The Study Approaches
The primary goal of study is to clarify a sugya in
order to understand it at a basic level. The purpose of in-
depth study of a subject is to illuminate it — and not
to innovate ideas and new halachic safeguards or other such
corollaries. If, in the course of study, one encounters
difficulties, one can later dwell upon them in intensive
study. But there is no call for writing one's own shtikel
Torah on what one has covered.
A person should try to understand and accept what
straightforward logic dictates, and not dig up questions
merely for the sake of asking. He can, of course, question
what puzzles him and offer a logical sevora
explanation. Most explanations, even far-fetched ones, are
likely to be found already written somewhere, so that he
should adhere to what he understands and not try to deal with
things that he does not understand or does not understand
well.
If a bochur reviewed a basic idea, even if it was well
known and accepted but apparently, the bochur himself
had not understood it fully — at this, HaRav Shach
expressed his vexation.
He was disturbed by the various attempts to compile and
compare different works, to correlate or challenge, reconcile
and recap, or to show how what one scholar wrote upholds or
negates what another stated. For example, "According to what
it says in sefer X, what it says in sefer Y
does not make sense," or, "according to what Ploni says we
can explain this." He said that in the interchange, one
forgot all about the original question and the basic
understanding of the subject but got embroiled in
sophistries.
I once wrote a shtikel Torah on a certain subject and
showed it to him. He showed his dissatisfaction and said,
"You write the words of the commentators very nicely —
but where are you in all this? What do you say?"
He was not comfortable with the method of study which has
been introduced in some of the yeshivos which calls for
understanding everything through human logic. He said that
this was not correct; this is not the true approach to
understanding Torah.
He recommended using R' Chaim (Brisker)'s approach to
understanding and would praise his own master, R' Itzele
Ponevezher, effusively. The two of them, he said, established
and bequeathed to us a discipline for understanding things
properly.
He noted, however, that even in this approach, there were
some who took it to extremes and dissected every single thing
by the famous shnei dinim even when it was uncalled
for.
Disseminating Torah
He was most concerned that one who bore the title `rosh
yeshiva' should be worthy of it. A rosh yeshiva must be a man
of truth, yirei Shomayim, one capable of understanding
the very soul of each student and toiling for the sake of
Heaven with the goal of educating his talmidim. It
must be his will to mold and perfect his students and not use
them as a means for his own advancement in learning, or for
his own honor so that he can be the head of a yeshiva. He was
displeased with roshei yeshiva who did not meet these
criteria and even if he could not deny that their yeshivos
were flourishing and succeeding, it did not change his
attitude and he could not make peace with the situation.
He used to say that a Torah disseminator was not meant to
only teach Torah to his students but also to tend to all of
their needs. To make menschen out of them, to mold
their characters and instill yiras Shomayim in
them.
He was also irked by roshei yeshiva who delivered
shiurim that their students could not manage to
understand.
Aside from being concerned for his students' welfare with all
his heart and soul, he was also concerned for the yeshivos as
a whole. When any rosh yeshiva passed away, he would always
see to it that a suitable replacement be found quickly and
that the transition be smooth. He would continue to keep his
finger on the pulse of the yeshiva to see that everything
went well and that the new rosh yeshiva was succeeding.
A successful student who became a maggid shiur in a
weak yeshiva once came to Maran asking if he should leave
that position in order to continue studying Shas and
halochoh on his own. Upon hearing his request, Rabbenu
rose to his feet animatedly and rebuked him. "Come out and
say openly that you don't want to be marbitz
Torah!"
He brought an example from a famous talmid chochom
who, even though he was employed in a yeshiva not worthy of
his stature, nevertheless taught Torah there and produced
fine students. We see that even in such a situation,
harbotzas Torah is very important in its own right.
Delivering Shiurim
In his opinion, a maggid shiur should present in his
daily lecture only what is relevant to expand and develop
upon the teachings of the major acharonim, like the
Ketzos HaChoshen or R' Akiva Eiger. He should not
indulge in chiddushim and presenting new and different
ways of learning the sugya. He held that anyone who
did not teach this way was among those of whom it is said,
"Cursed is he who performs the service of Hashem deceitfully"
(Yirmiyohu 48:10).
A maggid shiur should not present new ideas,
interpretations or approaches. He should only present
material that directly applies to understanding the
sugya with the Rishonim, the Ketzos and R'
Akiva Eiger. He used to say that, generally, the students got
more benefit from the Ketzos than from R' Akiva Eiger,
for the former leaves room in his words for dialectics and
alternative approaches, and considering why the Ketzos did
not follow those alternatives.
It is common knowledge that he considered R' Akiva Eiger his
rebbe muvhak by whose word we live. Once, when he was
studying about a controversy between R' Akiva Eiger and one
of his peers, and he could not help but lean towards that
other opinion which differed, it pained him and he said, "How
can it be that I do not understand these things the way R'
Akiva Eiger explains them?"
When he taught R' Akiva Eiger's commentary in Yevomos
about the co-wife of a co-wife, and R' Akiva Eiger asks the
obvious question that the whole world asks, he explained that
R' Akiva Eiger did not want to simply tell us the question,
which is really self-evident, but he wanted to have us
understand that the question was truly difficult, and that
the answers supplied are not satisfactory, so that the
original question still stands.
He exerted himself to the utmost to understand the rationale
of the Rambam and his approach to a subject. Once, after
toiling greatly to understand something that the Rambam
wrote, he was told, "Why are you working so hard when the
Kessef Mishnah already explained it?"
He said that the Rambam wrote what he did that was different
from the simple explanation of the gemora, and given
this, the Kessef Mishnah explained what he said. "But
I toil and exert myself to understand why, altogether, the
Rambam — who could have gone with the simple
explanation in the gemora — did not do so in the
first place."
(Compiled and arranged by HaRav Shimshon Ortzel.)
