Studies in Talmudic Logic and Methodology by Louis Jacobs

In Studies in Talmudic Logic and Methodology, Louis Jacobs sheds light on many different facets of the way Chazal wrote the Talmud. First, Jacobs goes through a couple different logical arguments common in the Gemara. While many scholars believe that the kal vechomer is borrowed from the Aristotelian syllogism, Jacobs shows that this is clearly not the case. At the same time, Jacobs shows how the Binyan Av argument is very similar to Mill's method of agreement. Recently, I have heard more and more about people seeing where chazal got their information. Whether it is the question of the missing years in the second temple period, or science that contradicts Halacha, seeing what the outside culture was saying at the time has become more and more a prevalent way of explaining some of Chazal's positions. What I think Jacobs does really well in this book, is his ability to use the culture Chazal were in as a way to explain what they said, while not oversimplifying their arguments. It could be easy to say that Chazal borrowed their statements from Aristotle. This could certainly be a possibility, but should not necessarily always be used as an explanation. A lot of times we can get into arguments of Chazal's fallibility and the fullness of their mesorah. However, by really delving into the topic we can see to what extent it is true in each case. Also, Jacobs motives seem not to be governed by politics and or practice consequences. He looks at the logical arguments through a secular lens to try and lean more about them. For instance Mill's method of agreement came much later, yet it can shed light in on what Chazal argued centuries before.

After going into a couple of Chazal's logical arguments he focuses on methodology. The big argument that Jacobs creates is that the sugyot as we know them today were created by the redactors from the vast amount of Rabbinic information they had in front of them. They took on great liberties to attach arguments to positions to create a system where sugyot would be moving towards a point and climax so that it will be more interesting to the reader. I think that knowing this about the Gemara as we know it can have a lot more positive attributes than being more interesting. It can allow us to dissect a sugya in a real manner, allowing us to further our understanding of the opinions involved. By doing this we will be more able to apply the Gemara to the constantly changing landscape.

If Jacobs is correct that the redactors created the sugyot in order to make them more interesting, the Gemara itself sheds light on Chazal's way of teaching. Teaching is not just giving over information and opinions. It is creating an engaging environment where the students can have a dialogue with what is in front of them. This is evermore true for education in all subjects today. We should not be trying to educate so that we can stuff in as much knowledge as possible, although the quantity of information is certainly a goal in its own right. Even though the way the Gemara is written now is much lengthier than had it just stated the opinions and final Halacha, it leaves the learners with an engaging experience, one that they will hopefully remember for much longer. If you're interested in an analytic discussion of the topics mentioned above and others, I would recommend this book as a good way to gain an understanding of Talmudic logic and methodology.
                                 Next Week: How to Think Straight about Psychology