Brisk – interpretation?
Hello Rabbi.
My yeshiva teaches ‘Brisk’ scholarship, and recently I feel that I have despaired of the method (not just Brisk – analytical abstraction and conceptualization methods in general). I see how they arrive at a question with four a priori explanations and only look for the first to be able to push these explanations into their language – and I almost go crazy. There is no textual, linguistic, historical sensitivity… From my perspective, there is no fundamental difference between Tos’ and Tovo’t Shor (now studying Khulin) for Shacha; between a question in the Gemara and Halacha in the Rambam and the Nubian’s Responsa. There is no doubt that the game of hakires is a fun game (and there were a few weeks at the end of winter time when I reached a very good level in these lines of thought, and before the buds of heresy sprouted in me – in which I really drew satisfaction from every morning routine), but it is difficult for me to see it as a legitimate interpretation.
In short, I would be grateful if the Rabbi could explain:
- A. As a relative ‘follower’ of the Brisk method, does the rabbi think this is a legitimate interpretive method? (Mainly for the Talmud; perhaps for later levels of the Toshabeh this applies)
B. If this is not an interpretive method, then what are we even doing here, and what is the point of engaging in it? Enjoyment is nice, but then we might as well play basketball, or start a master’s degree… - Maybe this is the sign to “leave Ponovich and move to Slobodka”?
- A bit of a big question, but:
A. What is the place of subjectivity (and perhaps, intersubjectivity) in halakhic interpretation? In the end, it is clear that there are historical (and other) influences on interpretation, a person is the pattern of the landscape of his homeland, etc.
on. To what extent are these problems parallel to classical problems in hermeneutics in general?
This is an excellent method of thinking for any text. But you shouldn’t get stuck in it. These are tools to clarify the methods and the issue, but after the initial investigation, common sense should come in and decide which is more likely. Both from interpretation and from comparisons to other sources and the same forms of thinking. Exactly, leave Ponevezh and move to Slobodka. But Ponevezh is a foundation that should continue with you. Just don’t stop there.
I didn’t understand question 3. I wrote an article on hermeneutics in this context (although my conclusion there was a bit mystical for my taste today, but the principles are correct). See column 166 for a revised version.
I will ask more sharply:
The Briskian analysis is not really interested in the question of what the opinion holder thought and what the [subjective] reason was for writing what he wrote. It treats writing as an entity that exists in itself and analyzes the written product objectively.
There is a lot of internal truth in this but also a lot of historical untruth, etc.
Is it?
This is precisely the question I was dealing with in those sources.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
