The crisis of Halacha learning in our generation

What does the Rabbi think about the article attached hereto?
“The Crisis of Halacha Learning in Our Generation”
Rabbi David Davidovich
In what follows, I want to focus on the point that bothers many students: why in most places the Torah has been made into two Torahs, and scholars who seek to study the subject carefully and arrive at practical Halacha, almost never find kollels or Torah recitations that this is their way of studying.
And in kollels nowadays, either the study of Shas is done in contemplation or the study is Shulchan Aruch and the bearer of tools and practical halakha,
And this was the accepted way, as Rabbi Wesner writes in the Responsorial Psalm of Shevat HaLevi (Part 2, Section 75).
And the study of the Torah begins with clarifying the form of the Shema’ta from beginning to end with the honesty of the study, according to the way of all the Rishonim who were mentioned there, and to find out the differences between the ways of the Rishonim, to analyze with understanding the foundation of each of them, and after all, to study later on all the matters of the words of the fourth part of the Shulchan Arba’ah that belong to this and to the asusuke Shema’ta and the mitzvot of the final conclusion, and this was the way of the ancient Ge’onim, the Grek’a Ha-Sachs and all the great ones, and so this and that was fulfilled in their hands, and they would tire themselves out on the Shema’ta as on the subject, and once the Ge’on Yisrael the Chazon Ish, Z.A., told me in one of his conversations with me that in his youth he studied a lot of Torah and B’Y, and his companions would mock him and say, “May God teach infants.” And he concluded by saying, “God, I have become what I have become.” Ayish at length,
In my next words, I will address the root of the problem and the fact that it cannot be solved. The root and reason for this separation stems from the complete change in style and method of learning in our generation.
To understand this, we must expand a little on the approach and method of the study schools and yeshivahs during the Acharon period, when the method of divisions was accepted, and in this way they studied both the issues of the Shas and the Shulchan, and were precise and innovated excuses, and there were even places where the unnecessary words were required as a kind of ‘midrash’. In this method, they gave great importance to the location and the technical and formal order of the things, and were precise in the location and order, and why here and not there, and such as why the Mishnah wrote its laws precisely in this order and not another, and they were also precise in why Rashi said Te’ama, a commentary on the Gamma, precisely on this section of the Mishnah and not on the other section, and so on. And on this basis, innovations and sharp inventions are built without any basis in the texts. And the moment a person is precise in grammar and difficulties, then he is forced to innovate in order to excuse the difficulties and it is necessary to invent new theories and moves in the matter.
In their books on the Shas, this method is most prominent, such as in the book of the Tzalah or the one who asks to note that the style of the questions and excuses is in the method of the divisions. An example of this is the words of the Tzalah Bitza Yad: On the Gm. ‘Rabbi Huna and Rav Chisda; one said: All pots all need salt, and not all pots need spice. And one said: All spices are from their own taste,’ which complicates the fact that the word ‘all’ for spice is redundant, and the late Rabbi ‘What is the meaning of the word ‘all’ here, and what is the meaning of ‘jam’ in the word ‘all’?’ And the latter constructs a wonderful innovation.
And on the next page, the author writes in the book Morika: And what is the use of the house in this, that is, the author writes Morika, and he looks at length in the wonderful introduction of Rabbi Shmuel David Munk to the book Tzalacha on the method of division of the book and the Tot’d writes:
We can see in this book before us our Rabbi’s way of being meticulous in the slightest changes in the subject… Likewise, we can find a grammar in Toss that changes the order of the questions in one tractate with respect to its companion.
And the division method is based on two assumptions:
A. Rules for accuracy in a matter such as what is said in the Tractate of Shavuot, Chapter Ner Mitzvah
Only this thing is a commandment, and it will be adhered to and will also be a refinement, namely, to justify in real ways every ‘Oish in Beranger’, every ‘Niran in Bergar’, and every ‘Regir Shforger’, as well as with additions to connect every ‘And if you say’ or ‘Tima’ that is without it. Such things are generally Torah of Truth, and they are also a refinement.
Also, see the pages of the Torah, Chapter 5.
Although this is not the case, certainly those who say that the reasoner and the reasoner are the ones who want to make a mistake (Kabba Metzia 382), and who think many thoughts about the reasoner and the reasoner, saying: The reasoner did not understand the reasoner and the reasoner did not understand the reasoner,
B. The legitimacy and permission to say radical innovations that are certainly not true – did not occur to the Amoraim and the Rishonim, and in this way of study they did not give much importance if this is indeed what the author of the Mimra intended, and according to the words of the Shelah
25. And the matter of divisions, they will be null and void, and who would that they had not existed in the world. And even if the speaker says that he is telling something close to the truth and is telling many true matters, in any case, when even one thing that is not true is mixed in with it, he is forbidden in something, and who can imagine the criminal sin of turning the words of God, the Torah, into true law.
And although ostensibly the way to study the hilums was only in yeshiva study and not in the actual study of halacha, in practice a person who is accustomed to thinking in this style during his early days in yeshiva – this influences him throughout his life, and he always sees the texts through this perspective, and since this way of learning dominated the dome in those days, this way and style penetrated, to a greater or lesser extent, into the study of halacha.
And the B.A.H., which refers to this, that the system of divisions – the grammar of the tongues influenced the excuses and ideas expressed in the Sugiya and Shulchan – in his acquisition of the path of Rabbi Yehoshua Katz, author of the demand, etc. B.A.H. Introduction:
Go, eat my bread. And drink the wine of my cup, and turn not to the revelers and the bread of lies. Let us not be deceived by their follies and their schemes, neither by the law nor by the law of the land, for they are the work of sharp tongues, learning, and images. And in vain do their mouths, which are like women, make you proud… like the ways of the officers at the edge of the camp, to show off their art, their talkativeness, like a tower that blooms in the air between heaven and earth. To purify the worm…and behold, in our time, the devout Rabbi, Mahar Rabbi Velek HaCohen, may God have mercy on him, has made a collection of the words of the Torahs and has given them in print in an unscriptural manner, because the Rabbi, may God have mercy on him, did not go back and change his collection to have them printed in the same condition in which they were printed after his death, because most of his teachings are in his book, in order to break down the difficulties and grammar in languages, even though it is not true, but if it is a book and a great book, it is a book for my father, he is a deacon (Blessings 332 and Sh’n) and this is not the way and the city that the great ones before us held in a collection of books that will be a teaching for all Israel.
And writes against many against the Samaa
Si’ Ab and Dela as Maruch Sama Sec Kidd who wrote various laws on this, not the first ones:
C. Kend: Again, I saw that the Maruch, the S.A., Sec. 34 in the Shulchan Aruch, extended this with urgent matters, as if a coat were a cloak, but it did not descend at all to all that we wrote. See there:
C. 47: And the most important thing is that we do not write divisions here that are not in accordance with the law.
Language sign: And the rest of the people of Mary, the Rabbi, requested a letter from the Rabbi to divide between a beast and a line. This division was not the opinion of the early ones:
We also find in the Responsa of Maharam Katz (sign 2) that he writes to the father of the Shach, Rabbi Meir Katz:
What took the MAKAT a long time to respond is both in the matter of the get and in the matter of the deshma’ata of the rabbin. Here, besides the fact that the Hanai does not agree to respond to every single detail, but even if the Hanai did agree, the late Rivash has already written that such a thing is futile and time is wasted in responding to such chatter, because the gates of excuses are not closed, and the Etzel is what the MAKAT peppered in the Dagtin case, and there is no way to build a foundation on chatter to derive from it a practical law. And the MAKAT, lest extraneous things come to your mind that I, God forbid, am disgusted by your words, said to answer you with the main chapters.
And the author Yehuda writes in the introduction: And according to the way of learning the falsifications, all the great ones practiced it, but they did not use it to decide halakhah, nor did they make compositions from it. But later, when a generation passed and their hearts became small and they were unable to contain both studies together in their minds – and in the way of falsification they were accustomed to from childhood and it was very pleasing to them – they began in the Ashkenazi countries and Poland to compose compositions according to falsifications, and because of this, the way of halakhah was weak in their hands. And also some great ones who composed their books according to halakhah, but their method of studying according to falsification prevented them from extracting clear halakhah from the words of our ancestors, z”l, since it was their way to interpret even the words of the ancients in the way of falsifications, and to make a fool of themselves in the Kufa of Demchata, which our ancestors, z”l, did not aim for at all… And I wondered about the fruits of the shur whose method of studying was to summarize the words of the ancients, z”l, in his opinion, and interpret them in the way of falsifications… And here we find now some books of the latter who Their words were also spoken about the law of the halakhah through gossip, and many would make the mistake of deducing halakhah from them… and the clothed Sharad believed that even from the path of gossip one can derive clear halakhah, as stated in the halakhah.
But in our generation, the method of study has already changed – and there is no one who studies according to the method of divisions, and our Rebbe the Gra has already distanced himself from this method of study. In describing the method of study of the Volozhin Yeshiva, yeshiva student Micha Yosef Berditsevsky writes: ‘And there is a great rule in the laws of study that are in this yeshiva, that the main thing is the study of the Ichkei, not the Chemi, that is: the obligation on every student to deeply investigate the method of every Tanna or Amora in every subject and subject, and to explain all the maxims that are contradictions to the methods, and to search for the reasons for which they are exceptional details. But the Chemi study that overlooks the areas of the maxims and demands a lot of reliance on what is lacking and what is excessive does not apply any principle there, and therefore one will not study there “Maharsha” “Maharam” “Maharam Shiff”. The usual difficulties and problems there are only the contradictions from one Mimra to another.’
And the goal in our time is to reach the depth of the Peshat, whether it is the method of Brisk or the students of the Chazon Ish or the other rabbis of our generation, the Gersh Elyashiv and the Gersh Z, as well as the Levite tribe, for example, all of whose innovations are built on the path of Peshat and the depth of the intellect-the correct interpretation, and even in the previous generation, the Mishnah in the Be’avahal follows the path of Peshat, and see the decisive words of the great genius of our generation, the Chazon Ish, in his printed letter, the end of the Avi Hazri Hagigah:
“Just as the sealers of the Talmud delved into the principles of law, so they delved into their language and into the arrangement of things for future generations, for this is the religion of wisdom and the religion of the sages, and it is not possible for them to be closed off on something that is not easy to understand, and for them to say in an article something other than what is intended. If we were to overload their words with excessive allusions, we would be left with nothing.”
And in our generation, any memory of the method of learning by division has completely disappeared,
Therefore, graduates of the yeshivot K., whose accepted method of study is the study of the Sugya and with the interpretations of the Rishonim and the analysis of their words, what is the basis of each one in the way of our rabbis of the Brisk family, and according to the goal of simply understanding the boundaries of the Sugya and the opinions of the Rishonim,
And when we come to study the Shula and the Acharonim, we encounter a completely different world and path.
The focus is on side issues, such as the author’s and Rema’s language, and the questions are in a different style, and the excuses are new beliefs and inventions, without any source and while ignoring the analysis of the issue with the Rishonim and in the style of the method of divisions,
Therefore, those who study the Gemara and the Rishonim on a website are often left confused because they see a new world from what they previously learned from the original source of the issue.
Although there are Aharoni who do follow the accepted path of study, such as the Gra and the Pri Chadash, who adhere to the Pesht and the words of the Rishonim, most of the Aharoni whose path of study is completely different from that accepted in our generation,
And this is why today there is a separation between the study of theology and the study of Halacha,
And it is almost impossible to combine this because one who wants to learn from the root of the issue in detail to the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch encounters difficulty in grasping and intellectually grasping the ways of the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch, and it is difficult for him to connect with the style and movements of the Beit Yosef and the Rema and the 16 and the Shacha.
And even a person with inner integrity understands that it is impossible to explain the words of the Achronot in the conventional way of learning in our time, because how can 16 be reconciled with the Brisk way, and why should one explain such a complicated thing with the simple way?