Pilpul

Pilpul (Hebrew pilpul, accurate investigation of Hebrew Pilpel, pepper or pepper coloring ) refers to methods of Talmud study, the attempt to clarify the possible interpretations of a place and subject matter of logical analysis and accurate differentiation of all conceivable aspects and considerations for and against speaking. The term is also polemical in the sense of " technicality ", " hair-splitting " or " sophistry " used.

History

Although the method was already known to the ancient Judaism and provided enough material for discussion - in Talmudic times mainly in Babylonia to connect oral and written Torah applied - so is given to the historical beginning of the pilpul but the Early Middle Ages and looks different Tosafistenschulen as the author, especially Rabbeinu Tam, Jacob ben Meir, who lived in the 12th century in France.

At least since the expulsion of the Jews from France ( 1394) and mediated by various scholars strongholds in Germany ( Regensburg, Nuremberg) spread this method across Europe and was in the 15th century in general practice.

The German Rabbi Israel Bruna, and Jacob, because, for example, were also supporters of the pilpul method as Jacob Pollak, who led a Talmudic school in Cracow.

Among its most prominent opponents for belonged BR Isaiah Hurwitz (around 1555-1625 ), author of Hand washed Luchot ha - Mounted. The pilpul method in the sequence of the most leading rabbis in Germany was rejected, however, was for centuries delighted in Germany and particularly in Poland trailers, served to clarify some of the most difficult, their difficulties but this also even out -making and sustaining of halachic questions for update the tradition and, not least for pedagogically valuable sharpening the mind.

The main point of criticism is that the method can always generate new problems or generate at least and therefore is in danger of becoming an end in itself in rabbinical schools.

Literary processing

To a certain literary fame the pilpul method was through the development of the figure of the American East Coast Rabbi David Small in detective novels of Harry Kemelman and recently also in Joann Sfars Comic The Rabbi's Cat, which involved their owners in the craziest Dispute, from which then no one can find out.

Other examples

• R. Yisrael Lipschutz (1782-1861) wrote a Mishnah commentary Tiferet Yisrael ( first appeared with the 6 -volume Mishna in Hanover, Danzig, Königsberg from 1830 to 1850 ): Practical Halacha following the Shulchan Aruch in two departments: explanation of word meaning ( peshat ) and on the other hand also a comment on the nature of the pilpul that Lipschutz himself calls (based on 1 Kings 7.21 EU) Jachin and Boaz.
• Naphtali Zvi Judah Berlin, head of the Yeshiva of Waloschyn and member of the Hibbat Zion movement: was an opponent of pilpul in the wake of the Vilna Gaon.
• Isaac Jacob Reines (1839-1915), Talmud scholar, Russian rabbi, co-founder of the Mizrachi: He was also an outspoken opponent of the pilpul.

A text example

" But not receive the right of possession. Why do this? - This is necessary for the case, even if they say to him: Acquire, [meaning that the second possession does not acquire ] to abdicate. Abajje Rabbah asked: How is it, if five people live in a court and has forgotten to participate in the Erub: Does he have to cede ownership of any single or not? He replied: He must give each of them individually. He turned against him: One who has not participated in Erub may assign his right of possession to one who has participated in the Erub; two who have participated in the Erub, you can assign ownership to one who has not participated in Erub; two who have not participated in Erub, you can assign ownership to two who have participated in the Erub, or to one who has not participated in Erub. But can not one who has participated in the Erub, his property right to cede to one who has not participated in Erub, nor can two who have participated in the Erub, their ownership cede two who have not participated in Erub nor can two who have not participated in Erub, you cede ownership of two, who is also not involved in the Erub. Start Bid teaches thus, one who has not participated in Erub could cede his ownership of one who has participated in the Erub. In which case: Is there any further, with whom he should have since participated in the Erub? Surely if someone is still present, and he teaches to one who has participated in the Erub? - And Rabbah? - This is the case if there was anyone present and died. - As if there was someone else there, and died, to explain the final sentence: but can not one who has participated in the Erub, his property right to cede to a who has not participated in Erub. If anyone else was there and died, why not then? Surely if someone is present, and if the final sentence [ of a case is ] if someone is available, as the initial set, if anyone is still present? - What do you mean, one of one kind and the other is different. This is also to prove, because in the close of the initial set, it means: Two that have not participated in Erub, you can assign ownership to two who have participated in the Erub; only two, but not to a. Abajje but declared: Under two means: a two of the. - Thus, it should have been called so, to one who has participated in the Erub, or to one who has not participated in Erub? - This is an objection. - One who has not participated in Erub may be to cede ownership to one who has participated in the Erub. After Abajje if ... [ and on and on ... ] "