Dear New Member of the Jewish Community.
 
First of all, welcome. From the description you shared, it is obvious that yours is a profound embrace of Judaism. There was no imperative to convert, and every reason to avoid conversion precisely because of all the hardships you knew you would face, yet it did not stop you from moving forward as you did.
 
Truly inspiring.
 
I hope that, in spite of your doubts, you will find someone who deserves you. Please never give up.
 
Somehow, the question you ask does not seem to be consistent with the principled, even courageous decision you made to become Jewish.
 
Whatever money you might gain from prostitution is not worth how you would feel about yourself. Aside from the dangers inherent in such activity, and knowing, as you say, that it is "frowned upon," to put it mildly, it is pretty clear that you will feel de-valued through resorting to that.
 
For all the valiant effort you have gone through to become a member of the holy people of Israel, why do anything that is wholly incompatible with the holiness of Israel?
 
One question for you. Have you thought of going back to the Rabbinical Court  that endorsed your conversion, to ask them to actively seek out a potential life partner for you?
 
It is worth a try.
 
My best wishes to you for a blessed life of Ruth-ian proportions.
 
Rabbi R. Bulka      

The most basic value pertaining to your question is the matter of respect. We are obligated to treat everyone respectfully; by everyone, we mean everyone, even those about whom one may argue that they to not deserve to be treated respectfully. That is not our call, nor is it our right to treat people disdainfully.
 
Prisons are not necessarily places wherein respect is the order of the day. But if the objective of a prison stay is rehabilitation, disrespect is not conducive to rehabilitation. On the other hand, a prisoner who is treated respectfully has a greater chance of moving away from the anti-social feelings that may have precipitated the crime.
 
We are not condoning any crime by according people fundamental respect. Fundamental respect is not the same as deference, a more profound level of respect that may be more difficult to justify for a murderer or rapist.
 
As to wages, I am a bit perplexed. Prisons provide the basic necessities for the prisoners, including food, shelter, and clothing. Obviously, these are not of hotel quality. After all, prison is intended to be punishment for a crime committed; punishment with a purpose, but still punishment.
 
Technically, I am not sure there is any obligation to "pay" prisoners for work. It can be argued that work is part of prison life, if the prisoner is able. Wages seem like a questionable entitlement. So, any wages are by definition fair. 
 
What can be worse than unfair is a brutal work load. That is a form of disrespect, even cruelty, that has no place anywhere, including prison.
  

Thanks for your question.
 
Actually, there are many times in our lifetime that we are caught in challenging situations, wherein we must make difficult decisions. Consider, for example, the rabbi who has agreed to officiate at a wedding far away from hometown, and just before leaving, a synagogue member passes away. The rabbi cannot attend both, and is now faced with a no-win situation. Surely, whatever the decision, there will be criticism.
 
So, I approach this matter with great sympathy for William Shatner. But there are other issues you raised in your question that are worthy of note. This issue is not necessarily a matter of Jewish law (halakhah), and therefore Shatner's Jewishness is not a factor.
 
Charity is important, but that too is not as relevant as it might seem. Would Shatner's absence have caused  the charity to lose money? Was it a charity for the Arts, which is not in the same league as charity for the poverty stricken?
 
Sending a representative makes for good copy, but when there is a clear duty to fulfill, sending someone else is not an excuse for not living up to one's duty. Asking a representative to shake a lulav (palm branch) on Sukkot (Tabernacle Festival) for you does not cut it. Having someone attend a funeral on one's behalf is not the same as actually being there. 
 
Back to your question. William Shatner had no obligation to attend the funeral. Had he been not well, and unable to attend, fewer complaints or criticism may have been levelled. But whatever the reason, it is really no one's business to criticize. The proper Jewish reaction to this should be - well, we know they were good friends, so there had to be a good reason why Shatner could not attend.
 
As to Shatner, he knows as well as anyone that there are many ways to honour the memory of a friend or family member. These include visiting the family during the shiv'ah (mourning period), giving charity in memory of Leonard Nimoy, or even holding a benefit event in his memory dedicated to Mr. Nimoy's favorite charity.
 
The bottom line, after all is said, is that we should try to see things in a positive light, as you endeavor to do. That is better both for the departed and the living.
 
Rabbi Reuven P. Bulka, C.M.
 
 

Hi.
 
This is a question undoubtedly rooted in much pain, even intense pain.
 
A few comments. Closure is a word that is best avoided. We are not automatons. As people, with deep seated emotions, we cannot just turn the emotions off like a tap, and make believe they have disappeared. We best deal with our emotions not by artificially removing them, and instead by confronting them, and integrating them into our being.
 
So, for example, someone who has suffered the loss of a loved one is much better served by integrating the wonderful feelings generated by that relationship into one’s being. It is simply to go from “suffering from” to “suffering toward.”
 
Abuse and abandonment are terrible realities to deal with, but dealing with them head on, realizing that it was not you who perpetrated the evil, and that this is a growth opportunity, is a much more helpful approach. People who deal with these types of situations by becoming advocates, inspirations to others, never have closure. They keep on re-opening the past so that others can learn and grow.
 
That is much more helpful to everyone.
 
And therefore, I would definitely not recommend shiv’ah in such situations. I fully understand not wanting any more contact with the offending parent. But shiv’ah seems more like a backward step, too much inner oriented, and more likely to exacerbate than to heal.
 
I am more inclined for you to focus on the future, on ways that you can make an enhancing difference, by being a terrific parent, by joining organizations that fight abuse and showing others the way out of such trauma. You will have transmuted potential tragedy into true triumph.
 
Rabbi Reuven P. Bulka, C.M.  

Thanks for your question. I hope to not give you a pet answer!

There are issues with handling of pets regarding Shabbat observance. That
would be my first guess as to why some would think they have to give up
their pets.

Of course, not all pets are the same. Fish in a tank are not nearly as much of
an issue as dogs. But in fact, it is not necessary to give up a pet under
the circumstances you describe, and one can work within the Shabbat
regulations.

Your question is a legitimate question. But the last part is disturbing. I
recognize that many people really love their pets, but to equate them with
children, as you do, makes no sense. Animals deserve to be treated kindly,
as is the Jewish law, but we do not sit shiv'ah (seven days of mourning) and
say Kaddish (Doxology) for pets. Humans are the most sacred entities.

Granted that some people behave worse than animals, still the human being is
the crown of God's creation. We are not obliged to raise our dogs to be
Jewish, or to teach them Torah, but we are so obligated with our children.
Animals we must treat nicely, children we must love and nurture. That is our
religious duty. Why would we give that up?

Be well. Hug your kid and pet your dog.

Rabbi Reuven P. Bulka, C.M..

First, I deeply appreciate your sensitivity. It is very inspirational.
 
In a way, you just about answered your own question, probably much more eloquently than I will.
 
Let’s begin with a simple observation. There is really no such entity as Orthodox Jew, Conservative Jew, and Reform Jew. We are all Jews, period. We may differ in the degree of our embrace, but we do not need adjectives in front of the status as Jew. These artificial subdivisions create problems that we do not need.
 
Further, any mitzvah fulfillment that you take upon yourself genuinely represents what you want to do. What conclusion others jump to should not concern you. That is their problem.
 
You are absolutely correct that the mitzvot are generally independent of each other. For example, it would be absurd to tell someone who eats non-kosher food that they are not allowed to observe the Shabbat. On the other hand, there is a problem with a thief praying before God, but that is the subject for another discussion.
 
True, better that we all embrace the full package, but we never have espoused the “all or nothing” approach.
 
Your putting on a Tallit Katan is a wonderful idea, specially as it comes from such a considered and caring soul. By all means, GO FOR IT! And God bless you.
 
Rabbi Reuven P. Bulka     
 

Bone marrow transplants save lives. Saving lives is the greatest mitzvah, the greatest deed we can ever hope to achieve. We should be encouraging people to sign up in the bone marrow registry. We should encourage everyone who is old enough to give blood, because that too saves lives.
 
Since saving lives is the highest mitzvah, all other mitzvah opportunities are in second place. This means that if, because of donating an organ, the burial is delayed (it usually is delayed), that delay is not an issue, because saving life is more important.
 
This is an important question, because it brings out into the open the great life saving opportunities that did not exist many years ago. We have a unique chance to be life savers. There is nothing more holy than that. 
 

Let's take the second question first. You seem to think that your obligation to tell the truth is linked to whether you will be believed. That is a faulty premise. Your obligation to tell the truth is unconditional, independent of whether you will be believed. 
 
As to how you can earn or regain trust, there is guarantee you will ever regain that trust. You need to commit to telling the truth at all times. You need to ask yourself why you lied in the first place, and be able to answer the question honestly. Was it to cover up a theft, or a bad deed, a cheating of sorts? Did you put yourself into a position wherein you had no choice but to lie? Are you an habitual liar? These are serious questions you need to ask yourself.
 
The lie may be the end result of even more serious breaches. Whatever the case, you need to scrupulously avoid the circumstances that almost guarantee you will lie, and then you have to resolve that at all times, you will tell the truth even if it hurts you.
 
Those whose trust you want to earn or regain may never come around, as they may have been scorched too badly, or they may be the unforgiving type. Whatever the case, your focus needs to be on doing the correct thing. That IS in your hands. The rest is not in your hands. You can only hope the outcome, over time, will be as you desire.
 

This is a very hard question to answer. We do not know why God does things, because we are not God.
 
And we are not really sure that God let there be slaves in the USA, or in many other places in the world. Slavery is still happening in places far away. It is bad people who are doing this. The real question that you are asking, and it is a very important question, is - why does God let bad things happen?
 
I am not sure there is an answer. My best guess is that gave the world to us, and asked us to take care of it, to be nice, to be kind, to be respectful. Part of this plan is that the  world is ours to either maintain, or to destroy. God hopes we do the right thing, and that we fight against those who do the wrong thing. But if the world is ours, then we cannot expect God to interfere every time someone does something wrong.
 
If God gave the world to us, then it is really ours, not God's, and we have to look after it. Of course God cares, and it is very painful to see the bad things that people do, and even more painful to do nothing. But if God interfered, then it would not really be a gift from God to us. God would always be taking back.
 
Think of a parent who tells a child - "you are now mature enough to run your own life. Here is your allowance and do with it as you see fit." But every time the child spends the money on things the parent does not like, the parent interferes, tells the child off, and threatens not to give any more money.
 
You would say, and you would be right, that the parent has not been fair, and has not given the child real freedom. This applies also to God, if God would interfere every time someone does wrong.
 
Even as I send this answer to you, I realize that your question is better than my answer. Because the real truthful answer is - I do not know. Nor does anyone else know. And "I do not know" is a good answer, because we cannot know everything, and admitting that is a good thing.
 
But keep on asking questions.
 
 

Hi, dear 14 year old.
 
Thank you for an honestly presented question. There are probably many who have the same challenge you face, but less of a desire to integrate Jewish law and values.
 
Permit me for being equally forthright with you. On your correct presumption regarding masturbation, asking about doing it one last time is asking for permission to do something that really should not be done, the only justification for the request being that it will be done no more.
 
It is clear that you have a conscience, that you care, that you want to do what is right, but strong desires are getting in the way. You have my abiding admiration.
 
The question that you may want to ask yourself is as follows - what can I do to steer my focus toward other pursuits, so that masturbation is not a concern? You are only 14 years old, but apparently more mature than 14. Perhaps by concentrating on what you can do for others, how you can fill your time with volunteering, and study, the concentration on these pursuits will move you away from focus on your own pleasure, toward filling your life with meaning and purpose. We can never get enough of that; it is long lasting, and in the end will make you feel much better about yourself than running after a fleeting pleasure.
 
I wish you well in building a noble life.
 
Rabbi Reuven P. Bulka  
 
 

Interesting dilemma.
 
I do not know where you live, but if you are where there are many synagogues, see if another is more meaningful. Or, go to the less than meaningful one, and generate the meaning on your own rather than waiting to be turned on by the choir, or whatever.
 
Your alternative - friends, helping others, etc., has me baffled? Why does that have to be precisely at that time? Helping others need not be condensed into the prayer time. That you can, even should, do all year round.
 
Consider this - in advance of Rosh HaShanah, try helping others. Come into Rosh HaShanah full of kindness expressed, and then contemplate how you can make next year even better!
 
That should work.
 
Good luck to you, and Happy 5774!
 

Yours is a very good question. The entire subject of kitniyot is riddled with controversy, and as well with uncertainty, as was recently the case with quinoa.

The custom of avoiding kitniyot relates to the making of bread from these ingredients, and the fear that allowing its consumption on Pesah would lead the unschooled to have actual bread.

For the same reason, seeds such as sesame, which could be ground into flour, became problematic, for fear they would be mixed up with other seed-like grains. Remember that even within the Ashkenazi community, much was dependent on the custom that was embraced. Some families never embraced the sesame stricture.

In the larger picture, Kitniyot expresses the concern of the "religiously aware" community for those not as religiously aware. That everyone who knows must keep away from something so as not to mislead those who do not know is a most eloquent expression of sensitivity for everyone in the community.

In the to-and-fro regarding kitniyot, we should not foget the big picture message that we are all united, and should all be concerned for each other.

Rabbi Reuven P. Bulka 

It is interesting that this was framed as an ethical question. Why did the person posing this not ask – Is it right to lie to your boss…?

Is lying “just” unethical, or is it also wrong? Perhaps the question itself betrayed an attitude to lying that is itself the problem.

The Torah is clear that lying is wrong, indeed prohibited. People who lie usually lie for a reason. There is something to be gained from it – material advantage, making an impression, getting off the hook, etc. Why is this case any different?

Put another way, if such lies are not unethical, as per the question, exactly what lies are unethical?
 

 

As a generic question, apart from the nuances that accompany each situation, the answer is clear.

The children as you describe them are fully Jewish according to Halakhah. By what logic could anyone deprive them of any Jewish experience, seder or anything else?

Anyone who suggests differently is totally wrong, among other things.

And by what logic would we deprive them of having their father with them?

Who knows - the seder experience might even inch them closer to embracing Judaism. But even absent that possibility, there are no grounds to bar them from the seder.

Technically, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with your son and his girl friend joining you, as long as they stay within the bounds of halakhic propriety. But the standard within which to operate should be - "Is what I am asking the

 

As with almost everything else, the Jewish attitude to money is quite balanced. We are aware of the pitfalls deriving from being obsessed with money. Those who want, never have enough.

On the other hand, with money one can actualize abundant charity.

To those who contend that money is the root of all evil, we would counter that it is the attitude to money that is the problem. Those who seize the opportunity for money-related kindness have made wealth a virtue. Those who are miserly with their money are, in the view of our great thinkers, irreligous. That is because one of our basic religious tenets is that everything belongs to God, and those who are miserly behave as if the money is actually theirs. That is a rejection of God.

It is not only via money that we can be charitable. Our words and deeds, our time and concern, are likewise agents for the good. But money can be of immense help, and the charity opportunties made possible by the judicious and sensitive expenditure of money are enormous.

Finally, we express our love of God, as articulated in the famous Shema faith affirmation, via our material possessions. We are asked to love God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our resources (Deuteronomy, 6:5).

No more need be said.

Hi.

First, Mazal Tov.

Interesting question.

There are a number of reasons why this is not a major problem. One is that your grandfather's name is really Avraham, not Ava. Second, it is your grandfather, not your father. Third, you are not naming the child after your grandfather, you are (at least that is what you seem to suggest) just naming your child Ava because you like the name.

With all that, you might want to add a second name just so that it is clear your daughter's name is different from your grandfather's name, even though it already is.

Good luck, and may you ava lots of nahat from your daughter.

Rabbi R. Bulka

From your note, it seems that your mother is urging you to go to the memorial for your uncle on Yom Kippur and to forego Yizkor for your father. This has a disturbing ring.

Your uncle's family is non-Jewish, but even non-Jews know about Yom Kippur. I am baffled that they chose this day, Yom Kippur, which is not even on a weekend this year; it is in the middle of the week.

There seem to be lots of issues in this matter, and you are caught in the middle.

Jewish law on this is clear - Yom Kippur is sacred, and is not the time for a separate memorial ceremony and eating. Your place is in shul, praying, and reciting Yizkor.

Just to be fair, I strongly recommend approaching your uncle's family, and telling them that having this memorial on Yom Kippur is an affront to your uncle's memory and a breach of tradition that this would force you to trespass.

Hopefully, they will realize their error and re-schedule. If this was done deliberately (I really hope not), then you have reason to be upset. Your mother should be with you in urging your uncle's family to re-schedule the memorial. That would allow you to honor your father and your uncle.

All the best to you. And good luck with this challenge. 

 

 

The accepted custom is to not cut any hair on the body during the entire three week period, period. This includes Shabbat and Rosh Hodesh. Were it otherwise, it really would not ever be a three-week custom, since everyone would get a haircut and/or shave for Shabbat or Rosh Hodesh.

There is allowance for trimming the moustache prior to the week in which Tish'ah B'Av occurs, if it interferes with eating.

All the best to you.

Rabbi R. Bulka

Thanks for your question.

I am not sure what "some people" have been telling you, but your assumption is generally correct. If there was a sexual act without the break, that too would consitutute loss of status. A break absent any sexual act would not lead to loss of status.

I know that all this sounds somewhat bizarre in this era, but the main thrust is to encourage sexual propriety in the population. 

 

 

Thanks, Gabriela, for this question. I am responding somewhat reluctantly, as no one can presume to know why God does anything. God’s ways are different than ours. By soul mates, I guess you mean one’s intended spouse. The simplest response to your question is that if God has designated the intended, part of that designation would include the “game plan” to bring them together. As to why they are not brought together magically, and have to seek out the intended, perhaps this is by way of projecting that no one should expect blessing to be handed to them on a platter. They need to work for it. In this instance, it means to seek out one’s future spouse, and also to make sure that the seeker works on himself or herself to be the best possible “soul mate,” or is it “sole mate?” Working for blessing is a basic Jewish value. I hope this helps.             Rabbi R. Bulka

 

Your question touches on a very sensitive matter of history.

According to the Torah dictates, the Omer period was a joyous period of anticipation, literally a counting of the days leading up to Shavuot (Pentecost), simultaneously celebrating revelation and the bringing of the first fruits.

It was not a countdown; it was a count up, a welcome and happy counting.

Fast forward to generations later, and the blood libels accusing the Jews of drinking the blood of non-Jews at the seder.

Pesah became a festival observed with dread, as the Jews were at the mercy of the angry hordes who believed this libel.

Pesah and the weeks immediately following were soaked with Jewish blood. A joyous period was transformed into a melancholy time suffused with tragedy.

So, the fact that getting married in this period of time is problematic, to say the least, accurately reflects that no one was in a marrying mood then, during the period of exile following the destruction of the second Holy Sanctuary (Bet HaMikdash), when day-to-day survival was in peril.

This explanation may seem different than the more coventional connection of this time period with the death of the students of Rabbi Akiva, which itself may be connected with the Bar Kokhba rebellion which had Rabbi Akiva's strong support.

Jewish luminaries such as Rabbi Epstein of Arukh HaShulhan fame (Orah Hayyim, 493:1), are quite clear that the circumstances I referred to originally were key to this happy Omer period turning into a sad time.

On the positive side, the fact that we continue with the sadness today though the reasons no longer prevail, shows the abiding respect and appreciation we have for our ancestors, heroes and martyrs, whose uncompromising faith is the main reason we have survived to this day.

 

This is a very difficult question to answer, because Judaism says so much about these matters that it would take at least one massive book to give a full response. What I share with you is a mere speck in the ocean on this topic.

Judaism venerates wisdom and sagacity. This simple observation tells you much about veneration of the elderly. The elderly cannot play golf or baseball as well as the young, but the older they get, the more wisdom they acquire. If wisdom is the guage, then age is beauty. The more we age, the more fruitful in wisdom we become.

In Jewish law, we rise in the presence of the wise, and we rise in the presence of the elderly, uusually defined as over 70. This is not lip service, this is facts on the ground. We respect our parents, we by definition respect our grandparents, etc. The system is built on this notion. One great sage who "made it" at a relatively young age had to "grow old" quickly in order to be properly respected!

Not everyone who ages becomes wiser, intellectually or behaviorally. Dementia is a plague that affects close to 10 percent of the population. The rules of respect govern all the aged, including those afflicted with dementia. 

The shattered tablets containing the Ten Statements were placed in the ark together with the intact second set, as if to accentuate that one whose reality is shattered remains holy.

Respect, veneration, admiration - these are the basic parameters within which we approach aging, the aged, and the treatment of the elderly. The rest is commentary. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Intesting question.

 

Actually it is difficult to place an obligation on a government, specially when the government is a patchwork of different, and often differing parties.

 

No doubt there is a an individual obligation on everyone who is part of the governing process to be true to his/her promises. These are sacred, and must be kept, as long as it is within the porovince of the promiser to keep.

 

So, if a party plank is to look after every needy individual, that promise must be kept.

 

On the other hand, absent a promise, any government that tries to actually provide for every needy, indeed every need, will collapse under the burden. 

 

It is right for the government to look after its citizens, but even on such a basic as providing for the needy, there exists a fundamental difference in strategy on how to achieve this - whether by direct support, or by strengthening the economy and expanding the opportunities available.

 

This much it is fair to say - every government must, as its foremost responsibility, assure the safety, viability, and prosperity of the country and its inhabitants. That this is its primary moral responsibility is clear. What is unclear is how to best achieve this goal. 

 

 

 

Frankly, I am not sure what to tell you. From what I have seen, I am not overwhelmed with the most recent protest movement.

 

I am obviously in favor of the wealthy giving generously, but at the same time I am not in favor of others demanding that of them.

 

Occupying public property in a displacing way, as if entitled to do so, is not worthy of any support.

 

I am uneasy about Jewish leaders helping lead, but at the same time am not comfortable with staying on the sidelines.

 

If Jewish leaders were to lead, my inclination would be that they lead by urging the protesters to go back and reinvigorate their own lives with helpful contributions to the public weal.

We do spread the word, but we do not solicit converts.

 

Judaism is understandably primarily for Jews, but there is a component of law for the rest of the world. The fact that there are such laws, the "Noachide" laws, indicates quite clearly that we accept the reality of other religions.

 

There is no law in Judaism that we must change non-Jews into Jews, and there is no rule that only Jews have a share in the world to come. Quite the opposite - righteous non-Jews have a share in the world to come.

 

This is quite remarkable, that a religion, Judaism, affirms that members of other faiths are not disqualified from eternal bliss simply because they are non-Jewish. Other major reeligions are obliged to missionize, to save the non-members from the hell that awaits them for belonging to the wrong religion.  

 

It is our appreciation of others that explains why we do not try to change others. As long as they are righteous, they are fine. And the message of righteousness we do spread, but not in a partisan manner.

 

Another matter to contemplate is that non-Jews are not obliged to eat kosher, for example. Should we "twist their arm" and get them to join, however reluctantly, then if they eat non-kosher food, they will be transgressing. In other words, getting them to agree to embrace a faith and its obligations when they really do not want and will probably not fulfill, is doing them a dis-service. We do  them no favors by causing them to sin.

 

The important matter to realize in all this is that our reluctance to missionize is not because we do not want outsiders. It is because we value them as they are.

Bullets kill physically, and verbal bullets kill a person's reputation, or who the person is. Doing so is the equivalent of murder, as you rob the person's essence, or humanity. Since we are spiritual beings, robbing that spirit is a serious, even capital offense.

 

Innocuous gossip about stupid nonsense, such as what a person was seen doing, or eating, or buying, is often harmless. But personal attack, even if true, is out of bounds.

 

I hope that clarifies your concern.

Yours is a very honest and pertinent question. Put another way, how can we ask God for forgiveness of sins that we are about  to commit again?

 

In truth, it is ridiculous to ask this of God, as ridiculous as asking forgiveness from a friend whom we just cheated, and are already planning to do so again.

 

But there are two words in your question that are critical. These are the words - "probably unrealistic." What is "probably unrealistic" is still nevertheless possible. Once we are aware of our failing, as you seem to suggest in your question, we are at a very advanced stage of maturity. We can take an honest, detached look at ourselves.

 

We can, and should then ask ourselves the basic question - why am I committing this sin? And what stands in the way of my rejecting it, and renouncing it?

 

The focus on that question is more important than asking God for forgiveness, because that launches the critical process of repentance. The process is not easy, but once we are serious about it, we are on the way.

 

Then, we can approach God with the following - I am doing my best, trying to erase the demons. Please help me.

 

Good luck to you.   

If a man is not his sin at all, then why should that man be punished. It should be the one who is the crime, whoever that may be - the environment, the childhood poverty, the abusing parents.

 

Our wish, as per Tehilim, is that sin ceases, not the sinner (Psalms, 104:35; Berakhot 10a). Repentance, a great gift from God, is rooted in the hope that a person who has sinned can make amends, change course, and embrace the good. The entire book of Leviticus is replete with repentance strategies.

 

What perplexes me is your last sentence. The cousin went to jail. Is that the problem, or is the problem what the cousin did that led to the cousin being jailed? Then you say that we (not the cousin?!) are struggling with how this happened and how to rebuild.

 

Where is the cousin in all this? Is the cousin trying to rebuild? I know that it is unfair to draw conclusions, but I do wonder whether the problem here is that the family is more concerned with itself (family image?) and gives little meaningful attention to the cousin.

 

If that is the case, then the way to rebuild is to acknowledge this, and have serious, repentant discussions with the cousin in jail. The cousin is in jail, but the problem may be, partially at least, outside the jail.

 

My apologies if my thoughts are wrong, and I do hope mending will actually happen, and your cousin goes on to live a purposeful life.

 

 

But we will stay with Korbanot, which has been incorrectly translated as "animal sacrifice."

 

The overwhelming majority of the Korbanot in ancient times, which would be reinstituted, are, simply speaking, the preparatory for eating meat.

 

Today, this is done via shehitah in a meat factory. Then, and in the future, meat would be prepared in the sacred ambience of the Holy Sanctuary (Bet HaMikdash, what you referred to as the Temple).

 

If anything, it would add a welcome extra sanctity to meat preparation, and further highlight the balanced approach we take to the eating of meat; i.e., that it is permissible, but must be done with a profound awareness of how sensitive we must be in facilitating meat consumption.

 

We lose the notion of sanctity when we use a wrong translation and make loose comparisons to other animal sacrifices that we know of in today's age.

 

Any more careful study of the meticulous detail and respect that characterized the preparation of animals and birds in the Bet HaMikdash would clearly show that there is no omparison, and that Korbanot as carried out then would make us proud now.

 

 

We live in a world wherein the most private matters are public fodder. But Jewish tradition has always maintained and guarded the privacy of intimate matters. This is one of the prime areas wherein modesty, tzniut, is essential.

 

So, talking about these intimate matters in public is non-starter. The only place that is appropriate for such discussion is a private place.

 

Sexual dissatisfaction is a serious matter, a matter that is not acknowledged as much as it should be precisely because there is no legitimate place to share feelings and concerns about this.

 

I would go further and suggest that it is in the interests of each Jewish community to work on setting up very private, discrete places where these matters of a sexual nature can be discussed, with a view to addressing concerns associated with sexual satisfaction. This would include abuse, neglect, and lack of true love and intimacy.

 

The extent of this problem is much more prevalent than we think. Creating the space to discuss this issue will benefit everyone in the long run - the women, their husbands, their children, and the community.

Interesting question. There is a concept of "kefel" in Jewish law. When a person steals from another, the payback formula is not simply to return what was stolen. It is to pay back double (kefel). A theft of $100 would necessitate a payback of $200, a $300 theft $600, etc.

 

The operative logic is that the thief needs to learn how it feels to be deprived of the amount stolen. Simply returning what was stolen does no achieve that goal. Paying back double is more likely to achieve that goal. 

 

But it is not guaranteed, since if the thief is rich and the victim poor, the poor person will feel the loss more intensely. But the message is there.

 

A counter boycott is not a perfect solution, but it conveys displeasure as strongly as possible. 

 

Mass letter writing might help, but the anti-Israel boycotters are likely to dismiss these letters or  e-mails as contrived. A high level meeting with the boycotters to show the absurdity of their action might help. A full page strategic advert showing how a boycott of Israel would include advanced technologies and medicines that the boycotters rely on, unbeknown to them, would be helpful, but with no guarantee of success. 

 

Exposing the fraud in the boycott, at the same time that the boycotters turn a blind eye to terrorism and hate-mongering, might score some points.

 

But in the end, it is the bottom line that companies look at, which makes boycott the best of the alternatives in a messy situation. And if counter-boycott is the strategy of choice, it should be a full court press, using every social media available to make the counter-boycott as powerful as possible. 

 

 

Somehow, I find it hard to accept that this is what Rav Elyashiv actually said. From what I know, this is a copyright law which is the law of the land, and it makes little sense that Rav Elyashiv would ignore this.

 

So, having no evidence aside from hearsay, I am assuming it is a misquote.

 

As to your own band issue, it seems clear that they do not mind the concert recording precisely because it is not sterling quality. Ignoring the rules is not kosher. Why not send them a letter asking them? That way you will be sure. Who knows - they may actually send you a free first rate copy. 

Frankly, I do not understand the question. Assume that the sexual messages being exchanged are not over the internet, but more directly. You would say - that is horrible. So by what dynamics does the fact that it is on the internet make it kosher? The internet is not a cleansing agent.

 

As to pornography, the only thing good about it is that it makes good material for fires. Pornography is, before anything, a mind polluter, and therefore out of bounds. It is also demeaning to both men and women, who rather than being sanctified, are instead objectified. That is unacceptable.

 

We are not squeamish when it comes to sex. We consider sex to be the most sacred of human expressions. We utterly reject porn and frivolous sexual chatter because they de-sanctify sex and rob sex of its spirituality. Sex in the right place, at the right time, in the right circumstance, is transcending. But reduced to a mere animalistic expression, it is ugly, precisely because of its potential to be so sacred. 

Have you tried asking your kids the following question - How would you feel if the person being embarrased is you? I hope they will respond with - I would not like it.

 

Once they say that, you have your opening. You can go on about hypocrtical (a good word for the modern generation) is their enjoying heaping on others what they would not want heaped on themselves. That should be an easy sell.

 

You can try speaking about the dangers of being embarrassed. People who are subject to embarrassment often go off the deep end in despair. Would they want to be part of that, of aiding those who delight in ruining other peoples' lives?

 

If these arguments do not win the day, then you have more serious problems with your kids than you realize.

 

Good luck to you. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If the girl is in danger, you have no right to remain silent. You must, in an effective manner, convey this to the mother, and not tomorrow; you must do it yesterday.

Please tell me how much sense it makes to suggest that God gave us a mandate to destroy God's world? That would be absurd. As absurd as saving money to buy your child a car, and then giving the child the car with the permission to destroy it.

 

Consider the verse in question (Genesis, 1:28) - "be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, the bird of the sky, and every living thing that roams on the earth."

 

To "rule over" (dominion) is a huge mandate, but we know that good rulers are those who respect their constituents.

 

It is for this reason that we have a concomitant mandate to avoid any destructive endeavors (see Deuteronomy 20:19-20). This goes for trees, for anything that breathes, for the world.

 

Life saving, in almost all instances, trumps any other Jewish value, but to destroy is, under normal circumstances, a gross distortion of God's vision for us.

 

There may be people, ostensibly religious, who claim they have a right to destroy. But they have no such right, no matter how much they claim to have it. And even less do they have a right to distort and to misrepresent God.

 

 

 

 

As a general rule, even though there are priorities in charity, i.e., which takes precedence; ultimately which charity a person decides on is an individual choice.

 

We cannot tell people what to do with their money. We can set parameters, but we cannot dictate.

 

Why should corporate owners of natural gas have greater obligations to the state than orange tree growers? And why must it be to social programming? Why not to hospitals?

 

The best solution is to hope the private corporate owners will have a sense of communal responsibility, and support Israel in a way that is meaningful and helpful. 

 

 

 

I assume that the neighbor is one of the couple.

 

 

We do not really have a definitive community on whose shoulders would rest the charity responsibility. It is essentially individuals, and they have the right to choose which charities they embrace, even in the face of priorities. The priorities do not preclude individual choice which goes contrary to the priorities. There is no trumping issue, as the choice is yours.

 

 

And yes, you can choose to give to non-Jews. Or, more importantly, finding them both a job would probably be most helpful, for their dignity and long range welfare.

 

Rabbi Reuven Bulka

 

 

 

 

 

There is an excellent book on this subject, titled THE LAWS OF TZEDAKAH AND MAASER, by Rabbi Shimon Taub.

 

He actually spells out the priorities. The priorities are a very useful guide, but in the end, should you give Tzedakah different from the priority guidelines, it is still a very big mitzvah.

 

Here are the priorities:

 

 

1. the donor himself;

2. wife and small children;

3. rebbe who taught without taking payment;

4. parents;

5. grandparents;

6. young adult children;

7. rebbe who taught and was paid;

8. grandchildren;

9. brothers and sisters;

10. uncles and aunts - father's side;

11. uncles and aunts - mother's side;

12. cousins - father's side;

13. cousins - mother's side;

14. remaining relatives;

15. divorced spouse;

16. close friends;

17. neighbors;

18. people from the same city;

19. people living in Jerusalem;

20. people living in the rest of Israel; &

21. people living in other cities outside Israel/

 

Number 15 is a big surprise for many, and a very instructive notion.

 

In any event, here you have it. I hope it helps.

 

Rabbi Reuven Bulka

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Presuming that the body part involved has halakhic sanction for whatever procedure, the money part is essentially a non-issue.

 

For example, if someone wanted to give blood for money, or a kidney, and it was legal according to the laws of the land, there would be no halakhic problem with charging. Is it better to make this a pure gift? Absolutely.

 

But there is a very strong likelihood that given the massive shortage of kidneys, and the acute need, the selling of organs, under strict controls, may become legal. 

 

As a life saving procedure, it is actually hard to defend the law which prohibits the sale. In Jewish law, aside from a few exceptions, nothing stands in the way of life saving. That makes much more sense. 

Actually, Hanukkah speaks to two audiences - the Jewish community and the global community.

 

To the Jewish community, the main message is - stand up for your beliefs. Pre-Hanukkah, most Jews abandoned ship. Only a handful resisted the tempting offer of Live as Jews, and you have nothing, not even your life, but give up your Judaism and you will have everything. We do not exist on the basis of following the majority; we survive and thrive based on doing what is right, even if we are a minority within a minority, as was the Pre-Hanukkah demographic. It would be horrible if the result of living in a free world is that we willingly reject what our ancestors gave their lives to protect.

 

To the global community, the main message is that we should have zero tolerance for any oppression, and no matter how bleak things look, in the end justice and truth will prevail.

To clarify, there is no difference in how the blessings are recited on Friday before Shabbat. The blessings are always recited prior to the lighting, Friday, and every other day.

 

As a general rule, we grab a mitzvah opportunity at the earliest point, and "just do it." So, the moment that Chanukiah (menorah) time arrives, that is when lighting should take place.

 

Singing in advance delays the fulfillment that beckons for immediacy. After lighting, singing to your heart's delight is welcome and very fitting.

 

Best wishes for a happy, joyous, musical, and timely Hanukkah!

As a general rule, life saving trumps all concerns, so if it is a matter of life and death, of course the money can be accepted. It is even arguable that the money must be accepted if the alternative is death.

 

But the debt remains. If it is stolen money, the money used to save life still needs to be returned.

 

I notice you ask about a Rabbi. Why would a Rabbi be dfferent than anyone else? Everyone is beholden to Jewish law, Rabbi or not.

 

On the matter of "very badly needed," that is somewhat more complicated. Needs are usually relative, and it is easy for people to justify inappropriate actions by saying that it was as a result of a "very badly needed" circumstance.

 

Additionally, knowingly accepting money acquired illegally is a clear Hillul haShem, a desecration of God's Name. There is no room for such behavior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The book you refer to raised a firestorm, as it should have. There was great debate as to whether this was an advocacy book, or a research book.  

 

Was the author advocating a position, or collecting sources on an issue?

 

Either way, the matter is serious, and affects not only Israel as a State, but Judaism as a humane religion.

 

No one I know in the Orthodox world has embraced this book. In fact, just the opposite. And certainly the position advocated (if indeed it was advocated) is not acceptable.

 

This book made lots of noise, but will not be embraced as an official position, because it is not.

This is a vexing issue, wherein it is surely not clear cut, though both sides of the issue are quite convinced their position is the correct one. The first question that we need to address is - who decides? Whose feelings should be the dominant ones? Should it be the families of the victims? Should it be the city of New York? Should it be the residents of Manhattan, or all New York City, or all New York State?

The families of the victims certainly have the strongest feelings, and are very strongly opposed. Since it is they who were and remain most affected, their feelings cannot be ignored. The tribunal that voted in favour of this project going forward should re-visit their decision now that they know the feelings of the families.

At no time should hate be allowed to enter into the equation. This goes for those who are raising their voices, and as well for the sponsors, who have been quoted as saying some pretty radical remarks which would disqualify them from constructing an Islamic Community Center anywhere, not merely near Ground Zero.

In the Jewish way, when there are issues of this sort, we try to bring the sides together to see if there is a way of bridging the gap. The tribunal would be well served to re-visit by bringing the sides together, and reaching an understanding.

The issue needs to be spelled out without rhetoric. It is not a freedom of religion issue, as some have suggested, since there are all sorts of restrictions on where worship places can be built; every city has zoning laws. It is also not a legal issue. It is more a moral matter, and should be treated as such, with the ultimate aim of reaching a solution that is conducive to harmony rather than to conflict.

No spouter of hate should be allowed to open anything anywhere. Hatred of others should not be a factor. Sensitivity to the deceased, and their families, should definitely be the key. And whatever is built in the vicinity of ground zero should harmoniously reflect the sanctity of the place, and the precious memory of the martyrs.

Technically, swordfish do have scales, but these scales cannot be removed without taking fish flesh with it. Hence they do not qualify as true scales, as coverings. The swordfish are therefore not considered kosher. It is obviously not proper to serve swordfish to anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have phrased the question in an interesting way. I am not  sure what you were planning to do, but let's begin with the obvious - whatever you do, make sure you do not break the law of the country in which you live, and do not do anything that brings disgrace on the cause, on yourself, or on the Jewish people.

Further, when advancing this worthy cause, do not break Jewish law to achieve your goals.

 

Interesting question. We should be paying attention to all of the bill, as Jews interested in everything that happens in Israel, and we should be responding only to the parts of the bill that affect the Diaspora.
 

 

 

 

 

Frankly, I am not really sure what is your question. Are you referring to post-1948 only? What perspective is it that you mention in your question - a general perspective, a detailed perspective? And I am also not sure about the link between perspective on the State of Israel and the position of Jews in  the Diaspora.

 

For about 2,000 years, we have yearned for a return to our homeland. That prayer-wish was fulfilled in 1948. Since then, the prayer for return to our homeland has not changed, even though we are there. Aside from the general reluctance to tamper with prayer, there is ample reason not to change the prayer. For one, many Jews are not free to move to Israel. Another consideration is that Israel today is not quite the fulfillment of our dreams; on the way, but not quite there. The world around Israel is still too precarious. 

 

Jews in the Diaspora undoubtedly feel that the re-establishment of the State of Israel marks a watershed moment in Jewish history. We feel an obligation to stand up for Israel, to support it, even to champion it. To do anything less would be a signal failure on our part to be grateful to God for this miracle. In the unfolding destiny of the Jewish people, it would be impossible for Israel not to be a central focus of Jewish religious expression today. Post-1948, this takes the form of more than yearning; it takes the form of profound appreciation and hope.

 

 

Thanks for your question. I am a bit unsure of your situation. You say that your grandmother and grandfather were both Jews. Are they your paternal or your maternal grandparents?

 

 

 

 

Probably the same as when there is a Rabbi available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a very sensitive matter. As you know, the Torah law clearly prohibits homosexuality, so use of the term "observant" for  the couple is problematic. Adoption from a non-Jewish source requires conversion, for which the Rabbinic Court would want to make sure that the adopting family raises the child in full accord with Jewish tradition, so you can see the difficulty in this.

Insofar as school is concerned, it is difficult to justify schools turning down any Jewish child.

The ethical treatment of workers is already a basic component of employment law in Judaism. The respect for employees, the payment of wages on time, assuring that employeees do not labor in slave like conditions, are already operational, and have been from time immemorial.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact that tattoos are not a bar to Jewish burial should not be seen as a capitulation, or as a dropping of the objection to tattooing. That objection remains unabated, as does the revulsion at the practice.

Your premise is open to question. With all the so-called newer, more humane methods, I would vigorously champion the Jewish way, known as shehita (I hate using the word slaughter, because of its obvious and misleading connotation).

 

 

 

 

We begin with the very basic notion that cremation is a breach of the Biblical mandate that those who die must be buried (Deuteronomy, 21:23).

 

From your question, it appears that one of the couple does not want to be cremated. The issue then is how to handle this issue within the marriage. Sharing information on the importance of being buried as being a fundamental Jewish principle is a good starting off point. From there, it might help for the anti-cremation spouse to share the desire to rest together even after death, a reality that is impossible with cremation. Nor is there a possibility of setting up an appropriate monument. 

 

Another serious issue is the matter of what happens if the spouse wanting to be cremated dies first. This will place the surviving, anti-cremation spouse in the very uncomfortable position of either doing something that violates Jewish law, or, as is the rule in this instance, to proceed with burial according to Jewish tradition and ignoring the spouse's wishes. The realization that the cremation wish is a complicating one may cause the cremation-desiring spouse to re-consider. 

 

Failing that, this can possibly be a serious intrusion on marital harmony, such that a meeting with the couples' rabbi might be in order. But it is a "burning" issue that needs to be resolved.