Dear Rabbi Lamm, As I already indicated to you over the phone, your article on the Ketubah pleased me very much for its keen analysis, good reasoning, and clear presentation. Nevertheless, in response to Rabbi Hollander’s request, I am writing down my comments for your consideration before giving to publication. We must make certain that our opponents find no ground to argue, Halachically. Therefore our arguments must stand the test of the most strict scrutiny. Most of the comments contained here do not refute your main thesis, and adjustments to correct them can be made. On page 2 you speak of the ancient law which made a man sole and complete owner of his wife’s property and that it alone brought about the institution of the Kesubah.

To the Editors: Your readers should know that Gertrude Heinzelmann’s description of Judaism’s attitude to women ("The Priesthood and Women," January 15, 1965) is based on a colossal misunderstanding of the Jewish tradition. To say, as she does, that Judaism "consigned women to the harem as dumb beings without rights," is to betray a woeful ignorance of Judaism. "Harems" were unknown in Jewish life, even in the days when polygamy had not yet been legally proscribed. Women were never deemed "dumb beings"; they were considered the equal of men in value, though different functions were assigned to each sex. And several tractates of the Talmud (a "Pharisee" work) are devoted to safeguarding the personal and property rights of women long before the rest of the world thought it necessary.Women, contrary to Miss Heinzelmann’s assertions, were quite capable of initiating legal action on their own. Their exclusion from certain observances was not a prohibition but a release from duty, and then not from all religious duties, but only from positive commandments that must be observed at certain times. The Mishnah’s limitations on conversation with women are not, as the author suggests, an indication of feminine inferiority but a reflection of high moral standards; and the limitation applies not to "conversation" as such but to *sihah*, frivolous and idle talk. Similarly, the separation of men and women in the synagogue is a reflection not of the value of women but of the moral context from which prayer must issue and in which it becomes most meaningful. The remark that women were "herded into the loft" is pejorative and unenlightening.Your author ascribes to Judaism the idea that sex implies uncleanness and wickedness, and thus "blames" Judaism for Paul’s notions on the subject. The facts are just the opposite: the Torah’s first commandment is procreation. The blessings pronounced at a wedding ceremony affirm the positive Jewish approach to sex and marriage.It is a pity that an…

Dear Rabbi Lamm: Your essay “Law and Love” in the February 23, 1968 edition of the "Bulletin" has filled me with disquiet and I should like to deliver myself of some thoughts. You say “We are discharging our responsibility to them [our fellow Jews who have abandoned Jewish marriage law] and to their children. . .and to generations yet unborn, informing them and cautioning them about the Torah's law of marriage and legitimacy." I gather you mean that we, the Orthodox, are responsibly upholding the letter of our law of marriage and divorce and woe to those who do not heed. In my opinion this view is irresponsible, not responsible, in terms of real problems with which people become involved. If, as I believe is the case, people are asked to decide whether to submit to a set of laws in circumstances where applications are manifestly unjust and harsh or ignore the law, the law will be ignored and held up to ridicule, and indifference and disrespect to all its precepts will be encouraged. As I suggest below, the law regarding divorce is in immediate need of reform and it is not seemly to caution others unless there is a will and intention to bring such a reform about.Let us take the case of a woman, wronged by an adulterous husband who abandons her and their children and moves to a distant state, perhaps to remarry or otherwise to take up life anew. From every point of view, the best course for the woman, for herself and her children, would be to divorce herself from her husband and remarry. Civil law permits this. With the husband's consent, Jewish law permits this. In times of old, consent of the husband could often be compelled for by custom and law a man could only with difficulty escape the jurisdiction of the rabbis. Consent cannot be compelled today. Should not law recognize this changed condition. Was God at Sinai deficient in his omniscience so as not to foresee such a changed condition?I cannot believe that religious institutions can be so paralyzed as not to r…

Dear Rabbi Lamm: I recently read the following paragraphs by Bruno Bettelheim about the role Judaism gives to the Jewish woman. He writes: “…And if the Jew was a woman, she felt even more degraded by a religion that required men to thank God each day that He had not created them female. Beyond this I have a feeling which I cannot substantiate. But few religions have been as rejecting of women as was the Jewish one. It was a religion that viewed her very feminity as a curse, that caused men to separate in a place of worship, that even forbade her to uncover her hair, and required her to shave it at marriage. It was this ritual rejection of femininity by her parents, and their own glorification of masculine pursuits, that may have influenced the first kibbutz generation to view man’s work as preferable to women’s, including the work of rearing children.” Bettelheim says, of course, that he cannot substantiate his feeling and thus his statement is nothing more than a generalization. Many people who, like Bettelheim, have not taken the trouble to substantiate their claims, very often express similar sentiments. Would you be interested in writing an article for us on this subject? I can offer you $75 for a 3,000 word piece which I would want to have by the end of March. I do hope you will say yes. Cordially, Merna Pollak, Editor

Dear Dr. Levi: Thank you very much for your recent call pointing to the Hirsch Commentary on Leviticus as a source for the explanation I offered in the name of a colleague in my "Hedge of Roses for מצות שהזמן." I think that if you will check you will verify that Hirsch merely said that women do not need these mitzvot, but he does not at all develop the rationale to which I referred, namely, the link of this halakhic principle to the mitzvah of טהרת המשפחה.All best regards.Cordially yours,Rabbi Norman Lamm

Dear Rabbi Lamm: I would appreciate very much if perhaps you could comment on the halachic requirement of a cohen to divorce his wife if she is raped or even captured. I raise this subject because a terrible incident happened to a teacher in my school who is married to a cohen. Is the law so rigid that it actually requires her to be given a get? (Fortunately though, the couple involved is not at all orthodox, but what would happen if they were?) By the same token, what happened to the thousands of women, married to cohanim, who went through the camps?Thanking you very much in advance for taking the time to answer me.Very respectfully,[redacted]P.S. I was a pupil of yours in Y.U. a few years ago.

I am pleased to send you the final draft of our report. Corrections noted have been included, but some notations, which in effect reopened issues already concluded, could not be included at this stage (ein le-davar sof). Again, I wish to thank you for your sincere dedication and your willingness to endure cheerfully the many meetings that we had to schedule in order to complete our task. Hopefully, it will bear fruit and we will achieve our commonly shared goals. The Jewish Studies Review Committee has conducted an intensive evaluation of Jewish studies at Stern College, as charged in its appointment, with a view toward a reorganization of the program to meet present and future needs. Having completed its deliberations, following a study of the proposals of its several subcommittees, the Committee herewith presents its recommendations. Stern College views its primary objective to be to provide its students with “a rich background in Jewish learning and traditions,” together with an education in the liberal arts and sciences. The Committee believes that to attain this objective it is necessary to afford every student the fullest opportunity for a thorough, in-depth study of Jewish thought and literature in accordance with her educational background and capacity. The student must be subjected to the challenge of a demanding academic discipline in Jewish studies even as she is imbued with the moral and spiritual ideals of Judaism. In a Jewish studies discipline, it is essential that the student acquire a familiarity with and a mastery of basic Biblical, classical, and contemporary sources, with emphasis upon textual analysis and development of the ability to utilize original sources. It is the firm conviction of the Committee that if these goals are to be achieved the present curriculum must be expanded and improved, qualified and committed teachers added to the faculty, and sufficient time must be allotted for Jewish and Hebrew studies. It therefore submits the foll…

In the early part of the deliberations of the Committee, I made a number of tentative suggestions for fundamentally recasting the whole structure of higher Jewish education for women at Y.U. However, some committee members felt that because my proposals affected divisions of the university other than SCW, it would be unwise to consider them in the context of this particular Committee. I accepted this criticism, and consented to the final report as submitted. However, I am sending this addendum on my personal initiative.Certain inequities and duplications exist within the present system which, I believe, ought to be corrected. These are as follows:Heretofore, a student at TIW, attending YU only part-time for two years, would receive a Hebrew Teacher’s Diploma and be authorized to enter the teaching field and earn a living. At the same time, a student equally well prepared on the High School level and attending SCW — at much greater expense and with a much heavier Jewish studies program — had to wait four years for a degree. It matters little that one was a mere diploma and the other an academic bachelor’s degree. Few girls, if any, go on to graduate work in Judaica. This paradoxical situation is exacerbated now that the SCW girls will not even get their bachelor’s degree after their full year at Stern!The above reinforces the reluctance of well-prepared high school graduates (such as those of YUHSG) to attend SCW. This reluctance issues, among many other factors, from the economic factor. Why pay for a full college course at SCW when the same — or at least minimally adequate — Jewish higher education can be obtained at TIW, while attending one of the free city universities?Since the Jewish education level of girls entering TIW and the advanced students entering SCW is identical, YU in effect must run two parallel programs and pay double expenses for faculty.It is in order to solve these problems at least partially that the following recommendation is offered. Becaus…

Dear Rebecca: I tried calling you before you left for Israel, but could not reach you; hence this letter to you in Israel. Your father told me this morning that you had noticed the essential חידוש of my דרשה לשבת הגדול in the רא״ה לסנהדרין. For you to do so, and to remember it in order to apply it – is a sign of a perceptive student who both knows Talmudic technique and has a retentive memory. I congratulate you on both and hope you will keep it up. Excellent! My best regards, and those of Mrs. Lamm and our children, to your parents and your brother and sister, and warmest wishes for and a safe trip back to New York. Cordially, Rabbi Norman Lamm

Dear Rabbi Lamm, Information has come to us that you have made demeaning statements against our organization and statements made by some of our officers during the past week. Since these alleged statements were not made in our presence and the information has come to us from hearsay, we would appreciate hearing from you as to what you actually did say. With fondest regards, we remain Sincerely yours, Rabbi Abraham Gross President