Originally I posted this
NishmaBlog: Did Brisk Invent the "Cheftza Gavra" Method?
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/2010/12/did-brisk-invent-cheftza-gavra-method.html
in order to demonstrate that Brisk did not invent the "Gavra/Heftzah" dicohotomy as a method of analysis.
Tangentially embedded in the comments was an interesting link:
Can Retson Hashem matter in Lomdus?: Mitsvah ha-Ba'ah ba-Aveirah and the Limitations of Formalism » Kol Hamevaser
http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/12/can-retson-hashem-matter-in-lomdus/
Which deals with the issue of Spirituality in Learning.
I just want to say that Sources as Early as Halachot G'dolot and Rif extracted from the Halachic Portions of Talmud leaving the Aggadic portions behind
I have two lighthearted comments. Once I suggested - when learning Mishneh Torah, just add En Yaakov. Similarly as I once quipped: "If you add Rif to the En Yaakov do you get a complete Shas?"
Perhaps Brisk holds that developing and enhancing mental clarity leads to interpersonal sensitivity. Cognitive and Rational therapists might support that.
Shalom
RRW
5 comments:
Along the lines of Rabbi Klapper's article, in the same issue I opine that this is particular to (and arguably the defining feature of) Brisker londus in particular, and actually much of what drove me to a talmid of Rav Shimon Shkop.
http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/12/brisk-and-telz/
Rabbi Klapper opens with "We live in the universe Brisk hath wrought, and I do not propose to begin Cartesian-style from first principles." But he doesn't have to; other darkhei limmud still exist, even if they lack Brisk's popularity.
Particularly since we have a general cultural malais when it comes to a lack of attention to ethics beyond black-letter halakhah as well as to a lack of any complexity in Jewish Thought, we have a strong motive for reviving those alternatives that teach you to ask "Fahr vos?" rather than "Vos?"
-micha
Is it the school that chose to formulate the idea, or the idea that just had to be formulated?
Brisker offers a quasi-scientific approach to learning. It has great benefits for those intellectually BORED with other methods
I enjoyed learning Brisker style and I grew by learning how to define terms etc.
Torah is too vast to be reduced to a
single technique
Rav Goleck ZTL was not found of Mussar. H prefered hashqafah. Im guessing that many Litvaks shunned being "preached" at.
Brisk - like many things - is fine if it is not abused
EG I learned scientific method. I would not use THAT to alter Halachah
To me Brisk is fine with me as long as people realize it's limitations in PRACTICE [praxis]
Also Brisk does employ methods used by the Talmud itself. the point was to counter those who "demonize" Brisk as being a revisionistic technique.
summary
Brisk is fine, but has been "abused" or over-used.
RRW
R' Hecht: You speak about Brisk sand overuse in terms of altering halakhah.
My gripe is that even for the student, who will not be deciding halakhah, Brisk keeps his head out of the space of "how does this make me a better person or bring me close to G-d?"
At least the person who alters practice in order to conform to some bit of Brisk-style lomdus is avoiding rote.
Post a Comment