Teaching and Learning Classic texts Session 1
There are 70 faces to Torah - שבעים פנים לתורה
Are all interpretations of texts equally valid and are all interpretations equally appropriate in a classroom?
Until now discussed interpretation vis-à-vis particular issues ie. gentiles, and with reference to Torah, through the lens of the disagreement between R’ Kotler and R’ Riskin about how we treat the patriarchs in the classroom.
We now begin a new term considering the teaching and learning of classic texts, and specifically how the Jewish interpretive tradition is used to engage and inspire learners.
However, there are challenges in this pursuit.
- How do we teach in a way that is entrenched in the orthodox interpretive tradition, whilst providing opportunities for pupils to hear the text speak to them?
- In fact, is there an orthodox interpretive tradition and if so, does it have boundaries?
- Is an Orthodox school bound by the orthodox interpretive tradition?
- What is the relationship between religious ethos and methods of study?
Beyond these more philosophical discussions, we must discuss pedagogy.
- Do pupils encounter multiple interpretations in other areas of study? If so, how is this managed educationally?
- Is there a difference between how the Jewish interpretive tradition is explored in a Jewish studies classroom, and the way literature is interpreted in an English lesson? If so, how is this expressed through classroom practice?
Finally, we must consider the role of the teacher and how they interact with pupils through the process of teaching and learning classic texts.
- Is the function of a teacher in the Jewish studies classroom a facilitator, editor or interpreter?
- How will the set-up of a classroom possibly differ between an English and Chumash class?
- May a teacher tell a pupil that their interpretation is wrong, and if so, on what basis?
It is hoped that all these questions will be discussed, if not answered, during this term. Tonight we begin by exploring the Jewish interpretive tradition and its effective use in the Jewish studies classroom.
There are 70 faces to Torah - שבעים פנים לתורה
Are all interpretations of texts equally valid and are all interpretations equally appropriate in a classroom?
a. The principle of 70 faces of Torah
מזרק אחד כסף כנגד התורה המשולה ביין שנא(משלי ט)ושתו ביין מסכתי ולפי שדרך היין לשתות במזרק כמה דתימא(עמוס ו)השותים במזרקי יין לכך הביא מזרק, שבעים שקל בשקל הקדש למה כשם שיין חשבונו שבעים כך יש שבעים פנים בתורה
“One silver basin” was brought as a symbol of the Torah which has been likened to wine, as it says “And drink of the wine which I have mingled” (Mishlei 9:5). Now because it is customary to drink wine in a basine, you may gather from the text, “that drink wine in bowls” (Amos 6:6) – he on that account, brought a basin. “Of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary” (Bamidbar 7:19). Why? As the numerical value of yayin (wine) is seventy, so there are seventy modes of expounding the Torah.
Bamidbar Rabba 13:15
b. The boundaries of 70 faces of Torah
דע כי רשות לנו נתונה לפרש משמעות הכתובים בנתיבות העיון ויישוב הדעת הגם שקדמונו ראשונים ויישבו באופן אחר כי ע' פנים לתורה ואין אנו מוזהרים שלא לנטות מדברי הראשונים אלא בפירושים שישתנה הדין לפיהן, ולזה תמצא שהאמוראים אין כח בהם לחלוק על התנאים במשפטי ה' אבל ביישוב הכתובים ובמשמעותן מצינו להם בכמה מקומות שיפרשו באופן אחר
You should know that we have permission to explain the implication of the verses after careful study – even though our conclusions differ from the explanation of our Sages. That is because there are 70 faces to the Torah. There is no prohibition against differing from the words of our Sages except if it changes the Halacha. Similarly, we find that even though the Amoraim did not have the right to disagree with the Tannaim in halachic matters – but we find that they offered alternative explanations to verses.
Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar (1696-1743), Or HaChayim Bereishit 1:1
Relativism is the proposition that because there are many kinds of “things” or points of view, and each has an equal right to be heard and advocated in a democratic society, they are therefore necessarily equally valid. If pluralism is just the newest name for that kind of discredited ethical or religious relativism, it is not deserving of our attention.
My conception of pluralism in the Jewish religious community can best be summed up by reference to a famous dictum in the Jewish tradition – that there are shivim panim laTorah, there are 70 faces or facets to Torah. No one is more valuable or significant or legitimate than the other 69. Judaism is not monolithic. However – there are only 70 and not an infinite number of such faces or facets. A pluralism that accepts everything as co-legitimate as not pluralism, but the kind of relativism that leads to spiritual nihilism. If everything is kosher, nothing is kosher. If “Torah” has an infinite number of faces, then it is faceless and without value or significance.
Orthodox Jews are fully aware of the Talmud’s comment on the disputes between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai, that “both these and those are the words of the living God.”
Unfortunately, this profound statement has been abused and turned into a slogan by ignoring the fact that the controversialists were at one in their commitment to the Halakha and its divine origin, and disagreed only on its interpretation with regard to very specific matters. The dictum implies a pluralism within the halakhic context – only. It simply cannot be stretched to cover all “interpretations of Judaism” as co-legitimate.
Rabbi Dr Norman Lamm, Seventy Faces Vol. 1 p. 136
c. Why present many faces of Torah?
Why did many Rishonim strive to follow a different understanding than the true explanation given by our Sages? We find such tendencies in the commentary of the Rashbam, Ibn Ezra and other Rishonim. What is the purpose of offering explanations which differ from the definitive true ones? I think that they offer these alternative explanations for the sake of the confused people. In other words, these Rishonim want to show that there are many different aspects even in the simple understanding of the verses and that it is permissible for a person to create new interpretations according to what makes sense to him.
Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler (1892-1953), Michtav M’Eliyahu Vol. 4 p. 355
Proper regard for scholars consists of studying in depth what they have written. Rashi, who was modest enough to say “I don’t know” would certainly have approved if through studying and analysing his words students might, at times, come to prefer the explanation of his grandson (Rashbam) or even to agree with his critic, Ramban. If granting students “the right to vote” vis-à-vis the commentators strengthens their degree of attachment to Tanakh, which I am certain it will, the scholars receive no greater respect than to have the Torah brought closer to its students as a direct result of what they wrote. The essential thing is that they should study Torah from all angles, search it out, choose interpretations and reject interpretations – provide that they engage in Torah out of love.
Nechama Leibowitz (1905-1997), Torah Insights p. 161
There are 70 faces to Torah - שבעים פנים לתורה
Are all interpretations of texts equally valid and are all interpretations equally appropriate in a classroom?
Essay titles for this session:
- Is an Orthodox school only permitted to use orthodox interpretations?
- The more interpretations the more confusion. How can effective learning take place in a classroom of ‘many voices’?