History and Talmud Study

A few weeks ago, I put up a notice that I am accepting free subscriptions to periodicals and listing them on my blog (over on the right, near the top). Shortly thereafter, one of the editors of the journal Hakirah: The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought contacted me and even dropped off a copy of their inaugural issue at my house. As it turns out, this is a journal that emanates from my neighborhood, and its first issue is dedicated to the memory of Mr. Joel Fruchter, a man who used to sit next to me on the few occasions he visited my synagogue.

Hakirah is uniquely Flatbush. It is intelligent and academically informed, but maintains an elusive but unmistakable yeshivish feel. The journal has a number of interesting articles. One of these is "Truth: Elusive or Illusive? An Historical Example" by Sheldon Epstein and Bernard Dickman (download here - PDF).

The authors try to demonstrate the importance of maintaining historical awareness while learning Gemara. Personally, I am not a believer in importing critical tools into the Beis Midrash. In my opinion, Form Criticism and Source Criticism should not intrude on the traditional study of Talmud. However, history, I believe, is important for obtaining a true understanding of many passages. For example, I am unsure whether it is possible to properly understand the laws of Shabbos without knowing how bread was baked in the ancient world.

The authors of this article use as an example an explanation by R. Shalom Schwadron in the introduction to his Da'as Torah commentary to Shulhan Arukh (despite the book's title, it is just a regular commentary and not intended as the final ruling as decreed in Heaven). R. Schwadron appears to have conflated historical eras and applied the geo-political situation of the Tannaitic era to the Amoraic era:

Finally, Rav Shvadron's tacit assumption that it was patently evident to everyone that Rome was vastly superior to Persia, is incorrect. In Rava's time, Persia was far removed from its glory days at the beginning of the second Temple, but so, too, was Rome only a shadow of its former self. Rome was being seriously challenged at this time in its every move by its Persian neighbor.

By misunderstanding the historical context of the passage in question, it seems that R. Schwadron arrived at the exact opposite conclusion of the passage's intent.

I have suggested to a number of people that it would be very interesting to have an historical commentary on the Talmud, one that is "frum" enough to be used in yeshivas and only gives historical background to the relevant passages. This book has yet to be written, but would alleviate mistaken historical readings as the authors suggest was done by R. Schwadron.