R' Moshe Meiselman - writing in
Jewish Action 1997 - asserts that the primacy that we give to the
Rishonim in understanding texts was from the Vilna Gaon. I have not
been able to find any discussion of this in traditional or academic
sources and would appreciate references. The relevant quote from the
article is the following:
"Most
Torah learning, even through the early 18th century, revolved around
the
Shulchan Aruch. This not only reflects the nature of Torah study, but
also
reflects the nature of halachic development. Legal systems have their
own form
of dynamic. They rely more heavily on practice and precedent than they
do on
legal source and conceptual analysis. Law recognizes the current
reality as a
dominant force in making legal decisions. Hence, when the Shulchan
Aruch became
the primary focus of learning and the major creative force of Torah
learning
was in legal development, the use of Talmudic sources in halachic
analysis and
the various approaches of rishonim were of secondary importance. Rav
Yonatan
Eyebshitz was the leading rosh yeshivah of his day. His major
contribution to
halachic literature were his shiurim in the form of Urim ve'Tumim and
Kreiti
Upleiti, both commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch, whereas he did not
publish
his commentary to Shas, which was only recently published.
All of
this was changed by the Vilna Gaon. In his
view, the legal aspect of Torah practice and Torah learning was
secondary to the
issue of text analysis. He exerted major efforts in first establishing
proper
texts, a matter of major concern for one who saw Talmudic text analysis
as his
primary objective. He then established the method of using
rishonim as the
benchmark of proper text analysis. Finally, all halachic
decision-making, in
his view, was consequent to proper text analysis from the perspective
of the
various rishonim. Only in choosing between equally valid approaches of
various
rishonim did he allow practice and custom to be operative.....
The
clearest way to evaluate the Gaon's influence is to contrast Hungarian
and
Lithuanian methods of learning. The entire revolution of the Gaon did
not touch
Hungary, which was under the influence of the Chatam Sofer. The
difference
between Lithuanian and Hungarian learning and halachic decision-making
reflects
either the presence or lack of the Vilna Gaon's influence.
'
Daniel Eidensohn
