[Avodah] Explanation of the Tur?

[Chana Luntz via Avodah]

 I wrote:

: No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these
: were not "textual" sources - how would you translate [sheyilmedu al pi
: haqabalah hashorashim vehakelalios] better though, to keep the flow and
: that something is being taught "al pi hakabalah"?

And RMB replied:

>"They learned by osmosis the root principles and the general rules..."

I like "the root principles and the  general rules .." - thanks, that is
better than my use of source - but I think "osmosis" is not quite right
either.  I don't think "osmosis" as we understand it would necessarily have
been within the Maharil's conception, and that it is not a great translation
for "al pi hakabala" - maybe "from tradition" - but osmosis isn't right.
The girls  in question probably learnt how to speak the local language by
osmosis (even if eg Yiddish was spoken in the home), but you would not say
that is "al pi hakabbala".  There is a big difference.

:> However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil
haChadashos :> 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. 

: These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult
: to understand them as having been written by the same person...

>Meaning, he isn't useful as a source either way, as a harmonization of the
quotes (or a rejection of them) would itself require proof, and can't be
used to make the Majaril a source of a position.

I don't think you can say that.  First of all, the second one, ie the one
from Maharil HaChadashos, made it into the Shulchan Aruch, - it is quoted by
the Rema - and you can't just dismiss that.  And the first one was in the
possession of the Birchei Yosef, who is very influential in a whole host of
ways in terms of psak.  I think rather you have to treat them as two
different rishonic teshuvot, and give them weight on that basis.  It may
well be that they were influenced by, or even possibly penned by, the
student of the Maharil who collected them (hence my note that they came from
two different collections) , and we may never know which one was really the
Maharil's opinion and which one was in fact that of his student or some
other rishon from around that time and attributed to the Maharil, but they
are both rishonic source material, and I don't think we can ignore either of
them.

...
:: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling
in
:: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21...

::> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us
::> when each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the
::> fathers was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers
::> went and like it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in
this ::> it was possible to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in
their ::> practice on their upright fathers.

:> Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion.

: Yes and no.  "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the
: pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a]
: and other rabbinic mitzvot.  It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk...

But that doesn't mean that's the CC's intent. As you write:
:                                   Yes the CC is clearly talking about in
the
: context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting
: up of schools)...

>Using the word "avikha" to refer to morei hora'ah is not peshat in the
pasuq. The CC appears to be using the peshat, and ignoring the gemara's
derashah.

Yes, but even in terms of pshat, it seems very difficult to come away from
the idea of transmission of tradition from father to children when using
this process.  "Asking" is not about osmosis - it is about an attempt at
formal learning, and answering in response to an ask is exactly the process
of formal learning in pretty much all contexts (it is why we still have
teachers even in Universities, and not just books).  If you have system
where you are supposed to "ask" and somebody else is supposed to then
answer, you have  formal  education.  This is a step up from where you are
expected to learn by watching (but not asking) - but where at least
sometimes the educational aspect is clear - eg, I want you to watch and see
how I go to place X, so you can find it yourself next time, is a less formal
process than asking, but it is still a form of education, which is a step up
from osmosis, where nobody on either side necessarily realises that
something is being learnt, it just seeps in (language is a classic case, or
how about accent - kids pick up their accent from school by osmosis, it is
not a conscious process, and maybe the parents would in fact prefer, and
maybe even they would prefer, that they talk with the parent's accent,
rather than that of their peers, but it doesn't happen that way, you send a
kid to school, they start talking like the locals in their school).

>I am uncomfortable with your reading something into the CC which isn't
quite what he said on the basis of his choice of prooftext. (Especially
anyone living after the normalization of out-of-context quote as slogan with
"chadash assur min haTorah".)

Because the proof text resonates, it does even in the pshat.  In the pshat
it is clearly linked to "vshinantam l'vanecha" - ie is the flip side of it
(which is why the extension into drash makes sense, just as v'shinantam
l'vanecha is the basis of the command for Torah study, this is the basis of
the need to listen to the master of Torah).  And if you know the drash, even
when you use it in the pshat form, you will get the resonance.  "V'shinantam
l'vanecha" is the pasuk from which the obligation for boys to learn is
learnt (banecha v'lo banotecha) - with the emphasis then on the father's
teaching - the formal school process came later, when the father's
obligation was delegated to a school teacher.  Ask you father (in the
masculine) is similarly in the pshat about a boy's obligation to learn.
Applying it to girls is an odd stretch in the first place.  What you are
saying is that the proof text when applied to girls suddenly doesn't mean
what it means when applied to boys, in either pshat or drash, that to me
seems odd.

:> Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing :>
rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one.

: Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and
ideas
: etc - but that is not the question.  The question is, can or does anybody
: define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at
: all the experiential aspect...

>Isn't the question: Does anyone force the CC to define the set of TSBP that
classically one was prohibited from teaching girls as being more than those
formal rules and ideas and as including at all the experiential aspect?

Well the CC is explaining the Rambam.  The Rambam says:

אשה שלמדה תורה יש לה שכר אבל אינו כשכר האיש, מפני שלא נצטוית, וכל העושה דבר
שאינו מצווה עליו לעשותו אין שכרו כשכר המצווה שעשה אלא פחות ממנו, ואע"פ שיש
לה שכר צוו חכמים שלא ילמד אדם את בתו תורה, מפני שרוב הנשים אין דעתם מכוונת
להתלמד אלא הן מוציאות דברי תורה לדברי הבאי לפי עניות דעתן, אמרו חכמים כל
המלמד את בתו תורה כאילו למדה תפלות במה דברים אמורים בתורה שבעל פה אבל תורה
שבכתב לא ילמד אותה לכתחלה ואם למדה אינו כמלמדה תפלות

A woman who studies Torah gains a reward but not like the reward of a man,
because she is not commanded and all who do a thing that they are not
commanded to do, there reward is not like the reward of one who is commanded
and does rather [their reward] is less than these, and even though she gains
a reward, the Sages commanded that a man should not teach his daughter Torah
because the majority of women their minds are not suited to the learning,
and they will turn matters of Torah to matters of foolishness according to
the poverty of their minds, the Sages said: Anyone who teaches his daughter
Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut.  With regard to what are we
speaking, with Torah she baal peh [oral Torah]; but Torah she bichtav
[written Torah] even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught
her it is not as though he taught her tiflut.

That is, the Rambam says: women who study Torah gain reward BUT a man should
not teach his daughter Torah BUT only Torah she ba'al peh is tiflut, while
Torah shebichtav shouldn't be done, it is not tiflut.

So, the Rambam here appears to only have two categories of Torah, torah
sheba'al peh, and torah shebichtav (note that the Rambam himself in Hilchot
Talmud Torah perek 1 Halacha 11 - says a man is required to divide his time
into thirds, a third in Torah shebichtav, a third in Torah sheba’al peh, and
a third in understanding and weighing - what he calls Gemora, so there he
seems to have three categories, but the third requires a knowledge of the
other two, and presumably cannot be taught).

So, in terms of your question "does anybody force the CC to define the set
of TSBP that was classically prohibited as being more than those formal
rules and ideas and as including the experiential aspect" - it seems to me
that the Rambam does.  Ie given that the CC is explaining the Rambam, and
the Rambam has only two categories of Torah, then either the experiential
aspect is Torah shebichtav  or it is not Torah at all.  But saying that the
experiential aspect is not Torah at all, would seem to be saying the shimush
talmedei chachaimim, which is so valued as essential for horah, is in fact
not Torah at all, and it would also seem to knock out ma-aseh rav, which is
again absolutely critical for our definition of halacha l'ma'ase.  I
therefore think it very difficult to say that experiential teaching,
especially when linked with the formality of "asking", as the CC does, can
be defined as not Torah at all.  So that leaves Torah shebichtav.  I did try
and say that was the Tur's point, what you are should not teach are the laws
as written down, but to say that the experiential is Torah shebichtav seems
to me a very difficult assertion.

:> I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when
:> you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an
:> example to imitate.

: The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it
is
: as if he teaches her tiflut.  With regard to what are we speaking, with
: Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach
her
: ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut."

: The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with
regard
: to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas,
: excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion
of
: Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not
necessarily
: in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine".  

>I think the Rambam is using the word "lelameid" to mean formal education.
>After all, does the father set out to actively teach informally? Hineni
muchan umezuman to teach by demonstrating behavior?

Yes he does, the minute he is "asked", or if he says "watch what I do"
(similar to when I take my children somewhere to show them how to get there
on their own, eg a new school, including pointing out the landmarks, that is
most definitely active teaching, despite the fact that it is experiential,
and not done from giving them a map and teaching them to map read).

>In which case, that would be exactly what the Rambam is saying. Watching
mom and asking questions as gaps arise is how Teimani girls were expected to
grow up up until Al Kanfei Nesharim in '49.

And "look, let me show you how ..." is formal teaching, whether it is a
maths problem or it is how to bake chala.  And if that particular aspect of
teaching falls within the definition of Torah, then one is teaching Torah,
albeit informally.  And the danger with understanding "lelameid" to only
mean formal teaching, not informal teaching, is that you then write out of a
father's obligation to a son an awful lot, as it is not within the mitzvah.
You can't have it both ways, either when a father teaches a son informally
(eg shows him how to put on tephillin, as that seems very difficult to learn
from a book) he is teaching him Torah or he is not.  Which is it?

: And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they
: could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her
reward
: etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two
: types of TSBP...

>Lehefech, the fact that formal reducation requires a berakhah and learning
informally / culturally does not strengthens the possiblity that it is not
equally that lelameid, just like it is not equally talmud Torah.

So this kind of informal education - how to put on tephillin, how to shect,
showing how to... (the list is endless) is not Torah, and doesn’t take the
bracha when done between father and son, or rebbe and talmid?  Isn't that
the consequence of what you are saying?  That the only Torah that men are
obligated to learn as Talmud torah are the formal abstract rules and
regulations and not the practical, which is best taught experientially?  

:                                          Is not the gemora etc filled with
: this kind of teaching?  I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP.

>The gemara isn't filled with cultural instruction; no text (written or
memorized) can be. Pehrpas a story or two describing a case of it
occuring...

I think it is, it is filled with ma'aseh rav - which then tends to trump the
formal rules - we learn the halacha from a ma'aseh rav even against the
formal rules, and certainly when following through on the formal rules.

If you rule out this kind of learning from TSBP, you are ruling out one of
the key tools of halacha learning as not Torah.  Isn't that odd?

-Micha

Regards

Chana