Home Home / Exchange with Daniel Haberman about "Th…

Correspondence

November-December 2000

Exchange with Daniel Haberman about "The Religious Thought of Hasidism" (2000)

General Jewish Thought Chasidim & Mitnagdim

1. Daniel Haberman to R. Lamm

1. Daniel Haberman to R. Lamm (Nov. 18, 2000)

1. Daniel Haberman to R. Lamm (Nov. 18, 2000)

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 Alan Dershowitz about "The Religious Thought of Hasidism" (1999)

Dear Norman: Thank you so much for sending me your book. I have already started to read it, but my mother grabbed it away from me. She is here recovering from successful heart surgery, and when I brought her the book to look at, she insisted on keeping it. It is a remarkable accomplishment. I had absolutely no idea of the depth and variety of Hassidic writing on so many subjects. Today we tend to think of Hassidim as fundamentalist, but your selection demonstrates how ahistorical and prejudiced such a view is.It is remarkable that someone like you, who represents pluralism within the Jewish community, has done a much better job in presenting the Hassidic perspective than any of the current rebbis.I hope your book, as well as its author, has a long life. It should be required reading for anyone who wishes to see pluralism extend in all directions. Congratulations on yet another brilliant contribution to Judaism and to the intellectual life of our world.Cordially,Alan M. Dershowitz AMD\
Chasidim & Mitnagdim

Correspondence

Exchange with Eli Mallon about "Torah Lishmah" and the Hasidic View of Divine Immanence (1997)

Dear Dr. Lamm, I'm reading your excellent study of R. Haim of Volozhin. Of course, it's no mystery why you would do this, given his place in the (you should pardon the expression) evolution of Modern Orthodoxy. You reiterated the Orthodox/Misnagid position re: Divine Immanence – i.e. if G-d is in everything, everywhere, in the sense taught by Hasidut, it may cause them to make no halachic distinction between clean and unclean, and therefore the Divine Name could be mentioned in inappropriate places.However, I don't think it's the necessary conclusion. Water is water and wood is wood; no Hasid would try to set water on fire for warmth in winter. In Kabbalah, only in Atzilut do distinctions cease; in all else – Yetzirah, Briah, Asiyah, multiplicity must still be considered. These "worlds" represent different levels of perception, or "consciousness," if you will. Only on the level of ״Atzilut" is the truth of ״Achdut" (i.e. Ehn Od: there's nothing other than G-d) also a truth of experience. On the physical level: always multiplicity. The highest development of life (in this world) would actually encompass all four. There can be distinctions, even in a world filled with G-d.The subsequent history of Hasidut demonstrates that, whatever variations in observance they made based on their belief-system, their fundamental allegiance to halachah has been unshakeable.For the record, I'm neither Orthodox nor Hasidic. But I can appreciate the importance of these issues, and derive deep satisfrom your presentation of them.Sincerely,Eli Mallon
Chasidim & Mitnagdim

Correspondence

Exchange with Michael Tabor about Chaim Potok, Chabad, the Rashab, and Music (1972)

Dear Michael: It was a pleasure receiving your ל"ג בעומר letter with the good news of the marriage of your sister. My most genuine wishes for מזל טוב and hopes that before long I may be able to extend the same kind of good wishes to you personally... Unfortunately, I have no immediate plans to visit Israel during this coming summer, and so I do not think it will be possible for me to meet you in כפר חב"ד.I was in England last week – for a weekend only in Bournemouth – and I too only heard then that Chaim Potok had spoken to the Lubavitcher dinner. However, I did not get the impression from the reports I heard that Potok was on the threshold of a Chabad conversion.Thank you for your comments about the Jewish Chronicle review of mv hook Faith and Doubt. I was amazed to learn that Friedlander, the reviewer, is a Progressive Jew and I am all the more pleased about the nice things he had to say about my book. As a reviewer he is, of course, free to express his own opinions even if they are critical and negative. I do think, however, that he was very wide of a mark by referring to my chapter on ecology as a "good sermon." It was heavily on both הלכה and מחשבה and, to my knowledge, such material is not the usual fare for sermons.I enjoyed the coincidence of the assignment that you received in school to read the Miranda Case. Perhaps you might be interested in reading the enclosed copy of the Garrity Case, two years later, on the same general subject. Here too the הלכה was cited in even greater detail.I hope all is going well with you and your studies. I do hope that personal matters will improve upon your forthcoming visit to the Holy Land.No, my son has not yet been sufficiently inspired to take up the violin. Hence, you owe another and longer visit in which I trust you will be able to exert more successfully beneficent influence on my son. How I would enjoy it!Do keep in contact Michael, and I hope that ere long you will have some good news to relate to me. Meanwhile, m…
General Jewish Thought Chasidim & Mitnagdim