The thirteenth century work by an unidentified Spanish scholar, Sefer ha-Hinukh, delineates the 613 mitzvot, associating each precept with a source in the weekly Torah portion. Preceding the introduction to his work, the author writes a short letter where we find the following passage [1] :

“…אמרתי במה אתרצה לבוא ולשמש לפי הגבורים, וכבר ביררו לנו הם כל הדברים? הלא בסדר תרי’ג מצוות על דרך הסדרים. אולי יתעוררו בהן מתוך כך הנערים, ישימו לב בהם בשבתות ובחגים, וישובו מהשתגע ברחוב הערים, לאור באור החיים, איש את רעהו הילדים רכים, ישאלו – מצוות שבת זו כמה? ומלאה הארץ דעה ומזמה.”

“…I said: With what shall I make myself acceptable to come and serve before the mighty ones, since they have already clarified all matters for us? Surely by arranging the 613 precepts according to the [weekly] portions. Perhaps, through this, the youth will be awakened by them, they will give their attention to them on Sabbaths and Festivals, and they will turn away from going wild in the street of the cities, to be enlightened by the light of the [eternal] life [2]. The youngsters of tender age will ask one another: How many precepts are there this Sabbath? And the earth shall be full of knowledge[3] and foresight [4].”

Towards the end of his introduction, the author returns to the purpose of his work:

“…לעורר לב הנער בני והילדים חבריו, בכל שבוע ושבוע אחר שילמדו אותו הסדר, בחשבון המצוות, ולהרגיל אותם בהן ולהתפיס מחשבתם במחשבת טהרה וחשבון של עיקר, טרם שיכניסו בלבם חשבונות של שחוק ושל מה-לך ומה-בכך, וגם כי יזקינו לא יסורו ממנו.”

“…in order to arouse the heart of the youth, my son, and the children who are his friends, every single week after they learn that [week’s] portion, with the reckoning of the precepts, and [in order to] make them familiar with them and to reconcile their thinking with the craft of purity and the reckoning of important [matters], before they bring into their hearts reckoning of foolery and of triviality and insignificance [5] , and furthermore [even] when they grow older, they will not depart from it [6].”

This purpose is restated a third time in an additional note at the end of the author’s work on Leviticus [7] and a fourth time at the beginning of the discussion of the red heifer [8]. The author’s desire to provide an alternative educational medium to teach his son and his son’s friends who were drawn to the street is indicated in the title of the work: Sefer ha-Hinukh – “The Book of Education” [9].

In a similar vein, Rabbi Menachem Ha-Meiri (Provence, 1239-1315), in his introduction to his commentary on Pirkei Avot reports the following tradition concerning the writing of the Sheeltot by Rav Aha Mi’shabha (Bavel, c.680 – Eretz Israel, 752) [10]:

“קבלנו קבלה ברורה על רב אחא ז’ל שהיה לו בן ולא היה לבו חפץ להיותו שוקד כלל. וחבר בעבורו ספר השאלתות כדי שבכל שבת ושבת כשיקראו הסדר יבאר לו בהלכות ידועות מן התלמוד.”

“We have received a clear tradition concerning Rav Aha, of blessed memory, who had a son who did not desire to be diligent [in study] at all. And he compiled for him the book Sheeltot, in order that every Shabbat when they read the [weekly] portion, he/it [Rav Aha or the Sheeltot?] will explain to him well-known laws from the Talmud.”

The Sheeltot is the oldest extant work from the geonic period, dating back to the eighth century, and Rav Aha was the earliest halakhic author after the close of the Talmud [11]. According to the testimony of Meiri, this work was not compiled for the sake of posterity, nor for the benefit of students of Jewish law trying to discover or uncover God’s will as mediated by the Rabbis, nor for use by scholars attempting to assess and quantify the vicissitudes borne by the halakhic system. Though the Sheeltot is a seminal source on all these accounts, its author’s purpose was far simpler: Rav Aha sought to facilitate his son’s connection with Jewish tradition, despite the latter’s disposition to avoid formal study [12]. Although the veracity of this report has been questioned by some [13], it suggests a further paradigm of a scholar searching for alternative educational methods in order to attract students who are otherwise uninterested in the subject material. It is interesting to note that both the scholars cited used a similar educational method: employing the weekly Torah portion as a starting point for teaching classic talmudic material. This method does not appear to be common in rabbinic literature, and it is questionable whether this particular method would be appropriate for the youth of today [14].

A classroom filled with pupils who have varying levels of interest in the subject material provides a difficult situation that is familiar to many educators. In such cases, teachers often gravitate towards the more interested students, being partial to their progress and forging relationships with them. This may come at the expense of time and effort invested in developing educational tools and methods for students less interested in the material. In addition, a reciprocal relationship between more interested pupils and the teacher may result from the greater attention given them by the teacher, often leaving less interested students further alienated. This reaction of educators towards more interested students is certainly understandable; in a profession where the fruits of our labours often ripen years after the young saplings have been nurtured, immediate success is eagerly lapped up. For Jewish educators this situation may be considered acute; if we deem the subject matter we teach to be of supreme import to the lives of all our students, how can we compromise on any student? Clearly, it is of paramount importance to invest precious time and energy in developing innovative education methodologies for students who do not naturally gravitate towards our heritage, so we can successfully impart the wonders of our valuable tradition.

[1] Sefer ha-Hinukh (Jerusalem: Machon Yerushalayim, 1988 [5748]), Vol. I, Missive from the Author of Sefer ha-Hinukh (Hebrew). The passage brought here follows the text of most manuscripts and the printed editions of Sefer ha-Hinukh. The Paris manuscript differs slightly in syntax but not in content, and is either a reworking of the author’s original words, a later version written by the author himself, or a combination of the two. In the above edition differences are shown. The translation here, as well as following translations, is mine.

The identity of the author of Sefer ha-Hinukh is unknown, though in his introduction he calls himself: “איש יהודי מבית לוי ברצלוני” “A Jewish man from the house of Levi , the Barcelonian”. On the identification of the author, see: הרב דוד מצגר, “ספר החינוך ומחברו”, in the above edition (herein: “Metzger”), pp. 15-19; מרדכי יהודה הלוי פרום, תורת הלוי – על ספר החינוך (ירושלים, תשי’ב), מבוא, עמ’ 15-5; רב חיים דב שעווועל (מהדיר), ספר החינוך (ירושלים: מוסד הרב קוק, תשכ’ב), מבוא, עמ’ ה-ז והנסמן; Charles Wengrov (translator), Sefer haHinnuch (Jerusalem, New York: Feldheim Publishers, 1978), Translator’s Preface, pp. vii-viii, xiii-xiv.
[2] Job 33:30.
[3] Isaiah 11:9.
[4] Proverbs 1:4.
[5] See B. Shabbat 150a and Rashi, s.v. shel melech.
[6] See Proverbs 22:6 – “חנך לנער על פי דרכו, גם כי יזקין לא יסור ממנה”.
[7] This additional note is not printed in many editions of the Sefer ha-Hinukh, but appears at the end of Vol 2, p. 578 of the aforementioned edition:

“…שאין הכוונה רק לחנך הנערים ולתת אל לבם, כי יש במצוות תועלות רבות גלויות לכל אדם כאשר יוכלון הבין בילדותם, ועל כן קראתי שם הספר חנוך, ועומק חכמתם ורוב תועלתם אם, יזכו ישיגו בם בימי זקנתם… גם אני אספר המושג אלי במעלות המצוות באזני בני וחבירי (בחלק מן הדפוסים מופיע “וחביריו”) יאכלו פרי מגדי (עי’ שיר השירים ד, טז), ישבעו תבואתי שאספתי אחרי הקוצרים בשדה (עי’ רות ב, ז) רבותי ודשתי במדושתי.”
[8] Mitzvah 397 (Vol 3, p. 110 of the aforementioned edition):

“אף על פי שמאלני לבי לכתוב רמזים מטעמי המצות שקדמו על צד הפשט, עם ההתנצלות שהמלאכה לחנך בה בני והנערים חבריו ישמרם א-ל, במצוה זו רפו ידי ואירא לפצות פי עליה כלל גם בפשט…”
[9] See note 7. This is the only place where the author explains the name of the work.
[10] Rabbi Menahem ha-Meiri (Shlomo Zalman Havlin, ed.), History of the Oral law and of Early Rabbinic Scholarship, Hebrew title:סדר הקבלה – היא הפתיחה לפירוש למסכת אבות, (Jerusalem, Cleveland: Ofeq Institute, 1992 [5752]), p. 123. In this work Meiri describes the history of Oral Law, citing the bearers of tradition and their literary contributions.
[11] On Rav Aha and his work the Sheeltot, see: Louis Ginzberg, Geonica (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1909), Vol. I (herein: “Ginzberg”), pp. 75-95; Samuel K. Mirsky (ed.), Sheeltot De Rab Ahai Gaon (Jerusalem: Sura Yeshiva University & Mosad Harav Kook, 1959 [5720], Vol. I, Introduction (Hebrew), (herein: “Mirsky”) pp. 1-22, especially p. 1-2 and 16-19.

[12] The statement about Rav Aha’s son that he “did not desire to be diligent [in study] at all” (לא היה לבו חפץ להיותו שוקד כלל) was perhaps written with the following Talmudic statement in mind (B. Avoda Zara 19a): “Rebbe said: A person can learn Torah [successfully] only from a topic that his heart desires, as it says: For the Torah of God is only in his desire” (כי אם בתורת ה’ חפצו (תה’ א, ב) – אמר רבי: אין אדם לומד תורה אלא ממקום שלבו חפץ, שנאמר: כי אם בתורת ה’ חפצו. The literal translation of the verse from Psalms reads: For his desire is only in the Torah of God, Rebbe reads the word ‘only’ to be referring to his desire rather than to the Torah. Rashi, s.v. heftzo notes that Rebbe learns this from the use of the possessive “heftzo” – his desire, rather than “hafetz”. For more on this topic, see further in the Talmud for an illustration and Rava’s slightly different version of this principle. See also Maharsha, on location; Mabit, Responsa 3:66; Maharshdam, Responsa, Yoreh Deah 132). From all the disciplines of Torah, Rav Aha’s son could not find any place where “his heart desired”.
[13] Ginzberg, p. 89: “In spite of all the reverence due to so a great a scholar as the Meiri, it is still difficult not to indulge in doubts of the trustworthiness of his tradition. We are expected to believe that the first work of importance after the close of the Talmud owed its existence to the laziness of an unruly boy.” Ginzberg proceeds to question the Meiri’s entire account of the Geonim, providing illustrations of inaccuracies in the Meiri’s work, see pp. 89ff. and p. 76 with n. 4. For a suggested justification of the Meiri’s tradition, see: Mirsky, p. 18-19.
[14] Currently, however, Rabbi Asher Weiss, author of Minhat Asher, employs this method in his weekly public lectures for adults in Jerusalem and Beitar Illit, and undoubtedly there are other Torah educators who use this method.

It is worthy to note that we have no testimony as to the success of either initiative: Did the Sheeltot attract Rav Aha’s disinterested son to Torah study? Were the youths in the neighbourhood of the author of Sefer ha-Hinukh drawn from the street to the beit midrash? Metzger (n. 7 at 15) makes the claim that indeed the Sefer ha-Hinukh was successful:

“ואכן הספר השיג את יעודו והיתה לו תפוצה רבה מיד סמוך ליצירתו. יעידון על כך הכתבי-יד הרבים שנשתיירו ממנו עד היום, למעלה מחמשה עשר. דבר שאינו שכיח בספרות התורנית שיצירתה בתקופה זו.”

However, one can hardly rely on the popularity of the work as evidence that it achieved its stated purpose of drawing youth from the streets. One cannot help but wonder what those youths did on the many weeks where the Torah portion contains no mitzvot. For instance, out of twelve Torah portions in the book of Genesis, only three have mitzvot.

Perhaps there is room for further study into the effectiveness of this method and its possible applications today.