Q&A: On Slobodka and Ponevezh
On Slobodka and Ponevezh
Question
Regarding your shiur this morning at Ohel Ari:
When I learn, for example, the weekly Torah portion, I read a verse, then ask myself what the Torah is trying to tell me. I start with a clean slate, a tabula rasa. Only afterward do I look at Rashi, Nachmanides, Ibn Ezra, etc. With this method I have been able to come up with many original insights.
I do this with the Talmud as well. I frequently argue with the Amoraim.
If I read the commentators first, my mind would be led in a certain direction and I very well might not come up with original thinking.
Your comments?
Answer
Hello. I assume I can write in Hebrew—well, in this case, English—right?
I completely agree, but that belongs to the second stage. If you didn’t already have basic skill with the text and familiarity with the commentators, you wouldn’t be able to do what you’re doing. That’s why I suggested first Ponevezh and only afterward Slobodka. In other words, after becoming familiar with the background that came before us, it’s worthwhile to go back and ask what we ourselves have to say. But to do this instead of studying the tradition that has developed up to our time is, in my opinion, a mistake. What you’re adding is that even within stage two (Slobodka) one should divide it into two stages: first ask what I myself say, and afterward go back to the commentators. I completely agree.
Incidentally, in Talmud study all this is far more significant than in the study and interpretation of the Written Torah. The Talmud requires much more skill, and there is far greater complexity there than in Torah study. The Torah is a text that almost anyone can interpret, and there is almost no added value to the “Ponevezh-style” stage.