- This topic has 81 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I have some friends who advocate Torah U’Madda, and I was wondering if it is a Halachik issue, what are the problems with it?
Last time I started a thread about TU it was closed pretty quickly. Lets see how long this one will last.
It is more of a hashkafic issue.
Why don’t you tell us what it means to you, and we can discuss it.
It depends on what you mean. If someone is learning science to help their Talmud Torah and to understand Hashem’s world, then it’s Muttar (see Rama YD 245, I believe). If someone’s learning Mada to get a job, that’s also fine. If someone’s learning science to attack Judaism or to try and make Judaism fit in with the scientific world, that’s bad.
I think it depends on the individual. We’re not all meant to do the same thing. We each have our own purpose. For some it is kollel and for others it is both learning and working. If a person is not cut out to learn all day, they shouldn’t do, it won’t be productive. Like it says in Pirkei Avos perek 2 , that they should do both so they are occupied and don’t sin or be wasteful. If doing both is more productive for them, then they should do that. Plus, if they don’t have the means to do only do kollel, then do both. Being productive in both ways makes one feel good.
no.
There are no problems with it.
It is a very acceptable hashkafah.
Can either of you (abelleh or old man) give us a rundown of what you think it means?
I’m with pba on this one. Abelleh- explain what Torah uMada means to you so an “intelligent?!” discussion can ensue.
As long as one constantly remembers that Torah > Maada
I only speak for myself
Mada means Non-Torah studies, Stuff Like Math , Science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) Liberal Arts (History , Sociology , Psychology) general Art etc
One can debate certain issues of stuff like Science like Evolution if thats OK, but certain Newtonian Physics (Stuff Like Gravity , etc) are not against Torah IMO
FROM WIKIPEDIA:
Centrality of Torah – Despite its simultaneous acceptance of both Torah and secular knowledge and culture, Torah Umadda, as a philosophy, prioritises a Torah outlook and knowledge, and in its practice, requires strict adherence to Halakha.
Thus, as far as a secular knowledge, Torah Umadda demands “unquestioned allegiance to the primacy of Torah, and that the apprehension of all other intellectual disciplines must be rooted and viewed through the prism of Torah.”[4] [5]
Similarly, as regards observance of Jewish law: “Not a single fundamental of Judaism has been disturbed by us, we adhere to the same ikkarim (principles of faith), we are loyal to the same Torah, we strive for the same study of Torah and observance of mitzvot that our parents and grandparents before us cherished throughout the generations.” (Norman Lamm, Some Comments on Centrist Orthodoxy.)”
From Wikipedia, quoting Rabbi Dr. Lamm:
Torah, faith, religious learning on one side and Madda, science, worldly knowledge on the other, together offer us a more over-arching and truer vision than either one set alone. Each set gives one view of the Creator as well as of His creation, and the other a different perspective that may not agree at all with the first … Each alone is true, but only partially true; both together present the possibility of a larger truth. (ibid, p. 236)
Sounds like something I heard B’shem Rav Moshe Shapiro.
PBA or Yungerman, perhaps you would explain what it means to you so a discussion can ensue? Clearly the troll and his alter ego are gone.
apushatayid:
Well, I can tell you what it means to me, but I don’t believe in it, so that seems like a silly thing to discuss. I am currently in the middle of Lamm’s Torah Umadda, so I will soon know what it means to him. Then, I also borrowed Rabbi Lichtenstiens Leaves of Faith, so I will pretty soon know what it means to him.
But, certainly we need to establish a premise of what we are discussing before we discuss. And there is no reason to imagine that all believers in it understand it the same way.
If Mada means “Stuff Like Math , Science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics)…Psychology” what is the OP’s question? The Gemara talks about it all the time. As long as one learns it with Hashkafas Hatorah and the mesorah what can be wrong with it?
“unquestioned allegiance to the primacy of Torah, and that the apprehension of all other intellectual disciplines must be rooted and viewed through the prism of Torah.”
Can one disagree?
Each alone is true, but only partially true
Being an academic must be so much fun. You can say stuff like that, which means absolutely nothing, and people just quote you on wikipedia and nod.
Well, since the troll and his alter ego are gone….
I think one of the issues is “Bittul Torah” If one studies the American Civil War. I really cant see any Kefirah in that, however I guess some think thats Bittul torah and should not be studied because one should be learning Gemrah instead
The RAMBAM didn’t have a problem with it…
In any event, you can expect that when I finish both books, I will come back and comment.
The RAMBAM didn’t have a problem with it…
What is “it”? We need to know what you think “it” means if we will discuss “it”.
zahavasdad: I think torah umadda theory is usually thought to go beyond the idea that secular knowledge is not always kefira.
Ask your LOR.
Cut into its simplest terms, Torah Umadda means that knowledge of non Torah subjects is a worthwhile pursuit for its own sake.
More conventional yeshivishe Torah hashkafa is that it is permitted to pursue secular knowledge for a specific purpose, as a kardom lachpor bah. But to study the sciences, humanities, philosophy or whatever in chachmas chitzonios, lishmah, as it were, would not be permitted. That would explain why the Rambam was involved in other chachmos, as they related to the various specific positions that he held, whether in Torah, medicine, community leadership, or government.
Cut into its simplest terms, Torah Umadda means that knowledge of non Torah subjects is a worthwhile pursuit for its own sake.
My quote from above seems to disagree.
It seems (and I don’t really know) that Rabbi Dr. Lamm understands Torah & Mada as two sides of a coin, with both being necessary ways to get to Hashem’s Emes. As Rav Shapiro explained a concept (not Torah U’Madda), there is the Briah, and then there is what is behind the Briah. One should understand both, and one without the other is lacking.
what the? please explain how a quote from n lamm saying that Torah needs more to be a more complete truth and that a truer vision is possible with both can be understood without admitting that something is lacking in torah. that is retarded. R shach didnt learn “maada”. the quote alone is diturbing. feh!!
Toi:
That is why I brought in Rav Moshe Shapiro, whom without the concept sounds strange.
Think of it as what we see (the path of Avraham Avinu, who saw Torah in the Briah), vs. what we know conceptually (via the Torah). Both are needed to get full perspective of the Emes of the Ribbono Shel Olam.
I’m still trying to get my mind wrapped around the concept myself. (And I personally don’t hold of it, but it seems to be a valid shitta even by some of the Charaidi sector)
Ask your LMOR.
ftfy
(if you don’t know what that stands for, giyf)
I guarantee the Rambam did not learn American history.
The Rambam held that science is Torah.
The Lubavicher Rebbe had a degree from the Sorbonne
The Lubavicher Rebbe had a degree from the Sorbonne
heh heh heh. So you are trying to prove that secular education is good or bad?
“I guarantee the Rambam did not learn American history.”
that would be interesting if he did 🙂
ha ha good one popa 🙂
yitayningwut- When viewed through the Torah, not the other way around.
yungerman1 – What does that mean? The view of science is part of Torah according to the Rambam. Ma’aseh Bereishis is the natural sciences in his opinion.
gaw- im getting modded on this thread, even though im actually keeping my cool. dont know why.
“I guarantee the Rambam did not learn American history.”
Nonsense. How could you say such a thing? The holy tzadik, the Rambam, didn’t know American history? The Rambam was a baki in kol haTorah kuloh, he knew all of Torah backwards and forwards. And just as Chazal must have known correct history, medicine, biology, astronomy, physiscs, philosophy, zoology, jurisprudence, and child psychology because they were beki’im in Torah and had a masorah from Sinai, so too the Rambam must have known American history from his intensive study of Torah. After all, EVERYTHING is in the text of the Torah, is it not?
I’ll stop now. My tongue is virtually bursting through my cheek.
RSRH –
You weren’t by any chance being sarcastic there, were you?
Just a bit.
But to be serious, I’m not sure what the Rambam’s learning or not learning has anything to do with TuM. If the fact that the Rambam didn’t study American History is meant to imply that neither should we, then we should all study Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy, Islamic jurisprudence, Greek medicine and astronomy, and Roman histories because the Rambam most certainly did study those disciplines.
(Don’t get me wrong, Greek philosophy, Roman histories, and Islamic jurisprudence are great – but I can’t speak to Greek medicine or astronomy since I’ve never studied those myself).
Toi,
What if someone called rav Shach ” that shach guy ” ? You’d be upset. So, why is is ok to call Rabbi Lamm n lamm? Because you disagree with him?
Because in MO literature, they frequently refer to rishonim and acharonim by their last name (ex. Isserlis), so they must think it is ok.
Mods, in many pieces of MO literature, they follow the standards for writing, which means writing the last name of the author, not the name of the book or any title. If a teshuva is written, or a personal letter, they write the correct title.
RSRH: lol
no no. i appreciate 80s excuse but i disagree with his appropriation by calling mr. lamm an acharon, and if R Mordche Gifter Ztl called him that i can too. the man insulted gedolei yisroel, bnei torah, and all they stand for. He called them cavemen; i can call him lamm.
The only cave Rabbi Lamm was referring to was the cave of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai (RSBY).
The cave of RSBY was a major theme with Rabbi Lamm from many decades back. I found a paper by Rabbi Lamm about RSBY and the cave from 40-50 years ago.
From a more recent writing by Rabbi Lamm, he believes everyone should spend at least one year in the “cave”. I personally disagree on this specific point.
“and if R Mordche Gifter Ztl called him that i can too.”
Actually, no you cant. You are not R’ Gifter.
apushitayid- if R Gifter said it we can, too; he wouldnt have said it in public unless he held it was emes li’amitoh. Mr. lamms torah hashkafos and views cant hold water if he expressly ridicules and berates It’s most dedicated followers. go jump in a lake.
Everyone defines Torah Umadda differently. Rabbi Rakefet Shlit”a says it means the same thing as “Torah Vo’daas”- Torah and secular learning.
Rav Gifter went to YU
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.