Four books – each of a different and distinct character, and all of them important for the Orthodox rabbi and layman – have recently been published by Feldheim and deserve comment in these columns. Pri Siftei Chayim, issued by the students of the Telz Yeshiva in Cleveland, is the tenth in the series begun in Telz, Lithuania. This volume of about 40 halakhic articles is dedicated to the memory of the late Rabbi E.M. Bloch, of sainted memory, who headed the Telz Yeshiva until his lamented death last year. Also included are two articles on halakhic subjects and three Shi’urei Gavra by the great Rosh Yeshiva himself. The list of contributors is an impressive array of Torah scholars who write on topics from every area of halakha, with the greatest concentration in Kodashim. Of particular interest is a short responsum by Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin – formerly of Lutsk and now in Jerusalem – on the revival of the Sanhedrin. Written over twenty years ago, its conclusion counseling against such a revival is reaffirmed by the author in a footnote. He presents a novel solution to the problem raised by Mahari ben Rav as to why Maimonides is certain, in his Commentary on the Mishnah, that semikha can be renewed with the unanimous consent of the sages of Israel, whereas in his Code he appends the famous equivocation, ve’ha-davar tzarikh hechra’ah. Other contributors, in addition to some of the most distinguished ba’alei halakha we have, include students at the Telz Kollel and Yeshiva proper. Edgar Frank’s Talmudic and Rabbinic Chronology is a slim but weighty volume (one is tempted to call it “timely”) attempting – with notable success – to explain the chronology of the Jews from about the year 200 CE on. Scholars had long thought the Talmud and Seder Olam to be in error in designating the equivalent of 63 BCE as the year of the destruction. Frank describes the three methods used to calculate the year from Creation, and thereby demonstrates that the Talmud – and Maimonides – were cle…

This little volume endeavors to explain the profound significance of the Jewish laws of family purity. Extremely well-written, it should be made required reading for all those who ignore or belittle these crucial teachings of the Torah. The author does not preach – he explains his subject in terms intelligible and meaningful to contemporary minds; in language simple and effective.Among many important points made by the author, this reviewer would single out his emphasis that, in enquiring into the explanations of mitzvos, “we want to know not why G-d commanded them but what He wanted us to learn from them” (p. 49). He warns that the observance of “the law must contain independent of and unconditioned by the values, reasons, and pur-poses we believe we have found in it.” (p. 50)Needless to say, the effort to cover large areas of thought in limited space is bound to lead to some over-simplifications (thus the reader may conclude that worn-en are excused by the Torah from all time-oriented positive precepts; or will fail to find in the author’s / definition of Tumoh any clue to Tumas Sheretz.) Also a few formulations could perhaps be improved upon (the Mikvoh is not “an ancient institution,” p. 35, but a Divine one, and the Kohen is not forbidden to be in the same ‘room’ with a corpse, p.80, but in the same house.)These are, however, mere minutiae. There is only one suggestion of more basic importance that this reviewer would like to offer: an elimination of the remarks on page 59 that can be read as an acceptanceof the concept of the honeymoon. This concept is so foreign to us in its essence, and in practice it is such an utter obstacle to the observance of Taharas Hamish-pocho, that it deserves the same clear and complete rejection that the author has accorded to other aspects of our contemporary mores.While offering this suggestion, the reviewer wants to express at the same time his hope that this fine work will succeed in reaching all those within our American Jew…

In the foreword to this work, Rabbi Lamm states that his purpose is “to present, in a manner meaningful to the modern Jew, a Jewish institution that is as sacred as it is ancient, as precious as it is unknown, and as vital as it is misunderstood.” We must certainly agree that Taharat HaMishpachah is the most misunderstood precept of the Torah — the one about which the modern Jew is most ignorant. By means of this little volume, the author achieves his goal in explaining in a lucid and poetic style the sacred nature and vitalizing force of this fundamental law of Jewish family life. From a brief discussion of the Torah’s attitude toward marital sex, the author leads into a general description of the laws of niddah, the menstruant. At this point Rabbi Lamm very emphatically dispels some of the misconceptions of Taharat HaMishpachah by pointing out that they arose primarily from semantic difficulties in translating taharah as “pure” or “clean” and tumah as “impure” or “unclean.” After stressing that the reader must keep in mind that the law is God-given, whereas the reasons and purposes attributed to it are merely the insights of men, the author elaborates on the various explanations offered for these mitzvot. Pleasingly printed in pocket-size format, the modest size of Rabbi Lamm’s booklet is certainly not a measure of its importance. There has long been an urgent need for a modern presentation of Taharat HaMishpachah that would effectively convey its values as well as its immediate purposes — that would do so with percipient thought and grace of language and style. We have needed an accessible introduction to Jewish family purity that would present the concept and application of this mitzvah in terms meaningful and compelling to the Jew of today — and particularly to one whose outlook is shaped by the ideas and standards of surrounding society rather than by Jewish premises. A Hedge of Roses goes far toward meeting this need. One can think of no work on the subject…

I appreciate your review of A Hedge of Roses and the attention it has drawn to the ideas presented therein. However, I feel compelled to respond to several misconceptions that were advanced in the critique. It was never my intention to present Halakhah as a mere sociological construct – nor to judge its validity on pragmatic grounds alone. On the contrary, my argument was and remains that the Halakhic system is rooted in Divine command – but that it also contains within it profound insight into the human condition and a deep concern for human dignity.Whereas some may see halakhic restrictions as merely arbitrary or outdated, I sought to illuminate the human wisdom embedded in Divine law – not to substitute one for the other. The reviewer mischaracterizes this approach as apologetic. It is not. It is explanatory. One may choose to ignore the psychological, emotional, and social ramifications of Halakhah – but that does not mean they are not there.Moreover, the critique that I "water down" Halakhah in order to accommodate modern readers is entirely unfounded. At no point do I advocate leniency where none exists – nor do I suggest that Halakhic norms should bend to the spirit of the age. Rather, I propose that we not shy away from offering meaningful explanations where they exist – and where they may help those who seek to live a Torah life in a modern world do so with greater commitment and understanding.Finally, I am disheartened by the implication that writing in an accessible style for a broad audience is itself suspect. The challenge of translating Torah values into a language that resonates with contemporary readers is not a betrayal of tradition – it is an essential component of our task as Jewish educators and communicators.If we cannot articulate the moral beauty and spiritual depth of our tradition in ways that can be heard, we risk leaving the field to those who reject it altogether. That, in my view, would be the true apology – and it would be one that no …

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 …

Los Angeles, California. Rabbi Norman Lamm’s article on homosexuality in your January–February 1968 issue 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 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 are 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 Rabbi Lamm 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 practices. And I also assume that it is desirable for the Jew to foster the implementation by the general community of the Noachide laws. On the basis of these two assumptions, I strongly question the validity of the two conclusions of Rabbi Lamm noted above. On the first, we accept the thesis that Judaism is unequivocally committed to higher moral practices. For Jews only? Obviously not — so obviously that we need not say more on this point. We may safely say that the Jew accepts the yoke of the Torah for himself and believes that the non-Jew should accept those moral and ethical ideals as are stated or implied in the Noachide laws. With this purpose, the Jew may act by example, by teaching and explaining, and by cooperating with the general community in specific actions, including community and political activities. The current attitude in some parts of the general community and of some cou…

The much heralded “sexual revolution” of our times has finally infiltrated the very bastions of official morality in our Western world. A number of influential Christian churches, suddenly aware of their isolation in the face of the rapidly deteriorating moral level of the Christian world, have begun to reassess their codes of sexual conduct. As has happened so often in the history of the West, Christianity has begun to accommodate itself to Christendom, and the abyss that does and should keep morality apart from mores has shrunk ever more.One of the most significant documents of this astounding development is “Sex and Morality,” the Report by the Working Party to the British Council of Churches, published in October, 1966. It is the harbinger of a new dispensation in sexual morality, and presages the most serious consequences for the future of our society. New thinking on the Christian view of sex and sex practices is also evident in pronouncements and reports by Swedish and German churches.These developments are deserving of special treatment from a Jewish perspective. For the present, let us turn our attention to a recent meeting of American churchmen that was widely reported in the press of this country. On November 28, 1967, ninety Episcopalian priests gathered in New York to discuss their church’s approach to homosexuality. Their conclusions were sensational but, alas, predictable.A large majority of the priests, according to the New York Times reports, believed that homosexual acts should not be dismissed as wrong per se. Such acts “between two consenting adults should be judged by the same criterion as a heterosexual marriage — that is, whether it is intended to foster a permanent relation of love,” or whether the two individuals are merely "using” each other. A homosexual relationship “can be as fulfilling or as destructive as heterosexual ones.” Of course, the disclaimer follows: this does not mean that such acts should be “encouraged.” And so, the “Judae…

That the Western world finds itself in the midst of a continuing moral crisis is a self-evident fact which needs no documentation. Completely appropriate to our contemporary situation is the plaint of R. Haninah of Sepphoris: “Zimri was only one in his generation, and because of him 24,000 of Israel died — and we have so many Zimris in our generation!”[1] The traditional moral restraints that have prevailed for centuries in Western civilization are crumbling, and Jews are not the least of those affected by the moral and spiritual rootlessness of our generation. Indeed, we probably feel the consequences of this massive displacement even more than do others, for the fulcrum of Jewish life and continuity has always been the family, and it is the family that is the first victim of moral delinquency.[2]Nevertheless, for the sake of perspective it is good to remember that such anti-moral impulses are not new in history. The statement of R. Haninah itself is indicative of moral laxity in third century Palestine. There is considerable truth in a recent assertion that there is a permanent revolution against traditional Jewish sexual morality, but that the style and form and intensity of the revolt change in different historical epochs.³There are several strands discernible in the fabric of the current protest against traditional morality, that known as the New Morality. One of the most interesting aspects of this New Morality is the paradox of what is (by previously accepted standards) immoralism having its genesis in an excess of moral fervor. But this calls for some preliminary remarks. In speaking of the New Morality, we must distinguish between two layers. One is that associated with the name of **Hugh Hefner**, founder of that famous American institution known as the “Playboy Club.” This profitable commercial enterprise is accompanied by the exposition of a totally immoral “philosophy,” and made to appeal mostly to professional bachelors who prefer the pleasures of mar…

In order to appreciate the implications of Family Purity, it is important to understand, as well, what it is not.For one thing, it is not the kind of superstition that, in other cultures, has stigmatized the menstruant as repulsive, placed upon her mysterious and stringent taboos, and banished her from the community for the duration of her menses. Maimonides, the eminent twelfth-century Talmudist, philosopher, and physician, forcefully rejected the superstitious beliefs and practices of the Sabeans, Magi, and other Eastern peoples concerning menstruation, and emphasized the spiritual content of Judaism’s teachings.״ The Torah’s legislation is simply not of one piece with, for instance, the primitive customs recorded in Sir James Frazer’s The Golden Bough. Unfortunately, such identification of the Torah’s laws with primitive pagan and mythological cultures often does take place in the mind of the contemporary Jew or Jewess who is uninitiated into the world of Torah and the Jewish Tradition and who cannot, therefore, view Jewish Family Purity from a broader perspective and greater knowledgeability. A terminological confusion is largely responsible for this unhappy distortion of the Torah’s larger purposes and the intrinsic meaning of its commandments. Tuharah and tum’ah (and the corresponding adjectives tahor and tamei) are usually translated as “pure” and “impure.” It is this deceptive semantic delinquency that leads to the interpretation of these categories as denoting some kind of intrinsic mysterious abhorrence that possesses the person of the menstruant and that must be purged by some magical incantation.But this is clearly not so. According to Jewish teaching, nothing whatever happens to or changes in the person or character or value of the individual, man or woman, designated as “impure.” No special quality makes such an individual inferior in any way to any other person re-fen־ed to as “pure.” The terms ta-harah and tum’ah signify halakhic or legal categories…

Let me begin by acquainting you with my bias. I am an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi and a teacher of Jewish philosophy. But while my frame of reference is quite particular, it is not, at least for the purposes of this lecture, going to be particularistic. Our problem, in this first lecture on the New Morality, is one of universal concern and especially the concern of those whose consciences and professional commitments inspire in them a feeling of responsibility towards society and its future. I will, therefore, attempt to keep theological issues to a minimum, whereas the same will not necessarily be true for the second lecture. In talking about my bias, I would like, meanwhile, to explain why I am late.Leaving on the American Airlines jet from LaGuardia, we were delayed 15 minutes because radar failed. Coming into Chicago, we had to wait ten minutes because the Delta plane before us blew its tires and had to be towed away. As a pulpit Rabbi, I naturally thought, in these two events, a symbol of a sort. The first one indicated that if you don’t have a fixed point by which to measure other events that are in flux, if you have no absolute values by which to judge the transient moves and ephemeral fashions of the day, you are in trouble, and you are open to disaster. The second delay meant to me that if you’re so rigid that there is no “give,” no feel, no flexibility, no air in your tires, then you have to be towed away because you cannot compete in life. These are the limits or poles of my bias and with this I begin.Bachelor moralityThe term, New Morality, generally covers two attitudes. The first one is identified with the name of the High Priest of this particular movement, Hugh Hefner — with his bible, Playboy, his new dispensation, his temples and priestesses and all the rest. It is fundamentally an exploitative view, one which regards women as essentially sexual objects. It demands of its communicants that they be “cool,” form no profound relationships, no involvements.…