Home Home / Exchange with Elsie Rodd about Number o…

Correspondence

October-November 1967

Exchange with Elsie Rodd about Number of Mitzvot Applicable on Daily Basis (1967)

General Jewish Thought

1. Elsie Rodd to R. Lamm

1. Elsie Rodd to R. Lamm (Oct. 25, 1967)

1. Elsie Rodd to R. Lamm (Oct. 25, 1967)

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 Dr. Vogel about the Reward for Serving God (1966)

Dear Norman, I just read your article, "God is Alive," in Jewish Life, March–April 1966. I found it so provocative that I’ve been compelled to write to you about it. Frankly, I am troubled by the easy moral of the last section – the eternal consequence of your theological argument. I am troubled by the certainty of “As we will be to Him, so will He be to us!” (my italics). Hester Panim is no punishment that God gives (p. 18), but the hiddenness is so hidden that we do not know it is hidden (p. 19). Therefore, nothing on earth – no incident of national or individual occurrence – is testimony of His being “hidden,” or of His turning His face to us. It is conceivable, then, that existential pain, suffering, and death has as much a witness of us as happy events are. The horrid implication is that deviation from Torah law causes “hidden-ness,” and conformity will cause the land to bring forth fruit (the Shema) seems not to be historically or individually inevitable (to our finite vision). Vide Job and Kohelet, Poland, Russia, and Germany. Reward and punishment is not an issue. If that is so, why should one heed your call to do Mitzvoth and to worship God? Because, your article seems to imply, communion with the living God is its own reward. This, however, places on God a limitation: He has chosen to wait for our acts before He will make His own move! He concomitantly limits His own omnipotence by permitting Himself communion only with the good and prayerful. But can one be so certain about a convert if one is good and prayerful, He will commune? Is that a limit? Dare He not choose to hide Himself for His own inscrutable purpose? And all that is left in such a dreadful instance is the guilt of one’s own extravagant “sin” – he has not performed the requisite acts of ethics or has not prayed hard enough. This was the rebutted position of Job’s comforters. Further, do you guarantee that His purposes do not include “aliveness” for the wicked (Hitler’s visions may have led t…
General Jewish Thought

Correspondence

Exchange with Michael Tabor about Halacha, Morality, and Building a Relationship with God (1969)

Dear Rabbi Lamm, I have time just for a short note to extend to you and your family the season's greetings. This period since I saw you has truly been one of turmoil. About [redacted] whom I believe you met while you were in Israel – well, apparently she has turned out to be the exceptional student of this new sem for mature girls (Oy vey!). It is still in the balance with all the agonizing uncertainty that that involves... didn't know that a strong healthy young man like me could suffer so much emotionally from waiting for the lady of my choice. Anyway, I suppose one must have patience for the fairer sex and realise that virtue is not only on one side. She knows I am a bit eccentric and I think it is worrying her whether to take the jump of marriage. All women I suppose want security. Time will indeed tell and in the meantime we both suffer – such is life.Next September I am going to Sheffield to do a post grad diploma in education – a must here after 1972 if one wants to teach in a state school. After that I'll have to wait and see. My stay in N.Y. did not solve all my internal problems and altho' I gained something very special from my yechidus and attending the vabrengen, I still have to relate to the dilemma of my own life. I can't and don't want to shake off my secular skin and adapt an east european weltanshaung and I don't mean this is a pejorative sense. Its difficult to explain in words but thank G'd my Lubavitch friends understand to a degree otherwise I would not be faced with an unbearable either-or dilemma of identity. For the moment I am quiet and keep in the background as much as possible. I think living away in Sheffield will do me good – it will be a challenge in more ways than one and make me more aware of what I am.I received a letter today from my teacher Rav Carmel who is now in Jerusalem and has set up together with a Rabbi Horovitz a special yeshiva for western type students. He mentioned about the effects of dew years of solid learning woul…
General Jewish Thought

Correspondence

Exchange with Rabbi about How to Interpret Narratives in the Torah (1975)

Dear Rabbi Lamm, I hope that this letter finds you in the best of health and happiness. Allow me to introduce myself as an oleh chadash from America. In the past I have read your books, especially Hedge of Roses, which I enjoyed immensely. Keep up the good work. The topic of this letter regards the recent article in Time magazine about the Bible. You were quoted as saying: But Lamm, like most Orthodox Jews, allows much more latitude than fundamentalist Christians in understanding Genesis accounts. “Certainly the creation text is not literal,” says Lamm. He is also not concerned, for instance, whether Noah and his family were the sole survivors of the biblical flood. What is important about Noah’s story, he explains, “is the moral teaching that man’s actions have consequences and that ultimately G-d’s judgement encompasses all mankind.” First of all I am shocked that an Orthodox Rabbi as yourself can be quoted as saying such. This sounds like apikorsus. What is meant that the Genesis account is “not literal, certainly”? Do we not believe that every word in the Torah was given by G-d at Har Sinai? Is it a true account of history. If we say that it is “lav davka” then we are “lav davka,” because if Abraham didn’t necessarily exist and was only a parable, then we, his descendants, are really non-existent. How can we say that Noah was not the only survivor when the Torah explicitly states (6:17–18): “And I behold I do bring cessation of all flesh through water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which the spirit of life is, from under the heaven, everything that is on the earth shall perish. But with thee will I establish My covenant, thou shalt go into the ark, thou and thy sons and thy wife and thy sons’ wives with thee.” I think that is very explicit that everybody was destroyed save Noah and his family. And if we will still again say “lav davka” then why draw the line there? Maybe Shatnez or Tefillin is also “lav davka”? And then what judgement is there to be i…
General Jewish Thought