As I read the postings on the Sheleg article, it occurs to me that the real question is not whether unmediated Tanakh is harmful but rather *how* should we teach Tanakh. Here are some citations from the discussion, which embody how I think Tanakh should be taught. As I mention these citations, I ask whether we indeed teach Tanakh this way and if not why not
Tanakh should be taught -
• (Helfgot) As multi-vocal and containing many different voices that internally temper and play off against each other
• (Grumet) As containing nuances and complexity (There is no such thing as a simple Tanakh passage) Grumet made his comments on teens; but I see Tanakh as making an equivalent statement on adults; Religious adults and even prophets are going through “internal struggle, searching for identity and meaning†and Tanakh **should** be taught that way (Do we really have to blame everything on teenagers and act like adults have solved their problems?)
• (My response to Blau) As reflecting both traditional commentaries as well as derivation through literary methods (When I teach e.g. Rashi, I might start with a Rashi and then end by deriving the Rashi comment using literary techniques; alternatively I might use some literary techniques, derive something, and then show Rashi said this) The idea that revelation and logic *agree*, but tradition gets us there faster, goes back to Saadia (In fact I believe that was one of his strongest contributions)
Since the issue of violence and killing non-Jews has come up, let me show how I might approach this in the classroom. I would start with the following beautiful (or is it ugly) thought from the Rav: >> What motivates Wiesel and other Nazi hunters? Is it a burning desire for justice? But aren’t you and I just? Aren’t we equally interested in having a just society? What then motivates them? It is revenge! The idea that revenge can be noble is found in the Talmud (Beracoth) >Great is revenge since the word occurs between two Divine names,< >A God of Vengeance is God, The God of Vengeance has come< <<
Let’s say I was giving a high-school class (or adult education class). Here are some multi-vocal points -
• The Jews took out their vengeance on the Persian population, part of the miracle of Purim though it is not always expressed that way. In fact one professor in Israel arranges his residences so that he never has to hear Megilat Esther
• Isaiah (29) mourns the necessary destruction of Moab (“Tears --- Churning stomach etc.â€)
• Besides the well-known example of Amalayk, God Himself ordered vengeance on Midyan for what was a sexual attack with Jewish participation
• Samson sought vengeance for his poked out eyes and killed many people (I think the verses involved have been made into an Israeli song)
• Saul had mercy and did not kill the enemy [A la Blau, we may introduce a Traditional commentary that he was punished for it since Haman descended from him]
Such a discussion is -
• Nuanced and complex
• Presents both sides (for /against vengeance)
• Allows teenagers (or adults) to find support for their viewpoints.
Do any of us teach this way? If the reason we don’t is because parents would complain about rocking the boat on their teenage children, is the problem “unmediated Tanakh� Isn’t the problem that we (the orthodox community) as a whole, each in our own way, do not want to deal with multi-voices and nuances. If that is the problem, how should we solve it?
Russell Jay Hendel; Ph.D., A.S.A.;
rhendel@towson.edu; www.Rashiyomi.com
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2016 07:10AM by mlb.
