Haredi intellectual abilities

1. The kings in the Land of Israel had power because they ruled on behalf of the Torah, that is, the Torah gave them power, so if they do not behave according to the Torah (R.L.) then they simply do not have it.

2. In general, the Rabbi says what he said, any questions you have, you need to justify them, but what he wrote is what he wrote

3. And by the way, also Maran Gaon of the Geonim, the Holy of Holies, the Minister of the Torah and the Pillar of Teaching, the Reverend Rabbi, who did not study at all in a Haredi yeshiva style, also took such action

Are you quoting passages from the Cyrus Declaration or the Geneva Convention? Actually, it looks more like an excerpt from some pure view book. Definitely demonstrates my point about problems with systematic thinking. Just saying that the discussion here is about the R”n method and the scholarly way of thinking, and it is worth engaging in it or opening a new thread with statements about the greatness and sanctity of the vision.

I once heard an ultra-Orthodox educator on the radio who was responding to Benzi Gopstein and he was talking about how the state has the authority of a king and a queen, and I thought, "So why don't you guys enlist?" Suddenly, when you have to deal with the real reality, the state suddenly gains authority.

Now I have come across a very typical example. On the issue of redeeming captives and there is no redemption beyond their blood. When I approach this issue, I first ask myself what was before the regulation? Do we redeem them at any cost? Why? What is the source of this law? Then I go back to the source of the mitzvah to redeem captives (which is the most important mitzvah, as everyone quotes from the Shul, except that there is no such mitzvah). It turns out that there is very little treatment of this question, and it is mainly through incidental comments. For me, this would have opened the lesson.
And so with regard to a deed that repels, a deed that does not. We learn from the tzitzit. But what would we say without the study? That the deed is superior or not? And why? Then we can ask what the study has innovated. And why did we decide that the tzitzit is an example that should be generalized and determined that a deed always repels, and not an exception that teaches that in general the law is that the non-deed repels? What does the decision to see a source as a father of all Torah or an exception that teaches the opposite depend on? These are questions that scholars usually do not ask, and even if they do, it is done in passing. They do not begin their study with the fundamental questions. And I have not even talked about the need to define what is and is not (an executive or normative definition), which no one deals with. It is amazing that the most fundamental question in halakhah is not addressed at all. And so with countless issues and concepts. There is no systematic and orderly thinking from the foundation and the Tefahot and above.
Of course, methodological questions (like the one I raised about how to relate to a source) are not addressed at all. The meaning of the rules of halakhah, questions of halakhic authority, controversy, and so on and so forth. It is not for nothing that the roots of the Ramban are a dead mitzvah in the scholarly world. At most, they address a halakhic dispute between him and the Ramban that arises there, but never the principle presented there and its meaning.
To my astonishment, I discovered long ago that despite the sea of material accumulated over generations in halakhic and Talmudic scholarship, there is almost no halakhic issue for which I find a reasonable answer to the fundamental questions in the commentators. There is no issue where one can be satisfied with what has already been written. And it is not that I have an interesting innovation in this or that issue. There is no issue that does not. And it is not my genius or the stupidity of others. It is a question of research habits and methodology. What interests you and what do you ask. Do you start with defining concepts and fundamental principles, or do you jump straight to the difficulty of the extremes and the foundations of rabbinic law? Conceptual and a priori analysis renders much of this brilliance unnecessary.

Have you ever thought about writing a column where you would express your opinion on how to study issues professionally and seriously while giving good examples?
I think it would really help many, especially me

This is not a column but a book. I thought about it, but I don't know if the effort is justified. I don't know how many people would use a book like this.

By the way, I don't really believe in books like this either. You just have to demonstrate and people will produce what they want. There are many examples in my lessons and in the columns here on the site.
As a rule, introductions are for experts, not beginners. But there is still value in introductions, of course.

Your Honor, a point regarding writing a book or some systematic material on how to study a subject through study:
Although a book of this type certainly cannot teach from scratch how to study, in my opinion it is nevertheless important even for people who do not yet know how to study. I studied in one of the best Seder yeshivahs (and the study there is the highlight), and I can say that the feeling about study among most people is very sour. It is not entirely clear what the goal is that they are supposed to reach, many of the students get angry in the morning seders and do not really understand the purpose of what they are doing and what the product that they are supposed to reach through study is, they have tools from various study tools but they do not have a method and order that bring them to some product that they understand what it is. This causes people to come out of the study frustrated, do not really see value in it, and quite quickly after the army they start to drift into halakha. Not to mention the fact that it is much more difficult for people to answer the question “Why is studying study important” if they do not even understand what it is. I personally dug into this topic of how one is supposed to study and tried to talk about it a lot with scholars, etc., and they didn't give me very good answers. I don't know if the solution to this is a thick book, but in general, I think there is a great thirst in yeshivahs to understand what a study is and how one is supposed to do it, and there is a great lack of systematicity in this subject.

Do you think that in your lessons on the Shas from past years (for example, on Babek) you handle issues in this way?
From what I could taste, it doesn't seem like it, but rather looks like a regular lesson (of course in your style and how you present it) but I didn't see any treatment of methodological questions like what you described above, am I wrong? For example, in the lesson on this, which is enjoyable and there is no shortage, you go straight into the calculations of the issue, and don't necessarily provide a conceptual analysis of what is enjoyable, what is rooted, etc.

(Just pointing out that if you were to write such a book as the previous speaker suggested, I would be willing to contribute whatever is needed for it, and it would be the book I would take with me everywhere. In my opinion, it is very essential. Unless of course there is nothing that can replace the study itself and time and experience).

Indeed, I don't teach this way on all issues. But where the analysis changes the picture or is significantly useful for the study, I try to teach them this way.
For example, in the Golden Chapter lessons I gave just now, the first three lessons dealt with conceptual analysis and a conceptual framework.

This is how you study in the mercy seat.
They have never heard of the word ‘methadalagi’, but their lessons are exactly like that. Organized but dry. No fluff. Rabbi Mazuz wrote the book ”Darache Ha'Iyin” about his study method (and its introduction to the book Arim Nesi on Tractate Yevamot is a masterpiece in itself), and he recommends ”Darache HaGemara” by R” Kenpanton.

Rabbi Michi, this whole discussion is a bit funny. As someone who studied in Haredi yeshivots (you) and is familiar with the academic issues, you understand that the Haredim do it well and the next generation of the academic elite will be among the Haredim, and almost certainly in two generations.
You can write about the external contribution that people like Rabbi Lichtenstein can make to learning, you can write about specific problems in learning, and you can also write about a thousand problems that the Haredim have.
But about Haredi yeshivot learning, it is good. And it is advancing with many new trends like Schreiber's, and the Haredim enjoy learning differently than yeshivot boys in national religions.
Don't you agree with that?

It's worth reading carefully what the question was at the beginning of the thread and what Miki answered.

Doron, can you enlighten us? Do you see any problem? An unanswered question?

In general, I consider myself a fairly small-minded person (a white lie?). However, I can perhaps say that I understand that you were asked about one thing and answered it well. The questioner, on the other hand, responded to something that seems unrelated to my kind of bigots.

To the point: From my limited experience with Haredim, your description of their intellectual world seems quite accurate to me. To me, it is a wonderful oddity for the gap between the enormous intellectual abilities in a field as difficult as halacha and higher-order thinking in which they simply do not stop failing.

If you read what Rabbi Doron wrote, you understand that he came to tease Rabbi Motti and be of help to you. But you turned a lover into an enemy.
Maybe there is a blessing in this, Haman and cursed in this. I don't know.
After all, I studied with Haredim and they didn't study the issue systematically there.

I suspect that the person responding to my comments is an ultra-Orthodox person himself. A wonderful illustration of Michi's response. I don't know Rabbi Motti.

Rabbi Mazuz was mentioned here and it is really interesting if you are familiar with his method, the "Tunisian Inquiry"? Maybe when you sit down with Rabbi Amsalem, who is a prominent student of his.

I don't know my sins.

As long as the candle is lit, it can be fixed. You will probably actually like the book with the style that is prevalent in Haredi yeshivahs and the abundance of examples of research errors by the greats of the first and last generations. Maybe you are the soul root of a Tunisian 🙂

I have now uploaded column 637, which deals with my study methods.

I know of a Haredi scholarly school that was actually pleased with it. It is about R’ Chaim Men-Har and his students.
Thus, in the example you gave about doing something that is reprehensible and not doing something that is not true, and mixing it with tzitzit – when I studied this issue with him, he dealt a lot with all the questions you mentioned.

Interesting.