by Monica Holland
A new category has emerged in our library that we are calling “Lernen.” It encourages us to think about what we’re doing when we study together, and the role Jewish text study plays in Jewish life.
In addition to multiple copies of founding member Barry Holtz’s useful Back to the Sources, two works by social anthropologist Samuel C. Heilman stand out: The People of the Book: Drama, Fellowship, and Religion (1983) and The Gate Behind the Wall: A Pilgrimage to Jerusalem (1984). When Heilman wrote them, text study was the nearly exclusive province of Jewish men and boys. That, of course, has changed, but his insights into the nature of lernen strike me as nonetheless relevant.
People of the Book stems from the author’s involvement with six Talmud learning circles, two in the U.S. that were Modern Orthodox, and four in Israel, of various kinds. Each of these groups initially presented a different aspect or motive for involvement that the author then began to recognize in the other groups. Using his anthropological tool kit, he articulates what he calls “six angles of vision of lernen” that penetrate the groups’ dynamics and explain why they are a mainstay for so many in the Jewish world.
Heilman’s use of the word “drama” in the subtitle tips us off to where he’s going, as he sees the activity in the groups as multilayered performative interaction: “I saw the shiur [Talmud class] as a drama, a performance during which the lerners became swept up in their action and set into motion their entire creative apparatus.” (25)
Four distinct types of drama emerge: (1) social, with established order and boundaries being tested and defended; (2) cultural, in which members engaged in performance of their Jewish identities; (3) game playing, in which participants engaged with the rules of Talmud explication and interrogation; and (4) speech play, in which members explored the interplay of languages used in the texts and in their discussion of them. Heilman identifies two additional draws: (4) fellowship; and (5) the observance of religious obligation.
Notably, all six of his groups were led by a rabbi. Havurat Shalom was founded on the idea of egalitarian learning, so it makes sense that none of our current Talmud study groups has a single leader. This combined with the de-gendered nature of the current lernen environment might alter the analysis in subtle or not-so-subtle ways. All but the first – testing and defending of social boundaries - seem relevant to what goes on in my own chavruse. I’m curious if others recognize Heilman’s elements in their own.
In The Gate Behind the Wall, Heilman draws on many of the experiences discussed in the first book, but he steps out of his role as anthropologist. He gets personal and recounts his sabbatical year in Jerusalem during which he dives into lernen in an attempt to bridge what is for him the uncomfortable gap between his modern Orthodox and scholarly selves. After what seem like a few false starts, he finds a chavruse of souls sufficiently kindred that he can both enter and remain.
The story climaxes with something like his senior project in which he explains in the face of his chavruse the meaning of Rabbi Yochanan’s perplexing statement: “Anyone who grasps the Torah without its mantle will be buried without his mantle.” His interpretation relies on the medieval Tosafot:
...he who does not learn the Oral Tradition will be buried by the dense weight of Scripture... If we listen only to the condensed words of the written Torah, if we do not surround it with the mantle of Oral Tradition, if we do not lern the Gemara, here shall we be buried. We cannot comprehend the full meanings of each verse of the Bible, we cannot fathom its depths without the light of Talmud. Without it we are like the dead; you are as good as buried. That, gentlemen, is what is meant when Rabbi Yochanan says that if we try to grasp the Torah without its mantle we shall be buried without our mantle. (183-84)
The chavruse’s rav takes the point further:
...If you have not put on the mantle of Talmud, you will understand the Scripture as do all other nations; you will be like them. The Talmud, gentlemen, is our Jewishness; it is our mark of distinction, the emblem of our understanding. We do not lern Gemara simply to acquire knowledge; we do it to preserve our Jewish lives. (184)
Listening later to his recordings of the lernen sessions – tapes which could never be erased due to their sacred content – he came to a further realization: “... the social context in which the lernen occurred was in many ways as important as the substance of the study itself, for it was an opportunity for us all to express our solidarity with one another and through them the Jewish people.” (187)
I invite those of you reading this who engage in group Jewish text study to comment on what, if any of this, rings true, what does not, and what meaning it holds for you.
In addition to multiple copies of founding member Barry Holtz’s useful Back to the Sources, two works by social anthropologist Samuel C. Heilman stand out: The People of the Book: Drama, Fellowship, and Religion (1983) and The Gate Behind the Wall: A Pilgrimage to Jerusalem (1984). When Heilman wrote them, text study was the nearly exclusive province of Jewish men and boys. That, of course, has changed, but his insights into the nature of lernen strike me as nonetheless relevant.
People of the Book stems from the author’s involvement with six Talmud learning circles, two in the U.S. that were Modern Orthodox, and four in Israel, of various kinds. Each of these groups initially presented a different aspect or motive for involvement that the author then began to recognize in the other groups. Using his anthropological tool kit, he articulates what he calls “six angles of vision of lernen” that penetrate the groups’ dynamics and explain why they are a mainstay for so many in the Jewish world.
Heilman’s use of the word “drama” in the subtitle tips us off to where he’s going, as he sees the activity in the groups as multilayered performative interaction: “I saw the shiur [Talmud class] as a drama, a performance during which the lerners became swept up in their action and set into motion their entire creative apparatus.” (25)
Four distinct types of drama emerge: (1) social, with established order and boundaries being tested and defended; (2) cultural, in which members engaged in performance of their Jewish identities; (3) game playing, in which participants engaged with the rules of Talmud explication and interrogation; and (4) speech play, in which members explored the interplay of languages used in the texts and in their discussion of them. Heilman identifies two additional draws: (4) fellowship; and (5) the observance of religious obligation.
Notably, all six of his groups were led by a rabbi. Havurat Shalom was founded on the idea of egalitarian learning, so it makes sense that none of our current Talmud study groups has a single leader. This combined with the de-gendered nature of the current lernen environment might alter the analysis in subtle or not-so-subtle ways. All but the first – testing and defending of social boundaries - seem relevant to what goes on in my own chavruse. I’m curious if others recognize Heilman’s elements in their own.
In The Gate Behind the Wall, Heilman draws on many of the experiences discussed in the first book, but he steps out of his role as anthropologist. He gets personal and recounts his sabbatical year in Jerusalem during which he dives into lernen in an attempt to bridge what is for him the uncomfortable gap between his modern Orthodox and scholarly selves. After what seem like a few false starts, he finds a chavruse of souls sufficiently kindred that he can both enter and remain.
The story climaxes with something like his senior project in which he explains in the face of his chavruse the meaning of Rabbi Yochanan’s perplexing statement: “Anyone who grasps the Torah without its mantle will be buried without his mantle.” His interpretation relies on the medieval Tosafot:
...he who does not learn the Oral Tradition will be buried by the dense weight of Scripture... If we listen only to the condensed words of the written Torah, if we do not surround it with the mantle of Oral Tradition, if we do not lern the Gemara, here shall we be buried. We cannot comprehend the full meanings of each verse of the Bible, we cannot fathom its depths without the light of Talmud. Without it we are like the dead; you are as good as buried. That, gentlemen, is what is meant when Rabbi Yochanan says that if we try to grasp the Torah without its mantle we shall be buried without our mantle. (183-84)
The chavruse’s rav takes the point further:
...If you have not put on the mantle of Talmud, you will understand the Scripture as do all other nations; you will be like them. The Talmud, gentlemen, is our Jewishness; it is our mark of distinction, the emblem of our understanding. We do not lern Gemara simply to acquire knowledge; we do it to preserve our Jewish lives. (184)
Listening later to his recordings of the lernen sessions – tapes which could never be erased due to their sacred content – he came to a further realization: “... the social context in which the lernen occurred was in many ways as important as the substance of the study itself, for it was an opportunity for us all to express our solidarity with one another and through them the Jewish people.” (187)
I invite those of you reading this who engage in group Jewish text study to comment on what, if any of this, rings true, what does not, and what meaning it holds for you.
Monica Holland is a long time member of Havurat Shalom
RSS Feed