Every morning we recite three berachos over the study of Torah. According to the standard text, the second berachah concludes with the statement: "Baruch atoh Hashem, ha'Melamed Torah le'Amo Yisrael" ("Blessed are You, Hashem, the One Who Teaches Torah to His nation, Israel").
The Rambam disagrees with the standard practice. According to the Rambam in the Laws of Prayer 7:10 (in the critical editions of the Mishneh Torah), the proper conclusion of the second berachah is: "Baruch atoh Hashem, Nosein ha'Torah" ("Blessed are You, Hashem, the Giver of the Torah"). In Responsa 186 (or 97, depending on the edition) the Rambam explains his ruling:
The berachah is meant to conclude, Nosein ha'Torah (Giver of the Torah), for this concept [of its having been given to us] is what obligates us to learn it. This is the concept of its having been given, and this is the intent of the berachah: to request assistance in order to learn it. But one who concludes [the berachah], ha'Melamed Torah errs, for God does not teach it to us, but rather commanded us to learn it and to teach it. This is built on a foundational principle of our religion: that the performance of the commandments - or their neglect - is in our hands, and is not forced upon us from God.
The question I would like to focus on is: What are the implications of the Rambam's position? What does this reflect about his understanding of Hashem's role in our education? What does this show about the Rambam's definition of teaching? What does this say about the place of bechirah (free will) in our learning and development? What about the other Rishonim, such as Rashi and the Hagahos Maimoniyos, who maintain that the phrase "Melamed Torah" is appropriate to use in reference to Hashem? What is the basis of their disagreement?*
The first step we can take is to note the Rambam's premise, which this Calvin and Hobbes cartoon captures in plain language. That premise can be stated as follows: merely presenting the material is not teaching. If the Rambam considered the presentation of the material to be teaching, then Nosein ha'Torah would be synonymous with ha'Melamed Torah, and he would have no objection to the standard practice. I've posted on this point a number of times, most notably Bruner's insight into learning by discovery, Adler's essay on teaching and learning, and Rabbi Fox's 2007 Commencement Speech on the educational philosophy of NYHS.
But this first step is the only step I've successfully taken. I've worked on these questions for around a week, but at this point, I haven't yet arrived at clear and satisfactory answers. That is why I am posing the question to you.
What do you think are the implications of the Rambam's position?
* I think a possible "foothold" for approaching these questions is the fact that the Rambam does not object to the statement in the fourth berachah of the shemoneh esrei, which states, "Atoh chonein l'adam daas, u'Melameid le'enosh binah" ("You graciously give knowledge to man, and You teach understanding to frail man").
9 comments:
Matt,
I understand that the problem is contextual. The Teshuvah addresses the question of the Chatima not being the same subject as the Bracha. To Rambam this beracha is asking for help in learning and is not related to the the Bracha al divrei Torah (BTW why not La'asok as we have it?). Ending therefore melamed would be on subject saying teach me Torah as You are a teacher. The objection is asking for God's direct involvement which takes away our Bechirah. (the old question - if God made Pare'oh's heart hard why punish him?). On the other hand when we declare that God taught Torah it is no different than Mechin Mitzeadei Gaver - which means that He created man with Bechirah to do what he chooses (see MN 2:47) and gave him the ability to absorb Torah.
Where there is much to work to do is the meaning of asking for help. If God's involvement is objectionable what is the point of asking for help especially learning? (I cannot recall now but Rambam somewhere writes explicitly that the only hope in understanding something difficult is asking for God's help.) I have some ideas, as the question applies to all Techinot but that is another subject.
BTW I enjoy your posts. Keep up the good work.
matt,
hint/direction?
I, for one, am simply thankful that our Melamed Torah l'amo Yisrael - namely Matt - is back!!!
still wondering about the conclusions to this post..
matt, will there be a follow-up?
David Tawil,
Good question. I don't know the answer.
What did you think of David Guttman's answer?
Matt,
I liked his answer but thought that many primary questions were left unanswered. (ex: the answer doesnt illustrate why there would be a difference between 'melamed' in 'atah chonen' and 'melamed' in birkot hatorah)
Matt,
The rambams girsa in the second bracha of bentching is " al torasecha shelimaditanu".
Dov,
That's a good point. Although I still don't have a full understanding, I'm beginning to think that David Guttman is on the right track: that the Rambam's main problem in the teshuvah has more to do with the halakhic issue of חתימת הברכה מעין הברכה than the idea of Hashem as a melamed Torah per se.
Post a Comment