https://yucommentator.org/2025/04/letter-to-the-editor-belkins-approach-to-torah-umadda/
A recent article quoted Rav Hershel Schachter describing the second president of Yeshiva University Samuel Belkin’s approach to Torah Umadda as “‘A yeshiva with a cafeteria & a dormitory in one building.’ You need a degree to make a parnassah. Dr. Belkin said that we give everything in one building, so you don’t have to travel to a city college. That’s what Torah Umadda is all about.”
I would urge the reader to instead evaluate President Belkin’s speeches and writings themselves for his approach to Torah Umadda and his vision of Yeshiva University. In his inaugural address, Belkin proclaimed:
“The college of the Yeshiva, like any other American college, endeavors to acquaint its student body with the mysteries of the universe, with the researches and discoveries of the human intellect, with the theories and speculations of the human mind. We shall always look upon its curriculum of liberal arts and sciences as indispensable for the intellectual development of our student body. We shall consider, however, its spiritual and moral teachings as the end, for a moral and spiritual way of life must be the aim and striving of every society. It is our intention to give to secular education a higher purpose and make the Yeshiva, and Yeshiva College, a living symbol of intellectual progress and moral activity. We believe that by reintegrating our lives with the ideals of the Torah and with our search after God’s knowledge we can succeed in establishing a medium for the unification of human knowledge.”
In other places, President Belkin explicitly disparaged pre-professional, parnassah-focused education (as did his predecessor Bernard Revel). Toward the end of his popular essay “The Four Dimensions of Higher Education,” he wrote, “We decry college students who seek out the ‘easy’ courses in order to amass the credits necessary for their diploma as painlessly as possible, who display no interest in deepening their understanding of the world in which they were born and of the people among whom they live.”
That whole essay itself is a testament to the value of broad, well-rounded liberal education. It was written in response to anxiety over Russian technological progress and the contention of some that America should shift to more technical and skill-based education to avoid falling behind. But Belkin rejected this view, claiming it would merely develop “human Sputniks.” He wrote, “The only true education is a rounded one, one which takes in all phases of knowledge.”
Belkin’s four dimensions of education were:
1) “The world into which we are born” — encompassing the natural sciences,
2) “The study of the peoples among whom we are born” — encompassing history, culture and the social sciences,
3) “The study of man himself” and
4) “The moral and spiritual purpose of life.”
One might note that parnassah is not one of the dimensions and, in fact, makes no appearance in the essay at all.
Belkin consistently, in all his speeches and writings over decades, spoke to the values of knowledge for its own sake, liberal education, integration with the broader world and “synthesis.”
Regarding integration, Belkin told rabbinic alumni of YU, “We must make contributions to the welfare of the community at large and support whatever we consider useful and constructive. Our philosophy is one of integration and we firmly deny that our integration in the American community in any way implies the abrogation of even one iota of our sacred tradition.” (“Translated, Transferred Or Transplanted Judaism — Which?” in “Essays in Traditional Jewish Thought,” p. 70)
On another occasion he wrote, “An ideal Jewish community in a non-Jewish world is one which endeavors to integrate itself in the larger community; one which renders service to the community at large, enjoys all the privileges, bears all the responsibilities, and, at the same time, realizes it separateness and distinctiveness in the spiritual modes of expression.” (“The Jewish Community In A Non-Jewish World: Problems of Integration And Separation” in “Essays in Traditional Jewish Thought,” p. 122)
When it comes to synthesis, Belkin recalled telling the Board of Regents in 1945, upon petitioning for university status, “The primary reason for the establishment of Yeshiva University was to develop a generation here in America which would reflect a harmonious blending of the Jewish traditions and the heritage of the great academies of Jewish learning with a liberal education in the arts and sciences.” (“Translated, Transferred Or Transplanted Judaism — Which?” in “Essays in Traditional Jewish Thought,” p. 66)
He elsewhere wrote, “We firmly believe that the acquisition of human knowledge is indispensable for the proper development of the human intellect which in itself possesses a spark of godliness … It is our duty to seek whatever is worthy in all that has been discovered by the human mind.” (“Traditional Judaism in America” in “Essays in Traditional Jewish Thought,” pp. 44-5)
In 1954, President Belkin was directly asked by students about his view on the nature of “synthesis.” The Commentator reported that in response Belkin emphasized that synthesis “does not mean ‘Chemistry a la Gemorra’ but that it is something which must be achieved within the personality of the individual rather than in subject matter. He repeated his assertion that ‘the Yeshiva gives a purpose in life while the College gives information.’”
Belkin reiterated this theme on many occasions. Had our author looked to more reliable sources on Belkin’s views, he would find responses to some of his other contentions about Torah Umadda, namely that this synthesis does not appear directly in YU classes or shiurim. According to Belkin though, it was never meant to. The alternative would cheapen both Torah and Madda. The “synthesis” is meant to happen in the individual. Or as Belkin put it in his inaugural address:
“Yeshiva College has endeavored to blaze a new trail of its own in conformity with the great American democratic traditions of education, and in harmony with the spiritual heritage of Israel. It is a true college of liberal arts and science. It is not our intention to make science the handmaid of religion nor religion the handmaid of science. We do not believe in a scientific religion nor in a pseudo-science. We prefer to look upon science and religion as separate domains which need not be in serious conflict and, therefore, need no reconciliation. If we seek the blending of science and religion and the integration of secular knowledge with sacred wisdom, then it is not in the subject matter of these fields but rather within the personality of the individual that we hope to achieve the synthesis.”
In another address, Belkin likewise described the pioneers who founded Yeshiva University as “the initiators of a philosophy of education in which human knowledge and the divine heritage of Israel, secular learning and sacred wisdom fuse harmoniously within the integrated personality of the individual.” (“The Jewish Community In A Non-Jewish World: Problems of Integration And Separation” in “Essays in Traditional Jewish Thought,” p. 135)
This conception was developed further by Rabbi Shalom Carmy in his introduction to the “Torah U’Mada Reader,” which was distributed to students in the 1980s, but for some reason no longer. Carmy likened the interaction between Torah and Madda to the corpus callosum — the thick bundle of nerves that connect the two hemispheres of the brain. He wrote, “What is uniquely available at YU, however, is not merely the convenience of a Bet Midrash and a college under the same roof. We also wish to create together a communal framework for interaction between the two, to make for ourselves a metaphorical corpus callosum.”
Carmy expanded that Torah Umadda is not a “double program,” but actually a “triple program.” He explained though that this third program is “not the province of any particular division, and it is rarely explicit in catalogue listings. It is a conscious perspective that manifests itself, often, in the details of your work, and an attitude that accompanies you through the long days and years of your life.”
Real Torah Umadda has always required hard mental work. It is the personal development of a holistic worldview. It cannot be easily spoon-fed by a class or even an institution; they can merely create a hospitable environment and community for it. It is a shame that our author — and many like him — have absolved themselves of this work. And it is an even deeper shame that YU has seemingly given up on facilitating it.
