A woman who emits seed during her days of counting (the “shiv’a nekiyim“): If it is within six ‘onoth (time periods defined as either from sunrise to sunset or sunset to sunrise, in essence three full days) of when she engaged in intercourse, it invalidates that day (of the emission). Therefore, one who engages in intercourse, sees blood (unrelated to the prior relations) and then performs hefseq tohara, may not begin to count her shiv’a nekiyim until six full ‘onoth [pass from the time she had intercourse] lest she emit seed [therefrom]. Therefore, she does not start counting until the fifth day from when she engaged in intercourse. For example, if she engaged in intercourse Saturday night, she would not begin her count until Thursday, as we hold that seed does not spoil until six ‘onoth have passed, i.e. a full 72 hours.
The Rema brings even stricter opinions. This halacha is considered a staple of modern day nidda observance; this website is an example of the mainstream rabbinic approach to the concept. Note the over riding assumption that a woman must wait a certain amount of time before she can start her nekiyim.
The question I always had with this halacha was, “Why not let her take that chance? Either she’ll start nekiyim ASAP, and she will not emit seed, or if she starts early and does emit, then let her ruin that first day of the count. Why should we assume the worst and make her delay the start of nekiyim?”
Some years ago, R’ Schachter came to speak at Lander College. The first time was to sit on a panel with Rabbi Lau, Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen, and Rabbi Tendler, and discuss Religious Zionism in the post-Zionist era, and the other time was with Rabbi Belsky, Rabbi Genack, and Rabbi Slifkin to discuss the kashrus of exotic species. I do not specifically recall which event it was, because the personal discussion we had was after the event and downstairs in the main beis medrash. There, Rabbi Daniel Freund and I spoke to him about the presentation we had recently attended on the topic of helping halachically infertile couples. We suggested that the “Humra D’ Rabbi Zera” could be avoided. Here is Maimonides’s explanation of the rule (Issurei Bi’a 11:4, Touger edition):
In addition, Jewish women accepted a further stringency upon themselves. They accepted the custom that wherever Jews live, whenever a Jewish woman discovers [uterine] bleeding, even if she does not discover more than a drop the size of a mustard seed and the bleeding ceases immediately, she must count seven “spotless” days. [This stringency applies] even if she discovered the bleeding during her “days of niddah.”
Whether the bleeding continued for one day, two days, an entire seven days, or longer, when the bleeding ceases, she counts seven “spotless” days as is required of a major zavah and immerses on the night of the eighth day despite the fact that there is a doubt whether she is a zavah. Or she may immerse during the day on the eighth day in a pressing situation, as explained. Afterwards, she is permitted to her husband.
We argued that because keeping this stringency causes many women to avoid intimacy while they are ovulating, every husband should nullify his wife’s assumed vow to keep this rule the day they marry. (See Hilchoth Nedarim, 11-13) After all, if he knew at the time of his marriage that her observance of this stricture would make them childless, he would certainly want her not to keep it.
Rabbi Schachter answered that Rabbi Zera’s rule has more force than a private vow, and such is the answer every other rabbi has given me. He claimed it would take a bona fide Sanhedrin to undo such a law. I still maintain that it should not, as no where does it say that Rabbi Zera’s stringency was an enactment of the Sanhedrin. It is as the Gemara has it: “the daughters of Israel dealt strictly with themselves.”
Rabbi Schachter then offered that there is a further issue with regard to halachic infertility. He claimed that doctors had told him that it was a matter of solid fact that women did not emit seed from their wombs after intercourse, although seed that does not get beyond the cervix routinely exits the birth canal. Thus, the basis of the above law from Yoreh Deah is removed.
The problem though, was that that law had a solid basis in the following Mishna, which itself was based on a clear understanding of a verse from the Torah (Shabbath 9:3):
Whence is it [to be inferred] that a woman who emits semen on the third day [after coitius] is unclean? From the text, “And be ready against the third day.” (Exodus 19:11)
When Moses transmitted this command to the people (Exodus 19:15) he added the caveat, “do not approach a woman.” This shows that Moses himself established a three day quarantine for the people in preparation for the Revelation at Sinai, presumably because the women needed three days to make sure that they would be free of any remaining seed from prior relations. As Rashi says on that verse,
Do not go near a woman: [to have intimacy with her] for all these three days [of preparation], in order that the women may immerse themselves on the third day and be pure to receive the Torah. If they have intercourse within the three days, the woman could [involuntarily] emit semen after her immersion and become unclean again. After three days have elapsed [since intercourse], however, the semen has already become putrid and is no longer capable of fertilization, so it is pure from contaminating the [woman] who emits it. — [from Shab. 86a]
It should be noted that the standard of purity for receiving the Torah was different from the one discussed in Yoreh De’ah, but the point remains the same. Seed might come back some days later, and there are apparently halachic consequences.
Or so it seems.
Recently Rabbi Bar Hayim wrote the following. Note points 5 and 6, and then 7, where he brings Maimonides’s ruling in straight contradiction to the rule of the Shulhan Aruch, above.
Hilkhoth Nida – Basic Concepts and Requirements in Brief
Yom 5, 21-10-65 — 21 Teveth 5773 — 03-01-2013
Questions
This is a very frustrating mitzvah for me! Although we do keep it fully. I’m so confused about many things regarding Taharat Mishpacha. Isn’t it true that when a woman is Niddah (or a Zava?), the first seven days are d’oreita, and the seven clean days are actually a machloket? Why is it that women can forgo the first seven days but never the second? The seven clean days seems so excessive to me!
In your view, must a woman wait 4 or 5 days before doing a hefsek tahara?
Is a moch dachuk necessary? I learned that it was a chumrah and never did them, personally.
I realize some of these things are “Sephardi v. Ashkenazi” and I’d like to know where you stand.
I also tend to have issues with staining and have trouble getting clean bedikot the first few days of the seven, so I’m always seeking out ‘leniencies.’
Response
Shalom
Very good news…
Regarding your other questions: Min HaTora, a menstruating woman (i.e. at the usual time for her menstrual cycle) is ttame for 7 days, whether she saw blood for 1 day or up to and including 7 days. She must then peform a b’dhiqa, and at night, i.e. the beginning of the 8th day, she goes to the miqwe. Those 7 days are known as Y’me Nida. Where the bleeding continued beyond the initial 7 days, see below no.3.
If, however, blood is seen during the 11 days following those first 7 days (which occurred at the time of her usual menstrual cycle), it becomes more complicated. If she saw blood for 1 or 2 days, she must wait one clean day for every day of bleeding, and then go to the miqwe after performing a b’dhiqa. If she saw blood for 3 consecutive days, she must wait for the bleeding to cease, perform a b’dhiqa, and count 7 Clean Days before going to the miqwe on the night of the 8th day. Min HaTora, it is only in this case that a woman must count 7 Clean Days. These 11 days are known as Y’me Ziva, because only during these days can a woman become a Zava. After those 11 Y’me Ziva, i.e. after 18 days from the beginning of the usual menstrual cycle, any bleeding is considered Nida and not Ziva. (This is the view of all Rishonim. The view often attributed to Rambam is based on a corrupt text (as found, for example, in the very inaccurate Vilna edition) and is quite impossible. For the correct text, see MT Hilkhoth Isure Biya 6:5).
All of the above is min HaTora. Due to the possibility of confusion, the Hakhamim decreed that all bleeding be considered to have occurred during the 11 Y’me Ziva, which means that normal, menstrual bleeding that lasts 3 or more days must be followed by 7 clean days.
In addition, the Talmud informs us that Jewish women took upon themselves the added stringency of always counting 7 Clean Days after seeing even a drop of blood and no matter for how long the bleeding lasted (TB B’rakhoth 31a, M’ghila 28b and Nida 66a). See Rambam’s MT Hilkhoth Isure Biya 11:4,
These humroth (strictures) are understood by many today to be problematic. The humroth mentioned above can frequently result in ‘Halakhic infertility’, i.e. the woman missing her window of opportunity for conception due to ovulation occuring during the Seven Clean Days. This is a very serious issue on a number of levels, not the least of which is the demographic future of the Jewish people. On a different note, I have heard serious, God-fearing Jews state that the lengthy abstinence (usually 12 days or more) from marital relations can have a negative impact on the marriage. These issues cannot be swept under the carpet. I assume that when a critical mass within ‘Am Yisrael wake up and establish a Beth Din Gadhol, as is our duty according to the Tora (see Rambam’s MT Hilkhoth Sanhedrin 1:4), these issues will feature prominently on the agenda.
It is not necessary to wait 4 or 5 days before performing an Hephseq Tahara and starting to count the 7 Clean Days. If the menstrual bleeding lasted only 1-3 days and a b’diqa is performed and found to be clean, one may begin counting the 7 Clean Days immediately. See Rambam’s MT Isure Biya 11:13 and Hilkhoth Nida of Ra’ah 1:2.
A Mokh Dahuq (see Shulhan ‘Arukh YD 196:1) – a humra based on the recommendation of the Rashba (but not a requirement) and not mentioned by Hazal or other Rishonim – is unnecessary. (This is one more example of R. Yoseph Karo z’l not following the rules that he himself laid down in the introduction to his Beth Yoseph commentary on the Tur, in which he states that he will follow the unanimous or majority opinion of three Rishonim: Riph, Rambam and Rosh. None of these Rishonim require a Mokh Dahuq.)
May HASHEM bless you in all things
Rabbi Bar Hayim is not the first Rabbi who has ruled that mokh dahuq is unnecessary. Rabbi Elazar Raz told me that because it causes undue irritation for many women, it should not be done at all. Other observant OB/Gyn’s have concurred.
Now, the question can be asked against Maimonides: does he not hold of the Mishna’s understanding of the verse concerning Moses’s three day quarantine? The answer is NO. He does not exactly understand the verse as Rashi or the Babylonian sages understood it, and therefore does not hold of the Shulhan Aruch’s rule. How do I know? Because of what he wrote concerning Moses’s decision in the Guide to the Perplexed (3:33, Freidlander translation):
The Law is also intended to give its followers purity and holiness; by teaching them to suppress sensuality, to guard against it and to reduce it to a minimum, as will be explained by us. For when God commanded [Moses] to sanctify the people for the receiving of the Law, and said, “Sanctify them today and tomorrow” (Exod. xix. 10), Moses [in obedience to this command] said to the people, “Come not at your wives” (ibid. ver. 15).Here it is clearly stated that sanctification consists in absence of sensuality.
That is, the quarantine was for the sake of spiritual preparation in anticipation of the Revelation, not because of some technical rule.
I will now anticipate a problem. Doesn’t Maimonides himself write in his commentary to that Mishna along the same lines as the Gemara cited by Rashi? The answer is yes, but with an important additional detail. “We shall explain this further in the eighth chapter of Miqwa’oth.” The reference is to Miqwa’oth 8:3-4 (Blackman edition):
If one discharges thick drops from the membrum virile, he is unclean, according to the view of R. Eliezer Chisma. If one experienced impure thoughts in the night [during sleep], and on rising found his body heated, he is unclean.~If [a woman] emitted seed on the third day [after copulation], she is clean according to the opinion of R. Eliezer ben Azariah. R. Ishmael says, Sometimes there are [in those two days] four ‘onoth, sometimes five, at other times six [‘onoth]. R. Akiba says, [They are] always five [periods]
Thus, it seems that the Mishnayoth in both Shabbath and Miqwa’oth are not discussing the ramifications of a uterine seminal discharge. Recall that with regards to hilchoth nidda, the concern is with uterine discharges of blood. Urethral or vaginal discharges are by definition not inducing of tum’ath nidda, and in the halacha from Yoreh De’ah above, the concern is with semen that exits the uterus, which would be similar to uterine blood (but not entirely), whereas these mishnayoth are discussingtuma’th qeri, the contamination induced by contacting normal semen, which can be eliminated by washing and subsequent immersion in the ritual bath. Semen within the uterus can not, by definition, be washed out.
Thus, even if Moses was concerned about quarantining the people for three days prior to the revelation, it was not because the women needed time to let whatever seed they had within their wombs to spoil. Rather, he wanted to make sure that no matter who had a chance or not to bathe prior to the revelation, no woman would have any traces of semen left on her anywhere not within her womb.
(This is a good opportunity to recall that although the Midrash claims that the Israelites had a constant and bountiful water source wherever they travelled in the wilderness, the simple meaning of numerous verses in scripture is that they did not. Rather, they had to always make sure to camp near some source of water, and also to take enough with them when they were on the move. Thus, it is likely that not all of the millions of Israelites would have had an opportunity to immerse or bathe within a day of the Revelation. Think about everyone in the family having to shower Friday afternoon. It has to be coordinated. How much more so for an entire nation in the desert.)
In conclusion: The Talmud does not necessarily assume that women could potentially emit seed from their wombs within three days of intercourse, R’ Schachter’s doctors are on to something, and Maimonides had good reason to not hold of the Shulhan Aruch’s halacha, above, because even according to the Shulhan Aruch it is possible for a woman to start her seven clean days ASAP as long as she both finishes menstruating and thoroughly cleans her cleans her genitals before trying to obtain a clean check.
First It was Daf Yomi, then Nach Yomi; OU Webcast of New Torah Learning Cycle Begins Purim.
Torah is for every Jew; make it yours with Ot Yomit online. We look forward to learning with you!
One who learns from his fellow a single chapter [of Torah], a single law, a single verse, a single statement, or even a single letter, must treat him with honor. (Pirkei Avot)
For a single letter of the Torah is worth more than the entire world and than all the mitzvot (Talmud Yerushalmi, Peah).
The last century and this have seen amazing innovations in Torah learning.
In 1923, Rabbi Meir Shapiro introduced the idea of Daf Yomi, the study of one page of Talmud a day.
In 2007, the Orthodox Union began to promote Nach Yomi, the study of one chapter of Tanach a day.
Now comes Ot Yomit, the study of one letter of the Torah a day.
WHAT COULD BE EASIER?
The OU’s Ot Yomit program opens up Torah learning even to those who are able to study only on a very basic level. No previous learning is required; just the willingness to devote yourself to a daily regimen of spiritually rewarding and inspiring Torah knowledge.
If Daf Yomi or Nach Yomi is too challenging for you, this is something you can really do! The Ot Yomit cycle takes slightly longer than either of these two older programs to complete, but learning the entire Torah letter by letter is entirely achievable. Never let anyone tell you it is not so. Just be sure to take the time to read each day’s selection at your own speed—as with any course of study, the more time you spend with the text, the more you will get out of it.
Reading the day’s letter may take you so little time, you’ll want the thrill of studying it again and again!
And as with any other daily study program, those who commit to Ot Yomit must keep the goal in mind. By always focusing on the day you will complete your learning, nothing will deter you from maintaining your daily schedule.
A LETTER A DAY—YOU’LL HARDLY NOTICE THE TIME GO BY
There are 304,805 letters in the Torah—each one precious and important in its own individual way. That means that by committing to spending just a few moments a day to study the letter, anyone can complete the entire Torah in only 834 years. And the OU will provide you with an online calendar so you never lose track of where you are. (Plans to distribute a printed calendar had to be abandoned because of the weight.)
The Ot Yomit program is scheduled to commence on Purim. The first cycle will conclude in 6606 (2846), at which point the second cycle will begin. If you miss it this time around, you might want to wait for the start of the second cycle so that you do not lose out on even one letter.
THE ADVANTAGES OF OT YOMIT STUDY
No longer will anyone be able to say, in the words of Pirkei Avot, “When I have time, I will study.” Who does not have time to study one letter each day?
Many people find it difficult to retain the knowledge they have gained from Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi, given the limited time available to review each day’s lesson before the next arrives. With Ot Yomit, review (chazarah) is built in. By the end of the initial week, the first letter studied—the bet of the word bereishit—appears again, as the first letter of the second word, bara, to be pored over and analyzed anew! And as you study, you will discover that this happens time after time, sometimes even with the same letter appearing two days in a row!
Ot Yomit has been specifically designed by a team of master Torah educators for today’s brief attention spans. You will develop study skills that will inspire and guide you for seconds at a time, for the rest of your life.
THE SIYUM—A FULFILLING MOMENT
What a monumental feeling of achievement you will have when you make a siyum on the entire Torah, just 834 years from now, joined by millions of other Jews around the world (and through the centuries) who have doggedly persisted in learning day after day in order to reach this goal.
A grand siyum is now in the planning stages, with major arenas and convention halls around the world already booked for that date! Leading roshei yeshiva, inspirational speakers and star singers are being lined up. It will undoubtedly be the event of the millennium—and you can be a part of it! Not only you, but your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, great-great-grandchildren, great-great-great-grandchildren, great-great-great-great-grandchildren . . . ad dorei dorot!
HOW TO SIGN UP
While most OU programs are provided free of charge, Ot Yomit will need the attention of OU staff members for centuries to come. Therefore, we are asking all who join the program to help maintain it. You will be privileged to join this outstanding learning program for just 10 cents per day. Please don’t forget to include the full amount, $30,480.50, with your registration.
And here’s something unique to Ot Yomit—you can sponsor a letter in memory of someone not yet born!
Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP), Inc.; Harvard Business School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS, Karl Brunner, ed., Martinus Nijhoff Publishing Company, 1979 Abstract:
Controlling the political process that threatens the free enterprise market system is a major social problem. This problem will not be solved until we develop a viable positive theory of the political process. Such a political theory will not be complete until we also have a theory that explains why we get the results we do out of the mass media.
This paper is a first step in the development of a formal analysis of the behavior of the press (a term I use as a shorthand reference to all the mass media, including not only newspapers but news magazines, magazines, radio, and television).
I argue that the mass media is best understood as producers of entertainment, not information, and that the theories and facts that people absorb from the media are a by-product of their consumption of the entertainment value of the news. In addition, peoples’ intolerance of ambiguity causes them to demand answers to questions; including those that are unanswerable. As a result the media is generally in the business of providing simple answers to complex problems whose answers are unknown, and it must do so in an entertaining way. Complex answers, even if correct are not acceptable to consumers of the media, and therefore are seldom provided.
To explain the anti-market bias of the media I argue that we must understand the family environment in which people are raised. I outline a theory of the family that is based on the notion that all exchanges must be balanced if two or more parties are to continue in relationship. The family is characterized by the absence of quid pro quo exchanges, and I argue that this occurs because it is inefficient in such relationships to keep the books balanced on a transaction by transaction basis. As a result, the family is organized around non quid pro quo exchanges, and this causes people to erroneously believe that such exchanges are the appropriate way to organize large groups or even societies. This element of consumer demand helps explain why the press is generally biased in its presentation of market vs. collectivist solutions to problems faced in modern societies.
I examine the rewards and penalties that the media and its sources can impose on each other to explain why and when the media will protect some sources of information and why they attack others. Finally I analyze the entrepreneurial aspects of journalism, including the media’s interest in helping to manufacture crises.
The past few decades have witnessed the rapid growth of Yeshivot that adhere to what is known as “The Zilberman Model” in the world of Jewish Education. Yeshivot across the spectrum, from Jerusalem to Johannesburg to Toronoto, have adapted the Zilberman model of education. What exactly is the Zilberman method, and why has it become so popular in recent years?
Some fifty years ago, following the birth of his first son, Rabbi Yitzchok Shlomo Zilberman undertook the study of the sources concerning the mitzvah of talmud Torah. After consulting with the Torah leaders of his day, and receiving encouragement from the preeminent Torah sage Dayan Yechezkel Abramsky, the well known educator from Jerusalem created the method that bears his name. His yeshivah presently located in the Old City of Jerusalem, Aderet Eliyahu, is the forerunner to some forty elementary schools that are based on his model. These schools are found in Israel as well as in Johannesburg, South Africa; Toronto, Canada; Lakewood, New Jersey; Los Angeles, California; and Baltimore, Maryland. The yeshivot use a somewhat modified form of the method used by Aderet Eliyahu.
Far from being a revolutionary approach, the Zilberman method draws upon traditional teaching methods as outlined by Chazal and championed by the Maharal and Vilna Gaon. The Mishnah and the Gemara set forth halachic guidelines for teaching Torah to children. These guidelines include the ages at which texts should be studied (“Five years old is the age to begin studying Scripture; ten for Mishnah; thirteen for the obligation of the commandments; fifteen for the study of Talmud…” [Avot 5:21]), the times of study (including Shabbat for children; Hachazan roeh heichan tinokot korin– the chazzan observes [on Shabbat] where [in the text] the children are reading [Shabbat 11a, Rashi, Ran]) and the manner of teaching (safi lei k’tura–stuffing the children like oxen [Ketubot 50a]; ligmar inish v’hadar lisbor–read the text and then explain it [Shabbat 63a]).
The Zilberman method has children focus exclusively on Tanach and Mishnah in their younger years, ensuring that they know large portions of both areas by heart before they begin learning Gemara. Indeed, graduates of such schools tend to have impressive fluency in these areas. Two key elements in Zilberman’s methodology, however, must be singled out: chazarah (review) and student participation.
In the Zilberman-styled school, a new text of Chumash is introduced in the following manner (obviously adjustments are made for each grade level). On Monday and Tuesday, the rebbe chants the text with the ta’amei ha’mikra (tropp) and the students immediately imitate him. This is repeated several times until the students are able to read the text independently. Then the rebbe introduces the translation/explanation of the text and invites students to participate in the process. New words typically need to be translated only once; subsequently, students are encouraged to call out the translation on their own. All translations are strictly literal. If the translation does not automatically yield a comprehensible meaning, the students are invited to try to find one. The class spends the rest of the week reviewing the material. Each pasuk is reviewed with the tropp at least twenty-four times.
In contrast, in the majority of other schools, the text is not sung with tropp; it is not repeated to the point of memorization and often the entire translation is provided by the rebbe. Furthermore, students are not encouraged to join in the process of translating the words, and usually the translation provides the final understanding of the verse rather than the literal meaning of each word.
What are some of salutary effects of the Zilberman method?
1. Students are continuously and actively involved in the learning process.
2. The constant review guarantees that the children will know the text by heart. This leads to the feeling of mastery, and sets the standard for all Torah learning–mastery. And mastery leads to simchah (joy).
3. Participation in the translation and explanation of the text initiates the student to the process of learning Torah and to his own capabilites. He is not just witnessing the mysterious genius of the rebbe; he is contributing his own intelligence to the process.
4. Mastery leads to penetrating discussions of the text because the students have the whole text before them. So students may be propelled to ask, “How can it be that Yaval invented shepherding if Hevel was a shepherd earlier?” (Did you notice that when you were studying Bereishit at age six?) Then the rebbe draws the student’s attention to Rashi, who explains that Yaval invented nomadic shepherding. Now the student understands what motivated Rashi to provide that particular explanation!
5. Believe it or not, the various benefits listed above generate within students a genuine and deep love of learning. Students do not want to miss yeshivah–some even refuse to take vacations.
The Zilberman Philosophy The Zilberman philosophy of Talmud Torah is based on an understanding of the nature of mitzvot in general. Every mitzvah has two components: the rules and the goals of the mitzvah. The detailed rules concerning how to perform the mitzvah are the halachot of the mitzvah. Then there are the goals that the performance of a mitzvah should attempt to achieve (although the mesorah does not reveal the goals of every mitzvah). When we plan to do a mitzvah, we seek strategies to both assist in the practice of the halachah and to enhance attainment of the goals of the mitzvah. These strategies may include any means that do not violate Torah norms. However, an appeal to these strategies is not an adequate reason to reject implementing any part of the mesorah-definition of the mitzvah, i.e., the halachah and the goals.
We accept that the halachic rules are nonnegotiable for two reasons:
a.We recognize that while often a purpose of the halachot is to achieve (one or more of ) the goals, the relationship between the two (i.e., the halachot and the goals) is deeper than what we can comprehend.
b. Mitzvot have ta’amim that are often not revealed to us.
When exceptional circumstances arise that demand changing certain details that the mesorah or the halachah set forth, we must look for guidance to the Torah sages of the generation to instruct us in making adjustments.
Consider tefillah as an example. The goal of tefillah is essentially to connect one with Hashem. To this end, kavanah, concentration on the meaning and text of the prayers, is an integral part of the mitzvah of tefillah. One aspect of the halachically defined practice of tefillah is praying from a fixed text. In certain cases where there is tension between the halachic practice of tefillah and the goal of the mitzvah (connection through kavanah) the pesak (formal halachic ruling) is to sacrifice halachic form for the sake of the substance of the mitzvah. A case in point is the abbreviated text of tefillah known as Havinenu, created specifically for travelers. Furthermore, those returning from a trip were excused from tefillah altogether. The practice of the mitzvah was modified because one praying while traveling or returning from a trip is unable to have appropriate concentration. Thus, the form of the mitzvah was adjusted for the sake of the substance of the mitzvah.
Contrast this with the halachot relevant to an avel, a mourner. The halachah requires a mourner to pray even though he may be totally distracted, because he is required to overcome his grief enough to have proper concentration. But what if a mourner can’t overcome his grief. Is he therefore exempt from praying? No, the halachah says, he is not. The halachah dictates that in some cases lack of concentration overrides tefillah and in other cases, it does not.
Far from being a revolutionary approach, the Zilberman method draws upon traditional teaching methods as outlined by Chazal and championed by the Maharal and Vilna Gaon.
The halachic rules of a mitzvah are the fundamental Masoretic prescription for attaining the goals of the mitzvah. Unless the circumstances are halachically exceptional, this methodology is the standard that must be followed. To deviate from the prescription requires a demonstration that the circumstances are relevantly exceptional. And when the circumstances change so that they are no longer exceptional, the original position returns as binding.
The application to talmud Torah is straightforward. Children should be educated in accordance with the educational methodology outlined by Chazal. Some maintain that because the Haskalah, the Jewish Enlightenment, emphasized the study of Tanach, it was discouraged in certain religious circles. However, nowadays, the Haskalah no longer presents the same threat; thus, the time has come to reinstate the primacy of Tanach in the yeshivah curriculum.
The mesorah also defines goals for talmud Torah: getting children to know and understand the material, to love the process of learning, and to develop into ovdei Hashem. To achieve these goals, it is appropriate to use any devices that have demonstrated effectiveness, as long as they do not violate other Torah norms. These may include employing visual aids and group activities, learning through play, writing summaries of lessons, using oral and written exams, relating the material to the lives of the students to make the lessons more relevant and vivid, using activities to promote bonding between teacher and students, et cetera. But none of these devices can serve as the basis for contradicting the mesorah-definition of the mitzvah.
So, for example, we want the children to enjoy the learning, as a means to come to love the process. Many children will not naturally enjoy learning the rules of tumah and taharah, or the architecture of the mishkan, or the list of places that Klal Yisrael passed during their travels in the desert. But that is no reason to omit those sections of Chumash from the curriculum. Similarly, since the halachic rules of Talmud Torah require knowing and mastering Chumash, not merely having read it, dislike of the chazarah needed for mastery is not a reason to omit the repetition (see Avodah Zarah 19a). Moreover, the fact that many nine-year-olds can understand parts of mishnayot is not an adequate reason to change the ages Chazal prescribed for the study of the texts.
There is an even deeper principle for following the dictates of Chazal with regard to educational philosophy. Talmud Torah is a mitzvah. It is not the Jewish counterpart of Greek philosophy, or of contemporary advanced education. A mitzvah is a way in which Hakadosh Baruch Hu ordained that the Creation receives its tikkun, rectification. The mitzvot were given by the Creator Who knows what His Creation needs. He is aware of the nature of His people to whom He has addressed these mitzvot and the nature of the circumstances in which they live. Tampering with the mesorah-definition of a mitzvah is thus ruled out (unless the circumstances can be shown to be halachically exceptional). In other words, changing practice–failing to perform the mitzvah in the way that the mesorah defines–risks lessening or even entirely forfeiting the spiritual effect of the mitzvah; that is, it risks losing everything. For this very reason we would never dream of changing the mesorah-definition of other mitzvot (unless the circumstances can be shown to be halachically exceptional). The four cups of wine at the Pesach Seder may give one headaches until Shavuot and therefore seemingly negate any feelings of freedom that they are intended to induce. Similarly, blowing loud noises with a shofar in a public setting may not appear to be conducive to inspiring teshuvah to one who needs quiet to contemplate. And keeping Shabbat when one is facing severe economic difficulties may cause physical hardship and emotional distress, which seem far from menuchah, the rest that is an integral part of the mitzvah of Shabbat. Nevertheless, no one would suggest that the halachot should be modified for any of these cases.
Ramchal (Derech Etz Chaim) says that the Torah study of young children subdues the powers of evil in a uniquely effective way since they are entirely free from the yetzer hara (evil inclination). The Zohar (Introduction, p. 6) says, “the voice [sic] of tinokot shel beit rabban preserves the world, causes the Avot to appear, and through these children the world is saved.” The Midrash Tanchuma (Parashat Tzav) states: “Why do tinokot shel beit rabban begin with Vayikra? Because Vayikra records all the korbanot and the children are tahorim. Let the tahorim come and occupy themselves with the actions that require taharah, and I [Hakadosh Baruch Hu] regard it as if you brought the korbanot before Me.”
The Maharal (Derush al HaTorah) says that Torah is sechel Eloki (the wisdom of Hashem) and thus naturally foreign to the human mind. Therefore the order Chazal advocated for teaching Torah must be followed to gradually introduce this “foreign” element to our children.
Still another advocate for returning to tradition was Rabbi Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler (Michtav MeEliyahu, vol. 3, p. 362), who states that the teaching of the aleph bet in the traditional manner [“kametz alef ah….”] “infuses the child with kedushah and chavivut [affection], which lead to yirat Shamayim and love [for Hakadosh Baruch Hu]–and that is ikar halimud, and therefore one must not change the method.” Rabbi Dessler states that he heard similar ideas from the Chazon Ish many times.
In all these sources there is not a word about educational efficiency. Rather, the mitzvah of talmud Torah– teaching Torah to our young—is a mitzvah that perfects Creation in specific ways, and the details of the halachot are designed to achieve that perfection.
The Zilberman position is this: Whatever exceptional circumstances existed in centuries past, those conditions no longer exist and therefore there is no justification to disregard Chazal’s educational prescription. Thus we are required to return to the original mesorah-definition for Talmud Torah. While it is natural for one to say he wants to do what his grandfather did–“If it was right for one as holy and righteous as he, it cannot be wrong for me!”–in this case, it is incorrect. Instead, one should say, “If my grandfather were here, what would he do?”
Rabbi Zilberman believed that if our ancestors were here today, they would embrace the educational methodology advocated by mesorah and by Chazal. Indeed, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein’s famous pesak concerning changing one’s nusach in tefillah is quite relevant here. Rav Moshe ruled (Orach Chaim II:24) that an Ashkenazi who currently davens Nusach Sephard may switch to Nusach Ashkenaz since somewhere in his past there was an ancestor who changed from Nusach Ashkenaz to Nusach Sephard. Thus, this individual cannot in principle be opposed to changes! Similarly, today we find people whose practice of Talmud Torah does not adhere to the directives outlined in the Gemara; at some point, their ancestor(s) veered from the educational methodology outlined by Chazal. They cannot in principle be opposed to reverting back to the traditional guidelines.
Unfortunately, certain ma’amarei Chazal are often cited to justify the departure from Chazal’s educational methods. However, while on the surface these ma’amarei Chazal seem to be negating the importance of studying mikra, a deeper understanding of the various writings of Chazal indicate that the study and mastery of mikra is absolutely essential. I hope the few examples I show below will serve as a binyan av (generalization based on analogy from one source text) for other such sources that may occur to the reader.
Commenting on the Gemara (Kiddushin 30a) that directs a person to divide his days between the study of mikra, Mishnah and Gemara, Rabbeinu Tam says: “We rely on what is said in Sanhedrin 24a: ‘Bavel [Talmud Bavli] means filled with mikra, Mishnah and Gemara–for the Gemara of Bavel is filled with all of them.’” In other words, Rabbeinu Tam is stating one need only study Talmud Bavli to fulfill his obligation to study mikra and Mishnah as well.
Does this mean that the independent study and mastery of mikra and Mishnah are unnecessary? Is it possible that Rabbeinu Tam is contradicting the mishnah in Avot and the other sources that instruct us in the order of study? Elaborating on Rabbeinu Tam’s answer, the Shelah (Masechet Shavuot, beg.) clarifies: “. . . therefore a person must learn halachah from the Talmud every day of his life. And even though he fulfills the obligation to study divrei Torah via Talmud Bavli, this is for the sake of his daily obligation. Even so a person must learn Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim and Mishnah and Talmud. . . until he knows them by heart–and the halachah from the Talmud is to fulfill the obligation to divide his time in three.”
Essentially, the Shelah is stating that an individual has two obligations: a daily obligation to spend a third of his time studying mikra, Mishnah and Talmud, and a separate obligation to master mikra, Mishnah and Talmud to the point where one knows them by heart. According to this reading of the Rabbeinu Tam, in the gemara above Rabbeinu Tam is merely stating that the daily obligation, albeit not the general obligation, can be fulfilled by studying Talmud alone.
Hagahot Sefer Yesh Nochalin, the brother of the Shelah, states: “Chazal said that the study of mikra is mida v’aina mida, only partially praiseworthy.’ Chazal further said: ‘Stop your sons from higayon.’ Rashi explains that higayon in this context refers to excessive study of mikra. [The author then cites the statement of Rabbeinu Tam, and continues] ‘And the verses, mishnayot and passages from the Talmud inserted at the beginning of the siddur ought to satisfy the obligation [to divide one’s time in thirds for the three studies above].’”
Someone who relies on these writings of Chazal to absolve himself from the study of mikra is making a mistake. For we find other statements from Chazal that assert the exact opposite. . . such as a talmid chacham must be adorned with twenty-four sefarim like a kallah. . . [Rashi, Parashat Ki Tisa]. Furthermore, why did many great Torah scholars write commentaries on Tanach if the study of Tanach is secondary? It would seem that all of the sources mentioned above refer to someone who intends to spend all or most of his life learning and wishes to devote the entire time to the study of mikra alone. That is inappropriate. He should spend time learning Gemara as well. Moreover, Rabbeinu Tam is referring to an individual who is already knowledgeable in the twenty-four sifrei Tanach. Ba’al Netivot Hamishpat, Rabbi Yaakov Lisa, wrote in his tzava’ah (will) the following: “Even though Chazal said that Talmud Bavli contains all [that is, all three studies and therefore one need not study Tanach separately]– that is for [Chazal] since they already filled themselves with mikra and Mishnah. Also, [they said this so] that the yetzer hara to learn Torah she lo lishma [not for the sake of Heaven] should not attack [when one studies] mikra and Mishnah.”
I hope from this sample of sources the reader appreciates why the practitioners of the Zilberman method feel that their derech is the default position: Any deviation must be justified by citing exceptional circumstances.
The Ramchal in Derech Hashem (IV: 2) details the unique impact that talmud Torah has on the perfection of the Creation. Hakadosh Baruch Hu placed an intense energy (hashpa’ah) into the Creation and commanded us to access that energy and apply it to the whole of the Creation. The mode of access is talmud Torah. The mesorah– Chazal, Rishoniom and Acharonim –have taught us how to achieve this. It is our sacred trust–may Hakadosh Baruch Hu grant us the wisdom to do it right!
The Zilberman Method in Action In a Zilberman-styled classroom, the rebbe would translate the verse “Tadshei ha’aretz deshe” (Bereishit 1:11) as, “The earth shall grass grass.” In this way, the students understand that “deshe” and “tadshei” are related. Then the rebbe asks, “What do you think the Torah is telling us when it says, ‘The earth shall grass grass?’” The students respond, “The earth shall grow grass.” This approach instills in students an exquisite sensitivity to the Torah’s language and trains them to pick up subtle nuances in the text.
Another example: consider the following phrases from three verses in Tanach: “nosei Aron brit Hashem” [Joshua 4:18], “nosei avon” [Exodus 34:7], and “lo tisa shema shav” [Exodus 23:1]. If you translate the verses as “carriers of the Aron,” “forgives sin” and “Do not accept lashon hara” respectively, students may miss out on the fact that the same verb appears in all three verses. A rebbe versed in the Zilberman method would translate the verses as follows: “carriers of the Aron,” “carries sin” and “do not carry a false hearing.” Even young students can be guided to get from “He carries sin” to “He forgives sin”; somewhat older students can figure out on their own that “do not carry a false hearing” really means “do not accept lashon hara.”
During the classroom discussion, the rebbe can ask, “Where does one carry something that he hears?” Students reply, “In his head.” Rebbe: “What then could ‘carrying a hearing’mean [how do we keep it in our head]?” Students: “By believing or accepting that which we hear.” Rebbe: “And what kind of false hearing could the Torah be telling us not to carry? If we know it is false, of course we will not accept it!” After a little discussion the students realize that “false hearing” is the Torah’s way of referring to lashon hara. The Torah uses the somewhat ambiguous term “false hearing” to teach us that we must relate to lashon hara as a falsehood, and not believe it.
Rabbi Dr. Dovid Gottlieb is a senior faculty member at Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem. An author and lecturer, Rabbi Gottlieb received his PhD in mathematical logic at Brandeis University and later become professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins University. He is a regular lecturer at kiruv conferences. The author thanks Rabbis Nechemiah Gottlieb and Pinchas Gottlieb for their very valuable comments in reviewing the article.
