He or she would only need to stay on board as long as there was a reasonable expectation that their expertise might help save lives
Once that moment passed he or she need not give up their lives for nothing
“Reasonable” in this context does not mean a more than 50% chance of success
but there must be a substantial likelihood (say 25% or so) that something positive will occur
There are many sources on this
One of the most famous is Ezekiel Landau’s (the Nodeh Beyehudah’s) response on  hunting in which he says that sport hunting is prohibited as too dangerous while if it is the persons profession he may hunt for a living

There is no prohibition or hesitation in Jewish law about breeding dogs as long as they are treated humanely and as long as people are kept safe from the dogs

the earliest responsa on this topic took the position that the woman in whose body the baby grew and who provided the nourishment for the child is the mother for all things

that would be true regardless of how many DNA donors

recently the chief Rabbi of Israel and some others have said that it is the genetic mother who is the mother

I do not believe they have dealt with the question of multiple donors though the possibility of multiple mothers does exist in the literature

At present this is seen as adebate and so regardless of who is Jewish and who is not the baby is converted as a matter of doubt

There is no question about refusing to write the letter

if one writes positively but inaccurately, you may well cause loss to the prospective employer and that is not ethical

Unquestionably not

First Jews do not impose Jewish law on gentiles except in very limited contexts called the 7 Noahide laws which deal with things like murder and theft

We consider it disrespectful to tell others how to run their lives except for certain basic societal norms necessary for civilization to exist

Even within a Jewish state while there is great emphasis on reducing or eliminating poverty that is often more a local government concern than an overarching act of the national government possibly because it was felt that local governments were able to respond more appropriately to people's needs

Third the formulation suggests opposition noy just to poverty which is fine, but also to wealth

Judaism does not oppose wealth if iot is gained legitimately

For sources and further discussion see Aaron Levine's seminal Free Enterprise in Jewish Law

Certainly charity giving, tithing, responding to needs that arise is required

But not with an attitude that suggests that being wealthy is a problem that needs to be solved

You have actually reached the head of the conversion committee of the RCA

Our conversions are recognized by the Chief Rabbinate in Israel

We can certainly help any sincere candidate

check the RCA site and contact R Michoel Zylberman the administrator of the program

He will probably direct you to me \or you could call me directly at 202 258 5172

If you convert outside the RCA in America our policy is that we may or may not stand behind such a conversion

also there are some non-RCA courts that are accepted in Israel and some that are not

Good Luck

If you can afford it you can pay a sofer to write one

if not writing or arranging for one letter or arranging for fixing one letter is enough

 

you can donate or loan the Torah

Good Luck

It has some impact

But nowadays most of those who would be sent back by the West can be presumed to be dangerous to people's lives in our countries once they return

Hence there are serious limitations in Jewish law on such exchanges

Also the Mishna in Gittin precludes trading hostages for more than their value

that usually neans no more than a one to one swap

All of that having been said we still must understand the powerful emotions pushing to get people back at all costs

that doesnt make it right

but it makes it more understandable

God gave us technology to use in positive ways

All technology comes with the potential to use it in inappropriate ways

as long as you are careful TV and internet are fine

as an example there are dozens if not hundreds of Torah sites on the web

At this point since there has been very little success actually curing anyone with stem cells so that its value is in its potential using stem cells from unclaimed frozen embryos after 5 years is fine

If the fetus is still viable that would be somewhat more problematic and aborting a fetus for the stem cells would be forbidden

Things may change as the science progresses

meaning if people's lives are saved the stance will potentially be more lenient

on the other hand if it is shown that adult stem cells can do the job as well or even better then the position will become more restrictive

The Ner Tamid in our synagogues is only a symbolic representation

There are really no rules as to its location or shape

Mardi Gras (or Fat Tuesday) serves as a celebration before the aescetic period of Lent that begins on Ash Wednesday.

As such its Christologic associations are obvious and problematic.

Also the behaviors often associated with Mardi Gras in, for example, New Orleans, its home base in America, are not those that Judaism traditionally embraces (to say the least).

Celebrating Purim instead would seem to be a better idea.

 

Without a community or a rabbi conversion is not possible because a convert needs someone to study with and a community to provide structure and support. 

There has been great debate on the questioin of surrogacy but in the past few years some lenient positions have emerged

If those positions are accepted there is no problem with paying for the surrocacy

There wpuld be hesitancy about using a relative as a surrogate

The biggest question that remains is who is actually the mother of the child

The egg donor or the woman who carries the baby

That is an active debate with no clear resolution

The Israel protests were non-violent and did not include people getting in the way of small businesses, urinating and defecating in public and other anti-social acts, including carrying anti-Semitic signs.

Also the Israeli protests began with a clearly defined concern - i.e. that the price of most rental partments is more than many people's salary.

None of this was true in the U.S.

In fact, over time, the Israeli protests added issues and lost some focus and the support went down.

Moving a grave is a very serious matter in Jewish law

it can only be done if the grave is in danger of being desecrated

if the body is being moved to Israel or to a family plot

or if there was a plan prior to burial

also once a grave is vacated no one else may be placed in the same plot

thes rules make this suggestion very problematic

Despite the fact that most people call Rosh Hashannah the Jewish New Year

 

It is the anniversay of the creation of the human being and as such it is the universal new year as the holiday liturgy explicitely says

 

On this day God decides what kind of year everyone, Jew or gentile will have

 

As such the greeting was more than appropriate

 

The actual Jewish New Year is Passover when we were redeemed from slavery in Egypt and became a nation

Gemara requires a particular type of mind to be completely successful at it

there are many other areas of Jewish study that are worthwhile

Bible, Halakhah, Jewish Thought, etc

The Netziv (Naphtali Zvi Yehudah Berlin had trouble with Gemara as a youth yet grew to be the "last" Rosh Yeshiva of Volozhin

 From an Orthodox perspective she is not Jewish

WE also dont condone premarital sex

and going to Mikvah is not relevant to someone in her position

or in yours

All the Rabbinic organizations should instruct their Rabbis and all Rabbis should include this  in their pre-marital counseling sessions that should be mandatory for all couples whose weddings they perform

All Mikvahs should have this material on display

all JCC's and similar organizations should also have such material available and accessible

Jewish law requires that any nuisance done on my property be kept at sufficient distance so that it does not negatively impact my neighbor as such a neighbor can ask for consideration in such a case.

 

The Talmud for example deals with winnowing grain where the chaff will carry to a neighbor's property and requires that reasonable precautions be used to prevent this that would seem to be the precedent in this case.

There is no question in my mind that the killing of bin Laden was more than justified by Jewish law. As a matter of self-defense, he was plotting additional attacks on a regular basis, and with his track record of blood and pain, there was every reason to believe that at least some of those plans would end in the deaths of innocents. Also, having him as a prisoner would be far more dangerous than having him dead, because his imprisonment would attract violent retaliation and particularly kidnappings, with demands that he be set free or that hostages would be killed.

Further, in Jewish tradition, you have examples of people who are killed to serve as an example to others. You find this in the case of the gatherer of twigs who was the first to violate explicit Jewish law in the desert, you find it in the case of Akhan who took from the spoil of Jericho, and you find it in other cases as well. If anybody should serve as a model, UbL was certainly one.

 

As for the joyous and even raucous celebration, Jewish tradition is unequivocal: "At the fall of your enemy, do not rejoice." There are several reasons why this is true. First, is the scene of people chanting, "U-S-A" really the image you want to be forever associated with this very serious moment? (any taking of life must be serious).

Second, this is not condign justice. bin Laden's death did not in any way equal the suffering that he caused. As such, we have a right and perhaps an obligation to challenge God himself as to why the justice was incomplete, but if we rejoice we lose that challenge. We also lose the impetus for self-reflection towards analyzing how such an individual came to that type of influence in this world and how we can prevent that again.

 

Finally, engaging in raucous celebration is the first step towards cruelty, particularly since the relatives of the victims were not rejoicing in that fashion. Tragic events as well as joyous events are tests of our moral fiber. Usama bin Laden, as evil as he was, and as much as killing him was appropriate, was still a human being. Raucous celebration just opens the door to the acceptance of revenge and cruelty as appropriate behaviors. That is not something we should want to endorse.  

 

It would certainly be appropriate to send a card acknowledging the deceased and the family's loss. This is not really an occasion for gifts.

 While I certainly see the pain and suffering, taking a human life is anathema to Judaism. This person is alive, and if she is unplugged from life support, that would be killing her. As long as the centers of her brain that control respiration are functional, she is still a person. It is in God’s hands whether and when she is to die. The doctors should test whether she has any reaction to noxious stimuli, such as a deep sternum rub, and through use of something called the apnea test whether her breathing centers are functional at all. If both tests are negative, then many would allow her to be declared dead, but if there is a reaction to these tests on her part, then she is still alive and we must always be mindful that human life is infinitely valuable and precious.

 There is no specific requirement for you to speak, and it's certainly sufficient to say what you suggest. The purpose of a eulogy is to allow people to express the pain of the loss. That does not have to be done by the son or any particular individual, but it should be done by someone or some set of people. 

Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism refers to two different things. The first is the impact on the world by the actions that we do in a spiritual sense. The second is the impact on our own essence, which then translates into whether and how we are reincarnated. Stated that way, these are really not Jewish concepts, though there are some parallels to some mystical ideas that speak about the cosmic consequences of the actions we engage in.

Reincarnation is also not a mainstream Jewish position. So again, except for a small part of the mystical universe, this would have no resonance with Jewish thought.

There is a problem taking interest from a Jew under any circumstances

but there is a way around it called a heter iska

This is a document that must be signed as parft of the loan

there are several models that work

one of the simplest is to agree to pay the lender an amount for record keeping which just happens to be the same as the interest would be if there were interest allowed

absent a document like this no interest can be charged

and even with this document we are charging an administrative fee

not interest

the forms are available online at the Rabbinical Council of America website (I believe) or from your LOR (local Orthodox Rabbi)

In Orthodoxy there would be no hesitation about accepting a convert into a rabbinical or cantorial school and I know several who have studied, been ordained and served in those positions including at least one who converted with me

 There are no specific laws that I know of

however community custom would prevail

meaning that the usual wages for work that is similar to what this person is doing should control

also people can form a union under Jewish law and negotiate that way

First its a Jewish problem and not just an Orthodox problem for 2 reasons.

one Conservative Judaism requires a Get and at least theoretically the problem can still arise and

second because an Agunah by Orthodox definition will not be able to marry someone who is traditional or marry officially in Israel

 

On the other hand this should be on the way to being nobody's problem

The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) some ten years ago accepted and has been promoting a pre-nuptial agreement that has been essentially universally effective in solving the problem

the document is available at the RCA website and if we could get all Rabbis to require its use the problem could be solved in a generation

 

 

The rules in Jewish Law for such a circumstance (which I do believe is a serious breach of the marital bond) are the following:

Will what you say make a significant difference in the situation (e.g., the wife won't go into denial)

if so;

you must say the least amount necessary to affect the change

you must have no other agenda (e.g., revenge) in doing this

You must be absolutely sure its true

 

Good luck

this is a tough situation

 

 There would be no reason in jewish law to oppose a DNR in this case

We are not required to call people back from heaven (as it were) particularly when they are this compromised

however if someone (and hopefully the family is reflecting this person's expressed desire) wants to continue to live even a very compromised life

no one has the right to take that life from them and no DNR order is appropriate

Judaism views sanity and mental illness as different depending on the circumstance

The Talmud describes an insane person as one who sleeps in cemeteries, tears his clothes, breaks things without reason

An insane person cannot serve as a witness in a capitol case

that means that someone who does one of these things or anything similar is excluded

An insane person cannot give his wife a divorve

before we declare someone insane in a divorce case he would have to do all of these three things and more, so that we not tie up his wife without a divorce

my point is that sane and insane are not precise terms

what Judaism does is help us find a moral and ethical way to deal with every situation

that makes things more controlled and therefore more sane

but there will always be circumstances where depending how you define it and the definition is not precise there will be insanity in someone's eyes

 The better question is, what does it mean to America (or a piece of America) that it has violated its principles of Freedom of Religion?

 

What Jews would do depends on the reality that would emerge.

What would be the consequences of doing a circumcision?

How likely is it that one could do it and get away with it?

 

We do not recognize the government's authority to regulate our religion this way

There are historical parallels (e.g., during the Hadrianic persecutions 132-135 CE) of Jews defying anti-circumcision laws on pain of death from the government.

I hope we don't need to go back to that type of life or anything similar. 

 

 

As a general rule they can

There are some exceptions

For example the Talmud says that a gentile cannot keep Sabbath as that ritual is a sign between God and Israel

By the same token intensive study of Torah is also precluded

On the human side of this question I would wonder why someone would do this

If the practices are meaningful consistency would suggest conversion

And if they are not- why bother?

One has no choice but to keep everyone alive

It is not our legitimate choice to take someone's life, it is God's

However if someone has indicated that they dont want major efforts to keep them alive in a situation where they are seriously compromised- for example not wanting major surgery if one is in a persistant vegetative state- that is a legitimate decision to make

One can let the desease take its natural course

But the decision  must be made by the person themselves while they are competent. It is not anyone else's life to decide on.

 Judaism views the body as sacred and injuring it inappropriately is a serious violation of Jewish law.

However if there is a serious psychological or physical reason that will be helped by cosmetic surgery or reconstructive surgery then it is permitted and even to be encouraged

Vanity would not be sufficient, but helping with a significant psychological concern is acceptable

Traditional authorities are opposed to celebrating this day:

In Jewish law the employer must provide an appropriate work environment. If he is not you could take action against him

A lawyer might be able to help you

Yes the economy is difficult so getting advice from someone who can hear the entire story and all the details is a good idea

These laws are a mixture of customs traditions and laws. They are strongly held and violation does take one out the tradition. I live in DC and know that it is all but impossible to be buried in Arlington and keep the traditions, but military aspects such as use of the flag to cover the coffin can be used at a Jewish cemetery that won't violate anything and might meet your need to show respect for youe military service.

Your question would require a small book to answer

but the good news is that the US military provides Rabbis as Jewish chaplains to answer your questions

I would also advise that you find a rabbi who you trust who will be available by phone or email

in basic terms if you are involved in actually saving lives you may do whatever you need to do

if there is a real potential for saving lives but the danger is not present and immanent you may be able to violate rabbinic law but not biblical law

you are also free to return from life saving missions on Shabbat

Good luck and I hope you find the right guidance

Your sacrifice and commitment honors us all

Under the current law the right of return applies to Reform and Conservative converts as well as Orthodox as long as it was done by a Rabbi on the approved list. So the answer is essentially yes.

I am the chair of the Rabbinical Council of America's Geirus policies and standards committee. We have converted people who match that profile as long as we are confident that they live in circumstances where they can live an observant lifestyle.

Despite a Rabbinic comment that verses in the Bible should not be used as common songs, many such passages, along with words from the prayers appear regularly in both contemporary Jewish religious music and in the music of past generations. One of the arguments in favor is that this music inspires and draws people to Judaism who might otherwise be estranged. The same is true for the concerts you mention and so most people accept them as fine.

Afterlife is a central belief of Judaism

The word Sheol which appears a number of times in the Bible is the ancient Near eastern word for "afterlife"

Also Saul raises the prophet Samuel from the dead in one biblical story. He clearly comes from somewhere.

But the Bible and rabbinic literature offer no clear (or even unclear) picture of the afterlife.

In fact their is a book by an author whose last name is Paull that describes over 100 different portrayals of the afterlife in Jewish literature.

The reason is that our task is to do our work here and make this world as good a place as it can be.

Too much dwelling on the afterlife and we will stop focusing on that task.

As a result Judaism simply promises an afterlife as a guaranteed reward for doing what we can do here to fullfill our task- all the while knowing that a reward waits for us at the end of our days.

For traditional Judaism sex is understood to be part of the sanctified relationship of marriage

Sanctity always implies uniqueness, specialness and restriction

Since sex is the most intimate sharing that people can have it was always seen as something that was to be celebrated and enjoyed within the lifetime commitment of marriage

There is a profound difference between religious observance and real religiosity.
 

Hopefully, observance moves a person in the direction of spiritual and moral living through its symbols and the underlying reasons for the rituals, but sadly there is no guarantee.

For one who wants to move in that direction observance can be a great help, but one can do things simply from habit and rote.

Rabbinic leaders need to direct their teachings appropriately.
 

Texts must be chosen that reflect these values as a primary theme, and people need to be moved from their complacency. It is a big job.

 

I will reveal something in this response that only a few people know.
 

The military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy was based on an article called "Homosexuality and Halakhah" that appeared in The Journal of Halakha and Contemporary Society in the mid-late 1980's.
 

The article took the position that in Jewish law there is no such individual as a homosexual (there is no term in Jewish legal literature for "homosexual"). The only thing Judaism has is a Biblical prohibition against homosexual activity. What follows is that an individual who never engages in such activity but only has desires for same gender sex bears no opprobrium in Jewish law and carries no special designation. Further, someone who privately acts on these desires should be made welcome in a synagogue just as many people who do not fullfill all the laws are made comfortable, as long as they do not publically advocate for or display that violation. The article goes on in this way, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military used it as the basis of the idea that all individuals may serve as long as they do not proclaim themselves publicly as to what they did or thought about in private.

As such the military's current policy in this regard is very much in line with Jewish thought.
 

The Israeli military follows Israeli law not Halakha or Jewish law, and the two legal systems are not the same.
 

Oh, by the way, the author of the article used by the Joint Cheifs and the author of this response just might be the same person.

First, violating the law is prohibited and use of these drugs is illegal

Second, the culture that surrounds drugs is different than that which surrounds alcohol. People don’t see alcohol as providing new dimensions to their personalities or opening new spiritual vistas- but drugs often come with those types of cultural associations.

Third, if someone needs a drink to loosen up before every party they attend people recognize that they have a problem. Someone who does marijuana that way is considered “cool”. All of that is problematic.

Fourth, I am also troubled by an attitude that one hears frequently that suggests that a person is less than complete if they haven’t experienced drugs. In Jewish thought, human beings were created as the best of God’s works and we shouldn’t need mind altering drugs to be fully human.

Finally, a famous story has Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Supreme Court justice telling of how he “discovered the fundamental truth of the universe” while under the influence of a drug that had been administered to him during surgery. When he woke after the drug’s influence had passed, he discovered from some notes he made while the drug was still having its effect that this essential truth was that the room he was in smelled of turpentine.

Judaism sees our intellect as essential to what makes us human. Taking something that so distorts our minds- that so changes this most basic element of human reality- for fun, is very disturbing in light of how Judaism understands what it means to be human.

In Jewish law there exists an expectation that people will donate at least 10% of their income (but no more than 20% - so that they not weaken their economic standing and therefore not be able to contribute again in the same way)  each year to charity

There is also an expectation that people will involve themselves in personal service to others without specifying a precise measurement of what that entails.

As a general rule Jewish law leaves the choice of recipient of one's acts of kindness up to the donor

However in Jewish ethical literature (in some sources in Midrash) the Rabbis are highly critical of anyone who goes about pursuing his or her self-centered pursuits and does not involve himself or herself while the community struggles with its problems and issues

A person with ethical sensibilities should be drawn to help when the community calls and we should be able to expect at least some positive response to that call from everyone.

If God removed any doubt concerning religious truth, He removes our free will ability to choose and, almost by definition, makes us less than human because the essence of our uniquely human capacities and dignity is our ability to make ethical choices.

In that vein religious strife is an indication that many humans continue to make the wrong moral choice.

 

Also. I don't think Judaism sees itself as the only path to a meaningful life. A righteous gentile has a share in the world to come in Jewish teaching.

 

As such people should certainly be free to follow there own religious tradition as long as they respect others and grant them the same right.

There are a couple of premises in what you write that I don't share. First, there has been resistance to the authority of the Talmud and to the rabbis who are cited in it from the days when those rabbis lived until today. For example, the Sadducees and the Karaites did not see them as authoritative. Similarly, the Reform movement today also does not see them as authoritative, and many in the Conservative movement are far more willing than I would be to change what they have said.

Second, even in the Orthodox community, the authority of the Talmud is different. The Bible does not include debates concerning its legal pronouncements. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of debates in the Talmud, and decisions have been reached over the centuries by later scholars as to which opinion to follow. But some of those decisions have still not been made and are at the root of different rabbinical or communal positions to this day. So in that sense, it is not as authoritative. In fact, in the discussions of why no one can argue with a final decision of the Talmud, the reason given is because later generations agreed that it was closer to the source of the tradition, and that therefore, we would not argue with it. But there is nothing in the Halachik process that precludes such an argument absent that agreement. Therefore, in traditional circles, where the Talmud provides settled law, it is seen as authoritative. On the other hand, the Bible is always seen as authoritative without any further analysis, discussion or historic process.  

The terms of the question need definition.

Is the US a democracy? you could say "yes", but you could also say its actually a republic or a representative democracy.

Whether you like them or not, the Tea Party Movement has a significant following that generally thinks the US government has become undemocratic in some ways.

So too, is England a democracy?

Yes. But it has a state religion, though it is very accomodating to other religions.

 

Now for Israel.

There are many forms of democracy that can coexist with Israel as a Jewish and a democratic state.

Voting, civil rights, free speech, freedom of religious worship, freedom of assembly etc.

But there are some forms that are incompatible, e.g. no state religion.

If you can define what you mean and what you want included in a democratic state the answer should follow fairly easily

 

 

From an Orthodox/traditional perspective what you suggest is problematic. The celebration is done not to accomodate family, but, instead to bring one's family into the community of Israel by celebrating Judaism's founding event on the same day that Jews everywhere celebrate it. Having a Pesah experience when convenient does not create that sense of national solidarity that comes from sharing the same moment together with the entire community.

 

In addition, when convenience becomes the critical factor many important traditions and practices may be discarded or modified beyond recognition, and their impact may consequently be seriously attenuated. One of the tests as to whether something is truly valuable to us is our willingness to go to great lengths to make it happen.

 

Finally, Judaism has a concept of sacred time that suggests that there is a spifritual reality to the universe that is different on holy days. That sanctity requires that the celebration occur on the day except in some very rare and exceptional cases. That picture of time and its sacred seasons would not sustain approaching the question as you have

If they were hurt by you, you must tell them what you have done directly and apologize. Then repent to God

From an Orthodox perspective you need to see yourself as a Jew and not as part of any other religion. You need to know how to be observant on a day-to-day basis and to be observant in that way.

I would suggest you resubmit your question here so a Reform and Conservative Rabbi can answer for their movements, but in general, the Orthodox community requires significantly more practice of traditional observance than the other movements. For more on the Orthodox perspective, see the website of the Rabbinical Council of America.

Once someone converts they are fully Jewish and no one should look down on him or her. There are many prohibitions against treating a convert any other way