![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
In Jewish primary schools, religious education is centred on the study of Torah. At Sinai, according to Jewish tradition, Moses received the Torah in two parts: a written tradition (Hebrew scripture) and an oral tradition. The oral tradition contained much scriptural interpretation known, in Hebrew, as midrash. Midrash continued to be taught and transmitted by the sages throughout the periods of the two temples. At some later stage, unknown editors, in Roman Palestine, recorded these oral interpretations in literary collections that also came to be known as midrash. The interpretations contained in these collections reflect the rabbinic understanding of the Torah, its norms and its values. They are presented as glosses to scripture, sometimes illuminating – and sometimes adding valuative or theological messages to – the Biblical text; all the while seeking to uncover the deeper meanings of scripture. Midrash is thus a rich genre of ancient religious literature with texts that foster a faithful affiliation with Jewish tradition and a sense of Jewish identity. Over the past seven centuries, midrash has been included in Bible lessons (for all age groups) through its use by Rashi (Rabbi Solomon Yizhaki, c. 1040–1105), a widely respected Bible commentator. His extensive use of midrash attests to the understanding that Torah literacy requires midrash literacy. But midrash texts are ancient, subtle and complex, and are, therefore, deserving of a dedicated pedagogy. Because of the distance of time since their writing and the ancient cultural, religious and literary contexts that characterise them, the modern reader needs to learn how to hear these texts speak. Like other genres of rabbinic literature such as the Talmud, midrash requires specific literacy training. This is why I designed a model for teaching midrash as a discrete subject. This paper is an outgrowth of an international research project in religious education undertaken by this author. The aim of the research was to apply and evaluate this author’s model for midrash pedagogy. The rationale for this midrash teaching model stems from the argument that if young students are helped to find meaning in midrash they will acquire a deeper understanding of the traditional view of scripture (as understood by the rabbis) and traditional Jewish values. In the study, significant improvement in midrash knowledge was found with this midrash teaching model.
Notes
1. A gloss on the phrase, after these devarim (things). The rabbis suggest what these devarim may have been.
2. Class size ranged from 16 to 21 students. Participating classes were two Israeli classes, one British class and one American class.
3. Around 30% per class.
4. Because of space considerations, the parables unit is not included in this paper.
5. In these areas, I have built on suggestions for teaching midrash made by Leibowitz (Citation1993), Cohen (Citation1993), Ben Natan (Citation1994), Okashi (Citation1993), Kaunfer (Citation1990 and Citation1992), Deitcher (Citation1990), Gillis (Citation2008) and Frankel (Citation2004).
6. See Section 1 above.
7. See Section 4.1.1, Lucy narrative.
8. In the mini‐course, the narrative element of midrash is illustrated through a commentary on the story of the Binding of Isaac.
9. Its own terms being in relation to the way that the genre of midrash is written, including the cultural and theological assumptions that underlie its texts and language.
10. For an overview of the quantitative data for all participants in the study, please see Appendix 2.
11. Base‐line knowledge levels were provided by her pre‐test questionnaire and interview.
12. This was widespread in the data from all of the participating schools – on all three continents.
13. As in children’s fanciful stories, this point was borne out in the early discussions of the mini‐course.
14. Babylonian Talmud, ed. Romm, Vilna edition 1880–1886 (of which most recent reprints are photocopies).
15. On Rashi’s extensive use of midrash, see Leibowitz and Ahrend (Citation1990, 363–406) and Ahrend (Citation2006, 22–31).
16. Post‐test interview.
17. Also known as the trial of Abraham.
18. Quiz response.
19. Class comment.
20. This is Lucy’s categorisation of specific words in the scriptural verse such as devarim in Genesis 22, 1.
21. In Lucy’s mind, an interpretation is necessary only when scripture is blatantly unclear to her.
22. Interview transcript.
23. On the post‐test questionnaire.
24. Ashton (Citation1993a) cites religious education syllabi in the UK that encourage instruction surrounding the use of symbols in the expression of religious ideas.
25. See Theodor and Albeck, volume 2, p. 588. Translation here is mine.
26. Scores represent the number of students who were aware that midrash includes these characteristics. The last item represents awareness that Rashi’s commentary contains midrash.
27. Total number of pupils = 69.