=====================================================================
       The Religious Studies Publications Journal - CONTENTS
                               1992
Volume 1.060          REVIEW #2 - FULL TEXT            ISSN 1188-5734
=====================================================================
July 2, 1992
 
LISTSERV FILENAME:  FISHBANE ZOHAR
LOCATION:  Listserv@Uottawa or Listserv@acadvm1.uottawa.ca
AUTHOR:  Noam Zohar
AUTHOR'S ADDRESS:  nzohar@math.ias.edu (Internet)
DATE: July 1992
===================================================================
 
Simcha Fishbane, "Is it a Crime to be Interdisciplinary? - A Different
Approach to the Study of Modern Jewish Law"
 
(_Religion in History: The Word, the Idea, the Reality._  Michel Despland and
Gerard Vallee (eds.) íWaterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier university Press,
1992ù, 252 pages, ISBN: 0-88920-211-7) For more information, please contact:
Wilfrid Laurier University Press, Waterloo, Ontario CANADA N2L 3C5 E-MAIL
press@mach1.wlu.ca.
 
Written by Noam Zohar
(Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, currently at the Institute for
Advanced Study, Princeton)
 
<1> It is naturally hard to do justice to what is perhaps the main facet of
this richly suggestive essay, namely, the all-too- brief summary of the
author's extensive study and analysis of the classic "Mishnah Berurah" by the
"Hafetz Hayyim" (Rabbi Kagan). íSimcha Fishbane: The Method and Meaning of
Mishnah Berura, Hoboken: Ktav, 1991ù. Yet the essay, set as a chapter in a
book on "Religion in History", asks to be appreciated on its own; moreover,
Fishbane is seeking here not only to present something of his work on the
"Mishnah Berurah", but also to place it in a wide methodological context of
clashing and evolving approaches to the study of Judaism.
 
<2> Addressing first this wider methodological debate, I find the allusion to
being "Interdisciplinary" somewhat mysterious. We are not told precisely
which disciplines are being (or should be) combined, nor on what (presumably
misconceived) methodological grounds their combination is contested. Indeed,
at some points Fishbane appears himself to be resisting an interdisciplinary
approach, e.g. where he warns us against assuming that issues known by
historical research to have been concerns of Rabbi Kagan's contemporaries
must necessarily have concerned him or his immediate circle. The second half
of the title offers a better description of the  author's project, which is
to promote a DIFFERENT approach to the study of halakhic texts. This approach
consists of a primary emphasis on the study of "structure and form", i.e., of
the Halakhic text as a literary creation.
     Fishbane is surely right to emphasize the importance of such study: a
Halakhic author's own choices and innovations are frequently revealed in the
ways he molds and adds to received elements. Yet the true target of the
opposition is not the scope of the disciplines applied, but rather the
commitment to study Halakha as an evolving social phenomenon. For - as
brought out in Fishbane's illuminating discussion in the last part of the
essay - insofar as this is resisted in certain academic circles, it is not
the method but the purpose of which they disapprove.
 
<3> The methodological analogy to the tendencies of what might be termed the
"Neusner School" in rabbinics, stated in the first parts of the essay, is
quite interesting in itself. However, it is debatable whether the work of the
"Neusner School" - or of Neusner himself - ought to serve as a model for
Judaic studies. Despite its invigorating effect, exclusive attention to broad
themes and to formal structure is no substitute for careful analysis of
Rabbinic statements, Halakhic arguments or Midrashic justifications. The
issue of proper methodology in studying the Rabbis deserves, however, a more
systematic discussion than called for in this context.
 
<4> Fortunately, Fishbane's practice is better than his preaching. Pointing
out some special usages and literary forms in "Mishnah Berura", he employs
them wisely toward exploring the author's relation to his Halakhic
predecessors on the one hand and to his contemporary Orthodox community on
the other hand. The observation that a Halakhic decisor need not be either
always "lenient" or always "strict" is a major advance over the simplistic
tendencies found in many accounts of Halakhic history. Fishbane's hypothesis
is that, against a background tendency toward leniency, Rabbi Kagan shifted
to strictness in matters over which he was "concerned". To my mind, this
intriguing classification calls for more explanation. Does not such an
hypothesis run the risk of tautology? The very adoption of a lenient stance
in any matter would seem BY DEFINITION to reflect the setting aside of
potential "concerns"; while granting the validity of "concerns" entails the
opposite stance. Thus the analytic usefulness of Fishbane's hypothesis would
depend on a clearer conceptualization of "concern".
     Moreover, the very definition of any Halakhic ruling as either "lenient"
or "strict" depends in part on the very framing of the issue. In a saying
attributed to the elder Rabbi Soloveitchick, he explains his policy of
ordering people with (relatively) slight ailments to forgo fasting on Yom
Kippur: "I am not lenient with regard to Yom Kippur, but rather strict with
regard to Pikuach Nefesh í= the saving of lifeù." Frequently, a Halakhic
problem or dispute will reflect a conflict of two Halakhic values, rather
than a conflict between a single Halakhic value and (mere) human desires. In
such cases, the crucial step is the very framing of the issue, wherein one of
the two conflicting values is suppressed - producing an apparent conflict
between the Law's demands and some desire or interest. Given a tendency
toward piety and toward maintaining boundaries, the right path in such a
conflict would seem to be clear. Yet critical analysis ought to get "behind
the scenes", exploring how and why each issue gets framed in a particular
manner.
 
<5> All in all, Fishbane's essay is a lucid and refreshing statement,
bringing together several important but neglected issues in the methodology
of studying Jewish Law. Rather than presenting an authoritarian "restatement
of Jewish Law", it serves as a challenging invitation for further thought and
study.
============================================================================
COPYRIGHT: (C) 1992 by Noam Zohar.
 
Single copies of this document, may be made for internal purposes, personal
use, or study by an individual, an individual library, or an educational or
research institution.  This document or its contents may not be otherwise
reproduced or republished in excerpt or entirety, in print or electronic
form, without permission from the author.
============================================================================