Q&A: The Parameters of Torah Study
The Parameters of Torah Study
Question
Hello Rabbi! I have a question, please:
In lesson 1 of the yeshiva-style analytic learning course, you say that you agree with the yeshiva approach that sees analysis of the Talmudic passage as an end in itself, and that the practical laws are only a practical ramification. You bring proof that learning Torah only in order to arrive at Jewish law—in other words, Torah study aimed at practical halakhic ruling—is not really Torah study.
This is the first time I’ve heard such a thing, so I wanted to ask: according to your view, are all the kollel students who learn only practical Jewish law—meaning learning aimed at halakhic conclusions, such as going through the Talmud, Rif, Rosh, Tur, and Beit Yosef in order to know what and why was ruled in the Shulchan Arukh—not actually learning Torah? And for example, a rabbi like Rabbi Ovadia, who spent “all” his life learning in a way aimed at halakhic conclusions—did he basically “never” really learn Torah????
To put it even more sharply: should one recite the blessing over Torah study for learning of this kind?
Thank you!
Answer
Hello.
Indeed, in my view this is not Torah study. After all, women are obligated in this too, even though they are exempt from the commandment of Torah study.
On this issue, see my article in Tzohar, which appears on the site:
https://mikyab.net/Writings/Articles/an-overview-of-torah-study-for-women-and-womens-scholarship
Discussion on Answer
As I wrote to you then: look at the arguments on both sides and form a position.
Right, but there are major authorities on each side—how can I possibly decide between them?
I’ll repeat one last time: examine the arguments and decide according to what you understand. There is nobody else who can do that in your place.
Also see columns 328 and 247–8 on my site,
Ahhh, I get it. Thank you very much, Rabbi Michi, this really helps me, thank you.
Good evening, Rabbi,
Are you familiar with Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel of blessed memory?
And if so, what do you think of his books and his approach to learning?
Definitely interesting. His books are worth learning.
Rabbi, in the lesson you say that writing a “conceptual Shulchan Arukh” would really be an absolutely wonderful project.
Is Rabbi Amiel’s book Middot Le-Cheker HaHalakhah basically such a Shulchan Arukh—one that classifies topics according to conceptual principles and analytic categories rather than according to subject matter?
I wrote there that there are such things. But it isn’t based on a full classification, and it doesn’t really enable someone who is stuck on a question to search for a solution. So it’s only an anecdotal example relative to the full project.
Rabbi, basically what impresses you more: someone who is expert in the entire Torah, knows the laws thoroughly, knows how to issue rulings, etc. etc., or someone who knows less but goes deeper—an analytic learner who really goes deeply into the Talmudic passage, etc. etc.?
And if you say the second impresses you more, didn’t the Talmud already say that Sinai is preferable, no?
Maybe you have an article that clarifies this issue of “Sinai” and “uprooter of mountains”—which is preferable??
Nowadays the importance of an “uprooter of mountains” is much greater, because the information is accessible in books and databases and is very well indexed. Several halakhic decisors already wrote that today there is no prohibition of forgetting one’s learning (Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin), and no status of one’s primary rabbi (Rema), because the information is available in books.
Beyond that, today it is more correct first to accumulate learning and only afterward to analyze, and not as the sages said: first learn and then analyze.
Got it, thanks.
One more question: what do you mean when you write in the book Yishlach Sharashav “the normative sphere”—what is that?
A sphere is a conceptual-cognitive domain. A normative sphere deals with what ought and ought not be, whereas the factual sphere deals with what exists.
Rabbi, I didn’t understand—what are you counting? 1 2 3? And “ought and ought not” for whom? What are we talking about? I couldn’t find information online.
And also, what is “legal theory”? Sometimes you define something and write “according to contemporary legal theory.” What is that?
It’s not from the sense of counting, but from the sense of surroundings/environment. A normative sphere is a normative environment or a normative field. sphere.
Legal theory is the theory of law, meta-law.
I understand.
So Rabbi, you see—regarding what we already talked about at the beginning of the week—you say this is not Torah study, and other rabbis say that this is actually the essence of Torah study.
So in a case like this, what do I do?? Who do I listen to?
How do I know who is right?