My dear Judith: I plead not guilty! I always answer my letters, or at least almost always, and if I did not answer your last letter it is probably because I never received it. If in fact I did and failed to answer your letter, then it is purely because of my impossible schedule rather than because of neglect. Yes, Judith, life for me now is “that hectic.” (As for my “moving mountains,” maybe I am and maybe I am not, but if I am – those darn mountains have a way of reappearing again and again!) I would not be worried about the reports of some of the Stern girls that they have too many required courses. They seem to forget that this is part of the price you pay for a dual program. There are, after all, a certain minimum number of requirements in any college, and when you add the required courses for Judaic Studies, it is true that that adds up to a great deal. But then, a dual program is expected to be more difficult than a normal college program. Some of their criticisms are correct, however, and I have assigned a special Presidential Planning Commission to reinvestigate the whole University, and this week they are giving me their final reports. I have high hopes that beginning next September a great many changes will begin to take place and will ultimately improve the quality of Stern as well as the rest of the University. I think that Stern is the only solution for you if you do not go to Israel. Frankly, I think you would be better off in New York even if you could go to Israel, not because I do not love Israel but because for you, in my estimation, this would be the right place to be at the right time. You will find faults, but then what institution or person is perfect? Of one thing you may be sure, and that is that we are trying to be as good as we possibly can, and the kind of enthusiasm you bring to your studies as well as to your general academic and personal experience will help in no small measure in attaining the goals that we have set for Stern. In a wo…

Dear Rabbi Lamm, I have just had the great pleasure of reading your Torah Umadda. I very much enjoyed reading a book that presented a spectrum of viewpoints in Torah thought, as opposed to championing one brand as the only genuine approach; I enjoyed your creative approach to Hasidic thought, and your comparative analysis of that and Rav Kook's approach; I enjoyed your bold and radical formulations, and that you did not allow a fear of misinterpretation to blunt your analysis (and, similarly, that you did not allow the spirit of apologetic reactionism to smother your thought); and I enjoyed the fact that your intellectual analysis was not intimidated by the greatness of the men you discussed (I found your characterization of R. Hirsch's approach as "bourgeois" especially interesting, because when I was studying in Monsey's Ohr Somayach some years ago, I one day realized that the yeshiva was espousing a view of life that I then termed "Torah bourgeois.") I have been lately moved to characterize Orthodoxy as the use of lies to support truth, and I found your book, in regard to this, singularly refreshing and un-orthodox - i.e., honest Torah conceptual thought characterized by integrity and substance. This is not to say that I agreed with everything you said, but rather that I agreed with the spirit in which it was said. In regard to one of the concerns that I felt your book hinted at, I would like to ask you the question: What is emunas chachamim - in regard to Chazal, through Rishonim and Achoronin, and to our day? I have asked this question in right-wing circles, where this concept is stressed so dogmatically, yet no one I have spoken to has known (or seemed to care) exactly what it is; in fact, I was sometimes given the impression that asking exactly what emunas chachamim is constitutes lack of it. (One rabbi responded, "It will make you happy to say that Rashi made a mistake?") For me, this is not an academic, theoretical question. It is central to my concerns, a…

Dear Milon, Your very warm and supportive letter was a source of genuine consolation to me, בבחינת מועט המחזיק את המרובה, and the fact that it came on top of your telegram leads me to respond the way the colleagues of רבי עקיבא did at the end of מכות, namely, נחמתני נחמתני. I’m sorry you didn’t have my phone number; after these many years I was forced to resort to an unlisted number because of harassing calls at all unearthly hours by some of our local קנאים. Should you ever want to reach me (for happy reasons, I trust), try me at 212-496-6321. I’m delighted with your reaction to my Torah Umadda. It is my אני מאמין and therefore all the more meaningful to me to read your response—including the one caveat you included. I remember discussing with you the Rambam’s personal attitude, and I owe to you the mention of one of his letters where he speaks of his frustration at not being able to study מדע. Thanks again—I’m glad that after all these years our ideological development has led us in essentially the same direction. Your remarks about תורה לשמה are very well taken; I refrain from any lengthy reaction because I’ve elaborated on the theme in my Torah Lishmah. I cannot discern from your letter if you have the book or not; if not, please let me know at once and I will be delighted to send you a copy immediately (the English version that came out earlier this year; the Hebrew is out of print and the English is updated). I had very little time, in this difficult period, to study your two מאמרים in depth—just enough to marvel at both the level of לומדות and sophistication and the time you set aside for learning, considering your academic and research preoccupations. Forgive me the personal tribute, but you were always one of the prime models I had in mind when thinking, talking, or writing about תורה ומדע. While I haven’t had time to more than glance at your essay on מלכיות, זכרונות, ושופרות, I did peruse with a bit more attention your piece on אמן. נהניתי מאוד מכל המאמר,…

Dear Lamm, I very much enjoyed speaking with you last Wednesday, and appreciate the time you took out from your busy schedule. Afterwards, I had some thoughts about Torah education that I'd like to set before you as speculations, not as recommendations or criticisms regarding Yeshiva University. In the quote from Likutei Halachot that I mentioned that cries out against secular learning (R. Nosson of Nemirov, "Choshen Mishpat," p. 100), R. Nosson denounces making Tanakh a major focus of one's learning; instead, he recommends that students study in the traditional manner, concentrating on Talmud and poskim, with only a little Tanakh learning. Also, I recently spoke with someone who mentioned that traditionally the vast majority of Jews were ignorant, and that only the few (principally those from wealthy families) were able to learn (even in Vilna, as you point out in Torah for Torah's Sake, most people were ignorant). This leads to the simple conclusion that the traditional model of learning recommended by R. Nosson is predicated on having only a small elite of scholars. However, in present-day society, where almost every religious Jewish child receives at least an extensive introductory education, such a model can be irrelevant, if not harmful. Furthermore, this is also connected to an idea that we were discussing — i.e., the integration of all aspects of life into Torah, rather than the older tendency to, in R. Steinsaltz's words, formally recognize only limited areas of one's life in terms of Torah ("Human Holiness," in The Strife of the Spirit). I would like to point out what I mean with the analogy of an engineering school. Imagine a society which is dependent for its physical survival on having expert engineers; and which is capable of training only a small cadre of elite intellectuals. The leaders of that society will therefore set up a system of education in which engineering is the raison d'etre of learning, in which universities teach almost nothing but eng…

Dear Professor Gurock, let me update you with respect to the Higayon Conference. The conference is scheduled to open on the evening of Monday, October 26 and will take place in BMT as originally planned. On Tuesday there will be sessions throughout the day and on Wednesday there will be sessions until 3:00 p.m., followed by a closed session for mathematicians. The closed session will take place in the home of Mr. M. Brachfeld in Motza. As I mentioned to you, Mr. Brachfeld is contributing $5,000 towards the publication of the proceedings. I’ve just met with Rabbi Rackman who has confirmed that Bar-Ilan will match Yeshiva’s $7,000 contribution. The opening session will feature Rabbi Lamm and Rabbi A. Lichtenstein, pending final agreement of each to attend. Could you please ask Rabbi Lamm to confirm his participation as soon as possible – I’m leaving after Tisha B’Av for a month of miluim – and also please ask him to let me know if he intends to speak in English or Hebrew (Hebrew is preferable). I’ll keep you informed of further developments. Best regards.

Dear Rabbi Lamm, 7 Iyar 5752 May 10, 1992 We are very pleased that you have tentatively agreed to participate in the First International Higayon Conference on the use of modern concepts for the understanding of Talmudic ideas. The conference will take place from 29 Tishrei to 1 Cheshvan 5753 (October 26–28, 1992) in the auditorium of Beit Midrash L’Torah in Bayit Vegan, Jerusalem. A special closed session will be held at the estate of Mr. Meir Brachfeld in Motza on the afternoon of the third day. There will be a total of about thirty presentations, each allotted 25–30 minutes; if you feel this is inadequate, we can allot you extra time or schedule parallel sessions. Because the invited speakers have not yet submitted titles, it is hard at this stage to give a precise picture of the direction the conference will take. The fields of those who have tentatively agreed to attend are distributed roughly evenly among philosophy, economics, science, mathematics, and rabbinics. They include: Rabbanim: Norman Lamm (Yeshiva U.), D. Berkovich (Elul), M. Feldman (Bar-Ilan), N. Rabinovich (Birkat Moshe), S. Spero (Bar-Ilan), N. Taylor (Bar-Ilan), E. Zini (Technion); Philosophy: Y. Gellman (Ben-Gurion), A. Sagi (Bar-Ilan), D. Schwartz (Bar-Ilan), Z. Shteinfeld (Bar-Ilan), Y. Silman (Bar-Ilan), M. Steiner (Hebrew U.); Mathematics: Y. Aumann (Hebrew U.), Y. Choueka (Bar-Ilan), G. Ehrlich (Bar-Ilan), S. Epstein (Seton Hall), A. Fraenkel (Weizmann), E. Merzbach (Bar-Ilan); Economics: S. Gottesman (Columbia), N. Leff (Columbia), A. Levine (Yeshiva U.), Y. Lieberman (Bar-Ilan); Science: M. Kaveh (Bar-Ilan), Z. Mendlowitz (Howard U.), M. Schwartz (Jerusalem Torah College), M. Sprecher (Bar-Ilan). We urge you to confirm your participation in the conference as soon as possible. Please submit a tentative title and a brief abstract, and include any special requests you may have regarding the length and timing of your lecture, special equipment, etc. Sincerely, Moshe Koppel Department of Mat…

Dear Professor Gurock, I’ve finally finished a month of miluim and am back to work on the Higayon conference. The schedule is now set and invitations are being mailed out. You will receive the complete schedule in the mail some time next week. The opening session will take place on the campus of the Gruss Institute at 7:30 in the evening on Monday October 26. The speakers will be Dr. Lamm and Adin Steinsaltz. I am assuming that Dr. Lamm will be speaking on “Torah u’Mada” in Hebrew for a period of 45 minutes to an hour. If this is unsatisfactory please notify me at once. On another issue, I have clarified with the legal experts here that it would be far better for Yeshiva to pay the stipends of speakers flying in from the States directly to the speakers rather than via our account. This is because money which passes through our hands is subject to a 15% currency-exchange surcharge and is conceivably taxable as well. At the very least, we would expect that those speakers who are employees of Yeshiva (Levine, Rosensweig, Shindman) be paid directly by Yeshiva (with the $3000 then deducted from the $7000 to be sent to us). Please get back to me on this. Best regards, Moshe Koppel

In this letter, I would like to bring to light a particularly disturbing passage in a back issue of the Jewish Observer. More importantly, I would like to relate to you a conversation that I had with Reb Ely Svei about two weeks ago regarding this topic. In the March 1992 issue, an article appeared entitled “Torah U’Madda – the Book and its Ideology: a Critique” by Rabbi Yonasan Rosenblum. In this review, Rabbi Rosenblum presents a strong criticism of the book and the views presented therein. I would like to quote a specific passage from the article: “So great is the value of Madda for Dr. Lamm that the distinction between it and Torah finally blurs altogether: ‘So long as we continue to learn Scripture and Oral Law, to acquire new knowledge and to refrain from forgetting what we know, then the study of the sciences and humanities is, in effect, the study of Gemora and thus a fulfillment of the study of Torah’ (p. 165). ‘This conclusion leads him to entertain seriously such questions as: Should one recite birkhat hatorah on entering the chemistry lab? May one study calculus all day and thereby fulfill his obligation of Talmud Torah?’ (pp. 163–64).”

Dear Rabbi Lamm: Thank you for your note with a copy of a letter that you sent to The Jewish Observer regarding Yonason Rosenblum's critique of your book Torah Umadda, which appeared in that publication several years ago. I thereupon looked into the exchange between the letter-writer and the author. I learned that thus far a total of four letters passed between them, resulting in a meeting of the minds and an acceptance by Rabbi Rosenblum of the need to clarify, in the pages of The Jewish Observer, his characterization of your approach to the potential for sanctity of Madda. I too feel that the expression used by Rabbi Rosenblum was unfortunate and unfair, and I am pleased that he will correct the matter in a forthcoming issue of The Jewish Observer. Believe me, knowing Rabbi Rosenblum, he too would not purposely do something dishonest. I appreciate it. Rabbi Moshe Sherer President MS:pr Enclosure P.S. I am enclosing an exchange of correspondence between him and Rosenblum, which I don't think you saw. 84 William Street, New York, NY 10038 – (212) 797-9000

Dear Dr. Lamm, It is only recently that I got around to reading your Torah u-Madda, which I greatly enjoyed. On p. 164 you write that the Torah blessing is restricted to texts of Torah etc. What is your source for this statement? Thank you. Sincerely, Marc B. Shapiro. Thanks for the compliment. With respect to your question – see Tosafot ad loc. Berakhot 21a ד״ה אבל דברי תורה, and compare Rambam Hilkhot Berakhot 11:16 and Raavad there. See also Tur O.H. 47 and Beit Yosef, Shulhan Arukh O.H. 47:2 and commentaries ad loc. Also Magen Avraham, Mishnah Berurah. The essential difference is between Torah she-bikhtav and Torah she-be’al peh. Be well, Norman Lamm