The Meshech Chochmah derives from the text of the pasuk yetzaveh, command, that a father has an obligation to educate his sons in mitzvos. It goes without saying that he must restrain them from committing any sinful behavior. Avraham Avinu was the mechanech ha’gadol, the supreme educator, whose every action was geared to teaching others how they should act.
Concerning the pasuk, V’el ha’bakar ratz Avraham; “Then Avraham ran to the cattle,” Va’yitein el ha’naar va’yimaheir laasos oso, “he gave it to the youth who hurried to prepare it” (ibid. 18:6). Rashi explains that this youth was Yishmael, and Avraham asked him to prepare the meat as a way of educating him to perform mitzvos. Chazal teach that everything Avraham did personally for the guests, Hashem did likewise for his descendants when they travelled in the wilderness. Whatever he delegated to Yishmael, Hashem likewise provided the Jews through the medium of an agent/angel. Why would our Patriarch act in a manner that would impede his descendants from interacting directly with Hashem?
Horav Avraham Shapiro, zl, explains that chinuch has two aspects: teaching by example; and encouraging the student to perform the mitzvah himself. Thus, when Yishmael saw Avraham running to the cattle, Avraham was teaching him a lesson by example. While this is an exemplary method for teaching mitzvos, it is not the same as actual mitzvah performance. Our Patriarch did both.
Likewise, we find Avraham muzzling his camels, so that they would not eat in other peoples’ fields. Ramban cites commentators who wonder if Avraham’s camels were different from the animals belonging to Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair, who, due to the elevated holiness of their owner, would never wander into someone’s field and eat produce that did not belong to Rabbi Pinchas. Rav Shapiro explains that, indeed, Avraham’s camels would not eat what did not belong to Avraham. In order to educate people that they are responsible for their animals, however, Avraham muzzled his own.
Teaching by example leaves a lasting impression on the student. Indeed, a rebbe’s own demeanor must bolster his teaching. Nothing is worse than the rebbe who makes a mockery of his lessons by acting counterintuitively to his teachings. Under such instances, the only success he will have will be in turning off his students.
Living a life which serves as a lesson in itself applies to both rebbe and parent alike. A father came before the saintly Kotzker Rebbe, zl, requesting a b’rachah that his son should learn Torah. The Rebbe countered, “If all you want is a b’rachah that your son shall learn, then you may expect the same from him when he becomes a parent: he will request a b’rachah for his son to learn. If you make the effort to sit down and learn Torah, however, your son will follow suit.”
Horav Elozar M. Shach, zl, was wont to say that the eyes of your students are sharp and inquisitive. They see everything that occurs concerning their educators and parents, and they store this information away. Horav Shmuel HaLevi Wosner, zl, remarked concerning the title given to school children: tinokos shel bais rabban, students of their rebbe’s home. Should it not be, tinokos shel bais ha’sefer, students of the school? He explained that students learn more from observing their rebbe than they do in school. I would suggest that a school is actually bais rabban. Bricks and mortar do not create an educational environment. The rebbeim and moros do.
The curriculum in the Berlin Hildesheimer seminary did not emulate the mainstream Lithuanian yeshivah Orthodox German culture at the time was in a constant battle with its secular detractors. The rabbanim it produced, in addition to being extraordinary talmidei chachamim, were well-versed in secular educational disciplines. As a result, one cannot say that the Lithuanian yeshivah world looked approvingly on the seminary. The Rosh Yeshivah, Horav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, zl, himself a talmid of Slabodka, was a talmid chacham without peer, as evinced by his Seridei Aish. He once met the headmaster/principal of another seminary who, together with his students, did not follow the Orthodox path and agenda as did the graduates of the Berlin Hildesheimer seminary. He asked Rav Weinberg, “We are both erudite scholars, both accomplished in all areas of Torah. Why is it that your yeshivah is respected, while mine is not?” Rav Weinberg replied, “Have you produced such tzadikim as Horav Avraham Wolf and Horav Pinchas Biberfeld?” He then enumerated many more names of graduates who had excelled both in erudition and yiraas Shomayim. “Do you have such an impressive list?” When the man replied in the negative, Rav Weinberg said, “Forgive me for saying this, but apparently your students are learning more from their headmaster’s personal/religious demeanor than from the actual curriculum.”
The following story is well-known in Telshe Yeshivah circles. Horav Avraham Yitzchak Bloch, zl, and his brother, Horav Eliyahu Meir Bloch, zl, married sisters, daughters of a well-known philanthropist, Rav Avraham Moshe Kaplan, zl. Rav Avraham solely supported a number of yeshivos. Sadly, he went bankrupt and lost all of his money. He said, “Hashem left me with two diamonds – my two sons-in-law.”
The story is told that Horav Elchonan Wasserman, zl, visited Rav Avraham on behalf of his yeshivah in Baranovich. It was a rainy day and the streets were filled with mud. When his daughters saw the distinguished Rosh Yeshivah standing at the door, they went running to get their father. By the time Rav Avraham came down, Rav Elchonan had come through the back entrance into the house. When Rav Avraham saw this, he became visibly upset. “Rosh Yeshivah! Why did you not come in through the front door?” Rav Elchanan replied his shoes were muddy, and he did not want to soil the beautiful rugs in the vestibule. Rav Avraham lamented, “The Rosh Yeshivah has undermined the education I have given my daughters. I told them that Torah and kavod haTorah supersedes everything. Now they may think that a distinguished Rosh Yeshivah is not as important as my expensive rugs.” He made Rav Elchanan walk over the beautiful rugs with his muddy shoes to prove a point. This is a paradigm of teaching by example. With such exemplary chinuch, it is no wonder that he merited two such sons-in-law.
