The Four Phases of Learning a Sefer in Nach

This post actually began as a preface to another post I'd like to write on "How to Learn Tehilim." Eventually I realized that this preface was long enough to be its own post. 

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

Artwork: Pore Over the Pages, by Magali Villeneuve

The Four Phases of Learning a Sefer in Nach

On average, I teach a new sefer of Nach each year. Some of these sefarim I've learned on my own before teaching them; others I teach and learn for the first time, at the same time. Thus far I've taught eleven out of the thirty sefarim of Nach.

Whenever I learn a sefer of Nach, I typically proceed through the following four stages:

Phase #1 - Floundering in Chaos: When I learn a sefer for the first time, I feel like I have no idea what it's about or how to approach it. Maybe "no idea" is an exaggeration; for example, I knew Sefer Yirmiyahu is about the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash, and that Sefer Yonah is about Yonah's prophetic mission to Ninveh, and that Sefer Daniel is about Daniel's life in Bavel. What I mean is that I don't know what the purpose of the sefer is - or how it fits into the Torah regimen - and I certainly don't know how best to approach the sefer in order to achieve that purpose. 

Phase #2 - Discovery of Order and Direction: Eventually, after immersing myself in the sefer on a bekius and b'iyun level for an extended period of time, I gradually begin to sense order in the chaos. Usually I'll find one or two meforshim who point to the purpose of the sefer and give me enough to work with to be able to start learning the sefer in a consistent manner. By following their guidance and my intuition, I'll eventually be able to work out some concrete method of approaching the sefer - enough to be able to "test it out" and get results. At this stage I still have a healthy sense of doubt about the soundness of my approach, but the only way to test these doubts is to forge ahead and test out my theories. 

Phase #3 - Development of Method and Purpose: After much trial and effort, I'll arrive at the point where I am confident that my understanding of the purpose of the sefer is on the right track (even if not spot-on) and that my method of approaching the sefer is a valid one (at least, insofar as it gets good results). At this point I'll set aside my lingering doubts and proceed on the assumption that I am correct. My aim switches from the question of "Is this the right approach?" to "What can I learn from this sefer by using this approach?" I take the method as far as it can go, learning as much as I can while working out any leftover kinks and gaps in the method. 

Phase #4 - Refinement of Method and Purpose: The line between Phase #3 and Phase #4 isn't always clear, but I usually know when I'm in Phase #4. Usually I'll arrive at this phase after successfully teaching the sefer for a semester or a year at Phase #3, or after learning the sefer at Phase #3 for a year or two. I feel confident enough to give shiur on this sefer to a more advanced audience, and to advise others on how to learn and teach the sefer.

Phase #5 - Reboot: (What? Phase #5? I thought this post claims that there are only four phases?) I decided to acknowledge Phase #5 because I know it exists, even though I can't say I've gotten there yet with any sefer. Phase #5 occurs when a person's current theoretical framework reaches the point where the questions, difficulties, and/or insights lead to a complete revolution of understanding - the same way this happens with any scientific theory. When one's level of comprehension reaches this stage, it's time to set aside one's paradigm, return to the drawing board, and start from scratch - through fresh eyes, with a fresh mind. 

[Similarly, I've seen the meforshim (e.g. Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, Malbim) write in the introductions to their commentaries things like: "I've studied the commentaries of my predecessors and found that none of them have done a satisfactory job of explaining this sefer in accordance with its true meaning. For this reason, I have seen fit to write my own commentary with my own approach." I'm sure that most (if not all) these meforshim proceeded through Phases #1-4 with the help of their predecessors, and only after "completing" Phase #4 using a "tested method" arrived at their conclusion that this method was lacking. While you could argue that this should all be included in their Phase #2 or Phase #3, it is certainly possible that was experienced by them as a Phase #5.]

Here are a few examples of sefarim I've taught in my classes, and which phase I am currently at for each:

Phase #4 - Mishlei, Koheles, and Iyov: These are the sefarim for which I am the most confident in my approach. I've learned them and taught them for years, and I have enough confidence in my understanding and in my methods to "have a shitah" on what these sefarim are about, what their main ideas are, and how to approach them - even though I haven't learned through these sefarim in their entirety yet. 

Phase #3 - Yonah, Tehilim, Daniel: I feel comfortable enough in my understanding of these sefarim to teach them, and to feel that I've done them justice. Either I have a methodology of my own with which to approach them, or I have a solid handle on one of the meforshim's approaches to be able to know my way around the sefer.

Phase #2 - Yirmiyahu, Melachim II, Esther: I can definitely teach these sefarim, but unlike the sefarim in Phases #4 and 3 which will be perceived by my students as unified and purposeful, these Phase #2 sefarim will feel like a series of loosely connected ideas. Don't get me wrong: the ideas I have learned from these sefarim are solid, but I don't feel that I've gotten to the core of the books themselves. I can't say: "This is the real purpose/message/theme/methodology of Sefer _____."  

Phase #1 - Shir ha'Shirim and Yeshayahu: These two sefarim have been classified as Phase #1 for different reasons. In the case of Shir ha'Shirim I have a sense of what it's about and how it fits into the Torah regimen. I just haven't found any inroads yet. Whenever I try to learn it, I feel paralyzed - especially since the whole thing is an allegory, and I am at a loss to know how to approach it. The meforshim make things even more confusing, since each of them seems to have a different take. Yeshayahu, on the other hand, is more accessible in the particulars. There are pesukim, paragraphs, and even whole chapters that I feel I have a handle on. But as for the sefer as a whole? - I'm totally lost. Ditto for the methodology. 

Being aware of these four phases is helpful for me, even if it's not always clear "where I'm holding." Having a sense of where I'm at helps me to better plan how I am going to teach the material. 

For example, if I know I'm going to teach a sefer at Phase #2, I'll incorporate the element of discovery into the way I teach. I might begin the semester by presenting several theories from different meforshim for what the sefer is about, and revisit these theories as we move through the sefer in an effort to figure out which theory fits best. Alternatively, I might treat the question, "What is this sefer about?" as one of the main missions of our learning. And when, over the course of teaching the material, I begin to discover an answer to that question, I share that experience of discovery with my students, and they love it!

If I'm at Phase #3 then I know my job will be to spend that year of teaching honing and tweaking my approach to the point where I'll be at Phase #4 by the next time I teach it.

And if I'm still at Phase #1 I'll ask my principal if I can do a broad overview of the sefer the first time I teach it, rather than trying to teach the material in-depth and "failing." 

Anyway, I just thought I'd share this with you in case you found it useful. 

How to Explain the Oral Torah to the Uninitiated

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

Artwork: Jüdische Szene, by Carl Schleicher

How to Explain the Oral Torah to the Uninitiated

Whenever I get into Torah discussions with non-Jews or unaffiliated Jews, I often find it necessary to introduce them to one of the fundamental premises of the Jewish religion - namely, that Hashem gave us two Torahs at Sinai: Torah she'bi'Chsav (the Written Torah) and Torah she'baal Peh (the Oral Torah). Although I have successfully explained this premise on a number of occasions, I'm always on the lookout for clearer, more efficient explanations.

It's difficult enough to explain this to someone who has no background, but it is even harder to explain this to someone who has preconceived notions and biases which impede clarity. I'm referring to those who might say things like: 

• "Oh, so you're telling me that when the Torah says 'don't do work on the Sabbath,' that means I can't turn on the light, or carry change in my pocket, or sign my name on a receipt? C'MON! The Rabbis CLEARLY made that up!" 
• "Are you saying that just because the Torah repeated a word or used an extra letter in this verse, I'm supposed to believe that this is teaching us a dozen laws? That is CLEARLY ridiculous! C'MON!" 
• "You think that 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth' only refers to monetary payments? That is CLEARLY post-hoc apologetics. C'MON!"

Of course, if someone is really saying things like "CLEARLY" and "C'MON" in all caps, then he or she probably isn't really interested in the truth. But if someone raises these objections from a place of healthy skepticism and is open to hearing an explanation, then we had better be prepared to provide a clear and convincing answer!

I'd like to offer two analogies that might prove to be useful in explaining Torah she'baal Peh to the uninitiated. In my opinion, the second analogy is superior to the first.

Lesser Analogy: Humpty Dumpty

For my high school students I used to use the analogy of Humpty Dumpty. For those who aren't familiar, Humpty Dumpty is a popularly known English nursery rhyme that goes something like this:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

All the king's horses and all the king's men

Couldn't put Humpty together again.

Ask any child who is familiar with this song, "Who or what is Humpty Dumpty?" and the response you'll get is: "He's an egg!" But the fact remains: nowhere in the text does it explicitly state that Humpty Dumpty is an egg! For all we know, he could be a vase, a Christmas ornament, a human being with a case of osteogenesis imperfecta (a.k.a. "brittle bone disease"), or any other fragile entity.

So how do we know he's an egg? Because the written text of the nursery rhyme is accompanied by an oral tradition which informs us that Humpty Dumpty is an egg. Is it possible to interpret the text differently? Of course. But although such interpretations would be feasible, they would be wrong, since they contradict the authoritative interpretation that has been passed down through the ages as part and parcel of the nursery rhyme. 

Although this analogy works well for high school students, it is clearly an imperfect one. Unlike our actual Oral Torah, there is no unbroken chain of transmission for the "correct interpretation" of Humpty Dumpty. 

Greater Analogy: Short Notes on a Scientific Lecture

I came across a superior analogy made by Rav Hirsch in his commentary on Chumash [1] on this very topic. He writes. 

The Written Torah is to be to the Oral Torah in the relation of short notes on a full and extensive lecture on any scientific subject. For the student who has heard the whole lecture, short notes are quite sufficient to bring back afresh to his mind at any time the whole content of the lecture. For him, a word, an added mark of interrogation, or exclamation, a dot, the underlining of a word etc. etc., is often quite sufficient to recall to his mind a whole series of thoughts, a remark etc. For those who had not heart he lecture from the Master, such notes would be completely useless. If they were to try to reconstruct the scientific contents of the lecture literally from such notes, they would of necessity make many errors. Words, marks, etc. which serve those scholars who had heard the lecture as instructive guiding stars to the wisdom that had been taught and learnt, stare at the uninitiated as unmeaning sphinxes. The wisdom, the truths, which the initiated reproduce from them (but do not produce out of them) are sneered at by the uninitiated, as being merely a clever or witty play of words and empty dreams without any real foundation. 

To anyone who has received a typical high school or college education, this analogy ought to ring true and provide a familiar intuitive category for understanding the relationship between the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. Of course it would be impossible to reconstruct an entire 90 minute scientific lecture from 10 pages of personal notes in shorthand! Of course the meaning of the underlined phrase or the abbreviated annotation or the parenthetical question mark can only be accurately expounded by the person who heard the lecture and took the notes, and would be cryptic or meaningless to others! Of course it would be ludicrous to treat the notes as the primary document and judge the entire scientific lecture on that basis alone! 

Anyway, I find these two analogies to be helpful in explaining Torah she'baal Peh to the uninitiated, and I hope you will as well. And if you have your own ways of explaining this topic, please share them in the comments!

[1] Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, Commentary on Sefer Shemos 21:1