Talmudic Pastime

By: Jonathan Seidel

Grinding for Gemara: classic textuality over stimulating conceptualism (Bitorato, 40-41)

The present course of talmudic learning is deeply divided. Some desire to reorient the text while others wish derive deep ideas from it. Some wish to add rich flavour others wish to remain basic. In all cases neither of the Rishonim’s models were held onto. People added their own formulas and lost the classical approaches. While they may be somewhat rather dry, they recognise the integrity of tradition and purpose. 

The sephardi way of learning has if much been lost to history. Learning Gemara is a part of the religious experience. To engage the text and understand the origin of the law. Rif’s omission of the shakla vetarya and Maimonides lexicographical ideal best surmise the applied law of early sephardi thought. The goal of talmudic learning was to trace the text to the law. The talmud was a kind of constitution that was responsible for the authenticating the law. The halakha was the living embodiment of Jewish practice but the Talmud simply operated as a source text. The talmud seemingly executed the same way the Sages used the biblical text. The biblical text was the source for the law. We have a practice how does it jive with the text. How do we arrive at the law through recognising the final thought from the Talmud. It is thus no wonder the sephardim wrote halakhic codes. While each author lamented to the state of observance, it also was the encoded model of action. A halakhic sefer diverted from the talmudic claim since the code was its modern edifice. 

The halakhic code did not replace the talmud just as the talmud didn’t replace the bible. Yet a contemporary code had to justify the practices. It had to notify the means of action. The talmud is only a guidebook for present law. The law is the active insistence. The talmud is to be reviewed for active knowledge. Yet as Maimonides pointed out even non-applied law such as a temple aspects were still relevant to know. To know the will of God whether it be practiced or not. Yet given its active element, it was rather unnecessary to comment. The codes were their own commentary. The commentary was encoded in applied or unapplied action. The law is the final result in its application not to delve into the discourse. Not to rewrite the record books. The text is finalised and the law is given. How that evolves is by the current of halakhic program. More action may have inspired the philosophical writings. The role of sephardic writing was to apply the ideas to print. Apply the ideas to action whether legally or philosophically. Post-Andalusia was heavily influenced by the French. Nahmanides’ school was the most profound of the later Middle Ages and yet he was Sephardi. He combined both for beautiful symphony.   

The idea of applied law mattered to their ashkenazi counterparts but in a different way. For them the talmud was the constitution. It was the basis for law. All law was derived from it. It was due to this perspective that judicial commentary was necessary. Explaining the talmud as the halakhic code instead of writing a new one. The talmud was the origin of law and therefore all had to be compatible with it. The law must permeate from its process. The halakhic process was akin to Supreme Court justices. The law was either talmudic or un-talmudic. If the latter there would be an issue. They spent their time interpreting the text. Much of their interpretations played more than an enjoyable game. It was about deducing the law not enjoying a game of textualisation. Writing responsa was the next step. Based on this reading and this current problem, the law is this. Yet this version is seemingly intended to be temporary at best. The point of responsa is a halakhic solution to a present issue. The rules of the talmud were not clear cut and needed internal analysis to configure the law. Then once harmonised to configure it to current situations. 

The Ashkenazi rabbis spent more time in their textual pursuit as this was their philosophical paradigm. They also wrote biblical commentaries as to understand the purpose of the text. The text is vague or contradictory, it must be understood. Not on philosophical or scientific grounds but conceptual grounds. They were judicial appointees even for biblical inquiries. While the biblical inquires did not necessitate a halakhic response, it was important to distinguish between the two. The Torah is not the Talmud. The Torah has a different function. This was their inspirational vow. They praised the biblical indications rather than the talmudic constitution. Yet it was not their goal to inspire with nice ideas but expose the truth. Commentary was a way of elucidating the text. What is it trying to say. The Sages expounded sermonic ideas but the Ashkenazim instead sought to solve the inherent quandaries in the biblical text. How does this work together. They document needed to be deconstructed. It needed to be clarified. Sephardim had lexical notes unheard of to ashkenazim. Their commentarial work was predicated on a search for coherence not comprehension. 

These two methods are a far cry from the modern styles. Pilpul was the proto-brisker style. Turning the talmudic exchange into a study of its own. Not study to act but study to study. Maharshal angered by this position revamped the linguistic elements, Maharal did so more for the biblical enterprise. Pnei Yehoshua followed through to the Vilna Gaon with a syntactical arrangement. While focusing on the Rishonim rather than the Gemara itself, these early Achronim turned to the text for its nuance and comprehension. Briskers followed with a super-commentarial feat on Maimonides but others did return to the Talmud itself. The Brisker talmudic endeavour was followed by R Chaim’s students. Yet following the modern shift Tosafot was seen as a precursor of dialectics for the sake of dialectics. Understanding the text was for clarity rather than for exposition. To mend instead of to legislate. The pilpul ideals only permeated deeper. Nahmanides’ school did place emphasis on understanding but not to the degree that moderns do. The brand respect for codes in the Ashkenazi world and the Sephardi world aided in the codified effort. The judicial surgeon now with codes needed an outlet for talmud which was pilpul again. 

Pilpul’s rise makes sense in conjunction with Ashkenazi halakhic works. While they weren’t halakhic codes like Maimonides or Tur, they began two consolidate in the frame of halakhic thinking. Once semi-applied legal works are written the need for the dissection of talmud is rather moot. The semi-codes may somewhat follow the constitutional rhetoric but it is far from pure. It senses an unfitting synthesis. If the constitutional program is lost, what is the purpose of the dialectical aspect. Simply enjoyment. Providing interesting deductions and creations. All theoretical but nonetheless supposedly enjoyable to fathom and write down. There is no legal aptitude nor viability but it is an exercise. A what if game documented. The only way for the constitutional framework to work is if the semi-halakhic code is the compilation of a single non-authoritative scholar. His ideas good but not laws to build off on. The same goes for the modern codes, which in the spirit of the old ways, Vilna Gaon desisted from the Shulchan Aruch. It was a nice advisory piece but not the ultimate law. Talmudic learning needs to have another purpose if it is not for legislation. This is the modern model. Study is for study’s sake. It is for a deeper understanding rather than the legal efforts. 

Given the non-legal component of learning, talmudic learning can easily become dry. The solutions proposed are either philosophical or spiritual. Some bring in academic sources some capitalise on the commentarial tradition. Without legal influence, talmudic learning has lost its edge. It has lost its prowess. It becomes an object of study. Either for the Jew to know the history or for the Jew to magnify the lessons. Is the talmud a book of philosophy? Is the talmud a model of the theoretical? Rather study can focus on the development of halakha. While not for practicality in daily life now, the shakyla votarya draws on the rabbinic discourse. Beginning with a Mishnah. A text vague and obtuse. The Gemara asks a question for a clarity. The answer provided doesn’t makes sense because it fails to jive with the this Tosefta over there. The Gemara then harmonises them by differentiating the case or the Sage. The Gemara proceeds to analyse each line and elaborate on it. What is the Mishnah getting at here. Whether that Mishnah was condescend or not does not take away from its semiological construction. The Mishnah means something even if it is unclear from a literal reading. The Gemara’s is job to elucidate and deduce the proper law. 

The Gemara does the same for the aggada as well. Expositions to clarify the text. Sometimes they seem sermonic and inspirational and other times they are intended to assist in figuring the law. Narrational/visual testimony comes to defeat the claim of another. The Gemara is but a chronological spiderweb of development. While the Tosafists analysed other sugyot to harmonise, the Gemara brings other braitot to harmonise. The Gemara is a posek, an “anonymous sage” who analyses the Mishnah and brings a solution. Extending with Amoraic sayings for better elaboration. Recognise the Gemara on its own grounds. What is the Gemara teaching and how does it figure the halakha. How does the Gemara reach its conclusion. The Gemara repeatedly questions and then answers unafraid to challenge or of a challenge. Appreciating the Gemara for its dialogical program is much more unique. Unlike the Mishnah, there is a socratic maze for the Gemara. Unlike the Torah, it isn’t history being taught but a single Sage configuring the divine will. Reinforcing all types of abstract notions hinders the halakhic description. It isn’t an anthology of laws but an extensive breath of responsa. 

The way to sufficiently engage with the codified Ashkenazi world is through the vein of Rashi and Tosafot. Somewhat pilpul-ish but staying true to the terminology and structure of the Gemara. Curiously complimenting and commenting on the text. The Mishnah says the Gemara says that, what does this mean and how would it be applied. Examining the text in a variety of aspects but through the vein of text itself. What does the text say. What could be the reason for this syntactical or conceptual inconsistency.? What about other variables? The goal of learning is not inspire external possibilities but inspire one’s own posek-like drive. How would this situation fit? How would it be derived? This word indicates this case while this variable seems to smoothly respond to this line. It is theoretical and somewhat Ashkenazi in commentarial processing but it is a sure fire personal integration with the text. Instead of building off others which is recommended to continue the chain of Judaism, one also notes their own explanations of the Gemara. All in all be brazen and write huddushim. Huddishim that aren’t nice ideas but that are talmudically relevant whether they are more conceptual or textual. 

The mark of talmudic applied law is a pastime. A beautiful pastime. Scholars have suggested taking different routes as their predecessors highlighted. If it isn’t applied law then find different gems to promote nice ideas or cool deductions. Yet this is the wrongheaded perception. Instead, talmud learning should recognise its halakhic core. It’s profound meaning to the people. It isn’t something just to hear or just derive but rather to engage. To read the text and passionately examine the historical and hermeneutic elements. The details and the complexity. Becoming part of the chain of commentators whether through the super-commentarial train or the direct commentator train. For hopefully one day the hiddushim are published in the annals of the study hall.