Talmud Torah - Chapter Four

Psalms 50:16 states, “Wicked man, why do you discuss My laws?”

Berachot 28a relates that Rabban Gamliel restricted entry to the house of study to any student “whose inside did not reflect his outside” — i.e., to anyone whose character did not match his external appearance as a Torah scholar.
Rabban Gamliel’s colleagues did not agree with this approach, and when Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was appointed in his place, these restrictions were lifted. That day, hundreds of students streamed into the house of study, and even Rabban Gamliel felt the need to reconsider his approach. (See Lechem Mishneh.)
[The Chiddushei HaRim questioned Rabban Gamliel’s change of heart. Did he not know that when the restrictions were lifted, more students would enter the house of study? However, Rabban Gamliel saw that once the students entered the house of study, the environment had a positive effect on their characters and prompted self-refinement. Therefore, he reconsidered.]

Chullin 133a.

I.e., Mercury, the Roman god of wayfarers. His symbol was three stones positioned in the form of a triangle. He was worshiped by throwing stones at that symbol.

The worship of Mercury.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah 4:17 and Kuntres Acharon 4:1) emphasizes that the restriction applies only to the teacher. The student, himself, should endeavor to study, and it is hoped that the Torah will motivate him to improve his behavior. (See Chapter 3, Halachah 5.)
Furthermore, if the student seeks very earnestly to study, even though he has not changed his behavior, he should be instructed, the teacher carefully balancing his reproofs with positive reinforcement. Our Sages (see the uncensored text of Sotah 47a) were highly critical of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Parchiah, who “pushed Yeshu away with two hands,” and thus caused him to forsake Judaism entirely.

Mo’ed Katan 17a relates that there was a Torah sage whose knowledge was needed by his community. However, because of his unsavory behavior, Rav Yehudah placed him under a ban of ostracism.

Mo’ed Katan (ibid.)

The Hebrew מלאך also means angel.

Implied is that, in addition to having knowledge and the ability to communicate it, a teacher must be a paradigm of Torah behavior, fit to be emulated by his students.

Chaggigah 15b questions how Rabbi Meir would study from Acher, a great sage who scorned the observance of mitzvot. It explains that Rabbi Meir followed the instruction of Proverbs 22:17: “Turn your ear, hear the words of the wise, and direct your heart to My intention,” which implies that one can “hear the words of the wise” and, instead of being influenced by them, “direct your heart to My (God’s) intention.”
The Talmud continues, explaining that only a sage of stature who can “suck a pomegranate and discard its shell” may follow such a course of behavior. Most people should refrain from studying under such teachers. Accordingly, the Lechem Mishneh concludes that the Rambam did not quote the passage from Chaggigah because, at present, there are none who are of a stature great enough not to be influenced by a teacher of improper character.
The Sefer Kovetz notes that the Rambam mentions this verse in the beginning of his introduction to the Guide for the Perplexed, alluding to the fact that, in composing that work, he had to follow Rabbi Meir’s example and study under teachers whose behavior he would not desire to emulate. Nevertheless, this did not represent a contradiction to his omission of this teaching in the Mishneh Torah. We find that under extraordinary conditions, it is permitted to follow a minority opinion in the Talmud. Hence, when the Rambam saw the need to compose a text like the Guide for the Perplexed, he felt that under such conditions, he should follow Rabbi Meir’s example.

In a half-circle (see Sanhedrin 30b).

Keritot 6a states: “When you sit before your teacher, look at his face, as [implied by Isaiah 30:20]: ‘And your eyes shall behold your teachers.’”

Mo’ed Katan 16b praises King David for forgoing his royal honor and sitting on the floor to study together with the Rabbis.

Megillah 21a notes that God told Moses (Deuteronomy 5:28): “stand together with me.” Since God neither stands nor sits, the verse obviously refers to the proper approach to instruction, where no distinction is made between the teachers and the students.
Rabbenu Nissim and other commentators cite certain Talmudic passages which appear to contradict this principle. He explains that sometimes the teacher would sit in an upraised position, so that the students could hear his words more easily. Alternatively, when a sage possessed semichah, the distinct Rabbinic ordination conveyed in a line from teacher to teacher, stretching back to Moses, he was granted greater privileges.

The Lechem Mishneh notes that this appears to be a direct contradiction to the principle of equality mentioned beforehand. However, he explains that the teachers were allowed to sit in order to be able to relax and transmit the subject matter more clearly. Hence, adopting that position does not reflect feelings of superiority over their students.

Megillah (loc. cit.) states:
From the time of Moses, our teacher, until Rabban Gamliel, people studied Torah only while standing; after Rabban Gamliel died, sickness descended on the world and they would study Torah while seated.
This refers to Rabban Gamliel the elder. Sotah 9:16 relates that when he died: “The honor of the Torah was nullified.” Commenting on that mishnah, the Rambam associates the nullification of the Torah’s honor with the practice of studying while seated.

Although it was common for Torah Sages to employ the services of a spokesman, there was no obligation to do so.

There is a difference of opinion between the commentaries regarding the function of this individual. Rashi, Yoma 20b, considers him to be a translator, and, indeed, that is the literal meaning of the term מתרגם. In Babylon and even in Eretz Yisrael, the popular spoken language was Aramaic, while many of the Sages preferred to teach in Hebrew. Others maintain that the spokesman was no more than a “human microphone.”
The Ra’avad mentions a third perspective, explaining that the spokesman also communicated the teacher’s words in a manner that could be understood and grasped by the students. Rabbi Shalom Dovber of Lubavitch follows a similar, but not identical, view. In the series of maamarim entitled Yom Tov Shel Rosh HaShanah, 5666, he elaborates on this concept in detail, explaining that the teacher was on too high a level to explain his ideas in a manner which the common people could understand. Therefore, he would employ a spokesman, who, though he was able to comprehend the teacher’s statements, was on a level that his explanations would not be too sophisticated for the people to grasp.

In a hushed tone.

In a manner in which they could hear. (See Sotah 40a, Chullin 15a, from which we can derive a picture of the process of instruction.)

In a hushed tone, as explained.

Out loud, so that others can hear.

The Kessef Mishneh cites Berachot 45a, which quotes the manner in which Moses relayed God’s words at the giving of the Torah (Exodus 19:19) as the source for this concept. Nevertheless, others note that the passage in Berachot refers to a מתורגמן who translates the Torah reading for the people, and is not necessarily relevant to the situation at hand. Rather, they suggest that the descriptions of the use of spokesmen in the passages cited above serve as the source for this idea.

As a mark of respect and deference.

The Rambam’s statements are quoted from the Jerusalem Talmud, Megillah 4:10. The Ra’avad differs, and quotes a narrative from Yoma 20b, which relates how Rav served as a spokesman for Rav Shilat and altered the connotation of his words. The Ra’avad explains that since Rav’s scholarship was greater than Rav Shilat’s, he was entitled to do so. The Kessef Mishneh states that the Rambam did not mention such a possibility, because it is very improbable that a greater sage would serve as a spokesman for a sage of lesser stature.

Rabbenu Nissim explains that a teacher or father is allowed to serve as a spokesman for his students, since they will not be jealous of the honor afforded him. The Kessef Mishneh relates that the Rambam’s phraseology indicates a situation which is בדעיבד (after the fact), and ideally, neither a father or teacher should serve in this position.

Kiddushin 31b relates that when Rav Ashi’s son lectured, he would tell the spokesman: “This is what my father and teacher said...,” and the spokesman would say: “This is what Rav Ashi said...”

Kiddushin (ibid.) mentions this concept within the context of the laws governing the respect due to one’s father. (See Hilchot Mamrim 6:3.) This concept is also quoted in Chapter 5, Halachah 5, as an expression of the proper respect due a teacher.

In Hilchot De’ot 2:3, the Rambam explains in detail how “anger is a very bad trait, and it is proper for a person to separate himself from it entirely.” He continues (ibid. 2:5) explaining how a teacher should instruct the students “in a composed and pleasant manner, without shouting.” Here, he does not center on the negative aspects of anger in its own right, but rather its impropriety as an educational technique.

Note the Mishnah, Avot 2:5, cited by the Rambam in the following halachah. Sofrim 16:2 states: “One should teach the Talmud with a pleasant countenance and the aggadah with a patient countenance.”

Deuteronomy 31:19 states that Torah must be placed in a student’s mouth. Eruvin 54b interprets this as a charge to teachers, requiring them to review the subject matter with their students until the latter comprehend it fully. The passage continues, praising Rabbi Pereidah for teaching one of his students each point four hundred times.
Though patience is generally required of a teacher, there are times when he should display anger as explained in the following halachah.

Derech Eretz Zuta, ch. 2, states: “If you desire to study, Do not say ‘I have comprehended it,’ when you have not.”

The teacher’s patient devotion to his students must be reflected by them. They must dedicate themselves to understanding their teacher’s words and steadfastly apply themselves to their study until they comprehend.

Megillah 28a relates that Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi gave such a reply to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah after the latter impatiently rebuked him for what seemed an irrelevant question.

And therefore refrain from asking questions.

On the contrary, he should ask that it be repeated, and his colleagues are obligated to show him the courtesy of patiently listening to the repetition.

Berachot 63b teaches: “Any student who humbles himself because of the words of Torah will ultimately be uplifted.” Rashi explains that this refers to a student who asks all the questions that bother him even though his colleagues look down upon him.

Avot 2:5.

The two faults lead to the same difficulty. The teacher will explain the subject matter in a manner which he thinks is correct. However, it will not be grasped by the students.

The directive that a teacher should patiently repeat his words without displaying anger.

In such a situation, further repetition will not help, for the students will not concentrate then, either.

This translation is based on Hilchot De’ot 2:3, which explains that a person may act in an angry matter to cast fear into the hearts of others. However, he, himself, should not be angry.

Since their difficulty stemmed from their lack of concentration, by forcing the students to apply themselves, the teacher will enable them to learn.

Ketubot 103b relates that Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi mentioned this concept in his last will and testament. In particular, this advice was given to his son, Rabban Gamliel, with regard to the manner in which he should conduct himself as a nasi. The Rambam interprets the lesson as more general in nature and applies it to the relationship between every teacher and student.

Similarly, Shabbat 30b states that a student must sit in utter dread of his teacher.

In order to cultivate this aura of respect.

In general, the Rambam advises against frivolous behavior, and favors a reserved, but pleasant and happy approach to others. (See Hilchot De’ot 2:7, 5:2.)

This does not imply that a teacher must demonstrate a totally stern approach. Shabbat (loc. cit.) relates how Rabbah would begin his lectures with a witty statement. His students would laugh and, afterwards, he would sit in awe and begin the lesson.

Lest he be prodded into responding hastily, without thinking out the matter in its entirety.

First, this is proper manners. Second, it is impossible to hear two people simultaneously.

Because he did not know the answer and give an incorrect reply.

Asking about matters which are unrelated, to see whether the students can follow the line of thought.
Berachot 43b relates that Rabbah made certain statements that ran contrary to the Sages’ teachings about the mitzvah of sending away the mother bird. The Talmud explains that he did this in order to check his students’ knowledge. Eruvin 13a relates that Rabbi Akiva also made statements with a similar intent.

E.g., Chullin 43b relates that Rabbah inspected an animal to see whether it was kosher or not in a manner which contradicted his own teachings. Here, too, it is explained that his intention was to test his students.

Bava Metzia 97a relates that a teacher has the right to change the subject matter which the students are studying. However, it does not provide the explanation given by the Rambam here.

To pique their curiosity and stimulate their desire to learn.

The laws mentioned in this halachah, as well as those of previous and the subsequent halachot, are derived from the Tosefta, Sanhedrin, Chapter 7. Nevertheless, the Rambam does not quote these laws in the same order as the Tosefta.

For a person is more composed when seated.

This is not a sign of respect for the teacher.

The Kessef Mishneh notes the apparent redundancy between this statement and a similar one in the previous halachah, and explains that, in the previous halachah, the Rambam meant that when studying the laws of the Sabbath, a student should not ask his teachers about the laws of the festivals. In this halachah, the Rambam teaches that even within the general subject of the Sabbath laws, while studying the laws of one melachah (forbidden act), a student should not inquire regarding another.

Just as the Jews received the Torah on Mount Sinai with fear and awe, similarly, our study of Torah must be charged with similar emotions (Berachot 22a).

For it would be difficult for him to grasp more than three new concepts at a time. Also, it is not courteous to the other students for one person to be asking continuously.

A Torah Sage is obligated to answer all questions posed to him, regardless of who the questioner is or what he asks. Thus, this halachah does not rule out a response being given to a particular questioner, but rather establishes the priorities for those responses to be given.

This translation is based on the commonly published text of the Mishneh Torah. Other texts read בענין, which would be rendered “with regard to the matter (under discussion).” (See Rabbenu Nissim, Megillah.)

Because it will be possible to answer in a direct manner.

Since, as mentioned in Chapter 3, Halachah 3, the greatness of Torah is that it leads to deed, questions that are directly related to deed are given precedence.

Since questions of Torah law, while not necessarily immediately relevant to actual deed, provide guidelines regarding our future behavior. In contrast, the interpretation of Torah verses is a more abstract realm of study, further removed from our immediate behavior.

I.e., the ethical and metaphysical realm of Torah teachings.

Though they are somewhat removed from being practical guidelines for behavior, the former are still in the category of halachah — the aspect of Torah study that is related to deed and action. Hence, it is given precedence over aggadah, whose lessons are more personal and require a greater effort to internalize.

A קל וחומר, a fortiori reasoning. This is one of the thirteen rules of Biblical exegesis mentioned by Rabbi Yishmael in the introduction to the Sifra. For example, Bava Metzia 3b attempts to derive the following concept using a קל וחומר: Just as a person’s own statements, which do not obligate him to pay a fine [and hence, can be considered a minor premise], obligate him to take an oath, the testimony of witnesses, which does obligate him to pay a fine [and, hence, can be considered a major premise,] should also obligate him to take an oath

As above, though the latter subject matter is somewhat removed from being practical guidelines for behavior, it is still in the category of halachah — the aspect of Torah study that is related to deed and action.

A גזרה שוה. This is also one of the thirteen rules of Biblical exegesis mentioned by Rabbi Yishmael, as cited above. When a common word or phrase is found in two separate verses, an analogy is established between them, and concepts applicable to one can be related to the other. However, it must be emphasized that a גזרה שוה cannot be arrived at independently, but must be received from a teacher, who, in turn, received it from his teacher in a chain extending back to Moses at Mount Sinai.

As mentioned in the next chapter, we are obligated to show Torah Sages respect and honor.

Though a student need not be honored in the same way as a sage, a student’s dedication to Torah study is deserving of a certain measure of respect.

The translation of the latter phrase is based on the commentary of the Kessef Mishneh.

Who relays the questions to the teacher, as mentioned in Halachah 3.

Megillah 28a relates that Rabbi Zeira’s students asked him why he had merited a long life. Among the reasons he gave them was that he had never slept (or even napped) in the house of study.
The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 151:3) allows one to sleep in a house of study. Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Hilchot Talmud Torah 4:12) explains that this leniency was granted when a person spent his days and nights in the house of study. Therefore, rather than cause him to waste his time going back and forth from his home, he was permitted to sleep in the house of study.

I.e., his memory will become faulty and he will be able to recall only what he has learned at certain times (Rashi, Sanhedrin 71a).

Ibid.

There are two reasons why unnecessary conversation is forbidden in the house of study:
a) to prevent wasting time that could be used for Torah study (see Berachot 53a);
b) as a token of respect for the house of study. According to this rationale, such conversation is forbidden even when it does not involve making an interruption in one’s studies. (See Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Hilchot Talmud Torah 4:11.)

This was the Talmudic equivalent of Gesundheit or “God bless you.”

Berachot loc. cit. relates that this rule was observed in Rabban Gamliel’s house of study.

Chaggigah 12b adds that a person who discusses other matters in a house of study will be punished by being forced to eat glowing coals.

Note Hilchot Tefillah, ch. 11, where the Rambam discusses the sanctity of houses of study and synagogues in detail, mentioning various restrictions on our behavior that were ordained as a token of respect. (See also Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 151.)The greater sanctity of a house of study is expressed by the law (Hilchot Tefillah 11:14), that a synagogue may be transformed into a house of study. However, a house of study should not be transformed into a synagogue.