The Commentator

At Yeshiva University we engage in comprehensive study of the Talmud on a daily basis in which the Brisker methodology is the most popular approach employed.  It is important to analyze how this methodology works and in what historical context it emerged in comparison to other methodologies in use at the time.  I will begin by discussing the Vilna Gaon (Gra), who innovated a unique derekh halimmud soon before the Brisker methodology appeared.

The Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) was truly an extraordinary figure in Jewish history.  The sheer breadth of knowledge that he possessed is easily recognizable to anyone who has seen his commentaries on all different parts of Torah study, ranging from Tanakh to the Shulkhan Arukh and to the Zohar. It was the Gra who was directly responsible for the strong attack against the Hasidim and it was because of his encouragement that Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin opened up the first Yeshiva as we know it today.

The Gra’s incomparable memory allowed him to develop an overriding vision of Torah that saw all literature attributed to Chazal on equal footing.  Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin claimed that his master was able to resolve every situation where the revealed Torah seemingly contradicted the Kabbalah.[1]ⁱ  The Gra frequently used textual criticism to better understand variant readings in different statements from Chazal, and as we see in our Gemarot, the Gra slightly modifies the text every so often. The Gra’s comments on the Shulkhan Arukh seem to be a way of clarifying whether the psak in the Shulkhan Arukh is compatible with the various literatures from Chazal, and what the Gra thought was its correct interpretation. For the Gra, it is of the utmost importance to see unity in the various sources in order to present a clear psak, and in his own words, “the name of God Havaya is one and all the letters of the Torah are one.”[1]ⁱⁱ  Additionally, the Gra acted in a manner normally reserved for Rishonim when he harshly criticized Rishonim with whom he disagreed.  He slammed the Rambam for interpreting references to demons in the Talmud in a non literal way, claiming that it was the philosophy that he studied that led him to stray from the simple understanding of the Talmud.ⁱⁱⁱ [1] The Gra only felt bound to accept halakhic positions of the Rishonim when he personally believed that they were correct in their analysis.[1]^iv

Later in the 19th century, Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik (1853-1918), the Rav of Brisk, innovated a fundamentally new type of methodology for studying Torah.  This approach, known commonly as the Brisker method, takes the raw halakhic data that emerges from the Gemara and the Rishonim and conceptually organizes that data in an eloquent way.  The Brisker method generally ignores how and why the original source came to its conclusions.  Rabbi Moshe Lichtenstein summarized the Brisker method as asking the “what” question on each source.  A Brisker asks “what is the Halakha and its ramifications?”  But this method ignores the “why” question of the source’s motivation.^v[1]  The Brisker method also assumes that the Rishonim are now sacrosanct and arguing with a Rishon is inappropriate.  Reb Chaim saw the Rambam’s Mishnah Torah as a perfect, self contained book without contradictions. In comparison to the Gra’s methodology, it seems that Brisk uses the primary sources to glean data for analysis, while the goal and focus of the Gra was to deeply establish an understanding of the primary sources within the context of other Rabbinic literature. 

An example of this type of analysis is Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik’s leniency for shaving during the mourning period of Sefirat Haomer.  Rabbi Soloveitchik noted that the laws of mourning during Sefirah correspond to the halakhos of the twelve month mourning period for a parent, in that both include prohibitions regarding marriage and haircutting.  Rabbi Soloveitchik therefore assumed that the laws of Sefirah are modeled after this mourning period across the board.  In other words, Rabbi Soloveitchik saw the “whats” of the laws of mourning for Sefirah - that marriage and haircutting are prohibited - and conceptually fit them with the “whats” of the laws of mourning for a parent.  He then derived a leniency from the laws of mourning for one’s parent to the laws of Sefirah.  During the twelve month period, there is a special leniency for haircutting if one’s friend would scold him for having long, unattractive hair. Nowadays, since people shave every day, after a day or two of not shaving one would fall into the category of having a friend who would rebuke him for being unkempt.  Therefore, it would now be permissible to shave during Sefirah as well.[1]^vi  Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion and one of the leading practitioners of the Brisker methodology today, goes even further and rules that it is obligatory to shave on Friday because of Kavod Shabbat.^vii  What Rabbi Soloveitchik and Rabbi Lichtenstein do not consider in this analysis is the reason why the laws of mourning for a parent must be identical to the laws of mourning during Sefirah.

The Shulkhan Arukh OC 492:1 rules that the custom is not to wed during Sefirah until the thirty-fourth day of the Omer because during this period the students of Rabbi Akiva died. The Gra sources this ruling from tractate Yevamot 62b which explains that the students of Rabbi Akiva died between Pesach and Shavuot because they did not offer proper respect to one another. In OC 492:2,  the Gra comments on the Shulkhan Aruch’s ruling that one is allowed to get a haircut after the thirty-third of the Omer, namely on the thirty-fourth, and quotes a Midrash which states that the students of Rabbi Akiva died until sixteen days before Shavuot, which is the thirty-fourth of the Omer. The Gra then proves the ruling of the Rama that one can get a haircut on the day of the thirty-third itself, based on the concept from YD 395:1 of mikzat hayom k’kulo, that mourning for part of the day is considered as if one had mourned the whole day. Here, the Gra uses the Midrash to tell us when exactly during the Sefira the students of Rabbi Akiva died in order to clarify the Gemara in Yevamot that simply stated that they died between Pesach and Shavuot.  Interestingly, the concept of mikzat hayom k’kulo mentioned in YD 395:1, is used in reference to the laws of the mourning periods of shiva and shloshim and YD 395:3 explicitly states that mikzat hayom k’kulo is not employed at the end of the twelve month period of mourning. Additionally, the Rama states in OC 492:2  that if the thirty-third day falls out on a Sunday, one may get a haircut on Friday in honor of Shabbat and the Gra bases the Rama’s ruling on the Gemara Moed Katan 17b which also deals with the mourning periods of shiva and shloshim and not the twelve month mourning period. It seems that the Gra did not view the mourning during the Sefirah as analogous to the twelve month mourning period for a parent, nor does it appear that the Vilna Gaon found a need to classify these Sefirah signs of mourning into any of the three categories of mourning for a relative as Rabbi Soloveitchik did. The Gra views the minhag of mourning during Sefirah in its own light, based on a synthesis of different statements from Chazal.

As students at Yeshiva University, we have primarily been exposed to Brisker methodology because of the tremendous influence Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik had on our Yeshiva.  The Rav’s hashkafa has colored our lives (whether we know it or not) and has given Modern Orthodox Jews a godol to look up to.  The Rav’s grandfather, Rabbi Chaim, taught in the Volozhin Yeshiva and acted as a co-Rosh Yeshiva with the Neziv.  He broke away from the methodology espoused by the Yeshiva’s spiritual grandfather, the Gra, and I think it is important for us to recognize that we, as well, do not need to feel bound by the Brisk methodology.  There were intellectual giants, like the Gra, who lived before Rabbi Chaim and had entirely different methods of analyzing Chazal.  An almost exclusive adherence to the Brisker Derekh causes many students to spend more time discussing the various halakhic implications of a Gemara or a Rishon and neglect understanding the motivation and inner workings of the text itself.  It is important for us, as students in Yeshiva, to open our eyes to the vast history of Talmudic methodology and to be cognizant of the varied approaches we can apply on a daily basis.

     Isaac Lebwohl is a Junior in SSSB        

ⁱ Rabbi Chaim Volozhon’s Introduction to the Gra’s commentary to Sefer Dezenuta

ⁱⁱ The Gra’s commentary to Sefer Yetzira 3a

ⁱⁱⁱ  Shulchan Arukh YD 179:8                                                                                                 
^iv See The Introduction by the Vilna Gaon’s children to Beurei HaGra on the Shulchan Arukh

^v The Torah u-Mada Journal (9/2000) What Hath Brisk Wrought: the Brisker Derekh Revisited

^vi Nefesh Harav p. 191  There, Rabbi Soloveitchik also derives a similar leniency for shaving during the period between the 17^th of Tammuz and Rosh Chodesh Av.  Rabbi Soloveitchik organized the laws of mourning between the 17th of Tamuz and the day of Tisha Ba’av into three categories corresponding to the three time periods of mourning required for a parent.  For both the time between the 17th of Tamuz and Rosh Chodesh Av and the twelve month mourning period for a parent, festive gatherings, marriage and haircutting are prohibited. Rosh Chodesh Av until  Tisha B’Av is modeled after the shloshim when bathing and laundering are prohibited.  The day of Tisha B’Av itself is structured based on the prohibitions of the Shiva when marital relations, anointing, wearing leather shoes etc. are forbidden.  Just as the leniency of “until his friends scold him” transfers from the 12 month period to Sefirah, it also transfers to the period between the 17^th of Tammuz and Rosh Chodesh Av.  

^vii http://www.vbm-torah.org/shavuot/20shavin.htm

Article Tools