Dear Rabbi Lamm, Some months ago I wrote to you complaining that my last Spring issue of “Tradition” had not arrived – you said that you would look into the matter. The copy has still not reached me – your personal intervention would be much appreciated to expedite my lot. I am sorry that back copies are no longer available for the library (spare copies of the first issue would certainly be welcome). Is there any chance that we might receive a complementary copy of current and future issues?

Dear Mr. Lamm: My last communication to you called your attention to the fact that I had received a duplicate copy of the Fall, 1961 Tradition journal. I had asked whether your Spring, 1962 edition had already appeared. Instead you sent me now a 3rd copy of the Fall, 1961 edition. Please be good enough to let me know whether your Spring, 1962 number has already been published. Sincerely yours, Herman E. Schaalman, Rabbi. P.S. The mail today brought me now a 4th copy of the Fall, 1961 issue. Enough is enough!

Dear Moe: I received, just recently, a carbon copy of your letter to Larry Kobrin about the youth problem. I am sorry to hear about "roadblocks" that you mentioned were thrown up by one of the people on the Yeshiva side in the negotiations. I had been under the impression that all was clear and simply awaiting ratification by Mr. Belkin and yourself. I have a strong intuitive feeling that these obstacles are not quite as formidable as they seem. Even if they are, you have overcome far greater difficulties in a brilliant career in public life, and I would strongly urge you to leap over the present "roadblocks" and try to solve the difficulties together with Dr. Belkin as soon as possible. I keep on hearing complaints from many of my colleagues about the cross-purposes at which our groups are working in the Orthodox camp. I feel very strongly that now, and especially now, is the time for action, and that such propitious occasions may not arise as often in the future. One meeting between you and Dr. Belkin may very well unify our forces with regard to youth — an area in which we are sorely lagging behind the Conservatives, no matter how impressive our triumphs heretofore may seem. Warmest personal regards, Sincerely, Rabbi Norman Lamm

Dear Rabbi Lamm – There must be some point at which personal responsibility stops and friendships above takes over, for it is hard for me to view all your help, advice, encouragement etc. over the past several weeks as part of anything like congregational "duty." I can barely begin to find the words adequate to express my gratitude. In the annals of rabbinics of this decade, the resolutions of all the participants at our חופה was certainly something of an achievement. But your own part in helping me work things out was clearly the most vital one – for that I am specifically grateful. (Incidentally, did you notice Rabbi Jakobovits' essay to the defense of Halachic niceties – all that was missing was a signed appraisal for the ring).Both Ruth and I look forward to many opportunities to be with you and Mindy and to share simchas together for many years to come. (I assume, of course, that you can manage somehow to reconcile your Sarah to my new status so that she will even permit me to talk to you both.)Sincerely,Larry

Dear Larry: Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments on my recent article on the Fourth Amendment. The avenue of investigation which you suggest is interesting. Off-hand, however, I am not aware of any communication that is regarded by the Halakhah as "automatically privileged." The very fact that, as I mentioned in my article, every communication is considered sacrosanct, would seem to make superfluous any special category of "privileged information." Nevertheless, I am putting your letter aside and hope to think about it a bit more systematically, when I return to the city, please God. Meanwhile, Mindy joins me in sending best regards to Ruth and in expressing our delight that the two of you, after your long search are finally becoming our close neighbours.Cordially yours,RABBI NORMAN LAMM

Dear Rabbis: In the article by Arthur Hertzberg in Commentary on Israel and American Jewry dealing with the activities here during the "crisis," he refers to an informal survey apparently undertaken on the spot by Dr. Arnulf Pins, Executive Director of the Council on Social Work Education, who helped process the Jewish Agency volunteers. Apparently, this substantiated what many in New York knew (and if I recall correctly, was the subject of a letter from Rabbi Lamm to Rabbi Rackman) insofar as the extensive participation of religious youth was concerned. I wonder if it would be appropriate to find someone to undertake a more intensive and scientific study of whatever findings are available. Perhaps the results could be published in Tradition or given even wider circulation.The Hertzberg discussion comes on page 71 of the August issue of Commentary.Best regards,Sincerely yours,Lawrence A. Kobrin

Dear Larry: I enclose a sample given to me by Mr. Morton Fried of Copy Club, Inc. This is in connection with his desire to print TRADITION. I gave Mr. Fried a copy of the Fall 1962 issue of TRADITION which contains 135 pages. The cost per unit figures he gave me are as follows: A. For 2,000 copies: $.668 B. For 3,000: .612 C. For 4,000: .584. These figures Include cover (he assumes we will make our mat available to him) and binding. The latter may be either "perfect bound" (that is, completely glued) or side-stitched with a glued-on wrap-around cover. Please try to get the comparative figures from Perry Typesetters in time for our February 20th meeting so that we can at least determine whether it is worth pursuing the issue any further. Cordially,RABBI NORMAN LAMM

Dear Rabbi Rackman, As you may be aware, a rather comprehensive article on rabbinical courts, written by Joseph Kaplan, a Columbia student, was reprinted in the New York Law Journal during the summer. Certain of the information was based on interviews with you, and I assume that you must have previously seen a copy of the original article. If not, I would commend it to your attention. The appearance of the article suggests one or two points which I would share with you.The presentation of the activities of the RCA Beth Din is a rather favorable one. It occurs to me that it might be appropriate to arrange for some kind of reprinting and distribution of the article for publicity purposes. As a matter of fact, if the reprints could be made available in quantity, this is the kind of material that we might consider including in the "kit" normally distributed to UOJCA convention delegates.The conclusion of the article touches on a matter which has been the subject of correspondence between us in the past—the possible expanded use of the RCA Beth Din in areas other than matrimonial problems and situations. You may recall, for instance, that I had once suggested the recommendation that contracts with synagogue employees include compulsory arbitration provisions so that the embarrassing public display of a litigated dispute with a cantor, rabbi, or school principal could be avoided. While I know that the RCA has an excellent leaflet describing their procedures in matrimonial matters, a parallel publication for non-matrimonial activities might also be appropriate.The article contains an assertion that the Conservative *ketubah* clause has not been widely used. The only support for that assertion, however, which is given in the footnote appears to be a statement in the article originally written by Rabbi Lamm when the clause was first promulgated. In the light of our conversation and correspondence before the summer, I would be curious as to whether any better information is …

Dear Joe: I am sorry that I have not had the chance to meet you personally in the week or so since I have returned from Israel. Let this, then, be my פרי פי to you – and to Dr. Weiss as well, since he is receiving a copy of this letter. Please do me the favor of reading this letter carefully, for I shall be very brief. If you want me to supplement it with any more information, you know that you are free to call on me. During the months I spent in Israel, there occurred the unhappy Ahalon affair. The problem set me thinking as to how we could carefully solve the problem of protecting the integrity of Shabbat and at the same time being considerate of all the demands of the non-observant Jews who, because of a six day week of labor, feels hemmed in and curbed by Sabbath restrictions. I developed an idea which I communicated to Zevulun Hammer, s the leader of the youth group of the N.R.P. I formulated it for him, gave him the background and rationale, he presented it as an amendment to one of the labor coalition meetings. Aloni, the Minister of Labor, was up in opposition to it, and insisted that it be removed from the agenda for discussion. However, Hammer and his group were able to combine forces with Menahem Porush and Menachem Persush from Agudah and the Knesset by 24–22. As of now, then, my Rosh Chodesh plan is in committee in the Knesset, and, if passed, can be amended through further discussion and discussion. I have refrained from elaborating on the nature of the plan, and refer you instead to the enclosed article in the Jerusalem Post which explains it at least in rudimentary fashion. It will also be published in Hebrew in the next edition of Hadoar, and possibly has already appeared in Haaretz. The religious newspapers, of course, have given it prominent display in their news items in Israel. I think that representations by the O.U.J.C.A. to the Prime Minister, and to the Israeli Ambassador to Washington, telling them that the Union heartily endorses the pla…

Dear Larry: I have been thinking about the problem you raised concerning Federation's decision to appear in court as Amicus favoring the present liberal abortion laws. And the more I think about it, the more unhappy I am with this policy. Let me briefly outline the halakhic problems. There are a number of elements that must be taken into consideration. In addition to the fundamental issue of foeticide, the question is complicated by two basic matters: the fact that the action contemplated affects all sectors of our society, both Jewish and non-Jewish; and, if we indeed find that such endorsement of current abortion legislation is halakhically offensive, the degree of culpability that can be assigned to this kind of action by Federations, namely, lending support to a legal brief. The first matter refers back to the dual legal system posted by Judaism: Noahide law for Gentiles, and Israelite law far more comprehensive and restrictive -: applying only to Jews. The second matter must be resolved on the basis of lifnei iver, which I will explain shortly. 1. Are non-Jews forbidden by Torah law to destroy an unborn child? That foeticide is a grave offense for Jews is too obvious to require documentation. A large modern literature has already accumulated on the subject. While there are important exceptions, such as where the health of the mother is significantly jeopardized, the Halakhah is strongly against abortions and, in most cases, considers them as murder, albeit not punishable by the courts. The question of whether foeticide is covered in Noahide law is taken up in the Talmud (Sanh. 57b). R. Ishmael, in a baraita, holds that it is forbidden. Although an anonymous Tanna disagrees, the weight of halakhic opinion clearly favors R. Ishmael; see, for instance, Maimonides, Hil. Melakhim 9:4. Interestingly, according to this authoritative view, abortion by non-Jews turns out to be even more severe in its ramifications than when performed by Jews, for while Jews are punishe…