[Avodah] Brisk and Telz

[Micha Berger]

The new issue of Kol Hamevaser ("The Jewish Thought Magazine of the Yeshiva University Student Body") just came out. Here's a teaser for my article
<http://www.kolhamevaser.com/2010/12/brisk-and-telz>:

    At some point during my time in Yeshiva University, I chose not to
    follow the more popular "track," leading to R. Hershel Schachter's
    and R. J. B. Soloveitchik's shi'urim. Instead, upon my return from
    Israel for my junior year, I joined R. Dovid Lifshitz's shi'ur,
    where I remained until my graduation from Yeshiva. A large part of my
    motivation was that my great-grandfather, R. Shlomo Zalmen Birger, had
    a kloyz, a small beit midrash, in Suvalk, and Rav Dovid, the Suvalker
    Rav, knew him and remembered my family. However, the primary impetus
    of that decision was my sense that something inherent in the Brisker
    derekh did not speak to me, whereas Rav Dovid's derekh ha-limmud was
    that of his rebbe, R. Shimon Shkop, a variant of the Telzer derekh,
    which was a methodology that did speak to me. I do not claim that I
    could have articulated this clearly at the time, but I have given a
    good deal of thought to the matter since and hope to explain it now,
    as well.
    ...
    Fundamental to Brisker philosophy is the idea that Halakhah has no
    first principles. It can only be understood on its own terms. As
    R. Soloveitchik describes in Halakhic Man, it is only through Halakhah
    that man finds a balance between his religious need for redemption
    and his creative, constructive self....
    ...
    The Brisker derekh gave the post-Haskalah (Enlightenment) observant
    Jew a mental experience that compared to the thrills of scientific
    study. The Telzer derekh gave him the excitement of philosophical
    study and connected his learning and mitsvah observance to his quest
    to be a better Jew.

    Loosely along similar lines, Rav Hayyim Soloveitchik, known as Rav
    Hayyim Brisker, rejected the argument in favor of accepting Radziner
    tekhelet (blue dye used in tsitsit) because it was a scientific one,
    not halakhic in basis. Accordingly, Halakhah is itself the primary
    basis -- non-halakhic argument is irrelevant.

    This distinction is also manifest in the two derakhim's approaches
    to going beyond the letter of the law. The Brisker view on humra,
    stringency, is one where the person is "hoshesh le-shittat peloni
    almoni," concerned for the position of so-and-so. It is the notion
    that while the baseline law is lenient, one may want to "cover
    all the bases" and satisfy all opinions. In Telz, a humra would be
    chosen based on a person's plan for shelemut, an awareness of what
    personal flaws he is ready to address, and the identification of
    opinions that can be related to them.

    R. Soloveitchik famously declared that "there is no ritual in
    Judaism;" he saw no reason for additional rituals....
    ...
    To R. Soloveitchik, kavvanah and religious experience can
    only authentically come from following Halakhah. The notion of
    extra-halakhic spiritual experience does not fit the Halakhic Man's
    framework.

    In short, Brisk asks the scientist's "Vos?" (What?), and Telz asks
    the philosopher's "Far vos?" (Why?). In my own desperate search for
    a more meaningful avodat Hashem, worship of God, I found it much
    more easily in the latter.

--
largely create

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
micha at aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507