Torah Umadda: The Encounter of Religious Learning and Worldly Knowledge in the Jewish Tradition

by Norman Lamm

Lamm, president of Yeshiva University, examines whether there is room within a traditional religious education for secular studies. He supports the argument that a mixture of traditional religion and worldly knowledge is not only acceptable, but recommended. Among those whose ideas he examines are Maimonides, Samson Raphael Hirsch, and Abraham Isaac Kook.

Genres: Judaism, Jewish

270 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 1990

About the author

Norman Lamm was an American Modern Orthodox rabbi, scholar, academic administrator, author, and Jewish community leader. He was the Chancellor of Yeshiva University until he announced his retirement on July 1, 2013.

Reviews

[Yitzchok · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing book that explores all aspects, pros and cons, of the Torah and Wisdom model of being an Observant Jew. It contains brilliant reasoning and powerful evidence supporting this model. I highly recommend anyone exploring these concepts to read this book. The following are some of my favorite excerpts:

“Thus, some banned any concessions to the study of worldly wisdom. Others begrudgingly permitted such study if it was limited to the vocational areas, those needed for one’s sustenance. Still other were more permissive and formulated various models of accommodation between the study of Torah and the acquisition of profane knowledge. Finally, there were those who embraced both worlds in a more comprehensive vision of man’s intellectual and spiritual scope, essentially denying the ultimate metaphysical validity of the bifurcation of cognitive experience into two divergent and unrelated spheres, and locating potential for the sacred in the very innards of the profane.” – Page x

“I heard it said that G-d wrote a book – the world; and He wrote a commentary on that book – the Torah. – Rabbi Zadok Hakohen of Lublin”

“His [the faithful Jew] belief in the binding nature of Halacha and the priority given to the study of Torah in his intellectual life does not exclude concern with all else. It is a failure of intelligence to confuse priority with exclusivity. To ignore all the rest of existence because of the commitment to Torah as the channel to the Holy One is to insult the Holy One and deny His infinity – as if He too has no interest in the rest of His Creation.” – Page 15

“In Hilchos Teshuva (10:6), Maimonides states that the love of G-d is contingent upon one’s knowledge of G-d. Hence, one must take care to study and ponder all branches of wisdom that lead to understand Him. Such study, as he later reiterates in his Guide, as quoted earlier, is thus a fulfillment of the mitzvah to love G-d.

…Thus, Maimonides holds the proper study of worldly wisdom to be, halachically, the fulfilment of the commandment to study Torah.

It is strange, indeed, that such a remarkable ruling, in his halachic code, by the greatest halachic authority of the entire posttalmudic period – an authority whose every paragraph, indeed every nuance, has been analyzed in enormous depth and the halachic implications of which have been spelled out and relied upon for the past eight or nine centuries – is usually glossed over in silence by most rabbinic commentators in the vast literature of exegesis of the Mishna Torah.” – Pages 80-81

“15th century sage, R. Isaac de Leon of Toledo, author of Megillas Esther, a defense of Maimonides against the critique of Nachmanides:

“It is possible for the achronim to know more than the rishonim for two reasons: First, one of the achronim may have taken it upon himself to specialize in one particular area, working on it in depth and so assiduously applying his intellectual efforts that he understands it better than the rishonim. Second, we of the later generations, despite our lack of adequate industriousness in our studies, attain more in a short time than did [our predecessors] in a much longer time. That is so because in their times [the various branches of] wisdom were unknown or incomplete, and they had to deduce them by dint of great intellectual effort, whereas we find all prepared for us [by them] like a table that is all set.”

A century later we read similar sentiments by R. Eliezer Ashkenazi, the famous commentator on the Bible:

“…We must accept the truth, after we have come to know it, from whoever propounded it; and we should not allow the opinions of others, even though they preceded us, to deter us from inquiring. On the contrary, we ought to learn and accept from our predecessors in the sense that just as they chose to accept some of what their predecessors said and not to accept other things they said, so it is appropriate for us to do as they did.” – Page 99

“The intimate relationship of sacred and secular is given its strongest expression when Rav Kook writes that the yesod kodesh ha-kodoshim (the element of the “holy of holies”) comprises both the sacred and the profane. This implies the significant notion, which Kook later states explicitly, that there is nothing absolutely profane or secular in the world. There is no absolute metaphysical category called chol; there is only the holy and the not-yet-holy. Eventually all that is profane (not-yet-holy) is to be found in and sanctified through the Torah, for which reason, says Rav Kook, it is called de’kullah bah (“containing everything”) and is regarded as the fulfillment of G-d’s blessing of Abraham ba-kol (“with everything” – Genesis 24:1). Kook’s centrifugal kodesh is so overpowering and outgoing that the profane loses its absolute character even before its encounter with the sacred. It is, as it were, fated from its creation to submit to the sacred.

…It is appropriate to recall an insight by R. Isaiah Halevi Horowitz (1565?-1630). In his famous Shenei Luchos Ha-Bris, he asks why, in the Havdalah the distinction between Israel and the nations is mentioned. The other distinctions – between light and dark, Shabbos and weekday, sacred and profane – are all appropriate to the Havdalah, but that between Israel and the nations seems irrelevant. He answers that there is a significant difference between Israel and the other nations I how they conceive of the distinction between sacred and profane, and so on. The non-Jewish faiths conceive of an unbridgeable abyss between them. Judaism, however, believes that the gulf between kodesh and chol is meant not to introduce a permanent and irreconcilable dualism, but to allow the sacred to be confirmed in its strength and purity so that it might return and sanctify the nonholy.

So does Rav Kook conceive of the relationship of kodesh and chol, as his thought emerges from his Orot ha-Kodesh and his courageous address at the opening of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. There is a havdalah, in order to allow for the intensification of the sacred in its centripetal motion, and this itself is prelude to its outward, centrifugal movement, where it reaches for the profane and transforms it into the sacred – a transmutation that fulfills the purpose of its existence. The fact of kodesh (sanctity) leads to the act of Kiddush (sanctification).” – Pages 129-130

“Hirsch’s vies of Torah and Wisdom in one of coexistence and therefore essentially static. Kook’s is one of interaction, and hence dynamic. Hirsch is an esthete who wants Torah and derech eretz to live in a neighborly and noncombatant fashion for the cultural enhancement of both. Kook is an alchemist who wants the sacred to transmute the profane and recast it in its own image. From the point of view of Kook, it is not enough to raise a generation of Orthodox Jews who will also be cultured Western people, admirable as this ambition may be. It is not enough to conceive of the two cultures as parallel lines that can meet only in infinity. It is urgent that there be a confrontation and an encounter between them. For Kook, there must be a qualitative accommodation of both studies, for the secular studies are not inherently unholy, and the limudei kodesh must have something not-already-sacred to act upon. The limudei chol are part of the drama of Kiddush (sanctification).

Hence for Kook, Torah Umadda represents a genuine synthesis…For Hirsch…Torah im Derech Eretz is a relationship of coexistence. …Far more significant and consequential is the left-to-right motion: the radiation of kodesh toward chol, enobling it, raising it to the loftiest levels, sanctifying it, impregnating it with meaning and purpose.” – Pages 132-133

“As an independent people living in its own homeland…Jews perforce engaged in mundane aspects of the then contemporary Madda. They learned the techniques of agriculture and commerce, they studied architecture and military science, they wrote poetry and explored animal husbandry, they investigated the orbits of the spheres and the intricacies of human anatomy, and they planned the channeling of rivers and the building of bridges. All this was consonant with their uniqueness as a people covenanted by G-d to lead a life of Torah and mitzvos.

…It was only when this wholeness was broken, when the covenanted people were torn away from its covenanted land, that the primordial integrity of Jewish civilization became problematic. As the scope of our Madda involvement was restricted by outside forces and the adverse conditions of exile, and we retreated deeper into Torah as the sole channel to our divine source, the fissure between Torah and Madda grew ever stronger and more pronounced. It is this artificial abyss, the product of exile and its harshness, that placed a question mark over the nonsupernatural, “civilizational” aspects of our lives.

It is thus not surprising that Torah Umadda as a problem arises whenever external conditions allow Jews to feel relatively free – religiously, politically, socially, and economically. At such times, when life more closely approximates the conditions of national wholeness, Jews inevitably contemplate the reunion of the two halves of their severed spirit.” – Pages 140-141

“Thus, advocates of Torah Umadda do not accept that Torah is fundamentally at odds with the world, that Jewishness and Jewish faith on the one side, and the universal concerns and preoccupations of humanity on the other, are fundamentally inapposite, and the Torah and Madda therefore require substantive “reconciliation.” …Hence, the motivating mission of Torah Umadda must be to reunite and restore an original harmony. In other words, the exclusive concentration on one of these two poles to the detriment of the other is a sign of galus (exile), the one-sidedness that results from the need to respond to an artificial distinction (Jew/human) that carries the weight of established doctrine while being inherently invalid. The arguments and rationales we marshal in defense of Torah Umadda are therefore unfortunate necessities.” – Pages 142-143

“Our starting point is the conviction that when we speak of Torah and Madda, it is not because of practical economic necessity or because we impute any imperfection or inadequacy to Torah unintended by its divine Author, but because we affirm that both Torah and Nature are the results of divine revelation; and even as G-d is One, so is there no split between His self-revelation in Torah (His word) and His self-disclosure in Nature (His world). Hence the study of Torah is the contemplation of G-d’s self-revelation as Teacher; and Madda is the study of Him as Creator. G-d as Creator is the focus of Genesis, the first book of the Torah, whereas G-d as Teacher is the focus of Exodus, the second Book. And both “are give from One Shepherd” (Ecclesiastes 12:11).” – Page 144

“This accords with the view of the Vilna Gaon, who encouraged his disciples to translate the masterpieces of secular knowledge into Hebrew so that they could be used to enhance Torah learning. It is worth repeating the words of the Gaon as cited by his discipline, R. Baruch of Shklov: “To the degree that one lacks in his knowledge of other [branches of] wisdom, he lacks a hundredfold in the wisdom of Torah, for wisdom and Torah are intertwined.” The corpus of “other [branches of] wisdom” or Madda thus helps one better to understand the depths of Torah.” – Page 156

“The kabbalists pointed out that olam, “world,” comes from he’elem, “hiddenness,” because the world is a disguise of G-d; He is hidden, as it were, within it. Now, if indeed the world is an emanation or disguise of G-d, although far lower and more indirect than Torah, then may not the study of this world under a certain set of conditions be considered a form of Torah study, albeit of a much lower rank than the study of actual halachic texts? If “the heavens declare the glory of G-d,” as the psalmist put it (Psalm 19:2), is not astronomy or astrophysics [My addition: or astrology!] a form of intellectual worship of G-d, and does not such intellectual worship imply a form of Talmud Torah, so that the study of Madda may be included in the study of Torah?” – Pages 161-162

“A corollary of Chasidism’s emphasis on immanence that became one of the most significant and characteristic contributions of the Baal Shem Tov and was elaborated on by such greats as the Maggid of Mezeritch (d.1772), R. Yaakov Yosef of Polonnoye (d.1782), R. Elimelech of Lizensk (1717-1786), and R. Nachum of Chernobyl (1730 - 1798), is the concept of avodah be’gashmius – serving G-d with and through our very corporeality, worshipping Him in our material, physical situations.

The concept of avodah be’gashmius is that G-d’s immanence in all creation – in Nature as well as in Torah – means that the mundane, physical order represents a legitimate avenue of approach to G-d.” – Page 171

“Surprisingly, therefore, this extrapolation of basic Hasidic doctrine yields a much more affirmative and dynamic vision of Torah Umadda than is otherwise available once its implications are properly spelled out. That is not merely a dispensation for Torah Umadda. It is a Divine imperative, a charge to seek inspiration in the broadest realms of the intellect and imagination.

…In its highest, most necessary, and most successful application, this cognitive or intellectual variant of avodah be’gashmiues leads us back to the sublime insight of Chasidism: that all of creation, in all its incredible complexity and fantastic richness, is only an illusion, a disguise for the Ein-Sof, a mask for the Divinity that pulsates through all of existence. …[This] allows us to see all creation, whether Torah or Nature, as conducive to avodas Hashem, the service of the One Shepherd who both created Nature and revealed Torah.

…R. Nachum Chernobyler writes that avodah be’gashmiues is a significant as the mitzvos of tefillin and tzitzis! A similarly bold statement is made by his contemporary, R. Elimelech of Lizhensk, founder of Chasidim in Galicia: “For the Tzaddikim, there is no difference between the study of Torah and prayer [on the one side] or eating and drinking [on the other]. All are… [forms of] the service of the Creator, and it is merely a matter of switching from one form of service to another.” – Pages 174-175

“Hence, it should be made clear that when we propose the Chasidic or Madda-as-worship model of Torah Umadda based on this tenet of avodah be’gashmiues, we rule out any equality between avodah be’gashmiues and a formal mitzvah, and between Torah and Madda. Avodah be’ruchnius (worship through spirituality), the performance of an halachic act informed by the proper intention, remains superior and absolute; avodah be’gashmiues or Madda is subordinate to and also contingent on it. That is, to invoke the Talmudic principle. “one who is commanded and does” always takes primacy over “one who is not commanded and does.”

Indeed it is worship through spirituality that legitimates worship through corporeality and, consequently, Torah that legitimates Madda. The pursuit of Madda without Torah is devoid of any innate Jewish significance.” – Page 177

“The Chasidic model is holistic: it requires the training of one’s consciousness to acquire a generalized attitude to all profane activity, to approach all one’s corporeality as an act of worship. The focus of the spiritual exercise is, in the Kookian mystical model, on the particular area of the secular that is being dominated and sanctified. In the Chasidic version, the focus is on the self, the subjectivity of the worshiper, for whom this act of sanctification is but one illustration among the many that befall him in the course of daily life.” – Page 185

“If we accept the possibility of this alternative model of shelemus [wholeness], one that requires breadth as well as depth, then openness is not only permissible but inescapable and admirable. The dazzling galaxy of Torah Umadda personalities mentioned in this book, and the many more who remain unmentioned, come closer to the ideal of shelemus because of, not despite, their Madda involvements. The knowledge of medicine did not detract from Maimonides’ sense of wholeness; indeed, the Hilchos Deios of his immoral Code, where he discusses the formation of character, benefits enormously from the medical theories he had learned from the Greeks. Don Isaac Abravanel was no less a full personality because of his financial prowess and diplomatic skill; those acquainted with his commentary on the Bible can attest to the life experiences as a man of Madda that he draws upon in his exegesis. Grammar did not impoverish Abraham Ibn Ezra; philosophy did not diminish the stature of Chasdai Crescas; secular poetry did not reduce the wholeness of either Solomon Ibn Gabirol or Yehuda Halevi; literary style and grace did not chip away at the well-earned fame of Judah Messer Leone; mathematics did not make the Gaon of Vilna any less a gaon; and general philosophy has not lessened the greatness of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. On the contrary, the Madda development of each contributed not only to his intellectual greatness but also to his shelemus, which would have suffered without the development of those gifts.” – Page 221

[Jay · Rating 4 out of 5]

I absolutely loved this book. Coming from a world that staunchly opposed Torah Umadda, it was nice to get a different perspective. Torah Umadda is something I have come to believe in, only because I saw the other side of the coin. Norman Lamm spells out many different approaches to Torah Umadda throughout the centuries, and describes some new methods. It is a comprehensive work, and should be on the reading list of anyone who wants to understand this important mode of thought in Judaism.

[Seth Isenberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should be essential reading in any Modern Orthodox institution of high school level or higher. Rabbi Lamm asks a question that any intellectually honest yeshiva student should struggle with in some way or another. His multitude of approaches without a specific recommendation gives a lot of room to find an approach (or a mix of them) that appeals most to the reader. The afterword and addendums are worth reading as well.

[Harry · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an important book on the permissibility of combining Jewish religious studies with secular knowledge - Athens vs. Jerusalem. Norman Lamm himself is a prime example of that synthesis, and the university which he headed, Yeshiva University, follows the Torah Umadda approach. Dr. Lamm was a giant in his field. There have been very few people who can match his scholarship, breadth of knowledge in both Judaism and other philosophies, and ability to convey these concepts to a lay audience.

I found the first part of the book fascinating, as Lamm presents different approaches, both for and against Torah Umadda. He seems to prefer the hasidic model which finds religious value in all of God’s creation.

I found the second half of the book challenging as it involved more complex philosophical discussions. Lamm’s comparison of ontological and epistemological conflicts, such as the one on page 196, illustrates the depth of his analysis - “without a grounding in the hasidic notion of avodah be-gashmiut, the distinctiveness between Torah and Wisdom is perceived as an ontological conflict; with such a grounding, it is reduced to an epistemological problem.

[Jean Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Both a history of the entire issue of Torah study and 'secular' study in the traditionally Orthodox world as well as a strong defense of the Yeshiva University system. I learned a lot and found his arguments easy to follow.

[Jasper H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A wonderful and scholarly read on a subject I hadn't considered in such depth before.