5

What exactly is "Torah Im Derech Eretz" and "Torah Umada." I am not looking for a translation but rather an explanation of Yeshiva University's philosophy regarding these things. What are the differences between these two things? Is there are difference? What are the exact philosophies here?

Furthermore: What is Rav Hershel Schachter's opinion on all of this?

Isaac Moses
  • 48,026
  • 13
  • 119
  • 333
Hacham Gabriel
  • 16,613
  • 61
  • 84
  • 1
    Be aware Yeshiva University may have different views about this than other institutions/movements and may even have different views among its Roshei Yeshiva. – Double AA Jan 01 '12 at 03:10
  • 2
    For a comprehensive study of the issue from the gemara on see Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm's "Torah Umadda" available at http://www.amazon.com/Torah-Umadda-Norman-Lamm/dp/1592643094 – Double AA Jan 01 '12 at 03:11
  • I am aware (15 characters)... – Hacham Gabriel Jan 01 '12 at 03:12
  • @DoubleAA I am looking for Rav Herschel's Schechter's opinion in writing. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 01 '12 at 03:25
  • That's R' "Hershel Schachter." It's my uninformed impression that RHS is more a talmudist/halachist and less a philosopher. But someone closer to him feel free to refute that. Torah uMadda is a slogan. I think it's meant to be open-ended, as evidenced by the number of interpretations even in R' Lamm's own book. As for Torah im Derech Eretz, there's R' SR Hirsch's conception, and then there are various peshatim on that expression in Avos, and... I presume you mean RSRH [http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/6224/ideology-of-r-s-r-hirsch] ? – yitznewton Jan 01 '12 at 03:57
  • I heard that he does not hold of the philosophy of YU at all and has a totally different one, probably more similar to the Chofetz Chaim one. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 01 '12 at 04:31
  • I heard the following from R' H. Schechter referring to Torah Umadda: The Rav had one fault- he thought everyone was like him. – YDK Jan 01 '12 at 06:26
  • @ydk was that supposed to be ambiguous? Because it was. – yitznewton Jan 01 '12 at 13:54
  • 2
    @yitznewton, Sorry, that was a quote. To paraphrase the discussion that followed, Rav Soloveichik did hold that studying secular knowledge makes a better ben torah than one who studies only Torah, but RHS said that was true for someone with RYDS's abilities. For (the vast majority of?) his talmidim, this was not the case. – YDK Jan 01 '12 at 16:12

1 Answers1

6

Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet suggests the following distinctions between Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch's Torah Im Derech Eretz and Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveichik's Torah UMada.

  • Torah im derech eretz. Civilization integrated into religious worldview.

    • This is an ideal. Ask me, "what should I study?" Your religious studies should be helped by civilization.
    • This encompasses study of the humanities. A person could know partial differential equations from today until tomorrow, but if they've never studied literature then they're missing out on their religious experience!
    • Secular studies are only useful in that they can be integrated with a religious worldview. Philosophies for which there is simply no room in Judaism should not be studied. In the Hirschean educational model, the math and history teachers could either be observant Jews, or non-Jews. But there was no place for non-observant Jews' views -- as it was really all one integrated curriculum.

  • Torah *u*Madda -- both Torah and knowledge of the outside world.

    • Maybe in a totally theoretical sense a person could be a shoemaker in Meah Shearim and study only Torah and shoemaking, and not need any broader education. "But on a practical level, we have to engage the outside world, and if we're going to do so anyhow, let it be on the level of the New York Times and not the New York Daily News."
    • Any advanced secular study -- math, engineering, physical or social sciences, humanities -- is engaging the world in this way and thus commendable.
    • You study Torah, and then you study the outside world. Even if the outside world includes challenges. When students complained to Rabbi Soloveichik of a secular-studies class they were taking that challenged some Orthodox beliefs, he replied "you have to have two heads, what's the problem?" (Though he later addressed some of these challenges in his lectures.)

Rabbi Schachter's view, as I understand it from hearing a few of his lectures, could be called a practical-minded intersection of the two. He appears to have a mixed view on the theoretical value of fine arts ("we got tickets to the Symphony, it was a German composer. Everyone else said it was so inspiring, I could see the Nazis marching, I could feel the wickedness!") But he understands in a very real way that people need decent educations, if nothing else to earn a living, as well as to understand reality so that halacha can be applied to it. He will frequently cite general history as a source of lessons. On the other hand he sees little value in a dual curriculum requiring studies such as the New Testament (other than perhaps a history course which may occasionally cite a line or two to provide historical context). When challenged by the precedent of such a curriculum, he admitted "I say it was wrong then, and it's wrong now."

Shalom
  • 132,602
  • 8
  • 193
  • 489
  • 1
    This is totally against the Zohar Mishpatim 123a. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 01 '12 at 15:58
  • @HachamGabriel, What is? Torah Im Derech Eretz, Torah u'Madda, or R' Schachter's view? – jake Jan 01 '12 at 16:51
  • @jake I think all of them. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 01 '12 at 16:53
  • @jake the Zohar prohibits the taking of other books and using them to explain or even aid Torah study. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 01 '12 at 17:00
  • 1
    @HachamGabriel, That seems a bit hypocritical. :) – jake Jan 01 '12 at 17:09
  • @HachamGabriel, But seriously, would you mind linking to somewhere where I can read the Zohar? I can't find it in the copies on HebrewBooks. – jake Jan 01 '12 at 17:10
  • @jake LOL... Rabbi Yehuda meant books that don't completely coincide with the Torah. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 01 '12 at 17:10
  • Actually it was Rabbi Hiya and 123b – Hacham Gabriel Jan 01 '12 at 17:14
  • @jake http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51126&st=&pgnum=616&hilite= – Hacham Gabriel Jan 01 '12 at 17:18
  • @HachamGabriel, Thanks! But in this link, it is said in the name of R' Chiya, not R' Yehuda. Also, it is very interesting that he learns this from "ושם אלהים אחרים לא תזכירו". I wonder how he gets it from there. – jake Jan 01 '12 at 17:29
  • @jake if you look 3 comments up you will see I corrected it. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 01 '12 at 17:41
  • @HachamGabriel, I just want to point out that this is one of those things that we were talking about last week. If you look at the Zohar as a kabbalistic text, then I fail to understand how it can have any halachic authority whatsoever. If we think of something as permitted halachically, or even encouraged, one cannot point to kabbala as a reason that it should be forbidden, as kabbala is by definition a non-practical body of knowledge. – jake Jan 01 '12 at 18:00
  • @jake the Bet Yosef brings down Halacha many times from the Zohar. Example: Tefilin on Hol HaMoed. As I always say, we bring down halachot all the time from the Zohar even the Yalkut Yosef. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 01 '12 at 19:21
  • @HachamGabriel, I am not saying that poskim do not give weight to the Zohar. I am just saying that I do not understand how they can do so. – jake Jan 01 '12 at 20:37
  • @jake because the Zohar isn't only Kabala or most other Kabbala books. The Zohar has Kabbala in it, but it also has what we would call today chumros. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 01 '12 at 20:38
  • @HachamGabriel, דאסור אפי' לאדכרא לון ולמילף מנייהו טעמא כ"ש על אורייתא sounds like more than what we would call today "a chumra". – jake Jan 01 '12 at 21:11
  • @jake you but the actual idea of following the Zohar is a Humra regardless of the language used. – Hacham Gabriel Jan 02 '12 at 00:14
  • let us continue this discussion in chat – Hacham Gabriel Jan 02 '12 at 03:04
  • Shalom, did you hear personally from Rabbi Rakeffet what you quote in his name? Did you hear it in his name? Did you read it in a written source? I would appreciate finding out what his original written source was, if there is one. – b a Dec 28 '12 at 05:49
  • @ba, I heard it in one of his mp3s on yutorah (would have to do a lot of digging to track which one), and then again in-person at a lecture he gave. – Shalom Dec 28 '12 at 11:32
  • @Shalom https://www.ou.org/torah/machshava/19-letters/introduction-part-4/ – hazoriz Jul 12 '19 at 20:08