The Controversial Battle Over Torah U-Madda

On Parshas Yisro and the tension between Torah study and secular studies

Jan 31, 2024

The accompanying shiur is available on the Orthodox Union's parsha learning app: All Parsha.

When I was studying in Yeshivas Ner Yisroel in Baltimore, my Rebbe, Rav Ezra Neuberger used to share short questions and insights on Chumash every Friday night. I wish I remember more of them. Some were brilliant insights I still quote today, others were just very simple basic questions we don’t often consider. One Friday night he asked the following question: “How do we know the Aseres HaDibbros”—usually translated as the Ten Commandments—“actually were 10 commandments?”

It’s a simple question.

If you count the number of commandments included within the Aseres HaDibbros there are more than 10. The Aseres HaDibbros also comprises more than 10 verses in the Torah. So where did we get the number 10 from?

As yeshiva guys, we gave all sorts of creative answers. And as yeshiva guys we were mostly all surprised to learn how simple the answer was: The Torah calls them Aseres HaDevarim. A few times actually.

And each time the Torah refers to what we usually call the “Ten Commandments” it uses the term Aseres haDevarim, best translated as “Ten Things” maybe?

It doesn’t call them Aseres HaMitzvos, “Ten Commandments,” but instead always uses the Hebrew term “devarim,” normally translated as speakings or things.

What is the significance of calling them Aseres HaDibbros—literally meaning “Ten Sayings?”

Moreover, how are the Aseres HaDibbros different from the 10 sayings that created the world—the Asarah Maamaros? As the Mishnah in Avos teaches, when God created the world the term used throughout is ויאמר—a verb used 10-ish times in the creation story.

(If you count the number of times the term “ויאמר” is used in the creation story, there are actually only nine instances. According to the Talmud, the first act of creation, בראשית ברא, is counted as well even though the word ויאמר" is not used. Others count the word ויאמר, which precedes the statement that “man should not live alone.”)

The world is created with אמירה. The Torah is revealed with דיבור.

What is the difference between the creation of the world and the revelation of the Torah?

To understand all of this, let’s explore some of the history of the interaction between Torah and secular studies.

In the summer of 1305, Rav Shlomo b. Aderet, better known by the acronym Rashba, issued a ban on studying philosophy for those under the age of 25. In the aftermath of the Maimonidean Controversy, where Rambam was accused of being too accommodating to ideas that, according to his adversaries, were foreign to Torah, different rabbis were trying to formulate what the proper relationship to secular studies should be for the Jewish community. Rambam had passed a century earlier, in 1204, but his oversized influence on Jewish thought could still be felt. Rashba wanted to preserve the works and reputation of Rambam but still protect other Jews from being ensnared in what was seen as the dangerous effects of immersion into philosophical ideas. So, he came up with a compromise. According to the ban of Rashba, only those 25 or older had their theological foundations secure enough to allow their safe entry into philosophical ideas.

The ban was controversial even at the time.

Rashba had hoped other rabbis would issue similar bans of their own to stem the influence of secular ideas on Torah studies. Instead, many notable rabbis, including Menachem Meiri, author of Beis HaBechira, were opposed to such a uniform ban. Some have argued that the controversy was more political than ideological, but regardless of the root causes, the debates over Jewish engagement in secular studies persisted.

Jewish history is filled with different approaches to this essential issue. Scholarly debates abound regarding the approach of the Ibn Ezra, Vilna Gaon, Chasam Sofer, and other luminary Torah scholars.

In modern times, the ban on secular studies became far more challenging because of economic repercussions. As college education became increasingly de rigueur in order to earn a living, it became increasingly untenable to continue such a heavy-handed ban on secular studies.

In 1856, Rav Dovid Karliner narrowly limited an earlier ban on teaching secular studies within the Jewish school system. The earlier ban, argues Rav Dovid Karliner, was far too broad and should have only been issued with the permission of Diaspora Jewry. Without their consent, he explains, the ban—and more importantly its economic effects—would make settling in Jerusalem nearly impossible for most Jews.

Indeed, the ban discourages Jews from settling in the land of Israel and is, in effect, an enactment designed to prevent Jews from fulfilling a mitzvah,” he writes. Those who lives in Israel, “will be forced to seek employment outside of the land of Israel,” and even more so he continues, “worse yet, they will be forced to settle in distant lands, such as America and Australia, where they will assimilate and ultimately become extinct.

The emergence of higher education, particularly in America, made the question of secular studies in Jewish schools even more urgent. Getting a good job in the United States meant having a college degree, but how could such a pursuit be justified within the confines of a Jewish school?

In 1934, Rav Schwab asked leading roshei yeshiva about the permissibility of secular study. As discussed by Rabbi Dr. Jacob J. Schacter in his essay, “Torah u-Madda Revisited: The Editor’s Introduction,” the responses came from a veritable who’s who of early 20th-century rabbis, including Rav Baruch Ber Leibowitz, Rav Elchonen Wasserman, and the Rogetchover. Rabbi Schacter notes one response, from Rav Avrohom Yitzchok Bloch, rosh yeshiva of Telze, that was notably candid. Rav Bloch, perhaps due to his father, Rav Yosef Leib Bloch, instituted a period of secular study in Telze’s high school program and responded by highlighting the difficulty in arriving at a clear answer for such an ambiguous question.

Concrete proposals, Rav Bloch explains, will necessarily ignore the personal, societal, and geographic variables that must be factored in when considering this question.

No institution has become more synonymous with navigating this issue than Yeshiva University. And no institutional leader has tried harder to chart a new path for American Jewish students than Rabbi Norman Lamm.

Rabbi Lamm was always fascinated with Torah. His 1966 doctoral dissertation, “The Study of Torah Lishmah in the Works of Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin,” is the only dissertation Rabbi Soloveitchik formally sponsored.

As the third president of Yeshiva University, Rabbi Lamm was uniquely positioned to chart a new path for secular study in a Jewish institution. At the heart of Rabbi Lamm’s approach was the phrase “Torah u-Madda”—Torah and secular wisdom.

Rabbi Lamm did not come up with the phrase “Torah u-Madda,” which had been used since the 1940s, although the word “chochma” was more commonly used to refer to secular study.

In fact, the original Yeshiva University shield had the words from the verse in Isiah. The Yeshiva University shield with the words “Torah u-Madda” (“תורה ומדע”) was not introduced until 1946. One of the earliest references to secular study as “מדע” came from Rav Yaakov Ruderman, the Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel in Baltimore, who prefaced his submission to a Yeshiva University Torah journal in honor of Dr. Revel with the words “אוצר התורה והמדע” to describe Dr. Revel.

Rabbi Lamm was appointed president of Yeshiva University in 1976. Much of his investiture speech focused on the educational vision of Yeshiva University and the central role Torah u-Madda would play.

Since its inception, Yeshiva University’s vision for Torah and secular studies always had its detractors. Much of the criticism came from within. A 1943 editorial in Yeshiva University’s student newspaper The Commentator affirmed, “We prefer to pronounce the name of our institution as YESHIVA College, not Yeshiva COLLEGE.” Still, Rabbi Lamm brought the phrase “Torah u-Madda,” as well as its critics, to a much wider audience.

In the mid-1980s Rabbi Lamm secured a grant for his “Torah u-Madda Project,” which would include campus lectures, a book, as well as a journal entitled Torah u-Madda, for which Rabbi Dr. Schacter would serve as its inaugural editor. The larger platform for this ideology, which looking back was not all that controversial, received a great deal of pushback.

On chol hamoed Pesach 1988, Rav Mordechai Gifter, rosh yeshiva of Telshe, lambasted Rabbi Lamm and Yeshiva University after Rabbi Lamm’s ideology was covered in a New York Times article entitled, “Jewish Moderate Urges Believers to Take a Stand.” Rabbi Gifter took particular issue with the way the article described Rabbi Lamm’s differences from the more right-wing yeshiva community.

“But unlike what he called the right wing,” the article reports, “Dr. Lamm said the centrist group is open to secular culture…” Rabbi Gifter’s biting response to Rabbi Lamm became known in yeshiva lore as “Gifter Shechts Lamm for Pesach.”

And as Rabbi Lamm’s audience grew, so did the platform of his critics, most notably the Jewish Observer, the official monthly magazine of Agudath Israel of America.

Rav Gifter was not alone in his criticism. In the April 1988 issue of the Jewish Observer, an open letter from Professor Aaron Twerski was published that addressed Rabbi Lamm directly. The crux of the open letter’s concern was the way Rabbi Lamm portrayed the right-wing yeshiva world. Specifically, Professor Twerski was concerned about the “spiritual dignity” Rabbi Lamm conferred on non-Orthodox movements. Torah u-Maddah and its associated project, still in its infancy, were hardly mentioned.

Interestingly, in the Summer 1988 issue of the Jewish Observer, Rabbi Lamm’s response to Professor Twerski was published—as well as another rejoinder from Professor Twerski. Rabbi Lamm responded with some clarifications and a bit of contrition. He wrote:

I am saddened that the Times report, because of its terseness and infelitous choice of names, cause so much distress and anger in Agudah circles. But I plead with these circles not to be hypersensitive to criticism or differences of opinion. There have always been a multiplicity of approaches and, provided our intentions are genuine and our attitudes respectful, such diversity should be encouraged…You close with the words, “Dr. Lamm, are you there with us?” Yes, Professor Twerski, I am there with you (and possibly before you), together with all Orthodox, G-d fearing, Torah-studying and Israel-loving Jews, whether Centrist or Rightist, whether of one orientation or another. And I shall be there with you and with all of my Agudah friends, even when I disagree with you, with ahava and kavod, whether reciprocated or not. My hand is outstretched. Will you grasp it?

Two years later, when Rabbi Lamm published his book, Torah Umadda: The Encounter of Religious Learning and Worldly Knowledge in the Jewish Tradition, the criticism was just as severe.

In March of 1992, the Jewish Observer published a scathing 12-page review of Rabbi Lamm’s book Torah Umadda by Rabbi Yonasan Rosenblum. Much of Rabbi Rosenblum’s concern is that Rabbi Lamm has seemingly invested secular study “with intrinsic religious value.” Earlier formulations of such ideology such as Torah im Derech Eretz, championed by Rav Samson Rafael Hirsch and his ideological successor Rav Schwab focused much more on secular study as a utilitarian pursuit in order to make a living; Rabbi Lamm, however, at least according to the review, was blurring the distinction between Torah and secular knowledge. Rabbi Rosenblum is baffled that Rabbi Lamm’s book even entertains the question of making a birchas haTorah, the traditional blessing recited before Torah study, upon entering a science lab. Yes, there may be practical value for a college degree, but the unmediated pursuit of a secular education, Rabbi Rosenblum argues, is simply too risky for the American Orthodox community.

Two years later, in their January 1994 issue, the Jewish Observer returned once again to Rabbi Lamm and Torah Umadda with articles from members of their rabbinic council, Rav Elya Svei and Rav Yaakov Perlow, the Noveminsker Rebbe. Rav Elya, rosh yeshiva of Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadephia drew a sharp line between his approach and that of Rabbi Lamm:

They promote a Torah Umadda ideology, whereby Torah is enhanced by the added factor of Madda. Thus, in their view, as generations advance and the Madda factor increases with added scientific insights, so too does the resultant hybrid, Torah Umadda benefit. This flies in the face of our mesora. Madda was not present when the Torah was given at Sinai, nor was it ever a component in the Torah taught in subsequent generations (including that of Reb Chaim of Brisk).

The most cogent response to the barrage of Torah Umaddah criticism came from a Chassidic member of Yeshiva University’s faculty, Rabbi Mayer Schiller. In an article entitled, “Torah Umadda and the Jewish Observer Critique: Towards a Clarification of the Issues,” Rabbi Schiller picks apart the earlier criticisms leveled at Rabbi Lamm. But most substantively, Rabbi Schiller reminds us that the American Jewish community has itself transformed—in large measure due to the products of Yeshiva University.

The picture of Yeshiva University and the world of Torah u-Madda which has developed over decades in the minds of its Agudah critics is no longer true to reality to the extend to which it may ever have been true. In fact, an extraordinary explosion of Torah learning and scrupulous mizvah observance has taken place within the ranks of what used to be referred to as Modern Orthodox.

What really binds all of our communities together, Rabbi Schiller reminds us, is our collective effort to discover the voice of God within our lives. And Rabbi Lamm’s work to apprehend that voice, “deserves our lasting gratitude.”

Ever sit in a large classroom and the teacher throws out a question.

“What caused World War I?”

“Where is hilchos mezuzah?”

The type of question doesn’t matter—but pay attention to the response.

Oftentimes, when an educator throws out a general question, no one will respond. But the moment someone specific is called upon—then you get an answer.

“Sarah—what caused World War I?”

“Moshe—where is hilchos mezuzah?”

What is the difference?

In the first example—a general question—the audience is just being confronted with words. In the second example—when someone specific is called upon—you are being confronted by the speaker, not just words, but a relationship.

This is the difference between ויאמר and וידבר—the creation of the world and revelation of Torah. God’s wisdom is infused in all of creation, but it is only through Torah that the Author Himself confronts us. We are forced, so to speak to respond.

Only a דיבור reveals the speaker within their words. In fact, in Hebrew only the word דיבור can mean a speaker, a דובר, as opposed to אמירה, there is no such thing as a מאמר referring to the speaker.

Interestingly, when the Talmud discusses the non-Jewish world’s relationship to the Aseres HaDibbros, it calls them maamaros (מאמרות) because the dibbur of Torah was not directed at them. It is like they are overhearing someone else’s conversation.

God wrote a book called The World and a commentary on that book called the Torah, Rav Tzadok writes. We can choose whether or not to respond to the questions of divinity as revealed through the world, but the revelation of Torah— דברות, demands our attention because within the Torah we meet the Author.

Torah is the commentary on the world because it is through Torah that we meet and understand God’s authorial intent in creating the world. Torah is where we find the Author within the book of creation.

Torah is different than other disciplines or experiences—not because it is the only place God can be found, but because it is the only place where God calls the Jewish people out of the crowd. He asks us personally to respond, and we move beyond the words and finally meet the speaker.

Shabbos Reads — Books/Articles Mentioned

The Conflict over the Rashba's Herem on Philosophical Study: A Political Perspective, Marc Saperstein
The Hatam Sofer’s Nuanced Attitude Towards Secular Learning, Maskilim, and Reformers, Aaron M. Schreiber
From the Pages of Tradition: R. David Friedman of Karlin: The Ban on Secular Study in Jerusalem, Shnayer Leiman
Torah u-Madda Revisited: The Editor’s Introduction, Jacob J. Schacter
Hirschian Humanism After the Holocaust: An Analysis of the Approach of Rabbi Shimon Schwab, Shmuel Lesher
The Writings of Rabbi Norman Lamm: A Bibliographic Essay, David Schatz
Yeshiva University’s Lesson for Higher Education, Zev Eleff
Torah Umadda: The Encounter of Religious Learning and Worldly Knowledge in the Jewish Tradition, Norman Lamm
Torah Umadda and the Jewish Observer Critique: Towards a Clarification of the Issues, Mayer Schiller

Check out All Parsha, where you can find weekly audio of Reading Jewish History in the Parsha, as well as other incredible presenters and amazing features that will enhance your Parsha journey!

Reading Jewish History in the Parsha has been generously sponsored by my dearest friends Janet and Lior Hod and family with immense gratitude to Hashem.