Haredi Potion

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

Philosophical rationalism has become a past time of Jewish thinking. Prominent in medieval Andalusia and then Provence, the mystical spirit overwhelmed its prowess. Rationalism was ultimately attacked and brushed aside either for Kabbalah or study. Yet removing the philosophical layer does not expel rational thinking, rather it fortifies semi-natural thinking as the acceptable medium. Yet this either is flawed or unprepared to deal with inquiries. 

Rationalism has a history in Judaism. It ought not to be whitewashed nor erased from history. Those rabbis who forbid learning the Guide are removing Torah from the centre. Just because the Rashba was unhappy with Maimonides does not mean that it is heresy. Maimonides was one of the towering philosophers of his generation including Saadia, Halevi, Ibn Daud, Ibn Tabon, Gersonides. There is a long list, many more of their works have been lost to history. Yet what we do have is an incredible line from the Gaonim down to Spanish Rishonim to the early Ashkenazi Acharonim. Those who accord with a different style are permitted to do so without decrying the history of Jewish thinking. It is these communities who hold the earlier rabbis on such pedestals but then have the audacity to discredit their work. There is a descending line of spirituality but apparently not for hashkafa. That they were wrong about it. Their minds coddled by islamic or christian influences. Lacking respect out of disagreement with a fruitful history of philosophical thinking. Just because you disagree doesn’t make it untrue.

It becomes greatly problematic since beyond erasing these works from history, they whitewash these figures. Since the text does not accord with their present view, this thinker usually Maimonides, could not have said that. There is no way! That is heresy! It is only heresy to one who is close-minded and believes monistically. Even if the Rashba’s attack holds up which it did for a few generations, many others did not accept it. In Provence, the Guide was studied and in Poland later on. Maimonides himself is from a line of great philosophical thinkers. The Rashba’s issue is a generational disbelief in philosophy, not an eternal damnation. Rashba’s teacher, Nahmanides himself defended Maimonides. He wrote numerously to the French Rabbis to reconsider. Hailing from his sephardi roots, he bolstered a plea for his tradition. He had accepted much of the French rabbinic thinking, he was a pupil of the Tosafist school but he could not erase nor undermine his Andalusian heritage. The city may have been destroyed but its Torah lived on. The Ashkenazi opposition did well to limit the rational prowess but the mysticism of Isaac the Blind and Abulafia persisted in the Jewish world. 

Yet this isn’t even an Ashkenazi-Sephardi issue. Lippmann and Rema both learned philosophy and wrote books on science. Philosophy oozing into the irreligious frame to the likes of Samuel Maimon does not undercut its flavour found in rabbis Hutner and Weinberg. The prominent use of philosophical rationalism since Spanish Jewry has dwindled to the outskirts. It has become a perspective of the few in the Andalusian mind. The work of metaphysics has slowly descended to oblivion. Though it has become commonplace for rabbis to write works of commentary as they did in the past without writing a work of machshava. Other works of machshava are lectures or inspirational derivations from the text. They lack the creativity and originality of the Andalusian mould. The Andalusian mould inspired mystical works to be written. Nahmanides though a mystic wrote many works in a creative original manner. Rabbis Crescas and Abarbanel weren’t rationalists themselves but wrote profound pieces. Even before rationalism is preached, the mode of writing works of this stature is to be revived. The modern orthodox world has attempted to do this. In the past century, Rav Soloveitchik more than anyone embodied this synthesis. No one else, not Rav Kook nor Rav Lichtenstein conjured quite the same Andalusian synthesis. 

The greatness of the Rav was his talmudist heritage meeting philosophical thinking. It was Andalusia reprinted and its impact quite similar. The maimonidean goal was to synthesise philosophy and talmudism but many of Maimonides’ students were not talmudists. Gersonides studied Gemara potentially even Abraham Maimonides but none until the Meiri whose commentary has been lost for centuries were able to combine their philosophy with Gemara. Commentary on the Torah is not the same. Abarbanel was more known for his philosophical stuff while Ran was for his talmudic stuff. Nahmanides like Maimonides is the other rabbi who fits the quota. A towering talmudist who wrote a philosophical commentary yet did not write a systemic work like Maimonides. While this is not necessary since his commentary on the Torah and other smaller works contain his thoughts. Writing a systemic work isn’t really necessary, it is just the range of philosophy embedded in in. There is no one who wrote systemic philosophy and a commentary on the Torah except the Rav. The Rav is the first person to combine the Nahmanidean talmudism and the Maimonidean philosophical range. Most thinkers opted for one or the other but not the Rav.

There is a certain level of bias and exposure ignorance. It is plausible that haredi works do hold a candle in the machshavva world but there is little doubt they fail to engage the historical philosophical frame. The two others who come to mind are Rav Shagar and Rav Lichtenstein. Both were profound talmudists though on the spectrum, Rav Shagar was more a philosopher and Rav Lichtenstein more a talmudist. They did cross into the other boundaries. Rav Shagar’s writings on talmudic tractates while Rav Lichtenstein has written multiple books. The third is Rav Rabinovitch who was not only a talmudist but a renown posek and commentator. He wrote some machshava too. Yet there is a difference in philosophical jargon and identification even if the postmodern premise of Rav Shagar is disagreed. The style of Rav Lichtenstein and Rav Rabinovitch is a talmudist writing machshava. It doesn’t degrade their work but it does question their attention to its sector. On the other hand Rav Shagar was primarily a philosopher who as a Rosh Yeshiva gave shuir. The style of talmudism is so evident with Shagar’s realistic implementation versus Lichtenstein’s topical manner. Even the greats choose a side. The Rav was able to do both. Not only are his commentaries to behold but his shuirim were magnificent. His philosophical work was an integral part of his identity yet his talmudism was always out in front.

The intriguing aspect of the Rav is his balance did not always match his students. Rav Lichtenstein explained that the Rav was saddened by his students believing him to be a kofer for learning philosophy. Yet Rav Lichtenstein himself was more prone to the Talmudic world even if was open to studying. His works lack the philosophical flavour of the Rav and his predecessors. Rav Twersky was more machshava than talmud so was Rav Wurzburger while Rav Schacter was on the opposite end. Rav Lamm wrote a halakhic work but not a commentary. There is a certain level of unpublished or logistical aspects that prevented more. Fromm Rabbi Lamm’s halakhic work it seems he could’ve taught a high level shuir but became the president instead, then again his philosophical work was short of the Rav’s masterpieces. No thinker has had the philosophical output of the Rav in the orthodox world, not even Rav Shagar. It is truly a magnificent feat. Had Rav Berkovits written a talmudic commentary, his legacy may have been greater. Which leads to an interesting dilemma. A rabbi is no longer specifically a talmudist. Yet having a rabbinic post may prevent writing a talmudic commentary. Such was the case for Rav Hasdai Crescas. Compelled to write more daring machshava works for the community not necessarily for one’s own pleasure. 

Rav Hasdai Crescas one of the more forgotten thinkers. A famous philosopher, the student of Ran, best friend’s with Rivash, R Albo was his student and a posek in Aragon community. He flourished in Ran's school alongside Rivash yet his lacking talmudism was his stature. His tenure was during the tumultuous ends of the Spanish pogroms. While Rivash wrote responsa, Hasdai spent much of his time logistically dealing with the monarch and the community at large. Like Rabbi Lamm his knowledge was immense but his time limited. His energy was directed to responding to problems in the community through philosophy over his talmudic commentary. His students were incredible talmudists, its only due to his responsibilities and his focused energies that he did not write a commentary or that it was lost to history. Either way, his name is forgotten since it is not taught in the halls of the yeshiva. Yet this is important because while there are cases of lost work or never published sermons, many times it is also about the need of the era. Rabbi Lamm may have been a Rosh Yeshiva had he remained teaching though it is possible that he never had the ability to reach such feats, though his work says otherwise. The same can be said of Rabbi Berkovits, maybe he could’ve reached that level if he did not chose to focus elsewhere. Yet the choices made or compelled to make, are one’s fate. 

Yet the issue at heart isn’t rationalism but non-talmudism. There is machshava but it is heavily embedded in sermonic halakha. It doesn’t breach the abstract nature of the philosophical enterprise nor the supernal spheres of the Kabbalah. Much is written off today that is not talmudism. This isn’t just in haredi circles but in modern orthodox communities as well. The question isn’t whether mystical or rational but none of the above. Their rationalism is talmudism. There is no other than that. Yet it is hard pressed to assume that these teachers are ignorant to the grand history of Jewish knowledge. They must be hiding it. This to be fair, is not too far off the approach of Rashba, Hasdai, Vilna Gaon or even Chazal. The issue with non-talmudism is the openness to other avenues other than halakha. Since non-talmudism may begin as interest in expanding one’s bounds but it then becomes preoccupied in such otherness. Halakha is dry, this other stuff is abstract calculated and riveting. It is elevating and insightful. Such regard for said otherness slowly disassociates with halakha. In some respects it isn’t even so much leaving Judaism, as they still enjoy their roots but loathe the archaic halakhic model. They have found a new direction to God. It is no wonder that philosophy and mysticism have been the primary tools of non-orthodox denominations. 

How does one connect to their Jewish history without the traditional metric, a new heuristic. One that exemplifies the beauty of the tradition. Talking about it, instead of living by it. Yet this jargonist approach soon becomes the embodiment of replacement. Living by Jewish values and Jewish ideals instead of living by Jewish roots. Halakha is too technical, Talmud too old. Where is the intellectual stimulation or the spiritual presence? It is tedious and childish. Haredim themselves may be a conservative invention of the nineteenth century but their grievances are not. They go all the way back to chazal and then to Rishonim and Achronim alike. Chazal refused ma’aseh merkava alone and Rashba prohibited philosophy below the age of twenty-five not because one couldn’t learn it but only a mature mind around others could acknowledge its depth and remain close to the community. Not to become fascinated and infatuated with the study. Young people are easily persuaded with brilliant visions, open to suggestions yet older people are quite conservative and prefer routines. It is no wonder the secrets are learned in pairs and in adulthood because it wouldn’t have the cataclysmic impact as it would on a child. Caution is to be learned from these since they are extensions not the core of Jewish identity. 

Rashba and Hasdai both wrote against rationalism as it was pushing Jews away. The issues with mysticism fell under the same auspices. There are scant repression from a heretical perspective but most credibly feared desertion. Emancipation was a revolutionary feat but also led to mass abandonment. While almost no one will assault emancipation many will try to limit what is in their power. Ideally, learn Torah instead of work but that is implausible, only possible in Israel due to a political compensation and fundraising. While Haredim may not like the state, if it didn’t exist they wouldn’t be learning all day. They are permitted to fear and have substantial evidence to prove in their favour. Many modernists argue due to grand rabbinic figures doing so but them doing so and the average student doing so are two different things. Rav Kanievsky can learn philosophy but not the layman. Wish to learn philosophy be fluent in Torah. Whether this is their polemic or not, it ought to be. Especially in line with their descending generations, while the great Spanish Sages toiled, they were on a higher level. Again, historically, their fears are warranted and great Sages explicitly argued against both philosophy and mysticism as it took away from observance. 

An even greater question is the preoccupation with biblical commentaries. This is not to say that Saadia or Radak were not talmudic geniuses but there is no work in their name. They focused their energies on biblical commentary. While this trend need not mean how talmudic culture ventured to the outskirts, it is something to take notice. Whether due to opposition or due to its inherent secular nature, philosophy was the beacon of untraditional Judaism. The likes of Spinoza, Maimon and Buber. None of Mendelssohn’s children were religious. Cohen, Rosenzweig and Levinas were philosophical professors even if religious. It was outside the realm of traditional Judaism. While misnagdic ideology did contribute to isolating philosophy, it was never a central point of Judaism. It was a part of rabbinic heroes who partook in this avenue. The Spanish thinkers of the minute few who found philosophy to be a religious exercise. Unlike other religions, such study was an elitist expertise. How many hasidic talmudic manuscripts are there. Chabad has notoriously proclaimed the rebbe the messiah. Lots of commentaries on the Torah but not on Gemara. This isn’t to demean their capabilities but to demonstrate a different avenue to being Jewish. Preoccupation with talmudism is the ideal for Judaism, yet the biblical motto is seeking to replace with a new motto. No wonder since halakhic Judaism is one of chazal and not always aligned with the Bible (though it should). 

There is a single issue with the talmudic-centric approach as it is itself an invention of the twentieth century. There hasn’t been a time in history with people learning in yeshiva all year round. There are bachurim publishing talmudic commentaries. Such vast knowledge is unique to this age. In the past such a student was a luminary, a scion, today it is a rabbi in training or a bright layman. There were only so many opportunities in the past but today the wealth, the connections and the internet make learning so much easier. Every baal habayit has a notebook of notes. Only those fortunate in the past could reach the level of studying talmud and writing a commentary. Philosophy and mysticism were easier for the layman. Of course they were intoxicating. Especially to those ignorant and lacking education in the medieval age. Exposed to the university setting the fruitful intelligence of abstractions than the dry details of halakha. There is no beauty if it cannot be absorbed. Philosophy was admired as a cool study. Mysticism engulfed in the struggling layman for spiritual elevation. It inevitably took away from observance. It provided an outlet of farfetched beauty and serenity. Something lacklustre talmudic education would bring.

Today, there is so much talmudic learning. Shottenstein explains the sugya in detail both English and Hebrew. The Mesivta analyses the commentaries in basic Hebrew. Sefaria uploaded all the commentaries on the web and encoded each commentary to the correct passage. Torah as it one’s fingertips and yet its existence doesn’t necessitate its desire. In a world with so much information out there. With so much philosophy and mysticism, it is hard to find interest. Thus the yeshiva student must recoil and remain committed to traditional writings of talmudic stature. Endurance is the name of the game. Find meaning if you can. Yet it is insufficient and people are leaving. Many believe they are leaving because there isn’t an option but many times ironically the individuals quoted who pose these non-talmudic philosophies are themselves not talmudic. Pushing Arthur Green’s mysticism or Neil Gilman’s rationalism is great but neither was halakhic. The issue at large with promoting these thinkers is that they remained irreligious. If people follow their philosophy they may take it all the way and become replicas. There is a difference between using Cohen or Derrida even more so Hegel and Lacan to build a philosophical style since even the former being Jews and writing about Judaism wrote secularly. Their secular ideas were Judaized while the mystic and rationalist move is to incorporate heterodox Jewish visions into the orthodox canon. 

These Jews cultivated non-talmudic models yet how they live by their visions is omitted. Their visions are heterodox. If they left traditional Judaism for their untraditional non-orthodox visions why wouldn’t others who are intrigued by their approach follow their will. Had they been non-Jewish or religious fine, but that is not the people who are being mimicked. It is the Bubers and Greens. Reckon, there isn’t much in the field of rational philosophy but even that is marshalled by academics with little engrossment with the halakha. Even if said academics are religious like Kellner and Lebens, their message fails to relate to the wider pull. It isn’t coming from their rebbe. It is coming from a secular field encroaching on the halakhic world. Rav Soloveitchik bridged both worlds but no one else has. It is this failure that has kept the two worlds apart. If a scion can do it wow but that is for this one special person not for the people at large. The hope is to cultivate this dual type of man. Bachurim who shteig and ponder. Who can learn Tosafot and can deduce Focault. Yet even more so who can deduce Tosafot and interpret the Rav. The Rav himself is an iconoclast with strenuous liturgy. It takes a philosophical jargonist to understand him and even Rav Kook and his poetry. 

Leo Strauss infamously argued that Maimonides wrote esoterically. That he was hiding his true beliefs beneath the surface. Whether or not this is true, to the layman, Maimonides’ jargon is esoteric. The concepts from Maimonides to Hasdai to Maharal to Rav Kook are perplexing. It is not a matter of topic whether philosophy or mysticism but concepts that cause Tanya and other chasidic works to be quite challenging. It is not always the concepts but the style that brews confusion. So was the scholar writing it for a certain sect who would comprehend or for himself? Either way, it was not written for the masses. A great question is whether Halakhic Man or even Lonely Man of Faith was written for the masses despite both being published in journals. Maybe that is just how the scholar writes and he cannot help it since that it how most scholars write. Yet it could be toned down a little maybe a few footnotes to guide the reader. If the hope was to reach a wider audience, it would be written in a publicised manner like Shuirim li-zecher Avi Mori. Esoteric non-talmudic writing is duly complex and therefore it is questionable whether such writers intended laymen to learn them. Many works have been dubbed down but that is a secondary thinker or it was premised that only an expert teacher could relay over the work. This isn’t a layman studying it on his own but experts educating it based on their subjective/expert interpretation. 

If these external areas are problematic then the dry legalism is itself helpful in limited regards. Endurance is easy for some but not for everyone. Especially with all the exposure and influences around, there needs to be some stimulation. Isolating from the world and shunning its exposures may be of use but it cannot be the answer for the orthodox community nor can it be an ideal. Even the machshava of the orthodox community when exoteric in nature is at times dry for stimulation. It is stagnant and fails to satisfy the stimulation that many seek. One model is to philosophise talmud. To turn dry legalism into an art form. This is best notified in the academia. Philosophers analysing the halakhic corpus as a whole. Employing literary criticism and in the more traditional settings classifying halakhic positions of great poskim. Many traditionalists look to discuss medieval scholars than write their own. Little of the contemporary philosophical works enjoy the breath of metaphysical analysis and openness as the medievals entertained. Staying traditional is either discussing former works or writing an ethical work strictly from the rabbinic verses. There is no philosophical reach. There is no external influences. The dry talmudism meats less dry machshava. The contemporary machshava is about behaviour and less about pondering. Think too much lose your way. Again, not historically inaccurate. Yet it fails to adequately respond to the stimulated seekers. Some have focused their energies on meeting the bounds but few and far between. Even those who do walk a tightrope. Refusing to challenge their predecessors on frequent points. Anything that clashes with medievals must be ridiculed. 

For those who see Kabbalah as preferable to rationalism as the former is embedded in the core Judaism, is a sweeping claim with much rebuttal prepared. Just because Aristotle isn’t quoted does not mean that there is no link. Sufi and Christian mysticism inspired the Rhineland and Provence. Neoplatonism made its mark within Judaism even it was covered by Jewish symbolism. Maimonides respected Aristotle enough to mention show gratitude, the mystics didn’t. Nahmanides himself at the end of his life reneged on his mysticism explicitly written in his biblical commentary. None of his students were mystics. Ran and Hasdai may have been anti-rationalist but they were far from the mystics of the Provence. Deriding Maimonidean rationalism is not equal to mysticism. Maharal was a spiritualist but wouldn’t go as far as confirm a mystical obsession. Lurianic Kabbalah may have led to hasidim (who have their share of traditional troubles) but also to Sabbateanism. Not only does the movement have many Platonic elements and external identity but also led to mass waves of non-observance and terrible heresy. There are major gnostic elements in Kabbalah that project mythological elements concerning evil and angels farther than traditionalism has printed. These are not traditional but external voids of education. It doesn’t mean they are wrong or shouldn’t be learned but it is not an insular Jewishly cultivated persona. Instead it is a Judaized program just like philosophy. 

For much of the nation, philosophy and mysticism are irrelevant. Dry legalism and drier machshava is sufficient. Yet there is a scare due to the abundance of external exposure. What can be done? In the past, philosophy or mysticism was the external thread, so Jews made it their own yet many then relied on these models to live by. Yet this isn’t even so much the problem today. Why learn Torah when I can play video games? What makes Torah enjoyable. Philosophy and mysticism are great but beyond the comprehension. Looking at Jewish history, aggada and midrashim were chazal’s mode best modelled by Ibn Gabirol and Halevi in the philosophical canon. This narration is still outside the halakhic bounds. Tosafist compiled their dialectics which eventually led to pilpul. For all of its hate, it was a stimulating paradigm for learning Torah. Cultivating radical solutions to the sugya was entertaining. Pilpul found its successor in the brisker school. A mode of intellectual stimulation through depth analysis. It was philosophy of the text. Applying intellectual rigour to the talmudic text for maximum satisfaction. Some were unhappy and found it impractical, it provided a method of enjoying Torah beyond its legalism. While study is to action, the action is best performed when the student enjoys the topic. More fervour to a halakhic universe. It is no wonder it has caught up so well. It is stimulating beyond the modern gifts. Talmud is hard and thus an enjoyable exercise. Preoccupation in study has itself found a friend. 

Yet there are those who do not enjoy the intellectual rigour. They are not rationalists but mystics. They are not lawyers but therapists. These more emotionally guided Jews desire stimulation as well but the brisker model is foreign and underserving. Aggada in the Maharal or Rav Kook’s formulation. Finding meaning in the narration. Enjoying the stories as a method to follow. Both of these exist within the yeshiva. There is no need for external aspects. The obsession with mysticism is due to the lacking aggadic education. They are integral to the talmudic landscape. They ought not to be skipped. If anything the yeshiva omission only led further to creating Kabbalah. Mysticism was to be found elsewhere instead of straight from the text. Aggada and Midrashim are that mechanism. Even the biblical text itself has its dialogical lessons and systemic lessons: whether Kohelet or Mishlei. The Torah is the full package, it just needs to be recognised as such. The reason people desert is that all the options are not supplied. If halakha is the extension then the other layers are but a support. The fear that if they are provided the halakha will be abandoned for these biblical or talmudic values has already occurred with the Reform movement. Living by biblical values. The halakha must remain the integral root with the aggada complementing it. The aggada is the biblical+rabbinic values placed alongside the halakha. Such a duality creates an energetic legalism or better yet an enjoyable behaviourism. It isn’t about obeying laws but living accurately. There are responsibilities but one done with a smile and joy.      

Following the Rashba, this isn’t whether one can learn these subjects. Presumably, yes. Whether the Talmud itself permits or Sages for generations have permitted. There is a difference between prohibiting use for a select few or even temporarily and banning it on heretical grounds. So far, the Haredim do not seem to be burning Maimonides books nor any of the Arizals. Only that they do not permit or encourage such study. Despite some detractors of philosophy and others of Kabbalah there is overwhelming textual support for both even more for the latter. Whether or not it is a problem to declare philosophy sinful or Kabbalah heresy doesn’t matter. The question isn’t whether one is permitted to learn from them but rather ought they. There is a law in Talmud that one can leave his wife for a year to learn Torah. The Gemara then relates a few examples of rabbis who died for not returning on time. The Gemara clearly permits this law insofar as the husband holds up his end of the bargain. The aggada here is important as it provides a realistic explication of the law. What happens when this law is in place, what are the perimeters? The aggada is critical to the talmudic discussion. Aggada need not be some story about Eliyahu or souls but may be about Abaye and Rav duking it out in the Beit Midrash. The aggada is necessary as a carollary to the halakha. Yet the point of this aggada is to challenge the statement that this law ought to be fulfilled. It is permissible to do this but just because it is allowed does not mean it should be followed. R Akiva did do this but came home on time. R Akiva was sensitive and cautious. It is not about elitism but maturity. 

The same axe be said of philosophy and Kabbalah. The issue is the immature student’s gullibility. Easily swayed by the interest of philosophy and Kabbalah. Just because it exists and is accessible doesn’t mean it should be learned. Some Sephardim do not learn the Zohar till the age of forty. Not because below forty you will turn to stone but because it requires attention and caution. It is esoteric and powerful. Much of these texts are open for all to see and learn. The question isn't whether a site like Sefaria should restrict or ban these books but whether educators should be encouraging this type of learning. The fact that these subjects exist for the whole world to learn from need not imply their learning. Even more so for teachers to push this type of learning on their students. It is not only the content that is potentially dangerous but its affect on the youth. The complexity is a problem on its own but the fascination is ever more frightful. These educators are encouraging the youth to delve into the mysterious complexity to find empowerment. To see joy in something other than halakha. Since through Kabbalah or philosophy they will be inspired and return to halakha with more spiritual fervour. Alternatively, it will simply just enhance their religious experience whether or they remain committed to halakha. Such is the most dangerous aspect. Encouraging Kabbalah becomes an antidote to dry legalism. Legalism is deserted for the spiritual audacity of Jewish norms. 

Medicating dry legalism with an entirely new model pins that new model as the favourite. It has little hope of revamping interest in halakha. Why would it? Kabbalah is a self-sustaining system that propels religious spirituality. More exertion is to the spiritual sphere. One becomes more Buberian trying to stay in the hasidic middle but even they struggle with the technicalities. Prayer times are ignored. So big deal. That is the point. One thing leads to another. Meticulousness in halakha is holding to accepted norms. Laxity is in part either ignoring the safeguards or focusing energies elsewhere. The latter is a product of reform. Replacing the halakhic system with the biblical system. Jewish values over legal norms. There are those who are led astray by philosophy and Kabbalah but there are those who remain Jewish in their declaration but are lax or uncommitted to halakha. The crisis today will not be fixed by extending out of the system. Many people are learning the daf but how many learn Gemara and halakha? How many actually attempt to understand the suyga? People are busy but on Shabbat people can take some time to learn a little more in depth. It is dry legalism because there is moot knowledge of the law and its history. There is minute interest. The static robotism is preferred. While this may work for many, it certainty does not work for everyone. Yet to sell these individuals out to external uses is to abandon them. The halakha must come alive. Dry legalism must not be replaced with enjoyable rationalism or spirituality but with worthwhile legalism. Halakha will never be fun, Gemara will never be easy but it is profound and deep. Most people loathe working out but recognise its worth. Halakha is the same way it is not about enjoying but acknowledging. 

Despite its non-fun element, it does have merit and possibility of enhancing its experience. The aggada acts as a legal narrative and a sermonic preach to inspire the people. That may be through a biblical commentary or an analysis of the midrashim but it remains within the corpus. The talmud is the enclosed fortified model of religiosity. There is no need for the layman to entertain otherness when he is not prepared. Learning talmud may be executed traditionally, analytically, semiotically and philosophically. The breath of talmudic commentaries from Rashi to Tosafot to Maharsha to Maharshal to the Rav to Levinas. The talmud has its guidance. Its prowess is the subjective art of interpretation and criticism. To behold the Gemara and apply one’s intellectual or spiritual prose. If an older gentleman wishes to learn philosophy or Kabbalah to enhance his Torah by all means. Yet it is nonsensical to push external layers of Torah even if they are canonical they remain on the outskirts of the foundational canon. The youth and the layman ought to remain close to dry legalism and shift the dry to duty legalism. The talmud has it all, it depends on how it is taught. One doesn’t need philosophy or Kabbalah to be either rational or mystical. Rather the way one approaches the Talmud is to be in such a manner. Diversifying the approach to talmudic learning. Bring Jews back to Gemara instead of offering other options. Machshava is the midrashic use. Typify the greats by incorporating halakha with aggada. Follow Rambam of the Mishnah Torah instead of Maimonides of the Guide. Rambam who combined theology ethics and halakha into a single codex. Such a work is worthy of every single Jew. Know the Mishnah and Gemara live by theology and ethics. They are integral to the totality but can be found in the talmudic corpus.         

Recently, a series of academic books on the philosophy of halakha were published in Hebrew. These works follow different topics analysing the different metrics of halakhic function and methodology. This is quite pleasing as these scholars have analysed various components of the legality alongside philosophical topics to engender new directions. The name sounds off-brand. It really should be called halakhic philosophy because the former title informs a specific methodology to halakha. One that Maimonides, Rav Hirsch, the Rav, Rav Kook, Berkovits, Leibowitz and others have attempted to perform. The modern age saw multiple attempts to cultivate a philosophy of halakha. While such an attempt is monumental, it a totalistic explication and not one of topical manner. Instead of explaining various concepts, it hopes to explain the entire system. This is in stark contrast to halakhic philosophy of these academics who seek to explain the works of the latter thinkers and their ideas. The emphasis on halakhic thinking and derivation to the philosophical plane is not to demote halakha but to elevate its persona. Halakhic action will be tireless. It's law or duty, no matter whether it’s paying taxes or cleaning the dishes, they are both tedious but necessary. Biblical commentaries are profound and live by the sermonic wisdom. Preaching the exegetical layer through further exegesis is only to further the canonical themes. 

Interpreting the Torah is itself a masterpiece of religious life. To engage the text anew each day with profound interest and glamour. The talmud provides ample opportunity to spread out. To deepen rationality and/or spirituality. Preferring to analyse a sugya or philosophise it. Rationalise an allegory or expand upon its spirituality. There is much to learn from. There is no specific liturgy nor style. While there are rules and at times standards, there is so much to gain. It all comes down to revitalising the halakhic spirit through its own foundation. Instead of seeking outlets, the talmud is the starting point. The halakha is the baseline for the more rational or spiritual tendencies to flow from. It is the preoccupation with these extensions. Great rabbis derived from their learning. It was their talmudic expertise that projected their philosophical and spiritual styles. Do not read their work without their foundation. It is like reading the last book in a series. You can’t watch Return of the Jedi or the Fellowship of the King without the preceding films. There is a continuity. Their final masterpiece is the seminal magnum opus. A doctorate thesis culminating in their hard work and research. A way of life imprinted in their masterpiece. Each person can write their own doctorate. They can publish their own thesis. It is one’s own tendencies and flirtations. It is this more intellectual or emotional style that leads to one’s ultimate masterpiece. The talmudic synthesis is the bedrock of Jewish thinking whether philosophically or mystically. It is a shame that Jews preoccupy with external outlets instead of revitalising the core of identity. 

Jews need to relate to their tradition. Questions of theology and ethics fit into the talmudic debates even if not explicitly mentioned there. The goal is not to cease inquiries, revamp the Talmudic corpus and re-inspire halakhic commitment. Halakha is duty of every Jew whether one likes it or not. It is then flavoured by the aggada. Ethics and theology enhancing the experience. The mystic will read deeper messages than others would. R Akiva vs R Yishmael. These and those are the words of the living God. Each Jew ought to mimic a Mishnah Torah. A total Jew following his rational or mystical mould filled with ethics theology and halakha. Instead of pushing rationalists and mystics to selective books outside the Talmudic corpus they ought to be reminded of the Talmud’s grand genius where they can bring their perspective into the text.