Care To Comment

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Tosafist philosophy: dialectical analysis over rationalism        

Saiman’s essay on Brisker’s legal theology points to a self sufficient legal model as the corpus of religious philosophy. Unlike the great esoteric thinkers, the briskers sought harmony in the textual rendition. The theological impulse is not from celestial abstractions. As Lieberman answered Jewish theology is “the ox who gored a cow” insinuating the legal details as the basis for theological inquiry. Their over-focus on study is akin to the dialectical gymnastics of the tosafists. Philosophy was an internal matrix that was linked to the text and nothing beyond. 

The brisker’s were halakhic scholars, marginalising the aggadic portions. Famously, much of the commentaries are on tractates in kodshim due to the textual depth. Their analytic method focuses on solving Maimonides’ contractions and defending him against Raavad. Reb Chaim deduces the structure into a logical dialectic or a hakirah which produced ontological categories. One such dichotomy is heftza-gavra (object and person). Its own semiology, the rationale behind the position. For example: ridding bread on passover from one’s house can be deduced either its erosion of bread from the vicinity or its the person’s property that needs to be vacated. It is a mechanistic focus to conceive of the core of argumentation. What are the scholars really arguing about. Reifman makes this note in motioning that just because one opinion seems to fit better structurally semantically does not negate the other, not because of the potential valid plurality but due to the other’s perspective interoperation. In the Rav-Abaye case the limitation Rav puts on belief hinges on his outlook on marriage to mitigate agunot. In the brisker world that semiology is nurtured behind the the scholarly position. 

Brisker theology fits into a realistic proposal of ontological categories. Legal analysis was not a judicial discourse but a divine discovery. Study was to connect to God. If something is halakhically inadequate it loses its physical reality. Halakha is so tied to the natural propositions of the world that an ownerless ox is not an ox. The abstract principles are concretely manifested realistically. Despite Soloveitchik’s philosophical synthesis, his orientation of the analytic school found compatibility with modern physics. Halakha surveys the world as the a priori system conceptual and theoretical. It is through the halakha that meaning is supplied. This objective metric is entirely legal in its formulation devoid of philosophical speculation. Halakha is the ideal matrix. Their semiology connotes the spiritual layer of the law. The mathematical law is the spiritual depth. 

Theology to the Brisker is not the same to Maimonides. For them even if Maimonides’ theology is correct it is rooted in the halakha. The text teaches these truths. Even the religious experience is subjected to halakha. The law is the method of expression through turbulent times, a guide to deal with theological questions. The Rav as the Brisker’s mouthpiece avoids the theological texts of Song of Songs, Job or Ecclesiastes, yet in his subsequent book brought an abstract theology to the table diverging from the brisker strand. The halakha is the valve that mechanically flows the theology. 

The briskers made halakha their theological core. The tosafists before them made talmud their theology. Though they were influenced by scholasticism, it did not retract from their insular theological commitment. Their pilpulistic structure formed a search for the objective meaning. Uncovering the correct law via analogical reasoning. Their disagreements with Rashi generally run semiotically. Rashi tends to interpret based on the phraseological context and Tosafot by categorical context. While Rashi believes that only those birds mentioned in the bible are forbidden, Tosafot designates the forbidden as a type that could include more than merely those mentioned. The canonisation formulates a centred study that concerns theoretical possibilities as the most important. 

For Tosafot, dogma was absent from their purview. Not until the expulsions and the scientific revolution did philosophy penetrate the ashkenazi world. Yet, they still maintained a certain theology. Their talmudic style attempted to unify the problematised passages. A logical consistency was on the rise. The irony of the scholastic approach is that it is spread from Tosafot on the Talmud to Heller on the Rishonim and Vilna Gaon who included Kabbalah as unifying metric. The unitary model was a coping model for a divine cohesive narrative. Reinterpretation was the hallmark of congruency. 

Both these schools of thought demonstrate a keen eye for the text. The sole model of religiosity is study. While one attempted to solve the contradictions one sought to divide them. Brisk takes Tosafot a step deeper. It is not just below the text to find the undergirding meaning but present it in metaphysical form. It’s not just methodologically but ontologically. Maimonides may have been rationalising but Tosafot was studying. Ignoring the scholastic theologians, they put concrete theoretical study as the pragmatic marker for theological qualms. The binary formulated by the dialectic is more than just solving a contradiction. Preoccupation with stylistic unity is not an ideological commitment. Tosafot saw the talmud as their philosophical aid Brisk added their own tools. 

This linguistic metric can assist in theological resurfacing. There is a pre-structuralist vibe flowing into a Straussian symbolism. The binary disposition is non-contextual and is laid out to particularly present a deeper point. The text becomes the bedrock to harmonise the text. There is a shift from a textual to conceptual focus. Both hinge on talmudic-centricity. Revamping the textual uniformity enables a legal model marginalising allegorical props. As Twersky notes, the halakhicocentric model is a consequence of perpetuated study and an avoidance of spirituality. The textual focus concerns hermeneutical profusion instead of philosophical speculation. The text becomes the method of abstraction. Rashi and Rashbam are famous for their commentaries. Ibn Ezra spent the latter years of his life in Ashkenazi areas influencing his commentary. The biblical commentary marched on into the anti-maimonidean track. The dialectical analysis applied both to Talmud and Torah.

Biblical theology harkens back to Rashi as not just the interpreter but also a theologian. The hermeneutic discloses a concentration on the text. It is not solely an explanation but an ethical teaching. Rashi particularly introduced midrashim to bring more colour and inspiration to the text. Biblical commentaries were not just about understanding the text but in producing an empowering narrative, it was their form of allegorical assimilation. They blended the Talmudic model with study and commentary. Biblical theology is a common model amongst religious thinkers with the exception of the Andalusian school due to their insistence on conforming to the rabbinic translations instead of deciding their own. Saadia and Maimonides accorded their views with zahir while Rashi did with ta’awil. The former is synthesising with rabbinic and the latter adjusts due to textual factors. The philological approach replaced an Aristotelean philosophical paradigm. Biblical interpretation analysed the allegorical exegetical theology. 

The ashkenazi theology is comparable to modern notions of rabbinic theology. Soloveitchik and Sacks demonstrate a Jewish theology from textual rendition but this is the Rashi model not the Tosafist model. The Talmudic dialectic is a theological model in of itself. The characteristic of analysis pulls the deep dive of theoretical analytics to solve the raging contradictions. Their autonomous engagement prompted a personalised endeavour of interpretation. Allegorical association in its literal form possessed an exegetical malfunction. The plain sense opted for clarification. 

The two ways of exploring textual theology is via commentary or philosophical manipulation. For the latter, Soloveitchik’s halakhic man and lonely man of faith are representations of applying the brisker binary to formulate archetypical notions of man. The ontological predisposition is centred in a philosophical frame. There is a sudden linguistic formulation that is elevated to a reassigned plane of existence. The text no longer conveys what it intends, the plain sense is supplanted by a mutually conclusive identity, opposites in the same universe. Tosafot’s unification identity prioritises harmonisation by means of singularity. Yet, they did not move to utilising their scholastics to void theology. 

This theological frame avoids philosophical speculation by means of hermeneutical isolation. The theological impulse is provided by either systematic biblical commentary (Tosafot) or analytical (Soloveitchik). Many have chosen the former utilising the biblical text as a moral philosophy. Soloveitchik himself makes this note about the power of biblical theology. His articles in tradition reflect such a method he just chose the dialectical model over the simple peshat. If anything, he is espousing a deepening of the Tosafist version. Accompanying scripture with a philosophical lens appropriates it for the public. Sacks’ biblical theology is quite similar though without the dialectical process. It is the bible that purports an authentic religious thought. The Talmud is a legal handbook while the bible is a philosophical blueprint. 

Coming fall circle, the Tosafist model is the Sacks model. Soloveitchik may not have deemed his essays commentary nor begin with text, his use of the text to articulate a theology is akin to Sack’s books albeit with a brisker flare. This continues the commentary legacy of the Tosafists in the philosophical inverse. Making sense of the divine world via the text is a harmonious element in the religious purview.  

There are two theological methods either commentary or treatise. The former is linked directly to the verses. A commentary espouses the meaning of the text empowering the personality. The latter cites the verses. It is indirectly linked as the philosophical project discusses the abstract and then sources its ideology. Both concern the text as the foundation of theology, just in different directions. Sacks does both. His biblical commentary analyses the text with a  detailed lesson attached while his philosophical works discuss worldly themes citing the text to validate the point. There is no theology or philosophy removed from the text. Yet, the text need not be the barometer of explanation. The interpretation jives with ideology. If the text is the primary factor it becomes hermeneutic but if the philosophy is first it becomes systematic: commentaries were more homiletic and treatises more philosophical. The difference in methodology does account for varied layers of philosophy. To reuse Sacks, his biblical commentary is encased in ethical rejuvenation. It is limited in scope to a specific lesson but his philosophical books are specified yet multi-varied. They highlight a certain issue that is explored throughout diversely. The text is an authentication not the genus. It is an assist to the perspective even if at the heart of the ideology. Sacks’ biblical theology works both ways: on the one hand it supplies an educational lesson to grow and on the other cultivates a worldview in line with values. 

In formulating a philosophy there are two roads: biblical or rabbinic literature. Most thinkers resort to biblical teachings whether it be Rashi or Maimonides, Sacks or Soloveitchik. Levinas and academic contemporaries have sought the Talmud as the source of Jewish theology. Heschel discusses the importance of the aggadic sections but his allegorical hermeneutic is more prophetic than talmudic. The talmudic rabbis hinged on exegetical material which is biblical in nature though they did not openly philosophise like Philo did. This recent twist provides a deep insight into the complex allegories. Novak promotes a talmudic philosophy comparing Akiva to Ishmael. By reviewing these two schools analytically one can ground a theological containment or personally derive from the indeterminate allegories. Both Schechter and Kadushin support an unsystematic  rabbinic theology. Kadushin points to value-concepts as a marker of rabbinic theology instead of medieval creeds. 

Novak’s attempt only works if we stick to the dialectical element of the schools since their philosophical paradigms are based on the biblical text. The Akivian view of language is ontological as represented in scripture. The allegorical complexion can be found in the works of classical thinkers like the Maharsha and Maharal as well as later thinkers like Hutner and Levinas. Blau is the most contemporary of the bunch demonstrating the values and lessons from the talmudic allegories. Levinas’ model is more philosophical than the others but yet demonstrates a talmudic departure of theological pondering. 

The varied types of philosophical speculation follow rationalist, existential and empiricist themes. Maimonides and Kaplan as rationalists, Halevi and Heschel as empiricists and Rosenzweig and Soloveitchik as existentialists. Each duo presents a divergent strand of Jewish philosophy albeit some more rationally others more mystically. The path to God is not paved in a monolithic route. There are numerous dimensions and yet they all source classical texts as the bedrock of their position. Whether they begin with the bible or incorporate it, it is the textual layer that authorities and elucidates the Jewish premise. 

There is a dialectic between ideology and interpretation. Ideology is the genus of treatises that incorporate the text as a citation. Interpretation is the subsequent textual analysis of commentaries. Either way is profound. The sourcing whether a priori or subsequently is irrelevant. It is based on goal: whether looking to systematise or sermonise. Both biblical and rabbinic tradition have much to offer. Utilising both is essential in the theological pursuit of the divine. Jewish philosophy is out of its sources—all of its sources. Whichever philosophical path one travels always link it to tradition.