Q&A: Schottenstein or a Regular Talmud
Schottenstein or a Regular Talmud
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Is there any preference for learning from a regular Talmud?
The time it takes to understand the Aramaic—especially since it isn’t punctuated, just to understand the sentence—and on top of that the logic and the associative style of discussion, which makes it hard to keep track.
And all of this stems from the gap created by the passage of time, not from some goal of making learning difficult, so what reason is there to keep learning the Talmud in the regular way?
(A question in parentheses: wouldn’t it be better for students up through 12th grade to learn from Schottenstein so that they would actually learn, and it wouldn’t take them so long to develop tools just to bridge gaps caused by time rather than by the concepts being studied? There were 12th-grade students who didn’t know the terms and barely knew how to learn Talmud because so much attention was focused on the means rather than the material itself.)
Answer
There is some preference for a regular Talmud, because then you are not captive to Schottenstein’s interpretation. But that is only a slight advantage, and it is not worth a major waste of time or effort.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t know. I think generally not, at least not as a sweeping rule for everyone.
Lior, if you don’t learn Aramaic, you’ll also have trouble learning Rashba, Ritva, Pnei Yehoshua, and the like.
A language gap? No problem—translate the commentators too. And of course there’s interpretation in certain words that can go in several directions, but I still just don’t see a reason to keep this language if it isn’t useful. Maybe for precise halakhic rulings and understanding it really is important, and in that context people can learn Aramaic the way some people learn a foreign language in order to understand the book better. But if you’re learning in general, I still don’t agree with the approach.
You can use Steinsaltz. There it’s mainly an explanation of the Aramaic, and there’s still plenty of room left for understanding and learning. Schottenstein goes deeper, and then it really can channel you into a specific understanding. It’s also very long.
Hello Rabbi,
If I learn from a Schottenstein Talmud, is there a concern that I won’t know how to learn from a regular Talmud, without vowels, punctuation, and explanation?
Personally, it’s more comfortable and more interesting for me to learn from an annotated Talmud because it allows for a smooth, continuous reading flow. But I’m worried that because of my lack of personal experience in analyzing a Talmudic passage, I won’t know how to deal with a passage without study aids…
There is such a concern. But I don’t have a general answer. You need to think about what is more important in your view. As for the Talmud, there is Schottenstein, so you can always use it. As for analytical skill, that is definitely something important to work on.
I understand, Rabbi, and thank you very much.
And if you had the ability to influence things, would you change Talmud study in the schools to Schottenstein? (yeshiva high schools and elementary schools)