Home Home / Exchange with Arthur Sapper about the N…

Correspondence

July-August 2001

Exchange with Arthur Sapper about the Noahide Laws and Morality (2001)

General Jewish Thought Talmudic Analysis Jewish Law & Secular Law

1. Arthur Sapper to R. Lamm

1. Arthur Sapper to R. Lamm (July 29, 2001)

1. Arthur Sapper to R. Lamm (July 29, 2001)

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.

Next Letter

RELATED CONTENT

Correspondence

Exchange with Andrew Beider about the Jewish Approach to Life Insurance (1975)

Dear Rabbi Lamm: I have consulted with my Rabbi and it is his opinion that a question of this nature should be given a more definitive answer than is locally available. He suggested that I write – because he respects your opinion (even though he is a Lubavitcher). I am a life insurance salesman by profession. I have attempted to study, and will continue studying Jewish Law. Unfortunately, I haven't come across enough den'im or commentary to be able to formulate a concrete Jewish approach to life insurance.I understand, in my limited capacity, the ideas covering the community concept of tzedaka; that the kehelah should take care of those who can't take care of themselves. At the same time, there is the idea that God helps those who provide for themselves.Generally, I've been brought up to realize that whenever you see conflict in the law, a good way to resolve the question is to re-approach it. Most times the problem lies in my lack of comprehension, rather than in the law itself.Keeping all these things in mind, please resolve my problem:Is there a Jewish view of life insurance: the necessity of owning protection for one's self and/or one's family?If you can reach somewhat of a conclusion, please show me where I can study these things to reach a greater appreciation of the law.Andrew Beide
General Jewish Thought Jewish Law & Secular Law

Correspondence

Exchange with R. Dratch about the Nature of Sevara (2008)

Following is my revision of Mark’s remarks. Pls give me as soon as I return. Based on our discussion on Shabbat. It’s also posted on Google Documents. Now close the computer and get some sun!!!!!
General Jewish Thought Talmudic Analysis

Correspondence

Exchange with R. Korn about Morality and the Command to Destroy Amalek (2004)

Dear R. Lamm, Yasher koach on your paper on the problematics of the mitzvah to destroy Amelek. I have given much thought to this issue, as it poses a severe moral and theological problem. Of course I am in sympathy with your “apologetics,” as you term it, and marvel at the energy you devoted to the issue. I prefer a more elegant approach, one that ultimately provides a more powerful argument. I am now traveling and don’t have the precise notes from a lecture that I gave to the U. of Chicago Divinity School and to a number of shuls in the metropolitan area and Boston. Here is my best attempt to reproduce the outline of the argument: 1. Along with you, I remain unconvinced by R. Moshe’s and the Rav’s reading in Rambam distinguishing between Amelek and the 7 nations. As you point out, the textual evidence is weak and empirically it makes no sense to say that Sanherev intermingled all the nations except for Amelek. I will speculate about what was really bothering the Soloveitchiks later, but let’s leave them aside for now. 2. Hazal did sense the moral problem with the mitzvah of killing innocent persons, as a literal reading of the mitzvah demands. [Your point that this also troubled the Torah is well taken.] This may be why R. Yehoshua laid down the principle that after Sanherev it was simply impossible, for technical reasons, to implement the mitzvah. The principle is actually irrational or at least unscientific, as it precludes any later empirical data identifying persons as Amelek or Canaanite. I have a different scenario.
General Jewish Thought Talmudic Analysis