Home Home / Letter from R. Stavsky about Mixed Pews in Columbus, OH (1960)

Correspondence

Feb. 18, 1960

Letter from R. Stavsky about Mixed Pews in Columbus, OH (1960)

Separate Pews
Background Information
Background Information
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.

RELATED CONTENT

Correspondence

Letter from R. Haskel Lookstein on Separate Pews (1958)

Dear Rabbi Lamm, Thank you very much for your congratulations and wonderful wishes. It was really very nice of you to have taken the time to express them. By the way, my father showed me your speech on mixed pews (not in mixed pews) and I thought it was literally out of this world – in the right direction, of course. I read it, reread it, tried to memorize the arguments, and then put it in my file cabinet in case I shood forget its contents. I think that it is far and away the best treatment I have seen or heard on the subject. Congratulations! I hope you can keep doing this sort of work. It’s really excellent, Sincerely, Haskel. Regards to the rebbetzin
Separate Pews

Correspondence

Letter from R. Stavsky to Victor Geller about Lecturing in Columbus, Ohio on Separate Pews and Family Purity (1959)

Dear Vic: May I take this opportunity to again thank you for your wonderful cooperation in helping me with my religious emphasis week program. Rabbi Lamm, as I had anticipated, made a tremendous impression. I am truly sorry that we were not in the position to give him the proper monetary compensation which he surely deserved. Close to 100 people attended his session. He left an indelible impact upon everyone. His talk evoked only favorable comment on the delicate subject of mechitza, and even during Yom Kippur, people were still talking "about the Rabbi who was here Monday night." May I add that his modest and dignified approach won for him and the Yeshiva the reputation of being the outstanding speaker of the series.All in all, over 550 people attended the sessions. I am taking the liberty of enclosing two press releases on the subject.Again my inadequate thanks to you personally aid to CSD.With best wishes for continued success.Sincerely,Rabbi David Stavsky
Separate Pews

Correspondence

Letter to R. Lamm about Mixed Pews

Dear Norman: I am sorry you were not at the convention of the Yeshiva Alumni. Had you been there, you would not have sent this article to me, and both you and I would have been happier. To begin with, I cannot accept the Halachah. The interpretation of the Talmudic source in Succah is, to say the least, loose. The jump, “as in the Temple so in the synagogue,” is even more so. The sanctity of the Temple is completely different from that of the synagogue, and so are the practical circumstances and considerations. The phrase “but whatever the source of the Halachah” indicates an appreciation, conscious or subconscious, of the difficulty and weakness of the exposition. What follows as support of the approach is not any more convincing. That we do not find segregation in the synagogue historically does not create Halachah. Soloveitchik’s letter is an adroitly phrased comment. He does not mention Halachah. He stresses the principle of anti-Christianization. Praying without a hat, to which he compares the problem, is not a basic Halachah. Were it not a serious problem, I would have been amused by his comparison with the organ. Note that he does not speak of playing the organ on the Sabbath or a holiday. He only speaks of “installing an organ.” All those impressive names that uphold the principle of segregation deserve and have my full respect. But we must remember that they also argue for such things as a bimah in the center of the synagogue, and other similar matters, on the basis of Halachah. The tragedy of Orthodoxy has been and is that we raise details to principles and forget to fight for real principles. We make causes célèbres which we are bound to lose, and fight for them in a manner to make loss sure and swift. This encourages the masses to line up in opposition. People do not like a sure loser. What Conservative Judaism thinks of the matter is, of course, irrelevant. The Conservative Movement is an administrative conglomerate without guiding principle. A moveme…
Separate Pews