OMEK MIKRA:

A Method for Teaching Humash

by Bruce Rachlin

This article originally appeared in Ten Da'at, vol. 5, 1, 1990, pp. 24-26. Appears here with permission.

Our students study Humash but do they understand it? They can translate psukim but can they discern the concepts? They may read Rashi and Ramban but do they penetrate the thought processes, which resulted in their comments? In short, assuming that students have knowledge do they also have understanding? The following approach, called "Omek Mikra," addresses these concerns. What is the premise of Omek Mikra? What is its hidush? In a word it is structure. The Humash is a series of ever expanding logical structures. Even its minutest units -its individual words are the reflection of concepts. Nothing is arbitrary. It is these concepts which have dictated the choice of a specific word, phrase, posuk division and placement of each part within the whole.¹

In fact all units within the Humash - posuk,stumah, petuhah and sefer are ever expanding conceptual frameworks. The sum of the psukim within a stumah form a whole thought; the stumot within a ptuhah form a whole topic and the ptuhot within a sefer form a strand of topics woven into one theme which is the summation of that sefer. For this reason the Rambam says that Sefer Beraishit is Sefer Yetzira- the Book of Creation, for all of its threads deal with formation and shaping of world, man, intellect, purpose and Jew among a host of others.

The significance of this is that students can learn to approach the study of Humash in a structured, systematic fashion. There is a way of thinking within the Humash which will consistently unlock its meanings because it is its very structure which reveals its concepts. The understanding of Humash is organic; it flows from reasoned analysis. And, it is this structured reasoning which is at the heart of the mefarshim. Even the midrash responds not solely to eclectic inspiration but to the structural necessities of the posuk from which it springs.

And finally, it is not only the sophisticated, logically mature student who can fathom this. Children can be part of this process. Given the tools, schooled in the techniques of structured reasoning, even young students can enter a learning curve which will develop over their lives.²

THE TEXT

The first step in this process is to divide the posuk into its logical parts. Since each posuk is a series of rationally related word structures, it is subject to structured reasoning. For example: "Vayitzer Hashem Elokin et haadam afar min haadama vayipah b'apav nishmat hayim vayehi haadam l'nefesh haya" (Ber. 2:7) becomes quite naturally:

1.vayitzer Hashem Elokim. et haadam afar min haadama

2.vayipah b'apav nishmat hayim

3.vayehi haaddam l'nefesh haya

It can be seen from this division that not only does the posuk fall into natural parts but that variations are possible.³ For example, "Vayitzer Hashem Elokim et haadam afar min haadama" might have been subdivided as:

1.vayitzer Hashem Elokim et haadam

2. afar min haadma

The next step is to analyze each logical part. This is initiated through questions which are the vehicle of this process. The key is ultimately to ask oneself "all" questions: Is this word spelled as it usually is? Is this word or phrase of common usage? Is it unusual? Is it repetitious? Is there ambiguity? Can I define what this word means? What is this word, phrase, posuk, implying? Does this correspond to my understanding and experience? It is important to examine each word and phrase in turn, systematically, comparing it to similar variations which appear. But in this process one must become naive again. One both forgets and remembers what one knows for the sake of knowing anew.

With younger students one might choose a single issue on which to focus. For example, in the posuk above a teacher might ask what issue the word afar raises .e,g. Did God really use afar? From where did this afar come? etc., and, having answered, move on to the next logical part of the posuk.

Later, as student proficiency grows, one would require students to raise a multiplicity of issues in the attempt to throughoutly analyze the logical parts. Such a hard focus on "Vayitzer Hashem Elokim et haadam afar min haadama" might be expected to yield at least the following: Why is vayitzer used rather than bara or esah? Why two yudin in vayitzer? Why Hashem and Elokim? Did God genuinely use afar? Is this what man is or has it some other meaning? Why min haadama? In contrast to what other possibilities? Or is this reference to a place? Students would also raise structural questions. For example: What is the conceptual relationship between the three parts of this posuk? What is the concept of the posuk as a whole?

How does one teach students to uncover the issues? In the beginning they must be shown the process and the issues by reasoning them out together. Students can be pushed, cajoled, flattered and told that there is something here-find it. Teachers must sensitize students to one and then another and then another type of issue, repeating the analysis at each opportunity, finally showing that these questions lead to significant answers. Students soon become sleuths. They no longer take the posuk at face value. And, when nothing is taken for granted, there is an excitement to finding the subtlest of points. It is even more gratifying to discover something that the teacher has not.⁴

By the time students reach high school, the teacher need no longer raise the issues. Prior to class analysis, students should divide the posuk into its logical parts and raise the problems in the posuk.

THE MEFARSHIM

What about mefarshim? Beyond anticipating their issues how does the Omek Mikra approach interact with the study of mefarshim? Obviously, mefarshim provide answers to most of the issues one has raised in analyzing a posuk. But this is true precisely because the mefaresh was also involved in the same analysis.⁵

The perush at one and the same time offers insight and extends our sensitivity to structure. A useful example of this interaction is Rashi's comment on the first psukim in parshat Kdoshim. The says, "Daber el kol adat bnei Yisrael v'amarta aleyhem k'doshim tihiyu ki kadosh Ani Hashem Elokeykhem." Rashi comments "Melamed sheneemra parsha zo b'hakhel mipnay sherov gufey Torah t'luyin bah." Rashi's point ultimately is that just as historically there will be a mitzvah of hakhel- that is, teaching to the rabim- so too here we have an earlier instance of such a mitzvah due to the centrality of the mitzvot which are part of the kdoshim tihiyu stuma.⁶ However, consistent with our analysis of structure, we would want to ask how Hazal, quoted by Rashi, deduced this information. We would begin with the observation that this command could have been said more simply: Daber el...bnei Yisrael...kedoshim tihiyu. Thus, at least the phrase kol edat seems superfluous, and possibly v'amarta aleyhem as well.⁷ Hazal seem to deduce from this that there is a particular mitzvah of amirah to kol edat and this would be consistent with the nuance of edah, a group professing common commitments. Gather the people, Hazal say, for this is the heart of what I would say to them.

Thus it becomes apparent that Hazal responded both to the structure of the words and to their nuances which is of course itself a type of structure, a choice to build meaning through significant subtleties. In other words, the structure carries meaning for Hazal and that is precisely the premise of the Omek Mikra approach. The mefarshim thus act as guides to the structure and to its significance. As students reason through a perush their sensitivity to the text increases, they find answers to queries and equally significant, they begin to see themselves as part of a great historic process. They become talmidei Rashi, encompassed within the vitality of the learning tradition.⁸

THE CONCEPT

In order to make their understanding a living process, students should be encouraged to develop their own hidush. Thus, when posing questions from the posuk, student insight should not only be solicited but required. The ability to do this cannot be left solely to intuition, but must be developed. The first step is, as discussed, through the process of analyzing the mefarshim. The next step is through a similar reasoning process using insights of teacher and students. For example, ha'myaldot el Paroh ki lo kanashim ha'Mitzriyot ha'ivriyot ki hayot hena" one would ask, why call him "Paroh" when preceding psakim refer to him as melekh Mitzrayim? The answer lies in the structure. The previous usage, melekh, reflects the perspective of the speaker Paroh himself. It is he who refers to himself as melekh Mitzrayim, a figure of absolute authority. But in our posuk it is the miyaldot who speak and they, by their actions, have shown that they will not respond to such illegitimately employed authority.

This leads us then to the next issue. Why has the Humash used such an unusual phrase as "ki lo k'nashim haMitzriyot haIvriyot?" In sensing this strangeness and posing its alternative, we sense the answer as well. The actual phrase is derogatory. It refuses to accord to the ivriyot the term of respect- nashim which is reserved for Egyptian women.

But if this is correct then we have a contradiction in the posuk itself. It is these miyaldot who have defied melekh Mitzrayim to preserve Jewish life. For what conceivable reason would they derogate the very women for whose children they have endangered themselves? Here logic suggests that they have done so for the simplest of reasons- to persuade Paroh that in fact they share this prejudice to better convince him of their ruse- ki hayot hena. And as we are alive to the structural subtleties, we can marvel at how the Humash has first conveyed to us the miyaldots' genuine view- vatomarna hamiyaldot el Paroh- so as then to demonstrate their subtlety in manipulating Paroh's attitudes in furthering their ends.

Thinking can be taught. One of the single most important goals in teaching Humash is to foster a pattern of rigorous analysis and insight.

A final point. The process of Omek Mikra, is identifying the structure and nuance of the Humash, sets the stage for many wholly unexpected thematic points. These are limited only by the thoroughness and creativity of the teacher and students. However, one's ideas, in fact, tend to be more rigorous and reliable in having to account for the many structural issues raised by Omek Hamikra.

The very process of Omek Mikra provides a means of restoring the students sense of wonder. It draws them to the text of the Humash and the mefarshim and satisfies their desire for consequential reasoning. Omek Mikra reforges an incandescent link with the sensibility and mind of mesorah. It invigorates both student and teacher and allows the learning process to flourish.