I want to contribute two main points
I) Whether we should be teaching Gemarra to everyone
II) Whether we should target, emphasize and have as a goal student satisfaction
I) The Rav, Rabbi Joseph Baer Soloveitchick, explicitly said once that he is opposed to the Israeli curriculum requirement of exposing all Israeli students in Public School to Gemarra. Their argument is that >>Talmud is part of our culture and heritage and students should therefore at least be exposed to it.<< The Rav responded >>This is analogous to exposing 7th grade students to advanced physics before they have learned Calculus. It is absurd!<< The Rav continued: >>Others counterargue that if so, some Israeli students will never have seen Gemarra<< to which the Rav responded >>It is better that they not see it then that they see it with improper preparation.<<
If one follows the Rav's argument to its logical conclusion, I think this would suggest that some schools *replace* Talmud in early grades with proper exposure to detailed halacha along with examples of how Rabbis apply general principles to arrive at conclusions. (I know one high school where (in fact the Maimonides school which the Rav founded in Boston) the girls knew how to answer any question about mixtures such as dairy spoons falling into meat soup pots.
b) One discussant suggested that the question about Gemarra presupposes that students should be enjoying it. Not so; it is an obligation like other school obligations.
I strongly disagree. It is well known in Jewish law that enjoyment/satisfaction for *some* commandments is intrinsic and required. For example, you put on Tefillin because you have to. There is a requirement of awareness that it is symbolic of the God-Israel relationship but we need not enjoy this relationship. Contrastively, Sukkah requires *dwelling* and dwelling intrinsically requires some type of satisfaction. This requirement of dwelling satisfaction is what drives the exemption from sleeping in the Sukkah in cold climates or from eating in the Sukkah in dripping rain.
I would argue that while learning Jewish law is an obligation, learning Gemarrah requires satisfaction. Here are two short proofs: 1) The Gemarra in Baba Bathra based on Psalms 1 >For his [the righteous] desires are in God’s law< comments >A person should only learn from where he obtains desirability<. 2) The Rav cited the Gemarra about the day of judgment when people are asked >Have you set aside times to learn?< The Rav commented >> It does not say >How many pages have you learned< but rather >have you set aside time to learn<. The important aspect of learning is not accomplishment per se but rather having a date at a fixed time with the Schinah every day. >> Of course the important aspect of a date is satisfaction.
The traditional argument against this is >It can't be done.< However this is not true. I know of two worthwhile modern experiments that emphasize and succeed in teaching Talmud based on a feeling of student satisfaction.
b1) AMIT, whose religious network of schools is nationally recognized by the Israeli government, and who competes favorably with other Israeli educational networks such as Oroth and Benay Akivah uses advanced methods of pedagogy in both secular and religious subjects. They have partnered with a Harvard professor, instituted learning centers and have a strong well defined network of mentors for principals and teachers. About 2 years ago a group of Israeli principles met with President Obama in the white-house because of their accomplishments. I was at a dinner afterwards with them. I asked them about their approach to Talmud teaching. The principle I was speaking to responded >>We empower students to study the Talmud themselves; we teach them how to use Jastrow and other tools as well as how to dissect arguments; they learn in Chevrutas and come to the teachers when they are stuck. They go through the various original sources and attempt to construct conclusions; only then to they look up the various Talmudic conclusions and rishonim to see whom their own thinking has landed on. Because they learn in a group they are exposed to other students who have reached other conclusions<< I asked if the method was dangerous: >>Do they ever come up with conclusions not in the Talmud or rishonim<< to which I was told >>No: This has not yet happened.<<
This approach leads to a sense of empowerment and possession on Talmudic conclusions. The students reach the conclusions themselves and hence they own it. This leads to satisfaction.
b2) Dr. Tzvi Kanarek (who frequently posts on Lookjed and has discussed his own research on Talmud) advocates use of 4 specific concept mapping tools, lists, to assist in learning Talmud. Tzvi did his doctorate on the very topic of teaching Talmud using these concept maps. What is of interest to me, and relevant to this discussion, is that Tzvi has conducted numerous qualitative interviews showing that his methods lead to student satisfaction and removal of Talmudic anxiety.
In my own research (on mathematical writing say of proofs) I have come across numerous papers showing that use of such tools as concept maps leads to a sense of student self-confidence; the self confidence in turn leads to more practice which leads to more polished writing which gives the students a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.
I believe the ideas presented in this posting are implementable. I know parents *complain* if a school is not *learning enough* but it is up to principals to explain to parents that unless students are satisfied they will not be strongly rooted in Judaism. I also know that some lookjed discussants think that flipped classroom or concept maps does not necessarily work. The simple response is that *no* method works unless people are properly trained. Both AMIT and Tzvi spend much time on preparation. I believe their methods (and other methods) are transferrable to many school settings.
Russell Jay Hendel; PhD ASA;
Dept of Math, Towson Univ.
RHendel@Towson.edu
www.Rashiyomi.com
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2015 12:29PM by mlb.
