Minimizing the use of primary sources

The following is an excerpt from an article entitled “Technology is Making Us Socially Awkward” by Jenna Birch that was posted on Yahoo Health on May 29, 2015.
(I strongly suggest the article be read in its entirety. It will make all those who teach teenagers more comfortable by virtue of knowing that they are not alone in their beliefs about the insidious nature of electronic devices. I am, in no way, validating the science contained therein!))

<<
“EXHIBIT C: Welcome to Miscommunication Station

I’ve been a victim of text miscommunication, on both sides.

I’ve sent some texts that I meant to come off as chirpy or silly, but ended up throwing some seriously unintended shade. Once, I shot off what I thought was a “witty” text to a potential date. It read something along the lines of, “You’ve got a lot to learn, kid.” He quickly responded: “Ouch, ice queen.” Me: Wait, whaaa? On second glance, I should have added an emoji. I guess it did seem more condescending than I meant it. (The relationship did not recover, BTW.)

Emotions are a lot harder to convey with just words — and no actual human face.
On the flipside, I’ve also received texts that sounded super-reassuring — in my mind, even great! But then I consulted a friend or two, who then questioned if my takeaway was the true meaning of the message. Could they have a point? Was I totally off? After eventually picking up the phone and talking to the sender, let’s just say it was not as great as I had imagined. Or hoped.

Everybody’s got a different text style, and everyone is reading into deeper, possibly nonexistent meanings. For instance, as grammar expert Mignon Fogarty pointed out on Science of Us, exclamation points are no longer just used to express excitement; exclamation points are basically just expressed out of politeness now.

Even though she’s been trained to use the marks sparingly, Fogarty confessed to dropping them in emails and texts. “I fear being seen as unfriendly or insincere if I only use a period,” she said. I mean, the horror. (Period used for effect.)

If you don’t use language the recipient has come to expect, you could wind up in gobs of trouble. Art Markman, PhD, a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Texas at Austin, says:
The most frequent kinds of miscommunications happen with what are called the pragmatic aspects of language…that is, the elements of language that go beyond the words being spoken. For example, the sentence, ‘I really had a great time with you’ would seem to be a compliment on the surface, but depending on how it’s spoken, it could be delivered sarcastically — in which case it means the opposite of what the words mean. (Emphasis mine)

Unless you add an *eye roll* to that text, how’s the recipient gonna know for sure? It’s a 50-50 shot that message is getting garbled.”
>>

When I read this piece, I had a classic “light bulb in the brain” experience! My mind made an automatic and immediate association to the famous statement by the Tanna Isi ben Yehuda in Tractate Yoma (52 a-b):
והתניא איסי בן יהודה אומר חמש מקראות בתורה אין להם הכרע: "שאת", "משוקדים", "מחר", "ארור", ו"קם".
“Rabbi Isi ben Yehuda taught (in a beraita): There are (only) five verses in Chumash that are so ambiguous that they can be read in more than one way.”

The Gemara then proceeds to provide a mnemonic which designates in shorthand which verses the Tanna had in mind. (Truth be told, there are more than five, but that is not the subject of this article.)

I am providing below one of those verses so those unfamiliar with the concept will be able to see it first-hand. The verse is found in Parshat Beshalach (Shemot XVII, 9):
ח וַיָּבֹא עֲמָלֵק וַיִּלָּחֶם עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּרְפִידִם.
ט וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּחַר לָנוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְצֵא הִלָּחֵם בַּעֲמָלֵק מָחָר אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל רֹאשׁ הַגִּבְעָה וּמַטֵּה הָאֱלֹהִים בְּיָדִי.
8 Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim.
9 And Moses said to Joshua: 'Choose for us men, and go out, fight with Amalek tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand.'

The problematic element is the word “tomorrow” (“Machar”): Is Joshua supposed to fight with Amalek tomorrow or is Moshe going to stand on top of the mountain tomorrow? We know the answer because our tradition provides the trope that shows us where the pause is supposed to be. (It is after the word “Amalek”- “tomorrow” refers to Moshe’s action.)

One of the giants among the Rishonim, the Ritva, explains that “אין להם הכרע” means that, in these cases, it is impossible to determine the precise meaning of the phrase or verse just from the words alone as they are written in a Sefer Torah – where there is no “nikkud” and no punctuation and no cantillation marks (Trope). However, with the help of the Mesora and the Ta’amim (all absent in the original), the meaning is elucidated completely.

I hope that our readers are currently (Cute, huh!) getting some wattage out of their personal “lightbulbs”!

It is my contention that if we use “traditional original texts” (those without nikkud and punctuation) when we teach students Chumash, Mishna and Gemara, we are doing them a tremendous disservice. We are, in effect, reinforcing the corrupted, ambiguous, and unintelligible nature of all the rest of their communications. For them, ALL such textual representations have “no hechra” – their behavior is predicated on a lack of information and, worse even, ambiguous information that they retrieve from their electronic devices.

It is no wonder, under these circumstances, that we do not make many significant “breakthroughs:” A page of gemara from the Vilna Shas is merely a bunch of unintelligible signs and marks – just like most Tweeter or Facebook gibberish (Sorry!).

In order to have even a remote chance of evoking a connection between our students and these “arcane” and hieroglyphic-like texts, we must disabuse ourselves of the “anachronistic” notion that “learning in the original” is the highest level of Talmud Torah! And there is ample precedent for this “radical” approach: Didn’t Reb Yehuda HaNasi and his Beit Din reach the same conclusion when they decided to render Torah She’be’al’pe into the written word? And, what’s more, in that case, there were 1,500 years of halachic precedent that needed to be overturned!
My suggestion is that sources like the Steinsaltz Talmud, and the Schottenstein Talmud, and the Tuvya (of Monsey fame) editions of various Masechtot where the Gemara, Rashi and Tosafot are all “menukad”, and the new “Mikra’ot Gedolot” editions where all the meforshim are likewise “menukad” and Mishna Brura editions that are “menukad” – these and more should become the standards texts in all Modern Orthodox Day Schools from day one!

In a way, I am suggesting that we make a choice: Do we retain our insistence that our students become “Hebrew speakers”, so to better meld (IY”H) into Israeli society at some time in the future OR do we provide them with learning experiences that will enhance their connection to Torah and Mitzvot?

Unfortunately, I do believe that this comes down to a CHOICE: We can’t, by and large, have both and, in that case, what is our priority?

Only by using such texts can we hope to extricate our students from the morass of the electronic device into the beautiful world of God’s word.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2015 01:09PM by mlb.