"It is clear that this undermines in a fundamental way modern yeshivish learning approaches that are based on close analysis of details that were actually fluid and varied with the geonic academies."
This has nothing to do with modern yeshivish learning, the Rishonim and poskim made diyukim all the time and paskened based on them. I know you don't have much respect for way they learned or the "halachic process", but diyukim are not a modern thing.
"When making diyukkim on such details, you certainly are not making a diyyuk about a text compiled by Rav Ashi, nor even about a fixed text owned by the Geonim. Rather, you are making diyukkim on the version that was eventually written down and sent out to the provinces. That’s not nothing, but it’s not the same thing as is generally thought."
I'm not sure if there's a significant qualitative difference between this and "what's generally thought". I don't get the impression yeshiva students generally spend time thinking about the publication process of the Talmud a whole lot, but they believe that whoever wrote it and published it was/were trustworthy rabbis, and that's enough to be medayek in their output.
1) Sure, some people say the turning points was Tosefos, others say the Maharsha, others say Brisk, but I agree, fundamentally, it all really started with the Rif and it progressively snowballed from there. However, that doesn't mean there aren't thresholds you get to where the volume and intricacy of this kind of study starts to yield diminishing, and then eventually negative returns. Appreciating the fluidity of the talmudic oral-text as the Geonim had it I think moves the needle on where those thresholds are.
2) Sure, the average yeshiva student is probably not thinking that, but the theory of the Yeshiva movement from R. Chaim of Volozhin is based on a conception of the Talmud Bavli that sees it a timeless expression of divine wisdom in which every word reflects ineffable wisdom, which doesn't really fit with what we know about its composition. The purpose of modern academic study, or at least one of them, is that it allows us to reclaim the understanding of the talmud that the Geonim themselves had.
I think the bigger issue isn't the trust in the rabbis, which is totally justified, but the fact that it's often clear that they were very different rabbis. Even in Daf Yomi you can see that AZ and other mesechtas were redacted by different people. With enough time you can probably make a theory about which rabbis redacted which.
Ok? So your point is that we shouldn't be so concerned with a stira between different masechtos? To learn more like the Rambam and Rif rather than Tosafos ודעמיה? I'm not convinced, even when there are statements from clearly different Amoraim, Tosafos often attempts to reconcile them.
"It is clear that this undermines in a fundamental way modern yeshivish learning approaches that are based on close analysis of details that were actually fluid and varied with the geonic academies."
This has nothing to do with modern yeshivish learning, the Rishonim and poskim made diyukim all the time and paskened based on them. I know you don't have much respect for way they learned or the "halachic process", but diyukim are not a modern thing.
"When making diyukkim on such details, you certainly are not making a diyyuk about a text compiled by Rav Ashi, nor even about a fixed text owned by the Geonim. Rather, you are making diyukkim on the version that was eventually written down and sent out to the provinces. That’s not nothing, but it’s not the same thing as is generally thought."
I'm not sure if there's a significant qualitative difference between this and "what's generally thought". I don't get the impression yeshiva students generally spend time thinking about the publication process of the Talmud a whole lot, but they believe that whoever wrote it and published it was/were trustworthy rabbis, and that's enough to be medayek in their output.
1) Sure, some people say the turning points was Tosefos, others say the Maharsha, others say Brisk, but I agree, fundamentally, it all really started with the Rif and it progressively snowballed from there. However, that doesn't mean there aren't thresholds you get to where the volume and intricacy of this kind of study starts to yield diminishing, and then eventually negative returns. Appreciating the fluidity of the talmudic oral-text as the Geonim had it I think moves the needle on where those thresholds are.
2) Sure, the average yeshiva student is probably not thinking that, but the theory of the Yeshiva movement from R. Chaim of Volozhin is based on a conception of the Talmud Bavli that sees it a timeless expression of divine wisdom in which every word reflects ineffable wisdom, which doesn't really fit with what we know about its composition. The purpose of modern academic study, or at least one of them, is that it allows us to reclaim the understanding of the talmud that the Geonim themselves had.
I think the bigger issue isn't the trust in the rabbis, which is totally justified, but the fact that it's often clear that they were very different rabbis. Even in Daf Yomi you can see that AZ and other mesechtas were redacted by different people. With enough time you can probably make a theory about which rabbis redacted which.
Ok? So your point is that we shouldn't be so concerned with a stira between different masechtos? To learn more like the Rambam and Rif rather than Tosafos ודעמיה? I'm not convinced, even when there are statements from clearly different Amoraim, Tosafos often attempts to reconcile them.
I think the historical process seems to learn like Rambam, but Tosfos essentially applies the talmudic process to the Gemara itself, so I'm unsure.