Welcome to the Nishma Insight Discussion Forum blog.
The NISHMA INSIGHT is our popular dvar Torah, distributed almost every week by e-mail, that touches upon an important concept in the Parsha, theme in a holiday or event in contemporary society.
Often, readers respond, via e-mail, with comments that initiate a further dialogue. Through this Discussion Forum, we now wish to open this dialogue to others. If you have a comment on the INSIGHT, we invite you place to your comments here; then we invite everyone to join the discussion.
(If you are not receiving the NISHMA INSIGHT, we invite you join our mailing/e-mail list through completing our sign-up form available at our website.)
IMHO, the reason for the difference in order is a difference in focus. In Ve'ahavta, the reason to teach one's children is "vedibarta bam" (and you shall be talking about them), the value for the parent. In Vehayah, it's "ledaber bam", teaching the children to speak about them.
Both sequences follow the basic pattern of most internal to radiating outwards, a pattern already set by "bekhol levavekha, bekhol nafshekha uvkhol me'odekha".
The question then is why they differ in focus on teaching. I think it's related to Shema being personal and in the singular, whereas Vehayah is national and written in the plural. Shema thus addresses the personal experience of sharing with one's children, wheras Vehayah im shamoa addresses the national continuity.
You are making a most interesting point. It would seem that you are inherently defining two forms of education. One is when the teacher is basically involved in study and then this study overflows to others. The other is when the teacher is focused on the other, the student, and the goal is the transfer of knowledge. Indeed, on the personal level, the former is the better -- and is really the structure of the closest rebbi-talmid relationships. On the more communal level, though, in the formal classroom, a focus may have to exist on the second level.
The question now becomes, though, why tefillin must precede study in the second model while it follows study in the first model. It may be that on the personal level, passion can fully ensue from the dynamics of that learning leading to passion in action. On the communal level, there has to be a passion that precedes the learning. I am not sure of this conclusion, though.
I think the sequence is describing Love of G-d outward: all your soul, all your heart, and all your resources.
When the focus is teaching in order for the teacher to be discussing Torah, then that is closer to the self than tefillin: teaching, tefillin, mezuzah.
When the focus is on students learning, then one's body is closer: tefillin, teaching, mezuzah.
I am not saying there are two kinds of teacher, as much as two aspects to teaching. Ve'ahavta, in the singular, looks at the subjective experience. Vehayah, which is written to the Jewish people in the plural, looks at the community's need to perpetuate the teachings to the next generation.
The way I would understand what you are suggesting is in terms of motivation. The motivation, or energy or passion, of a teacher must emerge from the teaching itself. This is the motivation to give over. The motivation of the student is different, though; it is the motivation to receive. This cannot begin with the education matter per se but must precede the education matrix. A person has to want to know Torah and this motivation emerges from another desire. It may be that establishing Torah within the context of the being or the guf must then come first. Interesting idea, yasher koach.
Nishma Insights are sent regularly to subscribers either by email or by mail. Selected Insights are also available at the Nishma Website through the Insight index.
IMHO, the reason for the difference in order is a difference in focus. In Ve'ahavta, the reason to teach one's children is "vedibarta bam" (and you shall be talking about them), the value for the parent. In Vehayah, it's "ledaber bam", teaching the children to speak about them.
ReplyDeleteBoth sequences follow the basic pattern of most internal to radiating outwards, a pattern already set by "bekhol levavekha, bekhol nafshekha uvkhol me'odekha".
The question then is why they differ in focus on teaching. I think it's related to Shema being personal and in the singular, whereas Vehayah is national and written in the plural. Shema thus addresses the personal experience of sharing with one's children, wheras Vehayah im shamoa addresses the national continuity.
You are making a most interesting point. It would seem that you are inherently defining two forms of education. One is when the teacher is basically involved in study and then this study overflows to others. The other is when the teacher is focused on the other, the student, and the goal is the transfer of knowledge. Indeed, on the personal level, the former is the better -- and is really the structure of the closest rebbi-talmid relationships. On the more communal level, though, in the formal classroom, a focus may have to exist on the second level.
ReplyDeleteThe question now becomes, though, why tefillin must precede study in the second model while it follows study in the first model. It may be that on the personal level, passion can fully ensue from the dynamics of that learning leading to passion in action. On the communal level, there has to be a passion that precedes the learning. I am not sure of this conclusion, though.
I think the sequence is describing Love of G-d outward: all your soul, all your heart, and all your resources.
ReplyDeleteWhen the focus is teaching in order for the teacher to be discussing Torah, then that is closer to the self than tefillin: teaching, tefillin, mezuzah.
When the focus is on students learning, then one's body is closer: tefillin, teaching, mezuzah.
I am not saying there are two kinds of teacher, as much as two aspects to teaching. Ve'ahavta, in the singular, looks at the subjective experience. Vehayah, which is written to the Jewish people in the plural, looks at the community's need to perpetuate the teachings to the next generation.
ReplyDeleteThe way I would understand what you are suggesting is in terms of motivation. The motivation, or energy or passion, of a teacher must emerge from the teaching itself. This is the motivation to give over. The motivation of the student is different, though; it is the motivation to receive. This cannot begin with the education matter per se but must precede the education matrix. A person has to want to know Torah and this motivation emerges from another desire. It may be that establishing Torah within the context of the being or the guf must then come first. Interesting idea, yasher koach.
ReplyDelete