Q&A: Brisk — Interpretation?
Brisk — Interpretation?
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In my yeshiva they study “Brisker” lomdus, and lately I feel I’ve despaired of the method (not only Brisk—analytic methods of abstraction and conceptualization in general). I see how people come to a Talmudic passage with four a priori conceptual possibilities and then just look for medieval authorities (Rishonim) whose wording can be squeezed to fit those possibilities—and I almost go crazy. There’s no textual, linguistic, or historical sensitivity… From the perspective of my rosh yeshiva there is essentially no substantive difference between Tosafot and Tevuot Shor (right now we’re learning Hullin) and the Shakh; between a sugya in the Talmud, a halakhah in Maimonides, and a responsum of the Noda B’Yehuda. There’s no doubt that the game of the hakires is an enjoyable game (and at the end of the winter term there were a few weeks when I reached a very good level in these ways of thinking, and before the first buds of heresy began to sprout in me, I really drew satisfaction from every morning study session), but it’s hard for me to see it as legitimate interpretation.
In short, I’d be glad if the Rabbi could explain:
- A. As a relative “adherent” of the Brisk method, does the Rabbi think this is a legitimate interpretive method? (Mainly for the Talmud; maybe for later layers of the Oral Torah this is valid.)
B. If it is not an interpretive method, then what exactly are we doing here, and what is the point of engaging in it? Enjoyment is nice, but if so one could just as well play basketball, or start a master’s degree… - Maybe this is the sign to “leave Ponevezh and move to Slabodka”?
- A somewhat broad question, but:
A. What place does subjectivity (and perhaps intersubjectivity) have in halakhic interpretation? At the end of the day, it is clear that there are historical influences (and others) on interpretation; a person is shaped by the landscape of his birthplace, and so on.
B. To what extent are these problems parallel to classic problems in hermeneutics in general?
Answer
It is an excellent way of thinking for any text. But one must not get stuck in it. These are tools for clarifying the various approaches and the sugya, but after the initial analysis, common sense has to come in and decide which is more plausible—both by reasoning and by comparison to other sources and to those same patterns of thought. Exactly: leave Ponevezh and move to Slabodka. But Ponevezh is an infrastructure that is supposed to continue with you. Just don’t stop there.
As for question 3, I didn’t understand it. I wrote an article on hermeneutics in this context (though my conclusion there is a bit too mystical for my taste nowadays, but the principles are correct). See Column 166 for a corrected version.
Discussion on Answer
That is exactly the question I addressed in those sources.
Let me ask it more sharply:
Brisker analysis is not really interested in the question of what the author of the view thought, or what the [subjective] reason was that he wrote what he wrote. It treats the text as an entity that exists in its own right and analyzes the written product objectively.
There is a lot of inner truth in this, but also a lot of historical untruth, etc.
Is that really so?