Wanted: An Experimental Yeshiva

No, that title is not meant the way it may sound.

My father likes to note Rashi to this week's parshah (Shemot 16:14), in which he offers a science experiment: If one fills an eggshell with dew, seal her and leave her in the sun, she will rise independently into the air. Based on the pronouns, it certainly seems that Rashi meant the shell would ascend, presumably as a function of the dew's ascension.

Here is the Rashi:

כשהחמה זורחת עולה הטל שעל המן לקראת החמה, כדרך טל עולה לקראת החמה, אף אם תמלא שפופרת של ביצה טל, ותסתום את פיה ותניחה בחמה, היא עולה מאליה באויר. ורבותינו דרשו שהטל עולה מן הארץ באויר, וכעלות שכבת הטל נתגלה המן וראו והנה על פני המדבר וגו':

[For an interesting aside on Rashi's language, see here.]

I was thinking about this the other day, when contemplating experiments yeshivot could perform in order to understand gemara better. Many passages of gemara rely on familiarity with physical realities we don't normally encounter, and these experiments would help us understand what the Rabbis were discussing.

To put it differently: Imagine learning Maseches Succah without ever having seen an esrog before, or Maseches Chullin without the benefit of seeing a cow, or the various modern picture books which illustrate the innards of a cow. It's inconceivable – but that's the way our yeshiva students learn much of the Talmud, including segments which relate to daily ritual. So here are some experiments they could conduct, which would help:

For Maseches Berachos and the discussion of the earliest time for Shma – Go to a place far from urban light pollution, on a clear night, 90 minutes before sunrise, and watch the morning lighten. Set up black, green, blue and white strips of paper, and see when you can discern the difference between them. Time how long the sun takes to cross the horizon.

For Maseches Shabbos and the thresholds of cooking (Maachal Ben Derusai) – Cook a piece of meat 1/3 of the recommended time and test its edibility. Do the same at 1/2 of the recommended time.

For Maseches Pesachim and the discussion of which plants become chametz and which do not – Get wheat and barley kernels, as well as grains of rice, grind them up and expose them to water. Watch what happens, and how long it takes.

For Maseches Beitzah and discussions about the muktzeh status of fruit that has been left to dry, as well as for various halachic discussions which revolve around dried figs – Leave grapes and figs in the sun, and monitor the process as they dry out. Test them for edibility at various stages.

For Maseches Rosh HaShanah and discussions about testimony regarding the sighting of the new moon - Take a field trip on a clear night at the end and start of the lunar month and make observations of the shape and location of the moon.

For Maseches Bava Kama and discussions about tort law and harm caused when items fall into a pit which is ten tefach deep - Dig a pit that deep and experiment dropping various items in.

For Maseches Niddah and the discussion of kesamim (stains which may be blood, but might not be) – Crush lice and examine the quantity and color of the blood produced.

There is much more to do, of course; this is just a start. Some may be more useful, some of more narrow benefit, but this might make the learning experience more 'real' for some students, as well as help them grasp the concepts involved. Some of this is tongue-in-cheek, but not all of it.

Maharsha on the Arrogance of our Schools

It has been argued that our elementary schools do our children a disservice by pushing a gemara curriculum at the expense of Tanach, philosophy, tefillah (prayer) and halachah.

The blame is cast in many directions – to parents for pressuring elementary schools out of fear that their children won't get into the right high school, to high schools for placing a premium on gemara education, to school administrations and teachers for poor time management. I don't know enough to comment.

Here's an interesting take, though, on the central cause: According to Maharsha, writing in 16th century Poland, the problem is one of arrogance.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 24a) links the name בבל (Babylon) with the word בלולה (mixed-up), to say that in Bavel their learning is a mixture of Tanach, mishnah and talmud (meaning analytic study).

The gemara there does not state whether this is a positive or negative, and Tosafot there actually sounds like it is a feature rather than a design flaw, but Rabbi Yirmiyah adds what certainly sounds like criticism: "Eichah 3 says, 'Gd placed me in darkness, like the dead of eternity' – This is the study of Bavel."

Maharsha there explains:

"As a result of their arrogance, their learning is all mixed up and out of order; the one who should learn Tanach at 5 is studying mishnah, the one who should be learning mishnah at 10 is learning talmud. In their youth they learn a mix of mishnah and talmud, as a result of their arrogance.

"Rabbi Yirmiyah said regarding this, 'They placed me in darkness' – The prophet Yirmiyah (not to be confused with Rabbi Yirmiyah) declared this regarding the Babylonian exile, and Rabbi Yirmiyah used it regarding himself, for he was Babylonian and he had learned in that mixed-up system."

So the gemara's line is not describing the multidisciplinary nature of Babylonian Talmud. Rather, it's criticizing the educational approach in Babylonian schools, teaching children Mishnah and Talmud before they are ready.

What does the Maharsha mean? What's the connection between arrogance and starting kids on gemara too early?

Is he saying that parents pressure teachers and schools because they want to believe their children are precocious?

Or does he mean that teachers and administration rush students into the advanced curriculum to build/maintain a school's reputation?

I'm not anything resembling an expert, but I wonder what the Maharsha meant.


Sanhedrin 24a:

אמר רבי יוחנן בלולה במקרא בלולה במשנה בלולה בתלמוד +איכה ג'+ במחשכים הושיבני כמתי עולם אמר רבי ירמיה זה תלמודה של בבל

Maharsha's text:

והוא שמתוך גאותן לומדין בלול ומעורבב לפי הזמן דבן ה' למקרא לומדין משנה ובן י' למשנה לומדין תלמוד שבקטנותן לומדין מעורבב משנה ותלמוד מתוך גאותן וקאמר רבי ירמיה על זה במחשכים הושיבני וגו' ירמיה הנביא אמר האי קרא על גלות בבל ואמרו רבי ירמיה גם כן לסימן על עצמו שהיה מבבל ולמד שם תלמודם מבולבל ומעורב

Spawning a Kugel Generation

I remember the first time I heard a “this word appears 3 times in the chumash” dvar torah. You know the kind I mean – "This word appears X times, in X different situations, and we can connect all X appearances in order to derive the following lesson..."

I was in my mid-teens, and I was immediately charmed by this approach; I liked the mix of bekiut (superficial scholarship) and creativity, and so pretty much every dvar torah I delivered over the next year or so was built along those lines. Eventually I came to understand the gematriesque flexibility of this approach (“that instance of the word doesn’t count because X” “the word doesn’t quite appear here, but a related root does” “true, this one is אנא and that one is אנה, but still...”), and that turned me off, and so I found other ways to develop ideas.

As we develop our approaches to Torah (and this is particularly true for those of us fortunate enough to spend significant time in our fad-grabbing teens and early adulthood in Torah study), we become enamored of various styles. We read a pamphlet or two and we are instant Breslovers. We hear a Brisker shiur and we suddenly see cheftza and gavra around every corner. We go to Rav Blachman’s shiur at כרם ביבנה and become allergic to acharonim. And so on.

Generally, these fads are fairly benign, but occasionally they can corrupt. Example: The teen who becomes absorbed in mysticism or seeking Torah codes and so loses his opportunity to learn substance in his formative years. Another example: The student who hears a JOFA speaker declare Judaism sexist, and then spends those key formative years ferreting out examples of sexism in Jewish law, lore and practice, instead of studying with a less judgmental perspective.

To these two examples I now add a third: The student who becomes turned on to the approach of biblical criticism as presented by Professor James Kugel, and who now sees support for that approach around every corner.

I witnessed this a short time ago, in a thought-provoking dvar torah delivered by a college student.

Update: I have deleted the specific example used here, because a reader figured out whose dvar torah I was discussing and emailed it around, creating embarrassment for the parties involved.

The dvar torah itself has many evident holes, but my major concern is its method of jumping to a conclusion without evidence. To me, this indicates a closed-mindedness which is a negative byproduct of the Kugel influence, and which characterizes a generation of Professor James Kugel’s fans.

Professor James Kugel is currently famous among Orthodox college students for his “How to Read the Bible.” In this work he explains the methods and conclusions of modern biblical criticism, and he endorses an approach to rabbinic prescription that divorces it from “what the original text really meant,” while simultaneously contending that one may still see meaning and authority in the prescriptions of chazal.

This is exactly what that student did, but without the 700-page book to support it. Without presenting Kugel-level research, without presenting Kugel-level evidence, the student still feels comfortable with his Kugelesque assertion because it is inspired by a popular approach that addresses real problems and is expressed with disdain for the opposition and a certitude normally reserved for the law of gravity.

Well, what of it? I imitated the “three times in chumash” approach for a while, didn’t I? True – but reading chumash through that lens didn’t keep me from studying mishnah and gemara and rishonim and acharonim and midrash. I fear that the student who becomes enamored of Kugel’s approach will be more like the student who sees everything for its Torah Codes potential – he will close himself off to other approaches and to serious textual study.

This student might come to take biblical criticism as a foregone conclusion and ignore that which does not do likewise. He might read the gemara and see its citations of pesukim or its analyses of kri/ktiv and laugh it off. He might study midrash and reject its approach to textual anomaly. And so he might go through the years when he should be accumulating bekiut (superficial scholarship) as well as iyun (analytic study), and instead spend that time thinking he has transcended both with his embrace of modern scholarship.

It's like a secular university student who falls in love with socialism, or with 19th century German philosophy, or with Keynesian economics. These are good fields of study, but if they become your dominant approach before you read more broadly, then you emerge with a very narrow education.

My point is not to accept or reject Kugel's scholarly views; I am not enough of an expert in modern criticism to do either.
My point is not to discuss the question of whether Kugel's view can fit within Orthodoxy; others have already dealt with that question at length.
But I fear that the popularity of his approach, without the scholarship to back it up, will take a generation of groupies down a foolish path.

[This week's Haveil Havalim is here!]