It is attributed I think to R' Chaim Brisker that if you can't explain an idea, it means you don't really understand it. Or, as they say in yeshivish אז ס'פעהלט אינעם הסברה פעהלט אינעם הבנה Or as they put it in other parts of the world: חסרון בּהסבּרה זה חסרון בּהבנה
R' Shteinman points out that in our parsha aside from being praised for his brilliance, וַיְמַלֵּ֥א אֹת֖וֹ ר֣וּחַ אֱלֹקים בְּחׇכְמָ֛ה בִּתְבוּנָ֥ה וּבְדַ֖עַת וּבְכׇל־מְלָאכָֽה, the Torah says Betzalel had the gift of וּלְהוֹרֹ֖ת נָתַ֣ן בְּלִבּ֑וֹ (35:34). Ibn Ezra explains:
כי יש חכם גם חרש לא יוכל להורות היטב
Ohr haChaim similarly writes:
שיש חכמים רבים שתהיה חכמתם בלבם לבד שלא ידעו ללמדה, לזה אמר ולהורות נתן בלבו השכיל חכמת הלימוד
Not everyone who is an expert can pass on that expertise and teach it to others.
R' Shteinman asks: What happened to the rule of חסרון בּהסבּרה זה חסרון בּהבנה?
Lulei d'mistafina I would say there is a difference between understanding a sevara and mastering a skill. The former is theoretical knowledge and the only thing required is sufficient brainpower. It falls under the logical-mathematical heading in Gardner's breakdown of seven intelligences. Not so the latter. I can perfectly understand the mechanics and theory of hitting a baseball, but that doesn't mean I can play for the Yankees. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, as Gardner calls it, is a different ballgame.
The greatness of Betzalel is that he was a master of both, and a master teacher of both, something that is rare indeed.
I think this is why Chazal consider someone who learned miqrah and mishnah without ever having done shimush talmidei chakhamim is a chassid shoteh (acc. to Ulla), bur, magush, kuti (?) or am haaretz. (Sotah 22a) Because there are things one ought to be learning before pasqening that cannot be articulated and relayed classroom style. Things only picked up by osmosis, by being around one's rebbe and experiencing how he values various factors and concerns.
ReplyDeleteThat said, R Chaim's test for real comprehension, that you can explain it to someone else, is something I am sure you would find in a lot of TED Talks and such. Because R Chaim is talking about sevara and lomdus. His scope of what one is checking the understanding of is limited to one kind of intelligence.
(Side-note: Every time I see mention of Gardner's "multiple intelligences" I have to remind myself we are talking about kinds of intelligence. As opposed to, say, someone who had their corpus colusum cut or otherwise injured, the left and right halves of their brain cannot directly communicate, and the two sides of their body can in controlled situations act like they're separate people. Eg. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6057762/ )