1. Unforgivable sins: There is a question whether or not Judaism accepts the idea that one can do something so horrible that you cannot repent for it.  The Rambam (Maimonides) in his Code of Jewish Law (Mishneh Torah Hilchot Deot) enumerates categories of sins and what someone has to do to atone for them, and there are transgressions that in fact so bad that one is “not given the power to atone”.  Either this means that they cannot atone for it, or that simply G-d will not assist in the process. This all speaks from G-d’s perspective though, which moves to the second point.
2. Whose place is it to forgive: this question seems to focus not on G-d’s forgiveness, but us as Jews.  There’s a major issue, which the Rambam highlights.  Sins against G-d are forgiven right away, but sins against another human being cannot be forgiven by G-d until the wronged individual is made whole.  This is because it’s not someone’s place to accept forgiveness on behalf on someone else.  Only the wronged party has the power to forgive, and in the case of a murder the victim can’t forgive the crime, so the murdered has to be put to death in Biblical law.  This may sound harsh, but compare this to the Hammurabi Code that states that a family may accept money to pay for the loss.  The ancient Babylonians viewed people as slaves to the gods whereas the Jewish perspective is that people were created in the Divine Image (tzelem Elokim) and therefore the only thing that can atone for a life is another life.
3. What do we mean to forgive: There are actually two aspects of forgiveness.  One aspect is exonerating someone from their wrongdoing.  The other is personally moving on from the hurt someone has caused.  The second attribute is very much encouraged by Judaism under most circumstances.  In the nighttime reading of the Shema prayer, we say an additional prayer where we state that we forgive anyone who has wronged us that day.  That isn’t meant to let people off the hook.  It’s simply telling ourselves to move on.  The first is not so simple.  Therefore…
4. Is forgiveness always the right thing:  The answer to this is simply no. Judaism absolutely takes the position that forgiveness is not automatic, and has to involve contrition, confession, and restitution for wrongdoing (which are three steps of tshuvah).  Furthermore, there are certain things that just can’t be forgiven if society is going to function normally.  Tikkun Olam is wrongly used as a substitute word for social justice.  It means a refinement in the world to bring G-d’s presence into it.  Some acts just repel G-d’s presence, and to have a perfected world we need to actively work to marginalize these activities.  Judaism emphasizes hating the sin and not the sinner, but that does not mean tolerating mayhem.  Society's rules should be dictated by the law abiding, not the law breaking.

The questions that come up in situations involving intermarriage are very complicated and have to be dealt with in the most delicate way.  The fact of the matter is that any mitzvah a Jew does is valuable, whether in an intermarried home or not.  You are correct though in observing a massive problem that is pretty much unavoidable in such homes, and that is the mixing of traditions.  Jews are not supposed to adulterate Jewish practice by mixing in non-Jewish elements, or even engage in behaviors that have no rational explanation and therefore must have come from some idolatrous source, which is called "going in the way of the Emorites", derech Emori.

That doesn't sound like what she's doing is exactly that.  It sounds like she's doing a more "you do your thing hubby, and I'll do mine."  The question is though, is there still an issue doing a mitzvah, and specifically reciting a blessing, in front of a Christmas tree.  This question is actually quite complicated, because it in part has to do with how the tree itself is being used.  If her husband actually worshipped the tree, it would be treated like an idol.  If the husband has the tree for religious reasons, then the tree might be considered a tashmishei avodah zarah, something used for idol worship.  If the husband is doing it simply for tradition or just to "be in the spirit" it MIGHT be treated more leniently, but someone much bigger than myself would need to give that kind of leniency.   Any which way, it's definitely not proper to do, but might be permissible if there was no other place to light, or she might have fulfilled the mitzvah ipso facto depending on how the tree is viewed in legal terms.  That being said...

Don't say anything about it.  She didn't mention an issue to you, and there's basically nothing you could say that wouldn't put her off.  Any criticism would be seen as a criticism against her relationship and against her Judaism in a very personal way.  She likely wouldn't here the message and you might not have a friend after all is said and done.  What you can do is enter into dialogue with her in general terms, and suggest in the course of talking (not proselytizing, just talking) that she might want to find a rabbi to talk to about Jewish stuff or at least recommend a Jewish website.  The purpose, the whole purpose, is to make her more curious about learning about her Judaism.  That's basically the only thing you can do.

 

The source of good and evil has been the subject of debate of theologians and philosophers for time immemorial.  However, Judaism's position on this issue has been crystal clear, that it is G-d that is the source of all good and evil:

"I (G-d) form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things" (Is. 45:7)

Furthermore, G-d makes it very clear that His commandments, what you refer to as the Law, are the objective expression of that good and evil (Dt. 30:8-20) and that the commandments, along with fear of G-d, are the sum composite of the value of human existence (Ec. 12:13-14).  This position is very consistent with the philosophies of Nietzsche and Sartre who say explicitly that without the existence of G-d that there is no objective basis for morality.

The covenant that the Jews have with G-d is eternal and cannot be overturned.  Each successive covenant, first Noah, then Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov.  G-d says multiple times that the Commandments are binding throughout the generations.  The commandment of the Sabbath is called an eternal covenant (Ex. 31:16-17) and the Torah says that the commandment of tzitzit (fringes) will be observed throughout the generations (Nm. 15:38).  Other references to the eternity of the Jewish covenant can be found in Deuteronomy 29:28, Psalms 111:7-8, and elsewhere. Rabbi Tovia Singer has an excellent article debunking the idea that the New Covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31:31-34 overturns or dismisses G-d's older Covenant that He established with the Jews at Mt. Sinai.

Beyond the idea that the Bible is clear that the covenant between G-d and Israel will never be overturned, the insight that the existentialist philosophers give us about the nature of right and wrong also make the idea that G-d would overturn his covenant with the Jews nonsensical.  If we accept that an objective concept of good and evil can only exist if there is a G-d, as Isaiah states, it stands to reason that G-d would let the word know exactly what constitutes good and evil, especially if He plans on judging human behavior for the purposes of reward and punishment.  The Revelation at Mt. Sinai completes the picture: a Creator, a created world, an objective morality, and a detailed breakdown of what exactly constitutes right and wrong.  For G-d to overturn the Covenant and institute a whole new system, especially if not done in the same grand public fashion as the Revelation at Mt. Sinai (around two million people!), would make G-d a trickster god.  If G-d is in fact a trickster god, who's to say that He hasn't changed the rules 1,000 times since the Torah was given? If G-d can promise an eternal covenant and then just change it, we are left with the same existential doubts as if G-d didn't exist at all.

I think it is safe to say that the Law as given to the Jews is perfectly fine to follow, which is why Jews have continued to follow it for the past 3,300 years.

The idea of creating false aliases is not new but the Internet takes it to a whole other level.  A person could fake being someone else, for years, and nobody would be the wiser unless they are incredibly internet savvy.   However, this may not be as terrible as it might seem, under the right circumstances.

Although I don't believe I need to say it, it is of course forbidden to gossip, spread lies, and defame people.  The laws of Lashon HaRa (evil speech) are extensive and make a person really think about what it is they say and its potential impact.  Hiding behind an alias just makes it worse because it means you have no backbone to stand behind your word.  I don't feel I need to state more on this.

Now the case you refer to was an academic who kept a false identity the reason of self promotion.  This individual used two separate identities not only to "talk themselves up" but also to invent sources that didn't exist and give them legitimacy through a third party.  Such deception is considered to be genevat da'at, the theft of thought.  People were deceived into thinking this person was more widely received and important than he actually was and he was given certain considerations as a result.  Needless to say those considerations have disappeared and he has lost respect in the eyes of his peers, though I'm not sure if he actually ended up losing his job at the end of the day.

There is an idea in Judaism that you should always cite the words of another if you use them.  However, there doesn't seem to be any mitzvah to cite oneself as the source.  Several medieval Jewish works were written anonymously and are still widely accepted.  The Orochat Tzaddik is a very well regarded ethical work and the Kol Bo is used extensively in Ashkenazi Jewish law but the names of the authors are not known.  The Besamim Rosh is actually a medieval commentary on the Talmud that the author tried to pass off as the work of the famed Rosh but became popular in its own right, and was not rejected because the author didn't identify himself.

Truth be told, some books in the Bible themselves are anonymous works.  While we have traditions for who the authors are, in a number of works the authors never identify themselves.  In the case of the book of Iyov (Job), there are no contextual clues about who wrote it at all.  That doesn't affect its universal acceptance by the Jewish people.

So while honesty is quite important, sometimes the message itself is what matters and the name is a secondary issue, and of course there is much more to say on this issue as it is quite complex.

 There are two days on the Jewish calendar that were considered the most joyous among the Jews of the Temple period: Tu B'Av and Yom Kippur (Talmud Bavli Taanit 30b-31a). The two holidays actually have a number of themes in common, but clearly Yom Kippur as the Biblical Day of Atonement is much better known.

Tu B'Av was the day during the times of the Temple that the Jews stopped cutting wood for the Temple each year, which was a day of great rejoicing since they could rest from this particular labor.  In this way it is connected to Yom Kippur since Yom Kippur was the day on which the most elaborate Temple rituals took place.  It was on both these days as well the daughters of Israel would go out in borrowed white clothing in order to meet prospective husbands.  Because of this, modern Israelis observe it as a Jewish "Valentine's Day", but this is not how traditional Jews understand it.  Instead, it is observed now by just not reciting Tahanun, the prayer for forgiveness.

The theme of forgiveness of sin is also tied up into both days, certainly something joyous as well.  On Yom Kippur, G-d designated a special day for the Jews to repent and extra rituals by which to accrue extra merit to help with the repentance issue. Tu B'Av however was a day originally initiated by the Jews themselves to thank G-d for the end of the 40 years in the desert where Jews were dying every Tisha B'Av, six days earlier.  Also, marriage itself is connected to the idea of atonement since a person's sins are erased as a result of getting married.  This is because that marriage is considered a type of rebirth for the couple, and because of the extra responsibility they accept for themselves.  It's that link of the Jews accepting another festival on themselves as a type of renewal of vows to G-d that is so linked to marriage.

So, Tu B'Av is still philosophically an important day for Jews, even if not much is done to observe it.  We hope though very soon the Temple will be rebuilt and we will again rejoice in the cessation of the cutting of the wood for the year.

There's very few things that the Torah (Five Books of Moses that is) mandates we must do special for our wives. The three that are mentioned are food, clothing, and sex.  Sex is regarded as a holy act in Judaism.  It is the way that we can become G-dlike in that we can partner with G-d to create, and it has to be treated with a certain reverence.  That being said, we aren't Puritans about it either.  The rabbinic literature actually discusses sex freely and without judgement.  There are certain guidelines for behavior, but ultimately the literature is simply meant to inform a rabbi in helping couples build successful marriages.  While we are open about it, the actual discussion should be a private matter so that the person asking doesn't make any mistakes about what proper conduct is (Mishnah Chagigah 2:1).

That being said, there's usually two concerns a rabbi has when he hears that a guy has reservations about taking care of his wife's needs.  One is that a guy would like to do xyz but feels that he's doing something wrong or he's having some guilt.  That's why it's good to have a rabbi to talk to who can be sensitive to your issues.  The other is that the guy doesn't really want to meet his wife's demands in bed and thinks that he can use the religion as an excuse to leverage the situation or get him out of something he doesn't want to do.  That doesn't fly.  Can you find rabbinic literature to ban any number of behaviors?  It's there if you want to find it.  Is that the way you should conduct yourself?  It depends, but often restrictions that negatively impact the relationship are not restrictions rabbis like putting in place.  So someone running to the rabbi to bail them out is not necessarily going to find a sympathetic ear.

There are certain things that I can feel pretty comfortable putting here that aren't okay, so it's understood there's more to discuss with the others: you can't force yourself on your wife or punish her for not putting out.  You can't sleep with her if she's asleep, intoxicated, or in any other state where she can't really consent*.  You can't engage in behaviors that cause actual wounds like cutting or other very extreme S&M (Lv. 19:27-28) or cross-dress (Dt. 22:5).  I can't think of anything else that isn't a longer discussion that would be better discussed offline.

*The Raavad actually considers this a form of adultery, since she is a married woman but if she doesn't consent she is not your wife.

 

Your dilemma actually strikes a personal chord with me as I think I've had somewhat of a similar personal experience:

When I was getting religious I tried to get close with the Orthodox community at college but I felt snubbed.  Among other issues, one thing that stood out for me was that I didn't get an aliayh (called to read from the Torah) almost ever.  I honestly felt like I was entitled to get called up more frequently.  Fast forward a few years and there came the question of whether I was a cohen or not because of my last name.  I did some research, found my great-grandfather's tombstone, and while I found out I wasn't a Cohen, I did find out I was a Levi.  I really was entitled to more aliyot.  Since finding this out, I've gotten many more than I ever thought I would.

Your body and soul are intricately connected.  Some of our authorities accept the body as being the container of the lowest level of the soul while some I've seen even suggest the body is the lowest level itself. So yes, your body knows intrinsically that you are zera yisrael (the seed of Israel).  Your genes have received spiritual memory of being Jewish, in a sense.  This doesn't make you Jewish, but at the same time it gives you a certain connectivity to the Jewish people other non-Jews don't have.

That doesn't mean you have to convert, or even necessarily need to explore the issue either.  There are ways of exploring your Jewish side without taking on the responsibilities attached with actual conversion.  There are many non-Jews even without your special link now who prefer to use Jewish prayerbooks, engage in certain Jewish rituals, and draw their spiritual strength from Torah at various levels.  One such group are the Noahides, who are doing it in a more structured way with rabbinic guidance and have actual communities.  They would be really good to speak to.  Becoming a Jew is a major commitment.  Before taking any drastic steps, do some more research to see what being Jewish is about, what's entailed, and how it may impact your life.  Talking to a rabbi is always a good step to take as well.  

 

Believe it or not, we would actually like for non-Jews to use Jewish prayers.  Many Jewish prayers have universal appeal and universal themes, anything from health and wealth to finding lost objects.  Yes they mention the G-d of Israel, but everyone is supposed to believe in the G-d of Israel!  The book of Tehillim (Psalms) specifically mentions on a number of occasions the 'Fearers of G-d', who are non-Jews who worship G-d.  Incidentally, Tehillim is a great place for non-Jews to find Jewish prayers they can use.  Two other good sources of prayers for a multitude of situations are Aneni, published by Feldheim, and Likutei Tefillot, which is a two volume set of prayers written by Rabbi Natan of Nemirov (Breslov Research Institute).

However, one has keep in mind what the purpose of prayer is.  Prayer is not about being or doing spiritual.  Prayer is speaking to G-d.  So when speaking to G-d, one should be speaking the truth.  If a non-Jew were to use a prayer that represents themselves as Jewish, when they are not, it will not be a communication with G-d that is based in truth.  If a non-Jew were to pray the Amida (standing prayer) for example, they would be speaking falsehood when they say the first of the 19 blessings "Blessed are you Hashem our G-d and the G-d of our forefathers, G-d of Abraham, G-d of Isaac, and G-d of Jacob."  The well-meaning non-Jew may have accepted Hashem as G-d, but their forefathers most likely did not.  Even if their forefathers might have, their forefathers are not Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  For this reason, the Rabbis debated whether or not converts could say these types of blessings, with many ruling in the negative.

I know what you might be thinking.  The non-Jew might feel spiritually attached to Israel, as if spiritually grafted on to the family tree of our forefathers.  While such a logic has been extended to converts for the purpose of saying  blessings such as the Amidah, it's never been extended beyond that and only then as not to exclude them from the community.  A person is only considered a descendent of the Forefathers if they are physically descended, as G-d promised in the book of Genesis that his seed (zera) who inherit him.  Even by converts their union to the Jewish people isn't complete until they marry in.  One cannot just resolve to be a descendent of Abraham just like someone can't just consider themselves adopted by Bill Gates so they could get a piece of the inheritance.  To use prayers that would reflect such a sentiment wouldn't be okay and actually at some level self-defeating.

 

I can certainly appreciate how you might feel now: betrayed, lied to, cheated on.  Your s.o. has been jerking you around for a long time and you would like to say or do just about anything to get him back.  Throwing the damnation card would be wonderful and gratifying, and my gut reaction would be to say that this is absolutely infidelity.  However, the Torah would seem not to share this sentiment, at least from a legalistic standpoint.

Infidelity in Jewish terms only applies to one type of relationship: marriage.  Biblical marriage actually has two stages, kiddushin (betrothal) and nissuin (full marriage), but the ceremonies are now done back-to-back so for our purposes only a married couple can cheat on each other.  Furthermore, the only type of act that has actual real halachic (legal) significance that in fact divorce would be required would be actual sexual intercourse, defined as regular sexual intercourse and “unnatural” sex.  Voyeurism in strict legal terms isn’t anything since the person didn’t do a physical action.  The Talmud in Shevuot points out the fact that a person being required to bring a sacrifice for taking a false oath is already a novel concept since all the person did was say something without doing a physical action.  Watching something isn’t doing anything, and many a waist line can attest to this.

This does not take away at all from the fact that your partner has severely violated your trust and has violated a Biblical prohibition besides for obviously surfing porn which is a form of entertainment completely antithetical to everything we stand for as Jews.  He is guilty, apparently repeatedly, of taking false oaths, that he will not do such-and-such.  Swearing falsely is in the Big 10 that he should be familiar with.  He is also guilty of acting deceitfully and not distancing himself to falsehood.  Claiming that he is a porn addict is a lie and a sorry excuse.  You’d know if he was really a sex addict because he wouldn’t be able to hold down a job, would have hygiene issues, or have some other issue with normal functioning.  The only problem he seems to be happening is keeping his word to you.  

I say this with one caveat: if you did know about this or any issue at the beginning of the relationship and continued to pursue it anyway, it might be considered a stamp of approval of sorts.  In the formal marriage institution, if there is something about the woman that had the man known about he would have never affected the marriage transaction, the marriage is annulled retroactively.  However, if after they are married he continues to stay with her, it is considered as if he “forgave” the condition and he accepts her as is.  Then the marriage is fully in force even if he decides to complain about it later on.

I do want to revisit one point because I believe I would be delinquent as a rabbi not to expand upon this thought.  As I said earlier, infidelity only involves married couples.  According to Jewish law, a person who didn’t put a ring on it isn’t cheating in the literal sense if they decide to go outside the relationship.  Technically they are still shopping, and my experience with this generation is that unless someone is at least engaged they are in fact really still shopping.  Six years later and he hasn’t proposed?  It doesn’t take six years to know someone well enough to know whether or not you can spend rest of your life with them.  This person may already have one foot out the door, and the porn is simply symptomatic of that.  The fact that he won’t stop after six years fully knowing how much this upsets you is ahzariut (cruelty), plain and simple.  You don’t treat the people you love that way.  The big problem of course in our generation is that people do treat the people they love that way.  That doesn’t mean you have to tolerate it.

 

Let me first wish you the best of luck on your endeavor.  I have a number of friends who have done it and I truly admire their dedication.  If you do go through with it, it is a tremendous accomplishment.

Conversion is serious business, and at the surface is very straight forward.  There are three requirements to become a Jew: circumcision (for a male), tevilah (immersion in a kosher mikveh [ritual bath]), and acceptance of the mitzvot (commandments).  Ideally, a person should do it for the right reasons, but even if a person does do it for marriage the conversion is valid, at least according to the letter of the law.   The official procedure as recorded in the Shulhan Arukh (code of Jewish law), a potential convert is supposed to be presented with one stringent law, one much less difficult law, and if they are willing to accept to keep the entire Torah then they should be converted immediately.

The major obstacle that creates the problems is the acceptance of the mitzvot.   Unlike a born Jew who stays a Jew regardless of their commitment level, a non-Jew who only accepts what they like and not the whole package then the conversion isn’t valid.  A convert has to accept even the most minute detail of rabbinic legislation.  They may not necessarily be keeping it perfect but they have to accept to do so, and once they do convert they are just like any other Jew.  No one’s perfect and we acknowledge that.  At the same time, we don’t compromise our value system out of convenience.

Here’s the problem: Jews are puzzled by converts.  Why would anyone who isn’t Jewish voluntarily accept to do this when they don’t have to?  This has caused some Jews to treat potential converts with suspicion, particularly if they are doing it for marriage.  One community, the Syrian community of Flatbush, has become so concerned that conversion is being used as a back door to intermarriage that they shut down the institution of conversion entirely.  If you really want to do this, you want to make sure people think you legit or they may not accept you, or your children, as Jewish.  That would really stink considering the amount of effort you are putting into this.

This the reality of the situation: if you convert properly, you’re Jewish.  It isn’t dependent on the the rabbis per say, provided they are Orthodox.  The Reform and Conservative movements do conduct conversions, but even many Reform and Conservative Jews will tell you privately that they believe that only Orthodox converts are the real converts.  Forget what Orthodox Jews think.  Even among Orthodox rabbis, not every rabbi is necessarily on the up and up.  Some may be more lenient about accepting converts than others.  Some may not demand the same rigor of observance, or crank converts through quicker than they should.  Converts should have a proper amount of time to live as a Jew and see what it’s really like.  I’ve heard from converts that felt like they went through it too quickly that a bare minimal is a year so that you at least go through all of the holidays.  Some rabbis have been known to speed the process along for VIPs, particularly those that make nice donations to the shul.  

Yeah, I know.  Not cool.

It’s not true that only organizations approved the Chief Rabbinate of Israel can produce kosher converts.  However, a convert who does convert with one of these groups will be almost definitely be accepted as a convert (unless they aren’t acting the way they should).  Someone who decides to go with someone else is potentially taking a risk with being accepted.  Why go through so much time, effort, and emotional energy and then have problems later?

Think of it like this: why do you buy a Dell or an Apple and not a computer made in someone's garage?  Maybe the guy in the garage is highly skilled.  It's because when you buy an Apple or Dell, you know exactly what you're getting and it's a matter of public record.  So too with a gerut from a recognized organization: you know what you're getting and what it's reputation is.  You know you're getting a solid product.

 

I understand that sexuality is a very touchy subject, so I will try to show my utmost sensitivity.  On the other hand, I don’t do sugarcoating so I will take a straightforward approach to the question.

Judaism is very real about how people react to sexuality.  They were aware of people’s preferences both in the bedroom and in what they look for in a relationship in general, regardless of whether those desires are shallow.  At the same time, the sex act is considered to be the holiest act that a person can engage in, when done in a holy way: the right times with the right conduct and of course only with one’s spouse.  Sex is literally the way to become G-dly by participating in the very act of creation itself.  It is the balance of these two considerations that generates Jewish law and thought on the issue.

The Rabbis recognized that guys highly prize virginity, and purity in general.  This is even to the point of hypocrisy.  It is for this reason that a woman who is a virgin receives a larger sum written into her ketubah (pre-nuptial agreement) than does a widow or divorcee.  The Gemara in Ketubot even entertains the possibility that a woman loses her rights to the extra money if her hymen was broken by an object since there already be a loss of grace in the eyes of the men, who are the ones obligated to pay the sum stated in the ketubah in the event of death or divorce.  Yes, guys do think this way and care this much. The following story from the Gemara in Ketubot illustrates:

A newly-wedded man came to complain to Rav Nahman the night after his first night with his new wife that she wasn’t a virgin.  He complained that she was too loose to have been a virgin.  Rav Nahman flogged him because there’s no way that a bachelor could have known if she was loose or not unless he had been promiscuous beforehand. 

The Rabbis equally recognized that women have less of a hangup, and that their primary concern is the relationship.  They very much want to be in a relationship, even if the guy isn’t particularly quality.  The Rabbis tell us that a woman would rather be married to someone that is gross rather than be considered a whore.  Even in these times where hook-ups and living together are common I see women feel this way.  I remember a female friend of mine in high school who had very little connection to religion dumped a guy after he said there was nothing to their relationship except sex.

Biblically speaking, the only acts that actually change a woman’s status, and that would incur some kind of legal action in court for both partners, are sexual intercourse and “unnatural sex”.  They both render a girl legally a non-virgin with some odd quirks if the couple were to only engage in “unnatural sex” before a girl were to lose her virginity under the normal understanding of the term.  A girl who did everything but these two activities would be a virgin.  That doesn’t mean that philosophically speaking it’s okay, just that it wouldn’t be a fact a girl would necessarily need to share with a guy if they know the guy will flip because it doesn’t have any legal ramifications anyway.

 

 

No one questions the special place that learning Torah has in a Jew's life.  Torah is what guides our actions and shapes our thoughts so that we "think like Jews." It molds our observance and improves our conduct, all of course in measure to the person learning it. It brings blessing into the world for everything: peace, prosperity, and even....to win wars.

At the same time, a Jew is supposed to work.  The Gemara in Berachot tells us that only a select few are permitted to dedicate themselves to full time learning while most people need to get a job.  The Ben Ish Hai in Birkat Avot says that it is even forbidden for someone not in this select group to refrain from working.  An extensive treatment of the Jewish work ethic can be found in Dr. David Schall's By the Sweat of Your Brow.

So what about now, when 65% of men identified as Haredi Orthodox Jews in Israel don't work?  Something about the current reality doesn't seem to fit with this picture.

The answer is actually more sociopolitical than religious.  At the beginning of the State of Israel, the Torah community was decimated from WWII and was also under assault from the secular Zionist regime whose goal was to create a new secular Israeli identity to replace the traditional Jewish.  However, the leaders of the movement such as David Ben Gurion recognized the legitimacy Torah gave to his position and the right of Jews to be in Israel at all.  It was at this point when Ben Gurion negotiated the so-called Status Quo with the Haredi leader Rabbi Avrohom Yishaya Karelitz, also known as the Hazon Ish. The Status Quo is what has allowed Haredim to opt to learn Torah instead of going to the army, an exemption at the time that only applied to about 100 people and one that Ben Gurion was comfortable giving since he believed that Orthodox Judaism was in his death throes anyway and the exemption wouldn't be needed in a generation or two.

It didn't work out that way.   Haredi leaders mobilized the community to get anyone who could sit and learn to sit and learn, and to take money in order to do so.  The only vague parallel to this is drawn from the relationship of Yissachar and Zevulun, the two sons of Jacob who arranged that Yissachar would learn while Zevulun would support him financially.  This relationship did happen historically, but no precedent existed at to that point that would enable to do it against the will of the financer.  The situation is called a horah sha'ah, a necessary response to a timely difficult situation.

Jews always worked.  Jews always used to learn two.  Now we have a split of two camps where neither respects what the other is doing, and the dominant culture is attempting to force their way of life on the minority.  Or is it the minority who's forcing the majority?  It really depends on who you talk to.  Either way, kollel culture will continue in its current incarnation as long as there is a perceived assault against Torah values and that the entire mantle of learning is thrust upon the few.

There is another concern to keep mind of.  Let's say the Roshei HaYeshiva do tell 75% of their students to go to the army and then to work.  Who are they going to be?  What will that do to these people and their families when they are ruled to not be good enough to make the cut?  How can someone assess the relative value of one person's learning to another's?

Those who sit and learn are contributing, every last one of them.  The question is how much and would they be contributing more in a different capacity.  Fifty years ago, the answer was there is no place better for any of these people to be.  Now it is not so simple, but everyone wants easy answers to difficult questions.

 

Allow me to applaud you on your decision to make Judaism a part of your ceremony.  So many Jews unfortunately leave out the Judaism in their wedding ceremony these days, especially when someone makes the decision to marry a non-Jew.  The ketubah is an especially important aspect of the Jewish ceremony, and is arguably the defining aspect of a Jewish wedding, given the fact that it lays out the concept of a Jewish marriage.

A ketubah, the marriage contract, is one of the most identifiable features of the Jewish wedding. The ketubah is so important that it is read under the huppah to delineate the two halves of the wedding ceremory: kiddushin (sanctification of the wife entering into an exclusive bond with the husband) and nissuin (the husband bringing the wife into his home.) Centuries ahead of its time, it is the first prenuptial agreement outlining a Jewish husband’s obligation towards his Jewish wife.  It is a contract between the spouses whose primary purpose is to protect the wife’s rights to food, shelter, and marital obligations.  In the event that the marriage dissolves, the ketubah specifies the amount of money that the wife is entitled to from the husband or his estate if he died.

 

The ketubah is important for issues of personal status.  A ketubah is one of the best proofs that a person is Jewish since it has the names of their Jewish parents.  The Israeli government accepts the ketubah as proof of Jewishness for the Right of Return.  Clearly, it’s a very important document.

A person on a ketubah is identified by two people: their birth father and their birth mother.  These people must be mentioned if they are known because this is how we know who the person is.  Of course Jewish law is sensitive to the fact that people may feel more of an attachment to a step-parent or adopted parent so there is a language that can be inserted that goes something along the lines of “So-and-so who was raised by so-and-so”.  This is not a problem as long as if, G-d forbid, if there is a divorce that the get (divorce document) mentions all of the people that were mentioned in the ketubah.

There is a qualifier: everyone on the document has to be Jewish.  There is a very simple reason: non-Jews have no connection to the ketubah.  It just makes no sense to impose Jewish marital obligations on a non-Jewish spouse.  Besides for this, Judaism says that only a marriage between two Jews is a marriage. If in the tragic event of a divorce, if such as a ketubah were presented to a rabbinic court, the terms of the ketubah could not be enforced.  In your case, this would be equally relevant to the non-Jewish maternal figure as the non-Jewish spouse.

Clearly, you want to have Judaism be part of your wedding and your marriage.  This is an incredibly complicated balancing I’m happy to offer my own advice on how this should be done.  You really should be having this discussion before you get married.  Religious differences even between coreligionists of different religious commitments cause friction in relationships.  All the more so when two differing traditions are at play.  Something that doesn’t seem like a big deal now becomes a huge deal when you are trying to figure out how to raise your children and traditions to follow in your home.  Religion is a fundamental piece of self-understanding and as a couple is a new self with a new identity.  What identity will it be? If it’s going to be a Jewish identity, what does that mean?  Where is the place of the non-Jewish spouse in a Jewish home?  No one can answer these questions for you.  All I can say is that by the fact that you’re asking the question this question will come into play in a way that it might not with other couples.  

I wish you much blessing and success.

 

There is no question that cruelty to animals (Tzaar Baali Hayim) is absolutely a violation of Torah Law (see Oruchot HaTzaddikim-Ways of the Righteous) and we are not permitted to engage in it.  However, there are two provisos: 1. what may or may not fall under the definition of Jewish law as being animal cruelty may not be the same as that which an organization such as PETA would consider to be cruel 2. there are in fact provisions in Jewish law that do permit a certain level of animal cruelty under some limited circumstances.  An example from Tanakh (the Bible) is the incident where Yehoshua (Joshua) hamstrung the horses of Israel’s enemies so they could not be used any more.  In general, there are certain leniencies that apply in the case of the general welfare of people.   

Here is the problem of linking animal cruelty to kashrut.  The fact of matter is that the Torah does permit us to slaughter and eat animals.  Killing is inherently cruel.  What right to we have to take a life, any life, just so that we can eat?  Still, we do not ascribe to the view of Jains that animal life is exactly on the same level as human life.  Furthermore, we have theoretical cases brought down in our codes (Talmud Bavli Tractate Hullin Chapter 1) where in fact cruelty would not invalidate the kashrut of an animal.  For example, a person could theoretically continue to slice all day at an animal’s neck and as long as they don’t stop the animal is still considered to be kosher. 

Permission for cruelty to animals is not okay, and of course it is the responsibility for a rabbi to speak up against it.  But to ban factory farms?  Better that we should improve the animal factories so that they are as humane as possible in order to show the goyim (non-Jews) that there is a way to do it without being cruel, even if this does incur additional costs.

I know the above sounds harsh and believe me it doesn’t make me happy to be this blunt on this issue, but I think it would be intellectually dishonest to do otherwise.

 

There are really two issues at play here: do French Jews have an obligation toward France that requires them to stay despite the danger, and if they do leave should they go to Israel.  After all, Jews have been living in France for over 1,000 years, even if the vast majority of the current Jewish population are new arrivals from North Africa. One would think that to pick up and leave might represent a sort of ungratefulness.

In a very strict sense, there is only one country that a Jew has an obligation to die for: Israel.  It is brought down in the Shulhan Arukh, the authoritative code of Jewish law, that a Jew must even fight on the Sabbath to defend Israel.  However, Jews throughout history have fought in the armies of the countries they have lived in, proudly.  For example, Jews represent the third largest religious group in the United States Army.  Jews involved in the defense of their host country are also afforded certain leniencies in Jewish law in order to offer their services.

This relationship, however, is conditional.  Our obligation toward the countries we live in only exist when said country protects the life and liberty of the Jews who live in it.  The Babylonian Talmud in the Tractate of Ketubot (110b-111 a) relates a story where the Jews and non-Jews make certain agreements with one another.  Jews took the oath not to go back to Israel before the Messiah comes and not to rebel against their host nations while non-Jews are not supposed to overly oppress the Jews.  This is similar to Rousseau's concept of the Social Contract: so long as our host country protects our life and liberty, we have a reciprocal obligation toward that country.  That relationship is severed when Jewish lives are endangered.

There have been many violent anti-Semitic incidents in France.  It would appear that the French government is either unwilling or unable to protect its Jewish citizens, though I hope this is not true.  If this is the case, then the Social Contract has been severed.  Jews have a responsibility toward themselves and their families first and foremost.  If it is the case that Jewish lives are in danger, they should leave.

As for going to Israel, I can spend much time discussing all of the positive reasons for going to Israel from a religious and cultural standpoint as well as its newfound economic growth.  Basically, if a person has a choice they should live in Israel, but there are reasons so many Jews do not.  Here and now is not the place to discuss it.

 

I give you a lot of credit for your decision to cover your hair, or at least that you are in the process of considering it.  It is a difficult mitzvah to keep from what I am told and a very sensitive topic.  The reward you will receive for doing it will be that much greater because of the work you have had to do to prepare yourself for this important mitzvah.

There are two questions here that are somewhat related but not really. The first question has to do with a concept we have in Judaism called Dinei DMalchuta Dina-the law of the land is the law of the Jews. Jews are not permitted to just go doing whatever they want just because they can get away with it according to Jewish law. There is a discussion however to how far we take the discussion. Some limit dinei DMalchuta Dinais limited to financial law ex. taxes, theft in all of its definitions etc... while others say we follow it all the way unless it clearly violates Jewish law (Beit Yosef, Shulhan Arukh Choshen Mishpat 369:7-11). Rabbi Moshe Feinstein seems to say that beyond just a function of Jewish law, it is also an aspect of gratitude toward the country in which we live (Igeret Moshe Choshen Mishpat Aleph Siman 72) In fact, in any monetary agreements with non-Jews, we follow the state legal codes rather than our own. However, there are certain times we are not required to follow the law of the land. For example, if the government were to ban brit milah (ritual circumcision) then we would still do it, even if it means getting hauled off to jail.

There is another aspect of this called Chillul HaShem-desecration of G-d's name. And activity that would reflect negatively on Jews and Judaism. Any action that might cause a Jew to end up on the 6 o'clock news is handcuffs is not okay to do.

 

The second question addresses what it means to be a religious Jew. In Hebrew, the word for religious is dati. The word dat means law, so someone who is dati is a law abiding citizen. In this case it means being obedient to Jewish law, and as we are discussing by extension to Jewish law. However, there are many details to Judaism and you can't say that someone is not religious if they don't follow all of them ex. keeping kosher in the house and eating vegetarian in restaurants. Therefore, dati really means believing and ideally observing the law. For someone to be dati, they must follow Jewish law and follow it because it was commanded by G-d at Mount Sinai. Even if someone is lax in their observance but this is their intention when they do it, they are dati. Conversely, someone could be following every minute detail (however unlikely) but not doing it because they believe that the Torah and the commandments are the will of G-d as expressed at Mount Sinai is not practicing Judaism, at all. The Shinto priests were a type of talit and tefillin (fringed garment and ritual boxes on the head). Muslims pray five times a day. Jain dietary restrictions are by far stricter than our own. The distinguishing factor is that religious Jews do it because it is the divine imperative.

 

Now for the issue of religious Jews violating secular law: Should they do it? Absolutely not. Do they do it? Taxes? Hopefully very few. Jaywalking? How can you expect religious Jews to be more stringent that our illustrious mayor Rudolf Guilliani who was busted jaywalking after implementing stricter measures about it himself? No, we really shouldn't do it anyway.

 

There are three reasons religious Jews might violate secular law:

 

Hypocrisy-there are hypocrites in all parts of society, and unfortunately we have our share as well.

Cognitive dissonance-the fact is that religious Jews don't necessarily equate following secular law with religious law. In many cases, it just hasn't been pointed out to them that both are obligatory and in the case of secular law they just may act the way they would if they were secular people.

The Evil Inclination (Yetzer Hara)-Religious Jews are people too and they screw up like everyone else. Making a mistake doesn't make you a bad person, just as long as you examine your deeds and try to clean up your act. When G-d wrote on the Ten Commandments "Don't Murder", He was addressing a religious audience that had already accepted Shabbat. Doing the wrong thing is unfortunately part of the human condition.

 

 

 

There are three areas of consideration for this question: Halacha (Jewish law), official doctrine, and popular belief and behavior.

 

The Torah forbids making images, be it of G-d, other gods, or a whole host of natural phenomena, basically anything that could be worshipped. This is the second of the Ten Commandments and is a prohibition repeated many different times throughout the Torah. It would seem then that there should be no leniences.

 

There are two possible areas where one could come to find a reason to permit this: people's belief systems and the status of the object itself.

 

The Rema, the Ashkenazi (Eastern European) authority for Jewish law, found a slight leniency in the area of Yayin Nesech. There is a prohibition to drink or even derive benefit from non-Jewish wine because a non-Jew might have poured some wine as a libation to their god. However, the Rema says that pouring wine to idols is not normal by non-Jews and therefore selling the wine would be okay (Yoreh Deah 123:1).

 

According to Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera, Buddhists pay respect to the images of the Buddha and the Bodhissavah but don't actual worship or ask requests from these images. They are revere as great people and what a Buddhist does by praying in veneration of what he (the Buddha) represents. They use the object as a focus of concentration during meditational activities and such but do make offerings as if the real teacher is standing before them. The comparison made by Maha Thera is to that of a memorial, although this memorial seems to have some kind of living properties to it.

 

I have however seen how Buddhists behave with these statutes. They believe bad things will happen to you if they break, meaning they subscribe a belief that supernatural powers reside in the object even as official Buddhist doctrine would negate such beliefs. It would seem that regardless of what dogma states, Buddhist statues have the status idols in every sense of the word.

 

Then there is the status of the head itself. Here we are dealing with a plastic head. The assumption is people wouldn't worship things like plastic or plush toys. An idol should be something significant like nice stone or gold. The Shulhan Arukh (Yoreh Deah 141:1), the codification of Jewish law, says that statues made just for beauty can be used. That's why stuffed animals and G.I. Joes are okay. ( Barbies are creepy and shouldn't be brought into the house, though my wife argues.) The Shach, a Polish commentary on the Shulhan Arukh, argues and says any figure of a person should be forbidden. Certainly the image of an actual deity should be forbidden.

 

However, people do in fact worship plastic statues. The statues sold at botanicas, the stores that sell images of Catholic saints and paraphernalia are in fact the object of worship. This is especially true of the Narco-Saints, figures that have been deified in Mexico as a response to the horrific situation in some cities but are now found in the United States, whose worship is growing like wildfire. Their worship cannot be written off as the actions of a few crazy people but a renewed enthusiasm for a new form of idolatry that is a fusion of Christian and Mesoamerican religious traditions. Moreover, the types of actions they engage in to worship these saints is varied, and the pouring/offering of wine to idols might be going on there. In that case, we make what is called a lo ploog, a rule that says that if someone is true in one case we extent that rule to all cases that are sufficiently similar.

 

The conclusion: the neon Buddha head should stay at Ikea. If you already bought one, I can't say whether or not to get rid of it, because it would seem that it is in fact made for decoration. It requires further thought.

 

Source:http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/209.htm  

 

When addressing an issue as emotionally charged as this, we really have to get at the real concerns and address them individually:

 

1. The commandment to redeem captives

 

2. The issue of the danger presented by the prisoners being released

 

3. The emotional impact on the victims of the activities of the perpetrators

 

The Torah is very clear about our obligation to redeem captives. Leviticus 19:16 says that one should not stand by the blood of your brother, and all Jews are our brothers. The Babylonian Talmud in the tractate of Sanhedrin 37a tells us that "One who saves a life saves the world entire." The Shulhan Arukh (the code of Jewish law) says in Yoreh Deah 252:1 that redeeming a captive takes precedence over giving charity to poor people.

 

However, there are two limitations that are applicable to this particular case. First off, we should not pay too high of a price to redeem a captive (Sh"A Y.D. 252:4). The idea is if you pay too much of price, you will simply encourage people to continue kidnapping. The limitation addresses the second issue I mentioned. The Shulhan Arukh (Y.D. 252:5) says we are not to release prisoners ever since this will cause our enemies to honor them and to provide them extra protection.

 

Of course they may be other considerations as well that we might have to take into consideration, so we should really take a look at the specific case involved. In the case of Gilad Shalit, the party holding him captive was Hamas. Whether or not to engage in such an exchange would have to be in light of their perspective as well. For that, we have to look to their sources: the Quran and Sharia law. There is a dialogue recorded between Ibn Qayyim and a rabbi (Source: Guidance to the Uncertain; In Reply to the Jews and the Nazarenes (6/136-137). In this dialogue, Muhammad poses to the rabbi that he must be the elect of G-d since he has enjoyed so much military success. The understanding of this dialogue by Jihadist groups such as Hamas is that military success is proof that their belief system is true and military failure is a theological problem.

 

The implication as far as the danger aspect really turns out to be a Catch-22: release the prisoners, and Hamas perceives it as a result of divine favor and encourages such activities, especially because the likelihood is that these people will resume their jihadist activities. Don't release them, and the religious obligation falls on the jihadist group to right this wrong militarily (i.e. step up attacks) or be left with a standing theological difficulty.

 

Of course we cannot forget about the victims and families of the victims as well. The emotional distress they have received from this whole ordeal is unimaginable, though I am certain the Shalit family has greatly suffered as well. This is also besides the fear people now have about their terrorists free to roam the streets again.

 

I know that HaRav Ovadia Yosef, the greatest Torah scholar of our generation, took a very active role in the Gilad Shalit case. I am not aware if he actually advocated for the deal or was involved in other ways. I do not know if he actually supported the exchange as I have not seen what he has written about the issue. I don't know one quarter of one percent to debate the issue with him if he actually did support the release, but I have not found anything so far that would indicate that we should have done it.