Back in 1978 I took a bechinah (IIRC, together with my friend Reb Aaron Berger) with Reb Aharon zt"l for Gush (we were both accepted but did not go) and heard several shiurim from him over the years. That is the sum total of my interactions with him. Nevertheless, there is one manner in which I feel a sense of kindred spirit with him, in the question of what secular area is the one most optimal to synthesize with Torah in the pursuit of TIDE/TUM. That issue is the subject of an indirect disagreement between Reb Aharon (humanities) and ylct"a, Rabbi Dr. Yehuda (Leo) Levi (mathematics and hard science). I address it here, also to be found at http://www.academia.edu/8199833/Facing_Current_Challenges.
Although I tried not to "take sides" in the essay, and there is no "correct" form of synthesis in any event, RAL's synthesis speaks more to my heart. There are, of course, other forms as well. RAL's FIL, RYBS, seems to have held that the optimal synthesis is with philosophy, while RAL Uncle-In-Law, RAS, seems to have held it to be with law.
TNZBH.
Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer הרב יוסף גבריאל בקהופר
RYBS believed that TuM was an unresolvable dialectic -- see the one time he really spoke on it at any length -- "Ramatyim Tzofim" (even the name tells you). "Synthesis" is the wrong term in his case.
ReplyDelete(And I think the inability for the masses to "get into" the idea of navigating dialectics, especially when the yh"r wants compromise instead, has much to do with why MO looks the way it does.)
But in any case, it could be that in terms of the ultimate "mada", RYBS, RAS and RAL agree -- follow your interest, there is bound to be a good fit with anything you find meaningful.
I did oversimplify. Of course RYBS reveled in dialectic and paradox. But the primary paradox for him was between Sinai and Olympus, Yerushalayim and Athens.
DeleteIs it REALLY so hard to spell out the names of prominent gadolim, rather than refer to them as "RAL,": "RYBS" or "RAS"? It's so not kavodik! Why not just refer to them as "Ari" and "Yossi"?
ReplyDelete- Robbie Grasshopper
Yes, how dare we belittle Rav Shelomo Yitzchaqi, Rav Moshe ben Maimon, Rav
ReplyDeleteYom Tov ben Avraham Asevilli, Rabbainu Nissim. It's so not kavodik!
(Rashi, Rambam, Ritva, Ran, respectively, but I could have spoken of the Ari, the Maharal, ....)
In yeshiva culture, ranking an acronym is a compliment. It means they're cited so often that everyone knows who you mean.
Do you really think that RAS got his degree because he thought one can only be a shaleim if he knows the UCC? Or he can spot and parse constitutional issues and cite legislative history and legal precedent? RAL, I understand. He famously (notoriously, to some,) held that you cannot be a shaleim without deep engagement with the secular world. But RAS?
ReplyDeleteI don;t believe any of the individuals I mentioned - including RAL - held that a deep engagement with the secular world is essential for shleymus. I don't believe the Gra did either, even though he said that all you lack in secular wisdom will cause you a proportional lack in Torah wisdom. Rather, they each held that the respective bodies of secular knowledge were most beneficial adjuncts to Torah for their own personal growth.
DeleteMust we say it was a frumeh cheshbon, could it not have been about interest the same way someone might spend time on music or art
ReplyDeleteWe assume that Gedolim led integrated, holistic lives - a la Rav Hutner's broad room vs. double rooms.
DeleteThe notion of science yes, literature no does seem arbitrary. And possibly it is useful only as a practical guideline.
ReplyDeleteI think there is an overriding principle that includes both science (using the term loosely, including everything from math to technology) and liberal arts because the people we're analyzing thought of themselves as in agreement. I therefore suggested that the differences in application were personal taste rather than philosophical distinction.
ReplyDeleteBecause (as Yisrael noted) one could have made a fundamental philosophical distinction:
Math, science and technology explore the world in which we apply the Torah. They give us tools for living, and specifically living according to the Torah and to understand how the Torah applies. Pure math less so, although even the weirdest math concept seems to make its way into science eventually. There is little overlap in topic.
Liberal arts, OTOH, tend to deal with issues the Torah addresses. Rather than being about how to use the world as the Torah tells us we ought to, it can be used to enlighten us as to what the Torah is saying -- whether by providing similar ideas or contrasting ones.
I do not think Dr. Levi would agree with you... RAL, perhaps.
Delete