Q&A: Study
Study
Question
1. I’m not able to study a new topic well in a study partnership. I can learn with a study partner when it’s a topic I’ve already studied, and then I can convey to him my understanding of the passage, all the back-and-forth discussion, and so on. But when it comes to encountering a new passage, uncovering what is in it, understanding what each opinion says and what each one thinks, and looking through books of medieval authorities and later authorities, and so on—I have to be alone. Is there any problem with that? Do I need to force myself to learn with a study partner?
2. When I study, I put effort into understanding what is written and what a given book or author is saying, as if the goal is to understand what others said, not what I myself can say or innovate in the passage. Is that a problem? When one comes to study, should one come with a mindset of “come up with novel insights”? It makes a practical difference to the form of study: for example, I analyze the Talmudic text (I try to understand; whatever is difficult for me I write down, but I don’t go looking for difficulties) with Rashi and Tosafot, and afterward I go to the other medieval authorities, and afterward to a few later authorities, and then I organize the various approaches and try to understand them well. Is that the right way, or should it really be that I look only at the Talmudic text and then try to understand what it is saying, what the questions are, what the answers are, what the insights are, and what I myself can say, and so on?
Answer
- Absolutely not. I’m exactly like that too. So what? Is there some obligation to study with a partner? Everyone learns in the way that suits them.
- That is the right way. The goal is not novel insights but to understand the passage (to arrive at the truth). For that purpose, it is advisable to study commentators as well and clarify their approaches. In the end, it is certainly proper to arrive at your own conclusion, taking into account everything you have learned. By the way, in philosophy and in other fields too (law), people study the arguments of others and work them through, because that is a good way to understand and to reach a conclusion that you yourself will formulate. Contrary to what is commonly accepted, I think that the clarification of the various approaches, in and of itself, is only a means and not the goal. In the end, the goal is that you reach your own conclusion, but this means is very important. Why not make use of the best scholars and teachers available to you in the subject you are dealing with?!
Discussion on Answer
I don’t think I quote him that often. I bring two or three things, but maybe I repeat them in places where needed. It’s simply to cite something in the name of the person who said it. By the way, his homilies are not always homilies in the usual sense.
Once you said that there are two ways to teach something: there is a correct way and a successful way. Could you expand a bit on what you meant? Does that apply only to the teacher, or also to the learner? How can it be that even if I learn in the correct way, it still won’t be successful?
I don’t remember where and when I said that. What’s the context? (This reminds you of my comment from this morning/yesterday.)
Indeed, yes, but for some reason I thought that applied only to written sources and not to oral ones.
You said it in the first lecture of the series “Deontic Logic and the Relation Between Prohibition and Positive Commandment,” https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/PLwU8dYqK8r2xaAG7
There, at minute 15, you explain it a bit, but I wanted a broader expansion, because it touches on methodological issues that I’m very fond of. Thank you, Rabbi.
Unfortunately, I can’t manage to skip within the lecture there to minute 15. If you describe to me what was said and in what context, I can try to answer.
You say that “there are two ways to teach mathematics: the correct way and the effective way. If you teach from the premises to the conclusions (top down), that is the correct way, but it isn’t effective because nobody understands anything except for some genius here and there. But for a normal person, give examples, then generalize from them, and then explain the general idea behind it.”
But don’t worry, I think I more or less understood what you meant.
It’s simple. From the general rule to the examples is the precise logical structure. Mathematics is built on deduction. But methodologically, learning that way comes out unclear. Methodologically, it is usually preferable to start from the examples and move to the general rule, even though that is induction and not deduction.
I understand, thank you very much.
One more thing: I’m puzzled that you, as a proud Litvak and a Talmudist at heart, still quote somewhat often from Rabbi Fisher’s homily collection Beit Yishai. Why? What is there especially in his homilies and insights that isn’t in other homilies?