Our Gemara on Amud Beis discusses a possible way to technically fulfill the obligation of constant, daily Torah study by merely reciting the Shema in the evening and in the morning: 

“Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Even if a person recited only the recitation of Shema in the morning and in the evening, he has fulfilled the mitzva of: “This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth.” And it is prohibited to state this matter in the presence of ignoramuses [amei ha’aretz], as they are likely to get the impression that there is no need to study Torah beyond this. And Rava says: On the contrary, it is a mitzvah to state this matter in the presence of ignoramuses.”

It is notable to compare Rashi’s commentary with that of Rabbenu Gershom. Rabbenu Gershom explains the expected motivation of these sages: it is forbidden to share this loophole with the ignorami because they will rationalize and not even try to study a bit. The opinion that it is actually a mitzvah to inform the amei ha’aretz is either to give them inspiration—that if it is that easy a mitzvah, imagine how much more reward they can receive for extra study—or possibly so that they will further revere the scholars who voluntarily choose to study, even when not strictly obligated.

Rashi, on the other hand, states that it is forbidden to inform the amei ha’aretz of this loophole because they then will not encourage their children to study Torah. This is baffling. Why is Rashi not concerned with the amei ha’aretz’s own neglect of Torah study? 

I will offer a psychological peshat and a lomdishe peshat. In lomdus, we might argue that since the mitzvah is technically fulfilled with the recitation of Shema, the only concern is maintaining expertise in Torah knowledge. This can be seen as less of an individual responsibility and more of a communal and generational responsibility. Therefore, Rashi is focusing on the next generation.

Alternatively, we can consider a psychological and sociological peshat. Although there are notable historical exceptions such as Rabbi Akiva, generally the am ha’aretz cannot easily change his education level and would not be inclined to do so due to economic and perhaps legitimate intellectual limitations. However, he still has the opportunity to encourage his sons to study Torah, and therefore the focus of Chazal’s is on what is deemed salvageable. The amei ha’aretz may indeed be exempt enough from deep Torah study due to circumstances—but not their children. Indeed, straight through modern times, great scholars have come from parents who were not learned in Torah (although they may have had a deep-down love and respect for Torah). 

I certainly can say as much regarding my father’s father, zichrono levracha. One such story about my grandfather, who was thrown out of cheder at age seven, and not particularly educated or strongly observant. When my father was a young boy, he already had a thirst for Yiddishkeit. He asked his father if they could have a Succah on the roof of their apartment. This is 1930-1940; and they had no money. His father said “sure”, tried to communicate in “sign” language with the Polish superintendent of the building who did not speak English. Providentially, the super said, “Succah”! Apparently, he was a “Shabbos Goy” back in the old country. And so aside from the Rabbi, my father had one of the only Succahs in that area of the Bronx at that time. That’s how an unlearned, barely observant man can raise a son to become a Talmid Chacham.