Conversations with non-Jewish English Teachers

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Yes, I am aware that "Judaism" is not a legal Scrabble word, since it is a proper noun.
However, "English" IS a legal Scrabble word, since it is a verb which means
"to cause a billiard ball to spin around its vertical axis."

Conversations with non-Jewish English Teachers

Last week I attended a week-long professional development program for English teachers. Over the course of the week I found myself confronted with a number "culture clash" moments, in which I was confronted by the stark differences between by the intellectual world of my Torah learning and the world inhabited by these non-Jewish, highly educated, predominantly white, "coastal elite" group of English teachers. I'd like to write about three of the insights I had.

Ideas vs. People

One of the in-class exercises we did involved reading and analyzing the claims and arguments made by Michael Levin in his article, "The Case for Torture." I was paired with two other teachers. One of the teachers suggested that we look up when the article was written in order to get a better idea of the rhetorical situation. We agreed that this was a good idea. The other teacher looked up Michael Levin on Wikipedia to find the answer. As he scrolled down to find information about the article, this is what he saw:

After skimming the Wikipedia entry, this teacher huffed: "Oh, so he was a capitalist, misogynistic homophobe." Because I wasn't exactly sure where he was going with this, I hesitantly asked: "But ... we're not factoring that into our analysis of his arguments, right?" to which the teacher replied with a seriously baffled expression on his face: "Why not?" 

What I wanted to say was: "Why not? Because these things have nothing to do with his arguments on torture! Not only that, but all you did was read these wiki-sourced summaries. You haven't even bothered to understand his arguments and you've already labeled him as 'an enemy' and are poised to interpret the ideas in his article based on that label!"

Before I could respond, the other teacher chimed in and agreed with me, saying: "I could understand if we found out that this author worked for the CIA or if he somehow profited off of his position on torture, since these facts might actually be relevant to our analysis of his argument, but I don't see what his positions on feminism, economics, or homosexuality have to do with his position on the use of torture." I bit my tongue and nodded in agreement. 

This conversation reminded me of the Rambam's famous adage: "kabel ha'emes mi'mi she'omro [1] - accept the truth from whoever says it" (which I wrote about extensively in my article: Rambam: On Not Citing Sources). I was also reminded of Rav Soloveitchik's view [2] on the designation of mach'chish magideha [3] - those who repudiate the baalei Mesorah (transmitters of the Oral Tradition). The Rav suggested that this label applies not only those who actively challenge the halachic authority of the baalei Mesorah, but even extends to those who insinuate that the views of the baalei Mesorah were the products of their emotions, their personalities, or their circumstances, rather than their knowledge and understanding of Torah.

These guiding principles of methodology are really two sides of the same coin. Both emphasize the importance of analyzing ideas based on their merit, rather than treating them as the byproducts of "influences on people" (as I wrote about in Musings on the Academic Approach). This isn't to say that human beings can't be influenced by other factors. However, to make such an assumption about the statements of Chazal is to undermine their wisdom, understanding, and knowledge.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not equating the likes of Rebbi Akiva and the Rambam with a columnist writing about torture in the 1980's. My point is that those who are trained in the authentic methods of talmud Torah (Torah learning) would never make a move like this English teacher did, recognizing that this line of reasoning would shift the inquiry towards people, and away from ideas. This might be relevant in a history class, but not a class which purports to analyze ideas and arguments.

Rogerian Argument

One of the popular methods for analyzing certain types of non-fiction texts is the "Rogerian Argument" framework. The textbook The Language of Composition (2018 edition) summarizes this approach as follows:

Another approach to argument is known as the Rogerian method, named for twentieth-century psychologist Carl Rogers, who stressed the importance of replacing confrontational argument tactics with ones that promote negotiation, compromise, and cooperation. Rogerian argumentation is particularly appropriate and useful for arguments on controversial subjects that for some are matters of belief - such as the death penalty, abortion, gun control, or the place of prayer or the teaching of evolution by natural selection in schools. Rogerian arguments are based on the assumption that having a full understanding of an opposing position is essential to responding to it persuasively and refuting it in a way that is accommodating rather than alienating. The key component of the Rogerian approach is finding common ground on which the speaker and an audience that holds opposing beliefs can both stand. The speaker must show that he or she has everyone's interest in mind, and thus be sympathetic to the audience's point of view. Ultimately, the goal is not necessarily to win the argument, but to reach a compromise through which both speaker and audience will feel that they have gained ground.

As my non-Jewish colleagues voiced the difficulties they've had with getting their students to grok this approach, I thought to myself, "This is what we do every day!" When learning Gemara, halacha, and even Tanach, we approach any machlokes (disagreement) with the premise that both disputants are chachamim (wise), and each of them has a logical, conceptual, insightful view derived from the common pool of data which was known and accepted by both parties. When we analyze a machlokes, we first try to understand wherein the two sides agree, and we assume that they share more in common than they disagree on. Although we differ from the Rogerian model in that we aren't trying to reach a "compromise," we are, in most cases, more interested in understanding both sides than determining who "won" the argument - at least, in matters of theoretical understanding, if not practical application.

One of the first methodology books on how to learn Talmud was Darchei ha'Talmud, written by R' Yitzchak Kanpanton in the 14th century. Compare this excerpt to the aforementioned description of Rogerian Argument:

At the outset of your analysis assume, as the premise of your thought, that each of the speakers - whether the one asking a question or the one giving an answer - is an intelligent person, and that all of his words were stated with wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, and contain nothing that is twisted or crooked. Thus we say, "Are we dealing with fools?!" (Shevuos 48b). Therefore, you should analyze all of their words to see whether they are statements of reason, healthy and "as strong as a molten mirror" (Iyov 37:18), or whether they are "bland food eaten without salt," (ibid. 6:6) and weak statements, or whether they are statements which draw close to the intellect, or distance themselves from it. You must strive to bring near their words and to correct them in such a manner that they are pleasant, acceptable, and intellectually amenable, and you must not ascribe to them the iniquity and guilt of a dubious or weak explanation, because none of their words should fall to the ground, since all of them are divrei Elokim chayim (words of the living God) ... and in general, for every statement of the Oral Torah, you must analyze and know what they agree upon which unifies their view, and on what they differ.

This is just a great example something that the non-Jewish world views as an innovation (reminder: Carl Rogers came up with his "Rogerian" approach in 1970!) which we've been practicing for millennia.

Talmudic Reading

Speaking of Talmudic methodology, I was reminded once again how many analytical skills are needed simply to read the text of the Talmud. My Gemara students are working with a text that has no vowels, punctuation, or paragraphs. The text is written in a language (Aramaic) that operates according to mysterious "rules" which only kinda parallel the other foreign language they're learning (Hebrew). The text assumes that they already have a tremendous breadth of background knowledge about diverse, often unrelated subjects. With each step they take, they have to figure out how to parse the phrases, to identify whether the phrase they're reading is a statement, proof, question, answer, difficulty, or resolution, etc. They must understand how the statement performs that function and fits into the larger give-and-take of the discussion. The discussion, itself, involves a high level of intellectual dexterity, involving every form of inference, derivation, induction, deduction, comparison, distinction, contradiction, refutation, identification of the premise, extrapolation to similar cases, etc., etc., etc. And all of this is necessary for a basic reading of the Talmud! We're not even talking about higher level types of Talmudic study!

This came up in the professional development session when we were learning another framework for analyzing argument, typically referred to as "the Toulmin model." This method was named after its innovator, the ancient sage Stephen Toulmin (1922 - 2009). Basically, you can take any argument and break it down into its component parts, in the following form:

Because (evidence as support), therefore (claim), since (assumption), on account of (backing), unless (reservation).

In diagram form, it looks like this:

This might seem abstract until you apply it to a simple example. Let's say you're planning on leaving your house, and you suddenly realize, "Hey - it's raining! I should take my umbrella!" This realization is an argument, although we don't typically think of it as such. When analyzed using the Toulmin model, the argument looks like this:

Basic Form: Because it is raining, therefore, I should take my umbrella, since it will keep me dry. 

Full Form: Because it is raining, therefore I should probably take my umbrella, since it will keep me dry on account of its waterproof material, unless, of course, it has a hole in it.

In diagram form, it looks like this:

No doubt the reason why my fellow English teachers have had so much difficulty teaching this type of analysis to their students is because their students have never thought like this before! What reading or intellectual activity would they do in the normal course of their teenage lives which would demand such analytical rigor? Perhaps only those students who are on the debate team, or who devote their time and energy to debating in the comment sections on various parts of the Internet and social media.

In contrast, my own students will have practiced this type of thinking for several years by the time they enter my class. This type of analysis is Gemara 101, and even though they'll have to get used to the terminology, the mental moves will already be familiar to them.

Concluding Thoughts

In every weekday tefilah (prayer) we say: "You are the One Who graciously endows man with wisdom, and teaches man understanding." The question is: Why does it use the verb "graciously endow" when describing Hashem giving man wisdom, but "teaches" when describing His giving of understanding?

I don't have a complete answer to this question, but I know one thing for sure: God "teaches man understanding" by giving us the Torah, with its intellectually demanding system of halacha, and commanding us to learn it and master it. The skills of understanding gained through the basic study of Talmud places Jewish students far ahead of the average American citizen in their ability to think and understand.

[1] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Commentary on the Mishnah: Introduction to Avos (a.k.a. Shemoneh Perakim), Preface; see also Mishneh Torah: Sefer Zmanim, Hilchos Kiddush ha'Chodesh 17:25
[2] I have only heard this interpretation cited baal peh (orally), and do not know of a written source.
[3] ibid. Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Teshuvah 3:8

Four Levels of Reading

I recently found myself in a class full of English teachers - almost all of whom were non-Jews. On a lark, I decided to share with them a method that I use to frame and teach Talmudic analysis. It was so well-received that I was asked to type it up so that the professor could incorporate it into his lesson plans. This blog post was the result, which is why the tone is slightly different than my other posts.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: unknown

Four Levels of Reading

One of my teachers, Rabbi SZ, devised a method of teaching Talmudic analysis skills. This method consists of four sequential levels, or steps. Although his method was designed for Talmudic analysis, it can easily be adapted to any textual analysis. I have described these four steps with this universal application in mind. Here they are:

1. Reading the Lines: surface-level reading; our goal in this step is to understand the meaning conveyed by the words, as intended by the author; this is what people commonly refer to as “reading”

2. Reading Between the Lines: analytical reading; our objective in this step is to identify and articulate the author’s unstated premises, assumptions, and propositions, and to assess the logic, soundness, and rationality of his or her arguments and conclusions

3. Reading Behind the Lines: conceptual reading; in this step we attempt to understand and formulate, in the most concise and precise language possible, the underlying abstract definitions of the key terms and concepts in the text; oftentimes the cogency of the author’s conclusions will hinge on the validity of these conceptual definitions

4. Reading Beyond the Lines: syntopical reading; this is the only step which brings us “outside” of the text; the goal of this step is to compare the treatment of the subject matter in this text to its treatment in other sources, in an attempt to arrive at our own synthesized grasp of the subject matter

I will now illustrate how these four levels of reading apply to two very different examples. The first is a lyric from a song, considered in isolation (i.e. without any knowledge of its context, origin, or author). The second example is a snippet of a dialogue I heard in my dorm when I was a student in rabbinical seminary. The first example is closer to what we might see in an English Language course, whereas the latter is more akin to a Talmudic text and its legalistic analysis.

For the sake of brevity, I have opted to merely describe the application of this method to these examples, instead of fully fleshing out each step. 

Example #1: “All you need is love.”

1. Reading the Lines: This statement fairly straightforward, and the basic meaning of the words and their syntactical relation to each other is unambiguous.

2. Reading Between the Lines: 

- The fully explicated version of this statement is: “All you need for _____ is love.” What word should fill in the blank? Happiness? Health? Security? Morality?  

- The author is also making an assumption in his use of the word “all.” Does the author intend for this to be taken literally (i.e. “you need nothing else for _____ except for love”) or is this hyperbole? If the latter, then what does he mean by “all”? To what extent does love meet or satisfy one’s total need? What would still be lacking if someone had this love?  

- The author’s use of the word “you” is also ambiguous. Either he is referring to a specific audience, or he is referring to all people and is using “you” as synecdoche for “all human beings.” If the former, then to whom is he speaking? in either case, what is the basis of his claim? 

3. Reading Behind the Lines: 

- What does the author mean by “love”? What is the precise, abstract, conceptual definition of “love” which would make his statement true? Or, at the very least, what is the definition he had in mind when he composed these words? 

- What does the author mean by “need”? This will depend on whether the author is referring to a need which is physical, psychological, ethical, spiritual, etc. In any event, the concept of “need” must be defined. After all, a physical need is quite different from an ethical imperative, and an objective need is different than a subjective one. In other words, any use of the term “need” is built upon a number of philosophical assumptions about the nature of human life. 

4. Reading Beyond the Lines: 

- What information is available to us outside of the text that might shed light on the author’s meaning in this statement? Does the rest of the song provide insight into his meaning in this single line? Did the author compose other songs, speeches, or works on the topic of love that might clarify his view?  

- What do other writers and thinkers say about love and the need for it? How does the sentiment expressed here compare with other lyrics of that era? 

- After conducting this analysis, what conclusions do we reach, and how would we support those conclusions? 

Example #2: Upon seeing a student don a hoodie, the dorm counselor said, “You need to change your clothing. Our dress code requires you to wear a shirt with a collar during school hours.” The student responded, “What do you mean? This is a shirt with a collar.”

1. Reading the Lines: Again, the plain meaning of the text is clear: a student wearing a hoodie was reprimanded by the dorm counselor for violating the dress code, and the student responded by denying that he was in violation.

2. Reading Between the Lines: 

- On the surface it would appear that there are only two possibilities here: either the dorm counselor is correct, or the student is correct.  

- However, even if only one of them is correct by the legal standards of the dorm rules, it is possible that each disputant’s claim stems from a logical assumption.  

- If this is the case, then we may infer that the dorm counselor and the student each have a different interpretation of the dorm rule: according to the dorm counselor’s understanding, a hoodie would constitute a violation of the requirement to wear a shirt with a collar, whereas according to the student, a hoodie would qualify as a shirt with a collar.

3. Reading Behind the Lines: 

- From this last point it is evident that the key term at the heart of this dispute is “collar.” If we are correct in our assumption that each of the disputants has a different interpretation of the dorm rule, then it must be that each of them defines collar differently. Our task is to figure out that conceptual definition. 

- The dorm counselor is defining “collar” as a qualitative structural feature of the shirt (i.e. a band of material at the neck of a shirt which is folded over in a specific stylistic manner). According to this definition, a hood is not a collar. 

- The student, however, is defining “collar” as a quantitative extension of the shirt’s fabric. Accordingly, a hood would qualify as a collar just like the collar of a dress shirt, inasmuch as both are extensions of fabric at the neck of the shirt.  

- In descriptive Aristotelian terms, the dorm counselor defines “collar” by its form, whereas the student defines “collar” by its matter. 

4. Reading Beyond the Lines: 

- Now that we have defined how each disputant uses the term “collar,” there only remains one question: What do the dorm rules mean by “collar”?  

- To answer this question, we might turn to several sources which would directly answer our question, such as the author of the dorm rules, an administrator of the Rabbinic seminary. Alternatively, we might research the topic from other texts in order to build an argument – such as sources within Jewish law which deal with collars, or the codes of clothing manufacturers in American law, or experts in fashion and clothing design. 

(In case you are wondering, the dorm counselor won the debate. By authority.)

I hope these two examples have adequately demonstrated the usefulness of this method, in teaching and in learning.