[Avodah] Cheder Study, Knowledge of Torah, and the Maintenance of Social Stratification

[Prof. Levine]

Ever wonder how successful Cheder education was in the nineteenth 
century?  Saul Stampfer has dealt with nineteenth century Cheder 
education in his essay with the above title.

It is from the book 
<http://www.amazon.com/Families-Rabbis-Education-Nineteenth-Century-Civilization/dp/1874774854/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340543903&sr=1-2&keywords=stampfer>

<http://www.amazon.com/Families-Rabbis-Education-Nineteenth-Century-Civilization/dp/1874774854/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340543903&sr=1-2&keywords=stampfer>Families, 
Rabbis, and Education: Traditional Jewish Society in 
Nineteenth-Century Eastern Europe (Littman Library of Jewish 
Civilization) by 
<http://www.amazon.com/Shaul-Stampfer/e/B001JWTLAS/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2?qid=1340543903&sr=1-2>Shaul 
Stampfer (Feb 18, 2010)  See http://tinyurl.com/7utjc4p

Below are a few excerpts.  I found the entire essay fascinating, 
because it is not at all in consonance with what is often depicted 
regarding Torah education and study in eastern Europe during the 
nineteenth century.  Note footnote [41] below regarding Artscroll.   YL

Writing was not taught in the early nineteenth-century east European cheder,
though it had been standard in Jewish elementary education earlier.

In the Talmud Cheder students were introduced to the study of
Talmud in the same way they began with the Pentateuch. The
teacher simply began with a typical talmudic text, translating it
word by word until the students 'picked up' both the idiom and 
thought patterns.

There was no formal cut-off point for study in the Talmud cheder. It was
generally accepted that at about barmitzvah age, or shortly thereafter,
most students would leave the Talmud cheder. This was not related to 
the barmitzvah
ceremony and it was not the result of legislation or religious law, but
a matter of simple economics. As is clear, there was no direct or clear link
between the programme of study and the future economic activities of the
pupil. The only useful skill learned in cheder-reading-was learned first. At
the age of 3 most boys were responsible and developed enough to begin to
work and to contribute to the family income, or to begin an apprenticeship
(formal or informal) in order to prepare for the economic responsibilities of
adulthood. The only reason that would justify continued Talmud study was if
there was a good chance of ending up as a scholar. For those who would not
become scholars, to delay work meant loss of income and putting of the start
of an apprenticeship. Such a youth would remain dependent on his parents
longer and for little measurable benefit. For reasons that will be clarified
below it was clear to most 13-year-old boys-and their parents-that they
would never be scholars. Therefore most families found that it was logical to
end a son's cheder education at around the age of I 3, when he was 
old enough to
begin preparation for practical life.

Most young men were incapable of independent Talmud study because of
the cheder system-just as the brilliant achievements of the intellectual elite
can be credited to the cheder system.

Even if most pupils did not realize it, cheder education was a race against
time because the cheder was usually followed by the beit midrash. 
Study there, as
noted above, was independent--without teachers or structured guidance-and
the communal support was predicated on the fact that the beit midrash
student was a fully fledged independent Torah scholar. This meant that the
entering student had to be able to study the Talmud and the complex literature
of talmudic commentaries on his own. This was no small achievement
for a 13-year-old. Given the realities of cheder study noted above, 
it was impossible
for most children to reach this level by the age of 13, or to continue in
order to reach it at a later age.

If the function of the Talmud Cheder was to bring the student to the point
where he could study Talmud on his own, then the cheder was not a very
successful institution. But it was not alone in its ineffectiveness. The Jewish
community as a whole did not do as much as it could to spread knowledge of
the Talmud despite all of the talk about the importance of Torah study. Very
simple steps could have been taken that would have dramatically increased
knowledge and understanding. Surprisingly, tools such as Aramaic-Yiddish
dictionaries, or an extensive Talmud commentary in Yiddish or even Hebrew,
did not exist, even though they would have been of great aid to students. It
certainly would not have been difficult to produce such books. Even classical
talmudic dictionaries in Hebrew, such as the Arukh, were not generally
available. [41] The results were clear. The majority of Jews, such as 
the pedlars,
shoemakers, and tailors, could not study a page of Talmud on their own. They
were pious, they said their psalms, they went to hear the midrashic sermons
on Saturday afternoons in the synagogues, but they were not themselves
learned.


[41]  The contemporary phenomenon of Talmud commentaries, such as 
that of Rabbi Steinsaltz
or the Artscroll commentaries which are in the vernacular and which 
require no major
investment of effort to understand, did not have an equivalent in 
eastern Europe. This was not
because of any inability to write such a commentary or lack of 
printing shops to print one. Popularization
of the Talmud or making it more accessible went against the grain of 
traditional Jewish
society. It will be interesting to see what the long-term impact of 
these commentaries will
be - whether they will spread knowledge or lead to functional 
illiteracy in Hebrew and Aramaic.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120624/913316ce/attachment.htm>