I strongly disagree with two aspects of Norman Meskin's recent posting on how to deal with student questions. Meskin cites the following dialogue:
<<
A. We were discussing the Torah’s treatment of some aspects of marriage and divorce and I happened to mention that the Halacha is that if a husband and wife get divorced, and the woman marries another man and then divorces him, she cannot remarry her first husband.
B. My student’s reaction was: “That is very arbitrary.â€
C. For me, this kind of comment triggers simultaneous bells and whistles and alarms at 120 decibels and above! I took off my glasses in a very slow and deliberate manner, and said softly: “We gotta talk! If you have little or no knowledge of the subject, don’t you think that Hashem deserves the benefit of the doubt?â€
>>
I disagree with both (
and (C). I disagree that the student's reaction was improper and insulting to Hashem. I also disagree with (C): The solution to the student's problem is not a talk about respect but rather answering the question (which I will show how to do below).
Let me start by citing the Rambam's definition of Talmud. According to the Rambam, the Talmud stage of learning does not refer to knowledge of accepted law and prophecies as do the Torah and Mishnah stages, rather Talmud refers to "derivation, analogy, and seeing logical relations between various laws."
In other words, Talmud is pure pursuit of logical relationship. If that is the case, there can't be any disrespectful questions. The teacher must see the logic in each question asked. That is true Talmud.
(
Let me now give Midrashic examples to show why I don't consider the student's question disrespectful.
i) Consider the verse (end of Beshalach) "When Moses lifted his hands the Jews were winning the war but when he rested his hands Amalayk was winning." The Midrash on this is "Do Moses' hands win wars?" Isn't this the disrespectful tone like that of the student? But the Midrash sees nothing wrong with *phrasing* its objection so cynically. (The Midrash explains that Moses' lifting hands lifting were symbolic of leading in prayer).
ii) There are other Midrashim like #i) (e.g. the use of the copper snake in Chukath to cure the people). But let me now go to Chukath. The Numbers Rabbah 19:8 states "An idolater once asked Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai: This red heifer ritual looks like witchcraft. You burn a cow, grind the ashes, and sprinkle a few drops (with the ashes) on someone and tell him he is pure." Although Rabbi Yochanan answered fully neither the idolater nor his students, he treated the question as respectfully asked even though it came from an idolater and even though the idolater compared a Torah law to witchcraft.
In short, throughout the midrashic literature we find questions sometimes asked cynically. No one is accused of disrespect.
(C) But how should the student be dealt with? With a talk about respect? Certainly not. The Rambam says that Talmud is seeing logical relationships, consequences and analogies. The way to deal with a disrespectful question is to show the logical component of it. (If the student could do this themselves they wouldn't be asking the question! - so the burden is on the teacher not the student - the teacher must show the student that his question was respectful!)
Here is how I would deal with this question. I would cite the laws in the Rambam, Hilcoth Gezaylah Vaavaydah, Chapter 18:1. Suppose I find a notarized IOU stating "I B, owe A money." Suppose further that B admits he has not yet paid the debt and A also admits he has not collected. Should I return the IOU to A (to collect at a later date).
The answer is no! Why? Because B may have already paid off the debt. A and B may be gaming: How so: If you return the IOU to A, A can drag B to court and demand the money. B can say he doesn't have the money and he has no real estate. However under Jewish law the real estate sold by B after the loan with A, is under lien for this debt. So the court can issue an order requiring an innocent purchaser of B's real estate to return the property to B.
The "no" appeared arbitrary. The reason for prohibiting returning the IOU is because of the possibility of gaming. Gaming is not a transparent concept. I don't expect high-school students to know it. They have to be taught it.
By going over this law and several other laws (in the same chapter) with the student, we introduce the gaming concept to the student and sharpen his or her eye to seeing gaming possibilities.
I would then assign as a homework problem for the student to explain the arbitrary looking law about remarriage after a divorce and follow up marriage. The student would then "get it" him or herself.
SUMMARY: No question is stupid. No expression of question is stupid. It is the teacher's, not the student's, responsibility to show the logic behind any question. In this way the student grows logically. Eventually the student will see the futility of phrasing his questions the way (s)he does.
"Having a (condescending) talk" with the student is unproductive and will inhibit a student from asking. We want students to ask; we must encourage them to state what is on their mind. And we, the teachers, must be prepared to answer them.
Russell Jay Hendel; PhD; ASA
RHendel@Towson.Edu; www.rashiyomi.com
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2017 07:54AM by mlb.
