Secular study and Torah study

[Post I read recently: R' Elyashiv on Automatic Electricity on Shabbos at Life in Israel]

R' Samson Raphael Hirsch, Religious Education, Collected Writings 7:21 -

"Our children need not forego the benefits of a worthwhile secular education; they need not sacrifice the opportunities for the study of the arts and sciences in order to obtain all the treasures of truth and wisdom that Judaism holds for their lives. If both studies are nurtured hand in hand, there will be ample room for both; the one will reinforce the other and the result will be a Jewish education that will find favor in the eyes of both Gd and man."

Of course, Rav Hirsch has much more to say in this essay - on the value of secular education, on choosing Jewish education if you can only do one, on the way that secular education can help create a stronger Jew. I only excerpted this because it was quick to re-type (Rav Hirsch's style of expression generally doesn't lend itself to tweeting!), and thought-provoking.

What do you think?

Can Torah and Rational Philosophy Co-Exist?

For a class I taught last night on great Jewish forgeries, I prepared material highlighting the contrast between the authentic writings of Rabbeinu Asher (the Rosh) and the Besamim Rosh, Shaul Berlin’s 18th century attempt to ascribe 392 of his own ‘responsa’ to the Rosh.

As part of the class materials, I translated an excerpt from one of the Rosh’s responsa (55:9):

כי חכמת הפילוסופיא וחכמת התורה והמשפטים אינן על דרך אחת. כי חכמת התורה היא קבלה למשה מסיני, והחכם ידרוש בה במדות שנתנה לידרש בהם, ומדמה מילתא למילתא; אע"פ שאין הדברים נמשכים אחר חכמת הטבע, אנו הולכין על פי הקבלה. אבל חכמת הפילוסופיא היא טבעית, וחכמים גדולים היו והעמידו כל דבר על טבעו, ומרוב חכמתם העמיקו שחתו והוצרכו לכפור בתורת משה, לפי שאין כל התורה טבעית, אלא קבלה. ועל זה נאמר: תמים תהיה עם ה' וגו'; כלומר: אפילו יצא לך הדבר חוץ מן הטבע, אל תהרהר על הקבלה, אלא בתמימות התהלך לפניו. לכן אין להביא ראיה מדבריהם, לעשות אות ומופת וגזרות ומשלים על משפטי ה' הישרים. ועל זה אמר החכם: כל באיה לא ישובון, רוצה לומר: כל הבא ונכנס מתחלה בחכמה זו, לא יוכל לצאת ממנה להכנס בלבו חכמת התורה, כי לא יוכל לשוב מחכמה טבעית שהורגל בה, כי לבו תמיד נמשך אחריה. ומחמת זה לא ישיג לעמוד על חכמת התורה, שהיא ארחות חיים, כי יהיה לבו תמיד על חכמת הטבע, ותעלה ברוחו להשוות שתי החכמות יחד, ולהביא ראיה מזו לזו, ומתוך זה יעות המשפט; כי שני הפכים הם, צרות זו לזו, ולא ישכנו במקום אחד.

The wisdom of philosophy and the wisdom of Torah and its laws do not follow the same path. The wisdom of Torah is a tradition received by Moshe from Sinai, and the scholar will analyze it via the methods assigned for its analysis, comparing one matter and another. Even where this approach does not follow intuitive (lit. “natural”) wisdom, we follow the tradition. Philosophical wisdom is intuitive, though, with great scholars who established intuitive arguments, and in their great wisdom they dug deeper and corrupted (Hosheia 9:9) and needed to deny the Torah of Moshe, for the Torah is entirely non-intuitive and revelatory.

Regarding this it is stated, ‘You shall be pure with HaShem your Gd,’ meaning that even if something is counter-intuitive, you should not doubt the received tradition, but walk before Him in purity. Therefore, you should not bring proof from the words of the philosophers, to make a sign or argument or parable against the just laws of Gd.

Regarding this the scholar said (Mishlei 2:19), ‘Those who enter it will not return,’ meaning that one who enters this area of wisdom will not be able to leave it and introduce his heart to the wisdom of Torah, for he will not be able to abandon the intuitive approach to which he has become accustomed. His heart will be continually drawn after it, and he will not be able to establish himself in the wisdom of Torah, which is the path of life, for his heart will be perpetually drawn after intuitive. He will try to equate the two wisdoms, and bring proof from one to the other, and so he will warp justice for these are two opposites and rivals which cannot dwell in the same space.

I also posted this as a Daily Torah Thought last week, and received emails wanting to take the discussion further.

So here are my two questions:

1. Agree or Disagree with the Rosh? Why?

2. If you agree – does that mean that a person who receives an education in the approach of reason-based argument and deduction will not be able to accept the revelatory approach of Torah?

Choose a rabbi you can follow

For the past ten years I've been sending out daily "Torah Thought" emails, which I began archiving here one year ago. Occasionally readers reply with questions or comments, and last week I had an interesting exchange with a friend/commenter regarding the role of a rabbi.

The original "Torah Thought" (from Menachot 99b):
"Ben Dama, the nephew of R’ Yishmael, asked R’ Yishmael: I have learned the entire Torah. May someone like me study Greek wisdom?

"R’ Yishmael responded by citing this verse (Joshua 1): ‘This Torah scroll will not leave your mouth, and you will speak of it day and night.’ Go find a time which is neither day nor night, and during that time you may study Greek wisdom."


To which my commenter asked:
Does one truly understand this Gemara to mean that one should not study things other than Torah?, or that it's okay as long as it is not "Greek wisdom" or presumably other philosophy? What is the halacha l'meisah re: this exhortation?

To which I replied:
That, my friend, is one of the truly eternal debates, and the halachah l'maaseh varies among many points of view.

And so my commenter asked:
Given the debate and difference among different knowledgeable people, am I free to choose the view that is most compelling and convincing to me? And, is it then important to be sure that one's Rav sizes up the answer similarly to the one asking the question?


This is where the discussion transcended the specific realm of Torah study vs. secular study and became a general discussion about the rabbi's role:

1) Can I (as student/congregant) choose between valid opinions on my own, or do I need to consult a rabbi?

2) If I need to consult a rabbi, how do I choose one? Or should I be choosing at all - perhaps I should just accept the person the geographic community around me accepts?

To which I would say the following:

First: I believe, per Avot 2:1, that I may not make a decision like the one mentioned above about Torah/secular study on my own; I need the counsel of objective others, or at least an objective other - a rabbinic expert. I am biased by my own preferences, and may not read the sources accurately in making this decision.

Second: I must choose a rabbi rather than follow whoever is around; see Eruvin 47b, which notes that not every rabbi is a good fit for everyone.

Third: So how do I choose a rabbi? I believe that I must choose a rabbi I can follow, meaning one whose orientation and approach is one I can understand and accept. Of course, that orientation and approach must be firmly grounded in Torah sources and in solid mentors, but I must also feel that I will be able to find myself in his Torah, that his guidance will help me grow in Torah.

At the same time, going back to my earlier point, I cannot choose a specific rabbi because his opinions and practices mirror my own. Then I would be my own rabbi - which is as bad as being your own lawyer or barber. Rather, I should choose a rabbi who will, again, help me to grow, even demand that I grow, along a path that is consistent with Torah and with my ideals and personality.

And so I replied:
I'd say we all need an objective Torah voice, someone with nothing to gain and with a view anchored in Torah, to help us answer these questions for ourselves. We are too biased by our own experiences and interests. That person, I'd think, should be one's Rav.

But I'm a rabbi by profession, so maybe I'm biased. What do you think?

Yisrael asks a question; how about you? (Derashah Chayyei Sarah 5769)

A king summoned his noblemen, demanding tribute. The aristocrats met in secret and decided that they would refuse at first, to test the king’s resolve.

When they arrived and the king made his demands, they started to refuse, as planned. Unfortunately, they had underestimated the king’s belligerence; he ordered his guards to execute them on the spot. Two of them were killed before the rest threw themselves at his feet and pledged to pay.

The remaining nobles explained that the executed ones had also meant to pay, and their refusal had just been a bargaining tactic. The king regretted the loss of his funds - which goes to show you, “Don't hatchet your counts before they chicken.”


Avraham, too, is in a bargaining situation as our parshah begins, when he attempts to purchase a burial plot for Sarah - but rather than bargain down, Avraham insists on bargaining up.

The Chiti tribe, dwellers of the area, tell Avraham to take the land for free - and Avraham says, “No, free is no good - I’ll pay full price.”

Efron, owner of the plot, refuses Avraham’s offer. “Free, it has to be free, I won’t take a dime.”
Avraham thinks it over and declines, “No, I can’t do that. I’ll pay full price.”

And so Efron says, “Well, you drive a hard bargain - 400 silver coins, then.” And Avraham gladly pays it.

According to one midrash, Avraham refuses to take free land because he is a man of the world: He knows his neighbors and he understands the way the game is played.

Avraham knows very well what will happen the next day, after he has buried Sarah: Someone is going to complain that the land doesn’t belong to Avraham, that he’s stolen it from them. Then, with Sarah already interred, Avraham will have to pay whatever they demand! So Avraham pre-emptively pays today’s full price.


Contrast Avraham’s savvy with the willful naivete implicit in his son Yitzchak's actions. In next week’s parshah, Avimelech, the Philistine king, guarantees the safety of Yitzchak and his wife, Rivkah. He declares, “If anyone so much as touches this man and his wife, they will be put to death.”

Unlike his father, Yitzchak has never spent the time learning about his neighbors, and so he trusts them and he invests in a major ranching operation. His trust turns out to be misplaced; the Philistines fill in his wells, and tell him to move along.

Yitzchak moves down the road and again sets up shop and digs more wells - only to have the local shepherds co-opt his new wells for themselves, too.


Avraham and Yitzchak take fundamentally different positions regarding their neighbors - Avraham learns their ways, understands them and plays their game, but Yitzchak refrains from playing that game; he doesn’t want to know.

These two paths point to two different ways a Jew can interact with the world around him: Avraham promotes interaction, and Yitzchak remains to himself.

This is not a choice between a right way and a wrong way - Avraham and Yitzchak present two different Jewish orientations, one which views Jewish life as something to be shared through interaction with the greater world and the other which sees its entire existence and validation within the four amot of Torah itself. The one, Avraham, devotes his energies to attracting people to Judaism, whether in Charan or in Chevron. The other, Yitzchak, refuses to get involved.


These two approaches persist in Jewish history. Although at times, in certain societies, one view has gained primacy over the other, each has always had its adherents and each has taken a turn as the dominant Jewish approach.

In the days of the mishnah, under Roman tyranny, the Jews of Eretz Yisrael generally adopted a Yitzchak orientation, prohibiting studying secular philosophy and wearing secular garb, interacting with Roman society only as necessary for political survival. This is the generation in which Rabbi Akiva banned the study of ספרי מינים, the work of heretics - even as other sages went to debate philosophy with Romans at places like בי אבידן.

In 12th century Egypt the Rambam pushed the other way, promoting the ideas of Aristotle within the Torah’s philosophy, and encouraging study of the sciences for people who had already consumed the canon of Torah. But, on the other hand, there were those who pushed back and even wished to ban the Rambam’s works for their non-Jewish content.

Fast-forward to the 18th century and the Vilna Gaon in Lithuania takes the Yitzchak view, criticizing the Rambam’s absorption in Aristotelian thought. Rav Boruch Ber took the same tack a century later, explicitly prohibiting attending college. But the Avraham view persisted in the work of Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch in Germany and Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik in America, as they argued for an understanding of the broader world and a knowledgeable engagement with that broader landscape.


Last week, we hosted a speaker who spoke engagingly, from an academic’s perspective, about the historic evolution of the books we know as Siddur, Sefer Torah and Gemara.

Certainly, a secular academic approach varies, at times, from the approach of a religious scholar; we each bring our own prejudices to the table. But from the perspective of the Avraham vs. Yitzchak debate, a religious Jew has two choices regarding such discussions: We may choose the method of Avraham, engage it and debate it and wrestle with it. Or we may choose the method of Yitzchak, and leave the academics to their own realm. Each approach has a legitimate Jewish pedigree.

I opted to bring in this speaker and have that conversation because, by and large, American Jewry, and certainly Allentonian Jewry, has already opted for an Avraham approach just as strongly as Rabbi Akiva’s Jewry opted for a Yitzchak approach. We read newspapers, we surf the Net, we debate American politics and watch football and basketball and baseball and hockey. This is an approach of openness to the world around us - and if we are going to follow that path, then we had best do so honestly, with a full awareness of what that world has to say about our Torah.


This week, Kiddush is sponsored, in part, in honor of Yisrael Wiener’s new book, “Yisrael Asks a Question.”

I had a chance to look at Yisrael’s book in shul two weeks ago, and then I read samples from it on-line at blurb.com. It’s a great read, presenting questions like, “Mommy, do Native Americans have museums about us?” and “Mommy, did we see that movie in America or in New York?”

There’s a lot we could say about this book, and I’d encourage everyone to take the opportunity to look at it, out in the lobby, after davening. But in the context of our discussion this morning: The Avraham approach mandates that we inquire, that we ask Questions.

Questions are the way we engage the world, the way we express doubt or discomfort or interest. If we choose to live the model of Avraham, if we believe that we are to engage the world, to be involved with the world, then we each need to write a book of our own - “Mordechai asks a question,” “Amram asks a question,” “Mike asks a question.” To hear the ideas of an academic, of the broader world, not necessarily to accept them but to take Avraham’s approach of questioning them and understanding them, and so grow into a greater, deeper, stronger engagement with the world around us.

Thank you, Yisrael, for your book. Yisrael has asked a question; now, it is our turn.


-
Notes:
1. I haven't posted derashot in a while because at this time of year I teach classes after kiddush on Shabbat instead of before minchah, and I have been using the class as the derashah as well.

2. Yisrael Wiener is a second grader at the Jewish Day School of the Lehigh Valley.

3. Sorry for the pun at the start, but I wanted a joke about bargaining. It comes from this site; you can blame them.

4. That midrash on Avraham's purchase is the classic one about our ancestors purchasing three sites in Israel specifially to avoid dispute (lot of good that did us...) - it's found in Bereishit Rabbah 79:7.

5. It seems to me that my explanation of Avraham's refusal to take the land for free also works to explain ואל תאמר אני העשרתי את אברהם, Avraham's refusal to take the spoils of war.

6. This derashah does tie into the approach of our ancestors to civic involvement, as well; see my derashah here. We could also extend the discussion to Yaakov, who takes on the traits of those around him when masking himself as Esav and Lavan, and to Yosef, who learns the ways of the others but triumphs as a נער עברי, specifically.