Soul Study
 |
2/7/21
Parameters of Theoretical Study
Intro:
The innovative mindset of the sages following the Temple’s destruction sparked a newfound implementation of Torah. R’ Yehoshua down to R’ Akiva heralded logical deduction and hermeneutics as normative methods of halakhic legitimisation. Nonetheless, there was some accurate objection to this mode of thought. The traditionalists tended to oppose the deviation of linear transmission, recognising the diversion’s consequences. The opponents of the innovative school did not necessarily raise these issues explicitly but the sources do present a more complex picture of rabbinic philosophy in its construction.
Akivian Revolution
The innovative nature of R’ Yehoshua (Niddah 7b) led to a vibrant force of deduction pushed by R’ Akiva and his students (M. Pesachim 6:1-2)1. R’ Akiva based his reform in Moses’ revelation (Menachot 29b) but did receive criticism from contemporaries for his expansiveness (Sanhedrin 51b, T. Berachot 4:15). R’ Akiva pioneered learning Torah for its own sake (Torah Lishma). In other words, theoretical study. His love for Torah developed into a constant engagement for God. This methodology has encapsulated the Jewish world for generations. Torah became less about simply actualising the commandments and more about uncovering its depth. The debate between R’ Akiva and R’ Tarfon divulges this concept quite clearly. R’ Akiva says study is greater than practice and R’ Tarfon says the opposite. The Talmud concludes study is greater because it leads to action (Sifre Devarim 41). Interestingly, the Talmud’s conclusion is not R’ Akiva’s rationale. I would surmise it is the synthesis of combining the need for action and the love of learning. For the Akivian school, perpetual study was a goal2. R’ Akiva believed that studying was far more glorious. Spending twenty-four years studying in yeshiva was a privilege. It was not merely to transmit information to the next generation but to grow closer to God, to better understand his will. This mode of thought and preoccupation in study seems to be a rabbinic invention. One that traditionalists may not have been so keen on. Learning is important but when it takes away from the natural world, it may be problematic. R’ Yishmael though an innovator recognised the supremacy of action (Mechilta deRabbi Yishmael Beshalach Vayasa 1). He properly innovated for practical purposes not too engulfed in theoretical layers. Even an innovator aligns with the traditional value of acting superseding learning. It is when transformation increases further that study becomes a measure in itself, surpassing the implementation (M. Avodah Zara 2:5, Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1).
Torah Ve’Avodah
The world of study for its sake became a lifestyle of itself. It consumed the totality of energy. R’ Shimon bar Yochai, a primary student of R’ Akiva, denounced working. All life needs is Torah. Working is nonsensical. If Torah is learned purely all the time our enemies will supply us. Miracles satisfied his vitals while hiding in a cave with his son for many years. Upon leaving the cave seeing people working instead of learning, he burned down their farms. God sent him back to the cave as he was not ready for a new reality devoid of Torah atmosphere. Only later did he return to accept society as it had become. R’ Yishmael believed the Torah spoke in human terms and followed human finitude. He promoted working alongside learning; a testament for the future years (Berachot 35b). One needs to provide for his family and engage in the world. It is not enough to learn there is more at stake. Whether he required work as a human necessity or human influence is irrelevant. Work can be perceived as survival or opportunity.
R’ Yishmael’s absorption of external knowledge attests to his acknowledgement of their importance. For him, our involvement in greater society is beneficial to others we involve ourselves with. We can express our ideals and inspire others. R’ Yishmael is the same individual who tells Ben Doma to find a time that is neither day nor night to learn Greek Wisdom (Menachot 99b). Accordingly, R’ Yishmael is not banning such wisdom but critiquing Ben Doma’s understanding of Talmud Torah. In the light of Torah study, it is inferior but if no such obligation exists then it is permissible3. It leads to another point made by R’ Shimon that involvement in Torah exempts from doing mitzvot (J. Berachot 1:2, J. Chagigah 77a)4. Quite a controversy brewed but there are cases that one is to continue if another can do it on his behalf (Moed Katan 9b, J. Pesachim 3:7). Engulfment in Torah study is a disabler of obligation. R’ Shimon did argue that one could fulfil his obligation by merely stating the first sentence of Shema (Menachot 99b). I initially posited there was no controversy concerning his statement here and above as this was a pro-labour argument after exiting the cave and his anti-labour claim was before entering (lo kashya, ha lifnei hamiara, ha acharei hamiara)5. It could also be interpreted as quickening the time to discharge an obligation to return to study. R’ Shimon was involved in his world that concentrated only on perpetual study. There was no room for any other. R’ Yishmael, alternatively, perceived a world beyond the study hall. Actualising the divine will is the primary goal. It is doing his commandments. A servant acts on his king’s orders and a son is educated by his father.
Family Vibes
The Talmud notes that those who followed R’ Shimon failed and those who opined by R’ Yishmael succeeded (Berachot 35b). R’ Shimon’s method was unique to his calibre. Abaye notes R’ Yishmael’s conclusion is correct as his deduction is valid while R’ Shimon’s is not. Excessive exegesis corrupts the plain interpretation and deductive accuracy. Other sources portray the family negligence by sages (R’ Hanania bar Hakhinai) who accorded with this style (Beresheit Rabbah 95, Ketubot 61b-63a)6. R’ Akiva and R’ Shimon were the lucky ones. They were able to overcome the difficulty but their methods were not simple and many fell prey. The preoccupation in constant study consumed their lives abandoning their familiar duties. Strife ensued amongst couples due to engrossment. R’ Akiva was able to credit his wife for his learning but that did not change his decade long desertion (this may simply be my modern voice as travel was slower) (Ketubot 63a). There is a source attesting to completing mundane work at home (Avot de Rabbi Natan A:6). He was a family man. Other sages were not as complacent.
A father will teach his son what is required for him to learn or he will be educated in cheder (Kiddushin 29a). R’ Yishmael’s vision was accepted by most Jews. They were legally aware of the concerning laws, maybe not of more obscure ones. Hillel believed that all should have the opportunity to learn everything (T. Sukkah 4:3, 34:24). Hillel wished to spread the more advanced texts to all to receive the full merit of the divine word. Hillel’s innovative spirit was for practical deviation. Identical texts were taught but because of prevailing condition changes implementation was required to combat social reality. R’ Yehoshua followed suit in Yavneh. His mission was to build Jewish life without a Temple. His advances were pragmatic. R’ Akiva spearheaded a theoretical side to learning. Study was no longer solely for actualisation but for knowledge itself. If we hold there are forty-nine yes and no, pure and impure, there are so many possibilities to absorb (Midrash Tehillim 12, Vayikra Rabbah 26:2)7. Learning is not as limited as perceived. Yet reviewing the vast array of literature to comprehend can take years. R’ Akiva’s vision was novel. It expanded the Torah world, accounting for potential alternatives that existed beyond the normative stratosphere. R’ Akiva advanced the innovative spirit to apply to divine understanding. Positing diverse conceptions of God’s law, not restricted to transmission, embedded with extensive significance and variety. All sourced in revelation but expanded with special tools.
Expansion Pack
R’ Akiva advanced a new methodology occupying livelihood. In contrast to the traditional model of teaching for practical purposes, the Akivian school saw prowess in discussing theoretical cases. The simple translation identifies study’s superiority as an instruction manual to enable precise action8. R’ Akiva’s limitless creativity sought a world to itself of pure study. For R’ Tarfon of the traditional model action is sufficient. Beit Shammai catered to either the wealthy or the wise (Avot de Rabbi Natan A:3, B:4). Especially with regards to the latter category. The average person did not need to know everything but only that he actualises the rules. There has been much discrimination to regular folk by the yeshiva institutions over the years but such mimetic tradition was the basis of Jewish practice9. Procedurally, serving God is paramount. Knowing the law is helpful but competing is more important. People know what they need to know. The average individual is ignorant of the later prophets and obscure sections in Mishnah. Exclusivity may not have been the worst decision. It may be better to know yet not necessarily crucial. No one was implementing the words of Ohalot.
R’ Yishmael’s plain reading downplayed miracles in contrast to R’ Akiva’s promotion (Yoma 75b). The latter’s student R’ Elazar HaModai twice advocates for miraculous events — manna (Yoma 76a) and Amalek war (Mechilta deRabbi Yishmael Beshalach Amalek 1)— and is rebuked by his contemporary R’ Tarfon and R’ Yehoshua respectively. R’ Akiva’s layered exegesis sought esoteric meaning and wide-ranging possibilities even to their detriment. R’ Yishmael was horrified by this action (Sanhedrin 51b). R’ Yishmael was not a classic traditionalist but he did obey a certain method of deduction. He is credited with expanding Hillel’s hermeneutics to thirteen which are said every morning. R’ Akiva sought profound mystery in each word. Nothing escaped him. His tireless devotion to study picked up on linguistic interplay, finding comparisons and deeper connotations. He wished to expose the divine word in its totality to the world. He set out to uncover God’s secrets. R’ Yishmael in his strict translation would not deviate. The Torah is meant to be comprehended not misinterpreted. God wrote the Torah in a way for us to understand there is no need to try to find something deeper, it’s clear on the page. Kabbalah and many commentaries took after R’ Akiva. The former constructed dimensions to draw out newfound understandings. The latter has found a new base in modern Tanakh study, analysing words and phrases to draw intended similarities and lessons. R’ Akiva stood tall with his teachings and has empowered future generations to apply his methods.
Historical Ties
R’ Akiva’s model was upheld by the Tosafot in the Middle Ages expanding the pilpul model. The Talmud utilised this method to harmonise the oral and written law10. R’ Akiva’s extensive analysis points to pilpul-like derivation. It was a valued method much more prevalent in the Babylonian world. Tosafot extended this style to clarifying contrasting Talmudic opinions. Their preoccupation with study removed them from learning other branches of knowledge of philosophy and Kabbalah as occurred in Sephardi communities. Their methods culminated in rampant commentaries but no legal codes. They were more focused on understanding the text than pushing a regulated system. There were Ashkenazim, the early Hasidim, who critiqued the Tosafists ignoring their strive for truth. Succeeding the Tosafot school were individual schools who underlined each word expounding the profound meaning behind it. Similar to R’ Akiva, there were many layers of understanding to be conveyed. Pipul developed into a study of itself. Becoming an intellectual activity of personal expression away from true divine service. It did enable diverse readings and legal alterations following social and economic changes but there is a line. Many later sages (Maharal and Chavot Yair) recognised the prowess of pilpul but decried its present construction11. It became an art, not a pursuit of truth.
The Brisker method followed the pilpul model in the modern era. Similarly, engaging in theoretical legality. Probing the commentaries (Maimonides in particular) to harmonise contradictions. Comparisons with pilpul do arise but differences are also unveiled. Pilpul was concerned with the details, each word/sentence, while the Briskers cared for the conclusions12. Utilising varied tools to distinguish between deductions. R’ Soloveitchik notes this mode of intellectualism resided in the theoretical. Like his predecessors, the common theme of intellectual probing of texts is engulfed in speculative dialectics. He states that for halakhic man the ideal construction of halakha supersedes its realisation13. For R’ Soloveitchik perpetual engagement in Torah study is the halakhic telos. In his vision halakhic man spends his time conceiving of its structure not necessarily executing it. He does express the importance of actualising the divine will but immersive study must precede to gain a deeper conception. R’ Soloveitchik indeed praises his family’s legacy but notes the experiential factor is crucial to existence14. Bemoaning the unfortunate reality that his students cannot conceive. The soul experience of obeying divine commands had purpose and spirit in the past, now it lacks that prowess. Their ability to deduce creatively but their inability to put forth their soul for God loses the heart while retaining the mind. It is a forlorn reality. Theoretical study is powerful but its drawbacks can be terribly damaging.
Endnotes
1. For an analysis of rabbinic development see: Binyamin Lau’s series The Sages: Character Content and Creativity↩.
2. Later rabbis attested to this divide: Rava (Shabbat 31a) and Rav Hamnuna (Kiddushin 40b).↩
3. See: R’ Lichtenstein’s article: Studying Greek Wisdom | vbm haretzion.↩
4. See: R’ Lichtenstein’s three part series: Does Involvement in Torah Study Exempt One from Mitzvot? (Part 1 of 2) | vbm haretzion.↩
5. A similar position is advocated by the late R’ Lamm in his Torah Umadda: The Encounter of Religious Learning and Worldly Knowledge in the Jewish Tradition (Koren Publishers: Jerusalem, 2010) pp. 66-67.↩
6. Yonah Frankel, Studies in the Intellectual World of the Aggadic Story [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv, 5741) pp. 99-115. See: Yehuda Brandes, Practical Aggada: Studies in Matters of Family Society and the Worship of God [Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 5765).↩
7. See: Moshe Halbertal, People of the Book: Cannon, Meaning, and Authority. Harvard University Press, 1997 pp. 62-65. Dr. Halbertal classifies this as the “constitutive view” attributing it to Nahmanides, Ritva and Ran. ↩
8. For analysis of both theory and praxis via Torah study mechanism: Avinoam Rosenak, “Theory and Praxis: Talmud Torah as a Case Study” Jewish Law Association Studies XXIV: The Netanya Conference Volume/span> ed. Bernard Jackson 2013, pp. 222-246.↩
9. Haym Soloveitchik, “Rupture and Reconstruction: The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy”, Tradition 28:4 pp. 64-65.↩
10. Pilpul. Mordechai Breuer, “The Rise of Pipul and the Divisions Within the Academies of Ashkenaz” A Book in Memory of Our Teacher, Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg eds. A. Hildesheimer and K. Kahana (Jerusalem 5730) pg. 249.↩
11. Elchanan Reiner, “Changes in the Academies of Poland and Ashkenaz in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries and the Disputes about Pilpul” [Hebrew] /span>Studies in Jewish Culture in Honor of Hone Shmeruk eds. Israel Bartal, Chava Turniansky, Ezra Mendelsohn (Jerusalem, 5740) pp. 60-68.↩
13. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man, trans. Lawrence Kaplan (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1983) pp. 23-24.↩
14. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, On Repentance, trans. Pinchas Peli (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996), pp. 133-134.↩
Comments
Post a Comment