Teaching Torah she-ba’al Peh: 
Challenges and Suggestions
                                                       by Rabbi Yair Kahn

I. Introduction

According to our Sages, the covenant between the Jewish people and the Almighty was forged via Torah she-ba'al Peh. This assertion is a powerful expression of the leading role played by Torah she-ba'al Peh in shaping the national religious identity of the Jewish people. By giving us an Oral Law, God established His unique relationship with the Jewish people; through the study of Talmud, the Jewish people express their deep and unqualified commitment to God’s word. Thus we find that Hazal propelled the study of Talmud to the forefront of our religious obligation and observance, which accounts for the central position enjoyed by talmud Torah she-ba'al Peh throughout the ages. Consequently, any discussion regarding the nature of learning Torah she-ba'al Peh touches upon the collective national consciousness of the chosen people, and must be approached with humility and caution. 

Indeed, the issue of how Torah she-ba'al Peh should be taught stirs up intense passionate debate. This attests to the almost universal agreement, that the issue of Talmud study is not merely a pragmatic educational one, but touches a very sensitive and critical religious nerve. In recent years, this debate has surfaced in reaction to the general dissatisfaction with the current situation regarding Talmud education in high schools. In this debate, we find those who consider themselves champions or protectors of Torah she-ba'al Peh. They hold steadfastly to what they consider the traditional approach, unwilling to concede any ground to innovation or change, which they view as perverting the mesorah. The innovators point to what they perceive as an across the board educational failure regarding Torah she-ba'al Peh. Therefore, they argue, innovative methods must be considered in order to redeem the study of Talmud in our generation. 

The suggested innovations are varied and numerous, all seeking to alter Talmud study as currently undertaken. Some favor a Mishnah-based approach, thereby neutralizing both the language barrier, as well as avoiding the complex and confusing Talmudic discussion. Others suggest picking and choosing sugyot, which are appealing, exciting, or relevant. Some prefer a more halakhic orientation, limiting the teaching of Torah she-ba'al Peh to that which has practical application. There are those who argue that in order to ignite interest, Gemara should have philosophic relevance, while others insist that only academic Talmudic scholarship can provide the systematic tools required for Talmudic study. In the opinion of some, the study of Gemara should be delayed until the student matures intellectually, while others insist that it should not be a central part of mainstream Jewish education at all. The latter claim that the place of Talmud is not in the school, but in the beit midrash where it should be studied properly and intensely by a select few. 

These are just a few of the suggestions that have recently been voiced. Although the list is not exhaustive, it demonstrates the wide variety of alternatives to what is generally considered traditional Talmud study. Although there is widespread consensus that the state of Talmud study in secondary education is somewhere between unsatisfactory and catastrophic, there is no consensus whatsoever regarding how the situation can be remedied. 

I am torn between the polar approaches presented above. On the one hand, I have a strong affinity to the conservative approach. I maintain a deeply rooted commitment to traditional learning and would find the teaching of any other method extremely distasteful. On the other hand, I cannot fully adopt a position that in the name of tradition simply denies or ignores all the problems faced in the classroom and continues to teach in the same way using the same methods in spite of all the evidence. Hence, I find that the argument for innovation is compelling.

This paper makes no pretensions to being an exhaustive study. I have no intention of dealing with various educational methods and techniques that can perhaps be adopted to teach Talmud in a more efficient and effective way. This omission is not because I consider these tools unimportant, but rather because there is a more fundamental reason for the failure of the current Gemara class, which to a large extent has been ignored by proponents of change. Admittedly, I have little experience teaching Gemara on the high school level. However, being an outsider enhances my ability to distance myself from the technicalities of educational methodology, which captivates the attention of the teacher in the trenches, and to consider the problem of teaching Talmud in the classroom from a broader perspective. 

In order to introduce this problem, I will begin with a short description of Torah she-ba'al Peh, followed by a brief account of typical classroom goals. Subsequently, I will attempt to demonstrate the difficulty inherent in Talmud study within a standard classroom setting. My agenda is to deal directly with this essential problem in order to suggest a model that can be set up in a school, which is more conducive to studying Gemara in the traditional way. In putting forth my proposal, I will neither deny the existence of the problem of teaching Gemara in the standard classroom environment, nor will I promote alternatives to traditional learning. I will suggest a model with the potential to deepen the commitment of students to traditional Talmud study and strengthen their ties to the great masoretic chain. 

II. The Nature of Torah she-ba'al Peh

In order to analyze why Talmud study is unsuitable for typical classroom study, we must begin with a brief discussion of Torah she-ba'al Peh in general. There are various theories regarding the purpose of studying Torah she-ba'al Peh. Some argue that the learning is a means, not an end. The goal of Talmud study is not Torah knowledge itself, but to achieve an external aim, such as improving one’s character or enhancing one’s religious awareness. Rav Hayyim Volozhiner attacked these positions in his monumental work espousing the concept of “torah lishmah,” Nefesh Ha-Hayyim.

Rav Hayyim Volozhiner harnessed an impressive array of sources in developing his position, however his claim regarding the nature of talmud Torah she-ba'al Peh is basically theoretical. For the purpose of this paper, I prefer a more empirical approach. Let us take an objective look at the composition of Talmud and then ask ourselves whether the study of Gemara is the most efficient and effective way of achieving external goals such as character improvement. Talmud often deals with material that is detailed and technical. The subject matter is often unrelated to religious issues or moral values. We find lengthy discussions detailing the formal requirements of various legal categories, such as kinyanim, shomrim, and eidut. In Massekhtot Shabbat and Beitza, much of the Talmudic discussion revolves around the technical definitions of various melakhot. Even regarding acts of worship (mitzvot aseh), many sugyot focus on intricate technicalities. If approached by someone thirsting for religious inspiration, I would probably recommend the classic Sifrei Emunah over Bava Kama. If asked by a student what one should learn in order to improve his ethical sensitivities, I would suggest Sifrei Mussar before Massekhet Kiddushin. Those who promote learning Talmud only in order to achieve limited aims that do not fully reflect the richness and diversity found in Gemara, are prone to proceed in one of two directions. Either they inadvertantly frustrate their pupils, who are taught to expect certain results from their study, but are often disappointed. The alternative, is to distort Torah she-ba'al Peh by misinterpreting, being selective, or both, in order to attain their stated objectives. 

If we adopt a Torah lishmah orientation, which values learning Gemara for its own sake (not for the sake of "ulterior" objectives, even goals as worthy as character development) we find ourselves hard pressed to achieve this goal. The Talmud has an idiosyncratic and difficult format. Instead of a clear and organized collection of law, we find complex discussion that argues for opinions that are not accepted, entertains suggestions that are eventually rejected and raises questions despite being ultimately resolved. The Talmudic discussion is so intricate and involved, that often we don’t know whether a specific opinion or suggestion was adopted or rejected, if a question was answered or remains unsolved. This complexity is one of the major reasons that Talmud study is so difficult, and often unrewarding to the student. 

However, the intricacy of the Talmudic discourse poses a problem beyond the formidable educational challenge. It forces us to confront the issue of the very essence of Torah she-ba'al Peh. What was the "agenda" of our Sages when they edited the Talmud? Was their primary interest passing over information? Was their main objective transmitting Torah knowledge? Is it merely a preliminary attempt at a Shulhan Arukh? If so, they failed miserably. The Talmudic format is so convoluted, that it is difficult to assume that the objective of our Sages was merely to transmit information. However, if this was not their primary goal, what was?    

In order to appreciate the greatness of our Sages we must shift our perspective. Instead of harboring notions and assumptions regarding the purpose of Talmud study, which can result in a critical and negative appraisal of the Talmudic editors, we should accept the Talmudic composition as an empirical given, and utilize its unique format as a compass to re-align our understanding of the objective of Talmud study. Therefore, our initial concern is to determine the precise nature of the Talmudic composition.   

The Talmud is not, and was never meant to be, merely a collection of halachic law, whether practical or theoretical. Of course, halakhic decisions can, should, and always have been extracted from the Talmudic discussion. Nevertheless, that doesn't seem to be the sole focus of Talmud study envisioned by the Talmudic editors, as evidenced by the Gemara’s convoluted format. 

Moreover, it doesn’t appear that the primary concern of the Talmud is the transmission of specific Torah information. Gemara is a transcription of the entire Amoraic discussion, not only a record of the conclusion. It was the specific intention of the editors of the Talmud to introduce the proposals that are eventually discarded, to include positions ultimately rejected in the attempt to record the Amoraic discourse in all its intricate detail. Hence, the study of Gemara, in its most perfect form, demands analysis of the entire shakla ve-tarya, the study of the hava amina along side the maskana. 

Permit me to illustrate this point with a rhetorical question. If one could make a complete list of all the Torah information contained in a specific daf Gemara, would we replace learning that daf by memorizing the list. The Talmud is a dynamic and vibrant discussion, a documentation of Hazal's attempt to attain a partial grasp of Hashem’s infinite wisdom using their limited human intellect. The arguments rage back and forth, the discussion is tense and passionate. In the study of Gemara, we attempt to join this fertile dialogue and bring it to life. When we finally decipher the meaning of a sugya, the argument becomes electrified, pregnant with meaning and importance, as we merge with the mesorah that began at Sinai and was passed on throughout the generations of Jewish history. When we explain the sugya to someone else and we ignite his interest and involvement, we become a link in the great masoretic chain. Can this be reduced to memorizing a finite set of statements?

In fact, according to our Sages, Talmud was never meant to be transcribed. In its pristine form, Torah she-ba'al Peh, as its name implies, was an oral transmission of Torah, which one was not permitted to codify in a written format. Torah she-ba'al Peh is not a document to be studied, but a process through which dvar Hashem is transmitted and developed. Rabbi Soloveitchik zt”l commented on a number of occasions that Torah she-ba'al Peh is not written on parchment, rather it is inscribed in the minds of the Jewish people and etched on their hearts and souls. One does not merely study Torah she-ba'al Peh, but rather merges with it as he participates in the process and becomes a link in the chain of the mesorah. One does not teach Torah she-ba'al Peh, but rather invites others to continue that chain.    

After tragic historic events forced the transcription of Torah she-ba'al Peh, the Talmudic editors were faced with a formidable challenge. How could they possibly retain the oral character of Torah she-ba'al Peh? How could they prevent Talmud from becoming a document to be analyzed from objective distance? How could they ensure that Torah she-ba'al Peh remain pulsating and dynamic, full of energy and life?  

From this perspective, the chosen format of the Talmud is no longer as perplexing. The various opinions and suggestions are the very fibers used to weave the Talmudic fabric, and the arguments and counter-arguments are what gives it its magnificent colors and depth. By transcribing the details of the Amoraic debate, the argument remains alive with all its dynamic and energetic force. When we learn, we shouldn’t stand at a distance, admiring the beautiful fabric from afar. We engage ourselves in the process and continue to weave, adding new strands to the multi-colored garment. When we teach, we put the garment in the trust of the next generation, charging our children and students to continue the process.  

In order to appreciate this idea, it is crucial to discuss, albeit briefly, the religious significance of Torah study. Our Sages considered the study of Torah to be an act of worship, since Torah study is a profound expression of kabbalat ol malkhut shamayim on both the individual and communal levels. The immense effort and dedication that is exerted in the attempt at understanding, conceptualizing, and implementing the word of God, is a powerful statement of absolute acceptance of divine law. This aspect of Torah study is reflected in a Gemara (Nedarim 7a), which indicates that the obligation of Talmud Torah can be fulfilled at the most minimal level by reciting Shema twice daily. Since the Shema is recited in order to fulfill the obligation of accepting the yoke of heaven, it appears that more expansive Torah study is an extension of this concept. In fact, Rambam (Hilkhot Kriat Shema 1:3) noted that the first paragraph of Shema preceeds the others precisely because it includes, among other things, “the study of Torah, which is the great principle upon which everything else hinges.” This passage was often quoted by Rabbi Soloveitchik as a clear indication that Torah study is rooted in kabbalat ol malkhut shamayim. 

However, there is another side to Torah study. Although a Jew must accept dvar Hashem as interpreted by our Sages totally and absolutely, Judaism does not maintain that he or she was meant to be a passive recepient, mechanically adopting Torah law with blind faith. Hashem, the creator of the universe, upon awarding Man with tzelem Elokim, charged Man to join Him in the creative gesture. Human involvement in the creative process expresses itself in numerous ways. One important expression, unique to the Jewish People, relates to Talmud Torah. In order for us to implement the divine will, we must enlist our human faculties to study Torah, the word of God, use our intellect to analyze its content, utilize the logos to conceptualize the ideas and formulate the halachik system. Hence, the ongoing dialogue of Torah she-ba'al Peh, is a humanistic creative one. It is not only legitimate but in fact admirable to develop novel ideas and formulate new categories in the paradoxical human endeavor of interpreting the word of God revealed at Sinai. 

Consequently, the importance and significance of the Torah she-ba'al Peh process is twofold. On the one hand, it is a profound expression of our singleminded devotion to, and absolute acceptance of, divine will. However, paradoxically, it is also a powerful reflection of a great human enterprise, one in which the Jew joins the Almighty, as it were, in the creative process. At one end of the spectrum, Hashem is at the center, as finite Man is vanquished by the infinite divine will. While at the opposite end, man is raised by the hand of God and placed on a pedestal, charged with the monumental task of interpreting God’s word and defining His laws. Therefore, we find that Torah she-ba'al Peh contains the complexity inherent in the religious humanistic attitude of Judaism.     

Thus we find that by studying Gemara and joining the Talmudic discussion, one attains a dual goal. First, we merge with the entire Jewish community in the great collective communal act of kabbalat ol malkhut shamayim, as expressed both in the written law--the Bible, as well in the oral law as transmitted and interpreted by our Sages. In so doing, we essentially relive and reenact the supreme religious moment of ma'amad har Sinai. In addition, we become part of the masoretic chain, joining generations of Torah scholars and lay Jews alike, in the great Talmudic discourse, engaged in the creative enterprise of interpreting and formulating the word of God revealed at Sinai.

III. The Incompatibility to a Standard Classroom Setting

Admittedly, I have presented an idealized portrait of Torah she-ba'al Peh. Nonetheless, the ability to appreciate and identify with the study of Talmud will be proportional to the level at which this ideal can be approached. Gemara must be studied in an environment that lends itself to the (at least partial) realization of this ideal. We must ask, does a standard classroom qualify as an appropriate environment?    

I have tried to show that Talmud is not merely a compilation of information that has to be assimilated. In other words, it is not a subject to be studied, but rather a living tradition into which one merges. This can be accomplished only by bringing Talmud to life, with all its force and energy. It is not sufficient to analyze the Talmudic text. One must identify with Torah she-ba'al Peh in a more profound and meaningful way.

In order to accomplish this, the teacher of Talmud must be an inspiring member of the mesorah community. He must have the abilty and be afforded the opportunity to creatively engage the Gemara on a personal level. Similarly, the students must be allowed the freedom to become involved on a subjective level. 

Indeed, an inspired and inspiring rebbe or teacher can excite his or her students within the context of a Gemara class. However, the classroom, in its standard format is not geared for this enterprise. The typical course has a defined curriculum, comprised of standardized information, which must be presented to the student. Success or failure in a given course is usually measured through tests, which are designed to assess the student’s knowledge. Moreover, teachers in general are not afforded the opportunity to immerse themselves in the subject matter. Their job is to teach, not to learn.

However, there is no standard curriculum for Gemara. Among the many suggestions for educational reform, there are those who suggest that a curriculum should be developed for Talmud. The feeling being that standardized, concrete goals would be a valuable guide for the Gemara instructor, as well as setting an objective standard for Talmudic knowledge expected from the student. Proponents of this suggestion are correct in noticing the discrepancy between Talmud study and the typical classroom environment. However, in my opinion, they erred in their conclusion. Instead of trying to adapt the school setting to correspond to the traditional aims of Talmud Torah, this format transforms Gemara from a living tradition into a boring and difficult subject. As a subject or discipline, Talmud fails miserably. Students are seriously handicapped due to the language barrier. Even if this barrier were overcome, students are faced with the difficulty of deciphering the Gemara's code comprised of complex back and forth argumentation. The select few, who after spending time and effort, finally succeed in understanding the Gemara, are often frustrated and disappointed with the seemingly unimportant and irrelevant results. 

Therefore, it is evident to me that the gap separating traditional Talmud study from the standard classroom setting must be narrowed by finding ways in which a school can adapt to meet the dynamic agenda of talmud Torah she-ba'al Peh. We must look for some model that can be established in a typical school, which encourages students to become engaged in the study of Torah and to merge with the living mesorah.  

IV. The Suggested Model

What then is the proper environment for Talmud study? How can we engage today’s student in a discussion that took place over fifteen-hundred years ago? Within what framework can this discourse be given any meaning, not to mention to be brought back to life? Before proceeding, it is important to clarify that I am not so presumptuous to think that my suggestion will sweep away all the difficulties. Nevertheless, by attempting to define the problem, we are in a better position to improve the current situation. Therefore, let us try to identify the components that can help us create an atmosphere that encourages this type of experience.  

One basic and crucial factor is the rebbe. I think it should be self evident, that the rebbe must serve as an effective role model. He himself must be totally committed and engaged by Torah she-ba'al Peh. He must be deeply troubled by questions and in constant search for answers. When he finally succeeds in finding a solution to a problem, his joy must be genuine; his enthusiasm should overflow. He should be feverish with contagious excitement, infecting those around him. 

In general, this infectious excitement is not attained in the usual classroom environment, where the role of the rebbe exhausts itself in the effort to be both instructor and educator. I have met many teachers, who find that in their efforts to teach well, they no longer have time to learn, a fact which is noted by students. However, in order to transmit the engagement with Torah she-ba'al Peh, a role model, who is absorbed and engrossed in learning, is essential. Similarly, dynamic study cannot be attained if a concrete agenda is imposed upon the rebbe. It makes no difference if he is forced to teach a specified method, or if he is responsible to prepare his students for a bagrut exam. The rebbe must be given the freedom to discover on his own using a model or models that best suit him. He must live Torah she-ba'al Peh in order to make it live for others. He must identify with Gemara in a profound way, in order to have a real impact. In short, to succesfully transmit Torah she-ba'al Peh, the rebbe must be given not only the mandate to teach, but also the opportunity to learn and the freedom to share his learning with students. 
A second component is an environment that encourages the students to join the rebbe and immerse themselves in the learning process. There are several suggestions that can help in nurturing such an atmosphere. First of all, time has to be dedicated to independent learning, where students are encouraged to explore for themselves. Moreover, in order to stress that the learning process is primary, this independent study should be evaluated and have a significant impact on the student's grade. This evaluation is of a subjective nature, lacking objective measure afforded by standard testing of information. It involves grading based on attitude, commitment, diligence and improvement. In this way, we hope to shift the student's focus to the act of learning itself.
We are therefore in search of a framework that affords both teacher and student an opportunity to study Torah she-ba'al Peh. This environment should emphasize learning--not grades, but identification with Torah she-ba'al Peh; not only the amassing of Talmudic knowledge; independent appreciation and individual expression, not merely dictation. 
In order to create this atmosphere, greater emphasis should be placed on time spent in the beit midrash, which traditionally is the environment enlisted to encourage the study of Torah she-ba'al Peh. In its ideal form, the beit midrash provides a climate where vibrant discussion brings Torah to life. The dynamic quality of beit midrash study was noted by our Sages who proclaimed: “ei efshar le-beit midrash b'lo hiddush” (Hagigah 3a). At its best, the beit midrash can become a "battlefield" within which the "war" of Torah is waged. Claims are made and attacked, positions argued and counter attacked, as the various members of the beit medrash try to understand the word of Hashem as expressed in Torah she-ba'al Peh. 
Of course, independence is geared for a very motivated and disciplined student and if a given school were to place an entire class of uncommitted students in an educationally liberal setting, not heavily based on tests or grades, the result would probably be disappointing at best. Therefore, my proposal, at least in the initial stage, is for a school to create a Torah lishmah track, which should focus more on independent learning than on frontal instruction. This track should be offered to any student who is serious and dedicated. The only entrance requirement should be a declaration of commitment and the only basis for ejecting a student should be not living up to this commitment. Students who opt for this program will be exempt from some of the standard classroom requirements. In this way, the hours normally spent in classrooms can be shifted towards the beit midrash, without upsetting the entire school schedule. For instance, halakhah can often be studied independently, freeing extra class time. It is essential that the commitment of the students have a concrete expression, such as additional hours of learning, which would limit the entrance to those who really intend to be serious and honestly want to learn. Nevertheless, students should be encouraged to join the Torah lishmah track. Therefore, it is important to find ways to make it an attractive option. For example, a grading system that is not based heavily on test results but on commitment and degree of improvement, could serve as an incentive.
The Torah lishmah model does not alleviate the necessity for shiur, however it gives it a different emphasis and focus. Alongside textual instruction, the rebbe, given the opportunity to develop fresh ideas, utilizes shiur as the medium to express them. Furthermore, the students must be encouraged to both challenge the teacher’s theories, as well as offer suggestions and ideas of their own. The rebbe both maintains authority, while challenging and engaging students in helping them develop their ideas. In this way, the shiur becomes a medium in which the Talmudic discussion of Torah she-ba'al Peh continues. 
Placed in this environment, the possibility that the student will respond is enhanced. An atmosphere that encourages subjective expression allows for a wider range of students to connect at a variety of levels. Success and failure are not measured only by the amount of amassed information the student has memorized, but by the level of commitment and individual development. This can be accomplished by using a system based on personal portfolios, which monitor individual growth rather than objective standards measured in tests. Nevertheless, it is necessary to administer tests as an additional tool for assessment. Moreover, without tests and grades, it is difficult for the student to measure his own progress, which may lead to an increase in frustration and a decrease in motivation. However, over-emphasizing numerical grades, which measure only knowledge, is incongruous to a system which claims to value the act of learning itself. Therefore, greater focus should be placed on verbal assessment, which monitors seriousness, commitment, the extent of engagement and involvement--all of which are qualities not necessarily expressed during a test.
Furthermore, the fact that the student is given a choice is critical. Gemara becomes a very distasteful subject when it is force fed upon an unwilling participant. On the other hand, when the student himself freely chooses to study Gemara, the entire attitude and, consequently, the results are potentially far more positive. In this context, the success enjoyed by summer learning programs, is quite instructive. By agreeing voluntarily to join the Torah lishmah program, the student becomes aware that learning Gemara is an opportunity not an imposition. 
Parallel to the Torah lishmah track, there should be a conventional classroom track based on tests and grades, in which the student is responsible for specific information. Regarding the classroom track, thought should be devoted to the method and topic, which can be most effective. In this context, we are pulled in opposite directions. On the one hand, the dual track system allows for a more liberal approach to the regular track. Innovative ideas such as those mentioned in the introduction, can be entertained even by those with a more conservative bent, since the ideals of traditional learning are preserved by virtue of the torah lishma track. Theoretically, these ideas are welcome, since Torah she-ba'al Peh, in its pure form, fails at the classroom level. On the other hand, caution must be exercised not to create too sharp a distinction between the tracks in order to enable students to transfer from one track to the other. Furthermore, a wide gap separating the two tracks would be detrimental to the school atmosphere. 
The solution which I find most appealing is to develop a concrete curriculum for Talmud that is parallel to what is being learned in the Torah lishmah track. On the one hand, the student is less frustrated because he knows in advance exactly what material he is responsible for. On the other hand, as far as content, the gap separating the two tracks is not unbridgeable. Nevertheless, it is an issue that is best resolved by the educators who are familiar with the specific dynamics of their particular school and are best informed to make such a decision. 
Without safeguards a two-track system can be a divisive and perhaps a destructive element within a school and extreme care must be taken so that the Torah lishmah track is not the source of alienation for those who do not opt for it. Moreover, the above model should be implemented so that it has a positive impact not only on the "elite" members who choose the Torah lishmah track, but overflows to affect the less motivated students as well. After all, a major challenge of education is to touch the unmotivated, while this proposal focuses mainly on the strongly motivated student who is learning well under the current system. It is crucial that the Torah lishmah track is utilized by the school in its entirety. Students in the standard track can join the Torah lishmah program in the beit midrash, in order to work on individual projects. Frontal classes can on occasion be cancelled with the students sent to the beit midrash to study specific material on their own. Or perhaps certain subjects, such as halakhah, can be transferred to the beit midrash for a period of time. In summary, the Torah lishmah track has the potential of creating a vibrant beit midrash, which should be a source of inspiration not alienation--not only for students who opt for it, but for the entire school community.  
V. Conclusion
I have tried to suggest a model which is idealized without being impractical. It can be implemented in most schools with minor restructuring in terms of staff and budget. Optimally, space suitable for a beit midrash must be available or constructed. Although, I chose to limit myself to the broader issues, I am aware that there are numerous details that must be resolved and implementation must account for the proverbial devil. Nevertheless, I have tried to draw a sketch of a vision. One, which I hope will inspire improvement.
The idea of starting a beit midrash program in yeshivah high schools is not a novel idea. Many schools have successfully implemented some form of beit midrash study. Some schools have instituted a two-track system. However, for most students and for some teachers, the beit midrash merely follows the educational agenda found in the classroom. My proposal attempts to define both the goals and the nature of studying Torah she-ba'al Peh. It tries to describe a religious and philosophical rationale for Talmud study and aims at showing how this can be implemented at the high school level. It notes the deep cultural and educational divide that should separate Talmud Torah from the classroom and creates an educational environment that is commensurate with the Talmudic ideal. 
I am aware that the proposal that I have forwarded will not solve all the difficult educational problems that revolve around teaching Torah she-ba'al Peh and Jewish studies. Moreover, I am aware that this suggestion contains many weaknesses. Nevertheless, I hope that my analysis regarding the study of Torah she-ba'al Peh and the problem of its application to the classroom succeeds in provoking thought and discussion even if my specific solution is not adopted.
However, I am convinced that if this proposal is implemented responsibly, it has potential to greatly improve the current situation. I firmly believe that a voluntary Torah lishmah track can resuscitate and energize the learning of Torah she-ba'al Peh. It can give the rebbe the opportunity to learn and not only to teach, thereby affecting those around him--colleagues as well as students. A vibrant beit midrash can be a meeting place where all the teachers, whether or not directly involved in the Torah lishmah track, come to discuss Torah. It can become contagious, injecting dynamic vibrancy and life throughout a school and throughout a community. I am convinced that the committed student will gain tremendously from the opportunity for growth, which the Torah lishmah track affords. In addition, it has the potential to touch not only those who commit to this track, but to have a profound influence on the entire school.