Home Home / Exchange with R. Weingarten about The F…

Correspondence

November 1997

Exchange with R. Weingarten about The Future of Reform, the Flood Narrative, and "Judgmentalism" (1997)

Noach General Jewish Thought

1. R. Weingarten to R. Lamm

1. R. Weingarten to R. Lamm (Nov. 4, 1997)

1. R. Weingarten to R. Lamm (Nov. 4, 1997)

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. Metzger about "Torah Lishmah" and R. Israel Salanter (1996)

לכבוד הרב ד״ר נחום לאם שליט״א, ״נשיא ישיבה אוניברסיטה,״ ״איש האשכולות וכו',״ בהמשך למחקרו החשיך בענין ״תורה לשמה,״ לימוד תורה כשהיא לעצמה שיטת רב חיים מוואלאזין זצ׳ל ושיטת אדמו״ר הזקן במטרת במטרת דבקות בשם, לתשומת לב מימדת היא שיטת רב ישראל שאלאנטר זצ׳ל, מוסר תנועת המוסר שמשתקף מ״אגרת המוסר״ שלו (טופס דרוף). בקריאה שטחית לכאורה מיפיע שאכלו הנקודה המרכזית בלימוד תורה הוא בתוך בחינת ״בראתי תורה תבלין,״ כפשוטו, ושהמאבק אם היצר לי
General Jewish Thought

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