Home Home / Exchange with R. Walkenfeld about Artic…

Correspondence

July 1960

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

Practical Halacha Orthodoxy & Other Denominations

1. R. Walkenfeld to R. Lamm

1. R. Walkenfeld to R. Lamm (July 11, 1960)

1. R. Walkenfeld to R. Lamm (July 11, 1960)

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

Article

Letter to the Editor from R. Walkenfeld about Article on Conservative Amendments to the Ketubah (1960)

To the editor of Tradition: It was with a great deal of interest that I read the article "Recent Additions to the Ketubah" by Rabbi Norman Lamm, in the Fall 1959 edition of Tradition. However, I cannot agree with his halakhic conclusions or with his logic, and beg to take issue with his contention that the Conservative Ketubah is invalid because it is an asmakhta. Rabbi Lamm lists three definitions of asmakhta under which he classifies the third clause of the new Conservative Ketubah and concludes that the Conservative amendment is an asmakhta and therefore invalid. The first category of asmakhta mentioned is “Contracts Involving Undetermined Sums.” He quotes Maimonides (Mekhirah 11:16) to the effect that an obligation to pay an undisclosed sum, even with a kinyan, is not a legal obligation. Using this reasoning he desires to invalidate the Conservative Ketubah, stating that it too obligates the party who refuses to meet with their Beth Din or accept its decision to pay an undetermined fine. What Rabbi Lamm does not quote is the very next statement of Maimonides (11:17), which is: "Why then is it that if one makes an agreement with his wife to feed her daughter he is bound to do so? Because the agreement was made at the time of the wedding and this is an example of verbal promises by which one can take possession." Maimonides specifically states that an agreement to pay an undisclosed sum, made at a wedding ceremony, is binding, even though it would be invalid if made under any other circumstances. A kinyan, also, is unnecessary according to Maimonides. The Conservative amendment to the Ketubah is part of the marriage ceremony and cannot be included in this category of asmakhta. (The Mishneh Le’melekh [Mekhirah 11:2] remarks that Maimonides may possibly consider a contract containing any type of asmakhta valid, if it is made during the wedding ceremony.) Another reason why the Conservative Ketubah is an asmakhta, Rabbi Lamm claims, is that it is a “Contract Involv…
Practical Halacha

Article

Recent Additions to the Ketubah: A Halakhic Critique (1959)

Norman Lamm, the author, is associate rabbi of the Jewish Center in New York City, instructor in Jewish philosophy at Yeshiva University’s Teachers Institute, and Editor of Tradition. The last issue contained his article on “Separate Pews in the Synagogue: A Social and Psychological Approach.”RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE KETUBAH: A Halakhic Critique: The “amendment to the Ketubah” announced some five years ago by the Conservative movement has been hailed by its leaders as “something which may very well place the Rabbinical Assembly not only on the map of the world, but also on the map of history.”¹ That the world has not been shaken by this action is already evident from the more recent pronouncements from Conservative sources indicating that their project is not meeting with the desired success, and that even many Conservative rabbis have decided not to make use of the “amended Ketubah.”² As for history, no one can accurately predict what the judgment of the future will be on the merits of this endeavor. But certainly history will record that its introduction generated sufficient controversy to rock to its foundations a Jewish community already sadly distinguished by its divisiveness and disunity. To this day most Jews remain confused, uninformed, and unenlightened by the polemics, for that is the only possible result when issues of religious moment are presented with immodest exaggeration and met with immoderate emotion, all in the public press.The Orthodox opposition to this innovation is based mainly on two factors: The competence of the proposed Beth Din (religious court), and the halakhic validity of the amendment itself. The first matter is serious indeed. How can Orthodox Jews—or, for that matter, any intellectually honest person—be expected to recognize the authority of an ecclesiastical court which denies (or, at the very least, seriously questions) the origin and hence the authenticity of the very Halakhah in whose name it presumes to speak and whose tenets i…
Practical Halacha Orthodoxy & Other Denominations

Correspondence

Exchange with R. Peli on Citing Conservative Rabbis as Halachic Authorities (1965)

ידידי ר' פנחס: התרעשתי בשבוע שעבר עם גיחת פי' סנדוז, וסיפרה לי על לידת הבת לה ולבעלה. בצדק איפוא להביע אליך ואל אשתך מברוק ברכה ואיחולי מזל־טוב לרוב ולימים טובים ולשנים טובות ומתוקנות בברכה ורחמים (ולבן יורש!) ולנחת מרוב נחת בבריאות ובשמחות כראוי לכם. אני חייב גם להודות לך שבעזרתך לקשקש להדפיס את המאמר על בה"כ – תקודה סנדרוביץ באירופה שם לבו עליו. אני מקווה שהמערכת המקצועית בלונדון מעל דפי פ"א תצליח לעורר את הלבבות למצב המצער הזה. לידידינו, פנחס, יש כבר חזקה בראיה ואינה דורשת ראיה, ונאומים כשרים לא יחסר. ובכן יושבים נא, להדליק נר לכל הקדמות, ובקשת רחמים במקום אביגדור מרדכי אל תתמהמהו. בקרוב אל הגיליון האחרון של פ"א.
Orthodoxy & Other Denominations