Home Home / Exchange with R. Dratch about the Natur…

Correspondence

February 2008

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

General Jewish Thought Talmudic Analysis

1. R. Dratch to R. Lamm

1. R. Dratch to R. Lamm (Feb. 6, 2008)

1. R. Dratch to R. Lamm (Feb. 6, 2008)

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 L. Carmell about "Faith and Doubt" (1967)

Dear Rabbi Lamm, The Spring-Summer issue of Tradition has just reached me. May I congratulate you on your lucid and a penetrating article "Faith and Doubt". As usual, if I may say so, you have presented a comprehensive and challenging review of the subject. A few comments occur to me after a first reading of your article: 1. My own master and guide in matters of the spirit, Rabbi E. L. Dessler z"l used to expound the basic meaning of emunah as 'honesty'. He said that emunah is that attitude to life which arises of itself when a person is completely honest with himself, and true to the deepest springs of his being. 2. An interesting example (in reverse) of co-existence in one person of (existential) doubt and (intellectual) faith can be found in R. Zadok Ha-Cohen ("Resisei Lailah", Lublin 1903, p.160). He raises the problem of the intense questioning of the justice of God by some prophets (e.g., Habakkuk), when the whole problem of tsaddik ve-ra' lo etc. is solved very simply in the Talmud by reference to olam ha-ba. He answers that prophecy wells up from springs of being deeper than intellection - i.e., existentialist experience - and therefore has no access to matters beyond human experience, e.g., olam ha-ba. (Cf. Maharal, "Tiferet Yisrael", ch.57, who uses the same insight to explain why there is no direct reference to Olam ha-ba in the Torah, which is also basically prophecy - the prophecy of Mosheh Rabbenu). The latter is however accessible to intellectual cognition, and is thus discussed and analyzed by Chazal, illustrating the principle of hacham adif mi-navi. (It is however not completely clear from R. Zadok whether he holds that the two attitudes were present simultaneously in one mind, or whether the development of the cognitive element was a later historical development.) 3. Personally I do not believe that substantive doubt can be effectively isolated from functional faith. A person can only live as a whole, and doubt at the heart of things must inevita…
General Jewish Thought Talmudic Analysis

Correspondence

Exchange with R. Weingarten about the Kotzker Rebbe on Chesed (2004)

Dear Rabbi Lamm, Thank you for having copies of some of my past studies. Your secretary forwarded some of them to me, and then asked how I would prefer she proceed. What would be most helpful is if the studies could be copied onto a CD or on some floppies, and then sent to me by regular mail. This way I would not need to copy and paste one by one. Is that possible? Also, some years back you shared with me a teaching from the Kotzker Rebbe, about a Midrash that Rashi brings in the beginning of Lech L’cha, that we say “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob,” but at the end of the bracha we mention only Avraham. The Kotzker explains that Avraham is the quality of chesed, and while we also need avodah and Torah, the qualities of Yitzchak and Yaakov, it all needs to be grounded in compassion. I plan on mentioning this in my study this week, and am wondering if this is an oral teaching or if there is a written source I could reference. Warmly, Uzi
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