[brianna]

Just wondering: 1) What everyone thinks about this 2) What the torah view of learning secular wisdom is.

[int]

There are different types of secular wisdom. The answer to your question depends on the type.

For physics and mathematics (and some parts of philosophy), my personal opinion is "Absolutely - everyone should", and in fact that it also may be considered part of Torah.

For other types of chochmas bagoyim, the answer is different.

[brianna]

int, on Mar 6 2005, 03:07 PM, said:

For other types of chochmas bagoyim, the answer is different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where do you draw the line?

[jewmaican20]

brianna, on Mar 6 2005, 04:08 PM, said:

int, on Mar 6 2005, 03:07 PM, said:

For other types of chochmas bagoyim, the answer is different.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where do you draw the line?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In most cases, it's probably a personal choice and depends on being able to guage yourself and knowing your own limitations. But really, it's an old question of torah u'madda. Where are the paramaters?

[Pure Myrrh]

Brianna, with all due respect, your poll question is about as meaningful as asking "Food: Is it worth eating?"

[krumlikeapretzel]

brianna, on Mar 6 2005, 02:04 PM, said:

Just wondering: 1) What everyone thinks about this 2) What the torah view of learning secular wisdom is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suspect there are a lot of people who believe learning chochmas hagoyim is always asur but couldn't vote on your poll since they still haven't figured out how to turn on their computer.
Seriously, there is a mishnah in Nidah (if I'm not mistaken) that says that learning seforim chitzonim leads to people not having a place in Olam habah. Some do interpret all secular learning to be seforim chitzonim, and it was part of the machlokes between Chasidim and Misnagdim. The Gr"a was a big proponent of secular learning while the Baal Shem Tov was strongly against it. Then, Lithuanian Jewry became just as suspicious of secular learning to the point where R' Chaim Brisker closed down the Volozhiner yeshivah rather than introduce secular subjects. Today, however, there are several US Roshei Yeshivah who have said that everyone should at least graduate from High School.
btw, I have a BA in Psychology.

[krumlikeapretzel]

krumlikeapretzel, on Mar 6 2005, 06:05 PM, said:

Seriously, there is a mishnah in Nidah (if I'm not mistaken) that says that learning seforim chitzonim leads to people not having a place in Olam habah.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh, I forgot, the gemarah there, (again if I'm not mistaken) says that seforim chitzonim are for example Sefer ben Sirah(=Ecclesiasticus). I once read that much of the nusach of the shmone esrei is based on Sefer ben Sirah. ...Well, maybe the book where I read that would be a good example of Seforim Chitzonim.

[shim]

krumlikeapretzel, on Mar 6 2005, 06:05 PM, said:

brianna, on Mar 6 2005, 02:04 PM, said:

Just wondering: 1) What everyone thinks about this 2) What the torah view of learning secular wisdom is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then, Lithuanian Jewry became just as suspicious of secular learning to the point where R' Chaim Brisker closed down the Volozhiner yeshivah rather than introduce secular subjects.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice post. But this little point is a distortion of what actually happened at Volozhin.

Volozhin only closed after the Russian government imposed the following regulations:

1) Secular studies were to take place daily between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:00 pm

2) No more than ten hours a day could be spent studying

3) there was to be no studying at all at night

4) The members of the administration and teachers all had to be able to speak Russian and hold a diploma tetifying to their knowledge od some secular subjects

Just imagine these rules imposed by the government on any yeshiva and see if they can function with 6 hours of secular subjects followed by a maximum of 4 hours Torah learning, which had to end before nightfall (which is really early in the winter, especially in Russia's winter). Obviously the yeshiva could not comply. In other words, the government forced Volozhin to close. Which it did, ten weeks later, in February 1892.

However, prior to this a limited amount of secular subjects were taught at Volozhin -- also forced by the government, but secular subjects they were. So its not entirely true that Volozhin closed rather than introduce secular subjects; Volozhin did introduce secular subjects, albeit against the Netziv's will. Volozhin closed because the government wanted to turn it into a shell of a yeshiva.

The whole story can be found here in great detail.

From the closing words:

Quote

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Netziv allowed secular studies in Volozhin. There is also no doubt whatsoever that he did so entirely against his will, when circumctances totally beyond his control forced him, "as if compelled by a demon," to do so.

edit: R. Chaim? R. Chaim was never a rosh yeshiva of Volozhin. His father, the Beis Halevi, was an associate yeshiva with the Netziv. It was the Netziv who "closed down" Volozhin.

This post has been edited by shim: 07 March 2005 - 01:31 PM

[Sweet]

krumlikeapretzel, on Mar 6 2005, 07:05 PM, said:

Seriously, there is a mishnah in Nidah (if I'm not mistaken) that says that learning seforim chitzonim leads to people not having a place in Olam habah. Some do interpret all secular learning to be seforim chitzonim, and it was part of the machlokes between Chasidim and Misnagdim. The Gr"a was a big proponent of secular learning while the Baal Shem Tov was strongly against it. Then, Lithuanian Jewry became just as suspicious of secular learning to the point where R' Chaim Brisker closed down the Volozhiner yeshivah rather than introduce secular subjects. Today, however, there are several US Roshei Yeshivah who have said that everyone should at least graduate from High School.
btw, I have a BA in Psychology.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The mishna is in sanhedrin. It doesn't say it "leads to" it says if you read seforim chitzonim you don't have a chelek in olam habah.
And the gemara that says that Ben Sira is seforim chitzonim, quotes extensively from Ben Sira. Apparently the issur is not as clear cut black-and-white as we present it, no matter how you define seforim chitzonim.
Reb Chaim, as much as he has come to stand for Lithuanian jewry, was by no means representative of the normative view at that time. R' Lazer Telzer, The Ohr Sameach, and many other recognized Lithuanian greats were not as anti as R' Chaim was.

[Sweet]

Another question is the issue of Chochma Yevonis, and whether that is synonymous with secular studies. The gemara quotes an amora as saying it may only be learned "when it is not day and not night".
And the old man who recommended sending a pig over the wall of yerushalayim is described as being knowledgable in "chochma yevonis". Perhaps the definition, like seforim chitzonim, is not that easy to pin down.
Edit: Actually, I think it was the man who recommended killing the Talmid Chochom who upheld beitar. Help anyone?

[krumlikeapretzel]

farshideneh greenstein, on Mar 7 2005, 01:26 PM, said:

Another question is the issue of Chochma Yevonis, and whether that is synonymous with secular studies. The gemara quotes an amora as saying it may only be learned "when it is not day and not night".
And the old man who recommended sending a pig over the wall of yerushalayim is described as being knowledgable in "chochma yevonis". Perhaps the definition, like seforim chitzonim, is not that easy to pin down.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rather, the isur must not be black and white like you say by seforim chitzonim. It's hard to think of any definition of chochma yevonis that excludes Aristotle, yet the Rambam based his shmonah prakim on Aristotle.

[misosbd]

shim, on Mar 7 2005, 11:12 AM, said:

However, prior to this a limited amount of secular subjects were taught at Volozhin -- also forced by the government, but secular subjects they were. So its not entirely true that Volozhin closed rather than introduce secular subjects; Volozhin did introduce secular subjects, albeit against the Netziv's will. Volozhin closed because the government wanted to turn it into a shell of a yeshiva.

The whole story can be found here in great detail.

From the closing words:

Quote

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Netziv allowed secular studies in Volozhin. There is also no doubt whatsoever that he did so entirely against his will, when circumctances totally beyond his control forced him, "as if compelled by a demon," to do so.

I didn't see his proof that there was secular studies in volozhin, but what we do know is that if there was, it was against his will.

Quote

edit: R. Chaim? R. Chaim was never a rosh yeshiva of Volozhin. His father, the Beis Halevi, was an associate yeshiva with the Netziv. It was the Netziv who "closed down" Volozhin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

R. Chaim said a shiur in Volozhin and the decision to close was likely his.

[shim]

Quote

I didn't see his proof that there was secular studies in volozhin, but what we do know is that if there was, it was against his will.

I will leaf through the article and post the relevent parts.

Of course it was "against his will". It was imposed by the Russian government. But for some time there were secular subjects taught in Volozhin. It was only when the impossible regulations were imposed that Volozhin did not follow and the goverment closed down Volozhin.

Quote

R. Chaim said a shiur in Volozhin and the decision to close was likely his.

You have got to be kidding me.

Your post right there sums up the difference between history and hagiography.

This post has been edited by shim: 07 March 2005 - 02:18 PM

[misosbd]

shim, on Mar 7 2005, 02:16 PM, said:

  ]I didn't see his proof that there was 

You have got to be kidding me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is that?

[Sweet]

krumlikeapretzel, on Mar 7 2005, 03:06 PM, said:

Rather, the isur must not be black and white like you say by seforim chitzonim. It's hard to think of any definition of chochma yevonis that excludes Aristotle, yet the Rambam based his shmonah prakim on Aristotle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Since I don't know what the context of the story (in fact I'm not even sure which story it was) I don't know if that's true. Maybe chochma yevonis is centered on serving their avoda zora. In any event, you're right. I would assume the issur is not black and white.

[shim]

misosbd, on Mar 7 2005, 02:18 PM, said:

shim, on Mar 7 2005, 02:16 PM, said:

  ]I didn't see his proof that there was 

You have got to be kidding me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because it isn't true. The Netziv wasn't a board appointee. He ran Volozhin. He was in charge of Volozhin. He made the decisions in Volozhin. I have no idea why the hagiography version requires that R. Chaim and not the Netziv "closed" Volozhin, but it's odd. Look at the article and the extensive footnotes, pages and pages of them. What happened in Volozhin doesn't have to be an event shrouded in mystery. It happened less than 120 years ago and there are extensive testimonials and records. The circumstances surrounding its closure can and has been investigated.

[misosbd]

shim, on Mar 7 2005, 02:22 PM, said:

misosbd, on Mar 7 2005, 02:18 PM, said:

shim, on Mar 7 2005, 02:16 PM, said:

  ]I didn't see his proof that there was 

You have got to be kidding me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why is that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because it isn't true. The Netziv wasn't a board appointee. He ran Volozhin. He was in charge of Volozhin. He made the decisions in Volozhin. I have no idea why the hagiography version requires that R. Chaim and not the Netziv "closed" Volozhin, but it's odd. Look at the article and the extensive footnotes, pages and pages of them. What happened in Volozhin doesn't have to be an event shrouded in mystery. It happened less than 120 years ago and there are extensive testimonials and records. The circumstances surrounding its closure can and has been investigated.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You haven't given me an answer.

[shim]

Sure I have. You've said something with absolutely zero historical basis, that "the decision to close was likely [R. Chaim's]". I have no idea if you made it up or heard or misheard someone say this. But it is pure make-believe.

[shim]

shim, on Mar 7 2005, 02:16 PM, said:

Quote

I didn't see his proof that there was secular studies in volozhin, but what we do know is that if there was, it was against his will.

I will leaf through the article and post the relevent parts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Its too much to post. Please click the article I linked to above and read pps. 31-33.

[krumlikeapretzel]

farshideneh greenstein, on Mar 7 2005, 01:22 PM, said:

The mishna is in sanhedrin. It doesn't say it "leads to" it says if you read seforim chitzonim you don't have a chelek in olam habah.
And the gemara  that says that Ben Sira is seforim chitzonim, quotes extensively from Ben Sira. Apparently the issur is not as clear cut black-and-white as we present it, no matter how you define seforim chitzonim.
Reb Chaim, as much as he has come to stand for Lithuanian jewry, was by no means representative of the normative view at that time. R' Lazer Telzer, The Ohr Sameach, and many other recognized Lithuanian greats were not as anti as R' Chaim was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

right. The mishnah in question is in Chelek, Sanhedrin 90a. The gemarah is in Sanhedrin 100b.
It is Rabi Akiva that says that those who read seforim chitzonim don't have a chelek leolam habo, apparently the Rambam paskens that way in hilchos teshuvah perek gimel. The gemarah defines sefarim chitzonim as sifrei minim. Rav Yosef who says sefer Ben Sirah is under the definition of seforim chitzonim says that we are doresh the good parts of Ben Sirah.