(A Comment on the Mass Law of Religious Preference in Adoption Cases) (1) The Hildy-Enis Case (briefly) (2) Prominence of this case has given rise to great debate in the justice of the law of the law of this commonwealth – of giving preference to people of some religion where even practiceable. Some who deplore Law + attack it, others defend it. The present complexion of Debate something in this pattern: (a) protestant against it, (b) catholics for it

Dear Norman: Zei mir mochel 100,000 mohl for my long silence! I am burdened with work beyond description. I did take off time to read your very interesting essay on the "Fifth Amendment" and it was a relief to me know that the Rabbinate did not ruin you – Halvai Veiter! Please believe me when I tell you that I am profoundly impressed by your good judgement and erudition: Torah V'hochmah bemokom echod. I am glad that "Judaism" has accepted it for publication and I hope you will be able to supply me with a reprint thereof. Of course, it should be sent to another publication. Please insist on obtaining reprints from the Ketuba article; it is important that such material should get wide distribution which is otherwise lost in the periodical "runs". The same goes for the Judaism article. As to the She'lah concerning Birchat Kohanim which I would not want you to offer to Pardes, it is at present difficult for me to advise. I would like to check with some Israeli publications and let you know later about it.Meanwhile, I am closing with the satisfaction that I am to have more and more naches from you.Do let me hear from you.Yours, Jacob I Dienstag

The wide public attention focused on the Fifth Amendment in the recent past, and the vehemence with which it has been both attacked and defended, have prompted students of Jewish law to examine its equivalent in traditional Halakhah. A comparison of the principle of self-incrimination, as embodied in Constitutional Law and in the Halakhah, is revealing on the level of both theory and practical consequence. The embattled Amendment, with its provision that "no person . . . shall be compelled in any case to be a witness against himself", is certainly one of the most fundamental and advanced principles of Anglo-American jurisprudence.The wide public attention focused on the Fifth Amendment in the recent past, and the vehemence with which it has been both attacked and defended, have prompted students of Jewish law to examine its equivalent in traditional Halakhah. A comparison of the principle of self-incrimination, as embodied in Constitutional Law and in the Halakhah, is revealing on the level of both theory and practical consequence. The embattled Amendment, with its provision that "no person... shall be compelled in any case to be a witness against himself”, is certainly one of the most fundamental and advanced principles of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Two great legal thinkers, Dean Griswold and Supreme Court Justice Douglas, writing separately, have recently referred to it in identical terms: an old friend and a good friend. Its significance in our whole tradition of liberty cannot be overrated. The law against compelled self-incrimination dates back to the 12th century, and achieved real prominence and effectiveness when it was upheld by the House of Commons in “Freeborn John” Lilburne’s quarrels with the infamous Star Chamber in the 17th century. It became part of the United States Constitution as the Fifth Amendment in 1791. The Amendment has been invoked, questioned, attacked and defended in the past, but it was the Communist issue that, amid heated controver…

Dear Rabbi Lamm: Let me congratulate you upon your fine study published in the last issue of Judaism. I am happy to learn that the day by day duties of the rabbinate have not completely displaced your inclination to study. Keep it up. Very few rabbis manage to pay proper attention to both. May I also use this opportunity to thank you for your telegram congratulating me at the occasion of my receiving life tenure. It was very thoughtful of you and I appreciate it very much. Regards to your charming rebbitzen and to your entire flock. Rabbi Isaac Klein

Dear Rabbi Lamm, Thank you very much for your letter of March 7th. I am glad to know about your article on the principle of self-incrimination, and I greatly appreciate your kindness in sending me a copy. This is an area in which I have wanted light, and I am sure that you will provide it for me. Very truly yours, Erwin N. Griswold, Dean

Dear Norman: I read your article ”The Fifth Amendment And Its Equivalent In The Halakhah”, appearing in the recent issue of ”Judaism”. I not only read the article but re-read it. I tell you in all sincerity, without embellishments and exaggeration, that the article is brilliant and shows that you are not only a remarkable student, but also possess a keen incisive mind. Your article was not only very interesting, but very timely. I need not tell you that the problems of the Fifth Amendment are now before the Courts and will be with us for a long time to come. Only yesterday, our Apellate Division of the Supreme Court, Second Department, handed down a decision with respect to confessions. The decision referred to Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State of New York which, insofar as it was pertinent to the case under review, reads as follows:”A confession of a defendant whether in the course of judicial proceedings or to a private person, can be given in evidence against him <hh> but is not sufficient to warrant his con-fession without additional proof that the crime charged has been committed.”You will observe the safeguard which the Legislature es-tablished to prevent the very things you mention in your article. The confessions referred to are voluntary con-fessions because forced confessions are thrown out and not considered by the Courts. Your article, too, disregards forced confessions. In all my years of reading law, I have neveT’ come upon a more lucid exposition of reasons fb r dis-regarding statements of self-incrimination.I congratulate you on your splendid efforts. I extend to you, Mindella and the baby my best wishes for a Hanny pesach.Sincerely,

Dear Rabbi Lamm: I read your article on The Fifth Amendment in Judaism, and found it uncommonly suggestive. I congratulate you on a penetrating analysis. Yours faithfully, W. O. Douglas

I take the liberty of sending enclosed for your perusal a reprint of an article I recently published and which you might find of interest. It concerns a comparative study of the principle of self-incrimination in Constitutional Law and Talmudic Law, and an explanation of the latter from the point of view of psychoanalysis. As you will notice, I have quoted from or referred to your works a number of times. May I be favored with a reply containing some of your comments and reactions? Thank you most kindly. Sincerely, Rabbi Norman Lamm

II – ד' מדות בדנ"א. האומר שלי שלי וכו'. Here is Jewish ______ Private Property. a) Theory of Absolute P.P. – elaborated by Blackstone in "Laws of England" – (see "The Public Philosophy" by W. Lipman for discussion). New rights, or obligations or _____. Result: economic discrimination, exploitation of Natural Resources destructively. (Conservation efforts in U.S. are to combat consequences that philosophy). b) Social Theory P.P. – by Lipman (ibid) – all property belong to "The People" who through gov't, assign it to individuals.

Dear Dr. Lamm: I have read your article about the difference between the restrictions on confessions in the Constitution and in the Halachah. In addition to being quite informative, the article also has what I believe to be considerable publicity potential. For example, it stirs in me several questions, the answers to which might be publicity "dynamite." 1. In view of the Halachah's rejection of the right even to confess "voluntarily," would it be fair to say that you, as a prominent rabbi, do not believe that a Jew accused of a crime should confess it to the police or anyone else even if he wants to?Would it be fair to conclude that you do not believe any confession should be used as evidence in a court of law?In light of current developments in the field of law enforcement, would you be willing to declare publically that, morally, the police should be denied the right to seek confessions from suspects even if, as they claim, only a confession could provide the necessary evidence to bring them to justice?I’m sure you can appreciate that your answers to these questions could make an enormous impact, and if you believe it would be advisable to do so, I wonder if I could see you after you return from Camp Morasha to determine whether we can develop publicity about your point of view.SincerelyArthur OshinsDirector of PublicityAO:bh