Letter to the Editor of Jewish Life about "A Hedge of Roses" Review (1966)

Rabbi Lamm did not take kindly to what he viewed as unsubstantiated criticism or anonymous citations. Here, he pushes back against a reviewer whom he felt had engaged in both.

Background Information

View The Text

This content is currently available in its original PDF format. As we expand the library, we plan to add a text version as well.

A Hedge of Roses: Book Review (1966)

This little volume endeavors to explain the profound significance of the Jewish laws of family purity. Extremely well-written, it should be made required reading for all those who ignore or belittle these crucial teachings of the Torah. The author does not preach – he explains his subject in terms intelligible and meaningful to contemporary minds; in language simple and effective.Among many important points made by the author, this reviewer would single out his emphasis that, in enquiring into the explanations of mitzvos, “we want to know not why G-d commanded them but what He wanted us to learn from them” (p. 49). He warns that the observance of “the law must contain independent of and unconditioned by the values, reasons, and pur-poses we believe we have found in it.” (p. 50)Needless to say, the effort to cover large areas of thought in limited space is bound to lead to some over-simplifications (thus the reader may conclude that worn-en are excused by the Torah from all time-oriented positive precepts; or will fail to find in the author’s / definition of Tumoh any clue to Tumas Sheretz.) Also a few formulations could perhaps be improved upon (the Mikvoh is not “an ancient institution,” p. 35, but a Divine one, and the Kohen is not forbidden to be in the same ‘room’ with a corpse, p.80, but in the same house.)These are, however, mere minutiae. There is only one suggestion of more basic importance that this reviewer would like to offer: an elimination of the remarks on page 59 that can be read as an acceptanceof the concept of the honeymoon. This concept is so foreign to us in its essence, and in practice it is such an utter obstacle to the observance of Taharas Hamish-pocho, that it deserves the same clear and complete rejection that the author has accorded to other aspects of our contemporary mores.While offering this suggestion, the reviewer wants to express at the same time his hope that this fine work will succeed in reaching all those within our American Jew…

Marriage & Sexuality

A Hedge of Roses: Jewish Insights Into Sex and Marriage, Part 2 (1969)

In order to appreciate the implications of Family Purity, it is important to understand, as well, what it is not.For one thing, it is not the kind of superstition that, in other cultures, has stigmatized the menstruant as repulsive, placed upon her mysterious and stringent taboos, and banished her from the community for the duration of her menses. Maimonides, the eminent twelfth-century Talmudist, philosopher, and physician, forcefully rejected the superstitious beliefs and practices of the Sabeans, Magi, and other Eastern peoples concerning menstruation, and emphasized the spiritual content of Judaism’s teachings.״ The Torah’s legislation is simply not of one piece with, for instance, the primitive customs recorded in Sir James Frazer’s The Golden Bough. Unfortunately, such identification of the Torah’s laws with primitive pagan and mythological cultures often does take place in the mind of the contemporary Jew or Jewess who is uninitiated into the world of Torah and the Jewish Tradition and who cannot, therefore, view Jewish Family Purity from a broader perspective and greater knowledgeability. A terminological confusion is largely responsible for this unhappy distortion of the Torah’s larger purposes and the intrinsic meaning of its commandments. Tuharah and tum’ah (and the corresponding adjectives tahor and tamei) are usually translated as “pure” and “impure.” It is this deceptive semantic delinquency that leads to the interpretation of these categories as denoting some kind of intrinsic mysterious abhorrence that possesses the person of the menstruant and that must be purged by some magical incantation.But this is clearly not so. According to Jewish teaching, nothing whatever happens to or changes in the person or character or value of the individual, man or woman, designated as “impure.” No special quality makes such an individual inferior in any way to any other person re-fen־ed to as “pure.” The terms ta-harah and tum’ah signify halakhic or legal categories…

Marriage & Sexuality

Letter to Jewish Life Responding to Review of A Hedge of Roses (1966)

I appreciate your review of A Hedge of Roses and the attention it has drawn to the ideas presented therein. However, I feel compelled to respond to several misconceptions that were advanced in the critique. It was never my intention to present Halakhah as a mere sociological construct – nor to judge its validity on pragmatic grounds alone. On the contrary, my argument was and remains that the Halakhic system is rooted in Divine command – but that it also contains within it profound insight into the human condition and a deep concern for human dignity.Whereas some may see halakhic restrictions as merely arbitrary or outdated, I sought to illuminate the human wisdom embedded in Divine law – not to substitute one for the other. The reviewer mischaracterizes this approach as apologetic. It is not. It is explanatory. One may choose to ignore the psychological, emotional, and social ramifications of Halakhah – but that does not mean they are not there.Moreover, the critique that I "water down" Halakhah in order to accommodate modern readers is entirely unfounded. At no point do I advocate leniency where none exists – nor do I suggest that Halakhic norms should bend to the spirit of the age. Rather, I propose that we not shy away from offering meaningful explanations where they exist – and where they may help those who seek to live a Torah life in a modern world do so with greater commitment and understanding.Finally, I am disheartened by the implication that writing in an accessible style for a broad audience is itself suspect. The challenge of translating Torah values into a language that resonates with contemporary readers is not a betrayal of tradition – it is an essential component of our task as Jewish educators and communicators.If we cannot articulate the moral beauty and spiritual depth of our tradition in ways that can be heard, we risk leaving the field to those who reject it altogether. That, in my view, would be the true apology – and it would be one that no …

Marriage & Sexuality