[Avodah] Gra and TuM

[Richard Wolpoe]

On Dec 13, 2007 8:53 PM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

>
>
> 2- TIDE is a unity of Torah and hih culture. The focus is on refirnement
> of the individual. TuM is academic, Torah and secular knowledge.
>
> The Gra's position is a synthesis -- but of knowledge, not culture and
> its refinement.
>
> (RSRH's TIDE resembles Slabodka's gadlus ha'adam. Not identical,
> but perhaps first cousins. Both lead the student to dress and comport
> themselves according to the best of western standards.)
>
> So I guess we should take TIDE's conjunction and TuM's noun -- the
> synthesis of TIDE's and the M of TuM -- TIM?.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>

Whilst in the KAJ neiborhood I was told the difference between TuM and TIDE
is as follows:


   1. TIDE: all of secular culture can be SUBJECTED to TORAH. That which
   is good [e.g. Kant] can be used for a Torah purpose. Call if
   refinement. I think Hirsch waw it as culture. A Godo Jew can absorb the good
   of secualr soceity via the filtering process of the Torah
   2. TuM: Torah and Science are co-equals. Torah influences how one vies
   science AND vice versa.  TIDE followers in  Breuer's strongly object to this
   model as giving Science the same validity as Torah.


I cannot speak to how RYBS defined TuM. It was not his creature AFAIK it was
Dr. Belkin's

And I do not think that Dr. Belkin ever meant TuM to be exactly as  KAJ
characterizes it.   Belkin's model was as follows:


   1. You learn Torah in a traditional Beis Midrash Yeshiva atmosphere
   2. You learn secular Studies in a secular way as in any University


Afterwards, the syntheis is done by the indivdiual outside of class.  The
students resolves the dialectic himself  It actually works well with elite
types and often fails with average types who are not capable of resolving
the cognizvant dissonacne. Taht is perhaps why Belkin was soundly
crtiicized. The problem with RYBS and Belikn et. al. is that they were all
egenii and could not fathom how non-genii would handle these dialectical
dilemmas.

The Anti-TuM world usualyl wants the authority figure to do the
synthesizing. RYBS/Belkin et. al. we about empowering the individual student
to be more independent and to think for himself. This is the biggest cause
of tension aisi between YU and the anti-YU world.

E.G.a KAJ freiend of mine  took all of Dr. Lamm's pronouncements as official
YU hashkafa. He could not even be massig that YU could have a diversity of
hashkafos within its own precincts and that indivdual maggidei Shiur were
NOT subject to Dr. Lamm's  personal machsahva. That  would not fly in the
Yeshiva world.

OTOH 1 yeshiva I know had a problem when the Mashgiach Ruchani and a  future
Rosh Yeshiva had differing hashkafos. At YU they would have both remained,
in this yeshiva - one had to leave.

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071215/9fded517/attachment-0002.htm>