I agree with Steve that the Mishpacha is charedi and I agree with Mark that Mishpacha likes to “print things that will provoke emotion.” But I don’t think Mishpacha prints those things just to sell mags. Rather, it is because those “things” are amazingly positivistic attempts to rectify problems in chareidi society without delegitimizing other camps within the fold and printing letters to the editor which express the true views of readership (imagine that). Now there is the occasional delegitimization and/or barb, but generally it’s just a gevaldik magazine.

I admire R’ Grylack and R’ Rosenblum enormously.

“We subscribe to Mishpacha which is Charedi in its editorial orientation”

I beg to differ. It is not Charedi, it is provocative. As a Charedi I find many things in the Mishpachah objectionable and I know I’m not alone because I’ve heard similar sentiments from others in our camps and I doubt I’d be termed a fanatic [but you never know]. Mishpachah does its best to always stay on the fence and print things that will provoke emotion. It sells mags after all.

I was taken aback by post #34 who had the temerity to state, not merely as conjecture but as an unequivocal undebatable given, that if Ramchal and Rabenu Bachya were here today, they would be ostracized by the chareidi establishment. The pretentiousness of this statement goes far beyond earlier opinions that their Hashkafos may overlap with MO or RZ hashkafos.

The poster presented 3 arguments for his opinion: “(1) Rabbeinu Bachya approvingly quoted non-Jewish philosophers! (2) He studied Greek and Arabic science! (3) He said that the Dor HaMidbar were religiously naive and that the Torah had to be simplified for their level of understanding!”

I previously rebutted the first two arguments, but I will rehash them (with some modification):

(1) To my knowledge, he does not quote any non-Jewish philosophers by name in CHL. To reflect the ideas of non-Jewish philosophers when they corroborate the basic Torah-based ideas is perfectly acceptable. I have done so myself.

(2) Wikipedia says he was familiar with Arabic, Greek, and Roman philosophy and scientific literature. This makes him about as secular as Rabbi Avigdor Miller, ZT”L.

What disturbed me the most was his third argument where he characterizes a passage from CHL. The implication is that there is something heretical about this passage and that is a clear departure from normative chareidi ideology. (If not that, then what’s his point?). He asserted that Chovos HaLevavos maintains that “the Dor HaMidbar were religiously naive and that the Torah had to be simplified for their level of understanding!”

Now, tell me if I am the only one, but I read this characterization as saying that CHL holds the Dor Hamidbar were a bunch of neanderthal airheads (not like us geniuses) and HKB”H had to make the whole Torah real simple so that they could understand it. Of course, such a thing is shocking and heretical and certainly all the chareidim would certainly toss him out of the Bais Midrash.

I petitioned the poster both online and off for the location of this passage so that I can examine it in context and he readily obliged. Shaar Bitachon 4 (about 75% through).

My assessment is that this characterization is a gross distirtion. Now, here is what CHL REALLY says:

CHL in Shaar Bitachon is asking why the Torah does not explicitly discuss the concepts of reward and punishment in the Afterlife. To this he suggests 7 reasons. In reason #2, he says that it was not necessary to explicate it insomuch as it is a kaballah from the neviim just like the bulk of Torah sheBaal Peh (IOW, they were really a learned bunch). In reason #3 (somewhat contradictory), he suggests that the Dor Hamidbar was religiously unschooled and therefore the Torah omitted the esoteric concepts of reward and punishment.

I see this as much different than saying that they were naïve and G-d had to simplify the Torah.

There is nothing remotely controversial or radical about this sentiment which he qualifies with a pasuk in Hoshea 11:1 and Marpeh L”Nefesh and Tov Halevanon (and others) add Devarim 29:3. The meforshim likewise point to Erechin 15a where Rav Huna says that “Yisrael of that generation were among those of little belief.”

There is no question that poster #34 believes that if the heretical Rav Huna was here today, he would be “ostracized from Chareidi society”.

Incidentally, Feldheim published CHL in English – along with Ramchal’s sefarim and, to date, no Chareidim banned them! They are on the shelves of every Chareidi institution along with Rambam and – I daresay – even Michtav M’Eliyahu. And you say Chareidim are at odds with them? Why did Mishpacha magazine give the radical Chovos Halevavos a six page spread two years ago?

I get it. Feldheim and Mishpacha are not really Chareidi!

With so few people actually remaining in Chareidi society is it any wonder that 99.99% of the world won’t define “Chareidi” as the Chareidim would define themselves?* Of course not! There are only 00.01% of the world who haven’t been ostracized!

Maybe I am the only one.

Yechezkel Hirshman, Author – One Above and Seven Below

*This is what I call in my book “Consumer Hazard #6”

That’s a completely different ballgame, and totally irrelevant to my point! I asked: “Did the Rambam take Art, with nude portraits?”. For you to claim that by “nude depictions of the human form” you meant medicine is extremely disingenuous and quite misleading. So much for all the other points, such as about Halachic sanction.

Regarding RSRH and permissibility of attending University based on his precedent, one would have to know exactly what the his immedaite surroundings were like on a consistent basis, what he could do to seclude himself from the environs, as well as his own thoughts on the matter, before concluding anything from the fact that he attended. Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe also attended college and was no big fan of it subsequently, to say the least.

Rav Moshe Feinstein writes in a responsum (Yoreh Deah Part 4 #34) that the reason why there is not such a hue and cry about American boys attending college is because, among other things, there is a limit to what they will listen to due to parental pressures, not due to its inherent permissibilty. During the summer, when there are females who are in inappropriate attire, there is no Heter under the sun. So even if what you say about RSRH is true, anecdotal evidence, along with dubious analogies to the present, does not have the ability to tip the scales versus this clear responsum, in favor of me being able to agree to the permissibility of University, although I do appreciate that you are wary of the pitfalls therein, and recognize the need for more care in this regard.

All the best.

They weren’t studying art, they were studying medicine.

“2) Was it a requirement in any way?”

Yes, doctors have to look at naked bodies on a regular basis.

“3) Under whose Halachic sanction did this take place?”

It isn’t a shilah. Chazal rule that it is a Torah mandate for a physician to heal. (I’m actually unaware of specific references in Chazal to physician *training*; it seems to be taken for granted that Jewish physicians exist. Interestingly the Torah philosophy is that it isn’t the physician but HaShem who is doing the real healing. Yet halachah requires us to consult physicians who attended real medical schools.)

“4) How do you know?”

Doctors have always had to do non-tzniut things.

“Does RSRH describe this happening where he went? ”

I have not read all of his writings and have not found anything he has written regarding the social environment of his university. I can’t believe that the Rhenish Friedrich Wilhelm University of Bonn would have been much different from all the other secular universities of Europe, though.

“Even if he had to go through it, does that mean that it is appropriate? ”

No. When I was a professor at a major state university the level of drinking and partying by undergraduates was a constant frustration. My point was that contrary to popular opinion, college students have been acting up for a very long time and it did not deter observant Jews then.

“What I am questioning is whether this is done in a way that is Halachically acceptable”

It is clear that it is halachically acceptable to attend universities, as my many examples have shown.

” as well as what safeguards do we have, that were unavailable to Rabbi Salanter, in screening out those who are at risk of succumbing to the breeding grounds of wrongheaded behavior and outlook, aka Universities.”

Now you are finally getting to something that we can discuss if you will accept my point that universities are mutar. Exactly who should attend university, and at what time in life, are very important questions! I’ve long thought that older students are more mature and better able to benefit from university education; to some extent my wife and I are examples of that since I earned by PhD at age 37 and my wife her MD at age 40. And there are some who should not attend university at any age. But all this is a case by case decision, hopefully made with ones rav, not a blanket isur for the entire Jewish world.

“You used this kind of reasoning previously, and I still don’t get it. Of course you PERCEIVE yourself as following in their footsteps, but that doesn’t mean that you are! Think about how many different types of people perceive themselves as following in the derech of Rambam!”

Of course you don’t get it. You didn’t read the book. I wrote a whole segment on “how many different types of people perceive themselves as following in the derech of the Rambam” (One Above Seven Below, pp. 111-117). Warning- even reading that segment won’t work unless you read the 110 pages that come before it.

“You are blinding yourself if you think that Rav Soloveitchik was charedi!”

I did not write that he was Chareidi (nor did I write that he was NOT Chareidi). I only wrote that he was an iluy. Iluy is not my definition of Chareidi.

“(again, I am talking about the definition used by 99.99% of the world)”

Okay, okay – I give up!! Exactly WHAT IS the definition used by 99.99% of the world?

“And what makes you say that Rabbeinu Bachya and Ramchal only engaged in chochmas chitzonios after mastering kol haTorah kulo?’

Forgive me for using the term “after”. I was “plagiarizing” the terminology of poster #79. My emphasis is not that it was chronilogically after mastering – it could be while mastering. My emphasis was that it was not at the expense of mastering as was the “seifa” of my “memra”.

“And what does it mean to master kol haTorah kulo? Is it not always possible to deepen one’s understanding?”

I would define it minimally as being baki in Tanach, shas, and Poskim. Of course it is possible to deepen one’s understanding. That is why Rabi Yishmael (presumably the same “non-Chareidi” Rabi Yishmael who “argues” with Rashb”Y)tells his nephew (Menachos 99b) NOT to learn chochmos chitzonius even though he learned Kol HaTorah Kulo (whatever that means!).

I very much welcome debate on the issues of this thread and on my (00.01%) chelek in it (my book), but I truly do think my book represents a bit of a greater percentage of the Torah olam and one really cannot make cogent arguments about it as long as he hasn’t read it and caught its premise. I don’t mean to put you down, but your comments appear to me as one who is shooting at a target in the dark.

I am very interested in a book swap. I will contact you offline about this.

Kol Tuv and Good Shabbos,

Yechezkel

1) When was the Art section of the University started?
2) Was it a requirement in any way?
3) Under whose Halachic sanction did this take place?
4) How do you know?

Probably not, as German universities were then all male. But European Universities have been well known for the, er, uh, rowdy and bawdy student conduct for centuries. Check out “Gaudeamus igitur” which is sung at Harvard commencement to this day.

Does RSRH describe this happening where he went? Even if he had to go through it, does that mean that it is appropriate?

The rabbis who earned medical degrees in Padua centuries earlier had already proven that to be true. Today I teach many yerei shamayim who are training to be great doctors. I’m also married to one.

I don’t doubt that. What I am questioning is whether this is done in a way that is Halachically acceptable, as well as what safeguards do we have, that were unavailable to Rabbi Salanter, in screening out those who are at risk of succumbing to the breeding grounds of wrongheaded behavior and outlook, aka Universities.

I’m sure it doesn’t preclude meeting YOUR basic definition of charedi – but it would preclude meeting the definition used by almost everyone else!

“Incidentally, my definition does not exclude Natan Slifkin, either. Does that totally blow it out of the water?”

Of course! Look, you are free to define it any way you want. You can define charedi as “being circumcised” and say that Avraham Avinu was charedi. But if virtually nobody else uses the term that way, it’s pointless and misleading.

“Also, you make it sound as if all Rishonim were Torah-U’Mada-niks.”

I certainly did not mean any such implication. There were enormous differences between Rishonim and Acharonim in different places. I was specifically referring to the figures that you mentioned.

“Incidentally, I wrote both in my post and in my book that my ideology (and that of a typical chareidi) is BASED ON Rabenu Bachya and Ramchal. So, how different can we be?”

You used this kind of reasoning previously, and I still don’t get it. Of course you PERCEIVE yourself as following in their footsteps, but that doesn’t mean that you are! Think about how many different types of people perceive themselves as following in the derech of Rambam!

“By the way, did you notice that my comment on multi-faceted geniuses was bunched together with some names of contemporary (though recently deceased) scholarly figures? Are there great historical differences that go back a mere 15 years to which we are blinding ourselves?”

You are blinding yourself if you think that Rav Soloveitchik was charedi! (again, I am talking about the definition used by 99.99% of the world)

“Actually, with my comment I was more or less seconding the opinion of post #79 that we must distinguish between those who learn chochmos chitzonios AFTER mastering kol HaTorah kulo…”

And what makes you say that Rabbeinu Bachya and Ramchal only engaged in chochmas chitzonios after mastering kol haTorah kulo? And what does it mean to master kol haTorah kulo? Is it not always possible to deepen one’s understanding?

I would expect you to be the last person to make judgments about a book based merely on what you hear But, seriously, the only difference between my definition and that of 99.99% (I don’t think it’s that unbalanced because I have Rabbi Moshe Grylak and Dovid Rossoff giving definitions just as broad as mine) is that 99.99% (as you would put it) would define chareidi as exclusively the ideology of Rashb”Y in Brochos 35b and I include Rabi Yishmael (you may have missed that line in my post). To say that it “would include people from the Religious Zionist and Modern Orthodox camps” is not totally accurate. What is more accurate is that it does not necessarily EXCLUDE “people from the Religious Zionist and Modern Orthodox camps” or, better, it “would include SOME people from the Religious Zionist and Modern Orthodox camps” but it would be the people that you would anyway look at and say “That guy may as well just put on a black hat, he is so chareidiish”. (Incidentally, my definition does not exclude Natan Slifkin, either. Does that totally blow it out of the water?)

About the Rishonim – Either you do not seem to accept my thesis of two levels of chareidi (of course, you did not read my book) or you simply didn’t read my post. I wrote that some Rishonim may not make the Rashb”Y model but engaging in these chochmos does not preclude one from meeting my basic definition of chareidi at least at the Rabi Yishmael level. Also, you make it sound as if all Rishonim were Torah-U’Mada-niks. I have not done in depth research on Rishonim but my instincts tell me that, like thinkers of today, there were Rishonim and there were Rishonim. I have no reason to assume that Rashi, Rabenu Tam, Rif, Rosh or Ritva were anything but bona fide Rashb”Y material. Rambam, Ramban, and Rabenu Bachye may have been different.

For your last comment – if you read my book, you will discover that it is (according to me) technically impossible for “very real historical differences between their ideology and yours” because their core ideology and mine is actually identical. They had the same Tanach and Talmud that I have. Incidentally, I wrote both in my post and in my book that my ideology (and that of a typical chareidi) is BASED ON Rabenu Bachya and Ramchal. So, how different can we be? Quite obviously, what you consider “historical differences” are fringe issues that are environmentally and culturally driven. I don’t believe that you can prove your assertion that if Rabenu Bechaye and Ramchal lived in our culture that they would be renegades and ostracized. My position is that they would most likely conform to today’s “Historical differences”.

By the way, did you notice that my comment on multi-faceted geniuses was bunched together with some names of contemporary (though recently deceased) scholarly figures? Are there great historical differences that go back a mere 15 years to which we are blinding ourselves? Actually, with my comment I was more or less seconding the opinion of post #79 that we must distinguish between those who learn chochmos chitzonios AFTER mastering kol HaTorah kulo (the multifaceted geniuses)to those who use their initiative as a hetter to learn chochmos chitzonios INSTEAD OF mastering kol haTorah kulo.

I don’t think you thoroughly read my post and you certainly did not read my book.

I have a distributor in RBS

Kol Tuv,

Yechezkel

You are correct that even in the charedi world, it is acceptable to quote from non-Jewish philosophers – but only if it is in way that makes it clear that it was off-handedly picked up, or as you say, from things learned in high school. But for the Rishonim, on the other hand, philosophy and the natural sciences was something that they engaged in as adults, in an active way, and which they valued greatly – whereas in Charedi society, this is very much not the case.

To say that they were “were all multifaceted geniuses so mere mortals such as we have no business relating ourselves to their levels of complexity or eccentricity” is simply to adopt the typical charedi approach of blinding yourself to the very real historical differences between their ideology and yours.

• I write in a footnote on page 48 that we all eschew the modifier “ultra” because its definition is “exceeding the norm” or “extreme”. Nobody considers their level of observance as extreme no matter what stream he flows with.

• Arguing about the term chareidi is pointless as long as it is not adequately defined. I make it my first order of business to do this.

• The gemara in Brachos (35b) presents 2 models for hashkafa. One is the rigid “Torah and nothing but” hashkafa of Rabi Shimon ben Yochai and the other is the more flexible TIDE hashkafa of Rabi Yishmael. Most people define “chareidi” as being strictly of the Rashb”Y mindset. That is why they make assertions that earlier pious thinkers such as Rambam, Rabbenu Bachya, and Ramchal would not be considered chareidi by today’s standards. I heartily disagree and maintain that Rashb”Y and R”Y are not truly at odds (Chapter 2 of the book) but rather Rashb”Y represents the chareidi ideal and R”Y takes a more practical approach. This is based on the reality that (1) so many Jews who lean toward R”Y consider themselves chareidi (2) attend and send their children to chareidi schools and Yeshivas (3) follow chareidi gedolim, (4) maintain mehadrin kashrus, etc. It is also based on the fact that 3 Amoraim in Brachos make peace between the 2 sides.

• In my opinion the group that is called MO (also in need of a consensual definition) covers a wide spectrum which at one extreme is barely Orthodox and at the other is quasi-chareidi.

• When we try analyze the personalities and to piece together the hashkafot of iluyim from generations past we are walking on thin ice and are being quite pretentious. We see in the individual a few anomalies from today’s chareidi doctrine (per Rashb”Y) and we blow it out of proportion to characterize the person as non-chareidi. I especially take exception to the comment by Natan Slifkin in #34 where he asserts that Rabenu Bachya and Ramchal – who I name in my book as the trailblazers of today’s chareidi ideology – would be “very different” from today’s chareidi and that “they quote approvingly from non-Jewish philosophers”. Hey, in my book I claim to be a paradigm chareidi yet I “quote approvingly” Thomas Edison in my foreword and on page 254 I approve of many CBT philosophers (okay, those I quote just happen to be Jewish, but I approve of Burns and Rogers, too). What does it tell us that Rabenu Bachya studied Greek and Arabic sciences? I also attended high school and studied Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, languages, and literature and my critics still call me Grade A chareidi! I mention Venn diagrams and molecular compositions in my book but I still preach amelus b’Torah. Obviously the limudei chol was superficial and it was decades ago but I still remember most of it. Who says Rabenu Bachya’s secular study was any more extensive? They may not have been chareidi at the Rashb”Y extreme but according to my thesis Rabbi Yishmael was no less chareidi. Moreover, all the aforementioned plus enigmatic scholars of today such as the Rav (JBS) and the Lubavicher Rebbe were all multifaceted geniuses so mere mortals such as we have no business relating ourselves to their levels of complexity or eccentricity.

• As per Slifkin’s comment about the Chasam Sofer and historical ignorance – I hold with Noah Efron (Real Jews, page 21) that it is a Zenoic paradox to say that Chasam Sofer revolutionized Orthodoxy if his cause celebre was to keep it the same. My gripe with Efron is that he accepts the paradox (as apparently does Slifkin) and I reject it.

• Incidentally, which word in Chovos Halevavos translates as “religiously naïve”? (BTW_ Rabenu Bachye ibn Pakuda in Chovos Halevavos is not Rabenu Bechaye ben Asher in Chumash)

I know this was a long post but it relates to a large bloc of comments. For a fuller exposition, check out One Above and Seven Below (I understand the moderator doesn’t like web links but you can find my web site on Google).

Chag Sameach,

Yechezkel Hirshman, Author – One Above and Seven Below

One could ask the same question about other groups: Ay, why not put more emphasis on all the major points of correspondence between the traditional society and MO society or traditional society and German Orthodox society? All are attempting to both be halachic and deal with modernity.

I have a feeling I don’t truly understand your question. Please clarify.

Why consider that “one sense” to be primary or defining? Why not put more emphasis on all the major points of correspondence between the traditional society and present-day Litvish or Chassidic communities?

You have to understand that traditional society, as defined in the common terms — i.e. Jews were openly halachically observant with no plausible alternatives within the community– could only exist in pre-modern times. That society is in one sense dead and impossible to “revive.”

So the question upon us now is how best to deal with modernity. Obviously, those of us who are Orthodox believe that the halachic lifestyle which we have always believed to be G-d given will best suit said times.

But how do we now cope with the fact that Jewish people now think and feel differently? No matter what, some aspect of modern Western thought seems to permeate our minds!

So the Litvish have instituted a “horaas shaa” of sending everybody to kollel to counter the spiritual tuma in the upper spheres and attempting to only integrate elements of modernity which are germane to this goal; the Chasidim (sometimes) attempt to engage the larger world in buisiness, but retreat to their enclaves for their domestic lives; the Hirschians are well educated in secular subjects, but maintain an anchor in the Jewish sources, the Modern Orthodox welcome certain aspects of modernity (Dr. Lawrence Kaplan’s differentiation between the MO from the chareidim in an essay: “…the different relative weights they assign to submission, authority, and self-overcoming, on the one hand, and autonomy, independence, and self-expression on the other.”), and the last parts of the traditional Sephardic culture guard become Orthodox. This is obviously an oversimplification and some of these groups don’t consider subcategories of the other ones to be considered legitimately frum, but this is what’s happening.

I’m intrigued by this argument or allusion to an argument. If the point is that the mores of the older “traditional society” were more authentic and valid than those of the more recent “Chareidi society”, that logic should lead those making the point to try to revive the traditional society to the greatest degree possible. What I often see instead is that they themselves follow an approach markedly more “modern” and synthetic than either of the above.

University in the time of the Rambam meant either a Christian or Islamic school, at least as far as Jews were concerned. (There was a university in China at that time, and the few Jews in China did indeed study the Confucian texts extensively, but the Jewish community in China was so isolated and so small that it really does not pertain to this discussion.) Islam is not idolatrous — at least according to Rambam after apparently studying its beliefs extensively. I am pretty sure that no Christian university in Rambam’s time permitted Jews to enroll without first renouncing their faith. (University of Padua was founded in 1222 after Rambam’s death; University of Glasgow in 1451. The latter sent an official representative to the Richard Joel’s installation as YU President.)

“Did the Rambam take Art, with nude portraits?”

Are you being silly? Islam is more stringent on depictions of human form than is Judaism! However, the Jewish students at Padua would certainly have studied nude depictions of the human form.

“Did he study Chaucer or other heretical Literature as a Liberal Arts pre-Med requirement?”

Be serious! Chaucer lived almost two centuries after Rambam. But it is certain that Rambam studied heretical literature, both Greek and Arabic, because he wrote about it. And in our times Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein quotes Erasmus, Milton, Blake, and Newman, using them to prove Torah points.

“Did RSRH attend summer school with scantily clad girls asking him if he could help them at lab?”

Probably not, as German universities were then all male. But European Universities have been well known for the, er, uh, rowdy and bawdy student conduct for centuries. Check out “Gaudeamus igitur” which is sung at Harvard commencement to this day.

“show that it is possible to be great doctor and Yarei Shamayim”

The rabbis who earned medical degrees in Padua centuries earlier had already proven that to be true. Today I teach many yerei shamayim who are training to be great doctors. I’m also married to one.

Expressions of superiority here vis-a-vis other Orthodox groups or outlooks have no positive value and lead to arguments that go nowhere. We have to decide if we want to lead by example (this includes leading “heterodox” Jews back to Torah by example) or just blow off steam.

I said, to the TUM model espoused by YU. The article is available online.

To learning in university? To learning chochmot chitzonios?

Like I said, this is a profound lack of subtle thinking, painting the debate as pro or anti-University, with the proofs ranging back to University in the time of the Rambam! If we all started calling pig “chicken”, would that make pig Muttar because we know that the Tannaim and the Rambam ate chicken?
Did the Rambam take Art, with nude portraits?
Did he study Chaucer or other heretical Literature as a Liberal Arts pre-Med requirement? (Before or after he wrote his Peirush HaMishnayos? Are those doing so today in conformity with the Rambam in Hilchos Avodah Zarah 2:3?)

Did RSRH attend summer school with scantily clad girls asking him if he could help them at lab?

Did anyone today ask the Rambam if sacrificing a tremendous chunk of one’s life, at the expense of mastery of Torah, is worth it? What percentage of MO parents insistent on their offspring attending University have mastered Torah on even a rudimentary level (which is an absolute obligation on every Jew as per R’ Moshe Feinstein’s understanding to the Rambam Talmud Torah 1:9-10)), let alone internalized the need to relinquish the goal of amassing money before truly acquiring the crown of Torah (ibid. 3:6-8).

In terms of Chochmos Chitzoniyos, R’ Yisrael Salanter, surely a man with great understanding of the human spirit, and surely of that of one of his closest Talmidim, sent one of those Talmidim to University to be a Kiddush Hashem, to show that it is possible to be great doctor and Yarei Shamayim. That Talmid ended up a general in the Russian Army’s Medical Corps, and went off the Derech. From that point on he despaired of and abandoned a TIDE Mahalach. Not B’Shitah, but because of fear. So are we better students of the human condition than he, or are Universities less risky today?

Even in TIDE as such, there is a tremendous distortion among the MO, and many TIDE adherents, in:
a) the value placed on the prestige to be had in the academic world as worthwhile in and of itself.
b) the notion that Chochmos are needed to enhance and inform our ethical and intellectual weltanschauung, (and, inter alia, that the Torah is insufficient as such), well beyond the simple practical utility of Parnassah or pubic and societal service. [This is NOT what the GRA said about Chochmos. He did NOT say that one who does not study these Chochmos lacks ethical or intellectual balance. He said that he lacks understanding of certain parts of Torah. And one who lacks certain parts of Torah a fortiori lacks understanding of certain parts of Torah].

R’ Yisrael Salanter was completely and forcefully opposed to both of these illicit Haskafos, and this, especially the second point above, is why the Maskilim, who initially thought they had an ally in him, found out soon enough that they had nothing of the sort, and became bitter foes of his, as per the Seridei Aish.

He talks specifically on how the chareidim value Chovos Halevavos and Mesilas Yesharim specifically (and why).

One interesting note – I am told that the author has a son who is studying in Skokie Yeshiva.

Naftali Zvi