Lomdus Reconsidered

The topic of lomdus - talmudic analytics - has received a good deal of attention in recent years. I know of three articles on the subject, although I am sure that there are more and, as usual, the discussion has vastly surpassed the written record.

Marc Shapiro wrote an article titled "The Brisker Method Reconsidered" (Tradition, 31:3 Spring 1997). In it, he noted the propensity of R. Hayim ("Brisker") Soloveitchik to explain disagreements rather than merely bring proofs to one side or the other. He also noted the Brisker emphasis on Maimonides' Mishneh Torah and the questionable attribution of complex analytical theories to Maimonides, occasionally in contradiction to Maimonides' explicit statements in responsa.

R. Moshe Lichtenstein wrote a critique of Brisker lomdus titled "'What' Hath Brisk Wrought: The Brisker Derekh Revisited" (The Torah U-Madda Journal, no. 9 2000). R. Lichtenstein brings a number of examples to demonstrate the sole concern of Briskers with the "what" of a question, contenting themselves with explaining the technical mechanics of halakhah while ignoring more fundamental questions of why the halakhah is such. He then proceeds to suggest directions in which Brisker lomdus can develop in order to include the concerns of the "why." R. Lichtenstein then notes the extensive Brisker emphasis on Maimonides and suggests returning to the Gemara and focusing on its text and debates.

R. Doniel Schreiber wrote a chapter titled "The Brisker Derekh Today: Are We Pursuing the 'Path' Envisioned by Reb Hayyim?" in the book Wisdom From All My Teachers. In addition to describing the Brisker approach, R. Schreiber offers several critiques of the method, many of them regarding implementation and teaching rather than of fundamental issues. I will skip many of those. R. Schreiber contends that the emphasis of brilliant innovations in theory tends to neglect the crucial area of character development. Similarly, the study of Torah can be turned into merely an intellectual exercise rather than a divine command. Furthermore, it can lead to a denigration of less theoretical study - such as beki'us (less analytical study to acquire breadth rather than depth) and practical halakhah. It can also lead to the neglect of works of great scholars who do not fit into the Brisker mold.

These are all interesting studies. However, they all seem to suffer from the same flaw, in that they focus solely on the "pure" Brisker approach and neglect the important developments of many of R. Hayim Soloveitchik's students. It seems like these authors were writing about "lomdus, as taught by my teachers in the schools I attended." Even Marc Shapiro, whose article was a review essay of a study of the Brisker methodology, neglected the approaches of R. Hayim's students that are discussed in the very book he was reviewing. This tunnel vision prevented these authors from seeing that many of their critiques had already been noticed and that methodologies have been developed to avoid these pitfalls. Thus, one would have expected a discussion of Telzer lomdus that addresses the "why" of halakhah or the Hafetz Hayim approach (from the yeshiva in Queens, not in Radin) that incorporates mussar directly into the struggle with texts. Additionally, the very free lomdus of Slabodka-Hevron-Lakewood, in which individual scholars develop their own unique approaches, might have already found solutions to all of these critiques.

It is true that the influence of "The Rav" (R. Hayim's grandson) in America and "The Brisker Rav" (R. Hayim's son) in Israel has made the "pure" Brisker approach very prevalent. However, lomdus is not limited to this methodology and those who find problems in the Brisker derekh would do well to investigate alternatives propounded in yeshivas outside of their direct experience.