Home Home / Exchange with R. Silas about Proposed T…

Correspondence

May 1962

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

Practical Halacha India

1. R. Silas to R. Lamm

1. R. Silas to R. Lamm (May 24, 1962)

1. R. Silas to R. Lamm (May 24, 1962)

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 Haham Gaon about the Chief Rabbinate's Ruling on Marriage with Bene Israel (1962)

Dear Dr. Gaon: The enclosed copies of letters speak for themselves. I assume there was an overlapping of correspondence, and that your instructions to Bombay were received while Dr. Kahana wrote to me. I am anxious to hear from you concerning the Sassoon matters. My latest information, reaching me this morning, is that Rabbi Unterman of Tel-Aviv, has joined the opposition to Rabbi Nissim, and that the "Heter" is just about dead.I have the feeling that any significant information from Rabbi Sassoon can possibly bring Rabbi Unterman back to aPro-Heter stand.Please be kind enough to look Into these matters as soon as possible.Sincerely,Rabbi Norman LammNL:ffEnclsCC: Dr .Weiss/w/encls
Practical Halacha India

Correspondence

Exchange with R. Gotthold about the Bene Israel Controversy and Securing a Rabbi for India (1961)

Dear Rabbi Weiss: Permit me to reply to your letter of 6.21, and those of Rabbi Lamm of 6.9 and 6.23, together. By virtue of my position I am constrained in giving you the fulness of reply which your questions deserve. The Director General of our Ministry, Dr. S. Z. Kahane, informed me, upon reading your letters, that your remarks are related to the various organizations in the Diaspora. They should be ruled by those organizations themselves in their entirety, and you cannot excuse yourself by evading their conflicting statements on the same issues. A line of policy was laid down by our authorities and we are already committed to it with all possible implications. Our Ministry secured a favorable vote from the Knesset for financial allocations in order to make possible the financing for religious functions. The same could not be secured from the Ministry for Agriculture and similar Rabbis as it could be secured from the Ministry for Religious Functions. This might explain to you the position taken by Rabbi Nissim and his ruling. We must make clear that this is a firm position about the financing aspect for sending and maintaining rabbis in your country. I cannot tell you what brought on Rabbi Nissim’s change of heart. Later – today – I have an appointment with him together with Dr. Kahane and after further elucidation I shall add it later. Professor Tartakower is in close correspondence with Mr. Benjamin of the World Jewish Congress in New York. Mr. Benjamin informed me that Rabbi Shevitz had no chance to be appointed in Bombay because of the Rabbinate’s opposition to have an Ashkenazi Rabbi in Bombay. Mr. Benjamin’s opposition to have an orthodox Rabbi is based on religious grounds, as was pointed out that his financial interest in this affair is the safeguarding of the Bnei Yisroel’s rights and combating discrimination. He does not exclude such responsibility though you were to contact the World Institute in New York and to come with them to an agreement. Our Mi…
Practical Halacha India

Correspondence

Exchange with Shri Israel about Excluding Israeli Rabbinate from Influence in India (1963)

Dear Shri, you may remember that some six months ago I showed you a copy of a letter I had written to Mr. Michael, the Consul for Israel at Bombay, regarding the undesirability of Israeli Ministry of Religious Affairs deputing a Rabbi to India to settle pending divorces. In that letter I had informed him that, if the proposal was persisted in, I would appeal to the Government of India to refuse admission to the Rabbi. You had then agreed that a Rabbi so deputed was completely unacceptable. I have seen a letter addressed by you to Shri D.A. Maggonkar in which you say that your Union has arranged with your opposite number in America for a Rabbi in whose selection the Israeli Ministry of Religious Affairs and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel will have a hand to come to Bombay presumably under your auspices. It is evident that, except for the cover given to the arrangement by the UOJCA, it is substantially the same as that to which you professed such strong opposition in conversation with me, and I can hardly believe that you have not realised that this is so. About the religious aspects of the matter, I am not personally concerned, though it is astonishing that any self-respecting Bene Israel organisation can for a moment contemplate cooperating with an authority which will humiliate us. Have you forgotten the terms of your address to Rabbi Brodie or of the Open Letter to the President and the Prime Minister of Israel? What, however, I am concerned with, and what every loyal citizen of India should be concerned with, is the handle you have provided to the Israeli Government and its hirelings to interfere in our domestic concerns. The matter is, to my mind, of such importance that I have considered it necessary to send a representation to the Government of India in the matter without waiting to canvass opinion among friends and acquaintances. I trust that, even at this late stage, you will take corrective action to ensure that the Israeli Ministry of Religious Affairs an…
Practical Halacha India