Q&A: Talmudic-Analytic Thinking and Universal Thinking
Talmudic-Analytic Thinking and Universal Thinking
Question
I started listening to the Rabbi’s course on Talmudic-analytic thinking, and I’d be glad to know whether later on the Rabbi addresses the question of whether Talmudic-analytic thinking is different from ordinary human thinking, or whether it is simply human thinking as applied to the Talmud. Thank you very much.
Answer
When I describe this kind of thinking, you can see that it is universal. It also couldn’t really be otherwise, because if not, where would we have gotten it from? We are simply using our own logic there. Of course, there are assumptions and data there that are unique to Jewish law.
Discussion on Answer
Absolutely. Unfortunately, this is a serious ill of yeshiva thinking. They raise all possible sides and do not filter out what is logical and what is not. True, sometimes one can be surprised and discover that a position that seemed illogical turns out to be logical or even necessary, but that is fairly rare. There are positions where it is quite clear from the outset that they contain no logic. Is a litigant’s admission an undertaking or credibility? Is self-imposed prohibition (“shavya anafshei chatikha de-isura”) a matter of credibility or a vow? Clearly, both are matters of credibility, and there is nothing to analyze there. Is Sabbath prohibition in a life-threatening situation entirely permitted or merely overridden? Clearly, in essence it is entirely permitted, meaning that there is really no practical difference.
Thank you, Rabbi.
At the beginning of lesson 3, the Rabbi talks about the yeshiva-style conceptual analysis regarding property that causes damage, and brings the other side, that the obligating factor is that it is your property.
The Rabbi raises the question of whether that side is logical or not. I’m not getting into this specific case; my question is a general one: does the Rabbi think that in yeshiva-style conceptual analyses people sometimes raise possibilities that aren’t really so logical, and what is the Rabbi’s attitude toward that? Is that justified?