Academic Jewish Studies: Benefits and Dangers

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Academic Jewish Studies: Benefits and Dangers

By Shlomo Zuckier

Published: Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Updated: Thursday, December 24, 2009

Is the enterprise of Academic Jewish Studies a worthwhile one?  This issue of Kol Hamevaser deals with the interaction between this wide and varied field, with all its distinct branches, and the Orthodox Jew.  I would like to take a broad look at what this approach has to offer the thinking Orthodox Jew and what dangers it holds in store for him or her.  This presentation is by no means comprehensive, and it does not necessarily reflect any one position on the issue, but I hope that this adumbration of the range of relevant advantages and dangers in the academic study of Jewish texts can be a useful resource nonetheless.

Academic Jewish Studies possesses a complicated relationship with traditional Jewish learning and practice, serving as both its handmaiden and rival.  Many methods later championed in academic study were first utilized by classical mefareshim, and novel academic interpretations can aid the religious Jew as well; at the same time, however, much of academic scholarship directly or indirectly undermines classical learning and/or belief.  How should we view this dually oppositional and supportive role that academic study serves to Torah study in particular and religiosity in general?

Beginning with the positive, Academic Jewish Studies can assist the traditional Jew either by providing technical information or through offering alternative constructive methodological approaches to the material.  In the technical sense, it can proffer a precise definition of the Hebrew or Aramaic languages, help establish the basic version of a text (girsa)[ii] and allow a person to apply this knowledge to the study of biblical and/or Talmudic material where it might be lacking in traditional study.[iii]  At the same time, there are some more fundamentally significant ways in which academic scholarship can be of great value to a person studying the traditional text.  Sensitivity to literary phenomena in Tanakh study, which was not fully developed in the past, is now a broadly used component of such study,[iv] and institutions like Herzog College primarily employ the literary approach in a fully religious environment.  A literarily aware approach can also be applied in the context of Talmud study, as it has been in recent years.[v]  At times, even source criticism can promote Torah; would Rav Soloveitchik have presented his hiddush regarding Adam the first and Adam the second in The Lonely Man of Faith if not for the famous critical understandings of Be-Reshit 1 and 2?[vi]   In a similar vein, certain academic approaches to the Talmud enrich our understanding of the text.  What might be referred to as the intellectual history of the Bavli,[vii] the analysis of Amoraic opinions with an eye towards consistency in their approaches (which some claim is an extension of the "le-shittatam" method in Talmudic parlance[viii]), can help us better understand the positions of these Sages.

Furthermore, the label "Academic Jewish Studies" can be somewhat misleading at times, as many of the approaches now pursued primarily or exclusively in the Academy were formerly firmly rooted in the metaphorical beit midrash.  The study of Hebrew grammar, the implementation of certain literary tools, efforts to ascertain the proper girsa of the Gemara and the analysis of consistent Amoraic opinions referenced above are each a part of the traditional commentaries on the Tanakh and/or Talmud.

Additionally, approaching the Bible and Talmud with a historical mindset, a modus operandi of the academic method but a tool often ignored in traditional learning, can at times be very instructive in the study of these texts.  Knowledge of the relevant history is instrumental in understanding the basic meaning of many perakim in Tanakh.  At times, knowing the Ancient Near Eastern background of a biblical text can be fundamentally important for appreciating its message, as awareness of the backdrop against which the Bible is written can reveal polemics that may employ only discreet references to the surrounding culture.[ix]  At times, certain historical pieces of information can demonstrate the historicity of a biblical text, such as the Cyrus Scroll and its correlation to Ezra 1:2-4, or otherwise support traditional beliefs.  In Talmud study, it is possible to gain insight into the ways in which certain laws were formulated based on the surrounding culture.

Until this point, I have only related to Tanakh and Talmud, areas where there is an established methodology of traditional study and where, therefore, academic approaches are (possibly) something very different.  In the areas of Jewish History and Philosophy, however, this is not the case and so interaction with academic methods takes on a different role.

Jewish history[xi],[xii] was not classically studied in traditional settings,[xiii] and there is no inherent talmud Torah value in learning about historical events, so the primary question regarding history is not how it assists some other endeavor but rather what value it possesses in its own right.  At one level, assuming God shapes history,[xiv] learning the Jewish People's history is essentially the study of how God has related to Israel in this world, which is of utmost value to the religious individual.[xv]  On a less divine level, analyzing the history of the periods in which important religious figures lived helps us understand their Weltanschauungen and thus better appreciate their impact.  Furthermore, in order to contextualize certain religious questions that consistently appear throughout Jewish history, such as the challenge of how to interact with the outside world, one must properly understand the relevant historical periods.[xvi]  In a more practical sense, and in consonance with George Santayana's dictum "Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it," we have an obligation to learn from our mistakes; Judaism has both a colorful and dark history, but it has always survived, and we must maintain that perseverance.   Aside from history's intellectual function of furthering our understanding, it can also serve to deepen the connection of a Jew to his religion and culture in a visceral, if not intellectual, sense.  Last, but not least, it is important in another vein as well – all Jews (religious or otherwise) would be well served if they were knowledgeable of their basic history as a people, as everyone should have a basic awareness of his or her cultural background.[xvii]  

The basic methodology of academic Jewish Philosophy is more or less identical with that of studying Jewish Philosophy in a more traditional setting.  This may be because the study of Jewish philosophy in traditional circles was somewhat limited (as evidenced by the fact that there are very few commentaries on these works before the modern era), and therefore no significant methodology of traditional learning established itself with regard to this field.  It should be obvious why it is important to study the great philosophical works of our tradition, from Rambam's Moreh ha-Nevukhim to R. Yehudah ha-Levi's Kuzari to R. Bahya's Hovot ha-Levavot and many others.  Specifically, viewing such thinkers within a historical context and against their philosophical and historical environment helps sharpen our understanding of these venerated pillars of Jewish thought.  The academic enterprise of the study of Jewish philosophy can also be very helpful to traditional learning; for example, it benefits the traditional student by organizing stray pieces of information, which promotes an ease of access to it.[xviii],[xix]

 

We now turn to the other side of the story, the potential drawbacks resulting from an Orthodox Jew's engagement in Academic Jewish Studies.[xx]  I believe there are three main problems that may result, which vary in intensity and relevance across the different areas of Jewish Studies.

The most obvious issue facing a person pursuing academic approaches to Judaism is that of kefirah.  We have all heard about the story of Rav Soloveitchik's student who entered academia and the "plane crash" that resulted,[xxi] and the risk of accepting heretical beliefs is probably the most visible and oft-discussed problem raised by people discussing the field of Academic Jewish Studies.  There are several cardinal beliefs (ikkarim) that might potentially be endangered by one's encounter with the Academy.  Commonly mentioned in this context is Rambam's eighth ikkar, which states that the Torah as we have it was given to Moshe Rabbeinu in that same form.  This is obviously not the mainstream view of the Academy.[xxii]  An additional concern is the possibility of falling prey to kefirah regarding the halakhic process, which the Academy may understand in a different way than traditional Judaism.  The academic approach does not generally see halakhot as divinely ordained (for de-Oraitas) or validly interpreted by the Rabbis (for de-Rabbanans) but rather views their origin as sociologically driven in a manner that would not be considered halakhically valid.[xxiii]   Finally, one's mahashavah may be challenged in this regard as well, in cases where the academic world assumes that certain classical texts reflect an approach heretical to Orthodox Judaism.  The prime example of this is the issue of the corporeality of God, which some see in biblical idioms such as ha-yad ha-gedolah[xxiv] ([God's] great arm) and which is defined as heretical by Rambam.[xxv]

A less obvious but possibly more pernicious danger that faces one who seriously utilizes Academic Jewish Studies is that of attitude.  By its very nature, the study of Torah in a yeshivah environment is expected to promote a sense of respect and awe for Judaism, Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu, and the great scholars and leaders of Jewish tradition.  In the academic world, on the other hand, the greatest respect is reserved for the very institution of academic pursuit and its findings, while the object of study – in our case, Judaism – is at times subjected to criticism or at least indifference, and religious texts might not receive the respect due them.  This manifests itself in several ways, from a diminished awe for the gedolei ha-am, be they the Avot, Tanna'im or Rishonim, to an outlook which sees religious texts as not kadosh but compilation, to a reduced focus on religiosity in the study of Torah, especially if one views himself as a denizen not of the beit midrash but of the Academy's halls.   If Torah study ceases to be a religious act and becomes a secular pursuit or one of detached interest, that cannot possibly bode well for the religious individual.  Of course, there are many who have spent time dabbling or dwelling in the world of academia while still maintaining strong religious values, but this danger remains, nevertheless, an occupational hazard.

The danger of Academic Jewish Studies leading to the erosion of religious sensibilities applies to historical biblical and rabbinic figures as well.  For example, a Straussian[xxvi] understanding of Rambam, while interesting to the historian, is simply caustic to a serious Orthodox Jew.  The notion that Rambam was an elitist only truly interested in philosophy who dabbled in halakhic study simply in order to placate the masses simultaneously degrades Rambam as a Torah scholar and ridicules his halakhic following over the centuries.  Similarly, a study such as the one Dr. Marc Shapiro undertakes in his recent book on Rambam,[xxvii] if understood the wrong way, may lead one to think of Rambam in terms of the errors he made and not in terms of the majestic and downright impressive impact he has had on Jewish learning throughout the centuries.  

The final danger faced by a person approaching Academic Jewish Studies is one of focus and competition, and that takes two forms – practical and methodological-attitudinal.  In theory, whenever someone sits down to learn a Talmudic or biblical text, he or she can study it using traditional methods or academic ones.  Now, despite the laudability and benefits of academic study of Torah (as demonstrated above in various ways), one would not likely say it is a "bigger kiyyum in talmud Torah" to focus on Near Eastern polytheism or Aramaic grammar than on a sugya in "Hezkat ha-Battim."  These areas of academic study are both important and useful, but they should not become one's primary form of Jewish learning.[xxviii]

Obviously, different areas of academic study offer differing degrees of spiritual enrichment, and one can make the argument that literary study of biblical narratives is just as important as a more traditional form of study, so this preference of traditional over academic is limited in that sense.  Specifically, one might argue that there is a distinction between Tanakh and Talmud in this regard.  Assuming that the main purpose of Tanakh study is to properly understand the text given to us, on whatever level of kedushah it holds,[xxix] that aim might be just as successfully accomplished using certain academic approaches as it is with the learning of mefareshim, who might not have had maximal sensitivity to literary and/or historical issues that are important for understanding certain biblical texts.[xxx]  On the other hand, the Talmud's primary significance is not as a text in itself but as a vitally important source and discussion of our legal traditions and principles.[xxxi],[xxxii]  Thus, while literary analysis of the Talmud is valuable, the most important goals of its study are to try to glean its legal and jurisprudential assumptions (for the lamdan) and conclusions (for the halakhist) such that we can understand the Halakhah in its maximal breadth and depth.  In order to further this goal, the primary resources to be used are those proffered by traditional Talmud study, as the academic approach often misses the point.[xxxiii]

Until this point, the discussion of this third concern has focused on the practical choice of one methodology over the other.   One may ask, however, what of combining the two approaches and building some ideal methodology?  This is suggested by R. David Bigman,[xxxiv] who believes that the proper methodology of Tamud study is to first separate the Talmudic strata (a basic academic technique) and then delve into its legal concepts in a traditional manner.  It is at this point that the methodological-attitudinal concern appears.  R. Shalom Carmy[xxxv] combats the possibility of seriously studying each sugya with academic tools before applying the halakhic ones, arguing that academic study tires one out in the course of learning a topic, and it is thus not worthwhile to separate the Talmudic strata prior to engaging in the main part of one's learning.  He concedes that one should be aware of certain academic concerns and apply them if they arise in the course of study, but the main focus should be on traditional learning.[xxxvi]  Of course, in the areas of Jewish History and Philosophy the issue of competition does not appear too often, being that there is no real competition (as discussed above).

Academic Jewish Studies possesses the power to enrich one's Torah study and Jewish life generally, but it also presents risks and challenges.[xxxvii]  The advantages assist the study of Torah, on both the specific level of understanding particular pesukim or Talmudic passages and the broader level of finding additional and religiously enriching approaches to classical Jewish texts.  It can also afford important knowledge to us as Jews in general and as religious Jews in particular.  On the other hand, it runs the risk of leading to kefirah, can weaken one's religious sensitivities and can distract from traditional Torah study which should be central.  The articles in this issue discuss many of these topics in further depth, and I hope that they will promote the academic study of Jewish texts in a way that will strengthen our Judaism maximally without failing to stand up to the challenges such study can create.  

 

Shlomo Zuckier is a senior at YC majoring in Philosophy and Jewish Studies and is an Associate Editor for Kol Hamevaser.

I will point out at the outset that this article is written primarily with someone not pursuing a career in academia in mind.  Certain factors may be different for those who do pursue such a career, and Dr. Moshe J. Bernstein's article, "The Orthodox Jewish Scholar and Jewish Scholarship: Duties and Responsibilities," The Torah u-Madda Journal 3 (1991-1992): 8-36, should be instructional in this regard.

[ii] This point is discussed in Yeshayahu Maori's article "Rabbinic Midrash as Evidence for Textual Variants in the Hebrew Bible: History and Practice" with regard to Biblical variants and Daniel Sperber's "On the Legitimacy, or Indeed, Necessity, of Scientific Disciplines for True 'Learning' of the Talmud" with regard to the Talmudic text, both in Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations (hereafter MSST) (New Jersey: Jason Aronson, 1996), pp. 101-129 and 197-225, respectively.

[iii] The widespread use of Marcus Jastrow's Aramaic-English Dictionary in most yeshivot underscores this fact.

[iv] This development, in its recent form, owes much to Robert Alter, who, in his books The Art of Biblical Narrative and The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic Books, 1981 and 1985), opened up the field of literary Bible significantly.  See Dr. Moshe J. Bernstein's review essay, "The Bible as Literature: The Literary Guide to the Bible: Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, Eds.," in Tradition 31,2 (1997): 67-82, on the phenomenon of literary Bible study in Orthodox circles.  An earlier discussion of the possibility of using literary analysis (specifically "New Criticism") to further the enterprise of Torah can be found in Meir Weiss' Ha-Mikra ki-Demuto (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1967).

Additional valuable survey articles on the topic of the literary approach to Bible are Nathaniel Helfgot, "Between Heaven and Earth: Curricula, Pedagogical Choices, Methodologies and Values in The Study and Teaching of Tanakh: Where They Can and Should Lead Us," (pp. 81-134) and R. Mosheh Lichtenstein, "Fear of God: The Beginning of Wisdom and the End of Tanakh Study," (pp. 135-162) in Marc D. Stern (ed.), Yirat Shamayim: The Awe, Reverence, and Fear of God (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 2008).

[v] See the discussion of literary Talmud study in Orthodox circles in my book review in this issue, pp. _________.  

[vi] This is suggested despite the presumption that the Rav was aware of Rashi's comments to Be-Reshit 1:1, s.v. "bara," and Ramban's comments to Shemot 6:2.  See R. Shalom Carmy's reference to R. Soloveitchik's response to the critical approach in "Of Eagle's Flight and Snail's Pace," Tradition 29,1 (1994): 21-31, at p. 25, and R. Walter Wurzburger's "Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik as Posek of Post-Modern Orthodoxy," ibid.: 5-20, at pp. 7-9.

This is further expanded upon by R. Mordechai Breuer in his books Pirqe Be-Reshit (1998), Pirqe Mo'adot (1986) and Pirqe Miqraot (Alon Shvut: Tvunot Press – Herzog College, 2009.).  For a discussion of his methodology from several perspectives, see his article "The Study of Bible and the Primacy of the Fear of Heaven: Compatibility or Contradiction?" (pp. 159-180) as well as an introduction by R. Carmy (pp. 147-158) and a response by Dr. Sid (Shnayer) Leiman (pp. 181-188) in MSST.  There is also a book dedicated to the dispute over this methodology: Yosef Ofer (ed.), The 'Aspects Theory' of Rav Mordechai Breuer: Articles and Responses (Alon Shvut: Tvunot Press – Herzog College, 2005; Hebrew).

[vii] See Dr. Yaakov Elman's important review article, "How Should a Talmudic Intellectual History be Written? A Response to David Kraemer's Responses," Jewish Quarterly Review 89,3-4 (1999): 361-386, and "Hercules within the Halakhic Tradition," Dine Israel 25, pp. 7*-41*, as examples of his methodology in this area.  Also, see pp. 277-283 of his article "Progressive Derash and Retrospective Peshat: Nonhalakhic Considerations in Talmud Torah" in MSST.

[viii] Professor Elman likes to point out that this pursuit is originally Talmudic.

[ix] The use of Ancient Near Eastern history in understanding the Bible is discussed by Dr. Barry Eichler in his "Study of Bible in Light of Our Knowledge of the Ancient Near East," in MSST, pp. 81-100.  Good examples of the use of Ancient Near Eastern material in better understanding the biblical are Umberto Cassuto's commentary on Be-Reshit 1-11 and Nahum Sarna's book on Be-Reshit, Understanding Genesis (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1966]).

• This direction has been pursued in recent years by Professor Elman who has examined the development of Halakhah in light of the Sasanian Persian context of the Bavli.  See, for example, his seminal "Middle Persian Culture and Babylonian Sages: Accommodation and Resistance in the Shaping of Rabbinic Legal Tradition," in Charlotte Elisheva Fonrobert and Martin S. Jaffee (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge; New York, Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 165-197, and much of his recent work.

[xi] I related to Jewish History earlier as a function of biblical or Talmudic study, whereas here I focus on the study of Jewish History as an independent area of study.

[xii] I exclude from this category Intellectual Jewish History, which usually falls under the category of Jewish Philosophy and/or other areas of Jewish learning.

[xiii] Literature such as Sefer Yosippon is the exception that proves this rule.  See Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi's Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1982) in this vein.

[xiv] Though there might be a range of opinions regarding hashgahah peratit, hashgahah kelalit is almost necessarily accepted by the Orthodox Jew, with the exception of Yeshayahu Leibowitz (see Abraham Sagi, "Yeshayahu Leibowitz – A Breakthrough in Jewish Philosophy: Religion without Metaphysics," Religious Studies 33,2: 203-216, at pp. 205, 207.)

[xv] R. Aharon Lichtenstein discusses this understanding of history in his "Torah and General Culture: Confluence and Conflict," in Jacob J. Schachter (ed.), Judaism's Encounter with Other Cultures: Rejection or Integration? (Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1997), pp. 217-292, at pp. 239-242.

[xvi] Dr. Haym Soloveitchik (in his books Shu"t ke-Makor Histori, Yeinam, and Halakhah, Economics and Communal Self Image: Pawnbroking in the Middle Ages, among others) has played a major role in developing the study of the History of Halakhah, which, as above, can be used to better understand the pesakim made under different historical circumstances.

[xvii] See Dr. David Berger's "Identity, Ideology and Faith: Some Personal Reflections on the Social, Cultural and Spiritual Value of the Academic Study of Judaism," in Howard Kreisel, Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought (Beer-Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2006), pp. 11-29, for a discussion of the many positive results of studying Jewish History, including some of the ideas discussed here.  

[xviii] I refer here to works such as The Sages (Hebrew University Press, 1975; Hebrew) by Ephraim E. Urbach.  I have personally recently been reading Dr. David Novak's book on Ramban [The Theology of Nahmanides Systematically Presented (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992)] and have found that it has helped organize strands of his philosophy into a more coherent structure for me.

[xix] This discussion of the academic areas helpful to Jewish study is necessarily limited in its scope and therefore has neglected several areas.  The areas I do not relate to include Hebrew (apart from its use in textual study mentioned above; note that Rambam considers this area of study a mitsvah of sorts in his peirush to Avot 2:1), Jewish Sociology (Dr. Samuel Heilman has made major strides in this field), Legal Theory (the Dine Israel journal is very instructional in this regard and Professor Suzanne Stone has advanced the field significantly), and Political Theory (note R. Dr. Joshua Berman's recent book, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought), just to list some.

[xx] Due to the limited size of this article, I will not discuss the methods that are useful for the Orthodox Jew in order to avoid the possible pitfalls of Academic Jewish Studies.  Rabbi Carmy's "To Get the Better of Words – An Apology for Yir'at Shamayim in Academic Jewish Studies," The Torah u-Madda Journal 2 (1990): 7-24, deals with the issue of maintaining yir'at Shamayim in the academic world.

[xxi] For those few who have not yet heard this story, it is cited in Dr. Berger's interview in this issue (pp. ______) and in R. Lichtenstein's "Torah and General Culture," p. 284.  That case concerns the study of Philosophy, but in today's world I think the incidence of crashes is greater in the area of Jewish Studies.

[xxii] The problem is posed not only by Higher Criticism, which splits the Torah into sources, but also by certain forms of Lower Criticism, which challenges the text of the Torah as we have it.  See AJ Berkovitz's article (pp.) and Eli Putterman's article (pp.) on the ramifications of Higher Criticism in this issue, as well as the interview with R. Dr. Joshua Berman (pp. ) where he mentions a method of reconciling certain Lower Criticism issues with traditional Orthodox beliefs.  Additionally, the fact that archaeology's conclusions often do not support the historicity of Tanakh may also create emunah problems for those exposed to academic methods of study.

[xxiii] I do not want to enter into a discussion as to which circumstances would present a halakhically improper judgment, but a line must be drawn somewhere.

[xxiv] Shemot 14:31.

[xxv] Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:7.  Note the famous comment of Rabad (ad loc.) which argues against the branding as heretical of the belief in divine corporeality.

[xxvi] See Leo Strauss's introduction to the Shlomo Pines edition of Moreh ha-Nevukhim for his general approach to understanding Rambam.

[xxvii] Marc B. Shapiro, Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters (Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 2008). I am not claiming that the book itself falls prey to this problem, and, in fact, Dr. Shapiro is sensitive to a religious reading of Rambam.  I am merely claiming that those who choose to focus on these types of academic studies without sufficiently appreciating the gadlut of Rambam end up in an unsavory religious place.

[xxviii] In terms of what one's central Torah learning should be, R. Aharon Lichtenstein has written several seminal articles on different aspects of this issue.  Most relevant among them are "Why Learn Gemara?," (pp. 1-17) "The Conceptual Approach to Torah Learning: The Method and Its Prospects," (pp.19-60) and "Torat Hesed and Torat Emet: Methodological Reflections," (pp. 61-87), all in Leaves of Faith, Volume 1: The World of Jewish Learning (Jersey City, N.J.: Ktav, 2003).

[xxix] Different texts may hold different levels of kedushah, and there may be different positions on the issue, but the range primarily spans from divine authorship to prophetic authorship to divinely inspired authorship (be-ruah ha-kodesh).  (It should be obvious that I refer not to formalistic, legal kedushah but to the source and authority of the text's origin.)

[xxx] Of course, some contemporary darkhei ha-limmud forsake the mefareshim completely, which may be going too far on this issue.

[xxxi] The distinct status of the Tanakh and/or Talmud as inherently holy texts is best demonstrated, in my opinion, by the status delegated to reading the text without comprehension.  Though there is a range of opinions on the matter, the most compelling one – and the one accepted by the Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav [Hilkhot Talmud Torah 2:12], quoted by R. Usher Weiss in his "Kamut ve-Eikhut be-Talmud Torah" in Minhat Asher: Talmud Torah: Keri'atah u-Ketivatah, pp. 31-36, esp. pp. 33-34,– is that Tanakh has inherent kedushah as a text and reading it without understanding it qualifies as talmud Torah, whereas learning Talmud only qualifies as such in cases where it is understood, as its kedushah stems not from the status of the text itself but from the ideas held therein.

[xxxii] I limit these comments to halakhic Talmudic pericopae; aggadic texts function like biblical ones in this context.

Halakhic biblical texts are a topic to themselves, and even those who study the legal conclusions against the Talmud's interpretation may find that study more fruitful from a literary rather than a jurisprudential or lomdus perspective, as the halakhic system that is accepted is the one that analyzes the derash of the pesukim, and Orthodox Judaism does not construct a legal system out of the simple meaning of the biblical laws (though academic scholars do).

[xxxiii] Some have claimed the opposite – that classical study without some academic tools misses the point; see Daniel Sperber, "On the Legitimacy," n. 2 above.  However, I believe that if one combines a focus on classical learning with supplemental academic study he will avoid any pitfalls, while I would not feel the same about the reverse situation.  For a survey of general differences between traditional and academic Talmud study, see Menahem Kahana, "Academic Talmudic Research and Traditional Yeshivah Studies" (Hebrew), in Menahem Kahana (ed.), Be-Havlei Masoret u-Temurah (Rehovot: Hotsa'at Kivvunim, 1990).

[xxxiv] R. David Bigman, "Finding a Home for Critical Talmud Study," The Edah Journal 2,1, unpaginated. R. Dr. Hidary, in his article in this edition (pp. 8-9), discusses the issue of balancing academic and traditional Talmud study as well.  

[xxxv] R. Shalom Carmy, "Camino Real and Modern Talmud Study," in MSST, pp. 189-196.

[xxxvi] There are other potential problems with academic study as well, such as allowing it to affect Halakhah in cases that are deemed unwarranted, the fact that it represents a more formal approach to what should be spiritual and religious practice, and others, but I believe the above to be the main issues for the limited space at my disposal.

[xxxvii] In this sense, it is similar to Torah u-Madda and many other ideals of the Modern Orthodox enterprise.  In these contexts, I find it instructional and inspiring to apply the words of R. Aharon Lichtenstein, namely that when facing these challenging goals, we must redouble our efforts in order to reach them (public lecture, 2005).

 
http://www.yucommentator.com/kol-hameva ... s-1.995736