The following is a citation of mine from the thread "Why should Gemarah be important for students" (Fall 2015).
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 Gemara. 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 Gemara<< to which the Rav responded >>It is better that they not see it then that they see it with improper preparation.<<
Tzvi Kanarek responded in the same thread, strongly disagreeing with the Rav.
II) As a Talmud teacher for 30 years at the Israeli Public School system, I reached the conclusion that there is no such thing that a "student does not fit to learn Gemarah", there are teachers who are not fit to teach Gemarah. Regarding the metaphor that learning Talmud in the 7th grade is "like exposing 7th grade students to advanced physics before they have learned Calculus", the analogy is really absurd. Are there no sugyot that 4th year students can comprehend if they are taught in a fit manner? Students can learn "Talmud Latalmid" - each child on his/her level
In a recent digest in the thread "Talmud Topics for Middle School" Tzvi reiterated his position.
III) I believe that Talmud can be taught at the age of 10, the child cannot understand every "sugya", this is the obligation of the teacher to find the appropriate "sugya". This way the child will start learning Talmudic language, and more important, Talmudic logic. Just because Talmud is a difficult subject to teach, postponing teaching Talmud will not build "talmidei chachamim".
After reading Tzvi's response a year and quarter ago I tried to find the conceptual issue between him and the Rav. I feel that this is important. I believe I can do this now. But first, I don't want to be misunderstood. Tzvi's work is very important. I believe every one on this list should read his papers and try them in their classroom (Tzvi has listed links to his works in several of his postings). Let me therefore give a brief synopsis (of my understanding of Tzvi's work).
Tzvi's received his doctorate by doing research on the use of graphical aids to study Talmud. For the last few decades Tzvi has been using his methods to teach Talmud in a variety of settings. Tzvi also emphasizes the use of assistive technology but my reading of his works suggests that it is the interaction between the Talmudic logic and graphical representation that allows success. By success, Tzvi means that i) students understanding of passages is increased, ii) their enjoyment or satisfaction of passages is increased. (Tzvi conducted well designed experiments to establish this).
Here is a simple example (My apologies if I have oversimplified Tzvi's work but I am interested in the basic idea). The opening mishnahs of the 2nd chapter of the tractate Baba Metziah list two collections of items: One collection consists of items which the finder can keep if found - for example, scattered coins or bags of manufactured bread. The other collection consists of items which the finder must return if found - for example, coins arranged in a tower or a bag of home-baked bread. Tzvi's approach to this is to create a two column list: One column contains items that can be kept if found while the other list contains items that must be returned. To the extent possible similar items are aligned (so scattered coins and coins arranged in a tower are set on the same row). The creation of this list can be facilitated with assistive technology. To reiterate Tzvi's findings, the use of such graphical aids increases student understanding and satisfaction.
Now let me return to the controversy of the Tzvi and the Rav. First I observe that the Mishnahs about finding and returning are precisely that, Mishnahs. Many parts of the Talmud are Mishnaic-type collections of laws. They could be braithas, toseftahs or other similar legal collections. Tzvi's methods will help in learning them.
However, according to the Rav, that is not true Talmud. The Rav in his two books, Halachic Man and The Halachic Mind, explains that Talmudic method is a bold, aggressive, creative act in which a collection of disparate laws, some even apparently contradicting each other, are resolved through the discovery or creation of mediating variables which distinguish the laws. I attended the Rav's Talmud shiur for 7 years and I also attended the shiur of his son-in-law Rabbi Isidore Twersky for seven years. In a typical Talmud lecture, conceptual models would be introduced, or perhaps created is a better term, to account for the treatment of various rishonim on a given Talmudic passage.
To summarize, Tzvi's method are facilitating student's differentiating concepts while the Rav speaks of Talmud as creating concepts that are not yet written in the text to account for various legal subtleties. The Rav's position is that true Talmud should, like advanced physics, not be taught till one has mastered calculus, in this case Jewish law. I think Tzvi's position is that students should be exposed to those Talmudic passages dealing with complex laws with simple but explicit distinctions. He is correct that many such passages exist. But the Rav's response is that students should be told that there is a creative aspect to Talmud that they can't understand until they have the proper preparation.
Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.D; www.Rashiyomi.com
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2017 08:04AM by mlb.
