Dear Rabbi Lamm: As you know, the question of federal aid to parochial schools is being widely discussed today. It has been termed the "church-state battle of the century." It seems to me that thought leaders of various segments of society need to study the matter thoroughly, then express themselves forthrightly. Therefore, in preparing a paper on the subject, I am requesting you and several others to answer the question, "Should federal aid be offered to parochial schools?" Then in a few sentences or a few hundred words state why you answered as you did. I shall be greatly indebted to you for a prompt reply. A copy of my paper--which will include background, quotes, and projection--will be sent to you before publication. Thanks very much for your cooperation. Sincerely, Kenneth J. Holland Editor, THESE TIMES

Dear Rabbi Lamm: Enclosed find a copy of a letter I have written to Anglican Bishop James A. Pike. Indication of Bishop Pike's reply is contained in the note of introduction before the letter. I ask that you give serious thought to the conception outlined herein. Won't you give me your opinion? I sent this to Yeshiva University, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. In reply, Rabbi Emanuel Rackman suggested that I send a copy on to you. He indicated that you have been dealing with some of the problems involved in the enclosed. I consider myself a Christian, but notice that the theory herewith thrown in process of thought remarkably resembles the Jewish ideas of God. The origin of the universe, suggested in the so-called "Big Bang" cosmogonical theory. As you may know, that it was originally advanced scientifically to explain the high rate of recession of the nebulae, or galaxies, the fragments forming the galaxies, the sun, the earth. Also involved is the concept of curved space, a concept developed from Einstein's theory of relativity. As it is discussed in Scientific American offices at 250 West 55th Street, New York City, New York, I would suggest you make available to yourself information used in connection with the theory of science. Or your local library might keep back copies. I might say that other important churchmen have expressed real interest in the theology of the letter. I have recently sent copies to about 125 Protestant ministers and leaders, and also to several seminaries of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism. Sincerely, Robert E. Crenshaw.

Dear Rabbi Lamm: I have read with great interest the series of articles on the State of Jewish Belief: A Symposium that appeared in last month's Commentary. I found your article to be particularly challenging and incisive. I would, however, like to have some further information regarding a point that you expressed quite cogently on page 111. You wrote "These two functions, the tension between which is inherent in the concept of chosenness, are not antonyms, mutually exclusive, but supplementary ideas. In a study of how this doctrine was treated in Tannaitic times, a contemporary scholar has discovered that the greater the emphasis by an individual sage on chosenness and its inescapable particularism, the greater the breadth of his universalism." I would very much be interested in knowing who the contemporary scholar is that discovered this interesting pattern. Has this study been published? If so, under what title and which publication? Can I possibly receive a copy of this most fascinating work of scholarship?I am presently engaged in preparing an article that deals with American values and Jewish values and the yardstick by which one judges the other. A study which attempts to reveal a breadth of universalism as emanating out of an individual sage’s choseness and particularism is therefore particulary revealing and interesting to me.Thank you for your kind cooperation.Sincerely,Seymour P. Lachman, Director Kingsborough Community College in Mid-BrooklynAdministered by the Board of Higher Education Under the Program of the State University of Hew York

Dear Rabbi Lamm, I assume you still remember me somewhat. Both of us have acquired new addresses since I was a member of your philosophy classes of 1960-61 and 1961-2. I have a new residential address; you a somewhat new working address. The T.I. has come to be known as Erna Michael College on E.M.C. I hope the new setup proves an aid to you in your endeavors there. As for me, I graduated T.I. in September, 1963, with the degree of B.H.L., attending Revel between then and May 1964. I was none too successful there; my previous course of study has not really prepared me for most of the courses offered on a graduate level, and I was subjected to pressures from the Selective Service and at home which depleted me of the energy needed to do decent work. Fortunately, I got out of the draft as a I-Y; thank G-d I've been out until now, and am past 26. I only pray that I remain lucky in this regard. As for the rest, I got into trouble at home in October, 1964, and with the resultant suspension of tuition payments, I became a נע ונד בארץ. Between February and August, 1965, I sat in Dr. Leon Stitstein's class in "Personalism." I wrote two papers there, which, had I been a student, would have netted me a grade of B plus and A respectively in the two halves of the course. It was sitting there in Dr. Stitstein's class that I got the idea of dabbling in theology. Theology is the main topic of this writing.During the summer of 1966, "Commentary" magazine featured a symposium on the state of Jewish belief. The contents of said symposium appear in the August issue of said magazine. You were one of those who participated in said symposium as was your college, Rabbi Emanauel Rackman. The following is quoted from Dr. Rackman's article: "The most definitive record of G-d's encounters with man is contained in the Pentateuch. Much of it may have been written by people in different times, but at one point in history G-d not only made the people of Israel aware of His immediacy, but caused M…

Dear Rabbi Lamm, Thank you very much for sending me the reprint of your article "The Religious Implications of Extraterrestrial Life." I have glanced through it already and intend to sit down at my first opportunity to read it in detail. I rather doubt, though, that my reaction would be of any great use to you. I am, alas, wedded to the materialist interpretation of the Universe (which I capitalize, you see). But I would like to understand your views with my head, even if my heart remains cold.Yours,Isaac Asimov

Dear Mr. Funk: Please forgive me for the delay in answering your letter, and also for the fact that I find it simply impossible to answer every point that you mention, interesting though each of them is. I wish I had an opportunity to be in Chicago this year, so that we might discuss these problems face to face. Doing so by mail imposes certain natural limitations which I do not know how to overcome. Nevertheless, I will make an effort to respond to some of your remarks, adding as an aside that you certainly seem to be quite perceptive and that I truly admire the spirit in which your letter is written. Your first point concerns your friend's question about why religious experience is not granted gratis; and, especially in view of the fact that Hessed is one of the attributes of God, why does not He, as an act of this love, grant the awareness of His existence to mortal men.The source for the attitude betrayed by the question is both old and new. Thus, for instance, the experience of Teshuvah has usually meant in Judaism an act of conscious return, requiring superhuman spiritual and intellectual effort, by man to God. In Christianity, however, the act of ״conversion” usually indicated a sudden settling of spirit upon man whereby he is pulled out of his mundane affairs and suffused with a divine light -- totally without preparation or forewarning. (One of the early issues of Tradition carried an article by Howard Levine comparing William James and Maimonides on this point.) The new source for the same attitude, however, is a kind of Hlppyism — that is, mystical ex-periences cheaply acquired. I am not trying to answer a problem by be-coming pejorative or arguing ad homlnem. I am, rather, first establish-ing that you are quite right that this is not the Jewish attitude.Now, it is quite true that God acts out of Hessed. Saadia points out, although obliquely, that this Hessed takes two forms: metaphysical and an ethical form. Metaphysically, Hessed means the overflowing …

Dear Col. Bar-On: I am most grateful to you for your kindness in sending on to me the corrected reprint of the article in which you were interviewed about your thoughts on emunah. I am genuinely sorry that I delayed my response until now, but I was caught up in the "Passover rush," and then left for England for several weeks, and as a result was not able to get to the article and the letter until now. I had, of course, heard a great deal about the article, and reading it was a supreme pleasure for me. I am quite astonished at how someone who was "outside the fold" and has turned back towards it, has succeeded so well in formulating an authentically Jewish religious response in the context of modern times. I can now very well understand the widespread repercussions of this interview, and frankly I think it deserves even greater dissemination than it has received heretofore.I believe that some time ago I sent to you, by post, several reprints of articles that I had written and in which I thought you might find some interest. Now, with special regard to your comments about the re-ligious situation in Israel, I have the pleasure to enclose a reprint of a popular article that I wrote (based upon a speech that I gave) upon my return from my recent visit to Israel in which I was fortunate enough to make your acquaintance.Permit me to make several comments on your interview, all of them in support of various points you made1• About the shallowness of popular rationalism that prevents 60 many people from even entertaining any notion of emunah: this is true not only for Israelis, but for Americans and people of other national-ities as well. The immediate and unquestioning use of the rationalist yardstick represents an interesting cultural lag in this day of instan-taneous electronic communication. Apparently, those who consider them-selves most ״modem״ have been by-passed both by events and advanced philosophical thinking.2• Your distinction between ”coming” and "returning" …

Dear Rabbi Lamm, 16.6.16: Some time ago I was shown an article of yours in “Tradition” (vol. 7 no. 4 – vol. 8 no. 1; Winter ’65 – Spring ’66) entitled “The Religious Implications of Extraterrestrial Life” and was, if I may say so, greatly impressed by the clear set-out, the learned understanding of the matter, but above all by the fearless and yet careful method of discussing topics into which, because of lack of knowledge or interest, most of us are sometimes loathe, or indeed afraid, to look. However, I wonder if you would be kind enough to explain to me a point which you raise which I find a little difficult to reconcile with what I have been taught.

Dear Rabbi Lamm לאי"ט, I have not had the pleasure of meeting you although I am an avid reader of your thought provoking articles. My name is [redacted], and I teach at [redacted]. You will probably recall that [redacted] mentioned me in his recent letter to you – although he did not do too good a job of presenting my views. There are a number of favours which I would like to ask of you. I realize that you are very busy and that asking you for seme of your time is an imposition but I think that you are probably better able to help me than most people, so I hope that you will bear with me and if at all possible take the time to answer the following few questions.Am I right in assumung that current philosophical thought rejects the possibility of proving the עקרי אמונה which ראשונים like רמב"ם and חובת הלבבות try to prove? My own inclination has always been towards the Kuzari and the Ramban (Shemos 3:13) who seem to reject the need and possibly also the possibility of proving these points. I am very eager to know the grounds on which these proofs are rejected. Am I right in thinking that the main basis is the impossibility or knowing "das Dingan Sich” which, if I understand Kent's term correctly means that we can only grasp things through our own experiences and consequently cannot have any understanding of the Ribono shel Olom. This seems to me to be so obvious that I do net see how the ראשונים could have overlooked it. As a matter of fact it seems to me that in essence this is what the רמב"ם himself says when he argues with Aristotelos proofs of Kadmus and formulates his theseis concerning ידיעה of השית. If this is so does this not logically extend to any and all conjecture about the רשב"ע including his אחדות and lack of הגשמה which, I believe the רמב"ם considers as proven.In the most recent TRADITION there is a book review by Edith Wyschegred in which she quotes two opinions of the אברבנאל. One verbatim ... "In view of the strength . ..." and the other on page 140…

Rabbi Lamm, I will appreciate your comments on the question. Do you or do you not, think Dr. Albright is of opinion that Moses received the 10 Commandments from God at Mt. Sinai. Sincerely, M. Jaffe