The Commentator

With whom will you find the war of Torah?  With he who has in hand bundles of Mishnah.

                                -Sanhedrin

I.  Introduction

Modern Talmud study in yeshivos is commonly split into two categories: iyun and bekius.  Generally speaking, iyun is characterized by focused, in-depth analysis of a small amount of material, with priority given to abstract conceptualization (as opposed to textual or historical analysis).  The text serves as a frame from which the concepts are extracted, after which it becomes secondary to the concept, if not entirely irrelevant.ⁱ  The goal is not mastery of any particular corpus of knowledge, but rather the development of the skills involved; the goal of iyun is the iyun process itself. 

Bekius on the other hand is characterized by fast paced perusal of textual material, the primary goal being to amass knowledge.  Analysis on the whole is somewhat limited, and tends more towards concrete textual issues than abstract conceptual ones.ⁱⁱ  In bekius, the goal is to master maximal amounts of text, and to master the text as is, rather than its conceptual underpinnings and implications.

In today’s yeshivos, Gemara b’iyun is extolled as the optimal mode of learning, if not the only one of any value.  Bekius on the other hand is frowned upon as the occupation of those of lesser intellectual ability, who are incapable of genuine learning.  At most, bekius, as some sort of necessary evil, is begrudgingly allotted a fraction of the time and effort devoted to iyun.  In the following paragraphs, I will argue, based both on the dicta of Chazal and on conventional wisdom, that at the very least, bekius should be given a considerably more prominent role in the Yeshiva curriculum than it currently enjoys.

II.  Rabbinic Sourcesⁱⁱⁱ

It seems fairly clear that in Chazal’s view, broad textual learning, even rote memorization, is to be favored over focused analysis and dialectics; bekius over iyun.  The Gemara in Berachos 64a and more fully in Horiyos 12a records a dispute as to what type of scholar is the ideal rosh yeshiva.   Is it the oker harim, the sharp-witted master of casuistry, or the Sinai, the storehouse of encyclopedic knowledge?  Though there are clearly two legitimate strains of thought on the issue, the Gemara does conclude that a scholar possessing encyclopedic knowledge is to be preferred over one who has superior dialectical prowess but inferior knowledge, succinctly “Sinai adif.”  The reason provided is that “hakol tzrichin lmari chiti,” essentially, that knowledge is always necessary, whereas one can often do without sophisticated dialectics, thus making the “Sinai” the wiser choice.

Now, even were we to concede that dialectical analysis is the ultimate form of learning, Chazal would still say that from a pedagogic perspective, textual learning should be given precedence.  In Avoda Zara 19a and Brachos 63b we find “l’olam yishne adam v’achar kach yehge,” and its Aramaic parallel in Shabbos 31a “l’olam yigris adam v’achar kach yisbor,” which translates to “one should always acquire textual knowledge (shinun/girsa) first, and only then engage in analysis (higayon/svara).  Here higayon/svara is clearly the ultimate goal of learning, but on a practical level, textual learning must be given chronological precedence in one’s educational program.  Girsa, textual learning, is a necessary precondition for the ideal of dialectal analysis.  So convinced was Rava of Girsa‘s indispensability, he said “one should always engage in Girsa, even though he forgets and even though he does not understand what it means.”^iv

Of course, we must give at least minimal mention to the Maharal’s vigorous campaign against the educational maladies of his day.^v  According to the Maharal, people in his day would begin their children’s education with Talmud, and proceed as soon as possible to Tosfos, without any significant attention given at any point to mikra or mishna.  This he compares to building a wall without a foundation, and says that the student will only gain “what a fly extracts from marble” from his learning.  The Maharal enthusiastically recommended a revival of Chazal’s educational program^vi in which the basic building blocks of textual learning are mastered before progressing to more sophisticated study.  It is by this method only that the student might “build a tower with its apex in heaven.”^vii

In 1955, several centuries after the Maharal, though quite reminiscent of his campaign, Rav Soloveitchik wrote a letter to Dr. Belkin, then president of Yeshiva University.  In the letter, the Rav addressed a number of flaws in the yeshiva/semicha program and made several suggestions for improvement.  Prominent among his comments is his biting critique of the tendency towards overemphasis on iyun and consequent sacrifice of sufficient bekius.   

Here are a few of his words: “…it is imperative to establish the proper balance between quality and quantity and to eliminate extravagance and irresponsibility.  To spend a full school-year on the study of fifteen pages of text, sacrificing thus an entire masekhta for the sake of ingenious scholastic debates, borders, mildly speaking, on the ridiculous.  In a word, we should try to unlock for the average student the halakhic world - a world teeming with life, beauty and grandeur - instead of burying his soul in the sands of sterile argumentative casuistry.  The training must not depend upon mere chance or arbitrariness but should follow a well-integrated program which should serve the purpose of providing the student with the quintessence of certain halakhic disciplines which are indispensable for his intellectual advancement.”^viii  The Rav’s words, I believe, speak for themselves.                                                 

III.  Why should bekius be given precedence?

Now that we have an adequate textual foundation underfoot, we can continue with an abstract logical analysis of the issue itself.  The question is, why should bekius be preferred over iyun?  More pointedly, what gains does a student obtain from bekius that iyun lacks?^ix 

Aside from simply amassing knowledge, page after page, learning bekius also improves one’s capacity for further learning, whether bekius or b’iyun.  On a basic level, it improves ones vocabulary, both in terms of language and concepts, and develops one‘s basic competence in reading the Talmudic text, or “making a layning.”  First, Aramaic is a difficult language for the English speaker, and the more one is exposed to and acquainted with it the better.  Further, the Gemara possesses a unique discursive didactical style that is foreign and obscure to the average student. As a vital precondition for efficient learning, the logical forms and patterns of argumentation unique to Talmudic discussion must be deeply engraved on the student’s soul.  Through learning bekius one develops and nurtures an intuitive feel for these patterns, immeasurably ameliorating the learning process.  Ultimately, the Gemara begins to seem more like a friendly companion than the formidable, intimidating monster it once was.  

 Aside from philological concerns, a copious vocabulary of Talmudic concepts is vital to learning any Gemara.  One can hardly navigate any perek in Shas without knowledge of the basic concepts of Zeraim, Kodshim, and Taharos.  Knowledge of concepts like beraira, migu, or davar sheaino miskavain is ubiquitously presupposed throughout Shas.  Further, much of Shas is interconnected; one can’t fully understand Bava Kamma without first understanding Shevuos, and vice versa.  The more Gemara one knows, the greater the quality of any further learning will be.  As Rashi puts it, “v’od: l’achar sheshana harbei hu misyashev b’dato u’mitaretz l’atzmo davar hakashe.”^x        Certainly, building high towers of dialectical analysis in absence of an appropriate foundation of relevant textual knowledge is a futile endeavor.   

Most importantly, learning bekius develops a certain set of cognitive and intellectual skills that are invaluable in the study of Gemara.  Whereas iyun focuses on the “whys” behind the text, often at the expense of the text itself, bekius focuses on the “what,” the text itself.  In learning bekius one employs a specific cognitive mode with a specific set of intellectual skills to critically engage a text on a denotative and connotative level, to draw inferences, to interpret difficulties, and to memorize and retain textual information (girsa).  Aside from making one’s bekius more efficient and productive, developing these skills will also improve one’s iyun.  First, it is obvious that a better understanding of the “what” will allow for a more fruitful search for the “why.”  Furthermore, depth of textual understanding adds a dimension to iyun which is often lacking in pure conceptual analysis.  Understanding a concept’s textual roots and the process by which it is extracted from those roots will lead to a fuller understanding of the concept itself.^xi

Due to its tedious and otherwise difficult nature, learning bekius (well, of course) will improve one’s focus and intellectual discipline.  As opposed to the high-flying dynamic creativity of iyun, bekius demands careful, painstaking rigor, which promotes healthy intellectual habits, valuable regardless of one’s mode of study.

Pragmatically speaking, a bekius oriented program allows for clearly defined goals, a boon for one’s motivation and enthusiasm.  Learning bekius has distinct landmarks; the student looks forward to finishing the next daf, then the next perek, followed by the next mesechta, and is greeted with the satisfaction of achievement at every step.  With a goal in sight, every moment of learning is infused with a clear sense of purpose, which obviously leads to more and better learning.  Also, bekius knowledge and skills are readily testable, which can provide added motivation and a ready means for gauging progress

Finally, whatever value we concede to iyun in its ideal form, we must seriously question whether the iyun of the yeshivos meaningfully approximates this ideal.  Many talmidim can read a Rav Chaim, but how many can be Rav Chaim?  Are following a set of marei mekomos, listening to a well structured shiur and reading a Kehilos Yaakov really the ideal of lomdus, or a mere illusion provided by vague, vicarious participation in the real thing?

 IV.  Responding to Objections

There are those who will object on the ground that on a spiritual-experiential plane, learning bekius simply can’t compare to learning iyun.  Sorting out a difficult shakla v’taria lacks the total mental immersion and communion with the dvar Hashem one achieves when conceptualizing a dispute between the Rambam and Raavad.  This objection is shortsighted.  First, as mentioned earlier, we readily concede that iyun is the ultimate form of learning, maintaining only that bekius is a necessary preparatory step; its precedence is only temporary.  The price is sacrificing the immediate gratification of iyun, but as we demonstrated, the reward is an immeasurably greater experience in the end. 

More importantly, it is simply untrue that bekius necessarily lacks the mental involvement and spiritual excitement of iyun.  Carefully dealing with textual issues can be thoroughly mentally challenging.  Further, learning bekius properly involves the precise formulation in positive terms of the concepts derived from the text, a process that demands every bit as much mental gymnastics as dialectical analysis.  In fact, due to the discipline and rigor necessary, defining a concept in terms of its relationship to a text is often more challenging than analysis performed exclusively on a conceptual level. Finally, as we noted at the end of the previous section, the goal oriented nature of bekius and the relative ease of gauging one’s process adds a dimension of excitement and gratification which iyun lacks.

Some will also object on the grounds of tradition and convention; if we’ve always done it this way, it must be right, and we certainly shouldn’t change it.  To this I respond with a quote from Rav Soloveitchik: “Yes, we are committed to halakha but not to parochial educational methods evolved under the stress of certain historical circumstances and conditions which no longer exist.  We cannot go on teaching halakha along these lines and at the same time hope for success….”^xii  If the Lithuanian yeshiva program we inherited no longer makes sense, we are obligated to create one that do     

V.  Conclusion

In the end, iyun is certainly a valuable exercise, even during the early stages of a student’s development, and may very well be the ultimate goal of that development. I am thus not recommending that it be forfeited entirely; my goal is not to create mere sacks of books.  I suggest merely that bekius should be given a considerably larger place than it currently occupies in the yeshiva curriculum.  Unfortunately, aside from the scattered remarks I made throughout the paper, I have yet to formulate the precise form and method of bekius to be recommended.  Fortunately, this is a problem that can be solved, if only it be given the attention it deserves.  

Alex Ozar is a staff writer for Kol Hamevaser

ⁱ See David Weiss Halivni’s discussion of pilpul in his Peshat and Derash.  According to Professor Halivni, “pilpul does not read into the text.  Nor does it add to the text.  It merely “expresses” the hidden logic that underlies the text.”

ⁱⁱ This should not be taken to mean that bekius lacks conceptual analysis entirely.  Simple clarification of the text’s basic meaning often involves sophisticated conceptualization, as the text often directly expresses sophisticated concepts.  What bekius does characteristically lack is analysis of conceptual issues not expressed directly by the text. 

ⁱⁱⁱ For a considerably more thorough and thoughtful discussion of a number of these sources and others, including those in opposition to my thesis, see Rabbi Jeremy Weider’s article entitled “The role of Lomdut in Jewish education,” found in Lomdus: The Conceptual Approach to Jewish Learning.  Also, see Torah Study by Yehuda Levi. 

^iv Avoda Zara 19a

^v See Gur Aryeh, Va’eschanan, s.v. v’shinantem l’vanecha

^vi Found in Pirkei Avos 5:21

^vii It should be noted that the Maharal spoke specifically of early developmental education and dealing appropriately with developing intellectual sophistication, whereas our discussion is focused on those who are already intellectually mature.  However, the Maharal’s words no doubt retain their relevance.  Regardless of one’s intellectual sophistication, the tower of Talmudic dialectics cannot stand without an adequate foundation of textual knowledge.

^viii Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, ed. Nethaniel Helfgot, Community, Covenant, and Commitment: Selected Letters and Communications. Ktav Publishing House  2005, p. 95

^ix Due to already strained space limitations, I chose to focus specifically on the advantages of bekius, without due attention to iyun itself.

^x Avoda Zara 19a

^xi Rav Moshe Lichtenstein discusses the potential value of increased textual analysis and focus on the shakla v’tarya for classical Brisker lomdus in an article entitled “What hath Brisk wrought?,” found in The Conceptual Approach to Jewish Learning.

^xii Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, ed. Nethaniel Helfgot, Community, Covenant, and Commitment: Selected Letters and Communications. Ktav Publishing House  2005 p. 97