Q&A: In-Depth Talmud Study

← Back to list | 🌐 עברית | ℹ About

Originally published: November 17, 2020

This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.

In-Depth Talmud Study

I read in Maimonides’ letters that he comes out sharply against in-depth Talmud study, because they turned dialectical analysis into an end in itself instead of understanding that such analysis is meant for the sake of halakhic ruling. Do you agree with that? If so, do you think we spend too much time on pilpul?
There are two basic assumptions behind in-depth Talmud study: 1. Everyone who wrote on the Talmud knew the entire Talmud. How do we know that’s true? 2. There should be as few disputes in the Talmud as possible, and contradictions need to be reconciled. But who says they don’t simply disagree? In the Maharshal’s wording, Tosafot rolled the entire Talmud up like a ball. Maybe Tosafot were mistaken in what they did?

The question is what counts as pilpul. Everyone uses that term for something else. What is studied in depth in yeshivot is not unnecessary study (and in my view is not even pilpul). It is the basis for halakhic ruling and for understanding Jewish law.
That is a methodological assumption, and it does not have to be correct. Still, it is a reasonable assumption, so we adopt it as long as there is no clear reason otherwise. If there is a difficulty with no answer, then apparently he did not know it. It is not right to build elaborate dialectical structures on that assumption (unless it is clear that this is a Talmudic passage he knew, because then of course it needs to be reconciled).

Yishai (2020-11-17)

I forgot to ask: as a student of Rabbi Shach, are you also opposed to explanations like Steinsaltz and so on?

Michi (2020-11-17)

I wasn’t privileged to be a student of Rabbi Shach. I also don’t agree with most of his views. I don’t see the slightest problem with Steinsaltz.