<html>
<body>
<font size=3>At 10:29 AM 4/9/2018, Micha Berger wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">And this would be the only thing
such Chassidish chadorim disagree with<br>
the Gra about? Why do any of these sources matter in this
context?<br><br>
You are again putting yourself in the position of arguing for one
derekh<br>
in favor of another by working within the givens of your favored
derekh,<br>
rather than the one you're critiquing.</blockquote><br>
And what do you do with the GRA's statement<br><br>
When I visited Vilna in Tevet 5538 (1778] ... I heard from the holy lips
of the Gaon<br>
of Vilna that to the extent one is deficient in secular wisdom he will be
deficient a<br>
hundredfold in Torah study, for Torah and wisdom are bound up together.
He compared<br>
a person lacking in secular wisdom to a man suffering from constipation;
his disposition<br>
is affected to the point that he refuses all food. .<br><br>
simply ignore it? <br><br>
This statement is a statement of fact, so how can anyone disagree with
it? The GRA certainly knew what he was talking about. A derech
cannot go against the facts.<br><br>
Also from
<a href="http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/rabbinic_openness_leiman.pdf" eudora="autourl">
http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/rabbinic_openness_leiman.pdf</a><br>
<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3>Friesenhausen's
critique, however, was hardly confined to the left; he also had to<br>
contend with the right:<br><br>
</font>I <font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3>appeal especially to
all those who fear God and tremble at His word, that they not heed<br>
the false claims of those who plot against secular wisdom . . . , unaware
that those<br>
who make such claims testify against themselves, saying: "We are
devoid of Torah, we<br>
have chosen folly as our guide." For had the light of Torah ever
shone upon them, they<br>
would have known the teaching of R. Samuel bar Nachtmeni at Shabbat 75a
and the<br>
anecdotes about Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua at Horayot
</font>10<font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=3>a. Also, they would
have<br>
been aware of the many talmudic discussions that can be understood only
with the aid<br>
of secular wisdom. Should you, however, meet a master of the Talmud who
insists on<br>
denigrating secular wisdom, know full well that he has never understood
those talmudic<br>
passages whose comprehension is dependent upon knowledge of secular
wisdom. . . .<br>
He is also unaware that he denigrates the great Jewish sages of the past
and their wisdom,<br>
as well. Worst of all are those guilty of duplicity. They speak
arrogantly in public, either<br>
to appease the fools and gain honor in their eyes, or out of envy of the
truly wise,<br>
disparaging those who appreciate secular wisdom, yet in their hearts they
believe<br>
otherwise. <br><br>
See in the above link the Chasam Sofer's evaluation of Rabbi
Friesenhausen. He was indeed a talmud Chacham.<br><br>
YL</font></body>
<br>
</html>