<HTML>
The thread of Aharon Frazer and Avi Shmidman touches on a larger issue
that I would like to explore: There is a critical distinction between
peshat and drash in teaching Torah text.
I can approach teaching Torah text to answer the question: "What does
the TEXT want to communicate to me?" In such a case I use vocabulary,
literary style, context and themes to discover the intent of the text.
This type of teaching SHOULD be exposed to critical analysis. It has
to be supported logically, thematically and through analysis of
literary technique. If it doesn't hold together and requires a logical
"leap of faith", then it is not the study of peshat.
On the other hand, I can approach teaching of Torah through
midrashic-based commentary or kabbalistic allusions. This answers the
question, "What does the particular commentator want to teach us about
ideas and values using the text as a 'jumping off' point" Here, the
attempt is not to explain the intent of the text, but rather to offer
a teaching of the darshan. Such interpretation is NOT prone to
critical analysis since it is not intended to analyze the text
logically, but to teach a related idea. This is the method often used
in Rabbinic sermons or used in chumash-with-Rashi classes, where
Jewish values are the focus of the teaching, not the intent of the
text.
Often there are grey areas -- but when I hear a typical d'var Torah,
it is of the second type and is only meant to teach what the speaker
wants to communicate; it is not meant to be text learning and
therefore should not be criticized for it's tenuous relation to text.
The real challenge for educators is to make the distinction between
these two types of teaching in the classroom so that students do not
say: "The Torah says", when they really mean "the darshan says!" and
they are encouraged to critically evaluate peshat, while they are
asked to "accept" the drash uncritically.
Any thoughts?
Steve Bailey
Jerusalem</HTML>
