Academic Tenure: The Halakhic Debate

by Eliezer Segal

News Item: October 1994 — The Ministry of Advanced Education of the Province of Alberta issued its “White Paper on Adult Learning” which dealt, among other things, with the roles of the universities and its faculty members. One of the topics that it raised was the sensitive question of academic tenure.

The Alberta government’s recent “White Paper” on adult learning has again spotlighted the issue of academic tenure at post-secondary educational institutions. Although universities were not a part of the traditionalal Jewish landscape, questions of job security were dealt with in the Talmud and its commentaries, usually with reference to elementary school teachers.

The principal focus for all discussions on the topic is a ruling by the fourth-century Babylonian teacher Rava, who stated that an inferior teacher should not be replaced by a better one lest it lead to indolence. The Talmud records a dissenting view of Rav Dimi of Nehardea who argued to the contrary, that “the jealousy of scribes increaseth wisdom,” and hence competition would lead to better performance.

The commentators are not in agreement about exactly whose perspective is being discussed: that of the original teacher or that of the replacement.

Rashi explains that it is the possible indolence of the new, better teacher that is of concern to us: Rava fears that the replacement “will become arrogant in his heart and confident of his unequaled superiority, leading him to behave indolently towards his pupils, since he will have no fear of being dismissed.” Rav Dimi, on the other hand, is arguing that the mere knowledge of how his predecessor had been removed would continue to keep him at his best behaviour. As Rashi puts it: “He will take special care to teach well, since he will be afraid that his colleague [the teacher whom he replaced] will continue to bear him a grudge for his dismissal, and will constantly be looking for opportunities to embarrass him before the townspeople.”

A different commentary on the Talmudic passage takes the view that the Rava and Rav Dimi were speaking from the perspective of the original teacher, the one who was faced with the possibility of dismissal. According to this interpretation, Rava is arguing that the apprehension that one’s job is always under threat of termination whenever a talented competitor appears on the scene could drive a teacher to a state of despondency that would deter him from any effort to improve himself, or even to maintain his level of competence. Rav Dimi’s view, on the other hand, is that constant awareness of the threat posed by competition will spur a good worker to be ever improving himself, which will ultimately work to the advantage of the educational system.

According to either of the above explanations, the dispute between Rava and Rav Dimi is about whether “academic tenure” should be perceived as a means of perpetuating idleness and incompetence, or as a source of psychological security that would enable responsible instructors to devote their full attention to their teaching.

Subsequent halakhic authorities were not always in agreement over which of the two Talmudic views is to be followed. The most widely followed code of Jewish law, the Shulhan Arukh, sided with Rav Dimi and against the ideal of tenure. However this position was not held universally.

Thus, Rabbi Menahem Ha-Me’iri (southern France, 13th-14th centuries) states that “Wherever the community has appointed a full-time schoolteacher… he may not be replaced by another during his lifetime, unless for idleness, or because of some other gross negligence on his part, such as excessive beatings, etc.”

At around the same time, Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel, the “Rosh,” responded to an inquiry about a man who wanted to dismiss a private tutor in favour of a superior teacher. The Rosh replied that since the teacher had been contracted for a fixed period of time, he could not be dismissed without due cause.

The noted Egyptian Rabbi David Ibn Zimra went so far as to forbid such a dismissals even if the teacher were guaranteed employment in a different field. He also raised the issue or severance pay.

At the other extreme, authorities like Rabbi Yehiel Michel Epstein, have argued that teachers–who should not be treated differently from any other employees–can be fired without specific grounds in favour of better qualified candidates even in mid-term, for (he reasons) if it were not during the term of the appointment it could hardly be considered a dismissal!

The debate that has been conducted in the pages of Talmudic codes and responsa is much more complex than can be conveyed in a short article. Nevertheless, this cursory overview should suffice to demonstrate how much of the contemporary debate was anticipated by the Jewish sages of previous generations.

---

• First Publication: 

• Jewish Free Press, Nov. 15 1994.

• For further reading: 

• S. Warhaftig, Jewish Labour Law, Jerusalem, 1982.

---

My email address is: [email protected]

---

---