It was a phenomenon that I wasn’t really aware of until I went to university: to many, the study of X does not necessarily require the study of X. For example, Shakespeare classes were replete with A-students who had, in actuality, read very little of Shakespeare’s work. What they had read was a large number of essays, articles and books devoted to the analysis and criticism of Shakespeare’s work. They had, so to speak, studied Shakespeare without studying Shakespeare.
To understand the distinction better, imagine a mysterious box. Your task is to examine and comprehend the nature and contents of this box. You have two possible routes: you could open the box and investigate its contents directly; or you could stand away from the box and study it as a whole. Let’s call the first approach Subjective Study (because you are inside the box) and the second approach Objective Study (because you are removed from the box). Perhaps there is merit in both approaches. But you can’t do both at the same time and you have to start with one—either inside or outside. Your choice.
Similar to the theory that former soldiers make better presidents or former players make better coaches, I believe that Subjective Study should take precedence over Objective Study. Once you’ve been in the box you are ready to step back from the box and judge it. But if you’ve never been in the box, you can’t possibly understand it from the outside.
The focus on secondary sources (Objective Study) is too safe (unless you’ve studied primary sources first). Those who have studied secondary sources are not called philosophers—they’re called “students of philosophy.” There’s a reason for that. The study of something—anything—should be dangerous. Like learning how to drive. The most intelligent people I know are afraid to drive (though it’s been reported that they’ve conquered their fears now and then). Learning how to drive is scary because if you make a mistake your life could be changed forever. That exact sensation should be felt no matter the subject you’re studying. If there’s a reason you’re learning what you’re learning then you have something invested in it; if you have something invested, you have something to lose. But Objective Study—studying the stars without looking at the stars—is indicative of sterile study. It brings to mind white gloves and thick glass panes. It is detached.
Study is not the process of storing and cataloging information. We have libraries and computers for such tasks. Study involves output, not just input. Knowledge should be absorbed with purpose. Time is short and it is far more likely that you will err than that you will succeed. This means that you have to get involved. It has to matter to you. If you’re frightened or confused or humbled by what you’re studying, there’s a good chance you’re doing something right. It means that if you really want to understand Hamlet, you have to read ‘Hamlet.’
TB Kiddushin 40b poses the question: given the choice, is it better to study Torah or to do mitzvoth? The final answer is that it is better to study Torah because “study leads to action.” But what happens when study no longer leads to action? Can you still call it study?
We can study the Torah without studying the Torah. We can continue to take steps away from the Torah and look at it noninvasively. But what will that accomplish? Does Objective Study even fulfill the mitzvah of Studying the Torah?
7 comments:
Insightful article. I'm not sure exactly what you are coming לאפוקי
but I think you're raising an important question for the modern systems of Torah education and their lack of engagement with the primary sources, i.e. Tanach, Mishnayos, even the daf gemara...
I'm curious to know more about what you have in mind here...
Warmly,
Simon Synett
In support of my son's contention, I just want to again refer to Kiddushin 40b and its conclusion that study is better for study leads to action. Inherently, we must recognize that the gemara is specfically referring to study that leads to action. This is a different type of study than study done for its own sake (and I am not inferring that torah lishmah is only study done for its own sake but would also include study that leads to action).
My point is that for many Torah study is fully theoretical, in fact the desire of many is solely for this totally theoretical type of study. Practical study for halachic purposes is thus seen as the simple reading of Halachic Codes. The fact is that it is study, in all its realms that has impact practically that is the study that is deemed most important in the gemara. Its when you make your study have a practical implication -- in whatever Torah study that you are undertaking -- that the study becomes most important. The words of Ramban become most indicative of this and importante: don't leave your Torah study without the self-recognition of how it has changed you, how it has affected your life. That's optimum Torah study.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Chai, I think you are making a very important distinction. I think the following is implicit in what you wrote, but worth articulating.
You connected secondary sources with "objective" study, and primary sources with "subjective study".
In a sense, however, one could argue that Torah places great importance on secondary sources. After all, we study commentators with as much seriousness as we do the text they comment upon, and very often give priority to the commentators' interpretation over the simple reading of the primary text itself.
(Granted, this is complicated by the role of the Oral Torah, and that at times, the commentators are not really commenting, but, as representatives of Torah Sheba'al Peah, are providing insight from a primary text. However, this is not always the case, and even so, Jews value commentary with arguably unmatched respect.)
However, though commentators are secondary sources, and though the authors of these secondary sources have, for the most part, been experts in the secondary sources that proceeded them, I think they and their study could, and traditionally would, fall under the category of subjective study.
It seems that the secondary sources became primary sources in their own right, and my guess is that the quality of subjectivity, the personality and passion, apparent in the source itself, is the root of this shift.
The beauty of this is that it allows a chain of primary sources, reflecting on one another, to be constructed. This way study is a multi-voiced conversation that does demand full participation, subjectivity and response, while also allowing for innovation, each individual's potential participation and development across the ages.
To Anonymous,
You've made an excellent point about the relationship between the Written and Oral Torah - indeed Chaza'l make the claim that all was given at Sinai (Brachos 5, I think...)
Let me draw out a qualification that I think is implicit in your words:
We, as the bearers of Torah sheb'al peh, are only entitled to give priority to an interpretation over the simple reading if we fully understand the simple reading and why it is untenable. Otherwise, what we do ceases to be interpretation but mere speculation.
By the way, there's a lovely irony in this conversation we're having here, no?
Warmly,
Simon Synett
There is a calm yet provocative clarity in your ideas -- may I ask you: do you have any issues with faith, do you study Torah without issue?
Specific to your most recent intriguing piece: there is the risk when you go inside of any 'box' with the certain intention of leaving it -- that you lose the ability to study for the sake of study and then the acquisition of even holy wisdom can become gluttonous, arrogant, greedy. It isn't just a matter of studying Torah and then studying the air that it breathes, the close sources -- there is the matter of studying for the right reasons, without the shadowside of human endeavour and with the proper awe. How? Is this something you intend to write about in the future?
Hi Simon,
First of all, I'm sorry I took so long in replying.
I think you make an interesting point. However, I find that the relationship between Torah sheba'l peh and Torah shebechtav is such that it's sometimes impossible to think about them in a linear fashion, making it possible to first understand one and then turn to the other. If we think of the Oral Torah as a code to deciphering the written Torah (a concept I learnt from Rabbi Hecht)then the simple reading of the text, or rather the Author's intent for the text, is not fully understandable without the traditional interpretative commentary.
That said, I wonder if you are referring more to individual original interpretation--the oral Torah in the sense of continued creative thought through the generations and not as a orally transmitted body of information--subjective study going back to Chai's original blog. If this is the case, then I still wonder how one can know they fully understand the simple reading of the text? What are your criteria? I do agree with you though that this is vitally important.
After reading over my comment, i just want to add that the two options i suggest for what you mean by oral Torah are pretty much the extreme positions as far as I know, and you probably meant something that incorporates aspects of both. Please do clarify your position on this. Although, Isn't it inherently true that the nature of an oral text will be mysterious? I hope at least I understood your comment, and please correct me if this was not the case.
Post a Comment