Q&A: Broad-Coverage Talmud Study — with Rashi or Schottenstein?
Broad-Coverage Talmud Study — with Rashi or Schottenstein?
Question
In honor of the Rabbi, may he live long and well,
I am an 18-year-old yeshiva student in a Haredi yeshiva (from a Religious Zionist home), and I want to cover 4–5 pages of Talmud each day in the broad-coverage study session. I’m wondering whether it is better to learn with Schottenstein (in which case I can cover more, and can also occasionally glance at the enlightening notes), or whether it is preferable to learn with Rashi (even though that requires more effort, as is well known, and sometimes gives less understanding).
2. Is the drawback of learning from an annotated Talmud edition (like Schottenstein) so significant that it is better to avoid it, even if that means covering less material? Or is it דווקא worth taking advantage of it and covering more?
Answer
I think there is a certain advantage to Rashi, but what you describe definitely seems worthwhile, all things considered. In your in-depth study you will make up the textual skills anyway, and in broad-coverage study you will accumulate more knowledge. On second thought, maybe you should specifically insist on using Rashi as long as you don’t yet have good proficiency (that is, you can’t understand a page of Talmud on your own), and only afterward move to what you described.
Discussion on Answer
To some extent, I actually think that beginners should specifically learn with Schottenstein (even without the notes), so they can get to know the experience of a clear and full understanding of the straightforward meaning, and also absorb general insights. Afterward, or in parallel, during the training process, when learning on their own with Rashi, they can try to reach at least that same familiar level of understanding.
Rashi is the beginning of a discussion that has continued for 1,000 years. Schottenstein is a summary of that discussion in convenient language for those who do not have the strength and ability to dive into the discussion itself. A yeshiva student is expected to make the effort and begin learning from Rashi. For non-yeshiva beginners who want to get acquainted with the Talmud, or study it in a more ceremonial way in Daf Yomi classes, Schottenstein can do the job.
It seems obvious to me that Rashi is the Schottenstein of 1,000 years ago.
To clarify: I’m not really such a beginner. I’ve learned Talmud in the past and I’m capable of learning with Rashi. The “problem” is that it takes more time and effort, and sometimes you can gain things from Schottenstein that are not written in Rashi. It is indeed expected of a yeshiva student to learn with Rashi, but on the other hand, in a session of 4–5 pages a day, it is harder to learn with Rashi and still cover the material with good understanding.
Thank you very much, Rabbi.