Tosafot HaRosh or the regular Rosh?
And if so, I understand why to learn Tosafot, but why learn with Rashi if he doesn’t open up conceptual points?
And don’t you see value in the fact that through breadth study you’ll be able to raise questions from one place to another, build up concepts, and get to know the language?
Thank you very much.

If you manage without Rashi, then you can do without. Even so, knowing him is something fundamental, and he also has conceptual points.
That doesn’t happen very often. Usually people forget the breadth material. The commentators already ask the questions. And over time, if you learn a lot of in-depth analysis, you’ll acquire breadth too.

Thank you very much, but above were you referring to the Rosh or to Tosafot HaRosh?

The Rosh’s legal rulings.

Hello Rabbi,
Why does the Rabbi not see value in breadth study?
After all, the whole purpose of studying the Talmud is ultimately to arrive at what one should do, that is, a halakhic ruling. So why engage in analysis and hair-splitting again and again? Also, the need for the Talmud itself arose because of the loss of the Oral Torah tradition, lack of understanding of the topics, and the multiplication of students in exile. So what place is there for examining many additional commentators on top of the Talmud, if the passage is clear, and the majority view is clear too, if we’re honest?
Did anyone in the Second Temple period think to engage in hair-splitting over what was clear? After all, the whole need for the Talmud, the protocols of discussions, is after the fact and out of distress, not ideal from the outset (in exile).
That is what Maimonides meant when he composed the Mishneh Torah of the Oral Torah, so that people would leave aside the hair-splitting of the Talmud study itself (which is indeed fascinating at times; many days in yeshiva and real longing).
Maybe when one has to rule on a new issue that had not yet arisen, then one needs to analyze a bit more. I simply think yeshiva students waste a great deal of time, sometimes many years, on analysis and pilpul, when that time could have been used for truly great things. Jewish law is indeed at the center of Judaism, but sincerely one has to ask whether the institution of pilpul that arose in the lands of Europe over the past thousand years is really relevant. Hasn’t the time come to cling to the Torah of Maimonides, simple and clear Jewish law (of course with the updates required for our world)?
Sorry for the length.

There are many assumptions here that I do not agree with.

1. Study should indeed end with a halakhic conclusion, but it is not true that the purpose of study is to know what to do. You can learn this from the passage of the stubborn and rebellious son, which never was and never will be, and yet we study it.
2. Without knowing how to analyze, you will not know what to do. There is a distinction between scholarly pilpul and practical ruling, and that is a big mistake. Without analytical ability, you cannot issue rulings.
3. It is true that because of the forgetting of Torah, and because the students of Hillel and Shammai did not sufficiently attend their teachers, forgetting and dispute arose, but: a. In the end this is seen as a blessing, as Pahad Yitzhak elaborated regarding Hanukkah. b. Even if it is not a blessing, there is now a situation in which disputes exist. You cannot return to the past. One must live in the present. And it is simply not true that the majority view is clear.
4. I have no idea what they did in the Second Temple period, and it also does not really interest me. Maybe you haven’t read the newspapers, but the Second Temple was destroyed.
5. Same regarding Maimonides’ intentions.

Thank you to the Rabbi for the response. With your permission, I’ll add:
1. The Rabbi strengthens my conclusion. The halakhic analysis of the stubborn and rebellious son is simple, with no need at all for analysis in the Talmud. The conceptual analysis is indeed more fruitful than the halakhic one, but it does not require pilpul in the Talmud; rather, specifically analysis of biblical and commentarial literature is needed (in this case, of course).
2. I will know what to do because Maimonides or the Rif already ruled before me, or because I can infer one thing from another in the Talmud. True, in new issues in Jewish law one needs to analyze several parallel Talmudic passages, and then one needs a Torah scholar of great stature. But for most yeshiva students I would suggest first of all becoming proficient in the Talmud, and not engaging in pilpul in only a few tractates (assuming time is limited, and it indeed is).
3. In my opinion the blessing lies only in the ability to develop Jewish law and adapt it to the needs of the time and place, but not in preserving endless opinions in typical European pilpul. As for dispute, my claim is that it has already been clarified by the great medieval authorities. After all, Maimonides himself ruled from the Talmud (while examining a few Geonim and the Rif, to be honest).
4. What I meant was that the culture of pilpul is not a decree emerging from the Oral Torah, but a product of exile, with all that implies.
5. I brought Maimonides as an example, as one who ruled straight from the Talmud, and that is also what Yemenite Jews did, with a “thin Jewish law,” without need for pilpul (my own phrase; not binding on Yemenite Jews). I can prove from every halakhic passage that one can rule straight from the Talmud (with breadth knowledge), with a little familiarity with the words of the medieval authorities, and arrive at a sound conclusion directly. There is simply no need for the later authorities.
6. Here before us we have endless ‘rabbis’ like Yitzhak Yosef and Kanievsky who presumably know the entire Talmud with great analytical depth, including the halakhic literature, and they arrive at absurd and sometimes cruel halakhic conclusions. In my opinion it all starts with the European method of learning, but that would take us too far afield (without exempting them from the paganism common in the environment in which they grew up).

1. Not simple at all. No different from any other passage. And if you are not skilled in analysis, you will not understand the passage of the stubborn and rebellious son just like any other passage.
2. You are supposed to rule for yourself, not according to Maimonides or someone else (why specifically Maimonides or the Rif?). Beyond that, there is almost no case in which the ruling emerges simply from the words of the halakhic decisors. One always needs to compare one matter to another.
3-5. Same as above.
6. So you found sages whom the European method of learning misleads: Yitzhak Yosef and Rabbi Kanievsky. Precisely two people who are as far from that as east is from west.
My feeling is that everything I write only reinforces what you thought from the outset. So just continue with that and that’s it. I see no point in conducting this discussion.

Actually, after looking into what you wrote, the disagreement has narrowed a lot.
1. Fascinating analysis of the passage of the stubborn and rebellious son from the conceptual angle—for example, whether this is only a commandment for deterrence or actual punishment—depends on studying the simple biblical and rabbinic layer, and no more than that (see for example Nehama Leibowitz on the passage).
2-5. Exactly. That’s my claim! Repeated study of the Talmud, several times over, gives critical knowledge for halakhic ruling. Additional analysis and comparing one matter to another can lead to correct conclusions. Some alignment with a few medieval authorities brings further thought. And that’s enough. There is no need for the whole ‘pile’ of later authorities who engage in empty pilpul and panic.
6. They were examples. Most of today’s pilpul-ists are people of that type. “Thin Jewish law” frees up a lot of time. Time for what? For real Torah study, such as the Account of the Chariot (a minor matter versus a major matter).
By the way, the Haredim skip the aggadic sections of the Talmud or read them quickly, even though that is where genuinely thought-provoking ideas are embedded (after refinement and analysis; see Maimonides’ introduction to the Commentary on the Mishnah), while in the halakhic sections they engage in endless pilpul, as if the commandments were given in order to engage in pilpul over them.
Let’s leave it at that.

Rabbi Michi, from what I understood from several things you wrote on the subject, and also from the current chat, the problem with breadth study is that people forget it, and in order to remember it one needs exhausting review, but it sounds like someone who does manage to do this well and remembers well—that is a good thing. Is that so?

There is value to breadth study even if you forget. And certainly if you do not forget. But the value is limited, because what you remember is not worth that much. Simply remembering what is written in the Talmud without understanding it deeply is not worth much. Also, in in-depth study you acquire breadth as well, only in width rather than length—that is, breadth in the commentators on the passages you are dealing with, and not just familiarity with a collection of many passages. Therefore, in my opinion breadth study is less effective.