Natan, you're wearing me down. I don't have time or energy to be 'outraged' anymore. Maybe I'll take a hiatus and come back later. You are increasingly shocking me with your ignorance. When we started on this endeavor, I believed you to be somewhat learned, if not perhaps a little misguided or mistaken on this particular issue. But your last two posts sound either like you do not understand Torah study at all, or you are just a plain Reformist.
What R' Chaim did was revolutionize Torah learning and encourage scholars to look inwards and understand the text more carefully, rather than create 'pilpulim', 'l'shitasos', and 'ukimtas' to answer complications. While the terminology he used may have been his own innovation, the concept was admired by virtually all the gedolim of his time. The fact that you think that you are even on the same level as them to disagree is astounding. Yes, the Chazon Ish may have disagreed with him from time to time, but he wrote glosses on his sefer, he did not reject the entire method lock, stock, and barrel. And while it is theoretically possible that a Rishon erred, it is a lot more likely that we simply do not understand what they were saying. There are many responsa from the Rambam to the sages of Luniel explaining what he said - sometimes using fine chilukim - and not saying that he erred. The practice of all the poskim throughout the ages is to assume that their predecessors knew what they were talking about, and they did not understand it, rather than rushing to say that they were mistaken. Only in extreme circumstances where it seems that something is blatantly wrong will later authorities disagree with earlier authorities, and even then, with the greatest deference. This is not a Charedi innovation. This is how the Halachic sausage has been made throughout the ages. All Nosei Keilim and Teshuvos strive to understand their predecessors, explain them, qualify them, and on rare occasions disagree with them.
Whether or not one uses 'Brisker' terminology in his learning is not the deciding factor whether one knows how to learn or not. 'Knowing how to learn' can be explained the same way (l'havdil) any other subject matter expert can be trusted in his field, and we would not trust an outsider. A Talmid Chacham is someone who both possesses the raw data of Torah required to arrive at a psak, and is also familiar with the methodologies used by poskim throughout the ages to arrive at such a psak. The same way we would not trust a high school grad anti-vaxxer who opened a few science books but has no clue how to process that data, likewise, is it utterly ridiculous when someone with seemingly no background with the halachic authorities and the methods they use to arrive at their conlusions, opens a Tashbetz and totally goofs. Sorry, but no offense. All R' Chaim did was crystallize this method of deeper understanding and give it terminology and influence future generations to study things on a deeper level.
And the first part of Fozziebear’s comment that you did not quote here (although you wrote there was ‘perfectly stated’) sounded like it came straight from a Reform rabbi. There are clear klalei hora’ah codified in Shulchan Aruch (CM 25:2) and these are how poskim throughout the ages have arrived at halachic rulings. The fact that you feel this, which is the ‘Charedi approach’ (as well as the approach of even non ‘Charedi’ rabbanim such as R’ Herzog, R’ Yosef, R’ Weinberg and R’ Waldenberg) is wrong, is the biggest vindication of what I’ve been saying the whole time.
1) 'The concept was admired by virtually all gedolim of his time.'
You must mean in the litvishe yeshivos, but the true litmus test of whether it was admired or even accepted, is if it was used to decide halacha, which it certainly was not. R' Y.E. Spektor, Maharsham, nor any of the great rabbonim of the time employed his "mahalach" in their teshuvah seforim. In addition, the Mishnah Berurah and the Aruch Hashulchan obviously made no use of it either. The Igros Moshe also very rarely quoted the briskers, and when he did it was to argue. (In a fashion that led one to doubt their "psakim". See where he almost ridicules not going to the kosel for fear of being on makom hamikdash, and where he dismisses requiring having one's "battim" a perfect microscopic square).
2) Only someone who has not seriously tried to learn halacha in depth with the chazon ish, can say that he didn't reject the brisker derech. We don't need an official statement of the chazon ish to know that. Just spend a "zman" learning any topic in depth with chazon ish. It is also recorded that the chazon ish went to learn by R' Chaim in Volozhin, and left the yeshiva after only one week! That should also tell you something.
3) Regardig Rishonim erring, something often overlooked is that we have thousands of testimonies from the rishonim themselves that other rishonim erred. (Just start learning Bedek Habayis of the Reah and Mishmeres Habayis of the Rashba, Hasagos Haravad on Rambam, Milchamos on the Rif, Hasagos Baal Hamaor on Balei Hanefesh) Therefore it is more than "theoretically possible" for a Rishon to err.
(What becomes more complex is to why later generations can't argue, since the method employed by the opposing rishonim is one that can be learned with time, since it involves logical questions and proofs, not some obscure secret method only known to a "rishon". I digress)
You seem to be a yodei’a sefer but you’re missing my point ENTIRELY. I agree that not everyone adopted R’ Chaim’s mehalech halimud, but he was respected as a Gadol and a Talmid Chacham by virtually all his contemporaries. He had the respect of even the Poilishe Gedolim, such as the Avnei Nezer, who said that R’ Chaim was bigger than him. The first person I’ve ever seen insinuate that he didn’t know how to learn is our gracious blog host. I do not believe that R’ Chaim believed that his approach should be used for ruling on halachic difficulties and he himself refrained from doing so. R’ Chaim was first and foremost an educator and his mission was to train the masses to take a more analytical approach rather than a pilpul-like approach as was popular at the time. Those closer to him resembled his method closer, and those further a little less, but his influence rippled throughout the Lithuanian Torah world. R’ Moshe’s rebbe, R’ Pesach Pruskin, was a talmid of Volozhin and he also had the influence of R’ Chaim. And I was not referring to Brisker chumras, which is completely independent of their mehalech halimud.
Regardless, both R’ Chaim and all the other poskim of his time that you mentioned, such as RYES, the Aruch Hashulchan, the Mishna Berura etc. all worked within the framework of their predecessors and unless in extreme circumstances, did not try to say that those before them had erred and start reconstructing the Gemara from scratch. Not, as DNS is insinuating, that since everyone is fallible, we can disagree with Rishonim and start creating our own Shulchan Aruch. I agree that Rishonim disagree with each other, sometimes both sides can easily be explained and sometimes not as easily, but for someone to come around in 2023 and say that a Rishon, who has gone through scrutiny of tens of thousands of scholars over the last 500 years, has erred would be silly, unless perhaps he is on the stature of R’ Moshe Feinstein and is absolutely certain. I agree that such a thing is possible, the talmidim of the Gra write as such in his name in their hakdama to his pirush to Shulchan Aruch, but 99% of the time even the Gra concurred with the Rishonim and found an opinion which he ruled with and worked almost entirely within the Rishonim's framework.
Earth to DNS, earth to DNS! Do you agree with Fozziebear's comment that I quoted here? Because over on the other post you wrote that it is 'perfectly stated'. And I don't think any of the Poskim that I mentioned above would've agreed at all!
"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."
I don't know what RNS thinks about it. ButI agree with it. I would even take it further. The reason that the frum world cannot provide good guidance on current challenges facing the State of Israel and the Jewish People today is that instead of combining their Torah learning with learning about the world around us they navel gaze on meaningless intricacies. Who can't learn now?
(Really it depends on how you define what it means to learn).
How can a method to explain the halachic part of the Talmud be legitimate, if nobody including its creator would use it to decide the very subjects it is discussing?
Therefore, the fact remains that his methodology was not really accepted as an authentic understanding of the Talmud and Rishonim.
If one wants to know the authentic Lithuanian style of learning, start learning the "Biur Hagra", or the responsa of R' chaim volozhin in addition to the chazon ish.
I honestly don't understand the confidence with which you assert that the Rambam couldn't have had R' Chaim in mind. I think you are confusing language with ideas. Certainly the Rambam wouldn't have used the phrase "two dinim" or such, but he could still agree with the general idea. An example of what I mean: The Mishnah never uses the phrase יש ברירה or אין ברירה. Yet the Gemara invokes it all the time to explain disputes in Mishnayos (yes, I know that academic Talmud scholars will call my bluff and claim the Mishna never had that in mind!).
It's not like R' Chaim invented the concept of resolving contradictions in the Rambam using fine chilukim. This is what every single commentator on the Rambam does all the time. Including the Rambam himself. Is it R Chaim's fault that his resolution is usually simpler and more elegant than, say, the Lechem Mishnah? Do you have equal confidence that he couldn't have had the Lechem Mishnah's solution in mind either?
Actually the commentators on the rambam do not use fine chilulkim. The Lechem Mishnah's tirutzim would be considered very ba'al habatish in the yeshivah world.
Actually, they do use fine chilukim, like, all the time. That Natan doesn't know this is just another indication of his ignorance. R' Chaim's explanations may seem more elegant to contemporary yeshivish minds, but only a fool would call the Lechem Mishna's tirutzim "ba'al habatish".
The MB did not work within the framework of his predecessors. The Aruch Hashilchan did, his starting point generally being what people did. The MB is a likut (not to different from an Artscroll halochoh sefer) who 99% just goes l'chumrah in everything. Don’t the Briskers say the MB is for geirim and BTs?
The Ramba’m himself, when challenged, used many ‘fine chilukim’ to strongly defend his position (something he did far more often than admit error). And Rabbi David Kamenetzky’s majestic biography of R’ Chaim Ozer makes it clear that RCO would not make a move without RCS, who as a strategic thinker had no other peer. They faced off with Russian officials, decided every single major issue facing Klal Yisroel etc. The - excuse me - sheer foolishness of hypothesising that the CI left Volozhin bc of the ‘Brisker derech’ is a joke. The shiur given by RCS was a daily blatt shiur. Volozhin began with M’ Brachos and ended with Niddah - there was no cycle- Shas was the cycle. We have written accounts of how he prepared the shiur with a select group of Talmidim. So he said a blatt shiur for 12 years, utilizing (and in this he was a pioneer) many of the Rishonim that had only been printed in the middle decades of the 19th century. And your theory is that the CI couldn’t take that?
utilizing (and in this he was a pioneer) many of the Rishonim that had only been printed in the middle decades of the 19th century. And your theory is that the CI couldn’t take that?
Oy. While I am usually an admirer of your blog, your sheer ignorance of who R’ Soloveichik was and what his work was about is stunning. This whole post is so unnecessary and so tangential to your work. Anyone who has ever studied under anyone named Soloveichik knows that the entire effort is only to arrive at the clearest and most direct understanding of the text. Always. Always. That you portray R’ Chaim as some sort of creative intellectual gymnast is so grotesque and inaccurate. The techniques that he used that to you (and to us) appear so dazzling are in fact tools created and used by one of the great minds of history. Einstein, similarly, often spoke of the simplicity and clarity of his work, and it was simple- to him!
The arguments you put forward - that the CI disagreed with ‘some of’ Rabbi Soloveichik’s explanations, and that the Rambam (in sources that RS obviously didn’t have then) corrected himself - are nonsense and harmful because you use these ‘facts’ as a means to diminish RS. Look, you say - Rabbi Soloveichik isn’t so special - look - he was wrong about this, and so and so disagreed with him on this. (There was once someone named Moshe who was criticised, repeatedly, by a critic named Hashem.) it’s just so unnecessarily reductionist.
This is where you go wrong. You do not realize that there are worlds of comprehension and understanding that you (and all of us) haven’t achieved and will probably never achieve - and perhaps cannot achieve. Einstein would marvel at his realization, when he scaled new heights, of the new and much higher plateaus that now became visible, as yet unachieved - and it humbled him. I hate to say this, but if you have any flaw it is in a lack of some level of humility. None of us know ‘how to learn’ like R’ Chaim, or the CI - we can only be ourselves, and do the best we can. So be humble, ignore your detractors and focus on the as yet unrealised levels of accomplishment that you can get to -and I think you will get to - build on what you’ve done, and let that be your legacy.
You are having a laugh are you not? You want clear understanding. Have a look at the nosei keilim on the Rambam. They give 'understandings' which would be considered very ba'al habatish in the yeshivish world.
Hand on heart (yep,.I know that's a goyish expression) do you really believe for one second the Rambam had in mind Reb Chaim's chakiros?
There is more to the story. Slifkin is not really intellectually advanced. That is the real truth. He has knowledge of certain things, yes, but his analysis is subpar. I have seen him ask talmudic questions that are not really questions, and then base his theory on his new way of understanding the Gemorah which was never a problem in the first place.
Part of the problem might be not spending enough time studying the text to understand it properly or not getting help from people that do understand it properly, like asking them his questions and getting answers, not jumping to premature conclusions.
I find it unhelpful to say things about other people like “he’s not intellectually advanced”. We generally don’t seek to diminish others. In this particular case RNS has a blog. He is perfectly entitled to write what he wants, and to interpret Tashbatz’s as he wishes. The general issues he raises are important, and even if we disagree with what he says, discussion of the issues helps to clarify them, which is beneficial for everyone.
The funniest part of all of this is that BY FAR the biggest names in the Mod Ox/Mizrachi world stand in direct opposition to Nosson's conentions.
Rav Kook: More influenced by Mysticism the ANY Haredi Rabbi I can think of. (Maybe the Baba Sali). His whole outlook on Zionism and the attitude we should have towards the secular was based heavily on Kabalah.
Rav Moshe Soloveitichik: The eldest son of Rav Chaim Brisker. His style of learning was Brisk.
Rav Yosher Ber Soloveitchik. He literally held that his father Rav Moshe was the true inheritor of the Brisker dynasty. His style of learning was PURE brisk. He was obsessed with the brisker style. That WAS him and that WAS his greatness.
Rav Aahron Lichtenshtien. One of Rav Yosher Bers foremost Talmidim, whos entire style of learning was based off the Brisk mehalach.
Come on mate, you've only got a few big guns in that world, no need to get rid of them as well!
Right, I often make that point on this blog. They have some serious people like Rabbi Schachter, Rabbi Tau, Rabbi Lior, Rabbi Aviner. But I'm not sure if the serious ones do a good enough job of communally separating themselves from the מינים ומשומדים. Tsk tsk.
I've also made that point numerous times. There are good MODOX rabbis out there and my rants are directed at the MODOX in GENERAL. Although I'm not sure that I would put every last rabbi on the above list in the 'kosher' category.
I, for one, understood what you were trying to say.
My issue (upon which this post appears to be based) was with the way you said it and continue to say it. It is quite possible and likely that the Maharal and Reb Chaim did have the right Peshat when they learned Gemara. Obviously, others argue with their approach. I’d love to hear what you have to say. I just don’t understand why you can’t make your points respectfully.
Many Reb Chaim’s have the Chazon Ish printed in the back. Yeshivas routinely learn them side by side and recognize that they had two very different approaches. Often Reb Shimon, Reb Shach and the Ketzos will have equally divergent approaches. Besides, even Reb Chaim only explained the Rambam. Everyone acknowledges Rashi, Ramban, and even Meiri who might interpret the sugya differently. In fact, for those who learn Beis Yosef and Shulchan Aruch it is obvious that Reb Chaim’s approach usually does not affect the halachic process. Any Brisker will tell you that Reb Chaim was not the Poseik in Brisk. He sent the Shailos to Reb Simcha Zelig Rieger.
You aren’t breaking new ground here. You aren’t the only one who knows that there are approaches outside Reb Chaim and the Maharal.
You are welcome to share your understanding of the Tashbetz. You are unreasonable if you think you are the only one capable enough or open minded enough to understand him.
One anonymous commentator like me is not going to change you, but I genuinely like a lot of your stuff and wish you could write it without the constant put downs and disrespect.
Imagine thinking that Rav Yosher Ber Soloveitchik and Rav Aahron Lichtenshtien were just 'making stuff up' The arrogance is outstanding. These are the bastions of Modern Orthodoxy/Mizrachi.
Wow Nathan, 4 for 4! You must be really mad! First you bit off more than you could chew in the argument with Mecharker about the Tashbetz, and then after whining about how "vicious* he was, you lost the vote 77% to 23%!
I'm reminded of the Brisker avreich, who was a Kohein, and when it came time for his Maamad in the Beit Hamikdash he refused because it would have made him late for his chaburah in Menachot
Was it the same chap who refused to divulge who his 'genuine oni' was on Purim so he would be the only one to 'have him' next year for matonos l'evyonim?
I wish you would make an effort not to steal intellectual property. I've always found it very incongruent with your approach as morally upstanding but also in regards to the vehemence with which you critique haredim for accepting handouts which you have equated to stealing. Intellectual property theft is theft and violates halachah. Even if there is no watermark, you cannot simply take other people's artwork etc. and republish it without permission, which you do quite frequently.
Reading comprehension, hmm: Guess you still don't know how to read this paragraph from the Tashbetz, eh?
ואחר אשר השיכותי מעל החכמים הראשונים והאחרונים ז"ל את תלונו' בני ישראל הרב הגדול הרמב"ם ז"ל והנמשכים אחריו ז"ל אכתו' קצרו של דבר כפי העולה בידינו ממקומו' מפוזרי' בתלמוד הצבור חייבים לגדל משלהם מי שהוא חשוב בדורו כר' אמי בדורו וגם החכם עצמו נוטל מעצמו הראוי לו לגדולתו כדמוכחא ההיא דפ' הזרוע (חולין קל"ד ע"ב) ואם הוא חכם ששואלין אותו דבר הלכה בכולה תלמודא ואומ' ראוי למנותו פרנס על כל ישראל וריש מתיבתא וכל ישראל חייבים לגדלו ואם שואלין אותו במסכתא קבועה לו דבר הלכה ואומר ראוי למנותו פרנס בעירו והם מגדלין אותו ואם אינו בגדר זה עדיין אלא שהוא עוסק בלימודו ומניח עסקיו בני עירו חייבין למטרח בריפתיה כדמוכח בפ' אלו קשרים (שבת קי"ד ע"א).
This how you read it, with your renowned "reading comprehension":
"Note, however, that Rashbatz specifically limits this to Torah scholars functioning in the role of community rabbi."
1. Actually, when I tried posting a comment on Motza'ei Shabbos, I was met with a paywall that said that I need to pay $8/mo in order to comment. When others told me that they did not get it, I tried posting a test comment under the name 'John Gilmore' (you can see his comment below) and it went through. It's possible that you were experimenting right then on the back end, and I didn't really need to pay for it, but it's ok, you can keep it.
2. As an American, I cannot fathom having a blog with thousands of visitors and not be willing to pay the couple extra dollars to make it as professional-looking as possible. I guess it's a cultural difference between us Yanks who tend to be easier with our money, as opposed to the English/Israeli mentality.
The same can be said for academics. Academics may be tremendous experts in "learning" Torah according to the academic method. But whether the academic method is actually the correct way of getting to the truth of what Torah/Mishna/Gemara meant is another matter (hint, it's not). See my response to Fozzie here:
ואם יאמר האומר שדברי חכמים ז"ל הם מקובלים – אפשר שכן הוא, לא אחלוק עליו, כי אם קבלה הוא נקבל אף על פי שהוא רחוק מן השכל. אבל אם לדין יש תשובה. ובכל מה שאפשר לפרש דברי חכמים ז"ל שלא יחלקו על המפורסם ולקרבן אל השכל – מה טוב ומה נעים.
The above was not written explicitly against the Maharal's approach to aggadah (It is from the Rema's Toras HaOlah, beginning of section 1 chapter 2) but it serves the purpose nonetheless. Interestingly he is introducing a long section in which he explains a peculiar sounding Midrash according to Ptolemaic astronomy. Which does illustrate a problem with reconciling Midrash with contemporary science. The latter changes. Copernicus published his work around the time of Rema's bar mitzvah, but it would not be fully accepted among leading astronomers until a few decades after Rema's death (Gallileo's book that cause the trouble with the church would be published in 1632, 58 years after Rema's death.)
I have read very little about fanaticism, as a topic of philosophical inquiry. But, what strikes me about many of these comments is the concern that the author is somehow insulting, denigrating, degrading, and minimizing -- and not just subjecting Talmud exegesis to a form of rational critique.
This is actually a tool of the True Believer to defend their movement. You aren't ever just offering a critique - you are instead a boorish, loutish, disgrace for a human being.
I don't know if the author (RNS) did a great job or just an ok job of defending the position he took. But, after reading, I do know it was a reasoned critique. Anathema to the deeply felt feelings of true believers. But, as we all know (and true believers ignore) feelings aren't facts.
Reminds me of when I dared to argue with a guy about climate change. I was trying to bring additional scientific perspectives in to the discussion. He seemed to believe I was transforming in to a white supremacist before his very eyes. Fanaticism, I realized, while fun and passionate and gets your heart rate up, is really a kind of substitute for the more boring idea of contemplation, inquiry, and discourse. I see some of that here, too.
It's interesting to note that Jews have often been accused of throwing cold water on fanaticism (through a deeper exploration - like psychoanalysis, referred to by some as the "Jewish Science") while demonstrating loads of it, when it suits them. Such is life.
1. I personally didn’t address the points because the author may very well be correct. He has some good points and obviously did research. I addressed the tone because I found it very disturbing.
2. As much as the Tashbeitz is a primary source for kollel, there are other independent sources as well so it’s not like the entire Kollel movement hangs on a Tashbeitz. (See Igros Moshe, for example)
3. I pity anyone who comes from a world where it is ok to insult, denigrate, degrade, and minimize.
I also pity them. But I think that they can be understood, being that they have a huge chip on their shoulder from trying to 'modernize' Orthodoxy, they feel no choice but to insult, denigrate, degrade, and minimize the old-fashioned Jews attempting to keep to Torah-true Judaism!
There is more to the story. Slifkin is not really intellectually advanced. That is the real truth. He has knowledge of certain things, yes, but his analysis is subpar. I have seen him ask talmudic questions that are not really questions, and then base his theory on his new way of understanding the Gemorah which was never a problem in the first place.
Part of the problem might be not spending enough time studying the text to understand it properly or not getting help from people that do understand it properly, like asking them his questions and getting answers, not jumping to premature conclusions.
While Rabbi Slifkin may be terrible in "creating" new meanings in the text in the derech of the yeshiva system, (just look at his contrived pirush in "Camel Hare and Hyrax") he is quite good at examining the context of the original statement, i.e., discovering the original meaning.
Although you “quoted” the question about your reverence and unquestioning attitude toward the medical Gedolim (i.e. bureaucratic agencies with political skin in the game who attempted to censor anyone that disagreed with them), you didn’t answer it anywhere in this post.
Natan, you're wearing me down. I don't have time or energy to be 'outraged' anymore. Maybe I'll take a hiatus and come back later. You are increasingly shocking me with your ignorance. When we started on this endeavor, I believed you to be somewhat learned, if not perhaps a little misguided or mistaken on this particular issue. But your last two posts sound either like you do not understand Torah study at all, or you are just a plain Reformist.
What R' Chaim did was revolutionize Torah learning and encourage scholars to look inwards and understand the text more carefully, rather than create 'pilpulim', 'l'shitasos', and 'ukimtas' to answer complications. While the terminology he used may have been his own innovation, the concept was admired by virtually all the gedolim of his time. The fact that you think that you are even on the same level as them to disagree is astounding. Yes, the Chazon Ish may have disagreed with him from time to time, but he wrote glosses on his sefer, he did not reject the entire method lock, stock, and barrel. And while it is theoretically possible that a Rishon erred, it is a lot more likely that we simply do not understand what they were saying. There are many responsa from the Rambam to the sages of Luniel explaining what he said - sometimes using fine chilukim - and not saying that he erred. The practice of all the poskim throughout the ages is to assume that their predecessors knew what they were talking about, and they did not understand it, rather than rushing to say that they were mistaken. Only in extreme circumstances where it seems that something is blatantly wrong will later authorities disagree with earlier authorities, and even then, with the greatest deference. This is not a Charedi innovation. This is how the Halachic sausage has been made throughout the ages. All Nosei Keilim and Teshuvos strive to understand their predecessors, explain them, qualify them, and on rare occasions disagree with them.
Whether or not one uses 'Brisker' terminology in his learning is not the deciding factor whether one knows how to learn or not. 'Knowing how to learn' can be explained the same way (l'havdil) any other subject matter expert can be trusted in his field, and we would not trust an outsider. A Talmid Chacham is someone who both possesses the raw data of Torah required to arrive at a psak, and is also familiar with the methodologies used by poskim throughout the ages to arrive at such a psak. The same way we would not trust a high school grad anti-vaxxer who opened a few science books but has no clue how to process that data, likewise, is it utterly ridiculous when someone with seemingly no background with the halachic authorities and the methods they use to arrive at their conlusions, opens a Tashbetz and totally goofs. Sorry, but no offense. All R' Chaim did was crystallize this method of deeper understanding and give it terminology and influence future generations to study things on a deeper level.
And the first part of Fozziebear’s comment that you did not quote here (although you wrote there was ‘perfectly stated’) sounded like it came straight from a Reform rabbi. There are clear klalei hora’ah codified in Shulchan Aruch (CM 25:2) and these are how poskim throughout the ages have arrived at halachic rulings. The fact that you feel this, which is the ‘Charedi approach’ (as well as the approach of even non ‘Charedi’ rabbanim such as R’ Herzog, R’ Yosef, R’ Weinberg and R’ Waldenberg) is wrong, is the biggest vindication of what I’ve been saying the whole time.
1) 'The concept was admired by virtually all gedolim of his time.'
You must mean in the litvishe yeshivos, but the true litmus test of whether it was admired or even accepted, is if it was used to decide halacha, which it certainly was not. R' Y.E. Spektor, Maharsham, nor any of the great rabbonim of the time employed his "mahalach" in their teshuvah seforim. In addition, the Mishnah Berurah and the Aruch Hashulchan obviously made no use of it either. The Igros Moshe also very rarely quoted the briskers, and when he did it was to argue. (In a fashion that led one to doubt their "psakim". See where he almost ridicules not going to the kosel for fear of being on makom hamikdash, and where he dismisses requiring having one's "battim" a perfect microscopic square).
2) Only someone who has not seriously tried to learn halacha in depth with the chazon ish, can say that he didn't reject the brisker derech. We don't need an official statement of the chazon ish to know that. Just spend a "zman" learning any topic in depth with chazon ish. It is also recorded that the chazon ish went to learn by R' Chaim in Volozhin, and left the yeshiva after only one week! That should also tell you something.
3) Regardig Rishonim erring, something often overlooked is that we have thousands of testimonies from the rishonim themselves that other rishonim erred. (Just start learning Bedek Habayis of the Reah and Mishmeres Habayis of the Rashba, Hasagos Haravad on Rambam, Milchamos on the Rif, Hasagos Baal Hamaor on Balei Hanefesh) Therefore it is more than "theoretically possible" for a Rishon to err.
(What becomes more complex is to why later generations can't argue, since the method employed by the opposing rishonim is one that can be learned with time, since it involves logical questions and proofs, not some obscure secret method only known to a "rishon". I digress)
You seem to be a yodei’a sefer but you’re missing my point ENTIRELY. I agree that not everyone adopted R’ Chaim’s mehalech halimud, but he was respected as a Gadol and a Talmid Chacham by virtually all his contemporaries. He had the respect of even the Poilishe Gedolim, such as the Avnei Nezer, who said that R’ Chaim was bigger than him. The first person I’ve ever seen insinuate that he didn’t know how to learn is our gracious blog host. I do not believe that R’ Chaim believed that his approach should be used for ruling on halachic difficulties and he himself refrained from doing so. R’ Chaim was first and foremost an educator and his mission was to train the masses to take a more analytical approach rather than a pilpul-like approach as was popular at the time. Those closer to him resembled his method closer, and those further a little less, but his influence rippled throughout the Lithuanian Torah world. R’ Moshe’s rebbe, R’ Pesach Pruskin, was a talmid of Volozhin and he also had the influence of R’ Chaim. And I was not referring to Brisker chumras, which is completely independent of their mehalech halimud.
Regardless, both R’ Chaim and all the other poskim of his time that you mentioned, such as RYES, the Aruch Hashulchan, the Mishna Berura etc. all worked within the framework of their predecessors and unless in extreme circumstances, did not try to say that those before them had erred and start reconstructing the Gemara from scratch. Not, as DNS is insinuating, that since everyone is fallible, we can disagree with Rishonim and start creating our own Shulchan Aruch. I agree that Rishonim disagree with each other, sometimes both sides can easily be explained and sometimes not as easily, but for someone to come around in 2023 and say that a Rishon, who has gone through scrutiny of tens of thousands of scholars over the last 500 years, has erred would be silly, unless perhaps he is on the stature of R’ Moshe Feinstein and is absolutely certain. I agree that such a thing is possible, the talmidim of the Gra write as such in his name in their hakdama to his pirush to Shulchan Aruch, but 99% of the time even the Gra concurred with the Rishonim and found an opinion which he ruled with and worked almost entirely within the Rishonim's framework.
The number of distortions of my position that you present is quite remarkable.
Earth to DNS, earth to DNS! Do you agree with Fozziebear's comment that I quoted here? Because over on the other post you wrote that it is 'perfectly stated'. And I don't think any of the Poskim that I mentioned above would've agreed at all!
YOOHOO!! ANYBODY HOME??!!
Do you agree with this statement:
"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."
?
I don't know what RNS thinks about it. ButI agree with it. I would even take it further. The reason that the frum world cannot provide good guidance on current challenges facing the State of Israel and the Jewish People today is that instead of combining their Torah learning with learning about the world around us they navel gaze on meaningless intricacies. Who can't learn now?
(Really it depends on how you define what it means to learn).
How can a method to explain the halachic part of the Talmud be legitimate, if nobody including its creator would use it to decide the very subjects it is discussing?
Therefore, the fact remains that his methodology was not really accepted as an authentic understanding of the Talmud and Rishonim.
If one wants to know the authentic Lithuanian style of learning, start learning the "Biur Hagra", or the responsa of R' chaim volozhin in addition to the chazon ish.
I honestly don't understand the confidence with which you assert that the Rambam couldn't have had R' Chaim in mind. I think you are confusing language with ideas. Certainly the Rambam wouldn't have used the phrase "two dinim" or such, but he could still agree with the general idea. An example of what I mean: The Mishnah never uses the phrase יש ברירה or אין ברירה. Yet the Gemara invokes it all the time to explain disputes in Mishnayos (yes, I know that academic Talmud scholars will call my bluff and claim the Mishna never had that in mind!).
It's not like R' Chaim invented the concept of resolving contradictions in the Rambam using fine chilukim. This is what every single commentator on the Rambam does all the time. Including the Rambam himself. Is it R Chaim's fault that his resolution is usually simpler and more elegant than, say, the Lechem Mishnah? Do you have equal confidence that he couldn't have had the Lechem Mishnah's solution in mind either?
Actually the commentators on the rambam do not use fine chilulkim. The Lechem Mishnah's tirutzim would be considered very ba'al habatish in the yeshivah world.
Actually, they do use fine chilukim, like, all the time. That Natan doesn't know this is just another indication of his ignorance. R' Chaim's explanations may seem more elegant to contemporary yeshivish minds, but only a fool would call the Lechem Mishna's tirutzim "ba'al habatish".
The MB did not work within the framework of his predecessors. The Aruch Hashilchan did, his starting point generally being what people did. The MB is a likut (not to different from an Artscroll halochoh sefer) who 99% just goes l'chumrah in everything. Don’t the Briskers say the MB is for geirim and BTs?
The Ramba’m himself, when challenged, used many ‘fine chilukim’ to strongly defend his position (something he did far more often than admit error). And Rabbi David Kamenetzky’s majestic biography of R’ Chaim Ozer makes it clear that RCO would not make a move without RCS, who as a strategic thinker had no other peer. They faced off with Russian officials, decided every single major issue facing Klal Yisroel etc. The - excuse me - sheer foolishness of hypothesising that the CI left Volozhin bc of the ‘Brisker derech’ is a joke. The shiur given by RCS was a daily blatt shiur. Volozhin began with M’ Brachos and ended with Niddah - there was no cycle- Shas was the cycle. We have written accounts of how he prepared the shiur with a select group of Talmidim. So he said a blatt shiur for 12 years, utilizing (and in this he was a pioneer) many of the Rishonim that had only been printed in the middle decades of the 19th century. And your theory is that the CI couldn’t take that?
utilizing (and in this he was a pioneer) many of the Rishonim that had only been printed in the middle decades of the 19th century. And your theory is that the CI couldn’t take that?
Oy. While I am usually an admirer of your blog, your sheer ignorance of who R’ Soloveichik was and what his work was about is stunning. This whole post is so unnecessary and so tangential to your work. Anyone who has ever studied under anyone named Soloveichik knows that the entire effort is only to arrive at the clearest and most direct understanding of the text. Always. Always. That you portray R’ Chaim as some sort of creative intellectual gymnast is so grotesque and inaccurate. The techniques that he used that to you (and to us) appear so dazzling are in fact tools created and used by one of the great minds of history. Einstein, similarly, often spoke of the simplicity and clarity of his work, and it was simple- to him!
The arguments you put forward - that the CI disagreed with ‘some of’ Rabbi Soloveichik’s explanations, and that the Rambam (in sources that RS obviously didn’t have then) corrected himself - are nonsense and harmful because you use these ‘facts’ as a means to diminish RS. Look, you say - Rabbi Soloveichik isn’t so special - look - he was wrong about this, and so and so disagreed with him on this. (There was once someone named Moshe who was criticised, repeatedly, by a critic named Hashem.) it’s just so unnecessarily reductionist.
This is where you go wrong. You do not realize that there are worlds of comprehension and understanding that you (and all of us) haven’t achieved and will probably never achieve - and perhaps cannot achieve. Einstein would marvel at his realization, when he scaled new heights, of the new and much higher plateaus that now became visible, as yet unachieved - and it humbled him. I hate to say this, but if you have any flaw it is in a lack of some level of humility. None of us know ‘how to learn’ like R’ Chaim, or the CI - we can only be ourselves, and do the best we can. So be humble, ignore your detractors and focus on the as yet unrealised levels of accomplishment that you can get to -and I think you will get to - build on what you’ve done, and let that be your legacy.
'Clearest, most direct understanding of the text'
You are having a laugh are you not? You want clear understanding. Have a look at the nosei keilim on the Rambam. They give 'understandings' which would be considered very ba'al habatish in the yeshivish world.
Hand on heart (yep,.I know that's a goyish expression) do you really believe for one second the Rambam had in mind Reb Chaim's chakiros?
Yes. (Baalabatishness is in the eyes of the beholder)
And you surely are aware that RCS gave a daily blatt shiur in Volozhin for about 12 years.
There is more to the story. Slifkin is not really intellectually advanced. That is the real truth. He has knowledge of certain things, yes, but his analysis is subpar. I have seen him ask talmudic questions that are not really questions, and then base his theory on his new way of understanding the Gemorah which was never a problem in the first place.
Part of the problem might be not spending enough time studying the text to understand it properly or not getting help from people that do understand it properly, like asking them his questions and getting answers, not jumping to premature conclusions.
I think he's a pretty intelligent guy. He'd just be better off focusing on what he specializes in, and not piskei halacha, or say, rocket science.
I find it unhelpful to say things about other people like “he’s not intellectually advanced”. We generally don’t seek to diminish others. In this particular case RNS has a blog. He is perfectly entitled to write what he wants, and to interpret Tashbatz’s as he wishes. The general issues he raises are important, and even if we disagree with what he says, discussion of the issues helps to clarify them, which is beneficial for everyone.
Read RNS's book called "Rationalism vs Mysticism" and then see if your opinion of him changes.
My opinion of him rose sharply.
The funniest part of all of this is that BY FAR the biggest names in the Mod Ox/Mizrachi world stand in direct opposition to Nosson's conentions.
Rav Kook: More influenced by Mysticism the ANY Haredi Rabbi I can think of. (Maybe the Baba Sali). His whole outlook on Zionism and the attitude we should have towards the secular was based heavily on Kabalah.
Rav Moshe Soloveitichik: The eldest son of Rav Chaim Brisker. His style of learning was Brisk.
Rav Yosher Ber Soloveitchik. He literally held that his father Rav Moshe was the true inheritor of the Brisker dynasty. His style of learning was PURE brisk. He was obsessed with the brisker style. That WAS him and that WAS his greatness.
Rav Aahron Lichtenshtien. One of Rav Yosher Bers foremost Talmidim, whos entire style of learning was based off the Brisk mehalach.
Come on mate, you've only got a few big guns in that world, no need to get rid of them as well!
No, they still have big guns like Spinoza, Wellhausen, Abraham Geiger, etc.
Brilliant!
Personally I try to separate Slifkin and his ilk from serious Modox/Mizrachi who still have immense respect for Talmidei Chachamim.
Right, I often make that point on this blog. They have some serious people like Rabbi Schachter, Rabbi Tau, Rabbi Lior, Rabbi Aviner. But I'm not sure if the serious ones do a good enough job of communally separating themselves from the מינים ומשומדים. Tsk tsk.
I've also made that point numerous times. There are good MODOX rabbis out there and my rants are directed at the MODOX in GENERAL. Although I'm not sure that I would put every last rabbi on the above list in the 'kosher' category.
You mean like your Charei rabbis- tzahal is geshma?!
Chreidi rabbis calling the soldiers "Geshmad"
I, for one, understood what you were trying to say.
My issue (upon which this post appears to be based) was with the way you said it and continue to say it. It is quite possible and likely that the Maharal and Reb Chaim did have the right Peshat when they learned Gemara. Obviously, others argue with their approach. I’d love to hear what you have to say. I just don’t understand why you can’t make your points respectfully.
Many Reb Chaim’s have the Chazon Ish printed in the back. Yeshivas routinely learn them side by side and recognize that they had two very different approaches. Often Reb Shimon, Reb Shach and the Ketzos will have equally divergent approaches. Besides, even Reb Chaim only explained the Rambam. Everyone acknowledges Rashi, Ramban, and even Meiri who might interpret the sugya differently. In fact, for those who learn Beis Yosef and Shulchan Aruch it is obvious that Reb Chaim’s approach usually does not affect the halachic process. Any Brisker will tell you that Reb Chaim was not the Poseik in Brisk. He sent the Shailos to Reb Simcha Zelig Rieger.
You aren’t breaking new ground here. You aren’t the only one who knows that there are approaches outside Reb Chaim and the Maharal.
You are welcome to share your understanding of the Tashbetz. You are unreasonable if you think you are the only one capable enough or open minded enough to understand him.
One anonymous commentator like me is not going to change you, but I genuinely like a lot of your stuff and wish you could write it without the constant put downs and disrespect.
Just one man’s vote.
Imagine thinking that Rav Yosher Ber Soloveitchik and Rav Aahron Lichtenshtien were just 'making stuff up' The arrogance is outstanding. These are the bastions of Modern Orthodoxy/Mizrachi.
Wow Nathan, 4 for 4! You must be really mad! First you bit off more than you could chew in the argument with Mecharker about the Tashbetz, and then after whining about how "vicious* he was, you lost the vote 77% to 23%!
I don't know why you say that I "lost" the vote. My vote was for people NOT to be banned.
Really?? I have reason to suspect otherwise...
Random question. If Biden won Trump 51%-46%, does Trump still get to be president 46% of the time?
What are you talking about?
You're new here? See previous three posts.
I'm reminded of the Brisker avreich, who was a Kohein, and when it came time for his Maamad in the Beit Hamikdash he refused because it would have made him late for his chaburah in Menachot
Was it the same chap who refused to divulge who his 'genuine oni' was on Purim so he would be the only one to 'have him' next year for matonos l'evyonim?
🤣
Waka Waka.
I wish you would make an effort not to steal intellectual property. I've always found it very incongruent with your approach as morally upstanding but also in regards to the vehemence with which you critique haredim for accepting handouts which you have equated to stealing. Intellectual property theft is theft and violates halachah. Even if there is no watermark, you cannot simply take other people's artwork etc. and republish it without permission, which you do quite frequently.
Just wondering...
1. Why did I get a paywall but friends of mine told me they did not? Are you trying to root me out even though I won the election?
2. It's pretty unprofessional to use a cartoon with a watermark. You couldn't spend a couple extra dollars to remove it?
1. Gosh. I guess your poor reading comprehension extends beyond Tashbatz to not understanding how to subscribe to this blog without having to pay.
2. I didn't see it as worthwhile, even with the extra money that we now have from your paid subscription.
Reading comprehension, hmm: Guess you still don't know how to read this paragraph from the Tashbetz, eh?
ואחר אשר השיכותי מעל החכמים הראשונים והאחרונים ז"ל את תלונו' בני ישראל הרב הגדול הרמב"ם ז"ל והנמשכים אחריו ז"ל אכתו' קצרו של דבר כפי העולה בידינו ממקומו' מפוזרי' בתלמוד הצבור חייבים לגדל משלהם מי שהוא חשוב בדורו כר' אמי בדורו וגם החכם עצמו נוטל מעצמו הראוי לו לגדולתו כדמוכחא ההיא דפ' הזרוע (חולין קל"ד ע"ב) ואם הוא חכם ששואלין אותו דבר הלכה בכולה תלמודא ואומ' ראוי למנותו פרנס על כל ישראל וריש מתיבתא וכל ישראל חייבים לגדלו ואם שואלין אותו במסכתא קבועה לו דבר הלכה ואומר ראוי למנותו פרנס בעירו והם מגדלין אותו ואם אינו בגדר זה עדיין אלא שהוא עוסק בלימודו ומניח עסקיו בני עירו חייבין למטרח בריפתיה כדמוכח בפ' אלו קשרים (שבת קי"ד ע"א).
This how you read it, with your renowned "reading comprehension":
"Note, however, that Rashbatz specifically limits this to Torah scholars functioning in the role of community rabbi."
http://rationalistjudaism.blogspot.com/2022/09/tzedakah-good-bad-and-ugly.html?showComment=1663853787292&m=0#c86042970560522001
Maybe you forgot? 🤣
1. Actually, when I tried posting a comment on Motza'ei Shabbos, I was met with a paywall that said that I need to pay $8/mo in order to comment. When others told me that they did not get it, I tried posting a test comment under the name 'John Gilmore' (you can see his comment below) and it went through. It's possible that you were experimenting right then on the back end, and I didn't really need to pay for it, but it's ok, you can keep it.
2. As an American, I cannot fathom having a blog with thousands of visitors and not be willing to pay the couple extra dollars to make it as professional-looking as possible. I guess it's a cultural difference between us Yanks who tend to be easier with our money, as opposed to the English/Israeli mentality.
The same can be said for academics. Academics may be tremendous experts in "learning" Torah according to the academic method. But whether the academic method is actually the correct way of getting to the truth of what Torah/Mishna/Gemara meant is another matter (hint, it's not). See my response to Fozzie here:
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/on-knowing-how-to-learn/comment/12066297
ואם יאמר האומר שדברי חכמים ז"ל הם מקובלים – אפשר שכן הוא, לא אחלוק עליו, כי אם קבלה הוא נקבל אף על פי שהוא רחוק מן השכל. אבל אם לדין יש תשובה. ובכל מה שאפשר לפרש דברי חכמים ז"ל שלא יחלקו על המפורסם ולקרבן אל השכל – מה טוב ומה נעים.
The above was not written explicitly against the Maharal's approach to aggadah (It is from the Rema's Toras HaOlah, beginning of section 1 chapter 2) but it serves the purpose nonetheless. Interestingly he is introducing a long section in which he explains a peculiar sounding Midrash according to Ptolemaic astronomy. Which does illustrate a problem with reconciling Midrash with contemporary science. The latter changes. Copernicus published his work around the time of Rema's bar mitzvah, but it would not be fully accepted among leading astronomers until a few decades after Rema's death (Gallileo's book that cause the trouble with the church would be published in 1632, 58 years after Rema's death.)
I have read very little about fanaticism, as a topic of philosophical inquiry. But, what strikes me about many of these comments is the concern that the author is somehow insulting, denigrating, degrading, and minimizing -- and not just subjecting Talmud exegesis to a form of rational critique.
This is actually a tool of the True Believer to defend their movement. You aren't ever just offering a critique - you are instead a boorish, loutish, disgrace for a human being.
I don't know if the author (RNS) did a great job or just an ok job of defending the position he took. But, after reading, I do know it was a reasoned critique. Anathema to the deeply felt feelings of true believers. But, as we all know (and true believers ignore) feelings aren't facts.
Reminds me of when I dared to argue with a guy about climate change. I was trying to bring additional scientific perspectives in to the discussion. He seemed to believe I was transforming in to a white supremacist before his very eyes. Fanaticism, I realized, while fun and passionate and gets your heart rate up, is really a kind of substitute for the more boring idea of contemplation, inquiry, and discourse. I see some of that here, too.
It's interesting to note that Jews have often been accused of throwing cold water on fanaticism (through a deeper exploration - like psychoanalysis, referred to by some as the "Jewish Science") while demonstrating loads of it, when it suits them. Such is life.
I’ve been thinking about this. Three points:
1. I personally didn’t address the points because the author may very well be correct. He has some good points and obviously did research. I addressed the tone because I found it very disturbing.
2. As much as the Tashbeitz is a primary source for kollel, there are other independent sources as well so it’s not like the entire Kollel movement hangs on a Tashbeitz. (See Igros Moshe, for example)
3. I pity anyone who comes from a world where it is ok to insult, denigrate, degrade, and minimize.
I also pity them. But I think that they can be understood, being that they have a huge chip on their shoulder from trying to 'modernize' Orthodoxy, they feel no choice but to insult, denigrate, degrade, and minimize the old-fashioned Jews attempting to keep to Torah-true Judaism!
There is more to the story. Slifkin is not really intellectually advanced. That is the real truth. He has knowledge of certain things, yes, but his analysis is subpar. I have seen him ask talmudic questions that are not really questions, and then base his theory on his new way of understanding the Gemorah which was never a problem in the first place.
Part of the problem might be not spending enough time studying the text to understand it properly or not getting help from people that do understand it properly, like asking them his questions and getting answers, not jumping to premature conclusions.
Testing.
This recalls an earlier post. Rabbi Sligkin very correctly draws a distinction between discovering and creating meaning, and I think that's the crux in what's considered "learning". https://rationalistjudaism.blogspot.com/2020/08/torah-dogmatism.html.
While Rabbi Slifkin may be terrible in "creating" new meanings in the text in the derech of the yeshiva system, (just look at his contrived pirush in "Camel Hare and Hyrax") he is quite good at examining the context of the original statement, i.e., discovering the original meaning.
See also DF's comment there.
Although you “quoted” the question about your reverence and unquestioning attitude toward the medical Gedolim (i.e. bureaucratic agencies with political skin in the game who attempted to censor anyone that disagreed with them), you didn’t answer it anywhere in this post.