Some Thoughts on R. Yosef Engel's Scholarship by Rabbi Dovid Markel
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Some thoughts on R. Yosef Engel’s Scholarship By Rabbi Dovid Markel R. Yosef Engel (1858-1920) was a brilliant and unique scholar—the likes of which the world rarely sees. Born in Tarna, Galicia in the year 1858 and living to the young age of 62, he dazzled the world with the breadth and depth of his works which span the corpus of Talmudic thought. Though never having studied in traditional yeshivot—being primarily an autodidact he developed a unique Talmudic methodology and was one of the pioneers in what has become known as the Analytical School of Talmudic scholarship. While of the over alleged one hundred works that he authored only seventeen remain, those works are remarkable tour-de-force of depth, breadth and novel thought. Engel was the un-bifurcated consummate gaon who weaved the various streams of Judaic thought into a cohesive picture. He would use agada to explain halakha, halakha to explain agada and bring Talmudic proofs to Kabbalistic concepts1. For him Torah was a singular unite and the divides between sections was artificial. While at first glance the relationship between sections may not be apparent a deeper look—according to Engel—reveals that inherent association. In Zevin’s Sofarim V’Sefarim he writes the following concerning Engel’s Talmudic proficiency2: There is a unique path that the author has in all his compilations; “independent proficiency” not found in those that are great in Torah and not common is (Torah) books. [He exhibits] proficiency of comparisons and surprises, revealing the point of comparison of the idea being analyzed in places that we would never have thought of. The reason is not due to the fact that “the words of Torah are impoverished in one place and wealthy in another,” for if the “one place” is revealed and articulated, the “wealth” is available to anyone who has “a hand in Talmud.” However, there are places that the “wealth” is covered and hidden; the “pearl” is concealed by “earthen shards.” Standard proficiency, even when it is great in the quantitative aspect, will not be sufficient to locate those hidden treasures. The unique sensitivity of the author recognizes the logical point that is hidden in a well-known idiom of Razal; he reveals it and displays it for all. His broad proficiency—in the normative delineation—assists him in adding to that point copious references from the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud and from all of the “rooms of Torah” of the Talmudic library. While many have the ability to locate the central theme of a Talmudic section, Engel had the ability to see how the seemingly trivial aspects of a Talmudic section were central as well. This 1 In the preface to Engel’s Agadic work Shev D’Nechemta he writes “G-d should bestow his kindness upon me, and continue to support me to publish my many novella on halakha and agada.” This work is a prime example of Engel connecting the various facets of Torah. See for example Mamar 3 (New York 2013) pp. 315-322 where Engel brings 14 halakhic proofs whether on tosefet mikri akira (that adding is considered uprooting) to explain an agadic thought. 2 R. Shlomo Zevin, Sofrim V’Sefarim, (Tel-Aviv 1959) pp. 150-151 1 The Neirot Foundation of Jewish Thought was due to his study not only analyzing the section under-discussion but locate the conceptual paradigms that were conveyed in it as they pertain to a general Talmudic clause. Engel did not only know Talmud, he was a master of Talmud and employed the keen ability to manipulate the data and trick out new modes of thought. R. Yosef Engel’s methodology was a highly original methodology of study. Having never studied in a standard Yeshiva—being primarily autodidactic—he developed an idiosyncratic style with distinctive characteristics that are typical in all his works. While the Brisker method of localized analysis is often imitable that don’t have an intimate proficiency in the entirety of Talmudic thought, a student of Engel cannot truly replicate Engelian dialectics until they themselves are proficient in the totality of the Judaic corpus. Engel’s comparisons incorporate the entirety of Talmudic thought, and each concept derived is not from a single locale, but rather through a creative analysis of copious sources. Indeed, it is perhaps due to this reason that although the Brisker method has become a popular system for Talmudic study, while Engel’s method—as it deviates from Brisker analyses—has not. While a student of Engel can gain perspective in his creative perception of Talmudic reasoning, and develop their own methodology that are a shadow of Engel, they themselves cannot truly be Engelian themselves until they have a thorough competence in Talmud, deductive reasoning, and philosophical thought. Facets of Engel’s methodology While there are various facets that constitute the nature of R. Yosef Engel’s scholarship—all of which necessitate an in depth study, there are three points which he especially exemplified: (a) creative proficiency, (b) organization and classification, (c) Shoresh HaDin—the conceptual identification of the root of the law through a distinctive method of analytics. While cursory thought does not suggest that identification of categories is particularly unique, it is in fact symptomatic of an especially unique and independent mind. Classification is not merely to discuss rules and categories that every Talmudist knows exist, but primarily to creatively see entire classifications, rules, and categories in areas that had gone un-noticed. This indicates a perspective to Talmud unlike the vast majority of Talmudists and the ability to strip away the specific case under-discussion, instead seeing the inherent logic that guides it. When one views the Talmud with a fresh mindset—escaping the previous held rubrics—they create a paradigm shift in Talmudic analytics and create new categories of thought where others saw nothing. While standard Talmudic study locates the central sugyot and within those sugyot locates a central theme, Engel had the ability to view each Talmudic discussion—even those that seem minor or agadic—as central. For the inherent reasoning of these discussions often holds considerable importance to create an entirely new conceptual category. 2 The Neirot Foundation of Jewish Thought An additional facet in Engel’s learning that was constructive in development of new categories was an in-depth knowledge of all of Talmud—and other Judaic works. For while the student of Brisk dealt primarily within the rubric of monetary law, laws of Ishut, and Kodshim—viewing Talmud from a narrow paradigm—Engel’s Talmudic study covered the length and breadth of the Talmud. He was able to step back and look at the bigger picture and the underlying logical implications of all of Talmud. As such, instead of viewing Talmud within a certain system of legal analysis, he was able to step back and cull the essential principles of the entirety of the Talmud. It is partially due to this reason that the type of categories that he deals are entirely different than the classifications of those before him. As an independent thinker who was autodidactic he did not view Talmud from the rubrics imposed upon him by teachers or studied in the usual schools but individualistically created entirely novel conceptions. Schooling is indeed a double edged sword; for while an academy teaches a student how to think, and study, it creates a monolithic community where its members all think in a similar manner. It is often therefore the autodidactic that creates—not part of the normative academy—who as an outlier develops an entirely novel methodology of thinking. One of the central characteristics of Rabbi Yosef Engel’s Halachic methodology is his persistent search for Shoresh HaDin—the philosophical conceptual roots underlying Halachic ideas. In Engel’s Lekach Tov and Atvan D’Oraytha he analyzed many of the same questions tackled in the Lithuanian analytical academies and he discovered and categorized Halachic axioms and principles that had never previously been identified. The Analytical School Usually when one ruminates concerning the conceptual study of Talmud, one conjures the images of Reb Chaim of Brisk, Reb Shimon Shkop and the rest of what has been termed as the “Analytical School”.3 Rabbi Chaim of Brisk is considered to be the father of the analytical school, and Rabbi Shimon Shkop as the father of discovering the reasoning of the law; a feature that was not present within the school of Brisk.4 3 See for example Chaim Saiman, Legal Theology: The Turn to Conceptualism in Nineteenth-Century Jewish Law, (Journal of Law and Religion, Vol. 21, No. 1 (2005/2006)) pp. 39-100 throughout the entire analysis he only discusses the facet of Brisk—completely ignoring the influence of Polish Talmudists in this field. Though in passing, Solomon mentions the possible influence of Rosen in conceptual Talmudic methodology, he nevertheless completely ignores the Polish Talmudists. 4 Reb Chaim is famously quoted as saying that his methodology is discover the “what” (vos) as opposed to the why (farvos). However, such is not the case regarding Reb Shimon Shkop who focuses on the why more than the what. See Shai Akavya Wosner, Chashiva Mishpatit Beyishivat Lita, Braei Mishpato Shel Reb Shimon Shkop, (Ph.D dissertation, Hebrew university 2005) Pg. 41ff. 3 The Neirot Foundation of Jewish Thought What this imagery elicits is perhaps a common misconception that the conceptual school of Talmudic study was a “Mitnagdic” development of the schools of Lita, and that even if later on it was adopted by Chassidim, its origin is nonetheless Mitnagdic. However, a study of Engel’s work shows that he developed similar methodology that seems to have been directly adopted from his work directly from his work.