Torah U'Madda - Rabbi Anthony Manning

5773 - dbhbn ovrct6sxc29. TuM holds that modernity is neither to be uncritically embraced, nor utterly shunned, nor relentlessly fought,but is to be critically engaged from a mature and responsible Torah vantage. It does not assume that all that isnew is good - or bad. It holds that the potential spiritual havoc wrought by confronting the insights and valuesof contemporary Western culture is far less pernicious to the truth of Torah than that caused by ignoring thewhole of man’s cultural heritage and thus not knowing how to deal with at all. .... Blinding oneself to a problemmay be psychologically more comfortable, less taxing and produce less tension, but it is a sure formula fordefeat and tension.ibid p54-530. One should not expose immature students to readings that will overwhelm them and rob them of their faith ...By the same token, one ought not to attempt to introduce 8 year olds to differential equations and thus poisonthem to the beauty of mathematics forever or immerse 10 year olds in the study of abnormal psychology andthus confuse them before they have had a chance to learn normal ways.ibid p206Of course, R. Lamm fully accepts that TuM does not accept uncritically all that modern society promotes as being ofvalue31. We must make it explicit and clear that we are committed to secular studies, including our willingness toembrace all the risks that this implies, not alone because of vocational or social reasons, but because weconsider that it is the will of G-d that there be a world in which the Torah be effective; that all wisdom issuesultimately from the wisdom of the Creator, and therefore it is the Almighty who legitimates all knowledge.Speech by R. Lamm to the OU convention (1967)It must be stressed that many at YU do not see TuM the same way as R. Lamm. Some see it more like Rav Hirsch’s Torahim Derech Eretz. Others see it as simply Torah and secular learning which is needed for parnasa or vocational training.One senior Rav at YU once defined the concept to the YU magazine, the Commentator, as "a yeshiva, mit [sic] a cafeteria,mit [sic] a college, in the same building". Dr. Karen Bacon, Dean of YU's undergraduate Stern College for women,defined Torah u-Madda as, "universal values and knowledge of the world seen through the prism of Torah."vc vkufs vc lupvu vc lupv rnut dc dc ic 32.cf vban v erp ,uctSome raise this mishna in Pirkei Avot and claim that it means that all wisdom is within Torah, so there is no need to turnto secular studies. Whilst the approach of the Vilna Gaon is to see secular chochmah as rooted in Torah (although R.Baruch of Shklov, encouraged by his Rav, the Vilna Gaon translated the geometry of Euclid into Hebrew!) this is not theapproach of all commentators. The Meiri on this mishna understands that it is simply informing us that all Torah issuescan be answered from within Torah - there is no need to turn to other disciplines for Torah answers. But, for example,one cannot learn physics or astronomy from TorahOthers claim that learning Madda is bitul Torah. R. Lamm’s response is that the halacha is not like R. Yishmael whoallowed breaking from Torah only for the purposes of parnasa. The halacha is like Rashbi, that, whilst a person isrequired to know the whole Torah, a person can be yotzei the chiuv Talmud Torah with a minimal amount, day and night(see Part 1). The rest of a person’s time is a balance of TuM, in which Torah is the key and Madda is secondary but ofintrinsic religious value.Ultimately, the key criticism of TuM is not its inherent logic or beauty, nor its faithfulness to the sources or historicalprecedent, but rather whether it is a workable and practical philosophy for the average Modern Orthodox Jew who isnot necessarily an academic. If one is unable to integrate the academic value of Madda, is there any room for TuM?Are we then back to a philosophy which allows secular learning solely for the purposes of parnasa?