508) Assessing the Modern "Yeshivishe" Approach to Torah Learning

Tractate Eruvin from the famous Vilna Shas

This Guest Post by Rabbi Boruch Clinton originally appeared on his B'chol D'rachecha site.

Despite what you might think, I’m not going to talk about the way yeshivas largely ignore Tanach or - in many cases - ignore 90 percent of whatever mesechte they’re learning. There may or may not be justifications for such deviations from tradition, but no one’s going to argue that, two thousand - or even two hundred - years ago, abandoning whole curriculum categories was the way things were supposed to work.

Instead, I’m going to discuss the dominance of the Brisker “chakira” style of analysis. I should be clear that I have nothing against the style, and I don’t deny that many people get enormous pleasure from it. My only question is whether making that our primary focus is the best use of the limited time we have available for our learning.

362) Between Talmudic and Academic Academies

Rabbi Dr Binyamin Lau - a man straddling both worlds of Talmudic and Academic Judaism. 

Introduction

Is Torah study like drawing water from a well, involving a preoccupation only with a set group of ideas laid down by earlier authorities – or is it like a spring, with space for a constant flow of new ideas? This article, based extensively on the research by Rabbi Dr Binyamin Lau[1], explores the question of whether or not only old or precedented material qualifies as Torah study.

Two Talmudic scholars; two different approaches

 The tractate Avot records a debate as to which of R. Yochanan ben Zakkai’s disciples was the most esteemed: R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (described as the בּוֹר סוּד, or “plastered well” who only drew from earlier sources) or R. Elazar ben Arach (described as the מַעְיָן הַמִתְגַבֵּר, an “ever-flowing spring”.)?[2]

The plastered or cemented well only allows what it already contains to be drawn from it, while the ever-flowing spring simply becomes the means through which new material constantly emerges.