Posting for a friend in response to Volvie:
This piece is lema’an ha’emes, and my apologies in advance to anyone who might be offended. It is not meant to offend anyone.
Volvie wrote:
Mir is more flexible in terms of the type of learning style and hashkofos the students have. Brisk is very monolithic, and opinionated when it comes to both. They have their own shitas and they are very strong minded about them. Culturally, they are also very European.
Correct. Whenever you have a mesorah, it’s important to understand why you do “B” instead of “B” when everyone else does “B”. Just like you explain to your kids why we’re Jewish instead of goyish, and why we’re frum instead of frei, and why we don’t go mixed swimming even though other with yarmulkes do, a good rebbe will explain to his talmidim why he does “A” instead of “B”. When shitas come from a rebbe with many years of learning under his belt instead of the yeshiva coffee room, then tend to be more correct. such is Daas Torah.
Volvie also wrote:
In both learning and Haskofo, Brisk and Chofetz Chaim are an odd couple, and the American Yankee boy type of of Ben Torah that comes from Chofetz Chaim is on the opposite side of the spectrum from the typical “alter litvak” in Brisk.
Correct. I have yet to find where in the torah it says “Thou shalt not be a Harry”. Everyone is entitled to learn Torah and become a lamdan, no matter how American. There is no mitzvah in the Torah to speak in a yeshivish accent and say “oy” instead of “o”.
Volvie further wrote:
In Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim they employ a derech halimud that is considered incorrect in many other Yeshiva circles. They will respond that their derech halimud came from their Rebbe who got it from his father/Rebbe who got it from the Chofetz Chaim. Yet others will claim that the approach to learning there bears no resemblance to the Chofetz Chaim’s, and if the Chofetz Chaim would be alive today he would be the first to disagree with them.
Rav Dovid got his derech from a melamed in Warsaw and the Grana”t, not the Chofetz Chaim ZT”L. As the Chofetz Chaim ZT”L didn’t give shiur it makes sense. It is clear from the gemara that there were distinct derachim in learning (Bavli vs. the Eretz Yisroel way, dbei Rabbi yishamel vs. Rabbi Akiva, etc), and that this continued throughout the rishonim (Ramban-Rashba-Ritva-Ran vs Baalei tosfos, etc) , it is clear that each place followed their rebbe muvhak and their own specific derech, and they didn’t just make a cholent of them. Chofetz Chaim didn’t make up the concept of a Rebbe Muvhak. As very few people today were alive when the Chofetz Chaim was, I find it hard to believe that anyone has the authority to say that the Chofetz Chaim would censure the yeshiva for its approach to learning.
Volvie further wrote:
I heard from a CC rabbi that the Chofetz Chaim colored shirt thing is supposedly an offshoot of the approach that existed in the Slabodka Yeshiva, where Rabbi Lebowitz, the CC Rosh Yeshiva, learned. They focused a lot there on what’s known as Gadlus HaAdam, the greatness of man, and one of the reasons was because in those days Yeshiva guys were considered lowly and it was hard to feel proud to be one. So they made them dress a little spiffy amongst other things, to boost their morale and self-image. The CC people sort of carried that over, and to them, it manifests in their wearing colored shirts. If you ask me, it doesn’t accomplish anything nowadays and just serves to make CC different in the eyes of the rest of the Yeshiva world. I am nobody to tell them what to do, but I don’t see what they’re gaining.
If the purpose of it was to gain favor in the eyes of the yeshivishe oilam, then it accomplishes nothing. However, the purpose is “conservative elegance”, that one dresses as a mentch whom the baalei battim would respect instead of as a “yeshiva bachur”. This derech raised the self-esteem of bachurim in europe, and caused the townspeople in Mir to start respecting the bnei yeshiva once Rav Leizer Yudel Finkel ZT”L went over there. As such it accomplishes plenty.
Volvie further wrote that other say:
The reason some do not consider the Yeshiva on the optimal level, is because:
(a) They go too slow. Tearing apart Rishonim and Achronim has a limit. Knowing Gemora and knowing a lot of it of it has value that they consider to be neglected in your Yeshiva. “B’iyun” doesnt mean to spend all that time tearing apart and rebuilding the Rishinim and Achronim that much. If so, ain l’dovor sof. Your spending time discussing the ins and out of the Meforshim they consider beyond the point of “Iyun” and way into plain “kvetching” and ill spent time.
The yeshiva does have a bekiyus seder where one is expected to cover ground. however, one can’t just quickly read an acharon and understand what he’s saying. The Maharsha and the Maharam wouldn’t write anythign that they didn’t go over in depth with their talmidim. Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky ZT”L approvingly described the yeshiva’s derech as the “derech Hamaharam Schiff”. You just can’t figure out the depth of the Maharam Schiff with a cursory reading. Just because it’s not written in the style of the Griz’ notebooks doesn’t mean it’s not there. Rav Kaminetzky ZT”L was the paragon of emes, and wouldn’t say a lie to placate the yeshiva of his old chavrusa. Rav yaakov Kaminetzky ZT”L also said that today’s Talmidim don’t have the proper respect for the words of the acharonim. As the acharonim are closer to Har Sinai than we are, it makes sense to be cautious when understanding their words. There is a reason Rabbi Akiva eiger didn’t just answer his kashyes with a “cheftza gavra” svara pulled out of a hat. His kahyas were based on emes, and sevaras pulled out of a hat which cannot be read into the gemara or rishon are just not emes.
Volvie further wrote that others say:
c) The emphasis on the Rosh Yeshiva’s Shiur, the amount of time spent on it, and the value given to it (as always “muchrach”) is considered by those other places to be misplaced, the time ill spent, and the entire idea of emphasizing a Shiur to that point as a problem because it it purposeless to do that and counterproductive since what to emphasize and what not, and how much is considered an intergral part of learning.
The Rosh spent his life hearing shiur from the maharm of Ruttenberg. We don’t find him running around Europe hearing shiur from different Rabbeim. We find that the Ritva was a talmid of the rashba. he didn’t go running to tzarfas to hear shiur from the later baalei Tosfos. That is the meaning of a rebbe muvhak. A rebeb teaches you what to say as well as what not to say. Working on the shiur (as opposed to hearing the shiur, saying “shkoyach” at the end, and moving on ) gives you a depth of understanding and an affinity toward emes that is just not possible with the “shkoyach” approach. Pirkei Avos stresses that everyone had one Rebbe Muvhak, not a menagerie of different Rabbeim. This is how you grow- by being able to observe a gadol up close and grow from his torah and middos instead of just being exposed to gedolim through Gadol cards or the signatures on a kol koreh.
Volvie further wrote that:
(d) The above and similar misfocused learning methods constricts the students’ creativity, constricts his Torah focus on one narrow type of thinking thereby preventing him from developing his potential, especially since that potential may lie in learning differently than the single-minded way was taught to think.
This narrowness comes from the emphasis and over-value mainly on one particular rebbe’s Shiur (i.e. the Rosh Yeshiva) and secondarily, over-emphasis on late Achronim.
Correct, emphasis on emes and on understanding the Torah of ones greater than you instead of varfing your own sevaras restrict your “creativity”. you Torah is then closer to emes instead of sheker. Emes is always restricting. Rav Shach came out with his famous kol koreh against iyun because, as he explained, bachurim fill up notebooks with their own sevaros at 18, and at 24 they realize that all of them are sheker. As they have no bekiyus they are left with nothing. If they do bekiyus they at least walk away with something emes. The Chofetz chaim style of iyun is designed to get around this problem- the stress is on emes, and what not to say, as opposed to filling up notebooks with “Toyrah”.
Volvie further wrote that:
The end result of all this is, the way your Yeshiva and its students and alumni learn is not considered up to par with the rest of the Yeshivos. It certainly is different; they consider it worse.
They are welcome to do so. As we have our mesorah, and the haskamah of the acharonim, we feel free to ignore their views.
Volvie continued to write that:
(e) Hashkafically, the Yeshiva is considered to over emphasize going out into Chinuch and Kiruv as opposed to valuing learning for its own sake, and growing into a Gadol B’Torah.
So if learning to teach others isn’t “learning for its own sake”, that means Rav Aharon Kotler ZT”L was not a lomeid lishmah, cholilah. Pirkei Avos 4:5 says that one who learns to learn will get the ability to learn. One who learns to teach others gets to ability to learn and teach. One who learns “al menas laasos” gets all the brachos. So according to the yeshivish world, this makes no sense- one who learns for the sake of his own learning is the highest level! As Pirkei Avos is part of the mishnah, its interpretation is clearly more accurate than he yeshivish velt. Furthermore, the Rosh Hayeshiva said that when one knows that he will need to explain the torah over to others, he learns it on a much deeper level. Finally, the give-and-take of a rebbe with his talmid causes one to gain much higher levels of learning than he can achieve on his opwn- “vetalmidei yoseir mikulam”. Finally, Shma says “veshinantam levanecha”, and “banecha” means Talmidim. Hashem clearly wants us to teach the Torah. Chofetz Chaim didn’t make up the chiyuv to say krias shema twce a day, so Krias shema is assumed to be more accurate than the yeshivishe velt. And if nobody taught anyone the torah because it violates torah lishmah, then the torah would have been forgotten ages ago, cholilah. Clearly this can’t be Hashem’s will.
Volvie adds that
(f) The same over emphasis and focus on one specific way of thinking applies to Divrei Agadita and Mussar as well.
But as Volvie himself ends off,
Another, very very important thing. Nobody in the world, from one end of the Yehsivishe velt to the next, has anything but extreme admiration for the Middos and “ehrlichkeit” of the students that come from Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim. If there is any Yeshiva that is considered to “put out” great Baalei Middos and “mentchlicher” students, it would surely be Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim, above any other.
The connection between the yeshiva’s focus on mussar and the result of its products can’t be ignored. We describe Hashem as Rachum, Chanun, Gomeil Chasadim, Tov uMeitiv, etc. In other words, Hashem is the epitome of middos and mussar. How can anyone knock the yeshiva’s derech on this if it is producing tzelamei Elokim who emulate Hashem? Torah is supposed to teach us Daas torah- in other words, we are supposed to develop a kesher with Hashem and have our minds think more closely like Hashem’s than like mortals (Maharal, Nefesh Hachaim, etc). If Chofetz Chaim is producing such walking embodiments of Hashem’s derech of behavior, they must be closer to the emes than the velt chooses to admit.