JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

introduced by Simeon b. Shetaḥ, the brother-in-law of King
Alexander Yannai (c. 100 B.C.E.). The Talmud provides a more
explicit statement on the establishment of schools at the end
of the Second Temple period (the beginning of the common
era) in which are noted the various stages in the development
of institutional education: “Rav Judah said in the name of Rav:
‘Truly the name of that man is to be blessed, namely, *Joshua b.
Gamla, since but for him the Torah would have been forgotten
in Israel. At first, if a child had a father, his father taught him;
if he had no father, he did not learn at all… They then introduced
an ordinance that teachers of children be appointed in
Jerusalem … Even so, if a child had a father, the father would
take him up to Jerusalem and have him taught there; but if he
had no father, he would not go up there to learn. They therefore
ordained that teachers be appointed in each district and
that boys enter school at the age of 16 or 17. But because a boy
who was punished by his teacher would rebel and leave school,
Joshua b. Gamla at length introduced a regulation that teachers
of young children be appointed in each district and town,
and that children begin their schooling at the age of six or
seven’” (BB 21a). The basis of organized schooling for all ages
was laid by Joshua b. Gamla’s regulation. Most of these schools
were in synagogues and were under the supervision of beadles
(see Shab. 1:3). “There were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem,
each of which had a Bible school (bet sefer) for the study of the
Bible and a Talmud school (bet talmud) for the study of the
Mishnah” (TJ, Meg. 3:1, 73d). At a later period, the patriarch,
as the chief spiritual leader, was concerned with education and
with the quality of teachers. *Judah III (third century C.E.)
sent emissaries throughout Ereẓ Israel to ascertain whether
each town had teachers of the Bible and of the Mishnah (TJ,
Ḥag. 1:7, 76c). *Rava, a leading amora of the fourth century
C.E., introduced, on the basis of Joshua b. Gamla’s regulation,
several important educational ordinances: (1) No child was to
be sent daily from one town to a school in another, but could
be sent from one synagogue to another in the same town. (2)
The number of pupils to be assigned to a teacher was 25. If
there were 40, an assistant was to be appointed. Whether one
teacher could be replaced by a better one was the subject of a
difference of opinion between Rava and *Dimi of Nehardea,
who also differed on which teacher was to be preferred, one
who taught a great deal but inaccurately, or one who taught
less but without mistakes. Dimi’s view, favoring the more careful
teacher, was adopted (BB 21a).
All these institutions – the bet sefer for the study of the
Bible, the bet talmud for the study of the Mishnah, and the
yeshivah – had as their purpose not only the imparting of
knowledge but also education for a life of Torah. This aim was
achieved thanks to the personal example set by the teachers,
who were held in awe by their students, as witness the statement
of *Joḥanan b. Nappaḥa and *Simeon b. Lakish (prominent
Ereẓ Israel amoraim of the third century C.E.): “We succeeded
in the Torah only because we were privileged to see
*Judah ha-Nasi’s finger projecting from his sleeve” (TJ, Beẓah
5:2, 63a).
EDUCATION, JEWISH
Methods of Instruction
Instruction was two-pronged in intent – improvement of the
memory by accurate transmission and frequent repetition
of material, and, at a later stage, the development of creative
thought. Pupils learned to transmit statements in the same
phraseology used by their teachers (“one is obliged to use the
language of one’s teacher”). Since the Oral Law, which could
not be committed to writing, was continually expanding, accuracy
in learning it was attainable only through endless repetition;
hence the dictum, “He who has repeated his chapter
a hundred times is not to be compared to him who has repeated
it a hundred and one times” (Ḥag. 9b). The pupils thus
acquired proficiency in recitation and a knowledge of the
language of Scripture and the basic equipment required for
participation in the creative study of the Talmud, essentially
an incisive analysis of the mishnayot and the beraitot. The
sages were strikingly modern in their practice of the pedagogic
art. When *Tarfon’s pupils said to him: “Tell us, teacher, by
what virtue did Judah merit the kingdom? he answered, ‘You
tell’” (Mekh., Be-Shallaḥ 5). On one occasion *Akiva deliberately
stated a halakhah incorrectly “to sharpen the wits of
his pupils” (Nid. 45a). Every possible mnemonic device was
employed – notarikon, association of ideas, and many others.
Only in this way could the vast body of talmudic thought
have been transmitted intact from generation to generation
until the end of the fifth century C.E., when it was finally redacted.
Discipline played a vital role in this system (see Shab. 13a,
and Rashi, ad loc., S.V. ve-eimat rabban aleihem). Although
corporal punishment was inflicted when deemed necessary,
the sages sought to curtail it as much as possible and warned
against injuring a child. Rav’s directives to Samuel b. Shilat
the school teacher included the following: “When you punish
a pupil, hit him only with a shoe latchet. The attentive student
will learn of himself; the inattentive one should be placed
next to one who is diligent” (BB 21a). This counsel applied
to younger students; with those who were older the teacher
might introduce the lesson with a humorous remark to create
an atmosphere congenial to learning. But the teacher’s most
valuable asset was the example he set for his students. Well
aware of this, the sages sought to impress upon teachers the
need for circumspection in speech and deed. Thus *Ze’eira,
a leading amora of the end of the third century, stated: “One
should not promise something to a child and then fail to
give it to him, for he thereby teaches him to lie” (Suk. 46b).
Though the sages were remarkable pedagogues, the greater
part of their achievement doubtless resulted from the atmosphere
generated by their personalities, an atmosphere of unbounded
love for the Torah and of supreme self-discipline in
the observance of mitzvot.
Bibliography: Enẓiklopedyah Ḥinnukhit, 4 (1964), 144–68,
includes bibliography; J. Ster, Die talmudische Paedogogik (1915); H.
Gollancz, Pedagogics of the Talmud and that of Modern Times (1924);
N. Morris, Toledot ha-Ḥinnukh shel Am Yisrael, 1 (1960); M. Eliav and
P.A. Kleinberger, Mekorot le-Toledot ha-Ḥinnukh be-Yisrael u-va-Am-
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6 171