The Study of Torah Lishmah in the Works of Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin, Chapters 3-6 (1966)

View The Text

This content is currently available in its original PDF format. As we expand the library, we plan to add a text version as well.

R. Chaim's Derech - Analysis (1966)

The modern age has witnessed a twofold change in the direction of the sevara. However, it appears that this developement, fundamental as it is, has, as its predecessors, bypassed the path of pessak. This is evident in the works of two of the contemporary giants of halachah, R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinski and the Chazon Ish. Though R. Chaim Ozer's work evidences traces of the influence of Volohzin and R. Chaim Brisker, and he was thoroughly adept in the new derech of R. Chaim, his Responsa, Achiexer, avoid its use in practical decision. Rabbi Zevin (1) surmises in fact that the reason R. Chaim, founder of the new learning, avoided hora'ah, was due to his innovative method of study. In discussing this he says, "In practical - hora'ah one cannot burst the bounds. In this field traditional methods of study are fundamental". The sole exception to this "practical guide" seems to have been the Rogotzover, R. Joseph Rosen, who ignored completely halaohic literature after the Rishonim and found all the precedents required for contemporary problems in the Talmud and Rishonim alone. It is a common trait of both R. Chaim and of the Rogotzover that they avoid discussion with acharonim and hardly mention them. Though their systems are similar and both lead away from the mainstream of traditional forms of exposition, the Rogotzover remained in the field of pessak and is one of the most prolific respondents ever. This, in spite of his ignoring the traditional links in the chain of pessak development. There is a kinship between the Rogotzover and the Biur Hagra in that both sought to base the halachah, and even custom, upon the words of Ghazal alone. Neither argue with contemporaries, both seek, each in his own way the basic primary sources alone. Whilst the Rogotzover virtually ignored the Shulchan Aruch, the Gaon showed how, far from being a source of diversion from the Talmudim and Rishonim every one of its statements is contained in Ghazal. The Gaon thus succeeded in preserving the o…

Torah Study

The Study of Torah Lishmah in the Works of Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin, Chapters 1-2 (1966)

I wish to express profound gratitude to Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Chairman of the Committee, who guided me in the selection of the topic of this dissertation, and whose counsel and criticism are reflected throughout the essay; and to the members of the Sponsoring Committee, whose assistance and encouragement proved invaluable: Dr. Gershon Churgin, Dr. Arthur Hyman, and Dr. Samuel K. Mirsky. Mr. Jacob I. Dienstag was unstinting in offering me direction in the location of many of the sources. I gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the Copenhagen Communal Library which made available to me photostats of unpublished manuscript material used in this dissertation.

Torah Study Chasidim & Mitnagdim

The Study of Torah Lishmah in the Works of Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin, Chapters 7-9 and Excurses 1, 4 (1966)

Before R. Hayyim proceeds to elaborate his own definition of lishmah, he presents a brief criticism of the devotional interpretation of the Hasidim. The popularity of the Hasidic view equating lishmah with their version of devekut can be gauged by R. Hayyim's casual remark that this theory is held by "most of the world." The first evidence R. Hayyim offers in disputing the Hasidic thesis is a passage in Midrash Tehillim on the verse, "let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Thy sight, O. Lord."

Torah Study Chasidim & Mitnagdim