Brisk and Novarodok 
Shaul Shpeter in a recent book "Hayeshiva Halitait B'hitchavayata" makes and interesting observation when speaking of Slobodka. He maintains that the Brisker method was a reaction to an ideolgical void within yeshivos. The old way of learning as a way of life did not compete well with the attraction of manifold ideolgies and movements, Bundism, Anarchism, Zionism, Socialism etc, that were swirling around the Russian society of that time. The intellectual ferment met no opposition from the old time adherents of Talmud Torah; they had nothing fresh and stimulating and no new language of ideas with which to compete. Brisker methodology filled that void, giving boys "Ga'ava D'kedusha", pride and brilliance with which to combat attraction of new thought - systems.
This analysis seems correct. I personally had heard someting similar from R. Y. B. Soloveitchik and I read the same thing, I think, in the name of R. Yakov Kaminetsky in his ArtScroll biography by J. Rosenblum. They both said that Brisker method was designed to compete with the new developments in the sciences and humanities. R. Chaim wished to present a method of Torah study that would be superior to the brilliance and atttraction of university and evolving the Brisker method was motivated by that goal.
Shpeter suggests that it is because Brisk is an ideology that it was not accepted in Slabodka. After all, this yeshiva already had an effective ideology with which to combat haskala - the path of mussar. He supports this point with some interesting argumentation, including the introduction to Levush Mordechi that explicitly promotes and discusses the old method of pilpul against the new ways of learning (albeit calling for its joining to bekius).
Now, it is true that there were products of Slabodka who went on to use Brisker method however, that does not invalidate the basic argument.
I would add that from what I gleaned, Novarodok appeared to be most open to importing Brisker style learning into its yeshivos. For example, witness the method of chakira during birzhe or mussar vaad. If Kain's face fell, "was it because Hashem rejected yor sacrifice or because he chose that of your brother?"
This openess reflects Novarodok's opening, zest for new methods and variety of institutional environments. R. Yosef Yozel himself spend some time studiying under R. Chaim Soloveitchik in Warsaw, expressly to absorb his method. It may also attest to the vitality of its approach and its inner security that it can assimilate and mold any intelelctual element into the style of Novarodok.
This analysis seems correct. I personally had heard someting similar from R. Y. B. Soloveitchik and I read the same thing, I think, in the name of R. Yakov Kaminetsky in his ArtScroll biography by J. Rosenblum. They both said that Brisker method was designed to compete with the new developments in the sciences and humanities. R. Chaim wished to present a method of Torah study that would be superior to the brilliance and atttraction of university and evolving the Brisker method was motivated by that goal.
Shpeter suggests that it is because Brisk is an ideology that it was not accepted in Slabodka. After all, this yeshiva already had an effective ideology with which to combat haskala - the path of mussar. He supports this point with some interesting argumentation, including the introduction to Levush Mordechi that explicitly promotes and discusses the old method of pilpul against the new ways of learning (albeit calling for its joining to bekius).
Now, it is true that there were products of Slabodka who went on to use Brisker method however, that does not invalidate the basic argument.
I would add that from what I gleaned, Novarodok appeared to be most open to importing Brisker style learning into its yeshivos. For example, witness the method of chakira during birzhe or mussar vaad. If Kain's face fell, "was it because Hashem rejected yor sacrifice or because he chose that of your brother?"
This openess reflects Novarodok's opening, zest for new methods and variety of institutional environments. R. Yosef Yozel himself spend some time studiying under R. Chaim Soloveitchik in Warsaw, expressly to absorb his method. It may also attest to the vitality of its approach and its inner security that it can assimilate and mold any intelelctual element into the style of Novarodok.
>I personally had heard someting similar from R. Y. B. Soloveitchik and I read the same thing, I think, in the name of R. Yakov Kaminetsky in his ArtScroll biography by J. Rosenblum. They both said that Brisker method was designed to compete with the new developments in the sciences and humanities. R. Chaim wished to present a method of Torah study that would be superior to the brilliance and atttraction of university and evolving the Brisker method was motivated by that goal.
R. Aharon Rakeffet said that R. Soloveitchik told him the same thing in the name of his father R. Moshe.
Posted by: S. | November 22, 2006 at 05:10 PM
The problem I see trying to mesh Brisk and mussar is that Brisk inherently assumes that one can't seek first principles for mitzvos. The old line goes: Brisk asks "vus?" (What?), Telzh asks "fahr vus?" (For what? i.e. Why?)
Brisker derekh is finding an overarching halachic principle for which the case being studied is an example. Not about finding purpose and meaning. Mussar, OTOH, assumes that this purpose and meaning is so central, one should engage in extra-halachic means of inforcing it!
-mi
PS: See also my blog entry Brisk and Telzh. http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/02/brisk-and-telzh.shtml
Posted by: Micha Berger | November 27, 2006 at 03:22 PM