Q&A: Tools for In-Depth Talmud Study
Tools for In-Depth Talmud Study
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I am a young yeshiva student, and I’ve read a bit on the site, including lessons on tractates of the Talmud. I saw that someone asked the Rabbi about tools for in-depth Talmud study, and you answered: “I don’t have any. I don’t really believe in universal methods. You need to learn as much as possible and encounter analytic Torah works and teachers who will help you progress. In the end, you’re supposed to formulate a method and approach of your own.” I’d like to focus on the “analytic Torah works.” I noticed that the Rabbi often cites books by later authorities; is that a recommended method? I simply heard a somewhat different approach that says the ability is acquired through personal reflection on the material itself (for example, Rabbi Lichtenstein, as I recall, did not teach from the words of the later authorities), and on the other hand I still find it difficult to “open up” the passage itself and identify the essential distinctions on my own.
Another point is that I worry (perhaps unjustifiably) that “to learn as much as possible and encounter analytic Torah works” can leave you with a collection of the best clever insights, but not produce a personal method within you (unless I’m mistaken about how one should engage with those works, in which case I’d be happy to be corrected). Thank you.
Answer
I very much believe in intensive study of the later authorities. That is not instead of reflection, but in addition to it. It also depends on the stage you are at. At an initial stage, in my opinion it is preferable to go through analytic Torah works and less to create your own original analysis. Afterward, that will come in its proper time.
What you learn should of course be studied critically, and not as a collection of clever insights.
Discussion on Answer
These things are well known: Shev Shema’teta, Ketzot HaChoshen, Kehillot Yaakov, Sha’arei Yosher, Rabbi Shmuel’s lectures and novellae.
One last question (I feel like this kind of question is a bit burdensome for the Rabbi, and I can understand that, so forgive me): how does the Rabbi think one should divide time between breadth study and in-depth study? I come from a Religious Zionist background, so I don’t have comprehensive familiarity with the Talmud, but on the other hand I’m concerned that breadth study can dull attentiveness to details and precision. I’m asking both regarding other tractates (in order to gain broad familiarity with the Talmud, with conceptual understanding, after a few years), and regarding the yeshiva tractate currently being studied (which I assume has greater significance, at least in order to ground the in-depth study so that it won’t be a castle floating in the air). I’d be glad if the Rabbi could give guidance on this, and especially if he sees a difference in learning method between the other tractates (if it is worthwhile to invest time in them at all) and the tractate being studied. Thank you very much, and again sorry.
In most cases I do not see a necessary connection between the tractate being studied in depth and breadth study. Except perhaps in specific tractates that are structured in such a way that broad familiarity with them helps the in-depth study (that is, they deal with the same topic); there are very few of those, if any.
As for dividing the time, that is of course an individual matter. As a rule, I strongly recommend devoting an hour or two to breadth study, if that, and focusing most of the day on in-depth study. In-depth study means both studying the passage you are working on and also seriously going through books of analytical learning, like those on the list above. By “seriously,” I mean summarizing what you learned, commenting on it, and perhaps even being tested on it. Through this one can acquire both insights and broad familiarity. I would say that in my view, studying and going through books of analytical learning gives no less breadth and is far more useful than breadth study in the order of the pages.
I have a tradition from my lecture teacher that, contrary to the saying of the Sages, “one should first review and only afterward analyze,” today it is more correct to say, “one should first analyze and only afterward review.” After you have learned in depth properly, your breadth study becomes much more meaningful, because you know how to extract quickly from the pages the important points, instead of memorizing the flow of the passages. Without analytical skill, in breadth study you are mainly memorizing the pages, and in any case not much remains from that. In my view, the main value of breadth study is acquiring concepts, understandings, and analytical principles—not memorizing the page, which has little value and is usually forgotten fairly quickly anyway (despite the agonizing torture of repetitive review). Especially today, when everything is written down and there are databases, the value of breadth study is reduced (though of course it still has considerable value).
In my view, the difference between in-depth study and breadth study is not in the goals or in the form of learning, but in the pace. Breadth study is fast in-depth study—that is, going through the page and quickly extracting from it the main insights and analytical possibilities, without getting into too many nuances and too many commentators. I have often compared this to war movies, where there is a difference between an aggressive patrol and a non-aggressive patrol. In an aggressive patrol, you shoot into the bushes by the side of the road in order to flush out the enemy hiding there and confront him head-on. In a non-aggressive patrol, you go along the road and deal with the enemy you happen to find, but you don’t shoot in order to force him out. But to do that, you need analytical skill.
In the end, when there is skill and knowledge, one can completely stop splitting between breadth study and in-depth study.
Thanks for the answer (I’m commenting separately from the questioner). In my opinion, a post should be made of this.
Thank you very much for the answer (I’m the questioner).
Are there particular later authorities that the Rabbi recommends as the mainstream of analytical learning? I’d be happy both for books arranged on the order of the tractates and for analytical works in their own right, like Shev Shema’teta.