Different Approaches To Learning Tanach

Yesterday, I went to a shiur by R' Menachem Leibtag. I confess I got there late and so I missed the beginning of this particular tangent. He was teaching about the morning blessing of 'laasok b'divrei Torah - to be immersed in the words of Torah'. He was discussing the different yeshiva approaches to learning Tanach - either that of emunas chachamim (trust - one could say blind trust - in the explanations of earlier teachers), where you learn Tanach through the prism of our Sages, including the disinclination to teach anything negative about any biblical character (I think that there are probably ranges within this approach), or an alternative approach where you first read and think about a text yourself, and then you turn to the Sages to try to understand it.

R' Menachem is not a fire and brimstone person. He pointed out that both approaches have their dangers. The 'yeshivish' approach is far more successful at inculcating fear of heaven, good character traits, and keeping kids 'on the derech'. But it comes at a price. (Those are his words.)

But without original study of original texts, one won't understand rabbinical statements (nor rabbinical writings such as the siddur, as R' Menachem is currently teaching us). So there are dangers and drawbacks to both sides.

And I am curious - what do you think? Do you agree that the 'emunas chachamim' approach is more successful? Do you think that the price R' Menachem refers to is worth paying? Or do you think that the 'original study' approach is better?

To speak personally, i was taught in a manner which was more in line with the 'emunas chachamim' approach. I grew up learning the commentary of Rashi along with Torah, and it truly affected how I read Torah until today. I would see the words of the verses, but I would be reading Rashi and Midrash under and through and between the lines. For many years, this went on without my even realising it. I remember many times when my husband would raise a question on the weekly Torah portion, and my response would be 'I don;t see any question, it's obvious, Rashi says...' (if someone who doesn't know me is reading this, my husband is ba'al teshuvah and did not grow up learning the commentaries alongside the verses). It would be hard for me to see the contradiction, because the answer that Rashi gave was so ingrained in my consciousness.

This means that I had to learn how to read the Tanach simply, how to read what is there and see what could be there, should be there, and shouldn't be there. While i have no real complaints about the my education (well, I do in parts), since it got me to where I am today, it genuinely took years for me to be able to read some parts of Torah at face value - without the overlay of classical commentary and Midrash. Today, that overlay is still there for me, but i am able to recognise it for what it is and push past it. Nowadays, it means that i have a warehouse stocked with midrashic and rabbinic material which i am able to draw on, when I have spotted those puzzles and patterns that lurk amongst the verses.

To me, the effect of seeing Rashi's commentary and midrash along with the words of Tanach is like looking through smeared glasses. You can see better than without them on - but you still can't see clearly.