Four books – each of a different and distinct character, and all of them important for the Orthodox rabbi and layman – have recently been published by Feldheim and deserve comment in these columns. Pri Siftei Chayim, issued by the students of the Telz Yeshiva in Cleveland, is the tenth in the series begun in Telz, Lithuania. This volume of about 40 halakhic articles is dedicated to the memory of the late Rabbi E.M. Bloch, of sainted memory, who headed the Telz Yeshiva until his lamented death last year. Also included are two articles on halakhic subjects and three Shi’urei Gavra by the great Rosh Yeshiva himself. The list of contributors is an impressive array of Torah scholars who write on topics from every area of halakha, with the greatest concentration in Kodashim. Of particular interest is a short responsum by Rabbi Zalman Sorotzkin – formerly of Lutsk and now in Jerusalem – on the revival of the Sanhedrin. Written over twenty years ago, its conclusion counseling against such a revival is reaffirmed by the author in a footnote. He presents a novel solution to the problem raised by Mahari ben Rav as to why Maimonides is certain, in his Commentary on the Mishnah, that semikha can be renewed with the unanimous consent of the sages of Israel, whereas in his Code he appends the famous equivocation, ve’ha-davar tzarikh hechra’ah. Other contributors, in addition to some of the most distinguished ba’alei halakha we have, include students at the Telz Kollel and Yeshiva proper. Edgar Frank’s Talmudic and Rabbinic Chronology is a slim but weighty volume (one is tempted to call it “timely”) attempting – with notable success – to explain the chronology of the Jews from about the year 200 CE on. Scholars had long thought the Talmud and Seder Olam to be in error in designating the equivalent of 63 BCE as the year of the destruction. Frank describes the three methods used to calculate the year from Creation, and thereby demonstrates that the Talmud – and Maimonides – were cle…

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

This little volume endeavors to explain the profound significance of the Jewish laws of family purity. Extremely well-written, it should be made required reading for all those who ignore or belittle these crucial teachings of the Torah. The author does not preach – he explains his subject in terms intelligible and meaningful to contemporary minds; in language simple and effective.Among many important points made by the author, this reviewer would single out his emphasis that, in enquiring into the explanations of mitzvos, “we want to know not why G-d commanded them but what He wanted us to learn from them” (p. 49). He warns that the observance of “the law must contain independent of and unconditioned by the values, reasons, and pur-poses we believe we have found in it.” (p. 50)Needless to say, the effort to cover large areas of thought in limited space is bound to lead to some over-simplifications (thus the reader may conclude that worn-en are excused by the Torah from all time-oriented positive precepts; or will fail to find in the author’s / definition of Tumoh any clue to Tumas Sheretz.) Also a few formulations could perhaps be improved upon (the Mikvoh is not “an ancient institution,” p. 35, but a Divine one, and the Kohen is not forbidden to be in the same ‘room’ with a corpse, p.80, but in the same house.)These are, however, mere minutiae. There is only one suggestion of more basic importance that this reviewer would like to offer: an elimination of the remarks on page 59 that can be read as an acceptanceof the concept of the honeymoon. This concept is so foreign to us in its essence, and in practice it is such an utter obstacle to the observance of Taharas Hamish-pocho, that it deserves the same clear and complete rejection that the author has accorded to other aspects of our contemporary mores.While offering this suggestion, the reviewer wants to express at the same time his hope that this fine work will succeed in reaching all those within our American Jew…

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

In the foreword to this work, Rabbi Lamm states that his purpose is “to present, in a manner meaningful to the modern Jew, a Jewish institution that is as sacred as it is ancient, as precious as it is unknown, and as vital as it is misunderstood.” We must certainly agree that Taharat HaMishpachah is the most misunderstood precept of the Torah — the one about which the modern Jew is most ignorant. By means of this little volume, the author achieves his goal in explaining in a lucid and poetic style the sacred nature and vitalizing force of this fundamental law of Jewish family life. From a brief discussion of the Torah’s attitude toward marital sex, the author leads into a general description of the laws of niddah, the menstruant. At this point Rabbi Lamm very emphatically dispels some of the misconceptions of Taharat HaMishpachah by pointing out that they arose primarily from semantic difficulties in translating taharah as “pure” or “clean” and tumah as “impure” or “unclean.” After stressing that the reader must keep in mind that the law is God-given, whereas the reasons and purposes attributed to it are merely the insights of men, the author elaborates on the various explanations offered for these mitzvot. Pleasingly printed in pocket-size format, the modest size of Rabbi Lamm’s booklet is certainly not a measure of its importance. There has long been an urgent need for a modern presentation of Taharat HaMishpachah that would effectively convey its values as well as its immediate purposes — that would do so with percipient thought and grace of language and style. We have needed an accessible introduction to Jewish family purity that would present the concept and application of this mitzvah in terms meaningful and compelling to the Jew of today — and particularly to one whose outlook is shaped by the ideas and standards of surrounding society rather than by Jewish premises. A Hedge of Roses goes far toward meeting this need. One can think of no work on the subject…

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 …

I appreciate your review of A Hedge of Roses and the attention it has drawn to the ideas presented therein. However, I feel compelled to respond to several misconceptions that were advanced in the critique. It was never my intention to present Halakhah as a mere sociological construct – nor to judge its validity on pragmatic grounds alone. On the contrary, my argument was and remains that the Halakhic system is rooted in Divine command – but that it also contains within it profound insight into the human condition and a deep concern for human dignity.Whereas some may see halakhic restrictions as merely arbitrary or outdated, I sought to illuminate the human wisdom embedded in Divine law – not to substitute one for the other. The reviewer mischaracterizes this approach as apologetic. It is not. It is explanatory. One may choose to ignore the psychological, emotional, and social ramifications of Halakhah – but that does not mean they are not there.Moreover, the critique that I "water down" Halakhah in order to accommodate modern readers is entirely unfounded. At no point do I advocate leniency where none exists – nor do I suggest that Halakhic norms should bend to the spirit of the age. Rather, I propose that we not shy away from offering meaningful explanations where they exist – and where they may help those who seek to live a Torah life in a modern world do so with greater commitment and understanding.Finally, I am disheartened by the implication that writing in an accessible style for a broad audience is itself suspect. The challenge of translating Torah values into a language that resonates with contemporary readers is not a betrayal of tradition – it is an essential component of our task as Jewish educators and communicators.If we cannot articulate the moral beauty and spiritual depth of our tradition in ways that can be heard, we risk leaving the field to those who reject it altogether. That, in my view, would be the true apology – and it would be one that no …

I am grateful for the flattering remarks about my “A Hedge of Roses” by your reviewer, Mrs. Sifra Tendler, (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 on this basis. It was just, as …