Learning and Cognition

Final Paper
Eitan Novick
9th Graders Conception of Melachot Shabbat

Introduction ad Subject Matter

This paper will investigate the knowledge of 9th grade children in Jewish day schools
regarding the laws of Shabbat and how their conception changes (or do not change) over the
course of multiple interviews and a teaching protocol. Shabbat is an interesting topic for students
of this demographic because they have supposedly experienced so much of it as students in
Jewish day schools and as children in observant Jewish homes. It is feasible that the students in
question have many pieces of knowledge and much firsthand experience in the subject.
Nonetheless, this may be the first time they are asked to think about their notions on this topic in
a cohesive and complete way.
The laws of Shabbat are fairly complex and can be understood with different levels of
depth. For these interviews, we wanted to focus on the structure that all the prohibitions fit into.
So this paper will examine the students developing understanding of the source of the
prohibitions, the hierarchical subcategories into which they can be categorized, the mishkan as
the source for the entire system, and their understanding of that system and ability to apply it.
The skeleton for the hierarchy of Shabbat prohibitions on which we will focus is
comprised of three main categories, av melachot, tolda melachot, and dirabanans or gizeirot. The
most stringent prohibitions are the 39 melachot, which are actions that were done in the assembly
or disassembly of the mishkan. Each of these 39 can be broken into the av melachot, which is

exactly as it was done in relation to the mishkan, and the toldot of the melacha, which is very
similar but done in a different way or for a slightly different purpose. Both av and toldah are
considered to be biblical prohibitions (Diorita) and are equally stringent. Below the melachot
(with regards to stringency) are dirabanans. These activities were not involved with the mishkan,
but the Rabbis prohibited them to keep individuals from performing one of the melachot. For
example, swimming was not involved in the creation of the mishkan and would be permissible
from a biblical perspective, but the Rabbis forbade it because of the possibility that one
swimming may come to build some floatation device and violate the biblical prohibition of
building. Within this category of dirabanan is a category called muktzah, which is a status that
the Rabbis applied to certain objects with no permissible purpose on Shabbat, such as a pen (the
sole purpose of which is to write, which is prohibited biblically on Shabbat).
In the limited space of this paper, I will highlight and analyze some of the many
noteworthy concepts observed in the interviews. For example, both subjects had some developed
schemas for this topic, which evolved and developed further throughout the interviewing and
teaching process. The analysis will also touch upon case based reasoning, and the differing
answering and thinking styles of the two subjects. A critical piece of the analysis will employ
Andrea diSessas concept of knowledge in pieces and track which pieces the subjects used and
how they are integrated (or not integrated) before and after the teaching protocol.

Procedure
All data was collected through interviews with two 9th grade students, Shaanan and
Shalom, which were recorded via a laptop webcam and a recording device and transcribed. The
interview process followed the same protocols for each subject. They consisted of two sessions

one week apart. Session one contained three parts, a pre-interview, a teaching protocol, and a
post-interview. The goal of the pre-interview was to test the boundaries of the subjects existing
knowledge. We started with an anchor task for which we created approximately 20 index cards,
each with a different activity written on it (for example: killing a bug, turning on a light in an
already lit room, riding a bike, swimming) and asked the subject to categorize the cards with
regards to what can and cannot be done on Shabbat. After the subject completed this task we
discussed their logic behind their decisions. We used these questions as openings to broader
conversations regarding their knowledge and notions of Shabbat.
Next, we transitioned to a second anchor task, in which we asked the subject to create
subcategories within his not-allowed category and re-categorize. The goal of this task was to
continue the conversation but also to investigate if the subject had a notion of a hierarchy within
the prohibitions, or issurim, of Shabbat, or at least an understanding that there were separate and
distinct categories. After the subject resorted, we asked if he could provide a title or a brief
description of each category. We followed up with similar questions as the first anchor task.
After this interview we moved immediately into the teaching protocol. Our primary goal
in this section was to convey the notions that (1) all issurim of Shabbat stem from the assembly
and disassembly of the mishkan, and (2) that there is a hierarchy of issurim of Shabbat av,
toldah, dirabanan which also relates directly to proximity of the action to that which was done
in the mishkan. We began the teaching protocol by explaining the concept of the origin of
issurim of Shabbat and, focusing on specific cards from the anchor task, we described how the
activities were derived from the mishkan. The next step was to address how this related to the
hierarchy of issurim of Shabbat and we traced specific families of activities from av to toldah to
dirabanan. For example, one card from the anchor task dealt with planting a seed. We explained

that planting a seed so that something would grow would be an av, because that was exactly how
and why it was done in the mishkan. A level below that would be fertilizing, because the purpose
and intention is the same (to make something grow) but the action is different. Then we taught
about dirabanans; why they were enacted and how that relates to the mishkan (to prevent you
from doing an av or todah). We also briefly discussed the connection between Hashems creation
of Berishit and mans creation of the Mishkan and that on Shabbat we are mimicking his act of
resting.
After teaching, we performed another interview using the same anchor tasks. The focus
was to investigate how much of the information from the teaching protocol the subjects were
able to utilize in making their decisions.
The second session took place approximately one week later and contained one interview,
again using the same anchor tasks and similar follow up questions. The goal was to test how
much of the teaching protocol the subjects were able to understand and utilize after some time.

Observation and Analysis

In a general sense, the two interviewees had a very different style of thinking and
responding to our questions. They varied in terms of what they were able to internalize and
utilize from the teaching protocol in subsequent interviews. But there was also overlap with
regards to the tools and methods used. For example, although they may have manifested in
different ways, both participants relied upon certain production systems to derive answers.
One such critical production system that formed the foundation for most of the subjects
knowledge and answers was schemas. Both participants, even prior to the interview process, had
some sub-schemata informing their schemas of the laws of Shabbat, such as melacha. As

students with their Orthodox backgrounds, they have undoubtedly heard a lot of facts and pieces
about the laws of Shabbat. Many of these pieces have informed and been assembled into
schemata.
Shaanan began the process with certain sub-schema making up his Melacha schema,
including a Making schema (creating something physical), a Close-to-the-Mishkan schema
(relation to an action done by ancient Jews), and an Intention schema (performing an activity for
a certain purpose). These were some of the pieces he was looking for in determining if something
is allowed or not allowed on Shabbat. While these all warrant further explanation, I will focus on
expounding upon the Making and Close-to-the-Mishkan schemas.
Shaanans Making schema generally consisted of creating something physical. He
understood, at least conceptually, that melacha is associated with the act of making, and he had a
fairly literal interpretation of what making means. In the teaching protocol, we were trying to
give him some definitions as to what melacha was, and we mentioned this characteristic. For
Shaanan, it was clear that his conception of making had to be physical.
Interviewer: So basically to make a long story short, Melacha, to make something is an act of
creation, and Hashem rests from the acts of creation, so too we rest from our acts of creation,
which manifest themselves in, you know, creating a letter, or creating writing or creating...
Shaanan: Creating fire.
I: Right, or planting something, or...
S: But creating physical, like youre creating memories when you do things

Similarly in discussing the criteria for a prohibition on Shabbat (specifically swimming),

Shaanan once again applied his Making schema.
S: If they did it in the mishkan it would have been an av, but they didnt.
I: Just having water around would make it assur? Talk that out a little more. We
know that they breathed in the mishkan, but thats not assur. What kind of things were?

S: Making
There were times when the centrality of his Making schema within his Melacha schema
seemed to be challenged. Swimming was something he knew was not allowed on Shabbat, without
knowing the reason, but it is an activity that does not fit well with his Making schema. He eventually
circumvents this issue by categorizing it as a dirabanan, but before doing so he grapples with this
contradiction to his schema. To realign all these pieces in a way that worked, he had to either
reexamine the validity of his Making schema and its application to the Melacha schema or devise a
way for the case to fit into his schemata as they were. As can be seen from the transcript, Shaanan
chose the later and leaves his schemata unchanged by this challenge.
I: Um, lets look at swimming for an example here. Um, why do you put swimming in the not
allowed category? Whats your thought process there?
S: That Im not sure on, I just know that youre not allowed to swim.
I: Ok, you just know. Now that youve heard that from whatever source, can you think about
it retroactively and try to figure out why that might be?
S: Youre making the water move...when its not going to?

Phrasing his answer as a question and the his pause highlights his uncertainty. Maybe he
understands that this is a poor alignment of his schemata. But it seems in this initial answer
Shaanan is looking for where he can find making in this action to justify its being prohibited
on Shabbat. He even uses the language of making the water move (emphasis mine). Even in
cases in which he has trouble coming up with real physical making he cannot seem to reject his
requirement for something tangible, or at least some physical action. Shaanans understanding of
playing an instrument on Shabbat was similar to swimming; he knew it was not allowed but
probably never thought about the reason. In that case he also searched for the physical in this act
seemingly non-physical creation.
6

I: So you're saying it has to be something tangible? So how come music, where there is
no tangible creation, is not allowed?

S: because you're still doing the action of the strumming

I: So you're saying it has to be something tangible? So how come music, where there is
no tangible creation, is not allowed?

S: because you're still doing the action of the strumming.

For Shaanan, it is imperative that there be something physical in Shabbat prohibitions. His
schema for melacha requires making, but it seems that when that schema is in trouble, he is
willing to substitute his Making sub-schema for one of physical action (possibly stemming from
the colloquial notion that Shabbat is a day of rest, of not doing work).
We similarly noticed Shannan was looking for keywords to make quick decisions as to
how to answer our questions. Shaanan makes this extremely obvious with regards to the keyword
making, as can be seen from his logic behind his re-categorization of his not allowed on
Shabbat pile of cards.
I: Um so how many and what type of categories did you separate them
into and why?
S: I put these into a pile because I realized that it is making and this pile is everything that
does not have to do with creating.
I: But can you give us an example, just pick 1, you can decide what you want to pick, and
tell us what your thought process was?
S: The word Making was my first clue.

I believe he takes a similar shortcut with the word packing. For the anchor card with the
activity of packing a bag for after Shabbat, his explanation for his categorization is that
packing bag for Saturday night is just like packing up the mishkan (emphasis mine).
In addition to making, Shaanan also looks for a Close-to-the-Mishkan sub-schema in
identifying melachot. While it is much clearer that Shaanan begins utilizing a Close-to-theMishkan schema after we taught him the connection between melachot and the mishkan, it is
arguable that he had this schema, albeit less defined, even before. After Shaanan had sorted the
anchor cards for the first time, we discussed some of his choices.
I: you have the 2 cards running to play basketball and running to shul both in the allowed
category what makes them allowed? Is there any difference between them?
S: Well no, there's no difference because you have to run to shul, so thats ok. And it's not like that
when Shabbos was created, there was basketball to play

While he might not yet have fully understood the notion of the mishkan as the source for
halachot, he did have an idea of it being connected and defined by what Shabbat was in ancient
times. This initial schema later easily morphs into his Close-to-the-Mishkan schema. In fact,
even after the teaching protocol, when he begins to use the language of mishkan, he still
sometimes reverts back to a language similar to this first schema. Asked why swimming would
be a dirabanan, Shaanan responded, Because they didnt have swimming in the desert.
Answers like this expose the misconceptions in his Close-to-the-Mishkan schema. Within
his schema, for an action to be close to the mishkan (or close to the desert) it needs to basically
be the same action. He as a difficult time translating or making a connection from what was done
in the past to its modern day equivalent. If basketball did not exist at the time when Shabbos
was created, it cannot be prohibited on Shabbat. He does make some exceptions to this. In the
case of starting a car, he is able to connect an automobile ignition and making a fire.
8

I: Ok. So what would be an example of a tolda then? How would you get to the next
level?
S: A tolda would be...something...that is...not exactly doing, like youre not starting the
fire to start your car, youre using it to...youre using the fire for something else that is for
fun.
In recognizes that starting a car would be an av melacha, he demonstrates his view of its
proximity to the mishkan. It is possible this example is easier for Shaanan because he has learned
about it before. But the fact that it stands out as an exception exemplifies that his Close-toMishkan schema is missing this translation piece.
The transition from his pre-teaching desert schema to his post-teaching mishkan schema
is relatively seamless because it is nothing more than a swapping of terms. His same flawed
understanding of what it means for an action to be close to what was done in the past is carried
over from the old schema to the new as articulated by our post teaching conversation about
playing music on Shabbat.
I: Why is playing an instrument in the not allowed category?
S: Because you're making music
I: That's why its drabanan?
S: Because they didn't actually play music in the mishkan.
Many of the mistakes Shaanan continues to make even after the teaching protocol seem
to stem from such flaws in the sub-schemata making up his Melacha schema. Our teaching not
only failed to correct mistakes such as the one imbedded in his Close-to-Mishkan schema, they
may have validated them. Shaanan saw what he already thought to be true in our explanation of

the source of melachot and was able to easily plug in the pieces he had without much of a
challenge to his existing understanding.
Our second interviewee, Shalom, began the first interview with a much stronger base of
knowledge. He had many of the same pieces and sub-schemata but had a much firmer grasp on
their definition and was able to apply them in determining if an action is a melacha. His relative
strong grasp on the Close-to-the-Mishkan schema can be seen from the first interview.
Interviewer: So lets see. Umm see, umm hmmm, washing the floor
Shalom: I put in assur.
I: Right why?
S: Because you said that the water is being squeezing out.
I: And whats wrong with that?
S: Its one of the 39 malachaos
I: And why is that?
S: Because its one of the things we did in the mishkan.
Unlike Shaanan, Shaloms Close-to-the-Mishkan schema does not require the exact action to
have been done in the mishkan. He is able to make the translation to everyday activities. He
even specifies that the reason behind mopping being prohibited is because water is being
squeezed out. Essentially it is the same action that was done in the mishkan, squeezing out
water, even if it looks different in modern times.
In addition to his strong Melacha schema and sub-schemata in general, Shalom also has
some strong schemata for specific melachot. He was able to utilize his Borer schema for the case
of separating black jelly beans from a mixture and eating what is left. When asked why that
action would be prohibited on Shabbat he answered:
10

Well because the black jelly beans you are not using them for anything, isnt that what
borer is, like when you separate the things you dont want from the things you do want
youre getting rid of them.
But despite its strength and his ability to utilize it, his Borer schema does have some flawed
components, which can be seen in his distinction between the case of peeling an orange and
separating jelly beans from a bowl:
Over here youre not separating it, you cant eat the orange if it has the peel on it, so
when you peel it off its not separating it.
His answer makes it clear that his Borer schema has two misconceptions in it. First, borer applies
to a mixture in which the items are all intermingled but would not apply to a case with items that
are more distinct. For him, peeling an orange is not considered separating it because the items
are not mixed. And second, borer only applies when you can eat the item without any act of
borer, such as the case of the jellybeans, but not to a case in which you cannot get to the food
without this action, such as the orange.
There are multitudes of schemata that are relevant to the laws of Shabbat. While I lack
the space to investigate them all in depth here, it is worthwhile to mention that one or both of the
interviewees also maintained some schemata of Av and Tolda, Muktzah/Gezerah, Pekuach
Nefesh, and Work/Rest.
While schemas were the predominately used production system throughout, there was
one noticeable example of case based reasoning. Shalom was certain that it was prohibited to kill
a bug on Shabbat but didnt know why. After some prodding, he was able to tell us that:

11

maybe its like I just remember my parents telling my little brother when he sees a bug,
that they tell him thats its Shabbos and theres nothing you can do because you just cant
kill a bug.
This sounds like it is actually not one specific case, but an accumulation of similar cases that
have now formed a general rule.
At times, it seems as if both interviewees have incorrect and ingrained theories about
Shabbat. But examining these interviews through the lens of Andrea diSessas theory of
knowledge in pieces portrays a different conclusion with different ramifications. diSessa argues
that when students hold a mistaken notion it does not mean they have a systematic and coherent
theory. A perception of the world is made up of many pieces of knowledge, and if an incorrect
notion is distilled into its smallest units of knowledge, what diSessa calls p-prims, it is likely that
many of those pieces will be accurate. The flaws are in the use of those individual pieces of
knowledge, how they are arranged and put together. (Toward an Epistemology of Physics, 197)
This concept of knowledge in pieces is applicable to both interviewees in our study.
Shaanan had many bits of knowledge that were not incorrect but had trouble fitting them
together and utilizing them correctly. One such piece was that of pikuach nefesh/emergency. He
has an understanding that pikuach nefesh overrides a melacha, but has some issues in applying it.
It seemed he had a notion that any melacha for which he could imagine and apply a case of
pikuach nefesh would automatically become less stringent. In explaining his categorization of
food activities separately from active activities he said:
So if youre like religious, youre probably cooking for a good reason, like that you're
very hungry and need food. But like theres really no purpose to ride a bike or for
swimming.

12

While he clearly has some knowledge of pikuach nefesh, he fails to understand how it pieces
together and attaches to melachot (which is that it can in fact become associated with any
melacha, even riding a bike or swimming).
A clear example of Shaanans pieces of knowledge in use is that of intention and
close-to-the-mishkan. He is aware of the importance of these two examples in the laws of
Shabbat. His understanding of close-to-the-mishkan is somewhat inconsistent and uncertain
(as I detailed above), but his use of intention is actually fairly constant and usually correct.
When asked about the status of the activity of baking something in the sun, he asked what was
your intention. In response to eating a cookie with lettering on it, he answered you're doing it
for the eating, so its ok. In reference to biting nails, he said people just bite their nails because
they are nervous or something, but not because they want to make them shorter. But he is
generally unable to put the pieces of intention and close-to-the-mishkan together to form one
complete understanding of melacha. Instead he seems to alternate which concept he applies
where. But at one point he is able to assemble the pieces.
I: Ok. It seems that what were saying is that intention matters, that seems like what
we keep coming back to. Um, do you have any idea why that might be. Why it could
be the same exact action...
S: But different intentions.
I: Why would intention change an action in terms of level of severity lets say?
S: Because its not the exact thing that they did in the mishkan.
I: Ok. Keep going.
S: Elaborate on it?
I: Please.
S: If its not the exact same thing that they did in the mishkan, then its a different
action that doesnt have to do with making bread or lighting the korban.

13

Because your intention is different from that of those ancient Jews assembling the mishkan, it
cannot be the same action. In bringing his two pieces of knowledge together, Shannan is able to
provide a global understanding of how melachot work.
Shaloms interview similarly highlights the notion of knowledge in pieces, such as in his
understanding of muktzah. He had some prior notion of muktzah but admitted he did not fully
understand it.
I: So where would we look to necessarily if you want to understand if something is
muttar or assur, how would we try to figure it out?
S: Um I would first of all is it one of the 39 melachos, is it muktzah, and maybe like is it
a daily activity
I: So you would say whats muktzah
S: Not exactly sure what it means.
I: But what is it? What do you do about it?
S: Like touching money.
I: Is that a melacha?
S: Its muktzah, but then again, I dont exactly know what the definition of muktzah is
but I know that its something different from melacha.
Shalom has many pieces of knowledge about what muktzah is. He knows it is not a melacha, that
you wouldnt be allowed to touch it, and even some examples of items that would fall under that
category (he mentions money here and later a pen). The piece he is missing is the logic behind
muktzah; that it is meant to keep you from doing a melacha. After teaching him that piece he was
able to apply it to new cases.
S: I also switched planting a seed where it cant grow because the seed itself is muktzah.
I: So why would the seed be muktzah?

14

S: Because its primary use is for planting which is assur, and certain seeds to eat it, and
youre not doing it for that. But its primary purpose is for planting and its secondary
purpose is for eating but youre not doing it for that so.
The way in which the two interviewees responded to gaps in their knowledge was quite
different. When Shaanan was asked a question to which he did not know the answer or that
highlighted a seeming contradiction in his statements he generally very quickly provided a local
answer to circumvent that specific issue. This was highlighted in a conversation regarding
playing an instrument on Shabbat, which he said was prohibited.
I: So making music has something to do with the sound? Why is singing or whistling
okay?
S: because it's a normal part of your body.
This answer is local in that it would not apply to all prohibited activities (for example, he
previously said swimming, which obviously uses the body, is not allowed). He is thinking for
ways to answer specific questions without trying to understand how they fit into the greater
world of Shabbat.
Shalom, on the other hand, addresses such questions in a more global fashion. In
response to Shalom making a comment that moving tables for a Shabbat meal would be ok
because youre doing it for Sabbos, we challenged him with the case of a having a Shabbat
meal and the only place to eat does not have light. He responded that the underlying question is,
are we allowed to do a melacha for the sake of Shabbos? Shalom sees the laws of Shabbat as
intertwined, and any answer we give in one case must be consistent for others.
There were many different factors that might contribute to the differences between the
two interviewees, such as the difference in pre-existing knowledge and the personality of the
subjects. It also warrants consideration that there were different interviewers for each subject. I
15

believe a few factors contributed to Shaanan exhibiting some inconsistency, including the
subjects personality as someone who wants to get the right answers and be viewed as
intelligent, as well as the interviewers inexperience and often leading questions. This
combination made it difficult to know what the subject really believes. For example, after much
back and forth as to why intention should play a role in Shabbat, we made it clear in the
formulation of our question exactly what answer we thought was correct and he therefore
provided it.
I: Is it something that is specific to shabbos in any way. Does it seem kind of far fetched?
Its the same exact action.
S: It is, only for Shabbos.
It is critical in analyzing these interviews to account for the dynamic between interviewer and
interviewee and understand the role it can play on the subjects responses.
Through the interviews, both participants developed in some ways. They both obtained
some understanding of the hierarchy of the prohibitions. Shaanan learned the terms and had
some understanding of the definitions but struggled to apply them. He knew that an av melacha
was an action that was done in the mishkan but had some difficulty applying that concept to
activities seemingly unrelated to the mishkan, such as swimming. He developed a category for
dirabanan but it became a solution for anything for which he could not imagine a connection to
the mishkan. Many times he was correct (such as his classification of playing an instrument as a
dirabanan), but for the wrong reasons (Because they didn't actually play music in the mishkan).
Shalom too had gained an understanding of the hierarchy, but he was more adept at
applying it. Before the interview, he had many pieces of knowledge he just knew, but after
learning about the broader structure of the laws of Shabbat he was able to understand the reasons

16

behind that knowledge and how it fit into the model. This understanding can be seen from the
global answers he looks for and his ability to apply the hierarchy to new cases. When asked if
planting a seed indoors where it could not grow would be permissible, he thoroughly
investigated how this question fit into the broader model of Shabbat.
S: Um.. Well also it depends like, how exactly are you planting this, are you using
dirt or something? Or what, like youre just covering the seeds with a bunch of stuff, and
it is in a place where there is sunlight, because if not you know all the melachos involve
digging and stuff, holes, and overturning dirt and also the stuff could get into cracks like
here in my dorm room and into places where it cant grow so then its probably just
muktzah.
Research in Practice
What is clear from these interviews, but no easy task, is how important it is to understand
the thought process of students and what their understanding is before teaching them. In the case
of Shaanan, we did not fully understand the core of his misunderstanding in the initial interview
and could therefore not tailor or teaching to address that. If we had a better recognition of the
fact that Shannans missing piece was not so much the concept of melachot being derived from
the mishkan, but of his inability to translate a mishkan activity to an everyday modern one, we
would have made that a focus of the teaching and practiced with such examples. We also did not
test for knowledge in that teaching protocol, which did not give us a chance to see if he was truly
internalizing any of the lesson.
Along the same lines, Shalom made a comment about killing a bug being a tradition
passed down from his parents. If we had not delved deeper into what he meant by that, we might
have thought he had come up with a new category of issur and might have focused our teachings
on discrediting such an idea. But with more questioning, we were able to determine that
tradition was just his way of saying he knew it was not allowed from his parents and trusted

17

that they were correct and understood the reason. How we teach needs to be shaped by what the
students know and how that knowledge is arranged. As diSessa argues, the puzzle pieces are
often there, but how can we know how to help our students arrange them correctly if we do not
know what pieces they have in their box?

18