Perhaps I missed something in the earlier discussion, but I'm a little confused by this debate over whether to teach Rashbam over Rashi, or to teach Rashi as peshat versus as drash. First and foremost shouldn't we be teaching Rashi (and all other mefarshim, for that matter) as commentary? By commentary, I mean the product of an encounter of a human intellect with a text, in this case a divine text. Peshat and drash are methods of interpretation, and should be taught as such.
I recognize that this is complicated when dealing with earlier elementary school students, but certainly by the time students are able to notice and to understand the differences between the biblical texts and its interpretation (i.e. in Vayera when Rashi quotes the midrash that Avraham brought three cow tongues to the visiting angels, as opposed the one whole cow the text says he butchered) they can also begin to think about the exegetical reasons why a Parshan might decide to interpret midrashically.
Jesse Abelman
Ph.D. Candidate
Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies
Teacher
Drisha Institute for Jewish Education
