Home Home / Exchange with Shri Israel about Excludi…

Correspondence

April 1963

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

Practical Halacha India

1. B.J. Israel to Saul Penkar

1. B.J. Israel to Saul Penkar (Apr. 4, 1963)

1. B.J. Israel to Saul Penkar (April 4, 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 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 R. Silas about Proposed Takkanot on Conversion and Marriage for Indian Bet Din (1962)

Dear Rabbi Lamm, Some time ago, you sent the Tekanoth for conversion to the “Gate of Mercy” Synagogue, through the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations in India. Some questions have arisen and we need your advice. In Rule No. 3 in the Tekanoth it is mentioned: “If a candidate who intends to be converted to the Jewish faith is married to a Jew, then the conversion cannot take place less than nine months and one day after petition for proselytisation!” Could you kindly explain what is this nine months and one day period meant for. Also, in Rule 3 of the above, it is mentioned “that the candidate should appear a year after petition for proselytisation before the Beth Din.” Why is the period less in the case when the candidate is married to a Jew? I would appreciate an early reply to these questions, and thanking you in anticipation. Yours sincerely, S. Silas Rabbi Simon Silas Assistant to the Haham
Practical Halacha India