Dear Rabbi Stavsky: In planning for my forthcoming visit to Columbus it has occurred to me that the title of the talk you suggested is not quite clear. It seems to combine the two themes of “sanctity of the family” with its implied discussion of the Jewish attitude towards sex and family purity, with the “sanctity of the synagogue” and the problem of mixed pews and the mechitzah. I believe that treating both these things in the same talk would prove detrimental to both goals you may have in mind. It is preferable to speak about either one or the other. If you wish, I will speak about the synagogue, confirming your people in their present practice of separate seating and then attempt to persuade them of the significance of accepting the discipline of the Halakhah (in this case the mechitzah) even when we do not completely understand the import of its commandments. Please let me have your reaction as soon as possible. Also, I would appreciate your discussing with Professor Fox the arrangements for my stay in Columbus. I would like to spend time with you and your family, with Dr. Fox and his family and if at all possible, to sleep over in a hotel. Sincerely yours, Norman Lamm

Dear Franklin: Thank you very much for your letter and for confirming the arrangements for your forthcoming wedding. It was a pleasure to meet Bernice. She is obviously a lovely girl, and I hope that the two of you will have many many years of uninterrupted bliss together. I am enclosing a copy of a booklet about which I spoke to Bernice rather extensively. I have already mailed her one. I would like you to read it with the greatest attention, and to remember that a happy married life is much too important a thing to expect to happen casually and thoughtlessly. If you will determine to observe the contents of this booklet, you will at least be fortifying yourself with the elemental necessities for a happy married life. My fondest regards to Bernice and to your folks and to Harriet. Best wishes for a Happy and Kosher Passover. Sincerely, Rabbi Norman Lamm

Dear Norman, I enjoyed immensely Hedge of Roses and have ordered twenty-five copies for the synagogue. May I suggest that in a second edition you include halachot as well? This would truly fill a great void in American Judaica. I also read with great interest your article in Tradition. I believe that the Sabbath primarily expresses the notion that all of God's creatures have a right to exist independent of man's use of them. Sincerely, Steve Riskin.

Dear Norman, Thanks very much for sending me a copy of your A Hedge of Roses. It is beautifully done. However, I was really intrigued by your chapter on the sanctity of time. Beginning with page 75 you make a point which I had made in my first essay in Tradition. I thought it was original and I had offered it with tongue in cheek. Are there Gedolim who have advanced this thought? If so, I would be gratified to know. I, too, came upon the same conclusion almost twenty years ago. Best wishes from house to house for a Chag Kasher ve-Someach, Yours as ever, Rabbi Emanuel Rackman

To the Editor: I am grateful for the flattering remarks about my "A Hedge of Roses” by your reviewer, Mrs. Sifra Tendler (Jewish Life, 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 …

Dear Max: I received your sad letter here in Lake Como, Pa., and I am dictating a response which my secretary is typing up and sending to you together with the enclosed letter which I am returning herewith. Your letter, quite frankly, made very painful reading. It looks like a classic example of "hillul ha-shem.” Anything that diminishes Orthodox Judaism, diminishes each of us at the same time. However, quite honestly, I would be most reluctant to attempt either to justify the young man or the daughter of this [redacted]. My own experience in counselling married couples has taught me that there are almost always two sides to every story, and that even when you are aware of both it is exceedingly difficult to assign major blame to one side or the other. Your [redacted] quite understandably blames his son-in-law, and justifies his daughter. Perhaps if you heard the other party speaking, you would get the reverse impression. There is, frankly, very little that you can do to dissuade [redacted] from his generalization that because his son-in-law is Orthodox, and his son-in-law is indecent (according to his interpretation), therefore all Orthodox Jews and Orthodox Judaism is wrong.What should you do? I would suggest writing to him and telling him the following: first, that you are deeply grieved to hear of the unfortunate situation that developed, and that you hope all will go well. Second, tell him that it was his misfortune to have gotten involved with an Orthodox Jew who is the exception rather than the rule. Inform him of your own wide experience, and of the fact that you have rarely come across such a case among commited, Jews, but that no group, nor individual is perfect. I would plead with him not to judge all Orthodox Jews on the basis of the misconduct of one such person, even as we rightly appeal to the non-Jewish world not to judge all Jews because of the misdeeds of one or several Jews.Finally, as to the practical question, I would strongly suggest that he s…

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 Rabbi Lamm – There must be some point at which personal responsibility stops and friendships above takes over, for it is hard for me to view all your help, advice, encouragement etc. over the past several weeks as part of anything like congregational "duty." I can barely begin to find the words adequate to express my gratitude. In the annals of rabbinics of this decade, the resolutions of all the participants at our חופה was certainly something of an achievement. But your own part in helping me work things out was clearly the most vital one – for that I am specifically grateful. (Incidentally, did you notice Rabbi Jakobovits' essay to the defense of Halachic niceties – all that was missing was a signed appraisal for the ring).Both Ruth and I look forward to many opportunities to be with you and Mindy and to share simchas together for many years to come. (I assume, of course, that you can manage somehow to reconcile your Sarah to my new status so that she will even permit me to talk to you both.)Sincerely,Larry

Dear Mrs. Schoen: Thank you very much for your detailed comments on my lecture on sex education at the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies a week or two ago. Your comments are well taken and thoughtful. I found much to interest me in them. I should like to make clear that I have nothing against those who seek the life of kedushah as a way to mental health, provided that ultimately living practically the regimen of holiness leads them to transcend the quest for mental therapy and to seek spiritual fulfillment. However, to remain at that point whereby one merely uses religion as a tool for mental self-help is to be guilty of arrested development and subversion of the purpose of religion. I therefore find myself in agreement with Mr. Bradshaw concerning immediate methodology, but in ultimate terms, if you permit me to restate my position, mental health is a means to achieve kedushah and not the other way around.Thank you for your comments about a sex education in the public schools, and your confidence in the quality of their efforts. I hope you will be proven right. My own feeling is that even if they perform their tasks to the best of their ability it will not really solve all our problems concerning the role of sex in life and the quality of life itself in this complicated, complex technopolitan society.I very much enjoyed reading the sermonette by your daughter, and especially appreciate her quiet confidence in her Judaism and especially her modesty and yet strength in expressing her faith.Kindest regards,Cordially yours,Rabbi Norman LammRNL/fz

Dear Rabbi Lamm: Our mutual friend, Rabbi Katz, has suggested that you might be willing to assist me in a project. Because of a renewed interest in Sex Education, the American Medical Women's Association is attempting to gather together (in one issue of our Journal) a group of articles which would be helpful to physicians who are called on to assist in formulating Sex Education Programs in their communities. We would like very much to have a brief summary of the religious attitudes towards sex education. I suppose we have in mind a paragraph or two from each of the major religions supporting our attitude of the need for continuing and possibly improving sex education. I would be most grateful if you could arrange for the contribution of a brief statement of the Jewish viewpoint.Sincerely yours,Laura E. Morrow, M.D.Second Vice-President