Home Home / Exchange with David Shulman about Moder…

Correspondence

July-August 1990

Exchange with David Shulman about Modern Education and Chazal's View of Science (1990)

Torah Umadda Jewish Education

1. David Shulman to R. Lamm

1. David Shulman to R. Lamm (July 20, 1990)

1. David Shulman to R. Lamm (July 20, 1990)

View The Text

This content is currently available in its original PDF format. As we expand the library, we plan to add a text version as well.

Next Letter

RELATED CONTENT

Interview

Torah and Secular Knowledge: An Interview with Dr. Norman Lamm (1990)

Jewish Review: Dr. Lamm, what is the problem of Torah-U-Madda (Torah and Secular Knowledge) and why is it necessary to present a halakhic and philosophical defense of this concept? Dr. Lamm: Let me begin by providing you with one perspective on this problem. The highest ideal or the highest value in Judaism is talmud Torah, the study of Torah. The obverse of this value is, therefore, also true: that a major infraction is bitul Torah or the wasting of time that should otherwise be used for the study of Torah. The consequence of this principle would appear to be that one must use all of one’s available time for the study of Torah and this would seem to rule out any other kind of cognitive activity such as the study of history, philosophy, science, astronomy, etc. It is for this reason that secular study presents a problem. It presents a problem, of course, only for those who are inside the Torah community, those who are within the halakhic fraternity. People who are outside of this fraternity have no problem with secular learning. For them, we might say, the problem is “Who needs Torah?” But for those of us who are committed to Torah, we are automatically faced with the question of what to do with all other areas in the cognitive universe, all knowledge other than Halakha. A similar problem confronts even those who are committed to a “Torah only” point of view. This is because once they have ruled out all so-called secular and profane learning, then they must confront the question of whether all Jewish learning is good or whether certain types of Jewish learning are to be preferred over others. There are those, for example, who will learn nothing but Halakha and who regard everything outside of Halakha not as strictly forbidden, but as not really appropriate for the educational elite.Jewish Review: You state that you and your second generation American peers at Yeshiva University have been far more concerned, and al times even critical, of the confluence of Jewish an…
Torah Umadda

Correspondence

Exchange with David Shulman about "Torah Umadda" and the Concept of Rabbinic Infallibility (1990)

Dear Rabbi Lamm, I have just had the great pleasure of reading your Torah Umadda. I very much enjoyed reading a book that presented a spectrum of viewpoints in Torah thought, as opposed to championing one brand as the only genuine approach; I enjoyed your creative approach to Hasidic thought, and your comparative analysis of that and Rav Kook's approach; I enjoyed your bold and radical formulations, and that you did not allow a fear of misinterpretation to blunt your analysis (and, similarly, that you did not allow the spirit of apologetic reactionism to smother your thought); and I enjoyed the fact that your intellectual analysis was not intimidated by the greatness of the men you discussed (I found your characterization of R. Hirsch's approach as "bourgeois" especially interesting, because when I was studying in Monsey's Ohr Somayach some years ago, I one day realized that the yeshiva was espousing a view of life that I then termed "Torah bourgeois.") I have been lately moved to characterize Orthodoxy as the use of lies to support truth, and I found your book, in regard to this, singularly refreshing and un-orthodox - i.e., honest Torah conceptual thought characterized by integrity and substance. This is not to say that I agreed with everything you said, but rather that I agreed with the spirit in which it was said. In regard to one of the concerns that I felt your book hinted at, I would like to ask you the question: What is emunas chachamim - in regard to Chazal, through Rishonim and Achoronin, and to our day? I have asked this question in right-wing circles, where this concept is stressed so dogmatically, yet no one I have spoken to has known (or seemed to care) exactly what it is; in fact, I was sometimes given the impression that asking exactly what emunas chachamim is constitutes lack of it. (One rabbi responded, "It will make you happy to say that Rashi made a mistake?") For me, this is not an academic, theoretical question. It is central to my concerns, a…
General Jewish Thought Torah Umadda

Correspondence

Exchange with R. Filber about His Questions on "Torah Umadda" (1998)

לכבוד מכובדי הרב נחום ד"ר לאם שליט"א, נשיא וראש ישיבת יצחק אלחנן בעיר נוי יורק בגולת ארה"ב. ברכת שלום בהוקרה וידידות מארץ הקודש! ספרו 'תורה ומדע' במהדורתו העברית בא לידי וקראתי בו בעיון ובהנאה רבה, ההתרשמות מהספר היתה לא רק מאומץ הלב להציג את הנושא השנוי במחלוקת ללא מורא וללא משוא פנים אלא בעיקר מהיקף החומר והעמקה בתכניו ביושר אינטלקטואלי, על ההנאה העיונית הזאת באתי להודות לכבודו ולאחל לו ברכת שמים בכל מעשי ידיו וימלא ה' כל משאלות לבו לטובה. אמנם כאשר שהיתי לפני שנה בישיבתכם שבנוי יורק לא אסתייע לי מילתא להפגש עם כבודו ולקיים עמו שיחה אישית, אבל פיצוי להחמצה זו קבלתי בעת קריאת הספר בה הרגשתי כאילו בעל השמועה מיסב עמי ומשיח בפני את דבריו.
Torah Umadda