CREATIVITY Jewish tradition views Torah study - at least ideally - as the central task in the life of every Jewish male. The precise nature of this obligation, especially as manifest in the Babylonian Talmud, is the subject of our inquiry. We intend to examine not only explicit statements and discussions, but also passages which indirectly shed light upon the issues of Torah study and of Jewish educational values in general. BERACHOT 47B Rami bar Hama refused to count for zimmun R. Menashiah b. Tahalifa, who could repeat Sifra, Sifre, and halacha...[R.b.H. was severly criticized for excluding him, whereupon the gemarah asks:] It has been taught: "Others say even if one has learnt Mikra and Mishnah but has not shimash talmidai chachamim [i.e., engaged in independent analysis of this material in order to understand its derivation, scope, and conceptual underpinnings ], he is an am ha'aretz and as such should be excluded from zimmun. Why, then was R.b.H. so harshly critized for excluding R. Manashiah?" ...The latter used to hear discussions from the mouths of the Rabbis and commit them to memory, and he was therefore like a Rabbinical scholar. [R.b.H. was therefore wrong to have excluded him.] (emphasis mine) Immediately prior to the aforementioned discussion,The gemarah had cited eight different definitions of the term am ha'aretz. The sugya doesn't clarify whether all of these definitions are mutually exclusive, or whether at least some of them signify various manifestations within the same type of person. Regardless of that question, however, it is clear that the eighth definition - a person who fails to be m'shamash talmidei chachamim - represents a category which is distinct from the others. (The Talmud asserts that the halacha follows this final opinion.) The term in question literally means "served students of the wise" [=scholars]. Rashi's definition of that term is crucial for our understanding of Jewish tradition's attitude towards creativity in Torah study: s.v. shelo shimesh talmedei chachamim. This term refers to gemarah, which hinges upon s'varah [=logical thinking; analysis]. They [i.e., the students of the Mishnah, in the Mishnaic and in the Amoraic periods] would endow the words of the Mishnah with ta'am [= reason, meaning]. They would meet in order to engage in this endeavor, which became a paradygm for the [activity in which] the amora'im engaged when they composed the gemarah. Rashi's definition thus implies that learning in its most appropriate form occurs when the student "serves" the scholars represented in the Mishnah by discovering the reasoning behind their opinions. This act of discovery, which endows their apodictic opinions with meaning, requires a considerable amount of research and analysis. In short, it demands the type of independent thought which leads to that which we commonly refer to as an "understanding" (rather than mere "knowledge") of the material. We must pay attention to the fact that although the Talmud strongly criticizes Rami bar Hama's behavior towards R. Manashia, it quietly legitimizes his assessment of R. Menashia as not being a bona fide Rabbibic scholar. The Talmud concludes that since the latter had memorized the creative analyses of others, he was like a Rabbinic scholar, and therefore should have been accorded greater respect. But since his analyses were not his own, he lacked the actual status. The sugya thus leaves us with the clear impression that creativity is a ultimately a necessary element in order to achieve the Rabbibic ideal in Torah study. The aforemantioned sugya, which offered eight definitions of am ha'aretz, is paralleled in Sota 22a. Instead of concluding it with the story of Rami bar Hama, the sugya in Sota presents the following discussion, which is thematically extremely similar to our story: "My son, fear the Lord and the king, and do not mingle with them that are given to repetition [Proverbs 24:21]." [The Hebrew for "Them that are given to repetition" is "shonim", which also may mean "People who study Mishnah (or some other collection of apodictic law. The word may also mean "those who repeat."] R. Isaac said: "This refers to men who study legal decisions [i.e., to the exclusion of shimush talmidai chachamim." Is this not self- evident? [I.e., the Talmud suggests that R. Isaac's interpretation of the verse is so obvious that there was no need to state it. The Talmud proceeds to answer its own qoestion:] It is not the obvious interpretation, because you might have supposed that the word "shonim" in the verse refers to those who repeat a sin, and that it follows the teaching of R. Huna, who said: "Whan a man commits a transgression and repeats it, it becomes to him something which is permissable." Therefore R. Isaac informs us [the true meaning of the text].[The Talmud proceeds to elaborate upon the question of evaluating "Tanna'im, which in this context refers to those who study only the apodictic laws without "shimush":] A Tanna taught: "The Tanna'im bring destruction upon the world." How could this possibly be true? Because they decide points of law based on their [qualitatively insufficient] learning. [The last point, which implies that those who study only apodictic law are not to be condemned, as long as they refrain from deducing other laws from their learning] may be reinforced from the following Baraisa: R. Joshua said: "Do they [i.e., the Tanna'im] destroy the world? [Of course not!] Rather, they cultivate the world, as it is said: [`The world is for whoever studies] the ways [Heb., = halichot, a word which according to Megilla 28b evokes the similar word: halachot, meaning: the ways of the Law].