The Commentator

What is the ideal way in which one should learn a sugya?

I think the approach should vary depending on whether or not it is the first time that one is learning that particular sugya.  The first time, it doesn’t make sense to study every Tosafos.  There’s a little sefer written by the Steipler Gaon, called Hayei Olam, in which he has essays on various topics.  One is on the study of Gemara.  He says that there are many times when you will see a Tosafos that spends a lot of time on a historical, or chronological issue.  Other times, you will see Tosafos knock their brains out over a Gemara that contradicts another Gemara, and then after long discussion come to the conclusion that there is no contradiction, and we understood the peshat correctly all along.  You don’t need to study these types of Tosafos the first time around.  The Steipler recommends that when learning a sugya for the first time, you should speak to someone who has already mastered that particular perek in Shas, and ask him to check off all the major Tosafos that are crucial for learning the first time through.

The style nowadays is that when the yeshiva learns a particular masekhta, the boys will go out and buy twenty rishonim on the Gemara.  Rabbi Soloveitchik didn’t use all the rishonim, not because they were unavailable, but because he just wasn’t interested.  He said that if he could go through the Gemara, Rashi, Tosafos, and the Rambam, he would be happy.  Once in a while he would cover a Rashba, or a famous Rosh, or a famous Ran.  He would skip the historical Tosafos, as well as the Tosafos that suggest an alternative peshat, only to reject it.  Rabbi Soloveitchik would only learn the major Tosafos on a given daf. 

Understanding the background of a sugya is crucial.  For this, it won’t help to get the twenty rishonim, even if you read all of them.  When Rabbi Soloveitchik would discuss a Gemara, he would note that the entire Talmud is full of mahlokes.  He would say that whenever the tannaim, or Rav and Shmuel, or Abaye and Rava argue a point, we may infer that they agree on ninety-nine other points, which must be discussed in order to put the mahlokes into its proper perspective.

Rabbi Soloveitchik would always look for definitions – something he possibly got from his university training – and would, for instance, begin studying Gittin by asking for the definition of “get.”  A student would raise his hand and offer a definition that would contain the word, “shetar.”  Then, Rabbi Soloveitchik would ask for the definition of a “shetar,” which, he would explain, is actually a mahlokes in Hoshen Mishpat. Is it “edus biksav mida’as hamishayev,” or “raayah biksav mida’as hamishayev?”  These definitions would help establish the larger principle or formula, underlying the mahlokes.  He would say that in physics, the physicist looks around in the world, and sees a number of phenomena.  The physicist’s job is to figure out the formula that will explain them.  Similarly, in halakha, there are thousands of dinim.  It’s like a jungle full of dinim.  The proper derekh is to try and figure out the underlying rule.

When I took chemistry with Dr. Shmuel Soloveitchik, we learned about the history of chemistry.  He once said that when human beings explored outer space, it became absolutely pashut that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around.  But, he said, the truth of the matter is that those who want to insist that the sun goes around the earth can figure out a way to get around this, and come up with a formula to explain everything.  But the formula will be impossibly long and complicated, whereas the heliocentric approach will be short, and simple.  So a general scientific rule is that whenever there is a choice between a short formula, and a complicated one, we always assume that the simple formula is correct.  This was how Rabbi Soloveitchik learned Torah.

Rabbi Soloveitchik was a Misnaged, and would often tell jokes about Hassidim.  Once, he told a joke about a Hassidishe Rebbe who got up to speak on Shabbos of parashas Lekh Lekha, and asked the following question: why is “Lekh Lekha” spelled with two big letter hets?  There was a skeptical Misnaged in the crowd, and he protested that, first of all, it is spelled with two letter kafs, and second of all, the letters are not larger than the other letters.  So the Rebbe says, “that’s one good teretz, but I have a better teretz…”

He would joke about this in class.  He would ask a question concerning why, in one place, the Gemara says something is mutar, but elsewhere says it is assur?  A student would raise his hand and give a long, complicated answer.  He would respond by saying that the answer doesn’t have to be that complicated; after all, the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

How important is Bekius?  How much time should one devote to amassing Bekius?

Rabbi Soloveitchik would say that one who has great bekius, but lacks the skills to learn Gemara beiyun, does not understand anything.  Conversely, if one concentrates solely on Gemara beiyun – he spends four weeks on a couple of lines on daf beis, amud aleph – his learning is useless, because the whole point of lomdus is to explain the interrelationship of various halakhos across Shas.

Rabbi Soloveitchik was not a towering baki.  He couldn’t tell you on which daf one would find a particular din.  He couldn’t even tell you what amud; rather, he would remember the progression of topics in the order in which they appear in the Gemara.  People would be surprised.  How could he not even remember if it’s amud aleph or amud beis?  The truth is that he didn’t have that kind of bekius.  He would often introduce a shiur by quoting a completely different Gemara in order to expose its underlying principle, which would then shed light on the Gemara at hand.  The shiur would thus have a bekius background in order to set the stage for further inquiry.

Every year, on the 3^rd of Shevat, Rabbi Soloveitchik would give the Yahrzeit Shiur in memory of his father.  He would begin with about five questions.  One would think that Moshe Rabbeinu couldn’t answer these questions.  Not even the Ribbono Shel Olam could answer these questions.  And then he would quote a very, very simple Gemara, which would provide a general principle that, kept in mind, would make the answers to the questions quite obvious.  He would use one Gemara to answer a question on another Gemara, which would answer a question on another Gemara, and so on.  He wouldn’t answer a question by only focusing on one line, in one Gemara, thereby isolating it from everything else.  Bekius is absolutely necessary in order to properly understand the Gemara.  One must accumulate as much data as possible, and try to discern a pattern.

Earlier, Rav Schachter spoke about Tosafos that deal with history.  Is it important to incorporate a sense of history into a proper derekh halimmud?

History is fascinating.  Rabbi Soloveitchik once delivered a lecture during which he mentioned that someone from the Jewish Theological Seminary had published a book suggesting that during the time of the tannaim, there must have been a scarcity of wood.  The tannaim, therefore, had to come up with all sorts of kulos regarding construction of a sukkah, in order to ensure that there would be enough wood to go around.  Someone said that this was apikorsus.  Rabbi Soloveitchik disagreed, asserting that perhaps this was the motivation for the tannaim to sit down and come up with the various dinim.  He continued, however, that this only explained the history of the halakha.  It could not explain the mathematical formula for figuring out how the various dinim work.  History might explain why the tannaim would initiate a process whereby the laws of mehitzos on Shabbos could be applied to the laws of sukkah, but it would not explain the underlying rules governing this process.  This is the whole theme of the Ish hahalakha.  Just like the scientist must try to discover the formula of nature, the talmid hakham must figure out the formula for what makes the halakha tick.  As far as girsaos are concerned, girsaos are always important.  It’s very important to know whether a particular statement was made by Rava, or Rabbah.  And it is certainly important to clean up the lashon of a sugya.  This is what the rishonim worked on.

What exactly constitutes the obligation of talmud Torah?  If given a choice, are there specific works, or sefarim, upon which one should concentrate?

The laws of talmud Torah were completely revamped by the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, in the Shulhan Arukh Harav.  He has a lot of fascinating and original ideas.  He establishes the notion, based on statements by the tannaim, that every Jewish man has the obligation to learn kol hatorah kulah.  How could this be possible?  The Gemara in the second Perek in Eruvin quotes the verse that describes the Torah as “arukha meeretz midah rehova min ha-yam.”  The Torah is unbelievably vast!  Just go to the Gottesman Library.  How is it possible to master kol hatorah kulah?

The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains that the actual text of kol hatorah kulah, consists of the twenty-four Sifrei Hatanakh, the Mishnah, the Tosefta, the Bavli, the Yerushalmi, Sifra, Sifrei, the Rambam, and the Shulhan Arukh.  This is not that much – it can all fit in one tiny bookcase.  An English major has to read more books than that.

In the yeshivos in Europe, shiurim were only given on Nashim and Nezikin.  But there were no televisions, or movies, or any diversions, so whatever wasn’t covered in shiur would be studied on the students’ own time.  Now, the problem is that there are so many diversions, and whatever we don’t teach the students, they won’t know.  For this reason, I often try to introduce other elements into my shiurim.  I introduce a little bit of history, a little bit of hashkafa, a little bit of Tanakh, etc.  I want to teach more than just iyun, iyun, and more iyun.

How should one incorporate the study of aggadah into one’s derekh halimmud?

Aggadah is problematic, because we don’t have a tradition concerning how to understand aggadah.  Some commentators feel that aggadah was written in such an esoteric manner because Hazal did not intend for it to be understood by everyone.  Rav Yisroel Salanter did not agree.  Rav Salanter said that at the time Chazal delivered these derashos, everyone understood what they meant.  Modern readers, living many centuries later, often don’t understand these aggados, and many of them sound ridiculous. 

Rav Yisroel Salanter used a mashal to explain this.  He said that when he was in Paris, the contemporary newspaper headlines talked about a war that had just broken out.  The war had been officially initiated with the signing, using an ink pen, of a declaration of war.  In the first week of the war, about 10,000 people died.  The subsequent headline read, “10,000 People Die in a Drop of Ink.”  Anyone reading a newspaper at the time would understand the headline’s intended meaning.  Similarly, says Rav Yisroel Salanter, at the time that the aggados were authored, everyone understood what they meant.

Rabbi Soloveitchik used to work very hard on the aggados, in preparation for the Tuesday night shiur for the baalei batim at the Moriah synagogue in Manhattan.  Whenever he got to an aggadah in the Gemara, he would spend a tremendous amount of time explaining it, because he felt that it was important that the ba’alei batim not walk away and laugh at the Gemara.  As a matter of policy, he felt that if they didn’t understand a halakha, they would simply reason that the halakha is too deep for them to comprehend.  But if they didn’t understand an aggadah, they would laugh at the Gemara.

In order to explain the various aggados, Rabbi Soloveitchik would use the Maharsha – he never looked in the Maharal miPrague – and would either agree, or disagree.  Then, he would move on to the Moreh Nevukhim, and the Kuzari, and so on.  Rabbi Soloveitchik had a lot to say on these subjects, and other hashkafic material.  In fact, the two volumes on the derashos of the Rav published by Rabbi Abraham Besdin are excellent.  I think they should be taught in high schools, because they are written so clearly, and can even be understood by students at a high school level.

What is the relationship between secular knowledge, and a proper derekh halimmud?

The Vilna Gaon is quoted as saying that to the extent one is lacking in secular knowledge of the sciences, and so on, one is lacking a hundred times more in Torah.  There are certain areas where secular knowledge is essential.  A good example would be in the area of kashrus.  In order to paskin the laws of kashrus, one must have an understanding of food chemistry.

Rabbi Soloveitchik once spoke at an RCA convention, and dealt with the issue of shuls that permitted the use of a microphone on Shabbos.  He said that, with regard to those who permitted the use of a microphone, he wondered whether they understood the Halakha well enough to permit this; with regard to those who prohibited the use of a microphone, he wondered whether they understood physics well enough to prohibit this.

In that sense, if you don’t have precise secular knowledge, how can you even open your mouth?  You won’t know what you’re talking about!  One of the rabbanim from the yeshiva tells me that his wife works in a nursing clinic for cancer patients.  Apparently, one of the women there is clearly going to die because her husband asked his Rosh Yeshiva what should be done about her cancer, and the Rosh Yeshiva insisted against listening to the doctor, who had called for an operation.  This woman is absolutely going to die.  How could this Rosh Yeshiva open his mouth?  He doesn’t even know the first thing about the disease!  There is certainly what to ask about when it comes to medical issues, but to think that a rabbi should paskin without knowing anything about the disease is absolutely ridiculous.

This is only as far as pesak is concerned.  Aside from this, Rabbi Soloveitchik had enormous intellectual depth, and was interested in everything under the sun.  Rabbi Soloveitchik used to say that we never have to be worried about the conflict between science and religion.  We believe in one God, and this God gave us the Torah, and created the rules of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, astronomy, and so on; therefore, there can’t possibly be any contradictions.  Some rabbanim are afraid to be exposed to secular knowledge because they’re afraid that it’s going to contradict the Torah.  How could it contradict the Torah if it’s all from Hashem ehad?

It is clear that the hours spent studying in the college will take away from time spent learning Torah, but, on the other hand, such study will give a student much more breadth, and a better hekeif of the whole world in general.  In a certain sense he may lose out, because he’ll have less time for learning Torah, but secular studies grant a student a greater depth.  Torah is not just a collection of dinim.  When a person learns Torah, it should put the entire world in context.  If a person has a real understanding of secular knowledge, then that, together with the Torah, will give him a better perspective on life.

What should be the place of Tanakh in one’s Derekh halimmud?  Is there a place for non-traditional scholarship in the study of Tanakh?

Surprisingly enough, Tanakh is also included in the mitzvah of talmud Torah!  Tanakh is the basis of all our hashkafos, and undoubtedly must be taught.  I remember when I was in college I took courses in Tanakh, with Rabbi Siev, and others.  A person has to balance his learning.  He should dedicate an hour, or two per week to learning Tanakh.  At the very least, he should be ma’avir sedra every week with Rashi.  That goes without saying, but he should try to do more.  The Hatam Sofer, in his ethical will to his descendants, says that one should learn Tanakh with Rashi, and Chumash with Ramban.  This is very important.

        Is there room for non-traditional scholarship?  A lot of the non-traditional commentary works on peirush ha-milot, and on peshuto shel mikra, which is very important.  We’re not sure about the meaning of a great deal of Biblical words, and we follow the principle, “kabel es haemes mimi sheomro.”  If someone has a suggestion, we would be happy to listen – and some of the suggestions of the non-traditional scholars are gevaldig!  But as far as the overall picture of Tanakh is concerned, Chazal had their own tradition of interpretation.  Why should we assume that someone living centuries later is going to have a better interpretation?

But there is certainly room for this.  For instance, archaeology is discovering practices that existed years ago in the days of the Tanakh, and based on these findings, we can understand problematic verses in Tanakh.  It is certainly a mitzvah to understand the peshuto shel mikra, and to know what the verse is talking about.

Rav Herschel Schachter is a Rosh Yeshiva at RIETS?and is the Rosh Kollel of the Marcus and Adina Katz Kollel

Article Tools