When someone says "you don't know how to learn" what they really mean is that you don't know how to interpret chazal in a way that supports the present charedi way of life!
Slifkin had a piece once about Lashon Hara, from some professor, and why it's muttar (or muttar at least where Slifkin wants it to be muttar) - I kid you not.
He ignores like every posek that ever existed, including the Chofetz Chaim who is respected worldwide as a leader on the topic.
Intellectual honesty is the LEAST of his concerns.
Yeah, "Now, the first observation to be made here is that Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan's "Laws" of lashon hara are not "laws" in the same sense as the laws of Shabbos found in the Shulchan Aruch."
There are so many things wrong with that sentence.
As is this one from Brown:
"We are not referring here to a duty to commit a concrete action, but we are talking about a duty to aspire"
He thinks lashon hara is not a duty to concrete action. Maybe he also thinks the Ten Commandments are the "ten suggestions"? Pretty good example of academics not knowing how to learn, or even just ignorance of basic זיל קרי בי רב concepts. Not that they can't analyze text, but when you have no connection to the Bais Medrash, no connection to the Mesorah, when you have a fundamentally unserious approach to the Torah, this is how you will "analyze" it.
That is low. Did you take this quote from page 181 lines 3-4 in the linked article???
“As is this one from Brown:
‘We are not referring here to a duty to commit a concrete action, but we are talking about a duty to aspire’”
You must know you took that quote COMPLETELY out of context. Brown was NOT at all discussing Lashon Hara in that quotation. He was referring to an idea of a different writer, “Fuller” who was speaking about the difference, much more generally, between duties and aspirations. But Brown actually adds more “chumra” pointing out that in either case it’s a duty… either a duty to act or a duty to aspire. Even the aspiration is not purely voluntary.
That’s pretty bad that you would do that. Complete intellectual dishonesty.
I haven’t read the entire article carefully, so If you took that quote from elsewhere in the article where Brown is discussing Lashon Hara, then I will apologize to you. Let me know.
Jeffrey, you should know that the entire *context* of the paper is lashon hara. And more perniciously, the entire *context* is to minimize the prohibition of lashon hara, as befits an academic "halachic" paper. But here he says the same thing about lashon hara explicitly:
Page 192
"Indeed, the prohibition ‘‘Thou shalt not go as a talebearer among thy people’’ (Lev 19:16)45 was clearly considered a binding norm, but apparently it was conceived throughout the generations as a ‘‘duty to aspire,’’ and not as a duty that can be articulated in concrete actions."
So after all the weasely obfuscation, the author really thinks that the prohibition of lashon hara is not a concrete action. Thanks for your pre-emptive apology. But why are you only worried (mistakenly) about my intellectual dishonesty and not Natan's very blatant dishonesty, constantly on display here?
You posit an opinion but present, neither a case, reference, or general idea of what this is concerning. When that happens, there is a saying, "If you won't/can't site a source, it didn't happen." In fact, your post is more loshon hara than anything that you've presented about your story.
Indeed. Accusing an opponent of "not knowing how to learn" is an attempt to discredit some1 without having the burden of proving him wrong. It is usually a veneer for a contest of who can scream louder with less restraint. "U say I do not know how to learn? Why, on the contrary, it is YOU who does not know how to learn." Tiresome nonsense amounting to less than nothing.
Well, you are right. Although the present chareidi way of life is not a monolith, and there are different approaches, some more correct than others, they are are all infinitely more faithful to the Chazal than the secularist approach (which is the mainstream of LW MO) of general disregard for Torah, Mitzvos, and Avodas Hashem. One of the most obvious modern-day manifestations is their support of homosexuality, but this is just the *tip* of the a much bigger iceberg.
I think there’s more to the story than you think there is. The word משכבי is used twice in the Torah and is translated differently in each instance. Judaism and the Gays: Part 1 - Dealing with Mishcav Zachar - Sefaria https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/83346
Never thought I'd see "OJ" Rabbis justifying gay lifestyle and such. I can understand some of the rhetoric coming from some of RNS critics. I did not know these "OJ" Rabbis have gone that far. I can see Reform and perhaps Conservative Rabbis justifying, but not OJ. Unheard of when I was growing up. ACJA
thanks for those links. Although you linked to the Eshel article, and noted it as R. Riskin, it was written (seemingly) by R. Steve Greenberg; and he quotes not just R. Riskin, but also R. Norman Lamm, R. Berkovitz, Chazal, Tosfot, R. Meshulam Roth, and others.
How do you know that some Chareidi approaches are more correct than others? Perhaps they’re all wrong. And as for they being more faithful to Chazal than the secularist approach, that’s just your opinion and one whose methodology is as cogent as belief in the Sumerian gods that could bring good health and wealth, or could bring illness and disasters.
This post, as many others, provide much mirth in my life.
It is like a native Tamil speaker pontificating, with absolute authority, over an Aztec idiom found in an archaeological dig in Siberia.
Your understanding of Brisk, the Chazon Ish, 'knowing how to learn' and actual learning, are pitiful.
Knowing how to learn means 'knowing the unwritten rules of the halachic process - what is considered an inference and what is considered a stronger proof. Which opinions are viewed greater than others and when, how to decide between shitos, how to compare one Halacha to another, and most of all - the rules of Torah logic'.
Brisk is one small part of it, and not too relevant.
"What I am saying is that not much is actually required for analyzing texts; it’s just clear thinking, breadth of knowledge (in order to establish the context in which the text was written), and, most of all, intellectual honesty."
What may be the most important ingredient is missing from this list: Many years of intense learning the texts to get a feel for their nuances and subtleties. All of the above criteria won't do much good without that. (I once heard that R' Shaul Leiberman said that any professor of Talmud that didn't study in a yeshiva was lacking for this reason.)
Whether סברות are valid or not is not dependent on who said them. Rather, it depends on what is being said.
My experience of talking with Rav Asher Weiss and Rav Shraga Feivel Zimmerman is that it doesn't matter who you are or what your learning experiences are, but rather what you are saying. I've never been asked by them to provide my résumé before asking them a question or making a הערה.
I am not comparing myself to Rav Asher Weiss for even one nanosecond. My point is that מכל מלמדי השכלתי means that if one makes a comment to one of the גדולי הפוסקים and he agrees with it, and he is intellectually honest, he will consider the הערה on its own merits, rather than looking to see who makes the הערה.
The context of my הערה to him was in a שיעור he gave around 2 years ago, in which he was not able to reconcile a difference of opinion between 2 Rambams. One was in משנה תורה and the other was in ספר המצוות.
When I spoke to him on the phone about this difference, I explained that the focus of ספר המצוות was to enumerate the 613 מצוות, rather as a halachic ספר.
The Rambam explains in his הקדמה to ספר המצוות, that the reason that he is writing the ספר, is because some people have listed the 613 מצוות before and made a complete hash of it. In fact he gets quite angry in the הקדמה and says that these people are not חכמים but משוררים.
So, one can conclude that the ספר המצוות has less validity halachicly than משנה תורה. Rav Weiss liked this and said that this justifies his assertion that the opinion in the משנה תורה is the right one.
I was then proud to see that he added this comment in the last 2 lines of the pdf of his Shiur 2 days later.
Of course anyone is able to suggest any claim and it should be judged on it’s own merits. The discussion at hand is who is qualified to weigh the various considerations of the said claim and pronounce judgment on it.
Unfortunately, it also depends on having gone through the סוגיא.
Many are of the view that learning is an end in itself; we all quote
ותלמוד תורה כנגד כולם
But this is probably wrongly interpreted. This phrase and a discussion about what is the purpose of learning is dealt with extensively in a ספר called "Rationalism vs. Mysticism" in Part 1, Section V.
Sorry, I can't remember who the author is, but it is well worth a read.
My experience of many ראשי ישיבות is that their knowledge is quite limited once one moves away from the classic Yeshiva מסכתות into other areas, e.g. practical הלכה, other than simply knowing what to do and what not to do. Beyond that, their knowledge is rather limited. So, they do not have experience of seeing הלכה in all its richness.
This means that everything else, apart from learning, has to play second fiddle 🎻. But this prioritisation is not borne out in many areas of הלכה.
This is not a new phenomenon, see for example the ספר called יסוד מורא וסוד תורה written by the אבן עזרא when he was in London in 1158. In it, he suggests that only those who intend to judge others needs to learn many parts of סדר נזיקין. And the focus of learning for all of us is for the purpose of knowing what to do.
He also requires that one needs to learn the Sciences. But mentioning that might be a step too far when discussing this topic with your ראשי ישיבות.
"The Ibn Ezra" - Well he wasn't too yeshivish in some of what he says. Bit of a problem that he is accepted rishon. Maybe a dodgy talmid of his stuck some things in. Or he was 'chozer b'sof yomov'. Two yeshivish terutzmim happy and mecharker will happily tell you.
In the Moetzes of Agudath Israel model, it's early leaders were proficient all over including Halacha. They appointed their successors who were and aren't as great as they. Because the 'half cup full' was all that was needed for this leadership. The understanding is that they still outshine the wannabe competition.
Re the Ibn Ezra & science, today a high school grad has more science knowledge than was available in Ibn Ezra's time.
We are supposed to quote "in the name of X" not because that makes the argument correct - but instead to give credit where it is due. It is an important distinction that is often lost.
Anyone can get things wrong. And anyone can get things right. The quality of the argument, not the identity of the arguer, is ultimately what matters.
“Anyone can get things wrong. And anyone can get things right.”
True, but the operative word Thierry is “can”. However, education and experience etc (or lack thereof) often lead to greater likelihood that some people will get things wrong and other people will get things right.
“The quality of the argument, not the identity of the arguer, is ultimately what matters.”
This should be true, in theory, but whether it actually is in practice is open to debate.
No, it's not that. The sad situation in Torah learning in the frum world is that decades of self isolation, contempt for critical thinking, and academic approaches, and an excessive adherence to religious axioms of Torah study from prior generations (such as the belief that all statements can be reconciled, or the need to prove all 'heroes' to be infallible), have rendered the level of Torah study to be of a relatively low level, a type of puzzle solving, creating solutions to problems that don't really exist or banal answers to questions that noone in prior generations considered worth asking.
R. Slifkin is correct in that he advocates a learning technique that is honest, context based, open to critique, and genuinely truth seeking as opposed to being centered around ideological defense.
And he didn't denigrate the value of experts. Nor did he say you can't challenge experts. What he said was that being an expert in, for example, the brisk Derek's isn't necessarily going to help you gain a better understanding of the meaning of Torah. If you spend years creating an institution that is committed to the concept to seeing the world in certain way, create a cadre of experts and students who follow that perspective and then it turns out that, because you didn't keep up with current broader knowledge, your concept is wrong, then all you have is an expert in something that is wrong.
That is not the topic under discussion, though. If Slifkin wants to be both a religious Jew and genuflect at the alter of academia, he is left with serious contradictions in his worldview.
Traditional method of Torah study- treats Torah like the holy words of the Living God, the most important thing in the world
Academic method of "Torah study"- treats Torah like a collection of interesting historical texts
This is why Natan thinks that for learning, "not much is actually required for analyzing texts". But one thing he is definitely not, and that is open to critique.
The academic method is not honest or context based, because the entire context of Torah is the holy words of the Living God, which it ignores.
Is trying to 'work out peshat' in a tosfos the most important thing in the world - when the problem is due to a girshoh problem. Sometime tosfos harosh says exactly the same thing, but adds a few words that clarify a lot. If you understand that for hundreds of years tosfos was copied out word by word by hand, can one accept that the odd word got lost? Or maybe one should say 'tosfos harosh is not tosfos' and carry on trying to work tosfos out.
Is it apirkosus to state that rashi, studing by candlelight persecuted by the crusases, writing by hand etc etc, may have produced 'a stirah in rashi' quite by accident. Something called human error? Or do we believe that Rashi was a superman and quite above human error. What about his obviously incorrect explanations of female anatomy in niddoh ("moshlo moshol"- apikorsus to point it out, or maybe the yeshivish 'nishetana hatevah' is prefered? Nishtenah from the period of rashi. Not all that long ago, relatively speaking.
Looks like you didn't have a good yeshiva experience. Sorry. Do you still say Shema and put on Tefillin every day? I've been in different yeshivas with very different styles of learning and enjoyed and appreciated all of them to various extents.
Sometimes there is an error or an irresolvable stirah, but more often than not, it is our understanding that is lacking. Traditional assumption is that Torah is infinitely deep and requires endless toil to understand. Academic method assumes Torah is just a collection of historical texts that are not very deep at all.
"Traditional assumption is that Torah is infinitely deep and requires endless toil to understand." That is not at all the traditional assumption about the Rishonim.
Sure thing. When was the last time rabbeinu tam tried to defend his grandfather with 'endeless toil to understand'. He writes Zeide was wrong and this is my peshat. Amazingly enough rabbeinu tam was not banned. You don't find rishonim toiling to understand each other at all.
So why can't a rosh yeshivah today, however chareidi and learned, say, like tosfos on rashi, Rishon X was wrong? What's changed? Why? When did it change?
Such am ha'aratzus I cannot bear. Did you ever wonder why Tosafos often disputes Rashi, but not Tannaim and Amoraim? Did you ever wonder why even the Shach, who does sometimes argue with Rishonim, spends 99% of his time and thousands of pages trying to explain them?
-yeshivish answer- they could say it because their torah and intellectual level was unimaginable to us. There were rishonim who went out of their way to defend other rishonim ( ramban in milchamos to defend the rif ) . It's seems kind of foolish to think a ten line tosafos which quotes and argues with a rashi was the entire shiur given in rabeinu tams yeshiva. It's the kind of assumption someone who doesn't know how to learn would make.
Sure thing. When was the last time rabbeinu tam tried to defend his grandfather with 'endeless toil to understand'. He writes Zeide was wrong and this is my peshat. Amazingly enough rabbeinu tam was not banned. You don't find rishonim toiling to understand each other at all.
So why can't a rosh yeshivah today, however chareidi and learned, say, like tosfos on rashi, Rishon X was wrong? What's changed? Why? When did it change?
The zilzul in Torah of that school of thought is terrible. Because Torah is considered unimportant, any shmendrik can come to an opinion without spending too much time or effort.
Wow, you really do like swimming in a pool of sharks and piranhas.
Yes, I know that sharks are only found in ocean habitats, and piranhas are only found in freshwater locations. That's why I wrote "in a pool", which means this is a man-made location.
Wishing you הצלחה רבה in your heroic challenges that you set yourself. Let's just hope that the sharks eat the piranhas, or vice versa.
Thanks (facetious) for a textbook example of how a moshol can be less enlightening than the nimshal. General rule: when a moshol requires u to provide background info, the nimshal was easier.
That your intent was facetious could have been derived by the “background info”. General Rule: when people are commenting on a blog, their words are off the cuff, and this is ok.
Even off the cuff, why does any1 need explanatory analogies when the concept is easy enough to understand? What understanding is added by comparing a difficult situation to a tankful of man-eating fish?
Wow, Natan, three posts in a row! You should start calling this blog "The Mecharker Challenge"!
The line "not much is actually required for analyzing texts" is a tell-tale giveaway that one doesn't know how to learn. Learning is so much more than analyzing texts. (And there is no need to mention your self-evidently ridiculous line about the Rambam and Rav Chaim). "Breadth of knowledge" would unfortunately not include you, if referring to Torah knowledge. "Intellectual honesty" would exclude somebody who can't admit that he was wrong about the Tashbetz only referring to community rabbis. You are simply not in a position to lecture anybody about intellectual honesty.
However, your real issue is not simply that you don't "know how to learn", it's that you you don't know how to *read*. Whether the Tashbetz, or a letter from Rav Feldman, or anything else, you show that failing every opportunity you have.
Actually, what I meant when I said you don't know how to learn is that you simply don't know how to learn. You attempted to use a pseudo-halachic approach that included a short biography of the Tashbetz and your own conjecturing to NEGATE WHAT THE SOURCES ACTUALLY SAY. You didn't really do any research on that aspect and seem to be incapable or unwilling to do so, so I will share with your reader an excerpt from a sefer where the mechaber ACTUALLY read through the Tashbetz carefully and went through all the poskim over the centuries to distill their opinions. THAT is what is considered KNOWING HOW TO LEARN. It's possible that the author has his slant, but at least he is not fabricating things out of thin air!
Natan, we're getting down to the wire here and I'm still winning you 77%-23%! Maybe your good friend Avigdor Lieberman can use his Russian connections to steal the election?
יישר כוחך for providing a substantial input to this discussion with the document you attached to your comment.
You then go on to state:
"... an excerpt from a sefer where the mechaber ACTUALLY read through the Tashbetz carefully and went through all the poskim over the centuries to distill their opinions."
But having read this document (24 pages), please can you tell us the point you are trying to make from that document in relation to this discussion, or at least in relation to the blog about Duran Duran, a few days ago.
Richie, actually I've provided a lot of substantial material in the comments of the Defying Chazal post. I was originally planning on writing an extensive rebuttal on Duran Duran but someone who's been following Natan for many years advised me against it because it's not like the truth really matters to him anyways. But since you seem to sincerely want to see something, and you profess to have intellectual honesty, maybe I will try to carve out time from my schedule to do it.
I am reminded of an exchange I had with a Charedi "wannabe" Rav some time ago (He is a Rav, the "wannabe" refers to the Charedi bit. He desperately wants to be one, but, due to his institutional affiliation and personal nature, just isn't often seen that way.)
I lamented the recent loss of Rav Adin Steinsalz and mentioned how influential his modern elucidation of the Talmud was and that it prompted the creation of the more Yeshivish Artscroll version. He responded that R' Steinsalz wasn't actually a talmid chacham - why, he didn't even explain certain passages the way R' Chaim (Brisker, not Kanievsky) did!
He was saying that R' Steinsalz "didn't know how to learn" because he didn't spout the Yeshivah line.
I've only used stiensalz on rare occasions however I went through some critical articles on his work from chareidi rabbanim( I think r aharon Feldman? Its been a while..) in my recollection the mistakes would happen to anyone writing a pirush on the whole shas and were a small handful ( i think one writer found 2-3!) Seems like partisan politics to a poshute yid.
In שו״ת שרידי אש Rav YY Weinberg criticizes the Brisk style of learning for the same reasons as this post. (Don’t have the Sefer in my house to find exact location)
I'm the guy your post responds to. To describe "knowing how to learn" is like asking how much it costs to stay in the King David: If you have to ask, its too much. And so too, if you need "knowing how to learn" explained to you, you don't understand it.
Knowing how to learn at its most basic level means Gemara, and, in some circles, lomdus. Men as disparate as the Malbim and R. Berel Wein put out seforim on Gemara before they engaged in their Tanach projects, so they'd have credibility. Now, the booklet you append to the post is hardly the אורחות חיים or עיונים בתלמוד, and it definitely looks questionable with an early 1998 publication date, yet still referring to yourself as Natan and zoobabbi. The academics might have fun with that. But its helpful, its helpful. I would encourage you to do more, and put it out there.
In the end, though, I don't think it will really change anything, because knowing how to learn is ALSO (not exclusively, as you claim) an ethos. No matter what you do, you'll never be part of the club. I can understand why that's maddening or even hurtful. One comes from a small town, is excited to finally get to what he thinks (mistakenly) is the big leagues, and tries to dress like them and think like them and be like them - only to realize he'll never be part of them. The correct way to deal with it is not to lash out and try at every turn to insult the club or knock them down. Its a useless effort, and just makes you look small. No, the way to handle it is to be like the Sneetches. Stop focusing on their club, and start focusing on your own. In your case, you've now glommed onto religious Zionism. OK, so tell us why you think its so good. Why you think its the best club to join. I think that will be helpful to your readers, and probably also to yourself.
I tried to be gentle above but I want to be a little softer still: You are a very accomplished person, you've done a lot and IYH will continue to do a lot (beginning with Vol. II of the encyclopedia.) I just think you haven't yet found closure on an earlier chapter in your life, and you need to move on. Don't be something you're not and, I hope you finally realize, never were. Lay off the Charedim, its had zero impact and only wasted your time. Stick to your strengths, and you'll be fine.
I agree with the core of this: attacking other people is not helpful or productive. It persuades nobody who is not already persuaded, and it alienates new people.
For my part, the entire concept of having a"club" and an ethos you share with others is small-mindedness. Either you can think for yourself, or you cannot. Dividing klal yisroel along the lines of "clubs" makes it impossible to constructively grow at any level.
I believe that the Rav stated that the purpose of the brisker method was to find the truth. At the same time, the Rav was reluctant to pasken because even with the brisker derech, the truth was elusive . The Rav could usually see two or more points of view and in perfect brisker fashion, he was reluctant to decide which side was true. But the brisker method was not just an exercise in intellectual. gymnastics. It was an attempt to find the truth
The Rav was the bedrock of the modern orthodox and mizrachi world. Yet Slifkin laughs at his entire world view which was built on the Brisker method. The lack of humility is outstanding.
I don't think Slifkin is qualified to decide between the Chazon Ish and Rav Chaim of Brisk.
Michael Avraham a senior member of the Bar Ilan Kollel and a major talmid chacham is convinced thet that the Rambam meant the Brisker way though without the modern language
Holy Smokes all this time I thought that Rav Chaim Soloveitchik knew how to learn! I guess Rav Boruch Ber and Rav Shimon Shkopp should have been reading Reb Nossons blog instead of wasting all that time in Volozhin. At the very least they should have learned under Rav Shacter who apparently doesn't agree with their derech. (Which is strange because his Rebbe Yosher Ber was as BRISK as it gets. Hey Hoh if Reb Nosson says it, then it must be true.
Natan you said "Furthermore, when Rambam himself was asked about such contradictions, he didn't employ Brisker-style distinctions; instead he simply said that he erred, or changed his mind"
There are plenty of places where the Rambam changed his mind, but "he didn't make Brisker style distinctions" is just a dumb thing to say. First of all, the Gemara is full of "Brisker style distinctions" which the Rambam constantly paskens. Secondly, all the commentators on the Rambam, starting from his own son, constantly make extremely fine distinctions to resolve contradictions in the Rambam himself or between him and the Gemara. And thirdly, the Rambam himself in numerous places in the Mishna Torah explicitly makes very fine distinctions to resolve halachos.
So, provide a few 'fine chilukim'. There are a few, for example, in nedorim and shevous, different shinuim in a cheifetz, maybe taloim k'mikoroh, domim k'shaa's hamodoh b'din might qualify (but again, they are generally okimtos, not lomdus), but generaly the 'fine chilukim' in explaing a halochoh or principle in lomdus is left to the acharonim. The Rishonim tend to make chilukim without explaining them - tosfos does that the whole time, albeit he brings a proof for his chilukim, but tosfos very rarely brings any sort of sevoroh for his chilukim. Leading much hours of arguing between two yeshivah people, neither of them know very much what they are talking about generally. It's great amusment to see a couple of people, in I dunno, the secong year of their yeshivah, having learnt a very low number of daffim, shouting at each other and think they are 'learning'. Or more experienced people arguing over what is clearly a problem with the girsoh. Always had it 'schwer', is toiling over understading a dodgy girsoh really talmud torah?
You definately seem to be from the school of yeshivah people who walk the walk and talk the talk, but re depth of thinking or knowledge, haven't seen much evidence I am afraid. Certainly I would not expect real torah learners, 'bnei torah' as they are known, to bother with blogging. I supposed its the equivalent to you for long smoking and coffe breaks in the middle of seider....I know what goes on......
There is a "high priest" approach to learning which suggests that only the "right people" are qualified to have opinions, or to seriously engage in a personal way with the text.
This approach is directly contradicted by the chumash itself: "
For this mitzvah which I command you this day is not concealed from you and it is not far off. It is not in the heavens that one would say: Who will go up for us to heaven and take it for us and make us hear it that we might do it? And it is not across the seas, that one would say: Who will cross the seas for us and take it for us and make us hear it that we might do it? For the thing is very near to you in your mouth and in your heart to do it.
Intelligence is not wisdom. And the Torah is accessible to all, not merely to the "really smart" few.
"seriously engage in a personal way with the text."
There is a concept in the Oral tradition called "hegiah lhoraah" (reached the level for ruling). Which implies that some amount of training is necessary. Are most people able to reach this level? Maybe. Maybe not.
The karaites maintained that everyone can read and rule in accordance with his interpretation . The rabbis required one to follow the traditional system of interpretation. Disputes in the tradition or a new case not yet discussed were debated and oftentimes came down to judgement calls.
If you want to engage in a personal way with the text in a legal context and call it halachic analysis don't be surprised if rabbinic jews call it karaite law.
I don't think r slifkin can't learn, I read rationalism VS mysticism and some monograms. He just missed the boat on the tashbetz. I don't know anyone who can learn who doesn't regularly make mistakes.
( I wanted to quote a gemara that says torah is only miskayem if you are embarrassed by it ( i.e. you erred and were embarrassed) but I can't remember where it is! If you know the daf please reply! )
רש"י (קהלת פרק ז פסוק כח) בשם המדרש: אדם אחד מאלף מצאתי - בנוהג שבעולם אלף נכנסים למקרא, אין יוצאים מהם להצליח שראוייה למשנה אלא מאה, ואותם מאה שנכנסו למשנה, אין יוצאים מהם לגמרא אלא עשרה, ואותן עשרה שנכנסין לגמרא אין מצליח מהם אלא אחד להוראה, הרי אחד מאלף
I am not talking of paskening! I agree that we have a deep mesorah, and I don't mess with the established Halacha.
Hashkafically, however, Judaism is all over the map - there are countless "frum" ways to see the world, and for me, the Chumash is the source for understanding hashkafah. That is what the Devarim quote refers to - the connection we each can have with the Torah, understanding the "why" of the text.
The High Priest school of thought suggests that an ordinary yid cannot connect with the Torah on any level except through mefarshim - and by extension, heilige rabbanim. The Torah itself says otherwise.
You write without nuance. Certainly the are instances outside of Psak where the less knowledgeable must surrender their understandings in favor of experts. And how is your thesis explicit if the other leading authority sees the 'Mitzva' not as Torah but as Teshuva, and why if it is Torah does that mean Torah comprehension as opposed to observance?
Psak halacha, we rely on a highly developed mesorah.
But pshat chumash does not require surrendering to experts. Shivim Panim - and at least one of those faces of the Torah must be true to the actual text.
When someone says "you don't know how to learn" what they really mean is that you don't know how to interpret chazal in a way that supports the present charedi way of life!
What a joke.
Slifkin had a piece once about Lashon Hara, from some professor, and why it's muttar (or muttar at least where Slifkin wants it to be muttar) - I kid you not.
He ignores like every posek that ever existed, including the Chofetz Chaim who is respected worldwide as a leader on the topic.
Intellectual honesty is the LEAST of his concerns.
The very least.
The post did not say that lashon hara is muttar. Apparently you did not understand it.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/when-lashon-hara-is-mitzvah
Yeah, "Now, the first observation to be made here is that Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan's "Laws" of lashon hara are not "laws" in the same sense as the laws of Shabbos found in the Shulchan Aruch."
There are so many things wrong with that sentence.
As is this one from Brown:
"We are not referring here to a duty to commit a concrete action, but we are talking about a duty to aspire"
He thinks lashon hara is not a duty to concrete action. Maybe he also thinks the Ten Commandments are the "ten suggestions"? Pretty good example of academics not knowing how to learn, or even just ignorance of basic זיל קרי בי רב concepts. Not that they can't analyze text, but when you have no connection to the Bais Medrash, no connection to the Mesorah, when you have a fundamentally unserious approach to the Torah, this is how you will "analyze" it.
Happy,
That is low. Did you take this quote from page 181 lines 3-4 in the linked article???
“As is this one from Brown:
‘We are not referring here to a duty to commit a concrete action, but we are talking about a duty to aspire’”
You must know you took that quote COMPLETELY out of context. Brown was NOT at all discussing Lashon Hara in that quotation. He was referring to an idea of a different writer, “Fuller” who was speaking about the difference, much more generally, between duties and aspirations. But Brown actually adds more “chumra” pointing out that in either case it’s a duty… either a duty to act or a duty to aspire. Even the aspiration is not purely voluntary.
That’s pretty bad that you would do that. Complete intellectual dishonesty.
I haven’t read the entire article carefully, so If you took that quote from elsewhere in the article where Brown is discussing Lashon Hara, then I will apologize to you. Let me know.
Jeffrey, you should know that the entire *context* of the paper is lashon hara. And more perniciously, the entire *context* is to minimize the prohibition of lashon hara, as befits an academic "halachic" paper. But here he says the same thing about lashon hara explicitly:
Page 192
"Indeed, the prohibition ‘‘Thou shalt not go as a talebearer among thy people’’ (Lev 19:16)45 was clearly considered a binding norm, but apparently it was conceived throughout the generations as a ‘‘duty to aspire,’’ and not as a duty that can be articulated in concrete actions."
So after all the weasely obfuscation, the author really thinks that the prohibition of lashon hara is not a concrete action. Thanks for your pre-emptive apology. But why are you only worried (mistakenly) about my intellectual dishonesty and not Natan's very blatant dishonesty, constantly on display here?
You posit an opinion but present, neither a case, reference, or general idea of what this is concerning. When that happens, there is a saying, "If you won't/can't site a source, it didn't happen." In fact, your post is more loshon hara than anything that you've presented about your story.
Indeed. Accusing an opponent of "not knowing how to learn" is an attempt to discredit some1 without having the burden of proving him wrong. It is usually a veneer for a contest of who can scream louder with less restraint. "U say I do not know how to learn? Why, on the contrary, it is YOU who does not know how to learn." Tiresome nonsense amounting to less than nothing.
Well, you are right. Although the present chareidi way of life is not a monolith, and there are different approaches, some more correct than others, they are are all infinitely more faithful to the Chazal than the secularist approach (which is the mainstream of LW MO) of general disregard for Torah, Mitzvos, and Avodas Hashem. One of the most obvious modern-day manifestations is their support of homosexuality, but this is just the *tip* of the a much bigger iceberg.
I think there’s more to the story than you think there is. The word משכבי is used twice in the Torah and is translated differently in each instance. Judaism and the Gays: Part 1 - Dealing with Mishcav Zachar - Sefaria https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/83346
Very good point. See more from the rationalists here.
https://rationalistmedicalhalacha.blogspot.com/2021/04/does-torah-actually-prohibit-all.html
Also Rabbi Riskin, here
https://www.eshelonline.org/homosexuality-and-the-human-condition/
Never thought I'd see "OJ" Rabbis justifying gay lifestyle and such. I can understand some of the rhetoric coming from some of RNS critics. I did not know these "OJ" Rabbis have gone that far. I can see Reform and perhaps Conservative Rabbis justifying, but not OJ. Unheard of when I was growing up. ACJA
Happy,
thanks for those links. Although you linked to the Eshel article, and noted it as R. Riskin, it was written (seemingly) by R. Steve Greenberg; and he quotes not just R. Riskin, but also R. Norman Lamm, R. Berkovitz, Chazal, Tosfot, R. Meshulam Roth, and others.
EXACTLY!!!!!!
@HappyGoLucky,
How do you know that some Chareidi approaches are more correct than others? Perhaps they’re all wrong. And as for they being more faithful to Chazal than the secularist approach, that’s just your opinion and one whose methodology is as cogent as belief in the Sumerian gods that could bring good health and wealth, or could bring illness and disasters.
Usual Garbage.
Come on, have the courage to admit it's true. Where's your self-proclaimed "intellectual honesty" when it matters?
So your contention is that you know how to learn but Rav Chaim Soleveichik didn’t and that Rav Shechter agrees with you on this?
Perfect!
This post, as many others, provide much mirth in my life.
It is like a native Tamil speaker pontificating, with absolute authority, over an Aztec idiom found in an archaeological dig in Siberia.
Your understanding of Brisk, the Chazon Ish, 'knowing how to learn' and actual learning, are pitiful.
Knowing how to learn means 'knowing the unwritten rules of the halachic process - what is considered an inference and what is considered a stronger proof. Which opinions are viewed greater than others and when, how to decide between shitos, how to compare one Halacha to another, and most of all - the rules of Torah logic'.
Brisk is one small part of it, and not too relevant.
"What I am saying is that not much is actually required for analyzing texts; it’s just clear thinking, breadth of knowledge (in order to establish the context in which the text was written), and, most of all, intellectual honesty."
What may be the most important ingredient is missing from this list: Many years of intense learning the texts to get a feel for their nuances and subtleties. All of the above criteria won't do much good without that. (I once heard that R' Shaul Leiberman said that any professor of Talmud that didn't study in a yeshiva was lacking for this reason.)
מכל מלמדי השכלתי
Please explain.
Whether סברות are valid or not is not dependent on who said them. Rather, it depends on what is being said.
My experience of talking with Rav Asher Weiss and Rav Shraga Feivel Zimmerman is that it doesn't matter who you are or what your learning experiences are, but rather what you are saying. I've never been asked by them to provide my résumé before asking them a question or making a הערה.
Anyone can attempt to play drums regardless of their résumé. Only someone who has been playing for years really knows how to play.
There is a reason you are asking your הערות to R Asher Weiss and he doesn’t ask you his.
Thanks for the spelling correction.
In reply to your actual comment, I said:
"Making a הערה"
rather than
"Asking a הערה"
intentionally.
I am not comparing myself to Rav Asher Weiss for even one nanosecond. My point is that מכל מלמדי השכלתי means that if one makes a comment to one of the גדולי הפוסקים and he agrees with it, and he is intellectually honest, he will consider the הערה on its own merits, rather than looking to see who makes the הערה.
The context of my הערה to him was in a שיעור he gave around 2 years ago, in which he was not able to reconcile a difference of opinion between 2 Rambams. One was in משנה תורה and the other was in ספר המצוות.
When I spoke to him on the phone about this difference, I explained that the focus of ספר המצוות was to enumerate the 613 מצוות, rather as a halachic ספר.
The Rambam explains in his הקדמה to ספר המצוות, that the reason that he is writing the ספר, is because some people have listed the 613 מצוות before and made a complete hash of it. In fact he gets quite angry in the הקדמה and says that these people are not חכמים but משוררים.
So, one can conclude that the ספר המצוות has less validity halachicly than משנה תורה. Rav Weiss liked this and said that this justifies his assertion that the opinion in the משנה תורה is the right one.
I was then proud to see that he added this comment in the last 2 lines of the pdf of his Shiur 2 days later.
Of course anyone is able to suggest any claim and it should be judged on it’s own merits. The discussion at hand is who is qualified to weigh the various considerations of the said claim and pronounce judgment on it.
Unfortunately, it also depends on having gone through the סוגיא.
Many are of the view that learning is an end in itself; we all quote
ותלמוד תורה כנגד כולם
But this is probably wrongly interpreted. This phrase and a discussion about what is the purpose of learning is dealt with extensively in a ספר called "Rationalism vs. Mysticism" in Part 1, Section V.
Sorry, I can't remember who the author is, but it is well worth a read.
My experience of many ראשי ישיבות is that their knowledge is quite limited once one moves away from the classic Yeshiva מסכתות into other areas, e.g. practical הלכה, other than simply knowing what to do and what not to do. Beyond that, their knowledge is rather limited. So, they do not have experience of seeing הלכה in all its richness.
This means that everything else, apart from learning, has to play second fiddle 🎻. But this prioritisation is not borne out in many areas of הלכה.
This is not a new phenomenon, see for example the ספר called יסוד מורא וסוד תורה written by the אבן עזרא when he was in London in 1158. In it, he suggests that only those who intend to judge others needs to learn many parts of סדר נזיקין. And the focus of learning for all of us is for the purpose of knowing what to do.
He also requires that one needs to learn the Sciences. But mentioning that might be a step too far when discussing this topic with your ראשי ישיבות.
"The Ibn Ezra" - Well he wasn't too yeshivish in some of what he says. Bit of a problem that he is accepted rishon. Maybe a dodgy talmid of his stuck some things in. Or he was 'chozer b'sof yomov'. Two yeshivish terutzmim happy and mecharker will happily tell you.
In the Moetzes of Agudath Israel model, it's early leaders were proficient all over including Halacha. They appointed their successors who were and aren't as great as they. Because the 'half cup full' was all that was needed for this leadership. The understanding is that they still outshine the wannabe competition.
Re the Ibn Ezra & science, today a high school grad has more science knowledge than was available in Ibn Ezra's time.
We are supposed to quote "in the name of X" not because that makes the argument correct - but instead to give credit where it is due. It is an important distinction that is often lost.
Anyone can get things wrong. And anyone can get things right. The quality of the argument, not the identity of the arguer, is ultimately what matters.
“Anyone can get things wrong. And anyone can get things right.”
True, but the operative word Thierry is “can”. However, education and experience etc (or lack thereof) often lead to greater likelihood that some people will get things wrong and other people will get things right.
“The quality of the argument, not the identity of the arguer, is ultimately what matters.”
This should be true, in theory, but whether it actually is in practice is open to debate.
And yet the chumash is not read seriously by most. Many batei midrash are full of texts - but it is hard to scare up a chumash.
Slifkin in a nutshell.
Evolutionists: YOU CANNOT ARGUE ON THEM, THEY ARE BRILLIANT EXPERTS, THEY HAVE STUDDIED THIS STUFF FOR YEARS
Talmidei Chachamim: Eh anyone can open up Sefaria and do what they do.
No, it's not that. The sad situation in Torah learning in the frum world is that decades of self isolation, contempt for critical thinking, and academic approaches, and an excessive adherence to religious axioms of Torah study from prior generations (such as the belief that all statements can be reconciled, or the need to prove all 'heroes' to be infallible), have rendered the level of Torah study to be of a relatively low level, a type of puzzle solving, creating solutions to problems that don't really exist or banal answers to questions that noone in prior generations considered worth asking.
R. Slifkin is correct in that he advocates a learning technique that is honest, context based, open to critique, and genuinely truth seeking as opposed to being centered around ideological defense.
And he didn't denigrate the value of experts. Nor did he say you can't challenge experts. What he said was that being an expert in, for example, the brisk Derek's isn't necessarily going to help you gain a better understanding of the meaning of Torah. If you spend years creating an institution that is committed to the concept to seeing the world in certain way, create a cadre of experts and students who follow that perspective and then it turns out that, because you didn't keep up with current broader knowledge, your concept is wrong, then all you have is an expert in something that is wrong.
The proof is in the pudding.
Perfectly stated.
Don't Academics say that the Torah was written by multiple individuals?
Or that Shmuel Hanagids poetry was meant to be taken as literal erotic verse?
You cant pick what you like from them and then disregard all the rest. These are people with world views that are deeply antithetical to Judaism.
But deeply “pro-thetical “ 😜 to reality.
But as a side point to your pro-thetical to reality coment. No actually neither of those examples are 'true' just because Academics said so.
That is not the topic under discussion, though. If Slifkin wants to be both a religious Jew and genuflect at the alter of academia, he is left with serious contradictions in his worldview.
Not necessarily. One can be a religious Jew and take seriously academic findings. 🤦♂️
Traditional method of Torah study- treats Torah like the holy words of the Living God, the most important thing in the world
Academic method of "Torah study"- treats Torah like a collection of interesting historical texts
This is why Natan thinks that for learning, "not much is actually required for analyzing texts". But one thing he is definitely not, and that is open to critique.
The academic method is not honest or context based, because the entire context of Torah is the holy words of the Living God, which it ignores.
Academic method leads to results like this:
https://rationalistmedicalhalacha.blogspot.com/2021/04/does-torah-actually-prohibit-all.html
Is trying to 'work out peshat' in a tosfos the most important thing in the world - when the problem is due to a girshoh problem. Sometime tosfos harosh says exactly the same thing, but adds a few words that clarify a lot. If you understand that for hundreds of years tosfos was copied out word by word by hand, can one accept that the odd word got lost? Or maybe one should say 'tosfos harosh is not tosfos' and carry on trying to work tosfos out.
Is it apirkosus to state that rashi, studing by candlelight persecuted by the crusases, writing by hand etc etc, may have produced 'a stirah in rashi' quite by accident. Something called human error? Or do we believe that Rashi was a superman and quite above human error. What about his obviously incorrect explanations of female anatomy in niddoh ("moshlo moshol"- apikorsus to point it out, or maybe the yeshivish 'nishetana hatevah' is prefered? Nishtenah from the period of rashi. Not all that long ago, relatively speaking.
Looks like you didn't have a good yeshiva experience. Sorry. Do you still say Shema and put on Tefillin every day? I've been in different yeshivas with very different styles of learning and enjoyed and appreciated all of them to various extents.
Sometimes there is an error or an irresolvable stirah, but more often than not, it is our understanding that is lacking. Traditional assumption is that Torah is infinitely deep and requires endless toil to understand. Academic method assumes Torah is just a collection of historical texts that are not very deep at all.
"Traditional assumption is that Torah is infinitely deep and requires endless toil to understand." That is not at all the traditional assumption about the Rishonim.
Oh, it absolutely is. Maybe not for your "academic" friends, but for them, even the Chumash is not binding!
******
just now
Sure thing. When was the last time rabbeinu tam tried to defend his grandfather with 'endeless toil to understand'. He writes Zeide was wrong and this is my peshat. Amazingly enough rabbeinu tam was not banned. You don't find rishonim toiling to understand each other at all.
So why can't a rosh yeshivah today, however chareidi and learned, say, like tosfos on rashi, Rishon X was wrong? What's changed? Why? When did it change?
Such am ha'aratzus I cannot bear. Did you ever wonder why Tosafos often disputes Rashi, but not Tannaim and Amoraim? Did you ever wonder why even the Shach, who does sometimes argue with Rishonim, spends 99% of his time and thousands of pages trying to explain them?
-non yeshivish answer- shabtai tzvi, haskalah/reform, chasidus.
-yeshivish answer- they could say it because their torah and intellectual level was unimaginable to us. There were rishonim who went out of their way to defend other rishonim ( ramban in milchamos to defend the rif ) . It's seems kind of foolish to think a ten line tosafos which quotes and argues with a rashi was the entire shiur given in rabeinu tams yeshiva. It's the kind of assumption someone who doesn't know how to learn would make.
Sure thing. When was the last time rabbeinu tam tried to defend his grandfather with 'endeless toil to understand'. He writes Zeide was wrong and this is my peshat. Amazingly enough rabbeinu tam was not banned. You don't find rishonim toiling to understand each other at all.
So why can't a rosh yeshivah today, however chareidi and learned, say, like tosfos on rashi, Rishon X was wrong? What's changed? Why? When did it change?
Oy vey some of these modox are a lost cause.
Spot on!
The zilzul in Torah of that school of thought is terrible. Because Torah is considered unimportant, any shmendrik can come to an opinion without spending too much time or effort.
Wow, you really do like swimming in a pool of sharks and piranhas.
Yes, I know that sharks are only found in ocean habitats, and piranhas are only found in freshwater locations. That's why I wrote "in a pool", which means this is a man-made location.
Wishing you הצלחה רבה in your heroic challenges that you set yourself. Let's just hope that the sharks eat the piranhas, or vice versa.
Thanks (facetious) for a textbook example of how a moshol can be less enlightening than the nimshal. General rule: when a moshol requires u to provide background info, the nimshal was easier.
That your intent was facetious could have been derived by the “background info”. General Rule: when people are commenting on a blog, their words are off the cuff, and this is ok.
Even off the cuff, why does any1 need explanatory analogies when the concept is easy enough to understand? What understanding is added by comparing a difficult situation to a tankful of man-eating fish?
He's a brisker. It's what they do.
Who r the "he" and who r the "they"? Please avoid 1-sentence unreferenced pronouns.
Wow, Natan, three posts in a row! You should start calling this blog "The Mecharker Challenge"!
The line "not much is actually required for analyzing texts" is a tell-tale giveaway that one doesn't know how to learn. Learning is so much more than analyzing texts. (And there is no need to mention your self-evidently ridiculous line about the Rambam and Rav Chaim). "Breadth of knowledge" would unfortunately not include you, if referring to Torah knowledge. "Intellectual honesty" would exclude somebody who can't admit that he was wrong about the Tashbetz only referring to community rabbis. You are simply not in a position to lecture anybody about intellectual honesty.
However, your real issue is not simply that you don't "know how to learn", it's that you you don't know how to *read*. Whether the Tashbetz, or a letter from Rav Feldman, or anything else, you show that failing every opportunity you have.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/gourmet-shark-food
Please could you elaborate upon your claim that my line about Rambam and Rav Chaim is "ridiculous"
See my comment below
Actually, what I meant when I said you don't know how to learn is that you simply don't know how to learn. You attempted to use a pseudo-halachic approach that included a short biography of the Tashbetz and your own conjecturing to NEGATE WHAT THE SOURCES ACTUALLY SAY. You didn't really do any research on that aspect and seem to be incapable or unwilling to do so, so I will share with your reader an excerpt from a sefer where the mechaber ACTUALLY read through the Tashbetz carefully and went through all the poskim over the centuries to distill their opinions. THAT is what is considered KNOWING HOW TO LEARN. It's possible that the author has his slant, but at least he is not fabricating things out of thin air!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QcwGXtJX7hvKwJEURK6IPJ4f0__8a1cP/view?usp=sharing
No one is referring to R' Chaim or how big of a lamdan you are. You SIMPLY MISSED THE BOAT.
"It's possible that the author has his slant, but at least he is not fabricating things out of thin air!"
Too funny. Just look at the last sentence in that document.
Natan, we're getting down to the wire here and I'm still winning you 77%-23%! Maybe your good friend Avigdor Lieberman can use his Russian connections to steal the election?
You're not going to like some of his sources but that's not my problem.
To: מכרכר בכל עוז
יישר כוחך for providing a substantial input to this discussion with the document you attached to your comment.
You then go on to state:
"... an excerpt from a sefer where the mechaber ACTUALLY read through the Tashbetz carefully and went through all the poskim over the centuries to distill their opinions."
But having read this document (24 pages), please can you tell us the point you are trying to make from that document in relation to this discussion, or at least in relation to the blog about Duran Duran, a few days ago.
Richie, actually I've provided a lot of substantial material in the comments of the Defying Chazal post. I was originally planning on writing an extensive rebuttal on Duran Duran but someone who's been following Natan for many years advised me against it because it's not like the truth really matters to him anyways. But since you seem to sincerely want to see something, and you profess to have intellectual honesty, maybe I will try to carve out time from my schedule to do it.
I am reminded of an exchange I had with a Charedi "wannabe" Rav some time ago (He is a Rav, the "wannabe" refers to the Charedi bit. He desperately wants to be one, but, due to his institutional affiliation and personal nature, just isn't often seen that way.)
I lamented the recent loss of Rav Adin Steinsalz and mentioned how influential his modern elucidation of the Talmud was and that it prompted the creation of the more Yeshivish Artscroll version. He responded that R' Steinsalz wasn't actually a talmid chacham - why, he didn't even explain certain passages the way R' Chaim (Brisker, not Kanievsky) did!
He was saying that R' Steinsalz "didn't know how to learn" because he didn't spout the Yeshivah line.
R'Steinsalz was a genius but he didn't know how to learn. His translations had glaring mistakes in basic Pshat. Nothing to do with the Charedi line.
I've only used stiensalz on rare occasions however I went through some critical articles on his work from chareidi rabbanim( I think r aharon Feldman? Its been a while..) in my recollection the mistakes would happen to anyone writing a pirush on the whole shas and were a small handful ( i think one writer found 2-3!) Seems like partisan politics to a poshute yid.
In שו״ת שרידי אש Rav YY Weinberg criticizes the Brisk style of learning for the same reasons as this post. (Don’t have the Sefer in my house to find exact location)
שרידי אש ח”ב סי’ קמ”ד
I'm the guy your post responds to. To describe "knowing how to learn" is like asking how much it costs to stay in the King David: If you have to ask, its too much. And so too, if you need "knowing how to learn" explained to you, you don't understand it.
Knowing how to learn at its most basic level means Gemara, and, in some circles, lomdus. Men as disparate as the Malbim and R. Berel Wein put out seforim on Gemara before they engaged in their Tanach projects, so they'd have credibility. Now, the booklet you append to the post is hardly the אורחות חיים or עיונים בתלמוד, and it definitely looks questionable with an early 1998 publication date, yet still referring to yourself as Natan and zoobabbi. The academics might have fun with that. But its helpful, its helpful. I would encourage you to do more, and put it out there.
In the end, though, I don't think it will really change anything, because knowing how to learn is ALSO (not exclusively, as you claim) an ethos. No matter what you do, you'll never be part of the club. I can understand why that's maddening or even hurtful. One comes from a small town, is excited to finally get to what he thinks (mistakenly) is the big leagues, and tries to dress like them and think like them and be like them - only to realize he'll never be part of them. The correct way to deal with it is not to lash out and try at every turn to insult the club or knock them down. Its a useless effort, and just makes you look small. No, the way to handle it is to be like the Sneetches. Stop focusing on their club, and start focusing on your own. In your case, you've now glommed onto religious Zionism. OK, so tell us why you think its so good. Why you think its the best club to join. I think that will be helpful to your readers, and probably also to yourself.
I tried to be gentle above but I want to be a little softer still: You are a very accomplished person, you've done a lot and IYH will continue to do a lot (beginning with Vol. II of the encyclopedia.) I just think you haven't yet found closure on an earlier chapter in your life, and you need to move on. Don't be something you're not and, I hope you finally realize, never were. Lay off the Charedim, its had zero impact and only wasted your time. Stick to your strengths, and you'll be fine.
I agree with the core of this: attacking other people is not helpful or productive. It persuades nobody who is not already persuaded, and it alienates new people.
You have a positive vision. Share it! Promote it!
For my part, the entire concept of having a"club" and an ethos you share with others is small-mindedness. Either you can think for yourself, or you cannot. Dividing klal yisroel along the lines of "clubs" makes it impossible to constructively grow at any level.
I believe that the Rav stated that the purpose of the brisker method was to find the truth. At the same time, the Rav was reluctant to pasken because even with the brisker derech, the truth was elusive . The Rav could usually see two or more points of view and in perfect brisker fashion, he was reluctant to decide which side was true. But the brisker method was not just an exercise in intellectual. gymnastics. It was an attempt to find the truth
The Rav was the bedrock of the modern orthodox and mizrachi world. Yet Slifkin laughs at his entire world view which was built on the Brisker method. The lack of humility is outstanding.
I don't think Slifkin is qualified to decide between the Chazon Ish and Rav Chaim of Brisk.
Michael Avraham a senior member of the Bar Ilan Kollel and a major talmid chacham is convinced thet that the Rambam meant the Brisker way though without the modern language
Holy Smokes all this time I thought that Rav Chaim Soloveitchik knew how to learn! I guess Rav Boruch Ber and Rav Shimon Shkopp should have been reading Reb Nossons blog instead of wasting all that time in Volozhin. At the very least they should have learned under Rav Shacter who apparently doesn't agree with their derech. (Which is strange because his Rebbe Yosher Ber was as BRISK as it gets. Hey Hoh if Reb Nosson says it, then it must be true.
Natan you said "Furthermore, when Rambam himself was asked about such contradictions, he didn't employ Brisker-style distinctions; instead he simply said that he erred, or changed his mind"
Where can I see this quote or paraphrase, thanks.
There are plenty of places where the Rambam changed his mind, but "he didn't make Brisker style distinctions" is just a dumb thing to say. First of all, the Gemara is full of "Brisker style distinctions" which the Rambam constantly paskens. Secondly, all the commentators on the Rambam, starting from his own son, constantly make extremely fine distinctions to resolve contradictions in the Rambam himself or between him and the Gemara. And thirdly, the Rambam himself in numerous places in the Mishna Torah explicitly makes very fine distinctions to resolve halachos.
"First of all, the Gemara is full of "Brisker style distinctions"
Please share some. The gemara never says "Shtey dinim" or something of the sort.
Yeah, the Gemara doesn't talk in that language. It doesn't talk in the Shach's language either. But sure, the Gemara always makes fine chilukim.
It makes 'aukimtos' for braisos. Quite radical ones, eg fitting a straightforward mishnah into the case of a crouching dwarf.
Very rarely does it make 'fine chilukim'.
Nah, it does both
So, provide a few 'fine chilukim'. There are a few, for example, in nedorim and shevous, different shinuim in a cheifetz, maybe taloim k'mikoroh, domim k'shaa's hamodoh b'din might qualify (but again, they are generally okimtos, not lomdus), but generaly the 'fine chilukim' in explaing a halochoh or principle in lomdus is left to the acharonim. The Rishonim tend to make chilukim without explaining them - tosfos does that the whole time, albeit he brings a proof for his chilukim, but tosfos very rarely brings any sort of sevoroh for his chilukim. Leading much hours of arguing between two yeshivah people, neither of them know very much what they are talking about generally. It's great amusment to see a couple of people, in I dunno, the secong year of their yeshivah, having learnt a very low number of daffim, shouting at each other and think they are 'learning'. Or more experienced people arguing over what is clearly a problem with the girsoh. Always had it 'schwer', is toiling over understading a dodgy girsoh really talmud torah?
You definately seem to be from the school of yeshivah people who walk the walk and talk the talk, but re depth of thinking or knowledge, haven't seen much evidence I am afraid. Certainly I would not expect real torah learners, 'bnei torah' as they are known, to bother with blogging. I supposed its the equivalent to you for long smoking and coffe breaks in the middle of seider....I know what goes on......
There is a "high priest" approach to learning which suggests that only the "right people" are qualified to have opinions, or to seriously engage in a personal way with the text.
This approach is directly contradicted by the chumash itself: "
For this mitzvah which I command you this day is not concealed from you and it is not far off. It is not in the heavens that one would say: Who will go up for us to heaven and take it for us and make us hear it that we might do it? And it is not across the seas, that one would say: Who will cross the seas for us and take it for us and make us hear it that we might do it? For the thing is very near to you in your mouth and in your heart to do it.
Intelligence is not wisdom. And the Torah is accessible to all, not merely to the "really smart" few.
"seriously engage in a personal way with the text."
There is a concept in the Oral tradition called "hegiah lhoraah" (reached the level for ruling). Which implies that some amount of training is necessary. Are most people able to reach this level? Maybe. Maybe not.
The karaites maintained that everyone can read and rule in accordance with his interpretation . The rabbis required one to follow the traditional system of interpretation. Disputes in the tradition or a new case not yet discussed were debated and oftentimes came down to judgement calls.
If you want to engage in a personal way with the text in a legal context and call it halachic analysis don't be surprised if rabbinic jews call it karaite law.
I don't think r slifkin can't learn, I read rationalism VS mysticism and some monograms. He just missed the boat on the tashbetz. I don't know anyone who can learn who doesn't regularly make mistakes.
( I wanted to quote a gemara that says torah is only miskayem if you are embarrassed by it ( i.e. you erred and were embarrassed) but I can't remember where it is! If you know the daf please reply! )
רבה בר רב הונא אמורא עליה ודרש (ישעיהו ג, ו) והמכשלה הזאת תחת ידיך אין אדם עומד על דברי תורה אלא אם כן נכשל בהן
גיטין מג
Thank you.
רש"י (קהלת פרק ז פסוק כח) בשם המדרש: אדם אחד מאלף מצאתי - בנוהג שבעולם אלף נכנסים למקרא, אין יוצאים מהם להצליח שראוייה למשנה אלא מאה, ואותם מאה שנכנסו למשנה, אין יוצאים מהם לגמרא אלא עשרה, ואותן עשרה שנכנסין לגמרא אין מצליח מהם אלא אחד להוראה, הרי אחד מאלף
I am not talking of paskening! I agree that we have a deep mesorah, and I don't mess with the established Halacha.
Hashkafically, however, Judaism is all over the map - there are countless "frum" ways to see the world, and for me, the Chumash is the source for understanding hashkafah. That is what the Devarim quote refers to - the connection we each can have with the Torah, understanding the "why" of the text.
The High Priest school of thought suggests that an ordinary yid cannot connect with the Torah on any level except through mefarshim - and by extension, heilige rabbanim. The Torah itself says otherwise.
You write without nuance. Certainly the are instances outside of Psak where the less knowledgeable must surrender their understandings in favor of experts. And how is your thesis explicit if the other leading authority sees the 'Mitzva' not as Torah but as Teshuva, and why if it is Torah does that mean Torah comprehension as opposed to observance?
Psak halacha, we rely on a highly developed mesorah.
But pshat chumash does not require surrendering to experts. Shivim Panim - and at least one of those faces of the Torah must be true to the actual text.
Here is a better way to explain it: https://creativejudaism.org/2022/01/04/it-is-right-in-front-of-you/