Levi Cooper teaches at the Pardes Instititute of Jewish Studies and is a rabbi in Tzur Hadassah. He is a post-doctoral fellow in Bar-Ilan University’s Faculty of Law. Rabbi Dr. Cooper is a Contributing Editor to Jewish Educational Leadership.
The notion of focusing on skill sets rather than information is not without precedent in Jewish tradition.
1. Teachers versus Yottabytes
In the past, teachers were primarily a conduit of information: a teacher was paramount for accessing knowledge. This has changed: information is instantaneously and abundantly accessible via electronic media. We talk about “data” instead of “knowledge” and we measure information in terms of how it is electronically stored: bits, bytes, kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes, terabytes, petabytes, exabytes, zettabytes, and most recently yottabytes.[1] Many of us own more electronically stored content than a person can hope to assimilate in a lifetime. Amassing information is less challenging than it has ever been. The pertinent benchmark for assessing ability, skill, and scholarship is what we do with all the available information. This development necessitates an evolution in the role of the teacher as bearer of knowledge.[2]
So if teachers are no longer the primary source of knowledge, what then might be our role? One horizon for teachers’ contribution is the task of honing students’ skills, so that they are proficient at sifting, discerning, analysing, and applying the overabundance of available content. Such a focus would provide students with tools for adapting to the myriad of new situations they are likely to encounter in their lives.
2. Rabbi Khalfon of Djerba
The notion of focusing on skill sets rather than information is not without precedent in Jewish tradition. One Jewish leader and educator who was keenly aware of the importance of equipping his rabbinical students with analytical skills was Rabbi Khalfon Moshe Hakohen (1874-1950).
R. Khalfon was one of the leading rabbis in Djerba, Tunisia. He authored over 3,000 responsa that were published posthumously in nine volumes under the title Sho’el ve-Nish’al (Asking and Being Asked). He also wrote other works, some of which were published and others which remain in manuscript. R. Khalfon was an avid Zionist who worked tirelessly for the nascent State of Israel. In this vein, R. Khalfon instituted that the annual Yom Haatzmaut celebration in Djerba should last for three days – 4th, 5th, and 6th of Iyar. Even before the establishment of the State, R. Khalfon dreamed of moving to Palestine. His attempt to realise this dream in his final years was foiled by waning health. In November 2005, R. Khalfon’s remains were brought to Jerusalem for reburial. More recently, in 2010, a street in the Har Homa neighbourhood in Jerusalem was named in his honor.[3]
R. Khalfon’s responsa deal with wide range of issues, including educational matters. His writings reflect an emphasis on application of knowledge – first on a theoretical level and then on a practical level – and on using writing exercises to hone analytical skills.[4]
3. Case studies
In a fascinating responsum penned in 1924, R. Khalfon described his recommended curriculum and methodology for rabbinical students. R. Khalfon opened by describing the impetus for his exposition: An unnamed Torah scholar approached him and bemoaned the death of candidates to fill positions in the rabbinate – either as community rabbis or as judges in religious courts. He asked R. Khalfon to outline a program that would be able to produce rabbis without excessive delay. R. Khalfon acknowledged the problem and responded. First, teachers were to ensure that students understood and memorized the talmudic material and the relevant codes. Students’ education, however, did not end with acquisition of knowledge. In his instructions to teachers, R. Khalfon described the following educational method to be employed after the student had mastered the material:
ואח”כ ינסה להציע לפניהם שאלה מאיזה ספר של רב ועצום ולרשום להם גם המקורות שבספר ההוא בקצרה ספר פלוני סימן פלוני וספר פלוני דף פלוני אות פלוני וכיוצא. ויזרזם לעיין בדבר ולערוך עלי גליון בכתב ידם נוסח תשובה על זה כפי מה שתקיף ידיעתם מאותם המקורות
And then [the teacher] should test [the students] by suggesting a question from any book of a great rabbi, briefly noting for [the students] the sources [referred to] in that book; [that is,] book so-and-so, section so-and-so; and book so-and-so, page so-and-so, number so-and-so; and the like. And he should encourage them to delve into the matter and to organise on paper in their own handwriting the form of a responsum on this [question], as much as is in the power of their knowledge, based on those sources.[5]
This exercise that followed mastery of the material, did not end with the writing assignment:
ולהביא איש איש מה שכתב בזה לפניו ויקח בידו את כל הכתוב מהם וישאל לכל אחד מסקנתו בזה טעמו ונימוקו. וכל אחד ישיב לפניו הנראה לו בעל פה. ואח”כ יראה אם מה שכתוב ממנו מתאים אל מה שאמר בעל פה, ואח”כ יערוך מסקנתם עם מסקנת הרב הפוסק בעל התשובה שבספר ההוא. ואם באמת כיוונו אל דבריו מה טוב ואם לאו יחקור איך ובמה ולמה ומדוע לא ראי זה כראי זה
And each person should bring that which he wrote about this [question] to [the teacher], and [the teacher] should take everything that they wrote, and ask each one for his conclusion in the matter, his reason and his justification. And each one should respond orally to [the teacher] with what appears to him. And then [the teacher] should check to see whether that which he has written, matches that which he said orally. And then [the teacher] should compare their conclusion with the conclusion of the rabbi-decisor, author of the responsum in that book. And if indeed they directed [their words] to his words – that is good; and if not – he should investigate how, and in what way, and why one approach is not like the other approach.
Following mastery and the case study, the next stage mimicked the previous task where the teacher selected a question from a book of responsa, though this time a list of sources was not provided. This added the challenge of locating the appropriate sources on which to base the judgement. The teacher would then compare the student’s analysis and conclusions with those of the respondent.
The fourth stage moved away from existing tomes of responsa – a body of literature that included many exotic and unusual cases – and focused on mundane, everyday questions:
ואחר כך ינסה אותם בשאלות הבאים יום יום להלכה ואח”כ גם למעשה
And then he should test them with [theoretical] questions of Jewish law that are regularly encountered, and then also with practical [questions].
4. Students without teachers
While R. Khalfon did not contend with students accessing information electronically, he may have been ahead of his time when he recognized that students might study without a teacher. For such students, R. Khalfon suggested a similar programme of self-testing with case studies:
וכן אם התלמיד אין לו רב ומורה אם ישית לב על עצמו ויבין ויראה שכבר השיג “העיון התלמודי” כראוי בקל יוכל לנסות את כחו כפעם בפעם בנסיונות ובחינות אלו. ובימים לא כבירים יהיה למורה הוראה בישראל בלתי עזרת כל רב ומורה דרך לזה
And similarly if the student has no rabbi or teacher, when he pays attention to himself, understanding and perceiving that he has already properly attained “talmudic study”[6] he can easily test his ability every now and then, with such tests and exams.
Elsewhere in his writings, R. Khalfon defined the level of scholarship for when a student was ready for the self-testing case studies: according to R. Khalfon attaining “talmudic study” meant learning a passage of Talmud and accurately predicting the explanations of the Medieval scholars.[7]
In his 1924 responsum, R. Khalfon related to a student who had no teacher. In his 1941 compendium of customs of the Djerba Jewish community, R. Khalfon reiterated the main points of his rabbinic educational program, and then addressed another group: students who had teachers, but those teachers were unable or unwilling to adopt these andragogic methods. Such students too, were encouraged to take responsibility for their own education and tackle the case studies in writing on their own. Here, R. Khalfon went further specifying a few recommended compilations of responsa for this exercise. He also suggested the primary literature that the student should examine when writing his opinion: Beit Yosef and Shulhan ‘Arukh by Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575), and Knesset ha-Gedolah by Rabbi Hayim Benveniste (1603-1673).[8]
Returning to the 1924 responsum – R. Khalfon was confident that this method would bear fruit: “And in a short time, he will become an Instructor of Law in Israel, without the assistance of any rabbi or teacher-guide for this.”
5. Writing exercises
R. Khalfon’s guidelines included a writing exercise: students were instructed to “organize on paper in their own handwriting the form of a responsum.” When they presented their oral arguments, the teacher was to assess whether students’ written responses matched their oral presentation. Each stage of this two-stage assignment had its own apparent educational objective.
The first stage would assist the students in reaching a clear conclusion, since the task of transcribing their analysis would force them to crystallize their ideas and give form to amorphous collections of opinions. This stage of the task is comparable to written examinations conducted in contemporary educational settings.
The second stage of comparing the written response with the oral explanation is a stage that is not widely used in contemporary education.[9] The goal of this stage was to ensure that the written and oral presentations were lucid, and that what students wrote corresponded to what they thought they were writing. This exercise would prepare students for the challenging juridical role of rabbis: responding orally to new questions in Jewish law and penning legal judgements and responsa.
The writing exercise described above was central to student assessment. For R. Khalfon, however, writing was also part of students’ responsibility for their own education. In this vein, he counselled students to keep a journal of their questions, and to dedicate time to responding to those questions:
וכן להיות לכל אחד מהם ספר רשום ולהקציע בו בספר איזה דפים לרשום בהם בקיצור נמרץ כל הספיקות והשאלות אשר תראינה עיניהם ואזניהם תשמענה ע”פ סימנים למען יוכלו לקבוע להם זמן ולבררם אח”כ לאט לאט. ובשאר מרחבי הספר יכתבו כל ספק מהנז’ עם בירורו בארוכה ע”פ סימנים. ויעיר אזנם למען ישאו ויתנו בהלכה פנים אל פנים אחרי העיון והמסקנא. וכן בחליפת מכתבים זה עם זה ועמו ועם הרבנים המורים ויושבי כסאות למשפט. ויורה להם חקי הלשון הכתב והמכתב.
Each one of [the students] should have a notebook, and they should set aside a number of pages in the book to briefly note the doubts and the questions that their eyes perceive and their ears hear, and number them, so that they can set aside time to later clarify them gradually. And in the rest of the notebook, they will write each of the aforementioned questions with its exposition at length, according to the numbers. And he should rouse their ear, so that they will discuss legal matters, face to face, after study and [reaching] the conclusion. Similarly with exchanging letters one with another, and with [the teacher] and with rabbi-teachers and those who sit in judgment. And [the teacher] should instruct them in the laws of grammar, handwriting, and penmanship.
.[10]
In addition to the written tests and the personal journal, R. Khalfon encouraged the students to correspond with each other, and to write letters to rabbis, teachers, and rabbinical judges. Here, R. Khalfon emphasised a third goal of the writing exercise – learning the art of penmanship.
R. Khalfon also related to training students in the art of rhetoric which he saw as a necessary skill for contemporary community leadership. As with the case studies and the questions, here too R. Khalfon recommended transcribing sermons:
…וכן ירגילם לדרוש ולשאת נאום ברבים באופן מושכל וצודק. ומראשית כזאת יציע לפניהם עצם המטרה לנושא הדרוש והם ילכו וקוששו להם החומר הנצרך לזה ותיבולו בביאורי תנ”ך ומאמרי חז”ל. וכל אשר יהגה לבבם יכתבו עלי ספר ג”כ
And similarly [the teacher] should get them used to giving sermons and delivering speeches in public forums, in a thought out and just manner … And whoever’s heart drives them, they will also transcribe [the sermons] in a book. And at the beginning, [the teacher] should suggest the exact sermon topic, and [the students] will go and gather for themselves the necessary material for this [sermon], spicing it with Bible explanations and statements from the Sages.
In another responsum written seven years later in 1931, R. Khalfon related again to curriculum and recommended educational methods, and again he stressed writing. This time, R. Khalfon detailed how students were to organize their writing. This letter was penned to Rabbi Hayim Huri (1885-1957), one of the leading Tunisian rabbis, at the time serving in the Tunisian city of Gabès:
יעשה שני פנקסים אחד גדול ואחד קטן, ובקטן ירשום כל השאלות הבאים אליו אם שנשאל אם שנסתפק אם שברצונו ללמוד, בלתי תשובה על זה. ועל כל אחת מהם יתן אות א-ב-ג וכו’. ובגדול יכתוב מה שבירר ולמד בזה ובו יתן השאלה והתשובה ובזה גם כן יתן על כל תשובה אות. ואחרי גמרו זה יתן סימן על הקונטריס השאלות לאמר שספק זה כבר ביררו ולמדו, והסימן בזה הוא האות אשר הושמה בזה בקונטריס התשובות
[The student] should make two notebooks, a large one and a small one. And in the small one he should note all the questions he encounters – whether he is asked, or whether he has his own question, or whether he desires to learn [about the topic] – without [writing] the answer to [the question]. And for each one of [the questions] he should designate a letter alef, beit, gimel, etc. And in the big [notebook] he should write that which he clarified and learned about [a particular issue]. And in this [big notebook] he should note the question and the answer, and in this [notebook] he should also designate each answer with a letter. And after he has finished [writing the answer in the big notebook] he should make a mark in the pamphlet of the questions to denote that he has already clarified and studied this [particular] question. And the mark in this [small notebook] should be the letter that he designated in the pamphlet of answers.[11]
The numbering system that R. Khalfon emphasised here and in the earlier 1924 responsum was designed to maintain some type of order and create a catalogue of issues. Perhaps students would be able to return to their expositions at a later date, should the need arise.[12]
6. Encouragement
We saw that R. Khalfon was confident that if students who were studying alone applied themselves to the case study method, they would soon become proficient in Jewish law. That positive prognosis appeared in a responsum written to a rabbinic colleague. We also saw that R. Khalfon encouraged students to enter into written correspondence with colleagues and with rabbinic figures. Both of these aspects echo throughout R. Khalfon’s writings.
R. Khalfon’s correspondence with students – regardless of the topic – radiates encouragement, while emphasising the importance of writing as a means for scholarly growth and development. Thus in a responsum to an enquirer from Mateur in northern Tunisia, R. Khalfon addressed a complex question regarding a kosher animal that had been ritually slaughtered. In the case under discussion there was a doubt as to whether or not there had been a hole in the lungs of the animal. Such a hole would render the animal as a tereifa, invalid for eating. Before addressing the legal question, R. Khalfon opened his response with the following:
שמחתי על כי הוא שם לבבו ללמוד בספיקות הבאים אליו, ולכתוב את דעתו. ובטוח אני בעה”ו [בעזר הצור וישועתי] שכאשר יתמיד בדרך זו יבוא למטרה רוממה להבין ולהורות, ובלבד שיתן לבבו לחפש ולפשפש אחרי כל ספק לבררו ולכתוב בפנקס מיוחד הנדון ומה שנר’ לו בבירורו. ואם ראשיתו מצער אחריתו ישגא, כי כך היא דרכה של תורה מראשית כל נדמה לאדם כמשוטט בים הגדול וסוף סוף ימצא מהלכים ודרכים לברר רוב ספיקותיו
I was happy that you set your heart to learn from the questions that you have, and you record your opinion. And I am confident – with the help of The Rock and my Salvation – that when you remain steadfast in this path, you will arrive at the lofty objective to understand and to give instruction. So long as you will set your heart to search and to delve into each question, to clarify it and to write down in a special notebook what the issue is, and what appears to you to be its solution. And even if it is painful at the beginning, in the end you will soar, for this is the way of Torah: At the beginning of everything, it appears to a person as if he is wandering in the great sea, and in the very end he will find paths and ways to clarify most of his questions.[13]
In 1923, R. Khalfon was asked a question regarding the practice associated with the fast of a groom on his wedding day. R. Khalfon opened his response by expressing his pleasure that the enquirers were involved in the study of practical Jewish law. Part of R. Khalfon’s joy was that the students were delving into the codes and responsa literature, rather than focusing solely on theoretical Talmud study.[14] He then added words of counsel regarding writing:
ולדעתי כה תעשו: כל אחד יקבע לו פנקס, ובו ירשום בדפים אשר יקציע בסופו, כל ספק שישמע או שיראה לו בקיצור נמרץ בלא תשובה. ובראשו יושם השאלות והתשובות והמכתבים במילואם. ובזה לע”ד יגדל חשקם ומרצם וידיעותיהם
And in my opinion, thus you should do: Each person should set aside a notebook for himself, and set aside pages at the back of it where he will record with extreme brevity, any question that he will hear or that he will perceive – without [writing] an answer. And at the beginning of [the notebook] he will denote the questions and the answers and the correspondence in full. And in this way – in my humble opinion – their desire and their energy and their knowledge will grow.[15]
Likewise in a responsum sent to Medenine in south eastern Tunisia:
שמחתי מאד על שקידתו בדבר הלכה, ובטוח אני בעה”ו [בעזר הצור וישועתי] כי בלכתו בדרך ישרה זו ישיג המטרה בימים לא כבירים להיות מורה הוראות בישראל. והעיקר כי יקציע פנקס לספיקותיו ותשובותיו
I was very happy about your diligence in the matter of Jewish law, and I am confident – with the help of The Rock and my Salvation – that when you will go in this straight path, you will attain the goal in a short time, to be an Instructor of Laws in Israel. And the main thing is to set aside a notebook for your questions and your answers.[16]
In this vein, in a lengthy letter written in response to an exposition sent to him, R. Khalfon began with words of encouragement for his interlocutor:
אודיעהו כי עברתי בין בתרי תשובתו וששתי כעל כל הון בראותי אותו שוקד על לימודו ורמי ומקשה לברר השאלה, והתענגתי מאד מזה. ובמעט ימים בעה”ו [בעזר הצור וישועתי] יתקדם בלימודו, ולשונו תדבר צחות, ומשנתו תהיה קב ונקי.
I want to let you know that I have gone over the pages of your responsum, and I was overjoyed as one is [overjoyed] by a great treasure – when I saw that you are being diligent about your studies, asking and questioning, to clarify the problem. And I had great enjoyment from this. And soon – with the help of The Rock and my Salvation – you will progress in your studies, and your tongue will speak clearly, and your teaching will be measured and lucid [kav ve-naki].[17]
In each case, R. Khalfon encouraged his correspondent to write, and in each case he was generous with words of praise and reinforcement.
R. Khalfon’s emphasis on writing exercises and clear expression of ideas demonstrates an understanding that knowledge alone is insufficient. In our contemporary era of information overload, this is all the more so. As mouses, touchpads, touchscreens, gesture recognition, and other electronic tools increase in functionality, writing runs the risk of falling out of style. With his genuine and gentle words of encouragement, R. Khalfon reminds us that even as technology develops, setting our students writing exercises that focus on application of information can have tangible benefits. Such tasks will better equip our students to deal with the vicissitudes of their lives in the twenty-first century.
[1] A yottabyte (YB) is 10008 bytes. It was added to the International System of Units in 1991.
[2] I have discussed the impact of this development on the notion of a rav muvhak (prime Torah teacher) in a previous article; see “Technology Replacing Upgrading Teachers,” Jewish Educational Leadership 9:1 (Fall 2010), 58-63.
[3] For his responsa, see Rabbi Khalfon Moshe Hakohen, Sho’el Ve-Nish’al (Djerba, Jerusalem, and Netivot, 1952-1998). For biographical information about R. Khalfon see his son’s introduction to Sho’el Ve-Nish’al, vol. 1, [9-24]; Binyamin Rafael Kohen, Malkhei Tarshish (Netivot, 1986), 307-10; Zvi Zohar, “Ishrur Dati shel Ha-Tsionut Ki-Tenu‘ah Le’umit-Hilonit,” Yisra’el 2002 (2), 112-25; Eliezer Bashan, “R. Moshe Khalfon Hakohen, Av Beit Din Djerba – Kavim li-Demuto,” Zehkor Davar Le-‘Avdekha: Essays and Studies in Memory of Dov Rappel, ed. Shmuel Glick (Jerusalem, 2007), 69-71.
[4] R. Khalfon’s writings on education have been discussed in a number of Hebrew publications, in particular in a series of articles penned by Reuven Mamu. See also Bashan, “Kavim li-Demuto,” 75-82; Levi Cooper, “Goals of Assessment in Traditional Jewish Educational Institutions,” Jewish Educational Leadership 10:1 (Fall 2011), 51.
[5] Sho’el Ve-Nish’al, vol. 5, YD, no. 119. A similar description appears in another work by R. Khalfon; see his Berit Kehuna (Djerba, 1941), 43b-45a. R. Khalfon’s guidelines in Berit Kehuna, as well as possible precedents, have been noted by Shmuel Glick, Kuntras Ha-Teshuvot He-Hadash (Jerusalem and Ramat-Gan, 2006-2010), vol. 1, 38-41.
[6] This refers to what has been described as the Tunisian method of Talmud study; see Joseph Ringel, “A Third Way: Iyyun Tunisai as a Traditional Critical Method of Talmud Study,” Tradition 46, no. 3 (Fall 2013), 1-22; a shorter version of this article is available at http://seforim.blogspot.co.il/2014/02/a-third-way-iyyun-tunisai-as.html. At the beginning of this responsum, R. Khalfon was critical of the overemphasis on Talmud study at the expense of studying codes and responsa; see also Sho’el Ve-Nish’al, vol. 2, OH, no. 51; Berit Kehuna, 43b.
[7] Berit Kehuna, 44b.
[8] Berit Kehuna, 44a-b.
[9] Written exams and subsequent oral exams conducted by the Israel Bar Association, for instance, are incomparable to R. Khalfon’s framework: the written exam is in multiple choice form, meaning that it does not test the candidates writing ability. Moreover, the oral exam is not necessarily connected to the written test. Some contemporary rabbinic programs have students write and deliver a sermon before ordination.
[10] Sho’el Ve-Nish’al, vol. 5, YD, no. 119.
[11] Sho’el Ve-Nish’al, vol. 6, YD, no. 165.
[12] I am unaware whether any of these notebooks have survived. Where these notebooks to be available, the status of the expositions as sources of law would be debatable; see Sho’el Ve-Nish’al, vol. 2, OH, no. 31.
[13] Sho’el Ve-Nish’al, vol. 1, YD, no. 91. The passage is written in respectful third person; I have changed the pronouns to second person to make the passage more readable (similarly, below notes 10, 11).
[14] See above, note 5.
[15] Sho’el Ve-Nish’al, vol. 2, OH, no. 51.
[16] Sho’el Ve-Nish’al, vol. 3, no. 177.
[17] Sho’el Ve-Nish’al, vol. 3, no. 510. The expression “kav ve-naki,” (translated here as “measured and lucid”) appears in rabbinic literature as praise for a sage’s teaching; see Avot de-Rabbi Natan A, 18; B. Yevamot 49b; B. Gittin 67a.