With God’s help, 4 Cheshvan 5781

The concept of “screening” in the context of students is foul language. Every student is “elite,” possessing unique abilities and talents, each in his own area.

Since there are major differences from one person to another in inclinations and areas of interest, one must tailor for each person the framework that suits him, both in terms of fields of study and in terms of educational and academic demands.

There are those whom pressure to achieve will develop and motivate, and there are those whom such pressure will break. And it is hard to “plow with an ox and a donkey together,” and therefore one must offer each person the framework that will advance him at the pace and under the pressure suitable for him, a framework that will benefit him, which is not necessarily at all the “prestigious” framework.

Usually it is hard to combine in a regular class the “stronger” students and the more struggling ones. For one it will be “too small for him,” and for the other “too big for him,” and therefore separate educational frameworks are recommended for each level according to its ability and motivation.

However, the Sages also have an integrative solution, when they say (in tractate Bava Batra): “And one who does not read—let him be paired with his fellow.” Dr. Mordechai Margaliot explained (in the Encyclopedia of the Sages of the Talmud and the Geonim, under “Rav Shmuel bar Shilat”) that a struggling student should be paired with a stronger student who will serve as a “mentor” and advance him in learning.

This method was actually practiced in the traditional heder, and I noted several sources for this brought in the book by Rabbi Professor Simcha Assaf, Sources for the History of Jewish Education (see my comments on Professor Nadav Shnayerb’s article “To Impart Knowledge — Not to Educate,” on the “Shabbat Supplement – Makor Rishon” website).

In my humble opinion, this approach—being a “mentor” and helper to someone weaker than oneself—builds the outstanding student not only in terms of developing social responsibility, but also educationally. The need to explain things to someone who is struggling leads to a deeper understanding for the explainer himself, as the Sages said: “From my students more than from all of them.”

Of course, in order to succeed, smaller classes are needed, in which the teacher can give more personal attention to the student who needs it. One should adhere to the Sages’ guideline that there be a maximum of 25 students per teacher, and beyond that (up to 40 students) one should provide the teacher with an assistant. When there is one educator for every 20–25 students, the teacher can give reasonable attention to whoever needs it.

Best regards, Shatz

If, in Rabbi Margaliot’s explanation of “paired with his fellow,” the outstanding student becomes a “mentor” to his friend who needs assistance—Rabbi Chiyya made every student a teacher to his peers in the area in which he excels,

Rabbi Chiyya said that if Torah were forgotten from Israel, he would take five boys and teach each one one book of the Five Books of Moses, and six students, each of whom he would teach one order of the Mishnah, and afterward each one would teach his friends the part he had learned from Rabbi Chiyya, and thus they would all learn the entire Torah by way of “learning one from another.”

In this way, one can integrate into the same class students who differ in their talents, since for each one it is possible to find an area in which he excels, and in that area he will be a teacher and guide to his friends. One excels in Talmud and his friend in mathematics; one has artistic talent and his friend has organizational ability. The teacher should let each one express himself in the area in which he specializes, and there he will be the guide for the rest of his friends.

That way, no one will feel that he is “second-class.” Each person will discover his unique strength in the area in which he is “first-class.”

Best regards, Shatz

Once my hosts asked me whether I wanted regular instant coffee or granulated instant coffee. I replied: I’m an Elite-ist… 🙂

Best regards, The Coffee Reader

With God’s help, Friday eve of “they came into the ark,” 5781

At first glance, the ark seems to be the “elitist solution.” Only the select of each species come into the ark, those who preserved their purity. But it turns out that even those select ones carried within themselves the seeds of disaster, for “the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Noah himself failed through drunkenness from the fruit of his labor, and his son Ham failed through taking honor in his father’s disgrace.

Perhaps the conclusion from this is that the attempt to distinguish between the good and those who are not is not the gateway to success, but rather the ability to combine strengths and join everyone into a fabric in which each person fulfills his unique abilities. Japheth will be entrusted with expanding the world on the material plane—“May God enlarge Japheth”—while his brother Shem will be entrusted with the spiritual side, strengthening the indwelling of the Divine Presence in the world.

Even Ham’s trait—the ability to look critically and not show favoritism even to his father—also has a place in the fabric, but in subordination to his two brothers. The ability to negate evil must be an instrument for positive action—the material action of Japheth and the spiritual action of Shem. As a “servant” assisting positive values, there is room for criticality that rejects evil; but when negation and criticality take on value in themselves, their danger is great, for they can lead to cynicism that kicks against everything holy and precious.

Just as Ham’s criticality found its place through subordination to his brothers, so too the great zealots Simeon and Levi receive their value through not existing as a separate tribe. When zealous fervor is integrated in connection with the rest of the tribes, it is transformed into the fervor of educational activity that improves the world in gentle ways.

With blessings for a peaceful Sabbath, Shatz