Q&A: The Topic of the Lectures
The Topic of the Lectures
Question
Hello Rabbi, I feel that it’s not really my place to make the following request, but in light of the situation I’ll describe, and the openness you show toward your readers, I’ll nevertheless take the liberty. I’ve noticed that the recent series of lectures you’ve been putting out, despite all my interest in them, deal with topics that are certainly related to Torah and Jewish law, but are not really Torah study in the full sense—say, unlike the eighth chapter of Yoma, the chapter "HaKones," and so on. I’m aware of the enormous repository (no joke) of written lectures found here on the drive, as well as the popularity, apparently, of the topics that are less in the category of straightforward Torah study, which you discuss in your lectures. Even so, today I don’t find anyone with deep analysis and sufficient didactic ability to teach Torah the way you do, even to an audience that doesn’t come from a yeshiva background. To me personally this feels like a huge missed opportunity—and not only to me, but to the entire Jewish people (as funny as that sounds)—because I at least have the sense that high-quality recorded lectures on such topics are very lacking and almost nowhere to be found, so from my point of view they’re an asset that shouldn’t be given up. Therefore, if you agree, I’d be happy if you could perhaps run a poll on the site, which I’m sure is also followed by people who watch your YouTube channel, regarding what we would prefer between the two options: lectures that are more straightforward Torah study, or continuing along the current line. Of course, everything said above is under the assumption that you are equally interested in teaching either way.
Many thanks for all your work!
Answer
Hello,
I think my added value lies in conceptual analysis, so it doesn’t matter all that much what exactly I sink my teeth into. In classic analytical Torah study there are masses of written and recorded lectures, whereas in the topics I deal with there are very few—at least materials of reasonable quality. So I usually touch on topics that are Torah in the sense of the person rather than the object, although examples from Torah in the sense of the object almost always enter there as well.
In short, the subject I deal with is by its essence a broad conceptual-philosophical subject that has various implications, including Torah ones. That is my principled aim, and not just incidental. The Torah implications and applications are presented as part of the topic’s overall fabric. That itself is my message.
Discussion on Answer
Rabbi, I would like to join Roy’s request.
The current lectures are similar, in my eyes, to a hero who climbed a tall tree and drops juicy fruit from there for anyone who wants it, but does not teach others how to climb trees themselves.
Let me explain: the Rabbi has in his head an enormous reservoir of Torah knowledge, from which (with the help of additional talents and knowledge) he rises to the analytical and meta-halakhic background of the passages and topics, and from there to the philosophical background, and so on.
In the lectures from the recent period, the Rabbi is speaking to us from the heights of Olympus, from the analytical and meta-halakhic world that has been analyzed and clarified, and bringing us fruits of meta-halakhic and philosophical distinctions (excellent ones!).
The lectures from earlier periods, by contrast, began from below, from deep and gradual study of the data on the surface of the halakhic plane (Talmudic passages, medieval authorities, Maimonides, major later authorities). That way we too could walk in your footsteps and learn how to climb.
The final result would be many learning-climbers, a broader possibility for deep criticism (both affirming and rejecting) of your Torah from your students (many and varied to an inconceivable degree), and above all: the development of the meta-halakhic and philosophical realm within Torah. [After all, is this not the vision of the prophetic voice: “a ladder set on the ground, rooted in the soil of the laws, with its top reaching heavenward to the meta-meta-meta”? Is it not so?]
And if you say: “There are a great many written and recorded lectures on the site in pure learning”? One may answer: obviously, over the years “their understanding settles upon them,” and the insights have sharpened, improved, and deepened. Our request is to learn from your mouth in the way of Torah even now. Indeed, now benches have been added, and every amusing question is immediately read by hundreds and thousands.
And I will conclude with one more remark (about which I am not sure of your view): seemingly, there are plenty of philosophers to be found elsewhere. Your added value, in my humble opinion, lies in finding the philosophy of Jewish law, and therefore the practical conclusion is that it would have been fitting to maintain closer eye contact with the details of the laws and the Talmudic passages—and all the better to teach complete analytical and halakhic topics.
With the very greatest respect.
I’ll say again what I already wrote. My lectures in straightforward learning are on the site, and they continue to pile up there even now and going forward. You can see that in a significant portion of them there are no philosophical depths at all (and in general, your superlatives are very exaggerated). The examples brought here are the cases where I thought there were important broad lessons. I think my added value is precisely the prior conceptual analysis (the a priori), and specifically not the climb from below.
Indeed, many lectures were written and recorded. As for those that were recorded, unfortunately I don’t have many of them left, so I assume that within a few more months they will run out, and personally I find written lectures harder, although I also try to study those (mainly on Sabbaths). So I really would be happy for more lectures of that kind. I agree with what you wrote, and precisely because of the strengths you mentioned I asked what I asked: passages in the Mishnah and Talmud suddenly become clearer to me, and that is thanks to your method of learning—fundamental conceptual analysis and deep philosophical analysis, which is always there in the background, or right on the table. Likewise, if the Rabbi has rabbis whom he really holds by as high-level teachers that would be worthwhile for us to be exposed to, I’d be glad to know.
A peaceful and blessed Sabbath
Perhaps I’ll recast my superlative musings into a simple question:
In the Rabbi’s opinion, what is the straight path in long-term Torah and wisdom study: gathering data and processing it into rules and reasoning and from there to the philosophical parts, or acquiring tools of thought for prior analysis through ready-made philosophical literature (for example, yours)?
I would note that in the second option, lurking at our door is the danger of recitation by rote (and in the spirit of the latest column, the danger of empty distinctions).
I don’t have an algorithm. If you make sure to engage in conceptual analysis before the learning, that will certainly help. I try to demonstrate this in my lectures.
By the way, as you wrote, there are a great many written and recorded lectures on the site in pure learning, so why should the Thursday and Friday lectures also be in straightforward learning?