While in Israel last week I heard about the following incident
A religious academic institution was developing a new method for teaching Talmud[1]. The intention was to introduce this new method to the Yeshivot and religious high schools in Israel.
However, because of the allegedly questionable religious integrity of some of the academics involved with the project a number of major rabbinic figures blocked this effort.
Research has shown – as has my own experience – that a large percentage of Yeshiva students have great difficulty studying Talmud on their own. Because most of the time spent in Yeshiva is dedicated to Talmud study this constitutes a major problem. Thus, new and innovative methods for teaching Talmud are long overdue. This new method would have addressed a problem that exists in most Yeshivot and religious high schools. Thus, the failure of this new program must be viewed as a lost opportunity.
It is not my place to judge the motives and actions of people much greater then myself; however, there is a much larger issue at the centre of this. There is a fear within the Yeshiva world that the Wissenschaft Das Yudenstam or the academic study of Judaism will destroy the purity of traditional Torah study, thus academia and its methods should be kept at bay.
The problem with this however, is that asking questions is an integral part of understanding any subject. As soon as one limits oneself to asking only certain types of questions and only looking at a given topic from certain angles one can never fully grasp the topic. How can one claim to be in charge of all the facts if one has limited ones line of inquiry? Thus, if traditional Torah study means limiting ones scope and depth of study then maybe it is not such a good thing to preserve. From the earliest times great Jewish thinkers and rabbinic figures have not shayed away from asking the most challenging of existential questions. Why are we now so worried about dealing with the challenges that modern academic research presents?
The Proverbs (22:6) mentors: “Teach the youth according to his ways so that when he grows old he should not depart from it.” The great Chassidic master Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady asked: When the student is young he is taught on a level that he can understand – “according to his way” so that eventually he should be able attain the true meaning of the subject. So why do we not want the mature student to depart from the first and more simplistic approach that he was taught in his youth?
The answer is that Judaism must be taught differently than other subjects. In high school a history teacher will often give a very general presentation of history glossing over many pertinent details so that the student can get a general picture without becoming confused by the detail. Often this approach gives a distorted picture of history. One hopes, however that the student will later take the time to study in depth and eventually grasp the true nature of the history studied.
Judaism works the other way round. The child first must be taught the simple truths. The child must know that there is one God, the Torah is divine and was written by Mosses our teacher. They must be taught about the sanctity of the oral law and the rabbinic precepts. Once the student has matured, s/he can start to analyze the truths taught to in their youth in greater depth, so that each of the truths can be fully understand in every aspect.
The rabbinic figures as educators have an obligation to teach the students “according to their ways.” Many High School students have not yet developed the intellectual tools needed to deal with confusing existential questions. If they become confused in their youth it will be difficult for the – now intellectually mature – student to recognize the truth that was taught originally. It is thus the responsibility of the teachers and rabbis to ensure that young students are not bombarded with confusing issues before they are able to handle it.
This is a very delicate act to balance: on the one hand ensuring that the student does not become confused and on the other hand not withholding certain key facts and tools that are vital for even preliminary study of texts. There may be a tendency to be over cautious in this respect. Often because of this cautious tendency the major questions never get asked and therefore never get adequate answers. Yes indeed confronting new questions and making use of new tools while at the same time not confusing our youth and maintaining the sanctity of our religion in a great challenge, but it is not a new one. Throughout our history our great sages have done just that from R. Sa’adia Gaon through Maimonides to R. Israel of Selant and Samson Raphael Hirsh etc the list goes on. Although it is difficult to blame anyone for being too cautious in this respect, its negative impact however, cannot be denied.
One thing is clear, however, a child must be taught in a clear unambiguous fashion. Only once they get older and are secure within their beliefs should they be encouraged to delve deeper and examine the issues from every angle. It is therefore extremely important for a child to go to a proper Jewish school. As important, however, is to ensure that the child does not get mixed messages from home and school.
[1] The method involved detaching the different layers of a given Talmudic text. Any piece of Talmudic dialogue is made up of Tannaitic text (recorded between 10-219 CE), Amoraic text (recorded between 219-500 CE) and anonymous Stamaitc gloss (exact time of redaction is unknown). The new method of teaching Talmud was to first teach that Tannaitic text on its own and then the Amoraic text on its own and subsequently the anonymous gloss. The benefits of this method are twofold, firstly, even if the student has difficulty understanding the more complicated anonymous gloss it would ensure that the simpler didactic Tannaitic and Amoraic text would be readily understood on its own. Secondly, it would accustom the student to recognize the different layers of the text thus making it easier to access.