Home Home / Torah U-Madda: A Critique of Rabbi Dr. …

Article

March 1992

Torah U-Madda: A Critique of Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm's Book and Its Approach to Torah Study and the Pursuit of Secular Knowledge (1992)

Modern Orthodoxy & the Charedim
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.

RELATED CONTENT

Note

Torah Umadda: Centrist Orthodoxy - Re: Haredi Provincialism (1989)

The January 13, 1989 edition of Per Yid, the Satmar organ (which announces itself as the "Voice of American Orthodox Jewry"), carries an article on page 45 by a Rabbi Landsman, one of a series on, "The Trials of the New Generation." In this particular column, which otherwise has certain perceptive ideas on Talmud education, we read some rather astounding things about this group's formulation of the trials and temptations of being a Jew in the modern world. This particular article is directed to a relatively large amount of publication of halakhic works by people of suspect ideological purity. The Satmar Rebbe taught that no volume of pure Halakhah, even if it does not contain any questions of ideology, may be used if the author is not one of the "in-group," that is, those who identify with their brand of Orthodoxy. In the previous issue of Per Yid, in the article by the same author in this series, he tells of the late Tzehlemer Rav, Rabbi Levi Greenwald, who in the middle of a sheur asked a student to bring him a classic halakhic work (Shitah Mekubetzet on Pesahim), and when the student brought it he noticed that it was a fairly new volume, and he asked who issued it. The student answered that it was a Gershuni (the rabbinic title was removed from the story, although Rabbi Yehuda Gershuni has been prominent for ears as a distinguished talmudic scholar). The Tzehlemer Rav inquired whether this ws the same Gershuni who was active in Mizrachi, the organization of religious Zionism, and when the answer was affirmative he asked that the book be taken out immediately. When the student returned and the rabbi asked him what he did with the volume, and the student replied that he put it with the Shemot—the scraps of sacred literature that are prepared for being discarded and buried—the rabbi was alarmed and said, "No, that is not good enough; I want it out of this house altogether..." How does one examine the religious credentials of standard halakhic works which are otherw…
Modern Orthodoxy & the Charedim

Note

חומר להרצאות ושיעורים (1993)

חומר להרצאות ושיעורים: 1. תורה ומדע – מהתוי״י: "כולא עלמא כהלולא דמיא". כמו בחופה – אם לא אמר החתן "הרי את", הרי כולם טורפים ואוכלים ולא נעשה דבר. כך גם ב"כולא עלמא": אם אין כאן "הרי את" – כלומר ברית, מחויבות, קשר מהותי – בין האדם לאלוקיו, אז כל החיים הם נטולי משמעות. כך גם לגבי תורה ומדע – למדע על כל ענפיו יש ערך ומשמעות, אבל רק כשיש ביסודו את ה"הרי את" של תורה לשמה – את המחויבות של תלמוד תורה לשם שמיים. 2. אורתודוקסיה מודרנית – (מדודי הרי״מ בוימל שליט״א): בחומש מסופר שמשה עשה מנורה אחת, ואילו במלכים מסופר ששלמה עשה עשר מנורות. מדוע? כי המשכן היה עשוי יריעות, ולא היה מקור אור חיצוני – כך שמנורה אחת הספיקה כמקור לאור עליון. אך בבית המקדש של שלמה, שבו היו חלונות שקופים – האור מבחוץ חדר פנימה, ואם היה מדליק רק מנורה אחת, לא היה ניכר כלל אור הקדושה. לכן היה צורך בעשר מנורות – כדי שאור התורה והקדושה יאיר ויורגש. כך גם בזמננו – בחברה שאין בה תרבות כלל, די בקצת תורה כדי להאיר. אבל בחברה שיש בה מדע, תרבות, טכנולוגיה, והשכלה כללית – יש צורך פי כמה וכמה בתורה כדי שאורה יוכר ויורגש. כלומר, בחברה מודרנית יש צורך בעשר מידות של תלמוד תורה – לא באחת בלבד. 3. בכלל – השאיפה היא למצוינות (excellence). מה שאמרתי לגבי הפסוק: "ונתתי עשב בשדך לבהמתך ואכלת ושבעת... השמרו לכם פן יפתה לבבכם וסרתם" – אם יש לכם שאיפות קטנות, כך שאתם מסתפקים ושבעים מעשב – שהוא מאכל בהמה – אז אתם בסכנה של עבודה זרה, שהיא מאכל־בהמה של הנפש.
Torah Umadda Modern Orthodoxy & the Charedim

Article

The Mandate to Promote Kiddush Shem Shamayim (1994)

I. Of Over-Confidence and Setbacks: Every unusual, seemingly inexplicable occurrence that befalls Klal Yisroel, Chazal say, must have some sort of initial cause, with a lesson to teach us. Thus, the violation of Dena by Shechem (see Bereishis, Chap. 24), so contrary to the values and conduct of Yaakov Avinu’s family, must have come from some earlier weakness. Indeed, the Midrash points out that the misfortune befell Yaakov because he had transgressed the principle: אל תתהלל ליום מרוד—“Do not be sure of yourself in regard to the morrow” (Mishlei 27:1). When Yaakov had arranged the terms for his tending Lavan’s sheep, he set up a number of safeguards to protect Lavan’s property from embezzlement, adding, “My integrity will answer for me on the morrow” (Bereishis 30:33). According to Rabbi Yehuda ben Rav Shimon, G-d responded: “You are so assured of your integrity on the morrow. On the morrow your daughter will be violated.” This may seem difficult. After all, as long as Yaakov was in Lavan’s employ, his devotion and integrity were so exemplary that Yaakov emerged as the paradigm of Emes, to be eternally identified with this attribute. Yet Yaakov was still faulted. His self-assurance somehow implied a relaxing of his guard against a lack of adherence to principle. As a result, his family ultimately suffered a major breach in its integrity. Like Passengers Aboard a Sinking Ship vorably on our Torah institutions. Unfortunately, we cannot proudly declare: “My integrity will answer for me” on this morrow. Reading the Report of the Nunn Commission on the misappropriation of government funds by certain educational institutions, we cannot shrug off the smear against us by saying, “It was that institution... their actions.” The Chillul Hashem must be borne by all of us, for the status of all Torah students has fallen. This affects us all. As Targum Yonasan ben Uziel says in regard to the command, “Do not steal”: “Do not be friends or partners with thieves, lest your children …
Modern Orthodoxy & the Charedim