Return To TorahWeb.org Homepage
The parshah of ve-hayah im shamoa, the second component of keriyat shema (see mishneh Berachot 13a ; Rambam, Hilchot Keriat Shema 1:2)(Devarim 11:19), provides a vital source for the mitzvah of chinuch banim (Jewish education): "velimadetam otam et beneckhem le-daber bam - and you should teach them, your children, to speak of them". One would have expected a more direct and polished formulation of the crucial obligation to teach Torah to the next generation. Evidently, the Torah intends to transmit important insights on chinuch by means of this challenging, seemingly complex construction. Inasmuch as this verse focuses on this wide ranging Torah dialogue between the generations, beginning from the initiation of Jewish education at the most impressionable age, its examination affords an opportunity to briefly revisit and reinforce three important perspectives that continue to be relevant to the life-long pursuit of Torah education, as well.
Although the Ramban does not explicate the difficulty of this construction, he clearly addresses this challenging formulation in his commentary. He posits that the Torah's complex formulation-"and you should teach...that they should speak"- conveys that Torah should be taught in a manner that inspires an infectious enthusiasm that stimulates incessant discussion of Torah themes and topics. Moreover, the Ramban outlines the methodology that accomplishes this ambitious educational goal: the promotion of clear understanding that entails the rationale underlying the ideas ("ve-yodium...ve-yavinu otam ve-taameihem"). The Ramban's perspective excludes superficial knowledge and rote learning. It perceives Torah teaching as a significant responsibility that implicitly demands thoughtful and rigorous preparation.
The Sifrei (also cited in Rashi) interprets this pasuk as referring to a dual charge at the very initiation of the chinuch of a young child: 1."medaber (rashi-"meisiah") imo be-lashon ha-kodesh" (conversing in Hebrew); 2. "u-melamdo Torah" (and teaching the content of the Torah). [The continuation of the Sifrei passage demonstrates that these are two distinct elements, although this is not evident in Rashi's citation.] Presumably, the Sifrei believes these two components correspond to the dual "ve-limadetam" and "vedibarta bam" in the pasuk. The requirement of Hebrew discourse in this context is particularly intriguing. [See, the view of the Rabad cited in Shitah Mekubezet, Berachot 13a. He interprets that Rebbe's ruling that "kol ha-Torah be-lashon ha-kodesh neemrah" refers to Torah study! See, also, the Torah Temimah's comments on this Sifrei.]
The requirement of lashon ha-kodesh perhaps underscores the importance of the text of Torah she-biktav. The mishneh in Sotah (32a) enumerates several parshiyot that require the standard of kichtavah - the authentic, precise, and original text of the Torah. These parshiyot specifically require lashon ha-kodesh. Indeed, there are indications that targumim (translations) may qualify, at least in some respects and contexts, as Torah she-baal peh. [See Rambam, Hilchot Tefilah 12:10-11; Rabad, Hilchot Keriyat Shema 2:10; Rashi (Tanchuma), Devarim 1:5; and Rinat Yitzchak, Devarim 11:19. With respect to a father's obligation to teach his child, see also Kiddushin 30a and Rashi and Meiri op. cit ] Possibly, then, the Sifrei conveys that from the very outset young children are to be taught about the special interrelationship between the Written Torah as the embodiment of the actual devar Hashem (the Divine word), and the vast oral Torah tradition handed down since the time of Moshe Rabbeinu, which focuses on the concepts, methodology and application of halachic law and life. The dual character of Torah and the interrelationship of the components transcend issues of form and presentation; it constitutes one of the most singular aspects of halachic thought and life. Thus, the Sifrei apparently indicates that both components of Torah-text and tradition- and possibly their integration should be reflected in the actual teaching methodology of the formative educational experience, as well as that of the more mature student of the Torah.
It is noteworthy that the Sifrei concludes by noting that one who neglects Hebrew discourse and Torah discussion risks acute punishment ("ke-ilu kovro"). It is fascinating that this harsh indictment is based on the semichut (proximity) between "velimadetem..." and "lema'an yirbu yemeichem...", the verse that nearly follows, as well as the midrashic principle of "miklal lav atah shomeah hein", which, as Rashi significantly adds, is a general methodological principle in Torah interpretation. The vital need for Torah study as a sine qua non for Jewish survival is clearly articulated. It is meaningful that this perspective is integrated with the obligation to initiate the dual curriculum of Torah studies at a formative age. Moreover, the fact that it is precisely a dual midrashic mechanism that definitively establishes the stakes involved in the neglect of Torah studies compellingly reinforces the very charge that Jewish learning consists not only of the textual component of the Written Torah, but of the vast oral tradition, including its methods of textual interpretation, as well.
Finally, we note that Rashi adds a further dimension to the dual formulation- "ve-limadetem...le-daber bam"- of the chinuch obligation. In his view, the seemingly superfluous addition of "ledaber bam" hints at a specific formative first teaching to be transmitted to the young initiate to Torah study: "Torah zivah lanu Moshe" (Devarim 33:4). [See Sukah 42a] Given, the plethora of available options, why was this particular verse and theme selected to set the tone in Jewish education? The early educational emphasis on Moshe's indispensable role in both receiving and transmitting the Torah reinforces the previous motif regarding the centrality of the tradition-text combination. Maybe it also projects an equally critical theme, as well. The formative verse concludes: "morashah kehillat Yaakov". The term "morashah", in contradistinction to "yerusahah", refers not merely to a past inheritance, but to an ongoing heritage and legacy. While inheritance relates to the past and perhaps invokes a sense of nostalgia for a bygone era, a legacy is anchored in the past, but transcends any particular era. Legacies define aspirations, and inspire a sense of purpose and destiny; they connote rights, and responsibilities (see Pesachim 91b). Torah study and life, especially in its dual form and character, constitutes the ultimate legacy of the Jewish people. According the midrash, this relationship is already hinted at by the very first word of the Torah- "be-reishit- beshvil ha-torah she-nikrah reishit- bara Elokim et ha-Shamayim ve-eit ha-aretz" (see also Pesachim 91b). The gemara (Sanhedrin 59a; Pesachim 49b) explicates that "morashah" implies an exclusivist relationship between Hashem and the Jewish people patterned after a marriage (meurasah). Moreover, this verse is the foundation of the prohibition against teaching essential aspects of the Torah to non-Jews who do not share its obligations or shoulder its responsibilities. From the very outset of the Jewish educational process, it is of utmost urgency to accentuate these themes of responsibility, spiritual opportunity, destiny, and legacy.
The themes that are already emphasized in the most formative stages of Jewish education continue to challenge and inspire even the most seasoned, senior, and accomplished devotee of Torah study. The fact that the relevance of the dual articulation of ve-limadetem...le-daber, in its various meanings, remains undiminished strikingly attests to Torah's singular status as the true legacy-"morashah"- of Am Yisrael.