I don't think I understand what he meant by that. Rabbis Revel, Belkin and Soloveitchik all rejected the concept of synthesis. They alll felt that Secular studies and Talmud Torah are in distinct realms and you shouldn't try to mix them - that is Havdala, no? Perhaps you could describe the Hirschian ideology as Kiddush, but not the views of the founders of RIETS.

I dont want to argue about, or try to explain, things I dont know much about. YU is one of thiose things I dont know much about. I thought it was an interesting position he stated, but I dont know if it is accurate or not because I am not familiar with YU enough to know what their hashkafa is.
The impression is that YU does combine the two into a lifestyle, rather than deal with each separately, and perhaps even if that was not the intention of the founders, it still might have become that, but I dont really know.

how is the yeshiva part of yeshiva college different from other yeshivas?
how is the college part of yeshiva college different from other small colleges [aside from a near 100% frum student body]?

oh so business is in a separate realm from Torah? people who study medicine take off their kipas and put aside what they know about Shmiras Shabbos and medicine? since when can someone make such a clever blanket statement that secular and Torah are separate - we aren't monks we are Jews and we live integrated lives.

YU has been blasted over the years whenever someone is able to take some statement from within a YU publication known as Torah UMadda and they present it as (a) representative of the entire school including Rabbinic staff and (b) kefira. This "kiddush" idea sounds similar.

he wasnt blasting YU, and truth is I dont even know what this guy thinks of YU - I suspect he supports YU but I dont know. All he was trying to do was explain what he sees as the difference between YU and Touro. I actually think he was quoting Dr. Lander with that statement but I dont remember for sure...

Dr. Lander himself was not anti-YU either. Don't forget that he was the dean of Bernard Revel Graduate School for a number of years.

Again, I did not say anybdy wa sopposing or attacking YU with this statement. He wa sjust pointing otu a difference..
Even if the difference is accurate, who says there is anythign wrong with "kiddush"? who says havdala is better? Everybody is entitled to their opinion. The point here was not to say one is better than the other, just that this was an interesting way of putting the difference into words. And no, I dont have an opinion on which is better, as I dont know much about YU...

and hey, some of my best friends either went to YU or support YU!

hey rafi

shalom chaver.

its a buddy of your from old shaarei days

First of all, one can take a limud from secular knowledge and use it to strength and deepen our understanding of torah... Try to figure out the "molad" without knowing mathematics....

And, even without that point, isnt it the way of our tzaddikim to elevate the profane to holyness to appreciate and extract the holy sparks from even the most profane...

Lessee if I can actually relate to the original quoted comment. ;-)

I think it is nearly correct. At YU, studying secular subjects is seen (by the institution, not all the rabbanim) as ab initio a positive thing. The first commenter is nearly correct that kodesh and hol are distinct; but they are both worthy in their own way at YU.

At Lander and Touro, many of the students are attracted there because they aren't encouraged to subscribe to a particular ideology about studying secular subjects. If they want to see it as an evil necessity - fine. Just as long as they study something that will allow them to get ahead, make a living, and even contribute to society.

So the real difference between them is the role of a blatant ideology or a dispute over ideologies (YU), and the lack of such a role at all (Touro et al.)

BTW, it appears to me that part of Rav Dr. Lander's greatness was realizing that not everyone was going to get an education because they valued it as important l'shma. But he wanted them to get the education nonetheless because it would better their lives and the society they participate in. To that end, he didn't push a philosophy in his schools; and he did make the education available in places and ways that others thought was demeaning to the whole idea of ivory tower higher education. Some of that goes back to a dispute in the philosophy of education over 100 years ago about what the purpose of higher education is.

Rav Dr. Lander realized it didn't matter in the end, in the classroom and on the street. What mattered was getting people to go to class and get ahead. M'toch shelo l'shmah...

At least, that is how I understand it. I am grateful to him. He bettered society, and Jewish society, in a big way because of it. And I am personally grateful as a direct beneficiary, since one of my degrees is from Touro.

TUM vs. TUP
(Torah Umadda vs Torah UParnassa)
KT
Joel Rich

It's because YU puts itself as the standard of Modern Orthodoxy. Those who want Modern Yeshivish (or perhaps even Maredi*) choose Lander/Touro which positions itself as Yeshivish.

Of course over the last 20-30 years, YU has moved right from Modern Orthodox towards Yeshivish. So it isn't really completely true anymore.

Mark

* Maredi = Modern Charedi (i.e. a Charedi that works, perhaps as a professional, uses the Internet, mobile and fixed, etc.)

I like the term Maredi. didnt someone on twitter coin it recently? I dont remember who though..

In Israel Maredi is known as Charda"l - Charedi Leumi

I think Joel Rich put it succinctly and correctly.

wow I missed the rest of this thread I'll agree with what Mordechai wrote.

re chardal - the Israelis (who invented the term) consider it to be the Rav Kook folks - those who live a charedi philosophy (they learn in kollel indefinitely nowadays) but originate in the leumi camp.

the anglos use the term as any mix of any parts of either ideologies. but it isn't correct, except among other anglos I guess ;-)