<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 13, 2007 8:53 PM, Micha Berger <<a href="mailto:micha@aishdas.org">micha@aishdas.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><br>2- TIDE is a unity of Torah and hih culture. The focus is on refirnement<br>of the individual. TuM is academic, Torah and secular knowledge.<br><br>The Gra's position is a synthesis -- but of knowledge, not culture and
<br>its refinement.<br><br>(RSRH's TIDE resembles Slabodka's gadlus ha'adam. Not identical,<br>but perhaps first cousins. Both lead the student to dress and comport<br>themselves according to the best of western standards.)
<br><br>So I guess we should take TIDE's conjunction and TuM's noun -- the<br>synthesis of TIDE's and the M of TuM -- TIM?.<br><br>Tir'u baTov!<br>-Micha<br></blockquote><div><br>Whilst in the KAJ neiborhood I was told the difference between TuM and TIDE is as follows:
<br><br><ol><li>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
</li><li>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.</li></ol></div>
</div><br>I cannot speak to how RYBS defined TuM. It was not his creature AFAIK it was Dr. Belkin's <br><br>And I do not think that Dr. Belkin ever meant TuM to be exactly as KAJ characterizes it. Belkin's model was as follows:
<br><br><ol><li>You learn Torah in a traditional Beis Midrash Yeshiva atmosphere</li><li>You learn secular Studies in a secular way as in any University</li></ol><br>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.
<br><br>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.
<br><br>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.
<br><br>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. <br><br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
<br><a href="mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com</a><br>see: <a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>