[Avodah] Torah Study vs. other contributions to society

[Chana Luntz]

I wrote:

> >Look, let me give an extreme example.  My computer is (at least when 
> >attached to the Bar Ilan CD) Baki in all of Shas, Rishonim, 
> Achronim, teshuvas, what have you - at least if you know how to ask
the right 
> >questions.  But "knowing" Shas/Rishonim/Achronim in the 
> fashion of my computer does not fulfil a person's mission in life.
There 
> needs to be more than that.  Torah and mitzvos needs to be integrated
into a 
> >person's life.  One clear way of doing this  is if a person 
> is going on to be a Rav, he will be applying the Torah he has learnt
to assist 
> >others (and that requires developing his understanding).  
> Same is true if he goes on to be a Rosh Yeshiva or teacher.  But if he

> sits in his ivory tower of a yeshiva and learns b'Hasmada, how 
> ultimately does he differ from my computer (except that my computer
does it 
> better)?  The answer that I think everybody would give is that it is
not 
> just having a photographic memory that is important, but it is that 
> something extra that human beings are capable of adding called
understanding 
> that can, if done properly, make this learning valuable.
> 

And RMSS then writes:

> I do not believe that is the correct answer. Your computer is 
> an inanimate object that has no chiyuvim or mitzvos. The Jew 
> sitting in "his ivory tower of a yeshiva" is doing what 
> Hashem commanded him to do. 

But the contrast was between him sitting in his ivory tower of a yeshiva
and going out into the world and becoming a medic and saving lives, ie
pikuach nefesh.  The question that was asked was in essence, what is it
that Hashem commanded him to do out of those two?  So let me give you a
non realistic example - just for this purpose.  Let us say that the
person in question was, when it came to learning, an idiot savant, ie he
had a photographic memory, but absolutely no ability to produce any
chiddushim. That is, while he could on applying himself recite endlessly
what has previously been said, nothing of his own would ever be added to
the Torah body of knowledge.  On the other hand, in some way, if he went
out and became a medic, he would be able to save lives by using his
abilities.  Would you still say it is so clear that one is doing what
Hashem commanded him to do if he stayed in learning?  I think one would
instinctively draw a very clear line between such a person and the GRA,
say, who while he might well have also been able to save lives as a
medic, produced an enormous amount of "new Torah" ie chiddushim which
contributed to the growth and development of Torah knowledge.

Note of course that the more one takes a Litvishe approach, the more one
draws this line.  After all, one of the criticisms in the Litvishe world
of a Rav Ovadiah Yosef and his derech of learning has to do with the
extent he catalogues and brings an encyclopedic numbers of sources
rather than the more chiddush oriented approach of the Litvishe school.
But the less you regard this "understanding that if done properly makes
this learning valuable" as I put it as being the key, the more you have
to conceed that Rav Ovadiah is the greater scholar. 

 
> >...  From a TUM perspective, the same level of understanding just
cannot be 
> achieved by remaining in an ivory tower yeshiva setting for one's
entire 
> life, and hence by doing so this fellow has just not fulfilled his
mission in 
> >life, which is to develop his understanding to the utmost extent 
> >possible, no matter how hard he works at learning b'hasmadah and how 
> >many mesechtos he is Baki in.
> 
> Experientially, this is a disproven perspective. The two 
> greatest examples of people who spent their lives in an 
> "ivory tower" are the Gra and the Chazon Ish. It's ludicrous 
> to assert that they didn't fulfill their mission in life.
> 

Note that a TUM perspective would disagree vigorously with this
statement which suggests that the Gra spent his life in the ivory tower
of the yeshiva. The Gra was famous for teaching himself, and that
includes all forms of secular knowledge.  One doesn't have to go to
university to satisfy TUM - just be prepared to explore all forms of
knowledge.  A TUM proponent might well say that is is easier to acquire
this knowledge by going to university, where one is spoonfed, rather
than teaching it to oneself, like the Gra did, and that many if not most
people might not be able to achieve even a modicum of secular knowledge
without that spoonfeeding (just as many people both in and not in the
TUM worldview may well say that while it might have been possible for
the Gra to achieve his torah learning without needing the support of a
yeshiva setting, that is not true of most people) but that is a
different matter.

Regarding the Chazon Ish, a TUM perspective could well take the view
that the Chazon Ish might have been even greater if he had had more
secular knowledge (might not have been a daas yachid regarding the
nature of electricity for example) - and that it was his lack of secular
knowledge and understanding of the outside world that resulted in the
Chazon Ish never being accepted by the entire Jewish world as the posek
hador - so that arguably he did indeed not fulfil his mission in life.

And RDB then writes:

> 1) Your computer has no Neshama that is nourished by bytes of 
> Torah information. 2) Your computer is not fulfilling the Mitzvah of
Talmud 
> Torah K'neged Kulam. 3) Your computer has no appreciation that it is
absorbing the 
> Chochmah of the Borei Olam. 4) Your computer has no need to fulfill
the Halachos 
> contained in the stored information 5) Your computer has no Bein Adam
LaChaveiro interactions 
> that need to be guided by the Torah. Our protege  interacts 
> with his family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, and 
> strangers on a daily basis, just not in the context of a 
> particular profession.

Agreed.  But note that certainly 3), 4) and 5) are precisely about that
something extra called understanding that a human being is capable of
adding.  Appreciation of Chochma is understanding.  In addition one
needs understanding in order to fulfil halacha, and to have bein adam
l'chavero interactions.  As I tried to suggest, one of the key
differences between my computer and a human being is this thing called
understanding, which allows the knowledge held to be applied.  That I
thought was a universal.  The difference is that TUM believes that the
understanding achieved by also picking up secular knowledge and
knowledge of the outside world is a deepened form of understanding when
then applied to the learning of Torah.  That is, from a TUM perspective,
when a human being learns Torah after some contact with the outside
world, he has a deepened appreciation that he is absorbing the Chochma
of the Borei Olam (ie no 3), it helps him to better understand the Torah
he is learning so as to fulfil the halachos contained in the Torah he is
learning (no 4) and thereby helps him better to do the bein adam
l'chavero interactions better (ie 5).

No 1) *may* not be about understanding  - but only if you understand the
nourishment to take place on a purely spiritual/mystical plane that has
nothing to do with the intellect.  If you understand the level of
nourshment being linked to the intellectual level of the understanding,
then a TUM advocate would again hold that by also exploring secular
knowledge that nourishment will be increased (this also goes to the
discussion that is being had here on Avodah about whether there is value
in teaching a weaker student gemora that he doesn't have a hope of
understanding, because he gets something on a mystical level.  If you
say yes, then it is not about understanding, it is about something
mystical - which taken to the extreme might mean that say, my son David,
who has the intellectual level of a 6-9 month baby and will continue to
do so for the rest of his life, might get something out of being plonked
in an advanced gemora class.  But if you say that putting a weak student
into a class that goes completely over his head is not a sensible idea,
then you seem to be back to the idea that that nourishment is linked to
understanding).

And similarly with no 2).  It depends what you mean by talmud torah.  A
TUM perspective is that the talmud torah is of a better quality if the
mada aspect of life is explored - that is very clear from R' Lamm's
books.  So if talmud torah is kneged kulam then a better quality may
well be better (even if it is a better quality earned at the expense of
quantity).  That is also why I was saying that Torah u'Parnasa is
different from TUM -ie Torah u'Madda.  Madda, ie literally science, is
about the knowledge of the secular world, and the need to explore it in
order to better strengthen one's Torah understanding.  It was, as far as
I am aware, coined by R' Lamm, but obviously was an attempt to formulate
an explanation for the kind of teachings he received from his teachers
(he certainly would have seen RYBS as demonstrating that ideal - a Rosh
Yeshiva who was also a first class philosopher). Torah u'parnessa is
about the obligation to earn a living and support one's family (with its
roots in the Rambam and in the gemora where we would seem to posken
against RSBY) and hence the pragmatic need to acquire the skills to do
so honourably (and the dishonourability of turning one's torah into a
spade).  They do not necessarily overlap.  I cannot believe that R' Lamm
would have thought RYSB a failure if there had been no YU to pay his
salary, despite not only torah but philosophy not being the most
lucrative of professions (nor one that gives an income with any degree
of certainty).  Nor would he have thought that RYSB should have gone off
and done medicine even if he could have saved many lives. But I believe
he unquestionably felt that RYSB was a greater Torah scholar because of
his studies in philosophy (and mathematics and ... ), and that he would
have been a lesser Torah scholar had he not gone anywhere near such
studies, but stayed within the confines of the yeshiva world.  And I
also believe he felt that this would be true even of those with lesser
abilities, ie they would all be better Torah scholars than they would
otherwise be if they explored madda in the wider sense, whatever that
meant in terms of their abilities (ie it might not be philosophy, it
might be physics, or medicine, or computing that best enhanced that
particular individuals abilities in torah, although all of the above and
more is more likely to be better - the ideal of Torah u' Madda is also
the polymath).  R' Lamm's idea can be extended also to non academic
subjects, but it's original formulation was in terms of the academic.
But however you formulate it, the ideas is that if a person does not
explore these wider aspects of life, then that person will be a lesser
person than they would otherwise be and as a consequence the torah that
they are capable of will be diminished.

Regards

Chana