Talmud Torah - Chapter 2

Bava Batra 21a proclaims:
Remember that man for good! Yehoshua ben Gamla is his name. Were it not for him, the Torah would have been forgotten by the Jewish people.
Originally, a person who had a father would be instructed by him, while a person who had no father would not be instructed... [Afterwards,] they instituted [the practice of] employing teachers of young children in Jerusalem, [as implied by Isaiah 2:3]: “From Zion shall go forth the Torah.” Nevertheless, whoever had a father would be taken [to Jerusalem], while one who did not have a father would not be taken there.
[Accordingly,] they instituted [the practice of] employing teachers in every region. They would begin study at sixteen or at seventeen. However, if a [student’s] teacher was angry with him, he would scoff at him and leave. [This situation persisted] until Yehoshua ben Gamla came and instituted [the practice of] employing teachers of young children in each and every land, in each and every region, and in each and every village. They would bring [the children to the schools] at the age of six or seven.
This practice was continued in the subsequent generations. Even though the dispersion of the Jewish people and the subjugation to the gentile powers made the management of their communal affairs more difficult, throughout the ages, we find references to the establishment of communal programs of education in both the codes of Jewish law and the chronicles of Jewish history. (See Rama, Choshen Mishpat, 163:3; Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:3.) Originally, it was customary for the community to impose taxes to pay for the education of all the children, whether their parents were rich or poor. However, at present it has become customary for each parent to pay for his own child’s education. However, if he lacks the financial means to do so, the community is obligated to accept this burden.

See Chapter 7, Halachah 5, for a precise definition of this term.

The Rambam’s statements are based on Shabbat 119b. Though our text of that passage differs slightly from the statements here, in the various commentaries and codes (e.g., the She’iltot of Rabbenu Achai Gaon, the Halachot of Rabbenu Yitzchak Alfasi), we find various versions of that passage. Hence, it is possible to assume that the Rambam’s statements are a quote from his text of the Talmud.

For their breath is not tainted by sin (Shabbat, loc. cit.). Based on the latter statement, some authorities require the community to support children’s study only until they reach bar-mitzvah, since afterwards they no longer possess this quality.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 6, and commentary, even before a child reached that age his father would teach him particular verses from the Torah.

Note the passage from Bava Batra quoted in the previous halachah and the commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 6.

This would determine when he would be able to begin the long and rigorous study program described in this halachah.

For he will not be able to absorb his studies (Bava Batra, 21a). At present, it is customary to send children to school at much earlier ages. They are not subjected to such a rigorous schedule and much of the time is devoted to activities other than actual study. Nevertheless, their presence in school is important to develop their character and commitment to Jewish values.

The advice that Proverbs 13:24 gives a father: “He that spares the rod, hates his son,” also applies to a teacher. Indeed, Makkot 8a equates a teacher to a father in this respect. Makkot 22b relates that Zechariah 13:6, “What are these wounds?... Those which I was wounded in the house of my beloved,” refers to the beatings administered to school children. See also Chapter 3, Halachah 12 and Chapter 4, Halachah 5.

Note Chapter 4, Halachot 4-5, which recommend restraint and patience on the teacher’s part.

Bava Batra (loc. cit.) relates that Rav instructed Rav Shmuel bar Shilat (a well known teacher of children): When you beat a child, beat him only with a sandal strap. If [it motivates him] to study, then he will study. If he does not study, let him be in the company of the others.
From Rav’s words, we can infer that corporal punishment may be employed to try to motivate a student to be more attentive. However, if it does not prove to be a successful tool, it should not be used further, lest it create a permanent aversion to Torah study.

So that as adults, they will be accustomed to fulfill the obligation to study during the day and during the night, as mentioned in Chapter 1, Halachah 8.

I.e., they should study on the mornings of these days, but not in the afternoons. The commentaries have questioned the source for the Rambam’s statements. Some have pointed to Sukkah 28a, which praises Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai for never leaving the house of study except on the eve of Pesach and the eve of Yom Kippur. Similarly, Pesachim 109a applies such praise to Rabbi Akiva. However, it is difficult to say that these are the sources for the Rambam’s statements. Firstly, the passages refer to adults and not to children. Also, the fact that these passages cite the behavior of these Sages as worthy of praise seems to imply that it was exceptional and not the rule followed by most.

For study might disturb a child’s conception of the air of rejoicing and celebration that must accompany the festivals. It must be noted that the Rambam suggests that adults use some of their time on the festivals to study (Hilchot Sh’vitat Yom Tov 6:19).

For grasping it may involve difficulty and strain, which should be avoided on the Sabbath. (See Nedarim 37a.)

For this does not involve tremendous strain.

Shabbat 119b makes this statement in the context of its description of the great merit of the children’s study, as mentioned in the previous halachah. Indeed, this appears to be the Rambam’s logic in the entire halachah. Since children’s study is so important, no unnecessary interruptions should be made. This rigorous schedule of study is not followed today. Among the reasons given are the different goals for Torah study at present from those in the previous generations, as described in the commentary to Chapter 1, Halachah 12. Alternatively, if today youth were subjected to such a schedule, they might rebel and no advantage would come of it.

Bava Batra 8b relates that Rav once found Rav Shmuel bar Shilat strolling in a garden. He reproved him: “Have you abandoned your faithfulness?” Rav Shmuel answered him: “You haven’t seen me [strolling like this] for thirteen years. Furthermore, even now I am thinking about [the children].”

The commentaries have explained the source for this halachah as follows: The Jerusalem Talmud (D’mai 7:3) relates that Rabbi Yochanan encountered a teacher who looked emaciated. When the Sage enquired about him, his colleagues explained that he fasted. Rabbi Yochanan was very critical: “If a normal hired worker is forbidden to undergo penances lest he not produce as much as desired, how much more so does this apply to someone doing God’s work!” Accordingly, since we find that a person hired to do one job should not perform another at the same time (Tosefta, Bava Metzia 4:7), it can be assumed that a teacher should refrain from doing so.

As is obvious from Hilchot Sechirut 10:7, this includes two elements: a) one who did not instruct the students; or b) one who erred in their instruction.

In his commentary to Halachah 6, the Kessef Mishneh interprets מהיר as one who teaches a large quantity of material. In his commentary to Psalms 45:2, Rav Sa’adiah Gaon translates that word as “expert.”

Bava Batra 21a-b emphasizes the importance of precise study by relating the following story: After Yoav returned from slaying all the males of Edom (II Samuel 11:16), King David asked him to explain his actions. He replied: “Doesn’t Deuteronomy 25:19 state ‘Wipe out all the males (zachor) of Amalek?’
David told him: “You are mistaken; the verse reads ‘Wipe out the memory (zecher) of Amalek.’
Yoav told him: “I learned zachor.” Later, Yoav sought out his teacher and chastised him severely for his carelessness.

However, a married man may teach even if his wife is not living with him at present (Maggid Mishneh, Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 22:13). Other authorities, based on the Jerusalem Talmud, Kiddushin 4:11, prohibit a man from teaching children if his wife is not in the same city.

“Lest he be aroused by women” (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, loc. cit.).

Even if she is married (Kessef Mishneh)

Lest they transgress the prohibition against yichud (being alone in a private place with someone of the other sex, Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, loc. cit.). Some authorities maintain that these prohibitions apply only to the classrooms of previous generations, which were often private and quite secluded. In contrast, they maintain that no prohibition exists in today’s large schools. However, it is questionable if that conclusion can be reached in view of the text of Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah.

Note the commentary of the Nimukei Yosef to Bava Batra 21a, which resolves the apparent contradiction between the Rambam’s decision and that passage. Rabbenu Asher interprets that passage differently.

Rashi (Bava Batra, loc. cit.) states that the assistant would listen to the verses read by the teacher, and then lead the children in their repetition.

The class should be divided.

Two conclusions can be derived from these statements:
a) 25 students is the maximum class size desired;
b) this is the minimum service which a community is required to afford its children.
Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah 1:3) states that the above applies only to instruction in the Written Law. Instruction in the more complicated realms of study requires even smaller classes. However, a parent cannot demand that such instruction be provided from communal funds. As explained in the commentary to Halachot 1:12, 2:2, today the goals of study differ from those of the previous generations. On that basis, some schoolmasters excuse their willingness to exceed the limits on the teacher-student ratio mentioned here. Others state that they would like to establish such a ratio, but financial pressures prevent them from doing so.

Note the commentary to Halachah 4 for a definition of the word מהיר.

In the Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo mentions the passage from Bava Batra 21a, which questions which is preferable: a teacher who teaches the students at a rapid pace, or one who instructs them more precisely, but at a slower speed. In the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 245:19), he concludes that it is preferable to take the latter teacher. Errors which children learn become permanent elements of their thinking processes as mentioned in the commentary to Halachah 3.

The Lechem Mishneh states that the Rambam derives this concept from Bava Batra (loc. cit.), which states:
From the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Gamla, a child was not transferred from city to city, but he would be transferred from synagogue to synagogue...
The Rambam interprets that statement to mean that once the practice of employing qualified teachers in each community was instituted, there was no longer a need to transfer a child from his home town to another city. However, within his city itself, he could be transferred from one house of study to another if there was adequate reason.

Because of the difficulty involved in the journey.

Because of the danger involved.

In Hilchot Shechenim 6:8, 11, the Rambam mentions certain restrictions which the owners of houses which open to a common alley can impose on each other — e.g., one may not open a tailor shop or leather works, because of the inconvenience and discomfort which might be caused. Though the opening of a schoolroom may also cause discomfort, because the parents will frequently visit and the children may make noise, the study of Torah is important enough to override these considerations.

Though such a practice would not be allowed in any other profession [if the new competitor came from a different country (see Hilchot Shechenim 6:8)], an exception is made regarding teaching Torah.

Bava Batra 21a, the source for this halachah, does not quote this verse, but rather explains: “the envy of the teachers will increase knowledge.” Yad Malachi explains that the Rambam frequently substitutes a different verse or explanation for the one quoted by the Talmud if he feels that his choice is more explanatory. However, the advantage of the verse chosen by the Rambam over the reason given by the Talmud requires explanation. This law has two dimensions: one relevant to the laws governing the consideration neighbors must afford each other and the possibility of competition between them, and one relevant to the laws of Torah study. The Talmudic passage cited above deals primarily with the rights of neighbors. Thus, it explains to a person who might feel that a colleague has overstepped his rights that he, himself, will benefit, because the spirit of competition will motivate him to increase his own Torah knowledge. In contrast, in these halachot, the Rambam deals primarily with the importance of Torah study. Hence, he quotes a verse which emphasizes how important the increase of Torah study is (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. VI, p. 299).