The Hebrew term
pilpul
(
Hebrew:
פלפול, from "pepper," loosely meaning "sharp analysis") refers to a method of studying the
Talmud
through intense textual analysis in attempts to either explain conceptual differences between various
halakhic
rulings or to reconcile any apparent contradictions presented from various readings of different texts.
[1]
Pilpul
has entered
English
as a
colloquialism
used by some to indicate extreme disputation or
casuistic
hairsplitting.
Sources[edit]
| “
|
A person is obligated to divide his study time in three: one third should be devoted to the
Written Law; one third to the
Oral Law; and one third to understanding and conceptualizing the ultimate derivation of a concept from its roots, inferring one concept from another and comparing concepts, understanding [the Torah] based on the principles of
Torah exegesis, until one appreciates the essence of those principles and how the prohibitions and the other decisions which one received according to the oral tradition can be derived using them....
|
”
|
Other sources include
Avot
(
6:6), the
Babylonian Talmud
(
Shabbat
31a), and
Rashi
commenting on Tractate Kiddushin of the Babylonian Talmud, 30a, s.v. "Talmud".
Narrow definition[edit]
In the narrower sense,
pilpul
refers to a method of conceptual extrapolation from texts in efforts to reconcile various texts or to explain fundamental differences of approach between various earlier authorities, which became popular in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries: its founders are generally considered to be
Jacob Pollak
and
Shalom Shachna.
Pilpul
was defined by
Heinrich Graetz
as "the astonishing facility of ingenious disquisition on the basis of the Talmud."
[2]
Opposition[edit]
Many leading rabbinic authorities harshly criticized this method as being unreliable and a waste of time, and it is regarded by some as having been discredited by the time of the
Vilna Gaon. A frequently heard accusation is that those who used this method were often motivated by the prospect of impressing others with the sophistication of their analysis, rather than by a disinterested love of truth. These students typically did not apply appropriate standards of proof in obtaining their conclusions (if any), and frequently presupposed conclusions that necessitated unlikely readings of "proof-texts". As such,
pilpul
has sometimes been derogatorily called
bilbul,
Hebrew
for "confusion".
[citation needed]
The
Maharal of Prague
in a famous
polemic
against Pilpul (
Tiferet Yisroel, pg. 168), stated: "It would be better to learn
carpentry
or another trade, or to sharpen the mind by playing
chess. At least they would not engage in falsehood, which then spills over from theory and into practice..."
[3]
Current methods[edit]
In the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries,
pilpul
in this narrow sense was largely superseded by the analytic methods pioneered by the
Lithuanian school, in particular the
Brisker derech. However, many people consider these methods too to be a form of
pilpul, though the practitioners of the analytic method generally reject the term. Before
World War II, both the old and the new kinds of
pilpul
were popular among
Lithuanian
and
Polish
Jews. Since then, they have become prominent in most
Ashkenazi
and many
Chassidic
yeshivas.
See also[edit]
References[edit]
External links[edit]