“And these are the laws
that you should place before them.” (Shemot 20:1)
One of the debates that regularly emerge in
education concerns the proper role of the teacher in the educational
experience. Should the teacher impart
knowledge to the student? Should the
teacher assume a more passive role and merely act as a facilitator in the
student’s personal learning experience?
The technological breakthroughs of the last few decades have caused this
debate to resurface. With the use of
computers, the internet and other technological devices that have been
introduced into the classroom, the option of creating a classroom in which the
teacher is more a facilitator and less an instructor has become very real. But it is important to remember that we
should not use technology simply because it is available. We always need to ask, “What is the best
model for the student?” The first
passage of this week’s parasha offers
some insight into this debate.
In the first passage of our parasha, Moshe is commanded to teach the laws of the Torah to Bnai
Yisrael. However, Hashem does not
merely instruct Moshe to teach the laws to the people. Instead, He tells Moshe to place the laws
before the people. The Sages ask why
Hashem refers to placing the laws in front of the people rather than using the
more obvious formulation – to teach the people. Various responses are offered.
Rashi quotes one of these responses.
Hashem’s instructions contain an injunction. Moshe cannot fulfill his mission simply by reviewing the laws
repeatedly until the people are fluent in them. He is required to teach the laws in depth so that the people
understand the underlying principles.[1]
The precise meaning of Rashi’s comments is not
clear. We would imagine that a thorough
knowledge of the law – the achievement of fluency – is quite an
accomplishment. What additional element
is Moshe required to provide in his transmission of the law? Rabbaynu David, author of the Turai Zahav,
explains that Hashem is commanding Moshe to not limit his teaching to the
Written Law. In addition, he must
transmit to the people the Oral Law. In
other words, the Written Law represents only a portion of the corpus of the
law. The Oral Law provides explanation
and interpretation of the Written Law.
Moshe’s instruction must include the Oral Law.[2]
There is an interesting insight provided by this
interpretation of Rashi. This
interpretation of Rashi posits a specific relationship between the Written and
Oral Law. The Written Law is the basic
corpus of the entire Torah. However, it
is very brief and concise. In order to
fully understand its meaning a commentary or explanation is needed. This commentary is the Oral Law. This formulation of the relationship between
the Written and Oral Laws is expressed in some interesting halachot.
One of the most fundamental differences between the
Written and Oral Laws is contained in their names. The Written Law is recorded in written form in the Chumash. The Oral Law cannot be recorded. Our Sages only allowed the Oral Torah to be
recorded in written form because they feared that a strictly oral transmission
had become impractical. And if the Oral
Law would not be recorded, large portions would be lost.
But let us consider the original requirement – that
the Written Law should be recorded and the Oral Torah should not be
recorded. Why was it initially
prohibited to record the Oral Law in written form? Torah Temimah explains that this is an outcome of the
relationship between the Written and Oral Law.
As explained above, the Oral Law is a commentary and elaborate explanation
of the Written Law. As a result, it can
only be properly transmitted through the efforts of a scholar with his students. Because the Written Law is concise and
relatively simple, it can be mastered from the text. In contrast, the Oral Law is far more detailed and intricate. It cannot be mastered simply through the
reading of a text. It must be
transmitted through the more intimate and personal forum of the teacher and
student. In order to preserve the
student – teacher relationship as the means of transmitting the Oral Law, it
was not initially committed to written form.[3]
Following the lead of Torah Temimah, we can also
understand the history of the recording of the Oral Law. At first the Mishna was redacted. This was followed by the compilation and
recording of the Gemara. Later the
commentaries on the Talmud were recorded.
In other words, the Oral Torah was recorded in discrete stages. Why was this necessary? Once it was decided by the Sages that
necessity dictated that the Oral be recorded, why was it not immediately
recorded in its entirety? According to
the Torah Temimah, this incremental approach is quite understandable. The Sages struggled with two conflicting
considerations. First, it was necessary
to commit the Oral Law to a written form.
But they also recognized that the Oral Law could only be effectively
transmitted through the teacher – student relationship. Recording the Oral Torah undermines this
relationship. Once recorded, the Oral
Torah can be accessed by any student.
The role of the teacher is undermined.
In order to resolve these conflicting considerations, the Sages recorded
the Oral Law incrementally. At each
stage the Sages balanced their concern with the preservation of the Oral Law
with their determination to maintain the traditional and essential relationship
between teacher and student. Enough of
the Oral Law was recorded to assure its preservation. But as much as possible of the Oral Law was left in its original
oral form to be transmitted by teacher to student.
Let us consider another interesting halacha. Maimonides explains that it is permitted for a teacher to accept
payment for instructing students in the Written Law. However, it is not permitted to accept payment for providing
instruction in the Oral Law.[4] It should be noted the common practice to
compensate teachers of Oral Law is based on the position of Shulchan Aruch.[5] But let us consider the position of
Maimonides. What is the basis of the
prohibition against providing compensation for teaching the Oral Law? Why does this prohibition not apply to
teaching the Written Law?
Maimonides provides an interesting response to the
first question. He explains that just
as the Almighty taught Moshe the Torah without receiving compensation, so too
we are required to provide instruction without compensation.[6] This provides an explanation for the
prohibition. But now our second
question seems even more justified!
Hashem did not just instruct Moshe in the Oral Law without
compensation. He also provided Moshe
with instruction in the Written Law.
Based on Maimonides explanation of origins of the prohibition, we would
think it should also extend to the Written Law.
Perhaps,
based on the above analysis of the relationship between the Written and Oral
Laws, we can answer this question. As we have explained, the written and oral
formats of these elements of the Torah reflect two different instructional
models. The Written Torah is recorded
in order to make it readily accessible to every student. However, the Oral Law is not written in
order to foster transmission by teacher to student. If this is the case, let us consider the role of the teacher in
the instruction of each Law. In the
case of the Written Law, the recorded format is designed to make the Written
Law accessible even without the aid of an instructor. Therefore, the instructor is not an inherent element in the
transmission of the Written Law. The
student learns from the text. The teacher
provides assistance and facilitates learning.
But he is not the source of the knowledge. The teacher has a completely different role in the transmission
of the Oral Law. In this case, the Law
is designed to be transmitted from teacher to student. The teacher is not merely a facilitator and
aid to the student. The teacher is
charged with the responsibility of acting as the agent for the transmission of
the Law.
This distinction suggests an answer to our question
on Maimonides. A teacher can be
compensated for providing assistance to the student in mastering the Written
Law. This is because the teacher is not
truly acting as an instructor. The
student learns from the text with the aid of the teacher. However, we cannot provide compensation for
actually providing Torah instruction.
In the case of the Oral Law the teacher is actually assuming an instructional
role. Maimonides maintains that for
such a role, the instructor cannot be compensated.
So is it best for a teacher to facilitate the
student’s own learning? Is it the role
of the teacher to assume a more active role as an instructor? If we use the Torah as a model, there is no
one answer. It depends on the material
the student is studying. There are some
cases in which the teacher can best serve the student by acting as a
facilitator. However, in some areas
this is not the appropriate role. Some
areas knowledge cannot be transmitted without the teacher – student interaction
and dialogue. In such cases, the
teacher is an essential element of the learning process.
[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Shemot 21:1.
[2] Rabbaynu David ben HaRav Shemuel HaLeyve Divrei David Torai Zahav, (Mosad HaRav Kook, 1978), p 253.
[3] Rav Baruch HaLeyve Epstein, Torah Temimah, Introduction.
[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:7.
[5] Rav Yosef Karo, Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 246:5.
[6] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:7.