![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
meta: conducting torah study (etc)
(I am being deliberately vague about the specifics of this recent session, for reasons I can't explain right now. I would not normally discuss a class in detail without crediting the instructor.)
The class was for a group of about 20 adults, in a one-hour time slot, in a chapel. The instructor began by writing the essential words of the blessing for torah study on a portable whiteboard (on the theory that there might be people present who don't know it, and she wanted everyone to be able to participate). She then led the group in saying that blessing, erased the board, and introduced the subject for the class, which was about Purim.
She asked us to think about contrasts (or opposites) in the book of Esther, and suggested Mordechai and Haman as an obvious example. (She wrote these on the board as people suggested them.) After a pause someone suggested the difference between hiding one's Jewishness and revealing it. A high-school student suggested a contrast between Esther and Vashti but seemed to be floundering a bit; the teacher did a good job of gently guiding him to elaborate. I suggested the contrast between the Jews being threatened and then doing the threatening (attacking). Other suggestions were God's presence (through the miracle) and absence (in the text), love and hate, Mordechai's wisdom versus Ahashaverus's, err, pliability (the word suggested was "doltitude" :-) ), and several others I'm now forgetting.
The teacher then distributed some handouts: a passage from the S'fat Emet (this was the main focus), a supporting document for that, and a page of five questions/topics for discussion. She gave a short description of who the S'fat Emet was, to put the discussion in some sort of context. One at a time we read through the three or four paragraphs of the commentary, stopping to discuss each one: what was the p'shat (plain meaning), and what contrast or division suggested itself from that text? From this discussion we added two items to the list on the board. The first was the contrast between merit and mercy (I think we used a word other than mercy); the S'fat Emet's contention is that the Jews did not merit being saved but, in mercy and love, God saved them anyway. The second arose when we talked about Purim versus Yom Ha-Kippurim (Yom Kippur); Yom Kippur is very personal (my atonement), while Purim is all about a national event.
During the discussion of merit I raised a point that the S'fat Emet seemed to be saying not only that the Jews didn't have merit, but that God had actually judged against them. (The phrase "divine judgment" was used.) The teacher tried to brush that off, missing the "divine" I was referring to and talking about the judgment of the king. Another student followed up, pointing out the exact passage, and she stopped, thought a moment, and said she hadn't considered it from that angle and she would like to do some research and follow up, if that student would share an email address. (I plan to nose into this conversation later, too.) She then returned to the commentary (and people let her). Lesson learned: class discussions sometimes don't go where you planned, and you need to know how to both respond and get back on your original track.
This all occupied about the first 30 to 35 minutes of the hour. She then asked us to break into small groups (of two or three) to discuss the remaining questions on that last handout for about 10 minutes, and then she would invite each group to share anything it wanted to share. (Or to not share at all, if that was their preference.) Physically this worked fine even though we were in a chapel with (non-movable) pews; people could turn to talk, a couple people got up and moved to other pews, and everything was fine. During this part of the class I noticed that the teacher unobtrusively stood or sat near each group for a couple minutes, listening in without intruding.
Our group focused mainly on the differences between Yom Kippur (personal redemption) and Purim (national redemption). I pointed out that Purim is so impersonal to many of us because we view it as about "those Jews in Shushan", not about us. I then pointed out that we have a holiday that personalizes a national event; at Pesach we remember the exodus from Egypt but we are commanded to see it as if we had been personally rescued from Egypt. National and personal wound up together. (As an aside, I went to several Pesach seders before I was a Jew and had difficulty saying "we" because they clearly didn't mean me. I knew I was ready when I said "we" without thinking about it and then realized I meant it.)
Another member of my group (of three) said that we focus on Yom Kippur
each year (everybody goes), while many adults don't have a
meaningful Purim experience because we've made it all about the kids.
So that's another thing that distances us from it; not only is it not
personal, but it's not adult. She spoke as if this was universally the
case, and I pointed out that that might be the norm in some communities
(including ours) but that it was quite possible to do otherwise, and I
described the experience I had with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
osewalrus,
beckyfeld, estherchaya, and sethcohen
last year, including the Purim Torah, the singing, and the general
festivity level. This seemed to catch her interest, so maybe, just
maybe, I've planted a seed. We'll see.
(We got a little afield of the assigned questions, but we weren't the only ones and the teacher didn't seem surprised or bothered by this.)
After about 12 minutes she asked groups to wrap up, and a minute or so later we got back together. She said she had heard quite a range of ideas in the discussions, and each group save one reported on its discussion.
She then spoke to a few of the points the groups brought up. Of personal interest, she talked about how, as a child, she was happy when she had been deemed old enough to go to the "adult" Purim gathering, and she began to get an appreciation for the parts of the story people dumb down for kids. (She also described the party as quite raunchy.) Many congregations only have one thing so, by default, it's aimed at the kids; this is another model.
Ok, a few observations on technique:
- She started with something participatory, and later had a different kind of participatory activity. People who are too timid to speak up in the larger group might speak up in the smaller one. So everyone has a chance.
- She subtly shifted what was on the whiteboard; the list she asked us to supply was about contrasts within the Purim story, and the two she added from the discussion of the commentary were external. This guarantees that she'll actually be able to add those two points to the board; they won't have already been suggested. I don't know if she did that consciously, but it struck me as clever.
- She did not actually reveal anything about what she believes; she focused the class on us. (I would have liked to hear a bit more of her own perspective, actually, but sometimes it's better to focus it the way she did.)
- I've seen small-group discussions flounder; she provided enough seeds for discussion that no one had that problem.
- Handouts. Handouts are good; they give people something to take away. She offered to collect any that people didn't want (for future re-use) but said she was happy for people to take them away.
- I didn't feel pushed in the large-group discussion, but it was clear after the fact where she wanted to end up. I don't know how much of that is choice of materials (keeping the commentary tight enough), how much is preparation (maybe word choice, etc subtly steers a conversation), and how much is luck.