The most recent issue of Netu’im includes an article by R. Aharon Lichtenstein entitled   “הגישה המושגית-בריסקאית בלימוד התורה : השיטה ועתידה” (“The Conceptual-Brisker Approach to the Study of Torah: The Method and Its Future”). R. Lichtenstein has published numerous articles on the subject, which has attracted increasing attention from the academic community in recent years. Notable contributions include  Sergey Dolgopolsky, “Constructed and Denied : ‘The Talmud’ from the Brisker Rav to the ‘Mishneh Torah’,” in Encountering the Medieval in Modern Jewish Thoughted. James A. Diamond and Aaron W. Hughes (Leiden: Brill, 2012). Chaim Saiman has published an article situating the method’s origins within nineteenth-century conceptual approaches to law in general; see his “Legal Theology: The Turn to Conceptualism in Nineteenth-Century Jewish Law,” Journal of Law and Religion 21 (2005-2006). David Flatto has looked at the relationship between the conceptual and critical approaches to Talmud study in his “Tradition and Modernity in the House of Study: Reconsidering the Relationship Between the Conceptual and Critical Methods of Studying Talmud,” Tradition 43 (2010). Mention should be made of another article from Tradition on the subject– Marc Shapiro’s “The Brisker Method Reconsidered,” Tradition 31 (1997). Book-length treatments include the 2006 volume of the Orthodox Forum, “לומדות: The Conceptual Approach to Jewish Learning” and Norman Solomon’s The Analytic Movement: Hayyim Soloveitchik and His Circle.



Comments are closed.