Q&A: Methods of Learning Talmud, and in General — Is There Such a Thing?
Methods of Learning Talmud, and in General — Is There Such a Thing?
Question
Honorable Rabbi,
I would be glad if you could point me to something you may have written about this in the past at length, or, if I may suggest it, to write a long and explanatory article about the different learning methods found among the commentators and the later authorities (Acharonim). For example—the difference between the pilpul method and the Brisker method. If you could bring a specific Talmudic passage and show how the pilpul-style learner studies it and how someone who follows the Brisker method studies it.
And more generally—to define more clearly what a “method of learning” is, because seemingly the differences are really between people and how their minds work. No?
And another thing—is it correct to say that the Brisker method has become dominant? If the Brisker method is as people commonly describe it, then it is really just a simple modern Western mindset. Meaning that even if the method had never come into being, it would seem that the ordinary way a reasonable person thinks today is like that. No?
And another thing—can you point to a clear difference in thinking between the medieval authorities (Rishonim) and the later authorities (Acharonim)? Isn’t it seemingly obvious that Maimonides, for example, learned and that “his mind worked” precisely with the kinds of conceptual definitions that for some reason get attributed to the “Brisker method”?
Thank you very much in advance!
Answer
Hello.
I’ve already been asked/requested this several times. But it would require a long study, and in my opinion it’s not all that interesting. It’s clear that almost something from every method exists in almost every study hall, and overall learners know what people are talking about. Terms like pilpul or Brisk themselves have several meanings and several versions. I think a person should use his head and not follow this method or that one. It’s worth knowing the range of possibilities so you can use them within your own learning. Sticking to a method and classifying its characteristics—those are matters for academics who don’t have anything better to do.
A particular defining point or another can indeed be interesting, at least if the difference in question is significant and has implications. But general characterizations of methods seem to me really neither interesting nor useful.
Shneur, take a look at “The Ways of Learning in the Lithuanian Yeshivas” by Shlomo Tikochinsky.