Subject: The need for community-wide cohesion among orthodox congregations in the Metropolitan area is and has long been obvious; I don't believe it is necessary for me to demonstrate the need to you. Also obvious is the fact that the development of a Metropolitan inter-synagogue Council, as the agency for cohesion, is a big job. I believe that within realistic limits, the job can be done, and that the present moment is timely to begin it.Line of ApproachIdeally, the best method of organization might be to have people confer individually with key figures of leading congregations, "sell" them the idea, bring them together for a series of meetings, map out a detailed blueprint of objectives, methods and structure, build the organization step by step, then get the program under way in careful stages. I don't believe that this method would work in the present case because: 1) Neither the Orthodox Union nor any other agency is in a position to provide or mobilize the professional or volunteer manpower to initiate the process; and 2) Even if this weren’t the case, the process would bog down in talk in the early stages.Or, the opposite approach might be undertaken — to mount a big blast of publicity, call mass meetings, develop public excitement, improvise an organizational facade. In my opinion, this would evaporate in a short time, nothing would be left.So, instead, we propose:I look forward to hearing from you, as per our telephone conversation.

Dear Dr. Weiss and Mr. Bernstein: I know how often it happens that people in communal life work hard and succeed, and their achievements are taken for granted. Because I do not like this all too human trait, I want to put in writing my personal felicitations to you for the splendid National dinner of last night. It was a "kiddush ha-shem” in its whole tone and its effect upon all those who attended. Certainly the two of you and all the rest of those connected with the Office of the Union deserve the gratitude of the entire community for the competence and loyalty which went into making this evening such a success. Sincerely, Rabbi Norman Lamm

Gentlemen: For the past three years, our Ladies' Auxiliary of the Mikvah of Baltimore jointly with the Women's Branch U.O.J.C. has been sponsoring public lectures on the subject of Taharas Hamishpocho with well-known out-of-town speakers. (Actually our organization does the work but for various advantages for both organizations, we sponsor it jointly.) ב"ה we've been quite successful in getting a fine response from the community. We usually average between 200 and 300 people. After the lecture, we distribute booklets on the subject. We've just received the booklet by Rabbi Norman Lamm on this topic, and from what I've read so far, am extremely pleased with this book. It is well written; much research has gone into it; his entire method of presentation will certainly appeal to the more intellectual young people. The small pamphlets we've been distributing have cost us a very nominal sum, but we would very much like to distribute Rabbi Lamm's booklet, and wonder whether you can give us a special rate.Once a year, we also sponsor a Bridal Tea to which we invite all ׳—/^^ and /^Lj^^ for the year, have a speaker, give them the U.O.J.C. booklet on Kashrus and a booklet on Taharas Hamishpocho. For this particular affair, Rabbi Lamm's book would certainly be extremely appropriate.The problem now is a financial one. The only income our organization has is from the §5.00 annual dues which each member pays. This money goes towards the upkeep of the Mikvah.Would you please let me know what would be the minimum charge for Rabbi Lamm's book and whether there is any possibility of receiving some as a con-tribution towards our projects.I am the cultural chairman of our organization and have been chairman of these lectures for the past few years. I've also been conducting lectures on this topic to smaller groups.We would be sincerely appreciative for any cooperation you can offer us. Since this year's lecture is scheduled׳-(^׳/cfor Sunday, June 5th, we would appreciate you giving t…

Dear Norman: Upon communicating with Mrs. Tendler about your letter, she (via Moshe) pointed out that you quote her incorrectly on the giluy arayot point. The objection expressed in her review was to (quote from review) “defining giluy arayot for which a man must surrender his life in order to avoid transgressing, as ‘unchastity.’ Only that aspect of giluy arayot was cited as being improperly defined as ‘unchastity.’ It would therefore be a misrepresentation to state ‘...the reviewer’s contention that giluy arayot should not be translated as ‘unchastity’ because, she suggests, the halachic term refers exclusively to adultery, i.e. relations with a married Jewess. This is of course a serious error...’ I propose that the foregoing be eliminated from the letter to be published. If you want to replace it with some alternate statement, and to retain the sentences immediately following the above, please let me know right away. You will be interested to know that Mrs. Tendler does not intend to send us a rejoinder to follow your letter and questions the merit, for your own purposes, of the statements in your letter re leprosy and natural waters. Best regards, Sincerely, Saul Bernstein

Dear Mr. Bernstein: Mr. Gross has completely missed the point of my ״unsound״ essay on the Fifth amendment. I obviously did not advocate the complete substitution of the Halakhah for the Constitution as the legal code of the United States; even Israel has not yet adopted Halakhah as its official law. Had I intended such far-fetched notions, Mr. Gross could readily have pointed to the disqualification of all current Supreme Court Justices on the grounds of their not being Jewish. One could easily discover other such absurdities. What I clearly had in mind, in addition to a comparative analysis for its own sake, was the suggestion that certain profound insights of the Halakhah ought to be studied and adopted by American jurists. The legal concepts considered by the Halakhah as applicable to Israelites are, in our view as traditional Jews, the product of divine wisdom, and hence ought to be emulated by all people. "For this is your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples, that when they hear all these statutes they shall say, ’Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people’" (Deut.4:6).Surely a proposal that American courts treat its citizens as benei Noach -- in other words, as strangers in their own country -- will not inspire admiration for the wisdom of the statutes of Judaism. An "understanding people" will suggest that other nations treat their citizens as Jewish law demands that Israel act towards bnei Yisrael. Of course, Mr. Gross, in his excessive literalism, may consider this "a sugary, sermonic, inapposite, and idealistic state-ment" of the rules of Halakhah, but if this is the price one must pay for making the wisdom of Judaism available to the rest of man-kind, it is small indeed.Having said this about the major element in his criticism, may I point out that Mr. Gross’ assertions that confession by a ben Noah is admissible ,'as far as I can discover," is not quite that certain. The references he cites are indeed discoverable in t…

Dear Saul: I am returning to you the photocopy of Morris Smith's letter to the editor, and including a letter from Rabbi Richard Israel of Yale, plus a response by myself. I suggest that the Smith letter be printed first, followed by the Israel letter, and then my answer. Israel first sent his letter to me as a private communication. I then received his permission to reword the letter referring to me in the third person, and have it printed as a letter to the editor of Jewish Life. Since these are communications and not articles, they should be uncensored by the editor. Nevertheless, I would very much appreciate any comments you may have to make about my response. Please let me know when you expect to have these letters published, and please arrange to let me have several extra copies.Rabbi NormanMorris Smith 84 Fifth Ave. New York, N.Y. 10011Dear Mr. Bernstein:Rabbi Lamm’s article on homosexuality in your January–February 1968 edition is most interesting. It represents an application of Jewish principles to a modern subject, an updating of Jewish law to modern life. It is a welcome addition to Jewish thinking for relatively unlearned individuals such as myself. However, one of the conclusions (or side remarks) I find most troublesome — disturbing if it reflects the general attitude in the Orthodox leadership.I refer to the statements that the author presents for advocating that homosexuality should not be treated as a criminal offense. Briefly the two reasons given are: (1) our present society and its judiciary is such that the courts do not wish to intervene when other individuals and society are not directly involved, and (2) our prisons as now constituted would worsen the homosexual’s condition.I assume that the Rabbi agrees that the Orthodox Jew (and others) whom he seeks to guide as well as to teach should be involved in American social and political life, and should participate in developing its laws and its practices. And I also assume that it is desirable …

Dear Saul: In keeping with my promise, I am sending you my revised copy of "Who Is A Jew?" for publication in Jewish Life. Please be in contact with me as to any questions. My very best wishes for a Gut Shabbos and a happy Passover. Cordially yours, Rabbi Norman Lamm. P.S.: Because I would like reprints to be distributed widely, I strongly urge you to keep transliterations and Biblical references the way I have them. "WHO IS A JEW?"; The Supreme Court & The Supreme Judge, Norman Lamm:One of the grand old men of Hebrew letters in Israel, Eliezer Steinman, has written, "Who is a Jew? One who doesn’t ask, ‘Who is a Jew?’”The very raising of the question in our days is a troubling phenomenon. It means that our very identity, our Jewishness, has become problematical. It indicates that all of Jewish continuity has been brought under a question mark.This issue has plagued the State almost since its very inception. Actually, the groundwork for it was laid in the Emancipation, at the end of the 18th century, when the Haskalah bequeathed to posterity one of its less luminous teachings: that one ought to be a “Jew” indoors and a “man” outside. This obfuscation of Jewish identity now has returned to monopolize public attention and stir public controversy both in Israel and in the Diaspora.The problem does not concern Israeli citizenship. A political state comprises many different ethnic, racial, and religious groups. Even in ancient Israel, a non-Jew (*ger toshav*) was accepted as a citizen. What is at issue is Jewish nationality. Here the *Halakhah* is quite clear: a Jew is one born to a Jewish mother (regardless of his commitments or conduct) or properly converted to Judaism (in which case the conversion must be performed in a prescribed manner, and the convert must be genuinely committed to Torah). The Jewish tradition recognizes no other yardstick for entering Jewish peoplehood. Hence, any decision by the State concerning nationality (as opposed to citizenship) is of i…