PLEASE USE A NAME WHEN COMMENTING

18 October 2021

WHEN DID THE CURRICULUM CHANGE . . . Part 3


NOT SURE ABOUT THIS, BUT A QUESTION ARISES:

I was searching for any clues that might indicate that there was a sabotaging of the teaching of Chumash and TaNaCH to young students and Talmidim in Yeshivos at some point in the Jewish history of Talmud Torah (causing a disconnect in chronology of our Mesorah).


When we reach the period of the Haskalah, the Enlightenment, 

in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, a new justification is introduced for the lack of Tanach study: 

one who studies Tanach risks being swept into Haskalah. 


_________________________________


Excerpts from: THE JEWISH ACTION. This article was featured in the Winter 2018 issue of Jewish Action. https://jewishaction.com/cover-story/why-isnt-tanach-studied-more/


Although we may have assumed otherwise, the neglect of Tanach study is not a recent phenomenon. At least among Ashkenazic Jewry, neglect of Tanach study dates back to the Middle Ages 


[…] The Mishnah (Avot 5:21) sets ages for the various educational levels—five for Scripture, ten for Mishnah, and fifteen for Talmud—but in Ashkenazi lands (France, Germany and Northern Europe) this was rarely implemented. Instead, students were taught the parashah of the week with Rashi—younger students, the earlier sections, and older students, the whole parashah. Those sections of Chumash which are read when there was no cheder in session were never studied. As for the rest of Tanach, students covered at most the earlier books of the Prophets. At the age of eight or nine, students switched to primarily studying Gemara (and Mishnah was omitted almost entirely).1


 footnote

  1. See Simcha Assaf, Mekorot leToldot haChinuch beYisrael (New York and Jerusalem, 2002), vol. 1, Me’ein Mevo, p. 30-31. Some primary sources on this subject include the Gemara’s cryptic statement, “Keep your children from higayon” (Berachot 28b), which Rashi explains to mean that one should avoid teaching his children too much Tanach. Yet although this is a warning against overemphasizing one section of Torah, this surely does not mean that one should not teach his children Tanach altogether. See also Rashi (Shemot 31:18), citing the Midrash: “Just as a bride bedecks herself with twenty-four ornaments, so must a scholar be thoroughly versed in the twenty-four books of Scripture.” C.f. Tosafot (Bava Batra 113a) and Rabbi Reuven Margolis, HaMikra veHaMesorah, p. 7-9. Another important source is the Gemara (Kiddushin 30a and Avodah Zarah 19b) which requires one to split his learning into three segments, one of Tanach, one of Mishnah and one of Talmud. On these passages, Tosafot cite Rabbeinu Tam who maintains that one can fulfill this obligation through the study of Talmud Bavli alone, since it is made up of all three of these components. See also Bava Metzia 32b and Rashi s.v. v’einah middah.

[…] “The fourteenth-century Spanish philosopher Profiat Duran, who spent time studying in Ashkenaz, wrote about the Ashkenazi attitude toward Tanach study:


“Jewish scholars, even the greatest among them, show great disdain for Biblical studies. It is enough for them to read the weekly portion shenayim mikra v’echad Targum, and still it is possible that if you ask them about a particular verse they will not know where it is. They consider one who spends time doing Biblical studies a fool because the Talmud is our mainstay.”3


The Ashkenazi curriculum’s neglect of Tanach study was lamented by almost all rabbinic authorities who addressed it. The greatest proponent of Ashkenazi educational reform was the Maharal of Prague, who advocated for more systematic study of Chumash, among other reforms, but his proposals achieved only limited success.4 Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, a successor of the Maharal in the Prague rabbinate, better known as the Shelah Hakadosh, and his family members, continued to argue for the importance of Tanach study. The Shelah’s son, Rabbi Sheftel,  wrote of his experience visiting the Sephardic community of Amsterdam:


“I passed through the Amsterdam community. There I found distinguished men, many of them scholars, and I visited their study halls . . . I saw that the young children learn Scripture from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Deuteronomy, and after that the [rest of] Scripture, and then all the Mishnayot. And when they come of age, they start to study Talmud with the Tosafot. They grow and thrive and produce fruit. And I wept—why cannot this system be followed in this country?”5


Rabbi Avraham, the Shelah’s brother, also wrote passionately about this subject:


“How can we possibly justify ourselves before God if we reject His pride, the Holy Torah, which issued first from His mouth? In my opinion, this obligation is also included in the verse ‘and you shall heed His voice,’ which our Sages interpreted as the voice of the prophets . . . If you do not learn them, know them, and become well-versed in them, how can you heed their voice and fulfill them? And even for one whose only occupation is Torah study—no study in the world is entirely comparable to that of Scripture, that is, to Torah, Prophets and Ketuvim, from start to finish . . . Therefore, there is no valid objection or excuse by which a person can free himself from this obligation . . . They say that a person should divide his time into three equal parts: one third of the day for Scripture, one third for Mishnah and one third for Talmud. Rabbeinu Tam comments that one who has sated himself with Scripture and is thoroughly versed in the twenty-four sacred books . . . need not devote one third of the day to them, for the Babylonian Talmud is permeated with them. But to neglect Scripture [altogether], Heaven forfend that one should entertain such a thought and cast off the yoke of Torah . . .”6


footnotes 3–6: 


3. Ma’aseh Efod (Vienna, 1865), p. 41, translated in Kanarfogel, Jewish Education, p. 85.

4. See Assaf, Me’ein Mevo, p. 32-42.

5. Vavei Ha’Amudim, Amud HaTorah, chap. 5, translated in Leo Levi, Torah Study: A Survey of Classic Sources on Timely Issues (New York, 1990), 216.

6. Hagahot Yesh Nochalin, translated in Levi, Torah Study, p. 205-206



[…] “As Rabbi Shmuel Wosner wrote:


“According to halachah it is obvious that although Rabbi Eliezer said ‘Keep your children from higayon,’ i.e., from studying too much Tanach (Rashi, Berachot 28b), this means too much, but we are obligated [to study] the abundance of fundamentals of Tanach sufficiently. And although the Chatam Sofer (Torat Moshe, Parashat Beshalach) strongly supported the method of learning in which Talmud and Torah Shebe’al Peh are primary, and the fundamentals of Tanach come only afterwards, it is known that our master [the Chatam Sofer] and his great students were tremendously proficient in Tanach, and particularly the great gaon Maharam Schick, as I have reliably received. And my teacher, the great and pious master of all Talmud, Rabbi Shimon HaLevi Zelichover of Lublin, may God avenge his blood, knew the entire Tanach by heart in an astonishing way. What need is there to elaborate about something which is accepted by all gedolei Yisrael? Although some of them hid their knowledge of Tanach and grammar out of concern that this would strengthen the heretics . . . the actual knowledge of this aspect of our holy Torah does not require my haskamah [endorsement].”10


footnote 10. 


Rabbi Shmuel Wosner, Shevet HaLevi 8:207. See also Rabbi Ezekiel Landau, Tzelach, Berachot 28b (Rashi s.v. mehahigayon); Rabbi Tzvi Elimelech of Dinov, Ma’ayan Ganim, chap. 12; Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, Teshuvot VeHanhagot 2:457.


___________________________

NOTES:


B”H The Zilberman Method has brought back our earlier Mesorah of teaching the Torah of Moshe MiSinai.


Also Rabbi Kessin has brought up a couple times that the study of Torah done nowadays is fragmented and causing …… (don’t remember his conclusions here) but he did recommend that the study of Mishnayos should be instituted …….. (something to do with chronology).  He has said that the Talmidim are not connecting ….. [I’m floundering a bit here because these thoughts of his were inserted in a few of his videos but not covered more succinctly]


The Zilberman method has children focus exclusively on Tanakh and Mishnah in their younger years, ensuring that they know large portions of both areas by heart before they begin learning Gemara (Talmud) 

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The only thing that makes sense for these rabbis and yeshivot to not emphasize Tanach is as explained above in this post that they were afraid in the 18th & 19th centuries with the Haskalah movement and reform movement that it would influence the youth and people learning and cause them to go off the derech. I always understood that because of the history of our kings and the divisiveness of the ten tribes, etc. could affect their learning, devotion, etc. to Torah and H'. My father always said he didn't like the way they taught in the Yeshivot (in NY). Maybe now, many will wake up. I believe that the Sephardim had it right.

Neshama said...

Thank you very much for your comment. It may be time to revise the curriculum in order to bring back the disconnection. Especially since Bible learning as Israel’s culture is behind decreased.