Monday, December 17, 2007

issur gavra/cheftza: Brisk vs. R' Shimon's derech

Awhile back I did a post that drew a contrast between R’ Shimon Shkop’s style and that of R’ Chaim. Briskers are interested in structure as an end in itself; R’ Shimon is always looking for a “why” that is hiding behind the scenes. Brisk is gavra/cheftza; Telz and R’ Shimon is all about sibah/siman and finding the true “goreim” of the din. The first sugya in Nedarim jumps out as an example of the difference in approach. Every Brisker jumps for joy when he reads the gemara’s distinction between nedarim, which are issurei chefzta, and shevuos, which are issurei gavra. But R’ Shimon is not satisfied. The Rishonim say (I did not double check, but IIRC this is a Ritva) all issurei Torah are issurei gavra. R’ Shimon (Shiur #1 on Nedarim) asks: if an issur cheftza means the object is somehow spiritually “tainted” in some way, why should the issur of neveilah or cheilev not also be categorized as issurei chefzta in the same way a neder is? What is it about neder that distinguishes it from other cases? I don’t think a Brisker would ever ask such a question, nor to the best of my knowledge does Brisk ever formulate an answer. A Brisker just accepts the distinction as an a priori part of halacha: in some cases the focus is on excluding objects from use, in other cases it is on human behavior, but why and where the focus is placed on one of the other is of no concern to us.

R’ Shimon takes the Brisker world of gavra/cheftza and transforms it into the sibah/siman world of Telz. Cheilev or neveilah are simanim that the ratzon Hashem has declared these products off-limits. The issurim themselves are the products of Hashem’s plan for perfecting us (i.e. ratzon Hashem is the goreim,not the anything inherent in the object itself). The issur of a neder is not the product of G-d’s will; the issur is its own sibah and motivation, it is an end in itself which start and stops with the object at hand.

7 comments:

  1. It's interesting because I don't find that my Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Chait, is a pure "Brisker" in this sense.

    True, his first priority is always the clarification of the what, but he is not hesitant to pursue questions of "why" insofar as this involves seeing how the halachic structures are rooted in even deeper philosophical principles. This is particularly evident in his Shavuot shiurim in which he analyzes broad sugyot and usually ties in the fundamental halachic principles with "hashqafic" concepts derived from Torah Shebichtav. (To some extent RYBS did the same thing in his Shiurim Lezecher Abba Mori, for example.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I find the Igros haGRI"D, the Shirei haGR"M vhaGRI"D, and the Ch haGR"M all read much closer to traditional Brisk - they read exactly like the ch. haGRI"Z al haRambam. The Sh l'Zecher Aba Mori do not. I am not sure if this is simply a reflection of the editor's style, or simply because the shiur was said before a large public audience it took on a different format. In any case, even those shiurim are still a far cry from Sha'arei Yosher. The Rav is still primarily concerned with putting things in boxes as a way to solve problems. I need to come up with more examples. Problem is those shiurim are mostly Moed sugyos; R' Shimon is not. Second problem is I don't have time to work on it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I too agree that Shiurim L'zecher Abba Mari is very different in style than the other seforim of Rav Soloveitchik. I think it is just the format... it is more shiur/lecture style than just "chiddushim".
    Very good example of a sibah/siman that Briskers would never address. My posts on this topic are found here:

    http://elomdus.blogspot.com/2007/10/simansibah-chakirah.html

    and at the end of this post here:

    http://elomdus.blogspot.com/2007/10/davar-vlo-chatzi-davar.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rabbi Mosheh Lichtenstein's article "What Hath Brisk Wrought: The Brisker Drerkh Revisited" does a good job of explaining the difference between "what" and "why" questions and explains how the Brisker Derekh can be broadened to include "why" questions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My rosh yeshiva said there are 3 main talmidim of r chaim, brisker rav, r shimon shkop, and r Baruch ber. Each inculcated a different method. R shimon tends more to svarah, r baruch ber tends more to geder, and the brisker rav is the medium of both.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Isn't ratzon hashem and geder ie "the what" the same? seems like they ask the same questions just on different ways

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/12/brisk-and-telz/

    ReplyDelete