Studying Gemara with Care
- I read in the letters of the Rambam that he strongly opposes studying Gemara carefully because they have made the chatter the goal instead of understanding that the chatter is intended for the purpose of halakhic decision-making. Do you agree with that? If so, do you think we waste too much time on chatter?
- There are two basic assumptions of studying the Gemara carefully: 1. Everyone who wrote about the Gemara knew the entire Gemara. How do we know that this is true? 2. There should be as few disagreements as possible in the Shas and contradictions should be resolved. But who said that they don’t simply disagree? In the words of the Maharshal, the Toss rolled the entire Shas like a ball. Maybe the Toss were wrong in what they did?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
- The question is what is called falpul. Everyone calls falpul something different. What is learned in the yeshivot is not unnecessary learning (and in my opinion, it is not falpul either). It is the basis for ruling on halakhic law and understanding it.
- This is a methodological assumption and it does not have to be true. It is a reasonable assumption, and therefore it is assumed as long as it is not clear otherwise. If there is a problem that does not have an answer, then he probably did not know it. It is not right to build elaborate structures on this assumption (unless it is clear that it is a gemara that he knew, because then it is clear that it needs to be settled).
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I forgot to ask: As a student of Rabbi Schach, do you also oppose commentaries like Steinsaltz, etc.?
I was not privileged to be a student of Rabbi Schach. I also disagree with most of his opinions. I see no problem whatsoever with Steinsaltz.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
