Jonathan Rosenblum had written an article on the Noah Feldman story that was taken by many as a slam against modern Orthodoxy as a whole. He was severely criticized for it by the many who commented on the piece and he has written a response.
Without getting into each of the elements of either of his essays, there is one area that deserves to be scrutinized. And that is his attitude with respect to Torah U’Mada (TuM). and Torah Im Derech Eretz (TIDE).
It is interesting to note that he considers himself an adherent of Torah Im Derech Eretz. By living in
Jonathan clearly rejects Torah U’mada as a legitimate Hashkafic option. From cross currents:
But my views on Rabbi Lamm’s theories of Torah U’Madda are a matter of public record. In the March 1992 issue of Jewish Observer, I reviewed Rabbi Lamm’s Torah U’Madda, in what was at the time likely the longest article the JO had ever published. Three years later Rabbi Mayer Schiller published a rebuttal in the Torah U’Madda Journal. I spent a full month of my life writing a lengthy (over thirty-pages, if I recall) rejoinder to Rabbi Schiller, and dealing, inter alia, with Rabbi Lamm’s concept of Madda as textless Torah. The then editor of the Torah U’Madda Journal professed himself thrilled that his publication would be the forum for such a spirited debate, which would surely draw attention to the Journal. But he was ultimately ordered not to publish my piece.
I never saw that article or the rebuttal. And more importantly, to the best of my knowledge, Jonathan’s 30 page rejoinder has yet to see the light of day.
This is obviously a subject near and dear to my heart. I am an adherent of the Torah U’Mada Hashkafa. And Dr. Lamm’s book, Torah U’Madda was a beautiful exposition on the subject. It gave various Hashkafic models that could be used as a basis for the Hashkafa of TuM. One of the models he used was Rav Hirsch’s Torah Im Derech Ertez.
The truth is that Torah U’Madda does in fact not have a universally agreed upon definition. But it does have certain features that all adherents agree upon. My own view is primarily that of my Rebbe, Rav Aaron Soloveichik, but is not limited to it. His views and can be found in the two chapters so titled in his book, Logic of the Heart, Logic of the Mind.
Dr. Lamm has truly illuminated and broadened this Hashkafa for me in his classic work. I do not, however, think Dr. Lamm ever intended his book to be the last word on the subject. In fact after discussing the various models he chooses a favorite. But it is evident that he doesn’t mean it in any other way than as a personal preference as he explains why he chose it. I remember when I first read the book, I liked some of the other models better than the one he chose. Be that as it may, all of his models have legitimacy and contribute to my Hashkafa.
I have written on this subject before... far too many times to link to. But what has never been really discussed are the exact definitions... and the clear differences between... Torah U’Madda and Torah Im Derech Eretz. There has yet to be complete clarity on this issue.
I have always viewed the two Hashkafos in a very similar light. But a lot depends of course on how each is defined.
Very breifly I define the two as follows (and I welcome any and all modifications and/or additions):
TuM looks at Torah and Mada as two distinct disciplines each one having its own validity and deserving of independent study. The Torah has primacy but Mada, the study of worldly knowledge is nearly as worthy because in essence you are studying God’s works via the agency of all the accumulated knowledge of mankind.
TIDE looks at secular studies in a more utilitarian way. And it does not study all areas of wordly knowledge. It limits study to just those areas that enhance one’s Torah knoweldge and Torah lifestyle. On the other hand, TuM does not look at any area of study as illegitimate and values all knowledge as ultimately contributing to Torah in some way.
In both Hashkafos, there is an appreciation and acceptance of the positive values available from the outside culture, as long as it advances ones Avodas HaShem.
As I understand TIDE there is agreement with TuM that that one can achieve a fuller appreciation of the God and his Torah through the study of Mada. But to TIDE such a study is an integrated one whereas in TuM it is not.
There is no better way to forward one’s philosophy than to present it with clarity and I think that clarity is one of the things missing in the debate.
It would be off great value if Jonathan Rosenblum were to publish his rejoinder to Rabbi Schiller. In fact it would be of great service to see all the articles published on the subject thus far in the Jewish Observer and the Torah U’Mada Journal along with Jonathan’s rejoinder. This would be a very valuable debate in my view.
