Chazal tell us היה ר' יהודה אומר: לעולם הוי כונס דברי תורה כללים ומוציאם, שנאמר יערוף כמטר לקחי, ואין יערף אלא לשון כנעני, שאין אדם אומר לחבירו "פרוט לי סלע זו" - אלא "ערוף לי סלע זו", כך הוי כונס דברי תורה כללים - ופורט ומוציאם כטיפים הללו של טל; ולא כטיפים הללו של מטר גדולות, אלא כטיפים הללו של טל שהם קטנים:
If a person learns many halachos, each detail in its place, he will never remember them or apply them accurately. It is only when a person learns Torah with klalim (sorry, I am not pretentious enough to write 'qlalim') that he can truly appreciate a sugya.
These klalim are what are known as the 'lomdus' of the sugya. When the underlying logic of the sugya is reached, appreciated, and quantified, it is possible to be מדמה מילתא למילתא and reach the pesak halacha. Otherwise, we arrive at 'poskei tzedek' of the Hungarian variety, and comparisons between יש ברירה and בורר on Shabbos, or מיגו דהוי דופן לענין שבת and מיגו להוציא are suggested (the first is in an actual teshuva sefer, the second is a famous joke).
Learning שמירת שבת כהלכתה is not learning Halacha. It is a great Sefer, but not a way to learn Hilchos Shabbos. Of course, learning and reaching the underlying sevara takes far longer than the one who simply prepares for his 'smicha' program, and the superficial eye may think that the second is the one learning Halacha, but learning halacha without focusing on the underlying sevara causes superficiality, specious comparisons, and a boxed-in mindset. This is the source of the 'telephone-book' style of psak today, where people quote names instead of dealing with the halacha - 'Reb Nissim Karelitz says this, Reb Shomo Zalman argued, Rabbi Webster told me that he agrees with Reb Shlomo Zalman, but Reb Asher Weiss said in a shiur that he thinks the minhag is different.' Sadly, that is what passes for 'halacha' and 'psak' in many circles.
I used to hear the "do you think you're smarter than x" every time my maskanot came out closer to earlier authorities and not "what we do". It was never about being smarter than someone, just being honest about what X sugya or discussion was talking about.
A lot of sacred cows prevent people from being honest about the outcome of an analysis.
You won't here name discussion when they are learning lomdus, true. But ask them anything else like hashkofo and halocho, as much 'name discussion' as anywhere else.
"Sadly, that is what passes for 'halacha' and 'psak' in many circles."
It's actually ALL yeshivish circles. Only real genuine experienced shul rabbonim and poskim (excluding roshei yeshivos contrary to what their cultees believe, knoweldge noshim nozikim has no connection with hilchos shabbos) don't do it, and they are few and far between.
The mishneh berurah itself is in the main 'telephone book' style, no? Until it was popularised (by siyata dishmayoh if you believe in such a thing), why should a rosh yeshiva in Radin suddenly decide halochoh for klal yisroel?
Someone once told me that back in his day, MB was considered a silly sefer. Much like what people say when talking about Shulchan Aruch "used to be a book for kids".
This is a critically important post . You can’t begin to quote Sifrei Halacha and contemporary Sefarim on Pssk Halacha without having a working familiarity as to how the Gemara Rishonim and Acharonim understood the key issues in every Sugya Esch Masecta is its own worlds with its own operating klalim and underling machlokesin and even if you learn on a Daf Yomi level you can see that while Kol HaTorah Inyan Evhad Hu the Klalim are vastly important in order to be able to be Mdameh Milsa LMilsa and to have sevaras that are rooted in the Gemara
I do think that you are overplaying the role of Brisker chakira in the yeshiva word. Certainly, there is an aura of mystique surrounding the thrill of a new way of looking at things. But for the most part, it is only during the formative years (until 24 in America, until 20 in Israel) that it is really emphasized. Having learnt for many years in Lakewood, I will say that most of the interest among serious students is a clear and thorough understanding of the simple meaning of the foundational material. Certainly, some will have a more Lomdishe bent, others will gravitate to Halacha, with a few other genres thrown in, but I dont think that you (Rabbi CLinton) have an objection to lomdus in moderation. As an interesting illustration to my point: The quintessential master of Halacha, the Chazon Ish, wrote hagahos on the sefer R' Chaim Halevi. While he may have differed in his conclusions and his analytical style, if one steps back to see at what point in the sugya does the Chazon Ish part ways with Rav Chaim, it is actually at a very advanced stage in the sugya, with many hours of learning required to even appreciate the difference between the 2.
“the AI model estimated that between 70 and 80 percent of the chakiros in חידושי רבינו חיים הלוי have “little or no direct application to practical halachic rulings.”
That statement is silly and ridiculous for the following simple reason. The Rambam is a Sefer psak, halachic decisions. All of the chakiros in חידושי רבינו חיים הלוי are coming to explain difficult PSAKIM, halachic decisions that the Rambam made. Therefore they all have direct application to practical halachic rulings, they explain the halachic rulings of the Rambam.
I think you are confused. This has nothing to do with "Brisker style analysis". You can do "Brisker style analysis" anywhere, in seder Nezikin, seder Moed, Tur, Shulchan Aruch. The yeshivas don't learn with bachurim שמעתא אליבא דהלכתה, but that has nothing to do with the Brisker method and predates Rav Chaim. When many of these bachurim graduate to kollel and start learning שמעתא אליבא דהלכתה, they apply their learning skills to that. There are many chakiros one can make אליבא דהלכתה.
I disagree. The Brisker style involves, as I've written, analyzing the underlying structure of a sugya, and that "underlying structure" is, more often than not, irrelevant to halachic conclusions. Now, things may work differently from yeshiva to yeshiva and rebbi to rebbi, but many yeshivas do focus their primary attention on that Brisker style (and, more specifically, Brisker-style seforim) and, therefore, will generally NOT address halachic considerations. And the intellectual tools used for this approach are, by and large, not the same skills we'd use for halachic-oriented learning.
The brisker style focuses on the Rambam which is a Sefer of psak, halachic decisions. Therefore of course it addresses halachic conclusions, it explains the halachic conclusions of the Rambam.
Yeah, I guess we disagree. I think the underlying structure has everything to do with halachic conclusions. Go to any yeshivishe halacha kollel and you will see them using the same learning skills they used in yeshiva for halacha.
I don't know. Offhand I can't think of a single practical נפקא מינה להלכה that'll arise from a חפצא וגברא distinction. Although I may have missed something.
Of course you missed something, a lot. Here is a נפקא מינה להלכה off the top of my head.
There is an issur to feed a minor child issurim. The minchas chinuch says based on this you can’t feed your child on Yom Kippur unless it’s pikuach nefesh because you are feeding him issurim. The minhag haolam is not like the minchas chinuch. What’s the explanation ? The issur to feed your child issurim applies to a חפצא דאיסורא, if I feed him pig I violate the issur. The issur to eat on Yom Kippur however is not an issur on the food, the food doesn’t become a חפצא דאיסורא, it’s an issur on the גברא. That issur doesn’t apply to a child and therefore you can feed him.
Why should the issur only apply to a 'cheftza d'issuro' - an issur is an issur no? That's just reverse engineering to justify why nobody bothers with the chinuch. The ta'am hissur is given by many as 'shema yisrach', so it should not make any difference.
In any event, one of the mekoros for 'ma'achilin' is feeding a cohen kid teruimah temeoh . That is not an issue cheftzoh ). So that explanation is very dodgy anyway (yes, I know in lomdus you can answer anything.
This post is entirely 'offhand'. If you actually took the time to delve into the details, you wouldn't have made the mistake of thinking חפצא גברא is a Brisker idea. In fact, it hardly features in Toras Brisk. But when johnny-come-lately and seminary girls discuss lomdus, their go-to idea is חפצא גברא.
I don't know about חפצא וגברא, but can you think about practical halachic differences that will depend on how you understand דופן עקומה? A chakira: Is it the schach turning into a wall or does the wall itself bend? See the Kesef Mishnah Hilchos Succah 4:14.
Yeah, and in most kollels you will hear stuff along the lines of 'can't really get to the bottom of that shach - something must be 'lav davka' - time to move on now.
Is halacha kollel encouraged in the yeshivish world in the US? I honestly want to know. In the Israeli litvish world it's looked down on and it's for shvere bachurim compared to the serious Iyun kollelim.
I think Brisker Lomdus ought to be disconnected from how one pasqens. The latter traditionally revolves on tracing the gemara down not only to the Rambam, but to the Tur, the Beis Yoseif and other commentaries on the Tur, the Shulchan Arukh and its commentaries... When I learn Mes' Shabbos with R Mordechai Willig in the 1980s, you needed a Shemiras Shabbos keHilkhesa!
For that matter, it is possible R Chaim thought Lomdus and pesaq required two different kinds of analysis as well, because he only took the job of being the Rav of Brisk on the condition that they would get a dayan who would be the poseiq.
But in paractice, that is increasingly less true. You are seeing Lomdus in teshuvos. It is part of why pesaq is getting unanchored from traditional practice and adopting more Brisker chumeros.
You are very wrong on this. Here is a story about Rav Chaim which illustrates the point.
A poor man’s father died in the morning in Brisk and the chevra kadisha started preparing him for burial. Then a little while later a rich man died so the chevra kadisha stopped with the poor man and started with the rich man. The poor man came to Rav Chaim to complain. Rav Chaim was in a meeting with some rabbanim. After hearing the story Rav Chaim opened up a Rambam hilchos aveilus and scanned through it. Then he told the poor man’s son, go home it’s none of your business I will deal with the chevra kadisha. The rabbanim who were there didn’t understand why Rav Chaim looked at the Rambam and what his answer was. It’s a simple din in shulchan aruch that you bury the person who died first first. Rav Chaim explained as follows. He was unsure why you bury the person who died first, first. Is it a special din in hilchos aveilus/kevurah or is it the general din of אין מעבירים על המצות. That’s why he looked in the Rambam. He wanted to see if the Rambam quoted this din in hilchos aveilus, and he did not. Therefore Rav Chaim concluded that it’s the general din of אין מעבירים על המצות. That Rav Chaim explained is why he answered as he did. Since it’s not a din in hilchos aveilus, the son has no claim against the chevra kadisha. Therefore Rav Chaim told him, you go home and I will deal with the chevra kadisha. Because Rav Chaim was the Rav of the city and was therefore responsible for the chevra kadisha.
What do we see from this. That even a chakira that seems to have no relevance to Halacha lmaaseh actually does. Rav Chaim drew a halachic conclusion למעשה based on his analysis.
You have completely misunderstood how psak Halacha works. Let’s take the following real world case. A few years ago someone created a grama switch to turn on lights on Shabbos. There was a big controversy. A big part of it was a discussion analyzing (lomdus/chakiras) what is the definition of grama and does the switch meet that definition. Without analysis/lomdus how would you know how to define grama? What is considered grama and what isn’t? Dies the switch meet those criteria? It’s only through analysis that you can address new situations.
Here is another example. Surrogate motherhood, who al pi Halacha is the mother? How could you answer this without lomdus? We need to analyze what creates the relationship between the mother and the child. Is it genetics? Or is it birth or is it something else? You need to have the tools to analyze things to be able to pasken. This is why the yeshivas study the way they do. Because to be a great posek you need to know how to analyze things and read between the lines and be able to be מדמה מילתא למילתא
That certainly is a relevant and interesting story, but I hardly illustrates anything more than that single case: It doesn't prove that all - or even most - other chakiros have halachic implications. And it certainly doesn't suggest that anyone who repeats those chakiros has furthered his understanding of halacha.
If I had just told you that chakira you would have said that chakira has no נפקא מינא להלכה. And yet it does. The same goes for the other chakiras, you may not see the halachic נפקא מינא but there is one.
I'll admit that other chakiros could *possibly* have halachic implications, but I'm far from convinced that they actually do. And I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.
Here’s another chakira. The Gemara says that כלי שני אינו מבשל. The question is what does that mean. One possibility is that it’s a מציאות. Chazal are telling us a general fact. Another possibility is that it’s a din that cooking in a כלי שני is not defined by the Torah as בישול even if the food actually gets cooked. One נפקא מינא is what about a very hot כלי שני. If it’s a מציאות then if the כלי שני is very hot it can cook and would therefore be prohibited. The חיי אדם quotes such as chumra. On the other hand if it’s a din then how hot the כלי שני is is irrelevant, על פי דין a כלי שני is not cooking and therefore the חיי אדם chumra makes no sense.
I could go on and list many many chakiras off the top of my head that have halachic nafka minas.
This doesn't change anything. I originally wrote: "the actual chakiros **seldom** raise questions that are relevant to practical halachic discussions". That certainly doesn't mean they *never* do.
Having said that, I'm not sure how either of us could practically prove our respective claims...
That's not a Brisker chakirah. More Telz. Briskers don't do 'why' and their chakiros are generally not 'why' based. Two possible reasons for a halochoh does not a chakirah make.
I don't think that's the only peshat in Kiddushin 40b. ״מביא לידי״ "doesn't instinctively mean "know what to do," and various meforshim don't understand it that way.
If learning not אליבא להלכתא is "sub-optimal," then why learn mesechtos like Yevamos or Sanhendrin when most of the material isn't practically relevant today? Why spend time on a daf, which is just the Stam trying to source the different opinions of the Amoraim in pesukim?
Why not skip all bits of a Mishnah when it's a daas yochid against the Chachomim, or all the dafim that are just explaining how the יג מידות were applied in that specific sugya - there's nothing to be practically gained there? What does Grok say about a hekesh?
Why even bother learning Gemara at all? Let's learn the Rif, the Beis Yosef, or the Piskei Teshuvot. Doing that will equip you to deal with practical day-to-day shailos.
There's a lot more to learning than just practical how-tos
I think the bigger issue is that the brisker chakiros aren't just that scientific. It's a pseudoscience as it cannot be tested (well, there are potentially ways, but Brisk in practice avoids them). Someone with a scientific mind would learn a sugya very differently.
Right, this is like #15 on the list of problems with the Brisker method. In fact, I'd say it's really a consequence of the real problems. If people consistently paskened halacha according to Brisker chakiros, then halacha would fall apart, so best to restrict it to theoretical stuff. Chronologically, it might be the opposite way round: since there's no point in studying the gemoro to learn halacha (because you are just going to ignore it and do what the Shach says anyway), then you can go wild with chakiros because it doesn't matter.
1) No effort is made to establish that chakiros are being made on correct girsas before starting. This is despite it being common knowledge that e.g. the Frenkel Rambam is riddled with errors and omissions.
2) Chakiros are no subjected to sanity checks, but only assessed based on elegance or breadth. Indeed, since sanity checks would require historical context and philology, they are essentially banned.
3) The hypothesis that a given rishon simply misunderstood the gemoro (e.g. because he himself had a wrong girsa) is ruled out a priori.
4) Minimal or no effort is made to understand the original meaning of primary texts by placing them in their relevant context, e.g. by looking at parallels to a sugya in the Yerushalmi.
5) The hypothesis that a given rishon is, in fact, ruling according to an extra or non-talmudic tradition is arbitrarily excluded (except where they say so explicitly, but sometimes maybe even then).
6) Important sources of information are excluded. For example, it is often pertinent to understand the Rambam's reading of a sugya to look at the Meiri, but you are not allowed to look at the Meiri because [reasons].
7) There is an unreasonable burden of proof required before simply admitting that 2 sources contradict each other, and an unreasonably low burden of proof required to accept reconciliations.
8) It relies on a model of halacha as basically static and ignores ways that difficulties can be explained via process of change and development.
9) It doesn't make use of statistical methods enabled by Excel, Ctrl+f etc. that we have today, but just relies on bekius. (this isn't a criticism of the original method, but a criticism of still using it).
10) It makes no use at all of advances made in source critical techniques.
11) Minimal or no effort is made to collate, sort and present insights made over each generation, so the next generation can use them to make further progress. Instead it's just a chakira there, a chakira here and, apart from a few classic seforim, no-one even knows if this new chiddush is the 50th time it has been made or not.
12) No use is made of academic materials. There are excellent studies available today of, say, the Raavad's approach to halachic sources, but no-one consults that before making a chakira.
Probably there are some more.
EDIT:
13) Because the halacha is seen as out of time, no advantage is taken out of looking at general trends e.g. how did they pasken in Sura, what wait did Rav Hisda give to dicta of Rav.etc.?
Ah, thanks. I suspected it would be something like this. So this is not a problem with Brisk specifically, but with any classical method of learning. Brisk, Telz, Slobodka, Chafetz Chaim, Chassidic, Sefardi, Daf Yomi, Dirshu, the rav's daily Gemara shiur, bekius, iyun, halacha, Ketzos, Nesivos, Pnei Yehoshua, Rav Nochum, Rav Shmuel, Aruch Hashulchan, Mishna Brurah- basically anything that is not the academic Talmud method would run afoul of these "problems". In effect they can all be summed up in 10). I'm not saying that these are not issues, that can be a separate discussion, but I don't think it's specific to Brisk. You're probably just blaming Brisk because it's taken over the yeshiva world and yeshiva people feel so smart and intellectual about it and you think it's so stupid compared to academic Talmud.
I'm not sure. Some are academic. However many rishonim utilize yerushalmi and fix girsas extensively. Abandoning those things is simply a result of the canonization of rishonim and modern day obscurancy.
There's a difference between what the rishonim did and what the academics do. When the rishonim looked different girsaos, they were generally looking at girsaos that were in use. They weren't digging up 800 yr old things from a genizah (however for an exception see Rambam מלוה ולוה טו:ב, but there he was using them to adjudicate between different girsaos that were in use).
However, the rishonim (and many acharonim) on many occasions just changed the girsa themselves, to answer questions. You see this all over the place. Do you prefer that to the Brisker method? Do you feel that's more intellectually honest?
They definitely cannot all be summed up in (10). For me the most important are (1), (2), (8) and (12). Maybe (9) too.
I would say Brisk is particularly bad on (2) and (8), but actually it's worse on most of them because it tries to be more ambitious with the same limitations (or even stricter ones because it is insists on them more strenuously). For example, the fewer diyyukim you make, the less it matters if you are not careful to get the right girsa. I genuinely think that, given they are all online now, making a diyyuk on a gemoro without checking kitvei yad is discrediting and it shouldn't even be called learning, but some kind of meditative exercise.
But I'm not personally het up on Brisk. It's just the topic of the post. All in all, Brisk is probably a force for good for resisting Zionism.
Depends what type of diyuk. A good chiddush will rely on more than just a diyuk. Off the top of my head, I don't think that most issues in Chiddushei Rav Chaim rely on a simple diyuk and would be amenable to just changing the girsa. Maybe a few. Either way, the solution to this, to the extent it's a problem, is to come out with improved editions of Shas, Rambam, etc. Not to expect yeshiva students to sift through kisvei yad all day.
Re 11 - is further progress even possible? It strikes me as classic pseudoscience in the fact that there is never any consensus to build on (except maybe migo koach hatayna or something similar
I think it would become less pseudo-sciencey if efforts were made to collate and systematize it, because instead of saying 'wow psshhh', you have to say 'is that true?'. Even something as simple as taking two chakiros on the same sugya and deciding which one is less implausible would be the road to progress.
Like in academia, a large proportion of what is going on at any given time is total trash; what makes it worthwhile is the good stuff is preserved and later scholars build on and challenge it.
Yep. This is my beef with what the masses call halachic psak these days. It's less about figuring out the thing and more about pleasing factions and honoring specific lists of rabbis that need honor in the minds of the mentally weak.
Who needs truth when the outcome is decided for you by the issur to contradict X brand name.
Precedent is an important part of halacha. I can't just go and say we should rule like Beis Shammai because I think their opinion on this or that makes more sense. So, in principle, you can just believe that halacha is fixed like the Shulchan Aruch, and it doesn't matter what you think the gemara says anymore because you came too late. The problem is that, if you think that, what's the purpose of learning gemara, which is where modern Yeshivish theories come in.
Btw, if precedent matters, things like kitniyot fall apart :P We did until some guys chose not to...and Rosh and Tur call it silly or extreme. Then before you know it it's mandatory....yet there is no precedent for it and there IS precedent culturally and in writing that Jews ate rice and beans during Pesah.
*laughs in רבינא ורב אשי סוף ההוראה היא*. So it doesn't matter who after them said things, it didn't have ratification.
Are there things that make sense or have good reasoning? Sure.
Are most of these things actually binding in any meaningful sense? Not really.
Which is why until it actually is binding I'm not following innovated, new, undiscussed legal definitions of things that those preceding didn't touch. Like "electricity is fire" (which it's not). I won't use it for personal interest reasons though.....there are few use cases worth rocking the boat over.
You mention Shach..I think he's the reason some people hold of steam in kashrut...Mind you I only started learning on the subject in any meaningful way for personal interest but sfair R. Rimon lists him as the first serious mention of it. That's a guy from 1621-1661 PLC/Moravia(Czechia). I'll change my tune if you can show otherwise but if I'm accurate(and R. Rimon) then this means for 1600 years people didn't have a legal opinion on a pretty important thing.......and while it makes sense in context, there was no ratified law..so.....it's a suggestion and not binding in my eyes.
Why is this a problem with Brisk? If this is a problem (which it is not, because nobody ever claimed learning Gemara is scientific except in a very loose sense, like the "science" of law), it is a problem with basically any method of learning. It's a problem with the Shach and Taz. It's a problem with Tosafos. It's a problem with the Gemara itself.
It really isn't, because no one is expecting the gemara to be scientific. It's not science, it's law, it's Torah.
But by brisk, there's two factors: one, they think they are uncovering some sort of ontological metzius (which then essentially renders this a science) and two, this approach is claimed to be an achievement similar to science (as the story with R Chaim in this post). If that's the case the method doesn't live up to the hype. Obviously Torah is amazing and deep and if one enjoys learning law or Torah he won't have this issue. It's only when it is trying to compete as a similar intellectual achievement a la Brisk is where it fails.
I don't think ontological metzius (whatever that means) renders it a science in the normal sense. Ask Kornreich. The point of Brisk is a more analytical method of looking at the sugya. It is an intellectual achievement no less than any other intellectual achievement.
It is a nonsensical intellectual achievement except perhaps as art. But it's not true nor factual nor the original meaning of the text.
As someone who originally preconceived Briskers as searching for "emes" this was a major disillusionment for me, and I respect I may be seeing it with colored glasses.
The reason why the Brisker method is an achievement is that it's an unusually elegant way of learning that explains things in a more reasonable fashion than other methods. Most people who learned the Brisker way would agree with this statement.
Can you explain which Rav Chaim is nonsensical? Are you talking about the shiur you heard from Rav Tzvi? You think this is an indictment against the entire Brisker method? If so, we can use plenty of examples of the scientific method misleading people to show the scientific method in science is nonsensical. Would that be fair?
And it often leads to farfetched explanations that are unreasonable. It's very unreasonable in many situations to say the chakira that the Rav makes, because it ignores context and reasoning and just looks at the category. Many cases violate Occam's Razor in extreme ways. If it were more reasonable, awesome. But generally one side is often unexplainable. Why, for example, should migu work as a koach hatayna? (That one is explainable with some work but many others completely violate the laws of logic).
Sure. It's the one of shiluyim miskadshim. R Chayim or the Brisker Rov has a farfetched chakira to explain the rambam. Unfortunately, it's false as It's based on the fact the Rambam is clearly missing a line. (This is from memory, but I can look it up later iyh).
It's a definite indictment if it can be used to explain things that were never meant.
In which neighborhood in Brisk did the Ramban reside? You know, that Ramban who wrote an introduction to his Milchamos Hashem כי יודע כל לומד תלמודנו שאין במחלוקת מפרשיו ראיות גמורות ולא ברוב קושיות חלוטות שאין בחכמה הזאת מופת ברור כגון חשבוני התשבורות ונסיוני התכונה:
I have no idea how Brisk made learning into a science. Reb Chaim innovated two basic ideas, and none of them have anything to do with science. At least, not the empirical method popular nowadays. (Also, none of them are remotely connected to חפצא\גברא.)
I think he is getting it from Kornreich. Also I think YU types describe RYBs Brisker Torah as scientific. But knowing many people who actually attended Brisk (sorry, R Tzvi Kaplan to Brisk is like Iowa community college to Harvard), they would laugh at a such a statement.
If you import any sense of secular wisdom into how you approach a blatt Gemara as opposed to b working from how Chazal think you will never become a Ben Torah let alone a Talmid Chacham
Sorry, this is ridiculous. Almost the entire Chidushei Reb Chaim has differences halcha lmaaseh. In Rav Moshes teshuva about splitting Siamese twins he discusses none other than.... Reb Chaim al harambam, you got it. I'm confused what exactly "halacha" means to you. Is dirshu mishna brura the ultimate "aliba dehilchisa"?
Coming to the world of limud as an outsider, this was always something that bothered me about the general limud style I encountered in my yeshiva education. It never made sense to me that the emphasis was to have us absolute newbies learn some basic Hebrew and then jump into the largely Aramaic Gemara as our primary focus.
With Chabad it had it's own spiritual bend about "when you learn, God is learning, and the sparks are reunited with the Whole" and all that shtick. With the DL yeshiva I was in afterward it was the end goal, and so too it seemed at friend's side yeshivot.
The funniest part of it being that all the yeshivot I've ever learned at or witnessed via others were aimed at baalei teshuva and gerim but prided themselves on the "gemara uber alles" focus as if they were doing us all a favor in the long run by having us be able to memorize(maybe...each to his כוח) a few sugyot to impress the fathers of the handful of social nobodies low enough to permit their daughters to date us.
Many of my friends took years to become functionally competent and fluent in halacha, if they stuck through that long as religious individuals, while very early on they were true-blue dyed in the wool believers of whatever shitot they were taught was "the right one".
When I discuss this topic, directly or indirectly, with FFBs the conversation tends to drift with "people will get bored with being told about only the rules" as if that somehow exempts people. Not surprisingly in these FFB spaces they constantly worry about their kids "going off the derech" and some have internal kiruv or special schools to attempt to prevent it. What do they do differently? They let people ask questions, chase rabbit holes, or study topics other than Gemara.
My personal complaint about the general shitah of how people learn today in yeshivot is that the average student is expected to memorize extraneous information. You have to be fluent in all the various opinions lest you offend some long dead rav you never met for skipping him. It muddles the mind and before you know it, anyone who has less than stellar memory skills gets lost in tracking who said what about what and the relationships between them. Sometimes it's as simple as reading Tosofot on the side and getting sidetracked by whatever random idea or introduction they present. There is one in Pesachim that absolutely destroyed my class because at the end Tosofot asks something like "but can you eat it if you found it on Pesach?" after this whole long journey about safek hametz and our concern for what? The hametz we cannot eat...
Now, years later, for personal pleasure I'm sitting on Rav Rimon's book Shiurei Issur V'Heter. He takes apart the ideas very nicely. Defines terms by who defines them, separates and groups things in an organized fashion, and gives over the sources used as basis of psak. It's a significantly superior form of learning. Similarly Pninei Halacha by R. Melamed does this for halacha l'maaseh in many topics.
The way he lays out kashrut really helps for getting the big picture. He's so organized and it's got charts and illustrations. Way better experience than sitting on list of "so-n-so says X" of different things and trying to remember who is what.
Is it the use of a particular learning method a sign that an institution is "yeshivishe" or is a "yeshivishe" institution expected to use a specific method?
The Gemorah asks: Can you balance your bedframe leg using an egg on Shabbos?
There is your problem right there. The Gemorah makes you stupid. Nobody in their right mind in all of human history ever asked that question… Shabbos or otherwise.
You guys can’t uphold Torah law after being made brain dead in Yeshiva. These rabbis will tell you it’s a mitzvah to jump up and down holding your dick and you Pavlovian monkeys will go and do it.
Forget about "Boruch Clinton" posts. This one has attracted significantly more comments than anything on my policy analysis Substack (https://www.theaudit.ca/) - which has around ten times the subscribers. :)
Re Halacha - there's supposedly a Netziv that says this straight out - Torah lav bashamayim hi so we go with the text and not what it meant (regarding amaroim's far fetched pshatim in the mishna). In a legal system one school of thought we go with what the law and text says and treat it as truth no matter what. We ignore context. This is essentially Halacha, when one tries tonm figure out what the text says now in context of all the other texts, not what it originally meant
Yeah, that's a tremendous chiddush. Hardly something to build your entire ideology on. But you go further and attribute this to everybody else. R' Moshe wasn't trying to reach the emes. The Noda b'Yehuda wasn't trying to reach the emes. Except for those evil Briskers who are pretending to try to reach the emes, how dare they not go along with this Netziv!
That's like asking if I think I know better than the Nora B'Yehuda. Yeah, sometimes when I'm in a particularly arrogant mood, I do. But that's not the question here. It's not about what I think, but what the Noda B'Yehuda thinks. And you are claiming (based on your own very rigorous knowledge of the sugya no doubt) that he really knew he's just playing games. Well, ok. If you say so.
Do you actually think the Nodah Beyehuda thought the leviim giants? If yes, then I do think I know better than him. (He's my elter zayde btw). I think he was talking partially tongue in cheek or following Halachic methodology but didn't actually think that. Could be I'm wrong shrug
When a person is trying to be metzaref tzdadim for a kula? I'm not sure how it works but I doubt that it's trying to find the honest pshat, it's trying to find a viable solution within logical reason and the Halachic system.
I don't mean dishonest as he was lying. I mean honest as the goal is to find the best pshat how the text stands now and not what was originally intended. No one asks did the mishna really mean this but whether is this what it says?
Finally I am biased against brisk because I was told that Brisk is especially makpid on truth. Nothing else. They don't go after practicality or niceness just emes. That's what I was taught growing up. And it's the common understanding of the yeshivish world as well. That's why it bothers me more by Brisk than by others. They claim they have a monopoly on truth yet they don't even pretend to try to find it.
What Noda B'Yehuda about giant Leviim? I didn't know he talks about it. Is it relevant to halacha?
Being metzaref kulos is very understandable because of the principle כח דהיתירא עדיף, and also frequently the posek anyways feels it's muttar but wants to find better grounding. That doesn't mean he doesn't think it's the Emes, otherwise he'd never say it's assur but act like the LW Modox rabbis.
I think everybody asks if the Mishnah means this, I don't know what you are talking about.
I hear your taanah against Brisk. I agree Brisk is more focused on what it says than what else it might mean, moreso than other methods. But I think this a strength, frequently through this they come up with the most compelling, elegant explanation of what it means also. But yes, sometimes it's not the Emes, like your maaseh with R Tzvi. I can hear why that would be frustrating.
Chazal tell us היה ר' יהודה אומר: לעולם הוי כונס דברי תורה כללים ומוציאם, שנאמר יערוף כמטר לקחי, ואין יערף אלא לשון כנעני, שאין אדם אומר לחבירו "פרוט לי סלע זו" - אלא "ערוף לי סלע זו", כך הוי כונס דברי תורה כללים - ופורט ומוציאם כטיפים הללו של טל; ולא כטיפים הללו של מטר גדולות, אלא כטיפים הללו של טל שהם קטנים:
If a person learns many halachos, each detail in its place, he will never remember them or apply them accurately. It is only when a person learns Torah with klalim (sorry, I am not pretentious enough to write 'qlalim') that he can truly appreciate a sugya.
These klalim are what are known as the 'lomdus' of the sugya. When the underlying logic of the sugya is reached, appreciated, and quantified, it is possible to be מדמה מילתא למילתא and reach the pesak halacha. Otherwise, we arrive at 'poskei tzedek' of the Hungarian variety, and comparisons between יש ברירה and בורר on Shabbos, or מיגו דהוי דופן לענין שבת and מיגו להוציא are suggested (the first is in an actual teshuva sefer, the second is a famous joke).
Learning שמירת שבת כהלכתה is not learning Halacha. It is a great Sefer, but not a way to learn Hilchos Shabbos. Of course, learning and reaching the underlying sevara takes far longer than the one who simply prepares for his 'smicha' program, and the superficial eye may think that the second is the one learning Halacha, but learning halacha without focusing on the underlying sevara causes superficiality, specious comparisons, and a boxed-in mindset. This is the source of the 'telephone-book' style of psak today, where people quote names instead of dealing with the halacha - 'Reb Nissim Karelitz says this, Reb Shomo Zalman argued, Rabbi Webster told me that he agrees with Reb Shlomo Zalman, but Reb Asher Weiss said in a shiur that he thinks the minhag is different.' Sadly, that is what passes for 'halacha' and 'psak' in many circles.
Where is the יש ברירה/בורר teshuva?
The name discussion has shut down yiddishkeit. That, and the "do you think you are smarter than x" discussions which essentially ban innovation.
I used to hear the "do you think you're smarter than x" every time my maskanot came out closer to earlier authorities and not "what we do". It was never about being smarter than someone, just being honest about what X sugya or discussion was talking about.
A lot of sacred cows prevent people from being honest about the outcome of an analysis.
עמק התשובה חלק ה' סימן ט"ו
In the Batei Midrashim where people learn lomdus, commonly misnamed the Brisker Derech, you will hear far less 'name discussion'.
And there is no need for Machon Shiloh levels of ignorance.
You won't here name discussion when they are learning lomdus, true. But ask them anything else like hashkofo and halocho, as much 'name discussion' as anywhere else.
"Sadly, that is what passes for 'halacha' and 'psak' in many circles."
It's actually ALL yeshivish circles. Only real genuine experienced shul rabbonim and poskim (excluding roshei yeshivos contrary to what their cultees believe, knoweldge noshim nozikim has no connection with hilchos shabbos) don't do it, and they are few and far between.
The mishneh berurah itself is in the main 'telephone book' style, no? Until it was popularised (by siyata dishmayoh if you believe in such a thing), why should a rosh yeshiva in Radin suddenly decide halochoh for klal yisroel?
Someone once told me that back in his day, MB was considered a silly sefer. Much like what people say when talking about Shulchan Aruch "used to be a book for kids".
This is a critically important post . You can’t begin to quote Sifrei Halacha and contemporary Sefarim on Pssk Halacha without having a working familiarity as to how the Gemara Rishonim and Acharonim understood the key issues in every Sugya Esch Masecta is its own worlds with its own operating klalim and underling machlokesin and even if you learn on a Daf Yomi level you can see that while Kol HaTorah Inyan Evhad Hu the Klalim are vastly important in order to be able to be Mdameh Milsa LMilsa and to have sevaras that are rooted in the Gemara
I do think that you are overplaying the role of Brisker chakira in the yeshiva word. Certainly, there is an aura of mystique surrounding the thrill of a new way of looking at things. But for the most part, it is only during the formative years (until 24 in America, until 20 in Israel) that it is really emphasized. Having learnt for many years in Lakewood, I will say that most of the interest among serious students is a clear and thorough understanding of the simple meaning of the foundational material. Certainly, some will have a more Lomdishe bent, others will gravitate to Halacha, with a few other genres thrown in, but I dont think that you (Rabbi CLinton) have an objection to lomdus in moderation. As an interesting illustration to my point: The quintessential master of Halacha, the Chazon Ish, wrote hagahos on the sefer R' Chaim Halevi. While he may have differed in his conclusions and his analytical style, if one steps back to see at what point in the sugya does the Chazon Ish part ways with Rav Chaim, it is actually at a very advanced stage in the sugya, with many hours of learning required to even appreciate the difference between the 2.
You wrote
“the AI model estimated that between 70 and 80 percent of the chakiros in חידושי רבינו חיים הלוי have “little or no direct application to practical halachic rulings.”
That statement is silly and ridiculous for the following simple reason. The Rambam is a Sefer psak, halachic decisions. All of the chakiros in חידושי רבינו חיים הלוי are coming to explain difficult PSAKIM, halachic decisions that the Rambam made. Therefore they all have direct application to practical halachic rulings, they explain the halachic rulings of the Rambam.
I think you are confused. This has nothing to do with "Brisker style analysis". You can do "Brisker style analysis" anywhere, in seder Nezikin, seder Moed, Tur, Shulchan Aruch. The yeshivas don't learn with bachurim שמעתא אליבא דהלכתה, but that has nothing to do with the Brisker method and predates Rav Chaim. When many of these bachurim graduate to kollel and start learning שמעתא אליבא דהלכתה, they apply their learning skills to that. There are many chakiros one can make אליבא דהלכתה.
I disagree. The Brisker style involves, as I've written, analyzing the underlying structure of a sugya, and that "underlying structure" is, more often than not, irrelevant to halachic conclusions. Now, things may work differently from yeshiva to yeshiva and rebbi to rebbi, but many yeshivas do focus their primary attention on that Brisker style (and, more specifically, Brisker-style seforim) and, therefore, will generally NOT address halachic considerations. And the intellectual tools used for this approach are, by and large, not the same skills we'd use for halachic-oriented learning.
A bunch of examples here:
The Brisker Derekh and Pesak Halakhah. From Rabbi Mordechai Willig.
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/726225/
There was a whole forum on the topic of lomdus generally. R J David Bleich also contributed an article about psak halacha.
The brisker style focuses on the Rambam which is a Sefer of psak, halachic decisions. Therefore of course it addresses halachic conclusions, it explains the halachic conclusions of the Rambam.
Yeah, I guess we disagree. I think the underlying structure has everything to do with halachic conclusions. Go to any yeshivishe halacha kollel and you will see them using the same learning skills they used in yeshiva for halacha.
I don't know. Offhand I can't think of a single practical נפקא מינה להלכה that'll arise from a חפצא וגברא distinction. Although I may have missed something.
Of course you missed something, a lot. Here is a נפקא מינה להלכה off the top of my head.
There is an issur to feed a minor child issurim. The minchas chinuch says based on this you can’t feed your child on Yom Kippur unless it’s pikuach nefesh because you are feeding him issurim. The minhag haolam is not like the minchas chinuch. What’s the explanation ? The issur to feed your child issurim applies to a חפצא דאיסורא, if I feed him pig I violate the issur. The issur to eat on Yom Kippur however is not an issur on the food, the food doesn’t become a חפצא דאיסורא, it’s an issur on the גברא. That issur doesn’t apply to a child and therefore you can feed him.
See a very important halachic nafka Mina.
Why should the issur only apply to a 'cheftza d'issuro' - an issur is an issur no? That's just reverse engineering to justify why nobody bothers with the chinuch. The ta'am hissur is given by many as 'shema yisrach', so it should not make any difference.
In any event, one of the mekoros for 'ma'achilin' is feeding a cohen kid teruimah temeoh . That is not an issue cheftzoh ). So that explanation is very dodgy anyway (yes, I know in lomdus you can answer anything.
There is no issur on the kid whatsoever to eat on Yom Kippur as opposed to תרומה טמאה which is assur even for a child.
The crucial word is 'offhand'.
This post is entirely 'offhand'. If you actually took the time to delve into the details, you wouldn't have made the mistake of thinking חפצא גברא is a Brisker idea. In fact, it hardly features in Toras Brisk. But when johnny-come-lately and seminary girls discuss lomdus, their go-to idea is חפצא גברא.
I don't know about חפצא וגברא, but can you think about practical halachic differences that will depend on how you understand דופן עקומה? A chakira: Is it the schach turning into a wall or does the wall itself bend? See the Kesef Mishnah Hilchos Succah 4:14.
Yeah, and in most kollels you will hear stuff along the lines of 'can't really get to the bottom of that shach - something must be 'lav davka' - time to move on now.
Is halacha kollel encouraged in the yeshivish world in the US? I honestly want to know. In the Israeli litvish world it's looked down on and it's for shvere bachurim compared to the serious Iyun kollelim.
Not for bachurim but pretty common for yungeleit.
What about bekiyut?
Glad to hear
I think Brisker Lomdus ought to be disconnected from how one pasqens. The latter traditionally revolves on tracing the gemara down not only to the Rambam, but to the Tur, the Beis Yoseif and other commentaries on the Tur, the Shulchan Arukh and its commentaries... When I learn Mes' Shabbos with R Mordechai Willig in the 1980s, you needed a Shemiras Shabbos keHilkhesa!
For that matter, it is possible R Chaim thought Lomdus and pesaq required two different kinds of analysis as well, because he only took the job of being the Rav of Brisk on the condition that they would get a dayan who would be the poseiq.
But in paractice, that is increasingly less true. You are seeing Lomdus in teshuvos. It is part of why pesaq is getting unanchored from traditional practice and adopting more Brisker chumeros.
You are very wrong on this. Here is a story about Rav Chaim which illustrates the point.
A poor man’s father died in the morning in Brisk and the chevra kadisha started preparing him for burial. Then a little while later a rich man died so the chevra kadisha stopped with the poor man and started with the rich man. The poor man came to Rav Chaim to complain. Rav Chaim was in a meeting with some rabbanim. After hearing the story Rav Chaim opened up a Rambam hilchos aveilus and scanned through it. Then he told the poor man’s son, go home it’s none of your business I will deal with the chevra kadisha. The rabbanim who were there didn’t understand why Rav Chaim looked at the Rambam and what his answer was. It’s a simple din in shulchan aruch that you bury the person who died first first. Rav Chaim explained as follows. He was unsure why you bury the person who died first, first. Is it a special din in hilchos aveilus/kevurah or is it the general din of אין מעבירים על המצות. That’s why he looked in the Rambam. He wanted to see if the Rambam quoted this din in hilchos aveilus, and he did not. Therefore Rav Chaim concluded that it’s the general din of אין מעבירים על המצות. That Rav Chaim explained is why he answered as he did. Since it’s not a din in hilchos aveilus, the son has no claim against the chevra kadisha. Therefore Rav Chaim told him, you go home and I will deal with the chevra kadisha. Because Rav Chaim was the Rav of the city and was therefore responsible for the chevra kadisha.
What do we see from this. That even a chakira that seems to have no relevance to Halacha lmaaseh actually does. Rav Chaim drew a halachic conclusion למעשה based on his analysis.
You have completely misunderstood how psak Halacha works. Let’s take the following real world case. A few years ago someone created a grama switch to turn on lights on Shabbos. There was a big controversy. A big part of it was a discussion analyzing (lomdus/chakiras) what is the definition of grama and does the switch meet that definition. Without analysis/lomdus how would you know how to define grama? What is considered grama and what isn’t? Dies the switch meet those criteria? It’s only through analysis that you can address new situations.
Here is another example. Surrogate motherhood, who al pi Halacha is the mother? How could you answer this without lomdus? We need to analyze what creates the relationship between the mother and the child. Is it genetics? Or is it birth or is it something else? You need to have the tools to analyze things to be able to pasken. This is why the yeshivas study the way they do. Because to be a great posek you need to know how to analyze things and read between the lines and be able to be מדמה מילתא למילתא
That certainly is a relevant and interesting story, but I hardly illustrates anything more than that single case: It doesn't prove that all - or even most - other chakiros have halachic implications. And it certainly doesn't suggest that anyone who repeats those chakiros has furthered his understanding of halacha.
If I had just told you that chakira you would have said that chakira has no נפקא מינא להלכה. And yet it does. The same goes for the other chakiras, you may not see the halachic נפקא מינא but there is one.
I'll admit that other chakiros could *possibly* have halachic implications, but I'm far from convinced that they actually do. And I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.
Here’s another chakira. The Gemara says that כלי שני אינו מבשל. The question is what does that mean. One possibility is that it’s a מציאות. Chazal are telling us a general fact. Another possibility is that it’s a din that cooking in a כלי שני is not defined by the Torah as בישול even if the food actually gets cooked. One נפקא מינא is what about a very hot כלי שני. If it’s a מציאות then if the כלי שני is very hot it can cook and would therefore be prohibited. The חיי אדם quotes such as chumra. On the other hand if it’s a din then how hot the כלי שני is is irrelevant, על פי דין a כלי שני is not cooking and therefore the חיי אדם chumra makes no sense.
I could go on and list many many chakiras off the top of my head that have halachic nafka minas.
This doesn't change anything. I originally wrote: "the actual chakiros **seldom** raise questions that are relevant to practical halachic discussions". That certainly doesn't mean they *never* do.
Having said that, I'm not sure how either of us could practically prove our respective claims...
That's not a Brisker chakirah. More Telz. Briskers don't do 'why' and their chakiros are generally not 'why' based. Two possible reasons for a halochoh does not a chakirah make.
It’s not really why. I just phrased it that way. It’s really a question of what is the definition of כלי שני אינו מבשל
Call it what you want. It’s classical lomdus that the author claimed has no relevance to Halacha.
I don't think that's the only peshat in Kiddushin 40b. ״מביא לידי״ "doesn't instinctively mean "know what to do," and various meforshim don't understand it that way.
If learning not אליבא להלכתא is "sub-optimal," then why learn mesechtos like Yevamos or Sanhendrin when most of the material isn't practically relevant today? Why spend time on a daf, which is just the Stam trying to source the different opinions of the Amoraim in pesukim?
Why not skip all bits of a Mishnah when it's a daas yochid against the Chachomim, or all the dafim that are just explaining how the יג מידות were applied in that specific sugya - there's nothing to be practically gained there? What does Grok say about a hekesh?
Why even bother learning Gemara at all? Let's learn the Rif, the Beis Yosef, or the Piskei Teshuvot. Doing that will equip you to deal with practical day-to-day shailos.
There's a lot more to learning than just practical how-tos
This was the Beis Halevy's understanding of the "Nishmah" in Naaseh v'nishmah.
His chiddush was that Na'aseh isn't just performing mitzvos--it also includes all the learning necessary to perform the mitzvos properly.
This leaves "nishmah" to be learning just for the sake of deeper understanding without it affecting performance.
I think the bigger issue is that the brisker chakiros aren't just that scientific. It's a pseudoscience as it cannot be tested (well, there are potentially ways, but Brisk in practice avoids them). Someone with a scientific mind would learn a sugya very differently.
Right, this is like #15 on the list of problems with the Brisker method. In fact, I'd say it's really a consequence of the real problems. If people consistently paskened halacha according to Brisker chakiros, then halacha would fall apart, so best to restrict it to theoretical stuff. Chronologically, it might be the opposite way round: since there's no point in studying the gemoro to learn halacha (because you are just going to ignore it and do what the Shach says anyway), then you can go wild with chakiros because it doesn't matter.
For the benefit of all us yeshivish people, would you be able to share your complete list of problems with the Brisker method?
Anything for you, Happy.
1) No effort is made to establish that chakiros are being made on correct girsas before starting. This is despite it being common knowledge that e.g. the Frenkel Rambam is riddled with errors and omissions.
2) Chakiros are no subjected to sanity checks, but only assessed based on elegance or breadth. Indeed, since sanity checks would require historical context and philology, they are essentially banned.
3) The hypothesis that a given rishon simply misunderstood the gemoro (e.g. because he himself had a wrong girsa) is ruled out a priori.
4) Minimal or no effort is made to understand the original meaning of primary texts by placing them in their relevant context, e.g. by looking at parallels to a sugya in the Yerushalmi.
5) The hypothesis that a given rishon is, in fact, ruling according to an extra or non-talmudic tradition is arbitrarily excluded (except where they say so explicitly, but sometimes maybe even then).
6) Important sources of information are excluded. For example, it is often pertinent to understand the Rambam's reading of a sugya to look at the Meiri, but you are not allowed to look at the Meiri because [reasons].
7) There is an unreasonable burden of proof required before simply admitting that 2 sources contradict each other, and an unreasonably low burden of proof required to accept reconciliations.
8) It relies on a model of halacha as basically static and ignores ways that difficulties can be explained via process of change and development.
9) It doesn't make use of statistical methods enabled by Excel, Ctrl+f etc. that we have today, but just relies on bekius. (this isn't a criticism of the original method, but a criticism of still using it).
10) It makes no use at all of advances made in source critical techniques.
11) Minimal or no effort is made to collate, sort and present insights made over each generation, so the next generation can use them to make further progress. Instead it's just a chakira there, a chakira here and, apart from a few classic seforim, no-one even knows if this new chiddush is the 50th time it has been made or not.
12) No use is made of academic materials. There are excellent studies available today of, say, the Raavad's approach to halachic sources, but no-one consults that before making a chakira.
Probably there are some more.
EDIT:
13) Because the halacha is seen as out of time, no advantage is taken out of looking at general trends e.g. how did they pasken in Sura, what wait did Rav Hisda give to dicta of Rav.etc.?
Ah, thanks. I suspected it would be something like this. So this is not a problem with Brisk specifically, but with any classical method of learning. Brisk, Telz, Slobodka, Chafetz Chaim, Chassidic, Sefardi, Daf Yomi, Dirshu, the rav's daily Gemara shiur, bekius, iyun, halacha, Ketzos, Nesivos, Pnei Yehoshua, Rav Nochum, Rav Shmuel, Aruch Hashulchan, Mishna Brurah- basically anything that is not the academic Talmud method would run afoul of these "problems". In effect they can all be summed up in 10). I'm not saying that these are not issues, that can be a separate discussion, but I don't think it's specific to Brisk. You're probably just blaming Brisk because it's taken over the yeshiva world and yeshiva people feel so smart and intellectual about it and you think it's so stupid compared to academic Talmud.
I'm not sure. Some are academic. However many rishonim utilize yerushalmi and fix girsas extensively. Abandoning those things is simply a result of the canonization of rishonim and modern day obscurancy.
There's a difference between what the rishonim did and what the academics do. When the rishonim looked different girsaos, they were generally looking at girsaos that were in use. They weren't digging up 800 yr old things from a genizah (however for an exception see Rambam מלוה ולוה טו:ב, but there he was using them to adjudicate between different girsaos that were in use).
However, the rishonim (and many acharonim) on many occasions just changed the girsa themselves, to answer questions. You see this all over the place. Do you prefer that to the Brisker method? Do you feel that's more intellectually honest?
They definitely cannot all be summed up in (10). For me the most important are (1), (2), (8) and (12). Maybe (9) too.
I would say Brisk is particularly bad on (2) and (8), but actually it's worse on most of them because it tries to be more ambitious with the same limitations (or even stricter ones because it is insists on them more strenuously). For example, the fewer diyyukim you make, the less it matters if you are not careful to get the right girsa. I genuinely think that, given they are all online now, making a diyyuk on a gemoro without checking kitvei yad is discrediting and it shouldn't even be called learning, but some kind of meditative exercise.
But I'm not personally het up on Brisk. It's just the topic of the post. All in all, Brisk is probably a force for good for resisting Zionism.
Depends what type of diyuk. A good chiddush will rely on more than just a diyuk. Off the top of my head, I don't think that most issues in Chiddushei Rav Chaim rely on a simple diyuk and would be amenable to just changing the girsa. Maybe a few. Either way, the solution to this, to the extent it's a problem, is to come out with improved editions of Shas, Rambam, etc. Not to expect yeshiva students to sift through kisvei yad all day.
1-7 bothered me immensely in yeshiva. Especially 3 and 4
You nailed it. This is a list of ways people protect sacred cows rather than pursue truth.
They *don't* want the truth. They want the truth to be how they have been doing it because XYZ reasons that they'll holy-roller you with.
Re 11 - is further progress even possible? It strikes me as classic pseudoscience in the fact that there is never any consensus to build on (except maybe migo koach hatayna or something similar
I think it would become less pseudo-sciencey if efforts were made to collate and systematize it, because instead of saying 'wow psshhh', you have to say 'is that true?'. Even something as simple as taking two chakiros on the same sugya and deciding which one is less implausible would be the road to progress.
Like in academia, a large proportion of what is going on at any given time is total trash; what makes it worthwhile is the good stuff is preserved and later scholars build on and challenge it.
Yes and to contextualize it. Agreed
1) they're briskers, dammit.
(This is my main issue with JB as well.)
Marc Shapiro has a decent article on this in his book Studies on Maimonides.
https://amzn.to/42uFBJZ
>ignore it and do what Shach says anyway
Yep. This is my beef with what the masses call halachic psak these days. It's less about figuring out the thing and more about pleasing factions and honoring specific lists of rabbis that need honor in the minds of the mentally weak.
Who needs truth when the outcome is decided for you by the issur to contradict X brand name.
Precedent is an important part of halacha. I can't just go and say we should rule like Beis Shammai because I think their opinion on this or that makes more sense. So, in principle, you can just believe that halacha is fixed like the Shulchan Aruch, and it doesn't matter what you think the gemara says anymore because you came too late. The problem is that, if you think that, what's the purpose of learning gemara, which is where modern Yeshivish theories come in.
Btw, if precedent matters, things like kitniyot fall apart :P We did until some guys chose not to...and Rosh and Tur call it silly or extreme. Then before you know it it's mandatory....yet there is no precedent for it and there IS precedent culturally and in writing that Jews ate rice and beans during Pesah.
*laughs in רבינא ורב אשי סוף ההוראה היא*. So it doesn't matter who after them said things, it didn't have ratification.
Are there things that make sense or have good reasoning? Sure.
Are most of these things actually binding in any meaningful sense? Not really.
Which is why until it actually is binding I'm not following innovated, new, undiscussed legal definitions of things that those preceding didn't touch. Like "electricity is fire" (which it's not). I won't use it for personal interest reasons though.....there are few use cases worth rocking the boat over.
You mention Shach..I think he's the reason some people hold of steam in kashrut...Mind you I only started learning on the subject in any meaningful way for personal interest but sfair R. Rimon lists him as the first serious mention of it. That's a guy from 1621-1661 PLC/Moravia(Czechia). I'll change my tune if you can show otherwise but if I'm accurate(and R. Rimon) then this means for 1600 years people didn't have a legal opinion on a pretty important thing.......and while it makes sense in context, there was no ratified law..so.....it's a suggestion and not binding in my eyes.
Why is this a problem with Brisk? If this is a problem (which it is not, because nobody ever claimed learning Gemara is scientific except in a very loose sense, like the "science" of law), it is a problem with basically any method of learning. It's a problem with the Shach and Taz. It's a problem with Tosafos. It's a problem with the Gemara itself.
It really isn't, because no one is expecting the gemara to be scientific. It's not science, it's law, it's Torah.
But by brisk, there's two factors: one, they think they are uncovering some sort of ontological metzius (which then essentially renders this a science) and two, this approach is claimed to be an achievement similar to science (as the story with R Chaim in this post). If that's the case the method doesn't live up to the hype. Obviously Torah is amazing and deep and if one enjoys learning law or Torah he won't have this issue. It's only when it is trying to compete as a similar intellectual achievement a la Brisk is where it fails.
I don't think ontological metzius (whatever that means) renders it a science in the normal sense. Ask Kornreich. The point of Brisk is a more analytical method of looking at the sugya. It is an intellectual achievement no less than any other intellectual achievement.
It is a nonsensical intellectual achievement except perhaps as art. But it's not true nor factual nor the original meaning of the text.
As someone who originally preconceived Briskers as searching for "emes" this was a major disillusionment for me, and I respect I may be seeing it with colored glasses.
The reason why the Brisker method is an achievement is that it's an unusually elegant way of learning that explains things in a more reasonable fashion than other methods. Most people who learned the Brisker way would agree with this statement.
Can you explain which Rav Chaim is nonsensical? Are you talking about the shiur you heard from Rav Tzvi? You think this is an indictment against the entire Brisker method? If so, we can use plenty of examples of the scientific method misleading people to show the scientific method in science is nonsensical. Would that be fair?
And it often leads to farfetched explanations that are unreasonable. It's very unreasonable in many situations to say the chakira that the Rav makes, because it ignores context and reasoning and just looks at the category. Many cases violate Occam's Razor in extreme ways. If it were more reasonable, awesome. But generally one side is often unexplainable. Why, for example, should migu work as a koach hatayna? (That one is explainable with some work but many others completely violate the laws of logic).
Sure. It's the one of shiluyim miskadshim. R Chayim or the Brisker Rov has a farfetched chakira to explain the rambam. Unfortunately, it's false as It's based on the fact the Rambam is clearly missing a line. (This is from memory, but I can look it up later iyh).
It's a definite indictment if it can be used to explain things that were never meant.
In which neighborhood in Brisk did the Ramban reside? You know, that Ramban who wrote an introduction to his Milchamos Hashem כי יודע כל לומד תלמודנו שאין במחלוקת מפרשיו ראיות גמורות ולא ברוב קושיות חלוטות שאין בחכמה הזאת מופת ברור כגון חשבוני התשבורות ונסיוני התכונה:
That's my point. Brisk has attempted to turn into a science something which is inherently not.
I have no idea how Brisk made learning into a science. Reb Chaim innovated two basic ideas, and none of them have anything to do with science. At least, not the empirical method popular nowadays. (Also, none of them are remotely connected to חפצא\גברא.)
I wouldnt say R Chaim per SE but rather at the brisker method as a whole (that there is one Halachic truth and it's not fuzzy or case dependent).
No clue what you saw in 'Brisk' that is remotely connected to science.
But then again, I didn't learn by Reb Zvi (Kaplan or Kushelevsky).
It's Kaplan. And Tzvi.
I'm not the only person who thinks this
https://open.substack.com/pub/dovidykornreich/p/halacha-and-ontological-reality?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=33pit
I think he is getting it from Kornreich. Also I think YU types describe RYBs Brisker Torah as scientific. But knowing many people who actually attended Brisk (sorry, R Tzvi Kaplan to Brisk is like Iowa community college to Harvard), they would laugh at a such a statement.
If you import any sense of secular wisdom into how you approach a blatt Gemara as opposed to b working from how Chazal think you will never become a Ben Torah let alone a Talmid Chacham
Sorry, this is ridiculous. Almost the entire Chidushei Reb Chaim has differences halcha lmaaseh. In Rav Moshes teshuva about splitting Siamese twins he discusses none other than.... Reb Chaim al harambam, you got it. I'm confused what exactly "halacha" means to you. Is dirshu mishna brura the ultimate "aliba dehilchisa"?
Coming to the world of limud as an outsider, this was always something that bothered me about the general limud style I encountered in my yeshiva education. It never made sense to me that the emphasis was to have us absolute newbies learn some basic Hebrew and then jump into the largely Aramaic Gemara as our primary focus.
With Chabad it had it's own spiritual bend about "when you learn, God is learning, and the sparks are reunited with the Whole" and all that shtick. With the DL yeshiva I was in afterward it was the end goal, and so too it seemed at friend's side yeshivot.
The funniest part of it being that all the yeshivot I've ever learned at or witnessed via others were aimed at baalei teshuva and gerim but prided themselves on the "gemara uber alles" focus as if they were doing us all a favor in the long run by having us be able to memorize(maybe...each to his כוח) a few sugyot to impress the fathers of the handful of social nobodies low enough to permit their daughters to date us.
Many of my friends took years to become functionally competent and fluent in halacha, if they stuck through that long as religious individuals, while very early on they were true-blue dyed in the wool believers of whatever shitot they were taught was "the right one".
When I discuss this topic, directly or indirectly, with FFBs the conversation tends to drift with "people will get bored with being told about only the rules" as if that somehow exempts people. Not surprisingly in these FFB spaces they constantly worry about their kids "going off the derech" and some have internal kiruv or special schools to attempt to prevent it. What do they do differently? They let people ask questions, chase rabbit holes, or study topics other than Gemara.
My personal complaint about the general shitah of how people learn today in yeshivot is that the average student is expected to memorize extraneous information. You have to be fluent in all the various opinions lest you offend some long dead rav you never met for skipping him. It muddles the mind and before you know it, anyone who has less than stellar memory skills gets lost in tracking who said what about what and the relationships between them. Sometimes it's as simple as reading Tosofot on the side and getting sidetracked by whatever random idea or introduction they present. There is one in Pesachim that absolutely destroyed my class because at the end Tosofot asks something like "but can you eat it if you found it on Pesach?" after this whole long journey about safek hametz and our concern for what? The hametz we cannot eat...
Now, years later, for personal pleasure I'm sitting on Rav Rimon's book Shiurei Issur V'Heter. He takes apart the ideas very nicely. Defines terms by who defines them, separates and groups things in an organized fashion, and gives over the sources used as basis of psak. It's a significantly superior form of learning. Similarly Pninei Halacha by R. Melamed does this for halacha l'maaseh in many topics.
Rav Rimon is amazing.
The way he lays out kashrut really helps for getting the big picture. He's so organized and it's got charts and illustrations. Way better experience than sitting on list of "so-n-so says X" of different things and trying to remember who is what.
Is it the use of a particular learning method a sign that an institution is "yeshivishe" or is a "yeshivishe" institution expected to use a specific method?
I think it helps for halacha a bit.
A better question is there a good ROI for all the time spent...
The Gemorah asks: Can you balance your bedframe leg using an egg on Shabbos?
There is your problem right there. The Gemorah makes you stupid. Nobody in their right mind in all of human history ever asked that question… Shabbos or otherwise.
You guys can’t uphold Torah law after being made brain dead in Yeshiva. These rabbis will tell you it’s a mitzvah to jump up and down holding your dick and you Pavlovian monkeys will go and do it.
It’s Orwellian brainwashing plain and simple.
https://edwardnathanschwarz.substack.com/p/satans-hassidim-like-locusts?r=5e930t
I think this is the most comments ever on a Boruch Clinton post! Wow. You weren't joking that you moved your family to a safe space
Forget about "Boruch Clinton" posts. This one has attracted significantly more comments than anything on my policy analysis Substack (https://www.theaudit.ca/) - which has around ten times the subscribers. :)
Brisk is a mental illness, not Torah. Yeah, I said it!
And everybody clapped
Re Halacha - there's supposedly a Netziv that says this straight out - Torah lav bashamayim hi so we go with the text and not what it meant (regarding amaroim's far fetched pshatim in the mishna). In a legal system one school of thought we go with what the law and text says and treat it as truth no matter what. We ignore context. This is essentially Halacha, when one tries tonm figure out what the text says now in context of all the other texts, not what it originally meant
The Netziv is quoted in a letter to R Chaim Berlin.
See this article by Marc Shapiro for sources on the topic. The letter is on pg. 18
https://hakirah.org/vol33Shapiro.pdf
Yeah, that's a tremendous chiddush. Hardly something to build your entire ideology on. But you go further and attribute this to everybody else. R' Moshe wasn't trying to reach the emes. The Noda b'Yehuda wasn't trying to reach the emes. Except for those evil Briskers who are pretending to try to reach the emes, how dare they not go along with this Netziv!
Do you think kulos in freeing agunos are emes? Or far out theories to be mattir mamzerus?
That's like asking if I think I know better than the Nora B'Yehuda. Yeah, sometimes when I'm in a particularly arrogant mood, I do. But that's not the question here. It's not about what I think, but what the Noda B'Yehuda thinks. And you are claiming (based on your own very rigorous knowledge of the sugya no doubt) that he really knew he's just playing games. Well, ok. If you say so.
Do you actually think the Nodah Beyehuda thought the leviim giants? If yes, then I do think I know better than him. (He's my elter zayde btw). I think he was talking partially tongue in cheek or following Halachic methodology but didn't actually think that. Could be I'm wrong shrug
When a person is trying to be metzaref tzdadim for a kula? I'm not sure how it works but I doubt that it's trying to find the honest pshat, it's trying to find a viable solution within logical reason and the Halachic system.
I don't mean dishonest as he was lying. I mean honest as the goal is to find the best pshat how the text stands now and not what was originally intended. No one asks did the mishna really mean this but whether is this what it says?
Finally I am biased against brisk because I was told that Brisk is especially makpid on truth. Nothing else. They don't go after practicality or niceness just emes. That's what I was taught growing up. And it's the common understanding of the yeshivish world as well. That's why it bothers me more by Brisk than by others. They claim they have a monopoly on truth yet they don't even pretend to try to find it.
What Noda B'Yehuda about giant Leviim? I didn't know he talks about it. Is it relevant to halacha?
Being metzaref kulos is very understandable because of the principle כח דהיתירא עדיף, and also frequently the posek anyways feels it's muttar but wants to find better grounding. That doesn't mean he doesn't think it's the Emes, otherwise he'd never say it's assur but act like the LW Modox rabbis.
I think everybody asks if the Mishnah means this, I don't know what you are talking about.
I hear your taanah against Brisk. I agree Brisk is more focused on what it says than what else it might mean, moreso than other methods. But I think this a strength, frequently through this they come up with the most compelling, elegant explanation of what it means also. But yes, sometimes it's not the Emes, like your maaseh with R Tzvi. I can hear why that would be frustrating.
You do know that there is no such principle as כח דהתירא עדיף, right?
It's a bogus slogan, a misunderstanding of a Talmudic concept.
He estimates the leviims thumb size as being insanely large. Slifkin has an article on it.