Breadth, Depth and Choosing a Rosh Yeshiva
Understanding Aggada
Yeshivat Har Etzion
Shiur #1:
Breadth, Depth and Choosing a Rosh Yeshiva
By Rav Yitzchak Blau
Rav Yosef was referred
to as Sinai (someone with great breadth of knowledge) while Rabba was said to be
an oker harim, uprooter of mountains (excellent in analytical
reasoning). The time came that one
of them was needed (to become the Rosh Yeshiva). They sent a message to the
Rabbis there: "A Sinai and an uprooter of mountains - which one of them takes
precedence?"
They (the Rabbis) sent
back: "Sinai takes precedence, for all need the master of the wheat (the one who
has gathered all the Talmudic teachings)."
Nevertheless, Rav Yosef did not accept the position. Rabba ruled (as Rosh Yeshiva) for
twenty-two years and then Rav Yosef ruled for two and a half years. All the
years that Rabba ruled, Rav Yosef did not even call a blood-letter to his house.
(Berakhot 64a, Horayot 14a)
This story begins with
an important educational question and ends with a note of ethical excellence on
the part of Rav Yosef. The commentaries offer three explanations of the
latter. According to Rashi, the
blood-letter made house calls as a sign of respect for distinguished people. Rav
Yosef refused to accept that honor so as not to set himself up as a challenger
to Rabba. We can easily understand
that situations calling for a change in leadership often divide people into
rival camps and that negative feelings between those camps frequently linger on
even after a decision has been finalized.
Rav Yosef understood this and took steps to publicly demonstrate that he
was not a challenger to Rabba's reign.
Rashi cites another
explanation that Rav Yosef did not have time for bloodletting as he was
constantly engaged in learning from Rabba.
Rav Yosef's intense dedication to not missing any time in yeshiva may
also have been a way of conveying his contentment with Rabba at the helm. The refusal to miss a single lecture
clearly assumes the selfdefinition of a student and not a rival. Additionally, Rav Yosef may have
realized that Rabba had reasoning skills he lacked and he therefore wanted to
hear Rabba's shiurim and acquire a new set of analytical skills.
Tosafot
Ha-Rosh
cites a different explanation in which the closing line about the blood-letter
actually reflects the reward for Rav Yosef's decision to allow Rabba to accept
the position. No blood-letter came
to Rav Yosef's house because no individual in this house became sick during this
time period. If so, the sterling
character of Rav Yosef manifested itself in his humble ability to step aside,
and Divine providence arranged an appropriate reward.
Let us return to the
educational question raised at the beginning of the gemara. Is breadth of knowledge or depth of
reasoning the crucial component of heading the yeshiva academy? The first point that should be made is
that we are not talking about two extremes. If the "uprooter of mountains" knows
nothing about halakha, then he has nothing to analyze. Conversely, if the
fellow who has learned it all shows little understanding of the material, he
also cannot function productively in the beit midrash. For this reason, Meiri explains the
Sinai as someone who can make analogies and extrapolations, but lacks the
creative reasoning of the oker harim. Presumably, the "uprooter of
mountains" also has learned a good deal of material. The gemara's question
refers to rabbis with different emphases and diverse strengths, but not to those
totally inadequate with regard to either knowledge or
reasoning.
It seems that the Rabbis
prefer that the scholar with vast knowledge assume the mantle of leadership. Rav
Shlomo Kluger argues that this was only true in the times of the Talmud, before
the entire oral law was committed to writing. Then, the most crucial issue was
finding someone who could report all the traditional material needed for
discussion. Now that the oral law can be easily found in writing, the "uprooter
of mountains" would take precedence. Rav Ovadia Yosef, in his introduction to
Yabia Omer, cites many authorities that, contra Rav Kluger, still
maintain that a Sinai takes precedence. This debate has a certain poetic
appropriateness in that Rav Kluger offers an innovative and reasonable argument
for the oker harim, while Rav Ovadia Yosef shows his great
knowledge to support the Sinai.
One might conclude that
every educational institution needs both types of scholars. Indeed, Netziv
(Meromei Sadeh on Horayot) argues that Rav Yosef was able to step
aside only because he remained in the yeshiva and provided his knowledge. The
yeshiva was able to draw on the knowledge of Rav Yosef even as it was led by the
sharp reasoning of Rabba. Thus, Rav
Yosef's continuing presence in the beit medrash not only indicated his
acceptance of Rabba's authority; it also enabled the combined and varied
abilities of these two scholars to generate a stronger learning
environment.
When I think back to my
days as a youthful yeshiva student and recall many intense debates about the
relative merits of bekiut (breadth) or be-iyyun (depth), I
conclude that youthful exuberance sometimes got in the way of more nuanced
positions. While students can
certainly take pride in their teacher's or their yeshiva's approach to these
issues, there should also be a healthy awareness of the need to integrate these
two strengths on both an individual and an institutional level. No individual can succeed in learning
when sorely lacking in knowledge or analytical abilities. No beit midrash can truly
flourish without a healthy mix of scholars with different
strengths.
Rav Kook (Ein
Ayah on Berakhot) frames the question differently. He suggests that
the Sinai is able to teach the masses but the oker harim cannot because
the common Jews find his abstract reasoning incomprehensible. Nevertheless, both
impact on the entire population.
The Sinai is able to impact directly by teaching the masses, as they
understand his more straightforward approach to the material. The oker harim teaches the
learned and the scholarly, who then in turn succeed in giving over some of his
teaching to the broader populace. When the Rabbis decided that "All need
the master of the wheat," they indicated a preference for the teacher with the
ability to speak to the common Jew without the help of an
intermediary.
As my student Josh Young
pointed out, the opposite can be true as well. Sometimes, breadth of knowledge
makes things difficult for the average reader. One of the difficulties with
reading an essay by Isaiah Berlin or George Steiner is simply keeping up with
their massive amount of references.
In the Torah world, the sweeping erudition of some acharonim
presents a similar challenge.
Perhaps, Rav Kook offers a charge to the leading scholar, be he a Sinai
or an oker harim. While there is tremendous value to influencing the
community through an intellectual trickle-down effect, a leader ultimately has
to find a way to teach the broader community in a direct fashion. Knowing how to simplify things when
necessary, without sacrificing the profundity of Torah, makes one ready for
rabbinic leadership.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!