i would just like to draw people's attention to the following discussion about Reforms in the Traditional Talmud Curriculum. While I have not finished reading the proceedings from this discussion, I would just like to relate an experience I had today teaching.

While teaching about Rashi's approach to commenting on Gemara, one of my students pointed out how Gemara cannot be analyzed through the eyes of a grammarian because it lacks the editing that most essays go through before publishing. As most know, the Gemara is a compilation of various discussions had, or assumed to have been had, by the Amoraim. However, most of us don't seem to know the basic structure of the text. As a student of Rabbi Wieder, one of the things he tries to impress upon us is that the Rishonim, when discussing the text, were often aware of the structural problems that are faced.

Therefore, as my students and I were discussing this issue, I realized that it would only be appropriate to quickly orient them to how each sugya is comprised. In other words, many sugyot are a conglomerate of Tannaitic and Amoraic statements, interspersed with comments from either Ravina/Rav Ashi or from some anonymous editor (Saboraim). While many educators will not agree, I think that one of the many problems the students of today face is their lack of understanding of the Gemara's structure. I do grant that if one is working from a purely analytic model of teaching, the text's structure might be secondary, but, as the ATID discussion indicates, such analytic teaching is not enough for many of the today's youth.