All Questions Answered by Rabbi Leonard Levy (Emeritus)
Question: Typically, why don't Jews evangelize? That's what the book of Jonah and so many other books and events in the bible are about (in the questioner's reading of them).
The Book of Jonah has a central theme of other peoples recognizing the power of the God of Israel as being supreme. Indeed a central theme repeated in many books of the Bible is that eventually all people will come to recognize the God of Israel as the One all-powerful God of the universe. The prophet Isaiah describes the “end of days” in these words:
And it shall come to pass at the end of days that the Mount of Hashem’s (= the Lord’s) House shall stand firm above the mountains and tower above the hills; and all the nations shall gaze on it with joy. And the many peoples shall go and say: “Come, let us go up to the Mount of Hashem that He may instruct us in His ways, and that we may walk in his paths.” For Instruction (Torah) shall come forth from Zion and the word of Hashem from Jerusalem. And he will judge among the nations and arbitrate for the many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks: Nation shall not lift up sword against nation; they shall never again know war. (Isaiah 2:2-4)
The special prayers recited on Rosh Hashana also stress this theme, quoting frequently many biblical verses to that effect. We pray: “Let Your glorious majesty be perceived by all inhabitants of the world, so that every being will know that You activated him/her, and every creature will realize that You have created him/her, and every breathing thing will proclaim, ‘Hashem, the God of Israel is King, and [God’s] Kingdom rules over all jurisdictions.”
None of this implies, though, that all people will become Jews at that time (or before then). All that non-Jews are required to do in order to gain their share in the world to come (see my posting on this topic elsewhere on the JVO website) is to fulfill the seven universal commandments God gave to Noah and his descendants after the flood (Talmud Sanhedrin 105a; see also Mishnah Avot 4:1 and Mishnah Peah 1:1): 1) Recognizing Hashem as the One God and rejecting idolatry; 2) refraining from cursing God; 3) refraining from the sexual relationships forbidden in Leviticus, chapter 18; 4) refraining from murder; 5) refraining from stealing; 6) refraining from eating a part of an animal while the animal is still alive; and 7) establishing a system of justice. (Talmud Sanhedrin 56a)
Isaiah’s prophecy is thus understood as meaning that all people will come to recognize God and follow in his paths to establish justice throughout the world (see Genesis 18:19) by learning Torah from Zion, but not that they will become Jews and take upon themselves all 613 commandments of the Torah, although some of them undoubtedly will fully join the Jewish people and will be welcomed with open arms, as stated in another prophecy which is highlighted in services on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur:
[As for the foreign-born who attach themselves to Hashem … all who keep the sabbath and do not profane it and who hold fast to My Covenant,] I will bring them to My sacred mount and let them rejoice in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices shall be welcome on My altar; for My House shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples. (Isaiah 56:7)
When God gave Torah to the people of Israel, he announced that by accepting the extra commandments of Torah, they would become a “kingdom of priests and a holy people” (Exodus 19:6). Just as the kohanim, the priests who served in God’s sanctuary, were given extra commandments above and beyond those of other Jews, and through these extra commandments they attained a higher level of holiness in order to help the rest of the people perceive God’s commanding presence in their lives, so too all Jews are given extra commandments beyond those given to the rest of humanity in order to help the rest of humanity perceive God’s presence which commands justice and righteousness.
Observe them (the laws and statutes which God commanded to the people of Israel) and practice them, for that will be proof of your wisdom and discernment to other peoples, who on hearing of all these laws will say, “Surely, that great nation is a wise and discerning people.” For what great nation is there that has a god so close at hand as is Hashem our God whenever we call upon him. And what great nation has laws and rules as perfect as all this Instruction (Torah) that I set before you this day? (Deuteronomy 4:6-8)
We gladly accept converts who sincerely want to take on this priestly mission by accepting the extra obligations of the 613 commandments of our Torah, but there is significant concern that one who converts to Judaism may not be fully ready to take on all of these obligations, and, even if sincere, might subsequently find them too burdensome and decide to leave. Once a person has converted to Judaism, s/he is held responsible for violations of all of those additional obligations taken on, to detriment of that person’s ultimate disposition in world to come. So the practice is not to overly encourage conversion to Judaism, to initially discourage conversion until it becomes clear that the person expressing interest is sincere in wanting to fulfill the special commandments given to the Jewish people and has sufficient understanding in practice of what those obligations entail that we consider it likely that joining the Jewish people and its priestly mission will be in that person’s best long-term interest.
There was a time during the second temple period when Jews actively engaged in proselytizing (“evangelize” is a term specific to promoting Christianity) – Judaism was the only non-idolatrous nation at the time, and other geo-political and religious considerations of the Hasmonean (descendants of Simon the Maccabee) kings, who simultaneously served as High Priests, led them to pursue a policy of actively seeking the conversion to Judaism of non-Jewish inhabitants of territories they conquered, sometimes under duress. The perceived problems caused by the numbers of less than fully sincere and committed coverts which was the result of that level of proselytizing is expressed in the context of the Talmud’s (Yebamot 47a) discussion of the process of conversion as a word play on Isaiah 14:1, “Converts are as hard on Israel as a scab [on the skin].” The fact that the Jewish people have since suffered a long period of extreme oppression, during which Christian and Islamic governments forbade Jews from promoting their religion among their peoples, made rabbis even more fearful and likely to discourage potential converts more forcefully.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: What does Judaism say about pre-marital sex?
The Torah presumes that a woman will leave her parents’ household a virgin and will have sexual intercourse only once she enters her husband’s house upon marriage. This presumption is clear in the way Torah deals with violations of this rule in Deuteronomy 22:13-29 and Exodus 22: 15-16.
Before dealing directly with how these texts begin to answer your question, some background regarding the process through which a woman goes from being a single woman in her parents’ household to a married woman according to Torah law (as interpreted in the Rabbinic tradition) is required. This process involves two stages. The first stage is erusin – betrothal, in which the exclusive sexual relationship between a man and a woman is contracted and sanctified, but not yet entered into. Until the middle ages, erusin initiated a one-year period during which the couple prepared for marriage – building and furnishing a home. During this period, the woman has the status of me’orasa - betrothed. At the end of this period, the ceremony of chuppah, in which the seven blessing are pronounced, begins the marriage (nisu’in) of the couple. The blessing for the ceremony of betrothal – erusin – praises God as the one who forbids to us those who are betrothed (arusot) and permits to us those who are married (nesu’ot) to us through chuppah and kiddushin (sanctification). Thus during the erusin stage, the betrothed couple are forbidden to have sexual relations with each other. However, betrothal requires a divorce should the couple decide to split up, and if the woman were to have a sexual relationship during this stage with a man other than her betrothed, the parties to that sexual relationship would be guilty of adultery, just as they would be guilty of adultery if that sexual relationship were engaged in after the woman had entered the marriage. Since the middle ages, erusin and nisu’in have been collapsed into one combined ceremony, so the status of me’orasa generally lasts for only a few moments during the ceremony.
Exodus 22:15-16 deals with the case of an unmarried, unbetrothed woman who is seduced while still in her parents’ household: “When a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall surely make her his wife by payment of the bride-price. If her father refuses to give her to him (in marriage), he must still weigh out silver in accordance with the bride price of virgins.” Leaving aside the matter of the monetary damage caused by the loss of the woman’s virginity before marriage in a society where that was a significant concern, a few conclusions can be drawn from this law (as well as the parallel laws regarding a rape in Deuteronomy 22: a) sexual relations should be for marital purposes – i.e., to establish or maintain a marriage; b) an unbetrothed, unmarried woman who has a sexual relationship before marriage (and the man who has sexual relationships with her) are not in violation of a severe prohibition on the level of adultery and other major sexual violations listed in Leviticus 18:6-23; it is a violation of the sanctity expected of sexual relations within marriage which can best be corrected after the fact by formalizing a marriage between the parties.
Since sexual intercourse is one of the three ways by which a man can legally sanctify a marriage, the intention of the parties to the act is crucial. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage with no intent to sanctify a marriage is defined as zenut – fornication. According to Rabbinic sources, God hates zenut (Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin ch. 10, 28d; Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer, parashah 18, p. 335-6; Eichah Rabba 5). However, since intention cannot be easily discerned by anyone other than God, the Rabbis of the Talmud operate under the presumption that a person does not have intercourse for the purpose of zenut, but rather has marital intentions (Gittin 81b; Tosafot there, s.v. Beit Shammai). Thus a single woman who is known to have engaged in sexual intercourse with a single man to whom she was not married is presumed not to have engaged in an act of zenut (opinion of the Sages in Yebamot 61b as opposed to the opinion of R. Elazar there), unless there is decisive contextual evidence to the contrary.
Irrespective of intention, a more severe prohibition most likely applies to almost all cases of premarital sex these days. Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18 forbid intercourse with a menstruant woman, stipulating a severe penalty. Talmudic law considers the severe penalty to apply even to an act of intercourse which occurs long after the cessation of the menstrual flow so long as the woman has not immersed herself fully in a mikveh or natural body of water for purification (Shabbat 64b; Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 4:3; Shulhan Arukh YD 197:1, ). Since unmarried women generally do not immerse themselves seven days after their menstrual periods as mitzvah-observant married women do, it must be presumed that any act of premarital sex will violate this severe prohibition.
A cautionary story I have heard is in order here. The story is of two yeshiva students in the same yeshiva, each of whom was discovered to have engaged in an act of premarital sexual intercourse. One of the students insisted that the woman immerse in a mikveh before engaging in the act. The other student had intercourse with a woman who had not immersed. The student who insisted that his partner immerse in the mikveh was expelled from the yeshiva. The other student was allowed to remain in the yeshiva and repent. Apparently, the one who had the presence of mind and discipline to insist on avoiding the more severe prohibition was considered more culpable for not having applied that discipline to not violating the less severe prohibition. The one who violated the more severe prohibition could sincerely express regret for having succumbed totally to his passions in the moment.
To sum up: premarital sex is forbidden in Jewish Law. It is forbidden even when the parties to the act intend a life-long relationship, even when they are engaged to be married, even when they have legally sanctified an exclusive relationship through erusin. It is forbidden until after the couple is married through the ceremony of chuppah. While the prohibitions against premarital sex may not be equal in severity of the legal or moral consequences of violating the prohibition(s) depending on the circumstances, premarital sex is equally forbidden by Jewish Law in all circumstances.
When faced with the temptation to engage in sex before fully entering marriage, we should seek to emulate the disciplined behavior of Boaz in Ruth 3:13, as understood by the Rabbis (Sifrei Bemidar, Beha’alotekha, pisqa 88). Boaz was sleeping by his grain on the threshing floor when he noticed that a woman was laying by his feet. When Ruth answered Boaz’s inquiry by identifying herself and indicating that she would be willing to marry him in order that he could redeem the estate of her deceased husband and father-in-law, Boaz said, “By the life of Hashem, lie here until morning.” The Rabbis understand Boaz to have made two separate statements, only the second of which was addressed to Ruth. “Since the evil inclination was troubling Boaz all night, telling him, ‘you are unmarried and seeking a wife, and she is unmarried and seeking a husband, and you know that a wife can be acquired through intercourse, get up and have intercourse with her, and she will become your wife,’ and Boaz said (swore) to the evil inclination, ‘By the life of Hashem, I will not touch her,’ and to the woman he said, ‘lie here until morning.”
Since most people lack that level of discipline, Jewish Law requires that a man and a woman who are not married to each other should not be alone in private in order not to be in a position of temptation (Kiddushin 80b-81a; Maimonides, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 22:3 ff.; Shulhan Arukh EH 22).
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Is there olam habah? How do I measure whether I'm living up to what God/I expect of me? Is there a God/personal God in the traditional sense and if so what is his/her nature?
Is there Olam Haba? The Oral tradition of Judaism postulates the existence of a world to come – ‘Olam Haba’. Mishnah Sanhedrin chapter 10 states that all Jews are presumed to have a share in the world to come, then lists acts or patterns of behavior which can lead one to lose his/her share in the world to come if s/he were to die unrepentant from those acts, then lists examples of Biblical characters who have no share in the world to come. From the inclusion of Balaam, a non-Jew, on that list, Talmud Sanhedrin 105a derives that Balaam had no share, but other non-Jews – namely righteous gentiles (chasidei ‘umot ha’olam = those who fulfill the seven universal commandments God gave to Noah and his descendants after the flood) - do have a share in the world to come. (See also Mishnah Avot 4:1 and Mishnah Peah 1:1.)
Regarding the nature of this world to come and how it relates to this world, Mishnah Avot 4:16-17 states:
Rabbi Jacob says: This world is like an antechamber before the world to come. Prepare yourself in the antechamber so that you will be able to enter the banquet hall. He used to say: One hour spent in repentance and good deeds in this world is better than the whole life of the world to come; yet one hour of satisfaction in the world to come is better than a whole life of this world.
In his long introduction to his commentary on Mishnah Sanhedrin chapter 10, Maimonides analyzes how best to interpret what the “world to come” is. He concludes that “’olam haba’” is a spiritual realm experienced by the souls of humans after their death, dependent upon the extent of knowledge and consciousness of God that they were able to develop during their lifetimes. The broad description of that realm and its implications which follows is heavily influenced by the writings of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (which were heavily influenced by the mystical tradition of Kabbalah) in a collection of essays entitled, If You Were God. When the soul is separated from the body at death, it is freed from the restrictions which physical existence placed on it. In order to exist as human beings, we must be shielded from direct revelation of God’s overwhelming presence. Once we die, our souls are able to bask directly in the presence of God’s Glory (Kavod). When the soul is basking in the presence of God, the soul knows and understands everything about his or her life on earth, and everything about the purpose of life. To the extent that the soul fulfilled its purpose in life, it enjoys basking in God’s glory and experiences eternal joy – the joy which R. Jacob described as being better than all of this world. However, in the world to come, unpleasant memories cannot be blocked. The soul also knows how many opportunities were lost, frittered away on the vain and meaningless. The soul knows the pain of all those whom s/he hurt in life, for “olam haba” is “olam ha’emet” – the world of truth - where the truth about one’s life on earth becomes clear, often painfully clear. One whose life has been spent working at counterpurposes to the purpose for which God created him/her is filled with shame in the presence of God. Shame is compared in Bible and Talmud to a fire burning from within. When one hears images of the wicked burning in the hereafter, Rabbi Kaplan recommends that we understand that as the soul being tormented by its own shame. Most people live lives which are a mixed bag of good and bad. Jewish tradition holds that for such people, the soul only suffers from the shame for at most a year. After that, the soul learns to live with the shame while experiencing the joy accrued from the good s/he accomplished on earth. Those souls who have no good deeds whatsoever to commend them experience only endless shame. In this way, one hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is better than all of the world to come (where good deeds and repentance are no longer possible).
How do I measure whether I'm living up to what God/I expect of me?
Ultimately, only God knows for sure whether one is living up to what God expects of that person, and we will only know for sure when our souls are in God’s presence in the world to come. However, God gave us Torah and its mitzvot in order to guide us in the proper direction.
And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all of His ways and to love Him, and to serve the Lord your God with all of your heart and all of your soul. (Deuteronomy 10:12)
He has told you, man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you: doing justice and loving mercy, and walking humbly with your God. (Micah 6:8)
When we sincerely and humbly walk in God’s ways – Halakhah – the path of life defined by Torah, seeking to do justice while loving mercy, with the full commitment of heart and soul, we are most likely living up to what God expects of us.
Is there a God/personal God in the traditional sense and if so what is his/her nature?
“No human can see God and live.” (Exodus 33:20) We cannot fathom God’s nature. We can only extrapolate from our experience of what God has given to us: the universe God created and the Torah God revealed to us. Judaism postulates that God is the source of all being, consciousness and wisdom, that God created the universe with wisdom for a purpose which only God fully understands. God created within humans a Godly spark (divine image). God is personal in the traditional sense in that God cares about each individual human being and how that human being uses the Godly power implanted within him/her. In order that humans have the freedom to choose whether or not to serve God, God has hidden His presence in this world so that humans have the capability of denying God’s existence or any divine purpose in the existence of the universe, as well as the capability to find and connect with God, to bring God’s presence into this world and fulfill the divine purpose of creation by walking in God’s ways to establish justice and righteousness.
See I have set before you today life and good and death and evil. As I command you this day to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, then you will live and prosper, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you are entering to inherit. But if your heart turns and you do not obey …. Life and Death I have set before you, blessing and curse. Choose life in order that you and your offspring will live. To love the Lord your God, to hear His voice and to cleave to Him, for He (or His voice) is your life and the length of your days …. (Deuternomy 30:16-20)
The choice is ours to make. The consequences will only be known for sure in the world to come.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Should the laws governing kashrut be amended and/or applied to include the ethical treatment of workers, including wages, working condition and respect of employees?
Torah places many commands on Jews. We are commanded to treat all people ethically. Regarding the workers we hire, there are specific commandments to pay promptly (Leviticus 19:13), faithfully fulfill all explicit and implicit (e.g., customary practices of employers in a particular jurisdiction) agreements (two whole chapters of the Talmud are devoted to these issues – Bava Metzia ch. 6 and ch. 7), and to not neglect threats that working conditions might impose on the lives and well-being of those who work for us (“…do not stand idly by your neighbor’s blood” – Leviticus 19:16). We are also commanded not to eat certain forbidden foods or mixtures which contain forbidden ingredients. We should strive to fulfill all of the commandments of the Torah which apply to us in the appropriate situations.
The laws of the Torah regarding ethical treatment of our workers stand independently of the laws of kashrut. People who are in the business of producing kosher food should be as concerned with fulfilling the laws regarding treatment of workers as they are concerned with producing food which fulfills the requirements for kosher food. However, it would be a mistake, I believe, to subsume these ethical requirements into the category of laws of kashrut. As our Sages stated, “Kol HaMosif Gore’a’-- Everyone who adds, detracts” (Babylonia Talmud, Sanhedrin 29a). Perceiving the laws of ethical treatment of workers as part of the laws of kashrut might in the future lead to a perception that such laws apply only to the production of kosher food. These laws apply universally, and we should not risk the perception that they are limited – connected to ritual requirements.
That said, it is abhorrent that a kosher food producer has been accused (apparently with substantial evidence to support the charges), of failing to fulfill agreements with workers, subjecting them to unsafe work conditions, and engaging in other violations of government labor laws. When religious Jews fail to fulfill the ethical requirements of our Torah and the law of the land in the treatment of their workers, they are guilty of hillul hashem, the desecration of God’s name – a sin so severe that God does not forgive it in the violator’s lifetime (Talmud Yoma 86a, ff.). All the moreso when these violations occur in the process of fulfilling the ritual requirements of Jewish law regarding the food we eat. If kashrut supervisors are aware of such violations and ignore them, they are caught up in that sin. Ritual tunnel-vision is totally unacceptable from a Torah perspective.
The Conservative Movement, to its credit, recently initiated a project called “hekhsher tzedek” to address this problem. The “magen tzedek” – “seal of righteousness” – will be a supplementary seal on the packages of kosher products to certify that high ethical standards have been fulfilled, as well as the kashrut standard which will be attested by the seal of the current kashrut supervising agencies. I understand that OU (Orthodox Union), the largest of the supervising agencies, is cooperating with hekhsher tzedek. For more information on this project and its standards, see http://magentzedek.org/.
Righteousness – tzedek – must be pursued in all elements of our behavior. Ensuring that tzedek is practiced at least in the production of kosher food is an important step, crucial for removing the potential for desecration of God’s name from the process. We also need to take care to ensure that the ethical requirements of our Torah not be perceived as subsumed under the ritual requirements of kosher food preparation so as not to be perceived as limited to them.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: While kashrut, at one time, embodied humane methods of slaughter, today the methods seem outdated. Are there any movements within Judaism that advocate "modified" versions of kashrut that incorporate today's standards of humane slaughter?
Classical Jewish sources which seek to explain reasons for mitzvot attribute the reason for the kosher method of slaughter (shechitah) to prevent the unnecessary suffering of the animals.
We will say further, that the reason for slaughter at the neck and with an inspected knife is so as not to cause excessive suffering to living things, for the Torah permitted them to humans on account of their preeminence, so that they might be nourished by them and for all their needs, but not to cause them gratuitous suffering. [Sefer haChinnukh #451]
When the necessity for good food led to the killing of animals, the Torah chose the easiest of deaths and prohibited tormenting them through an inferior slaughter or by piercing. [Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, III:48]
Developments in the twentieth century, however, have raised in some people’s minds the question of whether the kosher method of slaughter involves more suffering than other modern methods currently in use. The problem revolves around two laws passed by the U.S. Congress: the U.S. Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, and the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958. The 1906 law prohibited slaughtering animals on the ground in order to prevent the sanitary problems of dying animals falling into the blood of other animals. Thereafter, all slaughter in the U.S., both kosher and non-kosher, used a method called “shackling and hoisting” to lift the animals and hang them by their hind legs before slaughter. This method causes significant distress and suffering to the animals. The 1958 law required stunning by electric shock before hoisting the animal in order to prevent that suffering. However, since most halakhic authorities would not permit stunning before shechitah, and at that point there was no other more humane alternative, the law exempted kosher slaughter from the requirement to stun before hoisting. In 1963, the ASPCA developed a pen which would keep the animal restrained but upright for slaughter and prevent the dying animal from falling on the ground which eliminated this source of suffering, but its adoption in the kosher meat industry was slow and has been far from universal. As of 1999, 10% of large cattle, 50% of veal calves and 100% of sheep and lamb were still being hoisted before shechitah.
The foremost authority on methods of humane slaughter is Dr. Temple Grandin, a professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University. Her webpage (http://www.grandin.com/) has many articles and reviews of research on the extent to which animals are distressed or feel pain. (See particularly her section on ritual slaughter.) Her conclusion is that slaughter by the traditional method of kosher shechitah, when done properly in a well-designed upright pen, does not cause distress and pain to the animal, and is indeed a very humane method of slaughter. (In contrast, her first visit to a kosher slaughterhouse – which used the hoisting and shackling method - led her to conclude, “If hell exists, I am in it.” [http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaughter.html \].)
Efforts of various groups to ensure that kosher shechitah meets today’s highest standards of humane slaughter thus focus mainly on eliminating the use of hoisting and shackling, and of the method of mechanically inverting the animal for shechita (Weinberg pen and Pacoima pen) in favor of the upright pens. Rabbi Adam Frank has been a central force in this process (see his blog at www.adamfrank.typepad.com). In 1999, he and his brother Aaron (who has since become a rabbi), approached both the Orthodox Union (OU – which supervises much of the kosher meat in the US) and the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards with Dr. Grandin’s research asking that they ban the use of shackling and hoisting and inversion pens in kosher slaughter. The Rabbinical Assembly committee responded by approving unanimously a responsum by Rabbis Joel Roth and Elliot Dorff (http://rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/dorffroth_shackling.pdf) ruling these practices forbidden since they involve unnecessary cruelty to animals (tza’ar ba’alei chayyim). This ruling has made little difference in the practice of kosher slaughterhouses, which generally depend on Orthodox certification. The Conservative movement’s recently developed hekhsher tzedek, a supplementary seal which would certify that kosher products under the kosher supervision of other agencies is also produced in a manner in which animals and workers are treated humanely and ethically, is an attempt to leverage some market power to drive change in the kosher meat industry toward universal use of the humane pens. (See http://rabbinicalassembly.org/docs/al_pi_din.doc, section on “Product Development: Animal Welfare.”) The OU is also said to be trying to ban these practices, but faces major obstacles (see http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2008/02/a-conservative.html). Rabbi Frank has also been instrumental in convincing the Chief Rabbis of Israel to prohibit shackling and hoisting – much of the meat imported to Israel is from South America, where shackling and hoisting is very common (http://www.chai-online.org/en/news/press_releases/pr_judaism_shackle2.htm).
The Conservative movement’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards also approved a responsum by Rabbi Mayer Rabinowitz permitting pre-shechita and post-shechita stunning. His responsum (http://rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/rabinowitz_stunning.pdf) cites the relevant sources in Orthodox responsa (of Rabbi Yehiel Weinberg and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein) and outlines the interesting history of this subject, which is now mainly a concern in countries which do not exempt kosher slaughter from the requirement to stun the animals before slaughtering them.
The traditional kosher method of slaughter itself meets the modern standards of humane slaughter which Dr. Grandin advocates, but the methods of restraining the animals for slaughter in a way which meets modern legal requirements has led to much unnecessary suffering of animals in the process. Conservative and Orthodox groups are trying to eliminate these methods, but progress toward that end has not been speedy. These groups do not seek to "modify kashrut", but rather to eliminate the relatively inhumane practices which were imposed by government legislation in the first half of the twentieth century.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: Some Jewish young adults (usually, college age) think that it is 'cool' to have their bodies tattooed. Will these kids be barred from most Jewish cemeteries upon their death many years from now?
Torah forbids tattooing one's body with permanent marks by the combination of penetrating the skin and inserting an indelible ink or coloring (ketovet qa'qa' - Leviticus 19:28). The prohibition appears in the context of laws defining Jews as a holy people, distancing us from the ways of idolatrous peoples. The penalty for violating this law (Mishnah Makkot 3:6, B. Talmud Makkot 21a) is no more severe than for violating any other prohibition of the Torah (e.g. eating non-kosher food) that does not define a more severe penalty for it explicitly (e.g., for murder and a few other violations, the Torah prescribes more severe penalties). The penalty for tattooing does not include any restriction on burial.
This is not the first time I have heard a Jew say that one with a tattoo won't be eligible to be buried in a Jewish cemetery. I have not been able to find any classical source that states that. Nor have I been able to find any other rabbi (and I have asked rabbis of all various stripes) who has heard of a prohibition against burying a Jew with a tattoo in a Jewish ceremony/cemetery. I have no idea where such an idea came from, and I will refrain from speculating as to how such an idea might have arisen.
Since I can't find any rabbis who would prohibit burial of a Jew with a tattoo in a Jewish cemetery, even if there is somewhere in the world some Jewish authority I haven't found yet who would have a problem with it, I cannot imagine any way that Jews with tattoos would be excluded from Jewish cemeteries.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Question: If am trying to keep kosher why can't I mix dairy and chicken since chicken does not produce milk?
The laws regarding separating meat from milk have their root in the commandment repeated three times in the Torah (Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, Deuteronomy 14:21): “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” Despite the fact that hens do not produce milk in which their young could be boiled, by the time of the Rabbis named in the Mishnah (70 C.E. – 200 C.E.), it was nearly universal Jewish practice to separate chicken (and other fowl) from milk as one would separate beef or lamb from milk. The Rabbis of the Mishnah period record three main approaches to explain the status of fowl and milk:
Rabbi Yoshaya says that the prohibition is stated in three places in order to include [in the prohibition] three different categories of animals: a) domesticated cattle; b) wild [kosher] animals (e.g., deer); and c) fowl…
Rabbi Akiba says that the prohibition is stated in three places in order to exclude a) wild [kosher] animals; b) [non-kosher species of] domesticated animals; and c) fowl.
Rabbi Yose HaGalili says that the verse (Deuteronomy 14:21) states: “You shall not eat any neveilah (kosher species of animals that have died by any means other than kosher slaughter)… you shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” [This juxtaposition in the same verse teaches that species] which [can be] forbidden as neveilah (i.e., kosher species of animals) are forbidden to boil in milk (thus non-kosher species are excluded from the prohibition – so it is permitted to boil horse meat in milk in order to make glue); fowl which [can be] prohibited as neveilah (i.e., kosher species of birds) – is it possible that they are prohibited to boil in milk? The Torah teaches ,”in its mother’s milk”, excluding fowl which have no mother’s milk…. (Mechilta deRabbi Yishmael, Mishpatim, Massekhta dekaspa, Parasha 20)
The opinions of Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Yose HaGalili, and possibly the opinion of Rabbi Yoshaya (brought anonymously), are represented in chapter 8 of Mishnah Hullin and discussed in the Talmud there. Mishnah Hullin 8:1 states: “All meat is forbidden to boil in milk except for the flesh of fish and locusts (there are some kosher varieties), and it is forbidden to serve on the same table with cheese, except for the flesh of fish and locusts.”
The Babylonian Talmud (Hullin 103b) suggests that this formulation of the anonymous teaching of this mishnah may reflect the view that fowl is forbidden by the Torah (apparently, as Rabbi Yoshaya would derive the prohibition from one of the three repititions of the prohibition in the Torah). Indeed, a major authority in the Babylonian Talmud, Rav Yosef (circa 350 C.E.) holds that the final editor of the Mishnah (Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi – d. 200 C.E.) deliberately chose to decide the law according to this opinion, which Rav Yosef identifies as the opinion of “Rabbanan” (the majority of the Sages). A later, thus more authoritative, opinion is expressed by Rav Ashi (circa 430 C.E.), who rejects Rav Yosef’s opinion and interprets this mishnah to be consistent with Rabbi Akiba’s position as stated in Mishnah Hullin 8:4 (B.T. Hullin 113a): “Wild animals and fowl are not prohibited by the Torah, since ‘you shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk’ is stated three times to exclude wild [kosher] animals, fowl, and non-kosher domesticated cattle (e.g. pigs, horses, camels).”
The Talmud’s discussion of the opinions of Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Yose HaGalili (Hullin 116a) raises two possible interpretations: 1) Rabbi Akiba holds that both fowl and wild [kosher] animals are only forbidden to boil in milk by Rabbinic decree, but Rabbi Yose HaGalili holds that wild [kosher] animals are prohibited to boil in milk by Torah law, while fowl in milk is prohibited by Rabbinic decree; 2) Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Yose HaGalili also disagree regarding the status of fowl in milk – Rabbi Akiba holds that it is prohibited by Rabbinic decree, but Rabbi Yose HaGalili holds there is no prohibition whatsoever against eating fowl and milk together. Another teaching from the period of the Mishnah is adduced as evidence for the second interpretation: “In the place of Rabbi Yose HaGalili they used to eat fowl in milk.”
Post-Talmudic decisors of Jewish Law decide that the law follows Rabbi Akiba, that fowl in milk is forbidden by Rabbinic decree. Maimonides code of Jewish Law (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Foods 9:4) explains the reason for the Rabbinic prohibition most clearly:
… the flesh of wild [kosher] animals and of fowl, whether [boiled in] the milk of a wild [kosher] animal or of domesticated kosher cattle is not forbidden by Torah law, therefore it is permitted to boil it and it is permitted to derive benefit from it, but it is forbidden to eat it by Rabbinic decree, in order that people will not mistakenly come to violate the Torah prohibition of meat and milk by eating the meat of kosher domesticated cattle (=beef, lamb, goat) in the milk of kosher domesticated cattle (=milk of cow, sheep, goat), [mistakenly thinking] that the verse only prohibits [boiling] a kid in its own mother’s milk, literally, therefore they forbade all meat and milk.” (See also Mishneh Torah, Laws of Rebels 2:9.)
To sum it all up: Since people thought of fowl as meat, the Rabbis were concerned that if people were permitted to eat fowl and milk together, they would conclude that other types of meat must also be permitted with milk. They thus decreed that everything which people think of as meat should be prohibited to eat with milk, and decreed that fowl and kosher wild animals, which were not prohibited by Torah law, would henceforth by prohibited by Rabbinic law.
Click here to view all of the answers for this question.
Copyright 2020 all rights reserved. Jewish Values Online
N O T I C E
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN ANSWERS PROVIDED HEREIN ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL JVO PANEL MEMBERS, AND DO NOT
NECESSARILY REFLECT OR REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE ORTHODOX, CONSERVATIVE OR REFORM MOVEMENTS, RESPECTIVELY.