Q&A: Questions about the first lesson in yeshiva-style conceptual Talmudic analysis
Questions about the first lesson in yeshiva-style conceptual Talmudic analysis
Question
Hello Rabbi. I listened to the first lesson on YouTube, and a number of questions came up:
1. The Rabbi speaks about learning for the sake of learning as the primary form of Torah study. How does that fit with the distinction in Pirkei Avot between one who learns in order to teach and one who learns in order to do (which, as I understand it, means studying Jewish law)? According to the principle the Rabbi stated, it seems to be missing a reference to the important kind of Torah study that is learning in order to learn/understand.
2. If the different conceptualizations are different languages and all of them are essentially correct (like curvilinear and Cartesian coordinates), then the halakhic result should presumably be identical?
3. Does the meaning of the different conceptualizations—that they are basically extracting the principles from the subject under discussion—mean that all the conceptualizations are already present within the topic at the source, and we are only extracting them with analytical tools? For example, the Talmud that says that Moses our Teacher does not understand what Rabbi Akiva is teaching. Because Moses our Teacher essentially receives from the Holy One, blessed be He, the final perfect product. Rabbi Akiva needs to conceptualize in order to arrive at the final product?
Thank you,
Avigdor Shapira
Answer
I assume you mean the lesson in the course on conceptual Talmudic analysis.
- Ordinary study is study in order to do. The meaning is not that this is the main purpose of study, but that a person intends to act in accordance with the conclusions he reaches in his learning. According to that view as well, one should study in order to do, except that this is not the primary goal.
2. There are disputes, but they are not necessarily dependent on the different conceptualizations. Sometimes different conceptualizations also lead to different halakhic results, and then that reflects a dispute. But there are disputes even within the same conceptualization.
3. I explained this in the lesson itself, when I brought the example of Rav Kook’s doubt about the Sochatchover (the contradiction regarding Rabbi Eliezer, who never said anything he had not heard from his teacher).