- This topic has 81 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Rav Gifter went to YU
And sent his kids there. No, wait. He didn’t.
Toi, +10!!
ZD, At the time that R’ Gifter learned in YU, there was nowhere else to learn in the US practically. He came from a background where he went to public school and had limudei kodesh after that. This was big progress in those days because there wasn’t anything else for someone his age.
AFTER he went to YU, he went to Telshe in Europe. It is there that his philosophies were further shaped, not simply from his YU days.
What about Rav Bick and Rav Bulman to name a few of many top Rabbonim.
“if R Gifter said it we can, too;”
If you hold yourself to be on the level of Rav Gifter, then I guess it is OK for you to say that. What’s next, a post from you calling Rav Yonasan Eibesitz some choice adjectives, for after all, if the Yaavetz could, so could you.
“Each alone is true, but only partially true”
Are you telling me that the Torah is partially true? Then that, to me, is Kefira. If you are telling me that I cannot fully understand Torah without a good understanding of Mada, then that make sense to me.
Rav Gifter went to YU
What about Rav Bick and Rav Bulman to name a few of many top Rabbonim.
And what about Reish Lakish who was a highway robber?
Torah U’Madda has many meanings.
What I would like to see is a good definition of full time learning.
I would like to see full time learning reserved for those whose diligence matches those in other serious professions such as medicine or law.
Josh31: Well said. As a law student, I can only say that my ability to diligently learn Torah has only been enhanced by the realization that the typical law student can go 4-6 weeks studying without any real breaks for 10-20 hours a day, without weekend breaks. That’s hasmada!
MDG: Rabbi Lamm does not mean parts of Torah are untrue, God forbid.
What I believe R. Dr. Lamm meant is that everything in the Torah is true, but the Torah itself, as we know it, does not contain all the Truth that’s out there. Some of God’s Truth (i.e., the fabric out of which the world is fashioned and in accordance to which the world runs, and based on which people should act) is revealed to us in the Torah – sometimes explicitly other times implicitly. But that is not ALL the Truth. Some Truths are not revealed in the Torah, but instead were left to mankind to discover over time. These Truths are the “maadah” half of Torah U’maadah, and the “derech eretz” part of Torah im Derech Eretz. These Truths are uncovered by biologists, politicians, historians, psychologists, doctors, lawyers, philosophers, engineers, mathematicians, chemists, generals, ect.
By combining our knowledge of Torah Truths and Derech Eretz (or maadah) Truths (always using the Torah’s guidelines to determine what aspects of the non-Torah world are indeed True), we come to a fuller and more complete understanding of the Whole Truth.
RSRH: What is the purpose of knowing the whole truth? The only truth which should matter us is our connection with God; which is in essence the “real” truth, since this materialistic world is considered by Chaza”l as the “Oilam Hasheker”. If the God felt it was important for us to know this “whole truth” which you describe, then He would have revealed it to us [and the previous generations] through the Torah itself.
Hashem gave us both. I don’t see a problem. The more I have read about scientific discoveries, the more awestruck I am by how incredible Hashem’s world was created by Him.
Lomed: OR, if God wanted to do a chessed for us by obligating us to know His full Truth, he would have given us the ability to use our intellectual and creative powers to discover that Truth (and become better people in the process), and would have given us the Torah to show us how to discover the Truth in the world around us, and how to distinguish between Truth and falsehood.
Oh wait, that’s exactly what He did.
RSRH: Do you mean to infer that the sages of previous generations have not fulfilled the ultimate “Shleimus” in their lives since they were lacking in their knowledge of the “full truth” which is known in our times?
Yes, God gave the intellectual capability to mankind to discover all the scientific knowledge which has been recently discovered [and I believe it was Divine providence that it be discovered in our times], however God did not state in the Torah that in order for us to reach full “Shleimus” we need to use our minds to discover the full scientific truth of the universe.
Toi: (In reply to “Apushatayid”.) Just to enhance your point about “Rabbi” Lamm. If he refers to Rishonim and Gedolei ha’Achronim with their last name, he demonstrates an extreme lack of Yiras Shomayim and Yiras hakavod in addition to his other “Maasim Tovim”. Then he can, at the very least be referred to by his last name. IMHO, he is no better than the cardinal of Paris, Lustigier having Semicha and (still) considering himself to be a good Jew.
RSRH: So what he means is that there are true things which are not contained in the torah?
You mean like the fact that I am typing on my computer now is not in the torah, but is true?
I think we can all agree to that.
Now, I’m not sure we should equate true with valuable, since the knowledge that I am currently typing on a computer is not very valuable (except to Joseph).
So if he argues secular knowledge is valuable (or as I suspect, he argues it is necessary), then the value must come from something besides its being “true.”
RSRH-
If you equate the ideology of “U’madda” with that of TIDE then you are not worthy of your screen name. I assure you that Rabbiner Hirsch did not ascribe to what you wrote- though it is explicitly found in the works of Dr. Lamm. You should not confuse the two.
RSRH- look in artscrolls biography of R Shamshon ztl. itll explain your error.
Metrodriver: That is not a fair complaint. You write to your audience. Rabbi Lamm has an academic audience. Using non-standard referencing (to an academic audience) would be entirely out of place. Just like you wouldn’t speak in Hebrew to someone who only understands English, so too he is talking in his audience’s language.
sam2- it is a fair complaint. a certain respect for the greatest gedolim of all time should take precedence over catering to an audience.
the fact that such an underlying, obvious nekuda is overlooked by him testifies as to the esteem we hold him in. claim what you want. he should be a jew first; an academic second.
Toi –
That makes no sense. If he would not talk like an academic then they wouldn’t respect the rishonim anyway. Now that he talks that way there’s a chance. So he should be moser nefesh to use the terms accepted in the yeshivishe velt? For what? Shtusim.
yit- its not our job to go round up support and respect for rishonim. it IS our job to accord them the proper respect, and these excuses dont hold water. what i mean to point out is the underlying nekuda; you wouldnt catch R Shmuel Kamenetsky shlita refering to rishonim that way, because it simply doesnt befit them. im not advocating talking yeshivish (whatever exactly that means in this particular case) rather, being a mentsch.
Popa: If R. Lamm says something which “we can all agree to” why is it a matter of controversy?
Toi: Just because it’s a lack of respect from our standards doesn’t make it a lack of respect to everyone else’s. What if his audience would see not referring to the Rishonim by their academic names as a lack of respect for the author because you’re going against convention? I don’t see following convention as ever being inherently insulting.
It’s like a Sephardi I know once got offended when I referred to the Yeshivah as Poras Yosef (with both words Mil’eil). But if I would call it Porat Yosef (Mil’ra) in conversation with my Ashkenazi friends it might sound funny. It changing how you talk to a Sephardi insulting the Yeshivah by not referring to it the same way as I would refer to it in normal conversation? Adjusting how you speak for your audience is just what you do to get your point across. It is never inherently insulting or derogatory. Do you honestly think for a second that if he was giving a Shiur or talking in private that Rabbi Lamm would refer to the Rashba as anything but “The Rashba”? If you think otherwise then you don’t know enough about Rabbi Lamm to accurately accuse him of anything.
Toi:
If you want to start a new thread regarding Rabbi Dr. Lamm (and the “Speech”, feel free. Don’t hijack this one.
As far as the points (as per my understading of Rav Moshe Shapiro): Torah contains the blueprint of the briyah. “Nistakel B’Oraysah U’Bara Alma”. Some, like Avraham Avinu, were able to “reverse engineer” the Torah based on the Briyah. Some (for arguements sake, lets say Shlomo HaMelech) are able to understand the Briyah via the blueprint. Almost all (those not on the level of Avraham Avinu or Shlomo) are unable to understand one from the other. Therefore they need both sources, as they complement each other.
Arguing with Toi over this is pointless. He is determined to attack R’ Dr. Lamm as much as he can. He will quote R’ Gifter ad nauseum to do so.
Just because R’ Gifter said something does NOT give you the right to do so as well. Many Rabbonim have attacked other Rabbonim over the years. The Gra attacked the Baal Shem Tov and the early chassidim. The Rambam was attacked. Many things were said about them. Does that mean we can attack Chassidishe Rebbes and the Rambam now? Do we have a right to say the Besht was a kofer just because the Gra did? Of course not!
When my rabbi needs to understand something in order to give a psak, he speaks to engineers. He doesn’t crack open a chumash.
If you want to start a new thread regarding Rabbi Dr. Lamm (and the “Speech”, feel free. Don’t hijack this one.
But Lamm IS torah umadda!
There was nobody defining what it was before he did! And he is the leader of the institution which espouses it! You cannot detach torah umadda from Lamm.
Rav Shach was not a fan of Chassdim
Does that mean we can quote Rav Shach on that topic?
Sam 2; (In response to my post about Dr. Norman Lamm.) That is precisely my point. He writes with clinical detachment about the Rishonim and the Achronim in order to be on par with his audience. That clearly demonstrates a lack of awe for those pillars of Torah. As another poster elaborated more on this subject. Then, there’s only one conclusion one can draw from this. Namely. That he (Dr. Lamm) does not have one ounce of Yiras Shomayim. As a consequence, I can consider him to be a Professor of Biblical studies, but never a Rav.
Rav Shach was not a fan of Chassdim
Does that mean we can quote Rav Shach on that topic?
Yes.
Also, I think he was specifically not a fan of a particular chassidus.
Metrodriver: And I say again, listen to him give a Shiur, a Schmooze, or even a D’var Torah and try and honestly say that he doesn’t have Yiras Shamayim. You can’t. You’re basing your opinion of him as a Jew on something he did as an academic. That would be like reading the Rambam’s treatise on logic and saying he doesn’t have Yiras Shamayim because he didn’t refer to the Gemara and Chumash as being above all else in it. It’s ridiculous. You can’t judge a person based off of something for which you weren’t its intended audience.
For whatever it’s worth, in my opinion, it’s unreasonable to think that you can determine the respect that one individual has for another by looking at the way in which he refers to him.
Obviously, if I refer to somebody as “Harav Hagaon XYZ” or “that bum, Finkelstein” this would not apply. But most instances of reference to individuals are not that blatant. Confidence in your ability to read somebody else’s (Rabbi Dr. Lamm’s) mind is a display of unwarranted haughtiness.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.