<HTML>After so much theoretical discussion of the subject, I would like to
applaud Jeffrey Spitzer for offering well articulated goals for teaching
Gemara in the upper elementary school. I would like to ask for further
clarification on some of those issues from Jeffrey, or from other Gemara
teachers "out there".
>2) the ability to distinguish between midrashic arguments and logical
>arguments and recall knowledge of several specific examples of each;
By "midrashic", do we mean an argument based on a Pasuk? If so, must we
assume that an argument based on text is not a "logical" one?
>4) a clear understanding of the difference between gemara and halakhah
>which the student can illustrate with numerous examples;
While it is important to understand the difference, I think that it is
even more important to understand how one flows from the other, something
that is aided on the page itself by the Ein Mishpat/Ner Mitzvah.
>6) a deep understanding of the technical terminology of the Talmud.
>This last one needs a little explanation. I want my students to know not
>only what "M'nalan?" means but to think about why the Bavli is so
>concerned about grounding Torah she'b'al Peh in Torah she'bi'khtav. Not
>only to translate "Mai ika beynaihu?", but to recognize that this question
>assumes that differences of "opinion" should be based on rational
>differences of approach.
Of all of Jeffrey's excellent suggestions, this I found of greatest
significance. Could someone direct me to works that discuss these issues?
Most of the terminology books deal with the text as punctuation, and do
little to suggest answers to the questions raised. (By the way, I always
thought that the question that asked for an underlying sevara was "B'mai
Kamipalgi", and that "Mai Beinaihu" asked for a practical difference
between the two opinions.)
I would appreciate suggestions on any of the above issues, but would like
to close on a note of thanks to Jeffrey Spitzer for sharing his ideas with
us.
Yitz</HTML>
