SIW links to a post and comment at Hirhurim on R. Herschel Schachter’s take on Talmud criticism.
Since my M.A. is in Talmud from Revel and I studied mehqar under the tutelage of Dr. Yaakov Elman, you could imagine where I stand on the issue.1 But when I was in Gruss, I had the opportunity at one of the open “press conferences” to ask R. Aharon Lichtenstein what he felt about academic Talmud study. I expected R. Aharon to have an interesting take considering that one of his sons is heavily involved in mehqar and that academic Talmud is directly at odds with the brisker derech2
Now the thing about these press conferences is that people tend to ask horrible questions. Either they’re intentionally vague or they’re trying to bait R. Aharon into saying something which agrees with them. For example, a common question is “what does the Rosh Yeshiva think about X.” Since R. Aharon answers the question precisely as asked, he will tend to expound philosophically, wax poetic, and generally lose his audience by going well over their heads.
So instead of asking the open ended “what do you think about Talmud criticism?” I asked “What do you like/approve or dislike/disapprove about academic Talmud?” Unfortunately I no longer have the transcript of his response. However I can report that in a nutshell he approved of the methodology i.e. the use of manuscripts and stylistic analysis of the Talmudic texts, but disapproved of the attitude of treating the Talmud as an “academic” subject. Meaning, the tools employed are fine, but Talmud study is not the same and should not be treated like English literature.
In terms of the practical consequences of academic Talmud, I remember him citing Whitehead in distinguishing between “Facts” and “Truth.” I did not have the opportunity to follow up with a discussion as to what that meant, but I don’t think I would have agreed with the answer.
1. An irrelevant but cute line by R. Dov Linzer on Talmud criticism: “What are they going to do, tell me it had multiple authors?”
2. Or as one professor explained, “Brisk works if you accept its premises and ignore all contradictory data.”
You ignore RAL’s generally negative attitude toward academic Jewish studies and its practitioners. In one article he goes for a straight ad-hominem attack, questioning the religious sincerity of academics based on his observation of their short mincha amida.
I respect him immensely, but this is one area where his commitment to the truth (or Toras chesed, in his formulation) not facts of the brisker derech make him unable to deal with mechkar, and critical Jewish studies in general, in an intellectually rigorous fashion.
MJ – I agree with your sentiments. I’d find it very interesting to have a panel discussion with frum academics like Dr. Sperber and Dr. Elman discussing the issues with R. Aharon or R. Schachter, but I doubt that would ever happen.
In a press conference where I could only get one question and no follow-up, this was the best I could do in terms of getting a point-blank response.
2. Or as one professor explained, “Brisk works if you accept its premises and ignore all contradictory data.”
Academic Rambam is probably much more problematic for Briskers than academic talmud.
Josh and MJ, I think you’re taking things way too far. As you said, Rav Lichtenstein does not disapprove of the method, but he no doubt understands its pitfalls – hence the do not treat Talmud like English Lit comment. The reason why he may take to task certain academics for their short amidah is that he believes, correctly in my opinion, that an approach to Torah study that is divorced from Halakha is one which does not stress enough Torah Sheb’al peh as the word of Gd. One unfortunate consequence of this is lax religious observance – the fact that many, if not most, Jewish academics are non-observant is indisputable. Rav Lichtenstein would most likely agree that if one can successfully fuse academic Talmud with the type of study which enhances one’s yirat shamayim, then fine. The problem is, it is certainly not THE method, but at best A method, and a very dangerous one at that. Hence, if you asked him what should the bulk of ones time be spent on, he’d probably say a more Halakhocentric form of study. Do you disagree with that as a potential pitfall? Do you subscribe to Alan Brill’s theory on Modern Orthodoxy, which at least partly divorces Judaism from Halakha?
As one who has studied with RAL (2yrs) and RYBS (4yrs) and has studied with PJN (3yrs) I don’t think your question is at all well-formed.
What did you have in mind to ask about? And why would you think RAL could answer?
From one who never studied any Jewish studies in the academic sense, I can understand that the rigours of so-called academic study are often necessary, and called for, when approaching Judaica. However, the unfortunate encounters I have had with academic studies of Judaic knowledge have led me to suspect an almost “mocking” attitude towards halacha by some of the proponents.
In short, my take on the matter is to lend all the rigour and criticism to scholarly approaches to Judaic knowldege that one can, but to realize that this is always superseded by the halachic process.
Who is PJN?
I’m interested in your characterization of Brisker learning and academic Talmud study as “directly at odds with” each other. That they’re very different is clear but I don’t see how they undermine each other. Care to elaborate?
David – Great question and given some more time for research I’d love to do a comparative post. In the meantime, I can tell you one story I heard from Rabbi Glickman who currently teaches some smikha shiurim at YU. R. Glickman studied with both R. Halivni and R. Soloveitchik. One day R. Soloveitchik gave a full shiur on why a mishna used an idiom in the first part and a different one in the second. When R. Glickman brought this up to R. Halivni, R. Halivni chuckled, pulled out the manuscripts and showed how one girsa had them both one way, the other had them both with the second.
The difference is more of attitude and approach to the text. Brisk seems to be more about creating the conceptual categories whether or not they fit (kind of like structuralism). Academic Talmud done correctly is more about finding the most rational and empirical answers to the questions. Girsaot is part of the equation because you can’t honestly do a textual analysis on a faulty text – if you’re asking “why does he say X”, the answer could simply be “he doesn’t.”
As I said, this warrants a much longer post for what I have time at the moment. Maybe one weekend I’ll put something together, but it’s a great question.