Home Home / Exchange with Menachem White about Conv…

Correspondence

April-May 1970

Exchange with Menachem White about Converting the Boyfriend of a Jewish Student (1970)

1. Menachem White to R. Lamm

1. Menachem White to R. Lamm (Apr. 30, 1970)

1. Menachem White to R. Lamm (April 30, 1970)

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 Bella Wolf about Proper Synagogue Attire (1975)

לכבוד הרב לאם, קראתי בענין רב את המאמר ״לבוש מתאים״ (עלון J.C. כ״א אוור) ואכן איני יכולה שלא להרגיש שנעשה כאן מעין עוול מוסרי לחשיבות מצוות הצניעות ומקומה ביהכ״ן. הרב מדגיש, ובעדינות רבה, שעל באי בית הכנסת לשמור על חוקי קדושת ביהכ״ן וכבוד המקום: אישה אינה יכולה לבוא לביהכ״ן ללא כיסוי ראש ללא אורך מתאים של השרוול, ואל לגבר להופיע בביהכ״ן בסנדלים וללא עניבה. כאשר קראתי מאמר זה לפני כמה חודשים התמרדתי קשות. אם אלה ואלה מחוקי ביהכ״ן, האם עלי לפסוק
Practical Halacha

Correspondence

Exchange with R. Silas about Proposed Takkanot on Conversion and Marriage for Indian Bet Din (1962)

Dear Rabbi Lamm, Some time ago, you sent the Tekanoth for conversion to the “Gate of Mercy” Synagogue, through the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations in India. Some questions have arisen and we need your advice. In Rule No. 3 in the Tekanoth it is mentioned: “If a candidate who intends to be converted to the Jewish faith is married to a Jew, then the conversion cannot take place less than nine months and one day after petition for proselytisation!” Could you kindly explain what is this nine months and one day period meant for. Also, in Rule 3 of the above, it is mentioned “that the candidate should appear a year after petition for proselytisation before the Beth Din.” Why is the period less in the case when the candidate is married to a Jew? I would appreciate an early reply to these questions, and thanking you in anticipation. Yours sincerely, S. Silas Rabbi Simon Silas Assistant to the Haham
Practical Halacha India

Correspondence

Exchange with R. Walkenfeld about Article on Conservative Amendments to the Ketubah (1960)

Dear Norman, I am returning the proofs of my communication and I wish to thank you for including the proof of your reply. I feel it incumbent upon me however, for the sake of truth, logic and halachic veracity, to inform you that the reply you give in no way answers my objections to your article. At the outset it would be advisable to bear in mind that the intent of your article was to prove that the Conservative amendment is invalid because of its ‘asmachta’ nature. In order to accomplish that noble purpose it must be shown that no halachic authority would or could consider this amendment other than an ‘asmachta’. If there can be found one authority who would not consider this an ‘asmachta’ you have failed in your purpose. Therefore, the fact that “you believe” that Mekhirah 11:17 should be interpreted in a certain manner is no proof that it must so be interpreted. Unless and until you can prove that no other explanation is possible you have failed in your appointed task, for I can with the full sanction of halacha state, as I did, that the Rambam maintains that an agreement to pay an indemnity sum is binding if it is made under a wedding canopy. You may disagree but you have not disproven my contention. You have not shown that the Conservative amendment, except according to your understanding of Mekhirah 11:17, is an ‘asmachta’. For the same reason your reply to my third point is also not an acceptable answer. Whether or not you personally concede that a ‘kinyan’ and a retroactive clause are sufficient to neutralize the ‘asmachta’-nature of a contract is immaterial and inconsequential. If there is any halachic basis for such concessions then you cannot with impunity invalidate the Conservative Ketubah. In truth, however, I addressed myself mainly to your very lucid statement that even with these concessions it would remain an ‘asmachta’, and you must admit that the reverse is the only logical conclusion.
Practical Halacha Orthodoxy & Other Denominations