Home Home / Letter to Max Naus about Chilul Hashem …

Correspondence

July 13, 1966

Letter to Max Naus about Chilul Hashem and Couple with Marital Difficulties (1966)

Modern Orthodoxy Marriage & Sexuality
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

Article

Rabbi Lamm Clarifies (1966)

I am grateful for the flattering remarks about my “A Hedge of Roses” by your reviewer, Mrs. Sifra Tendler, (May-June, 1966) - sufficiently grateful to break the unwritten rule about an author responding to a reviewer. While I appreciate Mrs. Tendler’s gracious comments, I do wish to react to her assertion that the work contains a number of errors of fact. Her charge is authenticated by her in a footnote averring that she consulted competent halachic authority before offering the criticisms. While no book is perfect, and mine no doubt is flawed in more ways than one, I do not believe that Mrs. Tendler, despite the undisputed credentials of her anonymous authorities, is correct in the specific errors she has purported to discover. First, the halachic distinction between the prohibition of niddah and the tum’ah of niddah is no doubt valid—but largely irrelevant to the point I made. The fact remains that the term tum’ah is used to describe the prohibition of niddah even in post-Temple times. Even a cursory glance at the laws of niddah in Yoreh De’ah, beginning with the very first paragraph, will confirm this usage. Furthermore, the question of whether or not the technical law of tum’ah is operative for niddah today is not germane to the psychological problem one encounters in trying to persuade a person to abide by these laws. If the classification is derogatory—which, of course, it is not—then the principle remains objectionable regardless of contemporary halachic inapplicability. A legal nicety may appeal to one trained in halachic dialectics; it has little effect on the psychological and philosophical difficulties which we are called upon to deal with. The reviewer’s objection to my footnote (p. 85) on the difference between “natural” and “artificially accumulated" water is another example of being over-technical. The note begins with the comment, “Interestingly, there is a difference... Quite obviously, I did not try to “sell” mikvah on this basis. It was just, as …
Marriage & Sexuality

Synagogue Sermon

The New Morality and the Crisis in the Jewish Family (1973)

Norman Lamm, Rabbi of the Jewish Center in New York City and Professor of Jewish Philosophy at Yeshiva University, will be exploring an area of immediate concern, the Jewish family and how it is being affected by movements now referred to in the terms of Youth, the New Morality, and Alternate Life Styles. Dr. Lamm is the author of several works including "A Hedge of Roses", "Jewish Insights Into Marriage and Married Life", "Faith and Doubt" and "The Royal Reach." He has traveled widely, lecturing
Marriage & Sexuality

Correspondence

Letter to the Editor of Jewish Life about "A Hedge of Roses" Review (1966)

To the Editor: I am grateful for the flattering remarks about my "A Hedge of Roses” by your reviewer, Mrs. Sifra Tendler (Jewish Life, May-June, 1966) – sufficiently grateful to break the unwritten rule about an author responding to a reviewer. While I appreciate Mrs. Tendler's gracious comments, I do wish to react to her assertion that the work contains a number of errors of fact. Her charge is authenticated by her in a footnote averring that she consulted competent Halachic authority before offering the criticisms. While no book is perfect, and mine no doubt is flawed in more ways than one, I do not believe that Mrs. Tendler, despite the undisputed credentials of her anonymous authorities, is correct in the specific errors she has purported to discover.First, the halachic distinction between the prohibition of niddah and the tum'ah of niddah is no doubt valid – but largely irrelevant to the point I made. The fact remains that the term tum'ah is used to describe the prohibition of niddah even in post-Temple times. Even a cursory glance at the laws of niddah in Yoreh De'ah, beginning with the very first paragraph, will confirm this usage. Furthermore, the question of whether or not the technical law of tum'ah is operative for niddah today is not germane to the psychological problem one encounters in trying to persuade a person to abide by these laws. If the classification is derogatory – which, of course, it is not – then the principle remains objectionable regardless of contemporary halachic inapplicability. A legal nicety may appeal to one trained in halachic dialectics; it has little effect on the psychological and philosophical difficulties which we are called upon to deal with.The reviewer’s objection to my footnote (p.85) on the difference between "natural” and "artificially accumulated" water is another example of being over-technical. The note begins with the comment, "Interestingly, there is a difference..." Quite obviously, I did not try to "sell" mikvah …
Marriage & Sexuality