josh31: I’m sorry but I’ve read your post 5 times and I’m having a lot of trouble following what you’re saying. I think you are saying that in order to learn Torah without any secular studies, a person would be constrained to only a few subjects, which is why so many people advocating the no-secular studies approach only seem to know aggadata.
Then you bring in Zeeskite as an example of a girl with a wide chelek in torah. It happens to be that I had already known that he was a boy. But even if that wasn’t true, I don’t understand what point you were trying to make there. And I have no idea what you were talking about with 32 amos.
However, at least regarding you’re first point I can comfortably disagree with your assertion that people who advocate limiting secular subjects only learn aggadata. In fact that pure bologna.
Moving on. There may be nuances that you can catch in a given gemarah because of additional knowledge in math, just as a physicist or psychologist might. The Torah is infinite and encompasses all knowledge and that is to be expected. But that doesn’t mean the psychologist should learn physics in order to be able to glean those extra ideas. Unless that is something he is interested in pursuing. But the much greater body of Torah does not require any sort of advanced secular knowledge in order to understand it.