A Descending View: In 1789 the Congress passed ten amendments to the constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. The first of these reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” What this states, in effect, is that Congress can have nothing to do with either the advancement or retardation of religion on the part of American citizens. The word "establishment" means something very special - the word refers to an official religion as the Establishment in England. The fact that religion-state problems are so important in American life makes it all the more surprising that the first amendment was never discussed by the Supreme Court for 158 years, until the famous Everson case in Illinois in which the Supreme Court permitted the use of public school buses for parochial schools. In this past year, the Supreme Court session 1961-62, a whole group of cases were decided by the courts. Seven were decided, three more are yet to come in the near future.In very many of these litigations, Jews, or those of Jewish names (usually Ethical Culture enthusiasts who are racially Jews), and Jewish organisations were active on the side of the so-called "liberal" interpretation, outlawing any expression of religion in public life. Usually too, Jews and Jewish organisations were either the initiators of the litigation, or "friends of the court." A majority of Jews no doubt follows the American Jewish Congress in this "liberal" position. So do all or almost all rabbinic organizations, including the R.C.A. to which I belong. I am one of the small minority who dissent. My function here this evening is to urge you to rethink your whole position and perhaps in that way foster a new outlook, for there is no virtue in the unanimity of what appears to…

Dear Charles: I am somewhat appalled by the poor reaction of most of our colleagues to your original letter concerning the ZIM situation. Therefore, even though both I and Rabbi Jung and our President wrote letters of protest as soon as we received your notification, I have appointed a committee of several people in the congregation to contact others and to write as per your request. I will be sending you copies of these letters when they become available to me. Sincerely, Rabbi Norman Lamm.

Gentlemen: I had hoped that it would never be necessary to send this letter concerning your new luxury liner, Shalom. I believe you ought to know that not only I as a rabbi, but many of our leading laymen are most deeply distressed over the terribly unwise decision to install two kitchens on the Shalom. We find this offensive to our religious sensibilities as Jews. My congregation in particular consists of people who have for many years been plough supporters of everything and anything connected with Israel. Our pulpit has urged them in that regard, promoted Israeli firms, and support Israeli projects. I feel quite certain, however, that if the Zionist movement is forced to put their plans into practice, thereby stigmatizing the American Jews and forcing him into a “kosher ghetto” aboard an Israeli liner, he would be forced to turn his enthusiasm elsewhere. You may be sure that the preferences have always given to such concerns as El Al and Zim. We regard Zim’s explanation of its position as totally inadequate and as offensive to us and to Jewish religious sensibility. If this is the choice to be made between halakhah and what Zim considers “progress,” then halakhah wins, as it has won throughout the ages. If, therefore, the position of the Zim lines, where the presence of non-kosher kitchens is equated to offense and discourtesy, I hope that your concern will consider this matter most seriously and not take this final, irrevocable step, which will alienate so many otherwise enthusiastic advocates of everything Israeli. Sincerely, Rabbi Norman Lamm

חזרתי לדירתי בירושלים בעשר בבוקר. מוצא אני שם שני טכנאי טלפון מתרעננים בכוס תה שהגישה להם רעיתי. הם שותים בגילוי ראש. ראש המדברים פנה אלי (לא הכיר שהנני רב, ודאי משום שאינני בעל זקן ואמר. "אתה דתי?" כן. "אם כן, ודאי זה מפריע לך שאני שותה וראשי מגולה?" "תשתה לברכה ולבריאות", השבתי, "אמנם אני דתי, ובתור דתי יש לי שתי דאגות. ראשית, וזה האינטרס העיקרי שלי, שיהיה ליהודי מה לאכול ומה לשתות. אחר-כך, אם יש לו כבר די והותר, אני מעדיף שיאכל בהיתר, שיברך, ושיאכל בכיסוי ראש כדאיבעי. אינני כופה עליך לא כיפה ולא דת". פניו של אותו טכנאי משתנים, מחשדנות לאושר, ובחיוך קל הוא מרטיט ידו לתוך ילקוטו, מוציא משם כיפה סרוגה קטנטונת, חובשה על ראשו, ואומר, "אם כן, אני שמח לחבוש כיפה".התלמוד (קידושין דף ל״א, ע״א) אמנם פסק הלכה כר׳ חנינא, "גדול מצווה ועדשה ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה". ואילו טכנאי זה חולק וסובר שחלקו עם מי שאינו מצווה ועושה. האם יש בזה לקח לאלה הדואגים לעתידה של היהדות במדינה?"מיליטאריזם" בישראלהמדרשה הצבאית לחינוך, ירושלים. כשלושים פקידי צה״ל, חיל־האוויר והצי לפניי, רובם בדרגת רב־סרן, אלוף־ משנה וכדומה. צעירים מאוד — עד כדי להטיל אימה בלב המרצה מאמריקה, המתפלא שבטחון המדינה מסור בידי צעירים כאלה. הנושא: התמורות שחלו ביהדות אמריקה ויחסיהם למדינת ישראל מאז מלחמת ששת הימים. החלטתי לקנטרם בגוזמאות ומתוך כך לבדקם ולעמוד על טיבם. "ביקורת לנו עליכם, אנשי צה״ל", אמרתי, "יש מן הדתיים שמונים אתכם שאתם מכתיבים את הנצחון לכחכם ולחכמתכם, "כחי ועוצם ידי עשו לי את החיל הזה", וכאותו פרעה שהתיימר "לי יאורי ואני עשיתיני". ואילו החילוניים קובלים עליכם שה,׳מיליטריזם" מבצבץ בתוככם. הצד השווה שבהם — שחצנות צבאית־לאומית. מקשיבי כמעט יצאו מכליהם! כאיש אחד קמו עלי וצעקו: "להד״מ, שקר הדבר, מעולם לא התנשאנו, חושדים בכשרים!" "אלא מאי?" שאלתי. ענה ראש המדברים: "כל העם, לרבות התפוצות, התלכד סביבנו והיינו כאחד. חזרתי ושאלתי: "ותו לא? רק התלכדות והתאחדות בפני סכנה מבחוץ?" "לא", ענה, "יותר מזה! משהו החורג מגדר הרגיל, משהו מעבר ל..." "מה", שאלתי, "מעבר לטבע,) ראה גליון ט״ז של "הדואר".כנראה שרצונה של המשוררת לקשור לבה אל אדם חי (וזה רגיל אצל כל איש ואשה) ולא אל עץ ואבנים. לא את העבר היא מבקשת, כי אם את ההווה!תבוא …

In his critique of Walter Wurzburger’s plea that Israel live by “Jewish values” (Sh’ma 1/16), Arthur Hertzberg invokes Hayyim Greenberg’s claim that Jewish polemicists are guilty of “m’darf, m’zoll, m’muz” (Sh’ma 1/17). Employing this technique, the speaker urges his listeners to do “something constructive,” without ever telling them what that “something constructive” is. However, while Hertzberg is not exactly loathe to criticize Israel publicly on social issues (such as the Black Panthers), when it comes to religious matters it would appear that he holds “m’darf nit, m’zoll nit, m’muz nit...” (one should not, one ought not, one must not).Rabbi Hertzberg is being somewhat disingenuous, 1 fear, in pressing so hard for a precise definition of “Jewish values.” When he asks “what values?” or “whose values?” and points to the multiplicity of interpretations of the term, he is applying to Wurzburger the old gambit of the professor who, asked if he believed in God, countered with his own question, “which of the hundreds of different conceptions of God?,” and proceeded to mention several dozen. Such playful sophistication is good for a debator, but it will not do as serious discussion. Using such a technique one can bring all conversation on any subject to a squishy halt by drowning it in the oozing swamp of quibbling disquisitions. Prof. H.A. Wolfson has contrasted the “fool” of Psalms 14 who says, honestly and bluntly, “There is no God,” to the “lovers of wisdom” (philosophers) who made semantic quibbling about the meaning of “God” one of their chief occupations. Mutatis mutandis, that is what Hertzberg is doing with the “Jewish values” problem. Clever, yes; enlightening, no.What Jewish values are notWithout identifying myself completely with Rabbi Wurzburger’s views- I, for one, am more sanguine about the “Judaization” of Israel, and expect it to become more apparent when the current seizure of polarization has been resolved or spent itself—I feel that it is sufficient…

Dear Rabbi Lamm, I wonder whether you could help us out in the following matter: An American girl who participated in an Ulpan in Sdeh Eliyahu was proselytized in the United States before she came to Israel under the supervision of Rabbi Joseph Gold of Worcester, Mass. At the ulpan she met a Jewish boy from France to whom she was engaged to be married. At the request of the Bet Din in Tiberias she produced the necessary documents relating to her proselytization, but was informed that since Rabbi Gold was not known to the Bet Din her giyur would not be recognized. It was suggested that she go through the ceremony a second time, but as so often happens in such cases, she was badly hurt by the suggestion. Among other things, she regards it as an affront to Rabbi Gold whom she regards very highly. Do you perhaps know Rabbi Joseph Gold personally, or do you know anyone who knows him and whose testimony is likely to be accepted by the Bet Din or some other competent authority in Israel? If so, and if there is no reason to doubt the validity of a giyur performed under Rabbi Gold's supervision, could you have documents testifying to that effect sent either to me or to the secretariat of Sdeh Eliyahu.1 am troubling you in this matter, since at the moment 1 don't know the address of anyone else who could help me in—the matter, simultaneously with this letter, 1 am sending off a potcard to Lenny Rosenfeld in Jerusalem asking whether he knows anyone in Israel who might have the necessary information.Please convey my regards to your family, to Seymour jasper, and to my sister-in-law, if and when you see her.nespectfully,Eliezen uoldman

Dear Norman, I am turning to you, amongst a select number of leading personalities in Israel, to seek your advice, and possibly your assistance, in an effort to make some contribution towards alleviating the grave crisis afflicting our people in the wake of the Yom Kippur War. Even greater than the threat to Israel’s security from the might and machinations of our enemies from without is the mortal danger from within of disunity and disintegration, sapping Israel’s inner strength, resolve and morale. To Jews with a historical awareness, the present fragmentation and bitter strife in Government, inside the political parties and even in the Rabbinate cannot but be ominously reminiscent of the "Sinat hinam" which, as our Sages invariably maintained, caused the destruction of Jerusalem 1900 years ago.I have urged, both publicly and in private discussions - at any rate during the present emergency when religious faith and national unity are suoh indispensable assets to Jewish survival - that we shift the emphasis in our spiritual confrontations and challenges from legislation to education. Hore specifically, I suggest that 1) secularists be persuaded to admit some regular religious education and religious experience in all schools in Israel and 2) a moratorium be called on all new legislation of religious significance, such as conversions, civil marriage, public Shabbat observance and autopsies.At the root of our perilous predicament, to my mind, is a profound spiritual erisis revealed and accentuated by the Yom Kippur War. Israeli society is being acutely polarised and, worse still, demoralised by ever more bitter divisions on the very ideals which have sustained the spirit of our nation and united us in all our past tribulations.We are now paying a fearful price for the lack of a spiritual faith amongst 30 many of Israel's children. The rigid demarcation in the State system between religious schools for only a minority and non-religious schools for the rest, has raise…

Dear Norman, Thank you so much for your letter and enclosures which I read with special interest. The sermons, though in the nature of things somewhat depressing, show your usual mastery of thought, analysis, expression and homiletics. They mirror an assessment of the American reaction to the War rather different from what I have observed in the Anglo-Jewish community, where indifference, let alone hostility, were very little in evidence. I felt the contrast myself when I briefly visited America for the marriage of our son in Detroit at the time of the cease-fire. I am now looking forward with particularly eager anticipation to your contribution at the Hebrew University Conference. This must have been quite a fascinating and stimulating experience. On the Mafdal front, our discussion has been overtaken by events culminating in the, to my mind, rather humiliating capitulation of its ill-advised stand. The whole episode reeks with inconsistency, short-sightedness and sheer folly. I am enclosing a statement I circulated among my colleagues which will indicate my position, lonely and subject to no end of abusive attacks as it was. From all the evidence I have, your information on the Rav’s attitude is not altogether accurate. My information from Fabian and other sources is that, presumably capitulating to the agitation fanned by Lubavitch, he took the initiative in pressing Goren to forbid the Mafdal to join the coalition – a decision which may, I fear, be rued for years to come. I also gather, contrary to what you write, that Yosef, far from threatening to fall out with Goren over his refusal to countenance the Mafdal’s joining the Government, in fact adopted the far more reasonable attitude of leaving the political decision to the party itself. As I intimate in my statement, I believe the solution now lies in taking the whole issue out of the political arena and placing it into the hands of the Rabbinate where it properly belongs. In alluding to the proposal you men…

Dear Norman, Shubert has asked for a chance to respond to your response. On reviewing the exchange, I (and Nat) found it to be of such intrinsic merit that we believe it is worth printing. I’ve asked Shubert to send a copy of his next response to you directly, so that you may then make your final comment if you wish. But I think the material should commit you both. The material should not be designed as between issues! The exchange should be a head to head at my insistence for editorial purposes. We will hold the material exchange for two episodes and then print the 4 pieces at once. I do think the clearest case from your original statement is at stake and the meaning of the theological “center” to Judaism is a common man’s one as the definition of the current polarization is clear. Hence to open a symposium is apt – and that is what the “exchange” will mean. We shall break our self-imposed strategy that each of the two should respond in full to Shubert’s response to your response. Forward to you with response to my request for a statement. All my best – Gene

לכבוד הרב יהושע טובי' קרייזר יצ"ו, שלומך ישגא, את מכתבך קראתי וחזרתי וקראתי, והנני כותב אליך מדירתי בירושלים עיה"ק ואקוה לשלוח את מכתבי זה אליך בשובי לניו יורק אי"ה. לא אכחיד ממך שלמרות העונג האסטטי מקריאת סגנונך העברי הטהור והעסיס, הצטערתי מחויה לא נעימה זו. ראשית, גמרתי לך צער – כדבריך, הרגשת "זעזוע" ו"כאב בלתי נסבל" וכדומה, ואין זה מדרכי לגרום נזק נפשי לשום בו אדם, ובפרט לרב חשוב העומד על משמרתו באמונה זה כמה וכמה שנים.