Here the cognitive dissonance impacts Talmud vs. Halachah only indirectly
Background and Digression
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik [RYDS]used a dialectic technique to teach Talmud. Simplified he would take 2 rishonom and play them off each other.
It was like sitting in a theater. Stage left was Rav and Shmuel or Rava and Abbayei from the Talmud and stage right were Tosafot and Rambam each describing in turn the narrative of Shas. It was very much alive and engaging.
Over the course of years, RYDS would play it like this
Rashi Vs. Tosafot
Rashi Vs. Ramabam
Tosafot Vs. Rambam
Thus his shiurim on each sugya would always vary. In baseball this is like a 3 game series with 2 identical line-ups - but with different starting pitchers each day.
------------------------
All of this academics using dialectics with Talmud was a joy to me.
However, Briskers are prone to jumping the boundary and applying this to practical Halachah, too. This is where I jumped ship from Brisker Derech.
The biggest area of conflict is simple - Ashkenazic Halacha vs. Sephardic
Sephardim - and more so Teimanim - pretty much follow Rambam in a straightforward manner - Wysiwig
However, Briskers - using Rambam - take a POV that would probably orient Oriental Jews, and see Shas thru that prism. Then they would develop - using Brisker principles - a new Halachic Hiddush.
Problem? Ashkenazi Masorah uses Tosafot, and a lot of "Western" Minhag as its foundation. While Tosafot also uses dialectic, he is not doing so viewed through a Maimonidean prism.
Loose Example, RYDS states to sit for Ashrei before Minchah based upon a statement in the Rambam. But both the premise, and its understanding, are alien to basic Ashkenazic practice. See Tur. And Sephardim do not require it either - see BY on the Tur.
Thus, RYDS has about 100 deviations from common Minhag documented in the RYDS RH machazor, some using this Brisker method.
For a future topic, we will touch upon the GRA as similar
Gmar Tov
RRW
No comments:
Post a Comment