Pilpul

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pilpul (Hebrew pilpul , most precise investigation , from Hebrew pilpel , pepper or pepper ) describes methods of the Talmudic study that try to clarify the possible interpretations of a passage and topic through logical analysis and precise differentiation of all conceivable aspects and for and against points of view. The term is also used polemically in the sense of "subtlety", "splitting hairs" or " rabulism ".

history

Even though the Pilpul process was already known to ancient Judaism and provided enough material for discussion - in Talmudic times it was mainly used in Babylonia to combine oral and written Torah - the historical beginning of Pilpul is seen in the early Middle Ages and various Tosafist schools are seen as their originators especially Rabbenu Tam , Jakob ben Meïr, who lived in France in the 12th century.

At the latest since the expulsion of the Jews from France (1394) and mediated via various scholarly strongholds in Germany ( Regensburg , Nuremberg ), this procedure spread throughout Europe and was common practice in the 15th century.

The German rabbis Israel Bruna and Jakob Weil z. B. were also followers of the Pilpul method such as Jakob Pollak , who ran a Talmud school in Krakow .

Her most prominent opponents were BR Isaiah Hurwitz (around 1555–1625), the author of Schene Luchot ha-berit . In Germany, the Pilpul method was subsequently rejected by most of the leading rabbis, but over the centuries it found enthusiastic followers in Germany and especially in Poland, it served to clarify some of the most difficult halachic questions, but also to create and maintain their own difficulties Updating the tradition and not least for sharpening the mind, which is also valuable educationally.

The main point of criticism remains that the method always creates, or at least can create, new difficulties and is therefore in danger of becoming an end in itself in rabbinical schools.

Literary processing

The Pilpul method achieved a certain literary fame through the design of the character of the American East Coast rabbi David Small in the detective novels by Harry Kemelman and, more recently, in Joann Sfar's comic The Rabbi's Cat , which involves its owner in the most ludicrous disputes which nobody can find out then.

Further examples

  • R. Jisrael Lipschütz (1782–1861) wrote a Mishnah commentary on Tif'eret Jisrael (first published with the 6-volume Mishnah in Hanover, Danzig, Königsberg 1830–1850): practical Halacha following the Schulchan Aruch in two sections: Explanation of the meaning of the word (Peschat) as well as a comment in the style of Pilpul, which Lipschütz himself calls Jachin and Boas (based on 1 Kings 7:21  EU ) .
  • Naphtali Zwi Juda Berlin , head of the yeshiva of Waloschyn and member of the Chibbat Zion movement: Was an opponent of the Pilpul in the succession of the Vilna Gaon .
  • Isaak Jakob Reines (1839–1915), Talmudic scholar, Russian rabbi, co-founder of Mizrachi : he was also an avowed opponent of Pilpul.

A text example

“But not receive the right of possession . Why this? - This is necessary in the event that they have said to him: Acquire in order to cede [this means that the second does not acquire the property]. Abajje asked Rabba : What is it like when five people live in a courtyard and one has forgotten to take part in the erub : does he have to cede ownership to each one individually or not? He replied: He has to hand it over to each one individually. He objected to him: someone who has not participated in the erub can transfer his property right to someone who has participated in the erub; two who have participated in the Erub can assign their property rights to one who has not participated in the Erub; two who did not participate in the Erub can assign their property right to two who participated in the Erub or to one who did not participate in the Erub. However, one who has participated in the erub cannot assign his property right to someone who did not participate in the erub, nor can two who participated in the erub cede their property right to two who did not participate in the erub , nor can two who have not participated in the Erub, assign their right of ownership to two who also did not participate in the Erub. The opening sentence thus teaches that someone who has not participated in the Erub can cede his property rights to someone who has participated in the Erub. In which case: Is there still no one else, with whom should he have participated in the Erub? But probably if someone is still there and he teaches: to someone who has participated in the Erub !? - And Rabba !? - This is the case when someone was still there and died. - How do you explain the final sentence if someone was still there and died: But someone who has participated in the erub cannot cede his property rights to someone who has not participated in the erub. If someone was still there and died, why not !? But probably if someone is still there, and if the final sentence [is about a case], if someone is still present, as is the opening sentence, if someone is still there !? - Why then, one like this and the other different. This must also be proven, because at the end of the opening sentence it says: Two who did not participate in the Erub can transfer their property rights to two who have participated in the Erub; only on two, but not on one. But Abajje explained: By an two is to be understood: to one of the two. - So it should mean: to someone who participated in the Erub, or to someone who did not participate in the Erub !? - This is an objection. - One who did not participate in the Erub can transfer his property right to someone who has participated in the Erub. After Abajje, if ... [and so on ...] "

- From the Talmud tract Eruwin : 2nd order, 2nd tract, fol. 70a, translation by Goldschmidt

literature