sermons, divrei torah, and routine
Apr. 25th, 2006 09:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioI gather that rabbis draw a real distinction between a "sermon" and a "d'var torah". My impression, based only on seeing these terms used in the wild, is that a sermon is more formal (in writing and presentation) and, generally, less focused on the text. A d'var torah ("word(s) of torah") is commentary on the text; a sermon might (or might not) use the text as a jumping-off point to talk about something else, and is more likely to involve exhortation of some sort. (I welcome elucidation on all this.)
Most of what gets presented in our Shabbat morning minyan are divrei torah, not sermons, even if I've sometimes used the word "sermon" to describe something I've presented. (I figure that term is more accessible to my non-Jewish readers.) I usually use the text as a starting point but don't focus only on the text; however, I stick pretty close to it most of the time. I do try to give people something to think about in their own lives (I use the word "we" frequently, but not "you"), but the sermon-style call to action feels presumptuous to me for a lay leader.
Actually. the regulars in our group have different styles, which people have commented on to me. One person (who is fluent in Hebrew) tends to talk about subtleties of meaning in the text; another gives a lesson of some sort, maybe based on word meanings or more likely based on connections to other text and historical context. I tend to try to apply the text in some way, making the leap from "what this says" to "what this might mean for us". Another person tends to seek out and summarize commentaries from other sources. We have a variety of divrei torah.
My rabbi -- who, after all, addresses the congregation almost every week -- often gives sermons that are not strongly tied to the parsha. One reason, as I aluded to before, is that the rabbi, being the spiritual leader of a congregation, is in a position to nudge people in particular directions, and people want to hear not just how he reads the text but what he thinks are the important issues for us to be thinking about and applying (text-based or not). Another reason, I suspect, is that it adds variety; if you address the congregation every week for years, both you and they are probably happier if you sometimes do something other than talk about the parsha. But in our Shabbat morning service, where any given person only speaks once every several weeks (and only for a few minutes) and we've only been doing lay presentations for two and a half years, the strong tradition is for a parsha-based d'var torah.
This ramble is prompted by the fact that I've ended up with Tazria-Metzora (the leprosy portion) again, and I haven't a clue what I'm going to talk about yet. The obvious thing to talk about with this portion is lashon hara (hurtful speech), because the rabbis hold that this is the cause for the affliction described in the portion. But I've done that before, more than once, and I'd like to find something else to talk about, while continuing my practice of somehow making it relevant to the listeners.
Most of what gets presented in our Shabbat morning minyan are divrei torah, not sermons, even if I've sometimes used the word "sermon" to describe something I've presented. (I figure that term is more accessible to my non-Jewish readers.) I usually use the text as a starting point but don't focus only on the text; however, I stick pretty close to it most of the time. I do try to give people something to think about in their own lives (I use the word "we" frequently, but not "you"), but the sermon-style call to action feels presumptuous to me for a lay leader.
Actually. the regulars in our group have different styles, which people have commented on to me. One person (who is fluent in Hebrew) tends to talk about subtleties of meaning in the text; another gives a lesson of some sort, maybe based on word meanings or more likely based on connections to other text and historical context. I tend to try to apply the text in some way, making the leap from "what this says" to "what this might mean for us". Another person tends to seek out and summarize commentaries from other sources. We have a variety of divrei torah.
My rabbi -- who, after all, addresses the congregation almost every week -- often gives sermons that are not strongly tied to the parsha. One reason, as I aluded to before, is that the rabbi, being the spiritual leader of a congregation, is in a position to nudge people in particular directions, and people want to hear not just how he reads the text but what he thinks are the important issues for us to be thinking about and applying (text-based or not). Another reason, I suspect, is that it adds variety; if you address the congregation every week for years, both you and they are probably happier if you sometimes do something other than talk about the parsha. But in our Shabbat morning service, where any given person only speaks once every several weeks (and only for a few minutes) and we've only been doing lay presentations for two and a half years, the strong tradition is for a parsha-based d'var torah.
This ramble is prompted by the fact that I've ended up with Tazria-Metzora (the leprosy portion) again, and I haven't a clue what I'm going to talk about yet. The obvious thing to talk about with this portion is lashon hara (hurtful speech), because the rabbis hold that this is the cause for the affliction described in the portion. But I've done that before, more than once, and I'd like to find something else to talk about, while continuing my practice of somehow making it relevant to the listeners.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-04-26 01:08 am (UTC)