’s inclusion of the laws of ben sorer u-moreh - the rebellious son - was so that Man could “study and receive reward (Sanhedrin 71a)”. It would seem, then, that the maxim “the main goal is not study but deed” must be reexamined.

While determining the practical halacha is certainly an important goal in Torah study, an additional, and seemingly paramount goal of learning, is perhaps best expressed by Rashi (Deut 6:4-9). “And what is love (of G-d)? because through this, the study of Torah, one will come to recognize the Holy One blessed be He and you will cling to His ways (See also Rambam Sefer Hamitzvos Aseh #3).” Only through Torah can one fulfill the underlying mitzvah of the entire Torah and all of its precepts - Love of the Almighty. This, therefore, is what is meant when the mishna states that “the main goal is not study but deed.” Through the study of Torah we gain an understanding of the Divine will and only then can we properly serve Hashem and live our lives to their fullest. The goal in learning Torah, therefore, is to plumb the depths of the Torah to uncover the will of God, inculcating those ideas within us so that we may live our lives accordingly. It is this ideal of Torah study which we must better convey to our students.

Once we have accounted for the goal of Torah study we must explain the process by which this goal is accomplished. That is, what type of learning brings about a profound understanding of Hashem and helps one grow closer to Him. With this, we will also be able to appreciate the import of learning Talmud along with all of its discussions, rejected opinions, and temporarily irrelevant halachos. Additionally, we will be able to appreciate why the Talmud is structured as it is.

The Talmud is, in essence, a record of the halachic debates that took place among the Tannaim and Amoraim. A hallmark of these discussions is the heavy reliance of the sages upon their ability to reason. Repeatedly, in the Talmud we observe that Chazal derived halachos based on the use of reason (See for example B”K 46b). In many instances these discussions were in fact disputes which arose over the proper interpretation of an earlier authority’s statement. This begs the question, why our master teachers – the sages - would have made statements that would be left to interpretation. Why not be exceedingly clear and precise to avoid any possible misinterpretation? From the Talmud itself it is apparent that this was often done “lechaded bo es ha-talmidim”, to hone the minds of the students (See for example Megilah 25a). By being brief, occasionally cryptic and at times, intentionally misspeaking during their lessons, our sages forced their students to develop their reasoning skills and master the Torah to understand lessons.

This phenomenon is perhaps best accounted for by Rabbi Tzvi Lampel in his work, The Dynamics of Dispute (p162): ”this [intentionally making false statements] was meant to train the scholars in quick, deep, and profound reasoning in mastering the sources. The goal of learning Torah is not merely to know the answer to questions, but even more important, to master the methods of arriving at them. This was accomplished through the system of honing the mind through intellectual battle. So integral is the pursuit for the perpetuation of Torah, it was intentionally employed even at the risk of halachic error. Similarly, even after the Talmud was put in writing, its language was kept terse so that it cannot be understood without elaboration. It is up to the students of the Talmud to supply that elaboration through their mastering its style of intimations and the sources it hints to…”

Thus, in addition to the reliance upon the use of reason by the sages themselves, we see that their lessons were often taught in a way that necessitated the use of reason to be understood by us. In keeping with this approach, the Talmud was redacted in such a way as to necessitate the use of reason and logical thought in order to properly understand it. The Talmud itself (Yerushalmi San 4:2) extols this aspect of study when it recounts that “Yannai said, had the Torah been given clear-cut, we would not have a leg to stand on …” But how do we explain to our students the great importance of reasoning such that the entire system of the Oral Law and its transmission depend upon it?

Reasoning is what distinguishes man from animals as it involves the use of the sechel - that part of man which we identify as being the Tzelem Elokim (See Seforno Genesis 1:26). When man is involved in the use of reason, he is using his Tzelem Elokim. An individual’s shlaimus or spiritual perfection is commensurate with the degree to which he uses his Tzelem Elokim. That is, Man uses his sechel to uncover truths (See Generally Guide to The Perplexed). In fact, the Torah is given to Man to understand and follow through the use of his intellect. In this vein, we are told “lo ba-shamyim he”, the decisions of Torah law are not in the heavens; rather they are the domain of those who have mastered God’s Torah. As such, our sages realized that the method and process of learning the word of G-d must be one which involves use of the sechel.

The Torah tells us (Devarim 4:29) “But if you search there for the Lord your God, you will find Him if only you seek Him with all your heart and soul”. The Rav (Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik) zt”l explained that Judaism insists that G-d reveals himself to the man who seeks after and thirsts for G-d. The goal of one who learns Torah, therefore, is to become what the Rav zt”l termed a “mevakesh HaShem” - one who seeks out Hashem and yearns for His presence and illumination. Talmud study, structured as it is, is the perfect forum for such a God seeker to engage in His search. Difficult as it may be, this is what we must convey to our students.]]> Warren Cinamon Lookjed List Archive Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:58:14 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19019#msg-19019 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19019#msg-19019
While I have taught many subjects, including halacha, chumash, navi etc., I have come to feel that gemmara provides me with the a unique opportunity to engage students in the process of limud torah as a religious act and to give them the chance to feel that they are an active part of the mesorah.
Having taught 8th grade gemmara for the last number of years, I always begin the year with a discussion of the difference between learning halacha and engaging in halacha. The Shulchan Aruch or similar works allow us to learn halacha (and to do so in a much more efficient manner). In contrast to these “finished works,” I present gemmara to the students as an unfinished discussion, and we approach the year of learning together as an opportunity to engage in the dialogue that occurs amongst the Tannaim and Amoraim.

In class, I often ask students to take one side or another of the discussion and debate it amongst themselves – and typically they come up with many of the points mentioned in the gemmara (if given the appropriate background and guidance). This allows them to feel that they are not simply reading a series of arguments (in which case it would make more sense to just skip to the conclusion), but rather by being exposed to each point in the development of a sugya. They are not watching a play seated in the audience, they are backstage engaging with the actors themselves. As they develop more facility in understanding the language and structure of the gemmara they are able to engage more deeply in this process.

Of course this has to be done carefully to ensure that the students develop the appropriate respect for the Tannaim and Amoraim, but I have found that allowing the students to engage in the debate in this manner significantly increases their respect for Chazal as they begin to understand the complex process which lies at the heart of each halachic discussion.

At the end of each year, I find that the class as a whole is able to appreciate the window that gemmara gives them into what lies behind all of our halachot and minhagim. The students’ engagement with the development of these halachot significantly enhances their understanding of and dedication to the mitzvot.

While no individual area of study can supply the full range of religious experience and education, I believe that any course of education which does not include gemmara may be lacking this vital component.

Barry Kislowicz
Fuchs Mizrachi School]]> Barry Kislowicz Lookjed List Archive Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:57:07 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19018#msg-19018 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19018#msg-19018
A rebbe of mine once commented, “Olam Haba and Gehinom are the same place; you get a gemara and are told to learn. Those that apply themselves to learning are in Olam Haba, those that don’t are forced to go through the same torturous process.” The statement deeply troubles me, but one point is true; for the student that does not acquire languages easily or is not committed enough to Talmud study to plough through, learning gemara seems irrelevant and torturous.

The reasons are simple- students are required to learn Aramaic as a third foreign language, the gemara is highly technical, the gemara does not fully spell out its own thoughts, and while jumping from topic to topic in haphazard fashion. Some teachers have basically opted out; gemara shiur is story and hashkafa schmooze time. But that really reinforces the problem.

For most teachers, the goal is to teach our students the requisite skills to learn gemara independently. Since the most basic and first barrier is the language, we focus on language acquisition. Students that acquire the basic language move on to analysis, while those that don’t remain focused on language acquisition. However, this really compounds the problem; continued word memorization and wrote ‘leining’ make the process more painful. Students of most skill levels can, in fact, really enjoy learning gemara, they just need more foundational explanations and a different set of emphases and priorities.

First, gemara is not written in a style that any of us is accustomed to. Essentially gemara is the written record of legal conversations, which were originally memorized and then put to paper. This helps explain the structure and flow of the gemara. To record five consecutive statements of Rabbi Yeshoshua ben Levi, whose range of topics span the gamut of Shas, would not make for tight writing, but that structure makes sense to the Amoraim that were try to memorize those five statements.

The style of the gemara is that of a conversation. We are studying the debates of court justices, in our case Rava and Abaye, before they issue a ruling. By asking students to be more reflective of their own conversations with friends, and to track the language and flow of a conversation, they too realize that their conversations are not fully articulate, because everyone understands, and conversations can also have a tangential flow.

Third, since gemara is law it needs to be explained with terms of law. Starting with theories for requiring law, the relationship between values/ethics and law, and then moving to the American equivalent makes discussions more relevant. Hezek reiyah is a discussion about privacy rights, shomrim talks about an individual’s responsibilities to others’ property, and tefillah and berachot describe the spiritual experiences of an individual and the community. Masechet Kiddushin discusses creating a personal status and the importance of that status, similar to the contemporary debates about immigration and citizenship. This provides fertile ground for legal and ethical discussions. The interplay between law and ethics should be discussed, as should a comparison between Jewish and American law. Students will begin to see the unfolding of halacha and realize that the technical halacha really debates profound issues.

In essence, it is critical to distinguish between language acquisition and logic. Many students will learn the language of the gemara through continued study, similar to immersion language acquisition, and do not need to use their intellectual and spiritual energy memorizing words.

At the same time, we can also give them some tools. Breaking the mass of gemara text down into the basic components of an argument- Statement/thesis, Question, Answer, Proof, means that the text is no longer a big blob of words. Using function words- Mesivai, ta shma, etc. provide indicators for labeling a line in the gemara. Before a student starts looking up words in a Frank or Jastrow dictionary, they at least know the end game of that line.

Lastly, students need to be validated that gemara is hard, and they need to be inspired that they can succeed. Many students have found out that they can learn gemara in their Year in Israel, and they enjoy it to boot! Shouldn’t students continually hear inspiring stories when they are in 10th grade, before they throw in the towel for the next two years?]]> Rafi Eis Lookjed List Archive Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:56:27 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19017#msg-19017 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19017#msg-19017 between Torah and life that you refer to and how that affects methodology of Gemara study. The method of "halacha l'maase" learning that currently takes place in Traditional yeshivot, kollelim, and other institutions is very similar to that employed by Rav Kook in Halacha Berura. Why should that be objectionable to the Modern Orthodox community? I would appreciate any references you could offer. Thank you.]]> Yeshai Koenigsberg Lookjed List Archive Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:46:20 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19006#msg-19006 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19006#msg-19006
Although I am retired from teaching, the problems raised in the
teaching of Gemorah, and not just "why", are probably more important
than the orginal problem. Pedagogically, TBSP should be taught as it
historically developed. By restoring it to the curriculum, modern
Jewish educators have re-emphasized the mishna component in its
composition.

In one school where I taught, the curriculum included study of Midrash
Halachah, in this case the Mekhilta, accompanying the study of Sefer
Shemot. As an introduction to rabbinic hermeneutics and the concept of
"machloket", presented the student with the missing link between
Torah text and TBSP. Sorry, but the same cannot be accomplished by
studying Chumash with Rashi.

Yosef Goldberg]]> Yosef Goldberg Lookjed List Archive Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:06:19 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19005#msg-19005 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19005#msg-19005
It's been a long time already since I first subscribed to Lookjed and quietly enjoyed "listening" and learning from all that is put forth in this wonderful forum. This is the first time I dare react in writing myself. A short background: I'm a more than 30 years educator (most of them in Mexico City, 7 in Israel), only the last 10 of them in the realm of Jewish Studies (clarification: here we call Jewish History, Chagim, Israel and Tanach- Jewish Studies) and, this, only focusing in the didactics of this area and aiming at trying to make Jewish Studies in Mexico gain at least the same status as general studies among students (and parents). Although I was raised in an orthodox home, I attended a secular school and I now could be called a "chilonit" with a strong inclination to tradition and conviction of the need to instill the love and knowledge of Judaism in our students (I must make clear that we have, only in Mexico City, 8 day schools- besides some 4 yeshivot-, most of them secular but in all of which students learn Tanach and Jewish Thought).

I now teach at the Universidad Hebraica de Mexico, and coordinate a 2-year course on new methodologies for the teaching of Judaic Studies, aimed at preparing Education graduates to teach specifically at our schools. I had all my 4th semester students subscribe to this mail list as a way for them to develop their interest in Jewish Education further and keep up to date regarding the contemporary discourse in this respect.

Having told you all this, I would like to express my concern regarding the undoubtedly wise and interesting comments put forth in the mail list. All of them refer to orthodox students and teachers. And then, my question is not "Why teach Gemara?", but "Why teach Gemara (or Mishna, midrash, etc.) only to the orthodox?" It's obvious not I nor the secular teachers-to-be I teach (there are some orthodox ones, too) are going to change the school's or the students families' approach to Judaism, but isn't it also "our" roots, our philosophy of life and our source of values even if we/they don't live strictly by Halacha?

Thank you very much for all the insights I've gained in this forum.

Cecilia Rozen
Universidad Hebraica de Mexico
Mexico City
schnadow@prodigy.net.mx]]> Cecilia Rozen Lookjed List Archive Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:03:52 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19003#msg-19003 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19003#msg-19003
I am, however, a chumash teacher for the last two decades, and mother of boys.
What I have observed is that gemara is extremely complex -- layers of presumed understandings, discursive tangents that take you far away from the main discussion, plenty of ambiguity, and very tightly packed. Aside from the aggadata section, it can also be somewhat boring. There's a lot of talking heads.

For some kids, the text just washes over them, and they lose track of the main discussion - or why it's personally relevant.

In a sense, we're requiring all boys 10+ to enter law school. While this may be great for those who naturally grasp the argumentation and gain the skill of logic and analysis, I think many are struggling just to stay on top of the text.

All this isn't really an answer to the question, but more observations on the challenges of teaching it.

The last point I'd add, is that I'd love to see some inspiration - the kind of hashkafa changing shift that can happen when learning Ramban, Kli Yakar, etc., as well as a "ולכן " - a practical application about how this is going to impact their life and change them as a person.]]> Leah Perl Shollar Lookjed List Archive Mon, 18 Oct 2010 03:41:27 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19002#msg-19002 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19002#msg-19002
I started high school with 3 years of very rudimentary mishna under my belt. Either I was a poor student in grades 6-8 and have forgotten, or the curriculum said very little about an amora vs. a tanna or much else by way of contextualizing the mishna. I learned to compute a sha'ah and memorize whose opinion stated what regarding when to say shma in the morning and evening. I don't recall much else. So in high school, I was placed in a class with students with limited backgrounds. We worked on vocabulary and the basics of gemara. Most students hated it -- I mean, it was a 3+ hour shiur, daily, and if you aren't interested in being in school, or with this rebbe, that's gotta stink. I loved it. If I could have stayed with the rebbe and skipped math, science and history, I would have done it and my GPA would have thanked me. But in school, you take what is required and I plodded through Chem and Trig.

By the next year, I moved up a track. Again, many kids resented most everything about shiur, from the rebbe to the room. I blossomed. I was still at a relatively "low" level, but I was thirsting for more. The next year, when I was moved up into a much higher shiur, I again thrived (throve?). The subtle arguments, the wending logic, the layers of interpretation, and the knowledge that there was always room for even more innovation -- that I could stumble upon a question that no one had asked and it would be as valid as something studied over the last 2000 years. The combination of frontal learning, chevrusa time and a variety of testing modalities really worked for me. I wasn't bored (usually) and the classroom approach welcomed challenge and the rebbe was willing to explore tangents and derive meaning from text whcih impacted on my practice and beliefs. Meanwhile, physics and geometry crushed my spirit.

By the time I went to college, I was overprepared. I took an intermediate Talmud class expecting an easy A and got a C (as did the other yeshiva student in the class). I was told, in class that I "think too much" and that I "ask too many questions." And in fact, it took until my senior year that I found a college class which made me think on anything approaching a level of 9th grade gemara (it was a philosophy class which demanded that the students find a nafka mina between two statements of Aristotle).

Gemara taught me to think. It taught me intellectual honesty mixed with freedom. It taught me that the devil is in the details but the big picture matters. It taxed my memory and it drove my creative side. It helped me appreciate the relevance of the esoteric and the transcendence of the mundane. I learned about structure, development, device, character and all sorts of tools that I used when teaching Shakespeare, years later. It taught me not to wait for the bell or measure progress by page numbers.

But I am not every student, and I know that someone could wax poetic about how math class changed his life, while I sit here and still feel the pain of consistently impossible math topics and horrible teachers. We DO think that the subjects we teach are valid and necessary, and we defend teaching them because we think that they contribute on the level of both specific knowledge and general intellectual development. A future English major does have to take pre-calc and physics, while a future engineer does have to read novels. Unless we rethink our entire approach to schooling (which I am currently doing and I have some revolutionary ideas...) , we have to see that a subject like Talmud has some underlying value, even without the formal background of solid chumash or mishna. It is all in how it is taught and the connection the teacher makes to the student, a truth resident in all subject teaching. Maybe it has to do with heritage, maybe with legal development, or logical thought or maybe with something else. But it is there and the experience can be made into a positive or negative one.

For some reason, I loved sitting with a rebbe for 3 hours and delving into the gemara and my friends preferred trig. There is no singular explanation for the variety of reactions students have to classes, but when a teacher in either subject goes into the classroom, he has to see that there is the potential for many outcomes and has to work to draw in those who are not naturally connected.

So why do we teach it? Because it is somehow who we are. Because it adds to the mind's growth. Because it is there. I don't know. I'm just glad we do.]]> Daniel Rosen Lookjed List Archive Mon, 18 Oct 2010 03:39:36 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19000#msg-19000 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,19000#msg-19000
Perhaps it would be of worth to those interested in the posted question.]]> Ken Leitner Lookjed List Archive Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:38:29 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,18999#msg-18999 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,18999#msg-18999
1. It should not go unnoticed that the contributions are, in fact, diverse.

It would be all too easy to pile up the answers, and the rhetorical energy that they demonstrate, and assume that they all lead exactly to exactly the same place. They do not. In particular, the pedagogic choices that we make depend a great deal on our answer to the question of why we are teaching this material in the first place.

How do we structure the material? What texts do we select to teach? What questions do we ask the students, and what counts as a good answer? What skills are we trying to develop? What do we think is characteristically hard about this material? All of these, and more, depend (in part) on what we think the purpose is. In other words, I am encouraging the question, "If we believe this to be true (about the purpose of the subject), how might we want to teach?"

(I have written about this as the issue of multiple orientations to the subject here - [www.brandeis.edu] - and in an expanded version here - [www.informaworld.com].)


2. I just said that all of the questions that I listed depend (in part) on what we think the purpose is. What else do they depend on?

Well, a number of things (conceptions of learning, for example), but especially on our conception of the subject matter. What do we think this thing called Talmud or Toshba or sifrut Hazal (rabbinic literature) is? If we were to explain what it is to an outsider, what would we say? What examples would we use? Is it, paradigmatically, shaqla ve-tarya, the give-and-take of halakhic/interpretive argumentation? Is it the expression of the values of the rabbis? Is it, in some sense, God's word -- and in what sense? What are its boundaries? What's in and what's out?

Here, too, there is diversity of opinion. As well there should be; I would hardly argue for a forced unanimity. But we should be as aware as possible of that diversity in order to be as aware as possible of our own conception and the choices that we make on that basis.


3. Finally, in a related observation, the question as framed leaves open the question of where and who and how. We could pursue an analogous question, "Why study mathematics?", but at that level of generality, we might get answers ranging from the promotion of basic numeracy to the beauty of symbolic systems that express fundamental truths about the universe. Are they both answers to the same question? Not really. I think that, in practice, we are better served by finer grained questions about specific contexts for teaching and learning.

Jon A. Levisohn
Brandeis University]]> Jon A. Levisohn Lookjed List Archive Sun, 17 Oct 2010 03:51:23 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,18998#msg-18998 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,18998#msg-18998
When? To Whom? Being able to learn Gemora is dependent on pre-requisites that include cognitive abilities, language readiness, and prior knowledge. Several programs ensure prerequisite skills and a structured approach, such as Zilbermann, Barka’i, and Rav Meir Pogrow. There is no reason to teach Gemora to kids who have insufficient background in Chumash, Nach and mishnah. Yet this is what is happening in many frameworks. This system either doesn’t work or works poorly. When exactly did we decide that “ben esser lamishna” should become “ben esser la’talmud” especially in chutz la’aretz, but even for Hebrew speakers? One of the things that research has made clear in many advanced subject areas, is that starting early has no advantage aside from status. Kids who start later with stronger background skills, catch up very quickly and often surpass the early- starters.

What? It makes no sense to start teaching a masechet in Gemora to kids who are unfamiliar with that masechet in mishna. In addition, it is not clear, that deciding to teach THIS or that masechet in ninth grade, is suitable. Appropriacy is usually the other way around: Which masechet is appropriate fot THIS ninth grade? That may mean curricular shifts in a school on a yearly basis. Similarly, it may not be helpful to introduce tosfot/os too early. The question of bekiyut/us vs, iyun has a long history, but certainly, for kids for whom Biblical Hebrew , Rabbinic Hebrew (lashon chazal) and Aramaic are second, third and fourth languages, and who are struggling with any or all of these, adding tosfot would seem a questionable pedagogy.

How? Mishna is in Hebrew. Gemora by and large is not. So Mishna helps as far as structure and content but not language. When my son, who has ADD and is dyslexic, was a year before learning gemora, we did chumash with Onkelos, 10 minutes a day. We got through all of Bereishit and all of Shemot by the end of the year, and he never had a problem with gemora, in spite of the differences between Aramit Glilit and Aramit Bavlit. Not all kids need preparatory learning, but at least some do. Another way of doing this, is to teach some familiar midrashim (familiar to the students) that appear in Aaramit in the gemora, before introducing gemora learning itself. The content is not new. The language is. Relevance is another big issue. We do not teach legal issues of torts, taxation, jurisdiction, contracts in English (or modern Hebrew), yet we fully expect kids to be passionate about such issues in Aramaic. It wouldn’t hurt for social studies (civics) or ezrachut (Israeli curriculum) programs to pick up on some parallel issues. There are many amazing teachers of gemora, so I will not discuss the pedagogy of teaching sugyot,. But no other consideration is as important as a good teacher.

How much? This depends on curricular goals. What is the purpose of teaching gemora in your school? Is it preparatory to being able to follow “daf yomi” (and today is the yahrzeit of reb Meir Shapiro, 7 Cheshvan), or is it preparatory to being able to handle the more intense ‘shakla ve’tariya’ of learning? The lower the curricular goals, the less curricular time will be devoted and the lower the ultimate skills of students.

Dr. Debbie Lifschitz]]> Debbie Lifschitz Lookjed List Archive Sun, 17 Oct 2010 03:44:02 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,18997#msg-18997 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,18997#msg-18997
Thank you for generating this valuable conversation. I want to climb on the shoulders of those who have already answered by making the following programmatic introductions:

1) Many contributors do not separate the question of why Talmud should be taught in high school from the question of why Talmud should be studied (which I have written about here). But there may be things worth studying that nonetheless should not be taught to high school students, and things that should be taught in high school that would be puerile as adult intellectual pursuits.

2) Many contributors treat “teaching Talmud” as a single activity engaged in across the Orthodox educational community. But the justifications offered by A often do not justify the teaching activity engaged in by B. In fact, most schools teach only a small subsection of Talmud, and sometimes only in one particular fashion. Teaching aggadeta b’iyyun is not a traditional teaching activity, for example.

Given those premises, it seems to me that we can talk about two types of justifications:
a) allowing students to gain a particular experience or understanding
b) allowing students the opportunity to form a relationship with the text
The first set requires advocating a particular mode of study, and must concede that teaching in other modes may not be a valuable use of teaching time. The second, however, can endorse any mode of study that brings students into relationship with the text.

Why would we care about a relationship with the text? Here we can make a further chakirah:
a) Understanding the past gives meaning to our present Jewish lives
b) Understanding the past is a prerequisite for creatively developing our future Jewish lives, both as individuals and as a people.
The first approach sees learning largely as a self-service, the second as a responsibility.

In other words: In a static and unthreatened Jewish community, learning gemara may not be essential. It may be no coincidence that the rise of the yeshiva roughly parallels the rise of the Haskalah.

Furthermore: In the second approach, arguments about methodology are not so much about how best to serve the students, as about what we want Torah to look like in the future. We might teach aggadeta not because students are turned off by pure Brisker lomdus – some are, some aren’t, and I tend to think that the variable is more teacher interest and ability than the innate capacity of the derekh – but because we think that they ought to live religious lives that integrate narrative and hashkafah, rather than being halakhocentric; and conversely, we teach Brisk because we genuinely see Halakhic Man as an ideal. Those who teach aggadeta think that students who care only about Brisker concepts are religiously deficient, no matter how inspired; those who teach only chakirot think that students who want aggadeta are infected by subjectivism; and those who teach only aliba dehilkheta think that both have abandoned the discipline and responsibilities of practice for intellectual or spiritual self-indulgence.

The critique that Kalman Neuman cites from Rav Shagar, that Modern Orthodoxy thinks about Torah study through a chareidi lens, is powerful, but I think the proper response is not to radically deemphasize Talmud, but rather to develop a method and content of Talmud teaching that explicitly looks to the future as well as the past.

I look forward to addressing the challenge posed by Rav Lebor, and especially the fascinating and productive suggestion of Rabbi Simkovich, in a future post.

Bivrakhah,
Rabbi Aryeh Klapper
Dean, The Center for Modern Torah Leadership
www.torahleadership.org]]> Aryeh Klapper Lookjed List Archive Sun, 17 Oct 2010 03:40:31 -0600 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,18993#msg-18993 http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,18948,18993#msg-18993
I would like to second the sentiments expressed by David Gleicher concerning the teaching of Gemara. In fact, I think that my stay at YU may have overlapped David’s time there. I have not enjoyed the page by page approach to studying Gemara that is universally followed in Jewish schools. It was something that always bothered my late father who had studied in Yeshivot in Europe before the war and who after turning to any page of the Gemara followed by a quick review of Rashi and Tosafos could explain the sugyot found therein.

Today I have a renewed interest in the Gemara, but not as a collection of legal discussions but as a chronicle of Jewish life in Israel and in Babylonia at the time of the Mishna and Gemara; approximately 70 CE to 500 CE. I discovered that manner of viewing the Gemara after being exposed for the first time (in my mid 40’s) to the way the Gemara is studied in universities. That view of the Gemara opens up to you as soon as you study the Gemara, not page by page, but by topic. Many Jewish Studies professors use that method of study to trace the development of specific areas within Jewish law. What you notice when you study the Gemara by topic is that you are bringing organization to a set of books that are disorganized, a statement that I believe no one on this board would dispute. I personally have used this method to trace the origin of the words and structure of the Siddur. By viewing the Mishna and the Gemara as representing different periods of Jewish History, I have concluded that the Seder Ha’Tephilot during the time of the Mishna was substantially different than at the time of the Gemara. Ask yourself: are you aware of any Mishna that links the recital of Kriyas Shema to the recital of Shemona Esrei? That link, Semichas Geula L’Tefila, appears on the scene only in the time of the Gemara and it is not clear that even at that time, the rule was universally accepted.

And so I have wondered: are there others like myself who did not enjoy studying the Gemara page by page? Could those students develop a taste for Gemara if (a) they are provided the history of what was happening in both Israel and Babylonia during the period of the Gemara and (b) they are taught the Gemara by topic. Given the access we all have to digitized copies of the Gemara, designing courses that teach the Gemara by topic is not difficult. May I suggest the following four year high school curriculum: Family Law, followed by Torts (Nezikin), a year of Criminal Law and conclude with Shabbos and the Holidays.

Abe Katz
Execuutive Director
The Beurei Hatefila Institute
www.beureihatefila.com]]> Abe Katz Lookjed List Archive Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:50:26 -0600