My Comments about Teaching Talmud –

Posted on Lookjed online discussion group

of Bar Ilan University - arranged chronologically

 

 

 

Author: Rabbi Moshe J. Yeres (---.cc.biu.ac.il)
Date:   12-14-01 00:00

different approach to teaching Mishna and Talmud

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 15:00:20 -0500
From: Rabbi Moshe & Esty Yeres <>
To: lookjed@mail.biu.ac.il

Regarding Dr. Pinchas Hayman's methodological approach to teaching Talmud,
posted on Dec. 3:

I am acquainted with the methodological approaches that Dr. Hayman offers
in his comments, i.e. identification and clarification of sources and
layers in Mishnaic, Talmudic and anonymous sections of the Talmud,
scholarly apparatus, analysis, mehkar hatalmud, etc. (as indeed he lays
out in an organized fashion in his articles linked on the Dec 3 posting),
and recognize their validity for scholarly and methodological analysis in
understanding the origins and development of the present Talmudic text.
That notwithstanding, I am not convinced that this is the proper method
for teaching Talmud at the High School level, at least not for many of us.
My concerns fall into two categories.

1) I am concerned that the level of Talmud fluency and comfort that most
present high school students have and maintain, (and this is most
especially true where their elementary school Talmud experience has not
been intensive), is such that they first need to understand the text as it
is, prior to any attempt to deconstruct it. A medical student needs first
to know his anatomy before he attempts to successfully dissect. My
experience makes me believe that students in Modern Orthodox and community
high schools do not always have all the lanes of the Talmud roadmap down
pat. Basic and key points, such as sugyah structure (as presently
constituted), key vocabulary terms and phrases, and an appreciation for
the page of Talmud as it meets are eye, are not always sufficiently
developed for students to attempt to understand the genesis of the text
itself that Dr. Hayman feels is important. Can we actually expect
students to appreciate the analysis of the formation of the text,
invisible layer by invisible layer, when they are unable to feel
completely comfortable at understanding on their own, a new text (seen for
the first time) without a translation aid?

2) Personal experience has shown that most students, at least at our
school, tend to opt for and enjoy Talmud primarily because of the
intellectual hook. They enjoy the didactic, the shakla vetarya, svara
development, chakirot etc. Quite honestly, scholarly sugya analysis is
just not as exciting. We've all heard the expression - "a gemara kup".
That is not just a critique (positive usually) of the "mental gymnastics"
needed to analyze most standard Talmudic sugyot, but of a recognition that
what tends to draw most people to Talmud, and is the standard for
successful Talmud study, is the intellectual stamina needed to stay with
the logic and illogic that the sugyah and its protagonists tend to banter
back and forth on. The sugyah comes alive and the student is motivated to
get into the ring with the greatest of the Tannaim, Amoraim, Rishonim and
Acharonim.(See Rav Soloveitchik's shiur about "the experience of the Rosh
Yeshiva" in chapter 1 of Rabbi A. Besdin's Reflections of the Rav vol. 2.)
I want to excite my students about the Talmud, and I want that excitement
to challenge their minds. I do want them to know that there are different
layers in any sugya, and that an Amoraic statement has a different
significance from a Mishnaic statement, and is also not the same as
material that is quoted anonymously in the sugya. But I think they would
miss the excitement if I stopped there, or even if that was the intended
goal of the lesson.

So while it is as important to the understanding of Talmudic text, (as it
is to the understanding of any text), that it be subjected to rigorous
structural analysis, I don't find that it cuts the mustard of motivation
for most high school students.

Let's get the kids into the loop. Let's train our students to begin to
really understand Talmud, to get excited about it. When we know that they
have grown their wings, then we can let them fly, and they'll fly high.

Rabbi Moshe J. Yeres Ph.D.
Department Head Talmud/Rabbinics
Community Hebrew Academy of Toronto
CHAT - Richmond Hill Campus
51 Wright St.
Richmond Hill, Ontario
L4C 4A2 CANADA

phone +905.787.8772
fax +905.787.8773
email: mjyeres@pathcom.com

 

 

Author: Rabbi Moshe J. Yeres (---.cc.biu.ac.il)
Date:   12-28-01 00:00


Aaron Ross and Dr. Pinchas Hayman took issue with some of my remarks about
Dr. Hayman's approach of introducing sugyah text analysis to younger
grades.

Some notes regarding the comments of Aaron Ross:

Almost everyone who has ever studied Talmud and taught it will recognize
the need to separate the different components of a sugya, both linearly
(kushya and terutz) and chronologically (Tannaic, Amoraic, etc.). It would
also stand to reason that discussions in a society that used Aramaic as
its lingua franca (Amoraic Era) would tend to be in Aramaic sprinkled with
some Hebraisms, while Tannaitic and other texts quoted in those
discussions would tend to be in Hebrew, the written language. No one
would quibble with that. I congratulate Rabbi Ross, for what was I'm sure
a very successful lesson with his Grade 8 students, in "letting" the class
made that discovery in a hands-on fashion.

Moreso, we would be doing an injustice, if when studying a sugyah we did
not make our students aware of the different components and layers that
make it up. The Talmudic sugyah is not a two dimensional document with
statements by a single author.

My concern is that Dr. Hayman's proposal goes much further and puts the
Dagesh on teaching the "separation of the binding halakhic traditions from
the Amoraic period from the interpretative, non-binding later material,
and only afterward on the conceptual analysis of specific materials from
one period or the other." One of the basic tenets of his study is the
"recognition of the various materials through technical means: earlier
material was edited with the name of the tradent [sic] attached to the
tradition, while later material, which accumulated unedited...was left as
an anonymous text." (Pinchas Hayman, "Implications of Academic Approaches
to the Study of the Babylonian Talmud for the Beliefs and Religious
Attitudes of the Student,"
http://www.biu.ac.il/ICJI/lookstein/resource/docs/hayman.doc )

This methodology, upon which modern Talmudic scholarship is founded and
developed, is both important and significant for gaining an
historiographical understanding of the genesis and development of each
component of the sugya. However, I believe that it is both far too complex
and technical for younger students and detracts from other goals that can
best be applied at this age and stage in the students' Talmud study. I
believe that students in most Modern Orthodox and community schools have
not yet had sufficient exposure to the Sea of Talmud in order to make this
methodology meaningful, useful or interesting for that matter. It is like
trying to teach students to stylistically and linguistically analyze a
Shakespearean play before they have mastered how to compose an English
composition. Unfortunately, limitations in our programs and time do not
give our students the 20-25 hours a week in Talmud study that students in
Israeli (and other intense style) Yeshivot get. So while my comments were
written in the context of high school students, I would apply them kal
vachomer ben bno shel kal vachomer to younger students.

It would probably be important for Aaron Ross to read or review for
himself some of the scholarly literature on modern mehkar hatalmud
methodology and decide afterwards how applicable it really is for
"average" grade 8 students.

To my good friend Dr. Pinchas Hayman, with whom I shared many an hour
studying and discussing issues in mehkar hatalmud and specifically the
role of anonymous material: the issue is not the significance of the study
of this material, the issue is when. Lakol zman. The talmudic sugya,
being what it is, a complicated didactic of discussions in a foreign
tongue (even to the student taught in an Ivrit b'Ivrit school), it is
imperative that students get a firm and comfortable grounding in the text,
as it meets the eye, before they can appreciate the wisdom gained from
deciphering its layers and the implications of that. My disagreement with
Dr. Hayman is not in the validity of the approach; rather in the timing of
its introduction to student study. In fact, as one who has studied Talmud
using the approaches of modern mehkar hatalmud, and who accepts the merits
of its approach for persons who have a firm grounding in Talmudic texts, I
encourage readers of this forum to read Dr. Hayman's articles which can be
found at: http://www.lookstein.org/articles/haymanp1.htm and
http://www.biu.ac.il/ICJI/lookstein/resource/docs/hayman.doc . I just feel
that it is not appropriate to be introduced early on, especially at the
expense of the "intellectual hook".

Rabbi Moshe J. Yeres Ph.D.
Department Head Talmud/Rabbinics
CHAT - Richmond Hill Campus
51 Wright St.
Richmond Hill Ontario
L4C 4A2 CANADA

phone +905.787.8772
fax +905.787.8773
email: mjyeres@pathcom.com

 

 

Author: Rabbi Moshe J. Yeres (---.cc.biu.ac.il)
Date:   02-20-03 00:00

Rabbi Meshulam Gotlieb of Bar Ilan recently wrote to defend the Talmud
study approach of his colleague, and my friend, Dr. Pinchas Hayman. This
topic has already been discussed in this Lookjed forum about 13 months
ago. My opinions were stated during that earlier discussion. I therefore
point the interested reader to the Lookjed archives (circa Dec. 2001-Feb.
2002) which contain the entire interesting online discussion of a number
of educators (both pro and con) on this matter.

I would just like to note what I believe to be the most significant part
of this issue. The main reason for students struggling with Talmud has to
do primarily with the complexity of the material and the need to get
students to actively engage in deductive and inductive reasoning on a wide
range of topics. While other things, such as language, page layout and
time constraints also play a role, it appears clear to me that student
challenges with Talmud revolve primarily around the intricacy and
sophistication of the literature. The study of Talmudic material is at the
same time both very holistic and yet also very particular about detail.
The reader is referred to my article, Issues in Talmud Curricular
Development, found at: http://www.chatrh.org/yeres/talmcurr.htm .

Contrary to R. Gotlieb's premise about teacher enthusiasm being a
hindrance to Talmud study, I would suggest that most good Jewish studies
educators in most Judaic studies disciplines are enthusiastic about the
text or material that they are teaching. The Talmud teacher enthusiasm
that R. Gotlieb seems to focus in on, however, comes about usually after
the teacher has ploughed through and understood a difficult complicated
Talmudic text. Students initially share the teacher's enthusiasm, but tend
to fall off when they are unable to stay with the intellectual rigor of
the material. The upshot is that the teacher remains enthusiastic until
the end of the piece; a student may bail out somewhere along the way. This
is all the more challenging when there are a number of disciplines
competing with Talmud for the student's mental attention.

I do not know that there is a complete solution yet devised for this; but
I do not believe that the issue can be best addressed by simply having
students understand the layers that comprise the Talmudic sugyah.
Appreciating the layers of the sugyah is the easy part; it is the complex
interaction and the cross-topical discussions that create the real
challenge for students. If I spend a week analyzing a Tosafot's question
and answer and probing the underlying issues behind these questions and
answers, I need first to teach my students a number of different sugyot
quoted by Tosafot, introduce phrases and concepts from far a field, and
probe the logical lacunae or gaps in the ideas that Tosafot puts forth.
That is before I introduce Rishonim and other commentaries. By the time I
have completed developing the issues in Tosafot with all its secondary and
tertiary problems and discussions, not a few students have forgotten what
was the actual piece of Talmudic sugyah that Tosafot was commenting on.

That is the challenge - working with the lengthy complex nature of the
material. I know of no other form of literature, Jewish or other, that
even attempts to approach the complexity of Talmud study.

The issue really becomes: what is the best way to prepare the student for
success in this endeavor. I do not believe it is necessarily the
understanding of the Talmudic layers; students who do well with Mishna and
simple Rabbinic sources still often struggle in Talmud. The issue is to
foster for the students an adaptation to an active form of engaged
thinking and analysis. It is the process of this rigorous analysis that
students need to be exposed to and trained for to their best level
possible, that secondary school Talmud educators need to be working
toward.

I was once asked, by one of our school lay committees, to explain the
difference between teaching Toshba-Rabbinics and teaching Talmud. My
response was that Rabbinics is like teaching an English literature survey
course. Talmud, on the other hand, is like taking one act of a
Shakespearian play and subjecting it again and again to analysis, reading
the lines forward and backward, dissecting each word and phrase, trying to
look for hidden meaning and significance, and then comparing one's
analysis to similar and dissimilar literary forms and styles. The
comparison is simplistic; but it underscores the rigorous and complex
nature of Talmud study. The successful Talmud student is one who is able
to continually attack the text with that rigor. The goal and challenge of
the Talmud educator is to train the student to do just that.

Rabbi Moshe J. Yeres Ph.D.

Head Talmud/Rabbinics
Edline Site Administrator
Community Hebrew Academy of Toronto

 

 

Author: Rabbi Moshe J. Yeres (---.cc.biu.ac.il)
Date:   02-27-03 00:00



I want to thank Rabbi Gotlieb for raising the issue of approaches to
teaching Talmud once again on these pages of the Lookjed forum. I am
sorry if he felt that I meant anything less than a superlative of his
"milchamta shel Torah" when I alluded to his "defense" of Dr. Hayman's
approach to Talmud study. Permit me a few responses and comments.

I must confess that my use of the term Talmud and not "gemara" has no
other special meaning and significance except to try accurately identify
the literature under discussion. Anything more is fanciful drush and
pilpul. In fact I was sort of surprised that Rabbi Gotlieb who is
championing a form of mekhkar hatalmud would be insistent on using
"gemara" so frequently (and apparently with real conviction).

I believe that a careful reading of Rabbi Gotlieb's article will indicate
that I tried to accurately capture the sense of Rabbi Gotlieb's article
that teacher enthusiasm, if not properly channeled, can play a negative
role in the processing of Talmud information to students. Rabbi Gotlieb
wrote that "the real stumbling block is that the gemara teachers love the
text called gemara. They believe that everyone else will.". What R
Gotlieb was of course referring to was the teacher's enthusiasm not being
sufficient to sustain class interest in the material. And that is what I
tried to address in my comments about developing the intellectual level of
discussion in the Talmud classroom.

The extension of my point about teaching the Tosafot and trying to return
to the Talmud sugyah after a week, is not, as Rabbi Gotlieb would want to
suggest, about searching for balance and the need to spend time in the
layering of the sugyah. It is the exact opposite: what it all comes down
to it, Tosafot usually views the sugyah as a unified whole, not through
the prism of its "layers." Therefore, to understand Tosafot, not only is
it not critical to know the layers, but it may actually mitigate against
appreciating the premises that Tosafot worked with. The classroom study of
"layers" dissects the sugyah in a much different way than Tosafot and many
Rishonim looked at the Talmudic text.

It is of course important to note that different approaches to Talmud
study are as old as "Sinai ve'Oker Harim". There surely is not one single
approach that can maintain exclusivity on the subject matter. But the
issue here is: what are our goals in best teaching Talmud to younger
students. Time constraints do not permit us to teach it all; what do we
want to leave our students with?

Admittedly, my bias and history is in teaching High school students where
we can expect intellectual capabilities that are more developed and
mature. My point, though, is that teaching Talmud is teaching more than
analyzing a text and its layers; it is teaching a way to think and to
question within the didactic of the Oral Law; and I believe that this the
more valuable life skill (at least for my students). Anyone can pick up an
Artscroll or Steinzaltz Talmud and read the text. Talmud classes are
available (thanks in part to the success of Daf Yomi). But thinking, in
Talmud, requires training, instruction and guidance.

Perhaps my approach is, as R. Gotlieb seems to flag me on, a somewhat
exclusive one. It is surely true that the intellectual approach works best
with intellectual students; students who cannot stay with the "flow" of
the sugyah and its commentaries and analysis do not enjoy this approach as
much. It appears that Rabbi Gotlieb seems to be looking for a Talmud
program especially for the "non-gemara" student, to use his term. But I
think the term actually begs the question. Perhaps the "non-gemara"
student should not always be channeled into a Talmud track, if they do not
enjoy the intellectual hook. Without trying to sound reactionary, Jewish
education did not always include Talmud study for most students. For many
educated individuals the "Chevra Mishnayot" was the focus of their
learning.

A course of study for "non gemara" students already exists in many
schools. It is often called Torah Shebe'al Peh and usually contains
excerpts from Talmud, Mishna, Medrash and other Rabbinic sources which are
studied by topic for the themes and values, not for intellectual prowess.
Another alternative, which has been suggested, is the study of Mishneh
Torah, as the Rambam has stripped away the intellectual shakla vetarya of
the Talmud and kept the key ideas and halachot (though admittedly Rambam
study has spawned its own intellectual analytical literature).

Once again, though I obviously do not agree with all that Rabbi Gotlieb
has written, I thank him for putting the issue of Talmud curriculum back
into the discussion of this forum. I conclude by once again suggesting
that interested parties look-up the earlier give and take on this topic in
the Lookjed Archives discussion of December 2001-February 2002.

Rabbi Moshe J. Yeres Ph.D.
Head Talmud/Rabbinics
Edline Site Administrator

Community Hebrew Academy of Toronto
CHAT - Richmond Hill Campus