Several questions about the form of study in the study
Recently, I was exposed to different study methods than I was familiar with in the yeshiva, which made me wonder:
A. In the Rabbi’s opinion, is the goal to come up with a map of the different methods on the issue or is there also interest in forming your own opinion on the issue?
on. There is a method accepted in some Zionist yeshiva circles according to which the main focus is on the Gafta and from the Gemara itself, the student tries to raise the difficulties on the issue himself and, by and large, arrive at the different opinions on the issue on his own, with a certain guidance from the Rabbi, and relatively little focus on the Rishonim/Acharonim. What does the Rabbi think of this method?
third. There are yeshivot where it is customary to study a study relatively quickly, to understand more or less what the two/three sides of the first/last on an issue are and why each one did not say the same as the other and are satisfied with that, and there are yeshivot where they spend four or five days on each small issue in order to clarify every opinion from all sides and be very precise about it (at the cost of little doubt, of course). What does the rabbi think is best to do?
D. I saw that the rabbi recommended studying mainly Acharonim and scholarly books, while almost everything I heard in the yeshiva world (at least the Zionist one, I don’t know the Haredi one) was a very large emphasis on Rishonim, and there was debate about how much, if any, it was worth and necessary to study Acharonim. Why does the rabbi think it is better to study Acharonim?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you very much, Rabbi, and I apologize for the incorrect generalization.
Another question (and I warn that I have not yet been able to define for myself the differences between the methods well, my knowledge is only from limited exposure to their study and little reading on the subject, but still):
In the Rabbi's opinion, is there a preference for the Brisk method over a study that places greater emphasis on the course of the issue and the language of the Gemara itself, or vice versa (or neither one nor the other)? If there is a preference for one of the methods – why?
I assume that all yeshivahs have at least some degree of Brisk, but is it worth studying in one that clearly teaches Brisk and emphasizes it over a yeshivah where the method of study is more inclined towards emphasizing the course of the issue and the language of the Gemara?
There is no need to apologize for mistakes (even if I am right that it is a mistake). 🙂
I personally like their method but it is my personal taste (and many others). Each to his own.
I do think that you should also learn this so that it will be added to your toolbox that you are developing. Everything you put into it is pure profit. The question of what to focus on is subjective and there is no point in whitewashing it. Try and see what speaks to you. In general, both things are important, and if there is a place that emphasizes one, then try to learn that from them, and then go to a place where you can extract the other. In the end, you will learn with a method that you develop for yourself and with your own emphases. Along the way, try to accumulate everything you can. In my experience, inquiries about what to focus on and how to study are not very useful. Do your best everywhere according to what is done there, and in the end you will form your own path. These inquiries only introduce confusion and insecurity into learning, and in the end, everyone who studies seriously grows.
What about the Rogotshov method?
I have seen that the rabbi refers to it in almost every article of good quality. Does it have any unique importance? Is it worth taking the time to study it and get to know its style of thinking?
[It is obviously intended for the well-to-do, but there are probably also readers here who fall into this definition..]
It is difficult to exhaust in a short answer. In general, he uses a system of philosophical concepts borrowed from the confused teacher to analyze and sort issues and opinions in Shas. Therefore, his links seem distant at first glance (and sometimes they really are distant in my opinion). You can read about him and his method in Rabbi Zevin's People and Methods, and more fully in Rabbi Kosher's "Deciphering the North."
I think it is definitely worth studying him too, or at least getting to know his method. In my youth, I had a hobby of engaging in it (and in the tools of pleasure) mainly on Shabbat. He has a composition (a collection of the Tzaffnet Pe'anach Institute) on the Torah, which is one of his usual scholarly compositions and in his usual style. This way, you can get acquainted with him on Shabbat around the weekly torah portion. There are comments from the editor below, which make it easier to decipher his words (although they are not always correct in my opinion).
For the purpose of studying the first is so that you yourself become part of the latter. That is, when a person makes an effort to study the first carefully, in the end he himself makes the move of the latter and in fact the lesson of the R”m (at least in the beginning) is intended to direct you that you are really studying correctly. And this is how what is called the “mind of Torah” develops through the effort yourself and without you eating with a spoon what the latter writes.
Thanks to the rabbi and the others who answered for the answers!
Another small question:
Assuming that the latter are like the Ram's lesson, then even for the Ram's lesson I study the Gemara and the Rishonim, let's say two sederim (on the order of 7 hours) for a lesson of about an hour and a half. Is this how we should also study the latter?
If you hear five lessons on the same subject, there is no need to prepare it five times.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
