Dear Rabbi Lamm: I meant to send you a copy of the review of your book, but just didn't get around to it. "Hedge of Roses" certainly comes up to the high standards you have set in your literary work. I've just seen a copy of Jewish Life and am looking forward to reading your piece on the New Theology. I can easily imagine the many demands made on your time, yet I would like to invite you to write for The Observer. Subject matter is up to you, but it is a good idea to let me know what you plan to avoid possible duplication.Should it not be possible for you to write an article, perhaps you might care to comment on some matter discussed in our publication. We are most anxious to hear from people like yourself, I might say, even more so if you have some critical comments.Please let me hear from you.

קראתי היום בפנים אל פנים כתבה על נאום שנאם כבוד תורתו בתל אביב, וראשם הדברים היו שמלאכי עליון רבי שמעון בר יוחאי ובנו היו חב וחלילה בעל חרס וחורבן בעם ישראל, וכאומרם גם גדולים... מקבל מרותו, הרי חס וחלילה חרס וחורבן בעמנו.

Dear Rabbi Jacobs: As one who has in the past expressed to you some rather harsh criticism of the Jewish Observer, I think it only fair for me to let you know how pleased I am with the change that has taken place in your magazine in the recent past. The improvement was especially noticeable in the last several issues and in the current one most of all. It is a sign of maturity that you were able to overcome the shrill, combative tone and the excessive polemics that once characterized the Jewish Observer. Your present posture, which is far more restrained and patient, is much more convincing to your readers. For all that I may disagree with some policies expressed in the Jewish Observer — some not all, of course — I now feel much more sympathetic and anxious to read what you have to say. My [hebrew illegible] and good wishes for the future. Cordially yours, Rabbi Norman Lamm

Dear Rabbi Lamm: Having read your article in the May–June, 1969 issue of Jewish Life, I believe the author of the attached has misstated your thesis and you might want to reply. I bring this to your attention just in case you have not seen it. Best regards from both Hedy and myself. R. Jasper

Dear Herbert, I am responding to your letter of December 24th regarding Alfred Moses’s invitation to a January 20 meeting. Jewish unity is vital, especially now when it is so often under attack, and I strongly support dialogue marked by respect and delicacy. Yet I must stress – as the one who first raised the idea of a joint Bet Din last March – that excessive publicity is the surest way to kill the initiative. I am engaged in quiet diplomacy to move this difficult dream forward, and the American Jewish Committee’s public meetings – however well-intentioned – risk making such efforts impossible, much like performing neurosurgery with a butcher’s cleaver. Please urge them to avoid press releases or public pronouncements if they truly want success. More broadly, I fear Jewish unity has been turned into a weapon against Orthodoxy by those who tolerate intermarriage without even Reform conversion, who co-officiate with priests, and who now press patrilineal descent – while simultaneously condemning us for upholding halakhah. As a moderate Orthodox voice, I have spoken out against our extremists, but I cannot accept being unjustly bludgeoned by slogans of unity when others boycott MKs, threaten the UJA, or demand blanket institutional support in Israel. I urge you to attend these meetings, to articulate firmly the Orthodox position with dignity, and to work for real unity that does not come at the cost of halakhic principle. Forgive the length of this response; I trust you will keep it private for now. Mindy joins me in warm regards to Florrie, with prayers for her health, and best wishes for a joyous Hanukkah. Cordially, Norman Lamm.

Dear Dr. Lamm: May I herewith inform you that it is our intention to publish your article replying to Dr. Twerski’s “Open Letter” in the form that you submitted it, with no changes. You understand, of course, that Professor Twerski reserves the right to respond to your article in the same issue. Our mutual good friend, Rabbi Yehuda Parnes, indeed does serve us well. It would be inaccurate, however, to say that he transmitted our “invitation” to publish your reply; it would be more accurate to say that we agree to publish it. Cordially yours, Rabbi Nisson Wolpin, Editor

Dear Immanuel, Many thanks for your kind words and, especially, for sending me a copy of the talk you gave at the Orthodox Union a couple of days before I gave mine. I read your talk carefully – I always peruse your material with the greatest attention! – and my efforts were amply rewarded. It is an excellent summary of the state of Orthodoxy in the world and deserves wide distribution both here and abroad. I was especially impressed by your cogent distinction between power and influence. It is emet la-amitah.However, that does not mean that I agree with everything you say. I commented to you in my last note that I was not completely happy with the report in the press about your statements concerning Centrist Orthodoxy. Now that you were kind enough to let me see the original text, I am even more troubled.The emphasis on Orthodox Centrism is not intended to be adversarial, building on hostility to the Right. It is based, partly, on the simple human need for an identity. The so-called “Yeshiva world” and the Hasidic world have placed us off-limits. We are shunned by them. I am prepared to give you chapter and verse of humiliations that we have suffered over the past years that are illustrative of the animosity of the Right towards everything that Yeshiva University stands for, but I hesitate to do so lest you quite naturally interpret whatever communal decisions I make as mere reactions to personal offense. But anyway, I shall overcome my hesitation and risk mentioning only a few of them, in the hope that you will not misinterpret my communal policies as mere reactions to petty grievances.The story begins sixty or seventy years ago when Dr. Revel first became President of Yeshiva. Try as he would, and despite some initial successes, we were never wholly acceptable to the “Yeshiva world” of his generation. A petty illustration: when Yeshiva moved from the Lower East Side to its present location, it was attacked for symbolically abandoning true Orthodoxy for the allur…

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, Hopefully, you had a good holiday here in Israel, and are rested and refreshed as you head back to New York. I want to thank you again for finding the time to meet with me in New York, and for sending me your very thoughtful piece on the Holocaust, "Faces of God." I have read it once, and will send you some thoughts on it over the coming weeks as I read it again. I arrived in Israel just before Yom Kippur after a very successful eight week stay in the US. Shortly after we met in New York, I was scholar in residence for a weekend in Phoenix. On Shabbos I delivered two sermons, and after the Kiddush gave a one hour class on the subject "The Teleology of Maimonides." Following the class, the president of the shul told me that he was undertaking to raise money to bring me out for a two week stay. I guess he liked the class.On Sunday I led a workshop in Non-violent (or: Compassionate) Communication, a method I learned last year and that I am now beginning to teach. (In my "shtut meshugener" Purim message I mentioned it to you as a skill I think every musmakh would be most enriched by having.) I was then invited to return for another weekend on my way back from LA. They specifically requested that I teach again both Torah and Compassionate Communication. So I went off for two weeks to LA, in which I visited friends, and also preached, taught Torah and led Compassionate Communication workshops, then came back to Arizona in September.The wonderful news is that in the course of two months the people in Arizona raised a cool $5,000. It covers airfare from Israel, hotel, car rental and a very generous wage. They are still hoping to raise money for an publicity campaign. God willing, I will visit Arizona for two weeks beginning Purim. (Anything beats being there in August.) Being so dramatically appreciated and desired is still new to me. I hope it is a sign of things to come.I have a special thrill and great joy teaching Compassionate Communication. First, be…

Dear Rabbi Lamm: During the past month I have been traveling in the U.S., visiting Mesa, a suburb of Phoenix, AZ, and Los Angeles. Along the way I had the opportunity to teach Torah, and early next week I will send you “Words that Heal, Words that Hurt,” a sermon that I delivered in three shuls. Today’s message is a unique one, in that it does not look at a text but contains some thoughts and feelings about current events, specifically about how Jews treat Jews. There are now close to thirty rabbis, educators, and academics who receive these divrei Torah once or twice a month. The list cuts across denominational lines and includes Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, and Jewish Renewal – there are also some Christian readers. This serves as an important reminder that whatever our differences, we can find common ground studying Torah in an environment of mutual respect. Some of my non-Orthodox colleagues have indicated to me that they will speak on Rosh Hashanah about religious pluralism in Israel and the tension between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews. Many have personally experienced, or have congregants who have personally experienced, verbal or physical abuse from ultra-Orthodox Jews this past summer in Jerusalem. This is a very painful subject for me. The morning after Shavuot, when I saw the headlines describing the abuse of Jews at the Kotel, I was sick to my stomach. Shortly thereafter I spoke with a Jewish Renewal couple who came to Israel to live more fully as Jews – they were at the Kotel on Shavuot night, and listening to them describe what they were subjected to, and how poisoned they felt, was one of the saddest experiences I have had. Two months later, on Tisha b’Av night, TV cameras brought into my home the sight of Jewish police physically evicting Jews from the Kotel in the middle of davening Ma’ariv. This was followed by the burning of a Reform kindergarten in a Jerusalem suburb. It has been a very difficult summer. My own struggles …