Rav Schwab's letter in defense of secular studies and the Hirschian approach

 https://jewishlink.news/torah-and-derech-eretz-the-frankfort-approach

In response to your letter: I received the issue of ha-Ma’ayan (Tishrei 5724 [1963]) upon publication and read R, Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler’s (of blessed memory) essay. It was reissued in his Mikhtav me-Eliyahu, volume 3, which just appeared in print.

Who am I to render an opinion regarding a matter about which greater and better rabbinic scholars have yet to reach an agreement? The rabbis of the previous generation, indeed the ancestors of Rabbi Dressler who were the founders of the Musar movement, R. Israel Salanter (d.1883) and his disciple R. Simcha Zissel (Brioda, d. 1870) addressed this issue. I have heard that their view on these matters came very close to that of R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, but that they were outnumbered and opposed by the majority of (East European) rabbis at the time. It seems to me that this was always the case historically. The majority of the rabbis refused to engage in secular study, lest they be ensnared by it. On the other hand, in every generation a minority of Torah sages engaged in secular study, sensing it as a handmaiden to serve the cause of Torah. That minority pursued its own path and sanctified God’s name throughout the universe, as is well known. R. Moses Isserles (d. 1572) already wrote in a responsum to R. Solomon Luria (d. 1574) that it was an ancient debate between the sages (see She’elot u-Teshuvot R. Moses Isserles 6 and 7 cf: [R. Abba Mari b. Moses Astruc of Lunel d. 1300)] Minhat Qena’ot.)

Who knows! It may well be that both approaches “Torah and Derekh Eretz” and “Torah Only” are true, both reflecting the essence of Torah. What is crucial is that ones’s intent be for the sake of Heaven, always according the Torah primary status, and making secular study secondary. No rabbinic court ever banned secular study. Indeed, the Torah scholars of the various generations never ruled officially in favor of the one approach after the other. Everyone is free to select whichever approach finds favor in his eyes. Let him consult his teachers and follow in the footsteps of his forefathers. The advocates of one approach must respect the advocates of the other approach. They may not cast aspersions on the approach they reject. To the contrary, they must provide support for each other. In particular one must be very wary of repudiating the view of the opposing approach, without first mastering the fundamentals of the approach being criticized.

continue