The academic approach, like many disciplines which claim to be "scientific", is overly enamored with its own deductions, and constructs grandiose psychological theories on the slenderest of reeds. As a "paleontologist" can imagine and then construct a whole paper-mache dinosaur from a half-inch fragment of bone, an overly eager academic will build profiles and intellectual portraits upon the weakest of foundations. Its limitations equal or exceed its contributions.
Can you give me the precise page in the R. A. Keshet book? I have this sefer in my house, though there are a number of editions of it, and mine does not have any bios of Tannaim. It only has entries on topics (eg, הפקר, קנס) and gives brilliant summaries of the lomdus on each. The book is an invaluable resource for those who never truly grasped lomdus in yeshivah, or left yeshivah too young to fully appreciate or understand it.
It's p. 948 of the תשס"ז edition, that I linked to in my previous comment.
This isn't the right forum for a basic methodological discussion regarding the academic approach. Suffice it to say that I see my approach as trying to follow the pshat as closely as possible. And I take that from the academic approach. Which doesn't mean that I accept every and any approach and interpretation that's under the umbrella of 'academic'. (I discuss briefly some relevant issues in my piece here: https://www.ezrabrand.com/p/beyond-the-mystique-correcting-common; and my piece here: https://www.ezrabrand.com/p/two-years-of-talmud-and-tech-a-retrospective. For a good overview of the major fundamental differences between academic and traditional methods of Talmud interpretation, see Menachem Kahana's excellent Hebrew article.)
Regardless, re this specific point, that ספר is far from 'academic', as you mentioned
What's your evidence that R. Shimon is short tempered and R. Yehuda is good natured? I don't think that Gemara in Shabbos with the cave is evidence of either proposition (though you might think otherwise); do you have any other examples?
I dont see it. He was certainly very spiritual.
The academic approach, like many disciplines which claim to be "scientific", is overly enamored with its own deductions, and constructs grandiose psychological theories on the slenderest of reeds. As a "paleontologist" can imagine and then construct a whole paper-mache dinosaur from a half-inch fragment of bone, an overly eager academic will build profiles and intellectual portraits upon the weakest of foundations. Its limitations equal or exceed its contributions.
Can you give me the precise page in the R. A. Keshet book? I have this sefer in my house, though there are a number of editions of it, and mine does not have any bios of Tannaim. It only has entries on topics (eg, הפקר, קנס) and gives brilliant summaries of the lomdus on each. The book is an invaluable resource for those who never truly grasped lomdus in yeshivah, or left yeshivah too young to fully appreciate or understand it.
It's p. 948 of the תשס"ז edition, that I linked to in my previous comment.
This isn't the right forum for a basic methodological discussion regarding the academic approach. Suffice it to say that I see my approach as trying to follow the pshat as closely as possible. And I take that from the academic approach. Which doesn't mean that I accept every and any approach and interpretation that's under the umbrella of 'academic'. (I discuss briefly some relevant issues in my piece here: https://www.ezrabrand.com/p/beyond-the-mystique-correcting-common; and my piece here: https://www.ezrabrand.com/p/two-years-of-talmud-and-tech-a-retrospective. For a good overview of the major fundamental differences between academic and traditional methods of Talmud interpretation, see Menachem Kahana's excellent Hebrew article.)
Regardless, re this specific point, that ספר is far from 'academic', as you mentioned
Fair enough. There is undoubtedly much to gain from the academic approach too, I agree.
What's your evidence that R. Shimon is short tempered and R. Yehuda is good natured? I don't think that Gemara in Shabbos with the cave is evidence of either proposition (though you might think otherwise); do you have any other examples?
See additional sources in:
הרב אחיקם קשת, קובץ יסודות וחקירות
Section לשיטתו, in the entry for R' Shimon:
https://hebrewbooks.org/51941
He brings the sources that I quoted, as well as additional:
מעניש
• כל מקום שנותנים עיניהם בו מייד נשרף )שבת לג:(.
• אמר ההוא סבא טיהר בן יוחי בית הקברות וכו'. יהב ביה עיניה ונח נפשיה )שבת לד.(.
• חזייה ליהודה בן גרים )שסיפר את דבריהם למלכות(, אמר עדיין יש לזה בעולם נתן עיניו
בו ועשהו גל של עצמות )שבת לד.(.
• אמר להו רבי יוסי אנא אזלין דלמא עניש ליה רבי שמעון. רש"י: ובדבר זה אני מתיירא
יותר מפחד האויבים, שמתיירא אני שמא יכעוס עליו בשביל שום דבר ויענישנו )מעילה יז:(.
• מותר להתגרות ברשעים בעולם הזה )ברכות ז:(.
• אמר לרבי עקיבא אם אין אתה מלמדני אני אומר ליוחי אבא ומוסרך למלכות )פסחים קיב.(.
• אחד אמר לאשתו: קונם שאינך נהנית לי עד שתטעימי תבשילך לרבי יהודה ולרבי שמעון
וכו' . רבי שמעון לא טעם . אמר: ימותו כל בני אל מנה )ר"ן: קילל את הבעל ואת בניו
שימותו( ואל יזוז שמעון ממקומו, ועוד, כדי שלא תתרגל לנדור )נדרים סו:(.
You can argue about whether מעניש is same as short tempered, but I think it's a reasonable interpretation