Our Objective

Back to the Talmud Itself

            It is therefore natural that from time to time it is necessary to return anew to an immediate, unfiltered approach to the Talmud, to taste its own flavors once again, to consider its content and style on their own. It appears that revivals of such direct engagement of the Talmud have taken place in the past, in various contexts. Take for example the primary demand of the proponents of pilpul, which encourages the learner to look first of all at the sugya—the topical unit, with its flow of argumentation—without the intervention of any commentary or explanation, and to try to attain comprehension, even if (so say the advocates of pilpul) that effort will only produce an understanding of the constraints and directions of the early commentators, who were reacting to the very same problems that they, the present learners, had discovered on their own in the text. Thus, they said, could the student of Talmud fully appreciate the work of earlier interpreters.

            The impetus to examine the Talmud’s words on their own is supported by approaches and tools through which it may be possible to further unlock the Talmud’s language and style and to shed new light on its meaning. That effort can be compared to the efforts of Rashi and his grandson, Rashbam (Samuel ben Meir), to see beyond rabbinic midrash to the simple, contextual meaning of Scripture. Rashbam’s report of his grandfather’s attitude (in his commentary to Genesis 37:2) captures the spirit of our endeavor as well: “Rabbi Solomon, my mother’s father... set out to explain the plain meaning of Scripture. However, I... disputed [his interpretations] with him to his face. He admitted to me that, if only he had had the time, he would have written new [revised] commentaries, based on the insights into the plain meaning of Scripture that are newly though of day by day.”