Levi Cooper is a rabbi in Tzur Hadassah and teaches Jewish Studies at Machon Pardes and other university level programs in Jerusalem. He is Contributing Editor to Jewish Educational Leadership.
It is a long standing Jewish tradition to provide schooling for our children. According to one talmudic source, credit for establishing a system of schooling goes to Shimon ben Shetaḥ, one of the prominent sages during the Second Temple Period, who enacted legislation that provided for children to attend school.[1] Another passage in the Talmud credits Yehoshua ben Gamla, a Kohen Gadol towards the end of the Second Temple Period, with establishing schools in every locale.[2] Neither source, however, relates to the challenge of funding these institutions. Who took responsibility for teacher remuneration – the pupils, their parents or some central authority?[3] Was the opportunity to study in these schools open to all or only to those could afford school fees? These questions remain unanswered.
A fine example of an attempt to deal with the challenge of funding Jewish education comes from the Carpathian Mountains. In 1827, in the city of Munkács, then in Hungary,Regulations for the Support of Torah [Education] were enacted.[4] The original author of these regulations was Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh Shapira (1783-1841), later of Dynów, but at the time rabbi in Munkács. Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh served in the Munkács rabbinate for a brief period before returning to his native Galicia.[5]
The extant version of these regulations is the 1895 edition, apparently prepared for printing under the aegis of Rabbi Shlomo Shapira (1831-1893), the grandson of the original author, who in 1880 traveled from Galicia to serve as rabbi in Munkács. Rabbi Shlomo Shapira was succeeded by his son, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Shapira (1850-1913), and it was under his rule as rabbi of Munkács that the regulations were published.[6] According to the title page, the introduction and an endnote, the original manuscript was penned by Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh’s own hand and the printed version was transcribed from this autograph copy.[7]
While the regulations were originally enacted Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh, we have no evidence that this rabbi and hasidic master enacted similar regulations in other communities where he served. Since they were enacted, re-enacted and published in Munkács, it may be valid to view the regulations as tied to this city more than to a particular individual. Whether the regulations indeed reflect Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh’s legacy or the needs and atmosphere of Munkács, is a question I will leave unanswered.
At this time, I wish to concentrate on the content of the regulations, particularly in light of the financial challenges that accompany the establishment and daily operation of educational institutions; challenges that are invariably borne of our desire and commitment to provide Jewish education for all.
The central platform of the regulations was to provide Torah education for all Munkács children. This was a form of community sponsored compulsory schooling aimed at ensuring that the needy would not be left out as the wealthy employed private tutors. In this vein, the preamble to the regulations dismisses the suggestion that some people may not be able to study Torah:[8]
Let not a person say: ‘Behold my child is incapable of Torah [study] and will not succeed in Torah [study]’. Let not a person say so, for our Creator has already assured us And all your children will be taught of God and great shall be the peace of your children (Isaiah 54:13).
A further purpose emphasized in the preamble was to curb the spread of secular studies particularly amongst the wealthy.[9]
These goal of providing educational opportunities to all was not, however, the innovation of the regulations, for as the preamble acknowledged, providing schooling had been a Jewish value from time immemorial.[10] More immediately, Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh may have been following the example set by one of his teachers in Galicia: Rabbi Menaḥem Mendel of Rymanów (1745-1815) enacted regulations for his city just before his demise and one of the thirteen sections of these regulations deals with providing Torah study for the needy. This directive may be considered part of the backdrop of the Munkács regulations:[11]
To supervise the needy and poor who learn Torah, and also to support the study of Torah for all the children of the needy.
Nevertheless, as we shall presently see, the Munkács regulations go further than their predecessors in dealing with the financial aspects of providing universal education.
Significantly, the Munkács legislation called for the establishment of a Society –The Society for the Support of Torah [Education] – to oversee the implementation of the regulations. This society was perhaps the equivalent of a modern committee that functioned as an exclusive club. The purview of the Society included anyone who arrived from another city to study in Munkács for any period of time.[12] The regulations of the Society comprise six sections which I will briefly review, highlighting some of the most interesting aspects. The most pertinent and attention-grabbing section is the fourth section that deals with the well-known problem of raising money, so I will deal with that section last.
Section 1: Membership in the Society
The rules of membership in the Society were designed to fashion an elite coterie and to create the sense that it was a privilege to be a member.[13] In this vein, the list of members of the Society from its inception in 1827 was published in the 1895 edition, a list that takes up almost half of the booklet. This list does not merely provide the names of members, but also sings their praises in flowery language.[14] Membership in the Society thus provided the rare opportunity to be remembered for posterity.
The requirements of members set a high benchmark: Members were to avoid frivolity, social gatherings, the theatre, card playing and the like.[15] Members who were caught at one of these vices were to be fined by their colleagues and in the case of a second offense they were thrown out of the Society.[16] Clearly Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh sought paradigms rather than professionals. Thus the appearance of members was also to be exemplary: The author was well aware that many people no longer were careful about leaving their sidelocks and beard uncut; such people, however, were automatically disqualified for membership in the Society.[17]
Members were also obligated to study Torah for one hour each day before the prayer service or immediately afterwards. This is not to say that members needed to be rabbinic figures; on the contrary, there was a proviso for those who were unable to study Torah: Instead of learning Torah, they could read Psalms or recite Maamadot, that is, read the prescribed daily selections from the Bible and rabbinic literature.[18] A further indicator of the intended membership is the language of the preamble and of the regulations. Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh did not use the elaborate or talmudic language so often employed in rabbinic texts, rather he preferred a succinct and accessible text that could be read and understood even by the unlearned.[19] The recruitment pool was thus lay leaders and businessmen, not rabbis. The list of members published at the back of the 1895 edition confirms this as the names recorded is not a record of rabbinic personalities of the period. Yet money alone could not buy membership: Further in the regulations it specifically stipulated that a new member who was not considered appropriate should not be admitted to the Society “even in exchange for great sum”.[20]
Section 2: Eligibility for Assistance
The section on eligibility for receiving assistance from the Society deals wholly with behavior and appearance. Thus this section details the instructions that the Gabbai (sexton) of the Society must give the new student upon his arrival: Do not waste time, study with diligence, review the material when the teacher is not present, wear kosher tzitzit, if you are of bar-mitzvah age don tefillin, if you have cut your sidelocks in the past or grown your hair desist from these practices, pray with concentration and do not talk during the service, do not wear “foreign” clothing, meaning fashionable garments that were not worn by Jewish traditionalists at the time.[21] There is no mention of a need-based criterion for assistance. The idea was to use the Society as a mechanism to encourage certain behavior.
Section 3: Teachers
The section on teachers opens with material to be taught and the manner of instruction. There is an apparent emphasis on the teacher-student relationship.[22] Here too, however, the regulations provide for teachers’ public appearance and conduct, with the goal of ensuring that instructors were models of desired behavior.[23] Teachers were required to come with the students to Mashgiḥim (overseers) on a weekly basis for the students to be tested. The regulations make no secret of the fact that the goal of the test was not only to see whether the students knew the material but also to serve as a check on the teachers.[24]
The first three sections of Takanot Tamkhin Deorayta reveal that the Society had a dual purpose: The stated purpose was to provide universal Torah education for the children of Munkács. The further goal, abundantly clear from the content of the regulations, was a social goal – or rather a socializing goal – of encouraging certain practices, conduct and behavior.[25]
Section 5 and 6: Functionaries of the Society
The final two sections of the regulations detail the various functionaries of the Society: their responsibilities, appointment and tenure.
Let us return now to the fourth section and the challenge of raising money:
Section 4: Funding
Naturally the biggest challenge of providing education for all was procuring the requisite funds. This section of the regulations is perhaps the most fascinating. The layout of the 1895 edition suggests that those who prepared the book for print were aware that this section was the most significant for unlike the other sections Section 4 has an emboldened, double-spaced heading.[26] This section also contains more sub-sections than any other section.[27]
The expected growth in the student body necessitated a detailed program for raising money to fund the ambitious project. Initial membership dues were set and smaller weekly donations were collected.[28] An elaborate system of what could be termed ‘Tamkhin Deorayta Taxation’ was also instituted: A member who purchased a new garment for himself or for someone in his family would be required to donate 0.5% of the value of the new item to the coffers of the Society.[29] A special tax was also instituted on members who purchased a new barrel of wine.[30]
A set amount was to be given for a variety of life cycle events: If a member had a baby, began to teach his child how to read Hebrew or learn Bible or learn Talmud, celebrated a child’s bar-mitzvah or marriage – all these events called for a set donation. At these festivities, those honored with roles in the celebration, such as the Mohel (ritual circumciser), were also taxed.[31] Each event had a different tariff, reflecting its relative significance in nineteenth century Munkács society. Other events, such as appointment to a position of responsibility in the Society hierarchy, also called for a donation.[32] Various blessing recited in the synagogue were also a source of income for the Society.[33]
At that time, students often relied on householders’ generosity for their meals. A system of essen teg [literally “eating days”] was common whereby each student would have a different designated home where he would dine each day of the week.[34] Members of the Society were expected to bear a significant portion of this responsibility.[35]
With such a pervasive system of taxation, it once again becomes apparent that it would be the wealthier members of the community who could gain membership in the Society as the cost of membership in this restricted club would be to provide education for all.
The general public was not overlooked as a possible source of funds: Collection boxes were placed in public places to encourage people to make voluntary donations: guesthouses where visiting businessmen lodged, the rabbi’s home and the women’s mikveh.[36] At certain junctures during the year a public appeal was made in the synagogue and voluntary donations made on select festivals and after certain lifecycle events were declared for the benefit of the Society.[37] Representatives of the Society would frequent the marketplaces to collect donations from local and visiting businessmen.[38]
The 1895 edition added a further source of income: Proceeds from the sale of the published booklet were earmarked for the Society.[39]
The challenge of raising money to provide Jewish education for all is patent in the Munkács regulations. We are left, of course, to ponder whether the Tamkhin Deorayta Taxation system was successfully implemented. Did everyone pay their dues? Was taxation remitted willingly and promptly? Alas, we have no evidence as to whether the regulations operated smoothly and successfully not in its first implementation in 1827, nor in the 1895 re-enactment.
Two features of the regulations are, however, undeniable: The acceptance of responsibility and the formulation of a plan. The organized Jewish community of Munkács understood that providing Jewish education for all the children in the city was its responsibility. The Tamkhin Deorayta Society was established to fund this ambitious project. To this end they instituted a creative and comprehensive taxation system. The Jewish education of the children of Munkács in the nineteenth century was not to be neglected.
לוי יצחק קופר
י’ שבט תש”ע
[1]Y. Ketubot 32c (8:8). Apparently Shimon ben Shetaḥ’s legislation applied only to Jerusalem, see: יוסף שפרן, פרקי עיון בתולדות החינוך היהודי: מחקרים ובירורים בחינוך היהודי לאור המקורות, ירושלים תשמ”ה, כרך ראשון, עמ’ ז (herein: “Safran, Studies”)..
[2] Despite the circumspect manner in which he attained the High Priesthood (see B. Yoma 18a; B. Yevamot 61a), this act (together with another unconnected innovation, see M. Yoma 3:9) would redeem the legacy of Yehoshua ben Gamla in the eyes of the Sages (B. Bava Batra 21a).
On the value of Yehoshua ben Gamla’s contribution in light of the historical circumstances of his period, see Safran, Studies, vol 1, note 12 at pp.7-8:
לאור התפתחויות הרציניות בחיי עמנו בארץ בסוף הבית השני, התחזקה … הדעה, כי העתיד מונח בהכשרת הדורות ע”י חינוך. … זאת היתה … החזית העיקרית במלחמה על קיומנו הלאומי.
The Ben Gamla Charter School in Broward County, Florida is named in honor of Yehoshua ben Gamla, see: www.bengamla-charter.com.
[3]See, for instance, the explanation of Rabbi Yitzḥak Zeev Soloveitchik of Brisk (1886-1959) that the innovation of Yehoshua ben Gamla was placing the onus – financial and administrative – on the community (quoted in: מעתיקי שמועה: והוא חידו”ת … מרבינו … יצחק זאב הלוי … סאלאווייציק … שנעתקו מספרי תלמידיו…, בני ברק תשנ”א-תשנ”ג)
[4]The name of the regulations and the Society established to oversee their implementation hinted at the cosmic significance of providing Torah education for all (Takanot Tamkhin Deorayta (herein: “TTD”), p. 6a):
השתדלות שרו של עשו למנוע ח”ו מישראל תמכין דאורייתא, תקעו כף יעקב ועי”ז נחלשה כח הנבואה. ונתגברה יד עשו. וכאשר יהי’ התחזקות לישראל להיות ביניהם תמכי”ן דאורייתא אזי יתחלש כחו של עשו ותשיב לישראל הנבואה ב”ב.
This idea appears to be drawn from Zohar I 171a. The term “תמכין אורייתא” appears in Zohar I 8a. Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh also stressed the cosmic significance of teaching children (see TTD, p. 6b-7a).
The regulations give the year they were enacted as טו”ב לישרא”ל, that is [4]588 = 1827/8, see: TTD, section 4(1).
[5]Much has been written on the influential figure of Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh Shapira of Dynów, with significant attention to his writings and his legacy. His years in Munkács ended prematurely in dispute and the compilation of regulations discussed in this paper is one of two confirmed works from his brief sojourn in Munkács. The other work from this period is a different set of communal regulations published in Przemyśl1909 under the title אזהרות מהרצ”א (herein: “AM”), available at www.hebrewbooks.org/4681.
I have had the opportunity to discuss once aspect of Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh’s legacy in an earlier volume of this journal, see: “A Fellowship of Spiritual Development”, Jewish Educational Leadership, Vol. 6:1, Fall 2007, pp. 46-48. This paper does not explore the legacy of Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh of Dynów, as I shall explain presently.
[6]The 1895 edition of TTD is available at www.hebrewbooks.org/4770. This edition contains a few lines penned by Rabbi Shlomo Shapira in 1882, see: TTD, pp. 13b-14a.
The 1895 edition was recently reprinted at the back of another work by Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh:
ספר מעין גנים: ביאור יסודי התורה והאמונה, מהדורה חדשה, בני ברק תש”ס.
[7]TTD, title page; p. 1b; p. 20b.
[8]TTD, p. 6b.
[9]See TTD, pp. 4b-5a, 5b, 6b, 7a. This topic is beyond the scope of this paper, see my earlier article: “Seeking Spirituality Outside Torah”, Jewish Educational Leadership, Vol. 5:2, Winter 2007, pp. 44-46, where I make mention of Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh’s position.
[10]TTD, p. 3a ff. The example cited in the preamble is that of Yehoshua ben Gamla (above note 2). The author also recognized the work of the Vaad Arba Aratzot, the autonomous Jewish body responsible for law in the Polish commonwealth from ca. 1580 until 1764 (see: TTD, pp. 5a-b).
[11]BM, section 9. On the relationship between these BM regulations and AM, Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh’s other Munkács regulations, see note 8 above.
[12]TTD, p. 6a.
[13]This followed the model of membership in the Hevra Kadisha, the communal burial society. See also TTD, section 5(9) – at the annual general meeting (actually, annual general feast) seating was designated by seniority in the Society.
[14]TTD, pp. 12b-20b.
[15]TTD, sections 1(2), 1(3), 1(4) and 1(5). On card playing, see: “A Leisurely Game of Cards”, Jewish Educational Leadership, Vol. 6:2, Winter 2008, pp. 59-63.
[16]TTD, sections 1(4), 1(5), 1(8), 1(9) and 1(10). Sanctions on members was one of the items to be considered at the annual general meeting (section 5(10)), but was not under the authority of the Gabbaim (sextons) charged with the day to day running of the Society (section 6(5)).
[17]TTD, sections 1(6), 1(7) and 1(8).
[18]TTD, section 1(1).
Maamadot were introduced in the Middle Ages; they appear already in Seder Rav Amram Gaon, the earliest version of the prayer book (the Warsaw 1865 edition can be accessed at www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/tohen.asp?id=24; a list of the daily Maamadot can be found there on pp.15b-17a, see: www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/amram/srag03.pdf). On Maamadot, see, inter alia: ישראל תא-שמע, “מקורה ומקומה של תפילת ‘עלינו לשבח’ בסידור התפילה: סדר המעמדות ושאלת סיום התפילה”, בתוך: ד’ ולפיש (עורך), ספר זיכרון לאפרים תלמג’, כרך א, חיפה תשנ”ג, עמ’ פה-צח.
[19]TTD, p. 7b.
[20]TTD, section 5(11). I wonder how successful they were at enforcing this regulation; see also my concluding musing below.
[21]TTD, sections 2(1), 2(2), 2(3), 2(4), 2(5) and 2(6).
A few short comments about the warnings to new students:
1. I am unaware of the prevalence of the problem of non-kosher tzitzit, though this is one of the few topics mentioned in TTD that also appear in the other set of regulations that Rabbi Zvi Elimelekh enacted in Munkács (see: AM, sections 5, 6 and 9);
2. Other topics, besides tzitzit, that are mentioned in TTD and also appear in AM: tefillin (AM, section 7), sidelocks (AM, section 12), and; growing long hair (AM, section 13)
3. From the language of the regulations, it is clear that students could be younger than 13 years old. Furthermore, there is no mention of the beard because the average student would have been too young to begin growing a beard.
[22]TTD, sections 3(1), 3(2) and 3(4).
[23]TTD, section 3(3).
[24]TTD, section 3(5). For the guideline to the Mashgiḥim, see: TTD, section 6(8).
[25]On the socializing goal of the modern Yeshiva, see: Yoel Finkelman, “Virtual Volozhin: Socialization vs. Learning in Israel Yeshivah Programs”, Wisdom from all my teachers: challenges and initiatives in contemporary Torah education, Jeffrey Saks and Susan Handelman (editors), Jerusalem 2003, pp. 360-381.
[26] TTD, p. 9b.
[27]That is, 22 sub-sections, as opposed to 10 in Section 1, 6 in Section 2, 5 in Section 3, 12 in Section 5 and 9 in Section 6.
[28]TTD, sections 4(1) and 4(2).
[29]TTD, section 4(6).
[30]TTD, section 4(15).
[31]TTD, sections 4(7), 4(8), 4(9), 4(10) and 4(12)
[32]TTD, section 4(11). The annual general meeting was also a forum when donations were imposed as part of the proceedings of the Society, see: TTD, sections 5(5), 5(7), 5(8) and 5(12).
[33]TTD, section 4(13).
[34]For a colourful recollection of essen teg, see the memoir of Abraham Zalman Cohen (1903-1987) at: www.jewishgen.org/Belarus/newsletter/BogusheviciMemories.htm.
[35]TTD, section 4(14).
[36]TDD, sections 4(3), 4(4) and 4(5).
[37]TDD, sections 4(16), 4(17), 4(19), 4(20), 4(21) and 4(22). It is not surprising that many of the dates that appear in the regulations are connected to the Giving of the Torah; see: TTD, sections 4(16), 5(1), 5(3) and 5(5).
[38]TDD, section 4(18). See also: TTD, section 6(9).
[39]TTD, p. 2a.