Home Home / Exchange with R. Gotthold about His Del…

Correspondence

July 1963

Exchange with R. Gotthold about His Delayed India Report, Uncooperativeness Accusation, and Expenses (1963)

India

1. R. Gotthold to OU

1. R. Gotthold to OU (July 11, 1963)

1. R. Gotthold to OU (July 11, 1963)

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 R. Gotthold about Logistics for His Visit to India (1963)

Dear Rabbi Gotthold: Thank you for your letter of February 3rd and the copies of your letters to Mr. Max Stern and Mr. Jhirad. Yesterday evening, Mr. Max Stern and some members of our Overseas Commission met to discuss your communications. We also had the benefit of the presence of Haham Dr. Solomon Gaon. Since time is of the essence, as you so correctly point out and as we here are so deeply aware, I am informing you immediately of the decisions reached. (1) The Overseas Commission of the Orthodox Union is willing to participate if necessary in the expenditures for yourself and Rabbi E. Kushelevsky in India with the amount of $2,000. The figures quoted by you were not clear to us. Firstly, since we are to pay only for maintenance, the figures given under this item do not amount to $4,000, but only to $3,000. Secondly, we find the amount of $600 per month unreasonably high, even assuming that these amounts are a combination of salaries payable in Israel and actual maintenance of the rabbis in India. We would, of course, assume that your Ministry would continue to pay your salary and that also Rabbi Kushelevsky would continue to receive at least part of his salary. This makes the figure of $4,000 even more questionable. If I stated above “if necessary,” I did so because Haham Gaon undertook to investigate the possibilities of obtaining Indian funds from the large Jewish trusts allocated for this purpose. We would appreciate it if you would immediately discuss this possibility with Rabbi Sassoon who is presently in Israel. These trust funds are frozen in India and cannot be utilized outside of the country. The Haham will take this matter up upon his return to England at the end of this month with some of the trustees. If, therefore, the amounts you listed under maintenance are intended for use in India, the Haham is hopeful that arrangements can be made with the trusts. Your immediate clarification whether part of the funds requested, and if so what percentage, is i…
India

Correspondence

Exchange with R. Gotthold about OU Financial Support for Indian Students (1964)

Dear Rabbi Gotthold: In further pursuance of my letter of May 8th, please be informed that I am now in a position to confirm that an amount not exceeding IL. 150 would be made available for special tutors for [redacted] each month. Accordingly, we are looking forward to hearing from you whether a program of rabbinic studies can be arranged under the sponsorship of a recognized Yeshiva, for [redacted], within the above limitations. With kindest personal regards and all good wishes, I am Very sincerely yours, Dr. Samson R. Weiss
India

Correspondence

Exchange with R. Gotthold about the Slow Religious Growth of Indian Kol Torah Student (1963)

Dear Rabbi Lamm, We are at present facing difficulties which grew out of the problem called [redacted], who is now two and one half years in Jerusalem. You may recall that during your visit to Bombay three years ago you had lined up four candidates for rabbinical training in Israel. Of these only [redacted] came through. He feels that now he has a monopoly on your commitment to make him a rabbi in Bombay, and we see that the lack of competition makes him complacent. We have our reservations about the prospects of seeing this “sole candidate” as a dominating factor in easing the problems of religious life and leadership in his home community. Actually, we ought to have a choice from the best qualified from among several competent students, which probably was your original idea. Perhaps we ought to consider the further training of graduate teachers sent to India from the Gold Institute, who have proven their reliable religious attitude since they have returned to India as teachers, Mohalim and Shohatim. I have worked there particularly with two of them and have been most favorably impressed by them. During his first year at Kol Torah, [redacted] had to be introduced to many facets of Jewish life and learning, which had been entirely strange to him. Our periodic check-ups revealed that he made good progress, adjusted to yeshiva life, and met with a sympathetic and helpful attitude on the part of fellow students and families in Bayit Vagan. At the end of his first year Kol Torah suggested to us that he be transferred to a Sefardi yeshiva. We opposed this plan although [redacted] himself did consider such transfer seriously because he felt that the training he received at Kol Torah was too one-sided, too much concentrating on Talmud, whereas he had been promised a more comprehensive course of studies, including Bible, history, philosophy, etc. Some of his fellow students had taken turns during the year to teach him Humash and Rashi. However the progress has been very s…
India