Torah Versus Madda

I believe that Yeshiva should adopt the competitive model of capitalism as the best means to improve all aspects of the school. Whether or not the administration, the faculty, or the Roshei Yeshiva like it, the fact is that they are competing for the time and attention of the students. Instead of ignoring this competition, I think it should be encouraged, and victory actively pursued by each branch so as to improve the overall quality of education at Yeshiva.

Three prefatory clarifications: Firstly, as I am limited by my experience, I can't focus on the sciences, Sy Syms School of Business (SSSB), or Torah programs in which I have not been enrolled, though I have a feeling that much of what I say will resonate even with those not in my position. Secondly, theologically, I think Torah is superior to any other form of knowledge, and I believe in a certain divine providence granted to the Torah sages in their Torah learning and halakhic decision making. The arguments I make do not contradict that theology, but rather are premised on the fact that what is true ideally is not necessarily true in practice. Thirdly, while in this article I focus on what Yeshiva College (YC) should learn from the Mazer Yeshiva Program (MYP), I believe there is much that MYP can learn from YC.

In the "fight" between Torah and Madda, Torah has won. I don't mean that in terms of adherence to Divine law or in terms of the dedication of all Jews to its devoted study; in those regards, Torah has a long way to go. But in terms of the impressiveness of Torah, its grandeur, complexity, beauty, and intellectual demand... well, Madda, at least at Yeshiva College, pales in comparison.

I think the embodiment of all that is superior about Torah at Yeshiva University is found in our Roshei Yeshiva. Despite the halakhic demands of kavod harav, respect for one's rabbi, it would be errant to believe that the respect granted to these rabbis is due to religious obligation alone. Rather, our Roshei Yeshiva are admired for six qualities which, for the most part, they encapsulate. They are: genius, content, intensity, rigor, creativity, and spirituality. The Roshei Yeshiva have only been able to attain their stature and position in Yeshiva by staggering intellectual genius. But that genius is only the foundation. Their intense hatmada provides them great content, a breadth of information and a depth of understanding that reflects the intricacy and infinity of Torah. As well, their hatmada - devoted, near-constant immersion, usually beginning from a very young age - makes clear the demands of acquiring Torah knowledge and its ultimate importance in the Jewish life-experience. Their firm grasp of the material enables the Roshei Yeshiva to be extremely rigorous in interpreting cryptic texts and explicating profound ideas. Perhaps the most unappreciated trait of our Roshei Yeshiva is their creativity within our tradition. It is astonishing how minds so disciplined can at the same time be so iconoclastic. Above all, the most important traits of the Roshei Yeshiva are their spiritual genius, their moral integrity, and their profound Jewish wisdom.

Genius, intensity, content, rigor, creativity, and spirituality. This, no doubt, reads sycophantic. But I think that this is the overall sentiment of the MYP students vis-à-vis their Roshei Yeshiva.

Even excluding the spiritual component, I think, sadly, that these sentiments do not carry over to the faculty of Yeshiva College. No doubt our professors have tough competition in RIETS. But is it unreasonable to hope that even a few of the professors in YC should be so impressive with their scholarship, their erudition, and their intense dedication to their subject matter that students are awed by them, and in that awe thirst for the knowledge they can impart? In the next few years, as YC hires more faculty, impressiveness and erudition need to be seriously taken into account.

But beyond hiring more serious and expert scholars, YC, especially in the humanities, has to introduce more rigor and more intensity to be able to compete with the morning program. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be interesting. But it does mean it should be productive. Professors, especially in the humanities, don't realize how critical our thinking already is and what rigor we are used to. Nor do they realize the value of our time, that our chiyuv talmud torah is always making us justify how our time is spent. When held up to this standard, many YC classes are found to be wanting. I beg the YC professors to look at how many people - even "A" students - play solitaire or check their email during class. This doesn't happen in shiur and not because of kavod hatorah, but because the shiur demands such great attention and concentration for the material to be grasped and remembered.

In 1887, Oxford history professor Edward Freeman made the following point, which prevented Oxford from creating a chair in English until years later: "We are told that the study of literature 'cultivates the taste, educates the sympathies and enlarges the mind.' These are all excellent things, only we cannot examine tastes and sympathies. Examiners must have technical and positive information to examine."

Historically speaking, Freeman has lost, as literature chairs are found throughout the world's leading universities, Oxford included. But the problem he addressed is no less relevant today. YC must answer this question as it relates to all of the humanities: Just what exactly are we trying to do here?

Related to the above point, and in light of the intellectual rigor we are used to in the morning, class discussion as a didactic approach in the humanities should be seriously reconsidered. It is an extremely inefficient way of teaching material and is relatively uncreative compared to the methodology of the morning instructors. Students are taking the class, presumably, because they don't know much about the subject matter; professors are teaching the class, presumably, because they know a great deal about the subject matter. That being the case, the professors need to spend much more time lecturing. Otherwise, it is assumed that reading the book the night before a class session is all it takes to have expertise on the subject matter, as that is all it takes to authorize one to argue with one's professor.