📋 Shiur Overview
Lecture Summary: Laws of Torah Study, Chapter 2 (Rambam)
—
Law 1: Appointing Teachers for Children in Every Province and District
The Rambam’s Words: “We appoint teachers for children in every province and every district. Any city that does not have children in a house of study – we place the people of the city under excommunication until they appoint a teacher for children. And if they do not appoint one – we destroy it, for the world only endures through the breath of children in the house of study.”
Simple Meaning: We are obligated to establish teachers for children in every city and every region. A city that doesn’t have a cheder – we place the people of the city under cherem until they establish a teacher. If they don’t – we destroy it.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1) “Medina” versus “Pelek” – Geographic Distinctions:
“Medina” and “pelek” are two distinct concepts. A “medina” is a geographic area (like a state), and a “pelek” is a smaller region within it. The practical difference: we must not only provide a cheder for one community, but for all Jews in the area. A cheder must serve the entire surrounding area, not just one shul’s members.
2) Comparison with Hilchos Deos – Ten Things in a City:
At the end of Hilchos Deos (Chapter 4), the Rambam lists ten things that a talmid chacham must have in his city, but a teacher for children is not mentioned there. This is interesting – why isn’t a teacher for children on that list?
3) “Mecharvin Oso” – What Does It Mean Practically?
This is not a law of ir hanidachas with all the halachic consequences (losing property, etc.). The Rambam took something that appears in the Gemara in an aggadic manner and almost made it into a halacha. The simple meaning is: a city without a cheder is worthy of destruction – because “the world only endures through the breath of children in the house of study.” This doesn’t mean there comes an active punishment, but that the world will fall apart without Torah from children – there won’t be any normal good world. A second explanation: the Rambam also ruled that one may not live with an am haaretz – so normal people will flee from such a city, and it actually becomes a ruin naturally.
4) Historical Question – How Can We Rule “Mecharvin” When Until the Enactment of Yehoshua ben Gamla We Didn’t Even Have Teachers for Children in Cities?
Until Yehoshua ben Gamla’s enactment, we didn’t actually implement the law of teachers for children in every city. If so, how can we say “mecharvin”? The answer: it was “worthy of destruction” but we didn’t carry it out in practice.
5) Practical Application – Today’s Chedarim:
[Digression: Practical Application] When a Jewish city has a cheder but doesn’t want to accept a child (because he’s not from their chassidus, or not “the best boy”), we must explain to them the seriousness of this halacha – that a city without a cheder for all children is worthy of destruction.
6) Even Building the Beis HaMikdash Does Not Cancel Children’s Study:
The importance of children’s learning is so great that even building the Beis HaMikdash – which is a mitzvah d’Oraisa – does not cancel children from cheder.
[Digression: A Rebbe’s Wedding] In a cheder where the rebbe makes a wedding, the entire cheder goes to the wedding – what is the heter? If building the Beis HaMikdash doesn’t cancel, how can a wedding cancel? One approach: the Rambam in Hilchos Beis HaBechirah says that part of learning Torah is to learn about building the Beis HaMikdash – this learning about building the Beis HaMikdash is itself part of Talmud Torah. But the physical building – taking a hammer and a nail – that is already a melacha that may not cancel tinokos shel beis rabban.
7) Megillah vs. Chanukah:
The Rambam in Chapter 1, Law 1 brings that we cancel tinokos shel beis rabban for reading the Megillah. But for Chanukah – the children go to cheder as usual. This is an interesting distinction: Megillah cancels, Chanukah doesn’t. (The Maharal is mentioned in this context.)
—
Law 2: We Bring Children to Study at Age Six or Seven
The Rambam’s Words: “We bring children to study at age six or seven, according to each one’s health and strength. And less than six years old we do not bring him.”
Simple Meaning: We bring children to cheder at six or seven years, according to the child’s maturity. Younger than six – don’t bring them.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1) The Rambam Did Not Believe in Starting Too Early:
The Rambam did not believe in “pre-nursery, nursery, kindergarten” – when a child is not yet capable of grasping, we only put pressure on him, and this is anti-chinuch – it has a reverse effect.
2) Comparison with Hilchos Yom Kippur:
Just as the Rambam says in Hilchos Yom Kippur that below a certain age one may not train in fasting even for hours – so too here: when a child is not yet ready, it is a burden.
3) Question from “Ben Chamesh LaMikra”:
The Mishnah (Avos 5:21) says “ben chamesh lamikra” – five years old for Scripture. How does this fit with the Rambam who says six-seven? Several answers:
– Perhaps “ben chamesh lamikra” refers to “aviv melamed” – the father teaches him himself at home, not in cheder. The Chasam Sofer also interprets it this way.
– Or: “ben chamesh” means when he has passed five years (i.e., he is already in his sixth year).
– In practice, we push it off a bit, just as “ben chamesh esrei laTalmud” is also pushed off.
—
Law 3 (Part A): The Teacher Strikes Them to Instill Fear
The Rambam’s Words: “And the teacher strikes them to instill fear upon them, but he does not strike them with the blow of an enemy or cruel oppressor. Therefore he should not strike them with whips or sticks, but with a small strap.”
Simple Meaning: The teacher may hit children in order to instill fear, but not like an enemy with cruelty. Not with sticks or whips, but with a small strap.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1) “Shotim” – What Is a Shot?
Is a “shot” a stick or a strap? It brings “shot lasoos, meseg lachamor” – it refers to designated sticks. A “retzu’ah” is a soft whip.
2) Today’s Times – Yelling Instead of Hitting:
Today it is not the custom to hit children. Instead we yell at them. But the principle remains: even when we yell, it should not be “makas oyev moser achzari” – it must remain at a small level.
—
Law 3 (Part B): He Sits and Teaches Them All Day and Part of the Night
The Rambam’s Words: “He sits and teaches them all day long and part of the night, in order to train them to learn by day and by night.”
Simple Meaning: The teacher learns with them the entire day and a bit of the night, in order to train them that Torah is learned both – by day and by night.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1) The Reason – Training for “V’hagisa Bo Yomam VaLayla”:
The Rambam learned earlier (Chapter 1) that there is a mitzvah of learning by day and by night. This “miktzas min halayla” is a chinuch step – we accustom them that Torah is not just a daytime thing.
2) Practically How It Was in the Past:
In olden times there were no buses and no buildings. We sent the children out to play for a few hours, then sent them home, and then took them back a bit at night. The Rambam does not mean that we should learn an entire night – only a bit at night.
3) [Digression: Sharp Criticism of Today’s Yeshiva Schedules for Young Boys:]
The current situation where thirteen-year-old boys are 13-14 hours in a building – from 6 in the morning until 7 at night – is problematic. No adult works so many hours – why do we think children can handle this? The Rambam does not say we should learn an entire night. “Miktzas min halayla” means a bit.
4) Comparison with Yisro’s Claim to Moshe Rabbeinu:
Moshe Rabbeinu was the “ultimate teacher” – and Yisro told him “navol tibol” because he sat “min haboker ad ha’erev.” Even by Moshe Rabbeinu, Yisro said this was too much.
—
Law 4: The Children Should Not Be Idle at All
The Rambam’s Words: “And the children should not be idle at all, except on Shabbos eves and holiday eves at the end of the day, and on the holidays themselves.”
Simple Meaning: We should not cancel children’s learning any day – except erev Shabbos and erev Yom Tov (later in the day) and the holidays themselves.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1) Shabbos – Do We Learn or Not?
On Shabbos we do not learn be’iyun (ideally we don’t learn new things) – we must have rest. But review may be done on Shabbos. A position is mentioned (Nit’ei Gavriel) that of four times reviewing, the first review may be done on Shabbos – though even this is a bit of pressure.
2) [Digression: Practical Question About Erev Shabbos in Today’s Chedarim:]
Today when chedarim have a regulation that one may not come with a bus on Shabbos, we must have a cheder where one can walk. But erev Shabbos requires long hours of learning, which creates practical difficulties.
—
Law 5: A Teacher Who Abandons the Children – Cursed Is He Who Does God’s Work Deceitfully
The Rambam’s Words: “A teacher of children who abandons the children and leaves, or who does other work with them, or who is negligent in their teaching, behold he is included in ‘cursed is he who does God’s work deceitfully.’”
Simple Meaning: A teacher who abandons the children, or does other work while he should be teaching them, or is negligent – he is in the category of “cursed is he who does God’s work deceitfully.”
Novel Points and Explanations:
1) “Remiyah” – Because the Father Doesn’t See:
“Remiyah” means fraud – the teacher can allow himself to be negligent because the father is not there and doesn’t see what’s happening.
2) Novel Point: Even a Teacher Who Doesn’t Receive Any Money:
The Rambam doesn’t only speak of a teacher who takes payment (where we could say he “sold himself” and didn’t keep his contract). Ideally a teacher should not take any money. The Rambam speaks even of a teacher who does it leshem shamayim – even he is “cursed” if he is negligent. This is the meaning of “meleches Hashem” – it is HaKadosh Baruch Hu’s work, not just a business obligation. And even “meleches Hashem” can be done “remiyah.”
—
Law 6: Therefore It Is Proper to Appoint Only One Who Is God-Fearing, Quick to Read and Precise
The Rambam’s Words: “Therefore it is proper to appoint as a teacher only one who is God-fearing, quick to read and precise.”
Simple Meaning: Because the responsibility is so great, we must only hire a teacher who is a yerei Shamayim, and who is “quick to read and precise.”
Novel Points and Explanations:
1) “Ba’al Yirah”:
This means a yerei Shamayim, an honest Jew – not just a professional, but one who has yiras Shamayim.
2) “Mahir” – Two Interpretations:
(a) Fast – he knows the material well and can convey it quickly. (b) Careful/meticulous – he is not mezalzel, not negligent, he takes it seriously. The lecturer leans toward the second interpretation – “mahir” means here that he is careful.
3) “Ledakdek” – What Does Dikduk Mean?
“Dikduk” doesn’t only mean grammar here, but that he should ensure that the children don’t make any mistakes – he should be medakdek that everything should be correct. “Mikra” means that he learns a lot, in many places.
—
Law 7: One Who Has No Wife Should Not Teach Children
The Rambam’s Words: “One who has no wife should not teach children, because of their mothers who come to their children.”
Simple Meaning: An unmarried man should not be a teacher of children, because the mothers come to bring their children, and there can arise yichud or stumbling blocks.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1) Not a Law in Talmud Torah, But a Law in Tznius:
This is a “side law” – not a law in Hilchos Talmud Torah per se, but a law of tznius that is brought here.
2) Also Not as a Helper:
Also as an assistant (helper) for the teacher, an unmarried man should not be.
3) Fathers Too:
Also the fathers who come to bring children – the cheder wants to have a “fathers-only” environment, because a father has more responsibility and we trust him more.
4) A Woman as a Teacher:
A woman is not acceptable according to halacha as a teacher (for boys).
5) [Digression: Practical Application to Today’s “Home Chedarim”:]
This is exactly the boundaries of today’s “home chedarim” (home-based childcare) – women who take children of three-four years old at home. When it’s at a woman’s house, it’s not an institution with a building and a parking lot – it’s a different situation.
—
Law 8: Twenty-Five Children to One Teacher – How Many Children per Teacher
The Rambam’s Words (from Gemara Bava Basra 21): “Twenty-five children learn with one teacher. If there were more than twenty-five up to forty – we hire another one to assist him. If there were more than forty – we establish for them two teachers of children.”
Simple Meaning: One teacher can take up to 25 children. From 26 to 40 – we take a helper (reish duchna). More than 40 – we must have two full teachers.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1) Teacher vs. Just a Helper:
With more than 40, the Rambam says “shnei melamdei tinokos” – two full teachers, not just “a bachur who is cheaper.” This shows that we must not skimp on quality.
2) Chedarim vs. Yeshivos:
Generally chedarim keep to this measure, but yeshivos don’t – in good yeshivos there are 40, 50, 70 boys in a class. Yeshiva is perhaps already something different (older students can do more on their own).
3) [Digression: Which Halachos We Take Seriously:]
A bitter note: “It’s interesting that we know which halachos we take seriously, and which not. Usually those that cost money for the institutions – we don’t see it.” Halachos that require more expenses (like hiring more teachers) are often ignored.
4) Foreign Governments’ Measures:
In cheder there should not be more than thirty, and in foreign countries (government regulations) the measure is twenty.
—
Law 9: We Transfer a Child from Teacher to Teacher – Changing a Cheder
The Rambam’s Words: “We transfer a child from one teacher to another who is quicker than him. When does this apply? When both were in one city and there was no river separating them. But from city to city we do not transfer, and if there was a river separating – we do not transfer. Unless there was upon it a built bridge that is not likely to fall quickly.”
Simple Meaning: We may change a child from one teacher to a better teacher, if both are in the same city and there is no river between them. From one city to another, or if a river separates, we may not – unless there is a strong bridge.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1) Loyalty to the Teacher – “Olam Lo Yeshaneh Adam Achsaniyaso”:
Generally there is a concept of loyalty – you have a teacher, support him. But by children’s chinuch the law is different: we may change to a better teacher, because it is a need for the child.
2) Hasagas Gevul:
Generally there is a law of hasagas gevul – we may not come into a city and take business. But by teachers of children the law is different, because it is a need for the children.
3) Not the Closest, But the Best:
The novel point is that we don’t necessarily have to go to the closest cheder. We may go a bit further if the further cheder is better – but only within the same city.
4) Great Novel Point: Talmud Torah Does Not Override Danger:
From the fact that we may not send a child across a weak bridge – even to a better teacher – we see clearly that Talmud Torah does not override danger. Even from crossing a bridge – which is not a great danger, “it might fall” – we may not, because we put ourselves into danger for the sake of learning.
[Digression: Corona/COVID] This is addressed in the context of Corona, where people claimed that Talmud Torah overrides danger. “This is not true.”
—
Law 10: Neighbors Cannot Protest a Cheder in Their Mavoy/Courtyard
The Rambam’s Words (from Gemara Bava Basra 21): “One of the residents of a mavoy who wished to become a teacher, or one of the residents of a courtyard – the neighbors cannot protest against him.”
Simple Meaning: If someone who lives in a mavoy or a courtyard wants to open a cheder in his house, the neighbors cannot protest – even if the children make noise.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1) Mavoy vs. Chatzer:
A “mavoy” is like a street or a development (in Rolling Lake they call it a development, in Boro Park it’s a street). A “chatzer” is a smaller, more intimate environment – a building or courtyard.
2) The Reason:
Because it is avodas hakodesh – a city must have a cheder (as we learned in Law 1 that we excommunicate a city that doesn’t have a teacher). Therefore no one can block it.
—
Law 11: Competition Between Teachers of Children – Kinas Sofrim Tarbeh Chochmah
The Rambam’s Words: “A teacher of children – if another came and opened next to him so that other children would come to him, or even so that the children of this one would come to that one – he cannot protest against him, as it says…”
Simple Meaning: If a teacher of children already has a cheder, and a second one comes to open a cheder right next to him – even with the intention of drawing to himself the children from the first teacher – the first teacher cannot protest. This is different from regular business (stores), where one can indeed protest in a residential area. But by teachers of children and by a beis midrash one cannot protest.
Novel Points and Explanations:
1) The Foundation of Kinas Sofrim Tarbeh Chochmah:
The Gemara’s reason why one cannot protest is “kinas sofrim tarbeh chochmah” – competition between teachers is a benefit for Torah, because it improves the quality of learning. This is a fundamental distinction between Torah and livelihood: by livelihood we want every Jew to have parnassah, and we worry about hasagas gevul; but by Torah the goal is that the quality of Torah should be the best, and competition serves that goal.
2) The Rambam Brings a Verse, the Gemara Doesn’t:
The Rambam writes “she’ne’emar” – he brings a verse as a source. But in the Gemara it only says “kinas sofrim tarbeh chochmah,” which is not a verse in its simple sense. The Ibn Ezra says that “kinas sofrim tarbeh chochmah” is derived from a verse – he brings the verse (Yeshayahu 33:6) “V’hayah emunas itecha chosen yeshuos chochmas vada’as yiras Hashem hi otzaro” – and he expounds that yiras Hashem is the treasure of jealousy. This is not simple peshat, but a derash from the verse.
3) Connection to the Foundation of Excellence in Torah:
We see a consistent foundation: Torah is not just a mitzvah that everyone can fulfill as they wish – Torah demands excellence. We care about the quality of Torah, not just the kiyum hamitzvah itself.
4) The Teacher Himself Benefits from Competition:
The teacher himself should not fear competition – on the contrary, it should motivate him to improve his own quality of teaching. Why are you afraid he will take away your students? If the second one is a better teacher – that’s good.
5) Chazon Ish – Emunah U’Bitachon:
The Chazon Ish brings this concept in his sefer “Emunah U’Bitachon” – that if someone else wants to give a shiur on the same topic, he is not at all a masig gevul, perhaps he is even a help. We must have bitachon that the second one is not a danger but a blessing.
6) [Digression: Yeshivos Leshem Tzion:]
People have complaints that there are “yeshivos leshem tzion” (yeshivos that compete with each other). If they were truly yeshivos leshem tzion – we couldn’t have any complaints, because competition makes us learn better. If we have complaints, it’s a sign that it’s not truly leshem tzion, but “just political pressure.”
📝 Full Transcript
Laws of Torah Study, Chapter 2 — Laws of Teachers of Children
—
Introduction: Content of Chapter 2
So, we are going to learn Laws of Torah Study, Chapter 2. Chapter 2 is entirely laws of teachers of children. We learned in the first chapter the general laws of when one must bring a teacher of children, that the father is obligated to hire one, and the like. And now we are going to learn laws that are relevant for the teacher of children, how his work should be.
—
Law 1: We Appoint Teachers of Children in Every Province and Every District
The Rambam says: “We appoint teachers of children in every province and every district.”
Discussion: Comparison with Laws of Character Traits — Ten Things in a City
Interestingly, at the end of Laws of Character Traits we learned that a Torah scholar may not live in a city that doesn’t have ten things. Was a teacher of children mentioned there? I don’t think so. Other things, but a teacher of children wasn’t mentioned. End of Laws of Character Traits, yes. End of chapter… chapter 8, right? Chapter 6, I think. End of chapter… no, I think end of chapter 4. End of chapter 4, yes. Yes, I thought so in Laws of Character Traits. Does anyone know Laws of Character Traits? Do I have a number to mark? I have there Character Traits which discusses…
Discussion: What Does “Pelech” Mean?
Pelech u’pelech, one translates pelech u’pelech, but what… you mean the region, you understand? That it’s like a state? So what is… the provinces mean the state, and pelech is regions? Interesting. A pelech…
I want to say a chiddush, that a province is a geographic area, yes? If someone makes a cheder only for his community, and not for everyone. He must provide for the region, all Jews in the region. Right? Yes. Good.
We Place the People of the City in Cherem
“Any city that doesn’t have children of the house of the teacher,” people who don’t have children learning in the house of the teacher, there isn’t… what one calls a cheder, “we place the people of the city in cherem.” What does we place in cherem mean? We put them in excommunication. “Until they appoint a teacher of children.” Until they appoint a teacher. “And if they didn’t appoint,” they didn’t want to, or they said that they simply don’t have room for you, because they only have room for those from their Hasidic group, or those who are the best boys, and the like. Okay, then…
Discussion: What Does “We Destroy It” Mean?
Then we destroy it, I mean simply, the people are only destroying the city. One doesn’t need to make them destroy the city. That the Rambam doesn’t mean here, it’s not the law of an apostate city, which brings about that one destroys the city. As the Rambam said, in memory it’s not a practical law, the Rambam what he means to say, that the city must be destroyed, with all the laws that are in effect, that the person loses his right to his property?
Ah, one must understand approximately what it means in reality. And then comes in destroying and destroying, which both don’t mean… it means literally, I know what you want. A city that doesn’t have a cheder, first we place in cherem, and if it doesn’t help we destroy them.
What is the Rambam? The Rambam took something that appears in the Gemara in the manner of aggadah, and he made it almost a law. You’re right that it doesn’t mean that one goes to destroy, because one goes to make a cheder. But it could be that the Rambam said that one may not live with an am ha’aretz, so that every normal person will indeed flee now to the desert, it remains a ruin, a few amei ha’aretz remain, and it’s indeed such a ruin.
But in the world there is existence… I’m right that it doesn’t mean that here is a law of an apostate city here. But the exposition that one says means literally, means that the city is worthy that one should destroy it. Soldiers come and destroy the entire city.
“For the World Only Exists Through the Breath of Children of the House of the Teacher”
One thing I want to say, look, “for the world only exists through the breath of children of the house of the teacher,” because the world has no existence except through the breath of children of the house of the teacher. The world exists doesn’t mean that there comes a punishment of destroying the world. The world exists means that it will be destroyed, the world will fall apart, there won’t be any normal good world, it will be a ruined world.
Discussion: Was This Ever Carried Out?
Very good. But one sees that it was indeed done. The Rambam rules this way. If there would have been a version that one could have blamed, one would have done it. But why did one never have to do it? Because it’s such a distant thing. But one would have done it.
One must… it’s hard to say that one would have done it, because until the enactment of Yehoshua ben Gamla one didn’t make teachers of children in the cities.
One didn’t carry out the law. It was worthy of destruction, and it didn’t happen that one did it.
Practical Application Today
I mean that there were indeed many Jewish cities where they say that here’s a cheder, there is no cheder, must I beg our people, perhaps including secular ones, that he should take in a Jewish child in a cheder. Must one tell him that the law states that you’re going to destroy the institution. You understand? This one must explain to him. He won’t understand, he’ll say, “What happened? It’s indeed an obligation, a great obligation.” One must explain to him that the Gemara doesn’t say so. The Gemara doesn’t mean, God forbid, that one will leave him that he shouldn’t do it. God forbid. He only means to say that when one says that there is an obligation, he should understand that this is not normal. He is worthy of destruction. Yes.
Now we’ll go over to when. Ah, this we learned in the last statement. Okay.
—
Law 2: We Bring Children to Learn at Age Six or Seven
The Rambam, “We bring children to learn at age six or seven, according to the strength of each one and his ability.” According to the size of the child, according to how quickly he matures. There are children who are ready at six, and there are those who are ready at seven. “And less than age six we don’t bring him.”
The Rambam Doesn’t Hold of Starting Too Early
The Rambam didn’t hold of pre-nursery and nursery and kindergarten. One should start being a babysitter at most. I mean that also when, for example, in Laws of Yom Kippur the Rambam says, lower than such and such age one may not teach fasting even for hours. It could be that this is a certain thing that when a child is not at all relevant yet, you’re pressuring him, you’re making pressure when he’s not at all capable of grasping anything, you’re just making pressure on him and you have the opposite effect, it’s anti-education.
Discussion: Question from “Age Five for Scripture”
It’s interesting, because the Mishnah, I mean the Rambam rules according to the Mishnah. It says in the Mishnah “age five for Scripture.” So the interpretation of the Rambam when it speaks of his father teaching him perhaps, but the Chatam Sofer interprets it differently later. Interesting.
It could be the Rambam says like when five years have passed. I mean that practically in practice one pushes it off a bit. Also “age fifteen for Talmud” one must push off a bit. Okay.
—
Law 3: And the Teacher Hits Them to Instill Fear in Them
Ah, it’s connected to what we discussed. The Rambam says further, “And the teacher hits them to instill fear in them, but he doesn’t hit them the blow of an enemy, cruel punishment, therefore, he shouldn’t hit them with rods,” he shouldn’t hit them with sticks, “but with a small strap.”
Discussion: What is a “Shot”?
A shot is a stick? I don’t know. A shot is a stick. A shot is a small stick. A shot is a strap.
A shot is a strap. A strap means a whip, such a thing that is soft, that is not wild. A shot is a shot. A shot for a donkey, a shot for a fool, a bridle for a donkey. He’s talking about distributed small sticks.
Today’s Times — Shouting Instead of Hitting
In today’s times it’s not the custom to hit the children. Instead of this, when worse things he must sharpen himself, he shouts at them. One hits with a shot, and one shouts the shot. Even let’s say with recognition, the sides shouldn’t do the blow of an enemy, cruel punishment. It’s a smaller level of it.
—
He Sits and Teaches Them All Day Long and Part of the Night
“He sits and teaches them all day long, he learns with them during the day, and part of the night a bit of the night, in order to train them to learn day and night.” They learned earlier that there is a commandment of learning day and night. Study of day and night, connect day, connect the study of day and night, there is a concept. He has a tradition, but one must understand this.
Discussion: Does This Mean More Hours in Summer?
Do you mean that in summer one must learn much more hours than winter? I mean that in former times it wasn’t so. There weren’t buses and buildings. So he sent the children out to play for a nice few hours. He wants to tell them, one shouldn’t only learn during the day, but one should also learn a bit at night. So one sends them home and takes them back a bit.
Criticism of Today’s Long Hours for Young Boys
No, today many times there are children who go to… many do the opposite, however. He sends a boy of thirteen, twelve thirteen, he sends him to cheder already at six o’clock in cheder, and he must leave almost at five, he must leave home at seven o’clock looking for the bus, he arrives standing at seven o’clock at night. None of the adult people work so many hours. Why does one think that it’s okay for children and that they can handle this?
It’s certainly that this is what the Rambam says, “in any case,” it’s mixed with today’s yeshiva ways, that one is engaged the whole day. One plays too, I mean one doesn’t play, but one is in a building. It’s very hard, it’s really hard. I’m not talking about a fifteen-sixteen year old boy, but such a thirteen year old little sheep, they’re still really children. And they’re thirteen-fourteen hours in a building. Which father can be thirteen-fourteen hours in a building? What do you demand of him?
But one makes a look at the yeshiva, one comes to an awakening gathering, suddenly there appears a nice crowd of the householders, and one speaks to the boys, and one speaks to the parents. But it’s very nice. It’s right that “and you shall not go out, each man from the door of his house until morning,” and the person sits from early until night. It doesn’t mean that he needs a whole day, and the Rambam doesn’t say that one should learn a whole night. A taste he goes. This is only that it was a dangerous thing. But an education that a father must be a bit at night, one takes a bit at night.
Comparison with Yitro’s Claim to Moshe Rabbeinu
I mean that you know how Yitro speaks to Moshe Rabbeinu, he also says, “and you sit with the people from evening until morning.” Moshe Rabbeinu was like the “ultimate” teacher, he was the previous teacher. The author R’ Yosef’l spoke at a sheva brachot this week, he says that it’s literally “all the commandment to do from morning until evening.” It could be literally that there’s no measure of it, from early until twelve o’clock at night people come writing notes.
—
Law 4: And the Children Shall Not Be Idle at All
“And the children shall not be idle at all,” the Rambam says further, “and the children shall not be idle at all.” One shouldn’t nullify the learning of the children. Not one day should be off. “Except for Sabbath eves and holiday eves at the end of the day.” Later one can prepare for Shabbat and Yom Tov, or Yom Tov itself. Yom Tov is already no obligation. But Shabbat, but Shabbat is one initially.
Learning Shabbat — In-Depth or Review?
Initially means that one doesn’t learn the first time, because there is the law in Netai Gavriel that on Shabbat one doesn’t learn in-depth. One must have rest, one must have tranquility. But learning already, one reviews yes the first time. There is four times review, the first time review one may do on Shabbat. Even the first time review is a bit of pressure.
Practical Question: Erev Shabbat and Buses
There is a very big question that happens in today’s cheders. I mean that the reason is about the buses. The group, today when our cheders have the enactment that one may not come with a bus, like in every area in the city, in a Jewish area, has a beit midrash where one can walk on Shabbat. They also have a cheder where one can walk a whole part. But it looks like this, so one demands that one should learn erev Shabbat, which is long hours.
Memory of R’ Fishel Hershkowitz
Many years one remembered from R’ Fishel Hershkowitz, I used to with me as a boy, when I was once at his place, I learned with his grandson.
—
Law 1 (Continued): Even Building the Temple Doesn’t Cancel Children of the House of the Teacher
Speaker 1: Ah, but one must cut the nails. One must cancel six-seven hours for learning, but one must cut the nails. Okay, but this speaks of children, not a yeshiva. A yeshiva has different laws. Before one cancels children, one must know what is the law of children. Even building the Temple doesn’t cancel the children, even building the Temple.
I once asked the question about a cheder where the rabbi makes a wedding, and the whole cheder goes to the wedding. Building the Temple doesn’t cancel, so what is the permission when the rabbi has a wedding also to cancel the wedding? One leaves it standing, because the Rambam brings down Laws of Choosing the House, that a part of Torah study is that one must build a Temple, to teach that the children should learn that this is a part of the service. But to go build, one must bring a drum and a hammer and a business.
Well, but the Torah pushes off the teacher’s learning, the teacher should learn. One doesn’t say that one should cancel entirely, one should…
Speaker 2: No, but the children, there should be people’s jobs, one must take it into account. But it’s not a clear thing that this is not a part of what makes the Jew. Proof of this is canceling Torah study. It says in Rambam chapter 1 law 1, Megillah cancels children to hear the Megillah. And not Chanukah, because the children go to cheder on Chanukah.
Speaker 1: It’s a question, it says in the Gemara that one cancels the cheder for the reading of the Megillah. Okay, but the Maharal, cheder one made for… yes.
—
Law 2: A Teacher of Children Who Leaves the Children — Cursed is He Who Does the Work of God Deceitfully
Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, “A teacher of children” — he said earlier about the rabbi — “a teacher of children who leaves the children and goes out, or who does other work with them, or who is negligent in their teaching, behold this is included in ‘cursed is he who does the work of God deceitfully’.”
As you say, “deceitfully” means because the father doesn’t see. Very good. You understand? He speaks even of a teacher who doesn’t receive any money, because initially a teacher shouldn’t take any money. Even so he must be honest. This is called “the work of God.” Not that he takes money and he simply sold himself, he didn’t do the work for which he was paid. Even not! He speaks that even if he does “the work of God,” he does “the work of God deceitfully.” So this is also certainly a nice thing. Yes.
—
Law 3: Therefore It Is Not Proper to Appoint a Teacher Except One Who Fears, Quick to Read and Precise
Speaker 1: “Therefore it is not proper to appoint a teacher” — since one must have this very great seriousness, yes, because not every person is familiar with this — “therefore it is not proper to appoint a teacher except one who fears,” only an honest Jew, a God-fearing person, this is the language “one who fears,” one who has fear, “quick to read and precise.” One who is… “quick” means fast, or “quick” means that he is careful, he is not contemptuous, he is not negligent, “to read and precise.”
Yes, that one should make that he is a professional, he knows the simple meaning, because he took… No, he was right, that he must be careful. Okay.
Discussion: What Does “Dikduk” Mean?
Speaker 1: The Rambam says further, this is another law, who can be a teacher. This is not a law in Laws of Torah Study, this is a law in a teacher, a side law of modesty.
Speaker 2: I mean dikduk for one thing?
Speaker 1: I once asked myself, does it have more to do with pedagogy?
Speaker 2: Dikduk, my understanding is dikduk?
Speaker 1: Grammar?
Speaker 2: One must mean pedagogy that he is like more, that he is careful and he is pedagogical, he is very Torah, he is…
Speaker 1: Sounds like precise dikduk, or it becomes that. Dikduk means dikduk. Here he means dikduk. Learning well, learning precisely. Dikduk means the grammar. What learning dikduk? How he hears there? He brings here grammar and load. The day and grammar with concern, one must be concerned that the children shouldn’t make any mistakes. And what means mikra then? Mikra means that he learns a lot.
Speaker 2: Ah, a lot in the places.
Speaker 1: Mikra means that he learns more.
—
Law 4: One Who Doesn’t Have a Wife Shall Not Teach Children
Speaker 1: We turn further. Speaking of statements, that one can go far. As the verse says “and I will triple your girls” are both in the same city, and there is no pleasure interrupting between them. But from city to city, if one must go from one city to the second, if one needs pleasure at his side, even in rainy years one must cross a stream, we don’t bring the child. Why? What is the danger? Or what is hard on the child? Both.
Translation
He brings the Gemara. The Gemara says that from synagogue to synagogue one may take [children], even if a river separates them, one may take them. First of all, it depends if there is danger. Unless there is a bridge built, if there is a strong bridge over the river, a structure that is not likely to fall quickly, not some flimsy bridge, but a good bridge, then one may. Specifically so that one should not put oneself into danger.
Ah, very good. Here we see that Torah study does not override danger. As people said during Corona that Torah study overrides danger, that is not true. Here we see clearly that even crossing a bridge, even if there are better teachers, one may not, because one puts oneself into danger to learn.
Speaker 2: What kind of danger is there in a bridge?
Speaker 1: It can fall. It’s probably not a great danger. Very good.
He continues. “One who does not have a wife should not teach children, because of their mothers who come to their sons”, the mothers come to bring the children, and there shouldn’t be any yichud (seclusion), any stumbling blocks. “One who does not have a wife…” also they should not be a teacher, but help the teacher a bit. Ah, also the fathers who come to the children should… In short, a cheder wants to have a fathers-only business, basically. One trusts a father more, he is more… he has more responsibility. The Gemara continues, how much… A woman is not maintained according to halacha, it is indeed an error. And that’s it.
It’s also possible that when it’s at the woman’s house, that’s no longer an institution, it’s not a building, it’s not a parking lot, it’s not a… The women take children from three, four, and the other goes to a woman at home. But in short, I’m saying what it says in Shulchan Aruch, I’m just throwing in a comment. It’s interesting, this is exactly the boundaries of the cheder systems we have today. There could be a stumbling block, it shouldn’t be.
—
Law 5: Twenty-Five Children Study with One Teacher
Speaker 1: The Gemara continues, how many children can a teacher handle? Twenty-five children study with one teacher. One teacher can take twenty-five children. The Gemara continues, if there were more than twenty-five, if he has more than twenty-five children, up to forty, they hire another one to assist him, he takes a helper, a teacher who helps out. Two can handle up to forty. If there were more than forty, if there are more than forty, one should not spare money, they appoint for them two teachers of children.
Here we see that a teacher is more expensive than other levels, it’s not simple that the proof is that one takes another teacher, not just a bachur who is cheaper. Generally in the cheders they hold to this law, generally, but in yeshivos not anymore. Yeshivos, the good yeshivos, there are forty, fifty, seventy bachurim in the class. But yes, I don’t know, it could be that yeshiva is already a different thing. Also not all cheders hold to this, only the prime ones. But sometimes one can have a bit more, generally. And in cheder one should have more than thirty, and in a different city twenty. That’s what the kingdom had in twenty.
But it’s interesting that we know which laws are taken seriously, and which not. Usually the ones that cost money for the institutions are not seen. Okay.
—
Law 6: One Takes the Child from One Teacher to Another Who is Faster Than Him
Speaker 1: One takes the children, this is the next law. One takes the children. I generally hope that the cheder is more unified than the scattered situation as they say. The law says, one takes the child from one teacher to another who is faster than him. Usually there’s almost a kind of concept that a person who buys here, at one place he should continue from there. So it says there he went to the same inn, for his ways, yes, a person should never change his inn.
But one can, I mean this has to do with the law of child, reason, taste, wisdom. That generally there is a concept of encroachment, one may not come into a city and take away business. I see the law, I see the law and answer more and then, this speaks perhaps simply, because it is a need for the children. He means to say, I don’t need to go to the nearest cheder. One can go to be a bit further if it is a better cheder. It’s not the word, because… it’s only a certain loyalty. You have a teacher, support him, just as a person shouldn’t change a shul or the place.
I mean not change, because I mean, so I see the side of what the honored one who should have been further. It means going a bit further, here one should land in your area and go a bit further because he is better. The grasshopper, if one takes a child because of the proper Chassidus, it’s not allowed. Being a termite with wealth comes to nothing. But, if it is a better cheder, if it comes better for the child.
—
Law 7: One of the Residents of an Alley Who Wishes to Become a Teacher — The Neighbors Cannot Protest Against Him
Speaker 1: It is stated, that one can go far. As the verse says “and you shall teach your children” both are in the same city, and the river does not separate between them. But from city to city, if one must go from one city to the second, if one needs a river to cross, even if one must cross a small river, one does not take the child. Why? What is the danger? Or what is difficult for the child? Both.
He brings the Gemara. The Gemara says that from synagogue to synagogue one may take [children], even if a river separates them, one may take them. First of all, it depends if there is danger. Unless there is a bridge built, if there is a strong bridge over the river, a structure that is not likely to fall quickly, not some flimsy bridge, but a good bridge, then one may. Specifically so that one should not put oneself into danger.
Ah, very good. Here we see that Torah study does not override danger. As people said during Corona that Torah study overrides danger, that is not true. Here we see clearly that even crossing a bridge, even if there are better teachers, one may not, because one puts oneself into danger to learn.
Speaker 2: What kind of danger is there in a bridge?
Speaker 1: It can fall. It’s probably not a great danger. Very good.
He continues. One of the residents of an alley who wishes to become a teacher, or one of the residents of a courtyard, one who lives in an alley or in a courtyard, and he wants to start bringing children to himself at home to become a teacher, and the other neighbors say that the children will start making noise and disturb. One who lives in an alley, alley means a… as we call today a development, yes, a large… a street. Alley is the smaller one, and courtyard is the larger one. No, the opposite. Alley is like a street, or a development. In Rolling Lake Wood they call such things a development. In Boro Park it’s a street.
That he wants to become a teacher, or even on a smaller scale, he wants to open a cheder in the same courtyard, in the same building, the neighbors cannot protest against him. The neighbors cannot protest, because it is holy work. A city must have a cheder. And he is obligated to make the city. It’s not according to law that he should… You have nothing to fear.
—
Law 7 (Continued): Teachers of Children — Competition and Encroachment
Right, there are certain laws that one can. Let’s learn, there are things shops, there are things shops, shops, shops. One wants to open a store, one can protest, one can say I don’t want people to come and go. It’s residential.
But a study hall, here check a board, education teachers of children, ah, he says a new law.
The Rambam’s Law
Teachers of children, when another comes and opens next to him so that other children will come to him, or even so that the children of this one will come to that one — he cannot protest against him.
Teachers of children, one comes to encroach on his territory, he comes to open a cheder right next to him, so that other children will come, or even so that his children will come, he cannot protest.
The Foundation: The Jealousy of Scribes Increases Wisdom
Because about this the Gemara says, because it is better that teachers should have competition. It is good for Torah that there should be competition.
As it is said, says the Rambam, interestingly, he brings a verse. The Gemara doesn’t bring this verse, the Gemara says “the jealousy of scribes increases wisdom,” this is not a verse. The Rambam, interestingly, he brings a verse.
For business too, good competition is good, so that there should be better fish and better meat. Yes, but in this I don’t care, I want every Jew to have a livelihood, I don’t want a Jew… But for Torah we want that the Torah, the quality of Torah should be the best. Therefore they open…
Connection to “Let Him Be Free” — Torah and Excellence
We already mentioned earlier by the law of “let him be free,” that we see that one cares about the quality of Torah, and not just that everyone can say what he wants, he has a mitzvah to learn, he has a mitzvah. Not just a mitzvah, Torah is the concept of excellence.
Digression: Yeshivos for the Sake of Competition
There is a Mishnah that speaks about this. People have complaints that there are yeshivos for the sake of competition. If they were truly yeshivos for the sake of competition, one couldn’t have any complaints, because that makes one learn better. If there are complaints to have, it’s that they call themselves yeshivos for the sake of competition, they are not for the sake of competition, it’s just political pressure.
The Teacher Himself Benefits from Competition
But here there is also an explanation, that the teacher himself, if he worries that someone comes next to him, he should make the quality of his teaching better. Perhaps he can. That makes competition.
Yes, but I say, why are you afraid he will take away? We’re not afraid, on the contrary, the jealousy of scribes increases wisdom. But perhaps when he can, he says, but one wants that someone should compete with him. He was the only teacher in town, and one had to send to him. If there is a better one, do better.
—
Discussion: The Jealousy of Scribes Increases Wisdom — Is This a Verse?
Question: The jealousy of scribes increases wisdom is a verse?
Answer: No, not a verse. It’s a… let’s bring the Gemara. Let’s be a second, I’ll say the short explanation.
The Ibn Ezra says the jealousy of scribes increases wisdom is derived from a verse. He brings the verse “to you who give in sins for the fear of God is His treasure”. He wants to say that fear of God is the treasure of jealousy. It’s not simple explanation, but it’s a derash from this verse, yes.
Okay.
—
Summary: Chazon Ish — Faith and Trust
Already, meanwhile, if someone else wants to make a shiur in Bava Metzia with a chavrusa, he is not protesting at all. Perhaps he is even a help, he is not protesting at all. I mean that the Chazon Ish brings this concept in Emunah U’Bitachon. Yes.