Home Home / A Hedge of Roses: Book Review (1966)

Article

March 1066

A Hedge of Roses: Book Review (1966)

Marriage & Sexuality
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.

RELATED CONTENT

Assorted

A Hedge of Roses: Revisions for Fourth Edition (1971)

Copyright page. Editions list to read as follows: First Edition, 1966. Second Edition, Revised 1968. Third Edition, Revised (London, England), 1968. Fourth Edition, Revised, 1972. Translations: Portuguese (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), 1970. Hebrew and Spanish translations – in preparation. 2. At bottom of that page – under "Printed in the U.S.A. – 1972." 3. Dedication page. Type-face of both Hebrew and English, especially former, should be reduced in size and spaced more tastefully. 4־ • Page 36. End of first paragraph - last line should read: and delicacy, often luxuriously appointed.5• Page 46. Line 10 — change as follows: over, the sense of the Law assigns priority to Family Purity over public prayer and Torah reading; hence etc.Page 48. Just before section entitled "Flavor Added," include following paragraph:A brief resume of these laws is included in Chapter VI of this volume.Page 72, note 2. Omit last two lines of note, and substitute: and since they are thus obliged to keep the Sabbath, their obligation extends to Kiddush as well.Hedge of Roses-2-May 20, 1971Page 73. Remove entire passage in parenthesis from the first paragraph. On line 4, after the word ”time.”, place a 3 as a footnote sign. On the bottom of the page add the following note:3• It has been suggested that circumcision was ordained by the Torah for the eighth day so as to make sure that every child will have experienced at least one holy day before entering into the Covenant of Abraham. See Avodat Yisrael, to Emor, by the Hasidic Zaddik R. Israel of Kozenitz.9• Page 75. Fourth line of paragraph 2: Change footnote 3 to 4.Ibid. Footnote: change number from 3 to 4.Ibid. Add the following to footnote:Cf. MaHaRaL (R. Loewe of Prague), Derush al Hamitzvot, page 30.12• Page 91. This entire chapter should be renumbered as Chapter VIII and come at the very end.Page 93. Here I wish to interpose the following digest of actual laws, calling this Chapter VI, and having the ״Postscript” follow as Chapter VII. I’…
Marriage & Sexuality

Article

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

Correspondence

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

To the Editor: I am grateful for the flattering remarks about my "A Hedge of Roses” by your reviewer, Mrs. Sifra Tendler (Jewish Life, May-June, 1966) – sufficiently grateful to break the unwritten rule about an author responding to a reviewer. While I appreciate Mrs. Tendler's gracious comments, I do wish to react to her assertion that the work contains a number of errors of fact. Her charge is authenticated by her in a footnote averring that she consulted competent Halachic authority before offering the criticisms. While no book is perfect, and mine no doubt is flawed in more ways than one, I do not believe that Mrs. Tendler, despite the undisputed credentials of her anonymous authorities, is correct in the specific errors she has purported to discover.First, the halachic distinction between the prohibition of niddah and the tum'ah of niddah is no doubt valid – but largely irrelevant to the point I made. The fact remains that the term tum'ah is used to describe the prohibition of niddah even in post-Temple times. Even a cursory glance at the laws of niddah in Yoreh De'ah, beginning with the very first paragraph, will confirm this usage. Furthermore, the question of whether or not the technical law of tum'ah is operative for niddah today is not germane to the psychological problem one encounters in trying to persuade a person to abide by these laws. If the classification is derogatory – which, of course, it is not – then the principle remains objectionable regardless of contemporary halachic inapplicability. A legal nicety may appeal to one trained in halachic dialectics; it has little effect on the psychological and philosophical difficulties which we are called upon to deal with.The reviewer’s objection to my footnote (p.85) on the difference between "natural” and "artificially accumulated" water is another example of being over-technical. The note begins with the comment, "Interestingly, there is a difference..." Quite obviously, I did not try to "sell" mikvah …
Marriage & Sexuality